The Law of Profit and Mastery

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.  Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-13 NASB)

 It seems odd to say that all things are 'lawful'.  It just does.  It doesn't sound right.  How can all things be lawful?  Paul refers to the Jewish law and justification before God, but that's only possible to understand for us through other writings of his (Galatians and Romans for instance).  Even so, how can all things suddenly become lawful?  Paul can eat a ham sandwich because Jesus died on a cross and rose again?  It doesn't seem to fit.

The church in Corinth is made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers.  They keep the Passover together.  Their Scriptures are the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek, but still the Hebrew Scriptures.  They are mixed, very likely with a majority of Gentile believers, but there is still an inescapable Jewish context for the early church.  The teachings of Paul seem to have included resistance toward becoming Jewish either to be saved, or as a mark of salvation.

On the other hand, Paul has clearly said that no one who is characterized by any of several sins he lists, twice, will inherit the Kingdom of God; therefore behavior is a mark of salvation.  That in itself can be difficult, and has confused various church denominations causing strife between some.  What is the relationship between being justified solely by faith yet that justification being evident in activities?  Again, how can all things be lawful, yet following the rules is evidence of salvation?

Not all things are profitable, nor will Paul permit himself to be mastered by anything.  For Paul it seems that behavior, and therefore the evidence of salvation, is not a matter of rules and law, but of profit and mastery.  It almost sounds like a 'situational ethical' criteria.  But he goes on to explain in a specific instance, getting there from the oblique reference to food, but centering around a different appetite.

Food and sex are probably the most clearly difficult addictions to overcome.  After all, both are naturally occurring physiological drives of all humans.  One we can't live without.  Both have very pronounced affects on our emotions and brain physiology.  These chemicals released into our brains can become very pleasant, and our drive can easily tend toward such things rather than the behavior, which becomes a vehicle.  This is why it's also easy to jump from one to the other addiction, or between addictions in general (smokers who quit becoming over weight for instance).

So what?  Paul drives at the heart of this right here.  He is obviously familiar with these two appetites, what human isn't.  And he has probably seen more than most how destructive they can become when lives become obsessed with them.  He brings this home to this congregation in Ancient Corinth because it clearly has become an issue there, or at least an obsession with sex has.

Paul addresses this problem not from the standpoint of 'law', but rather from the standpoint of profit and mastery.  These people are proud of their 'mastery' over whatever, philosophy, intellect, debate, each other, and so on.  Paul points out that they have been 'mastered' by something else.  Ironically, salvation is made up of submission to God, so we are to be mastered, but by God, not our own appetites.

What Paul is doing can be guessed at by his method.  It makes sense if the ancient congregation has a prevailing thought that, since they are not under the Jewish law, giving in to their appetites is acceptable.  So while Paul concedes that they are not under law, he argues against giving in to being mastered by their appetites.  Since the basis for his argument can't be 'law', he instead bases it on profitability in their relationship with their Savior.

In essence, Paul is stating that when the believers practiced sexually immoral behavior, they brought the Spirit of God into the practice with them.  The Holy Spirit was 'joined' (in a sense) with an unholy act.  When put that way, it actually explains why behavior should mark salvation really well.  How could we join the holiness of our Immanent Savior with acts of unholiness, and then somehow believe it's all okay?  We can't!  It doesn't fit.  What didn't make sense before (all things are lawful) now is eclipsed by the sheer senselessness of joining the holy and profane.

So while it's not about some 'legal code' for me, it is about holiness.  And this holiness, like my faith, my righteousness, and justification is 'imputed' rather than earned.  In other words, just like I didn't earn faith but it is a gift, like I didn't earn my relationship with Jesus it was given to me, and like I didn't earn my 'not-guilty' declaration by God but received it from Jesus' payment on my behalf; so also holiness has been given to me.  Therefore it's now a matter of what I do with this holiness rather than about being under a set of rules.

My desire to please my Master means that I 'steward' this imputed holiness.  I keep myself a clean temple in which He has condescended to live.  I will not be mastered by anything, but I will be mastered by Someone.  That's the difference.  I am holy as He is holy, for much the same reason as the Hebrews in the desert.  For as God was among His people, so He is within me, within the wasteland of my soul.  And He still brings streams in the desert, and flowers in the wastes.

Holy Maintenance

Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15 NASB)

 Acts 10 fascinates me for a variety of reasons.  There is the barrier between Jew and Gentile breached, which seems so ironic to me since they didn't have a problem with the Samaritan barrier being breached.  There is the character of Cornelius who is both devout to God in that he prays and gives to the poor, but then when Peter arrives, bows and kisses the feet of a person as if he is a god of some sort; a throwback to his paganism.  The character of Peter that, even after such a dramatic vision of being told to eat unclean animals, still doesn't realize what's going on until he hears Cornelius' story; and even then is still a proud Jew benignly meeting with Gentiles.  There are lots of ironies in this chapter, and clearly the Holy Spirit is the true main character.

Something that is not so easy to spot because of how it is normally translated is the charge to Peter in the vision.  At first he is told to kill and eat from the unclean animals in the linen "vessel" and he refuses.  The next charge is always translated as, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  In some way or another it is translated this way, and that is the most logical way to do so, as it fits the literary context.  An alternative that does not fit so well in the literary context, but I feel brings out a new depth of meaning is, "What God has sanctified (made holy), do not defile (make unholy)."  The imperative verb at the end of the statement has that option as well, in fact it would normally be used that way.  But in this case that doesn't fit as well, and is most likely not what Luke meant.  I want to explore it because of how that option affects my daily walk before my Master.

In the case of Cornelius, clearly God had sanctified him (or was in the process of it).  In my case, I am one caused to be holy.  People around me may have been made holy.  I have to admit that the process begins with the declaration that I'm holy, and then begins a struggle to keep me that way.  I can only suppose that it works in a similar way with others.  Here's the point of application:  It is an affront to my Master to consider myself unholy, or profane myself.  It is also an affront to my Master to consider someone else He has sanctified to be unholy or profane them.  In other words, I sin when I defile myself (duh, pretty obvious), but I also sin when I treat others as profane, or when I defile them (or cause them to become defiled).

Has anyone reading these entries ever noticed that I have this tendency to unpack a box I'm never going to be able to inventory and re-pack in one entry?  Well, here we go again.  There are way too many ramifications to this than I can address in this entry.  Let me just address these two: 1) I must consider myself holy to my Master, it's not an option.  2) I must seek to preserve the holiness of those around me. 

Sound obvious?  Well the most common ways they play out in my life is in compromise.  I compromise with myself, and permit myself to indulge in (whatever, food, play, TV, etc.) and leave off something my Master has for me to do.  When do this, I have taken myself out of His purpose, and chosen my own.  Not that every time I eat, play, watch TV or whatever I have abandoned the purpose of my Master, but in those times I have chosen that over what He calls me to do, then I defile myself. 

But I also compromise with other people.  In this culture that doesn't sound so bad, but in the context of the culture of my fellow believers, it's desecration of the individual.  One of the things that can often irritate my fellow church attendees is how our pastor is so dogmatic about sin being sin, and how God should be first, even in small things.  That really bothers people, and some have left because of it.  But if he did not do that, he would be desecrating the people to whom he preaches.  It's not a small matter, it's huge.  But I can be found in compromise as well.  His venue is out in front and obvious, mine is not always. 

Whenever I influence someone in my circle of believers to do something I know is contrary to the will of my Master for them, I desecrate them.  When I don't say what I know He wants me to say to another, to encourage them away from something outside His will, I desecrate them.  Whether it is refusal to confront a sin, the encouragement to sin, or even when I do not address something in Bible study that I should, or pull out something I should not; even then I desecrate or run that risk.

So what do I do?  For one thing, I must seek to perceive holiness in myself and others.  I must discipline myself to become aware of it.  There are obvious examples, and not so obvious ones, and I need to become aware of both.  But I also must discipline myself to set apart Jesus as my Master, and Him as the defining example of holiness.  And then I must submit to this holiness.  That will be the hard part.  It requires that I leave sanctification to my Master rather mine to control, and seek only to preserve what He does in me and in others.  Submission to holiness means that I subordinate my own view of others to His.  I cannot make another person holy, but I can help preserve the holiness my Master is creating in them.  This much my Master would have me do.  Submission, never has been one of my favorite things, but here I go again.

The Angelic Face of My Doom

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God." And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council. They put forward false witnesses who said, "This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us." And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. (Acts 6:8-15 NASB)

 In working through this passage, Stephen's opponents confuse me.  Who are they exactly?  The way the text is grammatically constructed, they are either a group called Freedmen made up of people from Northern Africa and Asia Minor, or they are a group of Freedmen and others from these two regions.  The other thing is the four areas mentioned aren't really close to each other.  Two are from North Africa, and two are from Asia Minor.  It seems an oddly selective group, unless they all have previous slavery in common.  It's possible that Luke just figures his readers will just figure it out.

The other interesting thing about this group is their decision to argue with Stephen.  Why would they take it on themselves if other groups in the city seemed to think so highly of the new group?  The answer may lie in the regions they are from.  Alexandria in particular was regarded as one of the great centers for learning in the whole known world.  This was especially true for Jews for whom there had been for hundreds of years a very respected school there.  It later became a center for Christian learning, and an entire school of early theological thought development is ascribed to the city/region.  Those of that region could have been a source of conflict with this emerging group with Judaism.

That they were slaves actually makes little difference since slaves were often very well educated and used as tutors for the rich.  And in those days it was more an economically defined group rather than racial.  So, this group of former slaves from dispersed regions outside of Judea confront Stephen.  Stephen could very well have been from regions outside Judea as well, adding additional fuel to any such discussion.  But the confrontation failed to overcome Stephen in wisdom of their argument or their spirit with which it was presented.  They were well and good trounced in this public forum.  So they resort to plan B.

Another odd thing about this group is their ability to get the people going on false pretenses.  The two points they bring up that gets the mob rolling are blasphemy against Moses and God.  Once in the court setting, they are more specific about the temple and the law of Moses (or traditions of Moses once it gets right down to it).  While the text implication that they are deceptive (bribing and false witnesses), the argument actually sounds somewhat similar to things of which Jesus was accused, and things He actually taught.

Jesus did prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed and how.  He warned His disciples to immediately flee the city when they saw certain things happen signalling its immanent destruction.  He also spoke against the traditions of the elders while on the other hand saying He came to fulfill the law.  So, the confusing false accusation is one that would be difficult to disentangle from what he may have been truly saying, which also may have earned him the punishment coming in the next chapter.  It's one of those situations where, sure he's being lied about, but here the truth wouldn't really help him be acquitted. In that situation, under that stress, and faced with this mob and political power, Stephen looks like an angel; a messenger straight from heaven.  Not what one might expect in someone in that situation.

So, at this point in the story (not venturing into his speech in the next chapter), what is my take-away?  Stephen represents for me an example of someone willing and ready to go to whatever social extreme for his Master.  What I mean by "social extreme" is that he is willing to sacrifice the popularity enjoyed by the Jerusalem church in obedience to his Master.  It's not just his popularity with the people, but after this the whole church is persecuted.  There is no question in his demeanor or attitude, he doesn't back down or soften the message given to him by the Spirit of his Master.  This is the same quality in the apostles in the previous chapter.  They are ready to be completely shut down and killed rather than back off of the message to which they testify.  And they don't consider sacrifice of the whole congregation for this truth a problem. 

What would that mean for the pool of those who claim to believe in Jesus as Savior in the United States of America?  That would be truly shocking to this modern country.  No one does that. I worry about what my decisions might mean for my family, what my obedience might cost others around me.  Stephen and the apostles don't balk at such a cost.  I am worried about what others might think of me if I take a stand on a the uncomfortable truths of Scripture, the uncomfortable character of my Master, and these don't.  I am sad to say, that I am fairly namby pamby when it comes to these things, when compared to Stephen and his church leaders.  I may seem different from a lot of believers in this country, but I don't compare well to believers in other countries.  This church I am a part of (nation-wide group of believers) is sadly weak when it comes to standing for the things of our Master in the public arena.  Some even opt out of that arena altogether.

I see now that I can't.  I have a responsibility to unashamedly obey and stand for the truth of Who Jesus is, and what He is about.  He is about saving a world, including my community.  I should be about that too.  And I should be about these things regardless of the cost.  That's the hard part, or rather hardest part.  It's not like I would do it anyway, I haven't so far and the cost would be negligible.  I hate that!  I can't just write about being sold out to my Master, I have to sell everything within me and have nothing left but Him. 

As I work through my job today, I must sell off what is within me, leaving nothing but my Master dealing with the issues in my job.  As I deal with my daughter, I must sell off what is within me, leaving nothing but my Master dealing with a volatile teenager.  As I interact with my wife, I must sell off all that is within me, any resentments and judgments, and leave nothing but my Master dealing with the woman who has exceeded my dreams.  I need to sell off all that is within me, the fears and selfishness, and leave nothing but my Master to function in my church.  I admit that I must free myself of myself and freely allow my Master to use me to reach into the lives of those around me; on my street, and within my neighborhood.

This is not an easy thing to imagine, let alone accomplish.  This isn't something I can sell on eBay or in a yard sale (what do you think I could get for an addiction?  What's the going rate on selfishness?).  I know that my Master is my only customer for these wares.  He is the only One interested in purchasing such garbage.  But I also know that He uses startling payment, impressive value.  Will I take His immensely precious pearls in exchange for the refuse I hold so dear?  By the way, this is essentially the definition of "Sanctification", in case you were wondering.  And this is a lot less "friendly" than the sterile definition I find in theological dictionaries.  Deep breath.  Well, let's see how far I can go in my spiritual "yard sale" today.

The Cross, Duty, Reality, and Jesus

I’m going to make a statement that may sound really…heretical perhaps, until it’s thought over.  The event of the Cross of Jesus does not sanctify me in and of itself.  The event of the Cross of Jesus saves me, and I have a relationship with my Master based on no other action, only His.  Yet I am sanctified as His Spirit works through that relationship to modify me; conforming me more into the image of my Master.  As that happens, I am made holy and fit for His use. 

What I have to accept is that my relationship with my Master is based on nothing other than His sacrifice on the cross on my behalf.  And that is true for all humanity.  One of the difficulties I have with this is that I find it very difficult to view my Master through a lens so differently than my human relationships.  He is not a man that He should change.  Yet I keep thinking that, once saved, I then continually have to work to retain my status before Him.  I have to work to maintain my relationship with my wife, my friends, my co-workers and company.   I don’t have to “work” to retain my relationship with my Master.

What good I do as a result of the relationship I have with my Master I do as an overflow of that relationship.  Hopefully, I can’t help but do right things.  The goodness should be a Spiritual Fruit of that relationship, not a duty.  Not that there is no duty involved in my relationship with my Master.  I am His servant, and servants have duties, and I have mine.  Obedience implies duty, even requires it.  But duty for One having done so much for me is a joy, not a burden.  Duty is an obligation I have, in this case, because I have obligated myself.  The obligation is part of the covenant I entered into with my Master.  And this covenant is heavily weighted to my benefit.

I am saved from destruction I earned through my rebellion against the Master of the universe.  He redeemed me from this destruction and offered me a covenant agreement that provides me eternal life in heaven.  What I give Him in exchange is all the stuff I tried to build on my own, the junk I once thought so precious.  The obligation I have to obey and the duty I have to perform is part of the result of the covenant.  I confess Jesus as Lord (Yahweh, Master, King) and that confession obligates me to obey.  It really is sort of silly to look on it as a tough thing though, as if I have to enslave myself, giving up my freedom and indenturing myself.

The King of all matter, Creator of the universe from proton to planet to galaxy, is already King without my acknowledgement.  My confession only acknowledges what is already true, He is King.  And it submits me to the One already in charge.  In a sense, my confession reframes my paradigm to reality rather than continuing in the paradigm of the illusion that I am in control of my environment.  On the surface, Americans recoil at the thought of “enslavement” but when the reality is discovered that we already are enslaved, it’s becomes a whole bunch easier to choose.  Enslaved to death or enslaved to life; it’s my choice.  Hmm, let me think.

The hard part is that considering myself as “in-charge” is how I used to define freedom.  It is how the world I live in defines it.  But in reality, submitting myself to my Master and obeying Him is really freedom; freedom from death, freedom to live out my purpose, freedom to walk the streets of heaven, and freedom to worship the One True God.  I have a master of some sort regardless of what I think.  The reality of this universe is that humans are enslaved.  But through the work of Jesus Christ, I can now choose my master, whether my selfishness and the enemy, or the One True Master of the universe; life or death, blessing or curse.

So, I am saved by Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself on the Cross.  And I am sanctified through His Spirit throughout the rest of my time here on earth.  It is while I am in that sanctifying process that I gladly serve my King and perform my duties He has given me.  And in all of this, I enjoy reality without illusion, seeing the universe as it is, and spending time with the One responsible for it.  Is there anything better than that?

My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers, December 8

Holiness by Association

This is one of those entries, where I wonder how the verse ever became associated with the entry substance.  It has the most oblique application in the person of Joseph.  The verse is Genesis 41:40 where the Pharaoh of Egypt gives Joseph control of the land to prepare for the coming famine.  If it were not for Joseph, I’m not sure how this verse would apply at all.  Joseph does demonstrate a very interested and elevated example of the life Chambers writes of.  Even though Chambers is referring to living as a Temple of the Holy Spirit, Joseph lives his life in much the same way Chambers describes.

While it’s possible that Joseph represents one of those people in the Hebrew Scriptures who has the Holy Spirit, it does not specifically refer to him that way.  It’s really clear in the account that God is with him growing up and in Egypt, but that reference used with the judges, prophets and kings is missing.  Joseph may have been one who kept himself pure without the benefit I have of the Holy Spirit.  He was upright in all he did, demonstrated integrity in his dealings, and God gave him success everywhere he turned.

Chambers says that living a holy life is possible for me.  I really didn’t want to read that, but I suspect he is right, at least to a large degree.  I do have the responsibility to live this life being holy to my Master.  I have to accept that my Master wouldn’t command it if it weren’t within my power, limited as it is.  My suspicion is that with this, as will so many other areas of obedience, requires focus on Him rather focus on my actions.  I suspect that my holy behavior will fall in line with my Master naturally by my association with Him.  At least, all advances to this point in this area have worked that way.

It’s when I get caught up in what I’m doing and the environment I do it in rather than before Whom I do it that the problems come.  I do everything in plain view of my Master.  It is in His presence that I live and breathe and have my being.  So, living like that, practicing that in the mundane elements of my life, and not worrying about one misstep.  The environment is not an excuse for me to step out of holiness.  It’s never that bad that my Master is no longer Master over that too.  Those around me need the holiness of my Master more than I need their approval. 

So, I agree with Chambers here.  I don’t want to, partly because I have said for years that I’m powerless, taking that as an excuse to live without power.  But I do believe in One powerful enough to overcome my insanity.  And I do believe that when I commit my will to Him, holiness follows.  I can’t use powerlessness as an excuse, that’s part of my environment.  But devotion and submission to my Master overcomes my environment, including my nature.  I am without excuses, my Master is present with me, and I have all that is necessary for holiness.

This week I have another opportunity to prove what my Master can do.  My wife will be travelling, and the loneliness will be my constant companion again.  Thankfully, once my daughter comes home, she will be a comfort to me, and she really is.  It is during the busy day and later in the evening that I will need to seek my Master.  These will be times to practice His presence in the daily routine and in the normality of my life.  This has been something I have experienced more and more this past year.  I suspect my pastor would be happy to know I was listening yesterday.  This is exactly what he preached on, and he did so really well.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 5

Holy Like God is Holy, or Holy as I Consider God to be Holy?

Jesus used illustrations from the mundane to explain the profound.  So truth about very important aspects of my life with my Master can be found in the mundane areas of life.  In 1 Corinthians 10:31 when Paul is wrapping up his argument about food sacrificed to idols, he uses this statement as a general admonition to bring the focus of the glory of God into common aspects of my life.  Since Jesus used common aspects as illustrations, it seems He finds wisdom in these elements of life.

So, I have very common things I do each day where I can focus on the glory of my Master.  In these I can find wisdom when I look; lessons about the deeper things of my relationship with my Master.  For instance, washing dishes brings to mind Jesus’ statement about washing the inside being more important than the outside.  Even building something is used by Jesus to illustrate how it is necessary to plan for the end before I even begin my relationship with my Master; I am to finish well.  There are dozens more, and probably more that didn’t even make it into the gospels.

If those places of my daily life are made holy, not just the “holy” ones, I become more holy.  I don’t become holy in the sense that God is holy, but I become holy in the same way I consider Him holy.  I see my Master as completely “other”; distinct from any other person.  He is capable of creation at vast levels of complexity and in miniscule levels of intricacy.  I am not, nor will I ever be.  I’m not holy in that way; rather I’m holy in the sort of way I set Him aside as distinct from this common world.  I need to be distinct as well.  I need to be obviously different from others in my character and my behavior.

I am to be holy as implements are holy, not in the way that standing in His presence as a profane man would destroy me.  Although, I do need to abstain from unholy things as He does.  Jesus has the ability to transform common things to holy things.  Some things defy this transformation.  I want to follow this pattern of transforming common things I do into holy activities, and stay far away from behaviors and thoughts which defy such transformation.  Washing dishes, answering the phone (i.e. my job), and listening to my daughter talk and talk and talk and talk (oh my gracious…) are all things that can be and should be transformed into holy activities.

My interior thought life often runs headlong into the profane patterns that cannot be transformed into holy things.  Those I need to put under the ban.  These are the thoughts I bring captive to my Master.  The thoughts of sinful pleasures of my selfish nature are those things that will pass away in the process of my Master transforming this common man into a holy man.  I wish they were gone already, but they aren’t.  I still wrestle with them, and they still have a power over me; power I gave them long ago and still leave with them.  These things refuse transformation, so they must be destroyed.  I’m not there yet.

I am a man in transition.  I am a person in between the common profane life of this world and the holy glorious life of my Master.  My standard needs to be higher.  On that scale of holiness, I want to be further along.  I can be.  It’s not like I’m just getting by with my sinful thoughts until my Master comes for me.  I don’t want Him coming to find me consumed by sinful thought patterns!  How embarrassing, for us both!  I believe that when my Master calls me to be holy as my Father in Heaven is holy, this is a call that can be answered in this life.  Leviticus is full of explanations that the people were to be holy as God is holy.  It’s not a new idea.

So, today I dedicate my work, my family, and my mind to my Master.  I do so now, and I will need to do so again in about an hour.  And then I will need to do so around lunch, and then again as I get off work.  I will probably need to do so again at various times through my work day as well.  And there will be family time after work when I will need to rededicate my mind, words, and attitudes back to my Master.  I will have a lot of this going on I suspect.  But if I don’t I will miss the Person more amazing than anything I’ve seen through either my telescope or microscope; the One making all of it and holding it all together.  I can’t have that.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, November 22

Up On My Old Testament Soap Box…Again

Sanctification is a big theological word (like theological isn’t).  I have said in previous entries that it refers to the process used to dedicate something to a deity.  Remember that a pagan language, Greek, was used to convey this idea, and so the word had use and understanding for those who did not know the One True God, nor the Son, Jesus.  So it refers to the process used by any religion to dedicate something solely to the use of a deity, whatever deity.

The important things are the two elements of “process” and “dedicate”.  Dedication conveyed an idea of being cut off from whatever use, location, or possession something used to have and replacing that use, location, and possession over to the deity.  Now the object having gone through the process of dedication is used only for or by that deity, located with the deity, and is owned by the deity.

I want to put that in its simplest terms because I think the idea of “holiness” is often lost on modern minds, even in church.  For instance, how can someone consider themselves holy to the God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures but not spend time in the Hebrew Scriptures?  How is it that they can really be considered dedicated to that deity if there are reservations about that devotion and how they will be devoted?

Well meaning believers will say they want to know the will of God in their daily lives, yet never even think to look in the laws God gave to the Hebrews for their daily lives.  If such a suggestion is made, then they look hurt or offended or shocked and say, “we’re under grace not law!”  I don’t get that response.  It’s like taking the quote of Jesus where He says, “Man shall not live by bread alone,” and renouncing the super market lest you might buy such evils as bread.

Being dedicated to the Master of all matter means submitting myself to everything He reveals, not just the parts I’m comfortable with.  If my Master reveals areas in which He is interested that involve my daily routines, then I need to accept those.  There are lots of those in what we call the Law of Moses.  We seem to forget that it was recorded by Moses, but inspired by our Master.  What needs to be avoided is the temptation to use those laws as a means to be accepted by my Master, and as a measuring stick to compare myself to others.

Some of my favorite laws are actually in the set recorded in Exodus, and I don’t mean the Ten famous ones.  They are very practical means of guiding daily life, written much like ancient legal codes.  They are written in a way to decide cases brought before judges, or the city elders in the gates.  They hold insight into what my Master considers important, how my Master sees the value of people, and what does it mean to be holy in the daily routines of this unholy culture.

But to bring them forward into the circumstances of this day and age takes work.  And many people do not like to to do the work or find it intimidating.  It isn’t easy, but it is rewarding.  I find that among the ancients, my Master was progressive in women’s rights, spoke to the rights of employees and workplace safety, and took family relationships and the roles of parents and children very seriously.  This isn’t normally how my Master is seen or understood.

A lot of the will of my Master can be found simply through basic study of Scriptures rather than difficult passages.  It isn’t impossible or even hard to figure out how to treat women, employees, children or parents by studying the easier, more accessible passages.  The key is devotion and obedience to what is found in such study.  If the law of Moses is too hard, then the Beatitudes will suffice for a start.  The rest of the Sermon on the Mount is enough to occupy several years of study in understanding how a holy person behaves in this corrupt culture.

I find something wonderful about the character of my Master in discovering how He is the same even way back in the days of Moses and Abraham.  It’s sort of exciting when I find the words of Jesus among the Proverbs.  It’s comforting to me to know and see such evidence that my Master is truly the same yesterday, today; and then I can more easily believe that He’s forever.  I had a teacher who said something very profound, “There is more grace in the Old Testament than people think; and more wrath in the New Testament than people think.”  I have found that to be very true. 

I admit that the Hebrew Scriptures hold a fascination for me in a way not unlike my fascination with antiques.  I find a measure of quality and detail and heart put into such items that is sorely lacking today.  Our concrete buildings will never stand as long as the stone structures old in the days Abraham saw them in Egypt.  The words of my Master to the people of that day also carry a certain degree weight, greater than the stones they used to build.  Words of my Master to people capable of such work on behalf of demonic deities are words I feel a pull to seek and understand.  There is something there for the prideful people of this day; a message being missed in the hustle and bustle of the daily grind.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 20