DeeperStudy Blog

Christ "Pitched His Tent" Among Us

2009-10-29T22:32:00.008-05:00

In a pivotal verse of the Fourth Gospel's prologue, the Apostle John writes,"The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us" (John 1:14 NIV). Lying behind the italicized words is the Greek verb skēnoō, one member of a whole group of words that share the root skēn- ("tent"). This root is the origin of our word 'scene'--the original scenery in plays was made of canvas, just like tents. The NIV translation attempts to convey the temporary nature of a tent dwelling by adding to 'lived' the phrase 'for a while.' But is transient the symbolism intended in this passage?

A couple of times in the New Testament, a skēn- word does have this transitory connotation. For evample, in 2 Cor. 5:1,4, Paul uses 'tent' (skēnos) to describe the mortal human body in contrast with the immortal resurrected body, which he calls a building. Likewise, Peter can refer to his own physical body as "this tent" (skēnōma, 2 Peter 1:13-14).

But at other times, the temporary aspect seems to be lacking. Besides John 1:14, all of the other occurrences of the verb skēnoō occur in the Book of Revelation, and those contexts can help us to clarify the meaning in John's prologue. Rev. 7:15 says that the martyrs serve God day and night in his sanctuary and that "he will spread his tent" over them. The significance is shelter, protection. Rev. 12:12 and 13:16 refer to those who "dwell" (literally "tent") in heaven. Rev. 21:3 once more refers to God, whose "tent is with people, and He will dwell with them."

Of all of these verses from the Apocalypse, we must ask whether their contexts indicate a temporary housing situation. The answer is consistently no. The shelter God gives to the martyrs is permanent (7:15). Those in heaven are there permanently (12:12 and 13:6), and Rev. 21:3 is referring to the permanent communion of God with His children, as confirmed in 22:5's "forever and ever."

The nouns in the skēn- word group sometimes lead us in the same direction, for Jesus counsels his hearers to "make friends for yourselves with unrighteous Mammon [money] so that when it is gone, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings (pl. of skēnē)." Impermanence is certainly not the point here. In Acts 7:46, Stephen speaks of David asking to find "a dwelling [literally, 'tent' skēnōma] for the God of Jacob." In the next verse, Stephen says Solomon was the one who built a house for Him. The context seems to make 'tent' and 'house' synonymous.

So what is the meaning of skēnoō in John 1:14? If impermanence is not the point, what is? Another possibility arises from the use of 'tent' in the Synoptic accounts of the transfiguration. Peter, seeing Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah, offers to build three shelters (literally, 'tents'--pl. of skēnē) for them (Mark 9:5; Matt. 17:4; Luke 9:33). Peter's motivation seems to be the opposite of impermanence; he wants to prolong the meeting. His purpose was to facilitate the fellowship the three were having by giving all three of them some shelter from the elements.

This idea of sharing a common existence may be the point of John 1:14. All human beings among whom Jesus came have pitched their "tents," and Jesus did too. He came to be, not just among them, but also one of them.

Nor is this a temporary identification. His oneness with us, begun in the virginal conception, continues through all eternity. At the resurrection, He received a transformed, immortal, glorified body--His flesh became incorruptible, yes, but it was, and is, still flesh. Jesus became human, became one of us, and He remains human, remains one of us (2 Tim. 2:5--the man Jesus Christ is [present tense] mediator between God and humans; see also Phil. 3:21). It is a profound mystery, but one of the wonders of redemption.

Want to go deeper?

Recommended to purchase:

Millard J. Erickson. The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology (1991).

The church first answered conflicts over the deity and humanity of Christ at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But Erickson finds Chalcedon's definition too narrow and negative a response to the "Christs" of liberation, feminism, blackness, functionalism, universalism, and postmodern theologies, among others. There must be a new Chalcedon - a doctrine that confesses what Jesus is not, but also affirms all that He is. The Word Became Flesh returns the theological discussion to what Christ said about himself and what Scripture deems important to stress. Erickson is a research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. His Ph.D. is from Northwestern University, with postdoctoral studies at the University of Munich.

Recommended for online reading:

Wayne A. Grudem. "Jesus Will Be a Man Forever," 542-543 in his Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (1994).

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

* * * Copyright ©2005 Steve Singleton, All rights reserved. Steve Singleton has written and edited several books and numerous articles on subjects of interest to Bible students. He has been a book editor, newspaper reporter, news editor, and public relations consultant. He has taught Greek, Bible, and religious studies courses Bible college, university, and adult education programs. He has taught seminars and workshops in 11 states and the Caribbean. Go to his DeeperStudy.com for Bible study resources, no matter what your level of expertise.
Explore "The Shallows," plumb "The Depths," or use the well-organized "Study Links" for original sources in English translation.

Sign up for Steve's free "DeeperStudy Newsletter."

Hyperabundantly: Paul's Challenge to Move Beyond

2009-10-23T19:40:00.014-05:00

In three passages Paul uses a very unusual Greek word. The adjective perissos, perissē, perisson means "abundant" or "going beyond" what is necessary (e.g., John 10:10). If you prefix the preposition ek to it, you intensify the meaning, yielding the adverb ekperissōs, "excessively" (e.g., Mark 14:31). Add another prepositional prefix, this time huper (meaning with the accusative, "over and above, beyond" the source of our word "hyper"), and you intensify the word even more, resulting in the adverb, huperekperissou or in some manuscripts huperekperissōs, defined in the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker lexicon (840) as "quite beyond all measure," adding "(highest form of comparison imaginable)."

Paul uses this adverb twice in First Thessalonians. While expressing his intense concern for the welfare of the Christians in Thessalonica, Paul says in 3:10 that night and day he is petitioning (God) beyond all measure for permission to see them again. What is the adverb expressing about Paul's prayers? Is it the frequency with which he makes this request, or the intensity and depth of passion he infuses into each one of them. Perhaps we do not have to choose between the alternatives, for the one certainly goes with the other, at least when the Apostle Paul is concerned.

Then near the end of the epistle, Paul tells his readers how they should treat their leaders: "Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work" (5:13). The word "highest" falls short of expressing the degree of amplification that huperekperissou conveys. Paul is speaking of a respect that borders on reverence, conditioned of course by his description in the previous verse of the work these leaders are doing: "they are laboring among you," connoting strenuous effort.

Years later, Paul wrote Ephesians, concluding the first half of the epistle with this doxology: "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever! Amen" (3:20-21). God's ability to work through us, His power at work within us, Paul says is limitless. It is, as the King James Version says, "exceeding abundantly above" the limits our small minds place on it.

God's hyper-abundant power was what was at work within Paul when he offered those 24/7 hyper-abundant prayers for the Thessalonians. And Paul was hopeful that the same hyper-abundant power would work among them as they paid hyper-abundant respect to their hard-working leaders.

That same power is available to us today. It is a power that bursts through all barriers we would place on it, that stretches any confines, and that challenges us, rather than resisting its dynamism, to "go with the flow" and become radical Christians. It inspires us to invest our brain power, our passions, our muscular force, our time, money, talents, interest, and our imagination--to intensify what we are doing for Christ. By the word "hyper-abundantly," Paul urges us to step it up, not a notch, but peg it out, all the way to the top and beyond.

Want to go deeper?

Recommended to purchase:

Shane Claiborne. The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (2006).

During college, a professor remarked, "Being a Christian is about choosing Jesus and deciding to do something incredibly daring with your life." Taking up that challenge, Shane's faith led him to dress the wounds of lepers with Mother Teresa, visit families in Iraq amidst bombings, and dump $10,000 on Wall Street to redistribute wealth. This book challenges you with a radical Christianity passionate for peace, social justice, and alleviating the suffering found in the local neighborhood and distant reaches of the world. Live out your faith with little acts of radical love as you join the movement of God's Spirit into a broken world.

Recommended for online reading:

Charles H. Spurgeon. "Paul's Doxology," 661-672, in his Metropolitan Tabernacle Sermons, vol. 21 (1875).

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Truthing One Another in Love

2009-10-18T16:06:00.005-05:00

When Paul wanted to explain to the Ephesian Christians what it means to reach maturity in Christ, he uses a term that strictly has no English equivalent. Instead of the Greek noun for "truth," alētheia, he employs the corresponding Greek verb, alētheuō, which literally translated would mean "to truth someone."

I suppose you could translate it "to tell the truth" or "to speak the truth," which is in fact the translation we encounter in most English version of this verse, Eph. 4:15: "Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into Him who is the Head, that is Christ." But it's possible that "truthing one another" means something more.

Alētheuō might suggest communicating truth in all of the others ways besides just words, such as (to name a few): body language, intonation, facial expression, actions (which "speak louder than words"), intentions, attitude, and spending habits ("put your money where your mouth is"). In his article on truth for the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, A. C. Thiselton comment about the use of alētheuō in Eph. 4:15: "It is possible that alētheuō here entails integrity of life in addition to truthful speech" (3:887).

Look at the context. In contrast to the charlatans who, in their cunning and craftiness, deceive people with their teaching, Paul anticipates a time when Christians have the maturity to be so open and honest with each other, they "truth" one another--they invest all that they are in what they are saying. Their sincerity is unimpeachable.

The only other time this verb occurs in the New Testament is in Gal. 4:16, where Paul asks, "Have I now becoming your enemy by truthing to you?" Once more, the idea in context suggests telling the truth in a that goes far beyond words. The Galatian opponents of Paul were telling lies to win over his converts. Paul refused to mince words; he truthed them. This was the best proof he had that his deep friendship with them was unbroken.

God wants all of His children to "truth" to one another. He wants us to be honest through and through, to have a unquestionable consistency between our lip, our heart, and our life. That's what it takes to reflect the image of His Son, Jesus Christ, who once "truthed" this: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

Want to go deeper?

Do you own Bible word study on the related terms "truth" and "true." When does "true" actually mean "real," and when is it closer to "faithful"? You will discover some great texts, like John 8:32, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." What does Jesus mean by this promise? Is He speaking about truth in general, or some specific truth? Ask probing questions of other verses you will find.

Recommended to purchase:

Daniel Berger. Speaking the Truth in Love: Christian Public Rhetoric (2007).

Approaches public communication from a liberal arts point of view and provides a distinctly Christian perspective of rhetoric. Written and oral rhetoric are interwoven throughout the text. Two foundational ideas control the majority of the text. The first is from Plato's Phaedrus as stated by Paul in Ephesians 4:15, "speaking the truth in love." The second is from the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 4:11, "if anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God."

The spiritual responsibility of communicating truth in accordance with the nature of God, especially the virtue of love, is an awesome privilege and opportunity. Sound content spoken or written eloquently with charisma will enable words to have a maximum impact. Beginning with a philosophy of language, meaning, and interaction, argument is built against secular deconstructive thought where everyone has a different truth based on language. Alongside philosophy we explore ethics and theology from an evangelical perspective. Following this a brief history outlines rhetorical thought from pre-testament classics to today. Based upon these ideas we take a closer look at communication theory as it relates to public communication.

Recommended for online reading:

Henry Ward Beecher. "Sovereignty & Permanence of Love," 117-134 (esp. 121), in his The Sermons of Henry Ward Beecher in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn (7th series, 1871-1872).

The Blame Game Goes Into Overtime

2009-09-21T15:24:00.011-05:00

Shirking responsibility is as old as the first man, the first woman, and the first Humble Pie no one wanted to eat. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the Serpent, and the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on (Genesis 3:9-19).

Where did Bart Simpson learn his famous semi-self-incrimination, "I-didn't-do-it-nobody-saw-me-do-it-you-can't-prove-anything"? From his shift-the-blame father, Homer? Or maybe from watching the press conferences of accused politicians?

At work people repeat the adage, "Fix problems, not blame," even while they back-pedal and ask leading questions, like, "What did you know and when did you know it?" No one wants to 'fess up and admit, "It was my fault, and I'm gonna make it right." We all want to avoid the blame, which is really not the same as being truly blameless.

Yet there has been One among us who, though innocent Himself, was willing to take on our sins, to bear the burden of our mistakes, and to suffer the penalty for our crimes. We who accused really thought He was guilty, but it was our guilt that was laid on Him, our punishment He suffered.

God made Him, who knew no sin, to be made the sin offering for us, so that through Him we might become God's righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).

His willingness to bear our sins, however, does not take away the necessity for us to own up to our failures. His voluntary sacrifice prompts us to confess our sins, to renounce them, and to forsake them (see 1 John 1:7-10; 2:1-6). As long as we say, "I didn't do it," or "I'm not to blame," or "I'm not responsible for my actions," we cannot receive the forgiveness He has paid for. It is too precious for us to deny its necessity, too dear for us to squander.

Our pardon is available only when we are willing to plead guilty to our crimes, when we are ready to declare to anyone who will listen, "Yes, I did it. God saw me do it. He can prove everything."

--Steve Singleton
DeeperStudy.com

Want to go deeper?

The Greek adjective amemptos, -on ("blameless, faultless") and its related adverb apply to Christians, not because they are sinless, but because they are forgiven and walk after Jesus, having their sins cleansed by His blood (see Philippians 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 John 1:7). The eighth-century BCE prophet Isaiah predicted Christ's role as sin-bearer (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 10-12), a role celebrated again and again in the New Testament (see John 1:29; Acts 8:30-35; Romans 3:25-26; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:26-28; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:1-2).

Recommended to purchase:

Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend. It's Not My Fault: The No-Excuse Plan for Overoming Life's Obstacles to Enjoy God's Best (2006).

We've all said it, but who is to blame? Other people? Circumstances beyond our control? Genetics? Challenging you to stop hiding behind excuses, Drs. Cloud and Townsend offer eight principles to empower you to overcome self-defeating behavior, accept responsibility for your actions, and implement solutions instead of clinging to empty rationalizations. 272 pages, hardcover.

Recommended for online reading:

Eric Berne and Thomas Harris. "Blame Game".

Description of self-justifying behavior to cope with guilt feelings: blame someone else.

Does God appoint some for salvation and not others? An examination of Acts 13:48

2009-04-18T10:53:00.019-05:00

Steve!

R. here. My wife and I are studying the Bible with a young couple, and J. has been heavily influenced by Calvinism. Predestination, Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace -- the whole nine yards. His weak points are his children. It bothers him that one of them might be predestined to be lost. You get the idea. If you have any words of wisdom or insight I am your eager student (again). I love your website. It looks good and keep up the good work.

Take care, R.

R., thanks for the update. I just have a minute, but I think I may be able to help you. On DeeperStudy.com, on my systematic theology page, and some study material on Calvinism (which I label "Reformed Theology").

Many of my other links on the Systematic Theology page are from reformed writers, probably because of their tremendous respect for the authority of the Word of God. But on the T-U-L-I-P- part, I just can't reconcile it with Scripture. Look especially at the "Weighed & Found Wanting" article.

I think you should be asking yourself, what is the common ground I can find with what they are saying? Each of the points has an important truth that it would have contributed if it hadn't taken it too far. Focus on that truth and show how the Calvinist teaching went beyond what the Bible really says on the subject. Example: Irresistible Grace, see John 6:44--God draws us through the winsome message of the gospel, though not irresistibly.

I would be happy to dialogue with you as you work your way through this material.

Look also at the available books, especially the two views book. The first one listed, by Hanko, et al., is pro-Calvinist.

Steve,

Thank you for the input. I have just done considerable reading this evening since getting home from our study. He actually wants to put off further discussions on this till a little bit later. However, I have a question about Acts 13:48. This was the passage brought up last week. I studied the Greek a little bit from a few commentaries but could you give me some of your input on this passage?

Thanks, R.

(Actually Tyndale commentary was pretty good on this, as was Alexander Campbell.)

Stange. I read Acts 13 this week and was already thinking about "As many as were in the state of having been appointed unto eternal life believed." (That is a literal rendering of the periphrastic construction of "was" combined with a perfect participle.)

How can we reconcile these passage, which certainly seems to imply predestination and irresistible grace, with the "whosoever" passages like Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and others, as well as passages that clearly say Jesus died for all, not just some, and that God's desire is for all to experience salvation (e.g., 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-5, and 2 Peter 3:9)? One way to harmonize them is to use the analogy of invitations to a class party. All the members of the class are invited, but only a few attend.

Yet we can say that only the invited are at the party without saying those to didn't come weren't invited. Am I talking in circles or guilty of sophistry? I hope not.

Those who responded to Paul's preaching "believed" (in the comprehensive sense of responded to the gospel, for everything involved in responding is prompted by faith in Christ and inspired by His most excellent sacrifice and power to redeem). By "believing," they were demonstrating that God included even them in the invitation.

Keep in mind that this is before the Jerusalem conference in which Paul's "way-out-there," radical teaching of accepting Gentiles as legitimate Christians without demanding that they be circumcised was confirmed by the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem mother-church. Why did the conference make this decision? Because they had substantial proof that it was God's will. What was the proof?

1) Peter's testimony about the conversion of Cornelius and his household, which involved a number of guiding and confirming miracles, as well as the willingness of Cornelius and the others to respond to the gospel.

2) The testimony of Paul and Barnabas about the success of their missionary journey, in which they consistently pursued this policy with regard to the Gentiles. Not only did God empower them to work miracles, something He would not have done if they had been misleading their converts, but He also blessed them with many responsive hearts. In other words, if at the conference they had been forced to admit that their preaching of salvation based on grace through faith met with an icy reception, the brothers in Jerusalem might have relegated the entire discussion to a matter of hypotheticals. But the Gentiles gladly accepted the message of salvation, which demonstrates that God wanted them to be saved, and we can even say "appointed them for eternal life."

The use of the perfect participle suggests that this was a long-standing appointment, as far as God was concerned. That takes us back into the Old Testament to such passages as Isaiah 49:6 (which Paul quotes to the disaffected Jews just before our target verse, see Acts 13:47), and many others, leading all the way back to the "fountainhead," Gen. 12:3. It had been God's intention for Israel to lead the Gentiles to salvation, and when they failed (see Isa. 26:18 and 52:5), God was determined to bring salvation to the Gentiles anyway, through the Messiah (see Isa. 59:1-20). No one else would do it, so He had to do it Himself.

He had appointed the Gentiles for eternal life. So when they heard the gospel, it was possible for them to respond to it, even though they weren't Jews. The forgiveness and salvation Paul offered them was a bonafide offer from God. Their openness to the message was a demonstration that God had a hand in their conversion. But His work was not an election (of some and not others), followed by an irresistible calling of that "chosen few." His work was the gospel "God's power unto salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16).

Response? How does this compare with the other things you read? Also, is it OK, if I put this on my blog?

Steve

Steve, Amen! Put it on the blog! I'm loving it! At first I wasn't sure where you were going (actually in the middle) but you developed the concept extremely well and then brought in the OT passages about God having this in mind from the beginning. With everything put in context it is the best argument I have read.

Actually Tyndale went into the Greek word for appointed and brought up an alternate understanding. That the term can be used (and has, I guess) as a military term meaning "To be set in place," i.e., as a military general would set his troups in place for a certain position in the battle line for instance. The meaning would then take on the idea that the Gentiles by receiving and glorifying the Word of the Lord with joy, they were 'set in place' (a.k.a. ‘appointed’) to receive eternal life. Tyndale makes their action of joyfully receiving the Word a deciding factor that sets them in place for salvation. I may be drawing too much out of his argument but that seems to be the gist of it. I did not do a Greek study to confirm this rather unexpected tack. Anyway, I am going to print off and study your full argument and study it.

Thank you, Steve.

Want to Go Deeper?

Consider the following passages regarding whether individuals are predestined for salvation or for destruction. Our goal is not to pick passages that teach what we want to truth to be and ignore passages that seem to conflict with them, but to go deeper and seek a way to reconcile and harmonize them all without doing violence to the context of each passage.

John 3:16 – The "whoever" or "whosoever" of this famous verse leads us to believe that salvation in Christ is available to everyone who responds to it, not just a select group.
Mark 16:16 – "Whosoever" in this text is as wide as the "all creation" of the previous verse. The risen Lord places no limitation of who could respond to the gospel proclamation. Other "whosoever" texts to consider include: Mark 3:35 (parallel: Matthew 12:50); Mark 8:34-35 (par. Matthew 16:25; Luke 17:33); Mark 9:37 (par. Matthew 18:4); Mark 9:41; Matthew 13:12; Luke 6:47; 7:23; 8:35; John 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21 (quoting Joel 2:32); Romans 9:33 and 10:11 (both quoting Isa. 28:16); 1 John 4:15; and Revelation 22:17.
Mark 13:20, 22, 27 (parallels: Matthew 24:22, 24, 31); Luke 18:7 – Jesus calls his followers "the elect," which means the Chosen Ones. This theme of election recurs in the epistles: study Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2, 6; 2 Peter 1:10. Does this mean that those who don't respond aren't "the chosen"? Who does the choosing, God or we? He has chosen HOW, not WHO.
An important cluster of elections verses occurs in Romans 9 - 11, dealing with God's choice of Israel: Rom. 9:11 and Romans 11:5, 7, 28.

For online reading:

F. Furman Kearley. "The Biblical Doctrine of Predestination, Foreordination, and Election". – Kearley was one of my mentors and an excellent biblical scholar. His take on Acts 13:48 is similar to the Tyndale commentary.

Recommended for purchase:
Robert Shank. Elect in the Son: The Biblical Doctrine of Election. Westcott, 1970; Reprint: Baker, 1989. – This is a thorough study of election throughout the Bible, treating every passage in its context. Shank studied his way out of Calvinism and shares with us what he discovered.

In the last few years, more and more books have appeared discussing crucial biblical doctrines from different points of view. Here are some helpful books if you want to consider the arguments on both sides regarding election:

Dave Hunt & James White. Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (Multnomah, 2004).

Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams. Why I am Not an Arminian (InterVarsity, 2004).

Jerry L. Walls & Joseph R. Dongell. Why I am Not a Calvinist (InterVarsity, 2004).

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

G-Harmony: Just who--or what--are you looking for?

2009-01-12T10:18:00.011-06:00

Seeking that Special Someone?
Are you looking for a special relationship with the Divine Being but are not sure where to find it or if having such a relationship is even possible? Well, then, G-Harmony is for you! You can be confident that God is eagerly seeking a relationship with you as well.

Just answer this simple, five-question survey, and you are well on your way to experiencing the spiritual relationship you have longed for.

G-Harmony Questionnaire

How easily can you admit that you were wrong and need forgiveness, and are you willing to accept forgiveness when it is offered?

Is it easy or difficult for you to receive guidance regarding how to improve your life, enhance the effectiveness of your actions, and make your thinking more positive?

Are you willing to be flexible regarding your budget, your work habits, and your schedule?

Are you willing to try new things, go new places, and meet new people?

How willing are you to get involved in the lives of people around you?

About Question 1
God has found that many people either have a hard time admitting they have sinned or feel so overwhelmed that they can't conceive of the possibility of forgiveness. Both are self-centered responses. One of the first gifts God offers you is Grace--His willingness to forgive you through the sacrifice of Jesus, despite what you have done wrong. But if you want to save yourself or sense no need to be forgiven, then God can't help you (Luke 5:31-32).

All He asks is that you trust Him and allow Him to do for you what you are incapable of doing for yourself. He calls this saving experience "the new birth" or identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5; Rom. 6:1-7; Col. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5). He wants to make you one with Him, or "in Christ" (Romans 8:1-2).

About Questions 2 - 5
The other four questions turn from Jesus as Savior to Jesus as Lord. A transformed life is possible, but only because God empowers you through His Holy Spirit as a response to your willingness to change (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). God has established a support network called Christ's church to make it easier for you to move from worthless to worthy (Galatians 6:1-5). He makes everyone in genuine relationship with Him a part of this support network (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 1:18-23).

Some aspects of your new relationship you will immediately find deeply satisfying, such as receiving from God a profound sense of value and acceptance (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:3-8). Other aspects may cause you concern, at least at first, such as His firm demand that you participate in his program for your continuous improvement (Philippians 3:10-16) and His insistence that you connect with those around you (Romans 12:9-13).

You will discover that these requirements, though they be unsettling at first, are in fact, some of the most endearing parts of the relationship.

G-Harmony Caveat
I need to say up front: God is seeking a long-term relationship. There's no guarantee that if you back out, you can regain your former self-centered personality or life-style, at least not right away. These things take time.

Want to Go Deeper?

Here are some of the major biblical passages about the husband-wife metaphor describing God's bittersweet love-relationship with human beings:

Song of Solomon – An old tradition applies this celebration of married love to God and Israel (Jewish version) or Christ and the church (Christian version). The entire approach is questionable as probably not part of the original author's intent, but many hymns draw imagery from this source, e.g. "Lilly of the valley," "I'm my beloved's and He is mine," and "His banner over us is love."

Isaiah 50:1 – God divorces His people because of her sins.

Hosea, chapters 1 through 3 – The prophet's compassion for his adulterous wife corresponds to God's love for His people.

Ezekiel, chapters 16 and 23 – Israel's unfaithfulness to God is told as allegories of an adulterous wife.

John 3:25-30 – John the Baptizer sees his purpose as ensuring that Jesus and Israel consummate their union.

Matthew 22:1-14 and 25:1-13 – Christ's first and second comings are both pictured as a man getting married.

Ephesians 5:22-32 – Christ's faithful love for His wife, the church and its benefits to her.

2 Corinthians 11:2-3 – Paul says he presented the Corinthians to Christ as a pure virgin to her husband.

Revelation 19:6-9; 21:2-5 – Christ, the One who is "faithful and true," receives His bride, pictured as "the New Jerusalem" and identified as "His holy ones."

Recommended for purchase (at discount)

Gene Edwards. The Divine Romance Tyndale, 1993. – Combines the simplicity of storytelling art with the profound depths of the Christian faith. This sweeping saga spans from eternity to eternity, revealing some of the deepest riches afforded the believer. Like a mighty symphony, here is a majestic rendition of the love of God. The story concludes at the consummation of the ages, when a victorious Lord takes his bride to himself. Truly the greatest love story ever told.

James Bryan Smith. Embracing the Love of God: The Path & Promise of the Christian Life. HarperOne, 2008. – Let God's immense love for you sink into your heart and soul like never before! These days when it seems many Christians are overcome with activities and trying to please people, their faith often becomes legalism. The only way to stop the cycle is to let God's love and approval embrace you, now and every day. Banish feelings of fear and insignificance, and develop a lifestyle of love and acceptance.

Recommended for online reading

John H. A. Ebrard. Commentary on 1 John 3:1-3 from his Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St John. Trans. W. B. Pope. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1860.

G. G. Findlay. "Christ and His Bride", pp. 91-95 in his The Epistle to the Ephesians from An Exposition of the Bible, ed. by Marcus Dods, et al. Hartford, CT: S. S. Scranton, 1903. – Exposition of Ephesians 5:22-32.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Is questioning a so-called prophet blaspheming against the Holy Spirit?

2008-12-05T18:54:00.017-06:00

Q. What is the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"? Why is it called an unforgivable sin? Is there any way for a person to commit this sin today? Is the person who questions a self-appointed prophet guilty of committing this sin?

Jesus taught about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as recorded in Mark 3:20-30 and the parallel passages in Matthew 12:25-32, Luke 11:14-20, and 12:8-10. The people were amazed that Jesus had the power to exorcize demons, but the teachers of the law claimed that he was possessed by Beelzebub himself and that He cast them out by the power of "the prince of demons."

After making several arguments against this claim, Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. --Mark 3:28-29

Mark then adds, "He said this because they were saying, 'He has an evil spirit.'" (v. 30).

The miraculous power Jesus demonstrated was from the Holy Spirit. Here's how the Apostle Peter explains it:

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and... he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. --Acts 10:38

The Holy Spirit used the miraculous powers He gave to Jesus as a means of testifying to His divine nature. He authenticated the words of Jesus as having come from God. That's what the anonymous author of Hebrews says:

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders, and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. --Hebrews 2:3-4

In other words, the very signs God provided to validate Jesus the Jewish leaders acknowledged as genuine, but they denied the power was from the Holy Spirit, opting instead for a diabolical source. This Jesus will not tolerate. This, he says, God cannot forgive.

The short answer to the question about why this sin is unforgivable, is simply, because Jesus said it was. The person on whom all forgiveness depends is sovereign over sin and over its forgiveness. Jesus takes this offense personally. His eternal, intimate love-bond with the Holy Spirit is at stake. The Spirit is selfless, always pointing to Jesus and lifting Him up. For someone to see the signs and acknowledge their power, yet deny their obvious origin is to insult the Spirit and slander his very character.

Why did the Jewish leaders take this stand? It was because Jesus refused to conform to their preconceptions of what the Messiah would be like and to their traditional way of interpreting the law of Moses. Rather than admit they might be wrong about one or the other or both, they concluded Jesus must be wrong, and therefore His obvious power must be from Satan, not from the "Giver of every good and perfect gift."

Denying or explaining away the very signs that should have prompted faith to grow in their hearts, they turned their backs on their only hope for deliverance.

This volley of rejection against Jesus and the Spirit continued. Later rabbinic writings refer to Jesus as Balaam, the prophet whom the Moabite king hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22 - 24). Try as he did, Balaam could only bless the Israelites. To compare Jesus to Balaam continues the blasphemy of the first century through later generations.

Is it possible to commit this same sin today? Certainly, though people who want to reject Jesus seldom take that approach. Rather than acknowledging his power but explaining it as diabolical, they either deny the historicity of the gospel accounts, or they attempt some rationalistic explanation of his miracles. Often these attempts are made with a self-satisfied pomposity that congratulates its own intellectual elitism: "Of course, no one believes that those poor people were really possessed by the boogy-man. Either they had epilepsy or some form of mental illness." "People were so gullible and superstitious back then. I'm amazed that they could accept at face value a young girl's claim about the Holy Spirit getting her pregnant or that what happened to an even younger girl behind closed doors was a resurrection instead of a fever breaking."

Such a response to the Good News is wrong--it is certainly damning--but it is not unforgivable. It is simply arrogant and closed-minded.

Some would apply the warning about blaspheming against the Spirit to any would would seek to debunk self-appointed prophets, modern-day tongues-speakers, and faith healers. While we should all examine our own hearts and ensure that our motives are pure, a number of passages urge us to put prophecy to the test, and by extension, the same would apply to the other claims of miraculous gifts.

Here's a sampling of such passages, listed in chronological order:

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 – Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. Paul is addressing a problem that arose quite early. Some were treating prophecies with contempt. Paul said this should not be done, but neither does he say everything that passes as prophecy should be automatically accepted as such. It all must be put to the test: what passes should be accepted, and what fails should be rejected.

2 Corinthians 12:11-12 – I am not in the least inferior to the "super-apostles," even though I am nothing. The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders, and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance. Paul is willing for his own powers to be tested, confident that he will pass the test.

Ephesians 4:14-15 – Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves and blown here and there by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. – Paul realizes how credulous his fellow Christians are, and he looks forward to the time when they will be more mature, undeceived by charlatans.

1 John 4:1 – Dear friends, do not believer every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. – After this solemn warning, the apostle immediately gives a doctrinal test to determine who is a legitimate prophet. This is similar to the warnings Moses and Jesus himself delivered (see Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20-22; and Matthew 7:15-23).

In a future blog, I hope to show how we can test modern prophets, tongues-speakers, and faith healers.

Want to Go Deeper?

Recommended for purchase (at discount)

Graham H. Twelftree. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians Baker, 2007. 352 pp. – Can evil spirits invade and control individuals---and be expelled? For many biblical scholars, says Twelftree, this is akin to believing in "elves, dragons, or a flat earth." But for Christians worldwide, especially in developing countries, exorcism unlocks the bonds of spiritual captivity. A reliable and historical discussion of exorcism within the early church.

Todd Klutz. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading. Cambridge University, 2004. 314 pp. – Integrates detailed, literary criticism of the exorcism stories in Luke-Acts with wide-ranging comparative study of ancient sources on demonology, spirit affliction and exorcistic healing. Explores the implied author's relationship with Judaism in relation to the stories' original context of reception. Probes largely neglected interfaces between Luke's representation of exorcism and emerging academic discourse about religious experience, shamanism, health care in antiquity, ritual performance and ancient Jewish systems of impurity to shed fresh light on this supremely alien part of the Lukan writings.

Stanley N. Gundry and Wayne A. Grudem. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views. Zondervan, 1996. – Are the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing for today? No, say cessationists. Yes, say Pentecostal and Third Wave Christians. Maybe, say a sector of open-but-cautious evangelicals. What's the answer? Is there an answer? This discussion takes you to the heart of the charismatic controversy by providing an impartial format for comparing the four main lines of thinking: cessationist, open but cautious, third wave, and Pentecostal/charismatic. The authors present their positions in an interactive setting that allows for critique, clarification, and defense. Through this dialogue, you'll find guidance to better understand your own position and the positions of others. 368 pp.

Recommended for online reading

Benjamin B. Warfield. "Mysticism and Christianity." From The Biblical Review, 2 (1917):169-191.

Henry Barclay Swete. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: A Study of Primitive Christian Teaching. Macmillan, 1904. – Scholarly and balanced presentation of the New Testament teaching about the Holy Spirit. See especially pp. 268-279, 320-321, and 376-388.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

His heart is with us

2008-11-30T08:08:00.008-06:00

Have you ever been the guest at a holiday dinner where you weren't sure you were welcome? You try to sneak a glance at the wealthy host to gauge his attitude, but he seems to be avoiding looking directly at you. His greeting was friendly enough, but was it a little forced? And neither he nor any of his close friends are urging you to take seconds or making sure your glass stays filled. You ask yourself, "What am I doing here?" and you start to squirm and sweat.

This verse from Solomon comes to mind:

Do not eat the food of a stingy man, do not crave his delicacies; for he is the kind of man who is always thinking about the cost. "Eat and drink," he says to you, but his heart is not with you. --Proverbs 23:6-7.

Every time we share in the Lord's Supper, we are guests of a wealthy host. At this dinner, however, we never have to wonder whether we are wanted or whether our host "is always thinking about the cost." He has gone through the great storehouses of heaven, and out of "His abundant riches," He has found the greatest treasure he had and then gave it to us as a present.

That's what Paul says in Romans 8:32:

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Receiving this greatest of treasures, Jesus Christ our Savior, gives us confidence that we are welcome at the Lord's table, that He has truly accepted us, and that, in contrast to Solomon's scenario, "His heart is with us."

Want to Go Deeper?

Recommended for purchase (at discount)

John Mark Hicks. Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord's Supper Leafwood, 2002. – From all we can glean, early Christian practice of the Lord's Supper was radically dissimilar from the the silent, solemn, individualistic eating of bread crumbs and drinking sips of wine that many churches practice today. Hicks asserts that our practice of the Supper should be a joyous communal meal as it was then. He advocates "revisioning" our contemporary practice of the Supper according to biblical values. Combining careful Bible study with gentle, practical suggestions, this book provides a valuable resource for enriching and renewing a central practice of Christian faith.

Greg Allen & Dennis Kaufman. Come to the Table: 52 Meditations for the Lord's Supper. Heartspring, 2007. – Often the prelude to communion is repetitive or lacks creative and meditative thought. Come to the Table was written to help orient your thoughts and offer ideas in order to promote a reflective time of self-evaluation. Allen and Kaufman offer a full year of communion meditations that will nourish your hungering spirit.

Lee Magness. The Longest Table: 52 Meditations for Communion. Standard, 2007. – The Lord's table stretches around the world, unifying all who remember and have been changed by Christ's death and resurrection. Use the 52 meditations in this book at the Lord's table, or whenever you want to remember the sacrifice of Christ.

Recommended for online reading

Josephine Fletcher with preface by C. J. Ellicott. Prayers & Meditations for the Holy Communion. New edition. Rivingtons, 1875.

Philip L. Barclift. "Uniting in Christ at the Lord's Table". Encounter, Spring 2004. – In-depth discussion of the tension Disciples of Christ have experienced between their call for Christian unity and their concern that "open communion" may debase the Lord's Supper.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Jesus the Magician? Archaeological Find is Unlikely as Earliest Reference to Jesus Christ

2008-10-14T10:54:00.050-05:00

Underwater find
A bowl newly discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, and dated to the period from the late second century BCE to the early first century CE bears an engraving that may be the world’s earliest known reference to Jesus Christ. The engraving reads dia chrstou o goistais, translated by the excavation team as “through Christ the magician.” According to French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, and Egyptologist David Fabre, the phrase could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, since he was one known as a primary exponent of white magic.

The team found the bowl during their underwater excavation of the ancient harbor of Alexandria. They speculate that a first-century magus may have used the bowl to tell fortunes. They note that the bowl is very similar to one depicted on two early Egyptian statuettes that are thought to show a soothsaying ritual. Ancient soothsaying manuals describe a technique in which the fortune teller poured oil into water and then entered an ecstatic state while studying the whirling mix. In the hallucinatory state, the fortune-teller hoped to meet mystical beings that could field questions about the future. The inscription, the archaeologists theorize, may have served to legitimize the soothsaying by invoking the name of Christ, acknowledged to be a wonder-worker.

How weighty is the evidence?
• Is it "Christ" or "Good"? – The archaeologists may have mistaken one Greek word for another in their interpretation. A glance at the photograph of the cup reveals a letter between the rho ("P") and the sigma ("C"). The letter, though poorly formed, seems unmistakably the letter eta ("H"). If this identification is correct, then the lexical form of the Greek word inscribed is not christos, but chrēstos, meaning "kind, loving, good, merciful."

The prepositional phrase, then, probably indicates that the bowl was a gift, given "through kindness" from some benefactor. It seems obvious that chrēstou is much more likely than christou for the engraved word. Rather than referring to the power of Christ, the word chrēstou might be a reference to the person who gave the cup as a gift—as we might write on a gift “from Donald with best wishes.” This explanation seems as plausible as its alternative is unlikely.

• References to christos too vague to reach certainty – Yet even if christou is the correct word, we are still far from reaching certainty that it is a reference to Jesus Christ. We must remember that the word christos was not a personal name of Jesus but a title, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word mashiach ("Messiah, anointed one"). Like its Hebrew counterpart, this Greek term could apply to any number of people. It occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures more than 60 times, designating priests, prophets, and kings, as well as the anticipated Messiah. It even describes the pagan ruler Cyrus of Persia (Isa. 45:1, LXX). Calling someone christos does not necessarily identify that person with Jesus. Even the Greek Scriptures warn that many would claim that title (Mark 13:21-22).

• The meaning of goistais – In Theological Dictionary of New Testament, Gerhard Delling defines goēs, the lexical form behind goistais, as “imposter, charlatan, one who performs magic through formulae.” Its only New Testament occurrence is in 2 Timothy 3:13: “…evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” Delling says that among ancient people, those who believed in demon possession tended to hold the goēs in high respect, while the educated people tended to look down on such a person. (See also the entry for goēs in the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon, which defines it as "sorcerer, wizard" and secondarily as "juggler, cheat.")

If this term goistais, therefore, were a reference to Jesus Christ, it would be most inappropriate. Jesus did not perform miracles through such formulae as abracadabra, alacazam, or presto. When He did speak, he gave simple commands, such as “Be healed!” or “Rise and walk!” Even the words ephphatha and talitha koum of Mark 5:41 and 7:34, respectively, are merely “Be opened!” and “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”, spoken in Aramaic, Jesus’ native tongue. Rather than using formulae, Jesus constantly varied the means by which he healed people—sometimes touching (e.g., Mark 1:31), or saying a few words (e.g., Mark 2:11), or healing without touch (e.g., Matthew 12:13) or even without being present (e.g., Mark 8:13). Some scholars believe He probably varied His healing procedures for the very purpose of avoiding magical associations.

The archaeologists have apparently forced their translation, as if goistais is genitive singular, like chrēstou, and functions in the phrase as an appositive. Goistais, however, is dative plural, making their suggested translation impossible. The phrase dia chrēstou goistais probably means "[Given] through kindness for the magicians."

• The dating is probably too early – At the time of Jesus, tens of centuries before the printing press, and two millennia before the digital age with its instant communication, events in one part of the empire often had little impact beyond the immediate vicinity. For the ripple effect of the ministry of Jesus to reach Alexandria would take some years, and at first would be felt only in Christian and then Jewish circles. For it to sweep across to pagans like the owner of the soothsayer's bowl would take even longer. And not only would the magician have to know of the miraculous power, but enough time would have to elapse for to convince him or her that customers would also be aware of Jesus.

Yet the latest date assigned for the bowl is the early first century. Given that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ happened no earlier than 30 CE, that only allows 20 years before we reach mid-century. One hundred years or even more might be needed for the ripple to flood the pagan consciousness of Alexandria.

What can we conclude?
If the engraving did refer to Jesus Christ, it would constitute an extrabiblical confirmation that Jesus was a miracle-worker. This is similar to the impact of what is now known as the Paris Magical Papyrus, dated to about 300 CE. It describes an elaborate exorcism ritual, which begins, “I adjure you by the god of the Hebrews,” and then lists a number of mystical names, of which Jesu is the first. The adjuration continues with numerous references to biblical events and persons, some of which are garbled. The point for New Testament studies is the confirmation that in Egypt about 150 years after the resurrection, Jesus was known as a successful exorcist and called “the god of the Hebrews.” This latest discovery would make a similar argument from evidence much, much earlier.

Such evidence opposes against claims skeptics have made for generations that Jesus' miracles all have rationalistic explanations. The eyewitnesses found sufficient proof in Jesus' works to discern the all-powerful hand of God. In the words of the Apostle Peter, Jesus "went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with Him" (Acts 10:38). Even if legitimate, this evidence would not constitute proof that Jesus was a magician, despite the claims of such books as Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? by Morton Smith, published in 1978. (See Barry Crawford’s largely negative review, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion [10/26/1978].)

The problem, however, is that the evidence is too early and that it is too ambiguous to be credible. It seems to be another example of archaeologists attempting to grab headlines by placing their latest discovery in the same sentence with the words “Jesus Christ.” Such unwarranted coupling often contributes to unjustified conclusions about Jesus among the ignorant and the credulous.

NOTE: The Franck Goddio Society has responded to this blog.

Want to Go Deeper?

Recommended for purchase (at discount)

Howard Clark Kee. What Can We Know About Jesus? Cambridge, 1990. – Explores both the biblical accounts of Jesus' life and works and the extrabiblical material touching on this. Extrabiblical references to Christ include the writings of non-orthodox Christians, pagan authors, and Jews. Kee analyzes all the relevant material to determine what precisely can be deduced about Jesus from these diverse accounts, written by both friend and foe.

Craig L. Blomberg. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd ed. Inter-Varsity, 2008. – Reveals the faulty analysis and presuppositions that have led to mistaken conclusions about the Gospels, providing scholarly criteria for judging these books and biblical answers to our hard questions. Thoroughly updated in light of new developments. Readers will find that over the past twenty years, the case for the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels has grown vastly stronger.

C. K. Barrett. The New Testament Background. HarperOne, 1989. Contains a discussion of the Paris Magical Papyrus along with its text in English translation (pp. 34ff). Also contains a wealth of other material relevant to New Testament studies.

Recommended for online reading

Details about the Paris Magical Papyrus in G. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East. Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. pp. 254ff.

Gary R. Habermas, The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of
Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection. Trinity Journal, 2001.

Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ. Eerdmans, 2005. – A short discussion of the title “Christ” (“Messiah”).

You may want to study the earliest charge that Jesus was a magician, leveled by the anti-Christian debater Celsus in the third century. The church father Origen ably defended the orthodox view by pointing out that in contrast to magicians, Jesus' miracles all had a moral purpose. See Origen, Against Celsus, book 1, chapter 68. In the century before, Justin Martyr anticipated such a charge in his First Apology, chapter 30.

If you are curious about Morton’s Smith’s book, take a look at the exchange Professor Smith had with Frank Kermode over the latter’s review of Smith’s book in the New York Review of Books. This exchange includes a summary of Smith’s main points and the essentials of Kermode’s critique. Be sure to read all four essays, the first two published on Dec. 21, 1978, and the second on Feb. 8, 1979. Unfortunately, the original review is unavailable without a subscription to the Review. Here is a brief review by Terrance Callan from the Library Journal (June 15, 1978).

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Beware of the Fall

2008-10-01T08:10:00.010-05:00

I leaned forward and swallowed hard. It wasn't easy to say, "I think God was trying to get your attention," I told her. Patrice whispered, "Maybe so. . . ."

She had fainted while trying to get a good camera angle of a beautiful waterfall near Ithaca, New York. Unconscious, she rolled over the edge and fell 100 feet to the floor of the gorge. Now she was in a body cast with two broken legs, several broken ribs, and a broken back. Also most of her teeth had been knocked out, but she was alive, and doctors expected her to walk out ot the hospital.

Patrice had suffered another fall a couple of years before her tumble into the gorge: a fall from grace. Shortly after her baptism into Christ, she had just stopped coming to church. When urged to come back she replied, "I know I ought to come. Maybe I'll surprise you one of these Sundays." No one could make an X-ray or MRI of the spiritual damage inflicted by that fall; there were no broken bones or knocked-out teeth. But her spiritual life was spurting out like blood from a severe laceration.

Speaking from the experience of his own spiritual nosedive, the Apostle Peter pleads with us, "Be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:10). "These things" refers to the ongoing development of the Christian virtues listed in verses 5-7--qualities the Holy Spirit builds into our character as we cooperate with Him. This development process cannot happen to us isolated from the family of God. It takes place through constant interaction and encouragement from fellow Christians.

I wish I could tell you that when Patrice walked out of that hospital, she walked right back into the fellowship of the local church. But it didn't happen. Her temporary resolve to come back to Christ evaporated soon afer she left the hospital. The fractures of her body had healed, but her soul remained shattered and bleeding. She serves as a warning for us: stay away from the edge of the chasm.

Want to Go Deeper?

Despite such reassuring passages as Romans 8:31-39, John 10:27-29, Ephesians 1:13-14, and 1 John 5:11-15, nearly every book of the New Testament warns us of the possibility of falling from grace. Here is a sampling:

Recommended for online reading...
You may be aware of the long-standing debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Here are the arguments on both sides:

John Calvin
Calvinist: Loraine Boettner, Perseverance of the Saints."
James Arminius
Arminian: John Wesley, "Perseverance of the Saints."

Recommended for purchase...

Steve Singleton. Possibility of Apostasy: Those who know the risk climb more carefully – E-book of 42 passages in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament regarding whether a saved believer can fall from grace. Also provides similar summaries for 11 passages supporting the security of Christians in their salvation. Only $1.

Dale Moody. Apostasy: A Study in the Epistle to the Hebrews & in Baptist History (1991). – Against the prevailing opinion of his own denomination, Moody presents the case for conditional election that takes seriously the warnings of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

J. M. Pinson, ed. Four Views on Eternal Security (2002). – Four scholars present their views and dialogue with their critics. The four views are: Classical Calvinism, Moderate Calvinism, Classical Arminianism, and Wesleyan Arminianism. If you believe in listening to both sides of a controversial issue, this book is for you.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Crown of Life or Crown of Death?

2008-09-05T10:44:00.014-05:00

Sensational Discovery
In August 2008, Greek archaeologists discovered a priceless gold wreath in what is regarded as the ancient city of Aigai, the original capital of Macedonia and the place where Philip II, father of Alexander the Great, was assassinated in 336 BCE.

The crown of golden oak leaves was included along with human bones inside a golden cylinder, which itself was secured within a large copper vessel. Archaeologists have assigned its date to the fourth century BCE, at about the time when Philip and Alexander reigned. The excavation lies just outside of modern Verghina, a few miles east-southeast of Verea/Berea and about 320 miles (520 km) north of Athens.

Cultural Background
Such crowns were common in ancient times as symbols of success in a variety of contests, including military conflict, athletic contest, political election, academic achievement, business triumph, or trial at court. Often the crown (Greek: stephanos) was constructed from the leaves of plants such as the oak, olive, laurel, and pine trees, or even celery stalks.

The Christian's Crown
At the close of his life, the Apostle Paul describes what he had accomplished by God's grace: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." He confidently adds, "Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing" (2 Tim. 4:7-8). The "crown of righteousness" is a stephanos.

In the Apocalypse, Jesus Himself urges us, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Rev. 2:10, again stephanos). In the heavenly throne room vision that follows, the Apostle John reports seeing 24 elders dressed in white wearing golden crowns. Soon each throws down his crown (stephanos) before the One on the throne, apparently symbolizing their dependence on Him for their victory. They confess that as Creator, He is worthy of glory, honor, and power (Rev. 4:4, 10-11). These same elders remain throughout the rest of the prophetic vision as witnesses of God's awesome deeds (see Rev. 5:8, 14; 7:13-17; and 19:4). Later Christ ("the Word of God") is pictured as wearing many crowns (Rev. 19:12), but this word for "crown" is diadema, the circlet of silver or gold worn by royalty.

Our Contest
Like the military conflict, the Christian life is a battle. Sometimes the salvos come at us unexpectedly, all hot and heavy. Sometimes we get wounded from friendly fire. Like the athletic competition, we are running hard and sometimes getting exhausted. The things that make a big difference are training, teamwork, confidence, and persistence. Like the political campaign, our opponent is a determined fighter and slings mud. We suffer innuendo, slander, and gossip.

Like students, we must prepare ourselves if we want to pass the exam. Like the businessperson, we must anticipate the competition and strive to add value to what we offer. Like the defendant, we have to gather the evidence and present our case, relying on the Judge's integrity to render a fair verdict. And when the bell of the final round has rung, when we stand with Paul at the finish line, still holding the baton, we look forward to those words, "Well done!" and to receiving that crown.

We don't expect to go to the grave wearing a wreath of golden oak leaves. Scripture's crown is a crown of life, not of death. What we are hoping for is resurrection to an eternal life in intimate fellowship with the Father, with His Son, and with the Spirit! Our triumph, our victory, our success-it will all be due to the Father's grace, the Son's redemption, and the Spirit's empowerment. After all the trials, when the contest is over and the campaign has wound down, victory at last will be sweet.

Want to Go Deeper?

Take a look at the other passages in the New Testament that describe the stephanos, which the overcomer will receive. They include: 1 Cor. 9:25; Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19; James 1:12; and 1 Peter 5:4. All verses in the gospel accounts refer to the crown of thorns Jesus wore on the cross, ironically symbolizing His bloody and agonizing victory.

In another passage, Paul uses the verb form of stephanos to warn that Christians might not be crowned unless they compete according to the rules (2 Tim. 2:5; see also 1 Cor. 9:24, 27). Not everyone who starts out the race crosses the finish line. Many things hinder and sin "so easily entangles." We must "run with perseverance the race marked out for us" (Heb. 12:1). How do these warnings mesh with texts like 1 John 5:13 that reveal that Christians can know they have eternal life?

Recommended for online reading...

Steve Singleton. "The Isthmian Games" (includes some images of stephanoi).

Walter Grundmann, "Stephanos" in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (7:615-636); see also the condensed version (only some of which is available online).

Recommended for purchase...

Robin Osborne. Archaic and Classical Greek Art (1998).

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

What is the central claim of Christianity?

2008-07-30T22:04:00.018-05:00

Prepare an "Elevator Speech"
Near the first day of sales training your trainer will ask you to give "an elevator speech." It's called that because there's tremendous value in being able to explain your product or service in the time it takes to ride in an elevator. To do so, you have to cut all of your usual verbiage down to the bare essentials. Also, you must tell your story from the point of view of the listener, explaining things in terms of W-I-I-F-M ("What's in it for me?"). When those elevator doors open up and the person you've been talking to walks away, he or she should have a fairly good idea of what you offer and why it is worth the price.

Just the Essentials
Let me give you my "elevator speech" about Christianity. These are the essentials. Although God created us human beings to share in His nature and to have a close relationship with Him, every one of us has rebelled against Him, choosing instead to go our own way and suffer the consequences. Those consequences are bad, including purposelessness, a sense of worthlessness, isolation and animosity, suffering, and, yes, death.

But God was willing to do something about our predicament. What He did was to send us His Son, who became a human being, modeled for us what it means to be pure, to love God, and to lovingly serve our fellow humans. More than that, He took upon Himself our guilt and paid the debt we owed by dying on the cross. Arising from the dead, He demonstrated that He has the power and authority to offer us His forgiveness and His righteousness in trade in exchange for our sins and defilement.

He wants us to trust Him with all of our being. This trust includes repudiating our rebellion, declaring before others our allegiance to Him, joining in a re-enactment of His death, burial, and resurrection so that the exchange can be made. Then He calls on us to follow Him for the rest of our lives in humble submission to the lifestyle and the mission He has in mind for us.

Not only do we experience a closer relationship with Him, but we also have a close fellowship with all other human beings willing to obey Him like we have. His promise is that our relationship will just get better and better until He transforms our mortal bodies for glorified ones that are just like what Jesus received when he arose from the dead.

Christocentric Message
That's pretty much it. As the elevator doors open, did you notice that Jesus Christ Himself is the central theme of the "elevator speech"? Someone long ago noticed that when you take "Christ" out of "Christian," what do you have left? I-A-N, which stands for "I am nothing," or in the Texan dialect, "I ain't nothin'."

Without Christ, I am nothing. But with Him, I am all I was meant to be, all God designed me to be. With Him, "I can do all things through Him who enables me" (Philippians 4:13).

What About W-I-I-F-M?
What's in it for me? How about forgiveness and a high and noble a reason for living? How about a world-wide support network and a burning message of hope and healing? How about confident anticipation that pierces the dark grave and an expectation of eternity in union with a loving God? What about discovering glimpses of His likeness in your personality even now, and the secure promise that as you follow Him, those glimpses will coalesce into His likeness? What's in it for you? Getting to where you no longer ask such an ego-centric question and ask instead, every day for the rest of your life, "What's in me for Him?"

Now It's Your Turn
See if you can write your own "elevator speech" about being a Christian. Or if you are not a Christian, write about what you are instead. Your own personal elevator speech will help you clarify your thinking regarding who you are and what you're about.

Want to go deeper?

The New Testament authors furnish us with several succinct summaries of the gospel message similar to what I call the "elevator speech." Examine each of the passages in this sampling:

Now see if you can find some on your own.

Recommended for purchase:

Dennis E. Johnson. Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures P & R, 2007.

Edmund P. Clowney. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. Crossway, 2003.

Edmund Clowney. Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament. P & R, 1989.

Matthew Paul Turner.The Coffeehouse Gospel: Sharing Your Faith in Everyday Coversation. Relevant, 2004.

Robert G. Tuttle. Can We Talk? Sharing Your Faith in a Non-Christian World. Abingdon, 1999.

Recommended for online reading:

Gordon Cooke. The God of Glory Thunders: A Christ-Centered Devotional Exposition of Psalm 29 (Evangelical Movement of Wales, 2006).

Benjamin Franklin (1812-1878) – "What Must Men Believe to Be Saved?"

As always, I don't necessarily agree with everything these books teach. Part of "going deeper" is developing your own spiritual discernment. It's good to "taste-test" before swallowing.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Judgment Day: Ready for That First Knock?

2008-07-10T13:25:00.016-05:00

If the preacher got up next Sunday and announced, “Today’s sermon is on Judgment Day, the Day of Reckoning,” would you flinch, or at least slump a little in your pew? We usually think of the “Day of Reckoning” or “Judgment Day” in a negative way.
But if you are a Christian, forgiven of your sins, and dedicated to loving and serving the Lord, why should you have this reaction? For you, and for all others throughout the world who “walk in the light as He is in the light,” the Day of Reckoning will be a bright day, a glorious day, a day of joy, something to anticipate with even more gladness than your high school graduation or your wedding day.

In Luke 12:35-37, Jesus uses a wonderful illustration to describe the Day of Reckoning for believers. He describes servants waiting for their master to come home from a party. They have their lamps burning. They have tucked the ends of their long robes into their belts so they can run quickly. And they are eagerly waiting because they want to open the door for their Lord at His first knock.

They wait and wait. They have to retrim their lamps. But the Master has not come home, and their beds are calling to them. Yet they stay up, and they keep each other awake when one gets drowsy.

What does this tell you about these servants? Isn’t it enough for them to go to bed as usual and then jump up as soon as they hear noise at the front door? What difference does it make if the Master has to wait a few moments longer? Their self-imposed vigil tells us that they love their Lord. They are thinking about His needs and what would please Him, even give Him as pleasant surprise. So they stay awake, maybe pinching themselves to do so, as the long hours slowly pass.

When they finally hear that knock, they are ready. They fling open the door to find the Master with his fingers still closed into a fist, raised to knock again. With joyful smiles one ushers him in while a second leads the way to the couch by the table as the third brings out the tasty meal they have prepared for Him.

But the Master has His own surprise. Touched by their evident love, He refuses to recline at the table. Instead, He makes them sit down, and the Master becomes their Servant, attending to them as they eat!

What a beautiful picture of the dynamics of love that operate in the relationship between the redeemed and their Redeemer! What a day to look forward to!

How are you trimming your lamp today? What are you doing to anticipate your Master’s return? What can you do to demonstrate to Him the love in your heart? For all of Christ’s servants, the Day of Reckoning is a wonderful coming-home. Are you ready to open the door on His first knock?

Want to go deeper?

This parable of love and anticipation occurs paired with its opposite (Luke 12:42-48), a servant who showed disdain for the Master by abusing both his position and his Master's other servants. We cannot use the positive parable to justify universalism; the two balance each other. Yet we too often focus on the negative.

Recommended for online study:

Godet's commentary on Luke 12:35ff: Godet, rightly I believe, resolves the apparent discrepancy between this parable at that in Luke 17:7-10 by different perspectives.

Plummer's commentary on Luke 12:35ff: Plummer rejects as a parallel to this parable the custom of the Saturnalia in which masters and their slaves trade places. He also discusses the varying ways Jews and Romans counted the night watches.

Recommended for purchase (in order of increasing depth):

William Barclay. The Parables of Jesus (1999) – A good introduction and a quick explanation of the major parables. Barclay is provides the Jewish background and for makes helpful, practical applications. His readability is uniquely superior.

Robert H. Stein. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (1981) – Investigates how the parables have been interpreted begining with the early church fathers, continuing through the Middle Ages and the Reformation, and concluding with recent critical discussion. He establishes basic principles for interpreting parables, demonstrates how to apply these principles, and organizes the parables under four major themes: the Kingdom of God as a present reality, the Kingdom of God as demand, the God of grace, and final judgement. Excellent resource!

Klyne Snodgrass. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (2007) – Introduction provides a historico-cultural context for Jesus' parables by surveying similar literary forms found in the Old Testament, other Jewish writings, and the Greco-Roman world. Also discusses whether parables have allegorical features. Snodgrass then covers 31 of the parables found in the Synoptics and discusses parallels in the Gospel of Thomas. In appendices, Snodgrass discusses the meaning of the Greek word parabole and its corresponding Hebrew term "mashal" and then classifies the parables of Jesus accordingly.

As always, I don't necessarily recommend everything these books teach. Part of "going deeper" is developing your own spiritual discernment. It's good to "taste-test" before swallowing.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Lord's Supper: Communion Means We're One, Right?

2008-06-14T21:09:00.016-05:00

All of us share
In First Corinthians chapter 10, verses 16 and 17, the Apostle Paul asks, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at the word "participation" that comes up twice in this short passage. The Greek word that the NIV translates as “participation” is the word koinonia, which means sharing, fellowship, participation, communion.

The description of the Lord's Supper as "communion" comes from this passage. To call the Lord’s Supper “communion” is to indicate a oneness. It signifies oneness with the Lord, certainly. But it also denotes oneness with each other. “We who are many,” Paul says, “are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”

Unity at the Last Supper
This theme of unity or oneness is central to the Lord’s Supper. That is quite clear when you look at the passages in the Gospels that report to us the dinner conversation around the table on the night it was instituted. The big theme of the evening was unity: developing a servant’s heart willing to wash feet; not lording it over your brothers and sisters, but finding ways to help and encourage them; learning what it takes to become one, united in love, one to such an extent that we even share in the oneness the Son has with the Father; and then coming to witness the awesome effect this oneness has on a world that is divided, splintered, fragmented, even schizophrenic.

Disunity in Corinth
When Paul spoke to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), his central focus was unity. Some were going ahead and eating before the others arrived, so that when they finally did arrive, they had to go hungry. Others were actually so self-indulgent that they were using the wine to get drunk. Paul rebukes them, urging them to “discern the Body” which again and again in First Corinthians refers to the Christians themselves. In vv. 27-30, he warns that if they don't discern the Body, in other words, if they ignore or work against their oneness, they are eating and drinking themselves into damnation.

Is unity a problem for us?
So if unity was such an issue among the original apostles, and if it was a central concern with the Corinthian church, what about us? Is unity a problem for us? Is it?

Look around your church assembly. Is there someone you don’t know? Is there someone you avoid? Someone you look down on or hold a grudge against? We all know that’s not how it’s supposed to be, but is that how it is? Is it?

“We who are many, are one body, for we all share, participate in, have fellowship with, enjoy communion with the one loaf. We who are many, are one body, for we all participate in, share, have communion with the one cup. That’s what the Lord has in mind, but is that how it really is? Is it?

Covenant for oneness
Whether it is or not is up to each of us. By eating this bread and drinking this grape juice you are making a covenant that you want this oneness--oneness with the Lord and with each another. It is also a pledge: that you will do what it takes to make this oneness happen. If you don't agree, don't eat. If that is not your pledge, don't drink.

Look around you once more. These are people you have fellowship with. They are your brothers and sisters, your family. Each of us that is tied to the Lord is also tied in unity to one another. That’s the way it ought to be, but is it? Is it?

Want to go deeper?

Rather than unity on the night of the Last Supper, the disciples had a spirit of rivalry. Take a look at Luke 22:24-30, where Jesus has to tell them, "Stop acting like pagan rulers." Even Peter was not exempt from this attitude, for he said, "Even if everyone else denies you, I won't" (Matthew 26:33). That statement creates a rhetorical separation between him and the others. Of course, Judas Iscariot was acting independently and counter to what the rest intended (see John 13:21-30).

In the face of all of this jockeying for position and individualistic words and deeds, Jesus' words and deeds were designed to draw them together again. Study the significance of washing their feet (John 13:1-17), giving them an unforgettable common experience. It was doubly humbling in that they had to receive this service from their Master and they had avoided doing it themselves. In the "Farewell Discourse" (John 14 - 16), Jesus outlined their common mission, resources, and destiny. He concludes with his "High Priestly Prayer" (John 17), with unity as its central theme.

Recommended for purchase:

Dennis Smith. From Symposium to Eucharist: Banquets in the Early Christian World (2002) – A survey of the importance of table fellowship from Plato to Paul, including an analysis of the relationship between the Lord's Supper and the agape meal.

Frank Carver. When Jesus Said Good-bye (1996) – Exposition of the Farewell Discourse (John 14-16).

Marcus Rainsford. Our Lord Prays for His Own (1985) – A verse-by-verse exposition of Christ's prayer in John 17.

As always, I don't necessarily recommend everything these books teach. Part of "going deeper" is developing your own spiritual discernment. It's good to "taste-test" before swallowing.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

The Christian's Call to Huddle

2008-05-19T08:49:00.025-05:00

Limited Huddle Time
National Football League rules assign a maximum of 40 seconds between plays, which means that huddles have to be quick and efficient. Imagine the following four teams.

Red Team
After the play, most of the players stagger and limp toward the quarterback, arriving late and talking among themselves. Two of the players don't huddle up at all--one lines up again while the other just stands on the field, paying no attention to the game. The frustrated quarterback begins to describe the next play, but two of the players doze off, while two more are distracted by the other team. Furthermore, because three more haven't stopped talking among themselves, they haven't clearly heard the instructions. The only person paying attention is the linebacker. Which of the following would best describe this team?

Purple Team
The entire team hustles in to the huddle and listens quietly to the quarterback. Each huddle is a little different. In one huddle, the quarterback expounds on the rules of the game, such as staying within the boundaries, what constitutes a penalty, how many points for a field goal, etc. In another huddle, he explains that the football must be carried in the right direction and not dropped to make a touchdown. In a third huddle, the quarterback explains the importance of coming to the huddle every time the huddle comes together, and how wicked it is not to huddle. In a fourth huddle, he tells the team how important it is to become a team member and goes over the contract-signing procedures. Oops! Our 40 seconds are almost up. Better line up for the play. What do you think of this team?

Yellow Team
All of the players on this team arrive at the huddle on time and dressed in their brand new uniforms. Their helmets and pads are adjusted properly. The quarterback explains the play clearly and concisely as everyone listens carefully. When the huddle is over, they all run off the field to the locker room, ready for all of their individual pursuits--shopping, eating out, playing with their kids, going water-skiing. They've had their football for the week in that huddle, which was a little longer than they are comfortable with, but they can handle it, as long as the quarterback doesn't make a habit of it. What are the chances this team will make the play-offs?

Gold Team
Players move quickly into the huddle, though some are sore and some are bleeding. They listen as the quarterback explains the play. A few ask pertinent questions, but most nod that they understand. The huddle takes most of the 40 seconds, but no time there is wasted. When the players break, each goes to his assigned spot ready for the snap. None of them are thinking about how great the huddle was. They are focused on the play. There will be another huddle later on, when the team is farther down the field. How well will this team do in the upcoming season? Would you care to be a devoted fan?

It's Not Just Huddles
We Christians play as a team in the greatest game of our lives. Our assemblies are our huddles. Huddles are essential to the game of football, but they are not the game itself. Let's make it to the huddles, yes. But let's remember what huddles are for: to help us win the game. Let's structure the huddles to accomplish that goal. Then when the huddle is over, let's play together as a team and win this!

I understand this is a simplistic view. The Christian assembly is multi-dimensional. But still, we are not the fans in the stands; we are the players on the field. And if that is true, huddles are not the game. The game is our entire lives. The assemblies have their proper place, and they are essential to winning. But what happens in the huddle is only secondary to what happens in the game. We have to be the best we can be. Our opponent is out for blood.

Want to go deeper?

Here are some passages to study in more depth about the purposes of Christian assemblies:

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 -- to participate in the Lord's Supper and proclaim His death (see also Acts 20:7).
1 Corinthians 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26 -- to build up one another.
Acts 2:42-47 -- to learn, to pray, to share needs, to praise God.
Hebrews 10:24-25 -- to stimulate each other to love and good deeds and to encourage each other.

Here are passages that describe the purpose of the Christian's life:

Matthew 5:13-16 -- to illuminate, to preserve, to cause other to praise God.
Luke 9:23 -- to deny self, to take up your cross, and to follow Jesus.
Philippians 1:21 -- to live with Christ at the center of our being (see also Galatians 2:20).
Colossians 3:1-4 -- to focus your thinking on Christ and "things above."
Philippians 2:12-13 -- to allow God to work on you and through you.
Many other passages, such as Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Titus 2:11-14; and Titus 3:8.

Now compare the two lists. Are they incompatible or complementary? Even the passage about the Lord's Supper has a theme of team spirit and unity to it. The modern concept of individualism and self-imposed isolation is contrary to the Scriptures.

Ecclesiastical quarterbacks will say they are forced to preach Purple-Team sermons because that's where their "players" are. That could well be true. But those players have to change into the Gold Team. And the sooner the better.

Recommended for purchase:

Wes Roberts & Glenn Marshall. Reclaiming God's Original Intent for the Church (2004) – Character, servanthood, discipleship, and walking in the Spirit were the focus of the primitive church. Is it ours?

Keith Wilhite. Preaching with Relevance (2001) – 10 strategies for crafting and presenting sermons that will help listeners understand the meaning of the passage, affirm the sermon's message, and apply God's truth.

Gail Ramshaw. Every Day and Sunday, Too (1997) – Explores, for children and adults, the relationship between the Christian's daily life and the Sunday assembly.

As always, I don't necessarily recommend everything these books teach. Part of "going deeper" is developing your own spiritual discernment. It's good to "taste-test" before swallowing.

Prince Caspian: Our Inner Child Finds A New Hero

2008-05-15T21:41:00.018-05:00

"Prince Caspian," the sequel to the 2005 Disney hit, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," does not pick up the story where its predecessor left off, in Narnia's exhilarating Golden Age, but in a time of fear and despair. From this deep dip on the cinematic roller-coaster, it offers to lift us to the heavens, with many a rise and fall and a twisty turn between. In its masterful blend of fast pacing, exciting action, dazzling special effects, and thrilling musical score, "Prince Caspian" does not disappoint.

Back to the Narnian Beach
With the next school term looming ahead, the Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy, wait gloomily at a railway station in 1941 England. Suddenly, they feel something like a sharp sting at their backs and the next instant find themselves on a seaside beach bordered by a thick forest. Could they be... back in Narnia?

Soon they discover that they have indeed returned to Cair Paravel, the castle where they had reigned as kings and queens. Now, however, it is in ruins and overgrown, as if a thousand years have passed. Yet the Pevensies have only been away from Narnia for a year by our calendar.

A dwarf named Trumpkin, whom they rescue from two would-be executors, tells them the bitter truth: Cruel Miraz the Telmarine now rules Narnia. Having seized the throne by murdering his own brother, King Caspian IX, Miraz now wants to slay his nephew, Prince Caspian, the true king. The Pevensies are dismayed to learn that the Telmarines have driven all of the Talking Beasts into hiding and that even the trees have fallen into a deep sleep.

Trumpkin tells them that Caspian seeks to reclaim the throne with the help of the Talking Beasts, the dwarves, and a few giants. Though noble and courageous, his soldiers are no match for Miraz's troops. After a particularly bloody battle, Caspian has just turned to his last resort. He would blow Queen Susan's magic horn, hoping it would summon help from an unexpected quarter, as its legend promised. Caspian, in fact, had sent Trumpkin ahead to Cair Paravel, not to be captured by sentries at a Telmarine outpost, but to serve as guide, in case the horn should summon the Pevensies, or even Aslan the Lion, legendary ruler of all Narnia.

Now the two "sons of Adam" and the two "daughters of Eve" understand how and why they got back into Narnia. Once they know how desperately Caspian and the "Old Narnians" need them, they willingly begin their difficult journey to join the prince in his war against Miraz. The story reaches its climax as its characters are forced to ask and answer vital questions like, "Whom can we trust and why?" and "Does achieving a high and noble goal justify using a desperately wicked means?"

Lewis's Original Series
Prince Caspian is actually volume four of The Chronicles of Narnia, the seven-book series by C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963). Lewis was a professor of Medieval literature at Oxford and later at Cambridge who wrote many books on Christian apologetics as well as novels with Christian themes. He was enamored with the classical Graeco-Roman mythology as well as the chivalry of medieval knights.

In Chronicles he crafted a world peopled with such creatures as fauns, centaurs, and dryads. Then he asked himself, "How do you suppose the Christ would represent Himself in such a world?" How else but as Aslan, the giant lion who is awesome and powerful, gentle yet frightening, nearby yet hidden, and not at all tame? This scheme of "supposal," as he called it, explains the Christian symbolism in The Chronicles in a more satisfactory way than regarding it as a this-for-that Christian allegory.

Lessons for the Teachable
The main messages of "Prince Caspian" are these:

You cannot determine who is right and who isn't by merely taking a head-count. True heroes must often struggle as a few against a numberless multitude.
Every individual in such a struggle has latent resources--his or her own unique talents, skills, and abilities--to lend to the cause, and each one of them, no matter how short, stupid, or feeble, can make a valuable contribution.
The fight for the right is a team effort, demanding that we set aside all of our differences and pull together.
Winning is not everything. How you win is just as important, or more so, for it reveals the wisdom of your choices, your strength of your loyalties, and the worth of your comrades.

Minor Themes Include:

Ecology - the Telmarines are afraid of the forest, they have hacked and chopped away until the trees hate them bitterly.
Racism - The Telmarines hate everyone that does not belong to their homogeneous race. The dwarfs have suffered at the hands of other races so that now they find it hard to trust anyone, including all who are only half-dwarf. Those of "old Narnia" accept each other despite their diversity of races and species.
Sexism - the two girls are as vital to the outcome as the boys, perhaps more so.

If you are willing to set aside your cynicism, willing to immerse yourself in an awesome world with formidable foes and surprising allies, this movie is yours to enjoy, not just as a viewer, but as a participating hero.

Movie Facts
2 hrs. 24 min., rated PG. Andrew Adamson directed the film and co-wrote the screenplay with Chistopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Cast: Ben Barnes stars as Prince Caspian. The Pevensies all reprise their roles in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe": William Moseley as Peter, Anna Popplewell as Susan, Skandar Keynes as Edmund, and Georgie Henley as Lucy. Peter Dinklage plays Trumpkin and Sergio Castellitto, Miraz. Liam Neeson supplies the voice of Aslan. Original music is by Harry Gregson-Williams, with cinematography by Karl Walter Lindenlaub. The castles and forests of the Czech Republic near Prague prove a serviceable Narnia. Disney has already announced the next installment of the "Chronicles of Narnia" franchise, "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," scheduled for release on May 7, 2010.

--Steve Singleton
DeeperStudy.com

Want to go deeper?

One of the main issues with which "Prince Caspian" wrestles is whether the use of despicable means is legitimate for accomplishing a worthy goal. This issue is relevant to our current situation, as U.S. citizens debate the legitimacy of the Guantanamo prison and the use of waterboarding and other tortures to extract information from suspected terrorists. Here are some biblical passages that grapple with the same issue:

Goal: To get the son of promise. Means: Taking Hagar as a wife – Genesis 16:1 - 17:22

Goal: To provide water for Israelites. Means: Striking rock and not giving God the glory – Numbers 20:1-12

Goal: To keep troops from scattering. Means: Offering sacrifice instead of waiting for Samuel to do it – 1 Samuel 13:7-14

Goal: Making treaties with other nations. Means (apparently): Marry foreign wives – 1 Kings 11:1-13

Goal (one suggestion): To get Jesus to proclaim Himself king. Means: Get him arrested – Matthew 26:14-16, 47-56; 27:1-10

For purchase:

"Prince Caspian" audiobook (unabridged on CD - 4 hrs. on 4 CDs)
The Chronicles of Narnia (boxed set of 7 vols.)
- Full-color collector's edition
- Slip-cased, soft cover set
- Deluxe edition set
- One-volume edition (with Prince Caspian on cover)

You might want to use the "Prince Caspian" movie as an opportunity to discuss Christian Ethics with young viewers. Here are some recommended resources:

Sean Covey. The Six Most Important Decisions You'll Ever Make: A Guide for Teens (2006) for teens
Kenneth Taylor. Right and Wrong for Kids. (1999) for ages 4-7

Adults should take a look at:

Craig V. Mitchell. Charts of Christian Ethics (2006) 100+ charts
Roger H. Cook. An Introduction to Christian Ethics, 5th ed. (2006) 320 pp.
James Childress & John Macquarrie, eds. Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics (1986) 700 pp.

Folded napkin at the Empty Tomb does not mean "I'll be right back"

2008-05-02T08:49:00.019-05:00

Folded, not wadded

You may have seen the essay circulating the 'Net that states the folded "napkin" found at the Empty Tomb of Jesus signified what it did at any meal in that culture: it told the waiter (a slave back then) that the person was not finished eating and would be right back. This in contrast to the wadded napkin that signaled the meal was over and that the diner had left for good. The argument is that Jesus folded his napkin to show (drum roll) He's coming back!

Dubious proof of the Second Coming
I find this interpretation dubious in the extreme for the following reasons:

It appears to be dependent on the King James Version's translation of the Greek word soudarion (John 20:7) as “napkin” and then runs with the associations 21st-century culture has with that English word. For soudarion my Greek-English dictionary suggests the renderings "handkerchief, facecloth (used for the dead)." An online Greek-English lexicon defines it: “a handkerchief; a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse.”

Renderings of modern English translations: towel (Weymouth), handkerchief (J.B. Phillips), face-cloth (NASB, ESV [without the hyphen]), burial-cloth (NIV), cloth (EVD, NAB, NRSV, WEB), piece of cloth (CEV). Both the KJV and the ASV have “napkin,” but Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language offers five definitions of "napkin," in addition to that associated with eating: “2. a small towel of linen or cotton cloth. 3. Chiefly Brit. a diaper. 4. North Eng. and Scot. a handkerchief. 5. Scot. a kerchief or neckerchief."

A handkerchief-sized piece of cloth could be rendered “napkin” in a context involving a meal, but that is lacking in this case. The immediate context of John 20:7 has nothing to do with a meal, interrupted or otherwise. It is definitely a context of burial in a tomb, where soudarion would refer to a cloth covering the dead person's face or perhaps a bandage-like tie around the top of the head to keep the jaw closed.

Soudarion also occurs in John 11:44, where it describes the face-covering of Lazarus immediately after Jesus restored him to life. Once again, no association with eating is present, only with the burial of a corpse. Lazarus walks out with the soudarion still in place, which means either his face was covered or his jaw was tied up.

A much more likely explanation for the folded napkin is available that suits the immediate and broader context much better. Grave robbers would not bother to fold the napkin. They would be in a hurry and would toss it aside. That it was folded (or rolled up) is one proof that Jesus truly was raised from the dead.

Much better proofs of the return of Christ include the testimony of Jesus Himself in passages such as Matthew 7:21-23; 24:26-31 (but you have to explain vv. 32-35); 24:36-51; 25:19; and 25:31-33. Added to that is the testimony of the angels at His ascension, Acts 1:10-11, and the testimony of Paul, the apostle and prophet, 1 Thessalonians 4:13 - 5:11 and 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10. These are so much more reliable than the speculative and ill-founded folded-napkin argument.

Test claims carefully
We should be careful about uncritically accepting Internet-circulated Bible interpretations, even if they conveniently support our own beliefs, like the truth that Jesus really is coming again. Let’s all commit ourselves to "Going Deeper."

Oh, and if you are interested in HOW to fold napkins, may I recommend Robbie's Kitchen for the fundamentals? Also check out Diana Eng's Origanimals. She folds napkins into the shape of animals, including a bear, a bunny, a peacock, and a snail.

Want to go deeper?

To investigate more about the significance on the "napkin" or "face cloth," consult any good commentary on the Gospel of John (at 20:7). For instance, check out what R. A. Whitacre says.

On the one hand, the text can be understood to mean that at His resurrection, Jesus' glorified body passed through the graveclothes, including the facecloth without disturbing them at all, leaving them as a shell kept in place by the spices administered at the time of interrment. This would certainly constitute strong proof of the resurrection in contrast to the graveclothes being torn and scattered across the floor in disarray, or missing altogether.

On the other hand, if the facecloth was neatly folded, and perhaps the rest of the grave-clothes as well, it suggests that there was no hurry to get away. This is the conclusion most commentators have reached, e.g., William Milligan (Note 9) and B. F. Westcott.

If you want to learn more about the proofs of Christ's resurrection, here are some recommendations:

For purchase:

Charles Foster. The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of the Christ (2007)

William Barclay. We Have Seen the Lord! The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1998)

Lee Strobel. The Case for Easter: A Journalist Investigates the Evidence for the Resurrection. (1998)

Online Resources:

William Lane Craig. "Contemporary Scholarship & the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1985)

Violin lost on train: Wake-up call for us all?

2008-04-23T13:47:00.024-05:00

Crisis on the footbridge
As the 12:18 from Paddington pulled in to the Great Bedwyn station on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, Rob Napier, 67, gathered his coat and briefcase as usual and prepared to disembark. Only when Rob was on the footbridge and the train was pulling away did he remember the violin he had left on the luggage rack above his seat. And not just any violin: it was fashioned in 1698 by the Venetian master craftsman Matteo Goffriller. Its bow, made by Eugene Sartory of Paris, had been in Rob’s family for more than a century.

Rob explained: “It was the first time I had been on one of the new, fast trains to Bedwyn, and as I got off I was just thinking about the train and whether it would fit on the platform. I just wasn't thinking about the violin. I half thought of jumping over the bridge on the roof of the train, but thought better of it.” Rob immediately alerted the staff of the railway’s lost property office, who telephoned ahead to Taunton, the next stop. A search there revealed the violin was already gone.

Violin had a history
Rob, his two brothers, and two sisters inherited the valuable instrument from their mother, Elizabeth Hunt, who died in 2006 at age 93. As a professional violinist, she had been a member in the 1930s and 1940s of the well-known all-female Ebsworth String Quartet. She had purchased the instrument in 1945 because she wanted an instrument matching the quality used by her colleagues. Elizabeth took the Goffriller with her on trips to India, Africa, and Germany.

Normalcy was costly
Rob had just retrieved the violin from a London expert who had valued the instrument at £180,000 (about $390,000 or €225,000). As he got on the train for the 70-mile (115-km) journey, Rob explained, “I put it on the luggage rack above my seat. I thought I couldn’t possibly forget it, and I didn’t want to appear different. I was trying to behave normally. I’m not a particularly forgetful person.”

“It was one of those terrible moments when I realised, as the train was steaming off, that I had left it on the train,” Rob said. “I think you can imagine the awful, kind of pit-in-your-stomach feeling.”

The frantic, futile search
“We went hunting for it,” Rob continued. “My wife and I drove through all the stations and left notices for it, and my sister and my cousin did the whole journey on the train the next day, but time has gone by and nothing's happened. My brothers and sisters have been very understanding, but that doesn't hide the disappointment."

Taking a new approach
After months of discrete inquiries, many phone calls, and much correspondence, the violin is still missing. That’s why Rob and the insurance company, Allianz, decided to go public, offering a £10,000 reward (about $20,000 or €12,000) for the return of the violin, even though they risk alerting the thief to its real value.

“The chances are that somebody has it without realising quite what it is,” Rob said. “We just want it back. Quite aside from its value, it has tremendous sentimental value.” Rob was about to lend it to his cousin, Libby Wallfisch, also a professional musician.

“It is very sad,” said Rob’s wife Clare. “In fact, it’s a disaster. We are just praying it turns up.”

Can you relate?
Put yourself on that train as the countryside whizzes past at more than 100 miles per hour. You sit down focused on your mission of getting the prized violin back home to Kingsbury Street, Marlborough. You try to act normal, though you are very nervous, hoping no one is watching and plotting to steal it. You look around. No one seems to take any notice of you or the battered violin case on the rack above you. You open The Times and begin to read. The vibration of the speeding train lulls you into a stupor, just like the commutes you have done for years and years. You turn the page. Oh, this looks interesting, you tell yourself. By the time the train begins to slow to a stop, you are mentally asleep, prisoner to your travel routine, forgetting what made this journey special. You pick up your briefcase and coat, and step onto the platform, eager to get to your auto.

This incident prompts me to wonder what other valuable things we let slip through our hands through inattention or neglect.

Losing your valuables
Here is your spouse, your companion through triumph and trial, with whom you have not had an evening’s conversation in weeks. There are your two kids, who seldom get your full attention, even when they address you directly and passionately. Your Bible (now, where is it, again?) you have set aside, though you are a voracious reader. Your reputation, your integrity, and your values are all strewn here and there around you. Your spirituality, which seemed so promising and enriching when it was young, you toss onto the overhead rack as you settle into your seat. All the while, the train of your life shakes and rattles you into a stupor, as it streaks toward eternity. You yawn. Your routine is giving you amnesia to what is precious.

Make your own list. What is priceless but neglected in your life? What would you spend the rest of your days trying to regain if you let it slip away due to careless inattention?

Preventable tragedy
How differently the story would have ended if Rob had placed the violin case in his lap instead of on the luggage rack! What’s the lesson for us? Stay in constant contact with whatever you value. Spend time conversing with your spouse every day. Get down on the level of your kids, and stop the multi-tasking. Devote yourself to reading, reflecting on, memorizing, and sharing the Scriptures regularly. Evaluate you reputation, assess your integrity, explore and refine your values constantly. Take time to invest in your spiritual life, every day. Keep in constant contact with what is precious to you. Don’t let anyone or anything steal them away.

The biblical warning is clear: “We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away…. How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?” (Hebrews 2:1, 3).

Want to go deeper?

Here are some passages to look at regarding "watching" and "guarding":

Neglect: Psalm 119:16; Matthew 23:23, par. Luke 11:42; Acts 6:2; 1 Timothy 4:14.

Staying spiritually awake and paying attention: Matthew 25:13, par. Mark 13:33, 35, 37 & Luke 21:36; 26:41, par. Mark 14:34, 37, 38; Acts 20:31; Romans 13:11; 1 Corinthians 16:13; Ephesians 5:8-17; 6:18; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-8; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 4:7; 2 John 1:8; Revelation 3:1-3; 16:15.

Recommended for purchase:

Victor E. Frankl. Man's Search for Meaning (Rev. ed., 2000) – Between 1942 and 1945 psychiatrist Viktor Frankl labored in four different camps, including Auschwitz, while his parents, brother, and pregnant wife perished. Based on his own experience and the stories of his many patients, he argues that we cannot avoid suffering but we can choose how to cope with it, find meaning in it, and move forward with renewed purpose. He outlines his resulting unique method of therapy, known as "Logotherapy," designed to help subjects to discover what is their purpose for living.

Note: A quick survey of the following two books tells me they have forms you can use to keep up with how you are doing spiritually. As always, I don't necessarily recommend everything they teach. Part of "going deeper" is developing your own spiritual discernment.

Craig Groeschel. Chazown: A Different Way to See Your Life (2006) – Packed with storytelling, graphics, in-your-face honesty, bite-sized chapterettes, step-by-step guidance, surprising self-assessments, and irresistable energy in a fast-paced style that will drive you forward with purpose.

Rick Warren. The Purpose-Driven Life Journal (2003) – Featuring quotes from The Purpose Driven Life, space to record your daily prayers, and a host of inspiring Scripture readings. Each of the journal's five sections ends with a topical "spiritual health assessment" to encourage you onward towards a life of purpose.

Online Resources:

Harold G. Koenig, M.D. "Spiritual Assessment in Medical Practice" (2001)

Gowri Anandaraja, M.D., & Ellen Hight, M.D. "Spirituality and Medical Practice: Using the HOPE Questions as a Practical Tool for Spiritual Assessment" (2001)

As inadequate as these are from a biblical perspective, they at least provide a starting place for spiritual self-assessment. See 2 Corinthians 13:5.

Text and Context: Can we understand the Bible?

2008-04-22T12:43:00.022-05:00

Have you ever had an argument about the meaning of a biblical text, and the other person complained, “You’re taking it out of context.” What does that mean? Does it really make that much of a difference?

Context defined
It is true: the meaning of a biblical passage is largely determined by its context, which we usually understand to be the words, clauses, and sentences surrounding the “target text.” A better way to think of it, however, is as a series of rings that surround the “target text” and become ever wider as they move away from it.

Internal and external contexts
Context consists of internal context, internal to the Bible, which includes the paragraph in which the target text occurs, then the section of the book it is in, then the entire book, the other writings of the same author, the entire testament, and the other testament. But context also consists of an external context, which includes the geographical, historical, and cultural circumstances at the time the text was composed.

The more you know about each of these rings, the easier it will be for you to interpret the “target text” correctly. Of course, by “correctly,” I mean the way the author intended it to be understood.

Example: Jesus the warrior?
Here’s a brief example. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says, “Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Does this mean that He intends to raise an army of warriors and start a political revolution? The context is against that interpretation. In the immediate context, we find him saying that the decision of whether or not to follow Him will divide families, and those who choose to become His disciples must take up a cross (Matt. 10:35-39), not a sword.

Parallel passage illuminates
As we go farther away, in Matt. 26:51-56, we find Jesus rebuking a disciple for using a sword to try to prevent Him from being arrested. Jesus tells the man to put away his sword, warning, “All who draw the sword will die by the sword.” He then asks the mob, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?” The obvious answer is no.

Evidence from the Semon on the Mount
At about the same distance from the target text is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 through 7). In chapter 5, Jesus tells his disciples to love their enemies, do good to those who abuse them, and pray for those who misuse them. Specifically he speaks of going two miles with one who forces them to go one, which the historical background informs us was just what the Roman occupying force was doing in Palestine.

No armed resistance in the Garden
Going out a little further, we encounter the passage in Luke that is parallel to the target text--Luke 12:51: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” We know this is a true parallel passage because Jesus goes on to talk once more about division within a family (verses 52-53). When you put the saying in Matthew side by side with the one in Luke, you will see that instead of ‘sword,’ Luke has ‘division.’ In other words, in Matthew’s version, Jesus uses ‘sword’ as a metaphor with the meaning of “division.” Luke just has the literal meaning without the metaphor. You can understand why he might have wanted to avoid the confusion.

Range of meanings with degrees of probability
The more we explore the context, and the more every piece of evidence points in the same direction, the more confident we can be about our interpretation. Of course, sometimes a passage is more ambiguous than Matt. 10:34, forcing us to investigate both the internal and the external contexts long and hard. In such cases, we may lay out a range of meanings and assign to each a degree of probability relative to its alternatives. Many or all of the rules of interpretation might come into play before we can make a confident decision.

Deciding not to decide
Rarely, the probabilities are fairly even, driving us to say with a shrug, “At this point, with the level of spiritual maturity that I have and knowing what I know, I can’t decide which interpretation is correct.” But even this unsatisfying result is better than saying it doesn’t matter or they are all equally valid. It matters, and perhaps later on, when you return to a passage with more information and more experience as an interpreter, the meaning will become clear.

Consult a commentary?
In the mean time, you might take a look at a good biblical commentary, which will lay out the options and walk you through the reasoning process of making a good choice among them. As a spiritual exercise, however, it is best to start with your own analysis, rather than running to a commentary whenever you want to understand a passage. Over-dependence on commentaries stunts your growth as a thinking believer and exposes you to the danger of swallowing everything a commentary feeds you, even if it is wrong.

If you do your own thinking first, then you can dialogue with the commentary, finding either confirmation or correction of your own conclusions, or else telling yourself that the arguments the commentary is making are bogus for reasons x, y, and z.

--Steve Singleton
http://deeperstudy.com

Want to go deeper?

The area of hermeneutics (the art and science of interpretation according to established principles) is the subject of a great deal of scholarly work right now, and hot controversies rage regarding which principles are legitimate and which are not.

Recommended for purchase:

Can We Solve the 666 Puzzle? Using Interpretation Principles to Illuminate One of the Darkest Verses of the Bible by Steve Singleton. Read excerpt. This is an example of how I apply hermeneutics to interpret a difficult passage.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., and Moisés Silva An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (1993) Read excerpt.

Grant Osborne. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed., 2006) Read "Context" chapter.

Online Resources:

Beau Abernathy. "Principles of Interpretation" (2005?)

Frederic W. Farrar History of Interpretation (1886)

Pastrick Fairbairn. Hermeneutical Manual: Intro. to Exegetical Study of NT (1859)

The Real Issue of 666: Not the Mark of the Beast but How Will Your Handle Your Money?

2008-03-12T11:18:00.010-05:00

666 only a diversion
In the Garden of Eden, Satan diverted Adam and Eve from the real issue—obedient trust—to secondary concerns: Adam’s pleasing his wife and Eve’s gaining wisdom through a new experience. Ever since, Satan has been diverting and distracting human beings away from the main point again and again and again. The worldwide interest in 666 is just another example. The central issue in Revelation 13:16-18 is not 666, but, “Who will be your master, God or Money?” Many years before, Jesus had announced how impossible it is to serve both (Matt. 6:24).

Tempted to sell out
Not all Christians in first-century persecutions lost their lives by martyrdom. Some lost their souls by selling out.

“You don’t understand,” they might have explained. “I’m just about to get sacked for being a Christian. My business is floundering because my pagan customers are dropping out. I’m getting ostracized at the trade guild, and my name is about go on the blacklist. My property will be confiscated. How will I be able to buy or sell without making a few compromises?” (see Heb. 10:32–34).

Easy to miss the point
It is easy when studying Revelation to “miss the forest” while minutely examining the bark. If you take a step back, you will see that this economic theme is elsewhere in the Apocalypse. To the believers of Smyrna, the Lord of the churches says, “I know… your poverty—yet you are rich!” To the Laodiceans He observes, “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich” (Rev. 2:9; 3:17–18). The eyes of the Christians in both cities seem to be focused on their economic situation. Also, the vision at the end of the book concerns a city in which pure gold replaces what would normally be concrete or asphalt. No one who lives there is in need of anything worth having.

Economic risk increasing today
Living in an era when genuine Christianity is more and more being misunderstood, misrepresented, slandered, and ridiculed, we do not find it difficult to extrapolate to a future in which being a Christian is not only unpopular, but also an economic risk. Even today, Christians in every honorable occupation daily have to choose which master they will serve. Some have rationalized themselves by tiny steps into dishonorable though lucrative pursuits.

The spiritual battle
The Lord’s challenge is clear: “If you want to follow Me, you must walk with Me on weekdays as well as on Sundays. With every dollar you earn, you fight a spiritual battle. With every dollar you spend, you make a moral decision. Will you align your values with Mine, or will you sell out to the Enemy?” Sin’s pay-out is accelerating wickedness leading to death, but the incomparable riches of God’s treasury belong to all who choose loyalty to Him over friendship with the world (Rom. 6:16–23; Eph. 1:7, 18; 2:7; 3:8; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15–17).

—Steve Singleton
DeeperStudy.com

Want to go deeper?

The following are recommended to help you look deeper into the mystery about 666 and the real issue: financial stewardship.

Recommended for purchase:

Can We Solve the 666 Puzzle? Using Interpretation Principles to Illuminate One of the Darkest Verses of the Bible by Steve Singleton. Read contents and excerpt

Ronald J. Sider Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity (rev. ed., 2005) Read contents and excerpt

Rich Brott. All the Financial Scriptures in the Bible with Commentary
(2007) Read contents and excerpt

Online Resources:

Prof. Doris Donnelly. "The Needle's Eye: Christians and Their Money" (1983)

Audience of One: A New Take on the Sunday Assembly

2008-02-25T10:33:00.013-06:00

Free event
Spying the “Free Concert” poster, I just couldn’t pass up free entertainment. I arrived way early and knocked loudly at the main entrance. A janitorish man let me in.

“Welcome,” he said. “Your first time? You’re in for an unforgettable experience.”

In the concert hall, the orchestra chairs were arranged in concentric semicircles, all facing a small, raised platform. A few musicians were already taking out instruments, adjusting stands, and warming up.

No one had bothered to set up the audience chairs yet. Except for one folding chair set smack in the middle of the hall, the large area was empty.

“We have players at all levels, from rank beginners to virtuosos,” my janitor-guide explained. “If you assume that won’t work so well, are you in for a surprise.”

More players came in every moment now, and the chaos was building, with all the chatting and tuning up, arranging stands, and taking out music. I was getting antsy to sit down, but no one was busy arranging the audience chair. I was quite unwilling to sit in that isolated, central seat.

Special seating
The janitor, who had been helping the percussion section set up, sensed my unease and walked over. “Remember I said ‘unforgettable’? You are not going to sit out there but up here. I’ve already picked a spot for you in the woodwinds.”

He showed me my seat, introducing a female oboe player to my right. “That empty seat beside you,” he said, “belongs to one of our first-year clarinetists.” She’s a little squawky sometimes. I hope you don’t mind.” He gave my arm a gentle squeeze as I sat down. “Ah, here Francine comes now.”
“Not a problem.” I could already feel the excitement begin to rise inside of me.

Audience of One
At the top of the hour everyone was in place. I noticed others without instruments, sitting here and there throughout the orchestra. Then I looked out to where the audience would be, just as an elderly man seated himself in that one chair.

Conductor surprises me
My interest got an upgrade into astonishment, because the man I took for a janitor stepped onto the platform. Every member came to immediate attention as he raised his baton.

“Him?” I gasped, just as everyone became hushed. The conductor smirked at me.

“Surprised?” whispered the oboist.

I caught myself and dropped my voice. “I’m flabbergasted! But where’s his sheet music?”

“Doesn’t need it,” she answered. “Got it all memorized.”

The concert begins
Then instantly we launched into a wonderful symphony, rich with chords, arpeggios, trills, melodic lines established and then echoed from section to section in various octaves. At first the music was thunderous and majestic, then it softened to a heart-rending whisper. A few times I could hear Francine’s missed, off-tune notes, but it didn’t seem to matter. Somehow even the worst of them naturally harmonized with the rolling chords and lyric melodies and made the whole just that much more beautiful.

I looked out to the audience of one. The old man was leaning forward, watching intently, his eyes roving around the orchestra as each instrument came in on cue. I could tell he was delighted, his eyes glistening.

When the long symphony was over, the old man stood up with amazing gusto, applauding loudly and yelling out, “Bravo! Bravo!”

The conductor made a deep bow and turning to the players, motioned for them to stand. The oboist gave me a nudge and urged me to stand with them. Then everyone bowed, as the old man continued clapping and crying, “Encore! Encore! Encore!”

Encore
At the conductor’s direction, all resumed their seats. They shuffled their music and launched into a snappy march. Its repeating stanzas built to a tremendous crescendo in which it seemed everyone in the orchestra was playing at once, loudly and furiously. Then suddenly they fell silent, though the echo of that final chord bounced around the walls a few seconds.

The old man once more took to his feet with the energy of a youngster, clapping and yelling, “Bravo! Bravo!” He continued in this manner for some minutes, prompting the conductor and the orchestra to bow time and again.

When he finally became quiet, he did not sit down again. In fact, everyone remained standing, myself included.

Post-concert conversation
The conductor bowed low once more. “I hope you enjoyed the concert, Father,” he said.

“I did. It’s the best yet. Thank you! Thank you so much, all of you, guests included.” At this point I was surprised when, for a lingering moment, he looked straight at me.

As all the musicians packed up to leave, the conductor strolled over. “I hope our concert kept you awake,” he said with a chuckle. “We put on one of these every Sunday, case you’re interested.”

“Every Sunday? Same set-up?”

Week-day activities
“Yup, and the same audience. He never tires of it, and we never tire doing our best to please him.”

I was puzzled. “But what about the rest of the week? Given over to practice, practice, practice, I suppose? Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse?”

“Actually, no,” the conductor said. “We do have some training sessions, but mostly we’re out performing more concerts. In fact, daily concerts, but not here, and not everyone together like this. Some ensembles perform—octets, quartets, trios, duets. And quite a few are solo performers. Maybe you have seen them on the streets of the city. In fact, to a man and to a woman, all of them are street musicians Monday through Saturday.”

“Now that you mention it,” I said, “I have seen some of them perform.” I recalled for him the saxophone player at the Cross-Central train platform, who was especially good. Always cheerful, always smiling, and strangely, always refusing tips.

“They play for the joy of it,” he responded, “Not for tips. The music fills them up and just has to spill out. All week they play, from the time they wake up until just before they fall asleep. They play and they recruit more members, help them pick out an instrument that suits them and then tutor them on the fundamentals.”

I am recruited
The conductor leaned over close. “I think you would be a good clarinet player,” he said. “At least as good as Francine, that teen who played next to you today.” Remembering her squawks and screeches, but also recalling how the symphony deftly absorbed and accommodated each one of them, I nodded and murmured, “Perhaps so.”

And that’s how I became a member of the orchestra on Sundays and a street musician Mondays through Saturdays. Although my playing has gotten better over the years, it seems I cannot delight the Old Man any more than I did during my first performance.
* * * *
Parable Postscript
A matter of covenants
In the Old Israelite Covenant, when all of the symbols were trotted out for everyone to see and hear, the temple orchestra had cymbals, ram’s horns, lyres, trumpets, and other instruments (see Psalm 150). All of this pleased the Father and were done at His command (2 Chron. 29:25). But in the New Christian Covenant, the multiracial one, the only instrument in worship is played on heart-strings: “Sing and make music in your heart, always giving thanks to God the Father” (Eph. 5:19; compare Col. 3:15-17).

For the first thousand years of Christianity, a cappella music was standard. In fact, the phrase ‘a cappella’ itself means “like in church.” All of those old-covenant, external symbols—instruments, incense, robes, priests, temples, sacrifices, drink offerings—the Lord internalized in the New (see Rom. 12:1-2; 13:14; Eph. 2:19-22; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6; 1 Peter 2:4-5, 9; Rev. 5:8; 19:8). Slowly but surely, however, the medieval church brought back the Old Covenant externals. That was a mistake, indeed a heretical relapse. Making them external hollowed out the internal, spiritual life of the Christian.

New perspective on the Sunday assembly
It would be a mistake, therefore, to take my little parable too literally. I mean for the musical fusion between musicians and their instruments to stand for all Christian attitudes and actions. In addition, I am attempting to offer a perspective on the Sunday assembly that may be new to you, perhaps even seem bizarre. Despite all our disclaimers, I’m suggesting that in one sense, at least, it really is a performance after all! But our role in this concert is not to be the audience but the performers.

God is the audience. We offer him “the sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess His name” (Heb. 13:15; see the praise sections of Revelation, especially 4:8-11; 5:8-14; 7:9-12; 11:15-19; 12:10-12; 15:2-4; 16:5-7; 19:1-10).

On Sunday, we all perform together. The rest of the week we perform in small groups or alone. But our audience remains that same Person and His Son, our beloved Maestro.

Want to go deeper?

The following are recommended to help you look deeper into the nature of worship and the place of the Sunday assembly. Of course, I cannot endorse anything carte blanche outside of Scripture. Be disciminating in your judgment! That's a big part of what it means to Go Deeper.

Recommended for purchase:

Everett Ferguson. Early Christians Speak, Vol. 2 (2002) – See especially chapter 10: Spiritual Worship: Spiritual Sacrifice and Priesthood. View Table of Contents

John L. Girardeau (Presbyterian seminary professor & preacher). Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Reprint: 2006)

Allen P. Ross. Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation –View Table of Contents

Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen Westerfield-Tucker, eds. The Oxford History of Christian Worship (2005)

Online Resources:

Neil Lightfoot. "Exegesis of Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16"

Wayne Jackson. "What is A Cappella Music?" (2007) – See Jackson's list of additional resources.

John L. Girardeau. "The Discretionary Power of the Church" (sermon published in 1907) – see especially pp. 36-40.

The Christ Child: Burst of Light Out of the Darkest Midnight

2007-12-11T19:11:00.000-06:00

Conquering the deepest darkness
The Scripture says, "Get up, O sleeper, arise from out of the dead, and the Christ will shine on you" (Ephesians 5:14). The context is the wonderful transformation that takes place at baptism, when someone spiritually dead suddenly receives spiritual life, the sinner becomes the saint, and an awesome, profoundly powerful light penetrates and conquers the deepest darkness. But what now happens in scriptural baptism has happened before.

Mountaintops often come with cliffs
Sometimes, the greatest woes fall upon people immediately after the happiest time of their lives. Job thought the blessings of his life would go on and on. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned a thousand sheep for each son, and a thousand camels for each daughter, not counting the oxen and the donkeys. He was the greatest man in the East, but in a day he had lost it all.

Just two weeks ago, the nephew of one of the Christians in our congregation was preparing for his wedding, set for December 15. Tony was 19 and his fiancée Kelcy was 21. Then, suddenly and without any warning, Kelcy died. That may be the risk of a mountaintop experience: many mountaintops come with cliffs. They buried Kelcy in her wedding dress.

At the peak of prosperity

During the reign of Jeroboam II, from 793 to 753 B.C.E., the northern nation of Israel was at the peak of its prosperity. This happened despite Jeroboam's wickedness. The biblical text offers this explanation: "The LORD had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the LORD had not said He would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash" (2 Kings 14:26-27). Jeroboam even conquered Damascus and "restored the boundaries of Israel from the entrance to Hamath" (way north of Damascus) "to the Sea of the Arabah" (known to us as the Dead Sea), "in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher" (2 Kings 14:28, 25).

This is the same Jonah who preached in Nineveh. You may not be familiar with his hometown, a tiny village in Galilee, as a matter of fact very near to what would later be Nazareth. The land was so prosperous that a few years later, King Menahem was able to buy off Tiglath-Pileser and stop his invasion by paying the Assyrian king a thousand talents of silver-that's 37 tons-an astounding sum that he was able to raise by extracting 50 shekels from every wealthy man in his realm. 50 shekels is 1-1/4 pounds, which means that the northern nation of Israel at that time had 59,200 wealthy men! Of course, this was a foolish thing to do, for it only convinced Tiglath-Pileser that he could extract more money from the prosperous kingdom.

Doomed self-indulgence
You can read descriptions of Israel's self-indulgent prosperity under Jeroboam in the prophet Amos: "You lie on beds inlaid with ivory and lounge on your couches. You dine on choice lambs and fattened calves. You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments. You drink wine by the bowlful and use the finest lotions, but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph" (Amos 6:4-6).

Earlier the prophet describes the Israelite women as "cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria." (Bashan was the lushest pastureland in the nation, which grew the fattest livestock.) He addresses them as "you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy and say to your husbands, 'Bring us some drinks!'" (Amos 4:1). The prophet predicts their doom: "The Sovereign LORD has sworn by His holiness: 'The time will surely come when you will be taken away with fishhooks. You will each go straight out through the breaks in the wall" (Amos 4:2-3).

Great instability
Over the next 50 years, the nation that had basked in the sunlight of prosperity plunged into darkness. Politically, it was a time of great instability: of the six rulers that succeeded Jeroboam II, four of them were assassinated.

Spiritual bankruptcy
While all of this was going on in Israel, the southern kingdom of Judah had issues of its own. It too was experiencing physical prosperity but also spiritual bankruptcy. Idolatry, witchcraft, sexual immorality, and even child sacrifice were commonplace. Priests and prophets had their hands in the till and habitually got drunk on the job. God's true prophets were ignored, or ridiculed, or persecuted, imprisoned, and slain. The kings were often wicked, and even the righteous ones like Azariah were flawed.

Approaching war machine
All the while, approaching from the Northeast, was the largest, most formidable and cruel army the world had ever known: the Assyrians, seeking to expand their empire in all directions. Over generations, the Assyrians had perfected their weapons, war machines, battle horses, fighting men, and tactics to the point that all fell before them. Isaiah speaks of the king of Assyria as the man "who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities" (Isaiah 14:16-17).

Two coups and perhaps a third
The Arameans or Syrians, whose capital Damascus was closest to the threat, grew desperate. In a coup their king was murdered by Rezin, who began to organize the resistance to the Assyrian danger. When Rezin could not get Israel to join him, he orchestrated the assassination of Israel's king Pekahiah, replacing him with Pekah, a man under his complete control. Then the two of them, Rezin and Pekah, approached the king of Judah, Ahaz, proposing an alliance. Behind their proposal was the threat that if he refused, they would stage a third coup, assassinate him and replace him with their own man on the throne in Jerusalem.

First prophecy: A sign for a frightened king
Ahaz was frightened out of his wits. He was strongly tempted to join the Syro-Ephaemic coalition. But the prophet Isaiah warned him it would mean his doom, offering a sign from God that he should hold out. When Ahaz refused to suggest a sign, the prophet gave him one anyway.

Isaiah said (Isaiah 7:14-17):

The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel, He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria.

In a time desperately wicked, with the darkening clouds looming on the northeastern horizon, the prophet speaks of a virgin, symbol of purity. Her child would not eat the normal food, for it would all be gone. All the vineyards and farmlands would be covered with briars and thorns. Only a few livestock would survive to graze on what they can find and only honey from the wild would be available for food. Yet his name would be Immanuel: "God is with us."

How do we interpret the virgin prophecy?
Assuming that Isaiah's prophecy had some literal fulfillment, I can conceive of five different options: two in which only one baby was born, and three involving two babies.

Only one baby was conceived

1. A miraculous conception in Isaiah's time, none in first century. This fits the context of Isaiah but contradicts the New Testament testimony that the prophecy was fulfilled in the conception of Mary, and it ignores the uniqueness of Jesus.

2. No conception in Isaiah's time, but a miraculous conception in the first century. This confirms the New Testament testimony and the uniqueness of Jesus, but it contradicts the context of Isaiah.

Two babies were conceived

1. A natural conception in Isaiah's day and another natural conception in the first century. This fits the context in Isaiah well enough, but it contradicts the New Testament testimony and ignores the uniqueness of Jesus.

2. A miraculous conception in Isaiah's day and another miraculous conception in the first century. This fits the context in Isaiah and agrees with the testimony of the birth of Jesus, but it ignores the uniqueness of Jesus.

3. A natural conception in Isaiah's day and a miraculous conception in the first century. This is the only alternative that both takes seriously the context of Isaiah, confirms the New Testament testimony of the conception of Jesus, and affirms the uniqueness of Jesus. It also explains the ambiguity of the Hebrew text, which uses the term almah of the woman conceiving the child. Almah can mean 'virgin,' but it can also refer to a maiden with no specification regarding her virginity. The usual word for virgin in Hebrew is bethulah. The New Testament, however, was written in Greek, which uses the unambiguous term parthenos to refer to the virgin was became Jesus' mother by miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Second prophecy: A ruler's birthplace
At about the same time, an older prophet, Micah, also delivered his oracle (Micah 5:1-5):

Marshall your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. And he will be their peace.

Bribes seldom work
Ahaz wouldn't listen to these reassurances. Rather than relying on the LORD's deliverance, he sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser, "I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and the king of Israel, who are attacking me." The record says that "Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent it as a gift of the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death" (2 Kings 16:7-9). This Tiglath-Pileser probably would have done anyway, without the bribe from Ahaz. Plus, as in the case of Menahem, the bribe of Ahaz would only have convinced the Assyrians that Jerusalem was a prize worth having.

Galilee emptied
It must be that during that same campaign, the Assyrians overran "Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria" (2 Kings 16:29). The devastation of Galilee was so complete that archaeologists have found no evidence that it was even occupied for at least two hundred years. In site after site they have discovered an obvious gap in the sherds and occupation levels they have found throughout Galilee-almost none from the seventh and sixth centuries (Iron III). The land lay desolate and virtually empty until well into the Persian period, confirming Micah's prophecy. Right in the place where, a few years earlier, Jonah's prophecy of prosperity had been fulfilled, what few people remained truly "sat in darkness."

Third prophecy: The four names of the coming ruler
Yet Isaiah predicted (Isaiah 9:1-7):There will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, but the way of the sea, along the Jordan. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.... For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

In a time when the rulers were senseless, Isaiah looked forward to a King whose wisdom was so great that he would be known as "Wonderful Counselor." In a day when the leaders were weak and fearful, the prophet predicted one to be called "Mighty God." In a period when ruler succeeded ruler in swift succession, the seer foretold of a Sovereign who would be the "Father of the Ages." And during fifty years of constant war, terrible atrocities, and unspeakable cruelty, Isaiah foresaw the coming Messiah, who would be "Prince of Peace." In such unfathomably deep darkness, no more brilliant light could shine forth.

In the darkest midnight
Seven hundred years later, the land writhed under an even stronger oppressor. Israel had lost her independence because one of the quarreling rivals to her throne had called in the Roman general Pompey. He came all right, but took the land for Rome and never gave it back. Another great darkness settled over the land, until the star of Bethlehem arose in the east. "Glory to God in the highest," sang the angelic host. "And on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests." Once more, in the darkest midnight, a great light shone forth.
And to all of us, who stumble through our own times of darkness, the word of the Lord announces, "Immanuel! God is with us!"

There is no foolishness that the Wonderful Counselor cannot set aside.

There is no weakness that the God called "Mighty" cannot overcome.

There is no ongoing trial that the Father of the Ages does not outlast.

And there is no turmoil in this war-weary world that He who is called the 'Prince of Peace' cannot bring to an end.

No more should we sit in gloomy darkness. Look up! Your salvation draws near!

"Get up, O sleeper! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

Want to go deeper?

The following are recommended to help you look deeper into these things.

The prophecies about the birth of Jesus:

Edward J. Young. The Book of Isaiah (3 vols.) – Excellent commentary by a conservative scholar.

Gresham Machen. The Virgin Birth of Christ

Archaeology of Galilee:

Jonathan L. Reed. Archaeology and the Galileean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (2000)

The Assyrian Crisis in Israel and Judah:

John Bright. A History of Israel, 4th ed. (2000)

Brevard Childs. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (1983)

The Assyrians as warriors (available online):

Philip Henry Gosse. Assyria: Her Manners and Customers, Arts and Arms: Restored from Her Monuments (1852)

Evel Knievel proves no one is immortal

2007-12-03T15:04:00.000-06:00

With the passing of stunt rider/daredevil Evel Knievel the world is reminded once again that no one is immortal. Evel survived so many mishaps that some might call him unbreakable. Yet when he died of natural causes on November 30, 2007, it reminded all of us of the truth of the text in Hebrews 9:27: "...man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment."

Twenty-something young people--young men in particular--seem to assume that they are immortal, unbreakable, invulnerable to injury, disease, or death. Actuarial tables and even the college buddies who "bought it" would argue otherwise, but no one seems to be listening. Fact is, all of us are hurtling at break-neck speed toward a brick wall, which none of us will get past. It doesn't matter whether we get there on a souped up motorcycle, or sky-diving, or free climbing, or reading in a quiet library; we'll get there no matter how. Unless the Lord comes for us, we'll all be going to Him.

Meanwhile, what do we do with the time we have until then? Time is precious. Don't waste it. Be careful what you trade it for. You can always get more money, but you will never get back one minute you have already spent. Spend it well!
Here are seven activities that are almost never time-wasters:

Training--For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come (1 Timothy 4:8).

Learning--Whenever I set aside my know-it-all arrogance, the people around me can teach me a lot. Can you relate?

Loving--Love is one of the only things in the world that doesn't run out the more you exercise it. In fact, it increases!

Serving--Love is not a noun. It's a verb. It takes action for it to be real. Look around you! Someone needs your help, even right now.

Attacking--So much injustice, ignorance, and deception surrounds us that we can get intimidated. But if we confront it, much of it dissipates with very little resistance.

Defending--What are your core values? What do you think it worth fighting for? Take up a worthy cause, and don't back down!

Teaching--As you come to understand the world as it really is, perhaps you can help someone else to understand. Great teaching does not involve spoon-feeding, at least not for long. It inspires people to think for themselves.

Appreciating--Virtually none of us invests enough time simply appreciating the beauty and wonder of our world or the huge number of blessings with which we have been endowed. More gratitude will lighten your heart and open your eyes to possibilities you would miss in a more sour state.

Maybe right now you feel like you are in the middle of a jump over fourteen buses (Evel's last stunt, back in 1980). You're not sure you will sail past the fourteenth or crash somewhere in the middle. You stomach is sinking more quickly than your bike.

Here's the word of the Lord for mid-jump: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7). There's a promise for now, for when you get to "the wall," and for beyond.

True Guilt or Guilt Feelings? What's Your Spiritual Diagnosis? What's the Remedy?

2007-11-21T08:44:00.000-06:00

Audio version:

The Distinction Between Feeling Well and Being Well
There's a big difference between feeling better and BEING better. Yesterday, I was at the clinic suffering from an upper respiratory infection. The doctor told me, "We'll have you feeling better right away." I wanted to tell her, "I'm not so interested in feeling better. I want to BE better."

It used to be that the way you felt physically had a close resemblance to your true medical condition. They used to call those feelings "symptoms." I'm told that doctors were trained to look at the symptoms to diagnose the malady. But these days, many doctors and a giant portion of the pharmaceutical industry have found dozens of ways to divide how we feel from our true medical condition so that we feel healthy and full of energy once more even if something is terribly wrong with us. And sometimes, the only way they can diagnose what's wrong with us is to take us off all of the meds and find out our... there's that word again, "symptoms."

You may say to me, "What's the difference? If you feel better, you are better, right?" Not necessarily.

...And Between Feeling Innocent and Being Forgiven
This whole thing has a profound, spiritual application. When you feel guilty about something, which do you want more than anything, to FEEL better or to BE better? Which do you really, deep down, desire, to feel innocent, or to know you are forgiven (whether you feel it or not)? You may say to me, "What's the difference? If you feel forgiven, you are forgiven, right?" Not necessarily.

Does True Guilt Exist? Does Sin?
It used to be that the way you felt spiritually had a close resemblance to your true moral condition. They used to call that "guilt." I'm told that all Christians were trained to examine the guilt to diagnose the sin. But these days, psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, and members of the tele-religion industry have tried to divide the guilt we feel from our true spiritual condition. What they prescribe is designed solely to block all of those guilt feelings from our conscience so that we feel clean and pure once more.

"There's no such thing as sin," the agnostic shrink tells us, "and therefore, no such thing as true guilt. All you have are 'guilt feelings,' the residuals of the fairy tales the nuns told you in that parochial school. Or maybe you thought you shouldn't love your mother and resent your father THAT much, and you have carried that childish baggage on into your adulthood. Forgive your inner child and ignore your guilt feelings. Then get on with your life."

Tele-evangelists (of course, not the hell-fire and brimstone ones, but when have you seen any of them lately?) may claim that because God is loving, He would never reject any human being, but will welcome all into His kingdom some day. They quote, "He is not willing that any should perish" but leave out the rest of the verse, "but everyone to come to repentance." And the very next verse describes "the day of the Lord" in all its wrathful fire, on the basis of which Peter urges us to "make every effort to be found spotless, blameless, and at peace with Him" (2 Peter 3:9-10,14). God is loving beyond anything we can imagine, and in His infinite love, He wants us to avoid the punishment of our rebellion. Carlton Pearson is an example.

True Guilt Has Real Consequences
The Bible says there really is such a thing as guilt, and that guilt has true, deep, and lasting consequences. Guilt started in Eden, not because Eve and her husband wanted something not on the menu. Despite their daily fellowship with God and receiving all He provided, they wanted something more, wanted to be more. Rather than waiting on the Lord to fulfill those desires His way in His time, they rebelled. They thought they would benefit, gaining much more than they would lose, but they were so wrong! They fell for the lies of the Deceiver, and they deceived themselves.

All of their sons and daughters who have matured past tikes have chosen to participate in the same rebellion. We have all been deceived. We have deceived ourselves. Paul's indictment sticks on all of us: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22). Later he laments, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

The Six Kinds of Sin Bury Us All
All of us are guilty of sinning in all six categories of sins.

Six Kinds of Sin

Sins of commission:
- Things we do that are wrong (e.g., stealing or murder).
- Things we say that are wrong (e.g., slander, lying).
- Things we think that are wrong (e.g., malice, hatred, lust).
Sins of omission:
- Things we should have done but didn't (e.g., not helping someone injured, not paying our bills).
- Things we should have said but didn't (e.g., allowing the wrong person to get blamed by keeping quiet; not talking to our kids about avoiding premarital sex, tobacco, alcohol, crime, or drugs).
- Things we should have thought but didn't (e.g., not considering the needs of others around us, not wanting any help when we need it).

When you consider all of those ways to sin, you start to get an inkling of the mountain of guilt under which each one of us is buried. Jesus compared it to a debt of millions of dollars a servant tried to pay back to the king at a time when the going wage was 25 cents a day (Matthew 18:23-26). It will never get paid off, never. Never ever. Yet, like the servant, we glibly say to others and to God, "Patience, please! Don't rush me! I'll pay you back." Yeah, right! In 164,383 years! And that's with no interest, no weekends off, and no vacations!

Don't Fool Yourself!
Scripture says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:10), and "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death" (Proverbs 14:12). We can listen to the pop-psychology or the smiling, winking preachers and retrain our conscience not to prick our hearts (Acts 2:37), but that will not take away our guilt.

Some Guilt Feelings Are Baseless, But Not All of Them
Sure, there can be "guilt feelings" beneath which no real guilt exists. Christians are prone to this problem as much or more than anyone, because our Lord has trained our consciences to be sensitive. In fact, unbelievers often manipulate Christians by trying to generate those guilt feelings within them. Yet we also must mature to the point that we can distinguish the true guilt from the false. We serve a God who has promised to "hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea" (Micah 7:19). We who are submissive to the Lord Jesus can have confidence even "when our hearts condemn us" (1 John 3:19-20), because we know Who owns us. And, when we turn back to Him and submit once more to His loving authority, He stands ready to forgive us.

Only One Way for True Guilt to Find Forgiveness
That readiness to forgive comes from the cross, from the only One not deceived into joining the rebellion, whose perfect, sinless life He was willing to trade in exchange for ours, muddied and bloodied by our own sin (see Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21). For all those who have repudiated Satan's mastery, put their trust in Christ, confessed His name, joined in a reenactment of His death and resurrection, and are now willing to walk in His steps, the forgiveness is a continual washing in His blood (see Acts 3:19; Romans 10:9-10; Romans 6:1-7, 11-14; 1 John 2:6; 1 John 1:6-7).

Is Forgiveness Objective or Only Subjective? Is It Real?
Another way of saying all of this is, where does forgiveness happen, outside of you or inside? Is it wholly subjective or is there an objective dimension as well? Does forgiveness happen when you forgive yourself, or when you say to yourself, there's no such thing as sin in a post-modern world? No, forgiveness happens when the offended One accepts your confession, adopts you into His family, and covers you with the righteousness of His Son.

Only then are you forgiven, whether you feel forgiven or not. Only then can the divide dissolve between how you feel and what you are, and your angst and guilt feelings can make room for the "peace which transcends all understanding" that "will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:7). Christ's death and resurrection for you was an objective, space-and-time-anchored event in the real world. And because of that historical reality, the consequences of his death and resurrection can be real in your life: forgiveness, salvation, the indwelling, fruit-bearing Holy Spirit. Receiving and perceiving that forgiveness empowers us to forgive one another (see Matthew 18:26-35; Ephesians 4:32).

What Does True Forgiveness Do to Your Self Esteem?
By His death Jesus Christ makes this statement that should transform your self esteem: "When I look at you, your life, your potential, I think you are precious, and I'm willing to prove it by trading my life for yours. I'm willing to die so that you can live the life your were meant to live--a life of selfless service that manages guilt and doesn't hide or deny it. You are worth it to Me. Come, let's walk together--forever after." [TOP]

Want to go deeper?

The following are recommended to help you look deeper into the nature of guilt, sin, forgiveness, and the work of the Cross. I cannot endorse anything carte blanche outside of Scripture. Be disciminating in your judgment! That's a big part of what it means to Go Deeper.

Recommended for purchase:

Jack Cottrell. Baptism: A Biblical Study (1989)

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The Cross (1986)

Alister McGrath. Self Esteem: The Cross and Christian Confidence (2002)

Leon Morris. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (1955, reprinted many times)

John R. W. Stott. The Cross (2006)

Online resources:

John Mark Hicks. "Down in the River to Pray: Revisioning Baptism as God's Transforming Work" (intro. to his book)

Jim McGuiggan. "The cross or the Christ on it?"

Greek Text Behind the King James (Authorised Version)

2007-10-23T11:02:00.000-05:00

Question: Steve, I have been trying to find which Greek manuscripts underlie the Textus Receptus and KJV of the New Testament. I have read numerous articles that say Erasmus relied on only a few manuscripts, primarily on two, but none of them name the manuscripts he used. Can you tell me what they are please? Thanks very much. —Tom

Answer: It's hard to give you an answer in a sentence or two. The basic facts are these:

Only six manuscripts
I found this in Bruce M. Metzger's The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1968): "Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex 1, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used leased, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text!" (102). (Much of the rest of my answer is from the same source.)

After Cardinal Ximenes' Greek text came out a couple of years after Erasmus, Erasmus made corrections based on it. Then numerous printers reproduced the text of Erasmus in their own editions, sometimes making their own changes. One of these, the text of Robert Estienne, Latinized as Stephanus, issued four editions (1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551). His third edition was the first to have a critical apparatus, in which he entered variant readings from 14 Greek codices, including the famous Codex Bezae, as well as readings from Ximenes' text.

Best manuscripts little used
The reformer Théodorè de Béze, or Beza, published four editions (1565, 1582, 1588-9, and 1598) and several reprints. His editions contained textual information from Greek manuscripts he personally collated, including his own Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus. Beza made little use of these manuscripts, however, for they deviated too far from the text generally received. He also garnered information from the Syriac and Arabic translations of the New Testament. All of this information Beza put into the margins of his editions; the text itself was the 1551 edition of Stephanus. Metzger says: "The King James translators of 1611 made large use of Beza's editions of 1588-9 and 1598."

Underlying text reconstructed
Only after the revision that culminated in the Revised Version of 1881 (=the ASV of 1901 with only minor differences) did F. H. A. Scrivener reconstruct the Greek text behind the KJV (The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version [Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1894). I happen to have a copy of his Greek Testament. In the preface he says, "[T]he Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed" (vii).

He goes on to say that they probably used Beza's 1598 edition "more... than any other Greek text" but...

There are however many placed in which the Authorised Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. Wherever. the Authorised renderings agree with other Greek readings which might naturally be known through printed editions to the revisers of 1611 or their predecessors, Beza's reading has been displaced from the text in favour of the more truly representative reading. It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate. All variations from Beza's text of 1598, in number about 190, are set down in an Appendix at the end of the volume, together with the authorities on which they respectively rest. (viii-ix)

It took strong convincing on the part of Westcott and Hort to move the revision committee away from the Textus Receptus in pursuit of an earlier text, found mainly in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. That brought the underlying text of the New Testament back to a date of around 350-400 CE.

Modern text more ancient
Since about a hundred years ago, earlier and earlier manuscripts have been discovered, more than 100 papyri mainly from Egypt, taking the text back to around 175-200 CE.

Textual critics have found that the earlier manuscripts sometimes agree with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus against the medieval manuscripts, and sometimes disagree, but sometimes yield a third reading, not like either.

In trying to discern the original text, modern textual critics do not just count manuscripts as one would count votes in a popular election. If they did, the later manuscripts would win nearly every time, since there are more of them. Rather, they "weigh" the manuscripts, giving more weight to manuscripts that are older and those that generally have a better quality of text, based on established canons of internal criticism.

Eclectic textual critics
For the most part, however, modern textual critics are eclectic, which means they do not carefully follow one text family over its rivals but select variant by variant, verse by verse, which readings claim priority over their alternate readings.

There is a great deal of subjectivism in this process, for the hardest decisions are when the pros and cons are fairly evenly balanced.

The vast majority of textual decisions, however, make little or no difference in the overall meaning of the text. The UBS committee selected only 1200 readings for the entire New Testament that were both translationally significant and there was some degree of uncertainty about which reading to choose. This is a tiny number, and many of these involve word order, the absence or presence of an article, or other trivial differences.

"Eat my flesh, drink my blood"?

2007-10-21T14:38:00.000-05:00

Audio version:

The Bread of Life Discourse
In John chapter 6, beginning with verse 51, Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus says to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:51-55).

Two truths revealed
These verses reveal two important truths about the death and life of Christ, first in regard to what they don’t say, then concerning what they do say.

First, here’s what these verses don’t say. Jesus does not say, “Unless I eat YOUR flesh and drink YOUR blood, you have no life in you.” Of course, no matter who does the eating and drinking, we are speaking metaphorically here. But it is significant that Jesus is the one being consumed for us, not we for him. He voluntarily gives Himself up for us, and he makes no demand that would destroy us as we obey. He makes an offer—the free offer of his life in our behalf—his death, that we might live. What he demands is not our death for him, but his for us.

Then, we should consider what these verses DO say: That in order for us to have eternal life, we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood.

Of course, this turns people away who take Jesus literally, who wrongly believe that he is advocating cannibalism. It may be that some who heard him say these words in person took him literally, as we might understand such words if a modern cult leader spoke them. But it is obvious that Jesus did not mean them literally, any more than he was being literal at the Last Supper when he said “Take, eat—this is my body” or “Drink from it, all of you, this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out many for the forgiveness of of sins.”

What does it mean?
No, “Eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” are not demanding cannibalism of us, but the metaphor does mean SOMETHING, and that something is quite profound. Just as a coach tells his players, “Men, in the next three months, you are going to eat, drink, and breathe football,” Jesus is telling all of us that—not for three months, but for the rest of our lives, indeed for all eternity—he is telling us:

I must be so central to your life that it is as if you eat my flesh.
I must be so much at the core of your being that it is as if you drink my blood.
Just as the bread you eat goes deep inside of you and then merges with you and becomes a part of your being, so that’s what I must do, and if it happens, that merging of me with you will give you life eternal.

Immediate reaction
I believe most of the people who heard Jesus say these words understood clearly what he was demanding of them. They said to each other, “This is a hard saying, who can accept it?” not because they thought he was advocating a suicidal cannibalism, but because they wanted him to remain non-threatening, as they had conceived him to be: just a religious teacher and even a miracle worker. They were not willing for Him to be at the center of their very being. They could not bring themselves to say, as Paul later did, “For me to live is Christ.”

Meaning for us
I should make clear that in this passage in John 6, Jesus is not speaking directly about the Lord's Supper, also called communion and the Eucharist. He is talking about that once only process by which we enter into a saving relationship with Him. Yet when we eat the bread and drink the grape juice, our actions are reminding us of how central He is to us. We simply cannot turn away, saying, “This is too difficult. He is just not THAT important to me.”

By eating the bread and drinking the juice, we declare, “Christ is at the center of my life; He is at the core of my being. I want my life to merge with His. Without Him to sustain me, I would die of hunger, I would collapse from thirst. For me to live is Christ.”

Woman taken in adultery's letter to her ex-lover

2006-12-30T20:24:00.000-06:00

Audio version:

Simeon, I thought you were my friend, my hope, my love. How could I have been so blind?

I must tell you the rest of what has happened. It was terrifying, and yet wonderful! Shall I tell it all? The beginning, of course, you know, until when we were caught and you somehow managed to escape—right through their hands it seems! How you did it, I could not imagine, at least not then. Our whole affair had been too fast, too soon, too rushed, for it to be real. My hurting heart wanted to believe, but now I think I understand.

You abandoned me in bed, uncovered, exposed to them when they rushed in, just after you rushed out. They looked on me with accusing eyes; I saw lustful looks among the poisonous righteous. They refused to let me dress myself, rejected my pleadings for even a robe to thinly disguise my shame. But for the sheet itself, I would have been dragged through Jerusalem with body as bare as my soul.

Where did you put on your tunic, Simeon? Did someone have clothes ready for you around the corner from my house? They appeared to be clean and fresh when I saw you standing with the others before the Teacher. You had even combed your hair and arranged your beard. Yes, I saw you. Did you see me? I could not tell: your eyes never met mine in the circle around the Teacher.

Most of the eternity that I stood before him, clutching the sheet against my chest, I could look at no one. I could only examine the stones—jagged and threatening, clutched in nervous hands—and at the dust swirling around the feet of the mob and the Master. I could not look at him either, could not, that is, until he stooped down, intruding himself into my field of vision. He glanced at me, looked down, and when his gaze returned, he did not look away.

"Well, teacher?" the rabbi demanded. "Moses said she should be stoned, but what do you say?"

I held my breath, listening to my wildly beating heart, wondering how many beats it had left before the end. I waited for him to give them his assent, a gesture, a nod of the head that would be my death warrant. He did not. He only wrote upon the ground with his finger.

The leaders of the crowd pressed him. "Have you nothing to say? Is Moses to be obeyed or not?" The two who held my arms tightened their grip.

Once more the Teacher looked up, first at me, with a tenderness I shall never forget. Then, as his eyes drifted from me to them, that tenderness evaporated in the hot fury that followed. "Let the guiltless be the first to cast a stone at her," he announced. And then the fury subsided as the eyes fell once more to the finger that wrote upon the ground.

I thought at first he was doodling there in the sand at our feet. But then I could see what he wrote. His finger traced the Hebrew letters from first to last: aleph, beth, gimmel, dalet, and the rest, one by one. He had gone about halfway through the alphabet before I realized what was happening: when he traced the initial letter of each man's name, I heard the thud of that man's stone as it dropped from his fingers and hit the ground. One by one, the stones began to fall, and man by man, they all turned and skulked away.

When he got to your letter, the "sin," Simeon, you too dropped your stone and walked away. By the last letter, everyone was gone.

With one sweep of his hand, the Master scattered the alphabet he had written and looked up. "Madam," he asked, "is no one left to bear witness against you?"

"No, sir," I replied. "There is no one." We were quite alone.

That's when he looked at me with those eyes that pierced me and could see me as I really was, heart-sick and lonely, vulnerable to a man like you, Simeon, a man who showed a sudden interest and had a beguiling smile. Those eyes, my heart told me, bore witness to my sin—our sin—and attested to my guilt. I realized with a chilling terror that he himself might provide the condemning testimony. And yet, those same eyes that perceived with such incredible ease my sordid past also gazed at my future, and there they must have seen something quite different.

"Neither will I condemn you," he said with his slow smile. "You are free to go, only... leave your sin behind you."

O Simeon, whom I trusted with my life, my soul! How could you have done this wicked thing? You lured me to my husband's bed. How much did they pay you to entrap me like that? The Master—I know he knows. You cannot hide from his probing, piercing eyes. You are guilty, as guilty as I was. More guilty now, for I have been forgiven.

You entrapped me that you all might entrap him, but both of us are free—he and I—while the trap closes its jaws on you and on them. I can only say to you what he said to me: "Leave your sin behind you." You have dropped the stone from your fingers, but there is a stone where your heart ought to be. That stone is harder to let go of.

I will pray for you, Simeon, now that I am restored. I still love you, though my heart remains deeply wounded because of what you did. I can never talk to you or see you again while you remain stone-hearted. I pray that God can replace that cold stone with a warm heart of flesh, as the prophet Ezekiel promised.

The Teacher is now my Master. That you could wish him dead astonishes me more than that you could wish me dead. How different He is from you! You looked at my body and lusted. He looked at my soul and loved. You wanted me dead. His burning desire was for me to find life, not just escape from my execution, but the full, blessed life He offers to everyone. And to those who accept His offer, He delivers that life.

I wish you life, Simeon. You don't deserve it, but then, neither did I.

You have my love, now more than ever, yet also my pity.

Alexandra

Want to go deeper?

What did Jesus write in the dirt?
Alexandra's letter is only one suggestion among many. Some say Jesus only doodled in the dirt. Others say he wrote the sins of the accusers, while others suggest he wrote the names of those involved in the entrapment. Since the text doesn't say, there is no way for us to know for sure.

Hearts of stone or flesh?
Read the amazing and wonderful prophecy of Ezekiel about spiritual heart surgery in Ezekiel 36:24-28.

Concerning the textual problem
The earliest and most important manuscripts (including, among many others, the Bodmer papyri and codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Ephaemi Rescriptus) omit the passage that contains the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Of those that have it, the earliest (Codex Bezae) dates to around the middle of the sixth century.
Even when the section occurs in its traditional place, manuscripts often feature asterisks or other marks indicating that its authenticity was regarded as doubtful. This does not mean, however, that it is a later scribal addition, for Eusebius says the incident is mentioned by Papias, whose work was adapted at about 130 CE.
Other manuscripts omit it in its traditional location but have it at the end of John's Gospel, while in others (notably Family 13), it occurs at the end of Luke 21. This placement in Luke is intriguing, for the passage fits the context, style, vocabulary, and theological interests of the Gospel of Luke better than the Fourth Gospel, and its original placement there is perhaps more likely than its tradition position between John 7:52 and 8:12, where it seems to interrupt the flow of the context.
Regardless of where it should be placed, many scholars have endorsed its historical authenticity. Both the content of the teaching and the action of Jesus are in complete harmony with other like incidents and situations in His life.
Sources:
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.17 (Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton, trans. and eds., 2 vols., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1926 and 1932): 1:298-299.
McMillan, Earle. "Textual Authority for John 7:53-8:11." Restoration Quarterly 3, 1 (1959):18-22.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. 219-223.
Salvoni, Fausto. "Textual Authority for John 7:53-8:11." Restoration Quarterly 4, 1 (1960):11-15.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

The Nativity Story: "The Still, Small Voice"

2006-12-20T12:53:00.000-06:00

Audio version:

The main message
The Nativity Story is the new cinematic presentation of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus by director Catherine Hardwicke. One scene serves to summarize the overall theme of the movie. Ruth, one of Mary's Nazareth neighbors, tells the village children the story of Elijah's encounter with God as recorded in 1 Kings 19:1-13. God was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but He spoke to Elijah in "a still small voice."

In fulfillment of God's promise to exalt the humble and bring down the exalted, Jesus was not born to the imperial family in the capital city of the empire. He was not even born into the provincial aristocracy of Jerusalem. He was born in tiny Bethlehem to peasant parents from Nazareth, a town so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, Josephus, or rabbinic literature.

Today Nazareth is a thriving city of more than 70,000 (see My Holyland photo). But in the first century it hardly qualified to be a village. Archaeologists have estimated its population at that time to have been about 400, based on the area enclosed by the tombs surrounding it. The Nativity Story's Nazareth is a "podunk"; Nazareth scenes were shot in a small village of Morocco.

Family troubles
The movie also moves us to think about the price Mary and her spouse-to-be Joseph had to pay to serve as mother and foster father of Jesus. The estrangement from their former friends and undercurrent of gossip portrayed in the film nevertheless probably understates the humiliation of their circumstances. Not only was Jesus born to a working-class family; many must have assumed he was an illegitimate "child of fornication."

Huge contrast
Juxtaposed with this portrayal of the anawim, the pious poor, is King Herod, vassal-king of Judea, Perea, and Galilee, incredibly wealthy but spiritually bankrupt. King Herod makes a show of being devoted to Judaism. At the same time, however, he plots to thwart the messianic prophecies by killing the predicted Messiah as soon as he appears. Herod does this in consultation with his son Antipas, intimidating and threatening the young man. Having such a father explains his conduct 30 years later when Herod Antipas executes John the Baptizer and mocks Jesus during His trial.

Is that in the text?
My quibbles with the film mainly involve the Magi, portrayed along traditional lines that include their number (three), their names (Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar), and their races (one is African). Not one of these things is attested by the gospel accounts. Another deviation from the biblical text is their decision not to report to King Herod, uninformed by a heaven-sent dream as in Matthew 2:12.

Also following tradition instead of Scripture, the Magi arrive to pay homage to the Christ child on the night of his birth. This ignores the verse in Matthew that says the holy family was in a house when the wise men arrived (Matthew 2:11). Neither does the escape to Egypt begin on the night of Christ's birth as the movie suggests, for Joseph and Mary had not yet left for Egypt when they circumcised Jesus on his eighth day and then presented Him in the temple in Jerusalem 40 days after his birth, in keeping with the Law's requirements in Exodus 13 (see Luke 2:21-38). That means the clandestine trip to Egypt could take place no sooner than eight weeks after the Nativity.

Outstanding choices
The Nativity Story is remarkable in its use of music, which includes traditional tunes of the season such as Veni Emmanuel, Carol of the Bells, and Silent Night--some choral and some instrumental--introduced in a tasteful, understated way, and combined with an original score with by Mychael Danna that has a distinctly middle-eastern flavor. You may want to read Jonathan Broxton's more detailed review of the film's music.

Likewise the casting is praiseworthy: with regard to Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes), Joseph (Omar Isaac), King Herod (Claran Hinds), Antipas (Alessandro Giuggioli), and the rest, no one seemed miscast, with the possible exception of Zechariah (Stanley Townsend), who reminded me too much of Fiddler on the Roof's Tevye.

Evaluation
All in all, The Nativity Story is well worth seeing. Unlike most cinematic offerings, it has no sex, no violence, no surprising twists of the plot. In the place of all of these things, it provides an opportunity for spiritual reflection on the meaning of personal sacrifice, consecration despite undeserved criticism, and the divine value system, topsy turvy to that of the world. God chooses not to shout with a giga-boosted megaphone of the Superbowl announcer: "Ladies and gentlemen! Are you ready for some RELIGION? HERE HE IS: YOOOOUUUURRRRR MEHHHH-SIIIII-AAAAHHH!" Instead, He points one star toward a stable, holds a private concert for a few shepherds, and speaks with a still small voice: a neonatal, human voice. "Peace on earth, good will to men," He whispers.

Want to go deeper?
Nazareth – You can explore the official website for the city of Nazareth, which includes a live webcam view of the Church of the Annunciation, a summary of the history and archaeology of the city, and all the touristy things available in Nazareth.

Biblical accounts – The Nativity is reported in Matthew 1:18-2:23 and Luke 1 and 2. You may be surprised to discover that the Magi and escape to Egypt are only in Matthew, while the shepherds are only in Luke. Our traditional presentation is a harmonization of the two.

King Herod – You can read about the ruthlessness of King Herod in all of book one, ¶201 to ¶670 (Whiston: 1.9 - 1.33) of The Jewish War by Josephus. According to Matthew, he died soon after Joseph, Mary, and Jesus escape to Egypt, which would put the birth of Jesus somewhere near the end of book one.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Nobel Peace Prize winner makesdifference we can all be part of

2006-10-14T05:12:00.000-05:00

Audio version:

Peace Prize winner
The surprise choice of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, Bangladesh Professor Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, applied a simple idea and are making a huge difference in the world. By offering small loans to poverty-stricken entrepreneurs in third-world countries, Professor Yunus is providing the means for free enterprise to begin to transform communities and eventually nations. In particular, women are benefiting from the availability of micro-credit. Now banks and other institutions elsewhere in the world are starting similar programs modeled on Grameen Bank's initiatives.

In an interview just after learning he won, Professor Yunus said this:

…[P]overty in the world is an artificial creation. It doesn't belong to human civilization, and we can change that, we can make people come out of poverty and have the real state of affairs. So the only thing we have to do is to redesign our institutions and policies, and there will be no people who will be suffering from poverty…. People come out of poverty every day. So it's right in front of us what happens and it can be done globally, it can be done more forcefully, we can organize more things to go with it, so this is something not theoretical issue, it's a very real issue…. We didn't do anything special; lend money to the people so – but they never lent it to the poor people – all we did was we lent it to the poor people, and that makes the trick. That makes the change.

Here is the the entire interview in text or Windows Media Player audio.

The amazing difference between this strategy and all the failures of the past is that here is someone taking a proactive approach to the seemingly intractable problems surrounding him. His motives are not altogether altruistic; his bank is actually turning a profit.

Why can't the rest of the world take a lesson from Professor Yunus and either adopt or adapt his strategy? When we do, an amazing societal metamorphosis is possible.

The Proactive Messiah
The Lord Jesus Christ took a similar approach when He "went around doing good" (Acts 10:38). He invested in people, communicating to them that they had value and tremendous potential. He convinced them that He believed in them and that He was willing to sacrifice for their benefit.

As His Follower, Accept His Challenge!
Jesus challenges His followers to do the same in their world. "Give to the one who ask something of you, and do not turn away from the one who would borrow from you. …That you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:42, 45).

Your investment need not be money. The person you meet may only need a moment's attention, eye contact, an open smile, a friendly conversation, a ride of a few blocks, or directions in an unfamiliar part of town. You have the opportunity to communicate that you care, that you think he or she has worth as a human being, that you don't view them as an "untouchable."

As they respond to your kindness, warming up to your proffered friendship, it's time to confess Christ. In simple ways that are not abrasive, you can let them know that you follow Jesus, and that makes all the difference in your life. It's because of Him that you see hope—hope for our world and hope for them. Because He has invested in you, you are willing to invest in them.

Be proactive--make a change for the better in the world around you!

Want to go deeper?
Palestine of the first century was filled with beggars. These needy people were constantly asking for money and seeking other assistance. Jesus certainly had the power to wave His hand and heal them all in an instant. Why didn't He? Because He had a higher purpose.

He wasn't content to cure paralysis of the limbs and blindness of the eyes. His intent was to reach down into the soul and bring healing to a paralysis of the will and blindness of the heart. He didn't have to touch people to heal them; He proved that on occasion. His touch was therapeutic on a deeper level than just eradicating disease and deformity. It communicated love, acceptance, and esteem in an awesome, life-changing way.

Do you own study of these passages: cleansing a leper—Mark 4:40-45; healing a deaf mute—Mark 7:31-37; blessing the children—Matthew 19:13-15; and healing two blind men—Matthew 20:29-34.

Look also at the times when He sought and/or accepted help from someone. What did this communicate? Are we merely patronizing people, or do we see them as our companions in life's journey?

Take a look at these incidents: asking for a drink—John 4:4-42; asking for a place to stay in a strange town—Luke 19:1-10; accepting a gift of gratitude from a friend—John 12:1-8. Read also Paul's command in Romans 12:14-20, and ask yourself, "What would the world be like if we made this our lifestyle?"

To learn more about Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank go to their official website.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

World Trade Center film zooms in on teams

2006-08-22T10:02:00.000-05:00

Dormant strength and courage
World Trade Center, the Paramount motion picture directed by Oliver Stone and starring Nicolas Cage, Michael Peña, Maria Bello, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Michael Shannon, helps us remember, not "a day that will live in infamy," but the strength and courage that lies dormant in every human heart, ready to spring into action when summoned.

Narrowing the focus
Unlike several other 9/11 projects, this film does not document the timeline of events from multiple perspectives, choosing instead to follow two men drawn to the scene of the disaster by their sense of duty as Port Authority police officers.

Sergeant John McLoughlin leads his unit of volunteers through the lower concourse just as the first tower starts coming down. A split-second assessment of what is happening prompts him to thrust his team into a side hallway next to an elevator, just as the entire building collapses around them. The rest of the film focuses on the claustrophobic space surrounding the trapped men, their waiting families clinging to fading hopes, and the heroic workers attempting to rescue them.

Finding their place
The common thread throughout the movie is how the human beings reacting to 9/11 coalesced into teams. The police assembled a team to assist in the building evacuations. The firemen teamed up to effect rescues. The military personnel, EMTs, and others formed up to search for survivors. The families came together to offer encouragement and support. Everyone cooperated, finding his or her place in the common effort. And the results were awesome.

At creation, God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18). We usually apply this in its original context as the raison d'etre for marriage (its reason for existence). But the events of 9/11 demonstrate the value of developing close relationships--those characterized by mutual regard, friendship, loyalty, and trust.

Experiencing synergy
A team is different from a group in that it has a common purpose or mission. A team is different from a committee by being oriented toward action rather than endless discussions. A team can accomplish so much more than the sum efforts of detached individuals. The synergy they experience stems from their communication--they urge, reorient, motivate, and console one another. They share the burden of the moment, anticipating when they will emerge back into the open air in triumph.

Of course, it doesn't always turn out with such a positive outcome. Only 20 people were rescued from the Twin Towers rubble. Hundreds of other families and their friends formed teams to support their loved ones as they staggered slowly through the grieving process. But even those teams made a huge contribution to diminish the agonizing pain and fill the sudden void--not fill perhaps, but at least share.

Ennobling questions
After a number of films that earned Oliver Stone a "bad-boy" reputation, he has created a memorial to the 9/11 catastrophe that ennobles its audience, not by preaching platitudes to them, but by drawing them into a vicarious experience that prompts them to ask themselves: How would I react to this? Would I be willing to volunteer? Could I hold out when it seems hopeless? Could I find a way to serve that would make a significant contribution? Is my marriage precious to me? Would my kids miss me if I died today? What could I have done differently this morning if it were the last time I would ever see them?

New perspective
World Trade Center is a film you should see, not just for the sake of the 2,563 victims, but to give you a new perspective on the life you choose every day and on the people surrounding you in that life--your team.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

For wholeness, spiritual eyes must be keen

2006-08-10T09:15:00.000-05:00

Seeing a larger world
The Great Physician seeks not only to heal lameness and leprosy, but also the whole person. Most significant is His operation on the inner eyes, enabling them to observe not only the world of sensory perception, but also the more essential though invisible world of the spirit.

Jesus speaks of this in the Sermon on the Mount:

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, you whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! —Matthew 6:22-23).

Eliminate the "evil eye"
Our Lord said this in a context of the use and misuse of money, drawing on the Jewish terminology of greed as 'the evil eye.' His description of the effect of the eye on the rest of the body certainly has a financial application. How you spend your money is determined by your perceptions—what you see is important and what is trivial.

But there is a broader application as well, and in fact it embraces all of life. You could use people's financial transactions as one indicator of their basic approach to life, as their outlook or worldview.

Spiritually myopic
It's our spiritual insight or blindness that directs how we live, what we do, how we treat other people. If your "eyes" are good, your whole being will be flooded with light. If, however, you are spiritually myopic, too short-sighted to see beyond the here and now, then you are engulfed in a darkness that is both profound and terrifying.

Paul puts it this way:

The natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things. —1 Corinthians 2:14-15a

Only half a universe
In other words, those not enlightened by the gospel to see the world as God sees it live in only half a universe, regarding only the things of the sensory world--what can be measured with the telescope and the transit and the microscope--as being real. All else beyond the empirical is at best an artificial, human construct.

It's as if such a person is a fish in the ocean with no conception of life above the water, or a lizard living beneath the rain forest canopy. How different the fish would see the world if it could jump above the surface if only for a moment! How different the lizard would view the jungle if only it could climb the tallest mahogany tree and poke its head past the highest leaves!

"The mind of Christ"
Paul says Christians have been granted that perception, not as an achievement of human endeavor, but as a gift from a gracious God. "Who can know the mind of God?" he asks, confidently expecting the answer, "No one." Then he adds, "But we have the mind of Christ." And that makes all of the difference.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Lamech's Revenge: Israel Pursues Ancient Strategy

2006-08-01T20:54:00.000-05:00

Audio version (06:51):

The strategy the modern nation of Israel is pursuing may seem contemporary, but it is one of the most ancient. It is the strategy of school yard and prison yard. "They shove you, you belt 'em one! They knock you down, you knock 'em out!"

It is the strategy, in fact, that first occurs in the Book of Genesis, before the Great Flood. It is known as "Lamech's Revenge."

The Lamech of Cain's line told his two wives:

Pay them back 77 times more than their offense! This seems to characterize Israel's long-term strategy. But take a look at how the unfolding will of God revealed itself through history since those brutal, antediluvian times.

Stage 1: Tit for tat
The Law of Moses moved the ancient nation of Israel from Lamech-like revenge when it limited vengeance to "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Exodus 21:23-24; see also Leviticus 24:17-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). We tend to think of these as harsh commands, but compared to Lamech's Revenge, it was a giant leap forward toward true justice.

Stage 2: Lex talionis
Not only was this the justice meted out in an Israelite court of law, but it was also the kind the Israelite people prayed for from the court of heaven. It's the vengeance we often refer to as "poetic justice": pay them back in kind for the wrong they have done.

If they rolled boulders down on the unwary, may boulders roll down on them; may they fall into the pit that they themselves have dug (see, for example, Psalm 7:15; 35:8; Proverbs 26:27). The command to hang Haman on the gallows he built for Mordecai (Esther 7:9-10) resonates with an ironic justice. The step forward here is that the people are not taking vengeance themselves, but earnestly pleading for God to do it in their behalf.

Stage three: Refusing vengeance and acting kindly
Under the New Covenant we see grace and forgiveness triumphing over resentment and bitterness. The Apostle Paul commands, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil.... Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written, 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." Then, in v. 20, Paul adds this amazing command, which is actually a quotation from Proverbs 25:11-12:

The meaning of burning coals is obscure, but it may mean you will make him burn with shame at his unfounded enmity.

Stage four: Unlimited forgiveness and restoration of relationship
Jesus the Messiah Himself urges us to love our enemies and to let our love prompt us to action. He counsels a ready forgiveness so that if our brother offends seven times in a day and seven times says, "I repent," we forgive him (Luke 17:4).

We forgive, the Master says, not seven times, but 77 times (Matthew 18:22), exactly reversing Lamech's Revenge. And, if the offense remains unrepented, Paul's command means that we still do not take vengeance into our own hands, but defer to the "Judge of all the earth."

Analyze the results
Does this offer the prospect of a better outcome than the one the Israelis can anticipate with Hezbollah or Hamas? The potential for transformation exists, as unlikely as it seems to jaded analysts and pundits. But what potential is there for Lamech's Revenge? Only the ringing warning of a Savior who found His victory on a cross: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). We should not disregard or diminish the significance of the word 'all' in this verse.

At best, Lamech's Revenge can offer only an escalating tit for tat — an endless blood feud that ever threatens to burst beyond national borders. Mercy and forgiveness offer a new start, regenerated hearts leading to transformed attitudes, helping actions, healed relationships.

What about closer to home?
It's easy for us to remain comfortably detached and criticize what seems to be the intentional, long-term strategy of modern Israel. It's much more of a challenge for us to detect the identical strategy in our own country's foreign policy. More difficult still is the process of diagnosing the very same tendency to yearn for Lamech's Revenge on a personal level.

Wherever it turns up, Lamech's Revenge has the same devastating effect. It destroys both its object and its subject. Christ's forgiveness has the potential to heal both. Yet, even if its object remains unresponsive or even violent, Christ's 77-fold forgiveness keeps the subject's heart spiritually healthy and attuned to God's will. It qualifies us to be peacemakers, in imitation of the Prince of Peace.

Although the short-term effects of this strategy may mean carrying a cross, if we can lift our eyes to look over the short-term, we can be confident that in the end, both we and the world will be better for rejecting the one upsmanship of "I don't get mad; I get even." Revenge comes from harboring of resentment, which is like concocting a deadly poison you intend for your rival, and then drinking it yourself.

When Lamech's Revenge is at long last laid to rest — and good riddance! — then perhaps, by God's blessing, "the meek will inherit the earth."

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Veto of Stem Cell Bill Shows Moral Courage

2006-07-21T09:05:00.000-05:00

Audio version:

President George W. Bush should be applauded for his July 19, 2006, veto of the embryonic stem cell research funding bill. He has had the courage to do the right thing despite tremendous political pressure.

Embryonic stem cells are extracted from blastocysts, which are destroyed in the process, about five days after conception by in vitro fertilization (IVF). In other words, a new human life is conceived and then killed after a few days to obtain its stem cells. President Bush is right: to condone, encourage, or even fund such killing is crossing a moral line that should be unacceptable to everyone.

Once more: when does life begin?

This brings up yet again the definition of when life begins that has been discussed ad nauseum in the pro-life/pro-choice battles since before Roe v. Wade legalized most abortions in 1973. Pro-choice advocates have held that life begins at birth while pro-life advocates point to conception as the moment life begins.

Roe decided upon a mediating position, focusing on viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. It held that for abortions during the first trimester, the state's only compelling interest is to ensure that abortions are performed by a licensed physician in a clinical setting. In the second trimester, the state's additional interest is to protect maternal health. During the third trimester, or after viability, whichever comes first, the state may restrict abortions to those women whose lives are endangered by a continuation of their pregnancies.

In the three decades since Roe, prenatal medical advances have pushed viability closer and closer to conception, rendering Roe's standards obsolete. Many children are born today as a result of IVF and later implantation of the fertilized ovum into the womb of either the donor mother or a surrogate mother. About 22% of IVFs result in live births.

The pro-life position on when life begins is simple: when conception occurs, the resulting embryo is a unique human, genetically indistinguishable from a newborn baby, and it is definitely alive. All that happens after that is added nutrition and growth. To end that life for whatever reason is morally wrong. Certainly we don't want to start up an industry devoted to creating human life only to destroy it while harvesting its components to use as "spare parts."

The Bible affirms the value of human life by pointing to God as its source. All human beings derive their lives from the original couple, Adam and Eve, whose own lives came directly from God Himself (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7, 21-23; 5:1-2). It recognizes the continuity between prenatal and neonatal existence (Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:4; Luke 1:41-45).

Do alternatives exist?

Stem cell research offers many promising approaches to curing diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury, and liver failure. Do we turn our backs on the millions suffering from these debilitations by opposing factory-like production of embryonic stem cells that kill fertilized ova? No!

A number of alternatives exist for obtaining embryonic stem cells, including lines being grown in the laboratory, cells harvested from umbilical cord blood (formerly discarded after births, but now collected in a growing number of hospitals), cells retrieved from the pulp of baby teeth, etc. Adult stem cells are an alternative source that is finding increasing applications.

We can affirm the value of human life by protecting it from becoming a commodity to be bought and sold. At the same time, we can continue to develop the therapeutic applications of stem cells. It is not an either/or dilemma.

Want to go deeper?

Authoritative information on stem cells from all sources is available from the National Institute of Health.

Check out "Do No Harm," the website of the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, which is mainly devoted to supplying credible information about the superiority of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells for developing therapeutic treatments. The famous dictum, "Do no harm," comes, not from Hippocrates' famous oath, originally the credo of all physicians, but from another work of Hippocrates, On the Epidemics, 1.2.5. The Hippocratic Oath has the same concepts, including prohibitions on euthanasia and abortion. In modern times the oath has undergone considerable revision, the changes of which undermine this principle and completely omit all reference to the above prohibitions. Here's a comparison of the original Hippocratic Oath with a modern version written by Louis Lasagna in 1964.

For the value of umbilical cord blood as a source of stem cells that avoids the controversy over killing human life, see "Stem Cells Sans Discord."

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

The "Charity, Freedom, and Diversity Party"---who are you trying to fool?

2006-06-07T21:31:00.000-05:00

New political party in the Netherlands
By now you've probably heard about the political group in the Netherlands that calls itself the "Charity, Freedom, and Diversity Party." What they stand for is pedophilia. What they are clamoring for is to lower the age of consensual sex from 16 to 12 immediately and eventually eliminate an age limit altogether. They are also asking the Dutch parliament to make it legal for television stations to broadcast hard core pornography during the day. Furthermore, they want to legalize public nudity and bestiality. In addition, they believe that everyone should get to ride the trains for free. Oh yes, and they oppose cruelty to animals.

According to a recent poll, 82% of the citizens of the Netherlands believe that their government should do something to stop the new party, while 67% agree that promoting pedophilia should be illegal. This suggests that most Hollanders are as shocked and outraged as the rest of us.

Grotesque misnomer
I see no need to become indignant and vitriolic about what is obviously a publicity stunt by an insignificant special-interest group. But when I heard about this incident, I was troubled by their choice of a name. Does pedophilia sound to you like charity and freedom? Is it really diversity?

Definitive examination
The original meaning of "charity" (from the Latin, caritas) was love or affection. The King James Version's rendering of 1 Corinthians 13:13 comes to mind: "Now abideth faith, hope, and charity, but the greatest of these is charity." More recently, the word has come to mean, according to Webster, "the provision of help or relief to the poor; something that is given to help the needy."

Freedom is defined as "the condition of being free of restraints; liberty of the person from slavery, oppression, or incarceration." Diversity's definition is "the fact or quality of being diverse; difference; a point or respect in which things differ."

Self-imposed victimization
By choosing these terms to denote their cause, the pedophiliacs seem to be focusing our attention on them as recipients of our charity, beneficiaries of freedom we allow them, and the objects of our tolerance of their divergence from our norms. Their name is a plea, as if they are crying, "Accept us for who we are and what we do, in the name of charity, freedom, diversity."

Most political parties seek to focus on what they propose to do to benefit humanity (whether they ever do is another issue). Even the Communist Party uses its name to point to a principle they see as positive, the enforced sharing of capital and labor. But this party does not offer anything positive beyond their "chicken in every pot" promise of free train tickets and happy, healthy animals.

Nothing on sex with minors?
The Bible has nothing specifically to say about pedophilia. It does address it indirectly when it limits the sexual relationship to marriage. Paul says, "Because of sexual immoralities (the Greek words here, tas porneias are plural), let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2, see verses 1-5). Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24: "A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Mark 4:7-8; Matthew 19:5). These passages do not say, "...and be joined to a child...."

The state's interest
In both the Netherlands, the United States, and other countries, governments have a clear interest in the welfare of children. Laws against pedophilia are designed to protect children from sexual deviants, and the prohibitions serve as a barrier (though not an insurmountable one) that urges pedophiliacs to restrain themselves from harming the children they prey upon. These laws at the very least communicate to the pedophiliac, we think you have a problem. If you will not restrain yourself, we will restrain you, both for your own sake, for this behavior is psychologically destructive, and for the present and future of our children.

Plausible lying
We live in a culture in which we are bombarded with hundreds of commercial messages every day. As Dorothy Sayers described the advertising industry in her 1933 mystery novel, Murder Must Advertise, advertising consists of constantly telling plausible lies. Should we be surprised that unpopular, even repugnant causes label themselves with titles that mislead us, quell our indignation, and justify what is wrong?

I can only ask, are the children involved receiving charity? Do they have freedom, freedom to be innocent, freedom from manipulation and abuse? Isn't there a point when diversity morphs into perversity? Or is perversity itself about to be redefined out of existence?

All too common technique
The same kind of plausible lying takes place in other movements attempting societal re-engineering, including those promoting homosexual lifestyles, seeking the abolition of monogamy, defending abortion on demand, doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. Plausible lying also frequently takes place in the halls of our governments. They go to war, impose tariffs, destroy ecosystems, defend torture and wrongful imprisonment, prop up shady businesses, and so on, trying to hide a multitude of sins beneath a blizzard of plausible lies. And yes, it occurs in churches as well, justifying bloated budgets, explaining away hasty pastoral departures, defending fizzled programs.

When we examine what a group stands for and stands against, we have to allow for the possibility that this kind of marketing is taking place. Rather that gulping down everything dished out to us, we should nibble tentatively, unsure how much we can believe. Knowing how often this happens, we should be quick to ask, "Who do you think you are fooling?"

True charity, freedom, diversity
Christians, at least, have a polestar by which they can assess everything: Jesus Christ and the inspired Word of God. But we also can be deceived by lies that sound plausible.

What God wants of us is deeper thinking and greater caring. Our hearts must ache for the children involved with pedophiliacs. It must also ache for the perpetrators themselves. But compassion cannot condone pedophilia in the name of tolerance. It can't condone something destructive to everyone involved; that would not be charity.

Christian compassion must run deep enough to envision freedom--a true freedom that escapes old habits and patterns of thinking, that seeks new approaches to control entrenched urges. Compassion, true compassion, must be deep enough and strong enough to say, diversity, as praiseworthy as it usually is when applied to ethnicity, race, and class, needs limits for it to retain its value. Otherwise, 'diversity,' like 'charity,' and 'freedom,' becomes just one more plausible lie.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Are you carrying around a land mine?

2006-06-01T10:51:00.000-05:00

Midnight blow-up
An explosion rocked a quiet neighborhood in McKinney, Texas, around midnight on Monday in May. A team of experts from Dyess Air Force Base destroyed a land mine in the backyard of a home on Westmoreland Drive.

McKinney code enforcement inspectors had discovered the device, a World War II-era land mine. Police called in the Plano bomb squad, who in turn called in the Air Force. "It was a training device, but it still had some inherent danger in it," said McKinney police Sergeant Steve Riley.

Family artifact
The family had found the mine in an Arizona field and had been moving it from house to house for 10 years. They didn't know it was still capable of exploding. Jesse Guzman, son in the family, said, "[I was] scared, shaken. I didn't know nothing about it. I didn't know what it was."

Spiritual land mine
The Bible in James 1:13-15 describes the process that leads from temptation to death. We encounter a temptation, which our own evil desires respond to. Those desires, once conceived, grow until they give birth to sin. Sin then starts to grow, until, at maturity, it kills our spiritual connection with God.

The point is to short-circuit this process as early as possible. Allowing it to continue unresisted is like taking a live land mine with you wherever you move your household.

Discharge the charge
How do we interrupt the desire-sin-death process? The same biblical writer offers help.

Recognize God is good and as our Father, gives us good gifts (James 1:17-18).

Prepare your heart to receive His gifts (James 1:19-21). This means you have to resolve to get rid of whatever would crowd God out of your life. He specifically mentions "moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent." Then, develop an attitude of humility, realizing your need for the spiritual life God wants to plant in you through His Word. (This means you carefully and constantly read the Bible.) As this spiritual seed grows toward maturity in your heart, it is able to save you because it brings your into contact with Jesus Christ, the only possible Savior.

Be willing to see yourself as God sees you (James 1:22-25). God's Word is like a spiritual mirror, revealing the beauty or ugliness of your heart. The promise is that if you will look intently into the Word and continue to do so, God will bless what you do.

Take action, both negatively and positively (James 1:26-27). Allowing God's Word to grow in your heart will bring changes in your life, in particular with regard to how you talk, how you treat people who are needy, and how you respond to new temptations. If you are willing to take action in these areas, the Word is taking root.

Or else!
Get rid of the bomb you are carrying around inside before it blows up, destroying both you and those you love around you. After all of the devastation and loss, what good will it do to confess, "I didn't know anything about it. I didn't know what it was"?

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Da Vinci Code claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene. But where’s the Proof?

2006-05-27T20:02:00.000-05:00

The Code's claim
At the heart of The Da Vinci Code (novel by Dan Brown, movie directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, and Jean Reno) is the claim that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene (we’ll call her “Mary M.”).

The character Sir Leigh Teabing offers proof from a document called The Gospel of Philip, which he claims was written by the Apostle Philip. Teabing quotes a passage that says Mary M. was Jesus’ “companion,” which Teabing interprets to mean his wife. He goes on to quote a passage that says Jesus often kissed her on the mouth.

The main characters accept these claims uncritically and for the rest of the novel/movie assume that they are true. But are they? Did Jesus really marry Mary M.? Let’s examine the facts.

Return to the source
First, what does the Bible say? I appeal to the Bible because it provides us with a historical account of the life of Jesus written shortly after the events took place. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of these events. Mark is reported to have written down the testimony of the Apostle Peter. Luke explains that he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3), and a close reading of the Book of Acts (Luke's volume two) reveals that as a companion of Paul he often had access to people who had known Jesus during His earthly ministry. The rest of the New Testament concerns issues and events in the period up to roughly 50 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Bible nowhere mentions Jesus having a wife. To the contrary, in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus himself praised the single life as a gift some have received from God; for them it is better not to marry:

Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and other have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

Apparently this path is what Jesus Himself accepted: a self-imposed renunciation of marriage for the sake of His ministry. John the Baptizer and the Apostle Paul (see 1 Corinthians 9:5) likewise traveled this lonely road. The Essenes and probably other members of Jewish sects chose to live as celibates.

Who is the Magdalene?
Mary M. is identified as one from whom Jesus drove out seven demons (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9). She was one of Jesus’ disciples and was among those who accompanied Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. She is the Mary who saw the risen Jesus in the garden just outside the empty tomb (see Mark 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-8, [9-11]; Matthew 27:55-56; 28:1-10; Luke 23:49, 55-56; 24:1-11; John 20:1-2, 10-18). The term ‘Magdalene’ probably means “person from Magdala,” a town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, about halfway between Capernaum and Tiberias.

Mistaken identity
Mary M. has often been confused with Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, who lived in Bethany in Judea, just outside of Jerusalem. She has also been mistaken for the unnamed sinful woman who at the house of Simon the Pharisee washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried them with her hair (see Luke 7:36-50). If this woman were Mary M., why is she introduced two verses later (Luke 8:2) as someone new? Some also think Mary M. is the woman taken in adultery, as recorded in John 7:53-8:11 (missing from many early manuscripts). Nothing in the text of John or any of the other three canonical gospel accounts supports this.

Why make her a heroine?
Second- and third-century Gnostics picked up on the appearance of Jesus to Mary M. as recorded in John 20, speculating that He must have said more to her than what is recorded there. In fact, they have seen fit to provide us with a discourse Jesus is supposed to have had with Mary M. They have transformed Mary M. into a disciple to whom Jesus imparted secret instruction, as recorded in the document called The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene].

However, it seems the Gnostics confused this Mary with the Mary of Bethany, for it says Jesus loved her more than other women, apparently a reference to John 11:5, which merely says, “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” Because The Gospel of Mary's content is thoroughly Gnostic in character, we can confidently reject it as an authentic record of a historical conversation the two had.

At the end of the document, Andrew and then Peter reject what Mary has said because it is so different from what Jesus taught them and because she is a woman. Levi (same as Matthew), however, rebukes Andrew and Peter, and it ends with the disciples going out to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom, presumably having accepted her teaching as genuine.

'Companion' and 'kissing'
The document known as The Gospel of Philip does not make so much of Mary M., but it does say this:

Despite the claim of the Da Vinci Code character Sir Leigh Teabing that in Aramaic, “companion” means “wife,” nothing in the context of this passage suggests that Jesus was married to Mary M. The original Gospel of Philip manuscript is in Coptic, an Egyptian language related to Greek, not Aramaic, as Da Vinci Code implies.

The corresponding Greek word for “companion” is koinōnos, which means “partaker, partner, participant, one who shares.” Here are the ten places this word occurs in the New Testament, not one time does it mean wife: Matthew 23:30; Luke 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:18, 20; 2 Corinthians 1:7; 8:23; Philemon 17; Hebrews 10:33; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 Peter 1:4.

The Gospel of Philip passage merely suggests that Mary M. was a close disciple of Jesus, nothing more. The manuscript has lacunae (gaps or holes), as indicated by the brackets. The missing text has to be reconstructed, and a degree of uncertainty remains whether the reconstruction is accurate. The editor of the documents states:

[T]here is the physical deterioration of the books themselves, which began no doubt before they were buried around 400 C.E., advanced steadily while they remained buried, and unfortunately was not completely halted in the period between their discovery in 1945 and their final conservation some thirty years later. When only a few letters are missing, they can often be filled in adequately, but larger holes must simply remain a blank. (Robinson, 2-3).It is entirely possible that “mouth” is not the right reconstruction. The missing word could have been cheek, hand, or even forehead. No one knows for sure.

What we do know is that the context indicates that the kiss only signifies her favored status as a disciple; no sexual overtones are present. The idea of her favored status must be an inference based on Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance outside the tomb.

But a more plausible reason might be that the crucifixion had filled Mary M. with an inconsolable grief, and the empty tomb only compounded it. Jesus may have appeared to especially to her out of compassion for her hurting heart. Another possible explanation is that he chose her and the other women as a way of conferring honor on women, making them the first to testify to the resurrection of their Lord.

Unreliable claim
Yet, even if The Gospel of Philip reported a marriage between Jesus and Mary M. (which it does not), it would remain the mere claim of a Gnostic who produced this document long after the canonical gospels were in circulation.

The manuscript was found in 1945 among other documents, all of which are now know as "The Nag Hammadi Library." Scholars have assigned the approximate date of 400 C.E. to when all of them were buried. An examination of the contents of Gospel of Philip demonstrates its secondary character. For example, it speaks of the Jerusalem temple using the past tense (immediately placing it after the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem) and refers to phrases from the canonical gospels and epistles as if they are well known, providing Gnostic interpretations of them. All of this suggests that the original Gospel of Philip, while it could be much earlier that 400 C.E., it post-dates the New Testament by probably a hundred years or more.

Which can we trust?
The New Testament provides us with a trustworthy, reliable account written during while many of the eyewitnesses were still alive to confirm or deny what was written. The apocryphal account we read in The Gospel of Philip and other writings of the second to fourth centuries are much later and are telling a different story to introduce doctrines contradictory to what was proclaimed by the apostles. Unlike the works of its namesake, Leonardo, The Da Vinci Code is no masterpiece of research—its historical blunders are too glaring.

Want to go deeper?
If you want to read the authoritative English translation of The Gospel of Mary and The Gospel of Philip, including its lacunae, you can find it in James M. Robinson, ed., et al., The Nag Hammadi Library, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). (Unfortunately, the online version of The Gospel of Philip does not show the lacunae, but presents conjectures as if they are part of the text.) You can also find a discussion of but The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, and other Gnostic documents in Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds. New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings, R. McL. Wilson, trans. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1963). For more on Gnosticism and its relationship to Christianity, see Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?, 2d ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003) and Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983).

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Creation Account of Genesis 1: How Would Its Original Audience Hear It?

2006-05-14T12:42:00.000-05:00

Basic interpretation principles
One important principle of biblical interpretation is to try to understand Scripture from the point of view of the original audience and then use that as a stepping stone to work out what it means for us. Along with this original audience principle is the principle of original intent: what did the author intend to communicate to that original audience?

If we ask these two questions of chapter 1 of Genesis, the story of creation, we may find the answers surprising. The prophet Moses is presumably the author of Genesis, the first of the five books he wrote while the children of Israel were wandering in the wilderness of Sinai. These people, the original audience, had just emerged from 400 years of slavery in Egypt. Joshua 24:14 explains that many of them had been idolaters there.

Egyptian pantheon

The Egyptians had a god or goddess for virtually everything: the sun, moon, stars, crocodiles, flies, cats, the Nile--all of these and more were considered divine and were worshiped. But Genesis 1 explains that neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, neither that water nor the sky, nor any plants, nor fish, birds, beasts, or creeping things are divine.

To paraphrase the significance of Genesis 1 for the original audience, it's as if Moses said, "All that you have been worshiping the true Creator spoke into being in the beginning. He alone is worthy of homage; He alone is God, and king over all of His creation."

World shift

This truth would have had a profound effect on the former slaves of Egypt. They had lived in a world in which virtually every object was a spiritual being, whose will had to be accommodated, whose wrath must be placated. But when the one true God revealed His nature through Moses, including His relationship to all that He had made, the world shifted. All of those objects were drained of their spiritual significance. Now they were only objects, things that human beings could handle and manage without fear.

Yet the world that stood in place of the old was not bereft of its spiritual dimension. All of the power, the mystery, and the majesty of the Egyptian pantheon, the Hebrews learned, belonged to the one true God, the king of the universe. And furthermore, and herein lay the good news, The Almighty cared about them, and He was ever faithful and reliable.

Foundation for Judaeo-Christian worldview

Genesis as a whole serves to lay the groundwork for the Law of Moses that is revealed in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Nothing in the Law is more foundational than what is expressed in the Shema, accepted for thousands of years as the credo of Judaism and acknowledged by Jesus Himself as the "Greatest Commandment":

Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. —Deuteronomy 6:4-5

The oneness of God, His sovereignty over all His creation, and His commission of human beings to be His stewards of that creation (see Genesis 1:28-30) is the unmistakable message of the Genesis creation account, as far as the original audience is concerned.

Modern meaning

If that's what it meant for them, what does it mean for us? It has the same significance for modern readers, whoever we might be. Only one God is worthy of the name and deserves our obedience. We willingly offer Him, not just our obedience, but also our love. He deserves it because of who He is, the Ultimate Custom Designer, the Cosmic Engineer, the King who condescends to be our loving Father.

Following His directive, we manage the earth, not to exploit and abuse it, but to care for it, cultivate it, and nourish it (see Genesis 2:15). We are aware that ours is a spiritual world, not because of a pantheon of gods and goddesses, but because He is always present, because He cares what happens to us, because He empowers us to change, to grow, to reflect in our own hearts and lives His nature, His priorities, His concerns. Just like it was before the Rebellion. Just like it was "In the beginning."

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

What? Judas Iscariot? Write a gospel?

2006-04-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

A new gospel?
The manuscript discovered in a cave in Egypt that bears the title "Gospel of Judas" definitely has no connection with the historical person Judas Iscariot, or Jesus and the other apostles for that matter. It's text is in Coptic, an ancient language of Egypt, and dated to about 300 C.E. If it is a translation of a Greek original, which has not been proven, the original probably comes from the second century, around 100 years after Jesus Christ was crucified and arose from the dead. You can read the English translation for yourself at the National Geographic website.

Just another Gnostic wannabe
The content of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" bears all the telltale signs of being a Gnostic text such as those common in Egypt during that period. A whole library of similar documents were uncovered at Nag Hammadi in upper Egypt in 1945. They share with the "Gospel of Judas" typical Gnostic features: emphasis on finding salvation through attaining knowledge, a hidden knowledge available only to a select few; a strong dualism between the physical and the spiritual realms; a series of intermediaries between the transcendent God and lowly humans, including the god that created us.

The contrast is stark
Of course, all of this is alien to biblical Christianity, which bases salvation on our trusting obedience to the only redeemer, the Word who became flesh and died, really died, for our sins on the cross of Golgotha and was raised never to die again (Romans 1:5, 16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1b). The physical and spiritual realms God intends to be integrated, so that we can use our fleshly bodies to offer to God spiritual sacrifices (1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 12:1-2). We look forward to a time when our flesh will be transformed into bodies like His: incorruptible, immortal, and glorious, yet still tangible, human bodies (1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 53-57; Philippians 3:20-21). The New Testament teaches that God is transcendent, yes, but also immanent enough to stoop to create, to redeem, and to have fellowship with us (1 Timothy 1:17; 2:3-6; 6:14-16; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21).

Misaligned portrait of Judas
The "Gospel of Judas" presents a portrait of Judas that is misaligned with the portrait we find in the New Testament. The biblical picture of Iscariot speaks of a thief (John 12:6) whose greed apparently prompted him to betray Jesus to the Jewish authorities (Matthew 26:14-16). A best-case explanation would be that he believed strongly in Jesus as the Messiah, but in his misapprehension that Jesus would be a political ruler rather than a spiritual one, he tried to force Jesus' hand by getting him arrested. Perhaps Judas believed that confronted with the choice of dying or initiating his rule miraculously, Jesus would choose the latter. The text does say, "When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, he was filled with remorse...", tried to return the blood money, and then committed suicide (Matthew 27:1-5).

In the "Gospel of Judas," Judas has a dream that the other apostles were stoning him and persecuting him severely. Jesus reassures him that though the other apostles will hate him, he has greater esoteric knowledge and his holiness far exceeds theirs. There is no biblical evidence that the other apostles stoned Judas, persecuted him severely or mildly, for that matter, or that they even hated him. As to Judas's esoteric knowledge, if our best-case scenario is true, he was just as deluded as the other apostles about the political nature of Jesus' kingdom. As to his holiness, I need only mention that Jesus calls him "lost" and "the son of destruction" (John 17:12), an Aramaic idiom meaning that he is characterized by destruction (compare "sons of thunder" and "son of encouragement" in Mark 3:17 and Acts 4:36).

Definitely a different gospel
The "Gospel of Judas" is not a reliable source for historical information about the traitor-apostle. Like many other Gnostic documents, it presumes to usurp a biblical narrative and then twist, distort, and abuse it for promoting its own agenda. Gnosticism, after all is only one more human-centered religio-philosophy that seeks a salvation by works, one that ends in human boasting, in a secret society that seeks to separate from the ignorant sinners who live in hopeless darkness. It offers no redemption and no forgiveness. It has no salvific mission to lift the world up and make it better for everyone.

Why go there for spiritual food?
Compared to genuine, biblical Christianity, the Gnosticism of the "Gospel of Judas" is bankrupt, impotent, and ugly. Why anyone would find here spiritual bread is a mystery to me, when the true Bread of Life makes Himself available to all without cost. He offers us His unsearchable riches, his illimitable power, and his winsome and awesome beauty. "Judas" or Christ--which will you choose?

Want to "go deeper"?
In his litany of heresies, the second-century Church Father Irenaeus mentions a Gospel of Judas, and the Coptic "Judas" seems to reflect what Irenaeus describes, though we cannot be certain that the two are identical. Read what Irenaeus says in Against Heresies 1.31.1. If you want to read more Gnostic texts, you can consult the standard edition, The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson, et. al, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), or study the on-line collection of the Gnostic Society. One of the most extensive recent studies of Judas is Judas: Betrayer of Friend of Jesus? by William Klassen (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1996). His bibliography on pages 209-225 provides an extensive list of books and journal articles about Judas and the betrayal. Klassen concludes that Judas has been slandered and wrongly maligned down through the centuries. While granting that Christendom has excoriated Judas much more than the New Testament authors, I cannot go as far as he does in rehabilitating Judas Iscariot. His mind was on earthly things. His treasure was Mammon (Money), and where his treasure was, there his heart was also. If you want more extensive discussion of the "Gospel of Judas," see the two articles on the blog of Ben Witherington, a conservative biblical scholar: "Gospel of Judas, et al.--Part One," and "Gospel of Judas--Part Two." I also recommend his dialogues with his readers.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Jesus walked on ice, not water?

2006-04-06T08:41:00.000-05:00

According to an Associated Press story, Florida State University professor Doron Nof claims he may have found a scientific explanation for Jesus' miraculous walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee. According to Nof, an oceanography professor, a rare combination of water and atmospheric conditions in the Sea of Galillee two millennia ago may have caused a patch of ice to form.

To observers, in this case, the disciples in the boat, the ice would have been hard to distinguish from the unfrozen water surrounding it. "I'm not trying to provide any information that has to do with theology," Professor Nof is quoted as saying. "All we've thought is about the natural process."

Against this theory are two strong arguments.

The walk on the water took place at the wrong season of the year for ice. According to John 6:10, "there was plenty of grass" at the place where Jesus fed the 5,000, a miracle that He performed earlier that same day (see also Matthew 14:19). Mark's account (6:39) describes it as "green grass." This historical detail indicates the event did not take place in the winter but some time during the season when grass is green. In fact, the context of John 6 and 7 suggests that it happened before the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), which occurs in October. Sukkot involves sleeping outside in shelters made of tree branches, not an activity for sub-freezing temperatures, and the miracle apparently took place before Sukkot, closer to summer.
According to the temperatures posted by the Israel Meteorological Service, mean temperatures there from July through September range from a low of 70º F. (about 20º C.) at night to a high of 84º F. (about 30º C.) during the day. Even in October, the range is much too warm for ice – 66º F. (19º C.) to 81º F. (27º C.).
The observers of the event were well qualified to distinguish between water and ice. They were not visitors to an unfamiliar setting; they were professional fisherman who had spent their entire lives on that very lake, night and day, in all seasons and every kind of weather. Furthermore, at the end of the walking on water incident, they received Jesus into the boat, which means they were not just viewing Him from a distance, but close up—close enough to discern ice if it had been there. The larger the piece of ice—and it would have had to be substantial to sustain a grown man's weight—the more easily it could be seen. When we add the detail that Peter climbed out of the boat and also walked on the water, the possibility of a patch of ice melts away.

Naturalistic explanations
The world has suffered a long history of such naturalistic explanations for the miracles of Jesus. People who read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with an anti-supernatural bias feel compelled to deny His power however they can, no matter how implausible or bizarre their proposed solution becomes. The gospel accounts, however, do not focus attention on the miracles, but describe them as signs. They point, not to themselves, but to Him, and they force us to look at His inner nature, inside the skin of the Miracle Worker. They compel us to see Him as something more than just a man.

When we accept this as a legitimate miracle, we then analyze where it is pointing. One who can suspend the laws of nature like this must live outside those laws, or rather above them. Colossians 1:16-17 explains it this way:

For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

That last statement that "in Him all things hold together" suggests that by His power and authority, by His constant attention, Jesus Christ holds the universe together moment by moment, including all of its natural laws.

Follow the signs to this One who has set the universe in order and can straighten out your life as well. Please, don't linger looking at the sign, or looking for reasons why the sign can't exist.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

CSI: Creation Scene Investigation

2006-04-04T13:44:00.000-05:00

The popular T.V. show C.S.I., with its multiple spin-offs, has commanded the attention of millions of viewers across the country. But make those same initials, C.S.I., stand for “Creation Scene Investigation,” and you confront a fiercely controversial and intriguing field of study.

Do a search for the keywords “intelligent design,” and you will understand what I mean. I can only cover the main points here; you will have to study it for yourself if you want “to go deeper,” which, as the founder/operator of “DeeperStudy.com” I would heartily recommend.

We live in an orderly universe. It is so orderly that things operate according to what science calls “laws,” such as the law of gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, etc. This orderliness must have come from somewhere. The presence of design implies a Designer. Order, an Orderer.
In the present, life never spontaneously arises from non-life. We stake our lives on this truth every time we open and eat canned food. Life never comes from non-life. It is inextricably linked: life come from Life.
In the present, definite and apparently fixed gaps exist between different kinds of plants and animals. Different kinds cannot interbreed, or when they do, their offspring is sterile or deformed. As far back as fossils take us, we find the same thing. The plants and animals change in the fossil record, but the gaps remain.
In the present, a huge gap exists separating human beings from all other animals. Humans seem to be unique in their ability to conceptualize, to communicate by means of language, to store and pass on complex knowledge, technology, etc., from one generation to the next.

Just as the Crime Scene Investigator makes inferences and deductions about the past based on what he or she finds at the crime scene, so Creation Scene Investigators can draw inferences and make deductions about the past—specifically the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the cause for the diversity of life, and the origin of human beings—based on what they find on the scene.

The Crime Scene Investigator’s purpose is to find the perpetrator, if any. The Creation Scene Investigator may also find a Person—the Divine Creator of everything and everyone. As Paul told the philosophers of Athens, “He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). He is there, He is not silent, He wants to be found.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

April's Fool Day: Playing with Fire

2006-04-01T06:00:00.000-06:00

April Fool's Day has been around since at least 1582. That's when France changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian. Before that time, the New Year was celebrated for eight days, leading up to April 1. But when the Gregorian calendar became official, New Year's Day became January 1.

Back then, news traveled slowly, and many people did not know about the change for several years. Others, though they knew, resisted the changed and kept celebrating New Year's on April 1 as they had always done. Both of these groups, the ignorant and the traditional, became subject to ridicule and were labeled as "fools." They were often sent on "fool's errands" and made the victim of other practical jokes.

This light-hearted harassment slowly evolved into a tradition of prank-playing on the first day of April. You might want to take a look at the Museum of Hoaxes's "Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes of All Time," which includes two worth mentioning. Leading up to April 1, 2000, a Dutch IPO was announced. It brought in $7 million before the hoax was revealed. Four year earlier, in 1997, there was a world-wide request that everyone log off the Internet from Mark 31 through April 2 to allow "five very powerful Japanese-built multi-lingual Internet-crawling robots (Toshiba ML-2274) situated around the world" to clean the Internet free of all of the "flotsam and jetsam" that had accumulated, purging it of dead e-mail addresses, and inactive ftp, www, and gopher sites.

The Bible says, "Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, 'I was only joking!'" (Proverbs 26:18-19). Better to find other ways to have fun or even to bypass the humor than to laugh at another's expense. Some people's self esteem just can't afford to take a hit. Or if you must have your laugh, choose your victim carefully. The Bible warns you are playing with fire, and fire has a way of getting out of hand.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Intelligent Design and Evolution: Important Clarification

2006-02-28T09:16:00.000-06:00

I am impressed with the clear and concise way my friend and Christian brother Walter Smith explained the issues between those who belive in direct-line descent evolution (also called macro-evolution) and those who hold to intelligent design. Because he graciously consented, I am happy to share with you his summary, which was recently published as a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in Rockwall, Texas.
—Steve

I hope the following points will help clarify some apparent misunderstandings in discussing evolution and intelligent design:

Inferring from Cause and Effect
Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID) remain controversial because both propose explanations of historical events that we did not observe and have been unable to repeat. Both utilize observations and inferences to reach conclusions about cause and effect relationships. Their primary difference is that evolution limits possible causes to those that are natural, while ID will allow intelligence causes where the evidence demands it.

Definite limits?
Evolutionists observe limited changes in organisms (driven by random mutation and natural selection) and infer that all observed biological variety had a natural cause. IDers observe that all change caused by mutations and selection (natural or guided by humans) has limits beyond which no change has been observed and infer that biological organisms have a limited amount of variability.

Does Organization Imply an Organizer?
Evolutionists observe the past accomplishments of science and infer that it is likely we will one day discover natural laws (describing specific, detailed, repeatable, naturalistic mechanisms at the molecular level) that explain (a) the origin of life (which is a separate question), and (b) the origin of complex molecular biological information (see, for example Stuart Kauffman's "Origins of Order").

IDers observe the pervasive complexity of biological infomation and the fact that much less complex non-living functional information (e.g., books, sculptures) always has an intelligent cause, and infer that biological information had an intelligent cause. This inference has led to (a) a concerted effort by evolutionists to discover specific, detailed, naturalistic, molecular paths that account for apparently irreducibly complex functional biological features, and (b) an interesting debate about the definition and nature of functional information and complexity. On this point, ID would be falsified by the discovery of specific, detailed naturalistic law-like mechanisms.

What Do Similarities Suggest?
Evolutionists observe similarities in form, function, and information across all biological organisms and infer a branching ancestral tree going back to the emergence of a single living organism from a non-living universe. IDers observe the same similarities and find them consistent with design.

Examining the Fossil Record
Evolutionists observe a wide-ranging fossil record and infer a branching ancestral tree. IDers observe the sudden appearance of various kinds of organisms, and the relative stasis of them in the fossil record and infer that the steady, gradual increase in biological complexity posited by Darwin did not occur. IDers also observe that the fossilized structure of an organism tells us very little, if anything, about the molecular information that created that form.

Which Way Does the Evidence Lead?
Secular evolutionists conclude that random mutation and natural selection provides a reasonable explanation for the complexity of living organisms and that, in accordance with Occam's Razor, no additional cause should be proposed. Religious evolutionists conclude that God used evolution to "create" living organisms, but that God's "fingerprints" are not empirically observable in nature. Secular and religious IDers alike conclude that the evidence for the intelligent design of living organisms is far more compelling than the evidence for an evolutionary cause.

Common Ground
Evolutionists and IDers agree that scientists should continue to investigate the details of life at the molecular level to better understand exactly how it works throughout an organism's life cycle.

Blame on Both Sides
Unfortunately, many of the discussions of evolution and ID are characterized on both sides by deliberate or inadvertent misrepresentations, ad hominem attacks, and confusion about the nature of science when it investigates historical events.

Inferring from Cause and Effect
I hope this short summary helps both groups better understand one another.

—Walter Smith

Want to go deeper?
A number of books are available on Intelligent Design. You may also want to consider getting my 16-page e-book, Reasons to Believe: The Fundamental Concepts. Take a look at "Intelligent Design Theory: Why It Matters" by Jay Richards, and take a look at Intelligent Design Network.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Danish cartoons: Founder drawn with same pen as followers

2006-02-11T12:09:00.000-06:00

When will it end?

All of Denmark, including Danes around the world, are paying for the unflattering depictions of Muhammad in political cartoons of a Danish newspaper. Islam historically has regarded it as sacrilegious to portray the Prophet pictorially, even in a favorable light.

I first became aware of this scruple when I used the movie, "The Message" (1976) to introduce Islam in my university world religions class. This little-known cinematic biography of Muhammad starred Anthony Quinn, not as the Prophet, but as his uncle ‘Hamza, the powerful clan leader. As a matter of fact, Muhammad never appears on camera--a definite challenge for a biopic! Sometimes people in the film report what the Prophet just told them as they emerge from his tent or cave, and other times, characters speak to the camera as if the camera itself represents Muhammad.

Here's a background sketch

Although the Quran nowhere prohibits pictorial representations of Muhammad, it does say that God is like nothing else (Surah 42:11), which has been interpreted to prohibit any attempt to create an image of God, and this is extended to apply also to Muhammad. See also Abraham's rebuke of idolaters, which included his own father (Surah 21:51-54). In a tradition similar to the "No graven images" of the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 5:8-10), much of Islam has avoided pictorial representations of the God, Muhammad, his companions, and all of the significant Jewish and Christian prophets. Shiite Islamic tradition, however, has been less strict regarding this ban, and depictions of Muhammad have survived, mainly from 7th-century Persia.

Why the uproar?

Now some Muslims across the world are in an uproar, making Danes pay--nearly all of whom had nothing to do with the cartoons in question. Not only is Muhammad being represented pictorially, but one cartoon depicts the Prophet as having a bomb for a turban, essentially equating Muhammad and Islam with terrorism. In addition, a photograph of an man apparently Arab wearing a pig's nose and ears has been misrepresented as among the images published in the Danish newspaper. In actuality, it was a Frenchman named Jacques Barrot in a pig-squealing contest--totally unrelated to Islam or to the Danish cartoons.

It is unfortunate that the Danish publishers were either unaware of Islamic tradition prohibiting representations of the Prophet, or if they were aware, published them anyway. They might have anticipated the firestorm they might ignite and decided to avoid the controversy. The latest development is a purported $1 million bounty for murdering any of the Danish cartoonists. Certainly moderate Muslims and all non-Muslims decry such an outrage.

Depictions of Christ

As a Christian, I cannot help but feel a pang at the unfairness of our world. If Muhammad is pictured at all, even favorably, people are up in arms, and there are some non-Muslims who rise to their defense. Yet Jesus Christ can be portrayed in ways that mock Him, ridicule, even besmirch Him with lewdness, implicit or explicit. Christians, however, are expected to remain silent as if nothing is wrong. The Prince of Peace has been portrayed as a warmonger. The Holy One of Israel is depicted as a fornicator or an openly promiscuous homosexual, and no one bats an eye!

He humbled Himself

Yet Jesus Himself accepted the role of humiliation, of associating Himself with tax-collectors and prostitutes. He challenged His followers to lay down the weapons they would take up in His defense and instead pay attention to a different, more significant way He is depicted in the world--in the lives of His followers.

Paul said, "For me to live is Christ...." (Philippians 1:21). He also said, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1). He says we have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27), and we wear Him daily (Romans 13:14).

What do you depict?

The message of the cartoons is clear: When people see Muhammad's followers act in a certain way, they associate those actions with the Prophet. Jesus himself anticipated that His followers would be persecuted because of animosity toward Him (see Matthew 10:24; John 15:20-21), but it also works the other way. Just as disobedient Jews brought reproach to the name of God (Ezekiel 36:22; Romans 2:24), so His followers can give Him a bad name among unbelievers (see 1 Timothy 3:7; 5:7).

When someone opens the newspaper of your life and sees there an image of Christ in your heart, how close is the resemblance to the Son of Man? Does your sin or hypocrisy distort His image until it becomes a comical caricature or a diabolically twisted distortion? Does it bother you that He is so tragically misrepresented?

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Ariel Sharon's stroke: God's punishment?

2006-01-22T14:55:00.000-06:00

Unjustified comment?

According to televangelist Pat Robertson, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's near-fatal stroke might well be God's punishment for dividing up God's land. According to the book of Joel, Robertson says, God is jealous for His land. In reaction, officials in Israel have announced that they are refusing for Robertson to be involved in purchasing land for building a Christian tourist center in Galilee. Robertson has sent a letter of apology for his remark, but it is doubtful that he will be allowed back into the business deal.

Certainly God is able to punish whom He wills; He has definitely done so in the past, time and again. Look, for instance, at the case of Uzziah, whom God struck with leprosy because he unlawfully offered incense in the temple (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). New Testament examples include Ananias and his wife Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and perhaps some of the Corinthian Christians (1 Corinthians 11:27-33).

Strokes strike the aged

It is hard to establish, however, that a massive stroke suffered by a 77-year-old is a special judgment from God. Many people that age suffer the ill effects of the increasing infirmities of the flesh; this includes the righteous as well as the wicked. According to a 1993-94 study, for example, each year 2.6 out of 1,000 white males in the age group of 55 to 64 suffer a stroke. Among 65-74-year-old white males, however, the number more than doubles to 6.7 per 1,000. For the age group of Mr. Sharon, 75-84, it nearly doubles again at 11.3 per 1,000 ("Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2006 Update, Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, online edition 1/11/2006, p. 22). A few days after Mr. Sharon's stroke, on January 20, 2006, Canadian film star Tony Franciosa died of a stroke, also at age 77. We wonder what sin Mr. Franciosa was guilty of. In fact, Mr. Robertson himself, at age 65, should beware of suffering a stroke himself.

Fulfillment of prophecy?

Robertson's reasoning that God may have punished Sharon because of his willingness to give up some land to the Palestinians is flawed, both because of his use of the prophet Joel and also on more general grounds concerning the place of modern Israel in biblical prophecy.

The pertinent passages in Joel are in chapter 2, verse 18 and in chapter 3, verse 2:

The LORD will take pity on His people and be jealous for His land.

I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.

Robertson has taken these verses out of context in a cavalier fashion that is sadly typical of much modern interpretation of biblical prophecy.

Context of Joel's prophecy

Joel spoke to a national crisis in his own day, perhaps the sixth century BCE. After the people suffered a severe drought, wave after wave of locusts consumed what little remained of the crops. The prophet blames this devastation on his sinful people and challenges them to do some radical repenting. "Tear your hearts, not your garments," he says, promising that when they do, God will restore what they have lost to the drought and the locusts. What's more, He will grant them a spiritual renewal as well. Joel 2:28-32 predicts how the Lord will pour out His Spirit "on all flesh." Peter on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, saw the events of the day as the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.

Now if 30 CE (or thereabouts) was the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, when was Joel 2:17 fulfilled? The answer must be—just after the people of Joel's day repented. At least the evidence indicates that it would have been fulfilled after the people repented and before the first post-resurrection Pentecost. This must be the time-frame for the Joel 2:17 fulfillment, if there is any fulfillment at all.

Conditional nature of biblical prophecy

I say, "if at all," because biblical prophecy has a strong conditional element in it. This is clearly explained in Jeremiah 18:1-10. The conditions need not be explicitly stated to be implicit in the prophecy, as demonstrated by the prophecy of Jonah against Nineveh. The original recipients of prophecies understood their conditional nature, as demonstrated in 2 Samuel 12:14-23 and Jonah 3:3-10; 4:1-2.

When Joel promises a restoration of what the drought and the locusts have consumed, when he reveals God's jealousy for His land and His defense of the land against those who would divide it, that is all conditioned on the repentance of his people. If you look up "land" in a concordance you will find that God has sometimes defended his people so that they possess or retain the land, while at other times, He Himself drives them off of it (e.g., Deut. 1:8; 2 Chron. 7:19-20).

The context indicates that even Joel 3:2 anticipates a fulfillment in ancient rather than modern times, for ancient peoples are mentioned, including Tyre and Sidon, Philistia, and the Sabeans (3:4, 8), and ancient weapons are formed by reshaping farm implements (3:10).

Deflected from another message

To play this fast and loose with biblical prophecy is wrong. To do so before a worldwide audience is presumptuous, self-serving, and foolish. Mr. Robertson should be enough of a Bible student to know better than to do such a thing.

What's worse: for Robertson to speculate about the stroke being a possible punishment from God deflects everyone's attention from another message God has, both for Mr. Sharon, and for the rest of us as well. His message is: "You are mortal! Death is headed for you at 100 miles per hour. Are you prepared?"

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Too big for just one religion?

2006-01-06T08:11:00.000-06:00

The stimulus to our thinking

I saw this bumper sticker on the car ahead: "God is too big for just one religion." This calls for a closer examination.

Of course, in one sense, this statement articulates a great reality. Everyone can admit the truth of the title of J. B. Phillips's great book, Your God is Too Small. We never envision God as bigger than He really is, only smaller. We regularly underestimate His capacity to love, to empower, or to execute His perfect justice.

Foolish attempts to diminish God

This attempted shrinking of God is not limited to Christians, those whom Jesus sometimes describes as "you with such little faith." The same thing happens among ex-believers as well. John Shelby Spong, in his attack on biblical Christianity, Why Christianity Must Change or Die (HarperCollins, 1998), praises a theology professor who became an atheist because, he explains, "he felt he could no longer be part of that faith community whose god was too small to be God for him and his world" (xviii). Yet in the name of enlarging our view of God, Spong goes on to deny that God is either omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful) (see 4-10). "The God I know," Spong confides, "is not concrete or specific.... This God can never be enclosed in propositional statements" (4).

Such a god is not the Supreme Being of the Bible. Lacking omniscience and omnipotence, it is not Supreme. In fact it is not even a Being, but something impersonal like "The Force" of the Star Wars movies that influences us from the Beyond. In the words of John A. T. Robinson, Spong's theological mentor, "God is, by definition, ultimate reality" (Honest to God [SCM Press, 1963], 29).

Robinson, Spong, and others must see themselves as too intellectually sophisticated to believe in "God the Father, the Almighty." God's greatness dwindles away, as well as His power, His knowledge, and even His personality. Listen to Paul's commentary of such intellectually motivated, self-imposed exile: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen" (Romans 1:22a, 25).

Too big for temples

The God that reveals Himself in the Scriptures is much bigger than we conceive Him to be. Nearly 3,000 years ago, Solomon perceived this: "The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain You. How much less this temple I have built?" (1 Kings 8:27). Paul confirmed this view of God in his famous sermon to the philosophers of Athens (Acts 17:24-25):

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.

The god we invented?

Although acknowledging God's infinitude, Paul is already addressing the fallacy underlying in the statement, "God is too big for just one religion." That fallacy is conceiving of religion, in typical, post-modernist fashion, as a human construct. For religion to be valid--having divine, dynamic power because it transcends the transient and culture-specific and connects us to what is real or rather to Him who is real--it cannot be a human invention, moving from us to Deity. It must instead be a divine provision, moving from Him to us.

Paul then continues in this same trajectory (verses 26-31):

From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. "For in Him we live and move and have our being." As some of your own poets have said, "We are His offspring."

Therefore, since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.

Putting God in a box

God dismisses all human-invented religion as "such ignorance," and He asserts His universal authority by commanding "all people everywhere" to repent and submit to the One He has raised from the dead. Of course, this refers to Jesus Christ, our Savior and Master.

Those who reject God's revelation about Himself in the name of making Him bigger inevitably diminish Him. For example, those who seek to impose the cultural value of pluralism on religion suggest that God's love is too vast to reject equally sincere believers of all faiths. Spong states, "I have surely met holiness in Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, which I am not willing either to deny or to denigrate. So what does 'God's only son' mean to those of us who cannot and will not be bound by the religious prejudices of the past?" (11-12).

To Spong, "holiness" must mean something other than the biblical sense of likeness to the character of Yahweh (see Leviticus 19:2) and moral purity (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8), for his examples are inconsistent with each other in how they exhibit the attribute. For the Christian, holiness has one source, Jesus Christ Himself. It is not something we achieve through rigorous discipline or ascetic practices. Along with righteousness and redemption, we receive holiness as a gift when we put on Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30-31). Accepting all religions in the name of God's love eliminates God's righteousness, His goodness, and His truth. It tells God, "You must become smaller so you can fit into my preconceptions." But God replies, "I am who I am. I will be what I will be."

The offensiveness of Christianity

This is a significant part of the offensiveness of the cross, an aspect that modern Christians, sadly, try hard to avoid. We Christians, if we are true to our God and to His religion, are exclusivists. We cannot be obedient to the Master who revealed Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life if we deny His claim that "no one comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). Jesus' claims are exclusive, and His earliest followers understood this clearly. Peter, Paul, and John all agree that their Master is the only salvation available (Acts 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5-6; and 1 John 2:2).

Exclusive but inclusive

Christian exclusivism doesn't mean we Christians seek to exclude others. Our divine mandate is to "go into all the world and proclaim the Good News to every human being" (Mark 16:15), to "teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19). That's inclusive, as inclusive as the generous heart of God.

The teachings of Christianity justify its audacious claim on all of humanity. In Christ, for example, racial and cultural distinctions no longer have significance (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Gender roles in Christian marriage involve mutual rights and responsibilities (1 Corinthians 7:2-5; Ephesians 5:21-33). The fruit of the Spirit, growing in each Christian's heart, is what we need for the "healing of the nations": love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control (Galatians 5:22-23; see Revelation 22:1-3). Christ's aim is world conquest, though not with the scimitar or the M-1, but with persuasion (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)! These are principles that people of all nations can endorse, and as they put them into practice, they can experience throughout the world the unity that marks God's blessing.

God desires an intimate relationship with His creatures, but in order for that relationship to be possible, He must change us, first by redemption (saving us from the multi-effects of sin in our lives), then by sanctification (accepting us as bearers of Christ's holiness, then transforming us by His Spirit in ever-increasing holiness). In other words, He must remake us into His image; we cannot remake Him into ours.

If we resist this work of God in our behalf, we will be excluded, not by His choice, but by ours. True religion--that which comes from God Himself--is big enough to include everyone, everyone, that is, who is willing to be forgiven and transformed.

Want to go deeper?

Here are some resources to aid you in exploring the claim of Christianity to be God's only way of salvation.

Geivett, R. Douglas. "Is Jesus the Only Way?" 177-205 in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. Zondervan, 1995.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jesus' Promise to the Nations Fortress, 1967.

Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Zondervan, 1994.

Olkholm, Dennis L., and Phillips, Timothy R., eds. More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Zondervan, 1995.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Da Vinci's "Last Supper" Already "Coded"

2005-12-26T14:37:00.001-06:00

Why all the fuss?

Since Dan Brown's mystery thriller The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003) first appeared, people have asked a lot of questions, especially regarding Leonardo da Vinci's world-famous painting, "The Last Supper." Is the feminine-looking figure sitting just to the right of Christ really the apostle John, as traditionally believed, or is it instead Mary Magdalene?

The answer may be boring, in that it is drained of mystery and intrigue, but it is nevertheless so obvious that it rings true. The coming of the film version of "The Da Vinci Code," starring Tom Hanks, prompts renewed interest in this subject that should by now have been laid to rest.

The Fresco's Context

Keep in mind that Da Vinci painted this 460x880 cm (15x29 feet) fresco on the wall of the dining hall of the Santa Maria delle Grazie convent in Milan in 1498. His masterpiece is ingenius in many ways, not the least in its dramatic realism, enhanced by the way in which Da Vinci paints the perspective of the background as a continuation of the room in which it resides (see photo below).

Instead of assigning a halo to Jesus, he sillhouettes him by the light entering through a window behind him. Da Vinci groups the 12 apostles in four clusters of three, six on either side of Jesus. Except for the replacement of roman-style dining couches with contemporary table and chairs, Da Vinci closely follows the biblical narrative. His fresco is a snapshot of the moment after Jesus announces a traitor is in their midst. Listen for the click of Leonardo's "camera shutter" in the following excerpt from John 13:21-26:

After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."

His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." [**CLICK**]

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"

Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.

The Biblical Context

Da Vinci captures the immediate emotional reaction of the disciples, employing conventional gestures for surprise, interrogation, and perhaps even indignation. We see the disciples reacting to Jesus' revelation in the ways the Bible describes. See also the parallel passages: Matthew 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:22-23.

For hundreds of years scholars have agreed that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2-8; 21:7, 20-24) is the way in which the Apostle John refers to himself in the Fourth Gospel. The Apostle John, prominent in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), is otherwise absent from the Gospel of John, except for an oblique reference to "the sons of Zebedee" in John 21:2. Scholars agree that his self-characterization as "The Beloved Disciple" is not an egotistical claim that he is worthy of an inside track with Jesus, but rather a Christ-exalting expression that though he was entirely unworthy, yet he was showered with the Savior's love. Add to this a few references to "another disciple" (John 1:35-40; 18:15-16; 19:35) which also appear to be autobiographical (John 20:1-9 merges the "Beloved Disciple" with the "other disciple"), and we gain a composite picture of the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Could this "other disciple," this "Beloved Disciple" be, in fact, Mary Magdalene? The biblical evidence is decisive against this hypothesis. In Greek, the definite article, translated into English as "the," has gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter) and number (singular, plural, or dual), in agreement with the nouns, pronouns, or participles they accompany. In all of the verses cited above, the "the" attached to either "the other disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is uniformly masculine, never feminine. Furthermore, identifying Mary Magdalene with "the disciple whom Jesus loved" makes nonsense out of John 20:1-18, especially verses 10-11a: "Then the disciples [Peter and the Beloved Disciple] went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying." She cannot go and stay simultaneously.

Why so feminine a figure?

This "Beloved Disciple," obviously a man, in the Fourth Gospel, is the one Peter buttonholes at the Last Supper and demands, "Ask Him which one He means" (John 13:24). Why does he look like a woman in Da Vinci's portrayal of that moment?

A reasonable inference based on John 21:20-24's testimony that John outlived Simon Peter by many years holds that John must have been considerably younger than Peter, or for that matter most or all of the other apostles. The earliest writings after the New Testament indicate that John lived on into the early second century. If he was about 20 at the time of the crucifixion, he would have been around 90 in the year 100. We could allow him to be a little older or a little younger, but not by much either way.

Sitting beside Jesus in the rennaissance master's "The Last Supper" is a figure portrayed as a young man, using the conventions typical of that day: fair features, no beard, and slight body. We find similar depictions of young men in Leonardo's other paintings.

In his two depictions of John the Baptist, for example, painted sometime between 1510 and 1516, we find a beardless youth. Even within "The Last Supper" itself, Da Vinci's portrait of Philip is similarly androgynous.

Want to go deeper? Compare Da Vinci with his fellow artists

A survey of paintings of the Last Supper just before and just after Da Vinci's demonstrates how stereotyped were depictions of John, who is regularly depicted as a young man, nearly always asleep next to Jesus. Once again, breaking with convention, Leonardo depicts him as only very sleepy. Some of these depictions actually label John and the other disciples.

1308-11 Ducco di Buoninsegna
1464-67 Dieric the Elder Bouts
1476 Domenico Ghirlandaio
1480 Domenico Ghirlandaio
1486 Domenico Ghirlandaio
1498 Leonardo da Vinci (16th C. copy)
1510 Albrecht Dürer
1511 Dürer
1520-25 Andrea del Sarto
1523 Dürer
1542 Jacopo Bassano

The Place of Mary Magdalene

It is abundantly clear, therefore, that Da Vinci's figure beside Jesus is John, son of Zebedee, not Mary Magdalene. Her place in history, however, is secure. She was the first human being to witness the resurrection of Christ, and responding obediently to the Savior's commission recorded in John 20:17, she served, as one scholar has put it, as "the apostle to the apostles." To make her into something else does not elevate her, but degrades her.

Da Vinci Decoded

Da Vinci's "Last Supper" is certainly coded, not with enigmatic images of a clandestine relationship between Jesus and Mary, but with the pathos of the Night of Betrayal. The hidden meaning that reaches us more than 500 years later is, "Is it I? Am I the one who will betray Him?"

The magnificent fresco pierces our heart and conscience with these probing questions. Are we, like John, hardly even conscious of the Lord's challenge? Will we, with false bravado, join our voices to those disciples who are saying, "I'll never deny You," or like Peter, go even further, "Even if all the others fall away, I never will"? Or, like Judas Iscariot, do we lean back in surprise, grasping tightly to our bag of money?

I believe that Leonardo intended for everyone who sat in that Milan dining hall, and by extension, all of us, to be, not detached spectators, but participants in the Last Supper. This is the true Da Vinci Code, and the mystery of "The Last Supper." What will I do with Jesus?

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com

Creationism and atheism "by any other name"

2005-12-21T14:47:00.000-06:00

The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (ruling made on Dec. 20, 2005) concerned whether Intelligent Design (ID) could be mentioned as an alternative explanation to evolution in a ninth-grade biology class. The school board had directed that the following statement be read in the class:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

District Court Judge John Jones, himself a regular church-goer, ruled that ID is only Creationism relabeled, and as such is definitely promoting a particular religious view that includes belief in the God of Christianity. Judge Jones noted that the testimony of expert witnesses for the defendants (the Dover Area School Board) confirmed the religious mission of ID organizations. He further pointed out that the 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Arkansas has already declared the teaching of "scientific creationism" in public schools as unconstitutional. After Edwards, the editors of the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People merely changed the numerous references to creation and creationism in prior editions to Intelligent Design, with no other change of the content. His conclusion: since the teaching of "scientific creationism" in public schools is unconstitutional, and since Intelligent Design is "scientific creationism" with a new label, teaching in public schools it is also unconstitutional.

Further, Judge Jones said that while ID "may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science." This is because science by definition "is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data.... [Its] explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs that selecting a supernatural explanation is a "science-stopper," because "once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer."

No doubt this ruling will serve as precedent for future and pending creation vs. evolution cases throughout the country and will have a chilling effect on attempts by local school boards to introduce alternative explanations to macroevolution and its underlying religion, secular materialism (atheism relabeled). The truth is that as long ago as 1859, Louis Pasteur irrefutably proved that spontaneous generation never occurs. We stake our lives on this truth every time we open a can of peas. To claim that life arose spontaneously in the past when experiments in the present demonstrate it is impossible is not science. It is not testable; it is incapable of experimental disconfirmation.

Yet secular materialism continues, not only to be taught, but in the public school science classroom to enjoy a monopoly sanctioned by court rulings such as Kitzmiller.

Of course, this will not muzzle discussions of Intelligent Design. Several members of the Dover Area School Board who backed use of the above statement lost their reelection bids on Nov. 8, replaced by members opposed to the policy. The president of the new board, Bernadette Reinking, has revealed that the board now plans to remove ID from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class.

Want to go deeper?

To learn more about Intelligent Design and the ID movement, check out the writings of Phillip E. Johnson, the man regarded as the founder of ID:

Also valuable is Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe.

Steve Singleton, DeeperStudy.com