So kind, I'm sharing

Greetings!
A short while ago this post was written on a certain blog I follow, and I thought I'd share. I found it interesting because of how it pertains to what I would call "intellectual Christianity" - handling Christian doctrine merely as another intellectual endeavor, often seemingly void of any kind of, you know, brokenness or humility, or other similar minor details. It's as if Christianity is just a select flavor of philosophy, and is something to be played with by the mentally elite. The root? Faith in intellect, not God's word. However, in this case, faith in intellect results in saying that faith in God's word is good. That is, after all, the right thing to believe. Long story short, such a mindset can be quite subtle. 1 Timothy addresses this subject, particularly in 1:3-7, 6:3-5, and 6:20-21. For what it's worth, I find it interesting that 1 Corinthians 1:21b says "God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." not "God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who intellectually convinced."
Maybe I'll write a post making mention of how intellectually disappointing the gospel is. Oh wait, I think I did.
In case you missed the (first) link above, here it is in plain language: blog post
Until next time,
Joshua

A Foolish Wisdom

In our culture, being a Christian is a shameful thing. Actually believing the words on the pages of the Bible the way they were written and submitting to and teaching them is…weird. It is not a popular trend to acknowledge God as Creator and Savior, and it is not the majority who would believe the cross itself in what it really was. This makes Christianity a shameful belief. It doesn’t help that there are a myriad of pseudo-Christian flavors plaguing this generation, with a reputation for corny, shallow beliefs and the songs to match, designed for the emotionally unstable who need a crutch. “Weak ” and “shallow” describe this common form of Christianity well. One good example is the Charismatic movement, which was accurately described by one individual as “the professional wrestling of Christianity”.

                              But moving right along, from the unsaved world’s point of view, believing the cross is a strange thing. How odd to believe in a crucified Jew, and that He was raised from the dead. It doesn’t have intellectual significance or special super-natural signs. It’s just…silly.     

                              But I want to remind us today that this is by design. The cross in and of itself was designed to appear a foolish thing to the world. It is repulsive to those who acknowledge only what their mind can comprehend. It isn’t accepted by those who put faith in their intellect, faith in what makes sense to them. In summary, it is foolishness.

                              Why is this? Why has God designed the cross of Jesus to be void of human wisdom? Why doesn’t it ‘make sense’ to the unbeliever? Don’t we want to win people here?

                              Simple: it was designed to be a shame not to those who believe, but to those who don’t believe. We must know that it is God’s wisdom seen in the cross, not man’s. God cannot be accessed by human intellect. Truth cannot be obtained by human cognition  or brain-power. Given that, God has designed to shame those trusting in their own ability by saving not them, but the weak, the foolish of this world by a seemingly ridiculous message. Further, those saved ‘foolish’ people now become ambassadors of their ‘foolish’ message. The world’s wisdom, knowledge and reason we now see benefit it none, as they contribute nothing to their salvation.

                              Perhaps we might find it tempting, when explaining the gospel, to adjust it to make sense. We are, after all, trying to win this person, and we don’t want to come across as strange to him or her, thus losing credibility in their eyes. So, we capitalize on certain aspects of the gospel to make it less embarrassing. We attempt to make the gospel more palatable by implementing reason and try  to make the gospel fit for our audience.

                              However, when we try to make the message of the cross acceptable by means of our cleverness of speech, we actually make the cross void, empty, and useless. We have just compromised the very power of the message, and replaced it with our own. The cross itself is the wisdom of God – it doesn’t need our help. You should expect it to come across odd; expect to be seen as strange - but don’t tamper with the message. It’s not yours anyway. You, as a Christian have been entrusted with the gospel to simply preach it, not manipulate results. Let God do His work with His word, and don’t replace it with yours.

                              This is what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 1:17ff. When Paul preached the gospel to the Corinthians, he purposefully left out his own “cleverness of speech” in order to fully expose the cross.  Why? Because it was and is by this foolish message that God has chosen to save his children. Verses 23 and 24 of the same chapter read “but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

                              Once you tamper with the gospel to make it more appealing, you have done two things: 1) compromised the power of the message, and 2) exchanged the target audience of the message. If you preach something that makes sense to the world, they’ll hear that. However, they won’t be saved by it. Further, don’t forget that, as Paul said, it is those who are the called who will believe this message and are  saved by it. This is the only message by which they will be saved. They are your target audience – preach their message so that they might be saved . (I am obviously not saying that those who will be saved own the gospel, but merely associating it with them in that it is only by the gospel that they are saved.) You don’t know who the called are. Your job is simply to preach and let God be concerned with who believe and those who don’t. Your faithfulness to the Word of God will result in the hardening of some. You can’t help that. Their death sentence is their intellect, because it excludes them from believing in the foolish message of the gospel, which is also the only message that rescues sinners from eternal judgment. This is not a trite thing, and I do not want to come across as heartless. But this is reality. The unloving, cold, heartless, and downright hateful thing to do would be to not explain the actual gospel to them, remembering that you have no idea as to whether or not God will use it to save them or harden them. This is not an arrogant in-your-face approach, as that itself compromises the gospel by introducing pride. You want you to get out of the way and simply be a mouthpiece for the Word of God. The example we have of this is Christ Himself, Who was gentle, humble in heart, giving rest to those who came to Him – not a burden. And, it was for the sake of those whom would receive that rest that He aggressively attacked the Jewish religious leaders, refuting them and their teaching as publicly as they had asserted themselves and their teaching (Matthew 23).

                              So I challenge you, fellow Christian; do you understand the gospel well enough to teach it clearly so that the gospel, and only the gospel, may be the content of your evangelism? Are you tempted to assist the gospel, making mention of only certain parts of it, leaving the more ‘embarrassing’ and ‘strange’ aspects out for later? If you do so, I ask this: what are you really preaching? Is it the gospel anymore? Be faithful, knowing that it is not your message you have been entrusted with. Follow Paul’s example in Acts 20:26-27, and do not “shrink from declaring…the whole purpose of God ”.

Sincerely,

Joshua

“In dying you will die”… or will you?

“Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die. ”

~ Genesis 2: 15-17

Most recently, I have revived my studies in Biblical Hebrew, to the point that I am probably studying it more now than I really ever have in the past. One of my favorite resources for doing so is the website www.theologicalresources.org - a site I would highly recommend to any serious Bible student. It is hosted by the Master’s Seminary, and on it are recordings of several seminary classes – including Biblical Hebrew.

 So, the course I have been watching is taught by a gentleman by the name of Dr. William Barrick (a.k.a. Bill Barrick). Dr. Barrick is very accomplished linguist and translator in many different areas and languages. (From what I understand, he is fluent in at least 17 languages. I heard 21 too, but I’ll be conservative.)

            So then, the other day we were looking at Hebrew infinitives. (If you can’t recall exactly what an infinitive is, it’s okay. Just know that it’s a kind of verb.) In his discussion on infinitives, Dr.Barrick used a specific example that caught my attention. You see, he was discussing two specific different kinds of infinitives; one that means something is continually happening (i.e. I keep on eating), and one that simply emphasizes what is happening (i.e. I am surely eating).  The text Dr. Barrick utilized to exemplify this to us was Genesis 2:17, which I have typed out at the top of this post for convenience. When we come to the part of this verse in which God says  “…in the day that you eat of it (i.e. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), you will surely die”, we find that God used our friend the infinitive to speak of dying. The NASB translates this “you shall surely die”.

            However, there has also been some thought amongst various people that this should actually be translated something like “dying you will die”, indicating maybe a process of death, or perhaps two deaths. Maybe this is how we explain that Adam didn’t physically die within a 24-hour period of ingesting the forbidden fruit? Perhaps God is here referencing both a physical and spiritual death?

Option D: none of the above. In other words wrong, wrong, and wrong.

In fact, Dr. Barrick was fairly emphatic about it. This phrase is written not in a continuative sense, but an emphatic sense – “you shall surely die”.  (To be specific, if you’re curious, the infinitive verb was written before, or ‘prepositive’, to a cognate verb of the same meaning  -‘die’ -, not after it.) Hence the NASB translation.

            This was a correction for me, since the thoughts I had given to that text were sympathetic to the ‘continuative’ view, although I wasn’t 100% convinced of it yet. In fact, I had recently taught it that way when the subject was brought up in a Hebrew class I am privileged to teach. However, as I looked at the information, it was apparent that Dr.Barrick was right.  He’s still is right, in fact. Since it was also something my dad had taught, I brought it up to him to see what he thought. Intrigued, he looked into it himself. And?

Dr. Barrick wins again.

So then, does this mean that, post-fall, we won’t or don’t go through a process of dying, and then ultimately die?

Well, no. I believe we may consider that hypothesis tried and proven by now.

Does it mean, then, that mankind is spiritually preserved in his pre-fall state?

No. Were that so, Paul wouldn’t have needed to write Ephesians 2:1, which says “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins… ”. Given that we know Paul was writing to people who were actually physically alive at the time, and that they were also physically alive before their salvation, we may safely conclude that Paul is not referring to merely a physical death here. Paul must be referring to the Ephesian’s past lives submersed in sins, just like the rest of the world, mimicking the Devil.

What it means is that this text isn’t saying those things. In this text, we have God addressing His creation, Adam, emphasizing the fact the if Adam were to violate the divine prohibition against the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there would be a very certain death awaiting him –it was an unavoidable, decreed fact. This makes it more intriguing when Satan, in his deception, tells Eve “You surely shall not die!” This was deliberate, outright contradiction of God’s very words, with the same basic infinitive construction that we talked about earlier, which means Satan was mirroring God’s emphasis in His instruction, except applying it to error. Further, he used a specific form of the Hebrew word for ‘not’ that means ‘never, at any time’. There would be no death now or later for a disobedient Eve, Satan says. God isn’t actually being honest with you.

However, given Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:1, it is reasonable to believe that death certainly was experienced by our first parents when they believed Satan instead of God. And, ultimately, over 900 years later, their physical bodies which were created to live forever as God’s own image and likeness on this earth, returned to the dust they were taken from. This death was passed on to all born to Adam and Eve, and then to their children, and so on. The wages of sin is, after all, death.

But God doesn’t leave us there. In the midst of His curse He embeds the promise that One would come from the woman to crush the head of the serpent, who instigated this death. There would be an end to his work. And, as we look at the text, we are forced to see that Adam must have believed this, because only after this point does Adam name his wife “Eve” – which means ‘life’. Perhaps it would seem to us that “mote”, which means “death”, might have been a more fitting name. But, besides its lack of romantic ‘ring’, it would not have been an accurate description of who she was, given the work of life God would do through her. 

Well, there you have my discovery as of late. My basic premise is that Genesis 2:17 is not to be taken in the sense of ‘in dying you will die’, but just as your English Bible most likely reads: “you shall surely die.”

 Accuracy is quite important, because it is the difference between understanding the truth, and wasting your time with something that misrepresents reality.

Sincerely,

Joshua

The Danger of Tolerance and the Priority of Love

Love and unity - despite differences. That is the cry and the teaching of many. In almost every religion you peer into, you will be able to find it. Almost completely regardless of anything “disagreed” on (especially doctrinal issues, being unimportant), they want “peace”. They want to “get along”. They want “love”. So, don’t look down on the gay community. Love them. Translated - don’t say or think anything that might convict them and threaten their confidence on account of their choices. Don’t make a fuss about silly doctrinal issues, like the gospel, Israel, eschatology, and charismatic teaching. The Bible tells us to love one another - so back off. Don’t question teaching, don’t expose sin - that is mean, hateful, unloving, and unacceptable. You hear it from the Pope, and popular evangelical Christian leaders alike.
So, let’s ask the Bible and see what it says about this. In fact, let’s go to John, the “Apostle of love” in the book of 1 John and see what he has to tell us.

Repeatedly in the book of 1 John, a distinction is made between “the children of the Devil” and “the children of God”. They are principally divided by 1) whether or not they practice righteousness and 2) whether or not they love their brother. 1 John 3:4-10 says these two groups are easily distinguished. They are “obvious”. In fact, they identify themselves for us, and do so by what they practice. The children of the Devil practice unrighteousness. They can’t help it, they have to act according to their nature. The children of God, however, act righteously according to their nature as inherited from their Father. Already, we see, John is being divisive. In fact, he deliberately calls the “antichrists” who had left the church “liars” , and not even “of the church” (leaving only one option as to what/who they are of). In fact, he says, in contrast to the apostasy of the antichrists, that the people of the church had the anointing of the Holy One - implying that the apostates didn’t. So, we have lying, un anointed (probably referring to the Holy Spirit), children of the Devil. That’s pretty mean, John.

I specifically want to highlight John’s instructions to the church on their relationship to each group. How does the church treat her members, and how does the church respond to the world?
First off let’s look at the relationship from the church to the church.

“For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world‘s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our hear and knows all things. ”
1 John 3: 11-21

Within the body, there is a priority of love. I stress “in the body”. This love is not primarily directed to those outside the church, but those in the church, those who are redeemed. It is misplaced when directed toward the world, and is only throwing a pearl before swine.  So, what does that love look like?

First, it is selfless.

Verse 16 states “we know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” Here we have love identified and exemplified by Christ. True love lays down its life…for who? The brethren. This does not include the goats, the children of the Devil. By definition, if two children have different fathers, they are not brothers. “Brethren” here must be the sons of God. That makes sense, since Christ died for His brethren, for the elect, for those whom the Father promised to give Him. (Heb. 2: 13) In fact, Hebrews 2:14 says Christ was incarnated for the brethren, so that He could become like them and thus call them “brethren”. These are the ones whom we must die for, lay down our lives for, as Christ did.

Secondly, it is righteous.

In 3: 12, we have two brothers who were not of the same father. Beyond their physical father, there was clearly a child of Satan and a child of God. These are Cain and Able. You are all familiar with the account of their interaction in a field one day, so I will not repeat it . In summary however, Cain had a grudge against Able, and permanently informed him of it there by killing him. The motive of Cain hating his brother, and consequently taking his life, (instead of laying down his own for him), was because of the contrast of their deeds. Able’s were righteous, Cain’s were not. That provoked him, and drove him to hatred. That is the kind of love the church should not have - a jealous love, a provoked love, an angry love. It may never get to the point of physical murder as did Cain’s, but it doesn’t have to. Verse 15 says “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer”. Just like Cain. Let’s step back a little here. What causes leaders and followers today to declare “love” in disregard to habitual sin and erroneous doctrine? Is it not because there is something to cover? Why then is such a contrast resulting in ‘love”, and not hatred? This must not be genuine love. Even this far, we can see that. Simply ask yourself, would Pope Francis die for that crippled man? Would he die for those children? Would he die for those people who, in summary, are “going to heaven anyway”? Specifically, would he give his life for the church? If not, then he does not have true love. Let’s take it home here. Would you or I die for the church? Would we be willing to follow Christ’s and so many other saints example that way? To clarify, this love is not something you can muster up. It is not from you, remember, but from God. God produces it in His children. He does not produce it in Satan’s children. If you see someone who does not have this love, and does not repent when convicted over his lack of it, then you are not seeing a believer, a genuine Christian. That goes for the Pope.

Thirdly, true love is generous.

Verse 17 says - “Whoever has the world‘s goods, and sees a brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?”. The love of God living in, being in, “abiding in” a person generates the character of God in that person - inevitably. There is no exception when it comes to giving. It would be accurately argued that a person who does not provide temporal things for a brother when he himself has them, loves those things more than that brother. In chapter 2 :15 of 1 John, the church is instructed not to “love the world, nor the things of the world.” The person who does love the world and its things, does not have the love of the Father in him. The love of the Father doesn’t produce that in people, ever. Further such love is entirely unlike Christ. If anyone had the opportunity to allow possessions to keep Him from sacrificing, it would have been Christ. (II Cor.8:9). He had beyond this world’s goods. He created this world’s goods. Moreover, He lived in the closest proximity to the Father in heaven. However, He exchanged all that became poor so that through it (His poverty) His brethren might become rich. That is our example, and we don’t even have to give up what He did - only this world’s goods. And, we know that Christ did not stay poor, but is once again with the Father in glory and will receive the nations as His inheritance, as Psalm 2 tells us.

I want to observe, although I may be being repeatedly redundant here, that we have not been told (I specifically mean in this text) to lay down our lives for the children of the Devil. We have not been told to give the world's goods to the children of the Devil. We have not been told to love the children of the Devil. (Not to say we shouldn't do those things, but let's focus for now where John is focusing.) On the contrary, 1 John 2:15 says, again “Do not love the world, nor the things of the world.” It is best to understand "love" here in the sense of where your heart is as in desire, imitation, approval and relationship on those terms. But we are told to “love one another” (4:7,11; 3:11). We also see that that is what the Father has exemplified for us. 1 John 2:28 says “This is the promise which He made to us: eternal life.” (Emphasis added) Chapter three verse one says “See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the children of God”. These are things that do not belong to the non-elect world. That is misplaced love, not to mention an effort in futility.

To clarify, it is not as though we are to hate the world by any means, as I will say in short order below. However, there is a unique love, and different love which is for those within the body. Romans 12 has much to contribute to this thought. Verse 10 says "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;..." That's within the Church. As for outside the Church, verse 14 says "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse." Verse 17 says "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone..." And, verses 20-21 say "'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in doing so you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Without going into detail here, I recommend reading the whole chapter.

So then, what does the church do with the world?

First, is there a love for the world? Or, is it right that we would be haters of everyone who is not "in the church"? Should you not provide for your unbelieving friend when they are in need and you can do something about it? Yes, no, and yes, you should. Lord willing, a future blog post will examine this more thoroughly. But, for now, suffice it to say that I am not claiming that you must "hate you neighbor" or "have no concern for your mother and father" who do not know Christ. In Mark 10: 21 we find Jesus interacting with the rich young ruler, who had just claimed to have kept from his youth up all the commandments which Jesus said he must keep in order to inherit eternal life. But, the reality was, the young man hadn't. Had he kept the law perfectly, he would have had a clear conscience. Still, with that in mind, the very next verse reads - "Looking at Him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, 'One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me'". We are never told that this man did that. We don't have any record that he ever did follow Christ. All we know is that "...he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property". (vs. 22) Jesus knew that this would be his reaction. He knew the young man would not follow but leave Christ - and He still had a love for him. And, it was that love that exposed the young man's lack of love for Christ.

Consider, also, the crowds whom Jesus repeatedly "felt compassion" for (Mt. 14: 14, 15:32) and both healed and fed. He did this knowing that the vast majority of them did not believe (John 6:36), would grumble against Him (John 6:41), and eventually walk away from Him (John 6:66). He could have sent them away beforehand and saved time, but He didn't. In fact, He could have incinerated them on the spot not only for their lives of sin, but their unbelief. However, He didn't. He felt compassion. He fed them. He healed their sick. Most critically, He taught them - and that is where they stopped listening and walked away.

In summary, so that I am not misunderstood,  I am not advocating hate for the world, at all. What I do say is that a believer's love for the world is a compassionate love. So, if you see someone at gun point and you can do something about it, do it. You don't you need to say "Hang on just a second! Excuse me, sir, but where do you go to church?". That would be ridiculous. In day-to-day situations, if a co-worker needs help lifting something, should you help only if you KNOW they are saved? Absolutely not. Let me ask you, did Christ die for godly people? No. The elect (pre-salvation) where/are just as sinful as the next guy. Did Christ only feed His disciples? No, as we glanced at above. Keep in mind, however, that the highest form of compassion, the greatest love you could show to anyone is that you would preach the gospel to them so that they may flee from the wrath to come. It is critical that you know how to do that, and it is not shoving the gospel down their throats every chance you get. That also is another blog post, and it is summed up in the question "how did the Lord evangelize?".

Secondly, there is a priority to guard what is taught the church. A prominent and reliable pastor recently stated “The most important thing in your life is not what you possess, but what you believe.” That is true. In summary of what he said after that, “what you possess cannot give you eternal life. But, what you believe does.” That is why it is critical that you believe accurately, and that is why Satan attacks sound teaching so relentlessly. If he is going to lead the elect astray (if possible), if he is going to destroy the work of the Son, then the truth must not be taught. What is taught must be anything but the Truth. In fact, although there should be a wide variety of flavors available, there must be some specific selections that resemble the Truth very, very closely. That way undiscerning men and women will not be able to tell the difference between truth and error, and will believe error with little to no hesitation.

But, that is why the truth must be taught - so that the church will gain discernment and be able to identify false teachers and false teaching. That is what John says to do in 1 John 4:1 “Test the spirits”. Don’t believe everyone, especially just because they appear to be Christians. Do they confess Jesus? Or do they mis-confess Jesus? Do they accurately understand and believe and teach Who He is? Also, observe what the world thinks of them. Are they liked and listened to by the world? If so, beware! 1 John 4: 5 teaches that these false teachers are from the world, and the world listens to them. On the contrary, true sheep hear the voice of Christ through sound teaching of the words of Christ and follow (vs. 6).

So, should false teaches be tolerated in the name of love? First of all, being false teachers, they are not children of God and our love which should be for the Church does not belong to them. Secondly, let’s say you do tolerate them, and they are allowed to teach. Now, a brother or sister hears them, and, lacking discernment, believes them. What have you just done for that brother or sister? Have you loved them? In the name of love have you harmed a brother? Is that really love? That is a true hireling - one who is complacent when a wolf appears amongst the flock. But, suppose you exercise love, and expose false doctrine, and you do it clearly, undeniably, biblically, confidently, but gently, and the brother or sister gains discernment and avoids that teaching. You have not only edified and protected a child of God, but have exposed an unsaved person to the truth. There are two potential responses. 1) He rejects it. Either God hasn’t granted him repentance yet, or he is a child of the Devil and won’t be given ever repentance anyway.
2) He is a sheep, and God grants him repentance, and you have won a brother. That was true love.

So, yes, it is very true that doctrine divides - and good. The problem is that the absence of doctrine (which is a false doctrine in itself) doesn’t divide - it blurs, it blends. You can’t tell who is who when those who do know are silenced and the truth is no taught. That’s when nobody gains discernment and false doctrine through false teachers is allowed to run rampant and un-checked within the church. It is no wonder Paul told Timothy in II Timothy 4:2 to “…preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with great patience and instruction. ”

Does this mean the church should be “cliquish”, and secretive - hindering evangelism, not to mention unnecessarily making us look like nutcases? No. People can’t reject the word unless they here it. Conversely, people can’t accept the word unless they here it. You don’t know who the sheep, the children of God are. They aren’t all saved yet. Show love to them by preaching the truth, that God may grant them repentance. And, in doing so, demonstrate love to the world. After all, both sheep and goats alike watched Christ give His life on the cross for His brethren.

I will close with an excerpt from one of the more monumental chapters in the Bible, John 17. Here, Christ is praying for His disciples, and all who believe in Him through their word. This is for the Church:

“But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. ”
~ John 17:13-17

A Basic Introduction to the Source of Wisdom.

We know that it is necessary that a person gains wisdom, and there are several reasons why this is (not including common sense, which some seem to be lacking anyways).
The first would be to preserve his own life. (Pr. 21: 16; 1:32; 19:8; 12:13 ). The second is for the sake of others - in that he would take care of his own household (Pr. 27:23-27), wisely aid others (Pr. 29:7), and the simple cause-and-effect benefits of wise behavior that those around the wise man enjoy(Pr. 28:2) .
Thirdly, a man must be wise in order to glorify God and reflect His image, as he was designed to do when God created him. Genesis 1:26 says “Then God said ,‘Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…’” Being His image, it is natural that we should be like Him. Note also Adam’s responsibilities for which God made Him “Then God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky, and every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Gen. 1:28) May you observe that these responsibilities (which were given to the man and His wife, the man being God‘s direct image bearer and responsible for the command not to eat of the tree of life, and woman as his helper) are things that God Himself did and does. He rules, and He made man in His Own image.

So then, it being so critical that one gain wisdom, the questions arises: How do I gain wisdom?

This question I will attempt to answer in very short form in this post.

I would like to look at Proverbs chapter 2. The author, whom we know to be Solomon, addresses this chapter to his son, whom we know to be Rehoboam. This is wisdom, however, and goes for everyone.

In brief observation, it should noted in verse 3 the conditional situation in which the son must “cry for wisdom“, and “lift up” or give his voice for her. He must plead for her. Think about were a person must be in order to do  this. They must be desperate. They must know their hopeless condition, and want earnestly the cure. Then, in verse 4, continuing the condition of verse 3, the son must get up and search for her. This isn’t a cursory glance or a brief inquiry for wisdom. The search that the son must have for her is compared to a person’s search for “silver” and “hidden treasures”. The searcher is putting their whole energy into their quest, and their whole heart is in it. Nobody half-heartedly looks for concealed treasures when they know it is there. They put all they have into it. This is their priority because they understand what they will benefit from discovering it.
It must be recognized that this is a lesser comparison. Proverbs 3:14-15 says of wisdom “For her profit is better than the profit of silver and her gain better than fine gold. She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire compares with her.” When found, even unlimited gold renders only temporal benefits to her possessor, and brings a lot of baggage along with it. However, wisdom gives not only temporal benefits, but primarily eternal ones.
Now it must be asked “Where do I look”. Let me ask you, where does wisdom come from? Look at verse 6. The Lord is the source of wisdom, specifically “From His mouth”.  So it is the things that God speaks that grants us wisdom. Where, now, do we have a given (note that) record of God’s words? So then where must we turn in order to gain wisdom, where do we dig? The inspired Scripture, the Word of God - the Bible. Also, note that at this time the New Testament was not existent. All people had were certain books of what we call the Old Testament, specifically the Law. This can be looked at more in the future, but just know that for now.
So, you are in a situation and you don’t know what exactly you should do. You need wisdom. What do you do? Roll your eyes in the back of your head and mutter a prayer to God, asking for guidance, hoping that the right answer will just pop into your mind? You must rely on what you have been taught form Scripture, not your own “Scriptural” ideas, but actual truth”. You need to be in a place where you are being taught the word of God so you can depend on what you know.

“Sanctify them by the truth; Your Word is truth” ~ John 17:17

He's Alive

Although this is not a theological post (though it is my fist post) I thought you might enjoy watching/listening to this video of a tenor named Philip Webb whom we have enjoyed listening to over the years, and still do. Although you will not see us, we were present for this perfomance a number of years ago. It was good live. :)
     Enjoy!






Thank you,
Joshua