http://bibleforums.org/blog.php/2647-slightlypuzzled A free online Christian Community. Active, moderated Christian Message Board. en Fri, 24 May 2013 19:24:54 GMT vBulletin 60 http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/rss.jpg http://bibleforums.org/blog.php/2647-slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3333-James-part-36 Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:51:25 GMT "A Strong Word of Warning...Part II"

As we have seen, James opens the fifth chapter, which is really a continuation of the last paragraph of the fourth chapter, with a condemnation of those who abuse and lust after riches. He is talking to a culture that viewed the rich as largely favored by God, and the ones who were closest to Him. But, as James cries out, they are saving up a treasure which will rot and consume them. It is a warning to those who abuse the things of this world, whose heart is so entangled in it, that it squeezes out all faith and love. The transition in verse seven is quite marked, and calls for patience of the saints in the midst of such a ferocious pursuit of the worlds goods.
The Gospels give us a full picture of this 'negative treasure' in the form of a rich young man who could not let go of his riches to follow Jesus. He was a young man who had it all, and he wanted more, he wanted eternal life, nothing wrong with that. So, he came to the famous Rabbi and asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus told him to follow the commandments, to which the young man said that he had done all this. Mark records that when he said this, Jesus had a love for him and Jesus answered him, 'One thing you lack, sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.' This only brought a look of sadness on the young man’s face.
You see, he was very rich, filthy rich, stinking rich as they say, and he did not want to depart with any of it. So, he made his road in the other direction, and followed the signposts that let him keep 'what was his'. Mark adds that he was 'grieving' over all this. Then, Jesus said a shocking thing, 'It is very for rich man to be saved. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved.' This was truly a stumper.
You see they thought it was the rich who gave the most money, the most gorgeous gifts to the temple, the most sacrifices and could afford everything that made for great tithes and sumptuous giving. But, that is not what it is all about. Jesus was teaching them that it is not the giving so much as where your heart is, and what motivates you to give as you do. Do you see the connection between the rich young ruler and what James is talking about?
James is condemning what begins with an attitude, an attitude which is shown in that of the Rich Young ruler, let's call him a prince, and is endemic of the whole Jewish attitude towards what God wanted. The reponse of Peter and the others just mirrors this prevailing viewpoint: 'They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?'. Jesus had just demolished a long held view, and now the disciples could only think, 'If the rich cannot be saved, where does that leave the poor?' Money talked in their time, and to some it shouted the loudest prayers for God to hear, provided you were not one of the outcasts or sinful ones.
Jesus makes the point that with God all things are possible, for only by God can anyone be saved. But all any of them could think of was 'we have left all to follow you, what will become of us.' The whole point is that the disciples were zeroed in on the 'power of money', and missing the whole point of salvation. Jesus corrected that, and pointed out that God hold that privilege to save anyone. Jesus wanted the Rich man to make a treasure in heaven for himself, but all the Rich man could see was how much he had and how impossible it was for him to give up all his wealth.
Later, Jesus told a parable about creating a treasure in heaven. Jesus was speaking to His disciples with some Pharisees who were listening to what was being taught. Luke is the only one who records this particular parable in chapter sixteen verses one through eighteen, though the parable proper ends at verse thirteen. But, the way that Luke structures the setting, the first parable leads to an exchange with the Pharisees which in turn leads to a second parable, Lazarus and the rich man. The whole chapter is instructive of the Pharisees attitude to money, Jesus, and to the Old Testament scriptures that they had.
The larger setting is one in which Jesus is Journeying to Jerusalem to die. It starts in chapter nine and goes on through chapter nineteen with His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The immediate setting extends back through chapter fifteen where, at the beginning of the chapter, tax collectors and other sinners are pressing around Jesus to hear Him teach; the Pharisees, as usual, are grumbling about all the riff raff that assembles around Jesus. In this chapter Jesus tells several parables of salvation culminating with the parable of the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal was one who squandered what was his, here at the beginning of chapter sixteen Jesus tells a parable about one who squander money that is not his.
Jesus turns from the story of a son who squandered his inheritance and now tells a story about one who stole from his master, and the master found out about it. So, he called the man, who was his steward of finances, into his office to give him, the Owner and master, a full accounting of his finances. This scared the steward because he knew his master might find out and throw him out. Then, he would have to actually work for a living. He thought, '‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.’
So, he called in his master's debtors, people who owed his master money, gave them their account sheets, and told them to write in lower numbers than what they really owed. This was clearly wrong, but Jesus did not go into a speech about dishonesty, he talked about wisdom, '8 And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. 9 And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.' This, Jesus was saying, is how you use money, to make eternal friends with eternal dwellings.
Jesus then drives the point home by pointing out that if one is unfaithful with just a little, he will be so with much more. One cannot serve two masters, God does not want a divided heart. You must be faithful now, while you have the chance. It is not how much we have, but how we use what we have. This was how to use money, but the Pharisees, who loved money, just laughed and jeered at Jesus. He turned and commented to them, 'You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.' God know the thoughts and intents of the heart, and weighs them according to His view.
Jesus, now, in verses sixteen through eighteen, makes what appears to be an off the cuff remark totally unrelated to what has been going on so far in this narrative. However, I feel it is a crucial 'pivot' to facing squarely the predicament of the Pharisees, what they truly face in life whether they see it coming or not. Notice, that phrase 'Law and Prophets' in verse sixteen and the repetition of the parallel 'Moses and the Prophets' in verses twenty-nine and thirty-one, they signify a parallel between Jesus comments and the meaning of the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus, as we know it.
Jesus makes the transition by pointing out that the Law and the Prophets were read until John came, they were known throughout the land leading up to John the Baptist and with his coming the kingdom of God has been sought by all men of many kinds, and they have sought it with all their means. The last phrase 'It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away....' simply points out that the whole law must be fulfilled, it cannot fail. This is a dig at the Pharisees and how their traditions have twisted scripture. This is seen by Jesus' last comment on marriage.
'Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.' This teaching flew in the face of what the Pharisees and scribes taught; they had many ways and means for a man to write a simple certificate of divorce and hand it to the woman. Indeed, this was common practice among the Herods, who divorced and passed around wives like trading cards. It was this that John the Baptist condemned Herod for, and that ultimately cost him his head on a silver platter.
So, Jesus simply pointed out that their attitudes on scripture, like their attitude about money, was so very wrong. It was then that Jesus told them the parable about Lazarus, a poor man with sores who was set every day at the gate of a house of a very wealthy man. This wealthy man, who had much money and fine garments, gave lavish meals every day to which he invited all the rich, powerful, and lovely people. It was a true 'A listers' affair that went on for every day of the year. But, Lazarus was never even given table scraps to enjoy, they went to the dogs. The dogs, having been well fed, then would lick the sores of poor Lazarus every day.
In time, like the Rich Fool, he died and woke up in a fiery torment, from which he could see Lazarus enjoying rest lying against Abrahams' chest. There might be a parallel here, since he was used to seeing Lazarus being licked by the dogs while they were both living. So, he asks for water, to which Abraham says it is impossible to get; and that Lazarus is now getting the good things that he missed out on in life. I am wondering if the listeners had the parable of the unjust steward in the back of their minds; the rich man did not use his wealth wisely as that thieving steward did.
So, twice the rich man begs Abraham to send someone, maybe himself, back to warn his brothers about this place. Twice, Abraham denies it saying they have 'Moses and the Prophets' to warn them. The rich man tries to argue that they will not listen to scripture, but will listen to one who comes back from the dead, and Abraham ends it by stating that if they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not listen even if one should come back from the dead. This all rings about what will happen with Jesus, and the Pharisees after His resurrection. It is a statement condemning the Pharisees misuse of riches and their twisting, even ignoring, what all Moses and the Prophets really had to say.
Such were the hard-hearted, stiff necked people Jesus tried to teach, and such were the same that James was facing in trying to shepherd a growing church; a struggling community of believers. James makes the connection with a further condemnation: '4 Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.'
The picture in verse four is of the day laborers who take daily jobs to harvest the various crops that come to fruition. Jesus told a stunning parable about this, about the owner who, at various times of the day, went to the market and hired people to pick his crop. These were the poorest workers around, and God gave a special rule to be sure that they could get the essentials, they were to be payed daily; their wages were not to be with held from them. They needed them to buy food so they could work well the next day. In Leviticus 19:13 God commanded 'You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning.' Mercy to all within their grasp was commanded. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3333-James-part-36 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3283-James-part-35 Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:08:24 GMT 'A Stron Word Of Warning'

The pivot from the end of chapter four to the start of chapter five is very important to catch. It is masked by the misleading chapter and verse markings that were never in the original manuscripts. In the original, 4:13-5:6 is all one paragraph and is a description of one main thought. But, in many translations this is broken up into several thoughts, and so the unity of James on this issue is lost:
'Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins. Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.'
The diaspora had been good to many of the Jews. They started in Babylon and the Persian empire as captives, but grew wealthy. God had told them, through Jeremiah, to settle down, raise families and make a living; He would watch over them and then return them to the land when the seventy years were up. However, when it came time to go back, the rich stayed and only a few of the teeming Jewish enclaves in the Persian Empire left. If you read Esther with the thought of myriads of well to do Jewish communities thriving within the Empire, you can see how Haman might have felt intimidated; it was not just a few Jews skulking around the Persian Capital.
When Alexander conquered the Persians, the Jews found favor with him. When he built Alexandria, he dedicated a whole quarter to Jewish settler. This quarter grew and thrived, gaining influence and strength, along with the hate of the gentiles who viewed the Jews with disdain. The Jewish merchant was a familiar figure in the Empire when the Romans took over and established themselves as the newest power in the East. By the time of James, the Jews were, like the rest of the Roman Empire, divided into the rich and the poor. A thriving Jewish merchant class was to present it's own problems for the growing, emerging Jewish/Christian communities.
As you can see, James makes a very damning picture of the greedy whose only thought is to move around and acquire riches at any cost. It is the boasting that raises it to a sinful level; the arrogance of the Rich Fool who thought he had it all, but in the end faced judgment and lost even his very soul. James has condemned this from the very start, '...the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.' As James says 'while he goes about his business' which is what the Rich Fool is doing in enlarging his barns to hold a wealth that will last him for a life time of self indulgence.
Within the New Testament writings, we have a group that is representative of this merchant class, the Pharisees, along with the ruling Saducees, and all their scribes and lawyers. The incident in John 2 of Jesus cleansing the temple, driving out the money changers and sellers, is a good example of the clash between a business enterprese gone wild and what God wanted from His people. The ruling class had a monopoly on the money that could be used for temple tithes, and the animals that could be used for sacrifices. They had purchased all the local supplies, and then sold them back to the pilgrims at exorbitant prices. If the pilgrims happened to bring their own animals they still had to pass a rigid inspection by the same ruling elite that sold their wares in the temple; I am sure you can see how unbiased those inspections were. It was against this, and what it was doing to the true worship in the temple, and during the festival that Jesus launched His protest against.
You can just stop and imagine the machinations that went into setting up such a temple concession stand, and the kind of 'entrepreneurial' spirit that eagerly jumped into such a business deal. I am sure that when they bought up all the sheep and animals around Jerusalem to sell back, that they gave everyone a 'good deal'. It should be noted that the Synoptic Gospels place a cleansing just after Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem on 'Palm Sunday', as we call the day. The juxtaposition of His entry into Jerusalem, and then driving the money changers and seller out of the temple to make it more of a house of worship is a powerful one to begin His final week before His crucifixion. But, there is one other incident, during that final week, that is also telling.
It is against this type of mind set that James is protesting. He is demanding an accountability before God of all that is done in the name of 'tomorrow' and 'future expansion of business profits'. The whole fourth chapter breaks into three parts, each condemning arrogance in it's various practices. First, there is the arrogant grasping after the lusts and pleasures of the world. Then, there is the arrogant condemnation of others, the judgment that would condemn others and deny any worth. Finally, there is the sheer arrogance of 'time', that they will just continue to pile up more and more reachs as they make boastful plans; the Rich fool found out that this does not work, much to his woe. It is on this slippery slide, that James pivots and places the condemnation squarely where it belongs, as he shouts in the first six verses of chapter five.
These verses read like a condemnation of the people described in chapter four, which indeed they are. James encourages them to 'weep and howl' for the coming judgment. The greek words for 'weep and howl' sound like a kind of wailing when they are spoken. The idea has parallels in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 13:6 we have a picture of the inhabitants of Jerusalem wailing at a coming judgment; it is the Babylonians whom God will bring down on Jerusalem and the onlookers will wail, be seized with fear, stagger and unable to do anything. That is the picture that James is painting. Then, he goes even farther.
In verses two and three, He describes their riches, what they have striven so hard for, as rotting and being consumed by rust. Normally, gold and silver are not consumed by rust, but James describes the horror of their riches just rotting away before their very eyes. Even worse, that same 'rust' will consume their very flesh and will serve as a witness against them in the Day of Judgment. Dante, in his 'Inferno', describes the inhabitants of hell as being not only consumed by their sins, but their sins describe the kind of punishment they face for all eternity. James, graphically, describes the rotting, rusting filth that is, that arises from their riches, and will condemn them!
It is with this image, that I want to leave you for now. I am drawing out this description because of exegetical reasons. From a reading of James, I believe that he is now warning against a coming judgment; one that will fall upon those who have misused and abused what God gave them and destroyed the community that God had built up. James is not writing from an Ivory Tower. He is living in the midst of this, and is fighting to keep alive what Jesus died and rose for, a people and a community that are called to live a holy life; even in the face of all the rotteness and greed that is pressing in upon them. We might wish to prayerfully consider any modern day parallels. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3283-James-part-35 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3149-Musings_number_six Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:39:59 GMT "What's In a Name"


So far, we have outlined the struggle for the first century believers to fully identify who they were. This involved struggles with Jewish authorities to show that Jesus was the long promised Messiah, witnessing to popular culture and prejudices, and confronting the authorities with the Truth. This is reflected in modern history with the Evangelicals attempt to fully define 'who' they are, and what are their distinctive beliefs. Indeed, you can see this struggle in modern Protestant history from Luther on down to the modern conservative stance of Christians today. Like the first century believers, we do not want our message lost, diluted or usurped for uses that make the message secondary to other purposes. The Message is the thing; the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Part of the work of an Apostle was to spread the message, and that is what Paul was commissioned to do, direct from Jesus Christ. So, we have seen Paul struggle against Jewish magicians, Jewish teachers, local pagan priests, the indifference of Roman authorities, and a movement from within the Way to turn the people back to the Law of Moses; all of which failed to stem the tide of conversions.
We had left our intrepid preacher, Paul, in Corinth doing his usual bang up job of bringing 'piece' to all parties, but only true peace to one. Corinth was an especially hard church to bring to maturity. We know that Paul wrote two letters to Corinth, both trying to heal some wrongs in the body there, and there is a possibility he wrote as much as four letters, depending on how you read certain parts of the book of II Corinthians. Corinth was as a seaport town (actually, the seaport was Cenchrea). Two trading routes, one going north and south from the Greek and Macedonian mainlands to the Peloponnese, and one going east west across the Isthmus (the Diolkos or slip canal for hauling the light ships across the Isthmus) made Corinth a thriving, populous city that saw many, many religious orders come through.
It was in that stew pot of people that Paul, for more than two years, sought to preach the Gospel, and then one day he had his head shaved at Cenchrea (for a vow) and left for Syria and the church in Antioch. He made a quick trip to Ephesus and preached to the Jews there, then he left for 'home' in Antioch. It was while he was absent from Ephesus that the first curious event happened, and it mainly involved his friends from Corinth, Priscilla and Aquilla. An Alexandrian appeared at Ephesus who began to preach an teach with accuracy and fervor that none could dispute.
However, Luke mentions one little factor, and he will mention that also in our next event in chapter nineteen of Acts; Apollos 'knew only the Baptism of John'. It seems a curious way to put things. In his first volume, Luke says this about John the Baptist, '15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16 John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.' So it was that One greater than John was to come, and Apollos new about this one, but he did not know about Jesus baptizing with the Holy, and so they invited him home and completed his training.
Ephesus was a major center of trade and religious festivals and worship for Asia. It had a large Jewish community, and was home of the magnificient temple of Diana, which was involved in a minor riot later on in Acts. It was here that Prisciall and Aquilla had to make sure that Apollos was fully instructed in the Way. The power of the Spirit was important to the Way, and as Paul will tell the same Ephesian church, it is the Spirit that is the seal, and guarantor of our salvation. For John, it was the sign of the power of the One who was to come after him, Jesus the Messiah. It was this mighty power that the ministry of Paul would demonstrate in his coming two or three year ministry in Ephesus. If you read Paul's letters to Rome, Galatia, and Ephesus, he teaches it is the Spirit that gives life, and as he tells the Corinthians, wherever you have the Spirit, you have the Lord Himself. The teaching is made alive and powerful with His presence.
The second event in Ephesus just highlights the point even more. Paul, after awhile, left Antioch and went back through Cilicia, Galatia, Phrygia, and Asia teaching and strengthening the churches along the way. This is now the second tour overland from Antioch through Asia that Paul has made. When he arrives in Ephesus, he finds twelve disciples, so Luke tells the tale in Acts nineteen. He does not say whether they are Jewish or not, this is in contrast to Apollos, whom he calls a Jew. They are called 'disciples', and usually when Luke uses the term 'disciples' with no modifier, he means Christians. (There are some who debate this). This is see also in the question Paul asked them, '“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Paul is asking them closely about their belief in Christ. I am guessing there was something in their speech that led Paul to believe they might not have heard the full story of the Powe of the Lord.
What is important is that they had not been properly trained. They had only received John's baptism. There understanding was incomplete, so Paul opened up to them 'the rest of the story' and they received the Holy Spirit in power and Joy. This marks the beginning of one of the most powerful ministries that Luke talks about. Paul showed such Power from the Lord, that many magicians turned from the evil to follow Christ. This is the second time Paul has overcome forces that were commonly supposed to have power but did not.
Thus far, Paul, Priscilla, and Aquilla have been instrumental in setting the record straight on some errant, or incomplete instructions. John had been a powerful figure, and many who came to the festivals were influenced by what they heard of him, and from him. In the case of Apollos and the twelve disciples, they ahd been taught from John, and knew quite a bit, but there were some key elements that had to be introduced to them. Even today, we have many acquaintances who know bits and pieces of the Gospel, but they have to be taught fully the way of the Lord. Very often, it is this little piece thay know that causes them to think they understand, and some have rejected the Gospel based on this kind of knowledge.
So you can see, that from the very beginning there has been a struggle to define what the Gospel is. Many wanted to change it, alter it, many were taught accurately but incompletely and so on all accounts the teachers had to set the record straight. As we look at today's modern religious setting, especially amongst those who are called 'Christian' there is a struggle by many to understand the common ground of the Gospel teaching; to find ways to make the names more definitive and inclusive. I imagine the struggle will always be there, but we should always strive and pray for the knowledge to understand. Our understanding must be biblical, and it must be in the power of the Spirit; the life blood of the Body of Christ. I will leave you with the words Paul wrote to the Corinthians, a church that was struggling to truly understand and act as God would have them, even if they were prone to mistakes, divisions, and misuse of what God had given them.

1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15:1-11) ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3149-Musings_number_six http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3145-Musings_number_five Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:43:16 GMT "What's In a Name?"
Part III


Okay, so we left Paul with the Pagans in Lystra trying to patch up a horrible misunderstanding. (Acts 14). In the very next chapter, Paul is found defending the Gospel message in the face of Judaizing additions. Circumcision was being taught by many as the logical outcome of Christ's 'Jewishness', the law of Moses must be followed by the Gentiles. Paul strenuously opposed this, as he did the Gentile interpretation in Lystra. If you look at his life as recorded in Acts and his letters, his whole life was spent in defending, delineating, and fully describing the Gospel to all who would listen, Jew and Gentile alike. Today, we find ourselves caught up in the three D's of Paul's work. From the beginning of the Gospel's spread up to this day, many Christians have taught, and died, to achieve this goal.
In Acts, Paul has encounters with Roman Proconsuls in which he has to explain the Gospel, and defend it from Jewish opposition at the same time. There are two examples worth of note. My first example is with Gallio, who was Proconsul of Achaia around the time Paul was first working in Corinth. Paul, having been finished in Athens, decides to leave for Corinth and there settles working as a tent-maker while witnessing in the synagogues. After a while, then the Jews kept resisting the Gospel and even blaspheming the Name of Christ, Paul turned to the Gentiles, and continued to work in Corinth for a year and a half all told.
It was while he was gaining success among the Gentiles that the Jews grew jealous and began to oppose him openly. They dragged Paul before Gallio and openly accused Paul of teaching men to worship God in a way contrary to the law of Moses. But, before Paul could speak, Gallio dismissed them. He did not want to hear about any religious disputes; he was only interested in events that were contrary to established law. The Jews raised quite a ruckus, even beating Sosthenes the leader of the Synagogue, but all to no avail. Gallio was not interested in any such disputes, and appears to have been unimpressed by the goings on.
It should be pointed out that an inscription has been discovered in Greece with his name on it, concerning the city and oracle at Delphi. He seems to have been concerned that the city of Delphi was run down and largely a ghost town. He was granted funds by the emperor to re-establish the city with many important rights of citizenship. The new citizens of 'good birth' were to have all the rights and privileges in order to make it attractive to move to Delphi. Gallio was interested in 'religion' just now the Jewish religion of the teaching of an obscure Jewish preacher who had raised such ire.
There is another instance recored int Acts 13, which occurred during Paul's first missionary journey. The first went to Cyprus, and went through the whole island preaching and teaching. The Proconsul on Cyprus, being an intelligent man, sent for Paul and Barnabas to learn about the word of God. Here, Paul faced Jewish opposition in the form of the Magician, Elymas. If you remember, Phillip had a similar encounter with a magician named Simon. The contrast between the two add another layer to the discussion. In Philip's case, he had been working great miracles and impressing everyone, who even saw Philip as a greater 'power' than Simon who apparently fell in with the believers. Paul and Barnabas had been 'preaching and teaching' the Gospel. Luke does not stress the miraculous, though miracles might have been worked, they are not important to the narrative in chapter 13 up to this point.
Whereas Simon, in chapter 8, did not oppose the message, Elymas, in chapter 13, sought to keep Sergio Paulus from accepting the Gospel; Elymas actively opposed the faith. So, Paul strikes Elymas with blindness and demonstrates the power of the Gospel over the false prophet. In chapter 8, Simon sees how the Apostles give the Holy spirit by laying on their hands and causing even greater signs and wonders, so he attempts to bribe Peter to give him the power of giving the Holy Spirit. Peter rebukes him for such evil thoughts. The difference between the two incidents stands out, but both can become obstacles to understanding the true message of the Gospel.
Elymas openly fought against, Simon thought he could purchase it with money; both were wrong. Elymas was struck blind (are there parallels with Paul's experience in chapter 9?), Simon was rebuked for his blindness of heart and spirit. In the long run, both were obstacles to be overcome in understanding what the true message was. We see both in action today. There are many who oppose the message, and many who thing they can purchase salvation by money, hoping to influence the judgment of God. Both views cloud the message in different ways, but still they cloud it.
For Paul, Gallio's action in Acts 18 just reflect a pattern seen in Pontius Pilate's judgment of Jesus. Pilate could find nothing wrong with Jesus, but the Jewish authorities pressed the issue until it became a matter of political expedience, which Pilate understood as did all good Roman governors. Pilate found nothing wrong with Jesus but let the Jews crucify Him anyway; Gallio wanted no part of such a religious dispute and just walked away from it. He had his own religious sentiments and they did not extend to Moses or Christ. In all three incidents, Acts 8, 13 and 18, indifference, opposition and gross misunderstanding became obstacles to true faith; they had to be dealt with and corrected just the same. Even so, must we do in spreading the Gospel today.
In looking at today's modern setting, we can draw some important parallels. To those who are on the 'outside' of the Christian message, it often seems as if we are consumed with just religious minutiae, and things that just don't make sense. Like Gallio, they do not want to be drawn into such matters, prefering to focus on the real world that they encounter everyday. In many cases, and especially in such areas as Africa and the Mid-East, there is open opposition from other religions; some of it is quite physical and deadly. Paul had to face the Athenian intellectuals, the Judaizing element, and Roman indifference as he preached the Gospel; the same holds true today.

************************************************** ****************************

Next Musing will talk about two events in Acts 18 and 19 which shed light on another kind of action that was muddying the water of understanding. I will draw this thing to a conclusion...hopefully.... ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3145-Musings_number_five http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3143-Musings_number_four Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:31:34 GMT "What's In a Name?"
Part II

In the first part I chronicled Paul's work in Athens and distinguished it from the earlier work in Thessalonica and Berea. Athens was somewhat of a cultural estuary that typified some of the attitudes among the cultural elite in the Hellenic settings of the world that Paul traveled in. Paul, the Pharisee, was able to communicate with the Greeks because he could become like 'one not under the law'. His experience there typifies what we face today.
Our modern setting is one of religious pluralism; there are a growing number of 'new' religions from outside Christianity, and a diverse opinion amongst Christians themselves as to what Christianity is. We are divided among Evangelicals, Othodox, fundamentalists, Liberal, Conservation, Mainline Denominational, Biblical, etc. etc. It is this pluralism that makes us so like the Athenians. This diversity competes for our attention, our time, our hearts, and our lives. As the Gospel was being spread in the first century, it encountered a society that was diverse, pluralistic, and largely secular with a deep Hellenistic background and a Roman sense of peace and jurisprudence. The Gospel was just one 'Way' among thousands in which to view the hope of so many lives.
The first century believers were called 'Christians' in the same way that followers of Epicurus were called 'Epicureans' and the followers of Plato were called 'Platonists'. (The Stoics are a curious case; their founder was Zeno, and they were named for frequenting the Stoa of porch in the Agora or marketplace.) The Cypriotes who were witnessing in Antioch talked about 'Christ' and the Greek citizens of Antioch (a thoroughly Greek name for a city) naturally called them 'Christianoi' or 'Christians'. The name does not appear to be derogatory, but simply descriptive of the name that was on their lips and that described the 'new religion' they were preaching. As we have seen, this is actually more descriptive than what Paul was/will be called in Athens.
Years later, Peter will make this admonition to his readers in the fourth chapter of his first letter, '...16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. '. The name of 'Christian' is now an honorable association that brings glory to those who suffer under that name. For Peter and his readers, the name associated them with God and His will; to bring God the glory through what they suffered. By this time, they were a 'sect' to the other Jews and Gentiles, a name that was filling the whole world with the message of the Gospel, as Paul told the Colossians. By the end of the first century AD, the Christians were found almost everywhere in the Empire. Rich, poor, elite, down trodden, upper class and slaves were all represetned in the 'Body of Christ.
There are some who have crossed this board who find the term 'Christian' unacceptable for a variety of reasons; much of it having to do with the modern connotations and usages of the term. I can sympathize, but I take my cue more from the New Testament writings, as such. Before we go further, I would like to go a little backwards in Acts, to the fourteenth chapter and the city of Lystra. This is Paul's first missionary journey, and he is traveling with Barnabas (John Mark left them when they left the city of Paphos on Cyprus bound for Perga.) They would preach in the synagogues in each city until the Jewish leaders threw them out, then they would go preach to the Gentiles.
In preaching to the Gentiles, they had to show how they differed from the accepted teaching of the leaders, and how the message of the Gospel was the true fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures (the 'Bible' of Paul, so to speak.) We will shortly look at an example of how the Roman authorities treated such disputes, but for now you can follow Paul's progress from Antioch (in Pisidia) to Iconium and then, finally, to Lystra and Derbe. Paul and Barnabas picked quite a bit of opposition form the Jews and Gentiles for their efforts, and it tended to follow them along the way. In short, Paul and Barnabas took a lot of religious flack for their teaching.
So, they roll into Lystra one day and set up shop. Paul is preaching, when he sees a lame man just setting there, listening. Now, the first point I see is this, they did not start teaching in a synagogue, but were in the open market place. Why no synagogue, it was the place where Paul usually started. I think there was none, just as there was only a 'place of prayer' at Philippi. Lystra was a smallish, 'back woods' type of frontier town; big for the area, but small overall. It was in the Lycaonian district, and was just another Roman district in the Povince of Asia. As such, it had a varied, and colorful history but had lately sunk into the Roman Pax and suffered relative obscurity for the moment. Not far from Iconium, it was a 'truck stop' on the upper highway, a natural highland road that ran from about Ephesus to the Cilician Gates.
The whole are was a high table land, about three thousand two feet in elevation, a good day's walk, all in all. So, Paul and Barnabas arrive and set up a preaching post in the market place. They did not appear to have visited the synagogue, possibly because there was not one. As he is preaching, Paul sees a lame man listening intently to his message. Luke says that Paul understood he had 'faith to be healed', perhaps was highly receptive to the message, so Paul heals him. Now, I see a clear line in scripture that goes from Christ, to Peter, and finally to Paul. In the New Testament writings, they all three healed lame men and had to defend what they did and why they did it. Paul's was unigque in that it involved Gentiles and their religious views.
In John eight, Jesus heals a man who has been sick and lame for many years. The story, however, is really centered around the Pharisees, and Jewish, reaction to what Jesus did and claimed. It is instructive to read that chapter in light of Jesus' testimony about who He is, and what the Pharisee's 'know' and 'think'. In short, Jesus tells them that they put their trust in the Scriptures, yet it is the scriptures who testify of Him. The Jews, Jesus claims, do not even understand the scriptures. They sent to talk about John, yet John testified to Him. They accepted John's testimony, and yet reject the testimony of One who is greater than John.
Jesus than points out that He does greater works than John, but they do not accept the works, and in this case the healing of the lame man, at face value; that they point to the veracity of Jesus testimony. They choose to dismiss it or to simply see it as proof that he is working miracles by the power of Beelzebub. (Actually, it is the Synoptice who teach us this about the Pharisees.) My point here is that the Jews had a way of 'filtering' the phenomena to fit in with what they believed. Jesus did not accept their teaching, so He 'HAD' to be wrong, and so he was not really doing what He did by the power of God. The one Jesus healed seems to have turned against Jesus and reported Him to the Jewish authorities. It might have been his way of simply following orders, or maybe he had some doubts about Jesus, even as he walked around on the legs that Jesus had healed.
So, we move on to Acts three and four. In the third chapter, Peter heals a lame man (I have heard it said that certain people in the New Testament must have had a sneakers endorsement because they created so many new walkers and runners). Then, in front of an astonished crowd, he preaches a gospel message. Predictably, the Temple police come along and arrest Peter and John. What is significant is that it is the Sadducees (who are the ruling High Priests) who instigate the arrests. The Pharisees are not mentioned in this setting. Luke states that the two Apostles were arrested for preaching about the resurrection; the Sadducee did not believe in a resurrection of any kind.
In these two incidents we have an example of message clarification, both were attempts to state the true faith, or meaning, in the light of prevailing error and opposition to the truth. We see that today, and it just clouds the message. The miraculous element is cut out of the message, the distinctiveness is blurred, or an attempt is made to blend the Gospel in with other religious themes. So now, we return to Paul and how he dealt with the Gentile misconceptions.
Luke tells us, in Acts fourteen, that the crowd, on seeing the lame man healed, immediately wanted to give thanks to the local deities, interpreting as an act of the power of their Gods. They felt that Zeus and Hermes, in the form of Barnabas and Paul respectively, had come to visit them. So, the local priest wanted to offer a sacrafice to those two deities. The crowd, even though Paul had been preaching to them, still wanted to force their own religious views on the situation. It took the two Apostles a lot of energetic talking and acting to stop the crowd from carrying out their wishes, the bulls offered to Zeus were safe for that day. There was much grumbling among the populace over this.
So, when the Jews from Antioch and Iconium arrived, they were able to turn the crowds against the two teachers of 'atheism' (so Christians were later accused of for denying the existence of the gods). Paul was stoned, but was able to get up and go back and preach some more. The upshot is that the Jews who opposed Pagan deities, also made common cause with dthe same Pagans to stop the preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel had to be preached in the face of Pagan teaching, and in the face of Jewish opposition and influence of the prevailing teaching about the Law of Moses. In Antioch and Iconium the Jewish leaders were able even to turn many Gentiles who were 'God Fearers' against the message.
The analogy for us is striking in that we often see opposition to a right interpretation of the Gospel message; it is still true that in many parts of the world the gospel is mixed up with politics and with prevailing attitudes of morals and 'civil' rights. The Lycaonians saw the healing as an act of the gods, the Jews wanted to disregard the power of the healings because the message preached clashed with 'accepted doctrine'. It all sounds so familiar to today.

************************************************** **********************************************
I had planned to end this, but I am afraid it will go on for at least one more part. Believe me, I am as anxious to move on as your are for me to be done with this. But, I have not talked about at least two events that append in Chapters eighteen and nineteen of Acts. My whole point has been this, that the first century was not as monolithic as you might think in regards to understanding of the Scriptures. You could even see the events of Acts fifteen as being a sort of 'coming to an understanding' about what it all meant. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3143-Musings_number_four http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3134-Musings_number_three Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:41:24 GMT “What Is in a Name???"
Part I


I have recently started reading on religious history in America; and more specifically on 'Evangelical' history. The problem the author describes right from the very beginning is, 'How do you define an Evangelical?'. Would you know one if you passed him (or her) on the streets? How would you distinguish Evangelicals from other denominations? Viewed from this angle, the history becomes somewhat obtuse; the author follows a thread in history that he feels defines the subject matter, but in a modern day setting it is hard to say, 'that person is an Evangelical and that one is not.' One could well argue that, if it is hard to define the subject matter, how can you write a history about it.
My point about it is that the term 'Evangelical' has become as slippery as the term 'Protestant'. It could well be that the terms will have to one day be replaced with others to describe a certain group. Peronally, I have always preferred the work 'Biblical' to describe my beliefs and stance. However, that does not really say a lot, but then it also says it all. The point from any perspective is that hundreds of different groups will claim to be 'Biblical', but will all hold differing beliefs and work closely to differentiate themselves from other groups of the same 'description'. The whole thing can be very depressing if we lose our emotional drive in that quagmire. Indeed, many have left their faith in Jesus Christ altogether because of the proliferation of denominations, groups, fellowships, synods etc. etc. All in all, it prevents a very splintered picture of the fellowhisp that Christ died and rose from the dead to establish, empower, and embolden to live and witness as His peculiar people.
Now, it should be noted that the author writes a very good history that defines his point, that it is easy to see what distinguishes 'Evangelicals' from other denominations and that will allow one to write a history of the 'origins' of a particular movement. Perhaps it is necessary to point out that the main perspective is not that on Evangelicals are Christians, but that they have some 'pecualiar' or unique beliefs, actions, and lifestyles (?) that set them apart from others who follow Christ. Now, this will include true as well as false, but this is a distinction that is not pursued in the book. The writers point is what is unique about one group that sets it apart from all others. This is harder than you might think.
For instance, the witnessing of and about the gospel of Christ is a charateristic of many groups from mailnine denominations to Orthodox groups and Catholics. The term 'evangelical' is really a term for the 'good news' or 'Gospel of Christ', the Greek being 'euangelion' (transliteration) and means, simply, 'good news'. The local Greek merchant of the first century had 'good news' of a great profit on the merchandise he invested in. Just so, the first Christians had 'good news' about the salvation that came from God to all men. They had no problem with names, just getting the message out to the world at large. Twenty centuries later, a group taking the name arises with a great emphais on missions and spreading the Gospel around the world. We all know the basic lines of the history form Jerusalem outwards, and of the growth both East and West that filled the world with God's witness.
For me, coming in from the cold angst of Atheism, it was how to distinguish myself form other world religions. Looked at from the outside, all religions look a lot alike. The idea of a deity, of a messenger, of a message, and of a code of conduct is commona to all. Indeed, in the first century, the world was overrun with religions. Paul, as he contemplated the religious condition of the Athenians, was disturbed by their profundity of beliers and religious expressions. He was able to find an altar to an 'Unknown God' which became his 'touchpoint' to present the Gospel to the Athenians. Athens, though, is a case in itself.
It was the center of Greek Culture, as intellectual history went, and was proud of it's intelligentsia. It had to be, for it was long past it's prime as a naval power. It's premier place as a port city was taken by corinth, just a few miles to the southwest. It was an 'old' city with an old 'aristocracy' and society. When Paul entered it's gates, he was just resting and observing the people. There were many idols to many gods, that was the Greek 'way' of experiencing religion, it was also infused with the deities from the East, who had also been infected with a Grecian twist and returned to the west with new forms and exorbitant modes of worship bordering on the erotic. In short, Paul's spirit was 'vexed' with all the idolatry around him.
Now, in the midst of all this idolatry, was a synagogue where Paul went to witness to the Jews. The problem begins to take shape, he is vexed by the pagan idols and rejected by the ones who taunted the Gentiles; Paul was in a place in the middle. What is so intriguing about the Athenian 'mission' is that the Jews of thessalonica, who had harried him out of Berea, did not seem to come to Athens. So, Paul has a respite from controvert from his countryment; but now, he comes into conflict with the 'secular' culture. Here, I use 'secular' as opposed to the Jewish culture that was the base point of Jesus and Paul. Oddly enough, Luke describes how the Gentiles heckle and taunt Paul as he teaches in the market place. The synagogue appears quiet for once.
To me, what is interesting, is how Paul relates to this. He seems to be a Jew here, in the synagogue, but the Greek part takes a back seat to the Jewish religion. At this point, Christianity is still struggling with it's Jewish roots, but has made the difference clear from the meeting in Jerusalem. The name 'Christian' appears known in Antioch, but here in Athens it is unknown and openly ridiculed by the Greeks; again, notice the lack of Jewish opposition here in Athens. The struggle to make the Gospel known is purely against accepted religious philosophy and the prevailing civil religion. A case not unlike here in America. Notice how Luke describes the Athenians, '21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)'
Sounds like modern culture, the pursuit of 'the new' whether it be atoms, wealth, machines, books, clothes or what have you; we are not settled, but moving constantly forward for the simple sake of 'moming forward'. Athens and its 'entourage' were like little birds picking up the smallest seeds and tidbits to consume. (So the Greek description of the inhabitants of Athens.) The identified themselves with 'the new', while worshipping the 'old' in the form of the culture they had inherited. When Paul tried to give them some new and fresh, they saw it as strange and ridiculous.
Luke records them thus, '...Some of them dismissed him with sarcasm: "What an airhead!" But others, listening to him go on about Jesus and the resurrection, were intrigued: "That's a new slant on the gods. Tell us more....This is a new one on us. We've never heard anything quite like it. Where did you come up with this anyway? Explain it so we can understand." Downtown Athens was a great place for gossip. There were always people hanging around, natives and tourists alike, waiting for the latest tidbit on most anything.' Paul had caught the ear of some, but others just laughed. So, at the end, '...32-34At the phrase "raising him from the dead," the listeners split: Some laughed at him and walked off making jokes; others said, "Let's do this again. We want to hear more." But that was it for the day, and Paul left. There were still others, it turned out, who were convinced then and there, and stuck with Paul—among them Dionysus the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris.'
Athens is a good test case for us, because of the way they treated the message, not unlike what we, as Christians, struggle with today. We offer the Gospel in the marketplace, but it has to compete with so much else that is a large part of our culture. Many Christians get caught up in this 'cultural tide' and lose their identity with Christ. For Paul, there were Jewish converts in Thessalonica and Berea, but none are mentioned in Athens, perhaps the cultural attack got in the way; although, in truth, the Jewish reception of Christ wherever Paul went was a mixed blessing at best. For me, Acts is so instructive in showing how the Gospel message had to struggle to make it's distinctive appeal in the synagogue and in the market place. The same is true today.

{In Part Two I will finish this, and talk a little about 'terms'} ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3134-Musings_number_three http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3118-James-part-34 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:49:20 GMT In 'It Is All a Matter of Attitude'


When I was in college my professor, whom you never challenged for accuracy, told us this report of fish as a scientific fact. (Yes, I know, 'facts are facts' but he did describe the experiment; so some one actually spent time and money messing around with fish.) It seems that someone wanted to study reactions to various situations and relate it to behavioral growth in children. ('Fish and children' sounds like someone is 'angling' for answers.) So, they took a group of gold fish and put them in a large aquarium. They let them swim freely for several days. Then, they changed the 'fishy' environment.
They put a glass pan in the middle of the aquarium dividing the tank into two halves. So, the fish on one side who attempted to go to the other side hit the nearly invisible glass pane in the middle. (I don't if this is a comment on 'fish intelligence', human boredome, or an experimenter who hates fish?). The fish on the other side had the same experience, hitting the pane in mid swim. They kept the pane there for a few weeks until the fish got used to having to stay on their side of the aquarium.
Then, they moved the pane and watched. (What else can you do with a tank full of fish, unless you get a pole and 'fish' for fish.) The fish stayed on their side of the aquarium. The experimenters claimed that the fish stayed on their repective sides and did not try to cross the aquarium where the pane of glass was. I always found this so weird on so many levels. But, it illustrates a point, mind sets can be permenant, limiting, and misleading; espcially if you swim around in aquariums. But it was what they related this to that really worried me.
It seems that some behavioral development experts wanted to see how toddlers would react to 'adverse visual stimuli'; things that tend to scare them. (See, this really gets weird.)They would put a toddly near a small 'cliff' built of soft panels of plastic covered in foam so if the toddler fell he would not be hurt. Then, they tried to entice him to walk 'across' to the other side. Of course, they would not. (Score one for the toddlers, zero for the scientist.). Then these mean scientist put a clear plastic panel over the 'gap' between the two 'cliffs' and put the child's favorite toy in the center of the 'gap' on the clear plastic panel. So, most of the toddlers just cried and reached out for their toy; some would actually go up to where the panel slap it, and then just start reaching for the toy.
Now, when a worker would step onto the panel and show the child, then the child would just crawl out and get the toy. This says something about children, but I think it say something about researchers, also. However, that is not the point of this study. What is illustrated in both examples, fish and toddlers, is the idea of how a mindset can effect how we act and react to our surroundings. What do we allow to guide our actions, and shape how we live our lives.
It is that question that concerns James in chapter four:
13 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. 17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.
Up to this point, James has sought to change actions, attitudes, sins, and bad realtionships. He has taught them to quit destroying each other, give up their haughty attitudes, and seek forgiveness and cleansing for their sins. In short, he has been reminding them to unite belief and action in their lives of faith. The division of mind and heart had terribly divided the community, threatening to destroy it, and replacing it with a community that destroyes itself from the inside out. The 'Christians' had developed a mind set that controlled their actions, thoughts, and feelings. It seemed, like the fish in the aquarium, that they could not or would not change.
Jesus set a contrast to this attitude when He taught in Matthew 6: ' 22 The eyes are like a lamp for the body. If your eyes are sound, your whole body will be full of light;23 but if your eyes are no good, your body will be in darkness. So if the light in you is darkness, how terribly dark it will be!...' The contrast, here, is between eyes that can see and eyes that cannot. The point context is just after teaching us to truly store up eternal treasures and then Jesus follows it with the point that one can only serve one master. For a slave, that is true; the question is, 'Who do you want to be a slave of?'. James is talking about a heart set on making more money, Jesus is pointing out that if that is all you 'see' in life, than you are truly blind.
True treasures (vs. 19-2`1), eyes full of true light (vs. 22-23) and the choice of the right master (v. 24) are all prescriptions for the life that pleases Jesus. (Matt. 6:19-24) These three elements are needed for the life that both James and Jesus are pointing towards; eternal life as the reward. With our lives oriented in this way, we can now fulfill what Jesus then commanded: '31 So do not start worrying:
Where will my food come from? or my drink? or my clothes?32 (These are the things the pagans are always concerned about.) Your Father in heaven knows that you need all these things.33 Instead, be concerned above everything else with the Kingdom of God and with what he requires of you, and he will provide you with all these other things.34 So do not worry about tomorrow; it will have enough worries of its own. There is no need to add to the troubles each day brings.
Jesus point follows if our hearts are set in the right manner, and that is James point. If a heart is set on just loading up money, than the life becomes wicked, useless, and dead. If our eyes cannot truly see what is holy, and follow that path, then we are lost. When our eyes became blind we are filled with a blackness that hardens the heart and kills the soul. We have to make a conscious choice to live and act in a certain way. James has been making this case since the start of his letter. Jesus makes this point at the start of His ministry.
Recently, I came to a rather startling conclusion. I have five old commentaries on James in my files; and all of them stop the book at about midway through chapter four. I have wondered about this, but it was a puzzle to me. Many of the older commentaries from more 'Evangelical' circles have the whole book commented on, but, like I said, there are some that don't. America, at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century (I can't just say 'turn of the century' without being misunderstood) had embraced the 'Gospel' as of social value. As such, it was seen as promoting hard work and thrift. If you look at how James talks about the rich in the first half of the fifth chapter, you can see that some might have felt guilty or very offended.
The rich 'Captains of Industry' (and not all were Republican) felt that God had called them to attain vast amounts of wealth, indeed some, such as Carnegie, saw the fact of their wealth as proving that God had especially blessed them! This is not a gospel stance, especially if you read Matthew six carefully. Most, at that time, embraced the Puritan ethic of hard work coupled with the rising prosperity of America after the Civil War era. As such, it lead to excesses. Many were philanthropic with their gains, but it was from a position of vast wealth and accumulated power. The parable of the widow who gave all she had, who gave in spite of her poverty, was a strange read for any of that group.
Mark relates the parable of Jesus in chapter twelve: ' 41 Jesus sat down near the collection box in the Temple and watched as the crowds dropped in their money. Many rich people put in large amounts. 42 Then a poor widow came and dropped in two small coins. 43 Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has given more than all the others who are making contributions. 44 For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on.” She was not 'planning for tomorrows profits' as those in James, but she was giving all she had for God. Her example was about as far as you can get from James example at the end of chapter four, they planned for tomorrow's profit, lived in that expectation; not so the poor widow. She lived in the moment for the power of God.
I think Paul summed it best when he told Timothy: ' 9 But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. ' (6:9-10). The 'love' of money, the deep lust and longing after riches at any cost. That is what James is talking about, '13 Now listen to me, you that say,Today or tomorrow we will travel to a certain city, where we will stay a year and go into business and make a lot of money.14 You don't even know what your life tomorrow will be! You are like a puff of smoke, which appears for a moment and then disappears.' James and Paul caution against a deep love of money that leads to a warped, twisted view of life, like Pharisees laughing at Jesus.
So, James offers this advice, '15 What you should say is this. 'If the Lord is willing, we will live and do this or that.16 But now you are proud, and you boast; all such boasting is wrong.' Our lives are too short to run after smoke and vapor that will be driven away in the full light of the Son Himself. We must not follow the hollow laughter of the ones who nailed Him to the cross, but the full, rich Word who speaks life and eternity as treasures in a bank that can never be robbed or filled with rust and rot. Now James concludes the chapter with a 'You have been told what to do, if you do not do it, that will just add to your already large account of sin and filth.' James had had to wade through a lot of filth in this section, but now he is ready to break out with a final word that will condemn those who are not ready for the coming destruction. For the community must face one final hurdle in coming judgment. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3118-James-part-34 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3117-Musings_number_one Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:02:14 GMT "God's Ultimate Concern"

In looking at creation, I have always seen the hand of God working to make something that He can love and receive love from at the same time. The whole history laid out in the bible, if we take it as a true revelation, seems to point to that one idea. If Jesus is the summation of what was started in Genesis one, than John 3:16 is more than just a banner at a sporting event, and shows us more than the eyes of Tim Tebow. (He has the verse reference painted in white in the black grease paint under his eyes, as do several football players.) Every time I think of Jesus talking to Nicodemus on that roof during a dark Jerusalem night, I hear the Creator Himself telling Nicodemus why all 'this' happened, what it all is leading up to for us. Genesis truly echoes in John's Gospel; and we hear the whisper if we just truly listen.
If we step back and look at Genesis one as a whole, the idea of 'structure' comes across loud and clear. God took time to create everything 'in its own time' on a 'day by day' basis. This is not a genie show with 'alakazam' and it's all there; this is God carefully planning and putting in to place all that He wants to be able to do what He will do. For instance, take the phrase:
'...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.' (HCB)
'...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' (KJV)
This verse is significant for the context, and for the parallels it has in the rest of the Old Testament writings. The parallels come across depending on how you translate the word 'Spirit', which is also translated as 'breath' in other contexts in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 32:
" 11 Like an eagle that rouses her chicks
and hovers over her young,
so he spread his wings to take them up
and carried them safely on his pinions. "
The context of this has some parallels to Genesis. Moses, in this chapter, is recounting the past and future history of Israel as the people of God's choice. In chapter thirty-one, God told Moses that the people of Israel would abandon Him (God) for false Gods after they had lived in the land of Israel. Moses is now teaching the children of Israel what will happen in their future if they abandon God. This 'song' stood with the writing of the law as a sign to the people, and a warning. In a sense, God is hovering of the history of Israel just as He did at creation. Moses makes the point:
"8 When the Most High assigned lands to the nations,
when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number in his heavenly court."
Here, God is pictured dividing the boundaries of the nations so that each will have it's appointed place, and this includes the nation of Israel. God considered time and history along one line, so Paul told the Athenians in Acts 17:
"26 From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries. 27 His purpose was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him..." Paul has earlier tied this to the fact that God created all things. God's creative acts did not stop with the sixth day of creation, He also set boundaries that would allow all to find their way to Him. It was the boundaries of Israel, as His chosen inheritance from among all the nations He had set up, who would receive His special attention.
So, Moses is teaching that God chose the nation of Israel with love and care to feed them and carry them where He wanted them to be. This idea is that as God wanted all men to find Him, His love is seen in choosing and caring for Israel. The fact that Israel would fall away and chase after other gods just makes it all the worse for them. But, Moses is, in verse 11, describing God's choice of Israel to be his own possession; it is a tender description of a mother eagle caring for her young.
The picture is further enhanced when we consider Isaiah 31:
"5 The LORD of Heaven’s Armies will hover over Jerusalem
and protect it like a bird protecting its nest.
He will defend and save the city;
he will pass over it and rescue it.”
The context of this pictures God working in history in a direct way for His chosen people. In Deuteronomy 32, God is shown choosing His inheritance, now He will come to it's defense. For me, there is a chain of thought that runs from God ordering creation, to His ordering history, to choosing an inheritance from that ordering of history, to His rising to the defense of that chosen inheritance. It is all encapsulated in the picture of the Spirit of God hovering over the world, over Israel, and over Jerusalem. It is this chain of thought that intrigues me; it all involves God working to bring about His will and display His power. In doing this, we discover, show, prove (however you want to put it) that God is consistent in all He does; which brings us back to Jesus teaching to Nicodemus on a dark night in Jerusalem, the same place that God was now protecting. It all seems to run in a circle with God in the middle, and that is as it should be.
The relevant story line is found in 2 Kings 18 and 19, 2 Chronicles 32:1-23, and Isaiah chapters 36 and 37. Hezekiah started out as one who sought to follow God, and to put away the foreign gods, abolishing the filthy practices involved in their worship ceremonies. In his sixth year, the Assyrians came and destroyed Samaria and the Norther tribes of Israel. Hezekiah had earlier refused to pay tribute to Assyria, so now Assyrian wrath came up Jerusalem. Hezekiah prepared his defenses, and ensured an adequate water supply for the people, then had to watch as the Assyrians destroyed much of what was left of Judah and surrounded Jerusalem.
In response, Hezekiah sought God in prayer, and God answered by destroying the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem. During one night, an angel of the Lord came and killed 185, 000 Assyrian soldiers. The remainder of the army fled back to Assyria. God had answered Hezekiah's prayer, fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 31, and protected Jerusalem form the roaring lions that threatened it. God's love finds expression here. The time line moves from creation to Moses on a hilltop to Jerusalem during a brutal way to Jesus on a housetop in the same Jerusalem. The love of God is not constrained by time but moves through it.
There is also what I call a loop-back through to creation, and that is in Jesus Christ as John called Him, the Word who creates and fellowships with God. The Jesus on the housetop who spoke John 3:16 is the same one who spoke creation. He was there, hovering thoughtfully over the roaring waters of the dark deep. He put order into His plan, and sent love along as an expression of His power to fellowship with His creation. This was not a Pantheism, God contained in creation, but 'Theism' entering into creation from a point outside of what He created. The difference is illustrated on a cross planted in a hill outside Jerusalem.The empty tomb was the true doorway into the arms of a loving, patient Creator. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3117-Musings_number_one http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3099-James-part-33 Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:48:15 GMT 'A Certain State Of Undivided Mind'

He was traveling under orders, and he had to go where he was ordered. Obedience was very important, for the state of the nation was in peril. The leadership had lost it's bearings, the people were in disarray, and he was getting so old. He had led the nation for many years, but was now commanded to pass it on to another. This was not the first time. Once before he had been told to announce the choosing of another. But that one had failed.
As he walked, his mind ranged over the events of the last few years. He remembered what God said about the choice of the first one chosen, “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.” He was commanded to act, but he also understood the reason was only because the hearts of the people were not humble before God.
So, he chose Saul at the command of the Lord. But, Saul, like the people of Israel, did not have a heart that was bent to what the Lord truly wanted. Twice, Saul failed to follow simple commands and finally the Lord confided to Samuel, “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Saul had not learned obedience, but had gone his own way; so the Lord was very sorry that He had made Saul King. Now, Samuel was sent to anoint another king and his old heart was filled with anxiety for the nation and people of God's choosing. Samuel wrestled with the decision, but finally God told him to go and anoint a new king.
So, Samuel left; but with some trepidation. He was afraid Saul would hear of his movements and object to what would happen. God told him to take a heifer to Bethlehem and invite Jesse to the sacrifice. It would be a communal meal shared with God, Samuel, and Jesse's family. It was there that Samuel would anoint a new King. Still, God did not tell him which son of Jesse, that would have to wait for the meal. There, God would teach Samuel something he had forgotten. But, for now, the old man trudged on to Bethlehem.
This window on Israel's history, at an important juncture, illustrates what God has always looked for in His people; heartfelt obedience, and loving acceptance of what God has called us to do. Saul would not obey the Lord as God wanted; Saul stubbornly persisted in going his own way. God rejected Saul for this, and sought another to lead His people. Moses, in Genesis six, records God's reaction to the sinfulness of the people before the flood, God was very sorry that He had made man. The thoughts and actions of those people were wicked from start to finish.
Here, God is sorry He made Saul king; Saul had disobeyed Him and done as Saul pleased. There are some informative parallels between the story of Saul and those who incurred God's wrath before the flood. A little more than one thousand years later, history passing through so much sorrow for the people of God who rejected Him at every turn untill they were punished, another told His followers, “If you love me, you will obey what I command." It was a short statement of fact. Love for God starts with obedience. It grows, but it must have a heartfelt obedience. It was this that Saul lacked in his kingship, and it was this lack that led to his downfall.
As Samuel approached the 'House of Bread', he prepared to have the sacrificial meal with Jesse and his family. The elders greeted Samuel with 'fear and trembling', but Samuel told them to consecrate themselves for the sacrifice (there might well be a whole sermon in the elders greeting) and to fetch Jesse. After consecrating them for the sacrifice, Samuel starts observing the sons as they come in. He is now looking to see if he can pick out the right one. It is quite possible that Samuel has not learned the lesson of Saul, but God will teach him just the same.
Saul sees Eliab first, and thinks that surely, this one is the chosen of God. But God tells Samuel His secret, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” God looks deep into the heart of a man, and when He finds what He is looking for, He uses it. In this case, none of the older sons of Jesse would do. Samuel, perhaps in exasperation, asks Jesse if this is all his sons. Jesse answers, “There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered, “but he is tending the sheep.”
David, the shepherd, was too young to attend the 'grown up' table. Jesse evidently felt that David was not mature enough to attend so solemn a function as a sacrificial meal with the prophet of God. David spent his time among the sheep, playing games, and just passing the time. Later, though, David would tell Saul, as Goliath taunted the armies of Israel, how God had taught him so much faith during his time of shepherding. You see, God had been training David all along, out under the stars with the sheep, the lions, and the bears. God, seeing how David responded to this training, chose him to be king of Israel.
David told Saul, “Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, 35 I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. 36 Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. 37 The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.” So, when Samuel came to anoint the future King of Israel, David was ready.
When David was fetched, Samuel saw that he was healthy and handsome, and God said, "He is the one!". David was not only handsome, but had a heart that pleased God. You can see some of the soul of David when you read his Psalms, especially the twenty-third. It was the heart of David that would cause God to call him 'a man after my own heart.' Years later, David demonstrated where his heart is when he desired to build a house for God. He felt it was wrong for him, David, to have a house and not God; he wanted the ark and tabernacle to have a permanent dwelling in Jerusalem. David's heart was turned towards God.
Even when his own son, Absalom, raised an army to depose him, David's heart did not turn from God. As David fled the city to escape Absalom's approaching army, Zadok the priest met him with the ark of God; he wanted to accompany David into exile and bring the Holy Ark of the living God to be with David. But David told the priest, “Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. 26 But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”
The heart of David was ever with God; in sin David sought forgiveness, in victory he gave thanks, in dark despair he gave himself over to whatever God would do to him. His heart was with God from earliest youth and training in the fields, through years of hiding in the wilderness from Saul, to victory in Jerusalem and desire to build God a dwelling place, to the utter misery of betrayal by his beloved son, he left it all up to God to do as God pleased. This is why God called David a man after his own heart. It is this that is James main theme throughout.
Double-mindedness can also be seen as a divided heart. Jesus said it best when He declared that no one can serve two masters. David served only one master, and his fate rested fully in God's hands. James is telling his people that that is where there hearts should lie. Humility of heart is what God wants, a willingness to be still and listen to what God wants of His people. In the case of James audience, a divided heart had led to all sorts of evils, fighting, and bickering among themselves. It hindered their prayers, poisoned their hearts, and left them open to judgment. James, in the fourth chapter, is calling them to repentance; a deep heartfelt turning to God that will produce a unified heart and mind in following God into a life of obedience. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3099-James-part-33 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3000-James-part-32 Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:37:11 GMT Doing What It Takes 8-10 Come close to God and he will come close to you. Realise that you have sinned and get your hands clean again. Realise that you have been disloyal and get your hearts made true once more. As you come close to God you... Doing What It Takes

8-10 Come close to God and he will come close to you. Realise that you have sinned and get your hands clean again. Realise that you have been disloyal and get your hearts made true once more. As you come close to God you should be deeply sorry, you should be grieved, you should even be in tears. Your laughter will have to become mourning, your high spirits will have to become heartfelt dejection. You will have to feel very small in the sight of God before he will set you on your feet once more. [James 4:8-10 Phillips]

James describes a side of repentance you rarely hear about in modern preaching, true heart felt longing to be made right with God, that deep need to return to Him who is our God and Savior. It is wise to remember that James is talking to some who have become seriously adrift, degraded in heart, shameful in speech and action. James is describing a true change of heart and life that reachs right down to the very core of a heart and mind that has divided itself from God.
There is a phrase in the original that says to 'purify your hearts you double-minded'. The word for 'double minded' is the same from verse eight of chapter one. the problem has inflicted their hearts, leading them astray. The phrase is part of a poetic line 'cleanse your hands, you sinners; purify you hearts, you double minded'. The two parts are parallel and mean the same thing, with the second part ususally amplifying the first. Here, the sin was amplified by a heart divided in it's loyalty to God. The 'double mindedness' had not only affected their prayer life, but had eaten away at their whole life with God. Now, they needed a serious soul searching and repentance to return to God.
What should be evident by now, if I have hammered it home enough, is that there is a straight line from chapter one through to chapter four and into chapter five. James is looking at a united view of what we would call 'Christian Psychology'. He diagnoses the condition, describes it plainly, and gives the 'cure' for it. In chapter one he stresses maturity through trials, and overcoming doubts and a sinful nature. He describes the condition of a 'two faced' Christianity in chapter two; one that allows us to talk of love but give it no real life in our lives. In chapter three, he talks about the dangers of having a 'forked tongue'; one that espouses one things once and another thing another time, usually with poisonious results.
At the beginning of chapter four, he shows plainly what is happening in many fellowships (not so different from today either) and stresses a deep, heart felt, aching repentance before God. He assures them that if they humble themselves befor God, He will lift them up. A close reading in several popular translations brings out the heart felt cry to his readers:
7-10So let God work his will in you. Yell a loud no to the Devil and watch him scamper. Say a quiet yes to God and he'll be there in no time. Quit dabbling in sin. Purify your inner life. Quit playing the field. Hit bottom, and cry your eyes out. The fun and games are over. Get serious, really serious. Get down on your knees before the Master; it's the only way you'll get on your feet. 'The Message'
7So place yourselves under God’s authority. Resist the devil, and he will run away from you. 8Come close to God, and he will come close to you. Clean up your lives, you sinners, and clear your minds, you doubters. 9Be miserable, mourn, and cry. Turn your laughter into mourning and your joy into gloom. 10Humble yourselves in the Lord’s presence. Then he will give you a high position. 'Gods Word'
7 So give yourselves completely to God. Stand against the devil, and the devil will run from you.8 Come near to God, and God will come near to you. You sinners, clean sin out of your lives. You who are trying to follow God and the world at the same time, make your thinking pure.9 Be sad, cry, and weep! Change your laughter into crying and your joy into sadness. 10 Humble yourself in the Lord's presence, and he will honor you. 'NCV'
I particularly like how the NCV translates verse eight, translating the 'double minded' as those who are trying to please God and the world at the same time. It can't be done. God wants our full hearted devotion to him; friendliness with the 'World' is being an enemy with God. I think the phrase 'frienliness with the world' is well defined in the body of James letter. He is writing about what he feels is the major problem that is tearing the fellowships apart, and he see's clearly how to remedy that split.
James again issues a command with forceful language, '11Brothers and sisters, stop slandering each other. Those who slander and judge other believers slander and judge God’s teachings. If you judge God’s teachings, you are no longer following them. Instead, you are judging them.' The verb is in the imperative mood, and is a command form James that follows with it's own logic. In chapter two he points out that we are all judged by the Royal law of love, and it is that Law that we are commanded to follow. Jesus parable on the Good Samaritan is His strongest teaching on the point. We must do good, and not speak or do evil. Chapter three outlines the backbiting, slander and gossip that was rampant in the fellowship.
Here 'to judge' is taken in the sense of 'harsh speech' against others. This fully outlined in chapter three. Here, it is in the context of seeking to fulfill the royal Law of Love that James expresses this. If we judge harshly a brother, we judge the law and the one who framed the Law, God Himself. We are to be doers of the Law, as he argues in chapter two, and reiterates here, not judges of that law. The difference is framed in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. We do good wherever we find it, and that is the Royal Law of Love. James argues that we are stepping on God's Sovereignty when we judge harshly, or speak ill of our companions in Christ. The Law of Love as James describes is an absolute from God; Paul said in his way when he said what counts is 'faith working in love'. If we were to sum up Hebrews 11 and 1 Corinthians 13, without faith and love we cannot hope to please God. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3000-James-part-32 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2999-The-Joy-of-His-Presen(ts)ce-part-2 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:37:31 GMT 'Reflections of Fire

Luke has opened his volume, as we saw, with a greeting to Theophilus, with both the opening greeting and reference referring back to the first part of his work, his Gospel about Jesus Christ. Going forward, Luke is now writing about the Acts of Jesus Christ. The rejection by the Pharisees and the strife predicted were a present reality with Jesus, and will continue to be so as the chosen witnesses spread their witness about Jesus Christ. For our part, we saw that the thematic links, such as the work of bringing in the 'other sheep' Jesus spoke of in John ten is fulfilled in the work of Christ as seen in the book of Acts.
Luke records that for forty days Jesus would appear and talk to the Eleven, teaching them: 'He appeared to them over a period of 40 days. During that time he spoke about God's kingdom. ' Now there is a hot topic. It was all over the newsgroups at the time, and every teacher worth his salt had an opinion on how that one would coume about. Jesus, as a young upscale Rabbi, had His opinion; the big difference was that His came straight from the source of all kingdoms, God Himself.The really big sticking point was that Jesus did not teach as the others taught.
This point was made clear in a synagogue in Galilee, but wait; which point? Jesus earthly ministry was fraught with distinctions and cross currents. He raised people emotions, and made them make conscious choices. Simeon predicted this when Jesus was still a baby in Mary's arms, and Jesus echoed it thirty odd years later, 'I have come to bring fire on earth' he told the disciples. Luke, asual, makes this a point to amplify on. In the fourth chapter of Luke's Gospel this is brought to the front of his volumes on Jesus teaching and actions.
The fourth chapter of Luke opens on a high not, Jesus is fresh from His baptism by John, and by the Holy Spirit, is lead by the same Spirit into the wilderness. There, he fasts for forty days and nights, and He is H-U-N-G-R-Y! So, the Devil tempts Him and He resists the devil with grace, wisdom and tact. So, then he returns to Galilee full of the Holy Spirit. Now, is that a high or what? However, the main picture is drawn in the preaching and teaching He does in Galilee. Jesus is establishing Himself and His ministry among the chosen people of God, at that time.
Curiously, during this early time of His ministryh, Matthew tells us that 'leaving Nazareth he moved to Capernaum'. What would cause him to move from the hometown to another town by the sea of Galilee? One consideration is his family. In John seven we are told that His brothers mocked Him, and the Synoptics point out that Jesus family even tried to take Him by force for they thought He had lost His mind. (Mark 3). At the start of His ministry, John, in the wedding scene at Cana, records the incident between between Him and His mother. If you read that carefully, in John 2, you get the idea that Mary expected Him to do something, and she even told the servants to do whatever He told them. She understood His power, and waited for Him to take care of the situation. So, with these two points, it would seem there was some conflict in His own house and among His own people. Home life must have been a little tense around that house.
But, Luke in the fourth chapter describes His reception in His own village. Jesus, as was His custom, enetered the synagogue and there He read from the scrolls. ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord’. As He put them away, all eyes were on Him. The passage was recognized as one that spoke about the Messiah. Then, Jesus simply told them that in their midst, at that moment, that scripture had been fulfilled. Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, and that caused a stir.
The crowd's response, '22 Everybody noticed what he said and was amazed at the beautiful words that came from his lips, and they kept saying, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?' They knew Him in His personal life, they knew His family (who did not seem to accept His Messianic pretensions). How could this be? What is He claiming for Himself? How dare He? So, Jesus than lowered a flame to touch off the smoldering embers of doubt. He simply upbraided them for their unbelief. The back story was that they had all heard about the miracles. They all knew about what He was doing in other villages, but here He was just Jesus, the carpenters' son.
What Jesus did to enflame them so was to remind them of history, He told them some well known stories, applying the stories to His listeners. They were like the unbelieving generation of Elijah, who went to Seraphath to work a miracle because he was fleeing Ahab and Jezebel, the two devout followers of Ba'al. Jesus dared to equate the which such as went into exile? They who angered God so much He destroyed their country so many centuries ago? So, they tried to kill Jesus in a most unhonorable manner, but Jesus just left.
So, he went to Capernaum and taught. The people there were overwhelmed by His wisdom and power. Jesus taught as one who had true authority and power, not like the teachers who usually graced their synagogues. These people like Jesus. It was this that is replayed in Acts. The people either responded well to the preaching of the Apostles, or they sought to kill them. Luke, in describing Jesus beginning's, shows us that this way of response was still carrying on in Acts. Jesus had set a fire in Jerussalem and it would force people to take side. When we look at what Jesus taught in Jerusalem, it is no different. In the tenth chapter of his gospel, John says this, '19-20 Once again, the Jews were in two minds about him because of these words, many of them remarking, “The devil’s in him and he’s insane. Why do you listen to him?” 21 But others were saying, “This is not the sort of thing a devil-possessed man would say! Can a devil make a blind man see?” This is typical of Jesus impact on the Jewish people, and it plays out all the way through the book of His Acts.
So, Jesus is now teaching the disciples for forty days, preparing for...the time of power when the promise from the Father would be fulfilled. Jesus did 'teach as others did' and this would typify the Apostles in their later work in Jerusalem. Jesus had told them, 'If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world will hate you. Do you remember what I said to you, ‘The servant is not greater than his master’? If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you as well, but if they have followed my teaching, they will also follow yours.' John, chapter 10, records this as part of what Jesus taught the disciples while on the way to His betrayal and arrest. If they hated Me, they will hate you.
More than anything, the book of His Acts is about decision that people had to make in the face of the power of God. Just as they did while Jesus walked and taught among them, so they would do as the Apostles carried the power of God into the world. The writer of Hebrews has this to say about the word of God: 'For the Word that God speaks is alive and active; it cuts more keenly than any two-edged sword: it strikes through to the place where soul and spirit meet, to the innermost intimacies of a man’s being: it exposes the very thoughts and motives of a man’s heart. No creature has any cover from the sight of God; everything lies naked and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.' Heb. 4:12ff.
It was this Word that the Apostles would preach, and it was this word that would expose the thoughts and intents of the hearts of all who came into contact with it. When the Spirit would fall upon the Apostles in Jerusalem, the great salvation of God would be offered to all in Jerusalem, and Judea, and the whole world. But, Jesus must first teach the disciples that they could expect no different reception than they gave Him. John warned the crowds that He would baptize them with the Spirit and with fire. Both were about to be unleashed on the City of God. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2999-The-Joy-of-His-Presen(ts)ce-part-2 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2991-The-Joy-of-His-Presen(ts)ce-part-1 Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:01:56 GMT 'The Beginning, and Before'

Imagine picking up a bible one day and starting at the fifth book of the New Testament, Romans. As you read through the letters you encounter people, places and events that seem so disconnected from the Gospels you have just read. For one thing, this 'Paul' character was not mentioned in the Gospels; where did he come from and why is he writing all these letters? Why is he running around to all these places and writing them letters of encouragement? There is a disconnect between what is described in the Gospels and what this person is writing about. What has happened to all the people you read about in the first four books.
Matthew ends with Jesus telling the 11 apostles to go into all the world preaching, baptizing and making converts in his name. Luke mentions Jesus' Ascension, and one of Mark's endings tells about the disciples preaching and working miracles. John just leaves us with Jesus and Peter talking on the shore of the Sea of Galillee and that is about all the Gospels tell us of what happened after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. How the Gospel moved from Jerusalem and Judea to Rome is a mystery, though this Paul fellow seems to talk about other believers in other cities. All in all, there is a jarring discontinuity that leaves out a lot.
If, in some remote archaeological dig a manuscript should be unearthed and examined, it might seem to fit into the space between the Gospels and the collection of letters from purported 'Apostles'. Peter and John are in this manuscript along with a new cast of characters including Paul. The strange and disconcerting thing is that, while it answers several questions, it leaves some unanswered. We are not told how the Christian community got started in Rome, and if we compare the purported travels of Paul with the letter we have, it is clear that we have only a very letters that correspond to places he went, or traveled through, or actually 'preached' at.
All of that is confusing, but what we do have seems to correspond, roughly with what is written in this new document. Rome, Thessalonica, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus are all represented in this new documents by the one who wrote most of the letters. What is more important, there is nothing 'theologically' or 'doctrinally' that conflicts in either the letters we have or this new document. It could fit. It would make the transition form 'Gospel' to 'Letters' less jarring and a tad more 'logical', or at least less jarring. So if we shoehorn it in, say, after the last Gospel, it seems right at home. Well, as well as could be expected. In addition, it gives a picture of how we go from the Eleven Apostles in Jerusalem, to the presence in Rome of a Christian Community, though we still are not told explicitly how this happened. There is a possible answer for the document itself. It seems that some Jews from Rome were present when the Gospel was preached, and they might have been some of the five thousand who responded favorably to that message and carried it back to Rome.
When we read the document it appears to be addressed to a 'Theophilus', just as is the recipient of the third Gospel. This new document appears to be a continuation of the Gospel that we all know and love by Luke the physician. If we compare the end of Luke to the beginning of this new document, we see a loose corroboration between the two. Where one ends with Jesus Ascending from the hill, the new document has Jesus ascending at the beginning of it, and the story picks up from there. The two seem to compliment one another, and carry a full story from just before Jesus' birth to Paul living and preaching in Rome. In addition, the style and much of the vocabulary of the two documents are quite similar. They both show traces of the writers medical knowledge, training, and practice.
As we have mentioned, the end of the Gospel and the beginning of this new document are linked by common motifs of resurrection appearances and the Ascension of Jesus Christ. The resurrection implies a death, and this is reflected back in Luke 12 where Jesus makes the statement: ' 49I came to set fire to the earth, and I wish it were already on fire! 50I am going to be put to a hard test. And I will have to suffer a lot of pain until it is over.' Jesus did not come to bring peace, and he elaborates on that one, he says he came to bring fire upon the earth, to divide the very families. Also, He knew He had to suffer great pain before it was all over. This double theme of suffering and dividing is foreshadowed in the narrative of his presentation in the temple.
Joseph and Mary, as the law of Moses demanded, went to the temple with the baby Jesus to make the sacrifice demanded. While there in the temple, they 'ran' into two people who were both prompted to come to them, the first by the Holy Spirit explicitly, the second was a prophet which would have put her under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by 'default'. This motif of meeting the Spirit in the temple is echoed in this new document where the disciples meet the Spirit also, and Peter delivers a sermon by the power of that same Spirit. Pushing the analogy a little further, you have Joseph and Mary taking a sacrifice for the baby Jesus to the temple where they are encountered by the chose spokespeople of the Holy Spirit; Jesus gave up the 'temple' of His body as a sacrifice and 'rebuilt' it in three days, and it is through the power of the 'rebuilt' temple, the resurrected Christ, that the Holy Spirit will be sent to His chosen spokespeople.
So, we will stop pushing the envelope and go back to examing the actual contents of the meeting between the young Jewish couple and two curious people in a temple one day in Jerusalem, it's recorded in Luke two. As they enter the temple area, a man named Simeon, sent specifically by the Holy Spirit, approaches them and makes this prophesy:
29"Lord, I am your servant,
and now I can die in peace,
because you have kept
your promise to me.
30With my own eyes I have seen
what you have done
to save your people,
31and foreign nations
will also see this.
32Your mighty power is a light
for all nations,
and it will bring honor
to your people Israel."
So far, it seems good. He declares Jesus as the deliverer of Israel, and a hope for the Gentiles [foreign nations]. Simeon has seen the promised deliverer and he is praising God for that. What he has to say sounds good, if a little off beat, but the parents have been hearing stuff like this all during the birth of Christ. Angels, shepherds, and relatives have added to a very different kind of period in their lives as young parents, one that has been unusual since just before the actual marriage. But, Simeon is not through. He now steps up and adds something that will strike the first discordant note in all of this.
He adds, '"This child of yours will cause many people in Israel to fall and others to stand. The child will be like a warning sign. Many people will reject him, 35and you, Mary, will suffer as though you had been stabbed by a dagger. But all this will show what people are really thinking." So, the baby she holds in her arms, the one whom so many have blessed and praised, will be a person to cause stumbling, falling, and rejection for many. All that happens in His life will show what is in the hearts of many people. Jesus said in Luke twelve that he came to bring fire and division, and that is what Simeon prophesied. The Gospel of Luke chronicles this, and the new document we see also continues this chronicle of rejection and strife.
While Simeon has struck a discordant note, he has also touched on the question of a blessing for the Gentiles. We have a most curious occasion in the Gospel of John chapter ten. He is talking to the Pharisees, as usual, defending Himself against their attacks, as usual, for working a miracle on the Sabbath. All in all it seems like the usual problems that Jesus faced when talking to the Pharisees. Jesus then calls Himself the Good Shepherd, the true one, of His flock. He recounts how the Shepherd lays down his life to save the flock, while the false ones just run away. Jesus is the gate, also, through which the sheep of flock leave and enter the sheep pen; also called the sheep fold.
Twice Jesus talks about laying down His life for the sheep, than He makes this curious statement, " 16I have other sheep that are not in this sheep pen. I must bring them together too, when they hear my voice. Then there will be one flock of sheep and one shepherd. " He said, I have other sheep not in this sheep pen that I must bring in to have one flock and one Shepherd. The 'sheep pen' ('sheep fold') is the Jewish nation He is addressing, the 'other sheep' are the Gentiles. This process of 'bringing in' is recorded in the new document along with the strife and divisions caused by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus. John echoes the strife and fire mentioned in Luke, and then emphasizes the bringing in of the Gentiles to be one flock with the Jewish believers.
Of course, as you know, this 'new document' I am talking about is the fifth book in our collection of New Testament writings. The title of the book, 'Acts', I prefer to call 'The Continuing Chronicles of the Actions of Jesus and the Holy Spirit'. It is a bit longer than usual, but makes my point. As we have seen, both by explicit comment in the opening verses of chapter one of Acts, and by theme and content in the Gospels, 'Acts' just picks up where the Gospels ends and shows the logical conclusion of some themes that are prominent in the Gospels. So, we understand that when Luke wrote Theophilos the second volume of his History, it continued and brought to fruition what was started; indeed, it is still going on in that Jesus is still active among His people, who are the church, which is His body. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2991-The-Joy-of-His-Presen(ts)ce-part-1 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2977-James-part-30 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:52:27 GMT 'An Interlude to Think'

What James is trying to teach his readers is that they must get their minds off themselves and focus on the main point, it is that their life is in God's hands and they must seek His guidance and forgiveness for their sins. It sounds trite, but over the last two and a half chapters, chapters 2 to 4, James has pointed out some serious problems that are disturbing to any honest reader. So many in the fellowship were in open revolt and following their own desires.
You would expect that of those who were not 'in Christ', but these were one who professed the Names in word, but their actions were anything but. It is a humbling thing to give over your will to God after pushing it to the limits as these people were. Maligning the poor, shredding people with scathing words, running after desires that were out of control and doing what even any good Pagan would have considered wrong, or at the least, just bad conduct. But that is what James faced. There was a stubbornness there that is illustrated by Jonah. You see, he is just more than a fish tale, more than just a man riding around in the belly of fish, more than just a sailor on the wrong end of the baited hook; he was a prophet of God in open revolt.
How did this happen? Well, God called him to preach to the Ninevites and he was not only appalled, but was downright incensed that God wanted him to do such a thing. The book explains itself as we read through it, and see that the prophecy itself was secondary to what was really going on. God wanted to show His mercy to a group of people, and Jonah was so mad he could not hold his anger in check.The big point for us is this: Jonah humbled himself before God, but he still could not hold his anger in check after he sought God's mercy for himself; and that was the big point of God's teaching both to and through this prophet.
But 'the man of God' was having none of this. He ran to avoid God's will; what he knew God wanted to accomplish. Here, we stop to wonder the emotional state that drove Jonah to such links. Surely he knew could not run far enough from God? Surely he knew that God could call up others to do what he, Jonah, refused to do? What was Jonah thinking? At this point, we seem to have hit a stone wall.
The one thing we will learn from the rest of the book is that Jonah responded in with anger, he was very angry with God. This kind of anger comer from....pride?...fear?...hate? I think it was fear mixed with pride and hate. Fear of what would happen to his countrymen, anger against God who would bring this on His people, maybe hate for the Ninevites and, curiously, his own rebellious countrymen who were bringing this on themselves. Anger can be complex, but when full grown it can be so destructive.
So, he ran as far as he could and got others entangled in his anger and pride. God called up an 'angry' North wind that started a large storm, large enough to 'rock Jonah' and create fear in the sailors. I have always wondered why Jonah was sleeping so peacefully. Did he feel that he had gotten so far away from what God wanted him to do that he could just take it easy? But Jonah was right back in an angry stew. The crew was scared, jettisoning their cargo to keep the ship from capsizing, and praying to their gods. Then, their was Jonah snoring away in the lower part of the ship. Finally , he was at peace while all around him were falling apart. He was in the position Paul warns about, ' 12So, people who think they are standing firmly should be careful that they don’t fall. ' (1 Cor. 10:12) [ It might do you well to read the context of that chapter and think about it.]
I have always wondered how Jonah could sleep so peacefully while the storm was building outside. He sure felt its' results, it would have rolled the ship around and the wind would have whistled through our the ship; but still, Noah slept while the crew was dissolving into panic. So, the captain goes nad rouses Jonah to face the storm he had caused. When confronted, Jonah confessed, but I bet he knew what was up from the time he stepped out onto the deck and saw the mounting storm.
He was confronted with the chaos in much the same way the James is confronting the ones of his time who had 'created' their own chaos among the fellowship. So, Jonah 'fessed up and told them what to do, but they resisted at first. They had more care for the passenger than he had in getting them into this mess. Jonah, by his disobedience, sucked the crew into a bad storm. In James letter, he describes those who have created a horrible situation and how they must act to make things right.
Finally, they do what Jonah says and throw him in the sea, and all goes calm and right for them in matters of the sea. James is struggling to show how a fellowship has become a stormy sea of spiritual chaos can be made right. I wonder how hard it was for Jonah to tell them 'throw me into the sea and you will be safe.'? He knew the answer was going to be hard on him, just as the answer James, in chapter four of his letter, is struggling to show what is needed in his day. So, Jonah meets the consequences of his actions in the belly of a fish that God has made just for this situation. Jonah did not realize, when he fell asleep in that boat that he would have to spend a few days in the belly of fish.
I doubt if the ones James was writing to ever considered the ramifications of their actions; Jonah seemed to have forgotten, or maybe he was just snoring too loud to hear himself think. But, like Jonah found out, James is warning the readers of his letter that there will come a day of reckoning, but we will see that in James chapter five. For now, we must picture Jonah and feel his emotions as he was transported around in that fish. He endured it for three days and three nights. The prayer, as recored in chapter two, contains several passages which describe the seaweed clutching at him, the waves washing over him, and the sensations of being pulled deeper and deeper into a watery grave.
But Jonah repented (2:6-9). He was broken and filled with a Godly sorrow.Paul talks about this kind of sorrow in his second letter to the Corinthian church. He had to come down hard on them for some things, just as God did Jonah, and they responded with repentance and a renewed zeal. Paul puts it this way: ' 8 For even if that letter of mine made you sad, I am not sorry I wrote it. I could have been sorry when I saw that it made you sad for a while.9 But now I am happy—not because I made you sad, but because your sadness made you change your ways. That sadness was used by God, and so we caused you no harm.10 For the sadness that is used by God brings a change of heart that leads to salvation—and there is no regret in that! But sadness that is merely human causes death.11 See what God did with this sadness of yours: how earnest it has made you, how eager to prove your innocence! Such indignation, such alarm, such feelings, such devotion, such readiness to punish wrongdoing! You have shown yourselves to be without fault in the whole matter.'.
The Corinthians repented, Jonah repented, and that is what James wants his readers to do, if they need it. We all, at certain times in our lives, find ourselves doing what is wrong, and in rebellion to what God commands, but John in his first letter (1:9) assures of God's forgiveness if we truly seek it and repent. Humility before God is our approach to Him in this, and His love is His response to us. I will leave you with a story the Master once told:

11 Jesus went on to say,
There was once a man who had two sons.12 The younger one said to him,
Father, give me my share of the property now. So the man divided his property between his two sons.13 After a few days the younger son sold his part of the property and left home with the money. He went to a country far away, where he wasted his money in reckless living.14 He spent everything he had. Then a severe famine spread over that country, and he was left without a thing.15 So he went to work for one of the citizens of that country, who sent him out to his farm to take care of the pigs.16 He wished he could fill himself with the bean pods the pigs ate, but no one gave him anything to eat.17 At last he came to his senses and said,
All my father's hired workers have more than they can eat, and here I am about to starve!18 I will get up and go to my father and say, Father, I have sinned against God and against you.19 I am no longer fit to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired workers.

20 So he got up and started back to his father.


He was still a long way from home when his father saw him; his heart was filled with pity, and he ran, threw his arms around his son, and kissed him.21
Father, the son said,
I have sinned against God and against you. I am no longer fit to be called your son.22 But the father called to his servants.
Hurry! he said. Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and shoes on his feet.23 Then go and get the prize calf and kill it, and let us celebrate with a feast!24 For this son of mine was dead, but now he is alive; he was lost, but now he has been found.
And so the feasting began.

25 In the meantime the older son was out in the field. On his way back, when he came close to the house, he heard the music and dancing.26 So he called one of the servants and asked him,
What's going on?27
Your brother has come back home, the servant answered,
and your father has killed the prize calf, because he got him back safe and sound.28 The older brother was so angry that he would not go into the house; so his father came out and begged him to come in.29 But he spoke back to his father,
Look, all these years I have worked for you like a slave, and I have never disobeyed your orders. What have you given me? Not even a goat for me to have a feast with my friends!30 But this son of yours wasted all your property on prostitutes, and when he comes back home, you kill the prize calf for him!

31
My son, the father answered,
you are always here with me, and everything I have is yours.32 But we had to celebrate and be happy, because your brother was dead, but now he is alive; he was lost, but now he has been found. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2977-James-part-30 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2937-James-part-29 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:46:04 GMT 'An Unfamiliar Road'

7So place yourselves under God’s authority. Resist the devil, and he will run away from you. 8Come close to God, and he will come close to you. Clean up your lives, you sinners, and clear your minds, you doubters. 9Be miserable, mourn, and cry. Turn your laughter into mourning and your joy into gloom. 10Humble yourselves in the Lord’s presence. Then he will give you a high position. James 4

So far, James has been pulling the hearts and minds of his hearers in places they were struggling to see, or had forgotten what those places looked like. They are reminded that they are loved by One who will not give up on them because they are His, body and soul, heart and mind. It is this relationship that demands certain 'things' from them, namely all that they have. As Paul warned the Corinthians repeatedly in his first letter to them: 'you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.' (6:3), and later: 'You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.' (7:23). God has placed a price on them, and that price is higher than any gold or silver , they were bought by the blood of His only Son whom He loved so dearly.
James now turns the focus to what is not really talked about much, and that is true repentance. He speaks in terms of 'mourning', 'misery', 'crying' and urges them to turn away from laughter as they humbly seek God. If you re-read chapter three, you can see that something is needed. It seems drastic to us, but James is speaking to a people who have become jaded in their belief, running after wealth, seeking influence as 'teachers', but also letting their tongues run rampant. It is not a pretty picture. James calls for a true, heartfelt, humbling repentance. It is that which James is describing.

Those Who Have Repented

Perhaps the most famous historical incident illustrating true repentance is seen in the book of Jonah. Actually, there is much going on at several different levels in Jonah's interactions with God and as he reacts to what God wants him to do. Jonah was diametrically opposed to any preaching to the people of Nineveh. So, God called up a fish and let Jonah 'stew' in the mix for a little while. In chapter two, we have the Psalm of Jonah's repentance. If any place would inspire repentance, I guess it would be the belly of a giant fish.
Jonah does two things, he cries out to God and then he repents, read the phrase 'All Your breakers and billows passed over me' (NASB). He knew the punishment was from God, so he turned to God to find his forgiveness. Jonah cried to God in his temple and vowed to give the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and to do what he had vowed. In James words, Jonah humbled himself befrore God. Jonah was 'spit up' on dry ground, God gave him the grace needed to live.
Then, God sent him right back out on the same mission. God was being consistent, and as we shall see it was a consistent grace for others. When Jonah went to Nineveh and preached God's message, the congregation at Nineveh heard the word, believed it, and repented; for , ' 5The people of Nineveh believed God. They decided to fast, and everyone, from the most important to the least important, dressed in sackcloth.' But, it was not only the people who repented, by the King also, '... got up from his throne, took off his robe, put on sackcloth, and sat in ashes.'
The King was so affected that 'sealed the deal' with a royal decree, “This is an order from the king and his nobles: No one is to eat or drink anything. This includes all people, animals, cattle, and sheep. 8Every person and animal must put on sackcloth. Cry loudly to God for help. Turn from your wicked ways and your acts of violence. 9Who knows? God may reconsider his plans and turn from his burning anger so that we won’t die.” It was a heartfelt change of attitude, and a deep soul searching that tore through the city and sought the mercy of God that day.
God's response is just as deep, '10God saw what they did. He saw that they turned from their wicked ways. So God reconsidered his threat to destroy them, and he didn’t do it.' The mercy they sought in humility and despair for their sins was answered by God. God would use the Ninevites to punish the Kingdom of Northern Israel, the people that Jonah lived among.
Jonah knew all this, and so it was this 'situation' with God, Nineveh, and Israel that is at play in the book of Jonah. What is important for us, and for James is what Jonah said to God in an accusatory voice, 'Lord, isn’t this what I said would happen when I was still in my own country? That’s why I tried to run to Tarshish in the first place. I knew that you are a merciful and compassionate God, patient, and always ready to forgive and to reconsider your threats of destruction.' Jonah knew how forgiving God was, and he feared what that Mercy of God would mean to the people of Nineveh; forgiveness and mercy if they repented in humility and turned their hearts to God. Jonah is a weird book to get into, but once you do you will see the Mercy of God in a deeper and broader light.
There is a curious point here where James talks of resisting the devil. He is active in opposition to all that God does. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, makes mention of, '...the ruler of the spiritual powers in space, the spirit who now controls the people who disobey God.' He is at the center of the opposition that drags and pulls at us, and we must resist him by drawing near to God, for that is the immediate context. God gives us mercy that is greater. As John said, 'He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.' Part of drawing near to God will mean drawing away from all that would draw us in to sin. The recipients of James letter were being drawn into all sorts of evil that they needed to resist.
Paul makes the point in Ephesians 6: ' 10Finally, receive your power from the Lord and from his mighty strength. 11Put on all the armor that God supplies. In this way you can take a stand against the devil’s strategies. 12This is not a wrestling match against a human opponent. We are wrestling with rulers, authorities, the powers who govern this world of darkness, and spiritual forces that control evil in the heavenly world. 13For this reason, take up all the armor that God supplies. Then you will be able to take a stand during these evil days. Once you have overcome all obstacles, you will be able to stand your ground. ' It is, as we draw near to God that we receive His grace and strength to stand firm. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2937-James-part-29 http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2936-Jesus-and-Mohammad-part-3 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 04:09:00 GMT 'The Importance of History'

In the last part, I talked about the broad difference between the Quran and the Bible. Simply put, the Bible, as an historic document, contains the background needed to interpret what is written. The Quran, as a book, does not. The historic interpretation, and indeed much of the interpretation of the Quran itself, must come from other documents called 'Hadiths', which are, basically, written by authors to explain the historic context of certain parts of the Quran. It is this lack of internal historic context that sets the Quran apart from the Biblical witness.
That being said, the Quran makes some claims on persons that are part of Biblical history. Such people as Noah, Abraham, David, and Jesus are mentioned as prophets, and some seem to do things that are either not mentioned in the bible, or are totally at variance with how the Bible describes them. Jesus is just a prophet, and definitely not the Son of God. Adam seems to have an audience before the angels, and Abraham journeyed to southern Arabia to build a temple with the help of his chosen son, Ishmael. It is through Ishmael that the chosen line [Mohammad] was reckoned.
Let me say this early on, 'The best way to meet Islam is to know the Bible and what it has to say about God, salvation and Jesus Christ. The better you know God's word, the better you can spot any deviations from it's message.' Remember to pray for wisdom, as James promises in the first chapter of his letter, God will give wisdom to those who believe He will honor that prayer and request. A clear, reasoned, and loving response must always begin with our witness to what God has really said.
I am going to open with a quote from one who has worked in the area of Islamic history and documents, and then go from there.
‘"... there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources." (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62).
This is a good starting point since Islam claims that the prophet Mohammad is descended from Ishmael who settled in South Arabia. The Bible declares otherwise. Paran is the area Ishmael ultimately settled in (Genesis 21:13-21) and Mckenzie's Bible dictionary has this to say about Paran:
Paran (Hb pa'ran, most frequently the name of a desert region). The place name Elparan (Gn 14:6) no doubt is associated with the desert; this place is thought to be identical with Elath* by some scholars. The desert of Paran was the home of the Ishmaelites (Gn 21:21). It was, the itinerary according to P (cf. PENTATEUCH), reached by the Israelites after the desert of Sinai (Nm 10:12), and they camped in this desert for some time (Nm 10:12; 13:3, 26, mission and return of the scouts). In Dt 1:1 Paran is vaguely defined as a place in the desert. Hadad of Edom passed through the desert of Paran on his journey from Midian* to Egypt (1 Kings 11:18). The mountains of Paran are the place from which the theophany* appears (Dt 33:2; Hab. 3:3); like most other names mentioned in the theophanies, Paran reflects the region S of Judah. The desert of Paran is probably that region of the Negeb* which lies S of Kadesh-barnea*. (McKenzie, p. 637)
It is always a good idea when doing any bible study to consult a good bible Atlas. It gives you an idea of the area talked about, and helps to visualize and locate the 'world' in which the Biblical events took place. In this connection, David is connected with the area of Paran after the death of Samuel (1 Sam. 25:1), he went and hid out in the wilderness of Paran. So, if the Quran and Mohammad are to be believed, Ishmael and David both traveled around 800 miles (one way) in order 'be' where they are noted as living in the bible. It is this discrepancy that makes the narratives clash and jangle so discordantly to any reader.
The standard 'answer' Moslem apologists will give is that the Biblical texts have been corrupted and changed to disagree with the Quran. The problem is, beginning with the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see that the OT narratives have remained unchanged for at least 2300 years. Then, if you consider the fact that the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), which was translated at least two hundred years before Christ, agrees in content with our OT, the claim becomes hard to maintain. Even as late as the fourth century AD Jerome translated the Bible into latin, and that translation agrees in content with our Bible.
I give just these few examples to make a point; when you consider that Mohammad did not start 'seeing' the Quranic revelations until the late sixth and early seventh centuries, it becomes really hard to understand the claim of 'corruption'. Why would 'the people of the book' want to corrupt something to disagree with a prophet they never knew while writing the bible, one they would not know for hundreds of years? Will, in later issues, examine the concept of Textual Criticism, but for now be assured that the text of the whole Bible can be accepted as what has been passed down for more than two thousand years by Christians, and thae OT itself is older still.
When you talk about historical migrations or travel from the Euphrates River region to Egypt, you would follow what is called the Fertile Crescent. It was a line that follows the Euphrates river, curves into Syria running close to Damascus and following an established route like the Kings Highway running parallel to the Mediterranean Coast and so down into Egypt. It is important to see this on a map, because it was this route that Abraham traveled when left Haran for the land that God promised him. So, if you read the Genesis accounts of Abraham's travels, it was this route that Abraham followed.
Now, this is important to fix because the Quran would have Abraham taking an 'extra' trip (or four, depending on which tradition you follow) to the South of Arabia; one that just makes no sense. If you read the Biblical descriptions of the boundaries for the land that was promised Abraham, God told him 'I will give this land to your descendants. This is the land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.' (Gen. 15:18). God then mentions the people who, at the time of His promise to Abraham, lived there. '19It is the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girga****es, and the Jebusites.' Notice, in the list, there is not mention of any people that lived in Southern Arabia, nor are the boundaries consistent with any mention of that region.
It is at this point that we have to ask ourselves which explanation seems more consistent; taking the Biblical account at face value, or trying to fit things into Islamic claims. I think it pays us to carefully consider the claims the Quran, and the Hadiths, make on the Biblical narratives. There is no way to accept the Quranic claims, unless you twist things all out of shape. As I said, we must approach any such claims prayerfully with a full knowledge of just what the Bible does say. We are a 'people of the book', and we must know what that Book says. Not only that, but we must seek wisdom from the One to whom, and about whom that Book testifies. ]]> slightlypuzzled http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2936-Jesus-and-Mohammad-part-3