Interlude: Three days and three nights

 I ran across this in my study today and thought I'd better share it before I forgot. It has nothing to do with the current series on gifts and won't affect anyone's salvation, but it does affect truth; and Jesus said, "The truth shall make you free."

My wife and I have long held that when Jesus said he would be crucified, die, and be buried for three days and three nights, that he meant exactly what he said. However, this wreaks havoc with conventional and traditional chronology of the passion week between Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. It revolves around the Sabbath, which everyone knows starts at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday. Thus, tradition says he must have been crucified, die, and be buried before sundown on Friday, since they wanted to get him in the grave before the Sabbath. That constitutes Good Friday, which also allocates the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday, in church tradition. The explanation that is used is that three days and three nights is a Hebrew idiom for any parts of three days.

However, today I found this from E. W. Bullinger's The Companion Bible:

Appendix 144

THE "THREE DAYS" AND "THREE NIGHTS"
OF
Mat_12:40.

The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the reckoning of the reigns of any of the kings of Israel or Judah.

But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact.

Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset the day was reckoned from one sunset to another, the "twelve hours in the day" (Joh_11:9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day of twenty-four hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day" in 2Co_11:25 denotes a complete day (Gr. nuchthemeron ).

When Esther says (Est_4:16) "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days", she defines her meaning as being three complete days, because she adds (being a Jewess) "night or day". And when it is written that the fast ended on "the third day" (Mat_5:1), "the third day" must have succeeded and included the third night.

In like manner the sacred record states that the young man (in 1Sa_30:12) "had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights". Hence, when the young man explains the reason, he says, "because three days agone I fell sick". He means therefore three complete days and nights, because, being an Egyptian ( vv . MATT. 11, 13) he naturally reckoned his day as beginning at sunrise according to the Egyptian manner (see Encycl. Brit. , 11th (Cambridge) ed., vol. xi. p. 77). His "three days agone" refers to the beginning of his sickness and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated.

Hence, when it says that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jon_1:17) it means exactly what it says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Mat_12:40; Mat_16:4. Luk_11:30, is shown in Ap. 156.

In the expression, "the heart of the earth" (Mat_12:40), the meaning is the same as "the heart of the sea", "heart" being put by the Fig. Metonymy (of the Subject), Ap. 6 for "the midst", and is frequently so translated. See Psa_46:2. Jer_51:1. Eze_27:4; Eze_27:25-27; Eze_28:2. It is used of ships when sailing "in the heart of the seas", i.e., in or on the sea. See Eze_27:25-26; Eze_28:8; also of people dwelling in the heart of the seas, i.e. on islands (Eze_28:2). Jonah uses the Heb. beten ( = womb) in the same way (2.2).

Now, if you are still stubbornly holding to your church tradition for the chronology of the Passion Week, try this on for size:

Yes, the seventh day of each week was a Shabbat, a day of rest. However, there are at least three other Shabbats in the Jewish calendar, one of them being the Passover Shabbat. Now, we know that the monk who established the Gregorian calendar (under Pope Gregory) miscalculated by 4 to 6 years and that Jesus was born (by Gregorian calendar reckoning) between 4 and 6 B.C. (or B.C.E., if you are particularly antitheist). We know that Jesus' ministry ran for approximately three years; however, we don't know the exact date it started. We assume it began at about the age of 30 because that was Jewish tradition when a man began his life's work on his own and under normal circumstances would marry and begin a family. The only thing we are sure of is the context in which his ministry came to a climax (it did not end) at Passover when he became the embodiment of the Passover lamb and was killed as a sacrifice for sin.

But which Passover? Passover does not always happen on Saturday. In the Jewish calendar (a lunar calendar), it occurs on a different day each year. Some scholars believe the Passover Shabbat occurred on Thursday that year, that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and died at the exact time (3 p.m.) that the High Priest was slaughtering the Passover lamb in the Temple, also the time that the thick curtain separating the Holy Place in the Temple from the Most Holy Place, where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, split from the top to the bottom, indicating all men now had immediate access to God.

That also means the chronology runs more like this:

1. Palm Sunday - Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, a symbol of royal humility, of a king coming not in conquest (which would be on a horse) but in peace. He immediately goes to the Temple and drives out the merchants and money changers, causing no little bit of a stir. He then sits down and begins to teach the people. At the end of the day, he retires to the house of Mary, Martha, and their now resurrected brother Lazarus in Bethsaida.
2. Maundy Tuesday - Jesus sends some disciples back into Jerusalem to prepare the upper room for the Passover meal, what we now call the Last Supper or Lord's Supper (Communion). He eats the meal (except for the wine) with his disciples. In the middle of the meal, he reveals that one of their number will betray him. Judas departs to set things up. Jesus takes the eleven that are left to a garden outside Jerusalem called Gethsemane. Here he prays for three hours, struggling against an untimely death (I'll post another blog about that later). Judas shows up with a mob to arrest him and they drag him off to the chief priests. He is brought before the Sanhedrin and illegally tried at night. 
3. We are now probably after midnight into early Wednesday morning (Good Wednesday?). The trial can't last long because they still have to get him to Pilate who has to have time to interrogate him, send him to Herod for further interrogation, have him flogged, and then sent along the Via Dolorosa to Golgotha by early morning. He is on the cross  by noon, because that's when the sky goes dark for three hours. Jesus dies at about 3 p.m. Joseph of Arimathea has just enough time to  go to Pilate, secure permission to bury Jesus, take him down from the cross, wrap his body in burial linens, and deposit the body in the tomb. It must be an open tomb because the Jewish leaders get wind of it and go to Pilate demanding that the tomb be sealed with a stone with the governor's Roman seal on it and station a guard to prevent the disciples from stealing the body. The disciples, however, are cowering in a locked room. The sun goes down, beginning the Passover Shabbat.
4. One thing the women were not able to do because of the pace of events was to procure spices to prepare the body for burial. Fortunately, the Magi had provided those when they came and worshiped him at the age of two (see my blog from Jan 6, 2017). However, the women were able to go out and buy them on Friday between the Passover Shabbat and the Saturday Shabbat, but they apparently didn't have time to go to the grave. Also, there was the stone and the guard to contend with. So apparently sundown Friday came and they rested for the Shabbat.
5. Easter Sunday - In the morning, he women go to the grave to prepare the body according to tradition. Along the way, they talk about the stone that stands in their way. However, when they arrive, they find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. In wonder and confusion, they flee. Mary Magdalene stumbles into Jesus, thinking him the gardener. Why didn't she recognize him? Medical experts say that in circumstances of extreme stress (crucifixion?) a person's hair can turn white. This is borne out in John's Apocalypse (Revelation) where Jesus is described as having white hair. He tells her to go to the disciples and Peter and tell them that he is risen as he said.

All told, he has spent three days and three nights in the tomb, beginning at sundown on Wednesday, continuing through sundown on Thursday (1 night, 1 day), sundown on Friday (2 nights, 2 days), and ending at sundown on Saturday (3 nights, 3 days), the end of the second Shabbat that week. This, along with Bullinger's linguistic analysis above, leads me and others to believe that the common church liturgical calendar is in error and that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday of the Passion week.

Gifts: Gifts of the Father, Part 1

Obviously, since this is a blog, the newest blogs are on top of the list. But since this posting is more in the fashion of a serial blog, if you haven't read the previous posts, it might be helpful to go back to the first posting of 2021, titled Note and continue through the subsequent posts. 

Okay, so that was a lot to take in at one sitting. It also took a lot out of me; so much so that it's taken a couple of days to get back to it. I failed at one of the principles of Instructional Design (something I have a Master's degree in) called "chunking": never give them too much at one time; they'll never retain it all.

So we've established a scriptural principle from 1 Cor. 12:4-6 that there are three types of dispensations or gifts from God (the Trinity): gifts of the Father (energies or motivations), gifts of the Son (services, administrations, or ministries), and gifts of the Spirit (charismata, gifts of grace, or manifestations).

Now, I'm not presenting an opinion here. I'm trying to exegete the Word of God by examining the words in Scripture both in English and the original Greek. Whether or not the particular sect (i.e., denomination) you identify with adheres to what I'm presenting is immaterial. These are Scriptural principles that I'm examining in detail and that I have personally seen borne out in my own life and in the lives of others. So I am integrating Scripture with experience.

I have labeled the dispensations or gifts by means of the source: gifts of the Father, gifts of the Son, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. As I alluded to above, others have used a sort of onomatapoeia (from onoma, name; and poeia, make; or "to make a name") by using three words beginning with the letter "M": Motivational gifts (gifts of the Father), Ministry gifts (gifts of the Son), and Manifestation gifts (gifts of the Holy Spirit). Some systems and their tests try to lump them all together and assess them all at once. However, I will try to demonstrate that this is like trying to compare apples, oranges, and bananas: all you end up with is a fruit salad. The purpose of each category is very distinct and should be discriminated carefully to ensure accurate understanding and purposeful employment.

I'm going to first look at the Motivational gifts. Why are they called "Motivational?" Probably because the word seems to indicate a personal motivation in how we each respond to life situations. We're going to dive into personality theory, because this is the essence of this category and has to do with how God wired us from conception and birth to respond to life situations. These gifts are the basis of what makes each of us different, why people do some of the crazy things they do, and why we respond to them the way we do. No two people are alike. Just look at any marriage: opposites attract. It's a principle of physics that God established in the universe. The trick with marriage is that it's similarities that keep people together.

So here's the deal: I mentioned in my last post that in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth, the only time he references the gifts of the Father is in verse 6 of chapter 12. He lists both the Manifestation and the Ministry gifts in that chapter, then goes into detail on the Manifestation gifts in chapters 14 and 15. But we have to go to Paul's letter to the church at Rome to find the Motivational gifts. We'll look at that next time in Romans 12.

Gifts: Categories of Gifts

 Obviously, since this is a blog, the newest blogs are on top of the list. But since this posting is more in the fashion of a serial blog, it might be helpful to go back to the first posting of 2021, titled Note.

This post will introduce the concept of Gifts and that there are actually three different categories of gifts.

First, what is a gift? Obviously, its definition and etymology identify it as an object, whether tangible or intangible, that is given by one person to another person. Possession and often ownership of the gift are transferred from the one to the other.

The following is taken from Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

Gift, Giving

1. doron (G1435), akin to didomi, "to give," is used (a) of "gifts" presented as an expression of honor, Mat_2:11; (b) of "gifts" for the support of the temple and the needs of the poor, Mat_15:5; Mar_7:11; Luk_21:1, Luk_21:4; (c) of "gifts" offered to God, Mat_5:23, Mat_5:24; Mat_8:4; Mat_23:18, Mat_23:19; Heb_5:1; Heb_8:3, Heb_8:4; Heb_9:9; Heb_11:4; (d) of salvation by grace as the "gift" of God, Eph_2:8; (e) of "presents" for mutual celebration of an occasion, Rev_11:10. See OFFERING.

2. dorea (G1431) denotes "a free gift," stressing its gratuitous character; it is always used in the NT of a spiritual or supernatural gift, Joh_4:10; Act_8:20; Act_11:17; Rom_5:15; 2Co_9:15; Eph_3:7; Heb_6:4; in Eph_4:7, "according to the measure of the gift of Christ," the "gift" is that given by Christ; in Act_2:28, "the gift of the Holy Ghost," the clause is epexegetical, the "gift" being the Holy Ghost Himself; cf. Act_10:45; Act_11:17, and the phrase, "the gift of righteousness," Rom_5:17.

Note: For dorean, a form of this noun, used adverbially, see FREELY.

3. dorema (G1434): see BOON.

4. doma (G1390) lends greater stress to the concrete character of the "gift," than to its beneficent nature, Mat_7:11; Luk_11:13; Eph_4:8; Php_4:17.

5. dosis (G1394) denotes, properly, "the act of giving," Php_4:15, euphemistically referring to "gifts" as a matter of debt and credit accounts; then, objectively, "a gift," Jas_1:17 (1st mention; see BOON).

6. charisma (G5486), "a gift of grace, a gift involving grace" (charis) on the part of God as the donor, is used (a) of His free bestowments upon sinners, Rom_5:15, Rom_5:16; Rom_6:23; Rom_11:29; (b) of His endowments upon believers by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the churches, Rom_12:6; 1Co_1:7; 1Co_12:4, 1Co_12:9, 1Co_12:28, 1Co_12:30, 1Co_12:31; 1Ti_4:14; 2Ti_1:6; 1Pe_4:10; (c) of that which is imparted through human instruction, Rom_1:11; (d) of the natural "gift" of continence, consequent upon the grace of God as Creator, 1Co_7:7; (e) of gracious deliverances granted in answer to the prayers of fellow believers, 2Co_1:11.

Note: In the KJV of 2Co_8:4 charis, "grace," is translated "gift." The RV, "in regard of this grace," adheres to the true meaning, as in 2Co_8:6.

7. merismos (G3311), "a dividing" (from meros, "a part"), is translated "gifts" in Heb_2:4, "gifts of the Holy Ghost" (marg., "distributions"); in Heb_4:12, "dividing." see DIVIDING.

Note: In the KJV of Luk_21:5 anathema, "a votive offering," is translated "gifts" (RV, "offerings").

Obviously, the New Testament is replete with words that deal with a variety of concepts of gifts.

However, I want to focus initially in 1 Cor. 12. Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, a large city located on an isthmus and a hub of trade, both materially and intellectually. He begins by saying:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. (ESV)

In the original Greek, the word "gifts" is not there. Only the word translated "spiritual" (πνευματικός, pneumatikos) is present, essentially meaning "spiritual things." However, in the context of what follows in chapters 12 through 14, the use of "gifts" here seems rational.

He goes on to contrast their previous practices as pagans with what should be their current practices as Christians:

2 You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. 

 Clearly, Paul wants to distinguish between the sources of their religious experiences and the practices. He wants to let them know that things are different now that they are Christians and that they should leave their old pagan practices (often characterized by ecstasy and chaos) behind and embrace new, more orderly practices. ("But all things should be done decently and in order." 1 Cor. 14:40, ESV)

Now, he begins to explain to them the categorical nature of gifts:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;

 "varieties": διαίρεσις diairesis; a distinction or (concretely) variety: - difference, diversity. (Strong, G1243)
"gifts": χάρισμα charisma; a (divine) gratuity, that is, deliverance (from danger or passion); (specifically) a (spiritual) endowment, that is, (subjectively) religious qualification, or (objectively) miraculous faculty: - (free) gift. (Strong, G5486)
"Spirit": πνεῦμα pneuma; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. (Strong, G4151)

 This is the first category of gifts, the one they were most familiar with but also the one they were having the most trouble with, as we see later in the letter.

5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;

"service":  διακονία diakonia; attendance (as a servant, etc.); figuratively (eleemosynary) aid, (official) service (especially of the Christian teacher, or technically of the diaconate): - (ad-) minister (-ing, -tration, -try), office, relief, service (-ing). (Strong, G1248)
"Lord": κύριος kurios; From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir. (Strong, G2962)

The word here for "service" (or "administrations" in the KJV) is where we get our word "deacon" from. When the original deacons were chosen in the Book of Acts, their purpose was to "wait on tables," to distribute meals to the widows of the church. Culturally, women rarely had the ability to support themselves. When their husband died, all his possessions were distributed to their sons and the oldest son assumed the responsibility of providing for his mother. However, if she accepted Yeshua of Nazaret as her Messiah and her family did not follow her in faith, she would be abandoned by them. In the early church in Jerusalem, the native Jewish-Christian widows were being served, but not the Hellenic-Christian widows. The apostles felt they could not lead the church both spiritually and materially; hence, the deacons were born. However, the use of the term here is broad, covering more than just serving meals as we will see later. Thus the use of the word "administrations" in the KJV.

In our modern, Western perspective, the word "Lord" has lost much of its original meaning, especially embodied in the Greek word "kyrios." In the context of the time, a kyrios actually had the power of life and death. Each year, people were required to pay their taxes to Rome and the Roman Empire and recite the phrase kyrion kaisar, Caesar is Lord. There was also a statement of deity along with the authority, because only a god could have power of life and death. Of course, Christians could make no such confession, and thus were deemed enemies of the state. Therefore, in this context, the word kyrios is referring to the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, the Son. As the head of his body, the church, he has given gifts for the purpose of ministry. (Eph. 4:7-12)

6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

"activities":  ἐνέργημα energēma; an effect: - operation, working. (Strong, G1755)
"God": θεός theos; Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward]. (Strong, G2316)
"empowers": ἐνεργέω energeō; to be active, efficient: - do, (be) effectual (fervent), be mighty in, shew forth self, work (effectually in). (Strong, G1754)
"all": παντα panta; from πᾶς pas; Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever. (Strong, G3956)
"everyone": πασιν pasin; from πᾶς pas; Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever. (Strong, G3956)

Of the three verses dealing with what I call gift categories (vss. 4, 5, and 6), this last one is the most enigmatic and perhaps the least understood, partly because it is discussed nowhere else in this letter. Apparently, the Corinthian church had enough problems dealing with their excesses in regard to the use of the gifts of the Spirit that Paul deemed it prudent not to confuse them with what I feel are deeper matters. Instead, we must look to Paul's letter to the church in Rome to find them.

Note the relation of the Greek word to our English word, "energy." I feel a more accurate translation would almost be a transliteration: "and there are differences of energies, but it is the same God who energizes them all in everyone." Note also that it is Theos who distributes these gifts. To continue the pattern, charisma come from the Spirit, diakonia come from the Son, and energēma come from the Father (God). 

Thus, we have three categories of gifts: gifts of the Father, gifts of the Son, and gifts of the Spirit. Each Person of the Trinity has authority and distribution of the gifts in their domain, yet they all work together "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ," (Eph. 4:12 ESV).

In my next posting, we will discuss the gifts given to all humans, whether or not they are believers: the Gifts of the Father.

Gifts: Introduction

 Before we can begin our study, let's lay some ground rules.

First, this is more than just a scholarly treatise. While some scholarship will be involved, the ultimate goal is to impact life in such a way that it becomes more understandable, more productive, and just more fun.

Since I hope this will reach a variety of people with a variety of backgrounds, I want to discuss some buzzwords that some may bring to the table.

First, let's talk about Theology. This comes from two Greek words: θεός (theos) and λόγος (logos). Essentially, it means "God words" or "words about God." It forms the general term for the study of God and is broken down into various aspects of God, e.g., holiness, righteousness, justice, mercy, etc.

Another term we should look at is Doctrine. Generally speaking, this speaks to the core beliefs of any given sect, such things as salvation, original sin, justification, etc. The Greek word found in 2 Tim. 3:16 translated as doctrine is διδασκαλία (didaskalia). It, along with another Greek word, διδαχή (didache), are related to teaching. Zodhiates discriminates between them as the latter being "the substance of teaching" and the former "the act of teaching." Clearly, doctrine has to do with the teachings of any specific group regarding their understanding of the principles of the Bible. Throughout history, these have usually been promulgated through the personal revelation and inspiration of a single individual, e.g., Luther, Calvin, and others. Even in modern times, whole new sets of teachings have been promoted by an individual and enhanced through the use of technology (read "Tele-evangelists").

One term that originally had positive connotations and now not so much is Dogma. This word is used within groups to indicate concepts that are immutable and should be universal to all who profess to believe common truths. In my experience, however, it tends to describe a stubborn an intractable adherence to certain concepts, often even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. An example of such might be found in the tenets of Atheistic Humanism. Adherents to this belief system deny the existence of God, let alone the possibility that he could have created everything that is. Even the concept of intelligent design is anathema to a true believer of this faith. But I digress.

Not that any of these terms have any real impact on what I'm going to do here. It is my intention to draw from various scriptures (without proof-texting) that might seem to the casual Bible reader as random and unrelated. However, in my view, they are actually the core of Christian life, after initial salvation. By understanding them more fully, I hope the reader will have a "lightbulb" effect and begin to see life in a new light (pun intended!).

Here we go!!

Note

 It's been about three years now since my last post. I have two people following this blog. Clearly, I'm not winning any awards for social activity.

However, I'm presently motivated to look in depth at a project I've studied for some time now: Gifts.

I'm going to begin with a short introduction into the nature of Bible study and its corollaries as found in Christian circles; nothing too in-depth, just a means whereby we can understand each other.

Although much of what I'm going to share has already been drawn from teachers like Russell Kelper and Bill Gothard, ultimately my source is going to be Scripture, primarily the New Testament, along with my own personal experience.

While some have emphasized scripture and others experience, I believe it is possible to blend the two into one cohesive lifestyle. To that end, I will begin this journey.

The Magi: An analysis

Matthew 2 (Alexandria Bible)
1. But after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem.

There is no little speculation who these Magi (or Wise Men, as they are commonly called) are or where they came from. They are sometimes associated with astrologers; but that label has somewhat negative connotations contemporaneously, owing to its frequent modern use for the superstitious practice of fortune-telling. However, they were not pure astronomers either, in that they did associate meaning with astral phenomena, which we will see shortly.

According to Zodhiates (The Complete WordStudy Dictionary), they were priests and wise men among the Medes, Persians and Babylonians and were considered both great and powerful. They specialized in the study of astrology and enchantment. The Chaldeans called them wise (σοφοσ - sophos).

The Greek word for "east" (ανατολη, anatolḗ) means "that region or those parts of the heaven or earth where the solar light first springs up and appears, the east..." (Zodhiates). Interestingly, there is an area in the high plateau of what is now eastern Turkey that is known in historical and archaeological circles as Anatolia. It is hypothesized by Gavin Menzies (The Lost Empire of Atlantis) as the original location of a people who emigrated to Crete at the beginning of the Bronze Age and became the foundation for the Minoan civilization.

2. saying: "Where is he that has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star at its rising, and have come to worship him.

The first question we must ask from verses 1 and 2 is: Why did they come to Jerusalem? There are several reasons. 1) They were new to the area. 2) They were looking for a king. Somehow, this star was new, and its location had something to do with Israel and it's rulership. 3) Jerusalem was the seat of the Jewish government. Therefore, it seemed logical to assume that everyone in Jerusalem would know about this event and would direct them to its location.

The problem was that the Jews were thinking in the natural, especially Herod (whose name, ironically, means "heroic"). Apparently, none of Herod's wives had given birth recently, or he would have killed the child or children, as he had consistently done to date.

3) And hearing it, king Herod was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Herod thought he had covered all his bases. It freaked him out to think that he might have missed one. The people of Jerusalem, on the other hand, were fearful of a pogrom that might ensue, and in fact did, as we shall see.

4) And he assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people, and inquired of them where the Christ should be born.

Herod starts trying to line his ducks up before he meets with the Magi. He's afraid of losing his power and authority and will even go so far as to thwart the arrival of the promised Messiah to keep it.

5) And they said to him: In Bethlehem of Judea; for thus it is written by the prophet: 6) And thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah, art by no means the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come a Governor, who shall rule my people Israel.

So, now Herod has a direction: a little southwest of Jerusalem. But that still encompasses a broad area, because it could include the surrounding area as well as the city itself. For the word "rule," one can also substitute "shepherd" or "pastor."

7) Then Herod, having secretly called the Magi, inquired of them strictly the time at which the star appeared;

He will use this information later (vs 16) to kill every male child below the age corresponding to when the star appeared. Herod is nothing, if not thorough.

8) and sending them to Bethlehem, said: Go make strict inquiry for the young child: and when you have found him, bring me word, that I also may go and worship him.

Truly, John the Baptist calls Herod's son, Herod Antipas, a "sly old fox." Apparently the apple didn't fall very far from the tree. So Herod the Great tries to use these "naive, unsuspecting" Wise Men and sends them on their way.

9) and after hearing the king, they departed; and lo, the star which they had seen at its rising, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

However, having used natural means to find the newborn king, the Magi now revert to their normal practice of using the heavens as their guide. Psalm 19 begins "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth his handiwork."

10) And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with very great joy. 11) and coming into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother; and falling down they worshiped him; and having opened their treasures they offered to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Here is the scene we erroneously recreate at Christmastime as having happened at the manger. Epiphany, the high church feast of the Magi, occurs in January. In fact, the actual occurrence could have happened up to two years later. Remember, they went to Bethlehem to register for the census for Roman taxation. Given the history of bureaucracies throughout the ages, that could not have happened overnight. Add to that the state of transportation and communication in that time, and two years to complete a census of the whole world does not seem unlikely in the least.

12) And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they withdrew into their own country by another way.

God was protecting his plan. In the next section, Joseph himself will be warned in a dream to take Mary and Jesus and get the heck out of Dodge. God is always in control.

Engaged!

Matthew 1:18 (ESV)
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Betrothal, or engagement to be married, was a serious event in the Jewish culture. The Greek word used here is μνηστευθεισης (mnēsteutheísēs, G3423) and means literally to "give a souvenir" (engagement present). The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature describes Jewish betrothal as follows:

"Among the Hebrews this relation was usually determined by the parents or brothers, without consulting the parties until they came to be betrothed. The engagement took place very early, as is still the case in Oriental countries, though it was not consummated by actual marriage until the spouse was at least twelve years of age. The betrothing was performed a twelvemonth or more before the marriage, either in writing, or by a piece of silver given to the espoused before witnesses, as a pledge of their mutual engagements. Sometimes a regular contract was made, in which the bridegroom always bound himself to give a certain sum as a portion to his bride. From the time of espousal, however, the woman was considered as the lawful wife of the man to whom she was betrothed: the engagement could not be ended by the man without a bill of divorce; nor could she be unfaithful without being considered an adulteress. Thus Mary, after she was betrothed to Joseph, might, according to the rigor of the law, have been punished if the angel of the Lord had not acquainted Joseph with the mystery of the incarnation."

I remember my mother telling me that in the German Lutheran culture, engagement to be married was an equally serious event. She said that if an engaged couple broke off the engagement, they had to go before the entire congregation and ask for forgiveness. Today, it seems that many couples call each other "fiancee" in an apparent attempt to legitimize the fact that they are living together in fornication.

There's a unique spiritual significance in the Biblical concept of betrothal for us. Jesus is revealed in scripture as the bridegroom and we are His bride. However, the marriage ceremony has not yet taken place. That happens, in Jewish culture, when the bridegroom comes to get his bride at an unannounced time. Sound familiar?

Jesus left us a souvenir: the Holy Spirit, who is the promise that Jesus will return for us, His bride. At the rapture, we will be united with him as He comes back to receive us. But, like the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, we must always be ready with oil in our lamps, for he may return at any time. We do not want to miss the wedding feast.

Attention! Jesus Is Coming!

As reported in CharismaNews (November 30,2016), on November 28, 2016, former President Jimmy Carter wrote an editorial in the NY Times urging current President Barak Obama to use the United Nations Security Council to formally recognize the state of Palestine in a way that would virtually inhibit President-elect Donald Trump from undoing the action. This would split the land of Israel, which, according to the author of the article in CharismaNews, Michael T. Snyder, would be among the final signs of fulfilled prophecy concerning the return of Jesus Christ. He did not specify the scripture containing the prophecy, instead providing a link to his book The Rapture Verdict. Mr. Snyder is an attorney; the fact that he is not a pastor or televangelist promoting some new teaching in my mind gives him more credibility. Time will tell.

In light of that, in my study of Matthew 1:17 today, I was doing a word study on γενεα (genea, G1074) and ran across this in The Complete Word Study by Spiros Zodhiates:

"The word geneá in Mat_24:34 may have had reference to the kind of Jew with whom Jesus was conversing during that particular time (Mat_21:23; Mat_23:29). He was telling them that this generation or type, such as the Sadducees and Pharisees of that day, would not pass away until all these things occurred and until His coming again in His parousía (G3952), Second Coming, which has proven to be true. He was prophesying the destruction of their nation (Mat_24:15-28). Others have understood Jesus to be saying that the generation present immediately preceding His return, who witness the events signaling His coming, will not pass away. Christ's return will not be thwarted."

Interesting, what?

The will of God: Sermon notes from FBCJAX 5/3/15

 The Sovereign will of God: what God is doing on the earth.

The moral will of God: what God has already said in His Word. 

The personal will of God: what God desires for my life. Learn to control your own body in a holy and honorable manner. 

The more I get to know the Sovereign will of God and the Moral will of God the better I will able to discern the personal will of God. 

What am I doing that I should not be doing?

What am I not doing that I should be doing?

Will: θέλημα From the prolonged form of G2309; a determination(properly the thing), that is, (actively) choice (specifically purpose, decree; abstractly volition) or (passively) inclination: - desire, pleasure, will.

1 John 4:1 test the spirits; Rom 12:2

1. Am I in a right relationship with God?

2. What does the Bible say?

3. What would Jesus do?

4. Have I sought Godly counsel?

5. Is this my will or God's will?

Will = volition = choice = decision 

1 Corinthians 15 - Do-Over!

Verse 45 of this chapter says "The Scriptures tell us, 'The first man, Adam, became a living person.' But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit." (NLT) We were discussing this last night in Youth Bible study as I explained that Jesus is the "second" Adam, that the first one messed things up, when one of the youth exclaimed "Oh, you mean like a 'do-over'!" Watching the light bulb come on in a student is such a thrill, especially since I get to learn along with them. I hadn't equated Jesus' birth with such a simple concept, yet that is exactly what God had in mind when he sent His Son, a pure, immortal spirit-being, to assume a mortal corporeal form. It was a do-over. Confession, repentance, and forgiveness are like that too--little mini do-overs that we get every time we mess things up. I'm sure I'll get in plenty of practice today.

Corinthians A.12.4-6 - The Triple Whammy

Every Christian is (or at least should) be familiar with chapters 12, 13, and 14 of 1 Corinthians. Mostly we're familiar with chapter 13, the "Luv" chapter (spoken with inflection). Some recognize the three chapters as being like an Oreo cookie: chapter 13 is the filling sandwiched between the other two chapters.
There's one aspect of chapter 12, however, that many (if not most) people are not aware of, and it's found in verses 4, 5, and 6. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all." (NKJV)
In verse 1 of chapter 12, Paul tells the Corinthians, "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant." The word "gifts" is in italics in the NKJV because it really isn't there in the Greek. Paul uses the word pneumatikon, an adjective. Some commentators reflect that it could apply to things, people, or other beings, depending on their opinion. But they also recognize that, based on where Paul's discussion goes in the rest of the chapter, it is most likely referring to gifts. I think we could safely render it "Now concerning things of the Spirit..."
The first noun in each verse, translated as "differences," "diversities," or "varieties," is the Greek word Διαιρέσεις (Diaireseis). Strong and Thayer concur with these renderings.
The second noun in verse 4 is mostly rendered "gifts," one exception being the Douay-Rheims Bible (1899) which literally translates the Greek word χαρισματων (charismatōn) as "graces" (from χαρισ [charis], grace). In this verse, these "gifts" are associated with the Spirit (πνεῦμα, pneuma).
The second noun in verse 5 is variously rendered "ministries" (Douay-Rheims, ISV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV), "administrations" (KJV, Bishops, Geneva), and "service/services/serving" (Darby, ESV, GNB). Luther (1545) uses Ämter, which Cassell's German Dictionary (1963) translates as the plural of Amt, "an official position, appointment, post." The Greek word here is διακονιων (diakoniōn) and is the word from which we derive our word "deacon." In some Churches, this word has been used as a title for one in leadership. However, in the book of Acts, when they were installed, the deacons were intended to wait on tables. They routinely, however, exceeded their responsibilities and ended up spreading the Gospel, performing miracles, or being martyred. This noun in this verse is associated with κύριος (kyrios), translated "Lord." When Paul uses this term, he is speaking of Jesus, the Son of God.
The second noun in verse 6 in the Greek is ἐνεργημάτων (energēmatōn) and is mostly translated "operations" (KJV, Bishops, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Geneva), "workings" (YLT, MKJV, LITV), or "activities" (NKJV, ESV). There is also "abilities" (GNB) and "results" (ISV). Luther uses Kräfte, the plural form of "strength." At the literal level, we find the root word for our "energies." This word is associated in this verse with God (θεος, theos), whom Paul associates with God the Father.
Paul is classically educated in both Greek and Hebrew cultures. To assert that there is no logical association among these three verses, grammatically and sequentially formatted as they are, would seem imprudent at best. They appear to identify that there are three classes of "things" (let's call them all "gifts" for convenience sake) and each class is associated with a different person of the Trinity. Thus, we can postulate that there are gifts of the Father, gifts of the Son, and gifts of the Spirit. So, where do we find these three classes of gifts and what are their varieties?
Let's start with the gifts of the Father. Most authorities associate them with the list of gifts in Romans 12:6-8. One curious element however, is that Paul uses χαρισματα (charismata) for gifts in Romans 12:6, not ἐνεργηματα (energēmata) if he were following the same logic found in 1 Corinthians 12:6. It is possible, however, that "gifts" is applicable to more than just the Spirit. At any rate, these are sometimes called "motivational" gifts because they describe a person's motivation as they respond to life situations. Some, like Gothard, feel they are distributed at the point of salvation. Others, like myself, believe they are part of the person's makeup at their genesis and are evident throughout human creation. They are personality perspectives that dictate how we naturally respond to life situations and are reflective of how we are "wired" by God at birth. Is it unnatural that God would be involved in the makeup of every person born? I think not. The list of seven includes prophecy, ministry (serving), teaching, exhortation, giving, leading (administration), and mercy. Most authors indicate each person has a primary and a secondary motivation, though testing reveals that each of us also has varying strengths and weaknesses in each of the categories. Further information can be found in most search engines using the keywords "motivational gifts."
As indicated by Luther and the Greek, the gifts of the Son involve service within the Body of Christ and can generally be described as positions or "ministry" gifts. Verse 28 of chapter 12 begins one list, including apostles, prophets, teachers, those who work miracles, those who have the gift of healing, ministries of helps, administrators, and "tongues" (glossolalia). This last one is probably the most controversial, yet Bruce Olson in his book Bruchko describes an instance where one South American native tribe to whom he had been ministering went off in the jungle to evangelize another native tribe with whom they did not share a common language. To their amazement and delight, they were able to communicate with each other miraculously, and both tribes were able to share in the Gospel and salvation. Ephesians 4:11 lists a second group which is commonly called the five-fold ministry gifts, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers (some combine the last two into one gift, others separate them).
Finally, the gifts of the Spirit are probably the most familiar, and the most polarizing. There are some who claim their use disappeared with the last Apostle, others with the appearance of the canon of Scripture. Charismatics and Pentecostals maintain and practice their use today. They are found here in chapter 12, verses 7 through 11 and are sometimes called "manifestation" gifts based on verse 7 ("But the manifestation (φανερωσις, phanerōsis) of the Spirit..."). They include word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healings, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The difference between these gifts and the ministry gifts is that these are momentary. They reside wholly in the Spirit and are distributed "as He wills" (verse 11). The ministry gifts on the other hand are ongoing and may be irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

John 21:15, 16

This is a short passage that contains a discourse  between Jesus and Peter after the resurrection, but it contains so much, not in the English but rather in the Greek. Now, we don't have the original Aramaic or Hebrew that they might have used because at the time, Greek was used as the common language  to transmit ideas in written form so that peoples of other cultures and languages might have the ability to receive the communication, even though the writer might not speak their native tongue.
So here's what happens: Jesus has died, risen, and appeared on several occasions to his disciples. On this occasion, Peter has told the rest of the guys, "I'm going fishing!" He's at the Sea of Tiberius with Thomas Didymus (the twin), Nathaniel from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two other anonymous disciples (vs. 3). They've fished all night, and just as dawn is breaking, Jesus shows up on the shore. He calls out to them over the water (sound travels far over water) to ask if they've caught anything. Now, if you've ever fished for pleasure, just fishing even without catching anything can be very peaceful and relaxing. But these are former commercial fishermen, so they're not accustomed to fishing for pleasure.
They respond to his query, not knowing who it is, probably wondering why he wants to know. And when he says "Try the other side," they may even be thinking "What does this guy know? We're the professionals!" But they do it anyway and, suddenly, the net is so full they can't haul it in. Something clicks in John's mind ("Wait a minute! Didn't this happen once before?") and he realizes it's Jesus! Peter has stripped down to his skivvies during the night and doesn't want to offend Jesus by appearing before him naked, so he puts his clothes back on before he jumps in the water and swims to shore. At least he doesn't wait for the boat to come in, so great is his desire to see Jesus.
So later, after they've had breakfast from some of the 153 large fish they brought in, Jesus starts asking Peter some questions. He says "Peter, son of Jonas, do you love me more (pleion, greater in quantity or quality) than the rest of these guys?" Now, we use "love" in English to say a lot of things. We say, "I love you" to someone who is dear to us, or "I love pizza" to express a personal preference. Greek is more explicit. Most of us are familiar with the three forms of "love" in Greek: agapao for Godly love or love by choice, phileo for brotherly love, respect, or love by preference, and eros for physical love or love by desire. Here, Jesus uses the first form, agapao. It's the same form the Apostle John uses in his most famous passage (John 3:16), "For God so loved (agape'd) the world that He gave...".
But Peter can"t hack it. He says "Yes, Lord, you know that I love/respect (phileo) You." Now, again, we don't know the Aramaic or Hebrew that they might have used, but we do have the Greek that the dialogue was written in, and in it John makes a distinction. In response, Jesus tells Peter "Boske (feed, pasture, to graze; Thayer: portraying the duty of a Christian teacher to promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church) my arnia (lambs, little lambs).
Then again, a second time, Jesus asks Peter, "Do you love (agapao) me?" "Yes, Lord (kyrie), You know that I love/respect (phileo) you." Jesus responds "Poimaine (Thayer: to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep; to rule or govern; Strong: to tend as a shepherd (or figuratively as a supervisor) my prosbata (Thayer: any four-footed, tame animal accustomed to graze; Strong: something that walks forward [a quadruped], [specifically] a sheep [literally or figuratively]).
Then, a third time, Jesus questions him, and he uses Peter's word this time..
Why does Jesus question Peter three times? Peter had denied Jesus three times. Jesus wasn't poking Peter in the eye three times just to get back at him for the three times Peter had thrown Jesus under the bus. He was querying Peter three times to restore Peter for the three times he had failed to live up to his own oath, because a time was coming when it was going to cost him more than just his reputation, and Peter needed to know he was forgiven for that failing.

That Snowden Thing...

Got an email today from the Presidential Prayer Team that used the Snowden affair to discuss the issue of morality in America. I strongly recommend it as a Biblical viewpoint of the whole thing: http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/morality-in-america

Hebrews 9:27

When we experience personal tragedy or loss, why do we get so upset? We become angry or weep and go to pieces. Is it because we believe we have a right to what we have lost?

It has been suggested by some that there are three reasons for sickness: 1) for sin; 2) for God's glory; and 3) unto death. Who's to say when anyone's time to meet their creator has come? Even the infant that is stillborn owe's his or her life not to the parents' procreative abilities but to God's creative abilities.

Instead of agonizing over what we have lost or not experienced, we should be grateful for what we have, no matter how small it is to our eyes.

Judges 17-18

What a soap opera! It starts with this guy, Micah, who's married, has grown children, and lives with his rich mother, from whom he steals a large sum of money, 1,100 shekels of silver, to be precise. It's enough that when he later hires a Levite at 10 shekels a year, it would have paid his salary for 110 years. Anyway, she puts a curse on the money and his fear of her outweighs his avarice, so he owns up to the deed. She immediately forgives him and says she had ."dedicated the money to the Lord (Yahweh). Together, they decide the best way to use the money in that context would be to take 200 shekels to the silversmith to create an idol for Yahweh, in violation of the Word of God in what we now know as Exodus 20:4 and 5 which says not to make any graven images under any circumstances. The situation deteriorates even further when a Levite leaves Judah, "looking for himself" because he's discontented with his situation. Micah hires him to be a priest for his new idol. A bunch of Danites show up, also looking for themselves, and ask for a "word" from the Lord about their idea to attack some undefended, peaceable people in a town nearby. The Levite obliges them with a "word" which they take back to their crew. The Danite gang, now 600 in number, come back intending to attack the unprotected town, but stop along the way to confiscate the idol and Micah's Levite "priest." Micah tries to stop them, and the threaten to burn him out if he doesn't shut up. The crux of the whole matter is "There was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes." Israel HAD a King, and He was God, but there WAS no king IN Israel. They have all effectively forgotten the real Word of God and settled for a mythology. Have we done likewise today? How many "ministers" present their own ideas as if they were God's? And how many of us are willing to accept them? Study to show yourself approved unto God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, one who is able to handle the Word of God with truth and precision. 2 Timothy 2:15

Once again, from the top...

     I was looking at my wife's chronological one-year Bible this morning, the one that lets you read through the Bible in the order it was written, and decided to start at the beginning. I didn't get very far, and here's why:
     Genesis 1:1 starts with "In the beginning,...." Actually, the first word I contemplated was "beginning." Time had a beginning. God is eternal; therefore, he had to create time and that point of creation was the beginning. God views time from His perspective of eternity; thus, he is able to view all aspects of time, past, present, and future, simultaneously. Luther's translation specifically uses "Am Anfang"; if he just meant "first", he would have used "Zuerst," so it seems Luther also recognized this as the beginning of time.
    Next, I focused on the preposition "In." Time began, and in that beginning of time, God created the heavens (note the plural) and the earth. Strong's indicates the Hebrew for "heavens" is shamayim shameh. The first form is plural, "the second form being dual of an unused singular". I have very little knowledge of Hebrew, but I do know that nouns ending in "-im" are plural. Strong's says the dual may allude "to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve."
     The Believer's Bible Commentary (BBC) says of the first four words of the Bible ("In the beginning God...") that they "form the foundation for faith. Believe these words, and you can believe all that follows in the Bible." How true!

Corinthians A.3.1 - Aw, Grow Up!

Chapter 3.1

Paul opens a new comparison in verse 1: the difference between spiritual Christians and carnal Christians. My Bible notes on verses 1-4 state "Although the Corinthians were Christians, they were not fully spiritual (v. 1); they did not live in full obedience to the Spirit." I do not believe that is the sense in which Paul is using pneumatikois ("spiritual people"). Just as in 2:14 where he used psuchikos to describe the person who is motivated primarily by their intellect or some other facet of their soul, i.e. the soul-driven person, so now he uses pneumatikois to describe the person who is motivated primarily by their spirit, i.e. the spirit-driven or spirit-ruled person. And yet, here in v. 1, Paul tells the Corinthians he could not speak to them as spirit-driven or spirit-ruled people, but as carnal (sarkikois), i.e. body-driven or body-ruled. It was not even their intellect that was driving them but rather their desire for physical experience. I can't even say "pleasures," because the physical experience is not always pleasant: it sometimes involves pain, anger, envy, jealousy, discord, and strife. And yet these are as much a part of the physical experience as the pleasurable sensations. True, they are transmitted to and processed by the soul, but they are centered in the body.

Because of this tendency on their part to focus in this area, Paul calls them "babes" (nepiois) or infants in Christ. Now, Paul had spent considerable time among them (about 18 months) and then had gone on to other endeavors, and yet, in his absence, things had not progressed but rather had gone downhill, as he proceeds to detail. Thus, he says, he was not able to and still is not able to give them solid food (spiritually) but must feed them milk; nutritious, nonetheless, but lacking substance. He is still having to address issues that are usually in the arena of dealing with brand-new Christians, those who don't know any better, those who are striving to overcome old habits of their heathen ways and become more mature in Christ, able to crawl, some to walk, not an infant who must be carried everywhere by an adult. And the symptoms of their infancy? Personality cults (vs. 4).

Within the body at Corinth, they had splintered into clubs or cliques built around different teachings and teachers. Some aligned themselves with Paul, the original source of their introduction to the Gospel. Others had found new ideas and fresh "fire" in the teachings of Apollos, the fireball preacher from Alexandria. When he first came to Corinth, he really stirred the people up, but Aquilla and Priscilla had to take him under their tutelage to straighten out some of his theology. Still, a following developed around him. Others had taken their allegiance even further back and decided they wanted to associate with the original apostle, Peter.

Does this sound like anything today? What about the different denominations? Weren't they built around some person and their personality? True, it often coincided with their reception of revelation; for example, Martin Luther's revelation of salvation by grace; the Wesley's rescission of Anglican abuses; Calvin's concepts of predestination. Even more contemporaneously, what are the megachurches except personality cults around an individual, e.g. Jakes, Hinn, et al? True, they afford the opportunity to accomplish much more on a much larger scale, but having been part of such an effort, I can attest that there is lots of baggage that goes along with that kind of effort, and not much of it is positive. It becomes difficult to discern, after a while, what is gold, silver, and precious stones as opposed to wood, hay, and straw (v. 12).

Corinthians A.2.1 - And in this corner...

Chapter 2.1

The Gospel (i.e., "The testimony (marturion) of God," vs. 1) is not designed to convince people with its logic. In fact, Paul says, it is of all things the most illogical. Rather, it demonstrates the power (vs. 5, dunamei) of God. And yet, the Gospel holds a mysterious Godly wisdom (vs. 7, sophian theou en mysterio). In order to begin to understand how this works, we must dissect ourselves. We know we are constructed of three components: spirit (pneuma), soul (psuche), and body (sarx). The Bible states we were created in this image of God. This happens on at least two different levels: first, God is spirit (John 4:24); second, just as God is a tri-unity (three in one), so we are three parts in one person. Our bodies are easily recognizable. They are the corporeal evidence of our existence; yet, they bind us within the space-time continuum and limit our existence to the finiteness of our sensory perception. The soul combines the mind, will, and emotions into personality and gives us sentience. Animals possess bodies and souls. It is our spirit, however, which makes us unique in creation. Ministers often speak of humans in their natural state as having a "hole inside us only God can fill." It is not a hole; it's our spirit. And it's not dead; if that were true, we'd be like the animals. Instead, it is cut off from God, which is ironic, since the spirit was created by God to communicate with Him in a way that transcends mere intellect. Our spirit is constantly striving to bring the soul and body in obedience to God's will. It is a struggle that will continue daily throughout our Earthly lives that will require us to constantly discern what God's will is and then use our volition to subjugate our wills to His.

Paul continues his dissection of the human composition by quoting Isaiah 64:4, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him" (vs. 9). The inference is clear: the human eye can perceive only a narrow band of wavelengths call (appropriately) the "visible light spectrum." Correspondingly, the ear can perceive only a narrow band of frequencies that are within the boundaries of "audible" tones. Yet, our technologies have revealed to us that there are other wavelengths of light (e.g., infrared) and sound (e.g., a dog's hearing capacity) that we are not capable of naturally perceiving. In the same way, there is a spiritual plane of existence, which is God's domain, that only our spirits can perceive and appreciate. C.S. Lewis, in his The Great Divorce (which is not about marriage at all but rather about the divide in experience between life and death), attempts to express this through natural metaphors, such as grass so real it hurts to walk on it, colors so bright they hurt the eyes, etc. In the same way that the sense receptors we use to perceive our physical world are ineffective (i.e., incapable) of perceiving spiritual phenomena, so our intellectual abilities are incapable of making sense (i.e., rationalizing) spiritual truth or even its component truths. Which is why Paul compares natural (psuchikos) man (vs. 14) to spiritual (pneumatikos) man (vs. 15). Just as the natural physical sensory receptors cannot perceive spiritual reality, so natural psychological faculties cannot understand spiritual truth. Which is why we must trust our spirits in faith, because through our spirit, we have access to and through faith we possess the mind (nous, from ginosko) of Christ (vs. 16).

A.1.3 - His Way or the Highway

Chapter 1.3

In verses 18 through 31, Paul contrasts the Gospel with earthly wisdom and defines two major hindrances to faith: logic and tradition. The Greeks were all about logic; it was their passion. Aristotle included it as one of the three ingredients of rhetoric, along with ethos and pathos. To the Greeks, if you could not persuade them logically regarding a thing, then it really didn't exist. There was even a period in their history marked by the "Stoic" philosophers, a reference to the national pasttime of sitting on their porches ("stoa") and arguing (debating) with each other about the ideas of that day. It is interesting to note, however, that their logic failed them when it came to describing the origins of the universe and of themselves, causing them to devise an elaborate but metaphorical mythology. It seems they just weren't able to accept the truth that an eternal God could exist that created everything, so instead they determined that the creation must have existed eternally and that it spawned the pantheon they worshiped for Gods, who were really no more than superhumans with all the human failings.

The Jews, on the other hand, were all about tradition (okay, somebody tell Tevye to take his fiddle and get down off the roof). And if a little tradition (10 commandments) was good, more (over 600 laws) was better. They carried this even into their thinking processes. Everything had to be referenced by some recognized authority; if you expressed a thought, it had to be backed up by a reference, usually to some famous Rabbi, who had referenced someone else. This was one reason why Jesus was such a problem for them. In a way, they probably didn't want the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah to be fulfilled; it would undo their tradition of waiting for Him to come. In addition to that, Jesus didn't fulfill their expectations. They were looking for a political leader who would overthrow their Roman oppressors. Instead, He came the first time to suffer and die, completely opposite to their tradition. And then, to top it all off, when He spoke, He referenced no other authority than Himself! If you have an electronic Bible with search capabilities, check it out sometime. Use the keyword phrases "You have heard it said" or "But I say to you." He uses the latter phrase six times within twenty-two verses of Matthew chapter 5. So when Jesus came preaching a message of personal reform, it upset their apple cart, especially since they were making a good living off everyone else's tradition. Though not the Messiah, Luther performed the same function in the Catholic Church in the Reformation of the 15th century by coming against their un-Biblical traditions.

True God-faith will always defy logic and tradition. Those who are willing to take off these blinders will see the wisdom and the power of God, Paul says. It is the only way to recognize (look at that word: re-, again, and cognize, a form of to think: to think again!) that our natural ways are not God's ways and learn that if we are to be righteous and holy (sanctified) and redeemed, it has to be His way, not ours, so that only He gets the credit. After all, it was His idea to begin with; but that takes us back to Genesis, doesn't it? And we don't have time to go there just now. Next time we'll go on to Chapter 2 of Corinthians A.

A.1.2 - Agreement and Opinions

Chapter 1.2

Going back to the meat of the chapter, in verse 10 Paul first pleads (parakaleo) with them to "speak the same thing." KJV uses the archaic word "beseech" which really doesn't say anything special to us today. However, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (which will be a common source in these studies) says it "literally denotes to call to one's side, hence, to call to one's aid. It is used for every kind of calling to a person which is meant to produce a particular effect, hence, with various meanings, such as comfort, exhort, desire, call for, in addition to its significance to beseech, which has a stronger force than aiteo (see Ask)." Therefore, Paul is actually "begging" them. He makes it even more emphatic by doing so "through the name (onomatos) of our Lord (kyrios) Jesus Christ." Vine's again indicates that "name" means more than just what someone is called. It is used "for all that a name implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that the name covers."

The word used here for "speak" is also especially significant. It is a form of the verb lego (now, how did that become the name of a children's building-block toy?) which is contrasted with another common verb for "say" which is laleo. Again, Vine's is especially helpful here, defining lego as "primarily, to pick out, gather, chiefly denotes to say, speak, affirm, whether of actual speech or of unspoken thought or of a message in writing." Further, there is a note on the word in Vine's which is even more elucidating: lego refers to the substance or meaning of what is said, laleo refers only to the mechanical words that convey the meaning or the physical act of speaking. The inference here is that "Paul does not ask that they agree with one another in all points, but he pleads for a common basic understanding of the Christian faith. He asks that different judgments not create broken fellowship. The Corinthians were still brethren [adelphoi], yet they needed to be restored to their former condition of full fellowship in Christ" (The Open Bible, NKJV, Notes, p. 1646).

So, how far does this agreement go? Do we all have to mimic one another, using the same cult-like jargon to prove our unity? Is this why we developed dogma out of doctrine? I grew up in a conservative, very liturgically based denomination (we used a liturgy for our services that followed a very distinct pattern and was very organized) and we were indoctrinated at a very young age in the church doctrine. Now, I have nothing against teaching children what is wrong and what is right (I'm an Educator!) but I have since found that some of what they taught was not actually based upon the Bible but on tradition. For example, have you ever compared the list of what some of the major denominations teach for the Ten Commandments against the actual list in Exodus 20? You may find that the second Commandment has been removed and the tenth has been altered in order to fill the gap that is left. What is the second Commandment? "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6) This is especially problematic to denominations that historically have included icons (statues of historical figures, people who have been elevated in importance) as part of their worship process and those denominations that are descended from them through the Reformation that did not revise the teachings they were brought up on. My point is, I can still fellowship with them based upon our mutual belief in Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice for the sin of mankind, but I don't have to believe everything they believe, especially if it's just opinion, and I don't have to pass judgment on their opinions either. I'm content to go with the rhema God has given me.