What a Way to Start!

When I took Speech classes in college, I was told that your opening statements are very important. Among other things, you want to make them interesting - to catch people's attention - but not too heavy - as people generally aren't ready to listen to you just yet. And when you are speaking in front of an unfamiliar audience, a quick introduction and a thanks for the invitation is usually helpful. I must admit that I don't always get it right, but I do at least try.

Peter, on the other hand, either never recieved this teaching - or just completely disregarded it. Take his opening statements in Acts 10 to those who had gathered at Cornelius' house to hear him speak: In verse 28 and 29, he says: "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection."

What an opening line! He basically started off by saying: I don't want to be here. It goes against the entire fiber of my being. You are Gentiles - You are unclean - and so my upbringing tells me that I am sinning to even be in this house. Yet since God told me to come, I am here...

How do you think the people were feeling at this point? Insulted? Put-down? Maybe... That was my initial thought - that I couldn't believe Peter was saying something like that - in front of everyone - that God had directly sent him to. But then I got to thinking about it a little more...

This was probably a very awkward time for Peter. He had never been in a Gentile's house before - and didn't really know how to act. But he knew that God had called him there. So instead of beating around the bush - and acting like everything was fine and dandy - he decided to clear the air - and let people know what was going on in his head. He told them the truth - he told them that God was working on his views of clean and unclean - and even though he didn't know where it would lead - he was willing to follow the Spirit.

A few verses later, we read that while Peter was speaking to them about Jesus, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles - which amazed Peter's Jewish friends. But I have to wonder - if Peter had not admitted his feelings at the beginning - would the Holy Spirit have been able to use him so mightily? If Peter had not broached the subject, but had allowed himself, his friends, and his audience to dwell on the thought that Peter was breaking the law - or that what he was doing may have been a sin - then I think the Holy Spirit would have had a harder time breaking through.

But Peter was faithful - in a brash, bold, sort of way - and the Lord did incredible things through him that day. And a few chapters later, we find Peter speaking up for Paul's missionary work to the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council - which officially opened the door for anyone to become a Christian without ever becoming a Jew (which is good news for each of us).

Correction to a Sermon

I really hate to make mistakes. Even more than that - I hate to admit that I made a mistake. But a few weeks ago, in a sermon on the reforms of King Josiah, I said something that I have since realized was false. I said that when the King was delivered the Book of the Law - that it had likely been missing for hundreds of years - possibly since the day Solomon consecrated the Temple - or even before. I based this on the fact that there is no mention of a Book or a writing or anything like that from Judges 8 to 2 Kings 22.

However, as I have been reading through 1 and 2 Chronicles, I have realized that the book of the Law is present at times, such as 2 Chronicles 17:9, when the priests were sent out by Jehoshaphat to teach the people with the Book of the Law. There are also many other references to the Law in 1 and 2 Chronicles, although it is difficult to determine if it refers to a written law - or to an oral tradition.

That being said, it was still an incredible discovery in Josiah's time - and judging by the way he acted - it had most certainly been lost for some time (although maybe just a generation or two).

Please forgive me for not doing enough research into that statement. My desire is to be truthful in everything I say in worship.

The Dwelling Place of God

When Solomon was dedicating the newly-built Temple - he asked this question in the midst of his prayer: "But will God really dwell on earth with men?" He goes on to explain that even the highest heavens cannot contain God - so how can we expect Him to be contained in a Temple...

It's a great question - that can be answered in two ways: the Omnipresence of God and the Incarnation of Jesus.

Omnipresence means that God is everywhere at all times. There is nothing that can contain him. While he has a form (or more specifically - while he can take a form), he is not limited by time or space as we are. This is not to be confused with the Eastern religious belief that God is in everything - but simply that God cannot be contained in anything - especially considering that he made everything we know.

The Incarnation is a theological term meaning that Jesus came down from Heaven and chose to live among us in the form of a human. I often say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human - even though I don't fully understand how - that's what I believe (based on the Bible and centuries of Christian thought).

So to answer Solomon's question: Yes - God will choose to live among us! He has - he still is - and in the end - he will permanently make his dwelling place here - in the New Jerusalem - on the newly re-created earth. Praise be to God!

Where were they taken to?

When I was in college, DC Talk recorded a cover of a Larry Norman song: I Wish We'd All Been Ready. I didn't remember the whole song until I looked it up - but the part that's always been stuck in my mind went like this:

A man and wife asleep in bed
She hears a noise and turns her head he's gone
I wish we'd all been ready
Two men walking up a hill
One disappears and one's left standing still
I wish we'd all been ready

There's no time to change your mind
The Son has come and you've been left behind

Obviously the imagery here was drawn from Luke 17:34-36, and it assumes that Jesus was talking to his disciples about some sort of Rapture - where believers were whisked away to heaven - leaving the non-believers behind. And based on this song - as well as much of the teaching I've heard over the years, that's what I assumed the Luke passage was referring to.

But as I re-read the passage this morning, I began to realize that they may be other explanations. Especially since when the disciples point blank asked Jesus "Where" will they be taken - Jesus didn't specify - but merely answered "Where there is a dead body, the vultures will gather."

So what other explanations are there to this passage? Where else could the people be taken to - if not to heaven? Well - one possibility is that the person was taken by some sort of government agency for torture because they were a Christian (insert favorite conspiracy theory here...) Another possibility is that "taken" doesn't refer to a physical snatching away - but merely to death - that one will die - and the other will be left alive. And obvisouly, the Rapture interpretation is certainly valid as well.

Personally, I cannot be sure exactly what Jesus was referring to in this passage - but what I do know - and one thing I do whole-heartedly agree with in the song - is that we should all the ready for that day - whatever happens - that we not turn away - that we not look back to our former life - but that we wait for Christ - doing his will all the time.

In the words of Larry Norman:
I hope we'll all be ready...

Who Do You Say That I Am?

In Luke 9, we read about a time that Jesus had gone off to pray - away from the crowds - with only his disciples around him. He asked his companions: "Who do the people say that I am?" All of the answers indicated that the people basically believed he was a reincarnation of a prophet who had died: John the Baptist, Elijah, or another ancient prophet.

Then Jesus asked them: "Who do you say that I am?" This was essentially his way of indicating that the crowds had it wrong - and that he expected his disciples to get it right. And Peter did... He said to Jesus: "You are the Christ (the Messiah) of God."

While Luke leaves it at that - and does not make any further comments - I believe that this question is still applicable to today - that we are still faced with that same question: Who do we say that Jesus is? Do we believe some in the world - who claim that he was merely a Good Teacher? Do we believe others who say that he was Misguided? Do we believe that he is simply a Figment of Ancient Imagination - possibly based on a real person - but not who the gospels present him to be? Each of these - and more - are reactions to Jesus that exist in our world.

But who do we say that he is? Who do you say that he is?

During this Advent season, as we prepare our hearts for Christmas, it's a good time to ask ourselves again: Who do we say that Jesus is - and what are we going to do about it?

The Longest Day

Last week, Bill Gallaher wrote this email to me - about the events in Joshua 10. I enjoyed it so much that I asked if I could post it here, and he agreed. So here it is (slightly edited to remove the personal info):

-------
Since today was Veterans Day, I caught the movie The Longest Day on a movie channel and it reminded me of another longest day -- the passage in Joshua (10:13-17) about the sun and moon standing still. Given my scientific background, I have given that passage a lot of thought over the years.

The passage is sometimes ballyhooed as a point of contention between the Bible and science, but I think this is garbage and that there are several reasonable explanations.

The problem is that God would have to suspend a whole host of natural laws to achieve the literal effect of the sun and moon standing still. Unknown to the ancients, we understand now that the sun does not actually move, but that the earth rotates. The moon does move, but its motion is over a month, not a day, so the earths rotation accounts for the vast majority of its apparent movement as well. So, as we would put it today, the earth would have to stop rotating to achieve the effect stated in the Bible.

Halting the rotation of the earth would cause fairly incredible geophysical effects. The sun would disproportionately heat one side of the earth over the extended day, and cool the other side with extended night, leading to disastrous weather effects. The extended influence of the moon would exacerbate incredible tides on the side of the earth facing the moon for a full day. Secondly, as passengers on the earth we are actually moving at an orbital velocity around the earths center, at our latitude and that of Israel, of about 900 miles an hour (witness our awareness of time zones approximately that width). The deceleration from 900 to zero would kill us all. By this logic, causing the sun and moon to stand still is literally impossible.

There are, however, several solutions to reconcile the Bible with geophysics.

One, quite simply, is that God is God. No limits on what natural laws he can suspend if he wants to. The continuing problem with this solution is that such a dramatic event would surely have been given a prominent mention in the histories of other nations, such as Eqypt, Mesopotamia and China who should have independently observed the effect.

Two, the effect was purely local in nature, one of causing the Israelites to have an altered perception of time, or causing them to essentially extend their motions in time, while the actual sun, moon and the rest of world remained apparently normal to everyone else. Or perhaps everything BUT the Israelites and their foes were arrested in time. This is the solution I favor, since our perceptions of time can vary so dramatically. The one minute before the worship service on Sunday appears to go like lightning, especially if the microphones are malfunctioning, while holding ones breath for one minute seems an eternity. As you know, a moment of silent prayer rarely lasts more than a few seconds before the silence seems interminable, and never a full minute. Without an actual clock to adjust ones perception by an external standard, time can indeed seem to stand still. The literal truth is in the eye of the beholder. The Longest Day was coined by the concept that June 6, 1944 seemed to go on forever in the minds of the combatants, as it certainly must have seemed while they were storming the beaches and then remaining under fire for what must have seemed an eternity.

Third, the language of some phrases in the bible is intended to be purely metaphorical, a form of truth that is not literal truth. This gets one into all sorts of hot water in Biblical interpretation since metaphorical truth is frequently a matter of opinion.

Last, the phrase is not a metaphor but a figure of speech, frequently used in antiquity and today, as also illustrated in The Longest Day. There was special significance in ancient cultures in being able to defeat one enemy in a single day, mentioned a number of times in Assyrian and other accounts. The Battle of San Jacinto also gains in stature in this same way, quick defeat by superior strategy resulting in the liberation of Texas from Mexico. The difficulty here is that it applies to the Bible ordinary standards for literature, rather than the reverence it deserves as the inspired word of God.

That God extended time in answer to Joshua I have no doubt. How he did it is a mystery, but then, after all, he IS God.

Best wishes,

Bill Gallaher

What Makes Someone a Christian?

Last night in our Bible Study, I made a comment to the effect that Mary the mother of Jesus was not always a Christian, and probably was not one before his crucifixion. This sparked an animated debate as most Christians, rightly so, hold Mary in extremely high regard. I explained myself eventually (after the chattering died down) that Mary was first and foremost a Jew who had found favor with God through her Judaism (Luke 1:28&30). But during Jesus' earthly ministry, Mary was not counted among his followers. Not only that - but Jesus at one point seemed to even renounce the fact that she was his mother (Mark 3:31-35). After Christ's resurrection, however, there is little doubt that Mary became a sincere follower of Jesus (Acts 1:14) - and her conversion likely happened earlier, although we cannot be sure of the exact time.

So was Mary at the time of her death? Absolutely... But was she always a Christian? Well - to fully answer that, we needed to look into some other questions: What makes someone a Christian? Can we rightly call anyone a "Christian" during Jesus' lifetime?

We quickly realized that no one living during Jesus' days on earth would have referred to themselves as a "Christian." In Acts 11:26, we read that the name "Christian" was not used until much later - and it was first applied to the church in Antioch. During Jesus' day, they were just called "disciples" or "followers."

So what does "Christian" mean? Well - I looked it the etymology of the word this morning, and at its most basic - it simply means "like Christ" - so used as a noun, it would mean "someone like Christ." In my opinion, that's what makes a person a Christian - being like Christ - or at the very least - striving to be like Christ. Over time, we have appended many other things to this basic definition, some good, and some not so good, but in the end, the test for whether someone is a Christian - is if they are striving to be like Christ - to act like him - and to think like him. Let that be our standard...