5/31/13

From Gary... It could happen to you


OK, it is a little hard to believe her, based on previous experience, but give her a chance.  She just might be truly willing to change- to turn her life around.  It can be done, because about 40 years ago, I did.  People laughed at me, made fun of me, even called me things like "Moses Ben Rose".  But God gave me the strength to somehow overcome my problems and life has been vastly different since then.  Here is an example from Scripture of someone who really changed- and it took awhile for people to accept it...

Acts, Chapter 9

 1 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,  2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.  3 As he traveled, he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. 4 He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 

  5  He said, “Who are you, Lord?” 

The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.   6  But rise up, and enter into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 

  7  The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one.  8 Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. They led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.  9 He was without sight for three days, and neither ate nor drank. 

  10  Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias!” 

He said, “Behold, it’s me, Lord.” 

  11  The Lord said to him, “Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judah for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying,   12  and in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight.” 

  13  But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he did to your saints at Jerusalem. 14 Here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” 

  15  But the Lord said to him, “Go your way, for he is my chosen vessel to bear my name before the nations and kings, and the children of Israel.   16  For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” 

  17  Ananias departed, and entered into the house. Laying his hands on him, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord, who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me, that you may receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight. He arose and was baptized.  19 He took food and was strengthened. Saul stayed several days with the disciples who were at Damascus.  20 Immediately in the synagogues he proclaimed the Christ, that he is the Son of God.  21 All who heard him were amazed, and said, “Isn’t this he who in Jerusalem made havoc of those who called on this name? And he had come here intending to bring them bound before the chief priests!” 

  22  But Saul increased more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. 23 When many days were fulfilled, the Jews conspired together to kill him,  24 but their plot became known to Saul. They watched the gates both day and night that they might kill him,  25 but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.  26 When Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.  27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.

Paul changed, I believe it because the Bible tells me so.  And I believe it because I know it can happen.  Someone, a long time ago, used to say to me- If I even enter a church building it will fall on me.  He felt this way for a good reason- he had done some terrible things.  But God could have changed him if he was willing; he was not.  I was and am still malleable in the hands of the great physician. How about you, would the thought of people laughing at you deter you from following God to your fullest?  Think about it- anything is possible!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... The Word of the Cross


The Word of the Cross

The Corinthian church, made up mostly of Gentiles and some Jews knew they had come to God through Jesus Christ. Paul everywhere insists on that.
It wasn't that they didn't know it and admit it--it was that they didn't have a real understanding of how cutting the cross was. They didn't know (any more than we) how the way God made himself known in the cross of Christ subverted all other approaches to living and self-understanding.
Non-Christian Jews and Greeks rejected the crucified Christ. Their presuppositions became their view of reality and their view of reality led them to conclude something about a message of a crucified Messiah and a human dying on a cross to enable us to know God (or rather be known by God).
Jews sought signs that proved God was with them; the kind of signs they were used to in ancient times, the kind of signs that fitted in with their history and theology. When offered the sign of the crucified Christ they called it an insult.
Greeks looked at the young Jew dying on a tree as the way to knowing God and they called it "dumb".
In coming to Christ the Corinthian Christians said "no" to what the world said "yes" to and "yes" to what the world said "no" to. That should have meant they wouldn't be bringing their pre-Christ ways of judging into their "in Christ" relationships. But they did. In having (essentially) a Jewish (kind of Christ) or a Greek (kind of) Christ they were parceling Christ out; they were dividing him. "He appeals to us all by submitting to our cultural shaping" they seemed to be saying. "No," said Paul, "he appeals to us all by repudiating our cultures with their fixed ways of approaching God. He repudiates our 'wisdon' and 'power' and offers wisdom and power of a different order."
Paul wasn't absolutely opposed to "signs" or "wisdom" because he offered both (1 Cor 2:4,6; 2 Cor 12:12). He was opposed to boxing God in. (C.S. Lewis' The Silver Chair. In it Aslan gives Jill four signs but warns her that they won't look like what she has in mind so she must keep her eyes open.) To say this or that is the only way God will signify his presence, or that this or that wisdom won't compute well--that's to box him in with our presuppositions.
In discussing Liberal Protestantism, Alister McGrath (Mystery of the Cross, page 69) says, "Its exponents had unconsciously turned their cultural presuppositions into a view of reality which dictated what Jesus must have been like-on the basis of which they asserted that this was what Jesus was really like, this is what the real significance of Jesus was."
And their return to the "simple teachings" of Jesus Christ was a return to a Jesus stripped of all the creedal statments about him, it's a Christ stripped of dogma. He is, in some ways, more understandable, less mysterious, but he is less worthy of our trusting ourselves to him, he is less worthy of the trouble it takes to understand him. Forsyth knew the non-theological Christ is more popular, that he gets more applause, but he isn't mighty to save, he doesn't break us down and then recreate us. He gives us a tonic, a bit of inspiration, some assurance that we can truly follow in his steps. In short, he is like us, only very much better in every way. Truth is, Christ is precious to us in the ways he is like us but he in infinitely more precious to us in the ways that he is unlike us.
Jew and Greek judged the cross and found it lacking. Paul claimed the cross judged Jews and Greeks and found them lacking.
Liberal Protestantism's culture judged the cross and found it lacking, found it uncivilized, found it didn't fit into a humane way of looking at things, so they tamed it. They made it into something it wasn't--a straightforward moral pattern. They couldn't dismiss it right off as absurd or as fundamentally offensive (after all it was in the Bible), so they made it into an heroic deed we should all follow. Self-denial, self-sacrifice, heroism--all these "lessons" could be drawn from the cross, and God admired the response of Jesus. He admired it because he saw a gallant and incredibly good man showing us how to live; but it said nothing about the character or purposes of God. It confirmed our already existing views of the kind of God God was. And it wasn't really God's idea. A cross was a human invention, a cross was a symbol of man's capacity to torture another. The cross revealed sick humans; it revealed nothing about God! If anything, the cross repulsed God and wha! t he was able to salvage from the whole affair was Christ's heroic bearing of it. So the liberal view of things told us.
But the message of the cross isn't only a call to moral uprightness, it isn't only a pattern of how to live. To reduce it to that was one of the great errors of Protestant Liberalism and it looks no better on us than on them. We need to allow it its full programme (to the degree that we recognize it), we need to allow it its offence to reason and status quo religion.
We may reduce the word of the cross to: "We are to live humbly, self-sacrificially, keeping our commitments and treating one another with justice and mercy." All this is derivable from the cross, of course; but none of it offends the Jew, none of it appears stupid to a Greek. The OT and Greek moral teaching is filled with instruction and encouragement to live in these ways, but this is not the message of the cross. Paul has something more radical in mind when he addresses the Corinthians about the word of the cross. I'm not suggesting that we can get to the bottom of it but I am saying that reducing the cross to a call to certain forms of moral uprightness is to narrow it and lose its power and wisdom.
The word of the cross is supposed to offend. God meant it to expose as foolishness and disbelief the ways of humankind in their approach (or lack of approach) to him.
The cross is the peculiar, even unique way to "know" God. It's only there we can get a picture of who God is. See how Paul reworks the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 which tells us our inherited doctrine of (Jewish) monotheism needed a Christological reframing.
Paul isn't saying that humans had to be agnostics before Jesus came on the scene, so when he claims that it is through the crucified Christ (the cross) that we know the wisdom and power of God he is speaking of a particular depth and kind of knowledge that comes only through that crucified Lord.
1 John 3:16 says, "This is how we know what love is..." How radical is that? Would John have denied the love of God prior to Christ's coming? Obviously not. Would he have said no one knew anything about the love of God prior to Christ's cross? That can't be true. He knew that God loved humanity and that many humans understood that God loved them, but he still wants to say, "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us."

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.

From Mark Copeland... Cursing And Cleansing


                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                    Cursing And Cleansing (11:12-19)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous study, we saw where Jesus and His disciples arrived
   in Jerusalem...
   a. Together with a large crowd coming to observe the Passover week
   b. With the first day of their visit (Sunday) beginning with the
      triumphal entry and ending with a quick visit to the temple - Mk 11:1-11

2. On the next day (Monday), two things occur which may seem out of
   character for Jesus...
   a. The cursing of the fig tree - Mk 11:12-14
   b. The cleansing of the temple - Mk 11:15-19

[The two may be related, so let’s consider them together beginning
with...]

I. THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Having spent the night in Bethany, Jesus and His disciples make
         their way back toward Jerusalem - Mk 11:11-12
      2. Hungry, Jesus sees a fig tree with leaves from a distance and
         approaches to see if there is anything on it - Mk 11:12-13
      3. There is nothing but leaves, Mark noting that it was not the
         season for figs - Mark 11:13
      4. In response, Jesus says to the tree, "Let no one eat fruit from
         you ever again" - Mk 11:14
      5. Mark commented that it was heard by His disciples - Mk 11:14

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. In Palestine fig trees produced crops of small edible buds in
         March followed by the appearance of large green leaves in early
         April. - Bible Knowledge Commentary
         a. This early green "fruit" (buds) was common food for local
            peasants - ibid.
         b. An absence of these buds despite the tree’s green foliage
            promising their presence indicated it would bear no fruit
            that year - ibid.
         c. Thus this fig tree gave the appearance of offering edible
            food, but did not
      2. The way in which Mark organizes his material in these verses
         (fig tree/cleansing of temple/fig tree) suggests a connection
         between the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig
         tree - ESV Study Bible
      4. The incident of the fig tree both interprets the cleansing of
         the temple and is interpreted by the latter incident - New
         International Biblical Commentary (NIBC)
         a. Jesus’ disappointment with the fig tree is like his
            disappointment with Israel and the temple, her chief shrine
            - ibid.
         b. His judgment pronounced upon the tree is like the threat of
            God’s judgment soon to fall upon the city of Jerusalem,
            which Jesus’ words and actions in Mk 11:15-19 prefigure
            - ibid.
      5. The cursing of the tree (v. 14) is known as a prophetic
         sign-act, familiar to readers of the OT, an action in which a
         prophet demonstrates symbolically his message (e.g., Isa 20:1-6;
         Jer 13:1-11; 19:1-13; Ezek 4:1-15) - NIBC
      6. The act is not to be taken simply as a rash act of anger, but
         as a solemn prophetic word pronounced for the benefit of the
         disciples (and for the readers) - ibid.

[Seeing that the two events (the cursing of the fig tree and the
cleansing of the temple) appear related, let’s now look more closely
at...]

II. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Jesus returns to Jerusalem and enters the temple - Mk 11:15-16
         a. Driving out those who bought and sold in the temple
         b. Overturning the tables of the money changers, the seats of
            those who sold doves
         c. Not allowing any to carry wares through the temple
      2. He teaches in the temple - Mk 11:17-18
         a. "Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of
            prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it a ‘den of
            thieves.’" - cf. 1Ki 8:41-43; Isa 56:7
         b. The scribes and chief priests heard this and wanted to kill
            Him
         c. They feared Him, for all the people were astonished at His
            teaching
      3. At evening, He left the city, spending the night on Mt. Olivet
         - cf. Lk 21:37

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. The "temple" was the court of the Gentiles, an outer court
         where non-Jews were permitted
         a. Tables were set up to enable pilgrims to change their
            respective currencies into coins for the annual temple tax,
            as well as to purchase pigeons, lambs, oil, salt, etc., for
            various sin and thanksgiving sacrifices - ESV Study Bible
         b. The business activity turns the house of prayer into a den
            of robbers (Jer 7:11); Gentiles in particular were hindered
            by the temple commerce in the outer court - ibid.
      2. This may have been the second time Jesus cleansed the temple
         a. John records a similar incident at the beginning of Jesus’
            ministry - Jn 2:13-17
         b. Many commentators think it happened only once; but with
            Jesus’ zeal for His Father’s house, there is good reason to
            believe He did it twice
         c. The cleansing of the temple may have been to fulfill
            prophecy - Mal 3:1-3
      3. Was the act of cleansing the temple "out of character" for
         Jesus?  No!
         a. Jesus had been angry before, and would be again soon - cf.
            Mk 3:5; Mt 23:13-36
         b. Jesus was filled with righteous indignation, consistent with
            the qualities of deity - cf. Ro 2:4-6; 2Th 1:7-9
      4. It may helpful to remember...
         a. When it came to personal affront, Jesus bore it meekly - cf.
            Isa 53:7; 1Pe 2:23
         b. But when God or His temple were maligned, especially by
            hardhearted and self-righteous religious leaders, then
            Jesus acted with righteous indignation in defense of God’s
            honor
         c. We tend to defend selves rather than God, displaying
            self-righteous indignation

CONCLUSION

1. The moral and religious depravity of the religious leaders prompted
   Jesus’ actions

2. Both the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple were
   prophetic sign acts that foretold the impending judgment upon the
   nation of Israel that would occur with the destruction of Jerusalem
   (fulfilled in 70 AD) - cf. Mk 13:1-2

eXTReMe Tracker