2/23/14

From Gary... Displeasure




Working with computers can be frustrating at times.  Several days ago, I was trying and trying and trying to do a specific task and every single time I tried; I FAILED!!!  After several HOURS of attempting to do the same task in every conceivable way, I stood up and looked down at that thing and said something in frustration to it.  Don't get me wrong - I didn't curse; it was something like "you stupid machine"!  However, I said it at the very top of my voice and with such great force that my dog Pal (who was laying in his bed underneath that stupid machine) ran for his life.  After awhile I calmed him down, but for the rest of the day, he was just not himself. All because he knew I was displeased about something!!!  I wonder, what do we think about when we knowingly displease God.  Here is the example of David...

1 Chronicles, Chapter 21
  1 Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.  2 David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, “Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring me word, that I may know the sum of them.” 

  3  Joab said, “May Yahweh make his people a hundred times as many as they are. But, my lord the king, aren’t they all my lord’s servants? Why does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of guilt to Israel?” 

  4  Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab. Therefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.  5 Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to David. All those of Israel were one million one hundred thousand men who drew sword: and in Judah were four hundred seventy thousand men who drew sword.  6
 But he didn’t count Levi and Benjamin among them; for the king’s word was abominable to Joab.  7 God was displeased with this thing; therefore he struck Israel.  8 David said to God, “I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing. But now, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of your servant; for I have done very foolishly.” 

  9  Yahweh spoke to Gad, David’s seer, saying,  10 “Go and speak to David, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, “I offer you three things. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you.”’” 

  11  So Gad came to David, and said to him, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Take your choice: 12 either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and Yahweh’s angel destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me.’” 

  13  David said to Gad, “I am in distress. Let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for his mercies are very great. Let me not fall into the hand of man.” 

  14  So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and seventy thousand men of Israel fell. 

15 God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was about to destroy, Yahweh saw, and he relented of the disaster, and said to the destroying angel, “It is enough; now stay your hand.” Yahweh’s angel was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. 16 David lifted up his eyes, and saw Yahweh’s angel standing between earth and the sky, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. 
Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell on their faces.  17 David said to God, “Isn’t it I who commanded the people to be numbered? It is even I who have sinned and done very wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let your hand, O Yahweh my God, be against me, and against my father’s house; but not against your people, that they should be plagued.”

In this story, David made mistakes: He listened to Satan, He didn't listened to Joab and he put his own well-being over that of the country. But verse 8 and verse 17 show David's repentant heart.  David could have avoided the death of seventy thousand people if he had only trusted God.  Today, think about YOUR LIFE.  If it is not right, then make it right!!!  Think: If God's word tells you to do something or NOT to do something- obey!!!  Whatever you do, DO NOT DISPLEASE HIM!!! 

2/22/14

From Steve Singleton... What is the origin of Judaism, according to the Bible?

What is the origin of Judaism, according to the Bible?

1. Terminology

Judaism, Jew, Judea, etc. Unfortunately, many of the terms associated with Judaism are virtually indistinguishable in common usage. The terms “Judaism,” “Jew,” “Jewish,” “Judea,” and “Judeans” for example, are all based on the name of the patriarch Judah, one of the 12 sons of the patriarch Jacob (conveniently listed in Gen. 35:23-26). The story of the births of these brothers, along with Dinah, their only sister, which is an amazing account of wifely competition, is recorded in Gen. 29:16 – 30:24 and 35:16-18.

Strictly speaking, the terms “Judaism” and “Jew(s)” should not describe Israelites earlier than 721 B.C.E., the year that the Assyrians conquered the northern nation of Israel, leaving only the southern nation of Judah. From that time on, “Judah” was used synonymously with “Israel” and “Jew” with “Israelite,” even for descendants belonging to tribes other than Judah. This is because by 721 B.C.E., and for almost 200 years previously, “Judah” referred not only to the tribe that descended from Judah himself, but also to the political entity composed mainly of the tribe of Judah, but also including the tribes of Benjamin, Simeon, and most of Levi, with members of other tribes included as well. In actual usage, however, “Judaism” and “Jewish nation” applies to the entire history of Israel, from its founder, the patriarch Abraham, Jacob’s grandfather (c. 1800 B.C.E.). The related term, “Judaea” was the name the Romans gave to the southern portion of Palestine after they took control in 60 B.C.E.

Israel, children of Israel, Israelites, Israelis“ Because God renames Jacob “Israel” (Gen. 32:28), these boys are called “the sons of Israel,” and their descendants “The 12 tribes of Israel,” “the children of Israel,” or simply “Israelites.” This should not be used interchangeably with “Israelis,” which properly refers only to citizens of the modern nation of Israel.

Hebrews“ A rarer term is “Hebrew,” used only 34 times in the Old Testament. Two theories compete with each other regarding the origin of this name. Some say it comes from “Heber,” an ancestor of Jacob’s grandfather, the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 11:14-26). Abraham is called a “Hebrew” (Gen.14:13), and the name “Hebrews” is often applied to his many descendants through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob (Gen.39:14, 17; 40:15; Exod.3:18; 1 Sam.4:6; 14:11; Phil.3:5). (The name “Hebrew,” however, does not apply to Abraham’s many descendants through his son Ishmael. These people the Bible calls “Ishmaelites,” according to Gen.25:12-18 and are held by tradition to be the ancestors of the Arabs.) A second theory is that it comes from a similarly spelled Hebrew verb, abar, which means “to cross over. Hebrews, then, would be those who have crossed over some boundary, in other words, foreigners. The logical boundary it might refer to is the Euphrates River (see Josh. 24:15).
Habiru, Hapiru, SA.GAZ Archaeologists have long debated whether the biblical term “Hebrew” is related to the name “Habiru or “Hapiru" or the cuneiform name SA.GAZ. These three are found in documents of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt of the second millennium B.C.E. A useful summary of the ongoing debate occurs in LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush (207):

The earliest mention of the SA.GAZ or Habiru occurs in a text from the Third Dynasty of Ur (ca. 2050); if the pr and Habiru are the same”which is not at all firmly established”references to the Habiru can be found in Assyrian, Babylonian, Ugaritic, Egyptian, and Hittite texts for the next seven or eight hundred years.
Identification of the Habiru with the Hebrews is tempting, and a number of scholars have adopted it. However, it is impossible to interpret most references to the Habiru as also indicating the Hebrews. Moreover, the Habiru are described as warriors, mercenaries, marauders, and caravaneers all over the ancient Near East”which does not fit the biblical picture of the Hebrews. If the Exodus was in 1446, then at the same time the Hebrews were in the wilderness of Sinai, [the Egyptian pharaoh] Amenhotep II (1438-1412) was reporting the capture of 89,600 prisoners, among them 3,000 Apiru, from his campaign in Syria and Palestine. If it [i.e., the Exodus] was in 1290, then the Hebrews were still slaves in Egypt at the time of Amenhotep. Neither case permits an easy identification.

The problem of the Habiru cannot be solved here. The important point is that identification of the Habiru with the Hebrews is not easy.

It appears that “Habiru” is either a broad term for semi-nomadic peoples, of which the Hebrews were one component, or not an ethnic term at all but a sociological one”a class of wanderers who do not consider themselves subject to local laws and who hire themselves out for caravans, mercenary armies, or as servants of one kind or another. The breadth of the occupations described by the word as well as the extensive geography involved, has led many scholars to conclude that “Habiru came to be used rather loosely as a derogatory term for anyone in a menial capacity, or anyone who was a foreigner.

Semitic“ Another broad term is “Semitic,” though non-Biblical, comes from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah, many generations prior to Abraham. All of Shem’s descendants can be called “Semitic,” which would include both Arabs and Jews, though modern usage often limits the term to the Jews only.

Want to go deeper?

Here are some sources you can pursue in your study of the terminology of Judaism:

Less advanced:
W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (2nd ed., 1996). Provides a great overview, not only to the origin of Judaism in particular, but to the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole.

Yamauchi, Edwin. “Habiru,” 223-224 in New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (1983).

More advanced:

Von Rad, Gerhard, and others. Article on Israel, Israelite, Jew, Judea, Jewish, Judaize, Judaism, Hebrew, Hebraic, etc., 3:356-391 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. Gerhard Kittel and G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament, with a comprehensive review of Old Testament studies and a special supplement on the Apocrypha. 318-325. (1969)

Mayer, Reinhold, and others. “Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah,” 2:304-323 in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (4 vols., 1986)
R. L. Harris. “abar word group” “eber,” and “ibri,” 2:641-643 in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980)

Bright, John. A History of Israel. (4th ed., 2000) 93-96, 134-143.

Online resources:

Links for studies on Habiru/Hapiru/‘Apiru

2. Formative events

The origin of Judaism is largely dependent on a few significant historical events, which would certainly include the call of Abraham, the Exodus, the United Kingdom, and the Babylonian exile. We will briefly look at each in turn.

The call of Abraham 
“ The LORD called Abram to leave his country and family for a place the LORD would show him (Gen. 12:1-4; Acts 7:1-4). After the death of his father Terah, Abram set out from Haran in what is now southeastern Turkey and traveled to Canaan (now in Israel).

Over the next 25 years, after starting out on that journey, Abram learned and responded to the faithfulness of God. Sarai was still childless and well beyond the child-bearing years, yet the LORD promised not only that Abram would have an heir, but that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15:4-5).

Despite the physical obstacles, Scripture states that Abram “believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6). This trust Abram had in the LORD, this unwavering loyalty, became the model for all believers in the LORD who were to follow. Abram became known as the “friend of God (2 Chron. 20:7; James 2:23) and the “father of the faithful (Gal. 3:6-9).

The LORD entered into covenant with him, marking the changed relationship by the sign of circumcision as well as by changing Abrams name to Abraham and his wifes name to Sarah (Gen. 17).

God blessed him with wealth and finally with Isaac, the “son of promise. Abraham also received Gods promise of land, though during his lifetime, the only real estate he owned was the burial site he purchased at Hebron, the cave of Machpelah.

Isaac, Abrahams heir, continued the semi-nomadic lifestyle of his father and renewed his fathers covenant with the LORD. His son, Jacob, or Israel, established the family of 12 sons whose descendants became known as “the twelve tribes of Israel.

The clan becomes a nation“ Because of a drought in Canaan, Jacobs entire family moved to the delta region of Egypt, where they stayed for the next 400 years (Gen. 38-50). During this time, the extended family of 70 became a great nation of some 3 million. This is summarized in Deut. 26:5“

Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the first-fruits of the soil that you, O LORD, have given me.”

Under the leadership of Moses and Aaron, and by the miraculous intervention of the LORD in the 10 plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, the Israelites broke free of the slavery they had endured during the final generation of the 400-year period in Egypt (see Exod. 1-15).

The Israelites assembled around Mt. Sinai, where they witnessed the awesome glory of the LORD and entered into covenant with Him who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see Exod. 19 – 24).

The covenant document, inscribed on two stone tablets, is now known as “The Ten Commandments (Exod. 31:18; 34:1-32). Much of the rest of the Law of Moses is an explanation of these ten principles as they apply in the daily life of the nation.

David and the United Kingdom For another extended period, after the Israelites entered into and mostly conquered Canaan under Joshua (recorded in Joshua), the 12 tribes remained a loose confederation united mainly by their shared covenant with the LORD. The leadership exercised by what English Bibles have traditionally called Judges was sometimes both spiritual and military, sometimes only one or the other, and seldom involved the entire nation (see the Book of Judges).
Toward the end of the ministry of the prophet Samuel, the last of these “judges,” the nation demanded a king to lead them, ignoring the aged prophets warnings of the dire consequences of rebelling against the kingship of God Himself (1 Sam. 8). Under Gods direction, Samuel anointed Saul as the nations first king. After a good beginning, Saul’s position and power corrupted him to the point that he flagrantly disobeyed the LORD‘s direct orders and received from Samuel the LORD‘s rebuke and rejection (see 1 Sam. 9:1 – 13:14).

Saul’s successor, David, did the most to unite the nation, winning victories over all of its enemies in the bordering nations, and extending the territory of the country to include all of the lands God promised to Abraham (1 Chron. 22:18-19). David also led the nation to a renewal of its worship of the LORD. He set a wonderful example of personal devotion to God (see 2 Sam. 6:1-15; 7:1-29; 22:1 – 23:7; 1 Chron. 29:10-22), despite his dreadful sins (2 Sam. 11 – 20; 24:1-25; 1 Chron. 21:1-28), wrote much of the nation’s hymn-book (the Psalms), and prepared the way for a national sanctuary, the temple his son Solomon built that stood for nearly 400 years (1 Sam. 22 – 26; 28 – 29; 1 Chron. 23 – 29).

Ever after, the people looked back to the reign’s of David and Solomon as Israel’s golden age. They looked forward to the time when the Son of David would arise and restore the nation to its former glory (see Ps. 118:50; Isa. 9:2-7; Ezek. 34:23-24).

Exile in Babylonia“ After the death of Solomon, the nation divided, with Judah ruled by Solomon’s son Rehoboam and Israel (most of the other tribes) ruled by Jeroboam. Jeroboam led Israel into a perverted worship of the LORD that involved an unauthorized priesthood, different feast days, and official shrines at the northern and southern extremities of the nation, featuring idols resembling calves. Despite the rebukes of prophets like Elijah, Elisha, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Jonah, Israel continued in its rebellion against the LORD until the Assyrians destroyed its capital in 721 BCE and carried off many of its citizens into an exile from which they never officially returned.

David’s dynasty, meanwhile, continued to rule Judah, though often ruthlessly and wickedly. Although God was very patient with David’s line, He did permit the Assyrians under Sennacherib to punish them severely (701 BCE), conquering all of the cities of Judah except Jerusalem (see 2 Kings; 2 Chron.; Isa. 36-39). The deliverance Jerusalem experienced at that time created a spiritual revival under the leadership of the prophets Micah and Isaiah and their patron, King Hezekiah.

Hezekiah’s son Manasseh, however, was very wicked and led the nation away from the LORD. Of the kings that followed, only Josiah was devoted to God. The nation slid into apostasy to the point that God, through the prophet Jeremiah, announced that its destruction was unavoidable. The Babylonians, successors to the Assyrians in imperial power, became the overlord of Judah. They removed the upper class of the nation to Babylon in 605 BCE and again in 597. Ezekiel, Daniel, and Daniel’s three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (better known by their Babylonian names: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) became exiles at this time.

Because Judah renewed her rebellion against the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, the powerful ruler laid siege to Jerusalem and conquered her in 586 BCE, taking another group of Israelites back to Babylon.

The fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE marked the end of the First Temple, the one Solomon had built in about 920. For the first time in more than 300 years, the Israelites could not offer sacrifices or worship at the temple in Jerusalem. It was during this period of the Babylonian Exile that their local assemblies, or “synagogues” (from a Greek word that means “come together”) became important.

Even after the return from exile and rebuilding of the temple became possible after the Babylonians fell to the Medo-Persian empire (539-516 BCE), the synagogues remained a vital component of Judaism. Not only did the synagogue become a place for the Jews to worship and read the Scriptures, but it was also their school, their civil court, their social assistance center, and their community center.
By the First Century CE, the synagogue was a long-established institution, as demonstrated in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts. Jesus and Paul both used synagogue as a center for religious instruction (see Luke 4:15-30 and Acts 13:14-48). They understood Christ’s church to be the synagogue perfected, reaching its ultimate fulfillment in magnifying God, submitting to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, and in its acceptance of Gentile believers, finally realizing the promise God made to Abraham, “In your offspring, all the nations of the world will be blessed.”

Of course, those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah rejected His followers also, and eventually excluded them from their synagogues. This process accelerated after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 CE, this time by Roman legions under Titus. The Jewish Christians, who refused to participate in the Jewish rebellion against Rome, were regarded as not only apostate because of their allegiance to Jesus, but also disloyal to the nation.

As a result, Christianity and Judaism divided, and only in very recent times has anyone made much of an effort to bring them back together again in the Messianic Jews movement.

Want to go deeper?


Recommended for purchase:

Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament by W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard, F. W. Bush (1996). Provides a great overview, not only to the origin of Judaism in particular, but to the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole.

A History of Israel by John Bright (4th ed., 2000). Offers excellent historical background, including how the rise of the Hebrews fit in with the political dynamics of the ancient Middle East.

The Emergence of Judaism by Jacob Neusner (2004). An Introduction to Judaism by one of the foremost Jewish scholars.


Online resources:

Read the rest of the articles on Judaism in “The Shallows.” Then in “Study Links,” take a look at the section on Rabbinic Literature for links to some of the best Judaica on the web for non-Hebrew speakers.

From Jim McGuiggan... To the Church of God in the Lord Jesus Christ:

To the Church of God in the Lord Jesus Christ:

You know who atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett think you are. You know  who the hedonists of the world think you are. You know who the truly weary and oppressed of the world think you are.

Mostly I think you think you know who you are. Who you think you are you have learned mostly from your preachers, teachers and leaders.

Depending on their interests, charisma, talents and agendas you see yourself as they present you.

All in all, you’re nice people who pursue virtue and try hard to avoid outrageous sins like sexual immorality of any kind so as not to dishonor the Lord Jesus and his Church.

But you have [I presently judge] no profound sense of destiny or cosmic mission.

You see yourself as a group of individuals who were fortunate enough to hear the gospel and were willing to obey it and you pretty much gather together to thank God for the forgiveness of sins as you wait for Jesus’ return to take you to real life in heaven.

You see yourself as part of the great human failure of the human race. God wanted better for us, we wouldn’t have it and we rebelled, God graciously tries to save as many as he can before he obliterates the entire creation.

The Church, then, is the omelet God made when the eggs were broken. He purposed a human family to exercise dominion over the creation in his image [Genesis 1:26-27] and instead he got rebellion. He established a kingdom again in Israel [Exodus 19:5-6] and he got more rebellion and then he came in and as Jesus [who did his part flawlessly] but the humans rejected him.

So in place of the kingdom he purposed God did the best he could; he picked up the pieces and made the Church instead. Since the creation purpose has failed miserably [because we the human family have been faithless] God will completely destroy it all and he will take the very very few fortunate enough to have heard the gospel—he will take them to a spiritual world where they will live eternally.

No—that’s not how the NT sees the Church of the Lord Jesus. You are glorious in His eyes!

he Church was eternally purposed [Ephesians 1:3-14]. It was no substitute for anything!

There has been nothing like you before—you are a new thing in the earth! You are part of a new creation that began in the Lord Jesus.

You were not an afterthought nor are you a substitute for the kingdom God eternally purposed and will bring into fullness in a coming day.

Your faith didn’t create the Church [his faithful love eternally purposed it and created it].

Not only did God eternally purpose the existence of the Church, he purposed it to be “the body of Christ”. It is the body of Christ in and through which Jesus proclaims the faithful love of God in each generation. He purposed that this People, his Church, would experience and recapitulate in its life and teaching and worship the Story of the Lord Jesus.  The People, the Church he foreknew [had in mind and purpose] he foreordained that it would be conformed to the image of his Son who suffered in and for the world on his way to glory [Romans 8:29—an entire (8:17-39) section on suffering and see Luke 24:44-49 and 1 Peter 1:11].

You have no special beauty that humans should admire you!
Like your holy Lord you will be exempt from no pain or loss!

As the body of Christ you share the hurt of the world on the world’s behalf!

From Mark Copeland... A Model Of Christian Courtesy (Philemon 1-25)

                        THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON

                   A Model Of Christian Courtesy (1-25)

INTRODUCTION

1. There is a book in the New Testament which has been described as:
   a. A model of Christian courtesy
   b. A manifestation of Christian love
   c. A monument of Christian conversion

2. That book is Paul's epistle to Philemon, the shortest of all of 
   Paul's letters

3. In this lesson, we shall take a brief look at this unique letter

[Before actually reading it, it might be helpful to consider some...]

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

   A. THE AUTHOR...
      1. The apostle Paul, of course
      2. As clearly indicated in verses 1,9,19

   B. THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING...
      1. By carefully comparing this epistle with the one to the 
         Colossians, it is clear that both were written at the same time
         and from the same place
         a. Like Colossians, the epistle to Philemon was written while
            Paul was in chains (Phm 1,10,13,23; Col 4:18)
         b. Timothy joined Paul in both epistle (Phm 1; Col 1:1)
         c. Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke joined in the 
            salutations of both (Phm 23,24; Col 4:10-14)
         d. Onesimus, the subject of the epistle to Philemon, was one of
            the messengers by whom the epistle to the Colossians was 
            sent (Col 4:7-9)
      2. If the epistle to Philemon was written about the time of 
         Colossians and the other "prison epistles" (Ephesians and 
         Philippians)...
         a. Then it was written during Paul's imprisonment at Rome, the
            time mentioned in Ac 28:30-31
         b. This would make it sometime during 61-63 A.D.

   C. THE MAIN CHARACTERS...
      1. PHILEMON
         a. He was likely a member of the church at Colosse
         b. A very hospitable one, as we shall see
         c. It is possible that he was one of Paul's own converts (cf.
            Phm 19)
      2. APPHIA - possibly the wife of Philemon 3. ARCHIPPUS
         a. Thought by many to be the son of Philemon
         b. A minister of the gospel (cf. Col 4:17)
      4. ONESIMUS
         a. He had been one of Philemon's slaves (Phm 16)
         b. Who had evidently run away (Phm 15)
         c. Somehow, he had traveled from Colosse to Rome, found Paul,
            and was converted to Christ (Phm 10)
         d. He had become very dear to Paul, and very useful (Phm 11-
            13; Col 4:10)

   D. THE OCCASION FOR THIS LETTER...
      1. Paul did not think it right to keep Onesimus with him in Rome,
         and was therefore sending him back to Philemon 2. This letter to Philemon is an appeal by Paul...
         a. To receive Onesimus back, now as a brother in Christ
         b. To forgive him if he had done any wrong

[With this background information, let's now READ the epistle,
noticing...]

II. THE MAIN DIVISIONS

   A. PAUL'S GREETINGS (1-3)

   B. PAUL'S THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER FOR PHILEMON (4-7)

   C. PAUL'S PLEA IN BEHALF OF ONESIMUS (8-21)

   D. PAUL'S CONCLUDING REMARKS (22-25)

[With a reading of the epistle fresh on our minds, let me suggest 
some...]

III. OBJECTIVES FOR STUDYING THIS EPISTLE

   A. TO BE IMPRESSED WITH THE LOVING HOSPITALITY THAT CHARACTERIZED 
      THE EARLY CHRISTIANS...
      1. Philemon opening his house for the church to meet - Phm 1-2;
         cf. also Ro 16:3-5; 1Co 16:19
      2. His love for all the saints - Phm 5; cf. also Col 1:4; 2 Th 1:3
      3. How he refreshed the hearts of the saints - Phm 7; cf. also
         1Co 16:15-18
      4. How Paul could depend upon on him for a place to stay - 
         Phm 22
      -- Certainly an example worthy of imitation!

   B. TO LEARN TACT IN DEALING WITH OTHERS...
      1. Paul could have "commanded" Philemon, but instead he "appealed"
         to him - Phm 8-9
      2. He introduced the subject of his appeal "gradually" - Phm 10
         (in the Greek, the name of Onesimus is the last word in the
         sentence)
      3. He refused to compel Philemon to let him retain Onesimus in 
         Rome, but sent him back - Phm 12-14
      4. He offers to pay Philemon for any wrong incurred by Onesimus
         - Phm 18-19
      5. He believes in the basic goodness of Philemon, not suspicious
         of how he will react - Phm 21

CONCLUSION

1. From both the example of Paul and Philemon, there is much to be
   gleaned from reading and meditating on this very short epistle
   a. From Philemon, a model of Christian hospitality
   b. From Paul, a model of Christian courtesy

2. If you have not ever carefully studied this epistle before, I hope
   that this brief lesson has whetted your desire to do so in the future

3. In closing we notice the last verse:

      "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.  Amen"

Are we living in such a way to allow the grace of the Lord Jesus to be
in our lives?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011


From Gary... Beyond emoticons...


I was watching the news this morning and on one of the "morning" shows there was a discussion about how dogs understand human beings. I knew this already, because my dogs can tell what is going on by my voice- whether is loud or soft, quick or slow, happy or sad, etc.. And then I came upon this picture in my collection.  Things have surely changed since I was young; emoticons, texting, blogging and other new technologies have intensified our ability to communicate. I wonder what could possibly be next???  Well, how about something very, very old....

Romans, Chapter 8
 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.  23 Not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body.  24 For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for that which he sees?  25 But if we hope for that which we don’t see, we wait for it with patience.  26 In the same way, the Spirit also helps our weaknesses, for we don’t know how to pray as we ought. But the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which can’t be uttered.  27 He who searches the hearts knows what is on the Spirit’s mind, because he makes intercession for the saints according to God.

God knows our heart better than even we do, ourselves!!!  Beyond symbolism, HE knows our thoughts, intents and reasons for everything we do. The Spiritually indwelt human being is in tune with God and there is a level of communication there that is truly impossible to communicate with mere words. Even emoticons, or some sort of sophisticated typographic writing or a lie detector test can not analyse the human heart- only God can!!!  The creator of the universe chose to humble himself and live in this world as one of us, so I KNOW HE UNDERSTANDS me!!!  I just wish I could dream up an emoticon TO EXPRESS THAT!!!  And then there is John 3:16!!! Finis!!!!

2/21/14

From Steve Singleton... Does God want people to obey the Law of Moses even today?


Does God want people to obey the Law of Moses even today?

The short answer is no: God intends for everyone in the world to submit to Christ under the New Covenant, which does not include the Law of Moses, though it shares with the Law of Moses fundamental moral values because both are based on the unchanging character of God Himself (compare Leviticus 19:1-2 with Matthew 5:48 and Luke 6:36). To go deeper than the surface, we have to look at what Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews say about the old and new covenants.

Predicted change of covenants

About 600 years before Christ, the prophet Jeremiah predicted the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). He said the new covenant would be different than the old (specified as the one God made with the houses of Israel and Judah when he brought them out of Egypt–definitely referring to the Mosaic Covenant). This time, the laws would be written on the people’s hearts, all of them would know the LORD, and He would completely forgive them. The New Testament book of Hebrews says this is the covenant that Christ introduced (Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:15-18, on which more is said below).

According to the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament), the Law of Moses constituted the covenant God made with the Israelites. Its moral code, priesthood, festivals and other special days, and sacrificial system were all designed for the Hebrew nation. Essential to the covenant the Israelites made with God was their agreement to obey the stipulations of the Law of Moses and to become the objects of its blessings if they obeyed and its curses if they disobeyed. As originally delivered, no other nation was called upon or expected to keep the Law of Moses. According to Jewish tradition, the rest of the nations of the world were still under the covenant God made with Noah.

Jesus’ teaching about the Law of Moses

His mission in fulfilling the Law seems to have three parts. First, He calls on His disciples to keep the Law even more strictly than the Pharisees and teachers of the law, the most scrupulous religious observers of His time (Matthew 5:20). In the verses that follow (the rest of the Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5:21-7:27), Jesus reveals what He means: giving to God the obedience of one’s heart, not just one’s actions. Fulfilling the Law then, in this first sense, means explaining it in its fullest meaning. Jesus taught the Law of Moses, but He also kept it perfectly. He fulfilled it, not only by giving its full meaning, but by obeying it fully Himself. In this way qualifying to become our perfect sin offering (see John 8:29, 46; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 3:2,6; 4:15; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 2:2). This leads us to the third part: when God accepts Christ as our substitute, His righteousness becomes ours (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21), which includes His perfect obedience of the Law. Because He stands in our place before the throne of God, we who have fully committed ourselves to Him–heart, mind, soul, and strength–are regarded as fully obedient under the Law (Romans 8:3-4; 13:10).

At the Last Supper, Jesus tells his apostles that wine represents the blood He is about to shed. In Mark 14:24, He calls it “the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Matthew 26:28 adds “for the forgiveness of sins,” and Luke’s wording is “the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20; compare 1 Corinthians 11:25). This statement of Jesus is an obvious reference back to the moment when Moses said, “This is the blood of the covenant” (Exodus. 24:8) during a ceremony confirming the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus says His own blood is what institutes and confirms the New Covenant.

God led the apostles to a new understanding

After this, Christians start evangelizing the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-21), especially Saul of Tarsus (later called Paul) and his coworker Barnabas (Acts 13 – 14) on what is known as the First Missionary Journey. Their success among the pagans causes some Jewish Christians to demand that all of the Gentile converts be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas deny that this be required, and the debate becomes so heated that a conference is called of the apostles and Jerusalem elders (Acts 15:1-18). The conference confirms the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, requiring only that Gentile converts observe a few rules that will make their fellowship with Jewish believers less contentious (Acts 15:19-31).

Accepting uncircumcised Gentiles into the fellowship of the redeemed, however, was a fundamental departure from the Mosaic Covenant, which required circumcision on pain of excommunication (continuing what had been instituted in the covenant with Abraham, Genesis 17:13-14; see Exodus 12:48-49, Leviticus 12:3, and Joshua 5:2-8). During the period reflected in the second half of the Book of Acts, a transition of the covenants was taking place, in which practice was lagging behind teaching. The New Covenant had begun, but many were still clinging to the Old.

Paul’s teaching about the Law of Moses

In Galatians, perhaps the earliest of Paul’s letters (c. 50 CE), Paul says the law was our “pedagogue to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24). In Greek culture, the pedagogue was a family slave assigned the task of getting the child to and from school each day. He was also expected to impart practical moral principles that would help the child mature. Paul says the Law had for us a similar function: preparing us for the coming of the Messiah. In the next verse, Paul adds, “Now that faith [this is, the object of our faith] has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). In this metaphor, Paul pictures the relationship between the Law and the Christ as a cooperative one. The Law performs its function, accomplishes its goal, and then steps aside.

Paul wrote First Corinthians in about 55 CE. In chapter 9 he describes his willingness to be “all things to all men” for the sake of saving some of them. In particular, he says, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (verses 20 and 21).

Paul wrote Romans around the year 57 CE. In chapter 7, verses 1-6, Paul pictures the Christian as a woman and the Law as her husband. The couple fails to have any children, and after the husband’s death, the widow marries a new husband, who symbolizes Christ. With her new husband, the woman has a baby, which apparently represents a righteous heart and life (the “fruit to God” of verse 4). Paul does not directly say that the Law has died, only that she is bound to her husband as long as he is alive and is released from her ties to him when he dies. He then speaks of her release but carefully avoids saying that the Law has died, only that she died to the Law.

Paul wrote Ephesians in about the year 63 CE, some six years after Romans. In chapter 2, Paul just comes out and says that Christ united Jew and Gentile by destroying the “barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” (2:14-15). As a result, Jews and Gentiles connected to Christ are “fellow citizens” and “co-members of God’s household,” built together as a new temple for God “in which God lives by His Spirit” (2:19-22). The verb translated “abolishing” (katerge ) means “to do away with, use up, render ineffective.”

Hebrews on the Change of Covenants

This prediction of the disappearance of the covenant of Moses found fulfillment when the Jewish nation rebelled against Rome in the war of 67-73 CE. (You can read about this war in the detailed, eye-witness account, The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus.) The Jewish nation lost its temple and its priesthood in that war. Afterwards, it was impossible to keep the Law of Moses. The covenant curses for the nation’s disobedience, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, came true.

Some scholars argue that the Law of Moses continues to be valid as far as its moral code is concerned even though its temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system has ceased to exist. But there is no biblical basis for cutting up the Mosaic Covenant, throwing part of it away while trying to keep the rest of it on life support. In fact, James 2:10-11 argues for the integrity of the whole law and against attempts to keep only part of it (see also Galatians 5:3).

Yet the New Covenant is not a law in the same sense in which the Mosaic Covenant was. Paul says, “we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code” (Romans 7:6). We have freedom in Christ to walk in His footsteps, to follow His example, to imitate His priorities, His perspectives, His heart. His love inspires us, His power humbles us, and His sacrifice makes us pure. We strive to be obedient to Him, not just to a rule-book. Our obedience is the measure of our loyalty and love to Him (John 14:15).

Want to go deeper?

Recommended for purchase:

Paul F. M. Zahl. Grace in Practice: A Theology of Everyday Life. (2007). — Applies the principles of the gospel to every facet of life, from the individual’s relationship to society at large.

Daniel Fuller. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (1990). — Seeks to demonstrate the continuity between the Law and the gospel on the valid assumption that God has always dealt with human beings on the basis of His grace inspiring their faith, and faithfulness. This assumption, however, does not deny that the Law is finished as something binding on the believer.

Steve C. Singleton. Multi-Index to the Law of Moses (2007). — Did you ever want to study what the Law of Moses says on a topic, but you weren’t sure where to find it? Now you can with this multi-index of the Torah. Index 1 features major topics including Preamble, Worship, Physical Purity, Business Dealings & Politics, and Morality, with numerous sub-topics. Index 2 is an alphabetical listing of each command, according to keywords. Index 3 lists all of the commands in the order they occur in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Index 4 lists the 613 commandments, first compiled by RAMBAM (Maimonides): 248 positive commands and 365 negative commands. This final list ends with a glossary of technical terms. This multi-index provides the resources for a thorough study of the Law of Moses, or the basis for a quick check on any topic.

Roger D. Campbell. “Should Christians follow the Law of Moses, the New Testament, or BOTH?” — This is a very helpful essay, though I would change references to “the Old Law” to read simply, “The Law.” Calling the Law of Moses “the Old Law” implies the gospel is “the New Law.” At best, we are comparing apples with oranges. The gospel is not a code of regulations like the Mosaic Law was.

Martin Luther & Others. The Law and the Gospel: A Reformation Sampler – It is good to study what great thinkers of the past had to say about the Law, even though we don’t feel obligated because of their greatness to accept whatever they say without thinking it through for ourselves.

From Jim McGuiggan... 1 Peter 3.21

1 Peter 3.21

A reader wonders about some things in 1 Peter 3:21. This is a difficult text to get to the bottom of. Scholars differ widely on the passage and phrases within the passage so the rest of us need to be modest in our speech. Modest, but not speechless.

What does he mean when he says, "Baptism saves you"?

Whatever he means by it, he said it! In some real sense baptism is related to salvation in a functional way. Peter doesn’t say, "Baptism symbolically saves you." That would be to say that baptism doesn’t save you, it merely symbolises the fact that you have been saved. To say, "baptism symbolises the fact that you have been saved" makes sense; but it isn’t what Peter said. Had Peter said, "Faith saves you by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead" we wouldn’t hesitate to say that faith functions in a saving way. (Some of us speak as if we’re scared witless by water baptism.) What he did say was, "Baptism saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." We mustn’t be afraid of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration or self-salvation and so empty Peter’s words of their obvious meaning. Peter never believed that the mere application of water (a little or a lot) gave life with God to anyone! When we’re done explaining his words that "Baptism saves you" it’s important that we allow him to attribute to baptism some saving function. Baptism saves people! (How it functions in a saving way is for further discussion.)

What does he mean when he says, "Not the putting away the filth of the flesh"?

Peter told his readers what baptism did—it saved them by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Before he tells them in what way baptism saves, Peter tells them what it does not do. Baptism doesn’t save by "putting off the filth of the flesh."

1. He could mean that baptism isn’t meant to remove physical dirt from the body. We could imagine him saying that simply to underscore the importance of baptism’s function. It would be as if he said, "You understand, baptism is no mere bath in water after a dirty day’s work." If a young man walked into a jeweller’s shop to buy a diamond ring for his soon-to-be wife and was taken back by the price the jeweller might say, "Yes, it’s expensive but this isn’t a piece of glass."

2. Or he might mean that baptism is not merely ceremonial, a Jewish-type purification rite that makes a person "clean". Certain washings, within the OT covenant, were required on different occasions when "sinners" needed to be cleansed. You see a lot of that in Leviticus. Peter might be distinguishing NT baptism from OT washings that purified the flesh. 

3. He might mean what Oscar Brooks took him to mean. Brooks thought it meant something like, "Baptism saves you, but I don’t mean it takes away your tendency to sin or that it removes your sinful desires."

4. He might mean that baptism doesn’t have a place in the taking away of sins (it doesn’t purify a person from the moral filth of the sinful nature or past deeds).

My guess is he has none of these in mind (though I think 2 is related to what he has in mind). I think he’s saying that baptism saves you but not by making you right with God
within the parameters of the flesh.

He’s writing to Jews whose past (as a nation) was based on their fleshly relationship with Abraham. That Abrahamic family (through Jacob) had consistently violated the covenant and polluted itself (they recapitulated the ante-deluvian behaviour). Fleshly Israel ceased to be covenanted according to the flesh because they persistently self-polluted. The flesh had failed and there was no curing of it—it had to be put to death. Some might have thought that baptism saved them by wiping that national filth away (as if it were another Jewish washing) and renewing their covenanted status as the fleshly elect. Baptism, on the view I'm suggesting, doesn’t cleanse "the flesh" and make it acceptable—only death and resurrection takes care of the problem; it’s a new birth to a new inheritance.

In fact baptism signals the end of that phase of relating to God ("the end of all flesh"—Genesis 6:12-18 and here 3:19-21 and compare Romans 6:1-11 and 7:4-6 and 10:4, which have their own particular agenda but add point here). Baptism doesn’t relate to setting Jews right by curing the Mosaic violation as if baptism were a part of the Jewish covenant structure that supported the flesh—compare Hebrews 10:19-29. Baptism doesn’t relate to being born a Jew, it relates to being born again by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3-4). It doesn’t save you by bringing you back to God within Mosaic parameters (as part of the fulfilment of Malachi 4 and John the Baptist’s ministry). It doesn’t ensure that we as Jews relate to God in the same old way.
Receiving this as plausible might lead us then to think of Christ being put to death in (the realm of) the flesh and made alive in (the realm of) the spirit. The "flesh" days are gone (Romans 10:1-4). If we grant that Peter is writing to Jews I think it sharpens the point. Christ didn’t purify the flesh he slew it in his dying and salvation in Christ occurs in being raised in and with him (think of 2 Corinthians 5:15-17 in this connection).

Baptism into Christ corresponds to the ancient scenario in which only a remnant was saved when the flesh was destroyed. Peter insisted in Acts 3:22-26 that Jews who reject the Messiah are cut off from among the people. Baptism (in its full richness) is like the Red Sea crossing (1 Corinthians 10:1) or the crossing of the Jordan into the inheritance (as recently, N.T Wright). After the water which ended all flesh is life beyond death, for a remnant in Noah’s day. After the water of New Covenant baptism, which is the end of the flesh (since in baptism they took on them the name of the exalted Christ), is resurrection life through Jesus Christ. As it was with Jesus (life in the flesh ended and life in spirit began) so it is with all those Jewish people that have accessed his death, there is the end of the flesh and resurrection life in the realm of the spirit through Christ’s resurrection. In Noah’s day flesh ended (and with it the old world—2 Peter 2:5) and they came out of the ark into a new world in a new beginning (see Genesis 1 creation language used in Genesis 9:1-3 and compare here, 3:22). So death (in Christ) to the realm of the flesh means entering into a new creation, the realm of the spirit (2 Corinthians 5:15-17).
It’s true of course that "flesh" has universal application but if Peter is writing to Jews (as I believe he is) the notion of "flesh" has that added specific use that we see in places like Romans and Galatians that focuses on Israel.
What does he mean when he says, "The pledge of a good conscience"? (NIV)

I believe that Peter wrote his book to Jews that had embraced Jesus Christ as God’s Christ and not to Gentiles (as the scholarly consensus claims). These were Jews that lived outside Palestine.

Though there are difficulties in understanding just what the Hebrew writer meant, he did claim that there was that aspect of the Mosaic Covenant that didn’t reach down to the conscience of the worshippers (9:13-14, and see 10:1-2) though their "flesh" was purified. In contrast, he says, through Christ’s blood their consciences were purified from dead works to enable them to serve the living God. So OT sacrifices in some sense purified "the flesh" (my guess is that that’s a shorthand way of describing Israel’s relationship to God that is grounded in their physical relationship to Abraham). The whole sacrificial system was God’s gift to fleshly Israel (Romans 9:3-5) and by it they were marked out as God’s elect. Christ’s sacrifice (required by Israel’s sin since they consistently violated the old covenant—Hebrew 8:6-13) brought them to God at a different level on a different basis and in so doing delivered them from what were now "dead works". That is, adherence to the law that availed nothing or clinging to the violated covenant which could only pronounce their death. In addition the Hebrew writer speaks of consciences cleansed and bodies washed with pure water (10:21-22). The nation as a national entity (not every individual—far from it) had walked away from God. But now they could return to God in a new way, apart from the old sacrifices, offering to God a commitment that rose out of a pure conscience, submitting to baptism that is the taking on the name of Christ and all that that involves. They had been born again to a living hope by the resurrection of Christ out from the dead but they endured suffering and would face more. When critics challenged them to give the grounds for such a hope they were to give an "answer" (defence) that rose out of an honest and upright life (lived in the sight of God—compare 2:19). They are to give a responsive defence/answer directed to their critics concerning their hope (which comes to them from God via the resurrection of Christ—3:16 and 1:3). And they give a responsive pledge to God in baptism to the offer of hope that comes via the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In so doing they are saved by the virtue in (the death and) the resurrection of Christ. The lexical studies don’t end the dispute about the word rendered "pledge" in the NIV so in the end the student must draw his or her conclusion on the basis of what he or she thinks Peter means by the word he uses.  

©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, theabidingword.com.