True Discipleship

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

1 μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ.

Paul makes quite a bold statement here as he links arguments together. He uses the imperative γίνεσθε to command the Corinthians to imitate him. We need to be careful not to stop reading there, though I’m afraid that is easy to do. What I think is interesting is the phrase καθὼς κἀγὼ.

This same phrase starts off 1 Corinthians 10:33 and is translated “just as I am.” By itself, the word καθὼς carries the idea of “as” or “even as.” The word κἀγὼ is a combination of και and εγω and has the idea of “and I.” Putting these words together creates kind of an odd construct to an English reader because we don’t have anything quite like this. Unpacking it a bit might be something like, “Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.” The genitive form of Χριστοῦ is what makes it “of Christ” instead of just “Christ.”

The point is that Paul is telling them to imitate him, but he is doing it in the sense of how he imitates Christ. In other words, he is not saying that he is perfect and that he is worthy of imitation because of his perfection. Rather, he is telling them to imitate the way he imitates Christ.

This is a vital distinction for us. We live in a world where we want to worship celebrities. Some young guys want to preach like Mark Driscoll. Or maybe it’s John Piper. Maybe we want to imitate the reckless sacrifice of Francis Chan. These are fine role models. However, there is a problem because they are all sinners.

Instead, we should imitate John Piper’s pursuit of knowing God. We should imitate Mark Driscoll’s focus in saving the lost within the community he has targeted. We should imitate Francis Chan’s willingness to cast everything aside for the sake of knowing Christ. But we should not imitate them as men.

And if you ever plan to be in Christian ministry you need to make this distinction clear with your people. They should not be imitating you. They should be imitating you as you follow Christ. They should imitate your pursuit of Christ. However, ultimately they need to pursue Christ.

This means that we need to give them a model to follow as well. But fortunately it is not up to us to save them. It is up to the Lord that we are trying to imitate. Let’s focus on Him and the rest will fall into place.

The God of Everyone

Romans 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, ³⁰ since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

29 ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν, ³⁰  εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.

This is how Paul ends a pretty lengthy and difficult argument. Frankly, I don't get a ton out of this when I read it in Greek because it is difficult to follow his arguments. But a quick read in English clears things up.


Paul begins chapter 3 by asking if there is any advantage to being a Jew. It seems that they do have an advantage in that God chose them to speak His Word. We call that the Old Testament. He also used the Jews to bring the Savior of the world in Jesus. In that sense there is a huge significance to being an ethnic Jew.


However, he ends the argument with these rhetorical questions. When he uses the construction οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν he is basically saying, "isn't that so?" That's what the particle οὐχὶ does. It's sort of like the French phrase "n'est-ce pas" that is tacked on to the end of a sentence when you expect a positive answer.


The point is that Paul is leveling the playing field between Jews and Gentiles. When Paul refers to the "circumcised" or the "uncircumcised" he is referring to Jew and Gentile. Basically, he is dividing the world into two classes of people - Jews and non-Jews. That includes everyone. And he says that God will justify everyone by faith. 


In other words, genetics will not save anyone. Removal of foreskin on the 8th day will not save anyone. Only faith will save people. That faith needs to be in Christ. If you are reading this and are Jewish I entreat you along with Paul to trust in Christ as Messiah. If you are reading this and are not Jewish I entreat you along with Paul to trust in Christ as the one will justify you before the Lord. In other words, I don't care who you are -- you need Christ. Will you trust Him?

Back in the Fire

Revelation 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

10 καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

We saw yesterday that the beast and the false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 19. Here it appears that Satan joins them and this is a continuation of what was described in Revelation 19. However, the language in this verse is a bit ambiguous. The English translations have to add "were" to this phrase:  ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης because it lacks a verb. It is very literally "where also the beast and the false prophet." This means that the tense of the verb is an interpretive decision. It could just as easily be "are" or "will be." 


Beale gives the following explanation:

The devil is again highlighted as the one who deceived the nations to attack the saints. His deceiving activities are mentioned again to show that he will undergo judgment because of such deception. He will be “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and false prophet [supply “are” or “will be cast”]” (see on 14:10 for the OT background of “fire and brimstone”). The devil is cast into the fire together with or immediately after his two fiendish allies. The probability that 20:7–10 is a recapitulation of 19:17–21 makes unlikely the supposition that he is cast into the fire ages after his Satanic cohorts have gone into the fire at the end of ch. 19. Some think that for 20:10 to recapitulate the events associated with the demise of the beast and false prophet we would need more explicit language, something like “After the battle of Gog and Magog, Satan was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and false prophet.” But this is not a necessary expectation, especially since the style of recapitulations in the OT prophetic literature is not characterized by such explicitness, nor are the recapitulations elsewhere in Revelation so characterized.

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 1028.


Of course, here he makes an assumption as well. He is assuming that this is a recapitulation of what was described in chapter 19. But I think that his last sentence is compelling. We've already seen how Revelation keeps recapitulating itself. Or, as I have heard it said, the book of Revelation is like getting different camera angles on a close play while watching a football game on television. The point is that it is perfectly plausible to see this as a recapitulation rather than as a continuation of the same vision described in Revelation 19. 


What this means is that if you see this as a recapitulation you are likely to end up amillenial like Calvin, Luther, and most of the historic church. If you see this as a continuation from chapter 19 you are likely to be premillenial like Piper, MacArthur, and much of the modern church. Salvation does not hinge on how you interpret this, but it is something to consider.

The Whole Point

John 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,

1 Ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶπεν· πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ,

This is the beginning of Jesus' "high priestly prayer" where He makes an appeal to the Father for the disciples. There is a ton to talk about in this prayer, but I want to focus on this verse. First, we see that  ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα. Here Jesus uses a perfect to say that the time has arrived for the cross. Then He uses an imperative in praying for God to δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν. Why should God glorify His son? Jesus answers with a ινα clause: ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ.


What's the big deal about this? I think that Jesus' prayer gives us a model for how we should be focused in our lives. When we talk about the gospel we tend to focus on what Christ did for us. It is true that He died to atone for the sins of the world. To minimize that would be ridiculous. However, we should not maximize it either.


Here we see Jesus pray that the Father would be glorified in the sacrifice He was about to make. The cross is central to everything we do. But ultimately it is not about our redeemed lives, but about the glory of the Father. The change in us should be focused on glorifying God the Father.

Truly Blessed

Luke 11:28 But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"



28 αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν· μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες.

This is Jesus's response to someone who commented that His mother must be particularly blessed.  He contradicts the statement with this one.  The statement is introduced with the weak adversative δὲ, which is fairly common in dialog.  Then He uses the adversative particle μενοῦν.  He does this with two participles.  Basically, He says, "The ones who are hearing the word of God and keeping it -- those are the ones who are truly blessed."  That's pretty much the same as the translation, but with a bit of extra emphasis.

My point is that Jesus flatly denies that there is anything extraordinary about His mother.  We know from Elizabeth that Mary is special and that she is blessed.  However, you would think that if she had the status conferred upon her by the Roman Catholic Church it would come through here.  This was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to first agree with the speaker and then emphasize that those who hear the word of God and keep it are even more blessed.  Instead, He uses an adversative.

This is just one more reason from Scripture not to venerate Mary as the Roman Catholics do.  She should be honored and esteemed for sure.  But in the end she is just a woman, though one who was chosen by God for an incredible task  Let's remember that when we consider her, amen?

Drawing Up Lines

Luke 11:23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.



23 Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

This saying is part of Jesus' explanation to His disciples regarding what happens when an unclean spirit leaves someone.  He is responding to the charge that He casts out demons by Beelzebul.  He explains that if someone who is strong guards his house he is safe, but that someone stronger can overcome that person.  Jesus is asserting His power as being higher than the demons.  Right after this verse He makes the point that when an unclean spirit leaves a person it will eventually come back and bring other unclean spirits to make things even worse.

So why does this verse appear here?  Based on the context, it must have something to do with the theme of how He operates by the power of God and how Satan's house cannot be divided against itself.  In other words, I see Jesus drawing a line in the sand.  There's His team and there is Satan's team.  There can be no in-between.

The construct of ὁ μὴ is very literally translated "the one not."  Obviously the ESV captures this sense.  The one who is not with Jesus is against Jesus.  In fact, the one who does not gather with Him actually scatters.

I recently read an article about a woman who used to be a Planned Parenthood director, but after seeing the ultrasound for an abortion she had a change of heart.  She bemoans the splinters of the pro-life movement, particularly how Catholics and Protestants do not work together.  She has a point there.  We should work together for social causes like abortion.

But at some point we need to draw the line.  The Glenn Beck rally last year is a good example of that.  Glenn Beck is Mormon, but is admittedly not intensely devout.  Nevertheless, anyone who aligns himself with the god of Joseph Smith cannot possibly be aligned with the Triune God of Scripture.  It's just not possible.  Therefore, if we take this verse seriously, we see that he actually works against the cause of Christ, despite his talk of unity.

This extends to so many areas where we are tempted to compromise.  The real trick is determining where we can accept and where we must reject.  It gets down to what we call the gospel.  Anyone not confessing the true Jesus as Lord cannot be in that circle.  And, no matter how well-meaning that nice Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Jew, or Muslim may be, that person is by definition against Jesus and His gospel.  At least that's how I read this.

Faith to be Healed

Mark 5:29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.


29 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς καὶ ἔγνω τῷ σώματι ὅτι ἴαται ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγος.

This is one of the stories that we cannot really grasp in our 21st century Gentile context.  Here was a woman who had some kind of discharge of blood.  Nobody is exactly sure what it was, but many think that it was menstrual.  This would cause both spiritual and physical problems for this woman.  Obviously it is not good if you bleed continually for years and years.  The spiritual problem is that the book of Leviticus makes it very clear that this woman was unclean.  The time of menstruation made a woman ceremonially unclean.  Therefore, she was constantly unclean.

She pressed through the crowd so that she could just touch Jesus' robe.  She did and as we see here the flow dried up εὐθὺς.  She instantly knew that she was better.  I cannot even begin to relate to how elated she must have felt at that time.

This story amazes me on a couple of levels.  First, it makes me wonder a little bit about relics.  Why was it that she had to touch Jesus' robe?  Was there any special power to it?  I don't think so.  I think that it demonstrates a practical outworking of her faith.  She knew that she needed Jesus and this was how she had to express it.  In other words, if we could somehow find that same robe I don't think we could take it to Duke and clear out the pediatric oncology ward.

The other amazing thing is that she could touch Jesus and He would not become unclean.  Anyone else would have become unclean, but not God.  The same goes for when He touches a leper to make him well.  The only time the stain of sin touched Jesus was on the cross.  We'll of course get to that in a week or two, but for now consider this.  Read through Leviticus if you have a few minutes and look at how exacting the laws for purification were.  Then consider that Jesus did not have to go through all those machinations.

We truly worship an amazing Savior.

Forgiving

Matthew 18:34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."


34 καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον. 35  οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν.

This comes at the end of a parable Jesus told the disciples in response to a question Peter asked.  Peter thought he was being really spiritual by offering to forgive his brother seven times.  Then Jesus told him that he was to forgive his brother seventy-seven times.  In other words, Jesus was using hyperbole to say that we must forgive as many times as we are wronged.  Then He told this parable about a wicked servant who was forgiven an unpayable debt but would not forgive a much more minor one.

This one always gets me because I know how vindictive my heart can be.  I do not default to grace, even though I often try to remind myself of just how much I have been forgiven.  It's convicting because of the construct ἐὰν μὴ.  This can be translated "unless."  In other words, this verse makes it seem like our acceptance before God is contingent upon how we forgive.

However, I don't think we should interpret this as a works-based salvation, though it would be natural to do so.  Instead, we need to see this as the natural result of grace.  If we have truly been forgiven for our sins by a holy God then forgiving our brother will not be that big of a deal.  It is something that we will be able to do.  In fact, how could we not do it if we truly believe in God's grace?

How are you doing with this?

Rejoice!

Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.

4 Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε.

What to choose from Philippians 4?  There are a lot of great passages, but this is the one that speaks most clearly to my heart right now because I needed to be reminded of this.  When are we to rejoice?  πάντοτε.  There is no getting around this word with exegetical gymnastics.  We are to rejoice always.  At all times.  No matter what is going on, we are to rejoice.

That does not mean that we rejoice in our circumstances.  I did not have a particularly good weekend for a few reasons.  I was not about to rejoice in the circumstances.  However, Paul does give me a legitimate direction for rejoicing.  I am not to rejoice in my circumstances, but ἐν κυρίῳ.  And just in case we missed it, Paul tells us again.

This is both convicting and uplifting.  It is convicting because I see how poorly I do this.  I get caught up in the moment, start to feel sorry for myself, and just generally spiral downhill.  It is uplifting because we would not be given a command that we could not obey by the power of the Spirit.  Why is it possible?  The Lord is always worthy of our rejoicing.  When He becomes our focus then the crush of the world becomes less important.

Where are you putting your focus?  Are you wallowing in your circumstances or are you focusing on the risen Savior?  Will you join me in repenting from looking at the world?

Self-Examination

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

5 Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε· ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν; εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε.

There are those who espouse that so-called "Lordship salvation" is akin to works-righteousness.  I'm not sure what they do with a verse like this.  It seems that you have one of two options with this:

1. You need to work to stay in the faith.  Those who fail to work lose their salvation.  This would be an Arminian viewpoint.
2. Those who are truly saved will exhibit good works.  This meshes well with James 2:24

Paul makes it very clear here.  If the Corinthians  Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε and find that there is no evidence of salvation then they have ἀδόκιμοί, or failed the test.  I find it interesting that Paul uses the particle μήτι here.  He expects them to give a negative answer to his negative question.  In other words, he expects that they will find that they are truly in the faith, but there is a chance that they are not.

What about you?  If you are truly saved then your life will demonstrate it.  There will still be sin and it may be some terrible bondage to sin.  I think that someone can be truly saved and yet struggle with habitual sin.  But is there any fruit?  Or did you just raise your hand at the end of a service or pray a prayer and consider that to be enough?  Are you seeking after the Lord or are you either indifferent to Him or running from Him?  How you respond to these questions will give you some clues as to where you stand.

If you fail the test then I urge you to repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.  He is the Lord.  Do you acknowledge Him as yours?

Sanctification

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; 2  μὴ γένοιτο. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ;

The trouble with going through Romans is that I feel like these passages are so overdone and over-commented upon.  However, that's because they are so good.  Like any good pastor, Paul anticipates the objections of his audience and addresses them.  This is such a huge one for so many of us.  Should we remain in sin so that God is glorified in His grace toward us?  μὴ γένοιτο!  That's a little phrase you see Paul use and it means very literally, "may it never be."  It's extremely emphatic.

So what do we do with this?  The first thing is to remember that repentance and sanctification are a part of salvation.  I'm not sure why exactly, but I've noticed a lot of ink in the blogosphere lately about Charles Finney and his methods.  I guess it's because they are still alive and well in many churches today.  We have him to thank for the altar call.  Now I'm all for challenging people to make a response to the gospel.  However, I also am for explaining the whole gospel to people.

The gospel is not about moralism or keeping rules.  Nor is it about living however we want.  Our changed lives are a response to God's grace.  Once we really understand what we've been saved from (sin and death) and what we've been saved to (holiness and life) then how can we do anything but live in a way that is according to His Word?  Of course we'll fail from time to time, but shouldn't that be the desire of our hearts?  I sure hope so.

No Accusation

John 18:30 They answered him, "If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you."

30 ἀπεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος κακὸν ποιῶν, οὐκ ἄν σοι παρεδώκαμεν αὐτόν.

Pilate had just asked the crowd for their accusation against Jesus and this is what they came up with.  If you want to be a bit more wooden and literal you could translate εἰ μὴ as "except" or even "unless."  Either way, you get the idea.  They didn't have a true charge against Jesus, but they wanted Him to die.

On the other hand, God the Father does have a true charge against God the Son.  On the cross He took on the sins of mankind.  Therefore, there was a just reason to kill Him.  The problem is that He did not have any sin on His own, so it was only through God's (the whole Trinity) mercy that He went to the cross.

Sinner, do you marvel at this?  Do you realize that there would be no accusation for Jesus' death but for your sin?  I hope you do.  I know that it is something I need to dwell on more and more.  I take this for granted far too often.

Right Pneumatology

John 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

14 ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν.

I met a hospice chaplain a few weeks ago who taught me something really powerful about this verse.  Here Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit.  On a side exegetical note, you may notice that ἐκεῖνος is masculine rather than neuter.  The Holy Spirit is a He, not an it as some would say.  He is as much a part of the Godhead as Jesus and the Father.

So what of this verse?  This man was raised Catholic, and he came to know Christ after his parents were saved at a charismatic prayer meeting.  This man is a charismatic in the vein of C.J. Mahaney.  The point he made to me is that, unlike the "charismaniacs" who jump around and look for ecstatic experiences all the time, he understands the Holy Spirit's role as being there to glorify Jesus.  As I came across this verse today it really clicked for me.

I am not a cessationist, but I am very cautious about the charismatic gifts.  I have never personally experienced them, but have heard stories that seem legitimate.  I am very zealous about the fact that we have a closed canon with the Word of God.  We do not need to go beyond that for any instruction.  I do not think that it is reasonable to go through the New Testament and come to a cessationist position just based on what you read.  It takes a systematic theologian to get us there.  Yet we do need to be cautious.  By "charismaniac" I refer to the types of services where deacons are on hand to stretch people out before the service so they don't pull a hammy while jumping around.  I think that there is a reasonable middle ground here.  Just don't try to add to Scripture.

The point is that it all gets back to Jesus.  Are your charismatic experiences glorifying to Jesus?  In this man's case, they certainly were as the Spirit saved his family so that they may give glory to Jesus.  The Spirit regenerates the hearts of sinners so that they might believe in Jesus and be saved.  Salvation is a supernatural work to be sure.  Let's give the Spirit His due.  I'm afraid that in my circles He is often given short shrift.

Following the Shepherd

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

27 τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσιν, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτὰ καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι, 28  κἀγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου.

Jesus continues the shepherding metaphor that He began in yesterday's passage.  Here He describes the nature of His sheep.  If I were preaching this I would point out three areas of action.  We see what the sheep do, what Jesus does, and what others cannot do.  The sheep hear and follow.  What does that mean to us today?  It means that we read God's Word and we obey it.  In other words, we fear God and keep His commandments.

What does Jesus do?  He gives us eternal life.  The phrase καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται describes what it means to give eternal life.  It is as if to say, "I give them eternal life.  That means that they will never perish."  Jesus uses the construction οὐ μὴ, which is the strongest way to negate something in Greek.  He is saying that there is no way that His sheep will ever perish.  We have had discussions on this blog about the future of the soul.  It seems pretty clear that there is a way to eternal life and a way to eternal destruction.  I suppose an argument could be made for annihilationism, but I think that only works if you take this passage out as a proof-text.

Finally we get blessed assurance of what Calvinists call "perseverance of the saints."  It is impossible for someone to be snatched out of Jesus' hand once they are His.  This means that someone living in wanton sin is either regenerate and backslidden, but will return or that person was never regenerated.  Many college students "recommitting their lives to Christ" are in this latter category, for example.

Where are you?  Are you one of His sheep?  If so, does this passage fill you with hope?  Are you blessed with the assurance that comes from being one of His sheep who He holds steadfastly in His hand?  Or are you one who will perish apart from Him?  If so, I urge you to become one of His sheep.

Still Incredulous

John 4:29 "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"

29 δεῦτε ἴδετε ἄνθρωπον ὃς εἶπέν μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός;

This is at the very end of a wonderful narrative about a Samaritan woman.  Jesus has a conversation with this woman that is life-changing for her and for all of us who read it.  He makes the offer for her to have living water that will always satisfy her.  This passage transformed my life through the ministry of Setting Captives Free.  I started to see that Jesus really does satisfy in a way that sin never can.  I need to be reminded of this frequently.  I think we all do.

What struck me this morning is that perhaps this is not the best passage to be used for evangelism.  It is often presented that way though.  The woman comes to know Jesus and she wants to introduce others to Him.  She becomes a great evangelist in bringing people to Christ.  And she certainly does that.  But what struck me is the way she phrases the question.  When she asks μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; she expects a negative response.  We know that because she started the question with μήτι.  What she is effectively saying is, "This can't really be the Christ, can it?"

However, I also find some encouragement in this.  The woman was faithful despite her doubt.  She was obedient as well.  There are plenty of us who claim to be sure that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Christ.  We say that we've built our lives on Him.  But are we even as faithful as this woman who was pretty open about her doubts? This certainly convicts me.

Prepare Wisely

 Luke 22:35 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." 36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

35 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ὅτε ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς ἄτερ βαλλαντίου καὶ πήρας καὶ ὑποδημάτων, μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· οὐθενός. 36  εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον ἀράτω, ὁμοίως καὶ πήραν, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἔχων πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγορασάτω μάχαιραν.

I have always found this passage to be interesting.  There are those who preach asceticism for the minister of the gospel.  They say that we should all be like the apostles and travel with no provisions so that God will take care of us.  Of course, they are right to a certain degree because God ultimately does provide.  He uses means and in the case of the original evangelists He used kind souls in the various towns to provide for them.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Benny Hinn on something, but I don't think that ministers are supposed to dress and eat like John the Baptist today.  I do disagree with him in that ministers should not have private jets and live opulent lifestyles either.  Jesus teaches us to follow a simple path.  However, this passage also tells us that we are to be prudent in how we live.  To be irresponsible would be akin to throwing ourselves off the pinnacle of the temple and expecting God to catch us.

One small Greek note is to see how Jesus phrases His question to the disciples.  He asks them  μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; which means that He expected a negative response.  He knew that they lacked nothing and wanted to drive this home to them.

Destroying the Temple

Luke 21:6 "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 

ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν αἷς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται.

With all due respect to my Dispensational friends, this passage really seems to be speaking of the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70.  That did indeed happen.  Now of course there could be multiple fulfillments of prophecy.  We see that in the Old Testament all the time.  Yet it just seems more plain to me that this would speak of the destruction of the actual physical temple.

What does this mean?  I haven't really worked it all out because I am not that aware of all the end-times stuff.  However, I do know that R.C. Sproul is a partial preterist.  That doesn't make it right, but it seems like a reasonable explanation.  I am still looking forward to Christ's second coming or, as my daughter puts it, when heaven comes down.

For a quick Greek bite, the phrase λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ is kind of interesting.  The second use of λίθος is in the dative so that the reader understands the preposition to refer to something on something else.

Doctrine that Divides

Luke 12:51
(51)  Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

(51)  δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ' ἢ διαμερισμόν.

This is one of those verses that doesn't get a lot of play in some circles.  There are plenty of people who see Jesus as this great unifier.  He came to make us all love one another.  And, in a sense, that is true.  Those who follow Him are compelled to love one another.  That doesn't mean that we have to like one another, but we do have to love one another.

However, Jesus shatters this popular myth.  He tells us that He did not come to bring peace, but division.  He came to talk about the Kingdom of God.  You are either with Him or against Him.  There is no ambivalent middle ground.  I find it interesting to see ἀλλ' ἢ.  The word αλλα is a strong adversative.  Then you add the η to it and you are really making a contrast.  We tend to read "but rather" fairly quickly.  He really is setting up a strong contrast here.

Where are you?  There is a definite division.  Are you on Jesus' side or the other side?  He came to bring division, but for those who follow Him there is εἰρήνην or peace.  I urge you to follow Him instead of being against Him.  It won't be pretty in the end for those who are against Him.

Still Marveling

Luke 2:49-50
(49)  And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"
(50)  And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.

(49)  καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ με; οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με; 

(50)  καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς.

We noted yesterday that His parents didn't quite understand who He was.  This is further proof that they didn't understand.  As a parent I cannot imagine the horror of losing a child for three days.  On top of it, this is a child that was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  They didn't fully understand who He was, but He was still their 12 year-old boy.  You couldn't issue an Amber Alert for a child back in first-century Palestine.  They just had to look all over the big city for Him.

Jesus was pretty incredulous when they found Him.  By starting His question with οὐκ He expected a positive answer.  In other words, this seemed obvious to Him.  Why wouldn't they know to look for Him at the temple?  Did they already forget how He was conceived?

Their relative cluelessness gives me some hope.  I realize that I am not the only one who loses sight of who Jesus is.  He is God in the flesh (incarnate).  He commands and deserves all my worship and obedience.  He is not just a good example for me to follow, though He is that as well.  He is the Lord of the universe.  Let's treat Him that way in how we worship but also in how we relate to Him.  

For example, I am often convicted by the relative shallowness of my prayer life.  How can I not spend more time praying to the Lord of everything?  I have access to God.  How can I not take advantage of that?

I often live like I do not understand the saying that Jesus spoke to His parents.  How about you?

Living with Deception

Mark 14:18-19
(18)  And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me."
(19)  They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"

(18)  καὶ ἀνακειμένων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσθιόντων ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με, ὁ ἐσθίων μετ' ἐμοῦ. 

(19)  ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς κατὰ εἷς, Μήτι ἐγώ;

This is one of those passages where I really try to put myself in the setting.  These twelve men had seen a lot and been through a lot with Jesus.  They had learned to expect the unexpected with Him as His teachings continually turned their worldviews around.  Remember, this is the same guy who touched lepers and spoke to a Samaritan woman.  

Their indignation at his statement comes through much more strongly in the Greek.  When they all say, Μήτι ἐγώ the word μητι indicates that they expect a negative response.  No one thinks that Jesus is referring to him.

Except for Judas Iscariot.  He knew the truth.  We know from a previous verse that he had already plotted with the Jews to betray Jesus.  I can only imagine how his heart must have been racing at Jesus' statement.  He had to know that he was found out.  Then it was confirmed later with Jesus' symbolic dipping of the bread in the bowl.

There are a lot of things we can apply from this passage.  However, the one dear to my heart is unconfessed sin. Are you a professing believer with unconfessed sin in your life?  I'm specifically thinking of sexual sin like porn or homosexuality.  Is this something that you are trying to hide?  When it's talked about at church do you take the stance of Μήτι ἐγώ like Judas did here?  Does it eat away at your heart every time you have to put on the good church face to cover up this secret life of sin?  Do you look at your kids and realize that these naked people after whom you lust are other people's little princesses?  

I don't care if you talk to me, your pastor, or a trusted friend.  Talk to someone.  Have the humility to get help about this.  We have too many people saying Μήτι ἐγώ at church every week.  Please stop being one of them.