Armageddon

After all the judgements of the seven bowls are complete, the tribulation period will be complete. Chapter 19 describes the rejoicing in heaven when this period of distress is over. At this point in Heaven, the marriage supper of the Lamb will take place. Believers can think of their salvation experience as the point at which they were betrothed to the Lord and the marriage supper as the actual wedding ceremony.

The pinnacle of this rejoicing is known as the "Glorious Appearing". It is the return of Christ as the rider on the white horse. With Him will come the armies of heaven, prepared for battle against the kings of the east and Satan's armies. This is the battle of Armageddon, during which the Antichrist and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire, or Hell. An angel then comes down from heaven to unlock the abyss, where Satan is to be chained for 1000 years. This is known as the millennium and Christ will reign on earth for that period of time. This can be thought of as the honeymoon, for believers will rule with Christ in an era without Satan's deceptive influence on mankind. It will thus be a period of righteousness that will come to a climactic end when Satan is released for an undetermined amount of time to gather armies against the Lord once again. It does not appear that there will actually be a battle however, as fire will come down from heaven and destroy the armies and the devil himself.

When all is finished, the judgement of mankind will follow. The dead in Christ were raised during the Rapture. Daniel 12:1-2 indicates that Old Testament saints will be raised during or just after the Tribulation. And finally, the Tribulation saints, will be resurrected at the end of the Tribulation when Christ returns to set up His millennial kingdom. The unbelieving dead, whose souls await judgement in Hades, will be resurrected to stand before the Great White Throne for judgement. They will be cast into the lake of fire for eternal judgement. The "books" will be opened in this judgement... the Book of Life, which is a list of all the living, and the Lamb's Book of Life, which is the list of the saved. Names can be blotted out of the Book of Life, but never from the Lamb's Book of Life.

Following judgement, the old earth will be destroyed, not by water as was promised to Noah, but possibly by fire (2 Pet. 3:4-14). A new heaven and earth will be created and the inhabitable space of the earth will increase by two thirds since there will "no longer be any sea". Additionally, this new earth may be larger and totally different from what we now know. God will live on earth with his people and it will be an existence without death, disease, decay, sadness, loneliness, or pain. For those interested in more details about Heaven, Randy Alcorn has written an exhaustive book on the subject, called "Heaven". It is voluminous, but there is an abridged version.

Well, we did it! Thank you guys for hanging in there and being the accountability I needed to accomplish what I believe God called me to this year. I plan to read back through the Chronological Bible since I have forgotten more than I learned. I will leave the blog up so that I can tweak it as I read. I would encourage all of you to keep combing through the Bible and invite others to join you. There are a number of "read through the Bible in a year" systems, so you may want to try a different format for 2011. Whatever you do, stay with the discipline you have developed. I appreciate all of your encouragement as well as your faithfulness.

Tomorrow's reading: GENESIS!!!

Babylon and the Beast

Following the seven trumpets are the seven bowls, which will bring about the end of the Tribulation period. The bowls are reminiscent of the plagues of Egypt, both in content and purpose. The plagues were meant to bring people to repentance and to punish the wicked. The bowls include turning the salt and fresh water sources to blood, painful sores, darkness, and intense heat. The sixth bowl dries up the "great river", always known as the Euphrates, so that the kings of the East can move in for the final battle at Armageddon. The word Armageddon is literally translated Mount of Megeddon and refers to a plain in the center of Palestine between two mountains, Mt. Tabor and Mt. Gilboa. This region is currently known as Megiddo. The seventh bowl will be a great earthquake that will wipe off the islands and mountains from the face of the earth.

John was shown the "punishment of the great prostitute", but does not name her. The prostitute is clearly not a literal woman. It has been suggested that she is a city that functions as the headquarters of the Antichrist. There is some debate over what city this is, with the three options being Rome, Jerusalem, and ancient Babylon. The name Babylon is used many times in reference to the prostitute, but it could be a code name meant to symbolize the pagan rebellion against God that existed during the time of Nebuchudnezzar and the Jewish captivity. Remember too, that Babylon has it's roots in Babel, the site where mankind decided to elevate himself to God by constructing a massive tower. So, Babylon could be symbolic of idolatry and rebellion against God, specifically a false religion.

The "beast" on which the woman sits is described as having seven heads and seven hills, which seems to represent seven kings, five of whom are gone, one of whom is currently alive, and one of whom is yet to come. The one yet to come is the Antichrist. The beast will have a confederate of 10 nations, pictured as the 10 horns. These are kings without kingdoms, I.e. people of high importance who do not have official titles. Though the beast and prostitute will initially have a symbiotic relationship, eventually the kings will hate the prostitute and throw off her yoke. For the first half of the Tribulation, the Antichrist will use the prostitute to gain power and favor, but once his position is secure, he will cast the her aside.

Chapter 18 discusses the fall of Babylon. Again, this could be symbolic, but it could also mean that the literal city of Babylon will be rebuilt and then destroyed. It's location is in Iraq, and interestingly, Saddam Hussein began the process of rebuilding the city during his dictatorship. Babylon will be the commercial center of the world and the seat of Satan.

Tomorrow's reading: finish the Bible!!!

The Witnesses, Woman, Dragon, and Beast

Just before the seventh trumpet is blown, two witnesses appear to preaching the gospel. Thy are not named, but scholars believe one of them to be Elijah and the other to be either Enoch, John the Baptist, or Moses. They will be killed by the Antichrist but their bodies will be resurrected 3 1/2 (the mid-point of 7) days later. As John was given this vision of the witnesses, he was also told to measure the Temple. At the time of his writing however, there was no Temple. It had been destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans. This passage, along with several others in the New Testament, (Matt. 24:15, 2 Thess. 2:1-13), point to the fact that the Temple must be rebuilt prior to the Tribulation. Devout Jews strongly desire to do so, but the Dome of the Rock, Islam's second most holy place, is built on the site of the Temple mound.

The seventh trumpet initiates the seven bowls of judgement to come in the last half of the Tribulation. But John pauses to introduce some of the key figures of the Tribulation. The "woman" described has been thought to be Mary or the church or the nation of Israel. The fact that she wears a crown of twelve stars points to Israel. The man-child she bore is definitely thought to be Jesus. The war described in heaven is Satan's (the dragon) fall, along with his angels. It is not clear when exactly this war took place, as the text seems to be a recap of things that have taken place much earlier (birth and ascension of Christ). Although Satan's fall occurred before the creation of Adam and Eve, he was not thrown out of heaven until this battle. Up until this point, he has had access to heaven to accuse believers before the throne of God. This battle forever restricts his access to heaven and limits his realm to the earth.

While the dragon is definitely understood to be Satan, his human instruments are known as the "beast that comes out of the Sea" and the "beast that comes out of the earth'. The first beast is representative of oppressive government and will be headed by the Antichrist. At the beginning of the Tribulation, the Antichrist will make a pact with Israel but will break it midway through the 7 years. He will establish a one-world government, one-world economy (currency), one-world religion (over which he will set himself as god at the midway point of the tribulation), and will die and be resurrected by Satan, who will personally inhabit his body.

The "beast that comes out of the earth" is thought to be religious power. It's leader will be the "false prophet" who will incite people to worship the Antichrist. He may well be described as the High Priest of the Antichrist's religious system. Satan, together with the Antichrist and False Prophet, mirrors the Trinity.

Tomorrow's reading: Rev. 15:1-18:24

The Seven Trumpets

Prior to the opening of the seventh seal, which is known as the "great tribulation", 144,000 Jews were sealed by the Lord for special protection. The 144,000 will also be responsible for widespread evangelism and an unprecedented "soul harvest". according to Joel 2:28, the Holy Spirit will fall powerfully on these believers, as in the day of Pentecost. This is in keeping with God's desire to bring the nation of Israel back to the forefront of His plan, following the "church age" of the Gentiles. Though it is very clear that the reference to the 144,000 is the tribes of Israel, Jehovah's Witnesses view it differently.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only 144,000 people will go to heaven. All faithful Jehovah’s Witnesses not chosen to be among the 144,000 elite that go to heaven will spend eternity on earth. All other people on the earth will be destroyed at war of Armageddon. This would also include any Jehovah's Witnesses who have been disfellowshipped and not worked their way back into the good graces of the Watchtower by the time of Armageddon. This is just an interesting aside.

We don't know what the seal will look like but it will apparently be visible. At the same time during the tribulation, the Antichrist will require people to receive the "mark of the beast", which will be required for all commerce. It seems that people will have one or the other, and that they are irrevocable.

At this time, the seventh seal is opened, which reveals the seven trumpets of judgement. Just as we are to interpret the plagues of Egypt as actual, and not figurative, these terrible judgements are actually set to occur.

1st trumpet: hail and fire that burns up 1/3 pf the earth's surface
2nd trumpet: meteorite thrown into the sea (probably the Mediterranean), destroying 1/3 of ships and marine life
3rd trumpet: another meteor imbeds deep into the earth destroying the headwaters of three great rivers, polluting water supply
4th trumpet: darkness, which will affect the tides
5th trumpet: abyss opened by an angel of God and imprisoned demons released, led by their king Abaddon which means "destroyer". This is not Satan but a high-ranking angelic being comparable to the archangel Michael in the heavenly host. Also unleashed will be a scourge of spirit beings described as locusts, who will wreak havoc for 5 months (which is the life span of a real locust). They will not kill but will torment mankind with pain so intense that men will wish for death. Believers will be exempt from this "woe" and perhaps the severity of the torment will bring many to repentance.
6th trumpet: four bound angels (bad ones obviously) released and 1/3 of world population is killed by an army of two hundred million demons; believers also protected from this judgement
7th trumpet: discussed in tomorrow's reading

Tomorrow's reading: Rev. 11:1-14:20

The Seven Seals

Seven is the number of completion or perfection in Scripture, and it plays heavily into the symbolism of Revelation. Following the seven churches, John sees seven seals on a scroll that is opened in heaven. John has been taken up to heaven in his vision, which may be representative of when the rapture will occur. The first three chapters deal with the church during the church age, which is the period of the Gentiles. The church is never mentioned beyond these initial chapters and the language used is reflective of the nation of Israel. We do know that in the end times, Israel will return to the Lord and be saved, so should not be surprised that the final chapters of Revelation would deal specifically with them. In Revelation 3:10, the Lord promises the church of Philadelphia (the church of revival and missionary movement) that "since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth". This verse points to the interpretation that God will remove his church from the earth prior to the tribulation, a period of intense trial lasting seven years. This removal of the church is known as the rapture, and means that Christ will return to earth and the believers alive at that time will go to meet Him and be taken directly to Heaven without experiencing death. This is not the Second Coming of Christ. There are those who believe the Rapture will occur prior to the tribulation, in the midst of the tribulation, and immediately following the tribulation. That is too much for me to unpack. Most of what I have read aligns with pre-trib doctrine. It is possible that John being taken up to heaven immediately following the close of the "church age" in chapters 1-3 and just before the "tribulation" beginning in chapter 4, may be a picture of when the church will indeed be raptured.

The scene in heaven involves four heavenly beings strongly resembling Old Testament descriptions of seraphim. They appear to have the primary role of worship. there are also 24 thrones for 24 elders. Opinions vary on the identity of these elders. Some believe they are high ranking angels. Others think they are redeemed souls, with the number 24 most logically indicating that they are the 12 disciples and 12 sons of Jacob (heads of each tribe of Israel).

The opening of the seven seals of the scroll indicate the beginning of the tribulation period...

The 1st seal: rider on a white horse; some debate about who this is...could be the Antichrist and his kingdom (the antichrist will be a charismatic diplomat who ushers in a false worldwide peace); could be Christ ushering in judgement on the earth; could be symbolic of brute force; most of my sources agree with the first proposition

The 2nd Seal: rider on a red horse; symbolic of war that will occur when some nations try to throw off the shackles of the Antichrist

The 3rd Seal: rider on a black horse; symbolic of famine, which often follows war

The 4th Seal:rider on the pale horse; symbolic of death; During the first 21 months of the tribulation, one fourth of the world's population will die according to Rev. 6:8. This equates to roughly a billion and a half people, using the latest census as a gage.

The 5th Seal: the martyred tribulation saints; The souls under the altar of sacrifice are those who profess Christ during the tribulation. Though all Christians will be taken up in the Rapture, many of those left behind will become believers, only to face extreme persecution.

The Sixth Seal: catastrophe on earth in the form of a violent earthquake

The Seventh Seal: discussed in tomorrow's reading

The first half of the tribulation, comprised of either the first 4 or first 6 seals, depending on interpretation, closely parallels Christ's comments about the "beginning of the birth pangs" of the end times. All of these occurrences (war, famine, death, martyrdom, natural disasters, etc.) will only be the beginning! The second half of the tribulation will be far worse.

Tomorrow's reading: Rev. 7:1-10:11

The Seven Churches

Oh boy. I cannot insert enough disclaimers here. I am way out of my league. Revelation is a book of symbolism and prophecy that is subject to interpretation and speculation. There are countless camps of doctrine as it relates to eschatology (which is the study of the "last things" or end times)...pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation and pre vs. post millenial, to name the most dominant debates. Many preachers do not teach from the book of Revelation because they deem it too difficult to understand. Even John Calvin, the great theologian, excluded the book of Revelation from his commentary of the entire Bible. In short, it is a tough book to understand, and I'm sure we are not supposed to understand it fully. However, when the generation alive during the end times reads the words of Revelation, the meaning will be clear and highly significant. We are told by John that the events he saw in his vision "must soon take place", which is intended to create a sense of urgency in the readers, as Christ will return suddenly and unexpectedly. However, because nearly 2000 years have passed since John wrote Revelation in 95 AD, the word "soon" is an odd choice. Was John mistaken in his assessment of the timeline or are we to use God's vantage point of "1000 years being like a day" and vice versa or is there another meaning for the word "soon" that makes more sense? Of these three explanations, the first is least probable. Since Christ Himself had said that "no one knows the hour or the day" of His return, it is unlikely that John intended to imply that he knew when these events were to take place. There is certainly truth in the second possibility, in that things which seem imminent to us, as finite beings, can equate to thousands of years to an eternal being. But there is also an alternate meaning for the word "soon", which could explain the difficulty. "Soon" can also mean "in short order" or "in rapid succession", meaning that once these events begin to unfold, everything will come to pass quickly.

Once John sets the stage for his vision, he unfolds the details as they were revealed to him by the angel sent by the Lord. He begins by addressing the seven churches, all of which were then in existence in the area now known as Turkey. John, at the age of near 90, was writing as an exiled prisoner/slave laborer on the island of Patmos in the Mediterranean Sea. These seven churches, of the hundreds that were in existence more than 60 years after Pentecost, seem to have been selected based on historical, representative, and prophetic value. The messages were intended for each church at that time, were also representative of the seven phases of church history throughout the church age, and finally, prefigured seven aspects of the professing church at the time of Christ's return. Tim Lahaye (the man who co-authored the "Left Behind" series) put together a chart of these church messages in his book "Revelation Unveiled" that helped me get a handle on the layered revelation of the messages.

Ephesus : representative of the Apostolic church (from Pentecost until about 100 AD); characterized by fervent evangelism

Smyrna: representative of the persecuted church (100 to 312 AD); characterized by the worst period of persecution the church has suffered to date; this was the era during which Christians were fed to lions in the amphitheaters, boiled in oil, burned at the stake, covered in tar and set ablaze to serve as human torches, etc.; it is estimated that millions of Christians were martyred for their faith during these two centuries

Pergamum: representative of the indulged church (312 to 606 AD); after the reign of Diocletian (considered the greatest antagonist of the Christian faith because he led a violent attempt to destroy the Bible entirely), Constantine became Emperor and issued an edict of tolerance for Christianity. Pagan religions adapted their practices to "fit" within the state religion of Christianity, resulting in the blurring of the lines between Christianity and pagan religions as well as a reduction in spiritual fervor. The church became "married" (which is the meaning of the word pergamum) to the government and became more Roman than Christian. According to Lahaye, the Roman Catholic Church traces it's roots to this time in history.

Thyatira: representative of the pagan church; (606 to 1520 AD): also known as the "dark ages" when the merging of paganism and Christianity begun under Constantine gave way to complete paganism, nearly snuffing out the light of Christ. Lahaye has a great deal to say about the negative influence of the Catholic church during this time in history, noting specifically the 1229 doctrine that forbade laypeople to read the Bible.

Sardis: representative of the dead church (1520 to 1750 AD); also known as the Reformation when Martin Luther led a secession from the Catholic church due to its adherence to pagan doctrines as opposed to Scripture. This period is characterized as the "dead church" because the reformation churches became "state churches" as well, with the end result being the catering to the government rather than the Word of God. Furthermore, the Reformation churches did not sufficiently change the pagan practices that had infiltrated the Christian church during the Dark Ages.

Philadelphia: representative of the missionary church (1750 to 1900 AD); characterized by revival in the church and missionary emphasis

Laodicea: representative of the apostate church (1900 AD to the tribulation); characterized by lukewarm indifference and "fence-sitting"; Lahaye also refers to this church as the "people's church" because of it's emphasis on what people want rather than what God requires.

A note about the Nicolaitans, to help understand the messages to the first three churches... Surprisingly little is known about this sect outside of john's comments in his messages to the first three churches in Revelation. There are two opinions as to the identity of the Nicolaitans. One possibility is that they were a sect following the teachings of Nicholas, one of the seven men chosen to lead the church in Acts 6:5. If this interpretation is correct, Nicholas led his followers into some abhorrent forms of heresy. Another possibility is that "Nicolaitans" is not derived from the name Nicholas but from a construct of Greek terms.

The word comes from two Greek words niko meaning "to conquer or overthrow" and laos meaning "the people, laity". Taken together, the concept is one of "lording authority over the common people". If this interpretation is correct, "nicolaitans" could refer to those who established and enforced ecclesiastical order (the setting up of a hierarchy within the church involving bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes). Adherence to this heresy enslaved the church to human beings rather than to the Holy Spirit.


Tomorrow's reading: Rev. 3:1-6:17

Sin That Leads to Death

Belated Merry Christmas to all! I read last night before bed and thought verse 4:9 of 1 John was a great synopsis of Christmas ... "God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love-not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His son as a sacrifice to take away our sins". This verse is very reminiscent of the popular John 3:16, written by the same author. Both capture, in a nutshell, the reason for the season.

In chapter 5 of the book, John mentions "sin that leads to death" and cautions that believers should not pray for such a sinner. This is a curious statement as it indicates that there is a "point of no return". Remember that Jesus spoke in three of the gospels of an unpardonable sin, referring specifically to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He said this in response to some Pharisees who were attributing His work of healing to the devil instead of to God. Are these two passages connected? They do not seem to be. Rather than referring to the unpardonable sin, John uses an indefinite article with the word "sin", which implied not one particular sin but a pattern of sin.

Recall that John's letter addresses his concern about a group of apostates ("Christians" who have fallen away from the faith and thus revealed themselves to be false Christians) who had the potential to lead others astray. Did he have them in mind when writing these verses? That interpretation adds up, since rejecting Jesus equates to spiritual death. But why not pray for such people? John's words were carefully chosen..."I am not saying you should pray about that". This was not to say that Christians should not pray for the lost because John is clear in the preceding verse that Christians should pray for those in sin "that does not lead to death". In keeping with the interpretation above, this would mean that believers should continue to pray for those who have not yet irrevocably rejected Jesus. Conversely, John was not advocating prayer for those who had committed the "sin that leads to death" because it was basically a futile effort. Those who committed the "sin that leads to death" were beyond hope, for there is no hope for salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

It is important to note that neither the "unpardonable sin" nor the "sin that leads to death" can be committed by Christians. A Christian can never lose his/her salvation. Any "Christian" who would fall away or reject Jesus, never was truly saved.

tomorrow's reading: Jude, Rev. 1:1-2:29

False Christians

John is the only disciple believed to have died a natural death. He lived into old age, and having been the youngest of the disciples, his death is placed at 98AD, which would put him in his eighties at the time of death. His final years were spent exiled on the island of Patmos, and he probably wrote his letters after the remaining apostles had been martyred. Unlike the epistles of Paul and Peter, his letters are not addressed to any particular church or people group, but to the body of believers at large.

While John's letter also refers to the danger of false teachers, he spends more time calling out the reality of false Christians. The logic used is similar to what Jesus had to say about good trees bearing good fruit and vice versa. Simply put, though appearances can be deceiving, generally speaking, a Christian who acts like one, probably is. Conversely, a person who acts in opposition to the teachings of Christ, probably is in opposition to the teachings of Christ.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 John 4:7-3 John 1:15

False Teachers

Peter opens his letter by asserting his credentials as an apostle. In specific, he refers to his presence at the Transfiguration. From there, he calls attention to false teachers, present in Old Testament times, Peter's era, and in the modern-day church. " False teachers" are not limited to those who are obviously profane and sacrilegious, but also to those who subtly distort the word of God and the person of Jesus. The following is copied from Bible.org...

False teachers speak of “Jesus,” but it is a “Jesus” of their own making, a “Jesus” with whom sinful men feel comfortable and affirmed. They wish to follow and imitate such a person, but they deny the real Jesus, substituting a more palatable Jesus. So it is that false teachers gain a following by tickling the ears of those who will not have the real “Jesus.”

In the last days there will be a rise in such teachings as well as a pervasive apathy toward the things of God. Peter describes this phenomenon as "scoffers who will mock the truth and follow their own desires". It kind-of seems like we're there, doesn't it?

Tomorrow's reading: 1 John 1:1-4:6

Preaching to Spirits in Prison?

After the resurrection, Jesus was no longer limited by His human form and was able to do things He could not previously do, such as appearing and disappearing, and walking through doors. According to 1 Peter 3:19, He was also able to visit the "spirits in prison", meaning that He traveled to the underworld known to the Jews as Hades. Who were these spirits and what was preached to them? The interpretation of this obscure passage has led some to conclude that there is hope for salvation after death; that a gospel message was preached to dead souls in Hell. But this is in direct conflict with many other passages like Hebrews 9:27 which states, "it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgement". We would like to believe in a second chance for salvation after death, but nowhere in Scripture is this taught.

The "spirits" referenced were "those who disobeyed" in Noah's time, however, the word "spirits" is almost never used to refer to dead people unless clearly specified. By far, the more common term used for dead people is "souls". When the term "spirit" is used, it is usually in reference to a spirit being, i.e. an angel. If you will think back to Genesis, specifically chapter 6, the "sons of God" were sleeping with the daughters of men and producing the Nephilim, at the time of Noah. One interpretation of this passage is that the "sons of God" were fallen angels (the other is that they were of the godly line of Seth while the daughters of men were of the ungodly line of Canaan). I am beginning to lean toward the first interpretation, which can be backed up by Jude 1:6; "I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged. God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness..." and 2 Peter 2:4; "God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into Hell, in gloomy pits of darkness..." We already know that Satan took 1/3 of the heavenly host with him when he was thrown out of heaven and that they await judgement. There is a long tradition, both in the New Testament and other Jewish writings (namely the extra-Biblical book of Enoch) that these fallen angels were kept in prison, therefore this would be the logical interpretation of "spirits in prison".

Why preach to fallen angels then? This is when the resource books pay off, because there is an alternate interpretation of the Greek word "preach". The term "euangelizomai" (from which we get the word "evangelize") means "to preach or tell the good news". This is not the word used in the Greek translation however. What is used is the word "ekeryxen", which means "to proclaim a message". The exact nature of this proclamation is not given, but could simply mean that Jesus went to Hades to proclaim victory. Or it could mean that He went there to tell the righteous souls who were awaiting the Messiah, to get ready to depart for heaven. Several passages in the New Testament teach that Jesus, between the resurrection and ascension, visited Hades, which is not the equivalent of Hell despite the words of the Apostles Creed.

The Greek word is Hadas (from which we get the English word Hades). This is the region of the dead. Before Jesus' ascension, the spirits of all people went to Hades. After His ascension, only the spirits of unbelievers go to Hades, while the spirits of believers go directly to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1-8). It is into this region that Jesus entered after His crucifixion (Acts 2:25-31 in which Peter quotes from Psalm 16:9-10). Ephesians 4:8-10 says that Jesus, "had descended into the lower parts of the earth." This may also speak of Jesus' visit to Hades before His ascension. Finally, Romans 10:7 refers to Jesus in "the abyss" while He was among the dead. After the final judgment, Hades will be cast into Hell (Revelation 20:14), which is the "lake of fire" prepared for the devil and his demons along with those who reject Jesus.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Pet. 5:12-14; 2 Pet. 1:1-3:18

1 Peter

Hebrews was the last of Paul's letters and we now return to the ministry of Peter. 1 and 2 Peter were written to the churches of Asia Minor just before his execution under the Roman Emperor Nero. His purpose was to encourage these believers to live out their salvation even amidst all the persecution Christians were experiencing at that time in history.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Peter 2:4-5:11

Hall of Faith

Hebrews chapter 11 is the famous "Hall of Faith', chronicling the lives of some of the heroes of the Old Testament. As stated in the title of the letter, this is clearly an appeal to the Jewish people, harkening back to their forefathers and to their times of trial in the desert. The author reminds the people of the need to regard the Lord with awe and reverence...a holy fear. This is a lesson that the church could stand to hear today, as we have drifted too far to the "Jesus is my friend" extreme, forgetting that "our God is a devouring fire". He is not a shifting shadow. He is the same God who was revealed in the Old Testament. The New Testament, and specifically Jesus, simply reveals more of Him. It does not negate what we already know. We are to love the Lord but also to fear Him. Doesn't parenting work best this way? One of either extreme...too much love (permissiveness) or too much fear (authoritarianism) is unhealthy. But when both aspects work together, a healthy relationship exists. So it is with the Lord.

Tomorrow's reading: Heb. 13:1-25; 1 Peter 1:1-2:3

Christ as Fulfillment of Old Testament Covenant

Today's reading was an excellent explanation of the way that the New Covenant (salvation through the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross) fulfills the Old (sanctification by way of substitutionary animal sacrifice). Without the foreshadowing of the sacrificial system for restoring fellowship with God broken due to sin, Jesus' death on the cross makes no sense. But the Hebrews were primed to make the connection between death and atonement and to appreciate the "once for all" sacrifice of Christ that eliminated the need for constant atonement.

Jesus also eliminated the need for a High Priest, who was the mediator between God and the people. Only he could enter the Most Holy Place to offer sacrifices on the day of atonement. The people had no direct access to God until the day of Christ's death on the cross when the Temple veil separating the Holy of Holies was torn in two. This symbolized the new access that believers would have to God since they would be considered forever righteous before Him because of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Believers are no longer "unclean" or unworthy to approach the throne of God. Jesus is our High Priest in Heaven and He intercedes on our behalf, but we take our needs straight to the throne of God rather than through an earthly priest. Jesus is known as a priest in the order of Melchizedek because Melchizedek was not a true Hebrew priest according to the Law, for he was not of the tribe of Levi. But the Bible makes clear the fact that he was a priest of the one, true God and Abraham offered sacrifices to him. Like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a Levite but was of the tribe of Judah.

Tomorrow's reading: Heb. 11:1-12:29

Can Christians Lose Salvation?

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a highly scrutinized passage of Scripture, because it has been interpreted as one that affirms "loss of salvation" for back-sliders (Christians who have fallen away from the faith). This is in direct conflict with many other passages of Scripture that assure believers that "nothing can separate us from the love of God" (Romans 8:38-39) and "nothing can snatch us out of the Father's hands"(John 10:28-30). This is an enormous doctrine as it relates to our eternal security and bears heavily on the doctrine of salvation by grace as opposed to works. If we can lose of salvation, then the obvious implication is that our salvation must be merit-based and continually reassessed. There are a few denominations within the Christian church that hold to this belief, but most do not. So if we reject the teaching that salvation can be lost, how do we interpret the phrase "it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who have once been enlightened..."?

Some Christians would argue that this passage does not refer to believers but to those who appeared to be Christians but were never truly Spirit-filled believers. They were 'enlightened" (heard the gospel message), "experienced the good things of heaven" (enjoy the Christian life and fellowship), "tasted the goodness of the Word and power of the Spirit" (sampled the Bible and witnessed the Spirit within the church). Some maintain that these descriptions do not necessarily reveal salvation, but instead allude to someone who is 'trying" Christianity for a while, much like the seed that fell among the rocks, that sprung up quickly but had no root and died. In this interpretation then, the back-sliders are really people who looked like Christians but never were, and therefore no "loss of salvation" is at stake. Rather, the implication is that anyone who comes this close to knowing God and still chooses to walk away, has no hope for repentance. What else can be done for a person of free will who has already seen, heard, tasted, and experienced the goodness of God and yet still rejects Him?

True Christians persevere in their faith to the end, so those who do not, are not true Christians. But whichever way this verse is interpreted, those who "fall away" are not those who merely stumble in their walks, of which all Christians will be guilty. Rather, the people referred to are those who persist in unrepentant rebellion against God. The author seems to be genuinely concerned about this possibility for the Hebrews. The warning is meant for those who make professions of faith and later reveal no fruit of salvation and to the contrary, display fruits of a "bad" tree. Is therefore a profession of faith, though initially genuine, (or seemingly so), sufficient against later apostasy? The Bible says no, with the only debatable aspect being whether or not the apostate was ever saved in the first place.

How can we know we are really saved? We need to "examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith", as Paul recommended in 2 Corinthians 13:5. The gigantic handbook of Biblical doctrine "Systematic Theolgy", lists three areas to question...

1) "Do I today trust in Christ for my salvation?"
2) "Is there evidence of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in my heart?"
3) "Do I see a long-term pattern of growth in my life?"

Tomorrow's reading: Heb. 8:1-10;39

Christ Greater Than the Angels

The author of Hebrews, (unidentified but probably Paul, Barnabas, or Apollos), goes to great lengths to emphasize Christ's superiority to angels. This may have been done in response to at least one of the early church's (Colosse) practice of worshipping angels and praying to them. Even in our day, we are very attracted to angels, albeit our man-made idea of what an angel is. We like to think of angels as young, beautiful women with long flowing hair, willowy robes, halos,ethereal wings, etc. etc. But what does the Bible have to say about angels?

Angels are created beings, brought into existence at some point during creation week. There are an innumerable amount of them, though 1/3 of their number, according to the interpretation of Revelation 12:4, 9, were cast out of heaven along with Satan. The angels have three purposes noted in Scripture...messengers, guardians, and worshippers. There exists a rank and order among angels, with Michael noted as the "archangel". Before Satan was Satan, he was known as Lucifer, and was an angel of the highest ranking.

The most common misconception regarding angels, is that people become angels after death. We like to think of our loved ones as angels watching over us, but there is no Scriptural support for this. Humans are actually elevated above the angels in Heaven, though it is said that we become "like the angels" in death.

Another common misconception has to do with their appearance. As stated perviously, we typically think of angels as very calming, serene, ethereal beings. But if this were true, why would everyone who encounters an angel tremble in fear? Angels are depicted as spiritual warriors engaged in constant battle with the forces of evil. They are warriors and evidently have quite the commanding presence. Furthermore, we picture angels as women as a rule, but the only angels mentioned by name are men... Michael and Gabriel.

Tomorrow's reading; Heb. 4:14-7:28

Inspiration of Scripture

2 Timothy 3:16 states that "all Scripture is inspired (literal translation "breathed out") by God..." Does this mean that the Bible is without error? Does this mean that only the original manuscripts were without error? Does this mean that the Bible is without error in regard to doctrine but not necessarily to historical facts? These are some of the varied positions on this issue among the Protestant and Catholic churches. I have copied an explanation of the debate from an article on blueletterbible.com...


There are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible – inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably.

These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books?

The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy
When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.

Inerrancy Means There Are No Errors Whatsoever
The term inerrancy is more recent. While some Christians used inerrancy and infallible interchangeably they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that contradict. Infallibility deals more with ones personal knowledge of the Lord while inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture. Infallibility is the broader term. For example, one who believes in inerrancy will also believe in infallibility. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true.

There are those who argue that the Bible can contains errors of fact while still accomplishing its purpose – to bring humanity into a relationship with God. They see no problem trusting the Bible as the final standard of authority on all matters of faith and practice though it may contain some errors. However, others think the idea of an infallible but not inerrant Bible is something that is nonsensical.

Of course, what we believe about the reliability of Scripture will have a big impact on how vigorously we apply its' contents to our lives. It is true that there are "problem texts" for which scholars can only speculate solutions, but this is a minute percentage of the text as a whole. It is dangerous to abandon the doctrine of inerrancy over a few unanswered issues and actually quite arrogant to assume that when the Bible presents a challenge to our understanding, that it is the Bible, and not our own limitations, at fault!

Tomorrow's reading:: 2 Tim. 4:19-22; Heb. 1:1-413

Titus

This short letter was composed for the purpose of instructing and encouraging Titus. Titus was one of Paul's young missionary companions and was one of is converts. He was a Greek from Antioch who accompanied Paul on his third missionary journey. At the time of this letter, Paul was imprisoned in Rome and had dispatched Titus to resolve dissension in the Cretan church.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Tim. 2:1-4:18

Instructions for the Church

Save for one tiny verse (5:23), nothing raised an eyebrow in today's passages. But 5:23 is Paul's recommendation that Timothy stop drinking only water and have a little wine for his stomach. In the ancient world, the beneficial effects of alcohol against "dyspeptic complaints, as a tonic, and as counteracting the effects of impure water' were widely known. Modern medicine confirms the value of alcohol in such medicinal cases. Earlier in this letter, Paul warned Timothy about false teachers who would say that "it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods", (4:3). Perhaps Timothy had fallen under some legalistic teaching that absolute abstention from alcohol was required in order to be a "good Christian" and Paul was releasing him from that bondage so that his sickness might be relieved. Paul qualified his advice with the words "a little alcohol", which indicates that he did not advocate drunkenness. This is also clear from other instructions in the letter to deacons and elders who should not be "heavy drinkers". This is another example of how Christians need to concern themselves not with the letter of the law but the spirit therein.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Tim. 6:11-21; Titus 1:1-3:15; 2 Tim. 1:1-3:18

1 Timothy

There was probably one section of 1 Timothy that grabbed your attention, especially if you are a woman. Verses 2:9-15 dictate instructions for orderly worship, specifically as it relates to the role of women in the church. The initial verses deal with women needing to dress appropriately and to derive their beauty not from outward appearance but from their actions. No problem there. Verses 11-15 get more dicey as Paul restricts the role of women in the church in that they should not "teach men or have authority over them". This is an outgrowth of the hierarchy within the family that God established with men as heads of household. This does not negate the ministry of women but limits the authority of women. We have already established that women were integral partners in the early church...Lydia hosted a house church, Phoebe was a deaconess, many women were considered prophetesses, and Jesus had a loyal following of women. The status they were afforded in the early church was unprecedented at that time. Still, they had a role very distinct from that of the man, including certain limitations. this does not make women less valuable within the church body. They simply have different responsibilities. Similarly, only women bear children, but this does not make them more important in the home nor diminish the value of fathers. They simply have a different role from men. Paul's instruction that women remain silent in worship is curious because in another of his books (1 Corinthians) he outlines the process by which women should pray and prophesy in the church. So he can't have meant that they should be literally mute. The meaning must have been centered on having a submissive (quiet) demeanor, not attracting attention to themselves. Conservative and liberal theologians differ on their opinion as to whether or not these verses were culturally and historically specific or mandates for all time.

As for the statement that women would be saved through childbearing, I read that this is the single most debated text in the Bible! So why don"t I take a stab at it, eh? The overriding theme of all of Paul's writings is a clear message that works do not save, so it is impossible to think that he literally meant that women would be saved by the mere act of giving birth. The strongest possibility for interpretting this odd statement, is that Paul meant that women who accepted their role in the home were pointing themselves toward salvation as opposed to women who rebelled against their God-given role. The statement is qualified by the phrase "assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty". Thus it is clear that salvation comes from a right heart. Accepting God's design for the hierarchy of men and women put women closer to that right heart.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Tim. 3:1-6:10

James

There were many men named James referenced in the New Testament, so it is not certain which James is the author. Most scholars believe that the author was James, the brother of Jesus, who was converted after Christ's resurrection. His letter was written to the Jews and is best known for it's wisdom regarding justification. Simply put, James contended that while deeds cannot save a person, anyone with out deeds (bearing external evidence of internal relationship with Jesus) is not saved. You cannot really love God and look nothing like Him! The remainder of the book is a practical guide to Christian living. "James" has been called the "wisdom book" of the New Testament, likening it to the book of Proverbs in the Old.

Tomorrow's reading: James 4:1-5:20; 1 Tim. 1:1-2:15

Phillipians

This letter was also written while Paul was under house arrest in Rome. It was meant as an encouragement to one of the first churches founded in Europe at Phillipi of Macedonia. The church began in the home of Lydia, the merchant of purple cloth mentioned in the book of Acts. Phillippians is noted as the most tender of Paul's epistles and contains great spiritual insight, none of which needs to be elaborated on by me!

Tomorrow's reading: James 1:1-3:18

Philemon

Fitting that a letter to a master (Philemon) regarding his runaway slave (Onesimus) should follow Paul's instructions regarding slavery! Onesimus was apparently a runaway slave who had had a change of heart, presumably after spending time with Paul in prison and learning about Jesus. He was returning to his master, either of his own volition or Paul's strong recommendation, and the letter was to ensure that he was received as a "beloved brother". Paul was appealing to Christian morality, which is what eventually brought down the institution of slavery.

Tomorrow's reading: Phil. 2:12-4:23

Submission

The word for "submit" has no alternate meaning in the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. It means exactly what we think it means. We resist it as women because in keeping with our human nature, we want to feel powerful, independent, and important. Submission, however, does not rob us of any of those things. It is simply God's plan for order and unity in marriage. We submit to authority in countless other ways without question...employers, parents, our government, but have our heels dug in regarding submission to our husbands. Without leadership, there is no productivity...only chaos. How would a business or nation function without leaders? It would be an impossible mess. The same is true in the home. Parents have authority over their children and husbands have authority over their wives. God set it up that way, so I don't need to waste effort reinventing the wheel nor do I need to be frustrated with the arrangement. God is God, it is what it is, and the faster I reconcile it in my mind, the happier my home life will be. As a casual observation, have marriages and family life improved since" Women's Liberation" took hold in the 1960s? Of course not. The family was designed to work under the leadership of a Godly man. Key word...Godly.

Submission should never equate to an abuse of power. Paul's instructions to husbands is far more selfless and loving than what he asks of women. We are to show our husbands respect and defer to their leadership. They are to love us sacrificially, using Christ and His sacrificial death as a template!

Paul also addresses the submission of slaves. Reading his instructions that slaves should submit to their masters is disconcerting because we would rather Paul speak against slavery! However, we have a different image regarding slavery than what was occurring at this time. Our opinions about slavery are based on what we know of slavery in our country, but slavery in the Roman era was commonly a means of voluntary employment. I found the following description of the conditions of slavery in an online article...

Roman slavery corresponded most closely to contract employment in our day. Slaves were hard laborers, educators, personal advisors; they filled all occupational niches. Sometimes people sold themselves into slavery in order to pay off debts (this situation is depicted in the New Testament), and sometimes people saved up money to buy their own freedom (Paul commended slaves who did this).

Slaves were legally part of the family, although on a secondary level. The law required masters to provide their slaves with food, clothing, and shelter. There were legal penalties for mistreating slaves (although we might think them inadequate, they did exist). We think of slaves living in leaky shacks in the fields, but in Roman days, slaves lived in the house with the family, but not permanently, because if the master died, the family remained, but the slaves had to go. If a master fell on financial hard times, he had to sell or free the slaves; and if he freed the slaves, he was legally responsible to make sure that they could make a go of it in the world. A slave who had spent his whole life tutoring people in philosophy might need to be taught the realities of the marketplace and be trained in a trade, for example.

There were incidents of slave rebellions for better working conditions, there were incidents where slaves begged not to be freed, there were incidents when slaves defended their masters the same way you or I might defend our employers so that we can keep our jobs. The New Testament epistle to Philemon is interesting in this context. In many cases, if a slave were a trusted friend and companion and had a good sense for business, he would be adopted as a son, because under the legal system, sons inherently possessed the power of attorney of their fathers and could conduct business on their behalf. Adopting a capable slave as your son was a quick but expensive way of acquiring a good and loyal business manager, and it was by no means an uncommon event.

I am sure that there were other instances of slavery that were not voluntary, but the form of slavery mentioned above was common and I believe it was to this group of slaves that Paul was appealing. In that regard, he was simply instructing slaves and masters as employees and employers.

Tomorrow's reading: Philemon 1:1-25; Phillipians 1;1-2:11

The Pre-existence of Christ

As we transitioned into Colossians, let verses 15-20 soak in. We tend to think of Jesus as coming on the scene as a baby in a manger, but He has been around since creation. He is not a New Testament construct. He was not spoken of in the Old Testament by name because no one knew Him by name, but they knew He was to come. What they may not have understood is that He already was. Reread the Genesis account of creation, specifically verse 2:26. "Let us make man in our own image". Who was He talking to? Jesus. In fact, God speaks of Himself in a plural sense on several occasions in the Bible. He was not alone. So the manger was not the beginning of jesus. Just the beginning of Jesus in human form.


- - " Come near to Me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent Me. So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I am Jehovah your God who teaches you to profit, who leads you by the way that you should go. "
(Isa 48:16-17)
- - "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness."
(Gen 1:26)
- - "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil."
(Gen 3:22)
- - "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they cannot understand one another's speech. "
(Gen 11-7)
- - "And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us? "
(Isa 6:8)

Tomorrow's reading: Col. 1:24-4:18

Christian Living

I think today's reading can best be summed up by Paul's charge in verse 4:1 when he says to Christians, "I beg you to live a life worthy of your calling". The remainder of this section listed bullet points on how to achieve this "worthy" lifestyle. Our lives should not look like those of the non-believing world around us nor should they resemble our own lives before salvation. The book of James tells us that "faith without deeds is dead", meaning that a professed Christian who bears no external resemblance to Christ, is probably not a true believer at all. Our lives should be a reflection of our hearts, and if we do not act like someone who is in love with the God of the universe, the logical conclusion is that we are not. None of us will do so perfectly, but all of us should bear an increasing resemblance to the One we claim to follow.

Tomorrow's reading: 5:15-6:24; Col. 1:1-23

Paul Writes from Prison

There was an interesting question posed a few weeks back regarding Paul's ability to send letters from prison. Honestly, I had never questioned it, but the question is a great one. In case you missed the response I posted, here is the answer...

While in Jerusalem, Paul offended the Pharisees and was brought before the Sanhedrin (the official Jewish court). In the midst of his trial, a plot was hatched to ambush and kill him, but the plot was exposed and he was transferred to Caesarea for his protection. Caesarea was the Roman headquarters for that region. Paul was imprisoned for two years in Caesarea, mired in the Roman judicial system, before being extradited to Rome at his request. To avoid trial in Jerusalem, he exercised his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to Caesar. While in Rome, he was kept under house arrest by a Roman guard for two years. It was during this imprisonment that Paul wrote the bulk of his epistles...Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Phillipians. he was able to receive visitors and it would have been Paul's associates that delivered his letters for him. His imprisonment was non-traditional, which is what enabled him to minister to the church. Remember too, that as a Roman citizen Paul had rights that afforded him more humane treatment than a non-Roman prisoner would have received. And he seemed to find favor with this jailers, which could have contributed to the freedoms he enjoyed while under house arrest.

Tomorrow's reading: Eph. 3:1-5:14

Paul's Shipwreck

I have a particular fear of drowning, so am struck by the trust that these sailors put in Paul and his God. Though the experienced seamen wanted to abandon ship, Paul had heard from the Lord that they needed to remain aboard. Think of the respect he must have had from these men, that they were willing to gamble on his relationship with God, and cut loose the ropes to the lifeboat. The Bible does not say that anyone else knew the Lord or sought his guidance. But Paul had evidently presented himself as the "real deal" over the two years that he had been imprisoned, and his commander readily believed that he had a word from the Lord that could be trusted. Paul was an authentic Christian> Then and now, authenticity carries alot of weight with non-believers who are always watching our lives.

Tomorrow's reading: Acts 28:1-31; Eph. 1:1-2:22

Paul's Trial

Much like the trial of Jesus, Paul aggravated the Pharisees who turned the case over to the Roman governor because it was not within their jurisdiction to sentence him. And as with Jesus, the Roman authorities could find no fault in him so the Pharisees were forced to assert charges similar to the charge of insurrection brought against Jesus. They insisted that Paul was a troublemaker who was inciting riots throughout the empire. Though Jesus had been silent before His accusers, Paul gave a defense. Before two governors and a king, he was found innocent of any charge worthy of the death penalty that the Pharisees sought. Even so, he languished in prison for over two years waiting to move through the proper channels. He averted an ambush by the Jews on two occasions and in tomorrow's reading, will be extradited to Caesar at his own request.

Tomorrow's reading: Acts 27:1-44

Paul's Trials and Thorn

We have already discussed both of these previously, so no need to add any commentary. Forgive me for being so late on my posts.  I got a little behind over Thanksgiving and am now in Vegas with JD for the NASCAR banquet, where our hotel is experiencing difficulties with wireless coverage. My opportunities to update are scarce until Sunday, but keep reading!

Tomorrow's reading:  Acts 20:13-21:36

Generous Giving

Paul describes a new set of guidelines for giving in this chapter. The Old Testament mandate was to tithe 10% of income. In the spirit of New Testament freedom from the Law, Paul emphasizes the heart of the giver instead of the amount. We are commanded as New Testament Christians to give eagerly, generously, and in accordance with what we have. Should this be more or less than the 10% required by the Law?  In every way, the New Testament raises the bar for believers. The Law said "do not commit adultery" but the New Testament takes it to the next level by saying that if you look upon a woman with lust, you have committed adultery in your heart. The  Law said " do not commit murder", but the New Testament added that if we say to our brother "you fool", we are just as guilty.  And though free from dietary laws, Paul instructs New Testament Christians to refrain from consuming anything that might cause a weaker believer to stumble. From these examples, it is clear that the New Testament expectation was to obey not the letter of the Law but the spirit of the Law.  In other words, meeting the minimum legal requirement was replaced by going above and beyond what was intended...and doing so out of love. So with regard to our giving, we can safely assume that the 10% tithe is the minimum legal requirement and one that we are expected to go above and beyond in the spirit of generous, as opposed to required, giving. There is nothing in the New Testament that speaks to any particular dollar amount or percentage.  We are simply told to be generous and cheerful givers. Some in the faith ignore the command to tithe, dismissing it as an aspect of the Law from which we have been freed.  While this is technically true, a heart that is committed to Christ and His kingdom, will give freely. More commonly of course, Christians do not tithe simply because they don't want to. I wish I could reference this information, but I heard in a sermon once that if all Christians tithed, just the basic tithe, we would not have poverty or hunger of any kind. In the name of "freedom" or in the interest of self, we have abandoned the charge to sacrifice for the benefit of others. Some quick Internet research revealed that approximately just 5% of Christian households tithe...

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Cor. 11:1-13:14; Acts 20:7-12

Persecution

We know that Christians at this time in history endured great persecution, as this was the era of the gladiators and the practice of throwing Christians to the lions.  So when Paul speaks of being stoned, whipped, beaten, imprisoned, hunted, and slandered...this is the context. Though we do not face persecution of this sort, we should be encouraged by his example of contentment and joy despite his circumstances.

Parting Words for the Romans

I enjoyed reading Paul's acknowledgements of fellow believers. Reading all the names gives real credence to the fact that these were actual people living out actual lives in history. Of special interest is the fact that Paul lists many women. While the Bible has been criticized for it's subjugation of women, the truth is that New testament writers elevated the position of women far beyond what was customary in that time and culture. Women were not educated, even in matters of religion, and were consider inferior to men. That Paul mentions serving alongside many women and praises their usefulness to the church, is extraordinary. He speaks often of Priscilla, wife of Aquila, who is always listed first within the pair. He speaks of Phoebe, a deaconess in a house church, and mentions by name several other women respected by the apostles. In another of Paul's letters, he will deal with the specific roles for women in the church, but in this letter, in a general sense, Paul bestows great and uncommon value upon women.

Tomorrow's reading: 2 Cor. 2:5-6:13

God's Plan for Israel

Israel was raised up by God for a fourfold purpose... (1) to witness to the unity of God in the midst of universal idolatry and polytheism, (2) to illustrate to the nations the blessedness of serving the one true God, (3) to receive, preserve, and transmit the Scriptures, (4) and to be the human channel for the Messiah. God's hand was upon them as they fumbled their way through their mission. When the Israelites ultimately rejected the Messiah, their unbelief cost them their favored relationship with God. Paul describes Israel in the context of an olive tree and likens the nation to a branch that has been broken off due to unbelief. The Gentiles are described as branches that have ben grafted in in their place, because the Gentiles did believe in the Messiah. Verses 11:20-22 speak to the possibility that the Gentiles as a group, not as individual believers, could just as easily be "cut off" from the Lord as the Israelites have been. This is not a verse that can be used to support the idea that salvation can be lost because Paul is not talking about individual believers or about salvation. He is speaking of the privilege of being favored and used by God, which is the current status of the Gentiles. Evangelism is not happening through the Jews in the church age, but God will reclaim them and use them once again. According to verse 11:25-26, when the "full number of Gentiles comes to Christ", Israel will be saved. The verse actually says "all Israel will be saved" but this does not mean automatic salvation for everyone of Jewish descent but that the hope of salvation will return to the Jewish nation as a whole. In essence, God will "graft the original branches back into the tree where they belong".

Tomorrow's reading: Romans 15:1-16:27; 2 Cor. 1:1-2:4

Predestination or Free Will?

Tucked into the verses of today's reading can be found Scriptural support for both sides of the predestination/free will debate. Romans 8:29-30 says that "God knew His people in advance and he chose them...and having chosen them, he called them.." while Romans 10:13 says "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'. The former is used to support the doctrine of election, whereby God, before creation, chooses some people to be saved. The latter supports free will, which asserts that people voluntarily choose to reject or accept the gift of salvation.

Though this is not an issue on which salvation rests, it is one significant enough to bring about divisions in the church. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, would hold polar opposite views. The truth of the matter is that both doctrines exist in Scripture. Scattered throughout the Bible are the terms, "elect", "chosen", "called", "predestined", but verses like "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life" are undeniable. Both doctrines exist, Paul alludes to both, and yet does not explain how they fit together. Based on our individual upbringing or our own preconceived notions of how God "ought" to author salvation, we may find one of these doctrines unpalatable. But we must reconcile the fact that both doctrines are well documented in Scripture and therefore, must co-exist. We probably won't understand until heaven how this is possible, but as Paul writes in Romans 9:20, "Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?". I sure wouldn't fall on my sword for either one, and ultimately, this is not an issue relevant to our salvation.

it is however, an issue relevant to evangelism, for it has great bearing on our burden to share the gospel with the lost. If we believe in free will, the mandate to the Great Commission is obvious. But if we believe that God has chosen only a select few and that He is responsible for calling them to Himself, what is the motivation for evangelism? Even if we accept the previous proposal as truth, we are not absolved of the imperative to witness to the lost. Even if God knows who will be saved, we do not and must therefore witness to everyone lest we miss the opportunity to be used in His pursuit of unbelievers. In other words, even if the "elect" exist, we do not know who they are and must share the gospel with everyone to ensure that God's chosen ones are reached. With this in mind, it becomes fairly unimportant whether or not we understand how sinners are saved. Our job is clear and we must simply trust that God has worked out the details that so confound us at the present.

Tomorrow's reading:Romans 11:1-14:23

Purpose of the Law

Continuing with Paul's train of thought, if the Law cannot offer salvation, what was the point of it in the first place? According to Romans 7:7-13, it's purpose was to reveal our sin. The Law shows us where we miss the mark of holiness. And our inability to keep the Law, shows us how badly we need another plan of salvation. We won't seek a Savior unless we see our need for one...

Tomorrow's reading: Romans 8:18-10:21

Saved by Faith

If general revelation cannot offer salvation, what can? Paul lays it out in today's reading. Salvation comes not by keeping the Law but by faith in God and His Son. Paul uses Abraham as an example, as his faith was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham believed God when he was asked to pack up and move to a land he'd never seen before (Canaan). And he believed God when He said He'd make Abraham into a great nation with numerous descendants, even though he was then a childless old man. And he believed God when he was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar. He was willing to go through with it because he reasoned that God could bring him back from the dead. All of these things showed Abraham's faith. As Paul said, "he was fully convinced that God is able to do whatever He promises".

Abraham was not made right with God by his observance of the Law. Did you realize that chronologically, Abraham lived before the Law was even given? His example illustrates the faith-based relationship as opposed to works-based religion. Every religion besides Christianity requires adherance to certain practices to earn salvation. Christianity requires only trust in God's promise of salvation in Jesus. As with Abraham, He wants us to believe His promises, and He has told us that salvation is ours just by believing in the One sent to offer it!

If you have been thinking that you could earn salvation by being "good enough" or serving enough or attending church often enough or putting enough money in the offering plate, you are not in right standing with God. You are trying to fit a square peg (works-based religion) into a round hole (faith-based relationship)! Good works will be an outpouring of our love and trust in God and his Son, as "faith without works is dead". This means that a Christian who bears no fruit is probably not a Christian at all. Conversely, works without faith is also dead. Remember the verse from Matthew 7 where Jesus cautioned, "on judgement day, many will say to me 'Lord, Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name', but I will reply 'I never knew you...'". Regardless of the number of good things we do, if Jesus does not "know" us (if he does not have our hearts), we do not spend eternity with Him.

Tomorrow's reading: Rom. 5:1-8:17

General Revelation

In Romans 1:19-20, Paul presents a peek at a major doctrine of the faith and one that is the subject of much concern. As a Christian sharing your faith, have you ever been asked, "what about the man in the bush in Africa...does he have a chance to know God?". At the heart of this question is "Is God fair?". This is one of the most popular arguments against Christianity so I cannot hope to boil it down to a blog entry, but Paul, in two short verses, gets the ball rolling. What he refers to is God's "general revelation" of Himself in creation. Because of the beauty and complexity of the universe, it should be obvious to man that a Creator is responsible. General revelation also includes that which God has placed in our hearts; for example moral law: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14-15).

This evidence allows man no excuse for not knowing God. But does this mean that everyone should inherently know Jesus as well? No. Jesus was revealed in what is known as "special revelation". While God can be known without anyone drawing attention to Him, people must be told about Jesus. That is the purpose of the Great Commission. General revelation paves the way for the gospel but does not have the power to offer salvation.

Tomorrow's reading: Romans 2:1-4:25

Spiritual Gifts

Paul's concern in addressing this topic with the Corinthian church, was that they were actively seeking the gift of tongues at the expense of other, more necessary, gifts. Perhaps the ability to speak in tongues carried more prestige and rendered a person more "spirit filled" than others. I am not certain to what degree, but know that this is true of the modern-day Pentecostal church. They seek the gift of tongues as they deem it evidence of the baptism of the Spirit. It seems that in the church at Corinth, members were so eager to display their gift of tongues that worship became disorderly. Perhaps a show of one-upsmanship ensued. Paul reasoned that since God was a God of order and not of chaos, the cacophany of sounds was not pleasing to Him nor beneficial to the church. Paul's additional point was that there are many spiritual gifts and that all are necessary within the body of believers. God apportions them out in accordance with each person's talents and aptitude. Paul suggested that if one were to seek a gift, one should look to a gift that would be more helpful to the church, since speaking in tongues (unless an interpreter is present) is unintelligible to all involved. By definition, speaking in tongues means that the language used is unknown to the speaker, whether that be a foreign language or a non-existent one. An utterance of tongues therefore, would edify only the speaker. But the gift of prophecy, he offered, would be of benefit to the entire church.

Because It was revealed on a spiritual gifts test that JD has the gift of prophecy, I know what Paul is referring to. I have certainly never known JD to predict a future event, which is what I formerly associated with prophecy, (and rightly so according to the Old Testament). But the New Tsetament meaning has more to do with the ability to give "words of wisdom" or "words of knowledge". It is debatable whether or not this gift is the result of specific revelation from the Lord or the general accumulation of wisdom in ordinary life. I can tell you that in JD's case, it is definitely the latter...

And speaking of JD, Paul began his comments on spiritual gifts with a passage sung at our wedding, and probably at more than half of yours as well... 1 Cor. 13. The summation is that regardless of the spiritual gift one possesses, it is meaningless without love as it's undercurrent. Once again, the emphasis of the New Testament is on the content of our hearts and not our actions.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Cor. 16:1-24; Acts 19:21-41, 20:1-6; Romans 1:1-32

Propriety in Communal Worship

As I read the instructions regarding head coverings for women, I wondered why we don't observe that command today? I also wondered what the reason behind the command was, as this is a practice far removed from our modern culture.

Though there are certainly churches today that believe this to be currently applicable, most commentaries I read agreed that this passage held cultural relevance but not universal significance. In like fashion, the instruction to "greet all the brethren with a Holy Kiss" is obsolete, as is Jesus command to the first evangelists to "take an extra pair of sandals". These practices are obsolete but the principles are to be followed today (we should warmly greet our brothers and sisters in Christ and we should be prepared to go the extra mile to share the gospel).

So, what is the principle behind the head covering? For women in that day, appearing unveiled would have been disrespectful to her husband. It would have been viewed as a rebellion against the "natural order" as pertaining to the roles of men and women. In other words, it would have been tantamount to a declaration of rebellion against her God-given place in creation. An unveiled woman in our culture does not make the same statement. A woman is still expected to respect and submit to her husband (a topic for another day), which is the principle. But the practice looks different today. We show our respect and submission by our words and our attitude. Because women did not have as much of a "voice" as we do today, they showed their respect not with words but in their appearance.

We can assume that Paul was addressing the Corinthians on this topic because they were violating it in some way. Given that they were chastised with regard to abusing their Christian "freedoms", it is likely that they were ignoring the rules of propriety and causing chaos and confusion in the process. He seems most concerned with preserving the Biblical hierarchy between men and women (also part of that "topic for another day" category), which would have been blurred by women rebelling against the custom of head coverings. As with the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols, Paul does not impose Scriptural imperatives but rather cultural norms to form his position. This is because there is nothing inherently shameful about a woman without a head covering, and yet the message that it sent, in that day and time, was destructive to the expansion of the church.

In the same way, Paul mentions the significance of women keeping long hair and men wearing it short. The length of hair also reflected order and hierarchy, as it was considered "unnatural" if these norms were not adhered to. In fact, prostitutes wore shorter hairstyles and women found guilty of adultery were forced to cut their hair off. A woman's hair was her "pride and joy" and to be stripped of it was to bring shame upon herself.

Neither of these societal norms have any meaning to us, therefore observing the custom would be unnecessary. Many people want to dismiss other Biblical commands that are unpopular by ascribing the same logic...that the mandates are no longer relevant to us today. Premarital sex, homosexuality, and divorce are good examples of condemned practices that many Christians today want to ignore as outdated. Of course, this is a very slippery slope and ultimately a means to justify sin. The difference between these examples and the head covering issue, is that one regards a "practice" while the others deal with "principle".

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Cor. 14:1-15:58

Consideration for Weaker Believers

Another issue in the Corinthian church was the fact some of them were routinely eating food sacrificed to idols. There were no shortage of false gods to worship under the Roman empire and food sacrificed to idols would have been readily available. So what to do in such circumstances was a valid concern. While Paul agreed that there was nothing inherently wrong with the food and consuming it would have no bering on one's standing before the Lord, attention should be paid to the impact of eating such things on "weaker believers". A weaker believer is anyone of lesser spiritual maturity, either due to the amount of time in the faith or the amount of effort (Bible study, prayer, worship, fellowship with other believers, service, etc.) put forth. New Jewish converts would have been steeped in laws against eating food sacrificed to idols. This practice, while perfectly acceptable under Christian freedom from the Law, would have offended them and in the process, "stained" their perception of Christianity. Or it may cause them to do something contrary to their own conscience, simply by virtue of seeing someone else do it. This does not even take into account the impact on unbelievers, who may have been so offended as to immediately disassociate with believers engaged in this behavior, thereby cutting themselves off from the gospel. So Paul's contention is that believers should "be careful that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak".

Eating food sacrificed to idols is not relevant in our culture, but a modern-day parallel would be drinking alcohol. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol, as the practice appears throughout Scripture with Jesus and the disciples partaking on occasion. Baptists would argue that the wine of that day was of a much lower alcohol content, therefore rendering it nowhere near what we drink today. Nonetheless, Jesus drank wine which really "bottom-lines" it. . As clear as that is, it is also clear that believers are not to be drunk. The reasons are obvious and do not merit elaboration. But should believers drink alcohol at all? There are many different viewpoints, but if we use Paul's model of food sacrificed to idols, we can think of drinking alcohol in the same way. Though not wrong from God's perspective, it is something that elicits strong reactions in some people. While we have the freedom to drink alcohol, it is not always beneficial to those around us. Might it offend them and therefore damage our Christian witness? Might it cause them to follow our example against their own consciences? Might that "freedom" confuse them in regard to other areas were they may have convictions? These are some of the things Paul had in mind when he referenced "causing them to stumble". Paul would tell us to know our "audience", as the world is always watching us as Christians. We are to put the needs of others, particularly weaker believers and non-believers, before our own.

Feel free to weigh in on this one. I know there are many opinions, and I am merely extrapolating from Scripture to draw a parallel conclusion. This has been an editorial comment! But putting the food sacrificed to idols in a modern context, gives us a better feel for the weight of what Paul was saying to the Corinthians.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Cor. 11:2-12:31a

Tomorrow's reading:

Regulations for Christian living

Two or three years after leaving the church he started in Corinth (an important commercial city in Greece), Paul heard disturbing reports of factions, divisions, spiritual arrogance and sexual misconduct. He wrote this letter of correction and admonishment to restore the church to true worship. In today's reading, he tackled a few touchy subjects that are still hot buttons today...church discipline, disputes between believers, sexual freedom, and mixed marriages between believers and non-believers.

Church discipline: Paul suggests that a man living in sin with his stepmother should be thrown out of the church and handed over to satan. this certainly doesn't sound like something that jives with the Christian doctrine of mercy and forgiveness, but as inspired words of Scripture, must be taken literally. So what is Paul saying? For the health of the church body, overt and rebellious sin in any of it's members cannot be allowed to persist. There are specific steps for handling church discipline outlined by Matthew in chapter 18:15-18. the intent is not punishment but restoration. For someone engaged in rebellious sin who has refused the admonition as described in Matthew, Paul advocates "tough love" as the only available tool remaining. note that he says"hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved". So Paul's heart is definitely in line with the restoration of the fallen believer. He does not advocate the permanent dismissal of such people but the temporary exclusion in hopes that heart change would follow.

Disputes between believers: As with church discipline, Paul suggests a pattern for handling lawsuits between Christians. Ideally, such matters would be handled internally not only because believers should inherently treat one another with fairness and respect, but also because legal disputes reflect poorly on the church. If Christians are nasty to each other, how are we a "city on a hill"? Ultimately, Christians should always have the advancement of the gospel as their primary goal and should not look to their own interests In addition, the social context placed Christians in a great minority (it is estimated that half of 1% of the population of the Roman empire was Christianized at this time). The Roman courts were completely pagan and it would have been most unlikely that Christians would have received favorable outcomes within that system.

Sexual freedom: What was happening in the Corinthian church was a misuse of the "freedom from the law". They were taking the logic that "food is made for the stomach and the stomach for food" and extrapolating that "if my body wants food, I eat and if my body wants sex, i visit a prostitute. What's the big deal? We are not slaves to the law anymore". Paul explains that while we are free to do whatever we want (nothing can separate from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus), not everything we want to do is beneficial for either ourselves or the body of believers. A true worshipper of God would seek to do only those things that will glorify Him.

Mixed marriages: In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, he plainly states "do not be yoked together with unbelievers" (6:14). It is fairly logical why such an arrangement would be less than ideal in marriage. However, Paul was speaking to people who were already married and now found themselves in a 'mixed' marriage due to the conversion of one spouse alone. In these cases, Paul recommended that the couple stay together so that the unbelieving spouse would be sanctified and the children would be holy. Is Paul claiming that the faith of one person can be transferred to the members of his or her household? No. In keeping with the popular truism "God has no grandchildren", everyone must have their own personal relationship with the Lord and cannot ride the coattails of a believing parent or spouse. So what does Paul mean by "sanctifying the unbelieving spouse" and making the children "holy"? Sanctified does not mean saved. It means "to be set apart". That the children of such marriages would be "holy", also does not imply salvation. Rather, the word offers reassurance that these children would not be considered by the Lord to be "unclean" or illegitimate by virtue of the unbelieving parent. Paul's words validated the legitimacy of "mixed" marriages and the children they produced.

Ultimately, Paul encouraged believers to remain in whatever state they were currently in, whether single or married. He elevated neither over the other but did cite his own preference for singleness because of it's compatibility with ministry. Paul took seriously the notion that the Lord would return like a "thief in the night". He lived as one who believed the end was drawing near, which is a model for us to follow. His insistence that single people not concern themselves with marriage nor married people concern themselves with divorce, reflects his belief that there was little time to dwell on such earthly matters.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Cor. 8:1-11:1

1 Corinthians

In today's reading, we found a few more instances of believers who had not received the Spirit. Paul clearly taught that one could not be a Christian unless they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which makes these references to believers receiving the Spirit at a later time perplexing. Were Apollos and the 12 brothers (another translation of "believers") true Christians? If they were believers, then this would be another example of God wanting to display the Spirit in a pronounced, unique way to validate the Spirit's ministry to the infant church. If not, that would explain the lack of the Spirit. It is possible that during this transitional period between Judaism and Christianity, there was some confusion about salvation. True seekers could earnestly believe what they had heard about Jesus without really understanding the full gospel. People were so eagerly sharing the news of Jesus' resurrection that they may have inadvertently passed on a sincere but imperfect form of Christianity due to lack of knowledge. Those who had received John's baptism would have understood it to be an act of repentance from sin, not an invitation to a personal relationship.

My favorite explanation of the purpose of the Holy Spirit was penned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11. He likened the Spirit to the ability to know God's thoughts, which is very, very personal and intimate. NO ONE knows our thoughts but ourselves. We can share our ideas and feelings with others but that will never be the equivalent of being inside our heads and reading our thoughts! But the Holy Spirit is that equivalent! That's how personal the relationship can be! We can know the mind of God when filled with the Spirit, but of course, only to the degree that we tap into it.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Cor. 4:1-7:40

2 Thessalonians

In his second letter to the Thessalonian church, Paul addressed their concern that the end times were upon them and that they had missed the appearing of the Lord. He did not want them to become distracted or deceived by such a notion. To fortify his position, Paul pointed out that the end times would not begin until the "man of lawlessness" had been revealed. At the time of Paul's writing, there was something that restrained the diabolical work of this man of sin. The Roman empire and emperors controlled the world. Christians were protected to some extent by the Roman authorities. Rome looked upon Christianity as an extension of Judaism, and, therefore, considered it as legal. (Any religion that existed when Rome captured a nation was accepted as legal. However, no new religion was allowed into being.) When Rome became aware that Christianity was not a part of Judaism, it was then declared to be illegal. Intense persecution, a la lion's dens and gladiators, sprung forth at that point. But the political climate was not conducive to the rise of such a man at the time of Paul's letter.

But who is the man of lawlessness? We must now consider the various statements Paul makes about him. He is lawless; he is the son of destruction (v3); he exalts himself; he takes his seat in the temple of God (v4); his coming and presence will be accompanied by all power and miracles and false wonders (v9). The Apostle John writes in similar terms of the antichrist, also foretold by the prophet Daniel.

Tomorrow's reading: Acts 18:24-19:20; 1 Cor. 1:1-3:23

1 Thessalonians

The account of Paul's founding of this church is recorded in the seventeenth chapter of Acts. After he and Silas were thrown into prison in Philippi because of their preaching of the Gospel, an earthquake shook down the prison doors and freed the prisoners. Paul was then freed by the Roman magistrates, and he left Philippi and went to Thessalonica. Many of the places where Paul preached have crumbled into ruin, but Thessalonica is still a thriving, bustling metropolis. It was then the capital of Macedonia, but it is now in Greece proper, and is called Thessalonike.

From the account in Acts, we learn that Paul had only been there about three weeks when persecution began and he had to leave the city for his own safety. He went down to Athens and from there he sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to see how these Christians were doing. He was very disturbed about them; he felt that perhaps the persecution they were undergoing would drive them from their faith.

He went on to Corinth where he founded a church after several months of difficult labor. After some time, Timothy returned to him at Corinth, bringing word of how the Thessalonians were doing. The bulk of Paul's letter to them expresses his exhilaration at their thriving faith, but also takes time to address some of their concerns.

Apparently, there was some confusion over what happened to believers after death, as evidenced by Paul's comments in 4:13-5:11. These verses are among the most descriptive in all of Scripture regarding the resurrection of the dead. There is considerable debate on this topic, probably because relatively speaking, there is not alot said about it and therefore room for speculation. The event that Paul describes here is known as the "rapture" and refers to a future time when Jesus will descend from Heaven along with the souls of believers who have passed away. At this time, the souls of believers will be joined with their physical bodies in a glorified, perfected state. They will be different but reminiscent of our earthly bodies and obviously miraculously reconstructed from decay . This is what Paul means when he says "the dead in Christ shall rise first". Believers currently alive at the time of the rapture will not experience death but will be taken up into the clouds, in bodily form, with Jesus immediately. This is not the Second Coming, for Jesus will not actually return to earth to set up His earthly kingdom at that point. There is even more debate about when this will occur, which we will deal with in Revelation if not sooner. But there are four basic elements to eschatology (the study of the end times)...the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennium, and Armageddon. Where the rapture falls in that ordered sequence is hotly disputed.

But Paul's point was not to outline eschatology but to comfort these new believers in their grief over lost loved ones.He wanted them to have peace that their loved ones were in the presence of God, awaiting the resurrection. The Bible does not teach the concept of "soul sleep", in which our souls are unconscious from the moment of death until the resurrection. Nor does it teach an intermediate waiting area. The doctrine of purgatory is not based on our Bible but comes from the Apocrypha, which is a collection of books NOT considered to be inspired Scripture except by the Catholic church. Just as Jesus told the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise", we can rest assured that at the moment of death, our souls go immediately into the presence of the Lord.

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Thess. 5:12-28; 2 Thes. 1:1-3:18; Acts 18:4-23

Paul's Second Missionary Journey

Luke now refers to Saul exclusively by his Greek name, Paul. As a messenger to the Gentiles, the shedding of his Jewish name is quite logical. Regarding the earlier dispute over circumcision for Gentile converts, an official response was issued from the church in Jerusalem. The letter was authored by James, who was the son of Mary and Joseph and therefore Jesus' half-brother. James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and later, the author of the epistle "James". The official position of the church was to ask Gentile converts to adhere to four restrictions, all of which are believed to be linked to pagan worship practices...eating food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, eating meat from strangled animals, and drinking blood. These requirements were intended not only to help new converts cut ties with their pagan observances but also to help them assimilate with Jewish believers. It was also essential for any Christian hoping to witness to Jews, that they not offend their cultural sensibilities. It was for this reason that Paul arranged for the circumcision of Timothy (who was half Greek, half Jew) prior to their missionary journey. The restrictions placed on these Gentile believers by the Jewish Christians should not be viewed as perquisites for salvation, as had been the case with the original dispute over the imposition of circumcision. Instead, it should be viewed as "sensitivity training" in the face of cross-cultural evangelism. It is always incumbent upon Christians to consider the impact of their freedoms on other believers and non-believers. Several Scriptures come to mind..."everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial..." and "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble..." and "do not destroy the work of the Lord for the sake of food". All of these verses get at the heart of what James and Paul were teaching. While there are no legalistic obsesrvances that must precede or accompany our salvation, we must be prepared at any time to surrender that freedom if it is in the best interest of the advancement of the Gospel.

Tomorrow's reading: Acts 17:16-18:3; 1 Thes. 1:1-5:11

Paul's Thorn?

The apostle Paul was burdened by some kind of self-described "thorn in the flesh" and prayed on three occasions that the Lord would remove it. He never says what that thorn is, but a few verses in today's reading have led many scholars to believe that he was afflicted by poor eyesight. In Galatians 4:13-15, Paul recounts how well the Galatian church cared for him when he was sick. Specifically he says, "I am sure you would have taken out your own eyes and given them to me if it had been possible". This could be hyperbole, or a figure of speech, or a literal statement. Later, in Galatians 6:11, Paul writes "SEE WHAT LARGE LETTERS I USE...". Perhaps he could not see well and had to use large script in order to write at all.

Other speculations regarding Paul's thorn in the flesh range from incessant temptation, dogged opponents, chronic maladies (including eye problems as well as malaria, migraine headaches, and epilepsy), to a speech disability. No one can say for sure what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was, but it probably was a physical affliction. He later refers to the thorn as a "messenger of Satan" to keep him from "becoming conceited".

Tomorrow's reading: Acts 15:22-17:15

Galatians

Paul's letter was composed from either Antioch in about 49 AD or Ephesus in about 55 AD. Paul made three visits to Jerusalem, one of which he references in the 2nd chapter of Galatians. the confusion on the dating of the book lies in knowing which of the three trips to Jerusalem had occurred at this time. It is clear from the letter that Paul had stayed in Galatia for some time (having been delayed by illness which will be revealed in tomorrow's reading) and established many churches while there. In his absence however, teachers of the Jewish law had come behind Paul and taught salvation by works, in particular the necessity of keeping the covenant of circumcision. These false teachers had also challenged Paul's authority as an apostle and undermined everything he had taught them about the grace of the gospel message. The central theme of the letter was freedom from the bondage of the law. Paul even called Peter to task for his half-hearted embracing of this freedom when in the presence of the Jews. The saying "old habits die hard" doesn't do justice to how difficult it must have been for devout Jews to shun their reliance on the law.

Tomorrow's reading: Gal. 3:24-6:18; Acts 15:1-21