Resurrection Part 3: Praying

I’ll admit: I would be scared if I saw a resurrection.  Scared by such display of amazing power.  And then I don’t know what I would be.  Would I have unshakable faith?  Would I crave more?  Would I ever be able to not hope again? 

Personally, I’ve only prayed for a resurrection once.  I wasn’t present with the dead person.  I didn’t get called to go over.  I didn’t pray out loud, and I didn’t command anything.  It was this month, and it didn’t “work.”  I found out a friend of mine – who is no more charismatic than I am – was praying for the same thing.  Our hearts cried for it.  Our minds could not make sense of the grief of the situation, and so we found that we are wired for hope.  We’ve both been learning about hope – hard hope.  Perhaps we were both being obedient in asking for something impossible.  Whatever the case, we’re both left wondering what we’re supposed to learn from hopes dashed, delusions denied, death held. 

If we see a resurrection, we cannot help but hope from then on?  Or does it work the other way?  If we ask for a resurrection and don’t get it, can we ever hope again?  

To God be all glory.

Resurrection Part 2: Greater Works than These

At the very end of Jesus’ earthly sojourn, He promised that those who believe in and follow Him will do miracles even greater than those He had been seen to do (John 14:12).  I’m having trouble imagining greater miracles.  But let’s at least agree that bringing dead people back to life should be included in the list of wonders accompanying the preaching of His gospel. 

Peter knew this.  So did the early followers of Jesus.  They believed in a God with unlimited power.  They counted on it, acted on it.  In Acts 9 we read about a disciple named Tabitha.  She got sick and died while Peter was nearby in Lydda.  A group of believers decided to send for Peter.  Two men made the journey.  Peter didn’t hesitate to go with them. 

But what was he thinking?  He’d seen people raised from the dead.  He knew it was possible.  He was filled with the Spirit of God and had just seen a whole city convert because Jesus Christ used him to heal a man named Aeneas.  What would you be thinking if someone came to you because their friend had died? 

When Peter arrived, there were some people mourning.  We probably shouldn’t rebuke them; no promise had been made that Tabitha would be returned to them – unlike Jesus who had plainly told His disciples what would happen.  Peter sent everyone else out of the room, knelt by Tabitha’s washed, lifeless body.  And he prayed.  Then he commanded.  She opened her eyes and got up and was presented to her friends alive.  Simple.  People had seen and touched a dead woman and now spoke with her, continuing to receive her charity. 

To God be all glory. 

Submission or Lording it Over - Greek Word Studies

Comparative Study

between Church/Elders and Wives/Husbands

from Greek New Testament

1. The most common word for how women are to treat their husbands is the word hypotasso (“submit”).  The word is found in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1, 5.  Women are also commanded to be submissive at church gatherings, in 1 Corinthians 14:34. 

There are several instances where hypotasso is used of the Church or applied to all Christians.  They are told to submit to each other, to submit to secular authorities, to God, and to Christ.  Find these references in Ephesians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:13, James 4:7, and Ephesians 5:24.  In one instance, 1 Corinthians 16:15-16, Paul encourages the believers in Corinth to submit to those who labor in ministry to the saints (like the household of Stephanas does).  And younger Christians are told in 1 Peter 5:5 to submit to elder Christians, followed by an admonition for all Christians to submit to each other. 

2. Another word used of how wives should relate to their husbands is kephale (“head”).  The Bible teaches in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 that the man or husband is the head of his wife.  The first passage goes into detail about the significance of and reason for this hierarchy.

Kephale is used frequently for the Church as well.  In all instances, we are taught that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.  Look at Ephesians 1:22, 4:15, and 5:23.  Also see Colossians 1:18. 

3. Women and men are each told to aresko (“please”) each other in marriage.  Paul contrasts this to the devotion available to single people for service to God in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34. 

All Christians are told to seek how they may aresko one another, in Romans 15:1-3. 

4. To spin this in the other direction, husbands are actually told in 1 Peter 3:7 to timé (“give honor to”) their wives [as to the weaker vessel]. 

The Church is instructed to count elders who rule well worthy of double timé.  1 Timothy 5:17 is part of an entire section on the treatment of elders. 

5. Other words for wives’ reverence and obedience to husbands are: hypakouo (“hearken to command”) 1 Peter 3:6; phobeo (“reverence”) Ephesians 5:33; hypotage (“subjecting”) 2 Timothy 2:11.  Women are to philandros (“love”) their own husbands Titus 2:4…  They are not to authenteo (“exercise dominion over”) at church 1 Timothy 2:12; nor do they [or husbands] have exousiazo (“power”) over their own bodies.  Paul says that he does not epitrepo (“permit”) women to speak or have authority over men at church in both 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. 

None of these words are used of elders in the church with the possible exception of exousiazo in Luke 22:25, where the disciples are told not to behave that way towards other disciples. 

6. Other words for how husbands are to treat their wives: synoikeo (“dwell with”); 1 Peter 3:7, sygkleronoimos (“heirs together”); 1 Peter 3:7, agapao (“love”); Ephesians 5:25 and Colossians 3:19.  They are not to pikraino (“embitter”) their wives; Colossians 3:19.  None of these instructions are given to elders or Church leaders. 

7. On the other hand there are many words used for how believers should treat elders and pastors.  I’m giving single-word translations for clarification that are likely to be biased simplifications.  I encourage everyone to look up the words and passages for themselves.  We are to mimeomai (“imitate”) our elders; 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9 and Hebrews 13:7.  We should peitho (“be persuaded”) by them; Hebrews 13:17.  They deserve our hypeiko (“yielding”); also Hebrews 13:17.  We should doubly timé (“honor”) those that do their job well; 1 Timothy 5:17.  Also the church is told to agape (“love”) their elders; 1 Thessalonians 5:13.  These terms are never used of wives towards husbands. 

8. And let us observe two classes of instructions to Church leaders.  The first is how they are told to treat the congregation or “flock.”  Elders are described as hegeomai (“leaders”); Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 24.  There is a spiritual gift of proistemi (“presiding, protecting”); Romans 12:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, and 1 Timothy 5:17.  Closely related is the requirement that elders be able to epimeleomai (“care for”) the Church; 1 Timothy 3:5.  The Church should recognize their elders when they kopiao (“labor to weariness”) for them; Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Timothy 5:17.  Paul exhorted the Ephesian elders to noutheteo (“warn”) against false teachers; Acts 20:31 – and the Thessalonian elders were described as those who noutheteo the church. 

9. Our second class is that which Church leaders are NOT to do.  The first is interesting because in Hebrews, leaders are described as hegeomai (“commanding”) the Church, but Luke 22:26 tells the disciples not to behave like the Gentiles who lead in such ways.  In passages corresponding to that in Luke 22, the authors use a few other words for the methods of authority, used by the Gentiles, the disciples were to shun: kataexousiazo (“wield power”); Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42 and katakyrieno (“subdue”); Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, and also 1 Peter 5:3.  Luke also employs the word exousiazo (“power”) in the same passage; Luke 22:25, as discussed in point 5 above. 

10. Other interesting studies are the “appointing” of elders and ministers and messengers; “one another” verses; spiritual gifts and the body of Christ; Church unity; qualifications for bishops/elders and deacons; church discipline; the authority of parents; suits and judgment; and binding and loosing. 

Personal conclusion: Whoever translated these words in the New Testament did not do a very good job communicating the full idea into English, leading to confusion and perhaps reinforcing a misinterpretation of Church government.  Who did do the original translating into English?  Were they serving under the very hierarchical Church of England?  Or believers in the Papal system?  Whatever our understanding of the government of local congregations, isn’t it clear that the Bible does not teach such super-church hierarchies as involving bishops and archbishops, etc. as understood in both Anglican and Catholic traditions?  Can we not argue that those religions denied the priesthood and sainthood of all believers, excluding them in varying degrees from participation in speaking God’s word and in building up or restoring fellow believers and in worshiping God, which activities were biblically entrusted to the whole Body of Christ?  Was not Tyndale hated for translating Greek terms into words more literal than those employed by the reigning religions of the day, undermining their religious system?  (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/always-singing-one-notea-vernacular-bible)

To God be all glory.

Word of God Part 3

What if the Bible isn’t enough?  What if God desires us to have more of a relationship with Him than a hermeneutical understanding of morality and doctrine?  And isn’t that what the Bible teaches: walk in the Spirit, walk by faith, the Spirit will guide us into all truth, despise not prophesying? 

If you’re anything like me, first you rejected these speculations.  Then you couldn’t stop thinking about them, and started reading the Bible in a new light, considering the possibilities.  And now that you’re seriously tempted to believe in continuing revelation, you’re scared.  I’m not very good at explaining this fear.  I think about how I have relied on the Bible so much.  How do I appeal to fellow believers about their belief and practice except on a universally accepted standard?  How do I witness to nonbelievers except by demonstrating the inerrancy (internal consistency and outward truth) of the Bible?  Can I claim that internal consistency proves anything when that was a test for which books made it into the Canon or not?  Supposing God does speak to me, how will I know it’s Him?  What if He speaks to someone else?  Why should I submit to what He speaks through them?  How will believers be on the same page, with each one (or at least each congregation) receiving his own revelation? 

Maybe I’m scared because I never dreamed I would be here, believing these things.  And where else will it lead?  Maybe if I need to hear from God today, or in the future, I have to trust that He will speak; I can’t just sit comfortably holding in my hand all He was ever going to say.  I have to believe in a God who is able to communicate not just to me, but to people around me.  I have to believe in a God whose mercy is so great that even when I’m sinfully not listening, He’ll cushion me from making mistakes too terrible.  But I need His mercy every time, because whenever I’m not listening to Him, I’m doing my own thing.  So maybe I don’t like this belief because it puts me out of control.  I can’t force revelation from God by being smarter or studying longer or even by asking the right teacher. 

On the other hand, I like it.  The God of the universe is speaking to real live people today.  He has designed a community for His people that is interdependent.  We get to be a part of His ministry both to those who have believed and to those who have not.  God has not left us alone to make up our own decisions.  

To God be all glory.

Resurrection Part 1: Michael Card’s "Luke: A World Turned Upside Down"

Michael Card has a new album out, all from the Gospel of Luke.  The subtitle is “A World Turned Upside Down” and the corresponding book is “Gospel of Amazement.”  The two songs I like the best are “What Sort of Song?” and “A Breath of a Prayer.”  Another song, “Pain and Persistence of Doubt,” accuses the characters in the gospel, and those who hear the song, of clinging to doubt and rejecting hope.  Quoting the angels at the tomb, Michael Card sings: “Why search for the living here among the dead; can’t you see that He’s simply not here?”  I want to defend myself, defend them.  Jesus was dead.  Crucified.  Dead seems pretty hopeless.  And you’re condemning us for not hoping?  Hope is one thing when we’re wishing, when something is going wrong, when someone is just sick.  But shall we believe delusions and run and tell everyone and pray for things that are impossible? 

Hope hurts.  Resurrection is only amazing because death is real.  When you hope for another outcome, especially after death already

is

the

outcome,

you’re setting yourself up for painful disappointment.  Who can be blamed for accepting reality?  Building a life on what happened before instead of on what might happen, on cryptic words and promises? 

In Jesus’ case, it didn’t matter that no one was hoping for His resurrection.  He had it taken care of, and would raise Himself from the dead because He had promised it;  because His resurrection proved He had conquered sin and death.  When Jesus raised Lazarus, and the few other people during His earthly ministry, He surprised believers with His choice to wait, to not grieve, to touch and command the dead.  None of the outcomes were dependent on human faith.  Whether the family or disciples hoped or not, Jesus was going to act. 

To God be all glory. 

Capital Security

Today I was having a gyro near the Colorado capitol in downtown Denver, and a policeman all in black with “HOMELAND SECURITY” written across his chest in grayish white was wandering around our restaurant.  I didn’t think much of it until I realized he was carrying a little black box the size of a deck of cards that was ticking erratically.  My friend I was with said he was looking for something, investigating.  And I’m a little silly, but I didn’t think so, and I ignored it.  My friend, she has more experience than I do.  She was right.  A little later he explained to the owner - a round-headed short man with silver hair and kind eyes and an apron - that the radiation levels weren't high enough to be anything serious (a bomb like those in nightmares).

I suppose the owner was worried that there was something wrong with his shop, or that someone was plotting terror from one of his tables, and he hovered just behind the officer’s shoulders.  The all in black man was very calm, telling the man that his sensor had sounded an alarm as he drove by…  My friend asked people if they’d recently been though those out of control full body scanners at the airports.  Probably someone eating there must have had something medical done that day, said the man with the little black ticking box. And he didn’t ask all of us sitting there, but he also didn’t look like he was going away.  So the lady in the corner raised her hand half way and confessed to having had a PET scan that morning. And apologetically, "My doctor said I should be fine to go out." People look around kind of nervously. Some joke. Some are puzzled. Ms. Radiating wants to know if he really could sense her from all the way outside.  The officer (who was probably wearing a lead vest, himself) reassured the rest of us that we weren't in danger.  Then he shows the woman his Geiger counter (how frightening) to prove to her that yes, the numbers were quite high enough for him to have detected. 

The officer was DRIVING BY and his radiation detector picked up the woman's aftereffects of the PET scan. (I always wondered what our law enforcement actually did to try to keep dirty bombs from going off.)  Most likely following protocol, he reported the mildly increased radiation. The report went straight to Washington, DC. We're talking Pentagon and Homeland Security. Probably not Obama, since he has much more important things to worry about than nuclear scares at home and abroad.  The woman cooperatively provided the officer with her name and contact info in case anyone needed to follow up on his report and confirm that she wasn't a terrorist, just a patient in the tech-y US of A.

 Publish Post

True story. 

To God be all glory.   

Hebrews, Hearts, Bodies, and Manichaeanism

I was reading Hebrews today, and this verse:

Hebrews 10:22, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

made me think of something. 

I’m not going to even start to say I know exactly what it means.  But what it made me think of was Manichaeanism.  I know that most of my readers are very intelligent scholars who know terms for ancient heresies.  And if they’re not they are the independent learners who stopped to Google the word before reading another sentence.  And if they’re not, they’re wondering why I bothered using a word that my audience doesn’t know, and hoping that I mean to tell them more about it.  I do mean to.  That ancient heresy was related to Gnosticism, but specifically it taught that salvation came by escaping the flesh.  Flesh – body – material things, they were bad.  And yeah, if you want to know about it, I find Wikipedia an exciting source of information about theology.  (I’m not kidding!) 

The verse in Hebrews has to do with that in that it mentions our hearts sprinkled (by the blood of Christ, metaphorically) accomplishing spiritual purification: regeneration (Titus 3:5 anyone?) and forgiveness (1 John 1:9 - all these “clean” words).  But it doesn’t ONLY mention that spiritual thing; it mentions having our bodies washed.  And that’s weird.  The rest of the chapter and the one before it were talking about how under the Old Covenant things were sprinkled with mortal blood; that blood was a picture of Christ’s blood, and our things down here: temple, book, priest are pictures or shadows of the original things, the eternal things, the spiritual things.  (Things that are seen are temporal, but the unseen last – and last goes on and on because there is nothing coming after to displace it – I’ve been reading Pilgrim’s Progress, too.)  All of a sudden in verse 22 he says something not about sprinkling with blood, but about washing with pure water. 

Now, I’ve been doing a ton of thinking about baptism lately, and studying it too, and discussing it even, so my brain sort of goes that way when anything like baptism is mentioned.  I’m not going to say that the author of Hebrews was talking about baptism.  I don’t know if he was.  And I’m not going to say that baptism, the kind where you’re washed with water, saves you.  (This is because I don’t really believe that, even though, um, some parts of the Bible kind of say that baptism has to do with salvation, like Mark 16 and Acts 2.)  But if we keep with the flesh and earthly things being shadows of the eternal, like Hebrews is teaching, then salvation isn’t escape from the body.  Rather, we use our bodies to picture eternal spiritual realities.  And we make it real in the flesh. 

I liked this thought – and really for me it was only one quick thought because all the other things I added in for your sake had already been founded for me over the past few weeks – so I decided to share it.  And I know that it confused a bunch of you readers, so I’m sorry.  I can’t say that I totally get my thought anyway; it’s more like a door into lots of thoughts that, if you are ever in the same room with me, I’d be happy to discuss, especially if we are eating at the time.  I’m not a Manichaenist.  (How many syllables do you need in one name for a cult, anyway?)

To God be all glory.

Flowers Unseen

Why are there flowers on the tops of mountains?

No one sees them.  They grow and live and bloom and seed and die.

I can imagine why God would want to bless us with beauty by putting pretty things in our paths.  Did His beauty-bucket just spill?

How do we know there are flowers on some peaks?  Every once in a while an adventurer makes it to the top, and stands in a field of wild blooms.  He tells people.  He takes pictures.  And he never goes there again.  Seasons, generations of flowers, pass before anyone else catches their breath at the sight of them again.

Without those unseen seasons, that one moment would be impossible.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

Word of God Part 2

Did God speak outside of Scripture?  Does He still?  Can we speak His (new) words? 

Speaking is a big focus of the New Testament, though I think we have overlooked it.  Many of the spiritual gifts have to do with verbal communication.  Are those gifts supernatural (spiritual) or not?  Can speaking gifts come from God, but not the words?  What about this verse from Peter?  “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…”  Have you ever thought about Paul’s admonition to take up the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”?  Did you know that Paul follows with a request that his friends pray that “utterance may be given unto [him]”? 

Maybe you’re like me, fascinated by how casually the Old Testament refers to God speaking to men.  God spoke to Cain.  God told Noah.  God visited Abraham.  He interrogated Job.  Was it like in the movies, where light streamed from heaven and men heard a voice?  How often did men have experiences like Abraham, who entertained God and a couple of angels in his tent?  Was the voice audible or not?  Did God come in dreams like He did for Joseph, instructing him to go ahead with his marriage to Mary?  Why doesn’t the Bible go into more detail about these fantastic communications?  Why do the authors seem to think we know what they mean when they simply say, “God spoke”?  Did they expect us to have similar experiences?  Does God still speak? 

Did you know that the Bible never says anything about the end of the writing of Scripture?  Did you know there is no biblical instruction for determining a Canon? 

Catholics ascribe authority to the words of the Pope (when he is speaking as Pope).  That way they have one universal authority to which all members of the church must submit.  Protestants rejected the Pope because they observed the fruit of his edicts, in the sixteenth century and before, that they were worldly.  Perhaps they also claim that the New Testament does not teach apostolic succession or the spiritual authority of popes. 

But Protestants claim similar things about the Bible.  We use it as the universal and exclusive authority over the Church.  Now, the Bible does mention authority.  It says that men will live by the words of God, and I am fairly certain that the writings of the Bible fit into that category.  All Scripture, Paul wrote, is profitable for doctrine and rebuke and instruction in righteousness.  I’m willing to at least suggest that he had the Old Testament in mind. 

The problem is that the Bible itself also teaches about the Church, and who has authority over it.  What it says is that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.  He is its authority, to which every member must submit. 

To God be all glory. 

What if Daniel had an Aching Back?

What if Daniel had an aching back?  I tend to forget that the characters in the Bible were normal human beings.  They had to eat.  Sitting and rising may have been sore activities for a man who’d lived as long and seen as much as Daniel.  By the time he was cast into the lion’s den, he was quite old.  This man saw miracles.  He prayed and interpreted dreams.  But what if his back ached?  What painful human experiences did he have to face?  What things did he pray for during his customary times of devotion, but that didn’t make it into the Bible?  Do we only see him in the answer-times, and forget the decades of patient petitioning?  Did he ask the questions David asked, faced with kings so powerful they practically ruled the world, kings who displayed their might, and wonder why the King of Kings did not come in awesome terror against His enemies?  The God of Abraham can produce a hand alone, writing words on the walls of Babylon, but He chooses to use the armies of the Medes and Persians to actually smite the wicked prince?  Running an empire is hard work, and for sometime Daniel was the king’s right hand man; what was that like?  Didn’t it wear him out?  Did he get frustrated?  Did he cry with friends for their sorrows? 

To God be all glory.