What's In Your Heart? (Part II)

Ok, so he's the Capitol One Viking guy. Still, I like it.

To pick up where I left off... two weeks ago... I believe my last big point was that our deeds do not make us who we are, but merely reveal what's already within us. That was essentially Paul's point in Romans 3 when he said,

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Thus, God gives us His law not to make us perfect, but to reveal to us our inadequacy. (If I might digress, you can compare that idea to one of the tenets of Islam - that a perfect society will result if it obeys Sha'riah - Islamic holy law). Anyway, to drive this point of "revealing what lies within" home with a little more clarity, let's begin with James 1:2-7 & 12:

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord;
...
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

James makes some simple observations that shouldn't strain the exegetical skills too greatly:

1. The testing of faith produces perseverance
2. Perseverance perfects us that we might not lack anything
3. If anything is lacking, it's wisdom
4. Wisdom is freely given by God, but only if it's requested in faith.

The concept of perseverance is literally in the Greek, "cheerful (or hopeful) endurance." It's a command to have an attitude of thriving (not just surviving) the hard times. So how does that work?

Look at how James qualifies faith. He says that perseverance in faith is to perfect us - that we not be lacking in anything. But if we lack in something, it's likely wisdom - which God will freely give. Of course, we have to ask in faith. In other words, faith and God's wisdom go hand-in-hand. You don't get one without the other.

For a better picture of what God's wisdom is all about, go to Proverbs 18:4:

The words of a man's mouth are deep waters,
but the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.

This is a description of two kinds of wisdom, Man's and Gods. We can understand the difference between these wisdoms by examining the visual image the proverb provides. That is, man's wisdom is like "deep water" (not necesarily an ocean - think more of a well or deep pool). Comparatively, God's wisdom is a "bubblnig brook". So what are the primary differences?

1. Water depth - Man's wisdom is deep. God's wisdom is shallow. Sounds a little odd, doesn't it? Yet consider the deep waters of a well. Darkness, murkiness, and a general lack of clarity characterize such water. By comparison, a brook is typically clear. It's shallow depth lets you see the bottom easily. The point? There's nothing hidden or vague in God's wisdom. The intellectual component is more often an issue of common sense.

2. Water velocity - Well waters don't flow. Brooks do. Simply put, God's wisdom moves - it requires or encourages action on the part of him who posesses it.

As an engineer, I have studied how water flows in channels. One of the primary principles that governs water flow is known as Bernoulli's Principle. In one form, it states that the depth of water is inversely proportional to the velocity of the water. In simpler terms: the deeper the water, the slower it flows.

By the contrast in his Proverb, Solomon was basically laying out Bernoulli's primary principle of hydraulic engineering several millennia before Bernoulli was born. But what that means to the everyday Christian is this: If you can't figure out how to deal with a sin issue in your life, it's likely because you don't really want to deal with it.

Thus, when the Godly thing to do when dealing with sin is the one thing we don't want to do, we try to think of another way... and think... and think some more. Soon, we suffer "paralysis by analysis" and we think so long that we never do anything. Hence, "the words of a man's mouth are deep (and stagnant) waters". Yet Jesus told us to cut off our hands or gouge out our eyes if they cause us to sin. While some would actually debate whether Christ meant that to be taken literally, it certainly doesn't present the idea to sit and give lots and lots of thought about what to do with your sin, does it? He was being dramatically clear - get radical and stop at nothing in combatting the sin in your life.

So how does getting radical with the sin in your life bring about God's wisdom?

Look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The important question to ask here is: Why is the message of the cross (which Paul later qualifies as "God's wisdom") foolishness to the perishing?

The answer lies in human nature - and the cross which seeks to destroy it. After all, it would be utter foolishness to destroy what so many in this world love so dearly, wouldn't it? Yet that's precisely the purpose of the cross - and the testing of our faith that James refers to.

Let me illustrate:

One of my favorite recording artists is Eric Clapton. In the 1970's, Clapton suffered a powerful addiction to heroin. He was discussing this addiciton in an interview and pointed out during the worst of it, he honestly believed he didn't have a problem with heroin - until he tried to quit. That is, as long as he fed his addiction, he was blissfully unaware of his enslavement. Only until he resisted his desire did his desire show him how truly powerful and far-reaching it was in his life.

That's what God's wisdom is all about. It moves us in a direction oopposite of our human nature. And when it does that, we start to see ourselves for what we really are - we see the sin in our lives for what it is and we understand how powerful it can be. Now, I'm not saying that by taking up an ascetic, monk-like lifestyle and obeying all of God's moral edicts we somehow become like Him. The Pharisees made that mistake in Matthew 15 and I've even heard radical Muslim terrorists say similar things. What I am saying is that when we respond to God's conviction about the way we live our lives and seek to correct it - not because we're afraid of getting caught, but because we truly want to be like God (remember the "cheerful endurance" James mentioned) - we see clearly the sins that enslave us - and others.

If you read Proverbs 20:5, you'll see this idea reflected in the "man of understanding". That is, a "man of understanding " is one who popsesses God's wisdom. Such people know the motives of other people's hearts because they have seen (and dealt with) those same motives in their own.

So... What's in your heart?

- Graffy

What's in your heart?

Well, it's been a while since my last post, but things have been busy - filling in for a friend and teaching his adult Sunday School class can get a bit tricky, especially when fresh material isn't coming quickly to mind...

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"

There's more going on in this passage than meets the eye. When Jesus' disciples are challenged for not practicing handwashing before eating, Jesus responds by pointing out a hypocrisy among the Pharisees. Specifically, the Pharisees have permitted people to give offerings to God that could have, instead been given to support thier parents. The Pharisees believed this was a good thing - after all, God is bigger than our parents. However, they overlooked the point that God said, "Honor your father and mother - that it may go well with you" (see Exodus 20). Thus, for whatever reason, the Pharisees were actually breaking God's law in a show of religious piety.

But what's really interesting in this passage is that Jesus isn't just defending his disciples by turning the attention on the Pharisees' hypocrisy; he was actually pointing out that his disciples didn't even need a defense. The reason? No where in the law of Moses (which the Pharisees charged Jesus' disciples with breaking) is there a command to wash one's hands before eating. The only handwashing command to be found deals with purification rituals priests go through before offering sacrifices. While not that washing your hands before a meal may be a bad idea, it's not a law of God. Rather, it's a "rule taught by men".

So where did the Pharisees over-zealous sense of religious piety come from?

Turn to Leviticus 11:42-45:

'Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable. Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean.

'For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.

For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

The first paragraph provides us some context. If you know anything about Leviticus, you probably know it's the least interesting read in the Bible, since it consists largely of the several hundred laws that God gave to Israel through Moses. In this particular instance (about halfway through), God is going into detail about what creatures are clean and unclean. Then in the middle of all of this lawmaking, God commands Israel, "Consecrate yourselves ... and be holy, for I am holy." Then He repeats Himself, "thus you shall be holy for I am holy." (One does well to remember that when something is repeated in the Bible, it's usually because it's important. )

God gives Israel two commands regarding what to do with His law:

• Consecrate yourselves (an external act)
  
• Be holy (an internal state of being)
  

To consecrate oneself is to set oneself apart (by ceremonial cleansing, prayer, fasting, etc.) for the purpose of performing a sacred ritual. The Pharisees were skilled at consecrating themselves - in fact, that's what the word, "Pharisee" means: "separate one". They did this because they honestly believed that by acting holy and consecrating themselves with God's law, they would eventually be holy or be like God.

Case in point: I am a seven-week-old father of a son (there's a way of putting it, eh?). I know I have many new experiences in child-rearing yet ahead of me and one that I anticipate with a mixture of excitement and fear is when my toddler son starts to mimic the things that I do. That means when I get up to go to work in the morning, he might pretend to do the same. Certain mannerisms and habits that I have, he'll mimic. Why? Because he wants to be "just like dad". (I find it funny that we all do this as children, but when we've grown up, we bemoan the fact that we really are just like our parents...)

But no matter how perfectly my son mimics what I do in an effort to be just like me, he can't accomplish it - not just by doing what I do. Why? Because in order for my son to be like me, he needs a lot more maturity - and that takes time. Eventually, I expect my son really will be like me, and if he's smart, he'll be greater than me. (I admit, there's a lot of areas where I'm not as mature as I could or should be...)

But can we say the same about God? If we act like Him long enough, will we eventually be like Him?

There's this tension throughout the Old Testament about God's Law. Moses says, "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." (Deuteronomy 27:26). Contrast that with what Solomon says in Ecclesiates 7:20, "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins." (His father, David, stated it a bit more dramatically in Psalm 14:2 & 3.)

Clearly, there is a very big difference between acting like God and being like God. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that being like God takes, well, an act of God. Case in point: Only one man is reputed to have led a sinless life - Jesus of Nazareth (Hebrews 4:15). Yet did Jesus somehow become God by obeying the law? Or did he obey the law because He already was God?

That's what the Pharisees missed. The purpose of the law wasn't to make Israel holy. It was merely to show them that they could never measure up to God's standard. Thus, trying to obey God's law to the letter doesn't make a person holy - it only makes them aware of how sinful they are. Paul said exactly that in Romans 3:20.

This is Jesus' point back in Matthew 15. When he talks about what makes us clean and unclean in vs. 10 & 11, he expounds in vs. 17-20:

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

Very simply, then, our deeds do not define us, they reveal us.

Have a great week (or maybe two...)

- Graffy

Plagues, Schmagues...

I'm getting a bit more blog- savvy - check out the new links at right. Bible Gateway is a *great* reference for looking up Scripture if you don't have a Bible handy...

Anyway, everyone's at camp this week, so here's an oldie but a goodie..

Some time ago, I came across a Christian speaker arguing that the first three plagues Moses and Aaron performed to convince Pharoah to let Israel go were merely natural phenomena / tricks of light. I suspect the reason he was arguing this point was that for the first three miracles, Pharoah's magicians kept pace. The argument itself states that the first plague, turning the Nile into blood, was caused by a volcanic eruption. The second plague, the frogs jumping onto the land, was the result of the Nile being uninhabitable from the first plague. After that, the magicians couldn't keep up, so the speaker stopped arguing his case. Granted, it does seem odd that a bunch of pagan magicians could do as a product of their art what Aaron and Moses could only do with special dispensation of the Almighty, but I feel that hardly justifies the view this speaker took.

When examining the text of Exodus, the author (Moses) was clear that the entire Nile was turned to blood, not colored red by clay or volcanic eruption. (The word used for "blood" in Hebrew means "blood", not "reddish hue"). In addition, the plague of the frogs was significant. John MacArthur points out that in Egyptian culture, frogs were sacred - their presence indicated the Nile had receded and the land was fertile for crops. Thus, there's a sense of irony in turning what's sacred into a plague. Most important is the fact that the magicians were not able to undo what God had done through Moses and Aaron - they could only duplicate it and even then, imperfectly. The events recorded in Exodus 7:12 & 8:8 symoblize this very point.

Simply put, the factuality of the ten plagues is foregone from the standpoint of Scripture. Thus, by focusing on what really are minor details, the real point of the passage is compltely missed.

So what is really the point of the ten plagues? God says it from the get-go:

"You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharoah that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharoah's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt."

(Exodus 7:2,3; emphasis mine)

It's pretty simple. God intended to harden Pharoah's heart by using His signs and miracles to eventually free Israel. In fact, the harder Pharoah's heart grew, the more God had an opportunity to prove that He was God and Pharoah was not. Incidentally, just in case one thinks God was being unfair by intentionally hardening Pharoah's heart to make an example of him, look at the words that come from the man's own lips in Exodus 5:2

"Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go."

Pharoah wanted nothing to do with God. Whether or not God loved Pharoah and wanted him to share eternity with Him, Pharoah's will was not in agreement - and we all know you can't force someone to love someone else. But just in case it still seems unfair, examine the process by which Pharoah's heart was hardened. In no case did God forcibly deny Pharoah the chance to believe. In Exodus 7:11-13, 22 & 23, and 8:7-15 we see that Pharoah hardened his heart when he saw his magicians doing what Moses and Aaron were doing by God. In other words, Pharoah saw the miracles - the evidence that Moses' and Aaron's God was much bigger than his or his magicians' gods. Yet no miracle could convince him and make him an honest believer in God for the simple fact that he stated beforehand he didn't want to believe. Thus, all he needed was the least bit of proof to question the Sovereignty of Moses' and Aaron's God and he would continue comfortably in his disbelief, which God gave him in his mages' spellmaking. By the way, God *did* give Pharoah a clear chance to believe:

...Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were gnats on man and beast. All dust of the earth became gnats through all the land of Egypt. The magicians tried with their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not; so there were gnats on man and beast. Then the magicians said to Pharoah, "This is the finger of God." But Pharoah's heart was hardened and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said.

(Exodus 8:17-19; emphasis mine)

I find it interesting that God made believers out of Pharoah's magicians by the third miracle and yet Pharoah remained obstinate. I also find it interesting that Pharoah was soundly convinced of his position after only three miracles when the following eight went unanswered by his court of mages. The only way Pharoah could have maintained his position were if he simply didn't want to believe in the first place. After all, even when he did concede to Moses that God was God and he was not (see Exodus9:27,28), he always changed his mind (Exodus 9:35), showing that he was never truly convinced in the first place.

The point (if it isn't clear already) is that we can easily cement ourselves in our own wills. God can't make us love Him and if we choose not to, it may be that nothing will convince us otherwise. That's not always true, but the general precept is backed up by Jesus when He tells the story of the rich man and the beggar in Luke 16:19-31. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his living relatives of the impending doom. Abraham's response is quite clear:

"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."

I say all of this just to serve as a reminder of how it is a Christian comes to put their trust in Christ. An honest athiest / agnostic may say they do not believe for lack of evidence, claiming that they would take faith if only God would show Himself more tangibly. Yet in so doing, they would have removed the very need to have any faith at all - we have faith in what we cannot see, not what we see clearly before us. Besides, if you look at the history of Israel, you'll see that even when God was present among Israel and their fathers, He still required them to work with Him on faith. Nevermind the numerous times when the entire assembly of Isreal did see God visibly manifested among them, and yet rebelled against Him. You'll forgive me if I sound harsh in my perspective, but to disregard God on the grounds of insufficient evidence is simply not valid. The Bible is quite clear that even ample evidence will not make a believer out of someone who is not willing to adopt faith as the primary means of communion with God.

Until next week.

- Graffy

What Makes It Real?

Suppose you ran into a missionary who has, for the first time, visited your church. You engage him in conversation and he tells you about how he got his start as a missionary. He says that after he became a Christian, he just went into the mission field. He had no church to support him so he supported himself by making a variety of things. He tells you that he preached the gospel and started churches in hundreds of small villages all over the world for seventeen years. After regaling you with his adventures, you think he must have some real insights into Scripture, so so you ask him to expound on his favorite verse. He tells you he's never read the Bible.

A Christian who's been a missionary and founding churches for seventeen years and has never read the Bible?

It's happened before. Check out Galatians 1 & 2:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither recieved it from man, not was I taught it, but I recieved it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
...
But when God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immesdiately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas and stayed wiuth him fifteen days.
...
Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...
...
[S]eeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised ... and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

(Galatians 1:11,12,15-18; 2:1,2,7-9)

Paul was adamant about one major point: The gospel message he preached was not taught to him by anyone. He did not learn it from the disciples in Jerusalem. In fact, he took seventeen years before he actually submitted what he was preaching for review to the disciples in Jerusalem. And what was their reaction? They gave him the "right hand of fellowship". They not only affirmed that what Paul preached was the same gospel they preached, but they gave him all of their support.

Paul was absolutely certain of the truth of his gospel. Evidence of that is found in Galatians 1:8:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

The testimony in Galatians stands as objective proof for many reasons. First, Paul's behavior backed up his convictions. He was convinced God gave him his gospel, therefore he didn't need to consult with other Christians about it - and he didn't. Nor could he have learned it from the other apostles' writings since many of Paul's own letters predate the four gospels by several years. Second, Paul set the message above himself. He cursed himself if he preached anything other than what he'd originally taught. If he were trying to start his own following or religion, he'd certainly have left his options open to changing his message. Third, if Paul had simply been making the message up, why did he ever submit it to the apostles in Jerusalem? And why would they fully endorse him unless what he preached was exactly what they preached? In addition to that, how can Paul have such a vast amount of unique material that no other apostle preached and yet remain true to the central message? Unless, of course, Paul and the other apostles were all getting their information from the same source...

My conclusion is simply this: Paul was absolutely convinced he'd met the risen Christ. He was absolutely convinced that the gospel message he had was the truth and he was absolutely convinced that it was not to be changed - by him or anyone else. People may not accept Paul's convictions as their own, but they cannot say that Paul didn't really believe what he said he believed.

There's many things that make my faith real to me, but it's the testimony of the Bible's authors - the extraordinary uniform testimony - that stands as reasonable objective proof for the faith.

- Graffy