2009-07-16
2009-07-08
Millstone
Did a terrible thing last night. Had gone to bed a little after nine, and read until 10 PM (Stephen King book, The Running Man). The grandkids came home with their parent about that time. Shortly afterward, they were knocking on my bedroom door (over and over and over). I was tired, angry, upset and other feelings all brought on by my own selfishness earlier. I barked "Stop That", and the knocking ceased.
Today, my wife told me she sent them upstairs to say goodnight to "OPA" (me). They came back downstairs crying, saying "OPA doesn't want them to say goodnight."
So, where do I go from here? The Bible says that anyone who cause 'one of the little ones' to sin would suffer worse than having a millstone tied around his neck (and supposedly drowned in a pool of water). I love those kids, but I get SO ANGRY at their parents. Guess I'll go pray this noon and work this out with God.
Today, my wife told me she sent them upstairs to say goodnight to "OPA" (me). They came back downstairs crying, saying "OPA doesn't want them to say goodnight."
So, where do I go from here? The Bible says that anyone who cause 'one of the little ones' to sin would suffer worse than having a millstone tied around his neck (and supposedly drowned in a pool of water). I love those kids, but I get SO ANGRY at their parents. Guess I'll go pray this noon and work this out with God.
2009-06-30
I Corinthians 7
It is said that there is nothing new under the sun. Paul says here that "since there is so much immorality" men and women should marry. Sounds like something that could be written today, in the 21st century. I did not think that immorality was such an issue in the 1st century. Apparently it was. I guess the style of dress, alcohol, drugs, the internet, TV and such are not as big of an influence on this basic sin of man as I thought. Interesting how little changes as things change!
Was Paul ever married? I don't know. I believe he was not. He indicates here that he is not currently married. A Google search produced the following:
"Some believe that the Apostle Paul was married because history tells us that a member of the Sanhedrin was required to be married. However, Paul never stated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. He definitely seemed to be on the path, "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). However, Paul might not have advanced that far before He converted to Christ." So, was the Apostle Paul married? It is possible that he was at one time, but again, the Bible does not specifically say."
If Paul was once married, what happened to his wife? Did she die? Was Paul divorced?
If he was never married, how is he able to give marriage advice. It has always amazed me how people who have not gone through situations that I am going through seem to think that they have great advice for how I should face my situations. Not that advice is not good or not needed. It is just that the source of some advice seems questionable to me. How can someone who has not raised children give advice on how to raise children? How can someone who has never been married or who has not had a sick spouse give advice on how to love your wife through all circumstances? Also. advice needs to be exactly what the word is - ADVICE = an opinion or recommendation; a suggestion. Too often "advice" in the church is a command of what to do instead of advice. That is something all of us need to be very careful about.
I like how Paul separates command from advice in this chapter.
Was Paul ever married? I don't know. I believe he was not. He indicates here that he is not currently married. A Google search produced the following:
"Some believe that the Apostle Paul was married because history tells us that a member of the Sanhedrin was required to be married. However, Paul never stated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. He definitely seemed to be on the path, "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). However, Paul might not have advanced that far before He converted to Christ." So, was the Apostle Paul married? It is possible that he was at one time, but again, the Bible does not specifically say."
If Paul was once married, what happened to his wife? Did she die? Was Paul divorced?
If he was never married, how is he able to give marriage advice. It has always amazed me how people who have not gone through situations that I am going through seem to think that they have great advice for how I should face my situations. Not that advice is not good or not needed. It is just that the source of some advice seems questionable to me. How can someone who has not raised children give advice on how to raise children? How can someone who has never been married or who has not had a sick spouse give advice on how to love your wife through all circumstances? Also. advice needs to be exactly what the word is - ADVICE = an opinion or recommendation; a suggestion. Too often "advice" in the church is a command of what to do instead of advice. That is something all of us need to be very careful about.
I like how Paul separates command from advice in this chapter.
2009-06-28
I Corinthians 6
Again, the question of what is a "big" sin and what is "small" comes up. Paul says that we should not be deceived, that: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." So, is this the "big" sin list? Are these the really bad sins? But where is the line that defines what sexually immoral really is? Or what is idolatry? What exactly constitutes adultery? Or drunkeness? What does it mean to be a slanderer or a swindler?
In Matthew 5, 6 and 7, Jesus pretty much blows any notions of lines out of the water. He says that lusting after a woman in our heart is adultery. He says that cursing someone out is murder. He says that divorce is wrong and that anyone who marries a divorced woman causes her to commit adultery. He says that swearing is wrong and that saying anything other than yes or no "comes from the evil one" - I guess that means it is sinful.
Paul says that some of the Corinthians were "big" sinners before they 'washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus.' But then what? Obviously they did not stop sinning. Paul writes this letter to them specifically because they are sinning. They are returning to their roots. They are doing things the way they did them before. They have divisions among themselves (competing with each other for position), they are not speaking out against the sin of a member of the church (my guess is that this guy was a popular member, maybe someone who gave a lot of money to the church or some other similar thing), and here they are suing one another.
They have brought their former lives into the church. But is this not in fact normal? Don't all of us struggle with having our former life of sin creep back into our current life that we want to be devoted to God? I have not blogged for 4 days. Why not? I got busy and I just did not seem to have the time to read the Bible, meditate and blog. I have not been a total heathen for the past 4 days, but I made a commitment to myself when I started this blog to spend some time in dedicated meditation of God's word every day. I failed in that commitment. I let my "sin" of busyness, distractions and excuses creep back into my life.
So, where do I go from here? Quit and give up? Should I beat myself up? Should I call three people and confess my "sin?" Should I feel guilty and shame myself into doing better in the future?
I used to think that way. Where did it get me? I would argue, just about no where! I don't see where self flagellation did anything but drove me farther away from God. For awhile I did different, but eventually I felt so bad and guilty that I gave up. Today, instead of feeling bad, I am going to feel great that I read the Bible and blogged today. I am going to feel what Mac said a few days ago. I cannot draw a line between what is sin and what is not. But I can draw a line between "a sinFULL life and one where the individual fights it." I think that fighting it means getting off of the ground and trying again. I will fail in my fight not to sin but I will not fail in my attempt not to continue to sin.
Thanks Mac. I am not sure that I completely understand all of this in a manner that allows me to clearly state, but I know that what is churning in my head is clear and I believe that what is churning in my head is biblical. More reason to continue to read/study the bible - to keep things like this churning. As I recall, butter comes from churning cream. It changes in form/substance but that will only happen if the churning continues. If the churning stops, nothing develops. I will churn (read/study/meditate on the bible) to keep the ideas I have developing. That is what I believe being a follower of Jesus is really all about.
In Matthew 5, 6 and 7, Jesus pretty much blows any notions of lines out of the water. He says that lusting after a woman in our heart is adultery. He says that cursing someone out is murder. He says that divorce is wrong and that anyone who marries a divorced woman causes her to commit adultery. He says that swearing is wrong and that saying anything other than yes or no "comes from the evil one" - I guess that means it is sinful.
Paul says that some of the Corinthians were "big" sinners before they 'washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus.' But then what? Obviously they did not stop sinning. Paul writes this letter to them specifically because they are sinning. They are returning to their roots. They are doing things the way they did them before. They have divisions among themselves (competing with each other for position), they are not speaking out against the sin of a member of the church (my guess is that this guy was a popular member, maybe someone who gave a lot of money to the church or some other similar thing), and here they are suing one another.
They have brought their former lives into the church. But is this not in fact normal? Don't all of us struggle with having our former life of sin creep back into our current life that we want to be devoted to God? I have not blogged for 4 days. Why not? I got busy and I just did not seem to have the time to read the Bible, meditate and blog. I have not been a total heathen for the past 4 days, but I made a commitment to myself when I started this blog to spend some time in dedicated meditation of God's word every day. I failed in that commitment. I let my "sin" of busyness, distractions and excuses creep back into my life.
So, where do I go from here? Quit and give up? Should I beat myself up? Should I call three people and confess my "sin?" Should I feel guilty and shame myself into doing better in the future?
I used to think that way. Where did it get me? I would argue, just about no where! I don't see where self flagellation did anything but drove me farther away from God. For awhile I did different, but eventually I felt so bad and guilty that I gave up. Today, instead of feeling bad, I am going to feel great that I read the Bible and blogged today. I am going to feel what Mac said a few days ago. I cannot draw a line between what is sin and what is not. But I can draw a line between "a sinFULL life and one where the individual fights it." I think that fighting it means getting off of the ground and trying again. I will fail in my fight not to sin but I will not fail in my attempt not to continue to sin.
Thanks Mac. I am not sure that I completely understand all of this in a manner that allows me to clearly state, but I know that what is churning in my head is clear and I believe that what is churning in my head is biblical. More reason to continue to read/study the bible - to keep things like this churning. As I recall, butter comes from churning cream. It changes in form/substance but that will only happen if the churning continues. If the churning stops, nothing develops. I will churn (read/study/meditate on the bible) to keep the ideas I have developing. That is what I believe being a follower of Jesus is really all about.
2009-06-23
Draw the Line
The question has been asked, ‘where is the line?’ concerning what is acceptable sin and what is not. Obviously everybody sins (Romans 5:12, 11:32, 1 John 1:8, e.g.), so what is ‘acceptable’, and what is not?
The Catholic religion, if I can call it that, have a thought about ‘deadly sins’, versus those not leading to ‘death’. Seven is their magic number: lust, anger, pride, sloth, envy, gluttony and greed. Guess murder and rape and the such are not deadly?????? Maybe they just consider these to be the ‘result’ of one (or more) of the SEVEN.
Paul seems to also separate sins into deadly and non-deadly ones: “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.”—1 John 5:16-17. But the following verses do not seem to separate the different wrongdoings. (Except ‘keep away from idols’---seems minor compared to ‘the seven’, YET, it is God’s ‘first’ commandment!)
It is obvious to me that we all sin. Not just because of what the Bible says, but from observation of people. Oh, I am sure some folks sin a LOT less than others, but …..hmmm…a thought just hit me….I don’t remember my mom sinning! REALLY. Lust? Nope. Anger? Not really. Pride? Definitely not. Sloth? NOPE! Envy? Maybe, but she never seemed to show it. Gluttony? No way. Greed? Absolutely not? Murder, rape, and ‘all the others’? Absolutely not! Is my mom perfect? Probably not, but to me she is. Now, I didn’t know her in her younger years (she was 27 when I was born), but her actions today sure seem to reflect on a very good life. I love my mom. Okay, sorry, back to the subject….is there a line between what is acceptable sin and what is not?
In society, there certainly is. Laws have been developed over the years to separate allowable actions, vice those punishable. And these laws are continuing to be developed. For example, it is now a ‘crime’ to spank your child in some locations. I don’t mean ‘harm’ your child, but a simple ‘spank on the butt’ is taboo, and is actually punishable by law in some states. Simply amazing. Also, it is now against the law to ‘talk bad’ about somebody, ESPECIALLY if it is along racial lines. You can get fired, or even go to jail, for saying things concerning race. Again, simply amazing. Where did our first amendment rights go? I can see if someone DOES something that causes harm to some one of a different race, but someone calling me ‘a honky’, or a ‘mick’ (I’m of Irish descent), or even ‘wasp’ (white anglo-saxon protestant), certainly doesn’t, in my mind, violate any laws nor cause me ‘harm’. Now, it might cause someone ELSE to sin, and I guess, in doing that, the person causing them to sin, sins as well (1 Cor 1:8 and Rev 2:14). But should that be against a ‘law’? Oh well, I digressed again.
John, one of the original Disciples quotes Jesus concerning sin: "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Yet Paul says, “… We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” Yet, starting in Romans 6 verse 4, and continuing through Romans 8, around verse 6, Paul says that we should NOT be in sin (at all!).
Peter, one of Jesus’ closest friends and followers, tells us that by the wounds of Jesus, we have been healed, and that we ‘died to sins’.
And again, John writes that ‘no one who lives in him (Jesus) keeps on sinning’.
YET, we KNOW we sin most every day (and probably my mom does, but she hides it well!!!).
I don’t believe, after all I’ve written here, and read throughout the Bible, that there IS a line. I also don’t believe that there isn’t a ‘gray area’, which could mask a line. I believe all sin is sin (and we aren’t limited to just seven ‘deadly’ ones either…they are all bad in God’s eyes. The confusing part about all this, separating sin into groups, or drawing lines between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ ones, is that there is NOT a simple solution. We know Jesus died for us. We know we (Christians) died ‘with’ Him during our baptism. We know we continue to sin. We know that any sin can keep us from Heaven. We know a lot about what sin is, what it can do to us, and how to ‘avoid’ it. We DON’T know much about the ramification of committing sin and then confessing it. Do we NEED to continually confess sins? Or did the death of Christ answer for all of them already? Is there a separation from adulterers, murderers, rapists, and liars (or any other of the many, many sins listed within our Bible? Will God take into Heaven a murderer just as ‘quickly’ as he’d take one who is greedy? Will he take neither? So many questions one simple question begs. I can’t draw a line between sins, however, I can draw a line between a sinFULL life and one where the individual fights it. I believe, without the intervention at some point by God, that those who live a life full of sin (Galatians 5:21), will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The line is between constant fighting sin, and giving it to it all the time. I can’t draw one between any individual, or set of, sins. Only between wanton, sinful lifestyles, versus one in which people actually try to live for Christ.
Mom, I love you! (Even though you're not reading this.)
The Catholic religion, if I can call it that, have a thought about ‘deadly sins’, versus those not leading to ‘death’. Seven is their magic number: lust, anger, pride, sloth, envy, gluttony and greed. Guess murder and rape and the such are not deadly?????? Maybe they just consider these to be the ‘result’ of one (or more) of the SEVEN.
Paul seems to also separate sins into deadly and non-deadly ones: “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.”—1 John 5:16-17. But the following verses do not seem to separate the different wrongdoings. (Except ‘keep away from idols’---seems minor compared to ‘the seven’, YET, it is God’s ‘first’ commandment!)
It is obvious to me that we all sin. Not just because of what the Bible says, but from observation of people. Oh, I am sure some folks sin a LOT less than others, but …..hmmm…a thought just hit me….I don’t remember my mom sinning! REALLY. Lust? Nope. Anger? Not really. Pride? Definitely not. Sloth? NOPE! Envy? Maybe, but she never seemed to show it. Gluttony? No way. Greed? Absolutely not? Murder, rape, and ‘all the others’? Absolutely not! Is my mom perfect? Probably not, but to me she is. Now, I didn’t know her in her younger years (she was 27 when I was born), but her actions today sure seem to reflect on a very good life. I love my mom. Okay, sorry, back to the subject….is there a line between what is acceptable sin and what is not?
In society, there certainly is. Laws have been developed over the years to separate allowable actions, vice those punishable. And these laws are continuing to be developed. For example, it is now a ‘crime’ to spank your child in some locations. I don’t mean ‘harm’ your child, but a simple ‘spank on the butt’ is taboo, and is actually punishable by law in some states. Simply amazing. Also, it is now against the law to ‘talk bad’ about somebody, ESPECIALLY if it is along racial lines. You can get fired, or even go to jail, for saying things concerning race. Again, simply amazing. Where did our first amendment rights go? I can see if someone DOES something that causes harm to some one of a different race, but someone calling me ‘a honky’, or a ‘mick’ (I’m of Irish descent), or even ‘wasp’ (white anglo-saxon protestant), certainly doesn’t, in my mind, violate any laws nor cause me ‘harm’. Now, it might cause someone ELSE to sin, and I guess, in doing that, the person causing them to sin, sins as well (1 Cor 1:8 and Rev 2:14). But should that be against a ‘law’? Oh well, I digressed again.
John, one of the original Disciples quotes Jesus concerning sin: "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Yet Paul says, “… We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” Yet, starting in Romans 6 verse 4, and continuing through Romans 8, around verse 6, Paul says that we should NOT be in sin (at all!).
Peter, one of Jesus’ closest friends and followers, tells us that by the wounds of Jesus, we have been healed, and that we ‘died to sins’.
And again, John writes that ‘no one who lives in him (Jesus) keeps on sinning’.
YET, we KNOW we sin most every day (and probably my mom does, but she hides it well!!!).
I don’t believe, after all I’ve written here, and read throughout the Bible, that there IS a line. I also don’t believe that there isn’t a ‘gray area’, which could mask a line. I believe all sin is sin (and we aren’t limited to just seven ‘deadly’ ones either…they are all bad in God’s eyes. The confusing part about all this, separating sin into groups, or drawing lines between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ ones, is that there is NOT a simple solution. We know Jesus died for us. We know we (Christians) died ‘with’ Him during our baptism. We know we continue to sin. We know that any sin can keep us from Heaven. We know a lot about what sin is, what it can do to us, and how to ‘avoid’ it. We DON’T know much about the ramification of committing sin and then confessing it. Do we NEED to continually confess sins? Or did the death of Christ answer for all of them already? Is there a separation from adulterers, murderers, rapists, and liars (or any other of the many, many sins listed within our Bible? Will God take into Heaven a murderer just as ‘quickly’ as he’d take one who is greedy? Will he take neither? So many questions one simple question begs. I can’t draw a line between sins, however, I can draw a line between a sinFULL life and one where the individual fights it. I believe, without the intervention at some point by God, that those who live a life full of sin (Galatians 5:21), will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The line is between constant fighting sin, and giving it to it all the time. I can’t draw one between any individual, or set of, sins. Only between wanton, sinful lifestyles, versus one in which people actually try to live for Christ.
Mom, I love you! (Even though you're not reading this.)
I Corinthians 5
Thanks Mac. Your "lesson" was instructive. I am still undecided on the issue. My main point was that I like to think of the benefits of being a follower of Jesus without the costs. Being able to lead and teach others, having special powers from God, and so on sounds much better than Paul's description of the life of an apostle.
What does Paul mean by "hand this man over to Satan?" I guess he means put him out of the church. I guess the goal is to knock some sense into the guy so that he sees that what he is doing is offensive to God.
Why would the Corinthians (the people in the church in Corinth) be "proud" of the fact that some guy in their church is married (sleeping?) with his father's wife? First of all, this sounds like a TV soap opera. Second, something is really twisted up in this church.
Paul makes an interesting point at the end of this letter. He tells us that we should not judge people of the world. We can teach, train, correct and rebuke people in the church, but it is "none of my business" to judge those outside the church. Is it not amazing how much people in the "church" in the United States judge those outside of the church? I see stories in the paper nearly everyday where "Christians" are judging or trying to correct "non-Christians." In our political system, we "seem" to have a party that is "Christian" leaning and a party full of idolaters (at least that is the way they are often portrayed on at least one news network). There is much conflict between the "Christians" and the "non-Christians."
At the same time, there is a reluctance or fear to speak up in the church. As I think about it, I believe I hear much more conversation about the heathens outside of the church than I do about sin within the church.
Another thought I had while reading today was, where is the line? A guy sleeping with his father's wife - I assume most consider that to be over the line! Paul also talks about those who are sexually immoral, greedy, those who are idolaters, slanderers, drunkards and swindlers. If I apply Jesus' definition to sexual immorality (Matt 5:28 - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart") then I should not associate with anyone in the church (including myself!). The same can be applied to greedy - wanting more than I need. Is anyone in America not greedy according to the world's standards? Our economic system is based on greed. Idolaters are those who place anything before God - since I did not have a QT yesterday (I placed things before God), I am an idolater. Slanderers - have I ever slandered anyone? Have I ever passed on a story about someone that I heard but did not know for certain was true?
So, who should we associate with? Where is the line? What should be preached in the church? How much should we be in someone else's face? Who of us is innocent enough to correct someone else? Can you rebuke me for drunkenness if you are greedy? Can you rebuke me for immorality if you are a slanderer?
I don't know. Today's reading left me with many more questions than answers.
What does Paul mean by "hand this man over to Satan?" I guess he means put him out of the church. I guess the goal is to knock some sense into the guy so that he sees that what he is doing is offensive to God.
Why would the Corinthians (the people in the church in Corinth) be "proud" of the fact that some guy in their church is married (sleeping?) with his father's wife? First of all, this sounds like a TV soap opera. Second, something is really twisted up in this church.
Paul makes an interesting point at the end of this letter. He tells us that we should not judge people of the world. We can teach, train, correct and rebuke people in the church, but it is "none of my business" to judge those outside the church. Is it not amazing how much people in the "church" in the United States judge those outside of the church? I see stories in the paper nearly everyday where "Christians" are judging or trying to correct "non-Christians." In our political system, we "seem" to have a party that is "Christian" leaning and a party full of idolaters (at least that is the way they are often portrayed on at least one news network). There is much conflict between the "Christians" and the "non-Christians."
At the same time, there is a reluctance or fear to speak up in the church. As I think about it, I believe I hear much more conversation about the heathens outside of the church than I do about sin within the church.
Another thought I had while reading today was, where is the line? A guy sleeping with his father's wife - I assume most consider that to be over the line! Paul also talks about those who are sexually immoral, greedy, those who are idolaters, slanderers, drunkards and swindlers. If I apply Jesus' definition to sexual immorality (Matt 5:28 - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart") then I should not associate with anyone in the church (including myself!). The same can be applied to greedy - wanting more than I need. Is anyone in America not greedy according to the world's standards? Our economic system is based on greed. Idolaters are those who place anything before God - since I did not have a QT yesterday (I placed things before God), I am an idolater. Slanderers - have I ever slandered anyone? Have I ever passed on a story about someone that I heard but did not know for certain was true?
So, who should we associate with? Where is the line? What should be preached in the church? How much should we be in someone else's face? Who of us is innocent enough to correct someone else? Can you rebuke me for drunkenness if you are greedy? Can you rebuke me for immorality if you are a slanderer?
I don't know. Today's reading left me with many more questions than answers.
2009-06-21
Are you an Apostle?
Are You an Apostle? Good question, Rich.....here are my thoughts.....from a lesson I did 4 years ago on 10 July (when I was living in my temporary home as they were rebuilding this one)...
No, really, are you? What is an apostle?
I was reading Hebrews this morning and I saw something I had never seen before (simply amazing how this happens time and time again). In chapter 3, Paul, or whoever was the writer of this letter, stated OF JESUS. "the apostle and high priest whom we confess." Jesus is an apostle? I remember being taught that in order to be an apostle that you had to have been with Jesus during His teachings. How many of you remember that? But right here, it calls Jesus Himself to be an apostle---He had to have been with Himself during His teachings????? Anyway, because of that verse, and what I had always considered to be an apostle. I decided to do a little research.
Let's look in Acts, chapter 1. Peter, an apostle, stood up and gave a short speech. With the suicide of Judas Iscariot behind them, he thought it necessary to fill that vacancy amongst 'the twelve'. Verse 21: "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us." This criteria, of having to have been with them for that 3+ years, seemed to be a requirement to become an apostle. As I had been taught in the past, that one had to have actually seen Jesus and carried on His message, in order to become an apostle. But, this logic quickly falls apart when we read other Scriptures that refer to others, not just 'the twelve', Matthias and Joseph(Barsabbas/Justus). Paul, as we all know, had not been with the original twelve during that time frame, in fact, we know that he was opposing them at that time, and was not even in the area where Jesus was teaching. In 1st Corinthians, Paul calls himself an apostle, although the least of one he said, but still, an apostle. In addition, if you turn to Acts, chapter 14, and read verse 14, you will see that Luke calls both Paul and BARNABAS (son of encouragement), apostles. So now, we have Jesus, 'the twelve', obviously Matthias and possibly Joseph, and now Paul and Barnabas all called apostles. I am not sure if Barnabas was 'with' Peter and the other eleven or not, so, based upon Peter's own description, he COULD have been an apostle. Paul writes of two others in his letter to the Romans as being "outstanding among the apostles" (Both NIV and NASB): Andronicus and Junias. The reference in the language used here is that they were not just "among" the group of apostles, but were actually "amongst", or part of, them. The book of 1st Thessalonians, penned (or dictated) by Paul, talks about "we" did this, and "we" did that. In fact when he talked about "them", as apostles, not being a burden to that church in chapter 1, verse 6, he was talking about himself, Silas, and Timothy (see chapter 1, verse 1). So, theoretically, we can now add Silas and Timothy to our 'list' of people referred to as apostles in Scripture.
I used my Vine's Bible dictionary to help find the meaning of the word apostle, to help me better understand the paragraph above. What I had been taught seems to have been incorrect. I found that the one of the Greek words translated as 'apostle', is apostolos. The definition of the word is "one sent forth". Now, what I have written above becomes more clear to me. Jesus was 'sent forth' from God (Heb 3:1). Paul was 'sent forth' by Jesus Himself (Acts chapter 9). 'The twelve' were sent forth by Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20). And, with that definition, being 'sent forth', can apply to anyone who has accepted the challenge of Jesus. We are sent forth to spread the gospel, are we not? Now, I am not going to profess to be an apostle, but I believe I could if I desired. I am certainly not going to denounce people in other churches who refer to themselves as apostles. And I am also now in belief that you did not necessarily have to have been with the original twelve in order to be one. I believe Peter's message, his calling for a replacement, was based more on attempting to find someone with knowledge and first hand experience to join that elite group. Not necessarily a group of apostles, but a group of men with a formidable mission ahead of them. They needed someone who ALREADY knew all about Christ, one they would not have to treach anew, one that could 'go forth' from that point on, ready for the battle ahead.
I hope this short study has helped you also determine what an apostle is, and who can be apostles. It is not meant to mislead anyone, but just by beliefs after briefly looking at Scripture and word definitions.
Mac
No, really, are you? What is an apostle?
I was reading Hebrews this morning and I saw something I had never seen before (simply amazing how this happens time and time again). In chapter 3, Paul, or whoever was the writer of this letter, stated OF JESUS. "the apostle and high priest whom we confess." Jesus is an apostle? I remember being taught that in order to be an apostle that you had to have been with Jesus during His teachings. How many of you remember that? But right here, it calls Jesus Himself to be an apostle---He had to have been with Himself during His teachings????? Anyway, because of that verse, and what I had always considered to be an apostle. I decided to do a little research.
Let's look in Acts, chapter 1. Peter, an apostle, stood up and gave a short speech. With the suicide of Judas Iscariot behind them, he thought it necessary to fill that vacancy amongst 'the twelve'. Verse 21: "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us." This criteria, of having to have been with them for that 3+ years, seemed to be a requirement to become an apostle. As I had been taught in the past, that one had to have actually seen Jesus and carried on His message, in order to become an apostle. But, this logic quickly falls apart when we read other Scriptures that refer to others, not just 'the twelve', Matthias and Joseph(Barsabbas/Justus). Paul, as we all know, had not been with the original twelve during that time frame, in fact, we know that he was opposing them at that time, and was not even in the area where Jesus was teaching. In 1st Corinthians, Paul calls himself an apostle, although the least of one he said, but still, an apostle. In addition, if you turn to Acts, chapter 14, and read verse 14, you will see that Luke calls both Paul and BARNABAS (son of encouragement), apostles. So now, we have Jesus, 'the twelve', obviously Matthias and possibly Joseph, and now Paul and Barnabas all called apostles. I am not sure if Barnabas was 'with' Peter and the other eleven or not, so, based upon Peter's own description, he COULD have been an apostle. Paul writes of two others in his letter to the Romans as being "outstanding among the apostles" (Both NIV and NASB): Andronicus and Junias. The reference in the language used here is that they were not just "among" the group of apostles, but were actually "amongst", or part of, them. The book of 1st Thessalonians, penned (or dictated) by Paul, talks about "we" did this, and "we" did that. In fact when he talked about "them", as apostles, not being a burden to that church in chapter 1, verse 6, he was talking about himself, Silas, and Timothy (see chapter 1, verse 1). So, theoretically, we can now add Silas and Timothy to our 'list' of people referred to as apostles in Scripture.
I used my Vine's Bible dictionary to help find the meaning of the word apostle, to help me better understand the paragraph above. What I had been taught seems to have been incorrect. I found that the one of the Greek words translated as 'apostle', is apostolos. The definition of the word is "one sent forth". Now, what I have written above becomes more clear to me. Jesus was 'sent forth' from God (Heb 3:1). Paul was 'sent forth' by Jesus Himself (Acts chapter 9). 'The twelve' were sent forth by Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20). And, with that definition, being 'sent forth', can apply to anyone who has accepted the challenge of Jesus. We are sent forth to spread the gospel, are we not? Now, I am not going to profess to be an apostle, but I believe I could if I desired. I am certainly not going to denounce people in other churches who refer to themselves as apostles. And I am also now in belief that you did not necessarily have to have been with the original twelve in order to be one. I believe Peter's message, his calling for a replacement, was based more on attempting to find someone with knowledge and first hand experience to join that elite group. Not necessarily a group of apostles, but a group of men with a formidable mission ahead of them. They needed someone who ALREADY knew all about Christ, one they would not have to treach anew, one that could 'go forth' from that point on, ready for the battle ahead.
I hope this short study has helped you also determine what an apostle is, and who can be apostles. It is not meant to mislead anyone, but just by beliefs after briefly looking at Scripture and word definitions.
Mac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)