Pastor Jason Brinker at First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, NC, has been taking us through Matthew 16 with the topic "Burn the Ships" for several weeks. Yesterday something hit me that I had never seen before. It's about shortcuts and how awful they can be.
I lead one of the Life Groups, and last week we were looking at verses 13 through 18, Pastor Jason's focal text for the previous Sunday. I took them back to the beginning of the chapter where the Pharisees and Sadducees tested Jesus by asking him for a sign to prove he was the Messiah. Now, to us Goyim it might seem like any sign would suffice. But to them, only the sign in the book of Daniel would do: he would have to reveal himself by coming in glory on the clouds and establishing his kingdom right then and there.
What they forgot about (or just ignored) was the other sign in the book of Isaiah: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel." And the other part: "He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." And one more: "They looked on him whom they pierced." They were looking for a conquering king; but he had to come as the suffering servant first. They wanted a shortcut.
I asked the Life Group which Messiah they thought Peter was referring to when he confessed "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." At first they were a little confused until I reminded them about the Pharisees and Sadducees.Yesterday, we got our answer.
This Sunday, Pastor Jason went on in the chapter to cover the turn of events when Jesus began explaining to the disciples that he would be going to Jerusalem and would have to suffer and die at the hands of the Elders and Chief Priests but that on the third day he would rise again. Peter took him aside and pretty much raked him over the coals for it, at which point Jesus called him Satan and told him to get behind him. Peter had gone from being a stone with a confession that would be the rock on which Jesus would build his community to a stumbling block to Jesus' purposes. Peter, after all, was obviously thinking like the Pharisees and Sadducees and was looking for a shortcut Messiah.
One of the things Pastor Jason brought up was how Satan had known since the third chapter of Genesis that this was going to happen, that a son would be born to the line of Adam and Eve whose heel he would bruise at the cost of his head being crushed. This was why Satan came at Jesus in the wilderness, inviting him to make bread from a stone to satisfy what at that point was starvation. He then offered the entire world and all its riches to Jesus if he would bow down and worship Satan; another shortcut.
Now, Satan is not his name. It's his title and means "Adversary." His name is Lucifer, which means "Light Bearer." Sometimes, Satan speaks to us through others, so Jesus could have been directly addressing Satan, or he may have merely been calling Peter an adversary. In modern English, there is an idiom to "get behind" something or someone in support. I see that application when Jesus tells Peter to get behind him, though I doubt the idiom translates well either in Greek or Aramaic.
However, the real revelation to me was the association with the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent presented it to Eve as a shortcut to being like God, Lucifer's iniquity. That was the whole point behind the tree; God commanded them not to eat of it because he knew its true meaning. He loved them enough to want their love in return, and true love toward God starts with obedience. Because God gave us a free will to choose right from wrong, and because we like things easy, we look for shortcuts to get what we really want. Look where it's gotten us.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
It's here...
I am at last gathering data for my research study to finish my dissertation for my Ph.D. in Instructional Design and Online Learning. If you are interested, you can go to my Instructional Design Blog or my IDOL Dissertation Blog to take a 4-item questionnaire to qualify as the population for the study. Thanks.
Friday, September 27, 2013
It's been a long time...
I wanted to post this in the present venue because it is really a musing, though it has spiritual elements that could classify it as a Bible study. Here's the background:
I was at a meeting last night of the Truth Project, a series by Focus on the Family that tries to help people refine their world view to make it more Biblical and less influenced by the world. I made a statement that, given the current state of our physical and mental abilities (i.e. according to some reports most people use about three percent of what their brain is actually capable of, people like Einstein used about ten percent, but Adam in his pre-Fall state used 100%), we do not understand everything in the Bible all at once. In fact, I find that as I continue to read the same passages repeatedly, I find new meaning in them for my current circumstances.
Another gentleman in the group, whom I will characterize as a literalist, took exception to my statement, thinking I was saying that the Truth in the Bible changed from time to time, from circumstance to circumstance. My Pastor rose to my defense saying that, knowing me, he knew that was not what I was saying. I agreed, reaffirming that it was just my comprehension of the Word that changed.
I mentioned to my wife a few nights ago that I am amazed that at 65 years old I am just now understanding certain facets of life and God's Word. It gave me new insight on why many of the antediluvian (pre-Noah) figures did not even start having children until they were 65 or so.
So, this morning as I was musing last night's discussion, I saw a metaphor for what I was saying. As we look into God's Word, it's like we are digging for raw treasure. Sometimes we find nuggets of gold or silver; sometimes whole veins of the raw gold or silver ore. And occasionally, we find raw gems. They are raw and impure because the Holy Spirit has not taught us how to apply them in our lives. The gold and silver ore need to be heated up until they melt and the impurities that we have attached to them in our initial readings (dross) rise to the surface to be extracted leaving the pure metal of the Spirit's perfect interpretation (1 Peter 1:7). After all, He's the one who wrote it in the first place (2 Peter 1:21). And the gems need to be processed by the Spirit as well, chipping off pieces here and there, revealing new facets, geometrically placing them in just the right places in our lives so that the finished jewel, the Spirit's application in our lives, magnificently reflects God's glory.
I was at a meeting last night of the Truth Project, a series by Focus on the Family that tries to help people refine their world view to make it more Biblical and less influenced by the world. I made a statement that, given the current state of our physical and mental abilities (i.e. according to some reports most people use about three percent of what their brain is actually capable of, people like Einstein used about ten percent, but Adam in his pre-Fall state used 100%), we do not understand everything in the Bible all at once. In fact, I find that as I continue to read the same passages repeatedly, I find new meaning in them for my current circumstances.
Another gentleman in the group, whom I will characterize as a literalist, took exception to my statement, thinking I was saying that the Truth in the Bible changed from time to time, from circumstance to circumstance. My Pastor rose to my defense saying that, knowing me, he knew that was not what I was saying. I agreed, reaffirming that it was just my comprehension of the Word that changed.
I mentioned to my wife a few nights ago that I am amazed that at 65 years old I am just now understanding certain facets of life and God's Word. It gave me new insight on why many of the antediluvian (pre-Noah) figures did not even start having children until they were 65 or so.
So, this morning as I was musing last night's discussion, I saw a metaphor for what I was saying. As we look into God's Word, it's like we are digging for raw treasure. Sometimes we find nuggets of gold or silver; sometimes whole veins of the raw gold or silver ore. And occasionally, we find raw gems. They are raw and impure because the Holy Spirit has not taught us how to apply them in our lives. The gold and silver ore need to be heated up until they melt and the impurities that we have attached to them in our initial readings (dross) rise to the surface to be extracted leaving the pure metal of the Spirit's perfect interpretation (1 Peter 1:7). After all, He's the one who wrote it in the first place (2 Peter 1:21). And the gems need to be processed by the Spirit as well, chipping off pieces here and there, revealing new facets, geometrically placing them in just the right places in our lives so that the finished jewel, the Spirit's application in our lives, magnificently reflects God's glory.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Next time....
Well, I found out what my problem was with the blogger app for my phone: it wasn't the one from Google! It was a 3rd party app and obviously it didn't work. I was able to see everything on the real one today. Anyway, just thought I'd share that. Oh, hey, if you have a minute, go check out my blog for my Ph.D. (Milton's IDOL Dissertation). I'm posting my latest ideas for my new topic and I sure could use some feedback. It's listed under my profile. Thanks.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Patience
Ah, technology. I downloaded an app to my Droid 3 phone that was supposed to allow me to post to this blog. However, I can't figure how to make it work, so I will just do it from my laptop.
This is just a short thought that I will develop later, but I was doing some thinking in the shower this morning (my most prolific thought-provoking environment) about my capacity for patience. I can be very patient with tasks, spending inordinate amounts of time getting a thing just right, but I am relatively impatient with people, especially when driving. If I come up behind a person going slower than I am, I want them to get out of my way NOW! By the same token, if I am poking along, enjoying my drive and someone comes up behind me, riding on my bumper, I want them to back off immediately. And woe to the person who cuts in front of me so they can slow down and make a turn! But in general, I just don't have much patience with people. It's something I need to work on. Things that have a heartbeat, I'm told, are more important than things that don't.
This is just a short thought that I will develop later, but I was doing some thinking in the shower this morning (my most prolific thought-provoking environment) about my capacity for patience. I can be very patient with tasks, spending inordinate amounts of time getting a thing just right, but I am relatively impatient with people, especially when driving. If I come up behind a person going slower than I am, I want them to get out of my way NOW! By the same token, if I am poking along, enjoying my drive and someone comes up behind me, riding on my bumper, I want them to back off immediately. And woe to the person who cuts in front of me so they can slow down and make a turn! But in general, I just don't have much patience with people. It's something I need to work on. Things that have a heartbeat, I'm told, are more important than things that don't.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Ode to Whiskers
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to stop shaving...again. To celebrate my return to hirsuteness, I composed this poem:
Fuzzy-wuzzy was a bear,Can it get any worse?
Fuzzy-wuzzy grew some hair,
Fuzzy wasn't fuzzy--
Was he scuzzy?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
A whimsical muse
I was thinking as I worked on my latest post for my IDOL dissertation blog (and thus for my IDOL dissertation). I had occasion to use the word "focus," but I wanted to use the plural. I thought "If the plural of 'locus' (a point, as on a line graph) is 'loci' (pronounced lo-kee), then the plural of 'focus' must be 'foci' (fo-kee), right?" Well, I put it in the text in Word and didn't get a squiggly red line! I was certainly encouraged. (I verified this with dictionary.com and it is listed as one possible plural)
So, I got to thinking further (you know, that usually means trouble): so if the plural of "locus" is "loci" and the plural of "focus" is "foci," then the plural of (wait for it....) the plural of "hocus pocus" has got to be "hoci poci" (ho-kee po-kee), right? And that's what it's all about!
So, I got to thinking further (you know, that usually means trouble): so if the plural of "locus" is "loci" and the plural of "focus" is "foci," then the plural of (wait for it....) the plural of "hocus pocus" has got to be "hoci poci" (ho-kee po-kee), right? And that's what it's all about!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)