We live in a world where truth is relative or even irrelevant. No one really expects a politician to be honest. Used car sales people have had a reputation for shading the truth from the sale of the first used car. Life is filled with "little white lies" and compromise. Even for those who claim to be followers of God honesty and promise keeping has taken a pretty severe hit. Integrity is often hard to find. However, truth is important. Yeshua proclaimed that He was the Truth (John 14:6). He also told us "the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32). In contrast, the Master said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin" (John 8:34). No one wants to be a slave. Freedom is far more desirable than servitude. So give me truth so I can be free. The followers of Messiah Jesus are supposed to know real freedom, right? But what of all those places Paul calls himself a "bondslave" as do Peter and James. Where is the freedom in that?
I know that the American idea of freedom, "doing what ever you want", is not the freedom that the Lord spoke of. I am aware that Paul speaks of being free from sin and death. Which, by the way, is a great freedom to cherish. Yet, the truth is, I have studied the scriptures for about fifty-eight years, seeking to know the truth. In the process I often feel more trapped than I have felt in years. In some ways, the more I search for truth more constricted I become. To be completely honest, life was easier when I just accepted what I had been told.
My problem rests with the Bereans. Those folks in Acts 17:11. Luke writes this about them, "these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Search the Scriptures, not the commentaries or by listening to sermons or accepting traditions. Back to the Scriptures. It has been a challenge for me to take a fresh look. It is a greater challenge to consider the culture, the writer, and the audience who first heard the words or read the letter. There is so much personal baggage and accumulated learning that gets in my way. I no longer feel free to just accept what I hear or read. I can no longer listen to radio preachers in blissful ignorance and acceptance. No, now I am trapped with the thought, "Is that really true?". "Maybe the cross is more about conquering death than forgiving sin". "What did Paul mean when he said Christ died for our sins "According to the Scriptures"? The "according to the Scriptures" that I read in Leviticus has little resemblance to the events of the cross. Just how does that fit with what I thought I knew?
Then there is that whole "grafted in" thing. Add to that, Paul tells the Ephesian Gentiles they are no longer "far off" but now "drawn near" and a part of the commonwealth of Israel. I am still not sure what all of that means, but it seems to indicate that I am more Jewish than I thought I was. Now, for me, I am no longer free to eat unclean food. For me, I am no longer free to ignore Yom Kippur. It has become a day of fasting and prayer for the nation. I have been prompted by the Spirit to avoid leaven this week in honor of the feast of unleavened bread. I am honestly not free to eat pizza crust or burger buns this week. I do not think they make matzo burger buns. It has been a remarkable few days. When I think of what I will not eat, I am reminded of all kinds of details of God's deliverance at Passover, of the blood of the lamb on the door posts. Of the blood of the Lamb who delivered me. Leaven, often a symbol of sin, is not to permeate my life as it permeates a donut. I am reminded that I am not free to do anything I want but to keep my life pure. It is true, I am no longer free to just ignore all that God has revealed in what we call the Old Testament.
In addition I am no longer free to ignore the continuity of the Scriptures or the Hebraic nature of the New testament. I am not free to see the Apostle Paul as a "Christian". He was a Torah observant Messianic Jewish Rabbi. Thus, I am not free to see his teaching outside of that reality. That means I am not free to take for granted all that the commentators write about him. I am not free to accept that little editor's note in Acts 9 that speaks of Paul's conversion, for he never converted, he remained a Jew.
For those of us who desire to take the the Word of God seriously, we are trapped in the matrix of Acts 17:11. Just what do the Scriptures say?
On the other hand, I am free to study. To seek the truth without the artificial boundaries of Testaments and editors notes. I am free to commune with YAHWEH on those "Jewish" holy days and find new meaning within His Holy Word. I am free to appreciate the challenges that Paul faced as a Jewish Rabbi proclaiming Messiah to us Gentiles. I am free to know the Person of the Truth who loves me beyond measure and reveals Himself to me through His Word. It seems He does so in new ways with each day of study. I am free to join in the Apostle Paul's doxology,"Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His unfathomable are His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11:33-36).
You are free to think I am a little bit crazy. I am free to ask if you want to join me in the company of the Bereans and search to see if these things are so.
Maybe that bond servant thing isn't so restrictive after all. For He is indeed the Truth and the Truth has indeed set me free. He also is offering you such freedom. Want a free ticket to join in the journey? I think they are available in Acts 17:11.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
A Fresh Look at the New Commandment
As Yeshua taught His disciples, He gave them instructions and directions as to how they should live. He brought light and understanding to Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Old Testament. However, there is only one time when it is recorded that He was giving them a brand new commandment. The Apostle John records it for us. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). A new commandment to love? Aren't we instructed to love God with all of our hearts five times in Deuteronomy and again in Joshua (Deut. 6:5, 10:12, 11:13, 13:3, 30:6 & Josh. 22:5). Matthew records this as the primary, all encompassing command and adds Lev. 19:18, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD" as the second part of the commandment. Isn't it pretty clear that God has commanded us to love Him and others? This command is indeed different. It might be that we have overlooked the addition of a few words. It may also be that this new commandment has a greater impact on loving God than we ever realized.
The simple phrase, "as I have loved you" is what makes this a new commandment. After three years of following Messiah, the disciples had seen first hand what it was to really love. There was contact with the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. 9:20), the ten lepers (Luke 17:12), the demon-possessed man in the tombs at Gerasenes (Mark 5:15). All people to be avoided. All people who were unclean. All people who needed God's love. And let us not forget that woman at the well in Samaria. The list goes on and on. Messiah went to, and demonstrated love and compassion to, the most unlikely folks you could meet. God's love on display wrapped in human flesh. The command had always been there; the flesh and blood, living illustration, had not. Now if we ever have a question what it means to love our neighbor or one another, all we have to do is look to the Gospel records and see how Messiah loved. We now know how to love one another.
I believe there is more here than we might first recognize. It goes with the command to love God which encompasses loving my neighbor. There is some amazing truth in 1 John 4:20, "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" John suggests that to comprehend how to love God I must first love my brother. It is easy to say we love the invisible, physically intangible God because it costs us nothing. The way I know how to love and to sacrifice for God is to, well, practice on humans. We actually learn how to be loving toward God by being loving toward one another first. Maybe we have had the "Loving God" thing a little backwards. To truly show our love for God we must demonstrate that love to His creation, meaning our brothers and sisters who share this planet.
Many of us have felt the warmth and tenderness that comes from our spouse or a close friend. We may likewise have had a similar experience from the Spirit of God. We understand that warmth and love in Him we cannot see by sharing that experience with those we can see. The ones we call our "loved ones". It really is vital to develop loving relationships with people in order to understand the love we share with the Lord. I know we need to keep God first and to love Him with all of our hearts but maybe the expression of that love for Him is wrapped up in the compassion and tenderness we show to "the least of these".
This new commandment that Jesus spoke of is one that has remarkable ramifications. It is tied to the example He lived out for us. To love one another is actually to know how to love God. Learning to love Him is woven into my love for people. For those irritating, demanding, flesh and blood beings that surround me. For if I do not learn to love them, I do not learn to love God either. I may say I do; however, the reality of life around me will expose what I really know of loving God.
Something to consider next time the overwhelmed Hassidic mom is in front of you at Walmart and wants to argue the price over every other toddler outfit in her cart. Ahh, so this is how I love God.
The simple phrase, "as I have loved you" is what makes this a new commandment. After three years of following Messiah, the disciples had seen first hand what it was to really love. There was contact with the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. 9:20), the ten lepers (Luke 17:12), the demon-possessed man in the tombs at Gerasenes (Mark 5:15). All people to be avoided. All people who were unclean. All people who needed God's love. And let us not forget that woman at the well in Samaria. The list goes on and on. Messiah went to, and demonstrated love and compassion to, the most unlikely folks you could meet. God's love on display wrapped in human flesh. The command had always been there; the flesh and blood, living illustration, had not. Now if we ever have a question what it means to love our neighbor or one another, all we have to do is look to the Gospel records and see how Messiah loved. We now know how to love one another.
I believe there is more here than we might first recognize. It goes with the command to love God which encompasses loving my neighbor. There is some amazing truth in 1 John 4:20, "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" John suggests that to comprehend how to love God I must first love my brother. It is easy to say we love the invisible, physically intangible God because it costs us nothing. The way I know how to love and to sacrifice for God is to, well, practice on humans. We actually learn how to be loving toward God by being loving toward one another first. Maybe we have had the "Loving God" thing a little backwards. To truly show our love for God we must demonstrate that love to His creation, meaning our brothers and sisters who share this planet.
Many of us have felt the warmth and tenderness that comes from our spouse or a close friend. We may likewise have had a similar experience from the Spirit of God. We understand that warmth and love in Him we cannot see by sharing that experience with those we can see. The ones we call our "loved ones". It really is vital to develop loving relationships with people in order to understand the love we share with the Lord. I know we need to keep God first and to love Him with all of our hearts but maybe the expression of that love for Him is wrapped up in the compassion and tenderness we show to "the least of these".
This new commandment that Jesus spoke of is one that has remarkable ramifications. It is tied to the example He lived out for us. To love one another is actually to know how to love God. Learning to love Him is woven into my love for people. For those irritating, demanding, flesh and blood beings that surround me. For if I do not learn to love them, I do not learn to love God either. I may say I do; however, the reality of life around me will expose what I really know of loving God.
Something to consider next time the overwhelmed Hassidic mom is in front of you at Walmart and wants to argue the price over every other toddler outfit in her cart. Ahh, so this is how I love God.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Is God Really Supposed to Be Your Top Priority? Maybe Not.
Have you ever been asked what is the most important thing in your life? Not a new question. In fact, Matthew tells us of a man who pretty much had that question, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" (Matthew 22:36). With our overwhelming schedules it would be helpful to know this, which is the great commandment. At least that way we could get the primary, the most important thing done. We do like to know what the important thing is, even though we tend to lose sight of whatever it is as we drown in the minutia of life. We are told to not let the cry of the urgent cloud what is important. So, back to the question, what is the most important thing in your life? Is it your spouse? Children? Work? Investments? Friends? Well, if you want to be spiritual you might respond with, God or Jesus. That is the real answer. Right? How shocked would you be to learn that that might not be the answer after all.
The Master's response to the question in Matthew 22:37-38 seems pretty straight forward, "Jesus said unto him, You shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.This is the first and great commandment." First priority is to love God with all you have. However, there my be more here that we first see. The man asks, "What is the great commandment" Great, the Greek, megas, meaning largest, most encompassing, that of rank or importance. The biggest commandment of God could mean that of importance or how much it includes. The Master, Yeshua, responds explaining "the first and great". Loving God is the first, protos, meaning primary or in a position of honor and megas largest, this is the primary and most encompassing commandment. However the Master is not yet finished with the answer.
The Master's response to the question in Matthew 22:37-38 seems pretty straight forward, "Jesus said unto him, You shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.This is the first and great commandment." First priority is to love God with all you have. However, there my be more here that we first see. The man asks, "What is the great commandment" Great, the Greek, megas, meaning largest, most encompassing, that of rank or importance. The biggest commandment of God could mean that of importance or how much it includes. The Master, Yeshua, responds explaining "the first and great". Loving God is the first, protos, meaning primary or in a position of honor and megas largest, this is the primary and most encompassing commandment. However the Master is not yet finished with the answer.
“And second, like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). This seems clear as well. Number one commandment is love God. Number two commandment is love your neighbor. Or is it? The word second, the Greek deuteros, does mean second but it also means the other of two. Yeshua says it is "like" the Greek, homoios, meaning similar or corresponding to. Possibly the second matching part of the command to "love God" is the corresponding "love your neighbor". Is the first commandment so large and encompassing it includes the second rather than being in some sort of divine pecking order? Oh the joy of being an American and steeped in Western, Greek thought and culture.
John explains in 1 John 4:20,"If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" You see, commandment number one is intimately connected to commandment number two.You honestly cannot separate them. Hebraic thought, the way the Master, Jesus, thought, sees life and thought fully integrated. As did those other Hebrew writers like Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Paul and Peter. Those of us who are immersed in American/Western thought and culture like to compartmentalizes everything. We compartmentalize the LORD who is One into Father, Son and Spirit who have some distinctions but are far more an integrated One than a separated trinity. We do the same with ourselves, separating body, soul and spirit more that we see our beings as integrated. Take a minute and consider this. Yeshua, Jesus, told us to fast, meaning to not eat for a time, not to live life in overdrive. So does fasting affect your physical being or your spiritual being? Does it involve the soul, as in your mind, will and emotions or just your physical person? Oh, it touches all aspects of who you are? Almost, like God designed you to be an integrated being where every aspect of who you are touches every other aspect. Hmmmm. I wonder if this is true in other areas of life?
I do not mean to cause you greater angst in your life but the artificial divisions we practice can wreak havoc with who God intends you to be. There is no spiritual and temporal you, just you. Our life's priorities are an illusion of Western thought. Everything you do and think has an impact on every other area of your life. God did not design you to be bits and pieces of a human machine with interchangeable parts. You cannot have loving God as a priority if you do not have loving your neighbor as a priority. The job you choose to take, the place you choose to live, even the assembly of believers you may choose to fellowship with will impact every aspect of your life. For your body and soul and spirit cannot be itemized and boxed separately. Choices have consequences in every aspect of every part of the thing you call life.
Let's conclude as the Master did back in Matthew 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” On these two corresponding, all encompassing, similar commandments, "hang", the Greek kremannymi, meaning to hang from, connect to, or summed up by. So all the teaching and instructions of God are connected. Does this mean to "love God" encompasses all of this? Well, the Master, Jesus did say, “If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). What is the great commandment? Perhaps it is to have an integrated life integrated into Messiah and the Father by the power of the Spirit where the artificial boarders of my life are melted into His. Not an easy way to prioritize your life list but perhaps it is the way He intends us to live. Give it some thought or maybe you can add it to your list.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
We Owe Peter an Apology or There Is No Tonight
As we look to the Gospel accounts we may well succumb to a bit of a critical attitude toward the disciples. We could justify this as we might have noticed that the Lord had His moments of frustration with them as well. Mark 9:19, "And He answered them and said, “O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long
shall I put up with you? Bring him to Me!” or Matt. 8:26, "But He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm." And let us not forget Matt. 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Yeshua had His moments when He was less than complimentary to Peter and the twelve.
However, I do not think that we can be excused for our critical attitudes toward these early followers of Messiah. We have just honored the death and resurrection of our Lord. Many have heard messages concerning the Triumphal Entry, the Last Supper and Resurrection Sunday. In all of them we could point out the disbelief and cowardice of Yeshua's disciples. We could take note of their inability to grasp the clear teaching of their Lord and Rabbi who told them repeatedly of the plan to defeat death. This is clear in Mark 9:31-32, "For He taught His disciples
and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of
men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the
third day. But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him." How could they miss such an obvious teaching?
It would help if we were Jews living in Palestine about 2000 years ago. The Jews were anticipating Messiah's arrival. They wanted a deliverer. Rome was oppressive and they had not known true freedom for generations. They saw the promises in Isaiah 9:7, a descendant of David whose kingdom would never end, or perhaps Psalm 110:1 where He would sit at God's right hand with His enemies at His feet. But few would have thought of Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 as their idea of a coming redeemer and deliverer. So it should not be a surprise when Yeshua begins healing, preaching good news to the poor and setting the demonic captives free (Isaiah 61:1) that the disciples and the crowds saw Him as the coming Messiah. With this in mind the message of death and resurrection would have sailed over their heads. They already knew that Messiah was to deliver them and establish His kingdom so they didn't understand this teaching that was in full opposition to what they had held as the promise for so many years.
I heard a message last week on the Last Supper. The speaker said he could not believe how stupid the disciples were as they ate with Jesus. How much clearer could you get concerning Judas and his betrayal. "The one who dips in the bowl and I give him the bread will betray me. Then Judas leaves as Jesus says , "It is you, what you do go and do quickly." The rest of the group is still clueless and think Judas is doing a convenience store run or giving money to the poor. How could they be so dense? The application was that people are still just as dense today and they, like Peter, just cannot see the obvious.
Let's review a few facts that might help explain things. First, as I already stated, no one was thinking death and resurrection. Everyone was thinking Kingdom, as in, "Is now the time you will restore the Kingdom?" Second, they are just a few days from the entry into Jerusalem. Remember those shouts of, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", and "Hosanna to the Son of David". It is true that Messiah spoke of his death just before they got to Jerusalem but doesn't this change things? Hey the whole city is behind us. Third, no one suspected Judas. He had never ever given any indication that he was not on board. That is why they each wonder if they are the one who will betray (See Mark 14 or one of the other Gospel accounts for the details). Fourth, It is Peter who asks John to ask Jesus who is the guilty party. Jesus tells them but it is not an announcement to the whole group. Fifth, betray can be to turn over but it also carries the idea of verbal betrayal not necessarily physical betrayal. It can be more like denial. The disciples had seen this before in John 6:66-67. Many disciples deserted Messiah and He asks if the twelve will desert as well. Sixth, Jesus had just washed Judas' feet, as He had the rest. so why would they suspect him of any treachery? Finally, Yeshua, Jesus never says "Tonight he shall betray me". He only says betrayal is coming. How would they know when? Why would they think it would be this night? This is Passover night. This is just before the feast of unleavened bread. This is just after the Triumphal Entry. This is a time of celebration with the masses on Jesus' side. Those opposing Jesus would be fools to come after Him at a time like this. If there is going to be an attempt on the Master's life it will be when the crowds are not there to defend him . Yet, it is obvious that Judas has left. Where did Judas go? He must have gone to get food or to bless the poor on this Passover night. After all he did have charge of the finances.
In spite of the teaching and warnings of Messiah it is really not a surprise that the disciples missed the message concerning His impending death. If we are true to the text we should be neither surprised or critical of their lack of understanding. I dare say we would had been just as "stupid" and "dense" if we had been at the table. Maybe we need to cut Peter and the rest a little slack. Maybe some of preachers and teachers owe Peter an apology? Check the text. There is no "tonight" when the Lord speaks of betrayal. So how could they know when betrayal is coming? How would they have known it was Judas? They didn't even know if they themselves were the betrayer. I think it is time to be a bit more forgiving of the twelve. If I am honest with myself I am probably at least as dense and slow witted as any of them. How about you?
I heard a message last week on the Last Supper. The speaker said he could not believe how stupid the disciples were as they ate with Jesus. How much clearer could you get concerning Judas and his betrayal. "The one who dips in the bowl and I give him the bread will betray me. Then Judas leaves as Jesus says , "It is you, what you do go and do quickly." The rest of the group is still clueless and think Judas is doing a convenience store run or giving money to the poor. How could they be so dense? The application was that people are still just as dense today and they, like Peter, just cannot see the obvious.
Let's review a few facts that might help explain things. First, as I already stated, no one was thinking death and resurrection. Everyone was thinking Kingdom, as in, "Is now the time you will restore the Kingdom?" Second, they are just a few days from the entry into Jerusalem. Remember those shouts of, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", and "Hosanna to the Son of David". It is true that Messiah spoke of his death just before they got to Jerusalem but doesn't this change things? Hey the whole city is behind us. Third, no one suspected Judas. He had never ever given any indication that he was not on board. That is why they each wonder if they are the one who will betray (See Mark 14 or one of the other Gospel accounts for the details). Fourth, It is Peter who asks John to ask Jesus who is the guilty party. Jesus tells them but it is not an announcement to the whole group. Fifth, betray can be to turn over but it also carries the idea of verbal betrayal not necessarily physical betrayal. It can be more like denial. The disciples had seen this before in John 6:66-67. Many disciples deserted Messiah and He asks if the twelve will desert as well. Sixth, Jesus had just washed Judas' feet, as He had the rest. so why would they suspect him of any treachery? Finally, Yeshua, Jesus never says "Tonight he shall betray me". He only says betrayal is coming. How would they know when? Why would they think it would be this night? This is Passover night. This is just before the feast of unleavened bread. This is just after the Triumphal Entry. This is a time of celebration with the masses on Jesus' side. Those opposing Jesus would be fools to come after Him at a time like this. If there is going to be an attempt on the Master's life it will be when the crowds are not there to defend him . Yet, it is obvious that Judas has left. Where did Judas go? He must have gone to get food or to bless the poor on this Passover night. After all he did have charge of the finances.
In spite of the teaching and warnings of Messiah it is really not a surprise that the disciples missed the message concerning His impending death. If we are true to the text we should be neither surprised or critical of their lack of understanding. I dare say we would had been just as "stupid" and "dense" if we had been at the table. Maybe we need to cut Peter and the rest a little slack. Maybe some of preachers and teachers owe Peter an apology? Check the text. There is no "tonight" when the Lord speaks of betrayal. So how could they know when betrayal is coming? How would they have known it was Judas? They didn't even know if they themselves were the betrayer. I think it is time to be a bit more forgiving of the twelve. If I am honest with myself I am probably at least as dense and slow witted as any of them. How about you?
Saturday, March 19, 2016
The Bible Does Not Say Jesus Rose On The First Day Of The Week
Have you ever heard that Jesus rose on the first day of the week? It is a common held belief. Would you be surprised to learn that the Bible does not say He rose on the first day of the week? I know if you look at Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, where each carry the account of our Lord's resurrection, that this is what is written in virtually every translation. However, it is not what the Greek says. This also holds true for Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. The truth is that the phrase "first day of the week" never appears in the New Testament. So why do we find it in all these passages? It is called translation bias. What to know what the text really says? Then read the next paragraph or two.
In all of these instances the Greek text actually says, "eis mian sabbaton" (A transliteration from the Greek), literally translated, "one to or toward Sabbath". For the Hebrews there is one significant day each week. It is the day YAHWEH set aside and declared holy in Genesis 2:3. It is the seventh day, or the Sabbath. Every other day was lived in expectation of Sabbath. Thus, from a Jewish perspective, days were "one toward Sabbath, two toward Sabbath, three toward Sabbath ... Six toward Sabbath and finally Sabbath." Virtually all English translations hide this Hebraic perspective. The intentional mistranslation is rationalized by calling it an equivalent translation. Everyone knows the day "one toward Sabbath" is also the first day of the week. So for English this is the equivalent of the Greek, thus close enough for most translators. This may seem incidental. After all, they both mean the same thing so we haven't really lost anything, have we? Besides, it is an easier read in English. This way we do not even have to think. We do not have to recognize the Hebraic nature of the New Testament.
However, there is more to consider. If the phrase throughout the New Testament is "one toward Sabbath", which is undeniably Hebrew in its origin, then something else holds true as well. The Hebraic understanding of time also comes into play. The day for a Jew begins at sundown and ends at sundown. Following the Genesis account of "evening and morning day one, evening and morning day two, etc." Therefore the Lord rose from the dead any time after sundown on our Saturday night. The women waited until after Sabbath, sundown on our Saturday, to prepare the spices and headed for the tomb while it was still dark. Perhaps our Western/American perspective has skewed our understanding a bit. Maybe we could have a Saturday night worship time celebrating Messiah's resurrection instead of a sunrise service. Or maybe not. One doesn't want to mess with tradition. Messiah could have waited twelve hours to to rise from the dead. Anyway, we know it was getting light, one toward Sabbath, when the women found the empty tomb. I really am fine with the traditional sunrise celebration.
The "equivalent" translation of "first day of the week" has little bearing as to the timing of the resurrection. No matter what the clock in your house says, Yeshua rose after sundown Saturday and before sundown on Sunday so we are clearly in the right ballpark. The real problem with this "equivalent" translation is the damage it does outside of the Gospel accounts. It leads to misinterpretation, some poor preaching and false support for an end to Sabbath observance. This error is most pronounced in the account found in Acts 20.
I suggest you take a moment and read Acts 20:7-11 but, if you do not have time, here are the high points. On the first day of the week, actually on one toward Sabbath, Paul breaks bread with the disciples and then preaches all the way to midnight. It is warm from all the lanterns. Eutychus falls asleep and drops from a window and appears to be dead. Paul revives him, has something to eat, preaches some more and at daybreak he departs. I have heard many a sermon about Paul preaching for fourteen hours and then another six "And you thought my sermons were long" says the preacher. Because we all know every "church" meets at 10:00 on Sunday morning and Paul preached until Monday morning. Thus, it may be one of the worlds longest sermons.
Let us return this account to the culture and Hebraic context it was written in. It is the seventh day, the Sabbath, our Saturday, and Paul and the disciples have been at the synagogue, as was Paul's custom throughout Acts. At sundown, the beginning of one toward Sabbath, our Saturday night, Paul and the disciples gather for the breaking of bread. Perhaps a meal and the memorial we call communion. It is around eight or nine on our Saturday night. Paul preaches three hours or so, it is now midnight, and Eutychus takes his tumble. Paul revives him, eats and teaches a while longer. He then leaves early on our Sunday morning. Actually, the whole account is more reasonable when we put things in a Hebraic context. It also discounts the "evidence" that this points to the "church" beginning to meet on Sundays, replacing the Sabbath day with "first day" worship.
Refusing to acknowledge that the text clearly points to the Hebraic understanding of time distorts the account. This is also true with the offering gathered "one toward Sabbath" in 1 Cor. 16:2. Following their time at the synagogue, as the sun went down and one toward Sabbath or the first day of the week began, Paul says, "Before you go home for the night remember to gather the offering for the suffering saints in Jerusalem." This is used as well as evidence for an end to Sabbath and the beginning of Sunday worship. It simply does not exist in the text or the New Testament.
Just as an end note. Sunday worship began under the rule of Constantine who was antisemitic and worked to complete the divide between the "church" and Judaism. Until this time the Messianic believers were, for the most part, viewed as a sect of Judaism. Also, everyone in the Roman Empire worked on Sunday. The only day recognized as a day of rest was the seventh day or the Sabbath due to the influence of the Jews scattered throughout the empire. Sunday worship never replaces the Sabbath in the New Testament. However, I believe any day is a great day to praise and worship so do not think I believe Sunday worship is a bad thing.
I hope you enjoy your Resurrection Celebration. When we remember that Yeshua, our Messiah, rose one toward Sabbath and conquered the grave. We are set free from the curse of death and have life everlasting in Him. He is risen indeed!
In all of these instances the Greek text actually says, "eis mian sabbaton" (A transliteration from the Greek), literally translated, "one to or toward Sabbath". For the Hebrews there is one significant day each week. It is the day YAHWEH set aside and declared holy in Genesis 2:3. It is the seventh day, or the Sabbath. Every other day was lived in expectation of Sabbath. Thus, from a Jewish perspective, days were "one toward Sabbath, two toward Sabbath, three toward Sabbath ... Six toward Sabbath and finally Sabbath." Virtually all English translations hide this Hebraic perspective. The intentional mistranslation is rationalized by calling it an equivalent translation. Everyone knows the day "one toward Sabbath" is also the first day of the week. So for English this is the equivalent of the Greek, thus close enough for most translators. This may seem incidental. After all, they both mean the same thing so we haven't really lost anything, have we? Besides, it is an easier read in English. This way we do not even have to think. We do not have to recognize the Hebraic nature of the New Testament.
However, there is more to consider. If the phrase throughout the New Testament is "one toward Sabbath", which is undeniably Hebrew in its origin, then something else holds true as well. The Hebraic understanding of time also comes into play. The day for a Jew begins at sundown and ends at sundown. Following the Genesis account of "evening and morning day one, evening and morning day two, etc." Therefore the Lord rose from the dead any time after sundown on our Saturday night. The women waited until after Sabbath, sundown on our Saturday, to prepare the spices and headed for the tomb while it was still dark. Perhaps our Western/American perspective has skewed our understanding a bit. Maybe we could have a Saturday night worship time celebrating Messiah's resurrection instead of a sunrise service. Or maybe not. One doesn't want to mess with tradition. Messiah could have waited twelve hours to to rise from the dead. Anyway, we know it was getting light, one toward Sabbath, when the women found the empty tomb. I really am fine with the traditional sunrise celebration.
The "equivalent" translation of "first day of the week" has little bearing as to the timing of the resurrection. No matter what the clock in your house says, Yeshua rose after sundown Saturday and before sundown on Sunday so we are clearly in the right ballpark. The real problem with this "equivalent" translation is the damage it does outside of the Gospel accounts. It leads to misinterpretation, some poor preaching and false support for an end to Sabbath observance. This error is most pronounced in the account found in Acts 20.
I suggest you take a moment and read Acts 20:7-11 but, if you do not have time, here are the high points. On the first day of the week, actually on one toward Sabbath, Paul breaks bread with the disciples and then preaches all the way to midnight. It is warm from all the lanterns. Eutychus falls asleep and drops from a window and appears to be dead. Paul revives him, has something to eat, preaches some more and at daybreak he departs. I have heard many a sermon about Paul preaching for fourteen hours and then another six "And you thought my sermons were long" says the preacher. Because we all know every "church" meets at 10:00 on Sunday morning and Paul preached until Monday morning. Thus, it may be one of the worlds longest sermons.
Let us return this account to the culture and Hebraic context it was written in. It is the seventh day, the Sabbath, our Saturday, and Paul and the disciples have been at the synagogue, as was Paul's custom throughout Acts. At sundown, the beginning of one toward Sabbath, our Saturday night, Paul and the disciples gather for the breaking of bread. Perhaps a meal and the memorial we call communion. It is around eight or nine on our Saturday night. Paul preaches three hours or so, it is now midnight, and Eutychus takes his tumble. Paul revives him, eats and teaches a while longer. He then leaves early on our Sunday morning. Actually, the whole account is more reasonable when we put things in a Hebraic context. It also discounts the "evidence" that this points to the "church" beginning to meet on Sundays, replacing the Sabbath day with "first day" worship.
Refusing to acknowledge that the text clearly points to the Hebraic understanding of time distorts the account. This is also true with the offering gathered "one toward Sabbath" in 1 Cor. 16:2. Following their time at the synagogue, as the sun went down and one toward Sabbath or the first day of the week began, Paul says, "Before you go home for the night remember to gather the offering for the suffering saints in Jerusalem." This is used as well as evidence for an end to Sabbath and the beginning of Sunday worship. It simply does not exist in the text or the New Testament.
Just as an end note. Sunday worship began under the rule of Constantine who was antisemitic and worked to complete the divide between the "church" and Judaism. Until this time the Messianic believers were, for the most part, viewed as a sect of Judaism. Also, everyone in the Roman Empire worked on Sunday. The only day recognized as a day of rest was the seventh day or the Sabbath due to the influence of the Jews scattered throughout the empire. Sunday worship never replaces the Sabbath in the New Testament. However, I believe any day is a great day to praise and worship so do not think I believe Sunday worship is a bad thing.
I hope you enjoy your Resurrection Celebration. When we remember that Yeshua, our Messiah, rose one toward Sabbath and conquered the grave. We are set free from the curse of death and have life everlasting in Him. He is risen indeed!
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Assignment: Fully Describe God in One Word. You Have Thirty Seconds. Begin.
It seems we have been trying to determine who God is for some time. I have a sizable collection of resources, as theology was my major both in my graduate and post-graduated studies. Among them is Chafer's eight volume Systematic Theology, Erikson's 1302 page work on Christian Theology and Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, some 1204 pages long. That barely scratches the surface. Yet, I was told that God is a simple being. Meaning He is not one who comes in parts and pieces. He is one, indivisible, unique being who has revealed Himself to me. In other words God is not a being you can dissect so you can understand and observe His parts. Yet, that has never stopped us from trying, especially for those of us who are American's steeped in Western and Greek thought. We compartmentalize everything so we may as well do the same with God.
We live in a society that labels and boxes all we encounter. From personality traits to learning styles. We systematically place people into their proper category, which allows them to excuse bad behavior and reject personal accountability. We do the same with God and those who follow Him. "Are you a Calvinist?' "Wesleyan?" "Charismatic?" "Reformed?" or one of 30,000 plus protestant denominations. And don't forget the Catholics and Orthodox folks. All with their distinct flavors of theology. All separated depending on how they parse God or dissect His attributes. We have a long way to go to see Yeshua's prayer answered, "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world and I come to You, Holy Father, keep through your name those whom You have given me, in that they may be one as we are one" (John 17:11).
Two key areas to think about before we answer the assigned question. First, is God three or one? The area of the trinity has long been one of great study and discussion. I took classes in Theology Proper (the Father), Christology (the Son) and Pneumatology (the Spirit) so I could systematically categorize and differentiate the ministries of each part, or rather "Person" (because God doesn't have parts), of the Trinity. However, Isaiah said, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me" (Isaiah 61:1), as does Elijah and Ezekiel. Yeshua told the disciples He would give them the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). (By the way for those who want to differentiate between the Old Testament Spirit being "on you" and the New Testament being 'In you" Ezekiel 36:27 says "In you" and Acts 1:8 says "upon you". So that argument doesn't work.) Romans 8:9 says I need the "Spirit of Christ" or I am none of His. So, do I have/need the Spirit of the Lord God, or the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ? Is God my savior, like David often says in the Psalms, or is it Jesus Messiah? Is God Judge or is it the Son? If you are honest the lines are very blurry when it comes to divvying up Their individual attributes and ministries. Maybe the Jews are right and the Lord God is One, more than He is triune.
Second, Why do we have an Old Testament and a New Testament? Isn't it just one revelation from God to show us who He is and how we are to live? Why did the early church Fathers make such a clear distinction? The historic truth is so they could separate the Jewish books from the "church" books.. To separate the book of the Law from the new revelation of Grace. To separate the God of wrath and the God of Love. Forget that all of the "New" testament writers were Jewish, or wrote from a Jewish perspective. Forget that the "New" testament is about the Jewish Messiah and the we Gentiles have been grafted in (Rom 11:17) and are now brought near under the covenants and promises to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12). Forget that grace permeates the "Old" testament and that there is abundant love in the "old" and abundant wrath in the "New" (bowls of them if I remember right). There was no separation between Jewish and Gentile believers when the Messianic assemblies first began to meet at the synagogues. The "Old" and "New" Western labels do us a disservice as we are lead to believe that Matthew through Revelation is somehow better or replaces the "Old". Everyone knows that "New" is better, more relevant and important than the "Old". If you doubt this think of how much time evangelicals spend teaching the "New" testament rather than the "Old".
Compartmentalization does us a great disservice when we try to understand God and what He has revealed to us.
So, Your thirty seconds are up. What word did you come up with? If you are reformed maybe it is "sovereign". Baptist, maybe "grace". Of course we have the "omni's" - omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. There are lots of attributes to choose from but none of them stand alone very well. I asked this question, or a variation of it, of several Jewish guys at the gym I go to. Now I know that this is not a scientific study and may not be the definitive answer, but it gave me something to ponder for a while. And I am not done pondering it yet. If they had an answer it was simply, "God is good". It even garnished a little discussion among those in the Locker room but the Jewish guys pretty much ended up here. God is good. Many of us say it as well. "God is good, all the time. All the time.... You know how it goes. It actually works really well. Because God is good He is kind and compassionate. Because God is good He will not let injustice go unpunished. Because God is good He is holy, set apart from all that is not good. Because He is good He delivers, He is right or righteous. As a good God He is always present, He knows what is best, He is pure and blameless. He never changes in His character. He is good so He listens to me and will even change His mind, if it is the good thing to do.
I encourage you to take some time, maybe more than the allotted thirty seconds, and consider the depth and wealth there is in the simple reality that God is good. Perhaps, we would do well to stop trying to systematically understand the Lord and to compartmentalize His Person. Maybe we would benefit from seeing how everything about Him is integrated into everything about Him. Maybe, just maybe we would be blessed and encouraged to spend fifteen minutes in the quiet of the morning or evening and bask in the truth that He is good.............. all the time.
We live in a society that labels and boxes all we encounter. From personality traits to learning styles. We systematically place people into their proper category, which allows them to excuse bad behavior and reject personal accountability. We do the same with God and those who follow Him. "Are you a Calvinist?' "Wesleyan?" "Charismatic?" "Reformed?" or one of 30,000 plus protestant denominations. And don't forget the Catholics and Orthodox folks. All with their distinct flavors of theology. All separated depending on how they parse God or dissect His attributes. We have a long way to go to see Yeshua's prayer answered, "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world and I come to You, Holy Father, keep through your name those whom You have given me, in that they may be one as we are one" (John 17:11).
Two key areas to think about before we answer the assigned question. First, is God three or one? The area of the trinity has long been one of great study and discussion. I took classes in Theology Proper (the Father), Christology (the Son) and Pneumatology (the Spirit) so I could systematically categorize and differentiate the ministries of each part, or rather "Person" (because God doesn't have parts), of the Trinity. However, Isaiah said, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me" (Isaiah 61:1), as does Elijah and Ezekiel. Yeshua told the disciples He would give them the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). (By the way for those who want to differentiate between the Old Testament Spirit being "on you" and the New Testament being 'In you" Ezekiel 36:27 says "In you" and Acts 1:8 says "upon you". So that argument doesn't work.) Romans 8:9 says I need the "Spirit of Christ" or I am none of His. So, do I have/need the Spirit of the Lord God, or the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ? Is God my savior, like David often says in the Psalms, or is it Jesus Messiah? Is God Judge or is it the Son? If you are honest the lines are very blurry when it comes to divvying up Their individual attributes and ministries. Maybe the Jews are right and the Lord God is One, more than He is triune.
Second, Why do we have an Old Testament and a New Testament? Isn't it just one revelation from God to show us who He is and how we are to live? Why did the early church Fathers make such a clear distinction? The historic truth is so they could separate the Jewish books from the "church" books.. To separate the book of the Law from the new revelation of Grace. To separate the God of wrath and the God of Love. Forget that all of the "New" testament writers were Jewish, or wrote from a Jewish perspective. Forget that the "New" testament is about the Jewish Messiah and the we Gentiles have been grafted in (Rom 11:17) and are now brought near under the covenants and promises to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12). Forget that grace permeates the "Old" testament and that there is abundant love in the "old" and abundant wrath in the "New" (bowls of them if I remember right). There was no separation between Jewish and Gentile believers when the Messianic assemblies first began to meet at the synagogues. The "Old" and "New" Western labels do us a disservice as we are lead to believe that Matthew through Revelation is somehow better or replaces the "Old". Everyone knows that "New" is better, more relevant and important than the "Old". If you doubt this think of how much time evangelicals spend teaching the "New" testament rather than the "Old".
Compartmentalization does us a great disservice when we try to understand God and what He has revealed to us.
So, Your thirty seconds are up. What word did you come up with? If you are reformed maybe it is "sovereign". Baptist, maybe "grace". Of course we have the "omni's" - omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. There are lots of attributes to choose from but none of them stand alone very well. I asked this question, or a variation of it, of several Jewish guys at the gym I go to. Now I know that this is not a scientific study and may not be the definitive answer, but it gave me something to ponder for a while. And I am not done pondering it yet. If they had an answer it was simply, "God is good". It even garnished a little discussion among those in the Locker room but the Jewish guys pretty much ended up here. God is good. Many of us say it as well. "God is good, all the time. All the time.... You know how it goes. It actually works really well. Because God is good He is kind and compassionate. Because God is good He will not let injustice go unpunished. Because God is good He is holy, set apart from all that is not good. Because He is good He delivers, He is right or righteous. As a good God He is always present, He knows what is best, He is pure and blameless. He never changes in His character. He is good so He listens to me and will even change His mind, if it is the good thing to do.
I encourage you to take some time, maybe more than the allotted thirty seconds, and consider the depth and wealth there is in the simple reality that God is good. Perhaps, we would do well to stop trying to systematically understand the Lord and to compartmentalize His Person. Maybe we would benefit from seeing how everything about Him is integrated into everything about Him. Maybe, just maybe we would be blessed and encouraged to spend fifteen minutes in the quiet of the morning or evening and bask in the truth that He is good.............. all the time.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Please, Don't Fix Me
There are times when we hurt. Times when those around us hurt. Times when we hear them cry out with David, "God, why have you forsaken me!". The times are real and we want to comfort. But, what do you do? How do you help the wounded and brokenhearted? It is the promise of Messiah to "Bind up the brokenhearted and set the captives free" (Isa 61:1). Yet, how do we help when He feels so distant? Perhaps, like David, we cling to what we know to be true even when it does not feel that way. Somehow we make it through another day. However, we would like to do more.
God does give us some guidance. However, it is often missed and we resort to what seems right rather than what the Word of God suggests. Even then God often uses our feeble attempts to comfort the distressed while we miss the point He has been offering all along. The individuality and independence of our culture makes these times even more challenging. We need to escape the confines of our American and Western upbringings. The scriptures we read and the lessons Messiah taught were couched in an interdependent culture. Community and intimacy within the family and the community at large was true in ways that often escape our grasp. We want to help so we endeavor to "think" and "reason" our way to a solution. And we miss the point. We drop "truth" on the victim where none may be needed.
Paul gives us a very simple piece of instruction that we may well miss as "thoughtful" Americans. "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15). The whole passage is about the intimacy of community. It speaks of how we are to respond and care for one another. We are to "rejoice with those who rejoice". We can be pretty good with that. To share in the joy and happiness of a newborn or healing or the marriage of two souls deeply in love with one another and the Lord. Good times of great joy.
However, He also tells us to weep with those who weep. Here the word for weep is one of great emotion, of the sorrow and anguish of the loss of a loved one. It carries the flavor of David's cry in Psalm 22. I have observed that we struggle with this command. Our tendency is to rejoice with those who rejoice and try to fix those who weep. This is not the intention of the commandment at all.
I have seldom, if ever, seen someone tell the rejoicing to keep an eternal perspective, or to know that God is in control and will not give them anything they cannot handle. I have never seen people share verses to tell the rejoicing to keep things in perspective. And not once have I heard someone walk up to a person filled with the wonder and exuberance of God's deliverance and say, "Remember, this too shall pass." However, I have seen all of these "encouragements" laid upon a grieving heart. The wounded don't need to be fixed, they need to be carried. Paul tells the Galatians to "Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). Two things to note. First, the law of Christ is to Love God and Love our neighbor. Bearing one another's burdens fulfills the command to love God by this act of obedience and to love our neighbor by helping to carry their burden. Second, you cannot bear a burden by standing above the pit they are in and dropping verses of encouragement on them. You have to get down in the pit.
The deeply wounded need a shoulder not a scripture, they need understanding tears not platitudes that come from our need to say something. They need the quiet assurance of a friend who is there for the long haul, no matter how they feel, how angry they are and how disappointed they feel with God. They need a nonjudgmental companion who will lovingly join them in the journey of God's healing. They don't need to be fixed, not even with Scripture. They need to be held up by someone willing to take the time and enter into and carry their sorrow with them. To weep with them, without judgment or even words.
I have been married to an amazing woman for over thirty-eight years. She is a profoundly sensitive soul. There are times when I find her weeping. I have learned to gently ask these questions. "Do you know why you are crying?" Very often the answer is "No" so I just hold her and let her cry. If the answer is "Yes" I ask, "Do you want to talk about it?" If she says "No" I offer to just hold her. I learned that the times are very rare that she wants me to fix anything. She does not want a "Word from the Lord", she just needs to be held.
We live in a cold and indifferent world filled with wounded people. In the community of believers this should be markedly different. "They will know that we are followers of Messiah by our love for one another". So be excited as you share in the rejoicing of a brother or sister in Christ. However, be ready and willing to get down into the pit and bear the burdens of the deeply wounded, to gently hold those who feel abandoned. Don't try to fix them, just join in the weeping and help carry their pain. It is what Jesus would do.
God does give us some guidance. However, it is often missed and we resort to what seems right rather than what the Word of God suggests. Even then God often uses our feeble attempts to comfort the distressed while we miss the point He has been offering all along. The individuality and independence of our culture makes these times even more challenging. We need to escape the confines of our American and Western upbringings. The scriptures we read and the lessons Messiah taught were couched in an interdependent culture. Community and intimacy within the family and the community at large was true in ways that often escape our grasp. We want to help so we endeavor to "think" and "reason" our way to a solution. And we miss the point. We drop "truth" on the victim where none may be needed.
Paul gives us a very simple piece of instruction that we may well miss as "thoughtful" Americans. "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15). The whole passage is about the intimacy of community. It speaks of how we are to respond and care for one another. We are to "rejoice with those who rejoice". We can be pretty good with that. To share in the joy and happiness of a newborn or healing or the marriage of two souls deeply in love with one another and the Lord. Good times of great joy.
However, He also tells us to weep with those who weep. Here the word for weep is one of great emotion, of the sorrow and anguish of the loss of a loved one. It carries the flavor of David's cry in Psalm 22. I have observed that we struggle with this command. Our tendency is to rejoice with those who rejoice and try to fix those who weep. This is not the intention of the commandment at all.
I have seldom, if ever, seen someone tell the rejoicing to keep an eternal perspective, or to know that God is in control and will not give them anything they cannot handle. I have never seen people share verses to tell the rejoicing to keep things in perspective. And not once have I heard someone walk up to a person filled with the wonder and exuberance of God's deliverance and say, "Remember, this too shall pass." However, I have seen all of these "encouragements" laid upon a grieving heart. The wounded don't need to be fixed, they need to be carried. Paul tells the Galatians to "Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). Two things to note. First, the law of Christ is to Love God and Love our neighbor. Bearing one another's burdens fulfills the command to love God by this act of obedience and to love our neighbor by helping to carry their burden. Second, you cannot bear a burden by standing above the pit they are in and dropping verses of encouragement on them. You have to get down in the pit.
The deeply wounded need a shoulder not a scripture, they need understanding tears not platitudes that come from our need to say something. They need the quiet assurance of a friend who is there for the long haul, no matter how they feel, how angry they are and how disappointed they feel with God. They need a nonjudgmental companion who will lovingly join them in the journey of God's healing. They don't need to be fixed, not even with Scripture. They need to be held up by someone willing to take the time and enter into and carry their sorrow with them. To weep with them, without judgment or even words.
I have been married to an amazing woman for over thirty-eight years. She is a profoundly sensitive soul. There are times when I find her weeping. I have learned to gently ask these questions. "Do you know why you are crying?" Very often the answer is "No" so I just hold her and let her cry. If the answer is "Yes" I ask, "Do you want to talk about it?" If she says "No" I offer to just hold her. I learned that the times are very rare that she wants me to fix anything. She does not want a "Word from the Lord", she just needs to be held.
We live in a cold and indifferent world filled with wounded people. In the community of believers this should be markedly different. "They will know that we are followers of Messiah by our love for one another". So be excited as you share in the rejoicing of a brother or sister in Christ. However, be ready and willing to get down into the pit and bear the burdens of the deeply wounded, to gently hold those who feel abandoned. Don't try to fix them, just join in the weeping and help carry their pain. It is what Jesus would do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)