Sowing a seed of death in the life of another

Death is an inescapable statistic that effects every living human being. Comparably, it effects all living things. In the past few months, a significant number of friends and loved ones have passed away. It causes one to consider the superstition that death hits home frequently during this ‘holiday’ time of year. I am not quite sure that it is more frequent, but I would attribute the season and family significance as playing a major role in the impact death has on family and friends. Most importantly, it causes me in particular to consider my role in those individuals lives. Did I have as much an impact on their life as their death has on mine? This hits much closer to home in the loss I experienced earlier this year when my mother had succumbed to a hard battle with cancer in a few short months. How much more do I hope that I had a significant impact on the one who bore me, nursed me, and loved me despite my past?

These are troubling questions. It is all the more troubling when I consider whether my impact was effective in changing their lives for the good. But what if the impact that one initially had was negative? What if my contribution to their life, in the long run, contributed to their death. This is such a sobering thought, because it makes you wonder why have I been left standing here to continue on, when my deeds, are much more deserving of the death endured by those I care about? Even if I made amends, and attempted to right the wrongs by doing something good for them before they died, have I truly done justice by them?

I suppose the case and point here is this. Guilt. It is powerful. It can crush someone, and it can destroy them. Guilt has certain degrees, depending on one’s conscience, but it still effects everyone of us to an extent. I am experiencing a little guilt, or say, responsibility for being the person who may have tipped the first domino in an old friends life, if I may be extreme here, many of my old friends lives. To say the least, their decisions are solely their own, but my contribution to their bad decision essentially initiated that chain of events leading to their demise. Should I feel accountable to some extent here? Should I acknowledge and accept this guilt that I may more fully repent?

One can consider Luke 9:62 and the setting of our hand to the plow and never looking back. For we shall not be worthy if our head is constantly over our shoulder, and the Kingdom will no longer be in our sight. But having been redeemed, do we now consider that the contributions, the sins against our neighbor, the life we once led is dead with the old man, or does the old man’s deeds still have bearing on our flesh. This is a tough one to meet out when we consider a Christianity that is entrenched in perfectionism and false piety, alluding to some victory over this life without trial. As if we are living our ‘best life’ now.

In a closing thought I am considering the idea posed to me by a dear brother in Christ. What was the response to Paul, now an Apostle, dead to Saul of Tarsus coming back through the towns and villages he once ravaged, seeking the blood of disciples who followed in the Way. What might have been the perception he had of the children left behind to dead fathers, imprisoned mothers. What of the widows and the stumbling blocks placed in the way of many who witnessed this man, who once committed evil in the name of religion, now proclaim the good news of eternal life? Eventually, we read that Paul’s resolve was nothing more than to know Christ and Him crucified amongst those he ministered to (1 Cor 2:2).

Christian, does your life’s history impact your future? What is now the measure of your resolve with your sins in view? Does being forgiven much cause you to love much (Luke 7:36-50)? Is the love you show a communication of the same life giving sound and voice of the Lord Jesus Christ that saves you? Tell me, are you making amends through sorrow or proclamation of the Gospel?

Yes, I feel some guilt behind the events of my past, but one faithful thing I can account to the Lord’s grace in all of this is amazing. I have witnessed His love for sinners through the opportunity given to preach Christ and Him crucified to those men before they died. We all are going to die. What is the measure of your resolve?

The autonomy to worship gods and idols

Originally posted at Seeking a Kingdom. Please note, we are still looking for authors interested in writing devotions for the blog. If you are interested, contact me through the tab above.

Isaiah 40:18-19  To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? An idol! A craftsman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains.

Scripture illustrates man’s propensity to create his own suitable standards. We value our way so much that even our standards as followers of Jesus Christ, start to become negotiable. When we find ourselves in this trap, we quickly begin making God like us, and in this we transgress His law (Exo 20:3-5). We begin to appeal to our own autonomy. Our defense and logic generally results in a self-righteous sentiment, “but God is loving, and understanding.”

Jesus spoke with a rich man who asked what was required of him to inherit eternal life (Mk 10:17-22), the Lord demonstrated the measurement by which men are evaluated and spoke to him of the law. But this man had great possessions, self-righteousness, and a trust in human attainments rather than Godly gain. But God’s love and understanding said (v21), “sell all that you have,” lay down your riches, follow me.

A scribe zealously assured that he would follow wherever the Lord went (Mat 8:19-22). And faithfully, those who approach Christ receive the ‘love and understanding’ of God. He draws out the truth of his motives by showing his utter lack. Following Christ wholly is dependent upon setting our affairs in order first. Man’s agenda to live life in accordance to man’s autonomy is minimized by Christ’s words, “let the dead bury their own dead.”

It is possible for Kingdom citizens to demonstrate faithfulness, realization of truth, and a casting out of dependence. Casting aside the old man we establish a desire to exchange our ways for Gods. The believers in Asia, under the instruction of the Gospel learned a better way. Their dependence upon magic arts and costly books quickly became irrelevant and they burned them, disposing of the foundation they once held dear, despite their cost, and established a new level to build upon (Acts 19:17-19).

All man is counted as dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1-2), and in his innate desire to worship something, has chosen idols in the place of God. Man has chosen autonomy that supplants the statutes of the Most High and casts out any need for dependence upon Him. But who is wiser than God? Who consults of themselves and receives counsel more worthy than the Lords (Isa 40:13-14)?

We must ask ourselves if our watches are stopped at a pivotal time in our own history. Is the mystery of God made known to us? Have we heard the voice of the Son of God and now live (Jn 5:25)? Or do we seek status in the Kingdom without subscribing to its requirements?

The rich man was dead, and subject to his idols. The man burying his father was dead and subject to his idols. The book burners were dead, but they heard the voice of the Son of God, received life, and cast out their autonomy, their choice to follow man’s ways, his knowledge, his books of wisdom. With Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, the answer to idolatry is cost counting. Has God’s love and understanding set you free from your chained idols, who are dead works of man’s hands? Or are you still autonomous?

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, renew in me a right spirit, cast aside my transgression, and illuminate my path with your righteousness. Lord, let my ways be your ways. Let me worship you and seek your will. Let me strive to follow you, the Good Shepherd. I do not want to be bound to the work’s of my mind or man’s hands, but to your word.

Book Review: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Galatians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by Thomas R. Schreiner is a fine example of a good commentary. With a mass of past and contemporaneous commentaries available to us for study, this new venture from Zondervan is very promising.

With most commentary, you will find a scholarly observation of the text, but be succumbed to an overwhelming abundance of authorial opinion. With the systematic breakdown of each chapter and verse, this commentary will only expose you to succinct portions of the author's opinion, and leave the rest to your observation of the text. Leaving you to compare the opinion of the writer to the content of the text, based on what the text actually presents, is a good plan for any exegete.

What's more appealing here is that the author does not merely expound upon a Greek explanation for this and for that. The commentary pains itself to clarify conflicting views, Greek translation, and scholarly perspective. The language of the commentary is conveyed in such a way that one need not be fluent in the original language to benefit from the exposure it provides, although it does help to know some basics. Plainly stated, this commentary is as much for the 'layman' as it is for the 'academic.'

Five great things about this commentary in particular -

1. It is lightweight, readable, and presents well
2. It exposes the reader to the essential information necessary for good exegesis, like background, opposing views, and language translation.
3. It is affordable.
4. The series is not bound to a singular author and each New Testament book is unique.
5. It demonstrates the importance of understanding the nuance of language on modern exegesis

I wholly recommended purchasing this commentary if you have a few dollars in your book budget. If you have a ton of commentaries on Galatians, I am not sure this is going to stand out much more than some of the classics, but its editing, approach, and presentation will surely provide a refreshing approach to all things commentary!

*I received this book from Zondervan as a review copy

You lay your gift at your altar, and I will lay my gift at mine.

In light of a recent discussion with a brother concerning how brethren are to treat one another when disagreement arises, I would like to re-post my thoughts on the matter from 2008. They are still the same as I have indicated here, and I still find it amazing that we seldom practice what we 'preach.'


An interesting thing has occurred to me. So many of us believe that we fully grasp the consequences of our actions before we make decisions. So many times does this behavior incessantly repeat itself. On the contrary, the Christian, should learn from the mistakes that have been made. The benefit would then be applying the lesson learned from the consequence to any actions thereafter. So what of the behavior that causes tension amongst members of the body of Christ? When bad decisions are made, consequences occur, and chastisement (by the Lord) follows, what then? Does the failure to make the right decision warrant excommunication of the offender? To what degree and extent are consequences to be carried out?

Mat 5:24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

So reading in Matthew, I observe the teachings of Christ, and the principle of reconciliation toward others when offense has occurred. Now I would ask the question, if you are making offerings up to God by way of worship, are you doing so without offense to God, or are you offending God by your worship for leaving such matters unattended? Or is it downright apathy and a willful choice to ignore it until it goes away?

On to the last part of my concern. In the case of division, and the clear cut obvious nature of it's existence, what is to be done next? Division is clearly defined as being a separation between two things. Whether these things be people, places, or things, they are no longer in unification or like-mindedness. The Greek word σχίσμα (schisma), is the root word from which we base our own English word schism. It is a metaphorical definition of division or dissension. In reference to I Corinthians 12:25 this point comes home in a full thrust. Paul was instructing the Corinthian Christians to treat each other (as different as they may be) and care for each other the same as those who were similar. The attitude toward the gifts of others or the lack thereof is to be the same. We grieve when others are afficted, and we rejoice when others are exalted, all this we do as if it were occurring to us. This is unity amongst the brethren in the spiritual sense. Not a denominational, creedal, or formal allegiance. But in a purposeful, intentional, and cohesive bond that is unbreakable because it exists in the whole that is Christ's body. Existing eternally for His glory and Temporaly for His purposes.

What's my point? Well, I would ask that if you preach Christ crucified, reconciliation of sinners toward God, and a righteous standard of living, then you should also exhibit that in your personal relationships with others. And where we fall terribly short (I do all the time), we attempt to correct the behavior, learn from it, and move on. Furthering our purpose, unison, and commission in the same spirit without division. If we are considering the differences of our brothers and their shortcomings when interacting with the body, we are also considering our own. This should be of the first things we consider before we cast our stones (or apathy) at each other.

Book Review: Breaking Bread

Do you bless your food before you eat? How about after?

Deu 8:10-12  And you shall eat and be full, and you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land he has given you.  (11)  "Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today,  (12)  lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them,

The topic of 'breaking bread' has always been interesting to me. I must admit, I am on a self commissioned quest to debunk the mystery of the souffle cup of grape juice, and a teasing oyster cracker as sufficient means of celebrating the 'Lord's Table.' I keep asking over and over, what does it all mean.

In my questioning, I discovered a book regarding the topic of, you guessed it, 'Breaking Bread.' Only this time, the perspective is painted with the brush of meals in Judaism.

If 'breaking bread' in ancient Judaism meant having a meal together, what is it that the early Christians would have done as well? The author's premise is definitely not to treat my thesis, but there is an interesting view introduced in it's pages. The Halachah, or the blessing placed on meals of believers changes how we view feasting.

This book takes the reader on an exciting journey into the biblical precedence of praying the Torah and Blessing the Lord, not just the food, for the meal. It is compact and approachable for the reader in many regards. You can find the book for a mere $10.00 online, or visit their site for other great products and information from a Messianic Jewish lens. Visit First Fruits of Zion for more great stuff.

Blindness by Michael Snowdon: How precious is sight?

Blindness from Michael Snowdon on Vimeo.
Excellent video set to the instrumental of 'Nothing But the Blood' by Page CXVI. Of whom is currently streaming songs from their upcoming album Hymns III. If you have not heard any of their contemporary renditions of classic hymns, they are well worth the listen.

Why Four Gospels? A review

David Alan Black has written a new book. Or more accurately, has updated a previous edition, and published a second, therefore making it new. It is also NEW to me. I had never heard of the previous version or the thesis that he introduces in the new book.

Black introduces his perspective of the 'Fourfold Gospel Theory' regarding the origins of the synoptic order concisely and coherently, in a fashion that is readable for scholar and non-scholar alike.

With the majority of scholarship assigning the Gospel of Mark as the baseline document for Matthew and Luke, Black introduces a perspective that is often overlooked concerning Church history, the Patristics, or the early Church Fathers. Black's thesis promotes the concept that a majority of the early church documents, from Justin Martyr to Augustine (100ad - 400ad) all consistently testify of the prevalence of Matthew's Gospel being written first.

With the prevalence of evangelical dismissal of anything common to the 1st century or pre-reformation thought concerning the order and historicity of Church life, or documents, this book comes as a challenge to the dismissal of Patristic witness concerning the chronological order of the Synoptics. Black brings his deductions to a level of understanding that most of us can understand and consume while challenging us to examine how we view the documents themselves.

Many might ask why it would matter to examine this thesis of Black's? They might even question what the necessity of looking outside of the canon itself to learn about the origin of our scriptures would avail? But the question I often ask in response is why have we blindly accepted so many things concerning the text that directly contradict some of the earliest and most astute scholarly witnesses that the church as known? The church fathers precede the reformers, the age of the enlightenment, and contemporary scholarship, but rank low on the level of progression toward intelligence because of their age. Yet, their witness is just as adept today as it was then, and their scholarship is as acute as some of the best that modernity has to offer.

You can find the book on Amazon or order direct from Energion (Free Shipping)


Dr. David Alan Black has taught New Testament Greek for over 30 years. He holds a Doctor of Theology from the University of Basel and is currently professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC. He has published over 20 books, including The Myth of Adolescence, Interpreting the New Testament, It's Still Greek to Me, and The Jesus Paradigm. He and his wife, Becky live on a 123-acre working farm in southern Virginia.

You may not like this...

If you are easily offended, don’t read this.

The nature of public spaces is such that we the people will alternately amuse, befuddle, bore, and appall one another. There is no way around this. The best we can do is to be civil, polite, and tolerant. Generally, we do alright together. In fact, I have an increasingly high appreciation for the general politeness of my fellow humans. I hope I can hold up my end of the bargain.

Our church fellowship has been making a point of heading to Liberty Plaza most Friday evenings to participate in food distribution to the homeless and working poor of Washtenaw county. I credit those by-standers who may not appreciate seeing a hundred homeless folks in "pristine" Ann Arbor with at least being tolerant of the activities. The realities of the scene include the regularly scheduled drunks and the occasional fistfight. I think that the average bystander, however, can acknowledge at least the good intentions of the effort, if not fully agreeing with the details. Again, I give my fellow humans credit here for some demonstrated tolerance.

Now, being easily mistaken for a narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, homophobic, uptight, self-hating, christian bible-thumper, your humble correspondent has plenty of potential opportunities to get on his high-horse and ride off in offense at the goings-on in the wilds of Ann Arbor. Problem is, I don't feel terribly offended by my fellow humans. The more I talk with people, the more I feel for them. We may differ on many things, but I hope I give them as wide a berth as they generally give me.  Getting hit on by a guy does not offend me. Having a druggie throw over my serving table does not offend me (OK, I was MOMENTARILY steamed...) F-bombs do not offend me. Are there things I'd rather not have my 6 year old daughter see and hear downtown? Sure. But I kind of understand why people do what they do, and it gives us things to discuss afterward. We've all got our beliefs.

Being almost Halloween, the zombies were out in force on campus last Friday night. So, too, were the ninjas, secret agents, video game characters, etc... Now, this isn’t the point of this piece, but I've come to a place in my life where I really don't want anything to do with Halloween. I used to do it as a kid. I even used to make some pretty scary haunted houses. I never meant anything truly evil by it. I just like the theater of it all. But at some point, any fun I derived from the occasion became subservient to the realization that we were celebrating evil. Life's too short, and I'm here to point people to Christ, not to devils. I can't slice it any other way anymore. You might not agree. I trust we can tolerate each other. I get where you're coming from. I really do. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from too. I love you. Don't hate me just because I'm different.

All this is simply to say, we all have our differences, but I think we learn over time not to question each others' sincerity. We’ll talk things out, and that is what will determine how much we have in common. We may see things differently, but that’s OK. I don't particularly want to see zombies, but I'm not offended by zombies. Live and let live... er... die and... well, never mind.

Which brings me to the point. It’s not about Halloween. Something else the other night really made me question the intentions of some of my fellow humans. Let me be blunt.

Ladies, I'm struggling with the fact that 90 percent of you felt that the only acceptably creative bottom half for your costume that night was nothing more than a pair of panties. Sure, you had the brilliance to vary the colors, but come on, seriously?

Back up for a minute. When ONE of you walks by wearing something excitingly above average I can chalk it up to your beliefs vs. my beliefs. Pardon me if I bounce my eyes away and don’t look at you. You’ve got your freedom. I’ve got mine. The pavement is my friend. It’s not that you look bad in the least, but if I let myself enjoy looking at you I’ll be taking that bit of attention away from my wife. It may seem awkward that I snap my eyes away from you, but you’re not really offending me. I hope I don’t offend you. I’m just saving my eyes for my wife.

Fast forward. When I see a couple hundred of you over the course of a few hours and it becomes clear that your southbound creativity stops at your navel I’m suddenly overwhelmed by the fact that you are not expressing your individuality. You are corporately expressing the internationally recognized signal for “look at my crotch.”

I know that you probably don’t mean to say that. After all, there’s a good chance you’re only doing it because everyone else is. You want to look attractive, and let’s face it, the “standards” went “up” last night and you had to follow suit to get any attention. But that is exactly the problem. You are asking for “attention” from every man you pass. And what exactly do you think is on their mind as they stare at you?

What’s worse, this means that you are unwittingly attempting emotional robbery from every woman who happens to have a claim on one of those men. I’ll wager that most of you individually, secretly want “your man” to have eyes “only for you.” Be honest. Would you want your boyfriend, fiance, or husband looking at some whore who’s dressed the way you’re dressed? Think about it.

And if common decency isn’t a powerful enough motivator, then you’re also probably naive enough to think that all those guys are just appreciating you for all that “inner beauty” which just happens to be shining out from that spot between your legs.

So, why do I care?

It's not a "spiritual thing". Dressing less provocatively will make not one iota of difference to you in the grand spiritual scheme of things. Not one bit.

So, why not go for it? Whether you get drunk or not, you're going to feel buzzed from all the attention you get. Why not go for it? I bet you like having men follow you around like puppies. Why not go for it? Might as well. Empowering? Sure.

The reason I care is because I don't think most of you can see beyond the attention to the intention. Would it shock you to know that you're being constantly mentally gang-raped by all those "adoring" guys? Every second you're out there, someone's mentally doing you.

Don't get me wrong. The ultimate blame falls on each of those guys alone.

I used to be one of those guys. I know.

And you guys out there know exactly what I'm talking about, too.