"Right On!"

The word “amen” is a Hebrew word which was transliterated into the Greek language and by the time of Jesus was so well used in synagogues and churches by Hebrew speaking and Greek speaking Jews and non-Jews, that there was no need to translate it into another language.

Robert Lindsey, a Jerusalem scholar discovered that Jesus used this word in its typical Hebraic way as a response, rather than an opening.

“Amen” means "Let it be" as in “That, which was just said is true!” rather than "Let what I'm 'about to say' be." The NIV has omitted every “amen” from the mouth of Jesus, which is typically translated in the KJV as “verily” followed by “I say unto you.” “Verily, I say unto you” in Hebrew would be a common rabbinic response, when a rabbi strongly agrees with or believes in the previous statement or response of a question given by the rabbi, including a statement made by the rabbi himself. For example, “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward” (Matthew 6:5 KJV).

The actual use of the word “amen,” translated as “verily” in the KJV, and “truly” in the NKJV is a response to the preceding statement as a way of saying, “I strongly support that statement,” followed by the phrase “I say unto you,” which means “and I will add to that.”

So, when you read the words of Jesus saying, “verily, I say unto you” remember that what he is actually saying is “Right on!" Then the translators should have begun a new paragraph with, "And…”

For an Old Testament example of this, see Jeremiah 28:6-7.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Fulfilling the Word

Lately, I have been posting some articles that help us to get inside the world of Jesus. There are good reasons why I am doing this. Among those reasons is the specific purpose of being able to better “fulfill” (interpret) the Word of God. Without that ability, we will suffer from the kind of lack of understanding that “abolishes” (misinterprets) the Word of God from pulpits all over the evangelical world.

The church today includes many different roles that are filled by individuals with titles such as deacon, pastor, overseer, and elder. All of these titles have their roots in the synagogue. I want to focus on one specific position and title as we discuss the importance of properly “fulfilling” the Word of God from the pulpit.

In the synagogue, there was a position known as a chazen. A chazen would pray, preach behind a wooden pulpit, and provide supervision for the reading of the Torah. It is important to note that the chazen did not actually read the Torah; he merely stood next to the one who did. His job was to correct, oversee, and ensure that the Scriptures were properly "fulfilled." Another name for the chazen was “overseer.” If someone were to “abolish” the Torah, which means to “misinterpret” it, then the overseer would step up to help him “fulfill” the Torah, which means to “correctly interpret” it.

The following article was published in the August 23, 2006 edition of the "The Southern Spirit, page 7, and its content reveals an obvious example of how one can easily “abolish” the Word of God:

“Most of the evangelical churches in a certain city sponsored a "Day of Prayer," inviting all who would to assemble at a certain auditorium to pray "all during the day." A number of pastors were selected to give short messages on prayer at the beginning of each hour.One pastor surprised the attendees by saying, "All of the praying we do here today is second-class." Perhaps "startled" would be a better word than "surprised." He let the thought intrigue them for several seconds, and then he read this text:But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:6, KJV)

He then went on to say that however sincere and full of faith our public prayers are, and even if they ‘get results,’ they are at best only second-class prayers. The praying that Jesus commands is private prayer, secret prayer.

Someone openly objected that Jesus must have meant ‘individual prayer’ when He said that, not the ‘corporate prayer’ of a congregation. But the speaker countered by returning to the context of the text cited."His disciples came unto Him . . . and He taught them, saying, ..." (Matthew 5:1, KJV)

The pastor closed his meditation by challenging those present to pray as sincerely as possible that day together, and to take the burden of prayer home to 'finish the job in first-class praying - in secret.'

Oswald Chambers explains in a number of his devotional teachings why secret intercession is the best. I have no one to impress if I am in secret as no one will know that I am praying. I can be my most honest with God. I have no reason to 'put on airs' of pretended piety or humility. And He already knows the whole truth anyway.'

Comrades, I too want to urge us all to pray well in our public services. But the greater lesson is that the most effective (first-class) prayer is when only the one praying and the One being prayed to know about it.”

Please allow me to “fulfill” the Word by drawing from the historical context of the first century Jewish world of Jesus, and by explaining the Hebrew word translated as “prayer closet.”

The article concerning the "prayer closet" is the result of an obvious lack of knowledge pertaining to first century Jewish garb. A "prayer closet" is a tah-lit, which is Hebrew for "tent-little," translated in English, “Little Tent.” The tah-lit is often referred to in English as a "prayer shawl" or "prayer closet." The Jews wore the "prayer closet" over the ha-luk, which is what we often see Jesus wearing in Westernized movies. The ha-luk is actually first century Jewish "underwear."

The "prayer closet" is worn over the shoulders and during prayer it is pulled toward the face by both hands to signify "closing the door of your closet." This was done because the hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of Jews who would gather at the Tent of Meeting could not all fit inside. So, they would wear their own "little tent" and pray as a way of joining their brothers and sisters who were in the Tent of Meeting. We exemplify this ancient way of praying by closing our eyes and bowing our heads, while folding our hands near our face. This is probably an evolutionary outcome of pulling the "prayer closet" to cover the face during prayer.

"Going into your praye closet" was not a message from Jesus telling the disciples to "go home and pray," but a message to pray alone "and" together, pulling up your "prayer closet" as not to appear boastful in your prayers. Those who went "into their prayer closets" were praying along side everyone else at the Tent of Meeting, whether inside the tent or outside the tent by going into their little tents. Knowing what a prayer closet is can also give us some idea of the likelihood that Paul may very well have been a "little tent" or “prayer closet” maker."

The kind of Scriptural misinterpretation that is exemplified by the article quoted previously makes it very important for us to ask questions.

Some things are mysteries; some are misinterpretations.

Every pulpit should have a chazen standing close by to make sure the Word is "fulfilled."

Forever learning,
Johnny

Chef's Special: All you can eat Answers Only with a side of Don't Ask

Why are questions so threatening to most Christians? What is it about questions that caused Arius to be excommunicated and banished from the church and Rome? Why did those who worked hard to answer questions by translating the Bible into common languages pay with their lives and dignity as they were burned alive in front of their wives and children? What is it about questions, that they give some Christians the mindset that they are justified in being defensive and offensive in the name of Jesus?

Why is it that I, as an Evangelical, Protestant Christian, often feel an urge to silence the questioner?

What am I afraid of?

Am I actually afraid of questions or am I really afraid of the possibility that I have been giving the wrong answers?

And, what if I have been giving the right answers? Will learning this make me more open to questions?

Past generations have fostered such an anti-intellectual attitude among Evangelical Protestants that we have literally become an all- you-can-eat “answers only” movement, with a side of “Don’t ask.”

Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis has a chapter that he titled “Questions.” In that chapter he says,

“Questions, no matter how shocking or blasphemous or arrogant or ignorant or raw, are rooted in humility; a humility that understands that I am not God and there is more to know. Questions bring freedom. Freedom that I don’t have to be God and I don’t have to pretend that I have it all figured out. I can let God be God. In the book of Genesis, God tells Abraham what he is going to do with Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham fires back, ‘Will not the Ruler of the earth do right?’ Abraham thinks God is in the wrong and the proposed action is not in line with who God is, and Abraham questions him about it…Maybe that is who God is looking for – people who don’t just sit there and mindlessly accept whatever comes their way.”

Bell also points out that one of Jesus’ final questions is, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

I was created to ask questions. And I am permitted to ask anything I desire to know.

God, where are you?

God, why are you?

Jesus, are you God?

God, are you one or three in one?

Is the Bible preserved for me or am I responsible for keeping the translators accountable?

If I am responsible for preserving your Ways and Words, have I done a good job or a poor job?

If I discover that I am responsible for preserving your Word and I have done a poor job, can I fix it or do I assume that it is the way you wanted it?

Are your ways and wonders safe for me to put to a vote i.e., the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Chalcedon?

When I vote on the issues of You, is the final count, the final answer?

Can I even know all of the answers or fully know any answer?

What am I right about and wrong about?

Something for the church to acknowledge and remember is the emphasis that the Western mind places on answers. It is a completely opposite emphasis of the Eastern mind, which is to bask in the mystery.

When I as a Westerners don't have the answers, I feel unfinished or inadequate. An Easterner, like the Jews of Jesus' day would watch as a good man was mistreated, while an evil man was rewarded and say, "Wow! God is really mysterious." The Westerner would say, "What kind of God allows that?"

So, I ask again, why am I so afraid of questions?

I think the answer is that I think I am responsible to have all the answers, even if I have to vote for them.

Some things I don't know.
Some things I won't know.
Some things I think I know, but don't really.
Some things I think I don't know, but really do.
Some things I will know.
Some things I will never know.
Some things I will remember I knew.
Some things that I knew I have forgotten.

And...it's okay.

“The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about things and beings that ultimately can’t be put into words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something God is not.” --Rob Bell

Forever questioning the God who allows me to do so,
Johnny

Is the Bible the Only Word of God? (Revised)

Many Christian denominations hold as a doctrine that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only divinely inspired teachings that constitute the rule and faith of a Christian life.

In Jesus’ day, commentary on the Written Torah, which was only translated verbally through memorization, until 200 A.D. was also considered authoritative and divinely inspired? The Oral Torah, like today's printed commentaries, was used to offer direction for obeying God’s written Word where the instructions were not completely clear.

For instance, not working on the Sabbath is an instruction of God, but the definition of work is left for interpretation; that’s where the Oral Torah is given by teachers with the anointing to interpret the Scriptures for God’ people. These oral teachings are still known today, in written form, as the Mishnah.

Here is a rabbinical parable that was taught by Jewish sages during Jesus time and used to emphasize the importance of both the Written and Oral Torahs. It is taken from the works of Dr. Brad H. Young and his book The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation, pg. 91.

The King’s Wise and Foolish Servants

My son, were not both Bible and mishnah spoken by the mouth of the Almighty? If so, what is the relationship between them? The distinction between them may be illustrated by a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To a mortal king who had two servants whom he loved with utter love. To one he gave a measure of wheat and to the other he gave a measure of wheat, to one a bundle of flax and to the other a bundle of flax. What did the wise one of the two do? He took the flax and wove it into a tablecloth. He took the wheat and made into fine flour by sifting the grain first and grinding it. Then he kneaded the dough and baked it, set the loaf upon the table, spread the tablecloth over it and kept it to await the coming of the king. But the foolish one of the two did not do anything to it.

After many days the king came into the house and said to the two servants: My sons, bring me what I gave you. One brought out the table with the loaf baked of fine flour on it, and the tablecloth spread over it. The other brought out his wheat in a basket with the bundle of flax over the wheat grains. What a shame! What a disgrace! Need it be said which of the two servants was the more beloved? He of course who laid out the table with the loaf baked of fine flour upon it.”When the Jewish listeners were hearing this parable, they would recognize the hard work that goes into making bread and cloth, which would “…remind the audience of the way the Mishnah refines the deeper meaning of the Bible.”—Young

Both the written and oral Torahs were considered to be the words of God.

Jesus often advocated the use of oral Torah, which can be seen when reading of his miracles. When He healed on the Sabbath, in most cases, he never touched the person and only healed with words, which was allowed by the Jewish religious authorities long before Jesus was born. In other cases Jesus used touch on the Sabbath to heal, despite the written Torah and the instructions of the Jewish religious authorities. In these cases, Jesus appears to be breaking the Sabbath until we are familiar with the teachings of the Oral Torah.

The Sadducees did not recognize the authority of the Oral Torah, but they did recognize the Judean (Jewish religious authorities in Judea) decision to break the Sabbath in order to keep the instruction to circumcise on the eighth day, due to the obvious need for compromise.

In John 9:14 we read that Jesus healed a blind man, using touch, on the Sabbath, which brings us to Jesus’ use of the oral Torah.

In the Bible, God says a person can not work on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:9-10, 23:12, 31:14-15, 34:21, 35:2: Leviticus 23:3; Deuteronomy 5:12-14). God also says that a child “must” be circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 17:12, Leviticus 12:3). The Judeans had already settled the matter and stated that the keeping of the Sabbath will be broken in order to keep the mitzvah (commandment) to circumcise on the eighth day.

There is also a teaching of the Oral Torah which says that a person can break the Written Torah in order to keep the Spirit of the Written Torah, which is to give life. With that portion of the Oral Torah, along with the instructions that a person could break the Sabbath to circumcise, an Oral Torah observant Jew could surmise that a healing could take place, even with touch. Jesus could heal in the presence of Sadducees as long as He didn’t touch. In the presence of Pharisees, He could draw from the above commandments, both oral and written.

Because of the Pharisaical flexibility of the Oral Torah, a Rabbi with "authority," like Jesus, meaning that He was able to interpret the Torah and give commands for "binding and loosing" or "forbidding and permitting," he could draw from the command that a person could circumcise on the Sabbath and conclude that it is also allowable to heal a person of a childhood illness or physical defect, such as blindness.

Jesus used what is called a Kal v’ chomer (‘light and heavy’) argument to defend his actions. This is when a sage would remind an accuser that the mitzvah (commandments) must be weighed in order to keep the “spirit of the law,” which is to give life (not necessarily meaning the opposite of death, but a life that is more whole).”By reminding the Pharisees of their own oral traditions, Jesus was able to justify a healing on the Sabbath, as he was also an advocate of the Oral Torah.

If Jesus were being questioned by Sadducees, this would not have been as easy to defend, because Jesus used touch in the healing miracle. The Sadducees did not believe in the Oral Torah. They were very strict and rigid in following the Written Text.

Think of it this way: If you were living in the place and time of Jesus and you wanted to fish with your kids on the Sabbath, some Pharisees would say, “No problem. Have fun,” other Pharisaic sages would say, “You can fish, as long as you don’t clean the fish and prepare them for cooking.” This is knows as “binding and loosing.”All Sadducees would say, “Absolutely not! You are not allowed to fish, because it is a form of work. No exceptions.”

The Pharisees, like Jesus, would “bind and loose” differently, according to their own interpretation of what it meant to work. They would “bind (forbid)” what they believed to be unacceptable and “loose (permit)” that which they deemed acceptable, such as fishing for fun on the Sabbath. The Sadducees were strict literalists. No work meant “No Work!”Jesus was being confronted by the more flexible Pharisees in John 9.

Today we will often hear or even say that the preacher or teacher is going to bring to us a “message from God.” By saying this, we are advocating an ancient belief that it is not only the written Word which is divinely inspired and given authority by God, but the oral teachings are believed to have the same inspiration and authority.

Should this not be the case, it would be difficult to expect a “message from God,” unless the teacher was to read strictly from the Bible. In that case, the teacher would be following the custom of the Sadducees who would only use the Written Word and did not believe in Oral Torah like the Pharisees and Jesus.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Properly Commenting to Prevent Deletion

I thought it would be helpful to share some basic rules of blog commenting:

I have posted these before, but I feel the need to do it again.

These are from the Forum of jerusalemperspective.com and I am beginning with rule #2

2. Do not be confrontational. Be polite. Be tactful. Adhere to the Golden Rule.

3. No "flames" (heated messages). Your posts should be constructive. Resist the temptation to "flame" (respond emotionally). If you disagree with something a group member has written, disagree respectfully.

4. Do not troll, that is, attempt to provoke or "get a rise out of" another member.

6. Do not "shout," that is, type in all caps. (even in the subject line). Type in mixed case. Studies have shown that material typed in all caps is more difficult to read.

7. Offensive language will not be tolerated. Posts that contain such language will be deleted. A group member who uses abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or sexually oriented language will be permanently banned.

8. As a courtesy to other Forum participants, before submitting your post please reread its contents and correct grammatical and spelling mistakes.

9. You can utilize emoticons (smilies) to indicate tone of voice, but use them sparingly. Do not assume that the inclusion of a smiley will wipe out an otherwise insulting comment.

10. If a group member writes to you privately, be careful not to inadvertently post his message to other members of the group.

11. If, in your opinion, a group member has posted something inappropriate, please ask the moderator to remove it. Do not express your reservations to the discussion group. This will only draw more attention to the post in question.

"Hog-Wash"

There are some amazing new discoveries concerning the gospels, which have been developed over the last half-century. These discoveries are changing the current understandings of some of our sacred texts.

For instance, as David Bivin points out in his book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, the belief that Jesus taught in Aramaic has been seriously challenged, which helps us to understand some of the long misunderstood Hebraic idioms within the gospels. Going back in time to retrieve the meaning of many of these idioms, such as "a good eye," which means "to be generous," as apposed to *"an evil eye," meaning "stingy," will change the way we teach.

As scholars and archeologists dig deeper and deeper into the cultural setting of first century Jerusalem, there will be more discovers that will have a great influence on our current philosophies to literally transform our current theology from a Greek-based message to a more Hebraic style of reflection and interpretation.

For example, understanding that a *"prayer closet" is actually a tah-lit, which is a "small tent" or "prayer shawl," which was laid over the shoulders, and then pulled up to cover the face (closing the door), rather than an actual room, makes an impact on the message. No longer will we tell people that they should "go home" and pray in private, knowing that first century Jews carried their "closet" with them everywhere they went. This also gives us insight concerning "tent makers" to mean that they were very likely "prayer shawl makers."

I believe that going back into the history of first century Palestine will help the church to develop a clearer message and erase centuries of misunderstandings, such as when Jesus said to a "would-be" disciple who wanted to bury his father first, *"Let the dead bury the dead." This statement is in reference to the "second-burial" system of that time, when the Hellenized Jews were influenced by Gnosticism. These Jews would bury the loved one and one year later dig up the body and place the bones in an ossuary. They believed that the one year between burials was a time of redemption when the "sinful" flesh was removed, thereby doing away with the sin so that the body could now be buried sinless with its ancestors.

Jesus words to this "would-be" disciple were actually to say, “Hog-wash! Your father has been dead for a year. Let’s go!”

These historical finds will have great impacts on the teachings of the church.

Though it is not popular or comfortable to approach the discrepancies of our theological frameworks, we must do so for the sake of truth. I believe that the impact made by delving into the historical facts of first century Palestine will give us a more "believable" message for the masses. As long as we rely on intellect (Western mindset), rather than the practical, useful, wisdom of the Eastern mind, we will continue to perpetuate a "spiritual only" gospel.

The Trinity is a very interesting issue for the church and one that we have a very difficult time articulating, without reverting to the "some things aren't meant for us to understand" explanation. It is also interesting that only Matthew and Luke mention it. Paul is silent on the subject, as are the rest of the New Covenant writers, and the Old Testament never mentions it, unless the LXX (Greek Version of the Old Testament) is used when speaking of "the virgin will conseive and bear a son," instead of the original Hebrew version which says, "a young woman will be with child (Isaiah 7:14)."

I have noticed, as I'm sure many have, that our beliefs are deemed more important than our actions. In other words, if I stay home and do nothing to imitate Christ, but believe in the fundamental doctrines of the church, I am safe to call myself a "child of God." But, if I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, et cetera, yet believe that YHWH is God, Jesus is His "favored and chosen" son (among all of His children) and Messiah, and that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s power and sovereignty in the world, rather than believing that God is one and three, then I am a “child of Satan.”

The influence of Greek thought on the Scriptures and our theology has allowed for redactors of the texts to place anti-Semitisms and angelology throughout. As more and more research is done, and as more and more study of first century Jewish culture is calculated, we are learning that the influence of Greek thought has done more to damage the message of God, than it has to preserve a people of God.

For me (I don't push this on others), I have chosen to use less and less of the Westernized commentaries and stick with texts that are more Hebraic for the very reason that there are far too many misunderstood texts when Hebraic idioms, parables, et cetera are interpreted in the Greek or even English contexts. "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it" is incredibly silly, considering the completely different worldview of a very Jewish Jesus who spoke to a very Jewish people in a very Jewish time. To ignore the difference between Western thought and Eastern thought is to do harm to the message that Jesus taught.

I have great respect for all of those who worked hard to understand the Words of the Scriptures without the last half-century of discoveries, but should we allow the respect for 1700 years of hard work to outweigh the discoveries of of the last 50?


Forever learning,
Johnny

*Matthew 6:23
*Matthew 6:6
*Matthew 8:22

The Privilege of Being and Doing

In my mind there are a few philosophies that drive our current theology, which will be heavily critiqued in 200 years.

The first philosophy that comes to my mind is the way we are satisfied to simply "believe in Jesus", as opposed to "imitating the actions of Christ." I believe that most people who are locked into the propaganda of the current church philosophy are missing the point of Jesus' purpose for His body of believers.

Jesus' movement was called, "The Kingdom of Heaven." It could just as well be called "The Will Doers of God." The idea of "going to" church appears to be in opposition to Jesus action oriented movement of bringing disciples into the Kingdom for the purpose of doing God's will in the world, instead of telling people how they can have Jesus in their hearts and come to church on Sunday.

True disciples are active followers and imitators of Christ, not simply ceremony observers and participants.

To first century Jews like Jesus, the Hebrew phrase "mal-KUT sha MA-yim" or "The Kingdom of God (Heaven)" was a term which referred to the rule of God over a person who has chosen to submit his or herself to God and to live out God's Word and will in his or her life and in the world. In essence that person became a "living Word."

So much of the obedience of most Christians today is based on a "faith of belief," rather than a "faith of action." This is due to the misunderstanding that the Old Testament is a law of works, while the New Testament is a new teaching based on grace. No Jew has ever believed that he or she is saved by the "Law." In fact, "Law" is a terrible translation of the original Hebrew word Torah, which is a word that means instruction or way. Jews have always believed that they are saved by God's grace and are also privileged to live out the Torah in honor of God.

Ray Vander Laan puts it beautifully, when he says, "The Old Testament is much more like a roadmap giving us directions to where we need to be, rather than a list of driving rules that must not be broken."

In 200 years, I truly believe that Christians will look back and say, "I'm glad we no longer believe that we can simply "know" as believers in Jesus. We would truly be missing the honor and privilege of "being" and "doing" as imitators of Christ.

Forever learning,
Johnny

"Celebrating Sex"

It is great having fantastic friends who love to hook me up with great teaching. Thanks T and C. You two are great friends.

Among some of those teaching gifts, is a good amount of audio teachings from Rob Bell. And one of those teachings has given me some really great perspectives on sex and marriage.

Throughout my life, I have been told that God expects us to wait until we are married to have sex. The reasons given usually have to do with morality and no direct quote from Scripture. This makes it difficult to teach in a day when everybody wants to know “Why?”

The Scriptures may appear to be silent on the exact reason, but that’s because of the cultural differences between the time and place in which the Scriptures were written and our current time and place.

Imagine that you are a teenager going to the mall on your first day of driving and you pull into the giant parking lot. There are empty spaces scattered throughout and those blue signs with the stick figure of a person in a wheel chair. You’ve already taken Drivers Ed, you’ve passed your test at the DMV, and you know all about how to park in a parking lot. But every time you come to the mall, there’s a guy who stands in the parking lot with a copy of a handicap sign yelling, “You can’t park where there are one of these signs!”

That’s a bit redundant, don’t you think?

Well, that’s how sex and marriage are in the Bible; it’s understood and goes without saying. People didn’t say, “You can’t have sex with anyone, except your spouse,” because they didn’t have to.

However, it is implicitly stated throughout the Scriptures.

In Exodus 22:16 God says, “If anyone seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”

It is understood that having sex is the covenantal declaration of marriage.

The wedding ceremony begins when the bride and groom walk out of their marital chamber and find a community of people who have eagerly waited outside for the couple to finish their 2-becoming-1 ritual (they just had sex for the first time).

The marriage reception could actually be called a "Sex Celebration."

It’s odd for us to imagine our family, friends, and neighbors waiting outside our honeymoon sweet for us to finish having sex, so that they can start the reception, but that’s how it was.

Sex was not a benefit of marriage; it was the declaration of marriage. A preacher saying, “I now pronounce you man and wife” would be a ridiculous thing to do. Sex made them man and wife, not a ceremony-book-reading-suited-up-state-recognized official of the church or state.

Knowing this, God recognizes the first one a person has sex with as his or her spouse. Everybody else is the one he or she left their first spouse to be with.

Men, we are told to love our wives as Jesus loved the church. We are told that Jesus loved her so much that he was genuinely willing to die for her. The guy who wants “a little” is not the one who will die for her.

Men and women cannot allow their selves, as images of God, to be used as entertainment.

Not understanding this, is why we treat sex and sexuality as a product to loan and borrow, and when we are finished with the product, we move on to the next, eventually settling down with the one we “love.”

QUESTION: Why do we not have sex before marriage?

ANSWER: Sex is marriage!

"Let Us Pray"

Dear Heavenly Father,
Thank you so much for this day and for all of the tomorrows that you will be faithful to give us. We also want to take a moment to thank you for the many things you have watched us do and become.

Lord, I pray that you will bless everything we are doing, including the many things that we have planned and invested in. I pray that you will make our will your own, and no matter what you may have had in mind for us to do, I pray that you will alter your vision so that we can continue doing what we have always done.

Lord, bless our adult and youth programs, Sunday 11:00 a.m., 1 hour worship services, and our 9:45 a.m. Sunday school. We have worked so hard for so many years to keep these programs together, and we ask that you will keep new ideas from destroying what we love.

We know that you are a creative God, doing things in new ways, and we don't want to discourage you from doing your little new stuff. But Lord, those are ideas for other churches and we are sure that you know how important our history and heritage are to the world. We have an identity that is unique and worth preserving.

So, we want to take this time to pray for those who are unable to find you in what we do, and ask you to touch them in a special way and send them somewhere else.

Lord, do everything with miracles, so that we can be still all the time and know that you are God. Make us great teachers without having to study. Make us great pastors without having to care. Give us millions and millions of dollars so that we can hire lots of employees to do the work of your Kingdom.

Lord, we want to be free from active ministry so that we can invest in our careers, spend time with our families, and be faithful members of our churches by paying attention to our speakers and our leaders, and by coming every time the doors are open...to be fed.

Lord, thank you for hearing our prayer. We know that you will do what we ask, because you are our God and you always do our will.

All together:
“Our Father in heaven, hollowed be our name, our kingdom come, our will be done in heaven as we do on earth. Keep giving us all that we ask for, Forgive us our debts, and be patient as we search our hearts and psychologists for ways to forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (Johnny 1:1 *NSV)."
In Jesus’ name we pray, Amen.

* New Selfish Version

Emotion Lotion

Someone has actually asked for more of my thoughts on a man’s version of modesty. So, here goes.

After reading some great books on this subject, with titles like, The Myth of the Greener Grass, Torn Asunder, For Women Only, Men Are from Mars, and Love and Respect, also from the classes I've taken on leadership and counseling at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, I have gleaned some wonderful insights.

Other great insights come from books about temperaments, communication, and understanding people. All of these are invaluable resources for gaining a clear understanding of how to relate to the opposite sex.

It is common knowledge that most men are more visual than most women, while the non-physical, but just as powerful, intimacy language of women is largely avoided. I think this is because too many men are writing the books about sexuality and human attraction.

The fact, according to most professionals, is that women are very emotionally sensitive and are highly vulnerable to the “really nice guy.” Strangely enough, this doesn't mean he has to actually be a nice guy; he just has to be good at listening, helping, and complimenting. Most women enjoy the attention, (not to be confused with physical affection), of lots of men before marriage, and some can have a difficult time giving that up after the wedding.

The problem with men is that we are so hardwired for sight and touch that we are often not in tune with a woman’s ability to connect emotionally, without connecting physically. So, we think, if she's not flirting physically, then she's not flirting at all. That's why we usually see all the signs of a wife going wayward when it's too late.

Most men have no clue that most women don't think like men. For example, many of the songs written by men toward women have lyrics like, “How I’d love to lay you down,” thinking that's what women want to hear most (just like a man would). The truth is, most women would really enjoy songs like, “How I’d love to get your chair, cook your dinner, listen to how your day went,” but we men assume that women are just as visually stimulated as we are, and we try to appeal to them on that level.

This is not to say that women aren't visually stimulated; it is to say that on average most women are more likely to be emotionally stimulated. This may be an explanation to all those guys who wondered in high school, "What is that hot girl doing with that dorky guy?"

The three main types of adultery include 1) The one night stand 2) The sexual addict, and 3) The Emotional entanglement.

Number three is the most sinister and the one that women are more likely to get snagged by, because of the relational involvement. In fact, most infidelities of this nature are rarely sexual. The problem is that most women soon realize that this guy who is making me feel so great will not continue if I don’t take care of his visual and physical needs, so they eventually give in. The sex is usually less than satisfying and is more of a formality than an act of passion, but it keeps the emotional bond continuing. Remember, "Women give sex for love and men give love for sex."

Men have a giant role to play in the prevention of emotional entanglements. We have to pay closer attention to the way we treat “other” women.

Women have the ability to prevent a lot of lustful temptations in men by paying closer attention to how much skin they reveal, whereas men will have to cut back on the amount of favors, listening ears, and compliments they give. This is where men are to practice modesty.

When a man plays the hero by fixing a car, showing up to help out when the husband is out of town, or just being someone to listen, he is often becoming an emotional masseuse who lathers on an "Emotion Lotion" that only the female Psyche can detect.

So, if men are going to be responsible as followers of Jesus who truly love their neighbors, they will have to learn how to wear their best gentleman’s attitude around other women, while leaving the “Emotion Lotion” at home or with their wives.

The point of all of this is that women will have to be able to recognize their own emotions.

The same way a man has to look the other way when a little flesh is visible on a woman at the mall, women will have to refuse the favors of the "other man" whenever he starts to poor on the charm.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Why Sunday?

My two oldest sons are out mowing a lawn for a lady in the neighborhood who was struggling to start her mower. They came home and said, “Dad, we are going to mow a lawn for someone.” I asked them how much they were going to get paid, and they told me that they were going to mow it for free.

Wow! I really have some great kids.

Yes, today is Sunday; the Lord’s Day? We are told in the Scriptures that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. In that case, we would have to call it "The People’s Day.”

Besides, Sunday isn’t really the Sabbath, as Jesus would have recognized it.

I have always wondered why we have collective worship on Sunday, and when I ask those I think will know, I always get the same indoctrination: “It’s the day that Jesus rose from the grave.”

Based on study and research, I have reason to challenge that answer.

First of all the reason we worship on Sunday has nothing to do with Jesus being raised on Sunday. The fact is, according to Jewish time, Jesus rose on Saturday night. Secondly, the reason we worship on Sunday is due to an ancient spat between the surviving Pharisaic Jews and the surviving Nazarenes after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

When the Temple was destroyed, the Pharisees escaped to Yavneh and the Jewish followers of Jesus ran to the mountains of Pella as they were told to do in Matthew 24:16. Since that time the Jews and the Church have created obstacles to keep one another from being unified. “The Church forbade believers from keeping the Jewish feasts and began to meet on Sundays, while, in reaction to the Christians kneeling for prayer, the Jews adopted the standing position while praying the Amidah." --Dr. Ron Moseley, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church

Why do I believe that Jesus rose on Saturday night? The answer comes from research done by David Bivin and the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research.

To the Jews, the day always begins with night. That is because of Genesis 1:5, which reads, “And there was evening , and there was morning-the first day.” First century Jews, using Nehemiah 4:21 as their guide, defined Nightfall as the moment when the stars were visible, which was around 7:00 p.m. during the season of the Passover.

In Matthew 28:1 we read, “After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.” in Greek the Scripture reads, "Opse de sabbaton te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton..." (Late [of] sabbath, in the lightening to one of Sabbath). This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in Greek, but in Hebrew it makes perfect sense.

“Late of Sabbath” is a Greek form of the Hebrew phrase, "be-motsa'e shabat" (at the exiting of Sabbath), which means the hours that follow immediately after the Sabbath. "In the lightening to one of sabbath" comes from the Hebrew idiom, "'or le-'ehad ba-shabat" (light to [day] one of the week). Used in this way, “light” is a synonym for “night,” referring to the night before the next day. In Hebrew, “light” can be used as an antonym for its literal meaning to speak of the dark hours that exist before a new day.

An example of this usage is found in ancient Jewish writings that give instructions for carrying out the search for leaven as directed in Exodus 12:15. The ancient writing says, "Light to the fourteenth [of Nisan] one must carry out a search for leaven by the light of a lamp.” The use of the lamp gives us a clue that the search was done in the dark hours.

“With this understanding, the Galilean women returned to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body shortly after dark on Saturday evening. It was then that they found the tomb already empty. Jesus, therefore, may have remained entombed only slightly more than twenty-four hours, being raised from the dead on Saturday evening rather than on Sunday morning. By the method of reckoning time in Jesus society, such a short period, scarcely more than a day-a part of Friday, all of Saturday, and a part of Sunday-would have fulfilled his prophecy that he would be raised from the dead on the third day after his death.”—David Bivin, Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research

Based on this historical information, it seems that the reason we worship on Sunday has more to do with a 2000 year-old grudge than a God-honoring recognition of the Messiah’s defeat over death and the grave.

Forever learning,
Johnny

Meet My Twin Brother

I'd like to introduce you to my twin brother, Ronnie. We had a lot of fun on vacation. The kids loved the beach even though Ella was terrified of the "Giant Pool," otherwise known as the Atlantic Ocean.

And there is me with my Ella Bear and my twin brother's baby, Donivan. He is three weeks younger than Ella.

Grace and peace,
Johnny

A Unified Force of Action

After reading Bret’s blog and speaking with my mother today, who also told me of an experience she had with giving to a poor man with a sign, I decided to do a little research and recall.

Entrusting the $ that is given by individual families to the poor is not as easily understood as it should be. This is because of our individualized mentality as followers of Jesus.

When followers of Jesus saw themselves as a unified force of action rather than individual believers, all of the alms (monies given to the poor) were put into the hands of the elders who distributed them as the needy came for help.

Also, in the time of Jesus, everyone was to give to the poor "including the poor." That is why the widow brought her two small pieces of copper and put them into the coffer. Usually this story is told as if she didn't have to give, but out of faith she gave despite her lack.

The fact is she was obligated to give as all Jews were to give a portion of their money to the poor. The small amount of her monetary possessions was not an excuse for neglecting to give to the poor even though she herself was poor.

When a person gave, they either had a "good eye" or a "bad eye," which is a Hebraic idiom for being “generous” or “greedy.” It was taught during Jesus day that a person who gives 2.5% of their monetary possessions to the poor is a generous person. Since the widow could not give 2.5%, she gave everything.

That being said, her situation is much different than the situation of the poor in our culture today. She would have been fed and taken care of by what was received from all who came to give. Therefore, she was not really placing herself in dire straights. One of the major bragging rights of the Jews in Jesus’ day was that “no Jew ever did without.”

Today, many of the poor in our culture would place their selves in a very vulnerable position should they decide to depend on the Church for support. The alms of the church have been replaced by "tithes," which are generally used to pay church employee salaries and take care of the "church" property.

As for the importance of giving to the poor as a body of Christ, there is an ancient Jewish story told of how the poor receive from others that goes as follows:

"A poor man came to a wealthy landowner and asked for help. The rich man said, 'I am sorry. I had a bad year.' The poor man responded, 'Why does your bad year mean that I should not receive help.'"

The point being that the poor are always to be taken care of by their community. And still, there exists the responsibility among the poor to make monetary contributions to and for others in need.

Hide It In Your Heart

Recently, I purchased a new book from Jerusalemperspective.com. The book is a collaborative effort of Christian scholars fluent in Hebrew and living in the land of Israel, along with Jewish scholars. They have worked for the past half-century examining the sayings of Jesus from a Judaic and Hebraic perspective.

However, this is not a book I would advise to those with more faith in the Bible than in God. It is not a book I would advise for those who think that all there is to know is known about the Bible, its history, and its translators.

“In antiquity, before the invention of printing, the situation of the readers facilitated the method of falsification. There existed at that time a way to falsify texts which today is practically impossible. As manuscripts were often rare, one had to return the book to its first owner. Meanwhile a falsifier could be at work, and if a reader borrowed another (falsified) copy of the book, he would be easily misled. In reading the false passage he could believe that in the prior reading the real meaning of the passage was not preserved. The Christian reviser of Josephus’ testimony about Jesus applied such a method of falsifying. He used the original wording of Josephus and ‘corrected’ them to become unequivocally Christian. By this he reveals an exceptional cunning. Josephus became popular precisely because all Greek manuscripts of Josephus accepted the Christianized text of the passage.”—Jesus’ Last Week, pg 31, paragraph 2

The excuse often used by some to defend what is read in the Bible is that God has perfectly preserved the printed text. Should this be the case, then we would have to ask why Jews regarded memorization above written record throughout their history, including today.

We would also have to wonder why we are able to remember every word of hundreds, even thousands of songs, yet we, Westerners, are unable to adequately quote more than a sentence or a paragraph of more than a few books that we’ve read, without intentionally committing a portion of the text to memory.

Finally, we would have to wonder why a child, loved by the same God who ‘protects’ His printed word, can be abused and raped, yet we assume the ink of a book can never be misprinted or purposefully corrupted.

Over and over God tells us to hide his Word in our hearts, yet we constantly commit His Word to paper, trusting it to those we assume are keeping their word to keep His Word.

Don’t be afraid to question human beings who are responsible for preserving writings that are vital to our being. More people have spent time investigating the original meaning of rock songs than they have the origin of God's Word.

Hide it in your heart where no one can destroy it. This is the true meaning of treasures in heaven.

Forever learning,