Sunday, April 30, 2006

He is God!



~He Is God~



He is the First and Last,
The Beginning and the End!

He is the keeper of Creation and the Creator of all!
He is the Architect of the universe and the Manager of all times.
He always was, He always is, and He always will be ...
unmoved, Unchanged, Undefeated, and never Undone!



He was bruised and brought healing!
He was pierced and eased pain!
He was persecuted and brought freedom!
He was dead and brought life!
He is risen and brings power!
He reigns and brings Peace!
The world can't understand him,
The armies can't defeat Him,
The schools can't explain Him, and The leaders can't ignore Him.
Herod couldn't kill Him, The Pharisees couldn't confuse Him, and The people couldn't hold Him!
Nero couldn't crush Him, Hitler couldn't silence Him,
The New Age can't replace Him, and "Oprah" can't explain Him away!



He is light, love, longevity, and Lord.
He is goodness, Kindness, Gentleness, and God.
He is Holy, Righteous, mighty, powerful, and pure.



His ways are right,
His word is eternal,
His will is unchanging, and His mind is on me.
He is my Savior,
He is my guide, and He is my peace!
He is my Joy,
He is my comfort,
He is my Lord, and He rules my life!



I serve Him because His bond is love,
His burden is light, and His goal for me is abundant life.

I follow Him because He is the wisdom of the wise,
the power of the powerful,
the ancient of days, the ruler of rulers, the leader of leaders, the overseer of the overcomers, and is to come. And if that seems impressive to you, try this for size.



His goal is a relationship with ME!
He will never leave me,
never forsake me,
never mislead me,
never forget me,
never overlook me and
never cancel my appointment in His appointment book!



When I fall, He lifts me up!
When I fail, He forgives!
When I am weak, He is strong!
When I am lost, He is the way!
When I am afraid, He is my courage!
When I stumble, He steadies me!
When I am hurt, He heals me!
When I am broken, He mends me!
When I am blind, He leads me!
When I am hungry, He feeds me!
When I face trials, He is with me!
When I face persecution, He shields me!
When I face problems, He comforts me!
When I face loss, He provides for me!
When I face Death, He carries me Home!



He is everything for everybody everywhere, every time, and every way.

He is God, He is faithful. I am His, and He is mine!

My Father in heaven can whip the father of this world.
So, if you're wondering why I feel so secure, understand this...

He said it and that settles it.
God is in control, I am on His side,
and that means all is well with my soul.


Everyday is a blessing for GOD Is!





PASS THIS ON IF YOU BELIEVE IT...

I love the Lord and thank Him for all that He has done in my life; therefore I'm passing this on.



Saturday, April 29, 2006

The Chalk story



This story is most likely an urban legend, but it is still encouraging.
There was a professor of philosophy there who was a deeply committed atheist. His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester attempting to prove that God couldn't exist. His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable logic. For twenty years he had taught this class and NO ONE had ever had the courage to go against him. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever *really gone against him* (you'll see what I mean later). Nobody would go against him because he had a reputation.

At the end of every semester, on the last day, he would say to the class of 300 students, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" In twenty years, nobody ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do next. He would say, "Because anyone who believes in God is a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove he is God, and yet he can't do it." And every year he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the classroom and it could shatter into a hundred pieces. All of the students could do nothing but stop and stare. Most of the students were convinced that God couldn't exist. Certainly, a number of Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years they had been too afraid to stand up.

Well, a few years ago there was a freshman who happened to enroll in the class. He was a Christian, and had heard the stories about this professor. He had to take the class because it was one of the required classes for his major. And he was afraid.

But for three months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the courage to stand up no matter what the professor said or what the class thought. Nothing they said or did could ever shatter his faith, he hoped. Finally, the day came. The professor said, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" The professor, and the class of 300 people looked at him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the room. The professor shouted, "YOU FOOL! If nothing I have said all semester has convinced you that God doesn't exist, then you are a fool! If God existed, he could keep this piece of chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!"

He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers, off his shirt cuff, onto the pleats of his pants, down his leg, and off his shoe. And as it hit the ground, it simply rolled away, UNBROKEN. The professor's jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man and then ran out of the lecture hall. The young man who had stood up proceeded to walk to the front of the room and share his faith in Jesus for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and listened as he told of God's love for them and of his power through Jesus.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Is Your Jesus Worth Dying For?




The story of Cassie Bernall


As Cassie entered the ninth grade, her mom Misty just "had that gut feeling that something was wrong. I couldn't pinpoint it, but I just knew something was wrong. I didn't feel like either I nor my husband had any connection with her."

Desperate for answers, Misty began to search Cassie's room regularly, and on one occasion was shocked to discover evidence that her daughter had developed an interest in witchcraft, drugs and alcohol. Facing the trauma of how to deal with their troubled teen, Cassie's parents decided that the only way to stop their daughter from making more bad decisions was to make a few good choices for her.

So, they began making changes. For starters, they transferred Cassie to a new school--Columbine High School, in suburban Littleton, Colorado. They also kept closer tabs on her friends, her attitudes, and her study habits. In general, they put their foot down, and said, "Cassie, it stops here. You must now choose to take responsibility for your life."

Cassie began to respond - positively...new friends, new attitudes. One of the new friends was Dave McPherson, youth pastor at West Bowles Community Church. McPherson admitted to the Denver Post that, when he first saw Cassie, he thought to himself, "There's no hope for that girl. Not our kind of hope." The joyless look on her face, the monosyllabic speech which came from her lips -- all of it suggested that perhaps Cassie was just "too far gone."

One weekend, though, McPherson encouraged Cassie to accompany the church youth on retreat, and, with her parents' enthusiastic permission, she agreed. That weekend which changed Cassie's life. Said Brad, her father, "When she left, she was this gloomy, head-down, say-nothing youth. When she came back, her eyes were open and bright and she was bouncy and just excited about what had happened to her and was just so excited to tell us. It was like she was in a dark room, and somebody turned the light on, and she saw the beauty that was surrounding her." Said Misty, "She looked at me in the eye and she said, "Mom, I've changed. I've totally changed. I know you're not going to believe it, but I'll prove it to you.'"

The "light" that had been turned on in 17-year-old Cassie's life was the light of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom she had trusted as her personal Lord and Savior at that church retreat. Jesus changed Cassie-from the inside out. A deep-down, 100-percent kind of transformation, like Paul spoke of in Romans 12:2 when he exhorted us, "be transformed by the renewing of your minds!" Gone was the preoccupation with the occult; instead, Cassie began to spend her spare time, along with her new Christian friends, ministering at Denver's inner-city Victoria Outreach Church, serving dinner to prostitutes and drug addicts as part of that church's mission ministry. Cassie even planned to cut off her cornsilk-colored hair that hung halfway down her back, so that it could be given to "someone who makes wigs for kids who are going through chemotherepy," according to her aunt, Kayleen.

One night, Cassie spoke of her newfound hope for the future with her mom. She said, "Mom, it would be OK if I died. I'd be in a better place, and you know where I'd be." The same girl who, just a couple years before, had been spinning on the edge, in danger of falling into hopelessness. Jesus change her-she was living life sacrificially in Jesus' name, and she was ready to die as a child of the Lord Jesus.

On Sunday night, April 18, Cassie stood up and gave her testimony to her youth group at church. She told them, "You really can't live without Christ. It's, like, impossible to really have a really true life without Him." Cassie was ready. With her life--and with death, if necessary.

Two days after that, Cassie was sitting in the library of Columbine High School when Eric Harris and Dylan Kelbold burst in with homemade pipe-bombs and guns. They knew who she was; she'd made no secret of her newfound faith.

The Bible stacked on top of her textbooks, along with the WWJD ("What Would Jesus Do?") bracelet around her wrist, clearly marked Cassie as one of the "Christians" of Columbine High.

"Do you believe in God?" was the question which was posed to her by that young member of the self-proclaimed "Trenchcoat Mofia." Her friend, Keven Koeniger, later said that Cassie paused for a long moment. He said, "I think she knew she was going to die."

Finally, the response came: "Yes, I believe in God." The trigger was pulled.

You think the question, "Are you ready to die for Jesus?" isn't an urgent one? Just ask Cassie Bernall. Ask her parents. Misty and Brad said, "We looked at each other and we said, 'Would I have done that? I would have begged for my life!' She didn't.

Cassie Bernall's brother Chris found this poem on her desk. It was the last poem she wrote before she died.

"Now I have given up on everything else.
I have found it to be the only way
To really know Christ
And to experience the Mighty power
That brought Him back to life again
And to find out what it means
to suffer and die with Him.
So, whatever it takes
I will be one who lives
In the fresh newness of life
Of those who are alive from the dead"

Is your Jesus worth dying for?

(Editor's note: The "poem" above is actually a quotation from the Living Bible Phil. 3:10-11. The author of this article was mistaken in thinking that Cassie had been the author. However, it is fairly certain that Cassie looked to these verses soon before her death.)

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The Passion Psalm



Pondering the Purpose of Psalm 22:1 Spoken by Christ on the Cross.


"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' -- that is, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?'" (Mark 15:34; cf. Matthew 27:46 ... the other two gospel writers, Luke and John, do not mention Jesus speaking these words).


About mid-afternoon, just before He "breathed his last," the Messiah uttered this brief and emotional statement! It is phrased in the form of a question unto His God, as if to say, "Why have You turned away from Me?"


Many scholars regard this utterance to be the great agony of the Son's awareness of His Father's rejection.

"Mark records the prayer in its fully Aramaic form, perhaps following an early Palestinian tradition that conformed Jesus' cry to the Targum; Matthew re-Hebraizes the address (changing "Eloi" to "Eli"), either to conform to frequent early synagogue practice of using Hebrew prayers (though this Hebraism had come over into Aramaic; cf. also the use of "Eli" in Qumran's hymns), or to explain how listeners thought they heard 'Elijah'" (Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 682-683).


Although a few skeptics feel these may be words falsely attributed to Jesus as He hung upon the cross, or merely the product of later tradition or legend, that view really isn't worthy of any serious consideration. "Given subsequent Christian Christology, the early church would hardly have invented Jesus' cry of despair in uttering a complaint about alienation from God" (ibid, p. 682).


"And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, 'This man is calling for Elijah'" (Matthew 27:47; cf. Mark 15:35).


Rabbinic tradition, and this kind of thinking in the first century, taught that the prophet Elijah (who had never died, and who was thought to be "hovering," looking after all the righteous Jewish leaders) would periodically, in special cases, come to the rescue of notable rabbis in distress. Therefore, some speculated that these witnesses to the crucifixion may have believed Jesus was appealing to Elijah to come and bring this special deliverance, or was perhaps wondering why Elijah was not coming to His rescue at this critical time. After all, Elijah was present with Him at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31), but had now seemingly "forsaken" Him at the crucifixion. It is an interesting theory, but not likely the intent of our Lord's cry from the cross.


The cry of the Messiah during His passion was a quote from Psalm 22:1, where David wrote, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" That entire psalm is filled with prophetic statements pertaining to the future passion of the Anointed One of God. David speaks of the sneering and mocking of men (vs. 7). He writes, "They pierced my hands and my feet" (vs. 16) ... "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots" (vs. 18). There are other allusions to the coming suffering servant as well, all of which make it fairly clear that this psalm is aptly placed in the Messianic psalms of David. One would think, therefore, that there would be little controversy surrounding the interpretation of this psalm, or of our Lord's use of the opening phrase as He suffered upon the cross. However, that is not the case. "There is no psalm which has raised so much controversy as this" (The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 8, p. 151).


Many believe this psalm to be Messianic, but others deny it has any application to Jesus Christ. Some scholars say it applies only to David, but then the opposing side declares none of the particulars of the psalm can be matched to known events in the life of David. Some feel David was speaking of Jeremiah or Hezekiah in this psalm, rather than the Messiah. Others see it merely as a representation of the sufferings of the righteous, and not a prophecy of any one specific person. The traditional explanation of the majority of Christendom, however, is that "David, full of the Holy Ghost, was moved to speak of the person of Christ, and to describe, not his own sufferings and perils and deliverance, but those of his great anti-type, the Messiah, which were revealed to him in a vision or otherwise, and which he was then directed to put on record" (ibid).

New Covenant writings clearly portray this psalm as Messianic. Although there may be areas of application to the life of David, as well as other biblical figures, it nevertheless is clearly prophetic of the passion of Christ. The apostle John, when describing the soldiers' dividing up the garments of Jesus at the cross, declared this to be in fulfillment of one of the statements in Psalm 22 (John 19:24). Hebrews 2:12 also quotes from this psalm when discussing the mission of the Messiah. And, of course, we have the aforementioned references in Matthew and Mark of the use by Jesus of the first verse from this psalm.


The major controversy associated with this whole event involves what Jesus meant when He uttered those words on the cross. Scholars have engaged in heated debate for a great many centuries over this matter, and the conflict of ideas and interpretations continue even to our own present day. Some even declare the true meaning of the passage to be beyond comprehension. The great Reformation leader Martin Luther (1483-1546) sat in his study for a lengthy period of time, taking neither food nor water, contemplating these words of Jesus on the cross which are taken from Psalm 22:1. He finally rose from his chair and exclaimed in utter amazement, "God forsaken of God! Who can understand that?" A scholar by the name of Russell Bradley Jones declared that "no man on earth" will ever fully be able "to understand the significance of Jesus' terrible cry" (Gold From Golgotha, p. 48).


William Barclay, however, probably has the best attitude when approaching this passage. He said, "This must be the most staggering sentence in the gospel record. This is a saying before which we must bow in reverence, yet at the same time we must try to understand."

There are four major interpretive positions that have been advocated over the centuries, and I shall attempt to briefly and hopefully fairly present them here. I must admit that this is a very difficult exegetical problem, with good, honest, devoted disciples on all sides of this issue. I feel this may well be one of those areas where we would all do well to refrain from being overly dogmatic in the promotion of our own preferences. None of us have arrived at perfect perception, thus "the mystery of the ages" will most likely not be made crystal clear to the peoples of earth by anything I pen. I will merely seek to present the evidence and offer a few observations. Perhaps this will promote further reflection among us all as we focus our thoughts upon the statement of our Lord as He suffered upon the cross on our behalf.

The Mistranslation Interpretation

It is asserted by some scholars that the statement in question -- "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" -- is not a correct translation or rendering of the original. It is believed by those few who hold to this position that the concept of being "forsaken" or "abandoned" is completely absent. George Lamsa, in his translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta, renders Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 this way: "My God, my God, for this I was spared!" His version contains a footnote which clarifies the statement to mean, "This was my destiny." Lamsa believes the text "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" is incorrect, and that it should read: "Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani." In other words, Jesus Christ is not lamenting the fact that He has been abandoned by the Father, but rather declares this to be His intended destiny, and that God has preserved Him through many previous plots during His earthly ministry so as to bring Him safely to this moment of ultimate sacrifice.


George Lamsa comments on this statement by Jesus in his Introduction to his translation from the Peshitta. He points out that many people are "bewildered" by the more common translation of our Lord's statement, because the notion of being abandoned is "contradictory" to other declarations of Scripture. For example, in John 16:32 Jesus speaks of being abandoned by everyone in His time of crisis; of being left alone... "and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me." George Lamsa feels this is a horrendous contradiction IF one keeps the more common translation, "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Lamsa writes, "The Old Testament in many instances states that God does not forsake the righteous nor those who trust in Him. Jesus was the Son of God and entrusted His spirit to God. Jesus could not have contradicted Himself."

The late George Lamsa's translation of this statement by Jesus Christ as being a declaration of His intended destiny, and God's providence in keeping Him alive unto that predetermined end, stands virtually alone among translations. One will hardly find any reputable scholars who agree with his perspective that this was a textual or translational error. Lamsa did indeed spot the age-old problem -- wondering how Christ could be abandoned by God at the cross -- but his proposed solution, which involves "correcting" the original text, is largely rejected by biblical scholarship.

The Separation Interpretation

The interpretation with which readers will most likely be familiar is the one that portrays our Lord's statement as an anguished cry of a dying man, one who feels totally abandoned by God. Indeed, this interpretation suggests that Jesus WAS abandoned by God. The reason for that abandonment was that God is too holy to look upon sin, which Jesus had become on our behalf. Thus, God had forsaken His Son on the cross. Habakkuk 1:13 is often cited as partial justification for this perspective -


"Thine eyes are too pure to look at evil, and Thou canst not look upon iniquity."


Thus, it is believed that when Jesus took on the sins of the world, and atoned for them through His sacrifice upon the cross, God was unable, because of His holiness, to "look upon" such an abundance of iniquity. Therefore, He turned away from this scene occurring that evening at Golgotha.


"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf" (2 Cor. 5:21).


"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Gal. 3:13).


"And He Himself brought our sins in His body to the cross" (1 Peter 2:24).


"The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:6).


Many biblical scholars also point to the teaching of Isaiah 59:2 as representative of what Jesus may have been feeling at the cross that afternoon ---


"Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear."


True, Jesus Himself had no sin, but He had become sin on our behalf; our sin was placed upon Him, and He personally carried it to the place of His atoning sacrifice.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary declares it is best if we "take the words at face value: Jesus is conscious of being abandoned by His Father. For one who knew the intimacy of Matthew 11:27, such abandonment must have been agony" (vol. 8, p. 579). This commentary states it is "inadequate to hypothesize that Jesus felt abandoned but was not truly abandoned" (ibid). In other words, this was not just the perception of a suffering man; this was the actual reality. He had been abandoned by the Father! The purpose was to show the holiness of God and the horridness of sin. "In this cry of dereliction, the horror of the world's sin and the cost of our salvation are revealed" (ibid).

"During those three black hours Jesus was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), and thus God turned completely away from Him. ... With His dying powers He cries to God and now no longer sees in Him the Father, for a wall of separation has risen between the Father and the Son, namely the world's sin and its curse as they now lie upon the Son. Jesus thirsts for God, but God has removed Himself. ... What is involved in the fact that God forsook or abandoned Jesus during those three awful hours no man can really know. The nearest we can hope to come toward penetrating this mystery is to think of Jesus as being covered with the world's sin and curse and that, when God saw Jesus thus, He turned away from Him. ... All that we are able to say is that only thus, by actually forsaking Jesus, could the full price of our redemption be paid. To be forsaken of God is undoubtedly to taste His wrath. Jesus endured the full penalty for our sins when God turned from Him" (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Matthew, p. 1119-1120).

The great preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), in his comments on our Lord's passion, remarked.


"At this moment physical weakness was united with acute mental torture from the shame and ignominy through which He had to pass; and to make His grief culminate with emphasis, He suffered spiritual agony surpassing all expression, resulting from the departure of His Father's presence. This was the black midnight of His horror; then it was that He descended the abyss of suffering. No man can enter into the full meaning of these words. Some of us think at times that we could cry, 'My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' There are seasons when the brightness of our Father's smile is eclipsed by clouds and darkness; but let us remember that God never does really forsake us. It is only a seeming forsaking with us, but in Christ's case it was a real forsaking. We grieve at a little withdrawal of our Father's love; but the real turning away of God's face from His Son, who shall calculate how deep the agony which it caused Him?"

The noted biblical and Greek scholar Warren Wiersbe said, "Psalm 22:3 emphasizes the holiness of God. How could a holy God look with favor on His Son who had become sin?"

In a study of our Lord's death found on the web site of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, we read.


"It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross, that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out. One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater."

The important aspect of this interpretation is its emphasis upon the substitutionary aspect of our Lord's sacrifice. What will be the penalty for those who face God still in their sins? I think most would agree that their fate will be removal from the presence of God; abandonment to the eternal darkness; cut off from deity! When God turns away, life flees.


The question must be asked: Did Jesus truly pay the penalty for sin? If He did, then that penalty was to be cut off from the presence of the Father; He was abandoned to the darkness, wherein lies only death!


Notice again the context of Matthew 27:45-50 and Mark 15:33-37 --- Darkness falls over the land ... Jesus laments the abandonment of His God ... He utters a loud cry, and breathes His last. Darkness and Death! Yes, Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe! Had Jesus NOT truly been forsaken, then can it ever be claimed that He fully paid the price for sin? Our Lord's passion was not a token passion ... it was total. What He experienced is the fate men and women will experience whom one-day face God still in their sin -- abandonment to the darkness of death! To suggest Jesus was NOT abandoned, is to suggest He did not truly and fully pay the price, and, indeed, implies the wicked will one-day pay a higher price for their sin. That is simply not a biblical teaching!


The Quotation Interpretation

Nevertheless, there are indeed some good, honest brethren who sincerely believe our Lord was NOT forsaken as He bore our sin to the cross. They declare this could never be. God would never forsake Jesus, and they regard it as virtually blasphemous to suggest otherwise. There are several passages they employ to try and justify this view.

Deut. 4:30-31 --- "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days, you will return to the Lord your God and listen to His voice. For the Lord your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them."


2 Chron. 15:2 --- Here we find Azariah saying to Asa, "Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the Lord is with you when you are with Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you."


Psalm 37:25, 28 --- "I have been young, and now I am old; Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken. ... For the Lord loves justice, and does not forsake His godly ones; they are preserved forever; but the descendants of the wicked will be cut off."


It doesn't take much reflection at all to perceive that these passages do not declare what these theorists profess or wish them to! Yes, our God was compassionate and just; He was fair and merciful. He would never forsake the godly, but would indeed cut off the wicked. Jesus Christ was the righteous one of God; He was sinless. However, He came into this world to fulfill a pre-determined purpose -- He would take on the sin of the world, bear it in His body to the cross, become a curse on our behalf, and pay the full, fearful penalty for that amassed sin. That penalty was to be cut off from the presence of God; abandoned to the darkness wherein lies death.


Had God NOT forsaken Him, the atonement would have been a sham. He had to experience the penalty for sin for His atonement to be legitimate. Had it been less than what the wicked would be forced to pay for their own sin, then it could never be legitimately declared a substitutionary atonement. He paid the price we were destined to pay ... and He paid it in full.


To suggest that God would never forsake the righteous is NOT equivalent to suggesting He would never forsake the unrighteous! Jesus became the latter that you and I might be regarded as the former!


"For Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18).

Jesus spoke of this abandonment, feeling its full force, in his statement from the cross. But, again, some reject this teaching. They simply refuse to believe God would ever forsake Jesus ... for any reason. Therefore, some explanation must be provided for our Lord's cry, "My God, My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" What exactly did Jesus intend here, if in fact He was NOT "forsaken" by His God? The answer suggested is that He was merely quoting from Psalm 22, the purpose of which was to convey to those who heard Him the ultimate victory which was to be His, and which is conveyed in the latter verses of Psalm 22. In other words, Jesus was not speaking of Himself as a victim, but as a victor. Due to His physical condition He was only able to quote the first phrase of that Psalm of David, but He intended for the part to stand for the whole.

In other words, Jesus was not really uttering those words because He felt abandoned by God. Rather He was merely quoting from a specific Psalm to convey to His hearers a far greater truth i.e., that He was not abandoned, but rather was being vindicated!


"What does this psalm quotation signify? A large number of recent interpreters have interpreted the cry against the background of the whole of Psalm 22, which begins with this sense of desolation but ends with the triumphant vindication of the righteous sufferer" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 578).


Thus, according to this view, Jesus wanted the people to understand He was referring to all of Psalm 22, not just to the first verse! This was a very popular psalm, thus the people would have been familiar with the entirety of it. Therefore, as they pondered all of this particular psalm, which our Lord's utterance of the first phrase would have triggered in their hearts and minds, they would soon see that our Lord was not uttering a cry of despair, but of victory!


"The psalm found recurrent use, both in private worship and in the open worship of the community for which it was originally composed. Whenever the psalm was used, however, reference to one part of it would inevitably call forth the memory of the rest of it. (note: We might quote only "The Lord is my shepherd," for example, but the rest of Psalm 23 would immediately come to our minds.) That is to say, the hymn to the Presence would always call to mind the terrible agony of the afflicted a loneness that it dispelled; and the lament of aloneness would always suggest the Presence which was its cure. It is against such a tradition that our Lord's use of the psalm from the cross must be viewed. The similarities between the agonies of the psalmist and the Lord's own are too unmistakably clear to be missed; but so also is the deliverance and the restoration to the Presence. Our Lord was therefore speaking of the terror of His suffering, and also, since the disciples and His mother would certainly have known the full psalm, of the victory which was to follow" (The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 4 -- Esther to Psalms, p. 216).

R.C.H. Lenski takes rather vehement exception to this interpretation.


"The idea that Christ spoke aloud the entire psalm, perhaps also the following psalms, or that He spoke aloud only the first line and silently went through the rest, are without support and destroy the force of Christ's cry" (The Interpretation of Matthew, p. 1118).


I tend to agree, and thus cannot embrace the theory that Jesus did not experience a very real "forsaking" by God as He suffered on the cross. I believe such to be a contradiction of clear Scriptural teaching to the contrary.

The Incorporation Interpretation

As is so often the case, ultimate truth is most often found somewhere between the extremes. To declare the problem to be one of mistranslation, when there is little or no evidence to substantiate such a claim, is extremism. To declare that Jesus was NOT in any way "forsaken" by God, but that He merely quoted from a particular psalm to convey an entirely different thought, is extremism.


To be perfectly honest, to declare that our Lord cried out to God in utter despair, apparently unaware as to WHY this forsaking was occurring, is also extremism ... and is also contrary to clear biblical teaching, which makes it evident our Lord knew exactly WHY He had come to this particular moment! The statement from the cross was not the cry of a confused, unenlightened pawn in an undisclosed plan of the Almighty. If indeed this was not an allusion to Psalm 22:1 by Jesus, and was nothing more than the agonized cry of a tormented man -- an agonized cry which Psalm 22:1 is merely said to have foretold -- then we are left with the troubling question as to why Jesus seemed so perplexed as to His circumstance ... in other words, why did He wonder WHY?!!

I believe the solution lies in the incorporation of valid aspects of both the Separation and Quotation Interpretations. It is my view that this is not an "either - or" matter, but a bit of both! Yes, Jesus was "forsaken" as He became sin and hung on the cross, but He was most certainly NOT "in the dark" as to the purpose of that sacrifice! One can truly detect His genuine agony in His cry pertaining to His abandonment, BUT in no way can we propose that He was perplexed by the purpose of it!


Therefore, the "Why" in the phrase requires an explanation. I think that the explanation is found in the fact that Jesus did indeed intentionally allude to Psalm 22. Jesus truly experienced being "forsaken," but the WHY of that experience would be answered in the text and context of the entirety of Psalm 22.


The first half of the psalm depicts the pain of a victim; the latter half the praise of a victor! In days, weeks, and years to come, His disciples, who heard His cry from the cross, would reflect upon those words, and they would perceive both halves of the psalm in the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah to which they were witnesses.

"This psalm thus has a special relevance for the Christian, apart from its value for private and public worship, for it calls to mind our Lord's agony, His deliverance and through it ours, and, in a singular way, the obligation which is ours to let the account of it burst forth from us continually to the very ends of the earth" (The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 4 -- Esther to Psalms, p. 216).


Perhaps this middle course between the two extremes can be summed up well in the following passage from the inspired prophecy of Isaiah ---


"For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on you,' says the Lord your Redeemer" (Isaiah 54:7-8).


The agony of an abandonment unto the darkness of death -- the rejoicing to be experienced with a contemplation of a resurrection unto life. We perceive both in the quote of our Lord from the cross. And with His victory, our own is assured!

On American Morals




I thought I would introduce you to the Apostle of Common Sense
G.K. Chesterton

America is sometimes offered to us, even by Americans (who ought
to know better), as a moral example. There are indeed very real
American virtues; but this virtuous attitude is hardly one of them.
And if anyone wants to know what a welter of weakness and inconsequence
the moral mind of America can sometimes be, he may be advised
to look, not so much to the Crime Wave or the Charleston, as to
the serious idealistic essays by highbrows and cultural critics,
such as one by Miss Avis D. Carlson on "Wanted: A Substitute
for Righteousness." By righteousness she means, of course,
the narrow New England taboos; but she does not know it.
For the inference she draws is that we should recognize frankly
that "the standard abstract right and wrong is moribund."
This statement will seem less insane if we consider, somewhat curiously,
what the standard abstract right and wrong seems to mean--at least
in her section of the States. It is a glimpse of an incredible world.

She takes the case of a young man brought up "in a home where there
was an attempt to make dogmatic cleavage of right and wrong."
And what was the dogmatic cleavage? Ah, what indeed!
His elders told him that some things were right and some wrong;
and for some time he accepted this strange assertion. But when he leaves
home he finds that, "apparently perfectly nice people do the things
he has been taught to think evil." Then follows a revelation.
"The flowerlike girl he envelops in a mist of romantic idealization
smokes like an imp from the lower regions and pets like a movie vamp.
The chum his heart yearns towards cultivates a hip-flask, etc."
And this is what the writer calls a dogmatic cleavage between
right and wrong!

The standard of abstract right and wrong apparently is this.
That a girl by smoking a cigarette makes herself one of the company
of the fiends of hell. That such an action is much the same as that of
a sexual vampire. That a young man who continues to drink fermented
liquor must necessarily be "evil" and must deny the very existence of any
difference between right and wrong. That is the "standard of abstract
right and wrong" that is apparently taught in the American home.
And it is perfectly obvious, on the face of it, that it is not a standard
of abstract right or wrong at all. That is exactly what it is not.
That is the very last thing any clear-headed person would call it.
It is not a standard; it is not abstract; it has not the vaguest
notion of what is meant by right and wrong. It is a chaos of social
and sentimental accidents and associations, some of them snobbish,
all of them provincial, but, above all, nearly all of them concrete and
connected with a materialistic prejudice against particular materials.
To have a horror of tobacco is not to have an abstract standard of right;
but exactly the opposite. It is to have no standard of right whatever;
and to make certain local likes and dislikes as a substitute.
We need not be very surprised if the young man repudiates these
meaningless vetoes as soon as he can; but if he thinks he is
repudiating morality, he must be almost as muddle-headed as his father.
And yet the writer in question calmly proposes that we should
abolish all ideas of right and wrong, and abandon the whole human
conception of a standard of abstract justice, because a boy in Boston
cannot be induced to think that a nice girl is a devil when she
smokes a cigarette.

If the rising generation were faced with no worse doubts
and difficulties than this, it would not be very difficult
to reconcile them to the traditions of truth and justice.
But I think the episode is worth mentioning, merely because it
throws a ray of light on the moral condition of American Culture,
in the decay of Puritanism. And when next we are told that the
idealism of America is to set a "standard" by which England must
transform herself, it will be well to remember what is apparently
meant by a standard and an ideal; and that the fire of idealism
seems both to begin and end in smoke.

Incidentally, I must say I can bear witness to this queer taboo
about tobacco. Of course numberless Americans smoke numberless cigars;
a great many others eat cigars, which seems to me a more occult pleasure.
But there does exist an extraordinary idea that ethics are involved
in some way; and many who smoke really disapprove of smoking.
I remember once receiving two American interviewers on the same afternoon;
there was a box of cigars in front of me and I offered one to
each in turn. Their reaction (as they would probably call it)
was very curious to watch. The first journalist stiffened
suddenly and silently and declined in a very cold voice.
He could not have conveyed more plainly that I had attempted to corrupt
an honorable man with a foul and infamous indulgence; as if I were
the Old Man of the Mountain offering him hashish that would turn him
into an assassin. The second reaction was even more remarkable.
The second journalist first looked doubtful; then looked sly;
then seemed to glance about him nervously, as if wondering whether we
were alone, and then said with a sort of crestfallen and covert smile:
"Well, Mr. Chesterton, I'm afraid I have the habit."

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine
how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess
that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course
of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane.
He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture;
but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared.
He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had no "standard
of abstract right or wrong"; in him it was not merely moribund; it was
apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test.
Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly
think it wrong to smoke a cigar. But he had a concrete standard
of particular cut and dried customs of a particular tribe.
Those who say Americans are largely descended from the American Indians
might certainly make a case out of the suggestion that this mystical
horror of material things is largely a barbaric sentiment.
The Red Indian is said to have tried and condemned a tomahawk for
committing a murder. In this case he was certainly the prototype
of the white man who curses a bottle because too much of it goes
into a man. Prohibition is sometimes praised for its simplicity;
on these lines it may be equally condemned for its savagery.
But I myself do not say anything so absurd as that Americans are savages;
nor do I think it would matter much if they were descended from savages.
It is culture that counts and not ethnology; and the culture
that is concerned here derives indirectly rather from New England
than from Old America. Whatever it derives from, however, this is
the thing to be noted about it: that it really does not seem
to understand what is meant by a standard of right and wrong.
It is a vague sentimental notion that certain habits were not
suitable to the old log cabin or the old hometown. It has a vague
utilitarian notion that certain habits are not directly useful
in the new amalgamated stores or the new financial gambling-hell. If
his aged mother or his economic master dislikes to see a young man
hanging about with a pipe in his mouth, the action becomes a sin;
or the nearest that such a moral philosophy can come to the idea
of a sin. A man does not chop wood for the log hut by smoking;
and a man does not make dividends for the Big Boss by smoking;
and therefore smoking has a smell as of something sinful.
Of what the great theologians and moral philosophers have
meant by a sin, these people have no more idea than a child
drinking milk has of a great toxicologist analyzing poisons.
It may be a credit of their virtue to be thus vague about vice.
The man who is silly enough to say, when offered a cigarette,
"I have no vices," may not always deserve the rapier-thrust
of the reply given by the Italian Cardinal, "It is not a vice,
or doubtless you would have it." But at least the Cardinal
knows it is not a vice; which assists the clarity of his mind.
But the lack of clear standards among those who vaguely think of it
as a vice may yet be the beginning of much peril and oppression.
My two American journalists, between them, may yet succeed in adding
the sinfulness of cigars to the other curious things now part
of the American Constitution.

I would therefore venture to say to Miss Avis Carlson that
the quarrel in question does not arise from the Yankee Puritans
having too much morality, but from their having too little.
It does not arise from their drawing too hard and fast a line of
distinction between right and wrong, but from their being much to loose
and indistinct. They go by associations and not by abstractions.
Therefore they classify smoking with vamping or a flask in the pocket
with sin in the soul. I hope at least that some of the Fundamentalists
will succeed in being a little more fundamental than this.
The men of Tennessee are supposed to be very anxious to draw the line
between men and monkeys. They are also supposed by some to be rather
too anxious to draw the line between black men and white men.
May I be allowed to hope that they will succeed in drawing a rather
more logical line between bad men and good men? Something of the
the difference and the difficulty may be seen by comparing the old
Ku Klux Klan with the new Klu Klux Klan. The old secret society
may have been justified or not; but it had a definite object:
it was directed against somebody. The new secret society seems
to have been directed against anybody; often against anybody
who drank; in time, for all I know, against anybody who smoked.
It is this sort of formless fanaticism that is the great danger
of the American Temperament; and it is well to insist that if men
must persecute, they will be more clear-headed if they persecute
for a creed.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Who Then Was Paul?



The first person to ever hear and know of this Mystery, was the Apostle Paul. Now he wasn’t an apostle of any kind when we first hear of him. He was a member of the Sanhedrin, the great ruling group of the Jews, 70 of them. They were the most intelligent men in the Land – or suppose to be.

Israel hadn’t a king for over 500 years, and now here is Christ as the Head of the Church, and Paul is the first to hear this good news. In Eph. 3, coming sometime later than his conversion on the Damascus Road, Paul writes: “For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given to me to you-ward; HOW THAT BY REVELATION HE MADE KNOWN UNTO ME THE MYSTERY;” And so far as we can find in the Scriptures, Paul is the only one that God has made any revelation to concerning the Mystery. Any others who learned it, any other apostles that rose up and worked with him, pastors and teachers, all of them had to get that message from Paul – he was the only source. During the Acts period we have the twelve Apostles who were the only source for a few years. And then Paul came on the scene as a special Apostle to preach to those who were outside the Land (the dispersion) the kingdom of heaven gospel, but here in the mystery gospel there’s only one to whom it was revealed. Now didn’t God take a chance? Or did He? Paul was a very earnest man, and he did the very best that he knew how! He was very zealous in his religion – persecuting the Christians, and when he found out he was wrong he turned immediately.

I like to read that story of his conversion in Acts 9 when he met the Lord. “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?’ And he said, ‘Who art Thou Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest: is it hard for thee to kick against the pricks’?” (Saul haven’t you been hurting yourself enough in persecuting these Christians?) And immediately after the Lord said, “I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest…,” Paul says, “Lord what wilt Thou have me to do?” Called Him Lord immediately! He knew there was a purpose for this vision – he knew instantly that he’d been wrong, and that there might be something for him to do. Well, God can use a man like that!

Thursday, April 20, 2006

The Father's House!

"That God may be all in all" [1st Cor. 15:28].

When first century believers were placed into Christ, these set the stage for the Father to dwell "in all." The Eternal Son was associated with the Father's Will, before the age-times arrived and sin entered into the world, after the creation. What a statement! We have to read it several times before all of the ramifications settle in on us. Read it again.

The first intention and design was for the Father to live in His children, the objects of His great love principle. Then, sin entered into the picture and redemption became a work until it closed with the message, "Be ye reconciled to God." The word, "reconcile" means to be friendly again. It means to get beyond the problem and return to the first relationship.

Beyond all the different ages, recorded in scripture, the "good pleasure of His will" was there to powerfully produce the Father's love-intention for all ages after that. The next question is "When was this "pleasure" of God accomplished and completed?"

"That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him."
The time frame, of which Paul speaks ("the dispensation of the fullness of times"), was during the first century when God became flesh and dwelt among men. He dispensed (or revealed) Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. It must have pleased God greatly, to wrap Himself in a robe of flesh and live in humanity. For, this was a big part of the first intention of heaven.

The "fullness of times" speaks of the time when all other past ages or times poured into the last age. It filled it full of the redemption purpose and prophecies of past ages that were recorded in the "Old Testament." We are now living beyond those "last days." We are now living in the "ages to come" when we can observe "the exceeding riches of His grace." In other words, we are living in the dispensation of a God-centered program of a Father's grace and love for His household.

First century believers understood about the "all things" that the Father had dispensed to His children in past ages. Those "New Testament" days were labeled "the dispensation of the fullness of times." For, it was the time when the Father gathered into Christ Jesus, everything on earth and in heaven. It was the time of a completed redemption. The Father's ultimate or first love-intention was brought to light in His "beloved Son."

Before the creation of the heavens and earth, the Father intended that His Son would express the Father's first love-desire to the creation. This was to be an ongoing LOVE in the heavens and earth. This was the first step. For God was to then indwell His children on earth and in heaven.

THERE WAS NO INTENTION HIGHER THAN THE FATHER'S FIRST LOVE!

This Divine intention was "according to the good pleasure of His Will." Deserving or undeserving was not in the "mix." This was simply governed by and according to the Father's pleasure, not the children's worthiness. Another important fact was that men could not forfeit it by misconduct. This "first love" was "according to the good pleasure of His Will."

Up to this point, one will see the Father's will or ultimate intention springing out of His paternal nature and desire alone. Before the foundation of the world, the Father marked out for Himself a vast family in whom He would share His life, nature, spirit, vision, purpose and dedication. All of this was to be accomplished through His Son. The Father never intended for the program of redemption to overshadow the original purpose of the Father loving and living in His children.

The invasion of "death" was an interruption to the Father's first intention. This spiritual death was "separation from God." What place does the redemption story have in all this? It is the recovery program that brings His first purpose back on course. As beautiful as the redemption story is, it dims in comparison to the brightness of the Father's first love.

If we look far enough back, we see a very different Christ entering the picture and fulfilling the Divine Desire. Most see the Christ only as Messiah, fulfilling prophecy. It takes new bifocals to see the purpose of God indwelling Christ, fulfilling the first design.

"For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
When we understand the first design, we see why God indwelt the first century saints (ekklesia). At that time, God was in Christ, dwelling in the first century believers. This insured them of the hope they had in the soon approaching Parousia or presence of God when God would be "all in all." It was only then that the purpose of the indwelling Christ was seen to be the stepping stone for God to be present "in all" His children.

".the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all."
As the loving Father takes residence in His children, we clearly see the reason for missions, evangelism, preaching and teaching. The theology is now crystal clear. The Father's greatest pleasure is the love for His family and desire to live in them. If a wise and loving father could live his life through his children, they might not do so many unproductive things to themselves and others. This is the divine philosophy that the Christ brought to the world from God.

If we stop looking at God's big plan as something for man's needs to be met, our viewpoint of the Father's first intention will take on new meaning and we will see it give the Father honor, glory, pleasure, and satisfaction. The real secret of blessedness is having the correct center in one's life.

The prompting of unbridled senses in a man-centered life fade in view of the God-centered life. A God-responsive minister will see the circumference of his ministry mirror bridled senses and obedience to a loving Father Who is the inner center. Then and only then will the externals of life matter less? Life's selfish purpose and goals will end and what matters to the Father will be the underlying thrust. Each "now" in service will become a blissful, eternal moment. Earth and heaven become one when the life is God-centered.

There is something very special to me and that I enjoy. I love to play the keyboard and sing old songs and hymns. If, while I am playing, someone is drawn in to watch my fingers move over the keyboard, would that satisfy my first intention? My intentions were never to perform songs so that people could watch my fingers striking each key of the instrument? I have a scar on one of my fingers that was caused by falling into a pile of broken glass. My fingers are stubby and because of building so many outside projects, my fingernails are not easy to look at. My reason for performing with these hands would certainly not be to display them. My first intention would be for others to enjoy along with me the major and minor melodies, progressions with augmented and diminished chords, harmony and inspiring words. Sometimes, I would end a song with a 9th or 13th chord and in that same moment, look into the listener's face to see their reaction to that strange and new sound. My intention has been for others to be blessed by the arrangements, sounds and message of the song. I would want it to appeal to their hearts. My main intention exemplifies the Heavenly Father's first intention. He would not want His children to be concerned so much with how He was doing things as to the grand conclusion of His actions. He wants His children to love Him and feel safe in His presence. He wants them to place their total trust in Him as a loving Father, and enjoy Him in their lives.

This was always in the heart of the Father, before His Spirit indwelt the Son of God, Who would be the agent of the Father to indwell the first century Body of believers.

So, you see, Adam could have met the Christ face to face. Therefore, without the "hazard factor," there would have been no physical death and without the "sin factor" there would have been no sentence of spiritual "death" for Adam and Eve and their descendants. Eating of "the tree of life" or entering into spiritual life would have taken Adam into the mature (perfect) spiritual realm. Each individual after Adam could have realized their physical potential and transmigrated by their own personal spiritual life, smoothly into the joys that awaited them in their full maturity when God would dwell in them, not with them as He first did in the Garden.

Maturity or perfection has the ability to know the difference between "good" and "evil." Infants don't have this wisdom. For it is only found in "maturity." The tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" was there to partake of. However, Adam and Eve must grow in their obedience to God and then He would give them wisdom in their development and maturity as they walked in fellowship with God each day. God had warned them to not take the "short cut" and claim for themselves the knowledge and wisdom of maturity until they had become ready for it. However, they reached out for that which was forbidden at that time. They disobeyed as immature children, not caring about the consequence of choosing the time to be mature and make mature decisions for life and fellowship with God.

What more can we say about what might have been for Adam and Eve? We will never completely understand until our eyes are opened by His loving touch. However, we may learn what man should become as we look into the pages of scripture, at the perfect Son of God.

Scriptures mentioned above:

Colossians 3:11; 1st Corinthians 15:28; Ephesians 1:10; John 1:14; Romans 1:3; 8:3; 2nd Corinthians 5:16; 1st Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14; 5:7;

From Adam to Noah; from Abraham to Moses; from the Prophets to John the Baptist.; The "New Testament" time, the first century.

Hebrews 1:2; 2nd Corinthians 5:16; Colossians 2:9; Ephesians 2:22,23; Genesis 3:22 - "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." After maturity (tree of knowledge of good and evil) comes resurrection (tree of life).


Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Harvest of one body!

(Book of Kells)

A Look at Scripture:


1st Corinthians 15:23,24


(23) "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (24) "Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

The resurrection is pictured as a great harvest. The crop is made up of one kind of seed or crop. This harvest is described as having three phases in the reaping of the crop. There are the first-fruits that become ripe before the larger body of the crop. Then at the right time the main harvest comes for the whole field. Afterwards is the gleaning of that which ends the harvest.

Everyone in Israel understood the process of the harvest. Paul uses that example to help his listeners understand the more complicated process of the resurrection. He says.



a.. "Christ the first-fruits." From the beginning of time to the first century, the Messiah was the first and only one to arise and ascend into the Heavenly Father's authority. Then, those who suffered with Him during the Acts' period reigned with Him. The Parousia hope dominated the thinking of martyrs and living believers for the next forty years following His suffering, death and resurrection in AD 30.



b.. The new covenant Body: "They that are Christ's at His coming." This was the Greek phrase anastasis ek ton nekron (raised out from among the dead) that meant "the first resurrection," the "better resurrection," the "resurrection unto life" or the "resurrection of the just." Those who partook of it were called "children of God, being children of the resurrection." Paul explained that in the "fullness of times," God would "gather together in one, all things in Christ." As the firstfruits of the approaching harvest was gathered, the rest was assured to be harvested in due time. (1) Christ, then (2) "they that are Christ's at His coming."



c.. The old covenant Body: "The rest," to telos, not as some teach: "the end" or termination of all things. The context demands of us to think of "the last rank" in the harvest as "the rest of the dead." Always anastasis ton nekron is the resurrection of the dead, of which includes "the resurrection of the unjust," "the resurrection of damnation" and "to shame and everlasting contempt." This rank and category of "the dead" was the result of their judgment of works. These bodies were fused into one harvested body so that it became one body with Christ as the Head. Lastly, Paul concludes that believing Gentiles were also brought into this joint body in order to be raised as only ONE BODY in Christ.


"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many is one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many."

Acts 26:23; Acts 2:32-36; Romans 8:11, 23-25; 1st Corinthians 1:7-8; 2nd Corinthians 4:14; 5:10; Philippians 3:11-21; 1st Thessalonians 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:1-11,23; 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-10; 2:1-2, Titus 2:13; Hebrews 9:28; James 5:7-9; 2nd Peter 3:9-13; 1st John 2:28; 3:2-3; Revelation 20:5,6; Hebrews 11:35; John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Luke 14:14; Luke 20:35,36; Ephesians 1:10; Revelation 20:5; Acts 24:15; John 5:29; Daniel 12:2; Revelation 20:12; Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 2:12-22; Ephesians 4:4; 1st Corinthians 12:13-15

From newly published book, "A Man and Two Trees" (the search for immortality) Order it at Amazon.Com or Barns&Noble

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

2Aspects of God



Two aspects of God
Several years ago, I gave a year of my studies to the Qumran documents. In that time, I discovered a very deep and complicated motif among the Qumran community that epitomizes the peculiar teachings of the whole Qumran sect. It begins with a strong assertion of God's unlimited authority and supreme presence: "From the God of knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed he established their whole design... and they accomplish their task without change." As is suggested in many apocalyptic works, God's laws of creation and covenant overlap perfectly and thus the courses of the sun and stars accord exactly with the communities' 364-day festival calendar.

Similarly, God's perfection of way extends to his predestination of history, mysterious though this may be. There are definitely two aspects of the one God says, "He has created humankind to govern the world, and has appointed for them two spirits." These two spirits that are appointed for humankind are preexistent angels: the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness. In other texts, chosen people understood the names of these two angels. They appear as Michael, the archangel of Israel, who is also called Melchizedek (Melkisedeq, "King of Righteousness"), and his counterpart Belial, whose secret name is Melchiresha (Melriresa, "King of wickedness"). What is unusual in Qumran angelology is the supremacy granted to these two very opposite "princes" in the world. The Melchizedek Scroll identifies the good archangel as Elohim, the agent of eschatological judgment.

This overlap of language for God and his angel is reminiscent of the "angel of the Lord" texts of the OT and may anticipate later Rabbinic discussions of "two powers in heaven."

The Melchizedek, to whom Abraham paid a tithe, was, to the Qumran community, Elohim. The place where Melchizedek was King, was Mount Moriah, the Holy Place in Jerusalem... the place Abraham later offered his son to Elohim and much later, Elohim offered his son, the Lord Jesus Christ for the sin of mankind.

Why did Abraham go to Jerusalem? Why did the Son of God, Christ Jesus go to Jerusalem? It was the abode of Elohim. Solomon built a temple and placed the Ark of the Covenant in it. Why? It was where Elohim met man in judgment and mercy. Upon the cross, Jesus cried, "Eloi, Eloi, why have you forsaken me?" This was pure judgment and mercy.

Yahweh, the personal God of Israel had forsaken the Son of God. Abandoned by Eloi (God) is the "death" that the first man, Adapa/Adam caused to come upon humanity. To be reconciled to Eloi (God) and obtain immortality is to learn of and accept the "secret code" of the Heavens. It is to have faith in the atonement of God's obedient Son, Jesus Christ.

"For after the similitude (likeness) of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, (Christ Jesus) Who is made. after the power of an endless (immortal) life." Hebrews 7:15-16.

In the Epic of Gilgamish, we read of the hero's search for immortality. He found the fruit of the tree of life and let it slip from his grasp by a serpent.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible we learn that death was certain and was the end of life. The hope of immortality was offered through resurrection from death. The hope of resurrection was the message of the Paul in the New Testament. The hero of all ages comes from heaven in the first century AD and reveals immortality to humanity. He offers His own immortal life in humility and shame to the death of the cross. God honors that obedience to the point of sacrifice and gives immortality to all who come to Him in faith, accepting this sacrificial death, resurrection and ascent into "all authority" at his Father's (Yahweh) Right Hand as "God's so great Salvation."

As we approach this same Yahweh in faith, we may cease in our quest for eternal life. It is found in the resurrected Son of Yahweh, Jesus Christ.

"God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I (John) written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" [1 John 5:11-13].

"But as many as received Him (Christ Jesus), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name" [John 1:12].

This is no myth. The story of Yahweh's Son, Jesus Christ as the bona fide disclosure of immortality.



Monday, April 17, 2006

The American Dream.

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal" was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.

Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.".

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together."

Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus'. Instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America. deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.".

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in. America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Thought provoking?

God be with you.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

"He is not here"

>



And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified.He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay(Mt 28:5-6)

Saturday, April 15, 2006

The Empty Tomb: Reasons to Believe

easter1b



Jesus Christ's resurrection from a rock sepulcher galvanized the faith of early Christians. The empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances of the risen Lord were the crowning proof that the Master they loved and served was not just another moral teacher. He was, as he claimed to be, God in the flesh.

This conviction energized the early church. "We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard," the apostle Peter testified to the Jewish religious authorities, who could not quench the faith of those early believers (Acts 4:20).

We who read the accounts almost 2,000 years later need to remember that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not, as Paul boldly declared before the elite of his nation, "done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). Just the opposite was true. The disciples testified in the laboratory of public scrutiny and debate. People in their audiences could refute them at every point, if they were not telling the truth.

To first-century Christians, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the pivotal event in history. Their dramatic encounters with Jesus after his escape from the rock tomb were vivid and unforgettable: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us" (1 John 1:1-2). John, an apostle and disciple of Jesus Christ, wrote as an eyewitness to Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead (John 20:30-31; 21:24-25).

Luke, an educated man who wrote a detailed study of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, authenticated the report that went from tiny Judea into the world beyond: "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account...so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3-4).

Paul distilled the essence of the new faith he helped spread across the Roman Empire: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Full public scrutiny

The apostles faced the test of informed public opinion, a jury of their contemporaries. Some in their audiences already had Jesus' blood on their hands. The execution of one or two more fishermen from Galilee wouldn't make much difference.

Yet the disciples radiated unconquerable confidence. Their words still pulsate with moral fervor and authority. The good news of the resurrection was big news on the streets of Jerusalem. It was hard-hitting. It was effective. It changed lives.

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know," Peter trumpeted (Acts 2:22). "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (verse 36).

This bold preaching threw the Jerusalem religious hierarchy completely on the defensive. "You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood," they lamely protested (Acts 5:28).

If the disciples had been perpetrating fraud or deceit, their testimony could have been easily overthrown. It wasn't. The willingness to risk all for the truth of the resurrection was convincing testimony from fallible human beings men who had earlier deserted Christ and fled (Matthew 26:56). That willingness, and the powerful miracles being done in Christ's name, made the gospel compelling. It rocked Jerusalem.

No wonder Christ's newly regenerated disciples were "highly regarded by the people" (Acts 5:13). And remember something else: Other popular movements had come and gone in first-century Judea. Sensational leaders had arisen before Jesus of Nazareth, people the world at large has forgotten (verses 35-39). One of them, Judas, was also a Galilean, who lived not far from where Jesus was reared.

Around A.D. 6, Judas gathered a following and set himself against the Roman power. His movement failed and he was killed. But no one in the first century claimed that this Judas of Galilee was raised from the dead or that he and his followers had many prolonged talks after a resurrection. Still less did anyone risk life and limb for the Judas movement years afterward. Yet ordinary human beings risked their all for Jesus of Nazareth.

History not dogma

The late F.F. Bruce, evangelical author, notes: "The Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers.... This good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world's redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Christ" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, pages 7-8).

The disciples were convicted by the empty tomb. They believed in the power of the resurrection. Their testimony was believable because they believed. How about us? Do we believe?

We should. The same Jesus Christ who walked the dusty trails of Galilee is alive today, alive and glorified. He intervenes for those of us who turn to him in faith and belief, just as he did for Peter, Andrew, James and John. The empty tomb could not hold him, and the evil powers of this world — natural and supernatural could not stamp out the truth of his resurrection.

To experience this transforming power for ourselves, to "know Christ and the power of his resurrection" (Philippians 3:10), we will also have to believe in the empty tomb and in the power of the resurrection. Belief and the work of the Holy Spirit will lead us to repent. Repentance is toward God, an inner act of contrition for being sinful, broken human beings. We are all sinners; we have all broken God's great moral and spiritual law. God provides for our need for forgiveness and helps us deal with our guilt through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

Following repentance, believers demonstrate their faith in God through the ceremony of baptism. The New Testament teaches that water baptism is an outward symbol of faith (Acts 10:45-48). Believers who come to Christ in faith receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit lives in us, renewing our minds and sanctifying us until we are completed as new creations in Jesus Christ at the resurrection of the dead (Ephesians 4:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

We are not asked to make a commitment to Christ without evidence. The empty tomb stands as stark evidence that our Lord and Savior is risen from the dead.

Peter, preeminent preacher of the empty tomb, said it best: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you" (Acts 3:19-20).

The decision is yours. Will you believe?

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Scare the preacher

Remember when you said ''I'll go to church when hell freezes over"?

corcomroe-abbey



Gentle family,


Marti, and I were talking last night after viewing a stirring episode of Law and Order followed by a theologian on the Catholic channal ETWN [ Eternal Word Television Network ] and Marti turned to me, pointed her finger ( you know the one I mean and said in her best declarative sentence voice "He's just like you"!

To which I replied "I AM NOT" [ whispering, you can tell I was not listening or at best I would have kept my mounth shout]

I drew myself up to all of three feet ( remenber I was sitting down at the time) and said "I am a Biblicial Gestalt teacher" Now I was pretty sure I knew what that meant I had received notice earlier that I would be receiving the Doctor of Biblical Philology degree [ The study of linguistics]

Well, I know when I use a word like [Gestalt] I will stir up controversy that I am exercising my Spiritual gift of harrassment!

"Whats that" she asks half afraid I might actually answer and we're off on a marathon explaination ( just like this one). You see Gentle reader, Preachers are like fire horses or race horses. They hear a bell and that sends them running for all their worth.

"Well' I said, "Gestult teaching is like ( pausing for dramatic effect, careful to remember that I was sitting down and could not fall off the sofa) Lasagna!"

I stop here for a sip of wonderful Irish coffee and to enjoy those who are allready saying "I knew I should have not stayed in bed but gone to church"

You see there are layers in Lasagna one layer does not make a Lasagna not two but several [ 7 I think?] "You see Gestault teaching has layers one doesn't make it complete but several one on top of another on top of another. What may seen like a mess becomes when eaten a wonderful taste delight! [As I hope my teaching becomes like Lasagna]

Take for example the Book of Kells at Trinity College in Dublin.






The Book of Kells is not simply a religious manuscript. True, it contains the four gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John and that was the sole original purpose of the book. But its age and its design, although damaged, allow us a glorious glimpse into the art and style of ancient Ireland. The book is, quite simply, considered a crowning glory of the Celtic art form, and possibly one of the most important treasures of Western Europe

What appears to be simple decoration is in fact the Gospel of the New Testament





Which reminds me of Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University

He had only one major publication.
It was in Hebrew.
It had no references.
It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
Some even doubt he wrote it himself.
It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
He rarely came to class, just told students to read the Book.
Some say he had his son teach the class.
He expelled his first two students for learning.
Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.
Now then Gentle Reader, don't you wish you had gone to church?

Love,

Denis

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Taste and see

applecore


At the University of Chicago Divinity School each year they have what is called "Baptist Day". It is a day when all the Baptists in the area are invited to the school because they want the Baptist dollars to keep coming in.

On this day each one is to bring a lunch to be eaten outdoors in a grassy picnic area. Every "Baptist Day" the school would invite one of the greatest minds to lecture in the theological education enter.

One year they invited Dr. Paul Tillich. Dr. Tillich spoke for 2 ½ hours proving that the resurrection of Jesus was false. He quoted scholar after scholar and book after book. He concluded that since there was no such thing as the historical resurrection the religious tradition of the church was groundless, emotional mumbo-jumbo, because it was based on a relationship with a risen Jesus, who in fact, never rose from the dead in any literal sense. He then asked if there were any questions. After about 30 seconds, an old, dark skinned preacher with a head of short-cropped, woolly white hair stood up in the back of the auditorium.

Docta Tillich, I got one question, he said as all eyes turned toward him. He reached into his sack lunch and pulled out an apple and began eating it.

"Docta Tillich (CRUNCH, MUNCH), My question is a simple question (CRUNCH, MUNCH). Now, I ain't never read them books you read (CRUNCH, MUNCH) and I can't recite the Scriptures in the original Greek (CRUNCH, MUNCH). I don't know nothin' about Niebuhr and Heidegger (CRUNCH, MUNCH)..." He finished the apple.

"All I wanna know is: This apple I just ate, was it bitter or sweet?"

Dr. Tillich paused for a moment and answered in exemplary scholarly fashion: I cannot possibly answer that question, for I haven't tasted your apple.

The white-haired preacher dropped the core of his apple into his crumpled paper bag, looked up at Dr. Tillich and said calmly, "Neither have you tasted my Jesus." The 1000 plus in attendance could not contain themselves. The auditorium erupted with applause and cheers.

Dr. Tillich thanked his audience and promptly left the platform.

Have you tasted Jesus? Please pass this on Saints! God has risen, and he's coming back one day!

Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him. If you have, rejoice in the hope of the resurrection that your faith in Him brings. Psalm 34:8

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Da Vinci Codes -Lie!

Mona-leo

For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.

Well Gentle Reader,

Satan is at it again read on


While the ABC News feature focused on Brown's fascination with an alleged marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, The Da Vinci Code contains many more (equally dubious) claims about Christianity's historic origins and theological development. The central claim Brown's novel makes about Christianity is that "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, argues Brown, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican" or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both of them novelties that had never before existed among Christians.

Watershed at Nicea
Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads.

Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity.

In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."

In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."

The term used here—Lord, Kyrios—deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for "Jahweh," the holy name of God. The Romans also used it to denote the divinity of their emperor, and the first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to use it of the emperor for precisely this reason: only God himself was kyrios.

The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord.

In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons.

The Council of Nicea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation.

"Fax from Heaven"?
With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ.

Yet for a number of reasons, Brown's speculations fall flat. Brown correctly points out that "the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven." Indeed, the Bible's composition and consolidation may appear a bit too human for the comfort of some Christians. But Brown overlooks the fact that the human process of canonization had progressed for centuries before Nicea, resulting in a nearly complete canon of Scripture before Nicea or even Constantine's legalization of Christianity in 313.

Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. Marcion argued that the Old Testament's God represented law and wrath while the New Testament's God, represented by Christ, exemplified love. As a result Marcion rejected the Old Testament and the most overtly Jewish New Testament writings, including Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews. He manipulated other books to downplay their Jewish tendencies. Though in 144 the church in Rome declared his views heretical, Marcion's teaching sparked a new cult. Challenged by Marcion's threat, church leaders began to consider earnestly their own views on a definitive list of Scriptural books including both the Old and New Testaments.

Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. The four Gospels and Paul's epistles achieved wide circulation and largely unquestioned authority within the early church but hadn't yet been collected in a single authoritative book. Montanus saw in this fact an opportunity to spread his message, by claiming authoritative status for his new revelation. Church leaders met the challenge around 190 and circulated a definitive list of apostolic writings that is today called the Muratorian Canon, after its modern discoverer. The Muratorian Canon bears striking resemblance to today's New Testament but includes two books, Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon, which were later excluded from the canon.

By the time of Nicea, church leaders debated the legitimacy of only a few books that we accept today, chief among them Hebrews and Revelation, because their authorship remained in doubt. In fact, authorship was the most important consideration for those who worked to solidify the canon. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church—a good sign, they felt, that such books were inspired Scripture. The results speak for themselves: the books of today's Bible have allowed Christianity to spread, flourish, and endure worldwide.

Though unoriginal in its allegations, The Da Vinci Code proves that some misguided theories never entirely fade away. They just reappear periodically in a different disguise. Brown's claims resemble those of Arius and his numerous heirs throughout history, who have contradicted the united testimony of the apostles and the early church they built. Those witnesses have always attested that Jesus Christ was and remains God himself. It didn't take an ancient council to make this true. And the pseudohistorical claims of a modern novel can't make it false