Keruzon ton logon

To Martin Luther there were few things that he held to be sacramental. One of these things was preaching. Actually communion and preaching he felt were the two sacramental offices of the church. Granted he was responding or reacting to the Catholic Church which had not a few sacramental offices and at that time were abusing a good many of them.  But Zwingli, Calvin and Hobbs all felt that preaching was a major important indispensable part of the Christian community.


Examining the scriptures I find that kerusso Greek for preaching, is found sixty times in the NT. That is more times than the word "salvation". On closer reading we find amazing usages of the word.  Many times in the NT it records Jesus preaching to the people. In Matthew 4:17 we see Jesus preaching and again in Mark 1:14, John is thrown into prison and Jesus is preaching the kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 10:7 and Mark 3:14 Jesus is sending forth the disciples exhorting them "to preach". The scriptures record the command form of the verb, imperative of the word, keruzon. We see this in Mark 16:15 when Christ was commissioning the disciples to go into all the world and yes, preach. Again in Matthew it is preaching of the kingdom of God in all the world that precipitates the ending of the age. 
So why is preaching soooo important. It can be soooo boring. I know I've listened to myself. And we have listen to others or not, like our mothers and wives and again I said "or not". But there seems to be plenty of it going around. So I guess by how much it is used makes it important?


But there certainly is another reason it is important. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by a word from God (Romans 10:17 ). And in another place Paul said "...how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14). Preaching the living word creates faith in the heart of those who hear. But why has God chosen this way to communicate? Because God wants to communicate with His creation. He wants to live in community and in communication. Remember the reformation fathers ...and Hobbs : ), believed that preaching was in dispensable to the community. God not only by a word created all things, he by a word became flesh and lived with us in community. He wants to be Immanuel, God with us. Talking to us, living with us, and loving us as our Father, His word in and among us. 


Preaching becomes one of the main vehicles for creating this communication within the community.
There are those who want to down play preaching. There was a movement in '30s to put a moritorium on preaching in the Catholic Church. A mother of five, Helene Froelicher, declare "no". She said preaching was Reformatio Sacrae Eloquentiae.  This began a movement to put more emphasis on preaching. What timing was that! At that same time, Hitler was showing all the world what preaching has the power to do. The  force of the tongue put to destructive use. James was right. It can set a whole world aflame! If that is the power it has with Satan what power does hit have with God?  Paul said "it is the power of God!" (1Cor.1:18). The speaking of the Word of God created all things, it can save all things. Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the gospel in season and out of season. And applying that to himself in 1Corinthians 9  he says "Woe to me if I preach not the gospel of Jesus Christ." 


John Robert Stevens in his book entitled Living Prophecies  said "for this is the day that the word of the Lord shall come in creative power from the lips of the humblest saint."  We are living in the days when the word of God is going to be spoken, preached, by humble saints and His Kingdom will come. The fulfillment of our Lord's prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, On this earth...." The power of God is returning to you and me. Paul said it to the Athenians, "the word is near you, even in your mouth".  Paul in Corinthians 12 said again,"let everyone prophecy".  We should be speaking the word with all boldness. It is how the new age is going to come.

Seder, Remembering Forward

Communion, supper, reclining at the table, Judas, the sop, and a hymn all remind me of the Last Supper, and of course the Cistene Chapel. You might throw in the "Da Vince Code", but that's taking a left from where I want to go. Where I would like to go is to ask this question. How should I think about the Seder dinner?  My fellowship does a Seder dinner every year. We just finished having it Sunday night. Many Christians are having this experience. It is becoming a very ecumenical experience in Christianity today, which is a good thing. The Jews celebrate it because, well, Passover, Egypt, bondage, the red sea, and Carlton Heston. They lay legitimate claim to it as it celebrates an actual historical event for them. They do it out of obedience to the Lord. What they celebrate now with the Haggadah is a tradition that has grown since the destruction of the temple around 70 CE. Gamaliel the younger set the guidelines for what is a Passover meal celebration. Since his time, let us say, it has been greatly enriched. But where do we Christians fit in?

For Christians this is a much debated issue. We as Christians certainly are doing a good think to build bridges to Judaism and our elder brothers in the Lord, right? Christ command us too to do communion in remembrance, similar to the Jews. Then what is the problem?  It is only a problem IF the Seder dinner was not what the Lord and his disciples were sharing. One look at John's account of the dinner and we realize we have somewhat of a problem. John says Christ was slain on the day of the preparation (John 19). That would put the "Seder" dinner the night before the prep day. The Seder is held after the lamb is slain. No lamb, no dinner at least no seder dinner can happen. The synoptics all put the dinner after the lamb was slain and have Christ killed on the day Passover began (you have to keep in mind for Jews evening is the beginning of a new day). Do we want to start another Christian festival that is really not what it suppose to be? Do we want to risk frustrating our relationships with the Jews in taking one of their most holy days and making it ours, when it might not be authentic? I don't want to do that. I would rather honor the Jews and celebrate the Passover as a remembrance of the exodus. But that is IF it is incorrect.  Some great scholarly work has been done by Jonathan Klawans  Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism and Robert F. O'Toole, "Last Supper," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (O'Toole). The two authors will give you both sides of the traditional argument. Unfortunately, both have missed the boat.

For me the answer to this centuries long debate is discovered in the answer to another question, Why did Jesus die? Did Christ die to protect us from the death angel? Sounds good, he gives us life eternal. Okay. But how does he give us life eternal? He became judgement for us, for me.  He became sin, he became death. As John R. Stevens has put it "Those first Passover lambs were killed ... to avert judgment. But for Christ, judgment could not be averted. He was the one on whom all judgment was vented. That is why He died on the day after the lambs were killed and the Passover meal was eaten", Beyond Passover.
We as Christians should be careful not to give away our heritage. Our Remembrance is the Lamb that was slain once and for all. We are taking the Lord's Supper looking to the future when we will again eat with him. It is the revelation of the Lord to me in the communion that will changes me. Some of the greatest meetings and revelation of the Lord after the resurrection came during communion. I am thinking particularly of the two on the road to Emmaus. "and he took the bread and blessed it and brake it and their eyes were open and they knew Him" (Luke 24:30-31, 35, KJV).

If we want to share communion with our Jewish elder brothers, I think it is wonderful. It is a great event. God did a marvelous thing in Egypt, for that matter at the Jordan, and at other Passovers. But the meal we call the "last supper" should be celebrated in its own context and as Christians ending sin and looking forward to the appearing of our risen Lord and His kingdom, not looking back. It is a remembrance of a living Lord that is going to appear to us. "When He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is" (1john 3:2-3). As He is. Not as He was.
Footnote: Maybe we should remove Elijah's chair. He has already come, "if you can receive it". Who can we make that place setting for? Maybe we should set a place setting for the Lord. He is the one knocking at the door. Lets invite him in to sup with us (Rev.3:20).

Before his face

In Genesis I was reading this morning about Abram leaving his home in Ur of Chaldeas. Really Abram's father,Terah,  was the one who gathered the fam and headed toward Canaan. Before they left his youngest son Haran died. The scriptures say that "Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees"(KJV Gen.11:28)  The Hebrew y™EnVÚp_lAo mean literally "before his face". A rather tender expression that seems to say something more than "before his father".  Really no father should see the death of his child, no parent should. It does something deep within you that is hard to reconcile. So Terah gets a notion (maybe a call from God) to go to Canaan.  SideBar: Why did Terah stop and why was the city named the same name as his son. Coincidence?  Is the city of Haran named after the dead son? Did Terah named the city after his son and died there of heart sickness. Once his father died did it fall to Abram to continue on in his father's journey?  We may never know the answers to these questions. We still are uncertain about where the city of Ur existed. But leave Abraham did, taking his young nephew and all his "goods". He continued on to Canaan and lived and multiplied according to the promise of  God. But interestingly enough God asked Abram to take his only son of promise and kill him. This seemed to be the very thing that kept Terah from continuing on in the promise. The scriptures say that God was "trying" Abraham. This Hebrew word can mean try or test, h™D;sˆn.   
      Maybe this was something Abraham watched his father go through, back in the Ur of Chaldees. Terah had his son die before his face, and along with Haran's death was the death of his dream of Canaan land. Was this a test to see if Abraham had the guts to do this. Did God not want to give the promise to Abraham and have him wimp out, too? Maybe Abraham was like his father and would die of grief some where along the way? Some rabbinic traditions have the cause of Sarah's death as being the sacrifice of Isaac.  Glickman lists his death as a possible cause of Sarah's death, in his book Living Torah. The binding of Isaac was the testing of Abraham. As I have noted before, the Vulgate uses the term "holocaust" for this event. God only wants our best. Our best many times is determined by what is in our hearts. Maybe Abraham still had deeper feeling for the events surrounding his brothers' death, somewhere along the flat lands of Mesopotamia. Was Isaac, his son, going to die before his face? We know that Abraham if he had not settled it before that day, he settled it then. He was not his father's son, he was God's. He was going to live before the face of God.


Questions:
1. Find Ur of Chaldees on a map. Now find Haran. If Terah was going to Canaan why did he take this seemingly circular route? 
2. Search the place where tradition has it that Abraham offered Isaac. Where is it?
3. Why do you think the story of Abraham call begins in Ur and not Haran?

Our God the Warrior

Tremper Longman, professor at Westmont in Santa Barbara has written many books on the OT. He is quite prolific. But one book that has intrigued me and on which I have been meditating is entitled "God is a Warrior".  God is a Warrior? I have heard him called many things, but not that. Exodus 15:3 says that "God is a man of war". His action certainly merit that distinction in the OT. In fact many Christians and non Christians alike have trouble with the idea that God waged war in the OT. I am often asked if it is the same God as in the NT. Early on in Church History this feeling was put forth by one of our Church Fathers, Origen of Alexandra. He thought the God of the OT was not the same God as that of the NT.  The whole thing of war and killing is difficult.
It was difficult for John the Baptist. He proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, but then had second thoughts. The story is told to us by Matthew. It is found in the 11th chapter. John from prison sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask if "are you he or should we look for another"(Matt.11:3). Side Bar - What does it say about the Baptist that he did not send all his disciples to be with Jesus early on? Did he always have doubts? Was it a wait and see game? Anyway something about Jesus was causing doubts. I personally think John the radical Baptist was looking for a physical takeover by the King of Kings, the Anointed one, the Big Bambino, the king of everything. But since he was in prison and Jesus hadn't made his move, he was getting nervous. He wasn't sure that Jesus was the Messiah.
Christ's answer was simple. Look John, I am doing violence against the spirit realm where the enemy really is. Paul tells us that in Ephesian 6. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of this world darkness..." Yeah go tell him I am healing the sick, curing the blind, raising the dead I am up to my armpits in a fight out here. The old joke of "when your up to your armpits in allegators it is easy to forget the vision was to drain the swamp." Jesus was out there fighting. The fight was just on another plane than what John was used to. It is no accident that just a few verses down Jesus says " the Kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent (person) takes it by force." Wow. Yes the kingdom of heaven is under attack. Jesus could have said "My father is a man of war and so I continue the battle".
There is a story in Daniel that anticipates this focus. Daniel (chapter 10) is fasting and praying. This angel shows up twenty-one days after he started. 21 days. The angel had heard him from the first day. He was battling through the enemy to get to Daniel. It took 21 days! Michael showed up and helped him make it through. Where was the angel going after he left Daniel? He was going to deal with some other principalities in Greece and Persia. There are enemy powers that are preventing things from happening. Christ mission was to do violence to them through the Cross. Don't tell me he was not a violent man. Don't tell me you are not going to face the same violence as Paul spoke about in the heavenlies. If you are going down stream with the rest of the world you won't feel the resistance of the current. But stand up and turn toward God and the god of this world darkness will take exception with you. You will feel the current against you.
 In Luke the 16th  chapter 16th verse, Christ said the "kingdom of God is preached and every man presses into it."  Does that sound like a crowd getting on a train or into a store on a sale day? It should sound worse. The word used here for "press" is the exact Greek word used in Matthew 11:12. This word is  biazetai. It means violence, not press. This verse should be more violently translated than, press. Like pressing your pants! It should be something like "the kingdom of God is preached and every man does violence to get into it!" A.T. Roberston in his "Word Pictures of the New Testament", an old schooler, makes this great commit about the translation of this word. "spiritual passion and energy that some today affect to despise." In other words Christians are a little afraid to put the force behind this word that is really there, tempered by the idea that Jesus was not a violent man. The cleansing of the temple, casting out demons, his coming to earth, sweat drops of blood,the CROSS, being raised from the dead... not violent? What book are these Christians reading? To me Christ is the ultimate violent warrior in whom His dad is well pleased.


Questions:
1. Do you believe that Jesus is a violent person?
2. Look up the story of the Jesus cleansing the temple. Do you think Jesus was acting out of character the way he "drove" out the money changers?
3. Do you feel the kingdom of heaven is suffering violence? Explain.
4. Are you suffering violence as a believer? Explain.

Christ liveth in me

What a great old song is "Christ Liveth in Me" by Daniel Whittle. Especially wonderful is the last verse; 
With longing all my heart is filled,
That like Him I may be,
As on the wondrous thought I dwell
That Christ liveth in me.

The wonder of that thought leads my mind to think "how can this be?" Well good for Paul, he spells it out for us in 2 Corinthians 3:18. And in the mist of this verse he uses a Greek participle that in its tense and mood tells us how this all happens. The key word is katoptrizomenoi. Yes I know it is an eye full and when you say it, it is a mouthful. But it is does mean what Paul wants it to mean. According to R. Mounce, the present adverbial participle has a continuous action to it. The root word has developed over time from "gazing in a mirror" to "contemplation". It has a further addition of the noun ending which when used as an instrument can mean "by contemplating". So if we put this verse together we see that it says "We all are being changed into the image of Christ by contemplating on the glory of the Lord." This is the key. We continually contemplate, reflect on the lord and the change happens. Another important word in this verse is  "change".  In Greek it is metamorphoumetha, yes that's right "metamorphosis". As we continually behold the Lord we metamorphize into him. Gradually our thoughts, our hearts and our spirits are changed from glory to glory, by the spirit. But the emphasis for me  is the continuous contemplation of him. I don't change because of my deeds, though wonderful, or my actions though righteous : ), but through beholding Him.  Christ becomes alive and more alive and more alive in me. Salvation has come to me. I don't work to become it, except by reflecting upon Him. "Oh what a salvation this, that Christ liveth in me."


Questions:
1.  Find 2 more verses that use this word "metamorphosis". 
2. Why would a good Calvinist firmly belief that change only comes through God's grace? What about salvation?
3. How often a day do you "contemplate" or reflect on God's glory?

Our Provider

In the book of Ruth, in the first chapter we have some amazing testimony by Ruth of her dedication to Naomi. On the other hand, Naomi's own dedication at this point was, well, lacking. In her own words;

Ruth 1:20 "And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi(Pleasant), call me Mara(Bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me." 21 "I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?"    The parenthesizes are mine.


 In this poignant exchange with her town folk Naomi lays the blame of her emptiness on the Lord. (Honestly I can relate to that.) But she uses a word that is hard to translate, yöå;dAv, Shaddai. Most Bibles translate  this word "Almighty". According B. Childs this is a particularly hard word to translate. When trying to find a proper translation I looked to the Hebrew lexicon, BDB. According to Briggs, Driver and Bridges,  it translates it deity, or proper name. If we look closer to the root of the word we see it means breast. It is translated by KJV as Almighty, the all powerful. How do we bring these two translations together or do we? Maybe if we look at the story of Naomi and why she says she is "empty" it might give us a key. She went out with a full family, husband and two children. She came back without even the hope of a child, or a husband to create one. She was empty. To be childless was to be cursed of God (1Samuel 1:1). But wait by the end of the story she has a child! In fact the women whom she asked to call her bitter are calling her blessed. More than that they say "Naomi has a child"(Ruth 4:14-17). They knew that is where the real bitterness sprang. Not only did Naomi have a child (really Ruth's, I know, I am just quoting the Bible) but she put it on her lap and became its nurse! This has been known to happen. But the point her is that her breast were full! God had redeemed her from her bitterness. The neighbors also called this child the go'el, the redeemer. You might say "I thought Boaz was the redeemer?" He was of Ruth. The child was Naomi's redeemer, I guess. Now about shaddai, remember the breasted one? Reading the end of the story helps me see what the author might have been reaching for when he had Naomi call the Lord the breasted One. J.R. Stevens agrees with this translation in his book Pray Without Ceasing. He translates this term as the "Great Breasted One". With this background I can get to the KJV translation as Almighty as the one who is able to care for me, protect and feed me, as a mother might provide for her young. If the Jews had a view of God that was maternal this might be one example, or not.