read with open eyes

A Whole-Bible Explanation of the Gospel

2008-09-22T22:02:00.000-07:00

I. God - God has always existed and always will be. He is only one God, but exists in three distinct and cooperating persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing else is eternal but God. He is perfect and glorious in all his attributes. He is infinite, sovereign, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, majestic, almighty, and holy. He is loving, gracious, kind, good, self-revealing, purposeful, faithful, and true. Many of these attributes would not be possible if he were not a three-in-one God. God is a spiritual being, without need of a physical body, though he chooses to reveal himself in terms of our bodily experience and God the Son became physically and fully human in the incarnation of Christ.

II. Creation - God was and would have continued to be fully self-sufficient and perfectly glorious without any creation, but he chose to create the universe with its stars and planets, various forms of life, angelic and human beings. The angels were made without bodies to serve God and the humans he would create, but they have sometimes appeared to humans in bodily form to communicate God’s messages. Satan and evil spirits are angels originally created good, who rebelled against God in pride and jealousy. God has allowed them to continue in existence as evil beings, until a future judgment brings them to their doom. None of them is eternal or all powerful.

God made humans, male and female, to be the apex of his creation and gave them the responsibility of ruling over and caring for the rest of creation. God’s purpose was to live among his people as their God and to enjoy a family-fellowship with them. Adam and Eve were specially created in the image of God, without sin, to found the human race. All people on earth have descended from them.

III. Sin and Death - God had graciously given Adam and Eve the entire universe, with a specially planted garden as their home. They had free permission from God to eat from every tree except one, which represented a desire to decide what is good and evil independently from God. When tempted to disobey God (by Satan, speaking through a serpent), Adam and Eve rebelled. As God had warned them, this brought death to the human race: (1) mortality and certain physical death; (2) moral death through the darkening of the mind, perversion of the emotions, and enslaving of the will; (3) alienation among humans because of self-centeredness sin brought with it; and (4) separation from fellowship with God. A holy God could not have close fellowship with sinful people. This separation would ultimately result in (5) an eternal isolation from God and his goodness in a punishment designed for the rebellious angelic beings.

Besides the internal changes within humans and the future judgment that resulted from rebellion, God placed a curse on his creation because of human sin. This was partly a punishment, and partly a self-protective discipline. Some of the results of this curse were painful toil, painful childbirth, and a frustration of the potential of creation. Sin and death had directly threatened God’s purpose of living with his people. But God had a plan to restore that purpose and to fulfill it for his own glory and for the benefit of humanity.

IV. Substitution - God planned to restore people to himself through the atonement of substitution. God would accept the death of an innocent sacrifice in place of the deserved death of the sinner. A system of animal sacrifices, temple ceremonies, and priests demonstrated both the problem of sin that brings death and the solution of redemption through a sinless sacrifice. But the animal sacrifices could not truly pay the penalty owed by humans in God’s image. (Neither could human sacrifice, which God specifically condemned.) They only painted a picture of a perfect substitution that God himself would offer some day.

V. Savior - Throughout the Old Testament God promised to send a savior who would be the true substitute, who would defeat sin and Satan, who would restore the cursed creation to its original purpose of being a place where God could live with his people. The New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the Savior who met the requirements of God’s promises (being both God and Man in one person, being born through the proper line, and sinlessly meeting all the righteousness of God’s law). Jesus’ death on the cross was his willing substitution in place of sinners. His resurrection from the dead was his victory into which he invites us. Jesus’ return, which could happen any day, will complete our salvation through our resurrection and glorification.

VI. Repentance and Faith - The good news of Jesus Christ is that if we will repent and believe, we will be set free from sin and its results for ever. Repenting means that we take responsibility for human sin—the specific acts of sin we have done and the rebellious heart that we inherited. We recognize that we deserve death in all its forms, and nothing we do (not religious ceremonies, good deeds, trying harder, or anything else) can make up for our sin. Faith means we put our trust fully in what Jesus did in paying our penalty and earning our acceptance with God. We are not called to a generic “faith in God,” but to a specific faith that God has provided a way through his perfect substitute, and that only Jesus can free us from sin.

VII. New Creation - When we repent and believe, we become part of the new creation where God is remaking his sin-spoiled world into its original purpose so he can live in it with his people. The Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ to our hearts to transform us from rebels into fellowshipping children of God. The change is a life-long project done in partnership with other believers. We cooperate with God in renewing our minds to think about things like God does. This leads to behavior that demonstrates the image of God and the character of Christ. We become part of the church, through which God makes disciples who follow Jesus and devote their lives to joyful service to him.

We look forward to a new creation of the universe also, when all the effects of sin will be purged away and the original conditions of God’s world are restored. The unrepentant angels and humans will be judged and sent to their chosen destiny. The repentant and believing humans will be rewarded for the faithfulness of their lives since trusting in Jesus. They will be confirmed in their righteousness from Christ, never to rebel again. To the great glory of God and to the great pleasure of believers, God will live among us and be our God, and we will be his people forever.

Helping God with Creation

2008-09-09T14:10:00.000-07:00

HELP WANTED: Creation Assistants. Immediate need
for architects and craftsmen to build a universe out of
nothing. No experience required. Contact God.

Wouldn’t it be great to tell your friends and brag to your grandchildren, “I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he . . . gave the sea its boundary . . . , and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. I was the craftsman at his side . . . rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”

Of course, those verses in Proverbs 8 do not refer to you and me, but what if we could have assisted God in his work of creation?

Imagine watching God place the stars in the night sky and saying, “Lord, could you put a bright one right about there . . . no, a little to the left. Perfect! From here it looks like a big dipper in the sky.” Or, imagine chiseling some of the smaller details in the Grand Canyon with your own hands or designing the thorns for the rose bush.

Maybe you would have advised him to give Adam two ears and one mouth, so people would listen twice as much as they talk. What if you had asked God to skip the mosquitoes right from the start? In this idea he overruled you, but he did include your suggestion to put some mountains in Antarctica, even though people wouldn’t live there.

Of course, God did not ask for our help in creating the physical universe. We came along much later. But (wonder of wonders) he does ask for our help in the New Creation. Human sin has spoiled God’s “very good” work of creation and brought God’s curse of death and futility, resulting in decay, weeds, sweat, and pain. Now, as followers of Jesus empowered by the Holy Spirit, we work alongside God in the remaking of human beings and the rest of creation for eternity.

Our involvement in the new creation is not optional, only for a few super-spiritual saints, but required for all of us. Romans 8:9-18 spells this out: “If the Spirit of God lives in you . . . if Christ is in you . . . [you] have an obligation . . . . If by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Many Scriptures in the New Testament tell us what our part is in remaking our own lives and in assisting others in their transformation.

We know that the essential work of New Creation was completed by Jesus Christ when he died and rose again. The cross set in motion the inevitable results of removing sin and its effects from creation, bringing to completion the transitional unfolding of God’s plans, and consummating the ultimate purpose of creation—God living with his people.

We are commanded, however, to partner with God in four aspects of the New Creation: The New You (sanctification); The New Community (influence); The New Humanity (evangelism); The New Earth (kingdom). Let’s get started, and learn as we go.

Can We Really Pray Like David?

2006-09-09T11:58:00.000-07:00

The Imprecatory Psalms (Psalms 28, 35, 52, 58, 59, 69, 109) have been a mystery for Christians, with outright prayers for God to punish enemies with horrible vengeance. What bothers us is not that we never think of praying for vengeance but rather that this seems contrary to Christian attitudes and principles. Jesus taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

Common explanations of these prayers do not quite satisfy:
1. Progressive Revelation: David didn’t hear the sermon on the mount, so he can’t be held responsible for its teachings. However, David should have been familiar with Exodus 23:4-5, Leviticus 19:17-18, and Job 31:28-30. Also, progressive revelation does not explain Paul’s imprecatory prayer in 2 Timothy 4. The real explanation must go deeper.

2. Honest Human Reaction: David was expressing the feelings he had, though it was wrong to desire such things. While Scripture often records the sinful thoughts and actions of people, it usually indicates something in the context to warn the reader not to copy the wrongs. Instead, these Psalms support the prayers by appeal to God’s righteousness.

3. God’s Dispensational Purpose: In the Old Testament, we are told, God dealt with man in accommodation to his ideas. Many wrong practices and ideas were allowed, in order to bring about the main purpose of preparing for the coming of Christ. Patriotism with hatred of enemies was essential to the survival of Israel during those times. But these prayers are very individual and not focused on national survival.

4. Poetic Exaggeration: David didn’t really mean literally that God should, for example, “blot out from his book” these enemies. He was overstating for emphasis. However, even if we soften the details by this explanation, it is the thought that counts, and the thought is still clear.

We can find a proper understanding of these imprecatory prayers by looking with our eyes open at Paul’s prayer regarding Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4:14-16. Alexander did Paul much evil, and Paul asks God to reward him accordingly (imprecation). In the same context Paul’s fellow believers forsook him in his trial, and he asks God not to lay it to their account (intercession). Why the difference, since all caused trouble and suffering for Paul?

Paul did not pray a curse on those who did it through their frailty or fear. The imprecatory prayer is for the one who acted deliberately and in defiance of God’s Word. This seems to be the pattern in the Old Testament examples also.

Behind the imprecation is a concern for justice as an expression of God’s character, not merely payback for the one praying. The enemy is seen as an enemy of God’s holiness, not as a bother to the believer’s convenience. In nearly every imprecatory prayer there is a vital truth involved which, more than personal retaliation, is the reason for the request.

Christians do not ask that the failures or even the sins of other believers be laid to their charge. Their sins have already been paid for on the cross. God’s holiness has been satisfied. In contrast the one who has heard the Gospel and has withstood the words is rejecting the Substitute, and insists on bearing the reward of his own works.

Most of the time, even toward unbelievers, our prayers will echo that of the dying Stephen and of Jesus himself. They rightly prayed that the sins of their executioners not be laid to their charge. There was the possibility and likelihood that they would repent of their sins and turn to God for mercy.

The objects of the imprecatory prayers in the Bible (King Saul, Doeg the Edomite, Alexander the coppersmith, Judas) by their open rejection of God and his truth, left no grounds for a hope of repentance, leaving proper grounds for the rare prayer for God’s vengeance. David was not free to take his own revenge, and neither are we. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay.” These prayers are merely a request for God to do what he claims as his exclusive right.

Let’s keep reading with our eyes open.

Like a Little Child

2006-05-30T20:18:00.000-07:00

Mark 10:15 quotes Jesus declaring, “Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” We all know how a little child receives the kingdom, don’t we? Children are so innocent, so humble, so unpretentious, so trusting. That is the way we all must receive the gospel, too. We must lose our sophistication, swallow our pride, forget our cynicism and suspicion. Right??

Well, maybe that isn’t right, though that is the typical Sunday School lesson or sermon on this text. Let’s look with open eyes and see what Mark is really teaching.

The first problem with the standard interpretation is that children are not innocent, humble, and trusting. Anyone with young children (or grandchildren) knows this. Because of corrupting sin, children don’t need to be taught to be selfish and grasping or boastful and domineering. These sinful things come naturally, and show up at an incredibly early age.

Phrases like, “It’s mine!” “I saw it first!” “I will do it myself!” and “I want it now!” are more characteristic of children than the more romantic ideals of humility and trust. And, all our sophistication and worldly wisdom don’t eliminate these sinful attitudes from us as we grow up.

So, receiving the kingdom of God like a little child must mean something other than becoming sweet, humble, and trusting.

An even bigger problem with the typical understanding of Jesus’ words is that it would become a gospel of salvation by works. If children really were naturally humble, innocent, and quick to believe, and we were admonished to become like them, our salvation would depend on us cultivating certain traits of righteousness.

Our learning of proper attitudes and eliminating their opposites would be prerequisites, and the basis, of our entry into the kingdom. It is hard to find any page in the Bible that does not specifically deny that our entrance into God’s kingdom depends on our moral improvement of ourselves. Jesus must have had something else in mind.

What, then, did Mark teach us when he said we must receive the kingdom like a little child? The context of the statement in Mark is the disciples’ grasping for power positions in the coming kingdom. They argue about who is the greatest (9:34). They tell others to stop their ministry because of not being part of the “in” group (9:38). They send away those who are bothering Jesus with insignificant children (10:13). They are preparing themselves to be big shots in the kingdom.

Along with telling his followers to become last and least, serving others (9:35), Jesus adds that welcoming a little child is welcoming him (9:37). A child is not a powerful person, nor can he or she grant power to others. A child is worthless when it comes to worldly status and clout. A helpless, weak, nobody of a child has nothing to trade for the kingdom or its benefits. We know a child can whine and cry, and today’s adults may be too ready to give in to a child’s demands. But in reality, all the child can do is hold out empty hands to receive an undeserved gift.

Unless we receive the kingdom of God like a little child, we will never enter it.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

The Prayer of Jabez

2006-04-12T15:15:00.000-07:00

“O that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.”

This prayer of Jabez is recorded in 1 Chronicles 4:10. It has been widely promoted through a series of big-selling books by Bruce Wilkinson as a model prayer for us, if we want to be prosperous, influential, or fruitful in ministry.

If we read with open eyes, we notice that “God granted his request.” This has been taken to mean that God is bound to grant the same request to anyone who says the prayer. The Chronicler, however, does not recommend that others pray in this way, much less promise that it guarantees success.

There are many prayers recorded in the pages of Scripture. In Genesis 17:18 Abraham prays, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing.” In Exodus 32:18 Moses prays, “Now show me your glory.” The tax collector in Jesus’ Luke 18:13 parable prays, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” The Gerasenes in Mark 5:17 “began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.” God granted all these requests.

How do we know which prayers we should make our own and which are merely specific to the stories in which they appear? Most people answer that question according to their own desires. We pray the ones that appeal to us and avoid the ones that don’t. (This is similar to how we handle the Bible’s recorded promises to other people: we put Jeremiah 29:11 on our walls, but not the parallel promise in Jeremiah 21:10.)

If a Bible prayer expresses well the intentions of our prayers, there is nothing wrong with using that quotation as our prayer. The same thing goes for material from other sources. If a Shakespearean quotation (or a line from a movie, or a nursery rhyme, or a prayer written in a book) expresses well the intentions of our prayers, we can use it as our prayer. However, this is not the same thing as placing extra confidence that God somehow is obligated to answer this prayer because someone in the Bible—or some holy person outside the Bible—used these words in a prayer.

The prayers in the Biblical Psalms were written to provide God’s people with words to express their thoughts and needs. We ought not approach them as magical formulas to use in superstitious ways, but as appropriate expressions for the various kinds of prayer we engage in. C. S. Lewis often reminded people that prayer is a request, not some kind of power over God.

The disciples approached Jesus in Luke 11 and asked for instructions in prayer. He did not answer, “When you pray, pray what Jabez prayed.” He gave them (and us) the model we know as The Lord’s Prayer.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Quoting Scripture When Tempted

2006-03-16T05:18:00.000-08:00

Lots of books and sermons advise us to follow Jesus’ example of resisting temptation by quoting Scripture. Many Bible teachers leave us hanging, or mislead us, about how this actually works.

1. Quoting the Bible to Satan is not like a magician’s magic words. The God-given resource against sin is not an abracadabra. It must be accompanied by some understanding of both temptation and God’s word.

2. Bible verses do not convince Satan of the truth and cause him to therefore stop tempting us. When Jesus said, “It is written” and gave a Biblical principle during his temptation (recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4), Satan did not respond, “Oh man, how could I have been so stupid. I see it now. Thanks for enlightening me. Never again will I ask anyone to confuse physical food with the greater need for spiritual nourishment.” Quoting the Bible is not a means of changing Satan’s mind. We need not argue with the temptation.

3. I have heard preachers say that God’s words are so contrary to Satan’s thinking that they actually hurt him when they are spoken. In the presence of such holy words, they say, he covers his singed ears and runs away. This explanation, along with the previous ones, is refuted by the fact that Eve in the garden of Eden quoted God’s words. Her quotation had none of the effects that Jesus’ quotations had.

By the way, I would make much less of her “addition” to what God told Adam (“neither can we touch it”) and of her “subtraction” (“freely”) than many commentators do. After all, Jesus added “only” to his quotation of Deuteronomy and made other adaptations to his own context.

Why did quoting God back to Satan work for Jesus and not for Eve? If we know the answer to this question, we will be more likely to find success when we do it.

When Jesus quoted Scripture, he made it clear not only that he saw the lie embedded in the truthful statements of the temptation, but that he rejected the lie and was committed to the truth of the Scripture he quoted. Jesus didn’t change Satan’s mind, but he persuaded Satan that his own mind was made up to follow the revealed will of his Father.

Eve, on the other hand, made it clear that she was open minded about the fruit. She wanted the lie to be true (if she even knew it was a lie). She wanted to make her own judgment about the subject. We get in trouble with sin when we fail to discern the lie and when we put God’s truth on an equal basis with other “evidence” to consider.

Quoting appropriate Bible verses when we are tempted is a key resource. But it is effective to the extent that we reject temptation’s lie and fully accept God’s corresponding truth.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Are All Sins Equal Before God?

2006-02-08T14:25:00.000-08:00

We often hear a claim that all sins are equal in God’s eyes, even though humans rate some as worse than others. There are Biblical references that may seem to uphold this idea.

James 2:10-11 makes the point that if someone “keeps the whole law, yet stumbles at just one point,” he is “guilty of breaking all of it.” Galatians makes a similar point about the unity of the Law and the obligation of people under that Law to continuously keep all of its provisions. The person who disobeys every command and the person who only disobeys one are both law breakers.

Matthew 5 records Jesus’ words about the commands that “you have heard that it was said.” A man who looks lustfully at a woman has committed adultery already in his heart. A man who is angry with his brother has put himself in judgment for murder.

The Bible, read with open eyes, does say that it takes only one sin to become a sinner and that each and every sin is equally condemning before God’s law. It also says that sins of intention are still sins, even when they are not acted out. However, to conclude from this that all sins are equal is invalid reasoning. It is also dangerous, since it could encourage a sinner to decide, “Since I’ve already committed the heart sin, I might as well go ahead and do the act.” Clearly, while both are sins, the action does harm to more people than the thought.

When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus did not say that they were all equal. He told which was the first and greatest, and which was second (Matthew 22:37-40). He also distinguished between lighter and heavier matters in the Law (Matthew 23:23). Violating a heavier matter is worse than violating a lighter matter, though the scribes were expected to violate neither. On trial before Pilate, Jesus called his judge a sinner, but assured him that he was not the greatest sinner (John 19:11).

I John 5:16-17 tells us that all wrongdoing is sin, but some sins lead to death and others don’t. This is an important distinction, because it affects our prayers for our brothers.

All sins are not created equal. If we mean to say that any sin, however small it seems in human opinion, separates us from God, let’s say that. But let’s not say that all sins are equal in God’s eyes. And let’s keep reading with our eyes open.

All Creation Groans

2006-01-12T05:27:00.000-08:00

Romans 8:22 tells us “the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” What does that groaning sound like? Where does it manifest itself? Some preachers and writers are connecting this to the increase in earthquakes, violent storms, and other natural phenomena. “Look at the tsunami, the hurricanes, the earthquakes,” they say. “These are the groans of the earth, torn apart by human sin.”

Let’s look at the Bible with open eyes and see if these natural calamities are the groans of creation. Surprisingly, the Bible consistently refers to earthquakes, storms, crashing waves, wind and rain, etc. in quite a different understanding.

Exodus 19 and 20 describe God’s descent to Mt. Sinai to meet with his people. His presence was manifested by thunder, lightning, thick clouds, smoke, earthquake, and the sound of a trumpet.

1 Kings 19 details Elijah’s spiritual field trip to the same mountain. When he stood on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, “a great and powerful wind tore the mountain apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD. . . . After the wind there was an earthquake. . . . After the earthquake came a fire.” These were manifestations of God’s presence, though of course the answer to Elijah’s problem was not in them but in the quiet voice.

Psalm 50:3: “Our God comes and will not be silent; a fire devours before him, and around him a tempest rages.”

Habakkuk 3: “God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . Did you rage against the sea when you rode with your horses and your victorious chariots? . . . You split the earth with rivers; the mountains saw you and writhed. Torrents of water swept by; the deep roared and lifted its waves on high. . . . You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one. . . . You trampled the sea with your horses, churning the great waters.”

These and many other references to earthquakes, thunderstorms, and devastating waves are connected, not with creation groaning under the burden of sin and curse, but rather with manifestations of God’s presence on earth. God’s presence may not seem good to those who do evil, but it ought to be a reason to cheer for the godly and for the creation. In fact, during the storms, the trees are clapping their hands in praise.

What, then, are the groans of creation? Romans 8 specifically describes the groans as labor pains. In the present there is frustration, but in the future there will be accomplishment. The ability of the earth to produce fruit has been limited by the frustration to which God subjected it. In terms of the curse God placed on the earth in Genesis 3, the groans are best heard in the weeds: thorns and thistles, plus depleted fertility, hard-packed fallow ground, back-breaking labor, and sweaty brows.

Like the other two groans in Romans 8, creation’s groans are groans of hope. Some day creation will again be a garden. Through Christ, the results of sin will be gone. At the completion of the Gospel’s work (the redemption of the human body in resurrection), the curse will be lifted and the earth remade. No more groaning of creation—but still maybe a thunderstorm now and then.

How Old Was Simeon?

2005-12-21T18:37:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:25-35 describes an encounter of baby Jesus, Mary, & Joseph with a man named Simeon. Simeon had been told by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Messiah. Prompted by the Holy Spirit to go into the temple on the very day Jesus was brought for the purification ceremony, he saw and recognized Jesus as the fulfillment of that promise. His prayer on that occasion indicated that his life's purpose was now complete and he could die peacefully in the knowledge that God's salvation (for both Jews and Gentiles) had come.

Every artist's rendition I have ever seen, from fancy portraits to sketches in Sunday School papers, shows Simeon to be an ancient man, supernaturally preserved well beyond the normal age of survival. His beard hangs long down his robe. He is stooped with the weight of extra years. He may even be in the book of world records as the oldest living man. You expect the undertaker to be following three steps behind him wherever he goes.

Yet, if we read with our eyes open, we notice that the Scripture does not give us even a hint of his age the the time of this encounter. A few verses later in Luke, we meet the prophetess Anna whose age is clearly documented. But Simeon might just as easily have been a young man. Does God always require a lengthy gap between promise and fulfillment? A young man could just as truly pray that his life is fulfilled in seeing Messiah, that he can now die happy. We only have speculation to go on. As far as the text tells us, he might have been young, he might have been old.

What we know is that his personal promise from God was fully kept. And that God used that encounter to edify Mary and Joseph for what lay ahead. And that God revealed more of the nature of this baby and his mission to us through the Word. Keep reading with open eyes.

We Three Kings of Orient Aren’t

2005-12-02T10:31:00.000-08:00

Blessed is the Sunday School with three boys in the junior class, for they shall be kings in the Christmas pageant. But, as you know, the Bible doesn’t tell us how many magi were present in Matthew 2, and it doesn’t say that they were kings. Someone didn’t read with their eyes open.

The “wise men” were probably assumed to be three because of the three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But how did the magi become kings? Whole legends have been created for these men, with names, skin color, and specific kingdoms. There is a certain appeal in presenting them as scholar-kings, representing three different races and continents, coming to honor the king of the Jews. But can we do that Biblically?

What if we could find a Biblical foundation in the prophecy of Isaiah 60:3? “Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.” Unless the wise men are also kings, how can we show this prophecy fulfilled in the birth of Christ? There don’t seem to be any other kings around.

But Isaiah 60 has more to do with the reign of Messiah than with his birth. The chapter predicts a gathering of Messiah’s people from all over the world, kings are bringing them home, along with the wealth of flocks and herds, silver and gold. Foreigners are rebuilding the walls, the gates always stand open, etc. The point is not that a few token nations are represented (3?), but that every nation acknowledges the Lord. Any nation that refuses to serve him will be utterly ruined.

The other problem is that Matthew didn’t connect the birth of Jesus with Isaiah 60. It isn’t that Matthew is reluctant to point out fulfilled prophecies; he does this repeatedly, often taking Isaiah’s words as pointing to Jesus. But in chapter 2, Matthew makes no mention or allusion to Isaiah 60. It just doesn’t seem important to Matthew (under the inspiration of God) to make the magi into kings. Maybe we shouldn’t either.

There is a question whether the magi showed up on the night of Jesus’ birth or some time later. Perhaps the reference to “coming to the house” in Matthew 2:11 implies that they have by now moved from the “stable.” Luke doesn’t mention a stable, though he refers to the manger.

The magi told Herod the time the star appeared, leading him to execute boys two years old and younger. This is thought by some to mean that Jesus could have been two years old at the time. The assumption behind this is that the star appeared at the moment of Jesus’ birth, not before.

The challenge is to harmonize Luke’s account (shepherds, angels, manger) with Matthew’s account (Herod, magi, star, house). It is not impossible, based on the Bible’s actual statements, that the typical nativity scene is correct, except for the crowns.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Hark! The Herald Angels Don't Sing

2005-11-10T06:29:00.000-08:00

‘Tis the Season to sing the Christmas carols and attend the pageants that incorrectly portray the angel messengers as singing to the shepherds. If we read the Bible with our eyes open we will see that they don’t sing. If you use a paraphrase of the Bible instead of a good translation, you would not know this. It is hard to read with open eyes when the “translator” blindfolds you. I suggest that you get or borrow a word-for-word translation for this study.

A mythology has developed about angels singing, “Glory to God” when Jesus was born. Even song writers and preachers who should know better have perpetuated this error. We may become so conditioned to this that we fail to notice the words in Luke 2:13, “Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, . . .” It is not that Greek has no words for singing. It is that Luke wants us to understand that they were speaking, not singing.

Other places in the Bible are consistent with this in describing angels as speaking, rather than singing. This is noteworthy in the book of Revelation, where many and various persons are praising God. The humans sing, and the angels speak. Your paraphrase (such as The Message or the New International Version) might not preserve John’s distinctions. I personally don’t think “sing” is a dynamic equivalent for “say.”

Revelation 5:8-10 describe the 24 elders (human priestly representatives of believers) and the 4 living creatures (not fully human, but distinct from angels) as singers. “And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy art Thou . . .’” Then verses 11-12 describe the voice of many angels, “saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb . . .’” If angels were capable of singing, this would be the time and place to do it. I believe this is a strong argument from silence that angels don’t sing.

Someone will ask me about Job 38:4-7 where the Lord challenges Job’s right to confront him, “Who laid [the earth’s] cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Some people consider that the “morning stars” are angelic beings who are clearly said to have sung. However, even apart from the singing problem, there are questions about identifying these objects with angelic messengers. I believe it is more likely that this is a poetic personification of inanimate creation (the literal stars), on the level of the trees clapping their hands or the waves lifting up their voices or the sea becoming sick—and that “the sons of God” represent the non-singing angels.

I don’t think it is a sin for you and me to sing the beloved Christmas carols, even though they distort the Biblical account in this and other ways. But maybe we should hold a mental reservation about the angel’s singing. And when we tell the story, let’s do it right. Keep reading with open eyes.

Who Will Be Resurected?

2005-11-09T05:58:00.000-08:00

When asked about who will be physically resurrected, many respond that only those who trust in Christ will be raised. Perhaps they are thinking of resurrection to a pleasant end, and of course only Christ’s followers will enjoy that. However, the Bible teaches that all humans will experience resurrection.

In 2 Corinthians 5:1-9 Paul explains that our earthly body is like a garment or a tent in which we live now. Our ultimate existence is a heavenly body or a house built by God. The in-between existence is described as “nakedness,” not exactly desirable in itself, but still superior to our earthly condition. Verse 5 assures us that God made us for the express purpose of resurrection. The bodiless existence of people after death is only temporary.

With the possible exception of Enoch and Elijah (and certainly of Jesus) all humans in heaven prior to the resurrection are without bodies. It is inappropriate, then, to speak of them in physical terms. At Christian funerals you may hear well-intentioned nonsense like, “she is completely healed now,” or “he is singing and dancing with the angels.” Of course, this cannot be, though it would be true to say something like, “his sufferings are over,” or “she is with the Lord.”

Unbelievers who have died are bodiless and suffering, waiting for a resurrection. Resurrection for unbelievers is not to give them a second chance to believe but to give them a physical body for suffering eternally. “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

Though the resurrection times are different for believers and unbelievers, all will be raised. Daniel 12:2 says, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” John 5:28-29 quote Jesus’ words, “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 assures us, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn.” Revelation 20:4-6 describe these two resurrections, separated by 1,000 years, “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them.”

The Gospel message requires a belief in resurrection. Read the book of Acts with open eyes and notice what the Apostles taught.

The priests “were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 4:2). They were not merely proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection, but everyone’s. In Acts 17:18 the Athenians were curious that Paul was preaching “about Jesus and the resurrection.” In Acts 24:14-15 Paul defends his Gospel as consistent with the Law and the Prophets in affirming a “resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” In Acts 26:22-23 he says “I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen—that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.

The eternal state of all human beings is in a body. Contrary to other philosophies, the Bible presents our body to be part of our humanity, not a temporary burden or prison for the soul. We would not be fully human without bodies. And, there would be no Gospel without the resurrection, first of our Lord, and then of everyone. Let’s read with our eyes open.

Is America Ripe for Judgment?

2005-09-19T09:45:00.000-07:00

Occasionally you hear claims that America is God’s chosen nation, usually in the form of a lament that America is in danger of divine judgment because of abandoning the Mosaic covenant. “We have turned away from the Lord to worship idols.” “We do not care for the poor or protect the defenseless.” “There is sin in the camp.”

The belief that America is the New Israel in God’s plan gets some encouragement from quotations of Pilgrim or Puritan founding fathers who believed they were raised up for that purpose and who attempted to establish theocratic governments based on God’s covenant with ancient Israel.

If we read the Bible with open eyes, we will know that claim must be rejected. America is a “Gentile” nation, in terms of the Old Testament.

When God announced judgment on Israel, it was always for violating his covenant provisions. When God announced judgment on other nations, the reasons were always non-covenantal—since there was no covenant between God and them.

The first two chapters of Amos demonstrate this. God’s judgment on Judah (2:4-5) and Israel (2:6ff) is because of their failure to keep his covenantal laws imposed through special revelation at Mount Sinai: “They have rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees”; “They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.”

The six nations mentioned previously, however, are judged without reference to agreed laws, warnings, or special revelation. Their doom comes because of inhumane cruelty, doing things that even people without the Bible ought to know are wrong: “She threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth”; “She sold whole communities of captives to Edom, disregarding a treaty of brotherhood”; “He pursued his brother with a sword, stifling all compassion”; “He ripped open the pregnant women”; “He burned, as if to lime, the bones of Edom’s king.”

Announcements of judgment on Gentile nations are recorded in the major prophets also. The pattern in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel declares that judgment is coming because of excessive and inhuman violence and cruel treatment of others, with the addition of pride as a reason for judgment: “We have heard of Moab’s pride—her overweening pride and conceit, her pride and her insolence—but her boasts are empty. Therefore the Moabites wail . . .” (Isaiah 16:6-7); “The terror you inspire and the pride of your heart have deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rocks, who occupy the heights of the hill. Though you build your nest as high as the eagle’s, from there I will bring you down . . .” (Jeremiah 49:16).

When we include Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, we find the same pattern. Gentile nations are judged for cruelty and pride, not for breaking any covenant.

Is America ripe for judgment? Perhaps so. Inhumanity and cruelty have marked more of our history than we like to admit. And, most of the world sees the pride and conceit that we Americans pretend isn’t there. But, declining church attendance, or taking the Bible out of school, or declining moral values, or making too much money, or neglecting poor people, or other “old covenant” violations are not the cause of our national judgment.

Let’s keep our eyes open.

The Holy Spirit's Groans

2005-09-15T15:31:00.000-07:00

After a while you feel sorry for Bible verses that never seem to be used in their contexts. The Holy Spirit’s intercession in Romans 8:26 fits this description. Sometimes it goes like this: “Whenever we don’t know what to pray for, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us.” (Implying, I guess, that when we think we know what to pray for He is not praying.) Or, perhaps it is a debate about whether the “groans that words cannot express” are a reference to praying in tongues. Or, maybe a claim to be God’s prayer partner.

Is there a commentary writer or preacher or Bible teacher who notices that this is the third time in the chapter that someone is groaning? Let’s read with our eyes open. If we examine the pattern of the three groans, we can easily see what the Holy Spirit is doing here.

First, creation groans (verses 19-22). Creation groans in frustration because of the bondage imposed on it because of human sin. It groans with impatience, because it is eagerly waiting for a release from the frustration. That release is coming, when the sons of God are revealed in their resurrected and glorious freedom. (Think “New Heaven and New Earth.”) There is hope because a correction is coming, but there is agony in the current state of imperfection.

Second, believers groan (verses 23-25). “We ourselves” live with the tension of knowing what someday will be ours. We know it because we already have the firstfruits of it. Yet, until the redemption of our bodies, we don’t experience the full adoption of sons, so we groan. Like creation, ours is a hopeful groan, but an agonizing one also.

Third is the Holy Spirit’s groan (verses 26-30) as the text says, “in the same way.” He searches our hearts and sees us as we now are. He also knows the mind of the Spirit and the likeness of God’s Son for which we are predestined, called, etc. With far greater clarity than our own awareness, He sees the discrepancy between what now is and what ought to be in our conforming to God’s will. In frustration over our continuing sinfulness, He groans. But it is a groan of hope, too, because someday we will be glorified.

In the meantime, He groans through intercession. It is true that “we do not know what we ought to pray” (not just sometimes but almost always). Listen to us: We pray for the pain to stop, for circumstances to be more to our liking, for other people to change, for God to intervene. He prays for us to be changed into Christlikeness, which is what we ought to be praying first and foremost. The Holy Spirit’s prayers are answered, as God works all things for the good of those who love Him. Not necessarily what we think is good (since we don’t know), but for the real good that is the goal of His groaning.

What do you know? Even Romans 8:28 can be put back into its context. When we read with open eyes.

Eating in an Unworthy Manner

2005-09-05T13:30:00.000-07:00

Many Protestant churches have a Communion service tradition for people to confess their sins (privately and silently), often to the accompaniment of dirge-like organ music, before taking the bread and the cup. The supposed Biblical reason for this is the warning given in 1 Corinthians 11:27-28, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.”

The “unworthy manner” is explained as taking the elements while any known sins are unconfessed and unforgiven. Thus, the Lord’s Table becomes the Protestant version of the Roman Catholic confessional, only without the earthly mediation of a priest.

Doctrinally this is way off. It amounts to following Rome in a rejection of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice for sins once for all. It ignores Jesus’ “It is finished” as if forgiveness is doled out for one sin at a time, in response to a sacramental rite of confession at the altar. For Catholics this logically leads to ceremonies like penance, last rites, purgatory, and indulgences.

Protestants reject those abuses, but may not reject the misunderstanding of forgiveness on which they are based. We keep the wrong notion of God’s forgiveness and substitute confession at Communion and daily “asking for forgiveness” based on a misreading of 1 John 1:9. (See my blog, “Asking for Forgiveness” posted on June 30, 2005.)

Another result of this mistake is that it takes the focus of attention off the Lord Jesus, where it belongs, and places it on the sinners at the table.

If we would read with our eyes open, we would have a proper understanding of the warnings in 1 Corinthians 11. The context begins in chapter 10. Paul contrasts the Lord’s Table with the idolatrous feasts of paganism. “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” (verse 16) The answer is ‘yes.’ “We who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (verse 17) The gathering of believers meeting to partake of the metaphorical “body of Christ” in Communion is, in another sense, “the body of Christ” also.

The problem at Corinth is outlined in chapter 11. Divisions within the body actually denied the reality of the one body in the very act of Communion. Verses 20-22 declare, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. . . . Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!” (Then come the familiar ceremonial words and warnings.)

The unworthy manner Paul warns against is not any and all variety of sins that people have committed since the last Communion service, but the specific, divisive sins mentioned: that which approaches the table without recognizing the body of the Lord, that is, without showing respect for the other members of the body. “One remains hungry, another gets drunk.” (verse 21)

We ought to examine ourselves when we partake of the Lord’s Table; specifically, we ought to assess our recognition of and respect for the other people taking Communion around us. Am I pushing others aside to fill myself? Am I uncaring about whether others get anything? Am I stuffing myself at Communion so I don’t have to feed myself at home?

This self-examination is usually not a lengthy or morose process. Let’s read with open eyes.

The Lamb's Book of Life

2005-08-18T11:37:00.000-07:00

Most Christians are aware of the Lamb’s Book of Life, as mentioned in Revelation 21:27, “Nothing impure will ever enter [the New Jerusalem], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” It is the subject of many songs that help us rejoice that our names are written in heaven (see Luke 10:20).

The concept of the book of life seems to be based on the commonly used citizenship register of a town. When someone was born, the name was written down, and when someone died, the name was erased or blotted out. This would be similar to a membership list in a church or other organization. The book of life would record those currently alive.

Jeremiah 4:3 says, “They will be holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem.” Psalm 87:4-6 seems to indicate that God’s book is divided by nationality (as Don Richardson has suggested), “The LORD will write in the register of the peoples: This one was born in Zion.”

Names can be blotted out of God’s book because of sin and rebellion (perhaps at their death). God threatens to blot out names of covenant breakers (Deuteronomy 29:20), and saints pray for their enemies to be blotted out (Psalm 69:28 and 109:13). Moses offered to have his own name blotted out in place of others (Exodus 32:32-33). Jeremiah 17:13 suggests that unfaithful Israelites are written among the living, but not permanently, “Those who turn away will be written in the dust.”

Faithful believers, written in the book of life, receive God’s protection during their lifetimes. See 2 Kings 14:27, “Since the LORD didn’t say he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he rescued them by the hand of Jereboam.” Those in the book of life will be able to escape the deception others will succumb to, according to Revelation 13:8, “All those not written in the book of life will worship the beast,” and Revelation 17:8, “Those not in the book of life will be astonished when they see the beast.” Other believers are asked to rally to the aid of those in God’s book. See Philippians 4:3, “Help those women whose names are in the book of life.”

Those who believe to eternal life will not have their names removed at their physical death, but will remain on the list as living citizens for all eternity. Daniel 12:1, “Your people, everyone whose name is found written in the book, will be delivered.” Revelation 3:5, “He who overcomes I will never blot out of the book of life.” Perhaps the best known reference is Revelation 20:11-15, “ . . . The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. . . . If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Keep reading with your eyes open.

KP Said It So Well

2005-08-12T05:50:00.000-07:00

One of the articles I have on my list to write is about the common abuse of 1 Corinthians 10:13. But my friend Keith has already said it so well on his blog, "God Won't Give You More Than You Can Handle."

He says, "How frequently we hear these words offered in pressing times, usually preceded by the words, 'Like the Bible says. . .' It's interesting that what many people mean by their paraphrase is something along the order of 'God will keep you from being overwhelmed.' But is that what is actually promised? I don't think so. The verse that people have in mind when they say this actually has to do with temptation. . . ."

Read the whole article.
And when you read your Bible, read with open eyes.

More About the New Jerusalem

2005-08-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

It is astonishing what we learn when we read the Bible with our eyes open. We are truly astonished to see what we (and others) have missed, though it is right there in black and white.

Revelation 21:9-10 tells us, “One of the seven angels . . . came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.”

Some are so astonished by this that they don’t believe it, preferring to keep on believing that the city is the eternal home of the redeemed, instead of believing that it is the redeemed themselves.

For example, Randy Alcorn, in his excellent book, Heaven, comments (page 244) that the city can be symbolic of the church and still be a real city where we will live forever, comparing it to a wedding ring that symbolizes his commitment to his wife and is also a real, physical ring of gold. Of course, it can be both, but the text never says it is the place we will live. But it clearly says it is a picture of the Church.

In chapter 1, John sees seven candlesticks (verse 12). Later, he is told that the candlesticks are seven churches (verse 20). Is it possible that they are symbolic of seven churches and also seven literal candlesticks? Yes, it is possible, but the text directs us to understand how to think of them.

In chapter 17, we read an exact parallel to the presentation of the Holy City. “One of the seven angels . . . came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters.’ . . . Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast . . . ." The angel proceeded to explain various aspects of the vision: heads, precious stones, pearls, gold, etc. Clearly, we are to understand this, not as a woman on a weird animal or as both the literal beings plus something else, but as a representation of the evil of Babylon.

So, when we come to chapter 21, we should likewise understand the precious stones, pearls, gold, streets, gates, etc., not as a literal city where we will live, but as a representation of the good of the Bride. The angel explicitly said he was showing the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

I have no doubt that in the resurrection we will live with very physical bodies on a very physical new earth, probably in great cities or small towns or rural areas. But let’s not force the description of the church in Revelation 21, against the clear statement of verse 9, into a futuristic portrayal of our eternal home. Let’s read with our eyes open.

The New Jerusalem

2005-07-25T15:03:00.000-07:00

According to gospel music (white and black), according to numerous sermons, and according to books about heaven, after the resurrection we will live forever in a massive city with golden streets, gates of pearl, and foundation stones of precious gems. But not according to Revelation chapter 21.

The misrepresentation of the Holy City, New Jerusalem, as our final eternal home is so engrained in us by our misguided Christian cultures that it is hard to pull away from it. Help me as we read with our eyes open and discover what John is actually describing.

“Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb,” says verse 9. “He showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,” says verse 10. This glorious city is not a place, not our future residence. It is the bride herself. Wow! How long has that been in the Bible?

This city is a description of the church of Jesus Christ, with the gold and jewels symbolically portraying its beauty, value, and endurance. The apostolic foundation stones reflect the authority the church is built on, while the patriarchal gates show the Biblical entrance into it. The cubic dimensions symbolize the perfection and completeness of its makeup. The divine presence (instead of a temple) demonstrates the fulfillment of God’s ages-long purpose to live with his people and be their God. Though the city sheds its light to the nations, only those written in the Lamb’s book of life can enter.

Is it possible for us, surrounded as we are by so many references to the Holy City as a “where,” to really think of it as a “who”? Only if we read with our eyes open and redraw the mental pictures we were given.

Red Letter Bibles

2005-07-21T06:02:00.000-07:00

Printing the words of Christ in red ink is a common marketing approach. However, it implies an erroneous conclusion: that these words are more important than the other words of Scripture, more authoritative, maybe even more inspired. This is doubly false.

You can’t blame the average reader of the Bible for being misled. Most would prefer to read black ink, except for the longstanding practice of red letters. It is the publishers who are at fault. And they may only be following a tradition whose meaning they do not know. Preachers and authors compound the problem by making a reference to the redness (and, in their view, the superiority) of Jesus’ words.

The words Christ spoke while he was on earth were certainly inerrant. He claimed, “I speak just what the Father has taught me” (quoted in John 8:28). So, his words were a revelation to those who heard them. But to everyone else, they are an event in the past. We today cannot count them as “God’s revealed word” to us, because we didn’t hear them. Many of Jesus’ contemporaries, even, didn’t hear them, and so received no divine revelation from them. We only know them through the inspired writing of the New Testament. And the authority is the work of the Holy Spirit who inspired not only the quotations of Jesus’ words, but all the authors’ words.

Jesus’ words have been quoted by many, with more or less accuracy and for various purposes, but it is only in the apostolic preaching and the writing of Scripture that their telling has been divinely authenticated as a verbally inspired revelation to others. In your Bible, all the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the Scripture, inerrant in their presentation of the story of Jesus and in their lessons for faith and life.

To hold the words of Jesus, quoted by the authors of the New Testament, in higher esteem than the authors’ commentary about them opens the reader to the frightful risk of giving his or her own interpretation of them, separate from and perhaps opposite from the God-breathed interpretation of the Bible writers themselves.

When God put his word in writing through the process of inspiration, he claimed the right to select not only the way the events would be told (which details, which quotations, in what order, with what emphasis and repetition, etc.) but also the meaning of the events (God's role and motives, human motivations, the moral of the story, etc.--in other words, how we should understand what those quotations mean). We had best understand the words of Jesus in the context of the inspired Gospel story and draw the same conclusions that the writers did about Jesus’ words.

Some might protest that the words in red do not indicate a greater importance or a higher authority, but the red ink is needed to show which words are quotations of Jesus and which are not. But, a simple “Jesus said” (which the writers already put there) or a set of quotation marks would do that.

Let’s read with our eyes open, and focus on the black ink, too.

Clean and Unclean

2005-07-19T22:21:00.000-07:00

When Isaiah saw the Lord (Isaiah 6), he cried, “Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” Most sermons on this text highlight the sinfulness of Isaiah and the people of Judah. They miss the point by equating “unclean” with “sinful.”

The concept of “unclean” is a basic element of the old covenant. Leviticus 11-15 gives great detail about what made an Israelite unclean: touching dead bodies, eating specified unclean animals, contact with various bodily discharges, contamination with skin disease or mildew.

The consequence of being unclean in these ways was exclusion from God’s presence. No unclean person could enter the tabernacle or approach God in any way. Unclean people were not welcome at religious festivals.

Uncleanness was not a permanent state or position, but a temporary condition. Leviticus spells out the procedures for becoming clean again: washing with water, changing clothes, waiting until morning or for a specific number of days, offering sacrifices of cleansing. Once the condition of cleanness was restored, the person could enter into worship again.

Obviously, it was good and convenient to avoid becoming unclean, and the concept of cleanness was an important lesson in God’s plan. But it was not a sin to become unclean. In fact, Jesus became unclean during his life on earth. When he touched lepers to heal them (Mark 1:40-44), when he took the hand of Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:23-26), and when he touched the coffin of the widow’s son (Luke 7:11-15), he was incurring uncleanness according to the Law he was under. He committed no sin.

Back to Isaiah. We know he was a sinner and that his people were sinners also. But the distress of Isaiah was not over this. He feared for his life in that he was (unexpectedly) in the direct presence of God in a condition of uncleanness. He had no time or opportunity to go through the purification ceremonies. The penalty could be instant death, as it was for Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10, which introduces the chapters about uncleanness.

The fiery coal from the Seraph takes away the guilt and atones for the sin of Isaiah’s uncleanness. This is a reference to the Day of Atonement from Leviticus 16, which comes immediately after the chapters of clean and unclean laws.

For believers today, not under the Mosaic Law, the condition of uncleanness is not a concern. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8). “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (Mark 7:19). “You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (John 15:3). “Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival . . .” (Colossians 2:16). We are considered clean and welcome in God’s presence without purifying ceremonies.

It is good for us to be in awe of the Lord, as Isaiah was. It is good for us to respond, “Here am I, send me,” as Isaiah did. But we no longer need to be “undone” as he was over his uncleanness.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

I Know the Plans I Have for You

2005-07-19T14:17:00.000-07:00

A favorite Scripture for wall hangings and baby dedications is taken from Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.”

The people who choose this verse today should realize that it is not a promise to them. It is a promise to the people of Jerusalem as they are going into captivity in Babylon for 70 years. And, even for them, it is not a promise that each of them will experience prosperity or even survive the captivity. It is a corporate promise to the Israelites that there will be a return.

It is amazing to me that people who are quick to take this verse out of context and claim it for themselves and their children do not also take a companion verse (also addressed to Israel in the face of judgment) in Jeremiah 21:10, “I have determined to do this city harm and not good, declares the LORD. It will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he will destroy it with fire.”

People don’t choose 29:11 and reject 21:10 on the basis of any indications in the text that it applies to them, but on the basis of what they want to hear from God. This is not reading with open eyes.

In the unfolding of God’s plan of salvation, both of these verses are important. God’s standards of holiness and his covenant with his people had been ignored and violated by Israel for generations. As a faithful God, the Lord carried out his promised judgments in an awful, yet appropriate, destruction of his own holy city. Yet, he did not finish off his people.

Through Jeremiah, not only was the coming disaster predicted, but also the eventual restoration and salvation were assured. What a dramatic lesson on the nature of sin, on the faithfulness of God, on the determination of God to accomplish salvation and complete his purposes. The theme of exile and return appears in many of the Biblical stories, from the garden of Eden, to Jacob, to Absalom, to Babylon.

How should we apply these verses, then? We can’t separate the two and choose the favorable stuff only. We have to recognize that any favorable stuff we get is not because of our deserving, but because of God’s mercy. And, the favorable stuff is on the other side of the unfavorable. Sin must be punished, and God’s promises must be kept—the curses and the blessings.

The cross, of course, is the ultimate point of all the stories of punishment and restoration. Jesus took the exile, the desolation, the wrath of God that he did not deserve, so that we can experience the “plans to give you a hope and a future” that we don’t deserve.

If we want a Jeremiah motto for our walls, we would do better to take Jeremiah 42:6 (though the people who originally spoke these words were insincere), “Whether it is favorable or unfavorable, we will obey the LORD our God, to whom we are sending you, so that it will go well with us, for we will obey the LORD our God.”

Let’s read with our eyes open.

The Stones Will Cry Out

2005-07-15T04:39:00.000-07:00

In Luke’s account of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-44) the Pharisees command that he silence his disciples who were praising God. Jesus’ reply is, “I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Song writers and preachers have had a field day with this statement. They make it out that if people today stop praising God the rocks around us will suddenly come out of retirement and shout praise to Him.

Not so. Neither Jesus nor Luke means that this crying out of stones is a covering for silent worshipers. It is a specific reference to that occasion—and the crying out of the stones would not be a cry of praise.

The reference is to Habakkuk chapter 2, where a warning is given regarding the Chaldeans (or, Babylonians). This warning is transferable to any city similarly built on greed, violence, and injustice, as Babylon was. Habakkuk 2:9 says, "Woe to him who builds his realm by unjust gain.” Verse 12, “Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and establishes a town by crime.”

From Genesis 11 to Revelation 18, the Bible represents Babylon in these terms. Habakkuk predicts Babylon’s fall because of such sinful human intent and action by its leaders and people. In fact, he presents the very stones and timbers of the city as crying out to God for intervention because of human sin and refusal to acknowledge God. Verse 11, “The stones of the wall will cry out, and the beams of the woodwork will echo it.” It is clearly a cry for judgment, not a cry of Hosanna.

As Jesus entered his beloved Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday, he recognized the marks of a violent city ruled by greedy leaders. The stones were calling for God’s judgment. He wept over the city (verses 41-44) because of the “woes” awaiting Jerusalem’s people under the judgment of a holy God. Only one thing could hold off that promised retribution: if its people would know what would bring them peace.

The cries of the disciples, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” were cries of hope for Jerusalem. Like the edict of sackcloth, ashes, and repentance in the Nineveh of Jonah’s day (Jonah 3:5-10), the cries of the disciples and pilgrims on this day might have averted the promised disaster, had they been picked up by the city’s leaders and populace.

Alas! the stones did “cry out” and God heard them. But their cry, like that in Habakkuk, was a cry to the God who not only saves but who also brings righteous judgment.

It is comforting (for us) to know that “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.” In other words, whether we sing our praise or not, the Lord’s glory will prevail (Habakkuk 2:14). But, our worship is not to silence the stones.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Consider It Pure Joy

2005-07-14T10:39:00.000-07:00

James 1:2-15 talks to us about temptation. The Greek word translated “trials” in verse 2 is the same as the word translated “tempted” in verse 13. The primary meaning of the word is enticement toward sin. In a secondary way it sometimes means a trial such as persecution or hard times, because those times often bring a temptation to abandon our faith. Readers today tend to understand "trials” as the difficult circumstances, apart from any associated temptation to commit sin.

There are 3 choices in understanding James 1. It might mean “trials” or difficult circumstances throughout. This is unlikely, since verses 13-15 are clearly expressed as enticement. It might mean “trials” in verses 2-12 and then abruptly change to meaning “temptation” in verses 13-15. This is unlikely, since there are no clues in the context that indicate a change in topic. Yet, because most modern translations render it by two separate words, this is the way many preachers and readers understand it. The third option is to understand the topic to be “temptation” throughout the passage.

Actually, the passage makes perfect sense to understand temptation as the topic through the whole section. It is obvious that this is the topic in the second part. Temptation does not come from God, who can’t be tempted by evil, but comes from our own evil desire (verses 13-15). It is also clear that this is the topic at the beginning. Temptation is an opportunity for great joy (verse 2). This is not because we anticipate the joy of the sin to which we are tempted, but because it is an opportunity for victory over temptation.

Like a big kid challenged to a fight by a scrawny little kid, or like a professional ball team challenged to a game by a little league team, there is confidence of winning. Not the overconfidence against which believers are warned in 1 Corinthians 10:12, “If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall.” But the trusting confidence that temptation is a matter of subbornly outlasting the temptation, as advised in 1 Corinthians 10:13, “He will provide a way out so that you can stand up to it.”

The key verse in the passage is verse 12, “perseveres under temptation.” Make a commitment to the truth of God’s word, recognize the lies that are embedded in the temptation with your God-given wisdom, and use your God-given stubbornness to stick to your commitment throughout the entire sweep of temptation. The result is that you win, you pass the test of faith, and ultimately you receive the crown of life.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Asking for Forgiveness

2005-06-30T05:22:00.000-07:00

I have heard 1 John 1:9 referred to as “the Christian’s daily bar of soap.” The idea is that, though we continue to sin as believers, we can get clean by confessing our sins and asking God to forgive us. It is too bad that people who teach this view don’t read the verse in its context, and read it with their eyes open.

First, the verse does not say, “when an individual confesses sins.” Take a look at verses 6 through 10. Five times John introduces a sentence with “If we . . . ,” each one suggesting a faith position or worldview commitment. Each “if we” has a corresponding condition that always is associated with that position. These are not separate actions that a given person could fluctuate among or repeat, but positions that people take.

In verses 6-7 we find the first two contrasting positions. “If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness” is the position of the hypocrite. The hypocrite’s condition is that of lying. In contrast, “If we walk in the light” is the position of the obedient believer. The obedient believer’s condition is that of true fellowship and purity.

In verses 8 and 10 we have two other negative positions. “If we claim to be without sin” is the position of the amoral philosopher who believes sin is not a real concern—or the supposedly perfected religionist who believes he has got beyond sinning. The amoralizer/perfectionist lives in the condition of self deception. “If we claim we have not sinned" is the position of the self-righteous. The condition of the self-righteous is rebellion against God’s holiness revealed in his Word, calling God a liar.

In verse 9 we have the contrasting position to the two just mentioned. “If we confess our sins” is the position of the honest sinner acknowledging the truth of the Gospel’s claim. The condition of the honest sinner is forgiveness and purification. The condition of being forgiven does not change with each sinful act; it is the result of the position taken with regard to the Gospel.

Second, the context gives us teaching about what happens when an individual believer sins. “I write this to you so that you will not sin,” John says in 2:1. “But if anybody does sin,” a very different process kicks in from that advocated by the popular misunderstanding of forgiveness.

The sinning “anybody” is not exhorted to go through some religious ceremony, no confession or repentance is called for, no penance would be helpful. Instead, Jesus Christ the Righteous One goes into action on that individual’s behalf, as the forgiven person's defense attorney before the court. He presents his “atoning sacrifice” (really his “propitiation”) to turn God’s anger against sin away from us.

There is no repeated forgiveness, let alone a repeated asking for forgiveness. The work of Christ on the cross is the sufficient and only basis for the forgiveness of all our sins. All forgiven sins were paid for in that one act (at a time when all our sins were future). By taking the position of the honest sinner in 1:9 (only one time needed), we continue to be in the condition of forgiven and purified. Jesus will take care of it from there.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

The Gates of Hell

2005-06-28T14:57:00.000-07:00

Preachers and writers look at Matthew 16:18 and find a battle between the church and Satan: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” All the forces of the devil, we are told, will attack and try to annihilate the church, but the church will survive.

Others challenge this interpretation and say, “Gates don’t attack. They are defensive structures. It is the church that is attacking the forces of evil, and we will not be held back.”

If we read with our eyes open we will see that both of these views miss the mark because they identify the “gates of Hades” with Satan and his forces of evil. Jesus is not talking about Satan, but about the death of believers, which is under the control of Jesus himself.

The primary meaning of the word “Hades” is the grave or the abode of the dead. Sometimes it refers to a place where souls are conscious after their death. Most of the time it refers to the place where the bodies are placed after death. We should expect the reference in Matthew, then, to be about physical death, unless the context forces us to look for another meaning. (It doesn’t.)

Probably the error of connecting this passage with Satan can be traced to older translations that had “the gates of hell” instead of “the gates of Hades.” However, that is no excuse because we know that Satan is not in any way the ruler of hell.

If Isaiah 14:9-21 connects the king of Babylon (Lucifer) with Satan himself, it would portray Satan entering the world of the dead (Hades). He is anything but a ruler. He who once made kingdoms tremble during his life finds himself in death with less power and less honor than any he meets in the grave. Thus, it would be ridiculous to associate Satan’s power with the phrase, “the gates of Hades.”

The Bible presents Jesus as controlling the death of men and women. Revelation 1:18 quotes Jesus specifically, “I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” The gates are the point of entrance and are opened to allow (or require) entrance into the realm of the dead. The gates are closed behind us by the Lord. Far from being a fortress of evil in the hands of an enemy, this reference is to part of Jesus’ kingdom. He rules the point of death as well as everything else.

The context of Matthew 16:18 is obviously talking about physical death. Jesus tells the disciples about his impending suffering, death, and resurrection (v. 21). Peter rebukes Jesus to insist that Jesus should not be thinking about dying (v. 22). Peter’s concern leads Jesus to explain that God’s way of thinking requires an embracing of death (vs. 23-26). The “Satan” in this passage is not a supernatural foe mustering armies for a sortie against the church from behind the gates of hell, but is Peter advocating an avoidance of physical death. Both for Jesus and for his disciples, such avoidance would be deadly.

Jesus’ followers must not view themselves as so indispensable to the church that they can’t die. We must take up our cross and follow Him. The gates of Hades (Peter’s death, Matthew’s death, Philipp Melanchthon’s death, Bill Bright’s death, your death, my death) will not overcome the church. The church will continue through the generations, leaving behind a growing “underground church” in cemeteries all around the world. When the Son of Man comes, he will open the gates for the great reunion. Through death and resurrection we come to our rewards (vs. 27-28).

Let’s read with our eyes open.

"Never, Lord"

2005-06-24T04:31:00.000-07:00

Acts 10 and 11 record a vision Peter saw (animals lowered in a sheet for him to kill and eat), through which God taught the church that the Gentiles were not unclean, but were in fact objects for the Gospel. It was a turning point for the church. Yet, at the time, Peter objected, using the words of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 4:14.

When Peter said, “Never, Lord,” (Acts 11:8) when told to kill and eat, he was not speaking a contradiction (how can God be Lord if we are saying no to him?). He was merely arguing for a modification of the plan, on the basis of Ezekiel’s request regarding his instructions.

The Mosaic Law set rules about which animals could and could not be eaten without ceremonial uncleanness (Leviticus 11). It also had rules about touching corpses, skin diseases, bodily discharges, etc., which would also result in uncleanness (Leviticus 11-15). By the way, ceremonial uncleanness was not the same as sin.

There was no rule against entering the home of Gentiles or eating with Gentiles; these were man-made extensions of the God-given rules. The very chapter where Ezekiel made his “Never, Lord” protest, however, includes a prophecy of uncleanness in exile among the Gentiles. Ezekiel 4:13 says, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the Gentiles where I will drive them.” This, however, indicates that the food is otherwise defiled and that the judgment will be worsened by the cultural embarrassment of being captive among Gentiles at the time.

God told Ezekiel to act out the siege of Jerusalem, lying on his left side for 390 days (one day for each year of Israel’s sin) and bearing the sin of Israel, while eating a meager diet of barley and beans cooked over a fire burning human excrement. He would then lie on his right side for 40 days to symbolize the years of Judah’s sin.

Ezekiel protested (v.14), “Never, Lord, God of Israel, because my soul has never defiled itself with uncleanness, and I have not eaten anything found dead or torn by animals from my youth until now, and no unclean meat has ever entered my mouth.” He is not denying the authority of God to give him orders. He is expecting God to be consistent with His own commitment through the covenant.

God changed the instructions based on Ezekiel’s complaint, saying essentially, “O.K., I won’t make you defile yourself. You can use cow manure for fuel. But you must deliver and act out my message of judgment.”

When Peter saw the vision of the sheet of animals, he thought of Ezekiel’s prophecy. The italicized words above (from Ezekiel 4:14) are exactly used in Peter’s protest as recorded Acts 11:8.

In the initial account of Peter’s vision in Acts 10:14 the verbal correspondence is less complete, which might indicate that Peter himself, thinking about the experience between its occurrence and the time he met with the believers in Jerusalem, reported his experience to the Apostles more in reference to Ezekiel’s experience.

In Peter’s case, God does not change the assignment in order to protect Peter from defilement. Instead, He responds essentially, “No, this won’t defile you, since I have made these foods clean [and these people clean]. But you must deliver my message of salvation.” As the rest of the story indicates, Peter got the message, and eventually so did the entire church.

The Weapons of Our Warfare

2005-06-21T20:35:00.000-07:00

The apostle Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 are often yanked out of context and made the basis for fantastic “warfare” against the world of evil spirits. The “strongholds” are made into a variety of beliefs that Satan has tricked people to follow. Preachers and authors proceed to insert various kinds of “weapons” they think Paul meant to be used against these supposed thought patterns. Would you join me in reading this with open eyes?

The whole theme of chapter 10 (and beyond) is Paul’s defense of his calling and ministry against people in Corinth who belittled him. These detractors were counting on the “meekness” of Paul in person. They thought he would not stand up to them, which would allow them to get away with distortions and false accusations. The verses in question assert that Paul, while not following a worldly approach to self-defense, will use divinely powerful weapons against his attackers.

The “strongholds” Paul is talking about are the charges of his critics. Their arguments and pretensions are not only against him, but also against the knowledge of God. He intends to take them on with reasoning from the Gospel itself. It is not a matter of comparing one preacher with another and passing human judgments. It is a matter of looking for evidence of God’s call and assignment for each one. Paul anticipates that such reasoning will demolish the negative insinuations they are spreading.

Paul is reluctant to put forward his own credentials, especially in terms of the world’s standards. He prefers to allow the Lord to commend him, through the fruits of Paul’s Gospel ministry. Of course, most of the believers in Corinth are the direct result of his ministry (the “letters of recommendation” he refers to in 3:1-3). The “credentials” he personally boasts about are his sufferings for the sake of the Gospel, because they show that God’s power and not his own ability causes success.

Paul’s plan for his next visit is to demonstrate once and for all that God has called and is using him to transform lives. Then, he hopes, the church will be completely obedient and ready to punish the wicked troublemakers. As long as the church keeps listening to these unwise complaints, the work of the Gospel will be hindered.

The Bible might talk about spiritual weapons against evil spiritual forces, but it isn’t in this chapter. Let’s read with our eyes open.

King Saul's Godly Leadership

2005-06-20T18:32:00.000-07:00

King Saul is famous for what he did wrong: jealousy, disobedience, resort to witchcraft. These actions are worthy of condemnation and certainly are not characteristics we would look to for leadership in the local church. Scripture endorses and praises, however, the leadership Saul showed before he turned away from his divine calling.

When Samuel anointed Saul to be king, as described in 1 Samuel 10, he told him “the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, . . . and you will be changed into a different person. Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you.” When we read with our eyes open, we see that God really did change Saul’s heart, giving him the equipment he would need to be Israel’s leader.

Saul demonstrated the effects of this changed heart in the early actions of his reign. In chapters 10 through 12 we read of at least four traits that mark his leadership. Then in chapters 13 through 15 we find that all four traits were reversed in Saul’s downfall.

1. Humble Reluctance
At the very beginning, Saul shows a reticence to assume power. He seems unwilling to thrust himself into the leadership role. Perhaps the initial protests Saul offers to Samuel (9:21) can be attributed to formal politeness, and his withholding information from his uncle (10:16) to strategy and timing, but his hiding among the baggage (10:22) is definitely an uncalculated reluctance to seize a position. Later, Samuel recalls to Saul, “though you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel?” (15:17).

Wisdom urges us to beware of the person overly eager to become a leader. Such a leader may well bring his own agenda that is contrary to the work of the Lord. Too much confidence in human ability has often kept people from their proper trust in the Lord and in his power.

Such was the later experience of Saul. 1 Samuel 13 describes Saul’s impatience in waiting for Samuel to come and offer the sacrifice. In Saul’s own words, he “forced himself” into the unauthorized role of priest (13:12). Gone is the humility that made him hold back from the kingship. It is replaced by presumption, the ruin of godly leadership.

2. Spiritual Standards
Saul began his reign with a spiritual understanding of leadership. Following his coronation and return to Gibeah, he gathered around himself a group of men “whose hearts God had touched,” (10:27). They were valiant men, but they were spiritually sensitive. Saul seemed to know that the power of the kingdom was not in its armies but in its God. What a wise way to build a leadership team.

In the church today we also need a spiritual standard for leadership. The temptation is to grab leaders who are successful in secular jobs or who can perform a specific task, whether or not they are full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.

Saul’s standards eventually slipped into the secular approach. By 14:52 he is taking any soldier who is brave and looks good in armor. It is interesting to contrast the response to Goliath’s challenge of Saul’s valiant men (chapter 17) with that of David, whose heart God had touched.

3. Commitment to God’s Honor
After Saul’s victory over the Ammonites, some of the people urge him to take vengeance on his earlier detractors by putting them to death. Saul’s response (11:13) is “No one shall be put to death today, for this day the LORD rescued Israel.” He clearly wants the glory to go to God and not to himself. He knows enough about God’s honor to realize that killing off his own citizens will not honor God or strengthen his own position.

It is not long, however, before Saul becomes obsessed with increasing his own glory, at the expense of his own people. His jealous attacks on David are well known, but even his rash vow in the battle, “Cursed be any man who eats food before evening comes, before I have avenged myself on my enemies” (14:24) indicates he has reversed his godly commitment. It is now his victory, not God’s, and he does not care what price others must pay By the time we get to 15:12 Saul is building monuments to himself.

Even at the local church level it is easy to begin to build monuments to ourselves. It gradually becomes “Pastor So-and-so’s church,” or we equate the success of our ideas and “visions” with the greatest glory to God.

4. Whole-hearted Obedience
Along with the rest of the nation, Saul joins with Samuel in a renewal of commitment to “fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart” (12:24). This is perhaps the central element in godly leadership. It recognizes that God is the ultimate leader and we take our orders from him. For Saul, this means a commitment to the covenant between God and Israel and a willingness to trust that God knows what he is doing.

By chapter 15, however, Saul is fulfilling only part of his assignment to wipe out the Amalekites, deciding to spare the king and the best of the animals. This is the final blow to Saul’s kingdom and dynasty. It is telling that his best excuse is that he feared the people—he who made a commitment to fear the LORD and obey him with all his heart. Then, in his rejection by God, Saul begs Samuel to keep up appearances so the people would not know anything was wrong (15:30).

May God protect us from the mindset of pleasing people at the expense of disobeying God, of keeping up appearances after the reality is gone. In churches that elect their officers and take up a collection to pay their pastors, it takes courage to fear God more than we fear the people. May God give us the equipment of changed hearts and the Holy Spirit to make us godly leaders in the positions we hold under him: humility, obedience, spiritual understanding, and the desire to glorify God.

Worship in a Variety of Music Styles

2005-06-16T13:15:00.000-07:00

Some churches decide what music to use in worship by asking unchurched people what radio stations they listen to, and then copying their music style. Other churches allow the most influential attenders or the largest bloc of attenders to decide. A few might use whatever style the pastor or music director likes best.

These solutions miss the whole point of music in worship. The choice should not be a matter of personal preferences or of whose preferences are more important. The choice should not be an attempt to draw outsiders with their favorite style or to pacify insiders with compromise.

The choice of music style for worship should be, “What kind of music does God want to hear?” After all, worship is for the benefit of God, not people. The Bible doesn’t specifically say what God’s favorite style is, but it gives principles that point to using many styles, instead of one.

Musical style is so much an expression of a specific culture. Nearly everyone responds the same way when hearing the music of another culture: “That is not music.” Each culture’s music expresses its unique worldview and values. People from outside the culture don’t instinctively understand or appreciate the music. But, we can learn it and maybe even come to enjoy it.

God cares about every nationality and culture in the world. No single culture can adequately express what God is worth. Because of sin, every culture has developed elements that are false and wrong. We need to be careful to keep those elements out of our worship. But, every culture also includes elements that reflect the image of God. It would be good for people of every culture to gain those insights, even if they are not obviously lovely to our ears.

God made the church to be a unity of diverse elements. This blend does not occur naturally in the world, only supernaturally. The New Testament talks of the Gospel bringing Jew and Gentile together as equals, breaking down the dividing cultural wall. In today's world, and certainly in America, this mixing of people from many different cultures is possible in many churches. We ought to mix cultural insights and music styles on purpose, to celebrate spiritual unity across cultural lines.

Eternity’s worship will represent every culture and tongue. Scenes from the book of Revelation emphasize the presence of people from every nation and language and tribe and people. They sing praise to the Lamb with one voice. We can practice for heaven’s perfect music in our worship services now, if we are willing to draw from the insights of a variety of cultures, not just the one we grew up with.

The church worship service should provide tools for the congregation to use in responding to God’s revelation of Himself. We are better worshipers when we grow through variety.

The insights of different styles can enrich our focus on God. We can learn from each other’s favorites. Rather than argue over music style, rather than make derrogatory comments about other believers’ favorites, it would be good to discuss the reasons we enjoy certain styles—and listen to the other person’s explanation. It is understandable that each person may continue to “feel worshipful” when hearing or singing the music of their heart-culture. But nothing in Scripture encourages us to continue on a mono-cultural island when it comes to music.

Maturing disciples care about the interests of others. We could be blissfully oblivious to the worship available through new kinds of music. In fact, that is what most of us prefer. But Scripture wants us to look not only on our own interests but also on the interests of others. By forbearance, we take our eyes off ourselves, which is often the first step to growth. Our best worship expresses obedience to Jesus’ new commandment to love one another.

We can grow by stretching our comfort zones. Smooth waters do not make a strong sailor, nor calm winds a strong tree. If we seek above all else to grow into Christlikeness, we should do a little exploring outside of what we already know. Worship through new outlooks can be part of that growth.

Therefore, the best way to choose music for worship is to select good music from a variety of musical styles and cultures. This is the best offering we can make to God and the best strategy for helping each other become like Jesus.

Luxury Mansions in Glory

2005-06-13T16:01:00.000-07:00

It’s in many songs about heaven. It encourages downtrodden and poverty-stricken believers. It gives us so much to look forward to in eternity. But it is mostly mistaken.

“I’m satisfied with just a cottage below. . . . But in those mansions . . ., I want a gold one that’s silver lined.” Based on a misconstruing of an antiquated English word, many of us expect to live in luxury for all eternity. Jesus said in John 14, “In my Father’s house are many mansions . . . . I go to prepare a place for you.” I’ve been told to imagine how great heaven must be after Jesus has been building it for 2,000 years. After all, look how beautiful this world is—and that only took him 6 days to make.

Of course, the word Jesus used didn’t imply a luxurious estate, and “mansion” didn’t mean that when the King James Version was translated either. Modern versions have more accurately rendered it “dwelling places.”

The thought process behind the wrong expectation of gold and silver houses is really troubling. The Bible tells us not to be greedy or lovers of money. But, according to this view, it’s okay to be a greedy lover of wealth in heaven. This seems more fitting for other religions than for Christians; those who believe that if you live a chaste life here you will be rewarded in paradise with unlimited sexual immorality. Shouldn’t we expect that a just God would have the same moral principles on both sides of death?

I don’t think the Bible wants us to imagine Jesus spending the past 2,000 years hanging drywall or selecting wallpaper for us. When he said he was “going to prepare a place” for us, his primary reference was his going to the cross. There he prepared a place for us in his Father’s house. Besides, the old heaven and the old earth will be destroyed to make way for the new heaven and new earth anyway. So whatever has been built physically over the past 2,000 years will not be our eternal home.

Most people I have talked to about this feel sad to have to give up their dreams of luxury. Haven’t we set our hearts on eternal things in terms of what is meaningful here on earth? I tell my friends, and myself, that the one good thing we really long for, and don’t have here on earth, is actually what Jesus is promising in John 14: home.

Notice the real attraction of Jesus’ promise, “Where I am, there you may be also.” And, a few verses later, “My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” During our lifetime, we are strangers and pilgrims, exiles from our first home (Eden) where God and man had intimate fellowship, unbroken until sin brought the separation. But the separation is not forever. Jesus went to the cross to prepare a place for us. He will come back and take us to be with him. Now, that’s forever.

Revelation 21:3 expresses the fulfillment of our desire, and of God’s desire that runs throughout Scripture, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.” Read that a few times with your eyes open.

Money and the Christian

2005-06-10T20:05:00.000-07:00

Many Christians are sensitive about appeals for financial donations. We might resent hearing about needs and opportunities that require money, or we might respond out of a sense of guilt. Most of us do not like others telling us what to do with our money.

Moses
The Book of Hebrews gives us an outstanding example of a proper attitude toward money: Moses. In the list of those who believed “that God exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him,” Moses was looking forward to his reward.

Hebrews 11:24-26 tells us he “refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter and chose to be mistreated along with the people of God, rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt.”

This does not mean that the treasures of Egypt have no value. Egyptian money could buy the necessities of life, and luxuries to ease the life of the wealthy. In a sense the treasures of Egypt were even a factor in the kingdom of God, since the Egyptians gave valuables to the departing Israelites, and these valuables were used to build the Tabernacle. But Moses knew that in comparison to the values of eternity, money does not amount to much.

Obviously, no one can be right with God by having money or things; nor can anyone be justified by renouncing materialism. Only the righteousness of Christ can make us acceptable to a holy God. But wise Christians will recognize, as Moses did, that eternal value and eternal comfort are more important than this world’s stuff. Our reward is received in the resurrection rather than now.

The treasures of this world are beguiling. We know they are less important than treasure in heaven; we know they are not ultimately satisfying; we know they are unreliable as a means of security. Yet we still find our hearts desiring earthly possessions. We still neglect the truly valuable pursuits of personal holiness, evangelizing the lost, and supporting missions—as we try to increase our wealth.

Esau
Jacob’s brother Esau did not live “by faith” to the extent of being included in Hebrews 11. He did not live as a sojourner in the land of promise, looking forward to his reward. He did make it into the Book of Hebrews, though, in chapter 12. He is mentioned as a bad example and as a warning.

Hebrews 12:16-17 points us to Esau who for a single meal sold his inheritance. In human terms he was not an especially bad man, and he probably did a lot of good things. He stands, though, as an opposite to Moses. His immorality focused his attention on the here and now, his physical appetite, and instant gratification.

Esau may have acknowledged God in the religious aspect of life, but when it came to earthly wealth, possessions, and satisfaction he lived as if there was no God. He was godless when it came to his finances and his indulgences. No person has ever heard God say, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Esau.” By living for this world and despising the kingdom of God, Esau wrote himself out of the inheritance of faith. Can we learn from this?

Principles
1. Beware of the lure of the treasures of the world. They are not a trustworthy basis of security for the future. Certainly they cannot insure an eternal reward. They do not give the fulfillment and satisfaction they promise. They are not a friend of sanctification. How much like Christ can we become while setting our hearts on earthly wealth, when he refused to accumulate any of the world’s treasure?

2. Accomplish eternal good by the proper use of the world’s money. Use the money God entrusts to you to meet the needs of your family and other people he allows you to help. Be diligent in your work, prudent in your spending, generous in your giving, and wise in your investing. By investing in the kingdom of God we can store up treasure in heaven. Ask God to make you aware of needs and opportunities to spread the gospel. The things we accumulate for ourselves will be lost forever; the things we invest in the Lord’s work will be ours forever.

3. Live in light of eternity. Remember that God owns us and all our possessions. He promised to provide what we need, but our ultimate reward is still future. Some day we will stand before God and give an account of our handling of money and property. Will we resemble Moses because we had a proper perspective on earthly treasure? Or will we be more like Esau because we put too high a premium on earthly treasure?

May God give us the courage to live out our convictions about money. What a difference it would make for the church and missions if we would all apply the teaching of Scripture consistently. And, what a difference to us.

Fasting and Prayer

2005-06-09T05:03:00.000-07:00

Fasting is sometimes misrepresented as a magical weapon to be used against God or other people. Or, more often, it is viewed as an archaic practice that doesn’t apply to Christians today. “Fasting” is a temporary giving up of an essential and good part of life (most often food, but it could be sleep or marital sex) in order to give yourself to prayer or sacrificial service during that time.

Don’t fall for these incorrect notions about fasting:
1. Fasting is not a means of impressing other people. Matthew 6:16-18 warns against fasting for other people to see, as certain religious leaders did in Jesus’ day. Don’t play up your fast for sympathy. (This does not mean that your fast has to be totally private, since people have often fasted together.)

2. Fasting is not a hunger strike to force God to do what He does not want to do. God is not impressed with us seeking suffering through self-punishment. Isaiah 58:3-5 indicates that such a fast is not what God has chosen.

3. Fasting is not a religious ceremony by which we can be acceptable to God. Colossians 2:16-23 warns us not to look to food restrictions as a means of being right with God. Only through faith in the work of Jesus Christ can we be acceptable to God. Matthew 9:14-17 demonstrates the emptiness of fasting as a ritual.

4. Fasting is not a form of dieting. While times without eating may have physical benefits and may be prescribed for certain individuals, this is not the same as Biblical fasting. Isaiah 58:6-12 calls people to spiritual responsibilities in their fasts.

Fasting is an expected part of the Christian life. The Bible commands us not to fast wrongly, but never implies that fasting itself is wrong or unusual. Matthew 6:16-18 quotes Jesus as saying, “When you fast,” assuming that his followers will fast. Luke 5:33-39 quotes Jesus as saying that his followers could not fast while he was with them, “but the time will come when the Bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” When Jesus declared, “The old is better,” he meant that fasting in sorrow is better than celebrating in joy. Acts 13:2-3; 14:23; and 27:9 indicate that fasting was an important part of the life of the early church, including groups of believers fasting together.

How Fasting Should Be Understood:
1. Fasting shows seriousness in prayer, as measured by the cost to us. See David’s sacrifice in 2 Samuel 24:24.
2. Fasting exerts discipline over the appetites of the body while we cultivate the appetites of the spirit. See Colossians 3:1-4 and Paul’s personal testimony in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 .
3. Fasting chooses to be nourished by God’s Word, rather than merely by physical satisfaction. See Jesus’ own example in Matthew 4:4 and John 4:31-34.
4. Fasting devotes time and energy to doing God’s work instead of pursuing our own desires. See the call to feed the hungry and help the oppressed in Isaiah 58:6-12.
5. Fasting utilizes the time usually spent in eating, sleeping, etc. for concentrated prayer instead, perhaps focused on a specific need. It also utilizes the feeling of hunger, physical discomfort, and a growling stomach as persistent reminders of prayer and priorities.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

The Lord Himself Will Descend from Heaven

2005-06-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

It may be that Paul had Exodus 19 in mind when he wrote I Thessalonians 4. A number of parallels exist between the scene at Mount Sinai when God gave the Ten Commandments and the scene at the time of the Rapture.

1. It is an event designed for God to meet his people:
Exodus 19:17 – Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God
I Thessalonians 4:17 – to meet the Lord in the air

2. The sounding of the trumpet:
Exodus 19: 16, 19 – the sound of the trumpet grew louder
I Thessalonians 4:16 – with the trumpet call of God

3. The descent of the Lord from heaven:
Exodus 19:20 – The LORD came down to the top of the mountain
I Thessalonians 4:16 – The Lord himself will descend from heaven

4. The ascent of the people to meet God:
Exodus 19:13 – When the ram’s horn sounds . . . they shall come up
I Thessalonians 4:17 – will be caught up together with them in the clouds

5. Warnings about sexual activity as part of the preparation for the meeting:
Exodus 19:15 – do not go near a woman
I Thessalonians 4:3 – avoid fornication

The announced plan of all the Israelites meeting God on Mount Sinai did not take place. Exodus records that instead of going up the mountain to meet God at the trumpet's signal, the people remained at a distance out of fear (Exodus 20:18-21). They were unwilling to have a direct relationship and companionship with God. Instead, they asked Moses to do their talking to God and to do God’s talking to them. This led to the establishment of a mediated covenant between God and Israel at that time. The covenant was mediated through Moses, through the Tabernacle, through the Levitical priests, and through many additional commandments.

This “old” covenant lasted from the days of Moses until the death of Jesus Christ, who established a “new” covenant through his blood. The new covenant allows for one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. Thus, believers today do not need a priest, ceremonial rites, or a veil to protect us from God. We have a direct relationship with God.

During our lifetime here on earth, however, believers are not yet in our full, face-to-face companionship with God. The full benefits of the new covenant are not yet in our grasp. This is not a mistake or a failure, but a predicted situation. As Jesus ratified the new covenant with the disciples at the Last Supper, just before his actual death, he commanded his people to remember him through the ceremonial communion observance. He, though, would not drink of the cup again until he drank it anew in the Father’s kingdom (Matthew 26:27-29). So, there remained a future completion or consummation of the new covenant.

It seems, then, that the ultimate purpose of God is for Jesus’ followers to enter into a direct contact with Him, just as the original offer to Israel under Moses was for all the people to enter into direct contact with Him. God would come down with a trumpet signal to meet a people who had prepared themselves to enter his presence. At the appropriate time, the people would ascend to meet the Lord. This scenario did not occur in Moses’ day, because of the unbelief and fear of the people. It will happen some day for us, at the return of Jesus. At the signal, the sleeping saints will be raised from death and join the living saints in a going up to meet the Lord.

Paul wants us to comfort and encourage each other with this promise. How encouraging to realize that God has not abandoned his desire of meeting and being forever with his people, even if the full experience of that direct communion had to be postponed for centuries because of unbelief.

Let's keep reading with our eyes open.

Elijah Did Not Run for His Life

2005-06-02T07:50:00.000-07:00

Most English translations of 1 Kings 19:3 indicate that Elijah feared the threats of Jezebel and ran for his life. The traditional interpretation of this chapter is that Elijah uncharacteristically lost his boldness, panicked, and ran. Some preachers and commentators point out that his prayer in verse 4, “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors,” reveals that his fear led him into depression and suicidal despair.

The Hebrew text in verse 3 actually says, “When Elijah saw.” Translators make a change in the letters to come up with, “Elijah feared.” But, this change is unnecessary and misleading. If we read this chapter with our eyes open, we will notice that Elijah did not make his journey to protect himself. He could have found safety in Jerusalem with King Jehoshaphat.

Elijah went to two different places and made two different speeches. The Biblical writer knew what those two places meant in the history of Israel and wants us to get the point about Elijah by checking out those two places.

Elijah’s first stop was in the vicinity of Kadesh Barnea. It was a place where God said to Moses, “I will . . . destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they” (Numbers 14:12). Moses interceded for the people. God spared them, but vowed that the entire rebelling generation would die in the desert. This beginning point for Israel's wilderness wanderings was the perfect place for Elijah to declare, “Take away my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” Elijah identified with the Israelites because all his effort of calling people back to faith and obedience had brought them no further than they were back then.

God’s provision for Elijah mirrored his provision for Israel in the wilderness. God gave Elijah food and water for a forty day journey, as he previously had provided Israel food and water for a forty year journey.

Elijah’s second stop was at the other site where God asked Moses to stand aside. After the golden calf incident the Lord offered to destroy the covenant breakers and to rebegin the people of God through Moses. There also Moses interceded and God spared the nation. 1 Kings 19:9 tells us that Elijah went to Mount Horeb (Sinai) and spent the night at “the cave,” which readers would recognize as the “cleft in the rock” where Moses saw God’s glory.

The next day Elijah stood where Moses had stood centuries earlier. He gave God his second speech (quite different from the one near Beersheba), “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

The writer wants us to recall Exodus 32-34 and connect what happened under Moses with what happened under Elijah. In a sense, Elijah has returned to square one. In all the years between Moses and Elijah, Israel has made zero progress. Despite miraculous demonstrations, the people still break the covenant, tear down the altars, and kill the prophets.

When we understand the point being made, we not only avoid the caricature of the story that is often told, but we have the context for the comforting words in 1 Kings 19:11-12, “The Lord was not in the wind, . . . in the earthquake, . . . in the fire. After the fire came a still, small voice.” The people with Moses saw great manifestations of God’s power at Mount Sinai, yet they quickly turned from the Lord. Faith is not created in majestic displays of power, but by an inner voice from God. There is a place for fire from heaven, and Elijah will be asked to do it again, but Elijah is not responsible for the faith or unbelief of his people--and he cannot produce faith through miracles.

But, you may ask, doesn’t 1 Kings 19:3 say that Elijah “ran for his life”? Literally the texts says, “he went upon his soul.” The word is the usual word for going somewhere. It does not imply a flight in fear. It does not require an implication of danger. “Upon his soul” could refer to Elijah’s purpose to enrich his soul by a visit to these key sites from Israel’s past. It may describe a pilgrimage or a spiritual field trip. When Elijah saw the sad response of Israel, he went to refresh his soul in the wilderness and at Sinai.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Giving the Pharisees Their Due

2005-06-01T06:36:00.000-07:00

A major reason the Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus was his refusal to follow their Sabbath rules. Jesus went out of his way to challenge the Pharisees on the Sabbath, choosing this day to perform his miracles.

We obviously want to agree with Jesus and not the Pharisees. However, we need to give the Pharisees their due and not misunderstand the issues at stake. The Pharisees were not wrong to be concerned about keeping the Sabbath day holy. The Pharisees were obligated by the Mosaic Law. One of the Ten Commandments was “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy . . . .” (Exodus 20:8-11)

Under the old covenant, the Sabbath was not primarily a day for worship, although some extra sacrifices were offered. It was a day to rest from regular work. The penalty for individuals who violated this commandment was death. Exodus 31:13-14 declares, “You must observe my Sabbaths. . . . Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.”

In the wilderness wanderings, a precedent was set to carry this out literally. Numbers 15:32-36 records, “While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. . . . Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.’” So for the Pharisees to seek Jesus’ death for Sabbath breaking was not a result of crankiness, but of trying to follow God’s word.

The consequences for failing to keep the Sabbath were serious for the nation, too. In fact, 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 indicates that the Babylonian captivity was 70 years long because of missed Sabbaths over the years of Israel’s history.

After the exile Nehemiah addressed Sabbath violations on the basis of the danger that they would pose to the nation (Nehemiah 13:17-18), “I rebuked the nobles of Judah and said to them, ‘What is this wicked thing you are doing—desecrating the Sabbath day? Didn’t your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath.’" As leaders, the Pharisees were responsible to protect Israel from further judgment that would undoubtedly come from God if Sabbath breakers were allowed to continue. They were helping the whole community by calling the people to observe the Sabbath and by persecuting those who refused.

Why, then, did Jesus not follow the Sabbath rules of the Pharisees? Because the Pharisees included human rules in the Sabbath restrictions.

God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai gave principles for what it meant to keep the Sabbath. Over the years, rabbis and scribes had to decide cases in the “gray areas.” Human interpretations were added to the Biblical commands, such as how many steps could be walked and what could be lifted without being considered work.

The Pharisees also added boundaries that were more restrictive. By the time of Jesus the laws enforced by the Pharisees were hardly recognizable as having to do with God’s law. Jesus’ Sabbath “violations” fell in the area of the human traditions, not in the area of God’s covenant.

In Matthew 12:11-12 “He said to them, ‘If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold if it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.’” In their intricate system of do’s and don’ts, they had reversed the priority God intended. Jesus also criticized their Sabbath traditions in Mark 7:6-9 and John 7:23. But he did not criticize them for taking the Sabbath seriously under the Law.

Let’s read with our eyes open.

Revelation in the Text

2005-05-31T10:31:00.000-07:00

God's revelation to us is the text of Scripture. While the events described in Scripture may have constituted God's revelation to the people who experienced them, those events are not Scripture. We need to be careful to draw our theology and lessons for godly living from the words of the Bible, not from our attempts to reconstruct the events the Bible talks about.

Example: In the garden of Eden God told Adam and Eve (and the serpent) that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. This was a revelation to them about God's character and plan. It was not a revelation to Cain and Abel (or to us), because they (and we) weren't there to hear it. Adam and Eve may have recounted the story of what God said to their children and grandchildren. That story may have been retold many times through the generations--with greater or lesser accuracy. None of those tellings can be considered "The Word of God." They would be, at best, a version of the story of the event which was a revelation to Adam and Eve.

However, when the Spirit of God inspired Moses in the writing of Genesis, the written text of Moses became God's official, inerrant version of the event and the official Torah (instruction) from God to all readers. It was from that moment on "The Word of God." God revealed to us all that He thought important for us to know about the event and all that we need to know to understand God and to live godly lives (when combined with all other inspired Scripture, of course). Later, Isaiah, Paul, and John wrote additional Scriptures about the event in the garden. As these were written, they increased the amount of revelation from God about believers' appropriate faith and practice.

Archaeological findings, noninspired texts from the ancient near east, and lucky guesses about these events might confirm the accuracy of the Biblical account. They also might help us to reconstruct details about the events that are omitted from the Bible. But, neither these extraBiblical sources nor the reconstructed stories they lead to are God's revelation to us. It is dangerous to build our understanding of God (or our ideas of how God wants us to live) on details the Spirit-guided authors of Scripture did not give us. Also, we should not base our theology or practice on interpretations of details they did not give us.

Occasionally it is legitimate to supply some “Bible Background” material, due to losses in translation. We lose some understanding of the text by going from one language to another, such as nuances of definition and sentence structure. We also lose something by going from one era to another (Iron Age to Space Age, for example), such as the historical and geographical realities that would have been immediately known by the original readers. We also lose something by going from one culture to another (agrarian to urban, for example), such as understanding how food was prepared or how families operated.

The supply of this missing information may be necessary, but it is risky, because it is an opportunity to distort the text's meaning by adding details that the author chose to omit. How sure can we be that the background information we give helps to clarify, rather than changes the meaning or emphasis?

Because God speaks to us through the words and sentences of the Bible, it is important to read with our eyes open.

Who Made Fun of Noah?

2005-05-29T21:00:00.000-07:00

An important part of most sermons and Sunday School lessons about Noah and the flood is the account of how Noah's neighbors ridiculed him for building a boat in the middle of dry land. Or, they made fun of him for preaching that God would send a flood of water to drown everyone. Everyone knew, the story goes, that it had never rained so much as a drop. The idea was preposterous and people let Noah know it. But, according to the sermonic point, Noah believed God and continued building the ark, to the salvation of his family and all the animals.

Only one problem: the Bible nowhere mentions that people made fun of Noah. If we read Genesis 6-9 with our eyes open, we will notice that there is no hint of ridicule or mocking of Noah's plan. True, there is no indication that others accepted the fact of their danger and sought to be saved along with Noah's family. But, in their fatal unbelief they did not persecute him with laughter or name-calling. Several other Scripture writers mention Noah and the flood, but none of them talks about mockery or making fun of Noah, either.

Someone replies, "Well, maybe not, but isn't it just human nature to ridicule what we do not believe? Even if the Bible doesn't say they did it, can't we assume that they did?"

My answer: "Let's put what the Bible teaches in one category and our speculations about events in another." What Moses wrote down in Genesis may not be all the details that actually happened, but it is all the details God thought were important for the teaching He was giving through the Scripture. God guided the Biblical authors in the selection of details to include as well as in the instruction built into the stories.

When we add from our own imagination any details God did not include, we are not reading with our eyes open. Especially when the teaching point we draw from the story comes from the details we have added, our teaching is something other than what God is saying.

The Apostle Peter refers to the flood in 2 Peter 3:5-6 as a reminder that God has judged the world suddenly in the past by breaking the normal rules of nature. And, his point is, God will do it again. This reference is in the context of predicting that a later generation of unbelievers will scoff at the notion of Christ's return. It would have been helpful to Peter's argument here, if he could have mentioned that people in Noah's day also scoffed and ridiculed. The argument from silence here is strong, meaning that the Bible is not only silent on the suggested ridicule but also favors the conclusion that people did not ridicule Noah's faith.

Let's read with our eyes open.