7 Ways to Destroy a Marriage

1.) Stop communicating. 

Ephesians 5:23-30 says,

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body....Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her...So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;  for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body."

In life, our bodies constantly communicate with our heads, and vice versa. What happens if suddenly that communication stops? Usually paralysis, and if it's bad enough, death. Communication both ways is needed for the the organism to survive, and in marriage we are considered "one flesh" and thus one organism.  If you want to kill any relationship, stop communicating. It'll be dead before you know it.








2.) Confide in a friend of the opposite sex. 

What routinely kills marriages is one partner developing strong emotional bonds with someone of the opposite sex. This is true of any romantic relationship. If you need emotional support, go to your spouse. Your spouse must be your best friend. 1 Cor 13:4 reminds us that, "love does not envy," and if you're making your spouse jealous for the bond he/she wants to have with you, you're introducing something which is certainly not love. 

If you let someone else take the place of your partner emotionally, sexually, or physically, you're making a choice to tear down everything that you've built.









3.) Demean or insult your spouse.

Eph 5:29 points out that in a marriage, "no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church." If you are belittling your spouse instead of encouraging him/her, there's no nourishment going on. The relationship will grow as well as a plant watered with paint thinner, because insults and belittling statements cause envy and are utterly toxic. 

It's worth noting that comparing your spouse or romantic interest negatively to someone else is the absolute most deadly thing to do. "Well Jerry is more manly," or, "Jessica's a lot more feminine" shows that not only do you not appreciate the one you claim to love, but that you're thinking about someone else, too...and viewing them as a more desirable mate.








4.) Stop having sex.

Sex is a great thing which God has provided, and is an intimate thing between only you and your spouse. It is a bond that has been committed to with words, and, at a physiological level, even with chemicals. It you stop seeing it as important, your relationship will almost certainly head downhill, unless there is mutual apathy, in which case it's already in trouble. Look at the importance that God places on it in 1 Cor 7:3-5,

"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

If you stop making love, you give Satan another avenue to tempt and try to destroy a marriage.







5.) Start keeping secrets.

I once saw a post that discussed relationships which were budding, and it said:

 “The Detective Rule”. "The idea is simple: if you find yourself playing detective with someone, you remove them from your life immediately. Remember your Constant? Do you play detective with them? Do you cyberstalk their Facebook page and question their every intention? No, of course not. So you know the common denominator is external."

God speaks in Job about trust, and there are two types which play out. In Job 11:18, there is trust that is solid, "“Then you would trust, because there is hope; And you would look around and rest securely."  Notice the confidence and ability to rest well and be at peace. On the other hand, if our spouse keeps secrets, we start to have "confidence that is fragile, and trust that is a spider's web."  (Job 8:14)

Don't keep secrets. You'll both be able to sleep easily at night.








6.) Spend lots of time around people who don't like your spouse or loved one.

I have seen this one happen a LOT.  Every time I've seen it, it's been the mother or father (or both) who hate who their child has married or is in love with. This is a recipe for disaster because, as Matthew 6:24 notes, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Suddenly the spouse will be trying to maintain the relationship with the friends or family who dislike who he/she has married, and in doing so, they have to subtly ally themselves with these individuals.  

If that happens, we need to remember that, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24)  A new family has been made, and bitterness from an old family cannot be present. The husband and wife must be one flesh, and must both refuse to allow an emotional war to take place. 








7.) Quit trying.

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying 'I will try again tomorrow.'" —Mary Radmacher 

If your goal is success, you must keep striving toward it. If neither partner gives up, success will result, but if just one partner gives up, destruction is guaranteed.  "And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up...Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts." ( Gal 6:9 & Zech 4:6)

Are you keeping secrets?

BQ: One of the worst places we can get as a Christian is where we're doing nasty stuff and trying to keep it on the down-low; making sure that it stays secret. Eph 5:11-12 says, 

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.  For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret."

If we're keeping our nasty habits a secret, we can't get the help that we need to overcome them. If you have a tough personal issue, find a brother or sister who is willing to help you and reach out to them.  Alcoholics Anonymous figured this out, but often we have too much pride! 

BQ: Sometimes Christians will do stuff that isn't becoming and say that it's not that bad, but...at the same time, they won't tell anyone at assembly/church about it. 2 Timothy 2:15 says,  

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed."

When we're hiding stuff from people, it's often because we're ashamed. A good rule of thumb is, "if you wouldn't want everyone at assembly knowing about it, it's probably best not to do it."

BQ: Sometimes we are able to push our consciences to the side while we are ourselves doing rotten things. Something I also ask myself to wake myself up is, "Is what I'm doing now something I'd want my son or daughter to do? Is it something that I'd condone them doing?" 

Proverbs 22:6 says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."  

If you swear a lot, your child has a large chance of doing the same. If you hang out at the bars, you'd better imagine your daughter doing the same, and taking the same risks, especially with driving, being unable to reach others spiritually, and messing up sexually.  Better than that, though, is having a love for your children, and the children of those around you, and instead acting like Christ. PS-I don't have kids, but I love them, so it still works for me. One day!

Do we have the Holy Spirit, or just the spirit of man?

BQ: Some people will say that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is simply "the spirit," meaning that of man, and not the Spirit of God. Is there any evidence that this is false?

Well yep, there's a lot of evidence. In the Greek, the word "pneuma" can mean both breath and spirit. Often the translators made it "Holy Spirit" based on context. However, some places explicitly modify the phraseology to specifically mean the spirit of deity.  For example, 2 Tim 1:14 says, "Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you." This isn't a generic penuma/breath/spirit, but it is modified by "hagios," meaning, "sacred, holy." 

A good question is, "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" (1 Cor 6:19)






BQ: Yesterday we saw some evidence that a "holy spirit" inhabits Christians, but what if it just means, "sacred spirit," and it's just man's spirit that we need to consider sacred? Is there any other evidence that it's more than just the spirit of man?

You know that the answer is yes, huh? : P Two references we see are in the original texts as 'pneuma theos' and 'pneuma christos,' which translated mean, "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ." Observe Romans 8:9-11

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

Can a man wear a hat while praying?

Part 1: A General Look at This Hairy Issue

Someone once said that a man was sinning because he said a prayer while wearing a hat. I did some research, and my very rudimentary notes are below. Please note: the article’s picture is nonsense.

The Origin

The thought mentioned above comes from 1 Corinthians 11:4, which says, “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” OUCH! Hats are right out! But…is there more to the story?

Yes, and it’ll take a little bit to work through. “Having his head covered/has something on his head” is, however, a commentary, and not a translation. Translated accurately the phrase is rendered, “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in in this exact verse.

So Is It Actually About Hats?

What does this mean? The answer is revealed later in the text, in 1 Cor 11:14-15, which says,“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?“

Long hair hangs down from the head. God said that a MAN should not pray with this “covering,” but did not exclude women from wearing it while praying. Why? Because long hair was considered appropriate for women, in my understanding, at least. (And I believe that there ARE cultural considerations in the texts, so as not to cause people to stumble.)

Speaking of which, God was focusing on men having hair that was shorter, and women hair that was longer.: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” (1 Cor 11:5)

The word here translated as “unveiled” is “akatakaluptos.” It carries no meaning of “garment” or “hat” in any sense, and instead means “not completely covered.” Without the first “a” in the Greek, it would mean “covered completely.” Why would Paul discuss this with those at Corinth specifically? The reason, if one studies the history of the situation, seems to be because the female prostitutes at the Acrocorinth’s temple to Aphrodite wore their hair cropped. God desired the people of Corinth to be free of such associations.

So…Not a Garment? AKA: The Ancients Say WHAT?

It seems that Paul was not speaking of any kind of garment, because he said in 1 Cor 11:15, “For her hair is given her instead of a covering.”

This is, in fact, the only time in the section that Paul mentions a garment of any sort, using the word “peribolaion.” Furthermore, even here he states that the woman’s hair takes the place of it.

1 Cor 11:6 says, “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.”

The wording of this section says that the “covering” will be “cut off,” or “shorn.” How often do we “cut” hats off of our heads? Hopefully never, unless we’re being unwise with super glue. 

The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words: 

“The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.”

Significantly, the words “hang far down” strongly resemble Paul’s words “having something down from his head.” The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century.

So Why This Detail?

So what is the point of all of this? Is there any lesson for Christians today in this? I think so.

Any time that Christian men or women adopt styles of clothing or hair that are associated with immoral behavior, we need to revise what we’re doing. God is not strangely concerned with hats, but rather our behavior. Don’t dress like a prostitute (if there is such an outfit), don’t go out to bars and adopt associated behaviors…these would all be modern corollaries to the situation in Corinth. 

A Note on the Order of Creation and the Impact of Culture

Now Paul does day, “for this reason,” and mentions the creation argument (man created first, women deceived, etc.), which I feel that we can latch onto sans much context. Maybe culture has nothing to do with anything, and all women need to have very long hair; even if they’re older or going through cancer treatments.

Personally, I think this process of thought makes some basic mistakes with reasoning and logic. If you’re unfamiliar with how these terms are related, keep read, otherwise skip to the next paragraph. Reason and logic are two concepts which are intrinsically tied together. Reason is a way that we work through a problem, through a set of deductions, to get from point A to point B. We reason our way through things. Logic is the rules we apply to reasoning. It’s the fundamental parameters that we apply to working through a problem. But if our logic is flawed, our reasoning will never bring us to the correct answer, no matter how good the reasoning seems. Simply put, reasoning is a system, and logic is the rules applied to that system. 

It seems seems that some people miss the point of the cultural argument just a bit when they rely entirely upon what I’m calling the “order of creation argument.”

First of all, just because an author cites a moral principle to defend a specific practice doesn’t mean that a practice necessarily becomes moral. For example, if I were asked by someone whether or not a Christian wife should take her husbands last name, or to keep her own last name, in order to show her independence from her husband, I would defend her taking her husbands last name. I would also probably do so using arguments similar to those Paul uses in 1 Cor. 11, like the creation order and the roles of men and women. If, however, I was in a culture where the wife did not take a husbands last name, I would not demand that a wife do so, because the cultural action doesn’t carry the same moral significance.Think of this another way using the example of foot washing.

1. Christ commands the Apostles to wash each other’s feet.

2. Every principle from which Christ derives this practice is a permanent and universal principle, i.e. the necessity of Christ cleansing us, the Lordship of Christ over his disciples, the command to follow Christ’s example, and the necessity of serving one another.

3. If the constituent premises from which a practice are derived are perpetual and universal, then the practice itself is perpetual and universal.

Conclusion. The command to wash one another’s feet is perpetual and universal.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that if a premise of an argument carries a specific attribute, then the conclusion must carry the attribute as well. This seems to be similar to the fallacy of composition.The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). So, if one says, “all of these bricks are rectangular, therefore the wall they build with these bricks will be rectangular,” one would be in violation of this rule of logic. Simply because one constituent part carries a particular attribute, it does not follow that the whole carries this particular attribute. Simply because all constituent parts carry a particular attribute, it does not follow that the whole carries a particular attribute. Sodium, if ingested on its own will kill you. Chlorine, if ingested on its own will kill you. Sodium Chloride (table salt) if ingested as a compound is necessary to human life. 

An attribute of the constituent parts cannot be carried over to the composite whole. Your argument essentially runs like this. Every premise that the Apostle builds his case off of is a permanent and universal truth, therefore, when combined together, whatever is deduced from these truths must be permanent and universal as well. This does not logically follow.

Think back to the foot washing example. There are some Christians today that would make this exact line of argumentation. What would your arguments be against this line of thinking? What lines of reasoning could you use to refute this position that I could not in turn use to argue against head coverings?

Another way of thinking about this is by thinking of all the various bodily gestures that are used by various cultures to express insult or contempt. Brushing your hand from your chin, making an “o.k.” sign or extending your middle finger might be completely meaningless in one culture, but highly offensive in another. If we, as Christians, are in those cultures where such signs are offensive, the universal obligations on Christians, such as loving all men, living in peace as far as we are able, and avoiding offense, bind us to not use those gestures. If we were in a culture where those signs carry an opposite meaning of approval, we are free to use them accordingly. It would seem to me that to use this line of argumentation, and demand that whatever is derived from a universal and moral principle is therefore universal and moral, would undermine the use of Christian wisdom and discernment. After all isn’t part of the point of the book of Proverbs that the same universal and moral principles need to be applied differently depending on the context and circumstance?

Also, it needs to be noted that as a supporter of a cultural interpretation, I am not arguing that Paul is asking Christians to take their dress from pagan Greek “worship services.” In Deuteronomy 12: 29-32, God explicitly commands the Israelites not to look around them at the “worship practices” of the pagan nations and borrow from them. I don’t think Paul would ask Christians to do that either in their assemblies, but I also believe that we fundamentally undermine the point of our assemblies when we see them as vertically-oriented “worship services,” and leave off the horizontal orientation, person-to-person, unto edification, as God has specified. 

Anyway, Paul is asking them to use the common dress practices from their everyday lives inside assembly as well as outside of assembly. It is of worthwhile historical note that the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist confession, and the Savoy Declaration all defend the phrase, “There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,” by citing 1 Cor. 11: 13 & 14. Although I think that this misses the point of assembly, it helps understand how culture plays an influence on our perceptual filters.

All three of these Reformed confessions see head coverings as an action, “Common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence.” It should also be noted that out of all three of these documents (and also the Westminster Catechisms, and Directory for Public Worship), this is the only circumstance where the subject of head coverings even comes up.

Part 2: Another Perspective

1 Cor 11 gets a ton of people in a tizzy. It’s hard to understand. But hey, even 2 Peter mentions that somethings written by our “beloved brother Paul…are hard to understand.” (15-16)

But what about this stuff! Can a guy wear a hat while praying? What about women? (Uh oh…why are women praying and prophesying in this passage, anyway?)

Someone once remarked that, in terms of ancient (ie, what we might call “Old Testament”) usage, having disheveled, messy, unkempt hair and an “uncovered head” are one in the same thing. Ie, the issue was typically about the hair.

1 Corinthians 11 is similar to Leviticus 10:6 in that some passages render the Aramaic para’/פָרַע as “do not uncover your heads” (KJV), though many believe that it is better rendered as “Do not let your hair become disheveled” (Berean Study Bible), or, ‘Let not the hair of your heads go loose” (JPS Tanakh 1917).

It is pointed out that either of these translations can be used, but Leviticus 13:45 and 21:10 illustrate that this is not a matter of hats (covered vs uncovered) when used in such a manner, but of the hair. Respectively, those verses say:

A.) “The person who has a case of serious skin disease is to have his clothes torn and his hair hanging loose, and he must cover his mouth and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean!’

B.) “The priest who is highest among his brothers, who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair hang loose or tear his garments.”

We can see how this relates to what was apparently the standard for women in Numbers 5:18 :

C.) “And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse.”

Having messy hair was not appropriate for women or priests, and was certainly not considered one’s “best before the Lord.” If a man dresses or keeps his hair in a feminine way (pigtails?), that also shows a disregard for the natural order, as appointed by God.

I think that verses 13-16 mostly solve our issues with this passage, or could solve it, if we keep in mind how “uncovered” is used as seen previously. Using that, read the following:

D.) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering. But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.

I personally believe, as Paul said, that it was a tradition that they had, based on cultural circumstances. Prior to the passage, Paul remarks on men not being effeminate.

In some cases, this could be due to hair (say, wearing pigtails and lipstick), but in other cases, in our culture, long hair isn’t—when special forces guys let their hair get longer, I don’t think that anyone would accuse them of not being manly. 

I don’t think it has to do with hats, though oddly the later-codified Mishneh Torah (Jewish explanation of the Torah) stipulates that it is wrong for men to *not wear* an actual hat of some sort while praying. This may have evolved from the Jewish custom of wearing a special turban in the tabernacle, eventually becoming a symbol of piety for the Jews. 

I could argue either way, but personally I’m persuaded by the cultural/ordering view, and its relation to hair. 

Lastly, for giggles, I’d like to add this interesting note from the Traveling Rabbi:

Above: Hair Covering Example: Wig and Scarf
Women have many ways to cover their hair. In this photo my friend wears a wig, or sheitel, while I wear a scarf, or tichel.

Igrot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer, Vol. 1, 58:

The actual Talmudic prohibition is against Jewish women going out with their hair unkempt, so if only a few strands are visible one cannot infer that all the hair is unkempt. Therefore, these strands are not a problem. There is an amount called a tefah, which is about 8-10 cm, or half the width of the head. You are permitted to show just under 1 square tefah of hair. (Usually a good rule is 2 finger widths.)

We then had a nice discussion about some other issues, such as women who shave their heads. Some hassidic women do this after marriage so they never risk showing their hair. They wear a head covering at all times and wear fancy wigs just for their husbands. However, this practice has been discouraged by modern poskim, unless you are a member of one of these sects.

One of the reasons hair is covered, aside from because G-d said so, is that it is considered to be one of the most sensual parts of a woman and one of the most sexually attractive parts. A married woman does not need to show this to men other than her husband. Also, a head-covering can indicate to other men that she is married. Also, like tzitzit for a man, a woman’s head-covering reminds her of Hashem’s presence… and even more than that, reminds her that she is married.

We also talked about the mystical significance of hair, which some say represents creativity and the creative force. Men are conduits and bring that creative force down from shemayim (heaven) but women need to contain and refine it. Therefore, a woman covers her hair to contain and control her creative forces, allowing her to take her husband’s creative forces and shape them into something more useful.

With love and a little smile,

-Luke

Can women speak in the assembly?

Please note that this is one of several ways of non-bindingly examining some confusing scriptures. There are a plethora of ways to look at every piece of the Bible, but only two are presented here. Furthermore, regardless of the number, only one is correct. Please do your own research and look at more than just this point of view.  There are at least 4 others that I can think of immediately. 

BQ: We're going to start off by looking at 1 Cor 14:34-38 (NASB) in depth. We'll refer to this text for a whole series, so keep it in mind. Let's get rolling:
 

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."

These verses seem to imply that women can't speak in assembly. Is it deeper than that? Yes.  Here Paul seems to say that women must not speak. A few chapters before, in 1 Cor 11, he gave various rules about both men AND women speaking, however.  Verse 5 shows that women did indeed speak, saying, "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." 







BQ: We're looking at 1 Cor 14:34-38. Yesterday we saw that women were talked of as both prophesying and praying. Why does 1 Cor 14 say they must not speak? Let's look at some translation issues. Verse 34 says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." The part where it says "the women" here comes from Greek, " αἱ γυναῖκες, which is "hai gynakies," or more rudimentarily,  "hai gune."  In most standard translations, the "hai" is not correlated with an interlinear reference, but it is indeed there. What differences does it make?

The word for "women" in this case, is also the exact same word for wives. So it can also be read as "The wives" are to keep silent in the churches. This makes sense, because how can an unmarried woman as her non-existent husband? She can't! Tomorrow, we look at "hai."






BQ: We saw that 1 Cor 14:34-38 was applied via Greek and context to wives. The word "αἱ/hai" is also used. This is the feminine form of "Οἱ/hoi." 

Why does it matter? Because the Greeks had a LOT of ways to translate "the." Hai and hoi are very often translated as "those," not the.  If you have various translations on hand, you can examine the following verses and see that some translate it as "the," and others as "those." Look up some verses such as John 6:14; 8:26, Romans 8:5, 1 Cor 10:18; 15:18; 15:23, Gal 3:9; 5:24; 6:13, 1 Thess 5:7, 1 Tim 3:13, and 2 Tim 1:15 and 3:6.  

Let's look at just John 6:14. First, the NASB: "Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

Now the KJV:  "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." 

Now let's apply that to 1 Cor 14:34. "THOSE wives are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."

Makes a difference, doesn't it? 






BQ: So if someone were talking about "those wives" in 1 Corinthians 14:34, why would they have wanted them silent? We saw that in earlier chapters they were indeed taught to be speaking, and, like men, to be doing it without bringing dishonor. What, then, was wrong with these ladies?

Well we have to ask, "what wives?" To ascertain this, we need to look at the context. The verses proceeding this are talking of spiritual gifts, and especially speaking in tongues, so we need to go to the section mentioning spiritual gifts primarily, and in this case, it's in 1 Cor 12. Let's see if anyone was misusing spiritual gifts and in need of being made to shush:

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.  You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.  Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." (1-3)

It is indicated here that some were using false spiritual gifts to curses Jesus—truly wrong. Could this be it? You decide, but the original Greek will reveal an entirely new aspect of the discussion.






BQ: Yesterday we saw that 1 Cor 12 had a section mentioning some saying, "Jesus is cursed." The interesting thing is that, in the Greek, there are no punctuation marks to add the quotations. In fact, it's all UPPERCASELOOKINGCAPITALLETTERSWITHOUTPUNCTUATION.  The translators themselves had to determine where to put the periods, question marks, and quotations. I've attached a picture to make it easier to visualize. 

​
Some translations, such as the NASB, don't bother to insert quotation marks very often. Let's look at an example. 1 Cor 6:13 says, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (NASB) Or it says (NRSV): “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,”and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

Notice how the quotes make a difference? One shows that Paul is enlightening and attacking what the Corinthians have said, showing their error through comparison and contrast. But is that what he's doing? Let's see more tomorrow.







BQ: Yesterday we saw that MAYBE Paul was really refuting some things that the Corinthians had written to him in correspondence. But how do we know that they ever told him anything ludicrous? How do we know that it was almost a point-counterpoint style of writing? Well, if we read 1 Cor 7:1, we see that indeed he was having a dialog:

 "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.""

So they were indeed writing him, telling him about the issues that they had as a congregation. 1 Cor 3 mentions the divisions within the assembly, and how immature they were, so Paul had to do some teaching. Tomorrow we'll look at more evidence of this.






BQ: We saw that, in 1 Corinthians, Paul was addressing some of the issues that the assembly there had. We saw that the originals had no punctuation, so translators have added it where they thought was best, and some just didn't bother at all. Let's look at another verse where quotation marks make a difference. This time, we will pull from Rotherham's translation to look at 1 Cor 6:12, which says:

"All things, unto me, are allowable, but, not all things, are profitable: all things, unto me, are allowable, but, I, will not be brought under authority by any."

The word there is "allowable," or "permissible." Now let's look at it with the point-counterpoint quotations added:

"“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything." 

Think about it—does God permit ALL things? No! When viewing this as Paul corresponding with the Corinthians about their immature points of view, it makes more sense. We'll see why that's important in regards to women speaking tomorrow.






BQ: So we saw that Paul was often chastising the Corinthians for their poor behavior, and now we're going to apply that to...1 Cor 14:34-38. Examine it like this:

QUOTE "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." UNQUOTE 

PAUL RESPONDS: "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.  But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."

That changes things significantly, doesn't it? Corinthians saying that women must not speak, as the "Law" says, but must be quiet. We'll see more tomorrow.






BQ:  So we looked at women speaking and saw some evidence that Paul was writing in a point-counterpoint style when speaking of women not speaking, and instead of telling women never to speak, and contradicting himself, as he wrote earlier, he was rather saying that it was not ok to say that women must not speak. But why do we think that Paul was refuting some nonsense by the Corinthians? Isn't that a little bit too easy?

Verse 36, where the attribution of Paul speaking was inserted, says, "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" (NASB) However, in some versions it says, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (KJV)

 Why does that "what" exist? It's because the original Greek has a symbol that is called a "rhetorical eta." It looks like a little n with ears on top (ἢ), and when used by itself, means something like, "What nonsense!" or "That's ridiculous!" or "How absurd!"   

So, immediately after saying that women must not speak in the churches, Paul exclaims, "That's ridiculous!" and follows it up by sarcastically asking if they have some special revelation. Makes a difference, doesn't it?






BQ: But wait, is this "rhetorical eta" used anywhere else by Paul? Well indeed it is, in addressing the Corinthians, who as we saw had written him a pile of silliness and were very immature. Here are some examples:

1 Cor. 10:21-22—"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. [RHETORICAL ETA Nonsense/that's gargabe/ridiculous!] Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?"

1 Cor. 11:13-14--"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?" [RHETORICAL ETA Nonsense/that's gargabe/ridiculous!] Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."

We see here that it isn't a one-off thing. Instead, it's used by Paul to make a point when something is patently absurd.






BQ: Something else to consider is the fact that, in the following places, Paul quotes the Old Testament Law: 1 Cor 1:19;31; 2:9; 10:7, 14:21. In 14:21, he quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 and says, "In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me."  

In each case where Paul (and thus God) quotes the Law, he inserts the actual scriptures. Let's look again at 1 Cor 14:34, which says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."

Notice that Paul does not actually quote the Law here. Why is that? It's because the Old Testament never says this at all. In fact, the closest one can get is a Pharisically-created rabbinical tradition being espoused as "Law," which is in fact never uttered by God. 






BQ: So we've examined that. What other evidence is there that women may indeed speak in the assemblies? Let's look at some of just a few women who spoke publicly and had the approval of God:

1. Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her (Exodus 15:20).

2. And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time ... and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment (Judges 4:4,5).

3. So Hilkiah the priest ... went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum ... and they communed with her (2 Kings 22:14).

Clearly, the prophetesses of the Old Testament exercised their gift publicly, even the priests and the king being subject to what they said. So tomorrow let's see if women had to just zip it in the New Testament. 






BQ: So we saw that women could speak in public in the Old Testament, now how about the New? Yep:

(1) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel ... which departed not from the temple ... and spake of him (Christ) to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem (Luke 2:36-38).

(2) The apostle Peter, on Pentecost, cited the Old Testament scriptures which prophesied that in the times of the new testament, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17).

(3) "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea;  that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the [b]saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." (Romans 16:1-2)

Note that "deaconess" can also be translated as "servant," but in whatever case, she had an important and independent role. Furthermore, extra-Biblical resources indicate that women performed somewhat official functions, with Pliny (close to Paul's death) writing of the early church, "After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavour to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate  in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition."

Many consider those two females to have been the equivalent of Phoebe, but this is supposition.






BQ: Is there anything else that makes women stand out in the New Testament? Yep.

(1) "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,  who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles;  also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia.  Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.  Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom 16:3-7)

Of those mentioned, Junias is the only uncertain one. Junias was considered by the majority of the early church "fathers" to have been a female, and in all the Greek manuscripts, it is denoted a feminine. With that said, it is a name somewhat like "Leslie," and can be either masculine or feminine.   

Still, consider that Mary and Priscilla were also mentioned, and that Priscilla is rather stunning, as she is most often mentioned before her husband. This is not at all normal for the culture and Greek, and would be similar to us getting a piece of mail to "Mrs. and Mr. Lastname."






BQ: We saw one look at Priscilla, but I felt that it was important to mention something that one commentator wrote:

"Amazingly, she is mentioned first, even ahead of her husband, and first of all those whom Paul was about to name. From this it has been concluded that she was more active and successful in Christian work than her husband Aquila; for not merely here, but in Acts 18:18,26, and 2 Timothy 4:19, the same preeminence of Priscilla is indicated; however, in Acts 18:2,1 Corinthians 16:19, Aquila is mentioned first.

There were doubtless very good reasons why this couple should have headed the list of all whom Paul desired to salute in Rome, and some have supposed that Prisca was of the Roman nobility; but we cannot believe that anything of that nature would have carried any weight whatever with Paul. There were qualities of character and service involved in the bestowal of such honor as was given this great Christian woman, an honor above even that of her husband; and it is natural to think of their laying "down their own necks" on Paul's behalf, an action in which Prisca might well have been the principal participant, encouraged and supported by her husband." (—James Coffman) 






BQ:  We've seen that women were very active in the New Testament, and that they were not forbidden to speak. However, it is true that the Old and New Testaments place man as the head of woman as a principle. (Gen 3:16, 2:18, etc.) Furthermore, some positions were given only to men, such as the positions of evangelist and elder. For example, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife." (1 Tim 3:2)

If we were to make a woman an elder, it would "usurp authority from a man,". The idea of "teaching a man" as a violation of that law, or speaking in the assembly answering questions as part of the audience is, however, far-fetched. Did Priscilla usurp authority over Apollos when she (and her husband) taught him the word of God (Acts 18:24). Nope!  

In fact, women are told to speak, and not just in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs, but also praying and prophesying—yet in many congregations, they are not found praying for fear of "stepping out of line." I have even met some Christian females who would not teach an un-baptized male because they could not "teach a man."  It's a horrible state to be in, and one that undermines our effectiveness for God. 

There is much more that can be said about this subject, and I will probably post more research in future BQs, but for now, I've run out of time, and air traffic controlling calls. 

The Barnabases among us.

BQ:  Acts 9 describes how Saul of Tarsus, after his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus, was trying to associate with Christians. He had a tough go of it, since Christians avoided him like the plague—after all, he'd been murdering them. Let's read Acts 9:26-27 and see who helped him:

"When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus."

Everyone knows a ton about Paul in the New Testament, but sometimes we gloss over what we view as "lesser" characters. Above, we saw that Barnabas was a very forgiving, kind, and, in his own fashion, brave man. What do you know about Barnabas? Over the next few days, we'll learn more about this awesome man.





BQ: Yesterday we saw that Paul was alone after his conversion, but Barnabas gave him a second chance and trusted him. Paul was always a fiery individual. Let's read Acts 15:36-41 and see some more about the character of Paul and Barnabas:

"After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.”  Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.  But Paul chose Silas and left."

Here we see that Paul was very upset over a past wrongdoing, and not willing to put up with a chance of a relapse on the part of John Mark. Ignoring that, though, look at what it reveals about Barnabas. When Paul was looking to overcome his horrible past, Barnabas came to him and helped him when no others world.    Barnabas, we can see, is a very loving, caring, kind, forgiving, and patient. 





BQ: We've seen that Barnabas was very courageous and willing to give people second chances. When Paul wanted to join the Christians, Barnabas was the one who was willing to help him out. When John Mark wanted to re-join after his defection, Barnabas gave him another chance. 

We can learn a lot more about Barnabas, who was an exceptional individual. We really first encounter him in Acts 4:36-37, which says, "Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet."

Barnabas was not only forgiving, but giving as well, and a son of encouragement.  What we can also tell is that people of various personalities can do great things for God. Paul was also an awesome man, but not at all like Barnabas, yet they are both given recognition for helping people. 






BQ: Barnabas, we know, was encouraging, giving, forgiving, and willing to take risks to help people. We've also seen that, even in assemblies, a great person might have a sharp disagreement with you over something, as Paul did with Barnabas in regards to keeping John Mark around.  What can we learn from this?

One thing is to not let this hurt our self-worth.  No matter what Paul felt about Barnabas, Barnabas was still known as the Son of Encouragement. Also, disagreements aren't a reason to think poorly of the other person. Just like with Paul and Barnabas, we each serve a different purpose. Paul reached people that Barnabas didn't, and Barnabas reached people that Paul didn't. :) Don't let a squabble damage your ability to serve!




BQ: There's a lot to know about Barnabas. We've seen that, in many ways, he was simply a very kind and giving man. Acts 11:22-26 really highlights the need for people like him.

"They sent Barnabas off to Antioch.  Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;  for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;  and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

Barnabas is called a good man, and fully of the Holy Spirit and faith. His attitude is one of rejoicing and, as was his nature, encouragement. More than that, he was steadfast and resolute, and he brought many people to God. Barnabas also wasn't one to hog the limelight, but when he saw opportunity, he went to find Paul to help out! In fact, where Barnabas was teaching for an entire year was the first time we saw people being called Christians.

While certain people in the Bible get more attention than others, lesser-known individuals like Barnabas are just as important. :)  What can you learn from him?

Bottoms up!

BQ: According to the CDC, "Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year. Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion."  

That's a pretty staggering bunch of numbers to see! When I worked in EMS, it was always my lot to get the weekend night shifts, which meant dealing with lots of carnage from alcohol. God long ago noted the same thing, using Is 5:11-13 to describe an ancient party scene:  

"Woe to those who...stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them! Their banquets are accompanied by lyre and harp, by tambourine and flute, and by wine; But they do not pay attention to the deeds of the Lord, Nor do they consider the work of His hands."  

Often people wait until night to start getting really wasted, and it's no surprise—alcohol degrades our ability to function. More important, though, is that alcohol in excess limits our connection to our Lord. If we want to be like Christ, we have to back away from drunkenness.

BQ: Isaiah mentioned an ancient scene of nighttime drunkenness, and it's pretty revealing that often drunkenness, theft, and other such degradation of the human condition occurs at night. I like how Romans 13:13 hints at this, saying, "Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy."

Often people are simply more apt to behave horribly at night. Why? Because darkness usually conceals the evil, at least in the minds of men. It's better to behave properly, as we would behave if we had an audience observing us in broad daylight! Always be upright.  

BQ: Rock Springs, WY was a hive of scum and villainy at times, at least for those of us working the late-night 911 shifts. One thing interesting about alcohol abuse is that it's often associated with sexual misconduct, too. This isn't anything new, and God noted in Habakkuk 2:15, 

"Woe to you who make your neighbors drink,

Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk

So as to look on their nakedness!"

Rock Springs featured a lot worse than that, but it was true that evil hasn't really changed. I saw a lot of rapes take place, to both men and women, that could only occur because of immersion in a really wretched culture. It's a good thing to stay away from places that feature the likes of what Habakkuk mentions, and worse. 

BQ: Peer pressure is a nasty, nasty thing, and one that we often convince ourselves that we're not susceptible to. What does God say about it? The most concise thing that I've found is Proverbs 1:10, which says, "if sinners entice you, do not consent."

It's really easy to be enticed to sin, and it's often an insidious, dark road to go down, without signposts to warn you how far you've gone. 2 Pet 1:5-7 has the entire way to counter this. Take a look at this full armor against peer pressure:

"Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,  and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,  and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." 

Notice the compounding nature of what's being mentioned, and look right in the middle at what's featured: self-control. If we give in to peer pressure, we're letting others control us. To fight against peer pressure, start off with diligence, faith, and moral excellence, and build on that foundation.

BQ: I'm still getting around to posting some older BQs, so these are somewhat linear. :) Alcohol and going to the bars is incredibly prevalent and accepted in American society, but does God want it to be a part of Christian culture? That's rhetorical, but let's consider some reasons why.  

Alcohol, and especially bars, have been called a "meat market" by some. It lowers our inhibitions and puts us in contact with people who are doing the same; it destroys our judgment and can alter our lives forever. In Gen 19, Lot would never have committed incest if he had not been drunk, yet because he was wasted, he did, "and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose." 

While all sin is sin, some sins can carry more permanent physical consequences. Sexual misconduct associated with alcohol and social drinking can wreck a person for a lifetime; when accompanied with driving, it can take innocent lives as well.

BQ: We've seen that alcohol perverts judgment, but Satan's done a lot of work to make it seem like a normal part of life, even to Christians—surely hanging out a bar and drinking a bit doesn't really hurt anyone, right?   One thing that's being missed is what God says that alcohol does to your heart (that is, the core of your very being). 

Proverbs 23:33 says, "Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things." Sometimes we try to write off drinking as "not that bad," but the fact is, it utterly destroys people from the inside out; it perverts the heart first and destroys from there. I know one man who doesn't drink, but goes to the bars. I asked him why and he said (paraphrased), "Because it's easier to take women that way, and you can take whatever woman you want, especially if you're not toasted and she is." He went on to tell me, "Those type of girls are good for a "cuddle," but aren't made to be wives, alcohol ruins them."  The sad thing is, alcohol can so ruin a person that not even a well-collected scuzzbucket wants anything to do with him or her. As Christians, we need to avoid perversion of the heart, and that means we need to avoid the alcohol scene. 

BQ: We saw that alcohol causes the heart to become perverted, and that's really not uncommon knowledge. People drink and drive, killing people and/or themselves, spend away all their money, and ruin marriages and relationships, all for another drink. When you meet someone who likes alcohol, it can be a horrific struggle for him or her to overcome. Often, they're dependent on it.

God warns us to be "not given to wine," in 1 Tim 3:3, yet for someone who likes their booze, they often wake up to say, "I will seek it again." (Pro 23:35) 

BQ:  Proverbs 23:35 says those who drinking steadily say, "When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”  Without alcohol, a core part of their lives are gone. What's wrong, though, with seeking a drink?

The problem is in what they're seeking. A song says, "Savior, in my joy or sorrow, I will ever go to Thee," and this sentiment is reflected in Phil 4:11-13 and several other passages of scripture. Compare that with someone who really enjoys alcohol. When they get off work, they go to the bottle instead of the Bible. In sadness they may seek a bar instead of their Christian family. If they want to be joyful, they may head out to party or bonfire with plenrt of beer instead of going to spiritually build someone up. The entire core of the heart gains a slight perversion as Proverbs 23:33 mentions, like water with oil on top.

BQ: Ultimately, alcohol destroys lives, marriages, and the heart.  God sums up his opinion on recreational drug use (and alcohol is a potent drug) by saying, "Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober." (1 Thess 5:6) We're in an army, and the devil is prowling about. If we're hooked on booze, we're easy prey.

If you have a chance to go out to a bar, think of something which will build Christ's body up instead. If you have a chance to get wasted in your own home, call a brother or sister and do something else. Have a Bible study, go appreciate the world God has created, or do something else productive. No matter what, though, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Pet 5:8

Out at the bar? A night on the town?

BQ: According to the CDC, "Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year. Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion."
 

That's a pretty staggering bunch of numbers to see! When I worked in EMS, it was always my lot to get the weekend night shifts, which meant dealing with lots of carnage from alcohol. God long ago noted the same thing, using Is 5:11-13 to describe an ancient party scene:
 

"Woe to those who...stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them! Their banquets are accompanied by lyre and harp, by tambourine and flute, and by wine; But they do not pay attention to the deeds of the Lord, Nor do they consider the work of His hands."
 

Often people wait until night to start getting really wasted, and it's no surprise—alcohol degrades our ability to function. More important, though, is that alcohol in excess limits our connection to our Lord. If we want to be like Christ, we have to back away from drunkenness

 

 

BQ: Isaiah mentioned an ancient scene of nighttime drunkenness, and it's pretty revealing that often drunkenness, theft, and other such degradation of the human condition occurs at night. I like how Romans 13:13 hints at this, saying, "Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy."

Often people are simply more apt to behave horribly at night. Why? Because darkness usually conceals the evil, at least in the minds of men. It's better to behave properly, as we would behave if we had an audience observing us in broad daylight! Always be upright. 

BQ: Rock Springs, WY was a hive of scum and villainy at times, at least for those of us working the late-night 911 shifts. One thing interesting about alcohol abuse is that it's often associated with sexual misconduct, too. This isn't anything new, and God noted in Habakkuk 2:15, 

"“Woe to you who make your neighbors drink,

Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk

So as to look on their nakedness!"

Rock Springs featured a lot worse than that, but it was true that evil hasn't really changed. I saw a lot of rapes take place, to both men and women, that could only occur because of immersion in a really wretched culture. It's a good thing to stay away from places that feature the likes of what Habakkuk mentions, and worse.



 

BQ: Peer pressure is a nasty, nasty thing, and one that we often convince ourselves that we're not susceptible to. What does God say about it? The most concise thing that I've found is Proverbs 1:10, which says, "if sinners entice you, do not consent."

It's really easy to be enticed to sin, and it's often an insidious, dark road to go down, without signposts to warn you how far you've gone. 2 Pet 1:5-7 has the entire way to counter this. Take a look at this full armor against peer pressure:

"Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,  and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,  and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." 

Notice the compounding nature of what's being mentioned, and look right in the middle at what's featured: self-control. If we give in to peer pressure, we're letting others control us. To fight against peer pressure, start off with diligence, faith, and moral excellence, and build on that foundation.  

Essential elements of perfection

BQ: We know that God is perfect, but what are some aspects of perfection? What does it mean? This is a very minor overview of the essential elements of perfection. God gives us the goal, and like any assignment, we're to aim for the 100%! "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mt 5:48) The gauntlet has been cast down, so it's up to us to start figuring out what made Christ perfect, so that we can model ourselves after Him.

For today, we'll look at Mt 19:21, which says, "Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” This was a very specific statement in a very specific circumstance, but part of perfection is putting aside self and rendering sacrificial service. That's why God says, "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

Want to walk as Christ walked? It'll take some self sacrifice to make that dream complete!

BQ: Looking at the essential elements of perfection, and thus the things which God directs us to strive toward, we've seen that self-sacrifice goes a long way, and is essential in making a person more like Jesus and less like the world. Today we'll look at a simple verse, Col 3:14:

"Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity."

I've blown by this a billion times, but it only recently truly struck me that being united comes PERFECTLY, COMPLETELY through love. Love is active,  and so being united must be both a decision and a desire. 

BQ: More on the essential elements of perfection. Today we'll examine faith and works, from James 2:22. 

"You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected."

We know that our faith must be placed correctly, and that faith is indeed a matter of salvation. However, to have perfection of faith requires it to go hand-in-hand with what it naturally produces: loving, sacrificial work. See how it's all tying together? Want perfect faith? Without works, perfect faith doesn't exist, because, " For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26)

BQ: We know we want to be Christ-like. It's the perfect goal, and that picture has to be in our minds for us to soar upward. Today we'll look at another verse on perfection. From James 3:2,

"For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well."

Perhaps the hardest thing to control is the tongue. It's so easy to speak a harsh word, or, even more, to simply be careless with our words, and thus hurt people. However, in order to resemble Christ, we need to make what we say a priority, and not just in avoiding harsh words, but in being active in doing good. Remember the verse on faith being perfected by works? About faith without works being dead? We cannot simply choose to be lazy and say nothing, but instead we must excel in our speech, encouraging, exhorting, and lifting up. (And even at times rebuking—but in love, and with gentleness.)

BQ:  Ultimately, how was Jesus perfect? In the following manner:  "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him." (1 John 2:5)

The truest love comes by loving God's word, and striving to be like His Son. Not only does it do that, but it allows us to see that we're truly in Christ. It comes when we're striving to be like Christ. It's like pulling hard and, by doing so, opening a floodgate of love. :) There's much more that could be said on all this, but I want to keep it pretty short! 

"As your heavenly father is."

BQ: God undoubtedly challenges us, and He does it in the best way: having us aim for perfection. Every military in the world has its soldiers shoot not for "just ok," but instead for 100% accuracy and excellence, and that's why the motto for the Air Force used to be, "The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer."

God throws down the gauntlet with Matthew 5:48, saying, "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."  In a world of, "I'm nothing but a black-hearted sinner,"this is a pretty stunning thing to say. How does God modify this, though? We'll see tomorrow. 

BQ: God casts down the gauntlet, saying, "be perfect," but He immediately launches into some application. What's the application when aiming for excellence? Matthew 6, which comes right after God says to be perfect, gives many examples, but starts off by saying,“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven." (Mt 6:1)

He goes on to say in the same chapter that when we give to the poor, we shouldn't brag about our charity, and when we pray, we shouldn't pray to make ourselves noticed. Part of Jesus' perfection was the fact that He didn't do what He did to show off; we need to have the same attitude. 

BQ: We've seen that God threw down the gauntlet in the NT, telling His followers not to just aim for "fair-to-middlin," but to aim for the perfection of Jesus. It makes sense, because if you're never aiming high, you're going to stay pretty low. Is this a new thing for God to do, though? 

Nope! For example, consider Genesis 17:1, which says, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him,

“I am God Almighty;

Walk before Me, and be blameless." 

That word "blameless" is better translated, "complete, perfect; or having integrity." God's always had the same desire for us! 

BQ: I'm not looking to do a word study on "perfect" yet, as I don't feel I have the time to do it justice, but I'd still like to look at one cool use of it. Colossians 1:28 mentions perfection, saying, "We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ."  That word, "complete," also means perfect. 

How can we be in Christ to receive this completion? As the Bible often mentions, it comes from being immersed: "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal 3:27)

BQ: Another way to describe completion and perfection is that of maturity; having a lack of nothing. Heb 6:1-2 says it well, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,  of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment."

The Air Force has a silly saying: "Aim high—fly, fight, win!" Although it's pedantic and trite, it does have some practical application. As Christians, we need to aim high, and we need to grow. We can't stop at the basics and call it good, just like no soldier can grant boot camp and call himself a special forces operator. The basics are just a foundation from which we move on to maturity, so challenge yourself to study by yourself, with others, and to be constantly immersed in a godly environment! :) Grow!!!

What's more important: what Jesus said, or what the apostles wrote?

BQ: This will be a short series on whether or not the only words in the New Testament that are important are the ones written in red—that is, only the words Jesus Himself spoke.  We're actually going to work backward on this one, going from claims of the apostles after Jesus back down to Jesus Himself. To start off, let's read something that Paul said wrote:

"For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11-12)

Here Paul makes the claim that the parts of the Bible penned by him were received through a revelation from Jesus Himself! Is this so, or are only the red letters applicable? We'll look more tomorrow and the days after. :)

BQ: So are things in the New Testament not spoken by Jesus really that important? Are they inspired?  Yesterday Paul said that He received a revelation of Jesus, and today we'll look at another statement that he makes from 1 Thess 2:13:

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

Here Paul says that these books of the New Testament which aren't directly spoken by Jesus are still the word of God! 

BQ: So we've seen that Paul has stated that the words in the NT are the words of God and Jesus, regardless if Jesus spoke them all in His physical body. Now we're going to roll it back a bit and start looking at things that Jesus said. :) 

First, when Jesus spoke to the original disciples, He said, "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Mt 10:14)  It's easy to glance over this, but notice that He gave weight to the words of these students of Him! That's indicative of something, but it's not full-blown proof that the NT is all inspired. We'll see more as we move along. :)

BQ:  Jesus ascribed legitimacy to the words that some of His followers spoke, but can we really trust that what the men who went on to pen the NT wrote is really legit? Let's look at a few more things that Jesus said. Today we'll look at John 16:13-15,

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.  He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.  All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

Here Jesus says that these "authors" would be guided into all truth, and that what they were writing would be from God. This just about seals the deal, but tomorrow we'll see some very solid info!

BQ:  Today we're going to really decide on whether or not the rest of the NT holds as much weight as what Jesus actually spoke, as it claims so claims. We'll look at John 14:26 and Luke 10:16, in that order:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." Here Jesus says that these people would be taught all things, and able to perfectly remember what Jesus also said!

"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” And here we see that rejecting the NT is to reject Christ Himself!  The reason that the apostles made such bold claims was because the claims were both true and necessary. As noted in 2 Pet 1:3, "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." 

If you're not that familiar with the NT, you're not that familiar with Jesus! Make Him your best friend! :) 





BQ:  We just saw that Jesus said that all of the New Testament was just as important as what He said through His physical body, as it would all be coming from God. So while God was choosing to use men as penners of the books, He was Himself the author. Does this match up with what the other books in the NT record? Let's see what various books mention:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Tim 3:16)

"By revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,  by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),  which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:3-5)


This matches up with what Jesus said, meaning that all of the New Testament is equally valuable and inspired.






BQ: The previous post connected the dots on why all the words in the NT are just as valuable as those that Christ Himself spoke, and today we'll finish up with a final connection. But why didn't Christ do it all Himself at once? Acts 1:1-2 answers saying,

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,  until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Notice that the first account was simply all that Jesus had begun to do and teach. Just because He was taken up to heaven didn't mean that His work had ended. Why not? First, because as 1 Cor 2:7-13 says in part,
 

"But we speak the wisdom of God...But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

And second, because  as Gal 3:26-27 notes, if we're immersed into Christ, we are clothed in Him, and are continuing His mission to this day:  "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

A fool's lips!

BQ:  Often I've said things without thinking of the results, and the results have been discord and unhappiness. What does God say about that sort of behavior? 
 

"A fool’s lips bring strife,

And his mouth calls for blows.

Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man,

But any fool will quarrel." (Pro 18:6; 20:3)

Before we speak, we should consider whether or not it will cause strife. If it will, it's better to remain silent or think of another, wiser approach. :)

I will never fall away!

BQ: Some people want to say, "You can't save the world," or, "Well you can't be perfect, so don't kill yourself trying." I like a lesson that we get from reading about Peter on this subject. Peter told Jesus in Matthew 26:33, “Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away.”

Peter did abandon Jesus, but that wasn't the end of the story. Likewise, we may fall short every now and then, but that doesn't mean that those blips define us. Like the frescoes of the Cistine Chapel are not defined by some of their blemishes, but are seen as extraordinary, we shouldn't define ourselves by our mistakes. And just as importantly, we need to keep the attitude that we will never fall away! 

Gossip isn't great.

BQ: People sometimes thrive on gossip, but what does God say about it? 

"At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention." (1 Tim 5:13)

"For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies." (2 Thess 3:11)

The term busybody comes from the Greek, "periergazomai," which literally means to "be working round about, instead of at one's own business."  Gossip is really nothing more than talking behind someone's back, and it surely isn't productive.

Forgetting the past.

BQ: I have often had a bad habit of dredging up the past when I'm upset with my loved ones. Have you ever done that? God makes a point of reminding us that holding someone's past against them isn't loving when he tells us love, " keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Cor 3:5) 

Don't keep those old, nasty records of what your loved ones have done wrong, and remind them that they don't need to think of themselves like that, either! :)




BQ: This goes along with yesterday's devotional. When we're young, we tend to make a lot of mistakes. I love David's prayer which said,

"Do not remember the sins of my youth or my transgressions;

According to Your lovingkindness remember me,

For Your goodness’ sake, O Lord."

Do the same with everyone you know, because often people think very little of themselves based on their pasts. :) "A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, And it is his glory to overlook a transgression." (Proverbs 19:1) 

Gracious in speech.

BQ: One of my friends is often a butthead, but I'm often a lot worse by being a total, callous scalawag in how I speak with him. Although it's easy to chock that up to just being a part of my "charming personality," the truth is that God expects more of me. Below are two passages that really sum up how I need to be:

"Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." (Col 4:6)

"To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit." (1 Pet 3:8)

Are you always gracious in speech? Harmonious? Humble? For me, this is a real struggle, but with the help of others, I'm getting better every day! :) (I'm kind of dense and need reminders.)
 

Just one bad apple.

BQ: When we change our lives to more godly behavior, we often want to keep parts of our old lives around. What can be especially damaging is keeping bad influences, especially when we're not very strong ourselves. 

The Christians in Corinth ran into this problem and let some pretty scurrilous people remain a part of their lives, which led God to remind them that, "Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?" (I Corinthians 5:6)  

When we change, we need to dedicate ourselves to having out with the old and in with the new. :)

Starting the day right.

BQ: When do you pray? I like to start my day off right by  by praying, and two great people in the Bible were known to do the same thing. King David wrote in Psalms 5:3, "In the morning, O Lord, You will hear my voice; In the morning I will order my prayer to You and eagerly watch."

What's really encouraging to me is that Jesus did the same thing! Mark 1:35 records that, "In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there." 

If you want to start your day off right, start it with prayer. :)

So tired you want to die?

BQ: Have you ever experienced the misery of being awake for too long? More than a few times, I've worked over 120 hours/week, and on a few occasions, I've been awake over 72 hours straight. God uses the concept of this sort of sleepless misery to communicate and important point, saying,  

Unless the Lord builds the house, They labor in vain who build it;

Unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. (Psa 127:1)

Sometimes, as Christians, we want to try and "fix" our lives by making up our own rules and own solutions, often because they're "easier" or more pleasant than God's own plan for us. When we do that, we're like a person working 20-hour days every day, staying awake all night, yet accomplishing nothing. If you're trying to fix your life, don't try to freelance it—there's already a perfect plan! :)

Mercy is greater than Law.

BQ:  One thing that I love about God is His outstanding mercy. The Old Testament boggles the minds of some people, yet it's rich with physical representations of spiritual realities. One of these physical examples is that of mercy. In the Old Testament, there was the Ark of the Covenant, which is the agreement between God and His people—the Law. Do you know what was placed above the Ark; above the Law, being supreme to that covenant? Look at Exodus 26:34,

"You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in the holy of holies."

It's easy to breeze over this verse, but it's incredibly important.  It shows that mercy ranked higher than God's law, even in the Old Testament, and the gorgeous proof of this is seen in the placement of the mercy seat above and on top of the ark of the covenant containing the sacred law.