Jesus the Slave Owner

Christians often have a number of misconceptions about Christ.  As a result, we present these wrong conceptions of Jesus to others.  For instance, some Christians seem to believe that Jesus' last name was Christ.  However, "Christ" was simply a Greek name for Messiah.  Both mean "the anointed One".  So, Jesus' name should be understood as "Jesus the Christ" or "Jesus the Anointed One".

Another misconception is that Jesus came to earth in order to offer you an "invitation".  This invitation was to join Him and His Father in a Kingdom and to live forever more.  If each person would simply accept Jesus as Savior, they could receive all of the benefits of Salvation will little or no effort.  This position, of course, is defended by stating that we are saved by "grace through faith" and that this is a gift from Christ.  If only we would accept this gift, we would obtain Salvation.

There is truth in many of these statements but unfortunately they are often misconstrued to present a message of Salvation that is built solely upon acceptance of Jesus as a Savior.  The truth is that "Jesus is a slave owner".  Jesus came into this world to offer an ultimatium, not just an invitation.  Paul, in Romans 10:9 says that "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved." (Emphasis mine).  You must confess Jesus as Lord to receive Salvation.  The statement that "Jesus is Lord" is no different that "Jesus is my master" or that "Jesus is my owner".  He's a slave owner.  He "owns you".  Each person who has accepted Him as Lord must give of their own life to be used for Him and for His purposes. 

When Jesus came into this world, He offered each of us an opportunity to receive Eternal Life but that comes through our acknowledgment and confession that He is Lord.  The New Testament authors knew this well.  None other than Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude each identified themselves as "bond servants" or "bond slaves" of Christ Jesus.  They recognized themselves as slaves and called all men to do the same.  This message of an "invitation into slavery" was well-received in the 1st Century in which slavery itself was very, very common.  The message of receiving "freedom in Christ" that enables all men and women to be equal to one another was also very pleasant news in the ears of many who were at the time slaves.

When we present the message of the Gospel to a lost and fallen world we must do so in a manner that emphasizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  He is a King whom has conquered sin, death, and the grave.  He has conquered the Prince of this world Satan and demands through an ultimatium that all come to Him, accept Him as Lord, and enter into a form of slavery in which He is the owner, master, or Lord.  Thus, the call upon a person's life to be a disciple of Christ is one which demands everything.  It is not a simple acceptance of an invitation.  Though it is a gift that cannot be earned, we need to be careful to not over-emphasize the gift without also emphasizing the appropriate means of receiving it.

Jesus is a slave owner and I for one am happy to have accepted Him as Lord and to have become His slave.

Joshua
 

Change We Can Believe In

Throughout the democratic ticket for presidency, the phrase "Change We Can Believe In" has been used by Barack Obama.  Without making political assessment of him, I want to make you aware that such a statement is self-refuting.  You cannot believe in "change".  Change, by its very definition, is on the move.  It's not stable.  It's not "unchanging".  Its like stating that you believe in the stock market because its up today.  You cant place your trust in just this day alone.  This is because it could be down tomorrow.  Its "changing." 

Change, quite simply, is something that you cannot believe in.  Beliefs are placed upon unchanging truth.  Truth itself does not "change".  You cannot say "What's true for you is not true for me."  Why?  Because that too is a self-refuting statement.  It does not work logically.  The natural response to such a stament is the following:  "Is what you just said true?  Because according to your logic it maybe for you but doesn't have to be for me."

You see, the slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is not a good one.  In 2 Timothy 2:11-13 Paul reminds us of an unchanging truth that we can believe in when he says:

"It is a trustworthy statement:  For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;  If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim 2:11-13, NASB)

Note the last line which says that if we are faithless, He (Jesus) remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.  Jesus is Himself faithful.  He cannot change.  To change for Jesus is to deny Himself.  Therefore, and not coincidentally, Paul is reminding Timothy here that Jesus does not change.  Neither does God.  Theologians refer to this as God's "immutability".  To suggest that God "changes" is to suggest that He needs to change for the better and by definition God is perfect. 

This statement also informs us that not only is God "immutable" but so is Jesus.  In making this statement therefore Paul is equating Jesus with God.  He is saying that "Jesus is God" because only God is unchanging.

Regardless of your political views, don't place your faith and trust into a "Change We Can Believe In."  Don't place your ultimate faith in a political party, a candidate, or a party platform. Instead, place your faith and trust into that which is unchanging - Jesus Christ.

Joshua

The Why Question

Recently I have been bombarded with the "Why?" question.  I have a three year old son named Will and a one year old son named Andrew.  Will has become very, very curious.  He asks us "why" to everything.  "Why do I have to do that Daddy?", "Why do giraffes have such a long neck?", "Why do you shave?".  The seemingly endless array of "Why" questions is something that I want to explore with you for a few moments.

In the book of Job, we are told that a number of very difficult circumstances fall upon a man named Job.  These included the loss of his personal property (oxen, donkeys, sheep, and servants - see Job 1:14-17) as well as his family (sons and daughters - see Job 1:18-19).  Yet, throughout each of these losses Job does not let go of his integrity, he does not "sin or blame God" (Job 1:22).  Job laments and is eventually "comforted" by several friends who bring poor advice and needless rhetoric.  Their loftly opinions are indications of an incorrect view of God as One who always allows good things to happen to "good" people and the opposite to "bad" people.

Job experiences obvious confusion in the situation.  He recognizes himself has having been righteous and cannot determine how he should repent. Therefore, in the midst of Job's questioning, he begins to ask the infamous Why question.  When you think about it, each of us often do the same.

What does the "Why?" question tell us about our human nature?  What does it reveal?  Why is it that all children instinctively ask this question?   Why is the Why question so important?  I think we can derive a few applications:

First, the Why question states something very clearly to us.  Namely, you and I don't know everything.  We have questions.  It separates us from the One who does.

Second, the Why question attempts to determine reasons for something that has occurred (loss of life, etc.).  Thus, it inherently teaches us that we believe that there ought to be a reason for certain things happening in our lives.  If we do good, we expect certain things to occur.  If we do not, we expect other things to occur.  Yet, we know from our own experience that this is not always the case.  The Why question attempts to find reason and more importantly "purpose".  If life has no purpose, if our circumstances have no purpose, then quite naturally the Why question is nonsensical.  We do not need it.  We should not use it.  Yet, we instinctively know that there is a purpose to life and define that purpose in many, many ways but in the end all people (regardless of their religious beliefs or even lack there of) believe that life has purpose. The Why question reminds us of that.

Third, and perhaps most significant, the Why question causes us to reflect.  It causes us to examine and to ponder.  It causes us to reflect upon a lifestyle, a choice, a moral, a value, a decision, or even simply a process that occurs in which we do not understand.  The Why question forces us to pause and re-examine.  It causes us to ask tough questions that cannot be answered by mere facts and figures.  It is fundamental.  It is philosophical.  It's underpinnings lie within our basic beliefs about how the world works and our response to it.  It challenges our worldview.

Why did I take the time to write down these thoughts?  I hoped that by stimulating your thought on this topic, you too, might stop and pause for a moment to consider that examining your own life is important.  So, too, is important those deep questions which will determine the way in which you live your life and your ability to discern properly how you should choose to live it.  The Why question takes us down that path and I believe that it ultimately leads to questions which beg deep reflection within us. 

These questions have eternal significance and can challenge you to place your faith and trust in Jesus as Lord.

I hope that today you will re-discover the Why questions of life.

Joshua

Questioning God

Today, I was thinking about the difference between "could have" and "should have".  Have you ever thought about this?  It's very subtle.  The phrase "could have" implies that a choice is involved and that two or more options were available.  For instance, if I said that "Last night at the restaurant, you could have had the steak."  My statement implies that you had options for dinner last night.  You could have had steak but instead you chose pizza. 

The phrase "should have" however is quite different.  It includes a moral clause indicating that a question of moral consequences or values is at stake.  If I said, "Last night on the way to the restaurant, you should have driven slower."  This statement implies that you were driving to fast.  You should have slowed down.  By it, I imply that you have a moral obligation to drive at a speed that is safe.  It is probable that you put myself and others in danger because of the speed of your driving.  Maybe you also drove through a construction zone or a neighborhood.  Thus, you might have risked possible injury to a worker or a child. 

The point is that "should have" entails a moral obligation that "could have" does not.  This distinction is important when we consider people in the Scriptures who questioned God.  In the book of Job, we are told that Job questioned God.  He did not understand why God allowed him to lose his family, servants, property.  He could not see what God might be attempting to do through such a tragedy.  Yet, Scripture teaches us that "in all of this he did not sin" (Job 1:22).  Thus, in principle, it also teaches us that we can question why God would allow certain things to happen or even why He chose to do specific things within our life or anothers.

This is because Job's statements were "could have" statements.  Job often spoke of God's infinite power, wisdom, and strength.  Thus, God "could have" done something different but instead He did not.  Job simply acknowledged this fact and stated to God that he did not understand.  God was capable of handling things differently but did not do so.

Another example of this occurs in John 11 in the story of the raising of Lazarus.  Both Martha and Mary state that "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died" (Jn 11:21, 32).  Thus, they acknowledge that Jesus could have done something differently.  Martha alone continues by stating that "Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give you" (Jn 11:22).

In both accounts, neither sinned.  Each questioned why God did not do something.  Each stated or implied that He could have done something.  Yet, neither sinned.  I think that this is key.  There is a fine line between bringing questions to God and questioning God.

When we bring our questions to God, we acknowledge that we do not understand.  We state that we are frustrated, angry, heart-broken, confused.  However, we acknowledge the power that He does possess and can use.  In both of these accounts, God restored life.  In Job, God restored a man back to a place of physical health and provided for him a new family and new possessions.  In John, Jesus, God's Son, raised Lazarus from the dead and thus restored the physical life of a dead man. 

Stating that God "could have" done something is not sinful.  However, stating that God "should have" done something is sinful.  This is because in doing so we take a stance of moral authority over God and claim to know what God "should have" done in a particular situation.  We claim to be in a position of moral superiority to God and state to Him what He should do.

Therefore, questioning God is a matter of our perspective.  When difficulties come, we need to ask ourselves whether or not we will remain true to God, placing our faith in His Son and in Him, or if we will choose to question Him and His motives.  Stating that God "should have" done something is always sinful. 

As difficulties come, bring your questions to God.  Pour out your heart before Him.  Let Him know that what has happened hurts and has left you confused and wounded.  Then remember the examples found in Scripture of Job, Mary, and Martha.  State emphatically that God is God and that He alone knows what is best in a given situation.  Job's unwillingness to do this eventually brought a rebuke from God (Job 38-39).  We can choose to be different.

Choose today to remember the difference between "could have" and "should have" statements.  It will make a difference in your attitude and faithfulness toward your Creator.  Make sure that your questions to God are not questioning God.

Joshua

I am a Whore

Singer and songwriter Derek Webb wrote in his song "Wedding Dress" that:

"I am a whore I do confess
But I put you on just like a wedding dress
and I run down the aisle
and I run down the aisle
I'm a prodigal with no way home
but I put you on just like a ring of gold
and I run down the aisle to you."

Scripture teaches that the Church is the bride of Christ.  As a member of the Church, I, too, am apart of the bride of Christ.  Yet, just as a wife can be unfaithful to her husband I have been unfaithful to Christ.  Throughout my marriage to Christ, I have often "slept" with the idols of Sports, Careers, Sinful Temptations, and whomever else appeared to be offering a satisfying albeit temporary gratification.  Each time I did so I committed spiritual adultery.

In the book of Hosea, the prophet Hosea is asked to go and to marry a prostitute named Gomer.  Gomer is a woman whom has spent her life sleeping with men for money.  Once married, she eventually turns her back on her husband and returns to her sinful lifestyle.  Forsaking the man who has fulfilled her needs of money, a home, food, and clothing, she returns to her former lifestyle. 

Yet, Hosea is told to remain faithful to her despite her unfortunate decisions.  The point of the story is that Hosea is told to act out physically what has happened to the nation of Israel spiritually.  They have turned from the Living God to worship foreign gods and to participate in idolatry.

The truth is that spiritually I have done the same.  "I am a whore" and "I do confess".  I am the one whom has turned from Christ at periods in my life for the pursuit of worldly pleasures that so easily satisfy.  Yet, it is Christ whom has been that faithful groom.  It is He whom has been perfect to me.  The beginning of the song begins from the perspective of Jesus when it says:

"If you could love me as a wife
and for my wedding gift, your life"

God has asked you and I to be a perfect bride and present to the groom as a wedding gift your life.  Each of us has sinned and turned from Christ.  I don't need to ask you if you, like me, are a "whore". Each of us has turned from God and pursued someone else.

The question for you now, though, is: "Will you put Him on just like a wedding dress?  Will you run down the aisle?  Will you put Him on just like a ring of gold and run down the aisle?"

I pray that you do.

Joshua

Casting Stones

Recent political coverage is all abuzz about the news of Republican Vice President Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter Bristol and her announcement that she is 5 months pregnant.  Her pregnancy occurred out of wedlock and she plans to now marry her boyfriend, the baby's father.  Critics claim that Sarah Palin's pro-life stance and belief that only abstinence programs ought to be supported did not work out so well for her. 

Screaming for sex education, they insist that all high school teenagers ought to be taught proper procedures for protecting themselves from STD's and unwanted pregnancies.  They also insist that Bristol's mistake is yet another case of a conservative's "holier than thou" message of abstinence and that it does not work.  It is hypocritical and judgmental.

However, for all of the fuss, one thing needs to be understood.  There is a difference between defining a standard of morality and actually living up to it.  All people are guilty of making a mistake and not living up to what they know are the right norms of behavior.  Each of us agree about many, many forms of social and behavioral norms and yet each of us has also fallen short of our own standards.  It's the difference in standards that ought to be discussed not the lack of one's ability to abide by them.

The Bible, of course, has a term for such behavior - it's called "sin".  Sin is the transgression of God's laws and the breaking of His moral code.  It's the outright refusal, denial, and inability to live up to a standard of excellence that only God Himself has kept perfect.

In John 8, Jesus meets an adulterous woman whom has been brought to Him by self-righteous religious leaders (scribes and Pharisees) who claim that she has been caught in the very act of adultery.  Asking Him if they ought to stone her for breaking the Law of Moses, Jesus turns to them and replies, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (Jn 8:7)

Yet, each of them turn away from Him unwilling to cast a stone at her.  Recognizing these actions, Jesus asks her who is left to condemn her.  She responds, "No one, Lord."  Extending forgiveness to her for her sinfulness, He further states "I do not condemn you, either.  Go.  From now on sin no more." (Jn 8:11)

The key here to proper interpretation is to understand what Jesus said to her accusers.  Notice that He did not say, "Let he who has not committed adultery be the first to throw a stone at her."  Instead, He says "He who is without sin".  Wow.  Big difference.  Jesus calls attention to the fact that it is your standard of judgment that is important. 

We can all find people whom sin more than we do.  We look at their lives and can point out countless sins and sinful behaviors.  Yet, we often forget our standard.  Perfection.  Jesus' standard was the exact same as God's.  If we want to point sin in another's life, let's learn to examine sin under the microscope of "perfection".

When we do, we will be hesitant to be so quick to yell "hypocrite" and toss stones at another.  Instead, we will also be quick to see our own imperfections and turn to God in mercy crying "Be merciful to me, the sinner!" (Lu 18:13)

Joshua