The “Otherization” Of Jesus

I read an article recently in a well-respected publication that was trying to explain why Mary and some of Jesus’ other disciples didn’t recognize Him immediately after His resurrection. Aside from the obvious fact that they still didn’t understand the Old Testament prophesies concerning His death and resurrection quite yet, that author attributed their lack of recognition to some kind of “physical changes” in His body, as if He had suddenly become some kind of “other“. Did that mean He was no longer “completely-human“? WHAT???

Docetism“, the belief that Jesus was not truly and fully-human, has been around for almost two millenniums, and our churches are frequently infected with “docetism-lite“, such that, while not outrightly-denying His true and full humanity, they have trouble handling the “details” of His humanity. While Docetics would prefer a body-less resurrection, they will accept a bodily-resurrection, as long as God leaves the parts they don’t like behind. SO, what parts would they “leave-behind“? The parts they like to cover with “fig-leaves“?

This insidious “otherization” of Jesus even shows up in our Christmas carols where we don’t even give it a second-thought. Do you recognize these lyrics?

The cattle are lowing the baby awakes

But little lord Jesus no crying he makes.

I love you lord Jesus; look down from the sky

And stay by my side until morning is nigh.

That is the second stanza of “Away In A Manger“. Am I being overly-picky, or not? What our kids hear and learn growing-up becomes part of the building-blocks of their theology later in life, so if they grow up accepting this “otherization” of Jesus, that there might have been some “changes” to His body when He was resurrected doesn’t raise any red-flags, but it does for me, because I have been studying Christology and realize how important it is.

Maybe Barbie and Ken are their ideal-prototypes…

I have found the Heidelberg Catechism quite helpful in its concise explanation. In question 16, we read:

Q: Why must he be a true and righteous man?

A: He must be a true man because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned should pay for sin. He must be a righteous man because one who himself is a sinner he cannot pay for others.

The answer here is focusing on the need for a real human nature. Why? Because the penalty for sin requires suffering in body and soul. And only a human can do this (cf. Heb. 2:14; John 12:27). Jesus did not only share in our nature, but also he had to identify with us in the experiences of the fall (Heb. 2:17-18). But it was essential that Christ himself did not sin in this identification with us. Otherwise, how could he pay for our sin? Berkhof writes, “Only such a truly human Mediator, who had experimental knowledge of the woes of mankind and rose superior to all temptations, could enter sympathetically into all the experiences, the trials, and the temptations of man (Heb. 2:17, 18; 4:15-5:2) and be a perfect human example for his followers (Matt. 11:29; Mark 10:39; John 13:13-15; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 12:2-4; 1 Pet. 2:21). L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.

In short, the answer is Jesus had to be a man so that he could identify with us, suffering in our place and sympathizing with us in our weakness.

We don’t need for Jesus to have undergone some kind of “changes” during His resurrection to be able to explain why Mary and some of His disciples didn’t recognize Him immediately. When Mary went to the tomb, she was looking for a BODY, a DEAD-BODY, not her living Lord. She had seen Him die and be buried, so she was still convinced that He was as dead as a stone. People didn’t survive crucifixion. Period! The same was true of His other disciples. They knew that He was DEAD. STONE-COLD-DEAD! John and four women, including His mother and Mary, were at the foot of the cross when He breathed His last, so when He appeared to them, that He could possibly be alive was a TOTALLY-LUDICROUS.

Shortly before Jesus’ own death, burial and resurrection, John, in John 11:1-44, recorded the death, burial and resurrection of Lazarus. Why does this matter? There were two people present at all three events, Mary and Martha. They had nursed him while he was sick, they had prepared his body for burial, and they had buried him, so if there was something “different” about after his resurrection, they would have been the first to notice it, but there wasn’t. The Lazarus who was raised from the dead was the same Lazarus they had buried just a few days earlier. Why would Jesus’ resurrection have been any different? Jesus’ disciples knew Him as intimately as Mary and Martha knew Lazarus, so they would have been the first to notice that there was something “different” about Him, but they didn’t record anything.

It isn’t until later in the New Testament that we read about “glorified-bodies“…

When I lost my first wife in 1997, I did NOT know unequivocally whose body was in that casket. I did not witness her death, even though I saw evidence that something had happened in our home, and I never saw her dead-body because it was a closed-casket funeral, for which I had no hand in making the arrangements. All I had was a piece of paper, a “Death Certificate“, which already had fraudulent-information on it that I had to have corrected. I lived with the nagging question of whether her “death” was a cruel-hoax for many years, particularly since I continued to receive mail addressed to her for several years even after I had moved over a thousand miles away. That was NOT the case with Jesus. His death was witnessed by many people, including the Roman soldiers who crucified Him. Joseph and Nicodemus had prepared His body for burial and buried Him, events that were witnessed by others.

We DO affirm that there WAS a certain “otherness” about Jesus, because He IS the incarnate Son of God, the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14), very God of very God, Creator-God, but that did NOT diminish His humanity. No other person in all of history has been BOTH God and Man, but His favorite title for Himself was “Son of man“.

We also know, from the Gospels, that Jesus, after His resurrection, exhibited capabilities He had not displayed before, such as the ability to appear and disappear at-will. Did that make Him any less human. Absolutely-not! He still ate and drank…

Does it REALLY mater?

In a word, YES, because His resurrection body was His ascension body, and the rest of the New Testament makes it very clear that we have our own flesh-and-blood in Heaven, with all His parts intact. making intercession for us. SO, we either do our own flesh-and-blood, with all His parts intact, or we don’t. If part of that “change” was that He no longer has all His parts intact, then Jesus is no longer HUMAN. He is an “other“, a “changeling“, and is a worthless mediator, and our “salvation” is worthless.

What we believe concerning Jesus Christ DOES matter, because, unless we have a fully-qualified Savior, we have no Savior at all, which required that His humanity be genuine.

Sola Deo Gloria,

Steve

Advertisements

Jesus of Nazareth – Facts and Fallacies

Since Jesus of Nazareth strode on the scene over two-thousand years ago, calling followers and proclaiming that the Kingdom of Heaven had come, everyone, from His most intimate-followers, to theologians hundreds of years later, has questioned and argued about who He is.

Since then, many prominent heresies have evolved over the centuries, some evolving from Greek philosophies, while others came from the conjurations of prominent theologians and church leaders. I hope you will find this survey useful, particularly when you encounter one of the modern-renditions of these ancient heresies. Yes, “Old heresies never die, they just get a new look”.

Why does it matter?
If “Universalism“, the belief that everyone goes to Heaven – regardless, is true, my life would be SO much easier, because it wouldn’t matter what I believe or teach, or how I live my life, but the Bible doesn’t leave us that option open. Who Jesus is matters because it is a core-matter of our salvation, so it DOES matter what I believe and teach, and it DOES matter how I live my life.

From the outset, I must state that I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is true, so what it says is true and normative.

Denying Jesus’ Deity
While few would have denied Jesus’ total-humanity, many in His time denied His deity. The Jews, with their strictly-monotheistic understand of God, were adamantly-opposed to any notion that Jesus could be both God and Man, and that became the crux of the Jewish leaders’ sham-trial before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:60-64; Luke 22:66-71).

The Ebionites were one of the first groups of Jews who denied the deity of Christ. They accepted that Jesus might be the Messiah, but they believed that the Messiah was merely a human, not the God-Man. The Arians, another sect of the Jews, believed that the Son of God existed before the birth of Christ, but that He was a created being, albeit God’s “premier-creation”. As such, He could not be divine. We find a similar heresy espoused by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose “New World” translation of the Bible has been heavily-altered from the original manuscripts to suit their doctrinal-beliefs.

Docetism
Docetism was the belief that the gods sometimes appeared to take on a human-form. We see this in Acts 14:1-13; after Paul had healed a lame man, the locals believed that Paul and Barnabas were “gods“, and tried to worship them. There were some in the early church who believed that Jesus only “appeared” to be human, but really wasn’t. Instead, He only seemed to possess physicality. His body was an illusion, something that looked real, but in fact was not part of the physical order at all.

Docetism was popular among the Gentiles of the 1st century because they were heavily-influenced by Greek philosophy which downplayed the value of our human-physicality. The Greek’s philosophy of the resurrection was “resurrection FROM the body“, not “resurrection OF the body“.

John, in his first Epistle, soundly debunks this notion with eye-witness evidence. If John was an attorney today, he would have pictures, video footage, news coverage, and anything else he could gather for this case. That is the picture he has painted for us in the opening verses of 1st John.

There is still “Docetism-lite” in our day. Nobody, that I know of, will outright-deny the humanity of Christ, but when pressed to recognize the fullness of His humanity, they will waffle a bit. The “details” of His humanity make them uncomfortable, because if they own the fullness of His humanity, it has giant implications for how they view their own bodies, which they don’t necessarily “like“. There are parts of the “male-experience” which many men are embarrassed about, maybe even ashamed of, BUT, if Jesus was fully-human, “one of us“, and He experienced many of the same “male-experiences” we do, then He “normalized” our “male-experiences” and we have nothing to be embarrassed about or ashamed-of. Yes, it matters that He had the same male anatomy and physiology as every man who has ever lived or will live. Because of recent denials of the deity of Jesus Christ, it is easy for us to become so focused on defending His deity that we neglect His humanity, which is why we need a balanced, robust Christology.

Jesus, throughout His earthly-sojourn, was never recorded as saying something like “Why, Oh God, did we make men this way?“, as if He had just discovered some previously-unknown “design-flaw” or “undesirable-feature”. Everything was made with a purpose, on-purpose.

If Jesus only “appeared” to be human, how did He eat and drink all the times that are recorded in the Gospels? How did He eat the Last Supper? Sorry, but that heresy doesn’t hold water, because there is way too much evidence to the contrary.

If Jesus only “appeared” to be human, He only “appeared” to die on the Cross, He only “appeared” to rise again from the dead, thus we only “appear” to be saved, which means that we are HORRIBLY-LOST.

Gnosticism…
Gnosticism was perhaps the most dangerous heresy that threatened the early church during the first three centuries. Influenced by such philosophers as Plato, Gnosticism is based on two false premises. First, it espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body, even the grossest sin, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.

Second, Gnostics claim to possess an elevated knowledge, a “higher truth” known only to a certain few. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know.” Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plane of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God.

The Person of Jesus Christ is another area where Christianity and Gnosticism drastically differ. The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical, and that His spirit descended upon Him at His baptism, but left Him just before His crucifixion. Such views destroy not only the true humanity of Jesus, but also the atonement, for Jesus must not only have been truly God, but also the truly human (and physically-real) man who actually suffered and died upon the cross in order to be the acceptable substitutionary sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 2:14-17). The biblical view of Jesus affirms His complete humanity as well as His full deity.

Docetism and Gnosticism are “kissing-cousins” in regard to the person and work of Christ.

Eutychianism…
While hard-core Docetism didn’t survive for long, because Christians quickly realized the importance of Jesus possessing a true human nature, Docetic tendencies didn’t disappear entirely. Some thinkers taught a view of Christ that effectively-eliminated His true-humanity, while not going as far as teaching that Jesus only “appeared” to be human. One such heresy was Eutychianism, named for Eutyches, a fifth-century monk.

Eutyches taught that Christ only possesses one nature, not two, and that His divine nature swallowed-up or absorbed His human-nature, such that what is left in one theanthropic nature (from the Greek theos,God“, and anthropos,man“), Instead of being one person with two natures, human and divine, as Orthodox Christology asserts, the Eutychian Christ is one person with one nature.

The result is the denial of BOTH His divinity AND His humanity. If the divine nature of Christ absorbs the human nature of Christ, we are left with a composite-nature that is neither truly-human or truly-divine, Instead, it is a third kind of nature, that of a “divine-human“.

That leaves us with at least two problems. First, it makes many descriptions of Jesus in Scripture misleading, because the Eutychian Jesus cannot be subject to the normal, non-sinful limitations of humanity. Mathew 8:24 says that He was asleep in the boat, but, if God doesn’t grow weary (Isaiah 40:28), and Christ’s deity absorbs His humanity, the limitations of tiredness were overcome and Jesus must have just been pretending to be asleep. Second, If Jesus does not possess both a true human-nature AND a true divine-nature, He cannot represent both God and Man. He also can’t be the perfect Mediator between God and His people. Only a perfect human-being can pay for the sins of other human-beings, but if Christ doesn’t have a true human-nature, He could not atone for our sins, and we are doomed to Hell.

Apollinarianism…
Say-what-ism? Some people tend to over-think some things, and Apollinaris was no exception. Even though he started his career believing Orthodox theology he couldn’t leave well-enough alone. The Bible teaches that human-beings have two constituent-parts, a physical, mortal body, and an immortal soul (Matthew 10:28), but Apollinaris believed that human-beings are made of THREE constituent-parts, a physical body, a “lower” soul that animates the physical body, and a “higher” soul or spirit that is equivalent to the rational mind that humans possess.

So what about Jesus Christ? Apollinaris believed that, in the person of Jesus Christ, the Logos, or divine-aspect of the Savior replaced His “higher” spirit. Jesus, then, had a human body, a “lower” human soul, and a divine spirit. Apollinaris effectively-denied that the seat of rational-thought in our Savior is truly-human. He compromised Jesus’ true-humanity by denying that He posses a human-mind or soul, since the human mind or soul is an essential component that makes human-beings human. He might as well have been a “divine-monkey“, because without a human soul, He wasn’t truly-human, and we are still truly-lost.

Nestorianism…
Nestorius really took heresy to a whole new level. While all the previous heresies at least acknowledged that Jesus was one person, Nestorius believed that Jesus was the “union” of two persons, a human-person, and a divine-person. This is not a union of essences, but rather a close, moral union. In other words, Nestorius believed the union was not such that we could say the humanity of Jesus actually belongs to the Son of God.

Is your head spinning yet, because if it isn’t, it soon will be…

Nestorius believed that, when Christ died, it was not the Incarnate Son of God suffering according to His human-nature; it was the “other“, human, person that died. When Christ performed a miracle, it was not the Incarnate Son of God acting according to His divine-nature to manifest His power; it was the “other” person, the divine Logos acting independently of the human-person of Jesus Christ.

This raises some puzzling questions about the atonement. If Christ is two persons, who died on the cross? It cannot be the infinite person of the Son, since He didn’t assume a human-nature. He only possesses a divine nature, which cannot experience suffering or die. So, it must have been the “other” person, the human-being, who suffered and died because the human person in Christ has a human-nature, which CAN experience suffering. But then we have the death only of a finite person, because humans are finite. The merit of a finite human sacrifice could hardly be applied to anyone besides the finite person who offers it.

The Westminster Larger Catechism addresses this quite succinctly in questions 37-40:
Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man? A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.

Q. 38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God? A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death, give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God’s justice, procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.

Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man? A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

Q. 40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person? A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us as the works of the whole person.

Thus, the Westminster Larger Catechism 38 says that Christ had to be God – He had to be a divine-person with a human-nature so as to give His human suffering sufficient worth to atone for many (Heb. 5:9). Nestorianism gives us an insufficient atonement. So much for substitutionary-atonement…

Where does Mary fit?
No discussion of Jesus of Nazareth would be complete without sorting out Mary’s role in the Incarnation. While her role as His mother must be recognized, she is NOT, as the Catholics believe, the “Mother of God“. God has no “mother“! Period! Mary gave birth to the pre-existing Son of God in His Incarnation (John 1:1-4, 14). She is the theotokis, the “God-bearer“. While Protestants tend to under-play Mary’s significance in the Gospel narrative, Catholics go way-overboard in the opposite direction, even “venerating” and praying to her. Mary is NOT, as they suppose, the “4th member of the Godhead“, and we are not told anywhere in Scripture to worship her, or any other departed Saint, for that matter. She was also NOT virgin-born“(immaculately-conceived), “sinless“, or a “perpetual-virgin“. In fact, the Gospels attribute at least six other children to Mary and Joseph, four brothers, who are named, and “sisters“, which means at least two, who are unnamed.

Mary was a young, ordinary peasant girl, who was chosen by God for an extraordinary mission, to conceive and bear the Incarnate Son of God. She was the “woman” foretold in Genesis 3:15 from whom the Savior of the world would come, and she was the “virgin” spoken of in Isaiah 7:14, who was to conceive and bear “Immanuel, God with us“. Ordinary-girl – extraordinary mission!

What if?
What if one of these heresies is actually true, or parts of them are true? Every one of these heresies questions the validity of both what Jesus said about Himself, and what the greater-volume of Scripture says about Him, so if one or more of them are true, Jesus was a fraud, and the Bible is an ancient book of made-up history and fairy-tales, worth little more than as a “guide-to-moral-living”. Oh, but if Jesus was a fraud and the Bible is a lie, it isn’t even a decent “guide-to-moral-living”…

Christology…
Christology – the doctrine of Christ, who He is, and what He has done, really DOES matter, because if you have an “unqualified” or “insufficient” Christ, there is NO salvation – period.

Sola Deo Gloria!

Church – or Religious Social-Club?

It should have been an older Pastor’s ultimate “gravy-job“. It was a large church, in an affluent part of a major city, and they were looking for a Senior Pastor. The salary and benefits package would have done many corporate CEO’s proud. It really WAS a “plum-job“, for the right Pastor. Looking for a change in scenery, and hoping to retire in a few years, Pastor-Bob applied, along with a several other applicants.

A few weeks after Pastor-Bob applied, he got a cordial letter from the Pastor Search Committee of the church asking him to come candidate(preach) at the church. When he went there to candidate, the facilities were impressive, and the parking lot was full of late-model upscale cars, an obvious display of the affluence of the members, but when he went into the church, he sensed that all was not as it seemed. Many of the members were aloof, and there seemed to be quite a few cliques, because the members didn’t really mingle. They just huddled in small groups. He might have his work cut out for him if he went there, because it seemed more like a social-club than a church.

The Pastor Search Committee was impressed with his grasp of the Word, and his ability to articulate the great truths of Scripture, so they voted unanimously to call Pastor-Bob to be their Senior Pastor. That was when he began planning his “not-so-grand” entrance.

While some of the details are contrived or embellished, it is based on a true story from an American Pastor, and the church could really have been almost any church in the world.

When he walked into the church for his first Sunday as their new Pastor, his breath smelled of cheap whiskey and stale cigars. He had fished his tattered clothes and mismatched shoes out of a dumpster. His hair was long and unkempt, and he had a scraggly beard. He resembled a hobo, a vagabond, or one of the homeless people down by the bus station. He came in limping and leaning on his cane, not exactly what the church was looking for in a Senior Pastor. The only person who greeted him was the usher who shuffled him to the far-back corner of the sanctuary. Everyone else ignored him, looking away in disgust. Some even moved farther away from him when he sat down.

Only two people were in on this little skit, his wife, and the Clerk of Session. His wife dropped him off about a block from the church so that he could walk by himself into the church. She parked their older car in the back corner of the parking lot and slipped inside quietly, where she could observe what was going to happen.

As the service progressed, the congregation wondered who was going to preach, because the chair where their Pastor usually sat was empty. Finally, the only Elder who was “in the know” stood up, and said that it was his great honor and privilege to welcome their new Pastor, Pastor-Bob. As Pastor-Bob slowly made his way to the front of the church, the congregation let out a collective “gasp“. Who was THAT man? Certainly that wasn’t their new Pastor, was it? That wasn’t the man who had candidated there a few weeks before, or was it?

When Pastor Bob got to the pulpit, and shook the hand of the Elder, he faced the congregation and said “I’m not sure that I am in the right place. I thought that I was coming to Pastor a church, but what I see here is a social-club, masquerading as a church.” Then he opened his Bible and said, “Turn with me to James 2, beginning at verse 1:”

2 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:1-8)

After reading from James 2, he related both his experiences when he had been there before, and what he had just experienced, and asked “Do you want to be a church, or do you want to be a social-club, masquerading as a church? If all you want is a “feel-good” Chaplain for your social-club, I am the wrong man for the job, but if you want to truly be the church of Jesus Christ, we have some work to do, but God can do it.

How we treat those around us, and those who walk through our doors matters – to God, and it should matter to us. We show the genuineness of our salvation by how we treat others, and God WILL judge us by our actions, or inaction:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

How we treat those who walk through the doors of our churches matters – to God, and it should matter to us too. Having been a Deacon in a church, I know first-hand that occasionally someone will come to our churches seeking some kind of help. While it behooves us to be good stewards of the resources that God has provided to our mercy-ministries, we can’t treat every sob-story with suspicion, because where there ARE genuine-needs, needs we should meet to the best of our ability. Sometimes it will be best if one of the Deacons goes with the person to get what they need, rather than handing them money which may get used for drugs or alcohol instead.

If you drive the streets of any city in America, you WILL encounter people who are homeless, particularly here in Florida, where our moderate climate makes it easier for them to survive on the streets. They may be begging on a street-corner, or huddled in an alley, but they have no place to call “home“. Sadly, many of them are Veterans, men and women who have been used-up by our Armed Forces, and dumped back on our streets, with little or no support-system or training to reintegrate into our society.

The person in need may NOT be homeless, but may be your neighbor. It may be necessary to exercise the same level same level of prudence that churches must exercise when supplying needs. I used to have a neighbor who was frequently broke, but she would pay the satellite-TV bill and buy beer before she bought groceries, so I didn’t usually hand her money, but that didn’t mean that I didn’t sometimes take care of her needs. I did buy some of her medications and took her grocery-shopping when she was broke, not because she had mismanaged her money, but because she didn’t have any income due to illness or injury. There was a difference.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, WE are the church, and we bring our attitudes towards those who are less fortunate than us into that building we call the “church“. The problems that Pastor found in the church in the story were amplified-symptoms of the attitudes of its members. While there were homeless people on the streets trying to eke-out their existence, church members were well-fed, lived in virtual-mansions, and drove cars that cost more than many houses, and they didn’t care. After all, they HAD earned that “right“…

I don’t live in a mansion, eat steak and lobster every night or drive a luxury-vehicle, but I DO have a place to call “home“, eat well, and have a dependable vehicle, which is far more than homeless people can enjoy. Maybe I SHOULD keep some extra cash in my vehicle to give people in need, and take that giving-attitude to church with me. How about you?

Church – or Social-Club?

The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

Sola Deo Gloria!

Do You Need Help?

Sometimes that question is music to my ears, but at other times, I hate that question with a purple-passion. Say what? Yes, there are times when I legitimately want and need help, but there are times when I could use some help, but am loath to admit it.

Thanks…

I wrote “Tired Of Being “Tough”” a little over a year ago about my struggles with handling all the losses I have had in the last several months. That is one time when I am very grateful that help IS available, because since I wrote and posted that piece, I have had several more traumatic-losses, which now brings the number of significant-losses to four. The most recent loss was in July, when I lost my brother. That is a LOT of losses for one person to process and handle at the same time. I am still seeing a mental-health counselor once a quarter, and I am thankful that he is there for me.

We have all been in stores when we can’t seem to find ANYTHING, at least not what we are looking for. WalMart is infamous for rearranging their stores in a seemingly-random manner, and even if we have been in that same store dozens of times, there is always something we can’t find, and only store employees know where it is. That is when I don’t mind asking, or getting asked, if I need help. I have even been known to ask another customer if they know where what I am looking for is. Sometimes it is almost right under my nose but I was too blind to see it.

I was in Staples recently looking for a new desktop computer, and one of the employees was there to explain the differences between the various models they have, and make recommendations about which one would best suit my needs. Thank you very much! A new computer will have to wait a while, because I have several more important issues to take care of first.

I called Tire Kingdom a few days ago about two tires for my vehicle. The store manager graciously helped me select the tires that would best suit my needs, based on his many years of experience in the tire business, and what he runs on his personal vehicles. His recommendations verified my own gut-feeling, so my new tires are being shipped in from their warehouse. Thank you very much!

Thanks, but no-thanks…

There are also times when I DO need help, but I am too stubborn to admit it. Maybe, it’s more like, too PROUD to admit it. I have needed those tires for several weeks, but haven’t had the money to buy them, so I have kept putting it off. Now, it is crunch-time, because I just don’t trust them, particularly on the highway, any more. I made the mistake of admitting to one of my church’s deacons that I need two new tires but don’t have the money for them, so he offered help from the deacon’s fund. I declined.

Last year was a different story. My refrigerator died suddenly last March, and I didn’t have any choice about accepting help to buy a new fridge because I didn’t have the money. I was able to maximize the help by getting my new fridge on sale. That helped me be a good steward of the resources God provided through my church.

Why is this year any different? I know that I wasn’t as frugal with my resources in the last year as I should have been, but, then again, I was counting on some income to help pay me extra expenses which never materialized. That left me in a bind as far as taking care of my own needs.

I have been taught to “own” and accept my choices and decisions, for better or for worse, and to deal, as best I can, with the outcomes. Maybe I am too stubborn, or maybe I am too proud, but I can’t accept financial-assistance to buy my tires. Thanks, but no-thanks!

That brings us to the story of a man who WASN’T shy about asking for help:

Bartimaeus Receives His Sight

46 Then they came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him here.” So they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you.” 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road. (Mark 10:46-52)

Bartimaeus couldn’t have descended much lower of the social-scale. He was blind, and a beggar. Only lepers were “below” him, and even servants and slaves “ranked” higher than him because they could at least work for their living. When he heard that Jesus was coming, out of desperation, with nothing to lose, and potentially everything to gain, he called-out to Jesus; “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus’ reputation had been spread far and wide, so Bartimaeus had probably heard many stories about His miraculous-healings. Would Jesus help him? Why did he throw aside his cloak when he was led to Jesus?

Do you detect a bit of “imagery” here?

50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!”

What did Bartimaeus call Jesus when he made his request? “Rabbi” was the typical title for religious leaders, but Bartimaeus called Jesus “Rabboni“. “Rabboni” is Hebrew for “my master“, a recognition of and submission to Jesus’ authority. Who else called Jesus “Rabboni“?

Since Bartimaeus was claiming Jesus as his master, he may have not wanted to appear before Jesus dressed as he was. That cloak may have been all he owned, and was probably little more than a rag. There was no shame attached to nakedness in the Bible, other than the shame associated with extreme-poverty or enslavement, so Bartimaeus’ only “shame” would have been his poverty, symbolized by his tattered cloak.

God commanded Isaiah, in Isaiah 20, to prophesy barefoot and naked for three years against Egypt and Cush. When they were conquered by the Assyrians, they would be led-away as slaves, barefoot and naked. Isaiah’s nakedness symbolized how they would be treated when they were conquered. It was also to serve as a warning to Israel, which had, contrary to God’s command, made a defense-pact with Egypt and Cush. It was not “shameful” for Isaiah to prophesy naked, but they would be shamed in their captivity.

After Bartimaues made his request to Jesus, Jesus healed him immediately, saying; “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.

Following Jesus, in gratitude for what He had done for him, was the natural-result of this incredible miracle. There are many other instances when Jesus healed people and they became His followers.

What about us?

We are constantly putting on a “show” for others, and ultimately for God, but why? We try to pretend that we have it all together, that we are self-sufficient, and that we have everything under control, and while we may fool the people around us, we can’t fool God. He sees us naked, as we are, stripped-bare of all of our pretenses, so why do we try to fool Him too?

Regardless of the resolution of my financial-situation, there is one person I, and you, need never be ashamed of asking for what we need – God. He already knows our needs before we ask Him, so why aren’t we willing to take our needs to Him? He won’t ever embarrass us, and He has far more resources than we can ever imagine. No, He probably won’t lead you to what you are looking for in that store, or get that item at the back of the top-shelf that you can’t reach, but He may just send someone who CAN help with what you need. Money probably won’t come raining-down from heaven, but some other provision may arrive unexpectedly. Yes, we need to be more like Bartimaeus, and less like stubborn-me.

Sola Deo Gloria!

 

“Tribalism” Is NOT a Dirty-Word

What IStribalism“?

Tribalism is the state of being organized by, or advocating for, tribes or tribal lifestyles. Human evolution has primarily occurred in small groups, as opposed to mass societies, and humans naturally maintain a social network. In popular culture, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are loyal to their social group above all else, or, derogatorily, a type of discrimination or animosity based upon group differences. (Wikipedia)

Note: Mankind has NOT “evolved” into a tribal-society. God ordained human society around the family, which grew into a tribal-society. In the Old Testament, God organized the children of Israel into tribal-units, with each tribe given their allotted-portion of the Promised Land.

Tribalism, it’s always worth remembering, is not one aspect of human experience. It’s the default human experience. It comes more naturally to us than any other way of life. For the overwhelming majority of our time on this planet, the tribe was the only form of human society. We lived for tens of thousands of years in compact, largely egalitarian groups of around 50 people or more, connected to each other by genetics and language, usually unwritten. Most tribes occupied their own familiar territory, with widespread sharing of food and no private property. A tribe had its own leaders and a myth of its own history. It sorted out what we did every day, what we thought every hour. (nymag.com)

Tribalism is getting a bad rap in 21st century American politics for precisely the same reason it is crucially-important that we preserve and maintain our tribalism. There ARE some things worth fighting for. The globalist/socialist cabal has been working feverishly for over sixty years to destroy the most basic unit of society, the family. Family is God’s idea, not just a human-construct.

One of the first steps in destroying the family was abortion-on-demand, which meant that women no longer had to take ownership of their sexual-choices. It became cheap and simple to eliminate that “problem” if a woman didn’t want the baby she conceived. In some societies, abortion can be used for gender-selection. Want a boy, but got a girl, just abort the girl, or visa-versa. If the baby has a “geneticdefect”, abort it and don’t “pollute” the gene-pool. Some parts of Scandinavia have all-but eradicated Down’s Syndrome through abortion. Human-life has become so devalued that people have become totally-disposable. Oh, but being against abortion is “tribalistic“…

The next step in destroying the family was divorce. As I was growing-up in the 50’s and 60’s, none of my friends were from single-parent homes. Divorces were hard to get and rare. I didn’t witness the effects of divorce first-hand until I was in my teens, in the early 70’s. Sadly, that divorce happened in our church, and the offender was one of our Elders. He preferred another woman’s bed to his own, and left his wife and three young daughters behind.

Then came divorce-on-demand – “no-fault” divorce, and as a result, the divorce-rate has exploded. It now stands at over fifty-percent. Yes, you read that right. More than half of the couples who say “I do” will say “I don’t” at some time in the future. “Til death do us part” has become “Til death or disconvenience do us part“. Sadly, the church hasn’t been spared from this divorce-epidemic. Do you still believe in marriage “Til death do us part“? That too is “tribalistic“.

The next step in destroying the family was “same-sex-marriage“, totally-ignoring God’s design for marriage, given in Genesis 2:24; “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”, and also ignoring the Creation mandate given in Genesis 1: 28; “28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Belief in traditional marriage is also “tribalistic”…

Along with “same-sex-marriage“, we are now seeing “gender-confusion“, again, ignoring God’s clear designs for humanity in Genesis1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” People are now free to pick their gender, or none at all. Think it isn’t happening? A man, who I have known for several years and met in person, now believes that he is “transgender“, even though he is still clearly a man. He proudly displays pictures of himself dressed in women’s clothing, and is proudly leading his grandson down the same gender-confused path, including displaying pictures of his grandson dressed as a girl. I met a younger woman recently who is raising her baby, a boy, “gender-neutral“. Just wait until he is old enough to figure out that what is between his legs is different than what is between his mom’s and sister’s legs… She is going to have some splaining to do… Oh, by the way, believing that God only created two genders is also “tribalistic”.

Also along with the legalization of “same-sex-marriage” came the “normalization” of homosexuality, and anyone who is not “LGBTQ-friendly” is seen as a “bigot” and “homophobe“. There are “gay-pride” events and parades, but God help us if we had a “straight-pride” event or parade. Disney World, in Orlando, Florida is largest employer of gay individuals in the state, and it hosts week-long “gay-pride” events every year. Disney’s movies – for children, have become notorious for their satanic imagery and gay themes. I wonder if Walt Disney would approve, or is he turning over in his grave in disgust?

While all of these problems are significant, they are only the tip of the iceberg, so what is the REAL problem? If you look at every one of these problems, and the ideology behind them, the unifying-thread is that they are all godless. Once they threw God out of our society and civil discourse, the sky was the limit and all hell broke loose, and we have been reaping what we sowed, but to even mention that is also “tribalistic”.

Beginning sixty or so years ago, God has been methodically taken out of our schools, our courts, and even our cities and cemeteries. It is still “okay“, for now, to practice our religion in private, but heaven-forbid we do anything in public. Forget praying before a sporting event, such as a football game.

Schools, from pre-K on up, have become institutions of indoctrination, NOT education. My niece was in middle school last year, and on her first day of school, they were all handed TEN PAGES of rules. No school needs ten pages of rules, but they were to be graded on how well their teams of four students did in reciting their assigned section to memorize. They weren’t being educated, they were being turned into useful-idiots who will willingly do the bidding of the state. Is it any wonder that so many parents, particularly Christian parents, are home-schooling their children? At least the parents get some say in what their children are taught and learn, unlike the public schools which give the parents NO say in what their children are taught. Another option for parents who can’t home-school their children, but have the financial resources, is private schools, particularly Christian schools. If you oppose public-school indoctrination, you are also part of the wrong “tribe”.

While taking a strong, biblical, Christian stance on all of these issues will get you labeled as a “tribalist“, and our overall ideology is considered “tribalism“, the reality is that those who espouse these non-Christian ideologies are also “tribalistic“. We just happen to belong to different “tribes“, “tribes” that have very different ideologies and value-systems. The major political parties are just large “tribes”, comprised of many smaller “tribes”, so regardless of where you stand on any issue, there is a “tribe” for you.

Did you realize that Christians are “tribal”? Christians have divided ourselves up into numerous “denominations”, “tribes”, each with its own distinctive belief-system. I cannot be a member of a Baptist Church because I haven’t been “immersed”. I cannot take communion in a Catholic Church because I am not Catholic, nor may I take communion in many Orthodox Presbyterian Churches because I don’t belong to THAT church, even though I am a member-in-good-standing in a PCA Church. I cannot be an Elder in an Evangelical Free Church because I don’t subscribe to their system of Eschatology. Ironically, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is one of the easiest churches to join, because we accept people from all religious backgrounds.

I probably cannot be an officer in any PCA church because I reject some aspects of their Book of Church Order (BOCO), particularly their emphasis on the primacy of the Presbytery. I believe in the primacy of the local church, as taught in Scripture, NOT the primacy of the Presbytery. As a former Elder in a PCA church, I believe the BOCO has that backwards. Yes, some of my views have changed over the last twenty years.

Even “non-denominational” is “tribal”, because they reject membership in any major denomination.

Make no mistake about it – the battle-lines are drawn, and we are at war, not a shooting-war – yet, but a war of words and ideologies. The globalist/socialist cabal declared war on Christianity and traditional American values many years ago, so they are years ahead of us. So far, it looks like they are winning, but the battle if far from over. Don’t forget that there ARE some things worth fighting-for.

There is one more thing I need to mention – our right to self-defense. The founders of our country and the framers of our Constitution realized that the last defense against a totalitarian state was an armed populace. The Army that won the Revolutionary War was NOT a “professional-standing-army”. It was an army of citizen-soldiers. We have seen time after time that the first step a totalitarian wannabe dictator always takes is disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed, it is easy for the state to crush any dissent because the state has all the weapons. Foreseeing this possibility in the future, they enshrined our RIGHT to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which is under continuous-onslaught by those who believe that they are the only ones who deserve armed-security. Even the “celebrity” who organized a small protest outside the NRA Convention in Dallas this year had several bodyguards who were conspicuously-armed. The hypocrisy runs deep in that tribe. They don’t believe that we are smart enough to safely take charge of our own protection, but, in the words of Grady Judd, Sheriff of Polk County, Florida, “When seconds count, help is minutes away.” Who do YOU trust with your personal-security? Oh, but “clinging to our guns” is “tribal”…

Whether from political leaders or from those who shape the cultural ideas of the moment or from our neighbors, we are reminded that the message of God’s Word is rarely welcome in the public square.”

Take courage, God is still on His throne, and He still reigns supreme.

Sola Deo Gloria!

Who Are The Religious “Elite”?

If you thought that the religious “elite“, which Jesus denounced in Matthew 23, the “scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the Law“, had gone extinct, you would be sadly-mistaken. As there were in the time of Christ, there are people who consider themselves the religious “elite“. They don’t call themselves by those titles anymore, but make no mistake about it, the religious “elite” is alive and well. They have just “re-branded” themselves. Rather than “scribe“, they are “DOCTOR“. Rather than “Pharisee“, they are “President” or “Dean“. Rather than “teachers of the Law“, they are “Professor” or “Fellow“.

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. (Matthew 23:1-12)

From Jesus’ description of them, it is easy to imagine them as a bunch of Bantie Roosters strutting around with their noses in the air. Oh, but that couldn’t be describing any of the religious “elite” today, could it? Yes, and they are easy to find, particularly on Twitter. If a person knows where to look on Twitter, they can compile a list of the religious “who’s-who“, the “elite“, in just a few minutes.

That list will include who is racking-up more frequent-flier miles than an international business-mogul, who has just published their latest book and how many books they have written, who is appearing at what conferences, oh, and who just got their latest honorary doctorate degree. Their face will be plastered prominently on Twitter, as if we need reminding of who they are and what they look like, AND, they will always have DR. in front of their name, along with whatever titles they have accumulated. They tend to run in “packs” wherever they go, patting each other on the back and reminding everyone how “important” they are. If you REALLY want to be impressed, look for them in their pictures in their academic gowns. WOW!!! Color me impressed – NOT!

One such popular preacher, teacher and writer has almost a million “followers” on Twitter, many of whom hang on his every word. Unfortunately, not all of his “theology” is biblical or reliable. May the buyer-beware, because he has plastered a religious-veneer on some very man-centered “theology“. If this particular “theology” is SO “biblical“, as he claims, why haven’t more theologians, teachers and writers picked it up? I have Googled it before, and all links lead right back to him, because nobody else will touch it with a ten-foot pole. Maybe it isn’t so “biblical” after all.

It is easy to become “addicted” to the popularity, adoration and adulation, but Scripture would caution them to take themselves off of their pedestals, lest God do it for them, and they lose more than just their “good-name“.

Are they REALLY the religious “elite“, or are they really “legends in their own minds“? Sadly, we have also seen way too many of them fall, and fall HARD, and the higher their pedestal, the farther they fell. Whether it was gross sexual-misconduct or a DWI, they AND their pedestal came crashing to the ground. BUT, if they keep their noses clean, they may even get a “chair” named after them at some religious institution.

Note: I am NOT commenting on anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. They are their own thing, with their own problems, beginning with their man-made religion.

If I was the only person who has noticed this, I might be dismissed as some “kook“, but I’m not. A friend, who is an Elder in the church I attended in Lake City, commented on this on Twitter quite recently. He gets around quite a bit too. There really are, within Evangelical Christianity, a LOT of “personality-cults” which have grown around some of the more visible religious “elite“.

I just have one question: Who are they pointing people to, themselves or Jesus Christ?

Sola Deo Gloria!

Ruth – From Macro to Micro

There are books in the Bible which are quite easy to pass-over or ignore, and Ruth is one of them. It is quite possible for a person to read the book of Ruth and think that it is little more than a cute romance-story, but they wouldn’t even have scratched the surface of its significance. They might even wonder why God bothered including Ruth in Scripture, but they would be missing those beautiful, juicy, tender, “Filet Mignon” gems hiding beneath the surface. So, with that in mind, I want to look at where the book of Ruth fits into the over-arching-narrative of the Bible, and then zoom-in on what we can learn from it.

The Bible…
The Bible is one grand story from beginning to end, which can be broken-up into three “acts“, encompassing many sub-stories. The story of the Bible is of God’s relationship with mankind, and how, after that relationship is broken, God set about to restore that relationship, and make it personal. The Bible both begins and ends in God’s Garden. When one fails to place the Bible events within the context of the Scripture’s meta-narrative, they will miss nuances that they should not miss, and will fail to appreciate the unity of scriptural teaching.

Act I…
Act I begins with creation, creation of the cosmos, creation of the plants and animals, and creation of mankind, Adam and Eve. Before the Fall, God and man had perfect fellowship, a perfect relationship, as God intended. Genesis 1 & 2 recount those events. Beginning in Genesis 3, we see the Fall, and how it destroyed that perfect relationship between God and mankind. After creating the cosmos by the Word of His power, God knelt in the dust of the ground to make His final and ultimate-creation – mankind (Genesis 2:7), and gave both mankind and animals all of the fruits and plants for food, with one exception; 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”(Genesis 2:16-17)

The penalty for disobedience was death. Period! When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden-fruit, God could have rightly struck them dead on the spot, but He didn’t. He set the stage for Act II in Genesis 3:15:
“And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall crush your the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

God could have abandoned or “rebooted” His human-project, but He didn’t. He set-about to redeem mankind which opens in Genesis 4.

Act II…
Act II tells the story from the promise of a Redeemer to its ultimate-fulfillment by Jesus Christ, on the Cross. While our English Bibles divide the Old Testament and the New Testament between Malachi and Matthew, the Gospels are really part of the Old Testament, because the “old-order” isn’t fulfilled and done-away-with until the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. If you recall, when Jesus died on the cross, the veil in the Temple between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in two, thus removing the veil that had always separated God and His people. Christ, on the Cross, inaugurated the “new-order

Ruth is part of Act II, and tells part of the story about how God used ordinary people to help fulfill the promise the Genesis 3:15, the coming of the Redeemer. Ruth looks forward to an ultimate-fulfillment, to come later, which the entire Old Testament, from Genesis 3:15 to the Cross, was pointing to.

Act III…
Act III tells the story of how God again used ordinary people in bringing into reality the ultimate-restoration of His relationship with His chosen people from mankind. Act III is about fulfilling God’s promise to Abram in Genesis 12:3, that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”. Act III closes in the closing chapters of Revelation with God’s people being restored to perfect fellowship with God in His Garden, just as the story began in Genesis 1 & 2. The overarching-story has come full-circle.

Focusing in on Ruth…
From our long-lens view of the Bible, we will now start focusing-in on some of the important, but often-overlooked details in Ruth. We will start with the setting:

Setting…
Every human story has to have a setting, a discrete time and place. There are times when, as much as might like to be in more than one place at the same moment, it is physically and humanly impossible. God isn’t limited by time and place, because He is infinite. Man is finite.

TIme…
Ruth 1 begins by giving us a snapshot of its timeline:
Now it came about in the days when the judges governed (Ruth 1:1a)

When did the judges govern? The period of the judges was from just after the death of Joshua until the coming of Samuel. The judges ruled Israel for about 350 years, from about 1400 BC until 1050 BC. Thus, the children of Israel had mostly conquered the Promised Land, and were starting to settle-in. That time can be summed-up with; “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

Can we get closer than that, and where might we find that information? How about Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus Christ, in Matthew 1? Low and behold, we find another data-point in Matthew 1:5a: Salmon begat Boaz by Rahab;”

Who was Rahab? Rahab is introduced to us in Joshua 2:1-21. She was the innkeeper/prostitute who sheltered the spies in Jericho, and helped them escape safely. She asked for, a received a promise that she and her family would be spared when the Israelites conquered Jericho. That promise was fulfilled in Joshua 6:17-25. So what became of her after that? She disappeared off of the Old Testament “radar“, so we wouldn’t know “the rest of the story” without Matthew 1:5. She settled-down with Salmon, and they had Boaz. This helps us bracket our timeline even more precisely.

We will take a closer-look at Boaz’s genealogy when we look at “types” a bit later.

How old was Boaz when he met Ruth? We aren’t told, so we can’t be sure, but I think it is safe to say that an old, gray-headed man wouldn’t get too excited about marrying a twenty-something woman, but maybe a forty-something man might. This brackets our timeline to closer to the beginning of the period of the judges, within a few years of the Israelites’ conquest of the Promised Land.

Place…
Ruth begins and ends in Bethlehem. The scene immediately transitions into Moab: And a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the land of Moab with his wife and his two sons. 2 The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife, Naomi; and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah. Now they entered the land of Moab and remained there.(Ruth 1:1c, 2)

Why the change in scenery? there was a famine in the land.(Ruth 1:1b) Why the famine? In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

As they frequently did in the wilderness, the Israelites again forgot which God they were supposed to serve, and as a result, God sent a famine to punish and remind them.

The journey back to Bethlehem takes place in Ruth 1:6-22. Bethlehem is the setting for the rest of this story.

Time-stamps…
An important time-stamp for this story is in Ruth 1:22b; And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest. Why is this particular time-stamp important? Barley has the shortest growing-season of the cereal grains, so it is the first to be harvested. It would give Ruth the opportunity to work for their sustenance, and there would be plenty of time to store away grains for winter.

Our next time-stamp comes in Ruth 3:2; 2 Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. Naomi has hatched a plan for Ruth to propose to Boaz that he become their kinsman-redeemer, and it doesn’t take long before that opportunity arises. How long have they been in Bethlehem? For the duration of the barley harvest, a few days to a couple of weeks. BTW, who is orchestrating these events? There are no “coincidences” in the Bible. I have known of other very-short courtships, but this one just about takes the cake.

Naomi and Ruth were redeemed, and Ruth was married before they had even been in Bethlehem a month. WOW!!!

I used to have a brother-in-law who remarried shortly after he lost his first wife, but he and his second wife had known each other since they were kids…literally.

Now that we know where it took place, and approximately when it took place, who are our main characters?

Characters…
Since Naomi’s husband and sons both appear and disappear within the first five verses of Ruth, while they helped set the stage, they aren’t integral to the continuation of story.

Naomi…
Naomi and her family were “Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah” (Ruth 1:2). When the Israelites settled the Promised Land, each Tribe got its allotted area, which was further broken-down by clans and families. Thus, the Ephrathites settled the area around Bethlehem. We find an interesting prophesy concerning the coming Redeemer in Micah 5:2;

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”

Maybe Ephrathah wasn’t so “insignificant” after all.

Ruth…
Ruth was a Moabite, so who were the Moabites?

The Moabites were descended from Lot, Abraham’s nephew, by one of his daughters (Genesis 19:33-37). It was an incestuous relationship, because his daughters feared that Lot’s family-line would die-out, since Lot had no sons and there were no available husbands for them in a cave in the wilderness.

The relationship between the Moabites and the Israelites waxed and waned, but it was at least “cordial” during the time of Naomi and Ruth.

Cultural note…
While we recoil in disgust at the mention of incest, there was no cultural-taboo against it during the days of the Patriarchs. God didn’t regulate the “degree-of-separation” for intra-family marriages until He gave the Law at Mt. Sinai. Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister. Abraham sent his servant back to “his brother’s family” to take a wife for Isaac, so Isaac and Rebekah were cousins. Likewise, Isaac sent Jacob back to “family” to find a wife, so Jacob, Rachael and Leah were cousins. Intra-family-marriage, incest, was a very common and accepted practice.

Think about it a moment; How did the earth get populated originally, since mankind began with one couple, Adam and Eve? How did the earth get repopulated after the Flood, since that re-population depended on three related couples? The purpose of this exercise is to help us wrap our heads around the cultures at the times when the Old Testament was recorded. We can’t judge what happened three-thousand years ago by our cultural-norms today.

Boaz…
Our last significant character is Boaz. Who was he?

Now Naomi had a kinsman of her husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. (Ruth 2:1)

Boaz was related to Elimelech, perhaps a cousin. Boaz was also well-known, well-respected and well-connected in the area, as we will see later when he goes to bat for Naomi and Ruth. He was one of the community’s “movers and shakers”.

As we have seen from Matthew 1:5, Boaz’s father was Salmon and his mother was Rahab. We will delve deeper into his family-history in the next section; Types.

Types…
God used “types” in the Old Testament to point forward to a greater fulfillment which was to come. For instance; God chose the children of Israel to be His special people, and yet, not all of the physical descendents of Israel were or will be saved. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time claimed Abraham as their “father“, but rejected Jesus, who was the promised-one who was to come to bless all the nations of the earth. The New Testament equates all believers with “spiritual Israel“, “Abraham’s spiritual seed“. All of “spiritual Israel” will be saved, but not all of physical Israel will be saved.

Ruth…
Ruth, in embracing Naomi’s God as her God (Ruth 1:16-17), became a “type” of all Gentiles who would come to God by faith. Yes, Ruth is, if you will, our “spiritual-mother“. She was also an industrious, hard-working woman who had no problem taking the initiative.

Boaz…
We see Boaz, in redeeming Naomi and Ruth, as the penultimate “type” of the Redeemer who was to come, Jesus Christ. All who come to faith in God through Jesus Christ become part of God’s redeemed family.

Slaves are still bought and sold in parts of the world today. What if a man went to a slave-market and found a young boy or girl who was being sold into slavery, but rather than buying them to be his slave, he bought (redeemed) them to be part of his family? Rather than taking that child home to be a slave, he took that child home, gave them a bath, dressed them in nice, clean clothes, and at dinner time, showed them their place at the family table, where there was plenty of food to eat, and then at bed time, showed them to their bedroom, where they have their own clean bed to sleep in? That child even bears the family-name, since they are a real part of the family.

That is a picture of our redemption and adoption into God’s family, which Jesus procured on the cross on our behalf.

Before we come to faith in God through Jesus Christ, we are slaves to sin and Satan, but when we come by faith to God, Jesus Christ, through His shed-blood and finished-work on the Cross, redeems us, not to be slaves any longer, but to be sons and daughters of God. By redeeming Naomi and Ruth, Boaz made them part of his family. They weren’t poor widows any more. They had a place at Boaz’s table, and Ruth also had a place in his bedroom.

Boaz wasn’t the first kinsman-redeemer in the Old Testament, but he was the first to “get it right“. The kinsman-redeemer custom was well-established long before God enshrined it in His law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). The importance of having a male heir in that society can not be overstated. When God didn’t keep His promise of an heir for Abraham soon enough, he tried to short-circuit the process by having Ishmael by Hagar (Genesis 16:3-16). As we saw earlier, Lot’s daughters had children by Lot through incest (Genesis 19:33-37). One of those sons became the father of the Moabites.

One thing we need to note from Deuteronomy 25:5-6:
5 “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

Do you see something missing? There is no “marital-status” stipulation for the kinsman-redeemer, so it didn’t matter whether the kinsman-redeemer was single or already-married, or whether he already had an heir or not. Polygamy was not forbidden by God, so it was fairly-common during that time. Contrary to popular-opinion, God never outlawed polygamy in the Bible, with one exception, Elders and Deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13), who are only permitted one wife. Polygamy was still practiced in Israel during the time of Christ.

Redemption often meant more that just caring for the widow, particularly if land was involved. By the time of Ruth, the Israelites had settled most of the Promised Land, and each tribe clan and family got their allotted parcel of land. Thus, when Boaz redeemed Naomi and Ruth, he also redeemed their land, land he would farm to bring them income. Otherwise, that land would lay fallow. It would also pass on to Naomi/Ruth’s son(s). That land could not be sold outside of their family and tribe.

This didn’t matter to Boaz, but it sure mattered to the other potential kinsman-redeemer;
4 Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz spoke was passing by, so he said, “Turn aside, friend, sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. 2 He took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. 3 Then he said to the closest relative, “Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. 4 So I thought to inform you, saying, ‘Buy it before those who are sitting here, and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if not, tell me that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am after you.’” And he said, “I will redeem it.” 5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance.” 6 The closest relative said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it.”(Ruth 4:1-6)

Notice that he was all-ears when it came to buying the land, but he got cold-feet when Boaz mentioned him having to marry Ruth. Some commentators have speculated that the reason he got cold-feet was that Ruth was a Moabite, but that doesn’t square with what he said; “I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance.” It is far more likely that he didn’t have his own heir yet, so Ruth’s son would become his heir also, and he didn’t want that to happen. Again, that didn’t matter to Boaz, even though we aren’t told anything about his prior status.

I am an only-child, and I only have one son, JD, so unless JD has a son, my family-lineage ends with him. Even though my daughters have sons, they carry their father’s family-name, not mine. It wouldn’t be a “tragedy” if JD doesn’t have a son in my 21st century culture, because nothing is riding on it, but it would have been in that culture. Newlywed men were even exempt from military service for the first year of their marriage, so he could hopefully produce an heir. (Deuteronomy 24:5)

While we are still on the topic of kinsman-redeemers, we need to look at one more historical-footnote from Boaz’s genealogy; “Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar” (Matthew 1:3a)

Judah was the patriarch from whose line Boaz, David, and ultimately, Jesus Christ would come, but who was Tamar? Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law. Yes, you read that right. Here is the “condensedversion” of that story, which you can find in Genesis 38.

Judah married and had three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah.

Judah married-off Er to Tamar, but Er was a scumbag so God killed him.

Next in line was Onan, but when Onan had sex with Tamar, “he had the fun but didn’t finish the job“, so God killed him too. Kinsman-redeemer failure!!!

Shelah was still a kid, so Judah sent her back home to wait until Shelah was grown, but Hell was going to freeze-over before Judah gave Shelah to Tamar.

Seeing that Shelah was grown, but Judah hadn’t given him to her, she tricked Judah into having sex with her, and became pregnant with twins, Perez and Zerah.

There was a penalty for refusing to perform the duty of a kinsman-redeemer. For Onan, it was death, and later in the Law, it was public-shaming. Boaz, ever the gentleman, didn’t shame the other kinsman-redeemer, we simply will never know who he was, because the writer of Ruth omitted that detail. Boaz happily married Ruth, they had a son, Obed, and the rest is history.

Other customs…
There is another custom we see in Ruth that we need to be aware of. There was no welfare, public assistance, or other social-safety-net for widows like Naomi and Ruth. Most women only had one skill-set – being a wife and mother, and had no “marketable” skills otherwise, so if they weren’t able to remarry, all they had left was their body – prostitution, but God hadn’t forgotten about them, and He didn’t want His people to forget them either.

God had commanded the children of Israel to care for the poor, the stranger and the alien by giving them the opportunity to glean in their fields. They had been commanded to not harvest the corners of their fields, nor were they allowed to go back and get anything they missed, but they were to leave it untouched so that those less-fortunate than them could have a place to get food. (Leviticus 19:9-10, 23:22, and Deuteronomy 24:19-22)

19 “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow.

21 “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 22 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. (Deuteronomy 24:19-22)

Another interesting command goes along with this one: 17 “You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. (Deuteronomy 24:17-18)

Not only were they to provide for the needs of those who were poor and needy, they were also to make sure that the alien and orphan got the justice they deserved. They weren’t to be treated as “second-class citizens” in the courts of law. Did you notice the reason why God gave these commands?

Imagine the reaction of farmers today if they were told they couldn’t harvest all of their grain and produce, but that is exactly what God’s Law required. What was not harvested was to be available for those who had no other means of sustenance. It wasn’t “welfare“, because they had to work for it, by harvesting it themselves. That was known as “gleaning“, and we see it taking place in Ruth 2, when Ruth gleaned in Boaz’s fields. Even though it was her legal-right, she still asked permission first.

Something else we shouldn’t ignore: 17 “You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. (Deuteronomy 24:17-18)

While the justice system today seems to be tilted in favor of the rich and well-connected, God didn’t allow that kind of favoritism with His people. That was why, when Boaz took Naomi and Ruth’s case to “court“, they got a fair hearing (Ruth 4:1-10). Ruth 4 also ends with a blessing on Ruth and Boaz’s union (Ruth 4:11-12).

Speaking of that blessing; Did you notice that curious reference to “the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah“? Knowing the back-story of Judah and Tamar, would WE ever admit that there had been that kind of chicanery in our ancestry? Probably not, but Perez WAS an important ancestor, not only to the family of Boaz, but as an ancestor of King David, and to his greater-son, Jesus Christ.

Maybe we shouldn’t have expected any better behavior from Judah, since in Genesis 37:12-36, Judah conspired with the rest of his brothers to sell Joseph into slavery in Egypt. If Judah had ever had any moral-compass, it was long-gone by the time Genesis 38 opens. He didn’t even pretend to “keep it in the family” when he got married, as did his father, Jacob, rather he married a Canaanite woman in Genesis 38:2. Ah, but he certainly came by some of his chicanery honestly, because Jacob was a shyster from the get-go. That apple certainly didn’t fall far from the family-tree, but we also need to remember that “bad company corrupts good morals“, even if his morals weren’t very good to begin with.

Another sharp-eyed writer brought something else to my attention recently, and it relates to Ruth’s “proposal” to Boaz. That, in and of itself, was highly-irregular, but beyond that, there was something else that I had missed from Ruth 3:1-5:

Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? 2 Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. 3 Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do.” 5 She said to her, “All that you say I will do.”

What I missed, is that “best” is always noted as an added-in word in all of the most accurate translations, including the NASB and NKJV. What if Ruth had been working naked, as was common in the day, because the work was hard, hot, dirty and sweaty, and clothing was hard to come-by and expensive? What if Naomi was telling Ruth that, unlike her work-days, when Boaz saw her working like a servant (naked), she needed to dress herself up so that she looked more like a wife, rather than like a servant? It would not have been improper for Ruth to have been working naked, because it is quite likely that Boaz’s workers, including his servant-girls, were also working naked.

That still hadn’t changed in Jesus’ time, because, when He spoke of the Great Tribulation, the fall of Jerusalem, in Matthew 24, He said “Let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.” (Matthew 24:18) That the farm-worker would be working naked was simply assumed. It was also common for fishermen to work naked for that same reason, to not ruin their clothes. Remember Peter in John 21:7?

We, in our 21st century Western culture, can’t relate to only having one or two garments because clothes are so cheap and plentiful. Even though I prefer to be au naturel, I do have to get dressed to do some things and go some places. I have enough T-shirts to be able to wear a different one every day for a month and still not run out of clean T-shirts, but there are still parts of the world where people barely have one set of clothes, let alone a closet-full of clothes. My father ministered in parts of Eastern Europe that were that poor. Clothes were only washed when it was warm enough for everyone to take them off. Then, just about the whole village went naked, and nobody thought a thing about it.

FInal thoughts…
God had announced His plan of redemption back in Genesis 3:15, and He WAS going to accomplish it. Along the way, God used many seriously-flawed people to accomplish His purposes. Hebrews 11 recounts many “heroes of the faith“, and included in those heroes are people like Rahab, Samson and David, all people that nobody would regard as “saints“, and yet they are held up to us as faithful men and women whom God used. Many were “ordinary” people who were given extraordinary missions to fulfill.

Boaz didn’t have to turn-in his “man-card” in because of what he did. If anything, he showed us what a REAL man looks like. He begins as Ruth’s PROTECTOR, becomes her’s and Naomi’s PROVIDER, pleads their case in court as their DEFENDER, and willingly takes Ruth to be his wife as her LOVER. Come to think of it, isn’t that what Jesus has done, and is doing for us? Their similarities aren’t coincidental. Boaz, as Naomi and Ruth’s kinsman-redeemer, was a type of Christ, and foreshadowed that ultimate kinsman-redeemer to come, Jesus Christ, our great kinsman-redeemer.

That, at the end of the day, is the story of Ruth. Three “ordinary” people whom God used to fulfill His promise of the coming Redeemer. May He use us as He used them.

Sola Deo Gloria!

What Is An “Assault-Rifle”? And Other Firearm’s-Related Topics

I don’t claim to be an expert on firearms, but I have been around, shot quite a few weapons in my day, and done a lot of my own research. There are a lot of misconceptions, deceptions, and downright-lies surrounding firearms, particularly among those who aren’t educated about firearms and REFUSE to learn about them. SO, to lay some of these misconceptions to rest, I want to share the knowledge I have gleaned over the last forty-plus years. I went into the Army in 1974, and have been shooting ever-since.

You may be wondering why I would write another piece about firearms, but the simple-answer is TRUTH. As a Christian, who follows Jesus, who said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life”, I believe that I I have a responsibility to stand up for the truth amidst the barrage of lies in our popular-media. Truth matters, even about firearms, particularly to Christians.

BTW, I have no intention of making a firearms piece a regular feature of my blog. Ain’t happening, because I have better things to do.

The AR-15…
The AR-15 has a certain “look” about it that screams “killer-weapon” to those who don’t know any better. It is often mis-categorized as an “assault-rifle“, but it isn’t. It is a “sporting-rifle“. The original designer and manufacturer of the AR-15 was Armalite Corporation, so the “AR” stands for “Armalite“, and the “15” is a model-number. It is a semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon, with a detachable box-magazine. I repeat, the “AR” in AR-15 does NOT stand for “assault-rifle”. The most important characteristic that separates it from an “assault-rifle” is that it is a “semi-automatic” weapon, requiring one trigger-pull for every shot fired. Oh, but it has a pistol-grip and is BLACK, or green, or tan, or pink, or red, white and blue, or, or, or. BTW, you can paint ANY gun ANY color you want.

The Ruger Mini-14 is chambered for the same cartridge (.223/5.56 NATO) that the AR-15 shoots, so it is every bit as capable of a weapon as the AR-15, but it doesn’t have that “look“. Even though it will accept a 30-round magazine, it has a wood stock and no pistol-grip. WHOOPEE!!!

The M-16, which I carried and shot while I was in the Army, IS an “assault-rifle“, and while they are visually and physically similar, the AR-15 lacks the “full-auto” mode which is an integral part of the M-16. They are visually and physically similar because the M-16 is a variant-of, and was developed-from the AR-15 – by the Armalite Corporation. The AR-15 came first, and in order to compete in the military market, Armalite developed the M-16. Both have had a significant number of “knock-offs” or “copies” since they were first produced. Even Mattel, the toy company, produced M-16’s for the military. I know, I shot one in Basic Training, and it wasn’t much more accurate than a toy-gun. American military weapons always have an “M as the first part of their designation.

What is a “High-capacity-magazine”?
There is a persistent myth that a weapon with a “high-capacity-magazine” is deadlier than one with a “standard-capacity-magazine“, but that is a MYTH. The shooter in Parkland, Florida only used ten-round magazines, but he still killed and wounded a lot of people. The only benefit of a higher-capacity magazine is that the shooter doesn’t have to reload as often, but that advantage doesn’t really matter to a skilled shooter, who can reload, on the run, in under five-seconds. If you don’t believe it, watch the shooters during three-gun competitions. Those folks are FAST!

To those who want to ban them, a “high-capacity-magazine” is any magazine capable of holding over ten rounds. That makes the STANDARD magazines for my pistol “high-capacity-magazines“. Solly-cholly, they are FOS. How “deadly” a weapon is depends more on the skill of its operator than the capabilities of the weapon. Sometimes I have trouble hitting the broad-side of a barn with my pistol, but a competent-shooter can drill the bulls-eye shot after shot – with my weapon. Yes, I have watched it happen.

“Background-checks”…
Any time there is a mass-shooting, and it is revealed that the shooter bought their weapon legally, there are screams for “more background-checks“. Folks, a background-check is only as good as the database being used for the check. That is where the background-check-system is breaking-down.

As a recent-example: the shooter in the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre used a legally-purchased weapon, which he had to have a background-check to buy. BUT, there was one huge fly-in-the-ointment; He had been dishonorably-discharged from the Air Force for domestic-violence, thus making him ineligible to purchase weapons, BUT, the Air Force FAILED to report his arrest and discharge to the FBI, which maintains the database.

The shooter at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando had been on the FBI’s “radar” and had huge “red-flags” in his background, BUT, that didn’t prevent him from becoming a LICENSED armed security guard, licensed in and by the state of Florida, able to legally-buy weapons. These are classic cases of the left-hand-not-knowing-what-the-right-hand-did. Could we be doing better? Should we doing better? Yes, but there are caveats. Until government agencies start talking to each other, and sharing their data, background-checks are not going to catch all prospective bad-actors. And what about all the stolen and illegal weapons? Background-checks won’t stop any of those…

The “Gun-Show-Loophole”…
Again, there is a HUGE misconception, among people who don’t any better, that a person can walk into a gun-show and buy any kind of weapon they want, with no paperwork or background-check. That is FALSE. There may have been a time when in the past gun-shows were littered with private-sellers selling privately-owned weapons, but that is mostly a thing of the past. Most, but not all, gun-shows now restrict sales to licensed-dealers-only, so they can’t sell anything that they can’t sell in their own showroom, and they MUST do everything “by-the-book“, including the paperwork, or risk losing their license and being arrested. Class-III weapons (select-fire/automatic) CANNOT be sold in gun-shows. If there is a mandatory waiting-period for that weapon, the buyer won’t walk out with it. NO, a person can’t buy an “assault-rifle” at a gun-show, and NO, a person can’t bypass the necessary background-check and paperwork either. The only people in Florida who can bypass the waiting-period in Florida are people who have a Florida CCW, because they have already had a higher-level background-check than is necessary to purchase a weapon. Their CCW presumes a legitimate-use for their weapons.

“Fully-semi-automatic”…
Fully-semi-automatic” was a term coined by the media after the Parkland, Florida high school massacre. It is an OXYMORON, because “fully” and “semi” are mutually-exclusive terms. “Fully-automatic“, as applied to a weapon, means that it will continue to fire as long as there is ammunition in the magazine and the trigger is pulled. “Semi-automatic“, as applied to a weapon, means that it will fire ONLY ONE ROUND with each trigger-pull. Yes, a trained and experienced shooter, shooting a semiautomatic-weapon, can shoot at least one round per second, so a 30-round magazine can be emptied in 30 seconds or less, BUT, a fully-automatic weapon can fire the same 30 rounds in under FIVE seconds. Do you see the difference?

The “bump-stock”…
After it was revealed that the shooter in the Las Vegas massacre had used “bump-stocks” to increase the rate-of-fire of his weapons, it was wrongly-assumed that a “bump-stock” turns a semiautomatic weapon into a “machine-gun“. The truth is that a “bump-stock” can only modestly-increase the rate-of-fire of a semi-automatic weapon, but DOESN’T make it “fully-automatic“. A bump-stock doesn’t turn a semi-automatic weapon into a “machine gun”. BTW, “bump-stocks” also trash accuracy. No thanks!

What is an “assault-rifle”?
An assault rifle is a shoulder-fired, selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The most notable characteristic of an “assault-rifle” is that it is “selective-fire“. In place of the typical SAFE-FIRE selector-switch on a semiautomatic rifle is a selector-switch which also includes an AUTO position. No, AR-15’s do NOT include an AUTO position on their selector-switch, and NO, an AR-15 is NOT an “assault-rifle“.

In the U.S., civilian ownership of machine guns (and assault rifles) has been tightly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and since 1986 under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

“Assault-weapons”…
Even if it isn’t an “assault-rifle“, if it looks “scary“, it must be an “assault-weapon“. I’ll bet that ROCK in Cain’s hand must have looking pretty “scary” to Abel. Does that “scare-factor” make that rock an “assault-weapon“, or is it an “assault-rock“? Who are we going to blame that murder on – the “National Rock Association”?

What is a “machine gun”?
A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from an ammunition belt or magazine, typically at a rate of 300 rounds per minute or higher. Not all fully automatic firearms are machine guns. Submachine guns, rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, pistols or cannons may be capable of fully automatic fire, but are not designed for sustained fire. As a class of military rapid-fire guns, machine guns are fully automatic weapons designed to be used as support weapons and generally used when attached to a mount- or fired from the ground on a bipod or tripod. Many (but not all) machine guns also use belt feeding and open bolt operation, features not normally found on rifles.

By U.S. federal law, a “machine gun” is a legal term for any weapon able to fire more than one shot per function of the trigger regardless of caliber, the receiver of any such weapon, any weapon convertible to such a state using normal tools, or any component or part that will modify an existing firearm such that it functions as a “machine gun” such as a drop-in auto sear. Civilian possession of such weapons is not prohibited by any Federal law and not illegal in many states, but they must be registered as Title II weapons under the National Firearms Act and have a tax stamp paid. The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned new production of firearms classified as machine guns for most civilian applications, however, so only “grandfathered” weapons produced before this date are legally transferable.

I shot an M-60 machine gun while I was in the Army, which was a belt-fed, .30 caliber, bipod-mounted weapon. We were taught to shoot three-round-bursts, rather than “rock-n-roll“. “Rock-n-roll” or “spray-n-pray” may be fun, but they waste ammunition, and only have limited-applications in combat.

Even though a friend of mine is a Class III firearms manufacturer and dealer, licensed to manufacture and sell automatic-weapons to, he could not legally sell me any kind of “automatic weapon” or “assault-rifle“. Those may ONLY be sold to law enforcement agencies. PERIOD!

What is a “silencer”?
A “silencer” is a figment of people’s imaginations, popularized by Hollywood. The correct term is a “suppressor“, because there is NO device which can completely “silence” a gunshot. Yes, Hollywood has shown countless scenes of gunshots where all we heard was a “pfft“, but that is Hollywood, not real-life. A “suppressor” reduces the volume of the shot, but does NOTsilence” it completely. For a civilian to buy and possess a suppressor legally, they must FIRST obtain a license from the BATF – a $200 license, and have a legitimate reason for having it, because it is a “restricted-item”. That is BEFORE they can buy a suppressor and have it fitted to a weapon.

The MYTH of the “plastic-gun”…
Several years ago, when Glock introduced their first polymer-framed semi-automatic pistols, there was a huge scare that they wouldn’t be detectable with normal metal-detectors, that they really WEREplastic-guns”. This is absurd. As polymer-framed pistol still has many metal parts, including the slide and barrel, over two-thirds of the weight of the pistol is STEEL. I know. I have put over a thousand rounds through a polymer-framed Ruger. Lighter than all-steel? Yes. Undetectable? NO!

While we are on plastic-guns, there are people who are printing, or trying to print plastic-guns, but I wouldn’t bet my life and safety on one. They are NOT safe, they are NOT durable, and they are NOT accurate, and the equipment necessary to make one costs several times as much as a quality firearm. They are NOT going to become the next craze, because you would better spend your time and money buying and becoming familiar with a quality weapon, one you COULD bet your life on, if necessary.

NRA sells/manufactures guns…
FALSE!!! The National Rifle Association (NRA) began as an education, hunting and shooting-sports organization. While those are still NRA’s primary-missions, they also are working to protect American’s 2nd Amendment rights.

Concealed-carry-weapons licenses (CCW)…
Most states in the US license and permit private-citizens to carry concealed-weapons – with a license. These licenses do NOT permit the license-holder to carry their weapon everywhere. In fact, ALL states that allow concealed-carry have significant restrictions on where weapons may be carried, nor do these licenses permit the person to carry a weapon concealed in all fifty states, only in states which have reciprocity-agreements with the license-holder’s home state.

Police have the legal-obligation to protect you…
FALSE!!! It is now rare to see a police vehicle with “To Protect And Serve”, because law enforcement officers DON’T graduate from “Police Academy”, they graduate from “Law Enforcement Academy”, and yes, it DOES make a difference. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled a few years ago that Officers have NO obligation, under the law, to protect you. They may, but they don’t have to. Albuquerque Police Department had several “traffic-enforcement-only” units, and they could and did drive right past accidents and disabled-vehicles. That was THIRTY YEARS AGO. All that mattered to APD was the almighty-dollar. Do you REALLY think it has gotten any better since then? Police show up after-the-fact to do the paperwork.

I hope you have enjoyed this bit of myth-debunking and truth-telling. Maybe you will know more about what you are talking about when you are confronted with the typical lies and myths about firearms.

Steve

Last-Call

Last-Call” is one of the most heart-wrenching parts of a funeral for a Firefighter, Police Officer or EMT that I have ever witnessed, because it drives-home the fact that we have lost a Brother or Sister who will never respond with us again. They have answered the “final-call“, the “call” to eternity.

When the departed was a Firefighter, they will take their “last-ride“, not IN an engine, but on top, on top of the hose-bed. Before our Brother or Sister is laid to rest, we memorialize them off with a solemn-ceremony…

The radio-call from dispatch; Silence; A second call; Silence; The final call; Silence… The final-announcement by dispatch that our departed Brother or Sister has answered their final-call. Sometimes “the tolling-of-the-bell“, with its rich, historic-symbology, is added to this solemn-occasion. After all is silent, a Bagpiper finishes the ceremony with Amazing Grace, sometimes in a distance. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it. I have witnessed too many “Last-Calls“…

Regardless of whether they died in the line-of-duty, or otherwise, we have lost someone who was “part of the family“. Our family will never be the same again. A part of us is gone…

Have you ever witnessed the finale of a Service-Member or Veteran’s funeral; The folding of the Flag, carefully, precisely, and presenting it to the family of the departed? The firing of the gun-salute? TAPS? Only the most-callous person won’t get choked-up over that. I have witnessed this ceremony too many times, and it always chokes me up. Last October, we lost a Brother (Veteran) to suicide. That was a tough service.

Regardless of whether they died in the line-of-duty, or otherwise, we have lost someone who was “part of the family“. Our family will never be the same again. A part of us is gone…

For those who have worn the uniform of our Public Services, or while serving our country in the Military with honor and distinction, our final “Good-byes” are shrouded in solemn-ceremony, fitting-tributes to those we loved and lost. They may be gone, but they will NEVER be forgotten.

Whether we realize it or not, every passing leaves a hole in our collective human-family. We each bring our own unique additions to the mix. Some “family-groups” just memorialize their losses more than others, and I have been privileged to be part of two of those “family-groups” which do memorialize our losses. I am a Veteran and a retired Firefighter.

One day, we will all answer our “last-call“, as this life gives-way to eternity. Are YOU prepared to meet your Maker in peace when it is time for YOU to heed your “last-call“? I pray that you are.

As we, as Americans, celebrate Independence Day, may we remember those who paid the ultimate-price for our independence, and honor those who are serving to maintain our independence. Freedom is never “free“. It always comes at an enormous-cost, but it is well-worth the price. Just ask Jesus Christ…

Sola Deo Gloria!

 

The ‘Winter’ of Life

Have you felt the chill of that icy wind pierce your soul? Have you been through times when you thought that nothing else could possible go wrong, but it did? Have you wondered if you would ever see the last of it, but you hadn’t, that there was more that could and did go wrong than you could have ever imagined? Have you ever wondered if even God has abandoned you? Were there more questions than answers, and did most of those questions start with “WHY?” Those are the questions of someone going through one or more of life’s winters.

I have written previously about this topic, but with everything that has happened over the last several months, it is a topic worth revisiting.

I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt…many times, but this isn’t about me. Someone else both comforted those in the winter of life, and experienced it first-hand Himself. Our Lord Jesus Christ met several people in the winter of life several times, and then experienced it Himself on the cross.

So, what IS a “winter-event“? Five things come immediately to mind; death, divorce, disease, disability and disaster. This list isn’t all-inclusive, but you get the general-idea. Trauma, in all its forms, also belongs on this list. A “winter-event” is anything that seriously-disturbs what should be the “norm“, something that turns your world upside-down.

In Matthew 9:18-34, Jesus met five people who badly-needed for Spring to come. One was dead, one was sick, two were blind, and one was mute and demon-possessed. Spring returned in a big-way as the dead girl was raised back to life, the sick woman was healed, two blind men received their sight, and the demon-possessed man was freed and his speech was restored.

In Matthew 15:29-31, after healing the daughter of a Gentile woman (15:21-28), a crowd gathered around Jesus, bring many who were sick, lame, blind, mute and maimed, and Jesus, the Bringer of Life, brought healing and Spring back to them. Then, to top it off, He fed the crowd (15:32-39).

In Luke 7: 11-17, Jesus met a funeral procession. A young man had died, and was being carried out to be buried. He was the only child of a woman who was also a widow. Everything dear to her had been stripped away. She was alone, and in mourning, but the story doesn’t end there. The Author and Giver of life stopped the funeral procession and raised the young man back to life. Jesus had met her in her Winter, and proclaimed that Spring is here.

In John 4: 1-42, Jesus was traveling, and came to a town in Samaria. The relations between Israel and Samaria were frosty at best. While His disciples went into town to get lunch, Jesus sat by the well to rest a bit. As He was resting, a woman came to draw water, no doubt trailed by a gaggle of children. They were from several different daddies, as she had been married five times. Some of them may have been fathered by the man she was living with, but not married to. The Jews would have considered her a woman of ill-repute, but Jesus wasn’t put off by her bedraggled persona. Jesus met her in her Winter, and proclaimed that Spring is here. The Kingdom of Heaven had come to earth in the person of the Messiah, and He touched her heart with healing and grace.

In Luke 8: 42-48, again as Jesus was traveling, a woman touched Him. She was extremely sick and penniless, because she had spent all of her meager income on doctors who couldn’t cure her of her problem. The Great Physician did what only He could do…heal her completely. Jesus met her in her Winter, and proclaimed that Spring is here. The Creator and Giver of life is also the Great Physician.

They were a close family, and maybe even lived together. Two sisters and their brother were dear friends of Jesus, but that didn’t keep the unthinkable from happening. The brother fell ill and died. In John 11:1-44, we meet Mary and Martha, and their brother Lazarus. When Lazarus fell ill, Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus that their brother was sick, but He didn’t even make it back in time for the funeral. When Jesus did come back into town, Lazarus had already been dead for four days. Mary and Martha knew that Jesus could have healed Lazarus, but He didn’t, but He did meet them in their Winter, and proclaimed that Spring is here. Grieving sisters met the Resurrection and the Life, and Lazarus rejoined his family.

Simon Peter was part of the inner-circle, one of Jesus’ closest associates. He was bold, brash, arrogant, and often mouthy. On that last journey to Jerusalem, he proclaimed his undying loyalty to his Lord. That was until Jesus was arrested, and he met a servant-girl. Then, he was faced with his most severe test, and failed. He denied his Lord, not just once, but three times. Heart-broken, he went back to fishing, his old occupation (Matthew 26:69-75), but the story doesn’t end there…

Jesus had met others in their Winter, and had proclaimed that Spring has come, but He still had to face His own Winter. Jesus had always had perfect fellowship with His Father (John 1:1-5). Jesus took on our flesh and blood (John 1:14), so that He could experience our winter with us. When Jesus was crucified, He experienced His own winter (Matthew 27:45). The perfect, sinless, Son of God, who had not experienced separation from his Father for even a picosecond, was abandoned, forsaken. God turned His back on His own Son… Our Winter became His Winter… He experienced Winter first-hand…

Three days later, Spring returned in a big way, as Jesus was resurrected. Not only did Spring return, but He had purchased our Spring for us. Grieving friends were met by the risen Savior (Matthew 28:9-10) and (John 20:11-18). Jesus had conquered our worst enemy – death. He who was the Resurrection and the Life was alive and well.

Jesus had only been resurrected for a few hours when He met Mary at the tomb. The loss of a loved-one to death is certainly a “Winter” experience. She had seen Him crucified, but His prediction that He would be raised again on the third day had gone right over her head. The risen Lord, in speaking her name, proclaimed that Spring is here, and she was to share the good news with the rest of His disciples. (John 20:11-18)

A short time later, Jesus met two of His disciples on the dusty road to Emmaus. They had also seen Him crucified, and all their hopes and dreams were dashed. They imagined a conquering Messiah who would liberate Israel from Roman bondage. Instead, they experienced the Suffering Servant who Isaiah had foretold. When Jesus broke bread with those two broken-hearted disciples, their eyes were opened, Spring came in like a lightning-bolt, and their grief was turned to joy. Even though they had planned to stay in Emmaus that night, they high-tailed it back to Jerusalem to tell the rest of the disciples. Good news can’t wait. (Luke 24:13-35)

After the resurrection, Jesus met Peter in his winter, and gave him a new commission. He was to tend His sheep…to be an under-shepherd to the Great Shepherd. (John 21:15-17). Peter was to proclaim to others that Spring has come…

Are you experiencing those icy winds of winter? If so, I invite you to come to the One who has experienced our winter, and has proclaimed that Spring is here. Do those memories of winters-past still haunt you? I invite you to lay them at the foot of the cross, and receive the healing which only He can give. We have a great High Priest; “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.” “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 2:17-18, 4:14-16), Who has experienced our winter, and stands ready to heal us, and proclaim that Spring IS here.

We often think that our problems are too tough, and our Winter is too bleak, but He who conquered sin and death also said; “ALL authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching the to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to even the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

These “Winter” events in our lives remind us that we lost far more than our innocence in the Fall. Life itself became tenuous and fragile. We aren’t in Eden any more.

As a fellow-sojourner, who has experienced more than my “fair-share” of the winters in life, I am here to proclaim the Good News that spring IS here. As we look back on our Lord’s passion week and His resurrection, there is no better time to bring your Winter to find the Spring which only He can bring. The clinic is open, the Doctor is in, walk-ins are always welcome, and there is no waiting. The price is already paid. Come as you are… Will you come to Him for healing? I pray that you do, because you will be glad you did.

Sola Deo Gloria!