Community, Demons, and Zion

I wrote a comment last night on someone's blog who was asking for a definition and discussion of community. This is what I wrote, which I would like to take the time to expand a bit more in this post:

Community is solely based upon the bearing of the image of God in our faces, and beholding that glory to be moved from glory to glory. It is found when the saints gather, whether for prayer, for Bible study, for worship, or for fun ;)
Community is the stepping out from this world and into the eternal together with other believers. It is the dividing of oneself away from the systems of the world, and the principalities behind those systems, in order to be taken by something much more organic and beautiful: Zion. Zion is the City of God. Zion is the Mount upon which the Temple sits. Zion is twofold – a heavenly dwelling with an earthly counterpart. Zion is the place of freedom. Zion is the beauty of holiness, it is the unadulterated splendor of where God’s people are in unity with Him, and it is where we shine with the radiance of Christ. This is community. It is where we love one another with the love of Christ Himself, and from that love, we pursue absolute perfection in that love together. Community, to put it plainly, is heaven manifest upon earth through the children of God. Though we know that when two or three gather in His name that He is in our midst, we also know there is a time for this literal manifestation, when Zion will come down from heaven, when the earthly Zion and the heavenly Zion will be one. That is community. It is born out of the travail for that reality in our midst, whatever means it might take through the Spirit of God to get there.
Grace and peace, dear brother. May Christ’s love overflow in you to be brought unto that eternal radiant glory.

First, lets start with that first statement. It comes directly from 2 Corinthians 3:17-18. For a little bit of context, know that Paul is expressing the immense glory of the New Covenant in comparison to the Old Covenant. He references Moses' veil when he hid his shining face from the Israelites, and he says that this veil is still over the hearts of all they who are not in Christ whenever Moses is read. This needs a bit of explaining. Isaiah 25:7 speaks of a "veil" that covers the nations. This veil is the principalities and powers of the air. It is the demonic strongholds that rule and influence all nations and peoples. That veil was upon the hearts of the Israelites when the came out of Egypt, for it takes more than just receiving the Law to be saved. There is an inward heart conversion that must take place - that did take place for some, hopefully even many, in that first generation. This veil is the Law, which is the power of sin. Now, Law in Paul's mouth is not the same as what we think. Law does not merely mean the words on the page, but the idea that we can have righteousness apart from faith. If we simply uphold "the law", then we are obedient and righteous. That is a false righteousness, one based upon our ability and pride rather than our humility and brokenness. It utilizes the wisdom of those principalities and powers in order to consider ourselves right before God, simply because we have a form of godliness.

Yet, when the heart turns, that veil is taken away. When the individual will come to Christ, and be regenerated, the veil is broken off. This is why Paul says, "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." 

Because we are beholding God's glory in one another's face, instead of that veil upon the heart, we are brought into a place of ever increasing glory.

You can see with this how we go from my first statement directly into the next. We step out from the influence of the principalities and power through living a life of reflecting the glory of God in our face unto all others. Freedom from the principalities and powers can only be attained when we come out and be separate unto the Lord. We no longer have our identity within the systems of the world - not even our father's house, our kindred (Irish, German, African, etc), or our national identity. That kind of separation is painful if it is only for the sake of separating. That is the beauty, though. It is not only for the sake of separation. There is a process unto which we must be taken, and sometimes that process is long and difficult, but we are indeed coming unto Zion, and you have indeed come unto Zion if you are in Christ.

Because we are no longer under the oppression of the devil, we are now at liberty to conduct our lives through the freedom of the Spirit. To live out of that Spirit is to wage war against the enemy. Our lives, everything we do, is a battle.

Ephesians 3:8-12 reads, "To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him."

This is the purpose of the church. We are to display the wisdom of God to the principalities and powers. What does that even mean? How do we do that?

The wisdom of God is displayed through the cross. It is that through sacrifice, and not selfishness, that we obtain exultation. It is through submission unto death, even the laying down of our lives for our brothers and sisters, that we obtain life. This is utterly paradoxical in our rational world. The reason this seems to be completely opposite of what we would think is because we are influenced all too much by the wisdom of Satan. It is his wisdom that tells us "It is a dog-eat-dog world out there! You have to look out for number one! If you don't, then who will? You have to take care of yourself before you can care for others, right?" It is the wisdom of God that says, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." There is an utter contrast.

What is community? It is the place where the saints have come together utterly separated from the world, untarnished by the principalities and their wisdom, in order to serve the Lord their God in whatever way He might command. It is when we do not rely upon the wisdom of the kingdom of darkness - pride, self, manipulation, intimidation, greed, lust, etc - but rely solely upon God that we have entered into community. Our daily life is to go from house to house breaking bread. If we don't meet with all of the saints, and we don't receive from them the impartation of life, then how shall we survive the day? The enemy of my soul is too strong for me alone.

This is community, and this is what we are to display unto even the cosmic realities. May the Lord make you incredibly hungry for such expression of His kingdom in your midst, and may you be unwilling to settle for anything less. Blessings in Jesus' name!

Running from Church to Find God

            In the case of Philemon, the history might be the best commentary. Philemon was a man who owned slaves. He was a believer in Jesus, and somehow had a connection with Paul, by Paul’s own words he was indebted his life. The story that seems to be taking place in the midst of Philemon is a slave named Onesimus ran away. Philemon was a believer in Jesus, and he had some sort of meeting of the Church in his home. One of the questions that come to mind would be why his slave ran away – but more specifically, why to Paul?

            The best thing that can be figured was that Onesimus heard about this man Paul. He heard about this man Jesus. He heard the message of the Gospel, but didn’t see the reality of it lived out before him. His master was quite the Christian man in front of all the other believers, but is it possible that he was less than sanctified while dealing with his slaves? Maybe the reason that Onesimus ran away – especially to Paul – was because he heard the message of hope and redemption, but still felt oppressed and tormented. Onesimus would have ran to Paul as an attempt to find the man who gave his master hope and redemption. He apparently believed the Gospel, but was discontent in the house of affliction – a house that purported to be Christian.

            In one way, we can look at this and ask why it must have been that this happened, but in another very real sense, we need to glance at out own lives. Why is it that our friends and family – those who are closest to us – don’t believe our message? Is there anything is me that would hinder my witness of the Gospel? Am I the very instrument that is causing someone in my own home to say, “I would love to believe it, but where is the reality in their life?” All across the world we find this story being played out a million times over. Teenagers, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances are running away from Church to find God. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It has happened from the very first century onward. The question is not why they are leaving. The question is why they have been pushed out the door.

            What is it about Philemon that drove Onesimus to such drastic measures? What is it about our so-called Christian homes and church gatherings that have driven the youth away? I have yet to talk to one person that is uninterested in God, except they who are in the Church. The people outside of the buildings have questions that are not getting answered, and they love to talk and discuss the things of God when someone is able to talk reasonably and intellectually. It is the system of religion that has driven them into insanity, looking for life and hope in a dead and dying world. Where are the Pauls of the world? Where are the people that they can run to? Unlike Onesimus, our generation seems to have persecuted the true apostles and prophets so that there is no one to run to.

            In a world that is hostile to God, where do they who truly seek run to? The buildings don’t talk about God. They quote from the Bible, but only to talk about self. On September 12, 2001, while churches across America gathered for their midweek Bible studies, and again on the 16th for Sunday service, millions of people flocked to the churches with questions of love and hope. They wanted to know whether America was under judgment because of the terrorist attacks. They wanted to know if God saw their oppression and heard their cry. They wanted to hear a message from the preachers, who are supposed to be God’s spokesmen, but instead found “business as usual”. When they ran to the churches to find hope and redemption, the preachers got up and began the same sermon series from where they left off – as if the World Trade Centers had not just been kamikazed. Where do the people have to run? Who is the voice that they can go to in order to ask these difficult questions?

            What I find as a challenge with the book of Philemon is that this man was a Christian who sat under Paul’s teaching, and even had a house church. Yet, Onesimus found it necessary to run away from that in order to find God. What vexes me is that I see the same thing taking place, but where do they run? To whom do they take counsel in? The severity of the situation calls for drastic measures, and yet the majority of Christians see it as a “them” problem and not an “us” problem. They are the ones leaving, right? So why is that our fault? What was it in Philemon that caused Onesimus to run away? It wasn’t because of Onesimus that Onismus ran. He could have very well spoken to his master about the same things he sought Paul for. Yet, he decided to run to Paul instead of asking the very man closest to him.

            In considering the book of Philemon, let us consider also the implications that this epistle has on our own lives. Let us reflect on those who have run away from our own homes and lives. Is there anything in us that would have caused for that fleeing? Sometimes there isn’t anything, and they just don’t want to believe. Yet, that shouldn’t be our immediate response, considering the depth of grace and love that we’ve experienced in Christ. Anyone who knew the glory that we have attained to in Christ would sprint 1000 miles to also come unto. The question isn’t our message, nor their hearts, but first and foremost our own hearts and lives and conduct.

           I feel like to end, I should quote Mother Teresa: If you don't want your children, then send them to me. She was talking about abortion, but I'm officially opening my doors for a generation that is asking questions.

The Cross as Life

It has been difficult for me to comprehend the doctrine of the cross for a long time. What I mean by this needs a little introduction. I understand perfectly well the notion of dying to self. I understand perfectly well the crucified life. I understand perfectly well that we are new creatures. Yet, in that last statement I find my exact point: we are resurrected. The point of the cross, as I understand, is not simply to die, but that we would be raised up with Christ by the same glory that raised Him up. So, I've been confused about this for a while. How is it that Christ Jesus would say, "I came to give you life, and life abundantly", but then we want to say that we have to continue to die to self?

I've heard many times about the notion of dying to self. We take up our crosses so that God might raise us up. Yet, if you've been raised, then you've been raised. If your life is hid with Christ in God, then your life is hid with Christ in God. If you are crucified with Christ, it is no longer you that live but Christ that lives in you, then you are crucified with Christ. If you are a new creation, then you are no longer the old creation; you are now a new creation. Do you see my dilemma? In one sense, I understand full well that I need to die to the sinful passions of my old lifestyle, and thus be raised by the glory of God unto newness of life. I understand full well what it means to taste death and now be alive in Christ. But, once I'm alive in Christ, I can no longer die.

In Romans 6, Paul makes an interesting statement: "If we have been united with [Christ] like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection... that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died once and for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive in God in Christ Jesus."

Did you catch it? If you have died, and have been raised unto newness of life, then you cannot die again. This has an implication with the second death - the lake of fire. We know that because we have already died, we cannot die again. That old man has received its judgment, if you will allow me to say such things. Now, here is my confusion. If we have died and been raised unto life, then we can no longer die. Yet, it is told to us that we are to die daily, and that we are to continuously be giving our lives and dying to self. Just because you quote Paul's words that he dies daily doesn't necessitate the validity of the statement. This has perplexed me for quite sometime... until a couple days ago.

My wife and I have been looking through the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3. While discussing the words of Jesus to these churches, it dawned on me what is going on with the cross here. Jesus said, "No one takes my life." He actually believed that. His life was taken by no one. Instead, He laid it down willingly. Now, when we talk about His life being laid down, what exactly are we talking about? I would like to suggest something rather profound. The "my" being used here might not refer to Christ in totality. Who Christ is, His essence, is found in His relationship with God the Father. Likewise, the true you, the true me, is not found in my body, but instead is something more than my body. The true Jesus could not die, because it was already alive to God. Though His body went into the grave, and though Jesus descended into the depths of the earth, the statement that Jesus is making is not about death like we think it is.

Let me try to explain a different way. Because Jesus was alive to God, He could not die. So, because He willingly gave His life, it was His to take it up again. The point of the cross in this sense is not about death, but about life. It isn't that Jesus is going to die, but that He will continue to live. Though He gives His own life, it is His to take up again. Why? Because Jesus had already passed from death to life. The reality of the cross was already at work in Him. The epochal moment of death on the cross was an ultimate climax of a succession of events that were all crosses before it. He had already died, and therefore He was already raised unto resurrection. Yet, the literal and bodily death and resurrection had not yet taken place.

Are you starting to see where I'm going here?

When we talk about dying and taking up our own crosses, what exactly are we talking about? There is a time and place to die to self and live unto God. There is a legitimacy to our phraseology of dying and being raised again. Yet, once you have passed from death to life, you no longer have to die again. You have already passed through unto eternity. You are already alive unto God. This is why Paul gets into Romans 7 and deals with our struggle with sin.

"Do you not know brothers... that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?"

Did you catch it? What is the point of Romans 6? WE ARE NO LONGER ALIVE TO SIN, BUT INSTEAD DEAD TO SIN. The whole point of Romans 7 is, then, to be understood as those who have not yet passed through death unto life. We might technically be saved, but we have not yet come unto the place of resurrection. One man said it this way: Many saved, few converted. Paul continues:

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might believe to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God."

Our life is hid with Christ in God. For they who have been raised unto this glory no longer face the death to self that is required of those who have not yet died. This is why later in Romans 7 Paul says, "As it is, it is no longer I myself who [sins], but it is sin living in me." And again, "Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." Why does Paul say this? Because the "me" being spoken of is not the same "me" that was put to death. The "me" that Paul is speaking of is the relation that I have with Christ. It is the new life. I am now alive to God, and that "me" cannot sin.

So, when we come back to our theology of the cross, we ask the question of what it means to die daily. The cross of Jesus was not about death, but instead about sacrifice. It was not about death, but instead servanthood. It was not about death, but instead selflessness. That which needed to die - the sinful man - had already died. Likewise, the cross that I bear daily is not a cross unto death that I might be resurrected. That has already happened. It is about me giving my life as a ransom for many. It is about me giving my life for my friends. Even if I descend into the deepest depths of the earth on their behalf, it is still my life to take back up. I am both priest and sacrifice, pouring myself out like a drink offering on behalf of my friends.

That is the cross as life. It doesn't diminish my life. It doesn't take away from who I am in God. It isn't about dying to self. It isn't even about dying to selfishness, because that selfishness has already died. It is about giving my life as a ransom for many. It is love covering a multitude of sins. It is me being merciful, so that through my mercy, they may obtain mercy. It is me being a living sacrifice. This theme is taken up through the whole of the book of Romans, and yet I've never heard anyone else proclaim it. I've heard others come close, but I can't say I've ever heard anyone who would speak this. I no longer live, but Christ in me. Therefore, when I lay down my life as a living sacrifice, it is not me dying - it is me obtaining even greater life. Because I lay down my life willingly, it is mine to take back up again - not because I am somehow on par with Christ, but because that kind of sacrifice is what attains unto eternal reward. It is the wisdom of the Kingdom: he who loses His life shall obtain life. How much greater life do we obtain when we willingly lay down our lives in apostolic priestliness for the benefit and glory of another?

Maybe this helps us to understand why Paul tells the Philippians, "...in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing." Again, he tells the Thessalonians, "For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been in vain." Paul has been a living sacrifice to these churches. Has this sacrifice been a waste? But, alas! In neither instance does it seem as though Paul concludes that it has. It is a labor of love - even my own death - because I know that God has already raised me up unto life. To die is to be with Christ. My cross that I bear is no longer one of death; it is now a cross of liberty. I am not forced to die upon this cross any longer, because I have already died upon it. I now walk according to the Sprit. But, that Spirit bids me back to the cross so that I might express the same love that Christ expressed on Calvary.

The cross is life for the believer, not because we constantly die to self, but because in the laying down of our life, others find life. This challenges me, but also excites me. I hope it has the same affect on you. May the Lord work this deeply in both of us that we might obtain life and meet in Zion.

Humanity's Ultimate Purpose - Genesis 2:4-15

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LordGod made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
Genesis 2:4-15

What is humanity's ultimate purpose? We find the solution in the very beginning of the Bible I'd like to take the time to digest some of what is happening here in the Garden of Eden.

In Genesis 1, elohim is the name given to God. But in chapter two, it is jehova elohim (LORD God). Elohim is a suggestive pronoun. It denotes power, specifically the one that holds all power (or at least more power than anyone or anything else). Jehova is our English way of saying Yahweh, which is another English way of saying the YHWH. We aren't entirely sure how to say this name, so we gave it a label: the tetragrammaton. It is usually suggested that this name is from the verb hayah, which would give the interpretation "I am/exist." When we have two Hebrew nouns together, we place the word "of" in between them. So the Lord God is being titled, "I AM of Mighty Power." 

It is supposed from Genesis 2:6 that mankind was given the purpose to till the ground. We'll talk about problems with this later. Instead, I want to skip to verse 7. I this verse, we find Adam consisted of both heaven and earth, thus becoming a living creature. The Hebrew word used for the breath of God is not the same word used in Genesis 1:2, ruach, but instead nephesh (to blow).

Jesus, in John 20:22 blew on His disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit..." There is a hermeneutic principle that says when you see the first time a word or phrase is used, mark it down. We can learn what that word or phrase means from that first instance it is used. For example, I mentioned the word ruach. Ruach is translated spirit, breath, or wind. But there is a thing to note about ruach: it is God's Spirit. Ruach, to me, is much more properly defined as the energy (Spirit) of God that causes the creation to stir. This is why it is also sometimes denoted as wind or breath: the Spirit itself causes for the creation to stir when it is present. 

So, when we see in Genesis 2:7 that the Lord God breathed into Adam, we need to identify this. This is the God that breathes life. When John points out that Jesus blew on His disciples, John is making the statement that Jesus is not a mere man. He is the tetragrammaton in the flesh. This would also fit with the Holy Spirit being the ruach haqodesh (Spirit of holiness). The ruach is the presence of God that stirs up the creation. Why does it denote breath? Because it is a part of the God that gives life, or breath, to mankind. In order for God to transmute life and breath into Adam, He must be both living and breathing. This is a fascinating idea to think of a God that is both living and breathing, unlike the gods of stone, wood, money, and television.

In Genesis 2:8, we read of this living God as one who plants... Some have said that this is actually a contradiction in the Bible because God plants the Garden after He made man. But in Genesis 1, God made the trees, fish, birds, and animals before He made man. The solution is really quite simple that it's pathetic. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a story of the seven days of creation. The author wasn't trying to give the intimate details of each day, but instead giving the overall summary of each day. Then, the author goes in and gives the details of day six when Adam and Eve were created. That is what we're reading about. There were trees, animals, birds, etc outside of the Garden of Eden, but God made this Garden specifically for Adam and Eve. 

Eden is the Hebrew word for delight. Because the Lord God had planted this Garden, and it was to be enjoyed and delighted in, we cannot then say that Adam was given the charge to "till the land." The only thing that Adam would have needed to till would have possibly been outside of the Garden. There is even a Jewish tradition that suggests maybe some of the trees in the Garden were bread trees. Adam wouldn't have even needed to made dough and bake the bread, because it would have already grown on the trees pre-baked and ready to eat. 

We know the story, so we know that Adam did get kicked out of the Garden. Obviously, then, this Garden does not cover the whole Earth. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:8 to say that Adam was placed in the Garden is sum (soom). It has absolutely no connotation to any effort on Adam's part, and complete connotation that God is the one doing the work. 

Out of the entire Garden, there are two trees named in verse 9: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. What was the first command given to Adam? The first command is in verse 16, which I didn't put here. It is that Adam is to eat of every tree of the Garden. The command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is actually the second command given to Adam. The first is to eat and enjoy all of the trees of the Garden. So, when we think back on the story and point out that God put a limit on Adam and told Him, "Don't do this," we actually misunderstand the story. The whole thing is pointing to the fact that God made Adam and put him in the Garden so that Adam could enjoy the creation. 

Now, we read in verses 10-14 about these four rivers. Pishon means to increase. Gihon means to burst forth. Hiddekel means rapid. Euphrates means fruitfulness. 

In verse 15, we have the Hebrew word yanach used to mean "put." So, in verse 8 we read that man was put (sum) in the Garden, and in verse 15 we read that he was put (yanach) in the Garden. What is the difference between these two words? Yanach is a synonym of nuach, which means rest. The definition of yanach is "to deposit," or "to allow to stay." 

Note the translation of working in the Garden. "Tend and keep it." It was already tilled and cultivated and worked by God. The Hebrew is le'abdah welesamrah. Abad means to serve, and is sometimes used in relation to being a bond-servant. Samar means to protect, or to hedge about. Samar is the word used in the Ten Commandments, "keep my commands" (Exodus 20:6). To keep is to protect, or to guard. 

Something else to note is that the Hebrew does not agree in gender to suggest this is Adam's purpose in respect to the Garden. This must be an abstract view unrelated to the Garden. Adam was made to serve and protect God/God's words. That is the ultimate purpose of humanity. We aren't called to somehow toil and work and struggle, but instead to be in rest and leisure. Out of that rest we are to fulfill our primary role and calling in life: to protect the words of God. We are to be in service to God, worshiping and adoring He who has given us such a place as the Garden of Eden.

But what about us today? We are far from the Garden of Eden. In the book of Genesis we find a Garden, but in the book of Revelation (chapters 21-22) we find a City. In the Garden there was a river that split into four different directions. In the City there is a river that comes out from the throne of God. In the Garden there are two trees mentioned. In the City there is one tree mentioned (tree of life) twice (one on either side of the river). The Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven are both related. These are the ultimate intentions of God for humanity. 

We have this strange thought that the New Jerusalem will be some future time that we can't understand anything about it now, but Paul speaks of it in Galatians 4:25-26. "Now, Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." Do you understand? We are currently seated with Christ in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). We are currently called to be a part of that Holy City. But if we are thinking that we have to wait until that city is a literal reality in the New Heaven and New Earth, then we aren't ever going to strive to live according to that New Jerusalem. That New Jerusalem is free. It is free from fear, free from works of the Law, free from sin, and free from death. 

Upon our salvation, we are "placed" in that City. We are then bidden to stay in that City, to serve and protect the Lamb. Our protecting is to keep His commands, which is done by loving one another. Anyone who loves as Christ loved is protecting Him. To know His words and to know His commands, we only must love one another as Christ as loved us. This is the Law and the Prophets summed up: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. That is our high calling. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. We are all simply bid to come and enjoy, rest and serve. 

What is Election?

I wanted to write a blog on the book of Ephesians. Specifically, does the book of Ephesians teach Calvinism? This should let the cat out of the bag: I'm not a Calvinist. With that out in the open right away, what do we do with the verses about predestination and election? If we toss them to the side, then we are guilty of not taking the whole counsel of God. If we embrace them and elevate them to saying that God has predestined every even in history and future, then we also run the risk of not taking the whole counsel of God.

These two words - election and predestination - are extremely important to define. This isn't a bit of "doctrine" in which we can ignore or be tolerant with. This actually affects the Gospel, which is to say, it affects our perception of God. If we have a wrong perception of God, then we have a wrong perception of everything.

This thought came when my cousin asked my comment on a recent event. The video he shared and asked my opinion on is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

Why do people seem to despise Israel? This was my comment:

Unconsciously we all have this. Israel is not a state, but a statement. It is a statement about a God that is specific enough to predestine and elect a certain people, thus condemning all other people. Lest we be grafted into Israel, we shall not rule and reign with Him. If we aren't ruling and reigning with Him, then we are in submission to Him. Submission is not desired of any nation. Abraham's calling out of the nations and into the Land that God would show him is more than a calling for "blessing." God took a man out of the nations to establish His own nation called Israel.

To hate Israel is to hate God. We need to be ruthless with this in our own hearts before condemning others because any sentiment and self-effacing love for Israel will one day be found out to be fraudulent. Sentiment turns to hate really quickly when they are in place and power to find us out. They will find us out.

It is easier for us to stand on the bench and hear such conflict. We can be appalled by it. But to what degree will we stand with Israel? To what degree will we truly love them? The truth of our love for them is to actually tell them of the coming calamity and devastation that awaits them if they go back to Israel. There is a final judgment, and many Jews know it. Something is coming. A civil unrest is rising into something much less than "civil," and much more gruesome than "unrest." When that havoc breaks upon them, are we willing to stand with them and also suffer the same fate as they? That is identification, and that alone constitutes love and intercession.

I want to focus on that first statement. What do I mean when I say that God has predestined and elected a certain people, thus condemning all other people? Let us back up and view this from a much bigger perception. In Genesis 11, the nations' first act is in rebellion to God. They come together as a one-world government to build a tower that will reach to heaven. God did not ordain this; the evidence is both that God had previously said to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 9:1) and that they made bricks for stone. What altar have you ever read of in the Bible that was made out of brick? They not only went against God by making this out of brick, but also baked them. They could not even allow the sun to dry them, but had such urgency and imminence that they baked these bricks.

What is God's response? We know that He came down and confused the language, but ultimately His response was to take one man out of nations, and to establish Him as God's nation. It is through that nation that God has said, "I will bless all the families of the earth." Or, "I will bless all other nations." God says over and over again to Israel in the books of Moses that He does this and establishes this so that the nations will see and know that He is God. The prophets speak much about how God's ultimate redemption plan is that He will redeem Israel, and all nations will then know that He is God.

Ultimately, when I say that God has elected a specific people, I do not mean that only those whom God has elected will make it into Heaven. I see that in the Millennial reign of Christ that the nations continue. We know this from Scriptures like Zechariah 14, Daniel 7:12, and Isaiah 2. God's election pertains to the people that He has put His name upon: Israel. When we come to Christ, we are grafted in to being the people of God. This is why Paul says in Ephesians 2 that we who were afar off have been brought nigh by the blood of Jesus. But brought nigh into what? Ephesians 2:12 says it plainly: the commonwealth of Israel.

Romans 11:16-24 indicates that God has cut off the natural branches - those who are genealogically Israel - to graft in "wild branches," namely, the Gentiles. We are not a new phenomenon called the Church, but instead are the remnant of Israel. God has brought together the two - Jew and Gentile - to make of them one new man. We find in Romans 11:7 that only the elect have obtained the fulfillment of the promises (that is, Jesus the Messiah), but we find later in Romans 11:26 that "all Israel shall be saved..." So what Paul starts with in Romans 11 is that not all of Israel is part of the election, but then explains that God has elected both Jews and Gentiles to be grafted into the root that is holy, and then ends Romans 11 with saying that "all Israel shall be saved."

Who is this elect? It is the remnant of Israel. God has ordained in His sovereignty that there should be both Jews and Gentiles elected into the remnant of Israel. We are not some new phenomenon called the Church, but instead we are now grafted into that holy root - the same root that stems back to the beginning of time when God called Adam His son. It is all about being sons and daughters. We are not "people of God" in some abstract sense of the wording. We are the people of God because we are His children. He has adopted us all, whether we were Jewish, Greek, Italian, English, German, or Palestinian. Whatever our heritage, and from whatever people we came, God has ordained a specific people to be His remnant. It is that remnant, that election that will bless all of the families of the earth.

How?

We drive the Jew to jealousy (Romans 11:11, Deuteronomy 32:21). It is by our witness that drives them to jealousy that causes "all Israel" to be saved. At a future time, I might explore more deeply the fullness of the Gentiles, what it is, and how all things tie together so that when they come in, all Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:25-26). For now, I just want to make the point that those who are outside of the election are not necessarily those who are cast into hellfire.

At this present moment, here and now, the only way that you will not die and go to Hell is to be converted. In a sense, it is true to say that those who are outside of the election are going to Hell, but in a much larger sense, that is wrong. During the Millennial Kingdom, there are a people that are outside of Israel, but somehow are coming up to Jerusalem to worship God. They are not part of the election, but they are not cast into the lake of fire with the Antichrist. They don't suffer the same judgment as the army that marches against Jerusalem.

You might say, "Yeah, but that isn't heaven."

Okay, lets look at Revelation 22. After the Great White Throne, there is the New Heaven and the New Earth. It has been thought that the only way to get into that, and to escape the lake of fire, is to be saved. I don't have an absolute statement here, but I do have a question. In Revelation 21:24-22:5 we find that there are these people outside of the New Jerusalem that must come up to the Holy City. They are somehow not a part of this City that is called "The Bride of Christ" (Revelation 21:9), but are considered saved. They are somehow not mentioned as being in the City, but must come up to the City to take of the fruit of the tree of life and find healing. Those that are a part of this City (the Bride) rule and reign with Christ forever.

Rule and reign over what?

I would like to suggest that maybe being saved isn't everything. Maybe there is a bigger step than salvation. Maybe election and salvation are different and distinct. Maybe God has predestined that this people will be His people, and that this people will rule and reign with Him, and that all other people are welcome to be saved and glorify God in where He has called them, but not all other peoples are elected or predestined to be a part of that Bride. God desires that all shall be saved. This isn't a hope in universalism, because I still believe that there are those that are cast into the lake of fire for eternity. I haven't come to any good or solid conclusions as to where the distinction is, or how to even make a distinction. It is quite clear that those who are currently saved are grafted in, and therefore are a part of this election. What is not so clear is that everyone who has been saved and grafted in will be a part of the City of God, nor that everyone who has been saved and grafted in will be a part of the first resurrection during the Millennial reign of Christ.

When we're talking about election and predestination, I'm not entirely sure I grasp the concepts thoroughly, but it sure seems like neither does anyone else... One thing I do know for sure: Paul understood. He had a view that was larger than anyone else that I know. His perception was cosmic and eternal. It spanned from eternity to eternity - everlasting to everlasting. He knew the beginning from the end, and the end from the beginning. Of course, this revelation from God came with a price. Paul himself remarks that because of his incredible revelation and understanding God gave him a thorn in the flesh. I don't have these revelations that Paul had.

It seems to me that we all are quite far from the ultimate meaning and interpretation of such verses. I hope that maybe this helps some who are trying to understand better how all these things fit together. Maybe someone else can take this and run with it. As for me, I am not capable of comprehending such majestic thoughts, and I fall desperately short of having a conclusion.

The Amalekites are wolves

I want to introduce a thought that I've been having for a while, but haven't quite figured out how to express it. Because the thought is rather deep, I wanted to introduce it in a way that wasn't so deep. I'll first put the thought out, and then we'll go into a further explanation.

Every nation that is mentioned in the Bible is stemmed from Genesis 10. Genesis 10 is called "the Table of Nations." It gives you the lineage of the original three sons of Noah, and each of these patriarchs made a nation. From these nations in Genesis 10 come every other nation. Knowing how they are all linked back gives us a good insight into these nations for multiple reasons:

1) God still holds these nations accountable, even though they are not "technically" still around today.
2) All current nations and past nations stem from those peoples, and God sees a continuum from them to the present day.
3) Each nation has a spirit, or characteristic, that is intrinsic to that people. 

The nations mentioned in Genesis 10 have a certain characteristic about them that distinguishes them from all other nations. It isn't enough to say that they have this or that lineage, and they were named this, and so that is what makes them different. What makes them different is the spirit - the principality or power - that is ruling over that nation. We can be of a certain lineage and act quite contrary. Jesus said to the Jews that were questioning Him in John 8, "If you were Abraham's children, you would act like Abraham." They were technically Abraham's offspring by birth, but that did not count them worthy of that title. If Jesus saw it this way, then God always sees it this way. The two views are the same. 

When we dive into our Bible, we find many times that God will somehow throw out these strange phrases. An example would be when He said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam," Micah 6:4. Was the generation that Micah spoke to the same generation that God called out of Egypt? No. This isn't wiped away by playful metaphor or rhetorical language either. God charged the people that Micah spoke to as if they were the very same generation that came out of Egypt. He saw no difference, though it were centuries later and completely different people. He sees an unbroken continuum between these generations according to character, and not according to name.

When we look at the nations in the Bible, we find that certain nations seem to be condemned with no remedy. Why? Because what God is condemning is not the people of Egypt, but the spirit of Egypt. He is condemning the spirit of Babylon. He is condemning the spirit of Tyre. When we lose this understanding, we find it excruciatingly difficult to see how it could be that God would speak such harsh things against these nations. He speaks against what they represent. Any person that would subscribe that that spirit is to receive that judgment, but anyone who subscribes to this spirit will receive of this blessing.

Lets look at the Amalekites. Who were they? We find that the Amalekites are a descendant of Esau. Esau is Jacob's brother. We read in Exodus 17 about how the Amalekites, when Israel came out of Egypt, would stay afar off behind the house of Israel and would slay the weak, the fatigued, the elderly, the children, and anyone else that could not keep up with the majority. They would hunt like wolves. They swarm the sick, the ones that are not able to defend themselves.

Jesus said of such people, "Beware." They come to you in sheep's clothing - pretending to be a descendant of your brother, or in modern language, a part of Christ's Body - but they are inwardly ravenous wolves. A wolf is one that stays away from the strong. They take the weak, the sick, the young, and any who cannot defend themselves. Wolves are cowards. They bite at the leg so that you cannot get away, and then they all come in and swarm around you gnashing their teeth.

This is exactly what the Amalekites did. Saul was charged by God to slay them. But he didn't. He was told to utterly destroy them - don't even allow for the animals to survive. Instead, Saul allowed the king and all of the best of the animals to survive. He took the animals "as an offering" unto the Lord. It was this kind of disobedience that caused the prophet Samuel to weep through the night.

What is so horrible about allowing some animals to survive? After all, they were supposed to be an offering unto the Lord.

Saul did not recognize that he was being called upon to take out the enemy of God. He was being called upon to eradicate an enemy that torments and exterminates the weak and oppressed. God was calling upon Saul to stand up for the weak, stand up for the small, stand up for the child, stand up for the elderly, and stand up for those that cannot stand up themselves. Instead, Saul took it as a bizarre sort of command, and did not take it seriously enough.

That kind of half obedience is not obedience. It caused the prophetic man who understood what they Amalekites represented to weep through the night.

Only a few chapters later we find that Saul completely and utterly destroys Nob. Nob was a town of priests. The very time of extermination that was required of Saul to kill the enemy of God, which he could not perform, was the degree of extermination that Saul was able to slay the priests of God. What would cause him to be able to exterminate the priests, but not the enemies? The priests helped out David, and therefore Saul figured they were not fit to live.

Ministers, elders, deacons, pastors, and the fathers in the faith are called to this one task: utterly destroy the Amalekites. Those that would purport to be sheep, but are inwardly ravenous wolves: kill them. There is no other option. Those that are wolves in our congregations, in our fellowships, in our friends, in our families, or any other kind of relation where they might attack the weak, we are given the command of God to protect the weak at any cost - even the cost of wolf bashing. You will offend. It takes that kind of offense to ensure the safety of those that God has entrusted to you.

Those that are rams are to guard and protect the flock. Any goat or wolf or fox that acts like a sheep, but is not a sheep, is to be opposed to the uttermost. Don't allow one to continue to stand. That spirit that was in Saul that did not equip him to destroy the Amalekites is alive and well in our leaders today. It took David to destroy them. Nothing less than a David, which is in every point and particular the spirit of Jesus, will suffice. Our leadership needs to lead in the spirit of Jesus, and never in the spirit of our own ability. "Not by strength, nor by might, but by my Spirit, says the Lord."

Every nation has a spirit that they represent. The enemies of God are to be overthrown. Many of us have not come into that Land that God has promised - which is Zion - because we have not yet began to overcome the 7 spirits that are bigger and stronger than you. It takes the power of the Spirit to overcome these nations. Nothing short of the cross and death working in our own lives will deliver them into our hands. One of the biggest battles of the book of Joshua was won because God sent hailstones down from heaven, and God killed more that day than the entire army of Israel.

This is the beginning of my thought. I haven't quite wrestled with all of the implications, but I believe that at the end of the age, Jesus will separate the nations as a Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32). When we have been content to assume that God will judge each man according to his work, maybe the words of Jesus speak a bit more of a truth that we will all be gathered according to the nations that we represent. Each man will be judged accordingly, and I have no doubt that God is able to judge us as individuals, but maybe there is something to this nations thing. I haven't quite gotten my head around it, but I find that even in Revelation 22, when there aren't supposed to be nations, there is a mention of the nations outside of the City of God that must come up to the City and take of the fruit of the Tree of Life. This is supposed to be heaven, and yet there are nations that didn't make it into being the Bride of Christ, and at the same time are present in heaven?

Maybe our understanding is all too Greek, and we need to be taken out from that understanding and brought into a Hebraic view. I don't claim to have it. I just simply mean that what I see in the Bible seems to contradict many of our most precious views about eternity and what it means to be the people of God.