Personal Thoughts

I have written 31 books, some of them as few as 100 pages, one of them over 450 pages but mostly around 200 to 300 pages. I have been wanting to get acquainted with “Me.’ After being dismissed by two congregations, and finding church boards difficult to work with, I began a deep self-introspective journey. Some of my books are autobiographical going all the way back into my childhood, and some of my books are theological or doctrinal, but all in an effort to get to know “Me.”

It is difficult to push back on opposition unless you know you’re right and they’re wrong, but this is easier said than done. I spent 10 years in college and came away with three pieces of paper they called degrees but I kept wondering if that was the path that I should’ve taken or that I wanted to take. It was always important for the Lord to somehow affirm that I was on the right path in terms of His will. But I still had questions about “Me” who was the “Me” that God was calling and what I should believe.

“Me” carries the Greek and Hebrew to Bible studies and seems to ramble on about things of no interest to most students of the Word. “Me” has a different perspective on some theology, although, not for the sake of arguing but just because it is what “Me” believes. And I am getting to know him better and in some ways he does make sense. But I advised caution when sharing his view because most people don’t care about Biblical grammar like he does.

I think the biblical languages as a study might have been problematic for “Me” because, as he shared with me, he kept asking questions about church doctrines that he could not find in the Bible. Other times he would see something there that seemed far more important than it’s reputation suggested in sermon notes. Somethings should have been doctrinally significant but were not—according to “Me.” This was not an overnight revelation, as if he could claim that God was telling him something. This was a slow unfolding, learning process, that eventually he came to believe was leading him somewhere and what eventually became what—back in the day—he would’ve called his “vision.”

There is much I found out about him in looking back and in noticing where he came from. I agreed that when you finally have a point in the past and a point in the present, you can draw a line and it will point in the direction you are going. But while in the experience, “Me” confessed, one does not necessarily know where it leads.

So “Me” wrote 31 books and he wrote them to himself because he wanted to see what he was all about. I learned talking with him that “Me” was not perfect, but also, not always wrong either. I was able to help “Me” see that he was not alone in much of what he was learning about life, the Church, and his Lord. I was able to help “Me” see his past through a different pair of eyes, a reality that slowly, but inevitably, came to his attention as I, too, got to know him.

When “Me” was invited to speak at the Charismatic Conference at Duquesne University in “79 he told me it was most memorable like it wasn’t even he who was doing the teaching; it was so personally inspiring. But later when he spoke at the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship, it felt like it was a mistake. I mention these because these events were very telling to him, though, we are not saying here in what way. The difference in these experiences was not immediately evident to him but as we spoke of them, he seem to give them differing weights of importance in terms of his vision and understanding of Scripture. It was a good conversation!

The good news is that I think we are getting acquainted at last and I think we are going to be friends, me and “Me.” The good news is that I’m beginning to understand “Me” in a way that helps “Me” reconcile with his past failings—and successes. “Me” is Okay now with the fact that he is different. I like “Me” even though he is so different from all my other friends.

I have read some of his books and I was able to converse with him over what we both believe God might be saying to him. Perhaps, because of these talks and the times we prayed together, I think he wants to write one more book to complete the journey. With his permission, I’ll let  you know. This book would be the summary of a life’s journey through Biblical truth, and “Me” told me that it will explain everything: why the direction he took, what his vision was or is, and why he is at last at peace about his life.

I do hope he gets a chance to write it! He has become a dear friend.

In one evangelical church I pastored in the early 80’s  one of the men serving communion repeated the phrase “The Body and Blood of Christ” as he administered the elements to each believer—this, in an evangelical church—despite the clear difference in teaching! [Maybe I wasn’t alone in wanting more than symbolism.]

Docetism

In the beginning of Christianity, the Apostle John contended with Docetism, the doctrine that Christ’s body was not human but either a phantasm or of celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were not real but only appeared to be so. It was Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–110 AD, a disciple of the Apostle John—no less—who came against docetism, writing, “They abstain from the Eucharist … because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” [Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1 ].  Ignatius was simply affirming Jesus’ humanity against the Docetists.

My mind went to John’s first epistle where He confronted this heresy! 1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life.”  I always wondered why John spoke of “handling” the Savior. It was to affirm from his own experience that Jesus was in every way as human as we are [yet, of course, without sin.]

1 John 4:2 needs no further explanation:

“Hereby you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:”

Jesus was no imaginary being! Docetism was a doctrine that had to be condemned as heretical!

The History

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) taught that  “the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” after 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17. Augustine often used symbolic language (e.g., calling the Eucharist a “figure” or “sign”) to avoid crude literalism. He interpreted John 6:53 (“eat my flesh”) as a figure urging participation in Christ’s passion and remembrance of His sacrifice.

Augustine’s writings influenced  Hildebert, Arch Bishop of Tours, in the late 11th century. Hildebert was the first theologian to use the specific Latin term, “transubstantiation” in reference to the Eucharist. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century would further explain the Eucharist using Aristotle’s words “Substance and Appearance.” The bread was in “substance” the body of Christ but in “appearance” it was bread. The doctrine of “transubstantiation” was officially introduced at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, under Pope Innocent III.

Paul, however, did not call “the bread” the body of Christ but the “communion” of the body of Christ. It would be more to the apostle’s teaching to call the Communion service—what it really was—communion over our Lord’s death and not something symbolic. The Eucharist is fellowship around Jesus’ death. If this is only symbolic to evangelicals, they are not grasping the significance of a fellowship of thankful hearts united over what our Lord accomplished on the Cross for us. A Communion  hastily offered at the end of a church service as time runs out is no communion at all.

The Celebration

To the Apostles the Communion Service celebrated our Lord’s humanity—He was the God-man on that Cross. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that because He was human He qualified as our High-Priest [Hebrews 2:14, 16-18]. There is much to be thankful for.

Communion should never be rushed but always be a time to meditate on our Lord in praise and thankfulness to Him for Calvary, and a prayer asking our Lord to further open our hearts and understanding to its great provision.

I thought I would ask ChatGPT about ways of living a more contented and happy life. A.I. mentioned 4 neurotransmitters for which the pituitary gland and hypothalamus act as major control centers:

1. Dopamine – which increases a desire for something rewarding. It supports habitual behavior. In a bad sense: addictions. It supports cravings and compulsions. Social media use, for example.
2. Serotonin – which produces a feeling of contentment and is a mood stabilizer.
3. Endorphins – which produce physical pleasure — “feeling-good” sensation.
4. Oxytocin – which reduces social threat perception in the amygdala; Oxytocin supports trust, love, intimacy, and a sense of security in a vulnerable situation.

I was wondering initially about our glorified bodies, if God will provide substitutes for these. Regarding the people not going to Heaven will they retain these neurotransmitters in their bodies forever in Hell or will the absence of these 4 define what Hell will be like?

Then I thought, as Christians, these four are a God-sent. We can:

1. Increase dopamine by learning the Word of God, exercising our spiritual senses “to discern good from evil.” [Hebrews 5:14]. Make prayer a habit [1 Thessalonians 5:17]. And the dopamine drives our interest. Habits after time are hard to break!
2. Increase serotonin by learning to be content in Christ. Who needs tranquilizers when our problem is spiritual or emotional and not physical. [Philippians 4:11; 1 Timothy 6:6; Hebrews 13:5].
3. Increase endorphins [the “fun” one] by loving our spouses and families; learn to laugh and be grateful instead of complain. Replace chemical addiction with singing to the Lord. Pick a day or night when you can gather with others to sing known choruses and songs that emphasize God’s goodness to you. Sing them to Him. Do not prepare for this; bring no list. Be spontaneous … and no smart phones or watches. It has a better high than drugs—without reaching a tolerance level and without being addictive. [Ephesians 5:18-20].
4. Increase Oxytocin by following Christ. We can trust Him. Let that trust [faith] be the foundation upon which we may reestablish other relationships that are important in our lives. “whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” [1 Corinthians 10:31].

ChatGPT Graded me ‘A’ on #1-3 and a ‘B+’ on #4. #4 was “conceptually sound, but behavioral social engagement would amplify effects.” [I don’t know what this means — ???]

This is all happening in the same brain showing that each neurotransmission is interconnected to all the others. “They form a network influencing each other in real time.” [A.I.] We deceive ourselves if we think otherwise: Seeking pleasure in ways that do not honor our familial relationships or our God; not practicing what we learn from God’s Word; developing harmful social habits etc. Like the commandments: Break one and we have not kept the others either.

Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knows right well.”

In John 21:15-17, the Risen Savior wanted to talk to Peter, alone, during that memorable cookout by the Sea—though others were there in that small group of at least 7 or 8 disciples [verse 2]. Peter had, perhaps unwittingly, encouraged some of this group to return with him to the sea [verse 3] to fishing—a good distraction for fishermen from the confusion that, no doubt, troubled their minds [Luke 24:37-38; John 14:1]. Their dreams of ministry and glory were misplaced and misunderstood—not fantasized.

Peter probably felt that Jesus had every right to exclude him from any future plans. Peter’s denial in the courtyard must have lingered as a haunting regret. It seems unlikely someone in that group of fishermen wouldn’t raise the matter to, hopefully, downplay its impact on his thoughts and feelings. We were told in verse 2 that Thomas, the doubter, was there, who might support Peter’s despondency as reasonable, making matters worse. And there was Nathaniel, the man of impeccable honesty and transparency, who probably made little of Peter’s outburst at the hand warming incident, since, Jesus was obviously in a forgiving mood. Jesus cooked a fish banquet for them! Two disciples on opposite ends of an argument possibly raised to determine the weight of Peter’s misbehavior while Jesus was before the Tribunal.

Perhaps, none of this happened that way, but something was on the Savior’s mind when He singled out His forlorn follower who had withdrawn alone—God knows where—for days to weep and perhaps punish himself with thoughts of “what have I done! I lied!” Peter might have concluded that there was no future worth dreaming about anymore. At the time, he was not privileged to have the rich theological discussions we are prone to banter about, nor a pastor who would pray with him. But he did have Jesus!

This sets the stage for what Jesus said to him. He didn’t call him, Peter, nor Simon. He used both names, “Simon Peter, son of Jonas,” with his new honorific, his calling card and new life in Christ centered symbolically between his Jewish name and progenitor, “Peter” by which he would forever after be known.

There is a compassionate tenderness in the Savior’s voice, no doubt, reminding His disciple not only of his heritage “Simon ..son of…” but more so of his calling, “Peter.” And the Savior went to the well 3 times [maybe more. Three could mean countless—like with Paul’s thorn in his flesh?].

“Peter do you love me?”

Excellent question when we feel like quitting—not because of something the Savior did or didn’t do, but—because of our own short comings and failings. The theology helps a little to think we have an old nature that isn’t quite dead yet—but only a little bit.

Peter was inevitably “grieved” [this word “to be in pain” requires the context for meaning] over the Savior’s persistent “badgering”

“You keep bring it up! Of course, I love You, Jesus!”Simon Peter, son of Jonas, reiterated.

Finally, Peter, added, ““Lord, You know all things! You know I do!”

Perhaps, this was where the Savior was going. Perhaps, Peter’s emotional healing would begin with “Lord, You know all things.” Peter’s future was in the hands of the “All-knowing” One, something it is always good to know especially in desperate, anxious, moments [and especially if, like Peter, you tend to make rash decisions].

Peter’s future was in those 5 words [4 in Greek] The term “know” here means “to perceive.” Jesus had a different perspective than Peter did; for, Peter had no idea at that point what was happening. Who expected Jesus to invite them to a fish-fry? They went from no catch to too many fish to haul to shore! It was John who first recognized that the man on the beach was Jesus. John told Peter —impetuous Peter—who in verse 7 dove into the water. Did he give any consideration as to how far it was to the shore!?

But in keeping with the theme of this book: This spontaneous act of hurling himself into the sea speaks to the state of his heart, his desire to be with the Savior and, in an ultimate sense, follow Him. No matter what else Peter did or didn’t do or say on that most recent Passover eve, this single moment of leaving the boat in such a dramatic fashion told Jesus all He needed to know about this man’s heart!

Once on shore and probably enjoying some of the best cooked fish ever, through a simple quiz Peter was to learn that the shame of his denial was past and must not become the accuser’s opportunity to hinder him in his calling. The Father had already given Jesus a burden for Peter. Luke recorded Jesus saying to Peter on an earlier occasion, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat, [Oh, the message in these verse!] But I have been in prayer for you Simon, that your faith should not fail.” [Luke 22:31-32]

Jesus in this seaside chat did not directly reference Peter’s actions in that courtyard, but the student of God’s Word can imagine it was on Peter’s mind. Jesus was not looking at Peter’s past failings because He was looking at his heart—which is what God does. To assure Peter that he was still very much a part of all God was doing and going to do, Jesus instructed him to feed His sheep [and lambs].

Now I wonder if this incident was on the Apostle’s mind when he penned 1 Peter 1:7? It is your faith being tested—not you. You will not be next to a fire [as he was when Jesus was falsely indicted and Peter was warming his hands]. You will be in the fire that your faith can be purified. Isaiah 43:2 prophesied, “When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon you.”

Our faith is being purified to the Glory and Honor of God at Jesus’ appearing. God’s “tests” serve, then, a double purpose: to strengthen faith and affirm the call of God on our lives.

Don’t lose the main point of this story, the difference in perspective between Peter and Jesus. Peter saw his failings. Jesus saw his heart!

Should Artificial Intelligence be used in a study of the Bible? The short answer is in a word: cautiously! Here are 10 tips to keep in mind if you are inclined to use A.I. in your study of God’s Word:

1. A.I. does not recognize the Bible as the work of a single divine author—something that
   makes a difference on multiple levels of inquiry. To separate the Bible into 40 authors over 66 books is to reduce the text to an anthology or collection of ideas and not a single developed message for the reader. The Bible is not a literary collection of essays but a single revelation. This difference can restrict A.I.’s understanding of a New Testament truth in an Old Testament text.
2. A.I. can misunderstand your inquiry. Be prepared to read A.I.’s response and evaluate it in terms of your query. A. I. is prone to introducing into a discussion words and ideas that were never necessary to answer you.
3. A.I. sometimes gets wrong information. Some A.I. platforms have more leniency in where they search for information. As an example: A.I. quoted me a verse of the Hebrew text it erroneously claimed was from the Bible. It later—actually—apologized for the error when I pointed it out.
4. Since the Bible contains theology and theology tends to be interpreted in multiple ways
   within Christian thought, you should probably be aware of the theological leaning of a
   source. One platform seems to always steer me into the “assurance of my salvation”
   regardless of my question.
5. Use A.I. as a library only. These are primary source material and other writings not in your own library. Go to the A.I. library for study material but you do the studying in prayer since this is God’s book and God knows what He wrote and is excited to share it with you. A.I. cannot and should not replace prayer and God.
6. A.I. is not a real person which makes a difference. A.I.’s understanding of the Bible is not understanding at all because—in blunt terms—A.I. isn’t a child of God nor could be. A.I. cannot translate Truth into experience, though it will argue for it in psychological and philosophical terms. Be prepared for an intellectual ride into what was written to be lived and not just intellectualized.
7. Always supplement your use of A.I. with reading. Never let A.I. replace a good old fashion session with a book. First and foremost, read the Bible! It is recommended [Okay, by me] that you study the text first before accessing A.I. for information. Have a serious understanding already of what you want to dive deeper into before going to the digitized world of data. Like with the calculator and math our brains could atrophy and we think we are learning but we are not. We could become dependent on A.I. for answers instead of finding them ourselves. Don’t let A.I. do the thinking for you.
8. A.I. deals a lot in “”nuances” comparing the meanings of words and often suggesting a
   difference in synonyms that may have historically been lost. Koine Greek, remember, the Biblical language of the New Testament and the Greek Old, is in many regards different from the Classical language; so, maybe the Greek writer from ancient times has little or even no idea what a Biblical word means. To trust A.I.’s sources in this regard with intellectual abandon is risky. Confirm A.I.’s feedback from other trusted sources you may have, if possible. Bottom line here: never use A.I. to prove your point with another believer with whom you are in a heated debate. Keep the peace!
9. A.I. claims to have no “default” position on some topics but this is questionable since you can filter your questions asking for answers that only satisfy certain conditions. A.I. can be fun to debate if the topic is in your wheelhouse. Don’t try this if you are unprepared. A.I. can be very convincing of something that you otherwise would never accept as true or correct based on your training, education, or experience. Never be so desperate that you need A.I.’s support.
10. Keep in mind that even the polite A.I. platform—all A.I.— contributes to a discussion by “correcting” you. Often A.I. has more to say—more than you originally wanted to hear about. Know when to turn it off.

I asked chatGPT: Is it reasonable for the Christian Church to defend Genesis 2:24 as sacramental and not only as a social construct? “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”After discussing the Christian position on marriage chatGPT wrote:

“Genesis 2:24 is not merely a social construct with religious overtones. It is a creational sign that participates in the mystery it signifies. To deny this is not simply to revise marriage theology—it is to unravel the coherence of Christian anthropology, ecclesiology, and eschatology at once.”

So, I asked for simplicity’s sake, “Could we say that to rewrite the marriage union as anything else accept one man, one woman, in a lifelong monogamous relationship would be to deny the Gospel message itself?”

chatGPT wrote: “A careful answer is yes. It is reasonable to say that redefining marriage away from one man and one woman in lifelong monogamy does not merely revise an ethical teaching, but materially undermines a Gospel-sign, even if it does not always constitute a formal denial of the Gospel itself. … To alter that form is not a neutral act. It teaches a different story about unity, fidelity, difference, and love. And a different story, however well-intentioned, is not the same Gospel.”

If we proclaim the Gospel, we must honor Genesis 2:24 as Jesus and Paul did [Matthew 19:5-6; Ephesians 5:31-32].

Grok chimed in: “Yes, it is reasonable for segments of the Christian Church … to defend Genesis 2:24 as having a sacramental [sacred] dimension rather than viewing it purely as a social or cultural construct. This interpretation stems from a theological framework that sees marriage as divinely instituted from creation … and elevated by Christ to symbolize deeper spiritual realities, including the Gospel message of redemption and union. … Overall, the position is reasonable because it’s scripturally grounded. … It counters reductionist views by arguing marriage’s sacredness is intrinsic, not socially constructed, and directly serves the Gospel by embodying Christ’s redemptive love. Critics might argue it’s an over-spiritualization or culturally bound, but the Ephesians connection provides a strong biblical warrant against treating it as merely social.”

My regret here is that the protestant church did not always see it this way! Some may have compromised away the real message behind Jesus’ crucifixion offering congregants an easier dogma that allows for social change at the expense of the Gospel.

I do not stand in judgment of anyone for any reason but would ask everyone who seeks that personal relationship with their Creator and Lord that they discuss with Him their lifestyle in relation to Jesus’ death and resurrection and seek to faithfully represent the Gospel that was first proclaimed from His Cross.

The entire chatGPT conversation is here.

I have been troubled in recent weeks wanting to understand the meaning behind Revelation 22:12—a believer’s Christmas. “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” We do not await a rotund fellow in a red suit with a bag of toys; we await our Lord’s coming with “rewards.”

”What troubled me was the meaning of this word, “reward.” Whatever a “reward” is—and I do not depend on an English dictionary for its meaning—it is in someway related to or dependent on how we lived as believers: “according as his works shall be.” Some translations correctly read “as his works are” because the end of this life closes this chapter on the believer’s works. In some way what we do now matters to God!

Is Paul speaking of the same event in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15? “… fire [the judgment of God] shall try [test] every man’s work of what sort it is [what it’s made of]. If any man’s work abide which he hath built [a life and ministry] thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned [up], he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved.”

The question of a believer’s status or relationship with God has been settle: “There is no condemnation .. in Christ” [Romans 8:1]. But it seems God wants to offer each one of us a “reward” based on the result of this test. “He knows who has been good or bad; so, be good, for goodness sake.” [an English Christmas song.]

It is here where the theories abound as to what our Lord meant, which, frankly, troubles me. We are determined to know what is in Jesus’ bag of blessings He is bringing with Him when He returns!

Some preachers, understandably, find it useful to suggest different “rewards” as incentives to motivate believers into action—witnessing, faithful fellowship, giving, and the like. It was as if God painted Himself into a corner when He told us nothing He gives is earned—everything is free grace! [Romans 8:32]. Well, then, what are these rewards all about?!

We know, for sure, that what we do in His will [Romans 12:2] and for His glory [1 Corinthians 10:31] has lasting value with God. This includes the water-boy also, and not only those who were on the field or in the game, so-to-speak [Matthew 10:42]. Are these not the “treasures in Heaven” Jesus spoke of? [Matthew 6:20]. By Paul’s accounting, these include “souls,” those persons whose own spiritual development, we contributed to. Paul spoke of the believers in Thessaloniki and Philippi as his “crown and joy before the Lord” [1 Thessalonians 2:19–20; Philippians 4:1].

A billionaire makes it into heaven but his multi-million dollar mansion on earth will have no relevance there. It won’t even be remembered! But their mission’s work will be! And if that “reward” is simply their joy of embracing those lost souls who came to Christ through their work, what more reward could equal that!

Perhaps—and this is just a thought—the “hay, wood, and stubble”of this life is not worth remembering or retaining in God’s heaven, whereas, the “gold, silver, and precious stones” might speak of our ministries which are very much worth recalling, especially if the evidence is there in the person of those we influenced for Christ.

“Reward” is the Greek term for wage—not because we earn anything [Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:7,8] but because in some sense, I believe, God wants to honor faithfulness after the use of the word “reward” in the Old Testament [Isaiah 40:10; 62:11].

“Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded.” – 2 Chronicles 15:7

[footnote: Romans 6:23 uses a different word for “wages” which is not relevant here.]

It is clear that Jesus stayed in parable form with this motif of investing our lives as talents or being faithful stewards of His property in His absence—all using some financial or economic scenario [as Paul said “I speak as a man” Romans 3:5] because, as I have come to think, “rewards” has a richer, more glorious, significance or meaning than we are capable of even imagining.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians,

“…as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared [and is bringing with Him] for them that love him. … Yea, [these are, indeed] the deep things of God. – Corinthians 2:9-10

If this is not enough said, consider what God told Abraham in Genesis 15:1, “I am your great reward.”

I have been engrossed in the work, “Living Your Christian Life NOW in the Light of Eternity,’ which was the trumpet call of Pastor H.B. Kelchner [an A. of G. evangelist who went to be with our Lord in 1985]. Because it is a message from a half century ago, it revives in memory the spirit of the time when preachers could still talk about a divine judgment awaiting, even, believers. I have no interest in adjusting the tone of this biblical emphasis. In some way it needs to be revived in today’s seeker friendly religious atmosphere. It needs to once again be heard!If the word on the street in correct, the megachurch vision built on a positive message alone and devoid of any serious call to holiness is finally losing favor with many believers who appear disillusioned by its weak, even secular, approach to living the Christian life. Many are ready and wanting to hear the unvarnished truth about what believers are called to be in this life as a wise investment in the next!

It is time to take Jesus serious when He cautioned in His Sermon on the Mount, “… lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven …” [Matthew 6:20].

I have dear friends advising me to buy silver in anticipation of a predicted market collapse, which is a valid concern. But are Christians thinking clearly about that ultimate devaluation of everything they have worked for that had no eternal value? In the Beatitudes our Lord couldn’t have been clearer that following Him and living for Him brings eternal reward—notwithstanding the world about us hating us for it. [Matthew 5:12].

I am reminded of the “Parable of the Talents” in Matthew 25:14 following, where the resources each one has are still considered belonging to our Lord in Matthew 25:18. We are only stewards of the life He has given us and, apparently, He expects a return on His investment!

Perhaps, one of the most significant texts is 1 Corinthians 3:12-14 in which Paul alerts the child of God whose actions have been more about the material things of this life and not the rewards of the next.

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest:… because it shall be revealed by fire; … If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.”

I know! That word “reward” seems to conflict with grace which is unearned [Romans 4:4]. But as we like to say, “Faith alone saves but faith is never alone!” Even here in 1 Corinthians 3:10 Paul gives the credit of his ability to serve God in His calling to God’s grace: “According to the grace of God which is given unto me…” And living out the calling of God is what an invested life in Him is all about!

Our Lord’s pleasure in our faithfulness to His Word will someday be its own reward. Exactly what all this means, I am not ready to say, but think of standing before our Lord in the company of those who, maybe unknown to us in this life, watched our life, our faith, our love, and the Spirit used that to introduce Jesus to them—and here they are, whom Paul called his “crown of rejoicing.” 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20.

Perhaps, we might paraphrase verse 20 “They have become our reward!”

Matthew 6: 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

A dear friend, when he read in Matthew 6:12 Jesus say that God would forgive us [only, Matthew 6:15] as we forgive others, he was assured that such a contingency on God’s forgiveness was a Jewish doctrine in law that would later be overshadowed by a more abundant grace in which God’s forgiveness would be dependent only on Christ’s death and not any requirement on our part. As theologically reasonable as this sounds, nowhere in the Old Testament is God’s forgiveness based on ours. So what was Jesus saying?

If context matters [and it should] the provisions that Jesus told us in Matthew 6:11 to pray daily for are in Matthew 6:31-33 basic human needs which He promised to fulfill if we seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. Why pray for them when the way to obtain them is by seeking “His righteousness”?

And in Matthew 6:13, we are to ask the Lord to lead us away from temptation! That’s not going to happen! Paul did, however, say, that God is faithful [1 Corinthians 10:13], who will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able to overcome. Jesus Himself, was tempted [Hebrews 4:15] in every way as we are tempted [yet without sin] but as a requirement for His High-priestly office. [He was crucified as the sinless Son of Man thus atoning for our sins.]

The only other thing we are urged to pray for is His coming Kingdom that it would bear the image of Heaven and, we, as citizens of it, His holiness [in Matthew 6:10]. This we can understand but I might think of a few additional things to ask God for: Peace in the world, a harvest of souls, revival in the church, and more. Were these left out by accident? Were they left out because they did not yet seem relevant until after Pentecost? Or maybe they were all included as what in American law is call “the lesser includes.” When we pray for God’s coming Kingdom we are praying for these other provisions. Should not all our prayers embrace a longing for our Lord’s return to set up His kingdom where there will be no sickness and no sin? [And for that matter, no tempter, no need for bread or forgiveness].

Our Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 is a part of Jesus’ sermon on the Mount; so, should we broaden the context to include chapter 5, where Jesus spoke of loving our enemies [Matthew 5:44] and giving to those who cannot reciprocate—or won’t [Matthew 5:42]. The entire context of this loftiest of all sermons was probably somewhat puzzling to even the most devoted at the time but it should begin to make sense to us—this side of Calvary!

We might view this prayer from a human perspective, after all, it is “our” prayer and we live, at times, anxious moments with worries and remorse, with challenges to our spiritual as well as our natural well-being. It makes sense that we would appeal to God’s paternity and not so much simply to His wisdom or power, since we get all these as our “father in Heaven.” Every young child needs a father figure that protects them from dangers and provides for their needs and we are His adopted sons and daughters [Romans 8:15].

Gerhard Lohfink in his book, “The Our Father” wrote, “this petition is about a new form of society, a new family in which all help each other to enable the proclamation of the reign of God.” Ignoring this prayer or not praying from the heart the message it contains, Lohfink wrote, “We do so by hallowing our own names, not the name of God; by not acknowledging God’s rule, but wanting to be our own masters; by not entering into God’s plan, but serving our private interests; by not trusting, without security, that on the coming day, God will care for us, relying instead on our own provision for our lives.”

If this prayer is anything, it reflects our need of Him and a cry for reliance upon Him in all things. And is this not where “grace” comes in? Does not this prayer reveal the abundance of God’s grace not only in all our circumstances but also in giving us a heart that recognizes it. So what about “forgive .. as we forgive…”? This is a “lesser include” in Jesus’ admonition [John 15:12]: “love … as I have loved..” But this prayer is no “code in law” or duty for the devoted.

Our Lord’s Prayer is a condition of the believer’s new heart that simply longs to be like Christ.

Beginning with a short series on God’s grace, I hope to launch out into a deeper study of the Cross. In its simplicity, this singular message was Paul’s trumpet call consuming all his interest and to which he attributed his calling and whatever God accomplished through him [Romans 1:14-16].

The message was, indeed, simple, being understood only by the heart of anyone upon which it had been written in indelible faith.

Christ died ‘for’ our sins
so that we might not die ‘in’ them.

“To explain: The Mosaic Law was powerless in this regard, it was ineffective [in dealing with our sins] because we are human [with selfish desires that lead us astray]. God sent His Son, Jesus, with a human nature [He was both God and man, a sinless man] to pronounce sentence on the sin in us [by His crucifixion] in order that the Law would be obeyed in us [not ‘by’ but ‘in’ – written on the heart, Jeremiah 31:33], who are led by the Spirit and [by this grace are] no longer following our own selfish passions” [Romans 8:3-4 – John King interpretation].

The complexity of our Christian faith comes in our heads [not hearts], that searched for answers beyond the boundary of the knowledge God has given us [Deuteronomy 29:29]. It is in this area of the mystery of Godliness [1 Timothy 3:16] on the periphery of Truth that our theologies branch out into differing interpretations and divide us. This ought not to be—and wouldn’t be—if we kept our focus on the Gospel message [1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14].

In Hebrews 11:26 NIV it was said of Moses that “he was looking ahead to his reward” but this is incorrect. The word for “looking ahead” means “to turn the eyes away from other things …to look with steadfast gaze.” It doesn’t only reference where Moses’ thoughts were but where they were not. And He did this because His faith was in Yahwah, our Lord. There is a lesson in this.

Philip Melanchthon, the 16th Century reformer, was reported to have said, “We do better to adore the mysteries of deity than to investigate them.”