Do We Need to Wait for the Spirit?

Let’s imagine that you are attempting to do an in-depth study on the book of Acts. Today you are going to tackle Acts 1:1-5. You find yourself studying and applying Acts 1:4;

And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father… –Acts 1:4

Clearly from this text we see that Jesus’ charge to his disciples—prior to his ascension and after his resurrection—was to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the Spirit before they took the gospel to the ends of the earth. So how do you apply this passage? What does this mean for the church of the 21st century?

The most obvious lesson for us to learn is that it is vital for us to wait on the Holy Spirit before doing things. The disciples needed the Spirit’s power before they were able to complete the mission of proclaiming the gospel in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. We too would be fool-hearted to launch into mission without the Spirit’s powerful presence.

The Problem

The biggest difficulty with the above interpretation is that what Luke has written here is meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive. He’s telling his readers what happened, not what his readers ought to do in response. In fact if you keep reading through Acts you will discover that the apostles did receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And what is even more astounding is that when Gentiles become followers of Jesus they too receive the gift of the Spirit.

This means that the condition which Jesus mentioned in Acts 1:4 has already been fulfilled—always and forever. Therefore, believers do not need to sit around and wait for the “Spirit to come” before they engage in mission. He already has come.

The way, then, that we apply Acts 1:4 is to realize that the Spirit is vital to our mission. But we do not stop there. We celebrate the fact that Jesus has kept His promise and we have the indwelling Spirit. We have the Spirit that is needed to engage in the mission of Christ.

This isn’t permission to launch into out own missions, doing so upon a whim. This is permission to boldly engage in Christ-exalting mission because we know the Spirit is always present when Christ is exalted.

A Lesson

This little illustration shows why it is important to always read a text in its context; not only it’s immediate context but also read a text within it’s place in God’s unfolding story or redemption. If we fail to do this we will apply passages wrongly. We will find ourselves praying for things that God has already provided.

You and I don’t need to “wait on the Spirit” in the same way that the early apostles did. So let’s get busy.

Should We Baptize Upon Profession?

And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water!  What prevents me from being baptized?” 

No membership class.  No onlookers are mentioned.  No period of seeing whether or not this Ethiopian was serious about his profession.  All that we have in this context is a gospel explanation by Philip, a chariot driver, and “some water”.  Therefore, churches ought to follow Philip and baptize people upon profession.  Right?!?! 

Not so fast. 

I’ve had to think through this question in recent days.  First I’ve had to think of it because I believe that there are many people within our churches that have said a prayer, given a few correct answers, and then took a bath at church.  Upon this bath they are now told that they members of the church.  Within the Southern Baptist community that means something.  It means that we as a church are standing behind your profession and as it were saying to the Lord, “We believe this person is a disciple of Jesus”. 

Yet as the days, and months, and years pass this church-bather is no longer faithfully following Christ.  This is a problem.  As Mark Dever has rightly noted, “Uninvolved members confuse both real members and non-Christians about what it means to be a Christian”.  Therefore, many churches agree with Dever that we need to,

…guard carefully the front door and open the back door.  In other words, make it more difficult to join, on the one hand, and make it easier to be excluded on the other.  Remember—the path to life is narrow, not broad.  Doing this, I believe, will help churches to recover their divinely intended distinction from the world.  (What is a Healthy Church, 105)

Doesn’t this seem to fly in the face of the practice of the New Testament church?  Does it seem that Philip was making it “difficult to join” in the life of the Ethiopian eunuch? 

That is the conundrum that I find myself dealing with.  While I fundamentally agree with Dever, I cannot help but consider the early church practice.  And I know our tendency to make the pendulum swing from one extreme to another.  In our effort to curb careless baptisms and spiked churched membership numbers I do not want to be equally guilty of withholding baptism from someone that knows Christ and legitimately desires to follow Him in this ordinance.  So which is it?  Do I baptize upon profession as it seems to have been the practice in the early church?  Or do I follow the wisdom of Dever and others within church history?

Context is Key

The truth is that I do not have to pit one against the other.  We need to consider the context of the early church compared to that in America.  Here you can profess Christ with very little ramifications.  Saying “Jesus is Lord” can be very empty rhetoric. Those words are not fruit of conversion. They can, in our context, just be an empty profession. 

In America (especially in the South) people will get baptized just to please their dear old grandmother.  That is not the case in other contexts.  Where persecution is ever present, as it was in the New Testament, saying “Jesus is Lord” is tantamount to saying, “I’m identifying with Jesus—take all my worldly goods and lop off my head if you must, but I’m following Him”. 

That’s not our context.

Our context is probably closer to that of John the Baptist in Matthew 3 when he called the Pharisees and Sadducees to “bear fruit in keeping with repentance”.  In contexts where false professions seem to be running rampant, or when it’s beneficial to profess Christ, it is necessary that we be very cautious about not giving someone false security. 

My solution

Be very faithful in preaching the gospel as Philip did to the Ethiopian.  Be certain that the people that say, “I want to be baptized” really know what that means.  Not only that they know baptism doesn’t save you but also that they understand Who does save you.  Make sure that they can articulate the gospel and that their life is showing a different trajectory as it concerns sin and the beauty of Christ. 

You don’t need to see a shiny and polished life to proceed with baptism.  What you do need to see is that the profession comes with a changed trajectory.  If you see evidence of that and they can decently articulate the gospel then I believe we ought to believe their profession and proceed with baptism.  Love calls us to “believe all things”.  We ought to lean towards believing a profession rather than dismissing it. 

Yet, we also must remember that even with the apostles unbelievers were baptized (see the case of Simon the Magician).  Keep the back door open.  The more faithful a church is in proclaiming the self-denying gospel and the more a church practices biblical church discipline the less that church will have to worry about false professions.  But they still happen.  And no amount of caution will prevent that. 

Review of Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus

When most people decide to begin a study of The Acts of the Apostles they typically do so to study issues of church government and practice, the work of the Holy Spirit (and all the side issues attached to that—speaking in tongues, baptism of the Spirit, etc.), or the missions of the early church.  Acts is typically thought of as the place to go to get answers to your questions about the Spirit or how to develop an ecclesiology for your church. 

Alan Thompson believes we may be trying to answer questions that Luke never intended to ask.  That is why he has written The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus.  He believes that Luke’s major themes are often neglected by modern interpreters looking for answers to ecclesiology or issues of the Spirit that Luke is not as concerned with answering.  Thompson believes that the major thrust of Luke is “for his readers to see what God is doing in the narrative, how God is accomplishing his purposes and how we may embrace and identify with these purposes and so glorify the God of the biblical narrative” (22).  In other words Luke wants his audience to know that “God is continuing to accomplish his purposes even now through the reign of the Lord Jesus”. 

The book of Acts, according to Thompson, could better be titled, “the Acts of the Lord Jesus, through his people, by the Holy Spirit, for the accomplishment of God’s purposes”.  Acts then is about the continuing work of Jesus as He now reigns from heaven.  The resurrection of Jesus, then, is central to Acts.  Luke wants his readers to know that “the departure of the Lord Jesus does not mean the departure of the kingdom” (67) to this end his major concern is to show that Jesus is still acting from heaven. 

In six chapters Thompson makes his argument that “God is fulfilling his promises through the acts of…the risen and reigning Lord Jesus” (196).  He shows in chapter two how the resurrection of Jesus fulfills the hope of Israel and brings in the last days.  That Jesus is now administering the blessings of God is further evidenced by the kingdom coming to the Gentiles (chapter 3) through the fulfilled promise of the Father; namely, the gift of the Holy Spirit (chapter 4).  That the kingdom of Christ is now inaugurated means that the era of the old system has ended.  This means that the temple system (chapter 5) as well as the law are no longer in direct authority over God’s people (chapter 6), Jesus and his reign through his disciples is the new authority. 

My Take:

Thompson’s clear and cogent argument is something that every serious student of Acts will have to deal with.  Perhaps Thompson is restoring for us Luke’s original intention.  Perhaps we will no longer forcer Luke to answer questions that he does not intend to answer. 

What then does this mean for ecclesiological practices that are derived from Acts?  Are we reading Luke wrongly?  Not necessarily.  Thompson’s thesis serves to provide a framework for understanding the central theme of Acts.  One could just as easily argue that the risen Lord Jesus shows us in Acts how he desires to set up his kingdom.  Then we can still see Acts as a place to guide our ecclesiology.  But we are still left with a fundamental question of whether Acts is meant to be descriptive or prescriptive.  Regardless of your take Thompson would have us see that in the church today as it was then the risen Lord Jesus is still reigning and is still fulfilling the promises of God. 

Should You Buy It?

Any serious student of Acts is going to need to interact with Thompson’s argument.  As D.A. Carson notes in his endorsement of the book, “the strength of Dr. Thompson’s book is that it uncovers the main theological emphases of the book of Acts on the book’s own terms”.  I agree.  And because of this if one wants to be a faithful expositor of Acts then one will need to be introduced (or reminded) of these central themes otherwise the exposition may not be faithful to Luke’s original intent. 

The book is a pretty easy read, though maybe a little academic at times.  Any though that are willing to tackle such a difficult preaching assignment as Acts should at least familiarize themselves with this book. 

You can buy it here. 

---

One another note I love this series.  I am trying to slowly get the entire series.  I have about 6 of the NSBT books and I frequently search through ebay in the hopes of finding bargain ones.  Familiarize yourself with this series.

Grace. It’s Not Being Right.

There is a verse in Acts 22 that is very humbling, and to be honest a tad scary, for us nerdy theologically minded type of people.  Paul says of the Jesus-rejecting, church-persecuting Jews:

“…being zealous for God as all of you are this day…”

It is possible to very passionately “defend God” and uphold really good theology but all the while completely miss the gospel.  That is what happened to this Jewish crowd.  It’s what happened to Paul.  And it’s what has happened to me before.  We are absolutely convinced of something, we passionately fight for it, we even use Scripture, but we are dead wrong. 

That is scary.  It’s especially scary in a postmodern world where many say that truth is relative.  The fact that you can be passionately wrong—and in fact often are—seems like ammunition in the gun of the relativistic argument.

But this really shouldn’t be scary.  After all it’s not necessarily my theology that saves me.  I can have really good theology—like the demons—and still go to hell.  As Russell Moore has wisely said:

“There are some, I fear, who will be able to diagram in Greek the last words they ever hear voiced: ‘Depart from me, you worker of iniquity.’ Such cognitive expertise is of little use in wrestling demons.”  (Moore, Tempted and Tried, 182-83)

Moore, I believe, is right because such cognitive expertise can cause some to vigorously argue theology (even being right) but in the end be just as much a son of hell as Judas Iscariot.  It certainly can even cause those that have been bought with the blood of Christ to argue and sling slander like heaps of excrement spewing from Satan’s mouth. 

We do this because as Dr. Moore elsewhere states, “We’d rather be right than rescued”.  And that is what matters. 

Grace. 

Not theological accuracy. 

Not passionate defense of “God’s truth”. 

Not stamping out heretics. 

Not being zealous for God. 

Grace. 

On Being a son of Sceva

I have always loved the story of the Sons of Sceva (Acts 19).  To me it’s pretty funny that these guys think they can exorcise a demon only to wind up naked, wounded, and running away.  I like to laugh at these goons. 

But I’m not really laughing as hard this morning.  It’s easier to laugh when I distance myself from them.  Today I don’t feel so different than these Sons of Sceva. 

I could easily seem myself trying the same thing as the Sceva kids.  Yeah, I don’t really try to exorcise demons.  But in a way I kind of do.  I preach in the hopes that people may turn from darkness to light.  I counsel people.  I teach.  I write.  I plan programs/ministries.  I do many things with the hopes of overturning darkness and healing those wounded by evil. 

And I sometimes undertake this “ministry” the same way Sceva’s boys did it:

“By my degree in Christian Education I adjure you…”  “By the Jesus I read about in a Piper book I command you…”  “By the name of Jesus that I learned about in Romans: Syntax and Exegesis be healed”  “By the wisdom and power of John Newton’s Jesus be gone Satan…”

The danger of second-hand faith

A second-hand faith doesn’t have any power.  Not because the degree of second-hand faith is deficient, but because that faith is misplaced.  A second-hand faith has its object as a person that has faith, or even faith itself.  But the only type of faith that matters is the faith that is placed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

Second-hand faith will only leave you wounded, naked, and running.  This goes for life and this goes for ministry.  It’s not enough to simply speak about Jesus, or know about Jesus, what is required for hell-jarring ministry and living is actually knowing and believing Jesus Himself. 

None of this is to discredit the importance of reading good Christian books.  I’m not at fault for admiring Newton.  In fact I’d be stupid not to.  I’m at fault whenever I stop there.  If reading John Newton doesn’t lead me to worship His Jesus then I’m wasting my time and not reading him rightly.  Same goes with my pursuit of a degree at SBTS.  This labor and sweat is meant to lead to more passionate worship.  If it doesn’t then I’m wasting my time and only training myself to be a better son of Sceva. 

The only source of power

This story isn’t primarily a call to not be like the sons of Sceva.  This story is primarily about the power of the word of God.  Notice in 19:20 that Luke sums up the story by saying, “so the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily”. 

Did you notice that?  Earlier we saw that the demons “overpowered” the sons of Sceva.  Why?  Because they only had a second-hand faith.  But look what the word actually does.  It overpowers or “prevails mightily” over the darkness. 

We see this illustrated in the bonfire.  These former magicians realized that Jesus is more powerful than silly magic or feeble Jewish exorcists.  They came to place their faith in Jesus and it caused some serious repentance.  Not only did these former magicians come together to confess their sin but they also burned their old books in the sight of all.  At this bonfire they burned some (in today's’ currency) 6 million dollars worth of goods.  That’s some serious repentance. 

What brings about this change?  The powerful name of Jesus displayed in His proclaimed Word. 

So, I’m convinced that if I want to see a massive bonfire of repentance then I probably have a few “magic books” that I need to throw in the fire myself.  I have some second-hand things that I am trusting in to be successful in ministry.  If I trust in these things I’ll wind up naked, wounded, and running.  But if I stake all my life and ministry on the power of Jesus and His Word then I might see a $6 million bonfire. 

Praying Expectantly

When Isaiah was only a few months old we had a little problem with him.  He couldn’t poop.  It had been something like 5 days since he had went potty and we were starting to get concerned. 

Isaiah made a good amount of trips to the doctor in his first few months because he had what is known as GIRD.  That’s the medical term for exorcist puking.  Seriously.  Somehow my little guy would drink four ounces and spew up six—or at least that is how it appeared.  Because his belly was like a trampoline we were frequently worried about dehydration.  One way to check how well a little guy is hydrated is to monitor how often they are peeing and pooping.  So, when little guy hasn’t pooped for 5 days mommy and daddy start to get a little worried. 

So, Nikki and I did the only thing we knew to do.  We prayed. 

It felt really weird praying for my son to poop.  I realized that I had entered into a new phase in my life when I was praying that another human would be able to go potty.  But we prayed, and we prayed pretty desperately. 

No sooner did I say, “Amen”, then my son let out a wild grunt and filled not only his diaper but a good portion of his back too.  God answered prayer.  Nikki and I were completely shocked.  Maybe not shocked that he had answered our prayer but that he had done it so speedily. 

But why is that?  Why are we so often shocked when God comes through and answers our prayers. 

Apparently we aren’t alone in that.  When we read the story in Acts 12 we see that these pillars of the church are praying fervently for Peter’s release*.  Peter has been arrested and now the other disciples are together, probably praying for Peter that the same fate as James will not befall him.  In verse 13 the story gets somewhat humorous:

13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 Recognizing Peter's voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed.

First of all, it is hilarious that she didn’t let him in but shut the door in his face and left him outside.  Secondly, notice that the men can’t believe that God would have answered their prayers so quickly.  It’s not Peter—it must be his angel.  Certainly, he’s dead. 

Now, again, we do not know for certain what these men were praying.  But it is not a leap of imagination to believe that they were praying for Peter.  But maybe they weren’t praying with a ton of faith or at least they weren’t praying expectantly. 

I want to learn today to pray expectantly.  As for me, I don’t think it is God’s power that I doubt.  I have to humbly confess that it’s his love and care that I doubt.  I don’t want to do that.  So, would you pray for me today (expectantly even) that God would continue to convinced me of his absolute love and dedication to me.  I’m still growing in learning that.

----

*This connection is not original with me.  The first time I had heard this point made it was from one of my college professors, Dr. Morgan.

The Two Versions of Peter

Last night I preached through Mark 14 and considered Peter’s denial of Jesus.  It is amazing that Peter was so cowardly, embarrassed, and ashamed of Jesus before a lowly servant girl.  One could understand Peter’s denial a little more had this been a ruler or someone that held his life in their hands.  But this is a question from a servant girl.  (Perhaps, he feared that she would tell her master and this would get him in trouble).  Regardless the reasons, Peter—though he thought himself bold—found it quite easy to keep his mouth shut about knowing Jesus, and then when exposed he flat out denied knowing Him. 

Contrast that with today’s reading in Acts 4.  Standing before perhaps the same people that he was afraid of less than a year ago, Peter says this:

18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge,20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

So what’s the difference between these two experiences?  Pentecost. 

Peter now has the promised Spirit (yes the same Spirit that you and I have) that will embolden him to speak and preach the gospel…even in the face of death. 

So today I pray that through the power of the Spirit the Lord would cause me to be the Peter in Acts 4 and not the coward of Mark 14. 

Death is Dead for a Dying Woman

“God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24).

This past weekend my wife and I had the opportunity to spend time with her grandmother.  Her grandmother is dying of cancer.  The doctors say that she has a couple of months left to live.  Our son, Isaiah (3), understands that “grandma is sick”.  Knowing this Isaiah requested that we pray that Grandma gets feeling better. 

After praying I realized that I need to explain to Isaiah that God is probably going to answer his prayer in a way that is much different than he thinks.  I explained to him that sometimes people get so sick that in order to heal them and make them feel better God has to take them to heaven.  I then explained a little about heaven (intermediate heaven I guess you could say) and how God was eventually going to fix all of our brokenness. 

I am not certain how much of this Isaiah was able to grasp.  I am also not certain that I what I said was the best.  All I know is that at that moment what I said was the best that I could do.

As I read through Acts 2 I realize that the redemption that I was speaking of is only possible because God, through Jesus, has put death in its grave.  This is the meat of Peter’s Pentecost sermon.  Jesus has dealt a deathblow to death itself and because of this he has ushered in the new age of the Spirit. 

The conclusion from the resurrection of Christ is simply this, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”  Every other religious leader is dead in a grave somewhere.  Abraham. Dead. Moses. Dead. David. Dead.  Only Jesus has been resurrected thus proving that he is indeed the sovereign Lord and he is the Rescuer.  Yes, the very same Jesus that was crucified as a criminal. 

John Mark McMillen captures this well:

Yes, unless Jesus comes back before, my wife’s precious grandmother will pass into eternity.  But we know that because of the resurrection of Christ it is not death to die.  So, what I said to Isaiah still stands.  God has simply decided that it is time to redeem her completely. 

We all get sick, we all die, but it is only through Christ that death is dead in your dying.

The Only Kingdom Satan Fears

“Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 

This isn’t a stupid question.  After all Jesus has been raised from the dead and He was now promising the outpouring of the Spirit.  These were signs that the messianic era was upon them.  And as such they assumed that this would mean that Israel would be rescued from Roman power and would be restored as a national powerhouse.

This wasn’t merely selfish.  They probably believed that God’s righteousness would reign and that His glory would begin to fill the earth.  Actually they were asking for the same kingdom that was previously offered to Jesus (Matthew 4:8-10).  Russell Moore posits what this kingdom would look like when he says:

Jesus [would be directing] the kingdoms of the world however he wanted.  No more babies would be miscarried.  No more women would die in childbirth.  Ended immediately would be all human slavery, all genocide, all disease, all poverty, all torture, and all ecological catastrophes…There would be no world of divorce courts and abortion clinics and electric chairs and pornographic images.  Whatever is troubling you right now would be gone, centuries before you were ever conceived.  This sounds like paradise.  (Moore, Tempted and Tried , 152)

This is in part what the disciples were asking for.  But Jesus responds, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority”.  (In other words a kingdom like this is still coming).  Jesus continues, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”. 

There is something that must necessarily precede that coming kingdom.  That “something” is the proclamation of the gospel: the centuries long proclamation of believers spilling their blood and proclaiming the gospel with their lives and their lips.  This proclamation must precede that coming kingdom because it is not the kingdom that matters as much as the King.  Satan isn’t worried about a “Christian” nation/kingdom or king.  Satan is worried about the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Russell Moore explains far better than I could:

“Satan…doesn’t fear Christianity.  He certainly doesn’t fear “Christian values.”  Satan fears Christ.  Remember that Satan holds power only through accusation and condemnation.  As long as there is no atoning sacrifice for sin, Satan is quite willing to allow conformity to external law, even to the law of Christ ruling visibly over nations from Jerusalem.  The accuser simply wants his opportunity to indict his human would-be supplanting powers before the judgment seat, with no shed blood to redeem them back”  (Moore, Tempted and Tried , 152)

The kingdom that Satan fears and is set out to destroy is not the one the disciples were longing for in Acts 1:6.  The kingdom that Satan fears is the Spirit-empowered, gospel-birthed, kingdom that comes from Acts 1:8.  The kingdom the disciples imagine (and any kingdom we could dream of) pales in comparison to this one. 

Yet, I find myself here 2,000 years later longing more for an Acts 1:6 kingdom than an Acts 1:8 kingdom.  I find myself striving for that “kingdom to Israel” more than the one that conquers God-belittling idolatry even to the ends of the earth. 

Lord, move in my heart to strive for the kingdom that Satan fears.  Help me to not settle for sacred substitutes.  Thank you that you have given your Spirit that conquers my wayward passions and redirects me to focus on the only kingdom that Satan fears. 

McCheyne Reading Plan: January 28

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Matthew 17:

That must have been a phenomenal thing to see Jesus in his glory. I wonder how they knew it was Moses and Elijah. Name tags? Did they hear Jesus referring to them by name? What language did they speak? What did they talk about? So, many questions none of them of much significance.

I wonder why Peter was never given an answer to his request. He was wanting to build tents for each of them. I notice that he asks, "If you wish" and also refers to him as Lord. So, even though he is making three tents it is not as if he is saying Moses, Elijah, and Jesus are on the same plain. He is still referring to Jesus as Master and he asks him the question not Moses and Elijah.

That would have been very terrifying, but I wonder why they were so shocked. Did they not already see this as something really significant because Jesus is kind of glowing? Oh, that the voice of God would make me tremble as it did these men!

How did John the Bapitst "restore all things"?

After reading the story of the Demon-Possessed Boy I find myself wishing I had never heard charismatic watered down preaching. It seems to close my eyes to the text. I find myself reading things like this with their lens...knowing they are most often wrong, I go the other way and end up being blind to the meaning of the text. Lord, help me see what you are saying here. I bet there is something cultural here that I do not understand. I do not think that Jesus is literally saying that becasue we believe enough we can move stuff like mountains. He is speaking figuratively, but yet does the principle stand? What is to be said of "nothing will be impossible for you". I want to have biblical faith. I do not want to have a stick in the mud anti-supernatural faith, nor do I want to be a chicken-clucking charismatic. Lord, help me to see and live the balance.

I think this temple tax might be something that helps us in debates concerning our freedoms. Did Jesus have to pay tax? Of course not. He is free. Did he pay tax not to give offense? Yes. Should we sometimes not use our freedom so as not to give offense? Yes. Does his paying taxes cause him to deny the gospel and slip into legalism? No. We have much to learn here.

Acts 17:

I wonder why the Jews gave Paul a hearing for three straight Sabbaths. It is also significant that what Paul used was not fancy rhetoric or even rabbinical writings. Paul reasoned with them "from the Scriptures".

"These men who have turned the world upside down"...what a stirring statement. Is it my pride that wants to follow suit or is it a holy ambition? Lord, if the world be turned upside down let it be for the sake of and glory of Jesus Christ. May he be the only boast of the generation that is "turned upside down".

v.9 Did Jason bribe them?

How are the Jews of Berea more noble? 1) Received the word with eagerness 2) examined the Scriptures daily. There is much to be said about this. They received the word. They did so with eagerness. They examined the Scriptures. And they did so on a day to day basis. Their passion for truth is astounding.

Is my spirit provoked in a city full of idols?

v.21 in some way sounds like us in America. We spend all of our times searching for novelty. May the gospel penetrate this culture as well. Lord, help us to "teach strange things" and not be irrelevant by our undiscerning pursuit of relevancy.

It's not as if the Athenians are actually worshipping the living God. They are "worshipping" an unknown God...and Paul sees this as a bridge to preach the gospel.

Paul starts his gospel "presentation" with teaching on Creation. Would they have readily believed this? Probably not. I notice throughout this section that the God that Paul is proclaiming is a massive contrast to the gods that they were so passionately worshipping.

I think the full meaning of verse 27 escapes me.

Paul also bridges with common things in their culture. But notice what he uses is "morally neutral". It's not as if Paul goes to the sex temples or engages in idolatry with them. He uses morally neutral things that can bridge the gap.

Repentance is a command. v30

Is it significant that Paul only speaks of this unknown God and does not refer to Jesus by name but merely describes Him?

Genesis 19:

I lost an angel somewhere. Earlier there were three now two. Where did the third go?

v.5 has always astonished me at the audacity of these men to make such a request. It beautifully shows the depth of our depravity (although I am sure that even these men were restrained from being as wicked as possible).

Lot's solution has always bothered me as well. Rather than having them sleep with his angelic guest he offers his daughters. Yet even this does not appease them. They want the angels.

Before I chide the sons-in-laws for thinking Lot was jesting, I have to confess I see myself in these men. I am so turned away from emotionalism that sometimes I would not listen to such a "prophecy". Again, as I prayed earlier--I need balance and growth in this.

I wonder if men that are so passionate about preserving man's "free will" (that's in quotation marks because it is typically a misunderstanding of true biblical freedom) see these men as being dishonoring and unloving to Lot and his family. I can see myself again here. If the Lord had not "seized me" with his mercy and brought me "outside the city", I would still be in my sin. I am glad that the Lord's mercy is so powerful that it changes me and keeps me from treasuring my sin and causes me to delight in Christ.

I think there is a type in Lot escaping to this city of refuge. I am jogging my memory but I think this is spoken of somewhere else in a more profound way.

What would sulfur and fire rain have been like?

Why a pillar of salt? Is this literal? Does this stem from the destruction? Those are not as significant as the message of this text. We must never look back after the Lord has delivered us. I would not go so far as to make this a type of those that "lose their salvation", yet I do believe we need to heed the warning.

It looks like Lot ended up moving out of Zoar and living in the hills, even though at first he made the request not to.

Esther 1:

v4 Kings of earth even in all their splendor are exhaustible in 180 days. It will take the Lord all of eternity to "show the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his greatness."

I wonder was Queen Vashti only lovely to look at because the king was "merry with wine".

It's pretty neat that the King's consul (even though not acting the most merciful) is thinking through the ramifications of his decision. If he lets her get away with this it will have adverse affects. We as leaders should always think through the outcome of our decisions. Our disobedience has a counter effect on others as well as ourselves.

McCheyne Reading Plan: Still Catching Up

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Matthew 16:

I wonder if they had the "red sky at night sailors delight, red sky in the morning sailors take warning" saying back in Jesus' day? I'm not certain that they would have had "sailors" so I doubt it. But nonetheless, I've always found this verse kind of neat because I've heard sayings about a red sky at night and in the morning.

What is the sign of Jonah?

I love these little narrative interjections. "The disciples forgot to bring bread". Certainly it serves as a fitting transition and teachable moment, but it does a wonderful job of showing the disciples humanity and Jesus' patience with them.

The disciples continue to view things extremely literally. We should be cautious of doing the like.

In what way should we warn people as Jesus did to beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Who are these groups in our day?

I wonder if Jesus' question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is", would have sounded weird. Is he referring to himself or the "Son of Man" spoken of in the Scriptures? Is this the same as asking "Who do people say that I am" or is it asking "How do people describe the Son of Man spoken of in Scripture? I prefer the latter. I believe Jesus is saying, "How do people interpret the OT Son of Man". They then respond by the common beliefs in the day. (Jeremiah actually seems strange in this context). Then Jesus says, but who do you say that I am. Again the stress would not be on who do you...but rather who do you say that I am. I could be wrong though. He could be contrasting the "peoples" reception of Jesus with that of the disciples.

Peter replies that Jesus is the Christ the son of the Living God, and apparently knowledge of this only came because God revealed it to Him.

This verse (18-19) has been the subject of much debate. Is the rock Peter or faith? What are meant by the gates of hell? (Since when are gates active, so that the rock must withstand it?) What are the keys? What authority is given? Is it given to Peter? Is it given to His successors? Is it given to all those people of faith? It is not the place here to answer these questions.

It has always seemed strange to me that Jesus is so passionate about the disciples not telling people that he is the Christ. I know that we are not to conceal him now. It's painfully ironic that when Jesus urged people to conceal Him they could not do so. When Jesus commands us to spread His fame to the nations we eagerly desire to obey his first instruction to tell no one. Lord, help us to be faithful in proclaiming you in your fullness.

It is so funny that Peter rebukes Jesus. After he makes this amazing confession, we know that he knew who Jesus was. What boldness to rebuke God. But I wonder, how many times have I done the same? Am I not doing as Peter did whenever I question His wise counsel? Am I not rebuking God when I whine at his sovereign actions? And Peter's problem is ours--thinking of the things of man instead of the things of God.

After Jesus tells of His suffering He urges us to follow Him in this. As I look over this text I am forced to wonder whether or not I have "lost my life" for Jesus' sake. Can I be said to be a doulos?

Why is it that sometimes it sounds like works play a very important role? Why is it that we will be repaid for "what we have done"?

I've never understood how verse 28 is fulfilled? I think it is speaking of either Jesus' death, resurrection, or ascension.

Acts 16:

"A Jewish woman who was a believer"...does this mean believer in Christ? It seems from here and other places in Scripture that Timothy's mom was a follower of Jesus.

Why did Paul circumcise Timothy because of the Jews but not Titus?

We are still seeing churches increase daily. Lord, bring this movement to us!

"Forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the work in Asia." Many questions arise from this. How do you know when the Holy Spirit is forbidding you? Why did He forbid them to "speak the Word"? Did he have a specific place for them to go? We should always be waiting for the Spirit's urging to know where to preach the gospel and apparently where not to.

Again Paul begins his ministry at a religious place. Synagogues, places of prayer, etc. seem to be where he preached the gospel first in a city.

The Lord opened her heart...unless He had certainly Lydia would not have believed. Lord, open hearts in our community, and help us hear the cries of them when you bid us to proclaim the gospel.

Why do we see households baptized when one believes?

Divination is probably a reality. It's not as if people are faking (though many probably are). It's just that they are demonized.

I find this story funny about Paul being annoyed. I wonder why it was so annoying. Why did he wait so long to cast it out? Why only after annoyance?

Certainly Paul's experience of affliction here in Philippi will serve a great purpose later in comforting them when they are afflicted.

Even after beatings and imprisonment the joy of the Lord (and perhaps even the desperation of the situation) draws Paul and Silas to sing hymns. Nonetheless these were clothed in Scripture and probably many Psalms. The guards listen and were certainly influenced.

Again we see "believe, and you will be saved "and your household". But the next verse says the word was spoken to them and your household. "He rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God". Let us rejoice in our salvation Lord.

This seems really stubborn of Paul. Is he being stubborn or does he see a greater purpose of God in this. Certainly Paul is not infallible. I think sometimes we read Acts and everything Paul did and assume that everyone of his actions is right.

Genesis 18:

Is this three the Trinity? I am a little confused by this dialogue. How did Abraham know it was the Lord?

A new term for menopause..."the way of women has ceased to be with her". I like reading some of the euphemisms in the Bible.

I wonder what this dialogue between laughing Sarah then embarrassed and fearful Sarah was like. What was God's response in this. Is he a little angry at her unbelief? Understanding and almost laughing Himself?

This chapter for some reason seems really strange to me. God is walking to Sodom to see if its as bad from this angle as it is from heaven.

Now, verse 22 really confuses me. The men leave, Abraham stays before the LORD? Are these men incarnations of God or not (there is a theological word for this, but for the life of me I can not think of it)?

We see the display of God's righteousness in sparing Sodom if one righteous man is found. He is doing this through all of history and the book of Revelation even as he pours out his bowls of wrath and offers more and more time for repentance (all the while knowing that many will never repent, yet still showing mercy and offering grace to display his mighty justice).

McCheyne Reading Plan: Catching Up

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Matthew 15:

Apparently the disciples were not very hygienic. Maybe Jesus never taught them proper hygiene, since they do not wash their hands before they eat.

I love this dialogue between Jesus. "Why do you not obey tradition?" Jesus, "Why do you not obey God?" Ouch.

I wonder how often because of our tradition we "make void" the Word of God.

verse 12. It is easy to sympathize with the disciples here. It would have been difficult to go against the established authorities and leaders. "Hey, Jesus you are offending the Pharisees, shouldn't you be careful?" We must be careful not to give undue offense but when the truth of God is being dishonored we must not care about offending those who hold to tradition over the Word of God. Even if it means church conflict because we change an unbiblical tradition to the disapproval of a "Pharisee".

Apparently there are "plants" that are planted but not so by the Father. Is this similar to the parable of the wheat and tares?

It's quite obvious to us today what Jesus is saying. But I wonder how often we do not understand truly what Jesus is saying. I think of the big "NO's" of Christianity today and few are on this list. We are very harsh on some things (and some which perhaps do not even defile) and others on this list we ignore. How often have people been censured for false witness and slander?
I have never really understood the story of the Canaanite woman. It seems so uncharacteristic of Jesus. It sounds as if Jesus does not have a concept of Gentile inclusion. Is this tongue in cheek? He saying it almost sarcastically to the disciples to teach him that he was not sent only to the lost sheep of Israel? Nonetheless, her persistence "wins Jesus over". What are your thoughts on this passage?

True biblical healing will result in glorifying the God of Israel.

Imagine being so dedicated and passionate about hearing what Jesus has to say that you do not eat for three days.

Acts 15:

Do stories of conversion strike joy in my heart as it did these brothers?

There are Pharisees still in the mix. It seems as if the Jewishness of Christianity in his seminal stages was quite prominent. Acts 15 will prove to be a major turning point. I imagine it must have been a very big debate. You can certainly sympathize with the thought that they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. This had been their entire life. It is not as if they are meaning to denounce Christ. They are wanting to be faithful to their heritage and all that they have been taught. Christ and His gospel was so revolutionary that it had to come with such difficult questions as these.

verse 7, (If I am reading it correctly) certainly seems that God made a choice to save certain Gentiles. This certainly sounds like the type of election described by Calvinists, but perhaps because I am one I am reading this into the text. Lord, help me to read your word for what it says and not put doctrine into it. Rather I pray that my doctrine find its source in the Holy Scriptures and the glorious God of which they reveal.

"cleansed their hearts by faith". This is very significant. The Jews are wanting a cleansing of the Gentiles. Peter is saying the Spirit of God has already done this.

I wonder why James gives these four instructions. Did Gentiles have a huge problem with these things? In reading some of the ancient literature it appears so. Are we still today to follow this?

Why is James concerned with men "proclaiming Moses"? There is a sense in which we must proclaim the Law, but certainly not at the expense of proclaiming Christ. May we never proclaim only the Law!

"gone out from us"...does this mean that they are heretics and it is synonymous to saying "gone away from us"? Or is this saying they are brothers (albeit confused) that are fruits from us as if he is saying "came from us"?

May it be said of us, "Men who have risked their lives for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ".

I pray that I might write, teach, and preach with such grace that those that hear the Word might, "rejoice because of its encouragement".

Even sharp disagreement can be used by the Lord. I have, however, always been saddened by this disagreement between Paul and Barnabas.

Nehemiah 8:

"And the ears of all the people were attentive..." Dear Lord bring that to our church. Bring that to my heart, that I might ever be attentive to your Holy Word and the preaching and proclaiming of it.

I would like to begin having the people in the congregation stand at the reading of the Word. I would love to see congregational reading of the Word instilled again into our church. I would like to begin this at youth group next time we meet. Not for the sake of the practice itself but to revere our hearts to God's precious Word.

I am told that verse 8 is pointing to expository preaching and I believe it so. The Word must be read "clearly", and we as expositors must "give the sense", and our goal must be that "the people understood the reading".

I asked an earlier question about the authority of Nehemiah. Here it says he was a governor. How he got this title I am not certain. But this is why he is able to speak with such authority.

Verse 9-12 Something about this section of Scripture is still floating around in my head. The Word is read the people are weeping. Weeping for sorrow it appears. Why are they sad? Is this sadness not mourning and good? Why are they commanded to celebrate? So, then should we not celebrate instead of mourn when we understand the Word? Are there times when a clear understanding should cause weeping? Are these general principles or specific to the story?

Isn't it ironic that we have to be commanded to celebrate and party? It seems like lost people get celebration a little better than we...and it is we that have the most to celebrate. Yet, perhaps this is our time of mourning and fasting because our bridegroom has not yet came back. Oh, but one day we will out celebrate any drunkard in Times Square on New Years Eve!

Day by day he read from the book of the Law. I wish we still had such assemblies daily. It seems to me that in times of the Great Awakening and in the ministry of many dear saints that they meetings about every day. We struggle now to have an evening service or a few days in a row. Lord, cause us to hunger and pant after You and Your Word.

Genesis 17:

Is this a separate covenant? I think it is. This time Abe has conditions. Walk before God and be blameless. (What exactly does it mean to walk before the Lord)? It does sound very similar to the prior covenant. Is this one different?

It is neat that many times when men have an encounter with God he changes their names. We are indeed a new creations-this is a cool reflection of this glorious truth. It seems as if this covenant is conditional whereas the prior one is less so. I should study these more.

Again as we read such things in verse 14, I see why the early Christians had a problem with doing away with circumcision.

Circumcision would have to take a lot of faith.

Even after Abraham messed up with Hagar, God's grace and promise are still going to come to fruition. This is very comforting for those of us that mess up in many diverse ways. There are certain things in God's plan that cannot and never will be jacked up! That's wonderfully freeing.

It must have been a huge gut-buster to fall on his face laughing. And to think that he is doing this with the Almighty. What a relationship they must have had. But we see that part of this is unbelief, and God certainly is not pleased with this laughter. Abraham is begging for God's blessing to be given to Ishmael. But God's plan is through Isaac. The Child of Promise not the Child of the Flesh.

You get the idea that God is not surprised by the spreading of Ishmael's descendants. Yet, he cannot be pleased with their damnable doctrines. But as a fulfillment of this look at the world's supply of oil....much of the riches come from descendants of Ishmael.

I will probably have our son circumcised (for medical not religious purposes) before the age of 13. Is there significance in the fact that Ishmael is circumcised? Do Muslims get circumcised? Even Abraham's servants are circumcised. Does this mean that the promises and blessings are extended to even them? If so, then we can see God's inclusive nature even here.

McCheyne Reading Plan: Catching up on Acts

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Today I plan on getting caught up on Acts. I will go to Chapter 14, now and perhaps be able to do 15 and 16 a little later. As it looks I will be caught up by next Tuesday if I keep following the schedule I have set. Regardless of whether or not I am caught up, my goal is to experience God.

Acts 8:

verse 4, "those that were scattered went about preaching the word". Even persecution does not stop the preaching of the word; in fact is begins the spread of the gospel to the nations.

verse 6....what preacher would not want this: "And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said". What was so arresting of their attention? Was it simply (simply is not nearly a big enough word) the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in power, accompanying His preaching? Is it the preaching that is accompanied with signs and wonders? Why does it seem that God accompanied His Word with such outward signs in the early church?

What happens with a manifestation of God's glory and kingdom? "So there was much joy in that city". But I'm certain that is not always the case.

verse 13, Luke seems to be careful as does John in displaying "signs-faith" as inferior to "saving-faith". Those that only believe the gospel because it's "cool" or seems to have awesome benefits are usually not legit converts. We must be careful how we preach the gospel. But this story is proof that even biblical Holy Spirit inspired preaching will sometimes result in false converts like Simon.

I've always been a little confused about the Holy Spirit not coming upon the believers in Samaria until Peter and John laid hands on them.

Even though I look at Simon's request to buy the Holy Spirit as utterly stupid, I must confess I've tried the same. I don't try to buy His favor and "anointing" with money but sometimes by my personal performance. Therefore, when this happens I must heed the apostles warning and repent and pray that God might forgive the sinful intents of my heart.

I wonder how sincere Simon is in verse 24. First of all I see that he himself doesn't pray. But that does not necessarily mean its not sincere. But it does seem that his fear is that the punishment might not come on him. He seems to have no desire to change. Nor does he see his sin for what it is.

"And the Spirit said to Philip"...I can only think of a handful of times when "The Spirit said to Mike" or at least in such a way that I heard and listened. Why is that?

It's awesome seeing how the Spirit leads men to salvation in the glorious Christ. He truly does seek to always exalt Jesus. If I were constantly aware of this desire of His I am certain I would be more bold in preaching the gospel to the nations. I must remember (as "duh" as it is) that the Godhead is more passionate about spreading His glory and exalting Jesus than I am.

If baptism is but a symbol and witness to the church and the world, why was the eunuch baptized with only he and Philip?

Acts 9:

Encounters with the Lord always knock us off our horse.

You get the idea that God was not going to take no in the salvation of Saul. I don't see much of a "choice" here, as far as "choice" is termed in modern language.

That would have been tough for Ananias to obey the voice of God. I'd have to make sure it was God, before I followed something like that.

As soon as Paul got saved he began proclaiming Jesus in the synagogues. It appears that it is okay for new converts to "preach Jesus" but not necessarily to be pastors. (1 Tim. 3:6)

Every time I read verse 25, I remember Dr. Morgan's cheesy joke. "At this point Paul is literally a basket case".

Can you imagine the greeting of Paul and these believers in Jerusalem? That had to be scary, but once found out that he was legit it had to be a great cause for rejoicing.

How could you not believe the gospel when it is accompanied with the raising of the dead? (See Luke 16:31)

Acts 10:

"He stared at him in terror". Apparently he was scared half to death, but so arrested he could not turn his head.

"What God has made clean, do not call common." If I understood this verse I would not slander those that God has made clean, nor would I desire that which He has not cleaned.

This happened three times...why does it always take Peter 3 times to get something? I feel as if some times it takes me 300.

I wonder if Peter was tempted with much pride and self-glorification when Cornelius began to worship him.

verse 28...is that really unlawful or had Peter stretched the Law?

All the prophets bear witness...Amen!

Oh, that the Holy Spirit might fall on the preaching of the Word, even tonight in New London!

I am really confused with the practice of baptism in Acts. This is a dangerous statement but it does not seem very Southern Baptist.

Acts 11:

Ugh, legalism. (verse 2-3) Yes! Rescued from legalism (verse 18)

Verse 21 is phrased strange to me. "A great number who believed turned to the Lord". That sounds redundant. Is believing and turning to the Lord separate? Is it possible to believe without turning to the Lord?

"saw the grace of God". That's a pretty weighty statement. I wonder if people "see the grace of God" at our church.

It's pretty neat that as this man named Agabus had a prophesy the people listened and began preparing for the famine.

Acts 12:

I wonder if an angel striking you in the side hurts.

Really weird question--did Peter sleep naked (or at least almost naked)? I know they didn't have pj's back in the day. Does the angel here stop Peter from dashing into the street naked (or at least almost so)?

I bet Peter was a heavy sleeper. He's already passed a couple of guards and is yet to "come to himself". He still thinks he's having a vision.

It's so funny that they were praying for Peter and when he showed up he got a door joyously slammed in his face and the men thought it was an angel instead of Peter. I am so ridiculous sometimes. I pray for things and then when God brings them to fruition I am surprised.

I bet a guy named Blastus has an amazing beard and huge muscles.

If I were struck with worms every time I took the glory instead of giving it to the Lord, I would have been dead a million times over. Thank you Lord for your grace!

Acts 13:

They seem to have always started in the Jewish synagogues.

What amazing power was attended to Paul's preaching. And what bold words he spoke with. That is such a contrast from much preaching today. Certainly, we must be convinced that these "harsh" of words are from the Lord and not our fleshly hearts.

verse 13, is this John Mark leaving them?

It is certainly significant that many of the Acts sermons begin with a historical narrative of the OT. Is this how we should preach to those knowledgeable or should we do it with everyone? Does Paul do this in Acts 17?

"freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses". What amazing relief if you feel the weight of the Law.

verse 42. Again, what preacher would not love for the people to beg them to hear the word again!

"continue in the grace of God". There is something really significant about this statement and a sharp contrast to our quickly leading people to "pray the prayer".

verse 44. Almost the whole city was there. Bring that to New London, Lord! But through your grace we pray for different results. May the people not revile the Word as the Jews did here.

"We are turning to the Gentiles". Would this have been accompanied with an ouch to the heart, or with a prideful good riddance? We know the Gentile response. Woohoo! God's Word is given to us now. "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed". (That sounds like election to me).

Filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. Bring that to us, dear Jesus!

Acts 14:

"poisoned their mind against the brothers". What a great statement.

"who bore witness to the word of his grace". How did he bore witness? By granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. Is this still necessary? How does God bear witness now? Is this just because the apostles where establishing the spread of the gospel, and now we are not granted this?

I keep seeing things like, "they continued to preach the gospel". That is so inspiring to me. May I always, "continue to preach the gospel" no matter where God takes me.

A true preacher of the gospel will "tear his clothes" whenever men worship them instead of the Triune God! May I always do the same.

What a sharp contrast. One moment Paul is being worshipped and they have to restrain people from offering sacrifices to them...the next moment Paul is getting stoned and dragged out of the city.

Thought to be dead one day, preaching the gospel the next!

Appointed elders. Notice the plurality. Even at the churches inception.

McCheyne Reading Plan: January 7

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Genesis 7:

One thing I found significant in this narrative is not what IS there but what is not. Perhaps I am missing another place in Scripture, but in this account I see nothing of Noah preaching to people. Usually when I have heard the story told it involves Noah telling people what God is going to do and them laughing. Therefore, it seems more just that God gave them a chance to repent and they did not.

The truth of the matter is that God would be completely just in blotting out the whole earth again. Now certainly we know that He promises to not do that. But if it were not for the promise and His mercy He would certainly be just to blot out everything once again.

Verse 21 is another example that "all" doesn't always mean every single one.

Matthew 7:

Why does my prayer life so often struggle? Do I not believe the beautiful promises in verse 7-11? Lord, help me to trust that you delight in giving good gifts to your children. I pray Lord for a passion to earnestly pray for others and for your glory. As John Piper encouraged us a couple of days ago, help me to pray globally as well.

There is much to be said to our contemporary mass evangelism strategies in v. 13-14. What is the broad gate? We know it is wide and easy. And we know it leads to destruction. And it seems to be where the majority are going through. Are we foolish for telling sinners that salvation is "easy"? Are we leading them through the broad gate? Jesus said that his yoke was "easy" and his burden "light", did he not? What then is this broad gate? The narrow gate we know is hard, but it leads to life, and few find it. Is it possible that the "difficulty" of finding the narrow gate is the same "impossibility" of salvation? Is it possible that finding the narrow gate only comes from a regenerate heart?

Verse 23. It is more significant that Jesus knows me than that I know Jesus.

I want to build my house on the rock.

Ezra 7:

Can verse 10 be said of me? Do I set my heart to study the Law of the LORD? (Certainly that would be more than the Law now, and would include the whole counsel of God). Do I do it? Do I teach it?

Artaxerxes fears the wrath of God. But certainly this is not the trembling at the word that Isaiah 66:2 speaks of. It is not accompanied with repentance. It is trembling at God as if he were but another "god". It seems to me as if he is making sure all of his bases are covered. Nonetheless, the Lord uses him to lavish grace upon the people of Israel.

I wonder, do we still see the mighty God moving the hearts of kings? Do we often thank the man or thank the God that moves the man? What is this steadfast love of which Ezra speaks? Is it none other than the call to preach and teach His Word? Do I see my calling as such?

Acts 7:

I wonder if the Jewish people were bored with this history lesson? Certainly it would have been very little new information. Is Stephen trying to gain common ground?

What a sharp turn in verse 51. "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you." Ouch! Stephen does not mince any words. A man before the people that hold his life in their hands ought not talk this way. Yet Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit.

They accuse Stephen of blasphemy but are doing so themselves by their rejection of Jesus.

It seems that being full of the Holy Spirit means being full of mercy and grace that is accompanied with boldness. What powerful effect this must have had on "a young man named Saul".

McCheyne Reading Plan: January 6

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Genesis 6:

This chapter is a wonderful synopsis of Scripture. Man is exceedingly messed up and God is exceedingly merciful. He should have (if that's okay to say) blotted man out after he sinned in the Garden. Yet he shows mercy. Fast forward quiet a few years and we get the same story. Man has gotten worse. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Oh, painfully true is this of my heart and flesh apart from Christ! God does decide to execute justice as everything will die except those he saves.

We are not told how Noah found favor with the Lord, but he did. Thankfully for us, he did.

Where Shem, Ham, and Japheth triplets?

I am extremely thankful for the Lord's mercy in not only saving Noah, but also saving me.

Matthew 6:

I think of McCheyne in verse 1. "Perish my honor." I know that sometimes I do my acts of righteousness in order to be seen by men. Lord, forgive me. I want your reward and not the reward of man.

"Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors". So....what happens if you refuse to forgive your debtors? May God grant us a forgiving heart. This is a very serious matter. It seems as if our own forgiveness is pending on following this. How can a wicked heart do such? Indeed he cannot. We must have a regenerate heart. The Lord must work it.

How many treasures do I have on earth compared to those in heaven?

Is my only Master the Lord?

"Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you". I have seen the truth of this verse displayed numerous times in my own life. God certainly is good and gives us everything we need.

"Sufficient for the day is its own trouble". Why do I think it an anomaly if I experience tough days?

Ezra 6:

How amazing that even though others meant ill, God used this to speed the building of the temple. The Lord is certainly passionate about His glory, His name, and worship. He controls the hearts of men to do just this. Even when they intend evil, God turns it for His glory and our good.

Again we see them celebrate with joy. I pray that we might have this great joy. God has done far greater things than the rebuilding of his temple. (See Haggai 2:9).

Acts 6:

What should a minister of the gospel be about? "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word". It is so sad that often ministers have to spend so much time doing such work as "waiting on tables" to the neglect of administering the word. I pray that the Lord might bring about in my life a steadfastness in prayer and ministry of the word.

"Full of grace and power." Could that be said of me? Certainly, not my own fleshly power--but the power of the Spirit flowing through my life. I'm not sure it could. Lord, for your name sake, fill me with grace and your power.

We need more men like Stephen!

McCheyne Reading Plan: January 5

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Genesis 5:

A long genealogy. One thing that kept sticking out to me was this statement: "and he died". The only aberration to this was Enoch who "walked with God". I am not certain how he came to an end, all I can say for sure is that "God took him". Perhaps this is pointing us to the eternal life that God grants those that walk with Him.

Matthew 5:

Entire books have been written on this section (The Sermon on the Mount). I will only mention the things that speak to me today. I think I have always read verse 23-24 the wrong way. I have always thought if I have something against my brother I should be reconciled (which probably also true). But the text says that if I remember that my brother has something against me. I do not think I obey this. Lord, help me to seek reconciliation when I know that people "have something against me".

I like the way the ESV phrases verse 28; "lustful intent". I think the reason put the tear out your eye section next to lust for a reason. If you flirt with lust/adultery it will kill you. I'm thinking also of Owen's statement that sin always aims to the utmost. I must make certain to take sin very seriously. If I see it in the least I should be very quick to "tear it out" through the power of the Holy Spirit. I take Jesus' warning about "throwing your whole body in hell" quite seriously.

I cannot help but think of many of the political battles Christians get themselves in with verse 38-42. I know there are times when I am more concerned about not being taken advantage of than with following and trusting Jesus in these things. Going the extra mile really speaks to me. This was something that I read in high school and really tried doing. Now I think I try to see how little I can get away with doing. Father, forgive my foolish heart. Help me to see the beauty of these verses and give even when it hurts and it is difficult.

"Pray for those who persecute you". God has really been rebuking and disciplining me concerning slander and gossip. Might I take it another step and pray for those people. I also should remember that God shows grace even to His enemies. Might I do the same. Help me to be gracious Lord!

Ezra 5:

The people are following God instead of Artaxeres. Looks like they have learned their lesson of trusting in and/or fearing foreign nations. One other thing that leaped off the page to me was the statement in verse 1. Haggai and Zechariah prophesied in the name of the God of Israel "who was over them". I would pray that it may be said of me as a minister that I speak in the name of the God who is over me. The truth behind this does something to a man. If we fear the Lord we have no need to fear anything else. This is not an "anti-authority" statement but it is saying that because we are under the authority of the Lord we will fear Him and not man!

Acts 5:

As I read the story of Ananias and Sapphira I have to wonder what would happen in our churches if God would start doing this same thing. I would hope that I would not be struck dead. How wonderful it would be if it could be said of our church, "And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard these things". Certainly, not a crippling fear but a fear that trembles at the Word of God.

Looks like "discipline" curbed spurious members. "None of the rest dared join them". Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Since, it was God who did it we have to conclude that it is good. Yet we see in verse 14, "And more than ever believers were added to the Lord". Would it be possible that a holy fear of the Lord would actually add to our number? Oh, that we would be more God-sensitive than seeker-sensitive. May we fear Him!

I am sensing a theme today (along with what I read in Burroughs' Gospel Fear this afternoon). Again in verse 29 "We must obey God rather than men". Lord, cause my fear of your to become healthier and deeper.

Gamaliel teaches us an important lesson. If something is from God it will not be overthrown. If something is of man then eventually it will fail. Leave it alone and it will come to its fitting end (or it will be fruitful as God causes it to be). Perhaps, lest we oppose God we should be more gracious in our questioning of other ministries. I know I have been guilty of being quick to judge other ministries (Saddleback, Willow Creek, etc.). Certainly, if it is outright heresy (Osteen) then we should oppose it. But maybe some things we should let them run their course. Remember, God is sovereign.

Verse 41 and 42 cut my heart. Rejoicing in suffering. Preaching and Teaching Jesus every day. Lord, make these things evident in my life. For your name's sake and for your glory. Embolden my tongue and toughen my skin!

McCheyne Reading Plan: January 4

Disclaimer: In posting these thoughts, questions, and ramblings I feel it wise to give a disclaimer. There are many people that are far more knowledgeable and gifted in expositing the Word of God than I. These thoughts are not intended to be in-depth analysis of the text. They are thoughts. They are questions. They are ramblings. It will be a display of what God is teaching me through His Word. In depth study will be done at a different time. It is also good to know the author's goal. 1) To be accountable in reading through Scripture. 2) To share these thoughts with others. Possibly for someone else's edification; possibly for my own. 3) To glorify God through His Word. 4) To spur one another on in taking up Scripture and reading! So without further ado, here are today's readings:

Genesis 4:

This chapter was difficult to read devotionally. It raised far too many questions in my mind. Half way through I had to pray that the Lord might humble my heart and cause it to tremble at His Holy Word.

I know there is some conflict surrounding what Eve said. Is she saying that "she produced God" or is this her "thanking God for continuing grace". No clue. All I know is that God is continuing grace, and if her statement was the first it displays a misunderstanding.

Why did God accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's? I do not think it has anything to do with the type of sacrifice they are offering. It is not that Abel's had blood and Cain's did not. The only difference I see is that Abel brought the firstborn and fatty portions (choicest) and Cain merely brought the first thing he could find (or so it appears). Perhaps if we turn to Hebrews 11:4 we can see that it was because Abel offered up his sacrifice "by faith". What then does this communicate about our worship? What application does this have to use?

There is great significance in this communication between God and Cain. His response to God's displeasure is telling of his heart. He is prideful and feels that God is unjust in not accepting his offering. He is dishonoring God's holiness and His sovereign freedom. His anger at God and man is apparent. I wonder, does my heart rise up like this at times?

Whatever we think of Cain's response (was it remorseful or bitter) it begs a question. Do we feel the weight of our iniquity as Cain did? "My punishment is greater than I can bear". Oh, if sinners would grasp this! Let us run to Jesus because of the truth of this statement.

Where did all these people come from? It seems as if there are other people--who else would Cain be afraid of? Where did he find a wife? I suppose it would have been a sister or a niece. I really have no clue.

The most significant thing I took from Genesis 4 is that at the end of it people have begun to call on the name of the Lord.

Matthew 4:

It helps reading Matthew 4 that I just read Genesis 3. I can see the difference between Jesus and Adam and Eve. Jesus responded with God's Word unadulterated. Eve twisted God's Word, Adam put on a skirt; listened to his wife; and ate like she told him to. This teaches that our only hope when Satan assaults is the Word of God. I think if you look at it closely you can see that Eve tried to reason with Satan. Jesus accepted the Word of God fully and proclaimed it to Satan. God's Word has power--simple reason does not!

Apparently Satan knew the value of Jesus. He was willing to give him the whole world. (Since when was it his to give?).

I am continually amazed at how all of these seemingly insignificant events are actually fulfilling Scripture. Even Jesus moving and living in Capernaum. It is awesome the depth God goes to display His wisdom and beauty.

It is interesting that Jesus continues the message of John the Baptist. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand! (How people can say that "repentance is not part of the biblical gospel" astounds me).

It's pretty cool reflecting on the life-altering responses of these fishermen. It would have taken quit a bit. Contrast that to our easy-believism. Do we really "leave our nets to follow him"?

Jesus was popular. At least for awhile, and maybe not for the right reasons.

Ezra 4:

Oh, how wicked is man when we do not get our way. Certainly the "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" did not really intend to help. How wicked, though, did they become after the men of God turned them down. One of the things that hits me is that I have noticed many Christians (myself included) that have done things the way the adversaries do. I know there have been times in my life when I did not get my way and rather than trust God's sovereign hand I tried getting back at them. Lord, forgive me for this foolishness. May this never be the type of underhanded methods that Christians use to "get their way"--even if it be a holy task.

Acts 4:

Verse 4 again confirms the mighty power of the Word. "Many of those who heard the word believed". 5,000 people now from the original 120. There is so much power when God's Spirit attends the preaching of His Word. Lord, I pray that you bring that to New London. Help us to be bold proclaimers of the Word. Our only hope is that you may accompany your Word.

Why would Peter have preached the exclusive nature of Jesus Christ to Jews? We use verse 12 so often in reference to pagans that have many gods. It is true that Christ is the only name under heaven by which men might be saved in reference to false gods. But it seems that what Peter is doing is proclaiming Jesus as God Himself. For there is no one but God that saves. And if it is only in the name of Jesus--then it is a declaration that He is God Himself. (Thoughts?)

Acts 4:19-20 has always been a challenge to me. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard". Could I honestly say that? My struggle with personal evangelism is a record against that. Lord, I beg that you might give me such a big vision of you that I might be more like Peter and John. I want to be able to say with an honest heart, "I can not help but to speak of Jesus".

After reading the story in Acts 4 for the first time, I remember putting in my first Bible: "Why don't we pray like that"? What I meant at the time was, "Why are our pray meetings not accompanied with wall shaking and us going out in boldness?" Today I still ask that. But now I mean, "Why do we not have such a God-centered, historical, sovereignty of God, passionate, deep-rooted, in the midst of suffering type of prayers?" Why does our theology not shape our prayers like it did in biblical times? Is this the reason why we are not experiencing boldness after our praying?

It would also be pretty great to see the type of love and unity reflected in the summary at the end of Acts 4. In all humility I must say that our church in many ways reflects the love and unity that is spoken of. Praise God for this, and may he drive us deeper!

McCheyne Reading Plan: January 3

Genesis 3:

As I was reading Genesis 3 I recognized an inaccurate image that I get in my head as I read this. I imagine the serpent speaking with Eve and Adam in the Garden, and God is off somewhere picking strawberries or something. But the truth of the matter is that the omnipresent God was right there as they ate of the forbidden fruit. Anything more as to what God was thinking, feeling, etc. would be merely conjecture on my part. All I can say is that He was there. I do wonder though, what God thought as He saw His creation do such a ridiculous thing. Certainly it was no surprise. It had to have made God shake His head as He saw man and women do what we have done sense--try to cover our sin by our own efforts.

It would be worthy of a sermon to exposit the dialogue between Eve and the serpent. Notice that she adds a restriction. God never said that you cannot touch the fruit. It would also be another sermon to exposit the dialogue between God and the fallen couple.

I notice quite a few new things about man that were not present in Genesis 1 and 2. Man now runs away from God. He tries to take care of himself (atone for his mistakes by making garments) instead of relying upon his Creator. He now has fear. He now blames others. And we see for the first time in the story pain. These will forever mark man, and even yet today as those banished from the Garden we experience each of these things so long as we are in Adam.

I also notice the amazing grace and love of God. We perhaps see a hint as to what is coming in verse 15..."I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Even if that it is not exegetically plausible that this is a reference to the Christ we still can see the grace of God in verse 21. We see a foreshadowing of the atonement. God provides their need. He covers their guilt with new clothes...clothes that he makes. And we also see His grace and mercy in kicking man out of the garden. He could not bear man to live forever in such a state so he banished him from the tree of life. Only through redemption will we finally eat of the tree of life.

One question I have on Genesis 3. Verse 20 seems like a strange place to put the naming of Woman. Why is it only after the Fall and curse that her name is now Eve? Mother of all the living seems to be an act of grace. They should have dropped dead on the spot and the human race wiped out. What is the significance of this?

Matthew 3:

I find verse 7 strange. Why were the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism? Why would they want to be identified with this? Are they caught up in the movement? Are they trying to save face with the masses? It is obvious that they are not actually repenting. How frequent was baptism then? I have heard that this would have been much the same as proselyte baptism. It was communicating that the Jewish people needed to be cleansed just as the Gentile and become a true Jew. If this is the case why would the religious elite be baptised?

I am not sure that I actually believe verse 12. Certainly I believe it because it is God's Word. But I do not think it has penetrated the depths of my heart as it should. I am not sure that I feel the beauty of being gathered into Christ' barn. Nor do I feel the awesome weight of those that will be burnt in unquenchable fire. Lord, I know that your glory is the proper motivation for evangelism! But if it please you, stir in my heart a deep passion for your glory and a deep brokenness for my fellow man that is chaff.

Question: How does Jesus' baptism (v15) "fulfill all righteousness"?

I have also never really understood everything that is going on in v.16-17. What exactly is taking place in that moment. I know it is heresy to say that it was at this moment that the divine spirit was imparted to Jesus. But what IS taking place? Is this significant for Jesus to know what is taking place or is this significant for others to know what is taking place? Did people hear this voice?

Ezra 3:

I need to spend some time studying Ezra. My understanding of it is only cursory and I think it hinders me from getting the main thrust of the chapters. What does hit me though is the exuberant worship they are engaged in at the end of this chapter. Shouts of joy and shouts of weeping. Was the weeping happy weeping? Was it sorrowful because they remember the glories of old? Was it joyful because they felt restored? Was it a mixture of both? Regardless their worship was heard from far away. I am not a supporter of great excess in emotions, however, I think some Baptist would have rebuked this worship service in Ezra. I think I might have even felt a little uneasy. Lord, tear out complacency and dull worship from my heart!

Acts 3:

I have always loved the story of The Lame Beggar Healed. I think whenever I picture it in my head the guy looks like Shorty on the Beverly Hillbillies, Festus in Gunsmoke, or Ernest T. Bass from The Andy Griffith Show. It had to have been quite a site to see. You get the idea that entering the temple would have been something normally reserved for quiet. This guy is leaping and praising God. He is definitely unashamed. When I reflect on this I wonder whether or not we as believers should have that same type of inexpressible joy. (I guess you could argue that his joy was expressible). The miracle that has happened in our life is nothing short of a dead man being brought to life. That is far more significant than ankles and legs getting healed. Where are the shouts of joy in our churches when God saves a sinner. (Again, I am not promote excess emotionalism--but I pray that the gospel goes so deep in our hearts that we cannot help but be like this man).

Verse 14 must have stung (or totally ticked off) the hearts of the people. The contrast is striking. Denied the Holy and Righteous One. Killed the Author of Life. Ouch!

Question: In verse 20 when he says "that he may send the Christ appointed to you, Jesus", what is that a reference to? The "sending". Is this the Second Coming? Is this some sort of spiritual sending?

Repent and turn again that your sins may be blotted out. A promise of times of refreshing. A reminder of the promise of the Coming One and that this is indeed He. A reminder of our duty to the Lord and His Servant. These are appropriate calls to repentance, or "gospel invitations" if you will.

Question: In verse 26 he says, "God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness". I know this is saying that Jesus was sent to the Jews first. It also sounds like it was sent to them so that everyone might be turned from wickedness. We know that not all the Jews turned. How then do we interpret this verse? Did God desire everyone to turn but they refused? (Will my Calvinistic brothers take a stab at this one?)

I wanted to remind you that you are welcome to interact with my reading plan. These are my thoughts as I am reading through these texts. As you have noted sometimes they are questions. I am inviting you to help me journey through these. So, please interact. If you are reading through the text as well then feel free to share your thoughts. If you see one of my questions and feel you have an answer then please share that. While these are my personal interactions with the Lord--I also intend them to be corporate as well, what better way to be edified?