Tag: Luke

Posted on

What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)

Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

About a year ago, I posted my thoughts on this very passage, explaining the meaning of the term “firstborn” and why it doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.

I don’t want to rehash all of my points from that post so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read the original post, “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” to get up to speed on the debate between the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus and the Arian view that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold.

My purpose in this post is to provide a response to some of the arguments levied by Jehovah’s Witnesses who argue against my interpretation of this passage.

In my initial post, I made the claim that the primary meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18 is “preeminence”. I reasoned that this makes the most sense since Paul uses “firstborn” in conjunction with two different terms, “creation” and “death”, neither of which have anything to do with a parent. Therefore, it seems most natural that Paul is using the term to demonstrate Jesus’ supremacy (pre-eminence) over creation and death.

In recent weeks, I’ve encountered a number of committed Jehovah’s Witnesses online who disagree with my interpretation and have offered up their own explanations for this passage.

The standard Jehovah’s Witness talking point as it relates to the meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1 is that the term means something like “first in line.”

The argument is that the term “firstborn” most often refers to the first offspring of a particular person. Therefore, the word should be interpreted in a similar manner when it’s used in a verse that is not referencing offspring.

If you agree with the Jehovah’s Witness logic, then the interpretation of Colossians 1 yields the following:

Jesus is the firstborn of creation, which means that he was the first one to be created by Jehovah.

Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, which means he’s the first one to overcome death.

To some, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who hold to an Arian view of Christ, the debate is over. In their mind, the logic is irrefutable.

But is it?

Sound Bible study methods dictate that we investigate their claims. Is their understanding of the word the standard interpretation?

Let’s see.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

I did a Bible search and found that the word “firstborn” shows up in 111 Bible verses, all but 9 of which are found in the Old Testament. In some verses, the word “firstborn” appears multiple times. Hence, the term is used more than 120 times throughout the Bible.

I’ve catalogued every verse where the term shows up, so you can see for yourself. You can access this list of verses in my blog post “Bible References to the Term “Firstborn”“.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right in this respect – a majority of the references to the term “firstborn” do actually refer to the first one born to a particular person. However, it is rather obvious from the context of all of those passages that this is the meaning.

Take Genesis 10:15 for example, which is the very first occurrence of the term. The verse says,

Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn.

In a majority of the occurrences of the term “firstborn”, it’s used in this same manner where the term is by itself, but referencing a parent. Occasionally, the term is referenced to another living creature as in Exodus 11:5 which states that God was going to kill the firstborn of Pharaoh as well as the firstborn of all cattle.

It’s clear in these situations that the term does mean “first offspring” primarily because the verse gives the name of the parent and the son or daughter.

But how is the word understood when it is not used in conjunction with a living being (man or animal)? Is it understood in the same way?

Typically not.

One of the first occurrences where firstborn is used in a non-traditional way is Exodus 4:22, which says,

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23“So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

Notice that the term shows up twice. In the second instance it’s used in the same way we typically see the word being used, in reference to the first offspring of a person. In this case, it’s referring to the first offspring of Pharaoh.

But in the first instance of the term “firstborn”, it is not used in the typical fashion.

According to Jehovah’s Witness’ argumentation, the word should have the same meaning even when it’s used in a non-traditional way.

It turns out that the first instance of “firstborn” in this passage CANNOT mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to the term. God specifically states that Israel, the nation, is his firstborn. If we understand “firstborn” to be “first in line”, in what sense is Israel the “first in line”?

Israel was not the first nation to be created. And God doesn’t “birth” nations anyway, so the word cannot mean “first offspring”.

It’s clear by the context that the first occurrence of “firstborn” in this verse is to be understood as Israel having a favored status. God selected Israel for a distinct and unique purpose – to be a nation through which all the other nations would be blessed and come to know the one true God.

In this case, the meaning of “preeminent” is clearly the correct understanding.

Genesis 48 provides an insightful story that helps us understand the significance of the firstborn.

In this passage, Joseph brings his sons Manasseh and Ephraim to Jacob in order to receive a blessing before Jacob passes.

Jacob is old and his vision is failing. As he reaches out to bless Joseph’s sons, he crosses his arms so that his right hand is on Ephraim instead of Manasseh who is the first offspring of Joseph and therefore the firstborn.

Genesis 48:14 says,

But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn.

In Genesis 48:18, Joseph tries to correct his father, saying,

“Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”

Jacob tells Joseph that he is aware of the situation and he knows what he is doing. He tells Joseph that Ephraim, though he is the younger, will have a higher position over his brother. He will be the firstborn, the favored son.

Just a few verses later, in the next chapter, Jacob is giving his final words to each of his sons. Here is what he says to Reuben, his first son, in Genesis 49:3-4,

“Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. 4“Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it —he went up to my couch.

Jacob not only defines the term “firstborn” for us but expounds on its significance. The firstborn IS the might of the father AND the beginning of the father’s strength. The firstborn is PREEMINENT.

Jacob tells Reuben that he is the firstborn in terms of offspring. But he would NOT be firstborn in terms of preeminence.

These passages, which show up early in the biblical narrative, demonstrate clearly that the idea of “preeminence” was nearly synonymous with the term “firstborn”.

Though Manasseh was Joseph’s first offspring, it turns out that he was not considered the “firstborn” in terms of stature and rank. In Jeremiah 31:9, God  confirms that “Ephraim is my firstborn.”

In 1 Chronicles 2:13, we read that,

Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,

In verse 14, we learn that David was the seventh and last son born to Jesse. Yet, in Psalm 89:27, God says about David,

“I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.

David was not the first offspring of Jesse, but God made David His firstborn.

What does that mean?

It cannot mean that David was “first in line” because David was neither the first offspring of Jesse nor was he the first king of Israel.

What it means is that David was made by God to assume the highest rank among rulers. David was made firstborn – he was made to be preeminent.

The context dictates the meaning and sense of the word and so far, when the word is used in a way that doesn’t mean “first offspring”, it carries the meaning of “preeminence.”

There’s an interesting passage in Job that uses the term firstborn. It’s found in Job 18:13, which says:

“His skin is devoured by disease,
The firstborn of death devours his limbs.

This occurrence is informative because it uses the term “firstborn” with the prepositional phrase “of….” that doesn’t have a person or animal following. Whenever we see a person or animal (cattle, herd) follow, as in “firstborn of Jacob” or “firstborn of cattle”, the term always refers to the first offspring.

But in this case, the “firstborn of” phrase is not followed by a person or animal.

Does the standard Jehovah’s Witness meaning of “first in line” follow?

Not really.

Death is inanimate. It’s not a living organism that gives birth as humans and mammals do.

So what is this verse saying?

This verse is part of a larger discourse by Bildad in which he’s communicating his ideology that the wicked eventually get the punishment they deserve. He’s using this argumentation to try to prove that the reason Job has experienced so much trauma and suffering is because Job’s sin has finally caught up to him.

In describing the punishment the wicked will endure, Bildad claims that the skin of the wicked gets devoured by disease AND the “firstborn of death” devours his limbs. It’s obvious that Bildad is making reference to Job’s physical ailments as a proof of Job’s supposed secret sin.

But what is meant by “firstborn of death”?

Note that this term is very similar to how Paul uses “firstborn” in Colossians 1:18.

If “firstborn” means “first in line” in these kinds of cases, what exactly does that mean?

The context will not allow that interpretation because if you assume that meaning, you end up with a garbled mess of a sentence that is completely incoherent.

It’s clear in this context that death is afflicting its victim. There is no sense in which the term “firstborn of death” includes the meaning “first in line”. Death does not birth anything and does not produce a literal offspring.

But death CAN rule. Death CAN overwhelm. That is the sense that is being conveyed here. There is no meaningful or coherent sense in which “first in line” as a meaning applies to the term “firstborn” here.

There’s another uncommon use of the term “firstborn” in Isaiah that does not follow the typical examples that are littered throughout the Old Testament.

Isaiah 14:30 in the ESV says,

And the firstborn of the poor will graze,
And the needy lie down in safety;
but I will kill your root with famine,
and your remnant it will slay.

Here is another example of the word “firstborn” being used in connection with something that is a non-person and a non-animal, negating the traditional meaning of “first offspring.”

What exactly, then is the “firstborn of the poor” and does the definition of “first in line” fit here given the context?

This verse is part of a prophecy that the Lord is giving to Philistia. God warns that Philistia will experience complete devastation and that only “the firstborn of the poor will graze.”

What exactly does that mean?

One thing it doesn’t mean is “first in line”. If we apply the meaning of “highest rank” or “supreme” then it means that those who are the MOST poor will graze (be fed). In other words, it’s going to be bad, and only the most poor, or the poorest of the poor will survive.

It appears that in pretty much every case where the term “firstborn” is used in a way that doesn’t include the parent with the first offspring, the term means “preeminent.”

As mentioned at the outset, there are only 9 verses in the New Testament that use the term “firstborn”.

There are two verses in Luke 2 that use the term, and in both cases, the term “firstborn” is used to refer to Jesus as Mary’s first offspring.

In Hebrews 11:28, the term “firstborn” is referencing the Egyptian plague when the angel of death passed over the Israelites and all of the firstborn of the Israelites were shielded from the plague.

That leaves 6 more verses that use the term “firstborn” including the two in Colossians. None of these other verses use the term in the normal sense where it obviously refers to the first offspring of a certain person.

I’ll examine each of the non-Colossians verses before coming back to Colossians and then summarizing what this tells us.

Romans 8:29 says,

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

What is this verse saying?

It’s saying that those who become children of God are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is, believers ultimately are going to be LIKE him. We won’t just be declared righteous, we will BE righteous because in the end, our sin nature will finally be eradicated.

This is the sense that we will fully be Christ’s brethren. Though we will be LIKE him, we will not be equal to him. Jesus will be the firstborn among all these brethren, which simply means, he will be preeminent. He will be supreme.

So this verse, as applied to Jesus, does not state that he is the first of Jehovah’s creation. It’s stating that he will have a preeminent position among all of the brethren.

This interpretation makes complete sense if we understand that Jesus is a son by nature but we are sons (and daughters) by adoption.

Hebrews 1:6 says,

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

The term “firstborn” in this verse clearly refers to Jesus, but does it mean that he was the first offspring?

That is a doubtful interpretation for reasons that have already been enumerated. Jesus was not born. Therefore, the more logical understanding of this term as applied to Jesus is “preeminent one”.

This makes sense given the context of Hebrews 1. This passage, starting in verse 5 and ending with verse 13, is demonstrating that Jesus is superior to, or better than the angels.

So when the firstborn, the preeminent one, comes into the world, God says “let all the angels worship Him.” It logically follows that the angels are commanded to worship Jesus because he is preeminent over them.

Now two things should be said about this. First of all, it’s clear from Scripture that only God is to be worshipped. So what does it say about Jesus that God instructs the angels to worship Him?

Secondly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael. They believe that Michael is the highest of angels and that God the Father (Jehovah to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) gave Michael the task of coming into the world to redeem humanity. Michael took on a human nature and changed his name for some reason. When his mission was complete, Jesus returned to heaven and assumed his prior identity as Michael the archangel.

So according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a powerful angel came to earth, took on a human body and God the Father instructed all the other angels to WORSHIP him.

This doesn’t sound like an angel or even someone who is god-like, as Jehovah’s Witnesses will say. This sounds like someone who possesses the divine nature. In fact, this is exactly what Hebrews 1:3 -4 teaches, that Jesus is the EXACT representation of God’s nature AND he is BETTER than the angels. How can he be better than the angels if he himself IS an angel?

Hebrews 12:23 says,

to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

There is some debate about what the term “church of the firstborn” refers to but we know it does NOT refer to Jesus. It clearly refers to a group of people in heaven. It’s also clear that the idea of “first offspring” is not in view here.

I think the most likely understanding of “firstborn” in this verse is either “favored status” or “inheritance.” Remember that the firstborn son had a favored status and received a double portion of the inheritance. So both of these ideas are already inherent in the term.

In this sense, the phrase “church of the firstborn” likely refers to those who have received the inheritance. In other words, it’s referring to those who, because they have placed their faith in Jesus and belong to him, receive exclusive spiritual blessings that are not available to those who are not in the church.

This view makes more sense than anything resembling “first in line”.

Revelation 1:5 says,

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

This is the last occurrence of the term “firstborn” in the Bible and it’s the one occurrence that most resembles the usage of Colossians, especially Colossians 1:18.

So what does this mean?

Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely argue for the interpretation that they hold for Colossians 1:18, namely that this means that Jesus is the first to overcome death, that Jesus is “first in line”.

But given the context, noting that John follows this phrase by saying that Jesus is the RULER of the kings of the earth, it makes more sense that John is using the term to communicate that Jesus is the one who is preeminent over death. In other words, Jesus rules over death, just as he rules over the kings of earth.

It bears repeating that Jesus was not born. So what would be the purpose of using the term “firstborn” if it does not apply to Jesus as it applied to Reuben, Manasseh and the dozens of other references that referred to the first offspring of some person?

In other words, the term firstborn, in a majority of cases, was used to identify the first offspring of a person in order to distinguish that person from other siblings who were not first. But since Jesus has no spiritual “siblings”, there is no need to use the term “firstborn” to distinguish him from rival siblings.

Clearly, John is pointing to Jesus’ special status. To conclude otherwise is to stretch or twist the context of these passages and phrases to unnatural and incoherent meanings.

Now let’s circle back to the Colossians verses that use the term “firstborn”.

What we’ve seen in every use of the term “firstborn” is that it most often refers to “first offspring”. But it never means “first offspring” when the term “firstborn” is used in conjunction with  a non-person or non-mammal. In those cases, some form of preeminence, rule or supremacy is meant.

One thing that is clear is that there are no verses where the term firstborn means “first in line”. Yes, it means “first offspring” when speaking of a person or animal that bears offspring in the natural way. However, when “firstborn” is coupled with a non-person, the idea of “first in line” is never in view.

Yet that is exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that it means in these two verses in Colossians. They argue that Colossians 1:15 means that Jesus was first in line to be created and Colossians 1:18 means that Jesus was first in line to be raised from the dead.

Their argument is that this understanding is demanded because it is the normal meaning when you see the term.

But, as we’ve seen, it’s only normal when the term is used to refer to “first offspring”. There is no instance where it carries that meaning apart from the term “firstborn” being connected with a living person or an animal such as “cattle” or “herd”.

When the term “firstborn” is used apart from a living person or animal, it always has the meaning of preeminence, supremacy or highest rank.

This rendering makes the most sense in Colossians, especially when you look at the context and realize that Paul is seeking to demonstrate that “in everything Christ might have supremacy.” 

If Paul’s argument is designed to show that Christ will have supremacy in everything (verse 18), then it makes sense that he is going to support that argument by showing that Jesus has supremacy over creation and over death.

So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses still insist that “firstborn”, when attributed to Jesus, means “first in line” when it’s never used that way in any other example?

The answer is that they have manufactured this definition as a way to maintain their theological view that Jesus is a created being.

Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate the most egregious form of the Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means to “read into the text.”

In simple terms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approach the text in order to inform their theology. Instead, they add phrases to the text and change the normal meaning of words in order to conform the text to their theology.

It’s clear that, as it relates to Jesus, Paul is using the term “firstborn” in the sense of “preeminence”. This is how the word is used in cases that clearly don’t refer to “first offspring.”

Additionally, the context supports the idea of “preeminence” as the meaning of firstborn.

Paul states that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” which means Jesus is preeminent over creation.

In the verses that follow, Paul states that Jesus is the creator of all things. So Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have to manufacture a meaning of firstborn to mean something like “first in line” in order to convince you that Paul is trying to tell you that Jesus is the first created being of Jehovah.

Yet if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus was “first-created”, he would have used the Greek word “protoktisis” which literally means “first-created.”

That Paul didn’t use that word speaks volumes.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses then have to add the word “other” to the text four times in order to change the meaning of the text to show that Jesus is not really the creator as the original Greek text indicates.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are like the person who tells a small lie to promote a false narrative but are then forced to create bigger lies in order to maintain the fabricated story.

They first had to offer up a definition for “firstborn” that is literally not used in any of the more than 100 occurrences of the term.

Then, to keep their narrative alive that Jesus is a created being, they have to add the word “other” to the passage four times. Their explanations and justifications for their interpretive choices get increasingly more complicated and logically convoluted in their effort to maintain their theological view.

The most direct, plain and understandable meaning of this passage is that Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator. Additionally, Jesus is preeminent over death because he conquered death. All of this demonstrates that Jesus will come to have first place (i.e. preeminence) in everything!

No extra words and no uncommon and unnatural definitions are required to arrive at this understanding.

So we are back to my original premise in my first blog post, which is that the word “firstborn” does not mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses think it means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to heed the advice of Inigo Montoya, who famously said,

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Colossians 1;15 and Colossians 1:18 that the term “firstborn” should be understood as “first in line”? If so, how do you interpret the other passages that use “firstborn” in a context that doesn’t refer to “first offspring”?

Have you ever told a small lie that escalated into much bigger fabrications? What is the motivation for lying in the first place? What are the reasons a person might continue to promote a falsehood?

What are some examples you can think of where a person is so committed to their narrative that they resort to convoluted logic and distorted definitions in an attempt to justify their narrative?

If the term “firstborn” means “first in line” in Colossians, as Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, what exactly is the meaning of the phrase “firstborn from among the dead”? How does the idea of “first in line” apply to Jesus’ death?

 

Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”

Posted on

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Luke 3

15Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and they were eager to know whether John might be the Messiah. 16John answered their questions by saying, “I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire.” 18John used many such warnings as he announced the Good News to the people.

19John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done. 20So Herod put John in prison, adding this sin to his many others.

21One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you.” (Luke 3:15-22, NLT)

Acts 1

1Dear Theophilus:

In my first book I told you about everything Jesus began to do and teach 2until the day he ascended to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions from the Holy Spirit. 3During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

4In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, “Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. 5John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Some Christians will whole-heartedly say “YES”, while many Catholics might also agree.

I’ve engaged with others over this question many times before but was recently re-introduced to this debate from an unexpected source.

You may recall that around the beginning of June (2026) there was some controversy surrounding the government and the Mormon church. I’ve shared some details about that in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?” but the summary is that the Department of Defense, in an effort to simplify the job of military chaplains, decided to reduce the number of codes that identify the different religious affiliations that troop members might align with from over 200 down to about 30.

These codes included a number of different “Christian” affiliations, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian”. However, when identifying the Mormon church, the code was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint”.

This had a number of Mormons objecting that the government did not identify the Mormon church as a subset of  Christianity.

In the ensuing online debate, I ended up engaging with a Mormon who was attempting to explain the legitimacy of the Mormon church to those who were suggesting that Mormons aren’t Christians.

One of the points this person made was that the Mormon church had re-established the priesthood, which Mormonism claims had been lost by the church for nearly 1800 years, and that this “restored” priesthood now allowed for legitimate baptisms. This is important, according to Mormons, because since baptism is necessary for salvation (in their view), the church needs a legitimate priesthood in order to administer baptisms and thus “save” people.

There’s a lot of Mormon theology that could be debated here but for this post, I want to look strictly at the assertion this Mormon made that baptism is necessary for salvation.

As luck would have it, that next day, two of the chapters in my daily Bible reading were the two chapters listed above, both of which talk about baptism.

An exhaustive discussion of whether baptism is necessary for salvation would likely take more room to unpack than just this blog post but these two passages do give us some insight into the issue.

First of all, if water baptism is necessary for salvation, one has to wonder why Jesus was baptized. Did Jesus need to be saved?

Clearly, Jesus didn’t need to be saved so there must be a different reason for His baptism. This alone tells us that baptism is not always associated with salvation. I wrote about this issue in my blog post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”

A second observation from these passages is the fact that there are clearly different kinds of baptism mentioned.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Note that John the Baptist himself said that he baptized with water but someone would come after Him (Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. John makes a point to say that this person who would come after him (Jesus) was greater than he was. This implies also that the baptism of Jesus was greater, better and more important than the baptism of John.

Jesus confirms this in the Acts passage when he reminds his disciples what they had been taught before, that John would baptize with water but He (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then told them that this baptism with the Holy Spirit would take place “in just a few days”.

It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus was referencing the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit descended upon these early believers and came to indwell them. It’s at this moment that the church was born.

So for the person who believes that water baptism is essential for salvation, the question they must ask is: why does Jesus emphasize His baptism of the Spirit over the water baptism that John the Baptist performed?

One thing is absolutely clear from these two passages: Jesus’ baptism is different from the baptism of John the Baptist. While John the Baptist baptized people with water, Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit.

If we’re going to have any chance of resolving the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, we have to come to an understanding of what it means when Jesus said he would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

The problem that too many people experience when they’re faced with this issue is one of familiarity.

What I mean by that is that most people, when they hear the word “baptize”, immediately conjure up an image in their mind based on their own understanding of the word, which is primarily shaped by their own experience with baptism.

For most people, their only association with the word is that they’ve seen many people who have been baptized with water, either by sprinkling in the Catholic church and various Protestant traditions or by immersion in many evangelical traditions.

If your only exposure to the word “baptize” is seeing someone who has been baptized with water, then you naturally will assume that whenever you see the word, it must refer to being sprinkled or immersed with water.

But as these two texts above demonstrate, baptism is not always associated with water. Therefore, the idea that one must be sprinkled or immersed in water as a part of the salvation process is already in doubt. And since both John the Baptist and Jesus affirm that the baptism Jesus would bring was NOT water baptism, then there is virtually no reason to believe that being baptized with water is anything more than symbolism.

A more careful study of the word “baptize” reveals that this is exactly the case.

The more broad meaning of the word “baptize” is “to identify with.”

Hence, people who were baptized by John the Baptist were identifying with him. As a way to demonstrate publicly that they agreed with John’s preaching, they took the step to be baptized by him, thus identifying themselves with his core message of repentance. One might think of it as an initiation.

Jesus’ baptism is not one that is associated with water but the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit means that the person now identifies with the Holy Spirit and thus is now a member of God’s family.

The apostles were all first identified with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. They were “baptized” by the Spirit and “initiated” into the body of Christ, the family of God.

The question for us is when is the believer first associated with the Holy Spirit? Is it at the moment of being baptized with water, as Mormons and some Protestants claim? If that is the case, then we can affirm that water baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

But Scripture tells us otherwise. Most notably, Paul, in Ephesians 1:13, says that the Holy Spirit is given to the Christian as a seal at the moment of belief, NOT at the moment of being immersed in water. I wrote about this aspect of the Holy Spirit in my blog post, “The Holy Spirit as a Seal.”

So then, if water baptism is not essential for savlation, what is the purpose? Why do it?

Like a lot of things in Scripture, water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

In Scripture, water is often a symbol of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37-39, Jesus addresses the crowds and tells them that if anyone is thirsty, they should come to Him and drink and streams of living water would flow from within them. The text follows by explaining that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit.

So the act of being baptized with water is simply an act whereby the believer is attesting to the fact that they now identify with Jesus and are a part of His family. The qualifying characteristic of being a part of the family of Jesus is that you must have the Holy Spirit. The believer, in being baptized with water, is making a declaration of faith – that they now have placed their trust in Christ and as a result, they have received the promised Holy Spirit and have been placed into the family of God.

So let’s circle back to our original question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” The answer is that it depends on what you’re referring to when you talk about baptism.

If you are asking whether a person needs to be baptized with water in order to be saved, the answer from Scripture is clearly NO.

But if you understand baptism to be an identification and union with the Holy Spirit, then the answer is YES, you absolutely must be SPIRITUALLY baptized in order to be saved, for one cannot be saved unless they become a member of the family of God and the prerequisite to becoming a member of the family of God IS receiving the Holy Spirit, which, according to Scripture, occurs the moment a person puts their faith in Jesus.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What has been your experience with baptism? What comes to your mind when you hear the word “baptize”?

What do you think is the purpose of baptism? If you have been baptized, how did you interpret that experience in terms of its meaning?

Would you agree that Jesus’ baptism is greater than and more important than John’s baptism? 

If Jesus’ baptism is more important that John’s baptism, then they must be different in some way. What do you think are the differences between these two kinds of baptism?

If the purpose of water baptism is to save people, then why do you think Jesus was baptized by John? Clearly Jesus didn’t need to be saved.

 

Photo by Paul Ndayambaje: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-in-a-blue-dress-is-in-the-water-28181227/

Posted on

What is the Significance of the “Sign of Jonah?”

Luke 11

29As the crowd pressed in on Jesus, he said, “These are evil times, and this evil generation keeps asking me to show them a miraculous sign. But the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah. 30What happened to him was a sign to the people of Nineveh that God had sent him. What happens to me will be a sign that God has sent me, the Son of Man, to these people.

31“The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here—and you refuse to listen to him. 32The people of Nineveh, too, will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. And now someone greater than Jonah is here—and you refuse to repent. (Luke 11:29-32, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this passage of Scripture, Jesus is responding to “others” from Luke 11:16 who were trying to test Jesus by asking “for a miraculous sign from heaven to see if he was from God.”

A similar incident occurs in Matthew 16, which I wrote about here. The summary in that passage as in this passage, is that Jesus says that those who demand a sign are evil. This is because all of the evidence needed to determine that Jesus is from God has already been given. I unpack this more in my blog post “When Someone DEMANDS Evidence!”

What’s interesting to me about this passage in Luke is what Jesus says about Jonah that is not in the Matthew passage.

Jesus says that “What happened to him [Jonah] was a sign to the people of Nineveh that God had sent him.”

I’ve read this statement from Jesus hundreds of times without realizing the significance of what Jesus is saying here.

So what’s he saying? Why is this significant?

Coincidentally, my men’s group just recently went through a short Bible study on the book of Jonah, which is only 4 chapters long with a total of 48 verses.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

The summary of Jonah is as follows:

God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, and announce God’s judgment against the city.

Jonah rebels against God’s directive and flees by getting on a ship that is headed in the opposite direction from Nineveh.

God gets Jonah’s attention by causing a great storm that threatens the safety of those on the ship and Jonah gets thrown overboard by the other passengers as a way to quell the storm and save themselves.

As a result of the storm abating, these passengers, who all worshiped pagan gods, end up worshipping Yahweh and making vows to Him.

Jonah gets saved from drowning by being swallowed by a big fish. He’s in the belly of the fish for 3 days before being spit up on some unknown beach.

Some time after this (we don’t know how long exactly), God tells Jonah once again to go to Nineveh and announce God’s judgment against the city.

This time Jonah complies.

When he gets to Nineveh, Jonah once again announces God’s judgment with a very brief message.

The text of Jonah 3 says that the whole city repented, including the king. I’ve always thought their response was interesting and out of character given the haughty and braggadocious attitude of the Assyrians. At the time, the Assyrians were the biggest baddest dudes on the block and were  not afraid of any foreign deities or any other regional powers.

2 Kings 18 gives the account of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, in which Sennacherib’s representative said:

“Listen to this message from the great king of Assyria! 29This is what the king says: Don’t let King Hezekiah deceive you. He will never be able to rescue you from my power. 30Don’t let him fool you into trusting in the LORD by saying, ‘The LORD will rescue us! This city will never be handed over to the Assyrian king.’

. . . .

“Don’t listen to Hezekiah when he tries to mislead you by saying, ‘The LORD will rescue us!’ 33Have the gods of any other nations ever saved their people from the king of Assyria? 34What happened to the gods of Hamath and Arpad? And what about the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Did they rescue Samaria from my power? 35What god of any nation has ever been able to save its people from my power? Name just one! So what makes you think that the LORD can rescue Jerusalem?” (2 Kings 18:28-30, 32-35, NLT)

The Assyrians were certainly NOT afraid of the God of Israel. To them, Yahweh was as weak as every other regional deity.

So how is it that in the account of Jonah, the Assyrians are so quick to repent?

Jesus’ words in Luke 11 give us additional insight as Jesus says that what happened to Jonah was a sign to the people of Nineveh that God had sent him.

Did you catch that?

The Assyrians had already heard of what happened to Jonah by the time he arrives with his message of impending doom. Somehow, the ordeal on the boat, in which Jonah’s God, Yahweh, had immediately calmed the storm, got back to the Assyrians. It seems most likely that the other passengers on that boat, the ones who ended up worshipping Yahweh and making vows to Him, told their story and the word quickly spread.

This scenario reminds me of the Israelite’s deliverance from slavery to the Egyptians, in which God not only demonstrated His power and sovereignty through the various plagues, but who also delivered the Israelites by parting the Red Sea while destroying the Egyptian army who attempted to follow.

When the Israelites finally arrived at the edge of the promised land, the multiple nations they would eventually displace had all heard of God’s great acts of deliverance, causing the Israelites to be greatly feared.

Tha Assyrians had gotten word about this powerful God, so much so that when Jonah finally arrives on the scene, he needs no introduction and barely has to say a word to convince the Assyrians that God means business.

The result is that this world empire that had seen themselves as invincible, were now on their knees begging the God of the universe not to bring impending disaster upon them.

Jonah’s rebellion led to a divine encounter for a group of pagan seafarers, whose story got back to the very nation Jonah was supposed to warn. So when Jonah finally gets to the destination to which God had sent him, the people are amazingly ready to respond.

Jesus’ message to those who want a sign is this: the Assyrians heard about Jonah so that when Jonah showed up, they knew he had been sent by God.

In the same way, what happened to Jesus would be THE sign that Jesus was sent by God.

What was it that happened to Jesus?

He was crucified and dramatically rose from the dead.

If the resurrection is not enough evidence for someone who demands a sign to know if Jesus really was sent by God, then no amount of evidence will do.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Are you a person who needs evidence, or a sign that Jesus is God? If so, what evidence would convince you?

Why do you think Jesus says that people who require a sign are part of “this evil generation?”

Many people have a hard time believing the story of Jonah, particularly the part where he is swallowed by a great fish. How does Jesus mentioning Jonah in this Luke passage add credibility to the story of Jonah?

Jesus says that He is greater than Jonah and yet people refuse to listen to Him. Why do you think people refuse to listen to Jesus? What steps can you take to ensure that you don’t stop listening to Jesus?

 

Photo by Francesco Ungaro: https://www.pexels.com/photo/majestic-whale-tail-above-ocean-waters-34392859/

Posted on

The Story of the “Other” Son

Luke 15

25“Meanwhile, the older son was in the fields working. When he returned home, he heard music and dancing in the house, 26and he asked one of the servants what was going on. 27‘Your brother is back,’ he was told, ‘and your father has killed the calf we were fattening and has prepared a great feast. We are celebrating because of his safe return.’

28“The older brother was angry and wouldn’t go in. His father came out and begged him, 29but he replied, ‘All these years I’ve worked hard for you and never once refused to do a single thing you told me to. And in all that time you never gave me even one young goat for a feast with my friends. 30Yet when this son of yours comes back after squandering your money on prostitutes, you celebrate by killing the finest calf we have.’

31“His father said to him, ‘Look, dear son, you and I are very close, and everything I have is yours. 32We had to celebrate this happy day. For your brother was dead and has come back to life! He was lost, but now he is found!’” (Luke 15:25-32, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In a previous post, Revisiting the Story of the Prodigal Son, I shared what the story of the Prodigal Son reveals to us about God, particularly the depth of His love.

In that story, the younger son commits the most egregious act of disrespect imaginable. The father does not stop him, but simply allows him to follow his own path. The father also does not shield his son from the consequences of his misguided choices.

The younger son pursues a life of hedonism, squandering all of his father’s money and wasting his life. But the text says that “he came to his senses”, which means that he repented.

He returned to his father fully expecting to be admonished and punished. Instead, he’s greeted with joy and a loving embrace. He was immediately reconciled and fully restored positionally in the family.

The point of the story is to demonstrate the incredible depth of God’s love and compassion for us. There is nothing we can do that would be so bad that God would not run to us with open arms if we were simply to “come to our senses” and return to Him.

But there’s more to this story, and that’s what this post is about. The younger son was the rebel, the black sheep of the family. But there’s another son, the older son. The loyal and dutiful son.

While the younger son completely disrespected his father and blew his father’s wealth on wild living, the older son stayed home, submissively serving his father as cultural etiquette required.

So what’s the problem? It seems like the older son is the example we’re supposed to follow.

Not exactly.

Have you ever wondered why this part of the story is included? If Jesus simply wanted to illustrate the depth of God’s love, why not just end the story after the younger son returns and is accepted back into the fold by the father?

Jesus clearly had more to say about who He is AND who we are and there’s a reason why Jesus gives us this insight into the older son.

You see, the younger son was the rebel, the wild child. A select group of people will read this story and see themselves as the younger son. But not everyone identifies as a black sheep within their family. Hence Jesus gives us another son in the story, one who is NOT a black sheep at all.

The older son is not lifted up in this story as someone we should emulate because he actually suffers the SAME problem as the younger son. Both sons are disconnected from their father – they just express it in different ways.

While the younger son is brash and disrespectful, the older son is reserved and compliant, But the older son clearly did not demonstrate love and appreciation for his father. That becomes quite evident as soon as the younger son returns home.

Notice the older son’s reaction. The text says he’s angry. I imagine the older son as the type who always does what he’s told but doesn’t express much emotion, until something triggering occurs that causes him to erupt.

That’s the scenario here. The older son isn’t happy the younger son returned, nor is he happy that his father is joyful at his brother’s return. He’s upset at the whole thing, jealous really, that his brother is getting so much favorable treatment.

What’s telling about the older son is what he valued. He’s upset that he never got to have a party with his friends, but his younger brother, the black sheep, is being celebrated for bad behavior.

Have you ever experienced that?

You work your tail off but don’t get the results you want. Meanwhile, some knucklehead you know screws around and seems to break all the rules, and they somehow get rewarded despite their indiscretions.

It doesn’t seem fair does it?

But that’s exactly what Jesus is trying to highlight. The older son stayed with the father, which really is its own reward. The older son missed it completely. The father is the treasure, but the older son was hoping for some other material treasure instead.

The older son suffers from a lack of perspective. The father tells him, “look you and I are very close, and everything I have is yours.”

The father is reminding his son that he has an inheritance.

The older son was not looking toward his future inheritance. Instead, he was coveting some present material reward.

So there you have it. There’s a younger son who is the screw up and there’s the older son who is privately jealous and envious. Both take their relationship with their father for granted. Instead of enjoying the relationship with their loving father, each seeks contentment and pleasure through material means. The younger son is overt in his desire to “live it up” while the older son is more indirect in his thirst for worldly satisfaction.

Which of the sons are you?

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

When is a time in your life when you rebelled against God and went your own way? What prompted you to wander away?

What keeps you from “coming to your senses” when you find yourself disconnected from God?

Which son do you resonate with more – the younger son or the older son? What are some reasons for your choice?

God is the treasure in this story, though neither son really saw their relationship with their father as something to cherish. How would you rate your own relationship with God? How much do you see God as a treasure? 

In what ways can you cultivate a relationship with God that is not centered on duty? How do you think you can develop your heart and passion to see God as a treasure, instead of viewing Him as someone who can help you in some material way?

 

Photo by Muhmed Alaa El-Bank on Unsplash

Posted on

Revisiting the Story of the Prodigal Son

Luke 15

11To illustrate the point further, Jesus told them this story: “A man had two sons. 12The younger son told his father, ‘I want my share of your estate now, instead of waiting until you die.’ So his father agreed to divide his wealth between his sons.

13“A few days later this younger son packed all his belongings and took a trip to a distant land, and there he wasted all his money on wild living. 14About the time his money ran out, a great famine swept over the land, and he began to starve. 15He persuaded a local farmer to hire him to feed his pigs. 16The boy became so hungry that even the pods he was feeding the pigs looked good to him. But no one gave him anything.

17“When he finally came to his senses, he said to himself, ‘At home even the hired men have food enough to spare, and here I am, dying of hunger! 18I will go home to my father and say, “Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you, 19and I am no longer worthy of being called your son. Please take me on as a hired man.”’

20“So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long distance away, his father saw him coming. Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him. 21His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you, and I am no longer worthy of being called your son.

22“But his father said to the servants, ‘Quick! Bring the finest robe in the house and put it on him. Get a ring for his finger, and sandals for his feet. 23And kill the calf we have been fattening in the pen. We must celebrate with a feast, 24for this son of mine was dead and has now returned to life. He was lost, but now he is found.’ So the party began. (Luke 15:11-24, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Imagine you are the son (or daughter) of a very wealthy man. You have no job and you still live under his roof.

Now imagine you go to your father and you say, “You know what old man? I wish you were dead, and I wish I could cash out my inheritance right now and blow this popsicle stand.”

This is not too far off from the scenario that Jesus paints in the story of the “lost son”, more commonly referred to as the “prodigal son.”

The son in the story doesn’t use the words I’ve chosen but the effect is pretty much the same, for in the Jewish culture, it was the ultimate slap in the face to ask your father for your inheritance while he was still living. It was more than a slap in the face actually. It was the ultimate sign of disrespect, akin to giving the father the finger.

Now if you happened to be living the imagined scenario I painted at the outset, what kind of response might you expect from your father after telling him you wished he was dad and you wanted your money…NOW?

Amazingly, in the story Jesus tells, the father willingly complies. He doesn’t demonstrate anger or resentment or any kind of vindictiveness, all emotions I imagine I’d express if I were the father in this scenario.

So the son gets his wish. And what does he do?

He goes to a distant land and wastes ALL the money on wild living (i.e. partying and prostitutes). In some ways, the story mutes the degree of nastiness in which the son treats his father and exploits his wealth. But make no mistake, the son is the most extreme example of a rebel that you can fathom.

When you have no job and your sole purpose is to experience hedonism to its fullest extent, eventually you run out of money to support that crazy lifestyle. And that’s exactly what happened here too. The son had no money, no plan and no prospects. He was desperate.

He finally gets a job feeding slop to pigs. Take note of this detail. He was feeding PIGS.

Pigs were unclean animals to Jews, which is just one more detail revealing how far off the son had strayed.

It’s at this point that the story turns. The key passage in this whole story comes in verses 17-19, which says:

17“When he finally came to his senses, he said to himself, ‘At home even the hired men have food enough to spare, and here I am, dying of hunger! 18I will go home to my father and say, “Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you, 19and I am no longer worthy of being called your son. Please take me on as a hired man.”’

The son “came to his senses”. This is a biblical picture of repentance. The son came face to face with reality. He had hit rock bottom and he was finally willing to humble himself and admit the stupidity of his decisions that led to his current situation. In short, he finally took responsibility for his actions.

But he didn’t stop there. He humbled himself and was willing to admit his sin to his father. So he swallowed his pride and returned home to face his father.

Imagine if you were the son in that situation. How difficult would it be to face your father and admit you were wrong? Personally, I think a typical father would be angry and I’d expect their response to follow suit. I’d expect to be berated and “made an example of”. I’m certain I’d need to learn my lesson and take my medicine. Essentially, I’d expect to experience some kind of penalty and punishment.

But that’s not what happens in this case. The text says that when the son was still a long way off, the father SAW HIM COMING. That means the father had to be watching and waiting for the son to return.

The father doesn’t react the way we would expect because he’s like no earthly father any of us have ever experienced. The father doesn’t berate his son. He doesn’t say “I told you so”. He doesn’t require any groveling or penance. He just embraces the son and welcomes him back into the family, with full rights and privileges restored.

The story highlights the incredible love and patience God the Father has for His children.

God is not a dictator. He allows us to choose our own path. He doesn’t restrict our choices but he also doesn’t shield us from the consequences of those choices. He patiently waits for us to return. And if and when we do return, He welcomes us back with a lavish love that is beyond any kind of earthly love we could experience.

On the flip side, the son is an example of the most egregious offenses one could commit. And yet, the Father extends His love and immediately forgives and restores the son. It’s incredible.

This tells me a couple of things. First, there is nothing I can do that God won’t forgive. NOTHING. I only need to come to my senses (repent), humble myself and admit my sin, just as the son in the story did.

God doesn’t require us to grovel or do penance to receive His love and forgiveness. He freely gives it to those who come to Him with a humble heart of surrender. His love is infinite and He freely and unconditionally lavishes it on those who come to Him.

Now imagine experiencing the love of THAT Father!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What was your relationship like with your earthly father?

If you had done something wrong that you know he would be offended by, what would it have been like for you to think about approaching Him? What kind of reaction might you expect?

When you think of God, what words come to mind? How would you describe God to someone else?

When you find yourself sinning and “straying” from God’s plan, how easy is it for you to “come to your senses”? What keeps you from coming to your senses and returning to God?

What amazes you most about this story?

 

Photo by IP Withers on Unsplash – Charlie Mackesy’s Return of the Prodigal Son statue outside HTB Church London

Posted on

Developing the Habit of Daily Bible Reading

It’s the beginning of the New Year so naturally, many people are thinking about New Year’s resolutions.

Typical resolutions for people include: losing weight, paying down debt,  finishing a degree or improving a job situation.

In the spiritual realm, a very common New Year’s resolution is to read through the Bible in a year.

Over the years, I’ve made this resolution countless times and mostly failed, though I was able to read through the entire Bible once or twice.

As Christians, reading through the Bible in its entirety is a noble goal. Many do it because it seems like an enormous accomplishment, like running a marathon once or hiking Yosemite’s half-dome summit.

But for the Christian, the goal really shouldn’t be to say that we’ve read through the Bible, as if it’s some bucket list item that we can boast about.

The goal is to gain a greater understanding of God’s word so that it impacts us and transforms us at a heart level.

With that in mind, I think a better resolution is to develop consistency in reading God’s Word. The goal is to develop a habit of taking in God’s word; to see it as essential and necessary for your spiritual life as food is daily for your physical life.

To develop a habit, a daily reading program is a must.

If this is all new to you, a few tips might be helpful.

Don’t worry about reading the Bible through chronologically. You can do that if you want but the Bible is not a novel. It’s a collection of books. So it’s not necessary to read through in order.

Shoot for being consistent instead of racing to finish. The goal is not to “finish” per se, because even if and when you do read through the entire Bible, you will still want to keep reading. It is NOT like a novel that you put back on the shelf once you’ve read the final page.

Allot an appropriate amount of time to help you be consistent. Many people start off with 45 minutes to an hour but cannot sustain that and then quickly give up. It’s like a person who’s out of shape and starts running for fitness. They immediately run 5 miles and kill themselves. Start off with a manageable routine that you can repeat consistently.

Recognize that there is a difference between reading and studying the Bible. You want to develop a habit of “reading” consistently, preferably every day. Reading doesn’t mean you have to understand everything you read. You can create longer study periods at other times in order to dive deeper into various sections of God’s word.

Recognize that the Bible is a collection of different types of literature. Some of it is historical narrative, some of it is poetic prayers and wisdom and some of it is direct teaching and instruction. Based on your personality, you will likely find some parts of the Bible easy and enjoyable to read while other sections (the types you don’t normally gravitate toward) you will find more laborious. Start with the types of literature that you would more easily gravitate toward, and then mix in the types that aren’t as easy. Starting off with books that are interesting will help you create momentum which will enable you to begin developing consistency.

Consider following a Daily Devotional program on the YouVersion Bible app. This is a popular app that is free and available for Smartphones in both iOS and Android versions. Not only does this app give you digital access to many different Bible translations, but there are literally thousands of different devotional programs that you can select to follow. The app will enable you follow each day’s content (a mixture of Bible reading often with some brief commentary) until you finish the program. When you finish, you can find another topic or series that interests you.

You may be saying to yourself, “this is all helpful, but I still don’t have any idea where to start.”

That’s a common issue. Here are some ideas to help you know where to begin:

Read through one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). These books are narratives that each tell the story of the life of Jesus from the perspective of that author. There are similarities and differences between each account as each author reported on those parts of the life of Jesus that were important for the purpose they were writing. Pick one gospel and reach through it. You can read one chapter a day and it will take you 5-10 minutes, maybe even less. Reading through one of the gospel accounts will help you get familiar with the life and teachings of Jesus, who is the Bible’s central character.

Read through the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Genesis is foundational for helping you to understand the context for the whole theme of the Bible. In it, you learn about creation, the Fall of man and then the story of the formation of the nation of Israel, God’s chosen people through whom the promised Messiah would come. Again, read one chapter a day. That should take no more than 5-10 minutes and will take you 50 days as there are 50 chapters.

If you like poetry, read through the Psalms. The Psalms are independent poems and praises that were written by different people to express their thoughts and emotions to God regarding the things they were experiencing. You can read one per day. Some are very short and there’s a few (like Psalm 119) that are extra long. If a Psalm is more than 30 or 40 verses, you might consider breaking it up into multiple days.

Read through the book of Proverbs. This book is what is called Wisdom literature. It’s a collection of sayings that are designed to give instruction and impart wisdom. There are 31 chapters in this book. One strategy is to read whatever Proverb corresponds to the day of the month. Hence, in a month that has 31 days, you will read through the entire book.

Read through the book of Acts, one chapter at a time. The book of Acts is another narrative book that tells the story of the foundation and growth of the early church, just after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension. It is filled with stories that demonstrate God’s design for His message of redemption to be taken to the ends of the earth.

Read through some of Paul’s letters. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are good starting places. These letters are not narrative but are instructions that Paul is sharing with various New Testament churches. Reading these letters will help you to begin to learn important doctrinal truths about God and your relationship with Him.

Building a habit of daily Bible reading is one of the best practices you can develop if you want to grow and mature as a Christian. God’s Word is our source of life; it’s an instruction manual that teaches us what is right and what is wrong and directs us in how we are to live our lives in connection with God. (For more thoughts on the benefits of reading God’s Word, read my post “Training in Righteousness – Part 2”)

One last suggestion that you may find helpful. Consider signing up for my blog posts where you will get alerted each time a new post is made. Many of my posts are part of what I call the Daily DAVEotional. It’s not exactly daily, but each post has a passage from my own daily reading, along with my commentary on what it means. I end each post with some reflection questions to help you process and apply what you’ve read. Each post will take between 5 and 10 minutes to read, depending on how fast you read and how long you take to reflect on the questions at the end.

Wherever you’re at in your knowledge and understanding of God’s Word, I hope this is a year that you are able to begin to build a habit of daily Bible reading. This one habit practiced over time, can be instrumental in your own spiritual growth and transformation in the months and years to come!

How about you? What has been your experience with New Years’ resolutions and reading through the Bible?

What have you found helpful in your own life for developing consistency in daily Bible reading?

Share your thoughts and comments below!

 

Photo by Joel Muniz on Unsplash

Posted on

Is it Immoral to Be Wealthy?

Luke 12

13Then someone called from the crowd, “Teacher, please tell my brother to divide our father’s estate with me.”

14Jesus replied, “Friend, who made me a judge over you to decide such things as that?” 15Then he said, “Beware! Don’t be greedy for what you don’t have. Real life is not measured by how much we own.”

16And he gave an illustration: “A rich man had a fertile farm that produced fine crops. 17In fact, his barns were full to overflowing.18So he said, ‘I know! I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones. Then I’ll have room enough to store everything. 19And I’ll sit back and say to myself, My friend, you have enough stored away for years to come. Now take it easy! Eat, drink, and be merry!’

20“But God said to him, ‘You fool! You will die this very night. Then who will get it all?’

21“Yes, a person is a fool to store up earthly wealth but not have a rich relationship with God.” (Luke 12:13-21, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

A few weeks ago I saw the following tweet from Dave Ramsey who quoted and then commented on a statement from Larry Burkett.

If you don’t know who Dave Ramsey is, he’s well known for teaching thousands, if not millions of people biblical principles for managing money, getting out of debt and building wealth.

Larry Burkett was Dave Ramsey before Dave Ramsey.  Burkett, founder of Crown Ministries, was one of the main voices teaching biblical money-management principles from the 1970’s through the 1990’s before his passing in 2003. Personally, I remember reading a number of Larry Burkett books in the early 1990’s that helped me get out of debt, stay out of debt and begin to save money that would become foundational for my future marriage and family.

Why do I bring this up? What’s the big deal about this tweet?

Actually, I only saw Dave Ramsey’s tweet because of a response to his tweet that showed up on my timeline.

In the response, the tweeter made the comment that he’s heard too many sermons that try to explain away passages like this by saying that it’s not wealth that is being condemned but it’s the motivation for that wealth that Jesus is condemning.

The problem, according to the tweeter, is that these Bible passages, like the one we’re looking at today, don’t talk about “attitude” but only mention the bigger barns and the tremendous wealth.

The implication is that Jesus was condemning great wealth and that building bigger barns is immoral. After all, that is what is stated in the story.

The responder had a follow-up tweet in which he stated that the challenge he was bringing up isn’t just a challenge for Ramsey but it’s a challenge for himself as well, because as a middle class American, he’s wealthy by global standards. Therefore, he is just like the fool who is building bigger barns.

Is this tweeter on to something? Is it true that Jesus was condemning great wealth?  Is it also true that if you are a middle class American, you too are a fool because you have great wealth by global standards? In short, Is it immoral to have wealth?

If Jesus is condemning wealth then he would be instituting a radical shift in understanding regarding what was taught and understood from the Bible regarding wealth.

Consider the following facts:

    • Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish people. was quite wealthy, as were his sons Isaac and Jacob. It is clear that God blessed them and their wealth was God-ordained.
    • David too was wealthy, as was his son Solomon. In fact, God provided tremendous wealth for Solomon because he asked God for wisdom to guide his people instead of asking for wealth. God gave him what he asked for (wisdom) and threw in what he didn’t ask for (wealth) as a bonus.
    • Job was tremendously wealthy. In fact, the scriptures say he was the wealthiest man in the area. After he lost everything, God restored his wealth and gave him even more. Job is consistently described as righteous, despite his wealth, which is never condemned.

How do we reconcile the tremendous wealth of these great bible characters with this “new understanding” that Jesus is supposedly condemning great wealth?

A basic tenet of Bible study is that scripture interprets scripture. What that means, simply, is that our understanding of a passage must align with what is taught in other passages. Otherwise, we end up with the Bible contradicting itself, which would be quite problematic.

Given the fact that wealth in the Old Testament wasn’t condemned as immoral and that there are numerous examples of God Himself providing and blessing people with great wealth, it should be clear that Jesus must not be condemning wealth outright.

So what’s Jesus saying? What’s the point of His story.

If we take a closer look at the passage, it’s clear from the outset what the point of the story is. Jesus tells us plainly in verse 15 when he says:

“Beware! Don’t be greedy for what you don’t have. Real life is not measured by how much we own.”

What Jesus is condemning is greed, which is clearly sin. Jesus’ example uses a rich man who decides to tear down his barns and build bigger barns because otherwise, he would not be able to store all the crops that his fields are producing. Because Jesus’ example involved a “rich” man, one might conclude that Jesus must be against the rich. But that’s not the case.

Jesus defines what is foolish in verse 21 when He says:

“a person is a fool to store up earthly wealth but not have a rich relationship with God.”

What makes a person a fool is being greedy, which leads to an attitude of always wanting and needing more. This is why the rich man felt the need to build bigger barns.

It’s also clear from this passage that another aspect of being a fool is NOT having a rich relationship with God.

What’s the bottom line?

The bottom line is that people are foolish when they are not content with what they have. Greed is not just a problem for people with money. Anyone can be greedy. Conversely, just because a person has wealth doesn’t mean they are greedy.

Greed is sinful because we seek to gain satisfaction and significance from material possessions instead of from our relationship with God. This is what Jesus is condemning.

We need to be very careful not to assume or project our motives onto others, particularly those who are wealthy. It’s become fashionable lately to malign those who have great wealth and condemn them as greedy.

The problem is that we cannot really know the inner motives of those who have an abundance of material resources. They “may” be greedy or they may not be.

The irony is that when we assume that those who have much are greedy and when we call for them to be stripped of what they have so that it can be redistributed to others who don’t have as much, it actually demonstrates our own envy and sinful desires.

Wealth is not immoral. Greed is. Wealth is just a tool that can be used for good by those who are generous or it can be used for evil by those who are greedy.

Lastly, God Himself owns everything. He’s the wealthiest person in existence. The fact that He owns everything does not make Him selfish or greedy or immoral. He is none of those things. Instead, He’s extremely generous.

As believers, we should not be consumed with those who have more than us. We should be content with what we have and if we are blessed by God with much, we should be generous, just as God is.

Reflection

What has been your attitude towards people who are wealthy? What about people who have extreme wealth, such as billionaires? What has been your attitude towards their wealth?

What are some examples in your own life when you’ve been envious of others? What are some examples of greed in your own life?  How can you combat these attitudes and cultivate an attitude of generosity?

Do you agree with the tweeter or this author regarding how God views wealth? How does your view align with what the rest of Scripture teaches about wealth?

Why do you think so many people nowadays are attacking those who are rich and seeking to redistribute their wealth to others? What do you think are the reasons and motivations? 

 

Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

 

Posted on

What Can We Learn from the Temptations of Jesus?

Luke 4

1Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan River. He was led by the Spirit to go out into the wilderness, 2where the Devil tempted him for forty days. He ate nothing all that time and was very hungry.

3Then the Devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, change this stone into a loaf of bread.”

4But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People need more than bread for their life.’ ”

5Then the Devil took him up and revealed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6The Devil told him, “I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them—because they are mine to give to anyone I please. 7I will give it all to you if you will bow down and worship me.”

8Jesus replied, “The Scriptures say,

‘You must worship the Lord your God; serve only him.’ ”

9Then the Devil took him to Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! 10For the Scriptures say,

‘He orders his angels to protect and guard you.

11And they will hold you with their hands to keep you from striking your foot on a stone.’ ”

12Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘Do not test the Lord your God.’ ”

13When the Devil had finished tempting Jesus, he left him until the next opportunity came. (Luke 4:1-14, NLT)

Hebrews 4

14That is why we have a great High Priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God. Let us cling to him and never stop trusting him. 15This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin. 16So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it. (Hebrews 4:14-16, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

A few days ago, in my daily bible reading, I came across both Luke 4 and Hebrews 4. Both of these chapters have portions related to the temptations Jesus experienced from Satan in the wilderness.

What exactly was the purpose of the temptations Jesus experienced in the desert and how can we learn from His example?

NOTE: Many of my thoughts concerning the temptations Jesus faced come from a talk that Dr. Bill Lawrence, a former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, gave to a group of Cru staff at a conference in March, 2011.

Sin has been described as our attempt to meet legitimate needs in illegitimate ways. In other words, we all have basic human needs that need to be met but we sin when we attempt to meet those needs in ways that are outside of the boundaries that God has set for us to meet those needs.

Dr. Lawrence, in his talk on the temptations Jesus faced, described the 3 temptations this way:

Every one of the temptations is related to what God wants you to do but not the way God wants you to do it. We are tempted to do God’s will but man’s way.

So how exactly are these three temptations an attempt to do God’s will but in man’s way?

In the first temptation, Jesus experiences the temptation to meet His own needs – to rely on himself instead of on God.

Clearly Jesus needed to eat. We all need food and sustenance to survive. But Satan was inviting Jesus to rely on His own resources instead of relying on the Father. Jesus recognized Satan’s tactic and quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, which states that people need more than bread for life, we need the Lord Himself in order to really live.

The second temptation, according to Lawrence, is the temptation to Self-Advancement. Jesus knew that it was the Father’s will that He would rule over the nations. Satan offered Jesus a shortcut to that outcome. But at what cost?

Jesus would have had to bow to Satan, who is NOT God.

Sometimes, because of our impatience, we can seek to get to a godly outcome via an ungodly process. In our haste to get what we want, we can cut corners and do things our way instead of God’s way.

In the third temptation, Jesus faces the temptation to make an impact. Remember that this desert encounter with Satan occurs at the very beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He’s a relative unknown. By throwing Himself down from the highest point and saving Himself, He would have instantly been seen as a divine being by the crowds.

Lawrence says that this is the temptation to self-assertion – to be successful.

There’s no doubt that had Jesus followed Satan’s plan, He would have gained an instant following. People would have recognized His power and divinity. But humility is more messianic than self-assertion and so Jesus rejects Satan’s offer for immediate fame and popularity.

These temptations are illustrative of the kinds of temptations we all face as human beings. We too face the temptation to meet our own needs instead of trusting God. We too face the temptation to do things our own way in order to get an outcome that we justify as “godly”. We too can act without humility, seeking to advance our own name instead of advancing God’s name.

In the Hebrews passage, we’re told the reason why Jesus experienced these temptations. Jesus experienced the temptations He did so that He could identify with our weaknesses and offer help to us in our time of need.

Jesus is our High Priest, which means He works as a mediator between us and the Father. Jesus is the perfect mediator because He knows from first-hand experience what it is like to be tempted with the kinds of things we are all tempted with.

The writer of Hebrews says that Jesus experienced, “all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin.”

Jesus knows what we’re going through. He doesn’t just know on a cognitive level. He knows on an emotional level because He has endured the kinds of temptations we’ve endured, and yet, He did not sin.

This last part, He did not sin, is important because it means that Jesus is divine and therefore can relate to the Father, who shares in His divinity, while at the same time, He can relate to us because He lived a life where He experienced all of the same struggles, hardships, and yes, TEMPTATIONS, that we have experienced.

As a result of these two truths, the author of Hebrews tells us that we can have confidence to come boldly before God’s throne. Because of Jesus, God will extend mercy to us and offer grace to us when we need it most!

Reflection

Which of the three temptations outlined in Luke 4 do you struggle with the most and why?

In what ways have you seen the statement “sin is meeting legitimate needs in illegitimate ways” to be true in your own life?

What do you learn from Jesus’ encounter that you can apply to your own life in terms of resisting temptation?

The author of Hebrews states that Jesus is our High Priest and that He’s experienced temptation just as we have, and yet did not sin! This gives us confidence to boldly approach God’s throne. What does it look like for you to boldly approach God’s throne? What are some practical ways you have done that in your own devotional life with God?

NOTE: For more on this topic, check out this online article from Dr. Lawrence regarding “Ten Temptations of a Leader”  

 

Photo by Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

Posted on

Fake News and Cancel Culture in the New Testament

Luke 23

1Then the entire council took Jesus over to Pilate, the Roman governor. 2They began at once to state their case: “This man has been leading our people to ruin by telling them not to pay their taxes to the Roman government and by claiming he is the Messiah, a king.”

3So Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

Jesus replied, “Yes, it is as you say.”

4Pilate turned to the leading priests and to the crowd and said, “I find nothing wrong with this man!”

5Then they became desperate. “But he is causing riots everywhere he goes, all over Judea, from Galilee to Jerusalem!”

. . . . .

13Then Pilate called together the leading priests and other religious leaders, along with the people, 14and he announced his verdict. “You brought this man to me, accusing him of leading a revolt. I have examined him thoroughly on this point in your presence and find him innocent. 15Herod came to the same conclusion and sent him back to us. Nothing this man has done calls for the death penalty. 16So I will have him flogged, but then I will release him.”

18Then a mighty roar rose from the crowd, and with one voice they shouted, “Kill him, and release Barabbas to us!” 19(Barabbas was in prison for murder and for taking part in an insurrection in Jerusalem against the government.) 20Pilate argued with them, because he wanted to release Jesus. 21But they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” (Luke 23:1-5; 13-21, NLT)

Acts 24

1Five days later Ananias, the high priest, arrived with some of the Jewish leaders and the lawyer Tertullus, to press charges against Paul.  2When Paul was called in, Tertullus laid charges against Paul in the following address to the governor:

“Your Excellency, you have given peace to us Jews and have enacted reforms for us. 3And for all of this we are very grateful to you. 4But lest I bore you, kindly give me your attention for only a moment as I briefly outline our case against this man. 5For we have found him to be a troublemaker, a man who is constantly inciting the Jews throughout the world to riots and rebellions against the Roman government. He is a ringleader of the sect known as the Nazarenes. 6Moreover he was trying to defile the Temple when we arrested him. 7but Lysias, the commander of the garrison, came and took him violently away from us, commanding his accusers to come before you.]  8You can find out the truth of our accusations by examining him yourself.”  9Then the other Jews chimed in, declaring that everything Tertullus said was true. (Acts 24:1-9, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

One of the advantages of the Grant Horner Bible reading system is that you begin to see how biblical events relate to each other. This is because each day, the reader reads one chapter from 10 different sections of Scripture. Since each section has a unique number of chapters, the number of days it will take the reader to read through each section is different, creating a unique “playlist” of chapters to read each day.

A few days ago, in consecutive days, I read Luke 23 and then Acts 24. I was amazed to see two different scenarios that played out in almost identical fashion.

In the Luke chapter, Jesus is arrested and appears before the Jewish Council, who then take Him before the Roman authorities to plead their case and seek punishment.

The Council leaders create a false narrative in order to see Jesus prosecuted to the fullest. What was Jesus’s crime? Jesus was accused of telling people not to pay their taxes. However, we know this is false. It’s a New Testament version of “fake news.”

In Luke 20:20, the Jewish leaders had sent “secret agents”, who pretended to be honest men, but were really trying to entrap Jesus. They had asked Jesus specifically if it was right to pay taxes to the Roman government. Jesus sees through their deception and tells them to grab a Roman coin.

“Who’s image is on the coin”, Jesus asked.

They replied, “Caesar’s”.

Jesus responds by telling them, “give to Caesar what is belongs to him and everything that belongs to God should be given to God.”

Now here we are, four chapters later and the story is that Jesus tells people not to pay their taxes. In verse 5, the Council’s desperation unfolds as they claim, without evidence, that Jesus is causing riots everywhere he goes.

Later, Pilate declares Jesus innocent of the charge of revolt, mostly because there’s no evidence whatsoever to support the charge. But that no longer matters because by this time, a mob of people have joined in to promote the false accusations, insisting that Jesus be crucified. Pilate, in an act of cowardice and weak leadership, gives in to the mob and allows Jesus, a man he knows to be innocent, to be crucified.

In the Acts story, the names are changed but the scenario unfolds in almost exactly the same way.

Paul is the accused now instead of Jesus. What is Paul accused of? Inciting riots wherever he goes. 

Do you see a pattern here?

After Paul is accused of being a troublemaker and inciting riots, other people chimed in, agreeing that it was true (verse 9).

So, the formula for using a fake narrative to get your enemy canceled seems to be:

    1. Find some powerful or influential people to accuse your enemy of something egregious, even if it’s not true.
    2. Get other people to repeat and vocalize the false narrative, creating a viral effect.
    3. Take the charge to someone who has the power to exact punishment.
    4. Use the power of the mob’s outrage to have your enemy canceled.

A few things I noticed in these two passages:

First, the people leading the charge against the accused are the same, the Jewish leaders. Though they may not be the exact same leaders in both cases, it’s interesting to note that this group of people, who should be the harbingers of truth and justice, ultimately wield their power for their own political purposes.

Secondly, while Jesus doesn’t answer His accusers, Paul speaks out and defends himself (we see this more clearly in the later verses of Acts 24, which were not included in this post for the sake of brevity).

Third, the outcome was slightly different in each case. In the case of Jesus, He is condemned to death mostly because of Pilate’s unwillingness to stand up to the people and do what he knows is right.

Paul’s situation dragged on, not because Felix was standing up to the mob, but because he was greedy and was hoping Paul would pay his way out of his predicament. He also wanted to gain favor with the Jews so he kept Paul’s case open for two years.

The last thing I notice, is that despite the injustice of it all, God uses both situations to fulfill His purposes.  Jesus’s injustice sends Him to the cross where He secures the salvation of the entire human race, while Paul, because of his situation, is able to take the gospel to Rome. Hundreds, if not thousands came to Christ even while Paul was in chains.

Reflection

When have you experienced an injustice that you didn’t understand? How did God use that situation to accomplish greater purposes in you and around you?

What do you think is the appropriate response if you’re being falsely accused? Should you keep quiet, much like Jesus did, or do you think it’s ok to defend yourself as Paul did?

What safety measures can you take to ensure that you don’t unwittingly become part of a mob that unjustly seeks to cancel others?

 

Photo by Joshua Miranda from Pexels
Posted on

Are You or Aren’t You?

Luke 22

66At daybreak all the leaders of the people assembled, including the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. Jesus was led before this high council, 67and they said, “Tell us if you are the Messiah.”

But he replied, “If I tell you, you won’t believe me. 68And if I ask you a question, you won’t answer. 69But the time is soon coming when I, the Son of Man, will be sitting at God’s right hand in the place of power.”

70They all shouted, “Then you claim you are the Son of God?”

And he replied, “You are right in saying that I am.”

71“What need do we have for other witnesses?” they shouted. “We ourselves heard him say it.” (Luke 22:66-71, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you ever heard people say that Jesus never claimed to be God? It’s a popular view among non-Christian religions and skeptics.

There’s just one problem….Jesus clearly DID claim to be God. There are a number of verses and situations that demonstrate this and this passage in Luke is a clear example.

Jesus has been arrested, and at his trial, He’s asked directly if He is the Messiah. Jesus, in his typical fashion, doesn’t answer the question directly. It’s this tactic that often gives people the impression that Jesus never claimed deity. The theory is that Jesus is so cryptic and elusive in his responses that he could not be God, as Christians claim. If Jesus really WAS God, then surely he would have been more direct.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Instead of giving a direct answer, Jesus gives a reference to Him being seen sitting at the right hand of God.

The reaction of the Jewish leaders tells you all you need to know about what Jesus was really saying.

The text says they shouted, “Then you claim you are the Son of God?”

The Jewish leaders understood that Jesus’s reference to sitting at the right hand of God was a direct reference to deity. They recognized that Jesus was claiming a special relationship with God that was putting Him on par with God, hence, the claim to deity.

In response to Jesus’s reference and subsequent admission to being the Messiah, the Jewish leaders recognized that they now didn’t need witnesses in order to convict Jesus of blasphemy. They had all the evidence they needed straight from Jesus’s own lips. Jesus was not only claiming to be the Messiah, but was also asserting deity, and the Jewish leaders now had the necessary motive and reason to crucify Him.

You can reject Jesus’s claim to deity as perhaps being false, but you cannot say that Jesus never made the claim. For if he didn’t make the claim, the Jewish leaders would not have had a basis to crucify Him.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What has been your view of Jesus? Do you see Jesus as a great teacher, or do you recognize Him as God incarnate?

Why do you think Jesus did not always respond directly to the questions people were asking Him? 

Why do you think the Jewish leaders were so set on arresting and killing Jesus instead of embracing Him as the long-awaited Messiah?

 

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash