Tag: Paul

Posted on

Why Did Paul Confront Peter in Galatians 2?

Galatians 2

11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

15“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

17“But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18“For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19“For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

20“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:11-21, NLT)

NOTE: Cephas is another name for Peter

The Daily DAVEotional

In the second half of Galatians 2, Paul mentions an odd encounter that he once had with Peter. He says that he (Paul) had to confront Peter (also known as Cephas) publicly because he was acting like a hypocrite.

The whole ordeal sounds pretty uncomfortable and embarrassing. What’s actually happening here?

To more clearly understand Paul’s encounter with Peter in this passage, we need to know a little bit about the context of this letter and why Paul is writing it in the first place.

Paul and Barnabas had established a number of churches in the Southern province of Galatia as an outcome of their first missionary journey (see Acts 13-14).

However, even though their mission of planting a number of new churches was wildly successful, it wasn’t all smooth sailing, as Paul and Barnabas encountered quite a bit of opposition along the way, primarily from Jewish unbelievers.

Not long after establishing these new churches, false teachers had infiltrated and were leading the Galatians astray. Paul tells these young believers that what they were following was a false gospel, a distortion of the truth.

At issue was the very nature of how a person is saved. I wrote about this issue in another blog post “A Pivotal Council in the Early Church” which I encourage you to read for context.

The summary is that there were a number of Jewish Pharisees who had become believers in Jesus. They held the view that in order for Gentiles to be saved, they not only needed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but they also had to convert to Judaism and adhere to all of its religious and cultural demands.

A council was convened to discuss this issue. The leaders of the church, including Peter, unanimously agreed that Gentiles do NOT need to become Jewish culturally in order to be saved. They determined that ALL men, regardless of cultural background, are saved by simply putting their faith in Jesus.

So what’s happening here in Galatians 2? Why does Paul confront Peter?

Apparently Peter showed up at the church in Antioch, which was known for having a mix of Jewish and Gentile believers. While there, Peter enjoyed hanging out with and eating with these new Gentile brothers and sisters. After all, he came to understand In Acts 10 that Gentiles are accepted by God in the same manner that Jews are – by faith.

However, the text says that Peter began to pull back from associating with these Gentile believers when a certain group came to visit the church in Antioch. It says that there was a group of Jewish believers who were friends with James. When these guys showed up, Peter begins acting like he doesn’t know the Gentiles with whom he had been freely associating.

This James Gang (not to be confused with the classic rock band of the same name) had a certain view and understanding that was not compatible with the gospel. This was a group that had favored the view that was rejected at the Council of Jerusalem, namely, that Gentiles needed to adhere to Jewish religious laws and cultures too.

There was an air of superiority with this group. They looked down on Gentiles, mainly because it had been drilled into them their whole lives that Gentiles were unclean and “less than” Jews. They were sinners, without the Law of God.

But Peter had been given a direct revelation from God in Acts 10 that this view was not godly. God does not look down on Gentiles and for Jews to do so was not honoring to God. One might even say it was racist.

Peter responded to that revelation in Acts 10 and the result was that Cornelius, the Roman soldier, came to faith and it was at this point that Gentiles are first inaugurated into the body of Christ.

Now here in Galatians 2, Paul tells his audience that Peter enjoyed fellowshipping with his Gentile brothers and sisters and no doubt enjoyed eating non-kosher foods as well.

But when this “party of the circumcision” arrived, Peter was afraid of what they might think. So he pulled back and disassociated himself from the Gentiles.

This exact scenario is beautifully illustrated in the 2017 movie Wonder, in which a disfigured boy named Auggie is hopelessly tortured by a group of schoolyard bullies.

Auggie is befriended by Noah who learns to overlook Auggie’s physical appearance in favor of his kind nature. 

However, there is a critical scene in the movie where Noah purposefully betrays Auggie’s friendship in order to gain favor with this group of bullies. This Halloween scene in the movie mirrors the situation with Peter described by Paul. I recommend watching this movie, taking note of your emotional response to this scene. Then read this passage again. Perhaps you will see the destructive effects of hypocrisy and partiality in a new light.

Paul calls Peter a hypocrite. The word hypocrite is actually an acting term (Greek hypokrites). In those times, all the parts in a theater production were played by just a few actors, mostly men. The actors would put different masks on to represent the part they were playing. The word hypocrite refers to the mask that the actor wore.

So, to be a hypocrite is really to wear a mask. It’s when we seek to project an image to others that doesn’t represent who we really are or what we really believe.

That’s what Paul accused Peter of doing. Peter believed that Gentiles were saved just as Jews are and he enjoyed connecting with this group of non-Jews, that is, until the James gang showed up. Then Peter, fearing what these Jewish zealots might think, sought to give the impression that he saw these Gentiles as unclean, as the old Jewish laws promoted.

If Peter, one of the foremost leaders of the early church, could fall into hypocrisy, then anyone can.

All of us are hypocrites to some degree. We’re often negatively influenced by others and we can tend to order our lives around creating a favorable impression of ourselves to those around us. This is what John Ortberg, in his book “The Life You’ve Always Wanted” calls impression management.

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites because they created an outward impression of religious perfectionism that didn’t match their internal brokenness and depravity.

This is why we need the gospel. We are hopelessly broken and corrupt inwardly, and yet we seek to project an image of success and “having it all together” to those around us.

With the gospel, we not only experience forgiveness for our depravity, but we have the hope of transformation so that over time, our outward actions begin to more accurately reflect the new heart that we have been given.

 

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 are some examples of hypocrisy that you are aware of? People you’ve known personally or in the media?

When have you acted in a hypocritical manner?

Sometimes hypocrisy can spread due to peer pressure (as it did in this passage). When have you seen someone or a group of people act against their own beliefs and values as a result of peer pressure?

What are some ways you tend to manage your image to those around you? In what ways have you compromised your values or beliefs in order to garner favor with an individual or group?

What do you think are practical steps you can take to avoid hypocrisy? 

How do you think the gospel message provides hope for becoming a person of integrity and not a person who is hypocritical?

 

Photo by Finan Akbar on Unsplash

Posted on

Will Christians Really Experience a Bodily Resurrection?

1 Corinthians 15

12But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.

20But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again. (1 Corinthians 15:12-20, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the cornerstone doctrines that sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

The resurrection is vitally important because without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. What we think of as Christianity just becomes another religion where its followers seek to adhere to the advice and admonitions of a self-proclaimed guru.

Quite simply, the resurrection proves that Jesus is God, which is significant because only God could provide complete atonement for the sins of mankind. if you want to understand the theological ramifications of the resurrection, I explain more of the logical reasoning behind this idea in my post “He is Risen…Why Does it Matter?”

In this section of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul is responding to an apparent misunderstanding about the resurrection that was circulating within the church.

It seems that many in the church could not wrap their mind around the idea that they would experience a bodily resurrection. This aligns with prevalent Greek understanding at that time, in which the body was seen as a prison or a shell for the soul. Greek philosophy had a concept of the immortality of the soul but not so much for the body.

In this passage, Paul addresses the faulty thinking that denied a future bodily resurrection. His argument is as follows:

    • If there is no such thing as a resurrection, then obviously, Christ was not resurrected (verse 13)
    • If Christ hasn’t been raised (resurrected) then our preaching is in vain (wasted) and as a result, your faith is in vain because it is predicated on the message we preached (verse 14)
    • In addition, we are then false witnesses because we preached the resurrection of Jesus whom God did not raise (verse 15)
    • Hence, If Christ hasn’t been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still in your sins; they have not been paid for (verse 17)
    • Furthermore, those who have died then have perished (verse 18)
    • Therefore, if the hope of Christ is for this life only, we should be pitied (verse 19)

Paul then ends the argument in verse 20, saying:

But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again. [emphasis added]

In short, without a resurrection, there can be no salvation and as a result, this life is all there is. That makes life ultimately meaningless and Christianity is just a nihilistic ideology with lipstick.

The resurrection is not only the cornerstone of the Christian faith, proving that Jesus is God and therefore His death completely atones for the sins of mankind, but the resurrection also signifies that those who believe in Christ will ALSO experience a bodily resurrection, just as Jesus did.

So if you like your body, the good news is that you will have an even better model in eternity. And if you DON’T like your body for whatever reason, you can rest assured that your resurrected body will be an upgrade, free from defects, flaws and imperfections.

 

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 concept of life after death? In other words, what do you imagine heaven to be like for you and others who are there?

How does the concept of having a resurrected body align or contradict your thinking about heaven and eternal life?

How confident are you in the resurrection of Jesus? What are some reasons that cause you to doubt whether it is actually true?

If Jesus was not resurrected, how do you explain the crucifixion? What was it’s purpose? What did it accomplish?

 

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Posted on

What is Sexual Immorality?

1 Corinthians 7

1Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

3The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. The only exception to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time, so they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterward they should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control. 6This is only my suggestion. It’s not meant to be an absolute rule. 7I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness. 8Now I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust. (1 Corinthians 7:1-8, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

We live in a highly sexualized culture.  After all, “sex sells” as they say.

Our culture’s current views on sex can be traced back to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. Until then, it was commonly understood and accepted within the culture that sex was reserved for marriage. Any portrayal outside of that paradigm was generally frowned upon.

I remember watching reruns of “I Love Lucy” as a kid and when they showed Ricky and Lucy’s bedroom, there were two twin beds.

Opening scene of “I Love Lucy” from the episode “Lucy is Envious” (Season 3, Episode 23) showing Lucy and Ricky’s bedroom in which Lucy and Ricky sleep in separate beds.

Now everyone knew that married couples sleep together but there was a stigma associated with sex. It wasn’t talked about and it certainly wasn’t portrayed on screen.

But things started to change in the 1960’s with the sexual revolution, which sought to break down the social mores that existed at the time, promoting sexual activity for anyone who might want to partake, even if you weren’t married.

Sex was just an activity, the thinking went. It was just pleasure. Nothing more, nothing less. Why should two people who wanted to engage in something pleasurable be denied this activity? Why should society shame people who weren’t married but happened to be engaging in intercourse?

And so for the last 50+ years, our culture has engaged in one of the most intense, long-lasting and successful media campaigns to change the culture’s perception of sex.

I say it’s been successful because there is no doubt that our culture’s views and attitudes toward sex have drastically changed over the last 50-60 years. What started with posters and buttons telling us to “Make Love, not War” advanced to TV shows and movies that continued to push the envelope in terms of what was shown to viewers.

Throughout the culture at large, the stigma that existed with people engaging in sex outside of marriage has largely been erased. In fact, the topic of sex, which was once considered taboo and off limits in public is actively promoted by our education system as well as the media in TV shows and movies.

Christians who hold to the authority of the Bible are perhaps the last holdout for the antiquated view that sex is reserved for marriage between a man and woman.

But in recent years, even the Bible has come under attack for its views on sex. Many people who identify as Christians no longer believe that the Bible restricts sexual activity to married couples.

Many Christians believe that it’s ok to have sex before marriage and still others believe that the Bible affirms sexual activity among same-sex couples.

The problem with some of these views is this phrase “sexual immorality”. The Bible clearly condemns sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. There is nowhere in the Bible where sexual immorality is not condemned as sinful.

The question then is: what is sexual immorality? While there may be wider agreement that sexual immorality is wrong (I mean, it’s hard to deny since the word “immoral” is embedded in the phrase), there is less agreement on what activities fall under that larger umbrella term.

This post is not long enough to do justice to this topic, but this passage does give some insight into the issue.

It appears that one of the issues this church was dealing with had to do with prohibited sexual practices. Like our culture, the Corinthian culture was highly sexualized and sexual temptation abounded. Some were suggesting that the remedy for avoiding sexual temptation was a commitment to celibacy, even within the confines of marriage.

Being single himself, Paul affirmed that being celibate has certain advantages. However, his solution for combating sexual temptation was NOT abstinence. Instead, Paul’s solution for those who have strong sexual urges and are struggling to control them is to satisfy those sexual desires within a marriage relationship.

Whatever your definition of sexual immorality is, Paul’s solution to addressing the sexual temptation is to get married and to get busy!

What I find interesting is that Paul says that each MAN should have his own wife and each WOMAN should have her own husband.

In just these few verses, Paul establishes that sex within the confines of marriage between a husband and wife is NOT sexual immorality, but is the antidote to sexual immorality. The strong implication is that any sexual activity that is not between a married man and woman IS sexual immorality.

There are some who undoubtedly will disagree with this assertion, stating that Paul only mentions the marriage relationship and doesn’t mention other potentially acceptable sexual relationships because of cultural reasons.

That is exactly the point though. The Bible clearly condemns sexual immorality but in our culture, morality is no longer tethered to any objective standard.

Hence, the list of activities that are considered sexually immoral and therefore prohibited are continually being condensed by the culture. This means that any appeal to the Bible regarding sexual ethics has to be reframed or explained in such a way to allow for those practices that have traditionally been considered sexually immoral.

This passage certainly isn’t the last word on biblical sexual ethics. It may not even be a main passage used for or against one’s preferred sexual views.

But it’s clear that sexual temptation, which was very strong in this culture and was a major issue within the Corinthian church, prompted Paul to make a statement regarding how to deal with that temptation. The ONE thing he affirms as being appropriate and NOT sexually immoral, is for husbands and wives to be engaged and active sexually.

This is the traditional, biblical view of sexual ethics – that only sex within the context of a marriage union between one man and one woman is ordained by God, and it is clearly affirmed by Paul in this passage.

 

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

How would you define sexual immorality? What do you think is included in that category?

How did you arrive at your answer to the previous question? What role does the Bible play in determining your morality?

Do you think that there are some sexual sins that the Bible prohibited but that are no morally ok? If so, what is the reasoning for your position?

In what ways do you see the culture influencing people’s views on sex and morality in general?

 

Photo by Dima Solomin on Unsplash

Posted on

How to Study an Epistle

Many people would love to know the Bible better but don’t know where to begin or how to go about it.

The problem with the Bible is that it’s not a book that you can read like a John Grisham or Steven King novel.

The Bible is actually a collection of works written over a long period of time by many different authors in different languages and in different settings.

There are many types of literary genres represented in the Bible. Some of the books are historical narrative while other books are poetry, wisdom literature or books of prophecy.

In the New Testament, the gospels are historical narrative, detailing the life of Jesus from the different perspectives of the 4 different authors, but most of the New Testament comes to us in the form of epistles, or letters that were written to individuals and churches.

How does one study an epistle? Is it different than how one might approach the gospels?

The short answer is that yes, the way one approaches an epistle is different than how one might approach the gospels or some other book that is largely historical narrative.

With historical narrative, like the gospels or the book of Acts, the author is telling you a story, giving you relevant details along the way. The author includes important events and people to make the point he wants to make.

An epistle, on the other hand, is really one side of a two-way conversation.

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following situation. The other day, my wife received a phone call. After answering “hello”, she moved to the other room, but I could still hear everything she was saying.

I wasn’t sure who had called or why, but after about 10-15 minutes of conversation, it was more clear to me who my wife was talking to and what the topic was. I was only hearing one side of the conversation but from that one side, I was able to determine what was being discussed.

Reading and studying a New Testament epistle is much the same. Most of these New Testament letters were written to individuals or churches in response to questions that had been asked or some problem that was being addressed.

Hence, studying an epistle requires some literary detective skills.

Now being a Bible study sleuth takes some practice, but here are a few things that you may find helpful as you get started:

    1. Read the whole letter in one sitting. This will give you a better big picture perspective. This will be easier with shorter letters like 2 Timothy, Colossians or Philippians but will require more time and patience with longer letters like Romans, 1 Corinthians or Hebrews.
    2. Note who the author is and who the audience is.
    3. What is the context for the letter? What is the tone of the letter? What do you know about the audience or the recipient that might be helpful to understanding the contents of the letter?
    4. What are the themes that surface in the letter? What is the main argument being made?

When studying an epistle, you always want to try to determine what is the issue or problem being addressed. What is the reason the author is writing the letter?

Epistles often have a logical argument or a persuasive message. By noticing repeated words and phrases and outlining the message of the letter, you can begin to get a better picture, so to speak, of the author’s intent for writing.

When studying an epistle, it’s helpful to break it down into smaller sections for a deeper dive.

Think of it this way – a lawyer might have 3 or 4 bullet points to support an argument or defend a position. Sometimes, the New Testament writers will have a multi-pronged argument to make their case or defend a thesis. Part of the job of Bible study is determining the logical argument and the bullet points that support the argument.

For some, this might seem like too much work. “I’ll just let the pastor tell me what it says” or “I’ll just read a commentary that explains it”.

That is certainly faster and doesn’t require as much work or effort. But if you want to understand the Bible for yourself, learning some good Bible study skills is essential.

Go ahead and give it a try. Start with a shorter book like Colossians, Philippians, Galatians or Ephesians. These letters are filled with great doctrinal truths and practical instruction for living as Christians but aren’t so long that they’re too difficult to manage. It’s the equivalent of starting out running a mile or two before attempting to run a half-marathon.

Reflection

What has been your experience with studying the Bible? 

How would you rate your desire to study the Bible? How would you rate your experience or skill in being able to study the Bible?

What keeps you from studying the Bible more consistently (time, motivation, fear, etc.)? What would help you become more active in studying the Bible consistently?

What epistles have you studied in depth? What epistles are on your “bucket” list of books you’d like to study?

 

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Posted on

How Do We Experience Peace?

Colossians 3

15Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:15-17, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, we are experiencing an epidemic of anxiety in our country. The American Psychiatric Association’s annual mental health poll indicated a sharp rise in anxiety levels among American adults.

Young adults are even more likely to report high levels of anxiety these days according to a Pew survey cited in this article.

There’s even been a popular book written about “The Anxious Generation.” In this book, author Jonathan Haidt argues that smartphones, social media, and helicopter parenting has contributed to an increased level of anxiety and depression among today’s youth.

Experiencing peace seems as elusive as sighting a unicorn.

So how exactly can we experience peace?

In his letter to the Colossians, Paul gives some insight into experiencing peace.

The first thing he says is that we should let peace “rule” in our hearts. The Greek word for “rule” means “arbitration”. The idea is that peace should govern our hearts.

Ok. But how do we do that? It’s not like most people can turn peace on and off like a light switch.

Fortunately, there are some key words in this passage that help us to understand a potential pathway to peace.

Three times in this passage, Paul uses the similar words “thankful” (verse 15), “gratitude” (verse 16), and “thanks” (verse 17).

Philippians 4:6-7 is perhaps the most oft-quoted passage regarding peace. Paul says,

6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

It’s interesting to note that in this passage, Paul also talks about thanksgiving. When we share our anxieties with God, and we do it with an attitude of thanksgiving, Paul says that we will experience the peace of God in a way that transcends our understanding.

I might not be able to manufacture peace on demand. But I can choose my attitude and what I will allow my mind to dwell on.

Paul tells us to be thankful  and to offer up our anxieties to the Lord in prayer with an attitude of thanksgiving and gratitude.

Something happens when we choose to be grateful. You see, we can’t be grateful unless we stop and think about the things we should be grateful for. Doing this refocuses our attention on God’s goodness and it gets our minds off of the negative thoughts that are the root of our anxieties.

My wife and I recently saw the movie “Soul on Fire”, which is the real-life story of John O’Leary, who, as a child, suffered burns over his entire body when he accidentally set his family’s house on fire. It’s a powerful story of identity, redemption and forgiveness.

As an adult, John decides he can use his story to make a difference in the lives of others as a motivational speaker.

In one of his first speaking engagements he finds himself talking to a group of hardened criminals in a state prison. His main message is about the importance of gratitude. He then invites the prisoners to share something they’re grateful for.

At first, nobody speaks. They’re mostly skeptical and wondering what they’re even doing there. Finally, one prisoner stands up and says:

“I’m grateful for prison, because if I wasn’t here, I’d be dead. And here’s what else I’m grateful for:

    • Heat in the winter.
    • Air-conditioning in the summer.
    • Three square meals a day—no cooking, no dishes.
    • A clean bed every night.
    • Laundry service—I never had that on the outside.
    • Medical care, even if it’s basic.
    • A library full of books I never read before.
    • Time to think, really think about my life.
    • Brothers here who get it, who share my struggles.
    • Letters from my kids—I miss ’em, but they keep comin’.
    • The chaplain who prays with us.
    • Fresh coffee in the morning.
    • Outdoor rec time—blue sky, even behind fences.
    • A job, Payin’ a little, but it’s honest work.
    • No bills pilin’ up.
    • Safety from the streets I ran on
    • Programs to learn skills, like anger management.
    • Holidays with visits from family.
    • Music on the radio—reminds me of better days.
    • Clean water, hot showers.
    • Counselors who listen without judgin’.
    • The chance to apologize to folks I hurt.
    • Faith groups—Bible study saved my soul.
    • Exercise yard—keeps me strong.
    • Mail call—somethin’ to look forward to.
    • No more chasin’ highs that wrecked me.
    • Rules that keep me from hurtn’ others.
    • Dreams at night—hope for what’s next.
    • Laughter with the guys—ain’t nothin’ like it.
    • This talk today—remindin’ me gratitude changes everything.
    • And God… for second chances.”

Later in the movie, John is struggling, feeling sorry for himself and the situation he’s in. He can motivate others through his speaking but, like us, he often struggles to apply the principles of his own TED talk.

There’s a scene where he visits his family. His dad is in a wheel chair, suffering from the effects of advanced Parkinson’s disease. And yet, his father is joyful, positive and at peace.

John asks his father, “How can you be so positive?”

His dad responds “John, how can I complain when my life is so good, when I’m just so blessed?”

John is confused. He’s thinking, “how can you see yourself as blessed when you’re in this horrible condition?” It’s really a victim mentality. And we all can tend towards this, can’t we?

His dad then elaborates on his gratitude, listing reasons like the extra time he has for reflection, the deeper family bonds he’s developed, his appreciation for caregivers and the empathy he’s developed for the struggles of others. Gratitude has enabled him to transform his limitations and potential sources of anxiety into sources of joy and peace.

There is no doubt that we live in a complex and chaotic world that’s filled with challenges that can produce anxieties of all kinds – health, job, finances and family issues, just to name a few.

However, even though we can’t produce peace in our hearts on demand, we can choose to be thankful and grateful for the good things that God has provided for us. If we make this our regular pattern, our lives will be less anxious and we’ll begin to experience more peace in our hearts.

 

By the way, you can read my review of the movie Sarah’s Oil here.

 

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 are the things creating anxiety in your life right now? What keeps you from sharing those things with the Lord?

What have you found helpful in your own life to get your mind off of your problems and anxieties and onto the positive things in your life?

If you were to create a list of things you’re grateful for, like the prisoner did, what would be on your list? What are the things in your life that you can express gratitude for?

 

Photo by Tom Shakir on Unsplash

Posted on

What Does it Mean to be Unequally Yoked?

2 Corinthians 6

14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, (2 Corinthians 6:14-16, ESV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Not long ago, I was conversing with a Young adult who was interested in pursuing a relationship. He was under the impression though that this person he was interested in was “off limits” because of Paul’s command in this passage that believers should “not be unequally yoked.”

As we talked further, it was clear to me that his understanding of what Paul was teaching in this passage was not quite accurate. It made me wonder how many Christians misunderstand what this passage is saying.

To properly understand this passage, one has to know something about the function and purpose of a yoke.

A yoke is a tool used by farmers and in the New Testament, which was primarily an agrarian society, the meaning of Paul’s command would have been less confusing than it is to the modern reader who may have never even seen a farm, much less understood a farming term.

A yoke is a wooden bar or collar that fits around a pair of animals (such as oxen) for the purpose of pairing them together to pull a load. Often the yoke had a plow attached to the center of the bar and was used for tilling a plow line.

When pairing two animals to a yoke, it is important that the animals be of equal size and strength. This allows for the plow line to be straight. If the size and strength of the animals yoked together is unequal, you will have the unfortunate situation of one animal overpowering the other, which will cause your plow line to veer or even move in a circular pattern instead of a straight line.

Paul is using this everyday farming illustration that his audience was quite familiar with in order to explain a spiritual reality.

When he says that a believer should not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever, he’s saying that believers should not be united with those who don’t have the same views and values. If you have different beliefs and values, it will be more difficult to move in the same direction and with the same purpose.

This passage is often referenced in the context of dating and marital relationships to show a believer that God doesn’t want them to pursue relationships with non-believers. However, this command is not exclusive to marriage. It applies to other types of relationships as well, such as business partnerships, etc.

The idea is really simple actually. You are trying to plow in a straight line. But if you have two animals that are unequally yoked, that is, not of the same size and strength, you end up with a non-straight plow line. Two animals of equal size and strength will work together more easily. Two animals that are “unequal” are more likely to work against each other. The objective of plowing that straight line becomes increasingly more difficult, if not impossible.

Now let’s relate this to relationships. What is Paul saying?

A Christian has a set of beliefs about God and a core set of values about how to live life. A non-Christian has a completely different set of beliefs and values. When you’re in a marriage relationship, or even a business partnership, it is difficult to move forward and in the same direction if the two partners have different and competing beliefs and values.

In a marriage relationship, this gets even more complicated when kids are involved. Questions like, “how will we raise the kids?”, “what faith tradition will we practice?”, “how will we administer discipline?”, and other important questions must be addressed. These issues often become the source of great conflict as each partner seeks to exert their beliefs, values and preferences.

It’s quite common in marriage for partners to compromise and change their views over time in order to achieve marital harmony and minimize conflict. In a situation with one believing spouse and one unbelieving spouse, the danger is that the believing spouse will compromise their beliefs and values in order to accommodate the unbelieving spouse.

This tendency to be influenced over time by the beliefs and values of non-believers is exactly why God, in the Old Testament, warned and even commanded the Israelites against marrying foreigners. The danger was that the pagan foreigners would negatively influence their spouse to drift away from worship of the true God. In the most extreme case, the believer might forsake God altogether and begin worshiping foreign gods and pagan deities.

This is exactly what happened with Solomon later in life. Countless other biblical examples could be cited that demonstrate the dangers of which Paul is warning.

So what does it mean when Paul commands believers not to be unequally yoked?

It means don’t align yourself or permanently partner yourself with someone who does not have the same biblical beliefs and spiritual values. If you do, you will likely find yourself with plenty of conflict and disharmony as each person seeks to control the direction of the relationship or partnership according to their beliefs and values. The pursuit of God is likely to become minimized or eliminated altogether.

One final note on this passage. In explaining his reasons for not being unequally yoked, Paul says, “what accord does Christ have with Belial?”

The term “Belial” was understood as a euphemism for “Satan”. This is a strong statement. Paul is saying that the unbeliever’s beliefs and values are following Satan. He does NOT mean that unbelievers are Satan worshipers. But just as Jesus, in John 8, told the Pharisees that they were unwittingly, and unknowingly following the devil, the father of lies, because they were rejecting him, so Paul is saying that those who are unbelievers, as wholesome, nice and moral as they may appear, are unwittingly and unknowingly following Satan, who will use any tool or method at his disposal to create chaos, disorder and conflict in order to render a believer in Christ ineffective and useless.

So if you’re a follower of Christ and you’re thinking about entering into a relationship with someone who is NOT a follower of Christ, THINK AGAIN!

(For more on Jesus’ exchange with the Pharisees in John 8, which included his proclamation that they were following their father, Satan, see my blog post, “Who’s Your Daddy?”)

 

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 examples have you seen that show the dangers of being unequally yoked, either in marriage or a business partnership? 

What advice would you give a person who is thinking of pursuing a dating relationship with someone who does not share their Christian faith? How would you counsel this person?

If being equally yoked means sharing the same beliefs and values, how would you go about determining whether the other person’s beliefs and values are “equal” to yours?

As a Christian, what beliefs and values do you think are essential to include in your list to evaluate whether the other person is “equally yoked”.

 

Photo by Paul Jai on Unsplash

Posted on

Theological Lessons from the Movie “Trading Places”

Psalm 51

1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;

According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity

And cleanse me from my sin.

3For I know my transgressions,

And my sin is ever before me.

4Against You, You only, I have sinned

And done what is evil in Your sight,

So that You *[Or may be in the right]are justified when You speak

And blameless when You judge.

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

And in sin my mother conceived me.

6Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,

And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

7Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;

Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

8Make me to hear joy and gladness,

Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.

9Hide Your face from my sins

And blot out all my iniquities.

10Create in me a clean heart, O God,

And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

11Do not cast me away from Your presence

And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

12Restore to me the joy of Your salvation

And sustain me with a willing spirit.

13Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,

And sinners will be converted to You. (Psalm 51:1-13, NASB)

The Daily DAVEotional

In the 1980’s movie Trading Places, two wealthy, elderly brothers (the Duke brothers) engage in the age old debate concerning the nature of man. One brother argues that man is corrupted by nature, while the other brother believes that the corruption of man is the result of environmental factors (nurture).

With each brother equally convinced that his position is correct, they agree to an experiment to decide the matter once and for all. With a $1 bet as incentive, they embark on a plan to completely ruin the life and reputation of their sophisticated Wall Street executive assistant played by Dan Akroyd. At the same time, they exalt a crooked street bum, played by Eddie Murphy, to Akroyd’s former position. Only after seeing how each person responds can they settle the bet and the debate.

Not long after being promoted to a position well beyond his education, Murphy begins to become the sophisticated, educated person that his position requires. At the same time, Akroyd, having lost it all, begins to turn into the common criminal that Murphy once was.

The movie ends up portraying a view of man that is commonly believed in society today—that man is basically a product of the negative forces in his environment. Yet this view is in stark opposition to what the Bible teaches about the nature of man.

The Bible says that man was originally created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:26, 27). The phrase “image of God” refers to man’s ability to reveal and represent what God is like. Exactly how man reveals the image of God has been debated over the years. However, many believe that two categories that reflect God’s image in man are man’s ability to make moral decisions, and the dominion that was given to man by God.

Before Adam and Eve sinned, the “image of God” in man was perfect. Man walked with God, had dominion over the earth and every decision man made was morally representative of God’s nature. This is because man was completely dependent on God for moral direction and guidance.

However, when Adam & Eve sinned, this image became corrupted. Specifically, man was corrupted in several ways:

1. Intellectually, man’s mind became depraved.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,…28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (Romans 1:21,22,28, NASB)

2. Emotionally, man became perverted.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them…26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural (Romans 1:24, 26, NASB)

3. Volitionally, man’s will became enslaved to sin.

17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. (Galatians 5:17, NASB)

Though none of these verses demonstrate man’s condition when he’s born, the Bible clearly communicates that man is morally depraved from birth.

In Psalm 51, David is confessing and repenting of his egregious sin of adultery with Bathsheba followed by the cover-up murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite.

In his confession, David reveals an important truth about the nature of man when he says in verse 5:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Similarly, in Psalm 58:3, David said,

“the wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.”

The apostle Paul agrees when he says in Ephesians 2:3,

“we are by nature children of wrath”

These verses all clearly teach that man is born with a sin nature, which produces in him a propensity toward sin.

Conversely, if one holds to the position that corruption, or sin is simply the product of one’s negative environment, how does one explain David’s reprehensible actions? He had everything he could want and certainly wasn’t in a position of need or desperation. It’s hard to argue that his environment “forced” him to do what he did. It’s more reasonable to explain his behavior as selfishness resulting from an inner compulsion towards evil.

It is obvious then, that the progressive’s idealistic Star Trek world where man’s goodness evolves over time is but a myth. The Bible clearly teaches that man was originally created in God’s image. However, that image was corrupted when Adam and Eve sinned.

Every person since Adam and Eve, with the exception of Jesus, has inherited a corrupted sin nature that exists within the person from birth. To argue otherwise is simply to deny the clear teaching of the Word of God.

 

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 think man is basically good, and only does bad things because of the negative impact of his environment, or do you think man is innately bad, having been corrupted by his sin nature? What are the reasons for the position you hold?

For those who argue that man is only bad because of the negative effects of his environment, how do you explain the negative environment? In other words, how do you think the environment became negative in the first place?

What do you think it means that man was created in the “image of God”?

If man’s nature was perfect before sin, how exactly did their nature become corrupted? (See my blog post, “Why Did God Forbid This One Fruit?”

Why do you think this issue of nature vs. nurture is important? What are the implications of each position over the other? 

 

Photo: Screenshot from the movie “Trading Places”

 

Posted on

Fact-Checking and Misinformation in the New Testament

Acts 17

10That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the synagogue. 11And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth. 12As a result, many Jews believed, as did some of the prominent Greek women and many men. (Acts 17:10-12, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The advent of social media has completely changed the landscape of how information is disseminated to the masses. Prior to social media, people relied primarily on what is now known as “legacy media” – national broadcast news networks and major metropolitan newspapers.

But now with social media, anyone and everyone can be a journalist, investigative reporter, podcaster or blogger. Competing ideas and opinions abound, making it increasingly more difficult to separate fact from fiction.

With such an affluence of free-flowing information, two terms have been introduced into the mainstream cultural vernacular in recent years – misinformation and disinformation. These terms have primarily been used by politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle to label the speech and narratives of their opponents as false. Alarmingly, our own government has cited “misinformation” as a basis for seeking to censor the speech and thus limit the reach of those whose ideas and beliefs are not aligned with the official position of the party in power.

This effort to limit speech has been evident in the last few political cycles through an increased effort to put pressure on social media platforms to limit and even censor speech that is deemed as “misinformation”.

But who exactly determines what is misinformation?

Social media outlets have employed “fact-checkers” to determine what information is accurate and what should be labeled as “misinformation”.

A fact-checker is someone who evaluates the truthfulness of a statement and then renders a judgment. These fact-checkers are expected to be neutral but the problem, as we’ve seen, is that they’re rarely unbiased. Who then fact-checks the fact-checkers?

In this segment of Acts 17, the Bereans are commended for their ability to fact-check the information that was being promoted.

Paul was a missionary who traveled throughout Asia Minor proclaiming the message of Christ and planting churches among those who believed his message.

But just like today, there was no shortage of ideological grifters and religious charlatans traveling from village to village looking for a market to sell their ideological snake oil.

With so many traveling religious preachers, how does one determine who, if anyone, is telling the truth?

The Bereans were commended because they “fact-checked” Paul’s message by “searching the Scriptures” to determine it’s veracity.

“The Scriptures” in this case refers to the Old Testament. The Bereans listened intently at Paul’s message and “day after day” they checked the message and compared it to what they already knew was true – the Old Testament Scriptures.

Fact-checking is a good thing, as long as the facts are being checked honestly against an objective, truthful standard. As we’ve seen recently, people are often biased, meaning they are rarely objective and often will stretch the truth, or in some cases, even deny the truth in order to fit their own biases.

But God’s word is both objective and true because it is the very word of God, who is by definition, truth.

So if you really want to check your facts, be sure they are not misaligned with what the Scriptures say. If they are, you can be certain that your facts are indeed “misinformation”.

 

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 are some beliefs and ideas that you may tend to hold more because of your own personal  bias than the fact that it is true?

What is the standard that you use to determine if a religious statement is true or not?

What examples have you seen in your own experience of fact-checkers who were too biased to be trusted?

How do you think it’s possible that two different people can evaluate the same “facts” and arrive at completely different conclusions?

How can you ensure that you are not being misled and falling for misinformation when it comes to some of the ideological narratives that are being promoted in our culture?

 

Photo by Samuel Regan-Asante on Unsplash

Posted on

Wrestling Against Evil

Ephesians 6

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. (Ephesians 6:10-18, ESV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Last week, on Wednesday, I took my car to my mechanic for service. When I picked it up later that day, my mechanic told me that Charlie Kirk had been shot and killed while speaking on a campus in Utah.

Honestly, I was shocked. What in the world is going on?

I think it’s been obvious for quite some time that our culture is divided. It might be tempting for one to explain these divisions as mere differences in political views and policy preferences.

But to me, the assassination of Charlie Kirk underscores the fact that what divides us aren’t trivial differences of opinion. No. The issues that divide us aren’t political, or even religious. What we’re experiencing is a spiritual battle.

There’s a spiritual component at play in our culture and it’s more intense than at any time I’ve ever experienced in my lifetime.

Paul talks about the nature of this battle here in this Ephesians 6:10-18 passage. I chose the ESV translation for a reason.

Most versions of this passage say that our “struggle” is not against flesh and blood. Some versions say our “battle” is not against flesh and blood. But the ESV, along with the King James version, uses the word “wrestle” . I like that rendering because when I was in high school, I was a wrestler. If you’re familiar with “wrestling” I think it will help you understand more fully the nature of the spiritual battle that Paul’s describing.

A lot of people are unfamiliar with real competitive wrestling. Their only concept of wrestling is what they see on TV with the WWE. But that’s not real wrestling. Mostly, that’s staged entertainment with a heavy dose of masculine bravado.

High school, collegiate and Olympic style wrestling is different from the staged spectacle that is marketed as entertainment.

Competitive wrestling is a grueling combat sport that combines strength, skill, stamina and strategy. The goal: each wrestler seeks to subjugate his opponent.

The word subjugate means to dominate or control.

Hence, the goal of wrestling is to control or dominate your opponent.

So when Paul says that we “wrestle” against the spiritual forces of EVIL, that means there are spiritual forces that are seeking to subjugate or control you….seeking to control how you think, how you act, even how you perceive ultimate reality.

These forces are evil, so these forces are intent on controlling you for EVIL.

Think about that for a moment. Spiritual forces are seeking to control you FOR EVIL.

We live in a culture that is obviously very divided. But unlike any other time in my lifetime, we are living in a moment where both sides of the political divide think the other side is evil. The Charlie Kirk assassination clearly illustrates this.

Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood while speaking to a crowd on a university campus. There can be no doubt and no debate that what happened to Charlie Kirk was a heinous act of EVIL.

And yet, in the days following this tragic event, many either cheered, excused or even rationalized this evil act by saying that Charlie Kirk was himself promoting evil.

My point here is not to get into the details of what Charlie thought, taught or believed. Nor am I going to discuss the killer’s personal views and motivations. There are plenty of people who have already done that.

My point is simply that you have an evil act on one side and on the other side,  you have people portraying the victim of that evil act as a person of evil.

Since each side is calling the other side “evil”, this tells me that what is happening is spiritual in nature. For how can both sides be evil? That makes no sense as Jesus himself said that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (see Matthew 12:25).

It seems abundantly clear that a large number of people are completely deceived regarding their understanding of what is fundamentally good and what is inherently evil.

That’s the nature of the battle. It’s spiritual in nature and it’s a battle for control. Ultimately, it’s a battle regarding the nature of good and evil.

 

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 are some examples you can cite that illustrate that we’re in a spiritual battle?

In what ways do you see spiritual forces seeking to control you or the culture?

What do you think are some of the schemes the devil employs in order to control people?

What practical steps can you take to “wrestle” against the spiritual forces of evil?

 

Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash

Posted on

What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?

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

In the first chapter of Colossians, Paul pens one of the greatest treatises on the divine nature of Christ in all of Scripture. And yet, some have used this very section to promote a false understanding of Jesus.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious group that was birthed in the late 1870’s when Charles Taze Russell, who had been highly influenced by Adventist teachings, determined that certain Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity and divinity of Christ, were not supported by Scripture.

I’ve written a number of posts regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their view that Jesus is not God, including the following posts:

The bottom line with Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they don’t believe in the trinity. Therefore, they don’t believe that Jesus is God. They teach a doctrine that is known as Arianism (see post here), which teaches that Jesus is a created being who does not possess a divine nature.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are highly committed to their understanding of Jesus as a created being, and they believe that this passage, in Colossians 1, serves as strong evidence in support of their view.

Specifically, this passage twice describes Jesus as being “firstborn”. The thinking goes that if Jesus was born, then he must be created. If he was created then he clearly isn’t God. If he isn’t God, then he’s just a man. Hence, the view that Jesus is a created being without a divine nature must be the correct view.

That logic might sound correct on the surface, but there is one small problem, as our good friend Inigo Montoya will explain:

The problem is that we interpret the word “firstborn” based on our modern understanding. Naturally, we see the word “born” and assume that it refers to a birth. We assume therefore that the passage is saying that Jesus was “born”, just as all people are naturally born.

But that’s not at all what the passage is saying.

To understand this passage, we need to understand a little bit about the culture of the Ancient Near East, particularly how the family heirs were treated.

In the Ancient Near East culture, it was customary for the oldest son to receive a double portion of any inheritance. The oldest son enjoyed this benefit because of his status as the highest in rank of all the sons. So, if you had two sons, your assets would be divided into 3 parts. The oldest son would get 2 shares and the youngest son would get one share.

The oldest son was therefore the pre-eminent, or favored son. The oldest son was the highest in rank – usually.

However, there are a number of Biblical examples where this was not the case.

Take Jacob and Esau for example. Esau was the oldest son but God favored Jacob, who received Isaac’s blessing over Esau.

Jacob’s sons are another example. Jacob had 12 sons. Reuben was the oldest and therefore, was considered the pre-eminent son, eligible for the double portion.

However, Reuben forfeited his rank and the blessing associated with the oldest son when he slept with one of his father’s wives. As a result, Jacob made Joseph the pre-eminent son, even though he was NOT born first. In fact, he was the eleventh born! (see 1 Chronicles 5:1)

When you see a list of the tribes of Israel (Jacob’s new name), you never see Joseph listed. Why is that? It’s because Joseph was given two shares. Joseph’s shares are represented by his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

The Greek word that is translated “firstborn” is the word “prototokos”. While the word is translated as “firstborn”, it doesn’t mean that Jesus was created. If Paul wanted to communicate that Jesus was the first-created, he would have used a different word, “protoktisos”, which literally means “first-created.”

How do we know that Paul is not trying to communicate that Jesus was “born” if he indeed uses this word which translates to “firstborn”?

It’s clear from the context that Paul is not using the word in the way the Jehovahs Witnesses assert.

In the first instance of the word, Paul says that Jesus is “the firstborn over all creation.” If Paul were communicating that Jesus was “born” then he’s also saying that “creation” is the parent. That doesn’t make sense. If Paul was communicating that Jesus was literally born, shouldn’t the passage say that Jesus was the “firstborn of God”?

In the second instance of the word “firstborn”, Paul states that Jesus is firstborn from among the dead. Again, this language doesn’t make sense if Jesus is actually born. How can Jesus be parented by creation and also by “the dead”?

This passage makes complete sense if we understand that the word “firstborn” carries the meaning of pre-eminence or rank, just as the firstborn child of any ancient near eastern family held pre-eminent status over his siblings due to his higher rank.

In this case, Paul says in verse 15 that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation. Why? Paul gives the answer in the very next verse. It’s because Jesus is the CREATOR. Jesus is pre-eminent (firstborn) over creation because he is the author of ALL of creation.

In the same way, Jesus is pre-eminent over death precisely because he has demonstrated supremacy over death by rising from the dead.

So in the end, this passage doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Instead, this passage teaches the exact opposite. Jesus is the uncreated creator of all things in whom the fullness of deity dwells and through whom all things are reconciled by His shed blood on the cross.

Jesus is indeed firstborn. He has demonstrated supremacy over creation and death precisely because He is GOD!

 

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

Genesis 41:51-52 says, “Joseph named his firstborn Manasseh…. 52The second son he named Ephraim”. Yet in Jeremiah 31:9 it says, “Ephraim is my firstborn son”. How can Ephraim be the second son in the Genesis passage but the firstborn in Jeremiah? How do you explain this apparent contradiction?

If Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend, what do you think are the implications in terms of Jesus’ ability to save humanity? In other words, how can a savior who is not divine atone for the sins of the world?

What are some personal examples you can think of where the first born son (or daughter) did not enjoy the favored status you might expect?

What are some other qualities of Jesus that you learn from this short passage in Colossians? What else can we say about Jesus from these verses?

 

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