Might not look just like this, but this might be pretty close. TC challenged me to describe it. Ideal being ideal, remember this is something to shoot for. It also happens to be what I see consistently modeled in the NT, from John the Baptist and Jesus to Timothy and Titus. The first aspect you might want to notice, which people tend to leave out of their church models, is the passage of TIME. Life is not static. Anyway...
***********************
Pick a town in the world. Any culture. Two or more gifted believers, called and sent by God, gather a group of believers and train them to function as the church.
Over a period of perhaps 1 to 8 years, the planters teach brothers and sisters how to provide ALL the needs of the body. At the same time, these instigators are working for the day when they will no longer be there. The instigators must gradually decrease so that Christ in the body may increase.
In the initial phases, different members of the group will naturally and gradually begin to display certain aptitudes, including teaching and oversight. With the workers' help, the body will learn to recognize, appreciate and share these gifts for the good of the church. However, the most gifted individuals do not necessarily become overseers/elders/shepherds. Also, as the o/e/s's gain experience, they do not necessarily "lead" more often than anyone else. Elders are not necessarily teachers and teachers are not necessarily leaders. The body learns how to provide for its own needs, and everyone's contribution is considered a part of God's building-up process.
The elders, in a way, eventually become the most necessary, but also the least visibly active. These "supervisors" are servants, like everyone else, offering their giftedness when called upon moreso than at their own discretion. A chief role of the church workers (planters, trainers) is to coach the group into interdependency. Settling into ruts will be avoided by openness to fresh suggestions. We are not here to be comfortable. We are here to challenge each other to love and to good works in Him.
Meeting styles will vary. Everyone is free to suggest and provide direction for group activities, including meetings. The body decides, with patient oversight, what activities to pursue more often than others, but reserves times for other ways of gathering as well. Trial and error ensues, but some reliable standards emerge. All the while, learning continues. Our main goal is not to set things in stone that will stand for a thousand years like Solomon's Temple. The Lord's house on Earth is a Tent that can Move! (That's what he said to Moses, anyway.)
Remember, during these years, the original workers are still with the group, guiding, directing and training... but also pulling back as appropriate, and as possible. After the training wheels are completely off, the 'apostles' continue meeting with the church for a year or so, without functioning in any leadership or decision making capacities whatsoever. Their passive presence encourages the church to shed its last vestige of 'adolescence'. The 'apostles' themselves might rest during this phasing-out period or they might use the time to plan and prepare their next 'mission' field (not too close to this one). In this final year, the planters also keep a sharper eye than ever on the church, which finally stands on the verge of being left alone.
In years to come, after the planters depart, the church has two (or more) outside resources to call upon who can visit, provide long distance encouragement. A young adult leaving home still needs help from "mom and dad", but not so often and not so much. On occasion, the church planters might return if the church and its elders are stymied by some difficult matter. An outside perspective can be helpful, especially if the 'apostles' aren't compromised by salary, because - I forgot to mention - they've been supporting themselves with careers all this time!
The brothers and sisters have learned how to keep one another fixed on Jesus Christ, and to lean on, wait on, and stand in Him during all seasons of life. This is what they've been trained for. They have top-down oversight, bottom-up leadership, they've been trained to listen for God's voice to potentially come from any member of Christ's body, and they still have recourse to their founders, when necessary.
That, in a nutshell, is my ideal church. That's what I see in Ephesians 4.
************
On top of that, if I could really daydream for a minute, everyone in the church ought to be less than 3 minutes from each others' houses by car, if not bike, if not foot. Ancient cities were less than one mile square, and urban sprawl is incredibly recent, historically speaking.
Remember, Ideal being Ideal... we should take what we can get. But I think this is what we should shoot for. Scratch that. Work towards and prepare for. Most of us aren't ready to go for it yet, but I believe we can get there.
Any Questions?
Bill Heroman, Amateur Academic
October 30, 2009
October 29, 2009
two corrections and notes
First, in my last post I said Caesar sailed for Gaul in 16 AD. Of course it's possible to sail from Italy to France, but Caesar probably went over the Alps. I must have been thinking of the Gauls in Galatia because Caesar went to Asia in 19 AD. Oops.
Second, near the end of that same post I inadvertently left off 30 AD as a possible date for John 2:20. By strict chronological reckoning, 46 years back from Passover of 30 AD would seem to put the Temple construction beginning in early 17 BC. That date is just beyond the realm of possibility, but late 18 BC is acceptable, and the Jews could have been rounding down from 46 years and a few months.
Both points have been fixed in the previous post.
By the way, that second correction is not for my sake, but in fairness to those who take 33 AD for the crucifixion and posit a three year long ministry for Jesus. Personally, I date John 2:20 to the Passover of 29 AD because I find a four year ministry more suitable to the evidence overall. Again, the point of my post is that John 2:20 itself is somewhat imprecise, even based on Josephus.
As it so happens, the previous (erroneous) efforts to date John 2:20 more precisely have been one long standing reason (evidently) why leading apologists felt constrained to defend the three year view against the four year view. I believe I have demonstrated why that was not necessary, and naturally I hope these efforts will encourage many to give the four year ministry more careful consideration.
However, I just as fervently want to be clear that anyone who wishes to stick with their established views can still adopt my explanation on this one detail. As detailed in the previous post, the evidence on Herod's Temple construction allows dates as early as 27 AD for the citation of John 2:20.
A Common Error - Dating Herod's Temple
In John 2:20, Jerusalem's elders cite 46 years for the building of Herod's Temple. That number is not in dispute here, but in calculating its significance to history and chronology, scholars often claim Josephus tells us precisely when Herod began to build. The common statement is something to the effect that "Josephus tells us the rebuilding began in Herod's eighteenth year, 20/19 BC." All such statements are inaccurate, because Josephus nowhere tells us any such thing.
Therefore, John 2:20 does provide us with a tight range of dates, but not one so restrictive that it should have daunted apologetic concerns in the past. Naturally, these considerations renders moot a vast chunk of everything that has been written by apologists about John 2:20 and Josephus' Antiquities 15, before now.
---------------------------------------
A related "common error", the notion that Herod's Temple was continuously under construction for eight decades, will have to wait for some future post. And until someone publishes Jona's new book in English, go check out his blog posts. I recommend starting with this one about Pontius Pilate.
Everyone catches the revision of "fifteenth" to "eighteenth" from Josephus' Jewish War (1.401) to his Antiquities (15.380). No one seems to catch the significance of the other revisions. In War, Josephus literally said Herod restored (epeskeuasen) the Temple that year. Obviously no one thought that was true, but in correcting himself, Josephus also takes pains to convey a more nuanced process. Now he says Herod "undertook (epebaleto) an extraordinary work, (namely) the reconstructing (kataskeuasasthai) of the temple of God".
Note that Wikgren's Loeb translation made an infinitive into a gerund. Interestingly, Whiston did not: "undertook a very great work, that is, to build". If we isolate this sentence, Whiston seems awkward and Wikgren's decision is justifiable, but in the larger context, Whiston underscores a key point, and Wikgren, although inadvertently, has misled us.
The other critical detail here is that "undertook" does not exactly mean "began". The verb (imperfect passive form of epiballw, taking the accusitive case) more literally means Herod had it thrown upon him, which suggests something like Liddel & Scott's alternate glosses for "undertook", which are, "took (or put) it upon himself". Essentially, the desire has taken firm root, but there is no implication that the intended action has necessarily been embarked upon, as of yet.
In the War, Josephus told us one year in which Herod built. In the Antiquities, Josephus corrects this with exacting qualification. He now tells us only what year Herod devoted himself to the building project. Every detail of the narrative following bears this out. Herod's offer to begin the project was met with skepticism by Jews who feared he might tear down and not build up again. So the King promised "he would not pull down the temple before having ready all the materials" (15.390) and Josephus concludes that Herod indeed, "began the construction [note the same root in kataskeuhs] only after all these preparations had diligently been made by him."
The materials included "a thousand wagons to carry the stones" and the preparations included the training of "a thousand priests" as masons and builders. There is no telling how long it took to train a thousand priests into skillful laborers. There is no telling how many trips the thousand stone wagons took, before enough stone was piled up at the site to begin tearing down... which tearing itself may not even have been considered as the beginning of "reconstruction".
The only thing we can date to 20/19 BC, according to Joesphus, is the speech in which Herod promised to build. The actual building must have begun quite some time later. One or two or even three years is not an unthinkable amount of time for the immense amount of preparations that had to take place before reconstruction could begin. The tearing down would probably have been very quick, so the rebuilding could have begun in 19, 18, or perhaps early 17 BC.
Josephus later says the Temple sanctuary was completed in "a year and six months" (15.421) but this by itself does not contradict anything else. We still do not know how much time passed after the speech before work on that new sanctuary was actually begun. However, we also know that shortly after this eighteen month period Herod visited Caesar in Rome (16.6). Since Caesar went north into Gaul in 16 BC, Herod can only have sailed to Italy in 18, 17 or early 16. The latest possible date for sanctuary construction to begin would therefore be winter of 18/17 BC. The earliest, we should think, not before 19. Most feasibly, it could have been anywhere in the 24 month window of 19 to 18 BC.
The point of all this - for New Testament chronologists - is that these references from Josephus are not enough, by themselves, to inform us precisely about what year the Jerusalemites were speaking in when they told Jesus, "This Temple was under construction (oikodomhthe) for forty-six years". Without inventing a time span for the prep-work, that "46 years" could have ended in 27, 28, 29 or even early 30 AD (counting strictly or inclusively).
Therefore, John 2:20 does provide us with a tight range of dates, but not one so restrictive that it should have daunted apologetic concerns in the past. Naturally, these considerations renders moot a vast chunk of everything that has been written by apologists about John 2:20 and Josephus' Antiquities 15, before now.
---------------------------------------
*Post title partly in homage and congratulations to Jona Lendering for his forthcoming publication (in Dutch) about Common Errors in scholarship.
A related "common error", the notion that Herod's Temple was continuously under construction for eight decades, will have to wait for some future post. And until someone publishes Jona's new book in English, go check out his blog posts. I recommend starting with this one about Pontius Pilate.
October 23, 2009
Book Report
I read Dale Allison's slim tome, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus
, a couple of weeks ago and I've been meaning to blog about it. It is the first HJ book I've gone straight through from cover to cover. And I thur'ly enjoyed it. The author carries on a thoughtful internal dialogue about faith and skepticism in attempting historiography on the Gospels. Theological bias was something to beware of, which I appreciate, and overall he seems motivated to trust the Gospels as far as he can do so reasonably. What believer is any different? I can still wish he'd go just a bit farther, but his innovation (near the end) to begin generalizing the kinds of things Jesus said and the kinds of things Jesus did was fascinating, and his argument that we should find greater reliability in these general patterns is absolutely valid in and of itself. This method is one of the things I believe we should do historically, with the Gospels. It was actually exciting to see such pages in print.
There were a few times through the book when I griped just a bit, and obviously some points on which I disagreed, but there were also a handful of times when I exclaimed out loud, "Yes!" or "Thank you!" All skeptics should think more like Dale Allison. Some of my readers who aren't used to critical views on the Gospels might find it a bit of a roller coaster at times. Sometimes you're not really sure quite which way he's headed, or wants to be. But again, the discussion on historiography and the Gospels was gripping, reasonable and fairly comprehensive. It made me think about my own project in ways I deeply appreciate. I'll probably read it again, more than once.
We still need more faith in Jesus historiography, but Allison has made a worthwhile and positive contribution, imho.
October 20, 2009
FAVOR, not "grace"
Luke & Paul love to use the noun charis. Matthew & Mark never did. John's Gospel only uses the word four times, all in one paragraph. I'm pretty sure John had read Paul, and probably also Luke - AND I believe God inspired and spoke through each writer - BUT that doesn't mean we should come into John with a highly conceptualized synopsis of Paul's "thought" on charis. For starters, at least, we ought to come in linguistically fresh. For that matter, Paul didn't necessarily think like theologians think he thought, either...
In pagan, heathen Greek, the word charis means FAVOR. It's a good, simple ancient concept that basically means someone is pleased with somebody else. The person doling out FAVOR is usually an important somebody, or else their FAVOR wouldn't be worth discussing. By the way, "merit" or "unmerit" often has nothing to do with it. Xerxes was pleased with a dinner. Herod was pleased with a dance. That's not merit, that's just royal preference. Esther and Salome did one pleasing thing, one time. No points. No credit account. Just likability.
In the ancient world, you can earn favor by doing one good thing, or by doing many things OR just because somebody likes you. However, to earn ROYAL FAVOR you generally have to be "in" to begin with. That's why New Testament "Grace" is so amazing. It's not something we could never have earned. It's something we could never have gotten, at all, anyway. Period. Peons don't get the chance to present themselves before Kings, much less manage to prove themselves royally likable.
Re-read Luke and Paul with this understanding - substitute FAVOR for "grace". The difference is often astounding (not to mention inspiring). Instead of a conceptual principle God himself must adhere to, you get something that is inherently relational, something saturated by the personal pleasure of God. God's FAVOR is now upon believers, sometimes also upon our endeavors. Not that we pleased Him ourselves, of course. Christ did. On which point, now we can go back to John.
Wait. First let's do one other thing. For a functional understanding, let's define the Law, all the Hebrew laws, God's commandments, as things that God wanted people to do. If people fulfill God's commands, that would please Him, would it not? Therefore, practically speaking, we may define the Law as the Hebrew way of earning God's FAVOR. [or at least trying to]
In pagan, heathen Greek, the word charis means FAVOR. It's a good, simple ancient concept that basically means someone is pleased with somebody else. The person doling out FAVOR is usually an important somebody, or else their FAVOR wouldn't be worth discussing. By the way, "merit" or "unmerit" often has nothing to do with it. Xerxes was pleased with a dinner. Herod was pleased with a dance. That's not merit, that's just royal preference. Esther and Salome did one pleasing thing, one time. No points. No credit account. Just likability.
In the ancient world, you can earn favor by doing one good thing, or by doing many things OR just because somebody likes you. However, to earn ROYAL FAVOR you generally have to be "in" to begin with. That's why New Testament "Grace" is so amazing. It's not something we could never have earned. It's something we could never have gotten, at all, anyway. Period. Peons don't get the chance to present themselves before Kings, much less manage to prove themselves royally likable.
Re-read Luke and Paul with this understanding - substitute FAVOR for "grace". The difference is often astounding (not to mention inspiring). Instead of a conceptual principle God himself must adhere to, you get something that is inherently relational, something saturated by the personal pleasure of God. God's FAVOR is now upon believers, sometimes also upon our endeavors. Not that we pleased Him ourselves, of course. Christ did. On which point, now we can go back to John.
Wait. First let's do one other thing. For a functional understanding, let's define the Law, all the Hebrew laws, God's commandments, as things that God wanted people to do. If people fulfill God's commands, that would please Him, would it not? Therefore, practically speaking, we may define the Law as the Hebrew way of earning God's FAVOR. [or at least trying to]
Okay. Now, re-read John 1:14-17 with FAVOR instead of "grace". Instead of the oft quoted caricature of "grace" and "law" as polar opposites, we see John summing up all of History, from pre-existence through Israel's heritage until Christ. There may still be a subtext of conflict, if some of John's readers were still too tightly bound to the Law, but in John's actual piece, Moses and Jesus are presented as a progressive dynamic of God's contract with Man.
God gave Moses the Law. [Understood: Christ fulfilled the Law, which pleased God. Therefore, God's] FAVOR came through Jesus Christ.
Moses ==> Law ==> Christ ==> Charis
I don't know if this is a totally new reading of John, but I do think it blows away the theological insertion of "unmerited". If my reading between the lines here is correct, then God's favor was hardly unmerited. Jesus earned it.
October 13, 2009
Jesus in Nazareth
Since late July, 2009, I've blogged over 20,000 words about Jesus in Nazareth. Blogger shows 93 posts on this site at least mentioning Nazareth. Here are the highlights, in the order they were published. The top 15 links that might be most helpful are in large, bold type. Enjoy.
Dealing with Nazareth 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, ...
The Nazareth Synagogue 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Dealing with Nazareth 7.5, (summarizing the above) 8, 9
Reflections of Nazareth 1, 2
The Promise of Nazareth 1, 2
Related posts (since July 09)
* Eden... Nazareth... Thessalonica...
* Reconstructing Spiritual Events
* Reconstructing Nazareth
* Jesus, in Nazareth, in the Spirit
* The Most Challenging Miracles
* Johannine Historiography
* 12 Bodyguards at the Nazareth Synagogue
* Law and Love
* SupperMan? SuperPuppet? SuperFan.
* Jesus on the Mount
* The Joys of Jesus
* Historiography on the Gospels
* Psyche & Spirit, in Historiography
* Envisioning Nazareth from Matt.6
There will, undoubtedly, be much more to come...
Dealing with Nazareth 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, ...
The Nazareth Synagogue 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Dealing with Nazareth 7.5, (summarizing the above) 8, 9
Reflections of Nazareth 1, 2
The Promise of Nazareth 1, 2
Related posts (since July 09)
* Eden... Nazareth... Thessalonica...
* Reconstructing Spiritual Events
* Reconstructing Nazareth
* Jesus, in Nazareth, in the Spirit
* The Most Challenging Miracles
* Johannine Historiography
* 12 Bodyguards at the Nazareth Synagogue
* Law and Love
* SupperMan? SuperPuppet? SuperFan.
* Jesus on the Mount
* The Joys of Jesus
* Historiography on the Gospels
* Psyche & Spirit, in Historiography
* Envisioning Nazareth from Matt.6
There will, undoubtedly, be much more to come...
October 12, 2009
Faith Based Historiography
Christian believers read the scriptures by faith. Historians reconstruct events based on probability. Apologists explain away difficulties. And critics simply challenge everything. These four approaches each have weaknesses matching their strengths. Things did not happen a certain way just because we like to think so. Strict probability cannot accept miraculous events. Faith is limited by the reliability of its object. But even the most confirmed skeptics have to trust someone, eventually.
One central aspect of attempting historical reconstruction, from scripture, is that even a faith based approach must proceed at some point according to probabilities and completely abandon the desire for absolute proof. (For one example, we may accept Luke’s testimony that there was a census, but unless we wish to call it a mythical census we must endeavor do reconstruct an historical census – which is to say, a most likely one. For another, people may have different ideas about Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth, but we should all acknowledge that he grew up as a part of a Synagogue and begin reconstruction from there.) Some details of our conclusions may be less than perfectly certain, but what scripture does tell us should help comfort us against what it does not.
If my goal was the conversion of skeptics, I might be tempted to overstate my case. Instead, I begin from the standpoint of faith. If my goal was defense of the scriptures, I might focus completely on the problem areas and miss the whole forest for those few crooked trees. Instead, I suspend judgment on what seems confusing and work at all times primarily from what seems most clear. My goal is to encourage believers by reconstructing one, most likely chronology and thus grant Bible readers a broader historical context of events in the New Testament era. If I succeed in that goal, with whatever qualification, the result could be worth an awful lot, don't you think?
My sincere hope is that a more objective historiography can still preference the scriptures without preferencing any religious philosophies or doctrinal interpretations of any particular traditions. Theologies supported by that which the scripture itself does not necessarily and clearly state are suspect anyway, in my humble opinion. Institutional doctrines have defended the faith adequately for centuries, but the faithful are less and less content to be socially or intellectually cloistered by parochial dogmas.
Therefore, it is my secondary hope that we focus on reconstructing events, instead of ideological truths, the bedrock of our faith may be held more securely by those who feel compelled to wander outside institutional walls into God's wilderness. Like parents caring for willfully wayward children, I would hope ecclesiastical authorities get behind such an idea more quickly than not. We have many brothers and sisters adrift, who need truly non-denominational support for their faith. We cannot keep them at home where they were raised, but we can equip them more ably for wherever the journey might lead them.
Getting back to the point: God can never be proven to those with a non-divine standard of proof, but since the Church is called to make disciples, we should attempt a faith based historiography that is profitable for instilling the people of God with a more contextual view of the New Testament. Whatever we do, the best witness to scripture’s reliability will always be the spirit of God, which speaks and has spoken through the church throughout the centuries. At least, so we believe.
Believers, keep trusting the scriptures. Historians, keep dealing with likelihoods. Apologists, keep on defending beliefs. And critics, please keep on challenging everyone. We all want to be as accurate as possible and we all need to admit that we’ll never know everything. All I am suggesting is that we may proceed from a simple, conditional challenge: Assuming that details found in the scriptures are both true and factual, so far as we can tell, how do those facts fit together, historically, with each other, and with their own contemporary events?
One central aspect of attempting historical reconstruction, from scripture, is that even a faith based approach must proceed at some point according to probabilities and completely abandon the desire for absolute proof. (For one example, we may accept Luke’s testimony that there was a census, but unless we wish to call it a mythical census we must endeavor do reconstruct an historical census – which is to say, a most likely one. For another, people may have different ideas about Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth, but we should all acknowledge that he grew up as a part of a Synagogue and begin reconstruction from there.) Some details of our conclusions may be less than perfectly certain, but what scripture does tell us should help comfort us against what it does not.
If my goal was the conversion of skeptics, I might be tempted to overstate my case. Instead, I begin from the standpoint of faith. If my goal was defense of the scriptures, I might focus completely on the problem areas and miss the whole forest for those few crooked trees. Instead, I suspend judgment on what seems confusing and work at all times primarily from what seems most clear. My goal is to encourage believers by reconstructing one, most likely chronology and thus grant Bible readers a broader historical context of events in the New Testament era. If I succeed in that goal, with whatever qualification, the result could be worth an awful lot, don't you think?
My sincere hope is that a more objective historiography can still preference the scriptures without preferencing any religious philosophies or doctrinal interpretations of any particular traditions. Theologies supported by that which the scripture itself does not necessarily and clearly state are suspect anyway, in my humble opinion. Institutional doctrines have defended the faith adequately for centuries, but the faithful are less and less content to be socially or intellectually cloistered by parochial dogmas.
Therefore, it is my secondary hope that we focus on reconstructing events, instead of ideological truths, the bedrock of our faith may be held more securely by those who feel compelled to wander outside institutional walls into God's wilderness. Like parents caring for willfully wayward children, I would hope ecclesiastical authorities get behind such an idea more quickly than not. We have many brothers and sisters adrift, who need truly non-denominational support for their faith. We cannot keep them at home where they were raised, but we can equip them more ably for wherever the journey might lead them.
Getting back to the point: God can never be proven to those with a non-divine standard of proof, but since the Church is called to make disciples, we should attempt a faith based historiography that is profitable for instilling the people of God with a more contextual view of the New Testament. Whatever we do, the best witness to scripture’s reliability will always be the spirit of God, which speaks and has spoken through the church throughout the centuries. At least, so we believe.
Believers, keep trusting the scriptures. Historians, keep dealing with likelihoods. Apologists, keep on defending beliefs. And critics, please keep on challenging everyone. We all want to be as accurate as possible and we all need to admit that we’ll never know everything. All I am suggesting is that we may proceed from a simple, conditional challenge: Assuming that details found in the scriptures are both true and factual, so far as we can tell, how do those facts fit together, historically, with each other, and with their own contemporary events?
October 11, 2009
Envisioning Nazareth - from Matt.6
This inversion of Matthew's sixth chapter is more creative than careful, but it's an exploration. The Lord's teachings must reflect his own past life somehow. Therefore, here is one possible sketch of what Matthew's Testimony might actually imply.
In Nazareth, Jesus practiced righteousness but not so that anyone would notice. He cared much more about pleasing his Father in Heaven. Jesus gave to the poor, but he did it in secret. Jesus sometimes closed himself in his room when he prayed. He didn't use lots of words or repeat words meaninglessly. Jesus prayed for the sake of his Heavenly Father. God's name was sacred to Jesus. He prayed for God to take charge on Earth. Jesus prayed that people would be content with God's forgiveness and do what God wanted, forgiving each other. Jesus prayed for God to lead Him. Jesus followed his Father. Jesus focused on God and avoided all evil. Prayer helped a lot.
In Nazareth, Jesus forgave those who wronged him, because he knew forgiveness was pleasing to God. Jesus fasted sometimes, and kept himself looking healthy while fasting, so that no one around town would know he was fasting. The Heavenly Father saw Jesus' secret devotions and rewarded Him with Heavenly blessings. God's Life increased in Jesus to even greater abundance. God's Spirit grew inside Jesus to fill Him even more fully. So Jesus' reward for pleasing the Father was that the Father gave Jesus more of Himself.
Jesus stored up these treasures in God's Heavenly realm, and Jesus valued his treasure far more than anything he knew could be stolen or destroyed. Jesus' treasure was the light and glory of God in Heaven, and Jesus' heart was fixed fully on Him. Jesus looked at birds finding food on the ground, and he thought about God. Jesus saw flowers growing in a field, and he thought about God. That is how focused He was.
Jesus kept himself focused on God and so his whole body was filled with God's light. Therefore, he did not really worry about his life or his health, about having enough for his family to eat and drink. He worked hard every day as a carpenter, to earn these things, but he did not worry about the results. Jesus knew everything in his life was centered and dependent upon his heavenly Father. So when Jesus helped Joseph earn the family's daily bread, he thanked God for every ounce of their provisions.
Jesus did everything he did from a desire to do what God wanted and what God thought was right. It was so clear to him that when he turned around and looked at certain people in Nazareth, Jesus could tell they were not seeking God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people doing good works in a showy way, in the streets and the Synagogue, just to get the approval of people in town. He saw hypocrites stand up and pray in the Nazareth Synagogue and pray out loud in words they wanted everyone to hear. He saw people refuse to forgive one another, and they carried those grudges for years. Sometimes Jesus saw people fasting, and everyone could tell they were fasting because they tried hard to look hungry and weak. Jesus saw people approve of those people. He saw them getting their social rewards. But he did not see them trying to please God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people storing up earthly treasures like expensive clothes and decorative metals. But he knew moths would eat the clothes and the metals would tarnish and decay. Jesus also could see that rich people got robbed more often. Jesus thought about these people and concluded their eyes were bad. Since they did not look at God's light, their body was full of darkness. They worried all the time about food and wine, health and clothing. They spent all their energy sowing and reaping to feed themselves, and they did not honor God as the true provider of all the food they had gathered. They wore out their clothes and worried about replacing them. They did not even have enough faith to believe God would provide them with new clothes when their old ones wore out.
Jesus must have seen people in his hometown who feared God, but he also saw many who failed to live life with a mind to please Him in these areas. Still, somehow, Jesus kept his opinions a secret, along with his devotion to God.
The Lord waited for decades to share what these observations with anyone else. Until then, Jesus continued growing in favor with the people of Nazareth despite his great difference from them. Most amazing of all, at the very same time he was being gracious to them, Jesus was also growing in favor with God.
In Nazareth, Jesus practiced righteousness but not so that anyone would notice. He cared much more about pleasing his Father in Heaven. Jesus gave to the poor, but he did it in secret. Jesus sometimes closed himself in his room when he prayed. He didn't use lots of words or repeat words meaninglessly. Jesus prayed for the sake of his Heavenly Father. God's name was sacred to Jesus. He prayed for God to take charge on Earth. Jesus prayed that people would be content with God's forgiveness and do what God wanted, forgiving each other. Jesus prayed for God to lead Him. Jesus followed his Father. Jesus focused on God and avoided all evil. Prayer helped a lot.
In Nazareth, Jesus forgave those who wronged him, because he knew forgiveness was pleasing to God. Jesus fasted sometimes, and kept himself looking healthy while fasting, so that no one around town would know he was fasting. The Heavenly Father saw Jesus' secret devotions and rewarded Him with Heavenly blessings. God's Life increased in Jesus to even greater abundance. God's Spirit grew inside Jesus to fill Him even more fully. So Jesus' reward for pleasing the Father was that the Father gave Jesus more of Himself.
Jesus stored up these treasures in God's Heavenly realm, and Jesus valued his treasure far more than anything he knew could be stolen or destroyed. Jesus' treasure was the light and glory of God in Heaven, and Jesus' heart was fixed fully on Him. Jesus looked at birds finding food on the ground, and he thought about God. Jesus saw flowers growing in a field, and he thought about God. That is how focused He was.
Jesus kept himself focused on God and so his whole body was filled with God's light. Therefore, he did not really worry about his life or his health, about having enough for his family to eat and drink. He worked hard every day as a carpenter, to earn these things, but he did not worry about the results. Jesus knew everything in his life was centered and dependent upon his heavenly Father. So when Jesus helped Joseph earn the family's daily bread, he thanked God for every ounce of their provisions.
Jesus did everything he did from a desire to do what God wanted and what God thought was right. It was so clear to him that when he turned around and looked at certain people in Nazareth, Jesus could tell they were not seeking God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people doing good works in a showy way, in the streets and the Synagogue, just to get the approval of people in town. He saw hypocrites stand up and pray in the Nazareth Synagogue and pray out loud in words they wanted everyone to hear. He saw people refuse to forgive one another, and they carried those grudges for years. Sometimes Jesus saw people fasting, and everyone could tell they were fasting because they tried hard to look hungry and weak. Jesus saw people approve of those people. He saw them getting their social rewards. But he did not see them trying to please God.
In Nazareth, Jesus saw people storing up earthly treasures like expensive clothes and decorative metals. But he knew moths would eat the clothes and the metals would tarnish and decay. Jesus also could see that rich people got robbed more often. Jesus thought about these people and concluded their eyes were bad. Since they did not look at God's light, their body was full of darkness. They worried all the time about food and wine, health and clothing. They spent all their energy sowing and reaping to feed themselves, and they did not honor God as the true provider of all the food they had gathered. They wore out their clothes and worried about replacing them. They did not even have enough faith to believe God would provide them with new clothes when their old ones wore out.
Jesus must have seen people in his hometown who feared God, but he also saw many who failed to live life with a mind to please Him in these areas. Still, somehow, Jesus kept his opinions a secret, along with his devotion to God.
The Lord waited for decades to share what these observations with anyone else. Until then, Jesus continued growing in favor with the people of Nazareth despite his great difference from them. Most amazing of all, at the very same time he was being gracious to them, Jesus was also growing in favor with God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)