$h*+ in the Savior's mouth

Make sure you read this post to the end. You won't regret it.

Also, please excuse the vulgar nature of the title, but soon, it will all make sense. Plus, in my opinion, alliteration is awesome. (See what I did there?)

I have a routine I go through at work. I listen to the Newspring Church app in the morning and ESPN Radio in the afternoon. If you've never listened to/watched Perry Noble online, I would suggest you do so. (Download from the app store or check out newspring.cc) His transparency and relevant nature are so refreshing.

Two days ago I was listening to a message series from October 2011. Clayton King, the teaching pastor of Newspring, gave five symbols from the Old Testament that were realized at the crucifixion of Christ. I could go through all five but the last one was, by far, the strongest and most impacting.

Let's read the scriptures together:

John 19:28-30

The Death of Jesus

²⁸ Jesus knew that his mission was now finished, and to fulfill Scripture he said, “I am thirsty.” ²⁹ A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to his lips. ³⁰ When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and released his spirit.

Jesus had already been beaten, ridiculed, carried His cross, was nailed to it and was now about to die.

"I am thirsty," Jesus says. After going through such torment and knowing that the end of His earthly life was near, perhaps Jesus desired a touch of water on His tongue as a ever-so-temporary respite from His suffering.

With the representation of Roman officials and soldiers, it would almost be a certainty that someone had water to drink.

Would any of the Roman soldiers offer a taste of water as literally Jesus' last wish?

Unfortunately, no.

What they gave him epitomizes what we humans still offer to God as if what we have is valuable to Him other than our hearts.

Check out verse 29 above. They gave him sour wine on a sponge attached to a hyssop branch.

Sour wine. Not a very good thirst quencher, eh?

Is this basically one last cruel prank?

No. 

Let's dig deeper.

The Old Testament connection to the hyssop branch would've been very noticeable to Orthodox Jews since it was the same instrument commanded to put blood on the doorposts of the Israelites' home right before the Passover. The blood of the sacrificial lamb that they were to slaughter was to be the symbol for God to spare, save or pass over that particular home. 

This was the final sign from God before the Israelites were to be released from captivity in Egypt.

Jesus, in the totality of His power, did the same thing for humanity on the cross. His blood sacrifice covers all of our sin; past, present and future.

That, of course, is powerful but what I heard next blew my mind!

Stay with me.

Hyssop branches, sponges and sour wine (or wine vinegar) were used as a specific cleaning system for a particular reason.

Even in those days, it was common for Roman officials and wealthy alike to go to bath houses. If you're young, you may not even know what a "bath house" is.

Like that pictured above, it would be a place to bathe, relax and socialize. It would be like going to the YMCA, laying in a pool, roasting in a sauna and hanging out in the locker room with other guys.

In those days there weren't toilets as we have them that magically made our poop disappear in a forgettable abyss of waste. Toilet paper wasn't invented until the 1500s.

What was a rich or influential man to do?

Who would clean the stench from his backside for him?

Servants would.

What would they use?

You guessed it. A sponge doused in wine vinegar.

The wine vinegar was used as a cleaning agent and the sponges would simply be rinsed in it after every use.

You may be thinking, "The setting of the crucifixion was hardly a bath house, so why was wine vinegar there?"

Aside from being a basic cleaning system, it's common for people to defecate (or poop) on themselves after death. When you die you lose control over your sphincters and the ability to withhold gas and excrement (or poop).

Is it becoming clearer now?

Instead of offering Jesus water at his request, they offered him dirty wine vinegar that had been used to wipe others' @$$es!

Imagine that!

Jesus, the Son and Lamb of God and Savior of the world got a mouth full of crap before He died. The last thing he tasted was the waste of humanity, which, I could surmise, is exactly what He felt like!

Sometimes I feel like that's me. When I don't get what I want, I question God. I tell Him all the things I've done to deserve something better than I've received.

Essentially, I'm saying my deeds should be worth something to Him when my "good deeds" are like filthy rags to Him. (Isaiah 64:6, Phillipians 3:8) Or filthy sponges.

When I sin or when I complain, I now have the symbolism of my disregard for Jesus' worth being like putting my $h*+ in his mouth.

Anything less than praise, adoration and love for Jesus is the same, in my opinion, as what the Roman soldiers did that day. Simply put.

What do you think? Does this revolutionize, in a sense, the way you look at the crucifixion?

Hit me with your thoughts. Thanks for reading. Love you all!

Intro to the 1 Accord Project

(Images & logo will be uploaded later, but feel free to read on...)

About 5 months ago was the peak of activity for a new ministry that has been on my heart for about a year and a half.

The vision wasn't for another church. (There are enough churches. Couldn't we all agree?)

In fact, it's kind of unsettling within me when I hear the word church to describe either a church building or a ministry. In it's truest, biblical form the word "church" is best defined as the collection of every Christ-follower.

If you really wanted a strict definition from me, it would be this: the ONLY Christian church is the universal church. These groups of believers that make up what are commonly known as "churches" are simply part of the true church.

In my opinion, "churches" as we know them are fractions of the church or calling them ministry centers would be even more accurate.

Have I lost you yet?

Of course, I don't despise the usage of the word "church" in common venacular, I just think it is misleading and steers away from a much more beautiful idea.

And, I believe in my core, that the biblical idea of church has been, at worst, at worst and, at best, making a slow resurgence in the local culture of Elizabeth City, NC.

There are churches who are looking to reach outside the confines of their buildings. There are few others who are looking to partner with other churches in order to make a bigger impact.

In a nutshell, that is what I see the 1 Accord Project doing:

Partnering churches together for a deeper and wider impact in our city.

For most of you (outside of about 30-40 people), this may be the first time you've ever heard that Jenny and I were considering starting a ministry.

It would be what is known as a parachurch ministry, which is simply a ministry that works alongside of the church and is not a replacement for a faith community.

Speaking of such, there are over 100 churches in Elizabeth City. Few are large (say more than 200 people), many have less than 100 average attendees (some have 20-40).

There are more black churches than there are white churches. 

(And yes, just like Martin Luther King, Jr. said more than 40 years ago, Sunday is still the most segregated time in our city.Think about it. Have you ever been to a church more than once or twice of another racial makeup?)

There is a 1-square mile near downtown that has a whopping 20 churches!!

Here's the heart of the 1 Accord Project (in the form of questions):

• What if churches worked together?
• What if the Church (as defined  before) came together and combined their efforts, finances and prayer towards the same goals in EC?
• What if these resources could be combined and sent to organizations like the food bank, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, etc?
• What if Christ-followers from all different churches volunteered together at those non-profits not as members of "so-and-so church" but as Christ-followers?
• What if churches sent their people on mission trips with other churches for a greater world impact?

Doesn't that sound like the true ministry of the church?

One question that's been sitting in my spirit for a week is this:

How has the church made the simple but incorrect twist that the Great Commission ("Go into all the world and make disciples...") is all about having people (preferrably ones not connected to a church) "come and see" what's going on at your church from the true meaning of THE CHURCH "going, doing and telling?"

"SOUNDS GREAT! LET'S GO!!"

Hold tight. Most of us are not ready.

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN? GET 'EM TOGETHER AND LET'S GO!"

It is my firm belief that not only does the church not do enough in their local communities (and even less together with other churches), but that when they do go their people aren't ready anyway.

Let me give you an example.

I set up a simple outreach on the Outer Banks about a decade ago where our students from Asheville would hand out bottled water (that, of course, had scripture taped over the label) to anyone who wanted one on the beach.

Tracts are awkward. Scripture on a bottle of water is less awkward, right?

Although that may be true, one glaring fact remained after our "outreach."

Not one of us engaged in a meaningful conversation with a person that we gave a bottle to. We had some ask, "what church do y'all go to?" But, other than that, not much.

That's disappointing but, I should've counted myself relieved.

"Relieved?! Why?"

My students weren't ready.  They had a simple job that was carried out with a church t-shirt on. Anybody could've done it. But few of them were ready, as Peter says,

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15)

When you do outreach you need to have your stories straight: God's story (what the Bible teaches us) and our story (how Christ has changed our lives).

As part of 1 Accord, I developed a 3-month seminar that teaches Christ-followers four basic things (or the 4 G's):

1. The basics of the gospel and God's Word
2. How to live a God-honoring lifestyle and why it's important
3. How to craft your story and discover your unique gifts
4. How to utilize those gifts in order to go, serve and share your faith

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

That gap in space represents the past 5 months since we have temporarily halted the launch of the 1 Accord Project.

Jenny and I are still searching for a church home and sincerely believe that within the confines of a thriving ministry is where 1 Accord belongs.

Also, we praying for Christ-followers to have the same burning desire that we have.

Who cares where people go to church? The most important thing is actually showing and sharing the power of Christ to our community, is it not?

That power is not displayed by a message, music or small groups, is it?

It is when the believers leave the church building and act as the CHURCH. Fully armed and ready to serve.

Church attendance has little to do with community impact if the people within a church building only bring people to church in order for the pastor or preacher to convince them to faith.

Mmm. I would love to see a diverse Church, with unlimited power (through God's Spirit) and burgeoning resources to come together for the good of EC, not the good of their church.

I'll leave you with this.

If Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, then what is the Church?

Are we not the image of the (now) invisible Jesus?

If that's true, how could we do ministry as a Church together differently so that everyone in our city knows that the Church is a powerful, graceful, merciful and generous entity just as the God they serve?

That's gets me going. I think about that every time I drive through Elizabeth City.

How about you?

Exodus 1: Mel Gibson, Lying and God's Ethics

After William Wallace is betrayed by his fellow Scotsmen Mornay and Lachlan on the battlefield of Falkirk against the British, he avenges their treachery by killing them in cold blood. Before the next battle, another nobleman named Craig, who had ties to Mornay and Lachlan is brought to Wallace.



When grilled by Wallace about his allegiance to King Longshanks of England, Craig responded by saying, "An oath to a liar is no oath at all."
 

That makes sense, I guess.

In another, less gorey Mel Gibson movie, Bret Maverick lounges in a hot tub. His father questions him about tricking the Commodore, one of the film's antagonist, in the final action scene of the movie. In a classic line, Bret replies, "My pappi always said, 'There's no more deeply moving religious experience than cheating a cheater."'

I love that line.

The implication I'm going to make on today's post will, most likely, be controversial to some of my more conservative friends but, at least, we can get a good laugh (or smile, if you're too serious).

I believe these two quotes are applicable to an obscure implication buried in Exodus 1:15-21.

Read it here, if you'd like.

Jacob, Joseph and all of his brothers have died and there's a new pharaoh who not only doesn't care about their descendants but desires to suppress their growth by forcing them into slavery. When he sees that God's favor is still on the Israelites and that their population keeps growing, pharaoh commands something dispicable from his midwives.

Pharaoh commands: "When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” (verse 16)

I could completely twist Scripture and say that this is the first recorded instance of abortion, but how would midwives recognize the gender of a newborn without seeing it with their technological limitations, I'd like to know?

What pharaoh is commanding is more like infanticide (not much different than abortion, in my humble opinion), in the likes of Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of killing seven newborns last year. The midwives were supposed to sabotage the childbirth and assure that the newborn boys would die. 

How? The Bible isn't clear.

This post is not about abortion, however. I want to focus on what happens next.  The midwives, who feared God, decided to let the baby boys live. (verse 17) When interrogated by pharaoh as to why they disobeyed his orders, the midwives replied, "the boys were already born when we got there." (verses 18-19)

Did the midwives lie?

Yes. It's easy to deduce from the passage that the midwives were in position to fulfill pharaoh's orders but didn't because they were fearful of God.

Did God permit the midwives to lie in order to save baby's lives?

It seems so because God did not react negatively to their deception. In fact, God blessed them by "giving them families of their own." (verse 21)

Is God going against his own nature or is there another explanation as to why God allowed a sin to cover up a sin?

Explanation #1: God makes an exception, leaving the biblical laws as we know them much more fluid in their interpretations. Translation: God may ignore certain sins sometimes because they are not serious and/or do not cause obvious harm.

I don't believe that for a second.

Explanation #2: The Law of Moses, which includes the Ten Commandments, isn't given to the people of Israel until AFTER leaving Egypt in Exodus 20.  (Lying, or bearing false witness, etc, is the ninth commandment.) If the law had not be enacted yet, then could Israelites be held accountable for lying? If that's the case, then perhaps that's why it was permissible for Abraham to lie about Sarah being his sister and not his wife on two occasions. (Genesis 12 & 20)

Seems plausible, right?










Explanation #3: Conservative-leaning types, you may want to look away. Perhaps God is not limited to the Bible (the Bible is the Word of God but not the totality of God) and is able to intercede in certain circumstances in which the objective is to eliminate a common enemy at any cost. How else could Christ-followers ever partake in war, for example?

I realize that my explanations are very vague, but doesn't that lead you to question certain things?

Questions such as:

Does God permit sinful actions in certain situations when doing so would prevent a greater evil?

Now THAT is a can of worms that many many theologians have debated for decades.

The quintessential case of situational ethics is presented with the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a devoted Christ-follower and Lutheran pastor in Germany during the Nazi regime. Going against common Christian pacifism, he decided that assassinating Hitler (even though that would be a sin against God) was worth it to prevent further slaughter of the Jews. He eventually was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis. The battlefield for his soul in dealing with the decision to kill or to remain passive is evident in his letters from prison aptly titled, "Letters and Papers from Prison."

I know what some of you are thinking:

"Where do you draw the line?"

"If the Bible isn't clear on what sins are greater than others, how can we decide to do a lesser sin to prevent a greater sin?"

Fair questions, indeed.

As for the second question, I do believe the Bible gives an indication of what sins are more egregious to God than others. This will be a topic of a future post but if you'd like to read ahead, take a look at Ezekiel 8.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think on situational ethics? Apart from telling "white lies," what biblical justification have you found to support or utterly deny that God would allow a small sin to cover up another?

Genesis 22: Kill your son, Abraham!

In an account that is infuriating to some and confounding to all, Genesis 22:1-19 includes one of those stories that is hard to digest. Actually, it's tempting to make Abraham's resolve the object of adoration instead of focusing on God's request (even though it never came to pass).

My goal today is to present a few possibilities that are not explicitly expressed in the Scripture but, nevertheless, could give us a fuller and perhaps clearer picture of how Isaac, Abraham's treasured son, was nearly slaughtered by his father.

Read along with me, if you'd like.

It's clear from the get-go that Abraham is going to face a test from God. (verse 1) Tests and trials are to be expected in life. In fact, to some extent, I try to prepare for every possible negative circumstance. But, some things, you never expect to be a test.

I bet you Abraham never expected God to ask to sacrifice Isaac, for one thing. (verse 2)

Can you imagine the heavy burden that had to have hit Abraham when he received this request from...God? Scripture is silent as to Abraham's reaction but I could imagine him saying:

"Really?! Is this the same God that promised me that I would have a son and countless descendants? Could God really want me to not only end Isaac's life but leave me childless again just to wonder if I'll ever have another son? This ish is bananas b-a-n-a-n-a-s!" 

(Ok, he probably didn't say that last part.)

Me, personally? I wouldn't have been near as insightful.

I would've told God off. I have one child; a 9-month old girl. I wouldn't have even considered the possibility of doing such a thing. What about you?

(I say this because I know better. I have this Bible story right in front of me and know the outcome. Plus, I know of a certain cult practice of the Ancient Near East that is closely related to this story. This cult practice coupled with God's request doesn't make sense. But I'm getting ahead of myself. We'll touch on this just a little bit later.)


Abraham saddled up with Isaac and a couple of servants on a 3-day journey to the exact mountain on which God told him to sacrifice his son. He, obviously, kept his exact intentions from everyone else. Or was Abraham's statement of "we will worship and then WE will come back to you" (verse 5) a hopeful statement of faith? We'll never know for sure.

As they venture on alone, Isaac notices that something is missing. They had all the necessities for a burnt sacrifice minus the animal to be slaughtered. (verse 6-7)

Once again, Abraham gives a hopeful response in "God Himself will provide the lamb." (verse 8) Did he really believe that or was this, again, a deceptive answer? Both could be true.

They arrive, build the altar and Isaac is tied down. (verse 9)

Let's pause right here.

The majority of scholars seem to agree that Abraham simply overpowers his son and, by brute force, ties him down; Isaac is given no say in the matter.

A minority of scholars have offered two other possibilities that are definitely plausible.

Alternate scenario #1: Abraham reasoned with his young son; Isaac consents to his father's request

This scenario changes the whole vibe of the story. If this were true, then Isaac deserves a ton of credit of being willing to die at his father's request. (Sound familar? It should.) Either Isaac is completely devoted to God or to his father or both. You could also say that perhaps Isaac is also hopeful that God indeed will "provide the lamb" for the offering.

Alternate scenario #2: Abraham had no choice but to convince Isaac to consent to being sacrificed

(This one takes a little more explaining. Bear with me.)

Yes, this scenario is very similar to the previous one.  The sole difference is how we view Isaac. The word used for boy (in Hebrew na-ar, verse 5) can be used in some instances to mean "young man." In fact, the same word is used to describe the servants that accompanied Abraham and Isaac to the mountain. It's highly unlikely that the servants were little boys.

Also, would Isaac been able to hike up a mountain carrying enough firewood to consume a human body in flames by himself if he were a boy?

Again, unlikely.

In light of this evidence and other solid time-frame cues in the Bible, several scholars have estimated Isaac's age to be somewhere between 20-33 years old.  This would make Abraham's age somewhere between 120-133 years old. Abraham lived 175 years. So, by comparison to our normal life spans, Abraham would have been in the shape of a man in his fifties. Not a pushover for sure but wrestling a young man who is 20-30 years younger may be a losing cause.

(You can read more about this train of thought here)

If all this is true, again, Isaac is to be commended.

All this dissection goes for naught when God speaks from heaven and stops Abraham from stabbing his son. (verses 11-12) If you truly believe that God is omniscient (all-knowing) then you would know that Abraham was going to kill his son. Abraham couldn't have faked it.

Wow. You can call it lunacy or reckless faith, but wow.


Abraham looks up to see a ram whose horns were caught in a bush. (verse 13) Isaac is saved, God provided and the ram is the perfect substitute.

The test is over. Abraham (and Isaac) have shown themselves devoted to God. Let me ask you one last question before I conclude:

Did God ever intend for Abraham to actually go through with killing his son?

Interesting question, isn't it? I believe the answer is no.

"How could you possibly even assume to know that, TJ?" 

Ever heard of the ancient god Molech of Ammonites? He's in the Bible; 16 times, in fact. He is described as "detestable" in 1 Kings 11.

"What about Molech was so bad that he, out of all the other gods in biblical history, deserved to be called out in such a way?"

Molech required one thing from all of his followers:

The sacrifice of their firstborn child!

The God of Abraham denounces this practice adamantly! All life belongs to the LORD, not to some false, pagan god. (Lev 18:21) If children were to die due to this practice, the God's law demanded that the parents be executed in response. (Lev 20:2)

Isn't it safe to assume that if God speaks so strongly against child sacrifice in the Bible that He was only "testing" Abraham, not intending to force him to kill Isaac? Also, if God could kill all the firstborn sons of Egypt on one night in one fell swoop (Ex 12), then why would He ever ask one human being, much less a father, to do it for Him?

God knows what it takes to lose a son

Still, Abraham is more faithful than I would've been.  But, like I said, knowing the whole Bible story, this account comes into focus. Again, this account foreshadows what God eventually would do for us. God is to be praised for providing the "sacrificial lamb" in Jesus Christ for us all. Jesus, like Isaac, should be commended for obeying His father regardless of what He would have to endure on our behalf.

You see, that's the difference between us and God. God would give anything, even His own son, to have us love Him.

Us?

Well, it depends on what He asks from us, doesn't it?

Please know that God would never ask you to go against His commandments to prove your love for Him. He's a big boy; He can do His own work. However, to show your devotion, all it takes is humility, repentance, faith and following Jesus.

If you have children, go love on them right now!

If you don't, be thankful that your parents aren't Molech-worshippers:)

Genesis 15: God wouldn't kill Himself, would He?

You'll see that I'm not working on a thorough, chapter-by-chapter discourse through the Old Testament. For example, I skipped Genesis 11 and the account of the Tower of Babel. It definitely is an interesting story, you should check it out. It may be the reason and explanation as to why we have so many varying languages and cultures that developed in our world.

But the task at hand for today is delving into Genesis 15 and a rather peculiar interaction between Abram (later to be renamed Abraham, the father of the Jewish race) and God. The chapter begins with two reminders. God reassuring Abram that he is treasured and loved (verse 1) and Abram reminding God that his greatest desire (to have an heir) has yet to be fulfilled. (verse 2) In fact, if his life were to end on that day, his estate would be given to a servant who isn't even part of his family. (verse 3)

This is the first (yet not the last) time that God directs Abram to try to count the stars in comparison to the amount of descendants that he will one day have. I love how NASA agrees that counting all the stars in a night sky is impossible (See for yourself). Other websites suggest that there are somewhere between 5,000-10,000 stars that can be seen with the naked eye. However, you must consider that the patch of sky that we see on a starry night is NOT the whole sky. We are only seeing one patch of sky that is visible from our vantage point on earth, so the total number of stars in the sky that could be seen with the naked eye is astronomically (pun intended) greater than just 5-10k!

No doubt, what God promised has come to pass since there are just over 13.7 million Jews as of 2012. Fun side fact: Did you know that nearly 40% of all Jews live in the USA? (Source: Jewish Virtual Library)

Ok, let's get back on track here.

As if Abram believing God wasn't wild enough, the latter half of verse 6 should arouse your attention. Due to his belief that God was worthy of trust, God counted Abram as righteous. In our southern, Bible belt vernacular the equivalent would be, "he just got saved!" Paul, the writer of more than half of the New Testament mentions this phenomena of God's grace in his letter to the Romans (chapter 4, to be exact) to prove that its grace by faith in which God saves us, not in response to any physical act, good deed or lifestyle.


God promises something further. Abram would receive the land they were standing on as his own. (verse 7) Ironically, after believing God could give him innumerable descendants, he seems to doubt the possibility of owning this land; something seemingly much more plausible, in my opinion.

Yet, instead of ridiculing Abram, God did something amazing. I've said everything above to get you to this point. This blew my mind once I realized the implications of what happened next.

God instructed Abram to gather a few animals and a couple of birds, to cut them in half and lay the sides opposite one another to make an aisle in which to walk in between the halves. (verse 10)

Such as this:

                             Enter

          1/2 calf                       1/2 calf
          1/2 goat                      1/2 goat
          1/2 ram                       1/2 ram
          Dove                           Pigeon

                              Exit

After Abram shooed away scavengers for a while, he fell asleep (verses 11-12). This is the cool part, because the set-up for this ritual was, let's just say, weird. For some reason, God decides to reveal Himself as a "smoking firepot with a blazing torch." (verse 17)

Why a firepot and torch? 

No one knows for sure but one could reasonably assume that this could be a foreshadow to how God would reveal Himself in the wilderness as He leads the Israelites; as a cloud during the day (similar to a "smoking" firepot) and pillar of fire by night (compared to a torch which lights a footpath) as seen in Exodus 12:21-22. It seems to fit perfectly.

That's cool but I haven't gotten to the coolest part yet.

To truly grasp the magnitude of what God did here, you have to understand what this little ceremony or covenant display meant. In ancient Mesopotamian culture, it was customary to perform this ritual as a way to bind individuals into a lasting covenant. If one party were to break this covenant, they were giving the other party permission to cut them in half and experience the brutality of these particular animals.

That's some raw stuff, eh?

"So, what?"

Let me ask you question that will commence the blowing of your mind:

Who walked down the aisle and participated in this covenant?

"Abram and God, right?"

WRONG!

God alone walked between the animals. Check the text! In verse 17 God passed between the animals and, in verse 18, Scripture reads "the LORD made a covenant with Abram."

The text does not read they entered into a covenant, it says that God alone made the covenant.

God is promising Abram and God alone is the only one that would face punishment if He failed.

I can hear some people saying, "TJ, that doesn't make any sense. How can you kill God, especially if He's invisible and immortal?"

Fair question. (Are some of you starting to follow along?)

God wouldn't kill Himself, would He?

Let me ask you a slightly different question that may clue you in on my dropping of hints:

How could God die?

If we couldn't do it, would He kill himself?

"That's impossible! The Bible is against suicide, isn't it?"

While most Christ-followers believe that suicide is utterly sinful and disrespectful to God it isn't directly prohibited in Scripture (at least that I know of).

Its not a coincidence that Abram's salvation was mentioned just a few verses prior to God committing to this covenant. If we fast-forwarded through the historical narrative of the Bible, the story of God wooing His creation to Himself, then we would see that Jesus, indeed, went on a suicide mission for our salvation. God in the flesh subjected Himself to that, once thought impossibility, of dying.

And that Jesus did.

For us. Not just for the Jews but for everyone else, too.

Even though humanity deserved the punishment of straying from God and sinning against Him, there was no way that humanity dying was an option since Abraham was not part of this covenant.  

)Yes, I do know that the Israelites would later covenant with God after the creation of the Mosaic Law in Exodus but it wasn't this type of do-or-die, cut-throat covenant in Genesis 15.)

To me, this obscure, mostly ignored story provides a glimpse into the reckless love that God has for humanity. Have you experienced the lengths, depths and measure of God's love? If you haven't, the life of Jesus is the full-expression of God's intent to commit to His end of the bargain, which was completely unfair for Him to even have to uphold in the first place.

The Israelites eventually inherited the Promised Land (only to lose it) and all of humanity now has the chance of a relationship with the Creator, but in doing so, Jesus had to die.

Let me leave you with two Scripture verses that may let this sink in better than I could ever say:


But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.

- Romans 5:8 

Though he (Jesus) was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. 

Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;  

He took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form, 

He humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

 - Philippians 2:6-8

As always, I'd love your thoughts. 

Genesis 3: Vegans & Gender Equality

My desire to be in God's word more than ever is not just a resolution for the New Year but something I need to become a better father, husband, pastor and leader.

Speaking of being a pastor, one of the things I really have to focus on is being succinct. If you've ever had a conversation with me, you'd know that I talk a lot. I share a lot of information; pretty much whatever interests me or has recently blew my mind. Ask my wife how many times a day I start a conversation with, "I was reading this article/watching this documentary/this video and..."

With that being said, I'm in the process of a going through a reading plan through my Glo Bible (an app on my iPhone). In the spirit of CDM (Constantly Dodging Monotony), I wanted to share a few insights I've noticed in my readings that may inspire you or, perhaps, get you interested in delving into the Bible for yourself.

Vegans and Gender Equality

The earth and everything in it has been created. God claims everything to be "good" but when he finishes creating Adam, creation in its totality becomes "very good." (Gen 1:31) This is the first way to tell that humanity is the prized "jewel of creation" as it has been said.

Have you ever noticed the implication of Genesis 1:30, though? Animals (birds AND beasts) solely eat vegetation. The next day, when Adam is created, he is given the same diet.  Can you imagine a world where one could safely walk through the jungle or deep wilderness without any fear of being mauled by a wild animal? That's what Adam had. No doubt, lions and lambs grazed on the same patches of land without disruption. (Seeing slow motion footage of a gazelle being eaten alive by a lion or hyenas has always been disheartening for me.) Buzzards and other scavengers of today ate the same, too, since there wasn't any decomposing carcasses to devour.

Adam would be a vegan. Here's an interesting question: Did God initially create humans to be vegans? It makes me wonder if the body was designed to run at its most efficient state when it only had water, fruits and vegetables. He also had access to fruit juices and maybe even coconut juice. It seems logical, right?

I'm not implying that eating meat is sinful. However, in a perfect world not one living thing would have to die in order to be food for another. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that heaven's diet may revert back to this perfect-state standard, right? Pardon me, while I go eat a banana.

Let's talk about something else that, no doubt, was different before the presence of sin and will be in heaven, as well.

I know that many of you have read the account of Eve being deceived by the serpent, but I want to challenge you to consider something else the passage may suggest.

Look at Genesis 3 yourself. (Follow along here)

Is Eve alone when she's talking with the serpent or eating from the tree? (Look at verse 6, the last line) Adam is there! Adam is, from what we can tell, completely complicit, silent and not offering any suggestions or accountability.

Eve is the one talking, the one who is deceived, tempted and decides to go against God's command.

Adam's sin was slightly different. Even though he may have been deceived, tempted and, obviously, did eat from the restricted tree,

Adam was guilty of being spineless.

He seemed to be in the perfect position to protect his wife (not to mention humanity, animals and all of the earth in the process) but he didn't. Was Eve determined? Did she coerce Adam to go along with the deception? Possibly, even though that amount of detail is not present in Genesis 3.

What is clear and unmistakeable is Adam's silence.  He does nothing but add to the debacle by not holding his wife accountable and stopping her.

Afterward eating the forbidden fruit, the first thing Adam and Eve notice is their nakedness. (3:7) They immediately seek privacy; don't confuse that with modesty. The first barrier between a married couple after sin was inherently a sexual barrier. Married men, you know what I'm talking about, right? It's still the first barrier we encounter when there's an issue with our wives.

That makes me laugh:) LOL! (And yes, I literally did laugh out loud.)

After a round of everyone passing the blame (Adam to Eve to the serpent in 3:12-13), I want you to notice what Eve was cursed with as punishment. I'm sure there's an interesting insight to be told as to why childbirth was made super-painful but the one I'm curious about is the next curse, which flies under the radar and can be easily missed. In the second part of Genesis 3:16, God told Eve,

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This is in stark contrast to what we saw at the trunk of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? Eve seemed to be in control of the conversation and decision-making when it came between her and Adam. It was her decision coupled with Adam's inaction and collaboration that caused this mess.

(Jesus is, by the way, the solution to this problem. His death on the cross and resurrection is the payment for humanity's sin. If we first accept and believe that and then live by His words and commands, we can start to experience the life God truly means for us to have.)

The beginning of the end of humanity's perfection began with Adam's lack of influence on his wife. He was not only accountable for the garden and all the animals but also his wife and HE FAILED!

Most people blame Eve, letting Adam get off the hook too lightly. So God forces Adam's hand and curses Eve in the process.
Men were now to "rule over" their wives. No doubt this is the beginning of what is well-known as a male-dominated family structure and culture that began in the Middle East and is still prevalent in America. In Latin America it is known as machismo. But instead of leadership, cultures have abused this role to make the livelihoods of the female gender to be even more cursed.

To this day, women are paid less to work the same jobs, are the majority of the victims of domestic violence in the home, are raped and sexually assaulted almost exclusively, are labeled as "feminists" if they demand equal rights and the list goes on and on.

Don't get the Bible twisted. I believe God is forcing Adam to lead and provide accountability to his wife, to protect, serve and rule the relationship not to victimize the female gender.

Let's ask this question in response, "What does a perfect situation, void of sin, look like then?"

It is my humble belief that in a perfect society, as it will be one day in heaven, males and females again would be equals. Respect, accountability, influence and leadership would flow both ways. The possibility of abusing this role would diminish with gender equality, since the female is also a "jewel of creation."

(And c'mon men, you can agree that women are more apt to be praised as a jewel because of their beauty. Men aren't that pretty.)

The creation story does inspire me to worship God as the ultimate Creator of all things, but after reading through it again this week, I've also learned to consider my diet (which is full of meat, cheese and junk food) and my on-going relationship with my wife.  Providing accountability isn't necessarily my weakness but I can always be challenged to value my wife's (and any female's) opinion just as valid as I consider my own.  Abusing influence is worsening the curse.  Let's flip that, shall we?

Thanks for coming along! Would love your questions, comments, thoughts and even accountability!

Update:
A friend of a friend posted Isaiah 25:6 in response to my blog, which says (speaking of the future):

"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines."

Him and I both agree that if God created everything we know, then isn't it possible for him to create meat without slaughter? Sure. Or it will be the best tasting, textured tofu you've ever had!