2nd Thessalonians, verses 6 and 7 present somewhat an enigma with the introduction of either something or someone who hinders. Phillips' translation renders the word "the restraining power." Verse 6 states that the Thessalonians would know upon reading the letter the thing or person hindering, preventing, holding back or holding up the message Paul was trying to present. Who exactly or what exactly is this restraining power according to Phillips?
Is it God who was holding back on revealing the nature of resistance to Paul? Is it God who didn't want the Thessalonians to see what kind of evil was behind the resistance until they matured somewhat? Is it Satan who is being prevented from coming against the new Christians with full force? Is it merely the human mind rationalizing the message of Paul as absurd that made people resist accepting his message?
Whatever was restraining or being restrained was made obvious through Paul's letter. And the key is that God would act decisively against it. In answer to the question, "Has the day of the Lord come?" Paul says evidently not because you have not been able to see, for whatever reason, the kind of power that is really against you. Now you do. But not to worry. God will act to destroy it. End of story. Satan loses. God wins. During Paul's time. During our own time.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Rebellion
Usually at the heart of any controversy over the interpretation of a passage of scripture is the amount of attention the interpreter pays to the cultural aspects surrounding the writer of the passage. It is no different with 2nd Thessalonians 2.1-12. If one pays no attention to the cultural aspects of the Macedonian people in the middle of the 1st century AD, then one feels free to view various portions of the Bible that read similarly as parts of a consistent whole. On the other end of the spectrum is the one who feels that different regions and different time periods make different portions of the Bible dysjunct from each other.
One of the terms used in this 12-verse stretch of the New Testament is "a rebellion." If the Bible is seen as a seamless whole, then one could say that "a rebellion" is mentioned in Daniel 7, Matthew 24, and Revelation 13. The 3 references must be speaking about the same event. If the Bible is seen as having different parts that might or might not relate to each other, then one could say that Macedonia is not Judea and that 42 AD is not 500 BC (or 180 BC depending on when Daniel might have been written) so the rebellions refer to different events and different groups of people.
One aspect of Paul's message that seems to stand out in both Acts and the two Thessalonian letters is the persecution that Paul receives at the hands of the Jews during his "2nd missionary journey." They were relentless in opposing his message. Easily, one could see that Paul could have included that treatment in the "rebellion" that happened to him. Also, the Roman authorities didn't do much to stop the Jewish rough treatment. In fact, they added to it. They had him in prison in Philippi, made Jason put up bond money in Thessalonica, and did nothing to quell animosity in Berea. They also thought Christianity was an atheistic superstition. One could call that "a rebellion" against the message of Jesus.
Whatever Paul meant by it, he had known to expect it because he reminds the Thessalonian people that he had mentioned this rebellion during his 3-week stay with them. And whatever Paul meant by it, talk of the Day of the Lord started the discussion of it. It almost seems like Paul is saying that God wouldn't have people to punish on the Day of the Lord unless enough time had passed for people to have a chance to reject the teaching of Jesus. Given enough time, people would have that opportunity. Truly, within 10 years of Paul's entering Thessalonica both Jews and Romans had had plenty of opportunity to hear the message of Jesus and make a decision about it.
As the Roman world circa 50 AD, so America—plenty of opportunity to make a decision about the message of Jesus.
One of the terms used in this 12-verse stretch of the New Testament is "a rebellion." If the Bible is seen as a seamless whole, then one could say that "a rebellion" is mentioned in Daniel 7, Matthew 24, and Revelation 13. The 3 references must be speaking about the same event. If the Bible is seen as having different parts that might or might not relate to each other, then one could say that Macedonia is not Judea and that 42 AD is not 500 BC (or 180 BC depending on when Daniel might have been written) so the rebellions refer to different events and different groups of people.
One aspect of Paul's message that seems to stand out in both Acts and the two Thessalonian letters is the persecution that Paul receives at the hands of the Jews during his "2nd missionary journey." They were relentless in opposing his message. Easily, one could see that Paul could have included that treatment in the "rebellion" that happened to him. Also, the Roman authorities didn't do much to stop the Jewish rough treatment. In fact, they added to it. They had him in prison in Philippi, made Jason put up bond money in Thessalonica, and did nothing to quell animosity in Berea. They also thought Christianity was an atheistic superstition. One could call that "a rebellion" against the message of Jesus.
Whatever Paul meant by it, he had known to expect it because he reminds the Thessalonian people that he had mentioned this rebellion during his 3-week stay with them. And whatever Paul meant by it, talk of the Day of the Lord started the discussion of it. It almost seems like Paul is saying that God wouldn't have people to punish on the Day of the Lord unless enough time had passed for people to have a chance to reject the teaching of Jesus. Given enough time, people would have that opportunity. Truly, within 10 years of Paul's entering Thessalonica both Jews and Romans had had plenty of opportunity to hear the message of Jesus and make a decision about it.
As the Roman world circa 50 AD, so America—plenty of opportunity to make a decision about the message of Jesus.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
There is no lawless person
One of the great principles of translation and interpretation of the New Testament is to make sure that all the manuscripts say the same thing about a passage. The New Testament has come down through so many years that manuscript families and traditions are traceable. In the case of this man of lawlessness, perhaps it is worth checking the manuscript families to make sure that they all say the same thing. In fact, they don't. The top 4 manuscript traditions are split 50/50 on what words actually existed for the translation that so many render lawlessness. Two of the big 4 say man of sin.
Some may say that there is not a lot of difference between being without law and sin. But one of the easiest ways to look at the difference is to say that the man of sin means the opposite of the expression man of God or man of righteousness. Therefore, all the writer is saying is that the man of sin is a pagan or non-believer, nothing more.
If this idea is plugged into the passage, the interpretation goes somethig like this. There would be resistence to the message of Jesus. Pagans, who have sold out to the devil anyway, would become gods unto themselves. God would bring to light the contrast between those who want to destroy themselves and those who want to rescue themselves as the message spread through the Roman world (The writer's current time period would then fit the phrase at just the right time [vs. 6]) and encountered various kinds of resistence. Jesus would win the battle of resistence as people began to show faithfulness to the new message. Satan would begin losing his tight grip on the world because God would begin punishing those who would not believe or those who would persecute believers.
The above paragraph is merely a flowery way of describing the war between good and evil that has always existed except it is given a Christian wrapping since goodness is equated with believing the story of Jesus. Good and evil happens in every generation. So when a modern reader reads about the man of sin, he or she reads it as a synonym for non-christian, not as a person in a particular time period, simply a pagan in need of a lifestyle change.
Some may say that there is not a lot of difference between being without law and sin. But one of the easiest ways to look at the difference is to say that the man of sin means the opposite of the expression man of God or man of righteousness. Therefore, all the writer is saying is that the man of sin is a pagan or non-believer, nothing more.
If this idea is plugged into the passage, the interpretation goes somethig like this. There would be resistence to the message of Jesus. Pagans, who have sold out to the devil anyway, would become gods unto themselves. God would bring to light the contrast between those who want to destroy themselves and those who want to rescue themselves as the message spread through the Roman world (The writer's current time period would then fit the phrase at just the right time [vs. 6]) and encountered various kinds of resistence. Jesus would win the battle of resistence as people began to show faithfulness to the new message. Satan would begin losing his tight grip on the world because God would begin punishing those who would not believe or those who would persecute believers.
The above paragraph is merely a flowery way of describing the war between good and evil that has always existed except it is given a Christian wrapping since goodness is equated with believing the story of Jesus. Good and evil happens in every generation. So when a modern reader reads about the man of sin, he or she reads it as a synonym for non-christian, not as a person in a particular time period, simply a pagan in need of a lifestyle change.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Who is this lawless person? (4)
Anytime a document from antiquity is read by someone in the modern world, certain oddities stand out. It is true with any ancient document. Peculiarities about Beowulf stand out from the Old English language; strangeness is noticed in Ulysses in Latin; some unique features surface in the Greek of the Odyssey. The further back one goes in time, usually the stranger certain features appear to the modern eye. So, when features of a passage from 2nd Thessalonians 2 suddenly appear to have some odd features to the modern reader, then understanding the historical, literary, and linguistic context goes a long way in clearing up the oddity. In particular, a term appears that seems to carry a little more weight than other words in the passage–the lawless man.
The connotation of the word "law" was well understood by every Jew. The word used for lawlessness could have the connotation of whatever is exactly opposite from what every Jew understood because the word is the letter "a" in front of the word law. English follows the old Greek pattern for this in words like moral and amoral, typical and atypical. Very literally then, the phrase is not man of lawlessness, but man of no law or man without law. The word "man" should also be pretty clear to every Jew. Isaiah 53.3 refers to "man of sorrows." I Timothy 6.11 refers to "man of God." People usually know to substitute "person" for "man." So, when "man of no law" shows up in the text, people don't have any qualms against translating it "a person without law." Even if the more general law of nature is meant (Romans 1) rather than the Mosaic law that every Jew would understand, the meaning is still "a person above the law" or a person who doesn't abide by laws."
If this meaning were to be plugged into verses 3-11, the meaning would be as follows. Paul told the Thessalonians that he had told them ahead of time about people out to destroy themselves (sons of perdition). They are people who act as if there is no law. They put themselves in God's place, that is, they are self-sufficient and demand the respect for this self-sufficiency from others. "Something" (a mystery) has hindered this group of people from seeing themselves as headed for destruction, but Jesus has appeared and his teaching indicts their behavior. That is apparent to both those who come to follow Jesus and those who, after being exposed to Jesus' teaching, reject it for themselves. Jesus will destroy this group at his coming because they were enabled by and deluded by Satan's illusions of "signs and wonders."
All of this seems to have been motivated by the writer's frustration with why it had been so hard to get people to accept the fabulous story of Jesus for what it was worth. That's why chapter3, verse 1&2 begin with a request. "In your conversations with God, ask for the message of the Lord to spread and for people to honestly weigh its worth as you have done. And ask for us to be rescued from most people's moral morass and base living because so many people do not have faith."
The connotation of the word "law" was well understood by every Jew. The word used for lawlessness could have the connotation of whatever is exactly opposite from what every Jew understood because the word is the letter "a" in front of the word law. English follows the old Greek pattern for this in words like moral and amoral, typical and atypical. Very literally then, the phrase is not man of lawlessness, but man of no law or man without law. The word "man" should also be pretty clear to every Jew. Isaiah 53.3 refers to "man of sorrows." I Timothy 6.11 refers to "man of God." People usually know to substitute "person" for "man." So, when "man of no law" shows up in the text, people don't have any qualms against translating it "a person without law." Even if the more general law of nature is meant (Romans 1) rather than the Mosaic law that every Jew would understand, the meaning is still "a person above the law" or a person who doesn't abide by laws."
If this meaning were to be plugged into verses 3-11, the meaning would be as follows. Paul told the Thessalonians that he had told them ahead of time about people out to destroy themselves (sons of perdition). They are people who act as if there is no law. They put themselves in God's place, that is, they are self-sufficient and demand the respect for this self-sufficiency from others. "Something" (a mystery) has hindered this group of people from seeing themselves as headed for destruction, but Jesus has appeared and his teaching indicts their behavior. That is apparent to both those who come to follow Jesus and those who, after being exposed to Jesus' teaching, reject it for themselves. Jesus will destroy this group at his coming because they were enabled by and deluded by Satan's illusions of "signs and wonders."
All of this seems to have been motivated by the writer's frustration with why it had been so hard to get people to accept the fabulous story of Jesus for what it was worth. That's why chapter3, verse 1&2 begin with a request. "In your conversations with God, ask for the message of the Lord to spread and for people to honestly weigh its worth as you have done. And ask for us to be rescued from most people's moral morass and base living because so many people do not have faith."
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Who is this lawless person? (3)
Anytime a document from antiquity is read by someone in the modern world, certain oddities stand out. It is true with any ancient document. Peculiarities about Beowulf stand out from the Old English language; strangeness is noticed in Ulysses in Latin; some unique features surface in the Greek of the Odyssey. The further back one goes in time, usually the stranger certain features appear to the modern eye. So, when features of a passage from 2nd Thessalonians 2 suddenly appear to have some odd features to the modern reader, then understanding the historical, literary, and linguistic context goes a long way in clearing up the oddity. In particular, a term appears that seems to carry a little more weight than other words in the passage–the lawless man.
A third possibility is what many an ancient piece of literature contains–the use of figurative language, in this case personification. Personification is giving human traits to inanimate objects. Sometimes, the inanimate object is merely an idea. Personification then becomes humanizing an idea. The idea is that wickedness exists. If given a human face, people could visualize it better. Paul had told the Thessalonian christians when he was with them that people would be protesting the story of Jesus (a rebellion). Paul was even railroaded out of town because people protested the message so much. These lawless people would be given a collective face, the lawless man. They would not accept God and, in fact, they would know no God but themselves. These people were reckless Romans who hindered Paul at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth. They were deluded by Satan, exposed by the message of Jesus as accepting wickedness as goodness and would be destroyed when Jesus comes. The idea that Jesus had already come is what triggered the discussion about lawless people in the first place. But the christians are assured that God would sentence these lawless Romans. The christians are reminded that they have, in contrast, been selected by God as the first fruits of this revolutionary message about Jesus.
Other intepretations for this important term will appear later this week.
A third possibility is what many an ancient piece of literature contains–the use of figurative language, in this case personification. Personification is giving human traits to inanimate objects. Sometimes, the inanimate object is merely an idea. Personification then becomes humanizing an idea. The idea is that wickedness exists. If given a human face, people could visualize it better. Paul had told the Thessalonian christians when he was with them that people would be protesting the story of Jesus (a rebellion). Paul was even railroaded out of town because people protested the message so much. These lawless people would be given a collective face, the lawless man. They would not accept God and, in fact, they would know no God but themselves. These people were reckless Romans who hindered Paul at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth. They were deluded by Satan, exposed by the message of Jesus as accepting wickedness as goodness and would be destroyed when Jesus comes. The idea that Jesus had already come is what triggered the discussion about lawless people in the first place. But the christians are assured that God would sentence these lawless Romans. The christians are reminded that they have, in contrast, been selected by God as the first fruits of this revolutionary message about Jesus.
Other intepretations for this important term will appear later this week.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Who is this lawless person? (2)
Anytime a document from antiquity is read by someone in the modern world, certain oddities stand out. It is true with any ancient document. Peculiarities about Beowulf stand out from the Old English language; strangeness is noticed in Ulysses in Latin; some unique features surface in the Greek of the Odyssey. The further back one goes in time, usually the stranger certain features appear to the modern eye. So, when features of a passage from 2nd Thessalonians 2 suddenly appear to have some odd features to the modern reader, then understanding the historical, literary, and linguistic context goes a long way in clearing up the oddity. In particular, a term appears that seems to carry a little more weight than other words in the passage–the lawless man.
Some see this term as a common noun rather than a proper noun. Truly, in Greek, only context determines whether a noun is general or specific (common or proper). So if the term is a common noun, then the lawless man is any person who sets himself up as important enough to displace God. This would be many an American here. Americans are so affluent that they don't depend on anyone for sustenance. They are competitive and knowledgeable. So, they know as much as anyone else in the world or in their sphere of influence. They even accept the praise of those who might not know as much as they do. In other words, they set themselves up as rulers of their own lives and displace God. Ask any non-American about how arrogant the American people are.
The Romans were every bit as arrogant as Americans are. So when the writer of 2nd Thessalonians talks about a lawless man, many Romans would fit the description. Plus, Romans thought Christians were atheists for not believing the Roman pantheon of gods. So, many a Roman did put someone else or themselves in the place of God. Of course, the writer says he warned them ahead of time that lawless man would rebel against the truth about God and believe that wickedness was goodness.
Other intepretations for this important term appear later this week.
Some see this term as a common noun rather than a proper noun. Truly, in Greek, only context determines whether a noun is general or specific (common or proper). So if the term is a common noun, then the lawless man is any person who sets himself up as important enough to displace God. This would be many an American here. Americans are so affluent that they don't depend on anyone for sustenance. They are competitive and knowledgeable. So, they know as much as anyone else in the world or in their sphere of influence. They even accept the praise of those who might not know as much as they do. In other words, they set themselves up as rulers of their own lives and displace God. Ask any non-American about how arrogant the American people are.
The Romans were every bit as arrogant as Americans are. So when the writer of 2nd Thessalonians talks about a lawless man, many Romans would fit the description. Plus, Romans thought Christians were atheists for not believing the Roman pantheon of gods. So, many a Roman did put someone else or themselves in the place of God. Of course, the writer says he warned them ahead of time that lawless man would rebel against the truth about God and believe that wickedness was goodness.
Other intepretations for this important term appear later this week.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Who is this lawless person?
Anytime a document from antiquity is read by someone in the modern world, certain oddities stand out. It is true with any ancient document. Peculiarities about Beowulf stand out from the Old English language; strangeness is noticed in Ulysses in Latin; some unique features surface in the Greek of the Odyssey. The further back one goes in time, usually the stranger certain features appear to the modern eye.
So, when features of a passage from 2nd Thessalonians 2 suddenly appear to have some odd features to the modern reader, then understanding the historical, literary, and linguistic context goes a long way in clearing up the oddity. In particular, a term appears that seems to carry a little more weight than other words in the passage–the lawless man. Some say that the religious and historical context demand that the term be seen as a proper noun. Jews had been interpreting Daniel's visions for quite some time as being a predictor of an end of the age scenario in which someone would blaspheme the Most High so horrendously that it would trigger the sequence of events for the end of time. If that's the case, then the term becomes The Man of Lawlessness. Once the term takes on proper noun status, then one can start to see connections between it and other proper noun references in other parts of the Bible. Daniel's 4th beast (ch.7) and Revelation's ten-horned beast (ch.13) seem to line up with a Man of Lawlessness because all 3 proper nouns blaspheme the name of the Almighty.
Other intepretations for this important term appear later this week.
So, when features of a passage from 2nd Thessalonians 2 suddenly appear to have some odd features to the modern reader, then understanding the historical, literary, and linguistic context goes a long way in clearing up the oddity. In particular, a term appears that seems to carry a little more weight than other words in the passage–the lawless man. Some say that the religious and historical context demand that the term be seen as a proper noun. Jews had been interpreting Daniel's visions for quite some time as being a predictor of an end of the age scenario in which someone would blaspheme the Most High so horrendously that it would trigger the sequence of events for the end of time. If that's the case, then the term becomes The Man of Lawlessness. Once the term takes on proper noun status, then one can start to see connections between it and other proper noun references in other parts of the Bible. Daniel's 4th beast (ch.7) and Revelation's ten-horned beast (ch.13) seem to line up with a Man of Lawlessness because all 3 proper nouns blaspheme the name of the Almighty.
Other intepretations for this important term appear later this week.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Using natural human behavior
Accountability is a word the business and educational fields know a considerable amount. It is also found among the Christians that lived in Thessalonica. In chapter 3, the writer remarks, "If someone doesn't want to abide by what I have highlighted in this letter, then the rest of you should ostracize him so that he should feel ashamed. You shouldn't hate this person like you would an enemy, but you should send a message of clear warning like you would for a brother or sister" (verses 14,15).
In business and education people get chastised by having their pay docked, or by being suspended for a while, or by having a certification or license revoked, or by being fired. When people deal with a brother or sister whose life has spun out of control, that is, he or she shows blatant disregard for sound Biblical principles, then they have to find a way to send a clear message of warning to that person. That method may not be in the same way as this writer outlines, but some way needs to exist. Since business and educational principles and customs were different in Roman times from today, then probably showing distance from a brother or sister will not be shown in the same way as in this letter from Roman times. Even so, people use ostracism all the time—from elementary grades up to send messages to others.
Perhaps, the clear point of the passage is to shun someone with the intent to warn or advise rather than the intent to hate or "write off completely."
In business and education people get chastised by having their pay docked, or by being suspended for a while, or by having a certification or license revoked, or by being fired. When people deal with a brother or sister whose life has spun out of control, that is, he or she shows blatant disregard for sound Biblical principles, then they have to find a way to send a clear message of warning to that person. That method may not be in the same way as this writer outlines, but some way needs to exist. Since business and educational principles and customs were different in Roman times from today, then probably showing distance from a brother or sister will not be shown in the same way as in this letter from Roman times. Even so, people use ostracism all the time—from elementary grades up to send messages to others.
Perhaps, the clear point of the passage is to shun someone with the intent to warn or advise rather than the intent to hate or "write off completely."
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Image making
Image is everything so society says. Perception, right or wrong, is reality. Some could argue that such a world would be hard to live in. But, really, such a world has been around a very long time. In 2nd Thessalonians 3, the writer chastises a group of people who leach off of others. He calls them irresponsible and undisciplined. He even calls for the other Christians in Thessalonica not to associate with the undiscipined group in order to shame them (verse 14).
Why? Because he knew that the Thessalonians were God's "firstfruits" in Macedonia (2.13). It was important for the non-Christians in Thessalonica to see the splendor of God in people who were "not tired of doing good" (3.13). Image and right perception were important. Christians should show their understanding of the spiritual dimension and their great trust in a message they considered "the truth" (2.13). Thus, bad press from Christians within the group could not be tolerated.
Why? Because he knew that the Thessalonians were God's "firstfruits" in Macedonia (2.13). It was important for the non-Christians in Thessalonica to see the splendor of God in people who were "not tired of doing good" (3.13). Image and right perception were important. Christians should show their understanding of the spiritual dimension and their great trust in a message they considered "the truth" (2.13). Thus, bad press from Christians within the group could not be tolerated.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Getting off my duff
Doing nothing feels good on occasion. But I have had those stretches of days when I tried to sit around, not doing any physical labor, getting so bored with TV that I couldn't take another second of the small screen. I couldn't sleep because I wasn't tired and I just wanted to have the life of Riley. But the reason doing nothing feels good is that I am resting from my labor.
This concept is at the heart of a play on words by Paul. In two back to back verses (11 and 12) of 2nd Thessalonians chapter 3, the writer shows an attitude toward those who are living "undisciplined" lives among the Christians. In verse 11 he says that these undisciplined people are not working, yet they are working hard at doing absolutely nothing. The writer's disdain is easily discernible. In verse 12, he "urges and encourages such irresponsible people... to eat their own bread, but only after they rest from working." Sarcasm characterizes the writer's attitude here.
Perhaps the distaste that the writer expresses here is something we should take note of. I think most people do work for a living without trying to leach off of someone else. However, I think all people have areas in which they are negligent. Maybe one should hear this passage say, "Get up off your duff and accomplish something in the area in which we know we are remiss." If one hears disdain and sarcasm for doing nothing in an area he knows that he should be productive in due to a gift from God or in an area in which he has been given an opportunity, then maybe one should not have peace in his spirit, but turmoil as a sign that he should get off his duff.
Fortuantely, the chapter closes with an appeal to Jesus or God, "May the Lord of peace himself grant you peace all the time in every way." I personally take this to heart. If I find myself not able to enjoy this wish, then I try to figure out a reason why I don't have peace. Usually I can restore my peace by getting off my duff and doing what God has set before me to do.
This concept is at the heart of a play on words by Paul. In two back to back verses (11 and 12) of 2nd Thessalonians chapter 3, the writer shows an attitude toward those who are living "undisciplined" lives among the Christians. In verse 11 he says that these undisciplined people are not working, yet they are working hard at doing absolutely nothing. The writer's disdain is easily discernible. In verse 12, he "urges and encourages such irresponsible people... to eat their own bread, but only after they rest from working." Sarcasm characterizes the writer's attitude here.
Perhaps the distaste that the writer expresses here is something we should take note of. I think most people do work for a living without trying to leach off of someone else. However, I think all people have areas in which they are negligent. Maybe one should hear this passage say, "Get up off your duff and accomplish something in the area in which we know we are remiss." If one hears disdain and sarcasm for doing nothing in an area he knows that he should be productive in due to a gift from God or in an area in which he has been given an opportunity, then maybe one should not have peace in his spirit, but turmoil as a sign that he should get off his duff.
Fortuantely, the chapter closes with an appeal to Jesus or God, "May the Lord of peace himself grant you peace all the time in every way." I personally take this to heart. If I find myself not able to enjoy this wish, then I try to figure out a reason why I don't have peace. Usually I can restore my peace by getting off my duff and doing what God has set before me to do.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Pricetags
Every adult knows that sometimes in life a law from thermodynamics is seen—for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. In other words, there is a price to pay for the action. To whatever degree I acted, the reaction is equal. Kindness could actually be mistrusted to the degree it was given, or evil could be counter-acted to the degree it was experienced.
The writer's experience must have been the same when he penned 2nd Thessalonians 1.6-9, which records the opposite but equal reaction of God for those who lifted a hand against Christians innocently living out their decent, everyday lives. These words were recorded, "After all, God is being just when he repays your oppressors with His oppression. You will gain relief from being oppressed, as will we, when the Lord Jesus appears from Heaven with his powerful angels against a backdrop of flaming fire. He will take his vengence on those who are completely ignoring the fabulous story of our Lord Jesus. Eternal destruction is the price they pay because they cannot be in the Lord's presence nor enjoy the awe of His splendor."
Now, that's a steep price to pay—absent from the Lord's presence and trading splendor for destruction. Fortunately for the believers in Thessalonica, the vengence God took was on behalf of those who suffered for the Kingdom of God. It was evidence that God considered them worthy (verse 5). With about 30 years left in this life, I know it is high time for me to consider pricetags whenever I act. If I find myself as an oppressor in any shape, form or fashion against a fellow believer, I bend my knees and ask for forgiveness.
The writer's experience must have been the same when he penned 2nd Thessalonians 1.6-9, which records the opposite but equal reaction of God for those who lifted a hand against Christians innocently living out their decent, everyday lives. These words were recorded, "After all, God is being just when he repays your oppressors with His oppression. You will gain relief from being oppressed, as will we, when the Lord Jesus appears from Heaven with his powerful angels against a backdrop of flaming fire. He will take his vengence on those who are completely ignoring the fabulous story of our Lord Jesus. Eternal destruction is the price they pay because they cannot be in the Lord's presence nor enjoy the awe of His splendor."
Now, that's a steep price to pay—absent from the Lord's presence and trading splendor for destruction. Fortunately for the believers in Thessalonica, the vengence God took was on behalf of those who suffered for the Kingdom of God. It was evidence that God considered them worthy (verse 5). With about 30 years left in this life, I know it is high time for me to consider pricetags whenever I act. If I find myself as an oppressor in any shape, form or fashion against a fellow believer, I bend my knees and ask for forgiveness.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
"Much virtue in grandfathers"
Once I saw mountains angry,
And ranged in battle-front.
Against them stood a little man;
Aye, he was no bigger than my finger.
I laughed, and spoke to one near me,
"Will he prevail?"
"Surely," replied this other;
"His grandfathers beat them many times."
Then did I see much virtue in grandfathers,—
At least, for the little man
Who stood against the mountains.
Stephen Crane
There have been a number of occasions when a circumstance arose that I have thought of my father and how he would have handled a situation or would have commented on how I handled a situation. I was blessed to have him around 77 years. His comments and vivid images still invade my conscious awareness on important occasions. Just such an occasion is leading a class on Sunday mornings. Dad approached leading a class with the idea that everyone would benefit and we would feel unified in spirit as believers. In the past leading a class meant something different to me. I'm sure people spoke to each other saying, "Do you think he will ever conquer never including the spirit of unity in his leadings?" And I hope that God spoke to their hearts saying, "He'll come around. His father was all about unity in Christ." I thank God for his sticking with me through the years allowing me time to see much virtue in (grand)fathers, at least for me, a little man who stood against the mountain of detachment from family.
And ranged in battle-front.
Against them stood a little man;
Aye, he was no bigger than my finger.
I laughed, and spoke to one near me,
"Will he prevail?"
"Surely," replied this other;
"His grandfathers beat them many times."
Then did I see much virtue in grandfathers,—
At least, for the little man
Who stood against the mountains.
Stephen Crane
There have been a number of occasions when a circumstance arose that I have thought of my father and how he would have handled a situation or would have commented on how I handled a situation. I was blessed to have him around 77 years. His comments and vivid images still invade my conscious awareness on important occasions. Just such an occasion is leading a class on Sunday mornings. Dad approached leading a class with the idea that everyone would benefit and we would feel unified in spirit as believers. In the past leading a class meant something different to me. I'm sure people spoke to each other saying, "Do you think he will ever conquer never including the spirit of unity in his leadings?" And I hope that God spoke to their hearts saying, "He'll come around. His father was all about unity in Christ." I thank God for his sticking with me through the years allowing me time to see much virtue in (grand)fathers, at least for me, a little man who stood against the mountain of detachment from family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
