A lot of people followed Jesus around because He fed them.

There’s nothing wrong with that, especially if you’re hungry. But He was trying to tell them that they needed to start chewing on something else too:

“Jesus…said, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not [then] work for the food which perishes, but for the food which remains [with you] for the purpose of achieving eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you all. For the Father—God, sealed this [One].'” [Jn. 6:26-27] [my emphasis]

So then, it seems there are two things necessary to sustain and preserve me—one of which I don’t necessarily get at supper time. Consuming too much of the one will eventually destroy me. On the other hand, there can be no limit to the ingestion of the Other.

The next question from the crowd was predictable:

“Therefore they said to Him, ‘What should we be doing in order that we might be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God: That you would be [continually] believing in the One whom He has sent.’” [Jn. 6:28-29] [my emphasis]

[πιστεύω: (pîs-tyū’-ōh) to believe, put one’s faith in, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow]

The force of grammar is at work here. The Greek verb πιστεύω is recorded as a Present Participle, meaning that the action described was to be understood as an ongoing process rather than a single event in time. Many translations fail to bring that crucial point across.

Another thing to remember is that πιστεύω [faith] would be an act of no consequence without the practice [or work] of obedience as well. [see: Ja. 2:20] If I choose not to act on my faith, my faith has no foundation. I’m practicing lawlessness.

Christ’s answer sometimes confounds me still.

So my work as His disciple is all about believing? I know it’s not always supposed to be that easy.

But is it really that simple?

Sexual distinction has become irrelevant in a world gone mad.

But if men and women don’t realize the extent of God’s intentions for creating that difference, then it’s impossible for them to live in obedience to Him. That’s why it’s so important for them to appropriate their sexuality and demonstrate it in the manner He intended for them to. 

So how are they supposed to do that? 

To begin with, a man is entrusted with an obligation to fulfill his office of reflecting the glory of God:

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God.” [1Cor. 7a]  [my emphasis]

An office is different from a role, being an assignment given with no option to renounce. While men and women are equal in His eyes, their roles aren’t necessarily set in stone. Roles are sometimes disregarded or exchanged for any number of practical reasons. 

What about a woman’s office?

She’s also an imager of her Creator, “… but the woman is the glory of man.  For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed, man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”” [1Cor. 11:7b-9]  [my emphasis]

[δόξα: (dôć-sâh) glory, splendor, grandeur, power, kingdom, praise, honor; pride brightness, brilliance; revealed presence of God, God himself]

These are the words of the apostle Paul written to the assembly in Corinth, including“…all in every place who [were] calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ…” 

It seems to me that men and women reflect their respective glories most effectively by seeking to accomplish the Lord’s intended methods for doing just that. However, it’s likely they’ll never hear how it’s supposed to happen by listening to sermons. 

But, if I choose to actually read for myself, maybe I can recognize the common thread throughout the Bible which reveals how femininity has always been expressed as a typical responsive attribute in the presence of God since day one. Perhaps then I’ll be able to recognize just how that dynamic is being perverted today. [see: Gen. 1-3, Prov. 8]

God: the Creator=Masculine

Creation: responds to the Creator=Feminine

All of creation acknowledges the Creator in aggregate as a feminine response to Him, which would also include the man when he acts in that corporate capacity. But a man’s gender-specific office was never intended to be negotiable. 

So, when we place women—instead of men, in leadership situations that are necessary to reflect the glory of God, we’re placing the glory of man above the glory of God, i.e., the creation above the Creator.

What are we thinking?

We hear the 23rd Psalm a lot at funerals.

It’s always read with the best of intentions. But how relevant is it to being dead? Because every line seems to embolden my confidence about living rather than dying.

King David was a shepherd. He was fairly straightforward with his words:

“The Lord is my shepherd…” It’s from this term that the word “pastor” has evolved. A shepherd takes care of his flock. He guides it, feeds and provides water for it and protects it. But if I’m dead, I don’t really need any of that stuff.

I need it now.

The symbolic references using animal husbandry illustrate a few of life’s marvels. Green grass turns the earth into edible muscle tissue and wool. And while it’s not true that sheep won’t drink from a stream that’s flowing, they’re certainly more comfortable sipping still water. [v.2]

In ancient Palestine, a shepherd would seek out flat areas on the side of a mountain for his flock to bed down for the evening. These were often very isolated and provided good protection from predators. They were called tables. [v.5]

Another thought. Short of being raised from the dead, how could I become any more righteous in that state? Righteousness is a goal sought in life. [v.3]

Not only that, I walk through valleys of “deep darkness” [literally translated] every day fearlessly when I allow the Spirit to lead me. [v.4] On the other hand, how could I fear anything in death if my thoughts have perished? [Psa. 146:3-4]

But perhaps the most convincing texts are also the most encouraging to the living, breathing soul. A literal translation of verse 6 in the Septuagint reads:

“And Your mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, even [for] me to dwell in the house of [the] Lord for [a long] length of days.” [my emphasis]

I won’t need any mercy in death. I need it now. The Lord’ temple—or house, is now His Body. I am a part of that Body. He dwells there.

So do I.

Hopefully for a long length of days.

What’s not to love about the law?

Every legitimate law we subject ourselves to today has its basis in the laws the Lord God gave to men for their own benefit and protection.

Societal order and justice cannot prevail without it. For that reason, moral men make moral laws and try to adhere to them. So then, the law is good and always has been.

[Law: “That which is laid down, ordained or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.” [Black’s 1st Law Dictionary, 1891]

But the misadministration of the law often conceals the worthiness of its force. If the law isn’t applied the way it’s supposed to be, we’re inclined to start thinking the law isn’t good.

The solution, of course, would be to somehow gain the necessary knowledge and vigilance to enforce the proper administration of the law. Because if it’s discharged accurately, the law is always on the side of the man who seeks righteousness.

But perhaps the bottom line is that I can’t actually love the law unless I love God. The Psalmists did:

“The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul…the judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.” [Psa. 19:7a-9b]

“I shall delight in Your commandments which I love, and I shall lift up my hands to your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on Your statutes.” [Psa. 119:47-48]

“O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day!” [Psa. 119:97]

“I hate and despise falsehood, but I love Your law.” [Psa. 119:163]

“I long for Your salvation, O LORD, and Your law is my delight.” [Psa. 119:174]

I encourage every man who loves the laws the Lord has given him to drain the murky water which is obscuring the relevance of those laws in his life. It’s not easy, because too often the goal of unchecked administration is to keep that water cloudy.

So be careful throwing out what’s left.

You’re liable to throw out what you really love right along with it.

“For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” [Psa. 1:6]

Sometimes Jesus uses dirt to define us.

His parable about the sower who planted seeds under different growing conditions confirmed that His disciples shall be rewarded on the basis of productivity. But apparently, not everybody in the large crowds was actually listening.

Maybe that’s why He said, “He who has ears, let him hear!” when He’d finished speaking. [Matt. 13:1-9]

But why did He wait until the end to say this? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to preface His story with this announcement?

The text gives the reader some insight. Some people came up to talk to Him afterward. The author, Matthew, described them as disciples [μαθητής: (mâ-thāy-tāy’s) disciple, pupil, follower]. They asked Him why He spoke to “them” [the crowds] in a parable. His answer was very revealing:

“To you [all] it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he shall have an abundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.” [vss. 10-12]

[ἔχω: (ê’-kō) transitive: have, hold, possess, keep, receive, get, regard, consider, think, can, be able]

Who answered the invitation to “hear” after the parable? His disciples. Not the crowds. That’s what made them disciples. What was Jesus “granting” them to know? The mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens—a part of which He went on to describe in more detail to them a few sentences later. [vss. 18-23]

Most importantly though, His disciples had something the crowds didn’t.

The Greek verb ἔχω had a very broad range of meanings. Though intransitive in form here, a direct object is nevertheless implied. As noted above, sometimes it defined an attitude which sought possession of something very valuable. It was often recorded having a strong semantical connection to belief.

There’s your object.

And the disciples weren’t about to let go of it.

The apostle Paul wasn’t a church planter.

He didn’t travel all over Palestine and Asia with a goal of expanding membership or to help generate building funds for the congregations of Jesus Christ’s assemblies.

Nor did he develop personal career goals only to surface over time, conflicting with the purposes Jesus had described for him at his conversion.

But he was a disciple maker.

He was, in that sense, just a man—a man who learned to adapt to every circumstance he found himself in. A man who ultimately took the skills he spent years learning and the wisdom he had acquired and pointed them in the right direction.

But that opportunity didn’t just fall into his lap.

In his letter to all the saints in Christ Jesus who [were] in Philippi, he described a learned process which became instrumental to becoming a powerful witness and teacher of the good news given to the Gentiles:

“Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be self-sufficient in whatever circumstances I exist. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every [circumstance] I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all [things] through Him who strengthens me.” [Phil. 4:11-13] [my emphasis]

The man of God learns how to effect discipleship based on the conditions of the road he travels on. He anticipates the lean times while, at the same time, he waits patiently to partake of the fat of good fortune.

He may not be the captain of the ship, but he’s definitely the pilot.

He’s an any and every kind of guy.

I am the property of Jesus Christ, and only in Him is my value computed.

And, since property value is determined by statute to be based upon its “highest and best use,” then perhaps His suffering and death provide the necessary transactional evidence of my incalculable worth in His eyes, justifying any application of that use for His purposes.

By illustrating the worth of the individual, I can also demonstrate two important principles of Common Law. Property has value. And the ability to own it is an inherent, substantive right which cannot be denied or converted to a privilege.

But unfortunately, the right to own property has lost its value in the minds of most men today.

There are any number of reasons why, but they all lead back to a very successful series of social engineering schemes to try to eliminate any earned satisfaction a man might get from possessing and enjoying the pursuits of his labor.

But God is just, and He hates the unlawful confiscation of wealth.

That’s why every war He ever created or commanded His people to fight was ultimately over land rights. While the extermination of evil was often a means, the end game was always the same—for men to possess durable title to their own private property in order to subsist and to also partake in the procurement of gain.

It was a big deal to Him. That’s why it should be to us.

Because land is only His to give, not anybody else’s. And, at the end of the day, He decides who’ll have it and who won’t.

“…for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.” [Gen. 13:15, God’s words to Abraham]

In fact, private property was important enough that His laws reflected the value of a human life not yet fully realized:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” [Exod. 21:22-23]

While an unborn child certainly amounted to more than an unactualized asset, it was indeed that as well. A fetus may not be property, but its existence confirms any potential a father might have for acquiring resources as a result of its birth.

Whether real or even anticipated, life reflects value. To not recognize that is to deny any right to impute it.

That’s walking on thin ice.

The Revelation given to the apostle John is very specific about who it’s written to.

Yet, many who claim to belong to Jesus Christ are taught that this prophecy can be readily interpreted and applied to their lives merely on the basis of their affiliation with a particular congregation or religious doctrine.

But the first sentence confirms the intended audience: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place…” [Rev. 1:1, NASB Translation] [my emphasis]

[δοῦλος: (doo-lôs) noun; meaning as a slave]

I like the NASB Translation’s use of the word “bond-servant” here, since the term “slave” can have different contexts. But to get a true understanding of the New Testament authors’ vision of what it actually meant to be a slave [or bondservant] to the Lord, I might want to look closely at the first ordinance that He gave to His people through Moses at Mt. Sinai:

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him as a slave permanently into the age [often translated as ‘forever‘].” [Ex. 21:2-6] [my emphasis]

This phrase, “serve him as a slave,” is actually a verb derived from the same cognate noun “δοῦλος” noted above which is also recorded in the Septuagint and throughout the rest of the Greek New Testament. There were plenty of other terms to define slavery and servitude that are used in either of the original languages of the Bible.

But in the mind of every New Testament author, a δοῦλος was a special kind of servant. He wasn’t bound against his will in the service of debt, or a child who waited upon his elders. He brought his bondage upon himself.

He was driven by his love for his master and he was all in.

Are you?

Empty spaces always trigger unnatural responses.

We proved this in a High School science lab experiment. Having sealed a two-foot glass tube on either end with cork and electrodes, and then creating a vacuum inside the tube, a visible current of electricity could jump from one end of the tube to the other because of the electrons ability to flow unimpeded in that environment.

I’ve never forgotten this phenomenon. In fact, I’ve witnessed the same principle unfold repeatedly over the years, especially from a Biblical perspective.

Leadership is a role reserved for and best discharged by men and fathers. Groups consisting of women exclusively or that include children would be the exception, of course. Men simply cannot lead as effectively as women in those situations.

Yet women are appointed to lead young men in the Boy Scouts. Females have been designated to lead soldiers in various capacities of the armed forces. Women are welcomed into the ranks of municipal compliance positions, some even elected as sheriffs. Many corporations [municipal and private] seek the diversity of female CEO’s while wives and attractive young ladies are elected to serve as the peoples’ voice at every level of jurisdiction and legislation. Even young females are sought to fill the roles of pastors and elders in our congregations.

So why is this happening?

Because, by their absence, men are creating a vacuum that must otherwise be filled for things to function as our Creator intended, and women are being encouraged to step up and take the baton as a result. And it’s often a situation where they have no choice.

So it’s hardly a feminine scheme to turn the tables of tradition.

But vacuums don’t just happen. More often than not, they’re concocted as a means for dismantling the Creator’s design of sexual distinction. My science experiment was the result of a lot of planning and manipulation.

These attempts would be ineffective for the most part if they met ample resistance. Many men inherently seek and assume the Biblical leadership role, but have unwittingly been conditioned to help facilitate a destructive global agenda over the decades.

As a result, the Lord’s creation mandate has been subverted. [Gen. 2:15-17]

What will it take to get the tube opened again?