Being a teachable man is both humbling and enlightening.

I was recently at a basketball game where my grandchildren attend a private Christian school. As I’d noticed before, the bleachers weren’t packed with parents and other supporters from either team. It saddened me, because the volume of energy that’s evident at most public school sporting events just wasn’t there.

And everyone understands why. It costs extra money to go here. So there’s that.

But my sorrow quickly turned into resentment.

I kept asking myself, why does it have to be this way? The parents and other taxpayers of school districts should have the option to designate funds otherwise assessed them by the counties for education to an institution of their choice.

And what about the kids themselves? Why should they be denied the provision of principled instruction—something that’s clearly circling the drain in public schools everywhere?

Then it hit me.

Any institution of learning will eventually reflect the values of those who ultimately underwrite its objectives. So, would it be prudent for a private Christian school to accept tuition from parents who aren’t convinced that a Biblically based curriculum is an effective solution to their moral dilemma?

Think about it.

If there were a massive influx of their tax dollars into private education, wouldn’t it be just a matter of time before those institutions evolved into the same contaminated environments they’d be running away from? While it’s true that some faithless young minds can indeed be transformed under these circumstances, wouldn’t the Biblical objectives of the school still be jeopardized in the process?

Because I also recalled the apostle Paul’s allusion to the prophet Jeremiah [Jer. 51:45] when he warned the congregations in Corinth to set themselves apart from the rest of the world:

Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean, and I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.” [2Cor. 6:17-18]

[Why is it important not to be yoked with an unbeliever? see:A Sufficient Degree of Separation]

I was humbled. What I thought would be the solution for His people actually isn’t. It hadn’t occurred to me that these kids don’t have to have all that unbridled noise and attention. It’s okay that their uniforms are sometimes incomplete, shared and often mismatched for lack of funding. In fact, they don’t need anything He hasn’t already given them.

That’s the way He works, not us.

For the sheep who hear His voice, He has revealed that the cost of “coming out from among them” is never too high. For others, it’s simply not worth it.

The faithful sheep outside His pen will eventually find their way through the gate, though.

But if the doors are opened too wide, the wolves can get in.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” [Isa. 55:8-9]

Weeping and gnashing my teeth is something I hope to avoid in the future.

Not just because it sounds like an unpleasant situation to me, but because Jesus Christ Himself warned His disciples [at least] seven times that this condition would be the plight of the wicked, the faithless and those who commit lawlessness. [see: Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30; Lk. 13:28]

However, these Gospel texts clearly illustrate that His warnings were spoken for the benefit of those who belonged to Him, not those who rejected Him.

Think about that.

Even as one who has been saved [or redeemed] by God’s grace, I’m not immune to suffering agonizing remorse one day for any of my unrepentant conduct in this age.

[What does it mean to be ‘redeemed?’ see: Different fruit, Same Good News.]

What’s interesting, though, is that the narrative in each of these passages listed above concludes with the translated adverbial phrase “in that place,” indicating a specific location where all the weeping and gnashing is destined to occur when Christ’s thousand year reign begins upon His return to the Earth.

[Greek: ἐκεῖ: (ê-kãy) there, in that place; there, to that place]

That means that, depending upon which of Jesus’ parables I’m reading, “in that place,” could be “outer darkness,” or “a furnace of fire,” or even “a place with the hypocrites.” But I can’t find any way to consolidate these places into a common venue.

On the other hand, there are some doctrinal conclusions I can draw from these texts:

1. First and foremost, my redeemed state doesn’t exempt me from accountable conduct before the Lord and other men.
2. The Biblical context of weeping and the gnashing of teeth implies self-imposed regret, not a direct response to pain inflicted externally.
3. None of these places Jesus talked about, either alone or in combination with the others, represent a setting some of Christ’s people choose to call “Hell.” The Bible itself reveals that a just, loving God will never torture perpetually, but He will allow us to perish.

Any sermon suggesting that there can be behavioral consequences for Christ’s people in the coming age is likely to be a hard sell for building and maintaining membership in our congregations. The financial risks seem to prohibit such candor when communicating the word of God.

So, if His disciple doesn’t want to find himself “in that place,” someday, maybe he should place himself around a table with other Gospel-hungry men now and start studying the Bible.

It’s never too late.

“Have you understood all these things?” They said to Him, “Yes.” [Matt. 13:51]

Do you give much thought to the process of being resurrected back to life?

Or do you prefer to simply rely on the veracity of God’s promises?  After all, why would you need to know all the details?   Maybe you don’t, but the apostle Paul seemed to think that an inquiring mind was justified:

“But someone will say, ‘How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?’”  [1Cor. 15:35, from his letter to the church of God which (was) at Corinth]

What’s interesting here is that, by describing a principle of botanical morphology, Paul was trying to convince some of the Corinthian doubters that a resurrection not only shall happen, but also how it’ll happen:

“Foolish [one]l! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” [1Cor. 15:36]

While a seed sown in the ground doesn’t actually die, much of its protective coating which keeps it from perishing before planting does indeed deteriorate in the soil.  This outcome is typical for any form of organic matter which is either dead or dormant and exposed to the decomposition processes which are always present in the earth—including human bodies. 

The miracle is that, whether seed or flesh, something new and original can emerge out of that which otherwise exhibits no evidence of life. 

However, the realization of this process is always subject to the condition of what is buried.  If a seed is to germinate in the soil, it must be planted properly in good condition when it’s sown.  It has no control over its ability to be regenerated.  That ability is wholly dependent upon the actions of its steward/sower.  

On the other hand, every human body is sown in a corrupted state, making it vulnerable to complete decay. [1Cor. 15:42-44]    Accordingly, I am the steward of my seed [or flesh] which shall one day be “planted” in the ground.  For this reason, I’ll never be able to reap what I sow into it, because it’ll all perish right along with me. [see: Psa. 49:7-13; Gal. 6:7-8]

But, if I choose to sow seeds into the fertile domain of the Spirit, I shall indeed reap abundantly from it even though, on that day, I’ll cease to exist and my flesh will begin to deteriorate.  What remains of me will, however, lie in the guardianship of the Lord—my Steward in death, until such time as He decides to re-animate it in a new and refreshing way! [see: Psa. 16:8-11; Rom. 8:38-39]

It won’t be one I’m familiar with, but it’ll never rot in the ground again. [1Cor. 15:37, 54-55]

So bring it on. 

“…but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  [1Cor. 15:57]

These days, it’s not enough just to realize instinctively that God created men and women to be different in many ways.  

Because if I don’t understand His purposes for doing that, then I’m more vulnerable to accepting the lies today that are subverting His authority to define sexual distinction.

The creation account recorded in the Book of Genesis is a wellspring of information around which a husband and wife should build their marriage according to its Designer’s intended specifications.  And perhaps the first thing to grasp about men and women is that they were devised to be one or the other. No human being ever was born with a design flaw allowing for his gender-specific features or inclinations to be altered.

But, more importantly, both sexes are created equally in God’s image.  Neither is more precious than the other to Him.

They are, however, made for different things.  

While both were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and to rule and subdue over the earth [Gen. 1:27-28], the first man, Adam, was created before Eve and the Lord commanded him to tend over the Garden of Eden. [Gen. 2:15] Then, He created Eve and gave her as a gift to Adam to be a helper. [Gen. 2:21-23]  Accordingly, the apostle Paul reminded the church at Corinth that the woman was created for the man’s sake. [1Cor. 11:9]

This is just one reason that the responsibility for headship is established in the male rather than the female. 

As such, the man was created to be an initiator—the woman, a responder.  The man is tasked by his Creator to prepare himself with strength to maintain, rule, lead, protect and improve what’s in his domain. In the same way, the Scriptures place a woman in a role which acknowledges the man’s authority within the domain the Lord created for him—even though she is the mistress of her own domain! Biblical domain is defined as a relevant area or field of responsibility assigned by God.

However, some roles are not gender-specific from a Biblical perspective.

Because both men and women can have gifts and perform roles which don’t reflect the traditional expectations of a particular culture. But, since men and women are fundamentally different, each have been charged with positions of authority and responsibility and are bound to those gender-specific roles on the basis of their sex. For this reason, a man’s headship role [or authority] should always be applied in a sense of “being” rather than in actual performance.  More importantly though, it should never be abdicated or appropriated by anyone.  

But there’s something else that perfects the human experience.

Just as a man is entrusted with headship authority, a woman is also responsible for her designated role to complete the created station of a man by being his helper. [Gen. 2:18]  For, as anyone can read, the solitary state of the first man, Adam, wasn’t “good” in the Lord’s eyes until He formed Eve and brought her to him.

So, I think it’s critical for all men and women to understand that the created man is wholly incomplete without the presence of the responsive temperament of a woman. A woman doesn’t just make the man complete, she makes the creation complete.

The Lord’s wisdom is magnificent if we will allow ourselves to see it.

“An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.” [Prov. 31:10]

Is a little knowledge always a dangerous thing?

Probably not. But if I actually think the texts of the Bible are fluid documents—that is, rehashed, redrafted versions of the original languages, then I’m only fooling myself.

The history I present here is meant to encourage Jesus Christ’s disciple to seek a fuller understanding of God’s written word by acquiring the skills to help him do just that. But truth isn’t a gift that just falls out of the sky. Learning to pursue it is a skill that has to be developed like anything else.

If it’s not, even the most faithful disciple can be easily deceived.

One of the most flagrant lies about the reliability of Bible texts is one that seems innocent enough to be believable. While often cited from a pagan perspective, the idea that what was originally recorded in the Scriptures has somehow been “lost in the translations” over the millennia is also endorsed in some circles of the Christian community—including at least one [formerly] well-respected textual critic!

This logic appeals to an element of common sense in all of us. The first guy copies the original, and the second guy copies that copy…and so on and so forth over a period of four thousand years. So, if I inject human error into the equation, it’s natural to assume that much of what was first written has morphed into something quite different today.

But there’s one big problem with this theory.

Even though no original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament letters and narratives [for example] are known to exist, our translations today are carefully refined periodically and rendered out of a multitude of existing ancient manuscripts—-some which are very old, having been discovered in the past two-hundred years and are estimated to have been written as early as the second or third century, A.D.

There’s also another snag.

When someone argues that the Bible cannot be without error because there are several hundred thousand textual variants [or differences] among all the existing manuscripts, he’ll often forget to mention [or be wholly unaware] that nearly all of these discrepancies are typos, misspelled words and accent variations.

But as one who regularly translates the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition of the Greek New Testament and notes most differences listed in the textual apparatus, I can assure you that virtually none of these variants affect the intended meanings of the authors. What few inconsistencies exist are often the result of translational bias instead.

The same could be said about the many translations in use today. Some are more literal than others, but, for the most part, they all say the same thing.

The bottom line is that, with scholars and textual critics having over 5000 of these ancient manuscripts [and many more corroborating fragments of them] at their disposal, the Scriptures are obviously the most documented collation of literature in history!

While all these documents may not match in form, they validate one another in bringing across the meaning and purpose of God’s written word.

He has made it happen!

God is certainly capable of causing anything He chooses to happen.

But if I believe my decisions don’t really matter because He has somehow predetermined how I’ll make them, then why would He demand my love and obedience at the same time?

What would be the point?

If the sequence of my entire life has already been programmed in advance, there’d be no need for me to develop any type of calculative process for making decisions or judgements. And without this competence to express emotional or intellectual preferences, I’d have neither the inclination nor the ability to love the One who created me for that very purpose!

Here’s something else to consider.

God created every man [and woman] in His own image. [Gen. 1:27] This means that, simply by virtue of having been born, I was made to reflect His Divine image. That image wasn’t earned or developed, like muscles and character are. It’s my purpose for being alive. And, since I’m a descendant of the first man, Adam, I’m also an imager of God. So, I also have been given a mandate to rule and subdue the Earth. [Gen. 1:28]

How, then, can I accomplish such a thing without making free will decisions?

I can’t.

Because to be obedient is to make choices. And the God who created me for the purpose of seeking fellowship with Him and others is well aware that love cannot sustain itself in a relational vacuum. Emotional awareness is what recognizes the potential of any relationship, and intentional love is what we demonstrate to confirm the real value of it.

A man’s will is the only mechanism by which he can choose to love anything.

How can God intervene in such a crucial process?

Jesus made it very clear that He wouldn’t play second fiddle to anyone.

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.” [Lk. 14:26-27] [my emphasis]

[μισέω: hate, despise; disregard, be indifferent to]

On the other hand, He never suggested that any of His disciples arbitrarily loath their family members either. He did, rather, use hyperbole often enough to make His point. And this time, it was simply about prioritizing relationships.

But I think it’s not enough just to honor the commandments of a jealous God [Ex. 34:14, Deut. 4:24, 5:9, 6:15]. I also believe it’s important to understand why it’s necessary for Him to be that way.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines jealous as an adjective used to describe emotions which are “fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions.” The line between jealousy and covetousness is very visible here when we understand the latter as an unjustified or lawless desire.

So, even though both of these emotions emerge from a desire to satisfy a passion to either possess or connect with something or someone, jealously is the only defensible sentiment of the two, because it’s a legitimate response to protect rightful ownership.

And make no mistake, God is the rightful owner of the flock He purchases with His own Son’s blood. [Ac. 20:28; Rev. 5:9-10] But, remember, no man can be purchased against his will. Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me…” Why would He be “fiercely protective” of something He doesn’t own?

He owns me because I chose to love Him. And it seems to me that one way He reciprocates His love for me [His possession] is by being jealous if I don’t love Him more than life itself.

So, am I justified drawing the same jealous lines in the sand like Jesus did?

Only if I know how to love what’s rightfully mine.