THE DEVIL DIDN'T LIE!

"YES HE DID!" I can hear you shouting.  You have probably heard countless preachers tell you countless times that the Devil, Satan, the Serpent, Lucifer (whatever name you call him) lied to Eve in the Garden of Eden.  That is true.  So, how can I say he didn't lie?

Am I looking at the same Scriptures everyone else is looking at?  Yes.  But I am looking at HOW Satan lied.

I recommend you read Genesis chapters 1 through 3 several times.  Pay attention to the details of Adam's creation, and compare that to the details of Eve's creation.  Also, compare what the Serpent said to what happened after Adam ate.

For the sake of time, I will include the relevant verses here that pertain to this discussion.

What Did God Say?

Genesis 1:26-31 NASB1995

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”  Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;  and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.  God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Let me summarize:

1. God intended to make man in his own image.

2. God intended for man to rule over nature.

3. God tells man to multiply and subdue nature.

4. God states that plants are food for man.

Genesis 2:16-17 NASB1995

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

5. God said they may eat the fruit of ANY tree, except, the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

What Did The Serpent and Eve Say?

Genesis 3:1-5 NASB1995

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”  The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’ ”  The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!  For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Again, a summary:

1. The Serpent asked a question.  He made no statement.  In one sense, you could say he was asking for a clarification.  His wording matched what God said, up to a point.  So, he only asked a simple question, unless... We will get to that later.

2. Eve restated what God said, except for two differences.

She added, "or touch it."  Where did that come from?  I can think of only three sources, God, Adam, or her own imagination.  I'm not sure which is right, but I have my doubts about the first two.

Instead of saying, "for surely," like God said, she simply said, "or."

3.  The Serpent did directly contradict God.  He added something that should have been obvious, that they would have knowledge of good and evil, if they ate from that tree.  But, was that the lie?

What Happened?

Genesis 3:6-7 NASB1995

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.  Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Did they die?  We see later in Genesis that Adam died when he was over 900 years old.  So, death was not immediate.

Or was it?

God said, "...IN the day you eat, you will die."  So, death was supposed to be immediate.  Yet, they didn't die - physically.

How else could they have died?

The Other Way To Die or Live

Genesis 2:7 NASB1995

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

We all have read though this verse, and not given it much thought.  We have treated this like a single event.  But, this verse tells us about three events that compose a single episode.

First, we see God forming man's body from dust.  So, of the three parts of man listed towards the end of 1st Thessalonians, spirit, soul, and body, Adam existed only of a body, at first.

Next, we see God breathing life into man.  In Hebrew, one word means means 'breath,' 'wind,' and 'spirit.'. So, God put a spirit inside Adam's body.

Finally, Adam becomes a living being.  But, what kind of being?  The Hebrew word rendered here as 'being' can also be translated as 'soul.'  What is a soul?  A soul is a self, with a mind, emotions, and a will.

So, God created Adam a living soul.  Why a living soul?

Remember the order of Adam's creation - body, then spirit, then soul.  Adam's soul did not exist until his spirit entered his body.  Where did his spirit come from?  Directly from God.  God saw Adam and Eve as spiritually alive beings.  When He said that they would die, He meant they would meant spiritually, not physically.

When, the Serpent said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die, he was speaking of physical death. On that point, he did not lie.

So, How Did The Serpent Lie?

He lied when he said, "you will be like God...”

He implied that she was not like God, and that God was hiding something from her.

The truth is, she was as much like God as any human could be, because she was created in His image.  Also, if she wanted to know about good and evil, all she had to do was ask.  James 1:5.

BUSINESS, OR MINISTRY?

Taken from my Facebook, first posted several years ago.

A recent post on social media has me concerned that many people treat ministry like it was business. While the two endeavors are similar, especially concerning logistics, acting as if ministry is just a business produces reduced and sometimes negative results.

   The post in question told the story of a man who presented himself as a "professional" soul winner. He showed up in a California city with a plan to get the whole town saved. He invited the city's pastors to a special meeting where he would present the plan to them.

   He displayed a large street map of the city and marked with push pins the location of each pastor's church building. He then drew a circle around each pin.

   Then he told the pastors that the people who lived in each circle were members of the congregation represented by the circle, and the pastors just need to go out and tell them.

   When I read that, I immediately recognized that it was a business plan, and not a ministry plan. It resembles the plan used by large corporations that have multiple locations in large cities; chains such as McDonald's, Quik Trip, Autozone, etc.

  The problem with this approach to ministry is that it shifts the focus of ministry from obedience to results, and the responsibility for results from spirit to flesh.

   I could go on about how often I see this happen, because I don't see the need to do that, but I will give one example. Years ago, a local Tulsa pastor spoke at a ham radio club meeting about applying church growth techniques to club growth. The methods he presented were the same as those used by businesses to recruit and retain new customers. Obviously, someone learned how to apply those business practices to congregational growth. Denominational organizations must have picked up those practices and taught them to their pastors.

   Now, I must state that God will bless and use any ministry effort that lines up with His will. How much He can use them depends on how much they line up with His will. The closer the alignment, the bigger the blessing.

   How should we conduct ministry? Let's look at what Jesus said and did.

   When Jesus called His first disciples, He said, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

   Before we consider what He said, let's look at what He didn't say.

   He didn't say, "I will make you soul winners." While you chew on that, look into the origin of the term "soul winner."

   He didn't say He would teach them the business of fishing, and how to apply those lessons to making converts. They were professional fishermen. They already knew how to catch and sell fish. What could a carpenter-turned-rabbi teach them about that? They knew He was talking about something beyond their daily lives of boats, nets, smelly fish, and spending hours out on the lake.

   In John chapter 3, Nicodemus wanted to know how Jesus was able to perform miracles, for might have wanted to work miracles too. Jesus talked about the New Birth instead of His success in ministry.

   Later on, in the Gospel of John, Jesus claimed that His teaching was not His own, it came from His Father, and He only did what He saw His Father do. When the people asked Jesus how to do the works of God, He said, "Believe on Him whom He has sent."

   We see throughout the Gospels that Jesus spent large amounts of time in prayer. That's how He was able to receive teaching, and to see what His Father was doing. When He said, "Follow Me," He meant, "Stay close to Me, as I stay close to My Father."

  When the Corinthian believers began to separate into groups based on their favorite preachers, he told them those preachers were merely servants through whom they believed, that one sowed, another watered, but God gave the increase. Paul did not take credit for the results of his ministry.

  What this all comes down to is this: the best approach to ministry is to pray and listen continuously, until God speaks. Then do what He says. While obeying, trust Him to provide whatever is needed to complete His plan, and continue to pray and listen in case He has further instructions.

Since then, I have learned that some ministers started their ministries with the intention of running them like businesses.  They turned worship services into entertainment without real ministry.  Megachurches would open up new campuses (campi?), just like franchises.  Angels cry "Holy! Holy! Holy!"  Posing pastors think, "Money! Money! Money!... MuuuuuhNEY!"

ENOUGH!!!

DOCTRINE BOMB! INCOMING!!!

Sometimes a false doctrine goes around like a battleship.  It sinks other ships, or attacks a coastal or island installation.  After it has done its damage, it returns to a friendly port for refuel, resupply, and repair.  While docked, command and crew assume the ship is safe.  But wait, what is that flying this way?  It's a doctrine bomb!

Well, I have seen a doctrine go around that has subtly caused damage by misdirecting focus.  What doctrine is that?  The doctrine that we can live by the faith of the Son Of God.

I know what Galatians 2:20 says in the King James, and the modern translations.  The KJV says "of," the recent versions say "in."  I wanted to see what the original Greek said.  I found out something surprising.  They are wrong!

What I found was that the Greek language does not have an equivalent to the English word 'of,' so it can't be there.  When I checked further, the Greek text does not say 'en,' the equivalent of 'in' either, so no word is there between 'faith' and 'Son.'  Now you see why I say that those translations are are wrong.

So the text should read like this:

Galatians 2:20 

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith _  the Son _ God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

What shall we put in the blanks?

I will admit that 'of' could fit between 'Son' and 'God.'  But the other blank presents a problem.

We could put in 'of,' but if we do, we should show it in italics to show that the word was the translator's choice.  How can we defend or explain that choice

What does 'of' mean anyway?  We usually use 'of' to indicate origin, possession, or nature.  Examples: 'man of steel' (nature), 'the heart of the matter' (possession), 'balm of Gilead' (origin).  Did Paul mean that he lived by faith that belonged to, or came from, or was made of Jesus?  I can't say for sure, but I can see danger in all these choices.  When I hear someone defend the KJV choice, they often speak in line with the New Thought based Word of Faith doctrine.  This doctrine emphasizes miracles, signs, and wonders, and minimizes salvation.  It also changes faith as a relationship feature into some mystical force that we can somehow manipulate or use to manipulate our environment.

I would favor 'in' for a very good reason.  Most people put their faith in their parents, their siblings, and their friends.

I see another option for filling in the blank.  It is not a word.  It is a punctuation mark, a colon.  That makes the phrase, "the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself up for me," into a statement, a confession of the faith Paul lived by.

We often forget the cultural environment that the Good News of Jesus was born in, and began to spread.  Most people grew up believing in many gods, and they saw their monarchs as gods, or descendents of gods.  They connected their gods to their homelands.  When one nation defeated another, they saw it as a victory of one god over another.  To prove one's citizenship and loyalty to one's god and country, they would confess their faith in their god.

When one expressed faith in a different god than the local god, they often faced opposition.  This could range from mild ridicule to death.  We can all read of the opposition Paul and the other early disciples faced.

Consider the following passages, and you can see they are, or contain, confessions, or statements of faith.

1 Timothy 3:16 NASB1995

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

2 Timothy 2:8-13 NASB1995

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned.  For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.  It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;  If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;  If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Titus 3:4-8 NASB1995

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.

That first passage calls the mystery of godliness a common confession.  I believe this indicates the early disciples may have developed this statement of faith, and other statements, as standard confession of their faith in Christ.  Since the cannon of Scripture was not yet complete, and the Gentile disciples probably did have copies of the Jewish books, these statements may have also served as tools to help them remember doctrine as well.

Does it fit the context?

Well let's see -

Galatians 2:16-21 NASB1995

... nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.  But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!  For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.  For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.  I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith: the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Paul lived by trusting the Jesus who died for him, because he knew he didn't deserve such love.

REFORMATION, RESTORATION, REVIVAL, OR RECOVERY?

Over the past 5 centuries western Christianity has seen a variety of movements that have spread around the world.  First, we see the Reformation led by Luther, Calvin, and others.  This movement gave rise to the oldest mainstream Protestant denominations.

Then, about two hundred years ago, two movements came up together.  One was Restorationism, and the other was revivalism.  I'm not sure which came first, but I suspect restorationism.

One element they have in common is an interest in end-time prophecy.  The core of restorationism is the view that God is restoring the church before Jesus returns.  Revivalism seeks to re-energize Christianity through displays of enthusiasm, and maybe even emotionalism.

These two merge with the belief that we must achieve a worldwide revival before Jesus can return.  The mis-named New Apostolic Reformation (which is neither new, nor apostolic, nor a reformation) seeks to make this happen with prayer, fasting, confession, healings, miracles, signs, wonders, and emotional, erratic behavior.  The danger here is that this puts pressure on people to appear to be spiritual, while they struggle to live up to an external standard, instead of walking in faith from their hearts.  The expectation is on us and not on Jesus.

Why do I say this is a danger?  The pressure over time leads to burn-out, leaving people exhausted, confused and hopeles as to why their efforts didn't produce revival.  This can cause people to lose their faith, and others to become resistant to the Gospel.

Adding to the danger is the fact that all the revivals of the past have died out and become an echo of history.  Present day revivals will do the same.  Future revivals will probably stay there in the future.  Evangelists have been predicting billion soul harvests since the Latter Rain Movement in the late 1940s.

I would love to see large numbers of people come to faith in Christ before He returns.  But, we don't need another revival that will just die out.  A reform movement that brings only superficial changes won't help either.  We need something else.

I propose that what we need, is a new way to view what has been going on since before Luther.  What we need is recovery.

Several years ago, I got curious about reform movements that happened before Martin Luther.  I was aware of several, but most had been eliminated by the Roman church.  I found three groups that had a lasting effect.  They were the Waldensians, the Lollards, and the Hussites.

A merchant in Lyon, France named Peter Waldo asked a priest to give him Scripture to help him live a more Christlike life.  That priest pointed him towards Matthew, chapter 10.  Waldo later began to encourage Bible reading by lay people, and paid to have the Bible translated into French.  His followers included lay Bible teachers.  The Roman church tried to use military force to eliminate them, but did confine them to one valley, where they stayed isolated for several centuries.

Around that same time, John Wycliff began to translate the Bible into English.  His followers sought to grow spiritually through Bible study and prayer at home instead of going on pilgramages to holy sites, and other religious observances, so their critics thought they were lazy.  Thus the name, Lollards.

One of Wycliff's followers was a Bohemian servant of a British noble woman.  That woman returned to Bohemia where she passed on Wycliff's ideas to a priest named John Huss.  Huss began to preach a message very similar to Luther's.  His reward was that the Roman church burned him alive.  Before they lit the fire, he said, "They think they are burning a heretic, but all they are doing is cooking a goose."  'Huss' means 'goose.'

Was God restoring truth to the Body of Christ through all this?  Maybe.  By saying that God started these movements, are we saying that people were just sitting around doing nothing unusual, and then, unexpectedly, God started doing something to get the people's attention?

Or, were people seeking God?  Were people seeking to recover something lost or forgotten?

I believe that is what has been happening all along.  From justification by faith and the priesthood of all believers, to the gifts and fruit of the Spirit, believers have been seeking and recovering truth.

But we do see problems.  Of course, the enemy is going to interject false doctrine and temptation whenever and wherever he can.  And these are the same lies and temptations he has always presented.  He might change the words, but they always point to the same target - death.

MIRACLES, SIGNS, AND WONDERS, OR WHY I AM A CHARISMATIC, NOT A CHARISMANIAC

Very early in my Christian experience, I became a Charismatic.  For those who don't know, a Charismatic Christian is similar to a Pentecostal in that they both believe in speaking in tongues.  For a long time, I believed the only difference was in the church organizations they came out of.  Now I know that is not the case.

Pentecostals separated from the traditional Protestant denominations in the early 20th century.  In the late 1940s a new movement emerged from  Pentecostalism called the Latter Rain.  Most Pentecostal dominations renounced the Latter Rain because they taught esoteric doctrines.  However, no new denomations formed within the movement.  Many new local congregations formed and stayed indepentent.  Then some of pastors began to form alliances and/or spin off new congregations from their original group.  These became cults, such as the Branham cult.

Then, in the late 50s, many traditional Christians started speaking in tongues, but they stayed within their denominations!  Because Pentecostals tended to be viewed as legalistic, these decided to identify as Charismatic instead.

Somehow, the Latter Rain and WOF movements got labeled as Charismatic as well.  So, in my opinion, two Charismatic movements may have been going on at the same time.

Today, we see another movement called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR for short).  In my opinion, it is a resurgence of the Latter Rain, but this time, it's on steroids.

The major trait of the Latter Rain/WOF/NAR is the emphasis on miracles, signs, and wonders.  This often comes with emotionalism and sometimes strange behavior that has nothing to do with Christ.  Because of this, this new movement has been called Charismania.

What makes all this possible is a misunderstanding of miracles, signs, and wonders.  I am not going to claim to be an expert on these things.  I just want to give people a better understanding of them, so they won't be misled.

What is a miracle?

In general, a miracle is an event that someone can't explain, and that an invisible agent, such as a spirit or God must have made it happen.

But an unseen agent could be hidden instead of invisible.  When someone performs an act that appears miraculous, it is an illusion.  If done for the purpose of entertainment, we call it stage magic.  When they do the same same thing to persuade people that a real supernatural event has taken place, it is deception, no matter if anyone calls it a miracle.

A true miracle happens when God intervenes in the physical realm.  It is not just a supernatural effect.

False miracles can be performed by demons.  Consider the confrontation between Moses and the Pharaoh's priests.  All three serpents were physically real, but only one remained.

Sometimes things happen that someone can't explain how it happened, so they assume it was a miracle, especially after they prayed for it.  If some time passed between the prayer and the answer, the event could still be totally natural.  I once heard of an incident where someone wanted an air conditioner turned on, but it didn't start blowing until later.  They said it was a miracle, but I had my doubts.  I've had box fans that when they got old, the blades would turn slowly until speeding up to a full blow.  In the case of the delayed AC, the same thing could have happened, but because the people involved could not see the fan, they assumed a miracle.  They still had reason to be thankful - the AC wasn't dead yet.

Healing sometimes does occur naturally.  Let's say you get a small scratch on your arm without any redness or bleeding.  You don't even need a bandage, maybe just a little lotion, cream, or ointment.  You don't pay any more attention to it.  Then you notice it's gone a couple of days later.  God gave our bodies amazing ways to heal and fight diseases.

God also gave us the intelligence to discover and develop medical treatments.  But, our intellects are finite, so medicine is limited.

I believe that God heals through miracles as well as through medicine, and natural processes.  Sometimes, God speeds up the natural processes, and those instances are miracles too, because those processes can not speed up on their own.

What is a sign?

A sign is a miracle.  So, what makes a miracle a sign?  What makes anything a sign?  It has a message on it.

You drive down a main street and see a thing that is shaped like a cowboy hat.  It has a name on in, Arby's.  The message is, You can get roast beef and other kinds of sandwiches here.

So a supernatural sign is a miracle with a message attached.

What is a wonder?

A wonder is a sign, but you do not know or cannot figure out what the message is, so you wonder, What is God trying to say?

The best example of this that I know of is in Acts 2.  The crowd that gathered knew that the speaking in tongues they heard was a miracle.  They also knew it was a sign.  But they couldn't figure out what the message was, so someone asked, What does this mean?

They did not ask if it was a miracle.  They could tell that it was because they could understand what the tongue-speakers said.

Since nothing like this had happened to them before, they saw that it was also a sign.

Too many reports are coming out about staged 'miracles' performed by big name leaders in Charismania and it's predecessor movements.  Many of their practices come from Spiritualism, and their doctrines come from Gnosticism.

People need to be aware of the deception and the deceivers out there.

NEW TESTAMENT TITHING

Tithing is commonplace in the Body of Christ today.  Is it supposed to be that way?  Yes, and no.

Yes, if done according to the New Testament.

No, if done according to the way it is commonly taught by many, especially in the HAW-WOF (Health And Wealth - Word of Faith) circles. You know, you have to tithe, or you will be cursed.  That is legalism, trying to put people under the Law of Moses that don't belong there.

Well, what is the New Testament way?  I am glad you asked me that... Let's see what the NT says about tithing.

What Jesus said about tithing

In the accounts of the Widow's Mite, the texts incidentally mention that Jesus watched as people placed tithes and donations into the collection box in the Temple.  This was a normal practice at the time, under the Old Covenant.

But this passage gives us a more meaningful glimpse:

Luke 11:37-44 Legacy Stantard Bible

Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have a meal with him.  And He went in and reclined at the table.  But when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first aceremonially washed before the meal.

But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness.  You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?  But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you.

“But woe to you Pharisees!  For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God, but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

"Woe to you Pharisees!  For you love the best seat in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the marketplaces.  Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.”

Jesus tells us the Pharisees went to painstaking extremes to fulfill their obligation to tithe, but neglected the more important issues of the heart.

Tithing under the Law of Moses applied mostly to crops.  The Pharisees, whether or not they owned farms, orchards, or vineyards from which they would tithe, they might also have grown herbs in their homes the way many do today.  They made sure to keep track of how much their herb gardens produced, so they could give a tenth of their "crop."

Jesus just pointed out that in going to such extremes to keep the Law, they forgot more important issues, like justice and love.  So, if a "pastor" talks more about "tithes and offerings" than he does about heart issues, you should probably wonder about who he is following, the Pharisees, or Jesus.

What the Apostles said about tithing

The Acts of the Apostles does not mention tithing.  I am sure the first disciples tithed, if the Old Testament tithe applied to them, because they were Jews who still saw themselves as Jews.  But even when Gentiles began to believe in Jesus, the Apostles never said anything about them having to tithe.

Paul's letters do not say anything about tithing, not even when the issue about Gentile disciples keeping the Law came up.

No one knows for sure who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.  Many say Paul wrote it.  I can see Paul being involved, because the next to last verse in the book mentions that Timothy was just released from jail.  My personal view is that it was written by a committee, and Paul was on it.  Any speculation about who the other contributors are is just that: speculation, conjecture, guesswork.

I go into that because Hebrews was written to Jewish disciples who were beginning to experience persecution from the Roman government.  They could escape the persecution by rejecting Jesus and claiming to be just Jews.  Judaism was protected by Roman law.

The writers wanted to encourage the Jewish disciples to stay faithful to Jesus while facing persecution, whether it came from government or religious authorities.

The writers focused on showing that Jesus is better than elements of Judaism: angels, Moses, the Old Covenant, the temple, the priesthood, etc.  When it came to the priesthood, they wrote this:

Hebrews 7:1-8 LSB

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.  Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest continually.

Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the spoils.

And those indeed of the sons of Levi, who receive the priest’s office, have a commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brothers, although these are descended from Abraham.  But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them had collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.  And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.

That passage shows us that the Levitical priests, while still in the loins of Abraham, tithed to a priest of a superior order, the one Jesus belongs to.  When did this happen? Before the Law!  This even happened before God changed his name from Abram to Abraham:

Genesis 14:17 - 24 LSB

Then after he came back from striking down Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of aGod Most High. Then he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram of aGod Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then he gave him a tenth of all.

And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give the people to me, but take the possessions for yourself.”

Then Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to Yahweh God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, so that you would not say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’  I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share.”

So, disciples of Jesus are not obligated to tithe.  If you desire to tithe on your income, you can do so.

If you choose to tithe, don't follow the model of the Law, as if you have to continue tithing forever. I recommend the model of Abram:

1. Abram tithed voluntarily.  He did this only once that we know of.  Even if you make tithing your regular practice, you still have the option to not tithe.

2. Abram's tithe was an act and a statement of faith.  His exchange with the king of Sodom shows his mindset in this event.  He saw himself as one bound to God in a covenant, and God was his provider, not man.

THE RICH YOUNG RULER - A STUDY IN HUMILITY.

If you have been in Christian circles for a while, you have probably heard this episode in the life of Jesus as an example of someone who didn't make it to heaven.  I've had a problem with that interpretation, and, after considering factors that no one else presents, I now have a different view.

Luke 18:18 - 30 Legacy Standard Bible

And a ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good?  No one is good except God alone.  You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,  Do not murder, Do not steal,  Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’ "

And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”

And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack: sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. And come, follow Me.”

But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.  And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!  For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

And those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?”

But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”

And Peter said, “Behold, we have left all that is our own and followed You.”

And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.”

I recommend you also read the other accounts in Matt. 19: 16 - 30 and Mark 10:13 -16.  They contain valuable information that I will mention in this article.

Mark's record said the young ruler knelt before Jesus.  That is an act of submission and humility.  How many of us started our relationship with Jesus that way?  (Those crickets are getting loud, aren't they?)

The deeper meaning of the initial exchange between Jesus and the young man is something we often miss, because we don't consider the cultural context.  Jesus and the man were Jews.  They thought, talked, and acted like Jews.

The young man called Jesus good.  Jesus replied that only God was good.  Was Jesus correcting him, or was He implying something?

Deuteronomy 6:4 - 5 LSB

“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!  You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

These two verses are central to the Jewish faith.  They are to the Jews what John 3:16 is to Christians.  The Jews call them the Shema, from the Hebrew word for "hear."

That statement that "Yahweh is one," not only means not only one being, but the only One Being!  Jesus was asking the rich young ruler, "By calling Me good, are you calling me God?  Are you recognizing my divinity?"

Well, did he?  Did he recognize Jesus as God?  Did he really humble himself?

I believe he did.

Why do I think he did?  Geography, and chronology.  In other words, where and when this took place says a lot about this event.

 Map of Judea Province

I confess,  I like to look at maps, even Bible maps.  Not too often do preachers or teachers refer to maps or terrain or locations but some do like to organize, promote, and conduct tours of the Holy Land.  I wish more people paid attention to the the layout of the area.  They don't have be as nerdy about maps as I am.  I just want people to know and understand truth.

In the map I linked above, locate the region of Galilee towards the top.  Now picture a line starting on the east (right) side of the Sea of Galilee going south (down) to just above the north end of the Dead Sea.  Now imagine the line going west (left) across the Jordan River to to Jericho.  Continue the line to Jerusalem.

That is the route that Galilean Jews would take to Jerusalem.  They went that way to avoid passing through Samaria.

This matters because Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem...for the very last time!  He met the young ruler before He crossed the Jordan.  We know this because in the next two events we see Jesus at Jericho, then He enters Jerusalem.

Back to the story.  We know Jesus tells the young man to keep the commandments.  He says BTDT, however they said that in first century Aramaic, but still no tee-shirt.  Jesus says more and the man leaves.

This is where the typical assumption is made, that the guy failed to make heaven because he LEFT.

But, what was the first thing Jesus said?  In the other accounts, the very first thing Jesus said was "go."  So, when he left, was he intending to do what Jesus said?

I believe he was.  Why do I think that?  Because of HOW he left.

Again, Matthew and Mark add information.  M&M (now I got you thinking about candy, don't I) say the man went away grieving.  Why does that matter?

Grief isn't just sorrow, it is sorrow felt at a loss.  Let me illustrate...

Let's say you are driving down a busy street or highway, and you approach a traffic accident.  You pass by, and you can see signs that someone has been injured.  You feel sorry for them.

Now imagine that you recognize a car that was in that accident.  Close to that car is a coroner's vehicle, and responders are loading a body into it.  You realize you know the deceased, and you start to grieve.

Back to the story again.  Why would someone grieve over property he intended to keep?

Another argument made for the traditional interpretation is that the rich young ruler is not mentioned again in the New Testament.  Well, we need to consider the time factor again, along with some cultural background.

The man had a lot to sell, and that included land.  He most likely held an appointed position in the government.  They usually gave official posts only to landowners.  That was a common custom throughout history until the last couple of centuries.  We have no idea how much time he would need to sell everything, then give the money to the poor, then come back to follow Jesus.

This encounter probably happened 2 or 3 days before the Triumphant Entry.

As the man left, Jesus compares the entry of the rich into the Kingdom of God to the passing of a camel through a needle's eye.  I'm not going to rehash that statement.  All it means is that getting the rich to have a relationship with God will be very difficult.  The major moral problem for rich people is not greed, but pride.  Pride in what they own, what they have accomplished, what they can do with their wealth.

Jesus didn't say it was impossible, just extremely difficult.  Difficult enough to require God's grace.  Another way to say it is, true repentance requires humbling yourself as you recognize not only God's immense power, but His vast love and grace.