So what is the answer? The answer is that you must decide what it’s meaning is for you. There are centuries between us and the writing of this passage and much debate among scholars over the use of the words Holy Spirit in the OT. At the least I hope this insight has brought you into a state of discernment. After all as disciples of Christ and the Holy Word that is what we are tasked to do.

When they were left at the shore of the Red Sea they doubted. They had no faith. God however delivered them miraculously across the dry sea bed. I find it remarkable that they could have witnessed and been part of such a grand exodus and so quickly turn away from God their savior.

Jesus offered you an opportunity to be free… just like the Israelites. It is in His Resurrection that our hope lives. He entered the city of Jerusalem to a Royal Welcome, yet in that same week, faith was overcome by doubt and certain denial. It was necessary for Our Lord to be crucified, so that our sins might be forgiven and we might have a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth, or more chances) to get it right. But beware, do not think that this offer will be available forever. We are mortal. We have these chances during the time that we live.

Take this chance right now. Pray this prayer and live in God’s favor:

Lord,

Your works are mighty and wonderful. I do not deserve Your mercy and grace. I am blessed by Your patience and generous forgiveness. Lord, I need You in my heart. Fill me up that I will be found worthy of  Jesus’  act of salvation. Lord, I claim You as my God and Savior. Let me not veer from it for all of my days.

In Your Name I pray,

AMEN

The significance of this Sunday continues the Christmas story. We take a look at the ‘Magi’ or Wise Men who visited Jesus. So why would we talk about the Wise Men when Christmas is past.

Matthew chapter 2 tells us of this visit and we learn some interesting facts if we look at the scripture closely.

• Even though their visit with Jesus is traditionally taught as a part of the Christmas story, there is a distinct lack of a sense of time in the text, and many biblical scholars believe that these men from the east may not have seen Jesus until as late as two years after His birth. Their visit, in other words, needn’t be associated only with Christmas.
• We find no mention of the people of Bethlehem visiting Jesus. The shepherds, from one of the lowest classes, did herald the news in Luke’s account, but the other local people are quite conspicuously absent. Christ receives a noble witness of his divinity from heaven, and of his kingly estate from strangers: which his own people unknowingly allowed to happen without acknowledging him themselves.
• We hear of Herod’s involvement as he encourages the Magi to seek out this Child who is to be King and return word to him. While it would be natural for any king to be defensive of his throne (as it appeared that it was his throne that was in jeopardy) it was even more so for Herod as he was a foreigner and had become ruler by force.
• We are commonly given to infer that there were three Wise Men who visited Jesus. In fact the scripture does not mention how many Wise Men visited. It is supposed that there were three because of the number of gifts mentioned. There could have been more gifts of the same type given, gifts which were not mentioned or Wise Men who did not bring gifts at all. The Wise Men’s names are not mentioned and they seem to deliberately choose to remain anonymous.
• The importance of the gifts is their significance: Gold symbolized that He was and is the King of Kings. Frankincense, a type of incense often burned at altars, emphasized His deity. Myrrh, which was often used in embalming, foreshadowed His death on the Cross.
• Notice that the Magi came looking for God. It is interesting. Most people today (even some Christians) rarely go looking for God. Instead we wait for him to find us, perhaps hoping that he would just miraculously begin speaking to us through a sermon.
• Finally, we learn that The Wise Men departed into their own country another way. It’s easy to understand why they would do that. Herod had told them to return and let him know where he could find this child who would be King.

In the course of some research, I came across the following two items. The first is a statement from The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church regarding the place of science in religion and of religion in science. The second is a commentary published by the United Methodist News Service (although not necessarily representative of the opinions or policies of the UMNS or the United Methodist Church).

I am posting these items here because I am interested in your thoughts on the matter. I am particularly interested in your thoughts on creation and evolution. What do you believe in regards to the origin of life? What would you tell your children if (or, what have you told your children when) they asked about evolution? I encourage your comments and dialogue. Please read both items below before responding.

Science and Technology

We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. We recognize technology as a legitimate use of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world.

In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.

Creation and Evolution Commentary: The Faith-Science Collision on Campus

It happens every fall. A young woman goes off to college. Call her Susan. Susan can be characterized in at least two ways: she is bright, intelligent and motivated to learn; and she is spiritual, religiously active and devoted to God. As classes begin on campus these two important dimensions of Susan’s life come into conflict.

The conflict is most unavoidable as Susan wades into the sciences: biology, physics, earth sciences, astronomy, chemistry. The intellectual exercise is stimulating, but Susan is encountering a worldview that is at odds with her faith. In its extreme form, the scientific worldview is reductionistic, mechanistic and atomistic. In other words, there is no reality apart from the material, the measurable, the empirical. We are not spiritual beings, she is taught, but collections of molecules.

This can be quite traumatic for Susan, for it calls into question all of her faith experience to this point, which may have been no deeper than that of an older elementary level. The foundations upon which she is constructing a life can begin to crumble. Susan begins to question everything that she has been taught to this point in her journey. The collision can be seen in competing claims:

• We are created in the image of God (Genesis 1. 26).
• We share 98% of our DNA with the chimpanzee.
• In six days God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 2.1).
• There is granite on the floor of the Grand Canyon that is two billion years old, limestone that is 500 million years old, and sandstone that is 300 million years old.
• We believe in God, maker of all that is, seen and unseen (Nicene Creed).
• The creation of life, as seen in the recent discussions of stem cell research, is happening across the world in academic, corporate and hospital settings.

Susan may seek resolution of this conflict, through a campus religious group that has walked with students like her year after year. Some of these campus groups are deeply suspicious of the sciences, of the worldviews of scientists who are agnostics and atheists, and so their response is also firm and steadfast. While well-intentioned, this can begin to set up a division in Susan’s mind between the spiritual life and the intellectual life, between her identity as a Christian and her vocational life.

The Christian faith has a stake in the dialogue, experienced internally by Susan and being carried out externally in all sorts of places. Christians are interested in discovering the truth, as are scientists. Christians also believe that Jesus is the incarnation (word made flesh, John 1) of God, and so we value the material world as do our scientist friends.

Two simple concepts can help someone like Susan in the collision between the teachings of both faith and science. One is mystery. Both Christians and scientists confess that there is much that we do not know about this world. By faith we believe that God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1-2), but anyone who has peered into the Grand Canyon must admit that the creation is something of a mystery. And of course, mystery can lead us to awe, wonder and praise, in the presence of God who gives and sustains life.

A second concept is humility. Christians can be more honest about how little we know about the sciences. And scientists can admit that their critique of faith is often based on a stereotype that would not be credible to any thinking person. Both Christians and scientists can be less judgmental and more humble before the truth that we seek, even if in different ways.

Our churches and campus ministries can help Susan to make her way through the issues that arise when faith and science collide. We can help her remain grounded in the Scriptures, which speak of a God who creates and yet whose creation will always be beyond our comprehension (Job 38-39). The Scriptures can help her avoid the pain and confusion that occurs when faith is destroyed, when intellectual arrogance dismisses God, and when there is no openness to discovery of the truth.

A larger place for mystery and humility can help college students wrestle with these matters as they enter into adulthood as faithful Christians.

Anointing is a rite used for four different purposes: Consecration (to prepare for God’s purpose), Impartation (to ask that the power of God and the Holy Spirit enter the heart), Emancipation (to ask that the Lord free you from physical or mental bonds), and Preparation (to prepare yourself or others for God’s purpose).

I found out that there are a number of different words in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic that are translated to the English word anoint. All of the different root words in some way refer to smearing the one being anointed with oil.

The oil used is generally fragrant. For example oil used for anointing in the Old Testament is described in Exodus 30:22-25 to be a mixture of myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, cassia and olive oil.

The Bible uses oil as a physical representation of a spiritual reality. In Hebrews 9:23-24 such things are considered to be a type of “copy” of heavenly things. Anointing oil represents or “copies” the anointing of the Holy Spirit or God’s anointing. In other words being anointed with oil would symbolize that the Holy Spirit is upon the one who has been anointed. Literally, that person has been smeared with a “copy” of the Holy Spirit. The act of anointing is requesting that the Holy Spirit be poured out upon the one being anointed.

In the case of David (and other Old Testament Kings, High Priests, some lesser Priests and some of the Prophets) anointment is for impartation. The root word used is the Hebrew mashah. Mashah means to draw out or to set aside from others for sanctification and to impart the Holy Spirit to one in order to serve God in a special capacity.

The Boy David is Anointed by Samuel to become King of Israel

It is interesting to note the progression of the root word from mashah to mashiah, the recipient of such anointing and further from mashiah to Messiah, to Christos by translation into Greek and by translation into English to Christ who is the ultimate Anointed One.

Anointment is done with oil and inseparable from it because of its symbolism of God’s purpose and the Holy Spirit. 

 http://ddub74.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/1samuel10.mp3

Scripture and Commentary Podcast

Samuel annoints Saul and he is chosen as Israel’s King. Interesting juxtaposition of Saul’s reluctance to receive his crown while, in later chapters, Saul hunts David, to protect his crown and out of jealousy for  the favor he is receiving both from God and the people of Israel.

Give Us A King

Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles in his Roman jail cell

Throughout the Lenten season, I’ve heard my pastors refer to ‘the twelve’ as disciples. I had always considered the original twelve, chosen by Jesus, to be apostles. I had also always considered an apostle to be a disciple as well. A disciple however I understood was not always an apostle. I had not, however made the distinction of when the Apostles became such. Are you confused yet? That is my point exactly. What is the meaning of these words or designations. So I did some research and came up with some answers.

It turns out that an Apostle is an ambassador or teacher of the Gospel sent forth by Jesus to make ‘disciples (followers) of all nations.’ This commission is given to the twelve (minus Judas Iscariot) in Matthew 28:18-20. Paul and Luke subsequently redefined the title of Apostle  to include anyone who believes they are a divinely appointed messenger sent out into the world. No other writers in the new testament ever refer to anyone other than the original twelve as “apostles”. Judas Iscariot, however had taken his own life prior to the commission, out of the shame he felt for betraying Jesus. Was then Judas Iscariot an apostle. It would seem that he was not so, at least in the biblical sense of the word. Well, at least we know about eleven of the twelve. Matthias and Paul are subjects of disagreeing doctrine under different denominations (Paul was visited by Jesus in a vision and commissioned ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’. Matthias was chosen by Peter and the rest of the eleven remaining apostles to replace Judas Iscariot, by drawing lots, after the ascension of Christ). Some would argue that Matthias, being one of the 72 disciples who closely followed Jesus from the time of his baptism to his arrest and crucifixion was as fit to be called Apostle as any other. Yet the others are not. Only Matthias was chosen through a game of chance. Is he an apostle? I don’t know. Perhaps you have thoughts on this. Certainly, he was a disciple. As for Paul, much of what we have come to understand as Christianity was disseminated by him in letters from his jail cell (see illustration). Certainly he was divinely inspired in the guidance that he offered to the young leaders of the young church. Again, perhaps you have thoughts?

A disciple is much more broadly defined as a pupil, a student and a follower. The original twelve were disciples but not apostles until the remaining eleven were commissioned by the resurrected Christ himself. Each of us, in studying the divinely inspired words of God the Father, the recounted words of God the Son and the words scribed under direction of God the Holy Spirit are disciples, just as the early leaders of the Christian movement were disciples of Christ through the Apostles.

Logic, if the above assertions are true, would dictate that no Apostle walked the earth after about 100 A.D., by which time all of those directly commissioned would have passed away and joined the Lord in Heaven. Some have claimed apostolic succession, which I personally don’t believe to have a biblical foundation.

I leave you with the two questions that I have sought to answer in this research. What is an Apostle? What is a Disciple? I’d like to hear your thoughts and perspectives, as the process of research and explanation of these two fundamental questions has opened other questions for me.

Some have proffered the translation, ‘The day of the washing of feet.’ This refers to Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet at the last supper. This is not entirely correct or incorrect. Allow me to explain: The word Maundy comes from the Latin root mandatum, which means commandment. Maundy Thursday is the observation of ‘The New Commandment,’ given by Jesus in John 13:34-35

34″A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

This new command was illustrated only moments before Jesus said this as he washed each of his disciples feet. This was a loving service to his disciples to show them what a loving servant’s heart and deeds look like; namely humble and selfless. Imagine it. If the Christ can wash the feet of his disciples, what can I do that I haven’t been doing?

So, both interpretations of Maundy blend together to give us a clear picture of what love is. Further, this occurs on the Passover, the very evening that Jesus is betrayed into custody of the Jewish officials in Jerusalem, eventually handed over to Pontius Pilate and sentenced to be executed at the cross.

Good Friday is a solemn day. We remember the crucifixion, sometimes though, as it was portrayed in the movie ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ a condensed single scene that lasts 10 or maybe 15 minutes. In fact Jesus was crucified at 9:00 AM Good Friday Morning and suffered the cross for around 6 hours, until 3:00 PM. This torturous day lasted for most of our worday! Good Friday is good because the sacrifice necessary to redeem us from our sins is made. This is rightly a day of reflection, meditation and prayer.

Finally, we come to Easter Sunday. How I long to hear the words “He is Risen.” How I long to respond “He Lives.” We rejoice, not because it is properly spring or because Easter has arrived. We rejoice because prophecy is fulfilled. Our sins are forgiven, just for the asking. We have a new covenant with God and it is good as is He.

Crucifixion by Rembrandt

As we prepare to enter Holy Week, contemplate the plot, trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, I am reminded of a subtle statement made in Rembrant’s “Crucifixion.” Notice in the picture the man in blue at the foot of the cross. It is easy to miss if you don’t know what you are looking at, but the man in blue is in fact the artist himself. Rembrandt painted himself into the picture, virtually participating in the savage execution.

So, what does it mean? I think Rembrandt was saying, ‘I too am responsible for the crucifixion of our Saviour. My sins are just as much a cause of the need for this ultimate sacrifice as was original sin. I am just as culpable as the soldiers who hammered the nails.’

This parallels this weekend’s sermon at The Church of the Resurrection. Senior Pastor Adam Hamilton tells us that the Cross says something different to each of us and different at one time of each of our lives than another. Ultimately the Cross is a sign of God’s sacrificial love for us. God is saying, “I would pay any price for you. I would lay down My life for you. You are that precious. I have suffered for you. I will experience the pain that your sins inflict.”

This image is a powerful daily reminder of that sacrificial love, my own connection to it and my relationship with God. It is a solemn lenten meditation. I encourage you to experience Pastor Adam’s powerful sermon this weekend and Easter service next week. Service times and locations are available at www.cor.org. You can also watch live online at http://www.cor.org/worship-sermons/resurrection-live, Sundays at 10:45 AM and 5 PM.