While reading the story of the paralytic healed by Jesus at the Bethesda Pool, I was struck by Jesus’ second encounter with the man. In John 5:14, after the man was healed and obeyed Jesus, he was scolded by others for carrying his mat in violation of the Sabbath. In the exchange he pointed out that he had been commanded, by an unknown person who had healed him, to carry the mat. Later, Jesus meets him again and warns him: “Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (NIV). This short passage speaks volumes, but it doesn’t say what many claim to hear in it.

First, Jesus gives him a direct command, “Stop sinning.” He does not tell him “Try not to sin.” I don’t want to make Jesus sound like a first century Yoda saying, “Do or do not. There is no try.” However, it is important to note that Jesus does tie sin to the man’s will. While it is true that we are sinful by nature and naturally drawn to rebel and resist God by every fiber of our being, there is still a very real action of the will, an exercise of choice, in the sins we commit or the sins we resist. When we sin, it is not possible for us to say—as some wrongly believe Calvinism would claim—that we are unable to resist this sin because it is determined. Our natures tempt us and fit us for rebellion, yet when we sin it is not an instinctive, unmindful event—for such there would be no condemnation. When we sin, we have chosen to sin, we have exercised our will in opposition to God. In the same way, we can exercise our will not to sin in a particular instance. To say we can exercise our will to never sin is something very different—and quite impossible. Yet, in any given instance, facing any particular temptation we can choose to resist—choose not to commit that particular sin. Believers, like all persons, have this possibility; but we Christians are blessed with something more. We are blessed with the presence of the Holy Spirit, giving us the power and desire to resist. We are no longer forced to white-knuckle our way through temptation, but are changed within so that what once tempted us no longer does. This does not happen overnight, but grows through the process of sanctification. While this is underway, we will still find ourselves tempted by the same old sins and the same old flesh. During these times the Holy Spirit is present with us—enabling us to resist what once would have seemed irresistible. The thing to remember about this is that it cuts both ways. The Holy Spirit’s empowering us to resist temptation makes us even more culpable when we give in to temptation. When a Christian sins, we have not simply given in to our fallen natures and failed to resist, we have chosen to act in a way contrary to the change worked within us and to not only give in to sin, but to resist the Spirit.

The second statement made by Jesus in John 5:14, after “Stop sinning,” is a warning. Many have interpreted this to mean the man’s prior condition was because of sin. However, Jesus says no such thing. Attempts to tie all sickness and injury to personal sin, is an attempt to answer the age old “Problem of Evil” with an even bigger problem. The Problem of Evil asks, “If an all-powerful, all-knowing, good God exists and created the world, then why do evil things happen?” To say that these things happen because the person or persons experiencing them sinned is to over-simplify reality and to overlook the fact that much of the “evil” we experience is simply the result of natural processes at work. Besides, Jesus did not say, “Stop sinning or your paralysis might return.” He said sin could lead to something worse. The results of sin can be far worse than what he had suffered. Jesus is saying, “Stop sinning, because sin can have results far worse that being paralyzed for thirty-eight years.”

In chapter 6 of the gospel of John, Jesus miraculously feeds a crowd with five loves of barley bread and two fish. What fascinates me about this story is the very natural response of the people. According to verse 14, the people said, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world” (NIV). Verse 15 continues this thought by telling us Jesus knew they intended to make him king by force.

This interchange is important in many ways. First of all, it impacts our view of the people to whom Jesus came. To say that Israel somehow failed by rejecting her Messiah, is to forget that Israel was never meant to accept her Messiah. Jesus intentionally made sure they did not and would not accept him. When they got ready to crown him he would withdraw. When they got comfortable with him, he would offend them. When they expressed their offense at him, rather than apologizing, his words were more barbed and intended for greater offense. Jesus apparently had never read How to Win Friends and Influence People. When they were ready to make him king, because they are sure he is the Messiah, he withdraws from them. However, this is not what most intrigues me about this passage.

They believe he is the prophet because he miraculously fed them. If he is made king he can continue to provide them with food. Hungry people do anything to be filled. Hungry people will follow anyone who promises them bread. They will even start a revolution to satisfy their hunger. They see in Jesus, not a Messiah who will save them from sin, but a king who will save them from hunger. Such a king can make it possible for everyone to be fed. No one would starve, or even have to earn their bread. Such a king not only meets the needs of the hungry, but fulfills the desires of the lazy. A common rule of economics is that of the “Free Rider.” Mankind always does the least necessary. Any person who can benefit without any effort will do so. This is a major problem facing welfare programs throughout history—they too often overlook this economic fact. If a person will eat the same with effort as they will without effort it is natural to simply take what is given and avoid the effort. Most of these programs subsidize laziness and punish hard work, by taking from the one who works hard and giving to the one who will not. Here we see Jesus facing his own “free rider” problem. These people do not want to be saved or even to serve him. They want him to serve them and to do so in a very specific way—through the giving of bread. Later, in the same chapter of John, we see this again. When Jesus makes claims about himself (claims they had previously entertained themselves), they ask him for a sign in a not very subtle way, “What miraculous sing then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?” They continue with a not too subtle recommendation: “Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’” (John 6:30f NIV). We can paraphrase this with: “What can you do to prove you are who you claim to be? Oh, here’s an idea! Give us bread and we’ll believe in you.” Not only does Jesus refuse to be baited, but he actually goes out of his way to offend them. He says that rather than giving them bread, he is the bread they need. When this does exactly what it is supposed to do, he doubles down and continues by saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world” (John 6:51 NIV). Shortly after this, most of those who had wanted to make him king when being fed rejected him when he refused to play along.

Jesus is not some heavenly slot machine—pull the handle and a prize comes out. Jesus is the lord of heaven and earth, the king of the universe. He does not need our belief and neither does he need us to concur with his choice of action or direction. He will choose and we will live with his choice. He will act and we will experience his action. He will decide and we can only follow.

When I watch a movie, I am looking for the philosophy and worldview being demonstrated. One movie that I loved was The Grey with Liam Neeson. Since I have spent years discussing and studying the philosophical Problem of Evil, I love when Neeson’s character is lying on the bank of a stream, wolves coming quickly as he looks into the sky, and calls on God to take action. What I love most, is that God does nothing. Many have gotten to their own version of this, promising to believe, to change, to be better, etc., if only God will step in and act. Yet, when God does not act they take it as an indictment of faith. However, it is just at this point, when He chooses not to act, that God most demonstrates His divinity and sovereignty. If God is at your beck and call, ready to provide the miracles you need to rescue you from your own life and your own choices or circumstances then He is reduced, and you have become God. This cry of “God if you will do (fill in the blank) then I will do (fill in the blank) for you,” is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate God. A god that can be manipulated is not worthy of worship.

Jesus chose not to be manipulated by the crowd offering am earthly crown. He chose to follow the divine plan, leading to a divine crown—a plan that required rejection and crucifixion.

Romans 16:20 is a well read, and often quoted passage of scripture. “The God of Peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (NIV). It has brought comfort to those suffering in an assortment of situations. Inspiring those facing persecution, it assures us that the world—as we currently experience it—is not eternal, but will someday be restored by God.

Don’t just stop at the surface, but notice a few things about the passage. The ‘soon’ is not stressed in the original, but is placed at the end of the sentence. The important thing about this passage is not the time frame, but the certainty with which it will come to pass: The God of peace will do it. Notice that the active agent, the one doing the crushing is God. We do not crush Satan on our own. No Christian government will organize the power of the state to crush Satan. None of these things can be done. Yet, God, the god of the universe, has the power to crush Satan. The assurance of this is found in the person, the very being, of God. Satan will be crushed by God and we can know this will happen because peace comes through the destruction of Satan so this is what the God of peace does. You can count on it. You can take it to the bank that God will crush Satan.

But don’t stop there. Yes, God will crush Satan. It is promised, and like all promises of God, it is a necessary truth—nothing will stop it and no universe can exist in which it will not be fulfilled because there are no sets of circumstances that would keep it from being fulfilled. It will be fulfilled because it is God’s nature to fulfill it. Yet, the passage does not stop there, so don’t you either. It says God will crush Satan, but goes further. God will crush Satan “under your feet.” You and I have an active part in crushing Satan. No, we do not share in the action of crushing—we do not crush alongside God’s crushing. The crushing of Satan is purely God’s action. However, the place to which he will be crushed is beneath us. In other words he will be crushed until he is as insignificant to our lives as the dust under our feet. Yet, there is another dimension to this crushing. Our feet are a tool used by God in crushing the enemy. God crushes Satan, using our ‘feet’ to crush him, doing so until Satan lies powerless beneath us. We are not only a secondary part of the plan to overthrow the kingdom of Satan. We are an essential element; the tool God uses; the ordained instrument of divine purpose.

However, we need to understand what he means by crushing Satan, and how this applies in the world. The context of the passage itself helps us understand what is meant. Just before saying this, Paul warns them about those who cause divisions, those who teach heresy. He describes them as driven by their appetites. He finishes that part by saying he has heard of their obedience and is proud, but wants them to be wise about good and innocent about evil (Rom 16:19). It is this context in which Paul writes verse 20.

To crush Satan is to overcoming him in the life of the believer. It is not a command to rule the world or a plan to set up a Theocracy under the velvet-wrapped Iron-fist of the Church. Romans 16:20 is a promise of victory, not over a physical world system—though that will happen—but victory in our own hearts; victory over temptation, divisiveness and heresy. It is a sanctifying promise. Yes, those facing persecution from without can rest in the fact that God will someday overthrow the world system and free his people from the grip of the Evil One’s minions. But this passage is promising something much more important and much closer to the heart of Christ’s disciples. It is promising deliverance from the very things that we struggle with so much—the evil within, the Satan inspired wickedness in our own hearts.

Today while reading in Acts 2 (preparing for this week’s sermon) I was struck by the words of Peter in Acts 2:24, “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” NIV. I was particularly struck by that last phrase, “it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”

Sometimes you read a passage over and over, time after time, and it doesn’t really grab you. Another time you read it and it so grabs hold that you can’t think of anything else. This was my experience with this passage this morning. I find myself mulling over that phrase, “it was impossible.”” Impossible,” of course, means “not possible.” Something impossible is not just improbable (probably will not happen), but in no way is it possible (cannot happen). One reason this so resounds with me is that, in the rules of logic, when something is not possible it is the same as saying, “If A is not possible then it is necessary that not A.” Necessary and possible are two very important words in philosophy, especially in metaphysics and ontology (the study of existence). If something exists necessarily then it would exist no matter what other circumstances occur or do not occur. In the same way, if an event occurs necessarily then it happens no matter what other things do or do not occur. Such an event needs no causes; needs no catalysts. By saying it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Jesus, Peter is saying that it was necessary that Jesus rise (it was necessary that death not keep its hold on him). In this case, this is not only a soteriological point, like the very true statement, “it was necessary for Jesus to rise for us to be saved.” Instead, this is saying there was no way, no possible set of circumstances, no possible world in which Jesus would not have risen from the dead, because there was no possibility of death keeping hold of him. Jesus’ resurrection was not a response to circumstances surrounding his death or even his life. Jesus resurrection was because of who he was and who he still is. Jesus’ resurrection was not just one of several possible scenarios—stay in the grave, come out of the grave physically, come back only spiritually. His resurrection was the only possibility.

John 3: 23-30 records an incident in the life of John the Baptizer. His disciples get into an argument with some Jews (v25) about baptism and then report to John that Jesus, whom John had previously baptized, “is baptizing, and everyone is going to him”(NIV). Most likely the argument was over whether one needed to be baptized by John or by Jesus and this triggered the complaint. John does not respond the way they expected though. He tells them, “If this is true, heaven has determined it to be so and fighting it is futile” (my paraphrase). He goes on to point out, “You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but am sent ahead of him’” (NIV).

I find John’s disciples interesting and see in them something very common to humanity and especially common in today’s church. John was sent, not to save mankind, nor to redeem the world; but, to “make straight the way,” to prepare people for the one who was coming—Jesus. He was the forerunner, not the Messiah. We see that he gathered disciples. Such followers are students who travel with a teacher in order to learn and emulate the teacher. There are some details we see about the disciples themselves (John’s disciples). First, at least some of them were there when he pointed to Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (John 1:36). Second, others would have been there when Jesus was baptized and John testified to seeing the dove alight upon him, marking him out as the Messiah. Third, that the disciples know Jesus is demonstrated when they were sent by John from prison to ask Jesus (Matthew 11:3 NIV), “Are you the one, or should we expect another?” They received Jesus’ confirming message indicating he was indeed the Messiah. Fourth, disciples of John apparently scattered to other areas after the death of their master. Fifth, after many years, disciples of John are observed in the scripture record—we see Paul meet several in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) around the year 55 AD.

These details bring a question to mind, “After Jesus was baptized and pointed out by John, why didn’t all his disciples leave and go to Jesus?” Remember that some did just this. The likely answer is, of course, loyalty. This is not hard to see and is something quite commendable. Also, one can imagine that John still needed disciples since he was still preaching and baptizing. Of course his message had changed from, “The Messiah is coming,” to, “the Messiah has come.” They could have traveled with him to help with this last phase of John’s ministry. Then when John was in prison they stayed near out of love for their imprisoned Rabbi. They would have cared for him in prison and relayed messages for him—as we see them doing. These things are not problematic and neither are they confusing. They are, once again, commendable. However, my question is raised after the death of John. Once he was dead wouldn’t the highest loyalty to John’s message be going to join the band of Jesus’ followers? Why didn’t they go to Jesus? Why do John’s disciples simply disappear until some pop up in Ephesus, years later?

There are a couple possibilities. One, they could have simply not believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Remember, even John had doubts since Jesus was not doing the things they expected a Messiah to do. However, this would be a problem. It would mean their Rabbi failed in his mission—or at least its fulfillment was yet to be realized. Perhaps they believed John started preparing the way of the Messiah and they were to continue doing so, and eventually a better Messiah than Jesus would come—the militant Messiah that all Pharisaic Jews expected. Two, perhaps they were just so satisfied with the message of John and their history with him that they had no desire to go further and actually follow Jesus. They were happier living in the glory of the past, than in trying to build a glorious future. You can almost hear them, “Remember when we had so many disciples? Remember when everyone was coming to us? Remember when Rabbi John said…”

It is this last possibility that bothers me and that I see too common in today’s church. Many churches have stopped following Jesus and are simply glorying in the memories of a time when they did follow Jesus. They speak of old successful times and lament their passing. They long for olden days—for memories often distorted by the years. Many churches have stopped following the Messiah. Rather than following him where he has gone today, they bemoan the changes, curse the passage of time and insist on acting out a time that has long passed.

What do I mean by this? We hold onto programs, institutions and organizations that may no longer be effective. We imagine that these things, instituted by men seeking to follow Christ, are themselves mandatory and essential. “Heaven may fall if we replace what did work then with what does work today.” We forget that the situations that made those things successful in their day are gone and there are new situations needing new ways of reaching out. There are new tools available, new programs, new methods. Why should we drop the old and adopt the new? We should do it because it is exactly what Jesus did. He said things and used methods fit to the time in which he came. He did not insist on speaking in Hebrew, he would have spoken the common Aramaic. The New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew or even Classical Greek, but in the common Koine Greek of the masses. He has called us to do no less. We are not called in 2013 to reach America of the 1950’s or the 1980’s. We are called to reach our people, in our time, within our culture and with our technology.

Refusing to deliver the message in a way that takes into account the times in which we live, is not “standing for the essentials of the faith.” The essentials are timeless and universal—sin is sin and no modern reinterpretation can change it or offer another solution than that offered by Jesus. However, the essentials can be packaged and delivered in many ways. When we refuse to use what works today, we confuse the message with the platform. We serve what was supposed to serve us. When we hold onto something that no longer works, that no longer has anything to do with spreading the message, then we honor something other than Jesus. We have traded the living Lord for a dead Rabbi.

In my devotional reading I have been going through Galatians—a book very deep and interesting. In Galatians 6 there is a well-known section that some see as self-contradictory. I must admit, when simply skimmed, it causes one to double-take and ask, “Paul, what are you saying here?” This is Galatians 6:1-5. In 6:2 Paul commands, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (NIV). Then in 6:5 he says, “For each should carry his own load” (NIV). So which is it? Are we to carry each other’s burdens or carry our own? Interestingly, the answer is “yes and yes” (Sorry, but years of studying philosophy lead one to give answers like this). What appears to be a contradiction is easily explained and will be useful to show one of the most basic rules of Biblical interpretation.

It is natural to wonder if an answer can be found in the original language. The problem is that both Greek terms are, according to Verbrugge, used interchangeably. But this does help us understand a bit of what is happening. I find it interesting that in such a construction Paul chose to use two words that mean ultimately the same thing instead of just using the same word twice. He seems to want to trigger a sense of difference.

Just as important as word choice is the surrounding context of each usage. This is actually where we will find our answer. We forget that one word can have different meanings according to how and where it is used. This causes a common error in reasoning known as equivocation where a term is used two different ways in an argument without taking into account the differences in usage. One famous example that will help you to see this is:

• Premise 1: Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
• Premise 2: A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
• Conclusion: A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

In the example the word “nothing” has two different meanings. In Galatians 6:1-5, we have two different “loads” being discussed. One must be shared; the other, borne by the individual.

The first burden spoken about is the burden of a sinning brother or sister. In this case we are to lovingly lift them up and restore the sinner. Doing this, sharing this burden of sin and guilt, fulfills the law of Christ (6:1f). The second burden is the burden of our service for God (6:3-5). We are to judge our actions and self honestly, without comparison to the work of another. In this way we bear our own burden and not that of another.

To illustrate the second burden, look at something that is very common among pastors. When two pastors get together there are two things they want to know about each other before anything else is discussed. One, “How many people attend your church?” Two, “How many people can your church building hold?” We hear those numbers and do “holy math” to figure out who has the bigger church and is therefore the alpha dog. I see this as the pastoral version of two dogs sniffing each other. Often we determine our own success or failure by how our ministry compares to the ministry of another pastor. This is wrong though because I am responsible to bear my own burden and not his.

When interpreting scripture context is king! An old adage that I like is, “A text without a context is a pretext.” Words alone give little details of meaning; the complete picture is painted by the context.

In Galatians 5:16f, we are told that if we are living in the Spirit we will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. We are also told that the two—the Spirit and the sinful nature—contend against each other with different desires. Paul goes on to say, in 5:24, those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature, with its passions and desires.

The last part gives a graphic image I’ll try to share. Crucifixion was a familiar punishment in Paul’s day. Every major city would have crosses of dead and dying flanking the gates to warn those entering the city what could happen. Those reading Paul’s letter would know this and see crucifixion as certain death—no one came off a cross alive. They would also be aware that once dead, most were left on the cross to rot. Paul tells them, in light of this, that their sinful nature had been placed on the cross and remained there. Our sinful natures are dead and hanging on the cross to rot. When we choose to surrender to sinful desires we choose to remove them from the cross and play with them. The pleasure we get is in spite of the fact that we are playing with a corpse.

This morning while reading in Galatians 5, I was impressed with verse 26, which says, “Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other” (NIV). This passage shows us something very true about human nature that most of us would like to deny. Provoking and envying are rooted in our image of ourselves and others.

This is easier to show with envy so I will start there. When you have something beneficial, whether a physical object or a beneficial arrangement, others may envy your good fortune.  While it is acceptable to be inspired by another’s success, to be driven to envy is not. Envy, as the negative side of desire, is born of believing you deserve the desired object (or blessing) as much as or more than the other person. Envy grows from viewing one’s self as of equal or greater status than another and seeing the success of another as an attack on that belief. Seeing one’s equality is not bad. We are all equal in God’s eyes, but when you believe the success of another actually makes you less equal then envy grows and we act to reestablish equality. Feeling you are greater than another is not bad when it is expressed as “this person can do something, but I can do it better.” If this is true, then believing it is not conceited—we are supposed to believe the truth. Conceit causes us to see the other person as less deserving than ourselves. We then see their success as a personal injustice. This causes us to envy them.

The other result of conceit is provoking. When we see our own happiness as more important than that of another we often provoke that person. We attack and pick at them because it is their role to make us happy as a part of the universe of which we are the center. We’ve all seen bullies picking on other children. This can happen when the bully himself feels vulnerable and seeks to mask his weakness by demonstrating and attacking another’s weakness. Of course this springs from an idea within the bully that he and his feelings are important enough to reduce the other person to being a tool. The attacker assumes a right to use the other person, regardless of the other person’s feelings.  Another reason people might provoke one another is the belief that the other person exists for their entertainment and that their ability to attack the other gives them a right to attack them. Either of these is an example of what Kant would have seen as using someone else as a means to an end, rather than seeing them as an end in themselves. I have no right to reduce you to a tool for my own purposes. It is conceit that inspires this behavior.

Another reason we provoke is because we believe the other person needs our guidance to live and act properly. We see ourselves as the other person’s personal conduit to the Holy Spirit. While I might love you enough to provoke you to righteousness and to seek your own best as a servant of God, this does not give me the right to provoke you to do what I want or what I believe you must do. There is a difference between seeing myself as your encourager to act and your guide to action. When we get conceited, we often believe our own understanding of the Word is special and that of others is suspect. Because of this, we provoke them to follow us rather than encouraging them to follow God. This too is conceit in action.

Each of us was created for God’s purposes. We have been created to serve him. Even though he has given us individual gifts and talents, no combination of such makes one superior to another or more deserving in God’s sight. So, when another receives a blessing it’s between the recipient and God. If you do not receive such, rather than blaming those who did receive by attacking them or envying them, look at yourself—your own decisions, your own devotion—to see if there is a reason blessings are withheld from you. More often than not, you will find you have received exactly what you deserved or have not received because you did not deserve. If honest, we understand that what we received from God was far more than we deserved. When you understand the world this way there is little room for provocation or envy among God’s people.

Since Charles Sheldon’s book, In His Steps, came out in 1896, many Christians have dedicated themselves to seeking the proper course of action by answering a simple question: “What would Jesus do?” I say simple because on the surface it appears to be so. Sheldon challenged his readers to ask the question and think about the answer. Once sure of the course of action Jesus would take, they were to respond in that way no matter the difficulty or price.

Since the 1990’s this question has been popularized with bracelets and various other Christian merchandise with the letters WWJD. These are meant as a reminder to expose the decisions of life to this question, and to model one’s life on the life of Christ.

While it is commendable to ask this question and even more commendable to follow the answer wherever it leads there are some assumptions that must be made in asking it. Whether these assumptions are met or not, determines whether this question is a good formula for guiding life or a way to spiritualize bad decisions.

It is assumed the person asking knows enough about Jesus’ ways, personality and values to make a proper decision. Since Jesus lived 2000 years ago this assumption can be problematic—not impossible though. Too often people ask the question and assume what Jesus would do based, not on facts of his life, ministry and teaching, but based on modern values and personal criteria. It depends on how one sees Jesus.

When we ask the question we are assuming the following premise to be true:

If Jesus would take said action, then I will take said action.

If we take time to learn what Jesus would do then act accordingly we have treated this premise properly. However if we do not take the time to learn about Jesus but define as we prefer to see him then we misuse and falsify the practice. If I look at the modern world’s standards and what I should do here, then claim Jesus would take the same action I have committed a fallacy known in formal logic as affirming the consequent.

Unless you are going to learn about Jesus, this question, “What Would Jesus Do?” is useless as a guide. Let me use an example from my earlier life. A hunter must learn about the behavior of his prey. If he hunts deer he must learn about scrapes, scat and tracks, but also about how a buck will act during the respective hunting season (rut or not in rut, hot weather, cold weather), etc. Until he learns these, he may be hunting, but he is not a hunter. The details of behavior help him catch his prey. This knowledge allows him to foresee what the prey will do. I used to know a place in Montana where I could always find a buck napping under a certain tree, so long as the day was warm and the wind blew from the North. There was a certain track across the wind that could get a slow careful hunter within range. This was possible because I did not make assumptions about the deer. Instead I learned their true behavior.

I have in my office a sign that says: Never confuse the will of the majority for the will of God. This is perfect advice for those who would use WWJD to model their life—never confuse the values of today’s world for the values of Jesus.

So how can we prevent this and get to know Jesus well enough to truly and accurately answer this question? If I wanted to get to know you I would spend time with you. Spend time with Jesus in prayer. Now as you and I interact I would watch the things you do and then be able to differentiate you from others through these observations. How many of your friends do you know from the sound of their walk? With Jesus this is a bit hard to do because he has ascended to heaven. However, we can watch him though scripture. By reading the gospels and studying the picture they give of Jesus we can get to know him and begin to recognize him at work and recognize circumstances similar to those he faced. Another part of getting to know Jesus is learning from those who already know him and being around those who manifest him in their lives. In other words, we learn about Jesus by praying, reading scripture and being part of a body known as a church. Through the growth these produce we can actually see what Jesus would truly do.

If you are not going to take the time and put forth the effort to learn about Jesus you will not know what he would do in a given situation and cannot model your life on his. At best you are in danger of reducing Jesus to a proof text to support the life you already chose to live. He deserves far better.

While studying for this Sunday I am reading Matthew 7:7-12. As I was reading about asking, seeking and knocking, a thought came to mind about the imperative mood used in commands. The imperative, of course, is the mood of command. The difference between “I go” and “Go!” is found in the imperative. Sometimes, in these studies I will look for quotes on Greek grammar to use in the message and this week a great thought came to me while looking at what Dana and Mantey had to say about the imperative mood.

“Where one will makes a direct, positive appeal to another the imperative finds its most characteristic use” (Dana and Mantey, p175).

Read the rest of this entry »