In the Finding: Luke 15

In Summary: Luke 15 has three of the better-known stories told by Jesus in his ministry. We see the story of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. Better, perhaps, is to view these as the stories of the found sheep, the found coin, and the found son.

After all, that is the focus of the message here. Jesus does not detail how to handle lost items, nor does he spend the time lamenting their lostness. Instead, the focus rests on how people respond to finding their precious possessions.

The three parables run in parallel to one another. Keeping in mind that parables tend to use simple images to explain more complex ideas, so we want to understand the simple images. The key, generally, is there.

In Focus: The simple images from the three parables are these:

1. The lost item.
A. The lost sheep: a sheep tends to just wander off, it’s an animal. It needs guided and cared for, and if it wanders it needs found.
B. The lost coin: gravity and physics, and a dropped coin becomes a lost one. It is totally unable to find itself—it must be found.
C. The lost son: the first two are most likely lost due to accident or misfortune. The son? He is lost due to his own will. Unlike the others, the son chose to get lost and has the capacity to return.

2. The finder.
A. The sheep-owner: he knows just how many he should have, and has the capacity to protect the remaining ones while he looks.
B. The coin-seeker: again, she is aware of how many coins she should have, and then goes to great lengths to find the missing one.
C. The son-finder: he does not go out to find the son, but he did hold a seat at the table for him. He also allowed the son’s departure, though he obviously laments the son’s choice.

3. The celebratory crowd.
A+B. Friends and neighbors: Both coin and sheep result in celebrations with friends and neighbors, as joy is shared with others.
C. In the son story, we do not get the exact participants in the crowd. The father says “we,” and so one can assume the presence of members of the household. It is possible that the neighbors are there. Of greater concern is the highlight of the missing participant in the celebration: The unhappy onlooker. He appears only in this parable of the three.


In Practice: Attaching a practical significance to this passage requires us to understand who these simple characters are. From there, we see who we are, who we should be, and who we are not.

First, who we are not. The finder. The shepherd, the woman with the coin, the father, all are examples of the character and compassion of God the Father. Is it possible for us to act like the Father? Yes, but we are not God. These characters show us His character that we strive to emulate, but God is the one who finds the missing.

Second, who we are: the lost coin, the missing sheep, the wandering son. This is us. This is humanity: we have wandered off. We have gotten lost in the course of life. We have taken the riches of our heritage of the image of God and spent it on our own pleasures.

Third, who we should be and who we should not be: to get this, take a look at Luke 15:1-2 and see why Jesus told these parables in the first place. Jesus was eating with sinners and tax collectors—and “sinners” here are likely “sinners” by reputation more than anything else. The Pharisees and scribes were angry with the celebration of sinners repenting and especially with one who claimed to be God participating.

The Pharisees and scribes, then, are acting like the brother at the end of the Prodigal Son story. We should be more like the friends and neighbors who celebrate the repentance of sinners rather than the brother. These parables are an invitation to join in the celebration of repentance.

What, then, do we do?

We repent, so that we are permitted to be in the presence of the One who throws the celebration in the first place. Don’t miss that: if you are not found, you can’t celebrate. Let the Father find you.

We celebrate, without excessive complaint. What difference does it make what sins were forgiven? Or how lost someone was? Celebrate the finding.

In Nerdiness: Feels like I took it all the way apart, leaving nothing for nerds, right?

The nerd question comes through with every parable discussion: did these 3 things happen or did Jesus create teaching stories?

If He only used real stories, what does that say for us as teachers and our use of fiction?

If He used fictional stories, what does that say about balancing truth with fiction in explanation?

Sermon Recap for January 11

Good Morning! We began our new series yesterday as we work through Mark.

Morning Sermon: Mark 1:4-11 (audio)

One Sentence Application:

Obedience to God's word is publicly demonstrated.

Outline:

I. John baptized in 

II. John said Jesus would _______ and be _________

III. Jesus baptized with ___________

IV. The Baptism of Jesus shows all ______________ of the ____________

V. We learn from this that Obedience to __________ is _________ demonstrated

 

Sunday Evening: Genesis 1:1

Sunday nights we will be looking at two different things:

1. What does it mean to be a Baptist?

2. The Bible Memory passage.

We’ll do these most Sunday nights, but it’s a flexible time. Stay tuned.

Due to some changes in my recording, there’s a video but nothing else.

Say something worth saying

I’ve been over the latest news stories about the events in France. I’ve said a little about the need to defend freedom of speech here, but I would like to say a little more here.

First, a disturbing observation: the world now knows the names of all three of the butchers that entered Charlie Hebdo. The world knows the names of the two murderers involved in taking hostages in a supermarket. And it’s very important that we know the name and face of the one still on the run. We know the names of some of the magazine victims.

Quick, though, name some of the ordinary folks killed in supermarket.

Oh, and let’s be clear: “kosher supermarket”? Clarify that: Supermarket primarily handling a Jewish customer base. There was a deliberate targeting of two groups here: Western free speakers and Jews. Yet we don’t know much about the supermarket targets. Most likely, they were not people who ever thought “I’ll print this cartoon, write this blog post, and if they kill me, SO BE IT!”

That’s the challenge we need to remember as we sit quietly and decide to put words and images out that others will respond to murderously. I can, for example, step into the pulpit tomorrow and say what I please. I’ll post it to the Internet, and if you have a problem then you can respond.

Except it’s never just the speaker who is at risk, and this is how terrorism and oppression works. The evil side of life does not just gun for the clearly visible thorn in their side. They target friends, family, associates. They open fire in crowded supermarkets and take moms just out to pick up milk as hostages.

The goal is that, out of fear for such innocent bystanders, free speech will be curtailed. Free religion will be shut down, and free criticism of viewpoints will cease. It does not matter if it is done through legislation or if individuals simply cower down in fear and refuse to speak their minds. Either way, the goal is achieved: only one voice is heard, and that voice is whatever those with the power desire.

In France right now, and many other places, the obvious attempt is by armed individuals to cease that power. Sometimes the attempt is more subtle. Sometimes it is delayed: this is the response to actions taken at least 2 years ago. That adds to the fear: you never know when someone’s “offensive” speech will come back to bite them or how many innocents will get swept up in the crossfire.

What do we do, then? Should we curtail speech, considering our responsibility for others?

Let me say, as one who is far more likely to die a supermarket hostage than a heroic author, speaker, soldier, or police officer, no. NO. NO. Curtailing the freedom of others out of fear is the road to tyranny. You can call it a “slippery slope” argument all you want to, but I know this: if you push me at the top of an ice-covered slope, I’m going to the bottom, painfully.

You can claim that you only nudged me at the top, that it was reasonable, and what-not, but to my broken bones at the bottom, the slippery slope was more of the march of inevitability. And allowing fear to control us is the step.

Instead, this is what I say: have something to say. Seriously. I understand that the concept matters as much as the content, but make the content worthwhile.

As you consider whether or not it’s worth publishing, do not ask if it’s worth your life. I hope you never waste a drop of ink or a second of time on anything that’s not worth your life. You’re investing your life in it. Just because someone doesn’t kill you does not change that you are spending your life to print it.

Consider whether or not what you are printing is worth someone else’s life. Consider whether or not it’s worth adding to the widows and orphans of this world. If it isn’t, then make it worth those things.

Because you must not let fear slow you down, but you should make it worthwhile. It’s lives in the balance. The cost of exercised freedom is blood.

Don’t spend it on trifles. Spend it well. We’re counting on you.

Book: Literary Forms in the Bible

It’s a book. And one that I have in Kindle format, and I will say straight up: I would recommend that you get this in print. It’s more of a reference type work, and I just prefer that type of resource in print. I don’t find Kindles as “search friendly” as some people. It may just be me.

What book is it? A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible by Leland Ryken. Dr. Ryken is an English Professor and served (and I assume, serves in an ongoing fashion) as literary consultant to English Standard Version translation of the Bible. He should know literary forms.

First, let us consider the format. The format is why I would recommend a print version, because you have an alphabetical dictionary layout. It makes things easy to find, assuming one knows the alphabet, and makes for easy reading for those of with short attention spans. SQUIRREL!!

However, I don’t find this a text that makes for a read “cover-to-cover.” I’m not convinced that was intended, so that’s not a shot at the work. I think Ryken intended a reference book.

Second, let us consider content. The entries are alphabetized, with a descriptive definition for each literary type like “Anthropomorphism” or “Type Scene.” This includes some descriptive examples from the text of the Bible.

There is not an exhaustive list of every example of the form. That is not as much a drawback as the lack of an index of the passages mentioned. I would have liked that list in the back matter: each Scripture reference used, indexed to its type.

(And in all, I’d love to get my hands on a cross-reference of every Scripture passage indexed to literary type, or have that as a feature in either a commentary series or study Bible.)

Third, let us consider “completeness.” This is the “Complete Handbook,” after all. I’m inclined to think it’s complete, as Ryken knows what he’s doing. But I do wonder about the lack of reference to original language concepts. I’m curious of “story of abundance” is a universal literary form, a Western form, or a Hebraic form.

That does not diminish the value of this book as it is, but does show a limitation or two. I think more could be said in those areas, making a bigger book. Which is likely why there are limitations on what was presented.

In all, a worthwhile addition to the shelf.

EBook provided by the publisher in exchange for the review.

Prophets or not? Deuteronomy 18

In Summary: When you set up a national religion, you have to give thought to the succeeding generations. After all, there is always the hope and intention that your religion will carry on. This is the case whether you are dealing with true religion, mistaken religion, or cruising out with deliberately false religion.

When that religion is started up with miraculous events, it increases your troubles. After all, not everyone was a witness to those moments. What happens when someone else claims to have seen a burning bush or turned a staff into a snake and back? All they might have would be…a stick. The same signs that Moses said sent him out in the first place could easily be picked up by someone else.

You need a filter, a test that ensures your next generation leader is not pulling you away from the truths of yesterday. Keep in mind, we are dealing with the truths that we held yesterday. Truth is unchanging—opinions may shift but truth endures. For example, it is a truth that there is a God. That is, if there is a God, God existed yesterday, today, and exists forever, because the nature of “God” is eternal and everlasting.

(You might argue that I think it’s a truth, but by nature I would suggest most claims of existence/non-existence of deity are claims of truth.)

It is an opinion that God prefers music with guitar to music with accordion. Those are differences of opinion, and not of truth. The opinions of a religion may change as the years go by without altering the fundamental truth of the idea. Christianity is no different: truth is unchanging.

What, then, do you do when someone posits a change to the fundamental truth?

In Focus: Looking at Deuteronomy, we see this: God tells the people that He will provide prophets to speak on His behalf (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18:18) from among the people. These prophets will make plain the words of the Lord God, and He will provide signs to attest the words.

The thrust here is that the signs will be accurate predictions of future events. The words of the prophets are to be tested against the accuracy of their predictions. Any prophet who misses a prediction is to be counted a false prophet.

Oh, and in case one of them lucks up and hits one right? Deuteronomy 18:20 makes clear that the prophets must speak only in the name of the One True God. If he is advising switching gods, then he’s a false prophet.

In Practice: What does this look like for us?

First, I am not persuaded by arguments that there are modern-day prophets like the prophets of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 1 reads like God spoke finally through His Son. With this assumption, we’re not looking at prophets as much as religious teachers and leaders. Which brings us back to the question: what does this look like for us?

The first component is this: there will be some people who will speak presumptuously in the name of the Lord. We must be aware of the risk that these will be present and will not immediately stick out to us as false prophets. Some of them will be quite persuasive.

The second component is the content of the message. Does it hold true with what God has already said? Does it pretend a secret knowledge? Note that the test of fulfillment appears to be a longevity test: quick changes would have been unlikely. There is also a necessary clarity in the expression. The prophet who hedges and fluffs—or nuances too much—would never be testable. Those whose words cannot be tested should be ignored.

This includes those who try to subtly play both sides of an issue without actually expressing the truth. Scripture is quite absolute on many things. In those areas, we may be as certain as the text is. There is waffle room when the text is not clear, but more time should be spent on what we have clearly anyway.

(For example, Scripture is far more clear about love expressed through sacrifice in marriage than it is about who does dishes. Yet we have far more written, it seems today, about who should do the dishes. Why is that?)

Additionally, any messenger who proclaims truth contrary to the revelation of God should be discarded. Whether he does so out of incompetence or willful evil does not matter. He should be discarded as a messenger. If it’s incompetence, then allow a new opportunity when competence is gained. If willful evil, that’s another matter.

All in all, we must be cautious about who we let stand as a messenger from God. Scripture in Deuteronomy 18, as well as in the New Testament, is clear that messengers are to be tested in both word and deed. Are your favorite messengers known well enough to you to be tested?


That’s a challenge in the Internet era. You can find folks that sound great on the Web, but are they what they claim to be? How do you know?

In Nerdiness:  Check the first couple of paragraphs, about Levites and relocation. They were to be fed and supported by the people they served as teachers of God’s word. They were also to stay put in their appointed place.

Unless they wanted to move to the central sanctuary. But a Levite that made the change was not to be better fed than his fellow Levites at the central sanctuary. In other words, there were to be no kick-backs to pull a Levite from the towns into the central area.

If we pay ministers now partly based on the concept of the Levites, then what does this say about how compensation is handled? Or about how compensation of denominational workers is handled?

Shaping up

As we were doing Latin this morning in school, I started wondering about something. No, nothing about the 2nd declension or such—we’re very early on in Visual Latin, which is a great course—but just a passing thought.

The lesson we’re on deals with counting in Latin. If you are as clueless about Latin as I was until today, here are some facts: the Latin words for seven, eight, nine, and ten are: septem, octo, novem, decem. These words come into our month labels: September, October, November, December. Because those are the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth months. Right?

Right…or not. In some parts of Roman history, the names lined up with those months. They started the new year in March, when all the stuff started sprouting and growing. When the animals started multiplying and delivering, when the days are noticeably longer and warmer. You know, when things seem…”New.”

Rather than spend all of this post chasing the history of why we now celebrate “New Year’s Day” on January 1, just a week off of Christmas and connected to basically no astronomical or meteorological events (Solstice? Equinox? Nope), I want to point this out:

The starting point of a new year is less relevant than you might think. It is certainly a mindset that matters, but overall, there are no magical powers behind it. It’s all about how you conceive of the time.

With that in mind, then, why make a big deal of starting habits now?

Because we often need a little help. I do. Habits are easy to form but difficult to shape. Read that again, because you probably missed it.

Habits are easy to form. We make habits every day, and use them. I have a habit of trying really hard to find excuses to stay in bed in the morning. A habit of drinking coffee. A habit of this.

One simply needs to do something multiple times to form a habit. This is true of good habits or bad habits.

The difficulty arises because we human beings tend to make decisions based on a pain/pleasure scale. Naturally speaking, we choose pleasure over neutrality, and neutrality over pain. This is generally so across the spectrum: more pleasurable over less pleasurable, less pain over more pain.

Our habits, then, develop over lines drawn by that which is most pleasurable, or least painful, at the time. The donut tastes better than the yogurt, so we eat the donut. Every time—unless you think the yogurt actually tastes better.

Exercise seems more painful upfront than the couch, and so forth. And we form those habits.

The challenge of our lives is shaping our habits. Habits are easy to form, but hard to shape. How do we shape them?

We have to think past the immediate to shape our habits. We prefer the donut, but need the oat bar. (I don’t like yogurt, no matter the habit.) Why? Because we recognize the later pain from the donut. We need the exercise.

But the shaping is hard, so any little edge you can give yourself? Grab it. Does counting January as a time of new beginnings, where you are renewing regardless of the world around you? Great! Grab it.

Shape your habits this new year as you work toward being who God has made you to be. 

In the Counting: Luke 14

In Summary: We come back to Luke 14. Jesus continues to teach His disciples, but He also takes the time to go to dinner. After all, the Incarnation involves taking on flesh, even with its weaknesses. Jesus got hungry, too, and had to eat.

I think we would do well to learn from His habits, though, as we often see Him use the fellowship and interactions brought about by meals to interact with others. None of His actions were needless or pointless. We see the opening of this chapter that Jesus entered the house of one of the Pharisees for dinner.

On the Sabbath. This is referred to as “eating bread,” probably because the Pharisee is being meticulous to avoid work on the Sabbath by only serving bread that had been pre-prepared. I do not have that in a definite source, but that seems a logical reason. There is a problem. There always seemed to be, and this time it was that a man in need of healing was present at the meal. Given the overall impression that the Pharisees are watching to see if Jesus will do anything, he’s likely there as bait for a trap.

Jesus springs the trap, heals the man, and proceeds to teach the Pharisees what is most important. He stresses humility and challenges His hearers to seek what is best for others. This is a valid question for every decision made by disciples of Jesus: “Am I doing what is best for me or provides others with the best picture of Jesus?”

Answer that one honestly and see how it changes your behavior in the years to come.

In Focus: That question, that type of thinking, brings us to our focal point. This chapter culminates with Jesus’ running off a good number of the crowd that followed Him. He points out that the defining relationship for His disciples is the relationship with Him, not with anyone else. He raises the important point that we must “carry our own cross and come after Him” (v. 27, pronouns shifted) if we are to be His disciple.

This includes considering just what it might cost us to be His disciple. This section presents the very real possibility that some will follow Jesus and falter when it gets too tough, to their own shame and embarrassment. An interesting side note is that He does not highlight that God will be embarrassed…just that the faltering disciple will be.

Further, take note that neither of the scenarios presented invoke unknown problems. The tower builder and the king going to war are both aware of the costs they face. It’s safe to assume this includes expecting one to prepare for a few things to go wrong! But there is no condemnation or ridicule for the one who sets out to build a tower and then finds it demolished by the angry king going to war! Only for the one who sets out to build without considering the knowable costs.

In Practice: What, then, do we do? First, we consider the cost of our discipleship. The primary cost is paid by Jesus when He dies for our sins. That is the portion of the debt we will never pay on our own. We just can’t. Every action we take to pay for our own sin is a rejection of God’s grace, which increases the debt rather than decreases it. We must surrender to Christ as Lord rather than keep trying to fix ourselves.

Second, though, is the cost to our own lives as followers. Here is where we can count the cost. It’s a simple inventory: what have you got?

Because it all belongs to the King of Kings at this point. More specifically, we should consider our preferences, our comforts, our plans as subject to change—or be discarded!—for the sake of His will. This is part of the cost: would you serve the King? Then you must not hold back.

This is especially true as we begin to walk with Him and start seeing the ways in which we have our own towers, our own structures in process. We have to learn to walk away from them, for the greater glory of following Christ.

In Nerdiness:

First, don’t get too thrown by the apparent weirdness of “no healing on the Sabbath” as a rule. There’s two reasons for it. The first is this: we’re not talking emergency medicine here. Nor are we talking time-limited life-saving surgery. We’re talking, generally, simple medicine or surgeries that you were fortunate to survive. There were no compelling reasons to do these things seven days a week. Second, there were quite a few false messiahs or fake faith healers then—just as there are now! (I’m looking at several fruitcakes in my own denomination on that, plus many others elsewhere…)

Constraining them to not heal on the Sabbath kept them away from the Synagogue or Temple crowds. Plus, it made for a religious litmus test. Not entirely bad.

What the rules didn’t account for was the possibility that God would get involved Himself. Man-made rules, even ones intended to honor God-made rules, are not restrictive to the Lord God. He will do as He has said—nothing we devise restrains Him. When we see that, clearly, we do and understand better.

Second, notice the motif of discard and abandonment in this chapter. I would suggest this: the problem is not the Jesus will discard if we are not salty enough (v. 34-35). It is that we will be cast out from the world we are here to salt if we are not salty enough. And salt, for all of its uses, is this: distinctive. Salt does what it does, without trying to be mustard, or pepper, or anything else! Be salt. The world will then need the Living Water to quench its thirst.