Welcome to Flock's Diner

Three words used for “hell” in the Bible:

1. Tartaroo - a word borrowed from the Greek world which was a reference to the place where angels were punished in the world of mythology.

2. Hades – A Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sh’ol – only word used for hell in the Old Testament and refers to the world of the dead, grave, pit, and sleep. The Gates of Hades is a physical place in the Decapolus where the pagan God, Pan, was worshiped.

3. Gei-Hinnom – A reference to The Valley of Hinnom. 2 Kings 23:10, “He (King Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.”

Molech was a god that the people would sacrifice their first born child to by burning him or her in the Valley of Hinnom. King Josiah destroyed and desecrated the place so that it could never be used for anything other than a town dump, which it became and was still being used for in the days of Jesus.

People would take their garbage to the Valley of Hinnom in Jerusalem where a continuous fire would burn the trash. Wild dogs would fight for scraps of food. And as they fought they would make a high pitched whimper like fighting dogs do and their teeth would grind together. This was known as the “weeping and gnashing of teeth in Gei-Hinnom.”

When Jesus speaks of a person being cast into hell, he is referring to the wasted life; a life which is good for nothing but the local dump. When we don’t follow God, we are like food that can’t be eaten, therefore we have become a rotten spot in the Kingdom of God, which is better off being thrown in the garbage where only wild animals will find anything of value in the waste that has become the life of a child of God.

Hell for Jesus and his followers was a literal place to which they could point and say, “Those who refuse to serve God are like a cup that refused to hold water, and the dump is waiting.”

n His dust,
Johnny

“Deciding when life begins is above my pay grade.”

After listening to this statement made by a particular presidential candidate as he responded to Rick Warren’s question about the beginning of life, I was reminded of an ethics class I took a couple of years ago at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Dr. Peterson was the professor and he gave a scenario of a burning hospital building where one hundred zygotes were kept safely frozen while one infant screamed in horror, choking from the smoke. He then asked, which one would you save, the screaming infant or the one hundred fertilized human eggs?

He gave this scenario after asking everyone in the class to consider when we considered life to begin. “Do you believe life begins at conception or when the light of the world touches the skin of a new born?” Most of us said we believe that life begins at conception. But when he gave us the scenario, a fireman answered, “I’d save the baby, and if anyone tried to make me save the zygotes and leave the one baby, I would punch him in the face.” This fireman/seminarian was one of those who adamantly stated that a fertilized egg was just as viable as a crying baby.

The reality is, this is not that difficult a question to answer, but it is a very delicate reality when we are called to respond. Life is life. Is a tree a life? Are germs alive? Of course. Is a fertilized egg a life? Absolutely. The real question is the question that Rick Warren asked which is, “When does a human being receive human rights?”

Since the earliest of civilizations, human beings have killed infants for the purpose of prosperity. Burning a baby alive or slicing it open and spilling its blood on an altar was thought to bring about rain, bountiful harvests of food, and fertile women for these pagan societies. The Valley of Hinnom (translated “hell” in the New Testament of English Bibles, Greek geenna) which was turned into the dump of Jerusalem by King Josiah is an example of such a place (see 2 Kings 23:10). The god, Molech, was offered sacrifices of infant burnings in return for prosperity.

Today, we kill unborn babies (fetus is Latin for child) for the same reasons. “If you have this baby, you will live in poverty, never be able to finish school, and no man will have you with that extra baggage.”

The arguments always lead back to whether a person who is raped or impregnated by incest should be able to have an abortion, but sadly, those who are having the most abortions are those who simply want the pleasures of sex without the responsibility of offspring. One report stated that many women between the ages of 18 and 25 in one particular European country have had an average of 8 abortions by the time they are 25-years-old.

When does a human being receive human rights? I don’t think the individual answer to that question is above anyone’s pay grade. I think it’s a matter of that which is the right thing to do regardless of personal inconvenience.

When does a cow’s life begin? Can you imagine a farmer not wanting calves on his farm, so he reaches in to the wombs of all his pregnant cows and squeezes the life out of the unborn calves? I promise you, within twenty-four hours, that farmer would be playing cards with Michael Vick…behind bars.

Psalm 139:13-16 reminds us that God knows us even in our mother’s womb and has plans for our lives. Though the pain caused to the mother may be immensely horrible and inconceivable, even the child of incest and rape can have a life of great value and purpose.

In His dust,
Johnny

The last two weeks have kept me pretty busy, and I have been enjoying myself. I spent last week living in a cabin that smelled like someone’s dirty laundry, but I really liked being out there with the teens and young adults. This week is a lot different. I am staying in a condo in Orlando with wonderful amenities that include a whirlpool tub that my four-year-old daughter loves.

I am grateful for the rest and appreciate the opportunity to not have to do much thinking. This thought process reminded me of a conversation that I had with a dear friend this past week. He asked me what I thought about a pastor turning off his phones for a week to rest, not allowing himself to be contacted at all.

At first, I thought it seemed a little extreme, but then I realized that a week of no communication is good for everyone. All of us can use at least seven days of no contact for a few reasons. First, it allows us to really rest. Second, it reminds us that no one is indispensible. And last, even Jesus took time to get away, even leaving those who needed healing left on the bank while he disappeared to a private place.

May God richly bless all of you as you consider taking time for yourselves at least one week per year.

Away from the crowd,

Johnny

As the previous post will guide you, it is apparently shocking that some non-believers are surprised when a Christian claims that God does not do everything for His children. The article, “God Is Not A Babysitter” has brought about a wonderful and sometimes disturbing discussion on one website (see previous post).

One person commented, “Either god is active in the world, or he isn’t. And by active, I mean in people’s personal lives. That includes protection for the innocent. Or else … he’s not worth believing in.” And another said, “I am told everything that happens is “god’s will” part of “god’s master plan”. When I contemplate the world I see humans doing vast evil to other humans, animals and earth itself. Natural disasters, “acts of god”, bring destruction and pain to thousands at a time. I see disease, molestation, rape, murder, etc. If god is omnipotent, then god must be the cause of these vile events. Worship a beast like this? I don’t think so.”

One of the major pictures that studying the Hebraic and Jewish roots of the New Testament has given me is that of the Shepherd.

To understand the role of a shepherd, one only has to spend a little time with the Bedouin shepherds of today in the Middle East. Bedouin shepherds still hold to the ancient practices of the Jewish shepherds of the time of Jesus. A Bedouin practice that is specifically important is the fact that the shepherd does not take care of the sheep; it is the under shepherds who do the actual shepherding. The shepherd or owner of the sheep merely points the way, while the women, boys, and girls (under shepherds) do the actual feeding and guiding.

This is the picture that Jesus is sharing with Peter when he says to Peter, “If you love me, then feed my sheep” (My paraphrase of John 21:15-17).

It is not the role of the shepherd to do the actual shepherding but the under shepherds. Unfortunately, many “Christians” have attempted to make God an under shepherd, expecting him to give us parking places, pay for our groceries, stand in front of bullets, and babysit our kids. No matter how much those people claim that God has provided those things, the Scriptural and practical truth is that God offers guidance for how we can be better parents, providers, and planners, and live safe, productive lives.

In my opinion, God does not choose our college, our car, or our wife. That is our job. That does not mean that there is no God. It means that just like most parents, there comes a time when we expect our children to take care of themselves using the guidance that we have provided.

One mistake we can easily make about God is approaching him with a pragmatic philosophy. Another mistake is to assume that God is a staunch democratic provider. Either of these approaches makes God out to be what he isn’t, a provider of all for everyone whether we do for ourselves or not.

God provides through his teaching, not unlike a parent or any animal who bears young and sends them out to live what they’ve been taught.

I would not say that if my parents did not stand over my bed all night without sleeping to keep me safe, that they weren’t parents worth having. It is very silly to assume that God is supposed to be some kind of piggy bank for everyone or he’s not God. Over and over, the words of the Bible point to the words of the Bible as being the instructions of God. Nowhere does that instruction tell us that God does not require us to learn, grow, and provide for ourselves.

The mysteries of God will always boggle the finite mind. One living and another dying is the way of the world; it has very little to do with whether or not God is taking care of us. After all, we are the under shepherds.

In His dust,
Johnny

On October 4, 2007 I posted an article titled “God Is Not A Babysitter.”

The gist of the post had to do with the absence of God in the world. An atheist picked up on the article and posted a response on his own website. It may be a good idea for some of you to read his response and consider the heart of his words. The true heart of an atheist or agnostic is often (not always) a desire to know the truth.

For the last two years, I have had the privilege of studying with a couple of agnostics. It is one thing to preach to and teach a room full of believers, and an entirely different thing to discuss the things of God with those who don’t believe in God. I will tell you that I have been so challenged by the interaction I have had with non-believers that I have learned as much from them (through the studies I underwent in response to their doubts) as I have from theological professors.

If you want to read the response to my article by this atheist, you can click on the link at thechapel.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/need-a-babysitter-dont-call-god. That article will also connect you to my article.

May we all bless God today.

Johnny

In Luke 19:9-10, Jesus says something that we cannot understand unless we have at least a minimal knowledge of Hebrew and the seven exegetical teaching techniques used by first-century Jewish rabbis.

Not only would Jesus have used a play on words at times, but he would also have used the technique known today as remez. A remez is a clue or a hint at a passage of scripture without actually reciting the passage.

As Westerners, we want people to just come out and say what they mean. We even have a phrase that we use—“Say what you mean and mean what you say.” We also say, “Don’t beat around the bush.” But rabbis would always beat around the bush. And if you don’t have a deep and thorough knowledge of the text (God’s Word) you will miss the message entirely.

First, Jesus uses a word play. Jesus says to Zacchaeus, “Today salvation has come to this house…” In Hebrew the word for salvation is yeshu’ ah (God’s salvation). Jesus is playing on the words “God’s salvation” when he says in Hebrew, “Today yeshu’ ah [which sounds like Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua] is coming to your house.” Then he says, “For the son of man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” “Son of Man” is a Hebrew way of saying, “this man” or “I.”

When all the Jews in the crowd and Zacchaeus heard Jesus say that he has come to seek and save the lost, they heard the remez that Jesus used. And what they heard was the 34th chapter of Ezekiel which records the words of God saying, “Because my shepherds have scattered my sheep and have abused them and put them in harms way, I WILL COME AND BE THE SHEPHERD, AND I WILL SEEK AND SAVE MY LOST SHEEP” (My paraphrase).

What this means is that when they heard Jesus say, “I came to seek and to save what was lost,” they heard Jesus say, “’I am God!’ And I have come just as I promised through my prophet, Ezekiel, to bring my sheep out of the trees and the fields and to rescue them from the wild animals and the dangers of the world.”

Often we hear commentators and others say that Jesus never claimed to be God. That seems to be true until we understand the technique of remez that Jesus used often. Zacchaeus and the others Jews on that day heard Jesus say it loud and clear.

In His Dust,
Johnny

Two years ago I purchased a new book from Jerusalemperspective.com. The book is a collaborative effort of Christian scholars fluent in Hebrew and many other ancient languages, and living in the land of Israel. They have worked for the past half-century examining the sayings of Jesus from a Judaic and Hebraic perspective.

I would not suggest that this book be read by anyone who believes that everything he or she has been taught is exactly what he or she should have been taught. It is not a book I would advise for those who think that all there is to know is known about the Bible, its history, and its translators.

“In antiquity, before the invention of printing, the situation of the readers facilitated the method of falsification. There existed at that time a way to falsify texts which today is practically impossible. As manuscripts were often rare, one had to return the book to its first owner. Meanwhile a falsifier could be at work, and if a reader borrowed another (falsified) copy of the book, he would be easily misled. In reading the false passage he could believe that in the prior reading the real meaning of the passage was not preserved. The Christian reviser of Josephus’ testimony about Jesus applied such a method of falsifying. He used the original wording of Josephus and ‘corrected’ them to become unequivocally Christian. By this he reveals an exceptional cunning. Josephus became popular precisely because all Greek manuscripts of Josephus accepted the Christianized text of the passage” (Jesus’ Last Week, pg 31, paragraph 2

The excuse often used by some to defend what appears to be later additions in the Bible is “God has perfectly preserved the printed text. It says what it says, because God wanted it to say that.” Should this be the case, then we would have to ask why Jews regarded memorization above written record throughout their history, including today.

We would also have to wonder why we are able to remember every word of hundreds, even thousands of songs, yet we Westerners are unable to adequately quote more than a sentence or a paragraph of more than a few books that we’ve read, without intentionally committing a portion of the text to memory. Unfortunatley, most Western Christians are unable to make use of some of the tools that are preserved in the original Hebrew text to aid in memory, nor do we desire to commit the text to song for the majority of the Scriptures.

Finally, we would have to wonder why a child, loved by the same God who ‘protects’ His printed word, can be abused. raped, and brutally killed, yet we assume the ink of a book can never be misprinted or purposefully corrupted.

Over and over God tells us to hide his Word in our hearts, yet we constantly commit His Word to paper, trusting it to those we assume are keeping their word to keep His Word.

Don’t be afraid to question human beings who are responsible for preserving writings that are vital to our being.

Our dependence upon the printed text makes us very vulnerable to changes in the Scriptures, and we rarely ever notice.

If you use a New International Version, which is the number one selling and owned Bible among Christians, you are reading a Bible with at least 8 deletions from the Gospels alone. These deletions were made by scholars who have found that they were added later and were not a part of the original letters.

Look them up for yourself:

Matthew 17:21; 23:14

Mark 7:16; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28

Luke 17:36

John 5:4;

And I’d be willing to bet, you never even missed them.

If it is that easy now, just imagine a time when only one person per community had a copy.

Hide it in your heart where no one can destroy it.

In His dust,
Johnny

Complaining is an easy thing to do. We all have reasons to complain.

Sometimes it is a little more difficult to notice the great stuff in our lives.

Think about that feeling right after you vomit when the wish-you-were-dead nausea is finally relieved. It is as if the whole world is at your feet just waiting to be conquered.

That is the feeling that Israel was experiencing when Moses was giving them the low-down just before they were to enter the Promised Land. For forty years they were in the desert eating “what is it?” and drinking water that was either very sparse or given by a miracle from a hard rock.

And there is a danger in that moment of euphoria when we no longer feel like throwing up. Sometimes we want to go out and eat a big, juicy burger with a large fries and a milkshake. Big mistake!

God warned them to be careful that they did not forget Him or his commandments. Once they get into the Promised Land, it will be easy to forget the desert and their reliance on God.

The desert is the training ground where God teaches us to rely on Him. In the desert, we only get exactly what we need for the moment. The Promised land is a land of “milk” and “honey.” Milk is a reference to shepherding, while honey is a reference to farming.

They have lived for forty years in the milk world where nothing could be grown, and they could only eat exactly what God provided. Now they will be living in a land of shepherding and farming. It is in the farm land that we are tempted to forget God and that He provides everything that is available.

As soon as I put my money into an IRA, it’s easy to forget that God provides the increase. We can begin to believe that everything we have is provided by our own hands.

“When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the Lord your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the Lord your God…Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God…You may say to yourself, ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me’” (Deuteronomy 8:10-11a, 12-13a, 17).

In those times and places of our lives when we finally find relief from the desert moments, we will be tempted to forget that God has provided that relief. And as children of God, let us never forget the words that Moses said to us, just before we entered the land of milk and honey.

We are called to honor God in the desert and on the farm.

In His dust,
Johnny

In continuing my studies concerning the Bible and homosexuality, I have come across another interesting, controversial, and “possibly” misinterpreted text.

The many Bible teachers, including educated scholars and backyard theologians (a.k.a. uneducated, honorary doctors of Bible study leadership) who teach that homosexuality is overtly mentioned as a sinful behavior in the Bible, often quote from a few passages that often include 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. There are other passages which are quoted, but we will stick with those two for the time being.

When reading the New International Version of the Bible, one will come across the phrase, “homosexual offenders,” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and the word, “perverts,” in 1 Timothy 1:10. Both “homosexual offenders” and “perverts” are a translation of the Greek word, arsenokoites, which is literally translated “male bed partners.” Why is the word translated as such? It is assumed that the two words which make up arsenokoites, arsen (male) and koites (bed) make the one word phrase “male bed partners,” thereby referring to men who are “going to bed together.”

“Dale Martin disagrees with those who read the two words…as one and thereby create a new term for men who have sex with men. Martin objects that ‘this approach is linguistically invalid,’ using as an illustration that the English word ‘understand’ has nothing to do with either standing or being under” (Rogers, page 74).

Martin goes on to explain that the word probably refers to a form of economic exploitation, most likely with the use of sex, such as rape, prostitution, or pimping.  

In addition, Brian Blount, professor of New Testament at PrincetonTheological Seminary, states that the definite meaning of the word, arsenokoites, cannot be clearly known. Without being surrounded by a context for this Greek word, it is difficult to translate this word beyond having something to do with the  shocking behavior of Greeks.

As Jack Rogers points out, the word occurs in lists that give no context with which to clearly define it, and Martti Nissinen notes that Paul uses the word for the very first time in Greek or Jewish literature, which also adds to the difficulty in interpretation (see Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, pages 73 and 74).

I am fascinated by the new attention placed on such an ancient stance in the church. And, as a student of God’s Word, I am also privy to my own opinion on the subject. I would have to offer as a defense that not all subjects are clearly stated within the pages of the Bible. Nowhere is it written that a man must not urinate on his neighbor’s car or that a toddler should not be allowed to stand on a hot stove, but that does not mean that either are not offensive or stupid ideas.

I am not completely settled on either side of the argument with regards to whether or not homosexuality, at any level, is considered sinful. And I am hopeful that this study will generate productive and godly discussions that will bring us all closer to the compassionate and Christ-like truth.

In His dust,

Johnny

The story of two angels visiting Sodom in Genesis 19 gives us many reasons to pause and wonder. Many sermons have been preached on this passage, which usually lead us to decide that homosexuality is the sin that caused Sodom to be destroyed. After all, how could God not destroy a city where a bunch of gay people wanted to rape two angels?

A closer look at the passage will help us to paint a new picture of the incident in Sodom.

First, let’s consider the similarity between the story in Genesis 19 and Judges 19. In both cases a stranger needs a place to stay and is welcomed into the house of someone who is a native of the city. And in both cases the stranger is harassed and threatened with rape. Second, we cannot make the anachronistic assumption that either of these Near Eastern stories are told in a Western context. Therefore, we must ask: What is in the Eastern context that may be missed by the modern reader?

In the ancient Near East, hospitality is considered a very high virtue. The story that Jesus tells in Luke 11:5-13 is a teaching against poor hospitality in the form of an unwilling neighbor in contrast to God, who is willing to open the door and give to his visitor at any hour. Because hospitality is so important, the act of being inhospitable was considered a horrible sin against humanity.

In the stories of Genesis 19 and Judges 19, both cities are not only filled with vile, inhospitable people, but those same wicked men are willing to degrade any visitors with the worst form of humiliation…treating them like women. “Daniel Helminiak, professor of psychology at the State university of West Georgia, points out that in the ancient world homosexual rape was a traditional way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes. In that culture, the most humiliating experience for a man was to be treated like a woman, and raping a man was the most violent such treatment” (Jack Rogers, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, page 70).

As the author, Jack Rogers, also points out in his book, both stories include the host offering his daughter(s) in place of his guest. This proves two points: 1) in some cultures of the ancient Near East, men and guests were considered more respectable and valuable than women, even one’s own daughters, and 2) the host did not consider the evil gang members to necessarily be that of the homosexual persuasion. It was not the prevention of homosexuality or even rape (see Judges 19:22-29) that was the point of the stories in the two passages that we are discussing (Genesis 19 and Judges 19), but the protection of guests and the virtue of hospitality. Protecting guests was thought to be a great responsibility of the host, and in a place where violence against those who respected the need to be hospitable was no longer honored, and where traveling guests were subjected to being humiliated by the citizens of that community, God chose to destroy their world.

The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but clearly, as written by Ezekiel, “‘… She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy’” (16:49).

As we consider the use of Scripture as a theological defense against the sin of homosexuality, we will have to look deeper into the context of the original meanings of the text as written in the culture and time of the writer. We must also be willing to go where the Bible leads, whether we personally agree and appreciate the outcome or not. Allowing our human biases to put words in the mouth of God is no small matter.

In His dust,
Johnny