Welcome to Flock's Diner

Christianity in the Western world is increasingly vanishing. The decline is partly due to a deep-seated, chronic denial by entrenched “Church culture” survivors, who live in the present, while heading into the future with their hearts stuck in the past.

We all wish that every congregation was healthy, boasting thousands, or at least hundreds of passionate believers. But some congregations just aren’t willing to recognize the chronic state of thier branch of the body. The difference between those very few congregations that actually see such growth and spiritual vitality, and the majority of congregations that are in a constant decline or, at best, remain temporarily stagnant, is partially due to a willingness to recognize that people have changed. What leaders of strong congregations see is that which George Hunter III recognizes:

“These populations are increasingly ‘postmodern’; they have graduated from Enlightenment ideology and are more peer driven, feeling driven, and ‘right-brained’ than their forbearers. These populations are increasingly ‘neo-barbarian’; they lack ‘refinement’ or ‘class,’ and their lives are often out of control.”

Until we are willing to admit and respond to the fact that younger generations are unable to recognize the language, habits, and values of those of us who grew up in the Church culture, we will continue to see a decline in Western Christianity.

I believe that the decision which we will have to decide upon is whether we care more about our own values, or reaching the West for Christ.

As a songwriter in Nashville, one of the cultural axioms that I picked up rather quickly was that of calling a songwriter’s song his “baby.” I learned that, when a writer performed his song, he was not just trying to sell a product, but he was showing off his “baby.” And if someone didn’t like his “baby,” the writer took the dislike very personally. Rewriting the song was like giving the song up for adoption; something many young or new songwriters were unwilling to do. “This is ‘my’ baby, and I’d rather it never be heard by anyone than see it change!”

The mature songwriter learned that, as beautiful as his baby was to himself, if he wanted it to be recorded and have a chance at being played on the radio, he would have to learn how to make the baby loveable to others, even if the baby would no longer be his. If he was unwilling to give the baby away, it would almost certainly die with the songwriter.

Most congregations and Church leaders are not willing to give the baby away in order for it to be loved. In other words, many of us would rather see our congregation die than see it change.

It is written in the Scriptures that King Solomon had the opportunity to express his great wisdom, when two prostitutes brought in a baby that both claimed as their own. One prostitute’s baby had died during the night, because she suffocated it by sleeping on the baby, so she stole the child of the other prostitute during the night, and left her dead child with the mother of the living child.

Solomon’s suggestion to the two who fought over the child was to have the baby cut in half and each of the women were to be given a part of the baby. Of course the true mother was willing to “give the baby away” so that it would not die, rather than have her baby killed (see 1 Kings 3:16-30).

It seems that many believers would rather have our congregations die a slow death than make it something that another would be willing to love. Even in the face of certain death, many Christian leaders and congregants make no effort to change so that others will be able to love the Church.

Are our traditions and paradigms so valuable to us that we would rather see our baby cut in half than rewrite the song?

In His dust,
Johnny

George G. Hunter III The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West… Again (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 9.

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Sometimes people say really stupid things in an effort to give a compliment. “Your hair looks really good today,” can actually be heard as, “Your hair did not look good yesterday!”

In other not-so-brilliant moments, in an effort to be helpful, a person will stick his foot into his mouth. For example, I once read of a woman who said to a child at the funeral of the child’s mother, “Don’t worry, Honey, your dad is still young and he’ll find you a new Mommy.” Wow!!!

I do not claim to have never said anything stupid. In fact, I say a lot of stupid things. None of us is immune to momentary lapses of common sense. Consider Paul the apostle’s advice to Timothy concerning those who seek leadership roles in the Church.

“He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” (1Ti 3:4-5 NIV).

If “managing” means that any would-be leader’s children must be “controlled,” then Paul’s advice would make God ill-equipped to lead His own Church. Even God cannot say that he has a perfect family, or that he is able to control His children. Most of His chidren are dysfunctional, and all of them are sinners.

As one of my own sons so brilliantly added, “I guess the children of pastors don’t have free will.”

Did Paul put his foot in his mouth?

He did, if “manage” means “to have control over.”

It’s hard for us to say, hear, or even read the word “manage,” without imposing the idea of having control or preventing mishap. When an employer hires a manager, he or she is employing someone who will have the ability to minimize problems and maximize efficiency.

In an effort to better understand exactly what Paul was telling Timothy, we will have to hear the word “manage” from Paul’s perspective and language.

προΐστημι is the Greek word that is translated “manage” in many of the English translations used by most Christians. It is a word that has two meanings, according to BDAG: 1) “to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of).” This definition leads one to assume that to lead the Church a person must be “in control” of his family, house, and children. By this definition, even God has failed.

The second BDAG definition gives clarity to Paul’s words. I’ll give you that in just a minute. But first, Paul’s words have to be understood in their original context, based on his own culture and understanding of the words that are recorded in the original language of which Paul wrote. I would argue that the supervisory definition (BDAG’s first), often adopted by those who wish to criticize pastors of unruly children, is far from the intent of Paul’s instructions to Timothy.

It is the second meaning of the word that is most helpful in understanding Paul’s less-than-offensive criterion. That definition from BDAG is 2) “to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid.”

This second definition is used in many Old Testament passages of the LXX, including the books of 2 Samuel, Proverbs, Amos, and Isaiah, along with other uses of Paul in Romans, 1st Thessalonians, 1st Timothy, and his letter to Titus.

The second definition, “to care for, take care of,” is also that of another Greek word, ἐπιμελέομαι, which is used in the story of the Good Samaritan. “The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him (ἐπιμελήθητι),‘ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have’”(Luke 10:35 NIV). In this story, the Samaritan is the care-giver of the one who was beaten, and he is asking the innkeeper to continue a service of “managing the needs” of the injured man.

It is true that the Church to which an individual is called and desires to lead includes the property and administrative duties, but the Church itself is the people or the children of God.

Paul’s instructions to Timothy concerning who should be allowed to lead God’s children is not to be heard as, “Anyone who has problems in his household can’t lead the Church.” What Paul is saying is “Anyone who doesn’t care about his or her own property, family, business, and children, will surely not care about God’s children.” There are many hurting, troublesome, and sick people who call themselves Christians, and if a person wants to lead God’s children, but cannot care for his own children in good times and bad, he is not fit to care for God’s children who will surely be far from perfect.

In His dust,
Johnny

BDAG: W. Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Philip H. Towner The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), p. 256.

© 2010 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Giving to the ones we love is an important part of our culture in the United States, as well as the cultures of many other countries. Most people enjoy the practice of giving things to one another as a token of friendship, love or appreciation.

Some of us are better at giving than others, as there are those who give what they would want to receive and there are those who give only to be noticed for their exemplary gift-giving ability. And then there are those who give genuinely from his or her heart.

Samuel Lachs teaches that ancient Jews believed that the evidence of a true child of God included the three virtues of prayer, charity, and repentance. Giving to the poor was an act of righteousness which was expected to be observed by all people who claimed to have turned from their sin and live for God.

Just as there are different intentions of gift-giving today, even the Jews who considered themselves pious believers did not always practice obedience to God without personal agendas.

Matthew’s gospel records Jesus teaching that believers are to be careful not to practice acts of righteousness in order to be recognized by people. And when one gives to the poor, he or she is to do so privately (s. Matthew 6:1-4). Jesus elaborates on the subject of giving in secret by contrasting how some give by “sounding a trumpet.”

In the first century, there were thirteen collection boxes in the women’s court of the Temple, which were used to collect alms for the poor. The shape of the collection boxes, being wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, resembled a trumpet, and each time coins were dropped into the boxes they would make a distinctive sound. Some of the Pharisees were particularly interested in being noticed for their generous giving, and would drop large amounts of coins into the collection box at one time, which would make a loud noise that was dubbed “sounding the trumpet.”

Jesus used this well-known act of self-giving (self-righteousness) as an example of how not to give.

As Christmas 2009 is now behind us, perhaps we can all plan next years season of giving with the intention of giving from the heart.

In His dust,
Johnny

Ron Moseley Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church (Baltimore, Maryland: Lederer Books a division of Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1996), p. 28.

Samuel Tobias Lachs A rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1973), p. 112.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

I have been told that work belongs in the realm of business and not within the realm of Christian community development. I have also been told that work that is not profitable is not meaningful. So, what is the purpose of work? I believe that we have all come to embrace the idea that work is toilsome, it is part of the curse brought on us by the original sin. Or, perhaps we hold a more secular philosophy, that work is the opposite of leisure. We work so we can live. We spend most of our time draining our souls, so that we can spend the excess of our efforts on something that will replenish our souls. This is a dreary existence. For many there is never enough excess, their souls are being slowly drained.

Then there are those who can’t compete, they can’t even get in the game. They can’t afford to purchase what makes them feel alive, so they simply steal to purchase what makes the struggle of life less painful. In their pursuit of soulful meaning they will often exchange skill for cash, in ways that rob their souls. These are the poor and many of them wear suits.

The dictionary defines work as: productive or operative activity. That’s straight up, no cultural or philosophical baggage there. My own definition is: any effort focused on a desired outcome and leisure is any effort with no desired outcome. The early chapters of the Bible holds some clues about work. Perhaps a more biblical definition of work would be: a creative, productive or operative activity that reveals the worker. God’s creation is revelation, and we are created in His images. Therefore, our work, our efforts, become meaningful when they are productive, but also when they reveal God and His images in us.

The Church seems to have handed work over to business, because they have bought into the idea that work is only about making money. Our response to the beggar is “get a job”. We have declared that the only kind of work that is honorable is paid work, and anyone who can not pull their weight is useless. We have become like those who passed by on the road to Jericho. I have a son who is 15 years old, he looks like 7 and has the mental capacity of an infant. By these terms he is useless. I have a friend who was traumatized as a child when his step-father danced around, waving his chainsaw. The roar of the saw drowned out the screams of his little sister, who was tied naked to the kitchen table. By these terms he is useless.

What about those with learning disabilities? They are often convinced by the system, and their families, that they’d never amount to anything? By these terms they are useless.

Therefore, the Church needs to have a strategy that includes healthy and meaningful work opportunities for all in their care. We need to make sure that we are not simply feeding their short term needs and ignoring who they really are. Our response to this challenge should be, “Come and share my work with me, I want to see who God has created you to be”.

Writer: Wayne Rumsby is at least a fourth generation follower of Jesus Christ. In his late 30’s Wayne responded to an invitation to visit an inner city mission in the heart of Toronto. At the time he was working as a graphic designer. It wasn’t long before he left his job in the fast paced ad business, in the glass towers, to become a full time missionary on the streets and in the alleys. The focus of his mission was to help the marginalized discover God through meaningful work. For most of the past decade Wayne was helping people discover who God had created them to be, by teaching them to make beautiful furniture in a woodworking shop. Today Wayne and his wife Linda are working with the team at 614 with the very same vision, helping people discover who God has created them to be, and more.

© 2009 Wayne Rumsby.
All Rights Reserved

The King James Version! Some have ignorantly stated, “It was good enough for Paul, and it’s good enough for me!” I have even heard a preacher say to his congregation, “I hope none of you brought that New Idiots Version into this church today,” speaking negatively of the NIV. Why does the KJV of the Bible cause so much dissension among Christians?

I was in a Christian bookstore today and an entire wall was devoted to the King James Version of the Bible as if somehow that particular seventeenth century translation is the pinnacle of holy scholarship.

The KJV is the most difficult to read, much less understand, and comes from a translation of what F. H. A. Scrivener called “…the most faulty book I know,” which was the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. The Textus Reseptus is a highly unreliable compilation of varied Greek texts hastily put together by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 A. D.

Erasmus used very few manuscripts, most of which were very unreliable and dating only to the twelfth century. And, where verses were missing, Erasmus simply translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek, translations that neither then nor now match any other Greek manuscripts ever discovered. One example, which is given attention by Metzger and Ehrman is the KJV of Acts 9:6. The KJV is the only translation that adds the words, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” These words exist in no other version, because they were assumed by Erasmus’ own interpolation of the verse in the Latin Vulgate.

What Erasmus did in five months, when compared to the latest scholarly work, is quite scary. And how someone could not listen to the wisdom and scholarship of modern scriptural translations is nothing less than frightening.

When studying our most sacred texts, including how they began and how they have developed to the forms we read today, it is of great importance to know that some of our most reliable manuscripts evaded us for centuries. It is also important to know that many of the most unreliable manuscripts have dominated churches for close to four hundred years, thanks to Erasmus.

An example of true biblical scholarship can be seen in a strange and true story of how some of our most important manuscripts came to be found.

At a time of great economic difficulty, the cost of the writing material known as vellum was so expensive that the parchment of older biblical texts were actually scraped of their ink and used by writers who needed some more writing materials.

Imagine someone today taking a fifth century Greek writing of almost the entire Bible, scraping all of the ink off of the sheepskin, and writing something completely different on the pages. These scraped manuscripts were called palimpsests, meaning “rescraped.” One of the most important manuscripts used by scholars to translate portions of every book of the Bible except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John is a palimpsest called Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. The 209 pages of manuscript were erased in the twelfth century to record 38 sermons of a fourth century Syrian Church father by the name of St. Ephraem.

Thanks to the creation of chemical reagents and ultraviolet rays, the original fifth century writing on the vellum of Codex Ephraemi rescriptus was painstakingly rediscovered by Constantin von Tischendorf.

New translations of the Old and New Testament are made because older and more reliable manuscipts have been discovered in recent history. There are more manuscripts of even higher reliability which have not yet been released for use, because the textual scholars are not finished working with them.

Christians should not be discouraged by new translations; they should be encouraged to know that real work is being done to perfect the inerrant Word of God, which has been carelessly handled by the pens of some men.

In His dust,
Johnny

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 pp. 21-22, 142-145).

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament (4th ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 p. 12).

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

There is some truth to the fears of some Christian fundamentalists concerning the dangers of deep biblical studies. Like others, I have experienced the mix of emotions that come from looking at the Bible through the writings of early manuscripts. Some of those emotions include fascination and awe, while others are among those feelings that could ultimately be refered to as faith-shaking.

Recently at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, the faculty led a Saturday seminar called “Seminary or Cemetery”, which focused on the dangers of deep theological studies and how some seminarians risk the danger of actually losing their faith.

I believe I have some insights into how to avoid this danger.

Just as most Christian denominations accept the belief that Jesus is both human and divine, God’s Word is also humanly and divinely written. As for his humanity, Jesus grew in stature and knowledge (Luke 2:52), and, since the invention of Guttenberg’s printing press, God’s Word has evolved from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the vernacular of nearly every nation in less than 600 years.

As Jesus, who is the Living Word (John 1:1), grew and developed into the man and rabbi who would fulfill Old Testament prophesies and prove to be God as Messiah, so has the Bible gone through many written developments until it has reached its full ability to speak to all people today.

We know how Jesus learned and grew. He grew and learned as a human being. But how did the Bible grow?

The Bible has gone through many processes to reach us where we are today. Scholars like Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and even the very controversial Bart Ehrman have done a spectacular job of giving those who want to know the ability to discover how the Bible came to be.

When doubt creeps in to the mind of a well-meaning student of God’s Word, it does so through the very human side of the Bible’s development. For example, when one looks over an early scriptural document and sees the scribbling of a monk in the margin of such an important manuscript, it is easy to think, “Oh my God, a normal person wrote this!” And suddenly, the awesomeness of the written words begins to be stripped of their mysterious power.

I suppose the same thing would happen, if we were to travel back in time to a point in the life of Jesus when he needed a diaper change. We would have to say, “How could God produce something that smells that bad?”

Being human is not anti-God, but the exact image of God without divine perfection. The written words that we read and trust as the very Word of God sometimes include the human stench of flaws produced by the careless hand of a scribe.

The flaws are caused by both human error and intentional changes. Scribes have been known to have problems with their sight and hearing, and they have also made errors in judgment. Among the reasons for intentional changes include spelling and grammar issues, alterations for reasons of doctrine, and the desire to smoothen word flow. All of these are well-known and documented by textual critics who work diligently to correct such flaws and restore the orginal meanings of the text.

And just as Jesus may have stumped his toe or gotten a cold, the scribes were not always completely careful when recording the musings, stories and wisdom of the many men and women of the Bible.

The Word of God is flawless, while the written form of God’s words must be constantly inspected and cross-checked as new manuscripts, historical facts, and the social cultures of biblical stories and people are discovered.

I am not threatened by textual flaws, but encouraged to know that God uses imperfect vessels, like you and me, to share the most important message ever given, even though we may not always pass it along with perfection.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman The Text of the New Testamen: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed., New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pg. viii.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

I was recently invited to a Bible study group that was made up of people from one end of the financial spectrum to the other as well as believers and non-believers. The leader is a great man with a heart of gold and a spirit of benevolence that is beyond compare. Ironically, the topic for biblical discussion was that of money.

When the topic of money comes up in conversations that lean toward the theological, someone inevitably misquotes Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:10 by saying, “The root of all evil is money.” Of course, that is always followed up by the more astute participant with, “No! The root of all evil is the “LOVE” of money.”

After studying the passage more thoroughly using scholarly tools and the Greek language, I discovered something peculiar about the words of Paul. The word which is translated “love of money” is not a phrase but a one-word noun.

The Greek word φιλαργυρία (fil-ar-gu-ria) means stinginess, greed, miserly, covetous or avarice. As a noun, it means “a greedy person.”

The “love of money” is just one way of saying (in English) what Paul was trying to relay to Timothy. In reality, it has a much deeper and farther reaching meaning than just the love of money. It actually means “to be a person who refuses to share and is only concerned with materialism and selfish gain, and wanting everything only for his or herself to the extreme of never helping anyone else.”

This teaching from Paul is further confirmed by the words of Ezekiel concerning the “sin of Sodom”:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy’” (Eze 16:49 NIV).

Selfishness was the sin that caused Sodom to be destroyed by God. It is also the heart of Exodus 20:7, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (this passage is repeated in Deuteronomy 5:21).

Coveting, materialism, selfish-gain, and greed are all meanings that fall under the definition of φιλαργυρία.

As Paul shares with Timothy, he is warning him to be careful not to become a person whose life’s pursuit is only to gain more money and materials for himself; a person who is stingy.

The purpose of calling φιλαργυρία “greed” a ῥίζα (ree-zah) “root” of all evil, has to do with the fact that, even though it is not seen, the root is the part of the plant that allows the plant to take in that which gives it life.

What is also important to know is that there is no definite article that accompanies the word root, which means that greed is not “the” root of all kinds of evil, but “a” root of all kinds of evil. There are many roots that feed evil, and Paul’s words make it clear that greed is one of the roots that feed evil in the world.

1 Timothy 6:10a which reads: ” For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”(NIV), would be better translated:

“For greed is an unseen source that feeds all kinds of evil.”

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Many of you will be surprised to learn that my great grandparents were slaves in America. Usually, we think of African Americans as those who represent the descendants of early American slavery, but there were also other peoples who were kidnapped, taken from the land of their ancestors and forced into slavery in America.

My father’s mother was the child of slaves who were taken from the Spanish Island of Menorca and used to develop the area in Jacksonville, Florida known as Mayport, where the Mayport Navy Base is located.

As a free American, I couldn’t imagine being owned by anyone. My dad and his brothers and sisters have shared stories with me of how my great-grandfather would not be allowed in the front door of a restaurant, but had to go around to the back to be served from a window or back door.

Some of us may have never thought about it, but if you owe anyone a debt, then you are their servant until the debt is paid.

Dave Ramsey shares some myths and truths about loaning money to relatives and friends:

“Myth: If I loan money to friends or relatives, I am helping them.

Truth: If I loan money to a friend or relative, the relationship will be strained or destroyed. The only relationship that would be enhanced is the kind resulting from one party’s being the master and the other party a servant.”

Paul’s letter to the Philippians follows the typical Greco-Roman form, but Paul makes some changes that cause his letters (not only his letter to the Philippians) to be uniquely Pauline. In studying Paul’s letter to the Philippians, one important aspect to note is that Paul does not introduce himself as an apostle, but as a fellow-slave of Jesus (Fee Letter, p. 62).

Often the word “servant” is used to translate the Greek word of this passage, but the Greeks, among the believers in Philippi, would have understood it to mean nothing less than a slave. In Greco-Roman societies, slavery was not like the racial slavery that devastated America, but it was still slavery. First century slaves in the Roman world were not free to do as they chose; they were under obligation as humble servants who belonged to someone. They were in debt to someone, who owned them until the debt was paid.

As David Arthur DeSilva explains, “…slavery in the ancient world was based on practicalities of conquest, criminal proceedings, birth into a slave family or defaulting on debts.”

And though being a slave would seem to represent the deepest loss of dignity for any person, the Savior of the universe would come to the world in the form of a slave.

Paul and Timothy mimicked the attitude of Jesus by living as slaves. In Philippians 2:7, Paul writes that Jesus “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a slave.”

The Septuagint’s use of the word δοῦλος (du-los) that is translated “servant” often refers to those who are called by God to be used for special and honorable service, such as Moses or David, but this letter from Paul, which has humility as its theme, would more than likely use the word to mean the less honorable role of someone owned by another (O’Brien The Epistle, p. 45). Paul and Timothy are not referring to themselves as honored representatives of God’s Kingdom, but as slaves of their Master, Jesus.

Paul, an apostle called by Jesus himself, and leader of God’s people, considers himself, along with Timothy, to be nothing more than a slave, owned by Jesus Christ.

As believers in Jesus, it is not our goal to be served, but to serve in honor of the one who owns us. We are in His service, serving in his household, and serving those whom Jesus calls his children.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

Gordon D. Fee The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995) p. 62.

Peter T. O’Brien The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michiagan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. and U.K.: The Paternoster Press, Ltd., 1991) p. 45.

Dave Ramsey The Total Money Makeover (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2003, 2007) p. 24.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

W

hy did Jesus wait until the fourth day after Lazarus’ death to bring him back to life (see John 11)?

When Jesus finally arrived in Bethany, after Lazarus had been dead for four days, the body would have already experienced some forms of advanced decomposition. Even though there were those who believed in the power of God to raise the dead, the idea of a rotting corpse being brought back to life would have been beyond the hope of those expecting a miracle.

As a modern example, the healing ministries of particular Christian leaders are often expected to have the power to heal cancer, heart trouble, back pain and even the inability to walk, but I would argue that they rarely, if ever, receive one who has received third degree burns or the loss of a limb, much less actually heal that person; that is what it would have been like for those waiting in hopes of Lazarus having life return to his body.

Looking closely at John 11:20-22, we see that Mary did not even take the time to go to meet Jesus until after Jesus met with Martha, and Martha says something very interesting: “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. [But] I know that [even now] God will give you whatever you ask” (21b-22).

“But…even now!”

Four days was significant in the minds of first century Jews who would often go back to the grave of a loved one on the third day after burial to make sure that he or she was dead. On the fourth day, there would be no hope of the person still being alive, which was in accordance with the Talmud Tractate Semahot, 8:1.

So why stop on the third day?

According to a later rabbinic teaching, which may or may not have been accepted by first century Jews, it was believed that the soul hovers over the body with the intent of re-entering, but once the appearance of the body changes from decomposition, the soul then leaves the body unable to re-enter the rotting corpse (Leviticus Rabbah 18:1 on Leviticus 15:1).

Raising the dead back to life was not a new concept brought by Jesus; Jews for centuries believed that the dead could be raised from the grave, as is written in Isaiah 26:19. Still many other ancient rabbinical writings share the belief in the raising of the dead. “Rabbi Johanan said that there are three keys in the hand of God which may be placed in no other hand, viz. that for the making of rain, that for the opening of the womb and that for the resurrection of the dead” (Van Der Loos, p. 559).

Another rabbinical writing states, “the resurrection of the dead is part of the work of the Messiah who, on the strength of his name, based on Psalm 72:17, shall awaken the sleepers (Van Der Loos, p. 559). Other rabbis were also believed to have brought the dead back to life. It is recorded that a pupil of one rabbi brought back one of the servants of a person named Antoninus from the dead (Van Der Loos, p. 559).

Bringing someone back to life from the dead was not out of the realm of belief for Jews during the time of Jesus.

Perhaps the miracle which Jesus was showing to the world was that, even after someone was thought to be too rotten to live, as they believed, Jesus had the power of God to give them life.

There are many people who believe that they are too rotten to receive life from Jesus, but through Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus, he shows that that just isn’t true.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited: 

Craig A. Evans The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John’s Gospel, Hebrews-Revelation (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Cook Communications Ministries, 2005) p. 108.

D. A. Carson The Gospel According to John (U.K.: APOLLOS (an imprint of Inter-varsity Press), 1991) p. 411.

Dr. H. Van Der Loos The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1965) p. 559

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

M

any congregations have used the “pick-up” form of evangelism to give the opportunity for young people, whose parents refuse to worship, an opportunity to join the body of believers. I’m sure there are and will continue to be benefits of this decades-old idea and practice. However, I have also seen, first hand, the dangers when parents not only drop off their children or allow them to be picked up and carted off to a church building, and give up all responsibility for the spiritual growth of their children.One particular parent even went so far as to say, “You are denying my child the ability to know Christ,” after I refused to allow the very young, and misbehaving child to come to church without his parent. Another mother ran down the van that I was driving to tell me, “You have no right not to pick my child up for church! I’m going to write the congressman.”

“These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7 NIV).

What is the role of parents with reference to a Deuteronomy 6:7 lifestyle?

Most parents, including Christian parents, are not knowledgeable enough in the Scriptures themselves to “teach them diligently to their children.” A passion for knowing and applying the word of God must first be found in the heart of parents and guardians, before it can be shared with others. As one wise person stated, “You can’t give what you don’t have!” I’m not suggesting that every parent is given the spiritual gift of teaching. However, a love for God’s Word should be a valuable virtue for all believers, at least enough to read Scripture and practice biblical teachings within the family.

The most effective congregations in the world have given convincing evidence, if not proof, that home churches and home-based discipleship and fellowship offer an opportunity to experience a Deuteronomy 6:7 lifestyle.  

Home-based ministries give opportunities to share worship and biblical learning with families, without separating parents and children as readily as most programmatic ministries practiced within church facilities.

Many families who do attend church programs and worship are doing all they can to get to the building, and most of us know that our children fight tooth and nail to sleep in or stay home. I think most of us today long for more time at home, and less time fighting traffic and tight schedules. Programmatic ministry can be, and often are, effective, but how healthy is it for those families who rush home from work and school, then off to the church building with fast food in hand, all in the name of being “faithful?”

Home-based discipleship offers peace and less running around; it offers a time to sit and eat together in the comfort and genuine atmosphere of someone’s living space.

The Deuteronomy 6:7 principle seems to be more easily practiced in the more conducive setting of a house ministry, where the parents are not carted off to different classes and children aren’t left to the agendas and sometimes poor teaching of a typical Sunday school class.

With all of that said, I am not speaking at all of removing ourselves from congregational worship. Worshiping together is not only biblical; it is also essential for a healthy Christian body, as believers come together to pray for and with one another, to sing praises together, and to experience God as a community.

A man proudly stated to Dr. Samuel Shutz, Professor of Evangelism and Ministry at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, “I worship every Sunday on the golf course. I speak with God as I play, and I listen to worship music on my MP3 player.” Dr. Shutz responded, “Do you pray for others and experience the blessing of having them pray over you? Do you join your voice with other believers in praising God?” The man then responded, “I see your point. I am able to observe the Christian experience, but unable to experience it without being there.”

Living in a new day requires expressing and experiencing ministry in new ways. We can’t do it alone, and we shouldn’t separate the family. Parents and guardians must take their responsibility seriously to practice Deuteronomy 6:7 lifestyles.

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved