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

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

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

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

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

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

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

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

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

© 2008 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved