F

or anyone who is looking for the opportunity to learn more about the Jewishness of Jesus, I would like to introduce you to three of my favorite teachers. Click on the pictures to go directly to their websites.

Beyond their wonderful web teaching, you can look into their DVD resources and books, which can all be found at their websites.

Dwight Pryor

Lois Tverberg

Ray Vander Laan

In His dust,
Johnny

When I think of serving someone, the first picture that comes to my mind is myself wearing a red apron that is folded in half with the strings tied around my waist a couple of times and made into a bow that is tucked under the apron in front of me. I’m wearing a pine-green, short-sleeved, cotton shirt with an Izod emblem and black jeans with white sneakers. It’s Friday night and I’m bringing drinks and food to fourteen different tables and cleaning off the tables when the customers leave.

My teen years gave me the opportunity for a lot of serving. I was a busboy at an Italian restaurant in Jacksonville, Florida on Baymeadows road. That was so much fun. And I found it easy to serve people; not just because I’m an extrovert, but because I got paid to do it. And, not only was it easy because I got paid, but the people I served were the guests. In a way, I was serving up!

It’s easier for most of us to serve up. We serve our parents who keep us safe, we serve our boss and the customers who keep us employed, we serve our country that protects our freedom. It’s very easy to serve up!

Throughout the Bible, God’s people are reminded that we are to serve. The question we should ask is, “In which direction should we be most faithful to serve?”

In Luke’s gospel, Jesus asks a question about those who serve. “Who is the wise and faithful steward, whom the owner of the house will put in charge of his household, to give them their food when the time comes to do so?” And he adds, “Blessed is the servant whom the master will find serving the household when he comes” (12:42 my translation).

The word that is translated household is

θεραπείας 

(thera-pee-as), the root of which we get the English word therapy. In one other verse in Luke’s gospel, 9:11, Luke uses this same word when referring to those who needed healing.

“..Jesus took them with him and they went away to a town called Bethsaida, but the crowd of people wouldn’t leave him alone. Jesus welcomed them and told them about the kingdom of God and he healed the ones who needed to be healed” (10b-11). The passage in verse 11 is more literally translated, “Those who needed θεραπείας (healers), Jesus healed.”

Jesus’ story from Luke 12 appears to point to some significance about the importance of serving the servants—waiting on the busboys.

Jesus’ listeners are familiar with someone in their Hebrew Scriptures who was faithful and wise; someone who waited on the servants and was incredibly blessed because of his service to the servants of his leader. The character and his story is found in Genesis 39ff, and this servant of servants name is יוֹסֵף (Joseph).

What kind of a steward was Joseph?

Joseph was a slave in Egypt. And as a servant of Egypt, he was so faithful that the Pharaoh’s captain of the guard, Potiphar, made Joseph his head servant and put him in charge of his entire household and everything he owned (see Genesis 39:4).

And because Joseph was so faithful at taking care of Potiphar’s household, the Pharaoh of Egypt became familiar with him when he had a need to have his dreams interpreted. Joseph translated the Pharaoh’s dreams, saving all of Egypt from starvation and served food to everyone who was in need. And because of his faithfulness to feed the servants of the King of Egypt when their time came to be fed, Joseph was blessed by the Pharaoh and given the position of second in command over all of Egypt.

Joseph made it a priority to serve the servants of the king, so the king made Joseph his prince.

It is indeed much easier to serve up than to serve servants. To put down the manager’s hat and serve the busboys takes a lot more discipline and humility than waiting on the customer, the banker, or the leader of a country. But Jesus makes a point to remind those of us who are waiting on the return of the King, that we are to be servants of his therapists, his healers, his servants.

When we serve the least among us, we have actually served the King (see Matthew 25:34-40).

Those who want the honor and privilege of being served by the King, must be faithful and wise enough to serve the servants.

“Who is the faithful and wise steward that the master will put in charge of his healing servants to feed them when it’s time for them to eat? It will be good for those the master finds feeding the θεραπείας (healers) when he returns.”

In His dust,

Johnny

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

How aware are we of the most fundamental, genetic tendencies of the human species? How many of us are aware of the natural order that causes most species to preserve themselves?

Wolves stop mating when there is not enough food, and monkeys will destroy any monkey from another pack in order to preserve their pack. Can these tendencies be seen, in some form, in the human species?

I would argue that those tendencies of the human species that we like or accept, we call “acceptable,” while other tendencies that we don’t like, we call a ”socially innapropriate.”

When the political or social climate of a particular society deems it appropriate, the natural tendencies that are debatable among that society, as to whether they are a menace or an accepted practice, are either given the mandate to be suppressed or they are given the liberty to be expressed.

For example: When someone expresses a tendency toward preserving their species through ethnocentricity, we call it “racism” and we tell those who express this tendency that it is wrong and this behavior should not be displayed by the human population.

But when someone expresses another natural tendency such as same sex relationships (which some argue is the genetic solution to over-population [along with the practice of abortion]), we call it “homosexuality” and some of us tell them that this should be suppressed, while others say it should be expressed as a “natural” tendency.

Are we choosing, as a society, to call one genetic tendency a menace while calling another acceptable? Is a desire to preserve the species, by way of racial segregation and ethnocentricity, more sinful than a desire to express one’s affection toward the same sex, if they are indeed only natural, genetic expressions?

In John’s gospel, the story of Jesus speaking with a Samaritan woman is used by many biblical teachers to show how Jesus pulled down the barriers of racism and male chauvinism. Apparently, these natural tendencies are considered social ills as understood biblically. Those tendencies that are expressed throughout the animal kingdom, which are used to preserve species and develop a protective hierarchy are those which separate other animals from human beings.

It may surprise many of us to know that, according to some scientists and their studies, at least 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality.

The argument among most Christians is that homosexuality is unnatural. Maybe the tendency toward homosexuality is more “natural” than we might expect. With this approach, I would argue that it is possible to make the case that, like racism, homosexuality is a human tendency that must be resisted rather than practiced. Like racism, homosexuality, if fully expressed by humanity would destroy the human species, even faster than a lack of food or disease. (That is to say, if every human began to practice this “natural” tendency to reduce the population of humans.)

Most human beings call racism a social ill, because of the obvious decay it causes to societies. But, like eating donuts or smoking cigarettes, the immediate detriment caused by homosexual relationships is not seen; therefore it appears not to be a harmful practice.

If we are going to work diligently to stop social ills, how do we determine what is a social ill?

Is it ethical to expect one person to control his or her natural tendencies, such as the desire to preserve their species through ethnocentricity, while letting another freely express their natural tendencies to be homosexual, knowing that both cause damage to the social economy of humanity?

Or, should we allow those who desire to live as racists do so, while appreciating those who practice the interracial behavior needed to reduce racism, much as we would encourage those who are homosexual to live as such, while being grateful for those who continue to mate with the oppostite sex in order to continue the future existance of human beings?

And, if we decide that natural tendencies should be expressed freely, such as homosexuality, then shouldn’t we consider asking ourselves, “Who are we to stop someone from expressing their tendency toward species preservation, calling them racists and bigots?”

Who is it that makes the decision as to which basic, genetic tendencies should be suppressed and which should be expressed?

The Christian stance is that anything that makes us less than human, reducing ourselves to expressing our most basic instincts, without considering the harm they do to humanity, is “missing the mark,” also called “sin.”

How then do we define a sin? Is it okay to consider natural behavior as something to be freely expressed like other animals? Or should we, as human beings, be expected to rise above all of our natural, though harmful, tendencies?

Should we be human or just act like animals?

In His dust,
Johnny

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