On the
week end of January 28, 2005 in DeSoto County, MS, near Memphis
TN. This Gathering Together
of disciples was small, being verily the two or three as defined by Jesus in
Matt. 18:20 (below).
January
2005 Gathering of
Disciples
The
following is a brief summary of topics
discussed
during the Discipleship Gathering in January 2005. This summary
is by no
means a complete review of the weekend but a sincere attempt to touch
upon some
of the main themes. We invite you to visit the Forum with your
comments
and for further open correspondence regarding these topics.
- The
nature of evil and the defining of Satan's person
We concluded that
it was not God who created evil. Evil exists due to our choice to
fall
away from Gods Will. Though our Lord does not give us full
detail
on the person of Satan, he gave us enough information to let us know
that Satan
was cast out of heaven and is the Father of Lies. Satan is not
simply
what we call evil, but an actual entity that exists. Before the
death
& resurrection of Jesus, Satan ruled with complete power over this
world. Jesus received all power over Satan and this world when he
gave up
his life in this world on his own free will. Though we concluded
that
Satan remains in this world and continues to tempt mankind away from
God, those
who choose to do the Will of the Father by listening to Jesus have more
power
of Satan than Satan has over the disciples of Jesus. That is not
to say that
we cannot be tempted and fall into temptation by allowing the love of
life to
overrule our love for the Fathers Kingdom. But we have hope in
His
Word that if we abide in His Word, the Father and Jesus will come and
make
their home within us, and if the Father and Jesus are with us, then
Satan has
no power over us. Our love and obedience to the Word is stronger
than
Satan and his temptations. The fact that Jesus witnessed Satan
being cast
out of the Fathers Glory like lightening does imply to our hearts that
even Satan had free will in heaven and by his own free will chose to
rebel
against the Father, and so was thrown out of the kingdom. This is all
we need
to know about the person of Satan in regards to our salvation, or such
words
would be with us today from the Father through his son Jesus. We also
discussed
how demon possession can still take place in our time as it did in the
time of
Jesus. Satan also attacks those coming into the Light and often
chooses
times of great distress within the disciple. But we must remember that
Jesus
has power over Satan and that we should and can call on Him in those
times of
distress. Jesus’ choice of the cross against all of Satan's
temptations to save his life was the eternal victory over Satan that
destroyed
his power over the earth and transferred the kingly power to the Son of
Man. We can easily conceive of good reasons why Satan is
permitted to
operate on the earth under the reign of the Son of Man. For one,
if he
were not permitted to operate – to tempt and deceive – our free
will would be limited because we would not have the freedom to choose
what
would not be an option, to serve the Prince of evil. We could not
choose
either to yield or to resist temptations that would not exist! As it
is, all options
are open and we are free to make our choices for good or evil.
- Salt
of the Earth, Matthew 5:13
We discussed how
this verse could refer to two different meanings. The first view
is
defined as stated on voiceofjesus.org: “He
(Jesus) identifies his disciples as the
salt. But they are salt that, to men, has lost its taste.
Or
rather, they have become unacceptable to men and are good only for
persecution
– to be trod under foot by men.” The
reference to the word “men” is what ultimately brings one to this
conclusion as we are reminded by voiceofjesus.org that “The
innate hostility of men toward Jesus and all
who bear witness to him in truth is easy to explain. Human beings
love
life. They love life more than anything else in all creation, and
all
their institutions are founded on the love of life.”
True
disciples who have responded to the Great Correlate have thus lost
their taste
to men, who then persecute them (cast them out and trample them under
foot). We did
not find complete disagreement in this as it is easy to see that the
Lord could
have been warning his disciples that although we are what makes the
land good
in the sight of God, we will be trampled on by men for following the
Word. Jesus seems to continue this thought with telling us in the
next
verse that, even so, we should continue to be the light of the world
and let
our light (his words) shine before men for all to see (hear).
However,
there is also a second view
on
this verse that we discussed. In
our search for the definition of salt we concluded that “pure salt”
refers to good, a covenant, pure, holy, seasoned, incense &
fragrance holy
to God, and that pure salt kills weeds, where as “impure salt”
refers to unworthiness, good for nothing, used to throw on the roads
for men to
walk on (trample on), no longer a rare commodity.
We also
took into consideration that the Jews, according to Law, offered up to
God only
pure sacrifices seasoned with salt, so that they would be tasteful to
the
Father. We also must take into account that Jesus himself
asserted that “Salt
is good”. In viewing
“salt” in this manner, we concluded that it is also possible to
view this verse in this way: The
salt equals the children of God / disciples of Jesus and
we are what is pure and holy in this world in the sight of God (meaning
we are
not dead to the Father but alive). However, should we loose our
saltiness, thus loose our obedience to the Word by loving life in this
world
like all “men” of the world do, then we are no longer pure and holy
in the sight of God. We become as impure salt to be thrown out of
the
kingdom, just as impure salt is used to be thrown out on the land as a
road to
be trampled on.
One
can also note Luke 14:28-30 remembering how Jesus told us
that the one who started to build their house but did not finish would
be
laughed upon by men. This can be considered with the salt of the earth
verse here
in that not only will the one
who looses their salt become dead to God, but that one will
also be mocked
by men for not completing the house they started to build.
But before making a
firm conclusion on these two
viewpoints, we must look at
the utterance in context, and also the parallel one in Luke 6, also
Luke 14 :
|
Matthew 5
10 Blessed are those persecuted because
of justice,
For
theirs is the
kingdom of the heavens.
11 Blessed are you when
they
reproach you and persecute you and say all wickedness against you
falsely because of me.
12 Be rejoicing and be being glad, for
great [is] your
reward in the heavens. For thus they persecuted the prophets before
you.
13 You
are the salt of the land. But if the salt become tasteless, by what
will it be made salty? [It is] worthy for nothing except to be thrown
out [and] trampled by men.
|
Luke 6
22 Blessed are you when
men hate you and exclude you and reproach
you and cast out your name as wicked on account of the son of man. 23
Rejoice in that day and leap, for behold your reward is great in
heaven, for such [things] were their fathers doing to the prophets.
Luke `14
33 Likewise therefore everyone among you who
does not
take leave of all his possessions is not able to be my disciple. 34
Good therefore [is] the salt. But if the salt become tasteless, with
what will it be seasoned? 35
Neither for [the] ground nor
for the dung heap is it fit, they throw it out. The [one] having ears to be
hearing, let him be hearing.
|
Matt.
5:13 is in
a context where we are reading of the persecution that the disciples
must
endure from 'men.' Further, it is 'by men' that the trampling
occurs. This is the determining factor in the presentation of the
first view.
This
is a case of the
disciples becoming tasteless to men, who then throw them out and
trample on
them. We see suggestions of this in Jesus assertion elsewhere
that 'they
will cast you out of the synagogues.' When one becomes a disciple
by
qualifying for the qualifications for the same, men lose their taste
for them
and cast them out, who had before been accepted and respected by men of
the
world. It is men who do the
throwing
out, not God, as the second view requires. If we had
only
Matthew, one could hold firmly to the first view.
But
this viewpoint changes when we look at Luke.
He does not mention salt in the parallel from Chapter 6 -- not a word
about it
where, if the interpretation of the first view is correct, we would
surely
expect to find it. It is believed by most who study these things
that
Luke wrote several years later than either Matthew or Mark (not certain
-- some
disagree). He would, in that case, have had access to both of
those
documents and must have held them among his primary sources. If
so, why
did he omit here what they recorded, and place it later, in Chapter
14?
Our
evaluation of Luke sees him as one who was a careful historian and
recorder
of the teaching of the Lord, who included in his gospel many wonderful
utterances that the others omitted. If this evaluation is valid,
it
leaves us inclined to conclude that his placement of this utterance is
the
correct one.
In
the context of Luke 14, we are not hearing of the blessing that God
will
heap upon the faithful disciples as in Matthew 5. To the
contrary, we
hear of the cost of discipleship, of the builder being ridiculed by men
for not
finishing what he started, and the implication is that, without
counting and
paying the cost, those who would be disciples and fall away have lost
their
salt. It is still men who throw it away, but this need not be
contrary to
the second view because it can be seen as a metaphor of what God does
to
disciples who have 'lost their taste.' The entire implication is
not
about what men will do, as in Matthew, but it is about what God will do.
This
overall evaluation seems to favor the second view. But we should
recall that
Luke was not a perfect scribe, and it is possible that he is the one
who erred,
though the weight of evidence favors his version. The parallel
records of
Matthew and Luke are far from uniform overall. Could it be that both views are correct?
We conclude
that Jesus may have used this metaphor on different occasions to
emphasize both views.
- Love
or Power being the foundation of man's motives on earth really stems
from the view of their life in this world
The objective in
one's life that rules their motives relies in the choice of love or
power, but which ultimately relies on the hatred of life in this world
vs. the
love of life in this world. In the craft of acting, one technique
in
learning a character’s life deeply and their motives for their actions
is
to understand what their ultimate goal or super-objective is in their
life
whether it be “love” or “power”. This defines a
character in what their wants and motives are within the story in which
they
live. The same can be said for mankind in general, not just a
character
in a story. Mankind has free will and we choose to exercise that
free
will on the foundations of how we view life. One can narrow these
foundations down to “love” and “power”. But when
one listens to the Word, one soon discovers that the Father’s view of
life is quite different than mankind’s view of life.
“Love” and “power” are then narrowed down to
one’s hatred of life in this world or their love for it. For
example, there was a rich man who as a child was severely poor and
lacked any
type of love from his parents. As he became an adult, his objective in
life was
to have money so that he would have power and riches so as never to be
poor
again, and used his money to gain validation from others that he was
important,
that he was loved, that he did matter. One could easily see how
in this
man’s life the rule of power dictated his motives in life, even though
it
came from a place that simply desired love. Now, from a human
perspective, one
would pity this man upon finding out that his motives came from a deep
childhood sadness of never being loved. But, this man also was exposed
to the
Word, and was given the Truth about life in this world. The man
chose to
not accept the Word, and continued his life in pursuit of money,
riches, fame,
and validation from mankind. This man chose to love his life in
this
world. Jesus teaches us to not judge others, and only God knows
what is
in the heart of man. But we also know that it is the Word that
judges
all. And the Word has told us clearly that if we desire to be
with God,
we will hate our lives in this world so that we may have life with God eternal.
Other examples could be given
here as to
the rich man only wanting power without the cry of wanting to be loved
as a
child, and so on.
Jesus
promises us that the children of God will rule in God’s Kingdom and
will
have life there to the fullest. We find it very important here to
be reminded
that life in this world is short, though it may seem long in our day to
day
temptations and sufferings. But that our love for the life that
God wants
us to have is just put on hold in this life in order for us to make the
choice
to have that wonderful life with him. We sometimes get the idea
that we
are to die to ourselves here in this life (instead of just denying) and
that
when we get to heaven it’s not going to be much better or that we
remain
as slaves in some respect. Jesus tells us that “the first will be last, and the last will
be first”
in life eternal, yet we are asked to be servants of all in this world.
The
children of God will reign with the Father in his Kingdom in the next
life as the
children will inherit the Kingdom. That is big news!!!! The “choice” must be made
individually.
- The
Difference in Being Born Good and Being begotten from Above
<>We
discussed how there is a significant difference between the two of
these. We
concluded that all men are born good, that is, acceptable in the sight
of God,
and that we are not born sinful creatures. But as we mature in
this world
we exercise our free will in choosing to remain acceptable to God or to
fall
away from him through temptations in this world. Each individual
though
must, by hearing and abiding in the Word, be begotten in the Spirit in
order to
“see” (not enter) the Kingdom
of God
here
working on earth as John 3:3 states, “I tell you
the truth, no one can see the
kingdom of God unless he is begotten again.”
Yet,
in John 3:5 Jesus says that one will not enter
unless he is begotten of the Spirit. If John 3:5 also means “see” and not “enter”, then we could conclude
that
when Jesus was referring to being begotten he was speaking of one being
able to
“see” the Kingdom
here, not enter it, for
surely
others who were not able to be begotten of the spirit from hearing the
Word
(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, John the Baptist, people
past/present/future who forgive and repent but who have not been/will
not be
exposed to the Word) have and will continue to “enter” the Kingdom. This
would clarify
much for the belief that one cannot be begotten of Spirit until he/she
dies from
this world.
In
reviewing the Greek of John 3:3
& 3:5, there are no listed variant readings in the manuscript
witnesses for
John 3:3, but 3:5 does have a variant reading. It reads the same
as 3:3
and is supported by several witnesses, at least one of them is very
reliable –
Sinaiticus – one of the two oldest complete copies of the Greek New
Testament. Considering this evidence, John 3:5 should read, “I tell
you
the truth, no one can see
the kingdom
of God unless he
is begotten of water and the
Spirit.”
To confirm, we
conclude that “yes” John 3:5 is saying “see” and not
“enter” and that it is correct to say that in both John 3:3 and 3:5
that when Jesus referred to one being “begotten” he was speaking of
one being able to “see” the kingdom, not “enter” the
kingdom. We
keep in mind that most of the ancient witnesses tell us
that he
was speaking of 'enter' in John 3:5. But if we go for 'enter' we
have
contradictions in the Word, for according to the Lord, there are those
Patriarchs in the kingdom who did not have the Word and so were not begotten from
above during their lifetimes in this world. Yet
we read in Matthew 8:11 that the Patriarchs will be in the kingdom of
the
heavens:
“And I say to you that many from
east and west will
have come
and will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the
heavens.”
The scripture never knows these patriarchs as
anything other
than
servants, not children, yet they are included as being among those in
the
heavens. We also have this in Matthew 13:40-41:
“As therefore they gather the
tares and burn them
in fire,
thus it will be in the completion of the age. The
son of man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all [those]
causing stumbling and those
doing lawlessness.”
How
could the angels
gather them 'out of his kingdom' if they were not in it?
We see
two different application of this thought of being in the kingdom. One is to
see even
the evil ones of this world as being 'in the kingdom' in that they are
within
the realm of God and under his rule. That explains Matthew
13:41.
The other is to see it meaning inheritors of the kingdom -- the rule of
the Lord
-- and therefore being in the
ruling family.
We believe it is this that Jesus indicated in John 3:3 & 3:5.
It is
only the children of the king (God the Father) who inherit kingly
power, and
one acquires this status only by being begotten from above through the
reception of
the Word (seed) of the Father.
Furthermore, there would seem to be no reason for Jesus to switch from
'see' to
'enter' between John 3 & 5. This would only have confused
Nicodemus,
as it confuses many today. He attempts here to clarify a previous
statement,
not to cloudify it!
- All
Sinners are equally sinners
We discussed how
Jesus
stated in
Luke 13:1-5 “There
were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose
blood
Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think
that these Galileans
were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered
thus? I tell
you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
Or those
eighteen
upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that
they
were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell
you,
No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” It is
easy
today to think that some sins are worse in the sight of God than
others.
But according to Jesus, and very much unlike the doctrines of the
Catholic
Church which teaches that some sins are less sinful than others, a sin
is a
sin. We discussed how, for example, in the light of the Word,
that
adultery is a sin against God. Adultery is the same for
heterosexuals as
it is for homosexuals, the same for those who fully act upon their
adulterous
desires as it is for those who allow lust for another to live in their
heart
even if they don’t act upon it. The point is, many cast judgment
on
homosexuals, for instance, and completely overlook adultery among
heterosexuals
as being equally sinful. All sin is rooted in the love of life in
this
world because one freely chooses to not listen to God. The root of sin is love of life in
this
world. Until one overcomes this sin through abiding in the Word,
then
he/she remains in sin. It is one making the choice of repentance
and
choosing the desire to go home to the Father over life in this world.
We
discussed the definition for
“jealous”. In revisiting the “English”
definitions for “jealous”, we find there are two categories.
The first category is defined with these words: (Fearful or wary of
being supplanted;
apprehensive of losing affection or position; Inclined to suspect rivalry; Vigilant
in guarding something: We are
jealous of our
good name; Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity;
autocratic: a jealous God).
The second category
is defined with these words: (These adjectives mean resentfully or
painfully
desirous of another's advantages: jealous
of
a friend's success; covetous of my neighbor's possessions; envious of
their art
collection. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others
Having to
do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts). One
can see a
difference between the two categories with the second category
appearing in
contradiction to what one would think about the Father. Perhaps
the word
jealous in Greek or Aramaic was quite clear in meaning in the time of
Jesus,
but the English word of jealous implies unkind thoughts of the person
who is
jealous. So is our Father a jealous God? In using the
English word,
we would say yes to the first category words in that he is vigilant and
guarding of His children and He is intolerant of disloyalty or
infidelity.
However, in the same first category there are words we do not agree
with as we
do not see the Father as worried about losing his position as Father,
nor
losing his children, for Jesus tells us that no one can snatch them out
of His
hand. And of course we do not agree with any of the words in the second
category as defining our Father. Jesus never referred to the
Father as a
jealous God, and he had ample reason to do so if he wanted us to view
the
Father in that way, especially since the Old Testament scriptures most
certainly did refer to Him in that way. The Old Testament
presents God as
jealous, primarily in reference to the worship of idols and graven
images. The words for 'jealousy' or 'being jealous' are not even
found in
the gospels!
Here is
a link to primary
texts in the O.T.
for referencing “jealous”.
- The
Importance of Fulfilling Prophecy
A
question was put on the table
regarding prophecy and predestination. Why was it so important for the
New
Testament writers to include such things as the virgin birth to match
scripture
prophecy? We discussed how the OT scriptures did not signify a virgin
birth the
way Luke’s Gospel comments, but that of just a young women (her
virginity
was not defined). If we do not believe in predestination, than
how do we
explain prophecy? For if Jesus had free will, though we know he
chose
God’s Will, he could have chosen not to do God’s Will. But
the prophets, not knowing what Jesus would choose, still predict that
he will choose
to do God’s Will. Jesus could have intentionally made choices to
make sure his actions copied prophecy. But then there are also
the
commentary accounts of his clothes being divided and the thirty pieces
of
silver and being speared, etc. that Jesus did not have a direct hand
in. One
must use their faith to believe the prophecy, but again, what does that
imply
about predestination? If the Father had a plan to expose the Word to
the World,
he could have easily said what the Word would do, for the Word came
from the
Father, it is the Father’s Will itself. But, the man Jesus still
had choices and a free will. If we do not believe in
predestination, then
we cannot say that the Father knew what Jesus would choose, could we?
Yet, the
prophets tell us otherwise, they tell us not only will a Messiah come,
but that
this Messiah will be successful in overcoming the world. We know
that
Jesus overcame the world, but how did they know? The Father told
them.
But if the Father knew…what does that mean of the free will choice of
Jesus? It sounds like Jesus was destined to rule regardless of the man
Jesus
and his choices. How do we explain this?
We concluded
that almost all prophecy must be seen as contingent. While
our Lord
fulfilled the prophecies concerning him, it was never certain he would
do
so. The fact that the prophecies were before him must have been a
powerful incentive for him to fulfill them. We do not see him and
his
overcoming of the world to have been predestined. Had he failed,
the
prophecies would have failed, and the world would have remained
shrouded in
darkness, without Light and Life. The temptations -- specifically
in the
wilderness and in the garden -- were real. That he did not yield
does not
say that his victory was predestined. Free will leaves one
capable of
choosing the options of good and evil. Jesus exercised free will
in
choosing to fulfill his role as prophesied. The alternative was a
real
choice for him, as for his predecessors!
God's promise to David and Solomon was a conditional
promise. That all of the line of Solomon failed until Jesus
does not
mean that Jesus could not fail. The unconditional promise (Psalm
132:11)
was one that God determined to keep, and to this end he continued to
encourage
candidates until there came one who did not fail.
- Is the
Mustard Seed really the smallest of all seeds?
We
discussed that in Mark 4:30-32 Jesus
claimed the mustard seed to be the smallest of all seeds. Yet, we know
this to
not be a true statement if taken literally. Any biology book can
confirm
that the mustard seed is indeed not the smallest of all seeds in the
world, nor
does its full grown shrub become the greatest shrub (that is, compared
to other
shrubs around the world). The smallest of seeds belong to the orchid
family,
which the mustard seed does not belong. The mustard seed is many times
larger
than the orchid seed. This might seem like a small issue, but many have
used
this to prove our Lord didn’t know what he was really talking about and
only knew what was around him at the time. However, there was a
certain
type of mustard seed, a black mustard seed called “Sinapis
nigra” that
resided in the area in which Jesus was at the time (Palestine) and could grow
to ten feet or more in height. We did discover that this mustard
seed,
when full grown, could reach the height of a tree where birds could
perch in
its branches. We discovered that this mustard seed had smaller
seeds
within it, which could prove it to be the smallest of seeds.
But
Jesus wasn’t teaching
biology, he was teaching a lesson on the kingdom of God.
Our inclination
here is to
view this statement by Jesus, in
connection with the Parable, as being simply to contrast the great
consummation
of the kingdom with its seemingly small beginning, and that he was
speaking in
terms that those who heard him immediately
would understand. Seen in the context of others parables of sowing, it
is
probable that the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds that
they
sowed on the land and harvested, and produced the largest plant of all
the
seeds they customarily sowed. The grain seeds (wheat) were much
larger,
and produced smaller plants.
Luke's version of this parable avoids these superlatives
altogether.
Matthew's version, while accurate in the experience of those who heard
him immediately, does
not exactly represent
what Jesus said. It is Mark who gets it correct.
Mark 4:30-31 (From the
Faithful New
Testament)”
”And he was saying: How
shall I liken
the kingdom
of God? or by
means of what shall I set it
forth in [a] parable? As
with [a] grain of mustard, which when sown upon
the land, being smaller than all the seeds upon the land,”
The
duplicate phrase, upon
the land,
is
exactly the same in the Greek (EPI THS GHS). By rendering GHS as
'earth' in the
second expression, translators make it appear that he meant to say that
the
mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth. What he told them was
that it was the smallest of the
seeds that
they sowed upon the ground (land). Brother William and
the FNT correctly translate
this verse.
- The
Kingdom will not come fully to the earth, it is only ruling outside of
the Kingdom
We
discussed this topic in regards
to certain postings on the Forum about Heaven coming to earth, not us
going to
Heaven. The confusion sets in when we listen to other influences
apart
from the Word. Jesus only talked about this world ending, about
Him not
being from this world, etc. Though He preached that the Kingdom
was near,
He meant that the Kingdom was near in His presence, and that the ruling
of the
Kingdom could be “seen” by His disciples through the light of the
Word. The World is ruled by Jesus, though free will is
maintained.
- Luke
21:31 The Kingdom
of God is near
There
were two views proposed in
what Jesus meant by this verse, and what he was referring to.
The
first view is that he was
referring to the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70AD. We discussed that this verse seems to be a faulty translation
but when
we checked for other versions, there were none to be given but this
one.
The problem is the word “near”. If Jesus was speaking about
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
this verse
would be a contradiction for Him to say that the Kingdom was near,
unless we
read into it that the judgment of God on the nation of Israel was being played out on them,
and in that
respect, the Kingdom
of God’s Judgment
was near. But this is supposing a lot and we cannot fully accept
this to
be the answer. Jesus began his preaching with saying that the Kingdom of God is near, and we marry those
words
with it being “Good News”. So, there is difficulty in
understanding the full implication here of Luke having Jesus say these
words
about the fall of Jerusalem.
In taking the first
view,
we
concluded that Luke's (21:31) version differs from both Matthew and
Mark that
say, 'he is near, at the very gates.’ In this case, we believe
Luke
was being influenced by a teaching of the Lord that they failed to
record, but
that he did record. That is the one concerning the prophecy of
Luke 17.
It begins with a question about the coming of the kingdom, and
continues with
the prophecy of the parousia at the close of the age. So, when Luke
recorded
the Eschatological Discourse, and came to the same language he had
recorded in
Luke 17, he erred and thought it related to the coming of the kingdom of God.
In regards to the first view, we believe Jesus said
only one thing was
near 'he
(Titus) at the very gates of the city.'
However,
the second view is that
Jesus was speaking about the end of the world. In defending this view,
we might
be given a clue as to what he meant by visiting the Gospel of
Thomas. We
must be careful with recordings of Jesus outside the four gospels, but
this is
worth some attention. Jesus is recorded saying in verse 18 of the
Gospel of
Thomas, “The
disciples said to Jesus, ``Tell us how our end will be.'' Jesus said,
``Have you
discovered, then, then beginning that you look for the
end? For where the
beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who
will take his
place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not
experience death.''
If we keep this in mind and visit John 1:1-2 we learn
from the gospel writer that, “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” If in
the beginning was the Word, then surely the Word is the
end (of this world) and therefore, it would be understandable for Jesus
to say
the Kingdom of God is near if he were referring to the end of the world
when
the Word judges all and the children of God inherit the Kingdom. Jesus
also
identifies himself with the Word. He also states in John 8:58 Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
I am. This
surely
places Himself near the beginning of at least recorded history.
But this
is to only be considered if Jesus was indeed speaking about the end of
the
world, not the Fall of Jerusalem.
The
point here is that if we
cannot accept that Jesus said the word “near” in Luke 21:31 in
regards to the first view, then His Word has been tampered with, or the
scribe
Luke erred in his recording of the Lord’s Word. If the second view is
accepted, there need not be any difficulty in understanding the meaning.
Yet, in
defense of the
first view, Luke erred at 21:31, but Matthew and Mark are the 'two
witnesses'
that in this case confirm the True Word. It is the Truth that the
Holy
Spirit has preserved inviolate. We should not permit ourselves to
be
upset by discovering details reported incorrectly. Matthew's
version of
the mustard seed parable, as generally translated, is another example
of human
error in the gospels. Those who seek to challenge the integrity
of Jesus
by questioning such things are choking on gnats and swallowing camels
(Matt.
23:24).
For
further discussion
regarding what Jesus was referring to, please go to http://www.voiceofjesus.org/whenandwhat.html and request to receive
the attachment “whenandwhatrev.html”.
- What
does the Holy Spirit protect regarding the Word?
We
discussed how Jesus said His Words would not pass away though Heaven
and Earth
would pass away. We discussed how this was related to our belief
that the
Holy Spirit protects the Word. We talked about how the Words that
Jesus
shared with the disciples regarding God’s Will is what the Father sent
Him here
to do. And that message is
what the
Holy Spirit protects. Jesus surely said many wonderful
things
in his lifetime here on earth, but it would be silly for us to conclude
that
every little thing ever spoken of from His mouth about anything was the
Word
the Father gave him to give us. It is the message of hope that we
have
eternal life with the Father and how we can obtain that life while here
in this
world. The great principle of one’s view on life is the choice we
must all make. It is the choice of saying “no” to this life
and “yes” to the Father that defines the Father’s Will.
We learn this choice by listening to Jesus of Nazareth.
This
concludes the summary. Other topics that were covered that are
still in
discussion are:
The
Harvest, Parable of the Weeds Matt 13:24-30 & 13:36-43, Carcass
&
Vulture Matt 24:28, The Fig Tree, & the authorship of the Fourth
Gospel.
You
are invited to read a new paper dealing with The Harvest at http://www.voiceofjesus.org/harvest1.html .
Again, we
invite you to correspond at the Forum or by private email regarding
these
topics or others you wish to discuss.
Peace to you,
Sister Michele and Brother
Ed
So, if you missed this gathering and wish yet to join with us as we
listen to Jesus together, please
look below to the
next announcement for our continuing invitation.
For where two or three are gathered in my
name, there am I in the midst of them. Matt.18
:20