Author: Louis Burkhardt

Accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus

Audio by GSpeech

When I was in high school, I began believing in Jesus, thanks to the Jesus Movement. I also delivered flowers, thanks to Carol, who owned a flower shop. Another high school student, Lonnie, had recently died in a vehicular accident. My assignment was to deliver several flower arrangements to the funeral home, about twenty miles away in Espanola.

Entering the funeral home, I found myself in a large room. It was empty, except for Lonnie’s body in an open casket. Sad that he had died so young, and eager to put my faith to work, I thought for a minute and then approached the casket. In a clear voice, I said, “Lonnie, rise up in the name of Jesus.” He didn’t budge. I said it again, louder. He still did not move. Feeling uneasy, thinking I had gone out of my depth, I set up the flowers and left, pondering what had just not happened.

More consequentially, Jesus did rise from the dead after being entombed for three days. It was necessary to fulfill the prophesies of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms. His bodily resurrection was what declared Jesus “to be the Son of God with power”(Romans 1:4 KJV). His resurrection was necessarily confusing. We can see fear, confusion, disbelief, and wonder in the four accounts that struggle to put into words the series of events on that glorious day. The following attempts to settle a few questions and to point out a few extraordinary moments.

Put briefly, the four accounts differ in these ways:

  • Matthew focuses on Jesus’ promise that he will meet the disciples in Galilee after he rises from the dead
  • Mark reveals the sheer confusion of discovering that Jesus has risen from the dead
  • Luke focuses on validations of Jesus’ resurrection as they occurred in and around Jerusalem
  • John beautifully combines some of the Jerusalem appearances with the wonderful encounter at the Sea of Galilee

Matthew records this on the night of Jesus’ betrayal:

Then Jesus told them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written:
“‘I will strike the shepherd,
    and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’[1]
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee” (Matthew 26:31-32).

On Sunday morning (the day after the Sabbath day), “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” go “to look at the tomb” (Matthew 28). First they see an angel. It looks like lightning, its clothes are so bright. It says “go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’” So “the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid” (which is where Mark’s gospel ends) “yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.” However, these women first encounter Jesus, who greets them. They “clasped his feet and worshiped him” (a scene we revisit in John, but with only Mary Magdalen named). As did the angel, Jesus tells the women, “Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” The next and last time we see Jesus in Matthew, “the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.” He appears, giving them what is called the Great Commission.

Mark, as mentioned above, simply depicts the women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) visiting the grave, seeing the angel and being told, “But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you’” (Mark 16). They run away, “Trembling and bewildered . . . They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” The ending is an acquired taste. The ending casts doubt, not on the resurrection, but on the women’s capacity to absorb it. The ending is superbly human. It opens the door for the other gospels to fill in more details, to soften the shock of the turn of events. Love for Jesus, not belief in his resurrection, brought the women to the tomb. The resurrection caught them by surprise. It changed everything, rendering them momentarily helpless.

Luke provides collaborative details from several sources that report the resurrected Christ. Like Matthew and Mark, Luke begins with the women who visit the tomb. In this account, they observe two angels, and hear the unforgettable question, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:1-12). They run and tell the “eleven” (the core group, minus Judas, who has died) and are met with disbelief, if not mockery. Peter, however, runs to the tomb and sees it is empty except for the burial clothes, leaving him confused.

Then comes the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They are not the “eleven” but they are aware of the crucifixion and of the amazing accounts of the women. After meeting Jesus, listening to him, and, when he breaks bread, finally recognizing him, they hurry back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven (Luke 24:13-35). By the time they tell the eleven, Peter, too, has seen Jesus, but we are not told the circumstance.

When it is explained that Peter, too, has seen the Lord, Jesus himself appears in the locked room (Luke 24:36-53). He allows them to see the scars and he eats some fish to prove that he is not a ghost. He explains the prophecies that depict his death and resurrection, stressing that repentance for forgiveness will be preached to all nations. They will be witnesses, but must wait in the city until they receive “power from on high”—the fulness of the Holy Spirit revealed in Acts 2.

Without warning, Luke skips ahead 40 days to the ascension. The passage is short and beautiful, as it concludes the gospel of Luke:

When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God."

John brings together both Jerusalem and, about 80 miles away, Galilee. Mary Magdalene, again, is the first one to discover the empty tomb. In John’s account, both Peter and John run to the tomb. John wins the race to the tomb, but Peter has the courage to enter it first. Peter studies the strips of linen. John, then, enters the tomb, and when he sees, he believes. The text makes clear that even though he believes, their understanding is murky: “They still did not understand….”

Mary, then, has her beautiful encounter with Jesus. She doesn’t recognize him until she hears him speak her name, at which she replies “Rabboni,” which one scholar paraphrased as “My main man!” As with Matthew (where the women clasped Jesus’ feet), Mary must be told by Jesus to stop holding onto him, for he knew he would ascend to the father and she would need to hold onto him by faith alone (John 20:1-18).

Jesus appears twice in the locked room, the first time as narrated by Luke. The second time Thomas Didymus is there, and his skepticism is met by Jesus’ invitation to touch the scars in his hands and side. Thomas is overwhelmed and cries out, “My Lord and my God!” to which Jesus replies, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

The gospel seems to come to an end at this point, with the conclusive, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:19-31).

However, John has left the best wine for the last. His final chapter brings us to the Sea of Galilee (also called Tiberias). There Jesus meets seven of the eleven, first preparing breakfast while helping them catch 153 fish and then reinstating Peter as a leader.

The reinstatement of Peter involves a poetic dialogue by which Jesus both holds Peter accountable to his human condition and affirms him as the leader of the early church. In this dialogue, two different words for “love” are used. The first is agape, a word consistently implying unconditional love in the New Testament. The second word, phileo), most commonly refers to friendship or affection for both Aristotle and the New Testament.[2] Jesus initiates the conversation, using agape. Peter, truly humbled by his denial of Jesus, responds by claiming to have phileo love. By then end, Jesus meets Peter where he honestly is (a friend—phileo):

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me with perfect commitment (ἀγαπᾷς), more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you with fondness (φιλῶ).”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me with perfect commitment (ἀγαπᾷς)?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you with fondness (φιλῶ).”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me with fondness (φιλεῖς)?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me with fondness?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you with fondness (φιλῶ).”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:1-17)

And that appears to be all it took for Peter to be reinstated. By owning that he loves Jesus deeply but not unconditionally, he is admitting the truth. As a result, he no longer trusts in his commitment to Jesus, but in the Lord’s commitment to him. He is prepared to preach the forgiveness of sins on the upcoming Day of Pentecost.

I close with a fifth account—the words Paul the Apostle wrote about the resurrection of Jesus. He came after the “eleven” but wrote his letter before the earliest gospel, Mark, was recorded. So in that respect, his account comes closest to the eye witnesses, and it is stunning:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

§ Footnotes §

[1] The prophecy is from Zechariah 13:7

[2] Some scholars make light of the play on words in the dialogue between Jesus and Peter. They do this, it appears, more on linguistic grounds than literary ones. They point out that on occasions in the New Testament, phileo also refers to divine love, such as when Jesus says “No, the Father himself loves (φιλεῖ) you because you have loved (πεφιλήκατε) me and have believed that I came from God” (John 16:27). The controversy strikes me as straining for gnats and turning down a free ride on a powerful camel. To both the literary ear and to the reader who has felt both Peter’s love and shame, the dialogue between Jesus and Peter clearly plays with those words in order to allow past hurts and promises to be healed by humility.

Matthew, Healing, and Isaiah 53

Audio by GSpeech

This is what Matthew writes:

“He took up our infirmities
    and bore our diseases.”
. . . Matthew 8:17. . .

The “he” refers to the Jewish “suffering servant” whom Christians univocally interpret as Jesus of Nazareth. The claim is stunning. As Matthew quotes the passage, Jesus has taken away our sicknesses, just as he has taken away our sin. Whether it was the scourging or the crucifixion, the suffering Christ carried away our sickness.

When I first noticed the passage in Matthew, I thought he had mistranslated the Hebrew. The reason I thought that is because nearly every available English translation quotes Isaiah 53:4 in approximately the following way: 

Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
. . . Isaiah 53:4-5, NIV. . .

Where Matthew specifies physical “infirmities” and “diseases,” most translations offer emotional “pain” and “suffering.”[1]

Matthew, however wasn’t reading English translations. He also wasn’t depending on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the Apostle Paul relied on. Matthew was following the original Hebrew. And it fit the context perfectly. The entire passage where Isaiah 53:4 is quoted demonstrates Jesus’ business of healing the physically and mentally ill:

When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

“He took up our infirmities
    and bore our diseases.”
. . . Matthew 8:14-17. . .

Matthew, then, becomes the support for those who claim that both our salvation and our healing were accomplished by the sufferings of Jesus. The counter-argument is, of course, “I still feel sick,” but that is no different from “I still feel guilty,” or “I still sin.” The battle may be won on the cosmic scale but require tenacious insistence in every local instance. Long after World War 2 was won, outposts of Japanese soldiers were bearing arms and defending their ground, not knowing peace had been declared.

For those of us still reading, we can conclude with the apostle Peter. He does not misquote Isaiah 53:5, but he changes the tense to the present perfect, to suggest a past event has present effects. He reinforces the revelation that the whole-person redemption of Jesus is clearly a done deal:

“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”
. . . 1 Peter 2:24. . .

The beauty of Peter’s version is that the common “if it is God’s will” falls completely to the wayside. Whether physical or spiritual healing is at hand, both are clearly God’s will, having been enacted in the suffering servant. No longer is it a matter of pulling out the divining rod to determine if these things are God’s will (the divining rod being a figure of speech for all the rationalizations we make). It is a matter of walking by faith, not by sight. It is a matter of trusting that the same Father who sent Jesus to redeem is the same Father who is completely aware of, and prepared for our current needs. That is true divine provision, also known as providence.

§ Footnotes §

[1] Of fifteen versions I checked, only New American Standard, Common English Version, and Young’s Literal Translation refer to sickness in Isaiah 53:4.
The versions that (mis)translate the Hebrew for sickness (חֳלָיֵנוּ) as “pain” or “suffering” include

  • Amplified Bible
  • American Standard (but has a footnote that provides “sickness” as an alternate word for “pain”)
  • Common English Version
  • English Standard Version
  • Good News Translation
  • King James Version
  • Living Bible
  • The Message
  • New American Bible (Revised Edition)
  • New Catholic Bible (uses “afflictions” which might be construed as “sickness”)
  • New International Version
  • Revised Standard Version (but has a footnote that provides “sickness” as an alternate word for “pain”)

Jesus Redefines Sin, Righteousness and Judgment

Audio by GSpeech

First, here’s how Christians (and others) often define sin, righteousness, and judgment. The definitions are like those found in an English dictionary, but in no way do they capture the message Jesus brought:

  • Sin: Anything that is imperfect—and that’s a truckload of activities and attitudes,
  • Righteousness: The opposite of the above, (i.e. everything that’s perfect)—another truckload of things to do and be concerned about, and,
  • Judgment: The consequence of yielding to sin or slacking off on righteousness.

Note two things. First, the definitions make us and our failures the centerpiece—we are the agents of sin and righteousness, just as we are the recipients of justice. Second, as the following quotation from John shows, they are not how Jesus defined the terms. As always, his definitions deserve the final say, for in them is freedom and peace, not worry and fear.

His definitions should confuse us the first time we think about them. If we are not taken aback, we are not awake:

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate [i.e. Holy Spirit] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgement: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgement, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. (John 16:7-11)

Notice the departure from our habitual self-oriented thinking. His message involves no moral bookkeeping, finger pointing, or punishment for us. Instead, we find Jesus giving exclusive attention to his identity as the true savior and to the “ruler of the world” as the ultimate foe. We are witnesses and recipients only, which is another way of saying we are put in our rightful place. Here’s the definitions Jesus provides:

  • Sin: Disbelief in Jesus—the one sin that rules them all,
  • Righteousness: To see Jesus is to see true righteousness, and now that he is no longer visible, only the Spirit can reveal that righteousness to us, and,
  • Judgment: Not against us, but against the “ruler of this world” (i.e. Satan)—who stands condemned.

How should we respond to this? Many ways, no doubt, but the obvious is to admit any disbelief, admire his righteousness (which he offers to give us by faith), and rejoice that the truly sinister force behind our wayward actions stands condemned.

 

Listen to the Feb 12, 2024 version of the post (3 minutes), author’s voice

Publishing Info
This post was first published on: Feb 12, 2024 at 12:01. Revised: July 19, 2024. If this article is significantly updated, the publication date beneath the title may change in order to bring current posts to the top of the directory.

Changing Scripture for the Better

Audio by GSpeech

Sometimes the best use of scripture is to change the wording. You can call this either misquoting or adapting. It is what the New Testament apostle Paul teaches me.

If this post has rubbed your hermeneutics the wrong way, please read on. Without quibbling over small points, I provide two of the best examples of changing the scriptures, both from Paul.

He provides the low hanging fruit, and his critics are the best source of guidance. As one writer puts it:

Almost stealthily, Paul makes the error of misquoting scripture and magically creates theology out of thin air. . . . His methodology with actually quoting scripture is similar to his interpretation of it: he will use or twist any scripture any way he chooses to prove his point! 
. . . Paul Twists the Scriptures and Creates Theology out of Thin Air. . .

The writer, James Wood, goes on to illustrate his point, using the King James translation. The choice of translation shows his fairness. Wood refuses to scratch around for an arcane translation to support his point. He plays clean, as the soccer commentator may say.

He first quotes Paul. “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Romans 11:26). Paul’s point is clear: Jesus will come to save his people, “Jacob” being a figure of speech that represents the entire nation of Israel.[1]

Next James Wood quotes the original. “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 59:20). The difference is clear. Paul assigns redemptive agency to Jesus, while Isaiah assigns agency to Zion who usher in the messiah through their repentance. In Wood’s words, “Paul makes the deliverer turn away ungodliness instead of coming to those who themselves turned from transgression.”[2]

One could dismiss the difference as being two sides of one coin: grace on God’s side must be invited by repentance on the human side. But I prefer to run with Wood on this and agree heartily that Paul deliberately misquoted the scripture. It’s consistent with Paul’s entire mission, to show the Old Testament law fails precisely where the New Testament grace succeeds. Put differently, that the things humans fail to do to reach God were performed by Jesus and are offered as a gift by faith, no strings attached.

The second example comes from Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:6-10.[3] The entire chapter of Deuteronomy is encouraging, stating that following God’s commands “not too difficult for you or beyond your reach,” with the result that his people may receive blessings and not curses. However, the emphasis remains upon doing—and that often involves self-reliance instead of the intended reliance upon God, our Maker.

Hundreds of years later, Paul, who was an expert at taking the letter of the law with all seriousness and commitment, realized his devotion to God’s commands was making him a monster (also known as chief of sinners). He realized his obedience was…

  • not sufficient
  • resulted in garbage (including approving of the murder of Stephen)
  • could never produce divine results, and
  • was surpassed by the righteousness that came by faith, not willpower
    (Philippians 3:7-9)

A few years after writing to the Philippians, Paul writes to the Romans. He re-reads Deuteronomy from the perspective of one who no longer trusts in human effort—at all. What he retains is the statement that “the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart….” Paul, however, changes the end of the statement. Where Moses writes “so you may obey it,” Paul writes, “that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim.” He deliberately replaces obedience with faith.[4 see illustration]

The replacement is consistent with his entire treatment of the passage from Deuteronomy. Where Moses says obedience is not “beyond your reach,” Paul says that declaring with your mouth and believing in your heart are sufficient.

Paul also adds a cosmic dimension to Moses, who wanted to express that the Israelites had “the command” right at hand, and that they did not need to go to heaven nor across the sea to get the command. Paul agrees that the believer need not go to heaven, but he adds that such an act would bring Christ back down to earth, as if one visit to earth were not enough. He then changes “the sea” to “the deep” (or “the abyss”) with echoes of hell, claiming that such an effort would, again, bring Christ up from the dead. Instead, he concludes that confessing and believing in what Christ has already done are all that is required.

As Paul writes elsewhere: “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:15-17). People can repent all day long and live with guilt all their lives. But when they see the perfect and complete forgiveness of Jesus, the veil is removed and the emphasis shifts from what we do to what Christ has already done.

Many Bible teachers in Christ’s time and in our day put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Paul never felt bound to the letter for the letter’s sake. His commitment was “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Thus, Paul recognized that words only approximate the truth. He expressed a similar thing elsewhere saying that we see through a mirror only dimly.

Yes, we are treading on thin ice here, knowing that such interpretive license gives rise to cults and contortions of the scriptures. But that’s the cost of revelation. By definition it is not understood from the beginning. It is hinted at, alluded to, and, finally, in the life of Christ, made as visible as humans are capable of seeing. The key isn’t, “does this fit the letter of the law?” but “does this fit the one who forgave, healed, inspired, and commissioned all those who sought his help?”

The question is, “do you want the security of religion or the joy of revelation?” The first path is safe and may or may not lead you to your destination. Remember, Jesus called the Bible scholars of his day “blind guides.” The second path offers us glimpses of a love and goodness that outshines the dark reflections with which we usually live.

 

Mug says I can do all things through a verse taken out of context
Thank you, whoever made this mug!

§ Footnotes §

[1] Using the part (Jacob) for the whole (Jewish nation) is synecdoche, a common figure of speech. We use it every time we refer to “Washington” for the United States federal government.

[2] Wood’s quote continues in a disparaging manner, true to his theme: “Such simple changes could fool the Gentiles that Paul was so devoted to saving. Instead of Paul becoming a contemporary Jonah and instructing the sinners to repent, Paul offers deceit and lies. Maybe this explains this verse that came from Paul’s pen.”

[3] Credit for this example to James Barron, who has his own grace-imbued website.

[4] 

Comparison of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 with Romans 10:6-10
Comparison of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 with Romans 10:6-10 (NIV)

 

 

You Lie, You Die

Audio by GSpeech

As the title suggests, this is a cautionary tale. It’s also a look at how some of my favorite Bible teachers apparently misinterpret an incident in the book of Acts.

The title points to Jesus’ statement that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). In the same passage, Jesus says the devil is a murderer from the beginning. Death and lies are companions on many levels. At the least, any lie implies in that particular instance the death of truth.

More concretely, when we lie (and I’m excluding moral lies that protect the vulnerable), we often are accessory to the death of something. What dies may be our trustworthiness, marriage, or self-respect. Temptation by design involves passing off a lie. When Jesus responded to the tempter in the wilderness, he refuted the temptations by quoting scripture. He wasn’t expecting scripture to have magical effects, but instead was expressing the truth of the situation against each distortion of reality.

Whether or not someone is a Christian—i.e. is justified by Christ—a lie still brings death, not eternal death but temporal death. Drink too much alcohol and you still have a hangover, no matter your beliefs. Embezzle money and you still jeopardize your future. Lie to the Holy Spirit and you end your earthly potential for good.

That lie—to the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of Truth (John 16:3)—brings us to Acts 5, the story of the unenviable married couple, Ananias and Sapphira.

They were among the early church when,

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. (Acts 4:32)

Accordingly, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of land and gave some of the money to the apostles. However, they lied, claiming it was all the money. When Peter understood that they were lying, he declared: “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” The story continues, “When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.” When Sapphira, who was not present, arrived later, she, too, maintained the lie and she, too, fell down dead.

Note that Peter did not tell Ananias that he was to die. Nor did he curse Ananias. Nor did he pray Ananias would die. He simply exposed the lie. Ananias and Sapphira were the ones that died seemingly of their own accord. No other agent is mentioned. Most Christians, of course, believe that one way or another, the Holy Spirit either killed them or withdrew from them the grace to continue living. But that is only conjecture.

The fruit of their deaths was that “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” Apparently, the church, in spite of being at one of its historical high points in terms of giving, sharing, and experiencing miracles, nevertheless suffered from a lack of respect for the truth and the consequences of lying. But through the death of the couple, it gained deeper respect of God and truth. Non believers also “heard about these events,” with the result that “No one else dared join them [the followers of Jesus], even though they were highly regarded by the people.” Far from being laughable or lamentable, the church was, for the moment, fully respectable.

At this point, I’d like to reiterate the fact that the agent of death is not specified, only the cause (lying to God). Some of my favorite Christian teachers think it impossible that a true Christian would die upon lying to God. Joseph Prince, James Barron, and Andrew Farley, three contemporary teachers on the grace of God, find it impossible. Their arguments assume that God only punishes a person who is not forgiven—thus the need to relegate Ananias and Sapphira to the category of unbelievers.[1]

But is that true? We find a case of discipline among the Corinthians that was both severe enough to be considered punishment and was clearly imposed on a believer. It involved the man sleeping with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5). Paul orders the Corinthian church to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” The destruction of the flesh suggests something dire, such as death or suicide. The redeeming aspect of the punishment is that the man’s spirit may be saved—something I assume happens with Ananias and Sapphira.

There’s an irony here. Those who judge Ananias and Sapphira as being unbelievers do so in order to maintain the supremacy of God’s grace. However, in doing so, they relegate Ananias and Sapphira to hell as a result. By contrast, I see Ananias and Sapphira as proceeding on a very dangerous course (lying to God publicly) with the result that God their Father disciplines them by allowing them to die so that they, being rid of their earthly identity, can enjoy their true relationship with God forever.

It would be, according to the instance in Corinth, Satan who is the author of destruction. And so it must be with Ananias and Sapphira. In lying deliberately to the apostles, they are siding with Satan, the father of lies. Somehow Peter’s presence and recognition made life unbearable to Ananias and, later, to Sapphira, so that they imploded, so to speak. Admittedly, it’s a mystery how a revelation of sin could have such disastrous consequences to the human body. Perhaps the couple were so attached to the lie that, in exposing it, Peter shined a light so bright that the removal of the lie pushed them beyond their human limits.

Far from excluding Ananias and Sapphira from the body of Christ, I welcome them. What happened to them would be tragic from the human point of view but blessed in eternity. It prevented them from pursuing a course of apostasy. It prevented the church from taking the reality of God glibly. It prevented outsiders from looking at the Christians as a pathetic, powerless, compromising sect.

This corrective miracle of destruction, like all miracles, is needed still in this world. Think of the scandalous Christian preachers who, if they had died at the moment of being exposed, would have had, really, a better end. In addition, think of how much more respect the world would have for believers if telling lies were seen as consequential.

Peter later wrote, “For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Perhaps he was reflecting on the benefits of the great and terrible deaths of Ananias and Sapphira.

| Footnotes |

[1] In this YouTube video, Joseph Prince asserts Ananias and Sapphira were not believers: “Top 6 Most Misunderstood Verses in the Bible Explained.” Prince leans heavily on the fact that Ananias was referred to as “a man” and not “a disciple,” a distinction that often applies in the book of Acts.

But I find exceptions. The most notable one is where the angel tells Cornelius to summon “a man called Simon [Peter]” in Acts 10. Clearly Peter qualifies as a disciple. I’d hate to think angels could not keep the terminology straight, being by definition, messengers from God. In several instances a “man” with faith gets healed, the first being in Acts 3, where the “man who was lame from birth” was healed by Jesus’ name as commanded by Peter. The next one, in Acts 9, where Peter found “a man named Aeneas, who was paralyzed and had been bedridden for eight years.” Peter healed him on the spot. Finally, in Acts 14, involved another “man who was lame.” Paul sees that the man “had faith to be healed” and commanded him to stand up, which the man did, being instantly.

Using Prince’s logic, these recipients of healing were not true believers (as he claims Ananias and Sapphira were not true believers). At this point his logic works against him because he would be the first to say that faith in Jesus is all that is required to make one a new creation.

James Barron also asserts Ananias and Sapphira were not believers in this YouTube video: “Jesus The Door To A New Reality Now | Seeing Grace 7-24-2025.” Barron uses the argument that Prince used, stating that Ananias and Sapphira are not called disciples.

Andrew Farley also asserts they were not believers in several YouTube videos, including this one: “The Truth About Ananias and Sapphira.” His treatment is more nuanced than the others. He admits that the scriptures do not say God killed them, only that they died. He suggests that the scriptures also do not say they were believers. Finally, he asserts that Satan cannot fill a believer’s heart, something central to his theology. Farley goes on to make a useful distinction between punishment (always about the past) and discipline (always about the future). This distinction, however, raises the question of God’s character. Would the Father of light, the God of love, the One represented by Jesus ever impose a punishment that had no importance for the future? What, one asks, is the benefit of inflicting pain if it does not lead to the reformation of a person? Again, the logic works against itself. The attempt is to show how complete Christ’s sacrifice is, but by excluding Ananias and Sapphira from being recipients of severe “discipline,” Farley is, basically, concluding they are hell bound, making one wonder how the line between grace and condemnation can be drawn on such thin evidence.

One might ask why I am criticizing three contemporary teachers of the gospel whom I esteem. It is because their defense of their gospel of grace leads them to interpret Ananias and Sapphira with unnecessary condemnation. We know from the instance in Corinth that a believer can make such bad decisions that he can be handed over to Satan, but this is only so that his spirit may be saved.

I know that the polemical intensity these three teachers apply to Ananias and Sapphira arises from a defense of the gospel of grace. A false dichotomy is created in the following way. A critic of their gospel will say, “God’s grace is not sufficient to protect these believers from punishment.” The grace teachers, then, offer the rebuttal by arguing that Ananias and Sapphira are not at all believers. Another approach would be that God’s grace is unlimited and, instead of allowing the misled couple to continue to hurt both themselves and the body of Christ, God delivered them from their bodies, fulfilling the cry of every mature believer, to be “away from the body and at home with the Lord” (Acts 5)

Publishing Info
This post was first published on: Dec 7, 2025. If this article is significantly updated, the publication date beneath the title may change, just as it might change in order to bring current posts to the top (or bottom) of the directory.

The Great Grace Divide

Audio by GSpeech

What I am about to describe changed the course of Western history and, consequently, the history of the world. If the controversy had not been settled as it was, I would not be writing this post, nor would you be reading anything like it (even if you are Jewish).

Soon after Jesus rose from the dead, his followers received the Holy Spirit and began to spread the news as quickly as possible, often with signs and wonders accompanying their message. However, they preached exclusively to Jews and proselytes to Judaism. It took over five years before they wholeheartedly included non-Jewish audiences. It took about nine more years to understand the extent to which the gospel was intended for the whole world—and what that meant for gaining God’s acceptance.[1]

The text of Acts 10-15 tells the story of how the early church came to see the fullness of God’s grace expressed in Jesus. This watershed period settled two related controversies that affect our lives today. Neither controversy was settled easily, nor peacefully.

First, the apostles concluded that the good news about Jesus was for the whole world, not just for the Jews. The apostles and their Jewish countrymen had been taught for hundreds of years to remain separate from non-Jews, also known as Gentiles. Religion, culture, race, and nationality all depended on this separation. Seemingly suddenly, those who followed Jesus were asked to share their faith with everyone. To many (or most) Jews, this was unforgivably scandalous.

Second, this period in the early church galvanized the replacement of the law with grace. It shifted the emphasis from what humans can do for God to what God has done for humans. It established the complete salvation achieved by Jesus, who was made the wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption of all who believed (1 Corinthians 1:30).

The reason the inclusion of all humans came about “seemingly suddenly” is because it was always waiting in the wings. As early as Genesis 3, we get a glimpse of Jesus redeeming not only Jews, but the human race:

“And I will make enemies
Of you and the woman,
And of your offspring and her Descendant;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise Him on the heel.”

This early reference to some kind of messiah (Descendant) preceded the formation of the Jewish people, addressing instead the known human race. As Christians understand it, Eve’s descendant, Jesus, would bruise the head of Satan, although Satan would bruise his feet—a memorable image of the suffering and the meaning of the crucifixion.

Later in the book of Genesis, Abraham is called to be the father of not only Jews, but of many nations. He is told by God, that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). Nevertheless, for hundreds of years, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represented the beginnings of the Jewish people. Only later, in the early church, did “all peoples” gain acceptance as a literal promise.

Many other Old Testament prophecies point to a messiah who would not only redeem the Jews, but also would redeem the rest of the world. One of these in the book of Isaiah states,

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
    to restore the tribes of Jacob
    and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
    that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6).

Christians interpret “you” as Jesus the servant (the same servant vividly described in Isaiah 53).[2] This servant is endowed with power not only to help the Jews but to be a light for the Gentiles.[3]

When Jesus arrived in Galilee about 600 years later, he, too, pointed to the breadth of the kingdom of heaven. He indicated the universality of his mission many ways. One of them involved praising the faith of certain believers.

During his recorded ministry, he praised the faith of only two individuals, both Gentiles. One was the Roman centurion, who understood that creation must obey its master, just as soldiers obey their commander (Matthew 8:5 – 10). The other was the Canaanite woman, who, after Jesus recited the usual bias against Gentiles, insisted that Jesus nevertheless had something to give to her (Matthew 15:21 – 28).

Even after the resurrection of Jesus, though, none of the apostles shared the news with Gentiles. The Jews had been taught to remain separate from Gentiles, and the early believers in Jesus, rightly considering themselves Jews, practiced their faith as a Jewish sect. All along, they may have seen the gospel was intended for the world, but their traditions, culture, nation, and even their holiness forbade them from reaching out to the Gentile world. Only around 37 AD did this change, years after the resurrection.

The change began when Peter was praying on a rooftop and had the same vision three times in a row. He saw many unclean animals and was told by God to kill and eat them. He declared he had never eaten an unclean animal. God declared that he should never call “unclean” what God had called “clean.” This change in dietary commandments could have confused Peter except that immediately after the vision, he was visited by three Gentiles who had been miraculously guided to the house where he was staying. He accepted their invitation to go to their master’s home, as they told him, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say” (Acts 10:22).

Arriving at their house, Peter told them that although traditionally it was wrong for him to enter the house of a Gentile, he now saw (in light of his vision) that “God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” He shared that through the name of Jesus all people could be forgiven. As he spoke, the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentile listeners in a visible manner and they were soon baptized in water (Acts 10:27-48).

The story is beautifully consistent with both the prophecies about the light of the world and about the hesitation that hindered the early believers concerning Gentiles. It tilted the scales in favor of every human being invited to believe in Christ. But as this timeline shows, it took years for the significance of Cornelius to become fully accepted.

  • 30-33 AD
    • Christ rises from the dead
  • 37-39 AD
    • Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48)
    • Word gets out that Peter visited Gentiles. The rigidly Jewish believers, who are called “circumcised believers,” criticize Peter for visiting Cornelius. In response, Peter goes to Jerusalem to explain the vision and the encounter with Cornelius. “When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life'” (Acts 11:18).
    • During this time, Paul goes to Jerusalem to make sure the apostles agree with his gospel (Galatians 2:1-10). The apostles agree that Paul is on track and that his message is primarily for the Gentiles.
  • 41-42 AD
    • Antioch promotes the gospel for all (Acts 11)
    • Acts 11:19-21 speaks for itself:
      “Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.”
       
      Notice the role that Cyrene in Libya and the island Cyprus play: these were popular havens for Jews who lived outside of Israel, including Simon, the Cyrene, who helped carry Jesus’ cross. Perhaps the combination of being Jews yet not being in Israel allowed Cyrenians and Cypriots to see the universality of the gospel more easily.
       
      At any rate, when the Jewish believers in Jerusalem heard about the preaching to the Gentiles, they sent another person from Cyrene, Barnabas, to check up on the activity. Barnabas, a man full of the Holy Spirit, saw what the grace of God was doing, and encouraged the conversions, so that many Gentiles were converted (Acts 11:23-24).
  • 46-49 AD
    • Paul and Barnabas journey through Gentile lands, preaching first to available Jews and then to the Gentiles. All is going well (outside of Paul being frequently persecuted by the Jews).
       
      However, some followers of Jesus referred to as Judaizers, come to Antioch. They have a strong belief in the importance of converting Gentiles to Judaism, insisting that the Gentiles get circumcised, the act of circumcision being the most obvious (and painful) sign of converting to Judaism. While Paul saw social advantages to circumcision (Acts 16:3), he was no doubt outraged on the insistence that, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1-5).
       
      Around this time (~47 AD), Peter himself visits Antioch.[4] He and Paul’s missionary partner Barnabas had been eating with uncircumcised Gentiles. Unfortunately, when the Judaizers who follow the apostle James show up, both Peter and Barnabas capitulate and separate themselves from the Gentiles. Whether because they forgot their own convictions or because they became more interested in looking good in the eyes of people rather than the eyes of God, Peter and Barnabas fell off the grace wagon.
       
      Paul not only rebukes them publicly, but also succeeds in leading the Gentile controversy toward its glorious end.
       
      The apostles in Jerusalem convene to issue a final decision. Peter recounts his experience with Cornelius, which in itself provided a full justification for Gentiles (who received the Holy Spirit without changing a thing in their lifestyles). James himself refers to Peter’s experience with Cornelius and urges the apostles to admit that Gentiles are justified in God’s sight by faith in Jesus alone and never need to become Jews.
       
      The only recommendation to Gentiles is that they avoid common pagan worship practices. They should refrain from eating “food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (spoken in Acts 15:20, written in a letter according to Acts 15:29). The rest of behavior should be governed by love, which is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8, Galatians 5:14).

The verdict on Who Can Belong To God is unanimous. Quoting Peter when he met with Cornelius: “God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right” (Acts 10:34). The apostles of Jesus came to agreement that the good news is truly good for Jews and Gentiles alike. Each can keep their traditions with respect to each other.

The verdict on What Parts of God’s Law Make Us Righteous is unanimous. Quoting Paul, in his rebuke to Peter:

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16)

Paul mentions the reprimand of Peter to stress the seductive power of religion to substitute human effort for faith. Later in the same letter to the Galatians he summarizes the point with a crystal clear statement that is unfortunately not always understood: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). The misunderstood phrase is “yoke of slavery” which automatically sends modern readers into thoughts about drug, sex, or money addiction. Bad as those states may be, the yoke of slavery to which Paul refers is worse: the slavery is to the strength of all sin, the impossible task of pleasing God by one’s behavior…in short, the law.

It’s worth noting that it was years after Peter’s visit to Cornelius when Peter momentarily capitulated, believing that being Jewish and acting accordingly made one a little bit more righteous. We are wrong to think this episode highlights a particular weakness in Peter’s character. The reliable Barnabas also capitulated. Instead, the episode demonstrates how deeply attached humans are to trying to be better by following rules. It shows how even those who might be considered superstars in the early church found the pull of legalistic righteousness almost inescapable. If it could happen to them, it is happening to us more frequently.

Today, the pull of legalism remains strong. Christian sermons overemphasize behavior and neglect the unqualified acceptance of God through Jesus. They might teach unmerited forgiveness, but they usually add some kind of qualifier, such as, “but you must also become disciples,” or “but we must balance forgiveness with obedience,” or some other truly undermining qualifier. What they should add is what Paul stresses, that “Nothing can ever make you more righteous than you are right now through faith in Jesus alone.” Things as helpful as keeping the Sabbath, avoiding cigarettes or wine, tithing, attending church, or reading the Bible are offered as substitutes for luxuriating in the grace of God which demonstrates plainly both God’s character and Jesus’ gift…the stuff heaven is made of.

The grace divide is clearly defined. Do one thing to obtain righteousness and you have made Jesus’ death count for nothing. Whether it is circumcision or circumscribing this or that pleasure, anything done to justify ourselves nullifies the grace of God. We can have God’s righteousness as a gift or we can work for our own unachievable righteousness—but we cannot have both. There has been only one obedient act that reconciles us to God, the one act that makes Jesus our wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30).

§ Footnotes §

[1] These three sources agree on the approximate timeline in the Books of Acts. This post follows the first source closely:

[2] The servant songs are passages in Isaiah that describe (what Christians recognize as) Jesus. They prophesy some of his most significant moments in great detail:

[3] Concerning dates, both the prophecies of Genesis and those of Isaiah were composed about the same time (800-600 BC). The difference is that Genesis was looking backward about a thousand years, while Isaiah was addressing contemporaries. The dating of scriptures is always controversial, which is why I provide a time span.

[4] Concerning this date, see A Timeline of Paul’s Ministry in Galatians and Acts.

Publishing Info
This post was first published on: November 26, 2025. If this article is significantly updated, the publication date beneath the title may change, just as it might change in order to bring current posts to the top (or bottom) of the directory.

Misreading the Bible: Galatians

Audio by GSpeech

In an otherwise good sermon, the recent talk at a large evangelical church once again misuses the word “grace” in a way that undermines the very scripture on which the sermon was based, Galatians.
(Oct. 13, 2025, Own Your Freedom | BE FREE | Week 2, Flatirons Community Church)

This problem of watering down the meaning of “grace” and “truth” has been discussed clearly in Evangelical Misuse of “Grace” and “Truth”. The reason this sermon merits attention is because it uses Galatians as its primary text.

Galatians is Paul’s letter that warns believers in Jesus to remain free from the law. It is the letter in which Paul is so concerned about those who require circumcision that he wishes they’d go ahead and castrate themselves. The reason he went to such great lengths is not because cutting off the foreskin is necessarily a bad thing but because circumcision was being used to replace the grace of God with one more act of human effort.

The verse the sermon uses is, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). It’s a wonderful verse, and, as the sermon illustrated, can be applied to our being set free from many things, including anger, fear, and lust. Of course, if one is set free from those things (or anything), one should not allow him- or herself to be enslaved once again (although we do from time to time).

Those sinful things, though, are not what Paul is addressing in Galatians. They are, in fact, the result of what he’s addressing, but not the root cause.

The root cause of all persistent sin is what Paul called the law—the moral demand on humans to be good (for starters) and acceptable to God (for the grand prize). However, as Paul points out in another letter, 1 Corinthians, the law is the strength of sin. The law puts demands on us. We attempt to meet those demands and instantly are relying on ourselves, discovering eventually that as we try to be good we become slaves to sin. If we happen to win the battles against common sins such as anger or lust, we fall prey to pride. We were never intended to be good by effort, only by faith.

When the sermon mentioned Galatians my first thought was, “Finally, correcting the false dichotomy between grace and truth!” Soon, however, the dichotomy gets repeated as this quote illustrates:

That that’s why Jesus came full of both grace and truth. Both of them. Grace and truth. Here’s what Jesus says is true and we’ve all fallen short of it, but it’s still true and it leads to freedom. Which is why we’re dependent on grace because we fall short of it all the time. But we continue to pursue truth. We don’t have grace so we can continue to sin. We have grace so we don’t have to worry about condemnation coming back online chaining us back up as we’re trying to align our lives with Jesus. We’re what Jesus says is true and we’re saved by grace when we when we fall short and we all do. (just after minute 33)

The dichotomy is that truth tells us what to do, while grace pardons us when we fall short. Both “truth” and “grace” are undermined by this dichotomy.[1]

If “truth” means being told the right thing to do, any moralist or Buddhist could tell us more truth than we could master in a lifetime. Moses’ law did that just fine, and it never achieved true freedom or righteousness. When Jesus uses the word “truth,” he refers to the illumination of who he is as the complete savior. Truth, in Jesus’ mouth, sets us free. It’s not a hoop to jump through; it’s the revelation that Jesus has already become our wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30). When Jesus says he’s the truth, once again he’s using truth in the elevated sense, as the revelation of the way and the life (John 14:6).

If, as the sermon suggests, “grace” kicks in only after “we fall short,” then grace is no more than mercy. We all need mercy, and it’s forever ours in Christ. But grace is much more than mercy. It is the power of God forming Christ in us. Whereas the law puts demands on us (do this, be like that), grace makes promises (I give you my life and my name). Grace is not the cleanup crew after we lose our struggle with the law. Grace is the way out of the struggle altogether. Only when we accept the grace of God can we trust instead of try. The life of the little self trying to be good is over. The life of Christ in us has begun.

One could re-read the quote above, but replace “law” for every instance of “truth” and “mercy” for every instance of “grace.” That highlights both the fact that “law” and “mercy” are being described and that the sermon never explains how truth differs from and is superior to the law.

Any sermon that uses Galatians as the primary text should stress the fact that if we do anything in order to be right with God we nullify Christ’s death (Galatians 2:21). The church has never fully accepted what Paul stresses: we are dead to the law and alive to God. We don’t do things to be right with God; we appreciate what Jesus already did to make us right, to make us his brothers and sisters.

If what is written above seems too fine a distinction, just remember that the law makes demands and is the strength of sin; the truth sets us free (John 8:31-32). Mercy allows us to get fresh starts; grace keeps us going. Never pit “truth” against “grace,” as if truth is no more than a set of moral demands and grace is no more than forgiveness.

§ Footnotes §

[1] As my opening paragraph suggests, I’m quoting from week two of a seven-part “Be Free” series at Flatirons. Again, many good things were said in the series. It however astonished me that the meaning and role of “the law” was hardly discussed. Until we realize the law is the yoke of slavery that Galatians 5:1 refers to, we are missing Paul’s main point. Finally, in week 4, Jim Burgen does spend about a minute and a half discussing the law. I doubt, though, that such a short excursion during a seven-week series raised the awareness of his large audience concerning the futility of human effort.

 

Publishing Info
First published Oct. 16, 2025. Last revision: Oct. 16, 202.

Grammatical Tense Brings Good News from Jesus

Audio by GSpeech

What’s So Important about Tense and Language?

Under differing circumstances, we exercise both hope and faith. Hope looks to the future; faith to the unseen present. Here, I emphasize faith because it has been misrepresented as hope by so many preachers, a misunderstanding reinforced by our emotions. On the emotional level, nearly everyone finds solace in the thought that things may get better in the future. Discomfort arises when we are to trust that we already have what we are not yet able to see or feel. One purpose of this post is to help us become comfortable with the invisible, intangible provision of God.

I am neither a Greek scholar nor a grammarian, but I am aware, as my readers are or will soon be, that “tense” matters when it comes to faith in Jesus.

By “tense” I mean the way verbs may point to past, present, and future events (I ran yesterday, I run or am running today, and I will run tomorrow). Or, to use a Bible verse: “God delivered us (past tense) from so great a death, and does deliver us (present tense); in whom we trust that He will still deliver us (future tense)” (2 Corinthians 1:10)

Let me begin with a pedestrian example. Assume a 12-year-old daughter who loved to ride her bicycle could no longer ride it as a result of a flat tire. It would be encouraging for her to hear her father later that evening say, “I will fix your tire soon” (speaking in the future tense). It would be even better if, instead, he said, “I saw your bicycle when I got home and repaired the tire” (speaking in the past tense). The “fix your tire soon” would inspire hope, even though some distraction might arise to prevent the father from following through. The past tense “repaired the tire” would inspire faith. The girl could relax and be thankful that the problem had already been known and resolved by her father.

When we pay attention to the past tense in the Bible, we see that God is already aware of our needs before we pray. We also see that much of what we pray for has already been provided by Jesus. The past tense redirects our attention from ourselves and our circumstances to God’s awareness and provision. Faith does not involve us reminding God of his promises. Rather, faith reminds us of God’s preparation. We are the one’s getting up to speed and not the reverse.

Note the past tense in the following passage, one of the most concise and profound teachings on prayer in the Bible.[1]

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:24)

Who would have guessed that the key to faith is to believe you have already received what you are about to ask for? Yet as Mark recites it, we are instructed to believe that we have already received whatever we ask for and then we shall have it.[2]

Many of us have read this verse all our lives and have not caught its meaning. However, its meaning points directly to the one to whom we are praying: the eternal creator who knows everything and stands outside of time. If you are not praying to this being, you are probably praying to someone created in your own image, most likely a “god” who is occasionally forgetful and sometimes indifferent.

We often pray as though God is a hopefully caring individual who will assist us if we can just get his attention, and this, frankly, indicates we are already living in disbelief. It’s essential to believe in the present that God both understands and has provided for this moment’s needs. He knows before we ask what we have need of (Matthew 6:8). For that reason, Jesus says, we should not keep repeating our prayers. We do not “remind” God of anything. We remind ourselves that God has already numbered the hairs on our head and knows what we need (Luke 12:6 – 7). We never make God aware of our needs. We wake up to his constant awareness. As we trust that God already knows and cares, we are living in faith.

What do we do in the mean time—the time between trusting we “have received” and actually experiencing it? Two things stand out in the gospels and elsewhere: be thankful and act on our faith.

Gratitude, especially when we are distressed, may not be automatic. It may require studying the goodness of God and the life of Jesus before we are able to thank God from our heart. It does no good to pretend anything when it comes to prayer, so it’s better to spend time renewing our minds by reading the scriptures than by mouthing words of thankfulness while our hearts remain troubled. In quietness and trust shall be our strength. Let’s stay in that place.

In quietness and trust, you have prayed for something you are sure is God’s will (such as for wisdom, for physical healing, or for the means to provide for yourself and your dependents). You followed Mark 11:24 and believe you have received what you are praying for. Yet you do not see what you have prayed for. This is where we often revert to walking by sight and living in doubt. But you remain focused on the goodness and foresight of our Father in Heaven. You persevere and assume God has set the answer to prayer in motion. Because you prayed according to his will, you are thankful that he has said “yes, so be it.” You thank God for the thing you prayed for because you are trusting it is yours. When worries arise, you retrace the steps of faith (hearing, believing, confessing) and thank God again. Your focus is on God’s focus, not on your feelings which ebb and flow as they will.

To act on our faith is to make decisions based on the answer to prayer. Remember how often Jesus told people to do something to receive their healing? Stand up, pick up your bed, stretch out your hand…. Typically those things simply would not happen unless the person were healed. A paralytic wouldn’t think of standing up and walking, just as someone with a thoroughly withered hand would not attempt to stretch it out (Mark 2:1-12, Mark 3:1 – 5).

This need to act has been misunderstood by some who are better at acting daringly than quietly trusting. Jesus never said, “stop taking your meds,” which anyone can do, healed or sick, at times to their or their children’s detriment. The point is to be open to attempting things that presuppose either a healing or the path to healing, never trying to force God’s hand, which simply isn’t how things work.

Examples of acting on faith abound in the scriptures, including these examples:

  • Naaman dipped himself into the Jordan River seven times and was cured of leprosy (2 Kings 5),
  • The paralytic stood up, picked up his mat, and walked away (Mark 2).
  • The man with the shriveled hand extended it fully (Mark 3:1 – 5).
  • The man who was lame from birth got up and walked upon Peter’s command (Acts 3:1-10).

The next passage reveals that not only does God know our needs before we mention them, but that God knew our needs before time itself began:

He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Timothy 1:9-10)

This passage takes the past tense to the extreme (“before the beginning of time”). It does so to reveal that our greatest need—to have his life inside us—has been given before we even existed. The statement assures us that we have been in God’s mind long before we had minds of our own. As we know, grace is nothing to be begged for or worked for, but only to be recognized and received. That’s why it’s called grace, coming from χάρις (charis), meaning favor or gift. It’s the last thing you want to try to deserve, because it was the first thing God chose to share with us through Jesus, even before time.

Paying attention to how God has provided in the past stirs our faith. We are no longer relying on what we see in the present. We rely on what we hear about the past. We learn to think of God as truly eternal, a Father who considered everything involved in creation before he created. He is a being for whom nothing is impossible, a being who can only be accessed by faith. Because God has always existed, cared, and provided, any inspired communication from him cannot help but involve the past tense.

Although faith is uncomfortable for those of us who rely solely on our senses, it is ultimately the most reliable way to live. Most will agree that the past seems stable, while the present may be daunting, and the future remains uncertain. If the present is difficult (such as with ill health, bad circumstances, or demoralization), we will find more consolation in learning that something for our benefit has been done in the past than we will in finding something may be done for our benefit in the future. It is my wish that the readers of this post will walk away with increased confidence that our Father has already foreseen and addressed the majority of their needs. This revelation will result in peace for the believer who can respond with thanksgiving instead of with worry.

Christians often talk about promises. They are indeed valuable, and they always refer to the future. Facts are sometimes ignored. They, too are valuable, and they often refer to the past. It’s often the facts that stir up our faith.

Think of our redemption as it is explained in Romans: we have died with Christ (fact), we have been forgiven (fact), we are dead to the law (fact), the spirit of life has set us free from sin and death (fact), we are more than conquerors (fact), and nothing can separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus (fact). To pray for any of these things is to pray in vain. Pray instead that the eyes of our heart may be opened to see these things, to accept them, and to be thankful for them.

The grammar of the past tense serves to remind us of the eternal nature of God. In spite of copious divine facts, we often remain resistant, finding it much easier to worry in the present that to rest in the knowledge that God has already addressed our needs. For this difficulty there are at least two reasons.

First, the facts to which I’m referring are not obvious to natural observation. These must be revealed in the scriptures and by the Holy Spirit. This is why Paul prayed that believers would have a spirit of wisdom and revelation. Similarly, Jesus taught that only by revelation could we know the true God: “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do” ( Ephesians 1:18, Matthew 11:15, 25-26). Let us shed our pride and, like little children, admit to our Father that we do not understand.

The second reason we think in terms of God responding in the future instead of the past is that we have been misled by poor sermons. They often emphasize the importance of hope at the expense of faith. They may stipulate that if something is God’s will, it will happen. True, but that is largely a matter of hope: I hope it’s God’s will and I hope it will happen. There’s a generous place for hope in such things as the second coming of Christ or the resurrection of our bodies from the dead. But in many circles, the place for faith is overlooked. We are told that faith comes by hearing the word of God. We must hear the word of God, with all it’s emphasis on the past tense, if we are to experience now what God has already provided.

Our greatest needs—have already been known by God, addressed by God, and accomplished by Jesus. To use a crude analogy, the check is not in the mail, it has been deposited before we knew we needed the money and awaits only for us to draw upon the account. When we pray, we are not called to beg that God makes an exception, we are called to agree that God is our provider. Prayer is closer to praise than we often realize.

If you are indifferent to what I’m pointing out, please know that the difference is immense. Trusting what God already knows, what God already intends, and what Jesus already accomplished delivers us from a life of fretful worry to a life of peace and joy. We may not instantly experience much, but the knowledge that the matter is in hands greater than ours creates trust.

Assurance without tangible evidence may be considered the foundation of faith, which, as we learn in Hebrews 11:1 is “the substance [in the present] of things hoped for [in the future], the evidence [in the present] of things not [yet] seen.” The litmus test of prayer is whether, when we are done expressing it, we walk away with assurance that it’s being taken care of or whether we feel it all remains up to us to accomplish. We may have to remind ourselves that we’ve been heard; we never need wonder whether or not our Father has listened.

This assurance comes by being convinced that we know God’s will; that it is good, perfect, and acceptable; that it is for our welfare and not our destruction; and that it is full of grace and mercy. We must rid ourselves of institutional disbelief—teachings and practices that reduce God to a lesser being. Among the worst examples, God is an inexplicable being that prefers to teach through sickness rather than healing, through punishment rather than forgiveness. Other institutional disbelief portrays God as a weak, memory challenged being who requires many reminders in order to act—if indeed this God acts at all. We are taught to keep confessing sins that are already, once and forever, forgiven—which is one example of how disbelief puts us right under the law again. If the good news is anything, it is good and, yes, even at this late date, it is still news.

Once you are keyed into the importance of the past tense as a gateway to faith, you find it throughout the gospel.

The great scripture that is so often quoted as to become a mere jingle to our ears epitomizes the role of tense for conveying divine truth: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Note that the loving deed has been done in the past; we need not pray it happens nor can we make it happen: “he gave his one and only son….” Note, also, that we who live in the present can believe in this son: “whoever believes in him….” And, finally, observe that the effect of this past deed believed in the present will result in future effects for they “shall have eternal life.”

Another wonderful scripture highlights the role of tense:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
(Romans 5:6 – 9)

The “right time” is the historical past, about 33 A.D. This is followed by the literary (or eternal) present, “God demonstrates his own love.” And, again, “While we were still sinners,” refers to the past in two respects. First, the author, Paul the Apostle, was alive and sinning (by his own confession) when Christ died for him. Second, those who were born after the crucifixion (that’s us) discover that, while we may be still sinning in the present, Christ already died for us in the past. As a result, whether a person lives in the first or twenty-first century, “we have now been justified” (past perfect tense—to indicate that one event happened before another in the past).

In a final example, the apostle Peter applies the past tense to the majestic prophecy of Isaiah 53:
“‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed'” (I Peter 2:24, quoting Isaiah 53:5. Peter changes Isaiah’s text from “by his wounds we are healed” to “by his wounds you have been healed—past perfect tense. Both the present “are” or the past perfect “have been” assures us of healing. But Peter’s use of the past tense “have been healed” reminds us that what was done in the past has real effects in the present. Before we were born, the drama of our rebirth into Christ had been transacted.

Finally, not only does faith put us in tune with God, it also makes our part in the process perfectly clear. We are truly recipients. We have nothing to brag or feel superior about. One cannot brag about things someone else achieved, especially if someone else achieved it in the past, most especially before we were born. We can only be grateful. When we realize that the vast majority of our needs have already been met by Christ—through his sufferings and his resurrection—we have nothing to boast about, to anxiously work for, to fear concerning, or to earn. We are already home.

This recognition that we are already recipients of a great gift is what Paul’s opening statement to the Corinthian believers makes clear:

It is because of God that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” (I Corinthians 1:30-31, NIV)

God has already placed us in Christ. We are neither waiting to gain entrance to God’s presence nor to be near Jesus. We are there, feel it or not. We are not waiting for Jesus to give us wisdom, righteousness, holiness (sanctification), or redemption. We now have them by virtue of already being in Christ. All we need are the eyes to continually see this and the heart to insist on it when this life tells us we are on the outside, far away from Christ.

Consequently, three attitudes should inform our prayers.

  1. No matter what you are praying for, God already knows the need and the solution. Your prayer is permission for God to involve his good, perfect, and acceptable will.
  2. No matter how much guilt or futility you experience, by faith God has put you in Christ, who shares his wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption with you. That is the real you. Living this out in our old bodies may be difficult, but the difficulty is to trust we are exactly who we should be in all the ways that count most.
  3. No matter how ungrateful we feel, that feeling itself stands as a reminder that we have forgotten what God has already given us, whether it’s our new life in Christ or that thing we have prayed for.

delete this below ul:

  • No matter what you are praying for, God already knows the need and the solution. Your prayer is permission for God to involve his good, perfect, and acceptable will.
  • No matter how much guilt or futility you experience, by faith God has put you in Christ, who shares his wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption with you. That is the real you. Living this out in our old bodies may be difficult, but the difficulty is to trust we are exactly who we should be in all the ways that count most.
  • No matter how ungrateful we feel, that feeling itself stands as a reminder that we have forgotten what God has already given us, whether it’s our new life in Christ or that thing we have prayed for.

Footnotes

[1] This teaching occurs after Jesus cursed the fig tree and it died. The cursing of the fig tree is puzzling to most of us who see Jesus as constructive and the fig tree as innocent (it was out of season according to the passage in Mark 11). Without pretending to know why Jesus did it, I can only point out that the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple occur on the same day, an extremely emotional one that demonstrates both the misuse of the temple and the impending death of Jesus, who, like the fig tree, would die prematurely.

[2] The past tense in Mark 11:24 is undeniable. The Greek text reads πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε καὶ ἔσται. “ἐλάβετε” is the aorist (past perfect) of “λαμβάνω” (to take or receive). The New International captures the tense (believe that you have received it, and it will be yours), as does the New American Standard (believe that you have received them, and they will be [granted] you), as does the Revised Standard version (believe that you have received it, and it will be yours). Some translations hedge slightly, such as King James (believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them). “Ye receive” is present tense. Perhaps the translators could not believe the past tense was intended. The verse, however, retains its meaning that the believing comes before the receiving and that is the most important point.

 

This is the original April 22, 2024 version of the post (17 minutes), which, in its overenthusiastic way, included what is now a separate post on healing and forgiveness:

 

Publishing Info
This post was first published on: April 22, 2024 at 15:00. Revised Apr 23, 2025. If this article is significantly updated, the publication date beneath the title may change in order to bring current posts to the top of the directory.

Healing and Salvation: Sides of the Same Coin


Physical healing is coupled with spiritual healing throughout the Bible. This may be particularly true in Isaiah’s detailed prophecy about Jesus (Isaiah 53) and in the gospel accounts of Jesus. Healing and salvation are often inseparable. There are many scriptures where the same words can be translated either as “healed” or “saved.” Long before “faith healers” or “Pentecostals” existed, physical healing was revealed to be the will of God.

In fact an argument can be made that in the Old Testament, belief in an afterlife was less relevant and less pervasive than belief in the physical welfare of God’s people who were promised “none of these diseases” if they remained faithful. The Jewish community was divided on the the question of the afterlife, when Jesus appeared in Galilee. At the same time, many Jewish leaders apparently thought healing acceptable, but only as long as it did not occur on the Sabbath. In the face of all this ambivalence, Jesus wholeheartedly believed in the afterlife and in physical healing (any day of the week).

You may be thinking at this point, “Spiritual healing, I’m convinced of, but physical healing rarely occurs, not in the supernatural sense. I’m saved, but I haven’t seen a person healed for a long time, if ever.”

The “supernatural sense” provides a useful qualification. As you may have guessed, this post is about supernatural healing—healing that cannot be accounted for by natural explanations. I am not, though, discounting other healings. We all see our bodies healing themselves, often as medical care helps heal them. These healings should be received as gifts from God, just as should all sunshine, groceries, friends, and pets.

Most healing will be medical, even as supernatural healings increase. It is one purpose of humanity for people to help each other, in many things including the practice of medicine. But not all diseases and conditions can be or are healed by medicine, and for these the supernatural becomes vital.

The fact that Christians believe unanimously in spiritual salvation but only occasionally in divine healing should make us wonder what has happened since the early church. It gives us an opportunity to ask ourselves these scandalous questions:

  • If the only parts of the gospel that I believe are the ones that cannot be verified, am I really believing? Or is my “faith” just religious hopefulness?
  • Is it possible that I’m walking in disbelief in spite of my intentions?
  • Is widespread disbelief among Christians what Jesus suspected when he asked, “when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)

If you want to know whether or not it’s God’s will to heal you, look at Jesus in the gospels. He did only what he saw his father doing (John 5:19):

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick (Matthew 8:16 & Luke 4:40).

Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. (Matthew 15:30)

Jesus never told a sick person to learn to live with an illness, nor did he ever say that God wanted to teach the person a lesson through the sickness. He never used his prayer from the Garden of Gethsemanee, “If it be your will,” when confronting sickness. He healed all who came to him. Even in his home town where there was so little faith, “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them” (Mark 6:4 – 6).

Because God’s will to see us healed is crystal clear, we must ask why it’s so easily disputed and discounted. Among the reasons are the following:

  • we pray and remain sick
  • we pay more attention to feelings than scripture
  • we let our experience define our theology
  • we ignore the gospels and instead listen to sermons and teachings that promote disbelief

Instead of focusing on these deterrents, we do well to focus on Jesus’ unabated habit of healing. Even in the Garden of Gethsemanee, when Peter cut of the servant’s ear, Jesus healed it (Luke 22:49 – 51). It was the eve of his crucifixion and he still healed. Who are we following, after all? Our feelings? Our experience? Our institutions? Or the Jesus who is the same yesterday, today, and forever? (Hebrews 13:8)

As I write this, I’m aware of faithful Christians with chronic conditions, including blindness and polio—and I’d venture that these people are in many ways closer to God than am I. My concern is not to explain away our experience but to focus on what God revealed through Jesus. Then we are at least waging our war against disease on solid ground.

Modern languages and practices have drawn a fairly sharp line between physical healing and spiritual salvation. You go to the doctor for one and go to the alter for the other. This kind of thinking is tidy but it also hinders faith in divine healing.

Ancient Hebrew and Greek, the main languages of the Bible, combine physical and spiritual healing. That means that the language of the Bible may be referring to physical healing more often than we realize, just as Jesus practiced physical healing more than many recognize. Once we see that the same words are used to describe both physical healing and spiritual redemption, we have greater assurance that God’s will is comprehensive: good, perfect, and acceptable (Romans 12:1 – 2).

Three words in Greek are used to refer to both healing and salvation: sozo/σώζω, therapeuo/θεραπεύω, and iaomai/ἰάομαι (Three New Testament Words for Healing). Each of these words is used in the New Testament, and each refers to both physical healing and spiritual salvation. The Gospel (incarnated in Jesus) reveals that the whole person is under the purview of God’s love, with the result that no hair is too short for him to number, nor life too poor for him to care. On more than one occasion, Jesus healed and forgave the person, making the person whole physically, freeing the person emotionally, and enlightening the person spiritually. Let us learn, then, to think of the divine touch as complete, sufficient for all our needs.

We all know that spiritual healing, being eternal, is the most important transformation any of us can (and should) undergo. If I have everything this life can offer—health, friends, and family—but am riddled with guilt and shame, these things mean little. But if I’m a new person, a person adopted by God and endowed with the righteousness of Jesus—I’m well off, even if I have not received my healing. This life may be painfully lacking, but when we sow our earthly bodies to the grave, we can await our eventual restoration as forever healthy children of God.

Although physical healing is less important in the long run, we will see it promised or even stated as a fact in many scriptures, especially when we are aware that many times spiritual redemption and physical healing are both suggested in a promise.

Sometimes a New Testament writer will interpret the Old Testament in a way we would not suspect, even in ways that might distress a Biblical scholar. Apparently, apostolic authority trumps tradition. It happens in Matthew’s gospel, where the writer insists that the healing is physical. After word got out that Jesus could heal people and deliver them from demons, Jesus was flooded with requests:

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

“He took up our infirmities
    and bore our diseases.”

(Matthew 8:16 – 17)

The words “infirmities” and “diseases” are Matthew’s interpretation. In Isaiah 53:4 itself, you find words that refer to the emotions, specifically griefs and sorrows. But Matthew insists that the scourging and crucifixion allowed Jesus to take up and carry physical illness. This overlap between physical and spiritual healing is of course consistent with the Greek words that refer to both kinds of healing.

How are we to take hold of the physical healing so strongly promised in the Bible and so clearly demonstrated in the life of Jesus? The answers may be many and the results few, but one thing remains clear, that true faith is the key. The sooner we believe God wants us healed, the sooner we can trust God for the healing.

The classical passage on how to pray in faith occurs in the gospel of Mark:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:24)

The fact that Jesus begins with “whatever you ask” implies that physical healing is included. It may come naturally or supernaturally. In believing that we have received something before we experience it, we are moving from hope to faith. The bridge between faith and our feelings involves admitting our feelings and adding, “Nevertheless, not my feelings but your will be done.”

God cares about your health just as he cares about your spirit. He allowed his apostles to freely use words that refer at the same time to physical and spiritual healing (σώζω, θεραπεύω, and ἰάομαι). Only the context determines the intended use, and the New Testament provides plenty of examples of both kind of healing. Matthew reads healing into the passage of Isaiah, stressing its importance.

The message we get from the scriptures differs from what we get from many pulpits and most of our experiences. God wants us healed. As John writes to his friend Gaius, may we all think accordingly: “I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well” (3 John 1:2).

 

This is the original April 22, 2024 version of the post (17 minutes), in the author’s voice (more improvisational, far less organized):

 

Publishing Info
This post was first published on: April 22, 2024 at 15:00. Revised Apr 24, 2025. If this article is significantly updated, the publication date beneath the title may change in order to bring current posts to the top of the directory. The word “Gethsemanee” uses an accent so the help the voice software.

What I Learned through Spinal Stenosis

They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. (Colossians 2:19)

Before I was diagnosed, I spent months if not years struggling with my legs. They tired very easily and they felt wooden. Finally, I met with Andrea, a nurse practitioner. Somewhere during the exam, I had a revelation that I spoke aloud: When my hand or foot is asleep, all my muscles are there; they just cannot do much. Suddenly, I realized that my problem probably was not a lack of muscles, but of nerves. All the exercising I had been doing could not make me better, if the problem were in the nervous system.

Andrea did not need my revelation, but it concurred with her thoughts. At the end of the appointment, she assured me that what I was suffering was not normal aging, and she referred me to neurology. That led to Magnetic Resonance Images and X-rays. Both types of imaging showed my spinal column was pinching my spinal cord in my neck, causing partial paralysis. The good news was that the diagnosis ruled out multiple sclerosis. The bad news was that it required major neck surgery (discectomy with fusion).

I had a month to prepare for the surgery. Being a student of the good news taught and exemplified by Jesus, I sought a miraculous cure, a divine healing. This didn’t arise purely from cowardice. The surgery is indeed imperfect, whereas divine healing could undo all the damage that had occurred. As I write this, I do not know whether my healing will be divine or surgical. Even if surgical, I’m looking to the healing power of Jesus to make it more successful than usual.

Last night my conscience spoke to me: Louis, you are so inconsistent, applying your faith to your medical condition but not to your human condition. Believe for healing. Believe also for meaningful decisions all day long. Believe you can hear my voice at every juncture. There’s much more divine grace to go around than you realize.

For years, I have needed this realization, now galvanized by all the frustration my infirmity gives me. There’s a scripture in Isaiah that describes my worst moments, moments that occur when fatigued and discouraged: “your tormentors said to you, ‘Fall prostrate that we may walk on you.’ And you made your back like the ground, like a street to be walked on” (Isaiah 51:23). Surely, the creator who can touch the lame can guide me through better days and nights. While I’m believing for great health, why not believe for all the love and communication Jesus shared with his first disciples?

Perhaps the most important thing I’ve learned is the importance of our nervous system. No matter how healthy a limb might be, if it’s not connected to the head, it’s nearly useless. This is the metaphor Paul suggests in Colossians: Jesus is the head of the body; all who belong to him must get their signals from the head; the signals are delivered by the Holy Spirit.

Clearly the body of Christ is often missing the signals the head is sending. Instead of being guided by the head, many members follow their own impulses. To make a short list, some impulses lead to needless divisions, others to self-destructive behavior, and others to watered-down beliefs. There seems no more important task than to be sure we are connected to the head and to help others be so.

However I’m healed, I expect my limbs to respond much better to my brain, and I want my recovery to propel me on a lifelong course of helping members of Christ get better connected to the head.