My Thoughts on Newtown, Connecticut

My Thoughts on Newtown, Connecticut
by Romans


On Friday, December 14th, 2012, 20 First Graders and 6 women who worked at an Elementary School, were gunned down by a young man armed with an assault weapon and several handguns. The gunman also killed his own mother before going to the school, and then himself when he heard approaching sirens. Not since the days following 9/11 has any one News Story had such an impact on me. Every night since then, those 20 children and their families are in my prayers, and are in my last thoughts before I drift off to sleep, and every morning they are in my first thoughts when I wake up. And the reason is that I felt that Christmas morning was going to be so difficult for those families.

Perhaps some of you are thinking that at this Festive Time of year, this is not the right time to be posting this in the Forum. I respectfully disagree. This [i]is[/i] the right time and the [i]best time[/i] to be posting this: It is Christmas Eve, 2012. Tomorrow, dozens of families will be waking up to what was supposed to be the happiest day of the year, especially for their children. But for the parents and families of the children who were slain, for the families of the teachers and school staff, and for the families of the first responders, Christmas Morning will not be what they were all eagerly looking forward to before the shootings… [i]far[/i] from it.

       Also on the News that night, there was a film of an FBI SWAT Team arriving at the scene of the crime. The very image of these men walking by the school sign that included the words, “Visitors Welcome,” while wearing Flak Jackets, and carrying their own assault weapons struck me as being so monstrously incongruous, and so outrageously unacceptable. Here was an FBI SWAT Team, armed and outfitted for combat... [i]in a First Grade Classroom![/i] What is happening in America that the word “Massacre” can appear in the [i]same[/i] headline as the words “Elementary School”? When I think about it I feel numb and emotionally wounded, as I said in the introduction, that I have not felt since 9/11, but [i]far more[/i] intensely, now.

       It is simply not possible to try to make sense of this nightmare. And we can't just wake up from it, as much as we may wish that it were just a horrible dream. But we [i]can[/i] try to see the bigger picture. We [i]can[/i] try to see this from a Biblical perspective in an effort to lessen the confusion, and console the grief.

           As I continued to think of these events, and [i]when[/i] they took place, it occurred to me that within the account of the birth of Jesus, in Matthew's Gospel, there is the account of another massacre that took place, also involving children: all of the boys who were two years old and younger were killed by soldiers sent by King Herod to Bethlehem to secure his own throne and dynasty.  We read in Matthew 2:18: "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.” That portion of the nativity story, that we so hastily read over, has, for me, taken on a far greater significance and meaning this year than it ever has before. That is why writing this, now, is so important. That same Little Town of Bethlehem that we sing about every year at Christmastime also experienced the murder of the their children. But for those families, armed soldiers from the deranged King Herod stormed into their homes with swords drawn, seized their little boys and slew them right in front of their eyes. And then they left that horrific scene to repeat the carnage in every other house in Bethlehem where they found a little boy who was living with his family.

Jesus was spared from that same fate. We read in Matthew 2:13: “… the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.” Joseph did as he was instructed, and Jesus was not in Bethlehem when Herod’s soldiers arrived. Mary was speared the grief of watching her Son die in front of her eyes… but only when He was a young boy. When Joseph and Mary presented Jesus in the Temple, after blessing Jesus, Simeon said to Mary in Luke 2:34:   “… a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also.” Mary did not lose Him when He was two years old. She lived to watch Him grow through adolescence and into a righteous and powerful man of God. Nonetheless, Simeon’s prophecy came true: Mary did watch Him die: she was present at Calvary, and witnessed the death of her mercilessly scourged and crucified Son. Some thirty years later, as the mothers of Bethlehem and Newtown, Mary also experienced the horror and grief of her own innocent son being violently murdered.  

           As I continued to think on what happened in Newtown, it occurred to me that my first thoughts were [i]wrong.[/i] I thought that I could willingly give anything I own, even my own life if it could spare all of the lives that were taken, spare those families this anguish, spare all of the children of Newtown, both the victims and all of the surviving children who did not even attend the Sandy Hook Elementary School. But I realize, now, that I was wrong: There [i]is[/i] one thing for which I would have to say “No... I can't do that. I cannot give my own son.”  I would have gladly given up [i]anything[/i] else, but not my son.

           When I came to that realization, I was brought full circle back to the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. None of those parents sent their children to school that morning to die...  but Jesus [i]was sent[/i] by His Father, with [b]that[/b] very intent and purpose in mind. The Father sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins in our place, because He so loved us. If Jesus were not sent to die for us, all of humanity would have to pay the death penalty for our own sins. Without Jesus' death on the cross, we could have no forgiveness of sin... no Eternal Life... no hope of Salvation. As innocent and undeserving of death each of those little boys were in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago, and each of those 12 girls and 8 boys were in Newtown two weeks ago, Jesus Christ, being  without sin, and being the perfect and unblemished Lamb of God, was more innocent, and more undeserving of the violent death He suffered. But He willingly laid His Life (John 10:17) and obeyed His Father, even unto the death on the cross (Philippians 2:8) that we might have life (1 John 5:12).

           We must not forget that just as His death was not the end of Him, even so our deaths are not the end of us. Jesus said in John 11:25: “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:” Mary’s inconsolable grief at Jesus’ crucifixion was turned to unspeakable joy when Jesus was raised from the dead. In like manner, those 20  children of Newtown have died a tragic and untimely death, but they are not gone forever. Because there [i]is[/i] a God, there [i]will be[/i] a glorious Resurrection. The grief-stricken parents of the slain children of Bethlehem and Newtown, [i]will see[/i] their children, again, alive and happy and healthy! And when they do see them, they will be eternally reunited with them, [i]never[/i] to be separated, again!

           We cannot begin to understand Bethlehem or Newtown or why God allows some of the things that He does. But we [i]can[/i], in Faith, look to that day when God will fulfill His Promise in Revelation 21:4: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor [i]crying[/i], neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

          Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Romans, Christmas Eve, 2012

Romans 14

Romans 14: by Romans

Tonight, we are going to be reviewing and examining the Fourteenth Chapter of the Book of Romans.
This epistle was written by Paul to prepare the believers there for the visit he hoped to be able to make on his way to Spain. It is not clear who brought the Gospel to Rome. Some, primarily the Catholic Church, claims that Peter had brought the Gospel to Rome, and had established the Church's capital there, but even a light skimming of the facts dispels this claim. First, Rome was not only primarily a Gentile city, it was capital of the Roman Empire. And who was Peter ordained to preach to? Jews or Greeks? We read in Galatians 2:9: “And when James, Cephas, (Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” The Jews are referred to , here, as “the circumcision.” Peter, in fulfilling his personal Mission would not have gone to Rome. For an undisclosed period of time, as we'll see in a minute, there were no Jews there for Peter to preach to. Second, when Paul finally did get to Rome, in order to stand trial before Caesar, Jews were there with whom Paul had met, but notice this fascinating conversation between Paul and the Jewish leaders at Rome: We read, Paul speaking first, beginning in Acts 28:20: “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.”

They certainly seem to be completely unaware of any positive things regarding Christianity. If Peter, the Apostle to the circumcision had been to Rome, would those same Jews to whom Paul was now  speaking have been so in the dark about the Gospel? No. And lastly, Romans 16 is basically a shopping list of all the people living in Rome whom Paul wanted to greet. Peter is not named among them.

I think it important, as we read this chapter, to lay a basic groundwork regarding who Paul was writing to: it is not as obvious as we might think. Yes, they were converts to Christianity living in Rome. But we also need to understand their collective backgrounds.

As I heard in a Sermon many years ago, that the Congregation that made up the Church at Rome, to whom this epistle was written, embodied a clash of cultures, worldviews, experiences and biases, primarily because it was a Congregation that was made up of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews had just recently returned from an exile from the city imposed on them by the Emperor Claudius. That exile is recorded in Acts 18:1: “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them...”

But now, when this epistle was written, the Jews were back in town, and were both living and worshiping in Rome among Gentiles who apparently had a system of worship in place, and had been operating without Jewish influence, or input. And, as you would imagine, there were problems arising as each side was suddenly confronted with alternate styles of worship and alternate understandings of what was pleasing and/or required by God.


Robert Boyd writes the following in “The World Bible Handbook;” The immediate occasion stems from Paul's knowledge that the Jews were not willing to allow the Gentile believers to claim equal privileges with them. The argumentation part of this epistle brings both under sin, short of God's Glory., and then by showing that Abraham's own justification was antecedent... “(coming before the giving of) “... the law, and independent of it, proved that any who were justified were justified by faith, and that all justified believers were in equal rank in God's favor, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul hoped to reconcile the Jewish converts to the truth that Gentile converts were accepted by God, and it was done without their being obliged to keep the Law of Moses.”

Having laid this groundwork, and before we begin a Verse-by-Verse Review of this Chapter, let's read and consider what Matthew Henry has to say about the first six Verses of this chapter. He offers a very interesting and important insight into Paul's handling of the colliding cultures that threatened to divide and weaken the Congregation at Rome.  

* The Jewish converts cautioned against judging, and Gentile believers against despising one the other. (1-13) And the Gentiles exhorted to take heed of giving offence in their use of indifferent things. (14-23)

“1-6 Differences of opinion prevailed even among the immediate followers of Christ and their disciples. Nor did St. Paul attempt to end them. Compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to outward observances without being convinced, would be hypocritical and of no avail. Attempts for producing absolute oneness of mind among Christians would be useless. Let not Christian fellowship be disturbed with strifes of words. It will be good for us to ask ourselves, when tempted to disdain and blame our brethren; Has not God owned them? and if he has, dare I disown them? Let not the Christian who uses his liberty, despise his weak brother as ignorant and superstitious. Let not the scrupulous believer find fault with his brother, for God accepted him, without regarding the distinctions of meats. We usurp the place of God, when we take upon us thus to judge the thoughts and intentions of others, which are out of our view. The case as to the observance of days was much the same. Those who knew that all these things were done away by Christ's coming, took no notice of the festivals of the Jews. But it is not enough that our consciences consent to what we do; it is necessary that it be certified from the word of God. Take heed of acting against a doubting conscience. We are all apt to make our own views the standard of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters of no moment. A thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver of all our mercies, sanctifies and sweetens them.”

Moved by what had to be the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, Paul did not take the side of either the Jew or the Greek. Clearly, to do so would have absolutely been a defining wedge that that would have divided the Roman Congregation into a Jewish and a Gentile faction. There were still, for each believer from varying backgrounds, entire spheres of experience, worship, and even right and wrong that was a part of their very being that could not simply have been, and should not have been overlooked or dismissed. As Matthew Henry wrote, “Attempts for producing absolute oneness of mind among Christians would be useless.”

Now, I need to add that we are to strive for oneness of mind. Paul is not saying that we shouldn't. But that oneness of mind needs to be in regard to absolute and fixed truth. Let me give you two examples:
First is in regard to the claimed necessity that circumcision was required for Salvation. Paul, here, took a clear stand and took a clear side against such a claim. He wrote in Galatians 5:6: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” And then we read, regarding the resurrection. There was a variety of heresies that had crept into the Church at Corinth that Paul had to dispel. Unlike his epistle to the Romans in dealing with the divisions there, and taking no sides, we read, beginning in 1 Corinthians 15:12: “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

So there is a time when a line has to be drawn, when some divisive issues have to be identified and renounced. And there are other times when the division itself, and not the issues that cause the division has to be identified and renounced.

So let's go back to the beginning on Romans 14 now and look at this Chapter with this deeper understanding of the background.

Romans 14:1  “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.”

What is weak faith? According to the Notes in The Life Application Bible, “Paul is speaking about immature faith. Faith that has not yet developed the muscle it needs to stand against external pressures. For example, if a person who once worshiped idols became a Christian, he might understand perfectly well that Christ saved faith, and that idols have no real power. Still, because of his past associations, he might be badly shaken if he knowingly ate meat that had been used in idol worship, as part of a heathen ritual. If a person who once worshiped God on the required Jewish holy days became a Christian, he might well know that Christ saved him through faith, not through the keeping of the law. Still, when the feast days came, he might feel empty and unfaithful if he didn't dedicate them to God.”

I really appreciate how they have broken this down to cover potentially weak Church members from both camps. And I love their summary statement, here: “Paul responds to both weak brothers in love. Both are acting according to their consciences, but their honest scruples do not need to be made into rules for the Church. Certainly some issues are central to the faith, and are worth fighting for – but many are based on individual differences, and should not be legislated. Our principle should be, 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, love.'”

We should also notice that this is not about a disagreement about an established doctrine like circumcision or the resurrection. This is about someone who Paul describes as being “weak in the faith.” There were some who, either knowingly or accidentally eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, adopted a vegetarian lifestyle. And this they did in the sincerity of their hearts, so that they could eat with a clear conscience. We need to jump to Verse 23 in order to establish a very important Scriptural principal: “  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

There are many different priorities, practices and tolerances, restrictions and understandings among Christians. And many of these do not have either an “etched in stone” Scriptural basis, or a Salvation-impacting effect. They are, in many cases, based on a variety of things: the familiarity of the individual with the Word of God, the spiritual maturity of the individuality, the culture of the individual, the personal experience of the individual,  the conscience of the individual. They are so wide in their potential occurrence, Paul could never have named all of them in this Chapter, and the ones that he did not name would serve as occasion for a potentially new wedge to divide the Church. So, instead, he was inspired to paint all such divisions that were based on harmless voluntary or involuntary preference with the same brush, and the same color of paint. And he went on to admonish the original readers of his epistles who were living in Rome some 2,000 years ago, or each of us today, to apply his resolution.
Let me read these first 3 Verses again, but this time from the JB Phillips Paraphrase: “Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples. One man believes that he may eat anything, another man, without this strong conviction, is a vegetarian. The meat-eater should not despise the vegetarian, nor should the vegetarian condemn the meat-eater – they should reflect that God has accepted them both.”

This concept is one of the most important concepts that can be grasped among Christians: namely, the mutual acceptation by God of a believer, or a Congregation, whose understanding and practices are not identical to that of their own, or that of the Church they attend. Again, I need to stress that I am not talking about areas of sin, or areas of apostate heresy, occult practices, or pagan worship that may have crept into their worship. I am talking exclusively about a worship practice that, while it does not conform to my experience or practice, it does not violate the Word of God.  

Let me give you the best example I can think of, regarding an experience that I had. I had just begun to fellowship with a Church here in the city where I live. And one of their members was in the hospital, and was in pretty bad shape. I don't remember exactly what had put the man in the hospital but his condition was serious. The minister asked the Congregation to join him in prayer for this member.
But then he did something that is not Scriptural. I never saw it or heard of it being done before either in person, on TV or in writing.

There IS the precedent given in Scripture to anoint the sick, and pray for their healing. But in this case, the member who was sick was not present to be anointed; He was in the hospital. So the minister called to the front of the Church, the sick man's best friend... and he anointed him, and then led the Congregation in prayer for the man's healing.

Even though this was completely new to me, and even though I knew this practice had no Scriptural precedent or example, I thought it was an absolutely beautiful, sincere and powerful appeal to God for healing. To anoint the best friend of a sick man, and pray for his healing employing the emotion and closeness of the man anointed, to the man being prayed for. I loved it. I absolutely loved it.  

There are some who would have completely missed the beauty of that experience  and would have dismissed it as man-made and therefore fruitless, or condemned it as heretical because it had no Scriptural precedence. But I was also aware that there certainly was no Scriptural prohibition of such a practice, and I had nothing on which I could base any condemnation of it.

It was nothing more than a spiritual shepherd praying with his flock, for one of the sheep who was sick.

Let's continue in Verse 4:
4  “Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.”

The final phrase of this Verse says it all: “God is able to make him stand.” By what right do we judge and condemn or nullify their sincere worship?

Verse 5:
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.”

This, almost assuredly has to be a reference to the Jewish believers' continuing to apply the Fourth Commandment to “Remember To Keep Holy The Sabbath Day,” or the Seventh Day of The Week. Paul does not use the word Sabbath, here, and so some may argue that he was not talking about the Seventh Day Sabbath. There are a number of Congregations, with total memberships numbering into the millions of members, who observe the Seventh Day Sabbath as the Christian Day of Worship. I am sure they would be some of the first people to point out that Paul did not name or identify the Sabbath as the Day in question.

But I would also like to point this out. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. If the Seventh Day Sabbath as enforced in the Old Covenant, was to be observed, as one of the Ten Commandments, don't you think that every last one of his epistles, written primarily to Gentiles who had no past experience with keeping the Sabbath, would have mentioned or reminded them or admonished them to observe that Day? Yet, I invite you to check any concordance. The word Sabbath does not appear in even one of Paul's epistles. How could that possibly be true if Christians were supposed to observe it?

Paul wrote instructions to both slave-owners, and slaves. But where are his instructions to Christian masters to allow their Christian slaves to do no labor on the Seventh Day. The actual wording of the Fourth Commandment specifically states in Deuteronomy 5:14: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant...” Paul is absolutely silent about perpetuating the strict ban regarding working on the Sabbath. And that silence shows that it cannot have continued to be in effect, as it was observed under the Old Covenant.  And, so Paul simply writes to a group, some of whom continued to observe it as they had all their lives, and others who had never observed it, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.”

In the next section, Paul addresses things eaten. Besides the notion of meat being sacrificed to idols, there was he other issue regarding the unclean meats that were forbidden in the Book of Leviticus which the Jewish believers had never eaten, and the Gentile believers never hesitated to eat. Some of the same groups, The Seventh Day Adventists for one, that observe the Seventh Day Sabbath, also continue to abide by, and not consume what are regarded as “unclean meats.”

Paul wrote: “He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7  For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10  But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.”

The Life Application Bible offers these comments in its margin regarding this: “Each person is accountable to Christ, not to others. While the Church must be uncompromising in its stand against activities especially forbidden by Scripture, (adultery, homosexuality, murder, theft) it should not create additional rules and regulations, and give them equal standing with God's law. Many times, Christians base their moral judgments on opinion, personal dislikes, or cultural bias rather than on the Word of God. When they do this, they show that their own faith is weak. They do not think God is powerful enough to guide his children. When we stand before God's court of justice, (“judgment seat”), we won't be worried about what our Christian neighbor has done.”

And then we the margin directs us to 2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”

In regard to our putting a stumblingblock in our brother's way, this is an important point to consider. The Commentary on Romans and Galatians by Douglas Moo, Ralph Martin and Julie Wu, says: “The Greek word here is 'skandalon' which originally denoted a 'trap.' But the word also became a metaphor for the idea of 'occasion of misfortune, ' or 'cause of ruin.' All fourteen occurrences of this word have this significance.”

Certainly when we think of our relationships with fellow believers, we should never behave in such a manner toward them that would become for them a “trap” or “cause of ruin.”

Jesus had very strong words about this in Matthew 18:6: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

The comment in the Life Application Bible reads as  follows: “Both strong and weak Christians can cause their brother to stumble. The strong but insensitive Christian may flaunt his freedom and intentionally others' consciences. The scrupulous but weak Christian tries to fence others in with petty rules and regulations, thus causing dissension. Paul wants his readers to be both strong in the faith, and sensitive to others' needs. Because we are all strong in some areas and weak in others, we need constantly to monitor the effect of our behavior on others.”

Paul continues on the thought of what we eat as opposed to what a brother or sister eats in Verse 14:
“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

What does that mean?

For a Jewish believer to consume pork, or shellfish, after living their entire life regarding the meat  from those animals as being unclean, it would be difficult, if not next to impossible, for such a person to sit down and enjoy a ham on rye. But a Gentile, with no such personal experience or understanding, it would be wrong to eat a ham on rye in the presence of a Jewish believer, if that offended him.

Notice Paul's words about that beginning in Verse 15: “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16  Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

When he says, “For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness,” he is saying that this is not a dividing point. The person that eats the ham on rye, gives God thanks for it and eats it in appreciation. And the one who regards it as unclean, refrains to eat it, but also, in the process accomplishes a far greater achievement: he refuses to violate his conscience. He refuses to cross a line to a place in which he believes is outside the will of God. And for that he is to be commended because put into practice, that is a habit that every Christian should strive to adopt and put into practice.

Matthew Henry has this to say: “Though some are weak, and others are strong, yet all must agree not to live to themselves. No one who has given up his name to Christ, is allowedly a self-seeker; that is against true Christianity. The business of our lives is not to please ourselves, but to please God. That is true Christianity, which makes Christ all in all. Though Christians are of different strength, capacities, and practices in lesser things, yet they are all the Lord's; all are looking and serving, and approving themselves to Christ. He is Lord of those that are living, to rule them; of those that are dead, to revive them, and raise them up. Christians should not judge or despise one another, because both the one and the other must shortly give an account. A believing regard to the judgment of the great day, would silence rash judgings. Let every man search his own heart and life; he that is strict in judging and humbling himself, will not be apt to judge and despise his brother. We must take heed of saying or doing things which may cause others to stumble or to fall. The one signifies a lesser, the other a greater degree of offence; that which may be an occasion of grief or of guilt to our brother.”

Paul continues in Verse 18: “For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20  For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.”

Next we come to an issue that is another potential point of division within the Church, and among fellow-believers, namely the drinking of wine. I know, and recognize as Christians, people who both do drink wine, and others who abstain from wine. Paul has a word for both camps in the next Verse:

21: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

And then Paul makes what is to me, the most profound statement of this entire Chapter. If it were understood and applied by all the millions of sincere people who truly want to serve God, I think it would have the potential result of re-uniting an untold number of Congregations who have split off from each other over one of these inconsequential, personal preference worship issues:

Paul writes in Verse 22: “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.”

The JB Phillips paraphrase says it like this: “Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God...”

And I especially like the Living Bible's paraphrase: “You may know that there is nothing wrong with what you do, even from God's point of view, but keep it to yourself: don't flaunt your faith in front of others who might be hurt by it.”

The KJV continues, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.”

Again, I will allow the Living Bible Paraphrase to shed light on this thought: “In this situation, happy is the man who does not sin by doing what he knows is right.”

And then, Paul sums up the whole topic with this last Verse which is also of major importance for both the critic of someone else's worship, and the believer who received the criticism.

23  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

If Christian A were to criticize Christian B for adhering to the Levitical Kosher Diet, and brow beats him into taking a bite of that ham on rye
, if he does so in a manner that violates his conscience, that is sin, as Paul says,  “because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

The Living Bible Paraphrase explains that “He sins if he does, for he thinks it is wrong. Anything that is done apart from what he feels is right, is sin.”

The JB Phillips Paraphrase says, “... if a man eats meat with an uneasy conscience, you may be sure he is wrong to do so. For his action does not spring from his faith, and when we act apart from our faith, we sin.”

In the same way that it was a good thing, and a commendable thing for that believer to not violate his conscience, and not cross the line into a place that he believed God forbade, it is a bad thing if he dismisses his conscience, and takes that bite.

I will allow Matthew Henry to have the last word. He write, “14-18 Christ deals gently with those who have true grace, though they are weak in it. Consider the design of Christ's death: also that drawing a soul to sin, threatens the destruction of that soul. Did Christ deny himself for our brethren, so as to die for them, and shall not we deny ourselves for them, so as to keep from any indulgence? We cannot hinder ungoverned tongues from speaking evil; but we must not give them any occasion. We must deny ourselves in many cases what we may lawfully do, when our doing it may hurt our good name. Our good often comes to be evil spoken of, because we use lawful things in an uncharitable and selfish manner. As we value the reputation of the good we profess and practise, let us seek that it may not be evil-spoken of. Righteousness, peace, and joy, are words that mean a great deal. As to God, our great concern is to appear before him justified by Christ's death, sanctified by the Spirit of his grace; for the righteous Lord loveth righteousness. As to our brethren, it is to live in peace, and love, and charity with them; following peace with all men. As to ourselves, it is joy in the Holy Ghost; that spiritual joy wrought by the blessed Spirit in the hearts of believers, which respects God as their reconciled Father, and heaven as their expected home. Regard to Christ in doing our duties, alone can make them acceptable. Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him; and they abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. They are approved by wise and good men; and the opinion of others is not to be regarded.”

Remember: “Our principle should be, 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, love.'”

This concludes this Evening's Discussion, Romans 14.

Originally delivered on June 7th, 2012

What Child Is This?

Everyone, Christians, those who are not practicing Christianity and unbelievers alike, are all beginning to hear references to Jesus being born in a manger in Bethlehem. They may see the following prophecy written on a Christmas card they send or receive, or on a poster in their local shopping mall: The prophecy is from Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a child is born..." The remainder of the Prophesy read: "... unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Christians are celebrating, at this time of year, the birth of Christ, the long-awaited Messiah and Savior of the world. But there is an aspect of that baby boy that is not fully understood or appreciated. Tonight, I borrow the title of a Christmas Carol as I ask the question, “What Child Is This?” Unlike any and every other child born before Him and after Him, that babe in the manger not only had a pre-Existence, but a He also had an Eternal Title, Dominion and Power. First, let's focus on Jesus' pre-Existance, before He took on flesh and became a human being. We read of the wise men from the East inquired of Herod in Matthew 2:1: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” There are three big issues to consider, here: First, the Book of Micah was written seven centuries before the birth of Christ. Let's not dismiss this fact too quickly. Think of the scene that was just described in Matthew's Gospel: Wise men from the East arrive at the King's Palace, and are looking for directions. They ask, in essence, “Where,” (according to your 700 year old writings,) “is he that is born King of the Jews?” Do you realize that, as Americans, our oldest documents are less than 250 years old? And the Wise Men were asking directions from a 700 year old prophetic map, three times older than the Declaration of Independence! And they had the faith that whatever that parchment said was to be His birthplace, they believed that when they got there, they would find Him! And they did go there, and they did find Him! The second big issue to consider is this: What other person in history could that have been asked of? What other person in history could fulfill a 700 year old prophecy that foretold where on earth His mother would be when she gave birth to Him???!!! And the third and last big issue is the Prophecy itself, not merely in its miraculous ability to foretell where this child, born a King, was to be born, but how many people have read what else that Prophecy has to say about that child. Matthew's Gospel only lists the pertinent information that includes “where” since that was the main focus of the wise men's question. But the actual complete Prophecy is a most inspiring and sobering description of the child, Himself, that would rule out any and every other human being: Let's read it in Micah 5:2: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” That is so powerful to me, and I so wish that Matthew had included that last little compelling phrase: “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”! That would have so effective to have there, for those people who claim that Christ's Divinity was added into the mix as an embellishment, centuries after the fact. How many people, even Christians, have ever gone back to read the original Prophecy in Micah to see if it really was a Prophecy for and about Jesus? Very few, I believe, or we would not have the kind of confusion about Christ that exists, today. But let's focus, now, and I mean really focus on Matthew's Account of the birth of Christ: We read beginning in Matthew 1:18: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” The name of the babe was to be called Emmanuel, which means “God with us.” God with us. Who was the only God that an ancient Hebrew prophet would have been referring to? The God of Israel. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Our Fathers. The God of our Salvation. God. This babe was going to be called God with us, because He was going to BE God in the flesh. Notice this verse, again, about Joseph contemplating what was happening. We read in Verse 20: “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,” The angel of the Lord. That is a familiar phrase. We read it all the time in the Old Testament. And when we read it, we understand that it is an angel, a spiritual being created by God, who is, in this case serving as a messenger. And when we read “angel of the Lord” we recognize that “the Lord” is the God of Creation. Let's focus on "the Lord." In the New Testament, the word translated "Lord" is the Greek word "kurios." (It is Strong's number 2962.) When Jesus said in Matthew 22:37: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." The Greek word that Jesus used for "Lord" was the word "kurios." When Mary was still pregnant with Jesus, and she visited her cousin Elizabeth, we read the following Account beginning in Luke 1:39: "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Elizabeth referred to Mary as "the mother of my Lord." And, she also used the word "kurios." Elizabeth knew Who that unborn baby was! It was the Lord God of Israel! Let's finish the Account and see that Mary also knew. She understood the significance of the name Emmanuel: "[i]God[/i] with us." Verse 44: "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord..." and here, for Lord, Mary also uses the Greek word "kurios." These women [i]both[/i] believed that Mary's baby was God in the flesh. But perhaps they took the name "Emmanuel" literally, and shouldn't have. Perhaps they just misunderstood! Let's see if they did: Angels delivered a message of great joy to the shepherds on the night Christ was born. How did they refer to this babe in the manger? We read, beginning in Luke 2:8: “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” The angels identified the Christ child as "the lord." Did their announcement agree with the understanding of Mary and her cousin Elizabeth? Yes. The word the used for "Lord" was the Greek word, "kurios." The conclusion in unmistakeable and inescapable. I will speak for myself, here. For many many years I read and heard and sang those words “Christ the Lord” in the closing line of “O Come All Ye Faithful” and I never realized what it was saying: Christ... the Lord... kurios... God. In John 1 we read that "the Word was God." Later in Verse 14 John writes, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." God was made flesh and dwelt among us. Let's go back and look more closely at the prophecy I read at the beginning of tonight's Discussion: Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Here, one of the Names of this prophesied child is “The Mighty God.” There is a trend among Bible doubters that the whole notion of Jesus' Divinity was something that developed over the decades and centuries after Jesus walked on the earth. This is nothing less than revisionism, and heretical revisionism at that! And this conclusively proves it. Centuries before Jesus came to the earth, the Messiah was already being called “The Mighty God.” Jesus' Divinity was an established part of His Nature. It was NOT added by overzealous believers after His death on the cross, or any other time! But let's also notice that He is called, The everlasting Father. I have often wondered why “The everlasting Father” is included among these names that this child is given. In one of the commentaries that I read on the subject pointed out that Jesus said in John 10:30: “I and my Father are one.” So the obvious question is, One what? One God. Jesus was saying, “I and my Father are One (God).” There is an account recorded in which those who criticized and opposed Jesus, reached an absolutely correction conclusion regarding Him: We read in in John 5:18: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” Claims of His Divinity both preceded Jesus by many Centuries, and were being made by followers and detractors alike while He was still on the earth! But just in case it is still not clear what I am saying, I need to make my point without any chance of misunderstanding: Jesus was indeed God in Heaven before His human birth. But since God is a Trinity. was He a silent member of the Trinity, waiting idly in the wings for His cue to come to the earth? Many people, maybe most people, assume that the Patriarchs and Old Testament Israelites worshiped that Member of the Trinity we currently refer to as the Father. And then most understand, or I should say misunderstand that the Father then introduced an entirely new Member to them when He sent His Son to the earth as a baby. Is this a correct understanding, or as I claimed, a misunderstanding. Consider this: If the Father HAD been the member of the Trinity Who was also the God of the Old Testament, and He was sending His heretofore unknown Son to the earth, then Jesus, as that new person with Whom the Israelites had no prior relationship, would never have made the following statement. Notice in: Luke 10:22: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” I hope you all caught that! Let me read it again: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” Jesus came to reveal the Father to, of all people, the Jews! But at the same time, if the Father had been the God of the Old Testament, making such a statement would have made no sense. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the Jews were as yet unfamiliar with this unrevealed Person of the Trinity, or Christ would not have needed to reveal Him. By applying these and other New Testament Scriptures to Old Testament prophecies and references, we come to the startling realization that, before His Incarnation, Jesus was the God of the Old Testament! His name meant “God with us” because that is Who had taken on human flesh. The angels announced to the shepherds that a Savior was born Who is Christ the Lord! Tonight, I am going to attempt to prove to all of you that the very same Person of The Trinity Who created the Universe, kneeled down to breath into Adam's nostril's the breath of life, called out to keep Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, spoke to Moses from the Burning Bish, and then sent him to deliver the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, was sung about and praised in the Psalms, sent the prophets to ancient Israel to bring them to repentance... and all of the other things we are familiar with... that Person of the Trinity, that Member of the Godhead was none other than the One Who became Jesus Christ the Lord. God with us! I invite as many of you as are willing to hear the proofs that I have prepared, to stay with me until the end of this Discussion. I welcome any and all questions as we go through this, but I want you also to keep two things in mind: First, since there is nothing that I will claim that is not clearly and inescapably supported by the Word of God, then Second, any objections you have must also be supported by Scripture. I think that is a fair set of ground rules. This subject may be one that some of you find "suspect" or even upsetting because it is so new and unfamiliar, or because it is unpopular. May I remind you that the Truth of God's Word is not the result of popular opinion? May I also remind you that we, as Christians, are called upon to grow in the Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you can consider tonight's discussion an opportunity for such growth into Knowledge. Every person that has ever been introduced to Christ, or a Scriptural Truth that dispelled a myth or error, identified that information as something new. So don't let this newness dissuade you. It was new to me also when I had it proved to me many years ago. Let's look at the very first verse of Scripture. Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...” If Verse is speaking of the Father, then there is a problem with some very consistent identifications in the New Testament as to which Person of the Trinity was the Creator: The Apostle John tells us of this same beginning in his Gospel Account in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Now you may say that there is some pronoun confusion in this verse. And when it says “All things were made by Him...” it is actually referring back to “the Word.” Notice the flow of the Verse, again, “...The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” OK... I will accept that reservation. But I will also direct you to a verse that has no such ambiguity or pronoun confusion. Let's turn to: Colossians 1:12-16: “Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Now consider, again: Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...” If the Father, and not Jesus, were the God of the Old Testament, Who spoke to the Patriarchs, why would Jesus ever say what we find in John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” Notice: whose day did Abraham rejoice to see? The Father's Day? No, Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoice to see [i]My[/i] day and was glad" (emphasis mine). Jesus would also never have lamented in Luke 13:34: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would [i]I[/i] have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (emphasis mine). Notice: Jesus did not say “... how often would My Father have gathered thy children...” He said, “ how often would I have gathered thy children...” The children of Israel interacted with the One Who became Jesus. Here is a proof that Christ was the God of The Old Testament, that is often overlooked by many Christians: Exodus 3:13-14: “And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” But now carefully notice, if you will, beginning in John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” Jesus used the very same Name and Designation of Himself in this verse that He did when He identified Himself to Moses from the burning bush! And while many Christians may miss the significance of Jesus saying “I AM,” but His original audience did not miss it at all, and their response proves that: To them He was speaking blasphemy, and they immediately took up stones to cast at Him! What other possible provocation was there for them to respond with stones? Someone's mere claim to being many centuries old would have inspired laughter and mockery, but they responded with stones because Jesus had taken to Himself the very Name of God! Psalms 62:7 tells us: “In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.” And the Apostle Paul identifies for us, Which Member of the Trinity was that Rock: We read in 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” I indicated earlier that in Isaiah's Prophecy, one of the titles he gave the Promised Messiah was "the everlasting Father." Jesus' identity as both God and now the Creator in the Book of Genesis lends credence to this alternate explanation of Jesus' being called "the everlasting Father." The English translation "the everlasting Father" may not be a very good translation of the original Hebrew. Young's Literal Translation renders it "Father of Eternity." Think of that title as a incredibly power corroboration of Jesus being the Creator. As I said in the introduction, Micah 5:2 refers to the coming Messiah with the words, " whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Jesus existed [i]before[/i] there was a physical creation. When He brought the Universe into existence, time as we know it also began. That makes Jesus "the Father of Eternity." What does the first Verse of Psalm 23 tells us? Yes! “The Lord is my Shepherd...” The Lord is My Shepherd. And the angels told the human shepherds that Christ was the Lord. That links Jesus to being both Lord and Shepherd. And Jesus confirmed that in so many words, not once but twice: First in John 10:11 when He said: “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” And then in John 10:14, when He said “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” The Apostle Peter also draws the analogy of Christ being a Shepherd in 1 Peter 2:25: “For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.” Next, there is, what amounts to, an airtight case linking Jesus to being the Shepherd of His people. We read in Hebrews 13:20: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” There is a lesser known Psalm that also refers to God as a Shepherd, but which also has even deeper and startling ramifications: Notice Psalms 80:1: “Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.” This is a clear reference to the picture in Heaven where God was sitting on His throne between cherubims, as depicted on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. We read in Exodus 25:18: “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.” Psalms 80:1 places the Shepherd of Israel dwelling between the cherubim and shining forth. Notice Verse 22: “And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” That shining is known as the Shekina Glory: From the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary we read: “The Shekinah, or symbol of the Divine Presence, rested on the mercy seat, and was indicated by a cloud, from the midst of which responses were audibly given when God was consulted on behalf of His people. Hence God is described as "dwelling" or "sitting" between the cherubim.” This was the Shepherd of Israel... Again, Psalms 80:1: “Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.” And Who was that? The Shepherd of Israel was Jesus! There is only one Shepherd of Israel: Jesus points out that He is not merely one shepherd among many. Notice in John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” If the Psalms refer to God as the Shepherd of Israel, and Jesus says there is only One Shepherd, and that He is the Good Shepherd, can I make any clearer a connection as to Who the God of the Old Testament was? Let me introduce another Psalm for you to consider: When David wrote in Psalms 8:3-4, he was speaking to the One Who became Jesus: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” What is man? To Jesus, mankind is the creation that He loves... and loved enough to set aside all of the majesty, privileges and glories of Heaven, to willingly become a sacrifice and shed His blood for us. Here is another point to consider carefully: John 5:37: “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Yehave neither heard his voice at any time , nor seen his shape.” When I read this verse, considering all of the verses we have covered so far that clearly places Jesus in the Role of the God of the Old Testament, I understand it when Jesus says that “ye have neither heard his voice at any time, that “ye” represents all of mankind throughout history, who has never heard the Father's voice at any time... But according to the Book of Genesis, God clearly did speak to Adam and Eve, and they heard Him when He spoke! Notice what we read in Genesis 3:8: “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” Jesus said “ye have never heard His voice at any time,” but God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 18:13: “And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?” I mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating in this context: Jesus said “ye have never heard His voice at any time,” but God spoke to Moses in Exodus 3:4: “And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.” Now, notice this very interesting prayer to the God of the Old Testament in Job 14:14: “If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.” Here we have Job telling God in the context of the Resurrection, “Thou shalt call, and I will answer Thee...” And in the New Testament, we see Jesus very clearly declaring that the One who would be calling the dead back to life would be Himself: We read in John 5:25: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” Then we read in Psalms 45:6: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” Notice Hebrews 1:8: The Psalm is repeated, but that Person of the Trinity referred to in this Psalm is specifically identified: It reads, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” The whole idea may be new to you, it may be unfamiliar to you and unpopular to multiple millions as a belief, but the Bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the Creator of Genesis 1:1. And God, the Creator of everything that ever existed, knelt down over the lifeless formed shape of Adam, and breathed into his nostrils, the breath of life. But that Creator is also the God that became our flesh and blood Saviour, and died the shameful and dishonorable death of the cross to pay for our sins, so that we might share Eternal Life with Him. As we are told in Philippians 2:7-8: "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Revelation 13:8 identifies Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” This Christmas Season, as we celebrate the birth of Christ, let us apply this deeper understanding of Jesus before His Incarnation, and add to it, a deeper appreciation and a more heart-felt worship as we come to realize how thoroughly He has been involved with His Creation, and just how dearly and intensely He loves us. What Child Is This? It is Emmanuel... God With Us... Christ, the Lord. This ends this Evening's Discussion, “What Child Is This?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZD9He8k4M8