| Page 5 ----- Original Message ----- From: Curtis Kekoa III To: James Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Re: Flood of info... James, Attempt! Attempt! Just give me a chance to respond. I believe you sent me three responses since my last one. You're kind of "all over the place," so I'll do my best to address every point you made. Sometimes, I think you're just messing with me to see what I'll come up with next. So make some popcorn and get yourself a glass (bottle) of wine. Talk about a "flood of info" - Do I have a ride for you! Exodus 22:28 and Acts 23:5 ("'Speaking evil' against our rulers"): "Thou shall not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Exodus 22:28 KJV). "And Paul said, 'I was not aware, brethren, that he was a high priest; for it is written, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people"'" (Acts 23:5). A man once wrote - in fact it was you - "CONTEXT - When you [Curtis] try to understand scripture, make sure you evaluate it from the whole." Okay then, here goes: By explaining this, I'm venturing out of the realm of my original email concerning Bush's dishonoring wife. But, in the CONTEXT of Exodus 22:28, the mandate of not reviling the "gods" or cursing the "ruler" occurs near the end of the law (not symbolic law) which was given in Exodus. In the following chapter, God begins the laws dealing with the symbolic such as observing the Sabbath and the Feasts. For now, we'll deal with the laws which are not blatantly symbolic. These laws, or ordinances as God calls them in 21:1, are parts of not only God's criminal justice system ("He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death" [Ex 21:12].) - but of God's "personal injury" legal system as well ("For every breach of trust [...] the case of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor" [Ex 22:9].). It's fitting, then, that God would put Exodus 22:28 towards the end of giving these particular laws. The "gods" referred to in Ex 22:28 are judges, magistrates meant to judge by the law righteously. We get a glimpse as to whom the "rulers" are of Exodus 22:28 by what transpires in Acts 23:1-5. But first, Paul says that he was "not aware" that Ananias was a high priest in verse 5. Yet in verse 3, Paul gives clear indication as to Ananias' status within the Sanhedrin by stating, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to what the law says?" ([Acts23:3] KJV). We conclude, then, that Paul knew Ananias was "judge" because Ananias could "judge" guilty or not and "commandest" punishment, duties reserved for the high priest. Further, Paul had been in the temple for the last seven days purifying himself (Acts 21:27) - highly improbable, then, that Paul would not know who the high priest was. Paul also states that "the high priest and all the Council of elders" knew of Paul and could testify of Paul's persecution of the "Way" (Acts 22:5). Therefore, Ananias was a judge according to Paul (Acts 23:3) and a "ruler" in Acts 23:5. A ruler, then, is also a judge is also the high priest. We now know two things: (1) a ruler is considered a judge and a high priest; and (2) Paul knew Ananias was the high-priest when he spoke to Ananias in Acts 23:3. Why, then, would Paul say he was "not aware" of Ananias' rank in Acts 23:5, and also "curse" the high-priest in Acts 23:3 when he knew the mandate of Exodus 22:28? Ah! I believe this befitting of more CONTEXT. Paul was not under the Law, and his conduct with the Jews demonstrated this: "You see, brother, [Paul] how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:20,21). I find it fascinating that Paul was preaching to Jews not to follow the Law, something Jews were supposed to do and had been trained to do since childhood. But because of the "zealous" nature of the Jews in Jerusalem for the Law, Paul was convinced that he should "go through the motions" so to speak of purification so as to not give reason to be labeled a "lawbreaker" by any zealous Jews. This would come in handy, since Paul had been warned by the Holy Spirit through Agabus that Paul would be bound by the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:11). Paul wanted to remain blameless, however, and not give the Jews a reason to "bind" him. Paul wanted to be bound unlawfully if at all. "Therefore do this that we tell you [Paul]. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them [...] and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law" (Acts 21:23,24). Does this mean, then, Paul was back under the Law, and thus violated the mandate of Exodus 22:28? Naw, of course not. "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law [...] I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (1 Co 9:20,22; ). So why, then, did Paul say such mean and nasty - and dare I say judgmental (ahhh!!!!) - things about Ananias? Because they were true. Paul, even in front the Sanhedrin, was operating not under Law but under the Spirit (Grace) and acted as such. When it came time to call it like it was, Paul didn't hesitate because of the letter of the law. Ananias was a fraud, and Paul because of his zealousness for God told Ananias that to his face: "In violation of the Law order me [Paul] to be struck?" (Acts 23:3). Ananias, supposed champion of the Law, the one who was to judge by the Law and enforce it as a "ruler" should, was in severe violation of his post, and for all zealous Jews to see. Was Paul, then, wrong? No, for Paul never asked for forgiveness and God was quite pleased (Acts 23:11). In addition, Paul tells Felix (and us) while on "trial" that Paul did no wrong: "No more than twelve days ago I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to worship. And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, not in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me [...] I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men [...] I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; in which they found me occupied in the temple having been purified [...] But certain Jews from Asia [Acts 21:27] - who ought to have been present before you, and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me" (Acts 24:11-13,16-19). There were charges brought against Paul, but none were for "speaking evil" against Ananias (Acts 24:2-10). Years later, other charges (maybe the same) were levied against Paul (Acts 25:7), but he maintained his innocence: "I [Paul] have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar [...] I am standing before Caesar's tribunal where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know" (Acts 25:8,10). And why did Paul say, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people" (Acts 23:5 KJV)? The word "wist" (1492 Strong's) is "used only in certain past tenses" in only six references in the NT which makes "wist" a very unique word. A more accurate translation of "wist" (beyond the NASB's "was not aware") according to Strong's is "can (could) not tell" by simply looking on. I suppose Paul could have said, "I could not tell, brethren, that he was the high priest," because Ananias, being adept at judging by the law, was in violation of it. Paul previously knew about Ananias as high priest, but in the "heat" and according to Ananias' anti-priestly behavior, Paul couldn't tell. No one could. And no one blamed Paul for it, either, especially zealous, Jerusalem Jews. Paul even cited the reference for speaking evil of a ruler, and demonstrated no remorse for doing it. Ananias was no ruler, for he upheld no law, especially the Law found around Exodus 22:28 and righteousness. Paul, then, was discerning, unlike the President's dishonoring wife or those who foolishly think she's a "good" lady and is human (as my grandmother put it) and that her husband and his administration are "good" as well, and that no one should speak their evils against them. Is it wrong, then, to speak against one's rulers, especially ones as abhorrent as the Clintons or the Bushes? No, just be discerning, which brings us to our next topic: when is it okay to speak against rulers? Use discernment, or basically when anyone, including "rulers," is committing evil. "I [James] enjoyed your response but still have to ask you, 'when you correct/rebuke/reveal truth to your children, do you do it with intent to condemn them or hope and concern for their future?' If you look at the 'context of scripture' this is the overwhelming theme for correction. When you argue with your wife, are you condemning her with anger in your heart or do you want your relationship to grow beyond what you are stuck on?" Answer (1): I correct, rebuke (not reveal - it's not Sunday school) my children with the intent they will repent and seek forgiveness from me. This is a prerequisite for them to receive forgiveness from the Father [God]. Answer (2): When I argue with my wife, I want to stop arguing. To argue is not biblical. I am her "head"; I should lead her, love her like Christ. Thus, I should be more like Christ and stop arguing. Arguing doesn't show love to her and certainly doesn't lead her correctly, and arguing with me doesn't show that she's an honoring wife. Now, if I'm CORRECTING her, I wish that she repent and seek forgiveness from God. I think you have to figure out who I'm rebuking, James. Is it BushCo? Or is it those who make excuses for BushCo? Let me know. "He who says to the wicked, 'You are righteous,' Peoples will curse him, nations will abhor him.; But to those who rebuke the wicked will be delight, And a good blessing will come upon them." - Proverbs 24:24 "The context is that God wishes no one be lost. As you [Curtis] study scripture in it's entirety you'll find God to be a loving Father to ALL His children. But as I write this I remembered your Calvinistic tendencies. I forgot about their view of only the elect (Oops)." AAAHHH! A little below the belt with this one, doncha think? I could feel the wind just zoom out of my lungs! No really, I don't think I'm as Calvinistic as you think I am. In fact, I don't believe God purposed anyone before the beginning of time to be in heaven or hell. I think that notion's a philosophical miscarriage, pagan to the core. Yes, it's true: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). Does that mean all people, even most, are going to be saved? No: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13,14). Just because God desires "all men" to be saved doesn't mean we should prostrate ourselves to "all men," hoping that we avoid anything offensive and win the affections of all men. This is not the strategy the church should have ever adopted. Just recently I read an article in BusinessWeek Online about "mega-churches" - God, Inc. Earthly Empires. It discussed the growing trend of churches "marketing" for its members, in lieu of anything which might "offend" potential churchgoers. This trend is what our professor [Leonard] referred to as "Christian Light," where the church removes "offensive," Christian symbols and vernacular from its teaching in order to "trick" people into the fold. Marketing for members is based off a worldly, business model. Its design, basically, takes samples of the market area to find out what people scoff at as well as what appeals to them, and the church reacts accordingly to "reel them in." Here's a sample from the article: "Hybel's consumer-driven approach is evident at Willow Creek, where he shunned stained glass, Bibles, or even a cross for the 7,200-seat, $72 million sanctuary he recently built. The reason? Market research suggested that such traditional symbols would scare away non-churchgoers." Not only does this mega-business church model make a heck of a lot of money, but it also "grows" a church as well, in terms of numbers of anyway. The article says that the number of mega-business churches have shot up almost 1800% since 1980, from 50 to 880. Yet, the nation has never been so spiritually shallow. Despite the success of the mega-business church model - money, numbers - something isn't working right, spiritually. This model, which unfortunately has been adopted by a lot of churches including my own, is the church's attempt at becoming more like the world in order to be accepted by the world in the name of the love of money and love from men. What's all this "non-offensive" nonsense, anyway? People become saved because they heard the Word, its Truth, and was beckoned by God to Christ, not the other way around. Christ is the "rock of offense" (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8). If people reject the message of Christ, then it's their problem for Christ said, "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Luke 11:23). Christians should, "shake the dust of your feet," (Matthew 10:14) a rather insulting measure in Christ's day. Instead, the church apologizes for its "offensive" Word, ashamed of the true Christ (Matthew 10:33), not its limp-wristed version of the Savior who "did not come to bring peace [on earth], but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). When someone is offended by Christ because of the church's preaching, the church should "Let them alone; they are blind" (Matthew 15:14). There's nothing more offensive, however, than what the church is supposed to glorify, not shun - that is Christ. I don't see how the church cannot constantly project offense to the world. Yet, it does exactly the opposite, becoming a rather impotent catalyst for change; it will receive its reward (Matthew 5:13). The church is more interested in its image with mankind, instead of its relationship with the Head. And the church is so worried it will offend the world that the church will hide its King for the honor of man, and justify its actions by perverting the true Nature of God and Christ, even lying about God and Christ. But didn't Christ say the world would hate His people? Ah, but why confuse the issue with facts when we can just read the Scripture and pervert that, too? (John 15:18-23; 17:14; Luke 21:17; Matthew 10:22) And be careful of this "All His children" stuff. God's not loving to every human being, particularly the unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, molesters, etcetera. To say that God is loving to everyone achieves a level of gnosis not found within Scripture, and in fact finds itself in the abode of Pagan philosophy. In fact: "Thou dost hate all who do iniquity. Those dost destroy those who speak falsehood; the Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit" (Psalm 5:5,6). "For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways. Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into my rest" (Psalm 95:10). "[The Lord] repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face" (Dt 7:10). "I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked" (Psalm 26:5). [Read Deuteronomy 32:19-43 - scary stuff!] There are a lot more verses like these. Do you see a theme? (You're good at seeing themes.) Somehow "Love the sinner, hate the sin" just never made it into the Bible. You need to strike a balance between love and hate concerning God. Your (what I perceived to be a) "love only" approach is what the heathen world embraces and pushes. We are not to be like the heathen world. Unfortunately, the "love only" thing has been pre-eminent in the church since before I was born (I think you had long hair and bell-bottoms when I was born), and the world has only gotten worse. This means the "love only" thing isn't working. I can appreciate God now leading you beside still waters - that's important. Just remember, there is "A time to love, and a time to hate" (Eccl 3:8). Maybe there's a time to judge, too? Have you even done your own "judging" study yet, the "challenge" I put to you? You don't need any pre-made studies, just do it yourself. "Your [Curtis] ideas of government by theocracy has been tried, and we found man could not resist the temptations which came with it." I was referring to Christ's reign on earth - the perfect theocracy. Theocracy without Christ, however, is bad. That's why our founding fathers - some deists, most Christians - didn't set up a theocracy, but rather a Republic. "Will you [Curtis] point the finger at them and claim "they did it," denying any responsibility for not attempting to help them (much like many have claimed anti-Semitism "the Jews are the reason Christ was killed"). Or will you accept responsibility that it was all our sins which Christ died for." I answered this in my last response: "You're right, Russ - voting wrong on election day doesn't account for years of falling away from God. Falling away from God, however, does account for consistently voting wrong on a year's worth of election days. It's time to stop this. Our leaders must be held accountable, but we should first admit our mistakes (become accountable), repent and then change our leaders. This is the system God gave us to work in; this is why I sent the email to a dozen or so pro-Bush people. Their minds need to change and repent. This is not a message emanating from the church at large; such a message would be too "difficult" so to speak." I also asked two questions which I'd like you to answer: "Has consistently voting Republican helped to curb our nation's moral decline?" and "Have continued excuses for the Republican leadership helped either?" Answers are: A) Yes, B) No, C) I don't know. "To turn America around - to take it back - we first need to be sure of ourselves, our beliefs, our principles, our purpose in life, our convictions - and we must always know that God is on His throne. He is in control of the universe. He empowers those who do His will, follow His laws, live for Him, honor Him. Once you're comfortable in that role, then it's time to take back your churches." I think this admits to the fact that the churches have been "hijacked" by anti-Christ ideologies at the very least, otherwise, why would Christians need to take back their churches? Would you agree? "'The church set the tone for the culture, too.' I [James] would agree with this author. As we preach God's word and reflect his image, we (the church) can influence the world [...] And most importantly, as we reflect Christ to all those around us we can set the tone for the culture. It is all rooted in preaching Christ (as opposed to preaching "Bad Bush")." If the church sets the tone for the culture, then the church is in pretty bad shape right now. From the looks of the culture, how would you rate the church's preaching of Christ? As I wrote in my last response: "There's a definite correlation between the church and its nation. It's hard to argue otherwise. One can't say the church has grown so much spiritually while the nation swims in lust and moral deceit. This is not what the Bible says would happen to a nation if the people are holy [...] Something's wrong - something needs to change. Something isn't working right. Some things the church has been doing are either inutile or destructive to the cause of Christ, or both. Maybe we can agree on AT LEAST that?" "Anger and resentment (not fruits of the Spirit) will leave our lives as we trust in God's sovereignty." I think you think I'm an angry and resentful person. I'm not, but I used to be. I gather you used to be, too. Please do not worry about the anger and resentment (hatred) issues. Perhaps I can tell you at a later time what God did to teach me these lessons about anger and hatred. Don't get me wrong, though. There is righteous anger and hatred. (Dang, did I just open that one up, too?!) Okay, well I'm approaching overkill again. I hope this was helpful. You wrote to me, "I really have no idea how God intends to use you for His purposes." Is it really that unfruitful, the stuff I write to you? I suppose you should pray to God and ask him how he intends to use me. I know. Isn't it obvious? Here's what I would like for you to do: Read what I wrote, and walk away for at least a day, then come back and read more if you want. Print a copy, read it over and over, make notes and if you want to, pick it apart so I know where I went wrong. Don't reply (if you do at all) for at least three days. Let your mind and spirit wrestle with this. If I'm really wrong, I want to know, but a cursory glance at my responses and hurried replies will not do for either you or me. I'd think that if you were wrong you'd want to know why, so be meticulous with your responses. It's all about the love, my friend. DOH! Also, know that I write to you with this spirit: "Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father" (1 Tim 5:1). Take care, brother. -Curtis |