LOST IN THE TRANSLATIONS?

A preacher I admire recently said something that disturbed me.  He spoke about the connection between the renewing of the mind and the development of dendrites, or neural connections, in the human brain.  He added that research has shown that reading the King James Version of the Bible is the best way to develop dendrites.
   I didn’t have a problem with those comments.  In fact, I found them to be quite interesting.  What he said next did disturb me.
   He turned to a particular passage in the New Testament where the KJV uses the word “of” in a key phrase, but some translations use the word “in.”  He then stated that the “in” translations were abominations!  That disturbed me, because I use one of the “in” translations, and I regard it as more reliable than the KJV.
   I know some will see my last statement as controversial.  But don’t dismiss or condemn me until you have read all I have to say.

The first point I need to make is that no English translation is perfect.  That includes my favorite as well as yours.  They all have flaws.
   How can I say that?  Just consider all the English translations ever made, from those produced before the KJV and after the KJV up to today.  You will find dozens.  If someone had made a perfect English translation, why would they see the need to produce another?
   I know that my favorite, the New American Standard, is not perfect.  Let me show you where they made a mistake.
   In the passage where Paul talks about his thorn in the flesh, he says a messenger from Satan was sent to torment him, to stop his exaltation.  Now the traditional religious view is that Paul was becoming “puffed up” with pride over all the revelation knowledge he received, and the demon came to humiliate him.  The NASV seems to uphold this because it says, “Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me -- to keep me from exalting myself!” (2Cor. 12:7 NASV)  Other translations say, “… lest I should be exalted above measure.”
   I believe the NASV translators were influenced by tradition.  But is the traditional view correct?  As Al Borland used to say, “I don’t think so, Tim!”
   If Paul was exalting himself in pride, wouldn’t that be just what the devil wanted?  He knows that pride leads to a fall and destruction (Prov. 16:18, John 10:10).  If Paul was getting proud over his revelations, the devil would have left him alone, or he would have sent the demon to help speed up the process!
  Also, consider this passage, not only in the context of the letter where it occurs, but also context of Paul’s writings and life.
   The passage about Paul’s thorn in the flesh is in 2 Corinthians.  Paul wrote this letter to answer charges that he was not a true apostle.  He first wrote 1 Corinthians to deal with several problems in the Corinthian church.  I’m sure some didn’t like Paul’s correction, so they began to question his authority.  This opened the door for the false apostles to either come into the church, or to rise up from within their ranks to proclaim themselves as apostles and to take away Paul’s influence over the church.
   Even though he didn’t want to, Paul had to compare himself to the false apostles.  Instead of trying to impress the Corinthians with tales of mighty accomplishments, he enumerated his struggles on their behalf and for the Gospel’s sake.  He preferred to boast about his weaknesses, because God’s power accomplishes more through human weakness than through human strength.  That doesn’t sound like pride to me.
   Now, consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians.  As I said earlier, Paul dealt with several issues in the Corinthian church.  But all the issues had a common root:  spiritual immaturity.
   When dealing with the misuse of spiritual gifts, he said he would show them a better way, right before he begins talking about love in the 13th chapter, more popularly known as the Love Chapter.
  Towards the end of the Love Chapter, Paul makes a statement about putting away childish things.  In other words, he was talking about growing up.  What does that have to do with love?  Plenty!  Love is the mark of spiritual maturity.
   Humility is one of the characteristics of love (1 Cor. 13:8).
   Long before Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he had learned his lesson about humility.
   We often fail to realize that the Paul received his first revelation on the road to Damascus.  Before then, he had knowledge of the Scriptures, but not knowledge of the Truth.
   Right after his conversion, we see Paul at Damascus and at Jerusalem, debating with the Jews and presenting proof that Jesus was the Messiah promised to them long ago.  But what we don’t see is any record of salvations, healings, deliverances, or other miracles through Paul’s ministry.  Why don’t we see that?  Because Paul was operating in pride over the revelation knowledge he received.
   The only thing Paul accomplished through that approach was being run out of both Damascus and Jerusalem (Acts 9:20 - 30).
   After Paul left Jerusalem, he spent time in his hometown, Tarsus, praying, fasting, meditating, studying, worshiping, etc.  We don’t see him engaged in ministry again until Barnabas comes to fetch him to Antioch to help out with the Gentile church, not as an apostle, but as a teacher (Acts 11:19 - 26).
   I’m sure Paul gained many revelations at Tarsus, but he had already learned his lesson about pride.  If he was still operating in pride, he would have insisted the church at Antioch recognize him as an apostle.  After all, wasn’t he called to be an apostle during his Damascus road experience?  But Paul was not an apostle from the beginning.  He had to grow into his calling.  When he came to Antioch, he submitted to Barnabas and served the church as a teacher first.
  So, the passage about Paul’s thorn in the flesh wasn’t about Paul exalting himself because of his revelations, but it’s about Satan’s trying to stop God from exalting Paul in the Kingdom!
   So, no English translation is perfect.  That includes the King James version.  Now, if you have a problem with that statement, consider this:  Prayer Center preachers are some of the biggest critics of the KJV that I have seen!
   You probably know what I’m talking about.  First, they have the whole big ‘S’ - little ‘s’ thing about when the NT is speaking about the Holy Spirit or the believer’s born-again human spirit.
   Also, how many times have you heard a Prayer Center preacher read from the KJV and then say, “Well, that’s a little King Jamesy”?
   “King Jamesy”?  What’s wrong with “King Jamesy”?  Aren’t they as much as saying the KJV needs to be translated from Elizabethan English into Modern English?
    Besides that, when they do the “King Jamesy” thing, they usually go on to explain what the Bible is saying, and when they do, they often say the very same thing the NASV says.

So, which translation should you use?  That is ultimately up to you and the Holy Spirit.  Until He speaks to you, all I can do is to give you some information and advice to help you make the best decision you can.
  We’ll look at the original language texts used for translation, and the two approaches to the translation process.

Before someone can translate a document from one language into another, they must have the original text, or if the original is not available, a standardized text in the original language.
   The original texts of the Bible books no longer exist, but plenty of handwritten copies (manuscripts) do.  Some of the manuscripts are nothing more than fragments that might contain a few words, phrases, or sentences.  Some contain a nearly complete or complete book.  Some contain more than one book.  Some contain a complete Old Testament or New Testament.  Very few contain a complete Bible.
   Scholars have examined and compared these manuscripts to create the standardized original language texts used for translation.
   As they compared these manuscripts, they had to resolve variations in wording in some phrases.  The primary factor they would consider is how many manuscripts contained each variation, with the most weight given to the most common variation.  Other factors would include the visual quality (legibility) and the age of the manuscripts.
   The age of the manuscripts is also a factor in why scholars began to produce new translations.
   In the 1700’s and early 1800’s, explorers and archaeologists discovered additional manuscripts that were not known about, and therefore unavailable at the time of the King James translation process.  Also, many of these manuscripts were older than the manuscripts available in the early 1600's.  So, the scholars had to produce new original language texts.  More modern translations use these new standardized texts.
   If you don’t think this is important, consider this analogy:  What if we had no original manuscripts of Shakespeare’s writings, or copies dating back to his lifetime?  How could Shakespearean scholars and fans reliably know what he wrote?  Wouldn’t they go through the same process that Bible scholars went through to produce the original language texts for the Bible?  Wouldn’t they give the most weight to the oldest copies available?

Once scholars have produced a reliable standardized text, translators have to choose one of two approaches to translation: word-for-word, or thought-for-thought.
   Word-for-word is just what it sounds like it is.  The translator works word by word, taking one word at a time.  He first looks for a direct equivalent for each word, and if one is not available, then he will use his knowledge of the original language to pick a word or words that best represents or expresses the meaning of the original word.
   In the thought-for-thought approach, the translator looks at more than just one word at a time.  He looks at an entire phrase, clause, or sentence.  If that phrase occurs in other literature in the original language, then the translator is likely to use the rendering used in the translation of that other literature that contains that phrase.  The translator would do the same if the phrase was a common expression used by native speakers of that language.  The translator could also use a common English expression if one already exists that comes close to the phrase in the original language text.  Otherwise, the translator would have to the best he or she could, using his or her best understanding of the original language.
   The word-for-word approach is generally more literal than the thought-for-thought process.  Some consider the thought-for-thought approach to be not much more than a paraphrase.
   The thought-for-thought translations are generally easier to read, but the word-for-word translations are more reliable for establishing doctrine.

Most modern translations will explain in a Preface or Introduction which process was used, as well as which texts were used into the translation.  I’m sure you can find the same information online.

Beyond this information, I offer the following advice:
   Don’t’ accept any translation wholesale.  As I said earlier, all English translations are flawed.  Pick one you consider the most reliable to use most of the time for reading, study and meditation, but leave yourself open to consider what other translations say.
   One the other side of the same coin, don’t exclude any translation unless it is biased towards the doctrines of a particular group.  I can think of a few like this, but I won’t say which ones right now.
   I do see a two-sided danger in restricting yourself to only one translation.  On the one side, you leave yourself open to any errors in that translation.  On the other side, you cut yourself off to the truth presented in other translations.
   Even though I prefer the New American Standard, I don’t totally reject the King James version either.  In some cases, I see the KJV expresses truth in a better fashion than the NASV.  I have been using the NASV for quite a while now, and I see it generally does a better job with verb tenses, and in some places, the wording in the NASV is stronger than in the KJV.

Considering all this, why do some hang on to the KJV?  I believe I know the answer.
    Years ago, I studied computer programming at a junior college.  The head of the computer department had years of experience programming computers in the business world.
   During one class, he began to discuss the capabilities of different computer languages.  Someone asked why so many companies continued to use COBOL, one of the older high-level languages, while more capable languages had become available in recent times.  His answer: Inertia.
   Inertia is resistance to change.  He went on to explain that many companies had invested large amounts of money in hardware, compilers, and programmers’ salaries and they were reluctant to dump all that to invest in new hardware, compilers, and programmers.
   In a similar manner, people have invested time, money, and probably emotion the KJV.
   A related issue is why some preachers condemn modern English translations.  I’m sure some only want to control their followers, and they have no true concern for the truth or for their followers’ well-being.  However, I am sure that the preacher who sparked this article is concerned about the spiritual growth of believers.

Controversy over translations is probably not a new thing.  In the First Century, the Jews had 3 versions of the OT (Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, and Aramaic)… and the Samaritans had their own version as well.  I wouldn’t be surprised if controversy over these versions had crept into the Church.

If you have already settled on a translation to use, please be open to considering other translations in your study of the Word.  If you haven’t settled yet, please do some research, consider the information I have presented here, pray and listen to the Holy Spirit.

Assimilating Books by Groups

I have been taking a different approach to assimilation - assimilating books by groups.  This really isn't anything new.  Gary Carpenter has talked about assimilating the Gospels together to get a good image of Jesus, and to get a good image of the Father because Jesus is the express image of the Father.

I started with the books of John: the Gospel of John, the 3 letters of John, and Revelation.  I admit I had a purpose in mind for reading these books together.  Many modern scholars believe that John did not write all of them.  They say that he wrote the Gospel and the 1st letter, but not the other letters and Revelation.  They say another John, called John the Elder wrote 2nd and 3rd John because that is how he identified himself.  They say a third man called John the Revelator wrote Revelation.  I believe John wrote all 5 books credited to him.

One of the reasons they give for believing that different men wrote these books is a difference in writing style that is evident in usage of the Greek language.  Now I am a writer, and have been for several decades.  I'm sure my writing style and usage of words has changed over the years, so I say John's writing style could have changed as he aged.  Also, consider one of the major rules of writing: consider your audience.  You don't write a children's book with the same style and vocabulary that you would use in a doctoral thesis!  John could have adapted his writing style according to the purpose of each book.

Also, I was looking for themes common to all of John's writings.  Ever notice how some ministers have a theme or themes to their ministry?  Smith Wigglesworth and Kenneth Hagin are known for their faith teaching.  R. W. Schambach was known for power.  Dave Roberson is known for tongues.  If the writings ascribed to John had common themes, that would go a long way towards supporting his authorship.

I expected to find themes of Truth, Light, Life and, of course, Love.  I found them, and more.

Then I did the writings of Luke together: the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles, as a prelude to the letters of Paul.  Of course, Luke was not only Paul's companion for a good portion of his ministry, he provides us with the most information about Paul.

Now before going on, I need to remind some of you, and inform the rest of you of what I have done with the books of the New Testament to make them easier to read:

http://lightseekerok.blogspot.com/2011/08/using-technology-to-assimilate-word.html

Because I have prepared these books this way, I usually do one book a month, reading it once everyday if it is not too long.  The longer books I might take a portion at a time, such as half of the chapters or pages one day and then the other half the next.

When I went through the books of John, I followed a different schedule.  I have the 3 letters in a single document, so I always read them together.  I put all three documents (the Gospel, the Letters, and Revelation) in my smaller binder for the group reading.  I counted the total number of pages, which came to a number divisible by 3.  The number of pages for Revelation was close to equal to one third of the total.  So, for the first month, I would read a portion of the Gospel of John one day, the rest of the Gospel and the Letters the next day, then Revelation on the third day.  I repeated that cycle for the month, then spent a month reading just the Gospel, one month readings the Letters, and one month reading Revelation.  The spent another month reading all the books on the same schedule that I used the first month.

Right now I am working my way through the letters of Paul, but not as a group.  That would take too long.  But within the letters of Paul, I plan to do some groups.

Now, I do have the letters to the Corinthians in one document, and have done the same for the letters to the Thessalonians and Timothy.  I have also created a document for the letters of Peter.

I have already gone through Romans and the Corinthian letters and I am currently reading Galatians.  I probably will not reread Corinthians again for a while, but I realized very recently that I need to go through Romans and Galatians again as a group, with Hebrews included.


If you wish to try this approach yourself, here's my recommended list of book groupings:

Books of John - the Gospel of John, the 3 letters of John, and Revelation

Books of Luke - the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles

Letters of Paul-
              Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews  (even if you don't believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, it does cover related subjects)
              1st & 2nd Cornithians
              Prison letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
              1st & 2nd Thessalonians
              Pastoral letters: 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus

Gospel of Matthew, James, Jude  (Jewish perspective common to these books)

Gospel of Mark, 1st & 2nd Peter  (Mark was Peter's relative and ministry companion)

Zandstra-isms

I have had the privilege of listening to my friend Doug Zandstra speak at the Family Prayer Center in Tulsa several times.  Now Doug is an evangelist, so he mostly exhorts, edifies and encourages people when he speaks.  However, once in a while he drops a nugget of wisdom that amazes me.  So, I believe we can benefit from some "Zandstra-isms."

"caSINo"   Need I say more?

When talking about God speaking to him, he said, "I know it was God talking to me because the devil never calls you 'Son' - he calls you SCUM!"

Then from this morning, while talking about praying for a man who had cancer, "Get MAD at the devil!  MAD means Miracles and Deliverance!"

Can't wait to hear what else will come out of his mouth!  I hope to have more Zandsta-isms to post soon.

And Now, A Word About Words

In the modern church in America, we do see problems.  I won't go into details, but if you've seen any news lately, on your own, you can think of reports about famous preachers caught in sexual scandals, financial shenanigans, or engaging in abusive, controlling behavior towards their staff, followers, or church members.

All these problems have one source - the flesh.  Now some would ask, "What about the Devil?  Doesn't he create problems for believers?"  Yes, he does, but only by appealing to the unmortified flesh of believers.

Through my recent Bible reading, and comparing what I see there with what I see in the church today, I believe I have discovered a problem that might contribute to some of the other problems in the church.  This problem is very subtle in the way it affects the church.

So, what is the problem?

We have substituted man-made religious meanings for New Testament words.  In other words, we use NT words with different meanings than what was given them in the NT.

How bad a problem is this?

In some cases, not too bad.  With some words, we haven't really changed the meaning too much, but just enough that we have lost some aspect of their original meaning, so that we have a gap in our understanding that hampers us from walking in the full truth of God's Word.

In other cases, the discrepancy between modern church usage and NT usage puts us in a position of nearly contradicting God's Word.  Sometimes, the modern meaning isn't contradictory, but foreign to what the word means.

Consider the incident recorded in Matthew 15: 1 -9:

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders?  For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."  And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'  But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother.'  And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.  BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "
(Matt. 15:1-9 NASB)


In this passage, the religious people got onto Jesus because His followers weren't performing the religious, traditional, ritualistic method of hand washing before meals.  Jesus responded by telling them what He thought of their religious traditions!

Now, you might wonder what traditions have to do with words.  How are traditions passed down?  By words!

The religious people invalidated God's Word through their words!

If you still don't see the danger of changing the meaning of words in God's Word, consider what Satan first said to Eve: "Indeed, has God said...."  (Gen. 3: 1)

The reason why this problem could contribute to other problem is that we could be operating in the flesh, but we think we're okay because we're using words taken from the Bible.  We think that we are saying the same thing the New Testament is saying, but we're really not.  On the flip side of this danger, we have become so accustomed to the religious meanings, when we read the NT, we think it's saying the same thing we are.

Now, you might think I'm just trying to get picky about words.  I hope I'm not.  I don't want you to stop using scriptural words; I want you to use them with understanding.

Which words am I talking about?  Stay tuned...

GOD IN A BOX

I used to hear people talk about how religion puts “God in box,” that is, how religious people put restrictions on God: God can't, God won't, God doesn't do certain things, or He doesn't do things in a certain way.   In reality, they just put restrictions on what they believe God will do, and thus restrict what they can receive from Him.

Now, I am sure that the Scriptures are clear that God doesn't lie, that He cannot lie, He doesn't change His Word, and He never does anything contrary to His Word.  How can someone who is Truth lie?

But sadly, many people do pass up God's blessings because of these restrictions they put on God.  Another name for these restrictions is 'unbelief.'

Now where did this 'God in a box' concept come from in the first place?

Surprisingly, the answer is: GOD!

Ever hear of the Ark of the Covenant?   Ever wonder what that was all about?

The short answer is that God wanted a way to be with His people, the Israelites.  He couldn't manifest His presence all the time among them, for no man at that time could stand to be around such a holy being.  So, he gave them a plan for a tabernacle (tent) that would house the Ark of the Covenant, a special gold-plated box that would represent God's presence.   Along with the Tabernacle and the Ark, God instituted a priesthood and a sacrificial system to allow people to come before Him, and He could then dwell among them. [Exodus 25 - 30]

[A preacher name Judson Cornwall wrote a book years ago about the construction of the Tabernacle of Moses and the Ark of the Covenant, and all the symbolism involved that points to Jesus and the New Covenant.   The title of the book is Let Us Draw Near. If you want to know more about the Tabernacle and the Ark, I highly recommend that book.]

Now, God is not limited by space or distance.   You do not have to be geographically close to a special box or structure for God to hear and answer your prayers.  Even after the construction of the Ark and the Tabernacle, the Old Testament contains many stories of God working miracles in places not close to the Ark.

By the time Jesus appeared, three things dominated Jewish thought: the Law of Moses, the Jerusalem Temple, and the coming Messiah.

They focused on the Law because they saw their neglect of, and disobedience to, the Law as the cause of the Babylonian Captivity and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

They focused on the Temple because it was the successor to the Tabernacle of Moses, the Law spoke so much about the Tabernacle and the priesthood, and they had fought so hard to maintain the sanctity of the Temple.

They focused on the Messiah because they wanted a Deliverer to rise up and lead them out from under the Roman Empire.

Because of their focus on these things, when the true Messiah, Jesus, arrived, they could not see that God was manifesting Himself through this carpenter's son, this itinerant rabbi, Who did astounding miracles, and said things that were even more astounding than His miracles.   They could not see that He was God in the flesh. [John 1:14; Matthew 1:23]

So, now the “box” that held God's presence was the body of Jesus of Nazareth!

After the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the New Birth became possible.   Anyone who now believes in Jesus is born again into God's Kingdom. [John 3:1 – 8, 13 - 17]

Jesus also promised he would never leave us or forsake us, that He would not leave us as orphans.  He is in US! [Matthew 28:20; John 14:18; Colossians 1:26 - 27]

Now, God is not just in one “box,” He is in many “boxes!” [2 Corinthians 4:7; 1 Corinthians 6:19 -20]

So, the “God in a box” concept is not a bad thing, as long as each born again believer sees himself as a “box” where God dwells.

Now, I see many believers trapped by the Old Testament style “God in a box” mentality – that God dwells in church buildings, that you can only experience His Presence in a church building, etc.

How did this mentality enter into the Church?

A little study on the English word, “church” gives us a clue.   That word comes from a Greek word, “kyriakos.”  That word comes from two other Greek words that mean “lord” and “house.”   It literally means “Lord's house.”

Is this the same word used in the Greek New Testament? No. As far as I know, it never appears in the GNT.

Greek was the predominate language of the Early Church for the first several centuries.   However, the Church never owned any buildings for the first 200 years or so.   Christians would meet in homes, schools, amphitheaters, lecture halls, or anywhere they found a place that was suitable.   When the Church began to buy or erect their own buildings, they called them "kyriakos", the Lord's Houses.

Over time, because of the origin of the word, “church” became associated more with buildings than with people.   Church leaders began to teach that God dwelt only in those buildings.   So, that's how the OT style “God in a box” mentality came into the Church.  After all, isn't a house or building just a big box?

But this association of “church” with buildings does not line up with what the New Testament really teaches.

The Greek word that is translated as “church” in English is “ekklesia.”   It means “a called out assembly.”   An assembly of what?   Building materials?   After all, aren't buildings assembled out of boards, bricks, blocks, pipe, wire, etc.  But these materials are not called out.   You would question the competence of a carpenter who called out, “Here boards! Come here so I can cut you into the right length, and nail you into place.”

So, what is being assembled?   People!

In Acts 19, Luke uses the word “ekklesia” to refer to the crowd in Ephesus that demonstrated against Paul's ministry.   This word occurs in verses 32, 39 and 41. In verses 30 and 33, Luke uses the word “demos” to refer to the same group.   This word means “people.”   We use it in the prefix of the words “demographic” and “democracy.”

Why would Luke use the word “ekklesia” to refer to this crowd of people?   They were called out by the guild of coppersmiths that made household shrines to Diana (or Artemis), the goddess worshiped by the Ephesians.  The coppersmiths called out this assembly of people to protest the preaching of Paul, because he was leading people away from Diana to Jesus.  As people turned from Diana to Jesus, they stopped buying shrines, and that hurt the coppersmiths' business.   They wanted to let it be known they didn't like this, and they wanted help in expressing their displeasure, so they called out an assembly of those still faithful to Diana.

I could say more about the “ekklesia” of Jesus, but that is for another time.  My point in bringing this up now is that when the New Testament uses the word “church,” it is not talking about a building.  The NT never, never, never, never, and I mean not ever, not at any time whatsoever, and I am absolutely, positively certain that the NT never uses the word “church” to refer to a building.  It ALWAYS refers to people!

Now, like I said earlier, the “God in a box” concept is not necessarily bad as long as we change the concept. We hear a lot today about thinking outside the box.   I say, “Let's rethink the box!”

Not only is each born again believer a “God-box,” but we collectively, as the Church, are the “God-box!” [2 Corinthians 6:14 – 18; Ephesians 2: 19 – 22; Revelation 21:1 - 3]

Excuses Exposed

When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!"  But He said to him, "A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many; and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come; for everything is ready now.'  But they all alike began to make excuses.  The first one said to him, 'I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.'  Another one said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.'  Another one said, 'I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.'  And the slave came back and reported this to his master.  Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.'  And the slave said, 'Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.'  And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.  For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.' "
(Luke 14: 15-24 NASB)

Recently, while Mark Jenkins was delivering a message on Luke 14 (Make War Not Peace - http://www.markjenkinsministries.org/index.php/media-folder/messages/video/126-make-war-not-peace), the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the true nature of the excuses the invited guests gave for why they couldn't come to the dinner.

Excuse #1 (v. 18)  Need to inspect a recently bought piece of land = Investment 
                          Whatever we have have invested our time, money or effort into for a return; anything we
                          value more than the fellowship we are called to.

Excuse #2 (v. 19)  Need to test 5 yoke of oxen = Ministry
                          What we do for others that we think we do for God.  We think we are pleasing God
                          because we are doing it for God.

Excuse #3 (v. 20) Just got married = Relationship
                          Any relationships we are committed to more than our relationship to God.

Now this is a bare-bones breakdown on these excuses.  Each one could lead to a message or blog post on its own.  I offer them to you for your own meditation.

Hope & Faith - They're Electric! (Revisited)

Several years ago, I wrote an article that became a blog post:  Hope & Faith - They're Electric!

http://lightseekerok.blogspot.com/2009/06/hope-and-faith-theyre-electric.html

A few weeks ago, Pastor Tim Stemple began a series of messages based on Gary Carpenter's Face to Face document, "The God of Hope."  During the first message, the Holy Spirit gave me an analogy that illustrates the electric nature of the relationship between Hope and Faith that should help people who might still have a problem understanding the concepts presented the original blog post.  Almost anyone should be able to understand this illustration, and remember it, because it is based on something that people are familiar with - something that people have held in their own hands.

Think of Hope as a battery for a handheld device.   It could be a flashlight, cellphone, radio, MP3 player or any handheld item that runs on electricity.  A battery, or battery pack, is a great example of Hope for one reason: it contains potential.  The chemical composition of a battery's parts differ in their electrical characteristics in a way that creates an electrical potential.  However, no electrical current will flow until the battery is connected to a circuit.

The handheld device represents Faith because it contains the circuit that will use the current from the battery.  But, even when the battery is inserted into the device, the current doesn't flow until the device is switched on.  The switch is your will.  You must choose to use your Faith to allow the current generated by your Hope to work.

Notice a couple of things here.  A battery has potential whether or not it is in or connected to the device.  The device is useful only when the batter is in it.  The battery without the battery is useless, and the device without the the battery is useless.

I hope this illustration is tangible enough to make these concepts clear to you.

I am sure that most people have enough experience with battery-operated devices to know that batteries run down, and some batteries are rechargeable.  This brings me to some good news - our Hope is rechargeable!  (1 Cor. 14: 4; Jude 20)

Actually, batteries are never really charged or discharged.  As a battery is used, chemical changes take place inside the battery that converts some of the electrolyte (the stuff between the terminals) into crystals that resist the flow of current.  At some point, this internal resistance will grow to the level where it blocks the flow of electricity.  The battery still has potential, but not enough to overcome the resistance.  This resistance represents unbelief.

"Rechargeable" batteries can be made be made useful again by passing a current through them in the reverse direction.  This creates heat that melts the crystals and lowers the internal resistance of the battery.  Prayer, especially praying in tongues, is the current that melts our unbelief.  Sometimes, we need more prayer than usual to overcome our unbelief.  That's where fasting comes in, if we see fasting as praying instead of eating.