In general, I am not a fan of Charles Dickens. Most of his works have bored me and, therefore, I did not finish them. However, this is not the case with the Dickens stories written for the Christmas season. “The Cricket on the Hearth: A Fairy Tale of Home” is a fun little Christmas work. But the Dickens’ account which caught my soul early on is “A Christmas Carol.”
Being Sunday, I have a brief article today. My thoughts were spurred by a post I saw on Facebook. The entry contained a quote from R. C. Sproul.
“The kingdom of God is not of the people, by the people, or for the people. It is a kingdom ruled by a King, and God does not rule by the consent of His subjects but by His sovereign authority. His reign extends over me whether I vote for Him or not.”
What a tremendous statement teaching the sovereign rule of our great God! With humility I would add just a few more words to Dr. Sproul’s final sentence.
“His reign extends over me whether I vote for Him or not or whether I believe in Him or not.”
I know some people who were raised in the church, professed Christ, were baptized, then strayed and now confess they do not believe God’s Word, nor do they believe there is a God. Obviously, they were never born again. These are true apostates, always separated from God and will be forever separated from Him unless they repent and trust Christ.
Learning of such a betrayal causes me to ponder why. What could have led to this complete denial? Well, it’s their sinful nature. Though they knew God’s truth, they never surrendered to Him or His Word. But why do they remain so firmly against God now? They are comfortable living in their sin, know, from their earlier teaching, it is sin, but enjoy that sin so much, the only way they can continue to live is to deny it is sin. And, to accomplish that trick, they must deny the Word and even deny God’s existence.
Oh, my prayer is that Christ have mercy on them over this Christmas season. May the Spirit draw them back towards the Lord and may they finally and completely repent of their sin and turn to Christ in true saving faith.
Moving on to Matthew 14:33, I find this verse humorous, interesting, yet also quite profound. Using the English Standard Version translation, we read:
“And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”
“Those in the boat” are his disciples of course. I haven’t done any in-depth research on which of the disciples were present, but my assumption is that all twelve were there. These closest followers of Jesus perform two actions: (1) they worship him and (2) they pronounce him to be the Son of God. Why do I find this to be humorous?
Several events have occurred in Matthew 14 before this verse. Briefly recapping them, his disciples had seen Jesus take five loaves of bread and two fish and feed five thousand. When they picked up the scraps, they filled twelve baskets. The only words recorded in the Gospels concerning this event are spoken by the crowd. “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14). If the disciples had any response, it was not recorded.
Next, the disciples take the boat and begin their journey across the Sea of Galilee, battling the wind for several hours. Jesus suddenly appears walking on the water. Scripture records the disciples’ response to this sight. They are terrified and they believe Jesus is a ghost.
Peter requests to walk on the water with the Lord and the request is granted. So, not only could Christ walk on water, but he could enable others to do likewise. The eleven in the boat would have witness this, but, once again, no response from them. Peter does cry out to the Lord to save him once he begins to sink.
Jesus and Peter finally enter the boat and the winds immediately cease. Even more miraculous, recall the disciples were about two-thirds across the lake when Jesus arrived. John 6:21 adds to the ceasing of the wind. “... and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.” IMMEDIATELY!
A chapter like this one causes me to briefly chuckle. Miracle after miracle and no response. These men must be blind and stupid! “Why, if I had been one of the twelve, I would have fallen at Christ’s feet after He fed the five thousand!” Sure, I would! I am just as blind and stupid as they were. Why? Because of sin.
How many miracles must Jesus perform before the disciples respond to Him? Oh, as sinful beings, our hearts and minds are hardened by sin. These disciples have been eyewitnesses to these events and only now do they finally acknowledge Christ’s uniqueness.
Many throughout history have witnessed miracles in their own lives, attesting to the existence of God and His Divine Son. But sin has them in bondage. Perhaps they narrowly escaped a vehicle accident or survived one. Maybe they were overcome by some illness, weren’t responding to treatment, yet survived. Or they were persecuted by some entity and almost gave in. But strength came from somewhere to enable them to endure. There was a time when they had little money with bills overdue and suddenly they received an anonymous gift of cash. How many of us have experienced similar incidents and failed to recognize the God who was performing them? Well, the disciples appear to have missed them as well.
Here in verse thirty-three, the story changes. NOW they worship Him. NOW they call Him “the Son of God.”
We can’t know another man’s heart. Certainly, the worship offered by these twelve men was not pure worship for at least some of them (maybe all). Judas Iscariot is among them. Maybe he sincerely dropped to his knees and admired this amazing man before Him. But, apart from the indwelling Spirit of God, there is no true worship (John 4:24). I doubt if any of the twelve Scripturally worshipped Christ that day.
Again, how many of us do the same? Our churches are filled with followers of Christ who are not born again and do not possess the Spirit. They come to church and offer “worship,” but their worship is not received by the Lord. Furthermore, I fear there are times when true believers also perform worship out of habit but separated from their heart. Sin and Satan continue to work against even the believer.
And, as noted, these twelve also call Jesus “the Son of God.” Perhaps they sincerely meant what they said. The things they had witnessed that day convinced them Jesus was unique among men. The only explanation was He must be God’s Son. But, as with worship, you might genuinely believe Christ is “the Son of God,” but remain a lost soul. Your head has accepted that truth. But your heart has not yield, you have not repented, and you have not turned to Christ with saving faith, trusting Him with your eternal soul. You are just like the demons. They believe in doctrine, but shudder before God (James 2:19).
My call to those who read this post is to make certain you are a true believer in Christ. Do you truly worship Him? Is He truly the Lord of your life? To believe in Christ is to trust in Christ and to trust in Christ is to follow and depend upon Him. Is that you?
Do you truly believe He is the Son of God, God in the flesh? The Creator, the Redeemer, the Intercessor, the Judge; do you truly believe these things? Have you bowed your knee and put all your trust in Him? If not, please do so today. Confess your sins to Him. Ask Him to forgive you. Turn from your sinful ways and trust Him to do so now and for the rest of your life.
Praise the Almighty, Jesus the Messiah IS the Son of God!
Yesterday, my daily translation exercise brought me to Matthew 14:32, a brief verse which reads:
Bringing the various Gospel accounts
together, we find the disciples are making little headway because of the
strong, stormy winds flowing over the sea. These men are professional fishermen,
familiar with boats and intense winds. According to John’s account and the
geography of the sea, we can estimate the disciples had only gone about
two-thirds of the distance despite rowing for several hours.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary
Now what gender are you doing?Female, male to gender-fluidToday gender non-conforming.
The question I ask today is, "How many genders are there?" In case you were wondering, allow me to provide the answer: 2.
Surprised? If you do an internet search you will find some sites claiming there are 64 genders, others say 72. I found one which claimed 12 (including those listed in the little poem above). And, of course, there are folks who claim an infinite number of genders are available. Which one are you choosing today?
Perhaps you are confused. You are like me. When asked on a form to define my gender, I always check the "male" box. Until recently, I never saw any form with more than 2 boxes for answering that question. A form I completed a few days ago gave me three options: male, female, other. I guess the "other" refers to the fictional genders.
Yes, there are only two genders. Yes, all other "genders" mentioned and described in this generation are fictional. They have developed in a person's mind in the place of reason and logic.. The gender identity question of the day is foolishness run amok. Invent as many "genders" as you want, there are only two and you belong to one of those groups: male or female.
Those who believe in multiple genders > 2 will dispute this fact. "Why, I am gender-fluid. Today I'm a male; tomorrow a female; on Wednesday a female giraffe." It's a joke and yet I feel very sorry for those who truly believe such unreasonable nonsense. I may "feel" more like a woman today and a cat tomorrow, nevertheless my gender always has been and always will be male.
God has ordained humanity this way. Genesis informs us He created humans as male and female. Jesus confirmed this. The Scripture NEVER speaks of other gender possibilities. God says 2 genders. That settles it even if you don't believe it.
Biology confirms this fact. We know about the chromosomes. "XX" sex chromosome is female while "XY" is male. The multiple gender supporters claim gender is more than biology and chromosomes. No, its not. You simply want it to be that way. Some things in life we cannot change and our gender is one of those things (discussion of transgender will follow in another post). I can change my weight but not my height (unless I use stilts or high heels). My eyes will always be blue unless I choose either colored contacts or an eye transplant!
God has not given us the option to change our gender no matter how we might feel on any given day. He determines your gender at the moment of conception. Your cells will carry that chromosome for the rest of your life. And that chromosome provides internal proof of your gender while your genitals provide external proof.
Add to this attempt to find your "true" gender, we now have the pronoun discussion. Do you go by "he/him", "she/her", "he/her", "ze/zim" or any other combination. Again, your pronouns are easily defined. You are either "he/him" or "she/her". In most cases, I can tell by a quick observation what to call you. If I use pronouns you don't like, too bad. You see, "he/her" or "she/him" or "ze/zim" do not exist. Use your head and some simple reasoning and you'll figure it out.
The question of gender identity is settled at conception, revealed at birth, and remains unchanged to death and beyond. I pity those who are confused and those who desperately want to change genders. Some of you have been deceived by false teachers. Some of you are affected by a mental disability and need help from a good doctor. Nothing good will come from this for the person suffering from gender confusion or for society.
If you are confused, your best help will be found in God's Word and from the Great Physician. You need to return to the real world, recognize the sinfulness of your gender searching (i.e., you are telling God you and not He decides gender), and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation.
Now, as I close, let us review all the genders: (1) male (2) female. That will do!
Our church recently adopted a constitutional change permitting women to serve as deacons (and that is what they will be called). For centuries, Christian writers have studied this topic. Good men have come to different understandings. This author falls far short of the abilities of those who have already addressed the subject. All I want to do in this brief article is to present a part of my argument as to why women should NOT serve as deacons. I will not go into great depths but focus only on the 1 Timothy 3 passage. When I conclude that discussion, I have some thoughts on what should be done if a church decides to have women deacons.
1 Timothy 3:8-13
First, the Romans 16:1 verse referring to Phoebe as a "deacon" (or "servant") of the church at Cenchreae is far too ambiguous. In light of 1 Timothy 2, I find it difficult to believe Paul saw Phoebe as an official of a local church. There is a brief study claiming that when the phrase "of the church" follows a title (e.g., deacon) that the office referred to is an official office in the church. My personal examination of these verses in the New Testament (and there aren't many) doesn't prove anything conclusive to me.
Therefore, the only other text in the New Testament which may support women deacons is in 1 Timothy 3. Here is the verses as translated in the English Standard Version:
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Those who support women deacons argue that verses 8-10 present the qualifications for male deacons, verse 11 are the qualifications for female deacons, and verses 12-13 combine male and female deacons. Let's discuss the original Greek behind some of the words in this text.
"Deacons" (vv. 8, 10, 12, 13) - the noun used in 8 and 12 is diakonos, meaning servant or deacon, context must decide. Verses 10 and 13 use the verb diakoneo meaning to wait upon or to serve. The words are from the same root. The ESV has translated the verb as "serve as deacons". So, same word. In form, the word is masculine. However, there is no feminine form so the same word is used when referring to the service of a female.
"wife, wives" (vv. 11, 12) - In both cases, the word is gune, a feminine word meaning woman or wife, context must decide. This is the most common word for woman or wife in the New Testament.
Based on this analysis, contextually "wives" in verse 11 could be "women" and, therefore, describing the qualifications of a female deacon. However, assuming that to be true, then verse 12 which is claimed to be referring to all deacons (male and female) presents a problem.
"Let deacons each be the husband of one wife."
Literally, the final clause can be rendered "one woman man". Per Scripture, there is no way a woman deacon can be the "husband" of one wife. Such behavior would be homosexual and, therefore, condemned by God.
Hence, I do not believe verse 11 is referring to women deacons but to the wives of deacons. If Paul was really introducing a new/different office in verse 11, why not begin it with the female rendering of deacon? Of course, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. But all Paul needed to do was write "tas diakonous" and the verse becomes "The female deacons likewise". That would have made the passage quite clear.
Based on these two straightforward look at the text and the addition of a little reasoning, verse 11 does not introduce women deacons but merely tells the church to make certain the wife of the deacon is a good woman. I believe this understanding makes more sense in the context: vv. 8-10 are deacon qualifications, v. 11 are their wives qualifications, vv. 12-13 conclude the section on deacons.
Some have argued back at me that, if this is the case, why didn't Paul say something about the wives of the elders. I do not know and will not speculate. God has His reasons.
With certainty I can conclude that Phoebe was a wonderful servant of her local church but was not serving as a deaconess.
"Deaconess"
As I noted at the beginning, my church has already adopted women deacons. While I oppose the direction and pray we may, one day, discard that change, I want to share a few thoughts about having female deacons.
1. In my analysis above, the only way to have a female deacon who does hot have a "wife" would be for that woman to be single or widowed. This would align better with Titus 2.
2. Even in a church "ruled" by elders, deacons are in a position of authority. They hold an office in the local church. They engage in specific tasks not given to every member (e.g., serving the supper). Many churches have deacons teaching classes and, as a teacher, they have authority. To avoid conflicts with Paul in 1 Timothy 2, the responsibilities for a woman deacon need to be defined long before one is chosen. Those responsibilities can not be the same as they are for male deacons because a woman executing such responsibilities would be exercising authority over men (another argument for not having women deacons).
3. Deacons have their own meetings as well as meetings with the elders. A woman in such meetings may feel "out of place" with all the men around. I'm not arguing this from Scripture, merely from personal experience. Again, if you want women deacons, decide how you will handle such meetings before you choose one.
May our Lord Jesus Christ receive all the glory!
