I have often wondered about Jesus’ prayer at the tomb of Lazarus, not only about its brevity (given the seriousness of the matter at hand) but especially that He would say, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me” (John 11:41).  We would usually thank someone for what they have done, not for what we hope that they would do; and you can only say that someone has heard you after you have said something, not before.

When and where did Jesus say the prayer to which He was referring when He said, “thou hast heard me”?  It’s not there in the chapter.  How could He have been “heard” before He had said anything?

Read more

1.  Did the Pastor go to Hell?

I watched a video recently, a very sobering video, of a pastor and his wife in hell.  He was an active pastor, who often spoke to others about the Holy Spirit, about God, and so on, but there may have been something hidden that only they and God knew, despite their flamboyant spirituality.  Then they moved to a different city, and their neighbours heard, after a silent while, that they had both died.  It was a shock, but those neighbours consoled themselves that they would, after all, meet that pastor and the wife in Heaven.  To their surprise, God said that the couple was in hell.  Very disturbed, one of the grieving neighbours asked God to show her that that was the case.  God granted her a very disturbing trip to hell.  They were there.  Sad.  Unfortunately, such woeful tales have not been few.

A preacher told a similar experience.  He attended the funeral of a great pastor, who was a prophet and an acclaimed holiness preacher.  Sadly, when he got to the elaborate funeral service, with many dignitaries there to honour the dead,

Read more

An object can be so far that it is almost invisible, yet not seeing it from one’s standpoint does not mean that it is not there.  As you draw closer to it, it could become visible but indistinct; then clearer and clearer the closer it approaches, or the closer you approach to it.  That something can be seen or not seen may be a function of how close you are to it, rather than because the object is unseeable.  Visibility, then, may sometimes be a factor of proximity.

Hebrews 10:25 employs the metaphor of proximity to speak about a certain historic “day” that then was far; a day considered unseeable by many because it was distant.  The writer of Hebrews cautioned believers to be mindful how they lived, especially “as ye see the day approaching,” implying that the day is ‘seeable,’ although then far.

Prophet Joel spoke of a season that he called “afterward,” when God would pour His Spirit “upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28).  The word translated “afterward” in that verse is ‘achar, which is explained by Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary as

Read more

33.   What God has Joined Together

In this chapter, we shall consider some compelling true-life stories, and questions to which we shall together seek answers.  The Pharisees approached Jesus, “tempting him” with the question of whether a husband could divorce the wife “for every cause.”  Jesus concluded His answer by saying to them, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:3-6).

The expression, “What therefore God hath joined together,” indicates clearly that God joins together.  The word “what,” however, serves the function of exclusion, technically separating and excluding the “what” from the others.  In other words, the fact that God joins together does not mean that He is responsible for everything joined together.  “What God has joined together” suggests that there is also ‘what’ He did not or has not joined together.

There are three forces that may administer a joining together: God, Satan, and humans.  The command to not undo what God has done should apply only to “what” He joined together, not to “what” He did not join together.  There are many ‘joined’ situations where God was not involved.

Read more

31.  God Hates Divorce

It is commonly said that “God hates divorce.”  Of course, divorce is not the ideal marital situation, and the angels in heaven do not celebrate because a divorce has occurred.  Does anyone expect God to say, “I love divorce”?  No.  All the same, a lack of the ideal does not limit the options of God.  The Great Potter still makes other “good” options out of marred clays (Jeremiah 18:4-6).

It grieved God “that he had made Saul king over Israel” (1 Samuel 15:35), but that did not foreclose David from being made king.  God greatly regretted “that he had made man on the earth” (Genesis 6:6), yet He made a way for His fallen creation.  Divorce is not God’s ideal, but that does not limit the options of God (Genesis 24:7-8; 1 Samuel 13:13-14; 16:1), especially when they are options provided by Him. God did not institute divorce, but God recognised it all the same (Jeremiah 3:1; Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

If we should say in absolute terms that “God hates divorce” (and interpret that to mean that He forbids it); if “God hates divorce” means that whoever divorces is damned for doing what God hates, yet Jesus provides a ground for someone not only to divorce but to remarry,

Read more

6 Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.

Acts 13:6-8, NKJV.

How did such a terrible man manage to secure such a prime place by the side of such a noble man, a lofty political leader?  What was a sorcerer looking for in such a stately place that was not his typical dark altar?

Sergius Paulus, the proconsul (or governor), was “an intelligent man” – so said the report about him.  To be intelligent means to be sensible, wise, sagacious, careful, learned.  What happened to that intelligence and sagacity that seemed inactivated when it came to that sorcerer and soul-enemy?  Where was Sergius Paulus’s wisdom and carefulness when such a dark man began to position himself so close?  Some Bible translations say that he was an “assistant” to the governor; a PA (Personal Assistant), we would say.  That was how close, yet the intelligent ruler seemed blinded and fooled – by a sorcerer.

A Roman governor was no mean man, yet this one appeared to have been blindsided where it mattered most to him.  Human wisdom and political skill seemed to have been numbed by subtle bewitchment.  Natural endowment could not help where spiritual discernment was needed.  A school certificate was great, but it had its limits when it came to dealing with sorcerers.  Roman soldiers were great bodyguards, but not in matters metaphysical, where the adversaries were spirits and their arrows invisible to the naked eye.

Read more

29.  The Samaritan Puzzle

It remains to clear the puzzle that started this trip: the apparent differences in approach to marriage, by Jesus in Judea and Jesus in Samaria, in the same New Testament.  In other words, what might have warranted Jesus’ implicit acceptance of divorces and remarriages in Samaria, in seeming contradiction to the general conception of His earlier teachings in Judea?  This is not an attempt to answer all “cases” of marital conflicts, marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but an effort at finding the possible missing link between two apparently contradictory positions of Jesus in two different contexts.

Read more

27. The Will of God or the Will of the Parties?

Since no one can force anyone to stay in a marriage, the willingness of both parties is crucial to the outcomes between a husband and his wife. According to Paul in our passage, the decision to leave or remain in a marriage is less about ‘the will of God’ and more about the will of the man and the woman. They can continue to stay IF he is “willing to stay” and IF she is “willing to stay” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13, Contemporary English Version). In other words, it is a matter of mutual choice rather than of force. When their wills no longer align, particularly due to a ‘new state’ or a new perspective on life, peace is already at risk. If tensions escalate to the point where one party insists on leaving, Paul’s clause is likely to come into play. While this might seem like a dismissive treatment of such a serious topic, it does not undermine the fundamental truth.

Read more

In many Christian congregations, women are usually more in number than men.  According to a survey on genders at religious events, “sociological evidence suggests that, generally, women tend to exhibit greater religious engagement than men” (https://medium.com/@elroypoet/the-examination-of-gender-and-religious-engagement-65703bb43e88).  There must be something about the spirituality of the woman that many mortals do not know; something that Satan knows and exploits to disastrous advantage.  There must be a spiritual frequency in the woman that is more easily accessible than in the man; something that disposes her more to spirits and spirituality than the man.

When the backslidden King Saul wanted to consult the dark world of the occult to divine his future, he said, “Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit” (1 Samuel 28:7).  If what he wanted was a medium, why didn’t he simply say, “Get me a medium,” or “Get me someone who deals with familiar spirits”?  Why did he so confidently attach the female gender to the dark craft?  What gave the king the impression that whom he would find in that trade had to be a female?  And she would be someone who did not merely deal with but “hath” the spirit; someone who possessed and was possessed by the “spirit” of the trade?

Well, we may dismiss that as an Old Testament tale, so let’s take a trip to the New Testament. 

Read more

21. Called to Peace

Despite the concession made, Paul was quick to add a caution: “but God hath called us to peace,” implying that the ‘believing’ partner should endeavour to seek an amicable resolution.  In other words, going or letting go should not be a hurried consideration, because your patience could save the other (v.16).  Paul’s caution implicitly stresses the place and power of individual choices (or commitment) in staying or leaving a marriage even when the grounds for divorce might have been present.

To the extreme conservative, who is persuaded that there is no place for any kind of divorce in the Bible, when Paul says, “but God hath called us to peace,” he meant enduring every marriage at all costs, no matter the grounds to separate, because divorce is essentially a contradiction to peace.  It is doubtful that that was Paul’s definition of peace in that passage; that making peace means staying in every marriage, even when it is dangerously abusive, marked with brutal daily battles, and where it might not even have been God that ‘joined’ them together.

Read more