Tag: Kingdom

Three Doctrinal Distinctions the Church Has Forgotten**

Rightly Dividing the Words of Truth:

Three Doctrinal Distinctions the Church Has Forgotten**

The apostle Paul commanded believers to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13). Sound doctrine requires precision, and precision requires distinguishing terms which God Himself distinguishes. Over centuries—especially in the modern church—crucial biblical concepts have been merged, blurred, or sanitized, resulting in confusion about the afterlife, the kingdom, and salvation itself.

This essay restores three key distinctions:

1. Hell (Hades/Sheol) vs. the Lake of Fire

2. Heaven vs. the Kingdom (Kingdom of Heaven/God)

3. The free gift of salvation vs. the prize/inheritance/reward

Each distinction is necessary not only for doctrinal clarity but for spiritual health, exhortation, and obedience.

I. HELL AND THE LAKE OF FIRE: TWO DISTINCT REALMS

Modern preaching often conflates “hell” with “the lake of fire,” yet Scripture could not speak more plainly:

Hell cannot be the lake of fire if Hell is thrown into it.

“Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Rev. 20:14)

1. Hell as the Present Underworld

In Scripture “hell” (KJV) translates various contexts of Sheol/Hades, the unseen world of the dead containing multiple chambers. Robert Govett, in Hades, insists on this exact distinction:

“Hades is not the place of final punishment… It is the invisible world that receives departed spirits until the resurrection.” “Within Hades are regions both of joy and of sorrow… Paradise on the one hand, and torment on the other.” (Govett, Hades, pp. 19–23)

Govett also affirms the plurality of compartments:

“There are depths of Hades— ‘the lowest Hades’—as well as Paradise above.” (p. 27)

Scripture likewise presents:

• Paradise (Luke 23:43; Luke 16:22, Abraham’s bosom)

• Torments (Luke 16:23)

• The Pit (Isa. 14:15)

• The Bottomless Pit/Abyss (Rev. 9:1–2; Luke 8:31)

• Tartarus—place of bound angels (2 Pet. 2:4)

• The Grave as a usage of “Sheol” at times

Hell is thus a temporary holding realm, not the eternal state.

2. The Lake of Fire as the Final, Eternal Judgment

The Lake of Fire is a distinct eschatological reality. Govett writes:

“The lake of fire belongs not to the intermediate state, but to the eternal… It is the doom prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Hades, p. 45)

Very little is revealed about it except that it is:

• Final (Rev. 20:10)

• Eternal (Matt. 25:41,46)

• The destiny of the Antichrist and False Prophet before the millennium (Rev. 19:20)

• The final home of all unbelievers after judgment (Rev. 20:15)

The Lake of Fire is not Sheol/Hades—it is the consuming, ultimate judgment after resurrection and judgment.

II. HEAVEN IS NOT THE KINGDOM

Another modern collapse of terms is equating heaven with the kingdom of heaven. Scripture maintains a clean distinction, and the early conservative expositors (Govett, Lang, Pember, Peters) unanimously insisted on it.

1. The Kingdom Is Not Heaven

The “kingdom of heaven” is not “going to heaven.” Govett (public domain):

“The kingdom of heaven is not heaven itself, but the rule of the heavens over the earth, entrusted to the Son of Man.”
(Govett on Matthew, commentary on Matt. 3:2)

G. H. Lang:

Lang frequently emphasized the future, earthly, messianic nature of the kingdom, contrasting it with the intermediate state. In The Revelation of Jesus Christ he writes:

“It is not to heaven that the saints are promised entrance as a reward, but into the kingdom… the millennial reign with Christ.” (paraphrased summary) G. H. Pember (Earth’s Earliest Ages, public domain):

“The Kingdom is the manifested rule of Christ when He returns… It is not identical with the heavenly abode of the blessed dead.”
Watchman Nee (paraphrased):

Nee consistently taught that the kingdom reward belongs to overcomers, not to all the regenerate, and that entering the kingdom is related to faithfulness, not rebirth. (See The Gospel of God; The King and the Kingdom.)

“The Theocratic Kingdom is a real, visible, external kingdom on earth… It is not heaven, nor the third heaven, but earth restored under divine rule.” (Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 49)

2. Where do believers go when they die?

The Bible never says believers “go to heaven” in the modern colloquial sense.

Instead:

• OT saints went to Paradise in Hades

• Jesus went there (Luke 23:43; Acts 2:27)

• The righteous dead await resurrection

• The kingdom is inaugurated at Christ’s return, not at death

• After the millennium comes the New Heaven and New Earth, our ultimate home

The modern teaching that “heaven is our eternal home” is foreign to Scripture. Scripture teaches:

• Intermediate state: Paradise/Hades

• Millennial Kingdom: Earth ruled by Christ

• Eternal State: New Earth

Heaven is never the believer’s eternal destiny.

III. SALVATION (FREE GIFT) VS. PRIZE/REWARD/INHERITANCE

Nothing has harmed the church more than confounding the free gift with the prize, the birth with the inheritance, the family relationship with the reward of service.

1. Salvation is the free, unlosable gift

Salvation is a gift (Eph. 2:8–9; John 10:28–29).

It depends entirely on Christ’s finished work.

Peters emphasizes this distinction:

“Election to salvation is one thing; election to the Kingdom is another.” (Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 62)

Once born into God’s family, one cannot be “unborn.” No degree of sin, failure, or faithlessness can reverse a divine birth.

This is eternal security—true and biblical, but only in the realm of the gift.

2. The Prize is conditional, earned, and losable

Paul does not press toward salvation—he presses toward a prize:

“I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 3:14)

“Not as though I had already attained… but I follow after.” (Phil. 3:12)

The Bible calls this future reward:

• The Prize (Phil. 3:14)

• The Inheritance (Col. 3:24; Heb. 12:17)

• The Kingdom (2 Tim. 2:11–12; 2 Pet. 1:11)

• The Crown (2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 3:11)

It can be:

• Missed (1 Cor. 9:27 – “disqualified”)

• Lost (Rev. 3:11 – “let no man take thy crown”)

• Forfeited through unbelief (Heb. 3–4)

• Sold for temporary gratification—like Esau selling his birthright (Heb. 12:16–17)

3. Esau, Reuben, and the Kadesh-Barnea generation

The New Testament uses these as warnings:

• Esau—saved? yes; but forfeited birthright and blessing

• Reuben—lost preeminence (Gen. 49:3–4)

• Israel at Kadesh—redeemed by blood, but forfeited inheritance through unbelief

These illustrate not the loss of salvation but the loss of inheritance.

Lang on Hebrews (public domain summary):

Lang stresses that Hebrews never warns of losing eternal life, but of losing the kingdom-rest reward, which he calls “the inheritance of the firstborn.”

“The inheriting of the Kingdom is conditional and dependent upon faithfulness.”
(Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 75)

Thus:

• Gift = unconditional, cannot be lost

• Prize = conditional, can be lost

Conflating these two has created confusion in salvation doctrine from both Calvinistic and Arminian directions.

IV. CONCLUSION: AN EXHORTATION TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE TERMS

To “hold fast the form of sound words,” one must treat biblical terms with reverence and accuracy.

These three distinctions matter:

1. Hell is not the Lake of Fire.

One is temporary, the other eternal. One is thrown into the other.

2. Heaven is not the Kingdom.

Believers await resurrection, the return of the King, the millennial reign, and ultimately the New Earth.

3. The Gift is not the Prize.

The free gift gives eternal life.

the prize grants reward, inheritance, and kingdom participation.

Losing these distinctions has blurred doctrine, confused saints, and crippled motivation. But restoring them revives clarity, stability, and holy fear.

May we imitate Paul:

“Study to show thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15)

Are Angels the sons of God?

To examine this question, I have to first take this in a step-by-step process. In order to understand certain “hard” or “difficult” passages, I must take it one line at a time understanding that a verse-by-verse comparison must be accompanied by “context”.

By doing a scripture search using the phrase “sons of God” lets, see where it leads.

My first stop

(Gen 6:1)  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
(Gen 6:2)  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
(Gen 6:3)  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
(Gen 6:4)  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Now I’m going to put down my anchor for a moment. This passage is one of those “strange” sounding scriptures. It really stands out from the others in the chapter.

It reminds me of the time I first read Genesis chapter five.

“..and so and so begat so and so and he lived for a long time and he died.”

One generation after another generation, then out of nowhere you read this “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”

What?

Whether you understand what just happened or not, the statement seems out of place. You want to look at it deeper. It’s the same with chapter six. So let me analyze this more. In chapter six You have the following characters:

  • sons of God
  • daughters of men
  • Noah
  • Noah’s three sons
  • others

But I have questions that the context may or may not answer.

Question:

  • Who are these “sons”? and why are they called “sons of God”?
  • If they are ordinary men, then why wouldn’t they be called “sons of men”? I mean the females aren’t called “daughters of God”. Again, I’m speaking as one who is just reading through the Old Testament. I haven’t gotten to the New Testament yet. Though I have not read the New Testament yet (bear with me for a few minutes) there are countless multitudes of OT saints who have not either. Wonder how they were able to understand these passages? (More to come).
  • Why isn’t Noah ever referred to as a son? God even calls him a “just” man and “perfect”.
  • Why aren’t Noah’s sons called God’s sons? They did marry daughters of men, right?

Now stop for a moment and contemplate what was just stated. No Man of God was ever called a son of God in the OT. Ever! Look through each book of the prophets. If God referred to them as a son, at all, it was “son of man”; Ps 8:4;Ezek 2:1,3,6;2:8;Dan 8:17.

And then we are told that Giants were born to these “daughters of men” after the “sons of God” came in unto them. How do I know that? Look at the verse closer:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Isn’t it interesting that the Holy Spirit placed this information about “boy meets girl and boy and girl get married and have children” right in the MIDDLE of giants and men of renown? It’s as if the middle phrase is connecting the two.

Now I don’t know how big the giants were, mainly because I haven’t gotten to the verses about post-flood giants yet (if post-flood giants are the cursed sons of Ham, where did the pre-flood come from?), but I hear some folks say that they were big. It could be that everyone was bigger back then: They certainly lived a lot longer, so not out of the question. But the fact that giants are listed as such tells me that they were distinct from other “big men”, if indeed, people were taller back then.

It looks like I will have to “pull up” anchor and continue through the OT to try and find out who these “sons” are. As strange as the context of Genesis six seems, maybe there is a clearer answer. Next stop Job.

Job 1:6  Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Now what makes these “sons of God” interesting is that they are presenting themselves before God along with Satan. Now Satan is a bad guy so the question I have is “Why would he be presenting “himself” to God along with these others”? The chapter 2:1 verse makes it clear that Satan is “presenting” himself. Can the “sons” see him? They don’t say anything to him if they do. We aren’t exactly told one way or the other. Can we assume that they can see him? The only way the “sons” could see him is if they too were spiritual beings.

Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I have a question for the older, more mature believers.

As a young Christian who is working his way through the bible, is it against scriptural interpretation to accept an explanation of a question I have, about a subject or character, from the same book?

 Let me ask it this way.

Is it ok to assume that anywhere I see the phrase “sons of God” in the book of Job I can use the definition given in the same book? If the context in chapter 2 is not perfectly clear about who these sons are then shouldn’t I use the meaning in chapter 38?

If I can then I have my answer!

There is no doubt that the “sons of God” in 38 are anything other than spiritual beings because in the context (I’ve been told by more mature folks that context is important and the context, to me, seems to be creation) God had just laid the foundation of the earth; verse 4, when the morning stars and sons of God shouted for joy. Man hadn’t even been created yet (especially if this was the initial pre adamic earth).

Now if I go with this interpretation then I think I have a foundation as to what these “sons of God” were doing when they were presenting themselves, along with Satan, before God. If they truly were angels, or morning stars.

Ok wait! Are angels called “morning stars” or “sons” elsewhere in the Old Testament? This is important because I don’t want to assume this important point.

Isa 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 
Isa 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 

If Lucifer was a son, then who was his father? There are only three options I can think of.

  • Man
  • Angel
  • Jesus/God

Lucifer was called “son of the morning”. How can the “morning” be a father? When I think of “morning” I think of watching sunrises over the eastern sky; the smell of ham and eggs on the stove, and enjoying coffee. I don’t think of “morning” being a person. But I do see, in the scripture, things like “Love”, and “Truth”, and “Life” being a person. Could “morning” be a person as well?

 I’m really trying to reason this out. Lucifer, before he fell, was called a son. Obviously, he isn’t called a son now, he “musta” lost his sonship and above this he was never, ever called a Son, with a capital “s”.

As a matter of fact only one person, that I’m aware of is called the Son. Now before moving into the NT what were the “sons of God” doing in Job when presenting themselves? It is totally conceivable that “angels” would have to present themselves on occasion to God. Even Satan had to do that.

(Psa 82:1)  A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(Psa 82:2)  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
(Psa 82:3)  Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
(Psa 82:4)  Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
(Psa 82:5)  They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
(Psa 82:6)  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(Psa 82:7)  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
(Psa 82:8)  Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Are angels or spiritual beings also called gods [little ‘g’]?

1Sa 28:13  And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Is this one of those times, in Job, that the “sons of God” were presenting themselves? I believe so and God is making it clear that He was not pleased by their actions. They were in danger of judgment! Just as a father would tell his children to “straighten up!”, God in His love for his creation, is giving fair warning.

But the argument presented by others are that angels have nothing to do with “Deliver the poor and needy” or “do justice to the afflicted and needy”. Therefore, this can’t be spirits or angels. Does not the scripture call angels ministering spirits? Are not spirits taking part in judgment in our present evil age?

Dan 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. 
Dan 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. 21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

I can’t even contemplate how much the angels (Holy and Unholy) effect the earth and her inhabitants by their involvement. Even now this present world has been put in subjection to higher entities. [See Heb 2:5]

 What if they decide to disobey God and not fulfill their duty? It’s happened before. Or have all the angels that would rebel against God rebelled by now? Is there no future rebellion? What meaneth this verse?

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth...

Is this version an historical event or is it not future? Is this not a future fulfillment of John 12?

Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Now when we move into the New Testament, we see the “sons of God”. Actually, it is in the New Testament that we learn that Adam is called God’s son.

Luk 3:38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 

The context of chapter three is a list of fathers and their sons. It makes sense that God would be Adam’s father.

In the NT the term “son of God” always refers to men. But not just any man. Men that have experienced the new birth. A birth not made through human intervention or natural, earthly processes. A supernatural creation.

John 3:3-7; A new creature; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15.

Come to think of it, sort of like angels. Angels have no earthly origin. They were created without a mother: They, like Adam, and twice born men, have a heavenly Father but no mother.

Now the case against such an idea as this state that men have the “power” to become “sons of God” but not all born again believers are sons. That is partly true. Actually, it is fully true but some teachers don’t see the division that the scripture speaks so much about; 2 Tim 2:15

The moment you believe and are born again you are a “son of God”.

Gal4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Php2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1Jn3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jn3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

In a sense we are all first-born sons, but many will sell their birth-right and forfeit their inheritance. Sonship is the same in regard to our future reward. We are born sons but there is a dual application because the scripture also makes it clear that there is a sonship that is conditional and future.

Mat5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Another way to try and grasp this concept would be that  the “first born inheritance” is ours to lose. As some teachers have rightly written about dual sonship, I won’t spend any more time on that other than to include verses for the benefit of the reader. Romans 8:14-19

I could go on about the duel meaning of being a son of God for the descendants of Adam but for me the evidence is clear that the term “son[s] of God” refers to that which is born of the Spirit. Whether angels or sons of Adam, it is a supernatural experience that can only happen by the working of the Holy Spirit.

Fellowship With Christ

Taken from G.H.Lang’s Ideas and Realities

It is but of the nature of things that a follower must tread the same path as the guide if he would reach the same goal, that a soldier must brave his captain’s conflicts if he would share his triumph, that a maiden must suffer with a rejected lover-prince if she would share his home and throne.

The ground of the glorifying of the Son of man is His fidelity to His God while in the path of trial and the conflicts of the kingdom on earth: Isa. 53:12, “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great because he poured out his soul unto death”: Phil. 2 : 9, “wherefore also God highly exalted him” because “he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death”: Heb. 2 : 9, “we behold Jesus because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour”: Rev. 5 :9, Worthy art thou . . . for thou wast slain.”

To such words every believing heart says adoringly, Amen! But why does not every believer give an equally ready Amen! to such parallel words as these: Matt. 16:25, Whosoever would save his life (for him self) shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it”: Luke 14.11, “everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted: Rom. 8: 17, “joint-heirs with Messiah if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified with him”: 2 Tim. 2: 11, “if we died with him we shall also live with him; if we endure we shall also reign with him; if we deny him he also will deny us”? This last is as distinctly called a ” faithful saying” as is 1 Tim. 1: 15 ” Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” and it will prove to be so whether the christian faces it or shrinks from it. The love of God imposes no arbitrary conditions, but such only as arise from the nature of the case and are always for our good and possible of fulfilment. Therefore they cannot be waived. And if Jesus on the cross masters the affections, and if Christ on the throne enthralls our gaze, and if His coming kingdom fills the future, then the heart will find joy in sharing His afflictions and will be fortified to endure unto the end.

Thus, but not otherwise, shall be fulfilled, to His joy and to ours, the promise, “He that conquereth, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also conquered, and sat down with my Father in His throne” (Rev. 3:21); thus, but not otherwise, shall His wife make herself ready for the marriage with the Lamb (Rev. 19 : 7, 8); thus – and do thou, my soul, take it personally to thy heart – thus, but not otherwise, shalt thou reach this supreme felicity that:

“He and I in that bright glory
One great joy shall share,
Mine to be for ever with Him,
His that I am there.”

“Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep in the (power of the) blood of the eternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus Christ, make you perfect in every good thing to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. But I beseech you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation, for it is but in few words that I have written unto you” (Heb. 13: 20-22).

Pharisees Pt 4: 10 Signs You Might Be a Pharisee: Winning the Battle But . . .!

Pharisees Pt 4:

Pharisees Pt 1

Pharisees Pt 2

Pharisees Pt 3

12 Signs You Might Be a Pharisee: Winning the Battle But . . .!

There are some folks you can’t defeat in a debate. . . ever . . . whether you are right or wrong! I am reminded of the idiom, “He could sell ice cubes to Eskimos.” (I hope that’s not too terribly “PC”)  But it does explain how some are much more persuasive than others.  Some influential Pharisees got the “Debate Gene”.

 I remember when I was in 7th grade in Texas History class.  The teacher wanted us to explore the battle for Texas independence from several perspectives.  One of the things we had to do was debate whether or not general Santa Anna should be tried for war crimes.  Now we all HATED Santa Anna.  After all he killed John Wayne!!! (Well . . . in the movie he did.) But I was chosen to be on the side that defended Santa Anna.  Man! I was angry!  How could the teacher expect ME the biggest Santa Anna hater of all to defend him?!? Well I finally gave in and we set off to study the issues.  And something strange happened.  WE LEARNED!!! My side won the debate.  Now I’m still not a big fan of Santa Anna (John Wayne Killer!—Remember the Alamo!  Remember Goliad!)   . . . ahem.

But I do know how to win a debate. I am good at it.  It is fun-fun-fun for me! I know lots of tricks.  

Matthew gives us some insight as to how the Pharisee’s mind works

Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

8)     You might be a Pharisee if you are more interested in winning the argument than winning the person.

These Pharisees in Matt 22 were skilled debaters. This is a necessary skill if you re to keep questions to a minimum.  The truth becomes, in a Pharisee’s mind, the winning of a debate. Some folks aren’t good at it and will not even bother because they know that they can’t say anything skillfully enough to “win”. 

This came to light in a devastatingly powerful manner, one evening when I was on a Christian Message board online.  I was debating and as usual I was using my wit and sarcasm to “make my point”.  I was startled by a voice from behind me.  “Ooooh BURN!!!” It was my teenage son.  He thought it was cool that I was crushing my opponent and making him feel stupid. Man did I have some ‘splainin-to-do-Lucy!  I tried to explain to my son that I wasn’t trying to “burn” the other person; that I was trying (in a godly manner) to help him by pointing out his error.  He accepted that explanation but it was too late for me.  God had made His point.  I was trying to “burn” the guy.  It gave me a sense of control, of importance, of worth to be able to calmly shred a person’s arguments.  But did I make a friend?  Did God enter into a new depth of relationship through me with the other person? Did the man’s position change?  Did his heart change?  Was he so awed by my deft debating that he fell on his knees and repented? No. No. No. No. And  . . .let’s see . . . uh no. 

A family member (now deceased) who was a life long preacher once gave me some advice.  He said, “Win them to yourself first, then you can win them to Jesus, because you are the incarnational representation of Jesus on Earth right now.” I cannot make a man repent.  I can’t make him believe anything.  But I can control my attitude when dealing with the man. If I have no relationship with a person, or a strained relationship, I cannot win the man.  The Bible says “He that winneth SOULS is wise.” (Interesting word choice.)  It’s the area of the soul where I can “win the man.”  The spirit is God’s department.  I have seen food, music, sharing a book, sharing a trial, sharing your pain, meeting a need, or even just a simple kind word in due season, do, in a second, what a million years of winning debates could never do!

The Pharisee wanted to entangle Jesus in his talk, wanted to win the debate. Peter proved that a sword can be used to cut off a man’s ear.  If you use the mighty sword of God’s word in that manner, don’t be surprised when the injured person doesn’t listen to you. 

Oh yeah, and one more thing about Santa Anna.  I learned from defending him that the truth is not always so black and white. Sometimes it’s multi faceted.  Sometimes it’s messy and uncomfortable. Like us.

Pharisees Pt 3: 10 Signs You Might Be a Pharisee: The BUN RULE!

Pharisees Pt 3:

Pharisees Pt 1

Pharisees Pt 2

12 Signs You Might Be a Pharisee: The BUN RULE!

I have a good friend who won’t mind me sharing this story. She used to attend a church with a great list of extra rules and regulations.  And she was the queen of the Pharisees!  She was CODE baby!  She dressed correctly, acted correctly, talked (or didn’t talk) correctly, ate the right stuff, everything!  She was a model citizen.  But one day she noticed a group of ladies shopping at the same (group approved) grocery store where she was shopping. These ladies were dressed very similarly to her. They seemed to be in code too. So she approached ham and introduced herself. After offering up some condescending looks, laced with perhaps a little pity, these women physically turned their backs to her and shunned her.  She was shocked. She was “perfect, righteous and holy” in her own circles.  What was it that caused these women to feel that my friend was not worthy of their “acknowledgement”?  She labored over that question for a night or two. Why?  What about me was not good enough?

Then it dawned on her!  It was the buns! They had a “BUN RULE!”  My friend had (unwittingly) wandered into a pack or Pharisees who deemed her shameless and lewd for having her hair down and not in a bun.  Other than that her appearance was almost exactly the same.  She had no idea about the “bun rule” and they failed to explain that one “major” detail. (Gnat! -*cough*)  I know for a fact they missed out because this woman is very gifted and has a very edifying testimony, but they just couldn’t stand her bunlessness!  She had met Pharisees that could “out Pharisee” her!

She was troubled because it hurt her feelings to be shunned, and perhaps to be thought of as less than “holy”. So after agonizing about it and it dawned on her!  “That is exactly how I make anyone feel who doesn’t keep my code,” is what she concluded! 

7)     You might be a Pharisee if: You are not submitted to, accountable to, or interested in interacting with in a meaningful way, any of Christ’s followers who don’t conform to the group code.

I used to define myself as “independent”. What a clumsy brand. I do believe that individual churches should be autonomous.  But there is a certain elitist arrogance I struggled with for years. (Still struggle some, I suppose.) The most edifying fellowship I had the whole time I was pastoring an Independent Baptist Church was with a man outside the “circle”.  He was CHURCH OF CHRIST!!!  We had a whole list of condescending nicknames for those folks. But I noticed him smiling across the Barnes and Nobles.  His hair was “too long” (so I hoped no one would see me talking to him) but I was drawn by his smile like a moth to the flame. He ministered the love and grace of God and radiated sheer child like joy.  I was dumbfounded. He was not “code”.

I never saw him again. Maybe he was an angel.  We talked, prayed, and cried for two hours right there standing in the bookstore. I never forgot him.

This “Cambellite” had the incarnational Christianity my heart was longing for. I realized then that God’s children are His business! All His children are gifted, and their gifts are not just a nice luxury that I might at my convenience take advantage of.  THEY ARE ESSENTIAL FOR MY EDIFICATION AND ORGANIC GROWTH.

I am not “independent” anymore.  I am hopelessly INTERDEPENDENT!  I can’t love my Lord and not love His people.  How do I dare judge another Man’s servant?  How do I assume that God is not at work in his life at every stage of the journey?  I’ve belittled men with long hair, only months after I cut my own hair, as if God is patient with me but no one else.  I have sarcastically railed on folks who used a different version of the Bible without ever taking the time to patiently explain my position,  It’s all about attitude.

What is your attitude toward folks without buns?

(Part 4 coming!)