Developing spiritual understanding part 3

Matthew 12:31

"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Matthew 12:32

"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Luke 12:10

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

Wow! This is very serious. Maybe we would be wise to learn about this Holy Spirit. Let us see if we can find Him in the Old Testament. How about the second verse of the Bible?

Genesis 1:2

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Genesis 41:38 So the king said to them, "No one could possibly handle this better than Joseph, since the Spirit of God is in him."

1 Samuel 10:10

When they came there to the hill, there was a group of prophets to meet him; then the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

1 Samuel 19:20

Then Saul sent messengers to take David. And when they saw the group of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing [as] leader over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.

1 Samuel 19:23

So he went there to Naioth in Ramah. Then the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah.

Job 33:4

The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Psalms 143:10

Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

Isaiah 61:1

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because Jehovah has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;

Daniel 5:14

"Now I have heard about you that a spirit of the gods is in you, and that illumination, insight and extraordinary wisdom have been found in you.

Could this be the same Holy Spirit that is referred to so much in the New Testament? Let’s look at the conception of Jesus and the virgin Mary.

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:20

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

So, Jesus was the son of god, conceived by the impact of the Holy Spirit on Mary. Yet, He had not yet received the Holy Spirit himself. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit? All four gospels record the event as happening when Jesus was baptized by His cousin, John.

Matthew 3:16

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

Mark 1:10

And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.

Luke 3:22

And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

John 1:32

And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.

Now that Jesus had received the Holy Spirit, what was the impact on Him?

Matthew 4:1

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Luke 4:1

Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Hebrews 4:15

Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin!

Does that mean that when we accept Jesus, we are immediately empowered to resist temptation and not sin? I wish! Even after, we still fall short.

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

I think that all includes us ~ even after we accept Jesus ~ too. Fortunately for us, He knew that we would need some time to get cleaned up so we could more effectively serve.

Matthew 9:13

"But go and learn what [this] means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Mark 2:17

When Jesus heard [it,] He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call [the] righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Isn’t that good news? When the Apostle John was writing to the churches, who were made up of Christians, he said :

1 John 2:1

My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Do we receive the Holy Spirit when we accept Jesus or are baptized in His name? Wow, this is a much disputed question that has been a cause for division. I feel that we receive “Salvation,” certainly “Saving Grace,” perhaps a measure of the Holy Spirit when we publicly embrace Jesus ~ but not the “Gift” of the Spirit.

Aren’t the “Fruits of the Spirit,” manifest in our lives, proof that we have received the Holy Spirit? Those who have put to death the “Works of the flesh?”

Galatians 5:19-21

(NKJV)

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told [you] in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Is this the way we are to know who is really one of God’s? Is this a clue as to whom we should listen to?

Matthew 7:16

"You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

Matthew 7:20

"Thereforeby their fruits, you will know them.

The fruit of the Spirit is manifest by many fine believers who have worked diligently to discipline themselves, even though they might not ever have received the “Gift” of the Holy Spirit. These fine lovers of Christ are to be commended. So what is the difference? Perhaps by examining a number of scriptures we might see:

John 20:22

And when He had said this, He breathed on [them,] and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:8

"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Acts 2:33

"Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:15

who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:17

Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 9:17

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 10:43~7

Acts 10:43 "To Him all the prophets witness that, through Jesus name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we [have?"]

Acts 19:2

he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

1 Thess 1:6

And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit.

[ &q

Jesus autobiography

All philosophical, theological and political discourse issues from a presuppositional matrix. The communicator's ideas are characterized, influenced, and motivated by such a preexisting corpus of antecedent ideas, or embraced truth. I begin with the presupposition that Jesus understood perfectly and clearly who he was. His auto-noetic frame was accurate and complete. From such a substratum his ipssissima verba would proceed. Filtered through an Occidental mindset, in particular, a pragmatic philosophy, the words of Jesus have been denuded of their intrinsic authority and regenerative power. The context in which we read the words of Christ must change, from a late Twentieth Century, techno-centric, hedonistic, materialistic, democratic state to a matrix of First Century Judaism. When the words of Christ are heard within the context of his day, and understood against the backdrop of Rabbinic Judaism, his words blaze with unsurpassed authority and cut like a two-edged sword (Isa. 49:2). He spoke with an authority unprecedented within the history of Israel (Ps. of Sol. 17:36, 43, Matt. 7:29, 24:35, Mk. 1:22, 27, Lk. 4:36).

Utilizing a Messianic designation from the Old Testament and a title rich in apocalyptic color, Jesus would identify himself to his Judiac world. Jesus' "autobiographical designation", utilized 81 times in the gospels, was the title "Son of Man." Through this Messianic prism we shall see the transcendent dimension of Jesus' nature as defined by him. "Jesus chose it [title "Son of Man"] as the ideal expression for progressively and, to some extent, retrospectively, revealing the nature of his person and work." (D. A. Carson, professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, p. 213) Jesus adopted and repeatedly alluded to the figure "Son of Man" from Daniel 7:13-14, "I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed." Daniel in vision sees four empires in succession depicted as bestial, verses 1-12, characterizing the savage, rapacious nature of their rule. But another figure comes upon the scene, he is conducted to the "Ancient of Days", the "Son of Man." In Hebrew, the phrase "Son of Man" is bar enosh. "Enosh" emphasizes the mortal, frail, creaturely, incurable nature of man in the bondage of corruption, in stark contrast to the four preceding images depicting the arrogant brutality of totalitarian power. Power exercised in the establishment and continuance of an empire's reign. Dictatorial violence that stamps out any residue of resistance. But this figure (Son of Man) has acquired a kingdom not by military might or dictatorial tyranny, but through humiliation and suffering. In the title "Son of Man" there is a unitive exegetic presented, the multi-faceted significance of the humiliation and glorification of the Messiah is revealed. "...while Daniel 7:13-14 indeed speaks of the glorification of the Son of Man, it is in context a glorification and vindication through suffering. Both aspects of 1) humiliation and suffering, on the one hand, and 2) vindication and glory on the other, are signaled by the expression 'Son of Man'..." (Richard N. Longenecker, professor of New Testament, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, p. 87-88)

In Rabbinical literature much is said regarding the passage in Daniel 7:13 as describing the Messiah. In the Talmud of Babylon Sanh. fol. 98.1, Daniel 7:13-14 is reconciled with Zechariah 9:9. Joshua ben Levy said, "If Israel are worthy, the Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven; but if they are not worthy, he comes poor, and riding on an ass." Samuel ben Nachman (270 C. E.) said that according to Daniel 7:13, the angels accompany the Messiah as far as their precincts allow, while God then conducts him to Himself, according to Jeremiah 30:21 (Midrash on Ps. 21:7). In Zohar, Gen. folio 85.4, reference is made to Daniel 7:13 as referring to the Messiah. The Hebrew name "Anani" meaning "clouds" is a name for the Messiah (alluding to Daniel 7:13) in the Targum translation of I Chron. 3:24. Mention is made of the name of a person, Anani, it is added, "Who is the Messiah that is to be revealed,"-a direct reference to Daniel 7:13. In the Talmud of Babylon Sanh. 96b the Messiah is named Bar-Naphle, the cloud-man. Rabbis Jarchi, Saadiah, Gaon, Aben Ezra, and R. Joshua expounded the text of Daniel 7:13 as referring to the Messiah. Outside of Rabbinical literature, Justin in his Dialogue 32.1 reports that the "one like a son of man" of Daniel 7:13 was identified with the King Messiah in mid-Second Century Judaism.

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost." (Matt. 18:11)

Jesus said unequivocally that he had the authority to forgive sins because he was the Son of Man (Matt. 9:2, 5-6, Mk. 2:5, 9-10, Lk. 5:23-24, 7:47-48). The word "authority" is the Greek word exousia, its root meaning is literally "out of substance or nature," indicating an intrinsic right and power of execution. The exousia was his because he identified himself as the "Son of Man." As the long-awaited Savior of Israel, Jesus would embody the saving nature of God, forgiving sins on the merit of his own intrinsic nature. "...All the good which I will do unto you I do through the merit of the Messiah who was kept back all those years. He is righteous and filled with salvation." (Zech. 9:9) (Pes. R. 146b, 159b.) Jesus exercised an atoning authority in forgiving sins redemptively, a salvational act considered exclusively Divine. The Jews unwaveringly believed that "God keeps Salvation in His own power." (Talmud of Babylon Sanh. 113a) "But there is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared." (Ps. 130:4) "Forgiveness is solely with the Lord; He alone is capable of forgiving. The mouth of a mortal who, after all, is himself in need of forgiveness, cannot pronounce the sinner pure, much less render him pure. Only He, Who is as omnipotent as He is gracious, in the abundance of His grace and almighty power, can perform for man that miracle of miracles, the blotting out of the consequences of his past mistakes." (Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Hirsch Psalms, pg. 396)

"And behold, they were bringing to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed; and Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'Take courage, My son, your sins are forgiven.'" "For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, and walk'? 'But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins'-then He said to the paralytic-'Rise, take up your bed, and go home.'" (Matt. 9:2, 5-6, Mk. 2:5, 9-10, Luke 5:20, 23, 24, 7:47-48). No sinful mortal can pronounce a condemned sinner forgiven and free from sin's consequences. A sinner can share his knowledge of a savior but the saving act of forgiveness and pardon is exclusively Divine. To forgive sins is solely a Divine prerogative that Jesus unhesitatingly asserted, a salvational act no Rabbi, priest, or prophet would have dared imitate for fear of committing blasphemy. (Luke 5:21, Matt. 9:3, Mk. 2:6-7) "...the word used in Hebrew for 'forgiven' is the Hebrew salach, literally, nislechu lecha chatoteicha (forgiven are your sins). Today, in Hebrew, a person may say to another, 'Ani soleach lecha' (I forgive you), but in the time of Jesus this expression for forgiveness was only used of God's forgiving someone (cf. Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35). "...in the healing of a paralyzed man he used words of forgiveness reserved strictly in the Law to God." (Dr. Robert Lindsey, Hebrew scholar, from 1945-1990 Pastor of the Narkis Street Baptist Congregation, Jerusalem, Israel, Jesus Rabbi and Lord, p. 48, 50.) The idea that the redemptive act of forgiving sins is within the human domain, "Is alien to the mind of Judaism and of early Christianity." (Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, p. 199) Jesus recognized His own saving task as summed up in his words at the house of Zaccheus, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Lk. 19:9-10)

To exercise the authority to forgive sins, as illustrated in the healing of the paralytic (Matt. 9:2, 5-6, Mk. 2:5, 9-10, Lk. 5:20, 23, 24, 7:47-48), was not a salvific work foreign to his nature as the Son of Man. Every Jew, confronted with the ministry of Jesus, understood the implication of the salvational acts of forgiveness that he singularly offered, "...the early Jewish believers in Jesus appreciated the fact that as the Messiah, he was the one who had embodied and effected the salvation promised of old..." (Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, p. 103). The healing and redemptive work of forgiving sins was an exercise of authority over the physical and spiritual realm of human malady preadumbrating the Son of Man's role as the eschatological judge of men and nations. "This expression [Son of Man] goes beyond self-reference and, seen in the light of the post-resurrection period, surely indicates that the eschatological judge had already come on earth with the authority to forgive sin." (D. A. Carson, Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, p. 222) As the holder of the intrinsic right and power of execution as the Universal Judge (Matt. 16:27, 25:31-46), to heal a body and forgive sins did not tax his authority.

"The one like a man [the Son of Man] who sits upon the throne of God's glory, the sublime eschatological judge, is the highest conception of the Redeemer ever developed by ancient Judaism."-David Flusser, Jesus, p. 103

In the Jewish Apocalyptic book, The Parables of Enoch, the date of authorship is considered to be pre-70 C. E. (see James Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, p. 40, ff), the "Son of Man" is presented as pre-existent from all eternity, he is specially related to God, in that he shares both the heavenly glory of God and is God's chosen agent of vengeance and judgment. The picture of his exalted greatness and authority is overwhelming to behold. "And there I saw One who had a head of days, and His head was white like wool, and with Him there was another whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: 'This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness forever. And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen shall put down the kings and mighty from their seats, and the strong from their thrones, and shall loosen the reins of the strong and break the teeth of sinners. And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms because they do not extol and praise Him, nor humbly acknowledge when the kingdom was bestowed upon them. And he shall put down the countenance of the strong, and shall fill them with shame. And darkness shall be their dwelling, and worms shall be their bed, and they shall have no hope of rising from their beds, because they do not extol the name of the Lord of Spirits.'" (I Enoch 46:1-6) "And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden. For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, and revealed him to the elect. And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown, and all the elect shall stand before him on that day. And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate him for mercy at his hands." (I Enoch 62:3-8) "And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was given unto the Son of Man, and he caused the sinners to pass away and he destroyed from off the face of the earth, and those who have led the world astray. With chains shall they be bound, and in their assemblage-place of destruction shall they be imprisoned, and all their works vanish from the face of the earth. And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible; for that Son of Man has appeared, and has seated himself on the throne of his glory, and all evil shall pass away before his face, and the word of that Son of Man shall go forth and be strong before the Lord of Spirits." (I Enoch 69:26-29) In the above cited passages the Son of Man is shown seated on the Throne of Glory, existing before the sun and stars were created, executing universal judgment, and bringing salvation at the end of ages, when he will be enthroned as king of the world. "The son of man has a superhuman, heavenly, sublimity. He is the cosmic judge at the end of time; seated upon the throne of God, he will judge the whole human race with the aid of the heavenly host, consigning the just to blessedness and sinners to the pit of hell; and he will execute the sentence he passes." (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 15, p. 160) The authority of this figure "Son of Man" far transcends any anointed office in the Old Testament or the whole angelic order. He stands signally alone in all Judaism as the final arbiter of the destiny of men and nations. "The image of this Bar-Enosh is fascinating and unique. It is the figure of an almost super-human judge, who is to sit on the throne of God and to separate the righteous from the wicked. He is to deliver the righteous to everlasting life and the wicked to everlasting punishment." (David Flusser, professor of early Christianity, Hebrew University, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, p. 56) In attempting to define the nature of this One, the Gordian Knot, consisting merely of a human evaluation, looms large in Judaism. Can he be a cosmic judge of such unbounded authority and be simply super-human, or is this description a trivialization of his true character?

The authority that the Son of Man is portrayed as being invested with, as cited in the above passages, far transcends any delegated authority to adjudicate legal disputes, to wage war, or to interpret the Torah. For the Son of Man's judicial exercise encompasses the entire earth, and in its execution the full justice of God. The Father has vested all judiciary powers in the Son of Man (see Targum on Genesis 49:11, Targum on Isa. 11:4, 10:27, 14:29, Targum on Ps. 72:1-2, Psalms of Solomon 17:21-30, II Baruch 72:2-6, John 5:22-24, 27-30). "Thus it seems that the concept [the eschatological figure Son of Man] preceded the final identification of the Son of Man with the Messiah, which became common at the end of the second temple. It was so applied in the time of Jesus, who used to speak of the Son of Man as the heavenly judge and it seems that finally he identified himself with this sublime figure." (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 15, p. 160)

Jesus states unequivocally that he has an all-encompassing judicial authority. "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son. In order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed out of death into life." "...and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment." (John 5:22-24, 27-30) The above cited passages are startling in their boundless import. Jesus claims that he has universal judicial authority as the Judge of all, because he is the "Son of Man." No prophet, priest, scribe, or rabbi has ever executed such a judicial authority. No mere man or angelic being operates in such a realm. In the Old Testament, the prerogative of judgment belongs exclusively to God (Gen. 18:25, Judges 11:27, Ps. 9:8, 50:60, 82:8, 94:2, 98:9, 110:6, Isa. 33:22, I Chron. 16:33, Aboth 4:29).

Jesus' use of the Messianic title Son of Man encompasses the full breadth of his nature: preexistent, exaltation, suffering, atoning death, glorification, enthronement, coming King and Judge. Consequently, no devised category can contain Jesus. He bursts forth and declares that he is illimitable. Prerogatives that are solely Divine are affirmed by him. A trilemma confronts anyone who undertakes a serious investigation of the Person of Jesus. Either he was a fraud, self-deceived, i. e., nut or he was who he says he was. There can be no other options. The "good moral teacher" category, utilized to neatly dismiss Jesus, demands by definition truthfulness and sanity, which, if his declarations are untrue, would nullify such a classification. "The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you." (C. S. Lewis, essay: "What Are We to Make of Christ?" God in the Dock, p. 158) A rubicon decision is demanded by him, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15) He leaves no one in a moral no-man's land. May his spirit grace us with a vision of his nature, a Divine unveiling from the Father. "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'" (Matt. 16:16-17)

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost." (Matt. 18:11)

To access audio files and lectures of Lawrence Hilliard visit clarionvoice. com

Tithing today a highly polarised debate - where do you stand

As with any debate that involves money, you’ll find strong views for and against tithing. If you type “tithe”, “tithes” or “tithing” into a search engine you quickly begin to get the impression that there are at least one or two former tithe payers out there who aren’t “happy bunnies” and you’d be forgiven for thinking that they’re probably not going to give you the most balanced view of this rather emotive subject. Then on the other hand there’s the pro-tithing lobby. Equally sincere, yet equally polarised, not least because arguably most theologians who defend the doctrine of mandatory tithing today are salaried because it. Not exactly the most independent perspective you might argue. One thing’s for certain, they can’t both be right.

The only way to get a balanced view of the subject is to objectively research both sides of the argument. Here are a few pointers to get you underway, but don’t stop here. Take a long hard look at other sources about tithing, both for and against it, and then judge for yourself.

Under the Old Covenant offerings were required from all households (Deuteronomy 16:16). Tithing though was instituted under the written Torah (or law of Moses) and was offered for the benefit of the Levites serving in the administration of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. (Leviticus 27:30,32 Deuteronomy 12:17, Deuteronomy 14:23,28, Nehemiah 10:37, Nehemiah 12:44, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42). Tithes have always been God’s first, (Leviticus 27:30-32, Malechi 3:8-10) and then the Levites.

So far, these points aren’t up for debate. However, tithe funded churches today take these arguments two steps further. The first step is to argue: since there is no longer a Temple but we’re doing God’s work, today tithes should be given to us instead.

The second step is to say that actually tithing isn’t just on agricultural increase, it’s on all forms of income. More on that, in just a minute.

There are two things that are interesting about the argument that since the Temple has been suspended tithes should be collected by churches.

Firstly, try to find a scripture that supports that view. For example try to find a scripture that says something like: “Now that the Temple has been destroyed, tithes should be paid to the church”, or even “Now that the Temple has been destroyed, tithes should be paid directly to synagogues”

You’ll be looking for a long time.

You’d also have to be forgiven for asking: if tithing is to be continued after the dissolution of the Temple, then surely Jews would be funding synagogues with tithes. However, the fact is that (on the whole) they dare not, because scripture gives them no authority to do so. For more information about this Google Chapter three of Ernest Martin’s on-line book “The Tithing Dilemma”. It is well understood in Jewish circles that although Rabbis who teach in synagogues can be from any tribe, scriptural authority allows tithes to only be accepted by Levites in the context of a Temple administration.

Other reasons for mandating tithing today in Christian churches include the arguments that Jacob tithed (Genesis 28:20-22) and on more than one occasion Abraham tithed (Genesis 14:17-24 & Hebrews 7:1-10

1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

NKJV

…and because they did so before the Old Covenant tithing rules in Leviticus were established, tithing is clearly not just an Old Covenant ordinance and it’s not just on agricultural produce. Therefore tithing can’t be “done away” just because the Temple no longer exists and furthermore; all forms of income should be tithed on.

The counter arguments to this are firstly, that Jacob’s promise to tithe was conditional (Genesis 28:20-22). Read it for yourself. He said he’d tithe if he was blessed, (not if he wasn’t). It certainly doesn’t seem to be the mandated form of tithing that most tithe funded churches require today.

Furthermore if Abraham’s tithe on the spoils of the battle with the Kings was because tithing was universally mandated before Leviticus on all forms of income, then why in Numbers 31:25-30 did God make completely different arrangements for the spoils the Israelites gained after their battle with the Midianites ?

Numbers 31:25-31 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 26 "Count up the plunder that was taken--of man and beast--you and Eleazar the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; 27 and divide the plunder into two parts, between those who took part in the war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation. 28 And levy a tribute for the LORD on the men of war who went out to battle: one of every five hundred of the persons, the cattle, the donkeys, and the sheep; 29 take it from their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest as a heave offering to the LORD. 30 And from the children of Israel's half you shall take one of every fifty, drawn from the persons, the cattle, the donkeys, and the sheep, from all the livestock, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. NKJV

Did God suspend tithing on just that one occasion, without explanation? Arguably not: more probably tithing was commanded only on agricultural increase to Levites within the administrative framework of the Tabernacle or Temple.

Interesting too isn’t it, that Abraham didn’t keep ANY of the spoils from the battle for himself? What sort of “increase” was that exactly? OK yes of course, if he did consider it his “increase” he could do anything he liked with it, even give it all away, but isn’t it more likely that Abraham simply gave offerings of ten percent? And in the absence of a scriptural command from God for Abraham to tithe, isn’t it reading into scripture (not just a little), to say that he always had to tithe and do so on all forms of income?

The Numbers 31 counter argument seems to be quite a compelling argument against tithing. Yet, ask yourself this: when churches preach mandatory tithing do they openly acknowledge this counter-argument and transparently address the apparent contradiction satisfactorily?

If tithing wasn’t just for farmers but was on all forms of income including that of city dwellers too, why did King David have to make the following proclamation?

2 Chronicles 31:3-4 "Moreover he commanded the people who dwelt in Jerusalem to contribute support for the priests and the Levites, that they might devote themselves to the Law of the LORD".

If tithes were to be paid to Levites on all forms of income, not just agricultural increase, why didn’t he just say: “Give your tithes, as commanded in the law of God”?

Although they missed the weightier matters of the law, Christ said that the Pharisees were right to tithe on mint anise and cumin (Matthew 23:23) and by doing so clearly endorsed tithing to the Levites on agricultural produce. Interesting though isn’t it that Christ didn’t instead say: “You tithe on even the smallest of coins that you earn”? Why was that do you think?

Churches that mandate tithing today argue, that the Pharisee praying with the publican in the Temple tithed on all he possessed (Luke 18:12). This, they say, shows that tithing wasn’t just on agricultural “increase”.

That’s a fair point you might say.

But arguably, when he said he fasted twice in the week and tithed on all he possessed, the Pharisee was emphasising the things that he did above and beyond what the law demanded of everyone. He was simply saying: “Here’s why I’m special”. In would seem then actually that instead of supporting the argument that tithing was expected on more than agricultural increase, it actually contradicts it.

You might also be forgiven for asking: why did Christ pay his taxes with the miracle of the coin in the fish (Matthew 17:27) if He could have paid them from tithe-funded income? And whilst we’re on the subject, Mark 6:7-9 etc. shows Christ teaching the apostles to survive on nothing whilst they preached the gospel. What was the point in doing this if they were going to be assured of a tithe-based income?

That certainly seems to fit with Christ’s message to them (Matthew 5:1) in the beatitudes.

Matthew 6:25-34

25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? 28 So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32 "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. NKJV

Not exactly the approach of some televangelists is it? Certainly Christ doesn’t seem to take the approach: “Don’t worry, you only need at least ten tithe payers and your problems are over”. In fact come to think of it, all it would have taken to clear up the tithing controversy would be one or two clear statements from anyone to the effect that: Tithing is mandatory on all forms of income (not just agricultural produce) and in the absence of a Levitical priesthood tithes can be paid to anyone who’s doing God’s work. That would have solved the entire problem. However, scripture doesn’t say this, and organisations that preach mandatory tithing read these things into scripture.

It certainly seems clear that Christ’s endorsement of tithing agricultural produce to the Levites continued after His crucifixion at least until the destruction of the Temple. Despite what many people say, Hebrews 8:4 shows very clearly that the author of Hebrews believed that the Levitical priesthood remained a valid institution after Christ’s crucifixion.

Certainly most commentators agree that Paul kept a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18) and sponsored the Nazirite vows of four brethren (Acts 21:23-24), both of which involved animal sacrifices at the Temple. Furthermore, like all the temple ordinances Hebrews 7:4-5 indicates that the practise of tithing to Levites also legitimately continued following Christ’s crucifixion…

Hebrews 7:4-5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law,…NKJV

…at least until the temple was sacked by Titus’ troops in AD 70.

This begs a question then: did church members really have to pay 10% of their agricultural increase to the New Testament church AND another 10% to the Levites who administered at the Temple? If not, where’s does Christ or any of the New Testament scriptures for that matter specifically say anything to the contrary?

Why did Paul work as a tent-maker (Acts 18:1-3) if he could have required tithes from his churches? He certainly wasn't ministering to less than ten wage earning Christians as an apostle. Alternatively if, as some argue, he did this only because he didn’t want to be a burden to his brethren, wasn't he endorsing behaviour that most tithe requiring churches say is stealing from God (Malechi 3:8)? And similarly, is it really likely that Paul decided not to teach his churches to tithe but he didn’t shrink from criticizing Peter in front of the entire Antioch in Galatians 2:11? On the other hand isn’t it more likely that because he was a Benjaminite and wasn’t involved in administering the Temple, Paul simply had no right to demand tithes?

So particularly because the debate about tithing today is so polarised, it's worthwhile being cautious of the bias on both sides. Be sensitive to theologians who may have conflicts of interests on the one hand and those less than happy former tithe-payers on the other, and try to find writers who pay more attention to the unbiased analysis of scripture and as the Bereans did in Acts 17:10-11 search the scriptures to see if these things are so,

Two beginner witchcraft spells for money and protection

Your first spell in any path of Witchcraft should be one of protection. There are two reasons for this. First, protection spells are very safe... even if you are inexperienced, no harm can come from casting a protection spell the "wrong way"...

The second reason is because most protection spells are relatively easy. I've given you one here, and also a simple money spell you can do too...

Beginner Spell #1 – Make a Piggy Bank Seed

This extremely simple spell is so easy it is almost funny. Don’t let that fool you though, it works very well to bring wealth into your life. My Grandmother had me do it as a child (it worked so well, I still have the same dollar bill in a piggy bank almost 30 years later).

This spell also works best in the evening, and in the protection of a Magick circle – at your altar.

You will need:

A piggy bank

A dollar bill, play money, or a piece of paper

Clove oil

Green or gold thread

Dab the four corners of the money, play money, or paper with clove oil. Fold the bill three times.

Wrapping towards you, wind the thread around the dollar bill. Tie it with three knots. Place this seed dollar in the piggy bank. The anointed dollar will act as seed money and will draw more money to it (and into your life).

Beginner Spell #2 – Dragon Protection

This spell will create energy of protection through your aura – giving your protection from bad luck, and bad energies.

This is best done after you have cast your Magick circle, in your sacred space around your altar.

You will need one white or purple candle to represent yourself and one black candle for the earth dragon.

Cast your magick circle. Stir the dragon of the element of the north (Earth). Light the earth dragon candle and chant these words:

“Earth dragon strong and true,

Send to me your magick new.

Egg of protection we shall see,

This is my will so mote it be.”

As you chant, envision energy moving from the dragon candle to the one that represents you. See the energy around your candle as green light in the shape of an egg.

When you feel this has been accomplished, light your candle from the dragon candle. See your magick happening and know you are protected. Snuff out your candle and put it in a safe place. Any time you need additional protection, light this magickally charged candle. Remember to snuff it out (don’t blow it out) and put it in a safe place.

Profession of pharmacy under siege by dr. kurt grady

There is a battle raging in the state of Illinois regarding the dispensing of medicines designed to induce abortions. Many pharmacists object to filling these prescriptions on moral and ethical grounds. Many see this as an infringement upon the doctor - patient relationship. However, Dr. Kurt Grady of the Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International offers an alternative view. His article first appeared in the Official Journal of Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International in the fall of 2005. He is one of the few that have spoken out in defense of pharmacists, and some in the pro-life movement consider this too hot to handle. However, I interviewed Dr. Grady regarding this issue and have included his thoughts in this article. Now, Dr. Grady:

"We are indeed all familiar with the battle that has been raging in our profession regarding pharmacists refusing to dispense drugs for abortion. Recently, our brethren at the American Medical Association (AMA) have joined in the fray by approving a new policy to encourage States to allow physicians to dispense medications when there is no pharmacist nearby (within a 30-mile radius) willing to do so. The AMA asserts large numbers of pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and abortifacients. Some pharmacists, according to AMA delegates, are also refusing to dispense psychotropic and pain medications.

In addition, the policy-making body alleges pharmacists are refusing to return unfilled prescriptions to patients, thus preventing them from taking the prescriptions elsewhere, and they are "lecturing" patients about the drugs. While these accusations may sound extreme, I have no doubt there is at least a "grain" of truth therein. While I do not believe we have a right to confiscate legally written prescriptions, I do believe we have an obligation to counsel patients regarding the medications they are or are about to take. This is our professional duty and it is imputed upon us, so to speak, through our taking of the pharmacist's oath. As it may have been a few years since we studied the oath, I have included it below and have specifically related it to the issue of dispensing abortifacients further below.

Oath of a Pharmacist:

“At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy. I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns. I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve. I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care. I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”

The recent issues addressed by the AMA, particularly those related to our refusal to fill prescriptions specifically designed to end a human life, go to the very heart of the pro-life moral position. As Christians, we view the beginning of life as the moment of conception. It is that miracle moment, which science cannot completely describe, where God fashions a human soul with a divine purpose.

Jeremiah 1:5 illustrates the beauty of God's authorship of mankind as God speaks of His Sovereign purposes. Luke 1:41-44 shows that the purposes of God begin prior to birth as John's first act as the forerunner of Jesus was to leap in his mother's womb when the as-yet unborn Lord approached. God indeed has a purpose for all from even before the time of conception. Thus, we look at our oath in perhaps a different light than others. Our view is a biblical worldview. Consider our oath sentence by sentence:

1. "At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy."

All humankind includes those who are not yet born because life begins at conception. As a pharmacist I must consider an unborn baby as a patient.

2. "I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns."

Ending a human life does not consider his/her welfare and actually increases human suffering as many who have undergone abortions suffer physically and emotionally for years. (See Johnson T. Christianity and Pharmacy 2005;8 (l):21-22). Additionally, there is blessing in suffering, though that is yet another topic...see Romans 8:28-39.

3. "I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve."

Ending his/her life is not and "optimal drug therapy outcome" for my patient.

4. "I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy."

Not all developments in medicine or pharmacy are positive according to a biblical worldview. God allows discovery through general revelation, yet how we apply that discovery determines its usefulness. There is no room for pragmatism in a biblical worldview.

5. "I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

Is this not the mission of Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International (CPFI)? What could improve patient care more than their coming to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

6. "I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public."

Yes, our profession's view from the public eye is important. However, I am infinitely more concerned about serving my Lord. He is my first concern, followed by my wife, children, other family members... and somewhere down that list is the public's view of my profession. As such, I will adhere to His Word and the principles contained therein to guide all of my earthly relationships, including my professional conduct.

As a resident of the State of Illinois (though a pharmacist in Missouri), I was deeply concerned over a recent decision by our State's Governor, Rod Blagojevich-D, to force pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception, specifically, Plan B. In response to complaints by two women in Chicago who had been denied prescriptions for Plan B, Blagojevich signed an executive order ordering pharmacies and pharmacists to make the medication available. The rationale was if a pharmacy carried traditional oral contraceptives for preventing pregnancy, that pharmacy must carry all the agents in that category, including drugs not intended for prevention of pregnancy, but for abortion.

Likewise, in a pharmacy carrying those medications, the pharmacist must dispense any medication in the category, including Plan B, "without delay". Herein, we have a situation where the government has:

1. Singled out a particular medical profession, pharmacy,

2. Eliminated its member's ability choose what their pharmacies will stock, and

3. Eliminated a pharmacist's ability refuse to fill a prescription based on moral convictions.

In response, Luke Vander Bleek, a Roman Catholic pharmacist in Northwestern Illinois, has filed suit challenging the order on the basis that it violates Illinois' "conscience" law. The conscience law gives health care practitioners the ability to refuse to perform certain procedures based on their moral objections. Vander Block asserts the conscience law gives him the right to refuse to carry or dispense Plan B.

This is an important test case for our profession as well as the entire nation because Illinois' conscience law is quite strong. The case is likely to be lengthy and may be subject to numerous appeals due its potentially broad reaching implications. We plan to carry a detailed interview with Vander Bleek in an upcoming issue of the Journal.

More immediately, we all need to remain vigilant and rooted in our convictions. Prior to joining my current organization, I made it clear to both the district and pharmacy managers that I would not dispense Plan B. Just this week, I was involved in an emotionally charged discussion with another pharmacist and a pharmacy student—both of whom know that I am a Christian. They invoked the pharmacist's oath as a reason for me to dispense Plan B, which we do not even carry. I argued that the oath is intended to protect human life, not end it, and that since life begins at conception, I could not, in good conscience, dispense the medication. The pharmacist asked me if I would adopt the child whose life I would not end. I responded that if I could prevent the death of a child by my own hand, I would certainly adopt the child. Interestingly, he had nothing more to say."

Note: At the CPFI annual meeting, the Board of Directors approved a Conscience Clause that can be found on the CPFI website under "About us" and "Beliefs" at the bottom of the web page ( cpfi. org).