"…to them He gave the right to become children of God…"

We hear a lot about rights in our country.  That is why this caught my attention.

John 1:12-13(NKJV)

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Those who accept and have faith in Jesus are given the right to be called "children of God".  That signifies something special that not all people are entitled to.  It goes along with the whole concept of being heirs with Christ.  Only the children of God are heirs.

Kinda cool!

"…repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations,…"

 

Luke 24:46-49(NKJV)

Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 

and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 

And you are witnesses of these things. 

Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

Jesus was very clear about this.  Repentance and remission go together.  So why do so many Christians, Red Letter Christians especially, believe that remission is automatic and the repentance is automatic?  Why do they think that those who don't repent are entitled to all of the benefits of being heirs with Christ, without them actually being heirs in Christ? 

Sadly I think we are seeing an awful lot of this in society today.

 

Luke 23:13-25(NKJV)

Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, 

said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; 

no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. 

I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” 

(for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).

And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”—

who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. 

But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”

Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.”

But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. 

So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. 

And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

A lot of lives are being destroyed by the loud demands of the masses in our public discourse today.  I find it sad. 

Now let me be perfectly clear that I am not saying any of the people being destroyed are Christ.  I'm not saying that at all.  What I am calling attention to is the similarity in the methodology.  People being destroyed based on the hysterical call of the masses. 

Why didn't Jesus just tell Satan no!?

Luke 22:31-32(NKJV)

And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 

But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Think about the verse above.  Why didn't Jesus just tell Satan no when Satan asked for Simon?  Wouldn't that have been a lot easier?  If I were Simon I would be grateful for the prayers Jesus offered on my behalf but I would have been even more grateful if Jesus had just told Satan no and put an end to it.

So why do you think Jesus didn't just say no? 

I think it goes back to what I have said before.  There are some life lessons that can only be learned through adversity.  It seems to me that Jesus is telling Simon that he needs to learn to battle Satan on his own through the power of Jesus.  That is different than letting Jesus fight our battles for us. 

Does that make sense? 

Take heed and do not be deceived!

Luke 21:8-9(NKJV)

And He said: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore do not go after them. 

But when you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified; for these things must come to pass first, but the end will not come immediately.”

Interesting warning.  Who's responsibility is it to see that we are not deceived?  It is ours.  How do we do that?  Stay in the word, stay in prayer, and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you.  

Do the rich have to give everything away to be saved?

There are some who believe that you have to give away all worldly possessions to be saved.  Is that true?  Let's see what Jesus has to say on the subject.

Luke 19:1-10(NKJV)

Then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 

Now behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. 

And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not because of the crowd, for he was of short stature. 

So he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He was going to pass that way. 

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 

So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 

But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.”

And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; 

for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

So we have a guy named Zacchaeus who the Bible tells us is rich.  Jesus decides to stay at Zacchaeus' house.  Zacchaeus tells Jesus that he gives half of his goods to the poor and that he is a pretty just guy in other ways as well.

What does Jesus say at this point?  Does Jesus send Zacchaeus to hell for not giving away all of his goods? 
 

Nope.  Jesus says "today salvation has come to your house…"

In a case where Jesus could have sent a clear message by condemning Zacchaeus, Jesus instead gives Zacchaeus salvation. 

Seems pretty clear to me!!!

This is certainly confusing.

I find this a bit confusing.

Luke 16:16-17(NKJV)

“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.

 The first part says "the law and the prophets were until John…".  That makes it sound as if the law ended doesn't it?

But then the last part says "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. " which makes it seem as of the law continues.

Which is it? 

Well Jesus said "I didn't come to replace the law but to fulfill it." or something close to that. 

Even that statement leaves a bit of ambiguity.  The phrase "fulfill it" to some might give it a past tense feel to the statement if that makes sense.

Something to ponder.

“Increase our faith.”

I guess I would ask, "who's job is it to increase my faith?"?  Is that really the Lord's job or is that something that comes from within? 

Luke 17:5(NKJV)

And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.”

Personally I think that has to come from within.  It comes from us digging in to the Word of God.  It comes from us praying and walking with God.  It comes from us living the Christian life and experiencing throughout our lives that faith being rewarded which increases our faith.

Our faith is just another muscle.  The more we use it the stronger it gets.  The less we use it the weaker it gets. 

Use it or lose it!

Should we take this literally or figuratively?

If we are to take this literally then it raises theological questions. 

Luke 16:19-23(NKJV)

“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 

But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 

desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 

So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 

And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

If we are to take this figuratively then I get it.  The story is of the poor guy oppressed by the rich guy.  In the end the poor guy gets his reward and the rich guy gets his punishment. 

But…..if it is literally then there are some unanswered questions. 

First and foremost for me is this question.  Was the poor guy a believer in Jesus?  The parable gives us no clue.  Was the rich guy a believer?  Probably not because he didn't have compassion on the poor. 

If the poor guy wasn't a believer in Jesus then why did he get to go to Heaven?  We are told that we have to believe in and confess Jesus as our Lord and Savior to get in.  It may seem like a minor point to some but for me it is a big issue. 

For that reason I believe this is one of those parable that are to be taken figuratively. 

Who doesn't need repentance?

 

Luke 15:1-7(NKJV)

Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 

And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.” 

So He spoke this parable to them, saying:

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 

And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 

And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 

I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.

The 99 who don't need repentance?  Who would they be?  If Jesus was the only perfect man then everyone else would need some repentance wouldn't they?

I think I understand what Jesus is saying here.  I just find the way He said it a bit imprecise.

What I think Jesus is saying is simply that there is a celebration each time someone new is saved vs. no need for celebrations for those who are already saved. 

I just think the use of the phrase "the 99 just persons who need no repentance" is a bit weird.  Paul tells us that over our lifetimes we will fall back and sin and will need to continually confess our sins and be forgiven.  The wording above seems to say that once save we never have to repent again and I don't think that is accurate. 

But again I understand the big picture view of those who are saved vs those who aren't.

I wonder if it is in the translation?

I'm not sure what to make of this.  When I read the whole passage I think I understand what Jesus meant.  However if I isolate just the first two sentences it seems to contradict one of the 10 commandments which causes a big problem because of my belief that God and Jesus are always in agreement.

Read the passage and then I will pick it up on the other side.

Luke 14:25-33(NKJV)

Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 

And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 

For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it—

lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 

saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 

Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 

Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

If Jesus is love, why would He say such a thing?  Doesn't that contradict one of the 10 commandments?  Honor thy mother and father.  Can you honor them and hate them at the same time?

Or could it be something else?  Could it be in the translation?  Sometimes things don’t translate precisely from one language to another.  Could there have been other translation possibilities for the word hate?  For example, the last sentence uses the word forsake.  Substitute forsake for hate and I think it lines up with the rest of the passage quite nicely.  The point being, count the cost and be willing to commit 100% or don't commit at all.

Am I correct in my interpretation?  I don't know.  It's what makes the most sense to me at this time however I am always open to having the Holy Spirit give me revelation knowledge on this or anything else He sees fit to bless me with. 

Why do people call Jesus the Prince of Peace when Jesus Himself says that he did come to bring peace?

He not only said it but He said it twice!

Matthew 10:34-39(NKJV)

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 

For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 

and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’  

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 

And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 

He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Luke 12:49-53(NKJV)

“I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 

But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 

Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 

For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 

Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

Jesus understood that His coming was going to cause division, not unity.  Look how His message was rejected by a majority of the Jewish people.  In the Luke passage Jesus says point blank: "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. "

So what is the deal with the Prince of Peace stuff?  Did you know that there is only one place in the whole Bible where the term Prince of Peace is used?  It is in Isaiah.

Isaiah 9:6(NKJV)

    For unto us a Child is born,      Unto us a Son is given;     And the government will be upon His shoulder.     And His name will be called     Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,     Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I have no idea why Isaiah chose to use those words.  It seems to me that in the end times, part of the people will view Jesus as the Prince of Peace and will use the other words above to describe Him, while the other part of the people will not.  Can you guess where I am going with this?
 

That's right.  Those who reject Jesus are going to find eternity anything but peaceful so I doubt they will be thinking of Jesus as the Prince of Peace.  :)

No grey area. No middle ground.

Luke 11:23(NKJV)

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

Notice that there is no middle ground in Jesus statement. 

If Jesus repeats Himself, should we pay special attention to what He says?

Here is what prompted this question.

Luke 9:1-5(NKJV)

Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. 

He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 

And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.

“Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. 

And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”

Luke 10:1-16(NKJV)

After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 

Then He said to them, “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 

Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. 

Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. 

But whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 

And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. 

And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. 

Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. 

And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 

But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 

‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 

But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 

But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 

And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades. 

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Jesus lays the foundation of the principal in Chapter 9 and then expands on it in Chapter 10.   

He sent people out to preach.  If a town accepted them then bless that town.  If not then curse the town.  Jesus says that those who reject His message will be punished with eternal damnation.  (brought down to Hades) 

So it seems to me that if Jesus took the time to say something twice, it must be pretty important to Him. 

Now let me introduce another dimension.  I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said something like "I don't think Jesus meant kill them when He said love your enemies".  It seems to me that a lot of people who don't really study the Bible like to use cute little sayings like this to say that killing anyone or anything is immoral. 

I would however disagree with their premise.  I don't think loving your enemy necessarily  precludes killing them.  What do I base that view on?  The words of Jesus in both chapters cited above to start with.  Jesus said very specifically that those who refuse to accept His message will be condemned to Hell.  He loves all people including those who reject His message but that doesn't prevent Jesus from taking action against His enemies while He loves them.  So unless you want to go out on a limb and say Jesus acted in an immoral manner, I think the logic stands.  

And just in case you doubt that Jesus even has enemies let me provide another reference.

Philippians 3:17-19(NKJV)

Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 

For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 

whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. 

Now let me be crystal clear here.  I am not advocating that people should just go out and kill your enemies.  I'm not advocating that in any way.  What I am saying however is that if your enemies attack you, you are morally justified in defending yourself to the fullest extent needed to stop the attack that justified your defending yourself to begin with. 

Does that make sense?