"Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews"

That is really hard to imagine for me.  Here you have the Son of God and He has to slink around and hide himself somewhat to avoid the Jews who were trying to kill Him?  There is a lesson to be learned here I think.  Read the text and I'll give you my take on the other side.

John 11:54(NKJV)

Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there into the country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim, and there remained with His disciples.

OK, here goes.  Jesus could have called down the wrath of God on these people any time He wanted and they would have all been condemned and killed.  But Jesus chose not to do that.  Jesus chose to hide Himself instead.  Why would He do that?

I think one of the lessons we can learn here is that we have to think and act tactically.  In another part of Scripture, I think Jesus says it but I am not sure, we are told to be sly as a fox.  I think that is what Jesus is demonstrating here.  While Jesus had the power to crush His opposition Jesus held back.  He didn't do it right then.  They say sometimes timing is everything and I think that is part of what was going on here.  Make sense?

Diversity

I saw an article the other day that was debating what the value of diversity is in our country.  Those on the left seem to view diversity as one of the highest values.  Those on the right disagree.  We think diversity should be secondary to focusing on the things that unite us, not the things that make us different.

I normally try not to get very political here but I ran across this Scripture today and thought it was worth commenting on.  Take a look at what Scripture has to say about the issue.

1 Corinthians 12:4-6(NKJV)

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 

There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 

And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 

Now this is just my interpretation and I could be wrong but here is the way I see it.  In all three lines we see that diversity is mentioned in the first part of the line but then we are reminded that even though there is diversity, we are serving the same God.  So for me at least, this passages makes clear that unity is the dominant theme here, not diversity. 

Why does Paul bother me so much?

I think more than anything it is because he contradicts Jesus so much.  I have posted other examples but here is a new one that I just noticed.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22(NKJV)

Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 

For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 

What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

Wasn't sitting down together and breaking bread a big part of Jesus ministry?  So why is Paul so against Christians breaking bread together?  Now look at the part highlighted in green.  How does breaking bread together show "that you despise the church and shame those who have nothing"?  Is Paul suggesting that Jesus despised the church and shamed those who have nothing?  Hmm?

Or how about this. 

1 Corinthians 11:13-16(NKJV)

Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 

But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Since Paul asked I will answer.  Question 1 highlighted in yellow.  Yes Paul it is proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered.  The important thing is that she is praying.  I doubt that God gives a rip whether she has her head covered or not. 

Paul himself tells us that God isn't bothered if we eat meat sacrificed to idols because God is more powerful than the idols so why does Paul think God would be so bothered by a woman's hair?

Second question, highlighted in green.  No Paul nature doesn't teach us that.  More importantly Jesus didn't teach us that either.  In all of the Biblical representations I have ever seen the men, including Jesus, are depicted with long hair.  So once again, is it Paul's opinion that Jesus was dishonoring God by having long hair?   

The number one question I want to ask God when I get to Heaven is "What is up with Paul? 

So we should remain willfully ignorant?

This seems like bad advice to me.  In my profession you could go to jail for being willfully ignorant. 

1 Corinthians 10:25-29(NKJV)

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 

for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 

But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”  

“Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 

Scripture tells us the truth will set you free and yet here we have Paul telling us to avoid the seeing the truth.  Weird.

Do we need to be chameleons to win others to Christ?

That was really a rhetorical question.  I don't believe we need to be chameleons to win others to Christ.  What prompted this question was the following passage by Paul.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23(NKJV)

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 

and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 

to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 

to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 

Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

I believe this is simply a matter of differing styles.  To me it would seem dishonest not to be who I am.  What you see is what you get.  That's not to say that I think Paul is being dishonest.  If I were to put a word on it I think this is just Paul's way of saying he empathized with lots of different people.

So is one way right and the other way wrong?  Not at all.  Different people are reached by different messages and methods.  The Gospel needs to be presented in many different ways to reach all people as we are commended to do. 

So I think the more important question is what can each of us do to reach more people for Christ in our own individual ways? 

I just don't understand Paul's reasoning.

Read through this and I'll comment at the end.

1 Corinthians 8:4-13(NKJV)

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 

yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 

But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 

For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 

And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 

But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 

Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

So here is my question.  Why would the weak brother perish from seeing someone else exercise the full freedom and benefits of knowing Jesus and knowing Scripture?  Paul just said that food does not commend us to God. 

Wouldn't it make more sense to use this as a teaching opportunity?  After all Scripture does tell us that the truth will set us free?  Why would Paul not take this opportunity to instruct someone on the truth instead of hiding it from them?  Hmm?

I find this admonishment from Paul weird.

We are told that sex between a husband and wife is a beautiful thing and a gift of God.  And yet we have Paul saying this.

1 Corinthians 7:1-7(NKJV)

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 

Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 

But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 

For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

Seems to me that Paul is substituting what is his preference to what is good for mankind.  If Paul got his wish and all men could be like Paul and not touch woman the human race would die out wouldn't it?  :)