“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?