Social Drinking

Social Drinking!

In general, it seems as if our generation is heavily influenced by the cultural changes that we have seen in the past several decades. While at one time not too terribly long ago, Christians would stand united against the evils of social drinking, sadly such is not occurring as it ought today. More young Christians are allowing Satan to infiltrate their thought processes and are vocally supporting social drinking. I recently heard of a congregation that is plagued with this very topic, and I know that she is not the only one. What do we need to remind ourselves about this controversial topic?

drinking

It’s just a little social drinking right?

Let us begin by examining how the Bible utilizes the term “wine.” A number of Hebrew words are rendered by the English “wine,” the most common of which are yayin (134 times) and tirosh (33 times). The basic term for “wine” in the Greek New Testament is the term oinos (33 times), which corresponds to the Hebrew yayin (see also Acts 2:13-15 [gleukos and methuo]). Thus, while the term in English always denotes an alcoholic beverage, the biblical term “wine” is a generic term, occasionally referring to fresh grape juice (cf. Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33—the juice in the grape). Sometimes, the Bible praised its ingestion (Song of Sol. 5:1; Joel 2:19), and other times, it condemns it as a beverage capable of producing intoxication (Eph. 5:18). Therefore, the Bible offers many warnings against the indiscriminate use of wine (Prov. 20:1; 21:17; 23:20-21, 29-35; Isa. 5:22; 28:7; Joel 1:5; Amos 6:6; Hab. 2:5; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; 1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 2:3). Sometimes, the Bible uses the term “wine” as a substance of medicinal value (Luke 10:34; 1 Tim. 5:23). Now, it is not a foregone conclusion that Paul commended inebriating wine to the young preacher, Timothy, since the evidence from antiquity exists to suggest that he was referring to the addition of grape juice to his drinking water for medicinal purposes. However, even if he meant for Timothy to add fermented or intoxicating juice to his diet, please note the following important points:

  • He had been abstinent up until this point.
  • The quantity he would add would be “a little.”
  • He would dilute the juice with water.
  • It was strictly medicinal in nature—not social, casual or recreational.
  • It took the directive of an apostle for Timothy to introduce it into his life.

In fact, one must not automatically assume that the wine itself possessed medical properties. The wine may have simply been the antiseptic means of purifying polluted water that Timothy had been drinking by killing germs and bacterial organisms. If so, then Paul was not commending wine, but commending a method of cleansing contaminated water. Moreover, the Bible sometimes employs the term as a symbol of the wrath of God (Jer. 25:15; 51:7; Rev. 14:10; 16:19).

One may respond by quoting Proverbs 31:6-7 in an attempt to show support for social drinking. Because of the multiple warnings in the Bible against drunkenness, we know that depression and poverty are not a license to sin. The context (Prov. 31:1) does not suggest that kings should not drink (Prov. 31:4-5) but everyone else can (Prov. 31:6-7). This mother is advising him to stay away from alcohol because it impairs judgment, leads to improper decisions and adversely affects those to whom he governs. Yet, by way of contrast, some people drink to forget. In essence, she is actually saying, “Let them do it, but as for you, manage the stress of your position to rule with equitable justice.” Of course, if it was true for the king, it ought also to be true for the Christian, of which Jesus Christ has made us kings (Matt. 5:13-16; 1 Pet. 2:11-12; Rev. 1:5-6)!

Others may try to justify social drinking based upon different cultures in differing countries and nations. Does the Bible sanction the use of alcohol in different countries according to custom? From everything that one may study about the subject of inebriating substances and from everything that the Bible teaches concerning itself, the gospel is the universal standard of ethics, morals, and right conduct. Thus, the child of God who is committed to Jesus is not going to pretend that he can drink wine in Italy, vodka in Russia, stout in Australia, lager in Germany, rum in the Caribbean, bourbon in Kentucky or champagne in France and be pleasing to God. We do not change our morality just by crossing state lines or international borders!

In conclusion, we know that alcohol is the #1 drug problem in America today. In a recent report from the World Health Organization, alcohol kills one person every ten seconds worldwide. In fact, it kills 3.3 million people worldwide every year, more than AIDS, tuberculosis and violence combined. Nevertheless, social drinking and alcohol consumption is accepted, endorsed, legalized, promoted and even heavily guarded politically. Indeed, consumption of inebriating beverages is on the rise. How sad! Instead of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), why should we not have MAD (Mothers Against Drinking), because we are not going to solve the problem of drunk driving until we solve the problem of drinking. Give liquor to our cats, and we are cruel; give liquor to a person, and we become the life of the party! Of course, we should not get our pets drunk, but neither should we allow our sons, daughters, business associates and friends to drink either, because if it is not fit for our pet, it is certainly not fit for humanity!

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Social Drinking

Women Preachers

What Does the Bible Say About Women Preachers?

It is remarkable how much culture impacts the church in every generation. One of the issues now confronting Christians is the ever-increasing use of women as preachers in denominations. The pressure to be politically correct has kept some from speaking clearly about this matter lest they be viewed as male chauvinists or as discriminating against women. The reality is not “What does our culture demand?” but “What does the Bible say about women preachers in the assemblies of the church?”

women preachers

Today, it is not uncommon to find women preachers.

The answer is found in Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth. The apostle mentions, in more than one place, of that time when the whole church came together in one place. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, he described the abuse they had made of the Lord’s Supper in that assembly, and then instructed them as to how it should be observed properly.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 14:23-40, he addresses behavior in worship again. Because of the abundance of spiritual gifts (1:7 shows that no N.T. church had more gifts) the worship was chaotic (14:26). He regulates this by giving specific instructions to those who spoke in tongues, the interpreters of tongues, the prophets and the prophets’ wives who were part of the problem. Tongues speakers were told to limit the number to two or three of them, and if there were no interpreters present they were not to speak at all. Prophets were told to be limited in the number who spoke unless something was revealed to another prophet in the assembly. The wives of the prophets (let your women, with the antecedent your being the prophets) were told to not interrupt their prophets but to ask their husbands, the prophets, questions when they got home.

The key verse to answer our question is found in the last phrase in verse 35. The prophets’ wives could not speak because “it is shameful for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:35). All women are included in these words. Two verses later, Paul shows that this was not a cultural, optional matter, but “the things I write unto you are the commandment of the Lord.”

Keep in mind that this letter was written to a Greek society where women were far more prominent in society than in a Jewish world (see Acts 17:12, 34). Paul’s words were against the normal practice in the culture of Corinth! His instructions are not tied to culture, but to the law (14:34) and to the commands of Jesus (14:37). Suggesting these words only deal with a first-century Greek culture ignores what God said.

What did God say about women preachers? That is all that matters. God said, Let your women keep silent  . . .  for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Women Preachers

Marriage and Bondage

“Not Under Bondage”

“But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).

bondage

What Does Not Under Bondage Mean?

A current misconception with regard to divorce and remarriage is the notion that 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a “later revelation” that “modifies” or “clarifies” Matthew 19:9. It is argued that 1 Corinthians 7:15 permits the Christian, who is deserted by a non-Christian mate, to remarry on the sole ground of that desertion. On the other hand, it is suggested, Matthew 19:9 (which permits remarriage only on the ground of fornication) applies strictly to a Christian married to a Christian, and therefore is not to be considered applicable to the Christian who is married to a non-Christian. Several factors make this position untenable.

First, the context of Matthew 19 is divorce (Matthew 19:3), while the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is not divorce but the propriety of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). Jesus applied God’s original marriage law (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) to the question of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9). But Paul applied God’s marriage law to several different questions that related to celibacy and the legitimacy of marriage for widows/widowers, Christians/non-Christians, and singles.

Second, it is incorrect to hold that if 1 Corinthians 7:15 pertains to a Christian married to a non-Christian, then Matthew 19:9 must refer exclusively to a Christian married to a Christian. Matthew 19:9 was uttered in context to a group of Jews seeking an answer to their question concerning Jewish divorce (Matthew 19:3). Jesus gave them an answer that was intended for them, as well as for those who would live during the Christian age. He appealed to Genesis 2, which resides in a pre-Jewish context and clearly applies to all people—i.e., the totality of humanity. Genesis 2 is a human race context. It reveals God’s ideal will for human marriage for all of human history—pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and Christian.

Though divorce and remarriage for reasons other than fornication was “permitted” (epetrepsen—Matthew 19:8, though not endorsed) during the Mosaic period, Jesus made clear that the Jews had strayed from the original ideal because of their hard hearts. He further emphasized (notice the use of de—“but” in Matthew 19:9) that the original marriage law, which permitted divorce and remarriage for fornication alone, would be reinstated and would be applicable to all persons during the Christian age. Prior to the cross, ignorance may have been “unattended to” (huperidon—Acts 17:30), that is, God did not have a universal law, like the Gospel (Mark 16:15-16), but with the ratification of the New Testament, all men everywhere are responsible and liable for conforming themselves to God’s universal laws of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. God’s original marriage law was, and is, addressed to all people (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Christ’s application to the question of divorce was implied in the original law, and is addressed to all people (Matthew 19:9). Paul’s application to questions of sex, celibacy, and non-Christian mates is addressed to all people (1 Corinthians 7). Scripture harmonizes beautifully, and God treats all impartially. Thus the phrase “to the rest” (1 Corinthians 7:12) cannot be referring uniquely or solely to non-Christian marriage relationships, since Jesus already referred to all marriages (whether Jew or non-Jew, Christian or non-Christian).

Third, 1 Corinthians 7 does not address different “classes” of marriages. The Corinthian letter was written in response to correspondence previously sent to Paul by the Corinthians (cf. 1:11; 5:1; 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Thus, 1 Corinthians amounts to a point-by-point response to matters previously raised by the Corinthians themselves. When Paul referred to the general question of sexual activity/celibacy (7:1), he was alluding to the method by which he organized his remarks in direct response to questions asked by the Corinthians. Thus, “to the rest” (7:12) refers to the rest of the matters or questions about which the Corinthians specifically inquired (and to which Jesus did not make specific application while on Earth). These matters (not marriages) are easily discernible from what follows. The “rest” of the questions would have included the following:

  • Should a Christian male who has a non-Christian wife sever the relationship (vs. 12)?
  • Should a Christian female who has a non-Christian husband sever the relationship (vs. 13)?
  • Are Christians somehow ceremonially defiled or rendered unclean by such relationships (vs. 14)?
  • Are children born to such relationships ceremonially unclean (vs. 14)?
  • Is a Christian guilty of sin if their non-Christian mate severs the relationship (vs. 15-16)?
  • Does becoming a Christian mean that one should dissolve all conditions and relationships that were entered into before becoming a Christian (vss. 17-24)?
  • What should be the sexual and/or marital status of virgins and widows in light of the current period of distress (vss. 25-40)?

All of these questions may be answered in light of, and in harmony with, Jesus’ own remarks in Matthew 19. Jesus did not specifically make application to these unique instances (vs. 12—“to the rest speak I, not the Lord”). He did not address Himself to the application of God’s general marriage law to every specific situation (specifically to the spiritual status of a Christian married to a non-Christian). Yet, His teaching applies to every case of marriage on the question of divorce.

Fourth, the specific context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not. The unbeliever now finds himself married to a different person (in the sense that his mate underwent a total change and began to live a completely different lifestyle). The unbeliever demands that his mate make a choice: “either give up Christ or I’m leaving!” Yet to live in marriage with an unbeliever, who threatens departure if the believer does not capitulate to the unbeliever (i.e., compromise Christian responsibility or neglect divinely ordained duty), is to be involved in slavery (i.e., “bondage”). But neither at the time the marriage was contracted, nor at the present time (the force of the perfect indicative passive in Greek), has the Christian been under that kind of bondage. God never intended nor approved a view that regards marriage as slavery. Christians are slaves only to God—never to men or mates (Matthew 23:10; Romans 6:22; Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:24; Philemon 16; 1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was saying that although a believer is married to an unbeliever (and continues to be so), the believer is not to compromise his or her discipleship. To do so, at the insistence of the unbelieving mate, would constitute slavery that was never God’s intention for marriage.

To suggest that dedoulotai (“bondage”) refers to the marriage bond is to maintain that in some sense (or in some cases) the marriage bond is to be viewed as a state of slavery. But God does not want us to view our marital unions as slave relationships in which we are “under bondage.” We may be “bound” (1 Corinthians 7:27,39; Romans 7:2), but we are not “enslaved” (1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was not commenting on the status of a believer’s marital relationship (i.e., whether bound or loosed). Rather, he was commenting on the status of a believer’s spiritual relationship as a Christian in the context of marital discord that is initiated by the non-Christian mate. Paul was answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a Christian if he or she threatens to leave?” He was not answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a husband/wife (and the potential for remarriage) when the non-Christian departs?” Jesus already answered that question in Matthew 19:9—divorce and remarriage is permitted only upon the basis of sexual unfaithfulness. Paul, too, spoke more directly to this question earlier in the chapter when he ruled out remarriage: “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband” (vss. 10-11).

To summarize: although God’s marriage law is stringent (for everybody), and although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), nevertheless, there are times when an unbelieving mate actually will force the believer to make a choice between Christ and the unbelieving mate. To choose the mate over Christ would be slavery (i.e., “bondage”). Yet, the believer is not now, and never has been, in such enslavement. Thus, the believer must let the unbeliever exit the relationship in peace. The believer must “let him depart”—in the sense that the believer must not seek to prevent his departure by compromising his loyalty to Christ. Of course, the Christian would continue to hold out hope that the marriage could be saved. If, however, the non-Christian forms a sexual union outside of marriage with another, the Christian is permitted the right to exercise the injunction of Matthew 19:9 by putting away the non-Christian on the sole grounds of fornication, and may then marry another eligible person.

One final factor needs to be addressed. Verses 17-24 cannot be requiring an individual to remain in whatever marital state that person is in at the time of conversion. Paul used the examples of slavery and circumcision to show that merely because a person becomes a Christian, he or she is not absolved of pre-Christian circumstances. If a person is a slave prior to baptism, that person will continue to be a slave after baptism, and should not think that becoming a Christian gives one the right to shirk legal status as a slave. This is why Paul instructed Onesimus to return to his position of servitude (Philemon 12). Thus Paul was encouraging the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not become a Christian, to remain in that marriage rather than think that becoming a Christian somehow gives him or her the right to sever the relationship with the non-Christian mate. Being married to a non-Christian mate is not sinful in and of itself (see Miller, 2002).

Paul was not placing his stamp of approval upon relationships, practices, and conditions that were sinful prior to baptism; nor was he encouraging Christians to remain in those relationships. Such would contradict what he later told the Corinthians concerning unequal yokes (2 Corinthians 6:17) and repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-10). Rather, he was referring to relationships and conditions that were not sinful prior to baptism, and was telling Christians that they still had the same obligation to conduct themselves appropriately (i.e., according to God’s laws) within those situations, now that they were Christians. Such instructions apply to any relationship, practice, or condition that was not sinful (i.e., in violation of Christ’s laws) prior to baptism. But it does not apply to any practice or relationship that was sinful prior to baptism (i.e., adultery, homosexuality, evil business practices, etc.; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

May God grant us the humility and determination to conform our lives to His will concerning marriage—no matter how narrow it may seem (Matthew 7:14). May the church of our day be spared any further harm that comes from the promotion of false theories and doctrines that are calculated to re-define God’s will as “wide” and “broad” (Matthew 7:13). May we truly seek to please, not men, but God (Galatians 1:10).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2002), “Be Not Unequally Yoked,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1802.

Dave Miller – Apologetics press – http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1081

Posted in Guest Authors | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Marriage and Bondage

Islam and Women

Behind the Veil

Oftentimes the sight of a burqa—the traditional cloak worn by Muslim women—causes us to pause and stare. This vision, and the world it represents, is so foreign to many Christians, that for many, it floods us with questions and maybe even fear. What really lies behind that veil? If those eyes could speak, what exactly would they say?

islam

The treatment of the women of Islam is not Godly.

Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance of the Qur’an recognizes that the Islamic religion treats women as property. Most of the behavior toward women can be traced back to Mohammed and his personal life. Mohammed got married at 25 to a woman 15 years his senior. After Mohammed was expelled from Mecca, an admirer brought his six-year-old daughter for Mohammed to marry. Muslim tradition claims that Mohammed (for obvious reasons) did not consummate the marriage until this young girl was nine. He then began adding wife after wife to his harem—all with Allah’s full consent.

While a few individuals in the Old Testament possessed multiple wives, God’s original plan of one-woman and one-man did not change. God did not condone this behavior. Paul made this clear in his writings (1 Corinthians 7; 1 Timothy 3:2, etc.)

How did Mohammed justify this behavior? Basically he hid behind the Qur’an. For instance, the Qur’an records: “Prophet! We [God] have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;… This privilege is your alone, being granted to no other believer…. [We grant you this privilege] so that none may blame you. You may…take to your bed any of them you please.” (Qur’an 33:50-51).

This is a religion that allows and promotes concubinage. “Save with their wives and slave girls; for these are lawful for them” (Qur’an 70:30; see also 23:5). Mohammed advised men who were tempted to marry “other women… two, three, or four of them” (Qur’an 4:3). Note that two is the minimum number Mohammed suggested—not one! How can one read this and harmonize it with God’s Word, which strictly forbids fornication and adulterous relationships? The writer of Hebrews indicated: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Hebrews 13:4

Additionally, Sharia Law also permits the possession of women slaves. While external public pressure caused slavery to be declared illegal in Saudi Arabia in 1965, and the Sudan in 1991, the practice continues in northern Africa
(and is quietly practiced in many places in the Middle East). Consider the following passage in the Qur’an regarding the treatment of slave women: “Do not force your slave girls into prostitution in order that you may enrich yourselves….” That may sound good, until we read the remainder of that surah, which says, “… if they [slave girls] wish to preserve their chastity.” Mohammad then continues, “If anyone [i.e., any slave owner] compels them [forces chastity-choosing slave girls to be prostitutes], God will be forgiving and merciful to them.” In other words, don’t force them if they want to preserve their chastity, but if you do God will forgive you.

One obvious question is, how did Mohammed get to this point, and how has it persisted? History records that when Mohammed was still alive and marauding caravans he made promises of women and girls to the men who fought with him. This resulted in the conversion of many. Some of the men began to complain that if they were killed while marauding they would not get to enjoy the promised sex. Unabashed, Mohammed made a claim that is still recited by millions today—they would receive virgins in heaven.

In other words, Mohammed turned heaven into a brothel. Loyal Muslim men who paid the price of martyrdom would allegedly find a host of virgins—called houris—who would forever satisfy their sexual cravings. Some might question how these women would remain in the virgin state after many having relations with the martyrs and having been there for years. Mohammed had an answer for this as well. The Qur’an describes the houris as “a rare creation…we have made them ever virgins” (Surah 56:34-36).

One of the truths that many Muslims do not want spoken is that many “Pagans” were converted to Islam on the promise of sexual fulfillment. As a result, Muslim men did not want their own wives and daughters to become objects of so much increased sexual desire. Therefore, Muslim men began covering and even hiding their women.

These concerns were then made law by Mohammed in the Qur’an. “O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments (jilbabs) close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle. “Qur’an Surah/Chapter Al-Ahzab Ayah/Verse 59. Another portion of the Qur’an reads “And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their head coverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs),” Qur’an Surah Nur Chapter: The Light, Verse 31.

However, this is only the beginning. The Qur’an requires women to remain veiled in public (33:59) and to remain strictly segregated from male society. A woman is to be seen “as Satan” when a man is sexually tempted—thus they are to take steps to prevent this. One of the traditions of Mohammed is that the majority of people going to hell are women.

But again, this is only one aspect of how women are treated as second-class citizens in Muslim nations. The news media has all but remained silent on the common practice of clitorectomy. The widespread practice of “circumcising” females in the Muslim faith is done to prevent women from feeling pleasure. Mohammed himself affirms this in a hadith. It is also one of the first practices legalized by Sharia Law.

The Qu’ran demands Islamic control—via Sharia Law—over civil authority. Consider for a moment that murder, slavery, and prostitution are all endorsed by the Qu’ran. Here’s the rub. The passages from the Qur’an above are taken word-for-word. Which means those who follow this faith system find themselves in one of three possible categories: (1) They agree with them and try to abide by them; or (2) They know they are there but don’t practice this part of their faith; or (3) They don’t know they are in there because they are unfamiliar with the actual teachings of the Qur’an. Friends, all three of these categories are unacceptable! To practice this behavior toward women is appalling. To not actually hold firm to the tenets of your belief system is cowardly. And to not know what your belief system actually teaches is unconscionable!

Do these teachings sound like the Golden Rule? Are these practices reflected in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Is this what we want our children to be “tolerant” of in the classroom?

Having spent some time studying this religion, two glaring issues should not be overlooked: (1) Muslims are not assured of redemption (in fact Allah can change his mind even in heaven regarding someone). Having said that, there is one exception: The only “sure fire” way to know you are heaven bound is to die in the service of Allah! How does this compare to “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). Simply put, Muslims can never “know” unless they are committing an act of martyrdom. Martyrdom is thus a welcomed event to many (because they perceive suicide bombing as a ticket to heaven); and (2) while the media claims Islam is peaceful religion, their goal is world dominance. “He it is who sent his messenger….that he may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religions” Qu’ran 9:33. The blood of Christ and the blood of Jihad stand in direct contradiction to one another.

New Testament Christians need to learn to use quotes from Mohammed’s Qu’ran to undermine Muslim confidence in him and his writings. We must share this information with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We must hold our elected officials accountable to know about this religion and the dangers of its beliefs. We must comprehend that they may be “warring” from within… and discuss the reality that massive immigration can have on our freedoms. And finally, we must realize that behind the veil is a precious soul—a soul that will one day spend eternity in either heaven or hell. Their destination will likely depend on whether or not we reach out and teach them the Truth of Jesus Christ!

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Islam and Women

Opportunities

Just Do Your Best

In Acts 3 Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer and a lame man had been left at the gate of the temple called “Beautiful” in order to beg from those who entered the temple. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple he asked them to have pity on him. Peter replies, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

opportunities

Opportunities are everywhere.

It is far too typical for many of us to simply sit around waiting for God to “open a door” for us. When I was growing up my father would often tell me that there was always work to do all I had to do was look around and see it. As Christians this is just as true. We talk about creating opportunities or waiting for opportunities when the reality is those occasions to do good deeds are all around us. All we have to do is open our eyes to what is going on.

Jesus told his disciples “Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest!” When we finally take the blinders of selfishness, pride, and laziness off we will be more aware of the physical and spiritual needs of others we encounter every day. So, when we become aware of these opportunities what do we do? Nothing great, just do your best:

  1. Do What You Can: In our text Peter tells the man that he has no money to give but what he did have that he would give. Too often we only see what we can’t do and not what we can. Sometimes we feel that if we can’t do something great what little we may contribute is meaningless. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Few are able to do anything great, but God can do great things through us. Just do what you can and stop making excuses.
  1. Where You Are: Notice that Peter and John were going into the temple to pray. They were just going about their daily lives. They didn’t have to be sent on some great mission trip or to embark on the most popular new program. They just had to open their eyes to what was going on around them where they were. Where is the best place for you and I to be in order to serve God and others? Where we are right now!
  1. With What You Have: “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you:” God blesses each of us with physical, financial, and spiritual blessings. We all have something to contribute and God expects us to be good stewards of what He has given us. In fact, our eternal destiny depends on our faithful stewardship of those blessings. How each of us should long to hear those beautiful words, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord” (Matthew 25:21, 23).

In Acts 3 Peter takes the man by the hand, lifts him up and immediately “his feet and ankle bones received strength.” He stood up and walked and entered the temple with them “walking, leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God.” God can do great things through you and I today if we just do our best, where we are, with what we have!

Posted in Tim Dooley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Opportunities