The Law of Forgiveness

“The Bible commands us to forgive, but that doesn’t mean that I will forget.”

There are so many things wrong with that statement it is difficult to know where to start. Let’s just say that anyone making that kind of statement does not really understand forgiveness.

Have you ever asked one of these questions about forgiveness?

• When must I forgive a person?
• Under what circumstances must I forgive?
• Must I forgive a person who is not sorrowful?
• Must I forgive a person who does not repent?
• Must I forgive a person who commits the same sin over and over?

The Jews believed that a person did not have to forgive after three times. Peter was undoubtedly aware of this when he asked Jesus if a person should forgive up to seven times. (He probably thought he was being generous with his limitation.)

Jesus used a parable in to explain forgiveness (Matthew 18). There are a number of elements present in the parable; law was not one of them. In other words, forgiveness is not about obedience to law, any law.

One key element involved in forgiveness is debt. A person who has no debt (or sin debt) has no need of forgiveness. A person who is not indebted to me cannot be forgiven by me; they owe me nothing.

If an official releases a prisoner before his debt to society is paid, it is called a pardon, not forgiveness. The (crime) debt goes unpaid and justice is not served.

Forgiveness is about justice with regard to debt payment, but the payment is actually made by the one who is owed the debt. In Jesus’ parable, a servant owed his master a tremendous debt that he could not possibly repay. The master released the servant from his obligation. But we must recognize that the master never received his money. So, he is the one who paid the debt by absorbing the debt that was owed him.

There are three other elements present. 

• The master had compassion on his servant: mercy. 
• By taking responsibility for the servant’s debt, the master basically gifted the servant the full amount: grace. 
• By his actions, the master restored the relationship between himself and his servant so that there was no longer any indebtedness: love.

Withholding the penalty for indebtedness is mercy. Paying the debt is grace. And preserving the relationship is love. So, ultimately, in forgiveness justice is served and the relationship preserved. Mercy, grace, love and justice are all attributes of God.

Then the Lord passed by in front of him (Moses) and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

--Exodus 34:6-7

When a person commits a wrong against me personally, then questions of forgiveness arise. The questions are not: When? Whether? How often? How many times? Those are all legal questions from a heart that holds on to the hurt while demanding justice for the other person: An eye-for-an-eye kind of justice.

Forgiveness is motivated by love because love is more concerned with relationships than with equity in justice. Love is merciful to release the offender from his debt against me. Love is gracious to shoulder the hurt, accept the pain and embarrassment, and pay the expense for the wrong done against me.

Love sets emotion aside. You are more important than I. The preservation of our relationship is more important than I. That’s why the law of forgiveness is love; and there are no boundaries. At least, that’s what Jesus did.

Mark Stinnett

December 18, 2022

God Gave You a Day of Rest for Him

Finger-pointing, strict adherence to the Law and religious piety; those are typical descriptions of the Pharisees of Jesus day. The origin of the Pharisees is unclear, though the sect clearly began after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, probably around the 2nd Century B.C.

The Pharisees were not priests, but were devoted to the Law of Moses. Their own experts, the scribes, became the teachers of the Law. Their teachings, known as the traditions of the elders, were passed orally to successive generations. The traditions were eventually written down between the 3rd and 6th centuries A.D.

In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees were highly regarded by the people for their devotion to the Law. Their poor reputation came partly from their tendency to stand aloof from anyone who was not a Pharisee. They were also known to be judgmental of those who did not keep the Law and the traditions as carefully as they did.

Of particular interest to the Pharisees was the Sabbath, one of the Ten Commandments. And if that was not enough for serious consideration…

Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.

—Exodus 31:14

With such consequences it is understandable why strict instructions developed. No one wanted to be guilty of breaking the Sabbath. So, there were rules about the definition of work, how far a person could walk on the Sabbath, how much they could carry, how work animals were to be fed and used, etc. These additional laws were, at least at first, meant for the good of the people. They were meant to give practical application to the Sabbath commandment.

However, over time, the rules became a burden and overshadowed the purpose of the law.

Do you know the purpose of the Sabbath?

The word sabbath literally means rest (not seventh). Though set in place in the creation sequence, the Sabbath Day was not explained in the Bible until the Law of Moses. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a day of rest from their work, and it included rest for their servants and work animals. It was a day that was “holy to the Lord.” In other words, it was a day that was to be set aside for the Lord.

Jesus understood the purpose of the Sabbath when He said: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27) With that, let me share a few non-legalistic observations about the biblical Sabbath (rest day):

• Jesus did not assign a specific rest day for his followers, nor did His Apostles.
• If Jesus had commanded Sunday to be the Christian rest day, human tendency would be to make additional laws regulating that day.
• The rest day was set in place at creation. So, it was not intended for the Israelites only, and not just for ancient times.
• Without a sabbath day, man would foolishly work 24/6/365. (And that’s no typo.)
• Participating in work and entertainment is not the same as setting a day aside for God.
• God did not categorize work into job, work at home, and play (like we do). All of that is still man’s work. He asked that we stop our efforts and give Him...just one day a week.

Think about your Sabbath. It is not about resting rules, but rather, your relationship with your God. Do you think two or three hours on a Sunday is a day? On what day do you rest from all your activity in order to maintain and nurture your relationship with God?

Mark Stinnett

December 11, 2022

What is the Opposite of Drunkenness?

It was time for our drink order. We could have water, soft drinks, tea, coffee, milk, juice, beer, or wine—some with or without lemon; many different flavors and different prices.

Those who drink soft drinks usually have their favorite blend and brand. There is an entire sub-culture of people who drink coffee, and some of us just don’t understand. Perhaps elsewhere, but certainly in Great Britain, tea has rules. (And yes, there are books to guide you.) Yet, with all these peculiarities and strong opinions about drink, none bleed over into the area of morality until alcohol is introduced.

Numerous Scriptures provide instruction about the consumption of alcoholic drinks. Many folks who enter into the discussion see things from a legal point of view. Biblical examples involving alcoholic beverages become case law. Conclusions drawn dictate the consumption of drinks with alcohol, their use in cooking, and even the consumption of alcohol for medicinal purposes.

In my lifetime I have known a few teetotalers, a nickname given to those who abstain completely from alcoholic beverages. Some will even refuse to use cooking wine even though the alcohol dissipates during the cooking process. Their arguments for total abstinence are strong and passionate, and most often misguided.

I have known others who were just as passionate about their liberty to drink alcoholic beverages. With only a biblical prohibition of drunkenness, they become adamant about their liberty and quite agitated with anyone who would threaten it. Their passion and reasoning are also most often misguided.

Still others, drink as they wish, avoiding arguments and extreme positions, yet also avoiding understanding.

I don’t think the biblical instruction on drunkenness is there as a mere legal restriction. Neither Noah’s drunkenness nor Lot’s drunkenness should be used as case law to argue that a man can become drunken and still be righteous. We must, with clarity of mind, think! God meant for us to understand something.

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.

—Ephesians 5:18

Do we see that the opposite of drunkenness is being filled with the Spirit of God?

The Apostle Paul wrote that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). The Spirit of God dwells in each of us (Romans 8:9). In whatever way you may interpret these statements there is an intimate relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit.

Paul also wrote that the spirit of a man knows the thoughts of a man, just like the Spirit of God who knows the thoughts of God. He went on to say that we have received the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). It is of greatest importance to recognize that the mind and the spirit are intimately connected.

Applying these things, the reason we must guard ourselves from drunkenness is because intoxication effectively pushes the Holy Spirit away. There is a vital and necessary link between my mind and my God through the Holy Spirit. This is more than a moral issue or a legal point, it is about my relationship with my God.

There are multiple dimensions regarding the question of alcohol. Yet, each person must step away from the swinging pendulum of legalism and soberly consider the importance of his relationship with God.

Mark Stinnett

December 4, 2022

"If you drink one drink..."

“If you drink one drink, then you’re one drink drunk.” That was what the preacher said, and as a naïve teen, I accepted it at face value.

The preacher was warning us kids about drinking alcoholic beverages and his reasoning seemed to make sense. After all, if you drop just one drop of swamp-water into a glass of pure water, the water is no longer pure. It seemed to make sense (and it was clever)...until college.

In my college freshman biology class I learned that the liver filters out impurities, such as alcohol, so that they do not reach the blood stream. Yet, the liver has limitations. After a point, the liver is overwhelmed and alcohol gets into the blood stream and begins to affect the brain.

I looked back on the logic applied by the preacher and I changed my view. His logic did not take into account the marvelous structure of the human body. It made logical sense, but it was not accurately applied.

My church friends who had had a similar learning experience were quick to comment that “We know that drunkenness is wrong, but you cannot prove from the Bible that drinking is wrong as long as you avoid drunkenness.”

They made a good legal point, and that is what this is all about, thinking about the Bible only in terms of law. It is called legalism, and a person could be very strict in their legal thinking or very liberal. The 'conservative' preacher and my 'liberal-thinking' fiends were all legalists because they treated the Bible as a law code and interpreted it in terms of legal commands of legal restrictions and legal liberties.

That was one of the problems with the Pharisees. When they saw the disciples of Jesus walking through a wheat field and taking some grain to eat, they accused them of violating the Sabbath. The disciples were not out in the field working. Yet, on a technical point, it could be argued that by taking grain from a standing wheat stalk they had harvested. Therefore, they were judged to be guilty! Legalism.

Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees on a legal point but responded, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)The Sabbath was never meant to be a point of legal contention, but a day that God assigned for man to rest from his work. Yet, some had taken the Sabbath command and made it into an elaborate legal system full of restrictions.

Peter did the same thing when he posed a question to Jesus about forgiveness. He asked if he should forgive his brother seven times. (The general teaching of the Jews set a limit at three.) Peter probably thought he was being quite generous. However, though liberal in his thinking, he was still placing a restriction on forgiveness, a (generous) legal restriction. Jesus responded by telling Peter that there is no restriction on forgiveness.

God’s word is not a legal document, but rather, a revelation of His divine character. If you want to understand the prohibition of drunkenness, consider the character of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 5:18) If you want to know what the Sabbath is all about and how to apply that in your own life, ponder the activity of God during creation week. (Genesis 1 & 2.) If you want to fully understand Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness, open your eyes to the nature of God. (Exodus 34:6-7; Matthew 23:37; Luke 23:33-49)

It ought to awaken our minds when we realize that the Law of Christ, the Law of Liberty, and the Royal Law are all in reference to “love your neighbor as yourself.” God created us in His own image, and the way we respond to his instruction reflects our relationship with Him.

Are you a conservative legalist? A liberal legalist? A mainline legalist?

Or, stepping away from the legalism pendulum, are you being transformed into the image of Christ?

Mark Stinnett

November 27, 2022

Why Is It So Hard To Choose?

One of the most brutal and paralyzing realities of life is that of choices.

Yes, we make all kinds of choices every day. Many are natural: I’m thirsty, so I choose to drink a cup of coffee, a soft drink, a glass of water. I’m getting a bit drowsy at my desk, so I take a brisk five-minute walk, or I take 20 minutes for a power nap. I choose to bring my lunch, or instead grab a quick indigestible fast food snack, or eat with a friend, or just have another glass of water.

Those are all easy choices. They each have consequences, but not especially harmful. So, we generally do not consider the consequences for these things. We choose. We go on with life.

Some choices are much more serious and require forethought or careful research. Examples might include making a major purchase such as a refrigerator or oven, a car or a house. With sufficient research we feel confident that our choice has minimized the risk of future disappointment and needless costs.

Still, other choices are quite daunting. It’s just not possible to be a doctor and a fireman and a baseball pitcher all at the same time. There has to be a career choice. While many people change careers, they choose one at a time. And each potential career comes with risks. At the very start there is the uncertainty of making it onto a chosen career path. The required intelligence or skill or creativity might be more than a person possesses or can reasonably develop.

Making a career choice also comes with the risk of failure. We all know that failure in one’s career is far more serious than ordering the wrong meal at the drive-thru. A failed career will most likely have long-lasting consequences, not to mention the emotional stress of failure.

A choice to go down one path means that other paths are not chosen. Our mind tells us that we will miss out on some things because of the paths we did not choose. “Would I have been a better dentist than a fireman?!”

The same fears enter into choosing a mate. A young adult thinks, “What if I choose the wrong person to marry?” Remember this: God rules, not destiny and He allows you to choose. Do you know why your choice for a mate will work? You choose faithfulness! Then, you apply genuine love with all the choices in marriage.

Every time we stand at a ‘Y’ in the road to make a choice, we decided to go down one path and not all the others. In doing so we accept one set of unknowns over others.

I find it completely mystifying that some people do not choose Jesus? Yet, for those who are in Christ Jesus there are promises from our Creator.

• Provisions in this life (Matthew 6:33)
• A new start (Romans 6:4; John 3:3)
• Adoption as sons of God (Romans 8:16)
• God’s Spirit to intercede for us and help us (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:26; John 14:16)
• A direct line to God (Jeremiah 33:3)
• Purification from sin (2 Peter 1:9)
• Partaking in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
• Protection from Satan (1 Corinthians 10:13)
• Forgiveness if there is sin (1 John 1:9)
• Resurrection from the dead (Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15)
• Eternal life (John 3:36; 11:35)

Faith in self comes without promise, but only uncertainties. Self-love gives me comfort only in knowing that I am in the majority. Yet, for the few who choose Jesus, there is great confidence in God’s promises. And there is life...eternal!


Mark Stinnett

November 20, 2022

Salting the Oats

You’ve heard the saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” (Chuckle) Someone added, “But you CAN salt the oats.” (Hahaha!) Applied to people the saying suggests that a person might be presented a good choice, yet refuse it. And yet, there are ways to help them make that choice (salting the oats).

Many churches have used this strategy to draw people in. They recognize the declining interest in church and respond by adding salt to the oats. In other words, they manipulate people by attempting to create a thirst for church. That thirst is created through playful preaching, music ministries, service programs, children’s programs, pageants, plays, block parties, family activities and all kinds of feedings.

The salt in the oats creates thirst in the horse, but it is manufactured. The horse is manipulated in a way that will produce a desired behavior. Take away the salt and you’re back where you started...a horse that won’t drink, not because he’s stubborn, but because he not thirsty.

Applied to churches, it is a kind of bait-and-switch manipulation. It is as if a small committee met in a dimly lit room and worked out an ingenious plan: “We’ll offer them all the things that appeal to them. Then, when we’ve got them all together, we’ll give them Jesus!” It is a manipulation, false advertising.

Jesus rebuked a crowd of people who were following Him for food (John 6). He knew that they were following their stomachs. They stopped following Jesus when the gravy train stopped. Why? Because there was no genuine love for Jesus; no genuine faith in Him and His word. Jesus showed that by removing false incentives a person’s faith would be revealed.

In and of themselves, made-up ministries and programs and activities are fine. Yet, Jesus said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” (John 12:32) Made-up ministries and programs and activities do not produce faith. Remove the incentive and people return to the way they were.

My mind keeps returning to the crowd of followers in John 6. Jesus taught the people and, out of compassion he fed the people. Yet, Jesus knew their hearts. So, through His teaching He placed them at a figurative “Y” in the road. He confronted them with the truth of their desire by placing in front of them true food, His body, and true drink, His blood. He was using a figure of speech to refer to spiritual food, but the people did not understand and were repulsed.

Jesus offered true spiritual food. 

The crowd was only interested in belly-food.

Jesus turned to His disciples and asked, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Jesus was not good at marketing. He practically invited them to leave! And yet, He forced His disciples to face the same “Y” in the road. His question was a faith question: “Are you hungry like all the rest? Will you follow only if I keep providing belly-food? Or, are you spiritually hungry?”

Will you follow only if…

• ...there is a youth/women’s/men’s ministry?
• ...there is a Christmas/Easter extravaganza?
• ...there is an exciting music ministry (band)?
• ...there is an eloquent, humorous speaker?

We are not in the business of filling our church pews just to create the illusion of faith. Rather, we must lift up Jesus, our crucified Christ, our risen Savior, our King eternal.

Jesus said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Reflecting on your life, what are you lifting up???

Mark Stinnett

November 13, 2022

Exception-Based Christianity

One year, after introducing the concept of probability to my junior high math class, students began quizzing me about the lottery. We first calculated the astronomically small probability of winning with one ticket. The next idea was that of purchasing enough tickets to insure a win. After two days of exploring the investment in time, labor and money to pull off such a feat, we all agreed that it was next to impossible. And yet, we all marveled that local and national lotteries announced winners. In each case, the winner appeared to be an exception.

The big take-away for my students was that if you really expect to win the lottery, you are boldly (or foolishly) asserting that you think you will be the exception to the huge improbability.
(I don’t think my mathematical proof for the foolishness of speeding was as great a success.)

Young people often live as if they will be the exception. They will not be the one to...

• Get caught (shoplifting/speeding);
• Get hurt (diving into dark water);
• Lose money (on risky investments); or
• Fail (at an unlikely endeavor).

Life seems to be full of exceptions. Just look! People are winning the lottery all the time.

Let me insert here that the marketing of the exception (intentionally or otherwise) can easily skew one’s sense of reality. So, a person’s keen skills of observation might be based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

So, what does all this have to do with Christianity? Some people carry over into Christianity the same exceptional mentality. In other words, some Christians live as if they will be the exception to the clear teachings found in Scripture.

Let me continue with an example…

Have you ever read Bible verses about lying?

• Is lying ever approved? Is lying good?
• A lying tongue is found on a list of things that God hates. (Proverbs 6:17)
• “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.” (Proverbs 12:22)
• “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who tells lies will perish.” (Proverbs 19:9)
• God’s people believed the false prophets but called Jeremiah a liar when he spoke God’s word. (Jeremiah 27, 28, 29, 43) God held them accountable for their foolishness.
• Jesus referred to the devil as the father of lies. (John 8:44)
• Lying is explicitly condemned three times in the book of Revelation (21:8, 27; 22:15).
• It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18); it is against His nature.

So, how strong is a defense for lying by pointing to Rahab the harlot who lied about hiding the Israelite spies at the time of Joshua? (See Joshua 2:1-7) Does Rahab the exception teach us that there are times when lying is justified?

Even if we think we can justify Rahab’s lie, it does not justify your lie. Lying is sin. That is the consistent teaching in Scripture.

To teach our children that it’s ok to lie (even sometimes) would be no different than teaching that there is no right and wrong, that life is full of moral exceptions. An exception-based approach to Scripture would inevitably call for a whole new branch of moral instruction on how and when to apply exceptions.

We must not go beyond what is written in scripture. 

Would you risk your soul on a perceived exception???

Think...In what other areas would this kind of reasoning apply?


Mark Stinnett

November 6, 2022

Your Conscience: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

What kind of conscience do you have??

Everyone has a conscience. Since we have a conscience, we make moral decisions, unlike animals which operate on instinct. So, we are able to choose to follow our instinctive animal nature, or pursue the nature of God.

The conscience has two primary functions:

• Provide moral guidance; and
• Evaluate moral behavior.

The trouble with the conscience is that it may not function properly!

A good conscience is able to identify things that are morally good as morally good, and likewise, morally bad things as bad. For example, when Joseph was seduced by his boss’s wife, he refused her, remarking that such a thing would be a sin against God (Genesis 39:7-9). His good conscience identified sin as sin, and that was good.

Years later, after King David had committed adultery with Bathsheba, he was confronted by Nathan, a prophet of God. In his guilt, David confessed his sin against God (2 Samuel 12:1-15). David expressed the effect of his guilty conscience in the 32nd Psalm:

When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groanings all day long.

—Psalm 32:3

This was an example of a good conscience that had been violated. Yet, his good conscience did its job by making David feel guilt for his sin until he had properly addressed his sin.

Solomon described the hearts of sinners. They devise evil plans, yet speak about their evil as if it is a normal or good thing. Their consciences interchange good and evil, so, an example of a bad conscience. (Proverbs 1) As a result, their consciences do not alert them to sin and stop them from sinning. Also, after committing sin, their consciences do not cause guilt feelings.

In Scripture a good conscience may be described with the words pure, clean, blameless, or perfect (i.e. mature, complete), but never clear, at least, not in the Greek text of the New Testament.

However, some translators interpret the text and use clear conscience in passages such as 1 Timothy 3:9 and 2 Timothy 1:3 where the Greek adjective is pure; or Acts 23:1, Hebrews 13:18, 1 Peter 3:16 & 21 where the Greek adjective is good; or Acts 24:16 where the Greek adjective is blameless.

Why all the fuss? Why suggest in the title that a clear conscience is ugly?

[Pardon the connection to the old spaghetti western.]

A clear conscience is unpredictable, and therefore, unreliable. When a person has done what is morally right and the conscience is clear, everything is fine. There are no guilt feelings, nor should there be.

However, moral decisions and moral behavior are good or bad. There are no such things as clear moral decisions or clear moral behavior. In reality, a clear conscience does not provide moral guidance before deciding or acting. It only renders a “Not Guilty” verdict after acting. For that reason, a person could commit a sin, yet feel no guilt because of a clear conscience. Sin without guilt feelings from a clear conscience is indeed ugly, and actually a bad conscience in disguise.

A clear conscience promises guilt-free living, but not godly living. If we sin, we need a good conscience to pierce our hearts with guilt so that we are driven to God confessing our sin.

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

—1 John 1:9

Yet, a clear conscience will confess no sin!

What kind of conscience do you have?

Mark Stinnett

October 30, 2022

Correct Me, If I’m Wrong

"Correct me, if I'm wrong," he said.

I'm not always sure if a person is sincere when I hear such a comment. After all, I have attempted to correct someone after hearing such a statement, but it did not turn out as I expected.

Here’s wisdom that applies:

Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you,

Reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

--Proverbs 9:8

Have you ever felt that you needed to correct someone, but you were afraid of how they might react? That’s not uncommon. Many folks are non-confrontational, and with good reason. Relationships have become strained or broken when trying to correct another.

No one wants to face the scoffer when he is corrected. It might result in…

• Anger over being corrected.
• Denial of a problem and complete refusal of correction;
• Accusations cast toward the one correcting;
• Colorful speech in response;
• A dismissive attitude toward the one offering correction;
• Excuses to explain (i.e. justify) the behavior.

Because of the potential reaction of the scoffer, many folks prefer not to engage in the correction of anyone, even a wise man.

Yet, what is the outcome when there is no correction? If a person has done wrong but is not corrected, then there are two lies being told:

• The one who is in the wrong, but refuses correction, behaves as if everything is fine when it is not.
• The one who refrains from correcting another has hidden the truth out of fear.

Both lies avoid reality.

Solomon gives us insight into the possible outcome of correcting another person. However, we should not assume one thing or another. A gentle revelation of the truth with wise words may reveal a scoffer or a wise man. Either way, you have done right by not hiding the truth.

If you have revealed a scoffer, follow Solomon's advice and avoid correcting him/her in the future. Also remember, even wise men may not enjoy being corrected at first. It might take some time for the wise man to come around. So, don’t be too quick to judge.

Here are a couple of verses of Scripture that may help to encourage correction:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

—2 Timothy 3:16-17

My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

—James 5:19-20

Always approach correction with the right attitude. Correction is not for gloating, setting the record straight or standing in judgment. Correction is for the benefit of another’s soul.

Also, when you are on the receiving end, i.e. the one being corrected, stop talking and listen. It might be that you ARE wrong. It might be that you NEED correction...for the good of your soul.

Be humble.

Be courageous.

Be wise.

Mark Stinnett

October 23, 2022

Why Was the King Angry?

Nebuchadnezzar
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had built an impressive gold statue that stood 90 feet high. He had invited all the rulers of his empire to a dedication of the statue. At a certain moment, all kinds of musical instruments were to be played and everyone was to bow to the statue. Three young Jewish men who were in attendance did not bow and the king was angry!

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were brought before the king and given a second chance. In so many words they respectfully declined the formality of a second chance, indicating that they would not bow.

“Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with wrath, and his facial expression was altered….” We might say that the king was livid! (Daniel 3.)

David
King David had sinned. He had committed adultery with Bathsheba and the two had just gone on living their lives. Later, God sent the prophet Nathan to confront David.

Nathan told about a rich man that stole a lamb from a poor man in order to entertain a traveling guest. David reacted in great anger saying:

He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion. 

—2 Samuel 12:6

Nathan’s story was only an illustration of what David had done by taking Bathsheba. But note David’s response. There is no question but that David would have had the sentence carried out. After all, kings were like a one-man supreme court at that time, the ultimate judge.

Do you see a difference in the two kings’ anger?

Nebuchadnezzar was angry when the three Jewish men disobeyed. But there was more to it. The king had not receive the honor that he had expected. The statue was erected by him and the occasion was set up to honor him. The king’s anger was actually self-centered.

In contrast, David’s anger stemmed from the injustice against the poor man. His anger was not about himself, but about a wrong that, as king, he could set right.

Three Lessons Drawn from the Kings’ Anger:
First, when your anger is focused on a perceived injustice toward yourself (selfish anger), good will never come of it. Oh, sure, you might get your way, but there is nothing noble or godly about that. Parents, DO NOT reward your children for selfish anger. You will reinforce that attitude, but it is an attitude that God rejects!

Second, there are injustices for which anger is justified. Parents, wake up! Your anger for your child’s disobedience or dishonor IS justified; disobedience or dishonor toward parents is sin. The same could be said about other sins. Parents, until your children are old enough to learn God’s instruction, you are their law. Your anger for their sin is just, but, you must not be controlled by anger. If you discipline in anger you child will associate your anger with discipline, and that is not what you want to teach.

Third, anger seems justified when it is about an injustice in life. However, if that injustice does not directly affect you or you can do nothing about it, your anger is meaningless. You might even be surprised to find that many of your friends and family either laugh at you or prefer to avoid you when you are constantly angry about all the many injustices in life. Fruitless anger makes you look foolish...because you are!

More often than not, anger is sin. 

Stop trying to defend it; 

   rather, control it,  

      or better, avoid it.


Mark Stinnett

October 16, 2022

Can You Trust Anger?

People often intentionally adopt specific behaviors or attitudes because they are confident they will bring about a favorable result. For example, a person adopts a strong work ethic because he believes that over time consistent, high quality, hard work will pay off. The pay-off might be financial security or a good reputation or something else of benefit.

Some people value the ability to find a good deal when buying and selling in order to make or save money. Some people value ongoing education whether it involves further coursework, hands-on training or personal study/reading in order to maintain a top professional standing. Some value a quick wit, perhaps for the laughter it gives others or for the attention they receive for themselves.

There are many things in life that have some measure of value, but I have never heard anyone explain the value of anger. You see, the examples presented above have value because of the benefits received. One might say that people place their trust in things of value which they perceive will provide an expected benefit or result. But what about anger?

I’ve heard many people attempt justify anger or defend anger. I suppose there are times when anger is justified. Yet, again, what is its benefit? What is the purpose of anger? What do you expect to gain by being angry?

Let me continue by ruling one thing out…

But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

— James 1:19-20

A person can make a case for anger in order to justify anger from the past, present or future. However, anger will never achieve righteousness. In the Bible, righteousness is one of those things that you really want. In fact, Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20) He also said that the righteous will inherit eternal life! (Matthew 25:46) So, anger doesn’t really promise any kind of benefit with regard to God.

If you think about the last time you became angry, or think about things that make you angry, what would you say? Are there things that you think you should be angry about?

Most people are bothered by injustice. One might describe an injustice as being unfair or not right. That is actually how God created us; to be bothered by the injustices of life. And yet, giving oneself over to anger because of injustice accomplishes nothing good, not righteousness.

God’s wrath was brought against injustices toward the poor, the needy and widows (Isaiah 10:2; Ezekiel 16:49). Yet, it should be observed, that God took action. He did not just gripe about it. Other injustices might be put in the same category. However, anger gives no benefit.

This point is magnified when one’s anger is not so noble, that is, not motivated by injustices against others. It is my observation that anger is more often motivated by injustices that people perceive to be against themselves. They feel that they have been treated unfairly. It is seen in an angry scowl of disapproval, a child’s disobedient temper tantrum, or, far worse, the murder of another human being.

In most cases anger is a knee-jerk reaction. So, before getting angry again, stop and think about all the benefits of anger. Then, ask yourself, “Can I trust anger to give me anything good?”

Mark Stinnett

October 9, 2022

The Last Homecoming

Do you look at the Second Coming as a moment to be dreaded or a more like a homecoming?

God doesn’t tell us everything there is to tell about the Second Coming of Jesus and the final judgment of mankind. So, it is not surprising (and not helpful) that some people use their imagination to answer questions of curiosity.

So, what are some things the Bible tells us about that great day?

One verse tells us that everything which is hidden will be judged, whether good or bad (Ecclesiastes 12:14). Another says that we will give an account for every careless word (Matthew 12:36). Yet another tells us that our deeds are recorded in books and we will be judged by the things written in those books (Revelation 20:12). These and similar passages can give us a sense of dread thinking that God will dredge up all of our past sins.

In contrast, we read other passages that tell us that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Quoting the psalmist, Paul reminded us, “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” (Romans 4:8). Looking forward to the new covenant, a reference to Christianity, God has said, “I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). Then, the Apostle John recorded the words of Jesus: “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 judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24) These and similar passages give Christians hope and assurance.

The bulk of passages about divine judgment are negative because they are directed to individuals, cities and nations that had left the path of righteousness. These were God’s warnings of harsh discipline, punishment or destruction if people did not turn from their wickedness. Many of the things written about the final judgment of mankind are similar.

Isn’t it wonderful that God gives warnings?!

Now, what are we to do with all the negative and positive passages? Is there harmony?

It is instructional to understand what it means to give an account. In a parable in Matthew 18, Jesus told of a king who called in his slaves to give an account. The picture was that of the slaves presenting to the king the result of their work. Later, in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25) we see something similar. Three slaves had been entrusted with sums of money by their master. Upon his return from a trip, he called the slaves forward to settle accounts. They did not enumerate every transaction but simply presented to their master the results of their business dealings. The master had entrusted each slave with his money. Each one was expected to use the master’s money to carry out his will.

Judgment Day is the day that God will settle accounts with us. He has given us life and various abilities. His expectation is that we let our light shine in such a way that those around us may see our good works and glorify God.

We are now alive in Christ and purified from sin. Remember that confessed sins are not hidden sin, but forgiven sins (1 John 1:9). And forgiven sins will not be remembered (Jeremiah 31:34).

Homecomings are events that we enjoy and anticipate with gladness, whether it is a family event for the holidays or a community or church celebrating an anniversary. Our spiritual homecoming will begin when Jesus returns. It will be the greatest homecoming of all; it will be the last homecoming because we will be home...forever.


Mark Stinnett

October 2, 2022

Did Jesus Ever Visit Hell?

Jesus in Hell?! Preposterous!

Yet, that is exactly what is said in Acts 2:27...in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.*

Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell….

Now, before going any further, the Greek text has the word for Hades (hadays). So, did the translators of the KJV err? 

Perhaps not.

Two English words developed from a German ancestor that meant, a covered place:

• Hall: a covered (with a roof) place; and
• Hell: a covered (with earth) place.

Considering that people are buried in the ground after death, a covered with earth place (hell) describes the place of the dead. That is true in many cultures including that of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks. So, both the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades referred to the place of the dead, or the underworld. Clearly, the original meaning of the English word hell fit both Sheol and Hades. So, at one time the word hell would have been a natural choice for translators.

Did the KJV translators think that hell meant place of the dead or underworld? It is impossible to read minds, but they did use the English word hell to translate the Hebrew word Sheol in 31 of its 65 occurrences. In the New Testament the English word hell was used to translate the Greek word Hades in all occurrences but one. So, it would appear that the KJV translators were using the original meaning of the English word hell.

Modern translations, however, now use the word hell fairly consistently for the eternal destruction of the ungodly after the final judgment. For that reason, the text of Acts 2:27 in modern translations reads as follows:

You will not abandon my soul to Hades….

With a better understanding why the KJV has the word hell in Acts 2:27, let’s reword the question for today using modern translations:

Did Jesus ever visit Hades?

To answer, first remember that Hades is not for the righteous, but the unrighteous dead. Their final destination will be the lake of fire.

Next, consider the text of Acts 2:27. Peter was preaching and quoted an Old Testament prophecy in reference to Jesus. The quotation was a plea that the soul of Jesus would not be abandoned in Hades. That suggests that Jesus was in Hades at some point.

Shortly after that prophetic statement Peter proclaimed that God had raised Jesus from the dead (v. 32). So, the resurrection of Jesus shows that He was not abandoned in Hades. Yet, it also suggests that Jesus was in Hades for the time between His death and His resurrection. Does that make sense?

The prophet Isaiah looked forward to the coming Messiah saying that He would bear the sins of many. Validating its fulfillment Peter wrote:

He [Jesus] Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness…. 

—1 Peter 2:24

Since Jesus “bore our sins,” He went to Hades after His death. However, the sins He bore were not His own. So, He did not deserve death and He did not deserve Hades. It is for that reason that God did not abandon Him in Hades. So, “Yes,” Jesus did go to Hades temporarily, so that we would not have to suffer eternal death.

That is why, on the day Jesus was crucified, people heard that heart-wrenching cry...

My God! My God! Why have you forsaken Me?

He was forsaken by God...but not abandoned!

Mark Stinnett

September 25, 2022


*The Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), an official English translation of the Roman Catholic Church, also used the word hell in Acts 2:27.

The Pit and Divine Judgment

In previous weeks I have explored a number of biblical terms referring to destinations in the afterlife, such as Sheol and Hades. These have accompanied the current sermon series on 'Judgment.' A less familiar judgment term is the pit. It is often used in the Bible as a parallel to Sheol, but also connects to other biblical terms that are relevant. Let’s see what the Bible says about the pit.

There are eleven different Hebrew words that are translated pit. In each case the meaning could simply refer to a hole in the ground. You can imagine how the word pit could be used to refer to an open grave. For that reason, pit is sometimes used in Hebrew poetry as a parallel to the grave, death or Sheol.

However, out of the 148 occurrences of Hebrew pit terms, 94 occurrences appear in the context of imprisonment or destruction, often in prophetic warnings of divine judgment. Examples:

• Judgment against Babylon: “You will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:15)
• Judgment against Moab, “The one who flees from the terror will fall into the pit, and the one who climbs up out of the pit will be caught in the snare.” (Jeremiah 48:44) i.e. There is no escape from divine judgment.
• Judgment against the king of the city of Tyre: “They [invading nations] will bring you down to the pit, and you will die the death of those who are slain.” (Ezekiel 28:8)

Outside of a few literal uses of the word pit in the New Testament, it is used in Revelation 9 in reference to a bottomless pit. In John’s vision an angel of God held the key to the bottomless pit and was told to release destructive locusts. The locusts were allowed to torment (but not kill) the ungodly people on earth for five months. The bottomless pit was also referred to as the abyss (v. 11). The king over the abyss is named Abaddon (Hebrew) and Apollyon (Greek) (v. 11), both names meaning destruction.

Much earlier a large number of demons begged Jesus not to command them to go into the abyss (Luke 8:31). In Matthew’s parallel account the demons ask Jesus if He was about to torment them before “the time” (8:29). This appears to be the same abyss seen in the book of Revelation.

There is one other similar use of the term pit* that is parallel in meaning to the abyss. In 2 Peter 2:4 we read: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment….” In this case the word hell is the Greek word Tartarus and is described as pits of darkness. A parallel statement written by Jude will add to our understanding: “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day….” (v. 6)

Connections and Conclusion:

• Tartarus (pits of darkness) is a place for sinful angels (not humans). There they are kept in eternal bonds until judgment.
• The abyss (bottomless pit) is a place of torment and is associated with Tartarus. Demons are destined for the abyss. Though its king is named destroyer, an angel of God holds the key to the abyss, therefore showing God’s ultimate authority over the abyss.
• When the pit is used in judgment prophecy it is applied to the ungodly as an inescapable place, death or destruction.

So, the pit is often used in judgment prophecy for destruction. There is a pit that is referred to as the bottomless pit, also called the abyss. That is descriptive of Tartarus, a kind of Hades for sinful angels and demons, before their final destruction in the lake of fire. For Christians, these things help to round our our understanding of the spiritual realm and how God deals with evil. However, we can rest easy knowing that these things are not a threat to those who belong to God.

Mark Stinnett

September 18, 2022

*The abyss is also found in Romans 10:7, but as a reference to Hades. This appears to be an exception to the way it is used in other passages in the Bible.

What Does the Bible Say about Purgatory?

The word Purgatory is not found in the Bible. So, some folks would prefer that I answer the title question by leaving a long blank space. However, the word trinity is not in the Bible either, yet most Christians believe in a three-person Godhead: God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, perhaps, like the term trinity, the concept of Purgatory is somewhere in the Bible.

What is Purgatory?

The word Purgatory comes from the Latin word purgare, meaning, to cleanse, or purge. It is defined as a place where a person temporarily suffers after death in order to expiate (i.e. atone for) his sins. (Webster) In Roman Catholicism it is a place for those who have died in a state of grace. (Encyclopedia Britannica) Souls are sent to Purgatory because they have not been purged (purified) of unforgiven venial sins. Venial sins are pardonable less offensive sins to God. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)

Souls in Purgatory are believed to be cleansed of their sins by suffering and by the aid of the living who are faithful. Aid is given through prayers, fasting, almsgiving, sacrifices, indulgences and other pious works. Once atonement is made, the soul can be released from Purgatory.

Where Did the Teaching Originate?

The teaching of Purgatory appears to have originated from a passage found in an apocryphal book*, 2 Maccabees 12:45. Judas Maccabee “offered an atoning sacrifice to free the dead from their sin.” This was to benefit soldiers who had died in battle defending the Jews.

However, the doctrine of Purgatory was not officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church until the Middle Ages at the Council of Lyon (1245). It was never a part of the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

Is the Doctrine of Purgatory Biblical?

The doctrine of Purgatory states that a person must pay for unforgiven sins through suffering and/or the pious works of the living. However, consider...

My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 

—1 John 2:1-2

So, according to the Apostle John, Jesus is our propitiation, that is, the sacrifice offered to atone for sins. In addition, the Hebrew writer emphasized that Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice “once for all.” In other words, His sacrifice was sufficient so that additional sacrifices for sin are simply not necessary. (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12)

So, atonement for sin is based on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, not man. Yet, the doctrine of Purgatory says that the debt of sin can be paid by man. This contradiction is insurmountable; only one of these teachings can be correct.

Since the writings of the Apostle John and the writer of Hebrews are not in question, then the origin of the doctrine of Purgatory must be questioned. Either the book of 2 Maccabees is not authoritative, or Judas Maccabee acted on his own without divine authority. In either case, the doctrine of Purgatory lacks authoritative biblical support.

Conclusion: Purgatory is not a biblical doctrine.

Mark Stinnett

September 4, 2022

*The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church accept 2 Maccabees as authoritative. However, most, if not all, Protestant and Jewish groups do not consider apocryphal writings to have the same authority as other books of the Bible.

Who Was the Son of Man?

I know the answer to the title question; do you?
The Son of Man was Jesus.

[Short article.]
.
.
.
.
Wait! Is that all there is to it? It is true that Jesus was called the Son of Man in the New Testament, but why?

The Phrase
The phrase, son of man, appears twelve times in the Old Testament prior to the book of Ezekiel. It is often found in poetic sections as a parallel description to man.

What is 'man' that You take thought of him,
And the 'son of man' that You care for him?
—Psalm 8:4 (emphasis added)

The word human or the phrase human offspring could be inserted for son of man without loss of meaning. At times the phrase emphasized the stark contrast between man and God.

God referred to the prophet Ezekiel as son of man more than 90 times. Son of man was more descriptive of Ezekiel’s relationship with God. Ezekiel was created, not divine; an offspring of humans, not deity. Son of man did not appear to be a term of endearment; nor was it demeaning. It seemed to emphasize the great difference between God and the man Ezekiel.

As a son of man, the Spirit of God entered Ezekiel so that he could speak to God’s people. This might suggest that a mere human was not sufficient to carry the message of deity, so only with the aid of the Holy Spirit could the divine message of God be spoken.

Son of man appears next in the book of Daniel, in a prophecy about the Messiah.

The Son of Man
In Daniel’s prophecy “One like a Son of Man was coming” and the Ancient of Days, a reference to God, gave Him “dominion, Glory and a kingdom” so that all people might serve Him. (Daniel 7:13-14) The Jews accepted this to be a prophecy of the coming Messiah.

Son of Man is found in the New Testament, but almost exclusively in the gospel accounts, even then, a descriptive phrase used by Jesus in reference to Himself. With the Old Testament as a backdrop, the two-fold significance of this descriptive phrase comes into focus. However, note first that by using the phrase Son of Man in reference to Himself, Jesus was able to make true statements about Himself that did not offended the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah.

It is significant that Son of Man indicated that the Son of God was also human. Such an idea was difficult and mysterious to people then and now. There are doctrines that have denied that the Son of God was actually a human. However, Jesus boldly insisted that He was the Son of Man. He was born in the flesh and understands the human experience. (Hebrews 4:14-16)

Equally significant, by referring to himself as Son of Man, Jesus identified Himself as the prophesied Messiah. He linked Himself to the prophecy in Daniel that said that the Son of Man would receive an everlasting kingdom from God. He was the coming king. He has come. He reigns today—Son of Man and Son of God.

One other significant fact: Daniel’s prophecy was set in the context of God’s judgment. The coming of the Son of Man would mark a time of divine judgment separating the godly and the ungodly. The Son of Man came calling people to faith and repentance with divine purpose:

“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” 

—Matthew 18:11

Mark Stinnett

September 4, 2022

God of Heaven

Sometimes we treat the biblical text like a dusty old piece of literature with antiquated expressions that must be decoded. For example:

‘Son of Man’: A simple reference to Jesus.

4 Decoded.

‘God of heaven’: A simple reference to God.

4 Decoded.

However, such casual decoding often overlooks significant meaning and a deeper message for the reader. When thinking about the breadth of the Bible, one must conclude that God used an economy of words to express His message.

Perhaps we should ask why God had things written the way He did in the Bible. Why use son of man when it would have been easier and more obvious to just say Jesus? Perhaps, son of man had deeper meaning. Perhaps it connected to something of great significance.

That question will be left for a different time. For now, why say God of heaven? Why not just refer to God as...God?

The phrase God of heaven appears 25 times in the Bible, with only two occurrences in the New Testament.

Abram (Abraham) described God to his servant as the God of heaven. That distinguished God from the many gods that people of his day believed in. He was emphasizing that his God was the God over all other gods, “the God of heaven and the God of earth.” He is God of all creation!

In the book of 2 Chronicles God of heaven was used by King Cyrus of Persia in a proclamation sent out among the nations under his rule. He could have referred to God as the God of Judah or the God of the Jews. However, recognizing the beliefs of all the nations, he described God more accurately as the God of heaven, again, emphasizing that this was the true God, the God over all gods, the Creator.

That is the same way that the phrase God of heaven was used in Daniel 2 which tells of the prophetic dream of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In a land of many gods, the God of heaven had communicated to the pagan king. This was not the king’s first encounter with this God and it would not be his last.

The occurrences of God of heaven in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are similar. This identifying phrase was used in a setting where individuals from pagan nations were present. The God of heaven is not tied to a specific location on earth, a specific nation, or a specific part of creation (e.g. ocean, sky, fertility, war, etc.). The God of heaven is supreme. He is God over all.

Jonah referred to the God of heaven when on a ship full of pagans. He added that his God “made the sea and the dry land.” So, this was not a local god, but the God of creation.

Even in the book of Revelation, the identifying phrase God of heaven was used in a setting where there were pagan unbelievers.

The phrase God of heaven was used for the benefit of pagan unbelievers. So, it packs quite a punch when it appears at the end of Psalm 136. This is a psalm of thanksgiving to the God of Israel who is full of lovingkindness, i.e. the God who is loyal to His covenant promises. The reader is reminded of God’s involvement in Israel’s history. Then, the psalmist dramatically punctuated his prayer of thanksgiving in the final verse, “Give thanks to the God of heaven.”

I can only imagine how this impacted the Jewish mind as they read Psalm 136. However, I wonder if you can see an application for our day???

Mark Stinnett
August 28, 2022

Heaven Sight

Do you remember this camp/devotional song?

   Heaven is a wonderful place,
   Filled with glory and grace.
   I wanna see my Savior’s face;
   Heaven is a wonderful place.

I’ll admit that, as a youth, I liked the snappy musical part of the song, but never gave much thought to the words. To me, the idea of seeing the Lord’s face might have satisfied one’s curiosity, but it didn’t seem like a blessing.

Things changed dramatically several years ago when spending time with Moses (not literally, in Scripture).

On one occasion God had to rebuke Aaron and Miriam, Moses’ siblings. They had spoken against Moses because, in their opinion, he had not married the right gal.

God reminded the two that when He communicated with prophets, it was through visions and dreams. However, with Moses, his faithful servant, He spoke face to face, or in God’s own words “mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord.” (There’s more to the story in Numbers 12.)

Have you ever seen an investigative report on TV where the identity of the person being interviewed was kept secret? The lighting was set up so that viewers could only sees a silhouette. Still, we, the viewers, strained to study the shadowy figure in hopes of identifying him. As much as the secret identity was necessary, we still wanted to see his face. Not seeing was not knowing, and that was somewhat of a distraction.

Face to face is personal. 

     Face to face is intimate.

          Face to face is knowing.

While still at Mount Sinai, before receiving the Ten Commandments, Moses had set up a tent of meeting, that is, a place where he would go to meet with God. It was a simple man-made tent, not the God-ordained tabernacle that would be built later. Moses would enter his man-made tent of meeting, which was set up outside the Israelite encampment, and God would descend in a pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent. There God would speak to Moses while all of Israel would come out to the entrance of their tents and worship.

“Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just a a man speaks to his friend.”

—Exodus 33:11

On one occasion Moses began to describe to God the relationship between him and God and between God and Israel. He was leading up to a request that God would be their leader, not an angel or something/someone else. God agreed to personally lead Israel. He even gave a reason: “for you [Moses] have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.”

Moses, aware that God knew him by name, recognized that he had an intimate face-to-face relationship with God. Yet, as if he could stand it no longer, perhaps like a little child, Moses blurted out: “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 

He wanted to experience the very same level of face-to-face intimacy that God had with him. God tenderly explained, “I Myself will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you….” But He added, “You cannot see My face and live, for no man can see Me and live.”

At the end of the book of Revelation the Apostle John is shown the eternal city of God. He saw that in that city there was no temple, “for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” (21:22) Later John wrote: “and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bondservants will serve Him; they will see his face….” (22:3-4)

Oh to stand in the presence of God, 

Oh to see Him face to face.

Heaven IS a wonderful place.

Mark Stinnett

August 21, 2022