BEARING NO FRUIT

 Throughout the Bible trees are used as metaphors for certain people; the most obvious is Jesus as the ‘Tree of Life’ or more precisely, the ‘godhead’ as that ‘Tree.’ [1]

Without going into detail with supporting verses, the root of the Tree is the Father aspect, the ‘Vine’ or tree truck itself represents Jesus, for it can be seen, and the leaves the dynamics (Virtue) of God that represents the Holy Spirit. The flow of water from the ground possibly represents the Light of God emanating from the Father through the Son and the Holy Ghost. The leaves of that Tree are for the healing of the people (Rev 22:2).

The blind man as Jesus approached him saw Jesus just as, “trees; as men walking” (Mark 8:24). Throughout the Bible many trees were as men walking. Hence, trees are metaphors for mankind.

There was another tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden. It was known by its fruit. Its fruit was not apples at all but figs. That should be obvious because Adam made “aprons of fig leaves” from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:7). Supporting that is the fig the size of a watermelon that Adam and Eve would refuse to eat after they sinned:

Then Adam took the fig, and laid it on the golden rods.              Eve also took her fig, and put it upon the incense. And the weight of each fig was that of a water-melon; for the fruit of the garden was much larger than the fruit of this land. But Adam and Eve remained standing and fasting the whole of that night, until the morning dawned. sinned (1 Adam and Eve: XLL:1-3)

The fig was the fruit of the tree that would cause their death. How could that be? 

They felt great trouble from the food they had eaten, and to which they were not used, they went about in the cave saying to each other: "What has happened to us through eating, that this pain should have come upon us? Woe be to us, we shall die! Better for us to have died than to have eaten; and to have kept our bodies pure, than to have defiled them with food."

Then Adam said to Eve, "This pain did not come to us in the garden, neither did we eat such bad food there. Thinkest thou, O Eve, that God will plague us through the food that is in us, or that our inwards will come out; or that God means to kill us with this pain before He has fulfilled His promise to us?"

Then Adam besought the Lord and said, "O Lord, let us not perish through the food we have eaten. O Lord, smite us not; but deal with us according to Thy great mercy, and forsake us not until the day of the promise Thou hast made us."

Then God looked upon them, and at once fitted them for eating food; as unto this day; so that they should not perish. (1 Adam & Eve LXI:2-6)

 Just as God had said, eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree would cause them to die. As it turned out, when God had grace on them, they could and did eat figs for sustenance. God, with His solution protected Adam and Eve by providing them with digestive tracts.

Digestion is a process of decay over time. Perhaps sin was when decadence introduced death into the world. Something had to die for them to eat, and that something was figs. With digestion, those vibrant fruits would just wither away within their bodies.

Before sin, the man and his woman were glorious. There was no decadence (guile) in them. Time would have no effect on them. That they could eat herbs is a misrepresentation by translators (Gen 1:11). Literally, they could eat glossy things, which was perhaps manna from heaven that appeared to be hoar frost on the ground that would not decay (Exod 16:14).

The food in the Garden was manna from heaven, it seems, but they ate indigestible fruit — figs. Time began for them as the two began to wither; Eve about 900 years or so and Adam 930 years.

Now consider the saying of Jesus about the fig tree: 

And when He saw a fig tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, “Let no fruit grow on you henceforward forever.”

And presently the fig tree withered away.

And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How soon is the fig tree withered away!” (Mat 21:19:20)

 Just like Adam and his wife, the tree bore no fruit because it was like them — of the wrong tree. The ‘olive’ tree, perhaps the Tree of Life, would have born twelve manner of fruits (Rev 22:2) for the healing of the nations: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, and chastity (Gal 5:22-23; LV)

The fig tree did not have that fruit. So, what did Jesus do? He soon withered the fig tree because it bore no fruit. It was useless. It failed to even bear the bad fruit (Gal 5:19-21). Jesus would have expected it to bear some fruit even if it was bad. However, it bore no fruit at all!

It seems that Jesus was using the fig tree to represent two ideas: (1) That bearing no fruit is not any better than bearing bad fruits, and (2) that bearing no fruit would cause the tree to perish as much as bad fruit would end the same way.

For the Christian that should mean much. Looking at the fruit of the Spirit above, the Christian that has no charity, no joy, no peace, no patience and so forth, even though they were not evil, would still perish!

To prove His point, Jesus made the fig tree wither right then. Whereas Adam withered in 930 years, his punishment went unnoticed. Possibly, for them to understand that time is insignificant, He withered the fig tree right then so that they could understand what happened with Adam with the first sin, who bore no fruit!

From where does that notion come? “Adam called his wife's name ‘Eve’ because she was the mother of all living. (Gen 3:20). It was Eve’s fruit that had the seed in it to create new beings. Eve was another kind that Adam had to name, and as such, Adam’s kind is not correct; we are Eve’s kind. She is the mother of all; that is known because it was not written that Adam was the father of all! That we are humane beings is wrong. We are brutish in nature because, like Cain, we are of the Wicked One.

The fruit of Cain were those listed in Galatians 5:19-21. They were a wicked fruit, and most people bear that fruit.

How about people who are lackadaisical and are neither good nor evil? God expects everyone to show their fruit. No fruit is not good fruit, so Christians that bear no fruit will perish alongside those who bear wicked fruit. Jesus revealed that when He withered the fig tree as the proxy for non-productive Christians to make His point.

---

[1] See Herrin Daily Thoughts: The Mystery and Low Hanging Fruit (kentuckyherrin.blogspot.com)

ON CONFORMITY AND NON-COMFORMITY

 

In vogue at the present, maybe worse now since the day of Louis the XIV^th, is everyone doing their own thing and presenting their own image to the public. (see Louis in the figure below.)

If Louis was alive today, he would be a spectacle. Everyone would notice him immediately because he is dressed so gaudily, even androgenous!

He meant to stand out above the citizenry who dressed more appropriately for their class and professions. Imagine the local blacksmith dressing as if royalty; it is hard to even imagine!

Louis wanted himself to be the center of attention. So much so that he spent much on his wigs and wardrobe. Real men, as seen by most, would want to look masculine and rugged. Louis was admired by many, so much that many dressed like him, but they were more trying to identify with royalty than this vain old man.

Vanity is “inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance” (Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1982). Do you not think that Louis just might have inflated pride in both himself, and his appearance? The best guess is that Louis was a vain man.

It is likely that beneath that wig was either one or three things: a balding head, gray hair, or perhaps even lice or disease. Rather than fix what they had, since they could not, they concealed it. Louis, although covering his true appearance was still an old, balding gray-haired man beneath the façade!

What real men do is deal with it. What true woman do is deal with it. This portrait was the French monarch’s way of death becoming him, in the same manner as the modern movie, “Death Becomes Her.”

Louis was dying and so was the House of Capet. By the time the XVI^th came along, his grandson, he was mere “Citizen Louis Capet” during the First French Republic. The pomp of the royal house was circumcised and with the Revolution, sans coulottes was the style, and further royalty were reimaged as mere citizens.

The Capets all lost their pomp. Like prideful Lucifer in the beginning, their “Image” was cast out of “paradise.”

However, this commentary is neither about French royalty nor even Lucifer; it is about society today. Today’s society is little different than at any other time. In fact, mankind’s problem is not even Satan but themselves. Satan is weak and has no power to force anyone to do anything. Each man (and woman) is in it for themselves. However, everyone is born with the pompous nature of Lucifer, even Louis the XIV^th. You and I are as well but most often not to that degree.

During the 1980s I was General Motors High-Tech representative, and I played the part. When visiting my contractors and assembly plants, I would always wear a dark three-piece suit as was the custom of that time.

One day as six of us were on the elevator, I noticed that all of us were wearing black three-piece suits, and it struck me that we all looked like penguins. We had all conformed, not to society, but to the business model. Our clothing made a statement about us; that was shouted loud and clear; we work for the biggest corporation in the world, and we are important! We were all as pompous as Louis the XIV^th.

I had conformed to my world, but to society, we stuck out; our importance was overly exaggerated because of our manner of dressing.

Soon, I changed my apparel to nice khakis and sports jacket. In a short time, I was only wearing khakis, a button-down shirt and a necktie.

That was ordinary dress of that era. I had gone from Louis the XIV^th in dress to “Citizen Herrin.”  I no longer conformed to my world but was reformed to a less noticeable image. My apparel matched my self-estimation. I was not a GM executive at all, but mid-level manager. I was one of the ordinary. To this day, I still do not seek to stand out from the ordinary.

Let us put this in more perspective. Let us say that today is beach day. If a woman dresses in a teensy-weensy tiny bikini, they will stand out. Surely, some women do that to be noticed and noticed they are. No longer is the beach the center of attraction; they are!

Or suppose that same woman wears extremely modest garb like many Muslim women do at the present. No longer does the beach stand out but the woman does as well. It draws as much attention as the tiny bikini.

However, if the same woman dresses both modestly and unobtrusively, she will go unnoticed.

On the other hand, if all the women someday dress immodestly, a woman should not conform to them because they would all be immodest.

When the word, “modest” is used, it has more than one meaning. It is not only keeping the flesh covered but also unpretentiousness (ibid).

Louis the XIV^th was well-covered but pretentious. Even though he was of the House of Capet, in his day, he magnified their name by being over pretentious. He was royalty and everybody knew it.

Peter the Great was royalty as well but he dressed unpretentiously not to be noticed. Louis and Peter were both royalty with equal powers, but Peter was merely “Citizen Romanov” to the public and when he visited France.

Pretending to be who you are not is pretentious.

When I was dating, to attract younger women, I “cleverly” disguised myself as “Youthful Larry.” I died my hair dark brown and played volleyball with the younger folks. I was pretending to be what I was not — a middle-aged man who wanted to be accepted by those younger than myself.

It was when I dated a younger woman that I came to realize that I was not young. Hair dye and running shorts did not make me young. Probably to the younger set, I may have looked more like Louis the XV^th than I did Peter the Great.

At that time, I had conformed to the dress code of the younger generation to be young again, but others of my age may have seen me as a spectacle. Being with a much younger woman did not make me any younger than the brown dye on my hair. I had conformed to their world to be accepted in it but all the while, inside, I felt like I was their babysitter!

I did not look like a young man but stood out amongst them as a silly-looking older man. I was pretentious and was as pompous as Louis and probably looked that way to the younger set.

We are to be what we are! When I was poor, I dressed appropriately as a poor man would dress — modest and without pretense. That is genuine.

When I was more successful, I dressed for success but still did not overdress for my social status. I was proud that I was better off but did not pretend that I was better off than I was. Neither did I underdress to flaunt my poor roots. I fit into the world but was not of the world. By that I mean that the world did not make me, God did, and I had not conformed to the world but to God.

God does not want us to fit into the world but stick out. Not so far out that we become the center of attention but just enough that others would want to model us.

For instance, I do not drink alcohol but am modest about it so as not to offend others nor to appear self-righteous. I try to model Jesus who I believe was a tee-totaling Nazarite.

However, I am not a Nazarite and never pretend to be but by observation, some of my friends have either ceased drinking alcoholic beverages or reduced their consumption. They may see that I am content with being just me and not a “party animal.” On the other hand, if I act righteous, knowing that I am often not, then they would see me as pretentious. So, pretentiousness can also be behavior oriented.

Some visiting or lay preachers, when they are called upon to preach, put on their “preacher suits” to pretend that they are real, honest to goodness preachers. They spit-shine their shoes just for that hour and dress impeccably to present an image as if they are preachers. To some, those pretenders look more like Louis the XIV^th than they do Jesus! They overdress to seem what they are not.

On the other hand, some preachers dress too casually to appear to be just one of the guys. Contemporary preachers do that often and in doing so, they look pretentious as well. They should wear modest clothing and that pertains to both gaudiness and casualness. To appear too casual reeks of slothfulness.

What should we be and what should we do? 

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2 ESV)

 In whatever we do, we are not to conform to this world. Just as God has His standards, so does the world! God’s standards are written in scripture, but the standards of the world are beyond scripture, to wit: 

“In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Jud 17:6)

 Therefore, conforming to the world is doing whatever it is that you want to do without regard to God’s standards. It is doing things as if there are no standards at all. We see that often today with cross-dressing and transsexuality, or even as androgyny.

We see it in immodest dress and dressing as if you are someone that you are not.

I was not that cool guy with dark brown hair but a mature man with graying hair. Some saw the “old man” in me despite the hair dye and underperformance as an obsolete athlete.  I did much better with the genuine me than the pretentious me and obtained a beautiful wife closer to my age who accepts me as me!

Today, tattoos and piercings are in vogue. Some young girls and guys look cute with them, but old guys and gals who try to exaggerate their beauty the same way look pretentious. They do not look cute but often enhance their “ordinariness” to put it mildly. Rather than fitting in they stand out much as a tattooed fat lady becomes a “circus freak” that some will pay to see.

Not to pick on just the obvious, but those big lips from Botox® look hideous compared to naturally thick lips of girls still in their prime and as age increases so will the pretentiousness!

God wants us to be as He designed us, not according to our own designs. Speaking of the pretentious, Paul wrote: 

¹⁹ Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body… (Phil 3:19-21)

 The pretentious are those who conform to the world “with their minds set of earthly things” that are unimportant in the long term. Even genuine people are not to conform to the world even for special occasions. We are all to live with who we are and without pretention. Sure, people are looking at us, but our desire should not be looked upon in awe but at who we really are!

It is written that the pretentious “glory in their shame;” that magnify themselves as if they are gods rather than glorifying God in whose Image they were made.

Conforming to the world may gain friends, for a while, but glory from God is eternal. Glory is not in earthly things, but are in the new creatures who reject conformance to the world. Get this; we are to be like Jesus, who will “transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body.”

We need not change our appearance or character to fit the world but wait for God to glorify us. Adorning the body with dyes and flashy clothes is us making ourselves to be the “gods” but what God awaits is us presenting our bodies a living sacrifice to Him (Rom 12:1).

An acceptable sacrifice to God is not a made-up creature but the purest of the pure. It is the prime firstborn of the flock (Deut 15:9) and for Jacob, those lambs with brown streaks that God provided to him were acceptable sacrifices. He brought them to God just as they were, not all shorn of the brown streaks but just as they were.

Ironically, many who try not to conform to the world often end up conforming to the worst of the world. Many dress alternately in defiance of others, and as such cause a counter-culture of a bunch of conformers who fail to realize that even as non-conformists, they have conformed!

It works the other way as well; even those ordinary women who act as if they are the “Real Housewives of Whatever County,” conform to pretend standards as well.

The only one to whom we should conform is Jesus. He wore unobtrusive, non-pretentious clothing that was hardly worth gambling to gain! His claim to fame was as a mere carpenter but the Greeks knew that He was the Technician (Tekon) of the highest degree. This man who created heaven and earth, was satisfied with carrying His own cross, even though Simon stepped in.

Jesus was never pretentious, never claimed to be king of the Jews nor even High Priest. He showed that He was merely God in the Flesh and did so without fanfare. He came not to sin but to deliver from sin. He did not want the Jews to conform to the man, Jesus, but to the God, Jesus! It was not His flesh that he cared for but the Holy Ghost within that humble flesh.

So, you act like royalty, or maybe act as if you are a bum. Either way, God is not impressed; He wants you as you are!

When I was a youth, I worked at being good, but all attempts were futile. It was not in my nature to be good, but God was not after pure sheep, He was after those with Jacobian brown streaks within. Finally, when I came to Jesus streaks and all — unpretentious — only then was I an acceptable sacrifice.

How is it that God wants you? Just as you are. You should not put on airs, nor should you falsely present yourself in any manner; ““God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God (Jas 4:6-7).

The one that looks as outrageous as Louis XIV^th  in any way is not an acceptable sacrifice, whether it be in gaudy wedding attire or party animal. We should come the wedding just as we are; that is the wedding of the Church to the Bridegroom, Jesus.

Just as we are is not a made up version but plain for all to see!

A LOOK INSIDE THE SAMARITANS

 SAMARITANS: THE REAL “JEWS”?

  Whenever anyone hears of a Samaritan in scripture, they think of the good Samaritan. Why would a Samaritan be called “good” when only God is good (Mat 19:17)? Jesus said that and in the same breath that He added, “but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” He was thinking of loving Him and others, not all the Mosaic regulations, one of which is staying away from the unclean.

  Lepers were so unclean that they had to yell out a warning, “Unclean!  Unclean” from under their masks (Lev 13:45). Well, Samaritans were considered that unclean. Now, consider at least one good Samaritan:

³³ But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, ³⁴ And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (Luke 10:33-34)

  Luke chapter 10 begins with God issuing directions for his seventy deacons to do unto the world two by two into every city and place (v.1). Stop there for a moment; Samaria was both a city and a place — and much of the northern kingdom of Israel. The deacons were to go forth, and perhaps specifically to Samaria. Why so? They were the harvest for the deacons to harvest. (v. 3).

  Jesus instructed them to go unto every house and even to eat unclean things (v. 7-8). Finally, Jesus said what they were to do to even the Samaritans — to heal the sick (v.9). The “sick” included the unclean but specifically any sinner. Jesus recognized sin as a sickness. When Jesus made someone whole, he restored both their physical and spiritual health.

  Chorazin and Bethsaida had apparently rejected the gospel, and it is implied that the deacons should shake the dust from their feet and move on and compared those cities to Sodom (v.12), leaving the other to be like “Gomorrah.” Those two cities were cursed along with Capernaum because they had even rejected Jesus (Mat 11:20-24). The place Samaria was not the entirety of the old northern kingdom. Chorazin and Bethsaida were quite a distance north of Samaria near the Sea of Galilee. All the apostles except Judas were from Galilee and they would be rejected.

  Jesus forewarned, “It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell” (v. 14-15). That city (the latter) was in Galilee as well.

  The Samaritans often claimed to be Sidonians and Tyrians when confronted by the enemies of the Jews. They would tell a lie when it was expedient for them to do so. Israelites by blood had mostly been dispersed throughout Assyria centuries before when their temple was torn down on Mount Gerizim. Therein they worshiped their own way. For years the place Samaria had been places of Baal worship before they were dispersed. Alternately they would worship God on the same high places as Baal.

  The Samaritans were historically syncretic; they were a coalition of cretin (offensive) cities with their various offensive gods.

  It is true that some of the Israelites remained in the northern kingdom when most of them were taken to Babylon, and it is likely that Tyrians and Sidonians did migrate there, but they would not be the majority.

  Josephus wrote that when the Israelites were taken away, that they were replaced by Cutheans (Kutheans) from somewhere in Mesopotamia, either part of the old city of Babylon as some say or what is now Kurdistan. The former is a long-gone city, and the latter sort of an invisible empire along the northern realm of the fertile crescent. It would be in the proximity of Noah and his city.

  Nobody knows for sure the racial identity of the Cutheans but they were from near the river Cutha. They were not Jews at all, but throughout their history, they were known for two things, according to Josephus: When the Jews prospered, they were “Jews” and when the Jews were under attack, they suddenly became Sidonians. As such, they would worship Yahweh and Baal as the need arose for their own preservation to keep their adversaries from destroying them with the Jews.

  The Samaritans were considered unclean because they were a mixed and impure race of people, and because they would “mold” their god to be what they wanted Him to be. All the while that there was Yahweh worship in Judah, there were all types of worship in Samaria. Even the seed of David. beginning with Ahab and wife Jezebel. made Samaria known for its fornication.

  Samaria and Judah always competed as the true religion. Gerizim was the Holy Mountain of Samaria where the Israelites performed blessings on their entry to the Promise Land according to the instructions of Moses (Deut 11). Samaritans believed that God had designated that mountain to be the location of His Temple, so at one time there was a Temple to God there that was torn down during the defeat of the Israelites.

  When Cyrus returned the Jews from Babylon to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, the Samaritans fought them all the way until its reconstruction was halted. Samaritans had become the “Jews” and they wanted the Jews to stay away! If any Temple would be rebuilt it should have been theirs, they thought.

  In addition to that, the Samaritans, what few that are left, to this day still believe that Gerizim is where Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, not in the mountains of Moriah in Jerusalem.

  What happened was that two races were created each claiming to be the real “Jews” and two religions both worshiping Yahweh in different ways. In its last days, Judah would nearly dismantle true Yahweh worship and worship as the Samaritans would.

  Theologians to this day still disagree on which religion is legitimate for the Israelites, especially since Israel (Jacob) was in whom they would be blessed.

  By the time of Jesus, both the Jews and Samaritans had it wrong, but the Jews more so because they rejected both Christ and the apostles for the most part.

  Just as Paul would later turn from the Jews to the Gentiles, Jesus would point the deacons toward Samaria, and toward the mixed race of people. When He pointed to Samarians, Jesus was making it happen: (1) “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16) and (2) “He is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart” (Rom 2:29).

  Thus, the story is more than about the good Samaritan that showed compassion on the man victimized by thieves and left for dead, but about who are the real “Jews.” After the priest and the Levite avoided the man who had been left for dead, the good Samaritan healed, took him to a dirty inn, and took care of him.

  The “dirty” mixed race Samaritan took the man into his “dirty” place and healed the man. He was not taken back to the Temple where the priests would try to heal him but to a dirty hostel where Jesus from afar would have compassion on him and do the healing.

  The point is that the priest and the Levite were not of God but more so of the Wicked One. Jesus wanted them to come near the unclean and make them clean. They too were syncretic as they endeavored to worship God and themselves at the same time. By staying away from a “dead” man would preserve their lives and they were more worried about their own preservation than the man’s. They had become the “gods” and their religion was no better than the Samaritan’s.

  At that time, there was no Temple of God at Shechem in Samaria. Jesus did not need a clean “hospital” with finely dressed priests to heal. He did it right there in an unclean place. If the priest and Levite had taken him back, it would not have been to Jesus but to the Temple in Jerusalem. They would have done the healing and not Jesus.

  But did Jesus heal the victim or was it the good Samaritan. He was not very good because only God is, but he did have compassion just as Jesus. The Samaritan would have cared for him, but Jesus still would have healed the man, and not the priest nor Levite.

  Who had the compassion? Just who had the faith? Which one of the three practiced their religion truly? The one who demonstrated love for Jesus by loving his fellow man; even an enemy and a deplorable one at that.

  Throughout the years the Samaritans had been what the world expected them to be to preserve their mixed-race skins. But when the time came for Jesus — God in the flesh — one of the Samaritans was on the right side of Jesus. It was not the Law after all — to stay clear of the unclean, but to minister to them. The Law was meant to be metrics for compassion, but one Samaritan recognized the Law correctly — that they were not “commands” at all but ways to show compassion. They were more prescriptions for spiritual health and long life and not commands at all.

  The Samaritan was not following the Law and doing what he must do, but out of the goodness of his heart, he was doing what he should do as a humane being belonging to God!

  As far as racism is concerned who were the racists? Those who made the Law and those who enforced it. Who was not the racist? The one who had compassion without regard to what they saw on the outside. It is the same to this day, is it not?

  That, however, is not the point to this commentary, but to be Jews inwardly and do the right thing. The priest and Levite were not even “Jews” (Judeans) outwardly since they were both of Levi not Judah. How could they have been Jews? By having compassion on the Samaritan.

  As far as the syncretism is concerned, it turned out that even the Jews were just as bad. They became “gods” when they judged Jesus wrongly and had Him crucified. All the while that they thought that they were killing God, and many believed that to be true, it was the real God that was sacrificing His only Son.

  Jesus said that those who killed Him did not know what they were doing (Luke 23:34). Implied there is that the priests, Levites, and Jews knew exactly what they were doing. If Jesus was God and King, then they would lose their rule, prestige, and power.

  Is that not what governors still do? All the while they say they serve God and have compassion; it is them serving themselves with compassion (self-esteem) for their own flesh.

  When the priest and Levite passed the victim and crossed the road, they knew exactly what they were doing as well! They were disobeying the Law of God to love one another, even their enemies. They knew that because they had heard Jesus say that.

  In their hearts they would have known that Jesus is truly God and that He could heal and make the man whole. They had seen that example many times, but when their time came, they walked another path than the Samaritan walked. As the Samaritan walked the Way of Jesus, strict obedience to the Law was the wrong Way and apparently the broad path to destruction.

  Now apply that to yourselves. Are you syncretic? Do you worship both God and yourself? Do you focus more on self-love than the love of God?

  Is your worship more for show only in a Temple or do you practice it along the way? Are you inwardly a good Samaritan or just a “Jew” who understands compassion but keeps it for yourself? 

  Are you like one of the Samaritans who were one person when with the Jews and another person when with the world, or are you like the good Samaritan who is the same on the road as in the Temple?

  Admit it: We all struggle with self-love. Even when professing God is our focus not on preserving ourselves all the while? Rather than adorn ourselves as the Jews did when they were with Moses, the ornament of adornment must be hung on the cross with Jesus.

  Just as Simon carried the burden of Jesus, we too are to pick up crosses and follow him. That day on the road, the near dead man was the “cross” that the good Samaritan would carry, even though on his own beast. It does not matter how compassion is carried but that compassion is inside.

(picture credit: Photoshop Lady; "Making a Two-faced Man")

THE BRICKS ARE FALLING DOWN

   Passover was when the Angel of Death would pass over the firstborn of the Jews. On that very day, the “chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft and put Him to death” (Mark 14:1), speaking of Jesus. Passover was a feast to give thanks to God that He passed over those who would take the blood and sprinkle it on their doorposts and lintels. (Exod 12:7, 22).

  The Angel of Death would be pre-incarnate Jesus — the one who can kill both the body and the soul (Mat 10:28). In other words, at the Exodus, “Jesus” would decide who would enter the race toward the Promise Land. Paul remarked on such an event much later: “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain” (1 Cor 9;24).

  Thus, those who chose life in the Promised Land to slavery and death in Egypt would enter the “race” against Pharoah toward Jerusalem.

  The Hebrews would do as God said, they would sprinkle the blood of unblemished lambs on the “cross” of their doorways. Symbolically, the doors of their own homes would be the Way to the Tree of Life and the Garden of God. The race was on, but the entry fee of the race was trusting the blood of the lambs that God provided for the race. With that in mind, the race is on for the Christian who trusts the blood of Jesus for safety in running the race.

  The race for the Israelites lasted forty-years, and few made it to the end because they tired of following God. Many entered the race against the Pharaoh — the “god” who was symbolic of the Devil — and only a few, such as Caleb and Joshua, made it to the finish.

  For most of Christians, the race is of similar duration. Who shall it be that makes it to the end? Many trust the blood, but once they “taste” of the body and blood of Jesus, many forget Him! The prize is at the end of the “race.” How much plainer could Paul have said it?

  Now back to the Exodus:

²⁵ And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil… ³⁰ And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. ³¹ And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, “This shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations.” (Exod 30:25,30-31)

   Once the Israelites were safe from Pharoah, there call was to bless and revere God. They were to make a Tabernacle for God and make it in the grandest scale, and then to consecrate both the Temple and the priests. Consecrate in that passage is to make sacred. How would they do that? They were to make an anointing oil — an ointment for the unction (act) of setting them apart as holy and belonging to God.

  The apothecary in those days made up the ointment and its application would be for all generations forthwith. The unit if measure for the ointment was shekels, each shekel is about 11.5 grams (0.41 ounces). The ointment compound weighing in total 1250 shekels would be 3.2 pounds. It was to last throughout the generations. Whether or not it could be replenished is not said.

  Money from the “ransom” from the congregation would pay for the ingredients for the compound of myrrh, cinnamon, and calamus as the principle spices. Add to that amount 500 shekels of cassia and a hin (1-1/2 gals; 128 ounces;12 pounds ) of olive oil. The total weight of the mixture of species and olive oil was approximately 16.5 pounds to last forever. It was precious a precious ointment if that is true!

  The directions were for the priests to take a census and each person enumerated was to pay specifically the same mount — each a half shekel surely of silver. God was not a respecter of persons; He did not discriminate because some had more that they should pay more. It was the ransom for individual souls and one soul was worth as much as the next:

When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. (Exod 30:12)

  The plague is specified but the general definition is “fatal blow” (Strong’s Dictionary). In those days plagues were often fatal blows, but a fatal blow from another person would be included. Hence, the small ransom that each would pay would keep them safe until the next annual census.

  Now what this have to do with Jesus?

After two days was the feast of the passover and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft and put him to death. (Mark 14:1

  Ointment had become the substitution for the blood of the Passover. The “bureaucrats” were to sprinkle the blood of the Lamb of God for that occasion. The Hebrew leaders chose the same method that God had planned… by coincidence? Surely not.

  Note that those that God had designated were to do to Jesus what Lucifer did to Adam: “The serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field… the serpent said unto the woman, ‘Ye shall not surely die’” (Gen 3:1,4). Of course, the serpent, Lucifer, knew that they would die, and that was the plan of the Jewish leaders. The chief priests would celebrate the Passover by sprinkling the blood of the Lamb (Jesus) on the Cross and all the while, they thought it was their planning that would do that!

  The key phrase is about the Jewish leaders (Mark 14:1), “take Him by craft.” Their method was the same as the “Serpent’s” — subtilty or cunning. The Serpent beguiled Eve and Adam hearkened unto his wife. “Guile” is deceptive cunning. The Jewish leaders were using Satan’s “craft” (guile) to shed the blood of Jesus. Someone was going to be beguiled, and it turned out that Judas was the one with guile (Satan) in him.

  The obligations of the congregation and the duties of the Aaronic priests in Tabernacle worship was a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus. The greatest difference later than then was that Jesus paid the ransom for everyone! “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

  During the exodus, the people paid the ransom. At the crucifixion, Jesus paid it all. In Tabernacle worship the priests did the ministering. The duty of the priests was to administrate but Jesus came to minister (diakonio) — to supply and to serve.  Thus the job of the priest was to supply the sacrifice and serve it, but the congregation did the supplying.

  The duties of the Church nowadays is to supply and serve the congregation just as Jesus did. Jesus supplied His own Blood to serve all the congregants of the world. At His death, Jesus supplied His Holy Ghost to continue the ministry of Comforting the congregation (John 14:16). The minister is not to be priestly in his duties but more like Jesus because the Priestly Covenant failed God miserably. They ended up killing the one they said that they served!

  Now for a while consider the ministry to the congregation by the minister. His role is to supply and serve. The ecclesia even refers to providing a minister as “supplying.” Once he is supplied, then his role is to serve, and not to rule like the chief priests did.

  Neither were deacons to rule. Because ministering is so much of a service, the deacons were to be their supply to assist them in serving.

  The Tabernacle “Church” was set up in that manner. The chief priest was the “minister” and the priests the “deacons” who would rotate in their service to the Tabernacle. The “deacons” would also minister but they would not handle the money but only the sacrifice. Any Levite could handle the money, and some were delegated to handle the finances. Their “deacon board” would have focused on serving and not the financing.

  In the modern church denominations, deacons focus mostly on money. The “Levites” (trustees) should focus on the Tabernacle and the money, leaving the servers to serve God in the place of the chief priest, and in rotation.

  For the modern church their business meetings are focused more on the money and the building. Seldom does the congregation hear how they could serve God better. The trustees should focus on the finances and the building and the deacon (diakoneo) ministering since they have the same responsibilities. The bishop (episcope) is the overseer, in doing what? Guiding and directing the deacons. The qualifications are similar. The bishop must keep his own house ordered to be expected to keep the church in order. That was the role of the chief priest and should be the role of the chief minister.

  Who selects the bishop in scripture? Scripture does not say, but God selected Aaron. However, Aaron did not seek that status.

  The bishop must desire to do the good work of God (1 Tim 3:1). God provides the desire, but desire is not enough. He must be blameless, sober, have fidelity to his wife, vigilant, of good behavior, hospitable, prone to teach, not subject to alcohol, not a striker, not greedy for pornography, patient, not argumentative, not covetous, and one that has control over his own house and family. (1 Tim 1:1-4).

  A deacon, since they are much the same, have much the same characteristics. With them, the wives must be co-rulers of the household (1Tim 3:12).

  The modern churches have a huge problem; it is hard enough to find a minister with such qualifications and much harder to find any who could be deacon. Thus, the congregation and ecclesia have relaxed the standards that God expects.

  Who should select the bishops and the deacons? In the Old Testament God did. They were Aaron and the Levites. God appointed and consecrated Aaron and his sons. Nowadays the Association does that!

  The priesthood was based on genetics. God cut some out to be ministers. He called them before they were ever born! But not all Levites could be priests. Some were strictly craftsmen who took care of the building and facilities. God planned their roles as well, but all were called to serve Him in some manner or the other.

  The priests remained by birth in the time of Jesus, but they were by then foul people who had become depraved. Jesus did not look to the Levites to become his apostles but sinners of various trades and abilities. He essentially looked at the congregation, identified those that He needed for the gospel, and they followed him, most of them even to the grave.

  They were the “bishops” during the time of Jesus. They were called and they were given the desire to follow Jesus. Their job was to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mat 28:19). They were the “royal priesthood” as Jesus was God and King.

  Christians are to pick up their “cross” as the apostles should have done and follow Jesus. Many if not all of them died for Jesus. With them gone, the congregants are the “royal priests” who are to do their duties, “But ye (Christians) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet 2:9).

  All Christians are called, and all are to minister to the world. Any Christian that fits the criteria from the letter to Timothy are eligible to minister. They all are called, but again, few follow!

  Preachers make a big deal out of being called to preach as if they are apostles. (Apostles are those who followed Jesus in Person or directly the Voice of the Spirit, as with Paul.)

  The problem with the modern church is that it is more minister-centered than God-centered much like Tabernacle worship. Only the priests, one at time were allowed in, and the congregation had to stand outside and believe something was happening that they neither fully understood nor could participate in!

  Jesus tore down that curtain: “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom…” (Mat 27:50-51).

  What had gone on behind the veil in the Holy of Holies was finally revealed. It was Jesus all the time behind the curtain! No longer did the congregation need the priests to supply and preserve; they were all ordained royal priests when Jesus gave up the Ghost. No longer would God be concealed from them but would live within the royal priests.

  The modern church has destroyed the royal priesthood. Now, they are mere congregants who are too untrustworthy to minister.

  Let me give an example: Minister “X” taught a several week course on the gifts of the Christian. The idea was to identify their best fit for the ministry. It was so that those who had a desire to minister could identify their ministry.

  However, once the course ended, no more was said, even when people sought to volunteer. Several years after that, the ministry of the church remains basically the same. “X” as well have pitched his curriculum on the altar and burned it. Most of those who identified their ministry remain to this day congregants with nothing to do but listen to the preacher. They as well remain outside the veil that conceals God.

  God may have called many of those to minister in some way or another. It turned out that their skill and aptitudes were no more than to be greeters, door openers, traffic directors, and money collectors. The staff never changed at all; only their duties were changed. It seems that God must have not called anyone to minister, only the preacher. After many years, only the few are called upon, and all the new people have little hope for service. They are called to sit and know their “place” — the congregation from which God is hidden and they are hidden from God.

  Those with a desire are shunned and those already overloaded are selected. Have you ever noticed in your church that the same small group are always the doers, even when so many others are ready and willing to serve? Have you noticed that the preacher almost always picks the busiest person to take on more responsibilities while willing workers are sacrificed at the altar, so to speak?

  God, at least, organized Tabernacle worship. Some paid the ransom, some killed the sacrifice, some kept the Tent of Meeting, some were on standby, and one did the sacrifice for all. The problem with Tabernacle worship was that the congregation was required to stand aside and believe whatever they were told without question. God was not real to them because they were kept away from serving God!

  God had another take as well: If the priest was not worthy, like the bishops and deacons of today, God would kill them inside the Holy of Holies, and they would be dragged by a cord clear of God. No, we do not kill preachers in these days, but some wait until the church is dead and then God drags them out from a falling building and all that is left is ruins.

  Scripture supplies criteria for the ministry and it is rigorous. Is it coincidence that the only ones who “qualify” are those closest to the preacher? The preacher should not be in the business of picking his deacons, nor recommending his replacement. Neither should the deacon board!

  God provided criteria for minister evaluation (1 Tim), but nobody ever evaluates them. The minister’s job is to administer the church, not to kill it, but like Adam long before, the church is withering, not as slowly as Adam but as quickly as the fig tree that Jesus thought was worthless. One good metric is whether the church congregation is dying or reviving.

  Those who have the desire should make it known. Who should they tell? The administrator — the preacher — who should make it known. Then the congregation, those who know the congregant the best, should evaluate them together and vote on them. Neither the preacher nor the deacons should have a hand in selection.

  They did that with the replacement of Judas with Saint Matthias by casting lots, but then God ignored their foul method and He picked Paul personally as the replacement.

  In other words, imperfect people only choose more imperfect and unqualified people. God must “nominate” the ministers. The job of the congregation is not to accept the nominee but see that he is truly the One that God provided by checking them to the criteria of 1 Timothy.

  The congregation now votes for those that are not qualified because those who are qualified may be the quiet one sitting in the congregation. He may be the one more like Paul who had been wicked but is now humbled. It may not be the man who has gone to church all his life and follow their rituals but the man who looks out of the box that the church has become!

  Ministers are there to comfort and teach, as well as to supply and serve. The deacons are as much ministers as the ministers but are not to administer the church. They must choose which minister they are to be!

  But that is essentially all they should do! Do you see deacon “ministers” at the altar praying through with the repentant? Not very often, but that is what they should be doing. How many times have you seen the preacher busy with one while nobody ministers to the other? Quite often.

  There are many problems in the church but a serious one is to have unloving men minister to the congregation about love. Does your minister practice love? Is he there among the congregation loving them?

  Do those who supply the preacher when he is gone have integrity as any minister must have, or can he snub some and discourage others. Have you ever listened to someone supply that day who has nearly split the church on many occasions? Are those who are arrogant and proud allowed to stand behind the pulpit?

  One deacon who was teaching, said under his breath, “He probably does not even believe in ______."  At least one person heard that, and that is what I heard as well. Ministers are not to attack congregants but to minister to them!

 Is it fashionable of a preacher to not be friends with a member of the body of Christ and to avoid their company at all costs?

  Is it acceptable for a minister to turn his back on a Christian brother? Is it acceptable to minister to the popular more so than the downtrodden?

  This is the modern “Church” whose “bricks have fallen down” (Isa 9:10). The choice seems to be, whose “bricks” (constitution) has fallen or which of them are falling the least. All Christians are the “pillar” of the Church (Gal 2:9) but apparently men have made some of them more the “pillars” and the others the “pews.”

  All churches are like the congregants and are imperfect. Like us, though, they should strive to be more perfect than what they are. The minister must be focused on God and the pursuit of money secondary. Neither should bartering be done at the expense of the Temple. 

(picture credit: Beaver County Times)