Kwotes

When I read something that really speaks to me I want to start posting them.


Chuck Swindoll, New Testament Insights on Romans p238-239
     The second passage is an allusion to Job 41:11, in which the Lord challenges the bewildered and suffering patriarch, "Who has given to Me that I should repay him?  Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine."  This divine challenge comes at the end of a long quest for answers by Job and his friends, a journey that called into question God's integrity, wisdom, and goodness.  Then, just like now, they faced tragedy with a singular question on their lips: Why?  And for months, the man's so-called friends speculated about His nature and spun a tangled web of vain theologies.  Job's wife counseled him to forsake life and end his own misery.  Eventually, the man was brought to his end and strongly demanded his day in court, where he felt sure he would be vindicated and the Lord caught short.
     After a long time -- we don't know how long -- the Lord broke the silence as He confronted the man who was "blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil" (Job 1:1).  However, He didn't come with answers.  Job never learns of Satan's challenge in heaven.  Job never recieves an explanation.  He is never presented with a logical list of reasons that his tragedy was ultimately a part of God's good plan for him and everyone affected.  Instead, he encounters God Himself -- and this meets his need.  Seeing God's unsearchable mercy and gazing into His unfathomable ways end the man's desperate quest for answers.  He puts his hand over his mouth and repents of his foolish outbursts.  And, at that point, he worships.



Leilani Cummings, Thou shalt love theyself...
http://godstuff.ablurk.com/archives/291
     If we as Christians have nothing better than the latest pop-psych to offer, why would the hurting and lost come to Christ? They’ve tried all that stuff, it’s empty and without substance. It is a substitute for real change and real transformation. So, why are we watering the Gospel down? Why aren’t each of us then “ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in us…” as Peter admonishes us to do? I think Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 gives us the reason…we’re children and we don’t want to grow up! We want and crave the milk of God’s Word and refuse the meat…because it’s hard. We want our ears tickled.

Bob Hoekstra
     This "other truth" is man's best guess about what is going on in an arena that he can not really see: the heart, soul, mind and inner man.  Man cannot see in there.  When he tries to look in, he gets all confused, because the heart is deceitful.  God is the only one who can look upon it, and He is not guessing at what is taking place.  He just looks in there, declares the way He made man, how man fell, what the resulting problems are, and what He has provided to make man whole inside.  He has declared all of this to us in His Word.  If we integrate human philosophies or theories into these matters of divince revelation, we are polluting God's truth.


Joe Boot
     Reason is only trustworthy when it finds its place under God's authority.  Without trust in God, we have to assume that the laws of logic are valid without any guarantee or justification for this assumption.  The presence of the divine logos, the very Word of God, is necessary, and Jesus is revealed as the logos - the word from which we derive the term "logic".  In John 1, Jesus is the self-existant one, the ground of all being.  He is the truth and the life (John 14:6).  He alone can bring completeness to our reasoning.  Only in Him is there a truly transcendant source of knowledge that illuminates the minds of creatures.  Without Him there is no completeness.  When we accept His truth by faith, we can have a logically consistent worldview.  God's truth in the world and his Word, both in the created order and special revelation, are one.  They are interrelated and connected, and so taken seperately cannot adequately be known.  We must begin any pursuit of knowledge with confident submission to God and His Word.


Chuck Swindoll, New Testament Insights on Romans p 264-266
[12:17]    
     Paul's counsel is straightforward enough: "To no one give back evil against evil" (my literal translation).  While explaining the qualities of genuine love, Paul echoed the words of Christ, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (12:14; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28).  Isn't it interesting that both Jesus and Paul instruct us to watch our speech?  The heart is a well and the tongue is a bucket.  The lips can only draw from what's in the heart, and an untransformed heart contains an insatiable desire to protect its own rights.
     Plans for revenge begin with cursing.  The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes: "Curses, found in almost all religious history, are utterances that are designed to bring harm by supernatural operation."  Today we don't traffic in black magic and malicious incantations, but we do curse, we do wish harm to come on the person who has injured or offended us.  How we choose to respond verbally prepares us for our next decision.  If we want to obey the command to avoid returning evil for evil, we must bring our tongues under control. We must first obey the command to "bless and not curse."
     The Greek word for "bless" means "to speak well of."  It's the same term from which we get the English word "eulogy."  We are to eulogize the person who has offended us...before his or her life has ended.  However, we cannot wait until we feel like it; we must choose deliberately, contrary to our nature.  Otherwise, the desire for retaliation will fester.
     Note the alternative to returning evil with evil: "Respect what is right."  The Greek for "respect" means "to forsee, take thoght of, have regard for."  It relies heavily on the concept of seeing or vision.  This makes a great deal of sense.  We are to look past the offense to see what good we can do, so that our actions aren't mere reactions.  Our behavior should be guided by godly character, not pulled here and there by this insult or that offense.
[12:18-20]
     Paul is a realist, however.  He --perhaps better than most men-- understands that some people are determined to be our enemy regardless of how we choose to behave.  Some folks simply live to fight and wouldn't know what to do without someone to harass.  Insofar as it depends on us, we are to live at peace with everyone.  How?  Paul suggests two responses, one passive and one active.
     First, when an enemy deliberately causes harm, we are to let it go unsnswered.  Now, allow me to clarify.  This is not a situation in which one person in a relationship causes harm to another and must be confronted in order to restore the bond.  In that case, we must follow the procedure outlined by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17.  Here, Paul is referring to the deeds of an enemy --presumably someone outside the body of Christ, though not neccessarily!-- in which he or she clearly intends to harm another.  Confrontation would be pointless.  Paul's advice: let it go.
     Note the reason we are to set aside our revenge.  It is to "leave room for the wrath of God."  At first, I took that to mean something like this: "Don't seek to harm your enemy in return for an offense.  Let God do it for you because He can hurt 'em a whole lot worse than you can!"  And chances are good you've heard that kind of teaching before.  However, the wrath of God during this age of grace pursues the sinner, cuts off his escape, confronts her with the consequences of sin, chastises him, and makes her continued sin miserable.  Why?  To bring the individual to repentance.  To give him or her grace.  To redeem our enemy as He has redeemed all believers.
     When we take our own revenge, we dare to stand between God and His beloved, whom He may choose to pursue.  Furthermore, we presume to take the Creator's place on the seat of judgement in the life of another creature.  Eventually, the age of grace will end and the time of judgment will begin.  If that person is ultimately doomed to suffer God's eternal wrath, they are those we pity, not those with whom we dream of settling scores.
     Paul's second suggested respnse is more active: extend him or her the same hospitality you would a friendly stranger.  The reference to food and drink draws inspiration from the Near Eastern duty to provede travelers a meal and a safe place to sleep.  However, let me clarify a few misconceptions.
     This is not a proof text for pacifism.  Paul wasn't writing about the foreign policy of a nation.  These are instrutions for individuals who find themselves the target of another's evil deeds.  Furthermore, Paul does not intend to condemn the good sense to defend oneself or one's family against a physical attack.  If someone tries to break into your house in the middle of the night, you don't say, "Hey, don't forget to look in the media room, there's a lot of electonics you might enjoy."  No!  Fight!  Call the police, have the intruder arrested, and press charges.
      Paul does not intend this to prohibit protecting one's homeland or preserving one's wife and/or family from an intruder.  Rather, this is about heated arguments, malicious lawsuits, deliberate slander, and dirty politics at work or school or neighborhood or even church.  It's okay to pretect yourself and your family.  However, there's a fine line between protection and retaliation.  It can be difficult to see, especially in the heat of the moment.  Our best policy is to look for ways to be kind to an enemy and fight only to survive an immediate danger to life and health.
     The purpose of returning good for evil is to "heap burning coals on his head."  No one knows for certain the origin of this odd centuries-old metaphor.  Some suggest it points to an ancient Egyptian practice of carrying a pan of coals on one's head as a sign of contrition.  I believe the phrase is merely an idiom describing humility, not unlike our expression, "He came to me with his hat in his hand."  During the Great Depression in America, a cash-strapped man might have no other choice than to approach a group of friends for a donation.  It was a humiliating experience for him to hold out his hat in the desperate hope they would drop a few precious coins into it.  In ancient times, allowing one's household fire to go out was seen as the epitome of irresponsibility.  The humiliating experience of walking home from a neighbor's house with a pan of coals probably gave rise to this word-picture for humility.
     Whatever the exact origin of the phrase, the meaning is clear.  The purpose of kindness is to allow the conscience of the enemy to do its job.  Hopefully our good conduct, our humility, will bring about humility and repentance in return.