In Mark 5, the women with the issue of blood received healing when she touched the clothes Jesus was wearing. Many others in the crowd touched Jesus and they received nothing. They missed out.In Mark 6, after casting out demons, after calming the storm, after healing many with diseases, and after raising the dead; Jesus went back to His hometown. We don’t know exactly what Jesus had in store for His hometown, but verses 5 and 6 lead us to believe it was going to be something great! The Bible says... “And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.”
Have you ever wondered what it was that His hometown missed out on? I mean, first of all the presence of God was in the town. Jesus was present with them. We see also that the power of God was in the town. He had already done mighty works in other places. We also see that the plan of God was in town. He wanted to do some mighty works among them. Unless the presence, power, and the plan of God are with us... nothing great can happen. His presence is vital. His power is vital. His plan is vital, and without Him we can do nothing. Yet, it is possible for Him to be present and willing, and still have no might works take place. Thinking about this truth gave me a sick feeling in my stomach this week. What could be, and what could have been, are very humbling concepts to me. We can miss out on blessings that God wants us to have in our lives. Do you think Christ marvels at our unbelief?
11 comments:
I have been following your comments over on from hills to hollers. What a pretensious snob you are. Can you not argue a point without attacking Person. The other guy has said some stuff too, but only in defense and no where near as malicious. And your a Pastor? Good luck with your church.
Anonymous,
David's post was on this verse... Galatians 1:10..."For do I now seek the favor of men, or of God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
Thanks for the critique, I take it seriously. However, I do not feel it pretentious to defend the truth; nor do I believe it malicious to attack a persons position or logic. This is what I have tried to do in my comments. I will however seek affirmation of this with Robert on David's blog.
Joe
I did not take your responses as pretentious. I disagree with them and think they discout large portions of scriptural precident, and was really bothered to the core with the answer " I choose not to deal with it" when confronted with a question concerning what the bible says, but I think we can both agree that we probably got a little too personal. You are welcome to your opinion and I commend you for having one and being able to support it. I hold no grudges. So whoever is trying to defend me, thanks but it is not needed. I would prefer you get in on the discussion than bash others.
Robert
Robert,
Just to be clear, I did not respond... "I choose not to deal with it" when confronted with a question concerning what the bible says.
I responded... "I don't deal with it, because it is not there."
Joe,
I assure you. The Bible is there. I am looking at one on my desk right now. And it says some really cool stuff.
Robert
Robert,
It is pretty funny how you continue to quote me out of context. Of course the Bible is there, and I agree it does say some cool stuff; just not anything about those "female pastoral roles" which you imagine.
And you misundertand me. I have mentioned several times that the word pastor can not be used to describe any position in the Bible because it just didn't exist. There are however certain ministries, positions, and callings from God that required the "callee" to act with characteristics that we would attribute to pastors today. These characteristics include teaching, preaching, prophesying, leading, and many others.
My revised question then is this. There are multiple examples of God calling women to ministries of teaching, preaching, prophesying, and other forms of spiritual leadership and guidance over men in the Old and New Testaments. Why is it ok for God to call women into service in this way, but it is unacceptable for us to do so today?
Robert
Robert,
I hold to a dispensational view of Holy Scripture. I believe that there are clearly delineated periods of human history in the Bible; whereby God orchestrates a different condition, with a different test, to see whether human beings will obey Him (i.e innocence in the garden of Eden, Law, Grace, etc.). Each time mankind fails. Thus, the sum total of the dispensational examinations demonstrates that it is always wrong to disobey God, and that complete obedience to Him is the only true path to eternal satisfaction.
As I understand scripture, the authority given to a few women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of female pastors in N.T. churches. The Book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the Church, the body of Christ. That paradigm involves the authority structure for the Church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity. I believe it is perfectly consistent for God who has set up the husband as the spiritual head of the home, to translate that over to the church. I guess a question I have for you would be... if a husband is under the authority of his pastor wife at church, can he ever really be the spiritual head of his home?
Robert, the church is not Israel, nor is it "spiritual" Israel. The church is not under the mandate of the ceremonial laws, sacrifices, days of worship, or any such "precedence" that you suggest.
As far as the word pastor being used to describe a position in the church, I disagree with your assumption. In fact, I think clearly we see this role and its qualifications spelled out.
BTW... what do you think of this post? Do you think we stop miracles and cause Christ to marvel at our unbelief today?
I'll start by commenting on your post. I agree that it is disheartening when we sense God's presence, yet do not experience the benefit of it. I think it stems from the fact that we are more willing to petition for Him to give us what we think is best than to accept the glorious gifts he has for us. Too many people view prayer as a time to get their wish list across then a time to spend with God. Christ has come that we may have life, a life that would blow our minds. (my senior pastor's paraphrase)I am sure Christ marvels at my unbelief. I know I do.
Second,
I want to thank you for your excellent explanation of your stance on women as pastors. I have never had anyone take the time to lay it out for me as you have. I still have some areas of disagreement, but the explanation is superb.
I for one am totally sold out to the fact that God's word is consistent and He never changes. I don't think that there is ever a time that he would say, "Ok, just so you know I'm changing the rules from this point forward". There are also several viable examples of women displaying pastor like qualities, called by God, in the NT during the same time that Paul was writing Timothy. To say that God has different standards during different times is a very slippery slope, especially when applied to other arguments in today's culture. (especially Homosexuality)
As for the word Pastor, I do agree that there are descriptions in the NT that apply. I was simply saying that the position was something we came up with.
Robert
Robert,
First, thank you for your gracious response. We are total agreement on the prayer issue.
Second, I really like your senior pastor's paraphrase of the life that is available to believers.
Third, I am afraid I might have given you the wrong impression of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists are also "sold out to the fact that God's word is consistent and He never changes"... as well as believing God never changes the "rules". What was sin 500 years ago, or 50 years ago, is still sin today.
However, dispensationalists believe in "progressive revelation". For example... in Genesis we read of Abel's sacrifice, it was one lamb for one man. In Exodus we read of the Passover sacrifice, it was one lamb for one house. In Leviticus we read of the Day of Atonement, it was one lamb for one nation. Then in the Gospels, John the Baptist points us toward one lamb for the whole world. Is God consistent? Yes. Is the requirement the same? Yes, salvation by grace through faith. However, what in the O.T. was a shadow or picture has know found its fulfillment in the N.T. Likewise, we understand that God has made certain promises and covenants. However, we do not operate today under David's or Abraham's covenant... we operate under the New Covenant. The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people, both Jews and Gentiles.
I hope this explanation clears things up some. Blessings my brother.
Thank you for the further explanation. I guess I will always have a problem discounting today what I believe God did in the past. I understand the distinction you make between Israel, God's people, and the NT church. For me, if God saw fit to set a woman as the spiritual leader over His people in the OT, and have women teach and preach to men in the NT, then I do not see why he would preclude them from doing the same today.
While the sacrifice is different during the timeline you list, a sacrifice is still needed. That part doesn't change. What if God said, it has to be a lamb, no a cow, now a goat, now a chicken- then I would agree that he could change His mind and preclude women from service. It would set a precedent for inconsistency. I see no such pattern in the Bible.
Thanks again for the friendly dialogue. I think this shows differing views can speak with civility. I again apologize for my comments earlier on Volfans blog. The frustration was probably more towards him than you. He just knows how to pull my chain.
Robert
Post a Comment