Every Knee Will Bow

For years, this Scriptural phrase has been used to propagate the notion that, in the end, every one will either willingly or no, acknowledge that Jesus is LORD, and while this may be true enough; when Paul quoted Isaiah ( 45:23 ) in Romans 14:11, I believe that Paul had in mind, not necessarily every person who ever lived, or will live, but, as his context, historically speaking, is the 'final battle' between the Judaistic old covenant economy and the new covenant in the Body of Christ, those who under the new covenant in Christ, were ready to shed the skin ( Romans 16:20 ) of the oppressive old covenant economy.

Speaking of, and exalting ( exulting in ) the humility of Jesus the Christ; Paul later wrote to the church in Philippi, 'Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and [ that ] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [ is ] Lord, to the glory of God the Father' ( Philippians 2:10 ). Here again, though the language sounds pretty universal; we must remember again, the context in which Paul wrote these words. Isaiah's context, of course, is the return ( from captivity ) of God's people, and the revelation of the new covenant. In this context, then, Paul also wrote his letters, and made his quotations. Earlier in chapter 45 ( verse 14 ); God revealed through the prophet that 'The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Cush and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to you, and they shall be yours; they shall walk behind you, they shall come over in chains; and they shall bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, [ saying, ] ‘Surely God [ is ] in you, and [ there is ] no other;  [there is ] no other God'. In a previous article, I wrote, concerning this glorious phrase, 'He was saying, not only that all those who came to him would willingly 'bow the knee' and worship Him, but that even those ( in the first-century ) who refused to acknowledge Him for who He was, would be forced, unwillingly, 'like it or not', to acknowledge Him as their Creator': I believe still, that this is the case, though I believe now, that Isaiah's words are not only fulfilled prophecy, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the 'passing away' ( Hebrews 8:13 ) of the old covenant economy, but ring gloriously true of the universal impact of God's great Gift!

We all make choices, some good and some bad, but in the end, I believe ( and this 'end' is personal, not eschatological, biblically speaking ); I believe that God, who is 'not willing that any should perish' ( II Peter 3:9 ), will reveal His saving grace to all men, not necessarily according to the established orthodoxy of the institutional church, but according to His loving truth. I may stir up some trouble ( 'open a can of worms' ) by making such a statement, but let me assure you that I am not saying that all are 'saved' at this point in time ( though it could well be argued that salvation was fully realized at the cross, in the finished work of Christ ); what I AM saying is that when God revealed His plan of salvation through His covenant with His creation, and then inspired words like those of Peter, above, Paul's words to Timothy that God is the 'Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.' ( I Timothy 4:10 ), and John's statement in I John 2:2, 'He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world', He made clear, through the inclusivity of the 'new' covenant in Christ, that all will eventually come to know ( realize, acknowledge ) Him as their Savior!

Is the 'world' ready for this glorious truth?

Many, I believe, are being awakened to this fact, but so many more are still suffering, laboring under the assumption of the guilt that centuries of indoctrination have foisted upon the Body of Christ, the Church of God. I am, by no means, saying that we are at any great advantage over those who have not yet come to this realization, and, as has recently been brought to my attention; I AM in the habit of making assumptive statements like those above. I admit, though not readily ( very grudgingly, in fact ) that I COULD be wrong! I believe though, that God has revealed this to me, and that He wishes for me to propagate it. Though I believe this to be true, and that God has revealed ( and is revealing ) it to me; this does NOT ( necessarily ) mean that it is true. Assuming ( perceiving ) though, that this IS God's truth; I believe that we should encourage our brothers and sisters ( for we are ALL the family of God ) with this  fact, but that we should also take care in propagating it, since those who have been 'steeped' in the traditions of men ( not necessarily a 'bad' thing ) are often quick to rise in defense of their precious doctrines, and to strike at any offender. Some though, and this gives me 'chills ( 'goose-bumps' ), and thanks be to God' have an 'open heart', and are ready to receive this glorious truth!

May God grant us all, whether we have 'received' this glorious truth or not, to encourage one another in love, tactfully sharing the love we have received, and not making acceptance of our perceptions a prerequisite for following God's command!

Charles Haddon Shank

The Salvation of the Body ( R U saved? )

What does it mean to get 'saved'?

In today's modern church; it means something quite different from what it meant to the first-century church, or does it? Most Christians today will tell you that you must be baptized in water to be 'saved'; in many churches, it involves what is sometimes referred to as 'walking the aisle', and letting your request be known publicly, as well as your desire for the waters of baptism, and your decision to 'ask Christ to come into your 'heart'. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with all of this ( ? ), but is this really what Peter had in mind when he wrote, 'Be saved from this perverse generation'?

When the Christ ( Messiah-Anointed One ) came into the world, Gabriel told His earthly father to 'call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins' ( Matthew 1:21 ): in the historical context, I believe that we may note here, that Jesus earthly ministry, as He, to my knowledge, never strayed beyond the boundaries of the land of Israel, had in mind the Jews as His people, for as He told the woman at the well, in John 4:22, 'salvation is of the Jews', but in the covenant context of Scripture, I believe we would do well to remember that we are His people ( the Church, the Body of Christ-Galatians 1:23, Colossians 1:18 ( Romans 12:4 &; 5 ), and the true 'Jews' ( Romans 2:28 & 29, 9:6-8 ( Galatians 3:7 ), and that His finished work on the cross was more than sufficient ( infinitely so ) to do just that, to save His people from their sins.

What was this 'perverse generation' that Peter warned the people about?

In this warning statement; Peter used the same Greek word ( genea- 'an age', referring to the period or the persons ) as Jesus did in Matthew 12:39, in describing the Pharisees, when He said 'an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign' ( Deuteronomy 32:5 ). Of this 'generation' God spoke these words, 'They shall not enter My rest', quoted by the writer, in Hebrews 4:3 & 5. I have used the phrase, previously, that 'Jesus came to save us from ourselves: I still believe this is a true statement in many ways. There were several ways that the Gospel writers and the apostles spoke, or wrote, of salvation, or 'being saved'; referring sometimes, even to a more physical, bodily salvation. Peter wrote of a 'salvation ready to be revealed in the last time'( I Peter 1:5 ); this, you must realize, was well after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, and thus is referring more to this physical salvation that I alluded to. Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, reassuring them that 'now our salvation is nearer than when we [ first ] believed'. Is Paul telling them ( and us ) that they had not been redeemed, that Christ's sacrificial work on the cross had no been completed until He returned in glory, or was he referring to their physical salvation ( deliverance ) from the 'ministry of death' ( II Corinthians 3:7 ), the oppression of Ist-century Judaism? The KJV translates Philippians 1:19, 'For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayers, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ' ( the NKJV clarifyingly ( and more correctly, maybe ) translates the Greek soteria, as 'deliverance' ). As above; we know, or assume, that Paul had already accepted the finished work of Christ, after he had been 'startled' on the road to Damascus, and had his eyes opened, and had said 'the sinner's prayer' ( I Corinthians 15: 9 ), so he could not have been referring, as many put it today, to the salvation of his 'soul' ( I Peter 1:9 ). I believe, as above, that he was speaking of the deliverance that he wrote of longingly, throughout his letters ( Roman 16:20 ), and which I described above, a physical ( though metaphorical ) deliverance from the constraining influence of the Judaizers.

Can we be 'saved' today?

In certain circles, there is a more or less running debate, as to whether 'salvation' is correct terminology, used to refer to the moment when our 'eyes' are opened to the realization, and acceptance of what Jesus did for us. In the sense that I outlined above, that much of the salvation that Paul, the most prolific writer in the Greek Scriptures, wrote about, was the physical ( yet metaphorical ) deliverance from the bondage of old covenant Judaism; we cannot expect, nor should we expect salvation, although I believe it could be argued, and very well, probably, that many followers of Christ today experience much the same sort of oppressiveness, though more on a spiritual, or emotional, level than in the 1^st century, and earlier. Although many have experienced a sort of 'salvation', or deliverance, from the oppression of 'churchianity', as some have called it, I believe that unbelievers today, are not so much 'saved', as have their 'eyes' opened ( Paul's experience was a picture of this ) to the saving fact ( reality ) of what Christ did, in His sacrificial Life on earth.

What about the covenant, brother?

I have often repeated the phrase ( not so much lately ), 'I was saved 2,000 years ago'; this never went over real well, for some reason, maybe because of the 'cornfield'[ I was in at the time. I sorta doubt if I even realized the gravity of that statement back then, either. The thing that has always concerned me about the too free usage of the phrase 'get saved', or just 'saved', is that it conveys the idea, whether purposefully or ignorantly, that the saving work of Christ ( Matthew 1:21 ), accomplished on the cross was not sufficient; to be 'saved', we must accept His free gift, believing that it was for us. While I will admit that we must agree with Him, and repent of our selfishness ( even self-righteousness ), in order to be a true follower, and experience the joys of His Kingdom, the point is, and always has been; Who does, or did, the work of salvation? Do we, or did Jesus? Are we saved, only after we 'walk the aisle', and say 'the sinner's prayer', or were we saved when the Christ died on the cross 2,000+ years ago, and rising again, presented the blood for OUR atonement, although this salvation was not actually realized ( and  for some, is still not realized ) by those for whom it was made?

Covenantally speaking ( for there is but one covenant, and we are all in it, like it or not! ), we can say, along with those in the first century, who actually knew Christ ( 'according to the flesh' ), and 'walked by His side in the way' ( Luke 24:13-32 ) that we were saved, and that we are being saved ( from ourselves though, not in that sense above ).

May God bless you with this. Charles Haddon Shank

The Power in the Blood ( 'There is a Fountain.......' )

'And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.' ( Hebrews 9:22 )

The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus' blood 'cleanses us from all sin' ( I John 1:7 ), through the 'sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' ( I Peter 1:2 ), but is/was it His actual blood that saved us/them, or was it simply the fulfillment of ritual, or copy ( shadow-Hebrews 9:23 ) from the old, or 'first' covenant ( Hebrews 8:7-13 )?


Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, time and again, 'blood' is mentioned in relation to 'covenant' ( Genesis 8:20,  Genesis 15, 17:9-14, Exodus 12:1-28, Exodus 29, Exodus 24:18, Leviticus 3, Leviticus 4, Leviticus 16, Numbers 18:17, Deuteronomy 12:27, II Kings 23:21, II Chronicles 30:16, 35:11, Psalm 50:5, Jeremiah 34:18-20, Ezekiel 16:1-14, Zechariah 9:11 ), and it is true that these blood sacrifices were commanded by God for the 'children' of Israel to follow, but, as we have seen, through the eyes of the new covenant, it is the spirit, not the letter, of the law, that makes alive ( 'for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life' ( II Corinthians 3:6 ( Romans 7:6 ). As Moses traveled back to Egypt with his wife and two son; Exodus 4:24 records that 'the LORD met him and sought to kill him'; there is some disagreement on whom the Lord ( God ) sought to kill, here, but it is clear why He sought to kill him; because he had not been circumcised, as the commanded sign of the covenant. To prevent his death, either that of the child or Moses; his wife Zipporah circumcised her son on the spot, and said 'Surely you [ are ] a husband of blood to me!'. Scripture does not tell us which son Moses wife circumcised in a hurried manner, and we are only given the name here, of one of his sons ( Exodus 2:21 ), but, relative to the context of this event, I believe that we can safely assume that it occurred, and was placed in Scripture record where it was, to accentuate, to emblazon in the mind of Moses what he was to relay to the Pharaoh; 'Thus says the LORD: “Israel [ is ] My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.'

As Moses neared the end of his biological life; he reiterated to the 'children' of Israel the Law that God had given them through him. In Deuteronomy 10:16; Moses revealed to his people God's intent for, or the principle behind, the act of circumcision; 'Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.' We know, today, and for the past few centuries, probably even millenia,that circumcision has a good medical purpose, as well, which, just like refraining from consuming the meat of a pig, could well be the reason for God's command concerning both. ( I am not saying that we should or should not consider changing our habit of eating, or of circumcising our children! ) The main purpose, though, for God's command of circumcision, besides the fact that it was the sign of the covenant, was that, as Jeremiah said much later, 'Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest My fury come forth like fire, and burn so that no one can quench [ it] , because of the evil of your doings' ( 4:4 ); to metaphorically turn their hearts to God, to cut away ( remove ) any idol, real or imagined, that would detract from His worship ( Deuteronomy 30:6 ).

History will tell us, particularly ancient history, I believe, that 'covenant' is inextricably linked with 'blood'; not only did ( many still do ) pagan religious ritual often involve blood-shed, whether of an animal, or a virgin, but there has been much blood shed over the centuries, all over the world, because of covenant, and often because of misunderstanding of what the requirements of the covenant really were! Take the Passover lamb, for instance, and all the other blood sacrifices instituted throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; there is no doubt that these were commanded by God, but we know, looking back over time, that they were instituted as typical of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which itself was metaphorical for our 'entrance' into covenant with God, and with that, into His Presence and Kingdom. This is not to say that Christ's sacrifice was merely a metaphor, but we know that His sacrifice was symbolic and significant of a greater spiritual truth, as those others instituted under the first covenant were typical pictures of His!

Reading through the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the 'Pentateuch' ( Genesis-Deuteronomy ); it is plain to see that, as above, these animal ( blood ) sacrifices were a requirement, but, as we read in the book of Hebrews, 'Christ came [ as ] High Priest of the good things to come,^[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?' ( Hebrews 9:11-14 ), they were only significant, typical ( physical ) 'pictures' ( foreshadows ) of the sacrifice ( blood ) of Christ. This is not to say that Christ's blood, or the shedding of it, was merely a metaphor; far from it! I believe that Jesus, the Son of God, God Himself, became fully human ( yet without sin ), and dwelt among us, was most cruelly persecuted, and shed actual human blood upon the cross, but the point that the writer above made, and the point that I am making is that though Jesus shed His blood upon that cruel cross, it was not that blood that He presented before the Father! The writer painstakingly makes the point, again and again, throughout his letter, but particularly in chapters 7-9, that the earthly ( physical ) ordinances, and the concrete Temple ( that was made with hands ) were but copies, mere shadows, of the true ordinances, the true Temple, in 'Heaven' ( God's Presence ). Later in this chapter ( verses 23 & 24 ) we read that it was 'necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.' This term 'better', is used throughout the book, to describe how Christ was a better High Priest ( Hebrews 7:20-28 ) since He had a perpetual ( living ) priesthood, a better sacrifice ( Hebrews 9:23 ), and was ( is? ) the Mediator of a better covenant ( Hebrews 8:6 ). I would venture to say, as some have postulated, that His human blood, as His human body, was special, and somehow 'better' than ours, or a normal human body, but it was not the biological perfection of Jesus that won the salvation of His people; it was ultimately the fact that He was God!

For the Passover sacrifice, which was quite possibly the best 'picture' of Christ's, in the Old Covenant Scriptures; God, through Moses, told the people, 'Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year' ( Exodus 12:5 ). God told them, in Leviticus 1:3, 'If his offering [ is ] a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD'; and in Leviticus 3:1, 'When his offering [ is ] a sacrifice of a peace offering, if he offers it of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.' It is interesting that God told the people that, 'When a ruler has sinned, and done [ something ] unintentionally [ against ] any of the commandments of the LORD his God [ in anything ] which should not be done, and is guilty, or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a male without blemish.' ( Leviticus 4:22 & 23 ), but, 'If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing [ something against ] any of the commandments of the LORD [ in anything ] which ought not to be done, and is guilty, or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.' ( Leviticus 4:27 & 28 ). A couple chapters over, in Leviticus 6:6, in the case of a man who has wronged his neighbor, and thus committed trespass against God; 'And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest.' There are many more examples throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, although mostly in the Pentateuch, that show that God's strict ordinance concerning sacrifice, whatever sort of animal, whether it be male or female, was that it be 'without blemish'. ( For other examples outside the Pentateuch, see Ezekiel 43:22-25, 45:18-23, 46:4-13, Malachi 1:13 ( Ephesians 5:27, I Peter 1:19 )

John 19:31-37 records that, as was the Jewish custom, the soldiers were commanded to break the legs of those who had been crucified ( ostensibly, to bring on a quicker expiration, if they were not dead already ), but when they came to break Jesus' legs ( interesting, too, that He was left till last ), they found that there was no need to, for He had already 'given up the ghost' ( John 19:30 ), and so fulfilled the prophecy that 'He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken' ( Psalm 34:20 ).  Several verses later, in John 19:34, the chronicler recorded that one of the soldiers pierced His side, and 'immediately blood and water came out'. Much more could be written here, speculation on what the significance of the blood and the water signified, but for now, and the purposes of this article, suffice it to say that the normal human body does consist largely of blood and water, and by this significant event, God showed that Jesus was truly a Man ( though true God, as well ), and that, by shedding His blood; He very literally fulfilled the role of High Priest, symbolically presenting the blood before the Presence. Although the High Priest was to offer the blood of an animal ( usually a lamb ) before the Ark, in the Holy of Holies; Jesus, as the better High Priest, and Mediator of the better Covenant, presented His own blood before, not the earthly ( picture/shadow ) Presence, but before the heavenly ( true ) reality, to God Himself ( Hebrews 12:18-24 ).

The question then, is 'was it the actual blood of Christ that saved us, or was it His obedience?'

'Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you.'  As we saw above, in circumcision, the physical act was merely significant, symbolic, and metaphorical of a greater spiritual truth, and so is the case, I believe, with the shedding of blood, as well as water baptism and the 'Lord's Supper'. Paul wrote, in Romans 5:19, 'For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.' Through the prophet Isaiah; God told His errant 'children', 'You have bought Me no sweet cane with money, nor have you satisfied Me with the fat of your sacrifices; but you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities.' ( Isaiah 43:24 ). Because of their covenant ( and corporate ) disobedience, the physical 'children' of Israel, and of Adam, were condemned. Although they did not bring their sacrifices and offerings as they were commanded; it was ultimately their disobedience that brought about their final demise ( Romans 6:23 ( Genesis 2:17 ). When Jesus quoted from the prophecy of Hosea ( 6:6 ), in Matthew 9:13, and 12:7, saying 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'; He reminded the Pharisees that He was interested more in their obedience to the command to 'love one another' ( I John 3:23 ( Genesis 20:12-17 ), than in the blood sacrifices, which only pictured the True Sacrifice, and fore-shadowed our redemption.

We must remember Who the 'Power in the Blood' is, and why it can be said that there is 'power in the blood': God is that Power, and it is only because He revealed Himself in the form of a Man, that that Blood had any power ( to save ) at all! His Blood was only symbolic of His obedience to the Covenant, and it was His fulfillment of that Covenant that brought about our reconciliation to God, and brought us into the blessed Presence, once again. May God bless you with these words.

Charles Haddon Shank

Another look at 'A Focus on the Physical'

It's been quite some time ( a little over 4 years ) since I first broached this important subject, and though many articles that God has allowed me to write over those four years, have spoken, to some extent or another, to the subject, though not in so many words; I believe that a new look at the subject of physicality, and our seeming focus on it, is needed.

I began this short series of articles with the idea that this 'focus on the physical' had been, and still is, the impetus behind most, if not all of the 'problems' that have plagued the people of God throughout their history, beginning with the congregation in the wilderness ( the 'Exodus' ) and continuing today. I still believe this to be the case! Although, as I attempted to explain in the last article up to that point , a 'focus on the physical is not necessarily a bad thing, and that if we seek the Kingdom of God before all else ( Matthew 6:33 ), focusing on the things of the Spirit, rather than the things of the 'flesh' ( whether we want to admit it or not, some still live by 'law', rather than by grace; these are still 'in the flesh', in that sense ), and, as verse 33 also says, seeking His Righteousness, rather than our own; all these things will be 'added' to us ( in very fact, they are already ours, and multiplied daily! ): we needn't worry about a thing, we can concentrate on living to the fullest the Life that we have been given, loving the brethren, even the unloving and unlovable!

In the previous article; I broached the subject of 'the after-life', coming to the conclusion that, despite some seemingly Scriptural evidence to the contrary; Scripture actually does not really ever give us a clue about our life after this physical, biological body stops working. We do know for certain, as Jesus told Martha, in John 11:26, 'he who lives and believes in me will never die' that life continues after our physical body expires. Although Scripture is not clear what sort of existence we will have apart from our biological body ( Job 19:26 ); we know, and this should satisfy us, that we are 'always.......with the Lord' ( I Thessalonians 4:17 ( Philippians 1:23 ). Though we may no longer exhibit the physical presence; God has made His 'home' ( John 14:23 ) with us, and He dwells in us ( II Timothy 1:14 ), having made us 'temples of the Holy Spirit' ( I Corinthians 6:19 ). Some may posit, and I believe they may have a valid point, that all these Scriptures, particularly I Corinthians 6:19, refer to the transitional period, between AD33 and AD70, for instance because Paul told them that their bodies were the temple of the Holy Spirit, in opposition to Judaism, which taught that a certain building, made by the hands of man, was the house ( dwelling ) of God. One may well ask here, though, 'if their/our bodies were/are the temple of the Holy Spirit; what happens when we no longer have a body?' Well; I believe this could be explained in several different ways, two of which are that Paul, as is usual for him, was not writing of individual bodies ( except that the Church is made up of individual persons ), but of 'Corpus Christi', or the corporate Body of Christ. Another explanation is that Paul is speaking metaphorically, of our 'spiritual body', the 'changed' ( I Corinthians 15:52 ) new covenant body which we 'inhabit' through the 'new creation' ( II Corinthians 5:17 ) because God made 'all things new' ( Revelation 21:5 ). ( Really, when you think about it; there's not much difference between the two... ) However one looks at it; it should be fairly obvious that Paul was not referring to the physical, biological 'husk' in which we currently walk this earth. Some might object to this, saying something like, 'our physical bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, just as they 'house' the soul'. At best; I would say that this kind of reasoning sounds almost Gnostic! Although I agree that we have an 'inner man', as Paul wrote, in Ephesians 3:16; there is no doctor on earth that could ever find this 'inner man', because Paul, as most writers, especially in that era and area of the world, often used metaphor to reveal certain hidden truths, which are qualitative rather than quantitative, something to be known ( with the intellect ) rather than to be felt, with the physical senses. Some might argue here, as well, that they have 'felt' a spiritual presence before, with their physical senses, and while I believe that this is true enough; I believe that this can be mainly attributed to the equivalent of an 'adrenalin rush', brought on by an acute sense of awareness, a knowledge of, and belief in whatever might be 'out there'!

I was recently involved in a discussion with several brothers, about the 'fact' that, in Philippians 3:21, Paul refers to individual bodies, though admittedly Paul most often speaks of 'the body' in a corporate, or covenantal sense. Although he does sometimes seem, without doubt, to speak of individual, physical, biological bodies, this is still questionable; but even given that he did speak of biological masses, quantitatively, rather than qualitatively, it is clear that he spoke of them in a metaphorical sense. He wrote, in verse 20, 'our citizenship is in heaven': who is he referring to here? In the context of his letter; he is obviously reminding the believers in Philippi that, in contrast to those who did not believe ( in Christ ), had not accepted the Gospel, their citizenship was in 'Heaven', as opposed to ( merely ) holding physical citizenship in the Roman Empire. Like I said before; in the sense that the Body of Christ is made up of individuals, some Scriptural application may be made to individual bodies, but, as Paul also wrote, 'you are all one in Christ Jesus' ( Galatians 3:28 ). In what sense was he saying that they were 'one'? In the sense, not that they no longer possessed an individuality ( ? ), but that their nationality, or status no longer defined them, as our biological make-up does not define us, but that, from the point of inception ( reception/conception ), they could be defined as 'one' Body, not unlike the physical union between a man and his wife, a corporate entity with a common purpose.

There are some who, while acknowledging that Jesus' 'Olivet Discourse', most famously recorded in Matthew 24, but also in Luke 21, and Mark 13, was ( mostly ) fulfilled in the 1st century, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but that the 'Parousia' ( AKA 'the second coming' ) is still in our future, as they believe that it is clearly stated in Acts 1:11 that Christ, whom they also believe still inhabits a physical body, will physically appear on this earth, thus completing our redemption, and bringing us ( creating ) a 'new heaven and new earth'. These brethren ( I cannot stress this important fact enough; they are BRETHREN, in the Body of Christ ) are known as partial-preterists. Most, not all, full preterists believe that Scripture teaches a corporate Body of Christ ( Romans 12:5, I Corinthians 12:12 ), and so it follows, I believe, that Christ does still inhabit a physical, biological Body, yet in a metaphorical sense, for 'as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also [ is ] Christ.' In the sense, as I mentioned earlier, that we have one goal, one purpose, and one Spirit, or as Paul wrote, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' ( Ephesians 4:5 ); we are, corporately, as Christians ( followers of God ), the Body of Christ, not a physical, biological mass ( that would be weird, to say the least ), but metaphorically, His physical Body on earth, fulfilling His promise in John 14:12, 'he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater [ works ] than these he will do, because I go to My Father'.

Why is it so important to remind folks of the detriment of being focused on the physical aspects of this Life that we have been given? Should we not be concerned about, even focused on, the responsibilities that God has placed upon us? Well, of course we should, but we should not focus on them to the point that we loose our focus on Christ ( God ), and begin to worry about our physical life ( for what is our life? ( James 4:14 ). Worry, more often than not, causes stress, and you don't need a doctor to tell you what stress can do to a body. Granted, stress is not always caused by worry. There are many physical and biological causes of stress, but worry needlessly causes many people to 'stress out'. God gave us these physical bodies for a reason; we have a job to do it, and He has also given us the strength to do it.

Adam, whether you believe that he was the first human being on planet earth, or that he was simply the first human being with whom God covenanted, was given a job to do; 'have dominion', but also, to multiply and replenish the earth, or, his dominion. Did Adam take the dominion that he was told to 'have'? Yes and no. Physically speaking, Adam and his progeny did what they were told; man has enjoyed, to a greater or lesser extent, dominion over God's animal creation ( at least those that aren't as 'smart' as we are ), and even somewhat, to a much lesser extent, over His natural creation, the earth itself, for thousands of years, and progressively for generations! If I read the new testament Scriptures correctly; Jesus, traditionally the second Adam, came to bring Life, whereas the first Adam only brought death.

The Death of Adam.

The death that Adam brought upon his progeny has been the subject of much debate for years, and unless something major happens ( this may be close on our horizon than we think ), it will likely continue for years to come. A strictly literal reading of our modern English bibles will tell you ( plainly? ) that Adam was the first human being on planet earth, and some have postulated that the death that he was threatened with ( ? ) in Genesis 2:17 ( 'in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die' ) was physical death, and that what God was really saying was 'in the day you eat you will begin to die'  that's why Adam only lived 962 years, instead of 'forever' ( Genesis 3:22 ), or taking the word 'day' as meaning a certain amount of time, and not necessarily a 24 hour period, God meant that if Adam ate of the wrong tree, his physical body would be eventually separated from its life-force ( Ecclesiastes 12:7 ). Yet another explanation for the death that Adam died, and this I believe, is pretty traditional in more orthodox circles, was that he died spiritually, in sin-death. To the covenant people of God; Isaiah wrote 'your iniquities have separated you from your God' ( Isaiah 59:2 ). Adam's sin of disobedience to God got him barred from the Garden, or the blessings of the Presence of God. This was obviously typical, or symbolic, as even the congregation in the wilderness carried the Presence of God with them, and 'they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ' ( I Corinthians 10:4 ), and even outside the Garden, God was with Adam, granting him still, the physical blessings of his labors ( though he now had to 'work' for them ), and Eve with the physical blessings of childbirth ( though now it was painful; she lost her first two ).

The point that spiritual death implies death of the spirit, has been brought up, and is, I believe, a valid point.  Now, as we read in Ecclesiastes 12:7, upon the demise of our physical body, 'Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it': this, I believe, is the generally accepted view of what happens when a biological body dies.Granted, then, that death means separation, whether it be separation from your life-force, or from God, the death that Solomon traditionally describes above, and in the rest of the passage, can be correctly termed death, although not even then ( necessarily ) spiritual death. If, as I have postulated before, the spirit of a wicked man, after it returns to God upon physical death, is then cast into the Lake of Fire, where it is incinerated, then indeed this would be spiritual death, for then even the spirit would cease to exist. This obviously was not the death that Adam died in/on the day he ate; he still had life/breath in his body, in this sense then, you could almost agree with the serpent in the Garden; Adam did not physically perish in the day that he ate. Looking back at the speculation above, that Adam began to die ( physically ) in the day that he ate, or that the 'day' that God spoke of was a certain amount of time that only He knew ( this latter point may have some validity, though not the validity that some 'see' ), it should be abundantly clear that this 'day' or era ( 'age' ) was decisively brought to an end during the ( covenantal ) transitional period, between Jesus crucifixion and the destruction of the old covenant ( Jewish ) economy, in 70AD.

Metaphorical, or symbolic death

There can be no question, however you look at it, that Adam died, just as God promised, in/on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The question before us is WHAT death he died! We know that he was not struck down the moment he ate the fruit ( ? ), and we've seen that he did not spiritually die. The fact that Adam was removed from the Garden, which was significant of the blessings and Presence of God the same day that he ate the fruit, should give us a clue. The old covenant Scriptures, though the old covenant itself has passed away, are still there for our learning; though they undoubtedly happened as they were recorded, they were also written in such a way as to convey a deeper, hidden meaning, a spiritual truth that has only been revealed since the Advent of Christ, and I believe, is still being revealed. Adam's removal from the Garden was significant, or symbolic, of the fact that he had been separated from the tree of life ( Christ ) and this separation meant that things would not come so easily anymore, since he now could judge for himself between 'good and evil'; he had separated himself from the protection of his Father, and 'struck out' on his own!

I have used the analogy before, and I'm sure that most of those reading this are quite familiar with it, that, as in the parable of 'the prodigal son' ( Luke 15 ), a child that has been cut off, either deservedly or undeservedly ( does any child really deserve it? ) from his father and mother, is often referred to as 'dead' to them, not only because of a physical separation, but because of emotional separation, again, because of some event that has occurred whereby either one or both parties have become estranged to the point of loosing all manner of communication, or communion. This, like the death that Adam symbolically died that day, being cut off from the communion of his Father, could accurately be termed 'metaphorical death'.

'Let them have dominion........'

Adam, for all intents and purposes, was seemingly given dominion over all that he surveyed. As we saw above; it is fairly clear that, physically speaking anyway, he did take dominion, and this dominion, to some extent, has been widened and expanded over the generations since his 'day': this dominion is still being explored even in our day, even as far as venturing into 'outer space', to see if we can extend our dominion even that far. The history of our dominion of this wild country, beginning several centuries ago, and continuing to a lesser extent today, although a rather harsh one, and 'rightfully ours', has not usually been characterized by love. I'm not saying, please don't get me wrong ) that certain people didn't show love, either for those who were 'ousted', or just in their general dealings; they most certainly did, but I believe that, as in the case of man 'hostile takeovers', love was not a ruling factor. Even reading the history of Israel; we can see that many of their actions in 'having dominion', or rather, taking dominion, were not guided by a love for God and their neighbor as themselves. Yes; God's command to them was clear; in most cases, in 'clearing out' the land ( of promise ) in order to make it habitable and a glory to God; they were instructed to kill'em all ( 'and let God sort'em out'? ), but as we read in the new testament Scriptures; Jesus told them that they missed the whole point, by following the letter, rather than the Spirit of God's law.

Today; we too often follow their example, taking, by force, if necessary ( 'it's our right'! ) the dominion that we have been given, rather than first following the principle of God's law, which according to Jesus is 'love God, and love your neighbor'. God's not talking about some kind of 'touchy-feely' love, although love is an action. The kind of love we are to have for our neighbor, though akin to the love we should show to God, is not murdering them ( or even having hateful vengeful thoughts toward them ), not stealing from them, not bearing them false witness ( lying to or about them ), not committing adultery ( fornicating with them, not even thinking about it ), or coveting what they have. In other words, and this is where it is akin to our love for God; we should respect our neighbors 'rights', his possessions, etc. I guess that the point I'm trying to make here is that dominion without love is not true dominion, and neither is love truly love without having dominion ( control ) of our own thoughts, words and deeds.


Adam & Eve, because of their 'focus on the physical', sought their own wisdom, and thereby dominion ( 'knowledge is power' ), rather than being satisfied with the dominion that God had given them, as is so often the case today ( I look at my own life best! )


Wrapping this article up for now, for there will most likely be more to come: I would like to encourage my readers not to just take my word for it, but to search these thing out for themselves, to see if these things are indeed so, and as importantly, to examine with me, our own lives first, to see if our focus needs to be adjusted.


Charles Haddon Shank

The Battle for Truth ( 'new' beginnings ) World War III

There's a battle raging today, and in some cases, it's right at our own 'doorstep'; it rages, almost imperceptibly maybe, in most seminaries and Bible colleges, and is being fought, almost as a 'Cold War', in many congregations around the world, as well as on the home-front.

Although it could, and sometimes does get physically violent; it is normally more like a battle of wills: who's right and who's wrong ( 'if I'm right, then you must be wrong' ). Much of the time, the weapon of 'reason', or logic, is used;'if this, then that', which can be very useful at times, and often turns out to the correct purpose, but when fighting these battles, it's often easy to forget Who we're dealing with. Most Christians today, when faced with 'reason', will say something like; 'God says, 'For My thoughts [ are ] not your thoughts, nor [ are ] your ways My way', quoting ( which I have been known to do ) Isaiah 55:8, out of context. While this is most certainly true, for God IS God, and 'we' are but human beings ( ? ), able only to copy, or 'ape' Him; we still are wont to remove this passage from it's immediate context, for, as we can see from reading the surrounding ( especially just previous ) verses, God is addressing 'the wicked', and 'the unrighteous man'. Those who have turned to Him, as He adjures those men, in the immediately previous few verses, I believe, if not blinded by the traditions of men, or their own stubbornness, can have a glimpse, maybe even more, of His ways.

Fulfilled Eschatology, aka 'preterism', can be said to be the basis for this Holy ( Cold ) War. 'Preterism' has many facets today, as many as any other belief system ( or more ), so for that, if no other reason; I will be fighting under the banner, first and foremost of course, of God, and Truth, but of 'Fulfilled Eschatology' ( 'Kingdom', or 'Covenant Eschatology' have been employed, but, as eschatology is the study of the end, and neither the Kingdom, nor Covenant have an end ( Dan 2:44, Luke 21:33 ), neither of these really 'fit the bill'! ) As I've noted in at least one previous article, and in discussions I've had with critical brethren; I am not the best theological defender of this view, but I do believe that eschatology, as describing the time of the end, the end of the old covenant (Judaistic ) economy, and the final and full revelation of the new covenant in Christ, was fulfilled ( accomplished ) in the 1st century, in 'the year of our Lord', Anno Domini. Some have argued that the new covenant was established in 33AD, with the death of Christ on the cross, and the subsequent presentation of His 'blood' before the Father, upon the altar, in the Holiest ( Dan 7:13 ). I agree with this, insofar as Christ was Himself, as I pointed out in a previous article, 'the messenger of the covenant' ( Malachi 3:1 ), and in fact, the covenant itself ( in a manner of speaking ( Isaiah 42:6, 49:8 ), but, as the writer to the Hebrews stated, 'the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing' ( 9:8 ), although he did point out, later in the same chapter, 'a testament [ is ] in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.' ( 17 ( 'testament' is another word, in this case, for 'covenant' ). One way to explain why others say ( myself in particular ) that the new covenant was not fully established at the cross, is because the old ( covenant ) economy was still actively being pursued, the animal sacrifices were still being presented, and because, as above, 'the first tabernacle was still standing', and the Church, which was founded and grounded upon the 'Rock' which was Christ, was still being birthed, not being fully established.


What is truth?

Before Jesus was crucified, but during His trial; Pilate asked this pointed question, although I don't believe he was really serious about it, for he didn't seem to wait around for an answer. As we now know, and which Pilate didn't have the advantage of; looking back on Jesus words to His disciples in John 14:6, He WAS/IS 'the Truth'! God's Word is Truth ( John 1:1 ), and vice-versa, the truth is God's word, the Scriptures. I know many brethren who trust ( implicitly ) the word of God, as translated by, and presented by men who may or may not have had God's Spirit. I will readily admit that most translations give us the same basic 'picture' of Christ, and present the same 'good news', and so, have proven to be a fairly accurate rendering of the Word of God. Although I believe the Bible does present the Word of God as revealed to His servants in a time and location 'long ago', and 'far away', we have, unless one knows Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic ( and even those, unless from 2,000+ years ago, are 'suspect, as well ), merely English translations, at best made by 'men of like passions' as we. Can we trust these translations then? I daresay that we can trust God, through them, as through even the original manuscripts ( Scriptures ), to reveal to us His Word, the Truth that we so desperately need, and in most cases, seek. 'What is the point, then, of quibbling over whether or not the Bible is the Word of God?', one might ask. The point is, the Bible is NOT the Word of God! Jesus is the 'Word' of God, as witnessed by the Bible, and as revealed in the Scriptures. This may seem to be an almost insignificant point ( 'in the grand scheme of things' ), but I assure you; it is, at it's foundation, one of the most important truths you will ever discover!

Many people today have a relativistic view of truth. Phrases such as 'what's true for you, may not be true for me' are seemingly 'bandied' about, almost 'willy-nilly'. In the minds of most Christians; there is no doubt that truth is absolute, but even among Christians, there is often disagreement as to what that 'absolute' truth is, and how it should be presented. There is a certain sense in which something may seem to be true for one person, but not for another, and in that sense could be termed 'relative', but truth does not change, in reality; one plus one will always equal two ( although some have even figured out that that's not 'true' ), right will always be right, wrong will always be wrong, and God will always be God ( 'the same yesterday, today, and forever' )! A person in Australia, for instance, may, at 8 pm ( their time-depending where they are in Australia ) call a person in the US at noon: while for the Australian; it would be quite another day altogether, for the person in the US, it would be the previous day. A person with perfect vision may correctly discern that the shirt that they picked out for the day is red, and that both socks match, while a person that has color-blindness may end up wearing a completely different shirt ( that they thought was red ), and sporting mis-matched socks.Two different college professors, both with a PhD., and both with a degree in theology, and fluent in their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, may have a different perception of what Christ meant, for instance, when He said 'this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place'. We may believe a certain way about something, but even if the majority believes the same thing, that doesn't make it the truth! I believe, as do all preterists ( true, not partial ), that when Jesus said this to His disciples; He meant that all the things that He described to them in vivid terms, in what is called 'The Olivet Discourse', would transpire within the next 40 years or so, before their own generation had died off, while others believe that, by 'this generation', Jesus referred to the generation ( future ) that would see these things happening. Others subscribe to some sort of 'gap theory', in which Jesus told His disciples ( not very clearly ) that some things would happen in their generation, but that the rest would not happen till a future generation. The point I'm trying to make here, is that though our perceptions may change ( or differ ); the truth never changes: 'it is what it is', and what we believe about the Truth does not make it Truth!

Our perception of God, as our our perception of things, may 'color' our beliefs, and therefore actions, but our beliefs about who and what God is do not change the facts. We may believe ( erroneously ) that God is petty, and vengeful, like we humans have a tendency to be, but just because we believe it, our Bible seems to say that He is, and our leaders tell us that He is, doesn't mean that He is. Some believe that, especially with the advent of the new covenant, all have been reconciled to God, and that all will eventually come to a saving knowledge of God, while others go even further, and say that all have been 'saved', whether they believe or not, but this does not change the fact.

Does our perception determine our reality?

As discussed earlier; what we perceive to be true is not necessarily true: 'truth for us is not necessarily truth'. Our perception is a largely determining factor, however, in the way we look at things ( our world-view ), and thus, the way we live our lives. As we have seen though; this does not change the fact that there is an absolute truth, and this truth is rested in God alone, and revealed through His Spirit, when and how He sees fit.

Since the beginning of time ( ? ); perception has always 'colored' men's ( and women's ) 'reality', and caused them to commit acts of rebellion. Looking at Scripture, which is the record of time that we have to deal with; we notice that Eve, because she saw that 'tree [ was ] good for food, that it [ was ] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [ one ] wise', along with her husband, disobeyed God's explicit instruction, and in so doing, brought upon their descendants a symbolic, typical, and metaphorical separation from God. Her son Cain, perceiving that God favored his brother, for whatever reason, jealously struck down his brother, and became the first known murderer. Sarah perceived that, since her womb was dead, to old for child-bearing, and because she felt that God was taking to long ( II Peter 3:8 ); took matters into her own hands, and thus began a long and turbulent history of wars and fightings in the Middle East. This is but a 'smattering' of the examples that we can look at in Scripture, to see how one's perception, most often wrong, or at least skewed, led to much pain and turmoil, and usually not just for that person, but for all those around him, in his 'area' of influence.

Even in our late history ( the past 1900 or so years, since the end of Biblical 'canon' ), we have seen much turmoil, much of it directly related to Biblical history, and some only incidentally: take 'The Crusades', for instance; because ( and this is not meant to be a historically accurate or concise relation ) it was decided by 'the powers that be', through their perception of Scripture, that Jerusalem and Israel had been given to the physical Jews, that forces must needs re-enter the so-called 'land of promise', and remove the infidel heathens, restoring the land to its rightful owners. This fight continues to this day, and was only exacerbated by the re-installment of Israel as a nation, in 1948. Beginning in the late 12th century, the infamous Inquisitions began to be carried out, mostly by the Roman Catholic Church ( other 'churches' had their own 'versions' ), because of someone's ( the majority ) usually somewhat skewed perception of orthodoxy, and desire to rid the 'land' of heresy. This battle, usually to a lesser degree ( thankfully ) continues all over the world still today.

To answer the question above; it first must be determined what reality is. We can, in our limited and finite human minds conceive of a reality that may be altogether different from another man's conception. As we have noted above; God is Truth, He is the only and ultimate reality: He IS ( Exodus 3:14, Isaiah 43:13, 46:9, John 8:58 ( 1:1-3 ) Revelation 21:6 ( 1:8 )! Is our reality what we perceive as 'our reality', or what God has said is our reality? Even if we don't perceive ourselves to be in a covenant relationship, good or bad, right or wrong, is our reality in any sense different? God is our reality, no matter how we perceive things; sure, because our perception is different than someone else, our action are most likely going to differ somewhat ( that's life ), but even then, our actions don't change the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and so on; that's the reality, and reality doesn't change: it is an intangible. 'Our reality', in some sense, could be seen as real, and it could be truly said that certain things that happen in our lives, such as the death of a loved one, or some such other tragedy really happened, and thus, in that sense, are true, but again, our perception has much to do with our world-view. Recently, and most of us can relate to this, we have experienced 'the loss of a loved one', but did he really die, or did we just lose communion ( or communication ) with him/her? Must we kill ourselves to pay the bills, put food on the table, and a roof over our heads ( not necessarily in that order ), or do we take God's Word for it, and seek first His Kingdom ( Matthew 6:33 ), and trust Him to meet all these needs? ( don't get me wrong; we are to do what we can ) Our perception DOES determine what we perceive to be our reality, but God determines our reality!

Some may say that it is not until we knowingly ( willingly ) enter into covenant with God, whether it be through the 'waters of baptism', or however we decide ( ? ), that we are in covenant relationship with our Creator. Although this may be one's perception; this does not change the reality that all are children of their Father ( like it or not ) in 'Heaven' just as they are physically children of their earthly father ( like it or not ); He has provided, and provides, all things necessary for physical existence, for each of His 'children', and thus, if only for that reason alone, can, and should be, termed, 'our Father'! Do those who do not respond ( positively ) to the covenant that God, as our True Father, has instituted with all His children, enjoy the blessings ( Deuteronomy 28:1-13 ) of His covenant? Of course not; don't be ridiculous! God has made a covenant, whether you will or not, with all of His creation, and every one of His ( sentient ) creatures has a choice, a choice of whether to obey or disobey, to love or to hate, to kill, or to make alive, keeping in mind the Scriptural principle, 'you reap what you sow' ( Galatians 6:7 ). Paul wrote, to the church in Corinth, 'we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ' ( II Corinthians 5:10a ); this, in itself, should remind us of the all-inclusiveness of the covenant ( some might argue here that Paul is speaking only of those who have been 'birthed' into covenant with God ), but the context he wrote these words in, is that all will 'receive the things [ done ] in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad', again, the basic principle of 'you reap what you sow'. In the following passage then; Paul adjured his readers to 'be reconciled to God', reasoning that 'all things [ are ] of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ', that 'He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again' ( see also Romans 14:10 ).

I will ( ? ) freely admit, as above, that until we knowingly and willingly respond in a positive way to God's covenant; we will not enjoy the benefits to the fullest ( even those who still reject Him enjoy some of the physical benefits of being His ), but in no way, I believe, can we say that one is outside of God's covenant until one decides to enter into covenant ( up till that point, one simply has a bad relationship with God, as a disobedient and self-willed child )!

The 'battle' continues.........................

As we continue our search for truth ( really only a search for understanding, and a prayer for enlightenment ), let us remember that God is Truth, and if we know Him truly, we know ( have ) the Truth, and thus share communion with all who know Him! Our perception of this Truth may change over the years, and will likely always remain personal, but the truth is; God never changes; 'He is what He is' ( I AM what I AM ), and THAT is one thing that we CAN count on!

Many ( multiplied greatly ) blessings,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Power in Prayer ( the manifestation of the sons of God )

It is interesting, don't you think, that he that wrote 'faith with without works is dead', later wrote 'the prayer of faith will save the sick'? This subject has been on my mind for quite some time, and I finally got around to sitting down, and hammering out some of my thoughts on the matter, thoughts I believe, that God has revealed to me through study of His word and meditation on it, and through discussion with His people on the subject of prayer.

The Power of Prayer

This is a popular phrase of late; 'Do you believe in the power of prayer?', and the idea, which the Bible seems almost to support, that 'prayer moves the hand of God', are several questioning ( and questionable ) statements that are probably somewhat familiar.

Does prayer, in and of itself, possess any value, any real power to do anything? It's just words, right? Words can surely lead to action, and usually do, although not always to the desired action. Action, when we pray to God, and even when we make request of our fellow man ( or woman ), is what we're looking for. There is no question that God answers prayer, just as most human beings will, in their own way, strive to fulfill the desire of their fellow human being, when asked, and even sometimes, without be asked, especially if a need presents itself. Much of the time, though, our prayers are not answered in quite the way in which we requested, or desired, and often not within the time-frame that we'd prefer. To answer the question above; we must determine then, if, when, and how ( to what extent ) words themselves have any power.

Do our words have power?

We know from history that words have power. Not the words themselves, maybe, but the actions, or reactions they usually engender. I'm sure that many wars or battles that have taken place may not have ever happened without a few choice words, either spoken or written. When God created the 'heavens and earth' in Genesis 1, He simply said 'Let there be..' ( from this has come the simplistic notion that 'God spoke the world into existence' ( I'm not saying this is not possible, or even true ). Scientifically; it can be shown that sound waves can be a destructive force; so in that sense, words do have power. You've heard the phrase, 'The pen is mightier than the sword': English author and playwright George Edward Bulwer-Lytton coined this phrase for a play that he wrote in 1839, an can be taken to mean that 'a person can cause people to change their opinions (e.g., to fight a war) and on a large scale whereas a sword can only change a person's opinion by force and then often only results in the person's death', for instance, Kevin Cooley wrote 'The Founding Fathers of the United States of America considered the pen to be mightier than the sword, and therefore were able to gain the freedom of America by uniting the colonists.' This, I believe, is only common sense; even the Bible supports this; Solomon king of Israel, arguably the wisest man ever, wrote 'The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars^[b] are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd' ( Ecclesiastes 12:11 ), and in Proverbs 6:2; he warned his son of the dangers of ( making ) ignorant, yet well-meaning promises; he wrote 'You are snared by the words of your mouth; you are taken by the words of your mouth'. In Proverbs 16:24, we read, 'Pleasant words [ are like ] a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the bones' ( see also Psalm 119:103 ), and, in Proverbs 25:11, 'A word fitly spoken [ is like ] apples of gold in settings of silver'. Pretty obviously then; our words have power, power to harm, and power to heal!

When to, and when not to........

Sometimes, as we have all learned by experience ( by then its usually too late ); it's best just to keep your mouth shut, even though you know the right answer, and are dying to give it. Like we tell our kids, 'just because it's the truth doesn't mean you have to say it': there is such a thing as 'tact', and often, we can  and do ) say the right thing at the wrong time, the other side of the coin being that sometimes we say the wrong thing at the right time, which can actually lead to further trouble. What I mean by saying 'the right thing at the wrong time' is that sometimes a person is not ready for a certain truth at any given time ( and this is where tact comes in ), but we must sometimes bide our time and watch carefully for just the right moment ( a marriage proposal, for example ). Telling a person an untruth at a time when he is desperately seeking answers can often turn out to his ( and your's ) detriment, especially if that person is in the least gullible. This is one reason, I believe, and the Scriptures bear witness ( James 3:1 ), that teachers must be extra studious, and take great care that what they are teaching is true! Solomon, again, in his book of Proverbs ( 17:27a ), wrote, 'He who has knowledge spares his words', and later, in 23:9, 'Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words'. This same wise man wrote, 'Do you see a man hasty in his words? [ There is ] more hope for a fool than for him.'

Something that has always puzzled me, somewhat, is when Solomon wrote, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him', and then seems to contradict himself by saying, 'Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes' ( Proverbs 26:4 & 5 ). I believe now that Solomon was teaching his son to be tactful, reminding him that there is a time to , as some say, 'beat a dead horse', but that he must also realize that there are times when he can begin to 'talk in circles', making as little, or less, sense than the one he is striving to persuade. Solomon, as the Preacher', in Ecclesiastes 3, wrote, 'To everything [ there is ] a season, a time for every purpose under heaven', and later in this same passage that there is, 'a time to keep silence, and a time to speak'. This is a hard lesson to learn, especially for certain ones of us, and it's an easy one to forget, as well, that we must learn when ( as well as what ) to speak, and when not to speak.

How to deal...............

To some extent; we have already studied how we present to our listeners ( or readers ) 'apples of gold', which are 'sweetness to the soul' and 'health to the bones', and how, presented in the right way at the right time, our words can prove a boon, and not a detriment to their recipients. When Solomon ordered his proverbs and presented them to his his son, he gave this purpose for them; 'To know wisdom and instruction', and, 'to perceive the words of understanding'; our purpose in learning is to know how to use our words to the utmost effect, and as we saw above, 'to heal', and not 'to harm'! We have already seen that our words do have power, so how do we harness this power that James said is 'an unruly evil, full of deadly poison' ( James 3:8b )? Turning, once again, to the wisdom of Solomon; we read, in Proverbs 10:19, 'In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips [ is ] wise', and likewise, in Ecclesiastes 9:17, 'Words of the wise, [ spoken ] quietly, [ should be ] heard rather than the shout of a ruler of fools'. It is through ( and in ) wisdom that our words should be presented ( and displayed ), and that wisdom, James said 'is from above', and is 'first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy' ( James 3:17 ).

The Power in prayer

I've asked the question, 'Does prayer, in and of itself, possess any value, any real power to do anything?' We can say for certain that words have power, because they have proven throughout history to be so, with starting wars, and such, or with bringing peace. Words, whether written or spoken, have inspired men to greatness, or to baseness, to nobility, or ignobility. Although they seem to have this power to move people to certain actions; I believe it is hard to argue ( though some have, I believe, and yet may ) that this power is intrinsic, or within the word itself; it is neither easy to deny the facts.

When we utter a prayer to God; we can be assured that His 'ear' is open to our prayer. We know from Scripture ( Romans 8:26 ) that God 'hears' our prayer, even when we're not sure ourselves what we actually need. This should tell us that the power is not so much in the word itself, but in the hearer, or hearers. We read, in Genesis 20, of God closing the wombs of the women of the Philistine king's household, and then upon Abraham's prayer for him, opening their wombs once again.  When the 'children' of Israel had sinned against God with 'The Golden Calf', in Exodus 32, and God announced His intention to destroy them right then and there; Moses uttered this intercessory prayer, 'LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit [ it ] forever.' As we know; God did not destroy them at that time. Numbers 11:1-3 records one instance when these 'children' complained against God's provision, whereupon He kindled a fire in their midst, which began to consume them, and when Moses prayed to God for them, God quenched ( or squelched ) the fire.  Later, when he was about to depart; Moses, in recounting the many sins and rebellions of his people, in Deuteronomy 9:26; reminded them how God had expressed His intention to make an end of them, but how he had interceded for them, and thus brought them grace. When Hannah prayed to God for a son, In I Samuel 1:10; He heard her prayer, and her vow, and He opened her womb and Samuel was born ( Samuel means 'heard of God'). After David, king of Israel, had sinned against God, by taking a census of his people, in II Samuel 24, for which God unleashed a terrible plague upon his kingdom; it is recorded that, when David made a prayer of intercession, crying 'mea culpa': 'the LORD heeded the prayers for the land, and the plague was withdrawn from Israel'.When the king of Syria surrounded Dothan in order to capture and most likely, to kill, the prophet Elisha, this man of God prayed that God would reveal to his servant the true Strength that protected them, and 'the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw......the mountain [ was ] full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha' ( II Kings 6:17 ). When Hezekiah king of Israel prayed to God because of the very real threat that the king of Assyria and his armies posed to their holy city; it is recorded in II Kings 19:20 that God responded to Hezekiah, through Isaiah the prophet saying 'Because you have prayed to Me against Sennacherib king of Assyria, I have heard'. At this time, and at many other times throughout their history, God delivered His typical people when they turned to Him ( however sincerely, or with their 'whole hearts' ) and made supplication before Him.

Jesus told His disciples ( Matthew 21:22 ), 'whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive'. This sounds almost to good to be true! It sounds to, aside from its contexts, like Jesus is telling them/us that all we have to do is believe for something to happen. Most Christians, though, will admit that this is not the case, and that only if God has willed it, is something going to happen, or be presented to you; as John wrote to his 'children ( I John 5:14 ), 'Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us'. Only if we pray according to His will ( 'Your will be done...' ( Matthew 6:9-13, 26:39 ) does God hear, or answer our prayer.


One of the most heartfelt prayers in the Bible ( NU-text posits that this is a later addition ) was when Jesus cried, from the cross, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do' ( Luke 23:34 ). This question may engender others, but did God answer His only begotten Son's prayer? Did He forgive those for whom Jesus prayed ( John 17 )? I believe that most people, because of the sentence structure ( 'for they do not know what they do' ) will tell you that Jesus prayed for His captors, for those abusers, tormentors of His, who 'pierced His hands and His feet' ( Psalm 22:16b ), and this may have been another instance like when, in the Garden, He prayed, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You [ will ]' ( Matthew 26:39 ), and on the cross, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' ( Matthew 27:46 ( Psalm 22:16 ); the Son of Man, human as He was ( yet fully God ), naturally tending away from the pain He knew was in store, much of which He already experienced, and reeling from the pain He felt in His Spirit but showing the love and tenderness that He had towards His people, in wishing as Paul, in Romans 11, for their reconciliation. Another explanation could be that those for whom He uttered that prayer on the cross, were the same ones for whom He interceded in John 17, praying not 'for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours' ( 'world' here is kosmos, same as in 3:16 ), even those who, despite their frenzied acceptance of His kingship, days earlier, had cried 'Crucify [ Him ], crucify Him!'

There is power in prayer, there is no doubt of that, but it is clear that the power rests, not in the one who utters the words, nor in the words themselves, but in the One to who prayer is made. Like John wrote above; we receive what we ask for when we pray according to His will, and according to Jesus, when we believe that His will is done.

There is also a form of prayer we use when we ask our brethren for things. If a thing is not within our grasp, or power, to get, or to do; if it is within their power to meet our need; I believe that they are manifested as the sons, or 'children', of God, when they do what is needed. There are things that we can get, or do, for ourselves ( and often fail to ); I do not so we should pray about that ( except maybe for strength ), but for those ( things ) that we cannot do on our own, we can be assured that, if we need it ( truly ( not just want ); we will have it ( Matthew 6:33 )!

prayerfully,
Charles Haddon Shank

Veiled in Flesh ( The Messenger of the Covenant ) ( a Christmas companion )

Hark! The herald angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King;

Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!”

Joyful, all ye nations rise, Join the triumph of the skies;

With th’angelic host proclaim, “Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

Christ, by highest Heav’n adored; Christ the everlasting Lord;

Late in time, behold Him come, Offspring of a virgin’s womb.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail th’incarnate Deity,

Pleased with us in flesh to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel.

Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness!

Light and life to all He brings, Ris’n with healing in His wings.

Mild He lays His glory by, Born that man no more may die.

Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth.

Come, Desire of nations, come, Fix in us Thy humble home;

Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed, Bruise in us the serpent’s head.

Now display Thy saving power, Ruined nature now restore;

Now in mystic union join Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface, Stamp Thine image in its place:

Second Adam from above, Reinstate us in Thy love.

Let us Thee, though lost, regain, Thee, the Life, the inner man:

O, to all Thyself impart, Formed in each believing heart.

Though some of us may find ourselves in disagreement with Wesley's eschatology, or other aspects of his theology; he said rightly that God was 'veiled in flesh', when He sent His only begotten Son to earth. Traditionally, I believe, and there seems to be good Scriptural support for this, Jesus was born as a human being because the justice of God required a blood sacrifice, and not only that, but He had to be a true man, so that He could pay the penalty that man had incurred.

When Moses asked to see God's Glory, in Exodus 33, God told him, 'You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live'. In the end, Moses had barely a glimpse of His Glory, because God told Moses, 'Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen'. Even though he barely had a glimpse of the Glory of God, it is recorded that, after this experience; 'the skin of his face shone', so that 'he put a veil on his face', in order that the 'children' of Israel could bear to look at him. I believe that part of the reason that God sent His Son to earth in human 'flesh', was so that His people could bear His Presence.


'For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God [ did ] by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.'


In the previous chapter; Paul defended the law, saying that it was 'holy, and .......and just and good' ( 7:12 ). This being true; God sent of Himself to fulfill His own law, written in stone, because the ordinance that He had given was contrary to the selfish nature of His human creation. Paul also wrote, later ( I Corinthians 1:25b ), 'the weakness of God is stronger than men' ( Like any good Father; He set the example for us, revealing His own humility in weakness ). To His adversaries, Jesus did seem weak ( except for that episode, probably, in the Temple, with all the money, tables, etc., flying around......), 'who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return' ( I Peter 2:23a ). When He was tormented by His captors; Jesus 'was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth' ( Isaiah 53:7b ). Born as a baby; Jesus revealed the epitome of weakness and humility: think of it; Almighty God ( Isaiah 9:6 ), the Creator of all things ( John 1:3 ), emptying Himself of all that power and glory, just to be born as a weak human infant, and then to suffer the indignity of growing up into manhood, only to be murdered in the cruelest way then imaginable, all to reveal Himself as the great Anti-type, the fulfillment of all that had been written ( including the law ).


'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us'


One of the most beautiful, and uplifting, passages in Scripture is found in Isaiah 40: verse 29 says 'He gives power to the weak, and to [ those who have ] no might He increases strength.' Joel prophesied of this, in Joel 3:10; 'Let the weak say, ‘I [ am ] strong'. We read, in Hebrews 7:18, 'For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness', and later, in the same book, or letter, we read that God instituted the new covenant because of the weakness of the flesh, because He found fault with them ( 8:7-12 ( Jeremiah 31:31-34 ). God sent His own Son, God Himself, as a man, that He, through the weakness of 'the flesh' might give strength through His Spirit ( think of Sampson here, in Judges 16 ), to that 'flesh', and through that Spirit, to conquer the 'wisdom' of that 'flesh' ( I Corinthians 1:27 ( Isaiah 29:14, Jeremiah 8:9 ).

Some may have noticed that, for the past number of months ( close to a year, probably ); I have been enamored with taking pictures of the 'heavens' ( which 'declare the glory of God' ( Psalm 19:1 ): a friend of mine commented on this, reminding me that the clouds acted as a layer of protection from the brightness, and invisible dangers of the Sun's rays. In much the same way, as I began to mention earlier; God's veiling of Himself ( His Son ) in the weakness of human flesh served the same purpose. Not only did Jesus appear in 'the flesh' in order to do what man by himself could not do, to atone for the sins of His people, but also to protect weak, frail mankind ( whose 'days [ are ] like grass' ( Psalm 103:15, Isaiah 40:6-8 ) from His holiness, and righteous indignation.



Behold, I send My Messenger, and He will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight.


Many, I believe, have taken this statement from the prophecy of Malachi ( 3:1 ) as speaking of the mission of John the Baptizer, but I believe that, taken as a whole, and read in context; this 'Messenger of the covenant' is proven to be none other than our Lord, Jesus the Christ. He prepared the way, through the weakness and humility of His 'flesh', for God to dwell, once again, with man, as Jesus promised in John 14:23, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.' True Man, yet also true God; He came to prove that man, with God, could do what man alone could not do, and that was to re-enter into fellowship and communion with God.

Quoting Psalm 40:6-8 ( from the Septuagint, I believe ), the writer to the Hebrews revealed that, when the Christ ( 'Anointed One'- Isaiah 61:1 ) came into the world, He prophesied, saying 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me' ( Hebrews 10:5 ) Though why, as the link above attempts to explain, there is still question as to why the Septuagint, and thus, the author of the letter to the Hebrews, uses the phrase 'a body You have prepared for Me', rather than what we find in the Hebrew Scriptures, 'My ears You have opened'; it is clear from Scripture, as typified in places like Genesis 22:13 ( regarding the 'son of promise'-Romans 9:9, Galatians 4:28-31 ), and Isaiah 26:19a, which reads 'Your dead shall live; [ together with ] my dead body^[b] they shall arise', that God did prepare a biological body for His Son, in which to redeem, and reconcile His people to Himself.


Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh....................

Having been familiarized, no doubt, with the ways of the Persian court; Esther knew that if one was to approach the king; as he sat on his throne in the inner court ( significant of the Holy of Holies, or 'the Holiest' ) without first being called, there was 'but one law: put [ all ] to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter, that he may live' ( Esther 4:11 ), so that when she finally approached the throne, three days later, one can only imagine that it was with some amount of trepidation, even though she had boldly announced at the outset, with resignation, 'I will go to the king, which [ is ] against the law; and if I perish, I perish!' As we know from reading further, the king did hold out his scepter to her, because Esther, for whatever reason, found grace in the eyes of her lord. This is a beautiful picture of the grace that the writer to the Hebrews talked about, earlier in the book of Hebrews, when he wrote, 'Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.' ( 4:16 ).

In the quote above, from Hebrews 10; the writer seems to be speaking of the physical, biological 'flesh' of Jesus, but I don't believe the anybody could be convinced that we actually enter ( go in ) to 'the Holiest', before an actual physical throne of God, through ( or even by ) the biological 'fleshly' body of Jesus ( ? ). I believe that most of us can agree, to differing extent, that the writer is speaking metaphorically here, revealing to his readers that it is through belief in the Godhood of the Christ, and trust in His righteousness, that we enter the 'Throne-room' to present our prayers and petitions before our God and King.


Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

It is recorded, in Genesis 18:10, that God promised Abraham, 'I will certainly return to you according to the time of life, and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son'. This child ( Isaac ) was [ born ] 'according to the Spirit', while the son by Hagar was born 'according to the flesh'. Paul went on to explain to the church at Galatia that this was all given as an allegory, revealing the two covenants, and the true 'sons of Abraham' ( Galatians 3:7-9 ) Romans 2:28 & 29, 9:6-9 ). From all accounts; Isaac was conceived naturally, as Abraham..............yeah, so anyway; I think we all know about that 'birds & bees' stuff, but the point is, although Scripture never says specifically, that  Abraham impregnated Sarah, I believe it's a fairly safe speculation that he did, and yet Paul wrote that Isaac was [ born ] 'according to the Spirit'.

'Emmanuel' means 'God with us', revealing, as John wrote, in John 1:14 ( quoted above ), that this Child that would be born was God Himself. However you look at it, whether you want to posit, as some do, that Jesus ( God ) was born of a virgin in order that His blood might be pure ( pure speculation ), or whether you accept the proposition that Isaiah prophesied simply that Jesus would be born of a young woman, as some have been known to suggest; the point is, that this Child was born, that His shed blood was a sufficient sacrifice, 'a soothing aroma' ( Genesis 8:21 ) before Almighty God. Going back to the conception of Isaac, recorded in Genesis 18:10; God had told Abraham, 'I will certainly return to you according to the time of life, and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son' ( Genesis 21:1-3 ), but, reading further, it is easy to see why one would speculate, as Sarah did, that this would be a natural, rather than super-natural ( spiritual? ), birth, but are Gabriel's words of promise to Mary, and then Joseph, really all that different? To Mary, the angel said 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS' ( Luke 1:30-33 ), later telling Joseph in a dream, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit' ( Matthew 1:20 ).

As we celebrate the natural birth of our Lord this Christmas season, let us remember, not only the Gift that was presented to man so long ago, but that we should celebrate this Gift all year long, in every aspect of our lives; like I wrote in the previous article to which this is companion: 'a celebration of Life'! As we celebrate this Christmas ( for I still celebrate almost traditionally ), and keeping in mind that it is not ( necessarily ) whether one observes this ( among others ) as a 'special' day/season, or not, it is what's in the 'heart' that counts: the 'Reason for the Season'!

Charles Haddon Shank