Clearly "everyone" means all people. Of course, depending on the context, it could mean everyone in the room or everyone in the state or everyone in this church or that church.
When reading passages of scripture such as Hebrews 2:9, this is basically the question most commonly being explored; who is "everyone", often devolving into an Armenian or Calvinistic debat.
I started thinking about this today and what struck me is that what Jesus has done was done for all those under his authority, which is to say for ALL of mankind. EVERY LIVING CREATURE from yesterday, today and tomorrow. He did this because He is king of all things and everyone, whether they acknowledge that or not.
Really look at what Hebrews is saying in chapter 2:
Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.”
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. [emphasis mine]
If you cling to the fact that He died for ALL men, then you must recognize that you are a member of His kingdom. Inherently, this means that what He said is undeniably true and not open to debate; no one will go to the Father except through Him.
The Bible is His authoritative Word to us, as is evidenced in His own testimony. It specifically means that not all roads lead to Jesus. Not all paths lead to the Father.
I would suggest that the question "what does everyone mean?" isn't the best question to pursue. Everyone is everyone.
The better question is "What does that mean to everyone?"
Sometimes I can become alarmingly astounded by my hubris; at its sheer depth; at its utter blindness.
I realize, of course, that if you know me, I've shocked you to the core. "Hubris!?!? You?!? Fie on't, good sir, fie!"
Having grown up in the brilliant white heat of Duran Duran, Def Leppard, Motely Crue, AC/DC, Survivor, Loverboy, Van Halen, White Snake, Queensryche, et al. under the warming but fading comfort of Sabbath, Zeppelin, Styx, Skynyrd, Bread, Clapton, Hendrix, Dylan, Joplin, The Dead, et al.
I'd like to think that I'm just the epitome of clever and hip;
All children, let alone my own, would do well to humbly and happily 'sup at my feet as I regal them with stories of my rock-bred youth and seek to edify them on the oh so many inerrant reasons that the "music" of their interest is truly not where it's at, nor even halfway to intelligence. What a waste they've involved themselves in.
Can I get an amen?
Saturday evening I spent some time with "my grandfather and his friends". I had the opportunity to relax downstairs in my garage with a really good cigar (an Arturo Fuente Hemingway, if you must know), my favorite beverage and Pandora Radio (an internet radio thingy. Very cool.)
As I sat relaxing and staring into the starry sky, enjoying the smoke and silk, I sat back and proceeded to get an unexpected education.
I tuned Pandora to the Buddy Rich "station", which is to say I had a Pandora's box of Buddy Rich and like-minded music opened up to me. From there, I was forced to flip over to the Count Basie "station".
I have only one word available to articulate my conclusion: WOW!
Man, could those guys compose and play. They were doing things that I'd never had the pleasure to hear before; and that long before my parents had even been born. Good grief.
All of that to give this simple thought: It seems to me that the natural tendency of a man is to consider himself the sum and pinnacle of all good that came before him. That all had been designed and implemented soley for his benefit, so that he could be assured of the perfect pleasures of life and therefore go boldly into the world performing perfect works for the good benefit of God and man. All that follows in history is a either a positive result of his life or a lesson not learned.
HA!
Forgive me, I'm still stuck on Cornelius. The more I meditate on his story the deeper the well becomes.
Six months after I came to a saving knowledge of Christ, my wife got saved. Both of my daughters (12 & 18) each have a personal and productive relationship with our savior. Beyond these three, the most important three individuals in my life apart from Christ, mind you, there are no others that I could say with any certainty who were led to Christ through me by the Holy Spirit.
For the longest time, this bothered me. I lost sleep at times wondering why I was so unproductive for my King; what was wrong with me?
Leading others to Christ was my sole metric for determining my value before the One I served. If I wasn't doing that effectively then I must be a terrible Christian. I've grown up a lot since then and have come to know better. Sadly, there are many many churches around that continue to hold to this standard.
Understand please, I recognize that evangelism is important, I'm not denying that in the least. We're commanded to make disciples. I'm simply saying it's not our sole metric nor is it a metric that we should hold in a higher place than any other.
Reading Cornelius' story is yet another reminder that Christ hasn't the slightest need for me or anyone else in order to bring men to Him. It also humbles me in regards to the above mentioned because I know now that my previous mind set was all about me and what I could do and had very little to do with Christ.
Peter, as I'm sure we can all agree, was a great man. Spiritually blessed in amazing ways and an incredibly successful servant of Christ. Nonetheless, he was completely unnecessary in regards to the salvation of Cornelius, Cornelius' entire family or Cornelius' closest friends. Christ clearly called Cornelius to Himself long before Peter ever arrived on scene. As a matter of fact, as I've mentioned previously, Peter never even finished what he was saying.
The whole situation gives every indication of having been used by Christ for His glory!
The hero of the story is Christ, not Cornelius; not Peter. Cornelius did nothing beyond respond to Christ's call, which was required and irresistible. Peter did nothing but learn a valuable lesson and involuntarily gain further insight in the the mysteries of salvation.
In this, I believe, lies the primary metric to apply in all situations: has Christ glorified himself in this; or that; or me?
I just finished watching a the movie Rudy, after having read Acts 10 earlier today. I gotta say, I'm a little excited from it and praising God that I enjoyed them both in the same day so that I could enjoy the connection.
Rudy, if you're not familiar with the movie, is based on the real life story of Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger who desperately wanted to play football for Notre Dame all of his life. The catch, however, was that Rudy was a below average student from a working class family. Not only that, but he was pretty small in both height and weight, especially so relative to a college football player, and never possessed any athletic talent or prowess. He just played hard.
Late into the movie Rudy admits that he knows that he simply wasn't born a football player, whatever the desires of his heart. This doesn't matter to him though. He never quits, he never stops doing everything that he can to participate as a member of the team.
Rudy was given the heart of a Notre Dame football player, if not the body and he eventually resigned himself to the implications of that situation while holding onto hope for something better despite everything. The end result was that Rudy improved the game of the entire team and through the experience gained the opportunity to always be counted as a Notre Dame football player. Something that only a relatively small number of people can enjoy.
Long before Rudy, however, there was Cornelius. Cornelius wasn't working-class, of course, but he was physically poor in that he was a gentile and not a Jew. Nonetheless, he continued doing all that he could to honor and glorify the God of Israel despite the unfortunate incongruity between his birth and heart.
His prayers where a sweet incense before the Lord when most of Israel's were a foul stench. God so loved Cornelius that he assigned to him the honor of educating Peter, thereby dramatically improving the "game" of the whole Church! Not only that, but Cornelius' relatives and close friends we all brought into the kingdom.
Now if there's any mistake about the purpose God had for Cornelius or that perhaps Cornelius' ultimate salvation was the point of the whole exercise, then let me point you to an important fact: Peter never finished delivering the Good News of the Gospel what before the Holy Spirit of God descended on the Gentiles there.
Their hearts had already been prepared for Christ long before Peter showed up. It was Peter's heart that needed work. It wasn't the hearing of the Gospel from Peter that was necessary, but rather, it was the pouring out of the Spirit upon Gentiles that Peter needed to see.
As a bit of a separate thought, I find it so encouraging that God preserved the Roman Centurion Cornelius and all the other gentiles present until that day. I don't' know what God had for them after that moment, but I know it's a hard fact that no army, no nation, no king, no anything had the power to kill Cornelius or any of his relatives and close friends before that day. Think about that for a moment to. The implications, at least to me, are huge.
The more that I read and talk with Godly men the more I'm realize how little I understand, particularly as it regards eschatology.
I'm currently reading through the book of Acts again and have gotten to chapter 8. I've thought about many things during this course of reading that I'm still chewing on, but as a side issue, the idea that the church, composed of jew and gentile believers, IS now the full and total composition of Israel is really tugging away at my mind.
I've always been of the opinion that there is still a future purpose and plan for physical Israel. As a matter of fact, I blogged about it in some detail over several fairly long posts, starting here. I'm not convinced entirely away from my opinion of physical Israel but I am certainly thinking that it needs to change in some significant way.
A NOTE OF CAUTION:
Just for the sake of clarity, because a conversation like this can often generate undeserved heat, let me say that eschatology is nothing more than a subject that I personally find terribly interesting. I fully acknowledge that God's glory is revealed in his entire plan; from the beginning of days to their end. I also acknowledge that His Word discusses the end of days in various places of both the Old and New Testament. It is a fit topic for conversation. I don't accept, however, that this is something to begin a new church over or to create a gap between brothers. Our Lord was clear about what our attitudes should be about this; We're to be out preaching the Gospel, not focused and quibling about what and when the last days will come.
Shouldn't Isn't
I was watching the movie Australia on the plane the other day (terrible movie, BTW) and an exchange between two main characters got me thinking. At one point Hugh Jackman says something like "that's how it is", Nichole Kidman responds, "That shouldn't be" and Jackman's reply is simple and great (especially given the total lack of original thought or dialog elsewhere in the movie) "That's how it is."
How often to we live and operate in the should/shouldn't rather than the is/isn't?
For instance, if we find ourselves in a conversation that we know we shouldn't be engaged in do we stop or simply say (either outloud or to ourselves) "I really shouldn't say this, but..."
When counseling or encouraging, do we base what we say on the reality of the situation or do we work from a position of what should or shouldn't be?
I don't know about anyone else (though I've a pretty good idea), but my visceral reaction to an injustice witnessed or against me is to lash out and speak up against the source.
Not a good I idea, perhaps. Especially considering that it shifts my focus so negatively.
The text that I read today, Amos 5:10-15, is clearly directed to Israel, but is nevertheless an important lesson for everyone. As a matter of fact, I might argue that the Archangel Michael had this perspective rooted in his dealings with Satan.
Reading only through to Amos 5:13, one might conclude that we should simply be silent. I would urge reading through to verse 15, however. "Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the gate." These are 3 separate commands, as I read it, and not progressive causal relationships; one leading to the other.
In other words, let's simply move forward in service to the Lord without complaint, grief, or self-righteousness.
No?
"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4)
After 20 years as a husband and 18 as a dad, I still find it so hard to find balance in leading my family and being at peace with them.
I constantly need to evaluate my motives, make sure that we're not disobedient to the Word of God and then deliver my thoughts in a way in which they'll understand. (Being an average person, at best, with all of my own hang-ups and faults just makes it all the more difficult)
I find myself thinking lately about how to avoid a derective that I know won't be obeyed. After careful prayer and thought, it's critical that I lead my family to my desire with love and patience rather than simply demanding it be followed.
The Lord's example is incredibly heavy on my heart in that he desires the heart of His people rather than their blind obedience to the law.
Karl Rove, in regard to the current political climate, wrote and quoted the following in a recent op-ed piece:
"In his 1946 essay 'Politics and the English Language,' George Orwell wrote about words used in a 'consciously dishonest way.' 'That is,' Orwell wrote, 'the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.' "
I really like that. I liked it so much, in fact, that I was immediately prompted to look through the Proverbs for wisdom regarding words and speech. In there I found this (among many other things, of course):
"The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool." (Pro 10:18)
A brief research on Orwell produces this additional information:
To give an example of what he is describing, Orwell "translates" Ecclesiastes 9:11,
“I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”
into "modern English of the worst sort,"
“Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”
The headmaster's wife at St Cyprian's School, Mrs. Cicely Vaughan Wilkes (nicknamed "Flip"), taught Orwell English and used the same method to illustrate good writing to her pupils. She would use simple passages from the King James Bible and then "translate" them into poor English to show the clarity and brilliance of the original. Walter John Christie, who followed Orwell to Eton wrote that she preached the virtues of "simplicity, honesty, and avoidance of verbiage" and pointed out that the qualities Flip most prized were later to be seen in Orwell’s writing.
And what thought have I walked away with? Good question. I'm walking into my long weekend thinking about showing love versus hatred in my speech and manner.
Here's the summary of my thought: The simplicity of the Word of God is Love exemplified. Anything that is done to His Word that adds complexity is to distance yourself, and perhaps your audience, that much away from the desirability and effectiveness of that Love.
I'm not suggesting a hard fast rule, mind you. Only that perhaps there's a more significant correlation between the Word of God and how we present it than we often pay attention to.
Unfortunately, I'm finding myself at a loss for any ideas or thoughts to meditate on today. I'm a little sad about this because I'm feeling like it's a symptom of a larger problem, my spiritual condition.
Then again, maybe life is simply busy and there are just those seasons that personal thought, reflection, and meditation have no choice but to hop into the back seat.
After writing that last, however, I find myself wondering if/why I haven't prepared myself properly during the "sunny" season for such a time as this.
*Sigh*
After praying for the Lord to lead me on today's meditation, I read Proverbs 14:4
"Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean, but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox."
But when a good quality contractor is done with the job, however, the place is spotless and looks nothing like the way it was. It's new, fresh, clean, exciting, and inherently provides immediate value.
If God is doing a work in us and through us, then we should take care not to worry so much about gettings dirty or how much of an effort is required. Rather we need to focus on seeing the job getting done right, no matter how messy and ugly things have to naturally and necessarily get.
...since early May, actually. Whoops.
Anyway, I'm not feeling particularly good today, physically or spiritually. I'm wondering, which one do you think feeds the other? In what ways are the spiritual and physical condition of a person connected?
I think it's contextual, myself. Today I'm physically ill because I'm spiritually poor, and that entirely of my own doing, which makes it all the worse.
