Context (09/23/25)

It is always important to retain a clear sense of context as we seek to interpret a particular passage.  That certainly will apply here.  And, given mention of these women who were of some importance to the church, it becomes all that much more needful to hold in mind not only the context of this epistle, but of Scripture more generally.  It’s really something to see just about every commentary take pains to observe that whatever their share in the struggle of the Gospel cause, it could not have been as preachers in the pulpit, such as the pulpit existed at the time.  Much is said about the state of women in the culture into which Paul was bearing the Gospel.  Asian culture, or Middle Eastern as we would generally recognize it, tended to keep women apart, out of the public eye at home.  This, our references hold, would have been much the same in Macedonia.  Perhaps so.  And yet, we know that when Paul first came to Philippi, it was the women he found praying at the riverside, the women who were first to hear this Gospel preached, and to know the Spirit’s work upon their hearts so as to believe.  Then, too, the notice of Lydia, who upon belief welcomed these men into her household, suggest a different cultural perspective.  She, as I recall, was a merchant in her own right.  And Luke’s clear tendency to take note of the place of women not only in Paul’s work, but in the ministry of Christ, would suggest he noticed a difference between life back home in Philippi, and practices in Jerusalem.

Where am I going with this?  Well, quite aside from the perhaps unusual prominence of women at the outset of this church plant, we do have Paul’s direct instruction on the matter of women in ministry, and that sets clear limits.  We cannot, then, take this notice as somehow countering clear instruction, but must, rather, understand this notice in light of that clear instruction.  Paul, as the instrument of revealed knowledge, would not, could not be inconsistent.  For the Holy Spirit, who is the voice of all true prophecy, is not inconsistent, and cannot be.

That, I might observe, ought to inform any perception of a modern-day prophet, or any sense of speaking in the prophetic voice ourselves.  If it is in fact prophetic, there is no room for it to contradict what is already clear in Scripture.  It may add detail to what is already known, but it cannot overturn what has been said.  Neither, I should have to say, can it find itself in need of correction.  Unlike so many things posited by politicians or other such like, there will be no need to walk back what has been said by the word of the Lord.  Let us, then, be careful of our claims.  Let us be wary of elevating our opinions to the level of, “Thus says the Lord.”  God is not much amused by false claims upon His authority.

As to this question of women in ministry, much though it may be contended, and much though we may struggle to present a clear definition of the bounds, we cannot safely arrive at an understanding that sets women in the pulpit.  Every one of our commentaries takes pains to observe this, coming back repeatedly to Paul’s instruction both to Timothy and to Corinth.  There, it is plainly declared that this, at least, is off limits.  Women may chafe at these boundaries in the present day, but that’s as may be.  It’s not their call.  It’s God’s.  It’s not the patriarchy keeping them down.  It’s God setting forth the order He shall have in His church.  Nor has He by any means excluded women.  It’s not, as it would have been in the synagogue, that women are called to remain in their zone, over in the courtyard of the women, and not intrude upon the more sacred grounds, as one might suppose, of the inner courtyard.  No.  Nothing here requires separation or seclusion.  It is simply that their roles differ.

The same could be said of the majority of men in the church.  Not all are called to preach.  Not all are fit to preach.  Think, for but one example, of James’ advice.  “Let not many become teachers, my brothers, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (Jas 3:1).  To teach, particularly in the context of God’s instruction, must demand a clear knowledge of His instruction, and not just knowledge of, but practice of.  For teaching, whether you choose to favor the Jewish approach or the Greek, consisted in both cases of lived example alongside the pedantic lesson.  You see it in Paul, certainly.  Here’s the doctrine, my friends, and you know that you have seen it in action in my own practice.  You have my example to follow, and that of those who have undertaken to follow it before you.  And I, in turn, have my example in Christ.  So, if you believe, follow me as I follow Christ.  That should ever be the desire of the preacher or teacher.  That should ever be the desire of every disciple.  It’s not a case of domineering.  It’s a case of hoping for a bigger family, for many brothers and sisters.

Okay, so all that being said, it’s possible, certainly, that women who had come to faith could in fact bear the gospel into places where men could not.  Just as certainly, men could bear the gospel into places where women would not find entrance.  But women can enter into the confines of the home where men would not be welcomed.  And their presenting of the Truth might well be in such form as was more accessible to other women.  Men can tend to be a bit too direct, too linear, too blunt for the feminine perspective, just as women may seem too convoluted from a man’s perspective.  Generalizations, of course, and as such, subject to myriad exceptions.  But still, generalizations arise from long experience of common trends.  But we need not be bogged down in matters of what women can and cannot do in the church.  That certainly isn’t the intended focus of this passage.

What is the focus is what has been the focus.  I had commented in my earlier notes that we need to not lose sight of the main point of this section, which, according to the headings I have in my outline, would be, “Safeguard the Gospel.”  And that should ever be our concern.  Keep to the truth of Truth.  Don’t give place to any perversion of doctrine, whether towards legalism or towards antinomianism.  Put it more plainly.  Don’t lay down rules that God has not declared, and don’t ignore the rules He has.  But that is more than just the concern of this section.  That is the concern of the whole epistle.  Ironside argues that the point Paul begins to address here, that of rising disagreement among particular individuals in the church, has been at the forefront of his thought from the opening words of this epistle.  It may have been less clearly seen at the outset, but it’s there, isn’t it?  Go back to the end of the first chapter.  Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel.  Then, whether I am able to come to you or not, I will hear that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel (Php 1:27).  One spirit, one mind, one Gospel.

That is the same message we have here.  Auto phronein – same-minded.  In that earlier passage, mia psuche, one soul.  That, as I probably noted in pursuit of that passage, is a thought that might concern some, to be so closely together as to be one-souled.  But it speaks to the bonds of this community of the faithful.  One spirit, one soul, one mind, one focus, one faith, one gospel, one God.  All comes down to oneness.  What is happening, then, in this section, is that Paul is moving from doctrinal instruction to practical application.  What I have told you of Christian life bears on your present situation.  It’s not going to suffice to be aware of the truth.  Truth must be applied in practice.

I can’t help but notice how God is timing the rise of this theme in my study time.  In another month or so, I shall be back to Africa to teach once again, and my topic for that journey consists in knowledge growing in wisdom and put into practice.  It’s a matter of orthopraxy following upon orthodoxy.  It’s never enough to know.  It must be know and be, know and do.  We can go back to James again.  “One who looks intently at the perfect law of liberty and abides by it, not as a forgetful hearer but as an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does” (Jas 1:25).  I might just emphasize that nothing in this statement demands directly that salvation rests on works, nor could it, for the message of Scripture, despite its many human authors, remains consistent as God’s Truth.  But as he observes, faith without works is a dead faith.  It’s not that works define faith, but works naturally flow from faith, as the oak naturally grows from the acorn.

So, safeguard the Gospel.  Be wary of allowing cultural influences to inform belief.  Rather, let belief have its proper influence on culture.  Be a witness, and bear Christ with you into the world in all that you do.  Seek to live consistently.  Seek to walk humbly with your God.  And leave the impact to Him.

Pastoral Concern (09/24/25)

We should recognize the pastoral concern expressed in this passage and the carefulness of that concern as well.  First, there is the shift from commanded action to pleading.  I suppose, returning to the lexicons, that this could be taken as more nearly a command, an admonishment of sorts, exhorting these two to undertake corrective action.  But, go back to the base meaning: to call to one’s side.  Indeed, tie it back to the preceding section, with its urging to follow his example.  Come nearer to me, walk with me, heed my example in this place of disagreement in which you find yourselves.  I’m simply not sure that “I urge,” as the NASB has chosen to translate this, really conveys the sense Paul intends.  I would tend toward the NIV’s choice of, “I plead with.”  I beg of you, Eudia, I beg of you, Syntyche, come to agreement in the Lord.  This is expression not of demand, but of concern.  Yes, it is concern for the Church, for such discord does not speak well of God Who is One.  But it is concern for these specific individuals as well.  Such discord cannot but cause damage and disruption to your own well-being in the faith.

These are thoughts that have a particular poignancy for me at the moment.  I think, on the one hand, of this elbow pain that’s been troubling me the last while.  Left to take its course, it becomes clear this will only get worse.  Ignore it, and it won’t go away, but will rather cause aches and pains in the body at other locations as they seek to compensate and work around the trouble zone.  This is a fair analogy for the impact of such disagreement on the body of the Church.  For all that, you could play it out against the backdrop of the body politic in society.  Where disagreement cannot be civil, cannot retain mutual regard and respect, things fester, the strain spreads to encompass those who may not share the divisiveness, but can’t help but be impacted by it.  We must compensate.  We must seek ways around.  We become silent because words no longer seem to work.  We draw inward and avoid contact.  And none of that really resolves the problem.  None of it makes anything better.  It only makes it worse.

To take it in another direction, what happens when you are yourself one of those in the grips of so strong a disagreement?  What comes of it when you simply cannot reconcile your views with another brother or sister?  You know, families disintegrate over such things.  And Church is a family.  How are you going to deal with this one whose perspectives you find so disagreeable and seemingly unwilling or unable to hear an alternative view?  Do you become correspondingly adamant in expressing your own?  Perhaps.  But faced with repeated contact, and in a setting intended for open discussion, things can get prickly, can’t they?  For one hears what seems to them an attack on bedrock matters of truth, and feels that here, a line must be drawn.  But is it truly a bedrock matter?  Or is it simply a firmly held secondary concern?  I have seen this play out in different ways.  I would say that in general, in our church, perspectives on those familiar points of contention that set Reformed theology apart from, say, Anabaptist perspectives, I would say there is generally acceptance, agreement to disagree, if you will, and harmonious unity remains undisturbed.  There have been those who could not accept this variance of ideas in the body, and so removed themselves.  So be it.  I have been in a similar, though opposite, position, having heard my particular understandings decried from the pulpit as doctrines of devils once too often to remain comfortable under the preaching of said pulpit.  Still love that pastor, and still value the years spent in that congregation, but preserving of harmonious unity of faith in such an instance required, to my thinking at least, separation of practice.

But now, I find myself faced with an ostensible brother – I honestly don’t know him well enough as yet to conclude whether his profession of faith is real or not – who seeks to pronounce views that I find much harder to be reconciled with.  Now, it could be that he simply expresses himself poorly.  Or, it could be that his perspective is in fact presenting small lies.  They may not be intentional lies, but there are certain defenses which I have seen arise here, and have seen arise before, which tend to put me in the mindset that here is one insisting on his erroneous views in the face of clear and obvious passages.  Oh, you just picked one verse out of thousands to back your point.  Thus goes the defense mechanism.  Well, yes, I pick that passage because it is clear and obvious, and viewed in context quite obviously means what it seems to mean in isolation.  That’s a rather different matter than pulling a proof text.  Neither does it leave Scripture open to multiple interpretations, as if you could see it teaching this, and I that, and we are both right even though our understandings are absolutely opposed.  That is post-modern thinking.  That is the denial of truth as truth.  And I have to say, that appears to me to be a bedrock issue.  We serve the God of Truth.  We have in our hands His express revelation of Truth.  I could add that we have, in that Word of Truth, the clear declaration that no, it is not subject of personal interpretation, such that it might mean A to you and not A to me, and we’re both right.  As I have often observed, it’s quite possible we’re both wrong, but it is impossible that, in such circumstance, we could both be right.  And truth matters.  Truth may just matter on a salvific level.  How can you claim to believe God if you don’t correctly understand His revelation of Who He Is?  How can you claim to honor God, if you can’t be bothered with the oftentimes difficult work of gaining understanding?  Perhaps I press it too hard, and if so, Father, correct me.  Soften my hard edges, and grant that I may be charitable where charitableness is appropriate.  But let me not be so charitable as to welcome deception in all unguarded.

Back to our message here.  I beg of you!  Agree with each other in the Lord.  And, as the JFB points out, take note that Paul does not take sides in this matter.  That may indicate that whatever this disagreement was, it was not in regard to something fundamental.  But he addresses each as individuals.   I beg of you, Euodia; I beg of you, Syntyche.  I’m not going to take a side in this matter, nor am I really calling upon one or the other of you to switch sides.  But agree in the Lord.  It may bother you, but that agreeing in the Lord may not mean agreeing with one another on this matter.  That is no matter.  Remember who you are in Christ, and remember who your sister is in Christ.  That should assuredly count for more than whatever this point of disagreement may be.  This is the reason for concern, honestly.  We are each of us sons or daughters of one Father.  We love one God.  And, if we have the apparent fervor of this early church, those around us know it.  They are watching.  They are, more than likely, looking for any excuse to dismiss your beliefs as being of no consequence.  You, child of God, must testify not merely with professions of faith, but with lives of faith.

There it comes again, this recurring theme, this preparation for November’s message.  Your walk must reflect your talk, and if your walk is in contentiousness and anger, how then can you present the Gospel?  How then can you present to the world this hope of reconciliation with God if you won’t be reconciled with one another?  You know, this reminder that we are each of us in the Lord must put us in mind of our familial connection.  When we call another brother, it must be more than just a word.  It’s not just some bit of Christian jargon we throw in to fit in.  It’s a statement of relationship.  You and I, we are brothers.  We share the closeness of brothers.  You know how that works, I expect.  You know that however much you may disagree with your brother’s worldview, he remains your brother and you love him as your brother.  That love does not dissipate simply because he has chosen a different path through life.  That doesn’t mean I am incapable of critiquing my brother, nor that he may have rather poor opinions of my chosen course.  But when we come together, it is not the disagreement that expresses, but the commonality, the love for one another.  I think of the last time I got together with my older brother, and while we are radically different in many ways, yet for that time, it was rather like we had not been apart at all.  The love, the joy of seeing one another again, trumps any disagreement.  That may not hold for our spouses, I suppose, for they have not the lifetime of brotherhood to back their feelings.  But that just amplifies the point, doesn’t it?  This is your brother!  This is not some in-law you only tolerate because of your spouse.  This is family.  And family matters deeply.  This being your brother, then, ought likewise to move us deeply.

And so, we see Paul’s appeal expand to others in the family.  Help them!  I have to say, it’s a challenge to determine exactly how the multiple references in verse 3 relate.  Is Paul appealing to this one, singular individual to help those two ladies, noting how they helped him, and Clement, and the rest of Paul’s team?  Or is he calling this one, along with Clement to help these ladies and everybody else who labored in the gospel alongside Paul?  After all, I think we would find that Paul accounted all who labored in the gospel to be coworkers.  It’s not clear to me how this parses.  But I incline more toward the first interpretation, that the appeal is to this one individual spoken of only as ‘loyal yokefellow,’ that it remains connected to the two women previously named, and that their prior coming alongside of others in the work of the gospel is more than sufficient cause to now come alongside them and help them to restore harmonious unity.

In that, don’t we come back to the Beatitudes?  “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt 5:9).  As I observed last time around, I observe again.  It’s not the peaceable here declared blessed, but the peace makers.  It’s those who get involved in undertaking to do what is needful to reestablish peace where turmoil and disharmony have arisen.  And here, again, that call to peacemaking comes in the context of family.  I think of the rift that came in my own family, one brother unwilling or unable to forgive past wrongs, and it hurt.  I can understand his not having much interest in maintaining any sort of constant contact with father or brother, but one would have thought that at least upon the death of our father, he might have bridged the gap just a bit.  But no.  Could I have done more?  Perhaps.  But I didn’t, and that rift remained.  It effectively remains as a permanent feature of the landscape now, unalterable even should repentance and forgiveness find entrance.  Yet, for all that he has disowned that connection, we remain sons of the same father.  Would, I must confess, that he might become a fellow son of the Father.  Would that both my brothers would do so, though I have little expectation of that being the case.  And that, perhaps, is reason enough for prayer in itself.

Lord, You know how it would bless me to see these two redeemed. And You know as well how little faith I have that it would ever be so.  Forgive me that lack of expectancy.  Forgive me if in any way I am expressing doubt as to Your power.  I don’t believe it is the case.  I have known too well the irresistible nature of Your grace towards me.  But I confess I have no real expectation of redemption for them.  But let that not become indifference in me.  I could add my daughter to that, and to some degree my wife.  I feel powerless in myself to bring them into the light of Truth.  I have enough trouble keeping myself in the light!  But my powerlessness is not Yours.  You may, and clearly will, do what You will.  It could hardly be otherwise.  But I do pray that You might so choose as to see all of these restored to paths of righteousness.  And, for all that, in those areas where I have drifted off course, be my faithful Shepherd.  Call me back and point me in the right direction.  Likewise, Lord, in this present bit of contention, correct in me what needs correcting, and allow that I may be a voice of correction as needed, but correction expressed in loving pastoral concern, not in arrogant demand to be considered right.  I want to pray, as well, for this upcoming trip.  You know, Father, the tensions that inhere.  You know the difficulties that have arisen in this regard.  I am confident that I have rightly heard Your direction on this, and I fully intend to obey, and pray that You will be with me to guide me, and that I will be wise enough to remain under Your guidance through it all.  I pray that You would restore harmony in my household in this matter, and if not that, either way, I suppose, that You would watch over each of us on our separate courses.  Hold us both in Your Truth, and let it be that we are, despite our differences, found written in Your book of life.  Let us be true to You as best we are able, and let us be patient with one another, not seeking to bind conscience in either direction, but recognizing our mutual devotion to You, even if it looks so very different in us.  And withal, Father, correct what needs correcting, that Thy will may be done willingly in us.

Humility and Charitableness (09/25/25-09/26/25)

Continuing some of the thoughts of yesterday’s study, there is this piece of the puzzle which Paul leaves unaddressed in this present pair of verses.  He calls for harmonious accord, and he calls for those around the disagreement to help bring that accord.  Yet, nothing is said as to how this is to be achieved.  Okay.  Part of that is because this application has not come out of nowhere.  It is the direct outflow of the doctrine he has been teaching prior to this point.  That is to say, chapter 4 follows upon what has been established in chapter 2 and chapter 3.  The letter came as a unified whole, not as a set of disconnected ideas.  So, we go back to this:  “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus… He humbled Himself by becoming obedient” (Php 2:5, Php 2:8).  And he returns to that point again.  “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect [complete], have this attitude… let us keep living by the same standard to which we have attained” (Php 3:15-16).

How are we to find unity when we have disagreement?  Humble yourself!  Recall to mind that you are not the standard by which all men are to be measured.  You are not, in fact, perfect and complete.  You have not yet reached the goal, but continue the race as do we all.  If, then, you find yourself becoming judgmental towards another, or find yourself insisting that your understanding must be the only understanding, perhaps the single most useful thing you can do is pray.  No, there’s no perhaps about it.  You need to pray.  I need to pray.  Far more than I do.  And the first prayer that I find needful to pray is simply that God would clear my inward eyesight to see whether in fact this is piety asserting His truth, or arrogance seeking to lift the ego at the expense of tearing at my brother.  And here is the great realization:  I am unfit to judge.  I cannot judge myself, for my assumptions create blind spots in me around which I cannot see.  I am too prepared to suppose my preferences and opinions are bedrock fact, that my understanding must be right, and therefore, any disagreement with it must be wrong.

But what has happened?  You take that step, and honestly, you probably don’t think about it in such terms.  You just know that you know.  And it may cause you to stumble over your own tongue just trying to put into words this of which you are so certain.  But you’ve put in the work.  You’ve examined the Scriptures.  You’ve been convicted of this point, and it has become so central to your definition of faith that any challenge to it feels like a challenge to faith itself.  But it’s not faith itself.  What has actually come to pass is that you’ve made this opinion, this preferred viewpoint of  yours to be more important to you than God’s actual commandment.  Is this not the error of the Pharisee all over again?  Is this not making yourself out to be God rather than acknowledging the God Who Is?  Humble yourself!  Recognize your limits, and for the love of God get yourself down off that pedestal!  It’s not your place.

It is difficult, I admit, to contemplate how we are to be in unity when there is this lingering disagreement.  Yet, if we are honest, we are beset by such things on every front every day.  If you have found another with whom you are in perfect accord in every least matter of worldview, then I must say you are supremely blessed and quite possibly unique in the world.  But such lockstep thinking is more likely to be the result of unthinking devotion to cultish dogma than to lively salvific faith.  God has not called upon us to shut down our minds and just repeat after Him.  He has not called us to set aside reason.  Nor has He been inclined to set out everything before us in utmost simplicity, such that even the village idiot should be able to understand every detail.  You know, I think of all these ridiculous warnings that decorate our belongings.  You buy a lawn mower, and the manufacturer feels it necessary to point out that you probably shouldn’t stick your fingers underneath while it’s running.  Something comes in a plastic bag, and they feel it necessary to give you instruction not to tie it over your head.  And how do you respond?  Likely with something along the lines of, “C’mon, I’m not an idiot, you know.”  Or, perhaps a bit of concern for your fellow man, knowing that these labels became necessary because somebody was in fact daft enough to try the very thing you see is obviously ill-advised.

So, then, ask yourself what you would make of a revelation of God’s own declarations of truth and perspective if everything He said was obvious?  What would you make of a God who, by all appearances, thinks no differently than your neighbor, has nothing to say which you could not say yourself, knows nothing that you don’t already understand almost instinctively?  I dare say you’d despise such a god, and make of that god a mere tool you might use to embellish your own powers.  But you would retain yourself in control.  You would remain in the driver’s seat.  You would, in a word, be your god.  And that danger is ever-present, isn’t it?  It was the original temptation and it shall no doubt be the last to give way.  You could be like Him.  You could be in control.  You could be free to answer to nobody, just like God.  And we bring that into our perception of faith, even as we seek to be good little Christians.  It’s insidious! 

We come to Asaph’s psalm, and read, “I said, ‘You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High’” (Ps 82:6), and we see Jesus turn to that very message to defend His claim to being the Son of God (Jn 10:34-36), and whoosh!  We’re climbing up on the throne.  I’m a god!  Look at me and tremble.  We would do well to take in the third reference, in Isaiah 41:23-24.  “Declare the things to come, so that we can know that you are gods.  Indeed!  Do good or evil, that we may look about us and fear together.  Behold!  You are of no account, and your works are nothing.  He who chooses you is an abomination.”  There’s something to direct at your ego when it seeks to rise up and usurp the Lord.  Go for it, self!  You tell me what’s going to happen on, oh, I don’t know, December 12th.  Speak with the assurance of foreknowledge, you ego.  Oh, you can’t?  Then stop with your self-worship, and worship the One Who can!

But there is something in us.  Let’s call it what it is: sin.  There’s something in us that hears Jesus say that we shall do greater things than He did and jump right to thinking we’re going to out-Jesus the Son of God.  Honestly?  How can you even think it?  Do you really suppose God in His perfect wisdom is going to set in your imperfect hands power greater than is His inherently?  Because that’s really what you have in Jesus, the inherent power of deity.  What is going to be greater than that?  What could be?  And you’re going to do more good than He did?  Okay.  Let’s see you save a soul.  Let’s see you transform a heart of stone into a heart of flesh.  Honestly!  Go read God’s response to Job again, and remember who you are, and who He is.  Whatever it is you may be able to do in service to the gospel, or even in supposed service to the gospel, or simply the outworking of self-interest, understand that it is only in His power, only by His will, that any of it is effectual.  You remain a vessel, an instrument.  An instrument may be honored for the color it contributes to the music, for the clarity of its tone.  Yet, no one ever praised the instrument for the song that was played.  No.  The power to play, the power to compose, remains with the musician.  Even so, the power for effective ministry or even for effecting godly example, remains with God.

So, then, let us come to humble opinion as to ourselves and our understanding of the things of God.  Let us remain mindful that however much we have learned, we have not learned perfectly.  However much we have understood, we remain inherently capable of error, and if capable, assuredly some of what we suppose we know is in fact erroneous.  We are no better, then, than our brother.  We may have our points in which we are more mature, but then, so do they.  They’re just different points.  We may not have the same understanding on some particular point of doctrine and belief.  So be it.  The question is not whether we are in absolute lockstep in our opinions.  The question is whether we are both of us seeking as best we may to know and to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, all our strength.  And honestly, if we assess ourselves by that one true standard, we must surely find ourselves wanting.  So, then, let us pursue the course.  Edify one another.  Seek to build one another up, to bring understanding.  Let us seek to actually hear one another – not as a grammarian seeking to correct words or punctuation, but as listening for meaning.  Let us see what God might have to say to us through this one with whom we have disagreed.  And let us do so in the charitable belief that he, too, is doing his best to understand and obey the God Who Is.

There may come a time when we must conclude that in fact this one is not seeking to obey God, but rather seeking to cloak his sins in the appearance of belief.  And should that come to be the case, then the functions of church discipline should apply.  But apart from that?  Trust God, and seek to be one who edifies.  Understand that your brother, though you may disagree with some of his views, is nevertheless fully engaged with seeking to know God and love Him fully, just as you are, perhaps even better than you are.  Imagine that!  Encourage that pursuit.  Draw encouragement from it.  But just as it remains with God to bring salvation to whom He will, so it remains with God to bring understanding to whom He will.  I’ll go back to chapter 3 again.  “If in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you” (Php 3:15b).  God will correct His own.  Maybe he will use your gentle word.  Maybe he will even choose to use your heated words, in spite of the failure they represent.  But then, maybe He can speak more clearly when you’re not cluttering up the airwaves with your noise.

Resolve to believe what He has said.  Here, I think the passage Calvin brought forward from 2 Timothy is apt.  Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, sealed by this:  “The Lord knows those who are His.”  And, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness” (2Ti 2:19).  The test is not perfection of doctrinal understanding.  The test is fruitful living.  Don’t seek to sit as judge.  “Who are you to judge the servant of another?  To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Ro 14:4).  I know I’ve been returning to that verse often of late.  It’s a good reminder, and another key to weathering disagreements.  God will take care of it.  He will sort it out.  We might bend Jesus’ words to Peter to fit.  What is it to you if He brings your brother to this perspective you don’t share?  If I want him to think thus, what of it?  You, follow that course I have laid out for you (Jn 21:22).  Just love your brother, as you would your physical brother, in spite of the differences, and obey the direction of the Spirit in your own conscience.

This can prove difficult at times, yet it must be our determined resolve that we shall not seek to control another’s conscience.  This does not preclude us seeking to explain our position.  Neither does it preclude us pointing out to another where his position deviates from Scripture.  But it is in the Lord’s hands to bring realization and acknowledgement.  It is in the Lord’s hands to correct what should be corrected.  For us, the call is to walk humbly with our God, seeking as best we may to live as He calls us to live.  Let the differences among us lead not to heated contention, but rather to deeper thinking on matters of faith.  Let it lead us not into factional infighting, but to mutual pursuit of understanding.  As in marriage, I suppose, so in the church:  let us appreciate these differing perspectives and, as Paul advises the Thessalonians, hold on to what is good (1Th 5:21).  Good advice always.

Harmonious Unity (09/26/25-09/27/25)

Continuing on the same lines, the call here is plain.  Seek harmony rather than validation.  What do I mean?  Oftentimes when we face disagreement our fundamental urge is to be found right.  There’s a lot of that in the air these days.  It doesn’t matter whether clear and obvious facts indicate my error.  It doesn’t matter if my stated views have absolutely no basis in reality, and all around me can plainly see by the evidence of the senses that this is so.  I still insist on being right.  This, I suppose, is the price paid for dispensing with any conception of implicit truth.  This is what comes of being taught that you get to have your truth and I can have mine and it doesn’t matter that they are entirely opposed on every point.  It doesn’t matter if they have foundation.  It just matters that they be validated.  Of course, that sounds lovely, doesn’t it?  But then, how can I validate your truth without simultaneously rejecting mine?  Or, let us suppose I have no dog in this fight.  How can I validate yours without it necessarily invalidating this other guy’s truth which stands opposed to yours?  After all, in any conflict of views, at least one person must be incorrect.  A cannot be not-A.  And insistence that it can be only leads to insanity.

We must therefore resist all the more this urgent need for validation.  It is to God, our Master, that we stand or fall, as we read in Romans a day or so back.  And get this:  God is True.  God is by definition true.  He speaks and it is.  End of story.  There is no room for debate there.  There is no room for opinion, really.  There is just truth.  There was that cutesy bit of bumper-sticker bravado some years back.  “God said it.  I believe it.  That settles it.”  Cute.  But it adds an unnecessary ingredient to the mix.  The reality is much simpler.  God said it.  That settles it.  Whether I believe it or not changes nothing except my opinion.  Opinions are not bedrock truths.  Opinions are as malleable as mud, and just about as useful.  Opinions are only of value so far as they are accurate reflections of truth.  And so, rather than seeking validation, seek edification.  If it is yours to edify, then edify.  Heated, bull-headed argument doesn’t edify.  It may rally the troops among those who agree, but it will do nothing to shift the one who does not.  And, if edification is the goal, we must recognize our own need for same.  We must be sufficiently humble in our self-assessment to allow that it could just be that we are the ones in need of correction.

Seek harmony.  Seek to help one another to grow.  That is our calling.  That is the natural function of the body, isn’t it?  I feel it this morning.  If one joint is weak, others seek to compensate, to come alongside, as it were.  We, too, are called to help when disagreement arises.  It won’t help to choose up sides and amplify the argument.  We had this discussion regarding the relative goodness or badness of denominationalism, and in fairness, it probably produces somewhat more heat than light.  But there’s something to be said about the matter.  There is a propensity among many to look upon the rise of denominations as an inherent weakening of the church, even of being in direct violation of this very teaching before us.  Oh, you’re just splitting hairs.  Oh, you get so caught up in tenses, and in the precise meanings of original language.  As if the original readers were likely to pay heed to any such nuances.  But then, particularly for Paul, nuance would come naturally.  It is the training of the orator or the rhetorician.  And in our own day, for all that words have often lost their meaning, they do have meaning.  They are not granted to mean whatever the speaker chooses to have them mean, else communication has become impossible.

And again I could observe that in society at large, that is often the case.  If you mean one thing by some common word, but it is at odds with the commonly understood meaning, odds are you’re counting on that misunderstanding.  Odds are you’re playing a game, convincing your listener of an agreement of mind that does not in fact exist.  I fear we probably all play that game to one degree or another.  But it does seem more prevalent amongst certain factions.  What, for example, is to be made of this game of pronouns.  Either they means plural third person or it doesn’t.  You can’t reasonably refer to a single individual as they, because, well, they are a single individual.  It is not proper use of the language, and such practice soon renders the word utterly devoid of meaning.

We could come to ideas of being religious.  You may have one sense of what that means, and I may have another.  I know many for whom the very idea of being religious smacks of legalism and the error of the Pharisees.  Ugh.  Religion is dead.  You need relationship.  Okay.  That’s cute.  But then, what shall we do with Scriptures that speak of true religion?  And that is kind of the sticking point, isn’t it?  The real statement would be more nearly that false religiosity is dead, but true religion, founded on true knowledge and true experience of true God?  That is life.  Talk of angels.  Somebody says they believe in angels, and the Christian heart of charity lights up.  Ah!  Here is a kindred believer.  But who’s to say?  I think back to that gentleman in Wisconsin, with his appeal to angelic aid in his gardening.  Oh.  Sounds lovely.  Perhaps here is a kindred spirit.  Seems nice enough, certainly.  But dig into what he’s spouting and you find a return to ancient Egyptian paganism, which is to say, the worship of demons.  No.  There can be no agreement here.  Words matter.  To speak of demons as angels may be accurate as to origin, but it certainly falls into inaccuracy when we consider function and purpose.  There can be no harmony here.

That is my long way round to addressing the counterpoint.  Seek harmony, but don’t compromise on Truth.  As Calvin points out, and as Paul has written, this harmony must be in the Lord.  That is your defining boundary.  Don’t seek harmony at the expense of truth.  Don’t tolerate errant belief in the name of getting along together.  That’s a bridge too far.  Calvin continues by observing that any such harmony as does not remain in the Lord will ‘inevitably be accursed.’  Sounds harsh, but then, it also sounds entirely accurate, and I would have to say history has repeatedly proven the point.  Look around at, to take the obvious example, the Unitarian Universalists, who pursue a course that very nearly consists of, “anything goes.”  Just believe something.  We’re not picky.  Ooh.  All roads lead to God.  Isn’t that a pleasant thought?  But then, if that were the case, we would have no need of church, religion, or God, really.  We could just get on with living as we please, be as vile as we please, devolve to Neanderthal state, nature red in tooth and claw, and still wind up in heaven.  I mean, if all roads get there, then why be bothered about what road you’re on?  Why give God any thought at all?  And isn’t that the mindset of many today?

Look to some of the older denominations who have sought harmony with the world, and you find a similar outcome.  They may still put Christ on the cast, but their teaching and belief reflect no real knowledge of God as He has revealed Himself.  They prefer rather God as they have decided He should be.  Surely, God would not reject.  Surely, God has no particular concern for who you love or how.  Well, all I can say is, surely, you have not read this Bible you claim to uphold, if in fact you still claim to uphold it at all.  If your supposed church is busy putting out pride flags and BLM support posters, then I have to ask:  What have you to do with God?  What have you to do with Truth?  Why call it religion at all?  It’s just a social club.  Go open an Elks lodge or something, because there’s nothing of true religion left in what you’re pushing.

Let me turn attention back to the true church, such as it is.  I will presume that the one reading this, should there be such a one, is indeed concerned to be of the true church, to be of true faith and belief.  And if so, and if you have been in pursuit of this life for some time, you have no doubt encountered disagreement at some point.  You may have, as I have, as have many others, encountered disagreement with yourself; some long-held point of doctrine suddenly found incompatible with current understanding.  I know I mention it often in this regard, but studying Romans was the path to such an occasion for me.  Things I had believed absolute certainties when once I had come to faith became untenable under the argument Paul was making.  And in the course of that study I was reading commentaries from men on both sides of the argument.  But one case held together and the other proved inconsistent, required setting aside other parts of Scripture.  I’m not saying it was a bad-faith argument.  Indeed, I still know many dear brothers who would maintain my former views, and I have no cause to doubt that we remain in harmony in the Lord.  Yet it is clear that one or the other of us, if not both, have erred in our understanding of these particular points.  Fine.  We both earnestly desire to worship God as He truly is.  We both earnestly search the Scriptures, and seek to understand them.  And the Church at large has considered these points for centuries now without coming to final, unified conclusion.  Humility, then.  I am not smarter than these for whom such disagreements could literally prove matters of life or death.  But I believe.  And until and unless God chooses to reveal some countervailing, deeper perspective of Truth, I shall continue to believe what I have seen in His Word to date.

As to others, our call is clear.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  It is, as Jesus observed, a commandment second only to the call to love God with all that is within us.  So, when discussions of doctrine and faith show differing viewpoints, be the brother you would like to have.  When you see error in need of correction, correct like the brother you would wish to have correcting you.  Don’t berate.  Inform.  Don’t get caught up in fruitless debate.  But neither leave the error to fester.  You can’t, for example, treat a cancer by ignoring it.  Ignore it and it leads to death.  It is inevitable.  But deal with it, excise it, eradicate the corruption, and life may yet be restored.  Be a cure for corruption, then.  But be such a one as can be welcome relief to your brother, rather than, let us say, a Civil War field surgeon just lopping off limbs and hoping for the best.

There will be limits, of course.  There are always going to be those points upon which men will not agree.  It doesn’t have to involve religion.  Take it to any group activity.  Take it to work, or to menu planning, or how a vacation should be spent.  There will be points of disagreement.  It’s just how things are in life, isn’t it?  But disagreement need not become dissension, and dissension need not erupt into open warfare.  If we have disagreement with our spouse on this matter or that, we generally don’t wish to make it public spectacle.  We might, I suppose, discuss it with one or two close companions.  Ideally, any such sharing would be in pursuit of wisdom, but in practice, it may be little more than seeking a safe space to vent.  But no.  In general, familial squabbles are a family matter, not public-facing spectacle.  Why, then, would we think it different in the life of the church?  We are family.  Our old church used to sing of it.  I think at some point it became a bit harder to maintain, at least for many.  But at the time, it was true reflection of the nature of the body.  And it should be still.  We are family.  If we have our differences, we deal with them amongst ourselves.  If there are family members with whom we have lingering disagreement, well, we’ve learned to deal with one another, avoid one another if we must.  But we’re still family.  And as new members join the family, the last thing we want is for any such squabbles to prove a stumbling block to their sense of being welcome parts of the family.   Let them come to love us as they get to know us.  Is that not our desire?

If we have children, there is doubtless the expectation that they will likely come home with an intended spouse at some juncture.  And that intended spouse, should events take their course, shall become family.  The culture is rife with stereotypical humor in regard to perspective on in-laws.  It’s difficult to add family members, particularly adult ones.  They have their ways and we have ours, and honestly, a new married couple will be having enough fun sorting that out between the two of them without adding dysfunctional, argumentative relatives to the mix.  Be the in-law you wish you had.  Be the welcoming, loving senior partner you would have wanted when you got married.  And so, in the church.  Be the elder statesman you would wish to have encountered when first you began coming to church.  Be the sort of brother you needed.  Help the weak with loving encouragement to growth, and do all that lies within your power to present no stumbling block to their faith.

It’s worth recalling that in the early church setting one did not have the option of just packing off to another church.  When you came to a particular city, if there was a church at all, it was likely that there was only one.  Something on the scale of Rome, I suppose, might have had more than one, but the point remains.  Your choice was to be part of this one church or none at all.  This, to my mind, reinforces the body analogy.  You don’t have the option of part-swapping.  You, as a hand, cannot just go attach yourself to whatever body suits your fancy, nor can you detach yourself from the body you find yourself attached to.  Detachment is death.  The body will go on, though damaged, but you, who have done the damage?  You are detached from the vital flow.  You are become a branch lopped off of the vine, to shift to Jesus’ analogy, and such a branch will not remain green and living for long.

What would change in us were we to view our place in the body in such a light?  How much more might we labor after harmonious unity if we saw that walking away was suicide?  Not so very long ago, we might have felt much the same towards our employer, and we ought to feel much the same toward our spouse as well.  These are not casual encounters.  These are commitments.  Society has changed, to be sure, and seems to take all relationships as noncommittal.  Blame it on mobility.  Blame it on whatever you choose.  But we who are the Church are not of this world.  We need not bow to societal winds.  Indeed, we need to not do so.  This church, the one you are currently in, is your church, and you are its member.  Yes, there are a very few just causes to depart this current church to be joined to another, the chief being geographic necessity.  The job has moved, and you must relocate, well of course you should find a local church in your new location to be your new body.  The second would be that the church to which you have been joined has become heretical and refuses to change course, and there, you are by no means duty bound to remain and seek change from within.  There’s a time for such effort, but when the effort has proven fruitless, move on for the safety of your own soul.  I might allow room for a third, when strength of feeling over secondary but serious matters of doctrine make it too painful to remain in close union for worship.  I would categorize this as the case where preserving harmony requires separation in practice.  This is a case of, I count you as a true brother in Christ, but we cannot worship together without causing grief one to another.  That may be legitimate, but it is a matter to consider carefully and at length.  What is insufficient cause?  Décor, the nature of the church building, the style of the music or singing, and so on.  These are not matters of truth but of taste, or put it down as what it is, a matter of pride.

This church, this body, is by original intent to be viewed as family.  We are family.  We are all of us sons and daughters of the Father.  We are more family than the physical family.  Go back to that occasion when Jesus taught, and his physical family, not as yet on board with his ministry, came to pull him back to safety.  “Who are My mother and brothers?” He asked.  And then He answered.  “These around Me are.  For whoever does the will of God is My brother, My sister, My mother” (Mk 3:33-34).  This is family, for here are the sons and daughters of My Father.  If we are family, what should suffice to tear us asunder?  If we are family, it gets even better!  Scripture informs us that God had already directed His will and affections toward us before Creation even got underway.  Back when the idea of Creation was but an agreement among the Persons of the Trinity, back when time had not yet begun to tick down, already your place in this family was not merely determined, but established.  And so, too, was your brother’s place.

In the case of disagreement, recall this to mind.  I am here because God decided I should be His child, made me His child, and called me to this place, to this branch of the family of God.  Nothing about this was happenstance.  Nothing about this was a mistake – not on my part, and certainly not on His.  Now, move a step further.  This brother, this one with whom I find disagreement; assuming he is truly a brother and not an agent of the enemy, witting or otherwise, he, too was made a child by my Father.  He, too, was called to this place, to this branch of the family of God.  There is no more of the accidental to his inclusion here than there is to my own.  Indeed, except there be serious and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, charity demands that I presume that this is the case.  I must operate from the premise that indeed, this is my brother, however great our differences on this matter or that. 

If this is so, if we are both sons of one Father by His determined will, then what is His determined will in our present travels together?  Well, we have it laid out right here.  “Live in harmony in the Lord.”  LIVE it.  Of course, that’s a bit of translational license on the part of the NASB.  Be of the same mind.  That’s the more literal rendering.  Be of the same mind in the Lord.  Come into agreement.  Don’t allow this disagreement to become division.  Division is deadly.  Unity is strength.  Again, this isn’t a call to becoming part of some hive-mind with no independence of thought.  It is more a call to recognize that the disagreements are not such as require surgical removal of one party or the other.  It’s a call to return focus onto the reality of shared faith.  We are both of us co-laborers in the Gospel.  We may have different priorities, different assignments in that work, but that’s no cause to accuse one another of pursuing a different gospel.  That’s no cause to separate.  It’s cause to cooperate, to be thankful for the gifts each brings to the work.  If I am clear on my own security in Christ, the next step is to recognize that my brother, whatever opinions may cause friction between us, is likewise secure in Him, and if we are both of us secure in Him, there is cause for contentment as we work together.  We can and should work together in harmonious accord.  If differences remain, let it be for private and cordial discussion, that we may be edified by one another.  But let it not enter into the public frame, not even the limited frame of body life together.

Lord, this is our calling.  I confess that I am at present struggling to discern the lines in a few cases.  You know.  And these places of disagreement do place a strain on me, in part because I don’t know what to do with them, how to resolve them, or even if they are able to be resolved.  I fear, at least on one front, that tolerance for differences of perspective may very well leave one I love wandering further into heretical beliefs.  But I also know that if I attempt to bring correction it will proceed to heat rather than helping.  I must, therefore, lay it at Your feet.  Lord Jesus, the only way I see that harmony is going to be restored on that front is by Your intervention, and I pray You would intervene.  Whether it is, as I believe, that this other needs change, or whether it is myself, bring the change and let harmonious unity be restored.  But if You will not, allow that I shall persevere in Truth, both in my belief and in my practice.  I know I have more than enough to work on in that regard.  But know my heart, Lord.  I mean, You do.  It cannot be otherwise.  But know my heart, my heartfelt concern for the drift I see.  If that has any bearing on Your actions, may it lead to speedy action from You, that my heart may know further cause to rejoice.  But if You have already determined that it shall not be, then let my heart yet rejoice in Your choice, for Your choice is good, even if my feelings are not.  Blessed by Your name.  Bring me to that place of contentment, whatever course You follow in this.  Amen.

The Book of Life (09/27/25)

Okay, this last is a bit of a decrescendo, all things considered.  But our passage ends with notice of the book of life, and it is mentioned here without further explanation.  We must assume, then, that there was already an innate frame of reference for his readers.  That could hinge on teaching done while he was with them, though his time with them was so brief as to make that seem a bit unlikely.  This book, so far as Scripture is concerned, is mentioned here, in Psalm 69:28, and several times in the Revelation.  It is only in that last that we have much of anything to explain its nature and its function.  There, we learn that what names are therein were ‘written from the foundation of the world’ (Rev 13:8), and that said book belongs to, or is associated with the Lamb of God who has been slain, which is to say, it relates to Jesus. 

There is at least the hint by corollary that it is possible for a name to be erased from this book (Rev 3:5), if one does not overcome.  But that leaves unanswered the question of how one overcomes.  Yes, there is a strong warning in this passage to those with a name as being alive, but being in fact dead.  That, I would say, is a case of false profession, akin to those Paul spoke of previously, “whose end is destruction because their true god is their appetite” (Php 3:19).  But those who have not soiled their garments, those who not only claim to be Christians but actually are?  For them, I see no true threat to erasure.  Barnes tries to make the point, saying, “If the hand of God records them, who can obliterate them?”  But that of course leaves one answer open.  He can.  The question is would He?  And there, I would have to say Balaam actually spoke true.  “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.  Has He said, and will He not do it?  Has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Nu 23:19).  But let us find a more trustworthy source.  “So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth.  It shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (Isa 55:11).  Put simply, if He has indeed called, having written your name in the book of life before the foundation of the world, that call is sure and will accomplish salvation.  The golden chain still holds.  Whom He foreknew, He called, and whom He called, He justified, and whom He justified, He has glorified.  Game over.  (Ro 8:29-30).  All this to say that no, I find no cause for fear in Revelation 3:5, not for the redeemed.

Moving to Revelation 17:8, we see that those not in the book have similar depth of history.  Their names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.  Again, this isn’t chance, and it isn’t down to the fickle choices of the one in question.  This was settle before the foundation of the world.  It’s not God acting on your choices after the fact.  It’s God having settled the matter from the outset.  Finally, we see the book involved at the scene of final judgment.  There, there are two other books present, the details of which are not explained, other than that the deeds of each person are recorded therein for good or for ill, and upon the record of their deeds they shall be judged.  Yet, it is those not recorded in the book of life who face the second death (Rev 20:15).  I don’t know with any certainty how this scene plays out for the believer.  I do know we have an Advocate in the Son, and I do know that His blood has paid the penalty for the sins found recorded there.  My best guess is that we shall be advised to give no answer and allow our Advocate to speak on our behalf.  In that regard, it seems the book of life would represent those whose debt has been paid.  Were I to follow what I understand of judicial practice in the age in which these things were written, that would suggest that all record of wrongs in those other two books have been erased, though, such that no further charges and no relitigation can be considered.

Now, the other notice we have of this record in heaven comes from Jesus, and we do well to consider it.  Luke records the discussion.  It came about as the seventy returned from their mission and gave report.  They were excited as one might well imagine.  Jesus!  This has been marvelous, even demons are subject to us in Your authority.  And Jesus confirms that He was seeing the impact in the heavenlies.  He proceeds to reiteration of the authority He was vesting in them, and the power.  But then comes this admonition.  “But don’t rejoice in that power and authority over spirits.  Rejoice in this:  Your names are recorded in heaven” (Lk 10:16-20).  And this again addresses the matter in a form that we must presume the original hearers understood implicitly.  Your names are recorded.

Matthew Henry indicates that this would indeed have been common practice both in Jewish and in Gentile societies.  The city in which one lived would have record of you as a free inhabitant.  It’s rather like the census, if you will, or perhaps voter registration, though in that setting, no matter of the vote was likely to be involved.  But you were a citizen with the rights of the citizen.  You were known to the authorities, not for criminal notoriety, but as, shall we say, ‘one of ours.’  Barnes suggests that in the Jewish setting, this would have had its origins in military service.  The army had record of its men, and the man still found recorded in the book of life was still alive.  One who had died would in fact be removed from the rolls.

Both of these, I think, give us perspective.  Come to that final scene in Revelation and who is found in the book?  Those who have been granted Life by He Who Is Life.  They are those who are indeed the army of the Lord, the army of the truly living.  And this, I observe, is a scene that by all appearances comes subsequent to the great battles that close the age.  I have observed in other places how it seems that those battles, however impressive the array of those who come to oppose our Lord, seem to end without any real battle, at least none requiring the support of that army of heaven.  We read a week back in men’s group of the rise of Antichrist, coming with all sorts of deception.  And who, honestly, could doubt that this is already in play all around us, whether the antihero himself has arisen or not?  But this:  “Whom the Lord will slay with a breath, and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming” (2Th 2:8).  There’s no great battle here, the believers falling slain on every side until their Hero comes.

There is much made of late about recollections of the winged hussars of the Polish cavalry, riding to the rescue of besieged Vienna.  Great suffering had been the lot for Vienna, and the end seemed certain with Muslim hordes pressing in.  But the heroic charge comes and breaks the lines of the surrounding masses and the tides turn, and victorious rescue is achieved.  Huzzah!  It’s exciting.  It’s heroic.  And it’s nothing to do with the scene set before us in that epistle.  No.  Jesus just shows up and it’s done.

The picture in the Revelation seems to me much the same.  The armies are gathered together against our Christ, and He rides forth on His white horse, and indeed, the armies of heaven ride behind Him.  And observe:  “From His mouth comes a sharp sword to smite the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron” (Rev 19:15).  The enemy assembles, ready to rumble.  But there is no rumble in evidence.  It proceeds directly to, “the beast and the false prophet were seized and thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev 19:19-21).  “And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat upon the horse.”  Do you see what I see?  There is only one combatant on our side.  There is no need for more.  That army at His back appears to be present solely to witness the event.  It echoes the prophets.  “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel:  ‘Not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts” (Zech 4:6).

All of this to say that this book of life is the record of a permanent citizenship, for the role of the live in heavenly Jerusalem must, of necessity, be a role of the eternally living.  If Christ has given eternal life in this rebirth, then what other outcome can there be?  To be written in the book of life in heaven is to be assured of life.  Indeed, Jesus, let us rejoice in that!  What else could possibly compare?  What other offer could compete?  Power on earth?  Whoopee.  A few years and it’s over.  And even if it be supposed you figure out how to extend life to indeterminate lengths, what, in this life, is really so very desirable?  You would like endless days in the company of the miserable?  You would like endless days of uncertainty, constantly aware that at any time sudden calamity could yet come upon you in spite of all your preparations and wealth?  It’s an eternal agony at best, and if that’s the best on offer, who could but pass on it?

No, believer.  Rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.  Be thankful that you have this assurance.  But let it not become cause for laxness.  Let it not be that you rest on your laurels, and just go back to living as you were.  “May it never be!”  No!  You are reborn.  You are a child of the kingdom of God.  Go forth and act like it.  Represent!