Psalm 23:1-4

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
     He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
     He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
    for his name's sake.
 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
    I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.

Psalm 23:1-4

Immediately, we are presented with two characters.  There is the psalmist (David) and the Lord.  The relation to these two is also described.  The Lord is described as David's shepherd.  I guess that would make David a sheep in this illustration.  This is followed by "I shall not want".  I guess this means that because the Lord is David's shepherd, he does not find himself in want.  He has everything he needs.

The psalmist goes on to describe what this looks like.

He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Ps 23:2-3

The Lord who is the shepherd of the psalmist does what a shepherd would do for his sheep.  There are green pastures and there are still waters.  I've heard someone talk about what it means by "he makes me lie down in green pastures".  He mentioned how shepherds may force a sheep to lie down by breaking their leg (or legs?).  That may sound cruel, but it would ultimately be for their own good.  Perhaps the sheep didn't know how to listen well or maybe the sheep kept running off too far (and into danger).

The last one is about paths of righteousness.  Unlike the earlier statements, this has less to do with what a shepherd would do for his sheep.  I guess he is still leading, as a shepherd would do.  Righteousness is important to the Lord.  More importantly is why he does this.  The purpose is "for his name's sake".  The sheep (David) is lead on paths of righteousness for the Lord's name's sake.  I find that interesting.  Righteousness is important to the Lord and it is for his name's sake that the shepherd leads the sheep on these paths.  I guess if the sheep are not on these paths, it would affect the name of the Lord.

Moving on, I'm not sure what the valley of the shadow of death is, but it doesn't sound good.  More important is the fact that the psalmist says: "I will fear no evil".  Why does he say this?  Why does he not fear evil?  The reason is, as the psalmist says: "for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me".  So, even though he's walking through something that sounds really bad, he isn't afraid.  The Lord his shepherd is with him and his rod and his staff comforts him.

We had a chance to see shepherds shepherding their sheep when we were in Israel.  It was really cool.  The sheep just move along in a pack.  Some stray a little, but they stay together for the most part.  There were even cars and trucks driving nearby and the shepherd wasn't worried.  Perhaps the sheep weren't worried either, but I didn't ask them.  The shepherd knew what he was doing and seemed to take good care of the sheep.  Reading through Psalm 23 I am reminded of that and I should be one who takes comfort in the Lord who is my shepherd.  What do I have to fear?  God is with me.

James 2:14-26

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

James 2:14-26

Faith without works is dead.  What is faith?  Faith is belief in something.  James is addressing the faith the believers profess to have.  Do they truly have alive faith or dead faith?  What is dead faith?  Well, dead faith isn't really faith at all.  I guess dead faith would be faith that is only professed but has no action to back it up.  Dead faith isn't real faith at all.  Dead faith is not saving faith.  To put it another way, dead faith really means that you don't actually have faith to begin with.

The example James gives is about seeing a brother or sister who is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food.  What does the person do in this example?  This person says "go in peace, be warmed and filled", but doesn't give the things needed for the body (warm clothes, food, etc).  This is just as useless as faith without works.

I remember Francis Chan giving an example at his church.  Or rather, I remember him recalling an example that he gave at his church.  He asked the congregation if they believed in his ability to shoot a bb gun that he had with him.  So, he asked if anyone truly believed in his ability, they could prove it by coming up on stage, holding a target in their mouth and allowing Francis Chan to shoot that target without hitting them.  If you truly believed in his ability with a bb gun, you wouldn't have a problem holding that target in your mouth for him to shoot it.  Similarly, if you have faith in something, your actions will prove that you truly believe in whatever you believe in.

James uses another example to show why faith without works is dead.  He points to the fact that even the demons believe that God is one.  Many Jews may have proudly professed faith that God is one.  This alone doesn't mean anything if it is something demons profess as well.  It's more than just clinging to belief.  Faith without works is dead.

I particularly like Shai Linne.  If you listen to "Doxology Intro", he describes how theology should lead to doxology.  So, a right understanding of God should lead to a right response to him (praise).  Fine, it's not a solid example, but I like Shai Linne.

James moves on to use two examples from the Old Testament.  The first example is of Abraham who was "justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar".  The second example is of Rahab who saved the spies.  What would've happened if Abraham hadn't sacrificed Issac on the alter?  You might be able to conclude that Abraham didn't truly believe in God because his actions didn't support it.  Or you may wonder if Rahab truly believed in the God of the Israelites if she simply turned in the spies.

One thing I noticed was that NLT translates this as "good deeds".  I'm not sure that's quite right.  Yes, I get it, Christians are indeed called to good deeds.  However, the point isn't necessarily the "good deeds", but rather the action that accompanies faith.  If you truly believe in something, you'll act accordingly.  If you truly believe that Jesus died for your sins and you are raised to new life, you will live in such a way.  As Paul describes believers as dead to sin and alive to Christ, those who have faith in Christ will live dead to sin and alive to Christ.  Faith in Jesus results in being a slave to righteousness and not a slave to sin.  I get why "good deeds" makes sense and how it relates.  However, it's more about the action or the deeds as opposed to the fact that there are "good deeds".

Perhaps I'll be going on and on about this a bit much, but let's look at the examples given by James in this passage.  Is what Rahab did a good deed?  You see, it depends on how you define "good deed".  She helped the spies.  For the Israelites, this was a good deed because she was helping them.  However, for people of Jericho, this was not a "good deed".  She went against the people of Jericho.  What she did was an action that was in line with her beliefs.  She showed her belief in what she said to the spies: "God has given you the land".  She also says, "the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath" showing she acknowledges their God and shows her belief in him.  If she believes that the God of the Israelites truly is God, then her actions would lead her to do the things that she did.

Even Abraham's example is bad, isn't it?  Abraham is offering up his own son to be sacrificed.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  If you don't believe in God or don't think he is truly hearing from God, then it's a bad thing, isn't it?  We arrest people who do harm or kill their own children.  This is wrong.  However, what he was doing was obeying God's instruction, no matter how difficult it was.  This shows his faith in God.  His actions were in line with his faith.

So, what matters to Christians?  What kind of deeds are we to do?  How do you know if what you're doing is in line with faith in Jesus?  Well, followers of Jesus are just that: people who follow Jesus.  They do what he says and follow his instruction.  Where do we find his instructions?  The Bible tells us.  It is from this, God's very own word, that we can be guided to do the things of God.

James 2:8-13

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.  But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.  For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.  For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.  So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.  For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:8-13

Partiality is a sin.  Sinning by the act of partiality causes one to be a transgressor of the law.  This is apparently the opposite of "you shall love your neighbor as yourself".  I guess if you really did love your neighbor as yourself, you wouldn't show partiality toward him or her.

So, how is it that partiality causes transgression of the law?  Well, this is because to fail in one point of the law is to be guilty of all of it.  This still may not add up.  Well, James goes on to explain further:

For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
James 2:11

It's not as if the law can be easily separated.  God is the one who gave the many instructions.  The commands go together and to go against one is to fail to obey what God has said.  In my mind, I am reminded of an AND operator.  God speaks all these commands and they are joined by an AND operator.  If you don't know, AND operator will output a 1 (or True) if all the inputs are 1 (or True).  If any one (or all) are not 1 (or True), then the result will be 0 (or False).

James moves on to tells his readers to act accordingly and points to the law of liberty.  What is the law of liberty?  Or, what is the law of freedom?  I'm not entirely sure, but he is obviously encouraging his readers not to show partiality.  This is as a result of what he has just explained: the sin of partiality is to transgress the law.  What's also key is that James moves on to speak about mercy.  If you don't show mercy, you will not be given mercy.  Perhaps James is pointing his readers towards humility.  We are not in a great situation.  To err in one part of the law is to transgress the whole law.  Yet, believers are free from sin and perhaps that is what James is referring to when he speaks of the "law of liberty".  We should always live knowing that in spite of our situation (lost, depraved, etc), we were shown mercy.  We should show mercy to others.  We shouldn't show favoritism.

James 2:1-7

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

James 2:1-7

In the ESV this section is titled "The Sin of Partiality".  Yes, as you know, the titles are not the inspired word of God.  However, it is still somewhat telling of what is to come.  How do they get this from the passage?  Well, looking ahead, we see it plain in verse 9.

But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
James 2:9

Jumping back to the beginning of the chapter, we see James telling his readers "show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ".  Next, James paints a picture of two men who comes into the assembly.  Of the two men who enter, one is rich and the other is poor.  If, in this situation, you treat them differently and provide special treatment to the rich person and less to the poor, you have "made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts".  This is clearly wrong and the picture explains what James is warning against.

Moving on, James uses the kingdom in order to explain why showing partiality is wrong.  The truth is that God has chosen "those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom".  These poor people are dishonored by the sin of partiality are the same poor people who God has chosen "to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom".  If this is the case, why does it make sense to give special treatment to the rich?  These rich people are "the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court".  It actually doesn't make sense to show partiality when looking at it this way.

If you actually step back and think about it, why would you show partiality?  Why is it that the rich are the one we are likely to give special treatment?  Thinking about the picture and explanation that James gives, we see that he is actually showing us the truth by the lens of spiritual reality.  Even though the poor are lacking when it comes to material wealth, they are actually the ones who are rich in faith.  However, the rich, though rich in material wealth, are actually ones in opposition to you.  By their actions they show that they are lacking when it comes to kingdom virtues.  The last thing mentioned about them in this paragraph is "Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called".  They certainly are not kingdom minded if they are acting this way.

Now, to be clear, this is not always true.  This is not a universal truth and there are exceptions.  There certainly are rich people who are indeed rich in faith.  Also, there certainly are poor people who are lacking when it comes to the kingdom.  However, James is pointing to what happens in reality in general to prove a point.  In general, we are tempted to show partiality by treating the rich better than the poor.  Also, it is more likely that the rich mistreat you by dragging you into court.  Instead, let us not show partiality and let us look with kingdom eyes.

One thing I wonder is, does this work the other way around?  If it is sinful to show partiality by treating the rich better than the poor, is it also sinful to treat the poor better than the rich?  I think it is, on the basis of the word "partiality".  To favor the rich over the poor is partiality just as favoring the poor over the rich is partiality.  However, we are more likely to sin by favoring the rich rather than favoring the poor.  This is probably why James uses the example that he does.

John 3:31-36

He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

John 3:31-36

John the Baptist now continues to speak about Jesus.  Jesus is the one who "comes from above" and "who comes from heaven".  What does he say about this person?  This person "is above all".  This is in contrast to he who "is of the earth".  This person who "is of the earth" is one who "belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way".  In light of what John the Baptist says in verse 30, he is probably referring to himself here.  John the Baptist is only someone who is "of the earth", but Jesus "comes from above" and "comes from heaven".  It is clear who is greater, who is superior and why he continue to point to Jesus and away from himself.

Next, John the Baptist gives a sad truth.  Unfortunately, no one receives Jesus' testimony.  Jesus "comes from heaven" and he is talking about what he has seen and heard, but for some reason people don't accept it as true.  Now, when it says "no one", it is probably more accurate to say "few" as NLT translates.  This is because John the Baptist immediately moves on to speak about those who do in fact receives Jesus' testimony.  These few people react by professing "that God is true".  How is it that people jump from Jesus directly to God?  Well, yes, we can do that easily by the fact that Jesus is God and so it's easy to go from there to here.  However, the explanation here doesn't quite do that.  Instead, the reasoning is that Jesus is sent by God and Jesus speaks the words of God.  So, the reason why people come to the conclusion that God is true upon accepting Jesus' testimony is because Jesus is sent by God and speaks the words of God.

Why is it that no one (or few) receive his testimony?  I am reminded once again of verses 19-21.  Jesus coming (the light) is the judgment.  The result is a division of the people.  There are those who loved the darkness and those who do what is true.  There are apparently many who love the darkness and so these are those who do not receive Jesus' testimony.

There is an interesting thing I find at the end of verse 34.  What is meant by "for he gives the Spirit without measure"?  Comparing other translations, it seems that this is referring to God as the giver of the Spirit here in this verse.  However, who is he giving the Spirit to?  Is this referring to giving of the Spirit to Jesus or giving of the Spirit to those who accept his testimony?  This is actually in reference to the giving of the Spirit to Jesus.  How is it that Jesus speaks the words of God?  It is because of God giving of the Spirit without measure to Jesus.  It isn't just the Spirit that is given.  He has given "all things" into his hands.

The last verse ends by moving on to eternal life.  There is a jump from receiving his testimony and professing that God is true to believing in Jesus and having eternal life.  This isn't so much of a jump considering this chapter, but I guess in John the Baptist's case, he hasn't necessarily mentioned it here.  It does echo what Jesus says earlier in this chapter.

One last thing to mention is what is mentioned at the very end.  With regards to those who do not obey the Son, these are ones on whom the wrath of God remains.  First of all, the word "obey" is used instead of "believe".  If what is said in this verse is a contrast, then that means that the opposite of believing in Jesus is to not obey Jesus.  That also means that to believe in Jesus is to obey him.

Okay, so this is the last thing: the wrath of God remains on those who do not obey Jesus.  Once again, the last verse has a contrast in it.  So, if the wrath of God remains on those who do not obey, then that means that those who believe are those who do not have the wrath of God upon them.  What happens to those who are believers and obeyers of Jesus is that the wrath of God is removed from them.  They are due God's wrath and it is upon him, but it is no longer upon them.

John 3

Looking at John 3 as a whole, we see two main characters (aside from Jesus, of course).  We see Nicodemus and we see John the Baptist.  Nicodemus is a Pharisee and "a ruler of the Jews", but John the Baptist is quite different from Nicodemus.  Though they both have disciples (I'm assuming about Nicodemus), John the Baptist is somewhat the outcast.  He's an oddball who lives in the wilderness, wears camel's hair and a leather belt, and he ate locusts and wild honey.  He is not on good terms with the Pharisees, calling them "brood of vipers" in Matthew 3.  Coming back to the book of John, we see that the Pharisees are confused as to what to make of John the Baptist himself.  They send priests and Levites to John the Baptist to ask him "who are you?".  These two characters are quite different and what's displayed here is the differences in their dealings with Jesus.  Nicodemus is curious, but he doesn't quite get it.  He's obviously not quite all in yet because he's coming to meet Jesus at night.  On the other hand, John the Baptist continues to point away from himself and toward Jesus.  Even looking back at previous chapters, he gets opportunities to exalt himself but he continues to make much of Jesus and less of himself.  These two characters and how they act with regards to Jesus is a striking contrast.

One of the main things that stands out to me in this chapter is what Jesus says in verse 19-21.

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

John 3:19-21

Jesus comes and his coming is the judgment.  The result is that there is a division.  There are those who love the darkness and there are those who does what is true.  The lovers of the darkness will not come to the light but those who do what is true will come to the light.  This is the judgment.  Throughout the book of John we see this.  There are divisions among the people and some believe and some do not believe.  John the Baptist is one who comes to the light.