Okay, here are a few more thoughts to follow up my previous blog post.
"Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke concludes, after studying both the word justice and its kindred word righteousness, that in the Old Testament, 'the righteous are willing to disadvantage themselves to advantage the community; the wicked are willing to disadvantage the community to advantage themselves.'
Therefore, just men and women see their money as belonging in some ways to the entire human community around them, while the unjust or unrighteous see their money as strictly their's and no one else's. After all, they earned it, and that's the main reason they have it. That view of life is naive, as we have seen, and it collides head-on with the Bible. So in Deuteronomy 24 we read:
"14 "Never take advantage of poor and destitute laborers, whether they are fellow Israelites or foreigners living in your towns. 17 True justice must be given to foreigners living among you and to orphans, and you must never accept a widow's garment as security for her debt. 19 When you are harvesting your crops and forget to bring in a bundle of grain from your field, don't go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigners, orphans, and widows. Then the LORD your God will bless you in all you do."
The reference to the harvest was an exhortation to landowners to allow the poor to 'glean.' If we read this text closely, we see that part of the landowner's harvest was 'for' the immigrant and poor. That means that in God's eyes, it was actually theirs. We should be careful not to think this means that the land belonged to the poor - it belonged ultimately to God and provisionally to the landowner. In God's view, however, while the poor did not have a right to the ownership of the farmer's land, they had a right to some of its produce. If the owner did not limit his profits and provide the poor with an opportunity to work for their own benefit in the fields, he did not simply deprive the poor of charity but of justice, of their right. Why? A lack of generosity refuses to acknowledge that your assets are not really yours, but God's.
Here is another example. Think of the millions of children and teenagers in this country who have grown up in poverty. They attend failing schools and live in an environment unconducive to reading and learning. By the time they are in their teens many of them are functionally illiterate. This locks them into poverty or worse. It is estimated that a majority of convicts in prison are illiterate. Who is to blame?
Conservatives may argue that this is the parent's fault. It is due to a failure of moral character and the breakdown of the family. Liberals, however, see it as a failure of government to stem systemic racism and to change unjust social structure. But nobody says that it is the children's fault they were born where they were. Those children are in poverty largely because they were not born into a family like mine. My three sons, just by being born where they were, have a far better chance to have flourishing, happy life in society. There is an inequitable distribution of both goods and opportunities in this world. Therefore, if you have been assigned the goods of this world by God and you don't share them with others, it isn't just stinginess, it is injustice."
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Power of Naming
I often point out injustices and/or inconsistencies I see in the world. Sometimes I do so on this blog, sometimes I do so on facebook - which usually creates a lot of heated discussion. At worst, I'm just being a whiner who starts fights. But I've thought there might be a 'best.' Well, according to this blog entry from the Christian Peacemaking Teams, there is a power in whining... I mean, naming.
CPTnet 26 December 2010 *CPT INTERNATIONAL: Oppression is bad, now what?*by Tim Nafziger and Mark van Steenwyk
Both of us have spent time analyzing the way we are part of the dominant culture in the United States. We know that we, as heterosexual, white men, benefit from a system that is racist, sexist, and heterosexist and that we are against oppression. However, we want to move beyond analysis and become allies to people who are not part of the dominant culture. We have been studying literature on the topic, including Anne Bishop’s Becoming an Ally, and have noticed some interesting parallels between the practice of becoming an ally and what Jesus is trying to do in the Sermon on the Mount.Naming the ways we see oppression operating in a group setting is part of becoming an ally. “Naming” is the practice of unveiling a truer narration than the one that identifies only blatant bigotry and chauvinism as the problem.
Naming means noticing when members of the dominant culture are the only ones speaking in a mixed group and pointing it out. It means confessing those times when we have dismissed people because of our unintentional prejudices. It means our honoring the moments when members of an oppressed group name oppression rather than out responding to this naming with defensiveness. It means making sure it isn't the women in a group who have to call out a man for making a sexist remark, intentional or not. It means breaking ranks with other members of the dominant culture. It is risky.
Naming happens when we bring hidden things to light, speak truth in the midst of error, or confess our complicity in systems that devalue others. It is about letting go or unlearning the lies, and binding the reality with our attention, presence, words, and actions. We are moving beyond mere symbolism to real praxis—acting in a way that unveils oppression and co-creates liberation.
Isn't this what Jesus was doing in the Sermon on the Mount? In the Beatitudes, Jesus is Naming the truth, thereby opening the space for a new reality. When he said “Blessed are the poor”, in that moment of Naming, he unveiled lies, and, with his fellow poor, co-created a new reality—a new moment in which previously entrenched realities broke open so that a new future was possible. “Blessed are the poor” is revolution-speak. It is about the in-breaking of God.
Being an ally involves a commitment to move past defensiveness when we are challenged on our own oppression, as unintentional as it may be. If we are open to recognizing our own complicity in oppression, members of the dominant culture (be it heterosexual, white or male) have a lot to gain, both socially and spiritually. Our relationships with those not part of the dominant culture can deepen. And when we are in deeper community with our brothers and sisters, we take a step closer to the vision of the beloved community and our mutual liberation.
Mark van Steenwyk is co-founder of Missio Dei, an Anabaptist intentional community in Minneapolis and a writer, speaker, and grassroots educator.Sources for this article include Ervin Stutzman, Glen Alexander Guyton, Joanna Shenk, Sylvia Morrison and Anne Bishop. This is an excerpt of a longer article.
For the entire post, you can click here.
CPTnet 26 December 2010 *CPT INTERNATIONAL: Oppression is bad, now what?*by Tim Nafziger and Mark van Steenwyk
Both of us have spent time analyzing the way we are part of the dominant culture in the United States. We know that we, as heterosexual, white men, benefit from a system that is racist, sexist, and heterosexist and that we are against oppression. However, we want to move beyond analysis and become allies to people who are not part of the dominant culture. We have been studying literature on the topic, including Anne Bishop’s Becoming an Ally, and have noticed some interesting parallels between the practice of becoming an ally and what Jesus is trying to do in the Sermon on the Mount.Naming the ways we see oppression operating in a group setting is part of becoming an ally. “Naming” is the practice of unveiling a truer narration than the one that identifies only blatant bigotry and chauvinism as the problem.
Naming means noticing when members of the dominant culture are the only ones speaking in a mixed group and pointing it out. It means confessing those times when we have dismissed people because of our unintentional prejudices. It means our honoring the moments when members of an oppressed group name oppression rather than out responding to this naming with defensiveness. It means making sure it isn't the women in a group who have to call out a man for making a sexist remark, intentional or not. It means breaking ranks with other members of the dominant culture. It is risky.
Naming happens when we bring hidden things to light, speak truth in the midst of error, or confess our complicity in systems that devalue others. It is about letting go or unlearning the lies, and binding the reality with our attention, presence, words, and actions. We are moving beyond mere symbolism to real praxis—acting in a way that unveils oppression and co-creates liberation.
Isn't this what Jesus was doing in the Sermon on the Mount? In the Beatitudes, Jesus is Naming the truth, thereby opening the space for a new reality. When he said “Blessed are the poor”, in that moment of Naming, he unveiled lies, and, with his fellow poor, co-created a new reality—a new moment in which previously entrenched realities broke open so that a new future was possible. “Blessed are the poor” is revolution-speak. It is about the in-breaking of God.
Being an ally involves a commitment to move past defensiveness when we are challenged on our own oppression, as unintentional as it may be. If we are open to recognizing our own complicity in oppression, members of the dominant culture (be it heterosexual, white or male) have a lot to gain, both socially and spiritually. Our relationships with those not part of the dominant culture can deepen. And when we are in deeper community with our brothers and sisters, we take a step closer to the vision of the beloved community and our mutual liberation.
Mark van Steenwyk is co-founder of Missio Dei, an Anabaptist intentional community in Minneapolis and a writer, speaker, and grassroots educator.Sources for this article include Ervin Stutzman, Glen Alexander Guyton, Joanna Shenk, Sylvia Morrison and Anne Bishop. This is an excerpt of a longer article.
For the entire post, you can click here.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Generous Justice
The first book I've read in 2011 is "Generous Justice" by Timothy Keller, link
This was a powerful, inspiring and thought-provoking book. You could tell I think so by checking out all the highlighted sections and dog-eared pages. When reading something like this, I want to post all the great ideas of the book on my blog, but my fingers just get too tired. So here's one idea from the book to share.
According to Keller, there are three root causes of poverty found in the scriptures, oppression of the rich over the poor, natural disasters and personal moral failures.
"Multiple factors are usually interactively present in the life of a poor family. For example: a person raised in a racial/ economic ghetto (factor #1) is likely to have poor health (factor #2) and also learn many habits that do not fit with material/ social advancement (factors #2 and #2). Any large-scale improvement in a society's level of poverty will come through a comprehensive array of public and private, spiritual, personal and corporate measures. There are many indications that scholars are coming to have a more balanced, complex view of poverty and are breaking through the older Right-Left deadlock." pg 35
"In both the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus delivers a famous discourse, which is usually called the Sermon on the Mount. For centuries, readers have acknowledged the beauty of its high ethical standards. What is not noticed very oft...en is how Jesus weaves into a whole cloth what we would today call private morality and social justice. Along with the well-known prohibitions against sexual lust in the heart, adultery, and divorce there are calls to give to the poor (Mat 6:1-4) and to refrain from overwork and materialism (Mat 6:19-24).
In Western society these sets of concerns have often been split off from one another. In fact, each of America's two main political parties has built its platform on one of these sets of ethical prescriptions to the near exlusion of the other. Conservatism stresses the importance of personal morality, especially the importance of traditional sexual mores and hard work, and feels that liberal charges of racism and social injustice are overblown.
On the other hand, liberalism stresses social justice, and considers conservative emphases on moral virtue to be prudish and psychologically harmful. Each side, of course, thinks the other side is smug and self-righteous.
It is not only the political parties that fail to reflect this 'whole cloth' Biblical agenda. The churches of America are often more controlled by the surrounding political culture than by the Spirit of Jesus and the prophets. Conservat...ive churches tend to concentrate on one set of sins, while liberal ones concentrate on another set. Jesus, like the OT prophets, does not see two categories of morality. In Amos 2:7, we read, 'They trample the heads of the poor; father an dson go in to the same girl.' The prophet condemns social injustice and sexual licentiousness in virtually the same breath (see also Isaiah 5:8ff). Such denunciations cut across all conventional political agendas. The Biblical perspective sees sexual immorality and material selfishness as both flowing from self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness.
Raymond Fung, an evangelist in Hong Kong, tells of how he was speaking to a textile worker about the Christian faith, and he urged him to come and visit a church. The man could not go to a service on Sunday without losing a day's wages, ...but he did so. After the service, Fung and the man went to lunch. The worker said, "well, the sermon hit me.' It has been about sin. 'What the preacher said was true of me - laziness, a violent temper, and addictions to cheap entertainment.' Fung held his breath, trying to control his excitement. Had the gospel message gotten through? He was disappointed.
'Nothing was said about my boss,' the man said to Fung. When the preacher had gone through the list of sins, he had said, 'Nothing about how he employs child laborers, how he doesn't give us the legally required holidays, how he puts on false labels, how he forces us to do overtime...'
Fung knew that members of the management class were sitting in the congregation, but those sins were never mentioned. The textile worker agreed that he was a sinner, but he rejected the message of the church because he sensed its incompleteness. Harvie Conn, who related this story in one of his books, added that gospel preaching that targets some sins but not the sins of oppression, 'cannot possibly work among the overwhelming majority of people in the world, poor peasants and workers.'" - pgs. 54-56
This was a powerful, inspiring and thought-provoking book. You could tell I think so by checking out all the highlighted sections and dog-eared pages. When reading something like this, I want to post all the great ideas of the book on my blog, but my fingers just get too tired. So here's one idea from the book to share.
According to Keller, there are three root causes of poverty found in the scriptures, oppression of the rich over the poor, natural disasters and personal moral failures.
"Multiple factors are usually interactively present in the life of a poor family. For example: a person raised in a racial/ economic ghetto (factor #1) is likely to have poor health (factor #2) and also learn many habits that do not fit with material/ social advancement (factors #2 and #2). Any large-scale improvement in a society's level of poverty will come through a comprehensive array of public and private, spiritual, personal and corporate measures. There are many indications that scholars are coming to have a more balanced, complex view of poverty and are breaking through the older Right-Left deadlock." pg 35
"In both the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus delivers a famous discourse, which is usually called the Sermon on the Mount. For centuries, readers have acknowledged the beauty of its high ethical standards. What is not noticed very oft...en is how Jesus weaves into a whole cloth what we would today call private morality and social justice. Along with the well-known prohibitions against sexual lust in the heart, adultery, and divorce there are calls to give to the poor (Mat 6:1-4) and to refrain from overwork and materialism (Mat 6:19-24).
In Western society these sets of concerns have often been split off from one another. In fact, each of America's two main political parties has built its platform on one of these sets of ethical prescriptions to the near exlusion of the other. Conservatism stresses the importance of personal morality, especially the importance of traditional sexual mores and hard work, and feels that liberal charges of racism and social injustice are overblown.
On the other hand, liberalism stresses social justice, and considers conservative emphases on moral virtue to be prudish and psychologically harmful. Each side, of course, thinks the other side is smug and self-righteous.
It is not only the political parties that fail to reflect this 'whole cloth' Biblical agenda. The churches of America are often more controlled by the surrounding political culture than by the Spirit of Jesus and the prophets. Conservat...ive churches tend to concentrate on one set of sins, while liberal ones concentrate on another set. Jesus, like the OT prophets, does not see two categories of morality. In Amos 2:7, we read, 'They trample the heads of the poor; father an dson go in to the same girl.' The prophet condemns social injustice and sexual licentiousness in virtually the same breath (see also Isaiah 5:8ff). Such denunciations cut across all conventional political agendas. The Biblical perspective sees sexual immorality and material selfishness as both flowing from self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness.
Raymond Fung, an evangelist in Hong Kong, tells of how he was speaking to a textile worker about the Christian faith, and he urged him to come and visit a church. The man could not go to a service on Sunday without losing a day's wages, ...but he did so. After the service, Fung and the man went to lunch. The worker said, "well, the sermon hit me.' It has been about sin. 'What the preacher said was true of me - laziness, a violent temper, and addictions to cheap entertainment.' Fung held his breath, trying to control his excitement. Had the gospel message gotten through? He was disappointed.
'Nothing was said about my boss,' the man said to Fung. When the preacher had gone through the list of sins, he had said, 'Nothing about how he employs child laborers, how he doesn't give us the legally required holidays, how he puts on false labels, how he forces us to do overtime...'
Fung knew that members of the management class were sitting in the congregation, but those sins were never mentioned. The textile worker agreed that he was a sinner, but he rejected the message of the church because he sensed its incompleteness. Harvie Conn, who related this story in one of his books, added that gospel preaching that targets some sins but not the sins of oppression, 'cannot possibly work among the overwhelming majority of people in the world, poor peasants and workers.'" - pgs. 54-56
Friday, December 31, 2010
My Last Book of 2010
Just finished the last book I'll read in 2010.
It was the book, "A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies."
If I quoted the book, you probably wouldn't believe it. The Spaniards made the Nazis look like neighborhood bullies.
Here's the summary from the book jacket.
"A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies' is... the story of the Spanish Domincan Priest Bartolome De Las Casas, who came to the Americas in the 16th Century. Immediately, he was struck by the inhumane ways in which the Native people's were treated by the European explorers and conquerors. Las Casas went on to be a leading opponent of slavery, torture, and genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. [the book] is his personal account, with chapters covering Cuba, Nicaragua, Hispanolia, Guatamala, Venezuela, Florida and many other areas conquered by the Spaniards.
De Las Casas (1484-1566), was a 16th century Spanish Dominican Priest and the first resident bishop of Chiapas. As a settler in the New World he witnessed, and was driven to oppose, the torture and genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists and pushed for rights of the natives appealing to the imperial court of Charles V. His stance for the African slaves' rights was later than the one for Native slavery."
What a stud! We really ought to substitute "De Las Casas Day" in place of Columbus Day.
It was the book, "A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies."
If I quoted the book, you probably wouldn't believe it. The Spaniards made the Nazis look like neighborhood bullies.
Here's the summary from the book jacket.
"A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies' is... the story of the Spanish Domincan Priest Bartolome De Las Casas, who came to the Americas in the 16th Century. Immediately, he was struck by the inhumane ways in which the Native people's were treated by the European explorers and conquerors. Las Casas went on to be a leading opponent of slavery, torture, and genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. [the book] is his personal account, with chapters covering Cuba, Nicaragua, Hispanolia, Guatamala, Venezuela, Florida and many other areas conquered by the Spaniards.
De Las Casas (1484-1566), was a 16th century Spanish Dominican Priest and the first resident bishop of Chiapas. As a settler in the New World he witnessed, and was driven to oppose, the torture and genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists and pushed for rights of the natives appealing to the imperial court of Charles V. His stance for the African slaves' rights was later than the one for Native slavery."
What a stud! We really ought to substitute "De Las Casas Day" in place of Columbus Day.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Party in the Desert
If I were a sports writer (and my love of sports and love for writing occassionaly prompts me to fantasize about that) I'd start my column with the following line:
"The nightmare of a season had a fairytale finish." Something like that...
Link to ESPN article and highlights.
In Iowa bowl lore, Gabbert to Hyde will come in second only to Tate to Hollaway.
"The nightmare of a season had a fairytale finish." Something like that...
Link to ESPN article and highlights.
In Iowa bowl lore, Gabbert to Hyde will come in second only to Tate to Hollaway.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Colbert and Christmas
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| ||||
“if this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition — and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”
Monday, December 27, 2010
Paul the Pacifist (?)
In the somewhat near future, I'll be leading the congregation through a study of Romans. I've started the long process of preparing however, and at the advice of the NT professor at Nazarene Theological Seminary, I'm starting my study with Reading Paul.
An early section discusses Paul's conversion. Paul was converted from the mission of violently eliminating and protecting purity of doctrine and commitment to God (by killing those wayward Jews who worshipped a cursed man, Jesus) to proclaiming the inclusive and life-changing Kingdom and gospel of Jesus through means that were nonviolent to his enemies but resulted in violence to himself. Paul had "the combination of zealous religiosity and violence that is something with which we are all too familiar today." But after Paul's conversion, he "abandoned his former, violent zeal for a zeal for the Lord defined by accepting rather than inflicting suffering."
Author Micheal Gorman goes on to pen this gem of a section:
"It is easy to think of Paul as a preacher or pastor, even as an example. It is more difficult for us to see him as a critic of empire or a peacemaker, much less a pacifist. Yet the turn to nonviolence is at the very heart of Paul's conversion, and his gospel. Paul's pacifism, as we will see further in chapter 11, was rooted in his gospel's proclamation of how God in Christ had treated enemies and insurgents against the divine order with reconciling, suffering love (Romans 3:9-26; 5:6-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19). This nonviolent divine love was then manifested in Paul's own practice of absorbing violence without retaliation (1 Corinthians 4:10-14) and communicated to his churches as the only appropriate lifestyle for those converted by and to the love of God (1 Thessalonians 5:15; Romans 12:9-21). We do not hear the whole gospel according to Paul - or perhaps we do not hear it at all- if we do not hear this essential dimension. Nonviolence is not negotiable for Paul the convert and apostle.
"In Paul's day, Jewish zealous nationalism that focused on Israel's internal purity was not the only temptation to violence. That nationalistic zeal was also directed outwardly, toward an oppressive, violent regime - the imperial power of Rome. Paul would become a critic (at least an implicit one) of that form of violence, too - violence in the name of justice, peace, and security. Based on a misinterpretation of Romans 13:1-7, Paul is often portrayed as a political conservative who supported Rome, and perhaps all forms of political authority, even tyranny. However, like Jesus, he was a critic of imperial values such as domination and of imperial claims like diving status for emperors and divine blessing on the empire's ambitions. Paul mocked the Roman claim of providing pax et securitas (1 Thessalonians 5:3), offered an alternative form of divine justice, and proclaimed as Lord a criminal crucified by a Roman power - rather than Roman power incarnate (the emperor). A politics of subversion, not intentional but as an inevitable consequence of the gospel, is central to Paul and to those who read his letters as Scripture. In that sense, Paul was a good, prophetic Jew."
It seems that the parts of the North American church who have been swept along by the idolatrous tide of nationalism and put their faith in the myth of redemptive violence rather than the crucified-but-now-risen Lamb desperately need to rediscover the Paul of Scripture.
An early section discusses Paul's conversion. Paul was converted from the mission of violently eliminating and protecting purity of doctrine and commitment to God (by killing those wayward Jews who worshipped a cursed man, Jesus) to proclaiming the inclusive and life-changing Kingdom and gospel of Jesus through means that were nonviolent to his enemies but resulted in violence to himself. Paul had "the combination of zealous religiosity and violence that is something with which we are all too familiar today." But after Paul's conversion, he "abandoned his former, violent zeal for a zeal for the Lord defined by accepting rather than inflicting suffering."
Author Micheal Gorman goes on to pen this gem of a section:
"It is easy to think of Paul as a preacher or pastor, even as an example. It is more difficult for us to see him as a critic of empire or a peacemaker, much less a pacifist. Yet the turn to nonviolence is at the very heart of Paul's conversion, and his gospel. Paul's pacifism, as we will see further in chapter 11, was rooted in his gospel's proclamation of how God in Christ had treated enemies and insurgents against the divine order with reconciling, suffering love (Romans 3:9-26; 5:6-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19). This nonviolent divine love was then manifested in Paul's own practice of absorbing violence without retaliation (1 Corinthians 4:10-14) and communicated to his churches as the only appropriate lifestyle for those converted by and to the love of God (1 Thessalonians 5:15; Romans 12:9-21). We do not hear the whole gospel according to Paul - or perhaps we do not hear it at all- if we do not hear this essential dimension. Nonviolence is not negotiable for Paul the convert and apostle.
"In Paul's day, Jewish zealous nationalism that focused on Israel's internal purity was not the only temptation to violence. That nationalistic zeal was also directed outwardly, toward an oppressive, violent regime - the imperial power of Rome. Paul would become a critic (at least an implicit one) of that form of violence, too - violence in the name of justice, peace, and security. Based on a misinterpretation of Romans 13:1-7, Paul is often portrayed as a political conservative who supported Rome, and perhaps all forms of political authority, even tyranny. However, like Jesus, he was a critic of imperial values such as domination and of imperial claims like diving status for emperors and divine blessing on the empire's ambitions. Paul mocked the Roman claim of providing pax et securitas (1 Thessalonians 5:3), offered an alternative form of divine justice, and proclaimed as Lord a criminal crucified by a Roman power - rather than Roman power incarnate (the emperor). A politics of subversion, not intentional but as an inevitable consequence of the gospel, is central to Paul and to those who read his letters as Scripture. In that sense, Paul was a good, prophetic Jew."
It seems that the parts of the North American church who have been swept along by the idolatrous tide of nationalism and put their faith in the myth of redemptive violence rather than the crucified-but-now-risen Lamb desperately need to rediscover the Paul of Scripture.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
A Christmas Story
This is from the 12th chapter of Revelation.
Revelation 12
The Woman and the Dragon
1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.2 She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.
3 Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads.4 His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born.
5 She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne.6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.
7 Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels.8 And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven.9 This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.
10 Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens,
"It has come at last—
salvation and power
and the Kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.*
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters*
has been thrown down to earth—
the one who accuses them
before our God day and night.
11 And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamb
and by their testimony.
And they did not love their lives so much
that they were afraid to die.
12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens!
And you who live in the heavens, rejoice!
But terror will come on the earth and the sea,
for the devil has come down to you in great anger,
knowing that he has little time."
13 When the dragon realized that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.14 But she was given two wings like those of a great eagle so she could fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness. There she would be cared for and protected from the dragon* for a time, times, and half a time.
15 Then the dragon tried to drown the woman with a flood of water that flowed from his mouth.16 But the earth helped her by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that gushed out from the mouth of the dragon.17 And the dragon was angry at the woman and declared war against the rest of her children—all who keep God's commandments and maintain their testimony for Jesus.
18 Then the dragon took his stand* on the shore beside the sea.
Thank you, Lord for invading our world and freeing us from the tyranny of sin.
Revelation 12
The Woman and the Dragon
1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.2 She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.
3 Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads.4 His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born.
5 She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne.6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.
7 Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels.8 And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven.9 This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.
10 Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens,
"It has come at last—
salvation and power
and the Kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.*
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters*
has been thrown down to earth—
the one who accuses them
before our God day and night.
11 And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamb
and by their testimony.
And they did not love their lives so much
that they were afraid to die.
12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens!
And you who live in the heavens, rejoice!
But terror will come on the earth and the sea,
for the devil has come down to you in great anger,
knowing that he has little time."
13 When the dragon realized that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.14 But she was given two wings like those of a great eagle so she could fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness. There she would be cared for and protected from the dragon* for a time, times, and half a time.
15 Then the dragon tried to drown the woman with a flood of water that flowed from his mouth.16 But the earth helped her by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that gushed out from the mouth of the dragon.17 And the dragon was angry at the woman and declared war against the rest of her children—all who keep God's commandments and maintain their testimony for Jesus.
18 Then the dragon took his stand* on the shore beside the sea.
Thank you, Lord for invading our world and freeing us from the tyranny of sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
