Immanuel - God is with us!

P. Amsterdam

Link

Christmas represents one of the most significant events in human history—when God physically came into our world in the form of His Son, Jesus. In telling the story of God’s entrance into the world, Matthew’s Gospel says that the events leading up to Jesus’ birth took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).1

In the Old Testament we read of God’s presence among His people, His being “with us.” We see it in the story of the Garden of Eden, where God conversed with Adam in the cool of the day;2 in the pillar of cloud and of fire that led Moses and the children of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land;3 in the Ark of the Covenant4 and the Holy of Holies.5 God also assured His people that He would be with them when they went into battle,6 as well as when they were fearful or facing great trial.7

Then in the New Testament God’s presence took on a whole new meaning in the incarnation, the physical embodiment of God in the birth of Jesus. His conception was like no other before or after. His mother, Mary, was a virgin, betrothed—but not yet married—to Joseph, a Jewish carpenter. Mary received a visit from an angel who announced that she would conceive and bear a son who will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.8

When she questioned how this could happen, since she was a virgin, the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”9 Nine months later, the unique person who was both God and man was born—Immanuel, “God with us.”

Some of the manifestations of “God with us” were seen through Jesus’ actions which reflected the attributes of God, such as:
Compassion through healing those with leprosy,10 palsy (paralysis),11blindness,12 epilepsy,13 fever,14 dropsy,15 deafness,16 and demonic oppression.17
Overall care and provision for all of humanity and concern for the poor and hungry, manifested by feeding the crowds of 5,00018 and 4,000.19
Power over nature as He walked on water and commanded the wind and storm to cease.20
Power over death—raising the only son of a widow,21 a twelve-year-old girl,22 and His friend Lazarus from the dead.23
Mercy by forgiving sins.24
Love by His willingness to be hung on the cross to die so as to make it possible for us to enter an eternal relationship with God.25

Through His teachings, Jesus informed us of the character of God. This is seen in particular in the parables, which portray various aspects of God’s nature, such as:
A loving and forgiving father in the story of “the father and the lost sons.”26
A caring and faithful father in “the friend at midnight”27 and “the father’s good gifts.”28
He who seeks and saves those who are lost in “the lost sheep”29 and “the lost coin.”30
He who waits patiently for the right time for judgment in “the wheat and the weeds”31 and “the seed growing.”32
He who judges righteously in “the rich fool,”33 “the unjust steward,”34 and “the rich man and Lazarus.”35
The forgiver of sins in “the two debtors.”36
He who loves and cares for those in need, no matter who they are, in “the good Samaritan.”37
The one who consistently seeks for those in need of salvation in “the compassionate employer.”38

Jesus, “God with us,” showed us the lengths to which God would go in order to reconcile humanity to Himself—by ordaining that He Himself, in the form of God the Son, would take the punishment of the sins of humanity, so that we might live with Him forever.

A continuation of “God with us” is seen in that after His death and resurrection, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in believers.

I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.39

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? … Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?40

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”41

Christmas is the celebration of “God with us,” the birth of God’s incarnate Son, who lived and died in order to make it possible for us to come into relationship with God and for the Spirit of God to dwell within us. What a joyful reason to celebrate!

At Christmas, and every other day of the year, all of us within whom the Spirit of God dwells are in a sense an extension of “God with us” in our community—to our friends and neighbors, our coworkers, the people who serve us in shops and restaurants, and strangers whom the Lord brings across our paths. The love we show through our interactions with others, the words we speak and actions we take, the kindness and generosity we show, the helping hand we offer, reflect the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Others can sense something uncommon and special in us, and when we explain that God is with us and can be with them as well, we help to fulfill the ultimate reason of Christmas.

This is a wonderful time of year to share the gospel with others, to let them know that God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.42 We are each called to do all we can to share the news of “God with us” with those who need Him.


1 Matthew 1:22–23. All scriptures are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.


2 Genesis 3:8.


3 Exodus 13:21–22.


4 Exodus 25:22.


5 Exodus 26:34. See also Exodus 40:34–38.


6 Deuteronomy 20:1, 31:6; Joshua 1:9.


7 Isaiah 41:10, 43:2.


8 Luke 1:31–33.


9 Luke 1:35.


10 Matthew 8:1–4; Mark 1:40–45; Luke 5:12–15, 17:12–14.


11 Mark 2:1–12.


12 Matthew 9:27–30, 20:30–34, 21:14; Mark 8:22–25, 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43; John 9:1–7.


13 Matthew 17:15–18; Mark 9:25–27.


14 Matthew 8:14–15; Mark 1:30–31; John 4:46–53.


15 Luke 14:1–4.


16 Mark 7:32–37.


17 Matthew 12:22–23, 9:31–33; Luke 4:33–35, 8:27–35, 9:38–42.


18 Matthew 14:14–21; Mark 6:35–44; Luke 9:12–17; John 6:5–13.


19 Matthew 15:32–38; Mark 8:2–9.


20 Matthew 14:22–33; Mark 4:35–41, 6:45–51; Luke 8:22–25; John 6:16–21.


21 Luke 7:11–16.


22 Mark 5:22–23, 35–43.


23 John 11:1–44.


24 Matthew 9:2–8; Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:18–26, 7:44–50.


25 Colossians 1:19–22, 2:13–14; Ephesians 2:13–19.


26 Luke 15:11–32.


27 Luke 11:5–8.


28 Luke 11:9–13; Matthew 7:9–11.


29 Matthew 18:12–13; Luke 15:4–7.


30 Luke 15:8–9.


31 Matthew 13:24–30.


32 Mark 4:26–29.


33 Luke 12:13–21.


34 Matthew 18:21–35.


35 Luke 16:19–31.


36 Luke 7:40–50.


37 Luke 10:25–37.


38 Matthew 20:1–16.


39 John 14:16–17.


40 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19.


41 Galatians 4:6.




42 John 3:16.

Read More

Louvar nos Momentos Difíceis

Link Maria Fountaine

Todos sabemos que acontecem coisas ruins todos os dias neste mundo, e nós, cristãos, não estamos isentos disso. Temos dificuldades e experiências dolorosas, e essas coisas podem perturbar a nossa paz de espírito, dificultar que realizemos o que Jesus nos pediu para fazer, e às vezes até ameaçam enfraquecer a nossa fé. Mas, quando se trata dos filhos de Deus que O amam, Jesus prometeu fazer todas as coisas, tanto as boas quanto as ruins, concorrerem juntamente para trazer um bom resultado para nós no final.

Para encontrarmos o bem nas coisas pelas quais passamos, temos que olhar para o Senhor. Temos que combater o bom combate, nos agarrar à nossa fé e confiar em Deus apesar das coisas ruins. Quando fazemos isso, Ele prometeu fazer o que não temos condições, ou seja, atuar para que essas experiências sejam para o nosso bem, quer nesta vida ou na próxima.

Quando surgem problemas e dificuldades, uma das melhores maneiras para superarmos a tristeza e o desencorajamento é nos lembrarmos da bondade e do cuidado de Deus por nós, e louvá-lO por isso. Parece fácil quando olhamos de fora, mas quando se está no meio da luta pode ser muito difícil dar esse passo de louvar. Às vezes, parece simplesmente impossível. Você não sente vontade nem de tentar louvar. É lógico que não faz sentido. É tipo: “Você deve estar de brincadeira. Como posso louvar agora?” Você mal consegue entender pelo que deveria estar louvando. Talvez o máximo que consiga dizer é, “Obrigado, Jesus. Obrigado, Jesus. Obrigado, Jesus.”

Se isso é tudo o que você consegue fazer no momento, então Deus vai honrá-lo. Ele sabe quanta confiança e fé é preciso. Ele sabe que você está Lhe dando o “sacrifício do louvor”. Talvez para você dizer essas palavras, “obrigado, Jesus”, não pareça ter muito sentido. Contudo, dar até mesmo esse passo pode guiar seu espírito na direção certa de encontro com Deus e distante das coisas negativas que ameaçam dominá-lo.

Percebi recentemente que podia fazer algo que me ajudaria a louvar mais rápido e facilmente quando estivesse enfrentando problemas. Tenho uma série de canções no meu MP3 na pasta “louvar nas dificuldades”. Quando ouço falar de algo de maior porte que está acontecendo, ou até coisas menos importantes que me deixam frustrada, eu ouço essas canções. Elas me lembram das muitas coisas pelas quais estar grata e como posso louvar o Senhor no vale das sombras. A música mexe comigo e me motiva a cantar. Mesmo depois que termina, sinto que deixou sua marca na minha mente e tenho algo para repetir e cantar para mim mesma, mesmo sem o acompanhamento musical. Isto tem alavancado a minha vida de oração/louvor, e tem sido uma maneira eficaz de louvar o Senhor nas coisas mais importantes como também nas menores, no que é maravilhoso e até no que é difícil.

Uma das minhas favoritas, “I Bless Your Name,” fala da ocasião quando Paulo e Silas, na prisão e acorrentados depois de serem açoitados até sangrar, começaram a cantar e foram libertados por Deus. A maioria de nós nunca ficou literalmente acorrentado, mas talvez estejamos “na prisão da nossa mente” lutando com os problemas e as experiências difíceis, e parecemos que não temos condições de superar. Podemos alcançar e quebrar essas correntes manifestando nossa fé e confiança em Jesus através do louvor, e elas cairão por terra.

Essas canções me lembram que eu não só deveria louvar quando tenho abundância em lugares agradáveis, mas também quando me encontro “nos lugares ermos”, “no deserto”, e “quando a escuridão me cerca”. Apesar do caminho ser “marcado com sofrimento” e de talvez haver “dor na minha oferta”, pela graça de Deus, ainda assim posso louvar o Seu nome.

Ouço essas canções me lembrando que Satanás é um mentiroso que “quer nos fazer pensar que somos pobres em vez de filhos do Rei.” Mas para resistir a ele basta levantar o escudo da fé e louvar o Senhor. Ele vai operar através dos nossos louvores, já que o Altíssimo habita no louvor do Seu povo.

Tal como diz em uma das canções, “As correntes que nos prendem, servem apenas para nos lembrar, que vão cair sem nenhum poder e para trás ficar, quando louvarmos a Deus.”

Seguem-se os links de algumas dessas canções que são uma bênção para mim. Há várias outras que você pode procurar, e que também podem ajudá-lo. Experimente. Pode funcionar para você também!

I Bless Your Name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN9SpcWLbLs

Blessed Be Your Name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXnB1Tv-xp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdFdoWlyUDA

Praise the Lord

https://youtube/6iYC55-469U

Read More

Mourning the death of the ‘messiah of Africa’

BBC, 6 December 2015

When Muammar Gaddafi was toppled in 2011, there were scenes of jubilation in Libya. But Jake Wallis Simons didn’t have to go far in Ghana to find those who have fond memories of the executed Libyan leader, and are still mourning his loss.

One recent Sunday afternoon, amid the yellow dust, sunshine and traffic fumes of Accra, I met a man who told me that Colonel Gaddafi was the messiah.

The man’s name was Karim Mohamed, an ebullient 45-year-old tailor who had spent three years living and working in Libya before the fall of Gaddafi.

He was married with three children, and lived in a six-bedroom house that he had built himself using the money he had earned in Libya.

“In Libya, everybody was happy,” he told me. “In America, there are people sleeping under bridges. In Libya, never. There was no discrimination, no problems, nothing. The work was good and so was the money. My life is all thanks to Gaddafi. He was the messiah of Africa.”

Karim was far from unusual in this part of Ghana. As we talked, two other men sauntered over to join the conversation, and turned out to share his passion for the late Libyan dictator.

“Gaddafi was a nice guy,” said Mustafa Abdel Momin, a cheerful, 35-year-old construction worker who had worked in Libya for seven years. “He never cheated anybody. He was perfect. The best.”

“What was the point of killing him?” added Eliyas Yahya, the local imam. “You kill someone to solve the problem and now the problem is worse. Why kill Gaddafi?”

Gaddafi may have been a ruthless autocrat, but for years the relative affluence and stability of his rule was a godsend to migrants desperate for work. My new friends were among the tens of thousands of Africans who had used money earned in Libya to break themselves from the cycle of poverty at home.

As we talked in the shade of a small grocery shop, the evidence was all around us. This was a district in the north of the city known locally as the Libyan Quarter, home to a community of Ghanaians who had made their money under the Gaddafi regime.

The ramshackle houses that characterise many parts of Accra were nowhere to be seen here. Instead there were modern, spacious residences lining the orange dirt road, stretching into the distance.

Karim pointed out what I had thought was a municipal building on the corner. As it turned out, it was actually a mansion belonging to a man called Sheikh Swala, who had started several successful businesses using money he had earned in Libya. The house had 30 bedrooms. And without Gaddafi, it would never have been built.

Indeed, new construction was now a rarity in this neighbourhood. Here and there, some houses were even lying unfinished–when Gaddafi was deposed, the Libyan Quarter became frozen in time.

A diffident, 36-year-old man called Amadu joined our group. Nobody noticed him at first, as he seemed so withdrawn. But eventually, he told his story.

Amadu had been among those unable to afford a proper Libyan visa. In 2010, he and several friends made the dangerous journey there overland, through the Sahara desert. They ran out of water and many of his group died, but he made it to Libya and found work as a tiler.

By the time war broke out in 2011, he had saved $3,500 (£2,300). He remembers standing on the docks in Tripoli when the first shots were fired, forcing him to run for cover. He was confined to his room for several days before he managed to escape back to Ghana, but he was unable to bring his hard-earned money with him. And that was how his dreams had died.

“There is nothing for the youth here in Ghana,” said Mustafa. “After Gaddafi, we are full of crisis. Youth unemployment is sky-high and there is nothing for us to do. Either we end up living a life of crime because it is the only way to make money, or we try and make it to Europe.”

The others agreed. “Now it is Europe, Europe, Europe, wherever on earth you go,” said Eliyas loudly. “Some people are going to Brazil, if they can afford it. But for everyone else, it’s Europe.”

Before Gaddafi was ousted, he officially warned the European Union that if his regime were to collapse, as many as two million migrants would arrive on Europe’s shores, creating chaos.

He may have been more a dictator than a messiah. But he seems to have been right about that.

Read More

Beyond ISIS: World War IV

By Andrew J. Bacevich, TomDispatch, December 5, 2015

Assume that the hawks get their way–that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what?

Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself–a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it, “We came, we saw, he died.” End of story.

In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. “Liberation” turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval.

Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.

The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.

That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that “caliphate” is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.

In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its “capital,” in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.

In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone–the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted–favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, “I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there.”

It’s an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.

Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker.

Embracing Generational War. Why this repeated disparity between perceived and actual outcomes? Why have apparent battlefield successes led so regularly to more violence and disorder? Before following Kristol’s counsel, Americans would do well to reflect on these questions.

Cue Professor Eliot A. Cohen. Shortly after 9/11, Cohen, one of this country’s preeminent military thinkers, characterized the conflict on which the United States was then embarking as “World War IV.” (In this formulation, the Cold War becomes World War III.) Other than in certain neoconservative quarters, the depiction did not catch on. Yet nearly a decade-and-a-half later, the Johns Hopkins professor and former State Department official is sticking to his guns. In an essay penned for the American Interest following the recent Paris attacks, he returns to his theme. “It was World War IV in 2001,” Cohen insists. “It is World War IV today.” And to our considerable benefit he spells out at least some of the implications of casting the conflict in such expansive and evocative terms.

Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it’s a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness.

In the United States today, confusion about what war itself signifies is widespread. Through misuse, misapplication, and above all misremembering, we have distorted the term almost beyond recognition. As one consequence, talk of war comes too easily off the tongues of the unknowing.

Not so with Cohen. When it comes to war, he has no illusions. Addressing that subject, he illuminates it, enabling us to see what war entails. So in advocating World War IV, he performs a great service, even if perhaps not the one he intends.

What will distinguish the war that Cohen deems essential? “Begin with endurance,” he writes. “This war will probably go on for the rest of my life, and well into my children’s.” Although American political leaders seem reluctant “to explain just how high the stakes are,” Cohen lays them out in direct, unvarnished language. At issue, he insists, is the American way of life itself, not simply “in the sense of rock concerts and alcohol in restaurants, but the more fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, the equality of women, and, most essentially, the freedom from fear and freedom to think.”

With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration’s tendency to rely on “therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating.” The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and “kindred movements” will require the U.S. to “kill a great many people.” To that end Washington needs “a long-range plan not to ‘contain’ but to crush” the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require “a long, bloody, and costly process.”

Cohen’s candor and specificity, as bracing as they are rare, should command our respect. If World War IV describes what we are in for, then eliminating ISIS might figure as a near-term imperative, but it can hardly define the endgame. Beyond ISIS loom all those continually evolving “kindred movements” to which the United States will have to attend before it can declare the war itself well and truly won.

To send just tens of thousands of U.S. troops to clean up Syria and Iraq, as William Kristol and others propose, offers at best a recipe for winning a single campaign. Winning the larger war would involve far more arduous exertions. This Cohen understands, accepts, and urges others to acknowledge.

And here we come to the heart of the matter. For at least the past 35 years–that is, since well before 9/11–the United States has been “at war” in various quarters of the Islamic world. At no point has it demonstrated the will or the ability to finish the job. Washington’s approach has been akin to treating cancer with a little bit of chemo one year and a one-shot course of radiation the next. Such gross malpractice aptly describes U.S. military policy throughout the Greater Middle East across several decades.

While there may be many reasons why the Iraq War of 2003 to 2011 and the still longer Afghanistan War yielded such disappointing results, Washington’s timidity in conducting those campaigns deserves pride of place. That most Americans might bridle at the term “timidity” reflects the extent to which they have deluded themselves regarding the reality of war.

In comparison to Vietnam, for example, Washington’s approach to waging its two principal post-9/11 campaigns was positively half-hearted. With the nation as a whole adhering to peacetime routines, Washington neither sent enough troops nor stayed anywhere near long enough to finish the job. Yes, we killed many tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but if winning World War IV requires, as Cohen writes, that we “break the back” of the enemy, then we obviously didn’t kill nearly enough.

Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths.

Americans would be foolish to listen to those like William Kristol who, even today, peddle illusions about war being neat and easy. They would do well instead to heed Cohen, who knows that war is hard and ugly.

What Would World War IV Look Like? Yet when specifying the practical implications of generational war, Cohen is less forthcoming. From his perspective, this fourth iteration of existential armed conflict in a single century is not going well. But apart from greater resolve and bloody-mindedness, what will it take to get things on the right track?

As a thought experiment, let’s answer that question by treating it with the urgency that Cohen believes it deserves. After 9/11, certain U.S. officials thundered about “taking the gloves off.” In practice, however, with the notable exception of policies permitting torture and imprisonment without due process, the gloves stayed on. Take Cohen’s conception of World War IV at face value and that will have to change.

For starters, the country would have to move to something like a war footing, enabling Washington to raise a lot more troops and spend a lot more money over a very long period of time. Although long since banished from the nation’s political lexicon, the M-word–mobilization–would make a comeback. Prosecuting a generational war, after all, is going to require the commitment of generations.

Furthermore, if winning World War IV means crushing the enemy, as Cohen emphasizes, then ensuring that the enemy, once crushed, cannot recover would be hardly less important. And that requirement would prohibit U.S. forces from simply walking away from a particular fight even–or especially–when it might appear won.

At the present moment, defeating the Islamic State ranks as Washington’s number one priority. With the Pentagon already claiming a body count of 20,000 ISIS fighters without notable effect, this campaign won’t end anytime soon. But even assuming an eventually positive outcome, the task of maintaining order and stability in areas that ISIS now controls will remain. Indeed, that task will persist until the conditions giving rise to entities like ISIS are eliminated. Don’t expect French President François Hollande or British Prime Minister David Cameron to sign up for that thankless job. U.S. forces will own it. Packing up and leaving the scene won’t be an option.

How long would those forces have to stay? Extrapolating from recent U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, something on the order of a quarter-century seems like a plausible approximation. So should our 45th president opt for a boots-on-the-ground solution to ISIS, as might well be the case, the privilege of welcoming the troops home could belong to the 48th or 49th occupant of the White House.

In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry “kindred movements” that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan–still? again?–would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action.

Effective prosecution of World War IV, in other words, would require the Pentagon to plan for each of these contingencies, while mustering the assets needed for implementation. Allies might kick in token assistance, but the United States will necessarily carry most of the load.

What Would World War IV Cost? During World War III (aka the Cold War), the Pentagon maintained a force structure ostensibly adequate to the simultaneous prosecution of two and a half wars. This meant having the wherewithal to defend Europe and the Pacific from communist aggression while still leaving something for the unexpected. World War IV campaigns are unlikely to entail anything on the scale of the Warsaw Pact attacking Western Europe or North Korea invading the South. Still, the range of plausible scenarios will require that U.S. forces be able to take on militant organizations C and D even while guarding against the resurgence of organizations A and B in altogether different geographic locations.

Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV’s preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.

U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.

In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops” had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon’s standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you’re talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns–a figure that wouldn’t include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.

In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army–and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls–this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers.

Whether it could also retain the current model of an all-volunteer force is another matter. Recruiters would certainly face considerable challenges, even if Congress enhanced the material inducements for service, which since 9/11 have already included a succession of generous increases in military pay. A loosening of immigration policy, granting a few hundred thousand foreigners citizenship in return for successfully completing a term of enlistment might help. In all likelihood, however, as with all three previous world wars, waging World War IV would oblige the United States to revive the draft. In short, going all out to create the forces needed to win World War IV would confront Americans with uncomfortable choices.

The budgetary implications of expanding U.S. forces while conducting a perpetual round of what the Pentagon calls “overseas contingency operations” would also loom large. Precisely how much money an essentially global conflict projected to extend well into the latter half of the century would require is difficult to gauge. As a starting point, given the increased number of active duty forces, tripling the present Defense Department budget of more than $600 billion might serve as a reasonable guess.

At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon.

Of course, that money would have to come from somewhere. For several years during the last decade, sustaining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pushed the federal deficit above a trillion dollars. As one consequence, the total national debt now exceeds annual GDP, having tripled since 9/11. How much additional debt the United States can accrue without doing permanent damage to the economy is a question of more than academic interest.

To avoid having World War IV produce an endless string of unacceptably large deficits, ratcheting up military spending would undoubtedly require either substantial tax increases or significant cuts in non-military spending, including big-ticket programs like Medicare and social security–precisely those, that is, which members of the middle class hold most dear.

In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loath to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn’t so far.

The Folly of World War IV. In his essay, Cohen writes, “we need to stop the circumlocutions.” Of those who would bear the direct burden of his world war, he says, “we must start telling them the truth.” He’s right, even if he himself is largely silent about what the conduct of World War IV is likely to exact from the average citizen.

As the United States enters a presidential election year, plain talk about the prospects of our ongoing military engagement in the Islamic world should be the order of the day. The pretense that either dropping a few more bombs or invading one or two more countries will yield a conclusive outcome amounts to more than an evasion. It is an outright lie.

As Cohen knows, winning World War IV would require dropping many, many more bombs and invading, and then occupying for years to come, many more countries. After all, it’s not just ISIS that Washington will have to deal with, but also its affiliates, offshoots, wannabes, and the successors almost surely waiting in the wings. And don’t forget al-Qaeda.

Cohen believes that we have no alternative. Either we get serious about fighting World War IV the way it needs to be fought or darkness will envelop the land. He is undeterred by the evidence that the more deeply we insert our soldiers into the Greater Middle East the more concerted the resistance they face; that the more militants we kill the more we seem to create; that the inevitable, if unintended, killing of innocents only serves to strengthen the hand of the extremists. As he sees it, with everything we believe in riding on the outcome, we have no choice but to press on.

While listening carefully to Cohen’s call to arms, Americans should reflect on its implications. Wars change countries and people. Embracing his prescription for World War IV would change the United States in fundamental ways. It would radically expand the scope and reach of the national security state, which, of course, includes agencies beyond the military itself. It would divert vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes. It would make the militarization of the American way of life, a legacy of prior world wars, irreversible. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it would also compromise American freedom in the name of protecting it. The nation that decades from now might celebrate VT Day–victory over terrorism–will have become a different place, materially, politically, culturally, and morally.

In my view, Cohen’s World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Yet here’s the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year.

Incrementally, bit by bit, this nameless war has already expanded the scope and reach of the national security apparatus. It is diverting vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes even as it normalizes the continuing militarization of the American way of life. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it is undermining American freedom in the name of protecting it, and doing so right before our eyes.

For a rich and powerful nation to conclude that it has no choice but to engage in quasi-permanent armed conflict in the far reaches of the planet represents the height of folly. Power confers choice. As citizens, we must resist with all our might arguments that deny the existence of choice. Whether advanced forthrightly by Cohen or fecklessly by the militarily ignorant, such claims will only perpetuate the folly that has already lasted far too long.

Read More

Hello, Hezekiah! Archaeology and Biblical History

By Eric Metaxas, BreakPoint, Dec. 4, 2015

Five years ago, a team of archaeologists digging “at the foot of the southern part of the wall that surrounds Jerusalem’s Old City” came across a refuse dump dating to the eighth century before Christ.

As the New York Times told its readers, it’s “an area rich in relics from the period of the first of two ancient Jewish temples.” Among their findings were thirty-three clay imprints or seals, known as bulla. These seals were catalogued and stored.

It wasn’t until recently that these bulla were examined more closely, and what the closer examination revealed is rocking the archaeological world. One of the bulla bore the inscription “Belonging to Hezekiah (son of) Ahaz king of Judah.”

That would be the Hezekiah of which the Bible says, “He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord. He did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses” (2 Kings 18:5-6).

As Eliat Mazar of Hebrew University told the Times, “It’s always a question, what are the real facts behind the biblical stories … Here we have a chance to get as close as possible to the person himself, to the king himself.”

You’ll pardon me for saying, but how cool is that?!

Now, this is only the most recent in a series of archaeological finds that are confirming the historical nature and veracity of the biblical narratives. A few years ago, I told you about the discovery of Shaarayim, one of the two cities of David mentioned in First Chronicles, as well as the remains of one of David’s palaces and royal storehouses.

I also told you about the discovery of a coin, dating from the 11th century before Christ, which depicted “a man with long hair fighting a large animal with a feline tail.” As if that didn’t ring your biblical bell enough, the coin was discovered “near the Sorek River, which was the border between the ancient Israelite and Philistine territories 3,100 years ago.”

Of course, the coin depicted Sampson.

You’ve got to remember that it was not that long ago that many historians and scholars were convinced that the biblical narratives that described the time before the Babylonian exile were largely the creation of pious scribes whose goal was to justify their contemporary concerns by creating a usable past. In fact, it was widely doubted that people like David and Solomon ever even existed, and if they did, they were little more than glorified tribal chieftains.

Then in 1993, a stone slab or stele dating from the 9th century B.C. referring to the “House of David” was found in northern Israel. More recently, archaeologists have discovered ancient copper mines south of Jerusalem that dated from the time of Solomon. The mines included “an impressive collection of clothing, fabrics, and ropes made using advanced weaving technology; foods, like dates, grapes, and pistachios; ceramics; and various types of metallurgical installations.”

So much for myths and glorified tribal chieftains!

Read More

Sweden-Israel rift deepens over comments on Palestinian deaths

Link
Reuters: By Dan Williams and Simon Johnson

Related Stories

Israel PM 'declares war' on stone-throwers after riots AFP
Netanyahu Calls Emergency Meeting to Discuss 'War on Stone Throwing'Newsweek
Israel, Russia to coordinate military action on Syria: Netanyahu Reuters
Netanyahu Pledges Tougher Measures in War On Stone Throwers Newsweek
After bitter Iran row, Netanyahu gets White House invite AFP

JERUSALEM/STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Relations between Sweden and Israel hit a fresh low on Sunday after Israel said Sweden's foreign minister had accused it of unlawful killings and Stockholm responded by saying that the comments had been "blown out of reasonable proportion".

Relations between the two countries have nose-dived since Sweden's Social Democrat-led government recognized a Palestinian state last year. Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom deepened the rift by describing Palestinians' plight as a factor leading to Islamist radicalization.

In the latest row, Israel condemned as "scandalous" on Sunday what it said was a suggestion by Wallstrom its forces had unlawfully killed Palestinians involved in a surge of street violence, and warned of a diplomatic rupture with Stockholm.

Sweden said Wallstrom's comments had been misunderstood.

"The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not, as alleged, say that extrajudicial executions occur in Israel," Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven and Wallstrom said in a statement.

"The situation in the Middle East is difficult enough without having to be encumbered by misunderstandings about anybody's intentions."

In the latest violence in Jerusalem, on Sunday, a Palestinian rammed his car into a passer-by in a Jewish neighborhood, slightly injuring him, and then got out of the vehicle and stabbed another man, who suffered superficial wounds.

Security forces shot the attacker dead, police said.

Addressing Swedish lawmakers on Friday, Wallstrom denounced the almost daily Palestinian knife, gun or car-ramming attacks but urged Israel to avoid excessive force.

"And likewise, the response must not be of the kind -- and this is what I say in other situations where the response is such that it results in extrajudicial executions or is disproportionate in that the number of people killed on that side exceeds the original number of deaths many times over," Wallstrom said in the official English translation of her statement provided by the ministry.

Sweden said she had been talking in general terms about the principles of international law concerning self-defense and the importance of responding in a proportional manner.

Wallstrom's remarks, however, touched a nerve in Israel, whose forces have killed 103 Palestinians since Oct. 1, of whom it has identified 64 as assailants or who were caught on camera carrying out assaults. Most of the others died in clashes with police or troops.

The Palestinian attacks, fueled in part by strife over a contested Jerusalem shrine as well as a peacemaking process deadlocked since early 2014, have killed 19 Israelis and a U.S. citizen.

"I condemn the statements, the scandalous statements, made by the foreign minister of Sweden," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet in broadcast remarks.

"It seems she expects Israel's citizens to bare their throats to those trying to stab them. This will not happen, and we will continue to protect the lives of Israel's citizens."

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said in a radio interview that she and Netanyahu, who also functions as foreign minister, would convene a meeting on Sunday to decide on what she anticipated would be a "sharp response" to Wallstrom's comments.

Hotovely hinted at a possible exclusion of the Swedish government from Israeli efforts to revive peacemaking efforts with the Palestinians that have been stalled since early 2014.

"Sweden has crossed all red lines in relations with Israel," Hotovely told Army Radio. "This is defamation of Israel and the statements are distancing Sweden from the ranks of enlightened nations that can take part in the dialogue about rights in the region."

(Writing by Dan Williams, editing by Louise Heavens)

Read More

Sentindo-se Inquieto?

Link
Li um artigo que afirmava que os versículos mais “conhecidos” da Bíblia são Filipenses 4:6–7, nos quais consta a seguinte orientação do apóstolo Paulo à Igreja:

Não estejais inquietos por coisa alguma; antes as vossas petições sejam em tudo conhecidas diante de Deus pela oração e súplica, com ação de graças. E a paz de Deus, que excede todo o entendimento, guardará os vossos corações e os vossos pensamentos em Cristo Jesus.[1]

Libertar-se da ansiedade, da preocupação, do estresse e da pressão é a prioridade número um de uma grande parcela da população. Vivemos em um mundo de mudanças aceleradas que causam incertezas. A incerteza gera preocupação, estresse e inquietação. Outro dia, um amigo meu se expressou da seguinte forma: “Quando estou agitado, fico inquieto, parece que algo vai dar errado, ou que estou deixando passar algo importante. Muitas vezes sensação está relacionada a algo desconhecido, a um risco e isso gera inquietação.”

Eu próprio já me senti assim e não é um bom sentimento. Às vezes, você acorda inquieto, agitado, mas não sabe exatamente por quê. Outras vezes, sabe ou imagina a razão daquela sensação e a circunstância ou decisão à qual está conectada. Talvez esteja adiando uma decisão importante, mas difícil; ou enfrentando um conflito em um relacionamento e a necessidade de reconciliação. Pode estar vivendo um momento de mudanças na sua vida ou carreira, mudando de casa, maneira de tratar os filhos, prioridades, ou algo relacionado ao seu círculo de amizades. E, apesar de saber que uma mudança se faz necessária, o custo pessoal de efetuar a mudança o deixa relutante ou temeroso. Por isso, você evita tomar medidas para fazer o que sabe ser necessário. Ou talvez estejatomando medidas no sentido de efetuar uma mudança na sua vida e esteja inquieto justamente por não saber como as coisas vão se desenrolar e os desdobramentos de tudo.

Sentir-se agitado, inquieto e ansioso suga a sua alegria e fé. Esse temor, o “não saber o que vai acontecer” lança uma sombra sobre a nossa perspectiva das coisas e abafa a nossa esperança com respeito ao futuro, podendo nos impedir de seguir o Senhor e progredir. Remoer o sentimento de que há muita coisa a ser terminada, decisões a serem tomadas, coisas que podem estar ficando para trás ou que não se consegue fazer pode nos deixar esgotados, nervosos, distraídos e exaustos emocionalmente.

Não é de admirar que as pessoas experimentem mil e uma coisas na tentativa de reconquistarem paz, esperança e foco. Nós, enquanto cristãos, temos a bênção de poder contar com diferentes promessas que oferecem conselhos tanto espirituais quanto práticos. Incluo aqui alguns dos meus versículos favoritos, acompanhados de dicas sobre como superar sentimentos negativos quando por eles for acometido.

Lança o teu cuidado sobre o Senhor e Ele te sustentará; não permitirá que o justo seja abalado.[2]

Lancem sobre Ele toda a sua ansiedade, porque Ele tem cuidado de vocês.[3]

Tu conservarás em paz aquele cuja mente está firme em Ti, porque confia em Ti.[4]

Deixo-vos a paz; a minha paz vos deu. Não a dou como o mundo a dá. Não se turbe o seu coração, nem se atemorize.[5]

Esses versículos têm elementos em comum:
Entregar os fardos a Jesus; dizer para Ele como se sente
Manter a mente e os pensamentos fixados em Deus e na Sua bondade, não no foco da sua preocupação ou ansiedade
Confiar no Senhor
Jesus nos dá paz; cabe a nós aceitar e receber

É fácil falar que se deve aprender a “lançar sobre Ele nosso cuidado” e “não ficar ansioso com nada”, mas colocar em prática é bem diferente. E aprender a não sucumbir à ansiedade é um processo que exige medidas práticas. Devemos fazer o esforço consciente de entregar nossos fardos ao Senhor, e assumir o compromisso de passar tempo com Ele regularmente. Precisamos aprender a entregar a Ele nossos temores e preocupações. Devemos meditar na Palavra de Deus e aprender a arte de focar nossos pensamentos no que é digno de louvor, nas coisas boas, nobres, de boa fama, e verdadeiras.[6] Precisamos substituir maus hábitos por bons hábitos que nos conduzirão a um estilo de vida saudável.

Algumas pessoas acham que, ao se tornarem cristãs e depositarem a sua confiança no Senhor, Ele automaticamente as protege de tudo o que é mau. Confiar não elimina nem impede o surgimento de problemas, estresse, ou dificuldades, mas nos oferece um firme alicerce: Deus. Temos um escape para a ansiedade: Deus.

Uma coisa que me ajuda é recapitular as promessas de Deus para confirmar na minha mente o Seu amor incondicional por mim. Ele me ama. Ele ama você. Ele Se importa. Quer nos ajudar. Prometeu cuidar de nós. Quando colocamos nossa vida e a dos nossos amados nas mãos de Deus, temos certeza de que fizemos a melhor escolha.

Santo Agostinho disse: “Senhor, Tu nos fizeste para Ti, e nossos corações ficam inquietos até encontrarem repouso em Ti.”[7] Acredito que o aspecto mais importante quando estamos precisando desesperadamente de paz, esperança, fé e confiança é alinhar nossos espíritos ao Espírito de Deus. Além disso existem dicas práticas que podem ajudar, as quais incluo aqui.
Faça uma lista das suas preocupações e ansiedades.

Isso ajuda principalmente se você estiver com a cabeça cheia. Transferir tudo para o papel pode lhe oferecer um alívio. Pesquisas revelam que anotar suas preocupações pode acalmar e até melhorar seu desempenho. Outra estratégia que pode ajudar é determinar um “tempo para se preocupar”, por assim dizer. Faça uma relação das suas preocupações e entregue-as a Jesus.

Depois de escrever tudo que pesa no seu coração, use essa lista para orar e planejar. Ore todos os dias sobre ela. Escolha uma promessa para cada assunto na lista, ou para a lista no geral.

Veja que assuntos de menor importância você pode tratar num primeiro momento. Talvez tenha que fazer uma ligação; então pegue o telefone e ligue. Se puder agir em relação a alguns assuntos, mesmo que simples, vai diminuir a lista e lhe dar a sensação de que está fazendo progresso.
Converse com alguém, um bom amigo, seu cônjuge, um conselheiro ou mentor.

Falar da situação e das opções, e buscar bons conselhos pode ajudar.
Cuidado com o “deus das opções”.

Esse termo representa a quantidade avassaladora de escolhas disponíveis no mundo moderno. Desde a quantidade de informação na Internet, até a variedade de cereais no supermercado, informação demais pode causar paralisia na hora de tomar uma decisão. Isso sem mencionar a grande perda de tempo.

Esteja atento; seja disciplinado; procure as informações necessárias para tomar uma decisão sem ficar preso no crescente fluxo de informações e opções.
Dê um passo de cada vez.

Se estiver diante de diversos assuntos que precisam ser resolvidos, não enfrente todos de uma vez só. Escolha um no qual refletir e orar. Pese os prós e contras durante uma caminhada, tendo por meta tomar uma decisão.
Decida. Aja. Confie. Repita.

Depois de tomar uma decisão em oração, não fique pesquisando, comparando ou tentando adivinhar o resultado da sua escolha. Confie que tomou uma boa decisão. Confie que Jesus pode fazer qualquer coisa contribuir para o seu bem se estiver buscando a vontade dEle. (E caso tome uma decisão errada, ou surja uma solução ou oportunidade melhor posteriormente, confie que Ele o guiará e orientará sobre como deve proceder.)

Li uma citação sobre portas abertas e a luta do cristão quando precisa buscar a vontade de Deus em decisões de vida. O autor disse: “Deus pode usar para o bem até uma porta aparentemente ‘errada’, se você passar por ela com o coração reto.”[8] Acredito nisso, e considero extremamente reconfortante, porque jamais acertaremos em 100% das decisões. Isso faz parte da experiência da vida. É assim que aprendemos, e faz parte do plano de Deus.

Mark Batterson escreveu o seguinte sobre essa questão:

Não conheço um só seguidor de Cristo que não tenha ficado estressado tentando decifrar a vontade de Deus. Queremos resolver o mistério da vontade de Deus como se estivéssemos fazendo palavras cruzadas. Mas posso dizer, por experiência, que análise intelectual causa paralisia espiritual.

Tentamos encaixar Deus no nosso limitado raciocínio e reduzir a vontade de Deus aos limites da lógica do lado esquerdo do nosso cérebro. Mas a vontade de Deus não é lógica ou linear. Ela é confusa e complexa. Por um lado, achamos que, se nos sentimos inseguros em uma situação, é porque temos um problema espiritual. Mas é exatamente o que Jesus nos prometeu quando nascemos do Espírito e começamos a seguir a Ele.

A maioria de nós não tem a mínima ideia da direção na qual estamos seguindo — a maior parte do tempo. Sei que essa incerteza causa insegurança. Mas existe outro termo para a incerteza circunstancial: aventura.

Nada é mais inquietante ou desorientador do que buscar a Deus fervorosamente. E quanto mais rápido aceitarmos essa realidade espiritual, mais desfrutaremos da jornada.[9]

Uma perspectiva mais celestial nos dará mais alegria na jornada da vida. É claro que os problemas enfrentados não são “fáceis”. Contudo, Jesus promete forças para superá-los. Ele diz: “Meu jugo é suave e Meu fardo é leve.”[10] Quando extraímos forças dEle, conseguimos ter paz no meio da tempestade e uma alegria profunda mesmo em circunstâncias aterradoras.

Jesus é a nossa paz. O Seu nome é “uma torre forte”, para a qual “corremos e estamos seguros”.[11]


[1] NVI.

[2] Salmo 55:22 RC.

[3] 1 Pedro 5:7 RC.

[4] Isaías 26:3 RC.

[5] João 14:27 RC.

[6] Filipenses 4:8 NVI.

7] Agostinho de Hipona, Confessions, Livro I, Capítulo 1.

[8] John Ortberg, All the Places to Go … How Will You Know? (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2015), 17.

[9] Wild Goose Chase (Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2008).

[10] Mateus 11:30 RC.

[11] Provérbios 18:10 NVI.

Read More

C.S Lewis's surviving BBC radio address

Read More

Death or Dawn?

Link
By D. Brandt Berg

Audio length: 8:37
Download Audio (7.9MB)

“[Christ] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”—Hebrews 9:26–281

Jesus in His death suffered not only physically but also spiritually, such as the sinner suffers in the afterlife for his sins. Otherwise He could not have suffered for our sins. But He did suffer for our sins.

The worst death of the lost is a spiritual death, a spiritual suffering in which their spirits will suffer in the world to come. God’s Word says Jesus spent three days and nights in the heart of the earth.2 It says that there He preached to the spirits in prison—He gave them the gospel, told them the truth!3 You say, “I thought once you went to hell, you were there forever?”

If it wasn’t possible for anyone in the heart of the earth to be saved, why did He take the trouble to preach to them? But they were people who had evidently never heard the truth, people who had never heard the gospel. So Jesus Himself went there and suffered just as they were suffering while He preached to them, that they might be saved.

Think of what Jesus suffered for us—three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. He suffered that for all the sins of mankind! Isn’t that amazing? Such love! He died that you might be saved.

So if you are born twice, you only die once. But if you’re only born once, you’ll die twice! The first birth is a birth of water. A baby in its mother’s womb is swimming around in water, and the first sign that it’s coming out is a gush of water, and the baby is “born of water.”4

The next birth is spiritual rebirth or when you are “born again.”5 Jesus says you are born of the spirit. It’s a spiritual rebirth—a rebirth of the inner man, your personality, the real you, the one that lives inside that physical shell.

Your body is not the real you. It’s just the physical house you live in. You’re inside there and you’re looking out at me. I can see you better through your eyes than by looking at your body. The real you is the spirit inside, the one that will live on forever after the body is dead.

So Jesus said that you have to be born again. He has to give you a new spirit. This is the second birth, He says.6 The first birth is only physical; the second birth is spiritual.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”—John 3:3–87

So if you are born twice, first physically and second spiritually, you will only die once. Because you will only die the physical death once, and your spirit will never die, because Jesus died so that your spirit would not have to die. He saved your spirit. “The spirits of just men made perfect.”8 That is what He did on the cross.

But He says that those who do not receive Jesus and whose sins are not forgiven will be raised from the dead at the Last Judgment and be judged according to their works, with some sent to the Lake of Fire and some sent to live outside the Heavenly City.9

“This is the second death.”10 Why? Because they were only born once and they never got saved. They never received Jesus, so they were never born again. When you receive Jesus, that is a new birth for your spirit; you’re a new inner man.

Paul says the “old man,” the physical you, is dying every day, but the inner man is living more every day. “The outward man perishes, but the inward man is renewed day by day.”11 The body is dying, but your spirit is growing stronger daily.

Death is freedom for the Christian. It’s a wonderful liberation! For the believer in Christ, it is being set free from this old body that gives us so much trouble.

One of these days you’re going to be free. You’re going to be able to leave that ol’ body behind! I recall that old song, “This old house isn’t going to last much longer.” This body is just the old house I live in. It’s not the real me; I just live inside here. I’m looking out at you.

Praise God! Death is really freedom for the Christian! So, if you’re born twice, you only die once—death to the body, but the spirit doesn’t die. But if you’re only born once and you’re not born again, you die twice—once for the body and once for the spirit.

So that’s what Jesus was doing on the cross when He died for us. He not only died in body but He even suffered the feeling that the sinner has in the death of the spirit. Now what this death of the spirit is, we don’t really know. Jesus calls it hell, for some, like fire! It’s a terrible, terrible thing, whatever it is—some kind of suffering for your sins.

After all, if you don’t believe in Jesus suffering for your sins, then you have to suffer for your own sins. But if you believe in Jesus, then you’re born twice and only die once. But if you don’t believe in Jesus, being born only once, you’ll die twice!

The Scripture says, “It is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the judgment.”12 So everybody has to die at least once, but not everybody has to die twice. Praise God!

We can thank God for death, our graduation, our release! Like the old song:

When morning dawns, farewell to earthly sorrow!
Farewell to all the troubles of today!
There’ll be no pain, no death in God’s tomorrow!—
When morning dawns and shadows flee away!13

God bless you! Happy flyaway! I’ll see you there!

Originally published October 1976. Adapted and republished December 2015.
Read by Gabriel Garcia Valdivieso.



1 ESV.


2 Matthew 12:40.


3 1 Peter 3:18–19.


4 See John 3:5.


5 See John 3:3.


6 John 3:3.


7 ESV.


8 Hebrews 12:23.


9 See Revelation 20 and 22.


10 Revelation 20:14.


11 2 Corinthians 4:16.


12 Hebrews 9:27.


13 Adapted from “When Morning Dawns,” by Alfred H. Ackley, 1939.

Read More

Senso de Valores

Link
Virginia Brandt Berg

Jesus nos chama da adoração
Das coisas do mundo que não satisfazem
De cada ídolo que nos afasta,
Dizendo, “Cristão, Me ame mais.”

Nos dias de labuta ou de lazer,
Nas tristezas, nas alegrias,
Ele nos chama, no cuidado e no prazer,
“Cristão, Me ame mais que esses dias.”

Jesus nos chama! Pelas Tuas misericórdias,
Salvador, ajude-nos a ouvir Teu chamado,
A entregarmos nossos corações à Te obedecer,
E Te servir e adorar, nosso Amado!

—Cecil Frances Alexander

Como é verdade que o Senhor nos chama para fora do tumulto do mar agitado da vida. Um tempo atrás, mencionei a vocês que estava sentada em uma pequena cafeteria aqui com vista para o mar observando os barcos ao longe.

De repente, percebi que um homem na mesa ao lado dizia algo muito interessante e alto o suficiente para ouvirmos. O colega lhe tinha feito a pergunta: “Por que você demitiu Henry de seu escritório?” E o homem respondeu:

“Olha, ele não tinha um senso de valores! Não valorizava a vida, a saúde ou o dinheiro; e isso começou a afetar meu negócio. Sempre que eu precisava dele, ele estava tomando um cafezinho. Parecia que apreciava mais uma xícara de café do que o seu trabalho. Eu o avisei algumas vezes.”

Pensei bastante sobre isso, e refleti—uma xícara de café em vez de uma boa posição. E os pequenos barcos continuavam passando sobre a água ao sabor de uma suave brisa que surgira.

Pensei, quantas pessoas apenas passam deslizando sobre as coisas superficiais da vida e nunca sem qualquer senso de valores, como o homem do qual estavam falando. Vivem apenas das coisas que não são essenciais, das coisas inconsequentes que roubam o lugar das que realmente valem a pena no longo prazo.

A ênfase de Cristo foi sempre o espiritual. Qual é o grande e impressionante propósito da vida? Para que estamos aqui? Ora, o próprio Deus nos tem confiado algumas responsabilidades sagradas. Mas Deus não está em primeiro lugar para esta geração. Ele está em primeiro lugar para você? Ele é deixado de lado vezes demais por alguns de nós, e algumas coisas inúteis e tolas ganham o primeiro lugar.

Deus não Se encaixa em segundo lugar! A Ele só cabe estar em primeiro lugar, e há certas coisas que ele nos confiou que também só se enquadram em primeiro lugar; você não pode colocá-las em segundo e estar bem com Deus.

As coisas triviais e temporárias são muitas vezes colocadas em primeiro lugar, e Deus e Sua Palavra ficam em segundo plano. Se esse for o caso, a vida fica totalmente desequilibrada, e os resultados não passam de desarmonia, rupturas e confusão.

Eu me pergunto se as grandes realidades da vida dependem de ter a perspectiva certa em sua vida. Você tem um senso de valores? Ou permite que trivialidades e coisas materiais venham antes da leitura da Palavra de Deus e oração, e se desculpa dizendo, “Estou ocupado demais; não tenho tempo”? Talvez seja melhor você questionar seu próprio coração sobre seu senso de valores.

A Bíblia contém a Palavra de Deus! Há vida nessa Palavra, na preciosa Bíblia, é alimento para a sua alma. Sem dúvida ela é essencial para o crescimento da sua alma. Se não tiver tempo para ela, a sua alma vai morrer de fome e você certamente será um anão espiritualmente. E oração é comunhão com Deus. Sem oração você caminha destituído de poder, na sua própria força e sabedoria.

A Palavra de Deus diz, “Sem Mim, nada podeis fazer.” Por outro lado, ela diz, “Posso tudo em Cristo que me fortalece.” Essa força só advém da oração e da leitura da Palavra de Deus. Não se pode depender de um pequeno versículo fraco que lê às pressas, ou de uma oraçãozinha breve que faz ao deitar-se já zonzo de sono e meio adormecido, para ter este tipo de força.

Eu tinha uma conhecida que passou a vida poupando, cavando e se escravizando para poder construir e decorar seu chalé para que pudesse então viver confortavelmente alguns anos. Poucos meses depois de ela ter terminado, ficou doente e me disse, deitada em seu leito, “Está chegando a minha hora, não me resta mais nada, e passei o pouco tempo que tinha com coisas que não têm valor algum no lugar para onde vou.” Ela teve um senso de valores, só que tarde demais!

Quem me dera se, por vezes, pudéssemos ver todos os acontecimentos da vida emoldurados nos resultados aos quais eles nos levam. Quantas coisas nós mudaríamos! Não arrumaríamos essas desculpas tolas para deixarmos a leitura da Bíblia e a oração delegadas ao segundo lugar, e não nos entregaríamos às trivialidades quando as coisas eternas estão a nos chamar.

Quem vive para o que é temporário em vez de para a eternidade não tem senso de valores. Todos os dias acontece de alguém dizer, talvez não pelas suas palavras, mas pelas suas ações, “Eu simplesmente não me importo em receber mansões no céu e não estou interessado nas coisas eternas. Dê-me em vez disso uma mansão e uma coroa aqui, com um pouco de fama e glória, o favor do homem e os prazeres do pecado por um tempo, e ficarei um pouco satisfeito aqui mesmo.”

E o Rei dos reis, e o Senhor dos senhores, que lhes ofereceu um manto de justiça, uma coroa de glória e um lar eterno entre muitas mansões lá em cima, fica deixado de lado em troca dessas “outras coisas” que na verdade não têm nenhum valor.

Vocês abaixariam suas cabeças para fazer uma oração?

Pai nosso que estás nos céus, oramos que Tu nos ajudes a ter um senso de valores afiado, e a percebermos que estamos aqui para nos prepararmos para a eternidade e não para o que é temporário!—Que somos cidadãos do céu. Deus nos ajude a entendermos isso.

Transcrição de uma transmissão do programa de rádio Meditation Moments, adaptado. Publicado no Âncora em novembro de 2015.

Read More