DOES GOD EVER SAY "NO" TO HEALING PRAYER?

I have felt for quite awhile that we have allowed our misguided presumptions about God determine where we end up on most any topic. With regard to healing prayer, most presume that God actively grants some healing prayers while specifically denying or passively ignoring others. In other words, He refuses some (most perhaps) to be healed while granting healing to certain others. The apparent arbitrariness opens up many unflattering assertions as to His goodness.

I am unwilling to make that presumption based upon the New Testament statements made below. And while I don't propose a comprehensive or dogmatic answer, I do propose an alternate paradigm shift about prayer. Anyway, I hope we continue to allow each other some elbow room to explore these vital possibilities. The whole earth is groaning for the manifestation of the sons of God to awaken and engage in what the rabbis called "tikkun ha olam," the repair of the world.

WHAT IF there is a spiritual ecosystem of prayer, an organic network where God has already pre-known and pre-answered our every prayer of faith in the affirmative (as the New Testament seems to unrelentingly promise).

And, what if there is only ONE requirement for this ecosystem to release answered prayers of healing and blessing? Its inhabitants MUST "rely upon" and "be led by" the Spirt both "in" and "through" and "past" their prayers of faith. In other words, our praying must operate in what the Bible alternatively calls "the Spirit of faith" by which we both "believe and speak" our prayers (2 Corinthians 4:13), AND "the hearing of faith" which "works miracles among us "(Galatians 3:5). In other words, organic manifestation FROM healing prayers depends on organic participation and interaction with God's Spirit IN healing prayers.

If Jesus is our model (as opposed to a unattainable mirage in whose steps His church-bride can never hope to functionally walk), then we must look to His incarnation for the dynamic of successful prayer.

Did Jesus ever fail with a healing prayer? Not that we see, except perhaps in Mark 6:5-6 upon His return to Nazareth, where it states, "He could do no mighty works, save He laid His hands on a few sick folk, and healed them" (verse 5). And Jesus thereafter, "marveled because of their unbelief" (verse 6).

Their unbelief killed an organic opportunity for God's mighty works to be done then and there. But does this mean Abba explicitly said "NO" to Jesus prayer's for a "mighty works" demonstration? Or, rather, does it mean that Jesus was organically lead in WHAT to pray for Nazareth before, during and after His ministry there, of course taking into account all the factors present, including their individual and corporate levels of receptivity? I believe the latter option is correct.

In other words, Jesus "could do no mighty works" NOT because He tried and failed, but because the Spirit led and instructed Him on what their corporate and individual capacities and willingness to receive were at THAT juncture in time. Jesus always engaged in organic prayer, and made the repeated claim that He ONLY and ALWAYS did what He first SAW the Father's Spirit do, and SPOKE only what He first HEARD the Father's Spirit speak. John 5:19, 30. We too are called, both individually and corporately, into this "mutual participation" and joint-operation with the Spirit. Philippians 2:1. "The sons and daughters of God are those who are led (and led, and led, and led) by the Spirit of God." Romans 8:14.

Because Jesus was only and always Spirit-led, He batted a thousand with His prayers. His organic "hearing of faith" meant His prayers were malleable and always fluidly formed from first "listening to" and "participating with" the Holy Spirit's assessment and desire for every situation He encountered. Some of this "hearing of faith" came from devotional prayer, some from spontaneous on-the-go interaction, and some in the wake of a particular event's occurrence after the freewill response of others had been exercised.

But, I see no situation where Abba said "NO" to any of Jesus' prayers of faith. Jesus' prayer for the removal of the cup of suffering at Gethsemane doesn't apply here as He prefaced it, "If it's possible," which, when combined with Jesus' immediate willingness thereafter to embrace the Father's will, merely demonstrates Jesus' organic "hearing of faith" prayer, which here meant aligning His will into His Father's perfection.

SO...

--IF we have Jesus' same effectual Spirit of faith (Rom. 8:9-11; Gal. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12)
--IF we have been promised that healing prayer works (James 5:16; Mark 16:18)
--IF we affirm that all the promises of God are yes and amen (2 Cor. 1:20)
--IF we ask for anything in prayer, believing, we receive (Matt. 21:22; Mk.11:22-26)
--IF we have spiritual dominion over all creation (Gen. 1:26-28; Heb. 2:6-8)
--IF we have NOT because we ask NOT, OR we ask AMISS (James 4:3)
--IF we are equipped to do the same and greater works Jesus did (Jn. 14:12-14)

... then we are left with a startling conclusion. There is no such thing as unanswered prayer. There is only un-catalyzed prayer. There is only ineffectual prayer. There are only divine promises which have not yet been properly probated by organic participation with His Spirit. But, there is no promise for blessing and healing which has NOT already been kept by the Father. His eternal YES has not yet been catalyzed by the brides endorsed AMEN which can only come from organic interaction with His.

So, instead of figuring out why God appears to say "NO" to the vast majority of prayers, let's focus on the more profitable issue as how we can better catalyze and align ourselves with His eternal "YES." The better question is how we, as the church-bride, can individually and corporately catalyze His faithful "YES" with our effectual "AMEN."

The bottom line is that we are called in our prayer life to be relational, malleable, fluid, fervent and effectual. "The fervent prayers of a righteous man avail much." James 5:16. Conversely, the UN-fervent prayers from an unbelieving posture avail little. Again, the question is not why said God "NO" to a prayer, but, rather, how can we BETTER appropriate His "YES," what William Law called "God's unchangeable and immutable will-to-all-goodness." Our prayers must not only be Spirit-given but also Spirit-driven. One major reason for ineffective prayer comes from not praying organically with, from, and through the Holy Spirit. It is a bit of a lost art.

Solution:
1) Every part of the body of christ (chruch) must do only what he sees the Father doing. John 5:19

2) Abide under atmosphere of Grace.

3) God's voice gives you the right of possession and God's vision gives you the authority to accomplish it. So let your spiritual senses be open always.

.

concerning the killing of the Egyptian firstborn, who was the death angel?

Now, concerning the killing of the Egyptian firstborn, who was the death angel? We know from Jewish religious resources cited in previous link above that the Jews still believe to this day that the death angel was Satan. They believed it then. They believe it now. They are absolutely correct. Their only mistake is that they believe Satan was God's personal assassin fulfilling God's will rather than God's fiercest enemy opposing God's will.

We now know Satan steals, kills, and destroys, and that he has the power of death according to Hebrews 2:14-15, not God. So if God didn't kill the firstborn, what DID God do in all this? Simple. He saved the Israelites from the death angel. By instructing the Israelites to apply blood over all their doorstep as act of FAITH, God was now enabled to fully hedge them about with complete protection. God always longs to give His full hedge of protection to all men, including the Egyptians, but men harden, reject and refuse to receive it. This quenches the Lord's access to protect, instead allowing Satan access to attack.

I have always wondered why people think that the Lord is the one who SICS the devil on us whenever we displease God. No, we are the ones who SIC the devil on ourselves. Jesus is trying to save us from our self-SICCING (or self-seeking, excuse the pun). Jesus comes daily extending to us a gold-engraved invitation to experience the limitless life of God. Some receive that invitation gladly. Others spit at it and turn away immediately into Satan's waiting arms.

Poor Moses thought in Exodus 5:3 that God would actually punish Israel "with pestilence and sword" if they didn't immediately go into the desert and sacrifice to Him (see Exodus 3:18, where the Lord originally threatened no such thing). While it's certainly true that our failure to worship God does open us up to greater Satanic attacks, the culprit is our own neglect and not the vindictiveness of God to ever SIC Satan on us. "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?" Hebrew 2:3.

To reject God's call is to enter Satan's domain. God doesn't unleash Satanic attacks toward us to show us who is boss. Instead, by us continuing to harden our hearts toward God, we turn ourselves over more and more to the power of the prince of darkness. God speaks only words of life, deliverance and blessing. If we harden our heart to spit at those words with our neglect and unbelief, then we have opened wide our gates to invite all kinds of demonic attack. When we ignore God, we empower Satan and diminish God's hedge around us. Repentance reestablishes and strengthens that hedge.

One last question needs to be addressed. The Red Sea crossing-- who parted the waves and who caused them to fall on and kill the Egyptians? Well, the parting is easy. God parted the waters to save the Israelites from the pursuing Egyptian army bent on killing them by the sword. That was Moses in the light cycle saving others in the pure power of God. But the falling waters is another matter.

Did you know that the Lord caused the Egyptians to get stuck in the mud as they were chasing the Israelites through the parted waters? Did you know that the Lord actually made all the Egyptian chariot wheels to fall off? Did you know that the Egyptians had actually decided to give up and started to flee back to their own shore? Exodus 14:24-25. Moses, in his own nature, lacked the divine patience and indefatigable mercy to keep his staff raised so that the Egyptians could retreat.

Jesus' patience is perfect. He offers divine protection without having to kill anybody. The Egyptians had given up and were returning home. There was no need to kill them to save Israel at this point. Do you think for a moment Jesus would have lowered His hand and commanded the waters to kill the Egyptians? No! He would have allowed the Egyptians to return home alive.

But what did Moses do in his dark cycle? He listened to wrath, to Satan, to revenge. Moses was the one who commanded the waters to fall and kill the Egyptian enemies-- not God, not Jesus, not Holy Spirit love that blesses and forgives enemies. People tried to kill, stone, and shove Jesus off a cliff at various points of His life. He NEVER harmed anybody. He just passed through their midst supernaturally. Anytime our enemies are harmed by us rather than blessed and forgiven, then rest assured the STROBE LIGHT EFFECT is responsible.

Apply THE BRACKET method demonstrated above and we can eliminate the STROBE LIGHT EFFECT. Our image of God will be forever purified and elevated. It will be so much easier to love Jesus with a sincere and unfeigned love, one not based on fear, threat, manipulation or intimidation. Remember, it is just not the Old Testament "characters" written about who suffer from the STROBE LIGHT EFFECT. It is also the Old Testament writers themselves, and even on occasion the New Testament characters and writers. Not nearly as much for sure, but still, from time to time, some slight STROBING will occur in the New Testament. We just need to be aware of this phenomenon and know how to quickly use THE BRACKET to rightly divide Scripture with the revealed nature of Jesus. It always comes down to Jesus. If our Spirit-enlightened conscience can't see Jesus doing horrible things described in Scripture, then we mustn't see the Father doing it either. If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father. Satan is the source of all destructive evil, not Jesus, never Jesus.

HOW DO WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAUL'S "PHILOSOPHY" AND PAUL'S "REVELATION" ?

The Apostle Paul was a great man. He had many "third heaven" revelations. He also had many "first heaven" educated opinions. We need to know the difference. "Third heaven" revelation from the "throne room" of God fills Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. "First heaven" opinions based on Paul's practical philosophy frequently appear in Timothy, Titus, Romans and Corinthians, even though these books also contain many "third heaven" insights as well.

Let me clarify. Jesus never talked philosophically about politics, slavery, women's rights, etc. However, Paul did. And without question, Paul's opinions on these issues certainly matter. They are a good place to start.

But, are Paul's opinions on philosophical issues the final word for all time? Are we forever chained to Paul's opinions? Are we unable to better develop them, respectfully disagree with them, or rigorously debate them? Do we stand on Paul's shoulders or does he stand on ours? If Paul stands on OUR shoulders, then we, as the low man on the totem pole, will never see the answers directly for ourselves, but will have to totally trust Paul's philosophic vision as the ONLY legitimate seer on these matters. But, if WE stand on Paul's shoulders, then we should be able to see higher and better and fresher and clearer than Paul did on these issues.

I can easily imagine Paul exhorting us in the cloud of heavenly witnesses to carry the baton of his opinions faster and farther than he did. He would WANT us to refine, improve and expand his personal philosophy to better honor the Lord. Paul's opinions in these areas might be part of the foundational "floor" we stand on for initial balance, but they are not the ultimate conceptual "ceiling" we grow to reach toward and beyond.

Let me give an example. Jesus NEVER talked about political systems, except perhaps when He said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). This one statement is hardly a political manifesto with which to guide our Christian walk.

Jesus NEVER said ALL governments were ordained by God to execute the sword over evil doers or that government officials were ministers of God. And yet Paul said all these things in Romans 13:1-7. But, one could argue that this differed from Jesus' view because in the wilderness temptations it is revealed that all the kingdoms of the worlds are in the power of Satan to give to whom he pleased (Luke 4:5-6). 1 John 5:19 confirms that the whole fallen world lies in the power of the evil one -- Satan. Thus, one could make the Scriptural argument that earthly governments are unspiritual at best and demonically influenced at worst.

Yet, Paul had a higher view of government as a godly authority, or at least he did when he wrote the book of Romans. But let's think about that for a moment. Paul was a Roman citizen, a status which gave him a lot of protection. Time and time again, Paul was protected from death at the hands of the Judaizers BECAUSE he was a Roman citizen. To Paul, the government he was exposed to offered him and his ministry a level of protection.

But, would Paul have felt that Rome was "God's minister" when they sacked Jerusalem and killed thousands of Jewish men, women and children. Or, if Paul was given a prophetic foresight into the despotic governments of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao Zedong's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Saddam Heusein's Iraq, Pavelic's Croatia, who, in total, harshly oppressed and brutally killed hundreds of millions during their rule, would Paul have written Romans 13:1-7? If Paul could have seen their future evil, would Paul call ALL government authorities "ministers of God" as he did in Romans 13? Surely not!

The point is that what Paul said about government was HIS philosophy, HIS best Christian opinion, and HIS best advice to a young church in need of practical counsel. BUT, what Paul said about government was NOT his "third heaven" revelation. Paul's "third heaven" revelations consisted of his transcendent epiphanies of the Lord's "SUPERNATURAL GRACE" and the matchless "IN CHRIST" realities available to all believers.

Paul acknowledged in Romans 14 that our respective maturity levels of faith might result in us having differing opinions on various practical matters such as diet, drink, calendars and festivals. The brother with weaker faith may have a different view than the brother with more mature faith, yet the freer brother should not be a stumbling block to the weaker brother by purposely doing anything which would be a stumbling block to the faith of the younger believer. Paul's point was that each believer could be on different sides of an issue, yet both still be right IF they both were acting from their respective levels of faith.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, Paul also acknowledged that he had particular revelation which he was certain was from the Lord with regard to marriage, BUT that there were OTHER marriage-related issues in which he could only hazard his best opinion. Paul simply didn't have "throne room revelation"on every practical or philosophical question that came before him. And he was man enough to admit it.

Let's take other examples. Paul said women should NOT speak in church, should NOT teach men, and in fact should NOT exercise any authority over any men (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Are we to be tightly and permanently bound to Paul's philosophical view of women espoused in the above verses? Certainly not. The body of Christ has, for the most part, left this primitive philosophy behind. Today, there are tons of anointed female teachers, prophets, pastors and minsters who, praise God, DON'T keep silent in church.

Paul likewise instructed slaves to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5; Titus 2:9). The church has violated this principle repeatedly by supporting anti-slavery activities of all kinds, including underground railroads during the Civil War which both encouraged and enabled slaves to disobey their masters by running away.

Do mature Christians planet-wide agree with Paul's philosophy which would have run away slaves always return to their masters to once again subject themselves to a yoke of bondage, JUST to comply with Paul's opinion? Paul did this very thing to the runaway slave Onesimus in Philemon 9-24. Here, Paul sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon, along with a written plea to free him.

Don't get me wrong. Paul's solution in Onesimus' case was beautiful and full of grace. His plea to Philemon brings tears to read it. However, does this mean that Paul's philosophy of slaves obeying their masters is a universal rule meant to apply for all times in all situations? Or, can we develop, modify and evolve Paul's thinking to discover a different "faith solution" for ourselves? Millions of runaway slaves over the last thousand years have done just that. Do I have the confidence to say that the Holy Spirit has NEVER led ANY oppressed slave to escape his oppression by running away? No!!!

And, bringing government back into it, Christians also have a long history of protest and refusal when it comes to "obeying" the authorities God has set "over us." From abortion to military service to unjust wars to capital punishment, Christians have long "resisted the ordinances and powers of government" when quickened to do so by their consciences. But Paul said that "whoever resists the power or ordinance (of government) resists the ordinance of God and shall receive to themselves damnation." Romans 13:2.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who is universally admired for his righteous lifestyle and ministry, is widely considered a martyr for conspiring to physically remove Hitler from power. He failed and was executed by Hitler's regime. Bonhoeffer would definitely disagree with Paul that ALL government "powers that be are ordained by God" ( Romans 13:1). There is just no way God ordained Hitler to rule Germany under divine unction.

Paul's gross oversimplification of complete political obedience was, as Albert Einstein famously said, "Simpler than possible." Nobody would seriously label Bonhoeffer's acts of "resisting the power and ordinance" of Nazi Germany as an offense which would bring him "damnation." If every great Christian who resisted government authority and power was "damned" for doing so, then heaven will be sparse indeed.

By the way, the Holy Ghost has definitely managed a few "technically illegal" jail breaks in his day, such as in Acts 5:19; 12:10; 16:26. If Paul's Romans 13:2 propositions were universally true, then the apostles, who frequently escaped numerous lawful prisons, along with the Holy Ghost Himself, would ALL be guilty of "resisting the power and ordinance of God." I wouldn't like to be the officer who tries to serve THAT arrest warrant on the Holy Ghost.

Aside from the issues listed above, it may also be that Paul's linked views on election, predetermination and the potter-clay analogy used in Romans 9-11 may all be influenced more by Paul's philosophies than by Paul's epiphanies.

Paul's pharisaical background so steeped in hyper-sovereignty and hyper-predetermination, combined with his ongoing vexation at his Jewish brothers' continuing rejection of the Messiah, may well have combined to push Paul a little too far over into his "vexed" opinion and away from his spiritual revelation. I say this because issues of predetermination and election never seemed to concern Jesus in His teachings or preachings.

Yet, Paul describes God as a sovereign potter who either predetermines humans to fail as instruments of wrath and dishonor OR succeed as instruments of glory and honor. This preformation of men occurs in the same way clay is manipulated by the hands of the potter. This image portrays God as an omnipotent potter PRE-forming and PRE-determining all our futures by EITHER giving us inborn "flaws to fail" or inborn "faith to succeed."

This analogy by Paul is not well thought out and is not fully consonant with the loving Father revealed by Jesus, a Father Who in NO way has any connection to putting evil flaws into us and Who gives only good gifts to His children (James 1:13-17; Matthew 7:11). Again, this questionable analogy may be more due to Paul's philosophical bent towards hyper-predeterminsm than it is to perfect "third heaven" revelation.

The point is that we must not treat Paul's personal philosophy the same way we treat his supernatural "third heaven" revelations which come straight from "the throne room of God." Jesus NEVER preached or taught on these specific topics listed above for a reason. He wanted US to be fluid, thoughtful and faithful in OUR generation by going BEYOND Paul's advice into greater and greater solutions for OUR day and OUR circumstance.

Paul's wisdom is certainly to be esteemed and understood from every angle, but it is not the only acceptable philosophy on these matters. Christians of different faith levels and giftings can disagree on these non-essential, tangential issues listed above and still be operating in faith that pleases God.

The point for us is to find and follow our OWN "faith" in these issues of conscience.

How does the Lord 's deliverance work

The below passage about Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is often cited for the following horribly wrong propositions:

1) "God sent Paul a thorn in the flesh."

2) "Paul's thorn in the flesh was some sort of sickness or disease."

3) "God repeatedly rejected Paul's prayers and refused to help him remove the thorn."

Before dismantling these three errors, let's first look at this challenging passage:

"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, THE MESSENGER OF SATAN to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

For this thing I besought the Lord THREE TIMES that it might depart from me.

And he said unto me, MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THEE: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.

Behold, the THIRD time I am ready to come to you . . . .

This is the THIRD time I am coming to you." 2 Corinthians 12:7-14; 13:1.

So, now let's revisit the three BOGUS propositions cited above which give rise to numerous CRUEL THEOLOGIES prevalent today. By cruel, I mean those wrong "thorn in the flesh" theologies which paint God as a harsh "control freak" who literally sculpts us using the knives of pain, sickness and affliction. These CRUEL THEOLOGIES portray God as a torturer rather than a healer.

This twisted image of God resembles a mean little boy experimenting on insects, who delights in tearing wings off butterflies so that he can see them struggle to survive. Except, in God's case, WE are the butterflies on whom He experiments. He tears our wings off with sickness and affliction, so that we will learn humility and learn to give Him glory in the process. How nauseatingly disgusting this image of God is! It is so dishonoring and incompatible with the the nature of God revealed in and by Jesus. Yet, millions of people worldwide still believe in this deformed image of God!

So, let's restate each of the three BOGUS propositions. After each, I will respond and refute the claim.

1) "God sent Paul a thorn in the flesh." WRONG!

This point is easily disproven. Paul calls his thorn in the flesh "the messenger of Satan" in verse 7, and NOT "the messenger of God." Case closed! The "thorn" was FROM Satan AGAINST Paul. Satan is NOT a servant of God. Satan is NOT fulfilling God's will, but OPPOSING it on every level. Scripture proclaims Satan a cosmic rebel, the accuser of the brethren, the tempter, a liar, a murderer from the beginning, the destroyer, a thief, a devouring lion, the god of this world, and the prince of the power of the air.

Jesus came to destroy Satan's works, not implement them (1 John 3:8). Concerning Satan's "thorny" attacks, the New Testament tells us to "resist them stedfast in the faith," to "quench all the fiery missiles of the devil," and to "cast out" all demonic influence. We have ALREADY been given the grace keys to "bind and loose" spiritual forces upon the earth, to bind all things Satan-empowered and loose all things Christ-empowered.

The bottom line? Don't let anyone tell you God sends "thorns in the flesh" to afflict men. This is Satan's work, not God's. Once we are resolute on this point, we can then wholeheartedly resist EVERY Satanic missile, thorn, attack and oppression. Honestly, if we have ANY doubt or suspicion that our "thorns" are FROM God rather than FROM Satan, we will NOT fervently resist, rebuke and remove the thorns of affliction from our lives. Instead, we will accommodate them by accepting sickness, affliction and oppression as the Lord's will for our lives. And this we must not do.

2) "Paul's thorn in the flesh was some sort of sickness or disease." WRONG!

There is not one clear indication in Scripture that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a sickness or disease of some kind.

In 2 Cor. 12:10, the word " infirmities " (Strong s #s769 and 770) means " weaknesses " and is used primarily by Paul to refer to natural limitations in man 's abilities. See Romans 4:19; 6:19; 8:3, 26; 14:1-2; 1 Corinthians 8:11-12; 2 Corinthians 11:30; 12:5, 9, 10; 13:4, where all these verses refer NOT to physical sicknesses, but rather to weaknesses in man 's natural ability to accomplish the righteousness of God. Where man 's abilities end is where God 's ability begins. As God is given free reign in our lives, He then re-energizes and renews our natural ability with His supernatural ability.

If Paul WERE referring to physical sicknesses, it surely seems he would have mentioned them a chapter earlier in 2 Corinthians 11:23-30, where he details exactly WHAT his infirmities were: "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities." 2 Cor. 11:23-30.

On this list were labors, stripes, prisons, deaths of those around us, beatings, stoning, shipwreck, perils of water, perils of robbers, perils by countrymen, perils by heathen, perils in the city\wilderness\sea, perils by false brothers, weariness, painfulness, hunger, thirst, cold, nakedness and the care of all the churches. NOWHERE IS SICKNESS MENTIONED. Rather, these infirmities were all various types of Satanic and human RESISTANCE and PERSECUTION against the Gospel.

Most importantly, these infirmities were NOT to be accepted as God 's will. Paul rejoiced in these infirmities, NOT because they brought him continual defeat in his ministry, but because He knew God 's power was then free to be released in full measure to bring victory. "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerers through him that loved us." Romans 8:37. God supernaturally delivered Paul OUT of each of these trials, each in a different way, but all bringing maximum impact of God 's glory in the situation. God gets NO glory from us meekly surrendering to the thorns of our flesh. Rather, God gets the glory when we utilize His all-sufficient grace to OVERCOME and REMOVE the thorns from our flesh altogether.

Paul 's suffering through these infirmities always led to a supernatural release of God 's power to deliver Paul from Satan, while at the same time fully delivering the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul didn 't give in or give up because of these infirmities: he resisted and resisted and resisted and resisted them with the power of God. He gloried in the affliction, not because of it: "In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." 1 Thessalonians 5:19. We are to give thanks not FOR everything (including afflictions) but IN everything (including afflictions).

This is entirely consistent with James's view: "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." James 1:2-4. It is also consistent with Hebrews 6:12, "That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises."

So what WAS Paul's thorn in the flesh? Looking closely at the context of the passage, an amazing answer presents itself. The thorn may well have been the Corinthian church itself.

Paul prayed THREE TIMES for for the thorn to depart. Paul went out of his way to repeatedly say that he was about to visit the Corinthian church for the THIRD time. Was Paul's repeated use of the number three a mere coincidence, or was Paul giving the Corinthians a not-so-subtle hint on what the mysterious thorn in his flesh was? But how could the Corinthian church be a thorn in Paul's flesh? Well, we know the Corinthians had repeatedly challenged Paul's motives, standing and apostolic authority (2 Cor. 10:1-2; 11:21-28; 12:11-15; 13:3; 1 Cor. 3; 4:1-4; 9). We also know the Corinthians were carnal, divisive and often petty. They continually flooded and vexed Paul with bad reports, constant strife and ugly ingratitude.

So, perhaps this whole episode simply indicates that Paul's messenger of Satan, his thorn of the flesh, was the carnally minded Corinthian congregation itself. Nothing hurts MORE than having a group of people, for whom you have laid your life down, continually challenge your apostolic authority, doubt your motives, and ignore your cousel.

Perhaps Paul struggled with their sinful defiance to the point where he asked the Lord to remove their burden from his ministry. But, God responded to Paul that His grace was sufficient for Paul to STAY connected and committed to Corinth as an apostle, to clean out their sin stables, and in his manly weakness Paul would be made perfect in Godly strength.

Again, what could be more discouraging than ministering to people who doubt your motives, standing and authority - - who seem to only be able to know you after the flesh and not after the spirit?

But, even IF the above analysis is wrong and Paul 's thorn in the flesh was a continuing attack of some kind of physical affliction, this passage still can 't be used to claim such an attack is from God 's will. Again, Paul said the source was Satan, not God (2 Cor. 12:7). Moreover, as an alternate possibility here, consider Agnes Sanford 's view of Paul 's thorn in the flesh in the event it WAS a physical ailment:

"What about St. Paul and his thorn in the flesh? St. Paul s thorn in the flesh has become a veritable thorn in the spirit to thousands of Christians, who take St. Paul as an example for cherishing illness. In this they are not consistent. If St. Paul were really their example, they could raise the dead. For in seeing him as an example, of the invalid saint, they do the utmost violence to the Biblical picture of a man strong enough to endure shipwreck and exposure, stoning and imprisonment and still accomplish more than ten ordinary men could.

Behold the impressive roll-call of saints given in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. Is there a weakling among them? Noah, who in his five hundredth year built an ark the size of a modern cargo ship; Moses, who at the age of one hundred and twenty stated that his eyes were not dim nor his natural strength abated; Elijah, who girded up his loins and outran the king 's chariot horses; David, who slew a lion and a bear with his bare hands. There is no record in the whole Bible of a holy man who remained an invalid. Stories of illnesses we find, but these stories are almost funny in the portrayal of a tremendous urge toward health. The prostrated holy men were outraged at illness, regarding it as a sign of being cut off from God 's love and cast out of His presence. From David (who made his couch to swim with his tears) to Job (who sat upon a dung-heap and cried unto the Lord till he recovered) we find no instance of an acceptance of illness as the will of God. . . .

St. Paul had been miraculously healed more than once. He had shaken off a deadly serpent and felt no sting whatsoever from its bite. He had been stoned and left for dead, and had risen from under a pile of stones and walked into the city. He had accomplished the most amazing of miracles, even the raising of the dead. Yet, toward the end of his ministry, he was troubled by a thorn in the flesh. He prayed about this matter and God said to him, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

He did not receive an instantaneous healing. Instead of that, he received every day enough of the Grace of God for that day s needs. So do I. And if God 's perfect strength accomplished through me as much as it did through St. Paul, I would be well content. " THE HEALING LIGHT, by Agnes Sanford.

3) "God repeatedly rejected Paul's prayers and refused to help him remove the thorn." WRONG!

GOD NEVER TOLD PAUL "NO! I WON'T HELP YOU!" Paul prayed three times for the thorn to depart (v. 8). But, God 's answer to Paul was, " My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness (i.e. I've already given you the resources to deal with it. My ability begins where your ability ends).

God 's response was not, " No, Paul, I won t help you. " Rather, it was, " Paul, I have already given you the grace to deal with it in my perfect strength. You need only receive it by acknowledging your weakness in your own ability. As you embrace my ability by forsaking your own, then the perfect power of the anointing will rest on you. "

Whatever the thorn was, God knew that Paul wanted a super-quick fix, as do we all, by seeking God to kiss the "boo-boo" to make it quickly go away. But, God wanted a quality deliverance that soaked down deep into Paul s character. In fact, Paul stated that Satan 's access to afflict him came from Paul being in danger of becoming exalted above measure through the abundance of the [third heaven] revelations. "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." 2 Cor. 12:7.

Again, this seems to indicate an attack on Paul 's character by the carnal Corinthian church rather than an attack on his body, but regardless, Paul wanted to leave this battlefield behind. Whereas Paul was tired of this battle, God responded, " This is the battlefield I have called you. You don t need reinforcements. Just use the resources I have already give you. Your character, fortitude and anointing will all greatly benefit. And you will be a much better man for it because you know and depend on my spirit more than ever. "

The Greek word " thlipsis " is translated in the New Testament as affliction, but it literally means pressure. (Strong s #2347). Satan 's "pressure" on our lives through afflictions eventually renders our natural abilities useless. Satan seeks to destroy us in this state of weakness by crippling our faith, hope and love. But, God sees this state of weakness as a place of brokenness and trust where we can draw closer to Him and receive a fuller measure of grace. (1 Pet. 1:13). This process works patience (joyful endurance) in our character, so that we can rule and reign as champion sons of God. In our gritty and gutty resistance to Satan 's pressure (persecution, temptation, sickness, oppression, depression, failure), our character develops patience (joyful endurance) which, when mixed with our faith, releases the anointing of power.

But wasn t Paul a martyr? God didn t deliver him out of that affliction, did he? Doesn 't that mean it 's good to die young? Why didn t Psalm 91 work for Paul? All these questions misunderstand what a true martyr is. A martyr is not someone whose life is taken from him. A martyr is someone who voluntarily lays his\her life down by refusing to accept the Lord s deliverance in the situation because his\her death would have maximum impact at this point in time. Just as nobody took Jesus' life because He voluntarily laid it down, so too nobody took Paul 's life without his consent. The Holy Spirit gave him plenty of advance notice of what dangers awaited him at Jerusalem, yet Paul freely embraced the martyr 's death (Acts 21:10-14).

"And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jeptha; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, NOT ACCEPTING DELIVERANCE; that they might obtain a better resurrection." Hebrews 11:32-35.

Do you see? Paul had the faith to be delivered out of any peril, but he CHOSE to lay his life down for maximum impact at the time of greatest exposure (as revealed to Paul by the Holy Spirit). The Lord shows many of His beloved sons the point in time when their sacrifice can cause the most damage to Satan and bring the most glory to God. They then freely choose to lay their life down, NOT ACCEPTING DELIVERANCE as the above Hebrews passage says, and thereby obtain a better resurrection.

God doesn 't promise we won 't have affliction (demonic pressure). But He does promise we can always overcome it. "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33. "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerers through Him who loved us." Romans 8:37. "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." 1 John 4:4. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5:4.

Jesus clearly taught that this life of an overcomer was to be experienced in THIS life, and not just in heaven. "Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But HE SHALL RECEIVE AN HUNDREDFOLD NOW IN THIS TIME, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." Mark 10:28-30.

The Lord 's deliverances work in different ways at different times. Mark 16:18 promises poison and snake bites (i.e. afflictions) won 't harm us. Sometimes we are warned in advance of the snake or poison so we can avoid it. Other times, the snake bites us or the poison enters our system. At these times, our faith keeps us from being harmed by the poison\venom.

God didn 't promise we would never be bitten by affliction, but He did promise we would never be harmed by it IF we fight the good fight of faith. "Behold, I GIVE UNTO YOU POWER to tread on serpents and scorpions, and OVER ALL THE POWER OF THE ENEMY: and NOTHING SHALL BY ANY MEANS HURT YOU." Lk. 10:19. Therefore, NO Satanic "thorn of the flesh" has the power to defeat us IF we by faith exercise the overcoming grace ALREADY given to us by Christ. In other words, don't pray for more grace but instead use the grace we already have. Christ has already given us more than enough grace to make us more than conquerers.

the wrongful worship of the Bible

There is much confusion and commingling of three vital, but very distinct, New Testament terms. This confusion often ends up causing many to slip into Bibolatry, the wrongful worship of the Bible.

These three terms are:

1) The Scriptures,

2) The Logos-Word of God, and

3) The Rhema-Word.

This study will help distinguish the various uses in the Bible of these three crucial terms.

When the New Testament refers to the Bible as a whole, it uses the word "Scriptures," which is the Greek word "Graphe." Jesus continually referred to the entirety of the Old Testament Bible as "the Scriptures." This included the Law, the Prophets, and the wisdom Writings, all of which formed the Bible as it then existed in Jesus' day. "You study the Scriptures (Graphe) thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me." John 5:39. (Also see Matthew 21:42, 22:29; Mark 14:49; 15:28; Luke 24:32, 45).

Now, when the New Testament uses the term "Rhema-Word," it refers to divinely inspired insights. It represents a divine devotional truth "quickened by" God and then "expressed through" the heart and mouth of man. "The Rhema-Word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart : that is , the Rhema-Word of faith, which we preach." Romans 10:8. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word (rhemati) that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. (also Luke 4:4).

By contrast, when the New Testament refers to "THE (definite article) Word of God," it uses the Greek word "Logos," and always and only refers to Jesus' divine presence. The Greek word "Logos" in different contexts can be certainly used in other ways, but "THE" Logos "of God" always refers to the Spirt of Christ.

Logos just means "the expressed essence" of something. Thus, Jesus is "the expressed essence" of the Father, the very image of the invisible God. Colossians 1:15-18.

"In the beginning was the word, and the Logos-Word was with God, and the Logos-Word WAS God.... And the Logos-Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father ,) full of grace and truth." John 1:1, 14.

With me so far? The Logos-Word IS Jesus, or perhaps better put, "the Spirit of Jesus"-- the core essence of Jesus which later "BECAME flesh." Except for His brief 33 year incarnation, it is the non-bodily Spirit of Christ Who abided in the Old Testament (1 Peter 1:11) and Who now abides and resides upon the earth. The Spirit of Christ is the sole communicative agent of God Who is to lead us into all truth. John 16:13; Romans 8:14. The Spirit is now in the world speaking to all men's consciences according to their willingness and ability to receive His promptings.

Simply put, WITHOUT the Spirit of Christ doing the "quickening" within our minds and hearts, we don't have any truly transformative knowledge about God.

"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed God`s Spirit dwell in you; but if any one has NOT [the] SPIRIT OF CHRIST he is NOT of Him." Romans 8:9.

Simply put, the Logos-Word is a "who," the Spirit of Christ internally engraved on our hearts, and NOT a "what," the dead letter engraved on external tablets.

Revelation picks up on this idea of Jesus as the Logos-Word. "And I saw heaven opened , and behold a white horse ; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True... His eyes were as a flame of fire , and on his head were many crowns... And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood : and His NAME is called 'THE Logos-Word of God.'" Revelation 19:11-13.

Now some maintain that the Logos-Word of God is defined as the Bible. But think about how that would ridiculously affect the meaning of the passages cited in John 1 and Revelation 19 above.

"In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible WAS God.... And the Bible was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld the Bible's glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father ,) full of grace and truth." John 1:1, 18.

"And I saw heaven opened , and behold a white horse ; and the Bible that sat upon him was called Faithful and True... The Bible's eyes were as a flame of fire , and on his head were many crowns... And The Bible was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood : and His NAME is called 'THE Bible of God.'" Revelation 19:11-13.

Doesn't sound quite kosher does it? Sadly, it is the ultimate objectification and depersonalization of God to label "a thing" (the Bible) as being synonymous with Jesus. And this very thing has resulted in a phenomenon known as Bibiloatry, the wrongful worship of the Bible. Many OT Jews fell into this same snare by wrongly worshipping the engraved stones of Moses which contained the written Law. And Jesus called them out on it in John 5:39, quoted above.

The Jews often treated the written Scriptures as exactly as they would God. They literally enthroned it in their places of worship. They would actually bury and mourn a Torah scroll if it was desecrated. Jews would also dance with the Torah scroll in joyous celebration. They actually considered themselves married to the Scriptures. The Jews literally kissed the Scriptures daily in their synagogues and homes. They quite literally worshipped Scriptures AS God. Sadly, this just goes too far by turning God into a controllable object, an "it," rather than an uncontrollable Spirit, a "who."

And many Christians do the same thing today. They place more faith in what they call the literal "word of God," the Bible, than they do in the Holy Spirit of Christ, the actual Word of God. This is the very thing 2 Corinthians 3:6 warns us against, not to be a minister of the dead external letter, but rather to be an able minister of the living internal Spirit of Christ.

Am I saying the Bible is bad or unnecessary? Emphatically NOT!! The Bible is blessed, wonderful and crucial to our growing up and into Christ. I love and esteem its truth, beauty, and wisdom. I treasure its text, subtext, and super-text, which is pregnant with divine promises which provide us all things, both natural and supernatural, for life and Godliness. 2 Peter 1:3-5.

Let me be clear. The Spirit of Christ wonderfully uses the Scripture as it uses no other human document in history. But, then again, Satan misuses the Scriptures more than any other document in human history. And he does it by snaring readers into a literalistic dead letter reading which mutates the image of God into a bipolar monster. The value of Scripture depends on which Spirit is translating it, Christ's or Satan's. When Satan is leading us to read the Bible as a wrathful threat, we are crippled with fear and despair toward God. But, when Christ is actively illuminating our minds, all is well, and we see the Bible for what it is-- treasure box of promises.

But as much as I love Scripture, I do not worship it. I worship God THROUGH it, but only as an "instrument" for the Spirit of Christ to blow revelation and inspiration through.

So, to review, the Greek "Graphe" refers to the entire Canon of "written Scriptures," the Bible in other words. The Greek "Rhema" refers to any individual and devotionally inspired idea, insight or idiom from the Lord. The Scriptures ("Graphe") are comprised of individual Rhema-Words of divine inspiration.

But, "THE Logos-Word of God" ALWAYS refers to a "who" rather than a "what." THE Logos-Word IS Jesus, always Jesus, only Jesus. THE Logos-Word is NOT the written Bible, nor the inspired Rhema-Words which comprise the written Bible.

Rather, the Logos-Word is Jesus-- His kingdom presence within us, and His kingdom presence around us. Moses once gloriously declared that he and the Israelites would not make a move toward their destiny unless the Lord's presence went with them. Moses here spoke of THE Logos-Word, the Spirit of Christ, and NOT the Scriptures.

When the New Testament says to "preach the Word of God," it is not saying to preach the Bible, but rather to preach Jesus, His kingdom, His presence, and His Spirit. Sure we glean much of what we understand about Jesus from the Bible, but only up to a point. It is always toward the Spirit of Christ that all Scripture richly points. Scripture can supplement our sharing, but is the always to be the protean and palpable presence of God WHOM we are to minister to others.

As for the Logos-Word in Hebrews 4:12, that is certainly referring to Jesus IN us, the hope of glory, Who divides soul from spirit, NOT the literal Bible. The very next verse, 13, uses "He" in back-reference to "the Word." So, again, I think the Logos here is clearly a "who." The New Testament canon didn't even exist when the book of Hebrews was written. So "the Logos-Word of God" to the first century audience would have meant "the Spirit of Christ" rather than the New Testament canon, which would not even come into existence for several more generations.

Until we realize this and intentionally move the Holy Bible in our understanding away from a synonymous and co-equal place with the Holy Spirit, we will be subject to snares of dead letter legalism and Bibiloatry. I know people who are bloodthirsty for the Bible, yet have no confidence in the Holy Spirit's ability to ever powerfully lead them into deeper revelation and intimacy outside of the dead letter reading of the Bible.

The Bible points to Jesus. It serves Him, not vice versa.

So, I want to propose a RADICAL EXPERIMENT for the next 30 days.

Whenever you hear, say or think the term "the word of God," replace the idea of this describing "the Bible" with the following concept-- "the Spirit of Christ."

For example, "I was richly in the word this morning" translates "I was richly in the Spirit of Christ this morning." Or, "The word of God is really speaking to me" becomes "The Spirit of Christ is ...really speaking to me." Or, "The word of God leads, blesses, protects, heals and delivers me" becomes "The Spirit of Christ leads, blesses, protects, heals and delivers me." See if this does not make God more vibrantly real and near to you over the next month. Continue to read Scripture to your heart's desire, but just remember to prioritize the Spirit's place of prominence in the proper translation and illumination of what you read.

God wants Scripture to be readily accessible to ALL men so that each can glean His epic goodness for themselves. Scriptures, then, to the extent they are inspired by God, are intended to be read devotionally, poetically, epically, viscerally, Christologically, and spiritually.

If God meant them to be read clinically, dispassionately, and scientifically, then He would have picked the scientists and philosophers of Jesus' day to meticulously express them in Aristotelean logic, not earthy fishermen.

"CSI" JERUSALEM: WHO MURDERED ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA?

Were Ananias and Sapphira killed by the Holy Spirit as many claim (Acts 5:1-11)? Well, the passage doesn't even "literally" say that God killed them, so we have to look closer at the passage's subtext to do a fair CSI investigation as to the true cause of their deaths.

Peter asked Sapphira in the literal Greek of verse 9, "Why did the two of you agree to pressure the Spirit?" (Word Study Greek-English New Testament, Paul R. McReynolds, Tyndall, pp. 441 (1999). In other words, why did you two push away the protective presence of God? The implication is clear then that Satan, not God, is the culprit here. Satan "filled their hearts" to lie, then Ananias and Sapphira quenched away God's protective presence with their sin, then Satan filled the vacuum in their hearts with his oppressive condemnation, and they both died.

McReynolds' interlinear translation of 1 Corinthians 10:9 describes this same dynamic. "But not we might PRESSURE OUT the Christ, just as some of them PRESSURED and by the snakes were destroyed." Interlinear translations can be a little awkward to our ear, but they often give us the gold of better understanding Scripture texts.

Do you see what this Acts passage now describes? Ananias and Sapphira's rampant neglect and disbelief toward God, combined with their fear toward their circumstances, all combined to do the following. THEY PRESSURED OUT THE PROTECTIVE PRESENCE OF CHRIST AND WERE DESTROYED BY SATAN. And just how did Satan kill them? Below, we will see that Satan used his favorite weapons-- fear and condemnation-- to kill these two pathetic people.

But, how do we know God didn't kill them? Because Hebrews 2:14-15 says Satan has the power of death, not God. John 10:10 says Satan kills men, not God. 1 Corinthians 5:5 says Satan destroys the flesh of men, not God.

And actually, the passage doesn't say anybody actually killed them, but they themselves "gave up the ghost" (spirit) AFTER hearing Peter's words of condemnation. It may well be that they feared Peter's words so much that they just surrendered their will to live.

We all know, or have heard of, people who give up on life in despair, some gradually, others in an instant in time. Some "give up their spirit" because of a broken heart, or impending sickness or disaster. Perhaps they were so worried about their sin because it was one of the first of the church age, and they thought it was perhaps unforgivable.

In other words, it appears Annanias and Sapphira were condemned to death. But was this God's will? Was it God's best? Did Peter show them the same grace he himself received when he betrayed the Lord three times in one night? What if somebody in apostolic authority, James or John for instance, told Peter to essentially "drop dead" in the wake of his sin, might he also have given up the ghost?

Did Peter extend God's grace to them to NOT hold this sin to their account, as Jesus did, as the martyr Stephen did, or did he even try to minister repentance to them, to counsel them, to pray for them, to intercede for them, to lay hands on them to be forgiven and healed, or any of the other things Scripture and later Church practice advised?

What about this passage? "Brethren , if a man be overtaken in a fault , ye which are spiritual , restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; considering thyself , lest thou also be tempted ." Galatians 6:1.

Why, in Jesus' name, was the space to repent NOT offered to Ananias and Sapphira in this situation by Peter?

Matthew 18:15-17 instructs us how to FIRST go privately to one caught up in a trespass, THEN to go with other witnesses if the private correction is not received by the person, and only THEN to bring public confrontation if the person remains unrepentant. And even then, the worse punishment is excommunication, NOT murder.

Do you see? God's way is to confront a sin WITH the goal of restoration and repentance of the sinner, NOT summary execution. Why wasn't this gracious dynamic followed?

Was the spirit of these merciful passages just cited above followed by Peter? No, Peter appeared to quickly and immediately condemn them, after which he basically just stepped out of the way and let the Devil have them. If lying to the Holy Spirit by holding back some of our resources REALLY mandated immediate Holy Ghost execution, then how many of us would still be standing? How many of us would not have been executed long ago? Perhaps the morale of this passage is more about Peter's mercy-deficit than it is about Annaias and Sapphira's faith-deficit.

Peter was not perfect. He had a well known quick trigger when it came to anger or frustration. He was quick to use the physical sword to cut an ear off an approaching soldier. He was also quick to use the verbal sword, such as when he told Simon the sorcerer to perish on the spot along with his money. Perhaps, Peter was also quick here to likewise thrust a murderous impulse here to Ananias and Sapphira.

If Paul had the guts to "withstand Peter to his face" (Galatians 2:11) for possible spiritual error, shouldn't we too have the guts if, of course, the Holy Spirit so leads?

But, didn't great fear come on the church in the wake of these deaths? It can be argued that the "great fear" that came on the church in the wake of this event, and the subsequent healing of the sick from Peter's cast shadow, came more from men wrongly, excessively and fearfully elevating Peter rather than through the exercising of pure faith in Christ.

If we, as part of a young and inexperienced church body, saw a revered leader such as Peter appear to instill such fear that people dropped dead, literally scared and condemned to death, then we too might start to idolize his "shadow." His presence, word and opinion might supplant or displace our faith in Jesus. We might turn Peter into an earthly Pope, kiss his ring, worship his shadow, etc. If people got legitimately healed from Peter's ministry, it was despite Peter's anger, not because of it.

And here is another thought. If the common interpretation is correct that God had Peter denounce Ananias and Sapphira to death for withholding truth and resources from the Holy Spirit, then Church history should be full of famous Christians who likewise verbally struck down and assassinated all the millions upon millions who have, at one time or another, withheld truth or resources from God ever since Ananias and Saphira. In fact, we should still be seeing people regularly executed as a normal part of Church meetings and discipline.

But, that is not the case.

So, again, when Peter appears a little too quick on the trigger to tell people to "drop dead" for their transgressions ( Sapphira and Simon in Acts 5 and 8), should we willing to withstand his actions if our conscience compels us?

Do we follow the Holy Ghost or Peter? Jesus or Peter? I honestly can't see Jesus telling anybody to drop dead on the spot. That ain't the way He rolled. Jesus might rattle their religious cage, but He never cursed someone to die on the spot. Be merciful seven times seventy, overcome evil with good, bless your enemy and pray for them that despitefully use you. Don't see "curse them to die or perish on the spot" on that list in Matthew 5:38-48.

And don't get me wrong, I love Peter, but are we to assume he was flawless in his every dealing? Paul sure didn't.

None of us are yet flawless in ministering the mercies of God. After telling Simon to "perish" along with his money, Simon asks Peter to pray for him that the things Peter spoke not happen to him. But, Scripture is silent as to whether Peter then prayed for him. I sure hope he did. I would definitely withstand Peter to his face if he didn't on that issue. Jesus is our model, not Peter.

These are all questions the Holy Spirit wants to minister to us. It is understandable that the infant Church might have less tolerance and patience than a more mature and experienced group of believers. I know when I was newly converted and freshly fervent in the Spirit, my tolerance level for others' unbelief was small. I would have been just as firm and ferocious as Peter. But, with time and maturity, and after suffering through many of my own grievous failures, my patience for people's shortcomings, sins, and failures has exponentially increased. I am not nearly as quick to pull the condemnation trigger as I used to be.

Paul had the courage to "withstand Peter to his face" when Peter was wrong (Galatians 2:11). Perhaps WE should "withstand Peter to his face" in this passage as well. But regardless, one thing is certain. God did not kill Ananias and Sapphira. Satan did. Satan was certainly working lies and crippling condemnation in their hearts, and possibly in the hardening Peter's heart toward them as well which kept him from ministering protective mercy. But, Satan was the true assassin here any way you look at it.

Here are two audio teachings I did on the Ananias and Sapphira issue. They are really worth a listen.

Part one begins at the 7:50 mark of this recording.http://www.thegoodnessofgod.com/01_SESSION_5__2_1.mp3

Part two begins immediately on this recording.http://www.thegoodnessofgod.com/01_SESSION_6__1_1.mp3

"CSI" MOUNT MORIAH: DID GOD ACTUALLY TELL ABRAHAM TO SLIT ISAAC'S THROAT AND BURN HIS CORPSE IN THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE?

"And He saith, `Take, I pray thee, thy son, thine only one, whom thou hast loved, even Isaac, and go for thyself unto the land of Moriah, and cause him to ascend there for a burnt-offering on one of the mountains of which I speak unto thee.'" Genesis 22:2 (Young's Literal Translation).

I want to answer that question by FIRST asking you two questions after you have read Jesus' statement in the New Testament passage below.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-38.

Now, please answer these two questions about this passage:

1) IS JESUS SAYING THAT HE CAME TO BRING US A LITERAL- PHYSICAL SWORD TO GUT AND KILL ALL OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO WE MAY BE IN DANGER OF LOVING MORE THAN WE DO GOD?

2) OR, IS JESUS SPEAKING OF A SPIRITUAL SWORD WHICH WILL SEVER ALL IDOLATROUS TIES TO RELATIONSHIPS WHICH WE HAVE WRONGLY PRIORITIZED BEFORE OUR LOVE FOR GOD?

I hope this is a no-brainer. Option 2 above is the obvious answer. Otherwise, patricide, fratricide and homicide would be rampant. Murder would be the mark of true Christians as they went about slicing, dicing and slaughtering their loved ones, all in the name of God.

No. Never. Jesus is obviously speaking metaphorically here. He is using the sword as a symbol of the Lord's inner workings in our hearts. The Holy Spirit CIRCUMCISES our heart by cutting away all the carnal connections and fleshly relationships which keep us from loving the Lord with all out heart, mind, soul and strength.

Do you know people who love their children more than God, their spouses more than God, their friends more than God? Sure, we all know many such others. Moreover, we ourselves have all idolized certain people and relationships over our love for God.

Now, if it's this obvious in this passage that Jesus wasn't speaking of a literal sword, why isn't it JUST as obvious that the "burnt-offering" God spoke of in Genesis 22:2 is likewise symbolic?

In other words, God saw that Abraham was in danger of idolizing his love for his only son Isaac above and before his love for God. God was exhorting Abraham to "symbolically," NOT "literally," offer his son Isaac on the ceremonial altar of God. But the deeper purpose was for Abraham to trust and release Isaac to God on the altar of his heart.

God was warning Abraham not to idolize Isaac, but rather to wholeheartedly offer Him INTO the Lord's hands. We do the same today when we symbolically "confirm" or "consecrate" or "commit" or "release" our children into the Lord's calling.

These external ceremonies reflect a greater inner dynamic--- we are fully trusting the Lord by committing our children to Him. We are prioritizing our faith, hope and love in the Lord as we yield to Him what we formerly loved most--- our children and family relationships.

In short, we are placing God on our heart-throne by trusting and thrusting our relationship with Him FIRST before all others and BEST above all others.

This was all God was trying to tell Abraham in Genesis 22:2, and all Jesus was trying to tell his listeners in Matthew 10:34-38. Same God, same message: LOVE GOD FIRST AND BEST OVER ALL YOUR EARTHLY RELATIONSHIPS.

Abraham, in his zeal, and without the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide him, interpreted God's exhortation hyper-literally. He went "too far" and was actually going to kill and burn Isaac, thinking that God would resurrect him. And God certainly could and would have done that.

But, God would never have a parent kill his own child--- never. That would violate His flawless character and loving nature. Instead, God had a "literal" angel stop Abraham's "literal" knife. If Abraham was hearing God's voice clearly and with perfect understanding, there would be no need for a "stand-by" emergency angel to stay his hand.

But Abraham was an Old Covenant believer and not yet in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. God certainly appreciated Abraham's zeal, but He was not about to let a horrible act of violence to be done in His name by one who was called "the friend of God." Divine friends don't let earthly friends drive the Bible drunk with literalism. This angel kept Abraham from crashing into a homicidal mistake.

If God truly wanted Abraham to kill Isaac, the Lord would have simply let the knife fall. God most assuredly did not allow it, so God most assuredly did not will or want it to happen. Had Abraham had the indwelling Spirit, He would have known the Lord was speaking symbolically and metaphorically, just like Jesus did in Matthew 10:34-38.

One last point. What part did Satan play in spreading misinformation, disinformation, and deformation to this incident?

Satan's role in this event was surely to enable Abraham's zeal go "too far" in a "hyper-literal" interpretation of the Lord's word to him. Satan is always lurking near the surface of our thoughts, always trying to muddle the Lord's deeper and truer meanings by keeping us bound in literalistic interpretations of the divine impulses He sends us.

Remember, "the letter kills" (2 Corinthians 3:6). And here it almost killed Isaac. Satan used it in trying to urge Abraham to "literally" slit his own son's throat.

In fact, even though Genesis makes no mention of Satan, it is significant to note that other early Jewish sources do. Jubilees 17:16 actually attributes the initiative to kill Isaac to "Prince Mastema," a well-known name for Satan in this document, where he is acting in the role of a prosecutor.

Satan's role IS important to see here. The reason? Because of the importance of this whole episode as a foreshadowing of Christ's atonement at the cross. You see, if we believe that the heavenly Father is the party who "slit" Jesus' throat by offering His only begotten son at the cross, then we will subscribe to the cruel Penal Atonement Theory which sees the wrath of an angry God as the killer of Jesus.

But, if we believe that Jesus' life was a RANSOM for our sin paid TO Satan BY God, then we will subscribe to the Christus Victor Atonement Theory, also known as the Ransom Theory of the Atonement. This theory, which was the predominant view of the early Church, sees Satan, along with the principalities and powers which rule this fallen world, as the actual killers of Jesus.

These fallen demonic powers drove us to physically execute Jesus, while they themselves attempted to torture, corrupt and destroy His soul in Hell.

Under this view, Jesus willingly laid His noble head on Satan's chopping block as a payment for all OUR sin. Satan had legal access to capture and control us because of the access we have corporately given him. WE freely forfeited to Satan the dominion of this earth God originally gave us. This is why Paul called Satan the "god of this world" and Jesus called Satan "the prince of this world." Satan did indeed rule here because of the authority WE voluntarily handed over to him.

So, read this passage and choose your atonement theory carefully. It will ultimately determine what you REALLY think about the nature of God. You will either see Him as an angry and wrathful Father who killed Jesus because of His hatred for us, OR you will see God as a hero who gave Himself over to our captor in order to save us from ourselves and Satan.

The bottom line here is that Satan is the only killer in this Biblical event involving Abraham and Isaac. God, on the other hand, is the only hero. Isaac, as a type of Jesus to come, heroically entrusted himself to his Father's care and was willing to die for us in the process in order that we might be saved. God the Father likewise heroically intervened to save Jesus' soul from Hell. Peter preached of God's heroism in the important passage below:

"Ye men of Israel , hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: WHOM GOD HATH RAISED UP, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad ; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: BECAUSE THOU WILT NOT LEAVE MY SOUL IN HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL neither his flesh did see corruption. THIS JESUS GOD HATH RAISED UP, whereof we all are witnesses." Acts 2:22-31"