By Michael E. Brooks

"After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates; and Josiah went out against him. But he sent messengers to him, saying, 'What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I have not come against you this day, but against the house with which I have war'" (2 Chronicles 35:20-21a).

After an all day visit to the town of Pirajpur, Bangladesh, several of us were returning to Khulna Bible College in the evening. About 9:00 p.m. we came into the town of Bagarhat, whose streets were virtually empty. Suddenly a bus came out of a business parking lot, blocking the road ahead of us, and several young men with clubs surrounded our van. They spoke with the driver, then withdrew, allowing us to pass. It turned out that they represented a local bus company and were checking to see whether our van was an unlicensed "for hire" vehicle, competing with their company. Their intentions were obviously to force such competition off the roads.

A serious concern in traveling in unfamiliar territory is the possibility of getting caught up in someone else's fight. One may at any time inadvertently come upon a demonstration, riot or battle. Even though the traveler would not be a target of such violence, he or she could be injured or killed as an "innocent bystander." Another possibility is for a traveler to become identified with locals who have enemies of whom he or she is not aware. These enemies may then include the traveler on their "list" as a target of revenge or anger. Obviously one should do whatever possible to avoid both these dangers.

Sometimes, however, people actually choose to invite themselves into situations where they have no real stake. Josiah, the righteous, reforming king of Judah is a tragic example. Necho brought the army of Egypt to do battle with the Babylonian army at Carchemish. Josiah apparently attempted to intercept the Egyptians at Megiddo, acting as an ally of Babylon. The king of Egypt warned him not to involve himself in what was actually none of his business, but Josiah persisted and was killed as a result. Judah lost a righteous, effective king because he chose to partake in someone else's fight.

How much of the church's resources are lost because Christians become involved in issues that do not really have anything to do with God's true purpose or with our ultimate goals? Business issues, recreational pursuits, social causes, and even national concerns may not really be matters that pertain to spiritual people. Christians have legitimate interests in all these areas. Yet, they all offer distractions and extreme situations that not only conflict with our true allegiance, but constitute genuine hazards to faith and eternal life. Consider for instance the obvious inconsistency of a Christian becoming angry and getting into a fight over the results of a football game.

When Jesus prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, his advice to Christians living in Jerusalem was,

"Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes" (Matthew 24:16-18).

Was Jerusalem not their home? Should not they be concerned with it? Jesus is not forbidding patriotic commitment, but he is saying that Christians would have no stake in a rebellion staged by fanatics of Judea who had rejected God's word, nor in fighting with or against a pagan Roman Empire. It was not their fight. Get out, avoid the harm, and use their strength to do God's work.

Christians today should identify our priorities and goals and ensure that we are using our resources for those things genuinely important. Let us not use time, strength and resources in pursuit of things that do not relate to eternal life. And let us especially not endanger life or soul in fighting battles that have nothing to do with our Lord and his cause.

by Greg Tidwell

"Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (1 John 2:7,8, ESV).

God's commandment to love is not surprising to Christians. Love is the foundation of the gospel message. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). To know Jesus Christ is to know the clearest expression of the love of God. "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). The commandment to love is not new, but is the essential message of the "old, old story."

The love presented in the gospel of Christ is more than a feeling, it is a reality embodied in a sacrifice of eternal significance. The power of the gospel is not merely that God loves us somewhat, but that God loves us profoundly. That God loves us so much that Jesus died for our sins. To anyone believing the gospel message, the commandment to love is not new, but foundational. It is a basic understanding required to even become a Christian.

In contrast with Christians, the unregenerated world finds the commandment to love to be a new concept. Apart from an understanding of the Christian message, the commandment to love is peculiar and surprising. The world would never have brought forth a message of sacrificial love with the gospel's depth and power. In this sense, the command to love is forever new.

Jesus teaches this new understanding, using His life and love as an example for us to follow: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34,35). Faith in Jesus Christ is inseparable from the experience of God's love. It is impossible for someone so enlightened to continue to walk in darkness. Knowing the love of Christ, we understand how we are to reach out to others in love.

A profession of faith in Christ is not the same as the reality of saving faith. It is possible to know about Christ without ever experiencing His salvation. The experience of salvation, however, changes a person's life and outlook completely. Receiving the love of Christ, we are given power to be God's people, ordered and guided by that love.

by Mike Benson

Robert Fulghum, in one of his more recent books wrote,

"One of life's best coping mechanisms is to know the difference between an inconvenience and a problem. If you break your neck, if you having nothing to eat, if your house is on fire -- then you've got a problem. Everything else is an inconvenience. Life is inconvenient. Life is lumpy. A lump in the oatmeal, a lump in the throat, and a lump in the breast are not the same kind of lump. One needs to learn the difference."

What I hear Mr. Fulghum saying is that we need to learn perspective. I believe he is correct. The Bible says, "For our LIGHT AFFLICTION, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. While we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen" (2 Corinthians 4:17,18; emphasis mine--mb).

Was that problem you had today really a problem, or was it just an inconvenience (Hebrews 12:2,3)? Think about it.

by Mitchell Skelton

It seems that recently much ado is being made about Bible translations or versions. It is sad to see brothers and sisters in the Lord dividing over the issue of which version of the word of God one should use. Some brethren insist that the King James Version is the only version we should use, while others are adamant about using any version but the King James. It is in light of this controversy that I would like to offer some suggestions regarding translations.

Keep the issue of translations in perspective.

If everyone would be honest with themselves, I think we all could agree that anyone can be saved reading just about any translation. (There are a few exceptions, the New World Translation, for example.) Even more important is the logical progression of insisting on only one translation. If we insist that only one translation is acceptable, then are we also saying that the type of Bible one uses is an issue of salvation? I think it quite proper to suggest that God did not call us to convert people to a translation or to dispute with brethren about translations, but to save the lost and build up his church.

Be flexible concerning which translation you use.

When doing personal work or one-on-one evangelism, it is always best, if possible, to allow the person you are studying with to use his or her own translation.

Every translation is imperfect.

Few would argue that any one translation is without fault. The real issue that remains is, What version best expresses the original language in this particular verse? Each translation is a work of man and thus is subject to the limitations of man's knowledge and biases. Each translation is also subject to the "subjective science" of textual criticism, meaning simply which Greek text should be used when there is a variant.

Consider the source when someone criticizes a particular version.

The ultimate test of a translation is whether it faithfully represents the original, not whether it agrees with a favorite translation or a particular interpretation. The great majority of those who discuss translations are not qualified to judge for themselves the relative merits of differing Greek texts. To do so would require them to examine and judge the relative merits of the manuscripts on which the different Greek texts are based. Even if one had the ability to complete such an endeavor, it is questionable whether to do so would be an efficient use of a minister's time.

Evaluate a translation on the basis of the translator's purpose and methods.

Any student of the Word should read the foreword or introduction of any translation he is thinking about using. Some examples: The Amplified Bible was never intended to be read in public. Today's English Version is in simplified English for a purpose and that is why it is so different. A paraphrase should be judged and used as a paraphrase, not as a literal translation. The difference between the New International Version and the King James Version is largely a matter of a difference in translation theory and practice.

There is safety in numbers.

All else being equal, in translation there is "safety in numbers." Translations by committees are more likely to be trustworthy in their entirety than those by individuals. However, in particular verses, the best rendering may be from a translation by an individual.

Why not just translate word for word?

A literal translation is not always the best translation, for two reasons: (1) It will most likely be hard to read. (2) A word-for-word translation may not best express the meaning of the original language. There remains value in a more literal translation since it leaves less room for interpretation on the part of the translators and thus gives less opportunity for their biases to become part of the translation. However, there may also be value in a freer translation in that it may better get across the original idea although in different words.

Every translator has biases.

The reader should watch for certain biases to show up in the translation. However, the translator's biases will not necessarily be reflected in the translation. People often assume that liberal translators will offer corrupt translations. This is not necessarily true, for two reasons: (1) The highest value of scholarship is to be honest and deal fairly with the evidence; liberal scholars in general embrace this value. (2) Liberal scholars (defined as those who do not believe the Bible is inspired) have no reason to offer a corrupt translation because they do not believe in the Bible anyway.

For study use more than one translation.

It has been said that the best translation is a variety of translations. Comparing and contrasting various versions is often helpful in understanding a passage. One should avoid the tendency, however, to search through two dozen translations to find one that suits one's predetermined understanding of what a word or verse means.

Don't force people to stop using the King James Version.

Many people have used the King James for more years than many of us have been alive. It is not necessary nor wise to force these people to quit using it. However, if this version is used, the meaning of antiquated words and difficult passages must be explained. Furthermore, the minister needs to find a way to help people understand that what really matters is the original text of which the King James Version is a translation.

Don't force people to use the King James Version.

In my opinion, it is unwise to ask children or people who have never read the Bible to begin their study of Scripture by using the King James Version. To do so places an unnecessary stumbling block in their way. They must learn to read a different language with strange words before they can begin to understand what the Lord would have them do to be saved. There is no evidence that the Lord wanted the language of Scripture to be hard to read.

Much material for this article comes from Coy Roper, Notes on the New Testament.

by Stan Mitchell

"I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord" (Philippians 4:2).

Sometimes in a relationship it's a good idea to ask if this is an issue that really matters. There was once a marine master sergeant who would ask: "Is this the hill you wish to die on?"

There are times when a parent will have to put his foot down with a teenager. There are times when a spouse will have to talk about a hurtful thing the other did. But for the most part, these are issues where one demonstrates a great failure to trust the other. When church members or married partners' discussions are constantly about minor matters, things that won't make a bit of difference in eternity, then perhaps this is not the hill to die on!

Signs of this are when one parent is given a long list of the "proper" way (that would be my way, naturally) to do a thing while the other is away, or the demand to know what the other is doing, minute by minute while the other is away.

If the other person got the job done (even if it wasn't your way), wasn't that the point of the exercise in the first place?

Reasonable check-ins are one thing, but essentially micro managing the other person is an effort to control them. If you married an adult, then he (or she) does not need to be controlled. If you want your teenager to become an adult, you will have to allow him some discretion, so he will be able to learn how to do things independently, to mature. You don't have the right to control anybody.

If you must exercise controlling behavior, may I suggest self control?