I've decided to compile a list of everyone who is on Pleonast that I have actually met in person. I'm sure the list is not yet exhaustive. You can find the list here. If you're not on the list and feel you should be, remind me of when I met you. :^)

If you'd like to be added to my friends list and have access to the private blogs, leave a message and I'll take it under consideration.

As a gold member, I'm exercising my option to go private. My friends list is short at the moment. If you'd like to be added, leave a message and I'll take it under consideration.

"Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens
And if I stand or I fall
It's all or nothing at all
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes"

Have you ever felt like this about religion? That people take one of two extreme positions if an effort to counter the errors of the other extreme?

Consider salvation. Protestants push grace to the exculsion of obedience. Christians push obedience to the exclusion of grace. Isn't the truth in the middle? Are both important to our salvation? It happened in Biblical times too. Romans appears to be the answer to those who depend solely on their own works. James, on the other hand, appears to answer those sit back and expect God to take them for a ride.

I've said all of that to get to this: I see a lot of this type of positioning with regard to the woman's role in the home. Some go to Titus 2 and claim if a woman who is married does any kind of work outside the home, she isn't a true homemaker. Others go to Proverbs 31 and claim that it's perfectly fine to work 40-60 hours a week, neglecting husband and children (who spend all that time being raised by someone other than their parents), because the "worthy woman" bought fields and made clothing to sell. Isn't the truth somewhere in the middle? Does anyone really believe that the worthy woman held down a 40 hour-a-week job? Does anyone really believe that the women in Titus 2 never left their homes?

It is obvious that the worthy woman did many things that were financially beneficial for her family. That included buying fields and making clothing to sell. She also arose before daylight to make food for the entire household. I find if funny that it is so rare that anyone talks about that verse in Proverbs 31. With that said, it doesn't take a long look at Titus 2 to figure out that it is not God's intent for women to be "bread winners" for the household. Isn't that command given to the husband? How many young women have not been taught to "to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands," because the women who are supposed to be teaching them these things are too busy working their full-time jobs to practice them, let alone teach them?

I actually heard a preacher say from the pulpit that Titus 2 doesn't really mean that older women have to actually teach, it just means that they have to be an example of those things. First, that is a ridiculous statement. Second, if they're not practicing those things, how are they an example of them?

Jesus said, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." Unfortunately, it seems that many times our decisions in this area are dictated by what we want, not what God wants. Some will say, "You can't prove to me that such-and-such is wrong." Fine. You're probably right. But, by the same token, can you really look me (or anyone) in the eye and say, "This is what God wants me to do."? Do we really believe that God wants wives to spend more time in the work-place than they do caring for their husbands and children and seeing those needs met? On the flip side, do we really believe that God wants wives to stay in the house all the time and never do anything that might be considered "work outside the home"? If that's the case, then the worthy woman wasn't very worthy, was she?

I think we get caught up in the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality (apologies if your name really is Jones) more than we want to admit. How often have you heard "I have to work." Well, wives have to work in order to have that nicer home that we never enjoy because we're too busy working. Or they have to work to support our other lifestyle choices and all the toys we want in life. Are there situations where a wife might actually have to work? Certainly. But it's not as often as some folks would have us believe. And how about we quit using the exception to redefine the rule.

This is really hitting home with me right now. I look at my co-workers and hear about where they live and think "I can't afford a house in that neighborhood, and they should be making about what I make." And then I think, "If my wife had a full-time job, we could afford that house, too." Not because I want my wife working full-time, it's just a recognition that that is how they afford what I can't. I think I'll just live with the smaller home (whenever we end up buying).

by Andy Diestelkamp
via Think Magazine

"You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve," (Matt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8). Jesus responded to Satan's temptation in this manner, making it clear that only Jehovah is worthy of worship (Jehovah is the name of the God of the Hebrews--See Ex. 3:1-18; Deut. 6:13).

Why Jehovah God alone is deserving of this level of respect and adoration is clearly announced in John's vision of the heavenly throne (Rev. 4). In that spectacular scene the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders gave glory, honor, and thanks to Almighty God (vs. 9) while they cast their crowns before Him "who lives forever and ever" in humble recognition of God's superiority and grace (vs. 10). These worshipers declared that God was worthy of this worship because He created all things and all things exist by His will (vs. 11).

Likewise it is clear that created beings are not worthy of the kind of worship that is to be directed toward God. There are some notable examples of this preserved for us. When Peter (by divine order) came to Cornelius, the centurion "fell down at [Peter's] feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up saying, 'Stand up; I myself am also a man'" (Ac. 10:25,26).

None can forget Herod's failure to restrain the people "who kept shouting, 'The voice of a god and not of a man'" (Ac. 12:22). He was punished "because he did not give glory to God" (vs. 23).

Even angels who are higher than men (Heb. 2:7) are not worthy of worship. Twice John fell down to worship the angel which spoke to him. Both times the angel stopped him and bluntly said, "Worship God" (Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Neither the human nor spiritual messenger is worthy of worship--only God.

The exclusivity of worshiping Jehovah as God has prompted some to question whether "Jesus of Nazareth, a man..." (Ac. 2:22) is worthy of the kind of worship reserved for God.

In answering this, keep in mind why Jehovah is worthy of worship (Rev. 4:11) and then read the introduction to John's account of Jesus' life (Jn. 1:1-3). The Word was in the beginning with God and was Himself God. Every created thing was made by the Word. The twenty-four elders cast their crowns before Him who sat on the throne because He created all things; it is therefore reasonable and right to worship the Word for the same reason.

The fact that the Word became flesh (vs. 14) in no way changes the fact that He created all things. That the Word emptied Himself, came in the likeness of men, and humbled Himself to the point of dying on the cross does not in any sense diminish His worthiness to be worshiped then or now. Indeed, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil. 2:7-10).

Scripture testifies to the worthiness of Jesus to receive the worship of men both while in the flesh and after His exaltation. Consider the response of Jesus' disciples after He came to them walking on the water. He had just saved Peter from the consequences of his little faith. This all took place just after they had witnessed the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves and two fish. They had previously heard demons that Jesus had cast out declare Him to be the Son of God (Matt. 8:29). Already the people had surmised that Jesus was the Prophet and tried to annoint Him king--Messiah (Jn. 6:14,15). "Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God!'" (Matt. 14:33). They are not just bowing down to Him to be nice or because they want something from Him. They are not merely paying homage to His power. They have connected the dots and have come to the awesome conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God. It is with this awe that they worship Him.

If Jesus was not worthy of the kind of worship reserved for God, then why didn't He rebuke His disciples as Peter did to Cornelius or the angel did to John? If Jesus is inappropriately taking glory that belongs only to God, why is He not struck as Herod was? The only conclusion is that Jesus is worthy of the kind of worship reserved for God because He was (and is) deity. He, too, wears the name of Jehovah. (Consider comparisons of Heb. 1:10 with Psa. 102:1,25; Joel 2:32 with Ac. 2:21,22 and Rom. 10:9-13; and Isa. 40:3 with Jn. 1:22-36).

The worthiness of Jesus to receive our worship is confirmed by returning to the throne scene in Revelation 5 and observing that the four creatures and twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb (vs. 8) just as they had before "Him who sits on the throne" (4:9,10). If it was worship to Lord God Almighty, it was worship to the Lamb. The Lamb was worthy to receive, among other things, honor and glory (5:12). Indeed the hosts of heaven and earth worshiped the Lamb as they worshiped "Him who sits on the throne" (vss. 13,14). Therefore, let us who hope and wait for the "glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13) give glory and honor to Him who is worthy of our worship.

I used this passage in a short talk during our worship last night:

Luke 7:36-48 - And one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And going into the Pharisee's house, He reclined. And behold, a woman, a sinner in the city, knowing that He reclined in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster vial of ointment. And she stood behind Him, weeping at His feet, and she began to wash His feet with tears and wipe them with the hair of her head. And she ardently kissed His feet and anointed them with the ointment. But seeing this, the Pharisee who had invited Him, spoke within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what kind of woman this is who touches him, for she is a sinner. And answering, Jesus said to him, Simon, I have something to say to you. And he said, Teacher, speak. There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And they having nothing to pay, he freely forgave both. Then which of them do you say will love him most? And answering, Simon said, I suppose that one to whom he forgave most. And He said to him, You have judged rightly. And He turned to the woman and said to Simon, Do you see this woman? I entered into your house, yet you gave Me no water for My feet. But she has washed My feet with tears, and has wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with ointment. Therefore I say to you, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, he loves little. And He said to her, Your sins are forgiven.
****************************************************************




Question: Did the Phariseee need forgiveness less (or even less forgiveness)? Or, did the woman simply recognize her need more than he did?