Recently I planned a long road trip. But before I say more about that, I'll look at goals and signals that guided a long-ago traveler I respect and who influenced my current journeys. You can easily decode my highlighting system in the following quotes from Jesus and from the book of Acts. Buckle your seat belts, and let's go!

The Acts of the apostles record Jesus' students spreading out within Judea. They might have stayed in and close to the Jerusalem, but persecution there pushed them out, but only a little further into Judea.  It took a vision from the Spirit of God to compel a reluctant Peter to go to "all nations" within the Judean borders. It took a vision from the Spirit of God to compel Paul to go to "all nations".

By Acts 13, we find the first ventures beyond Judea.

Saul (later given the handle "Paul") was the real rambler. His journeys hit stop lights and green lights and detours. At each junction, well-meaning backseat drivers issued cautions. Advice is nice, but Paul preferred GPS: God's Powerful Spirit.

Later in Acts 16 , we find Paul and Silas stopped in Philippi. Jail will do that. Then an earthquake lets them go. Isn't that a sign? But what do they do? They stay, they don't go! Staying in jail results in the jailer and his family becoming disciples of Jesus.

In Acts 17, 18, and 19, Paul and his friends cruise around productively but I don't see much evidence of a long range plan. By Acts 20, however, Paul speaks of the Spirit leading him back to Jerusalem. We find that he has a vow to fulfill. This will involve chains. And afflictions. But Paul does not see this Jerusalem waypoint as off track from God's plan.

Agabus and the Tyres (a good name for a rock band) agree with Paul, that the Holy Spirit says going to Jerusalem will result in chains and captivity and maybe death. Paul looks beyond, to Jesus' previous calling and to God's commission, "to finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of God’s grace.”

If we look at Paul's subsequent letters, they each cite, perhaps several times and at length, God's historic assignment to Paul. For example:

“To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all people .... This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him. Therefore I ask you not to become discouraged about my tribulations in your behalf, since they are your glory.” (Ephesians 3)

Let's return to Acts 20:22-23. Paul says:

"And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that chains and afflictions await me. But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of God’s grace."

Paul points out that in his future he will likely be bound by chains. But now, more authoritatively, he is already bound by the Holy Spirit and God's assignment to him.

What binds you? What binds me?

There are of course responsibilities of life: gravity, brushing your teeth, paying taxes, obeying traffic rules. You and I didn't choose these, but physics, biology, government, and society impose them on us. 

Some bindings you and I have willingly accepted: marriage, family, religion, contracts, non-disclosure agreements, subscriptions, pet ownership, .... Well, maybe you have the illusion of choice--or the illusion that everything or some things are predestined. See Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will. 

However the relationship arose, imposed or voluntary, you probably sense a responsibility.  But the question remains: who pulls your strings?

You can calculate my age by the above YouTube selections, if not by the Bible versions. A problem I've recognized among people my age is fierce independence. I've had some health problems, but those were fixed. I won't need help from others!  I've got no strings to hold me down! Well, that's what I'd like to believe of myself, but I don't.

The New Testament contains around a thousand imperatives for those committed to Christ. These include, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and might." And: "Love your neighbor as yourself." There is,"Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness."

There are commended actions such as Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." and the humility of the man who prayed, "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner." There are admirable attitudes: "Blessed are the meek..."

There are a few imperatives that may be culturally conditioned: "Greet each other with a holy kiss."

There are virtues exhibited in parables: The good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the man who built his house upon rock.  There are fruits of the Spirit and gifts of the Spirit. And that's just the New Testament.

A Jewish writer considered these thousand-plus New Testament commandments, and remarked: “I find it intriguing that someone has attempted to formulate a Halakhah for Christians.” Biblical bulk is why in recent postings to this blog I've urged distilling out a few personal principles for easy application wherever and whenever you are faced with new challenges: a thoughtfully-chosen and tested Swiss Army Knife of life.

Do I go to Jerusalem or not? It wasn't the chains that decided Paul; it was his commitment to his commission.

I hope you enjoy most commitments you have made. I accept gladly several commitments I've made. I aim to be a promise keeper and honor those bindings, those vows: My commitment to Christ first of all; my resolution to do kindness and get discernment; non-disclosure agreements, other contracts and promises; and, despite release by my partner, my multi-strand marriage binding. I recently gained the unsought opportunity to renew some of those strands. This has risks and costs emotionally and financially. Yet, happily, I thank God and pray for wisdom and resources. 

I go bound.  Regarding essentials, no less and no more than ever.  Just: Goodbye, Virginia. Hello, California.  Some parts of where I've been continue with me.

I believe this is my 95th entry on the Surge Blog.  Hey, Martin Luther! I hope to add a few more entries. We will see.

The following dramatic goodbye song from 1995 speaks for me. Andrea Bocelli, the blind tenor here, was the first to perform this. There's a sad English translation that makes it sound like two people are separating forever. In the original Italian, clearly, repeatedly, there are two people going away together to a new place. An adequate translation follows below.

Con Te Partirò (I Will Leave With You) 
Francesco Sartori (music) and Lucio Quarantotto (lyrics)

When I'm alone and I dream of the horizon and words fail.
Yes, I know there's no light in a room when the sun is missing.
If you're not there with me, with me, up at the windows. 
Show everyone my heart that you lit.
Hold inside me the light that you met on the street.
I'll leave with you.
Countries I've never seen and lived with you
Now, yes, I'll live them. I'll leave with you
on ships across seas
that, I know: No, no, they no longer exist.
I'll live them with you.
When you're far away I dream on the horizon and words fail.
And I know That you're with me, with me.
You, my moon, you're here with me.
My sun, you're here with me
With me, with me, with me I'll leave with you!
Countries I've never, never seen and lived with you,
Now I'll live them. I'll leave with you.
On ships across seas that, I know: No, no, they no longer exist
With you I'll relive them, I'll leave with you.
On ships across seas that, I know: No, no, they no longer exist.
With you I'll relive them, I'll leave with you.
I'll leave with you, I with you.

​The Declaration of Independence


​I endeavor to re-read the Declaration of Independence every fourth of July. It is one of those seminal documents that is as good as you remember it being. So many things that we take for granted, representation with taxation, trial jury by our peers, the idea that each of us is created equal and endowed with foundational rights… all of these things were not a given in the civilizations of the world to that point.

America pulled from the greatest political thinking of the ages and added a bit of their own, to make something new, and something extraordinary in the new nation.

In Virginia, there is an area called “Colonial Williamsburg” where historical recreation is done in a makeshift township. You can talk to the blacksmith as he works the forge. You can sit in on a hearing for local jurisprudence in the church. You get a sense of how things were in the beginning of our Republic and the issues of the Declaration are much closer at hand. 

One of the presenters collected the letters of James Madison, and with a team of writers, this professional actor put together a speech of Madison’s own words, producing a coherent vision of America, highlighting the core values that bind us together. I have to say, at the end of that, I was ready to put out some lawn signs for the framer of our Constitution and the primary author of the Bill of Rights. His words were glorious, they were clear, they were surprisingly relevant to our current political climate and above all, they were good.

God send us a James Madison, with brilliance and balance, with compassion and a singular vision of political clarity to cut through all the noise!

Jumping back to the Declaration, I encourage you to read it. It will go faster than you think.

And as you do, consider the idea of an America where the heart of our government is service  to its people. That the institutions of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial were framed and formed to create an environment for human flourishing to remove impediments of injustice and the lack of opportunities that arise when we are something less than free. When we don’t have the ability to choose a path forward and give it a crazy amount of focus and attention. When our systems stop accelerating these ideals, or worse, actively stand in their way, those systems need to be altered or abolished.

So we did. 

America isn’t perfect, and you could even make the argument that we might have jumped the gun on a number of foundational things: the Revolutionary War, our handling of slavery (or refusing to handle the issue of slavery) resulting in a devastating Civil War, the horrible relocation of indigineous tribes. You could go down the list… for all of our greatness and success, and generosity that we have extended to the world, in many ways past and present, America is a mixed bag. We are both the pinnacle of human civilization and capable of incredibly selfish and terrible things.

But the ideological starting point is a good one. Everyone, created equal. There are foundational rights of human dignity and worth, tied to Imago Dei, leading to the inescapable conclusion that life is precious, we are born to a magnificent purpose, and we can’t step into God’s best unless we are free. Free to do what we “ought” to do, free to be who we are created to be.

Take a moment and consider where we are in the tapestry of history. What part do we play in the world today to freely bless this generation? What do we turn away from to become a light in this time? How do we become a society that shines, as individuals, and as a nation, into the earth in a way that illuminates goodness to the end of the age?

Can we re-affirm the self-evidence truths and speak them anew? Can we step into the things that our forefathers saw as God working a new thing in our world? 

Can we declare independence from anything that would hold us and our families back from God’s plan for us?

“The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.” ~Tim Keller


If the Gospel is an open question for you, you probably have 100 problems, 1000 questions, 5 objections, it might be a long list.  What I’d like to suggest is a radical idea. Clear all of that off the table for a minute and ask 1 question.

Did Jesus really rise from the dead? 

Because if He did, He can answer any question, solve any problem, quiet any objection. And for everyone who hears this, this is VERY good news. The world is filled with reasons not to go, it’s too cold, there’s no rain, the soil is bad. But I want to challenge you. Make the trip, see for yourself. Taste and see that the Lord is good. Think deeply about these stories that have come down to us to help us. Have a piece of fish, and let that blow your mind!

Know that the Resurrection is not just for Jesus, but it’s for us as well. When He opened that door, He opened it for all of us - His power can restore us, right here, right now, today. And on that final day, all the ones who have passed away will rise again and stand in the presence of God, Who is both loving and holy. And we’ll give an account of what we did with the Gifts He has given us.

Here's a recent message from the Surge, exploring this idea, and below is a single section, pulled from that message!

_______________________________

I'm not Aquinas (just in case anyone was wondering), but a simplified form of his question / objection format might be useful here.

Question: Could the Resurrection be based on a Hallucination? We know sometimes people hallucinate things that can seem very real...

Such experiences are not uncommon among people who have suffered a traumatic loss or who are under extreme emotional stress or psychological stress. Were the disciples in extreme stress?

Surely.

Jesus, who they thought was the Son of God, the Messiah, the One Who was going to literally fix the broken world, just got arrested and executed. Very horribly, and very publicly. Of course they were freaked out!

Now can you have a group of people who thought they saw something they didn’t actually see? Sure. David Copperfield makes good money doing this 150 times a year.

Objection:
But there are two reasons I don’t find this compelling.  My first objection would be that the post Resurrections sightings were too spread out. This idea becomes much less believable if you have to say that Mary hallucinated, THEN Peter hallucinated, THEN the guys on the Road to Emmaus hallucinated, followed by 10 disciples in a room, THEN another hallucination by 7 disciples on the beach, THEN another hallucination of 500 people at once - all having similar, sometimes individual, sometimes shared hallucinations that all are consistent and pointing the same direction.

Luke 24:40-43

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

My second objection is that hallucinations don’t eat fish As reality checks go, that’s pretty good. And it was really after the snack that they all relaxed and were able to accept this amazing event.

This may be an idea worth developing... Snack Theology anyone?

When I was a kid, I watched a cow jump up and finally get over, an eight foot fence. I could walk you through it, a highly amusing sequence of events.

But on the face of it, that is a ridiculous story. Cows don't jump well. They certainly don't make Olympic level leaps, and yet... and yet... it happened.

What would I give as evidence?

- There are still multiple people who are alive, who were there that day, who witnessed it
- It was a type of cow (a charolais) that is notorious for being weirdly athletic and panicky at a younger age
- We might look for pieces of the corral, with scratches and hoof marks on the top of one of the sections
- I saw it with my own eyes, and can answer detailed questions about the events of the day

When we talk about the idea of believing something like the Resurrection, we have to agree on what level of evidence is reasonable to justify such an incredible state of belief. While we might say some "sciency" things about the Passion, that isn't going to be our best approach. Like my flying cow story, I can't recreate the experiment or have it peer reviewed in a repetitive, replicated, lab controlled, duly recorded, falsifiable experiment. We have to turn to other means of investigation and deciding up or down.

As we go, it turns out that rules of evidence related to facts / criminal justice are a great path to consider. By that standard, we could verify the cow story in a way that would satisfy a jury and a court of law. And it may not surprise you to note, that a number of very bright scholars through history have become believers in this kind of investigation into the Resurrection. 

Over four blog posts, I'll try to briefly outline the strongest arguments against the Resurrection, and (also briefly) I will explain why there is a coherent and often compelling alternative.

First up is the Misidentification Theory: This one says that the people who claimed to have seen Jesus after his death could have mistaken someone else for him. This explanation is supported by the fact that the appearances of Jesus occurred in the early morning or at night, when visibility was poor. According to this theory, the individuals who encountered the person they believed to be Jesus were not intentionally deceiving others, but rather were mistaken in their identification. The events surrounding Jesus' death and burial were chaotic and traumatic, which may have led to confusion and mistaken identity.

The problem here is that there were numerous encounters, with hundreds of people and it becomes implausibly that they all made the same mistake. But let’s take a look at the encounter’s Jesus has after Easter:

Interactions Jesus had with people after the resurrection:

Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-18
Other women: Matthew 28:9-10

Interesting here is that in Roman society at this time in history, women did not have equal legal status under Roman law. So they couldn’t vote, or hold, public office, or testify in court. In every account, Jesus appears first to the women. Many historians are fascinated by this because it’s unusual in historical terms. The only reason to add this to the account was because it’s what actually happened.

Peter: Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus: Luke 24:13-32

Ten apostles (excluding Thomas): Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19-23
Eleven apostles (including Thomas): John 20:24-29

Seven apostles by the Sea of Galilee: John 21:1-25
Eleven apostles on a mountain in Galilee: Matthew 28:16-20

James (Jesus' brother): 1 Corinthians 15:7

Five hundred people at once: 1 Corinthians 15:6

Paul: Acts 9:1-9, 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, Galatians 1:11-17

It is hard to believe that people who lived with Jesus for years, his closest friends and family members, would buy into a doppelganger sighting that they agreed with unwavering force was the risen Christ. It was a single sighting in the fog, at night, that might have been... instead there is account, after account, after account. 

We see people talking with Him, walking with Him, eating with Him, touching Him, sometimes in extended periods of time with clear interaction and recognition. We see a lot of different occasions of very different people meeting Jesus, in a variety of context - and all of them coming to the same conclusion.

He is Christ, and He is risen.

For the complete message outlining this idea, check out:

Resurrection One

Sometime in my youth a preacher suggested personalizing Biblical promises and commands.  Thus:

“God so loved Greg that he gave his only begotten son…” and,
“Greg shalt have no other Gods before me….”
 
When I was older—like, ten minutes later—it occurred to me that personalizing the Bible could be abused.  I found 1 Samuel 15. I could personalize it! “Now, Greg, go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

I did not know any Amalekites, but I had suspicions about a local bully.
 
I was reminded of Bible personalization when I was looking for birthday cards and found this one:

I used to have no trouble treating Philippians 1:6 as yet another promise to me, especially if I kept the whole sentence:

“He who began a good work in Greg will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
 
Hold up your hand if you feel this verse encourages you individually to trust that God is completing you, as a master carpenter would complete a construction project.
 
Stretch your hand even higher if this verse assures you that God’s work in you personally won’t stop until heaven.

OK, that’s fine. Individual growth does happen, thanks to God's work and Spirit evidenced in virtues such as I cited in recent posts. You know, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, smiting. But here’s my thesis:
 
Individual growth is not what this verse promises, at least not directly.
 
This verse invites me not to a solitary hike, not to pilgrim’s progress. It calls me to get on the bus.

Philippians 1:6 is about the church. It assures church perseverance!  The good work God has done among us, God will complete. Growth in number of members is not excluded, but saying Philippians 1:6 is about headcount overlooks qualitative good ways in which God works in a group, invisible and highly visible community virtues such as love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, wise counsel, and more. Can a community be peaceful and encouraging? Yes it can.
 
Of course, growth as a community comes from God working on individuals. Church growth tends both to benefit from individual spiritual growth and lead to individual personal growth. Yes indeedy. But just as it would have been inappropriate for me to go off on my own and smack Amalekites, Philippians 1:6 is not so much a personal promise as a corporate encouragement: Church, our God will complete his work among you. That God will bring peace and generosity to a community is exponentially more astonishing than the claim that God will bring peace and generosity to me. It must be something in the water, right? If in Moses' time one first-born died, that's the breaks.  If all the first-borns die... that's a scary miracle.  Similarly, sometimes a person matures. That's pleasantly remarkable. If a community matures... now that's a scary miracle. It was by such a corporate miracle that the early church grew.

There are two ways I aim to prove that, “He who began a good work in you,” refers to the church: by context and by grammar.

Read the opening of Philippians. Imagine that a messenger such as Timothy or Epaphroditus or a local leader such as Liddie or Jay Lorr is presenting this letter. Does the epistle to the Philippians ever address some individual? Or is this a letter to the group?

Philippians chapter 1 verses 1-7

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,
because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in  you  will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace…

You can easily scan through the four chapters of Philippians. Paul speaks collectively to "brothers", "brothers and sisters". "saints", "every saint". "children of God" and so on.

That was context. Now grammar.

A long time ago, a teacher asked me to name three pronouns.  I said, "What? Who? Me?"

As painful as English grammar can be, pretty much all other languages each have more complex grammars. The Greek language has two distinct word families that translate to the one English pronoun "you".

1. For one singular sensation, individual “you”, Greek has a whole word family pronounced sue.  This is the pronoun recorded in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus says, "You are Peter," Sue ei Petros.  Philippians has exactly one verse containing a singular sue:
 
   Philippians 4:3
       Yes, I ask you also, true companion,
       help these women,…

2. The other 36 occurrences of English "you" in Philippians come from the Greek word family pronounced who-mays. Grammatically, this references a collective such as an army or political party. John the Baptist uses this plural who-mays "you" twice when he trash-talks the Pharisees and Sadducees: "YOU bunch of snakes! Who warned YOU to run from the coming judgment?" 

Like apparently all languages except English, the Spanish language distinguishes between singular and plural "you". Below is what Wadmar tells me is the most-used Español Bible translation, highlighting the “you” words. 

• The quotes from Philippians 1 are plural "you". 
• The quote from Philippians 4:3 is the solitary singular "you" in Philippians.

Filipenses 1:6-7 Reina-Valera 1960 (plural “you” vosotros)
estando persuadido de esto, que el que comenzó en vosotros la buena obra, la perfeccionará hasta el día de Jesucristo; 
como me es justo sentir esto de todos vosotros, por cuanto os tengo en el corazón; y en mis prisiones, y en la defensa y confirmación del evangelio, todos vosotros sois participantes conmigo de la gracia.
 
Filipenses 4:3 Reina-Valera 1960 (singular “you” ti)
Asimismo te ruego también a ti, compañero fiel, que ayudes a estas…
 
For up-to-date Español contemporáneo everywhere outside Spain:
 
Filipenses 1:6-7 Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011  (plural “you” ustedes)
Estoy persuadido de que el que comenzó en ustedes la buena obra, la perfeccionará hasta el día de Jesucristo.
Es justo que yo sienta esto por todos ustedes, porque los llevo en el corazón. Tanto en mis prisiones como en la defensa y confirmación del evangelio, todos ustedes participan conmigo de la gracia.
 
Filipenses 4:3 Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011  (singular “you” ti)
También a ti, mi compañero fiel, te ruego que ayudes a éstas …

I suspect many English translations ignore the difference between singular "you" and plural "you" because:

(a) Tradition!
(b) Let context reign. Same-sentence singular context such as “you are Peter” and plural “you bunch of snakes” should be obvious. Larger scope such as the greetings in Philippians, Ephesians, etc., simply requires alertness from readers. Never mind birthday cards, one-verse devotions, and its-all-about-me.
(c) When your translation credo is word-for-word, then Greek "en" otherwise maps cleanly to English "in". That means we must add a word, changing "you" to "you all", or "all of you".
(d) We come to Christ as individuals. Whatever benefits the church tends to occur by individual growth or result in individual growth. Still, if we take Philippians 1:6 as about a work of God on our team and in our team, that makes a difference.

In any case, few English Bible translations clearly distinguish source plural “you” from singular “you”.

• The 1901 ASV and 1994 KJ21 follow the 1611 KJV in using "ye" for singular (Phil 4:3) and "you" for plural (Phil 1:6, etc.). The 1982 NKJV uses "you" for both singular and plural.
• The CSB and NET relegate plural “among you” to a footnote.* 
• The PNT uses inline brackets: “in [among] you....” 
• The NRSVA and VOICE use “among you”.

    * but who reads footnotes?

The prize for most nearly consistent word-by-word attention to Greek and Hebrew second person plural and some other nuances goes to https://yallversion.com. Singular "you" Sue remains "you" and plural "you" who-mays becomes “y'all”! I've found some omissions but not nearly as many as other English language translations.

Philippians chapter 1, Y'all Version:
 
¹ Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: ² Grace and peace to y’all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
³ I thank my God every time I remember y’all. ⁴ In every prayer for all y’all, I always pray with joy,  ⁵ because of y’all’s partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, ⁶ being confident of this very thing, that ʜᴇ who began a good work in y’all will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ. ⁷ It is right for me to think this way about all y’all, because I have y’all in my heart, since both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, all y’all are partakers of grace with me. ⁸ For God is my witness, how I long for y’all in the affection of Christ Jesus.

Philippians chapter 4, Y'all Version:
¹ Therefore, my beloved siblings whom I long for, my joy and crown, y’all stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.
² I urge Euodia, and I urge Syntyche, to think the same way in the Lord.
³ Yes, true partner, I ask you to help these women who have struggled together with me in the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
⁴ Y’all rejoice in the Lord always! Again I will say, “Rejoice y’all!”

Footnote: Would you be surprised the Y'All Version comes from a Dallas Theological Seminary guy?

Reading a singular "you" when there's really a Greek plural "you" makes a big difference in Luke 17:21. The KJV and at least two dozen other versions have Jesus say,

   "For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."

A couple more say, "the Kingdom of God is inside you."

However, the "you" in the Greek source is genitive plural: ὑμῶν, pronounced who-moan. Thus, I'm with two dozen or more English translations that render this verse,

   "The kingdom of God is among you", or "the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Hey, the context of Luke 17:21 has Jesus addressing multiple Pharisees. I don't think Jesus is claiming that the kingdom of God is within a "white-washed tomb."

The plural pronoun makes me side with the Y'All version. I find "Empire" a little strange, but can live with it.

 “ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find  sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”

 A.J. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner (1928) ch 6.

Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards was 19 in late 1722 when he began journaling for a year his personal to-do list. Entries include:

You can read all seventy of Edwards’ resolutions here. A modern language version is here.

I admire Edwards’ desire for excellence but question the mechanism. As a bear of very little brain, I’d probably miss the moment to act while pondering which of my seventy resolutions applied.

Jesus observed of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, “they make strict rules and try to force people to obey them, but they are unwilling to help those who struggle under the weight of their rules.”

The Hebrew Bible offered 613 commands. King David highlighted eleven in Psalm 15. Isaiah 33 identifies six. Two virtues, wisdom and respect for the Almighty, drive the Proverbs.  Micah 6 spotlights three life practices: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Isaiah 56 identifies two life rules: “Preserve justice and do what is right.” Amos 5 compressed the Law into one aspiration given by God: “Seek Me and live!”

Meanwhile, over in Greece, the Stoics and later Plato and Aristotle identified four ethical elements: justice, wisdom, fortitude, and temperance. They considered justice as the virtue that best benefits society. To these Church authorities added faith, hope, and love, for a total of seven “cardinal virtues”.

Elsewhere in a world not-fictional-enough, what is best in life was debated:

Outside Christianity, one finds similar reductions of life principles. The five Confucian Ideals are: Rén (仁) compassion with generosity; Yì (義) honesty with lawfulness; Lǐ  (理) respect in relationships and worship; Zhì (智)  wisdom with knowledge; and Xìn (信) faithful integrity. More links: Buddhist ideals….  Islamic Character…. “The only Hindu value of note is ahimsa (non-violence) and all moral issues can be effectively explored though it.”

In stark contrast to the Barbarian, Greek, Roman, and other proposed virtues, you surely already know that Jesus and his followers repeatedly spotlight one virtue, unselfish love.

It's diabolically indicating that the English language and several other modern languages have lost a single noun and a single verb to name unselfish love. The Hebrew Bible uses אהבה  (love, pronounced ah-hah-vah) and חֶסֶד (loving-kindness, pronounced khes-ed).  The Greek Bible has ἀγάπη (pronounced ah-gah-pay).  Agape is “the greatest of these” (1 Corinthians 13). Unfortunately, in English the word “love” can apply to ice cream or to a romantic interest or patriotism; to a passing infatuation or to a lifetime of faithfulness. So Christians are apt to say “agape love” rather than the ambiguous “love”.

Jesus prioritized ἀγάπη: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

This can be stated less colorfully:

Love God with everything you have.

The giving of everything is demonstrated in the ensuing story of the Good Samaritan.

I am a bear with very little brain. My governance consists of two resolutions of two words each.

I start with a less ambiguous form of “love”: kindness. This carries a sense of gentle unselfishness; but fierce kindness exists too.  "Be kind" is too passive for my purposes. English lacks an unambiguous verb form of “kindness”, but that’s easy to fix: “Do kindness.”

As a farm boy, I tried to be kind to abandoned baby birds, forsaken bunnies, injured possums, and exploited turtles. I left many small corpses behind in the process. Thus experience tells me, kindness without discernment is not kindness. So, I add a rule 2. Here are my rules:

1. Do kindness.
   
2. Get discernment.

I am not proud that these two lack Christian orientation. But this serves. For example, every time I visit a physician these days, I am asked a wellness question like, what did you accomplish this week?  The assistants and MDs are pleasantly intrigued by these two goals and my adventures in their pursuit.

These two are both preamble and implementation for guiding scriptures, including the following:

The pursuit of discernment requires humility and... SCIENCE!  I have continuing ignorance, biases, and need to learn. Per Socrates: “I do not think I know.” Or better, per Jeremiah: