Monday, March 24, 2008

Jumping to Conclusions

Recently I heard a sermon that was based entirely on an unwarranted conclusion.

The preacher was contrasting Demas and Barnabas. Demas is only mentioned three times in the New Testament: here are those three instances in chronological (but not textual) order:
Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.
Philemon 1:23-24
Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.
Colossians 4:14
Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica.
2 Timothy 4:9-10a

The preacher pointed out how Demas was at one time a fellow-worker, a "good guy", but that near the end of Paul's life had deserted Christ because he "loved this world". He then went on to preach that Demas had become a child of Satan (I don't recall if those were the preacher's words, but it's the meaning I got from his sermon).

It seemed very harsh and judgmental to me.

Perhaps my thinking capability is faulty, but it seems to me that the preacher's conclusion is not warranted, especially when you look a bit closer at the context.

As part of his comparison of Demas with Barnabas, he pointed out Acts 15 which talks about Paul and Barnabas wanting to revisit the churches they had earlier established. On their earlier trip they had taken John Mark, who deserted them part way through the trip. Now Barnabas is wanting to take John Mark again, but Paul won't have anything to do with John Mark, and the result is that Paul and Barnabas go their separate ways.

The preacher was focusing on Barnabas and how he was an encourager (Barnabas means "son of encouragement"), as opposed to Demas who had "become a son of Satan". But he missed the detail about Paul's bitterness at being abandoned. Obviously Paul doesn't cotton to folks who may have good intentions but bail on him for whatever reason.

We don't know why John Mark deserted them on their first missionary trip. Nor do we know why Demas deserted Paul, other than that he "loved this world". We do know that Paul has already demonstrated a bitterness about being deserted.

The preacher equated this loving of the world that Demas was guilty of with the love of the world condemned in 1 John 2:15 -- "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." I'm not entirely confident that the two similar phrases mean the same thing in both contexts. (Nor am I convinced they don't mean the same thing -- that's my point: the evidence is not clear one way or the other, so don't just choose one way and then turn that into "Gospel Truth".)

When we read further in 2 Timothy 4, we find that Demas is not the only one that deserted Paul:
Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
14Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.
16At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them.
Paul is in prison; all his friends have abandoned him for one reason or another. He has enemies. It's not surprising that he might feel some bitterness, and that's consistent with his behavior many years earlier in conjunction with John Mark.

It seems to me that Demas left, like everyone else, when the heat got too great against those who supported Paul (v. 16a). But Paul, realizing that he was letting his anger get the better of him in his letter to Timothy, then asserted his discipleship of Jesus by forgiving those deserters -- "May it not be held against them."

Maybe Demas really does belong to a different class of deserters than do these others that Paul is forgiving; after all, Demas is the only one specifically mentioned as having loved the world. But it seems to me that all the deserters loved the world, trying to save their own skins by "gettin' while the gettin's good". Perhaps Paul was more bitter toward him than toward the others, since they had been so close to each other. I don't want to excuse Demas' failure to be faithful, but neither do I want to condemn him without warrant. As far as I know, he's just like Peter, who denied the Lord three times at the Lord's trial, after swearing just a few hours earlier that he'd never do such a thing. Peter repented. Perhaps Demas did also. The point is, we just don't know.

And to claim that we do know that Demas lost his salvation based on this flimsy evidence is, to my mind, going beyond the text.

I think much of the problem is in the equating of Demas' love of the world with the love of the world condemned in 1 John 2:15. But just because the phraseology is similar, does not necessarily mean the meaning is similar. After all, there's another place with similar phrasing -- John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world ...". (I'm not implying that Demas loved the world the same way God did; that's obviously not the case. But my point is that similar phraseology can mean different things in different contexts.)

Demas may have indeed turned his back on Jesus, but without better evidence, I'm withholding judgment against him, choosing to believe the best of him (1 Cor. 13:7 AMP), and choosing to hope that like Peter, he returned into the fold of the Master, and like the other deserters, that he was included in Paul's prayer that desertion would not be held against them.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Branson, Missouri

I've spent the past three days in Branson, Missouri. Branson is billed as something like "the family-friendly capital of entertainment", bigger than Broadway, perhaps. They have something like 70 theatres with live performances.

I didn't come here to see the shows; I came here to drive my parents to meet three couples from church here, so they could all go see the shows. Still, I wound up going to see three shows:

Red, Hot, and Blue - a song-and-dance broadly covering the decades of the 1900's.

Comedy Jamboree - a song-and-dance interspersed with comedy a la "Hee Haw".

Legends in Concert - performances by "legends": Buddy Holly, Marilyn Monroe, George Strait, Ed Sullivan, the Blues Brothers, Elvis. It was particularly funny when seductive Marilyn came into the audience and fingered (literally, on the forehead) my friend David to come up on the stage with her. What a hoot!

I'm glad to have had the experience. It's not my type of usual entertainment, and I certainly balked at the pricing (I think the lowest we paid for a ticket was $14; many were $30, but with shopping around at the discount ticket outlets and coupon books, usually you could get those at a 2-for-1 deal - which is fine if you're not a third wheel, like I have been this trip).

The strip, the main road with most of the theatres and hotels and restaurants, was underplanned by the city fathers; it's just a two-lane with a center left-turn lane. That's been the biggest negative of town. Otherwise, it's a nice little town; size about 6000, most of the amenities you might want, clean. I'm sure there's crime here, but it doesn't feel crime-y.

The performers, and restaurant workers, and ticket sellers, etc, have all seemed like decent folks, many making references to God and country. It's a good place. If you're into live performances, I believe I can recommend this town. (And the pricing of the hotels are lower than anywhere else I've seen (although I'm not a great traveler), and the other prices are normal - not inflated like you might expect in a tourist town.) And the mountainous environment is refreshing for this West Texas dweller.

So pack up the family and come to Branson.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Filthy Rags?

I was asked by someone what I meant by this phrase:

I'm thrilled, and awed, and crushed, to think of bearing the name of YHWH/Yeshua. It's such an honor, and yet such a burden because I know my best right-ness (which I seldom attain to) is as filthy rags.

And so I answer with the following:

It's an honor to wear the name YHWH/Yeshua (Yeshua = Hebrew for Joshua --> Ancient Greek = Iesous --> Olde Englishe = Jesus), like it might be an honor for a bride, very much in love with her husband, to take on her husband's name. (Ten years later she might not feel the same, but for the first few weeks at least ....) It's exciting to adopt the name "Yeshua" as part of my own.

But on the other hand, I know I'm not worthy of wearing the name.

The Message" version of the Bible puts it this way, in Isaiah 64:6:

We're all sin-infected, sin-contaminated.
Our best efforts are grease-stained rags.

The King James Version puts it a little more literally:

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags....

The point is that even if I'm going to church every time the door is open, and even if I'm giving 50% of my income to the church and/or the poor/needy, and even if I'm preaching on every street corner and converting 50 people a day, and even if I know the Bible so well I can quote the entire thing from memory, and even if I pray better and more effectively than Elijah, and even if I perform great miracles in the name of God, and even if every word out of my mouth glorifies God --- no matter how good I am, it's nothing compared to the goodness of God.

And the fact of the matter is, my best goodness doesn't come up anywhere near to what I just described in the previous paragraph. If that kind of goodness is as filthy rags before God, how much less my feeble attempts at righteousness must be.

In my church culture, I grew up being taught that we are saved because we teach and live righteousness. And yes, that is and should be the goal. But what I was never taught, and what many Christians never learn, is that no matter how good and clean and righteous we might appear on the outside, down deep inside, in our darkest depths, in the places we've forgotten exist inside of us because we'd be horrified if we ever actually looked at them, we are "full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" (Matt. 23:27). My church culture has always dismissed this statement of Jesus as applying to those "horrible, hypocritical Pharisees", and to "denominationalists", but never to ourselves, because "we love The Truth".

I was in my forties before I realized that sin dwells in me. Oh sure, I knew I sometimes sinned, but that was an action or inaction. It was something I did or did not do; it was not something I was or was not. But sin is not just an action/inaction; it is a condition, a state of being. Paul writes about this in Romans 7:

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing.... For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!

My church culture has always preached against "inherited sin". It's only been recently that I've realized that there are basically two definitions of "sin" as used in the Bible.

1. Action/Inaction. This is "sin" as I grew up knowing it. It incurs guilt. This type of sin is, indeed, not inherited. Every person is guilty for his own sin.

2. The "condition" of sin. It's another word for "imperfection", or better, "corruption". This type of sin was introduced into the cosmos when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Our "very good" bodies, and indeed, the cosmos itself (Rom. 8:18ff), were corrupted at that time. This type of sin is indeed inherited, and is why death has spread to all people, as Romans 5:12 says:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned....

Babies are innocent of the first type of sin; they incur no guilt for action/inaction. But they do die sometimes (or are deformed, etc), because they have inherited the second definition of sin.

Both definitions fit in with the classical definition of "falling short, missing the mark", as an arrow on the archery field falling short and missing the target, as many of us were taught in Sunday School; the first definition of sin is a falling short because of our failure to do or not do; the second is a falling short of the perfection we were originally created with.

My church culture has totally ignored/denied the second definition, and has only defined "sin" as something we do or don't do, not as something we are or are not.

As mentioned, I was in my forties before I realized that the second definition applies: not only might I be guilty of sin because of things I do or don't do; I'm also full of sin because it's in my genetic make-up. I first started suspecting this when I'd have disturbing dreams, doing things in those dreams that I thought I was incapable of doing. It really made me question myself, and I wondered if doing something inconceivable in a dream meant that I'm capable of doing such a thing in real life. And over the next few years, the Lord allowed me to learn that yes, there's a core of sin deep within me that would take over my life if I would just let it. That's what Paul was writing about in that quote above.

No matter how good a life I live; that core of sin is still within me. There's nothing, not a single thing, that I can do to purge that out of me. I can no more scoop out that rotten spot from my inner being than a mis-firing car can replace its own spark-plugs. The best I can do is constantly fight it.

Who will rescue me from this body of death?

Thanks be to God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has already purchased the surgery that will separate me from this rotten core. He's made the purchase; the deal is done; we're just now waiting for the actual surgery. In the meantime, it's an honor to wear the name of Yeshua, who has purchased my surgery, but it's also a burden, because I know that at base, I'm fundamentally flawed, and not worth the purchase price. The old car is not worth buying and giving a tune-up, but the car buyer loves it enough to buy it and fix it anyway. Thanks be to Jesus who loved me more than my worth!

Another Biblical Prayer

I just came across another Biblical prayer in Daniel 9 that seems to me would be a great prayer for public use. Except that it, like my earlier attempt at praying a prayer from the Bible, would not be acceptable to many in the church here.

* References to "Jerusalem" and "Israel" would need to be changed to "New Jerusalem" and "New Israel" (not so much out of necessity, but because many Christians in the pews would not realize that WE are now those entities unless it was pretty much spelled out for them, and they would thus be offended, particularly since they would be critically looking for "doctrinal error" since praying a prayer straight from the Bible is "different", and "different", even when straight from the Bible, is so often treated with suspicion).

* Many Christians would be offended at the idea of curses in the Law of Moses being applied to us who are not under that law.

* YHWH has not yet brought disaster on the US, so the past-tense reference of this judgment might need to be converted into a possible (and likely) future-tense.

* Many in the church would be offended at the idea that "we" have sinned; after all, we obey and defend The Truth, unlike everyone else... (John 9, John 9, John 9, repeat to myself, John 9 ...).

* And of course, references to YHWH would generate conniption fits in the aisles and walk-outs, since to use the name God declared as his "name forever, the name by which [he is] to be remembered from generation to generation" (Ex. 3:15) is "different", and as has been mentioned, "different", even when straight from the Bible, is treated with suspicion. (I mostly blame the Bible translators for this ignorance in the church, because they're the ones who changed the scriptures to fit with tradition -- "regarding as doctrine the traditions we grew up with" -- my paraphrase of Matt. 15:9).

* And finally, the phrase "in Jesus' name" would have to be added to the prayer so that everyone would know we were praying in Jesus' name. This despite the fact that we're meeting in his name, in a building marked with his "name" (title, actually), presumably worshiping, "in everything we do in word or deed," in his name, because tradition demands this phrase, even though prayers in the New Testament don't adhere to this tradition. ("...regarding as doctrine the traditions we grew up with...".)

I really didn't mean to be so critical in this post; I started out being moved by this Biblical, spiritual prayer. But on second thought, perhaps it's not a good prayer for public use after all. Sad.

Still, here's the prayer as God saw fit to record it which I would like to be able to pray at church, but probably never will:
[Daniel] prayed to YHWH [his] God and confessed:
"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

7 "Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 O YHWH, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. 9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10 we have not obeyed YHWH our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. "Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of YHWH our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 YHWH did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for YHWH our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him.

15 "Now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. 16 O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us.

17 "Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name."

I especially love the last couple of verses: "We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy," and "...your city and your people bear your Name." I'm thrilled, and awed, and crushed, to think of bearing the name of YHWH/Yeshua. It's such an honor, and yet such a burden because I know my best right-ness (which I seldom attain to) is as filthy rags.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Redistribute the Wealth!

T.C writes in a letter to the editor of WND.com:
As I often explained it on my radio show, "Marx and Jesus both believed in redistributing the wealth, but Marx wanted to do it with the barrel of a gun."

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Run the Race!

Hebrews 12:1 was mentioned in this morning's sermon. It reads (KJV):
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us....

I did a little research on this passage, and found it to be more interesting than I had ever thought.

I had always thought the "great cloud of witnesses" referred to the great heroes of the faith discussed in the previous chapter, and indeed, this seems to be the popular conception, as it was the view taken by the preacher this morning.

But note the word "also".

In chapter 11, the writer of Hebrews starts out by saying, "By faith, Abel ... was approved as a righteous man..." and "...even though he is dead, he still speaks through this."

And then the writer moves on to Enoch, then Noah, then Abraham and Sarah and so on and so on.

Then in 12:1, the writer essentially says, "Like these heroes, we also are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses."

So who are the "witnesses"?

The idea of running a race is a clue. The writer likely has in his mind the Greek athletic contests that took place in the Greek stadiums built in many cities that had been influenced under Greek and Roman rule. He continues this racing theme by specifying the prize in verses 12-13 (HCSB):
Therefore strengthen your tired hands and weakened knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but healed instead.
Typical of Hebrew teaching of the time, he uses a small passage (v. 3 of Isaiah 35) to allude to the larger context found in Isaiah 35:

3 Strengthen the weak hands,
steady the shaking knees!

This larger context speaks of joy, and healing of blind and lame and deaf persons, and blossoming deserts, etc; in other words, Paradise is the goal of this race.

The witnesses mentioned above are those people who are sitting in the stadium stands, watching the race. The world has its eyes on us, just as it has witnessed the great heroes of the faith. Not only the world, but angels, demons, and God himself are watching us run the race. You're an athlete performing in front of a crowd; run like the professional you are!

And although I doubt the writer of Hebrews agreed with the practice, he makes another allusion, this time to the Greek practice of participating in athletic games in the nude. The verb for "lay off" refers to the casting off of one's clothes. It's the same word used in Acts, when Stephen is being stoned and those stoning him "laid their robes" at the feet of the young man named Saul. The picture being drawn is that we, as participants in the athletic race, are to strip off our clothes and anything else which gets in the way of our racing. I like the way the New American Standard Bible puts it: "[L]ay aside every encumbrance...".

The whole picture that seems to be in the mind of the writer is that we are athletes running in a race; we are to run professionally, doing whatever it takes to run the race, casting off whatever gets in the way of a good run, and by so doing, like the heroes of old, we will "still speak" to the witnesses watching us, even long after we're dead.

Monday, March 03, 2008

Preach the Truth

I've been overwhelmed lately with an awareness of the popular attitude of "We have the Truth; others don't have the love of the Truth the way we do; Others use virtual scissors to cut out portions of scripture that don't tickle their ears" and on and on and on.

Do we have no clue that we're just as blind and subjective and selective as "they" are? I think it's good to be reminded of the last couple of lines of John 9. In this chapter, Jesus heals a blind man. The religious elite, the Pharisees, question this man, and the story goes thusly:
They called the man back a second time—the man who had been blind— and told him, "Give credit to God. We know this man is an impostor."

He replied, "I know nothing about that one way or the other. But I know one thing for sure: I was blind . . . I now see."

They said, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"

"I've told you over and over and you haven't listened. Why do you want to hear it again? Are you so eager to become his disciples?"

With that they jumped all over him. "You might be a disciple of that man, but we're disciples of Moses. We know for sure that God spoke to Moses, but we have no idea where this man even comes from."

The man replied, "This is amazing! You claim to know nothing about him, but the fact is, he opened my eyes! It's well known that God isn't at the beck and call of sinners, but listens carefully to anyone who lives in reverence and does his will. That someone opened the eyes of a man born blind has never been heard of—ever. If this man didn't come from God, he wouldn't be able to do anything."

They said, "You're nothing but dirt! How dare you take that tone with us!" Then they threw him out in the street.

Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and went and found him. He asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

The man said, "Point him out to me, sir, so that I can believe in him."

Jesus said, "You're looking right at him. Don't you recognize my voice?"

"Master, I believe," the man said, and worshiped him.

Jesus then said, "I came into the world to bring everything into the clear light of day, making all the distinctions clear, so that those who have never seen will see, and those who have made a great pretense of seeing will be exposed as blind."

Some Pharisees overheard him and said, "Does that mean you're calling us blind?"

Jesus said, "If you were really blind, you would be blameless, but since you claim to see everything so well, you're accountable for every fault and failure."

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Spirit-less Need Not Apply

Jesus taught in parables, not to give understanding to people, but to prevent people from understanding. This is a hard concept for us. We expect Jesus to want us to understand. Yet he tells his closest disciples in Luke 8:10 (quoting Isaiah 6:9):
The secrets of the kingdom of God have been given for you to know, but to the rest it is in parables, so that
Looking they may not see,
and hearing they may not understand.


Notice that this understanding is not something that the disciples acquired for themselves; it was a gift. Notice also verse 17 of Matt 13:
Many prophets and righteous people longed to see the things you see yet didn't see them; to hear the things you hear yet didn't hear them.

God may have called you to be a prophet, or you may be a very righteous person, but that does not automatically qualify you to have understanding. Understanding is not something you acquire for yourself; it's something that is given to you from God.

We see the same sort of God-given understanding later (Matt. 16:17), when Peter pronounced Jesus as the Messiah:
And Jesus responded, "Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven."


Paul sums up this idea in 1 Corinthians 2:10ff, emphasizing that without the Spirit of God dwelling in us, we will fail to understand the things of God:
Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God. ... Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything.... For:
who has known the Lord's mind,
that he may instruct Him?
But we have the mind of Christ.


The take-home message, for me at least, is that we should recognize that the Spirit does indeed "magically" work directly on our minds, even if we're not aware of it. To claim otherwise is a form of quenching the Spirit, and is quite unBiblical.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Blind to the Most Obvious Things

For someone who travels from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and vice-versa, I'm sure this little factoid is obvious:

Those people looking up at the moon from the Southern Hemisphere see a moon that is upside-down from that which the Northern Hemisphere observers see.

For someone who doesn't have this travel experience, it just highlights how greatly experience can color our understandings.

Men Vs Women

This past weekend I had a friend provide an analogy for men and women that made sense to me.

Men are like waffles; everything is compartmentalized.

Women are like spaghetti; everything in their lives is touching everything else, in a convoluted manner.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Challenge Traditions

I've always wondered about the two- or three- or four-part nature of Man. What's the difference between "soul" and "spirit"?

This morning, as I woke up, the influence of this past weekend gelled into an understanding for me.

During the weekend someone quoted an anonymous person, saying, "There comes a point when 'being right' is not enough." I woke up thinking about my home church, and how her focus has been on the Mind, on "being right", and I realized that the reason I'm stifled there is because she ignores the other facets of Man (whereas many other churches I've visited have ignored the Mind aspect).

Man is Mind, and Soul, and Spirit, and Body. The following are merely working definitions, not technical definitions.

- Mind - that which thinks and analyzes. My home church is good at this aspect (albeit her logic is sometimes flawed).

- Soul - that which feels. My home church is lousy at bringing Mans' emotions into the equation.

- Spirit - that which is mystical. All of Western Civilization is lousy at bringing Man's Spirit into the equation. My home church basically believes that the spirit part of Man is only activated by God's will, and that such activations by God have ceased long ago.

- Body - that which is physical. Many church groups do well at this aspect, raising hands, looking heavenward, kneeling, dancing*. My home church is lousy at this aspect.

My home church is eaten up with tradition. There's nothing wrong with Tradition, until it gets in the way. My home church needs to stand up on her school desk** and see the world from a different angle, but she has been steeped in Tradition so long that she believes (wrongly) that her Tradition equates to Truth. I believe the healthiest thing for her now would be a concerted effort to challenge various aspects of Tradition.

- Move a Sunday morning assembly into the basement. Many people will object, and ask, "Why are we doing this? Is this just 'change' for 'change's sake'?" And the answer is that it forces us to question (on an experiential level, not just a mental level) what's needed for corporate worship; do we need pews in straight rows, and a podium/lectern in order to worship? Change/challenge/difficulty serves the purpose of exercising unused muscles; this is change for 'spiritual exercise's sake'.

- Have the men raise hands during prayer. The first century church did it, and yet we find it offensive.

- Have the church kneel during prayer. The first century church did it, and yet we find it offensive.

- Have the women serve the Lord's Supper (while the men still lead the prayers). Martha served in the assemblies of Jesus, and yet we find it offensive because we've over-applied the principle of women not having authority over men into women not serving in the presence of men.

- Move all the singing during worship into an uninterrupted grouping at the front or the back of the assembly, and triple the time spent singing; no interruptions for announcements, or for announcing song numbers, or for prayers. Singing gets into the soul and spirit of Man, but only if it has a chance to. The way singing is done at my home church, it's so choppy that it never gets a chance to dig into a person's spirit or affect his soul.

There are many more ways of challenging our traditions, but these should suffice to "stir the pot" (a necessary action in preparation of meals; why do we think we should remain unstirred in order for us to be sufficiently prepared for the Lord?).

Some traditions we'll find are really based on doctrine (I believe the lack of mechanical instruments in worship music is one such justified doctrine/tradition); but some traditions we'll find are just getting in the way of acceptance of our brethren who do things differently, and are just crufty deposits on our joints that prevent us from moving as freely as Jesus would have us do.

I'm afraid that I have been marked by the leaders at church as being "un-safe" because they perceive my willingness to challenge their traditions. Accordingly, I can not have much influence on the church now, which again is a stifling thing for me. I have thoughts and ideas I'd like to share with my brethren, to challenge and to be challenged by them. But I have no venue to do so.

It's human nature to say we want to be challenged out of our comfort zones and then to defend against any and all such challenges. I do it too, so I can't judge my brethren without judging myself. Still, I went this weekend and faced some significant challenges "outside of the box"; all I'm asking from my home church is to do likewise.

===
* Stay with me, here. Don't let the word "dancing" turn you off the basic message; we can deal with the word later if need be.

** A reference to the movie, "Dead Poet's Society".

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

My Trip to Houston





Some Notes from a Conference I Recently Attended

I can not vouch for the accuracy of any statements below; these are just items I heard at the conference that I thought were worth jotting down.

===

"Satan only counterfeits that which is real."

"God's wired us differently."

God is --
  • Invisible
  • Spirit
  • from another dimension ("heavenly places", "things unseen")
  • /favors dwelling in people rather than in places
  • very creative
    • humanity is his favorite medium
    • "Human beings are vandalized works of art."
    • "If we go to the Telescope, the Microscope, or the Mirror, it ought to lead us to worship."
    • "Eph. 2 - we're called 'God's Masterpiece'"
  • Almighty
  • Personal
In John 12, God spoke, and there were three types of responses depending on the "tuning" of the listeners:
  • some heard God's voice
  • some heard a divine voice (angel)
  • some heard thunder

"How can we restore experience to our lives?"
"There comes a point when 'being right' is not enough."

Tame a Wild Horse <-----------> Raise a Dead Mule
. . (Pentecostal) <------------------> (Evangelical)

Jesus said, "The scriptures do not give you Life -- they bring you to me, and I give you Life." -- John 5:39

I've often been "enamored with the written word / oblivious to the Living Word".

"Jesus performed most miracles, not via his divinity, but via his spirit-filled humanity."

"Earnestly desire...", not "Be open to..." spiritual gifts - 1 Cor. 14:1

See It
Hear It
Feel It
Know It
Speak It

Spiritual gifts are not an evidence of being spiritual. The fruit of the spirit is the evidence of being spiritual.

And then the next morning at church, in a completely different venue, it was pointed out that we were commanded to "take and eat" the Lord's Supper, not to "take and understand" the Lord's Supper.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Church Giving

One of the underlying assumptions is that money from the offering or tithe belongs to the church. But the Scriptures consistently teach that the offering is God's instrument of redistribution and that it belongs to the poor. Giving to the poor should not make its way into the budget; it is the budget. One could argue that small portions of the Israelite offering (no more than 10 percent) was given to the Levitical priesthood (Neh. 12:47), and that in the early church an even smaller contribution could be given to the church's itinerant evangelists, who, incidentally, were themselves poor (1 Cor. 4:11). But it is not a coincidence that the first major organizational structure in the early church was created to assure order in the redistribution of resources to widows and orphans (Acts 6:1-6).
Shane Claiborne, "The Irresistible Revolution", pg. 330

Saturday, February 02, 2008

What Kind of God is This?

Shane Claiborne, in his book, "The Irresistible Revolution", relates this story:
One beautiful Iraqi mother threw her hands in the air and said, "Your country is declaring war in the name of God and asking God's blessing, and that is the same thing my country is doing. What kind of God is this? What has happened to the God of love, to the Prince of Peace?" - pg. 218
Of course our response is that "our God is the True God, so we're in the right". But even assuming that to be true, is it really the Prince of Peace's will that we be so aggressive in "protecting" our country?

Just askin' ....

True Leadership

Peace among enemies - "the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together ..."

And ...

"a little child will lead them."

Isa. 11:6


Says something about leadership in God's Kingdom, eh?

Protecting the Innocent

If they come for the innocent and do not pass over our bodies, then cursed be our religion.
-- "one of the saints", reported by Shane Claiborne, "The Irresistible Revolution", Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2006. Page 208.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Testify!

This one's for the men....

From Marvin R. Wilson's book, "Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith", page 306:
Other covenants made use of a different kind of visual aid than the blood of an animal. Sometimes the hand was placed under the thigh so as to grasp the genitals (Gen. 24:2,9). Since this vital area was the seat of reproductive power, to touch it in this formal manner might convey the threat that the offending party would become sterile or that his offspring would be destroyed. In any case, the servant Eliezer makes this gesture to Abraham as he is about to leave on a mission that will assure the patriarch of descendants God had promised to him. This graphic act finds its counterpart in a Roman practice that provided the etymological root of our English word "testify". A witness would take the preliminary oath with his hands clutching his own testicles. Such gestures underscore the seriousness of the ancient concept of witnessing. More than reputation was at stake when one pledged his word about a matter. The very existence of one's children -- and even grandchildren -- was potentially in jeopardy.

Education in Jesus' Culture

According to Marvin R. Wilson (pg. 299), there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem just prior to 70 A.D., each with its own bet sepher and bet talmud.

The bet sepher (house of schooling) was essentially elementary school, starting at age 6 or 7, and focusing on "the book", or the written law.

The bet talmud (house of study) was for the older student, starting around age 10, and focused on the oral law.

The better students, around age 13, went on to bet midrash in their spare time. These "academies" were taught by such distinguished rabbis as Hillel and Shammai.

It's interesting that the Jewish culture considered it inappropriate to use the Torah as a "'spade' for the digging of wealth" (pg. 300), so teachers taught for free, making their living at an occupation, such as woodchopper (Hillel), surveyor (Shammai), blacksmith (Joshua), tanner (Ishmael), water-carrier (Huna), or leather-worker (Paul). I wonder if Jesus was still doing carpentry/masonry(?) during his three years of ministry.

Only males 20 years of age and older were required to pay the Temple tax. When Peter asked Jesus about paying this tax, Jesus told Peter to go fishing, and doing so he caught a fish with a coin in its mouth, just enough to pay the Temple tax for both men, but for none of the other disciples (Matt. 17:24ff). This is suggestive that most of Jesus' disciples were between the ages of 13 and 19 at the time - mere teens.

The Hallel

According to Marvin R. Wilson, when Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn after eating the Passover, the hymn they most likely sang was the traditional song sung at that time, the Hallel, Psalms 113-118, or more likely, just the last half of that song (115-118).

On another note, it's interesting that "hallel" means "praise", and that the familiar term "hallelujah" means "Praise Yah" (with "Yah" being the short form of God's name, YHWH).

Jesus Wasn't Always "Biblical"

It's always bothered me somewhat in the back of my mind that Jesus reclined when eating the Passover with his disciples. Just recently this bother has come to the forefront of my brain and I realized that it means that Jesus did not always do Bible things as prescribed by the Bible.

When the Passover was originally instituted, the Israelites were told to eat it dressed, with staff in hand, standing, and in a hurry (Ex. 12:11). To my knowledge, these instructions were never rescinded. And yet by the time Jesus eats the Passover, he has dropped the Biblical pattern for the "new" pattern of his culture, one of relaxed leisure (Luke 22:14).

Furthermore, originally the instructions stated that one was not to leave the house at all on the night of Passover (Ex. 12:22b), yet Jesus led his disciples out of the house after the meal (Luke 22:39). Again, Jesus fails to "be Biblical".

What do we do with this information? For those of us who have traditionally been sticklers for doing Biblical things in Biblical ways, this is a mite uncomfortable.

Discomfort is good for us; like exercise is for the muscles, spiritual/mental discomfort is for the soul.

A Blessing for Children

According to Marvin R. Wilson in his book, "Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (p. 218),
A beautiful practice is often followed in traditional Jewish homes on the eve of Sabbath. Shabbat shalom ("Sabbath peace") is the appropriate Sabbath greeting among members of the family. When the father arrives home from praying in synagogue he customarily blesses his sons and daughters. Putting his hands on the heads of his children, he recites this blessing for sons: "May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh." For his daughters he prays: "May God make you like Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah. May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and give you peace [shalom]." The children reply, "Amen." Thus the Sabbath begins with a prayer for peace.

Monday, January 28, 2008

The Giving of God's Word

1. Moses and the Giving of God's Word

  • The Israelites left their life of slavery in Egypt on the first Passover.
  • Forty days later Moses ascended Mt. Sinai.
  • Ten days after that, Moses came down with the Ten Commandments, an event accompanied by a cloud and consuming fire - the first Shavuot ("Pentecost").
  • After another bout on the mountain, Moses descended to find the Israelites worshiping a golden calf; and at the hands of the religious leaders, the Levites, about 3000 people died.

2. Jesus and the Giving of God's Word
  • Fifteen hundred years later, Jesus was sacrificed on Passover, freeing us from our life of slavery to sin.
  • Forty days later, Jesus ascended into heaven.
  • Ten days after that, the Apostles came forth with the words of God, accompanied by wind and fire.
  • At the hands of the religious leaders, the Apostles, about 3000 people were saved.

Shavuot, in addition to commemorating the giving of the Ten Commandments, also commemorates the harvest of "First Fruits". By giving the Ten Commandments on the day of harvest feasting, God reminds us that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God".

The Temple of God

The Temple of God

In Judaism --
* the Temple was the "big" sanctuary for God
* the home was the "little" sanctuary (how the rabbis referred to the home during the exile)

In Christianity --
* the church is the "big" sanctuary for God
* the individual is the "little" sanctuary

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The Bride of Christ

The Biblical books of both Ephesians and Revelation picture the church as the bride of Christ. A female friend pointed out to me some time ago that it must be hard for a man to think of himself in terms of a "bride". I had never thought much about that, but yes, I've always tended to dismiss that imagery. The idea of being a "bride" just doesn't work for me.

Church Unity

We've got to unite ourselves as one body. Because Jesus is coming back, and he's coming back for a bride, not a harem.
-- Unknown

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Blessing at a Meal

Unlike the practice of most Western Christians today, in Bible times the Hebrew people did not see the need to bless food, drink, or other material things. In prayer they focused only on blessing God, the Creator and Giver. The Gospels indicate that Jesus followed this same custom (e.g., note the NIV translation of Matt. 26:26 and Luke 24:30), one commanded in the Torah: "When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you" (Deut. 8:10). The Lord alone was worthy of receiving the blessing and praise as divine Provider. As we pointed out in the previous chapter, the Hebrew term berakhot (singular berakhah) means blessings. Yechiel Eckstein comments: "The berakhah does not transfer holiness to the object itself, but rather entitles us to partake of the world's pleasure. . . . We give thanks to the Lord and testify thereby that the earth is his and we are but its caretakers." The following ancient blessing used in Judaism as grace before meals reflects the above point: Barukh attah adonai elohenu melech ha-olam ha-motzi lehem min ha-aretz, "Blessed are you, LORD our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth." The ancient Hebrews would never have thought of blessing what they ate. The idea would have been totally foreign to them; it would also have been an insult, of sorts, to God. If everything God created was "very good" (Gen. 1:31), why should one imply that it is really unholy and profane? The postbiblical notion that one needed to sanctify, cleanse, or purify what God had already created and declared to be good would be strange theology to the biblical writers. It suggests that food and drink, in and of themselves, are unacceptable gifts until suddenly made holy through prayer.

How did this practice originate? Again, the Church went wrong because it severed its Hebrew roots. . . .
Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, p. 177. Wilson, Marvin R., William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1989.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Cause of Homosexuality?

A blog I've been reading recently quoted Romans 1:18-32, and as I read this quote I saw something I've never seen before. I had always read this passage to say that because people commit some sin (such as homosexuality) they've become separated from God. This passage says that it's the other way around; instead of sin causing separation from God, it is the separation from God that causes sin.

Here are the relevant portions of the passage (NIV):

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him . . . .

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another . . . .

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity . . . .

So, the cure for homosexuality, or for greed, or for evil wickedness, or for any other sin, is not a twelve-step program, or a regime of self-discipline, or hypnosis; rather it is to:

1. Glorify God
2. Give thanks to God.
3. Retain the knowledge of God.

Wow. Can it really be that simple? ("Simple" in concept, I mean, not neccesarily in execution.)

Monday, January 14, 2008

Watch this Sea-life Video. Awesome. Must-see!

This is an incredible 5-minute video; highly recommended.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/206
David Gallo shows jaw-dropping footage of amazing sea creatures, including a shape-shifting cuttlefish, a pair of fighting squid, and a mesmerizing gallery of bioluminescent fish that light up the blackest depths of the ocean. He focuses on the work of two scientists: Edith Widder at the Ocean Research & Conservation Association, and Roger Hanlon at the Marine Biological Lab.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Verbal Meditation of the Bible

From pgs 154-155 of Marvin R. Wilson's "Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith":
The subject of meditation is crucial for understanding the precise organization of the Hebrew Bible's three-fold division into Law, Prophets, and Writings. Joshua is the first book in the Prophets, the second major division of the Hebrew Bible. It opens with God commanding the Israelites to meditate on the Law of Moses (the first major division of the Bible) "day and night" (Josh. 1:8). The book of Psalms is the first book in the Writings, the third major division, and it opens with the same motif -- that of meditating on God's Law "day and night" (Ps. 1:2). Elsewhere, the psalmist says, "I will meditate on all your works" (Ps. 77:12). Viewed contextually, these passages indicate that meditation is the key theme which binds the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible together.

In each of the three texts cited above, the Hebrew word for "meditate" is hagah. The word properly means "emit a sound," "murmur," "mutter," "speak in an undertone." For the Hebrews, meditation was not like a Quaker meeting; it was not silent. Several texts clearly support this contention that meditation was normally verbal, that is, expressed in spoken words. In Psalm 49:3 (RSV) we read, "My mouth shall speak wisdom; the meditation [hagut] of my heart shall be understanding." The Hebrew parallelism indicates that what is spoken with the mouth is the same as "meditation." Hence, the NIV renders hagut not "meditation" but "utterance." Again, in the well-known Psalm 19:14, the expression "words of my mouth" parallels "meditation [hegyon] of my heart." Furthermore, Joshua 1:8 states, "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate [ve-hagita] on it day and night." In this context, "meditate" is defined by the command not to let the Law ever be out of one's mouth. "This negative way of speaking implies a strong positive. . . . The mouth is here the organ of speech."[footnote in original] Furthermore, hagah is used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate such varied sounds as the "growl" of a lion (Isa. 31:4) and the "moaning" of a dove (Isa. 38:14).

Such passages give graphic insight into what meditation involves. Meditation is the outward verbalizing of one's thoughts before God, of the poring over his teachings and works. It means to articulate, in a low tone, thoughts of worship, wonder, and praise. But, in addition, the use of hagah in texts such as Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 1:2 implies that the Scriptures were not primarily written to be read silently. Indeed, in the words of Otto Kaiser, the Law itself was to be "read aloud" by day and by night. [footnote in original]
. . .
Each day it is customary for an observant Hasid to make time to be alone for awhile so he can meditate by talking aloud with God. This meditation is a private pouring out of personal prayers, doubts, or problems. To recover a childlike quality of faith (cf. Matt. 18:3-4) the rabbis recommended hitboddadut ["alone-ness" - Kent] at night in an open field.
...
Some contemporary forms of church worship may appear to be a bit boisterous or too extemporaneous for those of us with more subdued and orderly Western tastes. But we should not forget that Hebrew worship -- including prayer and the study of the holy books -- was no sedate or dreary event. It included dancing with tambourine (Ps. 149:3; 150:4), all kinds of instruments -- including trumpets and cymbals (Ps. 150) -- singing (33:3), hand clapping (47:1), and even shouting (95:1). for the Hebrews, praise was the basic token of being alive; it was the way to observe the command, "You shall meditate on it day and night."

The Bible as a Mirror

I was recently in an office's waiting room, and found a book on the shelf entitled something like "The Evidence for Jesus". I don't recall the author's name (but no, it was not Josh McDowell). I opened the book somewhere in the middle and read a page or two while waiting, and the message in those pages struck a chord.

The author basically said that the Bible very often functions as a mirror; whatever ideas you have in mind when you read it, you'll find reflected in the text. So if you have Southern Baptist ideologies, you'll find support for your Baptist ideas in the text. If you have Charismatic Presbyterian ideologies, you'll find support for your Charismatic Presbyterian ideas in the text.

It struck me that this claim is true, even in the case of my Church of Christ ideologies with which I grew up. Over the past few years as I've tried to read the Bible without my "Church of Christ" glasses on, I've been astounded to find that I'm not seeing nearly as much "Church of Christ" doctrine in the text as I used to see. If I temporarily put on some "Baptist" glasses, I'm amazed to see that I find Baptist doctrine in the text. If I take off those "Baptist" glasses and temporarily put on "Secular Atheist" glasses, I see in the text a capricious God doing things that are scientific nonsense. If I take off those "Secular Atheist" glasses and put on "Mormon" glasses, I see lots of polygamy in the text.

Stunning.

What does this mean? I'm not entirely sure. One conclusion I make, however, is that it is not appropriate to conclude that someone with a different understanding of the Bible than that which I have is "blind" or "stubborn" or "has an agenda". Another conclusion I make is ... "God, be merciful to me, a sinner, a sinner who has no understanding, or worse, a sinner who thinks he does have understanding."

Friday, January 11, 2008

Reciting the Shema

I've been getting a lot of exposure recently to the Jewish background of Christianity, and some friends of mine have also been so exposed. Some of the common material we've been exposed to pointed out that Jesus was Jewish -- not just the little bit Jewish that we Western-thinking, American Gentiles think of him being, but the full-blooded, tassel-wearing, phylactery-sporting, springy-sideburned Jewishness to which we tend to react by turning up our noses. As such, one of the things he'd likely have been doing every morning was reciting the Shema, as every good Jew male had been doing from little-boyhood. Independently, my friends and I thought it would be good to emulate this practice, so they've taught their young children the Shema, and I have been reciting it every morning myself. The version I use is kind of a mish-mash between the original (Deut 6:4), Jesus' version, and Jesus' addendum to it:
Hear Oh Israel! YHWH our God, YHWH is One. And you shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
(Note that we Gentile Christians have been grafted in as Israel, so this message is for us as well as the physical descendants of Ibrahim.)

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Why Would God Allow This?!

A friend of mine recommended I read the book "The Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne. Starting on page 64 Claiborne relates a story found in an old comic strip:
Two guys are talking to each other, and one of them says he has a question for God. He wants to ask why God allows all of this poverty and war and suffering to exist in the world. And his friend says, "Well, why don't you ask?" The fellow shakes his head and says he is scared. When his friend asks why, he mutters, "I'm scared God will ask me the same question." Over and over, when I ask God why all of these injustices are allowed to exist in the world, I can feel the Spirit whisper to me, "You tell me why we allow this to happen. You are my body, my hands, my feet."

Monday, December 31, 2007

Interesting Phrase

In the Holman's Christian Standard Bible, Ruth 2:13 is rendered thusly:
"My lord," she said, "you have been so kind to me, for you have comforted and encouraged your slave, although I am not like one of your female servants."
What I found interesting was the literal rendering in the footnote:
"My lord," she said, "you have been so kind to me, for you have spoken to the heart of your slave, although I am not like one of your female servants."
Although I usually prefer understandability over floweriness, I really like the poetic beauty of the literal in this case. I think the literal should have been in the text with the footnote providing the sense. (I'm actually beginning to find that's the general method I'd prefer.)

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Instead of buying that new HD TV ...

pay to restore the electricity for someone who's service has been turned off for inability to pay the bill, or pay the back taxes for someone who's house is being foreclosed on because of property taxes being in arrears.

The reason for having a job, as given in Ephesians 4:28, is "so that [we have] something to share with anyone in need".

And here's one I've never noticed before: Luke 11:39-41
39Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
Notice verse 41.

Awesome.

Restoring the First Century Church: Which One of the Three?

Of course, such a subject line obviously bothers many, if not most, of the people raised in or converted to a church of Christ in America (or at least in the Bible Belt), for we are confident that as per Ephesians 4:4, there is only "one body".

However, it's important to remember that whereas the apostle urged the Christians to be united in the same mind and same judgment, and to have no divisions amongst themselves (1 Cor. 1:10ff), the reality of the situation is that there were divisions among the first century Christians (e.g. v. 12).

The general aim among churches of Christ has been to restore the first century church. But looking through the eyes of history, we find that over the first one hundred years or so of the church's existence, there were three broad stages of life, resulting in three "different" churches.

The First Stage: Just Another Sect of Judaism

During the life of Jesus, there were several sects within Judaism, his "native" religion, if you will. Here's a brief summary of the "big five", plus a sixth late-comer, that were common in and around the area of Judea.

Pharisees - These were the mainstream "people of the Book". They were careful to dot their "I"'s and cross their "T"'s in religious matters. These were what we might call "good, church-going folk". Their biggest problem was that they were concerned with details more than the over-all broader picture of religion, and often wound up being hypocritical in their lifestyles. They revered the written law, the Torah, but because it is vague on the details, they adopted an oral law which had grown up through the centuries alongside the written law. Jesus had no real qualm with the Pharisaic viewpoint, except when it led to hypocritical action or when their Oral Law canceled out the Written Law.

We see both Jesus' approval of Pharisaic doctrine and his condemnation of hypocrisy in Matt. 23:1-3:
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
A few verses later, starting in verse 23, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for elevating the Oral Law above the Written Law.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. 
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
The Oral Law addressed the minutia of daily living, such as how to handle tithing of certain things, or the proper steps in washing the dinner dishes. Note that Jesus did not condemn the regulations of the Oral Law -- "without leaving the others undone". Rather, he condemned placing the unwritten rules above the God-inspired written rules.

The Oral Law specifies that if a situation causes a conflict between two laws in the Written Law, then the written law which saves or helps or loves has precedence over the one that is ritual. We see Jesus' properly applying the Oral Law in Luke 15:1-7.

Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.”So He spoke this parable to them, saying: 
"What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance."
We see the same sort of thing in the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25ff. The priest and the Levite who passed by the wounded man did so because of ritual regulations. The people hearing this story expected the priest and the Levite to avoid the wounded man, and they likely expected the next person in the story to be a Pharisee, who upheld the principle found in the Oral Law of helping another even if it means technically violating a Biblical regulation. At this point, Jesus had already taught the lesson he intended to teach, that helping those in need trumps Biblical regulations. But surprisingly, he takes a different route by making the hero of the story not a Pharisee but a Samaritan, hated and despised by the Jews. In doing so, he masterfully taught a second lesson to his hearers, to love those you hate.

Some of the Pharisees often considered Jesus as one of them, and went out of their way to protect him from Herod's intention to kill him on at least one occasion (Luke 13:31), whereas other Pharisees (or perhaps the same Pharisees at a different time) conspired with Herod to kill him (Mark 3:6).

The point of all this is that the Pharisees, while having a tendency toward hypocrisy and legalism which Jesus condemned, were basically the party that Jesus most identified with. When he condemned the Pharisees, it was more or less done as an "insider".

Sadducees
- This was the ruling elite, the political party. For the most part, they weren't too interested in things of the Bible, preferring instead to deal with the practicalities of living. They were more or less in bed with the ruling Romans, from whom they got political favors, such as official appointments. Accordingly, they were more interested in keeping the status quo than in having some upstart from Galilee going around and creating turmoil that would likely cause them financial and comfort loss. In Acts 5:17, we find that it's the Sadducees (and the office-holders, such as the high priest - vs 21) who sought to silence Peter and the early church by killing him (v. 33); it was Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who rescued him (v. 34ff). The Sadducees were more or less the agnostics of the nation, not believing in angels or the resurrection.

Zealots - These were the extremists, the fanatics, the pipe-bombers of the first century. Their main focus was on freeing Israel from the hated Roman rule. If that meant following a messiah who offered a chance to fight their way to freedom, so be it. If it meant handing over to Rome for crucifixion a so-called messiah who had no interest in overthrowing Rome, so be it. Whatever overthrows Roman rule and frees Israel is the goal.

Essenes - These were the "monks" of the period. They withdrew from society, and set up their own society. They had strict regulations, and kept their own writings, many of which were discovered in the caves of Qumran in 1947, now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. A fringe element in the Jewish religion, they seem to have contributed quite a bit of flavoring to Jewish society at large; there are some remarkable resemblances between the teachings and habits of the Essenes and those of both John the Immerser and Jesus.

Hellenists - These were good, Bible-believing Jews who typically were raised in a non-Jewish setting, such as in the Egyptian city of Alexandria. Accordingly, they tended to accept Greek ways, and didn't worry too much about being "exactly Jewish". These were relatively rare within Judea itself, and tended to be found more among the Diaspora, the Dispersion of Jews outside of their homeland area.

Starting in about A.D. 33, a new sect of Judaism arose: the Nazarenes. It is clear that non-Christian Jews considered Nazarenes just another sect of Judaism, from such passages as Acts 24:5 and 24:14 and 28:22. It also seems clear, once we take off our 20th Century[1] "we've already figured it all out" eyeglasses, that the early Christians still considered themselves as just another branch of Judaism.

The Nazarenes, the church in this First Stage, still went to Temple at the hour of prayer (Acts 3:1), where they prayed (Acts 22:17), and returned to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 24:11) and to present offerings (v. 17) like good Jews did. Paul said that he believes everything that agrees with the Torah and the Prophets (Acts 24:14) and that he has the same hope in God as non-Christian Jews have (v. 15). Paul was concerned about being ceremonially clean (v. 18). About a week earlier Paul had claimed that he "is", not "was", a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). Paul emphatically stated at least twice that he had not broken any Jewish laws (Acts 25:8, 10). Prior to Paul's conversion to Christianity, he sought out Christians whom to persecute, and it was to the synagogue he went in order to find them (Acts 26:11), which agrees with James' indication that the Christian assembly in the early days was the synagogue assembly (James 2:2, in the Greek). Later Paul tells the Roman Jews that he had done nothing against "our people" or the customs of the ancestors (Acts 28:17). When speaking to a group of non-Christian Jews in Synagogue, he includes himself with them as children of their fathers, to whom God has fulfilled his promise (Acts 13:33). He met with both Christians and non-Christians in the synagogue for three months, until the non-Christians maligned the Christians so much that the Christians left the congregation (Acts 19:8-9).

Stephen the Martyr was stoned because he accused the Jewish leaders of not keeping the law (Acts 7:53); the implication was that if they had kept it, they'd be Christians as he was. In other words, Stephen was a keeper of the law.

Peter was resistant to go see the Gentile Cornelius, because it was unlawful for a "Jewish man to keep company" with a non-Jew (Acts 10:28). The church in Jerusalem, including even the Apostles, also was upset because Peter broke this rule (Acts 11:1-3). It was a shock to the early church that non-Jews could become Christians (v. 18). As part of the controversy, Christians who still considered themselves as Pharisees insisted that the new Gentile believers convert to Judaism (Acts 15:5). It makes no sense to believe the earliest Christians expected non-Jews to convert to Judaism if they no longer considered themselves as law-following Jews. Note that the Christian leaders may not have insisted on Gentile believers converting to Judaism (Acts 15:24), but the existence of rank-and-file Christians who believed this doctrine makes it obvious that the earliest church was a Jewish church, and that they believed being a Christian meant being a Jew.

Paul had no problem circumcising a non-Jewish believer in order to appease the Jews (Acts 16:1-3). On another trip to Jerusalem, Paul submitted to certain Jewish rituals to prove that he was a good, Law-keeping Jew (Acts 21:15-24, 26), thereby proving that although Gentiles were not required to keep the law, he was not teaching this message to Jews living among the Gentiles (v. 21, 24-25).

Sosthenes was the ruler of the synagogue while apparently a Christian (as evidenced by the Greeks beating him after being given permission by the proconsul to handle the "Christianity issue" themselves - Acts 18:14-18).

Other passages could be examined, but it seems clear that for the first fifteen years or so of the church's existence, Christianity was strictly Jewish. The church was a branch of Judaism. It was a matured branch, unlike the other branches, as it had found the long sought-for Messiah, but nevertheless, it was still Jewish, and only Jewish, at heart.

Even though the Jewish Christians continued to observe the Law in many cases, they realized that they were not justified by the keeping of that Law, but rather by faith in Christ (Gal. 2:15-16).

The Second Stage: Jews and Gentiles

As has been mentioned, when God sent Peter to Cornelius (about A.D. 49), this began the second stage of the church's life. At first, the strictly Jewish church resisted the inclusion of Greeks into the church. Then, as they began to realize that "God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life" (Acts 11:18), many also insisted that these new Gentile believers should go through the whole process necessary for conversion to Judaism, including circumcision (Acts 15:1, 24). The "Jerusalem Conference" in Acts 15 addressed this issue, and concluded that Jewish believers in the Messiah should continue being Jewish, but that Gentile believers did not need to become Jewish. Instead, the new Gentile believers needed to adopt four rules (abstaining from idols, blood, things strangled, and sexual immorality) that would reduce the friction between the Jewish and the Gentile believer in the synagogue (Acts 15:21).

During the first stage of the church, when it was strictly Jewish, non-believing Jews were by and large willing to leave the Christian Jews pretty much alone. Some that weren't believers still respected the Christian Jews, and in the very earliest days of the church, believers had favor with all the people (Acts 2:47). However, now that Gentiles were coming into the church, and without having to submit to the rules and regulations to which the Jews had to submit, the Jews tended toward envy and anger (Acts 17:4-5). By the time Paul was sent to Rome for his trial, the Jews there were compelled to say that, "concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere” (Acts 28:22).

During this period, much of the writing in the New Testament emphasizes that both Jew and Gentile are part of the church. For example, Romans 1:16 says "[the Gospel] is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile". Similar phraseology can be found throughout Romans (2:10, 3:9, 9:24, 10:12, 15:27). Galatians 2:7-9 makes it clear that the Gospel is for both the Gentile and the Jew.

The Third Stage: Jews and Gentiles Separate

The second stage "truce" worked for a while, but relationships between the two camps deteriorated fairly quickly, taking sharp dips after the destruction of Jerusalem in the first Jewish Rebellion against Rome (c. A.D 70) and again after the complete razing of Jerusalem in the second Jewish Rebellion (the Bar Kokhba Rebellion, c. A.D. 135), which cemented a virtually complete division of the two into separate religions. We don't have much Biblical evidence of this, as the separation accelerated after most of the Bible's record was completed, but historical sources outside of the Bible show this progression clearly.

The tragedy of this third stage is that whereas Gentiles and Jews are supposed to be family, after A.D. 135, the normal situation has been enmity between the two branches of the family. Gentiles have blamed Jews for killing Jesus (when really it was mostly the less-religious appointed-by-Rome office-holders kow-towing to Roman influences who killed Jesus, not the people at large); Jews have blamed Christians for hating them unjustly, and for co-opting their religion.

Since the great Holocaust of the Second World War, new dialogs have opened between the two camps, and hope flows that peace may again reign between the two parties, as Jesus would have it. Christians need to reach out to Jews with the news that their long-awaited Messiah has come; it's just that they've been blinded to it because of mistakes and blindnesses on both sides. Jews need to realize they have an awesome Rabbi in their heritage, if they'd just get over the revulsion they have to all things Christian.

===

So, when considering the task of restoring the first century church, one must ask, "Which church? The Jewish church, the Jewish/Gentile church, or the Gentile church?"

Strictly speaking the purely Gentile church begins just after the first century, rather than being a first-century church, so it can't be the first-century church.

The earliest church was the Jewish church. But the Bible makes it clear that God wants Gentiles in the church, and that Gentiles do not have to convert to Judaism. So the Jewish church, although a first-century church, is not the church God wants.

That leaves us with the Jewish/Gentile church. The only problem with this, is that in the typical church of Christ at the tail-end of the 20th Century and beginning of the 21st, we have such a fear of "sectarianism" (aka "denominationalism"), that we have blinded ourselves to the Biblical record that God's church, though one body and one spirit, can take at least two forms: one that worships in the Temple and in the Synagogue and that keeps ritual regulations concerning vows and purity laws, and one that does things in a decidedly more Gentile, non-Jewish way.

So what are we going to do about it?


-------
Footnotes:
1. Yes, I know it's the 21st Century, but many in the church of Christ are still living in the 1950's. Much of the resistance in the church to doing things differently is because we perceive these new things to be different from the ways of the early church, when in reality it's merely different from the ways of the 1950's church. In other words, we've confused the church we knew in the mid-20th Century with the church.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Understanding God? I don't think so.

Mystery and wonder must pervade human perception of God's goodness. Contradictions and inconsistencies are part and parcel of God and his mysteries.
I used to believe that the Bible, the life and teachings of Jesus, the doctrines of the first century church, were understandable. The more time I spend in the Word of God, the more I realize that the above quotation is true. Even Jesus himself said things like, "I'm teaching in parables so that they won't understand" (Luke 8:10, etc).

And although it's frustrating to my Western mindset, I have to admit, once you get past the false idea that such an idea devalues the concept of inspiration or of the "simplicity" of the Gospel, it does add to the grandeur of the things of God. As the above writer continues:
All attempts to systematize God will fall short. Stand in amazement. Wonder in awe.
Brad H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Mass., 1995. Pg. 273.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Who? What?

Bob Phillips writes in a Letter to the Editor at WorldNetDaily, attributing the saying to a former professor of his:
Who was Jesus? He was God. What was Jesus? He was a man.
Just found it interesting; thought I'd pass it on.

--
Kent

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Be Jewish, IV

In Genesis 17:5-6, YHWH tells Abraham,
5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.
According to Wilson (see reference in previous posts), pg 20, this word "nations" is "goyim", or "Gentiles".

In other words, from the very beginning of the Abrahamic covenant, God promised that Gentiles would be part of the Abrahamic family.

To any Jew who might be reading this, I am your brother, and you are mine, not because all Goyim are brothers to the sons of Abraham, but because those Gentiles who are part of the new covenant (which is unlike the Mosaic covenant - Jer. 31:31ff) are brothers to the sons of Abraham.

Be Jewish, III

A couple of interesting tidbits about olive trees, as related by Marvin R. Wilson in his book, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith:

1. "Gethsemane", as in the Garden of, means "olive press". So really the Garden of Gethsemane means "the olive press garden".

2. "Very old olive trees often have tender young shoots which spring up around the roots. This sight doubtless prompted the psalmist to speak of children being 'like olive shoots' around the table of the home (Ps. 128:3)". (Wilson, pg 13)

3. Olive trees outlive most other fruit trees, and have "remarkably sturdy" roots, suitable for thriving in hot, dry, rocky soil.

4. Olives were eaten, or for making olive oil, which was "used for cooking, for lamps, for ceremonial anointing, and for healing the sick". (Wilson, pg 14)

5. "Olive wood was used for construction purposes, including part of the Solomonic Temple". (Wilson, pg 14)

Be Jewish, II

Marvin R. Wilson, in his book Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of
the Christian Faith (1989, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids MI), writes (pg. 12):
...the Bible reflects a view of reality which is essentially Hebraic. Indeed, for the earliest Church, to think "Christianly" was to think Hebraicly. It should not be surprising that the understructure and matrix of much of the New Testament is Hebraic. After all, Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian of gentile origin. His teachings, like those of his followers, reflect a distinct ethnicity and culture. The evidence found in the New Testament is abundantly clear: as a mother gives birth to and nourishes a child, so Hebrew culture and language gave birth to and nourished Christianity.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

How Can You Doubt that Evolution Has Occurred?

In a Letter to the Editor of World Net Daily this past Thursday, the letter writer equates Creationism with Flat Earthianism. I often hear this comparison, and find it to generally be the result of ignorance or dishonesty on the part of the speaker.

The author of the letter finds it absurd that "we are still debating at all whether or not evolution occurred".

Well, that depends on your definition of "evolution". A case can be made that there are at least six different definitions, but for the purposes of this letter we can deal with two: 1) Macro, or "big-scale" evolution, the goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, hydrogen-to-human type of evolution; and 2) Micro, or variation-on-a-theme, or adaptation type of evolution.

Virtually everyone, including hard-core, "Bible-thumping", young-earth Creationists agree with the variation-on-a-theme type of evolution. This type of evolution is seen in everyday life, in the fossil record, in thousands of years of animal breeding, and in decades of lab research, and yes, even in the Bible ("From one man he made every nation of men"-Acts 17:26, and etc). This type of evolution is "scientific fact". This type of evolution is also the result of a loss of, or a mere shuffling of, pre-existing genetic information. Whether you're talking about horses devolving from a three-toed variety into our modern one-toed variety, or bacteria "evolving" resistance to antibiotics, or dark moths "evolving" into light moths, etc, you're talking about a loss of or shuffling of existing genetic information, resulting in variations on a theme, but not in genuinely new types of creatures. (The so-called fossil evidence of "missing links" is hardly compelling; famous evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould has said "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Other top-name evolutionists have made similar admissions.)

What's required for the macro type of evolution is a vast increase in new never-before-existing genetic information, from the genetic information in pond scum (none) to that in a paramecium (lots) to that in a human (LOTS). Where is the observation of this vast increase in genetic information? Where is the lab experiment that demonstrates that this is even possible? Where is the "science" behind this claim?

Note that the difference between these two types of evolution is not one of quantity, but of quality. One type (macro) requires the appearance of vast amounts of new genetic information that has never existed before; the other type does not.

Evolutionists typically change their definition of evolution mid-sentence. They start out by claiming that evolution is a fact, meaning macro-evolution, but by the end of the sentence they're trotting out examples of variation-on-a-theme.

Next time someone presents some piece of evidence for evolution, ask yourself if it's evidence of loss/shuffling of pre-existing genetic information (variation-on-a-theme), or evidence of new genetic information arising which did not previously exist. (And transfers of previously-existing genetic information from one creature to another via such mechanisms as mosquito bites don't count; we're looking for new never-before-seen genetic information, which is required in vast amounts if macro-evolution is true.)

So, there's no doubt that "evolution", meaning variation-on-a-theme, has occurred. But Atom-to-Adam? Show me the evidence.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Be Jewish

... if we wish to hear Jesus, we must become ancient Jews.
Rabbi David Wolpe
in the Forward to "Jesus the Jewish Theologian", Brad H. Young, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass.1997, pg xiv.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

A Few Gleanings from Deuteronomy

[1]

If I understand Deuteronomy 14:12ff, that tenth of the produce that an Israelite was to give to YHWH actually goes into his own stomach.


22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of YHWH your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere YHWH your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by YHWH your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where YHWH will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place YHWH your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of YHWH your God and rejoice.


===

[2]

Deuteronomy 14:28-29 indicates that an additional third of a tenth goes to the Levites and the needy:


28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that YHWH your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

===

[3]

Although the Israelites, when moving into the promised land, were to totally slaughter all the inhabitants of the land, that rule did not hold for cities outside of the promised land:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When YHWH your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder YHWH your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations YHWH your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as YHWH your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against YHWH your God.

===

[4]

When attacking a city, the Israelites could cut down non-food-bearing trees to use in their attack, but they could not chop down food-bearing trees:


19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

And that, boys and girls, is today's Bible lesson from the Tanahk. (The "Tanahk" is the name used by Jews for what we call the "Old Testament", and is derived from the letters T, N, and K, which were the starting letters of the Hebrew words for "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings".)