This was put together by the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE is being attacked by two sides of conservatives-- the conspiracy theorists who see the NAE as being a part of the "universal anti-church" and by the old-guard evangelicals (like Dobson and Colson) who feel that the NAE is getting distracted from their hard-core ethical issues-- homosexuality and abortion.
I think the NAE is going in a fantastic direction. Not only are they recognizing that climate change and poverty are serious issues, but in this document (below) they are recognizing a couple issues that the church truly needs to focus on:
-that the church is so focused on politics that they are adapting the world's issues and methods of political change
-that the church is adapting hateful speech, when we are supposed to be reflecting love
-that the church is supposed to be putting the leading of the Holy Spirit and the spreading of the gospel above any other agenda items.
I want to thank the leaders of the NAE of making a bold, prophetic move.
An Evangelical Manifesto
A Strategic Plan for the Dawn of the 21st Century
This is a kairos moment for the church of Jesus Christ. At the close of the 20th century, the church exists in a world tortured by polarization, selfishness, indifference and godlessness. Furthermore, the church, particularly the body of Christ in America, despite its significant influence and ministry, has been so infected by such sins that it has a witness and ministry for Christ that is far less than it could or should be.
In this day, however, this critical need for greater unity and godliness among Christians is being met with a surging desire for just such a transformation. And, it is springing up across the breadth of the church. It could well be that the body of Christ is ready now to allow the pastoral prayer of the Son of God in John 17:20-23 to renew itself dramatically in our lives. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." This could result in a sharpened witness for Christ and a strengthened service to those in need.
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is well positioned to serve a strategic role in this renewal because of the breadth of its association. NAE is comprised of approximately 42,500 congregations nationwide from 47 member denominations and individual congregations from an additional 26 denominations, as well as several hundred independent churches. The membership of the association includes 245 parachurch ministries and educational institutions.
Through the cooperative ministry of these members, the National Association of Evangelicals directly and indirectly benefits over 27 million people. Through NAE's headquarters in Carol Stream, Illinois, and its Office for Governmental Affairs in Washington, D.C., through its subsidiary, World Relief Corporation, and five affiliates -- Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies; National Religious Broadcasters; Christian Stewardship Association; Evangelical Child & Family Agency; National Association of Christian Child & Family Agencies -- NAE has a long history of service to its members, the broad church of Jesus Christ and to those in need around the world.
Although NAE's commitment to service is worldwide, its membership is drawn from the evangelical community in the United States. This membership represents a substantial portion of the diversity within the body of Christ in this country. The unifying characteristic of NAE's membership is found in their agreement with NAE's brief statement of faith and their support of the association's mission statement.
This manifesto presents both a call to the whole body of Christ in the United States of America and the commitment of the National Association of Evangelicals to that call.
The desired results of this call to action are to glorify God, to strengthen our witness to those who do not know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to maintain our nation's religious freedom, and to expand and improve our ministry to the world.
The Board of Directors and the vast leadership network of NAE are committed to the five calls for action listed below and urge evangelicals from all quarters to join in a commitment to these:
Call for Prayer
Call for Repentance & Reform
Call for Unity & Cooperation
Call for Evangelism
Call for Cultural Impact
Further, this manifesto is being distributed widely in the hope other members of the body of Christ will make such commitments a part of their lives.
To expand and expedite NAE's commitment to unity, Don Argue, president of NAE, has appointed a task force that will recommend new courses of action designed both to advance the biblical mandate for unity within the body of Christ and to improve NAE's ability to assist its own membership in such growth. This task force will represent the great diversity found in the body of Christ including age, gender, race, church tradition, and ministry focus.
Call for Prayer -- Prelude to Effective Ministry
"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark 11:22-25)
We call on evangelicals everywhere to pray-for unity and for the spread of the gospel.
We call on evangelicals everywhere to pray-worshipping and praising God, calling on him, confessing our sin and need for his grace, seeking his wisdom and counsel, interceding for others, and offering ourselves to him and his service.
We call on evangelicals everywhere to pray-alone, with family, with friends and colleagues, and with the church.
We encourage leaders of local, regional, and national endeavors to come together first to pray, before strategizing and before any plans are set.
We encourage our constituency to be involved in programs which encourage prayer:
World and national days of prayer
Concerts of prayer
Church prayer meetings
Small groups which emphasize prayer.
There are numerous prayer networks and prayer ministries forming throughout the United States. NAE will serve its members by assisting them in their awareness of the growing prayer movements of America.
NAE will continue to produce and make available the World Day of Prayer worship guide, which provides an evangelical structure for this worldwide observance; and the NAE Christian Citizenship Ministry manual, which provides a suggested structure for Christian action built on our citizen obligations of voting and prayer.
Call for Repentance and Reform
"...if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chron. 7:14)
As an association that serves as a voice for evangelicals we humbly and publicly make the following confession.
We confess that although we have been conscientious in our response to the mandate of the Great Commission to go and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20 & Mark 16:15), we have too often failed to live out and actualize the mandate of a loving unity which testifies to our Lord Jesus (John 13:34-35 & John 17:21-22).
We confess that although we value unity and united evangelical action, we too often do more to build our own ministries than to cooperate at making it difficult for someone in our own neighborhoods to be lost for eternity.
We confess, that in our pursuit of faithfulness, we have too often accommodated the spirit of this world which elevates a political correctness over the more difficult tasks of critical reflection and repentance.
We confess that although we have assented to Christian truths as embodied in our statement of faith, we have been unwilling to be confronted redemptively with the implications of biblical truth on life and faith.
We confess that although we exist to serve the ministry of the local church, we have done little to advance a wholly biblical understanding of the church and her Lord's mandates-in evangelism or in reconciliation.
We call the church to repentance in the pursuit of revival and renewal through prayer and fasting, and through faithfulness to God in every aspect of our lives as commanded in Scripture.
We call on the church to pursue the fruit of the Spirit manifested in reconciliation-to God and to each other.
We call on the church to lead our nation in biblically directed racial and ethnic reconciliation, providing a glimpse of the worshipping people of God as pictured in the book of Revelation.
We call on the church to edify the most basic social structure created by God -- the family -- in ministry, programming, and support and use of its human resources.
Call for Unity and Cooperation -- The Command Actualized
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)
We call on the evangelical community to work together diligently based on our common commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and only Savior. Furthermore, as long as the truth is not compromised, we urge evangelicals, in a demonstration of love, to work alongside others who may not necessarily have an evangelical identity on various specific issues.
NAE will facilitate and support united evangelical endeavors in upholding the authority of the Bible, in evangelism, and in demonstrable unity which are based on biblical truth. We will do this locally, regionally, and nationally.
Local & Regional Action
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria...." (Acts 1:8)
The ministry of the church is essentially local. Therefore NAE first calls on evangelicals in local and regional areas to provide and carry out strategic cooperation in prayer, evangelism, and discipleship in order to reach the lost of the particular area. NAE encourages the local church to demonstrate godly, reconciling love as together, God's Word is proclaimed. NAE will avail itself and its networking services to any extent, if desired, in any area committed to such united action.
We encourage the use of a strategy which includes these five principles in an approach of cooperation without compromise:
Focus on the absolutes of the Christian faith.
Promote the ministry of Christ and His Word above our own ministry or method.
Pray to raise the level of the Holy Spirit's activity in your area.
Appreciate one another's respected interpretations of Scripture.
Practice supportive speech and actions toward one another.
The National Association of Evangelicals will assist and take the lead as appropriate in the facilitation of target areas with the intentional approaches to local and regional cooperative evangelism. NAE will freely cooperate in appropriate ways to fulfill the Great Commission and to live out the command to demonstrate loving unity-for the sake of the lost. In so doing we will seek to advance first, the gospel, and secondly, the ministry of the local church.
National Action
"... and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8) We call on evangelical denominations and movements to operate in cooperation without compromise-maintaining our particular distinctives, yet standing together on the basis of the command of our Lord Jesus Christ found in John 13:34-35.
We freely offer the associated network strength of the National Association of Evangelicals in order to facilitate evangelism and discipleship on a national basis.
We call on the vast expertise of the membership of two of our affiliates- the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies and the National Religious Broadcasters-to consider their respective roles in cooperative strategies which would enhance local church-based |evangelistic ministry.
We acknowledge our part in the international evangelical community through our participation as one of the 110 national members of World Evangelical Fellowship.
Call for Evangelism -- The Mandate Realized
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20)
We call on evangelical churches, denominations, and ministries to work together according to Christ's paradigm of reconciling love on an integrated agenda of cooperative evangelism and discipleship.
The implications of this call require more than the agenda of one local church. This call requires evangelicals to come together across biblical value-based, broad horizons of cooperation to reach the lost. NAE will offer its networking services to these cooperative efforts so that the world which needs Christ will be confronted with his love and truth.
Call for Cultural Impact
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matt. 5:13-16)
We call on the evangelical community to be faithful and rely wholly on the power of God to transform our lives, our churches, and our communities. The church can make no greater impact on the world than in simply being the faithful, vibrant, worshipping, evangelizing, and loving community which Christ has redeemed.
The National Association of Evangelicals will continue to offer its strategic assets in the pursuit of biblical justice (i.e., ministry to the poor) through its various offices, cooperative ministries, and programs, and commend them to the use of the church.
We encourage our constituency to engage fully their dual citizenship (heaven and earth), exercising one's rights and privileges freely to pray and participate in our nation's democratic form of government. NAE offers the Christian Citizenship Ministry to assist in this endeavor.
NAE will encourage local churches and denominations to support the call of World Relief Corporation as they minister through emergency relief in times of war and natural disaster. Working through local evangelical churches, physical aid and spiritual witness are provided on our behalf.
NAE will foster cooperative ministry through NAE's subsidiary and affiliates.
NAE's programs, conferences, and annual conventions all seek to nurture, encourage, and facilitate fidelity to the Word of God-Incarnate, Revealed, and Proclaimed.
"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen." (Eph. 3:20-21)
Epilogue -- Evangelical Aspirations
Billy Graham has played a strategic and an integral role in the National Association of Evangelicals for almost five decades. He shared the following comments which appropriately serve as this manifesto's epilogue.
It is my fervent prayer that the evangelical community will take seriously the command of the Great Commission in the manner which Jesus described in his great priestly prayer-cooperating without compromise, so that the world might believe!
The challenge before us calls for a strategic united evangelistic effort as we ve never undertaken before. The world in our time is said to have made discipleship harder. But it has also made evangelism easier. Today's world is said to be multiplying crises all around us. But we must never forget that, for the gospel, each crisis is an opportunity. So it is important that we speak and act in hope. The night has not yet fallen. The culture is far from closed. Many of the previous Western rivals to the Gospel are weaker then ever before. In our modern world more people are more open at more moments of their lives than perhaps at any time in history.
But we must ask ourselves: Is all we do still accompanied by prayer and fasting, or have our modern insights, tools, and technology made them redundant? Are we still burdened by a passion for those who do not know Christ or have our neighbors become statistics and the abstract "unreached"? Is our faith integrated and applied in all our lives or is it relevant only in the private world? Is it still our heart's desire to know and love God above all else or is it enough simply to be an evangelical?
We need to re-examine ourselves to see where there is more laxity and worldliness in our churches than we realized. We need to recover the first things of the gospel in both our doctrine and our lives. We need to re-integrate truth and theology into all our lives so that we are a community defined by truth, united by truth.
We need to re-dedicate ourselves to the primary task of winning and making disciples of Jesus Christ in our generation. Today's world waits to see our response to questions and challenges such as these. Evangelicalism has a future to the extent that we evangelicals ourselves are drawn by the gospel, are defined by the gospel, and are declaring and demonstrating the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in word and deed.
I wholeheartedly concur with Don Argue when he says that the National Association of Evangelicals is strategically positioned to be a catalyst for such cooperation. We should reaffirm our faith, as NAE has done through the years. The National Association of Evangelicals has stood true and faithful to the Evangel. NAE has lifted high the cross of Christ, NAE has declared the Resurrection, and NAE has believed in the power of the Holy Spirit. And our efforts will not go unrewarded. Through his prophet, our God declared,
"As the rain and bthe snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and read for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:10-11).
Our faithful united witness may or may not result in a new understanding of the name "evangelical" by the culture and media. Our faithful united witness might result in visible Christian worship of our Lord in the public celebrations of the year A.D. 2000 rather than merely a glorification of another epoch of human achievement and existence. But our faithful united witness will result in revival and reconciliation and renewal. Let us go forward in faith together -- and the very gates of hell cannot prevail!
NAE Statement of Faith
1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mission Statement
The mission of the National Association of Evangelicals is to extend the kingdom of God through a fellowship of member denominations, churches, organizations, and individuals, demonstrating the unity of the body of Christ by standing for biblical truth, speaking with a representative voice, and serving the evangelical community through united action, cooperative ministry, and strategic planning. [National Association of Evangelicals, Wheaton, Il. - http://216.71.192.236/ ]
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
American Salvation
We don’t need Jesus as much as our ancient forbears did.
That’s not to say that we don’t need the forgiveness of our sins. Absolutely, we desperately need that. And we need a relationship with God. It is a wonderful feeling to know that, if we ever need God, we can pray to him and He’s there for us. It’s good to have that security blanket, if we ever need Him. And, of course, we need Him everyday. That’s why we need to pray daily. Because we need Him.
So why don’t we pray?
Well, sure, we prayed for Aunt Marge just last week. She was going into surgery. But she’s okay, because the doctors fixed her right up. And we prayed for Tim, from our church, because he was going to Africa to visit some people who needed help. We prayed for his protection. He got back okay. Of course, we knew that air travel is the safest way to go. And there weren’t any wars where he was going. But we’re glad we prayed, just in case.
And, of course, we worship God. Some of us do it just on Sundays, and some every day. But we recognize that its our responsibility to worship Him because He gave us life and created the world and provided us with the basics of every living thing. So we thank him for our food, although we know that it came from stores after being processed after being grown in farms. But somewhere back there, God did something to get us the food, so we thank Him. It’s only respectful.
It’s not like we believe that God doesn’t work today. We certainly recognize God’s power in our lives. It’s not like God is just some clockworker who put in the rechargeable battery and let it go. So why do we often practically act like deists? Why does it seem as if our lives wouldn’t really be any different if we were just trying to be “good people”?
Isn’t Christianity supposed to be something more intense? What are we missing?
Honestly, what we are missing is salvation.
“No, no,” you interrupt, “you don’t understand. We HAVE salvation. We have it in Jesus. Jesus died on the cross. We believe. So we have forgiveness and a relationship with God. We already have it.”
The problem is that forgiveness is only one part of salvation. It’s important, that’s true, but its not the whole ball of wax. Jesus offered us a lot more than just forgiveness. He offers us the kingdom of God. That’s quite a package. It’s just that so few people really know what it all entails.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom, he offered us a nation of justice. He offered us a nation that acts on the principle of caring for everyone, without exception, so that everyone will be cared for. Justice is in Jesus’ hands, and he offers it to us. All we have to do is
But we already have justice, don’t we? That’s what we are told. We live in a great nation of equality, where no one receives special treatment because of who they are. Everyone is treated the same, no matter what their sex or their race or their social class or their wealth. Everyone receives the same justice, the same opportunities… or, at least, that’s how it is supposed to work.
I guess perhaps we don’t all have justice. I guess there is still people of color who don’t receive equal treatment. There are still women and even men who are refused jobs because of their sex. There are immigrants and the homeless who aren’t treated with fairness. There are still the mentally ill who are not given a fair shake. So maybe we still need Jesus’ offer of justice after all.
When Jesus offered the kingdom of God, he was offering the outcast and lowly the opportunity to be rulers over the world. He proclaimed good news to the poor, freedom to the prisoners and a new start to sinners. Anyone could have the opportunity to lead in Jesus’ kingdom—they didn’t have to be rich or popular or part of a ruling class or a certain educational level. Anyone could be powerful or have authority through the Holy Spirit, and rule with Jesus.
But in our society, we already have that, don’t we. After all, any kid in America could be whatever they want to be. If a kid wants to be part of the police or an astronaut or even President of the whole country all they have to do is work hard and nothing will stop them from achieving their goal, right?
But, actually, I wanted to be an astronaut until I found out that very few people could be in the few slots available for the position. And I wasn’t good enough at science anyway. Maybe, they said, I could be a social worker. And as far as president? When was the last time a homeless person became president? Or a woman? Or a person of color? When was the last time an uneducated person become president? No, the presidency is for a very few. I guess we need Jesus’ salvation for the outcast after all.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he offered us God’s knowledge and wisdom in all things. He offered us the opportunity to know God’s righteousness and to know the hidden things of God. We can have the Holy Spirit who will guide us in our lives and give us wisdom in every circumstance.
But maybe we don’t need that knowledge anymore. After all, we have great colleges and universities where we can learn anything of importance. We have the internet to pick up any other kind of fact that we need. And we have counselors and psychologists to offer us wisdom and counsel in our lives.
On the other hand, I never really learned that much in college. I mean it was helpful, but it really only pointed the way. And the ethics courses were pretty sketchy. And though I can get a lot of facts in our society, I can’t tell the difference between Truth and the various forms of untruth that are floating around out there. It’s so hard to tell the difference. And I’ve got a friend, who is at least as sane as me, and the counselor keeps telling her that she’s got multiple personality disorder. How many of those counselors and psychiatrists really understand us, who we really are, as individuals? Perhaps we need Jesus’ salvation for wisdom after all.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he said that God would provide everything we need. He said that we wouldn’t need to worry about food and clothing—God has got us covered (so to speak). He said that he would heal our diseases and care for our wounds. All of our basic needs would be provided for.
But we don’t need God for that anymore. I’m sure that the ancients needed God for their daily bread and health, but, frankly, us Americans are doing pretty well. After all, I’ve never missed a meal in my life. And I’ve eaten pretty well, if I can judge by my waistline. We’ve got clean water and hot water and running water and sanitary water—that’s something! And we have a better health system than ever seen in history. More people are healed in a city hospital in one day than Jesus did in a year of ministry.
Of course, people are mostly healed. There is very little joy in healing, like with Jesus. People sometimes seem sicker after their “healing” than before. And I eat well and live well, it is true. But why do I feel so guilty? Why is there no satisfaction, not even any contentment, with my prosperity? And why are there so many in the U.S. that don’t experience that prosperity? Why are there children who are hungry, families who are homeless and strong men crippled by work? Perhaps we need Jesus’ salvation of prosperity after all.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he promised us a society of God. He said that we would have a society which would be our family, and we would have tight-knit bonds. If any person was in need, the others would help them out. Everyone would be supported and helped.
But our society seems fine. It offers a lot of variety, a lot of opportunity. There are support groups everywhere, for every kind of issue. There are churches and clubs and societies. And if anyone is really in need, they could ask for it. Or get welfare.
On the other hand, our society seems full of violence. And full of hatreds. And there isn’t much forgiveness. And I don’t know if I remember the name of anyone in my support group. And I think I lied. There’s no one who will really help us in need. And welfare is humiliating.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he promised us a secure future. We would be resurrected from the dead, and we would have eternal life. We would be completely defended by God and there would be no more sorrows. All the future would be ours, if only we would trust in Him
But our future seems fine. We have the possibility of a comfortable retirement. We have insurance to cover the worst of disasters—fire, flood, death, disease. And we are secure in the hands of the U.S. military and the local police. They keep things pretty secure.
But, actually, we are pretty nervous. We depended on Social Security, and we aren’t confident in it anymore. We depended on insurance, and they said they wouldn’t pay for our disaster. We had to take them to court to get the money we were promised. And I would feel secure with the military and police, if only I could trust them. If only I wasn’t afraid of what they would do. As well as all the criminals and terrorists they miss. I suppose that we still need Jesus salvation for the future.
When Jesus offered the kingdom of God, he was speaking about God’s rule. God would be our Lord and Master and King. No one would take us from his hand. No one would rule over us, only God through Jesus.
But, frankly, we don’t really want to be ruled by anyone. I am the master of my own destiny, and I don’t really want anyone telling me what to do. I have my own principles to live by. I have my own ambitions. It is enough for me to make my own decisions. It is enough that I am in charge of my own life and I am independent of all rule. Even God’s.
I think I understand now why we are practical deists. Because we are content with what we already have. We have made our own decisions and we have obtained the salvation the world offers, and why do we need any thing else?
Except… that I made a mess of my life already. I am depressed, sometimes forsaken, often sick. My life is miserable, and I can’t blame anyone but myself. I don’t know if I want to be independent. I’m just not strong enough, not wise enough, not secure enough, not happy enough. Maybe—just maybe—I really need Jesus to take over my life.
There is a salvation that America offers us. It is often called the American dream. We could fit into our society and live out this dream. We could be consumers, and have whatever material things we want. We could gain a high position socially. We could live in a society of mutual respect and opportunity. We could have security for our family and our children’s children.
That’s the promise. There’s only two problems with this promise.
First of all, it’s a lie. America cannot deliver it to us. It never has, and it never will. The government and society is inadequate for what the American dream promises.
Also, Jesus’ offer is much better. The kingdom of God is a more complete version of the salvation America offers.
Some of our greatest heroes, we have been told, offered us salvation. George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln. Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King, Jr. They offered us equality. They offered us prosperity. They offered us a glorious destiny. It was an empty promise. It was an offer without any substance.
Only Jesus’ promise is the real thing. The real salvation.
That’s not to say that we don’t need the forgiveness of our sins. Absolutely, we desperately need that. And we need a relationship with God. It is a wonderful feeling to know that, if we ever need God, we can pray to him and He’s there for us. It’s good to have that security blanket, if we ever need Him. And, of course, we need Him everyday. That’s why we need to pray daily. Because we need Him.
So why don’t we pray?
Well, sure, we prayed for Aunt Marge just last week. She was going into surgery. But she’s okay, because the doctors fixed her right up. And we prayed for Tim, from our church, because he was going to Africa to visit some people who needed help. We prayed for his protection. He got back okay. Of course, we knew that air travel is the safest way to go. And there weren’t any wars where he was going. But we’re glad we prayed, just in case.
And, of course, we worship God. Some of us do it just on Sundays, and some every day. But we recognize that its our responsibility to worship Him because He gave us life and created the world and provided us with the basics of every living thing. So we thank him for our food, although we know that it came from stores after being processed after being grown in farms. But somewhere back there, God did something to get us the food, so we thank Him. It’s only respectful.
It’s not like we believe that God doesn’t work today. We certainly recognize God’s power in our lives. It’s not like God is just some clockworker who put in the rechargeable battery and let it go. So why do we often practically act like deists? Why does it seem as if our lives wouldn’t really be any different if we were just trying to be “good people”?
Isn’t Christianity supposed to be something more intense? What are we missing?
Honestly, what we are missing is salvation.
“No, no,” you interrupt, “you don’t understand. We HAVE salvation. We have it in Jesus. Jesus died on the cross. We believe. So we have forgiveness and a relationship with God. We already have it.”
The problem is that forgiveness is only one part of salvation. It’s important, that’s true, but its not the whole ball of wax. Jesus offered us a lot more than just forgiveness. He offers us the kingdom of God. That’s quite a package. It’s just that so few people really know what it all entails.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom, he offered us a nation of justice. He offered us a nation that acts on the principle of caring for everyone, without exception, so that everyone will be cared for. Justice is in Jesus’ hands, and he offers it to us. All we have to do is
But we already have justice, don’t we? That’s what we are told. We live in a great nation of equality, where no one receives special treatment because of who they are. Everyone is treated the same, no matter what their sex or their race or their social class or their wealth. Everyone receives the same justice, the same opportunities… or, at least, that’s how it is supposed to work.
I guess perhaps we don’t all have justice. I guess there is still people of color who don’t receive equal treatment. There are still women and even men who are refused jobs because of their sex. There are immigrants and the homeless who aren’t treated with fairness. There are still the mentally ill who are not given a fair shake. So maybe we still need Jesus’ offer of justice after all.
When Jesus offered the kingdom of God, he was offering the outcast and lowly the opportunity to be rulers over the world. He proclaimed good news to the poor, freedom to the prisoners and a new start to sinners. Anyone could have the opportunity to lead in Jesus’ kingdom—they didn’t have to be rich or popular or part of a ruling class or a certain educational level. Anyone could be powerful or have authority through the Holy Spirit, and rule with Jesus.
But in our society, we already have that, don’t we. After all, any kid in America could be whatever they want to be. If a kid wants to be part of the police or an astronaut or even President of the whole country all they have to do is work hard and nothing will stop them from achieving their goal, right?
But, actually, I wanted to be an astronaut until I found out that very few people could be in the few slots available for the position. And I wasn’t good enough at science anyway. Maybe, they said, I could be a social worker. And as far as president? When was the last time a homeless person became president? Or a woman? Or a person of color? When was the last time an uneducated person become president? No, the presidency is for a very few. I guess we need Jesus’ salvation for the outcast after all.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he offered us God’s knowledge and wisdom in all things. He offered us the opportunity to know God’s righteousness and to know the hidden things of God. We can have the Holy Spirit who will guide us in our lives and give us wisdom in every circumstance.
But maybe we don’t need that knowledge anymore. After all, we have great colleges and universities where we can learn anything of importance. We have the internet to pick up any other kind of fact that we need. And we have counselors and psychologists to offer us wisdom and counsel in our lives.
On the other hand, I never really learned that much in college. I mean it was helpful, but it really only pointed the way. And the ethics courses were pretty sketchy. And though I can get a lot of facts in our society, I can’t tell the difference between Truth and the various forms of untruth that are floating around out there. It’s so hard to tell the difference. And I’ve got a friend, who is at least as sane as me, and the counselor keeps telling her that she’s got multiple personality disorder. How many of those counselors and psychiatrists really understand us, who we really are, as individuals? Perhaps we need Jesus’ salvation for wisdom after all.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he said that God would provide everything we need. He said that we wouldn’t need to worry about food and clothing—God has got us covered (so to speak). He said that he would heal our diseases and care for our wounds. All of our basic needs would be provided for.
But we don’t need God for that anymore. I’m sure that the ancients needed God for their daily bread and health, but, frankly, us Americans are doing pretty well. After all, I’ve never missed a meal in my life. And I’ve eaten pretty well, if I can judge by my waistline. We’ve got clean water and hot water and running water and sanitary water—that’s something! And we have a better health system than ever seen in history. More people are healed in a city hospital in one day than Jesus did in a year of ministry.
Of course, people are mostly healed. There is very little joy in healing, like with Jesus. People sometimes seem sicker after their “healing” than before. And I eat well and live well, it is true. But why do I feel so guilty? Why is there no satisfaction, not even any contentment, with my prosperity? And why are there so many in the U.S. that don’t experience that prosperity? Why are there children who are hungry, families who are homeless and strong men crippled by work? Perhaps we need Jesus’ salvation of prosperity after all.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he promised us a society of God. He said that we would have a society which would be our family, and we would have tight-knit bonds. If any person was in need, the others would help them out. Everyone would be supported and helped.
But our society seems fine. It offers a lot of variety, a lot of opportunity. There are support groups everywhere, for every kind of issue. There are churches and clubs and societies. And if anyone is really in need, they could ask for it. Or get welfare.
On the other hand, our society seems full of violence. And full of hatreds. And there isn’t much forgiveness. And I don’t know if I remember the name of anyone in my support group. And I think I lied. There’s no one who will really help us in need. And welfare is humiliating.
When Jesus offered us the kingdom of God, he promised us a secure future. We would be resurrected from the dead, and we would have eternal life. We would be completely defended by God and there would be no more sorrows. All the future would be ours, if only we would trust in Him
But our future seems fine. We have the possibility of a comfortable retirement. We have insurance to cover the worst of disasters—fire, flood, death, disease. And we are secure in the hands of the U.S. military and the local police. They keep things pretty secure.
But, actually, we are pretty nervous. We depended on Social Security, and we aren’t confident in it anymore. We depended on insurance, and they said they wouldn’t pay for our disaster. We had to take them to court to get the money we were promised. And I would feel secure with the military and police, if only I could trust them. If only I wasn’t afraid of what they would do. As well as all the criminals and terrorists they miss. I suppose that we still need Jesus salvation for the future.
When Jesus offered the kingdom of God, he was speaking about God’s rule. God would be our Lord and Master and King. No one would take us from his hand. No one would rule over us, only God through Jesus.
But, frankly, we don’t really want to be ruled by anyone. I am the master of my own destiny, and I don’t really want anyone telling me what to do. I have my own principles to live by. I have my own ambitions. It is enough for me to make my own decisions. It is enough that I am in charge of my own life and I am independent of all rule. Even God’s.
I think I understand now why we are practical deists. Because we are content with what we already have. We have made our own decisions and we have obtained the salvation the world offers, and why do we need any thing else?
Except… that I made a mess of my life already. I am depressed, sometimes forsaken, often sick. My life is miserable, and I can’t blame anyone but myself. I don’t know if I want to be independent. I’m just not strong enough, not wise enough, not secure enough, not happy enough. Maybe—just maybe—I really need Jesus to take over my life.
There is a salvation that America offers us. It is often called the American dream. We could fit into our society and live out this dream. We could be consumers, and have whatever material things we want. We could gain a high position socially. We could live in a society of mutual respect and opportunity. We could have security for our family and our children’s children.
That’s the promise. There’s only two problems with this promise.
First of all, it’s a lie. America cannot deliver it to us. It never has, and it never will. The government and society is inadequate for what the American dream promises.
Also, Jesus’ offer is much better. The kingdom of God is a more complete version of the salvation America offers.
Some of our greatest heroes, we have been told, offered us salvation. George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln. Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King, Jr. They offered us equality. They offered us prosperity. They offered us a glorious destiny. It was an empty promise. It was an offer without any substance.
Only Jesus’ promise is the real thing. The real salvation.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Paul and the Law (The NT and the Law, Part 5)
(Please read parts 1-4 for the whole argument to make sense)
Paul had the law woven into his life. He grew up submitted to the law, studied it, became an expert in it and on the basis of that law he persecuted Christians. Then he saw Jesus as Lord of heaven and everything he once knew changed. He was still an expert in the law, but he submitted it all to Jesus’ understanding and will.
There has been much disagreement throughout church history about what Paul’s opinion about the law is. Some believed that Paul held that Satan wrote the law and Jesus delivered us from it. Others have said that Paul completely supported the law. A popular opinion is that Paul was opposed to following any laws—whether Moses’ or a church’s— holding only to faith in Jesus. To understand Paul’s perspective, we have to read him carefully, and not place our own opinions about the Law in his mouth. When we read Paul carefully, we find that he at least had these opinions about Moses’ law:
Paul was in agreement with Jesus and the early church about the Law
The Law was from God
Paul firmly acknowledged that the Law of Moses was good, not evil, and that it came from God to Moses (Romans 7:12; Galatians 3:19, 21)
Everyone born under Moses must submit to the Law
Like Jesus, Peter and the other apostles, Paul lived in full submission to Moses Law all of his life, even after he was a Christian (Acts 21:24). He also affirmed that Jews under the Law were given a special gift from God to preserve the Law and keep it.
Jesus gave us a higher law to live by
Paul agrees with Jesus and James that Jesus gave us a law to live by, and it is that higher law—not the law of Moses—by which we will be judged. If we live by that higher law, Paul writes, we will have fulfilled all of the law of Moses and more. (Romans 13:8-10)
Gentiles are not required to live under Moses’ law, but Jesus’ law and faith
Paul was in full agreement with the early church that Gentiles did not need to follow the law of Moses because they were never put in submission to it. It is enough that they have faith in Jesus, even as Abraham did. (Galatians 2:15-16)
Paul said the law has no power to help people obey it
Although the law is good and comes from God, it is weak. All it does is communicate what sin is, but it doesn’t give any power to help a person get sin out of their lives. It is a standard, but it has no ability to assist a person who wants to live it, even the one who fully loves the law. (Romans 7:14-15, 8:3)
Paul said the law condemns everyone who lives under it
Because the law has no power to help those submitted to it obey it, everyone who attempts to live under the law will disobey it. Every human is weak, and we are tempted by Satan to disobey God, and, left to our own devices, that is exactly what we will do. We will disobey the very thing we have submitted ourselves to. But the law also makes it clear, if we disobey it or rebel against it, then we will die. Thus the law ends up condemning and killing everyone who is under it. (Romans 7:13-20, 3:9-20)
Paul said that Satan uses the law to destroy people
God gave the Law to Israel to point the way to life, to be holy and pure before God. But Satan recognized the weakness of humans and used the Law as a tool of disobedience. He deceived them to be unfaithful to the law and to God, and so be condemned to death. Once they were condemned to death, Satan had them under his power, for Satan has authority over all who are judged. And Satan desires lordship over people in order to destroy them. In this way, the Law became the tool of Satan for destruction, instead of what it was originally made for. (Romans 6:16; 7:7-12, 25)
Paul said the law is a part of the powers that Jesus delivers us from
Jesus not only delivers us from Satan and death, but from everything that led us to death—including the Law. Again, Paul says that the Law became the tool of Satan, and so it is no longer worthwhile for salvation. But through Jesus’ death and resurrection we have gained freedom from all of that. We no longer must go to God through the Law, instead we go to God through Jesus. Thus, we must not consider that the law is what will bring us to God, for we need only Jesus. (Romans 8:1-4; Colossians 2:11-17). In this way, Jews who follow Jesus obey the law, but only in the way that a Christian would submit to the laws of the nation he or she is living under—because we submit to worldly authorities while we live under them (Romans 13:1-7)
Paul said that gentiles should not put themselves under the law, if they need the Law to save them
There were many in Paul’s day who thought that every Christian—even those who were not born under the law—needed to submit themselves to Moses’ law before they could be truly pleasing to God. Many gentiles under Paul’s care were influenced by this and felt that they needed to put themselves under Moses’ law through circumcision in order to be truly saved. Paul was firm in his understanding that to submit to Moses’ law was to seek salvation from the world, and to separate oneself from Jesus. In Jesus alone is found salvation, and to share that place with any other power is to deny Jesus. (Galatians 4:1-9; 5:1-4)
Paul said that a gentile can put himself under the law in order to minister to Jews
This did not mean, however, that a gentile could not be circumcised. Paul himself circumcised Timothy (a gentile), thus placing him in submission to the Law, not to save Timothy, but to help him fulfill God’s calling on his life. Timothy was called to be an evangelist, with Paul, and in that he would have to be submitted to the Law in all things. This was to make it so that Jews would listen to Timothy when he preached the gospel. Thus some can willingly put themselves in slavery, if it would allow the gospel to be preached. (Acts 16:1-3; I Corinthians 9:19-23)
The Law is God’s will, circumvented by Satan.
But Jesus set us free from the Law.
Paul had the law woven into his life. He grew up submitted to the law, studied it, became an expert in it and on the basis of that law he persecuted Christians. Then he saw Jesus as Lord of heaven and everything he once knew changed. He was still an expert in the law, but he submitted it all to Jesus’ understanding and will.
There has been much disagreement throughout church history about what Paul’s opinion about the law is. Some believed that Paul held that Satan wrote the law and Jesus delivered us from it. Others have said that Paul completely supported the law. A popular opinion is that Paul was opposed to following any laws—whether Moses’ or a church’s— holding only to faith in Jesus. To understand Paul’s perspective, we have to read him carefully, and not place our own opinions about the Law in his mouth. When we read Paul carefully, we find that he at least had these opinions about Moses’ law:
Paul was in agreement with Jesus and the early church about the Law
The Law was from God
Paul firmly acknowledged that the Law of Moses was good, not evil, and that it came from God to Moses (Romans 7:12; Galatians 3:19, 21)
Everyone born under Moses must submit to the Law
Like Jesus, Peter and the other apostles, Paul lived in full submission to Moses Law all of his life, even after he was a Christian (Acts 21:24). He also affirmed that Jews under the Law were given a special gift from God to preserve the Law and keep it.
Jesus gave us a higher law to live by
Paul agrees with Jesus and James that Jesus gave us a law to live by, and it is that higher law—not the law of Moses—by which we will be judged. If we live by that higher law, Paul writes, we will have fulfilled all of the law of Moses and more. (Romans 13:8-10)
Gentiles are not required to live under Moses’ law, but Jesus’ law and faith
Paul was in full agreement with the early church that Gentiles did not need to follow the law of Moses because they were never put in submission to it. It is enough that they have faith in Jesus, even as Abraham did. (Galatians 2:15-16)
Paul said the law has no power to help people obey it
Although the law is good and comes from God, it is weak. All it does is communicate what sin is, but it doesn’t give any power to help a person get sin out of their lives. It is a standard, but it has no ability to assist a person who wants to live it, even the one who fully loves the law. (Romans 7:14-15, 8:3)
Paul said the law condemns everyone who lives under it
Because the law has no power to help those submitted to it obey it, everyone who attempts to live under the law will disobey it. Every human is weak, and we are tempted by Satan to disobey God, and, left to our own devices, that is exactly what we will do. We will disobey the very thing we have submitted ourselves to. But the law also makes it clear, if we disobey it or rebel against it, then we will die. Thus the law ends up condemning and killing everyone who is under it. (Romans 7:13-20, 3:9-20)
Paul said that Satan uses the law to destroy people
God gave the Law to Israel to point the way to life, to be holy and pure before God. But Satan recognized the weakness of humans and used the Law as a tool of disobedience. He deceived them to be unfaithful to the law and to God, and so be condemned to death. Once they were condemned to death, Satan had them under his power, for Satan has authority over all who are judged. And Satan desires lordship over people in order to destroy them. In this way, the Law became the tool of Satan for destruction, instead of what it was originally made for. (Romans 6:16; 7:7-12, 25)
Paul said the law is a part of the powers that Jesus delivers us from
Jesus not only delivers us from Satan and death, but from everything that led us to death—including the Law. Again, Paul says that the Law became the tool of Satan, and so it is no longer worthwhile for salvation. But through Jesus’ death and resurrection we have gained freedom from all of that. We no longer must go to God through the Law, instead we go to God through Jesus. Thus, we must not consider that the law is what will bring us to God, for we need only Jesus. (Romans 8:1-4; Colossians 2:11-17). In this way, Jews who follow Jesus obey the law, but only in the way that a Christian would submit to the laws of the nation he or she is living under—because we submit to worldly authorities while we live under them (Romans 13:1-7)
Paul said that gentiles should not put themselves under the law, if they need the Law to save them
There were many in Paul’s day who thought that every Christian—even those who were not born under the law—needed to submit themselves to Moses’ law before they could be truly pleasing to God. Many gentiles under Paul’s care were influenced by this and felt that they needed to put themselves under Moses’ law through circumcision in order to be truly saved. Paul was firm in his understanding that to submit to Moses’ law was to seek salvation from the world, and to separate oneself from Jesus. In Jesus alone is found salvation, and to share that place with any other power is to deny Jesus. (Galatians 4:1-9; 5:1-4)
Paul said that a gentile can put himself under the law in order to minister to Jews
This did not mean, however, that a gentile could not be circumcised. Paul himself circumcised Timothy (a gentile), thus placing him in submission to the Law, not to save Timothy, but to help him fulfill God’s calling on his life. Timothy was called to be an evangelist, with Paul, and in that he would have to be submitted to the Law in all things. This was to make it so that Jews would listen to Timothy when he preached the gospel. Thus some can willingly put themselves in slavery, if it would allow the gospel to be preached. (Acts 16:1-3; I Corinthians 9:19-23)
The Law is God’s will, circumvented by Satan.
But Jesus set us free from the Law.
The Early Jerusalem Church and the Law (The NT and the Law Part 4)
(This one is just an outline, not a full text-- sorry)
James was a completely observant Jew, honored for his righteousness within Jerusalem.
James held that the “royal law” was to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
James offered eschatalogical blessings on those who kept the higher law.
James commanded all to be doers of the higher law
James condemned those who would judge the higher law by speaking against it or disobeying it.
Peter was also a completely observant Jew.
Peter was submissive to Jewish authorities, established by the Mosaic Law, but disobeyed them when they commanded contrary to Jesus.
Peter was commanded by God to eat unclean food—disobedient to the Mosaic Law— in a vision.
Peter welcomed Gentiles as the faithful in Jesus apart from the Mosaic Law.
Peter and Paul saw Gentiles receive of the Holy Spirit apart from the Mosaic Law.
The Jerusalem Church recommended that Gentiles in Jesus not be joined to the Mosaic Law.
The Jerusalem Church recommended that Gentiles in Christ obey these universal laws:
a. Be pure from sexual immorality
b. Do not eat blood or things that are strangled
c. Be separated from things contaminated by idolatry
d. Give to the poor
James was a completely observant Jew, honored for his righteousness within Jerusalem.
James held that the “royal law” was to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
James offered eschatalogical blessings on those who kept the higher law.
James commanded all to be doers of the higher law
James condemned those who would judge the higher law by speaking against it or disobeying it.
Peter was also a completely observant Jew.
Peter was submissive to Jewish authorities, established by the Mosaic Law, but disobeyed them when they commanded contrary to Jesus.
Peter was commanded by God to eat unclean food—disobedient to the Mosaic Law— in a vision.
Peter welcomed Gentiles as the faithful in Jesus apart from the Mosaic Law.
Peter and Paul saw Gentiles receive of the Holy Spirit apart from the Mosaic Law.
The Jerusalem Church recommended that Gentiles in Jesus not be joined to the Mosaic Law.
The Jerusalem Church recommended that Gentiles in Christ obey these universal laws:
a. Be pure from sexual immorality
b. Do not eat blood or things that are strangled
c. Be separated from things contaminated by idolatry
d. Give to the poor
Did Jesus Oppose The Law? (The Law and the NT Part 3)
At least some in Jesus’ day claimed that Jesus was attempting to set aside Moses’ Law. And certainly many of Jesus’ Gentile followers thought that he did. On the one hand, Jesus claims to not be opposed to the Law in any way (Matt 5:17). He opposes anyone who lessens the Law (Matt. 5:19). On the other hand, he claims that a law of Moses was given just to appease the children of Israel’s “hardness of heart”. And he seemed to have many instances in which he opposed Moses’ Law. Or did he? Let’s look at some of Jesus’ teachings that seem to contradict Moses:
1. Divorce—
Matthew 19:1-9 v Deuteronomy 24:1
When confronted with Moses’ command to give a certificate of divorce, Jesus claims that the law was a concession to the disloyal hearts of Israelites, and that divorce was never in God’s plan. He uses another part of the Law which confirms that marriage is established by God (Genesis 1:24). Thus, he concludes, divorce should only be allowed if adultery is found—because adultery would break the covenant of marriage even without divorce. While it seems that Jesus is contradicting Moses, on the surface, Jesus is not actually opposing the law, here. The original law was to make a divorce official by having it be written in order to prevent remarriage. Thus the certificate is less about divorce than to disallow remarriage. Thus, Jesus is bringing the law back to its original intent—preventing remarriage, rather than allowing divorce. Jesus then expands the law opposing remarriage in Deuteronomy 24 to include any kind of remarriage except that following adultery, based on Genesis 1. Thus, Jesus is not opposing Moses, but making the law more consistent with itself and God’s plan in creation. The higher law of faithfulness to a covenant and preventing others from sinning trumps the allowance of divorce.
2. Cleanliness—
Matthew 15:10-20 v. Leviticus 5:2
Jesus claims that it is not what one touches or eats that makes one unclean, but the intent of one’s heart. This seems to contradict Moses who says that what one touches can make one unclean. Jesus, however, does not deny the actions that one should do to remain clean in the law—he is not opposed to bathing, but only mandatory washing before meals (which is found in the oral law, not the written). He could be speaking about the “real” cleanness that will matter on the judgement day, not the day to day cleanness that is significant in contemporary human society. Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but highlighting the moral law.
3. Loving enemies—
Matthew 5:42-48 v. Deuteronomy 23:6
The Law tells the Israelites who to hate, while Jesus says to hate no one—to even love one’s enemies. However, the Law is very specific about who one is to hate—Moabites, Amorites and Canaanites. Other nations are not to be “hated” or done evil to, even if they do evil (Edom and Egypt—Deut 23:7). Yahweh rescinded his command about the Canaanites (Deut. 20:17; Judges 2:20-3:6). The separation was later to be not to intermarry with these tribes (Gen. 28:1; Judges 3:5-7;Ezra 9:1-3). The Canaanites survived to the time of Jesus, but he granted them the eschatalogical promise to Israel if they displayed faith (Matthew 15). Thus, Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but taking a basic principle of the law—“Love of neighbor” and applying it more broadly.
4. Oaths—
Matt. 5:34-37; Matthew 23:16-22 v. Numbers 30:3
Rather than just emphasizing the keeping of oaths, Jesus is denying any oath-speech used in a promise. Moses’ law just demands that one keeps the oath one makes. Moses, of course, is not demanding that people make oaths. So Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but heightening the demand. Jesus is emphasizing honest speech for the sake of others in Matthew 5. In Matthew 23, Jesus argues against oath-taking for the sake of devotion. Overall, Jesus is saying that oath-making is less important than integrity and faithfulness to God. Thus, the higher law trumps the allowance of oath-making.
5. Harvesting and preparing food on Sabbath—
Matthew 12:1-8 v. Leviticus 25:4
In Matthew, the disciples are plucking and eating grain as they pass through a field on the Sabbath. Harvesting food is forbidden on the Sabbath, according to the law and Jesus is attacked by the Pharisees for allowing them to do it. Jesus, however, gives a number of examples showing in the Scriptures how one law is contradicted and set aside for a greater one: a. David ate the consecrated bread intended by law only for priests (I Samuel 21:1-6; Leviticus 24: 5-9). Thus, the cultic demand is marginalized due to the need of doing mercy to the King's servant b. The priests do not keep the Sabbath, but do their work during the Sabbath. Thus, the Sabbath command is marginalized by the need to maintain the temple pure. Thus, the disciples are innocent of wrongdoing before God, because although they may have technically broken the Sabbath laws against harvesting and preparing food (Exodus 20:10; 31:14-15), but they were living out the law of mercy for the sake of the ministry to a king— even as David did of old. Again, Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but prioritizing the law in an internal conflict
6. Honoring Father and Mother—
Matthew 8:21-22 v. Exodus 20:12
One should always honor one’s parents, and one kind of honoring is to bury the dead. However, when a potential disciple asks Jesus to bury his father, Jesus refuses him, telling him to let the “dead bury their own dead”. This seems to contradict the command to honor one’s parents. However, Jesus is not contradicting it. First of all, Jesus is prioritizing work for God’s kingdom before participating in honoring one’s parents, just as Jesus prioritizes God’s kingdom work over many other necessary things (Matthew 6:33). On the other hand, burying is not so much a sign of honor, unless there is no one else to bury them. The important thing is that the body gets buried, and not left exposed. As long as someone is burying the body—as Jesus says there is—then no dishonor is there.
7. Tithing—
Matthew 23:22-23 v. Leviticus 27:30
Jesus states that tithing is a less significant law than mercy and justice. Jesus is not opposed to tithing in this verse. Rather, he is saying it is a less important matter than mercy, justice and devotion to God. Some tithing might very well display mercy, but not the tithe of herbs, which is what Jesus is discussing. Jesus often opposes the oral Torah (Matthew 15:1-15; 23:16-31—opposing the traditions of the “fathers”), but he usually speaks of obeying the “commands” of God instead—the true Torah.
8. Welcoming sinners into the Eschatalogical blessing—
Matthew 9:10-13; 21:21-22 v. Deuteronomy 28:15
The Law makes it clear that those who are under the law but disobey it will die and not receive the blessings of God (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). Jesus, though, is granting God’s kingdom to sinners, and welcoming them through eating with them. However, there is always a place in the Law and prophets for those who regret and repent of their deeds (Deut. 19:1-7; Ezekiel 18; Psalm 51; II Samuel 12). Their repentance displays faith, and so they must be welcomed and forgiven. Forgiveness of sin is not foreign to the Law, even for intentional sins (Genesis 50:17; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14)—Jesus is just emphasizing forgiveness with an eschatalogical spin. Thus, Jesus is in agreement with Moses.
9. Welcoming Canaanites and Gentiles into the Eschatalogical blessing—
Matthew 8:5-13; 15:21-28 v. Deuteronomy 7:1-2
Jesus supports the welcoming of outsiders into the blessing of God in the kingdom. This seems opposed to the Torah (Exodus 34:24; Leviticus 18:24) on the surface, which does not readily grant the blessings of God to Gentiles. Jesus, however, seems to determine that some Gentiles that display true devotion to God and to the coming King deserve a place with Abraham Isaac and Jacob better than some who live within their earthly realm at present (Matthew 8:5-13). This is not opposing the Torah, but making the shift that Isaiah made, determining that the “nations” is anyone who is opposed or unfaithful to God, while the “servants” are those who are faithful to God (Isaiah 65:8-17; 66:17-23). Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but interpreting those who are “inside” God’s kingdom by the standard of faith.
Jesus does not contradict Moses
Jesus does not oppose the Torah in any way. Often Jesus is seen as doing away with Sabbath and cleansing laws of Moses’ law, but he is not doing so. At times he is prioritizing them, so that if they are in conflict, it can be seen which laws should be obeyed in a certain context. At times he is adjusting them, to make them be interpreted in light of compassion and justice. And at times he is heightening them, so they are to be interpreted in light of God’s higher laws. But never does he just say that this law has no place; nor does he set aside any command.
1. Divorce—
Matthew 19:1-9 v Deuteronomy 24:1
When confronted with Moses’ command to give a certificate of divorce, Jesus claims that the law was a concession to the disloyal hearts of Israelites, and that divorce was never in God’s plan. He uses another part of the Law which confirms that marriage is established by God (Genesis 1:24). Thus, he concludes, divorce should only be allowed if adultery is found—because adultery would break the covenant of marriage even without divorce. While it seems that Jesus is contradicting Moses, on the surface, Jesus is not actually opposing the law, here. The original law was to make a divorce official by having it be written in order to prevent remarriage. Thus the certificate is less about divorce than to disallow remarriage. Thus, Jesus is bringing the law back to its original intent—preventing remarriage, rather than allowing divorce. Jesus then expands the law opposing remarriage in Deuteronomy 24 to include any kind of remarriage except that following adultery, based on Genesis 1. Thus, Jesus is not opposing Moses, but making the law more consistent with itself and God’s plan in creation. The higher law of faithfulness to a covenant and preventing others from sinning trumps the allowance of divorce.
2. Cleanliness—
Matthew 15:10-20 v. Leviticus 5:2
Jesus claims that it is not what one touches or eats that makes one unclean, but the intent of one’s heart. This seems to contradict Moses who says that what one touches can make one unclean. Jesus, however, does not deny the actions that one should do to remain clean in the law—he is not opposed to bathing, but only mandatory washing before meals (which is found in the oral law, not the written). He could be speaking about the “real” cleanness that will matter on the judgement day, not the day to day cleanness that is significant in contemporary human society. Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but highlighting the moral law.
3. Loving enemies—
Matthew 5:42-48 v. Deuteronomy 23:6
The Law tells the Israelites who to hate, while Jesus says to hate no one—to even love one’s enemies. However, the Law is very specific about who one is to hate—Moabites, Amorites and Canaanites. Other nations are not to be “hated” or done evil to, even if they do evil (Edom and Egypt—Deut 23:7). Yahweh rescinded his command about the Canaanites (Deut. 20:17; Judges 2:20-3:6). The separation was later to be not to intermarry with these tribes (Gen. 28:1; Judges 3:5-7;Ezra 9:1-3). The Canaanites survived to the time of Jesus, but he granted them the eschatalogical promise to Israel if they displayed faith (Matthew 15). Thus, Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but taking a basic principle of the law—“Love of neighbor” and applying it more broadly.
4. Oaths—
Matt. 5:34-37; Matthew 23:16-22 v. Numbers 30:3
Rather than just emphasizing the keeping of oaths, Jesus is denying any oath-speech used in a promise. Moses’ law just demands that one keeps the oath one makes. Moses, of course, is not demanding that people make oaths. So Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but heightening the demand. Jesus is emphasizing honest speech for the sake of others in Matthew 5. In Matthew 23, Jesus argues against oath-taking for the sake of devotion. Overall, Jesus is saying that oath-making is less important than integrity and faithfulness to God. Thus, the higher law trumps the allowance of oath-making.
5. Harvesting and preparing food on Sabbath—
Matthew 12:1-8 v. Leviticus 25:4
In Matthew, the disciples are plucking and eating grain as they pass through a field on the Sabbath. Harvesting food is forbidden on the Sabbath, according to the law and Jesus is attacked by the Pharisees for allowing them to do it. Jesus, however, gives a number of examples showing in the Scriptures how one law is contradicted and set aside for a greater one: a. David ate the consecrated bread intended by law only for priests (I Samuel 21:1-6; Leviticus 24: 5-9). Thus, the cultic demand is marginalized due to the need of doing mercy to the King's servant b. The priests do not keep the Sabbath, but do their work during the Sabbath. Thus, the Sabbath command is marginalized by the need to maintain the temple pure. Thus, the disciples are innocent of wrongdoing before God, because although they may have technically broken the Sabbath laws against harvesting and preparing food (Exodus 20:10; 31:14-15), but they were living out the law of mercy for the sake of the ministry to a king— even as David did of old. Again, Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but prioritizing the law in an internal conflict
6. Honoring Father and Mother—
Matthew 8:21-22 v. Exodus 20:12
One should always honor one’s parents, and one kind of honoring is to bury the dead. However, when a potential disciple asks Jesus to bury his father, Jesus refuses him, telling him to let the “dead bury their own dead”. This seems to contradict the command to honor one’s parents. However, Jesus is not contradicting it. First of all, Jesus is prioritizing work for God’s kingdom before participating in honoring one’s parents, just as Jesus prioritizes God’s kingdom work over many other necessary things (Matthew 6:33). On the other hand, burying is not so much a sign of honor, unless there is no one else to bury them. The important thing is that the body gets buried, and not left exposed. As long as someone is burying the body—as Jesus says there is—then no dishonor is there.
7. Tithing—
Matthew 23:22-23 v. Leviticus 27:30
Jesus states that tithing is a less significant law than mercy and justice. Jesus is not opposed to tithing in this verse. Rather, he is saying it is a less important matter than mercy, justice and devotion to God. Some tithing might very well display mercy, but not the tithe of herbs, which is what Jesus is discussing. Jesus often opposes the oral Torah (Matthew 15:1-15; 23:16-31—opposing the traditions of the “fathers”), but he usually speaks of obeying the “commands” of God instead—the true Torah.
8. Welcoming sinners into the Eschatalogical blessing—
Matthew 9:10-13; 21:21-22 v. Deuteronomy 28:15
The Law makes it clear that those who are under the law but disobey it will die and not receive the blessings of God (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). Jesus, though, is granting God’s kingdom to sinners, and welcoming them through eating with them. However, there is always a place in the Law and prophets for those who regret and repent of their deeds (Deut. 19:1-7; Ezekiel 18; Psalm 51; II Samuel 12). Their repentance displays faith, and so they must be welcomed and forgiven. Forgiveness of sin is not foreign to the Law, even for intentional sins (Genesis 50:17; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14)—Jesus is just emphasizing forgiveness with an eschatalogical spin. Thus, Jesus is in agreement with Moses.
9. Welcoming Canaanites and Gentiles into the Eschatalogical blessing—
Matthew 8:5-13; 15:21-28 v. Deuteronomy 7:1-2
Jesus supports the welcoming of outsiders into the blessing of God in the kingdom. This seems opposed to the Torah (Exodus 34:24; Leviticus 18:24) on the surface, which does not readily grant the blessings of God to Gentiles. Jesus, however, seems to determine that some Gentiles that display true devotion to God and to the coming King deserve a place with Abraham Isaac and Jacob better than some who live within their earthly realm at present (Matthew 8:5-13). This is not opposing the Torah, but making the shift that Isaiah made, determining that the “nations” is anyone who is opposed or unfaithful to God, while the “servants” are those who are faithful to God (Isaiah 65:8-17; 66:17-23). Jesus is not contradicting Moses, but interpreting those who are “inside” God’s kingdom by the standard of faith.
Jesus does not contradict Moses
Jesus does not oppose the Torah in any way. Often Jesus is seen as doing away with Sabbath and cleansing laws of Moses’ law, but he is not doing so. At times he is prioritizing them, so that if they are in conflict, it can be seen which laws should be obeyed in a certain context. At times he is adjusting them, to make them be interpreted in light of compassion and justice. And at times he is heightening them, so they are to be interpreted in light of God’s higher laws. But never does he just say that this law has no place; nor does he set aside any command.
Jesus and the Law (The Law and the NT Part 2)
Jesus never disobeyed the Mosaic Law
Jesus was a fully observant Jew, and obeyed the Law of Moses in all of it’s particulars. Jesus said that he had come to “fulfill” the law (Matthew 5:17-18). Part of the meaning of that is that Jesus did obey the law in all of it’s particulars (see below). And, in fact, he obeyed the law better than Moses or David. Jesus’ opponents were looking to catch Jesus in a sin, but they never did. When they brought him to trial, they accused him of false crimes—things he never did. Jesus even invited them to publicly state what part of God’s word he had broken—but they came up with nothing (John 8:46).
Jesus never taught in opposition to the Mosaic Law
Although it may seem like it at times, Jesus never taught against the Law of Moses. Every one of the cases where it seems that Jesus opposed the law of Moses, he was interpreting it, but not disagreeing with it (see the next tract—“Did Jesus oppose the Law?”) In fact, Jesus said that the one who taught anyone to disobey even the least of God’s commands would be least in God’s kingdom. Jesus himself did not in any way teach anyone to disobey the law of Moses.
Jesus’ view of the Law
1. The Law was given by God and would endure until the beginning of next age
Jesus made it clear that the Law was God’s word, and it is God’s standard. He said that as a standard, it would be protected and stand firm until the next age began. Jesus actually placed the Law of Moses on a similar level with his own words. (Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35).
2. The Law was given for God’s people on earth to live in Israel
At the same time, Jesus was saying that the Law of Moses was the law for this age—it would not continue into God’s kingdom. God’s kingdom would see a greater law come about, one based on Jesus’ words.
3. The Law can contradict itself
Jesus showed that different laws within Moses’ law contradicted each other. In Matthew 12, Jesus showed that the sabbath law could contradict the law of love, and that the law for priests can contradict the sabbath law. In these cases, Jesus said, one law was greater than the other, and so the greater law is the one to be followed. Jesus stated that the cultic law was less than the ceremonial law, and the ceremonial law is less than the civic law and the civic law is less than the ethical law.
4. The Law was inadequate for passing God’s judgment
The problem with the law, Jesus felt, is that humans interpret it. The two main schools of thought about the law in Jesus’ day—the Sadducees and the Pharisees—were wrong in their interpretations and obedience of the law. Thus, Jesus said, if one’s obedience of the Law was only up to the standard of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, then one would be judged inadequate by God’s standard. Thus, just having the Law is not enough—one must also have the proper interpretation of it.
Jesus often opposed the traditional interpretation of the Law
There were many cases in which Jesus was confronted with a traditional interpretation of the law. He opposed these interpretations on two bases. He said, first of all, that often the interpretations oppose the true obedience of other commands. For instance, he said that a traditional understanding of surrendering wealth to God (known as “corban”) was in opposition to honoring one’s father and mother with one’s wealth when they needed it in their old age (Mark 7:1-13). Second, Jesus said that requiring all Israel obey their interpretations hurts the needy among them. Jesus said that sacrifice—the obedience to the Temple laws—comes secondary to mercy—obedience to meet the needs of one’s neighbor. Thus, Jesus said, there should be no mandatory imposing of a strict law if it harms the needy (Matthew 12:7). In this way, Jesus opposed many of the requirements that modern Jews (and even Messianic Jews) impose upon their followers based on the Talmud.
Jesus taught submission and disobedience to Pharisee’s authority
On the one hand, Jesus taught that his disciples should recognize that the Pharisees had the authority of Moses, and so they were to be obeyed. Then, immediately after, Jesus described the areas the disciples should disobey the Pharisees. Fundamentally, Jesus taught obedience, except where the teachings or actions of the Pharisees contradicted the higher law of God. (Matthew 23:1-2)
Jesus saw himself as fulfilling the Law
Jesus said, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” (Matthew 5:17-18). However, when Matthew uses the word “fulfill”, he means it in three ways in connection with Jesus:
a. Jesus would obey the Mosaic Law to the full extent
As stated above, Jesus was a fully observant Jew, and never disobeyed the law of Moses. Not only did Jesus obey the law that was written down to the letter, but he obeyed the Greater Law that stood behind the Mosaic Law.
b. Jesus would fulfill the paradigms that were only partially fulfilled in the Mosaic Law
All throughout the books of Moses, as well as the rest of the Hebrew Bible, there were many examples of God’s people, but all of them failed in some way. Moses and David were murderers, Aaron participated in idolatry, Abraham was a deceiver and Jacob was greedy. The children of Israel failed God’s law again and again. However, Jesus took Moses’ and David’s place, as well as the nation of Israel as a whole, and he fulfilled all of their roles perfectly, without any fault before God. Thus, Jesus fulfilled every role the Hebrew Bible presents—he was an obedient deliverer, a just judge, a devoted mediator, and a holy nation who endured through testing. Many of the Scriptures that Jesus was fulfilling were not prophecies at all, but simply stories that needed to be completed (see Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1-2).
c. Jesus would fulfill the prophecies that are stated in the Hebrew Bible
Jesus stated many times that the Scripture would be fulfilled in him (for example, Matthew 26:31, 54). By this, he meant that there were many things in the Hebrew Scriptures that God says would happen. However, they had not occurred yet. Jesus said that he himself would be the focus of the completion of these promises.
Jesus taught a higher law
In order to assist us to be fully acceptable and obedient to God, Jesus taught us how to follow the law. He did this by teaching us the greater law by which one would be acceptable on the judgement day. This higher law is: The one who is faithful to God will receive reward from God; The one who is merciful to others will receive mercy from God; The one who is lowered by others will be raised by God; Whatever one repents of will not be held against them. These laws do not replace the law of Moses, but they adequately explain how anyone could obey any law and be right before God. This could be another way in which Jesus fulfills the law: by teaching the true obedience of it.
Jesus blessed Gentiles apart from the Law
There were two times that Jesus was asked by a Gentile to give them the power of the Spirit, which is only offered to the children of Israel (Matthew 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 10:1, 5-6). Jesus provided the blessing of God to them, as they asked—but only because of the faith they had shown. But either before or after this, Jesus made no requirements that they follow the law of Moses, and there was no expectation that they would, especially for one. Thus, Jesus showed that the blessing of God could be given to non-Jews, even though they did not follow Moses’ law.
The Law is good, but Jesus’ higher law is better.
Jesus was a fully observant Jew, and obeyed the Law of Moses in all of it’s particulars. Jesus said that he had come to “fulfill” the law (Matthew 5:17-18). Part of the meaning of that is that Jesus did obey the law in all of it’s particulars (see below). And, in fact, he obeyed the law better than Moses or David. Jesus’ opponents were looking to catch Jesus in a sin, but they never did. When they brought him to trial, they accused him of false crimes—things he never did. Jesus even invited them to publicly state what part of God’s word he had broken—but they came up with nothing (John 8:46).
Jesus never taught in opposition to the Mosaic Law
Although it may seem like it at times, Jesus never taught against the Law of Moses. Every one of the cases where it seems that Jesus opposed the law of Moses, he was interpreting it, but not disagreeing with it (see the next tract—“Did Jesus oppose the Law?”) In fact, Jesus said that the one who taught anyone to disobey even the least of God’s commands would be least in God’s kingdom. Jesus himself did not in any way teach anyone to disobey the law of Moses.
Jesus’ view of the Law
1. The Law was given by God and would endure until the beginning of next age
Jesus made it clear that the Law was God’s word, and it is God’s standard. He said that as a standard, it would be protected and stand firm until the next age began. Jesus actually placed the Law of Moses on a similar level with his own words. (Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35).
2. The Law was given for God’s people on earth to live in Israel
At the same time, Jesus was saying that the Law of Moses was the law for this age—it would not continue into God’s kingdom. God’s kingdom would see a greater law come about, one based on Jesus’ words.
3. The Law can contradict itself
Jesus showed that different laws within Moses’ law contradicted each other. In Matthew 12, Jesus showed that the sabbath law could contradict the law of love, and that the law for priests can contradict the sabbath law. In these cases, Jesus said, one law was greater than the other, and so the greater law is the one to be followed. Jesus stated that the cultic law was less than the ceremonial law, and the ceremonial law is less than the civic law and the civic law is less than the ethical law.
4. The Law was inadequate for passing God’s judgment
The problem with the law, Jesus felt, is that humans interpret it. The two main schools of thought about the law in Jesus’ day—the Sadducees and the Pharisees—were wrong in their interpretations and obedience of the law. Thus, Jesus said, if one’s obedience of the Law was only up to the standard of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, then one would be judged inadequate by God’s standard. Thus, just having the Law is not enough—one must also have the proper interpretation of it.
Jesus often opposed the traditional interpretation of the Law
There were many cases in which Jesus was confronted with a traditional interpretation of the law. He opposed these interpretations on two bases. He said, first of all, that often the interpretations oppose the true obedience of other commands. For instance, he said that a traditional understanding of surrendering wealth to God (known as “corban”) was in opposition to honoring one’s father and mother with one’s wealth when they needed it in their old age (Mark 7:1-13). Second, Jesus said that requiring all Israel obey their interpretations hurts the needy among them. Jesus said that sacrifice—the obedience to the Temple laws—comes secondary to mercy—obedience to meet the needs of one’s neighbor. Thus, Jesus said, there should be no mandatory imposing of a strict law if it harms the needy (Matthew 12:7). In this way, Jesus opposed many of the requirements that modern Jews (and even Messianic Jews) impose upon their followers based on the Talmud.
Jesus taught submission and disobedience to Pharisee’s authority
On the one hand, Jesus taught that his disciples should recognize that the Pharisees had the authority of Moses, and so they were to be obeyed. Then, immediately after, Jesus described the areas the disciples should disobey the Pharisees. Fundamentally, Jesus taught obedience, except where the teachings or actions of the Pharisees contradicted the higher law of God. (Matthew 23:1-2)
Jesus saw himself as fulfilling the Law
Jesus said, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” (Matthew 5:17-18). However, when Matthew uses the word “fulfill”, he means it in three ways in connection with Jesus:
a. Jesus would obey the Mosaic Law to the full extent
As stated above, Jesus was a fully observant Jew, and never disobeyed the law of Moses. Not only did Jesus obey the law that was written down to the letter, but he obeyed the Greater Law that stood behind the Mosaic Law.
b. Jesus would fulfill the paradigms that were only partially fulfilled in the Mosaic Law
All throughout the books of Moses, as well as the rest of the Hebrew Bible, there were many examples of God’s people, but all of them failed in some way. Moses and David were murderers, Aaron participated in idolatry, Abraham was a deceiver and Jacob was greedy. The children of Israel failed God’s law again and again. However, Jesus took Moses’ and David’s place, as well as the nation of Israel as a whole, and he fulfilled all of their roles perfectly, without any fault before God. Thus, Jesus fulfilled every role the Hebrew Bible presents—he was an obedient deliverer, a just judge, a devoted mediator, and a holy nation who endured through testing. Many of the Scriptures that Jesus was fulfilling were not prophecies at all, but simply stories that needed to be completed (see Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1-2).
c. Jesus would fulfill the prophecies that are stated in the Hebrew Bible
Jesus stated many times that the Scripture would be fulfilled in him (for example, Matthew 26:31, 54). By this, he meant that there were many things in the Hebrew Scriptures that God says would happen. However, they had not occurred yet. Jesus said that he himself would be the focus of the completion of these promises.
Jesus taught a higher law
In order to assist us to be fully acceptable and obedient to God, Jesus taught us how to follow the law. He did this by teaching us the greater law by which one would be acceptable on the judgement day. This higher law is: The one who is faithful to God will receive reward from God; The one who is merciful to others will receive mercy from God; The one who is lowered by others will be raised by God; Whatever one repents of will not be held against them. These laws do not replace the law of Moses, but they adequately explain how anyone could obey any law and be right before God. This could be another way in which Jesus fulfills the law: by teaching the true obedience of it.
Jesus blessed Gentiles apart from the Law
There were two times that Jesus was asked by a Gentile to give them the power of the Spirit, which is only offered to the children of Israel (Matthew 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 10:1, 5-6). Jesus provided the blessing of God to them, as they asked—but only because of the faith they had shown. But either before or after this, Jesus made no requirements that they follow the law of Moses, and there was no expectation that they would, especially for one. Thus, Jesus showed that the blessing of God could be given to non-Jews, even though they did not follow Moses’ law.
The Law is good, but Jesus’ higher law is better.
What Is the Law? (The Law and the NT Part 1)
The “Law” is a portion of the Hebrew Bible
In both the New and the Old Testaments of the Bible, the word “law” is used as a title for God’s word that he revealed to Israel. Sometimes “the law” is speaking about the whole of the OT, and sometimes it is only used as a portion of it, such as when it is used in the phrase, “the law, the prophets and the psalms” (Luke 24:44). Often the Law (or in Hebrew, Torah) is used to speak of the first five books of the Bible, also called the “books of Moses” (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). When Jesus speaks of the Law, he is usually speaking of these books.
The Mosaic Law is the instructional material of the Hebrew Bible
The Law is also used to speak of certain kinds of writings in the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, it describes the commands and ethical stories of the first five books of the Bible. In this sense, the “Law” is the commands of God, given through Moses. When Paul speaks of the “law”, he is usually speaking of these commands. There are more than six hundred legal commands given to Israel in the books of Moses. Modern Judaism, when it speaks of the “Torah”, would also include their book of interpretations of the Mosaic Law, which is called the Talmud.
The Mosaic Law contain many kinds of commands.
a. Cultic Laws—These laws have to do with the priesthood, sacrifices and the Temple. These laws are no longer able to be obeyed because there has been no recognized Temple or priesthood since the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.
If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. Leviticus 4:3
The high priest shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. Leviticus 16:2
b. Cleansing Laws—These laws have to do with cleanliness laws and community acceptability. Some have to do with hygine and others with acceptable food, but those who violate these commands will be separated from the community and from the Temple.
If a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. Leviticus 5:2
If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days, not at the period of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond that period, all the days of her impure discharge she shall continue as though in her menstrual impurity; she is unclean. Leviticus 15:25
c. Ceremonial Laws—These laws have to do with feasts, memorials, months and Sabbaths. They command the people of Israel what days are set aside to rest and to celebrate before the Lord.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8
This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you… The tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, a lamb for each household… It is the LORD'S Passover. Exodus 12:2-3, 11
Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me. Exodus 23:14
d. Civil Laws—These laws have to do with practical concerns of justice. They are the kind of laws that were common in every legal code throughout the Ancient Near East in Moses’ day. They mostly speak of what are legal wrongs that need to be sentenced by a judge.
If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. Exodus 22:1
You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. Exodus 22:28
e. Ethical Laws—These laws have to do with underlying principles of moral goodness. Rather than speak to a specific wrong, they speak of general principles that other laws are based on.
You shall have no other gods before Me. Exodus 20:3
You shall love the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Leviticus 19:23
The Mosaic law is impossible to obey today in every specific.
Many of the laws of Moses have to do with priests and a temple or tabernacle that no longer exist. And other laws have to do with peoples—such as Cannanites or Moabites—that no longer exist. Thus, the Mosaic Law, as a whole, no longer is able to be obeyed to the letter. Those who claim to obey the Mosaic Law are only obeying a part of it that they chose, or an interpretation of it, which changes what it literally says. There is no one today who can truthfully say that they obey the Mosaic Law in all of its specifics.
What are the Prophets?
The Prophets in Ancient Judaism are the “historical” books of the Old Testament of Joshua through Nehemiah and the “prophetic” books of Isaiah through Micah. These books apply the law to different circumstances and interpret the law within those circumstances. These explanations are a new part of God’s command.
There are greater and lesser commands in the Law
One thing that the prophets make clear is that there are greater and lesser parts to the Law. For instance, in Isaiah 1, the people’s obedience to the ceremonial and cultic laws are rejected because they failed to obey the civil law. If justice is not found in Israel, then one’s obedience to the other laws are of no use to be acceptable to God. The prophets also say that sacrifice is no use if there is no devotion to God or compassion for other’s needs. (Hosea 6:6).
There have been many schools of the Mosaic Law
Throughout history, and today, there are different ways to understand and apply the Mosaic Law. In Jesus’ day, it was said, that there were four main schools of thought about how to interpret Moses’ law—but there were many more beyond that even then. One of those schools of thought over time became Rabbinic Judaism that is the basis for the varieties of Judaism that we have today. Another school of interpretation was started by Jesus and was interpreted by the early church to become Jewish and Gentile Christianities. And throughout the last two thousand years quite a variety of thought about the Law has occurred. But any Christian understanding of the Law needs to be based on the teaching of Jesus and the apostolic teachings of the New Testament.
In both the New and the Old Testaments of the Bible, the word “law” is used as a title for God’s word that he revealed to Israel. Sometimes “the law” is speaking about the whole of the OT, and sometimes it is only used as a portion of it, such as when it is used in the phrase, “the law, the prophets and the psalms” (Luke 24:44). Often the Law (or in Hebrew, Torah) is used to speak of the first five books of the Bible, also called the “books of Moses” (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). When Jesus speaks of the Law, he is usually speaking of these books.
The Mosaic Law is the instructional material of the Hebrew Bible
The Law is also used to speak of certain kinds of writings in the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, it describes the commands and ethical stories of the first five books of the Bible. In this sense, the “Law” is the commands of God, given through Moses. When Paul speaks of the “law”, he is usually speaking of these commands. There are more than six hundred legal commands given to Israel in the books of Moses. Modern Judaism, when it speaks of the “Torah”, would also include their book of interpretations of the Mosaic Law, which is called the Talmud.
The Mosaic Law contain many kinds of commands.
a. Cultic Laws—These laws have to do with the priesthood, sacrifices and the Temple. These laws are no longer able to be obeyed because there has been no recognized Temple or priesthood since the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.
If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the LORD a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. Leviticus 4:3
The high priest shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. Leviticus 16:2
b. Cleansing Laws—These laws have to do with cleanliness laws and community acceptability. Some have to do with hygine and others with acceptable food, but those who violate these commands will be separated from the community and from the Temple.
If a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. Leviticus 5:2
If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days, not at the period of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond that period, all the days of her impure discharge she shall continue as though in her menstrual impurity; she is unclean. Leviticus 15:25
c. Ceremonial Laws—These laws have to do with feasts, memorials, months and Sabbaths. They command the people of Israel what days are set aside to rest and to celebrate before the Lord.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8
This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you… The tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, a lamb for each household… It is the LORD'S Passover. Exodus 12:2-3, 11
Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me. Exodus 23:14
d. Civil Laws—These laws have to do with practical concerns of justice. They are the kind of laws that were common in every legal code throughout the Ancient Near East in Moses’ day. They mostly speak of what are legal wrongs that need to be sentenced by a judge.
If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. Exodus 22:1
You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. Exodus 22:28
e. Ethical Laws—These laws have to do with underlying principles of moral goodness. Rather than speak to a specific wrong, they speak of general principles that other laws are based on.
You shall have no other gods before Me. Exodus 20:3
You shall love the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Leviticus 19:23
The Mosaic law is impossible to obey today in every specific.
Many of the laws of Moses have to do with priests and a temple or tabernacle that no longer exist. And other laws have to do with peoples—such as Cannanites or Moabites—that no longer exist. Thus, the Mosaic Law, as a whole, no longer is able to be obeyed to the letter. Those who claim to obey the Mosaic Law are only obeying a part of it that they chose, or an interpretation of it, which changes what it literally says. There is no one today who can truthfully say that they obey the Mosaic Law in all of its specifics.
What are the Prophets?
The Prophets in Ancient Judaism are the “historical” books of the Old Testament of Joshua through Nehemiah and the “prophetic” books of Isaiah through Micah. These books apply the law to different circumstances and interpret the law within those circumstances. These explanations are a new part of God’s command.
There are greater and lesser commands in the Law
One thing that the prophets make clear is that there are greater and lesser parts to the Law. For instance, in Isaiah 1, the people’s obedience to the ceremonial and cultic laws are rejected because they failed to obey the civil law. If justice is not found in Israel, then one’s obedience to the other laws are of no use to be acceptable to God. The prophets also say that sacrifice is no use if there is no devotion to God or compassion for other’s needs. (Hosea 6:6).
There have been many schools of the Mosaic Law
Throughout history, and today, there are different ways to understand and apply the Mosaic Law. In Jesus’ day, it was said, that there were four main schools of thought about how to interpret Moses’ law—but there were many more beyond that even then. One of those schools of thought over time became Rabbinic Judaism that is the basis for the varieties of Judaism that we have today. Another school of interpretation was started by Jesus and was interpreted by the early church to become Jewish and Gentile Christianities. And throughout the last two thousand years quite a variety of thought about the Law has occurred. But any Christian understanding of the Law needs to be based on the teaching of Jesus and the apostolic teachings of the New Testament.
Is Jesus The Only Way to Heaven?
This question is usually asked by Christians who are having a hard time believing that most people in the world are going to hell, or they can’t accept the arrogance of the statement that Jesus could possibly be the only way. In our world of pluralism and multiple truths, it just doesn’t seem socially polite to evangelize or to insist that Jesus is IT.
There is also the idea that all religions basically teach the same thing. If by that one means that they all teach “do unto others as you would have them do to you”, that is basically right. Most philosophies and religions teach that moral principle. But does this mean that they are the same in all aspects of their religion?
But we have to realize that if we say that Jesus is one of many ways to heaven, then we are not only putting words in Jesus’ mouth, but also in the mouths’ of all other religions and belief systems. This is assuming that all other belief systems want to be right with God, or that they want to go to heaven. To know this, we have to not just guess at what they want, but we have to look at it.
Now I would recommend each one of us looking at the major religions themselves and finding out what each one says is the salvation they are looking for and how to get there. But, honestly, I doubt many of us would even take the effort to look up Islam, Hinduism, etc on Wikipedia to read each article, let alone reading each holy book or the philosophy of the thousand forms of beliefs. So, to make it easy, I have listed a number of significant worldviews below, their main goals and a general statement of the means to reach that goal. If you belong to one of these belief systems, I apologize for my brevity, but this IS a short tract.
Jesus’ goals – forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, security on judgment day, preparation for living in God’s future utopia
Jesus’ means—a life of trust, dependence and faithfulness to God, setting aside that which would be good for you in this life
Buddha’s goal—To escape the endless cycle of recurring death and suffering
Buddha’s means—Separation from desire through various disciplines
Hinduism’s goals—To live at peace with the spirit world; to release oneself from the system of karma
Hinduism’s means—To live part of one’s life as detached from the world, in accordance to the basic rules of life.
Islam’s goals—To live among God’s people in submission to God; to live among God’s people in paradise after one dies.
Isalm’s means—To establish communities in submission to God in which his people can live and thrive.
Judaism’s goals—To live as a people chosen by God, separated to Him; to hasten the coming of God to earth.
Judaism’s means—To live according to the Torah, as understood by the rabbis.
Psychoanalysis’ goal—To live a life that is contented and at peace.
Psychoanalysis’ means—Therapy toward living a self-actualized life
The American Dream—To live a life of comfort, security and health in this life.
The American means—To have education, a good job and a secure government.
The moralist’s goals (e.g. Henry David Thourau)-- To live life at peace with oneself, others and creation.
The moralist’s means—To do well to all things, so they will do well to you.
The scientist’s goals—To discover all that the human mind can discover on its own.
The scientist’s means—Discovery by objective, repeatable experiments.
Christianity’s goals—To have our sins forgiven; to live in heaven after we die.
Christianity’s means—To believe in Jesus and to live with Jesus’ people.
Here are some observations I have made in looking at these, and other, belief systems:
1. Looking at these different paths, we can see that they don’t all go to the same place. Some want a better life now, some want a better life later, some want to be a people, some want to be individuals. If they don’t have the same goals, how could we expect them to have the same goals?
2. We can also see that they have radically different means. This only makes sense, if they have different goals. If one wants to be detached, it makes sense to surrender all desire for things. But if one desires to live with God, then one must be faithful or submitted to God.
3. Jesus’ path is unique. First of all, it is counter-intuitive. He insisted that suffering is necessary to obtain peace in the long run, for in this way God would see our sorry state and give us what we do not have. All other ways basically are insisting that whatever life you pursue, that is what you will obtain. Jesus doesn’t disagree with this (he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”), but he says that if one wants to obtain God’s fullest, best blessing, in this life and the next, one must surrender oneself now. To lose is to win. This is unique, and unheard of among religions and philosophies.
4. Interestingly enough, in both goals and means the closest pair is Jesus’ way and Islam. Muslims, in looking clear-eyed at Jesus, often says, “This is too hard, and unnecessarily so, as well!” But this is the disagreement between Muhammad and Jesus. Muhammad sought a middle way, such as the medieval Roman church, a way easy enough to include everyone who chose or were born into their society. Jesus, however, made it clear that the way to God’s fullest blessing isn’t easy, nor could be. The goals are similar, but the means of obtaining these goals are different. So this is a basic question of who is right—Muhammad or Jesus? From this Christian’s perspective, it is only Jesus who was resurrected from the dead…
5. One might note that I placed Christianity and Jesus in separate categories. For the most part, most Christians agree with the Muslims that Jesus’ stated way is too difficult. So they build communities, nationalities, theologies and philosophies that transform Jesus’ gospel into something more palatable. Perhaps they claim that his salvation is simply “going to heaven” instead of being resurrected into the kingdom of God. Perhaps they see the means of salvation as “easy believism” or simple acceptance of a church’s teachings instead of Jesus’ way of life. But this is the reason that Jesus said—and continues to say—that the way to life is narrow, despite that there are more Christians in the world today than any other belief system. Because, ultimately, even Christians have a hard time believing what Jesus said.
What is the answer?
If you are looking for the salvation that Jesus’ offers—An escape from karma through God’s grace
The Holy Spirit—God himself—to assist current living
A good life in God’s kingdom
-- Then Jesus is the only means to obtain that salvation.
If you want something else—
A good life in the here-and-now;
A way of escaping reincarnation;
A general spirituality without a real life in God
-- Then perhaps Jesus isn’t the one you are looking for.
There is also the idea that all religions basically teach the same thing. If by that one means that they all teach “do unto others as you would have them do to you”, that is basically right. Most philosophies and religions teach that moral principle. But does this mean that they are the same in all aspects of their religion?
But we have to realize that if we say that Jesus is one of many ways to heaven, then we are not only putting words in Jesus’ mouth, but also in the mouths’ of all other religions and belief systems. This is assuming that all other belief systems want to be right with God, or that they want to go to heaven. To know this, we have to not just guess at what they want, but we have to look at it.
Now I would recommend each one of us looking at the major religions themselves and finding out what each one says is the salvation they are looking for and how to get there. But, honestly, I doubt many of us would even take the effort to look up Islam, Hinduism, etc on Wikipedia to read each article, let alone reading each holy book or the philosophy of the thousand forms of beliefs. So, to make it easy, I have listed a number of significant worldviews below, their main goals and a general statement of the means to reach that goal. If you belong to one of these belief systems, I apologize for my brevity, but this IS a short tract.
Jesus’ goals – forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, security on judgment day, preparation for living in God’s future utopia
Jesus’ means—a life of trust, dependence and faithfulness to God, setting aside that which would be good for you in this life
Buddha’s goal—To escape the endless cycle of recurring death and suffering
Buddha’s means—Separation from desire through various disciplines
Hinduism’s goals—To live at peace with the spirit world; to release oneself from the system of karma
Hinduism’s means—To live part of one’s life as detached from the world, in accordance to the basic rules of life.
Islam’s goals—To live among God’s people in submission to God; to live among God’s people in paradise after one dies.
Isalm’s means—To establish communities in submission to God in which his people can live and thrive.
Judaism’s goals—To live as a people chosen by God, separated to Him; to hasten the coming of God to earth.
Judaism’s means—To live according to the Torah, as understood by the rabbis.
Psychoanalysis’ goal—To live a life that is contented and at peace.
Psychoanalysis’ means—Therapy toward living a self-actualized life
The American Dream—To live a life of comfort, security and health in this life.
The American means—To have education, a good job and a secure government.
The moralist’s goals (e.g. Henry David Thourau)-- To live life at peace with oneself, others and creation.
The moralist’s means—To do well to all things, so they will do well to you.
The scientist’s goals—To discover all that the human mind can discover on its own.
The scientist’s means—Discovery by objective, repeatable experiments.
Christianity’s goals—To have our sins forgiven; to live in heaven after we die.
Christianity’s means—To believe in Jesus and to live with Jesus’ people.
Here are some observations I have made in looking at these, and other, belief systems:
1. Looking at these different paths, we can see that they don’t all go to the same place. Some want a better life now, some want a better life later, some want to be a people, some want to be individuals. If they don’t have the same goals, how could we expect them to have the same goals?
2. We can also see that they have radically different means. This only makes sense, if they have different goals. If one wants to be detached, it makes sense to surrender all desire for things. But if one desires to live with God, then one must be faithful or submitted to God.
3. Jesus’ path is unique. First of all, it is counter-intuitive. He insisted that suffering is necessary to obtain peace in the long run, for in this way God would see our sorry state and give us what we do not have. All other ways basically are insisting that whatever life you pursue, that is what you will obtain. Jesus doesn’t disagree with this (he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”), but he says that if one wants to obtain God’s fullest, best blessing, in this life and the next, one must surrender oneself now. To lose is to win. This is unique, and unheard of among religions and philosophies.
4. Interestingly enough, in both goals and means the closest pair is Jesus’ way and Islam. Muslims, in looking clear-eyed at Jesus, often says, “This is too hard, and unnecessarily so, as well!” But this is the disagreement between Muhammad and Jesus. Muhammad sought a middle way, such as the medieval Roman church, a way easy enough to include everyone who chose or were born into their society. Jesus, however, made it clear that the way to God’s fullest blessing isn’t easy, nor could be. The goals are similar, but the means of obtaining these goals are different. So this is a basic question of who is right—Muhammad or Jesus? From this Christian’s perspective, it is only Jesus who was resurrected from the dead…
5. One might note that I placed Christianity and Jesus in separate categories. For the most part, most Christians agree with the Muslims that Jesus’ stated way is too difficult. So they build communities, nationalities, theologies and philosophies that transform Jesus’ gospel into something more palatable. Perhaps they claim that his salvation is simply “going to heaven” instead of being resurrected into the kingdom of God. Perhaps they see the means of salvation as “easy believism” or simple acceptance of a church’s teachings instead of Jesus’ way of life. But this is the reason that Jesus said—and continues to say—that the way to life is narrow, despite that there are more Christians in the world today than any other belief system. Because, ultimately, even Christians have a hard time believing what Jesus said.
What is the answer?
If you are looking for the salvation that Jesus’ offers—An escape from karma through God’s grace
The Holy Spirit—God himself—to assist current living
A good life in God’s kingdom
-- Then Jesus is the only means to obtain that salvation.
If you want something else—
A good life in the here-and-now;
A way of escaping reincarnation;
A general spirituality without a real life in God
-- Then perhaps Jesus isn’t the one you are looking for.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
What Are Sins Before God?
Sins of rebellion
Rejection of God—
Disobeying God, not trusting in him, denying God or Jesus or the gospel, idolatry.
Opposite—Love of God, submission to God, faith in Jesus, boldness.
Ephesians 5:5-6; Matthew 7:21-27; Deuteronomy 5:8; Matthew 6:24; Matthew 10:32-33.
Rejection of authorities—
Disobeying God-ordained authorities (even if they are evil), as long as they do not directly oppose God’s command.
Opposite: Submission even to evil authorities.
I Peter 2:13-14; Titus 3:1; Matthew 5:39-42.
Rejection of God’s people—
Disobeying the elders of God’s people; refusing to meet with God’s people; refusing to assist God’s people; divisiveness.
Opposite: Considering others as better than yourself.
Hebrews 13:17; I Corinthians 10:9-10; Hebrews 10:24; I John 3:17; Jude 1:19.
Sins where we replace ourselves for God
Hostility—
Murder, slander, insults, excessive force, threats.
Opposite: Gentleness, meekness, long-suffering.
Genesis 4:3-8; Matthew 5:21-24; Mark 3:1-5; James 4:1-3; Ephesians 4:26-30; Galatians 5:14-22.
Arrogance—
Thinking of yourself as better than you are.
Opposite: Humility.
Luke 14:11; Matthew 23:12; Philippians 2:3.
Grasping for power or authority.
Opposite: Lowering yourself for the sake of others.
Luke 22:24-27; Mark 10:42-45.
Sins where we replace material things for God
Greed—
Desiring and striving for what does not belong to you; idleness, envy, theft.
Opposite: Giving freely to those who have need.
Luke 12:13-21; Matt 6:19-24; James 4:2; I Thessalonians 3:10-11; Ephesians 4:28.
Service for money—
Focusing on money or the things that money buys as what will give you peace.
Opposite: Giving your money away to those who have need.
Matthew 6:24; Luke 12:33.
Hoarding—
Keeping any excess for yourself when someone else needs it.
Opposite: Giving your excess possessions away to those who have need.
Luke 16:20-25; I John 3:16-18.
Drunkenness/drug abuse—
Seeking a substance that will ultimately harm others.
Opposite: being filled with the Holy Spirit.
I Corinthians 6:10; Matthew 24:49; Ephesians 5:18.
Orgies, course jesting—
Participating in entertainment that encourages greed, violence, the degradation of others, or sexual immorality.
Opposite: Rejoicing in the salvation and spirit of God.
Luke 21:34; I Corinthians 10:5-8; Ephesians 5:4.
Sins where we replace other powers for God
False religions.
Opposite: Worshiping and serving the God of Jesus Christ.
Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 8:19-20.
False teachings.
Opposite: Submitting to the teaching of Jesus alone.
II John 1:7-10; I Timothy 6:3-6.
Occultism.
Opposite: Seeking our strength and power from the God of Jesus alone.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Galatians 5:20; Revelation 21:8.
Nationalism.
Opposite: Seeking salvation and security from God and his ways alone.
Isaiah 31:1-5; Matthew 22:21.
Other sins that are an indication of some rebellion against God
Unfaithfulness—
False witness, not keeping promises, lying, divorce (except if your spouse commits adultery)
Opposite: Speaking what is true, not going back on your word.
Matthew 5:37; Colossians 3:9; Exodus 20:16; Matthew 5:31; Matthew 5:27-28.
Hatred –
Murder, unforgiveness, false separation, divisiveness, not giving to those in need.
Opposite: Loving your neighbor as yourself
Matthew 5:21-22; Ephesians 4:26-27,31; Mark 7:21-22; Romans 14:4; I John 3:15-17.
Gossip—
Speaking negatively about others without their consent.
Opposite: Speaking the truth in love.
Ephesians 4:31; I Peter 2:1.
Sexual immorality—
Having sex with anyone apart from your spouse; sexual speech or imaginings about someone who is not your spouse. Homosexuality, bestiality, incest.
Opposite: Purity, monogamy.
Leviticus 18; I Thessalonians 4:3; Mark 7:21-22.
Causing others to sin.
Opposite: Encouraging others to love and good deeds.
Matthew 18:6.
Rejection of God—
Disobeying God, not trusting in him, denying God or Jesus or the gospel, idolatry.
Opposite—Love of God, submission to God, faith in Jesus, boldness.
Ephesians 5:5-6; Matthew 7:21-27; Deuteronomy 5:8; Matthew 6:24; Matthew 10:32-33.
Rejection of authorities—
Disobeying God-ordained authorities (even if they are evil), as long as they do not directly oppose God’s command.
Opposite: Submission even to evil authorities.
I Peter 2:13-14; Titus 3:1; Matthew 5:39-42.
Rejection of God’s people—
Disobeying the elders of God’s people; refusing to meet with God’s people; refusing to assist God’s people; divisiveness.
Opposite: Considering others as better than yourself.
Hebrews 13:17; I Corinthians 10:9-10; Hebrews 10:24; I John 3:17; Jude 1:19.
Sins where we replace ourselves for God
Hostility—
Murder, slander, insults, excessive force, threats.
Opposite: Gentleness, meekness, long-suffering.
Genesis 4:3-8; Matthew 5:21-24; Mark 3:1-5; James 4:1-3; Ephesians 4:26-30; Galatians 5:14-22.
Arrogance—
Thinking of yourself as better than you are.
Opposite: Humility.
Luke 14:11; Matthew 23:12; Philippians 2:3.
Grasping for power or authority.
Opposite: Lowering yourself for the sake of others.
Luke 22:24-27; Mark 10:42-45.
Sins where we replace material things for God
Greed—
Desiring and striving for what does not belong to you; idleness, envy, theft.
Opposite: Giving freely to those who have need.
Luke 12:13-21; Matt 6:19-24; James 4:2; I Thessalonians 3:10-11; Ephesians 4:28.
Service for money—
Focusing on money or the things that money buys as what will give you peace.
Opposite: Giving your money away to those who have need.
Matthew 6:24; Luke 12:33.
Hoarding—
Keeping any excess for yourself when someone else needs it.
Opposite: Giving your excess possessions away to those who have need.
Luke 16:20-25; I John 3:16-18.
Drunkenness/drug abuse—
Seeking a substance that will ultimately harm others.
Opposite: being filled with the Holy Spirit.
I Corinthians 6:10; Matthew 24:49; Ephesians 5:18.
Orgies, course jesting—
Participating in entertainment that encourages greed, violence, the degradation of others, or sexual immorality.
Opposite: Rejoicing in the salvation and spirit of God.
Luke 21:34; I Corinthians 10:5-8; Ephesians 5:4.
Sins where we replace other powers for God
False religions.
Opposite: Worshiping and serving the God of Jesus Christ.
Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 8:19-20.
False teachings.
Opposite: Submitting to the teaching of Jesus alone.
II John 1:7-10; I Timothy 6:3-6.
Occultism.
Opposite: Seeking our strength and power from the God of Jesus alone.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Galatians 5:20; Revelation 21:8.
Nationalism.
Opposite: Seeking salvation and security from God and his ways alone.
Isaiah 31:1-5; Matthew 22:21.
Other sins that are an indication of some rebellion against God
Unfaithfulness—
False witness, not keeping promises, lying, divorce (except if your spouse commits adultery)
Opposite: Speaking what is true, not going back on your word.
Matthew 5:37; Colossians 3:9; Exodus 20:16; Matthew 5:31; Matthew 5:27-28.
Hatred –
Murder, unforgiveness, false separation, divisiveness, not giving to those in need.
Opposite: Loving your neighbor as yourself
Matthew 5:21-22; Ephesians 4:26-27,31; Mark 7:21-22; Romans 14:4; I John 3:15-17.
Gossip—
Speaking negatively about others without their consent.
Opposite: Speaking the truth in love.
Ephesians 4:31; I Peter 2:1.
Sexual immorality—
Having sex with anyone apart from your spouse; sexual speech or imaginings about someone who is not your spouse. Homosexuality, bestiality, incest.
Opposite: Purity, monogamy.
Leviticus 18; I Thessalonians 4:3; Mark 7:21-22.
Causing others to sin.
Opposite: Encouraging others to love and good deeds.
Matthew 18:6.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Proof for God's Existance
There are many proofs that God exists as well, from Aristotle on. But both the proofs and non-proofs are pointless in my opinion.
I have a friend named Brent. He’s pretty tall, balding and has huge feet. Let’s say we had a disagreement whether Brent exists. I could tell you about him, I could talk about how I met him, etc, but none of these are proofs.
I could prove that there is the possibility that Brent exists, but that isn’t proof he does, in fact, exist. For instance, because I could imagine Brent doesn’t mean that he does, in fact, exist. It just means that it is possible he exists. I could even point to his children that say he exists and fathered them, but that isn’t proof, in and of itself.
My only proof is that I have met Brent, experienced his personality, saw him and I can show the gifts he gave me. None of this is proof for anyone else that he exists, but it is more than sufficient for me, because I am the one with a relationship with him.
You can see where I’m going with this. If God exists, the only real proof for God is experiencing God personally. I think the agruments for the existance/non-existance of God is just silly. Either you know him or you dont.
If you want to know someone, you go up, attempt to approach them and see what happens after that. It’s the same with God. No one can intellectualize someone into belief. But I can introduce you to Brent, and after you meet him, you’d know what I was talking about.
Steve K
I have a friend named Brent. He’s pretty tall, balding and has huge feet. Let’s say we had a disagreement whether Brent exists. I could tell you about him, I could talk about how I met him, etc, but none of these are proofs.
I could prove that there is the possibility that Brent exists, but that isn’t proof he does, in fact, exist. For instance, because I could imagine Brent doesn’t mean that he does, in fact, exist. It just means that it is possible he exists. I could even point to his children that say he exists and fathered them, but that isn’t proof, in and of itself.
My only proof is that I have met Brent, experienced his personality, saw him and I can show the gifts he gave me. None of this is proof for anyone else that he exists, but it is more than sufficient for me, because I am the one with a relationship with him.
You can see where I’m going with this. If God exists, the only real proof for God is experiencing God personally. I think the agruments for the existance/non-existance of God is just silly. Either you know him or you dont.
If you want to know someone, you go up, attempt to approach them and see what happens after that. It’s the same with God. No one can intellectualize someone into belief. But I can introduce you to Brent, and after you meet him, you’d know what I was talking about.
Steve K
Discussion about Turn The Other Cheek
To understand the principle Jesus is getting at, we must understand both the summary that He gives as well as all the examples:
Summary: "Do not resist an evil one"
The significant term here is "resist". It is used in different contexts, but often in the context of rebelling against an authority. Thus, it might be translated as "do not rebel" or "do not stand against the authority". It is used in this way in Ephesians 6 when we are told to "stand against" or "resist" the devil. Thus, we are told in one place to resist, but in another place not to. Of course, this fits Jesus' example who did not resist arrest, but constantly resisted Satan and the demonic authorities.
Examples:
Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
In the ancient world it is a common punishment for an authority to slap his underlings. Masters slapped slaves, fathers slapped children, guards slapped prisoners and magistrates slapped (or had slapped) anyone who was under their authority in a court situation. To "turn the other cheek" is to offer oneself to be slapped more. In the context of an authority, a single slap would be considered acceptable, even a just punishment. But if one was slapped again, it would be oppression and an acceptable situation for an appeal. Jesus, in the trial before Annas, was actually questioning the justice of being slapped at all. This is what the turning the other cheek is doing as well, questioning the righteous judgement of the authority. If they give into it and slap you again, they have proved their unrighteousness.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Those whom were owed were considered the authority over those who were in debt. The one who is owed had the right to throw the other into prison (see Matt 18). According to the law, there were strict guidelines as to how much a debtee could receive from a debtor. The debtee could not put the debtor into danger, by, for instance, taking his coat overnight (Exodus 22:26-27). Should a debtee take too much so as to threaten the life of the debtor, then the debtor can cry out to God and God would judge the debtee. Thus, inviting a debtee to take one's only covering is to invite the debtee to display his unrighteousness and so be judged.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
In the ancient world, a Roman soldier had the right to "volunteer" any non-citizen of Rome to carry his pack for a mile. But the law is strict about it being only one mile. Should the Roman insist upon two miles, then he would be judged. This is offering a soldier to do injustice according to the law and so be judged by the law.
Give to him who asks of you,
and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Roman soldiers could also take possessions from non-citizens. These possessions are to be "borrowed", but often they never came back.
All of these examples are legal oppressions. A magistrate has the right to slap. A debtee has the right to take clothes from the debtor. The soldier has the right to have one carry his pack or to take the possessions of a non-citizen. These are all oppressions and they ar all legal, according to human law. The point here is to not only accept the legal oppression, but to go extra in creating a super-legal situation. The law covers a single slap, a coat, a single mile. But Jesus is saying that the oppression must be obvious, beyond recognition.
Why? Because if we resist the evil authority for the legal oppressions, then we are rebellious and we will deserve what punishments we get. But if we are in a place where we are being punished to the extreme and we don't deserve it, then God will step in. God is interested in justice and will step in if injustice is done. So Jesus is recommending creating a situation of obvious oppression to which we may appeal to God (as stated in Exodus 22), and God will step in, take away the oppressor and give us justice (Luke 18:1-7, and Mark 12:1-9)
Steve K
steve, your posting has been very interesting.
and i think that it makes sense, actually
but i have a couple questions for you, if you would continue posting, please
i understand your posting to mean that this mostly applies only to unequals, cop/offender, judge/defendant, parent/child, etc.
where if i complain because he did something that he is legally allowed to do, that is resisting
but if i give him the opportunity to prove that he is unrighteous by taking me up on my offer, then i can appeal to God and he will defend me because i have been unjustly treated?
that sounds like baiting someone so that i can turn around and blame him for doing wrong
so this doesnt particularly mean equals need to turn the other cheek?
as in, a mugger wants my purse, i'm not obligated to give it to him, because he is my equal.
i can see, tho, that offering him more than he asked for, would prove that he was unrighteous.
i think the biggest question i have tho, is the one that keeps floating around md
if your wife/daughter is being attacked, are you being resistant when you try to protect her?
if you see a stranger being attacked by someone on the street, are you being resistant when you try to assist that stranger?
that is the one that i can't quite get thru my head, the one that i still struggle with, in regards to non resistance as it is commonly taught.
if a policeman was accusing you of speeding, which he has every right to do, do you try to talk your way out of it, or do you accept it, pay the fine (thereby turning the other cheek), and ask God for justice?
please continue steve, i'm intrigued by what you have to say.
i'm not sure what i think about the "baiting," but maybe that's not what you meant to be gotten out of your posting."(i) don't try hard enough to earn the right to complain."
justme
I'm going to answer the easiest questions first:
Your conclusions that this only relates to authorities and not to equals is correct. The use of the term "resist" and the contexts all have to do with authority/underling relationship, not with a peer relationship.
The peer relationship is spoken of in the next of Jesus statments in Matthew 5, "Love your enemies." That is how you relate to one who is your peer and abuses you. If someone mugs you, you have every right to run away. No reason to "turn the other cheek" because they aren't an authority. You don't have to accept abuse from them in any way. Actually, it doesn't do you any good apart from being accepting humility in general. But it's along the lines of flogging oneself. Just not necessary.
But the policeman, we have to accept the fine or whatever. I don't think getting a speeding ticket is a great example, because we broke the law and now we have to pay for it. That's simple submitting to authorities.
But paying taxes is submitting to authorities. And if the authorities use those taxes to oppress me or my people-- such as the police attacking my homeless folks with my taxes-- then I have the right to cry out for an appeal. Or if I do all the policeman asks me to and they beat me, then I have the right to ask for an appeal.
As far as protecting one's family from an attack or whatever, that goes under the "love your enemies" catagory, which I would be happy to discuss seperately, but the issues are really different.
Now comes the hard part. Is what Jesus talking about really "baiting"? Well, kinda. I don't know that Jesus is really saying for us to tell the cops, "Go ahead, pop me one, see if you've got the guts" kinda thing. In other words, goading them into oppression. But I do think he is talking about openly providing the opportunity to be oppressed. If you think about it, this is exactly what He Himself did. He pushed them, openly insulted them (Matt 23), told Judas to go ahead and betray him, and stayed right where he knew they would find him. He didn't allow his disciples to fight back and either spoke or didn't speak at exactly the right points to make his case worse. He was innocent, but he created a context that if they were going to think the worst about him, they could. He created a situation for him to be oppressed. They had to follow through, and they did, readily. But if he had said the right thing before Pilate, the crucifixion never would have happened. But, of course, the crucifixion had to happen. And he did what he needed to make sure it did.
Even so, there are times that authorities are so unjust or corrupt that they need replacing. And in those times we can set ourselves as the scapegoat, so God will enact his Psalm 82 privilage and take out the oppressive authority. This is the same kind of thing we see in I Peter and in Revelation.
Okay, I'd better stop.
Steve K
By the way, I don't want you to think that I came up with this idea about the non-resistance passage on my own. It was William Higgins, a professor of Mennonite History and Theology that worked out this exegesis and he and I argued about it for a year before I was convinced he was right. He is now a pastor of a Mennonite church in Southcentral PA.
Steve K
no
please don't stop
its quite intriguing to consider that authority/underling is the focus here
that defending self against an equal is a different can of worms altogether, (and therefore, no need to address here the protecting of one's family as i suggested)
when you say you have the right to ask for an appeal, are you talking about an appeal to other earthly authorities, or an appeal to God?
but this idea of baiting
i can't quite grasp my brain around it just yet
that sounds really passive aggressive to me.
that sounds as if i have a beef with someone, so i deliberately bait them into oppressing me, so that i can get rid of them.
please, continue
in fact, i think i'm going to sit back and listen to you discuss it with a few others
i'll pop up with more questions, i'm sure.
just me
I am finding this discussion interesting.
There is another meaning, that also fits into what Jesus said. 'Slapping' someone in many cultures was a form of insult. Thus 'when insulted, don't insult back'.142Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
von
Now I am wondering . . . thought maybe you (Steve K) or someone here might have some insight . . .
How do we decide when to simply suffer the injustice, and when we have a case of "We ought to obey God rather than man" as Peter and the apostles did?
Also a note - I see that we are allowing others to demonstrate their unrighteousness. This is not because they'll "get what is coming to them" now, but because we are leaving it to God to judge them. Am I correct? Or is there a benefit for ourselves in eternity as well?
Hopenafuture
Very thoughtful posts, so far. I think that Stevek's point of view is excellent if we were literal pilgrims and strangers, not residents of a wealthy developed country with laws to protect us from conscription, slavery, etc. How does this passage apply to North American Mennonites who populate the world's wealthiest 2%?“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.”
Lavner A King
To Von:
I think that it is clear that the slap IS an insult. To slap a person on the right cheek with the right hand (in the ancient mideast one would never touch another person with the left hand) is a backhanded slap. Thus it is destroying one's dignity and honor. This is worse than simple pain. To dishonor another person is a greater oppression than death. This is why the gospels don't even talk about Jesus pain or the amount of blood he shed (as opposed to the movie, The Passion), but rather the amount of indignities he suffered. Because those sufferings were more pertanent to the oppression Jesus was enduring than nails and blood.
Steve K
To Hopenafuture:
For your first question, I think that the passage you quoted in Acts 5 explains the process really well.
The apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, led by the high priest, who voted to kill Jesus. Peter and the apostles very impolitely began to proclaim that God vindicated Jesus by resurrected him, in the face of the Sanhedrin's verdict. Jesus when he died, however, begged God to forgive them of the sin for they did not know what they did. So God, through Peter and the others, offered the Sanhedrin another chance to get right with Him and to repent of their sin. However, in the face of the apostles court testimony that Jesus was risen from the dead, they denied it and commanded them to shut up about Jesus.
There are two kinds of submission to human authority that we can do righteously. One is to just do what the human authority says. That is most common. But there are times when what our human authority says is opposed to God's clear command. So the apostles did what God commanded-- which we should ALWAYS do-- and then accepted the punishment of the Sanhedrien without complaint.
In fact, after the elders beat all the apostles with whips 40 minus 1 times, they went home celebrating because they "were considered worthy to suffer for the name." (Even as Jesus said they should in Matt 5:11-12) Thus, if we follow the teaching of Jesus faithfully, we WILL get in trouble with the authorities in some way. We must obey God in the most gentle, loving way we can and then accept the consequences the authorities give us, joyfully.
It is interesting what the apostles prayed in the midst of this incident, which might relate to your other question. In the middle of Acts 4, the apostles prayed Psalm 2, "why do the nations rage against Your king?" which they applied to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The leaders of Jerusalem have become Gentiles in the sight of the apostles and they are praying that way. But they pray no curse upon them. They just pray for God to do justice, and-- most importantly-- they prayed for boldness to do God's will, no matter what threats they received (not that I think they really needed the boldness, given their recent speeches, but God heard their prayer and sent them the Spirit anyway).
The apostles' understanding of non-resistance then is:
a. To do God's will
b. To be persecuted by the authorities for doing God's will
c. To willingly accept whatever punishment the authorities give them
d. To recognize God's blessing upon us for suffering for Jesus' name
e. To rejoice in that blessing
f. To recognize that God has already set aside the oppressive authorities
g. To recognize that Jesus is the true King of His people
h. To not pray cursings
i. To pray for justice
j. To pray for the ability to be more faithful to God.
Steve K
Summary: "Do not resist an evil one"
The significant term here is "resist". It is used in different contexts, but often in the context of rebelling against an authority. Thus, it might be translated as "do not rebel" or "do not stand against the authority". It is used in this way in Ephesians 6 when we are told to "stand against" or "resist" the devil. Thus, we are told in one place to resist, but in another place not to. Of course, this fits Jesus' example who did not resist arrest, but constantly resisted Satan and the demonic authorities.
Examples:
Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
In the ancient world it is a common punishment for an authority to slap his underlings. Masters slapped slaves, fathers slapped children, guards slapped prisoners and magistrates slapped (or had slapped) anyone who was under their authority in a court situation. To "turn the other cheek" is to offer oneself to be slapped more. In the context of an authority, a single slap would be considered acceptable, even a just punishment. But if one was slapped again, it would be oppression and an acceptable situation for an appeal. Jesus, in the trial before Annas, was actually questioning the justice of being slapped at all. This is what the turning the other cheek is doing as well, questioning the righteous judgement of the authority. If they give into it and slap you again, they have proved their unrighteousness.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Those whom were owed were considered the authority over those who were in debt. The one who is owed had the right to throw the other into prison (see Matt 18). According to the law, there were strict guidelines as to how much a debtee could receive from a debtor. The debtee could not put the debtor into danger, by, for instance, taking his coat overnight (Exodus 22:26-27). Should a debtee take too much so as to threaten the life of the debtor, then the debtor can cry out to God and God would judge the debtee. Thus, inviting a debtee to take one's only covering is to invite the debtee to display his unrighteousness and so be judged.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
In the ancient world, a Roman soldier had the right to "volunteer" any non-citizen of Rome to carry his pack for a mile. But the law is strict about it being only one mile. Should the Roman insist upon two miles, then he would be judged. This is offering a soldier to do injustice according to the law and so be judged by the law.
Give to him who asks of you,
and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Roman soldiers could also take possessions from non-citizens. These possessions are to be "borrowed", but often they never came back.
All of these examples are legal oppressions. A magistrate has the right to slap. A debtee has the right to take clothes from the debtor. The soldier has the right to have one carry his pack or to take the possessions of a non-citizen. These are all oppressions and they ar all legal, according to human law. The point here is to not only accept the legal oppression, but to go extra in creating a super-legal situation. The law covers a single slap, a coat, a single mile. But Jesus is saying that the oppression must be obvious, beyond recognition.
Why? Because if we resist the evil authority for the legal oppressions, then we are rebellious and we will deserve what punishments we get. But if we are in a place where we are being punished to the extreme and we don't deserve it, then God will step in. God is interested in justice and will step in if injustice is done. So Jesus is recommending creating a situation of obvious oppression to which we may appeal to God (as stated in Exodus 22), and God will step in, take away the oppressor and give us justice (Luke 18:1-7, and Mark 12:1-9)
Steve K
steve, your posting has been very interesting.
and i think that it makes sense, actually
but i have a couple questions for you, if you would continue posting, please
i understand your posting to mean that this mostly applies only to unequals, cop/offender, judge/defendant, parent/child, etc.
where if i complain because he did something that he is legally allowed to do, that is resisting
but if i give him the opportunity to prove that he is unrighteous by taking me up on my offer, then i can appeal to God and he will defend me because i have been unjustly treated?
that sounds like baiting someone so that i can turn around and blame him for doing wrong
so this doesnt particularly mean equals need to turn the other cheek?
as in, a mugger wants my purse, i'm not obligated to give it to him, because he is my equal.
i can see, tho, that offering him more than he asked for, would prove that he was unrighteous.
i think the biggest question i have tho, is the one that keeps floating around md
if your wife/daughter is being attacked, are you being resistant when you try to protect her?
if you see a stranger being attacked by someone on the street, are you being resistant when you try to assist that stranger?
that is the one that i can't quite get thru my head, the one that i still struggle with, in regards to non resistance as it is commonly taught.
if a policeman was accusing you of speeding, which he has every right to do, do you try to talk your way out of it, or do you accept it, pay the fine (thereby turning the other cheek), and ask God for justice?
please continue steve, i'm intrigued by what you have to say.
i'm not sure what i think about the "baiting," but maybe that's not what you meant to be gotten out of your posting."(i) don't try hard enough to earn the right to complain."
justme
I'm going to answer the easiest questions first:
Your conclusions that this only relates to authorities and not to equals is correct. The use of the term "resist" and the contexts all have to do with authority/underling relationship, not with a peer relationship.
The peer relationship is spoken of in the next of Jesus statments in Matthew 5, "Love your enemies." That is how you relate to one who is your peer and abuses you. If someone mugs you, you have every right to run away. No reason to "turn the other cheek" because they aren't an authority. You don't have to accept abuse from them in any way. Actually, it doesn't do you any good apart from being accepting humility in general. But it's along the lines of flogging oneself. Just not necessary.
But the policeman, we have to accept the fine or whatever. I don't think getting a speeding ticket is a great example, because we broke the law and now we have to pay for it. That's simple submitting to authorities.
But paying taxes is submitting to authorities. And if the authorities use those taxes to oppress me or my people-- such as the police attacking my homeless folks with my taxes-- then I have the right to cry out for an appeal. Or if I do all the policeman asks me to and they beat me, then I have the right to ask for an appeal.
As far as protecting one's family from an attack or whatever, that goes under the "love your enemies" catagory, which I would be happy to discuss seperately, but the issues are really different.
Now comes the hard part. Is what Jesus talking about really "baiting"? Well, kinda. I don't know that Jesus is really saying for us to tell the cops, "Go ahead, pop me one, see if you've got the guts" kinda thing. In other words, goading them into oppression. But I do think he is talking about openly providing the opportunity to be oppressed. If you think about it, this is exactly what He Himself did. He pushed them, openly insulted them (Matt 23), told Judas to go ahead and betray him, and stayed right where he knew they would find him. He didn't allow his disciples to fight back and either spoke or didn't speak at exactly the right points to make his case worse. He was innocent, but he created a context that if they were going to think the worst about him, they could. He created a situation for him to be oppressed. They had to follow through, and they did, readily. But if he had said the right thing before Pilate, the crucifixion never would have happened. But, of course, the crucifixion had to happen. And he did what he needed to make sure it did.
Even so, there are times that authorities are so unjust or corrupt that they need replacing. And in those times we can set ourselves as the scapegoat, so God will enact his Psalm 82 privilage and take out the oppressive authority. This is the same kind of thing we see in I Peter and in Revelation.
Okay, I'd better stop.
Steve K
By the way, I don't want you to think that I came up with this idea about the non-resistance passage on my own. It was William Higgins, a professor of Mennonite History and Theology that worked out this exegesis and he and I argued about it for a year before I was convinced he was right. He is now a pastor of a Mennonite church in Southcentral PA.
Steve K
no
please don't stop
its quite intriguing to consider that authority/underling is the focus here
that defending self against an equal is a different can of worms altogether, (and therefore, no need to address here the protecting of one's family as i suggested)
when you say you have the right to ask for an appeal, are you talking about an appeal to other earthly authorities, or an appeal to God?
but this idea of baiting
i can't quite grasp my brain around it just yet
that sounds really passive aggressive to me.
that sounds as if i have a beef with someone, so i deliberately bait them into oppressing me, so that i can get rid of them.
please, continue
in fact, i think i'm going to sit back and listen to you discuss it with a few others
i'll pop up with more questions, i'm sure.
just me
I am finding this discussion interesting.
There is another meaning, that also fits into what Jesus said. 'Slapping' someone in many cultures was a form of insult. Thus 'when insulted, don't insult back'.142Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
von
Now I am wondering . . . thought maybe you (Steve K) or someone here might have some insight . . .
How do we decide when to simply suffer the injustice, and when we have a case of "We ought to obey God rather than man" as Peter and the apostles did?
Also a note - I see that we are allowing others to demonstrate their unrighteousness. This is not because they'll "get what is coming to them" now, but because we are leaving it to God to judge them. Am I correct? Or is there a benefit for ourselves in eternity as well?
Hopenafuture
Very thoughtful posts, so far. I think that Stevek's point of view is excellent if we were literal pilgrims and strangers, not residents of a wealthy developed country with laws to protect us from conscription, slavery, etc. How does this passage apply to North American Mennonites who populate the world's wealthiest 2%?“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.”
Lavner A King
To Von:
I think that it is clear that the slap IS an insult. To slap a person on the right cheek with the right hand (in the ancient mideast one would never touch another person with the left hand) is a backhanded slap. Thus it is destroying one's dignity and honor. This is worse than simple pain. To dishonor another person is a greater oppression than death. This is why the gospels don't even talk about Jesus pain or the amount of blood he shed (as opposed to the movie, The Passion), but rather the amount of indignities he suffered. Because those sufferings were more pertanent to the oppression Jesus was enduring than nails and blood.
Steve K
To Hopenafuture:
For your first question, I think that the passage you quoted in Acts 5 explains the process really well.
The apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, led by the high priest, who voted to kill Jesus. Peter and the apostles very impolitely began to proclaim that God vindicated Jesus by resurrected him, in the face of the Sanhedrin's verdict. Jesus when he died, however, begged God to forgive them of the sin for they did not know what they did. So God, through Peter and the others, offered the Sanhedrin another chance to get right with Him and to repent of their sin. However, in the face of the apostles court testimony that Jesus was risen from the dead, they denied it and commanded them to shut up about Jesus.
There are two kinds of submission to human authority that we can do righteously. One is to just do what the human authority says. That is most common. But there are times when what our human authority says is opposed to God's clear command. So the apostles did what God commanded-- which we should ALWAYS do-- and then accepted the punishment of the Sanhedrien without complaint.
In fact, after the elders beat all the apostles with whips 40 minus 1 times, they went home celebrating because they "were considered worthy to suffer for the name." (Even as Jesus said they should in Matt 5:11-12) Thus, if we follow the teaching of Jesus faithfully, we WILL get in trouble with the authorities in some way. We must obey God in the most gentle, loving way we can and then accept the consequences the authorities give us, joyfully.
It is interesting what the apostles prayed in the midst of this incident, which might relate to your other question. In the middle of Acts 4, the apostles prayed Psalm 2, "why do the nations rage against Your king?" which they applied to the Sanhedrin and Herod. The leaders of Jerusalem have become Gentiles in the sight of the apostles and they are praying that way. But they pray no curse upon them. They just pray for God to do justice, and-- most importantly-- they prayed for boldness to do God's will, no matter what threats they received (not that I think they really needed the boldness, given their recent speeches, but God heard their prayer and sent them the Spirit anyway).
The apostles' understanding of non-resistance then is:
a. To do God's will
b. To be persecuted by the authorities for doing God's will
c. To willingly accept whatever punishment the authorities give them
d. To recognize God's blessing upon us for suffering for Jesus' name
e. To rejoice in that blessing
f. To recognize that God has already set aside the oppressive authorities
g. To recognize that Jesus is the true King of His people
h. To not pray cursings
i. To pray for justice
j. To pray for the ability to be more faithful to God.
Steve K
Eye Of The Needle-- Mark 10
Now, I want to warn you that I am using my own translation of the Greek text, which is an extremely literal translation, and there will be a couple points of the Greek I will explain. But it should, for the most part, agree with the KJV in meaning. I am using the text in Mark 10:
And as he came out on the way, a man running to him and kneeling before him and asked him, "Good teacher, what should I do in order to possess eternal life?" But Jesus said to him, "Why tell me "good"? No one is good except God. You know the commands: "Don't murder," "Don't cheat on your spouse," "Don't steal," "Don't commit perjury," "Don't defraud," "Honor your father and mother."" But he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." But looking straight at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, "One thing you have need of: Go, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and coming, follow me." But, being downcast at these words, he went away saddened, for he was having many possessions.
Jesus was at first irritated with the man because He thought he was a brown noser by calling him "good". So Jesus rejected his title as flattery. Then Jesus tells him what he could hear from any street-corner preacher-- do the ten commandment. This doesn't negate what Jesus was saying, but this is why Jesus didn't give him the full answer at first.
When the man shows that he understands that following the commands isn't enough, then Jesus "loved" him and He decided to give him the full answer-- He had to sell all he had, give the proceeds to the poor. After doing this, then the man would have "treasure in heaven." This is code for Jesus-- giving to the poor equates having treasure in heaven. This confirms Psalm 41 and Proverbs 19 that says that a man who gives to the poor God will have blessings in storage for him when he is in need. This also is confirmed by Luke 12:32-34, where inheriting the kingdom is equal to giving to the poor is equal to treasure in heaven. We have that same equation here, where treasue in heaven is equated to being saved which is equal to the kingdom of God. Following Jesus is the same as having the kingdom of God, because being with Jesus is being in the kingdom.
The man was saddened, outright depressed, because of how difficult it is to get rid of possessions when you have so many. BTW, there is a tradition that says that this man is actually Joseph, called Barnabas, who in Acts 4 finally did surrender all of his possessions.
And, looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those with many possessions to enter the kingdom of God." The disciples were shocked at his words. But Jesus again answering, said to them, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through they eye of the needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God." And they were all the more astonished, saying to themselves, "Then who is able to be saved?” Looking straight at them, Jesus said, "For men this is impossible, but not for God, for everything is possible for God."
Seeing the man's sadness, Jesus is recognizing how difficult it is for some people to enter God's kingdom. In his second statment, of the proposition, He does talk specifically about wealthy people, but He is admitting that it is just difficult in general for anyone to enter into God's kingdom. But He does emphasize the difficulty of wealth, and not just in this passage-- Matt 6:24; Luke 12; Luke 16; Luke 6:24-- all these passages speak of the difficulty for wealthy people to enter into God's kingdom.
Why is it so difficult? Well, different passages mention differnt things, but in this passage the emphasis is on possessions. The word for the "wealthy" is literally in Greek-- "those who have possessions". Or, to put it in technical terms, "people who've got stuff". So the specific kind of wealth Jesus is talking about is possessions. This fits with what Jesus says elsewhere, namely Luke 14:33-- "No one can be my disciple unless he surrenders all of his possessions." And the parable of the bigger barns in Luke 12, the person can either prepare for his retirement or he can be prepared for his death. And his attachment to his possessions kept him from being ready for death.
No wonder the disciples were shocked. Because they themselves had so many possessions-- Peter had a boat and a house! And the answer Jesus gives to possessions is to get rid of them-- sell them!
"Peter began to say to him, "Behold, we have left everything and are following you." Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the gospel, but wouldn't receive a hundred fold now in this time-- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, with persecutions, and in the coming age, eternal life. But many who are first will be last and those who are last, first."
So Peter tries to excuse himself. He says, "Lord, we haven't sold everything, but we left it behind. And we are following you, just like you told that man. So, can we be saved?" Jesus' response is illuminating. He says, "It is true, Peter, you haven't sold everything, but you left it. You have no use of your possessions. Your boat is rotting on the shore and you are sleeping in the fields with me instead of in your house with your wife. Because of your willingness to surrender everything for Me, then hundreds will share with you what they have in this age and you will obtain eternal life-- the kingdom of God."
So what is Jesus saying?
a. That possessions are dangerous. They separate us from God and from God's kingdom. One of the greatest dangers of our life in God is stuff.
b. That it is a requirement to be a disciple to be rid of our possessions.
c. That there are many ways to be rid of our possessions. In Scripture, we have three main examples:
1. Selling our stuff and then giving the proceeds to the poor.
2. Leaving our stuff for others to steal it or to rot.
3. Continually providing our stuff to the needy, as they need it.
The third example isn't in the Mark 10 passage, but we do have a number of examples of it--
Matthew 10-- The one who welcomes (read, provides hospitality) to a prophet will recieve a prophets reward.
Matthew 25-- The sheep are those who provided hospitality to Jesus' brothers
Philemon was one who had a wealthy household, but hosted the church and any poor believer who was passing through, staying in his town.
Prisca and Lydia also hosted churches in their homes, providing hospitality.
I John says that providing one's resources to the needy is displaying one's knowledge of God's love
So what does all this mean for us possession-glutted Westerners?
a. We need to recognize that we all have a lot of stuff. And every time we get rid of our stuff, we get more.
b. We need to take seriously Jesus' command to get rid of our stuff.
c. At least one point, we need to get rid of our stuff. All of it, if possible, without endangering our family.
d. Even Jesus recognized that we would accumulate more stuff. That's not a problem, as long as we keep a couple things clear in our minds:
-The stuff isn't ours, it's Jesus'
-The stuff is given to us to build God's kingdom, not our own
- God's kingdom is built by us giving stuff away, especially to those in need (Luke 12:33)
-We need not fear giving away even what we need because God will provide for us.
Jesus' message on the birds of the air and the flowers of the field is, in both places given, in the context of giving our possessions to the poor (Matthew 6 and Luke 12). As Christians, we should be living lifestyles of surrender to the poor, all the time. In this way, we keep the Demon Stuff from stripping away the blessing of God's kingdom.
"The Servant of Charity must go to bed each night so tired from work that he will think that he has been beaten." -Louis Guanella
And as he came out on the way, a man running to him and kneeling before him and asked him, "Good teacher, what should I do in order to possess eternal life?" But Jesus said to him, "Why tell me "good"? No one is good except God. You know the commands: "Don't murder," "Don't cheat on your spouse," "Don't steal," "Don't commit perjury," "Don't defraud," "Honor your father and mother."" But he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." But looking straight at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, "One thing you have need of: Go, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and coming, follow me." But, being downcast at these words, he went away saddened, for he was having many possessions.
Jesus was at first irritated with the man because He thought he was a brown noser by calling him "good". So Jesus rejected his title as flattery. Then Jesus tells him what he could hear from any street-corner preacher-- do the ten commandment. This doesn't negate what Jesus was saying, but this is why Jesus didn't give him the full answer at first.
When the man shows that he understands that following the commands isn't enough, then Jesus "loved" him and He decided to give him the full answer-- He had to sell all he had, give the proceeds to the poor. After doing this, then the man would have "treasure in heaven." This is code for Jesus-- giving to the poor equates having treasure in heaven. This confirms Psalm 41 and Proverbs 19 that says that a man who gives to the poor God will have blessings in storage for him when he is in need. This also is confirmed by Luke 12:32-34, where inheriting the kingdom is equal to giving to the poor is equal to treasure in heaven. We have that same equation here, where treasue in heaven is equated to being saved which is equal to the kingdom of God. Following Jesus is the same as having the kingdom of God, because being with Jesus is being in the kingdom.
The man was saddened, outright depressed, because of how difficult it is to get rid of possessions when you have so many. BTW, there is a tradition that says that this man is actually Joseph, called Barnabas, who in Acts 4 finally did surrender all of his possessions.
And, looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those with many possessions to enter the kingdom of God." The disciples were shocked at his words. But Jesus again answering, said to them, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through they eye of the needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God." And they were all the more astonished, saying to themselves, "Then who is able to be saved?” Looking straight at them, Jesus said, "For men this is impossible, but not for God, for everything is possible for God."
Seeing the man's sadness, Jesus is recognizing how difficult it is for some people to enter God's kingdom. In his second statment, of the proposition, He does talk specifically about wealthy people, but He is admitting that it is just difficult in general for anyone to enter into God's kingdom. But He does emphasize the difficulty of wealth, and not just in this passage-- Matt 6:24; Luke 12; Luke 16; Luke 6:24-- all these passages speak of the difficulty for wealthy people to enter into God's kingdom.
Why is it so difficult? Well, different passages mention differnt things, but in this passage the emphasis is on possessions. The word for the "wealthy" is literally in Greek-- "those who have possessions". Or, to put it in technical terms, "people who've got stuff". So the specific kind of wealth Jesus is talking about is possessions. This fits with what Jesus says elsewhere, namely Luke 14:33-- "No one can be my disciple unless he surrenders all of his possessions." And the parable of the bigger barns in Luke 12, the person can either prepare for his retirement or he can be prepared for his death. And his attachment to his possessions kept him from being ready for death.
No wonder the disciples were shocked. Because they themselves had so many possessions-- Peter had a boat and a house! And the answer Jesus gives to possessions is to get rid of them-- sell them!
"Peter began to say to him, "Behold, we have left everything and are following you." Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the gospel, but wouldn't receive a hundred fold now in this time-- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, with persecutions, and in the coming age, eternal life. But many who are first will be last and those who are last, first."
So Peter tries to excuse himself. He says, "Lord, we haven't sold everything, but we left it behind. And we are following you, just like you told that man. So, can we be saved?" Jesus' response is illuminating. He says, "It is true, Peter, you haven't sold everything, but you left it. You have no use of your possessions. Your boat is rotting on the shore and you are sleeping in the fields with me instead of in your house with your wife. Because of your willingness to surrender everything for Me, then hundreds will share with you what they have in this age and you will obtain eternal life-- the kingdom of God."
So what is Jesus saying?
a. That possessions are dangerous. They separate us from God and from God's kingdom. One of the greatest dangers of our life in God is stuff.
b. That it is a requirement to be a disciple to be rid of our possessions.
c. That there are many ways to be rid of our possessions. In Scripture, we have three main examples:
1. Selling our stuff and then giving the proceeds to the poor.
2. Leaving our stuff for others to steal it or to rot.
3. Continually providing our stuff to the needy, as they need it.
The third example isn't in the Mark 10 passage, but we do have a number of examples of it--
Matthew 10-- The one who welcomes (read, provides hospitality) to a prophet will recieve a prophets reward.
Matthew 25-- The sheep are those who provided hospitality to Jesus' brothers
Philemon was one who had a wealthy household, but hosted the church and any poor believer who was passing through, staying in his town.
Prisca and Lydia also hosted churches in their homes, providing hospitality.
I John says that providing one's resources to the needy is displaying one's knowledge of God's love
So what does all this mean for us possession-glutted Westerners?
a. We need to recognize that we all have a lot of stuff. And every time we get rid of our stuff, we get more.
b. We need to take seriously Jesus' command to get rid of our stuff.
c. At least one point, we need to get rid of our stuff. All of it, if possible, without endangering our family.
d. Even Jesus recognized that we would accumulate more stuff. That's not a problem, as long as we keep a couple things clear in our minds:
-The stuff isn't ours, it's Jesus'
-The stuff is given to us to build God's kingdom, not our own
- God's kingdom is built by us giving stuff away, especially to those in need (Luke 12:33)
-We need not fear giving away even what we need because God will provide for us.
Jesus' message on the birds of the air and the flowers of the field is, in both places given, in the context of giving our possessions to the poor (Matthew 6 and Luke 12). As Christians, we should be living lifestyles of surrender to the poor, all the time. In this way, we keep the Demon Stuff from stripping away the blessing of God's kingdom.
"The Servant of Charity must go to bed each night so tired from work that he will think that he has been beaten." -Louis Guanella
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)