How is your self-esteem? Pretty good or do you struggle with low self-esteem? I was alive when the self-esteem lie began. I was in College and my major was psychology with an emphasis in counseling. My minor was in Bible and sometimes it was hard to get the two to be compatible. The rage at the time was the issue of self-esteem. It has now permeated much of what we deal with today. Even if it isn't a main topic, the damage is perpetuated and as followers of Christ we are not immune. I know this week was to be on Acts 10 and 11, but this issue crawled out from under a rock in my brain. Things said in passing in the midst of conversations poked some old irritations. Self-esteem, or the lack thereof, is said to be the cause of a plethora of social maladies. In the 70's several well know psychologists who were Christian promoted this terrible condition. A counseling team teaching at a well know seminary in Texas made the statement that virtually all violent crime could be eliminated if we could build self-esteem into every child. Sin is not the issue, it is low self-esteem that causes crime. We are told so by the media to explain, and to some extent, excuse bad behavior. "They were abused as a child, disappointed and suffered from low self-esteem." "Their behavior is an outgrowth of years of belittlement leaving them with low-self esteem and a shattered psyche." "They grew to hate themselves and reacted to yet another assault on their self-esteem, what they did shouldn't surprise us." The world, and even "Christian" counselors tell us the need for self-esteem and self-love is essential if we are ever to love God or others.
Yet, when we look to Scripture we do not see self-esteem or self-love as the issue. We actually see the opposite. We are told by Isaiah that the Lord, "was despised and rejected and we did not esteem Him" (Isa 53:3). We are to be like Him. If the world rejected Him they will also reject us. Philippians 2:3 says "In lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself." Matthew 9:35 declares, "If anyone desires to come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Mt 20 and Mark 9, as well as other places, tell us if we want to lead or to be great we must be servants of all. My wants and needs must come after the needs of those who surround me. How do we get from self denial to self-esteem and remain true to Scripture? Ahhhhhh! We invent a new commandment. We find the need for self- love and self-esteem in the core of the greatest commandments.
When asked by a scribe as to the greatest or most important commandment Yeshua, Jesus, quoted Deut. 6:4-5 " Hear oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment." Yeshua went on to quote Lev. 19:18, "And the second like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mk 12:30). Did you see it? The third all important commandment? One is love God. Two is love your neighbor and three is love yourself. You see if you do not love yourself you cannot love your neighbor and cannot truly love God. Self-love and self-esteem are absolutely necessary if we are ever to love others as we are called to. This remarkable third commandment is elevated to the first for without self-love and self-esteem I am lost and despondent. I will become discouraged and feel all alone and useless. My low self-esteem will drive me to terrible things or just live a mediocre existence. Because I was never encouraged as a child I will never be able to love others or God or have any real value. Whoever was responsible, my parents, my teacher, a coach, bullies at school, some relative or boss, one thing is sure, it is not my fault. However, we should note that Matthew 22:40 adds, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Thankfully we have "Christian" counselors around to find the hidden third commandment that the Lord missed.
Low self-esteem allows us to excuse sin, anger, bitterness, to be enamored with ourselves and useless for the Kingdom. It has been a remarkably effective lie of the devil. All this being said, what of those who have a poor self image? Due to the abuse of a parent, relative, teacher, coach or some other individual who held great influence over their lives. A poor self image can be a very real issue. Self image and self-esteem are not the same. Image is how I see myself and where my value as a person comes from. Self-esteem is how I am evaluated and lifted up by others. If I was not properly elevated or others were elevated and I was not, I am hurt and feel less important. So we do not keep score in soccer or little league. I don't fail a class I get a "L-I-P" on my report card (Learning In Progress, an actual mark for some report cards). No one is better. We are all the same. We wouldn't want to damage someone's self-esteem would we? This way we can all be equally miserable.
As an aside, society has been teaching our children that they are a mistake of evolution for years. A protoplasmic blob and a product of billions of years of natural selection. There is no plan, there is no design, there is no God and you have no value. You will eventually die and return to the meaningless dust you came from. By the way, we are concerned with your self-esteem and your need to love yourself so we are offering a special class to produce artificial value in your life. It is fragile because it is based on how you feel others treat you. You are powerless. A damaged product of a decaying society and a world you are destroying. Oh, and as we have been teaching natural selection, you know, only the strong survive, there will be a seminar in the gym on Friday to help you deal with the faster, stronger bullies that are higher on the evolutionary chain. Enjoy the day and remember to love your meaningless self.
No wonder our world is so messed up.
How do you combat a poor self image? The real issue here is a poor God image. We do not see Him as our Abba, Father. We do not see His love and compassion. We do not see or accept what He has done to demonstrate His love for us. We do not see our value to Him or in Him. I am His child. Peter reminds me that I am chosen, a part of a royal priesthood and a holy nation. I am special and have the purpose of proclaiming His praise. I have been called out of the darkness of all that has wounded me into His marvelous light.(1 Peter 2:9) I am precious to Him and He, by the power of His indwelling Spirit, has given me gifts and abilities to serve others. I am not alone. He will never leave me nor forsake me. He has brought me into a community that can love me and that I can love. He has given me directions for living and written it down so I can read it and learn more of Him. He is not hidden. He has revealed Himself to me. He has died for me that I might have life abundant. And even when I am persecuted and rejected by others, He will never reject me. He is preparing a place for me so that I can live with Him forever. He is an amazing God who tells me the real value in life is serving others. My real joy comes from denying myself, not loving myself. My value and purpose comes from esteeming others, not self-esteem. When we see just how much we mean to God, how loved we are and the sacrifice He made to bring us to Himself, we can see that we are made in His image and His likeness. What better image could we ever hope for? I am His and He is mine. The real question about my self image comes down to whom I choose to believe. Will it be those around me, myself or God?
We should heed Paul's warning to Timothy, "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:1-4). Sound familiar? And on top of all that they will have poor self-esteem. I don't think we need a good self image or elevated self-esteem I believe we are desperate for God to be highly esteemed and for my self-image to be found in His image. What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Is God Angry With Vegetarians?
"Food, glorious food", so we hear from the friends of Oliver Twist. For most of us reading this, food is more than mere sustenance to keep us alive. We even have a holiday to celebrate food. We call it Thanksgiving. Food surrounds most of our special events from Independence Day cook outs, to Christmas dinner, to Birthday celebrations, or as I just discovered recently, Gender Reveal parties (It's a boy, by the way). It is not new. Food surrounds lots of life's markers and religious remembrances. This is certainly true of the Bible. Passover, the Feast of Trumpets, Sukkot, to name a few. God created us with taste-buds and olfactory receptors for a reason. For some their use has become more of a obsession than simple enjoyment. Wine and cheese tasting competitions and chili cook-offs come to mind. So it appears that food is a good thing. One of the many things God has created us to enjoy.
In the last post we looked at how one verse has been developed into a whole theological assumption that only comes to be if you ignore the historic and cultural context. That is also true for more than Matthew's recording of Yeshua's cry of Psalm 22:1. It is also true of a few other things we have built from a single verse or passage. Today's question is, "Does God care what you eat?" We talk a lot about food but does God have an opinion? Jesus ate food. He ate bread and roasted lamb as it was a part of the Passover feast. It is likely that he ate beef and fish as well. But there are foods He did not eat. Yeshua, Jesus, never had bacon. He was a Torah observant Jewish Rabbi who never violated the teachings of Moses or any of the dietary regulations God placed upon the Hebrews. If He ignored them He would have been in violation of God's Word, something He simply could not do.
For most of us the dietary regulations given in Scripture are either ignored or unknown. A sort of rule of thumb is God's people were not to eat shell fish or animals that fed on the blood of other animals. Pigs eat the flesh of other animals, as do lions and tigers and bears (Oh my!) all of which are considered unclean and not fit to be consumed by the Jews. This is also true of eagles, owls,and buzzards. There are others like camels but the point here is not to make the Biblical list. You have Leviticus for that. God's view that there are unclean animals has been around for a long time. And people understood that to be true. Otherwise Noah would not have known which were clean (7 pairs) and unclean (1 pair) animals to bring on the ark. Different cultures saw different foods as unacceptable, ancient Egyptians, for example, did not eat lamb. But what of us? We Gentiles who have come to know Messiah. Do any of these restrictions apply to us?
One verse and one passage have been key for proclaiming the discontinuation of Biblical dietary restrictions. There are others that are drawn from but you really have to have a preconceived opinion to ever get an end to dietary rules, for Jews in particular. For this post and the next we will look at Mark 7:19 and then to Acts 11. If someone wants some thoughts on Galatians 2 we can go there but it is a stretch to find an end to Jewish dietary laws in that passage. We begin with Mark 7:19, as it is the most egregious example of making Scripture say what you want it to say if your desire is to justify what you already believe.
Mark 7:19 is supposed to give clear evidence that Yeshua, Jesus, did away with dietary laws, declaring all food to be clean. This is based upon the translation given to us by the ever popular New International Translation "For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body. (In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The verse seems pretty definitive. However, let's do what we did with Jesus' cry from the cross of Psalm 22:1 and put this into historic context. The question was over eating without the ceremonial washing of hands. It is a tradition, not a part of the Law of Moses. Yeshua's point is that they keep tradition well but forsake Torah, specifically Commandment Number Five, Honor your father and your mother. They use the excuse of Corban (dedicating things to eventually go to God) to deny the financial help a parent might need. Now remember the Jewish Yeshua, Jesus, is talking to Jewish Pharisees in front of Jewish people and His Jewish disciples as a young Jewish Rabbi. How surprising after telling them they do not observe Moses' instruction on parents that He would then proclaim Moses' teaching on food invalid. An amazing thing coming from a sinless, Torah obedient Rabbi. "My fellow Jews, God's instructions in Torah concerning dietary restrictions no longer apply. I have to keep them to be without sin and never violate God's word but you go ahead and eat pork." Come on now, be serious, give this some thought, just how likely is that? What are the chances His disciples and the Jewish people would continue to follow a Rabbi who blatantly disregarded Torah and the Law of Moses?
Jesus does talk about food. However His point is it is not eating but what comes from your heart that matters. Food, in this case food eaten without ceremonially clean hands, will not defile you but your behavior can defile you. Like not caring for your parents. So what of Mark 7 :19? Let's check out the KJV so you can see the difference in translations. "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Here is a literal Greek translation, "because it enters not of him into the heart but into the stomach and into the drain goes out purging (or eliminating) all foods." In more common language "you eat food and it doesn't go to your heart but to your stomach, through the digestive process, and into the toilet. That is how your body processes food." Your actions defile you, not eating with unwashed hands. So, what happened to the "in saying this, Jesus declared" part? It is not there. The translators added it to "clarify" the text for us. Disregarding the Greek, disregarding the historic context, disregarding the idea that it makes our Jewish Messiah a propagator of the violation of Torah for His people the Jews. How helpful. At least now they can feel comfortable eating pork chops.
The point here isn't about whether or not we Gentiles should eat or not eat unclean foods. The point is that this verse has been translated, in one of the most popular translations, to justify a preconceived opinion about dietary regulations. These scholars intentionally mistranslate a verse to fit their beliefs, effectively building a case for an end to Jewish dietary laws that is not there. Their theology is now based upon a verse that has nothing to do with Yeshua, Jesus, ending God's instructions concerning food. Is that any way to build a theological foundation for disregarding portions of God's Word? Especially if you are a Jew. I don't think so.
As an end note, there are those who by necessity or conviction choose a different diet. Gluten free, only organic, a response to diabetes, avoiding peanuts, vegetarian or vegan. I doubt that God gets upset with any of them for their diet. I choose to not eat unclean food. There are a growing number of those who follow Messiah that do as well. In so doing I have been accused of forsaking grace, leaving faith and returning to the Law. Even violating Scriptures like Mark 7:19 and Acts 11. Somehow I doubt that God is upset that I don't eat bacon or clams. I doubt that He is upset if you are a vegetarian. So I invite you to enjoy your veggie burger and let me know what you think about Mark 7:19.
In the last post we looked at how one verse has been developed into a whole theological assumption that only comes to be if you ignore the historic and cultural context. That is also true for more than Matthew's recording of Yeshua's cry of Psalm 22:1. It is also true of a few other things we have built from a single verse or passage. Today's question is, "Does God care what you eat?" We talk a lot about food but does God have an opinion? Jesus ate food. He ate bread and roasted lamb as it was a part of the Passover feast. It is likely that he ate beef and fish as well. But there are foods He did not eat. Yeshua, Jesus, never had bacon. He was a Torah observant Jewish Rabbi who never violated the teachings of Moses or any of the dietary regulations God placed upon the Hebrews. If He ignored them He would have been in violation of God's Word, something He simply could not do.
For most of us the dietary regulations given in Scripture are either ignored or unknown. A sort of rule of thumb is God's people were not to eat shell fish or animals that fed on the blood of other animals. Pigs eat the flesh of other animals, as do lions and tigers and bears (Oh my!) all of which are considered unclean and not fit to be consumed by the Jews. This is also true of eagles, owls,and buzzards. There are others like camels but the point here is not to make the Biblical list. You have Leviticus for that. God's view that there are unclean animals has been around for a long time. And people understood that to be true. Otherwise Noah would not have known which were clean (7 pairs) and unclean (1 pair) animals to bring on the ark. Different cultures saw different foods as unacceptable, ancient Egyptians, for example, did not eat lamb. But what of us? We Gentiles who have come to know Messiah. Do any of these restrictions apply to us?
One verse and one passage have been key for proclaiming the discontinuation of Biblical dietary restrictions. There are others that are drawn from but you really have to have a preconceived opinion to ever get an end to dietary rules, for Jews in particular. For this post and the next we will look at Mark 7:19 and then to Acts 11. If someone wants some thoughts on Galatians 2 we can go there but it is a stretch to find an end to Jewish dietary laws in that passage. We begin with Mark 7:19, as it is the most egregious example of making Scripture say what you want it to say if your desire is to justify what you already believe.
Mark 7:19 is supposed to give clear evidence that Yeshua, Jesus, did away with dietary laws, declaring all food to be clean. This is based upon the translation given to us by the ever popular New International Translation "For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body. (In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The verse seems pretty definitive. However, let's do what we did with Jesus' cry from the cross of Psalm 22:1 and put this into historic context. The question was over eating without the ceremonial washing of hands. It is a tradition, not a part of the Law of Moses. Yeshua's point is that they keep tradition well but forsake Torah, specifically Commandment Number Five, Honor your father and your mother. They use the excuse of Corban (dedicating things to eventually go to God) to deny the financial help a parent might need. Now remember the Jewish Yeshua, Jesus, is talking to Jewish Pharisees in front of Jewish people and His Jewish disciples as a young Jewish Rabbi. How surprising after telling them they do not observe Moses' instruction on parents that He would then proclaim Moses' teaching on food invalid. An amazing thing coming from a sinless, Torah obedient Rabbi. "My fellow Jews, God's instructions in Torah concerning dietary restrictions no longer apply. I have to keep them to be without sin and never violate God's word but you go ahead and eat pork." Come on now, be serious, give this some thought, just how likely is that? What are the chances His disciples and the Jewish people would continue to follow a Rabbi who blatantly disregarded Torah and the Law of Moses?
Jesus does talk about food. However His point is it is not eating but what comes from your heart that matters. Food, in this case food eaten without ceremonially clean hands, will not defile you but your behavior can defile you. Like not caring for your parents. So what of Mark 7 :19? Let's check out the KJV so you can see the difference in translations. "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Here is a literal Greek translation, "because it enters not of him into the heart but into the stomach and into the drain goes out purging (or eliminating) all foods." In more common language "you eat food and it doesn't go to your heart but to your stomach, through the digestive process, and into the toilet. That is how your body processes food." Your actions defile you, not eating with unwashed hands. So, what happened to the "in saying this, Jesus declared" part? It is not there. The translators added it to "clarify" the text for us. Disregarding the Greek, disregarding the historic context, disregarding the idea that it makes our Jewish Messiah a propagator of the violation of Torah for His people the Jews. How helpful. At least now they can feel comfortable eating pork chops.
The point here isn't about whether or not we Gentiles should eat or not eat unclean foods. The point is that this verse has been translated, in one of the most popular translations, to justify a preconceived opinion about dietary regulations. These scholars intentionally mistranslate a verse to fit their beliefs, effectively building a case for an end to Jewish dietary laws that is not there. Their theology is now based upon a verse that has nothing to do with Yeshua, Jesus, ending God's instructions concerning food. Is that any way to build a theological foundation for disregarding portions of God's Word? Especially if you are a Jew. I don't think so.
As an end note, there are those who by necessity or conviction choose a different diet. Gluten free, only organic, a response to diabetes, avoiding peanuts, vegetarian or vegan. I doubt that God gets upset with any of them for their diet. I choose to not eat unclean food. There are a growing number of those who follow Messiah that do as well. In so doing I have been accused of forsaking grace, leaving faith and returning to the Law. Even violating Scriptures like Mark 7:19 and Acts 11. Somehow I doubt that God is upset that I don't eat bacon or clams. I doubt that He is upset if you are a vegetarian. So I invite you to enjoy your veggie burger and let me know what you think about Mark 7:19.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Never Forsaken
"My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" Such is the cry from Yeshua recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. It is one phrase recorded for us in two of the Gospel accounts concerning the crucifixion of Messiah. It is a quote from Psalm 22:1. Springing from this verse is an amazing theology telling us that there was a separation between the Father and the Son when Jesus, Yeshua, was on the cross. Most any commentary will explain that this separation was when God the Father placed our sin upon God the Son and turned away from him. That God could not look upon the sin of the world that the Son now carried. The agony came from a separation that had never been experienced from eons before the creation of the world. Check out Matthew Henry, David Guzik, Calvin and a plethora of others to see their take on the separation of the Father and the Son. William Hendriksen tells us "His God and Father would not have abandoned him to his tormentors if it had not been necessary. But it was necessary, in order that he might fully undergo the punishment due to his people's sins" (Hendriksen Commentary on Matthew pg 972).
The questions in my mind surround how and why this has been the accepted conclusion for so many years. I'm not suggesting that I am smarter or have received some special revelation, however, I do question this interpretation. Several commentators acknowledge that Psalm 22 is actually a Psalm of victory in the end. They equate this to Christ's eventual victory after His separation from the Father. Let's just look at the text and ask a few questions. Was David actually forsaken or did he just feel this way, and then upon a little reflection, know that God would never forsake him? If this is true, then the Psalm doesn't really support an actual separation in Matthew or Mark. According to Hendriksen, and many others, it was necessary for the Son to undergo the punishment for sin. Now God does and will punish sin, but the Lamb for sin was spotless, unblemished, and offered up its blood for sin,as was Yeshua. The lamb was not punished. Punishment is not required to remove sin. It is a consequence of sin and may require restitution, but punishment does not bring either atonement or victory over death. So it seems the punishment for sin idea is imported to the event from how we see sin, rather than what was being accomplished at the cross.
Perhaps the most confusing thing to me in the "separation" theology is the context of the events of both the crucifixion and the quote from Psalm 22. The cultural and historic contexts are simply disregarded. As stated above, David was never forsaken. God was never far from him. David realizes this and proclaims praise in the midst of the assemblies; David says, "God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted Nor has He hidden His face from me" (vs 24). Commentators who take the whole Psalm into account do not see things as David did. According to them, the praise and victory come after a real separation between the Father and the Son. This approach simply violates the clear reading of the Psalm. David ends up singing his praises and his victory in the midst of the time of his feeling of oppression. Theological assumptions have to be read into the text to find an actual separation or a segregated timeline.
In the context of Mathew 27 and Mark 15, Yeshua is in agony upon the cross. Among those who surround Him are the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees. They taunt him and dare Him to come down from the cross. I believe it was extremely difficult to speak while undergoing a crucifixion. Messiah does not give a discourse from the cross. His answers are terse and brief. "I thirst", "Woman behold your son", "Behold your mother", "It is finished". It is not "Mother I want John to take care of you for I will be gone and My brother James will be occupied with matters of the assembly of believers in Jerusalem............" Jesus is struggling for words. He is when He quotes Psalm 22:1 as well. They are words that, I believe, answer the taunts of the Priests, Scribe, and Pharisees.
As you read these words, "For God so loved the world that" or "In the beginning God created the", or perhaps, "The lord is my" something will happen. If you are familiar with the Scriptures your brain is likely to have added "that He gave...." or "heavens and the earth" or "shepherd". That is due to the fact that you are familiar with the passages. I would dare say that the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees were far more committed to Scripture memorization than we are. They were intimately acquainted with the Psalms and with Psalm 22. They would have continued the Psalm just as we would John 3:16. They never would have come to the conclusion that Yeshua was suggesting that God the Father was turning His back on Him, or that He was initiating a new theological premise. The conclusion would be the opposite. It would have been hard for them to not see Jesus referring to them as "dogs [who]have surrounded Me the congregation of the wicked [who] have pierced my hands and feet" (vs 16). The Psalm is a rebuke to those who taunt Him and who placed Him on the cross. The Psalm tells the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees that Yeshua, Jesus, has won. Even in death "A posterity shall serve Him, it will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation" (vs 30).
In the context of the passages in Matthew and Mark and in the context of Psalm 22 the whole idea of separation between the Father and the Son must be manufactured from what we thought we knew. The events of the cross show the great love God has for us. It depicts the agonizing death of our Lord and then His glorious resurrection. The events are about victory over death, not punishment for sin. The people surrounding the cross would have heard the cry as one of hope and deliverance. Even for those who misunderstood the Aramaic for Hebrew and looked for Elijah caught the deliverance possibility. (Who knows, maybe it was in response to muttered comments by the Priests and Pharisees about this Psalm of deliverance).
The point I present, which you can chew on, disregard, think I am nuts or bordering on heresy, is that we should be cautious when it comes to building an entire theological tradition and interpretation based on one verse. One verse taken out of its historic and cultural context. One verse that was quoted and not returned to its proper context. One verse that collects additional theological baggage that is not supported by Scripture but sounds reasonable. We are to be students of the Word not blind followers of what has been taught before. In the weeks to come there are a few other "One Verse Theologies" I would like us to consider. I hope you come along on the journey and are compelled to think a little. Your thoughts are always welcome.
The questions in my mind surround how and why this has been the accepted conclusion for so many years. I'm not suggesting that I am smarter or have received some special revelation, however, I do question this interpretation. Several commentators acknowledge that Psalm 22 is actually a Psalm of victory in the end. They equate this to Christ's eventual victory after His separation from the Father. Let's just look at the text and ask a few questions. Was David actually forsaken or did he just feel this way, and then upon a little reflection, know that God would never forsake him? If this is true, then the Psalm doesn't really support an actual separation in Matthew or Mark. According to Hendriksen, and many others, it was necessary for the Son to undergo the punishment for sin. Now God does and will punish sin, but the Lamb for sin was spotless, unblemished, and offered up its blood for sin,as was Yeshua. The lamb was not punished. Punishment is not required to remove sin. It is a consequence of sin and may require restitution, but punishment does not bring either atonement or victory over death. So it seems the punishment for sin idea is imported to the event from how we see sin, rather than what was being accomplished at the cross.
Perhaps the most confusing thing to me in the "separation" theology is the context of the events of both the crucifixion and the quote from Psalm 22. The cultural and historic contexts are simply disregarded. As stated above, David was never forsaken. God was never far from him. David realizes this and proclaims praise in the midst of the assemblies; David says, "God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted Nor has He hidden His face from me" (vs 24). Commentators who take the whole Psalm into account do not see things as David did. According to them, the praise and victory come after a real separation between the Father and the Son. This approach simply violates the clear reading of the Psalm. David ends up singing his praises and his victory in the midst of the time of his feeling of oppression. Theological assumptions have to be read into the text to find an actual separation or a segregated timeline.
In the context of Mathew 27 and Mark 15, Yeshua is in agony upon the cross. Among those who surround Him are the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees. They taunt him and dare Him to come down from the cross. I believe it was extremely difficult to speak while undergoing a crucifixion. Messiah does not give a discourse from the cross. His answers are terse and brief. "I thirst", "Woman behold your son", "Behold your mother", "It is finished". It is not "Mother I want John to take care of you for I will be gone and My brother James will be occupied with matters of the assembly of believers in Jerusalem............" Jesus is struggling for words. He is when He quotes Psalm 22:1 as well. They are words that, I believe, answer the taunts of the Priests, Scribe, and Pharisees.
As you read these words, "For God so loved the world that" or "In the beginning God created the", or perhaps, "The lord is my" something will happen. If you are familiar with the Scriptures your brain is likely to have added "that He gave...." or "heavens and the earth" or "shepherd". That is due to the fact that you are familiar with the passages. I would dare say that the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees were far more committed to Scripture memorization than we are. They were intimately acquainted with the Psalms and with Psalm 22. They would have continued the Psalm just as we would John 3:16. They never would have come to the conclusion that Yeshua was suggesting that God the Father was turning His back on Him, or that He was initiating a new theological premise. The conclusion would be the opposite. It would have been hard for them to not see Jesus referring to them as "dogs [who]have surrounded Me the congregation of the wicked [who] have pierced my hands and feet" (vs 16). The Psalm is a rebuke to those who taunt Him and who placed Him on the cross. The Psalm tells the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees that Yeshua, Jesus, has won. Even in death "A posterity shall serve Him, it will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation" (vs 30).
In the context of the passages in Matthew and Mark and in the context of Psalm 22 the whole idea of separation between the Father and the Son must be manufactured from what we thought we knew. The events of the cross show the great love God has for us. It depicts the agonizing death of our Lord and then His glorious resurrection. The events are about victory over death, not punishment for sin. The people surrounding the cross would have heard the cry as one of hope and deliverance. Even for those who misunderstood the Aramaic for Hebrew and looked for Elijah caught the deliverance possibility. (Who knows, maybe it was in response to muttered comments by the Priests and Pharisees about this Psalm of deliverance).
The point I present, which you can chew on, disregard, think I am nuts or bordering on heresy, is that we should be cautious when it comes to building an entire theological tradition and interpretation based on one verse. One verse taken out of its historic and cultural context. One verse that was quoted and not returned to its proper context. One verse that collects additional theological baggage that is not supported by Scripture but sounds reasonable. We are to be students of the Word not blind followers of what has been taught before. In the weeks to come there are a few other "One Verse Theologies" I would like us to consider. I hope you come along on the journey and are compelled to think a little. Your thoughts are always welcome.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Is God Bipolar?
Is God Bipolar or perhaps conflicted? The paradoxical realities of His Word can make it tough on those who try to accurately relay that truth to others. I drive a bit and also suffer from "Channel Surfing Syndrome" so in the process I hear a number of other preachers. They travel the airways and crawl through my satellite dish to my aging TV. I either enjoy them or yell at the radio or television hoping they will correct what they said. I am a fallible student of the Word, and I am sure if my messages took to the airwaves, other believers would yell at their radios as well. However, there are some things that seem a bit glaring to me. Many who teach the Word of God struggle with the tension of things that seem to be paradoxical. Verses that seem at odds with each other. As I have written in a previous post we really want The right answer. In our culture we need to be "right", so those who teach often struggle with God's contradictions.
Perhaps the issue is how compartmentalized we are as a culture. In God's Word two opposing things may be true, such as election and free will, or God being immutable and yet saying He changed His mind or the "biggy" of the apparent conflict between the Law and Grace, or faith and works. These are all separate entities for most of our American and Westernized brains. Paul writes to the Romans that, "to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for Righteousness" (Rom 4:5). Likewise to the Ephesians "By grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone shall boast: (Eph 2:8-9). But Paul also tells the Romans, "Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the Law" (Rom 3:31). And James explains that, " Faith, by itself, if it does not have works is dead" (James 2:17). So which is it? Works or grace and faith? So is it Law or grace? Works or faith? Maybe it is Paul who was confused, or a conflicted James hanging onto some old Jewish stuff. But if they were inspired by the Spirit of God in what they wrote, then that brings us back to God being bipolar or just confused, or maybe we are not bright enough to understand.
None of these possibilities are satisfying. However, if you listen to evangelical preachers on the subject, they really struggle. Recently I heard one radio preacher who was insistent on the truth that we are saved by faith without works, going as far as to say that those who speak of obedience to Christ are really preaching a salvation by works message. "If anyone tells you that you have to do anything to be a "Christian" other than asking Jesus to be your savior they are destroying the message of Christ and nullifying God's grace. You cannot speak of works and grace in the same breath." (Unless you are James or Paul who speak of both.) I should point out that before the message was done the radio preacher explained that faith and grace were not a license to sin, people born again by faith will avoid sin. But, isn't that obedience, and without the Law how do we know what sin is? He explained that we are not like the Jews, bound to the law but free from the Law so we can be led by the Spirit. But I thought the Spirit inspired the writing of the Law? Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures (OT Law and Prophets) were inspired of God and all I need to know so I can do God's work. Even without the New Testament writings.
If you are familiar with Scriptures you find both clearly presented. Abraham was saved by faith, but that is known because of his works and obedience. Just for fun you can listen to evangelical preachers on this subject and hear them wax eloquently on the truth that we are saved by grace through faith. The Law is dead and gone. The old wine skins are replaced with new ones and putting the two together destroys both. Then there is a pause and an explanation that this does not allow us to continue in sin, for true believers avoid sin. They obey the teachings of Christ. Ummmmm obey? Works? One common explanation is that we are not saved by works but faith that works. Faith that brings obedience. So without works, faith is meaningless..... Hello James. So works are essential for salvation, for without them there is no faith. But wait, that can't be, for we are saved by faith alone. Ahhhhhh, well now you may see the problem. What is a preacher to do with such conflicting truth. Well, to be honest, most sound a bit conflicted or theologically bipolar.
Maybe, just maybe, God, Paul, Peter, and Jesus (you know, the one who said "If you love me keep my commandments", recorded in John 14:15) saw these concepts as integrated. Faith and works are not in opposition but in union. Works demonstrate what we believe. Faith is faithfulness not just some ambivalent concept. It is a verb not just a thought or idea. True faith cannot be separated from works and works are a demonstration of faith. We cannot earn salvation by being "good enough" but salvation is not real if we have no desire to please God. So relax and know the truth, that the Spirit of God desires to change your life. As a person of faith, works will be your natural or perhaps supernatural way to live. You will be like Adam, or Noah, or Abraham or Rahab or Ruth or David or Peter or Paul or even James. They believed and obeyed. Not perfectly by any means, but they did exercise faith and works. They all demonstrated a reality of a relationship with God integrated into the fabric of their lives.
American and Western thought processes drive us toward compartmentalized truth which God integrates. We struggle where no struggle is needed. It is not that both faith and works are true. It is that there is no "both". They are to be an integrated reality in the lives of those who follow God, of those who are disciples of Yeshua as Messiah. How integrated is your life?
Perhaps the issue is how compartmentalized we are as a culture. In God's Word two opposing things may be true, such as election and free will, or God being immutable and yet saying He changed His mind or the "biggy" of the apparent conflict between the Law and Grace, or faith and works. These are all separate entities for most of our American and Westernized brains. Paul writes to the Romans that, "to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for Righteousness" (Rom 4:5). Likewise to the Ephesians "By grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone shall boast: (Eph 2:8-9). But Paul also tells the Romans, "Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the Law" (Rom 3:31). And James explains that, " Faith, by itself, if it does not have works is dead" (James 2:17). So which is it? Works or grace and faith? So is it Law or grace? Works or faith? Maybe it is Paul who was confused, or a conflicted James hanging onto some old Jewish stuff. But if they were inspired by the Spirit of God in what they wrote, then that brings us back to God being bipolar or just confused, or maybe we are not bright enough to understand.
If you are familiar with Scriptures you find both clearly presented. Abraham was saved by faith, but that is known because of his works and obedience. Just for fun you can listen to evangelical preachers on this subject and hear them wax eloquently on the truth that we are saved by grace through faith. The Law is dead and gone. The old wine skins are replaced with new ones and putting the two together destroys both. Then there is a pause and an explanation that this does not allow us to continue in sin, for true believers avoid sin. They obey the teachings of Christ. Ummmmm obey? Works? One common explanation is that we are not saved by works but faith that works. Faith that brings obedience. So without works, faith is meaningless..... Hello James. So works are essential for salvation, for without them there is no faith. But wait, that can't be, for we are saved by faith alone. Ahhhhhh, well now you may see the problem. What is a preacher to do with such conflicting truth. Well, to be honest, most sound a bit conflicted or theologically bipolar.
Maybe, just maybe, God, Paul, Peter, and Jesus (you know, the one who said "If you love me keep my commandments", recorded in John 14:15) saw these concepts as integrated. Faith and works are not in opposition but in union. Works demonstrate what we believe. Faith is faithfulness not just some ambivalent concept. It is a verb not just a thought or idea. True faith cannot be separated from works and works are a demonstration of faith. We cannot earn salvation by being "good enough" but salvation is not real if we have no desire to please God. So relax and know the truth, that the Spirit of God desires to change your life. As a person of faith, works will be your natural or perhaps supernatural way to live. You will be like Adam, or Noah, or Abraham or Rahab or Ruth or David or Peter or Paul or even James. They believed and obeyed. Not perfectly by any means, but they did exercise faith and works. They all demonstrated a reality of a relationship with God integrated into the fabric of their lives.
American and Western thought processes drive us toward compartmentalized truth which God integrates. We struggle where no struggle is needed. It is not that both faith and works are true. It is that there is no "both". They are to be an integrated reality in the lives of those who follow God, of those who are disciples of Yeshua as Messiah. How integrated is your life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)