Paul Never Persecuted Christians

Welcome back or if this is your first visit, welcome. My last post began to deal with the issue of tradition over Scripture. I know that was not the topic precisely (by the way it is time to peel the cat off of the wall) but that is the issue at the core. As followers of Yeshua, Messiah we tend to just reiterate things that have been passed on from scholar to scholar and teacher to teacher without honestly looking at the text or asking what this really meant to those who first read or heard the words. In so doing we get quotes similar to what I shared last week. I hope you expended a little brain power to consider the statement. I believe that one phrase is accurate. Five words linked together to give us one bit of information that could be observed in the life of the Apostle. The rest we need to talk a bit about. Just to see if the statement is supported in God's Word.

By way of reminder this was the sort of quote:
"Saul, who God changed to Paul, was one of the greatest persecutors of Christians but was transformed, by God's grace, to become a man of faith."
We begin with the thing that is confirmed in 1 Cor. 15:10, "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." Paul attributes the change in his life to the grace of God. He was indeed transformed by the grace of God. The old had passed and he was a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Transformation by the grace of God is necessary for all who desire to follow the Messiah. It is a process and is accomplished by Him and the power of His Spirit, not by our efforts alone. But transformation must occur or there is no relationship with the Lord, no faith, no salvation. It is clearly evident in the Scriptures that Saul/Paul was transformed by the grace of God.

Did God change Saul to Paul? God did change Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah and Jacob to Israel. He did tell Zacharias to name his son John, Yoannes, meaning God's gift and Mary to name her son Jesus, Yeshua, meaning He saves. Not, by the way Joshua, Yehoshua, meaning the Lord is salvation or the Lord is my salvation. There is a theological difference if you think about it. (That thought was for free.) However, we have no record of God ever changing Saul's name to Paul. The Lord certainly had the opportunity in Acts 9 when He confronted Saul on the road to Damascus. But there He calls him Saul. It is not until Acts 13 that we are told that Saul is also called Paul. So why the change? I find four possibilities. 1) Paul is a Hellenistic version of Saul. Like we use John instead of Yoannes or James instead of Yacov (check your concordance or Bible dictionary if you find this hard to believe). So Paul is a little more Greek sounding than Saul; his being the Apostle to the Gentiles would account for the name change. 2) As the Apostle to the Gentiles the name Paul carried more weight than Saul. Paulus was an honored name among the Greeks and Romans, as in Sergius Paulis in Acts 13 where Saul is first called Paul. 3) It was a nick name of derision that stuck. The first Saul of 1 Samuel was the honored first king of Israel. He came from the tribe of Benjamin, as did the apostle. the name Paul means small and insignificant, which is how the Corinthians saw him. (See 2 Cor. 10:10, unimpressive and contemptible is not a compliment) 4) God sovereignty orchestrated the shift to remind Saul that he was not royalty but small and insignificant outside of God's grace. I think option 1 is the most likely. If you like option 4 you can say God changed Saul to Paul; just know you have no Scripture to back up your claim. All we know for sure is that among the Hellenistic world, Saul was known as Paul.

So maybe you can stretch God into changing Saul into a Paul, but you cannot get to the second statement following the path of Scripture. To do so you have to take the detour of tradition to get there. Scripture simply contradicts the premise. Paul never persecuted Christians. In the time of Saul/Paul's zealous pursuit of the followers of Yeshua there were no Christians. His persecution ended in Acts 9 and the word Christian doesn't show up until Acts 11 and there it is likely a term of scorn calling them "Little Messiahs". The insinuation within the quote is that Saul persecuted Christians until he became one. Any number of commentaries and works on the life of Paul will refer to Acts 9 as his point of conversion, when Saul became a Christian. But Paul never became a "Christian". He was, throughout his life a Jew. He became a follower of Yeshua as Messiah and worked to persuade Jews and Gentiles to accept the truth that Yeshua was Messiah, and therefore, the Lord to be faithfully trusted and obeyed. 

To affirm this point see Philippians 3:4-6 where Paul gives his current heritage as:a Jew, a Pharisee, a follower of Torah etc. In Acts 23:8, Paul declares to the Jewish crowd that he currently is a Pharisee on trial for his belief in the resurrection from the dead. In Acts 24, Paul's defense is, "this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect [of Judaism not Christianity], so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law [Torah] and in the Prophets." Even at the end of his life, Paul comes to Rome and does not seek the Elders of the Assembly of believers in Yeshua, but the Leaders of the Jews, Acts 28:17 "And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: “Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." 

As a zealous Jew and Pharisee Saul/Paul was concerned that a new sect of Judaism was being formed. This new group was declaring that this man, Yeshua, was Messiah and even divine. This would be a clear violation of what Saul held to be true. It was a violation of his understanding of Torah and Jewish tradition, therefore, it must be stopped. Saul/Paul was a persecutor of Jews, never of "Christians". In our contemporary understanding of the word Paul was never a "Christian". He was a devout Jew and Follower of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua. 

Last but not least is the claim that Paul became a man of faith. The problem here was dealt with in my blog on "Faith or Faithfulness". Faith is not a noun it is an action. A man of faith acts faithfully. Saul was a man who acted faithfully, living as best he could in accordance with Torah. He kept the feasts and festivals and Jewish traditions. None of that changed after he believed that Yeshua was Messiah. He still hurried to Jerusalem for Passover. Still partook in vows and Temple worship. Still observed the Sabbath and attended Synagogue whenever possible. Saul was a man of Jewish faith before and after he accepted Yeshua as Messiah. The question becomes one of "What is faith?". If one did not become a man (or woman) of faith outside of acceptance of Jesus, then none of those in Hebrews Chapter 11 were people of faith. All these died in their faithfulness awaiting the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven and the reign of Messiah. Just what Paul was waiting for. He just came, by the grace of God, to a realization the Yeshua was Messiah and God's Kingdom was at hand.

Do not misunderstand, today God only accepts faithful living based in Messiah alone. It is not any faithfulness to any random religious system. However, at the time of Saul, faithfulness that mattered was faithfulness to Torah and the Word of God. By the way, that is true today as well. True followers of Messiah, the author of Scripture, who love Him keep His commandments. The inference in the statement that Paul became a man of faith is that there was a change in faith or a conversion. That Paul left his Judaism and became a Christian by faith. Saul/Paul was a man of faith long before he encountered Yeshua on the road to Damascus. That is what we observe in Scripture. We too are called to be people who are faithful both to the Word of God and to His Son Yeshua. We too are to be transformed by the grace of God.

The simple statement that Paul persecuted Christians and converted to some new faith or religion is seldom questioned. It just isn't supported in God's Word. Tradition is simply accepted. But we are called to diligently study to see if these things are so. Even if it leaves you feeling like a cat pet backwards. 
   

Don't Pet the Cat Backwards

Have you ever wished you didn't know so much? Things would not bother you if you were a little more ignorant. Life could be less irritating. To some extent the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" actually has some merit. My best friend in Virginia really is a rocket scientist. He puts things into space, works for NASA and the Department of Defense. He has a hard time watching movies that are pretending to be accounts of some space event: "Space Cowboys", "Gravity" and the like, because he knows too much. The same is true with finished carpenters that see bad woodwork installation, carpet installers and bad carpet seams, and the auto body guy watching his neighbor restore his classic car with "bondo" and a can of spray paint in his backyard. To most people it looks pretty good, but for the one who knows, it can be at the least a distraction, at the worst you feel like a cat being pet backwards. (If you missed the analogy, pick up a cat and quickly and repeatedly pet it against the grain of its fur. You may generate enough static electricity to stick the cat to the wall. And no, I am not suggesting you try this; the point is Fluffy will not enjoy the experience).

Such is the reality that occasionally plagues my life. I have graduated from a Christian University with a minor in Bible, I completed my Masters of Divinity with an emphasis in theology; and I recently earned a PhD. in theology as well. So I know stuff. One would hope so anyway. My post graduate degree focused on the study of Scripture from a Hebraic perspective. The whole Bible is a Jewish book. The New Testament was written by Jews (with the possible exception of Luke). Jewish followers of a Jewish Messiah. They lived in a Jewish culture and they read, spoke, and wrote in Hebrew. The Gentiles were grafted in as followers of a Jewish Messiah and met with the Jews on the Sabbath in the Synagogues for at least 150 years after the ascension of our Lord. I was forced to take this into account as I worked on my degree. So I now ask questions as to how the first readers living in their Jewish culture would have understood the message. Recognizing that there was no New Testament, all references to God's Word and to the Scriptures were references to Torah, the Writings and the Prophets, Genesis to Malachi. 

The issue I face is that a significant number of people, preachers, and teachers do not share this perspective. They would agree with it, but either haven't taken the time to soak in the reality or simply are so immersed in American and Western thought that any alternative is foreign to them. There is no intent to ignore the cultural setting; the thought just never seems to come to mind. It never really did to me until I was forced out of my comfort zone a few years ago with questions that were not answered well from my traditional perspective. Now simple, honestly shared phrases by well-known and well received TV and radio preachers give me that "pet backwards cat" experience. I don't mean to be picky but we are to rightly and accurately teach the Word of God. If we just perpetuate thought without thinking we are guilty of a sloppy handling of the Word of Truth, the very Word of Life God breathed for directions and instruction as how best to live a life abundant in Him. 

Wow! What a long introduction. Now there is no room to really address the irritation that poked me this past Saturday. So I will ask you the question and see what you think, then give you my thoughts next week. I heard a popular Radio and TV preacher make a statement while I was listening to the car radio. By the way, I mean no disrespect, and the man has been used mightily of God to teach the truth and to see lives changed by the power of God's Spirit. I just think he is trapped in saying what has been said for hundreds of years. It seems to me we don't really think about what the words mean any more. That being said here is the sort of quote, maybe not the exact words but pretty close: "Saul, who God changed to Paul, was one of the greatest persecutors of Christians but was transformed, by God's grace, to become a man of faith." Are there any issues here? Any possible inaccuracies? Was Paul indeed transformed by the grace of God? Any little abrasions to the truth that rub you the wrong way? Give it some thought and we can talk next week.       

Redeemed ..... but when?

"Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it! Redeemed by the blood of the lamb", so wrote Fanny Crosby back in 1882. And I have no argument with that wonderful truth. My question is, according to God's Word, just when did this happen? I was told from early on in my Christian walk that it was through the blood of Jesus which He shed on the cross. He is the Lamb of God who was pictured in the Old Testament sacrifices now sacrificed for us on the cross. But, as was pointed out in my previous blog, the focus of the cross is victory over death, not redemption. First, allow me to point out a few problems with the picture we have been given.

We begin with a statement made by the Apostle Paul to the believers in Corinth. First we need to recognize the audience Paul was writing to. Acts 18:4 tells us, when visiting Corinth, "he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks [Gentiles]." So in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians he writes to Jewish and Gentile followers of Messiah. They are all well versed in Jewish tradition and Torah. They meet at the Synagogue on the Sabbath, as that is where the Word of God was and could be heard (There were no Bibles and no printing press). In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul writes,"I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." Now as a Jewish believer or a Gentile well familiar with Jewish teaching, where would your thoughts go? Most likely to Leviticus where all the information about sin offerings was written. You were to bring a lamb, goat, bull, turtle doves some approved animal, female or male, depending upon the passage. It had to be spotless, without blemish, presented to the priest, hands laid on it in identification, at the Tabernacle or the Temple, where it was killed painlessly, and its blood poured out at the altar for the forgiveness of sin. This would be the picture in the mind of the Corinthian believer. A person was redeemed by the grace of God, through the blood of the approved sacrifice. How does any of that remotely remind you of the events of the cross. No Temple, no priest, no altar, blemished beyond recognition, dying slowly in agony, no laying on of hands, no blood poured out at the altar; no way do the events of the cross look like a death for our sins, according to the Scriptures.

Where does that leave us? Let me suggest that our redemptive timing is off a bit. Isaiah writes of God's suffering servant in Isaiah 53. Most of the verbs are in the perfect tense or are participles. In Hebrew there is no past, present and future. Perfect is a completed event with ongoing results, and imperfect being incomplete action, sort of present or future. What this means is that when Isaiah wrote these words he wrote them as an event that was completed with ongoing results. Our Bibles translate it as a past event. "He was wounded, He was oppressed He was lead like a lamb to the slaughter."  Past event with ongoing results. How can this be? Jesus had not even been born yet. Now hop over to Revelation 13:8 If you have a KJV or a NKJV it reads, "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from (or before) the foundation of the world." The NASB, NIV and other translations rearrange the words to make it "the names written before the foundation" but the Greek reads the Lamb slain before the  foundation of the world. Was the Lamb really offered before the foundation of the world? 

Looking back to Revelation Chapter 5, we see John's vision as he enters heaven. He sees One called the Lion of the tribe of Judah (vs 5), but what John also sees is a lamb as though it had been slain. His vision will go on to see an altar and servants making offerings and incense, the prayers of the saints. It appears to be a heavenly temple. The writer to the Hebrews, in chapter 9, tells us that Christ is a better sacrifice and a better High Priest. Verse 11 explains that He entered a better more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is not of this creation. Verse 12 goes on to say He offered His blood when He entered the Most Holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of bulls and goats was not enough but "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot or blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (14). Where is the record that , during his earthly ministry Jesus ever enter the holiest part of the temple to offer Himself as a blood sacrifice? Being from the tribe of Judah he could not enter the earthly temple. It was a heavenly temple not of this creation.

As the Apostle John writes his Gospel account he quotes John the Baptist in 1:29 where John proclaims, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The word translated "takes" is airon. It is a present active participle. Which means it is an ongoing action. A more accurate translation would be "who is taking away the sin of the world". The Lamb of God is, as John writes, taking away the sin of the world. Not in the future, not at the cross, but now, for the price has already been paid. His blood has already been shed on a heavenly altar in a heavenly temple perhaps by the Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Perhaps the picture of the sin sacrifices in Leviticus are looking back instead of forward. Perhaps the Old Testament believers were already under the blood of the Lamb. The picture of the sacrifices was to remind them of the past rather than to have them hope for a future redemption. Just as the celebration of the Lord's Table reminds us of His death, for it is His death that is proclaimed, not His redemption (see I Cor. 11:26), until He comes again. If Messiah paid the price before the foundation of the world, the whole issue of redemption for the Old Testament believers is taken care of. Like all who believe they have always been under the blood of the Lamb.

It seems that, just as we were chosen before the foundation of the earth (Eph. 1), we were also redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, before the foundation of the earth. God was so passionate for us and loved us so much He resolved the sin problem before sin even entered the world. The curse of death would not be dealt with until the cross, when the Son of Man rose again and defeated death and broke the curse. Death has no Sting and the grave no victory for He is risen. This is the focus of the cross; however, redemption was already ours.

"And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders stood a lamb as though it had been slain"(Revelation 5:6), "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. How about you?          

Is there Redemption in the Cross?

This article has been one of much thought and prayer knowing that some may react to the thoughts and misunderstand what it is I am suggesting. So right from the start know that I believe that the cross is central and essential to my faith and the hope that I hold for eternity. Also know that I believe that Messiah shed His blood on my behalf and it is through His blood that I have redemption, the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation to the Father. I agree with Hebrews 9:22, “that without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” I do not question the truth, just the timing of the event, and how the event was realized. I simply want to be true to the Scriptures.

The key verse to the common held theology, that the focus of the cross is the shed blood of Yeshua for the forgiveness and cleansing of sin, comes primarily from 1 Peter 2:24, “He bore our sins in His body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” He took our sin and removed it on the cross. Eph. 2:16 declares that He, “reconciled them both through the cross.” And Col.1:20 says we are, “reconciled through the blood of His cross.” However these both speak of reconciliation not redemption, and there is a difference. Perhaps these hold merit, but when we look at the rest of Scripture is that honestly the focus of the cross?

Of the 24 references to the cross in the New Testament, all can be seen as the cross being an instrument of death, even 1 Peter 2:24. Sin brings us death for death is the curse passed on from Genesis Chapter 3. We will surely die. Torah set God’s standard before us and we disobeyed, and thus we are under the curse (death). Christ redeemed us from the curse coming from disobedience to the Law (death) when he became a curse for us, for cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree [cross], (see Galatians 3:10 & 13). In John’s Revelation, after telling us in Chapter 20 that death and the grave are cast into the lake of fire, John goes on to describe the New Jerusalem; in Chapter 22 we are told that “there shall be no more curse” (vs. 3) and that we shall reign forever and ever (vs. 5). Through the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the curse of death is broken and we have life. He is the first fruits and we will follow in His resurrection.

The point of the cross throughout the New Testament is victory over death. So Paul can proclaim to those in Corinth, “Death is swallowed up in victory” and ask “O Death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?” (1 Cor. 15:55). The curse of death has been broken and we are delivered through His death and resurrection. Without His death and resurrection we have no hope. Forgiven or not we would still be under the curse of death, but the cross changes all that. Death is defeated and victory is there for all who believe.

One last thought comes from our Lord’s own illustration in John 3. Nicodemus has come to Yeshua under cover of darkness to seek to know if He is Messiah. The Master Rabbi turns to Numbers and the story of the fiery serpents, a story Nicodemus was well familiar with. It is found in Numbers 21. In brief the children of Israel sinned and God sent fiery serpents among them and, when bitten, they died. They cried out a clear confession of guilt and sought forgiveness. They came to Moses to plead for deliverance. Deliverance from what? From the fiery serpents that were bringing death among them. God told Moses to make a bronze serpent and put it on a pole. Whoever was bitten was to come and look upon the serpent lifted up and they would be delivered from death. They would not come if they did not believe. For those who believed and came and looked upon the serpent lifted up they were delivered from death. That was the focus, not redemption or forgiveness, but deliverance from death. Yeshua said in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up. Thus, like the serpent, all who would come believing would be delivered from death.

The predominate evidence from Scripture is that the point of the cross is deliverance from death, not redemption. Redemption, to some degree, may be there, but that is not the focus or the message from God’s Word. So where does redemption come in? We are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, which is for certain; the questions are where and when. But I will save that for the next blog.

Do the Righteous Ones Live by Faith?

As one approaches the study of the Scriptures we have pointed out that there are some differences between the Greek/Western/American world view and that of a more Eastern/Jewish/Hebraic world view. The reality is that most of us read Bibles that were carefully translated by scholars that come from a Western or Greek point of view. Thus their translations would naturally follow that mind set. A key difference is in the foundation for who we are. Greek thought centers on what you think and how you feel. Hebraic thought centers more on what you do and how you live. The mindset of the translator and that of the reader will influence how a word or passage is translated or understood. It is not that one is necessarily incorrect but the perspective can be quite different. 

The writer to the Hebrews is assumed by most to be Jewish, a writer from a Hebraic point of view writing to a predominately Jewish audience. The abundant references and passages from the Tanakh , or Old Testament indicate a great familiarity with those Scriptures. It would seem most reasonable for him to be writing from a Jewish mind set. That being said, let us consider chapter 10 verse 38. "The Just shall live by faith" (KJV) or "My righteous one shall live by faith" (NASB and NIV). This is a quote borrowed from Habakkuk 2:4, "The just shall live by his faith" (KJV or "The righteous one shall live by his faith" (NASB and NIV). The translation leads us to believe that the just/righteous one lives by or according to what he believes or thinks to be true. And this is true but it may not be as clear as we would like. The word faith is a bit ambiguous, rather hard to grasp. From Bible school days I was told that God defined faith for me right there in Hebrews. Hebrews 11:1 " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is something hoped for and something unseen. That really doesn't help much, other than to let me know that I was right in that faith is hard to explain or is it just more of a feeling. 

Let us return to Habakkuk 2:4. The Hebrew word here is emuna. It is translated faithfulness 18 times, truth 13 times, faithfully 5 times and faithful 3 times. It is only translated faith one time, here in Habakkuk 2:4. What if we use the most common translation and see that the just/righteous man lives by his faithfulness. A righteous man will live faithfully. He will live out what is true. We know he is just and righteous by what he faithfully does and how he faithfully lives. A just and righteous life is lived faithfully in agreement with God's Word and God's commandments. With this now in mind, bounce back to Hebrews 10:38 where the Jewish writer is writing to a Jewish audience from a Jewish mindset, and guess what he might have meant when he quoted Habakkuk. The Righteous one shall live by his faithfulness or he shall live faithfully.  Just to let you know, the Greek word here, pistis, translated faith is also translated faithfulness in Romans 3:3 and Galatians 5:22 and many other places, so faithfulness is an acceptable translation of the word. 

If this is reasonable then just carry the thought a couple of verses down and we find that "faithfulness is the substance of things hoped for and faithfulness is the evidence of things not seen." When I speak to others of my faith in Messiah as savior, my faithfulness to how He calls me to live is the substance of what I hope for and my faithful living is evidence to those around me that what I say I believe is true. Faith is not intangible or hard to explain, it is the reality, the substance, of how I live. And those around me can see, understand, and grasp what my faith, my belief is for it permeates my life and is expressed in real tangible ways.

Need some examples of what I mean? By his faithfulness Able offered a better sacrifice, the first, the best of his flocks as a blood sacrifice. Through his faithfulness Enoch was taken away so he did not see death. Noah faithfully prepared  an ark for the saving of his household. Abraham faithfully obeyed when he was called to go to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. All the wonderful examples in Hebrews 11 are of those who lived faithfully. They are not about what they thought and felt but about what they did and how they lived. Faithfully.

So are you and I called to live by faith or to live by faithfulness. Are we called to live faithfully in obedience to what the Lord has told us to do, or is it more about what we think and feel? The Lord did say that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. We will do what He tells us to do. We are to live faithfully. Could it be that the writer to the Hebrews is telling them and us, "But without faithfulness it is impossible to please him" (Heb 11:6). Do you think you have faith or do you live faithfully? There is a difference.

Trapped by the Right Answer

Most of us want to know what the right answer is. We go through our educational experience being evaluated as to how well we grasp the right answer. The problem arises when there is disagreement as to what is the right answer. In the world we live in there is disagreement on many things. Evolution or creation has been a topic of discussion for most of my life. More recently discussion centers on a variety of moral standards or lack thereof, depending on your perspective. Where do we go for answers to such questions? For those of us who are followers of God and Yeshua our Messiah we can turn to His Word to see what He has to say and find the right answer, according to the Lord.  

Thankfully the answers are there, for the most part, if we are willing to accept them. However, there are things that are not so clear. As I mentioned in my previous blog, “Thoughts from the Beach”, I wrestle with a variety of things that seem less than clear. While here at the beach, I have read John Piper’s book, The Pleasures of God (It is published by Multnomah, if you are interested). The book is a good review and reminder of who God is and how worthy He is of praise and glory. Piper recognizes that all things are not as clear as we might like them to be. He clarifies this point as he begins chapter five. He speaks of the reality that there has been controversy and discussion on most aspects of theology and belief for a very long time. I agree; if you find your way to the oldest writing of the Midrash and Talmud you will find lively discussion on a variety of teaching concerning the Scriptures. So this is nothing new. Piper suggests that this can be a good thing as “we need to seek our food in the markets of controversy” (Piper, The Pleasures of God 121). Wrestling with concepts and understanding the truth is a powerful way to see the depths and riches of God’s revelation to us.

 The trap that we can fall into is not being satisfied until we find the “right” answer. In our culture we need to know what the right answer is. We are uncomfortable with the ambiguity and apparent contradictions we find in God’s Word. We want the wrestling match to end and the solace of knowing what is “right” to be ours to hold, whether it concerns Spiritual gifts, the coming of our Lord, the place of Torah in our lives or the old question of God’s sovereignty versus man’s free will.  For Piper the wrestling match centers on predestination and particular election verses man’s ability to seek God and find Him. Does God choose, and if He does can he still have compassion and desire all to be saved at the same time?

This question is one that appears to be dear to Piper’s heart. He devotes chapter five (as well as a lengthy appendix) to this very thing. Piper tells us, “My aim is to let Scripture stand – to teach what it will and not to tell it what to say” (Piper 146). He goes on to speak to the question of God’s particular election and yet compassion on all as follows, “Scripture leads us precisely to this paradoxical position. I am willing to let the paradox stand even if I can’t explain it” (Piper 146). It appears that Piper sees that there are things in Scripture that we are able to wrestle with and see the paradox and be comfortable with it. Let it be a controversy that drives us into God’s Word and deeply into the depth of One who longs for us to immerse ourselves in the search to know Him and love Him. However, Piper continues, “It appears to me that those who teach against unconditional election are often controlled by nonbiblical logic” (Piper 146). Piper has found the “right” answer so the wrestling match is over. The paradox does not really exist, it just needs to be read through the election lens. The remainder of his book rests in the shadow of this assumption. God is sovereign. God elects. His grace is irresistible. The non-elect cannot come to God.

It leaves me with many questions as Piper addresses the necessity for prayer, and the short comings of the church to pray. For if God has predestined events to the degree Piper suggests, then God will do what he will do, my prayers are an act of worship to a  God who does not, and perhaps cannot respond. He only acts according to a predetermined plan. It leaves me with questions as to obedience, which he explains as an act of love on my part to bring glory to the God who chose me, but that is predetermined as well. The conclusion I see is that God is not responsive. Piper does try to deal with those issues but it always goes back to his discovery of the right answer concerning election.

I see scripture clearly teaching of God’s unconditional choosing of Israel and of me. I also see Him promising that “As many as received Him to them He gave the right to become the children of God” (Jn 1:12) and promising the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house” (Acts 16:31). God told Jonah to tell the Ninevites, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). No call to repent, and no mention of Yahweh, but the whole city repented and God relented, He changed His mind, He responded to the cries of the people of Nineveh and did not destroy them in forty days. People  made a choice and God responded. I do believe God to be a responsive God. I believe He interacts with me. I believe my prayers can make a difference. I believe God always does what is right so He can rightly respond to me and even change His mind as I respond to Him. There is an intimacy that is more than predestined. I am content to rest in the paradox and even wrestle with it and not demand a “right” answer.

Sometimes right answers trap us and limit our ability to wrestle. Perhaps God intends for us to search and wrestle, even for a life time. When you demand a right answer over things that have been long wrestled with, you may find it with an expense you didn’t intend to pay. Having found it, it seems reasonable to expect and even demand others to accept your “right” answer. This makes us susceptible to dividing the Body of Christ. We may be tempted to brand those with a different point of view as unbiblical rather than as a beloved brother I can wrestle with. I think God is better pleased with my continued wrestling with Him and other children of His than divisively hanging onto my “right” answer at the expense of the love and unity of His Body. What do you think?

Do You Wrestle?

I am on the Outer Banks of NC where we come once a year to relax and refresh. It is a place for me to simply commune with God without much people stuff surrounding me. I love what I do. I love the people I serve with and minister to, but it is a spiritual, emotional, physical help to get away for a little while. It is a time to focus on God with little interruption. The sand is warm and the ocean is simply awe-inspiring. Something so much bigger than I am, so much more powerful, it puts my finite being into perspective. The simple truth is that this is barely a blip in comparison to the awesome reality of who God is.

This God of such creative magnificence and power loves me. He has revealed Himself to me and desires to fellowship with me. It is more than I can begin to understand. This is why I come here to begin with. Just to soak in the Almighty. That and to wrestle a bit with God. That concept used to bother me. I mean, aren't we followers just to accept and obey? Didn't questions get Job in trouble? However, the questions are real and God knows I have them, so it seems a bit naive to think He doesn't. I am not here to argue, per se, just to let Him know I do not understand stuff, quite a bit of stuff, actually. So I come to relax and to wrestle.

Every trip down here carries the tradition of rising early enough to watch the sunrise over the Atlantic. There are few who join me on the beach, so it is just me and the Lord of creation reveling in His handiwork. The reddish glow sends out shards of crimson light until the brilliant orb that is the sun creeps over the horizon. It seems to accelerate as it climbs to the sky and become too intense to view. Long walks down the nearly deserted beach give me time to reflect and absorb a little natural vitamin “D.” Usually the time is also filled with brownies, pizza, fudge from the little store in Nags Head, some ice cream and M&Ms. But this year I am determined to be more disciplined and remove body jello rather than add to it, So I brought our old beat up bike.

Riding a bike on the Outer Banks has one clear advantage, there are no hills to climb, just miles of flat blacktop. One clear disadvantage is that there are no hills to coast down. As my rides tend to head south, there is a prevailing southern wind to keep you warm and yet cooled at the same time. I learned that a 13 to 15 MPH headwind is worse than it sounds on the weather channel. There is no coasting. If you don’t peddle you tip over into the sand burs on the edge of the highway.  This being true, the 17 mile ride to Avon took more effort than I expected. My longest ride in a couple of years was the day before, a round trip of 6 miles with no headwind. Still, as old as I am getting, it felt good to have made the ride and the muscles are none the worse for wear when I bounded out of bed this morning.

The lesson learned is that if there is no resistance, there is no increase in strength. If there is no time of wrestling, there is no advancement in skill or stamina. Such is true on the spiritual level as well. Paul has told us in Eph 6:12 that “We do not fight against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies.” Wrestling with such things serves to strengthen our faith and resolve for, “we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us” (Rom 8:37). However, there is evidence that there is other wrestling that goes on. Jacob, for example, wrestled with the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 32 and Hosea highlights this in Hosea 12. Jacob wrestled and would not let go until God blessed him. Jabez, I Chron 4:10, offers a prayer that is almost a time of wrestling with God so that God might bless him and enlarge his borders.

I wrestle with a variety of things. Like why God allows for death to suddenly take one of His beloved saints. Why a couple I know, whose gentle spirit reflects that of the Lord beyond anyone I can think of. With them God allowed victory over cancer and then allowed Parkinson disease to be its replacement. I do not understand. I wonder why some things in Scripture are obvious, like salvation found in Messiah alone, or the fact that we all will die. However some things are vague, like how to organize an assembly of believers, Elders, Deacons, Pastors, home churches, cathedrals that glorify the Lord? What of future events, Pre, Post, Mid Trib rapture or no rapture at all. Old Testament Saints, New Testament saints and Tribulation saints, where does it all fit? Then there is the biggy in my head, grace and works or grace and obedience to God’s Word. Grace is obvious and has been from Genesis one until now. Most agree that obedience to God’s Word is important. Yet it seems to be true only if I get to pick what part of God’s Word I choose to obey. There are many things to wrestle with, both with God and with others who follow Yeshua Messiah, Jesus the son of God. But it is time to hit the beach so we will continue to wrestle a bit next week.