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.    
   

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.   

 

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?  

 

Do You Have to be a Christian to be in God's Kingdom?

"Are you a Christian?" One of those nice evangelistic questions to ascertain one's belief system. Where do you classify yourself and does your classification fit in my preconceived matrix. For many, if the answer is "No" the discussion is over, or the need now is to convert you into one. We place a huge amount of weight upon a word that is rarely used is Scripture. Only two times, plus once in the plural. Acts 11:26 informs us that disciples of Paul and Barnabas, and thus of Yeshua, were first called Christians in Antioch. This strong Roman city would see the community of Christ followers as disloyal to Caesar. The term is most likely derisive, not complimentary, or a positive title. The same is true in Acts 26:28, where King Agrippa uses the word to mock the Apostle Paul. I Peter 4:16 gives us the one verse that tells us if we suffer we should do so as a Christian (Christ follower), not for being a wrong-doer. This is not necessarily a bad thing, for titles which are meant to poke fun can actually speak volumes as to one's integrity and belief system. 

The issue here is what if you find, through the study of history, that the promoters of the term had an agenda that violates Scripture? What if this reality makes you uncomfortable with the identifying term? If  you prefer to hang a different label on what you believe, will that keep you out of God's Kingdom? The other side is, how valid is the Christian label if there is no life agreement with the Word of God? We once had a Dr. who was very gracious and compassionate, so I asked the question, "Are you a Christian?" His response was, "I guess so. I'm not Buddhist or Muslim so I must be a Christian."  He gave himself the right label, so is he in God's Kingdom? Most would think not. If you ask Jesus to be your Savior does that automatically make you are a "Christian"? Is there any obedience involved or is the prayer enough? What if you are Jewish? Are you a Christian or a Messianic Jew?

I believe, that at its core and at its foundation, my faith in Yeshua as my Messiah, Lord and Savior, is Judaism. I am a follower, a disciple of the Jewish Messiah. I believe He is coming back and will establish His Kingdom. Through faith I, as a Gentile, am grafted in to the true olive tree. "And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree" (Rom 11:17).  By faith, I am a child of Abraham (Rom 4:16). In essence I am adopted into the blessing promised to Abraham.

Followers of Yeshua are a sect of Judaism, “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14). Acts 28:22 makes the same reference to this new sect of Judaism, and Acts 24:5 calls this new sect the Nazarenes. A new sect as were the sects called Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, and Essenes. Different groups within accepted Judaism.  Not unlike today with the Hasidics, Orthodox, Reformed, and Liberal Jews; and you can toss in the Zionists and Zealots as well. We know there are lots of sects of Protestantism and, it seems, new ones are added all the time. Adding a new sect called the Nazerens to the overall Jewish community would not be that unusual at that time.

We should also note that the Apostle Paul, as a follower of Yeshua (Jesus), is still believing in, and thus obedient to, Torah and the Prophets. Paul is still Jewish. Paul was a Messianic Jew. I am a Messianic Gentile. A follower of Messiah. A part of the "Way" spoken of in Acts 24:14. I live in expectation of Messiah's return and the establishment of His kingdom. I am His Child. According to Acts, a member of the sect called the Nazarenes. Does that make me a Christian? In its simple definition, "Christ Follower" or "Christ imitator", that is true. So where does the discomfort come for a growing number of His followers?

Just a little shot of History. One of the most influential early church fathers was, Ignatius. He lived in the first century. He was Greek by heritage but became a follower of Jesus. He was one of the strongest proponents of the new term "Christian" to describe the followers of Jesus.  He writes this in one of his letters. "It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity" — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2. To be a Christian means you MUST abandon any Jewish practice or custom. Apparently what the Apostle Paul did was "Monstrous", as he continued to believe in Torah and the Prophets. 

It takes little effort to check history to discover two things. One, the early church fathers were almost all Hellenistic Romans. And two, they were anti-Semitic. By the time the Council of Laodicea meets, in 633 AD, the edict written to all "Christians" is that if they observe the Sabbath or any Jewish practice they are anathema, cursed and damned. The word Christian was used to separate "Christians" from Jews. Soon the church was seen to replace Judaism as God's Chosen People. We are subliminally told that God has rejected the Jews. Soon the Roman Church would emerge with its own traditions ad regulations. People would be compelled to be Christians. Those free from Judaism, the Law, Sabbath and the Word of God. Instead they were bound to new rules administered by a new hierarchy not to be questioned, a select group who would tell you what to believe and what the Scriptures said. 

But Christianity does not end there. Welcome the Reformation and freedom from Roman Catholic traditions and authority. The reformers, Luther, Calvin, Huss, Zwingli and others would bring new freedom and a new Christianity. Unfortunately many, Luther in particular, were antisemitic. This new brand of Christian is free from the Roman Church, the Pope, the manufactured ordinances that needed to be reformed. In due time the new Protestant Christians had their own traditions. But now free to interpret the Scriptures for themselves split into over 30,000 distinct flavors. Now Christians are free from the Law, free from Moses, free from authority, free to believe what they want, free to interpret God's Word as the choose. Christians are free, so like the people of Judges, "Every man does what is right in his own eyes". 

Christians have little or no relationship to Judaism. Not to Sabbath, dietary regulations, Torah, Moses or the Prophets. We follow a Jewish Messiah void of Judaism, something that is absolutely contrary to the Scriptures and the first followers of Yeshua, Messiah, Jesus. If Christians are indeed fully separated from Judaism, then there is nothing for me to be grafted into. History makes me uncomfortable with my label. I tend to tell people that I am a follower of Christ. I have tried, "I am a follower of Yeshua" but people get confused or their eyes glaze over, so Christ Follower works. It is the meaning of the word and what I believe. I use the word within my circle of "Christian" believers for it is cumbersome to explain this every time. Most live with an appreciation for our Jewish roots. But the vast majority of Christians give it no thought. The nearly 2000 year effort to separate Christ Followers from our roots is grievous to me. We have little regard for our heritage. We have built walls to keep Jews out or to let them know they must be grafted into the church. They must forsake the teachings of Moses and the honoring of the Sabbath to be a part of us. What happened to Gentile believers being grafted into Judaism? Few would ever make the mistake of the First Century Caesars in thinking that Gentile followers of Christ were Jews. They persecuted them both, for they could not tell them apart.

Can you say, "No I am not a Christian, because the term carries little meaning culturally or historically." Is it Okay to say, "I am a Messianic Gentile, A follower of Yeshua. An adopted child of Abraham. A wild branch grafted into the true Olive Tree." Can you say, "No, I am not a Christian." because you reject the "Christian" label. Can you use another label and still be in God's Kingdom?

Messianic Gentile? Maybe the label is more accurate than most would want to believe.   

My Trampoline Died

It is sad but true, our trampoline has come to the end of its life. It has served our family for something like 12 years. It has been bounced on by myself, my children and my grandchildren, not to mention more of my children's friends than I could list. It has served as a launching pad to get on the shed and a landing platform when doing flips off of the shed. It has provided a place to sleep on and even to hold a pop up tent so my campers didn't have to deal with the hard ground. But its time has passed. The tabs holding the springs are tearing and the fabric is deteriorating. So it will soon find its way to the land fill and the metal will someday be a Kia. 

It is like the rest of the world we live in. Tainted by death and deterioration. It is hard to avoid the reminders that come our way. Death is a strange thing to me. I do not understand it or really know what to do with it. We were not created to die. When God made us He made us to live. "God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). But Sin entered and now death touches everything. There is an odd tension concerning death in the Scriptures. Paul points out, "to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21). Yet he knows that living is a good thing for those around him. John tells us in his Revelation of Messiah that "Death and the grave were cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14). Death will be removed. Like Satan, death is our enemy. We do not need to fear it, but it is not our friend. It is an affront to all God began. Even our Lord, when contemplating the pain and agony, wished that it would not be so, but cried "Not My will but Thy will be done" (Mt. 28). By the way, this really baffles me. The Divine dying? Conquering death makes sense to me as He is life and gives life and began life, but the dying part............??? 

I understand that there are times when the suffering ends and going to be with the Lord is a great release. I have been to memorials that are a celebration of the life of the one past. But death is still so wrong to me. The aging process that is unavoidable. The "putting down" of my faithful trampoline because the enemy called death takes his toll on everything. But this is the reality we face.

Paul tells the Corinthians that death has lost its sting and the grave has lost its victory. I will have a new body that will not suffer the deterioration this one is undergoing. To be "absent with the body is to be present with the Lord" is true, however all this seems to be pretty clouded to me. Now don't misunderstand. I do not fear death. (A bit apprehensive about aging and not being able to provide for my beloved wife. The no Social security, no retirement, no real savings thing haunts me a little, but not death) Fear of dying is not the issue, fear of missing life is.

Life is a gift. My daughter is expecting. I was asked if I hoped it was a boy this time. Sorry, no expectations or wishes here. Just amazement that the God who created the universe is forming and knitting together this tiny being in my daughters womb. Awestruck at the thought. Every day, every breath is a gift. Each day is filled with new mercies from God ( Lam. 3:22-23). Our enemy, death, wants to rob us of that reality. I woke up yesterday early and captured a moment as I watched Debbie sleep peacefully beside me. This remarkable being, this creation of God, resting comfortably in the gift of sleep that is also a gift and God's design. Thoughts wandered to how blessed I am. In His divine mercy this woman loves me, and has been my soul mate and my greatest earthly treasure for over 37 years. Life is a gift. I would have liked the moment to last. It reminded me of other moments when one of the little lives given to my stewardship would rest comfortably nestled in my arms. Well, yes, that has been a few years but now granddaughters occasionally fill the gap. Life. 

In the harried pace we live, do we miss the daily mercies? Do we take time to just savor the reality of breathing, knowing that it was God's very breath that gave us life to begin with? Take ten minutes, a few times a day and soak in the reality of the God who loves you. Revel in His creation. Be aware that death wants to take life from you long before your final breath. Take it away little by little, moment by moment, day by day. 

We have responsibilities, work, all the things we have to do and many are not really optional. But we do have the option to pause. To stop for a moment and hold life. Treasure the moment. Bask in His mercy. He gave it to you fresh this morning so don't miss it. Don't let the day go by and allow death to win. Death surrounds us. It tries to immerse us in its gray mist of activity and deadlines. Hmmmmmm dead lines. Perhaps right now you need a life line and He is there who gave you life. He said something about abundant life, not living in the shadow of death every day. Take time to live, to enjoy the gift. Don't let the enemy win today. Celebrate life and then you can say goodbye to the trampoline.  

Proclaiming Less than the Gospel

Mark 16:15 " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." A straight forward command of our Lord just before He departed and returned to glory. But what is the gospel? For many it is that Jesus died for your sins and that if you believe that or accept Him as Savior you will be saved from hell and have eternal life in heaven with Him. And that is true, at least it could be true. For now you have to define believe or what it is to have faith. Belief or faith is not a mental choice; it is a change in direction for your entire being. It includes obedience and being a disciple or, according to James, it is not faith at all. From this is the issue of what it is to obey and how do I know. All good questions, rabbit trails to chase another day. The question I face in this blog is what we leave out when it comes to sharing the Gospel or Good News Jesus told us to share. Are we robbing those we talk to by not sharing all of the good news?

The word translated "gospel" in the New Testament is euagelizo, which is where we get the word evangelize or evangelical. It means good news or glad tidings, or in a verbal sense, as proclaiming the good news. It is rarely used with salvation but often used in reference to the Kingdom. The good news is that God's Kingdom is coming and we can be a part of that Kingdom. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called the Gospels, for they are the record of the "Good News" that Messiah has come and He has conquered death and will establish His Kingdom, among a host of other things. This is, indeed, good news. Paul writes to the Corinthians, " For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" 1 Corinthians 15:3 - 4. Paul's primary message concerns the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, Messiah. However, that is not Paul's only message and it is not all of the Gospel or Good News. In fact, the letters of the New Testament all have one thing in common. That is the need for unity in the community of believers.

The Good News we are to proclaim is not about an isolated intellectual faith or belief in an event in history. It is not about an isolated event in my life when I chose (or was elected for you reformed folk) to believe and thus began a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The Good News is more than that. In writing to the Ephesians Paul tells us Gentiles the good news that, "We who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ". We have been brought into God's Kingdom. Grafted in. Made part of the Body of believers. We are a living stone, a part of a temple with other living stones being built together to the glory of God. We are not isolated. We are not alone.  I am not the only one in God's Kingdom. I am a citizen among many citizens with the privileges and responsibilities that go with that remarkable Good News. I belong.

The Good New Paul, Peter, James, John, the writer to the Hebrews all proclaim is that we are together in this. Every individual who receives Christ as Savior is, at that moment, a part of God's Kingdom, His Body, His temple, The assembly in His fellowship with other believers. God likes to remind us of this with "one another's" in His Scriptures. In Romans alone we are told to be kindly affectionate to one another, to be of the same mind,to love, to not judge, to edify, to be like minded with patience and comfort, to receive, admonish and greet one another. Check out the Blue letter Bible  https://www.blueletterbible.org to see the full number of "one another's" that we are commanded to do. A brief look showed most to be imperatives, so these are not "feel good" suggestions; these are things the Lord expects us to do. Now how can we do any of these things alone?

The additional gospel or good news here is that these are reciprocal. One another demands that I do all this for you and you do all these things for me. We are not isolated beings; we belong to one another as much as we belong to Christ who is the Head of the Body. Single cells or single parts of the body do not survive well or function as they should without the rest of the body. Paul makes this abundently clear in 1 Cor 12. If you prefer building illustrations then see the living stones in 1 Peter 2. A stone isolated from the rest of the building is no more than rubble on the side of the road. That is not God's intention. That is not God's design. That is not the gospel. To have an isolated, personal relationship with Christ is not found in Scripture, Yes, there are times when we have to stand alone and when circumstances will isolate us from other believers but that is not to be the norm. The Gospel is that, through Christ I have forgiveness, eternal life AND that I am a part of His Kingdom, a part of His Body, a living stone in His temple. That is the Good News.

So when you present the gospel, do you hope they will "pray the prayer" and receive Jesus. Or do you also explain that receiving Christ also means becoming a part of a community. A part of a body of fellow believers. They will not be alone but a citizen of God's Kingdom. The good news of the gospel is that by accepting Jesus I am accepting the privileges and responsibilities to be a "one another" follower of Jesus. Because to accept Jesus as Savior and Lord means you are a part of His Body. There are no other options.     

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.