Ahhh Christmas time. Joy to the world the Savior has come. I waited to post this until after Christmas because I did not want to throw gas on the unnecessary fire that may surround the Christmas celebration. There are those who make it their mission to point out all the Biblical flaws in the celebration. Like it being the wrong time of year, having pagan origins, a political move rather than a religious one, druid trees instead of Christmas trees and so on. And yes it is all true. There is little Biblical truth in our traditions concerning Christmas and the birth of Messiah beyond the truth that He was born. Everything else is borrowed or made up. However I am of the opinion that there is no bad time to celebrate Messiah's arrival and to praise and worship God in honor of the gift of his Son. You can praise God for Yeshua's arrival 365 days a year and I will not be upset.
What is upsetting is the truth that a great many Christians, those who say they are followers of Christ, view Torah in much the same way. Their understanding of the Law has about as much Biblical evidence as Santa Claus. (by the way Zechariah 2:6 "Ho ho come forth from the land of the north" KJV is not a reference to Santa). We have been told that the Law, Torah, is obsolete. That it ended with the resurrection of Christ. That it was an old covenant and does not apply to anyone, Jew or Gentile, today. If you try to follow God's Law you are a legalist and deny the work of Christ. The purpose of the Law is completed; Paul said so and so did Jesus. That is Paul's teaching in Galatians and Romans; everyone knows that. Or do we? Are we as far off with Torah as we are with Christmas, but with far greater consequences?
I give you fair warning that the reading of this blog may cause distress in your spiritual life. The concepts here could change your perspective on lots of things you thought you knew. I will challenge you to actually believe some things that you give lip service to, but don't really integrate into your reading of God's Word, especially the letters by the Apostle Paul. You see, I believe that Paul was Jewish. I mean he was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died as a Jew. He never "converted" to some new belief system called Christianity. He was a messianic Jew. He was a rabbi and had a special mission to the Gentiles to tell them that through the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua, they could gain access to God's kingdom. However, he remained a Jew. You might say to yourself, "Well, yes I pretty much agree with that, except maybe for the conversion part." If that is really true, you can throw away most commentaries because they disagree. Not with the statement, just with what it does to your understanding of Scripture if you apply that reality to what Paul writes. We will take a look at a few verses in Paul's letter to the Galatians to make the point.
As you read through the book of Acts you can pick up a bit of a bio on the life of Saul/Paul as you follow his ministry. Paul was a Jew. He spoke Hebrew (Acts21:40). in Acts 22:3 Paul says he is currently a Jew. He declares that he is a Pharisee, not was (Acts 23:6). In Acts 28:17 - 20, Paul speaks to the Jewish Elders in Rome, and tells them he has done nothing against their people, the Jews, or of the customs and practices of their fathers. He is Torah observant. Throughout Paul's ministry, recorded in Acts, he goes to the synagogues to speak of Yeshua as Messiah. He desires to be in Jerusalem for Passover and take a vow, in accordance with the Law. He does not take Gentiles into the Temple which would be a violation of Torah. In writing to the Philippians, in 3:5-6, Paul says he (present tense) is
circumcised, of Israel,
of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews, a Pharisee, zealous to protect Judaism, and
Torah observant. Paul was a follower of the Jewish Messiah, who proclaimed a
message of the Jewish Messiah that all who trusted in Messiah could be in His
kingdom. Paul did not convert to anything. He lived and eventually died as a
Hebrew, a Jewish Rabbi, who believed that Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah Who also welcomed the Gentiles to believe and be a part of His kingdom.
If that is true, the record in Acts, and if Paul's testimony in Philippians is also true, then Paul would also write from that perspective. He would write as a Torah observant Jew. If his writings indicated otherwise, then he suffered some mental problems, or simply lied. Or perhaps we have read our own understanding into what he wrote.
Galatians is a favorite stronghold for those who teach that Paul taught that the Law, that Torah, has been made null and void. First, let us be reminded as to whom Paul is writing. 1:2 "to the Assemblies who are in Galatia." Iconium is one of the cities of Galatia, where, according to Acts 14:1, Paul taught at the synagogue. Who was there? Jews and Gentiles. So this letter would likely have been read in the synagogue to a very diverse group. Jews, Messianic Jews, proselyte Gentiles, Messianic proselyte Gentiles, Messianic Gentiles and God seeking Gentiles, would make up the audience. It would be very helpful at this point if you got a Bible and read Galatians 3:19 - 4:7. The point here is not to give a verse by verse exposition but to raise a question or two and give an alternative understanding of the passage.
Some highlights. The Law, Torah, amplifies sin. It reveals where we fall short of God's standards. The Law, Torah is not against the promises of God. The Scripture, Torah, 3:22, has sygkiaio "confined" NKJV. Other translations translate the word: under restraint, kept under guard, shut up, imprisoned, or locked up. The word, at its root, simply means to enclose, like sheep in a pen. 3:23 the Law kept us "under guard" until faith came. The Law, Torah, was our paidagogos, our tutor or teacher. This is an important word to understand Paul's point. The history of the paidagogos tells us he was a servant
responsible for the direction and training of the father's son. He made sure the
child got to school and to whatever training opportunity the child had. He was
to protect the child and keep him safe and out of trouble. He was responsible for
the character building of the child. When the child came of age he was released
to walk with the father doing the father’s bidding and the father’s will. He no
longer needed the paidagogos, for what
he had learned had been incorporated into his life. This would now guide and protect him as he took on the responsibilities the father had for him.The Law, Torah, gives instruction and direction on how to best live. It was there as a fence of protection until it was integrated into the child's life. (By the way, Jeremiah 31:33 promises that under the New Covenant, brought by Messiah, God will put the Law, or Torah, on our hearts and in our minds. We won't need the written Law paidagogos for it will be integrated into our hearts, minds, and lives.) I believe this is Paul's perspective.
But let us look at a typical commentary. This is from the Expositors Bible Commentary Chapter 15 commenting on Galatians 3:25 - 29. "FAITH has come! At this announcement Law the tutor
yields up his charge; Law the jailer sets his prisoner at liberty. The age of
servitude has passed. In truth it endured long enough. The iron of its bondage
had entered into the soul. But at last Faith is come; and with it comes a new
world. The clock of time cannot be put back. The soul of man will never return
to the old tutelage, nor submit again to a religion of rabbinism and
sacerdotalism. "We are no longer under a pedagogue"; we have ceased
to be children in the nursery, schoolboys at our tasks-"ye are all sons of
God." In such terms the new-born, free spirit of Christianity speaks in
Paul. He had tasted the bitterness of the Judaic yoke; no man more deeply. He
had felt the weight of its impossible exactions, its fatal condemnation. This
sentence is a shout of deliverance. "Wretch that I am," he had
cried," who shall deliver me?-I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ
our Lord; for the law of the Spirit of life in Him hath freed me from the law
of sin and death". Almost any commentary will express this point of view.
Now be honest here, does this sound like the meaning intended by a devout, Torah observant Rabbi? One who calls Torah holy and good and right. One who just a few verses before said that Torah, the Law was never against the promises of God. Would Paul ever call Torah a bitter Judaic yoke? The man who said he never violated his Jewish fathers' customs would suggest he would never submit to rabbinic teaching or to the sacred practices of his fathers' faith? Would he enthusiastically have rejected the inspired Words of Yahweh giving him instruction and direction as how to best live? Would Paul really tell his fellow Jews and the Gentiles believers in the synagogue to fully reject the very Law God promised to write on their hearts? In the Apostle Paul's words "God forbid!".
I do not propose to be a great scholar or by any means infallible, but either the commentary has missed the point or Paul is not who the Scriptures say that he is.
Here is another possible way to look at the Galatians passage. "But the Scripture
has enclosed all (Jew and Gentile) under sin, that the promise, by the
faithfulness of Jesus Christ, might be supplied (or granted) to those who
believe. Torah was not given to provide a way of salvation but to protect us
and show us God’s design as to how we should live. The promise of God
(deliverance and new life) came to us through the faithfulness of Messiah.
Before this act of faithfulness came we were fenced in or protected by Torah,
kept for the promise realized through the faithfulness yet to be revealed.
Therefore Torah was our paidagogos, our
protector and guide, to Messiah, that we might be justified through His
Faithfulness. By faith, Torah is now written on our hearts, so we no longer
need a paidagogos and we are all, Jew
and Gentile, sons of God through the faithfulness of Messiah Jesus."
We are justified through the Faithfulness of Messiah. The focus should be upon Him and His work to redeem us and deliver us from death. The translators paint the Law in the darkest terms and focus on our faith rather than Christ's faithfulness. It is all about me and how I can live without the Law, without Torah. Those who teach and comment would agree that this freedom from the "tutor" is not license, for we are to walk in obedience. But, obedience to what? And what of Jeremiah 31:33? If the "imprisoning iron bondage" has been forever removed, just what is written on our hearts?
As the New Year begins many of us will make the decision to be more
consistent with our Bible reading. Maybe get one of those "Read Through the Bible in a Year" schedules to help us keep on track. My question is, will we be content to just read as we have in the past years. Just accepting what we see from our American, Western perspective. Only asking the question, "What does it mean to me?" Or will we take the time to ask, "What did the writer mean?" or "What did the first people who heard this think?" Will we take into account what we know about Daniel, David, Paul, Peter, Moses or John? They were all Jewish. They were all committed to the God of Israel. They were all committed to obey Torah. None of them saw themselves as "Christian". So what does the text mean in light of those facts?
If we approach our reading from this perspective we can more accurately apply what we learn to our lives. Far more effort is required, but isn't God worth it? We could make that commitment or we can just say, "Well, no worries, we are under grace and free from the law. I can depend on my faith to make it all okay. God knows my heart, He can't actually want me to put any effort into knowing Him and His Word." "Isn't that what the Apostle Paul just said?" No, I don't think so. But the real question is "What do you think?"
.
"Heaven is a wonderful place, filled with glory and grace." "When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be." So say the choruses and songs we sing. Most believers look forward to going to heaven. You know, Saint Peter and those pearly gates that give us access to heaven. Well maybe not. But you may have been trained in evangelism to ask, "If you were to die today and you stood before God how would you respond to His question, "Why should I let you into My heaven?" But what if that is the wrong question? What if God isn't interested in letting you into heaven? The reality is we know little of the afterlife other than there is one. Scripture is just pretty unclear as to how it all works. But as Biblical, evangelical, followers of Jesus we are often told we are going to heaven and will will see Jesus (or Yeshua if we want to use His real name). But do the Scriptures honestly tell us that? Eternity in heaven? That doesn't seem to be God's plan.
Before we get to that point let's see what we can know about death and the life to come. First the Old and New Testaments most often refer to death as sleep. There are over twenty-five references to "slept with his fathers" in 1 and 2 Samuel alone. I Cor. 11:30 and 15:51 are New Testament examples (unless you have a modern translation which simply says you are dead). The Hebraic idea seems to be that the end of life is a time of rest. Rest from the struggles and toil of this world. Just as an aside, if you look at the days of creation the first six all say, "there was evening and morning" but that is not so of day seven, the Sabbath Day. Rabbinic teachers said that was because Sabbath was a picture of the everlasting Sabbath we come to at the end of our days on earth. So death is rest and sleep if you accept the Biblical references. However there is more. There is a place called "Abraham's Bosom" according to Luke 16. It has a place of rest for those who believe and torment for those who do not. Yeshua met with Moses and Elijah (Mt 17) and they had physical bodies and awareness, so death seems to be more than just unconscious sleep. Whatever the state of things, we will be aware, and it appears we will participate in things that happen in some heavenly realm.
The Scriptures do say that there is some sort of heavenly connection when we die. Elijah was taken up into heaven (2 kings 2:11) as was Yeshua (Acts 1:1
1), the Apostle John (Rev 4:1), and the Apostle Paul (2 Cor 12:2). Though Paul is a little ambivalent as to his experience in the third heaven. In Revelation John sees the martyred believers in heaven singing praises (Rev 16). Another side note here. In the often quoted verse in 2 Cor 5:8, the one where Paul says we "would prefer to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord", he doesn't say we will be; Paul just says that is what is "preferred". I would prefer to be in the Outer Banks. That doesn't mean I will be there. It is unlikely that Paul's thought is a Greek out of body experience rather than an Hebraic hope for the resurrection. Just read chapters 15 and 16 if you find that hard to believe. Paul's point in 2 Cor. 5:8-10 is to be "well pleasing to the Lord" for we will all stand before Him to give an account. It is not a theological statement about death but a challenge as to how we should live.
Thankfully we are told that we will be with the Lord forever. In John 14, Yeshua told His disciples that there are many dwelling places in His Father's house. He is going to prepare a place for us and He will come and take us to this place of many dwelling places. 1 Thess. 4 claims that the dead and those alive will forever be with the Lord. The question is where will this forever place be. As we come to answer this question I must first ask this question, "What is your greatest hope?" For many it is the hope of Heaven. That was not so for the Apostle Paul and that is not why Yeshua went to the cross. The greatest hope we have is the resurrection from the dead. Check out much of the latter half of 1 Corinthians. You know, "This perishable must put on the imperishable." 1 Cor. 15:19 "If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." The resurrection from the dead is most essential, most important to Paul. It is foolishness to the Greeks who saw the temporal body something to be shed and released from. But not Paul, not the Jews. A resurrected body was the great hope. Death is conquered by Messiah and His resurrection is the "first fruits" and we will follow. Yet we don't talk much about the importance of a resurrection. We talk about going to heaven where the body thing is sort of nebulous. We have been infected by Greek thought and philosophy.
So why is a resurrected body so important? Because we will be with the Lord forever and He will be on a tangible, physical earth. We know little of heaven but God gives us a great deal of info about a new earth, or at least a new Jerusalem that will be on a new earth. In Revelation 21 John sees a new heaven and a new earth and a new Jerusalem coming down to the earth. The new Jerusalem is about 6,000 miles on each side. It is a cube about the size of our moon. It has streets of gold and pearly gates. It has perpetual light because the Father and the Son are there. There is no need of a temple for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple. There is a throne for the Lord God and the Lamb and a river of life flows from it. There are trees along that river forever bringing forth fruit. There is no more pain, or death, or sorrow, or crying, for God will wipe away every tear. The former things have passed and the new has come. A tangible city on a tangible earth, where God and the Lamb are, will have tangible people with new resurrected incorruptible bodies. And so shall we ever be with the Lord. This new earth must be pretty huge to support this new Jerusalem. A 6,000 mile cube of a city must have many dwelling places that Yeshua has gone to prepare for us. And He will come again and receive us to Himself.
So it looks like the Scriptures don't promise eternity in heaven with Jesus. They promise eternity on a new earth in a new Jerusalem with a new body. That is our hope. Resurrection from the dead, and an incorruptible body to serve and worship the Lamb and God our Father in a new city on a new planet prepared just for us. How cool is that? Hope to see you there.
Bacon! It is probably one of the strongest contributing factors toward the abandoning of Biblical dietary regulations. Followers of the Jewish Messiah have worked overtime to find or invent reasons why we can eat bacon. Perhaps if the prohibition was about not eating broccoli or collard greens we could go along with it but, "Hey don't mess with my bacon." As we covered in a blog or two ago (See, "Is God upset with vegetarians" Posted Oct. 22, 2014) translators will even intentionally mistranslate and add words to the text to justify their love for bacon. Today we consider the text used by most to show that God did away with all dietary regulations for Jews and Gentiles and, for some, all of Torah as well.
The account is recorded for us by Luke in Acts 10. I encourage you to read the whole passage, Acts 10 and 11. In brief, there is a Gentile named Cornelius who is a Roman centurion. He is said to be devout and fears God. God comes to him in a vision and tells him to send men to Joppa to get Peter. They are to bring Peter back with them. Cornelius does so. As they are approaching Joppa, Peter goes up to the roof of the house where he is staying. God sends Peter a vision as well. A sheet comes down from heaven with all kinds of animals on it, clean, unclean, kosher, ceremonially unclean, all kinds of animals. God tells Peter to, "Arise, kill and eat." Peter says, "Not so Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean." God responds, "What God has made cleansed you must not call common". God does this three times for emphasis so Peter is sure to get the vision. Peter is confused and wonders what the vision could possibly mean. Enter the men from Cornelius. God says, "Behold there are three men looking for you. Arise and go with them." So Peter goes with them and the commentators go, "Ahhaa! God told Peter to eat bacon." Well, they really say God told Peter that all animals are now clean and he should feel free to eat any of them. Including bacon. If you care to check this out you can see commentaries by Simon Kistemaker, Ironside, F. F. Bruce, and Charles Carter and Ralph Earl. All respected scholars, and the last three use Mark 7 as the justification for their interpretation, sharing their understanding that Jesus made all food clean. (A distortion of the text if you are at all unbiased in reading the account. See the Oct. 22 post)
Now it is clear that God gave Peter a shocking illustration. A Torah observant Jewish Rabbi eating common or unclean food, how could this possibly be so? The text says Peter "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (Acts 10:17). Peter knows what he saw he just doesn't know what it means. The same was true of Pharaoh in Genesis 41, Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 and for Daniel in Chapter 8, just to mention a few. Visions and dreams can be difficult to understand. God is the one who reveals the meaning. Let's see what God reveals to Peter.
The servants of Cornelius (remember he is a Gentile, Roman, a centurion no less) arrive, spend the night, and then Peter goes with them to Caesarea. Cornelius tries to worship Peter who tells him not to. Peter is a good Rabbi and knows that is taboo. Cornelius has a houseful of people and invites Peter in. Chapter 10:28 "Then he [Peter] said to them, 'You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." When did that happen? There is nothing here in the text about unclean people. It was about unclean food, right? But Peter understood the vision to be an object lesson about people, not food. Well, perhaps that is clarified a little later in the text. While Peter is speaking the Gentiles believe, evidenced by the Holy Spirit. On this basis Peter baptizes them. They are now a part of the believing community.
In Chapter 11 the apostles and brethren heard that the Gentiles had also received the Word of God. Peter is confronted in verse 2, "You went into uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them." Now take just a minute here and be reasonable. Cornelius is said to be "a devout man and one who feared, honored, God, gave generously and prayed." It seems he is pretty familiar with the God of Israel, familiar with the laws and customs of the Jews. God tells him that a Jewish man named Simon Peter can answer his questions. When Peter arrives, Cornelius is so impressed he bows before him. Having been corrected Cornelius invites Peter to stay for dinner. (Just a side thought. Realistically, what are the chances he would intentionally serve Jewish Peter unclean food?) Having been confronted, Peter shares the vision of the sheet and animals and the house of Cornelius receiving the Word and the Spirit. Chapter 11:18, "When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "We can eat bacon!" well, no they said, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life." It seems everyone who hears of the vision sees God's message as one relating to Gentiles coming into the Kingdom. They somehow miss the main point of the end to Jewish dietary laws and possibly all ceremonial laws as well.
Let us go back to the two other visions I mentioned. Pharoah has a vision of seven fat cows being eaten by seven skinny cows. God tells him, through Joseph, that these are years of plentiful harvests followed by years of famine. That is God's message. If we follow the logic and exegesis applied to Acts 10 and 11 Pharaoh should have sent soldiers all across Egypt to kill every skinny cow as the dream/vision is obviously about cows not years. Kill off the skinny cows and avoid the famine. If he focused on God's interpretation he would have been legalistic and missed the "kill the skinny cows" message. Nebuchadnezzar also has a dream recorded for us in Daniel 2. God reveals the dream and its interpretation to Daniel. It is a great statue with the head of gold, chest of silver, belly of bronze, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. They are kingdoms God has established before time. The head is of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. Nebbie is pleased to know the meaning of the vision. But not so much with the end of his and the coming of other kingdoms. So in Chapter 3, he makes a ninety foot statue of pure gold and calls everyone to worship the statue. Not just a head of gold, but it is all gold. This way his kingdom will never end. He will just modify God's vision and make his own interpretation. It was about a statue of a man after all. Not coming kingdoms, right? If you want a New Testament illustration, both Paul in 1 Cor 13 and James in James 1 use a mirror to make a point. The obvious thing God is revealing to us is that good followers of God and His Son should own a mirror. In fact not owning a mirror might mean we are not being obedient.
I am sure that you can easily see the flaws in all of these applications. Nebuchadnezzar learned that his statue could not replace God's interpretation of God's vision. Yet we have no problem replacing God's interpretation of Peter's vision with our own. Whatever you decide to believe about dietary regulations is up to you. But if you want to justify eating bacon, Acts 10 and 11 offer no help. Unless you don't like God's interpretation of God's vision.
We are convinced that dietary laws don't apply to anyone. Could it be that after years of rejecting God's regulations it is almost impossible to consider a different perspective? A perspective that actually fits better with Scripture. However it is important to please our taste buds. So enjoy a piece of "golden bacon"; I am sure God will be okay with our own interpretation of His revelation, don't you?
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?
"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.
"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 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?
