Monday, December 24, 2012
When did Jesus know?
When did Jesus know?
Have you ever thought about Jesus' first recorded miracle- the turning of water into wine?
How it seemed Christ was perturbed at his mother's insistence?
This isn't the only time Christ was weary over performing miracles.
I have a theory why this was.
We have all heard of OCD, or obsessive compulsive disorder.
The hallmark of this disorder is the need for certainty. If we examine the best known OCD, that of hand washing , the desire is to be certain that one's hands are perfectly clean which of course is impossible to know. OCD applies especially to the serpent's promise in Genesis: "you shall know good and evil"
The cutting edge treatment for OCD is to expose oneself to the bacteria one fears and telling the patient the hard truth that he cannot know that his hands are pure. Reassurance that they are clean is the worst thing to say to and OCD'er.
What does this have to do with Jesus? Picture Jesus growing up - we DO NOT know what Mary and Joseph told him as a young boy. Rather it says that Mary pondered her knowledge of whom Christ was in her heart.
We are told that Jesus knew from an early age the Scriptures and argued with the teachers of the Law.
Yet we simply cannot know when he discovered that he was the Christ child, the Savior of the world.
In my opinion it was a learning process just as we learn that we are loved by God so Jesus learned who he was strictly through the scriptures. "I was born in Bethlehem of a Virgin, could it be that I am
He? He must have flinched in horror at the reading of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.
But you say, where is the record of his early miracles? There is none, which goes to my theory.
The act of miracles would confirm to him, OUTSIDE OF FAITH, that he was the messiah. It would be like the OCD patient being told his hands are clean. Jesus had to believe in his being the messiah just as we have to believe in Christ- by his word.
Thus when Mary pushed Jesus into turning water into wine Jesus did not want the reassurance the miracle would provide. It says Hebrews He was tempted in all things we are...which must include faith and the lack of it.....It's almost like she wanted to brag on him- come on Son, it's time!
So we too are to rest in God's word, "Therefore since the promise of entering his rest stands be careful that none of you be found let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" Heb 4:1
"There remains, then, a sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. " Heb 4:11
Not that we shouldn't do good works to prove our faith, but rest assured Christ didn't need to do a thing in order to know who he was. Let us rest in the scriptures too when we doubt our being the Children of God because "our hands are dirty".
"Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those are being tempted" Heb
The thought I want to leave with you is that ALL of Christ's miracles were done for our lack of faith, certainly not his. In fact says that all of God;s works were done at creation "And on the seventh day God rested from all his works." Heb 4:12
In the raising of Lazarus "Lazarus is dead and for your sake I am glad I was not there so you may believe Jn10. Just before Lazarus is raised "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I know that thou always hear me. I knew that you always hear me, but I say this for the benefit of the people standing here.
Hebrews exhorts us is to enter that rest.
This next statement may be heretical ..."Jesus did not know he was the Son of God, he had faith he was the Son of God."
Backing up my premise is when Jesus was in the wilderness and refused to do any signs or wonders. Rather what was his retort? He quoted scripture alone to Satan. Faith springs from believing, not doing. sola fide
But you say Christ had to be certain of his Son-ship and yet the Bible is clear that Jesus voluntarily "emptied himself" of his divine prerogative.......
Your attitude should be that of Christ Jesus
Who, being in the very nature God., did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on the cross!
Then we have the real stumbler....when Christ was asked by his disciples...when the end of things would be and he answered that only the Father knew that.
There is no certainty in this life but we have been given the gift of faith. That's as good as it gets.
For JOANNE
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Secret to Understanding the New Testament.
Big claim. Yet another secret to life. No one told me this, it isn't talked about. As far as I know, there are no books about it or sermons given concerning this secret. It took me to the age of 50 to figure it out. But then it hit me- big. As far as I know it is mine, so I pass it on to you. For being a faithful reader.
Who is the most prolific writer in the NT? It is Luke, the "beloved physician" . A full 27% of the NT. He wrote a two part screenplay, if you will. . What most of us do is read part 1 and try to conclude what part 1 means without having read Part 2. This is ridiculous. Tell me if I am wrong. The secret to understanding any two part screenplay is to read part #2 like a hawk in light of what he has learned in #1. It is the sequel (if it is any good) that informs or should interpret the first part. The first part should leave us a bit baffled and hungry for more. It is the first part that gives us clues and questions on how it is all going to play out. The lead actor in a two part drama cannot be understood completely until the author completes his character at the conclusion. In some dramas there are often large twists that make one totally rethink who the lead really is. Ask yourself this- if you had to take an exam about the meaning of a book would you pick the first half or the latter? Ok, call my bluff- I know nothing about literature and drama. Help someone.
The two part drama is known as Luke-Acts. Most scholars believe it was one book written by the same author. As you know the Church fathers took the first part, namely Luke and made it the third book in the NT...Matthew, Mark, Luke- known as the Synoptic Gospels. Then they took "The Acts of the Apostles," namely part #2 and had it follow John's Gospel. So the novel was in effect broken up.
I implore you to put them back together again and read them as a unit, the way Luke intended.
The Synoptics were always a very difficult read for me. That is because Jesus is often portrayed as a taskmaster who keeps raising the bar of the hearers. You thought the 10 commandments ( Decalogue) were tough? He now says that if you even think of these things you are guilty. It seems that we have to give more and more in order to make it into heaven...our righteousness "must exceed those of the Pharisees" . I would presume that each of us has his or her own frightening stories. It is the Synoptics where hell is introduced by Christ. No wonder I almost always preferred to read John- where one finds forgiveness and atonement and eternal life.
I have mentioned this before that for the Reformers scripture MUST be separated into law and gospel, for Paul tells us that God gave the commands (or Law) in order for us to sin more! Thus we would stop being self deluded and come to Christ for forgiveness. This is the Reformers "secret" to interpreting the Bible, the separation at all times between law and Gospel. They would say that there is a lot of law in the Synoptics; that is Christ high commands are laid out in order to bring us to him for forgiveness.
Trying to unify the bible without this separation is impossible. It turns into, "Jesus says this, but over here he says that, and we will lose our minds trying to put together.
My Luke- Acts "secret" is really a different slant on the Reformers separation between Law and Grace. Luke is often tinged with Law. Christ tells of hell in the "Rich man and Lazarus" and of radical self denial as the path to his kingdom.
The Acts on the other hand is full of Grace, of Resurrection and how to obtain eternal life. This life is clearly received through faith alone in Christ. As to Law the Jerusalem Church had a big Pawwah about whether or not gentiles had to effectively become Jews in order to follow the Law and than follow Jesus. This proposition was rejected. The council did not want the Gentiles burdened by keeping the Law! The Gentiles had only to believe in Christ. Oh- there were two other bits of advice, and this is humorous- to abstain from meats offered to idols and from sexual immorality. Obviously the first is no problem in today's society- as to the second- how are we doing?
So I urge everyone when confounded with a parable or story that Christ gives in Luke (or even Matthew or Mark) - Read it in light of Acts- where Luke tells us what Christ must have meant because in his mind there could not have been a contradiction! Right? Either Luke himself holds to a contradictory religion or he sees ALL of it as in harmony. My argument again- is to use the Theology in Acts to understand the theology of the Gospels- in fact one could take it to the limit and say that it is a key book in understanding the entire Bible.
I will do a rewrite - it is messy- special request to get it out early.
Who is the most prolific writer in the NT? It is Luke, the "beloved physician" . A full 27% of the NT. He wrote a two part screenplay, if you will. . What most of us do is read part 1 and try to conclude what part 1 means without having read Part 2. This is ridiculous. Tell me if I am wrong. The secret to understanding any two part screenplay is to read part #2 like a hawk in light of what he has learned in #1. It is the sequel (if it is any good) that informs or should interpret the first part. The first part should leave us a bit baffled and hungry for more. It is the first part that gives us clues and questions on how it is all going to play out. The lead actor in a two part drama cannot be understood completely until the author completes his character at the conclusion. In some dramas there are often large twists that make one totally rethink who the lead really is. Ask yourself this- if you had to take an exam about the meaning of a book would you pick the first half or the latter? Ok, call my bluff- I know nothing about literature and drama. Help someone.
The two part drama is known as Luke-Acts. Most scholars believe it was one book written by the same author. As you know the Church fathers took the first part, namely Luke and made it the third book in the NT...Matthew, Mark, Luke- known as the Synoptic Gospels. Then they took "The Acts of the Apostles," namely part #2 and had it follow John's Gospel. So the novel was in effect broken up.
I implore you to put them back together again and read them as a unit, the way Luke intended.
The Synoptics were always a very difficult read for me. That is because Jesus is often portrayed as a taskmaster who keeps raising the bar of the hearers. You thought the 10 commandments ( Decalogue) were tough? He now says that if you even think of these things you are guilty. It seems that we have to give more and more in order to make it into heaven...our righteousness "must exceed those of the Pharisees" . I would presume that each of us has his or her own frightening stories. It is the Synoptics where hell is introduced by Christ. No wonder I almost always preferred to read John- where one finds forgiveness and atonement and eternal life.
I have mentioned this before that for the Reformers scripture MUST be separated into law and gospel, for Paul tells us that God gave the commands (or Law) in order for us to sin more! Thus we would stop being self deluded and come to Christ for forgiveness. This is the Reformers "secret" to interpreting the Bible, the separation at all times between law and Gospel. They would say that there is a lot of law in the Synoptics; that is Christ high commands are laid out in order to bring us to him for forgiveness.
Trying to unify the bible without this separation is impossible. It turns into, "Jesus says this, but over here he says that, and we will lose our minds trying to put together.
My Luke- Acts "secret" is really a different slant on the Reformers separation between Law and Grace. Luke is often tinged with Law. Christ tells of hell in the "Rich man and Lazarus" and of radical self denial as the path to his kingdom.
The Acts on the other hand is full of Grace, of Resurrection and how to obtain eternal life. This life is clearly received through faith alone in Christ. As to Law the Jerusalem Church had a big Pawwah about whether or not gentiles had to effectively become Jews in order to follow the Law and than follow Jesus. This proposition was rejected. The council did not want the Gentiles burdened by keeping the Law! The Gentiles had only to believe in Christ. Oh- there were two other bits of advice, and this is humorous- to abstain from meats offered to idols and from sexual immorality. Obviously the first is no problem in today's society- as to the second- how are we doing?
So I urge everyone when confounded with a parable or story that Christ gives in Luke (or even Matthew or Mark) - Read it in light of Acts- where Luke tells us what Christ must have meant because in his mind there could not have been a contradiction! Right? Either Luke himself holds to a contradictory religion or he sees ALL of it as in harmony. My argument again- is to use the Theology in Acts to understand the theology of the Gospels- in fact one could take it to the limit and say that it is a key book in understanding the entire Bible.
I will do a rewrite - it is messy- special request to get it out early.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
First Blood
Back to the Garden. The first couple fell- and hid. Isn't that what happens on every single cop TV drama? The detective announces who he is and off we go for the obligatory chase scene. It was no different with our foreparents. As soon as they had tasted of the forbidden fruit, they realized their nakedness and sensed that God was after them:
"She also gave to her husband, who was with her and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Now there is much too much in here theologically so to keep it short so I am going stay with the advent of the fashion industry. "The fall of man and fashion. " I hope to highlight in my short lessons how exquisite and exact the Hebrew scriptures are as they speak to the human condition- so that one may learn to realize that there really is the divine hand behind them." Gen. 3
Now we may infer that with the introduction of sin into the human world that the innocence of the man and the woman was gone for they knew they were naked. I don't want to get sidetracked but feel compelled to comment on how powerfully this rings true in all of our experiences. That no matter how hard we try, and no matter how many voices teach us how natural the naked state is that we know full well, deep down, that something is amiss when it comes to reclaiming this part of our lost innocence.
The clothing. No doubt Eve picked out wonderful and complimentary fig leave colors and sewed them impeccably for their first outfits.The significance here is that God did not approve:
"The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." Gen. 3:21
What I am about to explore now is conjecture, but one I believe makes sense in light of all of Scripture.
I believe it is fair to speculate that the animal that gave his life for their clothing may have been the first blood spilled since the Garden was formed. We know that the Lord God promised that Adam that he would die if he ate of the forbidden fruit. Here, perhaps, is the first death- a sacrifice if you will of an innocent animal to hide the effects of sin of Adam and Eve. Since the first sin we have been hiding from our sin(s), denying our sins with multitudes having shed their blood in wars caused by the fruit of sin. Adam and Eve thought they could get away with fig leaves. There is no death involved in fig leaves! That was the first couples way of "sweeping their sins under the rug" Does it not remind you of the devastation that afflicts an entire family and town when an addict begins with his denials and the family follows suit and enables?
So God slays an animal. The first blood is spilled. This is the first family lesson that heavy payment will be due to make this thing aright. In a very real sense that animal atoned for their sin. I believe it foretells the righteous covering that Christ provides his children with which costs the very Son of God his own blood. And what is the story of every single religion outside Christianity? TO TAKE FIG LEAVES AND TO COVER YOURSELF. To bring your rags to God one day and say, "Aren't these prettier than the bloody ones"? That is the devils lie- that you can become shameless by the use of your own craftiness and works. Christianity says that blood must be poured for "Without the spilling of blood there is no remission of sins" Heb 9:22. For the Jew the lifeforce is in the blood- it is precious. Think of Jesus' emphasizing his spilled blood of the new testament...
"But now, a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and Prophets testify (remember Genesis is part of "the Law", RDG) . This righteousness from God through faith comes in Christ Jesus to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrificice of atonement, through faith in his blood. Rom. 3
Don't rely on what you are wearing, what you are doing. Come properly dressed before God.
Readings: Hebrews 9
"She also gave to her husband, who was with her and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Now there is much too much in here theologically so to keep it short so I am going stay with the advent of the fashion industry. "The fall of man and fashion. " I hope to highlight in my short lessons how exquisite and exact the Hebrew scriptures are as they speak to the human condition- so that one may learn to realize that there really is the divine hand behind them." Gen. 3
Now we may infer that with the introduction of sin into the human world that the innocence of the man and the woman was gone for they knew they were naked. I don't want to get sidetracked but feel compelled to comment on how powerfully this rings true in all of our experiences. That no matter how hard we try, and no matter how many voices teach us how natural the naked state is that we know full well, deep down, that something is amiss when it comes to reclaiming this part of our lost innocence.
The clothing. No doubt Eve picked out wonderful and complimentary fig leave colors and sewed them impeccably for their first outfits.The significance here is that God did not approve:
"The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." Gen. 3:21
What I am about to explore now is conjecture, but one I believe makes sense in light of all of Scripture.
I believe it is fair to speculate that the animal that gave his life for their clothing may have been the first blood spilled since the Garden was formed. We know that the Lord God promised that Adam that he would die if he ate of the forbidden fruit. Here, perhaps, is the first death- a sacrifice if you will of an innocent animal to hide the effects of sin of Adam and Eve. Since the first sin we have been hiding from our sin(s), denying our sins with multitudes having shed their blood in wars caused by the fruit of sin. Adam and Eve thought they could get away with fig leaves. There is no death involved in fig leaves! That was the first couples way of "sweeping their sins under the rug" Does it not remind you of the devastation that afflicts an entire family and town when an addict begins with his denials and the family follows suit and enables?
So God slays an animal. The first blood is spilled. This is the first family lesson that heavy payment will be due to make this thing aright. In a very real sense that animal atoned for their sin. I believe it foretells the righteous covering that Christ provides his children with which costs the very Son of God his own blood. And what is the story of every single religion outside Christianity? TO TAKE FIG LEAVES AND TO COVER YOURSELF. To bring your rags to God one day and say, "Aren't these prettier than the bloody ones"? That is the devils lie- that you can become shameless by the use of your own craftiness and works. Christianity says that blood must be poured for "Without the spilling of blood there is no remission of sins" Heb 9:22. For the Jew the lifeforce is in the blood- it is precious. Think of Jesus' emphasizing his spilled blood of the new testament...
"But now, a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and Prophets testify (remember Genesis is part of "the Law", RDG) . This righteousness from God through faith comes in Christ Jesus to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrificice of atonement, through faith in his blood. Rom. 3
Don't rely on what you are wearing, what you are doing. Come properly dressed before God.
Readings: Hebrews 9
Do You Fear, Dread, or Hate God? You are in some famous company
Before they were "Protestants", two of the most influential Catholics either hated or feared God with all of their being. I'll let you read of their trepidations from their own respective pens:
Martin Luther:
Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scripture from memory. I also fount in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.
And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word "righteousness of God." Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine's The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God's righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us (Augustine passage included below). Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God's righteousness with which we are justified was taught.
John Calvin:
"O Lord as I had been educated from a boy, always professed the Christian faith. But at first I had no other reason for my faith than that which then everywhere prevailed. Thy Word, which ought to have shone on all thy people like a lamp was taken away, or at least suppressed as to us. And lest anyone should long for greater light, an idea had been instilled into the minds of all, that the investigation of that hidden celestial philosophy was delegated to a few, whom the others might might consult as oracles- that the highest knowledge befitting plebian minds was to subdue themselves into obedience to the Church. Then the rudiments in which I had been instructed were of a kind which could neither properly train me to legitimate worship of the Deity, nor pave the way for me to a sure hope of salvation, nor train me aright for the duties of the Christian life. I had learned, indeed, to worship Thee as my God, but as the true method of worshiping was altogether unknown by me, I stumbled at the very threshold. I believed as I had been taught, that I was redeemed by the death of thy Son from the liability to eternal death, but the redemption was one whose virtue could never reach me. I anticipated a future resurrection, but hated the thought of it, as being an event most dreadful. And this feeling not only had dominion over me in private, but was derived from the doctrine which was then uniformly delivered to the people by their Christian teachers. They, indeed, preached clemency towards men, but confined it t those who should show themselves deserving of it. They, moreover, place this desert in the righteousness of works, so that he only was received into thy favor to Thee by works....When, however I had performed all of these things, though I had some intervals of quiet, I was still far off from true peace of conscience; for whenever I descended into myself, or raised my mind to thee, extreme terror seized me- terror which no expiations nor satisfactions could cure. "
It is a very good thing to be in the place where one is terrified of God and his judgment. First, it implies that one believes there is a god with "whom we have to do." Secondly it means that the Word of God is doing it's first job- which is to bring everyone into dismay over his or her own condition. This is the most emotionally painful place one can ever be - to believe that God's perfection and justice hangs over him like a hammer. There is not a moments rest in that place. Now what Luther and Calvin discovered is the key to any Reformed teaching and that is that ALL of the commands of God are there to lead us to Christ. This is where we find the love of God, when we realize that His "rules" are there as a set-up to bring us to Christ for forgiveness. "The Law (of Moses) was added so that trespasses might increase." (Rom.6:20) The Church at the time had replaced God's plan of offering Christ's free forgiveness to those of heavy mind with even more rules and "merited grace" -an oxymoron of the highest order, and a term still used today. They wanted to control any grace that was being handed out- hence the indulgences and other means of winning approval of the official Church.
How could anyone not fear and hate a God that provided a bar too high with no relief offered. Once Luther and Calvin, after being released from their horrific bondage by discovering Christ's forgiveness in the word was total and free could not stop themselves from changing the world. Say no to the bondage instituted by men and claim the freedom offered in Christ...."It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5
More Reading= All of Romans and Galatians....!!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
IF God is good and all powerful why does he allow death and suffering?
Well, someone had to take it on. The most sincerely and insincerely asked theological question of all time. Here goes.
There are a lot questions about the afterlife, namely, what will heaven be like? The scriptures give us some clues but when measured against the fact that Christianity is about the promise of life eternal with God there is very little to go on. One might think that there would be chapters written on the specifics of heaven. My point here is that God decided to tell us tidbits in light of the absolute and overwhelming beauty heaven must entail. What we can be assured of is it is a place and Christians will be going there because he said so. He has given us his word.
Before the Fall, God planted a garden in Eden; where he formed many trees, trees which that "were pleasing to the eye and good for food." Among the trees was one called "the Tree of Life" and one termed the "Tree of Good and Evil" . God said "You are free to eat from every tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." We all know that Eve and Adam each partook of the fruit from the tree of good and evil.
Now I am going to skip over a ton of details and theology to get to my point, which is that God keeps his Word. At the moment they partook they began the process of death. Before the Fall, it appears that Adam was a vegetarian and that there is no mention of the death of anything, so when God told Adam he would die if he disobeyed we do not know what Adam understood by that. Did God have a sit down with Adam to explain the foreign concept of death? We do not know. We do know that no human being had ever died before. God laid down the law, Adam broke it and God kept his word as he always does. So all of today's free will advocates that believe all choices are in your hands and that what you do affects the order of the universe here is your verse. Adam had free will, used it, and brought death and destruction and suffering into the world. Isn't free will the greatest?
So this is why God allows death and destruction in the world, because he is a God of his word and allowed the ramifications of Adam's choice to enter the world. He did not violate Adam's free will. He did not give a day and an hour when death would end on this earth, and so it goes on. In a sense we got what we asked for. To this day we demand free will because after all God doesn't want a bunch of robots does he? What about our free will then? You see Adam's choice killed our free will because we became spiritually dead and enslaved to the serpent now that we knew good and evil. That is what sin does- it begins a chain reaction of pain destruction in it's path. It was within a short time that murder in the first family erupted after all. ..So you see "we" , as human beings, had free will but lost it with the bite of the fruit when sin entered our race and we began to die. Paul says clearly that before God made us alive in Christ we were slaves to sin, and slaves do not have free will: "...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom. 8:7
So just as God didn't tell us much about heaven in scripture and yet we trust it will be more than we can hope for, so he told Adam little about death and let him experience the results of his actions which I am certain was more than he could have ever imagined. And so God has let the course of human beings run until that day when he enters our world and conquers once and for all the ramifications of our collective, fallen, choices .
Unless you have a high view of the fall as outlined in Genesis, namely that it actually happened, you will always be at a loss to understand the horrors and sadness of this world. But if you trust this is what happened that God allowed ramifications of Adam's free will to reign - than it begins to make sense.
Immediately after the Fall, God comforts the first couple with the promise of the one that will come from her seed that will destroy the head of the serpent whilst suffering an injury to his heal. How exquisite in love and detail. We know now that the Romans did not nail the foot of the criminal to the cross but rather the heel. (Gen 3:15). God cursed the Serpent but blessed our parents with the promise of one that would make it all right again:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:17
There are a lot questions about the afterlife, namely, what will heaven be like? The scriptures give us some clues but when measured against the fact that Christianity is about the promise of life eternal with God there is very little to go on. One might think that there would be chapters written on the specifics of heaven. My point here is that God decided to tell us tidbits in light of the absolute and overwhelming beauty heaven must entail. What we can be assured of is it is a place and Christians will be going there because he said so. He has given us his word.
Before the Fall, God planted a garden in Eden; where he formed many trees, trees which that "were pleasing to the eye and good for food." Among the trees was one called "the Tree of Life" and one termed the "Tree of Good and Evil" . God said "You are free to eat from every tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." We all know that Eve and Adam each partook of the fruit from the tree of good and evil.
Now I am going to skip over a ton of details and theology to get to my point, which is that God keeps his Word. At the moment they partook they began the process of death. Before the Fall, it appears that Adam was a vegetarian and that there is no mention of the death of anything, so when God told Adam he would die if he disobeyed we do not know what Adam understood by that. Did God have a sit down with Adam to explain the foreign concept of death? We do not know. We do know that no human being had ever died before. God laid down the law, Adam broke it and God kept his word as he always does. So all of today's free will advocates that believe all choices are in your hands and that what you do affects the order of the universe here is your verse. Adam had free will, used it, and brought death and destruction and suffering into the world. Isn't free will the greatest?
So this is why God allows death and destruction in the world, because he is a God of his word and allowed the ramifications of Adam's choice to enter the world. He did not violate Adam's free will. He did not give a day and an hour when death would end on this earth, and so it goes on. In a sense we got what we asked for. To this day we demand free will because after all God doesn't want a bunch of robots does he? What about our free will then? You see Adam's choice killed our free will because we became spiritually dead and enslaved to the serpent now that we knew good and evil. That is what sin does- it begins a chain reaction of pain destruction in it's path. It was within a short time that murder in the first family erupted after all. ..So you see "we" , as human beings, had free will but lost it with the bite of the fruit when sin entered our race and we began to die. Paul says clearly that before God made us alive in Christ we were slaves to sin, and slaves do not have free will: "...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom. 8:7
So just as God didn't tell us much about heaven in scripture and yet we trust it will be more than we can hope for, so he told Adam little about death and let him experience the results of his actions which I am certain was more than he could have ever imagined. And so God has let the course of human beings run until that day when he enters our world and conquers once and for all the ramifications of our collective, fallen, choices .
Unless you have a high view of the fall as outlined in Genesis, namely that it actually happened, you will always be at a loss to understand the horrors and sadness of this world. But if you trust this is what happened that God allowed ramifications of Adam's free will to reign - than it begins to make sense.
Immediately after the Fall, God comforts the first couple with the promise of the one that will come from her seed that will destroy the head of the serpent whilst suffering an injury to his heal. How exquisite in love and detail. We know now that the Romans did not nail the foot of the criminal to the cross but rather the heel. (Gen 3:15). God cursed the Serpent but blessed our parents with the promise of one that would make it all right again:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:17
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Please Read the Verdict
Forget about the Bible for a minute. Maybe you get hung up on the idea of it's contents being divinely inspired and you can't get pass that. Your professors have told you that a vast majority of the Gospel accounts are "unreliable" and you just don't know anymore what to believe about the historicity of Christianity.
Let's pretend for a moment.
Let's imagine that you turned on the news and there is a huge story about a document discovered , dated 56 A.D, signed by a "Paul". In it he describes his background involving his having been a Pharisee at the time of Christ . He tells of his problem- a very large one, concerning a group of 500 people that have claimed to have seen Jesus Christ after his crucifixion "at the same time". It has been about two decades and of the original 500 witnesses a majority are still alive, along with the disciples and the brother of Jesus, namely James, a post crucifixion conversion so powerful that he was head of the Jerusalem Church. Earlier on in his life Paul, known then as Saul of Tarsus, had actually persecuted to the point of death some of these very witnesses. While persecuting early Christ believers Saul had had his own seemingly fantastical conversion with the resurrected Christ "on the road to Damascus". He is writing then this newly discovered text as a Christian.
Back to Paul's problem- It appears that Paul has to make a choice as he presses on with his spreading of the good news of the great liberation- of the coming resurrection. If he is wrong about one historical fact that happened in space in time (or had not) then he, Paul would have to face God as a blasphemer that had led many to a false Messiah and God. He had had his own experience, he had had much fellowship with Christ's own disciples and he had the remaining eyewitnesses of the original 500 who were adamant what they saw. Paul after all had been a devout Pharisee and Pharisees believed in the afterlife and the judgment of God. So yes, if this whole thing had been an outright lie or mass hysteria Paul had a whole lot of explaining to do before God.
Paul makes his choice, the same as always as he lays out the risk reward he is taking- the economics of his gamble.
If this text were discovered tomorrow and there was consensus of Biblical scholars of it's authenticity it would surely be proclaimed as the greatest Christian discovery of all time. Well it has been with us nearly 20 centuries, it is deemed authentic by the most skeptical biblical scholars and it is indisputably written by Paul. Did your professor mention that? It is commonly called the First Letter to the Corinthians and I have referred to chapter 15.
The question facing Paul should face every thinking man woman and in the world. If I may be so bold, this account has nothing to do with inspiration but rather cold hard facts. It is historical. Maybe you have rejected Christ by definite decision or by decision by indecision. Maybe you are a Christian but when you are doubting you could use a little more knowledge or facts in your arsenal. Well then I urge you to look at this chapter as an "extra biblical source" of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
So Paul puts this proposition out there. He puts us all in the jury box and asks us to consider "reasonable doubt". The judge has allowed the evidence as authentic, in fact the prosecutors didn't even object. Imagine yourself in the jury room and someone says there is no way this resurrection thing happened, it is "impossible" . What would you think? When I heard such evidence I knew myself well enough to admit I was done for as far as trying to dispel it in my mind. That is, I knew I would just come back over and over to this story so why bother with waiting? It had what is often called "the ring of truth." What a world opens up that will allow for the possibility that God brings his own back to life - to live forever in his presence. No wonder these witnesses changed the world.
Like an unsolved mystery the evidence may have been in front of us the whole time, it just got buried and may just need new eyes to see the truth . Tonight, before bed, give Chapter 15 a read. Be forewarned, it may keep you awake- forever.
Let's pretend for a moment.
Let's imagine that you turned on the news and there is a huge story about a document discovered , dated 56 A.D, signed by a "Paul". In it he describes his background involving his having been a Pharisee at the time of Christ . He tells of his problem- a very large one, concerning a group of 500 people that have claimed to have seen Jesus Christ after his crucifixion "at the same time". It has been about two decades and of the original 500 witnesses a majority are still alive, along with the disciples and the brother of Jesus, namely James, a post crucifixion conversion so powerful that he was head of the Jerusalem Church. Earlier on in his life Paul, known then as Saul of Tarsus, had actually persecuted to the point of death some of these very witnesses. While persecuting early Christ believers Saul had had his own seemingly fantastical conversion with the resurrected Christ "on the road to Damascus". He is writing then this newly discovered text as a Christian.
Back to Paul's problem- It appears that Paul has to make a choice as he presses on with his spreading of the good news of the great liberation- of the coming resurrection. If he is wrong about one historical fact that happened in space in time (or had not) then he, Paul would have to face God as a blasphemer that had led many to a false Messiah and God. He had had his own experience, he had had much fellowship with Christ's own disciples and he had the remaining eyewitnesses of the original 500 who were adamant what they saw. Paul after all had been a devout Pharisee and Pharisees believed in the afterlife and the judgment of God. So yes, if this whole thing had been an outright lie or mass hysteria Paul had a whole lot of explaining to do before God.
Paul makes his choice, the same as always as he lays out the risk reward he is taking- the economics of his gamble.
If this text were discovered tomorrow and there was consensus of Biblical scholars of it's authenticity it would surely be proclaimed as the greatest Christian discovery of all time. Well it has been with us nearly 20 centuries, it is deemed authentic by the most skeptical biblical scholars and it is indisputably written by Paul. Did your professor mention that? It is commonly called the First Letter to the Corinthians and I have referred to chapter 15.
The question facing Paul should face every thinking man woman and in the world. If I may be so bold, this account has nothing to do with inspiration but rather cold hard facts. It is historical. Maybe you have rejected Christ by definite decision or by decision by indecision. Maybe you are a Christian but when you are doubting you could use a little more knowledge or facts in your arsenal. Well then I urge you to look at this chapter as an "extra biblical source" of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
So Paul puts this proposition out there. He puts us all in the jury box and asks us to consider "reasonable doubt". The judge has allowed the evidence as authentic, in fact the prosecutors didn't even object. Imagine yourself in the jury room and someone says there is no way this resurrection thing happened, it is "impossible" . What would you think? When I heard such evidence I knew myself well enough to admit I was done for as far as trying to dispel it in my mind. That is, I knew I would just come back over and over to this story so why bother with waiting? It had what is often called "the ring of truth." What a world opens up that will allow for the possibility that God brings his own back to life - to live forever in his presence. No wonder these witnesses changed the world.
Like an unsolved mystery the evidence may have been in front of us the whole time, it just got buried and may just need new eyes to see the truth . Tonight, before bed, give Chapter 15 a read. Be forewarned, it may keep you awake- forever.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Why God forgives
Our cable company does something very clever and equally annoying. Every time we turn on the box it defaults back to channel 9 which is their very own local news channel. It is a battle for me to dive for the remote and at least mute this station before I hear the obligatory horrific "news" of the half hour. If anyone needs proof of the reformed tenet known as Total Depravity just turn this channel on for ten minutes. Case closed. The crimes against humanity remain the same while the mug shots of the perps change slightly day to day. Why the child abuse, arsons and crack busts are considered news- when nothing they show is "new" is beyond me.
It is at the point that I am angered by their insistence to show this sadness 24/7. WE GET IT. The world is a very sad and nasty place. Enough. It is as though they get pleasure out of showing all of the muck.
This is why God forgives sins. He has said ENOUGH. But we protest that it is because of his love for us, that is, it is about us. No, it is about God. If we as sinners say enough with the ugliness, imagine what the perfect God must think about it.
Isaiah 43:
I have not burdened you with grain offerings
nor wearied you with demands for incense
You have not bought any fragrant calumus for me,
or lavished on me the fat of your sacrifices.
But you have burdened me with your offenses,
I, even I, am he who blots out
your transgressions for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.
Here we find that God is sick of our sins, they are a burden for him. It is clear in this passage that he blots them out- but for his own sake. He has had enough.
This follows the pattern that we have been noticing- that God acts on his own for his own reasons and for his own glory. But because of his purity, and subsequent internal demand to annihilate sin we all benefit. This is where we as believers can be bold in our profession of faith. Our witness is not to be one of many tremblings and murmuring "maybe God will forgive me some day" but rather the proclamation that God no longer remembers our sins!! This is the Gospel, the happy news we are to hold onto and to share. Christians are often reluctant to share the Gospel, imo because it has gotten to be a complicated formula of bringing the incense and tithes to him first and to help him forgive us by our doing something. But in this passage he is past all of that. He says forget about it- we couldn't even get that right.
He does it all.
It is at the point that I am angered by their insistence to show this sadness 24/7. WE GET IT. The world is a very sad and nasty place. Enough. It is as though they get pleasure out of showing all of the muck.
This is why God forgives sins. He has said ENOUGH. But we protest that it is because of his love for us, that is, it is about us. No, it is about God. If we as sinners say enough with the ugliness, imagine what the perfect God must think about it.
Isaiah 43:
I have not burdened you with grain offerings
nor wearied you with demands for incense
You have not bought any fragrant calumus for me,
or lavished on me the fat of your sacrifices.
But you have burdened me with your offenses,
I, even I, am he who blots out
your transgressions for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.
Here we find that God is sick of our sins, they are a burden for him. It is clear in this passage that he blots them out- but for his own sake. He has had enough.
This follows the pattern that we have been noticing- that God acts on his own for his own reasons and for his own glory. But because of his purity, and subsequent internal demand to annihilate sin we all benefit. This is where we as believers can be bold in our profession of faith. Our witness is not to be one of many tremblings and murmuring "maybe God will forgive me some day" but rather the proclamation that God no longer remembers our sins!! This is the Gospel, the happy news we are to hold onto and to share. Christians are often reluctant to share the Gospel, imo because it has gotten to be a complicated formula of bringing the incense and tithes to him first and to help him forgive us by our doing something. But in this passage he is past all of that. He says forget about it- we couldn't even get that right.
He does it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)