It has been my experience that we don't often get the opportunity to sit down with an unbeliever and reason through the gospel. I've had occasion to, but all in all I'd say it's somewhat rare for me, and if I'm hearing correctly, it's rare for the typical American Christian. It is not my goal here to give a tutorial nor to boast of my evangelical savvy, ( mostly because I don't possess any). I do hope, however, to identify what I see as the main flaw in my, and other Christians' approach to getting to the heart of the matter.
I was recently involved in a discussion with other Christians about the non believer's stereotypical view of the Christian church, and the individual Christians themselves, as being hypocritical. It's tough to get past this objection to Christianity, I think, because we have to admit things sure appear that way. However, I got the sense that the problem of hypocrisy was felt to be an issue of misunderstanding. We have often excused ourselves and the church by way of conceding that hypocrisy is an aberation not really consistent with the church we attend or the true church we claim to humbly call ourselves members of, by the grace of God. It's not that any right minded Christian feels himself above such a sin, but more that he admits he struggles with sin every day and seeks a life free of sin. There's almost no room for hypocrisy in such a life. A right minded Christian is consumed with reading the Bible, being in fellowship, study, prayer and sanctification. He is alert to any resemblence of his new life in Christ to his old life before Christ. To be a hypocrit is the epitome of what Jesus spoke out about so vehemently. Remember how often Jesus squared up against the Pharisees and scribes. He was hard on them. They new better. They had no excuse. As religious leadership they were responsible for being a testimony of God. To Jesus they were white washed tombs. John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers. Their hypocrisy was their crime and they were charged. No right minded Christian would go there.
So the question is, how do we as Christians handle this very same charge by the unbelieving world? Where lies the proper attitude and countenance needed to establish credibility where credibility is shot? How can we be a testimony of the living saviour? Let me share with you what I think is the key to an open, honest, loving and frank conversation about Jesus Christ, especially when it comes to the issue of Hypocrisy.
I think to myself, "what is the one thing that the pharisees could have done or said to answer the charges made by Christ?" My answer, "confess and repent". They couldn't, though. They were blind and couldn't see. "Blind to what?", you ask. "Were they blind to the truth of the living God standing before them?" Maybe. I think, however, that they had every reason to know Jesus was the Christ, but they were blind to their own hypocrisy. Jesus' problem with the pharisees wasn't so much that they were hypocrits. I think it was that they didn't know they were hypocrits. It's likely that the crowd around Jesus already knew the pharisees were hypocrits, but only Jesus would call them on it. Everybody knew who these guys were, except themselves.
In 1Timothy 1:12-17, the apostle Paul writes to Timothy and confesses that once he was the worst of persecuters of the church, but was shown mercy because he acted in ignorance and unbelief. He goes on to say that the Lord's grace poured out on him abundantly along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Paul admits that he was a bad guy, (emphasis on was),and we tend to think that this is a statement of the old Paul before conversion so he must have turned a new leaf and been a good guy from then on. Sorry, not so. In the very next verse Paul says, "Christ came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst." (emphasis on am).
Paul was arguably the foremost evangelist of all time. He was hand picked by Jesus himself. He spoke of spending three years in virtual exile being personally taught by Jesus. Plus, he spent an additional 13 years waiting on the Lord to start him on his ministry, all the while in reading the scriptures, being in fellowship, study, prayer, and above all sanctification. By the time he wrote the letter to Timothy, Paul had already gone on three missionary journeys. He had spread the good news of Jesus Christ throughout the known world. He had planted scores of churches. As an apostle, he was welcomed and embraced by the twelve in Jerusalem. Hey, the guy wrote scripture. Yet, Paul was the worst of sinners. So he said.
When Paul confessed this, I don't think he was counting the offenses of the old pre-conversion Paul. I think this came from the heart of a truly humble man. He knew what God had done with him and counted himself not worthy. Could any of us go this deep? could any of us be this transparent? Paul finishes this segment by saying, "But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life." I don't think Paul ever felt like he was a better man because of Christ, but he saw that he was used by Christ in spite of his sin to glorify God. Read Roman 7:15-25 to see how real Paul gets about the depth of his sin. I think Paul saw himself as worse than when he started by the time he wrote these letters. He was convicted more later in life than at his conversion.
This is what I see as the necessary element of a personal relationship with our God. Every day that we grow in the knowledge and understanding of who our God is, every day that we learn to trust in the truth of scripture, and every day that we feel more in love with our saviour, should be a day that we see deeper into our very sinful nature. Each day as we grow as Christians we also open our eyes wider to the truth of our total dependence on, and need for Jesus. When we sing " I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see", the thing we see is who we really are. " . . . . How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed." Thankfully when we see the scope of our depravity, grace appears.
When we sit across a table from a questioning non believer and the issue of hypocrisy arises, I suggest we confess. It is hypocrisy to act as though we are beyond the realm of sin. It is hypocrisy to not own our own hypocrisy. Can we be like Paul and confess that we are sinners of the worst kind right now? Isn't our humiliuty in acknowleding this the best we can offer to one who would accuse us of hypocrisy? I fear that the world already knows who we are. Could it be that we are the only ones who can't see that we are hypocrits? Our ears should be wary of the man who says he is better today then he was yesterday, and calls it growth. Let's open our eyes and see like Paul. I praise the Lord for what he has done with someone as bad as me.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
verily, verily
(John 18:38) Pontius Pilate asks of Jesus, "What is truth?"
The prelude to this question is such as to suggest that Jesus must give an account for Himself. However, that is not how it played out. Pilate wanted Jesus' explanation of why the Jews wanted Him dead. Jesus offered that He testified of the truth and claimed that all who are on the side of truth listen to Him. Apparently Jesus was inferring that the Jews were opposed to the truth, and therefore opposed to Him. He did not account for Himself, only for the evil against Him.
(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, (Thomas), "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
(John 8:32) Jesus says, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8: 36) "Therefore if the son makes you free, you are free indeed."
By Jesus' own testimony, we see that it is by the truth that we are set free. We also see that Jesus is the truth. Therefore the conclusion is that to get to the Father is to be set free, and this can only happen via Jesus.
I think it is instinctual to man to seek to be free. I also think that it is inherent in man to be subordinant to something greater than himself. I further think that he will often confuse the two, and seek the truth with such zeal and purpose that when he stumbles upon freedom, he either doesn't recognize it or know what to do with it. Such is the human condition apart from Christ. The man apart from Christ, while desperately wanting freedom, can't handle the truth.
When we go to church or enter into fellowship with other believers, we like to discuss truth. All to often, I fear, we settle on issues of truth we call doctrines, and satisfy ourselves that we have entered into truth. We examine relevent scriptures and teachings of the great minds of the age, and draw enlightened conclusions. We learn of new and better doctrines which supplant old favorites, and we experience epiphenies of understanding. We learn better and more intimate details about the nature and workings of our Father, so we surmise we have grown in the faith. We say, yes yes Jesus died for our sins so that we might be set free, but I understand more about our God now than the other guy, because my doctrine is right. My salvation is sure, but my worth does not meet up to my salvation, so I must go beyond the gospel to glory through sanctification. Ultimately, we become hooked on the narcotic of higher levels of achievement in faith and the treasures in Heaven we have heard of.
By Christ's testimony we understand that there is only one way to the Father. Jesus. I think when we get this down we draw a subtley eroneous conclusion. Let me explain by asking a question. By the indisputable frankness of Christ's statement, don't we err by then believing there is only one way to Christ? Don't get me wrong. I am not endorsing any religion or sect of christianity that does not cling to the gospel. I feel that any church that does not worship Jesus Christ as the son of the living God, resurrected and ascended, has no claim on the way to Christ, much less the way to the Father. But among those who are true to the gospel, don't we see an abundance of approaches, each emphasizing selected doctrines and even religious practices? Isn't it so like each of us to then look with pitty or even scorn on those who do not adhere to our doctrines? Do we remember the religious leader who thanked God that he was not like the poor beggarly man beside him? Didn't he show the shallowness of his understanding of the grace and mercy of our God?
I was raised in the Catholic church. After leaving the church I received the gospel anew in grace. However, I struggled for decades with my anger and frustration over my Catholic upbringing. I compared each new doctrine I received with the contrary doctrine of Catholics. Surely, they were a heresy and I had seen the light. In my drawing closer to God, I had seperated myself from my brothers and sisters in Christ over doctrinal issues. I've felt the same about almost all the protestant denominations. I had convinced myself that, " . . . wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt. 7:13,14) And so I am still convinced of it with this concession; It is not me who knows who is on the right road. While I can refute from scripture some of the outward practices and religious observances of others, and maybe even hope to share my understanding of God through fellowship and testimony, I do not posess the ability to see into the heart of a man. I haven't lived what he has lived, been taught what he has been taught, been met by God in precisely the same way he has, so I cannot account for what he says or what he does in worship of God. Yet I know this, "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) I now am satisfied in receiving this testimony from any man, regardless of his religious affiliations. This is huge for me. I have sought the way to the father through Jesus Christ my whole life. My problem was I was looking for the right road to Jesus. I still cling to doctrines and have grown in my understanding of, and relationship with God, but am just now learning the scope of the love God fills me with.
If by instinct we seek freedom, let us find freedom in the Father through Jesus Christ. He is the truth by which we are set free. Let us be free from subordination to any man or teaching of man. Let us be sure of our doctrines, willing to share them and live them. Let them be doctrines of love, mercy and grace. Let them not be doctrines of seperation of one from another, for it is God's place to judge such, not our own. Let us not be like Pontius Pilate and fail to recognize the truth when it was staring him in the face. Let us go by the way of truth into eternal life. Jesus, and only Jesus saves. every other revelation is subordinate to this. I feel it is unprofitable to put the gospel in the place of a stepping stone to our union in glory with the father. It is profitable however, to put all glories aside, to lay down our crowns, and know that for our purposes and God's glory Jesus is all that is true. By this we are made free.
The prelude to this question is such as to suggest that Jesus must give an account for Himself. However, that is not how it played out. Pilate wanted Jesus' explanation of why the Jews wanted Him dead. Jesus offered that He testified of the truth and claimed that all who are on the side of truth listen to Him. Apparently Jesus was inferring that the Jews were opposed to the truth, and therefore opposed to Him. He did not account for Himself, only for the evil against Him.
(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, (Thomas), "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
(John 8:32) Jesus says, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8: 36) "Therefore if the son makes you free, you are free indeed."
By Jesus' own testimony, we see that it is by the truth that we are set free. We also see that Jesus is the truth. Therefore the conclusion is that to get to the Father is to be set free, and this can only happen via Jesus.
I think it is instinctual to man to seek to be free. I also think that it is inherent in man to be subordinant to something greater than himself. I further think that he will often confuse the two, and seek the truth with such zeal and purpose that when he stumbles upon freedom, he either doesn't recognize it or know what to do with it. Such is the human condition apart from Christ. The man apart from Christ, while desperately wanting freedom, can't handle the truth.
When we go to church or enter into fellowship with other believers, we like to discuss truth. All to often, I fear, we settle on issues of truth we call doctrines, and satisfy ourselves that we have entered into truth. We examine relevent scriptures and teachings of the great minds of the age, and draw enlightened conclusions. We learn of new and better doctrines which supplant old favorites, and we experience epiphenies of understanding. We learn better and more intimate details about the nature and workings of our Father, so we surmise we have grown in the faith. We say, yes yes Jesus died for our sins so that we might be set free, but I understand more about our God now than the other guy, because my doctrine is right. My salvation is sure, but my worth does not meet up to my salvation, so I must go beyond the gospel to glory through sanctification. Ultimately, we become hooked on the narcotic of higher levels of achievement in faith and the treasures in Heaven we have heard of.
By Christ's testimony we understand that there is only one way to the Father. Jesus. I think when we get this down we draw a subtley eroneous conclusion. Let me explain by asking a question. By the indisputable frankness of Christ's statement, don't we err by then believing there is only one way to Christ? Don't get me wrong. I am not endorsing any religion or sect of christianity that does not cling to the gospel. I feel that any church that does not worship Jesus Christ as the son of the living God, resurrected and ascended, has no claim on the way to Christ, much less the way to the Father. But among those who are true to the gospel, don't we see an abundance of approaches, each emphasizing selected doctrines and even religious practices? Isn't it so like each of us to then look with pitty or even scorn on those who do not adhere to our doctrines? Do we remember the religious leader who thanked God that he was not like the poor beggarly man beside him? Didn't he show the shallowness of his understanding of the grace and mercy of our God?
I was raised in the Catholic church. After leaving the church I received the gospel anew in grace. However, I struggled for decades with my anger and frustration over my Catholic upbringing. I compared each new doctrine I received with the contrary doctrine of Catholics. Surely, they were a heresy and I had seen the light. In my drawing closer to God, I had seperated myself from my brothers and sisters in Christ over doctrinal issues. I've felt the same about almost all the protestant denominations. I had convinced myself that, " . . . wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt. 7:13,14) And so I am still convinced of it with this concession; It is not me who knows who is on the right road. While I can refute from scripture some of the outward practices and religious observances of others, and maybe even hope to share my understanding of God through fellowship and testimony, I do not posess the ability to see into the heart of a man. I haven't lived what he has lived, been taught what he has been taught, been met by God in precisely the same way he has, so I cannot account for what he says or what he does in worship of God. Yet I know this, "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) I now am satisfied in receiving this testimony from any man, regardless of his religious affiliations. This is huge for me. I have sought the way to the father through Jesus Christ my whole life. My problem was I was looking for the right road to Jesus. I still cling to doctrines and have grown in my understanding of, and relationship with God, but am just now learning the scope of the love God fills me with.
If by instinct we seek freedom, let us find freedom in the Father through Jesus Christ. He is the truth by which we are set free. Let us be free from subordination to any man or teaching of man. Let us be sure of our doctrines, willing to share them and live them. Let them be doctrines of love, mercy and grace. Let them not be doctrines of seperation of one from another, for it is God's place to judge such, not our own. Let us not be like Pontius Pilate and fail to recognize the truth when it was staring him in the face. Let us go by the way of truth into eternal life. Jesus, and only Jesus saves. every other revelation is subordinate to this. I feel it is unprofitable to put the gospel in the place of a stepping stone to our union in glory with the father. It is profitable however, to put all glories aside, to lay down our crowns, and know that for our purposes and God's glory Jesus is all that is true. By this we are made free.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Just postulating here. I've had this idea rattling around in my head for a while now. I'm tired of the noise, so I thought I'd put finger to keyboard and let 'er go.
Throughout the Bible, God is refered to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I feel confident in saying that the reason for this handle is easy to understand if we think about it a little. As you may recall, Abraham had two sons. The first was Ishmael, given to him by Hagar, his wife Sarah's maidservant. Perhaps as much as 14 or 15 years later, Sarah gave birth to Isaac, this being the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and Sarah. The union with Hagar was by the scheme of Sarah who feared never giving her husband a son. Ishmael was born by human design. God, having promised a son to Abraham and Sarah, made good in His own time. Isaac was born of Godly design.
While God gave love and protection to Ishmael, even blessing him abundantly in his lifetime, son #1 was not part of the plan to fulfill God's other promise to Abraham. A covenant with Abraham and his descendants after him was to be carried forward to Isaac, (Gen. 17:19). By then we could identify God as the God of Abraham and Isaac. While He certainly was the God of all men, God was creating an identity for Himself by establishing a relationship with this one branch of Abraham's family tree. The covenant of circumcision was the catalyst of a living, loving relationship whereby He would be their God and they would be His people. We can assume that God chose not to have such a relationship with Ishmael and all the other peoples of the earth, at that time.
Isaac, also, had two sons. Perhaps you recall the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau, being the oldest, lost his father's blessing to his conniving younger brother Jacob. Again God's chosen branch of the family tree was not the right one by man's design, but chosen by God's design. In time Jacob was renamed Israel, the father of the nation Israel, the people of the covenant God made with Abraham.
Thus we have the identity of God. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
OK Murphy, we get it. Where are you going with this?
This is where it get's sticky. I'll be veturing out into unexplored territory, ( at least as far as I'm aware.) In studying the Old Testament, I've seen how the descendants of Jacob have been followed through the line of his fourth son by Leah, Judah, clear through to King David, and on to the last divinely anointed king, Jeconiah. All the other sons of Jacob's geneologies were listed for several generations, but were subsequently dropped. Only Judah's geneology was maintained. God placed a curse on Jeconiah, saying none of his descendants would sit on the throne of Israel, (Jer 22:30). It was as if God was done. At this point in time, the remaining tribes of Judah and Benjamin were taken into captivity in Babylon. The other ten tribes of Israel were overrun and dispersed a few generations before.
In the New Testament, we see recorded the lineage of Christ Himself going back through Jeconiah, David, Boaz, and other Old Testament notables, to Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.
So my eyebrows twitched when I asked myself the question, "why then is He not known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah?" Surely, by Judah we get Christ, don't we? Isn't Jesus known as the Lion of Judah? Having formed the nation of Judah out of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, don't we see that through Judah the covenant made with Abraham goes on? Upon returning from exile was it not Judah, ( henceforth known as the Jews), who rebuilt the temple? Why does the Bible not include Judah in identifying our God?
Tough questions, to be sure. We're going deep now.
Recently, a good freind of mine loaned me a book about the Jews and their development as a nation, and as a people, during the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It didn't take me long to figure out that it would be a difficult read. After page one I declared it "a boring book". After the first chapter, I was done. There were only a few tidbits of information that kept me awake, but I was not willing to go on. Weeks later, however, I remembered one item that was interesting. It was what got me going on this whole dilemma. The author pointed out that the Jewish religion, like Christianity, was a derivitive of the Biblical Hebrew faith. This was an epiphany for me. I had always understood Christianity to be a derivitive of Judaism. The author of this book, ( a Jewish Rabbi), saw the distinction that had eluded me. Both Judaism and Christianity were derived from the original Covenant between God and Abraham, (later amended by a Covenant with Moses.) Two sons had been born to the Covenant. The older being Judaism, and the younger being Christianity.
Now hold on there Joe. Are you saying the Jews are not God's chosen people?
No I'm not. I just found this intriguing. Let me follow up with a brief overview of the Jewish religion as I understand its beginnings. Prior to the exile, for better or worse, God suffered His children, Israel. The northern nation of Israel, having languished under a perpetual dynasty of ungodly kings had failed miserably in maintaining their part of the covenant with God. They had all but abandoned Him and followed after the gods of the surrounding nations and tribes. Ultimately, this lead to their ruin as they were vanquished by the Assyrians and cast to the far reaches of the known world, never to return. The southern nation of Judah wasn't much better, but there were several godly kings woven into the dynasty. Perhaps this spared them and gave them reason for hope, but in the end they, too, were hopelessly corrupt. God took them from the land and brought them to Babylon. The exile. While in exile Judaism was born. Since the Temple was destroyed the synagog was formed as a meeting place and a house of worship. In their despair and regret, a more concerted effort toward legalism gave birth to what would become the Mishnah and the Talmud. A people who had so miserably failed to keep the law were now developing a religion dedicated to following the law. However, in so doing they failed to be dedicated to following God. Religious idealism was the goal, and out of this we see the pharisees emerge. "If God's law demands perfection, then perfection He will have." Any student of the Old Testament would tell you that perfection was never attained by any of the heroes of the faith. Such a pursuit was foolhardy at best, and unbiblical at worst. This was not the faith of the Covenant. This was a new religion. The Covenant appears lost.
Hold everything! Wasn't Jesus a Jew?
Certainly Jesus was born in Judea, (Judah's new name under Roman rule.) He was raised as a Jew in a Jewish home by Jewish parents. But remember, He was of the seed of God by the Holy Spirit, not the seed of any man. A man received his identity by the seed of his father. In actuality, by birth, He was no more a Jew than I am. By birthright, He was what only He can make any one of us; a son of God. He no doubt was trained in the Jewish religion, but clearly, all His teachings and all His confrontations with religious leaders indicate that He knew the distinction between the Covenant and the religion. Often we read of Him throwing the law in the faces of those who profess to know it so well. Jesus was undoubtedly a man of the Covenant. He lived and loved the law. For Him, the promise of God, "I will be your God and you will be my people," was alive and fulfilled.
The Jews, who were so steeped in Judaic legalism, while anticipating the messiah, couldn't possibly know Him when they met Him. Their identity was in their religion, not in their God.
OK, what's your point, Joe?
The implications are these as I see them. If what I am proposing is true, then in Christ we are not seperated from the Covenant. To be a Christian is to follow the resurrected Christ as not only our savior, but also to see him as the ressurection of the Covenant. The old Covenant was buried and gave birth to the new Covenant. Not a new idea, but as a resurrected Covenant. The Covenant in the form it was intended to be. In Him we are made perfect, thereby being made righteous, thereby upholding our part in the Covenant. By this, He will be our God and we will be His people.
So have we replaced the Jews in God's favor?
I don't believe so. My hypothesis does not conclude that the Jews are forsaken by God. Remember, Paul pointed out that the salvation message of the Gospel was for the Jew first, and also for the gentile. I see the Jews of the time of Christ as a people who were going to make it up to God. When confronted by the one in whom they had every reason to concede was the Messiah, they had to refuse him. They had to remove Him. They had to kill Him. Why? Because, it would mean they had failed again to save themselves through strict observance of the law. After all, wasn't that what the old Covenant called for them to do? This mentality is flawed on a number of different levels. I'll point out a couple. First, observing the law, but ignoring the prophets was a plan doomed to fail. Second, they must have perceived that of all the children of Israel only this small tribe of people was left. Like Elijah in the cave hiding from Jezebel's goons, they must have felt they were the last bastion of hope in a corrupt world. Since God had intended to hold Israel up as an example to all men and all nations of the Love of their God for His people, and thereby draw men unto Him, they had to stay the course. But, if you remember the story, While Elijah despaired because he was the last one who held to the faith, God spoke to him and said He had seven thousand more men of faith in the land. The Jews had forgotten that the God of the Covenant was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He does not identify Himself as the God of Judah. If God's Covenant is with the children of Israel, then His promises to Israel will be fulfilled. All of Israel, wherever they are.
What does this mean for the promises yet to be fulfilled?
I believe the end times prophesies about the return of Israel to the promised land must be fulfilled. As of now, the Jews have returned. It makes sense to me that the rest of the Chidren of Israel will also, whoever they are. How that happens, I don't know. Perhaps some sort of genetic research study will uncloak them. Your guess is as good as mine.
In conclusion I have four points. First: Jesus Christ is the son of God, by whom we are grafted in to the promises of God. Second: by the grace of God, in Christ, God's Covenant with Abraham is fulfilled. It is alive and being lived out by Christians around the world every day. He is our God and we are His people. Third: many Christians debate the role of the Jews in end time prophesy, but I don't think we can look to just the Jews to be the representatives for all Israel, because God would have certainly identified Himself as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah." Finally, religious idealism and legalism are a stumbling block to personal relationship with our God. Like the Jews of Christ's time, to acknowledge Him for who He is implies that our religious practices are for nothing. Do we fail to recognize our Messiah because we are so committed to the cause of the Messiah? Are we so eager to be righteous that we fail to be witnesses of righteousness? Let us set down our role in the Covenant at the foot of the cross. Let us bask in the beauty of the resurrected Covenant which only requires that we have ears to hear and eyes to see our God.
Throughout the Bible, God is refered to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I feel confident in saying that the reason for this handle is easy to understand if we think about it a little. As you may recall, Abraham had two sons. The first was Ishmael, given to him by Hagar, his wife Sarah's maidservant. Perhaps as much as 14 or 15 years later, Sarah gave birth to Isaac, this being the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and Sarah. The union with Hagar was by the scheme of Sarah who feared never giving her husband a son. Ishmael was born by human design. God, having promised a son to Abraham and Sarah, made good in His own time. Isaac was born of Godly design.
While God gave love and protection to Ishmael, even blessing him abundantly in his lifetime, son #1 was not part of the plan to fulfill God's other promise to Abraham. A covenant with Abraham and his descendants after him was to be carried forward to Isaac, (Gen. 17:19). By then we could identify God as the God of Abraham and Isaac. While He certainly was the God of all men, God was creating an identity for Himself by establishing a relationship with this one branch of Abraham's family tree. The covenant of circumcision was the catalyst of a living, loving relationship whereby He would be their God and they would be His people. We can assume that God chose not to have such a relationship with Ishmael and all the other peoples of the earth, at that time.
Isaac, also, had two sons. Perhaps you recall the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau, being the oldest, lost his father's blessing to his conniving younger brother Jacob. Again God's chosen branch of the family tree was not the right one by man's design, but chosen by God's design. In time Jacob was renamed Israel, the father of the nation Israel, the people of the covenant God made with Abraham.
Thus we have the identity of God. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
OK Murphy, we get it. Where are you going with this?
This is where it get's sticky. I'll be veturing out into unexplored territory, ( at least as far as I'm aware.) In studying the Old Testament, I've seen how the descendants of Jacob have been followed through the line of his fourth son by Leah, Judah, clear through to King David, and on to the last divinely anointed king, Jeconiah. All the other sons of Jacob's geneologies were listed for several generations, but were subsequently dropped. Only Judah's geneology was maintained. God placed a curse on Jeconiah, saying none of his descendants would sit on the throne of Israel, (Jer 22:30). It was as if God was done. At this point in time, the remaining tribes of Judah and Benjamin were taken into captivity in Babylon. The other ten tribes of Israel were overrun and dispersed a few generations before.
In the New Testament, we see recorded the lineage of Christ Himself going back through Jeconiah, David, Boaz, and other Old Testament notables, to Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.
So my eyebrows twitched when I asked myself the question, "why then is He not known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah?" Surely, by Judah we get Christ, don't we? Isn't Jesus known as the Lion of Judah? Having formed the nation of Judah out of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, don't we see that through Judah the covenant made with Abraham goes on? Upon returning from exile was it not Judah, ( henceforth known as the Jews), who rebuilt the temple? Why does the Bible not include Judah in identifying our God?
Tough questions, to be sure. We're going deep now.
Recently, a good freind of mine loaned me a book about the Jews and their development as a nation, and as a people, during the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It didn't take me long to figure out that it would be a difficult read. After page one I declared it "a boring book". After the first chapter, I was done. There were only a few tidbits of information that kept me awake, but I was not willing to go on. Weeks later, however, I remembered one item that was interesting. It was what got me going on this whole dilemma. The author pointed out that the Jewish religion, like Christianity, was a derivitive of the Biblical Hebrew faith. This was an epiphany for me. I had always understood Christianity to be a derivitive of Judaism. The author of this book, ( a Jewish Rabbi), saw the distinction that had eluded me. Both Judaism and Christianity were derived from the original Covenant between God and Abraham, (later amended by a Covenant with Moses.) Two sons had been born to the Covenant. The older being Judaism, and the younger being Christianity.
Now hold on there Joe. Are you saying the Jews are not God's chosen people?
No I'm not. I just found this intriguing. Let me follow up with a brief overview of the Jewish religion as I understand its beginnings. Prior to the exile, for better or worse, God suffered His children, Israel. The northern nation of Israel, having languished under a perpetual dynasty of ungodly kings had failed miserably in maintaining their part of the covenant with God. They had all but abandoned Him and followed after the gods of the surrounding nations and tribes. Ultimately, this lead to their ruin as they were vanquished by the Assyrians and cast to the far reaches of the known world, never to return. The southern nation of Judah wasn't much better, but there were several godly kings woven into the dynasty. Perhaps this spared them and gave them reason for hope, but in the end they, too, were hopelessly corrupt. God took them from the land and brought them to Babylon. The exile. While in exile Judaism was born. Since the Temple was destroyed the synagog was formed as a meeting place and a house of worship. In their despair and regret, a more concerted effort toward legalism gave birth to what would become the Mishnah and the Talmud. A people who had so miserably failed to keep the law were now developing a religion dedicated to following the law. However, in so doing they failed to be dedicated to following God. Religious idealism was the goal, and out of this we see the pharisees emerge. "If God's law demands perfection, then perfection He will have." Any student of the Old Testament would tell you that perfection was never attained by any of the heroes of the faith. Such a pursuit was foolhardy at best, and unbiblical at worst. This was not the faith of the Covenant. This was a new religion. The Covenant appears lost.
Hold everything! Wasn't Jesus a Jew?
Certainly Jesus was born in Judea, (Judah's new name under Roman rule.) He was raised as a Jew in a Jewish home by Jewish parents. But remember, He was of the seed of God by the Holy Spirit, not the seed of any man. A man received his identity by the seed of his father. In actuality, by birth, He was no more a Jew than I am. By birthright, He was what only He can make any one of us; a son of God. He no doubt was trained in the Jewish religion, but clearly, all His teachings and all His confrontations with religious leaders indicate that He knew the distinction between the Covenant and the religion. Often we read of Him throwing the law in the faces of those who profess to know it so well. Jesus was undoubtedly a man of the Covenant. He lived and loved the law. For Him, the promise of God, "I will be your God and you will be my people," was alive and fulfilled.
The Jews, who were so steeped in Judaic legalism, while anticipating the messiah, couldn't possibly know Him when they met Him. Their identity was in their religion, not in their God.
OK, what's your point, Joe?
The implications are these as I see them. If what I am proposing is true, then in Christ we are not seperated from the Covenant. To be a Christian is to follow the resurrected Christ as not only our savior, but also to see him as the ressurection of the Covenant. The old Covenant was buried and gave birth to the new Covenant. Not a new idea, but as a resurrected Covenant. The Covenant in the form it was intended to be. In Him we are made perfect, thereby being made righteous, thereby upholding our part in the Covenant. By this, He will be our God and we will be His people.
So have we replaced the Jews in God's favor?
I don't believe so. My hypothesis does not conclude that the Jews are forsaken by God. Remember, Paul pointed out that the salvation message of the Gospel was for the Jew first, and also for the gentile. I see the Jews of the time of Christ as a people who were going to make it up to God. When confronted by the one in whom they had every reason to concede was the Messiah, they had to refuse him. They had to remove Him. They had to kill Him. Why? Because, it would mean they had failed again to save themselves through strict observance of the law. After all, wasn't that what the old Covenant called for them to do? This mentality is flawed on a number of different levels. I'll point out a couple. First, observing the law, but ignoring the prophets was a plan doomed to fail. Second, they must have perceived that of all the children of Israel only this small tribe of people was left. Like Elijah in the cave hiding from Jezebel's goons, they must have felt they were the last bastion of hope in a corrupt world. Since God had intended to hold Israel up as an example to all men and all nations of the Love of their God for His people, and thereby draw men unto Him, they had to stay the course. But, if you remember the story, While Elijah despaired because he was the last one who held to the faith, God spoke to him and said He had seven thousand more men of faith in the land. The Jews had forgotten that the God of the Covenant was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He does not identify Himself as the God of Judah. If God's Covenant is with the children of Israel, then His promises to Israel will be fulfilled. All of Israel, wherever they are.
What does this mean for the promises yet to be fulfilled?
I believe the end times prophesies about the return of Israel to the promised land must be fulfilled. As of now, the Jews have returned. It makes sense to me that the rest of the Chidren of Israel will also, whoever they are. How that happens, I don't know. Perhaps some sort of genetic research study will uncloak them. Your guess is as good as mine.
In conclusion I have four points. First: Jesus Christ is the son of God, by whom we are grafted in to the promises of God. Second: by the grace of God, in Christ, God's Covenant with Abraham is fulfilled. It is alive and being lived out by Christians around the world every day. He is our God and we are His people. Third: many Christians debate the role of the Jews in end time prophesy, but I don't think we can look to just the Jews to be the representatives for all Israel, because God would have certainly identified Himself as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah." Finally, religious idealism and legalism are a stumbling block to personal relationship with our God. Like the Jews of Christ's time, to acknowledge Him for who He is implies that our religious practices are for nothing. Do we fail to recognize our Messiah because we are so committed to the cause of the Messiah? Are we so eager to be righteous that we fail to be witnesses of righteousness? Let us set down our role in the Covenant at the foot of the cross. Let us bask in the beauty of the resurrected Covenant which only requires that we have ears to hear and eyes to see our God.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Water walkers
In the book of Matthew, (chap. 14), we read the story of Jesus walking on water. Curiously, the story follows right on the tail of the miracle of Jesus feeding the 5000. I think this to be significant. According to Matthew, Jesus' ministry and miracles to this point had been of a different nature. From Christ's birth to here, Jesus had proven himself to be many things, such as a teacher of scripture, a prophet of the coming Kingdom, and a miraculous physician. His miracles of healing alone set him apart as unique in the world. Quite a following had arisen around Him for the sake of healings and exorcisms. The very nature of the works drew men to Himself. His words were profound and moved men to seek Him and be near Him.
The feeding of the 5000 was different. As I see it, it changed the dynamic of the relationship Jesus had with His followers. It was a calling out, so to speak, of those who might seek Him for a higher reason, and an exposition of those who were self seeking. He had reasoned with men and had compassion on them. He healed them of their infirmities and loved them. Aren't these the very reasons we are drawn to Him? Can we then follow Him when He calls us out for a higher purpose? Perhaps, we choose to settle for having our hearts touched and His compassion poured over our sick souls. Not a bad choice to be sure, but I think He is taking us further here. Those 5000 could have been sent home as the disciples suggested. Some would have been inconvenienced, some grumbling with hunger pangs, and others sad to have to go. However, Jesus chose to feed them. He certainly had compassion for their immediate need, but this, I suggest, was a time of culling of the flock.
Of all Jesus' followers, there were those who needed their needs met and their ailments cured. There were also those who wanted more. They wanted to know Him. They wanted to be like Him. They were willing to surrender and suspend all for Him. These were whom He was after. In John 6:26,27, Jesus offfers a rebuke to this same multitude for their seeking after a meal rather than He upon whom the Father has set His seal. In both accounts, Jesus follows the miracle by walking on water. The feeding, though, is itself a set up for the significance of the walk. Heretofore, Christ's love and compassion was the basis of His miracles. With the turning of 5 loaves and two fishes into a feast for so many, Jesus was now displaying His command of the elements of nature. He created matter where there was none. He confounded the laws of Physics. This is not just an image of His ability to provide for those who seek provision. This is a display of His ownership of the universe, His ability to call all forces of nature and every molecule of existance to meet His command, and to do so to the benefit of those who love and follow Him. This display reidentifies Him. He no longer can be seen as a profit, teacher and physician, only. He, by this, has shown that He is God. Holy. Above creation and yet present. This is the God we are to know. This is the God we are to aspire to, and surrender and suspend all for.
The next evening we find the disciples in the boat. The wind had picked up and there were high seas. The disciples then saw Jesus walking toward them on the water. They cried out in fear, but He calmed them, reassuring them by His words. And then a profound event took place. Peter stepped out on the water. Peter was here, by my thinking, an everyman. Jesus had just that day displayed His Godliness and again on the surface of the lake showed His holiness. In all our culture, is there any expression which typifies implied holiness more than to say, "He walks on water"? Do we not discount the morality or goodness of a man by noting that he doesn't walk on water? Clearly we can see that Christ's call to Peter was to be like Him. Holy. Above creation, and yet present. Does not He call to each of us who seek Him for His sake to be like Him. Holy. Above creation, and yet present? Are not the results the same for us as they were for Peter?
Matt 14:30, "But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'"
To me the pursuit of sanctification is both a call and a reminder. We are called to be Holy. Scripture tells us time and again that God says, "Be Holy for I am Holy." So as we step out into a life of Holiness, remember that when we sink, and I believe we all will sink, we are to cry out for Him. He will assuredly stretch out His hand and take hold of us. We must step out into Holiness, for He has commanded it, (v.29), but never let any of us believe that we have succeeded. Any holiness we attain is by His outstretched hand.
The feeding of the 5000 was different. As I see it, it changed the dynamic of the relationship Jesus had with His followers. It was a calling out, so to speak, of those who might seek Him for a higher reason, and an exposition of those who were self seeking. He had reasoned with men and had compassion on them. He healed them of their infirmities and loved them. Aren't these the very reasons we are drawn to Him? Can we then follow Him when He calls us out for a higher purpose? Perhaps, we choose to settle for having our hearts touched and His compassion poured over our sick souls. Not a bad choice to be sure, but I think He is taking us further here. Those 5000 could have been sent home as the disciples suggested. Some would have been inconvenienced, some grumbling with hunger pangs, and others sad to have to go. However, Jesus chose to feed them. He certainly had compassion for their immediate need, but this, I suggest, was a time of culling of the flock.
Of all Jesus' followers, there were those who needed their needs met and their ailments cured. There were also those who wanted more. They wanted to know Him. They wanted to be like Him. They were willing to surrender and suspend all for Him. These were whom He was after. In John 6:26,27, Jesus offfers a rebuke to this same multitude for their seeking after a meal rather than He upon whom the Father has set His seal. In both accounts, Jesus follows the miracle by walking on water. The feeding, though, is itself a set up for the significance of the walk. Heretofore, Christ's love and compassion was the basis of His miracles. With the turning of 5 loaves and two fishes into a feast for so many, Jesus was now displaying His command of the elements of nature. He created matter where there was none. He confounded the laws of Physics. This is not just an image of His ability to provide for those who seek provision. This is a display of His ownership of the universe, His ability to call all forces of nature and every molecule of existance to meet His command, and to do so to the benefit of those who love and follow Him. This display reidentifies Him. He no longer can be seen as a profit, teacher and physician, only. He, by this, has shown that He is God. Holy. Above creation and yet present. This is the God we are to know. This is the God we are to aspire to, and surrender and suspend all for.
The next evening we find the disciples in the boat. The wind had picked up and there were high seas. The disciples then saw Jesus walking toward them on the water. They cried out in fear, but He calmed them, reassuring them by His words. And then a profound event took place. Peter stepped out on the water. Peter was here, by my thinking, an everyman. Jesus had just that day displayed His Godliness and again on the surface of the lake showed His holiness. In all our culture, is there any expression which typifies implied holiness more than to say, "He walks on water"? Do we not discount the morality or goodness of a man by noting that he doesn't walk on water? Clearly we can see that Christ's call to Peter was to be like Him. Holy. Above creation, and yet present. Does not He call to each of us who seek Him for His sake to be like Him. Holy. Above creation, and yet present? Are not the results the same for us as they were for Peter?
Matt 14:30, "But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'"
To me the pursuit of sanctification is both a call and a reminder. We are called to be Holy. Scripture tells us time and again that God says, "Be Holy for I am Holy." So as we step out into a life of Holiness, remember that when we sink, and I believe we all will sink, we are to cry out for Him. He will assuredly stretch out His hand and take hold of us. We must step out into Holiness, for He has commanded it, (v.29), but never let any of us believe that we have succeeded. Any holiness we attain is by His outstretched hand.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
This says it all
My wife and I read this today. This is how I feel about my relationship with our master.
C. H. Spurgeon
"Salvation is of the Lord."—Jonah 2:9.
SALVATION is the work of God. It is He alone who quickens the soul "dead in trespasses and sins," and it is He also who maintains the soul in its spiritual life. He is both "Alpha and Omega." "Salvation is of the Lord." If I am prayerful, God makes me prayerful; if I have graces, they are God's gifts to me; if I hold on in a consistent life, it is because He upholds me with His hand. I do nothing whatever towards my own preservation, except what God Himself first does in me. Whatever I have, all my goodness is of the Lord alone. Wherein I sin, that is my own; but wherein I act rightly, that is of God, wholly and completely. If I have repulsed a spiritual enemy, the Lord's strength nerved my arm. Do I live before men a consecrated life? It is not I, but Christ who liveth in me. Am I sanctified? I did not cleanse myself: God's Holy Spirit sanctifies me. Am I weaned from the world? I am weaned by God's chastisements sanctified to my good. Do I grow in knowledge? The great Instructor teaches me. All my jewels were fashioned by heavenly art. I find in God all that I want; but I find in myself nothing but sin and misery. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Do I feed on the Word? That Word would be no food for me unless the Lord made it food for my soul, and helped me to feed upon it. Do I live on the manna which comes down from heaven? What is that manna but Jesus Christ himself incarnate, whose body and whose blood I eat and drink? Am I continually receiving fresh increase of strength? Where do I gather my might? My help cometh from heaven's hills: without Jesus I can do nothing. As a branch cannot bring forth fruit except it abide in the vine, no more can I, except I abide in Him. What Jonah learned in the great deep, let me learn this morning in my closet: "Salvation is of the Lord."
Friday, February 4, 2011
Genesis 4
That Cain and Abel story is very interesting to me. I find that the murder of Abel by his brother had a far reaching effect on mankind of the early days. I also think that the effect stretches through to the destruction of virtually all men at the time of the great flood. Here's how I see it:
At the time of the fall, in the garden of Eden, God made a promise when He cursed the serpent. He said, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:15). This was an apparent prophesy about her decendant, Jesus, and his crushing of sin, Satan, evil, etc. We know that Satan did strike Him with a fatal wound, just like when bitten by a poisonous snake, but He emerges the victor.
Eve gave birth to a Cain, (Gen 4:1), which must have been astonishing to her, for as of yet no such thing had ever happened. Might not she have thought that Cain was the answer to God's promise. (Same verse) Eve said, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Abel was born later. In my way of thinking, it's not unlikely that she would have considered Cain the fulfillment of the promise, and looked to Abel as just a son. Her reaction to Abel's murder by Cain must have been heartbreaking, for sure, but also confusing as she watched Cain be exiled by God to Nod, east of Eden. In Cain was the hope for restoration to communion with God. Now he was gone. Her other son was dead. Perhaps her hope died as well.
Hope reborn. Eve gave birth to another son and named him Seth, saying "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." (Gen. 4:25). The Bible then gives two seperate geneologies, Cain's and Seth's. The geneology of Cain goes several generations before it is dropped, but we then follow Seth's, Starting with his father Adam, through Seth, all the way to Noah. Of course this is the same family tree we are reminded of in Luke Chapter 4. This is the line of decendancy through which God's promise of restoration was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
I wish I could claim this one for my own, but I found this in a Bible commentary once, I appreciated it very much, however I've never heard this taught, nor read about this idea elsewhere. The suggestion was that when we read about the flood, the story starts off with, (Gen. 6:1,2), "When men began to increase in number on the Earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." I've heard a few explanations for who we're talking about here, but none ever satisfied me until this particular commentary. The commentator concluded that the sons of men might possibly be the decendants of Cain, the foresaken brother killer, and the son's of God were the decendants of Seth. In hind sight we see that it was through Seth and his lineage that we arrive at Christ. Hence the Godly line, or sons of God. It was not good that the Godly line was intermarrying with the earthly line. I think we can assume that the Godly line was diminishing and we find that by the time of Noah no Godly men remained. (Gen 6:7-9) So the Lord said, "'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the Earth . . . . . for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." I think Noah was the last righteous man on Earth. The only hope for the restoration of the decendants of Adam and Eve to communion with God, was in his loins. God could have easily wiped out everyone and started all over again. God, however, does not break His promises, so this was the solution.
My thoughts, apart from the afore mentioned commentary are that if Noah was the last righteous man, then his sons were not necessarily righteous, but would procreate only through the preserved decendants of Noah. Cain's crime against his brother was finally dealt with. This was not retribution for the crime of murder, but the necessary consequence for a society completely intermarried with sin.
In Job we find the "sons of God", KJV, petitioning Him at His throne. In the NIV they are refered to as angels. I don't know which is the correct interpretation, but I suspect that the sons of Seth found favor in the sight of God, if for nothing else other than their direct genetic connection to Christ. However I give them more credit than that. Enoch, it is said, walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away, (Gen. 5:24).
If anyone would care to comment, I think there is a lot to be explored here. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Tell me what you think,
Joe
At the time of the fall, in the garden of Eden, God made a promise when He cursed the serpent. He said, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:15). This was an apparent prophesy about her decendant, Jesus, and his crushing of sin, Satan, evil, etc. We know that Satan did strike Him with a fatal wound, just like when bitten by a poisonous snake, but He emerges the victor.
Eve gave birth to a Cain, (Gen 4:1), which must have been astonishing to her, for as of yet no such thing had ever happened. Might not she have thought that Cain was the answer to God's promise. (Same verse) Eve said, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Abel was born later. In my way of thinking, it's not unlikely that she would have considered Cain the fulfillment of the promise, and looked to Abel as just a son. Her reaction to Abel's murder by Cain must have been heartbreaking, for sure, but also confusing as she watched Cain be exiled by God to Nod, east of Eden. In Cain was the hope for restoration to communion with God. Now he was gone. Her other son was dead. Perhaps her hope died as well.
Hope reborn. Eve gave birth to another son and named him Seth, saying "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." (Gen. 4:25). The Bible then gives two seperate geneologies, Cain's and Seth's. The geneology of Cain goes several generations before it is dropped, but we then follow Seth's, Starting with his father Adam, through Seth, all the way to Noah. Of course this is the same family tree we are reminded of in Luke Chapter 4. This is the line of decendancy through which God's promise of restoration was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
I wish I could claim this one for my own, but I found this in a Bible commentary once, I appreciated it very much, however I've never heard this taught, nor read about this idea elsewhere. The suggestion was that when we read about the flood, the story starts off with, (Gen. 6:1,2), "When men began to increase in number on the Earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." I've heard a few explanations for who we're talking about here, but none ever satisfied me until this particular commentary. The commentator concluded that the sons of men might possibly be the decendants of Cain, the foresaken brother killer, and the son's of God were the decendants of Seth. In hind sight we see that it was through Seth and his lineage that we arrive at Christ. Hence the Godly line, or sons of God. It was not good that the Godly line was intermarrying with the earthly line. I think we can assume that the Godly line was diminishing and we find that by the time of Noah no Godly men remained. (Gen 6:7-9) So the Lord said, "'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the Earth . . . . . for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." I think Noah was the last righteous man on Earth. The only hope for the restoration of the decendants of Adam and Eve to communion with God, was in his loins. God could have easily wiped out everyone and started all over again. God, however, does not break His promises, so this was the solution.
My thoughts, apart from the afore mentioned commentary are that if Noah was the last righteous man, then his sons were not necessarily righteous, but would procreate only through the preserved decendants of Noah. Cain's crime against his brother was finally dealt with. This was not retribution for the crime of murder, but the necessary consequence for a society completely intermarried with sin.
In Job we find the "sons of God", KJV, petitioning Him at His throne. In the NIV they are refered to as angels. I don't know which is the correct interpretation, but I suspect that the sons of Seth found favor in the sight of God, if for nothing else other than their direct genetic connection to Christ. However I give them more credit than that. Enoch, it is said, walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away, (Gen. 5:24).
If anyone would care to comment, I think there is a lot to be explored here. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Tell me what you think,
Joe
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Starry, starry night
A man and his son stand out in the back yard on a starry evening. The son asks, "Dad, what's the name of that star over there?"
"Which one Billy?" replies His Dad.
"That one there, over that tall fir tree."
"Well son, that one's called Betelguese. It's the brightest star in the night sky. See, it is the shoulder of the constellation 'Orion'."
Billy is alive with wonder as he dreams of maybe traveling to the limits of the universe one day. "It must be pretty close to be so bright, huh Dad?"
"Actually son, even though Betelguese is probably the closest of all stars, its's still a million light years away," says Dad, as he follows through with a short lesson on light years and the speed of light, and other details Billy will be proud to relate to all his buddies at school. Billy's dreams are dashed, though, realizing he''ll never be able to go that far.
Silly story, I know. Not long ago, I was at Sunday school along with all the good folks there at church. In talking about the grandure of God's universe, I was taken by how quickly we all could spit out facts about the size and breadth of the universe. We were enlightening each other on the facts and figures. One would say, "a million light years." Another would quickly interject, "a light year is the distance light would travel over the course of a year." Yet another tossed out, "186,000 miles per second, ya know." I found it interesting that we all felt so sure of things. Maybe, we should leave the astrophysics out of our discussions about God. Surely, His Heavens are a wonder, but is there value in claiming knowledge about things we can't comprehend?
I think we are so impressed with big that we forget to think about significance. Have you ever been to Texas? It's not really all that it's cracked up to be. There's a lot of dirt there. People don't brag much about the natural wonders or the great weather. That's because there isn't much of either. What they do brag about is how big the place is. I'll bet you didn't know that it's a longer drive from Dallas to El Paso, than it is from El Paso to Los Angeles. That's pretty big, but who really cares. Well maybe the guy driving from Dallas to LA, but not me.
We Christians have a problem with science. It seems as though science is at odds with the Christian community as a whole. Maybe, it's the creation thing, or the miracles of Jesus, or the believing in things unprovable. The Christian reaction to this, by and large, is to dispute science in the areas where science chooses to conflict. I just don't see the point. As believers aren't we believing God along with believing in Him. Shouldn't any community of theorists who pretend to offer alternative explanations for the existence we all share be ignored? Why have conflict? They're wrong, aren't they?
Here's where I follow up on my earlier writing entitled, "Patrick O'brian." I recommend you read that before going any further here. I've also got a rebuttal to Cindy's comments on the same article.
First, Cindy. In your comments you suggest that while my thesis that Heaven is a place beyond time, where there is no time, is disagreeable to your views. You say, (I'm paraphrasing,) that heaven is the place where time goes on undefiled by the decay of sin. A Holy version of time. You also thought little of my "Hell is nothing but time" notion. You likened Hell to a place without time, who's inhabitants bear the full weight of the decay of sin without end. I'd say you had me waivering there for a while, that is until I rememberd that one word you relied on so much in making your point. Decay. Unless I'm mistaken, in virtually all its forms, decay processes all have one commen catalyst. Time. Yes, Heaven is free of the decay of sin, because where there is no time, decay can't happen. Hell on the other hand, is full of the ravages of decay. Decay's primary element is time. Therefore, I humbly submit that time is in abundance down there.
Let's go back to that backyard scene and pull out the old calculator. Sorry Billy, you'll need a TI model, because the numbers get pretty big. Science guesses that Betelguese is a million light years away. So we multiply the speed of light, (we're told it's 186,000 miles per second,) by 60 seconds, x 60 minutes, x 24 hours, x 365 days. According to my abacus, that's 5,676,480,000,000 miles. light will go 5.7 quadrillion miles in a year. Go ahead, you multiply that by a million. I wore holes in my socks trying to count that high.
In Sunday school, we were so proud of our gifts of recall, but none of us ever stopped to think of how futile this all is. I for one can't even conceive of light traveling. My mind tries, but I have to eventualy take someone elses word for it. I can't conceive of a million anything either. I know it's a lot, but my mind would have a hard time determining if a massive pile of apples contained 100,000 or 1,000,000. I'd assume you knew if you told me with authority. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Unless we obtain new information to the contrary, we must assume that He did so for His glory. His glory must be perceived if it is to be glorious. So we were placed here to perceive His glory. Are there billions and billions of stars out there really? If you say so. All I know is that I see a multitude of the Heavenly Host.
We love to be amazed. We'll accept anything if it's packaged well. Ethereal music and beautiful pictures of distant galaxies make us gape at the TV screen and feel small. We feel insignificant. We are humbled by the sheer numbers. We come to think the Earth isn't the center of the universe after all. We're stuck in the outer arm of a typical spiral galaxy. There are so many stars, how could there not be other inhabited planets. Steven Hawking, famous scientist, mathemetician, and all-around genius, recently was featured in the news. He claimed, with certainty, that there definitely was a multitude of life bearing planets, probably in the millions. Because he's such a smarty, the mainstream media prints his opinions. Because of his fame and reputation I want to believe him. who's the bigger fool, him or me. If he said there were 823,655 apples in that pile, who would argue? Not me. He's Steven Hawking.
Here's a qoute for you. C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy in the 1940's. The second book has a scene at the end where the hero reveals to the King of a new civilization on Perelandra, (Venus,) how men on Earth have surrendered to science even on the point of what made Earth the center of everything.
"I am full of doubts and ignorance," said Ransom, (our hero). "In our world those who know Maleldil, (Jesus,) at all believe His coming down to us and being a man is the central happening of all that happens. If you take that from me, whither will you lead me? Surely not to the enemies talk which thrusts my world and my race into a remote corner and gives me a universe, with no centre at all, but millions of worlds that lead nowhere or (what is worse) to more and more worlds for ever, and comes over me with numbers and empty spaces and repetitions and asks me to bow down before bigness."
Lewis saw it in 1943. Just like I'm telling you now. Anybody with a PHD can make a press release and find a willing audience. The more fantastic the story, the more we're willing to believe it. Is the Earth really 4 billion years old? Um, I guess so. If that's what they say. Can the Hubbel telescope take pictures of a galaxy that is 35 million light years away? Sure, why not? If I don't know what to believe, I'll believe anything you say, if you appear smarter than me, (not too difficult.)
Now to wrap up my other article. If time truly is an earthly enterprise created by God for man on Earth, then we must agree that time doesn't matter in outer space. The light year is defined as the distance light travels in one year. No time in space, then our measurement is void. 186,000 miles per second doesn't mean anything when there are no seconds, much less years. Do the math. Anything times nothing equals nothing.
Maybe my math is weird, but I think that attempting to measure the heavens is fruitless at best, and certainly irrelevant to our lives. What is relevant is that when God cast the stars out into the night sky, they landed in specific places to be viewed by men. Ancient mariners used the stars to navigate. The moon, sun, and planets established our Calendar and created the seasons by which all life depends for its cycles. Stars form constellations by which we develop a chart of their locations and know their names. We even get to sit in the back yard of an evening, and dream of knowing all that is out there to know. We revere our God for the splendor of His majesty.
When Billy's Dad told him how far away that star was, I wish I was there. I'd have told him, "Billy, that star probably is really a long way away, but for you and me, God didn't put it a jillion light years away, it's right there, over that really big fir tree."
Doesn't Christ say that God confounds the wisdom of the wise with the foolishness of the gospel? Let it be so in our lives.
His glory,
Joe
"Which one Billy?" replies His Dad.
"That one there, over that tall fir tree."
"Well son, that one's called Betelguese. It's the brightest star in the night sky. See, it is the shoulder of the constellation 'Orion'."
Billy is alive with wonder as he dreams of maybe traveling to the limits of the universe one day. "It must be pretty close to be so bright, huh Dad?"
"Actually son, even though Betelguese is probably the closest of all stars, its's still a million light years away," says Dad, as he follows through with a short lesson on light years and the speed of light, and other details Billy will be proud to relate to all his buddies at school. Billy's dreams are dashed, though, realizing he''ll never be able to go that far.
Silly story, I know. Not long ago, I was at Sunday school along with all the good folks there at church. In talking about the grandure of God's universe, I was taken by how quickly we all could spit out facts about the size and breadth of the universe. We were enlightening each other on the facts and figures. One would say, "a million light years." Another would quickly interject, "a light year is the distance light would travel over the course of a year." Yet another tossed out, "186,000 miles per second, ya know." I found it interesting that we all felt so sure of things. Maybe, we should leave the astrophysics out of our discussions about God. Surely, His Heavens are a wonder, but is there value in claiming knowledge about things we can't comprehend?
I think we are so impressed with big that we forget to think about significance. Have you ever been to Texas? It's not really all that it's cracked up to be. There's a lot of dirt there. People don't brag much about the natural wonders or the great weather. That's because there isn't much of either. What they do brag about is how big the place is. I'll bet you didn't know that it's a longer drive from Dallas to El Paso, than it is from El Paso to Los Angeles. That's pretty big, but who really cares. Well maybe the guy driving from Dallas to LA, but not me.
We Christians have a problem with science. It seems as though science is at odds with the Christian community as a whole. Maybe, it's the creation thing, or the miracles of Jesus, or the believing in things unprovable. The Christian reaction to this, by and large, is to dispute science in the areas where science chooses to conflict. I just don't see the point. As believers aren't we believing God along with believing in Him. Shouldn't any community of theorists who pretend to offer alternative explanations for the existence we all share be ignored? Why have conflict? They're wrong, aren't they?
Here's where I follow up on my earlier writing entitled, "Patrick O'brian." I recommend you read that before going any further here. I've also got a rebuttal to Cindy's comments on the same article.
First, Cindy. In your comments you suggest that while my thesis that Heaven is a place beyond time, where there is no time, is disagreeable to your views. You say, (I'm paraphrasing,) that heaven is the place where time goes on undefiled by the decay of sin. A Holy version of time. You also thought little of my "Hell is nothing but time" notion. You likened Hell to a place without time, who's inhabitants bear the full weight of the decay of sin without end. I'd say you had me waivering there for a while, that is until I rememberd that one word you relied on so much in making your point. Decay. Unless I'm mistaken, in virtually all its forms, decay processes all have one commen catalyst. Time. Yes, Heaven is free of the decay of sin, because where there is no time, decay can't happen. Hell on the other hand, is full of the ravages of decay. Decay's primary element is time. Therefore, I humbly submit that time is in abundance down there.
Let's go back to that backyard scene and pull out the old calculator. Sorry Billy, you'll need a TI model, because the numbers get pretty big. Science guesses that Betelguese is a million light years away. So we multiply the speed of light, (we're told it's 186,000 miles per second,) by 60 seconds, x 60 minutes, x 24 hours, x 365 days. According to my abacus, that's 5,676,480,000,000 miles. light will go 5.7 quadrillion miles in a year. Go ahead, you multiply that by a million. I wore holes in my socks trying to count that high.
In Sunday school, we were so proud of our gifts of recall, but none of us ever stopped to think of how futile this all is. I for one can't even conceive of light traveling. My mind tries, but I have to eventualy take someone elses word for it. I can't conceive of a million anything either. I know it's a lot, but my mind would have a hard time determining if a massive pile of apples contained 100,000 or 1,000,000. I'd assume you knew if you told me with authority. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Unless we obtain new information to the contrary, we must assume that He did so for His glory. His glory must be perceived if it is to be glorious. So we were placed here to perceive His glory. Are there billions and billions of stars out there really? If you say so. All I know is that I see a multitude of the Heavenly Host.
We love to be amazed. We'll accept anything if it's packaged well. Ethereal music and beautiful pictures of distant galaxies make us gape at the TV screen and feel small. We feel insignificant. We are humbled by the sheer numbers. We come to think the Earth isn't the center of the universe after all. We're stuck in the outer arm of a typical spiral galaxy. There are so many stars, how could there not be other inhabited planets. Steven Hawking, famous scientist, mathemetician, and all-around genius, recently was featured in the news. He claimed, with certainty, that there definitely was a multitude of life bearing planets, probably in the millions. Because he's such a smarty, the mainstream media prints his opinions. Because of his fame and reputation I want to believe him. who's the bigger fool, him or me. If he said there were 823,655 apples in that pile, who would argue? Not me. He's Steven Hawking.
Here's a qoute for you. C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy in the 1940's. The second book has a scene at the end where the hero reveals to the King of a new civilization on Perelandra, (Venus,) how men on Earth have surrendered to science even on the point of what made Earth the center of everything.
"I am full of doubts and ignorance," said Ransom, (our hero). "In our world those who know Maleldil, (Jesus,) at all believe His coming down to us and being a man is the central happening of all that happens. If you take that from me, whither will you lead me? Surely not to the enemies talk which thrusts my world and my race into a remote corner and gives me a universe, with no centre at all, but millions of worlds that lead nowhere or (what is worse) to more and more worlds for ever, and comes over me with numbers and empty spaces and repetitions and asks me to bow down before bigness."
Lewis saw it in 1943. Just like I'm telling you now. Anybody with a PHD can make a press release and find a willing audience. The more fantastic the story, the more we're willing to believe it. Is the Earth really 4 billion years old? Um, I guess so. If that's what they say. Can the Hubbel telescope take pictures of a galaxy that is 35 million light years away? Sure, why not? If I don't know what to believe, I'll believe anything you say, if you appear smarter than me, (not too difficult.)
Now to wrap up my other article. If time truly is an earthly enterprise created by God for man on Earth, then we must agree that time doesn't matter in outer space. The light year is defined as the distance light travels in one year. No time in space, then our measurement is void. 186,000 miles per second doesn't mean anything when there are no seconds, much less years. Do the math. Anything times nothing equals nothing.
Maybe my math is weird, but I think that attempting to measure the heavens is fruitless at best, and certainly irrelevant to our lives. What is relevant is that when God cast the stars out into the night sky, they landed in specific places to be viewed by men. Ancient mariners used the stars to navigate. The moon, sun, and planets established our Calendar and created the seasons by which all life depends for its cycles. Stars form constellations by which we develop a chart of their locations and know their names. We even get to sit in the back yard of an evening, and dream of knowing all that is out there to know. We revere our God for the splendor of His majesty.
When Billy's Dad told him how far away that star was, I wish I was there. I'd have told him, "Billy, that star probably is really a long way away, but for you and me, God didn't put it a jillion light years away, it's right there, over that really big fir tree."
Doesn't Christ say that God confounds the wisdom of the wise with the foolishness of the gospel? Let it be so in our lives.
His glory,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)