(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.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)