Thursday, December 28, 2017

The Prophecy of the Good Shepherd

claims and references
Jesus made many claims. He made different references to himself. Some of these claims were according to how the people perceived him. They perceived him to me a prophet so he referred to himself as a prophet. They cast aspersions on him as being a drunkard and a gluttonous man, so he referred to himself as a drunkard and a gluttonous man. The Jews presumed to take offense that Jesus, by implication, equated himself with God. The Jews rightly inferred his meaning, but they resisted his words, because as they said to him, he was just a man, so he referred to himself as a man.

There were other claims and references which were seemingly, for lack of a better term, nice, as in perfectly noncontroversial and harmless. One such reference which Jesus made about himself was, not just that he was a shepherd, but that he was the good shepherd. There was nothing noble or prestigious about being a shepherd or for anyone to liken themselves to a shepherd. Even so, this sounded good for the Jews. It was as anemic culturally as it was harmless.It sounds good for us today.

Monday, December 25, 2017

Why I Believe Jesus came in Finality in 70 A.D.

Actually, Why I Believe Jesus came in Finality in 70 A.D., is the title which appears in Don K Preston’s four part video series. The title, Why I Believe Jesus Returned in 70 A.D, is as the videos appear in YouTube. Just to be clear both of these refer to the same video work by the author. The title of this article does not reflect my understanding of the scriptures or my convictions. The title is Preston's own title. I do not agree with and I reject the overall content of the video messages. If there is any difference between the Part 1 and Part 4 videos I am not able to see it. Those two video messages appear to be the same and even the three videos bear much repetition which does not constitute a problem in itself. I played and listened to all four videos in their entirety. The appearance of the title on this blog article reflects neither my understanding nor agreement with his message. Here are the four video links for you. I encourage you to view them yourself. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4.

Just for the record and by way of a perspective, my understanding is that Matthew 24 relates the prophecy declared by Jesus himself to his disciples concerning his coming. I take no offense nor am I troubled by whatever label has instantly been pinned on me just now. I believe, as I have briefly done in this article and as I refer readers to my own blog article, that my explanation involving the particular elements of that prophecy (while being hardly original or unique) is a marked difference from the general double brush stroke, gloss-over given to the prophecy, namely, that it is about 1) the destruction of the temple and 2) the second coming of the Lord.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The Day of the Lord: darkened sun, blood moon, fallen stars

In recent months I have heard a message from some brothers in Christ which is new to me. Briefly, the message is that Jesus has come already. Those who are waiting for Jesus to return are mistaken about the return of Jesus. Their wait is in vain. There is no second coming of Jesus. I have heard this message proclaimed with the glee and giddiness of a child who has just received a new toy or who just made a new discovery. This teaching purports to be the fulfillment of the word of the Lord. Clearly, there is nothing gleeful about it, but a seriously mistaken notion by some men, some brothers in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior.

an expression

Advocates and teachers of this message probably package their teaching under a freshly minted catchy name of which I am not aware and I am not given to throwing labels around. For the sake of reference and for working purposes I am going to use in this article the expression the day of the Lord right from the scriptures to refer to this doctrine and the elements of that doctrine. There are different variations of that expression throughout the scriptures including the coming of the day of the Lord.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Is the virgin birth of Jesus a myth?


Christmas. It is the season to rejoice in the birth of Jesus, the Son of God in song, praise and fellowship. It is a time when some examine what they profess to be in terms of the faith. They examine their conviction to see if it is firm. They examine the testimony of their words with their deeds. In some instances some people come to terms with themselves. They realize there is a need for them to step up in order to be ready to give an account for themselves as Christians or as disciples of Jesus.

Christmas is also the season for some to mock the virgin birth of Jesus as being nothing more than a myth. One writer admonishes believers to forsake the virgin birth with these words: “Virgin birth: it’s pagan, guys. Get over it”. Do not make the mistake to assume that he rejects, at least not that it is apparent in his article, that which is pagan over that which is holy or divine. However, it is what has prompted me to write this article.

the subtlety of a mother
I feel a certain sense of futility about writing this article. Certainly, there is no ‘deep anxiety’ (Carrier). It is not pessimism, doubt or unbelief. Rather, it is because it pertains to something which every human being, simply by virtue of being alive, has experienced, namely, their birth. We say it’s a done deal. Truly, we’ve been there and although it is not an event that we remember we say we've done that. (Our mothers would probably have a something to say anyone of three different ways: YOU'VE done that? You've DONE that? You've done THAT? Mothers have a subtle but very effective way of putting in our place as in, You did nothing.)

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

the Son can do nothing of Himself


Select articles:


There are many voices. They all want to be heard. Mostly they are voices with a negative message with respect to Jesus. Their message is often nothing more than a hollow, negative assertion that “Jesus is not God.” Others will actually bring a morsel of a scripture to support their assertion such as the one which is the focus of this article.

These words spoken by Jesus that the Son can do nothing of Himself is just one example heard from those voices. Although many Christians are familiar with these words many of them have never wondered or have never seen the need to examine the meaning of these words. They fall easy prey to the message of those voices. Certainly, those who seize these words to make their assertions to deny the deity of Jesus have themselves not done anything to examine the meaning of these words. The conclusion extracted from these words is that this is an acknowledgment by Jesus of his inferiority and weakness on the level of a human being, not God, but is this the case? Here is a broader scope of the passage from John 5:19-21.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Jesus: a gluttonous man and a drunkard

This was the disparagement, the gossip, that was spread to malign Jesus, the Son of Man. It was said that Jesus was a gluttonous man and a drunkard. This was said of Jesus in contrast to John the baptist whose life mission was in the fringe of society and in the wilderness of the river Jordan. Alas, the comparative morality of the twenty first century is not new. The populist perception of John was as one of being a truly a religious, holy and pious man. The falsehood about Jesus being a gluttonous man and a drunkard neither troubled nor fazed Jesus in the least.

Jesus was happy and confident in himself as he went about the Father’s business in and among and with sinners.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

The Only True God

The purpose of this article to examine the expression, the only true God, which appears in the scriptures. There is a similar and related expression which appears a second time in the scriptures.

The gospel according to John opens with a message that is often cited and quoted about the Word who became flesh. My own reason for citing this reference, here, is for what John reveals about the mission of the Begotten Son several verses into the first chapter, namely, that the Begotten Son came to explain God. We understand that thoughts, and then explanations, are communicated with words and through words. This is what Jesus states often in his own message. He declared that the words that He spoke were not his own words. They were the words which the Father had given him to speak, to explain God. Additionally, there are the true works that Jesus performed. The works which Jesus did were just as He saw the Father doing the same works. The words and the works is what Jesus cited for Philip and the disciples as proof that the Father dwelt in him.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

First Believe?

I must admit it is refreshing to hear an atheist who presents his argument, or objection as in this case, without the usual excess peppering of his message (I encourage you to view the video: First Believe?) with claims and appeals for logic and reason or mockery and derision. Too often the mere inclusion of these lofty puffs about logic and reason in one’s speech are taken as proof that one’s argument is on solid logic and reason simply because the individual says it, and therefore it is so. This is not limited to atheists. Christians tout and flaunt the same claims with each other as well as with atheists. This is not to dismiss logic and reason. (It amuses me to hear Christians toss around what was once solely the atheist ploy and brand about a strawman. And you thought scarecrows weren’t real, right?)


I agree with Matt about the proposition that I will describe and what amounts to, for working purposes, not as a bait and switch, but as a switch and bait.The switch in this instance is to call on the the atheist to shift from unbelief to belief with nothing more than to have the atheist declare that they believe. Effectively, this conveniently frees the Christian from the work of engaging in thought and discussion with the atheist to bring him or her, not necessarily to that Platinum Award of belief which is rightly the Christian’s objective, but to an understanding. Acceptance of that understanding will not necessarily follow and it may or may not come during or after the discussion if ever. Quite simply the risk of acceptance may be deemed as being too much and too high for the individual and he will reject whatever and all proofs or even a thought to ponder among the evidence.


Essentially, first believe is an outfront appeal, or insistence, for the unbeliever to believe and that once they believe they will see, that is, understand the unseen matters of faith in God. I can understand the atheists’ whuh? bewilderment to such a proposition. It does constitute an incredible problem. However, it is not as though atheists do not have a similar proposition of their own. Of course, the proverbial two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right comes to mind, but the similar proposition from the atheist is “show me and I’ll believe” or as I believe they say in Missouri, “show me.” (No, I am not from Missouri.)


"I come from a state that raises corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from Missouri, and you have got to show me." (Congressman Willard Vandiver in 1899)


This call for proof or evidence by atheists is certainly within the realm of what is reasonable and plausible. However, this is not to say that confirmation through sight and touch necessarily trumps or invalidates all other responses to the question of proof. Scientists work with phenomenon which is neither visible nor palpable, but that phenomenon are not for that reason rendered as invalidate or not true. Even so, the acid test for the scientific hypothesis, the theory, of the scientific method of investigation rightly states that an idea or explanation must be testable. A theory is a valid argument and not necessarily a wild guess or wild notion, so there’s no need for an ecstatic jump to conclusions that I have rejected a basic understanding about theory as it is used by scientists. The corollary affirmation to scientific hypothesis is truth. What does that mean? It means that despite our tendency for favorite preferred word choices such as belief versus understanding truth is inescapable. The much heard academic and coffee table popurri about truth as being objective, subjective, emotional, real, biblical truth, philosophical, experiential and the grandest of them all, drum roll, please: truth is absolute, are all like so much turkey stuffing with truth being the turkey.


Jesus demonstrated and defined truth by declaring that he knew 1) where he came from, 2) why he was here, and 3) where he was going. Truth is not so much objective, subjective or absolute as much as it is a perspective on past, present and future, perspective being the relationship of parts, time in this case, to one another. Truth is the knowledge and peace with one’s past, present and future which makes one free because he or she has come to terms and reconciled these things in their heart and mind. [5] Any bias between our past, present or future which cannot be explained will be exposed. Sometimes the quick assumption is to yell liar and hypocrite as opposed to maybe offering words that might guide that person towards a more complete reconciliation of truth. Matt’s definition that “belief is the state of accepting a proposition is true” is no less true than to say understanding is the state of accepting a proposition is true, that is, that it is truth. Here is an instance in which the proposition was not stated, but it is implied and also subsequently rejected.


When God counseled Cain about Cain’s anger and fallen countenance it was all for nothing. It was the first counseling session. The counseling was a failure. Cain went on to murder his brother. After he had murdered his brother Abel he disdainfully scorned God for asking him where was his brother. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain said. The implicit answer to God’s question before Cain fired his retort was that, yes, Cain, you are your brother’s keeper. The proposition about being the keeper of one’s brother was rejected by Cain. Effectively, Cain, who spoke and interacted with God, chose to not believe God. Instead, he chose to succumb to the carnal desires of his heart as in the particular instance of murdering his brother. The point being in this very early passage of scripture is that seeing and knowing God, such as did Cain, is neither a guarantee of obedience nor of belief in God.


the universe and the air we breathe
Here are two examples which have been accepted as verified and verifiable through the scientific method. The first is simple, near and present to every human being. It is air, that element which fills our lungs and sustains our life. Air is neither visible nor palpable by human beings. Yes, its effects become visible and palpable when pressure, such as in a storm, is applied to air. The second is the universe. Scientists understood, as recently as between 45 and 60 years ago, that the universe was infinite, that is, that it had always existed. They call this the steady-state theory. This earlier theory was chipped away and eventually, in a manner of speaking, banged out of existence through the work of Georges Lemaître, George Gamow, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and many others. Clearly, to reproduce the beginning of the universe is not something which one can conduct in the laboratory. Yet, the theory concerning the beginning of the universe is not for this reason invalid or false and no less real than the air we breathe. While I could state, without any basis of support, that I understand the hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe is falsifiable or a falsifiable prediction, I will admit my own inadequacy and incompetence to do so. It is out of my pay grade.


the falsifiable predictability of the resurrection of Jesus
What I can say is that when the scientific hypothesis is applied to the resurrection of Jesus to test it the result is that it is a falsifiable prediction. This does not mean it renders it false or that it nullifies it. Even so, I expect some of my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith might have already jumped to a mistaken conclusion about my statement. It simply means that there is a plausible, alternate explanation and it is good for atheists to examine the alternate explanation and determine for themselves if these things are plausible and believable. Some may be tempted and resort to make a quick dismissal of the resurrection as wishful fairytale.


There is a bit of a similarity between the discussion concerning the universe and the resurrection. They both have to do with origins and  beginnings. If these were to be disproved than so be it. If all the tenets of faith in Jesus were inverted and placed as an upside down pyramid the resurrection would be at the sharp, pointy end of that pyramid. Even though I will state that it is superfluous to chase after every rabbit, that is, every little and big thing which the reader does not understand or rejects from the scripture, it is all for nothing if the claims and historicity of the reality of the resurrection remain unexamined. If the resurrection is indeed false, then the rest is of little significance or consequence and a wide and wild open-ended anything-goes free for all. Kind of a little like a wild (BIG) tusked bull elephant in a fine, pristine, glassware shop on a must.


The resurrection, unlike the origin of the universe, is much closer to us human beings. The reality of death keeps it close and real for us and does allow us to cast it into a hypothetical, far away, distant, parallel universe. Death is an everyday occurrence. It speaks to and of our human nature and desire to live. It is precisely why death is not the sole domain of scientists and philosophers and the reason why this is within anyone’s pay grade. There are several ideas which could be proposed to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. It is likely that none of these ideas are new. Some of these are mentioned in the scriptures and we will examine a couple of these now. No one reading these words has experienced death. Let me be more specific. No one has experienced physical death _ permanently, not a near-death experience from which the person returns to life with a testimony of his experience.


transformation of energy
Scientific knowledge has taught us that the energy which makes up solid matter, such as a rock, cannot be annihilated. It can only be transformed. Then, although it may no longer be visible or palpable to the senses it remains, theoretically, able to be combined or constituted back to its solid form. Although this may not have been done with a rock this is demonstrable and evident in the albeit less solid element of water. The solid form of water can be pressured until it transforms into vapor. Then, once the pressure is relieved the vapor is restored to its solid water form.


The standard response of the atheist to death is that it is final. Here are the death, burial and resurrection accounts as they appear in the four gospel accounts by Matthew,[1] Mark,[2] Luke [3] and John.[4] The occurrence of death for a person, according to the atheist, is as though he or she had never existed. How plausible and credible is this response to death? How is it that a lifeless form of solid matter such as a rock cannot be annihilated, but a human life form with all its information and intelligence ceases to exist as though it had never existed? Furthermore, that this lifeform cannot, like a rock, be restored to its original state or to life?


These are the claims which Jesus made, namely, that he would lay down his life and take it up from the dead, again. This was the restoration of life to a dead body and what had, according to atheists, ceased to exist as though it had never existed. Yes, I understand this can all be dismissed and discarded by the atheist, likely with heavy doses of mockery and ridicule, but this response hardly makes the response of atheists true. It is more profitable to examine the falsifiability of the resurrection.


The claim of the New Testament scriptures is that Jesus died, was buried and rose up from the dead on the third day. This is what Jesus had openly stated numerous times to friend and foe alike. It was not a private club secret among his disciples. This is the hypothesis for us to examine as to whether it is falsifiable. Here are just a couple.


Jesus did not die, but the disciples lied
The truth is that his public crucifixion was a glorious occasion for his adversaries. They were present at the crucifixion and cast their mockery, derision and contempt on him. Some of his disciples were also present at the crucifixion. Nobody denied his death. After his burial some women came to the tomb with intentions of completing the tradition preparations on the deceased. This preparation for burial had not been possible in the case of Jesus because of the approaching Sabbath. Among the witnesses who were present were the duty-bound Roman soldiers who had no vested interest in the entire matter and were simply doing their job as soldiers assigned to carry out the execution of death by crucifixion. They reported to Governor Pilate that Jesus was dead.


Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead
The thought of the disciples mustering some farce and charade of joy over their dead leader is pathetic. The easy “show-me” proof is precisely what Thomas insisted in order for him to believe. Thomas was one of the disciples of Jesus who was absent the first time he appeared to the disciples. Jesus appeared to as many as five hundred at one time. The visual, verifiable proof that Thomas demanded was to see with his own eyes the holes in the hands of Jesus and to place his finger in those holes and the hole in his side in order for Thomas to believe. (Thomas, like all but one of the eleven disciples [minus Judas who had hanged himself] was not present at the crucifixion. Yet Thomas knew and was familiar with the account by those witnesses who were present that a Roman soldier had thrust his spear into Jesus’ side from which flowed blood and water.) Just as Roman soldiers had presided at the crucifixion they were also present to guard the tomb as requested of Pilate by the adversaries of Jesus.


The idea of whether Jesus did not die, but his disciples lied together with the idea that Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead are falsifiable predictions. However, the testimony of the scriptures from believers and unbelievers alike plus human reason, and yes, logic and reason, indicate and strongly counter any dismissal of the resurrection as being a falsehood perpetrated on man and perpetuated by man for bad reasons or dishonest and insincere motives. The resurrection of Jesus, like anything else, is a falsifiable prediction, but given the above it is not falsified. There are those who have professed and proclaimed the resurrection from the first to the twenty first century even unto death. Their decision and commitment to do so came about when they were convinced that what they had heard, examined and assessed warranted a response to accept the risks. Furthermore, those deaths which occurred even while professing and proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus were not of unbelievers in the hands of believers, but by believers in the hands of unbelievers.


conclusion
The disciples did profess to believe in Jesus while he was alive and they walked and talked with him. Yet despite the fact that they had heard from him that he would rise up from the dead they wondered what that meant and could hardly grasp much less believe it. Some people, Christians perhaps, would likely admonish the disciples for their unbelief while unbelievers would likely point to this as hypocrisy. However, both of these responses may reflect a similar bias against which Matt admonishes his viewers.


I consider that their unbelief in response to the risen Jesus was as intended by Jesus. It was akin to removing the floaties on the beginner swimmer; let’s see if you have learned to float and swim. It is akin to removing the training wheels on the child’s bicycle. In the case of the disciples even when they saw Jesus with their own eyes Luke attests in his gospel account that they could not believe it because of their joy and amazement.[6] The disciples found themselves stripped, in a manner of speaking, of their floaties and training wheels and all their biases concerning how and what they thought they knew about Jesus. It was imperative that they now demonstrate to and for themselves the conviction of things which they had heard and of which they were now coming to be fully convinced.


The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus can be no more reproduced than the beginning of the universe. Neither of these phenomenon are for this reason false. In the same manner as we ponder the cosmos of the universe and make a determination so, too, the resurrection of Jesus calls for nothing more and nothing less. The disciples and unbelievers in the first century faced the same reality of death as what we face in the twenty first century.

Any attempt to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus because no one in the twenty first century has seen him is akin to dismissing the scientific hypothesis. It is to deny the theoretical possibility of pulverizing the lifeless, solid mass of energy of a rock in oblivion or water into invisible vapor and then each, theoretically, bringing both back to their original solid state. This is a reality. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe (first) it. It has to do with whether it aligns with basic natural science and basic human psychology. This is nothing deep, mystical, mysterious or profound. If it staggers the imagination so, too, do the wonders and vastness of the universe. Mockery and derision are not do they equate with comprehension or a cohesive understanding. Death is not something to be feared and it is definitely not something feared by Christians. This is not to say that there are not people who do live in fear of death, but their fear (or even that of some Christians) does not amount to an invalidation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Deity and the diversity and unity of one

We try hard to enhance and fill out our understanding of deity and the God whom we love. We think we have attained this by touting ourselves as so-called unitarians or trinitarians and even, perhaps, as Arians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. We think if we just use the right name, especially in the Hebrew language form of that name, that we have understood these things. Of course, there is the stout claims and assertions to defense of our understanding. It is a telltale sign of our lack of understanding when that defense is usually in the form of negative assertions. These include “Jesus is not God” “Jesus is not the Father” as though this were on par or as though it equates with teaching and conveying our understanding of the written revelation of the word of God. So much time is expended in exchanges calling out and sticking the label on the person with whom we engage in discussion together with all presuppositions rather to listen to the person’s words. Invariably, those views center on a small handful of passages together with a message from rote memory sometimes without much ability by the individual to offer much or any explanation.

 

The purpose of this article reflects a fundamental conviction of mine, namely, that the greater part and easier part of the scriptures for our understanding is readily apparent for the reader. Of course, it is imperative not only that one read, but also that one ponder what he or she reads and not merely open there mouths as hungry birds eager to be fed. Briefly, I would to present two different ways in which the Lord God has spoken to us concerning deity and himself 1) through plural and singular forms, 2) through the marriage relationship of a man and a woman and 3) the diversity of gifts which the Holy Spirit has poured out the church.

 

plural and singular forms

The first reference in the scriptures of God to himself is recorded Genesis 2. It occurred on the sixth day when he declares, "Let us make man in our image." This English language plural noun form should not be a surprise. All the previous twenty six (26) times, including the one in verse twenty six (26) the term Hebrew language term for God, that is, elohim is  in the plural form. This is not a theology. Let's not delve into the usual single word definitions in isolation as though this has led to much enlightenment for the saint in Christ and simply listen  and ponder these thing for the time being.

 

Then, the first reference to a numeric quantity appears is the numeric value of one. It is not in reference to God. It is not in reference to Adam. It is not in reference to Eve. It is in reference to the two of them. God states the two of them are to be one. The two single, individual human beings, one male, one female, who constitute a plurality are to be a single one. The declaration which God made at the time that he created Adam and Eve and they were to be one is a popular passage often quoted in wedding ceremonies.

 

Sometime later after Moses had led the children of Israel out of Egypt Moses pronounced to Israel:

 

4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

 

This is the first time the plural for the term God, elohim, and the term one appear together and are an undeniable and direct reference to the Lord God. It would be extremely poor to dismiss this as a contradiction. It would just as bad to ignore it without any explanation to provide a cohesive understanding of a plural and singular reference to the Lord God. There is a popular but dire explanation for the plural form of elohim for the term God that it is what is call a "majestic form" which God uses of himself. This, it is explained, is much as earthly kings and queens speak in the plural form of themselves.


I believe the ringing indictment on this notion is found in I Samuel 8. When Samuel was feeling quite low after Israel insisted that Samuel appoint a king for them it was the Lord who comforted and encouraged Samuel.


7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

If there were any true to that explanation should the reader of the scripture expect some reference by God to himself as in the majestic form as king, the king who has just been rejected by his people? However, this is not the case. In fact the term in the passage is LORD (Yahweh, singular [plural in Isaiah 6:12]), not God. (elohim, plural) Of course, there is always the much touted cry about context. Yet here again, the context in which the Lord refers to himself is as king in in the singular form.


the two shall be one

The quotation of the Genesis 2 passage by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 1 is significant albeit a godly but superficial reference concerning its meaning. It seems reasonable and plausible that there is no better relationship to understand the Lord God who is one than that of a man and a woman who are called to be one in the union of marriage. An explanation of oneness between the man and the woman in terms of the physical sexual union is partial and incomplete. How can a man and a woman be one in the flesh with no thought to being one in hearts, mind and soul and in spirit? Paul states this is mystery, that is of a man and a woman being one, is great. Paul does not leave the matter there concerning this mystery of one. Although Paul does not explain it he gives only the briefest, passing note that he is speaking about Christ and his church. The implied question is how does a man and a woman become one? How are Christ and the church one?



So one thing that ought to be apparent is that the seeming variance between plurality and singular forms is ancient and very much a part of us and the God who we love and desire to know. It is an ancient running thread which the apostle Paul related it to the marriage union of a man and woman. The first long-term life lesson for us is of  two (plurality) being one (singular) is as close as in how and what we see in our father and mother. This is personal relationship between mother and father, two human beings, is not merely something recorded in the scriptures of Adam and Eve. We observe and learn from watching them how often they agree and support one another even when we might have a different thought.


diversity of gifts
This is reflected just as much in the life of the body of Christ, that is, the church according to the wisdom of God. It is through the work of the Spirit who gave a wide variety of different gifts to the church for the purpose of the edification of the saints. The apostle Paul wrote much about this diversity of gifts with the constant reminder to the church that all these are from the one Spirit and the church might maintain the same unity and be one in the exercise of these gifts in Romans 12,  I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. In none of these instance is the term one intended as numeric, quantitative value nor is it to suggest or to be understand that the man is a woman or a woman is a man when they are one with and toward each other.


what’s in a name?
There is much to be said about the name, particularly of a woman, once she is married. It is as disrespectful to refer to her as a girl on the basis of one’s prior relationship with her as a friend or acquaintance. This is just as true were someone to address her by her maiden name. A change has occurred, not only in her relationship with the one to whom she is now married, but towards everyone else. It is in poor taste and inappropriate to say whose wife she is not, one, because it is not how a woman defines her marriage to her husband, and, two, because when she states that she is married to a particular man it is also to say, or to be understood, that the man is her husband.


One of the serious problems with thwarts our understanding of who Jesus is and the Father is because of the common practice to insert either a name (Jesus) or a title (Father) in a text where it does not appear. This is done with a select handful of verses from the scriptures. The testimony concerning the Father is foremost as revealed by the Jesus, the Son of God, with the notable exceptions at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist [1], the transfiguration, [2] and the resurrection of Lazarus. [3]


It is true that Jesus never claimed to be the Father. He claimed to be one with the Father. It is also true that the Father never claimed to be the Son. It is true that the Father never claimed nor did Jesus or the apostles by the Holy Spirit testify that the Father is Lord. There is no doubt and no denial that the Father is God. Furthermore, it is asserted that the Father is God. What is true is that the scriptures do attest and testify from antiquity that the Lord is God. The entirety of the scriptures testify that the Lord is God. Jesus unapologetically and unabashedly claimed to be Lord. The apostles by the Holy Spirit testify that Jesus is Lord. The conclusion is left for the reader to draw unapologetically, unashamedly and unabashedly for himself or herself.


conclusion
Israel, as well as Moses and the elders of Israel, had the unique privilege of actually seeing God. Israel was terrified. The waived all future one-on-one close encounters with God and told Moses to be their go-between before the Lord God. They would hear and do, so they said, whatever Moses told them to do.

The lesson in this is that sometimes even what is obvious without and surprise, terrifies us. We would just as soon waive and dispense with our opportunity and duty and turn it over to someone else to do it for us. The thing is no one can know the Lord God for us. We are called to know the Lord God whom we love. This was never truer as in our desire to draw close to the God whom we love. Praise be to God that he is neither surprised nor offended and he lifts us up to look up face to face and know and declare that the Lord is God. Peace to all.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

The sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter and righteousness

What is righteousness? What is the righteousness of God? Can we possibly know that what we do is the righteousness of God?

Jephthah is a man who judged Israel. He was a mighty warrior who led Israel in their defeat of Ammon, one of the enemies of Israel. As the son of a harlot he had known rejection. His own siblings cast him out of the family only to call Jephthah to come and deliver Israel from their enemy. Although Jephthah reminded them of their rejection of him he set aside his feelings about the matter and came to the aid of his fellow Israelites. However, these are not the accomplishments which often come to mind about Jephthah, particularly among women some of whom anger and bitterness are stirred up. Jephthah sacrificed as a burnt offering his daughter whose name is not recorded in the scriptures. It is a fair question to ask what possible righteousness could there be in the act of sacrificing a human being, of one’s own virgin daughter by the hand of her own father?

Please understand, this is not some perverse call for human sacrifice. Rather it is an effort to understand both Jephthah and Jephthah’s daughter’s acts of righteousness.

Jephthah’s daughter stands, as I understand from her short testimony, as a giant among women -and men- not as a victim, but as one over whose shoulders one who desires to understand righteousness, obedience and sacrifice can gain insight on these things. She revealed that her love for the Lord God transcended the love which she had for her father and her own life.

they speak
I believe there is much to be gained through an understanding of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter and not to regard it as a bizarre act of one man’s notion of doing the will of God. And, if Jephthah’s daughter’s blood is like that of the blood of Abel (and it is) it still speaks, he as an unwitting sacrifice, she as a witting and wilful sacrifice. There is yet another comparison to be noted between Jephthah’s daughter and Isaac.

the sacrifice of Isaac
Israel knew about human sacrifice for several centuries before Israel entered the land of Canaan and long before the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. They were familiar with a virtual human sacrifice. It was the stopped-short-of-an-actual-sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham. Israel spun much theology and philosophy at great length in their struggle to understand the sacrifice of Isaac. There is one belief that the sacrifice of Isaac was fulfilled literally by Abraham in part because the scripture does not report anything about the return of Isaac with his father from Mount Moriah. However it is not implausible and it would be a serious understatement to say that the experience was a radical, transformative one for Isaac. It was not like heading back home with his father after a fun-filled weekend camping trip on Mount Moriah. Isaac does reappear in Genesis 24 when Abraham sends his servant to bring back a bride for Isaac from among his relatives.

Then, after centuries of much theological and philosophical musing, including one view that the lesson of Isaac was nothing more than God making a clear statement to Israel that the Lord God does not do or accept human sacrifice like the pagan nations which populated Canaan, _ it happened. The death of the Egypt’s firstborn was not a mindless, random slaughter. It was a calculated sacrifice which God took for himself without a hand or sword being lifted by any man. It was in this manner that God purposed to secure deliverance for Israel from their bondage of slavery in Egypt. The sacrifice of Egypt’s firstborn is something which continues to be a psychological burden for some Jews today. It, like the sacrifice of Isaac, was just one of numerous lessons for their learning by which God was preparing Israel for what the Lord God was to manifest in Israel several centuries later.

the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter
Much has been heard in sermons about the obedience of Isaac. This is true. Isaac was not unaware of the clues leading up to the preparation of his own body for a burnt offering sacrifice. Isaac had a God-given will to resist and disobey, but Isaac chose to submit himself in obedience. Yet how many times has the same or similar observation ever been made about Jephthah’s daughter? She had a whole two months to lament her virginity, namely, that she would effectively be eliminated from any possibility of being that one women who would give birth to Israel’s long awaited Messiah.

The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter was not a surprise which was sprung on her. She was no less aware than Isaac. She, like Isaac was the firstborn. She was an only child. Perhaps she, as well as her father, might have thought and hoped that an angel would stay her father’s hand at the last moment. Nevertheless it is an understatement and it rings like not much more than a cerebral, academic exercise to say that she demonstrated an extraordinary conviction of faith.

The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter is every bit as much her own bold act of righteousness as much as it was her father’s. Her act of righteousness continues to speak to women and men alike who seek to understand and do the righteousness of God.

the righteousness of God
Some have sought to determine whether the meaning of the expression the righteousness of God as written by the apostle might mean covenantal nomism, (E.P. Sanders) God’s covenant membership and faithfulness (N.T. Wright) or covenantal aspect (God is fulfilling his promise) and apocalyptic aspect (God’s power) (Kasemann) on the basis of lexical studies. Those terms are for the reader to examine at their leisure because I will not expand on them here. Read a brief review of the book, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation, by Charles Irons. [1] Here is an audio recording by Irons. [2]) The consensus chosen as the correct one or the best rendering of the righteousness of God by the author is that it is NOT covenant faithfulness, but that it is the gift of God of and a righteousness which God imputes on the believer in Christ. I believe the latter part is quite familiar for the saints in Christ, but the question remains. Certainly, I agree that the righteousness of God is the righteousness which God imputes on the believer. But what, then, is the righteousness of God for our learning in the sacrificial burnt offering of the daughter of Jephthah?

The answer is not one which is or that should be thought of as being limited to Jephthah or Jephthah’s daughter, but it is an answer which extends to all who seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. This is the righteousness of God which permeates the entirety of the written testimony of the revelation of the will of God.

what pleases and delights the Lord God
Here is something for the reader of the scriptures to examine and ponder concerning the righteousness of God. The writer of Hebrews cites Jephthah along with Gideon, Barak, Samson, David, Samuel as well as the prophets for among other things as having performed acts of righteousness. It does not go without notice that the Hebrews writer mentions the faith of Rahab the harlot and Jephthah, the son of a harlot, in the same breath. Thereby God bestows on Jephthah a restoration of sorts among the despised who are beloved of God. Perhaps you, too, have heard it over the years that God did not command for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter and that God not only was not pleased with the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, but he was displeased. Such an abysmal assessment of Jephthah’s act of righteousness has an equally callous assessment of Jephthah’s daughter own act of righteousness. Does this align with the testimony of the scriptures concerning the righteous of God?

When the apostle Paul stated that the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel and that it is apart from the law it was to indicate that the righteousness of God for those who believe and put their trust in Jesus is not something which came into existence or into light in the first century or even with Jesus himself. The fact is that righteousness as that which pleases and delights the Lord God did not originate with Abraham. This is the testimony of Hebrews 11 of men and women of faith with whom God was pleased and delighted. Enoch, who was not because God took him, is merely the first one of whom the scriptures testifies as being characterized by a resolute faith. The scripture does not testify that Enoch was righteous anymore than it testifies that Jephthah’s daughter was obedient. Just the thought that this realization might be difficult for some to accept. It raises the question of our genuine pursuit to understand and appreciate Jephthah’s daughter’s own decision and who admonished her father to follow through and “do to me as you have said.”

Secondly, some might be tempted to dismiss as a kind of presumptuous, preposterous and outrageous showcase display of righteousness the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Aside of the presumptuousness to stand on a higher moral ground than God it would be a dire misunderstanding. The prophet Micah cites Balaam and Balak to remind Israel of God’s purpose in that incident with respect to righteousness in Israel’s history. Micah declares that it was So that you might know the righteous acts of Lord. [3] Then, he enumerates three specifics as to what the Lord requires, 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

justice, kindness and humility
God declares that justice, kindness and humility are the characteristics of those who do righteousness. It does not always look or feel good as it most certainly did not for Jephthah’s daughter. She, as well as her  father, chose to honor God and do right, that is, to do justice and be faithful, to let his yes be yes and to make good on his rash vow to the Lord. His daughter’s proclamation for him to make good on his vow speaks just as loudly to us today. This is the standard of righteousness by which those like Enoch, Noah and Abraham walk by faith _ even when they have no knowledge of the Lord God creator of heaven and earth but they do justice, love kindness and walk humbly before the Lord whom they do not know, but God sees and knows them. The kingdom of God is for such as these and God honors and will not reject their acts of righteousness.

the righteousness of Jesus
Does this invalidate the righteousness that the believer receives through Jesus? No. Just as Micah could declare that the Lord has said what he requires of us, now in Jesus he has shown us in a very graphic display of righteousness through the sacrifice of the Righteous One on the cross in order to bring us to faith. Here is the greatness of the act of the Righteous One. He was made to be sin in order that we might become the righteousness of God.

When you look in the mirror you may not look anymore like righteousness than Jesus looks like sin, but that is you have become and that is what he was made to be. [4]


Oh, the humility of Jesus! After he had fulfilled all righteousness he was made to be sin for us because of his love for us.

conclusion
Righteousness is not an easy task or warm fuzzy feeling to be fun-filled throughout our lives. The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter was not an easy matter for her. It was not easy matter for her father. It is not an easy matter to be crucified with Christ and if we think to differentiate its “spiritual” meaning so as to diminish its gravity from that of Jephthah’s daughter’s sacrifice we have seriously misunderstood the cross and being crucified.

Generally, some might probably prefer to leave Jephthah’s decision to sacrifice his daughter up in the air and maybe to write him off as a chauvinist loose cannon for having made such a rash vow to the Lord. It is far easier to do so than to ponder, understand and accept what it was that was pleasing to God about the act of righteousness which he performed. Such a view of him blots out the lessons of Jephthah’s daughter’s own act of righteousness. It places an uncomfortable challenge on our own sense, understanding and practice of doing justice, kindness and humility, the righteousness of God.

The Cult of Artemis and the Royal Priesthood