Eternal Perspectives

Like most of you, I suspect, I have a vague awareness of how many people visit my blog or read my posts on a daily basis. I am without question a very small fish in a very big ocean: there are Christian bloggers who draw readers and visitors by the thousands on a daily basis; undoubtedly, many of their visitors come precisely because these blogs are so popular and have been labeled successful or influential by other bloggers.

What I am about to say, therefore, may sound like nothing more than sour grapes – except for the fact that I am drawing from Jesus’ teaching and not my own reasoning. I am also indebited to a sermon I heard by Haddon Robinson, to whom I owe much of my spiritual growth and from whom I have learned more than I can describe. Thus, the following is not sour grapes: hopefully, what follows are sweet grapes to a few readers of this blog.

If you were to talk to my clients – whether individuals or couples – and ask them who the most important person is in the counseling process, it is likely that many would say that it is me, the therapist, who is more vital and critical to the process. I am, after all, the one with the special training and the one from whom they seek help: certainly, they might reason, the counselor is the most important person. Of course, they would be wrong: the most important person in counseling is not the counselor: the most important person is the client.

The same, I think, is true of blogs. If you were to consider, for example, the Pyromaniacs – Phil, Frank, Dan, and the rarely seen Pecadillo – you might initially think it was Phil or perhaps Frank or Dan. But, again, you would be wrong: the most important person at that or any other blog is you, the reader.

That, I think, is what Jesus is trying to impress upon His followers in one of His most important parables as found in Lk 8:

4 While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable:
5 ‘A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the air ate it up.
6 ‘Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture.
7 ‘Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants.
8 ‘Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.’ When he said this, he called out, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’
9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant.
10 He said, ‘The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.”’” – NIV

It is perhaps necessary to say a word about parables in general before looking more deeply at this particular one; thus, let’s begin at the end of this passage to understand why Jesus spoke in parables and what specifically parables were and are.

In short, a parable is a story is taken from everyday life that conveys a different, usually deeper, truth about something. Unlike an allegory, it is not easy to make a one-to-one correspondence between elements of the parable and the underlying truth; unlike an illustration, the parable does not provide an explanation of its meaning. It is up to the hearers of the parable to discover the truth contained in the parable.

For example, if I were reading or listening to a Calvinist or Arminian theologian wax dogmatically on a particular aspect of doctrine, relying on and drawing from the writings of Spurgeon or Wesley to bolster their point, I might say to her, “Even monkeys fall out of trees.” That is a parable: you understand it only if you think about it and ascertain the meaning hidden within it. If you ask for an explanation, as the disciples did in Lk 8, I might say, “Even experts make mistakes.” That, then, would be a parable with an explanation given.

Jesus spoke in parables not to hide His truth and message from others, but to make it understandable only to those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Those who were content with themselves and trusting in their own way of righteousness would not seek to uncover the truth of the parable, but those who are hungry and thirsty would do whatever they could to grasp the truth of what was being said. The aforementioned Calvinist or Arminian would, if hungry and thirsty, stop to consider my words and examine their own belief system for what might be incorrect or inconsistent; those who admit to no errors, however, would not bother.

This seems to be the message of the parable of the sower: the seed was sown but the result was dependent on the state and condition of the soil. In Jesus’ parable, the seed is the word of God, the fruit is salvation and all that follows, and the soil represents the various types of people listening to him. It was not the size of the crowd, He was saying, that is vital but rather the condition or receptivity of the soil that ultimately made the difference.

Or, for us, it is not the number of hits on a blog that matters but whether or not readers hear and are changed as a result of a post. A blog may have a thousand hits and change but one; another blog may have forty hits and change ten. Which, then, is actually more successful?

A quick word on the seed in this parable: There are a great many blogs and posts that quote Scripture and then seek to expound upon it. The seed, being the word of God, is infallible: it is always capable of producing growth and fruit, even if the particular exposition is not accurate. What is sown, then, must be the word of God, not the teachings of Calvin or Wesley, Spurgeon or Swindoll, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones or any other human “authorities.” It is only that teaching or preaching which “rightly handles the word of truth” that is profitable; it is only the word of truth itself that is infallible and cannot “fall out of trees” – unlike Calvin, Wesley, me, the Pyromaniacs, or anyone else. This is not meant to diminish, disparage, or dismiss the writings of any theologian: it is meant to see them and their writings in perspective.

Some soil is trampled and hardened like a well-worn path. These people hear the gospel message but are not able or willing to accept it; the effect of their rejection of the truth, as Jesus explains to the disciples, renders them “so that they may not believe and be saved” (8.12). There is no salvation for those whose soil or hearts are hardened and unwilling to accept the truth. The seed is snatched away and never penetrates the soil of the human heart.

Other soil is shallow: people hear it and enthusiastically accept and embrace it. Underneath, however, is a layer of hard soil that keeps the seed from deveoping deep roots: when adversity comes, they walk, stray, or stay away from the truth. There is little, if any, change in such people because they have not opened themselves sufficiently to receive the truth fully.

The third soil is different still: here the seed is accepted and takes root – perhaps even deep roots – but other things that people allow to take root in their lives crowd the plant and keep it from growing fully and yielding fruit. Such people may have a commitment to the word of God, but they have other, competing loyalties; they are distracted and preoccupied with other things. Sadly, rich soil can yield a bountiful harvest of weeds and thorns as well as spiritual fruit. Those competitors can be good things, such as the study of theology or a devotion to missions, but they take away from the singular pursuit of the Giver of the word of truth. Satan may not be able to keep you from being good soil, but he will try his best to clutter your soil with “good” things that choke the True Vine from bearing as much fruit as it might through us.

The fourth soil, of course, is what we must seek to be: we are to receive the word, yield to it, and allow God to change us, mature us, and produce fruit through us. The good soil is soft and receptive, is deep, is free from thorns and weeds, and hungers for the word of God. Such soil is not something once received and then enjoyed forever: it requires daily maintenance, watering, and fertilizing. The maintenance is being vigilant to keep extraneous things from robbing us; watering is work of the Spirit as He uses the word of God to cause growth, and fertilizer is all the crap hard things in our lives that develop Christlikeness in us.

Whether listening to a sermon, sitting under a teaching, or reading a blog, the most important person in that process is you, the reader. As readers we choose, by the disposition and receptivity of our hearts, whether we will yield to the truth and be changed or be found to be hardened, shallow, or entangled in the world. The growth we enjoy or prevent is up to us and our submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our constant prayer must be that we will be found to be good soil, receptive to the truth, committed to maturity, and cooperating with the Holy Spirit to facilitate the production of fruit that will be manifested through us.

I was reading a post by a blogger greater than most of us (he bestows his blessings on lesser bloggers by honoring them for a week – and that he is greater is clear because “without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater” [Heb 7.7]) -

At any rate, I was reading one of his posts about prayer and was dumbfounded – which is not the same as being “found dumb,” although in some cases it might be – to read the following: (more…)

Douglas Moo on the connection of theology and Christian living:

Romans has the reputation — well deserved — of being one of the most theological books in the Bible. Unfortunately, this reputation has led many Christians and even some commentators to wonder why Paul bothers with all the practical stuff at the end of the letter. He has finished the theology section at the end of chapter 11. Why say any more?

“Such an attitude betrays a basic misunderstanding of theology and its significance. All theology is practical, and all practice, if it is truly Christian, is theological. Paul’s gospel is deeply theological, but it is also eminently practical. The good news of Jesus Christ is intended to transform a person’s life. Until individual Christians own and live out the theology, the gospel has not accomplished its purpose.” – on Romans 12.1-2, NIV Application Commentary

Considerable discussions are taking place regarding how to determine whether or not a church is still a church, i.e., has a lampstand (Rev 2.4-5). Having raised some questions myself in an earlier post, I thought perhaps the most valuable contribution I could make at this point would be to provide a couple of quotes of by two men who have written commentaries on the passage (Eph 2.1-7) in question.

The first commentary is from Robert Mounce, who earned a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. His commentary is part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by F.F. Bruce. Mounce writes:

As one who walks in the midst of the churches, Christ is able to say, ‘I know thy works’ . . . The works which Christ knows are not so much separate acts as they are an overall manner of life. The two nouns which follow (toil and patience) give the active and passive sides of this lifestytle. The Ephesians had toiled to the point of exhaustion and borne patiently the hostility of a society at odds with their goals and efforts . . .

“Every virtue carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It seems probable that desire for sound teaching and the resulting forthright action taken to exclude all imposters had created a climate of suspicion in which brotherly love could no longer exist. Barclay conjectures that ‘the eagerness to root out all mistaken men had ended in a sour and rigid orthdoxy’ . . . Good works and pure doctrine are not adequate substitutes for that rich relationship of mutual love shared by persons who have just experienced the redemptive love of God. The Ephesian church had left its first love. The expression includes both love of God and love of mankind at large, but seems to refer mainly to their love for one another . . . A cooling of personal love for God inevitably results in the loss of harmonious relationships within the body of believers. Jesus had made it clear that ‘by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’ . . .

“The church is called upon to remember the earlier days in which love abounded in the congregation . . . First love is pictured as a height from which the church had fallen. The present imperative, ‘remember,’ stands in contrast to the aorist imperative, ‘repent,’ and suggests a continuing attitude over against a decisive break. Bear in mind the loving relationships you once enjoyed and make a clean break with your present manner of life! . . . The love that John requires is not an ‘undiscriminating amiability’ (Kiddle, p. 24), but an attitude toward the brethren which expresses itself in loving acts. Moffatt remarks that ‘the way to regain this warmth of affection is neither by working up spasmodic emotion nor by theorising about it . . . but by doing its duties’ (p. 351). Repentance is an active step.”

The second quote is from Alan F. Johnson, Th.D. (Dallas Theological Seminary), writing in the Expositors Bible Commentary, edited by Frank Gaebelein.

The speaker’s verdict shows, on the other hand, that however much had been gained at Ephesus by resisting the false apostles, not all was well there. They had ‘forsaken,’ or ‘let go’ (aphiemi), their ‘first love.’ This was a serious defect. If uncorrected, it would result in their loss of light bearing (v. 5). The majority of commentators take the first love to refer to the original Christian love the Ephesians had for one another. Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesian elders to ‘help the weak’ (Acts 20:35) and the warm commendation he gives them in their early years for their fervent love of one another (Eph 1:15) may lend support to this view.

“Other commentators, however, see the ‘first love’ as a reference to their inner devotion to Christ that characterized their earlier commitment, like the love of a newly wedded bride for her husband John R.W. Stott, What Christ Thinks of the Church [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958], p. 27; Alf, 4:563). This interpretation is supported by the fact that the letters to the other churches reveal problems of inner betrayal to Christ as subjects of his complaint. Neither view necessarily eliminates the other. Loving devotion to Christ can be lost in the midst of active service, and certainly no amount of orthodoxy can make up for a failure to love one another. ‘First’ (protos) love would suggest that they still loved, but with a quality and intensity unlike that of their initial love.

“The speaker’s command further exposes the problem and offers a way to correct the fault. The imperatives are instructive: ‘Remember…. Repent … do.’ The Ephesians are called on to reflect on their earlier works of fervent love (like the Sardians [3:3]), to look in comparison at the present situation, to ponder how far they have fallen from their former devotion and enthusiasm, to humbly ‘repent’ (totally change) before God, and to do the former works motivated by love. These imperatives are all part of a single action designed to keep the Ephesians from the judgment of Christ, which would effectively remove them as his representatives in the world.

“How many churches today stand at this same crossroads? Do we sense the importance to Christ of not only honoring his name by our true confession but also reflecting his life by our loving relationship to others? This threat of loss of light bearing (or witness) applies doubtless equally to the other four churches, to whom a similar exhortation to repent is given (Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea).

Jeff Miller of Trinity Bible Church (Richardson, TX) has graciously allowed me to post his Bible, Theology, and Apologetics Assessment Test. You can download the test for your own use at Biblical Studies Foundation’s site.

It’s not supposed to be an open-book test, so see how you do without help first. The answers are here.

Bible, Theology, and Apologetics Assessment Test

By: Jeff Miller , Th.M.

Old Testament
Multiple Choice

1. The man who wrestled with an angel at Peniel was:

a. Jacob
b. Joshua
c. Noah
d. Samuel

2. The life of Abraham is found in the book of:

a. Judges
b. Exodus
c. Genesis
d. 1 Kings

3. The man whose donkey spoke prophecy was:

a. Jacob
b. Balaam
c. Ephraim
d. Jephthah

4. The following item lists events out of chronological order. Which letter indicates the order in which the events actually occurred:

a. Isaac to be offered as a sacrifice by Abraham
b. Joseph is made a ruler in Egypt
c. Sodom destroyed
d. Jacob wrestles with the angel
e. “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good”

a. b,e,a,c,d
b. c,d,e,a,b
c. d,a,c,b,e
d. c,d,a,b,e
e. c,a,d,b,e

5. Which of the following is NOT a book in the Old Testament:

a. Obadiah
b. Hezekiah
c. Zephaniah
d. Ezra

6. “Have you but one blessing my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.”

a. Cain
b. Jacob
c. Esau
d. Joseph
e. Isaac

Matching

7. ______ One of the twelve tribes of Israel.

8. ______ The fourth king of Israel.

9. ______ The man who did not experience normal death.

10. ______ King of Judah who came into power at the age of eight and about whom the Scriptures say, “He did right in the eyes of the Lord.”

11. ______ One of Eli’s two sons who was punished by death.

12. ______ The first judge of Israel, following the period of Joshua’s leadership.

a. Othniel
b. Phinehas
c. Samuel
d. Josiah
e. Rehoboam
f. Gad
g. Bartholomew
h. Matthias
i. Enoch

True/False

13. T F Ruth was the great grandmother of King David.

14. T F Habakkuk is classified as a minor prophet.

15. T F Manasseh is remembered as one of the good and faithful kings.

16. T F Gomer is the unfaithful wife of the prophet Joel.

17. T F The ten plagues against the Egyptians are recorded in the book of Exodus.

18. T F The first king of Israel was David.

19. T F The man who assumed leadership of Israel after Moses was Joshua.

20. T F The ten commandments are recorded in Exodus.

Arrange the persons or events in chronological order by placing an “a” before the earliest, then a “b,” etc.

21. _____ The giving of the law on Sinai.

22. _____ The building of the temple by Solomon.

23. _____ The call of Abraham.

24. _____ The Babylonian captivity.

25. _____ The Exodus from Egypt.

From which book: Write the Old Testament book from which the quotation comes. A book may be used more than once.

26. __________________ “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked …”

27. __________________ The Ten Commandments (name one of the two books).

28. __________________ “When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor, he was enraged.”

29. __________________ “Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”

30. __________________ “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.”

31. __________________ “Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression.”

32. __________________ “There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.”

33. __________________ “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.”

34. __________________ “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before you.”

35. __________________ David’s sin with Bathsheba.

36. __________________ “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”

37. __________________ “This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.’”

38. __________________ “I charge you, do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.”

39. __________________ “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”

40. __________________ “For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.”

New Testament
Multiple Choice
(more…)

Adrian Warnock, the preaching shrink, has thrown down the gauntlet once again. Here’s his challenge:

No, I haven’t gone sadistic. I would like to issue a challenge to bloggers – read Acts 15:28-29 and explain, using the passage context and the rest of the New Testament to demonstrate whether you feel that all the “requirements” of the Jerusalem council applies to Christians today or not. This time I will be declaring a winner – answers on a blog and to be linked to in the comments section of this post.

Setting

The place to start in understanding this pair of verses is the cultural-historical setting. Space, familiarity, and attention span limit the depth required but a bit of background information is certainly necessary.

First is the matter of chronology. It is likely that the Council of Jerusalem took place in 49 C.E. Paul, who was probably converted c. 33 C.E., was present at the council because of his apostolic mission to the Gentiles and the charge given him and Barnabus by the church of Antioch. By this time he had already begun to establish churches in Cilicia, Syria, Cyprus, and Galatia; in fact, the Letter to the Galatians may have been written just prior to the council.

The council was called because of Judaizers: certain Jewish believers came to Antioch, Syria, and taught that Gentiles needed to become Jews before they became Christians. After conversion, they argued, the Gentile believers needed to keep certain aspects of the Law even as the Jews did. Paul and Barnabas did not tolerate this teaching and opposed them forcefully. To resolve the matter, the church at Antioch sent the two missionaries to Jerusalem for a decision from the apostles and leaders there (Acts 14:26-28; Acts 15:1-2).

Context

Those present at the meeting, in addition to Paul and Barnabas, included the apostles and also the elders of the Jerusalem church. Recorded by Luke as having spoken during the council are Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James; the words of James are those under consideration. Acts 15:19-21 is included in this discussion since it is a fuller description of the statement found in 15:29. James says:

19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

By the time of James’ summation, the others at the meeting had already had their say. Peter began by telling of the vision he received and the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:9-48). If the dating of the Epistle to the Galatians is correct, then Peter would have been rebuked by Paul not long before he spoke to the council (Gal 2:1-10). (more…)

The scene in Jerusalem in the days and weeks immediately following the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples and the conversion of thousands must have been wild. People who had come from all over Europe, Asia, and Africa for the Feast of Pentecost were now staying longer than anticipated. There was likely a housing shortage and – without question – a financial crisis as the visitors stayed around to learn of the new faith in which they had trusted the eternal destinies.

To alleviate the monetary crunch, many of the new believers sold land and property and donated the proceeds to the apostles. This is first documented in Acts 4:32-37 when Joseph (aka Barnabas) sold some real estate and gave the profits to the church. His behavior was note-worthy enough to be recorded by Luke. Then follows the familiar story of the status-seeking couple Ananias and Sapphira:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’
And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.
Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, ‘Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?’ And she said, ‘Yes, that was the price.’
Then Peter said to her, ‘Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.’
And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.

This is a curious thing: Peter asks the wife about the amount and she, perhaps fearful that she might betray or dishonor her husband – whom she still believed to be alive – stuck with the original story even though she knew it was a lie.

In short, she submitted to her husband.

What else could she be expected to do? It would be Peter, after all, who some years later would command wives:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. – 1 Pet 3:1-2

“Without a word,” Peter says. The word for “submit” in this passage (forgive me the word study) is hupotasso, the definition of which includes (among other things) “to submit to one’s control, to yield to one’s admonition or advice, to obey, be subject.” Clearly this is what Sapphira was doing. Why the harsh response to her?

Well, it would appear that there are at least two reasons. The first goes back to the sin of Achan in Josh 7:1-26. His sin defiled the entire nation at the beginning of their conquest of the promised land and he and his family paid dearly for it. Luke seems to be deliberately connecting Achan and Ananias in this regard, thus stressing the importance of purity and holiness in the church.

Second, and more to the point, Sapphira could not hide her sin behind the veil of obedience to her husband. Her offense was not merely against Peter, the now-recognized leader of the church. As the NIV Application Commentary says,

When we lie to the church, we lie to the Holy Spirit. We see the developing theology of the church here. In 5:11 we find the first of twenty-three times that the word ekklesia appears in Acts. Saul/Paul finds out later that when he persecuted the church, he was persecuting Jesus (9:4). Later he expresses the treasured teaching that the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12; 5:23). – emphases mine

To lie to the leaders of a church – including my own, local church – is to lie to the Holy Spirit; to persecute a church – a true church – is to persecute Christ. Sapphira had responsibilities that superceded her duties to her husband and her responsibility to obey the Scriptures regarding submitting to him. Her duty to God came first, not her less-important duty to her husband.

To me, this could have been parallel to Abigail’s disobedience to her husband in 1 Sam 25:1-42 rather than to Achan’s sin. Sapphira should have followed Abby’s example and “betrayed” her husband by telling the truth. She didn’t, however, and died because of it.

There are, then, limits to a wife’s submission to her husband. Sometimes exceptions to the rule are obvious; sometimes they are not as clear. As a husband, I would do well to ask myself why my wife is not submitting in such situations. As a wife, she would do well do ask herself to whom she owes greater allegiance.

For both of us, we must know the Scriptures well enough to understand the hierarchy of responsibilities and dutes we have. And we must pray for wisdom to know which to obey when there is a conflict between two of them.

David at Jollyblogger has a very good post about the difficulty of forgiveness entitled “Forgiving the Unrepentant.” He specifically treats the problem of what to do when those who offend us fail to repent or – and here’s the rub – fail to repent sufficiently or to our satisfaction.

His discussion (go there and read it for yourself) brought to mind the two types of forgiveness discussed in the New Testament. The first, which David covers in his post, is that to which Paul refers in his letters to the churches at Ephesus and Colossae:

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Eph 4:32).

bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you (Col 3:13)

.
How has Christ forgiven us, i.e., how has He forgiven Christians? At the very least, He has done so at the first hint of repentance; more, He has forgiven us even when we fail to ask or are unaware of having sinned against Him. His grace extends beyond our conscience and our consciousness.

In the same manner, Paul says, we are to forgive one another. We are not, as David points out, to require sufficient suffering on the part of the offender before we extend forgiveness to them. We are to forgive: we are to release the person and no longer hold the offense against them.

Jesus, however, talks about a different kind of forgiveness. Our Lord says,

Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him (Lk 17.3-4).

Forgiveness here is conditional: it hinges on the repentance of the other person. Whereas Paul is talking about forgiving someone as an act of love, Jesus is talking about restoring a relationship with the brother who sins. Before the relationship can be restored, repentance is required.

(more…)

The excitement and clamor over what constitutes the “simple gospel” seems to have abated for now, but I want to offer this final tidbit as I drain the dregs from the cup.

As was hinted at previously by myself and others, it is important to define the term “simple gospel” as it will be used in the debate. Here’s why: Paul says to the Galatians,

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1.8-9).

Disagreeing over the gospel has serious implications and consequences. The word “accursed” in vv. 8-9 is anathema in Greek, itself a very strong term. The LXX used anathema to translate the Hebrew word herem, which means to banish and give over to God. What I understand Paul to be saying, therefore, is that someone who preaches a different gospel should be banned and given over to God for immediate judgment and punishment.

It is tempting to see this punishment as eternal, but it is not necessarily so:

(more…)

At this rate, I’ll be typing all of Brad Young’s JESUS: THE JEWISH THEOLOGIAN on this blog. But as I continue to slowly read my way through it, savoring each chapter, I keep running into more and more valuable insights he offers into the teachings of Jesus. This time he’s opening my eyes to new aspects of what biblical faith and prayer are all about.

In a chaper entitled “Faith as Chutzpah,” Young explores two parables that Jesus used to get across His teachings about the relationship between faith and prayer: the “importunate friend at midnight” (Lk 11.5-8) and “the unjust judge” (Lk 18.1-8). He contends that Jesus used a word play involving two Hebrew words, one of which is chutzpah.

“The word chutzpah is difficult to define in a single word. It means headstrong persistence, brazen impudence, unyielding tenacity, bold determination, or what in current English terms might be referred to as raw nerve. Can faith be described by the Hebrew word chutzpah?

“But the real issue with prayer concerns God. These parables teach expectancy in prayer. The great Jewish theologian Abraham Heschel noted that the real issue of prayer is how one understands God . . . The difficulty of prayer is the way one views the divine nature.

“One prays with bold determination because God is good. He is not like the contemptible friend who would not help his neighbor. He is not like the corrupt judge who feared neither God nor man and refused to help a needy widow. True faith requires bold perseverance . . . True faith is committing all one knows about himself or herself to all he or she knows about God. Faith can be defined as chutzpah. Persevere with unyielding tenacity.”

Young then turns to the twin parables and, as usual, provides valuable information about the times and cultural, thus bringing the stories into a different light. In the case of the persistent neighbor and his unreliable friend, Young explains he importance of hospitality in Jewish culture in the first century.

“In the Middle East the obligation of hospitality was highly valued as an essential requirement. At midnight the contemptible friend hears his neighbor’s voice outside the house. The neighbor does not knock because this would cause unnecessary alarm . . . By all custom and etiquette the neighbor must offer his guest traditional hospitality. In many ways, according to the culture, the visitor is not only the neighbor’s guest but the guest of the entire village. A dinner, including bread, the essential part of every meal, must be prepared for the visitor . . .

“What do the listeners expect? When they hear the story, they expect the friend to open the door for his neighbor . . . Instead of providing the anticipated result, however, the contemptible friend answers with a feeble excuse . . .

“The outrage of the audience will be directed toward the unacceptable behavior of this friend . . . His excuse is totally unacceptable. Everyone hearing the parable will view him with extreme contempt. They will complete the story because they know what the neighbor standing outside the house will do. Shamelessly he will pound on the door with bold tenacity . . . The man outside the house demonstrates his brazen tenacity as he reacts to his friend’s contemptible behavior in refusing to answer a simple request in the time of an emergency.”

The Greek word translated as “shamelessness,” “impudence,” or “persistence” in this passage (describing the friend at the door) is used as a synonym for faith in the story of the unjust judge. This word, Young says, is comparable to chutzpah. In each of the parables faith is “being as defined in a mini-drama in which steadfast perseverance is depicted as the perfect example of true faith in the goodness of God.”

What makes the judge so bad in the second parable is the Jewish view that rulers and judges are stewards of God’s justice and authority on earth. It was required of judges to rule fairly and faithfully. God is concerned about the welfare of people and the judge, as His representative, should reflect God’s love for less-powerful members of society. “Saying that a judge does not fear God is a most serious charge,” Young says, adding later that “tenacity was the only weapon the widow possessed.”

Young provides numerous examples of rabbinical teaching on chutzpah, but the best illustration is the story of a famous rabbi named “Choni the Circle Drawer.”

“Because of a severe drought, the people approached Choni and asked him to pray for rain. When Choni prayed and no answer came, he took decisive action, which offended some of the religious leaders of his day. Choni had the audacity to draw a circle in the dirt and pray to the Almighty, ‘I will not move from this circle until You send rain.’ The miracle happened! The much-needed rain fell . . . Choni’s strong-willed perseverance is a true expression of his devout faith in the goodness of God.”

The message of the two parables is to be bold and confident when praying, knowing that God is good and will answer the prayers of His children. Young cites numerous examples from the ministry of Jesus that show His delight and approval of tenacious, brazen, and determined prayer and faith:

“In a number of the healing stories in the Gospels, Jesus responds to an individual who has demonstrated strong-willed determination by saying, ‘Your faith has saved you’ . . . the friends of a paralytic . . . the woman with a hemorrhage . . . the woman who burst into the house of Simeon with a bottle of ointment . . . the Canaanite woman who steadfastly begged Jesus to heal her child . . . the blind man in Jericho . . . The firm determination of these individuals who approached Jesus with their needs and Jesus’ affirmation of their faith demonstrates the qualities of the Hebrew term chutzpah.”

In these two parables, Young says, Jesus employs the Jewish concept of “kal vechomer.” Kal is the “light” side of an argument, while chomer is the weighty and significant side. The principle is characterized by the phrase, “How much more . . . !”

“If it is true that a contemptible friend who will not even assist his neighbor with three loaves of bread at midnight will be moved to action by the tenacity of the petitions of his neighbor, how much more, on the weighty side, will the merciful God be moved by the prayers of his people. If, on the light side, a corrupt judge will give an equitable decision in favor of a helpless widow because of her bold persistence, how much more, on the weighty side, will God grant the steadfast petitions of those who serve him.”

Young ends his discussion of faith where he began, focusing on the determining factor in prayer:

“The issue of prayer is God. People mistakenly pray as if God is a friend who does not care or a judge who does not deal justly . . . in many ways the theme of these colorful illustrations can be summarized by saying, ‘God is your good friend.’ Because God is good, perseverance in prayer will receive the answer.”

Let’s start with a quick quiz. One question, multiple choice:

Which of the following beliefs were closest to the teachings of Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan?

A. The theology of the priests and Levites
B. The theology of the Sadducees
C. The theology of the Pharisees
D. The theology of the Samaritans
E. A and B
F. None of the above

To find the answer, let’s look at the familiar story another time (Lk 10.25-37):

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

BRAD YOUNG will HELP US think our way through the parable, beginning by getting us to hear it with the ears of Jesus’ original audience: first-century Jews.

In the mind of the people, “Samaritan” was anything but good. The Samaritan was understood to be an enemy. Though Samaritans accepted the five books of Moses as authoritative for faith and practice, they rejcted the oral law and were not considered to be Jewish . . .

In contrast to the Samaritan, the Levite and the priest were true members of the Jewish communty and served in the temple. Alhough they were descended from the priestly families, they had one thing in common with the Samaritans. The priestly class from the time of Jesus was almost exclusively composed of Sadducees, and like the Samaritans, the Sadducess rejected the oral law.

Because we know the end of the story, we “know” that the Samaritan is the good guy. Not for the people then. To modernize it, substitute your favorite enemy for “Samaritan:” Democrat? Republican? Muslim? Abortionist? American? Mother-in-law? Whoever that person might be, that’s how the Samaritans were viewed by the Jews.

Young continues his emphasis on the oral law during the times of Jesus:

The oral law, which was accepted by the Pharisees and the majority of the people during the period, taught that preservation of of life supersedes all other laws. The Sadducees, having rejected the oral law, interpreted the Scriptures in a literal fashion. They emphasized religious and ceremonial purity. Unlike the Pharisees who interpreted the law in a way to give it practical application in daily living while preserving its validity, the priests and the Levites preferred to adhere to the letter of the law.

So the priests and Levites – who were likely Sadducees – rejected with oral tradtion and held to the letter of the law. The Pharisees, in contrast, promoted the spirit of the law and had a hierarchy of values.

There is another cultural issue to uncover. Jesus says that they left the man “half dead.” Young explains:

The term “half-dead” probably refers to the Hebrew word goses which had a technical meaning in the Jewish oral law. The goses is a dying man who is in agony. According to the Jewish oral law, most of these individuals will die . . . The rabbis were concerned that the goses would not receive adequate care. They ruled that the goses, i.e., dying person, must be treated as a living person in every respect . . . According to the oral tradition, every law in the Torah may be broken if it will extend and save life . . .

What if the Levite and the priest thought that he was dead? The written law teachs that a priest and a Levite cannot become ritually impure even for a member of their own family (Lev 21.11) . . . At least a literal interpretation of the written law would prohibit a priest or a Levite from burying an abandoned dead corpse. But this violated the oral law.

The Pharisees lived by a different code. In the oral law they have another tradition. The Oral Torah teaches that a person is required to bury an abandoned corpse . . . In fact, they taught that though the high priest himself may not become ritually impure to bury a member of his own family, he is required to become impure in order to bury an abandoned body . . .

In either case, whether the unclothed, beaten man in the middle of the road was dead or alive, the priest and the Levite were required to stop. According to the oral law, they either had to bury the dead or give life-sustaining assistance to someone in need. But they are Sadducees, and they reject the Oral Torah.

So the Pharisees have the same approach to helping people as Jesus. But what about the Samaritans’ theology? What was their position (and, thus, the position of the anonymous Samaritan in the parable)? Young explains:

One must not miss the connection between the Samaritan and the Sadducean priest and Levite. Not only do the priest and the Levite reject the oral law but also the Samaritans lived only by the written letter of the five books of Moses. From a religious perspective the Samaritan was endangering his ritual purity in the same way that the priest and the Levite may have become ceremonially unclean.

The theologian who had posed the question “Who is my neighbor?” understood Jesus parable. Although he could not bring himself to say the name, he knew that it was the Samaritan who was the true neighbor to the half-dead man in the road.

So, how did you do on the quiz? I had no idea prior to reading Young’s treatment of the parable, and the cultural information he provides puts the story in a different and clearer light. As Young says, “my enemy is my neighbor!”

The parable teaches that the neighbor is not the man in need of life-giving assistance but the enemy. The key for understanding the parable is Matthew 5.43, where Jesus teaches us to love our enemies . . .

The parable communicates its message to the uninitiated, but it also reaches the scholar and the theologian on a deeper level. Everyone should abandon prejudice ad love all people – even someone who may be considered to be an enemy. The message of Jesus in the parables seeks a response. Jesus said to the theologian, “Go and do likewise.”

Taken from Brad H. Young Jesus: The Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), pp. 165-169. Available through Christian Books Distributors (click link above).