What About the Thief?

I promised Friday that I was going to stop blogging about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ this week, but, then I touched on the (in)famous thief on the cross on Friday, and realized that that topic alone deserved more discussion than I could possibly include in that post, so, once more, but tomorrow, something completely different, I promise.
Luke 23:39-43 gives the account, although Luke is apparently less convinced than Matthew that the individual involved was a thief, he uses the more generic term, malefactor. Basically, the story is this: at the crucifixion, Jesus and two others that had also been condemned to death. At first, the other two mocked Jesus, knowing that He had claimed to be the Messiah, and believing that God would not allow something this horrific to happen to His Messiah. Sometime during the crucifixion, though, one of the men had a fit of conscience, and defended Jesus, realizing that He didn’t deserve the same fate.
Where did this attack of conscience come from? Did this man, knowing that he was going to die, suddenly decide that he wanted to do something noble? Perhaps he thought history would remember him more favorably than the other… I can’t help but think that this was something more along the lines of Matthew 16:13-17, where Jesus asked the disciples who He was, and Peter told Him; leading Jesus to say that flesh and blood had not revealed it to Peter, but the Father. I’m not sure what the thief on the cross prayed, but it seems to me that whatever it was, led the Father to reveal to him that salvation was on the next cross over.
Now, a lot of people theorize that since the thief on the cross clearly believed in his heart, and confessed with his mouth, just as we are told to do in Romans 10:9, that it proves that belief and confession are all that is required for salvation. I have blogged before salvation being more complicated than that. Let us consider for a moment that this was a pretty extreme situation. For one thing, Christianity was a fairly new idea. Jesus’ followers weren’t even known as Christians yet. How many opportunities did the thief have to accept Jesus as his personal savior prior to finding himself dying right next to Him? Further, we know that the thief was a sinner (aren’t we all?); he wasn’t being crucified as a follower of Jesus. Now we have been taught that baptism is for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38). Obviously, the thief didn’t climb down off of his cross, get baptized, and then get back on his cross, but it’s equally obvious that he had the kind of sin in his life that would have kept him out of Heaven, so what happened? Surely Jesus knew what kind of man He was talking to… In Luke 5:24 (and Matthew 9:6, and Mark 2:10), Jesus demonstrates that He has the power on earth to forgive sins.
Further, in the book of Romans (often referred to as the book of salvation), Apostle Paul explains to us the mechanism of baptism: When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death, the body of sin is destroyed, for he that is dead is freed from sin. In other words, our baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The thief didn’t have to go through a rite representative of dying with Christ, he literally died with Christ.
How many of us can say, honestly, that the first time we ever had the opportunity to accept Jesus was when we were in the process of already dying, that we were dying with Him, and that He personally forgave our sins? Not too many, I would think. Yet, I have heard an awful lot of people use the thief on the cross as an excuse not to get baptized. I don’t think God likes excuses (I’ve certainly never gotten a warm, fuzzy feeling when I have tried to use one on Him). The Bible also tells us that (in James 4:17), to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. So, while the thief on the cross clearly didn’t need to be baptized, the rest of us do; not only would it be a sin to not get baptized, given the opportunity, but we would still face every other sin that we ever committed in judgment…
By the way, one other thing, in John 10:1, Jesus said that if anyone comes up any other way, the same is a thief and a robber. Now I have sometimes wondered if He didn’t say that, knowing that there would be a thief that would end up in Heaven by a little bit different route than the rest of us. Really, though, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, so the thief did make it to Heaven by the same Way. Really, though, too, if you read John 10, Jesus isn’t talking about getting to Heaven some other way, He’s talking about someone coming into the sheepfold (the church) pretending to be the Shepherd, and that’s a whole different situation.

The Seven Statements From the Cross

I know I’ve been doing a lot of posting about the crucifixion and the cross lately, maybe I should save some of this for next Easter, but I’m going to draw from that well one more time, and then next week, I believe I will get on to something else.
Jesus made seven statements from the cross, and each of them has some significance (after all, even on the cross, Jesus wouldn’t be making idle conversation, now, would He?).
The first one is, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34) I think this one is pretty clear. Jesus was dying for the sins of the whole world, including those responsible for His death. He prayed for forgiveness for them, not just so that God would forgive them, but so that we would know to follow His example and forgive them, also.
Second, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43) Here He was speaking to the thief who confessed Him from the cross. This statement causes some confusion, in that, a) the Bible goes on to tell us that, three days later, Jesus still had not ascended to the Father, so how could He have been with the thief in paradise on the same day He was crucified? Of course, we know that, with God, passage of time isn’t necessarily what we human beings think of it as being. b) The only thing the thief has done is to confess with his mouth and believe in his heart. Those are important things for achieving salvation, but none of the rest of us got offered that deal. Of course, none of the rest of us was in such extreme circumstances when we recognized our need, either. Suddenly I think that Monday I will be blogging about the thief on the cross.
Third, “Woman, behold thy son!” and “Behold thy mother!” This was spoken to His own mother and to John the Beloved. I think it’s only natural that He would want to be sure that she would be taken care of, but, also, I think that this is an indication that He wanted the church to be family, and we should take care of those in our church family, even if they are not related to us by blood. Notice also that He did not call her mother. I think that is significant. He wasn’t trying to put her in a position of being the mother of God. He didn’t intend for people to bother her with supplications (that is, “Please, Mary, I’m afraid to go to God with this directly, but would you talk to your Son, and get Him to talk to His Dad…”).
Fourth, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (Mark 15:34) which is ancient Hebrew for, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” That seems like an odd thing for our Savior to say when doing what had to be done for our salvation; He’s paying the ultimate price and doing God’s will, why would God abandon Him? The standard answer amongst Bible scholars is that it was at that moment that Jesus took on our sin, and the Father, being unable to look upon sin, had to turn from Jesus. I have a problem with that, though. The Bible says that all have sinned, so how could God look on any of us? To be honest, I don’t see any place in the Bible where it says that God cannot look on sin. Doesn’t the Bible say that God saw the wickedness in the days of Noah? Another theory that has been floated is that it was at that moment that the Spirit of God left the body of Christ, that, for the first time in His life, Jesus was completely human. Usually, they say that this is just before the flesh died. I don’t buy that either. Notice that I said there were seven things said on the cross, and each of them has significance. We are only on number four. What does occur to me is that what Jesus said is a direct quote from something David wrote many, many years earlier, in the 22nd Psalm. If you read the 22nd Psalm, it’s uncanny how, even though David wrote it, it sounds much more like what Jesus was going through on the cross than anything David ever went through (although David certainly had some difficult times, as well). I also think that it’s significant that Israel had been under Roman occupation so long that most of the bystanders at the crucifixion did not even understand what He said in their own language.
Fifth, “I thirst.” (John 19:28) Some people will, of course, take issue with this, on the grounds that, in the book of John, this passage appears immediately after the third statement. In Mark, however, immediately after the forsaken me statement, they got Jesus some vinegar, even though Mark doesn’t record Jesus asking for anything to drink.
Sixth, “It is finished.” (John 19:30) The Greek word translated here as finished, teleo, also means to bring to a close, to end, to complete, to fulfill, to do just as commanded, or to pay. From what I understand, this word was commonly used by Greek shopkeepers the same way that modern shopkeepers would mark a bill, “Paid in full.” I personally don’t like dragging the ancient tongues into it, because I think that if you have a Bible that is a good translation, the meaning should be clear (although sometimes you have to learn a little about how English was spoken 400 years ago), but I have to admit, the idea that Jesus was intimating, at His death, that our debt was paid in full really appeals to me.
Seventh, “Father, into your hands, I commend my Spirit.” (Luke 23:46) This shows us that Jesus died, not just because He was crucified, but also because it was His will. Remember that He said that no man would take His life from Him in John 10:17. It is finished; the sacrifice is complete. The sins of the whole world are taken care of—at least, those of us that have made the choice to follow Him.

The Crucifixion

I have been reading an article written by a Muslim scholar who has obviously spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explain why he does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and why no one else should, either. He does make some good points, but there is also a great deal of confusion in what he writes. The article can be found here.
Let me address some of his concerns (I don’t think that I can possibly address all of them, and probably not any of them to his satisfaction, but here goes):
First, he quotes Apostle Paul as saying that, “For all your good deeds are like filthy rags.” Of course, Paul never said that, it is in Isaiah (and the article gives the chapter and verse), but his point is that, according to Paul, salvation is only through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He goes on to say that Jesus clearly had one thing in mind, but had to change his plans as the situation changed, and that crucifixion was not on Jesus’ agenda. He cites the prayer in the garden as evidence of this, and yet, if you read the prayer, Jesus is clearly submitting to God’s will. Jesus was, even then, setting the example that, sometimes, even when we pray for one thing, God’s will is not in it, and we have to be willing to do what God wants us to do. Further, Jesus himself prophesied the crucifixion, in Matthew 20:17-19.
He goes on to say that Allah tells them (and, I presume us) to demand proof (Koran, Sura 2, verse 111 “Say, ‘Produce your proof if ye but speak the truth’”). I find it interesting that the Koran is not subjected to the same burden of proof that the Bible is. Of course, he assures us that the Koran is the inspired Word of Allah, just as Peter tells us that the Bible is. He insists that any reader must be allowed to analyze the proof, and I agree, but I would ask that the proof be analyzed with a great deal of prayer, as opposed to simply gainsaying the evidence (of course, I say that, knowing full well that Ahmed Deedat would insist that he did pray over this, and he is not gainsaying the evidence, and that I should pray and not gainsay the Koran).
He insists that Jesus was not crucified, that Jesus was only assumed to be dead. He takes a lot of issue with the fact that “most” depictions of the crucifixion show Jesus being crucified differently than the two thieves. I have never noticed that, personally, maybe I just never paid that much attention. To be honest, I don’t really care how an artist painted the crucifixion, I don’t know of any artist that was there and painted it. It doesn’t surprise me that there are inaccuracies in the paintings. I would hope no one bases his or her faith on paintings done hundreds of years after the fact.
Mr. Deedat also goes on to say that we Christians have essentially charged the Jews falsely for the death of Christ. He further goes on to say that Muslims should defend their Jewish cousins from the Christians. There is an interesting concept. I have to agree that Jews need to be defended. Part of me wants to blast the anti-Semitics in Islam at this point, but I am very much aware that there are many anti-Semites that call themselves Christians as well. Quite frankly, if one believes in the crucifixion and resurrection, one should be thankful to the Jews for helping to orchestrate it (it was God’s will, after all), if one does not believe in the crucifixion, than what exactly is it that one blames the Jews for?
He also objects to the idea that Jesus, who taught His disciples to turn the other cheek, would tell them to buy swords. He rejects out of hand the idea that Jesus was talking about spiritual swords, even after the disciples told Jesus that they already had two swords, and He said, “It is enough.” If Jesus were planning sedition, His disciples were clearly going to need more than two swords. Particularly since, as we read later, Peter, who bore one of the swords, was only able to inflict a relatively minor wound on one of the High Priest’s servants (not one of the High Priest’s guards, mind you, one of his servants). The Apostles might have been manly men, but they were not trained in combat, as were the Temple Guard.

I could go on, but there is a lot here already. Perhaps some other time.

Was Jesus Real?

I heard an interesting question recently. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the chance to actually sit down and talk with the person to get clarification, but the question was this: “If Jesus really lived, why isn’t He mentioned, even in passing, by any of the historians of the day?” I wish I could find out which historians this individual is talking about, because I don’t know of any historians of that general time period that didn’t mention Jesus, at least in passing.
Flavius Josephus, an historian who actually lived in the first century, doesn’t claim that Jesus was the Messiah, but that there were a large number of followers of Jesus. Josephus seems to think that Jesus was a real person, whose following has been growing. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus are legitimate. There is a link here to a page that discusses the dispute, fairly objectively, IMHO. To be honest, there are some editions of Josephus’s writings where Jesus is described as the Messiah, which is, at best, an odd thing for a Jewish historian to say. That phrase was almost certainly added to the text. There are other editions, however, that mention Jesus in a much more secular way. These are much more likely to be genuine.
Stop the presses! I just did some research, and I came across a website that asks very much the same question as in the opening paragraph, but with a great deal more detail. The author seems to have been unaware, during the initial writing, of the other editions of Josephus that I mentioned earlier, because he rejects the references to Jesus out of hand at first, but there is an addendum at the bottom of the page where he states that he has changed his mind (at least partially). But he points out that Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias both chronicle the events of Rome and/or Judea during Jesus’ lifetime, and neither mentions Jesus at all. If you discount the writings of Josephus on the grounds that most of the existing editions have clearly been altered, then, yes, none of the historians of that time period mentioned Jesus.
Seem odd? It did to me, at first, also, but, allow me to ramble on about something else for moment and come back to this.
Another argument that I have heard against the validity of Jesus as Christ is that the Dead Sea Scrolls mention several other people that claimed to be the Messiah, as well. Some of them would seem to have even closely approximated the teachings of Jesus. I was asked how did I know that Jesus was the true Christ, and not one of these others, or for that matter, that He wasn’t also a fake. The person asking seemed to think that I would be shocked and surprised that there were other ‘messiahs.’ I was able to answer him with Scripture. In the book of Acts, a Jewish teacher named Gamaliel, told the Sanhedrin to leave the apostles alone, and reminded them that a man named Theudas had claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Then a man named Judas claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Gamaliel suggested that, if Jesus were just another false messiah, then his followers would disperse on their own, eventually, but if wasn’t faking it, then the Sanhedrin would be fighting against God. So, the Bible tells us that there were other people claiming to be the messiah, which is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that these others ended up not being remembered specifically because they were false messiahs.
I haven’t read the works of Josephus, or Philo, or Justus, but I have to wonder, if any of them mentioned someone claiming to be the Christ, at all, wouldn’t that have been brought up in this discussion before now, either in support of Jesus or to refute Jesus? So, they apparently didn’t think that self-proclaimed messiahs were of particular historical significance, and they clearly didn’t believe Jesus was the real Messiah, or they would have been converted; is it really any surprise that they didn’t write about Jesus? It may simply have been a question of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
On the other hand, if Jesus wasn’t real, if there was never an actual individual walking around teaching in Israel named Jesus, then where did the stories come from? Out of all the real individuals that did walk around Israel trying to force their own agenda, why is this ‘fictitious’ Jesus the one name that has survived all these years? Isn’t it pretty clear that it’s because He really was who He said He was?

The Grass Is Always Greener

I think most of us are familiar with the expression, “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.” Somebody with way too much time on their hands, and probably a whole lot more federal grant money than they should have been entitled to, did a study on this a few years ago and determined that, when one is standing in one’s own yard, looking down, most of the grass points pretty much straight up, so one is able to see between the blades of grass, and see the dirt, which makes the grass look less green. If one looks into the neighbor’s yard, though, the angle is different, and one generally just sees the grass, and not the dirt. I couldn’t tell you who thought this was worth the effort to investigate.
Really, the expression has little to do with grass. It’s easy to look at what someone else has, or what someone else does, and think, that must be nice. We don’t see the whole picture in someone else’s life. We don’t see the dirt between the blades of grass, so to speak. Sometimes it isn’t even so much that one person wants what another person has, it’s just that sometimes one person would feel better about himself or herself if they knew that they could have what the other person has.
I have heard from more than one married man that, as soon as he put on that ring, suddenly he was irresistible to women that would not have given him the time of day when he was single. It isn’t that these women wanted to be married to him; they just would have felt better about themselves if they could have broken his commitment.
Of course, the man in question doesn’t have to be married. Joseph had a commitment to God that Potiphar’s wife was jealous of. She knew that what she wanted was wrong, and yet she pursued Joseph relentlessly. Eventually, she managed to corner him, and put him in a position that made it look like he had broken his commitment. That was enough for her, and it was enough to have Joseph sent to prison. Of course, if you know the story, you know that God parlayed Joseph’s prison time into a position as Pharaoh’s most trusted advisor. So God rewarded Joseph for his integrity, but what did Potiphar’s wife get out of it? Hopefully a guilty conscience… Certainly not what she wanted. Perhaps it made her feel better about herself that she was able to convince so many others that Joseph was willing to sacrifice his integrity for her, even though she always knew that he never did any such thing.
It’s interesting to note, too, that men have traditionally allowed ourselves to be laid low by women. Adam had his Eve, Samson had his Delilah, David had his Bathsheba… And it isn’t necessarily that women are evil (Eve and Bathsheba certainly were not), but that we allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by them. If you consider the situation that I outlined above: a married man, and a single woman who considers his commitment to be a challenge, rather than a boundary. If he allows himself to be tempted into breaking his marriage commitment, one of two things will probably happen: she will leave him, and move on to the next ‘challenge,’ or they will get married, and she won’t understand when some other woman does to her what she did to his first wife.
Sometimes it works the other way, too. Sometimes a man will tempt a woman away from the things that she considers important. It comes down to the same thing, either way; one person is ruining another person’s life just to stroke his or her own ego. Whether that’s a man or a woman that’s doing it, that’s wrong. At the same time, we should be aware that such things are happening, and not fall into that trap.

The Post-Resurrection Jesus

Since Easter was yesterday, the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I thought I would talk a little nit about His resurrected body.
One thing that I have heard many times is that the Bible says that, after His resurrection, Jesus could walk through walls. Whenever I hear that, I always ask, where does it say that? No one has ever been able to show me where it specifically says that He walked through a wall or walls. Usually they point me to a Scripture that says that Jesus showed up somewhere where a man couldn’t just show up. Okay, but, at the risk of sounding repetitive, where does it say that He walked through walls? Well, they say, how do you think He got there? I don’t know; the Bible doesn’t say, but, the point is, you said that the Bible says He walked through walls. If it says that, show me, if it doesn’t, then don’t say that it does; you don’t want to be adding to the Word of God.
Of course, it seems to me that it wasn’t just after the resurrection that He did such things. In Luke 4, it tells us that a crowd of people got angry with Jesus, and was prepared to kill Him, but He slipped away through the crowd that was trying to kill Him. Granted, that’s not exactly Him entering or leaving a closed room without benefit of the door, but it is similar. John 8 has a similar event.
Further, a lot of people seem to think that Jesus, after His resurrection, is the image of what we shall be in Heaven. The irony of that is that the very verse that they use to support this belief proves it to be wrong: 1 John 3:2 “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” Yes, it does say that we shall be like Him, but it also says that it doth not yet appear what we shall be. So we aren’t going to be like anything that has ever appeared to any man. Just for the sake, let me also point out that Jesus, when He appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, was greeted by speculation that His ghost had come back to haunt them. In Luke 24:39, He reassures them by saying, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Then He sat down and ate something to reassure them further that He was not a spirit (or a ghost). The Bible also tells us, in 1 Corinthians 15:50, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. So, obviously, we are not going to have flesh and blood (or flesh and bones) in the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus did after His resurrection (unless the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are two different things).
One other thing, and I have to admit, I don’t really understand this one, maybe one of you can make sense of this: When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, He told her not to touch Him, but when He appeared to Thomas, He told Thomas to touch Him. A couple of things have occurred to me: 1) It doesn’t say that Thomas actually touched Him, apparently, just the realization that Jesus knew what proof Thomas required was proof enough in itself, so Thomas didn’t feel the need to touch Him, and 2) He told Mary Magdalene not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father, but then He immediately tells her to tell the others that He is ascending to God. It’s possible that He did ascend and return, before meeting up with the rest of the disciples. Why would He do that? What difference did it make whether anyone touched Him prior to His ascension? These are things that I do not know. Any ideas? I’d love to hear your theories.

Follow Up to "My Apologies"

Last week I posted an apology for lack of content. I got really swamped and when I had a chance to post, I really didn’t have a lot of time and I didn’t have any idea what I was going to post. I ended up posting several paragraphs on the subject of apologies. The other day, a comment was added to that post:

Peter, I don't read your "Ramblings" every day, but I try to catch up almost
always weekly. This blog, "My Apologies" reminded me of recent requests, no
demands, that we in the South should apologize to our African-American brethren
because almost 150 years ago, some blacks were kept as slaves by some whites.
Now, who knows how many of our forefathers were slave owners and how many were
slaves? With a Junior Achievement Program, I worked with a very fine black man
and in one of our conversations, he said that his family came to the US from one
of the islands in the Caribbean long after the War between the States. I
believe that somewhere in my family history someone had slaves, but I do not
know this for sure, and, if it is so, who they were. What I am saying, just what
good is it for me to apologize to the blacks for the possibility some of their
relatives might have been slaves?

I don’t think that anything in my post had anything to do with slavery, but, there it is. I read a similar question a year or so ago, something to the effect of, “Why do you want me to apologize to you for something that someone I never met did to someone that you’ve never met?” On the other hand, an apology generally makes it easier to forgive.
I have also heard the statement made that “If you are white, in America, you have benefited from slavery.” I have also heard that all generalities are false. I can certainly see the point, White America, back in the day, certainly benefited from having a cheap source of labor. At the same time, many white abolitionists made some huge sacrifices to free the slaves (as big as what the slaves sacrificed? of course not), how did those people benefit from slavery?
I think that his particular situation gets very complicated when one stops to think about it, too. Who exactly should apologize, and, to whom, exactly, should they apologize? The simple answer, of course, is that the whites should apologize to the blacks. Let me ask the question, though: Consider a hypothetical situation: suppose that a black man, whose mother is white, whose father’s family immigrated to the United States during the twentieth century, so none of his ancestors were ever slaves (at least, not in America), in fact, it is not inconceivable that he had ancestors (on his mothers side) that owned slaves. I don’t think that an apology to him serves much purpose, but, at the same time, an apology from him wouldn’t mean much to the people that feel that they are entitled to an apology, just because he doesn’t look like a plantation owner.
Some people have suggested that Christianity ultimately is to blame for slavery; there were a lot of preachers that taught from the pulpit that slavery was biblical and just. I have no defense at all for any preacher that ever taught that; there are only two reasons I can think of why they would: either they were racist, or they had a number of slave-owners in their congregations who were large contributors. Either way, this is hardly Christianity—although that certainly fits the stereotype (please excuse me if I refuse to believe that televangelists are representative of Christian ministers in general). I will admit that slavery is talked about in the Old Testament, and there are even scriptures in the New Testament that say that servants (which sounds a whole lot nicer than saying slaves) should serve their masters well. At the same time, even in the Old Testament, Israel was ordered to free slaves after six years of service, and, in the New, slavery was an institution of the Roman Empire, not the Christian Church.
Further, if Christianity does deserve some blame for slavery, who deserves the credit for Abolition? Do you think any of the Abolitionists were not Christian? You might convince me that there were a few, but I can’t help but believe that the vast majority were men of faith, and most of them, men of the Christian faith.

If it helps, than I will apologize for slavery. I am particularly ashamed of those men that called themselves Christians, and used scripture out of context to justify an abominable, unjust, inhumane practice. So, once again, my apologies.

The Council of Nicaea

Let me start by saying that, although I was raised a Protestant, I no longer consider myself a Protestant. Most Catholics would probably still consider me a Protestant, simply because I am not Catholic, but I do not protest the Catholic Church. I don’t recognize the Pope as the leader of the whole church, either, but I’m not going to protest against that idea. Having said that, there has been a lot of discussion about the Council of Nicea. Some people have criticized it, some have said it was the best thing that could have happened. I think most people don’t really know what happened at Nicaea.
First of all, Constantine was an Emperor with a problem. He had this vast empire that struggled with religion. Many people didn’t accept the traditional Roman gods: some preferred the Greek gods (not that there was much difference), but there was also a significant Hebrew population, and there was a growing Christian presence. Of all the different religions in the Roman Empire, Christianity was growing the fastest. He allegedly had a dream in which he was given inspiration that he would be victorious using the sign of the cross. As far as I have been able to tell, the cross was not a Christian symbol prior to that.
Anyway, whether a result of the dream, or just a matter of trying to learn more about Christianity, Constantine began trying to find out what Christians actually believed. Unfortunately, Christianity had already begun to splinter by this time. Some people that called themselves Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, some didn’t; some that believed in the divinity of Christ didn’t believe that He became divine until He was baptized. There weren’t separate denominations yet, but Christianity might have been better off if there had been—at least if you go to a Methodist church, you know that church teaches what the Methodists believe; without denominations, you may visit a church that believes very differently than you do, and not realize it for twenty years (well, if you pay attention to the sermons, you’ll probably figure it out quicker than that, but there were probably many snoozers then, just as there are now).
So, Constantine wants to unite his empire under this religion, and he can’t even be sure what Christianity is. The realization sets in that a lot of people who call themselves Christians don’t even know what their religion is all about. So, he sets up a meeting. He invites all of the known Christian leaders in the world to come to Nicaea (why Nicaea and not Rome? Nicaea was more of a central location), to discuss, debate, and codify the beliefs of the Christian church. This could have, and possibly would have, been a milestone in Christian history (many people still believe that it was) except for the fact that it was being presided over by an outsider, an unbeliever.
Many Christians were suspicious of Constantine. Traditionally, the Roman government had been a source of persecution against the church. Certainly it was possible that Emperor Constantine had finally figured out that the more he persecuted the church, the more it grew, but many church leaders were not willing to give him credit for having that much intelligence.
Undoubtedly, many church leaders prayed about this council, and felt very strongly that this council was not of God, and that they should not go. Many others thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it was probably a trap, that Constantine simply wanted to gather together the leaders of this thorn in the Empire’s side in order to butcher them, and hopefully get rid of Christianity once and for all. Some of the leaders felt that this was simply Constantine trying to tell them what to believe, and didn’t go. Less than twenty percent of the ones that were invited actually went. Did the views of the twenty percent accurately represent the views of the other eighty percent? One could certainly argue that a twenty percent sample is usually representative of the whole, but a lot depends on how the sample is obtained. If I take a gallon of milk that has not been homogenized, and just pour out twenty percent of it, and test that twenty percent, it should be roughly equivalent to the rest of the gallon. If I skim off twenty percent off the top, I’m probably going to get a lot more cream. Did Constantine skim twenty percent off the top of the church? Probably not intentionally, but I submit that, if those church leaders that prayed and felt that God did not want them to take part in the council were right, then whoever showed up in Nicaea did not represent the church.

Atheist Quotes

Yesterday, when I was putting together my post, I wanted to include a quote from Voltaire, but I wanted to make sure that I had it right (Of course, Voltaire was French, so the quote was translated—I don’t read French, sorry—so if I didn’t have it quite right, that might just be a different translation, anyway). In any case, I went to some websites that feature quotes, particularly quotes by atheists, and I found a whole wealth of quotes that I wanted to respond to. So, here I am, responding to Atheists. Of course, I’m cherry-picking the quotes I want to respond to, so, if you don’t see a response to the atheist statement that you really wanted to hear a response to, that’s probably why.
Stephen Roberts said, “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” I dismiss all the other gods because I know the one true God. That does not explain to me why you would reject the one true God. Although, to be honest, he may have a point: After sifting through dozens of false religions, many of which seem, in many ways, to be similar to Christianity, our religion can seem to be just another false religion. That was the mistake that Sennacherib made, in King Hezekiah’s time. He had besieged all these other kingdoms around Israel, and none of these other peoples’ gods had been able to deliver them, but when he came up against the true God, he ended up dead.
Blaise Pascal said, “Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.” Of course, the Bible says that every way of a man is right in his own eyes. I think that Russell Crowe quoted that in “3:10 to Yuma,” also. There is a part of us that wants to do evil. Sometimes we excuse it as just human nature, but even the best of us are quite capable of evil. I’m not entirely convinced that we commit evil more joyfully when we can find a religious reason to justify what we want to do, as opposed to simply dismissing God as pure superstition, and then doing what we want to do, believing that there are no consequences for our actions, since there is no God to judge us. One major difference is that, when enough people of the same religious persuasion get together with a common justification, the evil is multiplied. So far, the atheists haven’t been able to find too many common justifications (keep in mind that atheists are not so much a group of people that believe the same thing, they are a group of people that don’t believe the same thing), and, of course, they are very much in the minority, so it has been much more difficult for them to get a large group together. Don’t misunderstand me: I am aware that there are many moral atheists out there. I know of atheists who live more moral lives than many of the religious people that I know. Does that mean that atheists, in general, are more moral than religious people in general? Not necessarily, although, I will concede the possibility. The real difference here is why are people being moral? Christians are moral out of fear of God. Why are atheists moral? Out of a fear of society? Out of a fear of religious people? That’s my best guess. Anybody got any other ideas?
Richard Jeni said, “You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend.” There’s an interesting thought. Sometimes it’s not even a question of who has the better God. Catholics and Protestants have fought wars over religious differences, while claiming to serve the same God. A lot of wars have been fought over religious differences that had nothing to do with religion, though. If I feel threatened by you, or you have something I want, I can stir up a whole lot more support amongst my fellow believers by making it a religious cause, by painting your threat as a threat against our religion rather than one against me, personally (especially if I’ve given you good reason to be upset with me). Quite frankly, for a religion that stresses peace as much as Christianity does, we sure do get caught up in an awful lot of “righteous causes” that turn very, very bloody. We should know better.
Bertrand Russell said, “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.” I have to agree. At the same time though, we aren’t really talking about doubt here, are we? I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t doubted God’s existence at least at some point in their lives. I know I have, but God has always reassured me that He is real. What we are really talking about is people who actively deny God’s existence, and then expect Him to treat them the same as His followers. Does that make any sense? Granted, as I suggested above, some atheists deserve better treatment than a lot of religious people.
Emo Philips said, “When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.” I’m not sure that was so much an atheist quote, but it was on the same web-site… I am sure that God doesn’t work that way, either, but, somehow it’s funny when Emo says it that way. Unfortunately, a lot of people think that they can get what they want exactly that way. Actually, you can get what you want that way, but there will be consequences.

What Did Jesus Look Like?

I heard about a corn flake for sale on E-bay that is shaped like the state of Illinois. From what I understand, it is currently going for fifty dollars. Correction: I just checked with E-bay it’s going for way more than fifty bucks now. I understand that the girls selling it just wanted to by more frosted flakes, it looks like they may be able to pay their college tuition…
I’m just glad that it’s not a corn flake that looks like Jesus or Mother Mary. Pardon me if I sound cynical, but I get tired of people seeing a face or an image in a stain or something, and they are just convinced that they are seeing Jesus’ face (or His mother’s). Can I ask a question? How do you know what Jesus looked like? There weren’t any cameras then. The only paintings that we have were painted many generations later. The Bible never really describes Jesus’ appearance, except to say that He was not a handsome man (that, in and of itself, proves that every painting or image I have ever seen of Jesus is somewhat less than accurate).
The traditional image of Jesus shows Him with light-brown hair and blue eyes, neither attribute was common in the area at the time. I don’t think that Jesus came to Israel looking like an outsider. He would have had dark hair and eyes, and a somewhat dark complection, as well. I don’t mean dark as in He looked African, I mean dark as in Middle-Eastern.
To some extent, that’s speculation, but I think it has a logical basis. Generally the paintings that have been done of Jesus are based simply on the artist’s aesthetics. Well, I think Jesus looked like because that’s what I think looks good. Except Jesus isn’t supposed to look good… Traditionally, Jesus has been painted to look like the same ethic group as the artist. In more recent years, Jesus has been painted as a white man by artists of color simply because that’s the image of Jesus that they had been taught. Voltaire was right about the way we see God: “If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated.”
I had one young man tell me once that he knew Jesus was black, because the Bible said He had hair like wool, and you don’t see white people with kinky hair. There are two basic problems with that: 1) it doesn’t say that Jesus hair was kinky like wool, it says Jesus’ hair was white like wool (is that where the idea of a blonde Jesus came from? I don't think it means that He was blonde, either), and, 2) many Middle-Easterners (and, truthfully, even some white people—it’s just not nearly as common) have kinky hair. I can’t argue that Jesus was white, I’m quite certain that he wasn’t. I do think that part of the reason that Jesus’ ethnicity isn’t expressly mentioned in Scripture is that God didn’t want us to feel that Jesus was only sent to one ethnic group. For God so loved the world, remember? We sing the song, “Red, brown, yellow, black, and white / They are precious in His sight; / Jesus loves the little children of the world.” We are all God’s children, no matter how different we may seem.

The Road from Jericho to Jerusalem

The sermon in church yesterday morning was entitled, “The Road from Jericho to Jerusalem.” The title actually comes from the parable of the Good Samaritan (that’s the road where the man in the parable was beaten, robbed, and left for dead), but, the point was made (that, I must admit, I had never seen before), that’s the route that Jesus took on Palm Sunday. Part of the reason that I never caught that is that in Matthew 20:29, it says that they left Jericho, and Matthew 21:1-2 says that as they approached Jerusalem, that He sent two disciples to fetch a donkey and her colt. Keep reading, and it’s clear that He was coming into Jerusalem for Palm Sunday. For that matter, if you read from Matthew 20:29 through Matthew 21:1, then it becomes clear that Jesus started out from Jericho, and wound up in Jerusalem, so He would have been traveling the same road that was in the parable.
Of course, Jesus chose that road for the parable on purpose. Jerusalem was one of the highest points in Israel (if not the highest—roughly half the altitude of Denver); Jericho was one of the lowest. They are about 18 miles apart as the crow flies, but, it does a lot of winding back and forth, otherwise, it would be very steep, so the actual travel distance is about 23 miles. With all that winding, there are many places along the road where a traveler would be out of sight of other travelers, even if they were traveling fairly close together. Many of those places have areas where thieves could lie in wait for a lone traveler or a small group of travelers.
In the parable, Jesus talks about a priest and a Levite that passed by on the other side of the road. It has been suggested that this was simply self-preservation—they didn’t know if the thieves had moved on, or whether they were still lying in wait on that side of the road, but it would be harder for the thieves to attack from across the road. One thing that was brought up yesterday that I had never considered before was that the priest and the Levite both had to maintain themselves in order to perform the service to the Lord. If they were unclean, they couldn’t do their jobs. There were many things that they were not allowed to do, such as touch someone who was bleeding. They may not have even been sure if the mugging victim was still alive, touching a corpse was another thing that was forbidden, and that would leave them unable to perform the service of the Lord for a week. So, realistically, we look at these two men as having been callous individuals, but they actually had good reasons for not helping out (were those reasons good enough reasons—I’m thinking not, but I haven’t lived in those times, and I’ve never lived under the restrictions that they were under).
Also, in Matthew 19, as Jesus was leaving Jericho, there were two blind men that called out to Him. The crowd tried to quiet them down (“Why are you bothering the Master? He doesn’t have time for you! Leave Him alone!”), but these guys wouldn’t listen, and persisted. Jesus asked them what they wanted (as if He didn’t know!) and healed them. In Matthew 20, after the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to quiet down the multitude, but Jesus told them that if the people stopped praising God, then the rocks would cry out. In both instances it is clear that speaking out was the right thing to do. It is also obvious that the blind men were right to ignore what everyone else was telling them. When it comes to your relationship with God, no one else’s opinion matters. Don’t ever let anyone else tell you that you don’t matter to God. For God so loved the world… The thing that strikes me as most interesting about the whole thing is that I sent out an E-mail reminding someone (that I’m sure already knew) that Jesus would have paid the ultimate price even if that individual had been the only one that would have been saved as a result. Think about that: He died for the sins of the whole world, but He loves each of us individually that He would have done the same thing for just one of us, any one of us. That, I invite you take personally.

My Apologies

I have to apologize; today has been a very busy day, and it isn't over yet. I still have much to do today, but I had a few minutes. I know that I cannot write the sort of post that I would normally put here on a normal day, but I know that I should post something. Unfortunately, my brain is not working well, and I honestly cannot think of anything to say, other than I'm sorry. I have a pretty good idea that no one wants to read that, though.
It does occur to me that we are a people that doesn't apologize much, or take the blame much. We would much rather point the finger at someone or something else. It isn't my fault! He/she/my dog is to blame (or society's to blame--but I think Monty Python did a good job of laying that excuse to rest in it's skit about the bishop murders). I think that we have a basic fear that if we admit to a wrong, or even admit that we don't know something that it seems we should know, that people will lose respect for us; it makes us look weak. Frequently, exactly the opposite is true: When we admit to making a mistake, or admit what we don't know, people often respect the honesty that comes from that. I can remember a few times where one celebrity or another got caught doing something they shouldn't have been doing, and then got on national television and admitted that it wasn't a smart thing to do, and most people were impressed. There were a few people who wanted to know if he really repented, before they were willing to consider what he said ("Why didn't he apologize?" what he did didn't have anything to do with you, why should he apologize to you?), but, you know, true repentance is between the individual and God anyway (well, okay, if the individual has committed an act against another person, then that person, too).
Anyway, my time is up. I have to go now. I will post again on Monday, I promise.

Questions, questions

Some people are just argumentative; if you tell them that the sky is blue, they want to point out that when it’s stormy, then the sky is really more of a gray color. When you point out that it isn’t stormy, then they say, well, not right now, and not here; but later on it may be, or somewhere else it probably is. If you continue to talk to them, they will suck up your whole day arguing about things that don’t really matter.
Sometimes people want to argue the Gospel. You don’t want to just dismiss them, because it is important, but, a lot of times, it doesn’t really matter what you say to them, they just want to argue. It’s also sometimes hard to tell if someone has a legitimate concern, or if they are just being argumentative.
If someone asks, “Can God make a rock so big that even He can’t lift it?” then it’s a pretty safe bet that they just want to give you grief. I have heard some interesting answers to that question: One guy answered, “God made you, didn’t He?” but that answer requires a little inside information. In the education field (particularly military education) it is generally understood that there are two extreme types of learners (most people fall somewhere in between); there are those who absorb every piece of information you can give them, as fast as you can give it to them (these people are known as ‘sponges’), and then there are those who don’t seem capable of absorbing anything (‘rocks’). Another popular answer is, “Yes, God can make a rock so big that it’s impossible for Him to lift, it, but, then, lift it anyway, because with God, all things are possible.” My personal favorite is, “Yes, God could make a rock so big that even He can’t lift it, but He won’t, because then there would be something He couldn’t do.” That answer usually makes the questioner mad, because he/she didn’t want an intelligent answer, they wanted to be able to say, “See, there’s something God can’t do!” Granted, some people ask questions like that just because they are trying to be clever, but those people generally don’t get nearly as upset.
One good thought-provoking question is, “What do you think Jesus wrote on the ground?” I think that if it were important, then the Bible would tell us what Jesus wrote on the ground. My best guess would be that He wrote down the names of the men who were there holding stones, and He listed some of their more recent and more prominent sins. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if He did not write out dates and times that each of them had been with the adulteress that they were accusing (or, if not her, then someone like her). One suggestion is that He simply wrote, “Where is the man?” in big letters. After all, they said that they took her “in the very act,” I don’t think that she was committing that particular act alone. Did the man get away somehow, or was he right there with them, ready to stone this woman? To be honest, that’s something I’d like to know, but I realize that it must not be important.
In any case, we are instructed to avoid foolish and unlearned questions. It doesn’t really matter if they are argumentative or thought-provoking, what does matter is if answering that question actually helps somebody, even if only in a small way. We don’t have to let people just waste our time, but, we do have to be ready to give an answer of the hope that lies within us.

What Happened to Jonah?

There are several points that I would like to cover with regard to Jonah and the whale. First off, was Jonah swallowed by a whale? Some people say that he was not; it’s impossible, the way a whale’s digestive tract is set up, no whale can swallow anything as large as a man. Even if it could, no man could survive being in the stomach of a whale for three days, the digestive fluids would cause him to die a slow and painful death (although not three days worth of slow). Of course, God does the impossible; in fact, the Bible tells us that God prepared the whale for Jonah, so this wasn’t an ordinary whale.
Secondly, was it a whale that swallowed Jonah? The book of Jonah actually says it was a great fish. Biologists tell us that whales are not fish, because they are mammals. Of course, biologists also tell us that tomatoes are not vegetables, because they have seeds, making them, technically, fruits. They aren’t particularly fruit-like, though, so most of us just refer to them as vegetables, anyway (The US Supreme Court has actually ruled that tomatoes are vegetables, so that they can be taxed as vegetables—there is no import tax on fruits). My point is that, in simpler times, people just referred to anything that swam in the sea as a fish, whether it had gills or a blowhole. So, yes, the book of Jonah says it was a great fish, in the Gospels, Jesus says it was a whale. There is no contradiction there.
Thirdly, did Jonah actually survive the ordeal, or did he die and get resurrected? There are a couple of indications that he might actually have died: One, he said himself that he was in Hell, and two, Jesus makes reference to the story of Jonah as the archetype of His own resurrection. Now, was Jonah speaking literally or figuratively? In context, there’s not really any way to tell, that I can see, although it certainly highlights another Messianic prophecy, when David said, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell.” Now, in the reference in the Gospels, Jesus said that there would be no sign given unto “this generation” but the sign of the prophet Jonah, that “as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” To be honest, that doesn’t sound to me like Jesus is suggesting that Jonah died and resurrected, more that He is comparing His own entombment with Jonah’s unusual mode of travel. In fact, it further seems to me that, God put Jonah in the belly of the whale to keep Jonah from drowning, and to give him a chance to consider his own actions. It seems to me that, when Jonah was first swallowed, he figured his time was up. He was going to die, and there was nothing he could do about it. It’s possible that, when he said he was in Hell, he was still alive and didn’t realize that he was still alive. After a few days, realizing that he not only wasn’t dead, but, that, against all probability, he wasn’t even dying, he came to an understanding that God wasn’t going to let him off that easy. I don’t believe that Jonah died in the belly of the whale, I think God kept Jonah alive specifically because He wasn’t through with him. I am honest enough to admit that my reluctance to accept the idea that Jonah died and was resurrected may be a result of my own feeling that once one is dead, then one is dead, and there is nothing more that can be done. I feel a certain finality with death, which isn’t necessarily true when God is involved. I can’t help but think that, if God was willing to let Jonah die, and then resurrect him, then the whale was a huge waste of time and energy: Let Jonah drown, explain to him face to face exactly what he needs to do, resurrect his body on (or near) shore, and turn him loose. And if Jonah tries to run to Tarshish again, then drown him again (I don’t really think that would be necessary—a face-to-face with God should straighten anybody out, even more effectively than being in a whale’s belly).

Baptism for the Dead

In First Corinthians, Paul finds himself in an interesting position. The church at Corinth was apparently in a sorry state, they were calling themselves Christians, and worshipping together, but somehow had missed a great deal of what makes a Christian a Christian. Paul admonished them about many things, not the least of which was the fact that many of the Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection.
There are some who refer to Paul’s question, “Why are they then baptized for the dead?” as evidence that, in the early church, people were sometimes baptized by proxy. In other words, one could go to their pastor and say, I just know that if my Aunt Sally were alive today, if I could show her what I’ve been shown, then she would want to get baptized. Can I get baptized for her?” and presumably, the pastor of the church at Corinth would say, “Why, sure, just step on up into this tank and we’ll take good care of Aunt Sally.” I don’t think that is what Paul is suggesting at all. I think that he is reminding the people of Corinth that they were baptized into Christ, and if Christ did not rise from the dead, then their faith is useless. If Jesus wasn’t resurrected, then what hope do the rest of us have of a life to come? What is the point of living the life that we live, if we have no hope of a better life to come?
If you read the whole chapter, it becomes fairly clear that they had an argument with the idea of resurrection from the dead. Paul reminds them that they have been taught the resurrection story; they know that Peter saw Christ (the Aramaic equivalent of the name Peter is Cephas), and then the rest of the disciples, and then others. For whatever reason, these people have decided that this can’t be true. The whole chapter is devoted to the idea that Jesus rose from the dead to show us the way. It wasn’t about getting baptized for the sake of someone else.

What's In a Name?

I recently overheard a comment about Isaiah 9:6: Someone was complaining that it uses the singular form of the word “name” but then goes on to list five names. Granted it capitalizes the terms, “Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace” but none of those are names. It doesn’t say that they are. It says that “His Name shall be called…” in much the same way that Isaiah also prophesied that His Name would be called “Immanuel.” It doesn’t say, His Name will be, “Wonderful,” or His name will be, “Immanuel.” Of course, I have had people tell me that Mary disobeyed the angel, because she didn’t name her Son, Emmanuel, but, if you read the passage, the angel told her to name her son Jesus, Matthew only reminded us of the prophesy from Isaiah.
Most of us have a name: a reasonably unique combination of a first name (or Christian name—as though non-Christians didn’t have first names), a middle name (or not), and a last name (or surname). Some last names are so common that it makes it hard to come up with a truly unique name, but we do the best that we can. Many of us are called many things other than our name. Being called a title, or a nickname, or even a name other than our given name doesn’t make that title, nickname or name our name. If we don’t like our given name, then we have to go to court to have it changed, and, even then, I suspect that the parents who gave you your name at birth are going to have a hard time calling you by your new name.
Most of us don’t have any trouble calling Jesus the Prince of Peace, we’ve heard that about Him our whole lives, but we generally don’t think that it’s His name. Wonderful is not His name, either (although He is Wonderful), nor is Counselor (although He is the best Counselor). As far as the Mighty God, First Timothy 3:16 tells us that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. The Everlasting Father? Jesus said Himself in John 10:30, “I and My Father are One.” Notice also that in the two previous verses, Jesus said (in verse 28) that neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand, and, then (in verse 29), that no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Isn’t it pretty clear that both verses are talking about the same hand? Both times He is referring to the same thing being in that hand.
Some people get hung up the term Allah, as well. Allah is really just the Arabic word for God, most Muslims don’t think that Allah is God’s name. Many Christian pastors in Arabic countries use the term Allah for God, although I understand that there is a separate word for the Judeo-Christian God in Arabic, which is Yahwah (obviously derived from the Hebrew, Yahweh). It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, because the Koran teaches that Allah spoke to Abraham (Ibrahim), and that it was Allah who told Mary (Marium—scroll down to 3.47 at the link) that she would bear a Son without benefit of a human father (riddle me this: How can one believe in the virgin birth and not believe in the divinity of Christ? Of course, that isn’t just Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses also argue that Jesus was not divine).
My point is that a lot of people get caught up in names versus titles, and try to make things names that aren’t names, or get confused when the Bible refers to the name of, without giving the name, but making it very clear whose name it’s referring to. It isn’t that hard, but we as human beings tend to confuse ourselves.

The Hand of God

I have blogged about the security of the believer before, but the other night I had something pointed out to me that finally brought into focus something that I had heard several years ago. Many, many moons ago, I had someone tell me that he knew that once a person was saved, then they were always saved because, once you believe, then you are in God’s hand, and how can you take something out of God’s hand? I challenged him to show me Scripture to that effect, and he couldn’t, so I basically ignored his statement as best I could (it’s kind of been floating around in the back of my head, though, wondering where did that come from?). The other night, though, somebody pointed out to me that in John 10:29, Jesus is talking about Christians as being sheep, and He says that no man is able to pluck them out of His Father’s hand. Son of a gun! There really is Scripture to support that idea (sort of). Here’s the thing, though: yes, Jesus did say that no one can steal one of His sheep from Him; He didn’t say that we, as sheep, aren’t free to wander off. The parable of the lost sheep doesn’t make too much sense if we couldn’t, does it?
In my earlier post, I mentioned Romans 8:35-39, which gives a long list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God, but I also mentioned Isaiah 59:2: "...your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you..." It comes down to the same thing: No one else can come between us and God, but we are free moral agents. Every day we make choices that can either bring us closer to God, or take us farther away. How far can one get from God and still be saved? I don’t know; I’m not sure I want to find out.
In First Peter 3:16, Peter tells us that there will always be some that will wrestle against the Scriptures to their own destruction. Some people will study the Scriptures to see how much they can get away with, while others study to try to get closer to God. If your whole purpose in reading the Bible is to find excuses to not do what God wanted you to do (or called you to do), then that makes it very easy for God to find excuse to keep you from where you would want to spend eternity. Galatians 6:7 says, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” God knows what you are up to; don’t think that you are going to fool Him. It just doesn’t happen.

Tithing and the Two Mites

I have blogged about tithing before, but I wanted to look at it from a little different perspective. I have heard some people use the story of the widow and the two mites as a scriptural example showing that tithing is required of the New Testament church. Let me state here at the beginning that I believe in tithing, and I do believe that Christians must tithe, just as those living under Old Testament law must. Having said that, though, let’s examine the evidence for the widow’s story as proof of the requirement to tithe. Mark 12:41-44 says:
“41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”
The same story in Luke reads almost exactly the same. The telling point is in verse 44, where Jesus told his disciples, “This poor widow hath done what was required of her, because she of her want did cast in one tenth of her living.” Only He didn’t. Please pardon my use of sarcasm, but I wanted to make the point: in neither account does it suggest that she was paying a tithe, or she was doing something that was required of her. If anything, the other people who were casting in “of their abundance” probably were tithing, since they were living under Old Testament law. She clearly, was making an offering, which is above and beyond a tithe, although, in her case, it wouldn’t seem to be very much. BTW—the term “mite” refers to something very small, in this case, coins of very little value; two mites (or a farthing) was still less than half of a penny. The point of the story is that she gave all she had, trusting that God would take care of her, while the others had plenty, but (probably) just put 10% into the treasury.
Now I said before that I believe in tithing; I just don’t believe that the story of the widow and the two mites is good evidence of the requirement to tithe. The first mention of tithing in the Bible was in Genesis: Abram was returning from ‘the slaughter of the kings’ and Melchizedek, priest of the most high God, met him, and gave him a blessing. Abram then gave Melchizedek tithes of all of the spoil from the war. Notice that I said the first mention of tithing. Nobody told Abram to tithe, but he knew to do it. Some would say that he did it because he was living under Old Testament law, but he wasn’t. The law hadn’t been given yet. He did it because he was led by the Spirit to do it. In Romans 4:10, Paul makes the point that Abraham was saved before even the commandment of circumcision. In Galatians 5:18, Paul tells us that if we are led by the Spirit, then we are not under the law—just as Abram was not under the law when he was led by the Spirit to pay tithes to Melchizedek.
Keep in mind that God loves a cheerful giver. I suspect that if you really allow yourself to be led by the Spirit, you will find yourself giving more than just a tithe.
BTW—there has been some discussion on the subject of ‘Baptist’ tithing versus ‘Methodist’ tithing (I’m not sure why those two philosophies have been tagged with the names of those two denominations): Baptist tithing is ten percent of your gross (before taxes) income; Methodist tithing is ten percent of your net (after taxes) income. My personal belief is that since the IRS lets you deduct your tithes and offerings from your taxable income, then you are actually paying taxes on your after-tithe income, so paying tithes on your after-tax income is paradoxical. Still, from what I understand, Methodist tithing doesn’t really let you off the hook, either, since you are still expected to give to some form of charity outside of your church, so that your total charitable donations are still at least ten percent of your gross income. All I can say is, allow yourself to be led by the Spirit: God knows where the money needs to go anyway.

A Recipe for Success as a Christian

Let’s suppose for a moment, that I were baking a cake, and I asked you to go to the store for me and pick up some eggs, buttermilk, heavy cream, and a pound of Callebaut chocolate, would you then assume that those ingredients are all that goes into a cake? Probably not, in fact, you probably have a pretty good idea, that some of those ingredients I don’t actually need to make a cake, I just need those for this particular recipe. What if I asked you for all-purpose flour, baking powder, vegetable oil, and vanilla? I might be able to make a cake with those ingredients, but it probably wouldn’t be very tasty. More likely, though, you would realize that I already had most of the ingredients I needed for the recipe that I was using. (By the way, I don’t carry around cake recipes in my head, the one that I used for this illustration can be found here.)
Sometimes people get hung up on the idea that in various places in the gospels, Jesus told one person that they had to one thing to be saved, but told another to do something else. Keep in mind that Jesus knew what state each of those people were in. He knew, so to speak, which individuals had flour, milk, eggs, vanilla, baking powder, or vegetable oil. He was telling them what they needed, and, in some cases, He was telling them one thing, knowing that it would lead to other things. In Luke 7, there is a beautiful story about Jesus being invited to dinner at the home of a Pharisee named Simon, but, a woman, whom Simon didn’t approve of, followed Jesus in. After some discussion, Jesus tells the woman that her faith has saved her. In Luke 8:12, Jesus, in explaining the parable of the sower, says that the wayside represents people that hear the Word, but don’t accept it, lest they “…believe and be saved,” which would imply that belief is the only ingredient of salvation. That doesn’t necessarily follow, although if one truly believes, there will be other actions that follow from that belief. John 10:9 makes it clear that Jesus is the only way to be saved, but He doesn’t really talk about how to be saved, just that He is the way. Now, in Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, and Mark 13:13, Jesus says that one must endure to the end to be saved. Endure what? Well, reading Matthew 24 and Mark 13, we see that Jesus talks a lot about His followers being persecuted. We have a bad tendency to think that because we live in a country that is predominantly Christian, that was founded on Christian principles, where freedom of religion is the law of the land, that we will never have to endure persecution, but there are those around us who won’t like us living a Christian life, and will give us problems (certainly not to the extent that the early church had problems, but still). Now, Mark 16:16 says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Now, some people look at that and say, “Oh, but it doesn’t say that he that is not baptized is damned,” but, again, that’s part of a recipe.
In Romans 8:24, Paul tells us that we are saved by hope. Is hope better than faith? Or does hope lead to faith? In Romans 10:9, Paul says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Now Jesus never said anything about confessing Him, should we then ignore what Jesus said and just go by what Paul said? Of course not, but neither should we ignore Paul, either.
What we definitely don't want to do is try to live by part of the Scripture, and ignore the rest. This is not a cafeteria. although I think we all have a tendency to be cafeteria Christians.

Blessing God

What does it mean to bless God? That’s an interesting question, and I’m not entirely sure that I have a good answer, but I’m going to make an attempt.
Let me start with the Scripture that says, “…the less is blessed of the better.” Now, does that mean that one has to be greater than God in order to bless God? To be honest, I don’t think so, but, certainly, it is a common thing for us to be blessed by God, for us to bless God is considerably less common, and only possible because of His greatness, not ours. David wrote several times about blessing God: In Psalms 16:7 he said he would bless the Lord, and also in Psalms 26:12, more famously in Psalms 34:1. David was a man after God’s own heart; if he believed that he could bless God, then who am I to argue?
It does seem to me that to bless God would mean to go above and beyond the call of duty. In Luke 17:10, Jesus said that when we have done all that we were commanded to do, then we can say that we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. I don’t know too many people that have done all that has been commanded, much less go above and beyond. Romans 3:23 says that all have come short. Further, in Romans 12:1, we are told to present our bodies a living sacrifice, and that to do so is our reasonable service. That sounds like pretty extraordinary service to me, but apparently, that, too, is not enough to bless God.
In Matthew 25, Jesus tells a parable about Judgment, and He says that when that day comes, He will separate that sheep from the goats, and He will tell the sheep about what they have done, and why they shall inherit the kingdom (wait, Jesus said that salvation depends on works? That’s another study). But the surprising thing of it is, that the righteous question Him, saying, “When?” It’s surprising in and of itself that the righteous would question Him, but to say, wait a minute, when did we do those things? I can understand that if I’m to be rewarded, I would like to know why I’m being rewarded, and I would like to think that if I don’t deserve it, that I have enough integrity that I would point out the mistake (although, if I’m allowed into Heaven by mistake, I’m pretty sure I would keep quiet about that). My point is this, though, if anybody has a claim to have blessed God, it’s the people represented as sheep in this parable. Yet, when they are told about it, they are surprised. “We blessed you? When?”
I think that makes it clear that the really good things that we do, we do without even thinking about it. It isn’t so much what we do, but how we live. It isn’t the actions that count; it’s the mindset that drives those actions (of course, if the actions aren’t there, then, obviously, the mindset isn’t right, either). If we do something that blesses God, we aren’t going to be aware of it in this life; if we do something that we think blesses God, that’s probably just our own ego, trying to puff us up.

In the final analysis, I think that we shouldn't worry about trying to impress God. If your heart is right with God, that will impress Him, and if it isn't, He can help you change your heart.

Confidential to Lyn: Perhaps the urgency that I sensed in your request on Thursday was strictly in my own mind, but not having heard from you since, I am worried about you. Hopefully God has already worked out whatever it was, but I'm in the dark. Please let me hear from you, even if only to say that you're okay.

Movies

I watched a couple of movies over the weekend: An old black and white picture called, "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" and a much more recent color film called "The Last Inquiry." Both are very interesting movies.

"The Last Inquiry" starts out with Emperor Tiberius Caesar on the Isle of Capri, when suddenly there is an earthquake, and clouds form up, blocking the sunlight. Over the next few weeks, he gets reports from all over the Roman Empire of the same things happening. Only the report from Pontius Pilate gives any indication of a possible cause. He sends a trusted commander in the Roman army to Judea to investigate undercover. This man, Tauras, gets to Judea in time to witness the stoning of Stephen, he visits Jesus' tomb, and finds it empty, and also Lazarus' tomb (also empty), and meets Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene. He also meets with a Pharisee named Saul, and the High Priest, who tell him that this is a dangerous cult that needs to be eradicated--they even have a fairly plausible explanation as to how resurrections can be faked. Overall, I was impressed with how well this movie dovetailed with Scripture (although Tabitha was considerably younger than I had imagined--but the Bible doesn't really say how old she was). The biggest thing I didn't like about it was the way the stones bounced around during stonings--like the stones were made of rubber (but, what are you going to do? you can't very well film people getting stoned with real stones).

"Here Comes Mr. Jordan" I wanted to see because I knew that Warren Beatty's "Heaven Can Wait" was based on it, and the Chris Rock's "Down to Earth" was based on "Heaven Can Wait." I've seen the two more recent movies, so I wanted to see the original. Quite frankly, I was surprised; I didn't expect much from it, and it held together pretty well. The basic situation is implausible, to say the least: Joe Pendleton (Robert Montgomery), a prizefighter, is killed piloting his private plane from Pleasant Valley, New Jersey, to New York City, only he wasn't supposed to be. It turns out that an angel (or messenger) sees the plane going down, and decides to pull Joe's soul early, to prevent him the agony of death--only Joe would have found a way to at least live through the experience, had he been left to his own devices. But, while discussing what has happened, Joe's manager has the body cremated. So, Mr. Jordan (Claude Rains) sets out to find Joe a new body--someone about the same age who is dying, that Joe can take over this other person's life. This hinges on two erroneous ideas: One, that angels, like humans, occasionally make mistakes, and two, that time has meaning to angels--that is, having made a mistake, it is not possible to back to the moment of the mistake to fix it. But, getting past those ideas, the rest of the movie is pretty interesting: Joe fights Mr. Jordan on almost every detail, and yet, Mr. Jordan continue to insist that Joe won't get cheated. In the end, it becomes clear that, although Joe thought he knew what he wanted, Mr. Jordan made sure that Joe got what was best for him. Just a side note--I understand that when Warren Beatty decided to make "Heaven Can Wait," he tried to get Mohammed Ali to play the prizefighter. Ali wouldn't (or couldn't) do it. I don't think that there has ever been an official reason published as to why Ali wasn't in the movie, but I know that Ali is a deeply religious man, and, although he and I would probably disagree on a lot of things, I feel very confident that he and I agree that angels don't make mistakes, and that, if they did, that they could go back to the moment of the mistake to fix it. In any case, Warren Beatty rewrote the script so that he could play a football quarterback in the movie, since he couldn't get Ali to play a boxer. Chris Rock, in his version, changed the profession to stand-up comic, something he felt a little more comfortable with. From what I understand, Chris Rock didn't even know about "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" when he started his project.

BTW--side note, completely unrelated to this post: If you ever want to get a message to me, but don't want anyone else to see it, you can leave a comment and request that it not be published. I normally do publish comments unless the commenter requests that I not. I have been known to reject comments that I don't feel are suitable.