Shadows of Things to Come

In literary circles, the term foreshadowing is used to indicate that the author of a piece of fiction suggests that something is going to happen, before he or she actually gets to that part of the story. It’s kind of a hint as to what lies ahead.
The Bible talks about things in the Old Testament being shadows of things to come. Paul talks about the law being a schoolmaster, teaching the Israelites about the things of God; providing a framework that Christ could build on. Jesus said He had come to fulfill the Law, but, at the same time, we are not under the law, but under Grace.
Christ brought about a lot of changes in the way things are done; for example, dietary restrictions were pretty tough under Old Testament Law, but there’s really very little that we can’t eat, now (some of our doctors might wish that we were following Old Testament Law in that regard, though—bacon double-cheeseburgers aren’t kosher, you know). At the same time, there are a lot of things in the Law that foretell the life of Jesus.
I have posted before about how the Passover sacrifice was an image of Christ’s crucifixion. Beyond that, though, the Bible says that Pharaoh had the infants killed at the time of Moses’ birth, just as the Bible says that Herod had the infants killed at the time of Jesus’ birth. Moses spent forty days on the mountaintop without food or water; Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness without food or water. Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt, to the Promised Land; Jesus came out of Egypt, into Israel. Peter also tells us that the story of Noah and the Ark is a figure of baptism.
The point is that the Law was a stern ‘schoolmaster,’ and yet, it provided a framework for the coming of Christ. A lot of those things were physical commandments, but intended to show the kinds of actions that would be taken by one with a right mindset. We aren’t under the Law, now, and yet, we shouldn’t completely ignore the Law, either. I think it’s pretty safe to say that we can ignore the dietary restrictions (not only did God indicate as much to Peter, but refrigeration and better cooking techniques mean that foods that were once dangerous are not any longer). Still, if you are living a life that is completely inconsistent with Old Testament Law, then I think that you should be asking yourself why that is. If you are being led by the Spirit (the Spirit that dictated the law to Moses), shouldn’t your actions be somewhat in line with Old Testament Law? Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that you should make an effort to live according to the Law, because if you are under the Law, then you have forsaken Grace (and you don’t want to do that, believe me). But, the Law was the schoolmaster that helped prepare the way for Christ. Many of the commandments in the Law are still good things to do, with the understanding that Jesus is our sacrifice, we don’t have to sacrifice sheep and goats any more. Jesus said that the whole Law was really fulfilled in two commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and Love thy neighbor as thyself.
If you call yourself a Christian, but you worship some other God, then obviously that would be wrong. If you are a Christian, but you are also a murderer, then what kind of Christian are you? If you lie about other people, or covet things that other people have…
If you are led by the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Circumcision and Baptism

I have heard some people say that baptism is like circumcision, and since you don't have to be circumcised anymore, you don't have to be baptized anymore, either. I always want to ask them if they have a starter in their car, and if they do, then, why? the starter is just like the old-time hand-cranks, so if you don't need a hand-crank anymore, then you must not need starter, either.
Realistically, the reason that circumcision was required to be a Jew, but not required to be a Christian has a lot to do with the fact that, although Christianity grew out of Judaism, they are two different religions. And, yes, there are many times in Scripture where it compares baptism with circumcision, it is pretty clear that while circumcision is a requirement for a man to be a Jew, baptism is a requirement for anyone to be Christian. Isn't it convenient that we know have something that women can do, too?
Let’s look at circumcision first: This was actually one of the earliest commandments, God told Abraham, long before He gave Moses the law, to circumcise all the baby boys among his descendents. Now, Moses, having run away from Egypt into Ethiopia, but now having seen the burning bush, and is going back to Egypt to set his people free, gets partway back, with his Ethiopian wife, Zipporah, and God demands that Moses’ son be circumcised—God seems to be prepared to kill Moses over this. Keep in mind that this is totally foreign to Zipporah (it probably seemed completely barbaric to her), and Moses, not really having been raised as a Jew, himself, never really pressed the issue with her, but now that they are away from her people, and heading back towards his people, God wants Moses’ family to be right. Obviously, this was an important commandment if God was willing to kill Moses over it. Keep in mind, also, that Moses was in a unique position; he was raised as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, so he knew the palace, and, even though he may not have the most favor of the current administration, they knew him, and probably thought of him as family (the black sheep of the family, no doubt, but he could make requests that ordinary Hebrews would be killed over). So God has this individual that fits the current situation perfectly, except for this one little thing, and God is ready to kill him, and raise up another one to take his place, unless he circumcises his son.
Now, baptism is generally thought to have begun with John the Baptist. Of course, John was sent to prepare the way for the Christ. Now we have four different accounts of the Great Commission, each of them at least a little different, but both Matthew and Mark agree that baptism is part of the Great Commission. That makes it sound like baptism is pretty important, too. Now, in Colossians 2:11-12, Apostle Paul makes the comparison between circumcision and baptism. In Romans 2, Apostle Paul attempts to explain why, in this new covenant, that physical circumcision means so little, but the circumcision that matters is the circumcision of the heart—which would have to be circumcision “made without hands.” In First Corinthians 7, Paul also explains that, in Christ, it really doesn’t matter whether one is circumcised or not, what matters is obedience—keeping the commandments. We have already established that Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission, so any attempt to disavow baptism is really an attempt to disavow what Jesus said.

Killing in God's Name

Lately there has been a lot of talk about killing in God's name (usually by someone claiming to be a member of "the religion of peace"). Are there Biblical precedents for such an attitude or belief? Let's consider:

God gives us early encouragement not to kill, in the case of Cain VS. Abel...

Moses killed a man, but then God chose to use him to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt anyway...

God gives Moses the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill...

But, then, God becomes angry at King Saul for not killing...

But King David got in trouble for killing...

In addition, under Old Testament Law, there were allowances made for killing for revenge. If someone killed a relative of yours, you had a right to hunt them down, unless it was an accident, and they were able to get to a city of refuge before you got to them...

It gets complicated. But, realistically, under the new covenant, we don't have to worry about such things any more. Jesus made it real simple: Turn the other cheek. Interestingly enough, Jesus made that comment very shortly after referencing the Old Testament eye for an eye... Something that has been attributed to both Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is that "an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind." Certainly that's true. As I have posted before, we are imperfect people, seeking to do the perfect will of God, and sometimes we get it right. But we make a lot of mistakes along the way. I would hope that no one dies because of my mistakes, but I can't guarantee that. If someone dies, who then has the right to kill me? God didn't grant anyone the right to kill Cain... It is important that we forgive each other, because there is not a one among us that will never need forgiveness.

The bottom line is, in the modern day, killing in the name of God is wrong. period. I don't care if you are talking about killing people who refuse to accept your religion, or your way of thinking, or whether you are talking about killing abortionists. Thou shalt not kill. God likes mercy, and we need God's mercy.

Quizzes

I get a little frustrated from time to time with quizzes. I like to have my mind challenged, but sometimes the people that want to challenge my mind don't do a very good job of it.

Some time ago, I was visiting a web site that had quizzes on a number of different subjects, but most of the choices didn't really appeal to me. There was one on science fiction, so I clicked on that one. A ten question quiz, the first question was about Star Trek, and it was easy. The second question was about Star Wars, also easy. The rest of the questions dealt with Joss Wheedon stuff. Okay, Joss Wheedon has done some science fiction ("Alien: Resurrection", "Titan A. E.", "Firefly" and "Serenity"), but none of these questions dealt with any of that. The remaining eight questions all dealt with "Buffy" and "Angel"--not science fiction. I managed to guess right on four of those questions, giving me a 60%. Normally I would be disappointed in myself for scoring 60% on a science fiction quiz, but, considering that only 20% of the quiz dealt with science fiction, I felt pretty good about myself--just not very good towards whoever put the quiz together.

Another web site was trying to set itself up as a collection of expertise, and they were taking applications from people who felt that they were experts in a particular field. In order to qualify, though, you had to score well on a quiz prepared by one of their existing experts. No, science fiction was not an available category (not that I really think that I'm an expert in science fiction--I know more than a lot of people, but not nearly as much as some), but the Bible was. That's interesting; let's see if I can qualify as a Bible expert. I didn't. One question in particular that bothered me was, "How many loaves of bread and how many fishes did Jesus use to feed the multitude?" That's kind of a vague question, since Jesus fed the multitude more than once; but the first time it was five loaves and two fishes, the second time it was seven loaves and 'a few' fishes. Neither one of those were possible answers. The closest I could find was five loaves and three fishes, so I put that. WRONG! The 'correct' answer was five of each. I'd sure like to know which version of the Bible that came from...

There was also another one that was obviously put together by someone just trying to be contentious--they asked a lot of very strange questions (meaning that I didn't know how to begin to answer them) , but one in particular asked, "What is the seventh commandment?" Their answer: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." That's not even in the right chapter...

Anyway, one that I like much better is on the gotoquiz web site. To be honest, they call this "The Ultimate Bible Quiz," but most of the answers can be deduced even if you don't know (they have a bad tendency to ask 'who in the Bible' questions with two of the choices being people born in the twentieth century...). Maybe that's why I like it... Personally, though, I think the ultimate Bible quiz should have questions on it like, "Name both of Ruth's husbands." with choices like, "a. Mahlon and Chilion b. Mahlon and Boaz c. Chilion and Boaz d. Mahlon, Chilion, and Boaz," or, name all of the women mentioned in the lineage of Christ in Matthew. But, of course, I'm sure that such a quiz would have questions on it that I wouldn't be able to answer--but it would be fun to learn from it.