Earthen Vessels

Yesterday I blogged about the worth of a human being, today I would like to go into an interesting statement in 2 Corinthians 4:7: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.“ I think some people have trouble with the idea of earthen vessels. What does that mean, exactly? Some years ago I heard someone compare the earthen vessels in this passage to paper bags. Imagine carrying a significant amount of gold dust in a paper bag, through a thunderstorm. Any thinking person would do everything they could to keep the bag dry, because if the bag gets really wet, it will fall apart, and the gold dust will wash away. Besides that, the gold is heavy, and paper just isn’t that strong to start with. It’s an interesting analogy, and I think that it is a valuable, but I also think that it misses the point.
Most of the newer translations use the term ‘jars of clay,’ or something similar, to indicate that the vessel is a little more substantial than a paper bag, but, at the same time, it implies that the clay has been fired in a kiln, which it may or may not have been in this instance. If you stop and think, a clay vessel that has not been fired isn’t really that much more substantial than a paper bag. If the clay has been fired, it is considerably more substantial. Apostle Peter makes reference to our faith being tried by fire, so how substantial you are as a vessel (as a Christian) depends upon how much your faith has been tried, how much you (as a Christian) have endured.
Isaiah also makes reference to us as clay, in Isaiah 64:8 and also in Isaiah 19:16 but the latter describes us in terms of clay pots trying to become greater than the potter. We will never be greater than our creator. Some would try to say that we are not created beings, relegating the potter to a character in some ancient mythology, and yet, here we are.
Jeremiah also talks about the potter and the clay, in Jeremiah 18:4. I have heard some protest that it talks about the potter purposely marring the clay, but, really, it doesn’t. Jeremiah says that the clay was marred in the potter’s hand, not marred by the potter’s hand, and in any case, if you keep reading, the potter fixed the problem. He had to take the clay back to lump form, and rebuild whatever it was he was making (the passage uses the term vessel, so, pot? vase? some kind of container).
Apostle Paul also wrote to the Romans about forming vessels out of clay in Romans 9:21. In this passage, Paul talks about the potter, from one lump of clay, forming one vessel of honor, and another of dishonor. Some have said that this proves that God creates evil. I don’t think that is what Paul is saying. I think that he’s just saying that the potter has control over the finished product—if he wants to make a decorative pot, that can’t really hold anything, that’s his prerogative. It’s not up to us even to decide whether the pot is honorable or dishonorable; it’s up to the potter to decide if the pot suits his purpose.
Luke talks about the stone falling on people, and grinding them to powder. It occurs to me that, if a clay pot, after it has been fired, gets broken or damaged, the only thing the potter can do with it is to grind it to powder, and mix it in with fresh clay, and start over again. This would not be the same vessel, of course, it would be something entirely new. He might choose not to use the powder in the new product at all; again, that’s his prerogative.
Of course, the ultimate reference as far as us being earthen, is in Genesis 2:7, where God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. But the excellency that is in us is the Spirit of God. This is more valuable than anything on this earth. We are valuable only because we are containers, or more correctly conduits, for the Spirit of God. Our value comes from what we have to offer, which is not us. We’re just bits of dirt and water that God has chosen to use for His glory.

What Are You Worth?

I have been told, that if we were to break down a human body into its basic chemical components (mostly water), it would be worth about 94¢. I'm not sure how that has been affected by inflation since then, but I think it is safe to say that, from a chemical standpoint, we are each worth less than what most of us earn in an hour--certainly less than one week's pay. Of course, no chemist could assemble a working human being, no matter how many chemicals he tried to use. We are much more valuable than the sum of our parts.
Some years ago, we had a young woman that attended our church that liked to wear a lot of jewelry. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with wearing jewelry (although there is a scripture that might contraindicate my opinion—but I really think that Paul wasn’t trying to say that wearing jewelry is a sin, just that there are other things that are much more important), but this seemed somewhat excessive. One time she and I were talking, and she said something about her jewelry, and I took it upon myself to ask her about why she wore so much—although I was a little more discreet in the way I asked (maybe not a lot more discreet, but a little). I don’t remember how I phrased the question, but I tried to do it in such a way that it didn’t imply that I thought she wore too much, because I didn’t want her to feel defensive about it. As it turns out, I was considerably less clever than I thought I was, because she did end up getting defensive about it, but I got a sense of the why in spite of myself. It seemed to me that she had come to the realization that people paid more attention to her when she wore jewelry, and more jewelry meant more attention. She had gotten her sense of self-worth wrapped up in her jewelry. When I realized that, I backed off the issue, and tried to soothe her ruffled feathers, but I may not have done a very good job of that, either (I have since heard that I tried to talk her into selling her jewelry and giving the money to the church—I did no such thing, but, she may have felt that I was suggesting that, and told somebody who told somebody…). For what it’s worth, I really don’t care how much jewelry one wears, but I do worry sometimes about what it says about one when one wears so much jewelry.
Still, this is something that has plagued people for just about as long as there have been people. In First Samuel 1, we learn about Hannah, who is distraught because she has no children. Her husband, Elkanah, asks her if he is not better to her than ten sons, and, in truth, takes very good care of her, because he loves her very much, with or without children. This would seem to be a common thought amongst Old Testament women: Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, competed see who could produce more children. In both cases, the woman’s sense of self-worth was wrapped up in being a mother; being a good wife wasn’t enough. Even today, people sometimes get their sense of self-worth from things that really shouldn’t have anything to do with it. I mentioned jewelry before, but there are other things. Some people think that they need a spouse to be whole (of course we know that no single man is complete, but once he gets married, then he is finished). Some still think that they need to have children. There is nothing wrong with wearing jewelry, being married, or having children, but, a person’s sense of self-worth should be based on the fact that your Creator made you, He loves you, and He gave Himself for you, to redeem you from the world. No one, not spouse, nor children, nor parents, will ever love you more than He does.

Sodom and Gomorrah

There’s an interesting story in Genesis 18 and 19: God appears to Abraham in the form of a man, with two angels, also in the form of men, and He warns Abraham that the city of Sodom is going to be destroyed. Abraham knows that his nephew Lot is living in Sodom, and he is, understandably, concerned for his nephew’s life. For whatever reason, though, Abraham doesn’t want to just come out and say, “God, you aren’t going to kill my nephew, too, are you?” So, instead, he tries to bargain with God. “But, God, surely there are some righteous people in Sodom (they can’t all be wicked—I know, my beloved nephew is there), you won’t destroy the city if there are, say, fifty righteous people in Sodom.” That’s not a direct quote, by the way, I’m paraphrasing. And God says, “If there are fifty righteous in the city, I will not destroy the city,” knowing full well that there aren’t fifty. So Abraham decides to push his luck—God answered much too quickly, there must not be fifty righteous people in Sodom, “But what if there’s only forty-five? You wouldn’t destroy an entire city for the lack of five people, would you?” Again, God answers immediately, that He would not. Now Abraham realizes that there must not be forty-five. “What if there’s only forty?” Eventually, Abraham talks God to ten, dropping five people each time. But, after God promises not to destroy Sodom if there are ten righteous people in Sodom, He tells Abraham not to ask Him again.
Of course, God did spare Lot, even though He did destroy the city. The two angels that were with God when He spoke to Abraham went to Sodom and got Lot, and his wife, and two of his daughters out of the city. They tried to get Abraham’s other two daughters out, but they, and their husbands, thought Lot was crazy, or drunk, or playing an April Fool’s joke; they wouldn’t leave. Even then, the angels told Lot’s family not to look back, and Lot’s wife looked back, anyway. Why? Apparently she had friends in Sodom; she had become accustomed to her way of life in Sodom, she didn’t want to give that up. When your way of life becomes more important to you than your life itself, then you have a problem.
There are a few things that we can learn from this: The usual moral attached to this story is don’t look back. Of course, Jesus told us that any man, putting his hand to the plow, and looking back, is not fit…In Romans chapter 6, Apostle Paul asks the church at Rome what good were they able to do before accepting Christ, that now they have regrets. That’s a good moral, but I think that there is more.
Abraham tried to bargain with God. It is a testament to Abraham’s faithfulness that God allowed him to try, but, I think that it’s important to note that it didn’t do any good. God still destroyed the city of Sodom, even though Abraham tried to talk Him out of it, but God saved Lot, even though Abraham never specifically asked Him for that. It’s what Abraham wanted, but he never did ask. It occurs to me that it’s better to just ask God for what you want—He may say no, but you aren’t going to bargain anything away from Him that He isn’t willing to give you, anyway.

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?