Good Friday? Maybe Not.

No, I am not going to go into the whole thing about the passion of Christ being a 'good' thing or not.  That is not what this post is about.  My issue is the day of the crucifixion.  I am not really sure Jesus was crucified on Friday is all.

What got me thinking about this is one of those nit picky details that I ran into several years ago.  The nit picky detail?  Jesus prophecy of his own death to the Pharisees.  Matthew 12:38-40:

 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”  But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;  for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (NASB - emphasis mine)  

It's the 'three nights' thing that nails you.  Because, if you have Jesus crucified on Friday and coming back to life on Sunday, you only get two nights no matter how you try to dance around it.  The truth is the only way this prophecy could be wholly accurate is if for Jesus is laid to rest on Thursday. 

Yes, I know Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus were trying hard to get Jesus buried before the sabbath, but it never says this was a normal sabbath.  There actually is some good Biblical evidence that this was a special sabbath.  It is called the 'day of preparation', etc.  One of those, Passover falls on Friday (thus making Friday a Sabbath too)  and then Saturday as the normal Sabbath, things.  This would make a two day long - Sabbath.  Passover falls on whatever day it falls on.  Could be Tuesday or Friday.  The issue is then it creates a two day rest period off that would be known as "Sabbath".  This actually happens a lot with the Passover and it is quite possible that is what happened here.

So the next question is: "Is there a year that fits this pattern during the life of Christ?"  The answer is 'yes' but it isn't the year 33 AD.  Its the year 29 AD.  This is actually something that has been long debated by scholars for this very reason.  It changes Jesus' birth year to 4BC, but that also fits history with Augustus Caesar and Herod the Great and all that history stuff.  If so, then Jesus dies and is raised from the dead in 29AD.  He is killed on a Thursday and then rises from the dead on Sunday.  Three days. Three nights. Prophecy fullfilled.

What difference does all this make?  Not much as I suspect we will still be celebrating 'Good Friday' forever.  It is tradition and tradition is a tough thing to change, especially religious ones.  I also don't think it is a bad tradition as traditions go.  It means at least all of us Christians are celebrating something of significance in Jesus' cross and death at the same time.  That isn't all bad.

The real issue is an apologetic one, because I am pretty sure the opponents of the faith have not let this 'discrepency' go unnoticed.  But, if we strive to reconcile it with some real history and evidence, the history still works.  'Good Thursday' just doesn't sing off the tongue.                

Rabyd Opinion: Pat Robertson's Definition of Justice

Preacher Hopes for Manning Injury

Oh Boy!  It really is hard enough enough to deal with the whole Tim Tebow thing without some preacher butting his opinion in.   It gets of course weirder when it is Pat Robertson shooting off his mouth. The link above will take you to the story in question.

OK. As a football fan, I think there are a lot of stupid moves here.  Tebow was getting the one stat that matters 'Wins' and to be blunt if it hadn't been for his involvement in last years season the Broncos would have never made the playoffs.  How is Tebow rewarded for his effort and results? He is traded to the Jets because John Elway wants Peyton Manning.  To me this is symptomatic of the lack of loyalty that is rampant in the NFL, but it is also simply business.  There is noting really unethical about being traded, it is the way of things.  We can question John Elway's intelligence and that of the team that took Tebow (The New York Jets) who already signed their starter to a three year extension, but there is nothing unethical about it.  Can we say 'Quarterback controversy' in both towns at the start of the season?  Yes, we can.

Lack of Intelligence aside, there is nothing ethically wrong in sport with being traded.  It is business.  So when the Christian darling Tim Tebow (Who should fire his agent) gets traded, that is what it is - business. 

Along comes Pat Robertson:

"And you just ask yourself," Robertson said, "OK, so Peyton Manning was a tremendous MVP quarterback, but he's been injured. If that injury comes back, Denver will find itself without a quarterback. And in my opinion, it would serve them right."

*Sigh* Really, it would be justice for Payton Manning to be hurt as fit punishment for trading Tebow?  Sorry, this does not work. 
1) It was the Broncos, not Peyton Manning that traded Tebow.  To punish Manning for their actions would not be justice.
2) This is business, sorry it is true.  Maybe not smart business, but there is nothing illegal or immoral about it.
3) Robertson has placed Peyton (who God also loves as much as Tebow) on a lesser status than Tebow.  That somehow, it would be OK if God, or more likely a destructive Defensive End, would hurt him to teach the Broncos a lesson.  Bad theology.
4) So much for the teaching of Christ: Pray for your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you and all that.
5) I find such remarks to be self-righteous, like any of us know who deserves what as far as justice.  Pat has placed himself in a position of judgment and a definer of justice and I am not sure he is qualified to do that.  He really has no right to speak for God unless he is quoting Him from the Bible.  

Pat Robertson has been doing this for a while. Shooting of his mouth without thinking or considering the teachings of his Lord and Savior, so it really comes as no surprise.  He really should read James 3 again and take it to heart.  His remarks on Hurricane Katrina were as stupid as they were bad theology, so the fact that he continues to do this with other issues should not be any surprise.  I have personally lost all respect for a man who in his twilight years of ministry chooses to use them to sensationalize so his name gets mentioned on the Web and in the news, rather than use them to legitimately for the cause of Christ.  He owes Manning and the Broncos an apology.  Probably, God too.

IMHO

Jesus and the Pharisees - Part 1 - Introduction

Sometimes in the course of studying for something, you discover something else.  Recently I have been looking at Nicodemus in John 3:1-21 and elsewhere to get ready for a dramatic presentation and I have run smack dab into the middle of the whole dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees about self-righteousness.  It is not only a heated debate but it encompasses so many subjects that I am certain it can be only covered in a series of articles.

Self-righteousness is one of the most insidious spiritual conditions because not only do you think you do not have it; you will also fight those who point it out to you.  It means that you cannot see your spiritual reality at all.  It is one of the most deadly spiritual conditions and one of the most prevalent.

The more I look at the church of Jesus Christ, particularly in the good ole' United States of America, the more I am convinced that the reason it is struggling in a classic case of self righteousness.  We condemn the world and exalt ourselves.  We impose our moral codes on others without doing them ourselves.  We find all manners of way to get in people's face about how sinful they are, while all the while sinning ourselves. 

For me, this enlightenment has been a long journey, but as I look through the Bible at the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, I now realize that conflict would take place today but it would be between the church and Jesus.  Bold words I suppose.  I plan to back them up in this series.

In this series I will do what I always do.  First, I will observe the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus.  Secondly, I will offer up some interpretation of what I see in this conflict.  Finally, I will offer up application to our life and world here in the 21st century.

Next: Who Were the Pharisees?

Rabyd Theologian 3.0? Really?

OK.  I am sitting around on my birthday a few days ago and wondered what has been agonizing my soul of late.  I have felt something has been out of sorts for a while now and it had nothing to do with the church, work or otherwise.  All of those thing have been OK for the most part.  Something was simply out of balance and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Something happened on my missions trip to Romania and to be quite honest I could not figure it out.  I simply stopped being inspired to write anything.  There was simply too much to digest from my trip and I think my mind and heart got log jammed.  Inspiration and desire simply stopped.  I am not sure that was a bad thing. 

At the time, I had purchased two URLs, one for the Rabyd Theologian 2.0 and the other for Open Theism.  Odd thing, I began to move from writing because I loved it into this world where I was trying to make money with it and BAM!!!, nothing.  I am pretty sure with me now that pressure of this kind leads to the well drying up a little.  I am no longer trying to make this my lifeblood source of income, but enough to justify the time spent would be nice.

Back to the missions trip, ever have one of those events in your life that make you think hard for a long time?  That trip to Romania did it for me.  I simply can't express the feelings and lessons in words.  There is a far larger world out there for me now and yet smaller too.  My theology and its direction needed a little bit of an overhaul.

Then came the angst.  Angst is a great German word that deals with the great unsettled feeling we have when facing the unknown within us.  I need to write again to let it out.

Why not just pick up the old Rabyd Theologian 2.0?  Because I simply feel it is time for a fresh start.  Don't worry though, I will probably transfer everything over here eventually, but I want to edit and relabel each post.  Some stuff will probably get dropped for simply being B.S. posts or rambling junk.  Patience please.  This time I want to do it right and leave nothing unfinished, except maybe the last series or post I do.

Blessings and Welcome to the Rabyd Theologian 3.0

Marriage and the Bible - Part 50 - Final Thoughts

This series started with a series of questions and a simple idea to go through the Bible and find out what is actually said about marriage.  With 50 posts it stands as probably the most lengthy thing I have done to date and I am sure some of those questions weer answered, but not always in the way one would have thought.  

1. Is there a difference between being married and being husband and wife?

I would say yes.  At least there is a great deal of difference between a couple that seeks to have a spiritual covenant and those who engage in a cultural contract type of obligation.  It seems that God has always desired man and woman to have what the original couple had before the fall of man.  A triune relationship with Him, man and woman together.  Sin entered the world and over time culture and law began to seek to define marriage as forms of obligation and give it in many ways a mechanical and practical view away from the idea of 'one flesh', naked and unashamed.

In our world Christians find themselves where the ultimate desire for their married lives is to return to this covenant relationship but still there are cultural and legal obligations that define marriage.  God seems to let mankind define this but presses each couple 'back to the garden'  as it were.  Mankind can indeed present difficulties in this as sometimes marriage contracts are not written with this in mind.  In some forms cultural contract marriage is actually a deterrent to achieving spiritual covenant.  The spiritual covenant marriage is about God; the cultural contract is about man.  God seems to respect or at least allow both, but His desire is to bring mankind back to the garden at least in spirit.

2. Does the Bible give a actual moment of marriage that is definable?

This greatly depends on what you are talking about.  When it comes to culture and law, marriage is definable when all requirements are met and agreed on.  Those requirements are different for each culture and nation so it is difficult to say anything other than God honors that man makes some choices here.  Even here, because of the nature of humanity, this can be a clear as mud.  In a spiritual covenants I see that is this union is only possible with one man, one woman and God at a moment when all three parties come together in spirit, mind, heart and for the couple flesh. 

I think it is very possible to have one without the other but often what happens is a conjunction of both.  Some marriages start out as covenants without cultural obligations such as Adam and Eve's being husband and wife.  Others start off as a cultural and legal obligation and can change into a spiritual covenant.  The best marriages in our fallen world try to live up to both with an understanding that, if push comes to shove, what God desires in a spiritual covenant takes precedent over the cultural contract.

3. Are other types marriage bonds acceptable?

What can be said about this is that the Bible allows for the fact that humans are going to be humans and we are going to enter into less than perfect relationships because of it.  The Bible presents many forms of marriage in its contract form: polygamy and concubinage for the most part with marriages that are purely procreative or pleasure oriented.  God accepts that human being will want to control sexual expression to maintain certain cultural and legal obligations.

What the Bible takes the dimmest view on is anything that involves sin in the relationship or a mixing of faith (believers with unbelievers).  In our modern context, that means open marriages and homosexual marriages are out, but polygamy and even group marriage (minus homosexual and open elements) are real possibilities.  The problem with all of these though is that outside the simplest arrangement for marriage (one man, one woman for life) there becomes a diminished capacity to live up to or even attain a marriage that is a true spiritual covenant. 

4. Can a marriage end?

The unfortunate answer is yes.

The real truth is that spiritual covenants require a great deal of effort to both attain and maintain and this means that there are a lot of opportunities for it to become the lesser form of marriage -- the cultural contract. 

In the cultural contract form, marriage can be broken and ended when one side or the other decides the obligations are not being kept.  Christians probably should take note that Jesus defines adultery as the only thing that should end any marriage but allowance is also made for mixed marriages by Paul and the fact Jesus even seems to indicate that 'hardness of heart' can still cause a marriage end, it just may not justify it.

The other unfortunate end to marriage is death and this in effect ends both kinds of marriage.  This can make the end of a spiritual covenant marriage particularly difficult when a couple is truly one flesh.

In the end marriage is both an action involving both God and man and thus it gets complicated even in the Bible as it greatly is affected by what what a person or culture is seeking to produce with marriage.  Marriage involves a lot of choices but God's desire remains the same.  That desire being to see a man and woman one flesh, naked and unashamed working for His purposes.

Finis

Previous: Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure? 

Marriage and the Bible - Part 49 - Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

The question keeps getting raised by people who challenge traditional marriage:Is it a failure?  There are even people who suggest that we should do away with legal marriages all together and just let people do what they want.  Given some of the Recent headlines with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner as well as the 50% divorce rate, there seems to be ammo with this.  Why not just call traditional marriage a wash and let people live in any arrangement they want?

Firstly, I reject the notion that the institute of traditional marriage is a failure. Things may fail but there is always a human reason why they fail.  When a building collapses, we don't sue the building but the people who designed it, built it and said it was OK.  In traditional marriage, the idea is sound, in fact it really stands at the only true way to have the highest form of intimacy between a man and a woman.  The issue is not the institution of traditional marriage but the people who say "I do".

Secondly, as much as we want to show marriage failures as evidence there are also couples who succeed.  I have been to 60 year, 50 year, 40 year and 25 year anniversary celebrations.  I myself just celebrated 22 years with the same woman just yesterday.  The truth is that for every failure there is a success.

Ultimately, I would conclude that those who want to talk about the failure of traditional marriage are people who have an unfortunate wrong understanding about what traditional marriage is supposed to be about.  It is supposed to be about a spiritual covenant with God and a member of the opposite sex that runs as an example of what the relationship between Christ and the Church is supposed to be.  Traditional Marriage then ultimately fails because people fail to understand this.  This is reflected in many thing I have seen over the years:

1. People going into marriage purely for selfish self interest.  If all you talk about before you get married is what the marriage is going to do for you and you never think about what your responsibilities are toward the other person are and how you can make them a better person, you have a problem.

2. Failure to understand God's role in the covenant.  Going into a marriage without God automatically reduces marriage to a contract.  Contracts break.

3. Viewing marriage as a manipulative tool to get what you want done from your spouse.  The main thing to remember about marriage vows is to make sure your fulfilling your end of them.  I see so many people who complain about their spouse's not fulfilling what they expect, but are completely oblivious to their own failures.

4. Failing to be your spouse's best friend.  Viewing a spouse as an attachment and not a friend is the first step to divorce.

5. Failing to engage in the things that bring intimacy.  Worshiping, communicating, loving and sexual expression all have their place to do this when done a a couple.

In short, when a person starts viewing their spouse as a thing that should just do what they want without concern for their person hood or what they are needing, you are viewing your marriage as a contract.

In a sense, I too believe traditional marriage should go.  It should go, if all people are going to use it for is a contract to keep the other person obligated.  It should be returned to its real role of a covenant expression of love between to people and God.  That is probably the difference in most marriages as far as success or failure.

Next: Final Thoughts

Previous: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 48 - Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

If there is a topic of conversation that everyone has an opinion on, it's homosexual marriage.  In our modern western culture, this topic probably generates more heat than light as the emotions run very high all the way around.  Christians and homosexual advocates are particularly vocal and at times very hostile toward each other.

Biblically, there is no doubt as to the stand on homosexual practice - it is a sin.  Most notably is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 where he calls the act 'unnatural' and 'degrading'.  This along with many other verses makes the Bible's position clear.  Homosexuality is a sin.

One thing though that needs to be cleared up about homosexuality is how big a sin it really is.  The way you hear the TV preachers talk it is the most terrible sin ever.  The fact is that it is in many ways equal to other sexual sins.  In the Law, homosexuality and adultery have the same penalty - death.  This indicates that while homosexuality isn't exactly high on God's hit parade, neither is adultery which the Bible equates as equally despicable in God's sight.  This sheds a whole new light on the issue to me because many Christians will decry the homosexual and then turn around and slightly shrug their shoulders when it comes to adultery saying: 'well these things happen'.  No wonder the charge of hypocrisy sticks.

The rhetoric that is thrown both ways is not helpful.  I find the term 'homophobic' not only to be a bogus term, but to be an emotionally laced term as well that has no value; it simply is used against the opponents of homosexuality so they will shut up and then no real debate or discussion takes place on the value of homosexuality.  On the flip side, the expression "Hate the sin, but love the homosexual" does not have much effect either.  It in fact creates more barriers.

The real issue from a marriage standpoint for me is that any such union will never be more than a contract arrangement, the only question that remains for American society is: will such a contract be culturally accepted?  The reason I say this is that the Bible offers no possibility for a same-sex couple to truly achieve spiritual covenant.  By design, God has created male and female and only presents that this arrangement has  a possibility of achieving such a union.  In simplest terms, it is not possible.

My basic contention is that homosexuals cannot actually achieve sexual intercourse, therefore the idea they can be truly 'one flesh' is not possible.  The reality is that while a homosexual couple can draw close to each other emotionally, mentally and even spiritually, they can never truly be physically one.  In all cases of homosexuality, sexual expression can only be achieved by everything else but actual sexual intercourse. 

The other place where  a homosexual union fails is that to have a covenant is that God must be in it.  The only relationship that can draw close in homosexuality is the between the two humans,  Because God declares that a homosexual union is sin, there is no way He could draw close to either party unless they give up their homosexuality.  Sorry, No spiritual covenant.

My counsel to homosexuals is the same though as I would to a couple in open marriage.  You are settling for a lesser form of marriage than the one form that is presented as the ideal.  That ideal, one man / one woman in covenant with each other and God stands as the biblically highest form of marriage.

Even if laws were changed to allow such unions, I simply do not see a Biblical acceptance of the idea of homosexual marriage.  Culture may accept it, and Christians will indeed have to accept it if that happens.  The fact remains that culture changes and over the centuries Christianity has had to adapt and change to maintain 'love and truth'.

Next: Modern Challenge: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Previous: Modern Challenge: Line or Group Marriage