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?

Marriage and the Bible - Part 33 - Jesus and Other Marriage Issues

Outside divorce Jesus is not silent. In fact some of the things Jesus hints at can shed some light on other things involving marriage.

1. The Necessity of Marriage:
In Matthew 19 after Jesus gives his teaching on divorce, one of the disciples comments that it would then be better for a man not to marry. Jesus comments that not everyone can accept this statement. He is not saying it is not possible but that only those who can handle celibacy should not get married. Some men are that way from birth, others are made that way by men and others by God, but not everyone can accept this idea. Marriage stays, because honestly without it there would be no sex or children born within the proper boundary God has set. Only marriage can protect these so nothing sinful happens. Without the law of marriage, the legal side, things get real ugly.

2. Marriage as Part of this World, but Not the One to Come:
In Matthew, Mark and Luke all have Jesus being confronted by the Sadducees with the question about the woman who was married to seven brothers (one at a time). Jesus realizes the question is really about the resurrection, but his statement: "There is neither marriage or giving in marriage, but all are as the angels of heaven" have lead some to believe that God will end marriage and the whole male-female equation. In am not sure we can go that far with Jesus' statement because I don't think Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall were 'married' in the sense that the conversation between Jesus and the Sadducees indicates. They were one flesh. Marriage contracts and customs result from sin ultimately and so it is in my mind still possible that relationships of this sort could be possible in the hereafter. Sure there are a lot of questions with multiple partners in life, but that is why we say - 'till death do us part'. Jesus seems to indicate by saying: because they cannot die' that marriage is ultimately nullified in glory because of immortality; but this does not indicate that there is no longer male and female or relationships of some sort between the two.

3. Marriage as a Matter of Society and Custom:
The woman at the well indicates something else. Jesus remarks that she had five husbands and the guy she was living with now was not her husband. The indication is that she was still having sex with the guy but she was not married to him. Marriage cannot simply be copulation based on this passage. There is something more to it than sexual joining. There must it seem also be an acknowledgement by the society and culture that two people are married. You can see the divorce law in action here, but the interesting thing to me is that you can indeed live with two different partners but one you are considered married to because society says you are married and the other you are not because society says your not. In some way then, the acknowledgement of mankind over a couple as to their state of marriage does factor in. Sure, it muddies the waters of the discussion but it is there.

Next: Paul: Bride and Groom / Church and Jesus.

The Resurrection - History Not Hype

I am dedicating this post to Kerry McRoberts, my apologetics instructor at Trinity Bible College back in the day, because it was he that passed on the importance of this to me and I in turn have passed it on to others and continue to do so.

In a very real sense I am not saying anything new here, but every year there is some atheist or agnostic out there who challenges Christians about the historical reality of the resurrection and they do it for good reason; on it EVERYTHING hinges.

First off, the Biblical writers, particularly Paul were very aware that on this issue everything hinged. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 Paul writes: "...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is vain." In short, if Jesus did not physically come out of the tomb as an historical event, everything we believe and trust in is a complete waste of time. On this issue, all faith hinges. If Christ is not raised: His blood has no power to atone for sins, his sacrifice has no meaning, His broken body cannot reconcile us back to friendship with God, all of His teaching and promises are lies because it all would hinge on the promise of him rising form the dead after three days and nights in the ground. It that promise is a lie then everything else is a lie. Also, it means all of ministry - our evangelism, worship and discipleship -- ALL of it is a complete waste of time if Jesus is not raised from death.

I want to point out, there are good reasons for believing the resurrection is a historical event:

1. It was witnessed by many that Jesus was alive after the dead. Paul lays this out in 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 and cites all the witnesses as well as pointing out that many were still alive if people wanted to ask them what they saw. People challenge the gospels but they really have no reason to do so other than their own prejudice that somehow if something is religious it somehow could not be historical. Each of them, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, testify to one fact that they all agree -- Jesus came out of the tomb and was seen alive after he was crucified. If they all agreed perfectly on the details, the critics would say they copied each other if they differed greatly they would say the facts are in dispute. As it is, there is common agreement with each witness but enough variance to say they are telling things from their own point of view. The fact that they make religious statements should not invalidate the witnesses as many ancient writer make reference of gods and goddesses (Julius Caesar talks about Fortune's actions in his life for instance - Fortune being a goddess) but that invokes no questions when they make historical statements at times. So why then are the gospels treated any differently? Because the critics make up special rules for them because of their prejudice against the idea that someone can be raised from the dead.

2. The Jews maintained for years that Jesus had been stolen by the disciples, but that story is more unbelievable than he came back to life. You want to tell me four Roman soldiers all fell asleep at the same time when they are trained from day one that if any one of them falls asleep they are to be put to death by the others? These legionaries were not rookies. You did not send new legions to Palestine; you sent grizzled veterans. To have four trained and veteran legionaries all fall asleep at the exact same time when they knew the penalty, is far more improbable than the idea that the soldiers were instructed to lie about Jesus coming out of the tomb. I believe it would further fall apart if those same soldiers became Christians themselves and after what they saw do we doubt that some of them; if not all, would have. It must have been one of them that relayed the story to Matthew because Matthew was not actually there yet his account in Matthew chapter 28 is very detailed. Only the soldiers guarding Jesus would have had those details.

3. The one thing people always say is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There is some truth to this but are we going to say that eyewitness testimony is COMPLETELY unreliable? Let's take an accident report at fourth and main at noon. There are four witnesses to the accident between two cars. When the police reports are compared there is disagreement about the exact color of the two cars, maybe who was driving, but they all agree about the fact that a) the accident took place, b) that it was at the corner of fourth and main street and c) it happened around noon. The question then becomes: what type of thing is the resurrection: a detail or the main focus? The four witnesses have different accounts to some degree (which I believe can be reconciled in the details), but they all agree on a) the Resurrection took place, b) it took place in the garden around the tomb and C) it was early Sunday morning. The main thing is all the same and verified.

4. How reliable are ancient documents? How reliable has the transcription process been? All I have to say is 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and it testifies that scribal copying processes are not only detailed but exacting, especially when something is considered holy or important or both. Secondly, there are more manuscripts of ancient origin for the New Testament than any other document of the same time period. If you are going to question the textual history of the New Testament, then even more questionable would be Julius Caesar's works on Gaul, Plato's work on Socrates, etc. etc. because they have even less texts of age backing them than the gospels of the New Testament. Ultimately a lot of things we believe in history are based on witnesses who wrote something down and those documents were copied and passed down. If we cannot believe the New Testament, then there are a lot of other things we should doubt as well.

5. This one is a question to ponder: How many people are willing to die for what they know to be a lie? If we are to believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead, the we must believe that nearly all of the ones who saw him after he was crucified walking around died for a lie. It seems to be that even a lie propagated for a purpose begins to unravel under pressure. We have all known powerful men who; under investigation, will give up their lie to save their skin. Yet, here are a bunch of common men who maintain to their deaths that Jesus rose from the dead. It seem that if this was lie the story would have unravelled very early on and Christianity would have been a mere footnote in history books not the history changing movement it was through the centuries. There is something of real power and reality backing it, or it would have come to nothing.

I actually have a lot more of this, but the above are the high marks. I could tell of Josephus and Philo, of first century satirists who made fun if Christians but never challenged the existence of Jesus or his resurrection, but I would be here a long time to chronicle these, so I leave you to search them out.

He is Risen!!! That is History and not Hype.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 32 - Jesus on Divorce

As we enter the New Testament, the issues change slightly because of history. The Jews do not practice widespread polygamy and there is a hardcore line on marrying outside the faith although it still does happen from time to time. Many years have passed and the resulting half Jew-half Gentile unions have resulted in a group of people known as the Samaritans.

One major 'problem' was the fact that Jewish men were very fond of using Moses law of giving a certificate of divorce and would do so for many reasons. When Jesus begins his public ministry one of his classic teachings covers this issue and will become a major point of contention on this issue.

In Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 all have the repetition of several ideas:

1. That marriage is about the joining of male and female into something that is one flesh that no man should separate.

2. That if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery and if the former wife remarries she also is committing adultery

3. The sole exception to this is if sexual sin is involved.

In the follow up question by the Pharisees is about why the Moses law of divorce was given. Jesus replies that it was because of the hardness of heart of the Jews not because it was God's highest desire.

That leads to a few observations:

1. Jesus is directly confronting the contract marriage mentality and supporting the notion that there should be something more to marriage than just obligations. Instead he points back to the beginning and the 'one flesh' relationship between Adam and Eve.

2. Jesus seems to be indicating that the only real reason for divorce that is allowed by God is infidelity, but He also said that he was not teaching in such a way as to destroy the law and prophets so there must be some aspect of Moses' law of divorce that still holds true. If so, what is it? There does not seem to be any good explanation other than 'hardness' may still occur.

3. To not desire one flesh, may be the source of this hardness. If you are only after a contract, your not viewing the other person as a person, just an obligation and that can lead to hardness.

Ultimately, Jesus makes a very strong stand for marriage over divorce and one of the motivating forces behind this may very likely be to protect women.

A good example of this is the woman at the well in John 4. Five husbands means either five divorces or some combination of divorce and death of spouse. In any case, this woman is at the mercy of any kindness any man will show her, but it puts her in an awkward position. She either must get remarried, beg or become a prostitute. In this case, she has chosen to be a live in mistress. I feel that she simply had known the sting of being a cast off woman, probably because she was not fertile, as there is no mention of any children in her life only former husbands. It was such women that Jesus may have been thinking off when he chastises the men of his day for being hard toward their wives and that is why they liked divorce so much.

Of all the marriage issues, Jesus talks about this one the most and it is clear that is because the men of his day were abusing the divorce rule. It is however not the only marriage issue He addresses.

Next: Jesus and Other Marriage Issues

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

"Whose Side Are You On?"

I had someone ask me this once. My problem is that Christianity today makes it so easy to switch sides; which I why I have had to completely rethink it to keep my own faith intact. It wasn't simply to rethink the answers to the BIG questions, but to rethink the way Christianity needs to be practiced.

I suppose I should be worried out on a limb like this but I am in good company -- Jesus was very much a guy who was not afraid to take on the religious people of his day. You know those Pharisees that made their rules more important than the Bible. In the end, I had to create some questions to test myself:
1. Am I seeking to enslave people with my religious rules or am I liberating people through the Gospel?
2. Am I following my Master's command to do good to those who hate me and praying for those who are my enemies or am I engaged in political action to get them to see things my way and conform?
3. When dealing with unbelievers am I practicing wisdom or contempt?
4. Is it easier to pass judgment and think the worst or exercise grace and believe the best?

I follow these rules and now I find myself in a position more and more to talk to unbelievers because by doing this I have found myself listening more and talking less. One thing of note is that no dialogue takes place when we treat people with contempt or engage in name calling -- save that for the self-righteous.

In the end the issue is one of living the commands of Christ, not just acknowledging the truth of them and still doing what you want.

That is why at times I seem to be on the side of agnostics and atheists because they are bringing up valid points, but Christians as a general rule seem to be more interested in creating their own safe Christian world than ministering to the world outside.

Petra's song 'Looking Through Rose Colored Stained Glass Windows' has become more true each year.
"Looking through rose-colored stained glass windows
Never allowing the world to come in
Seeing no evil and feeling no pain
making THE LIGHT as it comes from within so dim."
Petra off the album 'More Power To Ya" (emphasis mine)

Whose Side am I On? Christ's: but I am learning that following his teachings and fulfilling them are the real mark of whether that is true or not. I find the more I understand this, the less time I have call down judgment on the world because I know that He himself said: "For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" John 3:17. Jesus was more interested in bringing the sinner to repentance than condemning that sinner's lifestyle and trying to regulate it through legislation.

I now value openness between sides so they can talk. If Christianity truly is the truth, then there is no question that should throw it or that Christians should not be able to come up with a reasoned and rational response. If it is true, there should truly also be no evil done to us or around us that we cannot respond to with compassion and love. If these things are not true of Christianity then there is something wrong and it needs to be corrected. We can't expect respect until we give it.

Is the Bible Inspired and Infallible?

What follows is a typical quote about the Bible from a church denominational statement (in this case -- The Assemblies of God):
"The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct"
There are many others like this one but in the end most of them have the following features:
1. The idea of verbal inspiration
2. The Bible is God's revelation to man
3. The Bible is infallible
4. The Bible is authoritative to the point that it defines what we should believe and and do.

Verbal inspiration means that the belief is that God just didn't just give the authors the ideas they used but the exact words to use -- word for word.

Infallibility means that the Bible contains NO errors. Some denominations add the condition -- 'in the original autographs'. This is done to accept the reality that as the Bible has been copied and translated over the years some things may have been changed, altered, etc. by humans either accidentally or on purpose. Textual Criticism (the branch of scholarship that deals with these changes and how they occur) states though as a whole the Bible is the most free of these things of all the documents of antiquity.

Now, I am going to make a statement that I think that this doctrinal statement has some errors in it. Not because I don't believe the Bible is inspired by God or the rule of faith and conduct for the Christian, but I feel the definitions of what it means to be infallible and inspired go beyond what the Bible even says about itself.

What Bible does say about itself is this:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- NASB). Now some translations prefer to bring out the idea of inspiration being "God breathed" which is good as the word in the Greek does have multiple levels of understanding.
Comparing these verses to the doctrinal statement above though there are some discrepancies.
1. The word 'verbal' does not appear in the Scripture itself, not here or anywhere else. The fact is the concept of HOW God inspired Scripture is a debatable point. When a individual or group says that the Bible is 'verbally' inspired they are making a theological statement not a Biblical one. More on this in a moment.
2. The Bible tells people it is trustworthy to lead them to God and can give them direction, etc. but it never makes claims at absolute infallibility. I think there is a reason for this which I will share in a moment.

What is telling to me is how God is conceived in inspiring the Scriptures.
1) In verbal inspiration, God is so fearful that the human writer might get it wrong he literally takes over the writers brain and hand a writes what he wants written. In short the human writer is nothing more than a automation that does not think or write for himself.
2) In a 'God breathed' scenario the image is different. The idea is that God breathes on something and thus animates and exalts its meaning and effect. The idea is the writer is facing a real practical situation and God breathes on that situation and thus animates (gives life) and exalts the final product to a different level. Picture the writer as a candle and God breathing on the flame to make it more intense and bright. This view has both God and the writer working together where the mind of God and the mind of the writer are in harmony but God does not dominate the writer but works with the writer to make their work together inspired.

The implications of this are staggering for the idea of the infallibility. That God may allow the idea He inspires to be taken by the writer and creatively used may mean that the discrepancies that people see in scripture may simply be that God allows interpretive freedom for the writer and that is why the differences and discrepancies. That the Bible is both a Divine and Human work, means that the same event can be looked at in different ways and be interpreted differently by the authors of Scripture themselves.

Probably the best and simplest way to illustrate what I am talking about it is to use the Gospel writers:
Matthew -- tax collector, eyewitness and one of the twelve. Writing to his Jewish brethren
Mark -- eyewitness to some events but not all, disciple of Christ but not one of the twelve, possible one of the seventy. It is believed that Peter was at his elbow as he wrote offering his views. Mark is writing to Gentiles. particularly Romans.
Luke -- Gentile believer, historian, doctor, not an eyewitness but someone who did interview eyewitnesses. Acting as a guy writing a documentary.
John -- One of the twelve and eyewitness, in addition he was one of the inner three disciples (Peter, James and John) giving him first hand experience with some of the events that others did not see. Tells other things the first three do not and offers up details they do not cover as he is writing some 30 years after the other three.

Lets take the the account of The Gerasene Demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-37 and Mark 5:1-20). Picture each author as doing a movie about the life of Jesus.
Matthew's would look like saving Private Ryan -- through an eyewitness lens that is moving very quickly. He notes the main events and moves to the next one without pausing for detail or getting a look at the other parts of the picture. The Demoniac is a Gentile so has little appeal to the Jewish audience he is writing to, so the account is quick and accurate but the details of what happened to either man are unimportant to him-- there are two guys and Jesus casts out the demons into the swine and then leaves -- end of story.
Mark is different -- his is like an up close look at the human side of Jesus and so his details are more specific . Matthew writes like someone at a distance, but Mark like he is right there in the middle of the thing dealing directly with the situation. Peter may be chiming in with the details he remembers as well. The Demoniac is a Gentile and because Mark is writing to Roman Gentiles, he focuses on him for 20 verses as a central character to make his point for his message that Jesus cared about Gentiles. The second guy is missing, but it may be the simple fact that this guy stayed and the other ran off. Mark only really knows about this one, so he doesn't mention the second guy because there would be no point to doing so for his purposes.
Luke is doing a documentary film. Picture interviews after the fact and Luke basically saying --'this is what can be confirmed by all witnesses' like a narrator. No second guy here either, but what Luke is saying is the second guy just dropped out of sight and he simply can't confirm he existed and truth be told from the standpoint of making a point about the accuracy of Jesus' life, the second guy really is just a blip on the radar.

In both the case of Mark and Luke, the second guy may simply have been left out because from the standpoint of significance to the story of Christ he isn't that significant. They are simply editing their film so to speak and leaving him out because he isn't essential to what they are trying to do with their gospel. It does not speak of inaccuracy of anybodies account just that each were allowed by God to tell the story from their point of view with their objectives in mind and thus they are allowed to EDIT the story.

What does this mean for the doctrines of infallibility and inspiration. That we not only need to look at passages of Scripture from God's divine inspiration of the passages involved but that each author put something of themselves into the Scriptures as well. It means the Bible is both Divine and Human in a curious but wondrous mix of God's inspiration and human creativity.

Certain fundamentalist types will object to this (guys I call hyper-fundamentalists) because they feel if the Bible allows human creativity it could lead to error. My point is that if we don't allow for human creativity than God is of divided mind telling different accounts of the same story like he couldn't get it right the first time. By bringing humans in to the inspiration process, it changes what we mean by both inspiration and infallibility that such differences are not only allowed for but expected because each person -- including the Biblical writers -- is different.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 20 -- Other Things to Consiider -- Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith

Now I want people to understand that I am not picking on Islamic people here. The issue is religion vs. faith in the context of nakedness and you can find dress codes all over the place for am multitude of reasons. Substitute any faith for 'Islamic' and you have the idea.

There is nothing more worthy of contempt that a person whose faith is only outward and has no living nature to it. Religiousness does this.

Jesus had no love for religious practice without heart. The Pharisees often were his favorite target. Why? Because to everyone else they were both righteous and religious, to Jesus they were whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones. They controlled people's outward behavior -- what they ate, what they did on the Sabbath, what they wore, etc. They had no living relationship with God.

When I look at how the church views nakedness, I see more and more how this issue has become about the control of behavior. There are those in the church who want to define modest and nakedness for others and then tell them how to dress. They may be well meaning but in the end they tell other people what nakedness is (whether it is Biblical or not is not the issue) and then condemn those who do not live to their code. Probably the most heinous example of this is how men in the church tell women what to wear so they will not be tempted to lust. I love it when men, or women put up to it by men, start telling Christian women that if they do not dress a certain way they are acting like prostitutes or being sensual. They are inciting men to lust by how they dress. The real aim is control. I am going to also level the accusation that such men are actually guilty of lust and by trying to control women's dress they are admitting their weakness to it. I wonder why none of them looking the mirror and say -- 'I have to change'? Because they have a self righteous belief in the rightness of their opinion. "My lust is not my problem it is all these women running around 'naked' that are the problem".

Living Faith differs from this in that a person is dedicated to a relationship with God. it is not about religious codes or following rules as it is about love. Love toward God; love toward neighbor. Physical nakedness should not affect a person acting in in living faith and love. When a man sees a woman, regardless of dress, he will either choose to love who she is or treat her like an object. When religious people look at a woman and say "Did you see how she was immodestly dressed' they are not acting in love. They are simply bringing someone else down to justify themselves.

Living faith understands that their is a genuine difference between admiration of a person' body and lusting after a person's body.

One example in Scripture is Esther 2:7 where Esther is declared to be by the writer to be 'lovely of both form and features'. In short she had a great figure and a beautiful face. This is sincere admiration and does not diminish Esther's personhood one bit. The writer is not lusting his is simply pointing out that Esther was beautiful.

Another case of someone respecting the personhood of a woman is Jesus with the woman caught in adultery. Because she was caught in the 'very act' of adultery, one thing can be surmised -she was probably dragged naked to Jesus. Sorry, they did not give her time to dress -- their whole purpose is to humiliate both her and Jesus. As she is dragged naked through the streets, her exposure and shame (true nakedness) would have been more pronounced. Honestly, I don't think the mystery of what Jesus wrote on the ground is as fascinating as how Jesus acts. He looks down to write -- respecting her nakedness. He only faces her to forgive her, once no one condemns her and he does not either. Her exposure and shame evaporates and she heads home with neither, even though the physical state of her dress has not changed. Of course someone probalby covered that up as well, but only after she has already been forgiven.

My point is that living faith based on love is not conscious of a persons physical nakedness but the spiritual nakedness of others. Then it seeks to cover that nakedness with the grace of Christ. Some of the most spiritually naked people I have met have been wearing the most modest of dress. While others I have seen are spiritually covered by god but were wearing little in the way of clothes.

Next: The Final Word on the the Bible and Nakedness.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 2 -- Noah: Drunk and Naked

Genesis 9:20-27"Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant."
This is an odd story. 1) Noah gets drunk and God does not think it ill and 2) God honors his curses and blessings of his sons.
The first I think is explained in the fact that the world Noah now lives in has changed. Before the Flood there is no rain or seasons, but after it there is. This indicates a change in the climate and nature of the world. The flood has removed whatever preserving power of life the world had in its makeup. Evidenced by the fact that the ages of people drop off very fast afterwards and seasons mean there is now weather and natural disaster because of it. I think Noah has no idea that the wine he would make would be alcoholic. He may not have even knew what it was.
The second weirdness has to do with Noah's nakedness. Drunk as he was an perhaps an unwilling participant in this drunkenness. He uncovers himself. I think this refers to full nakedness as when working on the ark the men probably stripped down for work -- Like Peter does in John 21. It is not that these men have not seen most of each other when working and so it is probably the case that Noah is completely naked exposing himself.
The issue here is not so much nakedness as respect. By seeing the nakedness of His father and then telling others he diminished family respect for the leader of that family -- Noah. Shem and Japheth show more respect for their fathers nakedness and cover him without looking. Had Ham done so and then no one but he would have even know he would have covered the shame of his Father's nakedness and shown love to his father. The issue is not the nakedness in and of itself it is how it is reacted too that is the issue. Ham does not show his father respect but exposes him, the other two sons do the opposite. In any case this does little to help us consider the issue of nakedness and modern issues involving it because this is family and these are all men involved.
I don't think there is any evidence that Ham's reaction was homosexual it was one of shock and exposing his father to ridicule -- something that should not have been done.
Next: Sundry Verses about Breasts and Priests

Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter Five

Bart Ehrman's in his book God's Problem changes his direction in chapter five: The Mystery of the Greater Good-Redemptive Suffering. In this chapter Ehrman examines he possibility of redemption through suffering and the concept of Bring about a greater good by sin and suffering than without them. My agreements with this chapter are as follows:

1. Bart makes that statement "We cannot dispute the facts, unless it is the 'facts' that are in dispute". Agreed, but the things that he thinks make the facts in dispute don't really challenge them. Nice saying though.

2. Bart makes mention of the fact that the thought of hell sometimes still makes him wake up at night i n a cold sweat -- it should.
3. Bart bemoans the fact that he is very grateful for many things in his life but without God he has no one to express gratitude to. I wonder if he realizes that God may not give two cents for his gratitude.

4. I agree with the fact that in some cases suffering occurs so that God can be glorified -- Bible says so -- Jesus says so in John 9. It can be a hard concept but that does not make it untrue.

5. Much suffering does not have a silver lining -- even for Christians -- in fact some suffering seems to be downright senseless.

6. There is a quote I agree with at the end of the chapter that should cause all Christians to rethink how they thank God and why. "To think that other people suffer horrible diseases so that i can appreciate my good health is atrocious; to say that other people starve so that i can appreciate my good food is egocentric and cold hearted; to say that i enjoy life so much more now that I see people around me dying is the self-centered raving of an adult who hasn't matured beyond childhood." Man has a point.

Next: Disagreements with Chapter Five

Nudity, Modesty and Culture -- Part One -- Defining Modest

One of my mentors once told me to remember that modesty is culturally defined. He said if I didn't believe him that I should go to the Bible and find a definition of modesty. I think I did find a definition, but there is no way to be clothesline preacher with it.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

I want to note something here Paul never defines what proper clothing is. What modest means is also left undefined -- discretion is a matter of not being flashy or boisterous in the way one dresses.

Peter my shed some light on this as well.

1 Peter 3:1-4: In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

What this passage causes me to ask is whether modestly is about clothes so much as it is attitude of heart. Jesus asks us to judge not on outward appearance (John 7:24), but then we look at these passages and use them as a licence to judge a woman's modesty on how she dresses when that is not what Paul or Peter are advocating at all. It is simply a misapplication of the passages to use them this way. The real issue is the heart of a woman -- whether it is quiet and gentle is the issue.

One thing should be noted that neither of these passages addresses nudity. I can say that, because the culture of day included massive slavery and slaves often were naked as it was a symbol of their station. It's a point we often miss in this ancient Greek-Roman world culture. If either Paul or Peter excluded people from Christianity simply because of nakedness their would be lot of people forced by the culture out of the faith. The fact remains that Christianity spread through the slave cast very quickly; a group where nudity was common because of who they were in relation to their culture.

Paul and Peter are actually addressing free women who are rich -- that they should not allow their upward station to cause themselves to be snobs, think more of themselves than they should or be unsubmissive to their husbands. The two apostles are not addressing nudity or skin, but actually the opulent display of wealth and status in clothes before those who do not have wealth or status.

In missions the nudity/modesty question has always dogged us as Christians. In Africa where the heat causes clothing to be not much more than a scrap of cloth around the waist and the women were and are topless, many missionaries made the mistake of addressing the outward dress (or lack there of) instead of addressing the gospel. In South America one tribe was discovered whose definition of naked was 'beltless'. To us they would be considered naked all the time but they consider themselves naked only if they take off their work belt -- the only thing they wear.

Here at home in the USA, the issue is muddied because we have two cultures. The traditional culture which sees any sign of skin and cleavage as immodest and a more open culture which does not see this as so but would like to see women walk around topless just like men can. There are of course two million different views in between these extremes.

As people argue this from the Christian side the great problem is there is no Biblical definition of what constitutes proper clothing. Paul tells women to wear proper clothing but never defines what he means. The issue of how Christian men in or sex crazed culture are supposed to deal with more and more skin being shown by women is still a problem. Looking down at the ground all the time or sticking one's head in the sand does not work as you will eventually run into something hard and hurt yourself. The real question might be how does God see nakedness.

Next: Does God Hate Nakedness?