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

Prayer and The Problem of Evil - Part 2 - The Lord's Prayer

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he gave this model. The model is different in Luke, but the basic principles are the same. The idea is to create and outline of prayer. This outline has at least two lines that deal indirectly or directly with the problem of evil.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

Forgiveness is probably the most powerful weapon against relationship evil. It covers and removes the power of grudge, vendetta, revenge, hatred, anger and strife. When something is done wrong in a relationship there are few things more powerful than forgiveness to put a stop to the evil that can result.

It does have a responsibility to it -- anyone can pray this; it takes actually doing it to unleash that power. Part of getting answers to this part of the Lord's prayer involves our response to praying it and actually forgiving those who wrong us. Of all the parts of the Lord's prayer, this is the only one that Jesus commented directly on by adding that if we do not forgive, God will not forgive us. It may be that a lot of the personal evil we are experiencing is simply the unforgiveness of God because we have not forgiven others ourselves.

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

There is something expected in this prayer as well. It is one thing to to ask for God to lead, it is another to actually follow. I wonder how frustrated God gets when we ask for his leading through the minefield of temptation, He gives it and then we step on the mines anyway because we do not trust him. We experience the evil of these bad choices, but we cannot blame God because God warned us, we just didn't believe that he was actually answering our prayer.

Both of these things indicate a responsibility to act on what we pray. Prayer is not just some simple talking to God exercise, it involves action that reflects the character of what we pray. Evil, both in our relationship and the situations of our life may simply be caused by the fact that we do not take responsibly to act on our prayers. We pray for something but in a sense do not expect it to be answered or do not act in accordance to what we know we should do.

Next: Jesus' Teaching on Prayer

The Real Nativity

I suppose I am being technical but most nativity scenes are about as realistic as a cartoon. The basic image may be right but a lot of details get left out or are plain distorted.

The big first thing is where is this stable? I ask was there really as stable? Luke only reports that Mary laid Jesus in a manger. A manger is a place to put straw for animals to feed, but that still leaves us some options. A stable could have been used, but there is also the common marketplace square where the caravans would stop as well. It would have been covered along the edges but with open air in the middle and the mangers for the animals were along the sides.

Another thing is Mary and Joseph always seem to be in isolation with no one around. Odd for a town that was packed because of the census. Truth be told even if it was a stable, it is quite possible that they were not the only ones in the place. It does not fit our idea that Mary had Jesus in seclusion but it could have been a very public event. I think our modern sensibilities just can't accept Mary giving birth in a public place with onlookers but it is a very reasonable possibility. For ancient women, this was simply a practical reality that could happen during any pregnancy.

Other things that surround the nativity that bug me are the constant reference to Mary and Joseph as poor peasants. I do not think Luke would have referenced the inn if they didn't have the means to pay for it should it have had a vacancy. Yeah, they buy two turtle doves to circumcise Jesus indicating low means but not abject poverty. I really look at Mary and Joseph along with Jesus as really the 'everymen' of life in the ancient world. Not poverty stricken, but getting by.

Recently there has been a phenomena where Mary is looked on as a unwed mother and perhaps that is why she was denied in the inn. Unfortunately for this theory, there is the simple fact that Joseph took her as his wife before they left for Bethlehem so the perception of any innkeeper would have been a young married couple looking for a room. The other one I love is depicting them as homeless. Not really, they had a home in Nazareth, it is just they are in Bethlehem because Caesar has decided to make some money and needs a census to set the taxes. They might have been travellers without a place to stay, but they were not homeless. In addition by the time the Magi arrive, they are staying in a a house.

That of course brings us to the most common gaff in many of the nativity scenes out there. Including the Wisemen with the shepherds and all that is not accurate at all. The Wisemen arrive after both Jesus is presented at the temple and circumcised. In Matthew, the word even changes from the Greek word for 'infant' to 'child' indicating possibly a small child. Considering that Herod slaughters babies two and under based on what the Wisemen say Jesus may have been a walking around toddler by then. As mentioned before, the scene has also shifted from manger-side to a home. There is also the fact the Bible does not actually record how many Wisemen there were but I think there we a lot: a) they disturb the whole city with their arrival and b) they have enough clout to get an audience with Herod. Not a small group of three, but a caravan more likely.

Why does this matter? In one small way it illustrates how what is said in the Bible can be supplanted by traditional understanding and changing cultural standards. How we need to be careful never to accept traditional interpretations or cultural understandings to cloud a genuine interpretation of what the text of Scripture says.

It also matters because it is about rightly dividing the Word of truth. The facts of Scripture must come before our wants and desires of what we would like the text to say so we can push a certain social agenda.

Merry Christmas to all and remember Jesus was an 'everyman' who died for everyman and rose again for everyman. That God became Flesh is the most astounding miracle of Christmas. Lets just tell the story right.

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

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.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 10 -- Tough Question #4 -- God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Theology is not a science, nor it is an art although it has shadows of both. It is also not some dry exercise of learning doctrine after doctrine with historical analysis to back it up -- it is not about learning somethings; it is about learning who someone is. It is about knowing God.

It is the first and greatest of all human endeavors. Jeremiah spoke to his people long ago "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast of his strength, let not the rich man boast of his riches; but he who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things" declares the Lord. To know what God delights in is the key to knowing God and to true theology as well. When we delight in what He delights in then we are knowing God in truth; that's when we are practicing theology.

God cannot be apprehended by simple learning alone. It takes the whole being of man. It must involve spirit, mind , heart and strength. My spirit must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My mind must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My heart must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My strength must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. When one truly knows God you understand what God understands with your whole being. To me this is the definition of intimacy with God.

That is what makes the doctrine of Hell so difficult. If it was a mere question of Scriptural support I would be pulled between two opinions. Both sides have scripture. The Annihilation Side has the understandings of the frequently repeated terms of "death, destroyed, perish" that appear in many passages regarding final judgment. The Torment Side has the frequent mentions of "weeping, gnashing of teeth, smoke of their torment, etc." Now both sides can dispute the definitions of these things in both directions. There is ultimately no clear winner and historically -- this has been a debated point in the church for its entire existence.

So I am left with trying to Know God through trying to understand a simple question: Why Hell?

My strength waits -- deciding which to back; it takes sides and becomes the depths of my convictions when all other things fail. But where there is no sureness, my strength waits.

My heart recoils at the prospect of eternal torment, embracing the relative compassion of annihilation. On the other hand, It embraces the prospect of justice for the innocent victims of the wicked through torment and recoils at the thought of the wicked just getting off with simple non-existence.

My mind embraces the Scriptures on both sides. Seeing both are supported but not supported. The battlefield of my mind still in conflict in much the same way as my heart but with Scripture as the pieces and philosophy trying to decide who has won the victory. My heart and mind battle waiting for some new piece of information, understanding or thought to tip the scale.

My spirit submits to God that regardless of what end there is -- God is righteous. the one thing i can say with assurance with all the other things I know of God -- "The Lord of the earth will do right" It also in God's righteousness that perhaps the rest of me will then follow.

What is right for God. In his love he must show mercy, In justice he brings right to wrongs. In his righteousness he is right in how he exercises both.

I also believe that both sides are right and the same time wrong. I think there also is a reconciliation. One verse, which at first seems insignificant but has great significance -- Revelation 20:14. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Two separate places; two separate purposes. God doesn't create redundancy where it is not needed. Hades is a temporary place to be swallowed up later by the lake of fire. It is, in my mind, because they have tow very separate and different purposes.

Hades -- a place of waiting for the end. It is temporary and has two sides: the place of torment for the wicked and Abraham's bosom for the righteous. It is a place that is described as a place where those who receive good things in life experience torment where those who receive bad things in life -- receive blessing. It indicates a place where the injustices of this world are righted. Where God's love is expressed to the victims, his justice to the wicked is done and all things that are wrong are righted. it may have the possibility of being the place of final redemption.

The Lake of Fire -- the place of final cleansing and elimination of all that opposes God's will. It is the final curtain for the devil, the false prophet and the beast meet their end. Along with any person who refuses to wilfully bow their knew to Christ. Gone -- poof. Ended. In this God justly removes those that would continue to be a thorn in the side of Him and mankind. In mercy he simply removes them. Mercy both for them and those that love them they leave behind. In the end no one will say God did not do right.

My biggest problem with the usual discussion on this is that this twofold place and purpose are never looked at by people. Both are merged into one and that is not the case.

Yet, it is in God righteousness I will trust -- because if I am right -- OK. If i am wrong -- OK. Because the Lord of the Earth will do right in the end regardless of which side of the coin it eventually falls on. That is something I can get my whole being behind.

Finis.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 11 -- The Gospels and Acts

On to the New Testament, the first real reference to nakedness in the New Testament is in Matthew 25 where Jesus is blessing the sheep and cursing the goats. In all cases, though the thought is on naked as vulnerable and destitute. A naked person in he ancient world meant either very poor or a slave. Jesus reminds us to cloth the naked and protect them from this vulnerability.

There is one case of nakedness in all three of the first gospels but it is indirect -- the Man possessed with legion is said Mark to be 'clothed' although no reference is made (at least in the NASB) to him being naked it is assumed because of the reference to him being clothed. In this case nakedness is indicative of how nothing was shameful to the demon possessed man. Once healed he gets clothes on to show he is back to being normal.

The second reference is in Mark 14:51-52 -- where John-Mark (it is believed) covers himself with a sheet to go to the garden with Jesus and as they arrest Mark he lets go of the sheet they grab and flees into the night naked. I am going to tell you this sound like someone who was used to sleeping naked who is roused from sleep and asked if he wants to come the Garden of Gethsemane -- he agrees but does not even dress -- he simply wraps the blanket around himself. There is nor moral statement of whether this was right or wrong -- simply a statement of the facts.

Luke makes two references to women's breasts -- Luke 11:27-28 in which a woman speaks of the blessedness of Jesus' mother's breasts and womb and Luke 23:28-30 where Jesus blesses the breasts that never nursed. In both cases the issue is the nurturing power of women's breasts through nursing. No sexual reference is indicated at all. Jesus also does not seem embarrassed in either case to make references to this part of a woman's body or to hear it referenced.

John makes no reference to either

Acts has only one reference to nakedness and it is Acts 19:16 where the seven sons of Sceva flee stripped naked -- They are totally humiliated and dishonored.

What all this shows us is that nakedness is about being shamed, humiliated, being vulnerable or destitute.

Next: Nakedness and the Rest of the New Testament

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 6 -- The Purpose of Hell

OK. What is the purpose of Hell? Now to recap the working theory is that Hades/Sheol is the place of waiting for the final judgment with the Lake of Fire as that place of final judgment where God brings aobut final justice. Now the question is that needs to be answered is twofold. What is the purpose of Hades and what is the purpose of the lake of fire?

Hades -- I think Luke 16:19-31 actually provides us the best explanation of the purpose of Hades/Sheol -- Abraham's words indicate that Lazarus is now receiving good things because in life he did not receive good things. The rich man the opposite is true.

I think deep within the heart of man has always existed the desire for justice and the raw fact is that many time justice does not take place. The 18 year old prostitute is beat to death by an unknown assailant but the police do not give any effort to finding the murder because she is a prostitute-- the killer is never found. Crimes without number like this go unsolved and justice is never done on this earth. Hades is the place where these wrongs are righted -- justice is served. In Hades the prostitute is avenged.

It is a place of the dead where those who received good things in life without care for others find themselves in want. It is also a place where those who receive evil all their lives final receive some good.

Infants who never leave the womb who die by the fault of life or the deliberate hand of men find themselves in a place to choose and grow.

All of these things may be possible in Hades/Sheol. It is simple a place where the shortcomings of this world are righted.

It also may be a place where the dead hear the gospel again -- 1 Peter 4:6 -- "For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God." Now this is an odd verse if everything is settled at physical death. It might also answer part of the criticism people have of God -- "What about the heathen who never hear the gospel?" What if they do hear it? Even more telling is the question about babies -- do they really get to choose their faith in God? Does God simply force them to love him? Or does he give them an opportunity to choose?

In Hades these questions may be answered.

The Lake of Fire -- Unlike Hades the Lake of Fire has an ultimate finality to it. It is the place prepared for the devil and his angels. It is ultimately the place where everything that has gone against the will of God is removed forever.

The question at this point is whether that is served by eternal torture or annihilation. To be sure it is a question that relates to God's purpose for hell but it is also a question of God and his justice as well as desires for the human race.

Next: Tough Questions Considered.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 5 -- The Nature of Hell

OK. Given all the biblical considerations Boyd presents, I would have to say that his case is good that most of the teaching on final judgment indicates a finality -- death, destruction and perish. The only problem I see is you have to get rid of the 'parable' Jesus teaches in Luke 16:19-31 which I don't actually believe is a parable. That said is there a way to reconcile the two pictures? Does the picture of the Bible leads us to torture or annihilation?

Why not both?

The Luke account is very much a description of what the Jews view of Sheol or the grave that the Jewish people had for centuries, including before Christ. The concept is place of waiting where the justice of God is brought about on a person. The shocking thing to the Jew who heard Jesus' story is that the rich man (supposedly blessed by God) and the Lazarus are flipped. They would have taught and believed it would be the other way around. Contrary to the beliefs of one commenter on this blog the concept of Sheol appears very early in the Bible -- the first writer to use it was in the book of Job which is the oldest written tradition period. This way before the Greeks even existed as a nation.

At the same time, I cannot ignore Boyd and others like him, including many from the early church that say to end something is to end something. They have a point and their reasoning is sound.

Then I see this verse in Revelation 20:14 -- "Then death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire..."

This indicates two things:

1) These are two separate places: Hades/Sheol is some place separate from the lake of fire.

2) That even Hades (if the lake of fire represents the final destruction, death and perishing Boyd hits on) will to have its end.

So what if Hades/Sheol is the place where the good are blessed and the bad suffer for the lives they lived as represented by Luke 16 but the lake of fire is the final end off all things evil after judgment?

Now I am going to be blunt here -- this satisfies my sense of justice. Is it right for someone like say a Hitler or Attila the Hun to just be disintegrated without suffering something for their crimes? To me it would be fitting for them to suffer every death they ever caused over and over again until the final judgment. Shouldn't the man who burned so many Jews as well as other be burned himself? At the same time, Uncle Larry who was a great guy, never hurt a fly or told a lie, but never accepted Jesus and died in his sins -- what should he suffer?

My working theory is that Sheol is not so much a place of torture but a place of justice being served and inequalities being balanced. Look at Abraham's words to the rich man: "Child, remember that during your life you received your good things; and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here' and you are in agony." I want you to notice the reasoning for why each man is in the place he is in -- one received good in his lifetime but the other bad. Now in Hades/Sheol the situation is reversed by God to make things right. It is not about the book of life or the lamb of God, like the lake of fire in Revelation, but what each person did and received in this life. It is these things that determine what happens in Sheol.

I think I can live with a temporary place of God dispensing justice. The thing I have a hard time with is listening to our loved ones for all eternity cry out in pain for something they did in a short amount of time. It also seems inconsistent with the love of God if someone truly repents -- which they may do in Hades/Sheol -- but God does not honor it. Is Hades also a refiners fire of sorts as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3 as well as a place of an another chance for salvation before judgment? One of my professors, Jerry Walls in his Book Hell the Logic of Damnation explores this possibility and at the time I took his class on the problem of evil, I had to admit he made some good points. He theorized that some people would rather go to Hell -- "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" i.e. Paradise Lost by Milton. Is this getting too close to the doctrine of Purgatory? Maybe, but then again, what exactly is Sheol/Hades? Perhaps some would prefer to be annihilated as opposed to serving God?

Maybe Dante had a few things right?

Next: The Purpose of Hell

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 4 Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 3

Seeing this is the hot topic on my blog right now let's continue.

Video 3 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment

Greg is wrapping up and drawing his conclusions to their final end:

1. His final conclusion is one of 'annihilation' that is anything that does not line up with God's will has its ultimate and complete end. The punishment still is eternal -- that is once a person gone they are gone for eternity.

2. Regardless of what way you interpret these things there are three things that are true:
a) We were created for eternal life, b) The consequence of rejecting god is hell -- regardless of what you mean -- and it is not a good thing. c) The sure way to avoid hell is to completely submit to the Lordship of Christ and thus join the church which is predestined for salvation.

Now, I am going to admit that Greg Boyd's view has a lot of merit. It considers the more common uses of eternal punishment and uses a lot of Scripture. It's one weakness overall is its treatment of Luke 16:19-31 as a parable. It certainly has given my cause for pause to rethink the merits of the annihilist position. As I have done osme historicla research -- the fact si that the early church supported both views. The nature of hell was a big debate.

Next: The Nature of Hell -- Biblical Considerations

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 3 Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 2

Video part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Part 2

I can first of all applaud Greg for asking the simple question -- Can we look at this a different way? It is the question I am asking so I am glad he is asking it too.

Considerations he is asking us to look at with my responses:

1. Luke 16:19-31 is a parable: Really? Greg makes this point because he does not want the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus to teach us on the nature of hell. However, Jesus never identifies this as a parable nor does the gospel writer. It could be factual story. It is purely speculation that this is a parable. Even so, parables are not completely one point deals. In the case of the first parable Jesus tells -the parable of the sower -- it could be argued that Jesus is making a single point by using four sub points. The interpretive model that parables only make one simple point all the time is overly simplistic and does not consider the individual nature of each parable may be different. In any case, even if this is a parable, it does not indicate that Jesus is being inaccurate about the nature of hell.

The fact is that this view of the afterlife was and still is the notion of the Jews based on interpretation of Old Testament scriptures of Sheol -- the grave. So, Jesus then would be reinforcing this belief by default. At the least -- if this story is not accurately representative of what the afterlife is like, then we have Jesus perpetuating a false notion -- I certainly don't see Christ perpetuating a false notion of anything, but even if this is just a parable by using the common belief of Sheol he is doing so. Jesus was certainly not shy about blasting false beliefs but here we would have Jesus actually using one to illustrate a point? I don't think so.

2. Many metaphors to describe eternal punishment: Greg rightly makes the point that metaphors are the basis of what we understand about hell -- I think most of his observation are accurate on this one.

3. Three most common ways God refers to punishment in the bible: a) death b) destruction and c) perish. "Be as though they have never been" Obadiah 16 is particularly telling. The point he is making is that all of these things have a finality to them and do not indicate a torture type punishment. I agree.

4. The Bible sometimes speaks of things being eternal in consequence not in duration. He makes good points here. This is part of my problem with the doctrine of hell is that is what is indicated most of the time -- the consequence of eternal death is what is indicated -- once your dead a second time your dead it is not a continual dying.

Now, I agree with most of this except the notion of Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. I really do not think it is a parable but an accurate representation of Sheol or the grave. If so, that indicates some sort of punishment for the wicked and reward for the righteous. One thing that can be said though is the parable does not indicate that Sheol is eternal -- the belief is that it is a place of waiting for final judgment. Maybe this is where the idea of purgatory first comes from but I don't think the 'hell' side is redemptive although it could be.

Next: Greg Boyd Video 3

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 1

The context for this part of the discussion watch Greg Boyd in this video

Luke 16:19-31 provided the backdrop of the discussion. Now I think this story does not actually recount what heaven and hell are like but it is a reinforcement of the Jewish idea of Sheol or the grave. The waiting place for final judgment. It has some marked differences from the idea of eternal fire in Revelation. Here the people are placed in waiting placed and punished or rewarded based on what their life was like on earth. In Revelation, this idea does not appear at all but their the eternal fire has a finality to it based on whoever is in the Lamb's book of life. So Boyd gets off a little wrong in my opinion because I don't believe this story is dealing with the final state after final judgment but a holding place in waiting for final judgment. However he does an excellent job of presenting the problem with traditional thinking on eternal punishment.

Boyd brings up the standard questions in objection to eternal punishment:
1. How can we enjoy heaven when right down the road are people being tortured in flame that I may love and am called to love?
2. How is eternal punishment consistent with the theme that God's anger lasts only for a moment but his love and mercy lasts forever?
3. How is eternal punishment consistent with the teaching God is love?
4. How is eternal punishment consistent with the Bible's teaching regarding God's final victory?

As I watched these points being brought up I can see myself asking the same questions. The issues here are well presented and will serve as the basis for his and our further discussion.

Next: Greg Boyd Video 2

Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 7 -- How Should the Church React to All This?

To begin with let us recap the issues I have dealt with in this series:

1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution

All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.

Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:

1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue

In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.

When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.

Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.

Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.

Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.

The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.

1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.

2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.

3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.

4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.

5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.

Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.

Finis

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 2 -- T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths

I remember when I told a friend that I did not believe in total depravity and that I felt the doctrine was unbiblical. His response was pretty typical -- 'Ed I know you and your past -- you were totally depraved'. Here is the thing, do we base our beliefs about God and man on our experiences as human beings or on the teachings found in Scriptures? The Scriptures I would hope. Then why is it then that the chief defense for this doctrine I hear is based on human experience? Odd.

OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.

Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.

First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.

1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.

This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.

Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.

For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.

Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.

Christians and Sexuality: Self-Righteousness and Nudity

When I started this blog I did a series on Nudity, Modesty and Culture (a good read if you haven't read it) but this post is about Christians and the attitude they should have in dealing with well...pagans who don't share our ethics and/or morals. Particularly when it comes to sex and nudity issues.

The incident that got me thinking on this is something that happened yesterday. I was stopped at the local convenience store and in our town it is located near a recreational trail. Some girls were coming off the trail and had been running as evidence by the level of sweat coming off them. The stopped by their packs and one of them proceeded to change her shirt. She stripped off her sweaty shirt and put on a clean one. My wife's reaction was classic Christian -- "Hello, what does she think she is doing?" Now, she had a sports bra on and the fact is she did not show anything. It was my wife's reaction that got me thinking. Note: I love my wife and what she did is not only typical of her but of many Christians so I am not picking on her. Are these kinds of reactions to such thing smelling of a little self righteousness? When a Christian sees something like this and makes a comment about it what exactly are we saying?

1. Are we saying that we have become the official judges of morality in our culture that we have the right to tell these people what is right and wrong? I hope not -- we earn the privilege to be heard, we do not have an inherent right to it.

2. Does this make us feel better about our own morality? Are we saying in our hearts: Man I am sure glad I am not like other people -- I keep my clothes on. I often wonder about this when women do this to other women -- is this a hen pecking order thing? I am a better women because I live virtuously and this other woman does not.

3. Do we really have a Biblical view on nudity, modesty and culture when we do this? I doubt it. Most Christians have never bothered to study the subject Biblically -- what they judge on is what they have been taught by their church culture.

I am not sure but I think we violate some Scripture when we do this -- Luke 19:9-14 comes to mind:

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves
that
they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went
up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
"The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust,
adulterers, or even like this tax
collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I
get.' "But the tax collector,standing some distance away, was even
unwilling to lift up his eyes to
heaven, but was beating his breast, saying,
'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his
house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will
be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

As much as I have thought Matthew 7:1-5 is misused it may be in this case it may not be. If we do not have Biblical understand of what constitutes nudity -- that is what is Biblical and what is church culture -- are we not judging people on a man made standard rather than letting the Word do it itself? Think so.

Perhaps if we spent as much time praying for people as we do judging slights of morals and ethics maybe we would be more effective in persuading people that Christianity is the real deal.

IMHO

Nudity, Modesty and Culture -- Part Two -- Does God Hate Nakedness?

I had a professor in Bible College that had an expression when dealing with dress issues -- "God does not like nakedness!" I agreed with him a lot as a fellow Wesleyan, but on this issue I just couldn't get true Biblical support for the idea that God hates nakedness in general and always has. If that were so, why on earth did he create Adam and Eve naked? It lead me to ponder the question of nakedness and whether or not God hates nakedness.

I think the problem with nakedness is not nakedness in itself. The problem is sin and the resulting loss of innocence that causes shame from nakedness.

The first reference to nakedness in the Bible is Genesis 2:25 -- And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. I think this expresses the nature of innocence and purity on the part of Adam and Eve. They could see each other as wonderful creations of God and with no knowledge of good or evil, that is all they could see. They each had beautiful bodies and that is what they marvelled in. God declared all things 'very good' after their creation and that included 'naked and unashamed'. They walked before God and each other naked and without shame of any kind.

Sin changes this forever. Suddenly they are aware of their nakedness where before they had been blissfully ignorant. This shame could not have been about each other in truth though being husband and wife. I know we find it had to imagine but Adam and Eve Being husband and wife they must have consummated their marriage on the grass of the garden of Eden and so covering their shame of nakedness could not have had much to do with concealment from each other. It had to do with God. Now they were naked and vulnerable to God. Fear comes in, fear of God and being truly helpless before him -- naked before him. The couple covers their loins with aprons of leaves -- waist to mid thigh. There is no mention of any other area being covered on either one. In fact when nakedness is mentioned by the prophets this is the focus that Israel would be shamed with nakedness having their buttocks exposed. The focus of shame seems to be the buttocks and genital regions

One fact that needs to be mentioned is that female breasts and nakedness are never really equated except in Ezekiel 16:7 where God is speaking to Israel about how she used to be like a teenage girl who's breasts were formed but she was still naked until God clothed her. In all other references to female breasts there is some other thing at issue not nakedness. There is an exhortation to men to let themselves be satisfied with the breasts of their wife in very frank language at times in the Song of Solomon and Proverbs. The other way female breasts are addressed is in reference to nursing children. Even Jesus was addressed this way buy a woman in Luke 11:27. Jesus is not embarrassed by the statement and in fact refers to women's breasts in the same way in Luke 23:29. What this all indicates to me is shame associated with women's breasts being bare in a culture may be just that -- cultural. That why here in the USA ,where part of our cultural has been shaped by both puritanical and holiness roots with their emphasis on 'modest' apparel, exposed breasts have some shame to them but this is not the shame of sin so much as the same of elements of culture say it is wrong. Go to another culture and you see women topless and the men think no more or less of it than any other part of a woman's body. Something to be admired, but not necessarily immediately arousing.

Shift south of the border, so to speak, and the Biblical idea of shame of nakedness comes in full force. This is where shame comes in from Genesis, The Law, through the Old Testament prophets and even the Revelation this is presented. Noah's nakedness is exposed by his son, but not by the other two sons -- they cover him. I find it hard to believe that four hard working men building an ark didn't strip down for work like Peter did when he fished. The nakedness of Noah had more to do with exposing his 'apron area'. The term nakedness is also used to refer to sexual relations in the Law -- this is where incestuous relationships are condemned -- see Leviticus 18. The prophets refer to this area as well for shame of being sold into slavery as exposed because of the failure of Israel to follow God. Mark runs away naked to escape in the garden when Jesus is arrested. Revelation also talks about nakedness in reference to the shame of Laodicea and the whore of Babylon. In all of these, sin is the main culprit not nakedness in and of itself. The real question is the nature of sin and how it made and makes something good and beautiful into something shameful. It is the lust of mankind that is at issue.

I don't think God hates nakedness -- he made us that way to illustrate true intimacy and openness -- what I think he hates is what sin has done to our innocence about nakedness. The positive about nakedness is that it illustrates how we ultimately have to come to God and be naked before him and let him cloth us and raise us up. It is lust through sin that has caused a wonderful creation of God to be fouled up.

Next: Where Lust Lives.
Previous: Defining Modest

For the Glory of God -- The Force of Christian Idolatry - Part 2

I have already written on the subject of Christian Idolatry in a pervious post called ‘God Is…’ In it I exposed humanisms effect to create idolatry in the church by basing all things on the idea that everything is about man’s happiness. In that same article I also presented that there must be some other reason or purpose that we must embrace to avoid idolatry.

Before we begin to explore this we need to ask a question. In fact everyone needs to ask this question: Is God a means or an ends to you? If everything is about man’s happiness then that is the end and God and relationship with God is merely a means to that end. I must point out then that even the worship of God could be idolatrous if it is about your happiness. Essentially, you are worshiping your own interests and using God as a means to gain those interests.

But what does it take for God to be an end himself? It takes complete self-sacrifice and there is only one example of this in all of history – Jesus Christ. Jesus himself stated that he did this for the glory of the Father. The only way for God to be an end for your life and not a means is to follow the example of Christ and do all for the glory of God.

Now I hear you skeptics. God is not concerned about his glory you would say. Firstly, I think there are many Scriptures that indeed say this is the purpose of man – most clearly is 1 Corinthians 10:31 – “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do ALL to the glory of God.” There are many verses and passages that say much the same thing.

The second thing I would say in response is that you definition of glory is not the same as God’s. When we think of glory; we think of accolades and honors being poured on us. But God’s definition of Glory is ‘holy and righteous’. It is more simply put but Solomon: “The conclusion, when all has been heard is: fear God and keep His commandments…” In addition, Jesus added motive when he tells us to love God and our neighbor. Loving God is reverence and obedience becomes the act of giving glory to God. It is about honoring his name and our relationship with Him through our attitude and actions for His name’s sake. To really do this requires identification with the only one who ever succeeded in doing this perfectly – Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself told us what is required to identify with Him: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” I used to believe that this was for more mature believers that had reached some level of maturity that they wanted to be special disciples of Jesus, but then I realized that is not what it says. If anyone wants to follow Christ AT ALL they must do this. In other words if a person does not do this they are not Christ’s disciple. Jesus is laying out the minimum requirements for being his disciple and they are stiff.

1) Self-denial: To give up ones life for the sake of Christ. In effect to give up all rights and privileges in this world for the sake of Christ is the meaning here. Commitment is all or nothing right out the gate.
2) Take up one’s cross everyday: To identify with the death of Christ. When a man took up a cross he wasn’t coming back to his old life. He was a walking dead man.
3) Follow Christ: To walk in identification with Jesus’ path to death for the glory of the Father. Glory that is not about accolades or pride but is about lifting up the name of God for a dying world to see.

How this changes everything, because the force of idolatry can have no place in a people with such an attitude. Nothing is about their happiness; everything is about the glory of God. Everything is about identification with Christ in attitude and action.

This is what it means to worship God in Spirit and in truth. This is what prevents any force of idolatry from entering a Christians’ relationship with God. It is also the only way to do it.