Good Friday? Maybe Not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage and the Bible - Part 45 - Women's Equality in Marriage

Probably the most significant thing that Jesus and the Apostles do to the understanding of marriage is they very much elevate the status of women in it.  The fact is that one Jesus starts talking about divorce in Matthew 19 and other places the fact is seen that the bride is not to be treated with contempt but respect.  Paul's Jesus/Church equals Bride/Groom also puts woman at a far higher level that much of the Old Testament does.  By restoring the idea of spiritual covenant, Jesus and the other apostles actually put women back at equal levels with their husbands in most cases.  

This has an impact on how men are to treat their wives.  Namely looking at one's wife like Adam first looked at Eve.  Not as some thing attached to my life to help my ego, but as a fellow traveller on the road of life and bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh - part of himself.  It means to love her no matter what.  I know this can be frustrating at times but you have a good counselor.  Jesus I am sure relates to husbands with difficult wives seeing His wife is the church and she can be difficult at times.

It also impacts how women should view themselves in there marriage.  Viewing themselves as responsible to be images of what the church should be toward Christ is a great responsibility and equal to that of their husbands.  In many ways this idea puts women on equal footing in ever area except one and it is the most significant - authority.

The one thing that neither Jesus nor the apostles change is the issue of authority in a marriage.  Man is still the head of woman.  Paul's explanation of this in First Timothy chapter 2 is basically that woman was created for the man, not the other way around.  Man ultimately was created to fulfil God's purpose and woman is there to help man achieve that purpose.  Men thus have the final say in what happens.  That being said, the one thing that is also clear is that submission cannot be forced.  A woman must willfully and freely choose to be under her husbands authority.  For a husband to force his authority on his wife would be an act without love.  At the same time, for a woman not to submit to her husband would be a sin both against her husband and God.  The choice is however the wife's to make, just like it is a choice for a husband to be under the authority of God and love his wife.

Next: Modern Challenges: Open Marriage
Previous: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 43 - God and the Spiritual Covenant

There are two things to consider here 1) is the elements of Spiritual Covenant and 2) God's role in those elements.

The purest way to see the elements of spiritual covenant relationship between a man and a woman is to return to the Garden of Eden and look at Adam and Eve's relationship before the Fall.  Mostly because at this time there is no need for marriage contracts or viewing marriage as a cultural act.  What we see are a man and a woman who enjoy a unique relationship status.  There are no cultural conventions to follow, nor are there any words or actions to establish to others that the two of them are husband and wife.  They simply are.

1. Element One: Both man and woman understand they are creations of God and responsible to his authority.  Each have been created for a purpose in the relationship.  Man to fulfill the wishes of God for planet earth and the woman to be man's helper. 

2. Element Two: 'One Flesh'.  Jesus himself reinforces this idea in Matthew 19 with the line - 'they are no longer two but one.'  This indicates a union of two people on all levels: spiritual, mind, heart and body.

3. Element Three: 'Naked' - It takes true trust and openness to be naked in the spiritual sense of the word above the physical.  To be naked in this sense is to have no secrets, no hidden thoughts or feelings and no hidden agendas.  It is to be comfortable being naked with each other in all senses.   For a better understanding of nakedness from a Biblical perspective my series The Bible and Nakedness was written specifically to examine this issue.

4. Element Four: 'Unashamed' - No shame indicates neither side has done anything to the other or before God so as to cause the shame of sin and regret.  There is nothing to clear the relationship between the man, woman or God.

This of course leads us to God role in a spiritual covenant marriage.  In order for a covenant marriage to exist God must be a part of it.  For a true covenant, this means God has a covenant with the man and the woman and they man and woman with each other.  Without all three of these relationships in covenant, there is no covenant marriage.  At that point what you have is a contract.  This is why Paul in 1 Corinthians7 can give a mixed faith marriage reason for divorce.  The unbeliever does not have a covenant with God; the believer does.  The man and woman have a contract.

In a spiritual covenant, love and blood seal it solid.  The man must love God and his wife.  The wife must love God and her husband.  God loves both man and the woman.  God seals his covenant with man and woman through their salvation by the blood of his Son.  Man and woman seal their covenant with each other in blood through sex.  This is why sex is more than a physical action for fun and procreation in a spiritual covenant.

In a spiritual covenant all actions together and with God, if done in love and respect will strengthen the covenant.  God to church and worshiping together, communicating with each other, being each other's friend, raising kids together, making love, etc. can all be actions both of expression and living of a couples' spiritual covenant.

Next: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

Previous: God and the Cultural Contract

First Post:          

Marriage and the Bible - Part 41 - The Bible and Divorce

While it is difficult to get an opinion from God as to his like or dislike of polygamy (see my previous post), it is not difficult to get his opinion about divorce.  He hates it.  It is this hatred of divorce by God that should set the theme for our discussion of divorce.  If I am a Christian, I should hate what God hates and God hates divorce. 

Despite the hatred by God of divorce, it is still biblically allowed.  Divorce is allowed by the law of Moses very early on and it remains a constant force in the Bible from then on.  Ultimately, this seems to be an allowance by God because of sin and the nature of marriage in its cultural contract form.  Doesn't stop Him from hating it, but it does indicate God understands the why of it.

There are basically three biblical reasons God would allow a divorce:

1. Sexual Infidelity: As much as God hates divorce, he hates unfaithfulness even more.  Jesus himself gives this as a reason for it.  This reason ultimately points to something deeper and that is that sex is not simply about fun or procreation.  Sex is the ultimate expression of the spiritual covenant of marriage and to engage in adultery in any form shows a lack of understanding of this idea.  This why not only should sex not be engaged in before marriage; it also should be kept in the confines of marriage.

2. Mixed Faith Marriage:  The Bible has nothing really positive to say about a marriage between an unbeliever and a believer and that goes throughout the entire Bible.  In one case after the exile, Israelite men are forced to divorce their wives for this reason or give up their inheritance in Israel.  When we get to the New Testament there is a change though and that is that the believer should stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wants out.  Paul in 1st Corinthians is not defying Jesus so much as he is considering a further implication of Jesus' teaching.  That of the impossibility for such a marriage to achieve covenant without both parties understanding the true nature of love and self-sacrifice, which are found only in genuine faith in God.  The believer should treat their marriage as a covenant and strive for the ideal, but if the unbeliever wants out, the believer can depart free of obligation.

3. Hardness of Heart: I simply do not see that Jesus Teaching in Matthew 19 and other places nullifies this idea.  The divorce law of Moses still stands because Jesus himself said he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets.  The fact is God still allows for hardness of heart, because hardness of heart is still going to happen.  People are still going to fail in how they view marriage, act in selfishness to the point that even the cultural and contractual sides of their marriage are not being kept, violate their marriage vows and thus become hardened of heart.  It is still an out, but I would say God doesn't like it very much given Jesus' words.  This reason should be avoided at all costs but it still is there in case it happens.  One thing though we can say about divorce is that it never is considered a sin that is unforgivable by God.

That said, we need to be reminded that God still hates divorce.  It means then the Christian should make every effort to save their marriage and to strive to see that they view it as a spiritual covenant above the cultural contract.  Ultimately this is about shifting out understanding of marriage from the selfishness of the contract and moving it to the self-sacrifice of the covenant.  For the Christian it becomes very important to understand the difference between the two and strive for the covenant.

Next: God and the Cultural Contract.
Previous: The Bible and Polygamy
First Post in Series  

To the False Prophet Harold Camping - Let Me Help You, Sir.

Well it is May 22 and we are ALL still here. No rapture and I want to send a message to Harold Camping to lend him a hand in these trouble times and hopefully educate everyone else why date setting and date setters for the end of the world and judgement day continue to fail.

1. Lack of Understanding: You fail to understand that there are some things that we are not supposed to know and that is OK. The reason God does not want us to know the date is very simple - motivation. If we did know the date we then would live like we want until near the end and then we would make our life right. It is our ignorance that keeps us watchful, praying and looking to the need for holiness in our lives. That is why it is ultimately left to one being - The Father God - to decide these things. Jesus says he is the only one who knows and I take Jesus' word for it. There are some things WE CAN"T KNOW.

2. Lack of the Compassion of God: It not that you just don't have an understanding of God's compassion, you do not have it yourself. 2 Peter 3:9 shows this as it points out that God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. This verse points out God's patience toward people, a patience date setters do not have. Had Jesus actually come yesterday how many people that did not have an opportunity to accept Christ would have perished? To God these people deserve our love and a chance at repentance, not our "bye, tough luck for you."

3. Lack of Concern for New Christians: The real danger of doctrines like this the effect it has on the young and ignorant believer. The 'children' they cause to stumble. Before preaching anything pastors and church leaders should really ask the question of how what they are preaching is going to be perceived by new Christians. When it comes do date setting, this is particularly devastating when you set a date for Jesus' return and then it does not come to pass. Loss of faith in Christ and the Bible is an inevitable result.

Ultimately, the main reason you fail is your focus is on yourself and not others. You want to escape but you do not want to face your fears and live in this would with the same compassion as Christ. You draw attention to yourself at the expense of others.

You have my pity.

I hope and pray you develop enough humility to fall on your knees and beg forgiveness and come to a realization that you do not know everything you need to know. There are lessons to be learned from this event that you need to learn and they have nothing to do with looking at the Bible to find a date of Jesus' return.

Hope this helps.

Doomsday Eve or I Predict May 22nd

Hey it is May 20, 2011 or Doomsday Eve according to 89 year old Harold Camping. I tried to recall today how many times in my life I have heard predictions of the rapture or Judgment Day and those predictions have been wrong, but for the life of me I could not get a number because there were so many to remember. I know one thing though everyone of them has been wrong.

In part, people keep doing this because everyone wants to know when and it is desire that causes people to have some whacked out interpretations of Scripture to justify their belief in setting dates. WeCanKnow.com is a great one for this May 21st, 2011 thing and if you scroll to the bottom they will give an explanation that some can know because they are not caught unawares like other Christians by the thief in the night. So lets add another motive to these people. Spiritual pride, they can't be wrong and they are more spiritual than the rest of us Christians.

My response to this is very simple. There is a great leap of logic from saying some will not be caught unawares to setting a date. The watchman on a wall is not caught unawares, not because he knows the date of the enemies coming but because he stays alert at ALL TIMES. There is a great difference between this and coming to the wall when on the day you have determined that the thief is coming.

The final thing to say is Matthew 24:36 - "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." What still boggles my mind is how many date setters ignore this. On the We Can Know website there is no mention of this verse. I know I looked and if your going to make such a claim you better have this verse up there to explain it away to prove your point, and low and behold, it is not on the homepage at all.

For me the open theist, I do not sweat this stuff anymore. Mostly because I don't believe prophecy works like a crystal ball. I also take 2 Peter 3:12 seriously about 'hastening the coming of the day of the Lord". In short God does not have a calender in heaven with doomsday circled. He is watching things relationally and the day will come simple when he decides the time is right and some things are not in his control like how humans react. Like a farmer watching his crops he will wait till all is ready and all have had a chance to reject him or accept him and he sees no other options for people to be saved then he will send Christ. He is looking for a situation, not a day. There is something Peter says we should be doing and none of it has to do with setting a date and sitting in room and waiting for his return. "Be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless." (2 Peter 3:13). That's everyday, not just the day before you think he is coming

It is also interesting to note 2 Peter 2 is entirely about false prophets which Peter condemns in the harshest language. Basically if you look at Deuteronomy 13 and 18 the tests for a prophet there are two things that make one a false one: 1) what he predicts does not come to pass or 2) he counsels the people to worship idols, he is to be put to death. Can't really do that these days but we should treat Mr. Camping as if he was dead because he has done this one before predicting Jesus' return on September 6, 1994. He was wrong so why anyone is giving him credence this time around is beyond me.

One thing that has been fun to watch is the entrepreneurs who will be the only real winners on this one with all the bumper stickers, t-shirts and other stuff with 'May 21, 2011 Judgment Day' on them. I predict that on May 22nd they will be laughing their way to the bank and only regretting that the day came so they can't make more money.

OK. Here is the throw down: Mr. Camping predicts that Jesus is rapturing the saints on May 21, 2011. I predict that the sun will rise on May 22nd, 2011 and nothing will have happened. Let's see who the real prophet is.

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

Re-Thinking God: Does God Always Get What He Wants?

If the Bible is taken at face value, the answer is "NO", God doesn't always get what He wants.

I suppose some of you want proof of that and I will give it, but the real question is actually about what has God created when he created this world and the humans that populate it. I mean what kind of world you believe God has created makes a big difference in how you look at this question.

First off, the moment you talk about having a relationship with God and that you believe that relationship with God has common elements with all relationships. Mutual love and trust for example, that means there must be some sort of choice that both sides must make for the relationship to both exist and grow. That means from God's end, he must allow choice in other beings if his aim is to have relationship with his creation and is not focused on using his power to control.

Philosophy aside, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that supports the idea that God does not always get what he wants.

1. The grief of God in Genesis six. Why would God grieve over something He caused? God does not cause the sinfulness an wickedness of the world, but He does grieve over it and makes plans to end it by destroying humanity. God's grief makes no sense if He is the one that caused sin and the fall of mankind. God's grief indicates there was a higher desire He had for humanity that is not working out.

2. The story of Moses illustrates some many things but the main thing I point to is the conversation at the burning bush. Notice that God chooses the path of persuasion of Moses, He even gets mad at one point because of Moses' lack of trust. Even God's language indicates the even He is hedging His bets by giving Moses all kinds of signs and using words like 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. Coming from God's lips, this conditionality is telling.

3. It was not God's desire for Israel to have a king, see the conversation between Him and Samuel in chapter eight of 1st Samuel, yet they got one anyway. Seems if God was playing puppeteer all he wold have to do is make sure no one makes this decision.

4. Pick a Prophet -- every one of them deals with God is some way expressing his displeasure at someone for their choices and how God did not want them to make those choices. Those choices indicate that God had a different desire but the people involved went against those desires.

5. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem crying: "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks, BUT YOU WERE UNWILLING." If there is any passage that shows in greater manner the necessity of double cooperation for God's desires to take place, I don't know where it is.

6. First Timothy 2:4 says God desires all men to come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. Does this happen? I don't think so.

I could go on and on, but these are the highlights.

The most common objection is if this is so God is not in control, but I have already addressed this by saying that is a very human assumption that the purpose of power is control. Power ultimately is supposed to be about stewardship and development of what you have authority over and God gives us the greatest example of how to do this by doing it HIMSELF.

I do not believe the Bible is using figures of speech in any of these or any other kind of language where God does not really mean it. Such ideas ultimately undercut faith in the Scriptures. God is the ultimate in saying what he says and meaning it.

For whatever reason that only He knows, God has chosen to create a world in which he relates to the beings He has created known as humans, not as their controller, but their guide and steward. He has given them His image and that include the ability of choice. This choice is limited in comparison to God's because of power and knowledge, but the choice is necessary for relationship and that means that sometimes what God wants and desires as an outcome in an event is subordinated to his ultimate desire to have these free relationships. Our liberty is as important if not more so to God as it is to us..

Ultimately this is what saved my faith in God. Without coming to this realization, the problems following Him had caused me would have collapsed my faith. It was not God's desire that I suffer in His service, but He sometimes must let it go to insure genuine relationship. He loves the people I was dealing with as much as me and respected all of us in our free choices. In such cases, not everything is going to go well all the time for the believer but our liberty is kept intact.

Finis - unless I think of something else that goes here. Hope everyone enjoyed this series.

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

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 3 - Herod's Slaughter of Infants.

I know you were expecting: "Are Parts of the Bible not the Word of God?", but as I was studying to preach this passage this week, I realized it fits this series so well. Therefore, the interruption is a good one.

Matthew 2:16-17 records one of the most disturbing events of Scripture, Herod the Great slaughters all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The goal is to destroy what he perceives is a threat to the throne. Now what makes this passage troubling is not that Herod the Great is a butcher; that is a well documented fact of history. What makes the passage troubling is that God seems to direct it happening:

1) He tells the Magi to not return to Herod - had they done so, the innocents in the story would have been spared probably at the cost of the Magi (Herod was a butcher), but the exact target would have been known and Mary and Joseph could have escaped anyway through God's warning. The only problem would have been Herod would have known exactly who he was looking for and assassins could have been sent -- even into Egypt. In the final analysis, to protect His Son, the warning of the Magi seems the best. The problem is the cost is tremendous.

2) This is the most disturbing problem -- Jeremiah prophesies about this event. This means for God's Word to be fulfilled, the innocents HAD to die. Or did they? My views of how prophecy works have greatly changed since becoming an open theist. Here is the point -- Jeremiah the prophet sees Rachel weeping for her children in Ramah. Is he seeing this event or getting a feeling that something is bad is going to happen in involving Rachel and her city -- Bethlehem.

One thing I have learned about the gospel writers is that they play far more fast and loose with OT Scriptures (particularly prophecy) when they say they are fulfilled. In short, is this a direct correlation or is it Matthew seeing a connection after the fact. The thing with prophecy, I now believe, is that God leaves His options open in HOW he can fulfill them or simply that the prophecy fulfills itself with no action on God's part at all, but an observer sees the connection. In this case, the slaughter occurs through Herod, but the connection is seen with Jeremiah and Matthew, who is using prophecy to prove Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, uses that connection to further his point.

The other point that could be made here is that the ultimate fate of the innocents is generally believed to be Paradise. Is there really any harm done from an eternal perspective? Baby killed; it goes to heaven. For critics this is unsatisfying because the concept of heaven, or that innocent children go directly to heaven if killed, is something that is not directly provable and suffering here is caused because God is involved regardless. May not be His direct hand, but He is involved. Could He not have prevented it?

One thing to consider, though it does not really help resolve it completely, is the fact that infant mortality was high in the ancient world. Meant people were 'used to' infants and children dying; but that does not really help the main question because just because a culture may get used to something, still does not remove the evil of it.

For reasons that still baffle me, God has a great deal of respect for the freewill of man. It may be because of this, that events play out the way they do. God directs those who listen to him, but does nothing to directly stop Herod because the slaughter is ultimately in Herod's court and thus his responsibility. Herod is not listening to God but following his own desires. God ultimately will pass judgment on Herod's evil, but for the time being lets the rogue king have his way. Perhaps God could have changed Herod's heart like he did Pharaoh's in Exodus, but have you ever noticed God only seems to reinforce what is already in a person's heart, not completely change it in reverse. For that to happen requires repentance and Herod never will do so.

We may never have a really good answer to this one and it still remains a troubling passage. Between my open theist beliefs and my understanding of God's respect for freewill, I have come to terms with the fact that the slaughter is ultimately Herod's action that God, respecting the freewill of everyone involved, guides those who can escape it to escape it. Matthew when writing his gospel sees the connection between the event and the passage in Jeremiah but the fulfillment of that passage could have happen other ways as well. Perhaps this is not the answer, but it is the best one I can see for this troubling passage.

Next: Are Parts of the Bible, Not the Word of God?
Previous: God Goes to War! 

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.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 21 -- Final Thoughts

This has been an interesting journey. My effort was to apply conservative methods to a subject that the 'conservative' tradition proclaims to have already figured out. Using one of the most conservative and methodical Bible study methods, I began to take apart the issue of nakedness and the Bible.

I began by observing what the Bible actually says about the subject. My initial inquiries were to get a definition of nakedness and to see if the there was a difference in what the Bible considers nakedness and what Christian culture considers nakedness. I had one particular issue in mind because of current cultural debate -- are women's breasts considered naked by the Bible. Going from the beginning to the end of Scripture I looked at every time I could find and think of where nakedness, breasts, women, etc. were mentioned to see if those passages would shed some light on the subject.

The interpretations and conclusions I was forced to draw based on what I was seeing were definitely different. I had to conclude that the Bible's definition of nakedness was far different and deeper than what contemporary conservative tradition has. Nakedness is the spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that is caused by sin and a human being is made of aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God. Conservative tradition focuses on the externals of nakedness, but the Biblical definition doesn't to focus on this at all but on the spiritual loss of innocence due to sin. The fact was that on the issue of physical nakedness the bible is back and forth. Adam and Eve are covered by God but Isaiah is told by God to strip naked and David dances naked before the ark and both are vindicated because of obedience. Physical nakedness is only shameful if accompanied by spiritual nakedness due to sin. When it came to the specific issue of women's breasts -- I could find no verse of Scripture that directly connected exposing them to being naked. If anything I found many verses singing their praises.

Applying this to real life became a challenge in the light of traditional conservative thinking. But one verse, a quote from Christ, kept going through my head. "Do not judge after the outward appearance, but judge righteous judgment." When it comes to this issue the church as a whole has the issue backwards. The average Christian is constantly making judgments about people's spirituality based on outward appearance when it comes to exposure of physical skin, but Biblically, in more ways than one, this is unsupportable. No one that I can see is judging things based on spiritual state. Nakedness of spirit is rarely dealt with effectively. I have seen many who were lost in sin fully clothed in body they were naked before God but the church ignores such people in favor of what going after what they can see. This changed my perspective on many issues including art, porn, public nudity, spiritual life and ministry in this world when nakedness is more and more common. I also had to conclude that the public perspective that a women exposing her breasts is nakedness is cultural not Biblical. It is no more nakedness for a woman than exposing her legs or face, but culturally this seems to be a last frontier of a culture war.

To contextualize all this became issues of living faith, liberty and the nature of sin and temptation for the believer. In the end i had to conclude that change the definition from physical to spiritual changes a lot mostly though it is about where the battle is really fought with lust -- in our hearts. It ultimately means that physical nakedness has no power unless the believer because of their own sin allows it to do so through spiritual nakedness. What makes a painting of a naked figure art or porn may greatly depend on the perspective. Is it viewed through the eyes of sin or innocence.

My largest final thought is how a person with a Biblical perspective is going to deal in our world and culture. This issue is both about the church culture as well as the world's

The great irony is that the greater difficulty is going to come from the church culture. Those of us focused on spiritual nakedness are going to look like we are not truly 'conservative' in our outlook. In truth, we are facing an issue of Christian liberty verses not making our weaker brother or sister stumble. We are going to have to think about how to walk a line between effective ministry where the strategy is about being in the world and not of it; and the other side where the strategy that is traditionally employed is legal action and isolation. This second strategy is going to ultimately fail and we must begin to exercise influence to a more Biblical way of doing things -- applying grace and truth to the true nakedness of this world -- the shame and exposure of sin.

To the world, we simply have to suspend our self-righteous opinions and oddly enough I think most people in the world would consider this a breath of fresh air compared to what we normally do. To actually rub shoulders with people who may be unacceptable to Christian culture but then effectively minister the grace and truth of Christ is the ultimate goal. To be able to go to places and be in situations where nudity is present but unaffected by it; to be able to look past the fashion and clothing issues to see real nakedness of spirit would be a more effective strategy than what is currently employed. It would also reflect more fully the ministry that Paul did in his world in the book of Acts.

I only have a couple of negative thoughts on these possibilities 1) nakedness being spiritual is going to be more nebulous -- it is much easier for people to define things by sight even though this is not truly accurate. 2) The church at present very likely lacks the spiritual maturity to reexamine themselves in the light of these Biblical understandings. I just think that the church culture is easier to accept than true Biblical definition. The later actually requires us to think.

For myself, I simply wait , pray and change my own attitude -- it is all I really can do. One thing is for sure though -- the nature of nakedness is changed in my mind and as much as possible, given those around me, I will walk in the liberty and truth of it.

Finis

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 19 -- Other Things to Consiider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation.

Aah. Vintage Bomber nose Art from World War 2. The 'Modest Maiden" and compared to some of this art she is 'modest'. Got into nose art after I found out my grandfather was a WWII B-17 pilot. Never have found out what his plane's name was. In case anyone is out there who knows his name was Captain Edward William Raby.

OK. Liberty aside what can these new understandings do to help us in our understanding of the nature of sin and temptation.

First of all, we need to understand that sensuality and lust are spiritual forces. Can the visual be used by Satan to tempt us -- of course but how does it have this power. Certainly not, the nudity in and of itself. The power of lust comes from a lustful heart. Jesus was very clear about this -- that which comes out of a man corrupts us. What come from outside into us does not corrupt us.

Secondly, I would have to conclude that the notion that we can stop lust from happening by everyone covering up is nonsense. Whether a woman is nude or not a man could lust after her. Remember Jesus spoke into a Jewish Ancient Middle Eastern where women were cover up more than today. Still he warned that lusting after a woman was adultery. He also said something else which is the third point.

Thirdly, both Jesus and James point that the target we should take for action is ourselves. James gives us the fact we are tempted from our own lusts and Jesus gives us the notion that we should cut off hands and eyes to avoid it. Metaphorically, take extreme measures to correct yourself in the face of sin.

Add to these understandings that nakedness in spiritual and not necessarily physical and you get in my opinion a very different course of action in dealing with temptation to lust. The target dramatically changes from the outside world to yourself -- in particularly your own heart.

Perhaps an example is in order. Let's say I am walking down the streets of New York City on a hot day. Never been there but maybe someday. Two women approach me and because of the laws they are topless/topfree and it is OK because several men have their shirts off as well. To add to the crisis of temptation they are both highly attractive. To top it all off, I am street witnessing. They head right for me, curious as to what I am doing. The come right up to me and ask we what I am talking about.

Now if I was a conventional conservative Christian with traditional views on sexual temptation and nudity the proper response is to beat feet out of there and leave the women standing with their mouths open. We might send up a prayer that someone else will talk to them about Christ when they are 'properly attired".

Or I could show some Christian maturity and armed with my understandings about nakedness and what Biblically constitutes nudity, I might say a prayer for myself that lust will stay dormant in my heart and then witness to them myself. By so doing I also treat them as humans and not as problems. If they accept Christ, then things might change or maybe not. Might be an interesting testimony from them how they accepted Christ as Lord while strolling around topless on a hot day in New York City. Imaging that, God still loved them anyway.

Maybe the imperative of this understanding would hit you if I further tell you that two minutes later they are both hit by a car and killed. Which option does the will of the Father then?

Isn't it amazing how we pick and choose who is worthy of the message of the gospel simply because of outward appearances and our own religious prejudices as if sinners hold to our moral views.

For myself, I never won a single victory over lust by getting rid of every image or nudity from my presence. I did this once upon a time and I can tell you the human imagination is far more vivid than a photograph and more likely to produce lust. It wasn't until I changed my understandings of things and sought a Biblical understanding of nakedness and nudity that I began to realize that I was taught very badly on this issue by the church. The 'don't look' approach does not work. What did work is when I began to appreciate the human body for what it is -- a beautiful creation of God and learned to treat women as human beings regardless of how they are dressed (including those in photographs and artwork) that I began to win battles against my own heart. When I began to truly understand what nakedness is, that is when I began to win the battle against my own shame and exposure. When you can stand naked in front of God and feel no shame, then you are walking in victory in Christ and have returned to 'naked and unashamed'. Unlike the 'Modest Maiden' above, you can be exposed and understand it is about openness and intimacy, not shame as God originally intended.

Next: Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith.

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