Here are Four Primary Theological Reasons Why Jesus Was Crucified.

1)      Jesus as prophet was performing a prophetic act predicting the destruction of Israel by Rome if Israel did not repent its current mode of being the people of God.

2)      God saw Jesus sinless and selfless obedience unto death as a pleasing act of love and devotion. Therefore, endorsing both his message, his means, and his claim to be the Messiah, God raised Jesus from the dead.

3)      In an act of grace, God chose to resurrect all who repent and follow Jesus, declaring that he would identify all such people with the sinless, self-less, obedient live and death of Jesus.

4)      Jesus intended his followers to use his life, message, and obedient death as an example of what true discipleship and true humanity is like.

Sin vs. Sin-Offering: A Note on 2 Corinthians 5:21

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Something worth noting about this verse. In some of your Bibles you might see a footnote attached to the second use of “sin” in this verse. This is because the the traditional interpretation of the second use of “sin” (harmatia) had usually been translated as “sin”, but now is now more frequently translated as “sin-offering”.

The Greek word harmartia (ἁμαρτία) is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) for the Hebrew word chatta'ath (חַטָּאָת) which can be translated as both “sin” and “sin-offering”. The ancient Israelites used chatta'ath for both words. Only context makes the distinction.

A good example of this is found in Leviticus 4:3. “If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering (chatta'ath) for the sin (chatta'ath) he has committed.”

Again, context is the only way to discern whether the writer is referring to sin or sin-offering.

With regards to 2 Corinthians 5:21, the context suggests that “sin-offering” would be a better translation/interpretation of harmatia.

First, there are a several passages in the Bible that refer to Christ in sacrificial/offering terms

(e.g., Rom. 8:3; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12).

Second, it seems unlikely that anyone, let alone Jesus, could become sin. Sin is something one commits. Even the word “sinful” refers to the amount of sin one commits, not that one has sin abounding in them. One commits adultery; one is not adultery itself. One commits thievery; one is not thievery itself. Jesus never sinned so he is not sinful, let alone sin itself.

It seems more likely that Paul intended his audience to understand Jesus in this verse as a sin-offering. Jesus offered himself to God as a sin-less representative of Man willing to sacrifice himself for others.

The 1953 Iranian "Coup"

I’ve seen a couple of instances in the news recently about how in 1953, the United States “engineered a coup, crushing a moment of democracy in Iran”. As a student of history, allow me to explain what occurred.

Mohammad Mosaddegh was duly elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1951. One of his first acts was to seize the assets of foreign oil companies in Iran. His domestic policies began to drive the Iranian economy into the ground. He became highly unpopular. He thus convinced the Iranian Parliament to grant him emergency powers. He thus began to jail his political opponents. At the same time, Mosaddegh started an alliance with the Soviet Union which led to Iranian communists infiltrating the military, attacking Mossaddegh opponents, and stifling political dissent. Eventually, the Iranian Communist Party became Mosaddegh’s foot-soldiers. As his popularity continued to plummet and members of his own party began resigning in mass from Parliament, Mosaddegh rigged an election referendum that dissolved Parliament. He then assumed complete dictatorial power over Iran. The Shah (the ruling monarch) attempted to use his constitutional authority to have Mossaddegh removed from power. Instead, Mossaddegh ignored the Shah’s constitutional authority (and thus the Iranian Constitution) and began arresting Shah supporters. The Shah himself was forced to flee to Iraq. Now dictator over all of Iran but having his supporters reduced to only Soviet-backed communists, Mossaddegh sent his foot soldiers out to arrest more political opponents and beat back the growing national protests against his dictatorial rule. Fearing that Iran was about to completely fall into the Soviet bloc with another communist dictator as supreme leader, the U.S. approached the Shah and loyal military leaders and helped organize and support the move that eventually led to Mosaddegh’s removal from power.

This is how the U.S. “engineered a coup, crushing a moment of democracy in Iran”.

Jesus' Prophecy of the Temple

Let’s dig into Jesus’ “Cleansing of the Temple”. During his final week before crucifixion in Jerusalem, Jesus went to the Temple, the place where God resides (the Shekhinah), and began overturning the money-changing tables. He then said, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46)

Jesus’ words were actually quotes from two Old Testament prophecies. The first is from Isaiah 56:7.

“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.”

This verse is from a prophetic oracle about God bringing together Gentiles, foreigners, eunuchs, and outcasts from all the world, from all nations, to worship him, not excluding anyone because of their ethnicity or station in life.

The second is from Jeremiah 7:11.

“Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, says the Lord.”

If you read the entire prophetic oracle of Jeremiah 7, you learn that it’s about God preparing to bring down judgment upon the whole of Judah for its sins against God and man. This prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE.

Put together with his actions to temporarily halt the legitimate business of the Temple, it seems that Jesus’ intention was to enact a prophetic oracle announcing God’s imminent judgment upon the Temple itself and Israel in general. This prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE.

Eli, Elijah, and Confusion over the Crucifixion

While on the cross, Jesus was heard to cry out, "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Many of those who hear Jesus say this mistakenly believe that he is crying out for Elijah (Eli – Elijah). This source of linguistic confusion is why the gospels record what Jesus says in the original Aramaic before giving the Greek translation.

The reason that the gospel writers include this anecdote of confusion in the crucifixion narrative is to highlight the real confusion that is taking place. Throughout this whole episode, everyone is completely misunderstanding what is happening to Jesus.

Jesus has been identifying himself as a prophet from God and proclaiming a specific prophecy about the immanence of the Kingdom of God and approaching judgment. Now that he has been arrested and crucified it looks like God has abandoned him and he is being punished. The comments by people in Matthew 27, Mark 15, and Luke 23 indicate that this is the general opinion.

And at first appearance, Jesus’ cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34) seems to indicate. In fact, Jesus is quoting the first line of Psalm 22. This particular psalm is about a man who is under tremendous suffering at it looks like God has completely abandoned him (vv. 1-23). However, in verse 24, the poem takes a dramatic turn:

“For he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”

The whole point of this psalm is that even though it looks like God has abandoned/punished the person afflicted, the truth is actually the complete opposite. God has not forsaken the sufferer.

So when Jesus alludes to Psalm 22, he is indicating that even though it looks as if God is abandoning/punishing Jesus, the truth is that God is there with him in his suffering and will vindicate the afflicted.

“Let his blood be on us and our children.”

In Matthew 27:24-25, when Pilate tells the crowd calling for Jesus’ crucifixion that “this man’s blood … is your responsibility,” the people answer, “Let his blood be on us and our children.”

Some people throughout history have used this verse as an excuse to legitimize their anti-Semitism. Their thinking here is that this verse teaches that this small crowd of Jews in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was accepting responsibility (i.e., blame) for the death of Christ in the name of all Jews everywhere for two millennia and onward.

The idea is nonsense but some people unfamiliar with Christianity and the Bible still believe that’s what these verses are trying to convey. I’m sure the very Jewish gospel writer, Matthew, would be surprised to learn of this interpretation.

I think a better interpretation is that Matthew the irony of the situation. While this small group of Jews who have been persuaded by the chief priests and elders to call for Jesus’ death is taking personal responsibility for that death, they are unwittingly calling for the cleansing, sacrificial blood of Christ to be upon them (1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 9:14, 10:19; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5, 7:14, 12:11).

What they intended as a curse, God turned it into a blessing.

Best Albums of the Year 2014

Best Albums of the Year 2014

Rock or Bust (2014) - AC/DC

Straight Up (1971) - Badfinger

Morning Phase (2014) - Beck

Turn Blue (2014) - The Black Keys

Sonic Highways (2014) - Foo Fighters

Vu de l'extérieur (1973) - Serge Gainsbourg

Granicus (1973) - Granicus

Preservation Act 1 (1973) - The Kinks

Endless River (2014) - Pink Floyd

Primus & the Chocolate Factory with the Fungi Ensemble (2014) - Primus

John Henry (1994) - They Might Be Giants

Songs of Innocence (2014) - U2 [Not sure how this got here. I just went to iTunes and suddenly this album appeared in my Best Albums of the Year list.]

The Best Album of the Year goes to Beck for Morning Phase.

R. N. Whybray's Isaiah 40-66 (The New Century Bible Commentary)

I finished reading R. N. Whybray's  commentary on Deutero-Isaiah (40-66) tonight. It was an enjoyable work, particularly technical with some good analyses of Deutero-Isaiah theology. It was very much the type of work one expects The New Century Bible Commentary series (The Anchor Bible Commentary Series is still the overall best).

Deutero-Isaiah is one of the most important works in the Bible and one of the deepest. Written during the time of the Israelite exile in Babylon, Deutero-Isaiah's purpose is to announce to those in exile that Yahweh has not forgotten them. Indeed, the prophet announces that Yahweh is about to free them from Babylonian captivity through his servant, Cyrus, and send them back to their homeland. It's at this point that the prophet reveals the full scope of Yahweh's plan. Not only is God going to redeem Israel but he is going to redeem the whole world through Israel, bringing Gentiles into God's people, bringing in the poor and outcasts, and reversing the Fall of Man, reversing the curse upon creation, and establishing a New Creation. This is the presentation of the great sweep of God's original plan and here, at Israel's lowest point, the whole purpose Yahweh's promise to Abraham and the purpose of Israel is made known.

I had only two major problems with Whybray's book. First, he argues the case for chapters 56-66 being the work of separate post-Exilic author. This is a popular viewpoint among scholars but I am still unconvinced. In fact, having read Whybray's presentation of the evidence I am even more convinced at the flimsiness of the position. Secondly, Whybray argues that the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah refers to Deutero-Isaiah himself. I think his argument here is pretty shallow and contorted. Traditional scholarship has identified the Suffering Servant as a personification of Israel. I think this traditional view is the correct one and even Whybray has to argue for conjectured interpolations into the manuscript to argue his position. These are theoretical interpolations not found in the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls and do not break the meter of the poetry.

Still, despite these two objections, I was pleased with the overall thrust of the work, most of its individual parts, and the historical-cultural insights it taught me about Deutero-Isaiah.

Thought Processes and Leadership in the Kingdom of God [A Fragment of an Uncompleted Article]

[A few months ago, a seminary friend asked me to write an article for his blog. I wrote the following, but, even after four separate attempts, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory conclusion. I ended up writing something else but in a similar vein. However, I think there are some good nuggets in here despite its fragmentary form.]

"One thing I learned from my father is to try to think as the people around you think." - Michael Corleone, The Godfather II

"He puts himself in the man's place, having first gauged his intelligence. Then he imagines how he himself would have proceeded in similar circumstances." - Dr. John Watson, The Musgrave Ritual (Granada - 1986), explaining Sherlock Holmes' method

I love both of these two quotes because I think they encapsulate something fundamental about practical life.

Certainly, I think every individual is more than the sum of his or her parts. As Reinhold Niebuhr noted, the human being is finite but is conscious of the limits and contours of his/her finiteness. Because of this knowledge, he/she can aspire beyond that finiteness, though never reaching beyond it. But because of this aspiration to infinity, humans have the ability to explore their finiteness in a way beyond the capability of other species. We can diverge from our predetermined paths. We can rise above our base instincts. We can self-examine ourselves and our lives. We can know that we know. We can actually pull ourselves out of our context (at least partially) and grasp the eternal truth in which our context must ultimately submit.

However, such an ability can only be exercised through submission, humbleness, wisdom through fear, knowing we know nothing, and the recognition of our own finiteness in the face of infinity. And that takes willful purpose. That involves the realization and recognition of the culture, context, and patterns of our existence, the analyzing of culture etc., and the choice to deviate. Unfortunately, most people never realize there is anything beyond their context. Therefore, people nevertheless tend to follow regular patterns of thought and behavior because it is the most natural thing for them to do.

So ... if you can work out a person's pattern, their personality, background, worldview, belief system, character, major life experiences, influences, etc., then you can begin to ascertain how someone thinks and then how that person behaves in different situations. Once you've gauged the person's thought processes, their behaviors, and even  their modus operandi, then you can make predictions about how they will think and react to a given circumstance.

For the Christian, the importance of knowing thought processes is how to positively engage an individual for the strategic purposes of the Kingdom of God.

God Wins

One of the things about the Christian Faith is the option to look at the universe, creation, and history from a wide perspective. I'm reminded of an episode of the BBC murder mystery show Inspector Lewis in which a Oxford professor who studied the Greek classics admitted his unconcern with the trivial details of day-to-day life because he thought in terms of thousand year eras. For the Christian, God created the universe some 13 billion years ago. He began creating the earth 4 billion years ago. He created man at some point and then inaugurated the salvation of this world some 4,000 years ago with the calling of Abraham. It was only some 2,000 years ago that the Kingdom of God came, breaking into history, in the person and work of Jesus and his Church. And as Jesus proved at his resurrection: God wins. New creation is coming. The thorns and thistles that cycle through our lives and the up and downs that cycle through our world that can seem so relevant to our existence are really just blips in the overall working out of God's plan for the salvation of his creation. As Christians, we are called to do good works for the Kingdom of God, seeking God's guidance in how to best do so. If we ask him, he'll give it. It is in the confidence of God's victory and in the assurance of the hope of God's ultimate justice that we place our faith. God wins. Everything else we do is the working out of that ultimate cosmic salvation in the tasks and mission that God in Christ gives us. All anxiety and worry should just fall away. God wins. A wider perspective of creation and history should cause one to throw their sufferings and anxieties on God and trust in his salvific work. God wins.

Charles L. Campbell's Preaching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics in Han Frei's Postliberal Theology

The other day I finished reading Charles L. Campbell's Preaching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics in Han Frei's Postliberal Theology. Charles L. Campbell (Preaching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics in Hans Frei's Postliberal TheologyEssentially, the book is an exploration of the thought, teaching, and context of Frei's use of narrative preaching.The context seems to be the reemergence of biblical preaching by mainline denomination liberals as their move away from subjective religious experience and back towards the centrality of Jesus and the meta-narrative told through the Scriptures. During the 1960s, liberal preachers began to abandon neo-orthodoxy in favor of a more private spirituality and a secular politics, both completely divorced from the Christ event.

Much of the book - literary interpretations of the Bible, the meta-narrative of the Scriptures, refocus on neo-orthodoxy - is "old hat" to me. My studies of Kierkegaard, Mullins, Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr, Moody, Stagg, Buber, and Wright taught me all this long ago. But it is nice to see liberal Christians starting to get it right to some degree.

The most interesting aspect of this book for me was the examination of how people become "Christians" culturally and how they come to believe what they believe. Essentially, the thesis here is that becoming a "Christian" is a process of socialization or enculturation within a particular cultural-linguistic community. One doesn't become a "Christian" by having a "religious experience" but by learning the particular language and set of practices inherent in Christianity, a denomination, and a particular faith tradition. Furthermore, people learn the "meaning" of a scriptural teaching and their way of "interpreting" Scripture by adopting the cultural practices of their faith community, not by drawing upon the sensus literalis.  All of this is really about the practical process of how individuals and community arrive at Biblical interpretation and theology, regardless of accuracy. All of this can be quite depressing to the learned Christian but it really seems to be the way the majority "Christianize" themselves in practice.

Frei is said to argue that the function of the gospels is to render the identity of Jesus. I find this highly questionable but probably only overstated.

I greatly appreciated Frei's assessment that Jesus enacted the way of God in the world as an embodiment of the reign of God. I think this is right on the money. This dips slightly into some of the deeper areas of Scriptural studies involving Jesus self-understanding and prophetic vocation.

I really don't think there are any deeper aspects of Scripture studies than the theology of Job, Roman 1, Deutero-Isaiah, and Jesus' personal understanding of his prophetic vocation.

The book is fairly technical and might be of some interest to preachers. However, it's probably more interesting to those who study preaching. And though I think most evangelicals would find this book uninteresting, liberal and more progressive Christians would find the more practical homiletic parts very useful.

"Judge not ..."

Sometimes when one points out that a particular behavior is contrary to God's will, others will condemn that pronouncement by citing the first part of  Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7, saying, "Judge not".

The people in this context that cite this statement interpret it to mean that one must never judge another person's behavior to be wrong. I am under no delusion that anyone who does so is actually attempting to offer Scriptural wisdom  - they simply don't like being told that a particular behavior is wrong and they are looking for the easiest way to deflect their guilt.

Obviously, we make judgments about behavior every day. Judges and juries are supposed to do it. Jesus in John 7:24 is quoted as saying, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

Indeed, Telling someone that it is wrong to judge is actually judging someone and their behavior. Therefore, under the "never-tell-anyone-they-are wrong" interpretation, it is wrong to tell someone to "judge not". It's hypocrisy.

Again, I know that no one who cites "judge not" in the above manner is really concerned with the meaning of Jesus' teaching and the inner-contradictions of their misinterpretations - they just don't like the guilt of being told they're wrong.

Let's actually look at "judge not" in its context.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matt7:1-5).

As the context makes perfectly clear, the purpose of pointing out the sin in someone's life is to help that person remove it. It's not simply the proclamation of error but the call to turn towards a more authentic way of living. For someone to be upset that someone is attempting to guide them towards the removal of serious error in their life is like going to a doctor with breathing problems and becoming angry when he suggests the cure.

"Mr. Smith, you need to stop smoking. It's damaging your health." "'Judge not lest ye be judged!'" "Uh, but I don't smoke." "'Physician, heal thyself!'" "Actually, I'm a general prac-" "'"Shut the heck up," thus sayeth the Lord!'"

Jesus is saying that one cannot help remove the sin from someone's life if they are engaging in that sin as well. You can't help someone with their drunkenness if you are a drunk. You can't help someone with their lying if you are a liar. You can't help someone with their immorality if you also engage in immorality. You can't help someone with their hypocritical use of "judge not" if you are hypocritically using "judge not."

1-3 John (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), by Marianne Meye Thompson

This weekend, I finished reading Marianne Meye Thompson's commentary on the Epistles of  John for The IVP New Testament Series. Thompson is probably one of the best female Biblical scholars in the world today and certainly one of the best when it comes to the Johannine works. I've read many of her works and conversed with her through email in my early days of seminary when I was leaning towards Johannine studies. I subsequently followed Lucan studies.

I think it is really necessary for the Christian interested in 1-3 John to read good commentaries upon the subject. John frequently writes in general, universal, absolutist, and dichotomous manner which can cause the faithful reader to make thought applications not intended by the author.

A good commentary will help the reader put some of the more stringent statements of John in context, both the context of the letters, the situation in which the letters were written, and within the overall Johnannine corpus. This is what Thompson does in her book.

1-3 John continues to be even more relevant today with its focus on love, truth, fellowship, division, and discipleship. With so much of the North American church adopting new, pseudo-definitions of what it means to love, hate, and pursue the truth, it's important for those followers of Jesus who still have their feet planted in the mission of the church to adequately relate to those other members of the church.

Here is one of my two favorite quotes from the commentary:

"Sacrificial love that models itself after Jesus' example does not enable the destructive behavior of others, but encourages them in actions that lead to love and life, and to healing and wholeness."

Telling the Grand Story to Our Children

We all love good stories. From the earliest cave sketchings to the latest award winning movie and TV show, there seems to be something intrinsic that God put into human nature to want to tell and hear great stories about life and learning. From an early age we are told nursery rhymes and fairy tales and learn all about the adventures of great heroes and heroines. When we go to school we hear the stories of great kings and queens and about the Founding Fathers of our country and the great men and women who shaped American history. These stories are important to tell as they ground children in the American experience and provide points of reference and context for how students are to interpret the contemporary world. All nations, all movements, all people groups have grand stories about themselves and their history that are used to orientate and educate their children and explain to them their culture's identity and worldview.

One of the chief characteristics of our contemporary world and its currently fashionable philosophies is an incredulity towards such grand stories, based upon the belief that they are created and reinforced by power structures seeking self-validation and are therefore untrustworthy. Personally, I am not necessarily adverse to this critique of grand cultural stories insofar as it rightly addresses the issue of stories told by a group of people in order to legitimize a particular worldview or privilege. Our world is full of people and cultures attempting to justify worldviews and ways of life contrary to God's expectations. However, I do believe that grand stories are fundamentally useful and should not be dismissed offhand but rather critiqued on the basis of how close they correspond to God's revealed Word. Nevertheless, grand stories are too often used for social and epistemic validation and are the driving force buttressing a particularly cherished worldview.

Christianity, of course, has its own grand story told through the Bible, the person of Jesus, and the Gospel message. However, the important difference between the Christian story and most others is that instead of a grand story propping up a worldview, Christianity is a story in search of a worldview. It's a complete reversal of the way much of the world acts. Christianity already has a definitive, over-arching story to be told and understood; it's not telling new stories in order to validate a pre-existing social order or conception. At most, Christians are continually re-examining the established story in hopes of creating a worldview and social order that corresponds with the narrative.

This is why telling the grand story of God's redeeming work to our children is so central to establishing  a proper worldview for Kingdom work. Without a proper foundation in a proper, grand story, children will develop other worldviews (usually unauthentic, self-serving worldviews) and then seek the stories, the narratives, and the "truths" that seem to best validate that worldview. The worldview is now buttressing one's sinful, self-serving nature. Ultimately, all false stories crack and eventually crumble when unavoidably confronted with reality, casting doubt upon the worldview and threatening an individual's self-validating conception. This is why the book of Proverbs teaches parents to train children in the way they should so they will not depart from it when they are older (22:6). This is why the Israelites continually told the story of God redeeming them from slavery. We must firmly immerse our children in the Biblical narrative to prepare them for effective, God-honoring lives when they grow older - lives that develop a Christian worldview of authentic, self-giving values.

Here are some important ways we as parents can do so:

·         Get your child an age-appropriate Bible. There are great children's and learner's Bibles available that focus on the stories of the Bible and teach fundamental principles of the Faith.

·         Read these stories to your children every night. Most good early learning Bibles offer brief synopsis of the stories that can be read in a matter of minutes and can supplement what other stories you read to your child.

·         Find your children videos that tell Bible stories. I'm a huge fan of Veggie Tales. I don't think anyone does Children's Ministry better than Bob and Larry. Those videos teach great Bible stories and other Scriptural lessons in fun, inventive ways that appeal to both children and parents.

·         Get your child involved in a Preschool and Elementary program that . Bethany's Children's Ministry offers a great curriculum that is narrative based. Over the course of your child's involvement in our weekend services, he or she will learn all the major stories of the Bible in order from Genesis to Revelation. Our curriculum, The Gospel Project, is the perfect way of enriching a child's understanding of the story of God's redemptive work in history through Israel and Jesus.

·         Get your child involved in an AWANA program. This is a wonderful program that teaches Bible stories and Scripture memorization in a fun and entertaining way.

 

Children must be fully inculcated with the story of God's saving work through Christ in history, both in the individual stories of the Bible and the sweeping narrative of the Gospel message.

Without it, our children become divorced from the foundation of life, unable to comprehend a worldview that grows effective, God-honoring lifestyles. Without it, as adults, they are tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching that comes from deceitful people. With it, our children grow into authentic, realized human beings, firmly established in reality and prepared for lives of moral and mental exceptionalism.

 

Resurrection, Religion, and the Fear of Death

I've often hear people espouse the theory that humanity created religion in order to deal with the concept of death. This theory goes that people feared the finality of death and conjured up the idea of an afterlife in order to avoid confronting reality. This theory is probably not without some merit. I am sure there are plenty of people in this world who embrace religion merely to escape this fear.

Based upon their burial practices, there is some evidence that the Neanderthals may have believed in an afterlife. Certainly, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Canaanite religions believed in a spiritual place after death.

Interestingly enough, the Hebrews and ancient Israelites actually did not believe in an afterlife until after the time of the Babylonian Exile (539 BCE). Up until this later era, general Israelite conceptions of death held that the body was created from dust and naturally returned to dust. The body was considered holistic, not being divided into body and spirit but as a unified materialistic substance. A body didn't have a soul (nephesh); a body was a soul. Therefore, the body, created by God originally from nothing, returned to nothing at death. There was no spirit world to which the immortal body was delivered. Sheol was the representation of the grave, a final resting place for all people in dust.

It is not until after the Exile that a resurrection from the dead began to appear in common Jewish religion. It seems that the Jews began to read Exilic Bible passages about Yahweh's promise to reform the nation of Israel from exile (Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37) as a promise of resurrection of the body from death. This was later picked up by Daniel and 2 Maccabees. By the time of Jesus, the vast majority of Jews believed in a resurrection of the dead.

Resurrection of the dead, of course, is vastly different from other religious ideas of an afterlife. Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans believed that the body died and the spirit continued on in some immaterial, spiritual plane of existence. The Greeks in particular believed that the spirit was an immortal form that existed prior to bodily life and continued after bodily death. The spirit was said to be indestructible and thus continued on. This is a far cry from the idea of the creator god, Yahweh, who brings everything into existence out of nothing. The Jews believed that Yahweh would one day bring back to life all of the materials that made up a person, recreating out of dust the body and spirit of man. This seems to have been a unique view among the ancient world. The Greco-Roman worldview found the idea of a resurrection of the body to be foolish, both religiously and philosophically.

Naturally, the concept of the resurrection of the dead remained a matter of faith and theory for the first several centuries of its existence. It wasn't until around the year 30 CE with the resurrection of Jesus that it was proved that, yes, resurrection of the dead was the creator god's intended purpose for humanity.

So the ancient worshippers of Yahweh (the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) did not embrace religion in order to deal with any fear of death in hopes of an afterlife. In terms of mortality, their adherence to a monotheistic, creator god, one who creates out of nothing, was of almost stoic acceptance to a supreme being whose authority to create and utterly destroy was strictly a divine prerogative.

Thankfully, that prerogative is to recreate and offer the resurrection of the body to those willing to accept it.

Anxiety and the Purposes of the Kingdom

I was reading some of the spiritual writings of Soren Kierkegaard the other day. Among the myriad of subjects upon which he is a prophetic authority, Kierkegaard also understands the spiritual dimensions of fear, despair, and the concept of anxiety. It's the concept of anxiety that most interests me. In his Christian Discourses, Kierkegaard writes that anxiety is a grappling hook by which the prodigious hulk of fear gets a hold of the individual to dominate it under its power. He further deems anxiety a distraction.

Jesus talks about anxiety in his famous Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:18-22; Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:11-15). In this parable, Jesus is teaching his disciples about the different reactions people have from hearing about the good news of the Kingdom of God. Some people ignore the good news, others hear the news and, after and initial burst of enthusiasm, fall away because they never had a proper foundation for their faith. Then there are those who hear the good news, have the foundation, but do not bear the true results of their faith because they are choked by the world. Jesus used the analogy of thorns that choke a plant, preventing it from bearing fruit. This immediately reminds me of one of the results of the Fall of Man where authentic work of tending to the earth is now frustrated by the growth of thorns (Genesis 3:17-19). In the same way, the world is constantly producing frustrations and distractions that inauthenticate our lives prevent us from living out our faith fully.

Jesus lists a few of these distractions in generalities: wealth, abundance of possessions, food, and pleasures of the world. It's important to note that these things are not necessarily bad in of themselves. They become bad when they distract you from growing in your faith and doing God's work.

But Jesus also mentions one other distraction and frustration that can prevent full growth in the faith: the cares of this world. Now the word used in the New Testament in these parables is merimna and is best translated as "anxiety". This is the anxiety and fear that strangles and cripples the individual and distracts him from accomplishing the personal growth and service necessary to achieve the goals of the Kingdom of God.

There are endless examples of such anxiety and fear. A few that pop to mind are concern for finances, fear of people's perceptions of one's self, fear of achieving or maintaining status and possessions, concern for health, and fear of the unknown. These anxieties hinder you from making the right decisions, silence you from speaking truth, and focus your attention on the peripheral fluff while avoiding central issues.

Merimna is used a few more times in the New Testament. It is used in Luke 21:34 when Jesus warned the people not to be distracted from the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Paul uses the term in 2 Corinthians 11:28 when describing the troubles and burdens he faced as an apostle. Along with the beatings, shipwrecks, pains, hunger, thirst, and other sufferings he experienced that sought to prevent him from preaching the gospel, Paul adds the anxiety that comes upon him ministering to the churches. Like his other sufferings, this anxiety sought to distract and prevent his Kingdom work.

Finally, Peter uses merimna in his first letter when talking about suffering and submission (5:7). He quotes Psalm 55:22, saying, "Give all your anxiety to [God] for he looks after you." Essentially, this is the same teaching of Jesus when he tells his disciples to avoid fear but have faith in God who looks after you (Matthew 10:28-31).

Throughout this letter, Peter is delving into some of the more scandalous aspects of Christian ethics with regards to defeating evil through submission and suffering. Much of this is counter-intuitive to the way in which we generally understand the world to work. However, there are ways in which we can go about giving our anxieties to God. My personal experience has shown me that some individuals - because of personality or life experience - have a more difficulty not worrying than others.

So how do we do so? How do we give our anxieties to God?

1) Tell God your troubles, sufferings, and concerns. This is an engagement with God, opening our hearts and minds to receive the message and instruction we need at this particular time.

2) Trust that God is who he says he is and that he will do what he says he will do. This means that whatever God tells us through Scripture or authentic, subjective experiences is what he will do. A significant part of this is to realize and immerse yourself in the Gospel message that God is defeating evil and has the final victory. The more we inculcate ourselves in this reality, the fewer anxieties we will have.

3) Do exactly what God says. Neither of these previous two points means doing nothing. Of course, telling the Creator of the Universe your problems and believing that he'll act in accordance is definitely something we do. But even after that, giving God your anxieties is then about proceeding in accordance with God's instructions and not going beyond that. The innate human tendency is act out upon our own devices. We sometimes want to do more than God wants us to do or to take actions that are counter-productive to the best solution.

4) Limit the distractions in your life. Cut back on possessions, activities, and the peripheral aspects of life towards a more simplistic , less chaotic existence. Our modern, consumeristic society has the potential of choking us and distracting us from the our proper purposes. If we can simplify our lives, we lessen the potential for the anxieties that come from such things.

In the end, anxiety is a force seeking to inauthenticate our lives by separating us from our purpose in God. It is a force to be overcome, and we can do so by fully embracing God and his purposes.

Job and the Crisis of Theology

My pastor gave a good sermon on the book of Job this weekend - one of my favorite books. The Book of Job is set during the time of the Patriarchs but was written after the time of the exile.

In a sense, the book (like Ecclesiastes) is a response to the theology taught in the books of Deuteronomy and Proverbs. These latter two books offer a fairly clean cut approach to life in that it plainly states the general cause and effect truth that good begets good and evil begets evil. If we lead moral, righteous lives, we will be blessed by God and his ordained will. If we act immorally and lead unrighteous lives, we will reap bad consequences. This theology is generally true and real life experience bears it out. However, this theological framework does not tell the whole truth. There are times when  evil flourishes and the good unjustly suffers. Real life experience bears this out.

The book of Job's purpose is to deal with the theological particular of the righteous person suffering. Job is a righteous individual with strong faith in God. When he suffers blamelessly, his whole theology is shook to the ground. He wonders why God would allow such evil to befall him. His three friends are disturbed by the questions he is raising about how God relates to man and begin to argue with Job, trying to defend God and attempting to correct Job's theology. Much of what Job's three friends espouse is the theology of Proverbs and Deuteronomy. The most interesting part of this book is that Job listens to the theologizing of his three friends and agrees with them. His response is that he agrees with all their theology - it's his theology! - but it just does not fit his circumstance. Throughout his ordeal, Job never loses his faith/trust in God, but wrestles with the theology. From this perspective, the book of Job is about a crisis of theology, rather than specifically a crisis of faith.

Yet, Job remains unshakeable in both his belief in God and in the belief of his innocence.

A Fuller Expression of the Gospel

I was reading today a few articles on N.T. Wright and his view of narrative theology. I came across one article that took him to task for a less than clear conception of penal substitutionary atonement theology. I sympathize with the articles frustration over the ambiguity of Wright's position, though it is obvious that we come down on separate sides when it comes to the validity of the doctrine. Nevertheless, what really struck me about the article was the author's dissatisfaction with Wright's book "Simply Christian" in that it did not explain the basic Gospel -- "Christ died for our sins."

This is a bit of a bugaboo for me. One of my criticisms of most conception of the Gospel message, particularly the more popular understandings, is that they are extremely narrow formulations, completely devoid of the narrative thrust of the Bible. In effect, to say the basic Gospel is "Christ died for our sins" is like saying that WWII was about liberating Poland from Nazi Germany. The saying captures the part but not the whole.

Granted, a full expression of the Gospel (like the one I humbly suggest below) does not fit on a bumper sticker or key ring. If one was to simply reduce the Gospel to its purest essence it would be the following: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14). This was the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed and would have been readily understood by his Jewish contemporaries.  

However, outside of first century Palestine, we, like the gentiles of the era, depend upon the apostles to flesh out the meaning of this good news and explain it as it related to the story of Israel.

Therefore, the following should be understood: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23), bringing Justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10)."

I think this definition offers a far fuller and more accurate expression of the Gospel and how it was encapsulated by Jesus' original audience.

Meta-Narratives and the Christian Worldview

Meta-narratives are generally defined as a comprehensive explanation of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society, culture, or movement legitimization through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealized) master idea.

One of the chief characteristics of post-modernity is a incredulity towards meta-narratives based upon the belief that they are created and reinforced by power structures seeking self-validation and are therefore untrustworthy.

I am not necessarily adverse to this critique of meta-narratives insofar as it rightly addresses the issue of grand stories told by a group of people in order to legitimize a particular worldview or privilege.

However, I do believe that meta-narratives are fundamentally useful and should not be dismissed offhand but rather critiqued on the basis of how close they correspond to known reality.

Nevertheless, meta-narratives are too often used for social and epistemic validation and are the driving force buttressing a particularly cherished worldview.

Christianity, of course, has its own meta-narrative told through the stories of the Bible, the person of Jesus, and the Gospel message. However, the main difference between the Christian narrative and most others is that instead of a meta-narrative propping up a worldview, Christianity is a narrative in search of a worldview. It's a complete reverse. Christianity already has a definitive, over-arching story to be told and understood; it is not telling new stories in order to validate a pre-existing social order or conception. At most, Christians are continually re-examining the established story in hopes of creating a worldview and social order that corresponds with the narrative.

This is why telling the grand narrative of God's redeeming work to our children is so central to establishing  a proper worldview for Kingdom work. Without a proper foundation in a proper, grand narrative, children will develop worldviews (usually unauthentic, self-serving worldviews) and then seek the stories, the narratives, and the "truths" that seems to best validate that worldview. The worldview is now buttressing the ego.

Ultimately, all false narratives crack and eventually crumble when unavoidably confronted with reality, casting doubt upon the worldview and threatening the individual's self-validating conception.

It is at this critical juncture that the individual has a choice: either 1) to pursue the truth in the submission of the self towards a relationship with God in Christ and adopting the proper meta-narrative or 2) to try continuing with a false, deteriorating narrative with spurious thinking, self-justification, cognitive dissonance, and a reprobate mind.

Difficulty with the Translation אֶרֶץ ('erets)

One of the more confusing aspect of the Bible is the translation of the two words: אֶרֶץ ('erets) and γῆ (gē). Both words have a few different translations but are generally translated as either "earth" or "land". Here is where the confusion comes in with translations:

Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament predict that God will wipe a people from the 'erets. If a Bible version translates the word as "earth" then the prophecy is often interpreted as not having occurred (i.e., God has not wiped these particular people from the earth). However, if the word is translated as "land" then it can be showed that these people were expelled  and can be proven that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So because of this little translational detail, there are many Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible and are waiting for particular events that occurred thousands of years ago.

"Candle in the Wind", by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

I finished reading Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's play "Candle in the Wind", which I found in a nice little bookshop in Newport.

The story is basically about the professional and personal lives of scientists and mathematicians working at a biocybernetics institute and how they differ in their reactions to the amorality of their work. But essentially, the meaning of the work is to examine movements of materialism divorced from the spiritual, particularly the purposes and uses of science by the state, and how such socialistic statism suppresses the human soul.

These themes of materialism and the dehumanizing effects of socialism are all common to Solzhenitsyn. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn, as the last great Russian writer of modernity, is the successor of Tolstoy in his focus on the simplicity of the individual soul seeking maturation (specifically the spiritual) amidst the forces of modernity, particularly materialism and socialism.

Naturally, being a Russian from the Soviet period, Solzhenitsyn's stories are located within Russia and explore spiritual themes in the context of a socialist society (much like Pasternak, Akhmatova, and Bulgakov). However, in "Candle in the Wind", Solzhenitsyn intentionally places his story in a nameless state devoid of identifying cultural markers in order to create a more international feel and universal quality. How effective he is with this technique is open for criticism. Personally, I think the universal quality of his theme itself would lift the story out of a Soviet context and unto a broader, international stage.

I was quite reminded of the plays of Tom Stoppard, particularly the critique of socialism, the analogies of science, mixed with wit and the personal lives of the characters. I particularly loved the first few lines:

Maurice: One of the main criteria for judging people's taste is cheese. What cheese do you prefer, Alex?

Alex: I'm no connoisseur, Uncle, they're all the same to me.

Maurice: All the same? You really are a savage, then!

"Candle in the Wind" is a minor work by a major writer. It's a quick read and a good primer for his more expansive works.

Freedom or Death, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Today I finished reading "Freedom or Death", by Nikos  Kazantzakis. I've been a huge fan of Kazantzakis for many years now and was glad that I finally got around to reading this particular work.

Ostensibly, the book is about the rebellion of the Cretans against the Ottoman Empire in the year 1889, seen through the eyes of Captain Michales.

Kazantzakis, of course, goes deeper, meditating upon the Cretan psyche in terms of its identity, nationalism, religion, and character.

I also think that there is an undercurrent of the ever-present Minoan ethos that figures so prominently in most of Kazantzakis' works (he was born in Crete). Strip away the philosophical and cultural flourishes of a Kazantzakis work and you'll find a pre-historic, earthy, almost proto-mythic quality that reduces humanity to the simplicity of a life/death dichotomy. Such a philosophical bent is not untypical of modernist writers but it seems always more heightened with Kazantzakis.

I think you also find such thinking in the Old Testament wisdom literature of Ecclesiastes and Job. The Book of Job in particular has as its base point the understanding that the individual human exists for a brief moment between two abysses and that the only positive choice is a full leap of faith into the creator God.

Kazanzakis, like many of the best modernist writers, understood the situation of man as existing between two voids, but, unfortunately, unlike writers such as Hermann Broch, he rejected the positive choice of falling into the infinity of God but instead embraced and explored a synthesis of life-death as an alternative to God.

So I don't agree with Kazantzaki's conclusions, but I greatly appreciate and am interested in his exploration of the theme of man's primal, existential situation.

All in all, I think that "Freedom or Death" is a very good book, though I don't think that it rises to the levels of other such Kazantzakis' works such as "The Greek Passion", "The Last Temptation", or "The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel". It is certainly better than the vastly over-rated "Zorba the Greek".

"Sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21

I've been doing a study on 2 Corinthians 5:21, specifically about the odd saying that "God made him who had no sin [i.e. Jesus] to be sin for us". This verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that by some mystical transference God turned Jesus into sin during the crucifixion in order to be substitutionally punished for the sins of humanity. However, I had noticed that several of the better, scholarly translations of the New Testament add a footnote to the second occurrence of "sin" (hamartia) in verse 21, indicating that it can be translated as "sin-offering".

The reason for this is that the Old Testament uses the same word (chatta'ath) for both "sin" and "sin-offering". Only contexts determines the usage.

Therefore, we get a translation of Leviticus 4:3: "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a 'sin offering' [chatta'ath] for the 'sin' [chatta'ath] he has committed."

Now when the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the translators rendered chatta'ath as hamartia.

With this in mind, the  atonement context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests that Paul intended the second use of hamartia to be understood as "sin-offering" instead of "sin".

It makes more sense to think of God considering the sin-less Jesus an offering for sin than actually somehow turning him into sin.

Two Approaches to Christianity

There are two different practical approaches to being a Christian in today's world. The first approach is the most common and considers the Christian faith as a means by which one gets through this life. This approach generally manifests itself in the view that life is life and the Christian faith helps one get through it with utmost help. There are varieties to this approach. Some choose to follow Christianity but believe it is not so much different than any other religion. They generally follow Christianity because they are culturally conditioned to do so. Other varieties of people truly believe that Christianity is the one true faith, ordained by the creator of the universe, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Nevertheless, these same people still perceive Christianity as a faith that helps them get through life. For them, Christianity is either a form of "self-help" psychotherapy or a means of "health and wealth" creation. The second approach is radically different. This approach considers the Christian faith as life itself and that the believer is definitively called into a life- and world-changing mission to advance the Kingdom of God and work towards New Creation. The first approach is about improving the self for the purposes of the self. The second approach is about denying the self for the purposes of the overall mission of God in Christ. The first approach is about reading a story. The second approach is about being a character in the story.

On the Translation of the Word אֶרֶץ ('erets)

One of the more confusing aspect of the Bible is the translation of the two words: אֶרֶץ ('erets) and γῆ (gē). Both words have a few different translations but are generally translated as either "earth" or "land". Here is where the confusion comes in with translations:

Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament predict that God will wipe a people from the 'erets. If a Bible version translates the word as "earth" then the prophecy is often interpreted as not having occurred (i.e., God has not wiped these particular people from the earth). However, if the word is translated as "land" then it can be showed that these people were expelled  and can be proven that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So because of this little translational detail, there are many Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible and are waiting for particular events that occurred thousands of years ago.

Reasons for the Crucifixion of Jesus

For those unfamiliar with Christianity or those only culturally tied to it as a religion, there can be some confusion and uncertainty about the meaning and purpose of Jesus' crucifixion as it pertains to the Christian Faith. I'd like to offer four primary reasons for the death of Jesus, in brief:

Reason 1: Servant - In this, Jesus obeyed God and followed the divine will perfectly throughout his life even to the point of death.  Jesus was the perfect human being as God always intended, representative of both God and Man, selflessly denying himself for the love of his fellow man and God, giving himself in obedience to God, even into death, for the purposes of God's saving work. Here, the grace of God is shown in that for whoever trusts God and follows Jesus, God recognizes in them the same selfless obedience that God sees in Jesus.

Reason 2: Moral-Theological Example - Jesus' obedience and selflessness is the ultimate expectation that God has for humanity, both as individuals and as a community. If Jesus is the ultimate human and a sign-post pointing forwards to God's consummation of creation, disciples of Jesus are called to follow his example in their daily lives, even to the point of self-sacrificial death.

Reason 3: Defeat of Evil - The resurrection that followed Jesus death from crucifixion ultimately shows that evil and all the dark forces that the world can muster can never have the final victory over Jesus and his followers. If killing is the ultimate act that one can do to another, if death is the worse destruction that evil can do, then the fact that Jesus overcame death by crucifixion and was resurrected into a glorified body means that evil can do its worse and not have victory over good. Jesus defeated both evil and death and all those who follow Christ participate in that victory. This is also the reason why there cannot be any justice in the world without a resurrection of the body from death.

Reason 4: Enacted Parable - This is a difficult one. In order to grasp it, we must peal back centuries of established theology (both correct and incorrect) in order to look at the immediate role and self-understanding that Jesus had of himself as a prophet in first century Palestine, warning his contemporaries about the threat of Rome and God's imminent judgment upon the nation of Israel. Jesus was deeply steeped in the Jewish prophetic traditions, both in terms of metaphor and method, particularly in how Old Testament prophets acted out God's message and even upcoming judgment (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.). In this way, Jesus, in his crucifixion, was acting out the destruction of Israel by Rome. He was demonstrating through a prophetic act that if the people continued their way of being Israel and did not turn to God's way (the way of Jesus), then Rome would attack and destroy Israel. Rome would treat the people of Israel as enemies of the state and crucify them, which is exactly what happened in AD 70.