Pesach

According to YHWH’s calendar, the appointed time of Passover has come upon us [cf. Ex. 12; Lev. 23]. 

For centuries, Israel celebrated [or perhaps, were supposed to celebrate] this feast.  This designated time was a memorial to commemorate Israel exodus from Egypt.  YHWH redeemed the multitude of Israel in one day’s time with his outstretched arm and great acts of judgment. 

Fast forwarding roughly two thousand years, we see Jesus’ final days on earth unfold during this same appointed season.  He celebrated the memorial with his disciples a night early.  However, during this celebration Jesus made some rather bold claims.  When they had finished eating, Jesus lifted the Cup of Blessing, which the Israelites lifted each year, and said, “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”  Prior to that, Jesus, after saying a blessing for the bread, broke it and stated: “This is my body, which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me.” 

According to custom, after the meal, Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn and then wandered into the garden on the Mount of Olives.  They kept vigil; well, at least Jesus did. 

It was the longest day of his life. / Up all night making ready to face his plight. / He knew what was coming but he stayed alert. / All the strength in his soul he had to exert. / So much so, blood dripped through his pours. / Here in-lied the culmination of all the wars. / He beckoned his father to re-route providence. / But he also insisted the course consisted of consistent prophetic evidence. / Hence, the cup to drink ended in death. / Separated from life, fully expended his breath. / The ones who were the closest were the ones who slept. / “Wake up”, he said, “This night a vigil’s supposed to be kept. / Just one hour is all I ask. / Soon, all that I’ve told you will come to pass.”

Jesus was betrayed, falsely accused, tried by a corrupt council, and then condemned to death.  At the same time Jesus’ blood dripped off his body while he hung on the tree, the lambs’ blood was being collected in bowls in the Temple.

Coincidence?  I think not. 

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [1 Cor. 5:7-8; ESV] 

Let us celebrate our exodus from bondage, which was wrought by the blood of the Redeemer himself – Messiah Jesus. 

[image from Guru Films]

Following Suit

I am a big fan of logic.  It is always good to have a valid argument; it’s even better if it’s sound.

Speaking of a valid argument, Iowa recently made gay marriage legal [click here for the actual court document].  This particular article quotes the court saying,

On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution … A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.  

This succinct description of why this law was put into affect is logical. 

A state’s marriage statute violates its equal protection clause.  The state’s equal protection clause is for the good of all peoples.  Therefore, the state’s marriage statute must be changed to cohere with the state’s equal protection clause [i.e. same-sex marriage].

This is a valid argument.

If any system of law [or beliefs] lacks coherence [i.e. is not valid], then it’s not logical.   

Many conservative Christians have strongly opposed legalizing same-sex marriages, and, despite it being acknowledged or not, can present an equally valid argument to do so. 

So, who wins?  We’ll in Iowa, the state won.  In following suit with a handful of other states that have gone before it, the justices in Iowa seemed to have caught on to the logic [and other things, as well] behind making this law.  What we see before our eyes is, on one hand, a coherent system being [re]established [or maybe re-created], and on the other hand, another instance where rulers are “framing injustice by statute” [cf. Ps. 94:20].

It’s one thing to have a valid argument; it’s another to have true premises in order to make it sound.  

So, rather than act like homosexuality is the only sin Jesus died for, perhaps we should entertain the question that Pilate asked:

“What is truth?”

[This post (and the next few to follow) is for a class assignment.]

Habakkuk 2:1-4 [my translation]

Upon my watch I will stand, and station myself upon the siege-work; and I will watch to see what YHWH says in me, and what I will return concerning my reproof. 

And YHWH answered me and said, “Write the vision and make it plain upon the tablets in order that he who reads may run with it. 

For the vision is yet for the appointed time, and it will witness to the end, and it will not disappoint. If it lingers, wait for it; for it will surely come and won’t be late. 

Behold the presumptuous, his soul is not upright within him. But a righteous one, by his faithfulness, will live.

Habakkuk

In 609 B.C., King Josiah was killed by Pharaoh Neco [cf. 2 Kings 23:29-30; 2 Chron. 35:21-24]. Josiah’s son, Jehoahaz, succeeds his father. After three short months, however, Neco dethroned Jehoahaz, deported him to Egypt, and placed Jehoahaz’s brother, Jehoiakim, on the throne [cf. 2 Kings 23:31-35; 2 Chron. 36:1-4]. From 609-605 B.C. King Jehoiakim and the residents of Judah are under the hand of the Egyptians. It is very probable that the first lament and oracle of Habakkuk [cf. Hab. 1:2-11] was made and received some time during these years of Jehoiakim’s reign. The atrocities Habakkuk speaks of in 1:3-4 could then be applied to the inhabitants of Judah and possibly to the Egyptian oppression [but not to the Assyrians, nor even the Chaldeans]. The mention of the torah being paralyzed and justice going forth perverted [1:4] suggests internal corruption, based on the consistent demand of torah obedience being applied only to the descendants of Jacob.

Sometime between 605 and 598 B.C., the kingdom of Judah, under Jehoiakim, was made a servant to Nebuchadnezzar [cf. 2 Kings 24:1]. Jehoiakim rebelled against the king and as a result, in 598 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against Judah, killed Jehoiakim, and placed Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin, on the throne [cf. 2 Kings 24:2-6]. However, in 597 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiachin and proceeded to deport the king and thousands of other Judean residents, including many from the upper class and military leaders, back to Babylon [cf. 2 Kings 24:10-17]. Nebuchadnezzar then placed Zedekiah on the throne as a vassal king. Zedekiah paid tribute to Babylon, but rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar in 588-587 B.C. Habakkuk 1:14-2:20 may have occurred and/or was recorded sometime during the reign of Zedekiah [598-587 B.C.].  Habakkuk 2:20 mentions YHWH still in his temple, alluding to the possibility of this section being associated to a time prior to its destruction in 587 B.C.  2 Kings 25 describes the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the כַּשְׂדִּים.  It may be fitting then to attribute the prayer, or psalm, of Habakkuk in ch. 3 to a time period after the ruin of Jerusalem and second deportation of Judeans to Babylon. The temple being destroyed surely would have caused any prophet of YHWH to cry out, clinging to YHWH for salvation [3:17-19].

A Snippet of My Thoughts

I wanna live a life like Paul. / Sold-out to the call, / not afraid to fall or be appalled, / equipped to biblically manifest God’s glory for all to see. / Cross paths with me and witness a sinner forgiven infinitely. / Now intimately connected to the Father of lights, / I can come and be refreshed by the living water of Christ. / I seek sanctification growing to abhor the fornication His impatient nation’s racin’ to hasten with those born of Satan. / Look at the Church and tell me it’s all good. / I know God hurts, so let’s get with it and do what we should. / We gotta break all barriers / pridefully put in place by fallible carriers. / We gotta address the fact that our body is broken. / What’s the deal yall? Haven’t we read the words that were spoken? / We gotta be jokin’, seeing the kind a things we place our hope in. / God’s wrath is burnin’ and smokin’ / when we try to approach him covered by the sin we all soak in’. / The time of ignorance is over. / So let’s stand shoulder to shoulder / before our love gets colder and colder. / Didn’t our Master teach us what we need to avoid this disaster? / And still we sit in laughter, / forgetting the very thing God is really after. / Chapter after chapter the Scriptures explain / God’s aim to exalt his name. / But still we claim it’s about our gain and exalt our name. / We halt the pain that perfects the lame. / It seems our salt’s become ordinarily plain.

Tradition Does Not Equal Law

In faith communities, traditions have the capability of healing deep recesses of brokenness, but they can also blind the eyes of its residents. The gamut of other pros and cons can stretch across a rather wide spectrum.

Tradition is good, and, in fact necessary; all people consciously, or subconsciously, adapt to one or more at different stages in life. But when does tradition become bad? How can one know when a tradition she is a part of begins to hinder her from seeing the truth more clearly?

Joshua Berman wrote in the introduction to Umberto Cassuto’s The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch that “A tradition imbues its sons with a conceptual framework and interpretive horizons. A tradition provides its adherents with the questions to be asked of a text, which in turn allows the text to answer those questions within the framework of the tradition.”

Traditions are formed from what is believed to be true, whether by the individual or corporately. What we believe is a result of what we understand. What we understand develops from who teaches us. At first, we do not get to choose our teachers – parents, school teachers, etc. – but at some point it does become our choice. This experience is what shapes our “conceptual framework and interpretive horizon.”

The longer the lifespan of a particular tradition, the more years we abide within a tradition, and the amount of personal satisfaction acquired therein, the harder it is for us to develop beyond the boundaries that our tradition[s] create. This is logical, and entirely expected. What is not logical is to presume that our traditions possess all the devices needed to pursue, obtain, and experience the endless call to mature in our faith.

As a case in point, consider the Judean religious leaders [as opposed to the Galilean religious leaders] that are spoken of in the Gospels. These “old wine skins” could not accept the “new wine,” or teaching, that Jesus brought because they said, “The old is good enough.” They thought their ways were the best and the only tradition needed for correct holy living. Jesus’ teachings put inside the configuration of these types of beliefs systems would cause a melt-down. Jesus, therefore, called upon “new wine skins” – the disciples.

What the Scriptures call “the tradition of the elders” were extra-Torah instructions created by man to assist a person in keeping the written Torah. “What can I do on the Sabbath?” “When is it legal to divorce my spouse?” “Can a Jew and Gentile be friends?” These are the types of questions these traditions were created to answer.

In every account in the Gospels where Jesus is accused of breaking a “law,” he is actually failing to follow certain traditions of the elders. For instance, Jesus and his disciples didn’t always wash their hands when they ate. They also rubbed the heads of grain in order to eat on the Sabbath.  Moreover, could a sinless Savior ever break an actual commandment?

The point when we begin to treat our traditions as a type of law is when tradition becomes bad and begins to hinder our ability to see the truth more clearly. We error when we forget that all truth is God’s truth and no one tradition can possess all that is needed for the Christian life.

Tradition’s breath must not be stifled, nor its innate evolving tendencies. Held in open hands, tradition is kept from forming any hindering limitations. Held in a closed fist, however, tradition inevitably causes one to forget who controls who.

Romans 1:1-17

Jew and Gentile believers in fellowship together? What! How can this be? Doubtful many of us seriously ask this question. Although today we take for granted that non-Jews can be made a part of God’s redeemed people through Messiah, Paul’s letter to the believers in Rome gives evidence that in his day, this was a major issue.

Paul, “a Hebrew of Hebrews” [Philippians 3:5] and an apostle of Christ to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15], wrote this letter sometime around A.D. 57. Even though he did not establish this community, Paul had many acquaintances there and his expertise was needed given the problem that developed among the faithful.

The main purpose of this letter is to explain why and how Jews and Gentiles must walk together in their common faith in the Lord Jesus.

v. 1-7: As is Paul’s custom, he introduces himself and lists his “credentials” as he greets his audience. Unlike the majority of his epistles, however, Paul’s introduction here is longer and more specific, describing to his audience which gospel he preaches; namely, the “gospel of God” [as opposed to the “gospel of Christ”; cf. 15:19]. This deliberate label may indicate Paul’s attempt to remind his audience that the salvation found in Messiah is none other than the salvation that YHWH has had in mind since the beginning. This description offers a more holistic understanding of God’s redemptive history.

Paul’s statement in v. 5 succinctly explains the chief end of all his labors; “…to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of [Jesus'] name among all the nations.” In fact, the entire letter of Romans is enveloped by this phrase [cf. 16:26]. This can be understood first in connection to the prophecies concerning God’s salvation coming to the goiym [גּוֹיִם; “nations” or “Gentiles”; cf. Ps. 46.10; Is. 42:6; 49:6; 52:10; Ezk. 36:25; Mal. 1:11]. Secondly, Paul is alluding to what he calls elsewhere “the mystery of Christ” [Rom. 16:25 and especially Eph. 3:1-6].

v. 8-12: To know there is a body of believers in the capital of the empire I’m sure was encouraging to believers abroad for at least two reasons: (1) The gospel of God had spread that far, and (2) a growing ekklēsia [church] was developing there as a result.

v. 13-17: Paul’s call to the Gentiles included both the Greeks and non-Greeks. Unlike Peter’s behavior in Galatians 2:7-13, Paul was not ashamed to proclaim a gospel that embraced Gentiles, even though it cut against the grain of certain traditions that were prominent among the Jews. God’s plan is to redeem people from all nations [cf. Gen. 12:3; Is. 56:6-7; Rev. 7:9].

Paul’s description “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” is an allusion to YHWH choosing the descendants of Jacob to bring salvation to the rest of the world. In other words, YHWH’s salvation had to come to the Jews first so it [rather “he,” being Jesus] could then be extended through them to the Gentiles.

In Paul’s gospel, God’s “righteousness” has been revealed, specifically in and through the person and work of Messiah Jesus. This proves YHWH faithful to his word. The faithfulness of YHWH is meant, in one part, to provoke mankind to respond faithfully; thus, “from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’”

Paul’s aim in all his ministerial duties was“to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of [Jesus'] name among all the nations.” This implies two important foundational elements for Gentile believers: (1) Identity: Gentiles have been made a part of God’s redeemed people through Jesus. (2) Lifestyle: Gentiles are called to holy living as prescribed in God’s commandments. Combined, these create and maintain intimate relationship with the Creator, which inevitably brings glory to the Name above all names.

Paul is writing to a community made up of Jew and Gentile believers. Some Jews thought they were better than the Gentiles [ch. 3], and some Gentiles behaved arrogantly toward the Jews [ch. 11]. Paul begins this letter by laying the grounds necessary for all ears to hear his message with clarity and assurance of what God’s will is for those he redeems.

How to Create a Listening Environment

"How does one listen attentively when what is being said seems altogether wrongheaded, if not perverse?  And how does one remain faithful to one’s own beliefs while listening to another person who is espousing opposing beliefs?  The minister may feel threatened even though the other person is not saying anything negative about the minister.  An especially threatening conversation is one in which the other person assumes – perhaps because the minister is a minister – that his viewpoint is shared by the minister." [1]

This statement was made in the chapter titled “How to Create a Listening Environment” underneath the section that describes how anxiety can develop in a conversation where there are two different points of view on a subject, theological or otherwise. 

Upon contemplating this reality, of which I have many  personal experiences with, I had a thought that one reason why anxiety may arise as such is because there is somewhere within the anxious person a belief that what they believe is something that they, in and of themselves, have either created, and/or invested much in, as in a piece of property.

So, when someone comes along with another point of view that differs from theirs, they feel threatened – anxiety develops. 

I wonder if there is a way to avoid this.    

[1] Donald Capps. Giving Counsel: A Minister’s Guidebook (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2001), 18.

Is This Inevitable?

Many people reject or ignore traditional systems of values, but find it difficult to replace them.  We are surrounded by divergent and frequently changing value systems that compete for our allegiance…Confusion or uncertainty about values is thus widespread, and this tends to increase interpersonal conflict and personal insecurity.  Unfortunately the church shares in this value confusion and even contributes to it.  Within the church as well as within the wider community there are major conflicts about moral issues.

Peterson, Geoffrey. Conscience and Caring (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 41.

The Influence of Presumption – part 2

“…all understanding, whether of history, art, or the Bible, is attainable only within a tradition.  A tradition imbues its sons [sic] with a conceptual framework and interpretive horizons.  A tradition provides its adherents with the questions to be asked of a text, which in turn allows the text to answer those questions within the framework of the tradition.” [1] [italics mine]

This brief statement provides a very practical way for one to start becoming familiar with his or her personal presuppositions.  Although the focus here will be faith related, this statement can be applied to any type of belief. 

To put Berman’s words in my own words:  When you begin to entertain this endeavor of trying to discover the presuppositions that cause you to believe what you believe, the range and type of questions and searching will likely be limited to the parameters that your tradition[s] has subliminally kept you in.  We are conditioned by our tradition[s].  For example, a Catholic priest will not ask, “Can I get married?”  According to the tradition that he has chosen to abide within, this question, in this context, is ridiculous.  Also, imagine a Oneness Pentecostal individual being asked, “So, do you think that Jesus accessed his ‘divine’ side to read people’s minds?” [2]  Surely your question would either be ignored, or he could respond with a sarcastic “Are you serious?”  Based on what we can gather from the Scriptures’ testimony, it is okay for a priest to be married and Jesus is divine [though I personally don’t think he accessed his divine side to read people’s minds]. [3]  Yes, I recognize and admit that what I just said stems from my own presuppositions. 

What we, as individuals and corporately, believe results from what we understand.  What we understand results from who is teaching us.  Who is teaching us is initially not a choice [i.e. our parents, churches they take us to, etc.], but at some point it does become a choice.  This experience is what shapes our “conceptual framework and interpretative horizon.”  This experience explains why we can agree with some and disagree with others.  It’s not that complicating. 

So a good question to ask yourself is, “Who is teaching me?”

This experience is what lies behind Jesus’ parable about the “new wine skins” [cf. Luke 5:36-39].  Those particular Pharisees could not accept Jesus’ teaching [“new wine”] because their conceptual framework would not welcome Jesus’ words.  Their “tradition” rejected the truth that Jesus taught [cf. Matt. 15]. 

How much do the  traditions we cling to and learn from reject the truth of God? 

This question may at first insult you as if this is a ludicrous accusation.  If this kind of reaction does occur, it is likely that there are parts of your tradition that do keep God’s truth from being accepted, whether consciously, or unconsciously [let’s hope it’s the latter].  This, after all, was how some of the Pharisees responded to what Jesus taught.  Why?  Because the truth that Jesus proclaimed threatened the beliefs that the others had, which had been the “bedrock” of their theology.  Rather than humble themselves and receive correction, they instead sinned in their anger and falsely accused the innocent.    

Consider how much empathy, compassion, and exponential edification would exist within the body of Messiah if we could all at least just understand this reality and the implications thereof.  To embrace this task takes great humility, and I’m sure the fruit would be world-changing [cf. John 13:35]. 

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.  He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.  And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. [Acts 18:24-28]

Apollos was willing to let his “tradition” be altered in order to better envelop the truth that he had yet to learn.

Tradition is good and necessary.  What we must be conscious of is which one[s] are we being influenced by and – especially and – not close ourselves off to the truth that can be found in other traditions that our tradition[s] quite possibly rejects [for whatever reason].  

[1] Joshua A. Berman in the introduction of Umberto Cassuto’s The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2006), xx.

[2] Oneness Pentecostals do not believe Jesus exists as a part of the triune Godhead. 

[3] If a priest, or anyone for that matter, doesn’t want to get married that is his or her prerogative and that should be respected.  But to say that a priest “cannot” marry is a completely different thing.