In Luke 23:33, the beloved physician proves himself to be the master of understatement: “And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him…”{NKJV}. It was all that was necessary. His readers lived in the Roman Empire and knew about crucifixion up close and personal. We who live in twenty first-century in America need to be reminded what crucifixion was all about if we are to fully appreciate what Jesus suffered for us. The first time I saw Cecil B. DeMill’s original black and white movie, The King of Kings, I was overwhelmed by the realization that He endured the cross for me!
Dr. Toyozo Nakarai, a former Buddhist living in a Shinto society said, “When I realized that Jesus died for me, I could not resist Him!” Mel Gibson’s portrayal of the death of Jesus in “The Passion of Christ” was almost unbearable in its meticulous accuracy. The farther the Apostles got in time from the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the more they saw them as a single event. My intention here is to look at this event in an attempt to deepen our appreciation of what Jesus has done and is still doing for us. My hope and prayer is that, realizing these eternal truths will motivate us to be more like Him in our dealings with one another.
CRUCIFIXION
Crucifixion was borrowed from the Persians by the Romans. The Greeks under Alexander used it infrequently. It may possibly have originated in Phoenicia. It was never practiced by the Hebrews whose traditional method of execution was stoning. The Romans introduced the practice into Palestine. They used it throughout the empire to execute those who posed a threat to Pax Romana. The two men who were crucified with Jesus were probably not “thieves.” Rather they, as Jesus, were crucified because Pontius Pilate was convinced that they were insurrectionists. Had they been thieves, the Romans would simply have cut off their hands. Pilate consented to the crucifixion of Jesus only after the Jewish High Priests convinced him, following Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, that the Nazarene was planning to lead a revolt against the Roman occupation of Israel.
The history of Roman crucifixion gives the impression of gradual evolution as a form of legal execution. There are few records of crucifixion being used by the Romans as a common form of punishment. Other accounts say that it was used for slaves, as in the case of the slave uprising led by Spartacus in 73 BC, in which the leaders of the rebellion and 6600 rebels were hanged on crosses lining the Appian Way from Brindisium, on the south west coast of Italy, to Rome like telephone poles.
Those accused of sedition, such as the Galilean Zealots led by Judas just prior to the Christian era, were probably candidates for crucifixion. It may have been later extended to thieves and rioters in the conquered territories. Nero may have even used it to execute Roman citizens, although, prior to Nero, crucifixion was forbidden to citizens. By far the most common use of this form of execution was for those accused of violating Pax Romana by resisting or advocating the overthrow of Imperial rule.
Forms of crosses varied from the “tau cross,” erected in the form of a “T,”to the “X” shaped crux cominissa, later called “the cross of St. Andrew.” The crux imissa is perhaps the best known, with its upright, stipes extending upward above the cross bar, patibulum. The stipes remained in the ground at the crucifixion site. The patibulum, weighing about 110 pounds, was carried to the site by the one to be crucified. This was likely the type of cross upon which Jesus of Nazareth died, inasmuch as the Gospel writers record that His title as a charge against Him, “Jesus the Nazarene, The King of The Jews” was inscribed “above His head.” The simplest implement of crucifixion was not a cross at all but crux simplex, or simple stake.
Contrary to most modern portrayal, Romans crosses were comparatively short. The top of the upright was probably between seven and nine feet above ground level. This may have been a deliberate device to facilitate access to the dead body by feral dogs or other wild animals.
Whatever the form of the instrument used, death by crucifixion was one of the most exquisite forms of torturous execution ever devised by “man’s inhumanity to man.” It consisted not only of the infliction of excruciating physical pain but also the most intense form of psychological torture known prior to the twentieth century. In addition to being pinned to the cross in such a way as to elicit the greatest possible bodily agony, the victim was presented publicly in such a way as to cause the maximum of shame and disgrace. Because it was originally used to execute slaves, crucifixion never lost its symbolic implication that the crucified person was of the lowest of social classes. The captive was presented naked as the day he was born in a culture in which public nakedness was the epitome of shame.
The administration of torture by the Romans in connection with crucifixion was classic in proportion. Scourging, so severe that the lucky ones died under it and were thus spared the agony and shame of actual crucifixion, always preceded it. The scourge consisted of a flagellate composed of multiple rawhide thongs. (It was probably the precursor of the British cat-of-nine-tails). Pieces of metal or bone were tied into the end of each thong to increase its cutting capacity when laid across the victim’s back.
In preparation for scourging, the prisoner was stripped naked and his back was stretched taut, either by tying his hands high enough above his head to cause extension or by bending him over a log in such a way as to accomplish the same effect. By law, the scourge fell forty times “save one.” The legal limit was forty stripes but, being sticklers for the letter of the law, the Roman authorities allowed him to be struck only thirty nine times, just to be sure.
Following scourging, the prisoner was forced to carry the rough cross beam of his cross, patibulum on his lacerated back along the most indirect route to the crucifixion site. The site was located prominently in a public square or beside a heavily traveled street or roadway to assure maximum public exposure. A sign, titulus, announcing the crime for which the prisoner was being executed, was nailed to the stipes to identify him.
Commonly, there were two methods of attaching the man to the cross. He might be nailed to the crossbeam that was then forced into a prepared notch cut into the upright or he might be stretched out on his back to be nailed and the entire cross, bearing his weight, dropped into a prepared hole.
The nails used were crude spikes seven to nine inches in length. These were driven into a point in the wrist to prevent their tearing out through the soft tissue of the hands when the man’s weight was suspended on them. The nail penetrated the medium nerve. The arms were allowed a small amount of flexibility to facilitate the hanging process. The knees of the victim were then bent at a slight angle, both his legs twisted to the same side, the left foot pressed behind the right, and a single nail driven through the largest anklebone. The design of this hanging position was to make breathing as difficult as possible. The worst physical pain probably came from the nerves of the wrists and ankles damaged by the nails.
Between shoulder level and the feet, at a point where it would catch a man’s crotch when he lowered his weight was a small seat, sedile fixed into the upright beam of the cross. The pain caused when the prisoner attempted to sit on the sidle could be as excruciating as any experienced in the gruesome process. Each movement made to relieve a pain caused a counter pain.
Actual death in a crucifixion was elicited by several factors, primarily suffocation and shock. The scourging caused deep lacerations in the back. The skin was torn away. Muscles and blood vessels were exposed. Bleeding was torrential. By the time he was given the cross beam to carry; the victim was in severe shock. Some died on the way to the site of crucifixion. The irritation of torn flesh by the cross beam that he carried and the exquisite pain of the driven spikes intensified the shock.
In addition to shock that extended throughout the man’s entire system, the position in which he hung was designed to constrict the rib cage and cause suffocation. When he pulled himself up, placing his weight entirely on the nails in his wrists, the pain was unbearable. When he relaxed and sagged against the nails in both wrists and ankles, the chest cavity closed in on his lungs, making breathing nearly impossible. The additional pain caused by this activity, as well as the prodding by the sedle poking from behind, intensified the shock that was already threatening his life. The loss of blood and lack of adequate oxygen in his lungs sapped his strength until eventually he could struggle no more.
The blood rushed to his head, triggering a massive headache. Fever and chills intermittently shook his body. His muscles convulsed, insects swarmed into every orifice of his body and the flies crawled into his eyes and nose. Death occurred from a few hours to several days following the erection of the cross. To end the crucifixion the crurifracture, breaking of the prisoner’s legs, ended his ability to exhale. Death followed immediately.
THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST
In the climate in which Jesus died, the heat of the sun and the biting of hundreds of insects added to the torture. It could also exacerbate the onset of tetanus as well as infection in the wounds. The physical pain of Jesus was increased by the slaps to his face and the crown of thorns driven into his scalp in connection with the scourging.
The spiritual agony of Jesus must have made the physical torture seem almost enjoyable by comparison! His mother, His aunt and two other women who had followed and ministered to Him during His ministry looked through their hot tears at His nakedness. His best fiend, John stood beside them, helpless. One of those He had called to be His witnesses had betrayed Him. On the way to trial the night before He had heard Peter swear that he didn’t know Him.
God Himself, the Heavenly Father who had loved Him in eternity before the world was, turned His face from Him. “Him who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf” (II Corinthians 5:21) and He cried out, ”Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (My God My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me)?!
He was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22 which pictures both His mental and spiritual agony...it continues; “Why are you so far from saving me, and so far from the words of my groaning? O, my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and I am not silent. Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. They cried to you and were saved; in You they trusted and were not disappointed. But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me: they hurl insults, shaking their heads: ‘He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue Him. Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him.’... I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; and has melted away within me. My strength has dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; You lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; and a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing...”
Six hours after they nailed Him there, He cried out between clenched teeth, “It is finished... Father into your hands I commend my Spirit.” In the temple, the four inch thick veil that had for centuries shut people out from the presence of God was split down the middle from top to bottom and He took a repenting criminal to paradise! When the guards came to break His legs so that He would suffocate immediately, they found Him already dead. As He had promised, John 10:18, No one took His life. He gave it as “a ransom for many.” Just to be sure, they drove a spear into His heart.
A Mayo Clinic report confirms that the blood He sweat in Gethsemane the night before and the blood mingled with water that flowed from the wound in His side indicate that the actual cause of Jesus’ death was a massive heart attack brought on by suffocation .He literally died of a broken heart! Three days later, He got up and walked out of His own grave! The death-burial-resurrection of Jesus is the most thoroughly documented single event of ancient history!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Unchanging Christ
On May 20, 1927 at 7:52 AM Charles Lindberg took off from New York City in a small monoplane he had dubbed “The Spirit of Saint Louis.” 33.5 hours and 3,600 miles later, he landed in Paris, France – the first solo transatlantic flight in an airplane. Today, the International Space Station orbits the earth at a speed of 3800 KM at an altitude of 1,000 KM/s. The rest of the world has changed as rapidly in the same time span.
In the twentieth century, mankind went from the “horse and buggy age” to the “automobile age,” to the “age of aviation,” to the “jet age,” to the “atomic age,” to the “space age,” to the “age of cyberspace.” The “Laplace Theory” has been replaced by the “Big Bang Theory,” with several interim theories of the beginning in between. The technological revolution of or age is affecting our culture and economy as much as or more than the Renaissance or Industrial Revolution a century and a half earlier.
As is historically usual, it is assumed that human beings in 'our' age are spiritually and morally superior to our antecedents and that spiritual evolution paralleling biological evolution accounts for this progress. Ours is the only generation since Constantine’s conversion to Christianity that has allowed such changes to alter our faith and our moral values.
For the Christian first, and ultimately for the race, all this change raises some vital questions. “Is the death, in the first century, of Jesus of Nazareth for our sin and the sealing of eternal life by His resurrection still ‘Good News’ or is it to be abandoned for some ‘New Age’ gospel more relevant to life in the twenty-first century?” Are the virgin birth, sinless life, miracle-ministry, atoning death and the mind boggling resurrection of a Galilean carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago to be relegated to the ash heap of history along with the multitude of gods and goddesses of the Graeco-Roman first-century pantheon? Do we need a “more mature” god, who makes no moral demands on our enlightened value system? Shall we exchange the hope of eternal life for the shallow condolences of reincarnation? Shall we abandon prayers for chants and trust our evolved intellects instead of “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?” Or is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever?
The answer to these and other such questions begins with a close look at the perpetual instability of human nature. The entire history of man has been a history of change. The best known characters in history are famous for the alterations within themselves and the changes they brought to the lives of others. Ancient Egyptian culture was the slowest to change. “Man fears time, time fears the pyramids.” Yet Egypt did change. Modern Egypt bears little resemblance to the Egypt of Tutankhamen, Nefertiti, Ramses VI or Moses.
Abraham Lincoln is not considered, and accurately so, the greatest American who has yet lived because he was born in a log cabin. Most people born in the early 19th century on what was then the American frontier were born in cabins. Lincoln is famous because of the way he changed himself and redefined the nation in two minutes at a cemetery in Gettysburg, Pa.
Julius Caesar said, “I am as constant as the North star!” Despite his claim, his career is the archetype of a fickle political opportunist. He was changeable and changing!
Even bold, self confident Simon Peter became a coward when Jesus needed him most and Judas changed from a disciple of Christ to history’s most infamous traitor.
It is this universal inconsistency in fallen human nature that prevents anyone from saving himself. The purpose of God’s Law, in part, was to demonstrate that man in his present state is incapable of consistent righteousness. The sacrificial rituals of pagan religions attest to the common awareness that we are seldom, if ever, what the gods demand.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is essentially God’s answer to human inconsistency. Jesus alone is “the same yesterday, today and forever” and we killed Him for what He was. It is only by placing our spirit, mind and body in the nail scarred hands of Him Who is changeless that our unreliable natures are changed into His constant, unchanging likeness. It is for this reason that Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor who was changed to Paul the apostle, insisted dogmatically on the unchanging nature of the Gospel. It was he who wrote, “…even if we or an angel from heaven, preach to any other gospel to you that what we have preached to you, let him be anathema (considered as one dedicated to a pagan idol).” (Galatians 1:8).
Paul had won the Galatians from the superstitious idolatry with which they had deluded themselves. They had experienced the grace of God in the changeless Christ. Now some Jews, who instead of trusting Christ alone were worshiping Christ plus; carrying the Gospel of Christ on one shoulder and the Law of Moses on the other. The first sentence of the letter he wrote to them constitutes his briefest definitive statement of the Gospel he preached: “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present fickle age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever.” (Galatians 1:3-5; author’s translation).
Paul’s contention is that, unless this truth is exclusively and absolutely true, Christ died in vain and we are yet in our sins (I Corinthians 15:17). In Galatians 1:6-7).He expresses his complete amazement that anyone would actually abandon the “blessed assurance” of Christ for the uncertainty of their own religious efforts, even in an attempt to obey God’s own Law. In verse 6, the word translated “another” in the KJV and “different” in the NIV is heteron, meaning different in kind. The Judaizers were not only proclaiming another Gospel than the one Paul had preached in Galatia; they were preaching an entirely different kind of message. His message was “by grace have you been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 1:8).” Their message was salvation by Christ plus keeping the Law.
Paul’s amazement is measured by the gulf between the Christian’s certain salvation in the changeless Christ and the absolute uncertainty of human competence to face and solve the real issues of life and death through religion. His insistence is that God has done something for us in Christ that no sinful human in any age, by any religion or philosophy, can possibly do for himself. He has planted his readers’ feet firmly on the unshifting rock of God’s love, grace and mercy; the only source of stability in a vacillating world.
The question you and I must answer is: “Is Paul’s Gospel changeless in our rapidly changing world?” Does insistence on a changeless Christ make the Christian faith rigid, intolerant and unbending in a culture that denies the existence of absolute truth and has enthroned tolerance as a sacred cow on the altar of oxymoronic “broad-mindedness?” Is the first century Christ capable of meeting twenty-first century needs?
The answers lie in another question: “Just how much has the world actually changed?” The Internet may replace the tom-tom, but what is happening is still communication. Nuclear powered ocean liners and super-sonic jests may replace dugout canoes and covered wagons, but what is happening is still transportation. The wife and oxen pulling the plow have been changed for a computerized tractor guided by a satellite signal, but what is happening is the raising of food. The birthing stool in the primitive, smoke filled hut, has (in developed countries) been replaced by a family oriented birthing center in a sterile, smoke free hospital, but human life is still being ushered into the world. The witch doctor’s mask has been replaced by the surgeon’s mask, but what is happening is an effort to prolong life and postpone death.
What is true of mankind’s basic physical needs is also true of our spiritual and psychological needs. Real progress is grounded on what never changes. The “scientific concept” is essentially a Christian hypothesis. Without these dependable constants, scientific discovery is impossible.
By the same token, the Christian Gospel presents Christ as the object of faith and so gives mankind the Morning Star to steer by in a world of uncertainty. The self-destructive person who finds himself without a purpose in life need only read the first three chapters of Paul’s Ephesian epistle to find a purpose so much bigger than himself as to challenge him throughout a productive lifetime. The person who is suffering from feelings of guilt need only admit that the guilt is not imagined but real and bring it to the foot of the cross to find “the peace of God that passes all (secular) understanding.” The person who at last comes face to face with his own death need only place a trusting hand in the nail scarred hand of The Galilean Carpenter to “walk through the valley of the shadow” with no fear of evil.
In any age, when sin has stained the conscience, twisted the mind, overshadowed life, weakened the will, clouded the sense of right and wrong, the unchanging Gospel says, “Christ died for the ungodly.”
As long as people betray people, deny human need and destroy relationships, there will be the desperate need for the reconciling, unchanging Good News of Calvary! As long as man’s life on earth is measured by the pages of a calendar, there will be the need of the life that was bought and paid for on Golgotha by the eternal, changeless Son of The Ancient of Days.
In the twentieth century, mankind went from the “horse and buggy age” to the “automobile age,” to the “age of aviation,” to the “jet age,” to the “atomic age,” to the “space age,” to the “age of cyberspace.” The “Laplace Theory” has been replaced by the “Big Bang Theory,” with several interim theories of the beginning in between. The technological revolution of or age is affecting our culture and economy as much as or more than the Renaissance or Industrial Revolution a century and a half earlier.
As is historically usual, it is assumed that human beings in 'our' age are spiritually and morally superior to our antecedents and that spiritual evolution paralleling biological evolution accounts for this progress. Ours is the only generation since Constantine’s conversion to Christianity that has allowed such changes to alter our faith and our moral values.
For the Christian first, and ultimately for the race, all this change raises some vital questions. “Is the death, in the first century, of Jesus of Nazareth for our sin and the sealing of eternal life by His resurrection still ‘Good News’ or is it to be abandoned for some ‘New Age’ gospel more relevant to life in the twenty-first century?” Are the virgin birth, sinless life, miracle-ministry, atoning death and the mind boggling resurrection of a Galilean carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago to be relegated to the ash heap of history along with the multitude of gods and goddesses of the Graeco-Roman first-century pantheon? Do we need a “more mature” god, who makes no moral demands on our enlightened value system? Shall we exchange the hope of eternal life for the shallow condolences of reincarnation? Shall we abandon prayers for chants and trust our evolved intellects instead of “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?” Or is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever?
The answer to these and other such questions begins with a close look at the perpetual instability of human nature. The entire history of man has been a history of change. The best known characters in history are famous for the alterations within themselves and the changes they brought to the lives of others. Ancient Egyptian culture was the slowest to change. “Man fears time, time fears the pyramids.” Yet Egypt did change. Modern Egypt bears little resemblance to the Egypt of Tutankhamen, Nefertiti, Ramses VI or Moses.
Abraham Lincoln is not considered, and accurately so, the greatest American who has yet lived because he was born in a log cabin. Most people born in the early 19th century on what was then the American frontier were born in cabins. Lincoln is famous because of the way he changed himself and redefined the nation in two minutes at a cemetery in Gettysburg, Pa.
Julius Caesar said, “I am as constant as the North star!” Despite his claim, his career is the archetype of a fickle political opportunist. He was changeable and changing!
Even bold, self confident Simon Peter became a coward when Jesus needed him most and Judas changed from a disciple of Christ to history’s most infamous traitor.
It is this universal inconsistency in fallen human nature that prevents anyone from saving himself. The purpose of God’s Law, in part, was to demonstrate that man in his present state is incapable of consistent righteousness. The sacrificial rituals of pagan religions attest to the common awareness that we are seldom, if ever, what the gods demand.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is essentially God’s answer to human inconsistency. Jesus alone is “the same yesterday, today and forever” and we killed Him for what He was. It is only by placing our spirit, mind and body in the nail scarred hands of Him Who is changeless that our unreliable natures are changed into His constant, unchanging likeness. It is for this reason that Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor who was changed to Paul the apostle, insisted dogmatically on the unchanging nature of the Gospel. It was he who wrote, “…even if we or an angel from heaven, preach to any other gospel to you that what we have preached to you, let him be anathema (considered as one dedicated to a pagan idol).” (Galatians 1:8).
Paul had won the Galatians from the superstitious idolatry with which they had deluded themselves. They had experienced the grace of God in the changeless Christ. Now some Jews, who instead of trusting Christ alone were worshiping Christ plus; carrying the Gospel of Christ on one shoulder and the Law of Moses on the other. The first sentence of the letter he wrote to them constitutes his briefest definitive statement of the Gospel he preached: “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present fickle age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever.” (Galatians 1:3-5; author’s translation).
Paul’s contention is that, unless this truth is exclusively and absolutely true, Christ died in vain and we are yet in our sins (I Corinthians 15:17). In Galatians 1:6-7).He expresses his complete amazement that anyone would actually abandon the “blessed assurance” of Christ for the uncertainty of their own religious efforts, even in an attempt to obey God’s own Law. In verse 6, the word translated “another” in the KJV and “different” in the NIV is heteron, meaning different in kind. The Judaizers were not only proclaiming another Gospel than the one Paul had preached in Galatia; they were preaching an entirely different kind of message. His message was “by grace have you been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 1:8).” Their message was salvation by Christ plus keeping the Law.
Paul’s amazement is measured by the gulf between the Christian’s certain salvation in the changeless Christ and the absolute uncertainty of human competence to face and solve the real issues of life and death through religion. His insistence is that God has done something for us in Christ that no sinful human in any age, by any religion or philosophy, can possibly do for himself. He has planted his readers’ feet firmly on the unshifting rock of God’s love, grace and mercy; the only source of stability in a vacillating world.
The question you and I must answer is: “Is Paul’s Gospel changeless in our rapidly changing world?” Does insistence on a changeless Christ make the Christian faith rigid, intolerant and unbending in a culture that denies the existence of absolute truth and has enthroned tolerance as a sacred cow on the altar of oxymoronic “broad-mindedness?” Is the first century Christ capable of meeting twenty-first century needs?
The answers lie in another question: “Just how much has the world actually changed?” The Internet may replace the tom-tom, but what is happening is still communication. Nuclear powered ocean liners and super-sonic jests may replace dugout canoes and covered wagons, but what is happening is still transportation. The wife and oxen pulling the plow have been changed for a computerized tractor guided by a satellite signal, but what is happening is the raising of food. The birthing stool in the primitive, smoke filled hut, has (in developed countries) been replaced by a family oriented birthing center in a sterile, smoke free hospital, but human life is still being ushered into the world. The witch doctor’s mask has been replaced by the surgeon’s mask, but what is happening is an effort to prolong life and postpone death.
What is true of mankind’s basic physical needs is also true of our spiritual and psychological needs. Real progress is grounded on what never changes. The “scientific concept” is essentially a Christian hypothesis. Without these dependable constants, scientific discovery is impossible.
By the same token, the Christian Gospel presents Christ as the object of faith and so gives mankind the Morning Star to steer by in a world of uncertainty. The self-destructive person who finds himself without a purpose in life need only read the first three chapters of Paul’s Ephesian epistle to find a purpose so much bigger than himself as to challenge him throughout a productive lifetime. The person who is suffering from feelings of guilt need only admit that the guilt is not imagined but real and bring it to the foot of the cross to find “the peace of God that passes all (secular) understanding.” The person who at last comes face to face with his own death need only place a trusting hand in the nail scarred hand of The Galilean Carpenter to “walk through the valley of the shadow” with no fear of evil.
In any age, when sin has stained the conscience, twisted the mind, overshadowed life, weakened the will, clouded the sense of right and wrong, the unchanging Gospel says, “Christ died for the ungodly.”
As long as people betray people, deny human need and destroy relationships, there will be the desperate need for the reconciling, unchanging Good News of Calvary! As long as man’s life on earth is measured by the pages of a calendar, there will be the need of the life that was bought and paid for on Golgotha by the eternal, changeless Son of The Ancient of Days.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Begotten Again From Above...
...a Study of John 3.1-17
Despite the current insistent denial by American evangelicalism that John 3:1-17 is a “baptism text,” it is a matter of record that no known Christian writer during the first fourteen centuries of Christian history ever denied it! Significantly, the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John that immediately follows Jesus’ insistence to Nicodemus that no one can understand or enter the kingdom of God without being begotten “of water and spirit,” begins with the statement that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.”
John 3:1 identifies Nicodemus as a man, a Pharisee and a ruler. In verse ten of this chapter Jesus recognizes him as “a teacher of Israel.” He may have been among those who had previously sent a committee to inquire of John the Baptist whether or not he was the Christ (John 1:15-28). Jesus didn’t answer Nicodemus’ complementary greeting. Instead He addressed the unspoken question that brought him to Jesus by night for a private conversation; “Are you the Christ?”
The beginning of proselyte immersion is lost in antiquity, but it is certain that it was practiced before the beginning of the Christian era. Newly immersed proselytes were frequently referred to as “newly born children.” As a Pharisee, Nicodemus would have been familiar with the proselyte immersion required of any Gentile who wanted to become a Jew. Three acts constituted the entire conversion process. 1) Circumcision, by which the candidate was cut off from his pagan roots, 2) Immersion, by which he was purified from the uncleanness associated with all Gentiles, performed seven days following his circumcision and 3) the offering of a sacrifice in the temple. This final act recognized the proselyte’s membership in the covenant community.
The purpose of this conversion procedure was to establish the Gentile as a part of the people of God, the covenant community established and perpetuated by faithfulness to the covenant made by God with Abraham. This covenant was the foundation of the Law given four hundred years later through Moses (cf. Galatians, chapter three). The converted Gentile, now recognized as one of God’s own people, was said to be dead to his non-Jewish past and raised to a new life; to have been begotten again.
Genneethee, translated “born” in the KJV,NIV, etc. is an ambivalent word. It literally means “begin.” When it speaks of the mother’s role in procreation, it is translated “born.” The same word applied to the father’s role is translated “begotten.” Since no one can claim, Biblically, that God is a mother, the only accurate translation of genneethee, in the third chapter of John, is begotten rather than born.
While it is a grave error to imply that either John’s baptism or Christian baptism had their roots in pre-Christian washings, it is likely that the earliest Christian believers, being familiar with these practices, had little difficulty understanding the terminology used by Jesus to introduce Christian immersion. It was not unusual for the New Testament writers to employ pre-Christian terms by pouring them full of Christian meaning. John’s use of the word logos to identify the pre-incarnate Christ is a significant case in point.
In Paul’s Pastoral Epistles, I and 2 Timothy and Titus, the apostle quotes from a series of early Christian hymns. He refers to each quotation referred to as “a faithful saying” (I Timothy 1:15; 3:1;4:9; II Timothy 2:11 and Titus 3:5-7). At least two of these (II Timothy 2:11 and Titus 3:5-7) are generally recognized as baptismal hymns. II Timothy 2:22 sings of the baptismal confession and Titus 3:5-7 celebrates baptism itself.
To appreciate the truth of which these Scripture verses sing, we must remind ourselves that, “for the Apostle and his contemporaries, Christian immersion cannot be reduced to a bare sign any more that the cross of Christ can be described as a mere symbol.” Christian immersion is accompanied by regeneration, which Jesus called being “born again/from above.” Anothen is rendered “again” in the KJV, the NIV and some other English translations. A notable exception is the more literal Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which has “from above.”
The Apostle Paul, in Romans 6:3-11, and the Apostle Peter, in I Peter 1:22-23, leave no room for doubt concerning the efficacy of Christian baptism as the point of entry into the eternal life that was bought for us on Calvary. Dietrich Bonheoffer, whose Christian faith was tried by fire in Hitler’s concentration camps, summed the matter up perfectly when he wrote, “Only he who believes is obedient and only he who is obedient believes.” It has been so from the beginning. Jesus, Himself said “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned (Mark 16:16). The New Testament knows nothing of “faith only” salvation.
Whatever else may be said in regard to being born again/from above, it is not accomplished by manipulating prospective converts to generate an emotional experience and treats baptism as merely “an outward sign of an inward grace.”
Despite the current insistent denial by American evangelicalism that John 3:1-17 is a “baptism text,” it is a matter of record that no known Christian writer during the first fourteen centuries of Christian history ever denied it! Significantly, the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John that immediately follows Jesus’ insistence to Nicodemus that no one can understand or enter the kingdom of God without being begotten “of water and spirit,” begins with the statement that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.”
John 3:1 identifies Nicodemus as a man, a Pharisee and a ruler. In verse ten of this chapter Jesus recognizes him as “a teacher of Israel.” He may have been among those who had previously sent a committee to inquire of John the Baptist whether or not he was the Christ (John 1:15-28). Jesus didn’t answer Nicodemus’ complementary greeting. Instead He addressed the unspoken question that brought him to Jesus by night for a private conversation; “Are you the Christ?”
The beginning of proselyte immersion is lost in antiquity, but it is certain that it was practiced before the beginning of the Christian era. Newly immersed proselytes were frequently referred to as “newly born children.” As a Pharisee, Nicodemus would have been familiar with the proselyte immersion required of any Gentile who wanted to become a Jew. Three acts constituted the entire conversion process. 1) Circumcision, by which the candidate was cut off from his pagan roots, 2) Immersion, by which he was purified from the uncleanness associated with all Gentiles, performed seven days following his circumcision and 3) the offering of a sacrifice in the temple. This final act recognized the proselyte’s membership in the covenant community.
The purpose of this conversion procedure was to establish the Gentile as a part of the people of God, the covenant community established and perpetuated by faithfulness to the covenant made by God with Abraham. This covenant was the foundation of the Law given four hundred years later through Moses (cf. Galatians, chapter three). The converted Gentile, now recognized as one of God’s own people, was said to be dead to his non-Jewish past and raised to a new life; to have been begotten again.
Genneethee, translated “born” in the KJV,NIV, etc. is an ambivalent word. It literally means “begin.” When it speaks of the mother’s role in procreation, it is translated “born.” The same word applied to the father’s role is translated “begotten.” Since no one can claim, Biblically, that God is a mother, the only accurate translation of genneethee, in the third chapter of John, is begotten rather than born.
While it is a grave error to imply that either John’s baptism or Christian baptism had their roots in pre-Christian washings, it is likely that the earliest Christian believers, being familiar with these practices, had little difficulty understanding the terminology used by Jesus to introduce Christian immersion. It was not unusual for the New Testament writers to employ pre-Christian terms by pouring them full of Christian meaning. John’s use of the word logos to identify the pre-incarnate Christ is a significant case in point.
In Paul’s Pastoral Epistles, I and 2 Timothy and Titus, the apostle quotes from a series of early Christian hymns. He refers to each quotation referred to as “a faithful saying” (I Timothy 1:15; 3:1;4:9; II Timothy 2:11 and Titus 3:5-7). At least two of these (II Timothy 2:11 and Titus 3:5-7) are generally recognized as baptismal hymns. II Timothy 2:22 sings of the baptismal confession and Titus 3:5-7 celebrates baptism itself.
To appreciate the truth of which these Scripture verses sing, we must remind ourselves that, “for the Apostle and his contemporaries, Christian immersion cannot be reduced to a bare sign any more that the cross of Christ can be described as a mere symbol.” Christian immersion is accompanied by regeneration, which Jesus called being “born again/from above.” Anothen is rendered “again” in the KJV, the NIV and some other English translations. A notable exception is the more literal Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which has “from above.”
The Apostle Paul, in Romans 6:3-11, and the Apostle Peter, in I Peter 1:22-23, leave no room for doubt concerning the efficacy of Christian baptism as the point of entry into the eternal life that was bought for us on Calvary. Dietrich Bonheoffer, whose Christian faith was tried by fire in Hitler’s concentration camps, summed the matter up perfectly when he wrote, “Only he who believes is obedient and only he who is obedient believes.” It has been so from the beginning. Jesus, Himself said “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned (Mark 16:16). The New Testament knows nothing of “faith only” salvation.
Whatever else may be said in regard to being born again/from above, it is not accomplished by manipulating prospective converts to generate an emotional experience and treats baptism as merely “an outward sign of an inward grace.”
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Messianic Hope of God's Israel
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept,
When we remembered Zion.
On the willows here, we hung our harps,
For there our captors required of us songs,
And our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.”
How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I do not remember you,
If I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
Psalm 137:1-6
Thus sang the Jewish exiles in Babylon, captives of King Nebuchadnezzar, nearly six centuries before the coming of Christ. Many of them had become adjusted to the life style of the Babylonians but others could not forget Judea and the temple which was the center of their covenant community.
It was true that in Babylon, unlike Jerusalem, there was much wealth and water was plentiful. There was also the impressive Babylonian temple that towered high above the mud huts of the Babylonian people. On feast days there was the international market, the temple, with merchants from India, Persia, Arabia, Syria and possibly Egypt. Each of these brought merchandise of rare quality.
Still, the hearts of the Jewish exiles daily watched the sun move toward the western horizon, sinking over the Arabian Desert to rise over their beloved Israel. There they had been forced to leave there homes…homes that were their fondest memories even though they were much more humble than the homes of the Neo-Babylonians.
In Jerusalem now there was neither temple nor king. The Hebrew kings had failed, the magnificent temple of Solomon had been destroyed by the invading Neo-Babylonians and the Jews, some with fish hooks in their noses, has been led away to Babylon and exile.
After Nebuchadnezzar, several Neo-Babylonian kings had ruled over the exiles to second and third generations. To the east of the kingdom of Neo-Babylonia, there arose the kingdom of Persia under King Cyrus who soon became world famous as a great warrior and conqueror. The power of Neo-Babylonia began to wane. Cyrus would soon capture the Neo-Babylonian capital and Babylon’s fate was sealed.
The Old Testament book of Isaiah calls Cyrus “God’s anointed.” (Isaiah 45:1). Isaiah records the capture of Persia by Cyrus and his subsequent permission of the exiles to return to their home land. A remnant returned but most had roots too deep and memories of the homeland too short. They preferred to remain in Babylon. Those who did return took with them the synagogue and the Hebraistic culture that had developed during their captivity as they struggled to retain their identity and the worship of Jehovah in a strange land. We meet their descendants in the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Book of Acts where they are identified as “Hebraists.”
It is in Isaiah, chapter 45, verse 1, that King Cyrus of Persia is called “God’s anointed.” The Hebrew word for an anointed person is mashiah, translated as christos in Greek. Our English “Messiah” is derived from the Hebrew Mashiah as “Christ” is derived from christos. The anointment was a ceremony at which divine authority was bestowed on the anointed person. In ancient Israel kings (e.g. I Kings 19:16), possibly patriarchs (Psalm 105:15), a messianic prince (Daniel 9:25), and even a foreign king (Isaiah 45:1) were anointed. These “messiahs” were each given divine authority to do God’s will. In the case of King Cyrus, he did God’s will by allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Judea. In a sense, then, a messiah may be called the servant of God.
The book of Isaiah records references to both the messiah and the servant. Israel is called servant in Isaiah 41:8, 9. Servant appears in the next chapter, 42:1, 3, and this servant is to bring forth justice to all races (not nations in any political sense). Israel is identified as God’s servant again in other passages in Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 44:1, 2, 26; 48:20 et al) that seem to indicate Israel was particularly favored as God’s chosen servant for the purpose of proclaiming God’s salvation to other races, a purpose they seldom remembered and finally forgot altogether. An Israeli guide in Palestine once told me that the Jewish mistreatment of 50,000 Palestinian Arab refugees was in fulfillment of the Jews’ responsibility to bless the nations of the world!
Beginning in Isaiah 49:5, there appears a servant with the apparent mission of restoring Israel. Then the servant, who may be regarded as an individual person, appears in Isaiah 50:10; 52:13 and 53:11. This servant is seen to suffer much in bearing the sins of many in order to bring the news of God’s salvation to the world.
In the spring of 1947, in an ancient ruin of Qumran on the northeast shore of the Dead Sea, several ancient scrolls were discovered. Among these “Dead Sea Scrolls” were many Biblical and non-Biblical manuscripts dating roughly to the time of Jesus. One of these, The Discipline Scroll or Order of the Community is dated from approximately 100 B.C. and contains rules and regulations for the community of Qumran. According to this document, the community seems to have consisted of believers in the orthodox doctrine and practice of the Mosaic law who were preparing the way of the Lord, the Messiah, to come (cp. Isaiah 40:3). The leader of this community was called “the teacher of righteousness.” Under his leadership the members of the community believed that they stood on the threshold of the Endzeit, the end time.
In Numbers 24:17 is this poetic expression:
A star shall come forth out of Jacob,
And a scepter shall rise out of Israel,
It shall crush the forehead of Moab,
And break down the children of Seth.
Ancient rabbis thought this star was the Messiah. In the New Testament Apocalypse, Jesus Himself is identified as this star (Rev. 22:16 cp. Matthew 2:2, 7, 9, 10). So Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph, who inspired Bar Koziba to lead the Jewish rebellion against Rome during the second century A.D., changed his name to Bar Kochba (son of the star), due to the rabbinic identification of the star with the Messiah. The rebels against Rome believed Bar Kochba was indeed the Christ.
Second only to the Old Testament in importance as Jewish literature is the Talmud. This writing contains a treatise called Sanhedrin, signifying the Jewish Supreme Court. The tractate is the chief depository of Jewish criminal law. It also contains several references to the coming Messiah. The question repeatedly raised is “when the Messiah is to come.” Some of the answers contained are:
1) when even the smallest nation ceases to have any power over Israel,
2) when there are found no conceited men in Israel,
3) when all (foreign) judges and officers are gone from Israel,
4) when a generation becomes altogether righteous or altogether wicked, etc.
These discourses are followed by the story of a rabbi called Joshua ben Levi. He is said to have met the Prophet Elijah standing at the tomb of another famous rabbi, Simon ben Johai. Joshua ben Levi asked Elijah, “When does the Messiah come?” Elijah’s answer was, “Go and ask him.” Ben Levi then asked, “Where is he?” Elijah replied, “At the entrance of the town.” So Rabbi Joshua ben Levi went there and found the Messiah and asked him just when he might come. The Messiah’s answer was, “Today.” Ben Levi waited all day, but the Messiah never came. He then went back to Elijah and complained that the Messiah had lied. Prophet Elijah smiled and said: “No, He did not lie. He only quoted from Psalm 95:7” This verse says, “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will listen to His voice!” It means that Messiah will surely come, the day all people listen to the voice of God.”
We have thus far considered the Messianic hope of Israel from the Old Testament and other Jewish sources. We have seen that Hebraic Jewish Messianic hope becomes prominent whenever there is a political or religious crisis. Many rabbis thought that if the Jews faithfully obeyed the Laws of God, this would prepare the way for the Messiah; but this never in fact happened. The political revolts of the Zealots only succeeded locally and temporarily. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and other smaller sects; and Judaism was about to lose its integrity under the impact of Roman authority. Then Jesus came!
Jesus did not claim to be the founder of a new religion. In fact, the Gospel records do not show Him even using the word. He said that He came “to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12)”. He said He came “that they might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10)”. He said He did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). In this way He identified Himself with the servant foretold by Isaiah. This servant of God was called the Messiah, the Anointed One (Matthew 1:16; 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 2:11, etc.). In this way, the Messiah and the Servant in the New Testament coalesce in the person of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
What is the significance of all this in the twenty first century A.D.? We live in another day of crisis. Man has become too proud of earthly knowledge, material wealth and his own accomplishments. We tend to forget that the environment about which we are increasingly concerned is God’s own creation. Indeed, we prefer to forget God Himself! This is a day for our rededication of ourselves to the Christ who gave Himself to reconcile us to the God we have forgotten.
Jesus said: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it (Matthew 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24).” It cannot be mere coincidence that we find ourselves controlled by the use of human will. We have exchanged the commands of God for the majority rule of a materialistic democracy that daily becomes more and more characterized by Socialism. Our identity as “one nation under God” tends more and more to give way to uncontrolled humanism with bullets, bombs, drugs and machines. We have deluded ourselves into believing that, because the Soviet Union has collapsed, we no longer live in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. More dangerous than all the bombs and rockets is the danger of losing our lives in our greed, by polluting God’s air and water and squandering finite natural resources.
It is time for God’s people, the church to take up the cross of Jesus and follow Him; practicing His self denial along with God’s justice and righteousness here and now. It is time to give ourselves for the betterment of others rather than for the amassing of things. It is time for Christians, especially in the United States, to stop “standing for anything” and start standing up for Someone. It is time to be more concerned for being correct by God’s standards rather than politically correct by popular standards, or lack of standards. We need to abandon the flesh pots and temples of Babylon and return to the house of God.
Christians have a Messiah. His name is Jesus. We need to stop apologizing for our faith and begin to live by it. It is our God given task to establish and maintain His
kingdom here on earth as the servants of human society and members of God’s household.
• I am indebted to Dr. Toyozo Nakarai for clarifying for me the central truth contained in this writing.
CRG
When we remembered Zion.
On the willows here, we hung our harps,
For there our captors required of us songs,
And our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.”
How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I do not remember you,
If I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
Psalm 137:1-6
Thus sang the Jewish exiles in Babylon, captives of King Nebuchadnezzar, nearly six centuries before the coming of Christ. Many of them had become adjusted to the life style of the Babylonians but others could not forget Judea and the temple which was the center of their covenant community.
It was true that in Babylon, unlike Jerusalem, there was much wealth and water was plentiful. There was also the impressive Babylonian temple that towered high above the mud huts of the Babylonian people. On feast days there was the international market, the temple, with merchants from India, Persia, Arabia, Syria and possibly Egypt. Each of these brought merchandise of rare quality.
Still, the hearts of the Jewish exiles daily watched the sun move toward the western horizon, sinking over the Arabian Desert to rise over their beloved Israel. There they had been forced to leave there homes…homes that were their fondest memories even though they were much more humble than the homes of the Neo-Babylonians.
In Jerusalem now there was neither temple nor king. The Hebrew kings had failed, the magnificent temple of Solomon had been destroyed by the invading Neo-Babylonians and the Jews, some with fish hooks in their noses, has been led away to Babylon and exile.
After Nebuchadnezzar, several Neo-Babylonian kings had ruled over the exiles to second and third generations. To the east of the kingdom of Neo-Babylonia, there arose the kingdom of Persia under King Cyrus who soon became world famous as a great warrior and conqueror. The power of Neo-Babylonia began to wane. Cyrus would soon capture the Neo-Babylonian capital and Babylon’s fate was sealed.
The Old Testament book of Isaiah calls Cyrus “God’s anointed.” (Isaiah 45:1). Isaiah records the capture of Persia by Cyrus and his subsequent permission of the exiles to return to their home land. A remnant returned but most had roots too deep and memories of the homeland too short. They preferred to remain in Babylon. Those who did return took with them the synagogue and the Hebraistic culture that had developed during their captivity as they struggled to retain their identity and the worship of Jehovah in a strange land. We meet their descendants in the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Book of Acts where they are identified as “Hebraists.”
It is in Isaiah, chapter 45, verse 1, that King Cyrus of Persia is called “God’s anointed.” The Hebrew word for an anointed person is mashiah, translated as christos in Greek. Our English “Messiah” is derived from the Hebrew Mashiah as “Christ” is derived from christos. The anointment was a ceremony at which divine authority was bestowed on the anointed person. In ancient Israel kings (e.g. I Kings 19:16), possibly patriarchs (Psalm 105:15), a messianic prince (Daniel 9:25), and even a foreign king (Isaiah 45:1) were anointed. These “messiahs” were each given divine authority to do God’s will. In the case of King Cyrus, he did God’s will by allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Judea. In a sense, then, a messiah may be called the servant of God.
The book of Isaiah records references to both the messiah and the servant. Israel is called servant in Isaiah 41:8, 9. Servant appears in the next chapter, 42:1, 3, and this servant is to bring forth justice to all races (not nations in any political sense). Israel is identified as God’s servant again in other passages in Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 44:1, 2, 26; 48:20 et al) that seem to indicate Israel was particularly favored as God’s chosen servant for the purpose of proclaiming God’s salvation to other races, a purpose they seldom remembered and finally forgot altogether. An Israeli guide in Palestine once told me that the Jewish mistreatment of 50,000 Palestinian Arab refugees was in fulfillment of the Jews’ responsibility to bless the nations of the world!
Beginning in Isaiah 49:5, there appears a servant with the apparent mission of restoring Israel. Then the servant, who may be regarded as an individual person, appears in Isaiah 50:10; 52:13 and 53:11. This servant is seen to suffer much in bearing the sins of many in order to bring the news of God’s salvation to the world.
In the spring of 1947, in an ancient ruin of Qumran on the northeast shore of the Dead Sea, several ancient scrolls were discovered. Among these “Dead Sea Scrolls” were many Biblical and non-Biblical manuscripts dating roughly to the time of Jesus. One of these, The Discipline Scroll or Order of the Community is dated from approximately 100 B.C. and contains rules and regulations for the community of Qumran. According to this document, the community seems to have consisted of believers in the orthodox doctrine and practice of the Mosaic law who were preparing the way of the Lord, the Messiah, to come (cp. Isaiah 40:3). The leader of this community was called “the teacher of righteousness.” Under his leadership the members of the community believed that they stood on the threshold of the Endzeit, the end time.
In Numbers 24:17 is this poetic expression:
A star shall come forth out of Jacob,
And a scepter shall rise out of Israel,
It shall crush the forehead of Moab,
And break down the children of Seth.
Ancient rabbis thought this star was the Messiah. In the New Testament Apocalypse, Jesus Himself is identified as this star (Rev. 22:16 cp. Matthew 2:2, 7, 9, 10). So Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph, who inspired Bar Koziba to lead the Jewish rebellion against Rome during the second century A.D., changed his name to Bar Kochba (son of the star), due to the rabbinic identification of the star with the Messiah. The rebels against Rome believed Bar Kochba was indeed the Christ.
Second only to the Old Testament in importance as Jewish literature is the Talmud. This writing contains a treatise called Sanhedrin, signifying the Jewish Supreme Court. The tractate is the chief depository of Jewish criminal law. It also contains several references to the coming Messiah. The question repeatedly raised is “when the Messiah is to come.” Some of the answers contained are:
1) when even the smallest nation ceases to have any power over Israel,
2) when there are found no conceited men in Israel,
3) when all (foreign) judges and officers are gone from Israel,
4) when a generation becomes altogether righteous or altogether wicked, etc.
These discourses are followed by the story of a rabbi called Joshua ben Levi. He is said to have met the Prophet Elijah standing at the tomb of another famous rabbi, Simon ben Johai. Joshua ben Levi asked Elijah, “When does the Messiah come?” Elijah’s answer was, “Go and ask him.” Ben Levi then asked, “Where is he?” Elijah replied, “At the entrance of the town.” So Rabbi Joshua ben Levi went there and found the Messiah and asked him just when he might come. The Messiah’s answer was, “Today.” Ben Levi waited all day, but the Messiah never came. He then went back to Elijah and complained that the Messiah had lied. Prophet Elijah smiled and said: “No, He did not lie. He only quoted from Psalm 95:7” This verse says, “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will listen to His voice!” It means that Messiah will surely come, the day all people listen to the voice of God.”
We have thus far considered the Messianic hope of Israel from the Old Testament and other Jewish sources. We have seen that Hebraic Jewish Messianic hope becomes prominent whenever there is a political or religious crisis. Many rabbis thought that if the Jews faithfully obeyed the Laws of God, this would prepare the way for the Messiah; but this never in fact happened. The political revolts of the Zealots only succeeded locally and temporarily. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and other smaller sects; and Judaism was about to lose its integrity under the impact of Roman authority. Then Jesus came!
Jesus did not claim to be the founder of a new religion. In fact, the Gospel records do not show Him even using the word. He said that He came “to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12)”. He said He came “that they might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10)”. He said He did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). In this way He identified Himself with the servant foretold by Isaiah. This servant of God was called the Messiah, the Anointed One (Matthew 1:16; 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 2:11, etc.). In this way, the Messiah and the Servant in the New Testament coalesce in the person of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
What is the significance of all this in the twenty first century A.D.? We live in another day of crisis. Man has become too proud of earthly knowledge, material wealth and his own accomplishments. We tend to forget that the environment about which we are increasingly concerned is God’s own creation. Indeed, we prefer to forget God Himself! This is a day for our rededication of ourselves to the Christ who gave Himself to reconcile us to the God we have forgotten.
Jesus said: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it (Matthew 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24).” It cannot be mere coincidence that we find ourselves controlled by the use of human will. We have exchanged the commands of God for the majority rule of a materialistic democracy that daily becomes more and more characterized by Socialism. Our identity as “one nation under God” tends more and more to give way to uncontrolled humanism with bullets, bombs, drugs and machines. We have deluded ourselves into believing that, because the Soviet Union has collapsed, we no longer live in the shadow of a mushroom cloud. More dangerous than all the bombs and rockets is the danger of losing our lives in our greed, by polluting God’s air and water and squandering finite natural resources.
It is time for God’s people, the church to take up the cross of Jesus and follow Him; practicing His self denial along with God’s justice and righteousness here and now. It is time to give ourselves for the betterment of others rather than for the amassing of things. It is time for Christians, especially in the United States, to stop “standing for anything” and start standing up for Someone. It is time to be more concerned for being correct by God’s standards rather than politically correct by popular standards, or lack of standards. We need to abandon the flesh pots and temples of Babylon and return to the house of God.
Christians have a Messiah. His name is Jesus. We need to stop apologizing for our faith and begin to live by it. It is our God given task to establish and maintain His
kingdom here on earth as the servants of human society and members of God’s household.
• I am indebted to Dr. Toyozo Nakarai for clarifying for me the central truth contained in this writing.
CRG
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Church is Constitutionally One
We found, in the first two segments of this trilogy that, as declared by Thomas Campbell in The Declaration and Address, the church found in the New Testament is essentially and intentionally one. Its essential nature is defined by fellowship . It is intentionally one as both the fulfillment and the fulfilling agency of God’s reconciling work in Christ. In this segment, we will examine Campbell’s assertion that the church is constitutionally one.
To say that the church is constitutionally one is to say that its oneness was expressed in its form as ordained and appointed by God. This foundational truth is expressed by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:1-6: “I am calling you therefore. . . to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with long suffering, bearing one another up, in love being eager to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all Who is over all and through all and in all” (Author’s translation).
The unity described here is organic oneness. The theme, “body of Christ” is prominent in Paul’s discussions of the church throughout his epistles. In I Corinthians 12:14-27 he underscores the truth that the unit in Christian unity is the individual believer: “… you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.”
Paul prefaces his appeal for the maintenance of unity with a call for a Christian attitude and life style, that are the quintessence of genuine Christian character. The Greek, haxios, worthily, is a picture word depicting the returning of a coin to the mint for weighing. It was common practice to shave precious metal off of coins. Eventually one could accumulate a significant amount of gold of silver. , Roman coins were circulated back to the mint and weighed in a balance in order to insure full value.
Paul encourages us to be “full value Christians” in our attitude toward one another for the sake of unity. A full measure of Christian character requires “all humility.” Such an attitude is the opposite of the “pride of life” which John identifies as one of the “things of the world” ( I John 2:16).
Genuineness includes longsuffering. Some complained about the time consumed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ by scenes depicting the brutal prelude to Jesus’ crucifixion. They said it detracted from the film’s message. Actually, Gibson’s portrayal was mild compared to what happened historically in putting a prisoner on a Roman cross. Historians estimate that about forty percent of those sentenced to crucifixion died before they reached the cross.
The longsuffering of Christ serves as a challenge to the genuineness of those whom He instructed to take up their own crosses. It involves more than putting up with unpleasant people. We are to bear one another up in love, to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
Burton Coffman points out what is involved; “having an attitude that grants them [other members of the body] the same ‘right to belong’ which he claims for himself.”
In the little town which is home to the small congregation that lured me out of “retirement” some years ago, there are eight small ,struggling congregations. Four of them have roots in the Stone/Campbell movement and two other denominations are represented by two congregations each. It’s a friendly little town. They work together, send their kids to the same school and enjoy the same neighborhood activities
. . . until Sunday comes. Then they hide from one another in their separate church buildings and refuse to allow anyone the “right to belong” until he/she jumps through their institutional hoop. . If the church is ever to rise above the sectarianism that divides it, the “right to belong” is an absolute must.
Paul directs us to “be eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” He then tells us what constitutes that bond: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. In the Greek text of verses 4-6, no verb is expressed. Paul doesn’t say there is, or there ought to be. Rather in staccato sequence he enumerates the requisites that constitute the unity of the church.
W.O. Carver wrote; “Paul grounds his call for unity upon a sevenfold ideal and factual foundation. The whole Christian experience and movement are based on these fundamental, factual elements.”
One body! one fellowship recognizing no distinctions of race, culture, or religion; no economic caste system, no gender bias. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:28). Understanding the cross in light of the resurrection, “… the love of Christ constrains us… Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh…if anyone is in Christ he is a new kind of creature; the old things passed away…” (II Corinthians 5:14-17 - author’s translation).
One Spirit! In the New Testament, any body that was inhabited by more than one spirit was considered to be demon possessed. Since the church is he body of Christ, this is unthinkable. Every member receives the same (one) Holy Spirit at baptism.
One hope! In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays that “ you may know what is the hope of His calling…” The hope to which he refers is not what we hope to get out of being Christians. No one should minimize our precious hope of heaven, nor the positive, hopeful outlook that His love engenders. However, when Paul uses the word elpis, hope, in the Ephesian letter, he goes far beyond the self centered attitude that brings people to the church only because of what they hope to gain from it.
W.O. Carver’s commentary on Ephesians is entitled, The Glory of God In The Christian Calling. In it, Dr. Carver shows the purpose of God fulfilled in human life as the stewardship of the church. That’s the “one hope of your calling.” .
One Lord! Our democratic culture has a hard time comprehending the concept expressed in “Lord.” John Adams was limited to a single term as president of the United States because his political opponents promoted the erroneous notion that he, wanted to establish an American monarchy.
The Biblical understanding of “Lord” is probably best illustrated in Jesus’ statement, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth…” ( Matthew 28:18). God doesn’t call committee meetings or take opinion polls. He gives commands. The Lordship of Christ is a vital aspect of the constitution of the church as a single body.
One Faith! When my brother arrived in Lackland Airforce base for basic training, he went through a processing procedure. He answered questions asked by the Lieutenant responsible for obtaining biographical information. When they came to the question marked “Religion,” he was asked, “Protestant, Catholic or Jew.” My brother replied, “neither!” “So…” the interviewer said, “you are an atheist?” My brother answered, “No. I’m a Christian.” Oh,” said the lieutenant, “ are you a Catholic or a Protestant.?” To which my brother replied, “Neither… just a Christian.” Eventually the officer wrote “Christian” on the form. He was probably the first man to go through Airforce basics with “Christian” stamped on his dog tags.
A primary reason for the division that has plagued the church for centuries is our insistence on hyphenating the one faith with denominational names.
One baptism! Coffman points out that “. . . seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament. ‘One baptism’ here means there is only one as pertains to the Christian life. There can be no escape from the conclusion that this is the baptism of the Great Commission. . .”
W.O. Carver wrote, “The only reference other than that of water baptism that would be tolerable [in this text], ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ is excluded here because the Spirit’s place is already introduced as the second of the fundamental Ones.”
“One God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all!” “One God” is the seminal truth of the gospel.
The unity constituted by these seven factual elements is an organic oneness. Such unity is clearly understood by what it is not as much as by what it is. It is not unanimity; absolute conformity of opinion codified into a creed. It is not uniformity; complete similarity of expression and method. It is not union; oneness of ecclesiastical affiliation. .
To realize the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” what is needed is the “worthy walk” implored by the apostle, the active determination to maintain the unity of the Spirit and an acceptance of Paul’s seven factual elements as constituting that bond. Paul has identified the constituting elements of the church’s essential and intentional oneness. The recognition and practice of these seven elements that make up the bond of peace is all that is necessary to the accomplishment of Paul’s plea and Jesus’ prayer for those who believe in Him to all be one in order that the world may believe that the Father has sent Him.
Our post-modern world, with its hunger for relationships in a world disconnected by the technology that connects it, is waiting to be won by a church that is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one!
To say that the church is constitutionally one is to say that its oneness was expressed in its form as ordained and appointed by God. This foundational truth is expressed by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:1-6: “I am calling you therefore. . . to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with long suffering, bearing one another up, in love being eager to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all Who is over all and through all and in all” (Author’s translation).
The unity described here is organic oneness. The theme, “body of Christ” is prominent in Paul’s discussions of the church throughout his epistles. In I Corinthians 12:14-27 he underscores the truth that the unit in Christian unity is the individual believer: “… you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.”
Paul prefaces his appeal for the maintenance of unity with a call for a Christian attitude and life style, that are the quintessence of genuine Christian character. The Greek, haxios, worthily, is a picture word depicting the returning of a coin to the mint for weighing. It was common practice to shave precious metal off of coins. Eventually one could accumulate a significant amount of gold of silver. , Roman coins were circulated back to the mint and weighed in a balance in order to insure full value.
Paul encourages us to be “full value Christians” in our attitude toward one another for the sake of unity. A full measure of Christian character requires “all humility.” Such an attitude is the opposite of the “pride of life” which John identifies as one of the “things of the world” ( I John 2:16).
Genuineness includes longsuffering. Some complained about the time consumed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ by scenes depicting the brutal prelude to Jesus’ crucifixion. They said it detracted from the film’s message. Actually, Gibson’s portrayal was mild compared to what happened historically in putting a prisoner on a Roman cross. Historians estimate that about forty percent of those sentenced to crucifixion died before they reached the cross.
The longsuffering of Christ serves as a challenge to the genuineness of those whom He instructed to take up their own crosses. It involves more than putting up with unpleasant people. We are to bear one another up in love, to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
Burton Coffman points out what is involved; “having an attitude that grants them [other members of the body] the same ‘right to belong’ which he claims for himself.”
In the little town which is home to the small congregation that lured me out of “retirement” some years ago, there are eight small ,struggling congregations. Four of them have roots in the Stone/Campbell movement and two other denominations are represented by two congregations each. It’s a friendly little town. They work together, send their kids to the same school and enjoy the same neighborhood activities
. . . until Sunday comes. Then they hide from one another in their separate church buildings and refuse to allow anyone the “right to belong” until he/she jumps through their institutional hoop. . If the church is ever to rise above the sectarianism that divides it, the “right to belong” is an absolute must.
Paul directs us to “be eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” He then tells us what constitutes that bond: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. In the Greek text of verses 4-6, no verb is expressed. Paul doesn’t say there is, or there ought to be. Rather in staccato sequence he enumerates the requisites that constitute the unity of the church.
W.O. Carver wrote; “Paul grounds his call for unity upon a sevenfold ideal and factual foundation. The whole Christian experience and movement are based on these fundamental, factual elements.”
One body! one fellowship recognizing no distinctions of race, culture, or religion; no economic caste system, no gender bias. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:28). Understanding the cross in light of the resurrection, “… the love of Christ constrains us… Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh…if anyone is in Christ he is a new kind of creature; the old things passed away…” (II Corinthians 5:14-17 - author’s translation).
One Spirit! In the New Testament, any body that was inhabited by more than one spirit was considered to be demon possessed. Since the church is he body of Christ, this is unthinkable. Every member receives the same (one) Holy Spirit at baptism.
One hope! In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays that “ you may know what is the hope of His calling…” The hope to which he refers is not what we hope to get out of being Christians. No one should minimize our precious hope of heaven, nor the positive, hopeful outlook that His love engenders. However, when Paul uses the word elpis, hope, in the Ephesian letter, he goes far beyond the self centered attitude that brings people to the church only because of what they hope to gain from it.
W.O. Carver’s commentary on Ephesians is entitled, The Glory of God In The Christian Calling. In it, Dr. Carver shows the purpose of God fulfilled in human life as the stewardship of the church. That’s the “one hope of your calling.” .
One Lord! Our democratic culture has a hard time comprehending the concept expressed in “Lord.” John Adams was limited to a single term as president of the United States because his political opponents promoted the erroneous notion that he, wanted to establish an American monarchy.
The Biblical understanding of “Lord” is probably best illustrated in Jesus’ statement, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth…” ( Matthew 28:18). God doesn’t call committee meetings or take opinion polls. He gives commands. The Lordship of Christ is a vital aspect of the constitution of the church as a single body.
One Faith! When my brother arrived in Lackland Airforce base for basic training, he went through a processing procedure. He answered questions asked by the Lieutenant responsible for obtaining biographical information. When they came to the question marked “Religion,” he was asked, “Protestant, Catholic or Jew.” My brother replied, “neither!” “So…” the interviewer said, “you are an atheist?” My brother answered, “No. I’m a Christian.” Oh,” said the lieutenant, “ are you a Catholic or a Protestant.?” To which my brother replied, “Neither… just a Christian.” Eventually the officer wrote “Christian” on the form. He was probably the first man to go through Airforce basics with “Christian” stamped on his dog tags.
A primary reason for the division that has plagued the church for centuries is our insistence on hyphenating the one faith with denominational names.
One baptism! Coffman points out that “. . . seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament. ‘One baptism’ here means there is only one as pertains to the Christian life. There can be no escape from the conclusion that this is the baptism of the Great Commission. . .”
W.O. Carver wrote, “The only reference other than that of water baptism that would be tolerable [in this text], ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit.’ is excluded here because the Spirit’s place is already introduced as the second of the fundamental Ones.”
“One God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all!” “One God” is the seminal truth of the gospel.
The unity constituted by these seven factual elements is an organic oneness. Such unity is clearly understood by what it is not as much as by what it is. It is not unanimity; absolute conformity of opinion codified into a creed. It is not uniformity; complete similarity of expression and method. It is not union; oneness of ecclesiastical affiliation. .
To realize the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” what is needed is the “worthy walk” implored by the apostle, the active determination to maintain the unity of the Spirit and an acceptance of Paul’s seven factual elements as constituting that bond. Paul has identified the constituting elements of the church’s essential and intentional oneness. The recognition and practice of these seven elements that make up the bond of peace is all that is necessary to the accomplishment of Paul’s plea and Jesus’ prayer for those who believe in Him to all be one in order that the world may believe that the Father has sent Him.
Our post-modern world, with its hunger for relationships in a world disconnected by the technology that connects it, is waiting to be won by a church that is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What Shall I Love
A fundamental rule of logic says, “Things that are equal to equal things are equal to each other.” Applied to the nature of human beings as God created us, this is a real revelation. Genesis 1:27 tells us “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” I John 4:16 says, “And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God and God remains in him”(author's translation). Since man is made in the image of God and God is love, we have no choice but to love. The question is, “What shall I love?” The difference between life and death, hope and despair, meaning and futility, and ultimately between heaven and hell for each one of us lies in our answer to this one simple question.
A popular song in the 1940’s sang the question, “What it this thing called love? Oh, who can solve this mystery? Why should it make a fool of me?” The song is no longer popular. Unless you are older than you care to admit, you have probably never heard it. However, twenty first century America is still wrestling with the questions it asked. As we might expect, the answer is found in the language of the New Testament. The old adage, “The Greeks had a word for it” is still true.
Of the three well-known Greek synonyms translated by our English “love,” two definitely do not describe the essential nature of God or the nature of people created in His image. All of these synonyms express the giving of self to an object or a person. The distinction between them is one of motive. The first of the three, eros is never used in the New Testament although derivatives of it are found in the Septuagint [The Old Testament in Greek] (Esther 2:17; Proverbs 4:6; Ezekiel 16:33 and Hoses 2:5). It describes giving self in order to get something. The ancient Greeks realized a great deal of esthetic satisfaction from things symmetrical, so they “loved” (eros) poetry, sculpture, architecture, classical language, etc. Marriage ceremonies among first century Greek speaking people included the word eros. The god of love was named Eros. The Latin speaking Romans called him Cupid.
Because of the emphasis of eros upon getting, an easy linguistic evolution transformed eros into a word that today is unacceptable in mixed company among polite people. This is the word from which we get our word erotic and in modern usage, it is concerned almost exclusively with sexual desire.
The second synonym, philia, is the love of friendship. It gives because it likes its object or is compatible with the person loved. We tend to like people who are like us and who like what we like.
Both eros and philia are spontaneous. The Greek language has no imperative form of either. Combined in man/woman relationships, the two make up the French “courtly love” of Hollywood and romance novels. It is what we mean when we say we “fall in love.”
The third synonym is agapaoo. Its noun form, agape, is the love that is the essence of the nature of both God and man. It is the love of John 3:16 and we learn its definition on the cross of Christ. No one falls into agape! R. C. Trench, in his masterpiece, Synonyms of the New Testament, writes that agape “…expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection, from seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person…" In simple American English, agape, gives self because it decides to and the decision is made on the perceived intrinsic value of the thing or person to whom it gives.
I John 2:15 insists that it is impossible to love (like this) any two objects diametrically opposed to one another. “Do not love the world, or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him.” Love, in this verse, translates the present tense of agapao. Literally, John says, “do not continually love, or go on loving, the world nor the things that are in the world.” John is describing a choice between two fundamental value systems.
In John 2:16, lest we misunderstand verse fifteen, John defines his own term, “the things that are in the world.” In this verse our English versions; "lust" translates the Greek epithumia. This is unfortunate because, in current usage, lust suggests a desire that is in and of itself is wrong or immoral. Epithumia, is neither good nor bad. It is a natural drive or appetite placed in us when God designed us to live in time and space in a carbon based environment. John lists three categories of God-given desires that are common to both humans and animals. John’s term, “the desires of the flesh,” does not imply that these appetites and drives are essentially wrong. In fact, without them, we would not long survive either as a species or as individuals. John does not say we should not have these desires but that we must not give ourselves to them (agapaoo). The drive for food, for drink, for sex or any other desire essential to survival is not evil. The difference between right and wrong in the exercising of these desires of the flesh is the difference between eating to live and living to eat!
John’s “desires of the eyes” defines the esthetic desires that are common to all human beings. In the United Sates, we recognize this as the desire for “the good life.” It has to do with cultural expressions and appreciation. John does not say we are not to have such desires. He says we are not to give ourselves to them. There is nothing wrong with having nice things or listening to good music and enjoying artistic beauty but it is very wrong to allow nice things to have me! There is nothing wrong with desiring contemporary music over traditional or vice versa. It is all wrong to love one or the other and divide the church with the rationalization that one is more effective in evangelism or worship than the other. Neither is worth it!
John’s “boastful pride of life” circumscribes the inborn desire to be recognized by our peers, to “be somebody,” to be first in the pecking order. The apostle does not say we should not desire such praise but that we must not love it. God is Himself said to inhabit the praises of His people. From Ephesians 1:5-6 we conclude that His purpose in creating us is that we might be His children “to the praise of the glory of His grace." This desire becomes boastful pride only when we give ourselves to it. When this happens, our pride prevents us from trusting God. Jesus asked the prideful religious leaders of Israel, “How can you believe, when you are receiving glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God” (John 5:44)? The proper use of the natural desire for recognition is to seek to please God in order to receive His recognition, “well done, good and faithful servant!”
The love of these “things of the world” is the basic motive of every sin ever committed. It began with Eve. “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food [the desires of the flesh], and that it was a delight to the eyes [the desires of the eyes], and that the tree was desirable to make one wise [the boastful pride of life], she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6). When the eternal Word became flesh, He subjected Himself to the same temptation to love the things of the world. Hebrews 5:15 tells us that He was “tempted in all things as we are….” The best-known recorded examples of His temptation to give Himself to the things of the world are found in the gospel record of His confrontation with Satan immediately following His baptism. The devil challenged Him to turn stones into bread [the desire of the flesh], to cater to the religious preconception of the Jews and perform an act of mystification and entertainment by jumping 450 feet from the pinnacle of the temple to the floor of the Kidron valley [the desire of the eyes] and to gain control over the kingdoms of the world by selling out to Satan [the pride of life]. He was again so tempted in the garden of Gethsemane when He struggled in prayer to love God rather than His own survival, to go to the cross for us instead of calling “ten thousand angels to destroy the world and set Him free.”
In I John 2:17, John shows us the eternal danger of allowing these natural desires to determine our value system and life style. “And the world is passing away, and also its desires . . .” (Author’s translation). We become like what we love. If we love the world and the things of it, we become like it. John warns us that the world is passing away and desires upon which it rests are passing away. If we love it we too will pass away.
BUT “…the one who is doing the will of God is remaining into eternity." (author's translation) The will of God is that we love Him, give Him our heart, soul, mind and strength, and that we give ourselves to our neighbors as [for the same reason] we love ourselves (Mark 29-31). Our destiny in eternity is determined by our personal, private answer to one vital question, “What Shall I Love?” It is for our sakes that Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments!”
A popular song in the 1940’s sang the question, “What it this thing called love? Oh, who can solve this mystery? Why should it make a fool of me?” The song is no longer popular. Unless you are older than you care to admit, you have probably never heard it. However, twenty first century America is still wrestling with the questions it asked. As we might expect, the answer is found in the language of the New Testament. The old adage, “The Greeks had a word for it” is still true.
Of the three well-known Greek synonyms translated by our English “love,” two definitely do not describe the essential nature of God or the nature of people created in His image. All of these synonyms express the giving of self to an object or a person. The distinction between them is one of motive. The first of the three, eros is never used in the New Testament although derivatives of it are found in the Septuagint [The Old Testament in Greek] (Esther 2:17; Proverbs 4:6; Ezekiel 16:33 and Hoses 2:5). It describes giving self in order to get something. The ancient Greeks realized a great deal of esthetic satisfaction from things symmetrical, so they “loved” (eros) poetry, sculpture, architecture, classical language, etc. Marriage ceremonies among first century Greek speaking people included the word eros. The god of love was named Eros. The Latin speaking Romans called him Cupid.
Because of the emphasis of eros upon getting, an easy linguistic evolution transformed eros into a word that today is unacceptable in mixed company among polite people. This is the word from which we get our word erotic and in modern usage, it is concerned almost exclusively with sexual desire.
The second synonym, philia, is the love of friendship. It gives because it likes its object or is compatible with the person loved. We tend to like people who are like us and who like what we like.
Both eros and philia are spontaneous. The Greek language has no imperative form of either. Combined in man/woman relationships, the two make up the French “courtly love” of Hollywood and romance novels. It is what we mean when we say we “fall in love.”
The third synonym is agapaoo. Its noun form, agape, is the love that is the essence of the nature of both God and man. It is the love of John 3:16 and we learn its definition on the cross of Christ. No one falls into agape! R. C. Trench, in his masterpiece, Synonyms of the New Testament, writes that agape “…expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection, from seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person…" In simple American English, agape, gives self because it decides to and the decision is made on the perceived intrinsic value of the thing or person to whom it gives.
I John 2:15 insists that it is impossible to love (like this) any two objects diametrically opposed to one another. “Do not love the world, or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him.” Love, in this verse, translates the present tense of agapao. Literally, John says, “do not continually love, or go on loving, the world nor the things that are in the world.” John is describing a choice between two fundamental value systems.
In John 2:16, lest we misunderstand verse fifteen, John defines his own term, “the things that are in the world.” In this verse our English versions; "lust" translates the Greek epithumia. This is unfortunate because, in current usage, lust suggests a desire that is in and of itself is wrong or immoral. Epithumia, is neither good nor bad. It is a natural drive or appetite placed in us when God designed us to live in time and space in a carbon based environment. John lists three categories of God-given desires that are common to both humans and animals. John’s term, “the desires of the flesh,” does not imply that these appetites and drives are essentially wrong. In fact, without them, we would not long survive either as a species or as individuals. John does not say we should not have these desires but that we must not give ourselves to them (agapaoo). The drive for food, for drink, for sex or any other desire essential to survival is not evil. The difference between right and wrong in the exercising of these desires of the flesh is the difference between eating to live and living to eat!
John’s “desires of the eyes” defines the esthetic desires that are common to all human beings. In the United Sates, we recognize this as the desire for “the good life.” It has to do with cultural expressions and appreciation. John does not say we are not to have such desires. He says we are not to give ourselves to them. There is nothing wrong with having nice things or listening to good music and enjoying artistic beauty but it is very wrong to allow nice things to have me! There is nothing wrong with desiring contemporary music over traditional or vice versa. It is all wrong to love one or the other and divide the church with the rationalization that one is more effective in evangelism or worship than the other. Neither is worth it!
John’s “boastful pride of life” circumscribes the inborn desire to be recognized by our peers, to “be somebody,” to be first in the pecking order. The apostle does not say we should not desire such praise but that we must not love it. God is Himself said to inhabit the praises of His people. From Ephesians 1:5-6 we conclude that His purpose in creating us is that we might be His children “to the praise of the glory of His grace." This desire becomes boastful pride only when we give ourselves to it. When this happens, our pride prevents us from trusting God. Jesus asked the prideful religious leaders of Israel, “How can you believe, when you are receiving glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God” (John 5:44)? The proper use of the natural desire for recognition is to seek to please God in order to receive His recognition, “well done, good and faithful servant!”
The love of these “things of the world” is the basic motive of every sin ever committed. It began with Eve. “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food [the desires of the flesh], and that it was a delight to the eyes [the desires of the eyes], and that the tree was desirable to make one wise [the boastful pride of life], she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6). When the eternal Word became flesh, He subjected Himself to the same temptation to love the things of the world. Hebrews 5:15 tells us that He was “tempted in all things as we are….” The best-known recorded examples of His temptation to give Himself to the things of the world are found in the gospel record of His confrontation with Satan immediately following His baptism. The devil challenged Him to turn stones into bread [the desire of the flesh], to cater to the religious preconception of the Jews and perform an act of mystification and entertainment by jumping 450 feet from the pinnacle of the temple to the floor of the Kidron valley [the desire of the eyes] and to gain control over the kingdoms of the world by selling out to Satan [the pride of life]. He was again so tempted in the garden of Gethsemane when He struggled in prayer to love God rather than His own survival, to go to the cross for us instead of calling “ten thousand angels to destroy the world and set Him free.”
In I John 2:17, John shows us the eternal danger of allowing these natural desires to determine our value system and life style. “And the world is passing away, and also its desires . . .” (Author’s translation). We become like what we love. If we love the world and the things of it, we become like it. John warns us that the world is passing away and desires upon which it rests are passing away. If we love it we too will pass away.
BUT “…the one who is doing the will of God is remaining into eternity." (author's translation) The will of God is that we love Him, give Him our heart, soul, mind and strength, and that we give ourselves to our neighbors as [for the same reason] we love ourselves (Mark 29-31). Our destiny in eternity is determined by our personal, private answer to one vital question, “What Shall I Love?” It is for our sakes that Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments!”
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Church is Essentially One
Someone once wrote, “The church began in Israel as a patriarchal fellowship. It went to Greece and became a philosophy. It went to Rome and became an institution.” We may add: “the church went to Europe and became a plurality of institutions. It was transplanted to North America and became a chaos of sects and denominations” It was this chaos the consequent religious confusion preventing effective evangelism that brought about the Campbell/Stone Restoration Movement.
In 1809, at the request of the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania, Thomas Campbell wrote The Declaration And Address. It’s purpose was to advocate a scriptural basis upon which to challenge the division and religious bigotry characterizing the religious scene in the infant United States. The document became the Magna Charta of a movement that swept across the American frontier and shook denominationalism to its foundations. By 1811, it became apparent that the Association must, in order to practice the ideals that bound them together, form a functioning congregation. May 4 of that year marked the birth of the Brush Run, PA church.
Dr. Henry Webb, in In Search of Christian Unity, asserts, “ The most significant section [of The Declaration and Address] sets forth an eloquent plea for [Christian] unity . . . and incorporates thirteen propositions that have merited consideration of Christians who were and are concerned with the divided state of the church.”
The first of these propositions seems most effective in challenging the present day heirs of the movement with the need to reexamine the nature of the church. The concepts set forth there are foundational to any church that is to be restored on the basis of Scripture alone. This is especially true in light of what I believe to be some glaringly mistaken presuppositions of many proponents of what they construe to be the “Restoration Plea.”
After more than half a century of ministry within the movement, I have concluded that a major reason we have not accomplished the goal of Christian unity expressed in the writing and work of the Campbells is that we have too often tried to restore something that never existed, namely a Biblical religious institution. We have assumed that, if we can diagram a chart with appropriate proof texts to describe the “New Testament Pattern” and get enough people to conform to our chart, we will restore the correct New Testament institution. Some mistakenly take for granted that they have accomplished exactly this. We further assume that all that is necessary to bring about Christian unity is to persuade enough people to transfer from their incorrect denomination to our “undenominational” institution . Of course, when necessary, we will immerse them in the process.
The fatal flaw of this approach is that the church ideal found in the New Testament was not an institution at all! It was primarily a new race of people recreated in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-17). The race was a family whose Father was God (Ephesians 1:3-6; Galatians 4:4-5). The family was a flock (Acts 20:28) guarded and tended by shepherds (I Peter 5:1-4). From these and other scriptures, it is obvious that the church is all about relationships.
Functionally, the church found in the New Testament was a living organism with the Father’s only Son as its head (Ephesians 1:22-23). Structurally, the body, as any other living organism, was organized for growth and reproduction (Ephesians 4:11-17). This is a far cry from the authoritarian power pyramid that is characteristic of religious institutions. Jesus Himself expressly forbade such authoritarian leadership ( Matthew 20:25-28).
Campbell’s first Proposition begins, “The church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one: consisting of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can truly and properly be called Christians” (emphasis added). In this three part study, we propose to examine the key descriptive terms in Campbell’s proposition as they set forth the characteristics of the church we seek to restore.
First, Campbell affirms that the church is “essentially one.” He saw the church as one in essence. Unity is its inward nature. Its very existence is defined by its oneness. The plea that brought the Restoration Movement into existence is a plea for unity accomplished by restoring the church’s essential nature. By practicing that which is the essence of the church and eliminating the extraneous, the pioneers of the movement proposed to provide a ground of unity upon which “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures” could “. . .keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” Ephesians 4:4 (Author’s translation).
The essence of the apostolic church was fellowship. The Greek, koinonia, (fellowship) specifies a relationship between people who hold something in common. My grandson and I share a love of bass fishing. Our fellowship in a bass boat is rich indeed!
A few years ago, I was invited to attend a reunion of the crew of a World War II Naval vessel. It was a deep experience of nostalgic fellowship among men who hold common memories of serving aboard that vessel at a very crucial time in our lives. No one else can have part in that fellowship because it is grounded on a common experience shared only by that crew.
Church membership is like that! It is a fellowship created by a common faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. It is a unique relationship available only to those who hear and believe the word of Christ and “who manifest the same by their tempers and conduct.” It is anchored in the testimony of the twelve apostles of Jesus and Paul; men who were hand picked and prepared by the Lord for exactly this purpose (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:9; Galatians 1:1,11-16; 2:8). It is intensely practical (Acts 2:41-47; I John 3:16-18)
Christian fellowship is the essential unity for which Christ prayed, for which Paul pled and for which the restoration pioneers labored. The defining characteristic of this relationship is agape, love (John 13:35; I John 4:10-12). Those reconciled to God in Christ (II Corinthians 5:19b) are reconciled to one another (Ephesians 2:13-16). The manifestation of obedient faith (Romans 1:5) in Christ that sustains the fellowship known as “church” requires humility, gentleness, patience, and the acceptance of one another (Ephesians 4:1-3). Peter’s plea to “love the brotherhood” is a plea to take our relationship to one another in Christ seriously.
The Restoration Plea of the Campbell/Stone movement is, in essence, a plea for a restoration of relationships, for the restoration of fellowship with “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct” This being the case, the unit in Christian unity is the individual member of a living organism called “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:11-14) Christian unity so defined is synonymous with Christian fellowship.
If the plea of the restoration pioneers is to have meaning in the twenty-first century, we must re-examine some basic presuppositions. First, the plea is for the unity of individual believers, not institutions. It is essentially a plea for restored fellowship in the family of one God. It can never be accomplished by insisting on union in terms of membership in a religious institution.
Second, The plea is not for unanimity defined as absolute conformity of opinion. Scriptural interpretation that fears dialogue with those who disagree with it has more in common with Muslim Fundamentalism than with the Christian family of the first century or with the writers of New Testament scripture.
Third, the plea is not for uniformity, i.e. complete similarity of expression either of our cultural preferences, the kind of music we sing or whether we sing at all!
The restoration of the New Testament church ideal must begin with concentration on and examination of our own most cherished beliefs and traditions. The longer we hold those beliefs and the more deeply we cherish them, the more we must subject them to re-examination in light of renewed study of the texts upon which they are supposedly based.
The birth and proposed “baptism” of Alexander Campbell’s first child did not drive him to the Presbyterian creed upon which he had himself been weaned. Rather it drove him to an intense study of
New Testament teaching about baptism. He concluded that he had been wrong in his assumptions about infant baptism. The result was the immersion of the entire Campbell family! Perhaps the most difficult task facing those who plead for Scriptural restoration as the ground of Christian unity is to find the faith and courage to be consistent in the application of their own principles. Ridicule, derision and disassociation by those who believe they have already discovered and completely restored what is essential and have already eliminated the extraneous can be a powerful deterrent to honest self-examination.
If the Restoration Movement is to have the impact in the twenty-first century that it had in the first half of the nineteenth century, we must again realize the truth expressed by Thomas Campbell; “The church of Jesus Christ on earth [still] consists of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct . . ” Only then will our church, as that one modeled in the New Testament, be “essentially one.”
In 1809, at the request of the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania, Thomas Campbell wrote The Declaration And Address. It’s purpose was to advocate a scriptural basis upon which to challenge the division and religious bigotry characterizing the religious scene in the infant United States. The document became the Magna Charta of a movement that swept across the American frontier and shook denominationalism to its foundations. By 1811, it became apparent that the Association must, in order to practice the ideals that bound them together, form a functioning congregation. May 4 of that year marked the birth of the Brush Run, PA church.
Dr. Henry Webb, in In Search of Christian Unity, asserts, “ The most significant section [of The Declaration and Address] sets forth an eloquent plea for [Christian] unity . . . and incorporates thirteen propositions that have merited consideration of Christians who were and are concerned with the divided state of the church.”
The first of these propositions seems most effective in challenging the present day heirs of the movement with the need to reexamine the nature of the church. The concepts set forth there are foundational to any church that is to be restored on the basis of Scripture alone. This is especially true in light of what I believe to be some glaringly mistaken presuppositions of many proponents of what they construe to be the “Restoration Plea.”
After more than half a century of ministry within the movement, I have concluded that a major reason we have not accomplished the goal of Christian unity expressed in the writing and work of the Campbells is that we have too often tried to restore something that never existed, namely a Biblical religious institution. We have assumed that, if we can diagram a chart with appropriate proof texts to describe the “New Testament Pattern” and get enough people to conform to our chart, we will restore the correct New Testament institution. Some mistakenly take for granted that they have accomplished exactly this. We further assume that all that is necessary to bring about Christian unity is to persuade enough people to transfer from their incorrect denomination to our “undenominational” institution . Of course, when necessary, we will immerse them in the process.
The fatal flaw of this approach is that the church ideal found in the New Testament was not an institution at all! It was primarily a new race of people recreated in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-17). The race was a family whose Father was God (Ephesians 1:3-6; Galatians 4:4-5). The family was a flock (Acts 20:28) guarded and tended by shepherds (I Peter 5:1-4). From these and other scriptures, it is obvious that the church is all about relationships.
Functionally, the church found in the New Testament was a living organism with the Father’s only Son as its head (Ephesians 1:22-23). Structurally, the body, as any other living organism, was organized for growth and reproduction (Ephesians 4:11-17). This is a far cry from the authoritarian power pyramid that is characteristic of religious institutions. Jesus Himself expressly forbade such authoritarian leadership ( Matthew 20:25-28).
Campbell’s first Proposition begins, “The church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one: consisting of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can truly and properly be called Christians” (emphasis added). In this three part study, we propose to examine the key descriptive terms in Campbell’s proposition as they set forth the characteristics of the church we seek to restore.
First, Campbell affirms that the church is “essentially one.” He saw the church as one in essence. Unity is its inward nature. Its very existence is defined by its oneness. The plea that brought the Restoration Movement into existence is a plea for unity accomplished by restoring the church’s essential nature. By practicing that which is the essence of the church and eliminating the extraneous, the pioneers of the movement proposed to provide a ground of unity upon which “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures” could “. . .keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” Ephesians 4:4 (Author’s translation).
The essence of the apostolic church was fellowship. The Greek, koinonia, (fellowship) specifies a relationship between people who hold something in common. My grandson and I share a love of bass fishing. Our fellowship in a bass boat is rich indeed!
A few years ago, I was invited to attend a reunion of the crew of a World War II Naval vessel. It was a deep experience of nostalgic fellowship among men who hold common memories of serving aboard that vessel at a very crucial time in our lives. No one else can have part in that fellowship because it is grounded on a common experience shared only by that crew.
Church membership is like that! It is a fellowship created by a common faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. It is a unique relationship available only to those who hear and believe the word of Christ and “who manifest the same by their tempers and conduct.” It is anchored in the testimony of the twelve apostles of Jesus and Paul; men who were hand picked and prepared by the Lord for exactly this purpose (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:9; Galatians 1:1,11-16; 2:8). It is intensely practical (Acts 2:41-47; I John 3:16-18)
Christian fellowship is the essential unity for which Christ prayed, for which Paul pled and for which the restoration pioneers labored. The defining characteristic of this relationship is agape, love (John 13:35; I John 4:10-12). Those reconciled to God in Christ (II Corinthians 5:19b) are reconciled to one another (Ephesians 2:13-16). The manifestation of obedient faith (Romans 1:5) in Christ that sustains the fellowship known as “church” requires humility, gentleness, patience, and the acceptance of one another (Ephesians 4:1-3). Peter’s plea to “love the brotherhood” is a plea to take our relationship to one another in Christ seriously.
The Restoration Plea of the Campbell/Stone movement is, in essence, a plea for a restoration of relationships, for the restoration of fellowship with “all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct” This being the case, the unit in Christian unity is the individual member of a living organism called “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:11-14) Christian unity so defined is synonymous with Christian fellowship.
If the plea of the restoration pioneers is to have meaning in the twenty-first century, we must re-examine some basic presuppositions. First, the plea is for the unity of individual believers, not institutions. It is essentially a plea for restored fellowship in the family of one God. It can never be accomplished by insisting on union in terms of membership in a religious institution.
Second, The plea is not for unanimity defined as absolute conformity of opinion. Scriptural interpretation that fears dialogue with those who disagree with it has more in common with Muslim Fundamentalism than with the Christian family of the first century or with the writers of New Testament scripture.
Third, the plea is not for uniformity, i.e. complete similarity of expression either of our cultural preferences, the kind of music we sing or whether we sing at all!
The restoration of the New Testament church ideal must begin with concentration on and examination of our own most cherished beliefs and traditions. The longer we hold those beliefs and the more deeply we cherish them, the more we must subject them to re-examination in light of renewed study of the texts upon which they are supposedly based.
The birth and proposed “baptism” of Alexander Campbell’s first child did not drive him to the Presbyterian creed upon which he had himself been weaned. Rather it drove him to an intense study of
New Testament teaching about baptism. He concluded that he had been wrong in his assumptions about infant baptism. The result was the immersion of the entire Campbell family! Perhaps the most difficult task facing those who plead for Scriptural restoration as the ground of Christian unity is to find the faith and courage to be consistent in the application of their own principles. Ridicule, derision and disassociation by those who believe they have already discovered and completely restored what is essential and have already eliminated the extraneous can be a powerful deterrent to honest self-examination.
If the Restoration Movement is to have the impact in the twenty-first century that it had in the first half of the nineteenth century, we must again realize the truth expressed by Thomas Campbell; “The church of Jesus Christ on earth [still] consists of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct . . ” Only then will our church, as that one modeled in the New Testament, be “essentially one.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
