Archive for the Category » Today’s Word «

A Public Display

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 | Author:

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.  Colossians 2:15  ESV

Triumphing over – In the past few days, and over the last month or so, we have explored the meaning of the cross from a Hebrew perspective.  Despite the popular claim that “Jesus” died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, we find that the biblical text says something else.  It says that forgiveness (atonement) has been available since before the foundation of the world although its full extent and deeper meaning has been progressively revealed to us over time.  We also found that the cross is not a place of sin sacrifice but rather the manifestation of God’s redemptive work in the defeat of the consequences of sin, that is, the death of death.  The cross demonstrates that God uses the tool of the enemy to overturn even the greatest threat of the enemy and in so doing establishes a kingdom like no other – an eternal and imperishable presence of the Lord of life.

Our investigation dealt with the mistake of reading the apparent future tense claims of New Testament passages as if they describe Greek static states rather than Hebrew dynamic processes.  We didn’t examine all the passages but we saw enough to recognize that the claims that such-and-such will happen does not imply that it is not already present in its nascent form.  This is particularly important in order to understand that the Bible is one book, not two testaments.

Finally we noticed that Yeshua Himself doesn’t point to the cross as a place of atonement.  Instead, He directs us to Moses’ use of the nes as a symbol of God’s triumph over the pagan threat of death and He clearly states that His mission was to establish His rightful place as King in the eternal Kingdom.  Since one of the key principles of biblical exegesis is that the Bible interprets the Bible (i.e., we look at other scriptures in order to understand a particular text), Yeshua’s claims have enormous weight in settling the question about the cross.

And then there is Paul.  So much of Paul’s emphasis seems rooted in the cross, but perhaps Paul’s Jewish rabbinic perspective has been lost in our penchant to read into Paul what later Christian theology proposed.  This verse in Colossians is a prime example.  From an evangelical theological point of view, we are apt to claim that this verse is about Jesus’ triumph over sin.  As my faithful antagonist says, “It looks like both atonement and the defeat of the demonic powers were accomplished by the cross.”  But is this what the verse says?  What is the object of the Greek verb thriambeuo (translated “to triumph over”)?  Does this verse claim that Yeshua’s victory is over sin?

Let’s consider the opening verb (“having disarmed the powers”).  Apekdyomai comes from two Greek words literally meaning “to strip away from.”  According to this passage (verses 13-15), Yeshua stripped away (disarmed) the power of rulers and authorities in a publicly observable manner.  They were put to shame, and in a Hebrew world, that means public shame, something that can be seen.  This is not about invisible demonic forces.  How would anyone know that they have been shamed?  Where am I to look to see their crestfallen countenances?  If rulers and authorities have been disarmed, what was taken from them?  Certainly not their claims or superiority!  What was taken from them is the ultimate basis of their power, that is, the threat of death!  If a man does not fear to die because he is assured that the King of glory has granted him eternal life, is there any ruler or authority on earth that can compel his obedience?  When Yeshua removed the consequence of sin, he stripped every earthly power of its ultimate threat.  The triumph is His victory over the one thing that holds all unredeemed men captive – not sin but death.  This triumph is public because the resurrection is a real, historical fact.

It seems so obvious when we look at the text.  There is no mention of the cross, no mention of forgiveness of sin, no mention of demonic powers.  Ah, but you object.  The NIV translates this verse as “triumphing over them by the cross.”  A quick review of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition of the Greek New Testament reveals no such wording in the text or in any alternate fragment of the text.  In other words, those words “by the cross” have been added to the translation.  The NIV makes a marginal note, “Or them in him,” but the marginal note is the correct reading, not an alternate.  The NIV has deliberately altered the text, not on the basis of a possible alternate translation but on the basis of a theological bias for which there is no textual justification.

No wonder we think Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin.  That’s what Christian theologians want us to think.  What a mess!  Of course, this raises an important question.  If the text doesn’t contain “the cross,” why did the NIV translators feel it necessary to add these words?

So, why did Yeshua die on the cross?  Paul does not say anything about atonement or forgiveness in this verse.  He says that the supposed power of public rulers and authorities has been stripped away from them.  And how do you suppose that happened?

Topical Index:  cross, triumph, thriambeuo, disarm, apekdyomai, death, Colossians 2:15

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 33 Comments

Recalculating

Tuesday, May 21st, 2013 | Author:

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.  Hebrews 11:13  NASB

The promises – Is it really true that all the saints in the hall of fame, all those righteous Old Testament figures, died without realizing the saving grace of Yeshua?  If you accept one view of this verse, that the promises were the mighty acts of God in Christ, then you will read this verse as if it were a great disappointment to men like Abraham.  They yearned for salvation.  They hoped for deliverance.  They strained to see it.  But alas, they were just born too soon.  As one Christian suggested, “This verse says they had to wait for a later date of atonement to be perfected along with us, implicitly by the cross.”

But is that what this verse really says?  Are the epangelias the life and death of the Messiah?  Niewind and Friedrich (TDNT) tell us that there is “no prior history in the OT, for the MT and LXX use different words for God’s pledges and promises.  Paul, however, links epangelia and epangellesthai.  We thus think of Heb. drb and LXX lalein or eipein. . . in terms of promise.”[1]  What does this imply?  It implies that for Paul the Greek term is not about the coming of the Messiah but rather about God’s faithfulness in answering prayer, relating the Torah to the new covenant and the olam ha’ba.

Since Paul didn’t write Hebrews, we must ask if the author of Hebrews has a special meaning for epangelias.  Hebrews takes an “already but not yet” view of the promises.  In other words, God’s promise about the land, the generations of Abraham, the covenant in Torah are all already here . . . but they are not yet completed.  The olam ha’ba is the world coming, but the Kingdom is already at hand.  The promises are reliably established, the performance guarantee is in the bank, but those who received the initial contract waited for its full expression, some of which was additionally revealed in the Messiah.  And we are still waiting too!  The ultimate fulfillment of the promises has not happened.  We see more than those heroes of the Tanakh, but God’s final glory is yet far off.  The author of Hebrews has Jeremiah 31 in mind when he speaks of the fulfillment of the promises.  The Millennial Kingdom is still to arrive. Read what Jeremiah says.  Is his description of the “new” covenant a present reality?  Has it ever been so?  No, not yet.

Some Christian interpretations of this verse and the surrounding context would suggest that the promises of God are exclusively about salvation as a result of the incarnation, but such a reading depends on prior theological assertions.  You can’t find it in the text by itself.  And when we realize that Hebrew time is not like Greek time, the whole idea that God restrained His forgiveness and withheld atonement until the arrival of Yeshua makes no sense at all.  Promise is an “already but not yet” process, not a static state of doctrinal belief.  God is at work, has been at work and continues to be at work.  That’s a promise!

Topical Index:  promise, epangelia, olam ha’ba, time, Hebrews 11:13


[1] TDNT, Abridged, p. 240.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 11 Comments

Just a Few Additions

Monday, May 20th, 2013 | Author:

For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.  Hebrews 10:1  NASB

Only/and – At least they had the decency to put the words in italics.  The translators have added a few words here, namely, “only” and “and.”  I suppose they thought it best in order to help their English readers continue to believe that the Law no longer applies.  After all, the Law is only a shadow, right?  But now you realize that these words are not in the Greek text (it really makes no difference that that ESV adds “but” instead of “only”).  The author of Hebrews does not contrast something that isn’t real (a shadow) with something that is (the good things to come).  He merely points out that a shadow, which is quite real, isn’t the full representation of the object that casts the shadow.  If you thought shadows were not real, try standing in the Arizona sun rather than looking for shade.  The law is real; it just isn’t the fullest representation of what causes it to be.

What is the full representation that produces the real shadow of the Law?  Ah, the completed restoration of fellowship with God, the place and time where all serve Him from the heart without need of instruction, the presence of the final expression of the Kingdom.  In the meanwhile, shadows will have to do.  Shadows might not be quite as effective as indoor air conditioning, but they are certainly useful when you need to get out of the heat.  And until you go indoors, shadows are particularly important.

So the Author of Hebrews points out that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin,” but that doesn’t mean they have no place at all.  They represent a greater reality, the final removal of the guilt of sin and its consequences in the full scope of Yeshua’s sacrifice, death and resurrection.  When you stand in the shade, you find temporary relief but you still long to get into air-conditioned comfort.

Yeshua comes to complete the full process of salvation, a process that addressed both our defilement (guilt) and the resulting punishment (death).  But even that isn’t the end of the story.  Yeshua’s death and resurrection are the first fruits of the Kingdom, not the final chapter.  His death and resurrection guarantee that God’s promise to restore His chosen is a reality.  The resurrection proves that death isn’t the end.  The resurrection points us toward a time when God will once again rule over all creation as the one and only acknowledged Lord of life.  Because He died and rose again, we have an eternal hope.

But in the meanwhile, shade is a wonderful thing.  Instructions about living that please our Lord and Master are essential, useful and freeing.  “Only” a shadow?  Tell that to the man who is dying of thirst in the desert.  Oh yes, and the word “shadow” (skia) is first in the Greek sentence, the position of emphasis, not the place of casual dismissal.

Topical Index:  only, shadow, skio, law, Hebrew 10:1

CORRECTION:  Yesterday in my announcement about Israel 2014, I said we were going to Petros.  Of course, I meant to type PETRA.  Here’s the link if you are coming along.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 7 Comments

Now What? – Rewind

Sunday, May 19th, 2013 | Author:

Today I will be traveling to Israel where I will be for 3 weeks, then on to Spain, then Greece and finally home 6 weeks from now.  As you can imagine, writing Today’s Word every day while putting in these kind of miles is a bit daunting.  So, here is an official “rewind,” a TW from some time ago that one of my best friends told me she liked very much.  In the next few weeks I will have to do another one or two (?) of these just to stay afloat, if you don’t mind.

for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;  Romans 8:26

How To Pray - Is this really the problem?  Does Paul mean to say that we don’t know how to pray?  It doesn’t seem so.  Prayer is ultimately about communion with God.  It is about all of the emotional, volitional, cognitive and embodied elements that bridge the gap between who I am and who God is.  I don’t think I really have any serious concerns about how I pray.  I know that the Hebrew words cover the range from growling to weeping, from shouting to dancing and from pleading to praising.  The real problem is that I don’t know what to pray.  I don’t really know what God is doing in the circumstances of my life, so I don’t really know what to say that will align my heart  with His purposes.  I am stuck with the finite version of the eternal plans of God.  More often than not, I am at a loss for true perspective.

Someone is sick.  What should I pray?  Should I pray for healing?  What if that is not what God is doing with these circumstances?  Someone lost a job.  Do I pray for another, or is God teaching something else?  At every hand I am confronted with confusion.  How can I pray rightly if I do not know the mind of God first?  Do I just toss up words and add the “if it is Your will” catch-all at the end?  Paul seems to say something else.

First, the Greek phrase does not include the word pos (how).  Therefore, any translation that adds this thought doesn’t seem to be correct.  There is also no justification for adding  the “for” in a translation such as “what to pray for.”  Paul literally says, “because what we may pray as we ought, we do not know.”  Leon Morris comments:  “But we cannot hide behind a plea of ignorance and give up on prayer.  Prayer is part of the Christian life. . .  We must pray aright, and since we cannot do that, the Spirit comes to our aid.”  Paul’s comment is not an excuse for incapacity.  It is a description of our finitude.  We don’t know what to pray because in our brokenness in a broken world we cannot know what to pray.  Unless God shows up in our prayers, we are simply guessing.

The Greek verb here is proseuchomai, the standard New Testament word for praying.  It is a general category word, covering all the elements of prayer.  Paul isn’t saying that we lack insight when it comes to intercession or supplication.  He is saying that the human condition leaves us deficient in all aspects of prayer.  If you have ever struggled in conversation with God, you know that Paul speaks the truth.  Prayer is very difficult.  Without the Spirit, there is always an awareness of inadequacy in the experience.

A lot of us recognize this problem, but now what?  Perhaps it helps to recognize that the Hebrew approach to prayer almost always focuses on praise and blessing for God.  In fact, most prayers in the Siddur (the Hebrew prayer book) are filled with blessing and praising God’s name, His works and His faithfulness.  There seems to be a lot less concern about human needs and supplications.  What comes to the forefront is the magnificence and majesty of God.  Maybe these prayers don’t struggle so much with the issue of incapacity because they start by acknowledging the impossibly wide gap.  Furthermore, when the prayers of the Siddur do bring needs before the King of the Universe, the attitude is always focused on the transformation of the supplicant’s heart in order to be content with the sovereign will of the King.  In other words, the prayer is not so much about what we want God to do as it is about becoming pliable and accepting His purposes.  Prayer is real petition, but it focuses on the degree of my contentment.  God’s sovereignty always trumps my desires and I need to absorb that.

Finally, it might be helpful to see that prayer is a duty, not simply a desire.  We are commanded to pray.  That means we must pray in spite of our feelings about the situation.  How easy it is to shed the discipline of prayer when we are discouraged or downtrodden.  But prayer is not emotionally based.  Prayer is the requirement to talk to Him about it.  “Why didn’t you come to me sooner,” is God’s answer to our hesitancy.  We need to make prayer a discipline of life.  Once again, this is demonstrated in the Siddur which begins prayer at the very moment we wake and has prescribed prayers for nearly every activity in the day.  Maybe the rabbis knew how quickly we lose sight of God in the hustle and bustle of life, so they built into the training process the constant reminders of Creator conversation.  Paul concurs with his exhortation, “Pray without ceasing.”

In personal confession, I recognize that I do not know what to pray.  That often leads me to not pray, since I can see no way out of the circumstances I face.  I don’t know what to do, so I don’t know what to ask.  Not knowing what to ask, I ask nothing at all.  But this is a terrible and debilitating mistake and an awful display of arrogance.  Who am I to know?   The solution to the problem is not asking God to assist me with my solutions.  I don’t have a solution.  Therefore, I am left with pouring out my heart-felt struggle without an answer.  That opens the door for the Spirit.  All I have really done is come to the Father with these words on my lips:  “I do not know what to pray, Father, but I know who You are.  Let my heart be molded to Your purposes.  That is enough for me.”

This isn’t the end of the story, but it is a beginning.

Topical Index:  prayer, proseuchomai, Siddur, contentment, Romans 8:26

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 21 Comments

Future Salvation

Saturday, May 18th, 2013 | Author:

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.  Matthew 1:21  ESV

Will save – Is salvation proleptic?  Ah, what a great word!  You might have to look it up, but just in case you don’t have time, “prolepsis” means “the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so.”  For example, the phrase “dead man walking” used to describe an inmate on death row is proleptic.  The inmate isn’t actually dead, but he is considered such because of his anticipated outcome.

So, I will ask again.  Is salvation proleptic?  Are we saved at the moment we accept entrance into a restored fellowship with YHWH, or are we only considered saved because the actual condition is yet to be realized?  Be careful how you answer.  If you say, “Yes, of course we are saved as soon as we enter into a restored relationship with YHWH,” then doesn’t that imply that Abraham, Samuel, David and all the men and women who lived before the birth of Yeshua were saved when they were restored to fellowship by YHWH?  And if this is true, then what makes us think that salvation wasn’t available until the cross?  But if you say, “No, those men and women of the Old Testament weren’t saved yet because Yeshua had not died on the cross,” then how do you explain God’s statements about counting them righteous and restored?

Now I suppose you could offer a bi-directional salvation, that is, those who lived before Yeshua died on the cross were counted as “saved” but really weren’t “completed” until after the death of Yeshua.  Salvation had retroactive properties.  Since we no longer live in anticipation of some godly arrangement to provide us with retroactive salvation, now we are completely saved as soon as we accept Yeshua because he has already died on the cross.  That sounds plausible (I didn’t say correct) until we come across Yeshua’s own statement to the man lowered through the roof.  “Your sins are forgiven,” doesn’t sound like, “In a few months, after I have died and been raised from the dead, your sins will actually be forgiven but for now you can consider them forgiven.”  In fact, to prove his point, Yeshua restores the man to health.  That doesn’t strike me as proleptic healing.

So with this tangle of terms, what do we do with the future, active, indicative, third person, singular verb sosei – “he will save.”  Doesn’t that make it seem that salvation is still in the future?  Doesn’t that indicate that salvation is not yet available because the crucifixion hasn’t yet happened?  We are inclined to think of this Greek verb in Greek terms, that is, according to the Greek linear view of time.  But a few corrections are in order.  First, of course, is that the angel didn’t speak Greek to Joseph (and he didn’t tell Joseph to name his son “Jesus” either).  The angel spoke Hebrew and in Hebrew actions are not past, present or future.  They are complete or incomplete, that is, they are either finished or they are continuing.  Although controversial, Thorlief Boman’s insight helps us see the essential and crucial difference between Greek and Hebrew verbal forms.  Hebrew verbs basically express movement or activity, as opposed to Greek verbs which express states of being.  So the Greek future tense expresses a yet-to-occur state of being (salvation is yet to occur – he will save) while Hebrew expresses the idea as a movement not fully complete (salvation already exists but its fullest sense is on the way to being revealed).  When we read the Greek verb translated into English, we attached to the action the same static states of being associated with Greek thought about linear time.  But when we realize that this sentence is really Hebrew, then the statement is not about something yet to come but rather about the illuminating fullness of salvation anticipated when the action is finally finished.

In Greek, Joseph waits for salvation.  In Hebrew, Joseph already experiences salvation but anticipates its full expression.

OK, so why do we care about all this technical stuff?  We care because if we understand the future tense Greek expressions as Hebraic, we realize that God’s saving grace has been active since the beginning but its full implications were not understood until the final act of the play – the cross and the resurrection.  Guilt and the broken relationship that resulted from our defilement was anticipated and covered in the sacrifice of the Lamb before the foundation of the world, but the consequences of sin – death – was not finally overcome until the cross when we saw at last just how God dealt with the entire broken creation.

Why does this matter?  Because if salvation is not available until after the crucifixion, then Abraham is not really reconciled to YHWH when YHWH says, “I will establish My covenant between Me and you.”  And we really have two different religions!

Topical Index:  save, sozo, salvation, Matthew 1:21

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 38 Comments

The Greek navi

Friday, May 17th, 2013 | Author:

 If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.  1 Corinthians 14:37 NASB

Prophet – Who thinks he is a prophet?  It seems like an odd question, doesn’t it?  Paul doesn’t ask, “Who is recognized as a prophet among you?”  The answer to that question would be easy.  How did the congregation recognize a prophet in the Tanakh?  A prophet comes with the authority of God Himself, with God’s own message, but, as Moses said, his words must be fulfilled exactly as spoken and he must neither add nor take away from anything revealed in Torah.  Oh, yes.  There are a few other characteristics of the ones called navim in the Tanakh.  In general (there are always exceptions, of course), these men did not want the job.  They recognized quite clearly that the path of the prophet was the path of rejection, agony and death.  God called men who squirmed in every way to get out of the assignment.  To be a prophet was not a status symbol or a title of power.  It was a terminal assignment of crushing responsibility.  To be a prophet (as Heschel so eloquently put it) was to bear the broken heart of God in human form, and that meant the eradication of human agendas.

So Paul does not ask, “Who among you is recognized as a prophet?”  People who carry the sorrow of God to the cross are easily identified.  Paul asks, “Who among you thinks he is a prophet?”  This is an ego-centered question.  “Who among you has the audacity to proclaim himself a prophet?”  Notice that Paul adds, “or spiritual.”  The Greek is pneumatikos.  Certainly you recognize the word from pneuma (wind, breath, spirit), but you might not appreciate the Greek connection between prophetes and pneumatikos in the Corinthian congregation.  In order to understand why Paul connects these two terms in this way, you must understand who Paul is writing to.

Corinth was the seat of a confluence of Greek pagan religions.  Temple worship practiced in Corinth included all kinds of idolatrous rituals, fertility cults and false gods.  So when Gentiles came into the Messianic congregation of the synagogue in Corinth, they brought a lot of these prior religious practices with them.  One of these practices was the connection between the mantic and the pneuma.  The mantic has direct contact with the deity and is possessed by the deity, exhibiting non-human speech, bodily contortions, ecstatic union, etc. as the pneuma occupies the mantic.  The prophet interprets this union in order to translate the experience of the mantic into understandable language.  If this sounds similar to Paul’s description of speaking in tongues, you should not be surprised.  This practice was widely accepted among Greek mystical religions.  What does this imply about the prophet?  He (or she) considers himself chosen by the god as a divine messenger, capable of intimate, intuitive knowledge of the divine will revealed through him.  This knowledge is unassailable.  It comes from the god.  The prophet is the god’s mouthpiece.

Notice the enormous difference between this view of the prophet and the Hebrew view of a prophet.  First, the Greek prophet’s words cannot be questioned.  There is no outside, public standard to determine their truthfulness.  The prophet is the only one who hears the god and reveals the god’s will.  Secondly, the Greek prophet is unique, an almost super-human figure selected by the god to be the god’s spokesperson.  Obviously, this sets the prophet high above all other adherents.  Finally, the Greek prophet usually delivers answers to personal inquiries.  The focus of the prophet’s interpretation is toward individuals rather than toward the community at large.  In fact, the Delphi Oracle was the source of personal answers, not declarations for the entire believing community.

Who thinks he is a prophet?  With a bit of Corinthian background, we might identify those who think they are prophets today.  Do they consider themselves above examination?  Do they claim direct and immediate, private understanding of God’s will?  Do they pronounce “a word from the Lord” over individuals and personal concerns?  Do they exhibit a life of exalted status?  Do they exempt themselves from the Torah standard?  These factors point toward a Greek navi, far removed from the one who carries God’s sorrow to the cross.  If you find such a “prophet,” run for your life!  Many perished following the self-proclaimed hubris of Greek mystic religions.  I am not so sure we don’t face the same issues today, dressed up in the disguise of Christian language.

Topical Index:  prophet, navi, mantic, pneuma, 1 Corinthians 14:37

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 22 Comments

Dough-boy

Thursday, May 16th, 2013 | Author:

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened.  For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  1 Corinthians 5:7 ESV

New – What are you?  Not, “Who are you?”  Paul doesn’t answer that question here.  He answers the question, “What are you?”  You are a new lump.  I don’t imagine most of us think of ourselves as a lump.  But Paul’s analogy is placed in the culture of Israel, not ours.  His language depends on his readers knowing about Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  If he were writing to ignorant Gentiles, none of this would make any sense.  It’s Jewish, through and through.

Now we notice that Paul uses the Greek word neos.  He doesn’t use kainos (the word found in Hebrews).  Neos is about “fresh, young, a new state of position.”  It’s about new wine, a new reality and the new man.  But it does not have eschatological implications.  It is new now, in the present, not new later when the Messiah comes.  Whatever we are, we are right now new, fresh and young.  And this is Paul’s point (and the reason he chooses neos rather than kainos).  The sacrifice of the Lamb has already removed the leaven from your life.  You are already new.  His death accomplished what you and I could never do.  It took away the pollution that defiled us in the presence of YHWH.

Great!  What a blessing!  Finished!  Does that mean we have nothing more to do?  Ah, not quite.  Look how Paul begins this verse.  Imperative!  [You] cleanse out the old leaven.  You and I have to remove in practice what has already been removed in theory.  Yeshua’s death gives us legal status as “not guilty.”  We are obligated to make that legal status a practical reality.  We are called to live up to the standard God has already placed upon us.  “Cleanse out” says Paul.  The Greek is ekkatharate.  It’s catharsis – removal in experience – coupled with ek – out.  Get the junk out!  Purge yourself!  Remove everything that defiles.  That’s the symbolic meaning of removing leaven (yeast) from your home before the feast.  Now you and I need to do that on the inside as well as the outside.  It is not possible to simply wait until God shows up with the spring cleaning equipment.  This is a daily task.  Make yourself a place where the purity of the Spirit may reside without concern.

Generally we agree.  We should get rid of the bad stuff.  We are to be purified.  But we are far removed from the culture where these words recalled yearly practice so we might overlook the fact that this implies a knowledge of what is clean and what is unclean.  You see, this action is not simply a good heart-scrubbing.  It is also about my environment.  It includes ritual as well as moral purity.  Everyone in Paul’s reading audience would have known this.  It’s clean on the outside and on the inside.  Christians who have left Torah behind often think that this process is only an interior one.  It is, of course, but it also includes aligning myself with what God calls clean.  That is the process of ritual purity and it cannot be separated from the inner disinfecting.  The Passover Lamb makes it possible.  Now you and I have to make it real.

Topical Index: cleanse, new, neos, purity, Passover, 1 Corinthians 5:7

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 16 Comments

When?

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 | Author:

I will give them one heart and one way of life, to reverence me at all times, for their own good and the good of their children after them.  Jeremiah 32:39  (J. A. Thompson translator)

One way of life – God promises to give those who are chosen to enjoy His new covenant (see Jeremiah 31:31) one heart and one way of life.  But God made this promise nearly 2500 years ago.  When will it happen?  How long do we have to wait for this to come true?  It certainly isn’t the case today, not even within Christendom.  The Church is split into thousands of different ways of life.  No one could claim that even the followers of Jesus have “one heart.”  Rather than unity, the world seems bent on irreconcilable diversity.

We could argue that Jeremiah’s prophecy was intended for the people during his time.  These were people who were about to go into Babylon.  God merely promised that someday they would return to Israel with (symbolically) one heart and one way of life.  But history doesn’t seem to bear this out either.  Factions that developed before and after the Babylonian captivity continued long after it, and some are still around today.  The Pharisaical movement began in Babylon and it is more or less the basis of modern Judaism.  So it looks as if God’s promise didn’t happen when Israel returned.

I suppose that we could say, “Well, this is about the Millennial Kingdom.  It will all take place after Yeshua returns.”  That’s probably the best answer, but that raises a very thorny question.  “One heart” isn’t the problem.  That could just be a description of all those who love God and worship Him.  But “one way of life”?  That’s the issue.  Certainly the people of Jeremiah’s day didn’t question what this meant.  It meant Torah.  There was no other “way of life” for Israel in the 5th century BC.  The fact that they were about to go into captivity was a direct result of the failure to walk according to this one way.  It is simply unimaginable that Jeremiah’s audience could have understood anything else by these words.  And that’s the problem.  In general, Christianity doesn’t read these words as anything close to Torah obedience.  If these words describe the Millennial Kingdom, according to Christian practice most of Torah will not be included in this “one way of life.”  So either Jeremiah’s audience was completely in the dark about the meaning of these words or we have revised the meaning so that it would be unrecognizable to the first audience.  It makes you wonder what “one way of life” really is.

The context makes it clear that this arrangement will be everlasting and will be initiated by God Himself.  Furthermore, it will be for the good of the people.  Thompson notes that this is about “the restoration of the covenant,”[1] but if it is “restoration” then it implies something that was once in place.  That means Jeremiah does not have a new ethics in mind.  His words point us back to the future.  When you think about the behavior of God’s people in the Millennial Kingdom, do you think about a return to the original covenant?  Are you preparing yourself for that eventuality?  Or have you revised the meaning of derek ehad to fit your theology?

Topical Index:  one way of life, derek ehad, Millennial Kingdom, Jeremiah 32:39

 


[1] J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, p. 595.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 11 Comments

Holiness by Extension

Tuesday, May 14th, 2013 | Author:

If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.  Romans 11:16  ESV

Root – Nothing too unusual about this word, rhiza.  Root of a plant.  Foot of a mountain.  Depths of the sea.  By the time rabbinic Judaism developed in the 3rd Century BC, the idea of Israel as the plant of God on earth was well established.  Abraham is the root.  Even righteous Gentiles were already considered “planted” in Abraham.  The New Testament didn’t invent these ideas.  Maybe that’s why Paul uses them with such facility.

Paul notes that God’s choice of the root of Israel is vital to the Messianic fellowship.  In fact, those grafted into the commonwealth by God’s grace could not exist without the root of Israel.  Those grafted in are wild branches, not the root stock.  They find life through the root and the health of the branches depends entirely on the health of the root.  Without God’s covenant promise to Israel and God’s revelation to and through Israel, no righteous Gentile could survive.

With this in mind, it’s very difficult to see how contemporary Christian theology can claim that Israel has been replaced by the Church or that the revelation of God to Israel is no longer needed.  If the root is unhealthy and defective, how can the branches survive?  In fact, Paul warns the Gentiles not to assume priority over the Jews simply because God has shown them grace.  The idea that somehow God’s favor toward the Gentiles has elevated them beyond the covenant with the root seems ridiculous in the analogy of the plant.  We should be cautious about any theology that suggests somehow Israel is no longer God’s chosen.  Of course, there is a difference between the Israel of God’s choice and the nationalism found in Israel, the state, but how God sees that difference isn’t always as clear as we would wish.

Here’s what we know for sure.  God chose Abraham and made a covenant that extends to all of Abraham’s offspring.  Exactly who constitutes a descendant of Abraham is a bit fuzzy, but the covenant promise is not.  It is forever.  It extends to all who accept the obligation of loyal faithfulness to Abraham’s God.  Those who are attached to Abraham by direct line to the promise are just as much a part of God’s Kingdom as those who come through adoption.  And any attempt to dismiss either group is a tragic mistake.

Paul employs the principle of first fruits to make his point.  If the offering of the first is acceptable, all the rest is deemed acceptable.  If Abraham is accounted righteous by God, then his offspring are as well.  That means that you and I, and our Jewish brothers, participate equally in the promise of the first fruits.  We who have been grafted in are deemed holy because some came before us.  Let us not forget them nor the debt we owe.

Topical Index:  first fruits, root, rhiza, Romans 11:16, Israel

 

A Note from Rodney Baker:

Heartfelt thanks from my family and me for those who have been supporting us in prayer over recent weeks. My Mum passed away peacefully this morning 13/05/2013 around 10:30am. She is now resting safe in the arms of her Lord and Saviour and awaiting the resurrection, when we shall see her again.

Honora Engel (Honi) Baker

Failthful servant of YHWH

09/09/1931 – 13/05/2013

[15] Precious in the sight of YHWH is the death of his saints. [16] O YHWH, I am your servant; I am your servant, the son of your maidservant. You have loosed my bonds. [17] I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of YHWH. [Psa 116:15-17 ESV]

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 12 Comments

Worship in Corinth

Monday, May 13th, 2013 | Author:

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.  1 Corinthians 11:10 ESV

Because of the angels – Sometimes when you have half a conversation in a letter from another culture and another time, you can barely figure out what the argument was all about.  You have to piece it together like a jigsaw puzzle.  The problem with this particular jigsaw puzzle is that all the pieces are the same color.

Paul writes about head covering.  The very fact that he even broaches the subject tells us that something was happening in Corinth that raised the question about what men wear on their heads during worship.  Interestingly, this isn’t about written Torah commands.  As Paul says, it’s about traditions.  But traditions are extremely powerful and often guide our behavior despite what the Scriptures actually say.  So Paul provides some advice to this struggling assembly.  First, he sets the proper relationship between the parties.  Gilbert Bilezikian’s work makes it clear that “head” (kephale) in verse 3 is about origin, not authority.  Yeshua as Creator is the source (origin) of Man.  Man is the source (origin) of ishshah (woman – Genesis 2) and YHWH is the origin of Yeshua as Messiah (“This is my beloved Son”).  Once Paul establishes this relationship, he turns to its implications for worship.  According to Paul, if a man covers his head during worship, he disgraces his relationship to his own origin.  This may seem strange to us because we don’t think in terms of the symbolic nature of heads or head coverings.  But Paul does, and in Corinth this was apparently an important issue.  Bilezikian suggests that the imagery is like Adam standing before God in the Garden.  Uncovered.  Naked.  Transparent.  For Paul, covering the head (a symbol of a man’s dependence on his Creator) is like Adam’s fig leaves.  It becomes a sign of hidden agendas.  No, says Paul, stand naked before your Creator, that is, completely transparent.  Don’t put anything between you and Him that represents what happened in the Garden.

Then Paul tackles the question about women in worship.  If a woman uncovers her head, she makes herself like the one “whose head is shaved.”  Paul must have some particular cultural circumstance in mind since there is no Torah instruction about women shaving their heads.  Even the Talmud does not require this.  So the custom must have had something to do with Corinthian culture.  There are two cultural traditions that may have been in place in Corinth.  The first was the practice of shaving a woman’s head if she were caught in adultery.  The second was the practice of shaving the heads of temple prostitutes.  Obviously, either case would cast aspersions of the synagogue assembly in Corinth.  Imagine how difficult it would be for a Gentile convert from either circumstance to come into the Messianic fellowship of Corinth.  Paul simply says, “Cover your head,” and rather than single out those whose past was dishonorable by head covering, he suggests that all the women do the same.  Now no one call tell the difference.  Unity and equality prevail.

Paul provides further rationale about this issue with head covering in verses 7-10.  While most congregations emphasize the first half of verse 7, few recognize the implications of the second half.  The first half tells us that man is the glory of God.  Therefore he should not hide this symbolic relationship with a head covering.  Great!  Men hold this up as if it endorses their importance.  But consider the second half of the verse: “but the woman is the glory of man.”  The analogy goes like this:  God’s glory is man.  Man’s glory is woman.  So, who’s the final statement of full glory?  Woman, of course.  She incorporates all of Man’s glory which incorporates all of God’s glory.  No wonder she is the last of God’s creative acts, the pinnacle of His work.  She is the final, ultimate masterpiece.  In fact, the Greek conjunction, de, could be read “and she is the glory.”  The point is that this is not a comparison of relative worth.  It is a statement about order of creation and representation of God’s handiwork.  God’s glory shines through, step by step until the final design.

But just so we don’t jump to the feminist conclusion, Paul adds verse 8.  What is the proper relationship between these two glory-exhibiting creations?  Woman was created from man.  In keeping with the Genesis 2 account, Paul corrects any tendency to assert that woman is in a higher position because she is the final figure of glory.  No, says Paul, she might be last in the design effort but she is designed for the purpose of the ‘ezer kenegdo, the one who brings blessing to her man.  Hers is not the role of tyrant but rather of servant.  She is God’s glory-summary purposed to serve another (just like the way God acts, wouldn’t you say?).

Now we encounter a translation bias.  The NASB translates verse 9 as “woman for man’s sake,” but the Greek text says nothing like this.  ESV says “woman for man,” but that still isn’t right.  The preposition is dia, usually translated “through.”  Read as “through” it follows perfectly the Genesis 2 account.  Man was not created through woman (although obviously every man since is born through woman) but woman was created through man.

Finally we encounter our strange verse.  In the NASB, it begins with “therefore,” reminding us that what Paul says next is based on his prior argument.  And what is the prior argument about?  The argument is about what happens in public worship.  Because of this prior argument about order and decorum in public worship, “a woman ought to have authority on her head.”  Better read that again.  Did you notice that the gloss, “a symbol of” has been removed from this reading?  That’s right, it isn’t in the Greek text.  The Greek text says that a woman ought to have exousian epi kephales.  The NASB and ESV add the gloss “a symbol of.”   But Paul isn’t thinking about symbols.  Symbols were vehicles used to speak about worship.  In the Corinthian culture, a man is uncovered in order to honor God’s name in worship.  A woman covers in order not to dishonor God’s name in worship.  But when it comes to authority, that rests on a woman’s head.  And that is related to the angels.

What does Paul mean?  When authority rests on someone’s head it means that the person acts on her own.  She makes her own choices under her own power.  Exousia is the power to act free from external restraint.  It is the right of choice.  Angels freely choose to worship YHWH.  They continuously sing His praises, not because they are compelled to do so but because they desire to do so.  So a woman with exousia on her head may choose the same and is allowed to do so through (again, dia) the exemplar of the angels.  Women in worship may choose to celebrate His name, to honor Him and praise Him as they desire.  They are not bound to the restrictions of the Corinthian culture when it comes to public worship.

It takes some serious additions and cultural extractions to interpret this verse as an endorsement of male hierarchy.  It’s time to straighten out the glosses – because of the angels.

Topical Index:  angels, angelos, worship, women, authority, 1 Corinthians 11:10

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 8 Comments
« Previous Entries