Tag-Archive for » death «

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: , , , , , ,  | 38 Comments

Voiding the Death Certificate

Thursday, April 25th, 2013 | Author:

The last enemy that will be abolished is death.  1 Corinthians 15:26  NASB

Will be abolished is – If you read this verses in the NASB, it appears that Paul projects the destruction of death into the future.  At some unspecified time, death will finally be overcome.  It will be abolished.  But the verb, katargeo, in this verse is a present, passive, indicative.  This isn’t an action yet to be accomplished.  According to Paul, it is a present reality.

How is this possible?  Men still die.  In fact, all men still die.  How can Paul say that death is destroyed? The answer lies in the principle of “first fruits.”  Paul begins this discussion of the implications and power of the resurrection by stating two unquestionable facts.  First, Yeshua has been raised from the dead.  If this were not so, our faith would be useless (verse 17).  In fact, we would still be in our sins.  The second undeniable fact is that Yeshua is the “first fruits of those who are asleep” (verse 20).  What does this mean?  The principle of “first fruits” would be well known to those in the Messianic community.  It is the principle from the Tanakh that what is offered to God as the first of the harvest sanctifies all the rest of the harvest.  In other words, God’s acceptance of the first accomplishes the same acceptance for all that remains.  What this means is that Yeshua’s obedience and subsequent resurrection is accepted by God and distributed to all who follow Yeshua.  What He accomplished is passed to all who call Him Lord.  In other words, His resurrection is the guarantee that we who follow Him will also experience resurrection.  Just as death could not hold Him, so it will not hold us.  Death is no longer operative as a present reality because our true position is with the first fruits of Yeshua’s resurrection.

In fact, the verb that Paul chooses (katargeo) means “to condemn to inactivity,” “to make inoperative,”  “ to destroy.”  Yeshua’s resurrection makes death a non-issue.  Death no longer holds sway over us.  It no longer defines our lives.  Of course, until His return death still occurs in this broken world, but it has been stripped of its power – now!  I am not waiting for some future day for death to be made ineffective.  That is true for me right now.  I am not afraid to die.  I am not afraid of death no matter how it manifests itself because death is done.  Like the last grasps of a fish out of water, it is only a matter of time until we all see the end of the story.  But just like that fish out of water, it is already finished!

The ESV and NIV translate this word “to be destroyed.”  Perhaps that is a bit better.  At least it doesn’t explicitly push the event off into the future.  The NKJV does no better than the NASB.  But the tense suggests that this is a present fact.  Death receives its restraining order – “no longer in force.”  Yeshua applies His first fruit principle to the final terror of Mankind and dismisses it as irrelevant.  Some day all we see that this fact is already in place, but Paul knows it now, and so do we.

Topical Index:  death, katargeo, first fruits, 1 Corinthians 15:26

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 18 Comments

Eloheynu melech ha’olam (Our God, King of the Universe)

Sunday, February 10th, 2013 | Author:

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?”  Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king.  For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.  Every one who is of the truth hears My voice.”  John 18:37  NASB

King – Sometimes I think that my own evangelical Christian background blinds me to the obvious.  Actually, it makes me read the text as if it is part of my paradigm; as if it is obviously part of my whole view of the world.  As I read this verse today, I suddenly realized that it is not about what I have always thought.  It suddenly struck me that Yeshua’s conversation with Pilate is about being a king, not about being a savior!  I have often thought that the statement, “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world” was about saving us from sin.  I have read this declaration as if Yeshua’s focus was about atonement, substitutionary sacrifice and forgiveness.  But now I am reading this verse for what it says, not what I wanted it to say.  And what it says is that Yeshua came to be king.  He came to rule!  He came to bear witness to the truth that He is sovereign.  His kingdom does not originate on this earth.  His power and authority come from above.  And everyone who hears the message of His reign hears the truth of YHWH’s purpose from the beginning.

If there were ever an opportunity for Yeshua to set the record straight, Pilate provided that opportunity.  Facing certain death, Yeshua has no reason to disguise His real purpose.  He doesn’t falter.  He speaks it plainly.  His death is the means by which He will permanently establish the Kingdom of God on earth – His kingdom on earth!  “ . . . and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power” (Mark 14:62).  Can there be any doubt?  The certainty of the cross is not the certainty of our forgiveness.  It is the certainty that Yeshua is Lord over death, that His kingdom will never end because this King lives forever.

How could I have missed it? He came to die because His death defeats the one enemy that no earthly king can ever overcome.  How could I not have seen that the cross is about death and life?  Those who follow Him to the cross, citizens of His kingdom, share in the victory won there.  They have been given the power to live forever.

Does this mean that the cross is about forgiveness?  Now I’m not so sure.  Yeshua’s analogy of the serpent in the wilderness points me toward power.  His use of prophetic imagery points me toward authority.  His declaration before Pilate seems to be clear.  His announcement before the Ascension is remarkably straightforward (“All authority has been given to Me”).  In the process of demonstrating His place as the eternal King, forgiveness is also accomplished, but now that I read what the text actually says, I wonder if our preoccupation with forgiveness isn’t just a bit too self-centered.  I wonder if the grand plan of YHWH for the reunion of the Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven isn’t just a bit bigger than my concern with sins.  I wonder.

Topical Index:  king, melech, cross, death, John 18:37

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 24 Comments

The Thin Red Line (1)

Sunday, February 03rd, 2013 | Author:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.  Leviticus 17:11  ESV

Blood – Christian apologists often claim that the blood of Christ shed on the cross is the reason for the forgiveness of sin.  Prior to Leon Morris’ study of the concept of blood atonement,[1] some theologians referred to the idea that “life is in the blood” and therefore the cross represents atonement given through the life of Christ.  But since Morris’ study, this position has been untenable.  Morris has conclusively demonstrated that in both the Old Testament and the New, the term “blood” is most commonly used to describe “death by violence,” and this idea is paramount in its association with sacrifice.  Morris shows that even the Leviticus passage so often used as a proof text (Leviticus 17:11) cannot be understood in the Hebraic worldview as a claim that life exists apart from physical blood.  It is simply not possible to think of the sacrifice as presenting “life” on the altar.  “Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh.”[2]  Morris points out that in Hebraic thought there is no immaterial principle of life apart from the body.  This is why the Hebraic worldview has no concept of an immortal soul but rather looks for the resurrection of the body at the Day of Judgment.[3]

Atonement is not accomplished by offering life but rather by giving up life, and this is the meaning of “blood” in the sacrificial system.  A blood sacrifice is a death sacrifice.  But a blood sacrifice is not the only means of atonement available in the Hebraic worldview.  Atonement may be achieved by anointing with oil (Leviticus 14:18), by offering incense (Numbers 16:46), through the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:10) and other means.  When atonement involves the termination of life, even here it does not always demand a blood sacrifice.  Atonement may be accomplished by “blotting out” a name from the Book of Life (Exodus 32:30-32), by zealous execution (Numbers 25:13), by delivering up enemies for proper punishment (2 Samuel 21:3 ff) and by slaying the red heifer (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).  None of these require a blood (death) sacrifice although every one of them involves death in some sense or another.  Morris concludes, “In each case it is the termination of life, the infliction of death that atones”[4] although the means by which death comes is quite different in each case.  “[T]he evidence afforded by the use of dam [blood] in the Old Testament indicates that it signifies life taken violently rather than the continued presence of life available for some new function.”[5]  Perhaps we must revise Heschel’s evaluation of the difference between Judaism and Christianity.  Heschel pointed out that Judaism is a religion focused on life whereas Christianity is a religion focused on death.  But Morris’ study demonstrates that the idea of death is not too far removed from the Hebraic worldview either.

Morris makes the observation that the use of blood in relation to Christ in the New Testament is predominately a circumlocution for the death of Yeshua.  Morris notes, “[F]or a cross has no place in the sacrificial system, and stands only for a particularly unpleasant death.”[6]  The conclusion:

“Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death.  It is freely admitted that there are some passages in which it is possible to interpret the blood as signifying life, but even these yield a better sense (and one which is consistent with the wider biblical usage), if understood to mean ‘life given up in death’.”[7]

Consider the impact that Morris’ study has on theological claims like the ones by Ridderbos, “the propitiatory sacrifice enters in substitutionally between the holy God and sinful man, because the life given up in the sacrifice through the attendant shedding of blood covers sin before the face of God and in this way atones.”[8]  If the blood refers not to giving up of life but rather to violent death, how are we to understand the idea of substitutionary atonement that is so much a part of Paul’s thinking?

Another question for another day.  Perhaps it is enough just to ask, “Did I think that the blood was about life or about death?”  Does this change your view about what is happening on the cross?

Topical Index:  blood, dam, death, cross, life, Leviticus 17:11, atonement

[1] Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955), see in particular Chapter III, “The Blood.”

[2] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 113.

[3] Cf. Morris, p. 113.

[4] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 115.

[5] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 117.

[6] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 119.

[7] Morris, Apostolic Preaching, p. 122.

[8] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Eerdmans, 1975), p. 188.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 26 Comments

Cross-over

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013 | Author:

knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.  Romans 6:9  NASB

Is master – “Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin.”  This common Christian belief might not be quite accurate.  Even Paul suggests something just a bit different.  We have investigated Yeshua’s claim about the meaning of the cross (see the work on John 3:14 and Numbers 21:9), but we haven’t looked deeply into Paul’s declarations.  We can start with this one.  But before we do, we need to make something clear.  The cross is at the very heart of the gospel.  The cross represents an action of YHWH that changes the world.  It is possible to draw a connection between what happened on the cross and the forgiveness God offers.  But that doesn’t mean that the cross is directly about forgiveness.  Let’s look deeper.

Notice the emphasis of Paul’s remark.  Yeshua’s death and resurrection are directly related to the power of death.  Death no longer “is master.”  The Greek is ouketi kyrieuei.  This is a very strong statement.  First, it employs the combination of ou (ouk) and eti, meaning “it is not ever any longer the case.”  In other words, there will never again be a time when this occurs.  What is it that will never ever occur again?  The rule of death!  The dominion of the grave.  Here Paul uses the word kyrieuei (from kyrieuo – to rule).  You might recognize one of the cognates, kyrios, the title used often in the New Testament for Yeshua as “Ruler” or “Lord.”  Paul’s point is obvious.  The death and resurrection of Yeshua conquers death.  It is determined that every man will die once and Yeshua did die once.  Therefore, He will never die again.  And since He nevertheless lives, He demonstrates that God has power over even death.  In this way we know that forgiveness is complete for death is the result of sin.  Now the Son has guaranteed that death no longer reigns supreme over men.  The final stranglehold on men has been removed.  As a result of this public demonstration, we now are assured that death’s dominion over men is finished.  If it could not hold Yeshua, it also cannot hold all those who have been sanctified in Yeshua.

What is the meaning of the cross?  The cross is the first century cultural symbol of the power of death.  No other symbol carried such a clear and unmistakable message.  The cross was death itself and the hideous rule it had over men.  Today we might substitute another symbol.  Perhaps an atomic mushroom cloud or a gas chamber or the killing fields.  In the first century in Israel, the cross represented this terrible power in the hands of a pagan empire.  And YHWH used this vehicle to bring about a sign of eternal, never to die again, life.  What is the meaning of the cross?  It is the sign that death is done!  Fear is finished.  The long wait before the dawn is over.

Hallelujah!

Topical Index:  death, rule, kyrieuo, Romans 6:9, John 3:14, Number 21:9

 

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

A Bigger Picture

Monday, January 28th, 2013 | Author:

For God so loved the world that He gave . . .  John 3:16  NASB

World – Nearly sixty years of theological reflection on the meaning of the events in the life of Yeshua had passed by the time John wrote his gospel account.  Perhaps that’s why John begins his account with a deliberate allusion to Genesis.  John’s perspective is not simply Jewish nor Gentile.  John is interested in the cosmic implications of the good news.  So John’s vocabulary pushes us toward a much larger scale, a view of the impact of the incarnation on the entire creation.  In the commentary on the conversation with Nicodemus,[1] John focuses the reader’s attention on God’s love for the kosmos.  The real reason for the gift of the Son is the reconciliation of all creation.  Paul echoes the same cosmic orientation when he says that the whole creation “has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”[2]  What is at stake is not simply the means of forgiveness for men.  What is at stake is the reconciliation of the entire creation.  What happens on the cross is far more significant than an altar sacrifice required for forgiveness.  What happens on the cross is the final victory over an enemy that has held the kosmos captive since Genesis 3.  The author of the book of Hebrews puts it like this:

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.[3]

Death is the enemy.  It is the single ubiquitous sign of the existence of disobedience and disorder.  The fact that all men die sets in stone the truth that all men are sinners.  “So death came upon all men” is the universal condition of the cosmos for death is not limited to disobedient human beings. The effects of disobedience reach to the very earth itself.  Death is the epitome of Satan’s power.  If the cosmos is to be reconciled, if the perfect creation is to be restored, then death must be defeated.  This is more than a matter of forgiveness for simply forgiving men does not necessarily entail that death is no longer a consequence of living.  I could live blamelessly after forgiveness and still die as a result of my prior disobedience.  In fact, death is still the universal experience of forgiven human beings.  What must occur in order for the groaning of the creation to cease is the removal of death, the victory over the quintessential mark of a broken creation, the utter defeat of the last bastion of Satan’s dominion.  And this victory, the final victory, is accomplished on the cross.  “That through death he might destroy” points to the cross not simply as the place of human redemption but as the place of cosmic restoration.  Yeshua dies in order that death might be rendered powerless.  The death on the cross reverses the entry of death into creation.

This is the context of John’s analysis in John 3:16.  Moses uses the very image of what causes death among the people.  It is true that the serpents come as a result of disobedience, but the immediate issue for the people is death, not the serpents per se.  Why does God tell Moses to form a symbol of the serpent?  Doesn’t that seem rather strange.  Why doesn’t God use the symbol of a lamb (recalling the Passover) or a symbol of the tablets of stone (recalling the covenant).  Why a snake?  Perhaps the answer is found in the imagery of the serpent from the Egyptian culture.  Certainly one of the marks of the divinity of Pharaoh was the headdress that included the serpent.  Pharaoh held life and death in his hand.  His serpent symbol was a sign of this power.  Now God uses this same symbol to demonstrate that He alone has the power of life and death.  Just as the plagues are battles between YHWH and the gods of Egypt, here once more we see God doing battle with an Egyptian symbol of divinity.  Could the children of Israel, only a few days removed from the presence of the great serpent of Pharaoh, fail to miss the connection?  The very thing that is causing them to die becomes the vehicle that God uses to bring life.  The power of death symbolized in the serpent of Pharaoh is destroyed.  God takes the pagan symbol and turns it into a sign of His sovereignty.  Is this symbolism of Pharaoh’s power essentially any different than the Roman symbol of the cross?  Doesn’t the cross symbolize the power of life and death in the hands of Rome?

YHWH takes that very symbol of the power of an alien government opposed to the purposes of God and uses it to bring about the restoration of God’s power and Kingdom.  When Yeshua submits Himself to death at the hands of a pagan authority, He overcomes the paradigm symbol of that authority by converting it into a sign of God’s vindication, of God’s absolute sovereignty over death and life.  What men thought they controlled becomes the vehicle that God uses to vindicate His control.  Yeshua is no less rabbinic than Paul or John.  He simply draws an analogy between two events in order to make a point about the power of life and death.  He tells Nicodemus that when Nicodemus sees the Son of Man lifted up by an alien power he is not to see the sovereignty of a pagan government but rather the sovereignty of YHWH over all creation.  Nicodemus will witness the execution of death and the destruction of Satan’s last element of control.

And John’s commentary reiterates this connection.  According to John’s theological reflection, Yeshua comes to restore the entire creation.  “For God so loved the kosmos” does not speak of the unique need of human beings.  That is subsumed under the umbrella of the fall of creation itself.  Death is the sure sign of creation’s calamity, and death must be overcome before true restoration can be accomplished.  Even though John’s commentary includes a statement about whoever believes in Yeshua, the focus of the verse is on life, eternal life, life that will not end because death has been defeated.  There is no mention here of forgiveness or mercy or pardon.  The focus is much bigger.  Life itself, life as God intended, is to be restored.

Topical Index:  John 3:16, world, cosmos, cross, death, John 3:14, lifted up

[1] In spite of the typical indication in English Bibles that Yeshua spoke the words of John 3:16, scholars find it quite unlikely that these are the words of the Messiah.  The context suggests that there are John’s commentary on the implications of the prior conversation between Nicodemus and Yeshua.  Of course, this doesn’t make the words any less true.

[2] Romans 8:22  ESV

[3] Hebrews 2:14-15  ESV

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 10 Comments

Midrash and Remez

Sunday, January 27th, 2013 | Author:

He built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD has said, “In Jerusalem I will put My name.”  2 Kings 21:4  NASB

Put – In the conversation with Nicodemus, Yeshua says that He must be “lifted up” just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.  This appears to be a midrash – the application of a story from a different context in order to explain or amplify the meaning in another context.  In order to understand what is happening on the cross, we are told to look at the event of the serpent on the pole. The Hebrew verb for “lift up” is rum.  We know that this verb is found in other wilderness stories (e.g., Exodus 17:11) but it isn’t found in Number 21:9, the story of the snake on the stick.  That doesn’t prevent Yeshua for using the verb to describe what Moses did – and in so doing provide us with a hint at the meaning of rum in the context of Moses’ action.  But there is another clue that must be considered.  The verb found in “and set it on a pole” is sym.  That verb tells us something else about the relationship between Moses’ action and Yeshua’s crucifixion.

In this passage in 2 Kings, we see that the verb sym is used to describe the placement of the divine name.  It is also used in 2 Samuel 17:25 and 1 Chronicles 11:25 to describe putting someone in a position of authority.  In Genesis 21:18 we find the verb used to establish a new relationship.  Finally (although there are other uses as well), we see the verb in Exodus 9:5 as a description of God’s appointed times.  TWOT notes that this verb is often connected with YHWH.  He “sets” the boundaries of creation.  He “makes” the descendents of Abraham as the dust of the earth.  He “makes” the seed of David endure.  He “appoints” the Torah as the law of Israel.  He “brings about” miracles and afflictions.  And He will “make” Israel His instrument of righteousness (Isaiah 41:15).  It seems quite unlikely that Yeshua would not have known the connections with sym from His hint toward Numbers 21:9.

We are suggesting that there is a midrash and a remez in Yeshua’s claim.  The midrash ties rum (lifted up) to the event in the wilderness and points us toward exultation.  The remez ties sym to the cross and points us toward God’s sovereignty.  Both of these connections demonstrate the authority, power and divinity implicit in the two terms.  Neither one points toward forgiveness.

If we follow the clues provided in the text, we do not arrive at the conclusion that the cross is the place of forgiveness of sin.  Of course, we still have to deal with the way Paul understands the cross, but it seems clear from Yeshua’s comment to Nicodemus that the cross is a sign of power, authority and appointment.  That begs the question, “Power and authority over what?”  And this leads us to the startling conclusion that the cross is God’s sign of power and authority over death.  We might put it like this:  sin was forgiven when the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.  The sin sacrifice occurred in the heavenly Temple at the heavenly altar by a priest of the order of Melchizedek.  Forgiveness was accomplished for Abraham and Paul in exactly the same way.  But the broken world still experienced the result of sin – death – in spite of the forgiveness and grace of God.  Death also had to be defeated.  The world had to know that death had been overthrown.  And the cross, the instrument of death, became the vehicle for the demonstration that death no longer reigned supreme in the world.  The guilt of sin was removed long before, but the world waited for the sign of the end of the curse that comes with disobedience.  That sign is the cross.  Death is the sine qua non of sin.  All die because all have sinned.  All are victums of death.  But not after the cross.  After the cross, sin no longer holds all captive.  Death could not hold Him and neither will it hold all who follow Him.  The ultimate and final threat of the power of sin has been destroyed.

And that’s why Yeshua points to the snake.

Topical Index: cross, death, sym, set, Number 21:9, 2 Kings 21:4, rum, Exodus 17:11, John 3:14

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , , , ,  | 29 Comments

The Purpose of Suicide

Monday, December 24th, 2012 | Author:

For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.  John 18:37  NASB

This – An ordinary pronoun with an extraordinary meaning.  Touto is the Greek pronoun for this.  There is nothing spectacular about it.  Except here.  Here Yeshua says that His entire reason for being is this – to give testimony to the truth.  This evening most of Christendom will celebrate the birth of the Christ.  The real date is not likely to have been in December, but tradition rules on this particular evening.  Nevertheless, we should never forget that He was born to die.  His purpose for living was dying.  The celebration is not a celebration of the glory of a new life.  It is the celebration of the beginning of the death of the Son, of sin and of death itself.

Most of us have no idea why we are born.  We spend our lives in search of purpose.  And life does not give up its answers easily.  We often discover that what we thought was our purpose in life is suddenly replaced by something else.  We are unfocused creatures.

But not Yeshua.  He knew absolutely what His life was all about.  And nothing deterred Him for completing His purpose.  He came to die.  The next time you read the story of the last week of His life, take notice about who is in charge of the events.  Too often we think that the forces of evil pushed these circumstances onto the pages of history.  But that is not so.  Yeshua Himself was the active agent.  He chose the timing.  He chose the situation.  He initiated, pushed and propelled the actions that led to the cross.  He knew why He was born.

I wrote an article called, Dying Now.  That article confronts us with this fact:  no one of us can choose when we are born, but every one of us can choose when we will die.  We can choose to die now by identifying ourselves with the death of Christ and giving up our old lives, or we can try to postpone death by avoiding the demands of God.  That means we will die later at a time of His choosing.

Only the Christ could choose when to be born.  But we are like Him in this: we can choose when to die.  We can take part in the purpose of life by choosing to echo His words, “For this I have been born.”  We can die to ourselves in order to be born from above in Him.  Every believer must commit suicide; must choose to die and be buried with Him, if the believer is to be born to another purpose.

Topical Index:  this, touto, purpose, death, suicide, John 18:37

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 5 Comments

Life After Death

Saturday, November 24th, 2012 | Author:

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?  Romans 6:3  NASB

Baptized – For a moment, put away your familiar associations with the joy of baptism.  Set aside the usual celebration when someone expresses faith through this immersion.  Then ask yourself, “Isn’t it odd that Paul uses the expression ‘baptized into death’?”  That’s not how we think of baptism.  Why does Paul place so much emphasis on connecting death with this liturgical rite of new life?

Perhaps you’ve never thought about this question.  Perhaps this odd relationship just slipped by you because you thought you knew what baptism was all about.  But now is the time to re-examine your understanding.  Certainly Paul expected his readers to understand this connection.  Look at his question.  It demands the answer, “Of course we know.”  But what is it that they know?

The first question we must answer is how followers of Yeshua understood baptism in the first century.  Of course, baptism was a standard practice in Judaism, demonstrating a renewal of life or some significant personal transition in one’s spiritual journey as well as ritual cleanings.  Baptism was common and could be frequent.  But baptism wasn’t merely a Jewish practice.  Cultures from Egyptian to Greek practiced baptism (water ablutions) as acts of purification.  So both Jewish and Gentile readers of Paul’s letter would have been culturally familiar with the practice.

Obviously then, it is not the practice of baptism that makes Paul’s statement unusual.  Leon Morris points out that “if his readers do not understand what it means to die to sin, they do not understand what baptism means.”[1]  In other words, Paul takes a difficult concept (dying to sin) and explains it with a familiar concept (baptism).  But Paul shows his readers that this familiar concept now stands on its head.  Rather than a demonstration of new life, it is now a demonstration of death.  The scandal in Paul’s words is not the event of baptism but rather the association of baptism with death!  Morris points out that the Greek term (which we transliterate “baptism”) is also a verb about violent acts like drowning.  Yeshua uses the same connection in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50.  In other words, the baptism that Paul wants his readers to consider is the immersion that leads to drowning, to death, to termination of an old way of living, something they would never have imagined prior to Paul’s argument.  People who have died are no longer under the influences and behaviors of their past lives.

“The act of baptism was an act of incorporation into Christ.”[2]  This means that a life still governed by antinomianism (lawlessness), as life would have been prior to incorporation into the body of the followers of the Messiah, is now impossible.  One who has died cannot continue to live as though nothing has happened.  As Morris observes, “Being united in living out the life is not an option but a necessary part of being saved in Christ.”[3]  Baptized into His death is nothing less than abandoning all past pagan behavior as if it belonged to a dead man.  It is burying that old code of conduct in the grave.  And since Paul calls this old code of conduct “sin,” a word that means violation of acceptable custom and norm within the adopted community, this can only mean that baptism into His death is nothing less than adopting the new code of conduct appropriate for those who have been raised to new life.  In other words, the baptism of death means the adoption of the norm of Messianic Judaism, the only norm that Paul acknowledges as governing the life of followers of the Way.  Baptism is my act of submission to the Torah of YHWH, the way of living made possible because my guilt has been removed.

Ah, this leaves us with one very big question.  Who was Paul writing to?  Who did he think knew enough about all this to unquestionably understand his subtle argument?  Was he writing to newly converted Gentiles or was he writing to culturally-familiar Jews?  Who would have responded to this upside-down view of baptism and recognized it as a demonstration of life within the body-norm?

What do you think?

Topical Index: baptism, sin, death, Romans 6:3


[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 246.

[2] Ibid., p. 247.

[3] Ibid.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 18 Comments

Contagion

Thursday, November 01st, 2012 | Author:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -   Romans 5:12  NASB

Death – Why do we die?  Before you quickly respond, “Because we are sinners,” let’s examine the cultural thinking during the time when Paul wrote these words.  Since Paul intends to speak to an audience that already had a particular view about death, we must understand what his audience thought before we can assert our own interpretation.

Paul’s letter to the Roman believers addresses both a Hebrew and a Greek audience.  Mark Nanos has demonstrated that Paul is most likely specifically targeting the thinking of Gentile believers within the Hebrew Roman synagogue.  If this is true, then we must first know what the Greeks thought about death before we can understand what Paul teaches.  Discovering the Greek background is not difficult but it is complicated.  For Homer and the ancient Mycenaeans, death is the inevitable natural process that marks a transition from life into some mystifying shadowy world.  In spite of the Orphic and Pythagorean assertions that death is the release of the soul from the prison of the body, early Greek thinking saw death as the single most important question about the purpose of life and the greatest opportunity to demonstrate excellence in the face of irrationality.  In other words, the kind of death I choose can leave a legacy of immortality in the remembrance of men.  Death defines life.  This ancient idea is present in the mythology of the gods and the stories of Greek heroes like Achilles and Hector.  It isn’t until Plato that death itself is recast as an ethical dilemma.  Plato’s adaptation of the Pythagorean dualism essentially claims that dying is the problem, not death.  Death is a perfectly natural process, but dying becomes an ethical choice.  Dying is the final test of my willingness to obey God, but since it only affects the body, even dying does not extinguish my true self, the psyche, the soul.  Dying is liberation from this life into a higher, purer world.  How I die becomes the crucial concern for I can die ignominiously or with glory.  The choice is mine.  The opportunity is not mine.

One of the consequences of the Greek view of life and death is this: no man can die for another.  Dying is a uniquely individual event and the excellence associated with dying is also completely individual.  The idea of a substitution in dying that provides credit or honor for another is completely foreign to Greek thinking.

A secondary consequence is that dying is not particularly significant other than its presentation of the opportunity to exhibit arête (excellence).  Since dying is nothing more than escape from this mortal prison of the flesh, it is not to be feared.  The only real issue is, once again, how I die, not why I die.

Paul’s Gentile audience would have been quite familiar with these thoughts about death and dying.  Now notice how radically opposed Paul’s words are to these Greek ideas.  First, death is not a natural process.  It is a catastrophe.  It is punishment for disobedience.  Second, the source of this catastrophe is not of this world.  Sin existed before Adam opened the door and let it in.  How or why it existed before its involvement with human beings is not Paul’s focus, but that it is in some respect an alien force imposing itself on the human condition seems to be Paul’s teaching.  Rabbinic teaching provides two opposing views; that death is the result of the Fall of Man and that death is the result of the individual sins of each man.  Perhaps most importantly, the theological doctrine of the Fall plays almost no role in rabbinic thinking.  The disaster of Adam’s choice certainly is recognized for its subsequent grievous results, but the Fall as a theological explanation for the origin of evil and the propagation of sin and death does not find expression until Augustine, more than 200 years after Paul.

Notice that Paul associates death directly with sin.  What would this mean to a Gentile audience?  First, it means that glory is not to be found in dying.  One does not achieve immortality by giving his life in the service of Sparta or any other cause.  Dying is tragic, not heroic (we might reflect on this for our contemporary views of heroism).  Unlike the Greek idea, how I die does not provide redemptive qualities for life.  Death is always terrible, even peaceful and expected death.

Secondly, Paul clearly sets the stage for substitutionary death, an idea that is totally foreign to the Greek mind.  How is it possible for one man to actually take the place of another in dying, let alone for one man to take the place of all men?  Unless we realize that this question begs a Greek answer, we will never recognize that the question itself is illegitimate in Hebrew.  It is not one man who dies for another.  It is God who sacrifices Himself for Mankind.  How that is possible is not at issue here.  That it happened is a statement of trust – and paradox.

Finally, Paul asserts that death spread to all men.  But does he mean that as all men sinned they experienced the consequence of separation from God and the result of death, or does he mean that all men die because Adam opened the door to an alien force?    Does death spread because sin spreads, like any other infectious disease?  Or does the final outcome (death) hold sway over all men as a result of Adam’s choice?  How you answer these questions has enormous implications for your idea of justice, culpability and choice.  Do you find it rather curious that Paul doesn’t answer these questions at all?  Perhaps Paul assumes that his readers will already know where he is going.  Perhaps Paul isn’t Augustine after all.  Perhaps the doctrinal implications of the Fall which we take almost for granted were not a part of Paul’s Hebraic thinking.

Topical Index:  death, dying, thanatos, Fall, sin, Romans 5:12

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 20 Comments
« Previous Entries