Jesus doing Improv?

As I was reviewing Mark for my upcoming thology paper, I came across an interesting passage. Mark 1:40-45. Here it is:
‘A man filled with leprosy came to him [Jesus] and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immeadiately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning. “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the high priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus cold no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.’

Look at the beginning of that part. The leper sought out Jesus and put him on the spot, (don’t forget, at this time, Jesus is human.) As the leper asks Jesus to heal him, Jesus was filled with compassion. It seems that Jesus didn’t plan on healing the man, until compassion moved him. So Jesus compasisionately healed the man. But Jesus tells him to keep quiet about it, and to go to the High Priest. What does the healed man do? Blabs the news to everyone. As a result, people start pouring in to see and get healed by Jesus. So many people came that Jesus couldn’t go in a town because people would recognize him. So he has to stay away from the towns.
Until this time, Jesus has been staying in Capernaum and other towns in Galilee. He was known as a teacher, not a healer. He only healed Peter’s mother-in-law and a few demon possessed people. At this time, what he probably wanted to be known as a teacher. He hasn’t even chosen all of his disciples yet. When word gets ot, though, thats it. People from everywhere came to him. For the next few chapters, crowds follw him nearly everywhere. What do you think Jesus is thinking?
If Jesus hadn’t healed the man, he probably would have stayed low-profile for a little longer. He would have had time to get all of his disciples and then could have started. But that is not what happened. Did Jesus make a mistake by healing the man? It seemed to have messed up his plan. Could this have changed God’s plan?
The answer is no, of course not. God knows what is going to happen. He knew the man would come, and that he would tell everyone. Jesus used the fame to his advantage. He lost the chance to be able to teach in small synagogues, but gained the chance to preach to even bigger multitudes. Even though it changed the situation, sometimes change is for the better. His rush of compassion was probably put in the passage to show that Jesus had human emotions. Even though the man disobeyed Jesus’ direct command, good came from it. So even though it seemed like Jesus didn’t expect it, he knew what would happen. Even if Jesus, as a man, didn’t know what would happen, God the Father did, as well as the Holy Spirit. They wouldn’t allow the plan of human’s salvation to be deterred by this. Jesus was still in communication with the Father, and the Holy Spirit had already decsended on Him. So even if He was unaware because of his human nature, which I doubt, the other members of the Trinity knew and allowed it to happen.
So Jesus really didn’t do improv. He knew that it would happen, or that the Father and Holy Spirit were controlling it and had allowed it to happen. The salvation of mankind could not take a turn for the worst by this event, just as no event could derail salvation. Why? Because God was in control. And he still is, thank goodness. So to conclude this, remember that even Jesus faced decisions as a man that seemed to backfire. God makes all things work out for good for those who believe in him.

[If I have some spelling errors, I apologize. I am writing this on my ipod, and the spell check is not working.]

How are we judged by God?

Let me start this out with a passage that is often overlooked:

Matthew 25:31-46

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Now, hold on a minute. Look what determines salvation here. Its the works of the people! Faith or being a Christian is not mentioned. Period. What? That seems to go against basically the whole book of Romans! How is this explainable?

Go to James 2: 15-17. It reads:

‘Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. ¹⁶ If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? ¹⁷ In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.’

John 14:23b says:  “Anyone who loves me [Jesus] will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

So what do these verses add to the interpretation of the Sheep and Goats? Well, the James passage states that true Christians will do good deeds as part of their Christian life. John reinstates this when he, quoting Jesus, says that anyone who loves Jesus will obey his teaching. Jesus teaches in countless places of taking care of the poor. So people who truly love Jesus will care for the needy.

So, to summarize what I said so far, here is a list.

• Only people who do good works get into heaven (Matthew passage.)
• Believing in Jesus without doing good works is dead faith (James passage.)
• People who love Jesus will obey his commands to help the needy (John passage)

According to that list, though, people who don’t love Jesus can get into heaven. We know that is not true. Let’s look at a different verse. Proverbs 12:10 says this:

“The righteous care for the needs of their animals,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. “

Proverbs uses the word “wicked” to mean “someone who doesn’t love God.” So Proverbs is saying that even kind acts of the wicked are cruel! So they cannot get into heaven by their good works! Lets add that to the list.

• Only people who do good works get into heaven (Matthew passage.)
• Believing in Jesus without doing good works is dead faith (James passage.)
• People who love Jesus will obey his commands to help the needy (John passage.
• Unbeliever’s kindest acts are cruel (Proverbs passage.)

Think of it this way: You join a club or group of some kind.  One thing your club does is  pick up litter. Your club has a shirt to where when you pick up the litter. If a member of your club wears the shirt, but never picks up anything, and ever litters himself, he will most likely get booted out of the club relatively quickly, and probably didn’t have much intention of ever really picking up litter. And say someone who is outside the club gets a hold of one of the shirts and picks up litter. He is still not apart of the club and won’t get member benefits.

I’ll explain my little analogy. The club is Christianity. Picking up litter is doing good works. If a Christian never does good works, instead of being kicked out, never really was a Christian. They were most likely Christians for show, or saw someone like Billy Graham on TV, prayed the prayer, but never followed up on it. When other people do good works, which should be the mark of a Christian, it doesn’t make them a Christian. They won’t get the benefits of being a Christian, like salvation and the Holy Spirit. This isn’t the best analogy, but its the best I could come up with.

Let me close with a word of warning. Are you ready to be judged by Matthew 25? I’m asking myself the same question. Have we done good works toward the poor? We should be known by our works, like Mother Teresa. I am sure she is in heaven right now, because she had the mark of a true Christian. She realized that Christians need to devote their lives to tending to the physical needs of others, not just praying for them. While praying is good, it is not enough on its own. James can give you an earful if you disagree. (If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? James 2:16.) So we need tp make sure we attend to the physical needs of people. Don’t just pray for them. Because God will judge us for it.

The Moral Influence Theory of Atonement

Yesterday, we talked about Atonement theories. We focused on the Moral Influence Theory. Moral Influence, according to Theopedia.com and Wikipedia, is put like this:

The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ’s death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God’s love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. (Theopedia)

The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. It is one of the oldest views of the atonement in Christian theology and a prevalent view for most of Christian history. (Wikipedia)

Even though the idea sounds foreign to us, it was one of the prevalent, along with Satisfaction Theory, in the Early Church’s history. Almost half of church history has known this theory. Has the church been wrong for half of its existence?

Remember, we all look at the Bible through cultural lenses. Since Satisfaction Theory and  Penal Substitution are the prevalent theories in Christian circles of this time, we tend to judge things against them. Bad idea. Always judge things against the Bible. Lets look at Acts 4:12  “There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”

Now, according to Moral Influence theory, Jesus’ sacrifice was to inspire people to be moral, and they have to choose to be moral. The Holy Spirit guides them, but they must choose to save themselves by being a moral person. Strike one.

Moral Influence theory also teaches that morality can save mankind. What does the Bible say? “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Romans 3:28) And “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Gal. 2:21) Strike two.

What else does Moral Influence teach? Well, if we are saved by “being moral,” than not only Christians can reach heaven! We know this to be wrong for a fact. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Going back to Acts 4:12a, “There is salvation in no one else…”  The third strike. But not the last. Moral Influence also underestimates the significance of sin, as we can “get out of it” by “being moral,” and likewise, it underestimates God’s wrath against sin.

The Ramifications of Stealing

This was a hard lecture this week. Not that I have any questions about if stealing is wrong, but who should pay for it? Consider the following illustration: [yes, I stole this from class. No pun intended.]

You get a new computer from your Dad. It is really working out well, and you are getting everything done. But you find out that it was stolen. Not from the store, but from a poor family you know. You know they have been saving up for a long time for this computer. Perhaps their job depended on it. But now your job and/or grades in school depend on the computer. What do you do? Do you give it back, or keep it?

Why should you feel compelled to give it back? Your father stole it, not you. Is it your duty?  Before you make up your mind, let me give you another illustration.

Your ancestors are living in the land they have lived in for countless generations. All of a sudden, new people come from a distant land and set up a new country in your land. They force them out of your land and kill them if you stay. Several generations later, you are living in a reserve. The foreigners have taken everywhere else. Should the descendants of the foreigners give back the land? Oh, and by the way, you are a Native American.

Should we move back to Europe and let the Native Americans live in the land?  Is it practical? [I'll save you the trouble of figuring it out; its not.] Is this what Jesus would want us to do? That’s what we were discussing in class. In the first situation, you probably said yes, you should give it back. What about the second? Practicality aside, is this the right thing to do?

You were given that computer; you did nothing wrong.  It was your father who commited the wrongdoing, not you. Do you feel a responsiblity to your father? To right his wrongs? Or are you a third party, not involved in the conflict?

I am going to be like Mr. Bryant this time and keep my view shrouded in mystery. Because I’m still  not entirely sure on the issue, and it makes you look wise to be mysterious. ; )  I think that Christians ought to try to right past wrongs, even if they didn’t do them, to make witnessing opprutunities. But again, I don’t think that non-believers (not sure about Christians) are obligated to right those wrongs. But I’m not really sure.

Jesus’ Mission’s Purpose

 What did Jesus say the purpose of His ministy was? Is it simply to be used as a bridge to get to heaven? Has anyone ever seen this picture?

It shows man on the one side, separated from God, who is on the other side. A deep, endless valley of sin being bridged by Jesus, so that we can walk over to the other side to join God on the other side, leaving the bridge like it never existed.

Hello? Is something wrong with that picture? Where does that leave Jesus? Left behind, now that His purpose has been accomplish. But is this His purpose? It seems like it should be. Let’s listen to the words of Jesus as He gives people a glimse of who he is and what His mission is:

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free, 
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”’

 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

 So, Jesus’ mission is to:

• Proclaim good news to the poor.
• Proclaim freedom to the prisoners.
• Recover the sight of the blind.
• Free the oppressed
• Proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, (the year of Jubilee, when the slaves were freed.)

Where is save people from hell on that list? Now, granted, he DOES save people. That IS why God sent Him, (John 3:16.) But Jesus doesn’t mention that in His ministry’s debut. Why not?

A (paraphrased) quote from Scott McKnight may shed some light on the answer. “The gospel we preach shapes the communities we create, and the communities we create shape the gospel we preach.” He’s saying that when we preach the gospel, the communities are influenced by it. But then, when they preach the gospel to others, they highlight certain parts of it that they want to emphasize. The Cuban church will probably preach more on how the Lord will help the oppressed than pray for your leaders. In a Wall Street church, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich person to enter the kingdome of heaven” is probably not preached very often, compared to “God blesses those with whom He is pleased.”

Nazareth, a small town in Galilee, has suffered huge taxes. There was the temple tax, which they didn’t mind. That was about 10-15%. They didn’t like the Roman taxes, however. They ended up with 70% of their income going out the door for taxes. Can you see why Jesus would start with this description of Himself? He was trying  to make a first impression. Even though Nazareth wasn’t too receptive, (they tried to push Him off a cliff,) he had accomplished what he wanted: to make that first impression, that He was their libertator. And He is still today our liberator.

How is His approach different from ours? We usually start with something like “Jesus came to earth to save you from you from your sins,” while Jesus started with, “I have come to set you free.” Why do we try to best God’s way with our own? How can we ever get it better?

Next time we witness, let’s try it God’s way, and see what happens.

Hell and Problems with Annhiliationism

Take a short break from Mark. Let’s talk about hell. Remember how Jesus used Ekklesia, a word people were familiar with, to call His church? To describe hell, Jesus again used a word people were familiar with: Gehenna. Gehenna. What is a gehenna? Well, it is a place. A valley next to Jerusalem. Originally, it was the place for child sacrifice to Molech by the Canaanites and eventually the Israelites. During his reign, Josiah destroyed the shrine to Molech, and made it a garbage dump. Sick people, the outcasts of Jerusalem, often were found here, along with dead bodies. The place was perpetually smoldering, and, as expected, smelled horrible. And Jesus used Gehenna to give the disciples a glimpse of hell in Luke 16:19-31, The Rich Man and Lazarus.

Is this what hell looks like? Well, Jesus used it, so it must be very similar. He used it in other passages besides this parable, so it can’t just be something in the parable. Revelation describes a “lake of fire,” which is similar to a burning garbage dump, in my mind. According to Revelation 14:10a describes burning sulfur. and torment. Not a pretty picture. But this is what hell will be like. Fortunately, Christians will not have to experience it.

Look at the next part of verse. Rev. 14:11. “And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast or his image, or for anyone who received the mark of his name.” These people are those who are in hell. What do you notice in that verse? Hell is eternal. Other verses that promote an eternal hell are Matthew 25:41 [Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,'] Matthew 18:8 ["And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire,"] and Luke 2:17, [His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

These verses show that hell is eternal, but a new theology is challenging this. It is not necessarily that new, and some well-known figures such as Rob Bell and Billy Graham embrace(d) this view. It is called Annhilationism, and it is a false doctrine. Annhilationism is this: people who go to hell are punished in hell, but after a punishment equal to their crimes on earth, they will cease to exist, or be annihilated. They argue that a just God could not punish someone for eternity for something done in 70 years.

Scripture is completely against this idea. There are other Scripture besides the ones listed above, such as Revelation 19:3 and Revelation 20:10 Everything in Scripture points to an eternal hell with eternal suffering, not just 70 years. Even though God is love, God is also just, and those in hell will receive a full, eternal dose of God’s concentrated wrath

See my New Blog

Hi readers

I’ve made a new blog, Conservative Political Disscussions. I won’t be posting political stuff up here any more. I’d love for you all to check it out.

Thanks!

The IRS and the Church

Imagine for a moment that I am having a conversation with you.

“Hello, do you want to come with me this morning?”

“Where?” You ask.

“To my IRS meeting.” I respond. “We are recruiting.”

How would you respond? Unless you are desperate for work, you would probably turn me down. Why? Because people have a negative image of the IRS. How does this tie into the church? I’ll show you in a second. Would you want to be known as an IRS agent? Would you be seen socializing with a well-known agent? Going to their meetings with them? (I’m not trying to offend anyone. This is the best example I could come up with.)

Now, how does this tie into the church? Well, first I need to give a little background. When the Romans invaded a town, they either completely destroyed it, like they did to Jerusalem in 70 AD, or they let them live, but taxed them extensively. Now the Roman army can’t stay in that town, because there are other towns to conquer. So some people see  the opportunity and tell the Romans that they’ll tax them for them, and become the governing body for the Romans. The Romans would agree, and would pay them. This governing body of turncoats was called the “ekklesia.”

Now, onto the church. When Jesus named his church, he could have named them anything he wanted. What did he choose? He chose a word they were familiar with. What was it? Take a guess. If you really can’t guess, look at the end of the last paragraph.

Why call them ekklesia? Like my example at the beginning, its like calling themselves IRS agents. Why would Jesus do that? He could have named them something more appealing! Most people would be turned away from the church if the Holy Spirit didn’t work through them. It seems like Jesus just hindered His ministry by this. Did He?

Can Jesus ever hinder His ministry? Of course not! There is a purpose for this of course. See, people who are part of ekklesia will be avoided. This seems bad. Is it? It forces you to choose your side, and have no attachments to hold you back from following Him completely. Those truly loyal to Jesus will go with Him, even when it is unpopular.  Those who are fair-weather-fans; as Jesus said in Matthew 12:30 “He who is not for me is against me.” There is not middle  ground, people. You’re either for Jesus or against Him. Choose for yourself this day whom you will serve. And choose quickly; you’re against Him by default. If you’re for Him, go tell everyone around you, and remove all their doubt about whom you serve.

The Cost of Discipleship

Mark 1 has this sense of urgency about it. Throughout the chapter, there is the word “immeadiately” 9 times. The disciples immeadiately followed Jesus. Immeadiately the demon possessed man challenged Jesus, (I’ll get to this in a second.) Immeadiately. Immeadiately. Immeadiately. They didn’t take their time or dilly-dally around until it felt convenient. James and John left their jobs and family. Peter left his sick mother-in-law (who had a potentially fatal fever) and presumably his wife and perhaps children. They left behind everything dear to them to follow Jesus. What did Jesus ask them to do? “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

What do you think of at the phrase “Fishers of Men.” Someone trying to win souls for Christ, right? Think of fishing. There are fishers, and there are fish. What happens to the fish? Is it enjoyable? Do fish line up to get onto the hook? No, of course not. In the OT there are several times where fishers are associated with bringing the message of judgement. So the disciples are being called to deliver judgement. Appealing? Would you give up your job and leave your family to deliver judgement to people? Do you think you would be popular? Or would be people resent you?

Back to the question of urgency. I think it is reasonable to say that the disciple left everything to follow Jesus. How do we compare? Do we feel a sense of urgency? Are we willing to leave everything behind to go to the ends of the earth to witness? Would you be willing to leave behind everything to go to India to witness the rest of your life? Unfourtunately, I don’t think I would. I like to think I would, but put on the spot, I don’t know how I would fare. The same would be true of many, if not most, Christians, I’m guessing. How can we call ourselves followers of Jesus, if we won’t follow His example? I’m not saying all Christians wouldn’t, by any means. But I would say that the majority of Christians are too attacted to worldly possessions and family to take a step like that. I pray that this will change.

Jewish Education, and the Calling of the Disciples

So, next in our march through Mark is the Calling of the disciples. Here’s the text:

As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. “Come follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.  At once they left their nets and followed him.  When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him. (Mark 1:16-20)

 Does this surprise you? If some guy came up to you while you were doing your job and said “Come follow me,” would you leave your job, your family, and your home to follow this man into the unknown? I didn’t think so. In the New Testament era, though, it was even more radical, but for different reasons.

In order to fully understand why, we ought to take a look at the Jewish education system. All children, boys and girls, went to a sort of elementary school called “Beth Sefer” at age 5. There, they studied nothing but the first five books of the Bible, called the Pentateuch. They learned basic skills at home. They attended Beth Sefer until they reached age 10. At this point, they had memorized large portions of the Pentateuch. At age ten, the girls stopped going to school, and most of the boys, (all but the A students,) went to learn a trade. The remaining students went on to “Beth Midrash,” until they were 17. At 17, the graduates sought out rabbis to follow and learn from. The rabbis would ask the graduates hard theological questions that they would attempt to answer. Most students were rejected. The ones that were accepted were called disciples. On very rare occasions, a rabbi would ask someone to be his disciple.

Now, back to the calling of Jesus’ disciples. What were they doing when they were called. Fishing. Their trade. This means that they failed school. We don’t know if they made it through Beth Midrash or stopped at Beth Sefer. Either way, they weren’t the cream of the crop of scholars. And they were all under 20, except Peter. (Remember the story about the fish with the coin in its mouth for the temple tax? Only Peter and Jesus needed to pay it, and the temple tax applied to everyone over twenty.) Some people think that John was as young as nine or ten, (don’t ask me why, as I am waiting on Mr. Bryant to inform me. Feel free to enlighten me.)

Picture yourself in the disciples’ shoes. They finished school, and just weren’t good enough. They didn’t make the cut. All of a sudden, a rabbi comes up and asks you to be his disciple! It was like, using Mr. Bryant’s analogy, applying to Harvard, but getting rejected. Then the president of Harvard then comes to your house and asks to be your private tudor! Would you say no, I don’t want to leave my job? Or would you leave and follow him?

Why would Jesus pick these people, who had failed school to carry on his mission. Well, probably to show that he didn’t need the “high and mighty” to carry in his mission. Matter of fact, he usually has nothing but critcism for them. Rather, he chose them to show that God uses the ordinary person to accomplish the extraordinary.