My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on Women as Pastors:
Q: Why is it that some churches have women as pastors and others do not? What reasons do they give for their position?
The ordination of women to the office of pastor is a topic that has been the center of a great deal of controversy in many denominations for several decades now. The Bible certainly honors the important roles which women have played in Church during its time and throughout History. In the earliest years of the Church, the Bible frequently mentioned women who were church leaders either as deaconesses or as the hosts and financial sponsors of the congregations which worshipped in their homes, but without reference to them as an elder, bishop, or pastor.
During the Middle Ages, the church became heavily dominated by male leadership and the only role which remained for women was as a nun. Even after the Reformation, women’s role in the churches advanced little, if at all, because the society of the time gave a very low place to women. From the time of the Enlightenment forward, women’s role in the Church began to grow along with their position in society, until the idea of women as pastors was first proposed around 150 years ago, and began to become commonplace among mainline denominations around 50 years ago. However, it is an unfortunate fact of history that the many beneficial contributions of women to church life were often suppressed in the church. Even in the present day, I have visited congregations which do not allow women to serve the church in any position other than teaching young children.
However, this is not to say that the reasons of churches which do not ordain women as pastors are merely cultural. For example, in the years when the Apostle Paul was writing the New Testament Epistles, which contain the several Biblical commands that pastors be men, the presence of female clergy in the various non-Christian religions of that region was extremely common, meaning that Paul’s instructions were actually in opposition to the culture of his time rather than influenced by it.
Today’s churches which permit only male pastors cite several verses from the New Testament as the basis of their position. These include the end of 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2-3, and Titus 1. When referring to pastoral qualifications in two of these passages, Paul specifically uses the Greek word “andra” which can only refer to a male, rather than choosing the Greek word “anthropos” which could be translated either as “man” or as “person.”
In another, it says that women may not “speak in the church.” In the original language of the Bible, there are three possible words to refer to speaking. One refers to all speaking, and another refers specifically to the act of preaching. The third, which is the one Paul uses, refers to public speaking, such as what is done while preaching, leading worship, and administering Sacraments. Additionally, “in the Church” an important phrase, because it refers specifically to the worship gathering, and does not include the organizational leadership of the congregation, or even the teaching of theology as an academic subject. Another verse prohibits women from occupying church leadership positions which place them in spiritual authority over men.
With the exception of churches within the Pentecostal/Charismatic segment of Christianity, whether a church has female clergy largely depends on how they view the Bible, specifically the verses mentioned above. Denominations which ordain only men as pastors typically view the Bible as being completely and literally given by God through the pen of human authors, and therefore correct in all it says. Denominations which do ordain women as pastors typically view the Bible as having been writing by humans, about God, possibly under divine guidance, but with the result that the Bible contains God’s Word rather than being God’s Word.
As a result, denominations with this view of Scripture have a practice, in this and other areas, which more closely reflects the values of their culture, because their method of interpretation allows the option to conclude that certain portions of the Bible are the opinion of their author rather than the command of God. Others may reason that it was God’s command then, but that His position has since changed. Still others may even propose that the specific books of the Bible which contain these verses may have been forged or corrupted over time rather than being authentic.
Ultimately, the question of “may women be pastors?” is inseparably tied with the question, “Did God really say…?”
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Unforgivable Sin
My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Unforgivable Sin:
Q: What is the “sin against the
Holy Spirit,” found in Matthew 12:31-32, that God will not forgive?
In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says, ”Therefore
I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy
against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but
whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age
or in the age to come.” (ESV)
These words of Jesus have been the
source of a great deal of speculation on the part of Bible teachers as well as
a source of fear and guilt for many Christians over the years since they were
spoken. Many people fear that they may
have committed this “unforgivable sin,” and therefore are eternally lost. Other people live their lives in fear of
committing this sin, and Bible teachers throughout the ages have either tried
to explain it away or magnify its importance.
However, a closer look at these words of Jesus, as well as the context
in which they were spoken reveals the true nature of Jesus’ warning.
In the Bible, the words “blaspheme”
and “blasphemy” are a reference to the act of speaking evil about God. This occurs elsewhere in Scripture when
people portray God falsely, either by their words or their actions. In the context of these verses, Jesus is
responding to an accusation from the Pharisees that when He casts out demons,
He is not casting them out by the power of the Holy Spirit, but instead by satanic
power.
It does seem unusual that Jesus does
not address their accusations against Him, but instead responds by criticizing
their treatment of the Holy Spirit. In
the Scriptures, though, the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit always go
together. When Jesus was Baptized by
John, the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and remained
there (Matthew 3). All of the work that
Jesus did in the Gospels was done along with the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Jesus instructs His disciples (John
14-16) that after He ascends into heaven, the Holy Spirit’s work will focus on
reminding people of Jesus’ words and actions during His earthly life.
Since the work of Jesus and the Holy
Spirit are so closely tied together, to blaspheme one is to blaspheme the
other. Especially in this case, when
they accuse Jesus of working miracles by powers that are spiritually evil, to
speak evil about Jesus is also a direct accusation against the Holy Spirit who
works with Him.
While in Matthew, we see the chain of
events during which Jesus said these words, Luke includes these words in a list
of other sayings of Jesus rather than within the story during which they were
originally spoken. The preceding sayings
in Luke 12 deal with unbelief and rejecting Jesus, giving us a clue that this
saying is likely to be dealing with the same theme.
The rest of the Bible continually
speaks of the fact that every sin can be forgiven by those who trust in
Jesus. In fact, the only sin that the
remainder of the New Testament ever mentions as the cause of a person being
condemned to eternal punishment is that of rejecting Jesus death as the payment
for sin.
When we take all of this evidence
into account, it appears that the sin against the Holy Spirit that is
unforgivable is that of being confronted with the truth about Jesus and rejecting
Him in spite of the evidence. This
unforgivable sin is not simple unbelief by one who is uninformed or unfamiliar
with the truth about Jesus. Instead, it
is the willful rejection of Jesus when one has been confronted with the truth
of who He is and what He claims about Himself.
In commenting on these verses, Martin
Luther summarizes their meaning by saying, “This is the great and unforgivable
sin, when someone resists God’s Word and work.
Other sins are easily recognized and have a form, but this one, with
which one dashes against God, is not recognized and is therefore
unforgivable.” “There is no grater sin
than not to believe this article of ‘the forgiveness of sins’ which we pray
daily in the Creed. And this sin is
called the sin against the Holy Spirit.
It strengthens all other sins and makes them forever unforgivable.”
The consistent testimony of the Bible
is that for those who trust in Jesus all sins are forgiven, but for those who
reject Him, no sin is forgiven.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Forgiveness
My Article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Forgiveness:
Q: How can we forgive someone who
has wronged us if that person is not around, has left us, or has died? Also, what if even after we have forgiven, we
still remember or have bad feelings about what happened?
Even though forgiveness is a central
concept to Christianity, it is often one of the most misunderstood aspects of
Christian teaching. Many Christians feel guilt because they feel they
have not forgiven as they should, but this guilt is typically not necessary.
The concept of forgiveness actually originates in the financial world. Forgiveness occurs when a debt is cancelled by the lender, with the result that the borrower is no longer required to repay the debt. The primary usage of forgiveness in the Bible is as a description of what God does for us. Because of our sin, it is as if we owe Him a debt that we are unable to repay. Because Jesus paid the debt for all sin by His crucifixion, God forgives that debt to all who trust in Jesus.
Accordingly, when a person sins against us, it is as if they are indebted to us. When we forgive, we are forfeiting our right to claim payment for that debt. By forgiving, we release our claim to repayment or revenge against the person who wronged us, and leave the matter to be dealt with between them and God.
Our society often combines the acts of forgiving a sin and forgetting it. However, to the best of my knowledge, Scripture never commands Christians to forget their neighbors’ sins--only to forgive them. Our minds simply aren't capable of forgetting something at will, especially in cases where that event has been traumatic or highly stressful. Additionally, there are many instances where forgetting a particular sin could be quite dangerous, because it would leave a person at risk for loss or injury. (for example, an abusive spouse or a dishonest employee).
Additionally, our society also tends to combine the concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation, while this is not always the case in Scripture. When we forgive, we give up our right to repay a sin or take revenge for it, but it does not always mean that the relationship becomes completely reconciled to its former state. For example, it may be necessary for a wife not to reconcile with an abusive husband for the sake of her children, even though she forgives his sin against her. Or it may be completely appropriate for an employer to terminate a dishonest worker, even though he forgives the sin of theft.
Likewise, forgiveness does not mean that one gives up legal recourse against the person. For the safety of our neighbors and society, someone such as a victim of assault should not hesitate to testify against her attacker in court, even after she has forgiven his sin.
In light of these things, it is not necessary that a person be present in order to forgive them. If you have abandoned the desire to repay that sin or to seek revenge and have left it to be judged against that person by God, you have done what is necessary to forgive them. It is certainly good when forgiveness can be expressed verbally to the other party, but when that is not possible, forgiveness can occur anyway.
The same idea would apply for forgiving a person who has died. Even if we failed to forgive them during their physical life, their eternal condition is determined by their trust in Jesus (or lack thereof), and not by whether those they wronged in their life have forgiven them.
Our own spiritual condition is similarly determined, not by our own actions (even the action of forgiving others), but based on whether or not we trust Jesus to forgive our sins. Our forgiveness of others is not the cause of God's forgiving us. Instead, Christians forgive others as a result of having first received forgiveness from God. Even if our forgiveness is imperfect, we rely on His actions, and not our own as the bases for our salvation, and we daily seek to live our lives in light of that forgiveness, which includes our desire and effort to forgive those who have sinned against us.
The concept of forgiveness actually originates in the financial world. Forgiveness occurs when a debt is cancelled by the lender, with the result that the borrower is no longer required to repay the debt. The primary usage of forgiveness in the Bible is as a description of what God does for us. Because of our sin, it is as if we owe Him a debt that we are unable to repay. Because Jesus paid the debt for all sin by His crucifixion, God forgives that debt to all who trust in Jesus.
Accordingly, when a person sins against us, it is as if they are indebted to us. When we forgive, we are forfeiting our right to claim payment for that debt. By forgiving, we release our claim to repayment or revenge against the person who wronged us, and leave the matter to be dealt with between them and God.
Our society often combines the acts of forgiving a sin and forgetting it. However, to the best of my knowledge, Scripture never commands Christians to forget their neighbors’ sins--only to forgive them. Our minds simply aren't capable of forgetting something at will, especially in cases where that event has been traumatic or highly stressful. Additionally, there are many instances where forgetting a particular sin could be quite dangerous, because it would leave a person at risk for loss or injury. (for example, an abusive spouse or a dishonest employee).
Additionally, our society also tends to combine the concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation, while this is not always the case in Scripture. When we forgive, we give up our right to repay a sin or take revenge for it, but it does not always mean that the relationship becomes completely reconciled to its former state. For example, it may be necessary for a wife not to reconcile with an abusive husband for the sake of her children, even though she forgives his sin against her. Or it may be completely appropriate for an employer to terminate a dishonest worker, even though he forgives the sin of theft.
Likewise, forgiveness does not mean that one gives up legal recourse against the person. For the safety of our neighbors and society, someone such as a victim of assault should not hesitate to testify against her attacker in court, even after she has forgiven his sin.
In light of these things, it is not necessary that a person be present in order to forgive them. If you have abandoned the desire to repay that sin or to seek revenge and have left it to be judged against that person by God, you have done what is necessary to forgive them. It is certainly good when forgiveness can be expressed verbally to the other party, but when that is not possible, forgiveness can occur anyway.
The same idea would apply for forgiving a person who has died. Even if we failed to forgive them during their physical life, their eternal condition is determined by their trust in Jesus (or lack thereof), and not by whether those they wronged in their life have forgiven them.
Our own spiritual condition is similarly determined, not by our own actions (even the action of forgiving others), but based on whether or not we trust Jesus to forgive our sins. Our forgiveness of others is not the cause of God's forgiving us. Instead, Christians forgive others as a result of having first received forgiveness from God. Even if our forgiveness is imperfect, we rely on His actions, and not our own as the bases for our salvation, and we daily seek to live our lives in light of that forgiveness, which includes our desire and effort to forgive those who have sinned against us.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Does Baptism Save?
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Baptismal Regeneration:
Q: You mentioned in a previous article that Lutherans believe that Baptism saves and forgives sins. How does this fit with the Lutheran belief that people are saved by “grace alone”? Does saying that Baptism saves imply that it can do so apart from Christ or that it must be added to Christ?
Lutherans do believe that God forgives and saves through Baptism, but, if there were to be a multiple choice test where the answers were A) Baptism saves apart from Christ, and B) Baptism saves in addition to Christ, a Lutheran would have to mark "None of the Above." As is typical of Lutherans, the answer isn't just a third option, but resides in a completely different paradigm.
Most people are familiar with the three Reformation slogans, "grace alone," "faith alone," and "Scripture alone." The fourth, which is often overlooked, is "Christ alone." This principle makes salvation apart from Christ or by anything added to Christ impossible for a Lutheran, since Lutheranism can neither propose a salvation apart from Christ nor can it require anything in addition to Christ as a condition of salvation.
As I instruct middle school students at our church, I drive home nearly every week two particular points about Lutheran doctrine: First, that man is saved "by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone," and second, that God has promised to deliver His grace to humans through the means of the Word (Bible), Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.
Lutheran Baptismal theology relies heavily on verses like Titus 3:5-8, 1 Peter 3:20-22, and Romans 6:3-5. Lutherans believe that Baptism saves because it delivers Christ. That is, Baptism takes the grace of God earned by Jesus at the cross and applies that grace to the individual.
It is important to keep in mind at this point another idea unique to Lutheran theology. That is that in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper God is giving to us and acting for us, not we to/for Him. They are seen as completely directed from heaven down to earth and never directed from earth up to heaven. God is active and man is passive. Baptism is not even seen in Lutheranism as an act done by the pastor, because Lutheranism views pastors as agents who act in the place and at the command of Christ when they administer the sacraments.
As a result, Baptism is not seen as added to Christ, because it is not seen as an act of man. Likewise, it is not seen as apart from Christ, for Christ is the very one who is acting through it (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit). Baptism is neither apart from nor in addition to Christ for a Lutheran, because baptism applies and delivers Christ.
Those who do not baptize children often raise questions at this point about how a Lutheran explains the baptized child who ages to be a pagan or atheist adult or other similar scenarios. Lutheranism would never propose that the adult who rejects Christ would be saved because of their having been Baptized. For a Lutheran, it is not contradictory to say that a baptized child is saved at one point, then rejects his Baptism and his Lord later in life, resulting in the loss of salvation as long as he does not repent.
Lutheranism gives all credit to God and no credit to man in the accomplishing of salvation, and its sacramental theology, particularly that regarding Baptism, reflects this.
Q: You mentioned in a previous article that Lutherans believe that Baptism saves and forgives sins. How does this fit with the Lutheran belief that people are saved by “grace alone”? Does saying that Baptism saves imply that it can do so apart from Christ or that it must be added to Christ?
Lutherans do believe that God forgives and saves through Baptism, but, if there were to be a multiple choice test where the answers were A) Baptism saves apart from Christ, and B) Baptism saves in addition to Christ, a Lutheran would have to mark "None of the Above." As is typical of Lutherans, the answer isn't just a third option, but resides in a completely different paradigm.
Most people are familiar with the three Reformation slogans, "grace alone," "faith alone," and "Scripture alone." The fourth, which is often overlooked, is "Christ alone." This principle makes salvation apart from Christ or by anything added to Christ impossible for a Lutheran, since Lutheranism can neither propose a salvation apart from Christ nor can it require anything in addition to Christ as a condition of salvation.
As I instruct middle school students at our church, I drive home nearly every week two particular points about Lutheran doctrine: First, that man is saved "by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone," and second, that God has promised to deliver His grace to humans through the means of the Word (Bible), Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.
Lutheran Baptismal theology relies heavily on verses like Titus 3:5-8, 1 Peter 3:20-22, and Romans 6:3-5. Lutherans believe that Baptism saves because it delivers Christ. That is, Baptism takes the grace of God earned by Jesus at the cross and applies that grace to the individual.
It is important to keep in mind at this point another idea unique to Lutheran theology. That is that in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper God is giving to us and acting for us, not we to/for Him. They are seen as completely directed from heaven down to earth and never directed from earth up to heaven. God is active and man is passive. Baptism is not even seen in Lutheranism as an act done by the pastor, because Lutheranism views pastors as agents who act in the place and at the command of Christ when they administer the sacraments.
As a result, Baptism is not seen as added to Christ, because it is not seen as an act of man. Likewise, it is not seen as apart from Christ, for Christ is the very one who is acting through it (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit). Baptism is neither apart from nor in addition to Christ for a Lutheran, because baptism applies and delivers Christ.
Those who do not baptize children often raise questions at this point about how a Lutheran explains the baptized child who ages to be a pagan or atheist adult or other similar scenarios. Lutheranism would never propose that the adult who rejects Christ would be saved because of their having been Baptized. For a Lutheran, it is not contradictory to say that a baptized child is saved at one point, then rejects his Baptism and his Lord later in life, resulting in the loss of salvation as long as he does not repent.
Lutheranism gives all credit to God and no credit to man in the accomplishing of salvation, and its sacramental theology, particularly that regarding Baptism, reflects this.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Infant Baptism
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Infant Baptism:
Q: Why do some churches baptize only adults when others Baptize babies also? What reasons do churches give for baptizing babies?
All Christians agree that Baptism is an important part of Christianity. The New Testament speaks very highly of Baptism, and makes it very clear that God intends for Christians to be baptized. In the book of Acts, which tells the history of the first years of Christianity, one of the first things which occurs upon a person trusting Jesus is that they are baptized. The disagreement among Christians regarding whether babies and young children should be baptized arises because the Bible never says anything like “You must baptize babies.” or “You must not baptize babies.” As a result, the theological conclusions that a church makes regarding what Baptism is and does from the rest of the Bible inform their answer to the important question of whether or not to baptize babies.
The source of the different churches’ practices regarding Baptism can best be found in what these churches believe about Baptism. Since beliefs about Baptism differ so widely among the various denominations of Christians, their practices regarding Baptism differ accordingly. These differences include whether Baptism accomplishes something or only symbolizes something, whether the action is directed from man to God or from God to man, and whether or not humans are born sinful.
The primary question that determines whether a type of church baptizes babies or not is the question regarding the direction in which Baptism works. Namely, does God do something to a human in Baptism or does a human do something for God. Generally, if a church believes that God is the one doing the action and the person is the one being acted upon, then that church will baptize babies. If a church believes that the person is performing the action in Baptism, they will only baptize those who are capable of understanding and consenting to that action.
Churches that consider the direction of Baptism to be from the human toward God typically view Baptism as an act whereby a person pledges or demonstrates their commitment, obedience, and devotion to Jesus by the act of being Baptized. Churches with this belief have diverse definitions regarding who is capable of making this sort of pledge through Baptism. Some propose a numerical age of accountability, while others discern on an individual basis whether a child or youth is mature enough to do so. Churches which practice this type of Baptism often call it “Believers Baptism” and include Baptists, the Pentecostal and Anabaptist denominations, and many from Wesleyan or non-denominational traditions.
Although churches which consider the direction of Baptism to be from God toward humans tend to baptize babies, they offer different explanations of what God is doing through Baptism. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran theology all teach, although in somewhat different ways, that Baptism is an occasion on which God forgives the sins of the person being baptized and saves them from eternal punishment for those sins.
Some in this tradition point to the faith of the yet-unborn John the Baptizer in Luke Chapter 1 as he leaped in his mother’s womb upon his mother meeting Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus, as evidence that children are capable of faith and, thus, suitable candidates for Baptism, as well as the Bible’s statement that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” They also note Jesus command to baptize “all nations” in Matthew 28:19 as well as the strong possibility that the “whole households” which were baptized in the Book of Acts included children.
Churches in John Calvin’s theological tradition would also hold that God is acting through Baptism, although not by forgiving sins, but rather by initiating them into a covenant relationship with God and incorporating them into His Church. Many in this tradition point to the Old Testament command concerning circumcision of babies as evidence that infants are suitable candidates for Baptism. Methodists also practice the Baptism of babies, but as a sign of God’s grace rather than a means of bestowing it upon them.
These theological differences are the cause of the varying positions practices among Christians regarding the baptism of infants and children. Like many areas of Church life, a church’s distinctive way of doing things is a result of the distinctive things that church believes.
Q: Why do some churches baptize only adults when others Baptize babies also? What reasons do churches give for baptizing babies?
All Christians agree that Baptism is an important part of Christianity. The New Testament speaks very highly of Baptism, and makes it very clear that God intends for Christians to be baptized. In the book of Acts, which tells the history of the first years of Christianity, one of the first things which occurs upon a person trusting Jesus is that they are baptized. The disagreement among Christians regarding whether babies and young children should be baptized arises because the Bible never says anything like “You must baptize babies.” or “You must not baptize babies.” As a result, the theological conclusions that a church makes regarding what Baptism is and does from the rest of the Bible inform their answer to the important question of whether or not to baptize babies.
The source of the different churches’ practices regarding Baptism can best be found in what these churches believe about Baptism. Since beliefs about Baptism differ so widely among the various denominations of Christians, their practices regarding Baptism differ accordingly. These differences include whether Baptism accomplishes something or only symbolizes something, whether the action is directed from man to God or from God to man, and whether or not humans are born sinful.
The primary question that determines whether a type of church baptizes babies or not is the question regarding the direction in which Baptism works. Namely, does God do something to a human in Baptism or does a human do something for God. Generally, if a church believes that God is the one doing the action and the person is the one being acted upon, then that church will baptize babies. If a church believes that the person is performing the action in Baptism, they will only baptize those who are capable of understanding and consenting to that action.
Churches that consider the direction of Baptism to be from the human toward God typically view Baptism as an act whereby a person pledges or demonstrates their commitment, obedience, and devotion to Jesus by the act of being Baptized. Churches with this belief have diverse definitions regarding who is capable of making this sort of pledge through Baptism. Some propose a numerical age of accountability, while others discern on an individual basis whether a child or youth is mature enough to do so. Churches which practice this type of Baptism often call it “Believers Baptism” and include Baptists, the Pentecostal and Anabaptist denominations, and many from Wesleyan or non-denominational traditions.
Although churches which consider the direction of Baptism to be from God toward humans tend to baptize babies, they offer different explanations of what God is doing through Baptism. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran theology all teach, although in somewhat different ways, that Baptism is an occasion on which God forgives the sins of the person being baptized and saves them from eternal punishment for those sins.
Some in this tradition point to the faith of the yet-unborn John the Baptizer in Luke Chapter 1 as he leaped in his mother’s womb upon his mother meeting Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus, as evidence that children are capable of faith and, thus, suitable candidates for Baptism, as well as the Bible’s statement that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” They also note Jesus command to baptize “all nations” in Matthew 28:19 as well as the strong possibility that the “whole households” which were baptized in the Book of Acts included children.
Churches in John Calvin’s theological tradition would also hold that God is acting through Baptism, although not by forgiving sins, but rather by initiating them into a covenant relationship with God and incorporating them into His Church. Many in this tradition point to the Old Testament command concerning circumcision of babies as evidence that infants are suitable candidates for Baptism. Methodists also practice the Baptism of babies, but as a sign of God’s grace rather than a means of bestowing it upon them.
These theological differences are the cause of the varying positions practices among Christians regarding the baptism of infants and children. Like many areas of Church life, a church’s distinctive way of doing things is a result of the distinctive things that church believes.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Confession
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Confession:
Q: Do any types of churches other than Roman Catholic go to Confession? If so, what are the similarities and differences?
Confession is certainly a part of all forms of Christianity. Without confession in some form, a religion could not be Christian, because it would lack two necessary elements—repentance and forgiveness. Television and movies have made Roman Catholic confessionals a very familiar image for most of us, but other Christians also practice confession in varying ways.
Three primary ways can be found of conducting confession by Christians. The first of these is a purely private confession. In this type of confession, a person confesses their sins directly to God through prayer without the knowledge or intervention of any other person. Forgiveness is understood to have been received through faith by the person making confession. This type of confession is the only method practiced by the majority of Protestants, and nearly all Christians engage in this type of private confession to some degree.
The second type of confession can be called individual confession. In this type of confession, an individual confesses their sins directly to a person in a position of spiritual authority, such as a priest or pastor. This is the primary method of confession among Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, although with some differences in details, and is a requirement for believers attending these churches.
A slightly different type of individual confession is practiced by a very small minority of Christians. In this variation, an individual confesses their sin, but must do so publicly in front of the entire congregation. This is typically found among protestant groups which hold to a very strict moral code as a condition of membership. The testimonies of new Christians, which are featured in many churches, bear a striking similarity to individual public confessions of sin, even though they are neither done as a requirement nor for the purpose of seeking forgiveness.
The third type of confession is corporate confession. In this type of confession the entire gathered congregation confesses their sin together, using the same words. The confession spoken is typically generic in nature and confesses all sins, in thought, word, and deed, asking for God’s forgiveness. After the congregation has confessed their sin collectively, the pastor then announces the forgiveness of their sins to all who have confessed. This type of confession is the most common type among Christians in Lutheran or Anglican denominations.
Even though it is not commonly known, Lutheran and Anglican theology does allow for individual confession to be made as well. Unlike other churches which practice individual confession, though, it is voluntary in nature, and they do not require that their members confess individually.
Additionally, these individual confessions are not made anonymously, as they are among Roman Catholics. Instead, the individual confesses personally to a member of the clergy without anonymity. At the same time, Lutheran and Anglican clergy are bound by a similar seal of confidentiality to Roman Catholic priests and they vow at their ordination never to reveal the sins confessed to them.
An additional difference between individual confession among Roman Catholics as opposed to Lutherans and Anglicans is that Lutheran and Anglican pastors do not specify penance to be performed by the person confessing. Instead, they announce the forgiveness of the person’s sins as a free gift from God based only on the perfect life and innocent sacrificial death of Jesus.
Many Christian communities make use of more than one method of confession. For example, there are ceremonies of corporate confession in circulation among Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers, while Anglican and Lutheran Christians make use of all three forms of confession. Although there is one God and His forgiveness is available only as a gift through Jesus, His Son, the diversity of settings in which that forgiveness can be delivered is God’s gracious way of providing that each of His people hear that message applied to them effectively and individually.
Q: Do any types of churches other than Roman Catholic go to Confession? If so, what are the similarities and differences?
Confession is certainly a part of all forms of Christianity. Without confession in some form, a religion could not be Christian, because it would lack two necessary elements—repentance and forgiveness. Television and movies have made Roman Catholic confessionals a very familiar image for most of us, but other Christians also practice confession in varying ways.
Three primary ways can be found of conducting confession by Christians. The first of these is a purely private confession. In this type of confession, a person confesses their sins directly to God through prayer without the knowledge or intervention of any other person. Forgiveness is understood to have been received through faith by the person making confession. This type of confession is the only method practiced by the majority of Protestants, and nearly all Christians engage in this type of private confession to some degree.
The second type of confession can be called individual confession. In this type of confession, an individual confesses their sins directly to a person in a position of spiritual authority, such as a priest or pastor. This is the primary method of confession among Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, although with some differences in details, and is a requirement for believers attending these churches.
A slightly different type of individual confession is practiced by a very small minority of Christians. In this variation, an individual confesses their sin, but must do so publicly in front of the entire congregation. This is typically found among protestant groups which hold to a very strict moral code as a condition of membership. The testimonies of new Christians, which are featured in many churches, bear a striking similarity to individual public confessions of sin, even though they are neither done as a requirement nor for the purpose of seeking forgiveness.
The third type of confession is corporate confession. In this type of confession the entire gathered congregation confesses their sin together, using the same words. The confession spoken is typically generic in nature and confesses all sins, in thought, word, and deed, asking for God’s forgiveness. After the congregation has confessed their sin collectively, the pastor then announces the forgiveness of their sins to all who have confessed. This type of confession is the most common type among Christians in Lutheran or Anglican denominations.
Even though it is not commonly known, Lutheran and Anglican theology does allow for individual confession to be made as well. Unlike other churches which practice individual confession, though, it is voluntary in nature, and they do not require that their members confess individually.
Additionally, these individual confessions are not made anonymously, as they are among Roman Catholics. Instead, the individual confesses personally to a member of the clergy without anonymity. At the same time, Lutheran and Anglican clergy are bound by a similar seal of confidentiality to Roman Catholic priests and they vow at their ordination never to reveal the sins confessed to them.
An additional difference between individual confession among Roman Catholics as opposed to Lutherans and Anglicans is that Lutheran and Anglican pastors do not specify penance to be performed by the person confessing. Instead, they announce the forgiveness of the person’s sins as a free gift from God based only on the perfect life and innocent sacrificial death of Jesus.
Many Christian communities make use of more than one method of confession. For example, there are ceremonies of corporate confession in circulation among Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers, while Anglican and Lutheran Christians make use of all three forms of confession. Although there is one God and His forgiveness is available only as a gift through Jesus, His Son, the diversity of settings in which that forgiveness can be delivered is God’s gracious way of providing that each of His people hear that message applied to them effectively and individually.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Canon
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Canon.
Q: How did the Bible come to be
composed of the books it currently contains?
Is there a verse within the Bible that specifies which writings should
be included?
When a person first looks at the
table of contents in their Bible, it might initially appear that the Bible is a
single book with several sections, but it was actually written by numerous
authors over the course of around 1500 years.
Even after the last book of the Bible had been completed, the Bible was
not available at first in a single printed volume, as we are accustomed to
finding it, but normally on scrolls containing only one of the Bible’s books. Because of this history, many people find
themselves with questions regarding why our Bibles contain the writings they do.
The Bible began with the first five
books written by Moses during the time when the Israelites were freed from
Egypt. These books included the early
history of the world, beginning with the flood and ending with the rescue of
the Israelites from Egypt and their 40 years traveling to the Promised Land. These five books were called the
“Pentateuch,” the “Torah,” or “The Law.”
During the years between Moses’ death
and the birth of Jesus, authors continued to write down the history of
Israel. At the same time, men called prophets
began to deliver messages from God to His people. These messages were written down by the
prophet himself, or by another person who heard him speak, and were also
included as part of the Old Testament.
Additionally, books such as Proverbs and Psalms, which was the Old
Testament hymn book, were recorded and passed down. Together, these collected writings became
known as the “Scriptures” during the time of Jesus, and their content was
agreed upon among the Rabbis of Israel at the time. Hebrew Bibles used by Jewish Rabbis today
still include the same books.
During the life of Jesus, He
participated in the services held at the synagogues, read from these books, and
quoted frequently from them as he preached and debated throughout Israel. On several occasions recorded in the Gospels,
Jesus refers positively to “The Scriptures” without noting reservations as to
their content. On other occasions, He
refers to “The Law and the Prophets” and once to “The Law, the Prophets, and
the Psalms” (Luke 24:44) which are even more specific endorsements of the Old
Testament as a whole.
When it comes to the New Testament, there
is no declaration within the Bible regarding which books it contains. As a result, misconceptions have been
widespread, especially fueled in recent years by novels and movies about the
subject. Many imagine that there must
have been a meeting at some point in ancient history where pastors and
theologians gathered to vote whether each of the many supposedly Christian
books and letters circulating in the ancient world at the time were “in” or
“out,” resulting in the New Testament we know today.
The first account on which this
imagined scenario is misleading is that, while there was a council during the
fifth century after Jesus’ birth regarding the contents of the New Testament,
there was not widespread debate regarding the contents of the New Testament
leading up to this council. As early as
the middle of the second century following Jesus’ birth, there was widespread
consensus regarding which books were suitable as sources for Christian doctrine
and for public reading in worship and which were not.
Secondly, the early church did not
make decisions based on majority vote, but by unanimous consensus, therefore
they confirmed the contents of the New Testament based on careful study and
agreement on two fronts: whether a given
book was actually written by an Apostle of Jesus and whether it had received
broad acceptance as authentic among the churches.
Lastly, this council did not meet for
the purpose of ruling on the contents of the New Testament. Rather, it met to recognize the already
existing consensus regarding its contents and to confirm the inauthenticity of a
few new forgeries which had arisen during their time.
This ancient consensus on the books
contained in the Bible has consistently been acknowledged by Lutheran,
Protestant, and Orthodox churches worldwide until the last few decades when
conspiracy theorists have proposed alternative explanations. In spite of the fact that the Bible itself
contains no list of its accepted books, the Bible we know today can be
recognized with certainty as the authentic collection of Prophetic and
Apostolic writings concerning Jesus.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Evidence for the Bible's Reliability
My Article from Today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Bible's Reliability:
Q: What evidence is there that the Bible is a trustworthy book? Why should it be believed as factual instead of merely a myth?
The Bible is a collection of books 66 different books written by several different authors over a span of around 1500 years. The first 39 books were written in Hebrew before Jesus was born and are called the Old Testament. The last 27 books were written in Greek after Jesus resurrection and are called the New Testament.
Far too often, preachers have taught the Bible as if it were something that should be believed without examining evidence and trusted without any evaluation of its truthfulness. In fact, it has even been taught at times that the Bible should be believed and trusted regardless of whether it is true or not, and even in spite of evidence against it.
A college professor once asked my class what would make us dismiss the Bible as false. As lifelong Lutherans who had been taught to trust the Bible since our earliest Sunday School class, could not imagine any scenario in which they would do so. The professor then asked us if we would still believe the Bible if we were presented with undeniable evidence that the dead body of Jesus had been found in a tomb in Israel. Many of the students still responded that they would continue to trust the Bible in spite of that evidence.
I have tried this test with a several Christians and groups of Christians in different parts of the country with similar results. This test illustrates one way that Christians have often been misled regarding the Bible. When arguments began to be made against the authenticity of the Bible’s claims during the past two centuries, some Christians capably and reasonably defended the Bible’s truthfulness using evidence. Others simply turned a deaf ear to the criticisms and taught others to do the same out of fear that the opposition would prove more than the evidence could bear.
In reality, the Christianity is unique among all of the other religions of the world, because it not only has the potential to be proven false, but actually invites detractors to attempt to do so. The one piece of evidence that could prove the Bible to be false would be for the positively identifiable body of Jesus to be produced and proven to be dead. If this were to occur, then every preacher should immediately seek a new career and congregations should liquidate their assets and use the proceeds for some other good.
Now, since this piece of evidence has never been produced (and I am confident that it never will be), there is a firm foundation for the Christian faith. If Jesus literally rose from the dead like He predicted He would and like the Bible says that He did, then this is adequate evidence that the teachings of Jesus are undeniably true. Beginning with these teachings, we can then build a case that the rest of the Bible is also reliable and accurate.
It has often been asserted that a person has only three options regarding Jesus and His claims to be God. First, one can believe that He is a liar and did not believe Himself to be God. Second, it could be asserted that He is a lunatic who did believe Himself to be God, but wrongly so. Third, one can accept that He is in fact God as He claimed.
If Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is a factually event, then it is evidence that claim to be God is, in fact, reliable, and that He is neither a liar nor lunatic. Based on the rest of His teachings, we can then make a case that the rest of the Bible is also reliable.
This is the case, because Jesus endorsed the entire Old Testament of the Bible during His ministry. He frequently quoted from it, and often made approving statement about the Old Testament as a unified body of work as He taught throughout the cities of Israel, as recorded in the Gospels.
Since the Gospels present themselves as historical reports of the life and teachings of Jesus can be authenticated as accurate and reliable by applying the same standards applied to other history books of the ancient world. Since there were no printing presses 1900 years ago, the Gospels, and all other written works of the time, were copied by hand for distribution. There are tens of thousands of these ancient hand-written copies of the Bible in its original language available today for examination, and they prove to be both more numerous and more consistent with one another than any other ancient history of the era. Since these other ancient histories are all accepted as reliable, we must therefore conclude that the Gospels are historically reliable as well, including their claims about Jesus resurrection.
Among these tens of thousands of copies, there is also astonishing accuracy in their copying. When compared, over 95% of the text can be conclusively verified as in agreement. The remaining 5% consists primarily of minor clerical errors that are to be expected in hand-copied manuscripts, such as two words being reversed, the addition of subtraction of an insignificant word such as “the” or “an”, or other similarly inconsequential differences. Additionally, none of this 5% of the text impacts verses which are the source of key teachings of Christianity or major events in the life of Jesus.
When the evidence is examined, both the accuracy of the text and the reliability of its claims prove to be trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not to say that there is not still an element of faith in trusting Jesus. Instead, this evidence can give the Christian confidence that that faith is not a blind faith, and that their trust is placed on accurate texts and historically reliable events, rather than on something they merely hope to be true without verifiable substantiation that it actually is.
Q: What evidence is there that the Bible is a trustworthy book? Why should it be believed as factual instead of merely a myth?
The Bible is a collection of books 66 different books written by several different authors over a span of around 1500 years. The first 39 books were written in Hebrew before Jesus was born and are called the Old Testament. The last 27 books were written in Greek after Jesus resurrection and are called the New Testament.
Far too often, preachers have taught the Bible as if it were something that should be believed without examining evidence and trusted without any evaluation of its truthfulness. In fact, it has even been taught at times that the Bible should be believed and trusted regardless of whether it is true or not, and even in spite of evidence against it.
A college professor once asked my class what would make us dismiss the Bible as false. As lifelong Lutherans who had been taught to trust the Bible since our earliest Sunday School class, could not imagine any scenario in which they would do so. The professor then asked us if we would still believe the Bible if we were presented with undeniable evidence that the dead body of Jesus had been found in a tomb in Israel. Many of the students still responded that they would continue to trust the Bible in spite of that evidence.
I have tried this test with a several Christians and groups of Christians in different parts of the country with similar results. This test illustrates one way that Christians have often been misled regarding the Bible. When arguments began to be made against the authenticity of the Bible’s claims during the past two centuries, some Christians capably and reasonably defended the Bible’s truthfulness using evidence. Others simply turned a deaf ear to the criticisms and taught others to do the same out of fear that the opposition would prove more than the evidence could bear.
In reality, the Christianity is unique among all of the other religions of the world, because it not only has the potential to be proven false, but actually invites detractors to attempt to do so. The one piece of evidence that could prove the Bible to be false would be for the positively identifiable body of Jesus to be produced and proven to be dead. If this were to occur, then every preacher should immediately seek a new career and congregations should liquidate their assets and use the proceeds for some other good.
Now, since this piece of evidence has never been produced (and I am confident that it never will be), there is a firm foundation for the Christian faith. If Jesus literally rose from the dead like He predicted He would and like the Bible says that He did, then this is adequate evidence that the teachings of Jesus are undeniably true. Beginning with these teachings, we can then build a case that the rest of the Bible is also reliable and accurate.
It has often been asserted that a person has only three options regarding Jesus and His claims to be God. First, one can believe that He is a liar and did not believe Himself to be God. Second, it could be asserted that He is a lunatic who did believe Himself to be God, but wrongly so. Third, one can accept that He is in fact God as He claimed.
If Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is a factually event, then it is evidence that claim to be God is, in fact, reliable, and that He is neither a liar nor lunatic. Based on the rest of His teachings, we can then make a case that the rest of the Bible is also reliable.
This is the case, because Jesus endorsed the entire Old Testament of the Bible during His ministry. He frequently quoted from it, and often made approving statement about the Old Testament as a unified body of work as He taught throughout the cities of Israel, as recorded in the Gospels.
Since the Gospels present themselves as historical reports of the life and teachings of Jesus can be authenticated as accurate and reliable by applying the same standards applied to other history books of the ancient world. Since there were no printing presses 1900 years ago, the Gospels, and all other written works of the time, were copied by hand for distribution. There are tens of thousands of these ancient hand-written copies of the Bible in its original language available today for examination, and they prove to be both more numerous and more consistent with one another than any other ancient history of the era. Since these other ancient histories are all accepted as reliable, we must therefore conclude that the Gospels are historically reliable as well, including their claims about Jesus resurrection.
Among these tens of thousands of copies, there is also astonishing accuracy in their copying. When compared, over 95% of the text can be conclusively verified as in agreement. The remaining 5% consists primarily of minor clerical errors that are to be expected in hand-copied manuscripts, such as two words being reversed, the addition of subtraction of an insignificant word such as “the” or “an”, or other similarly inconsequential differences. Additionally, none of this 5% of the text impacts verses which are the source of key teachings of Christianity or major events in the life of Jesus.
When the evidence is examined, both the accuracy of the text and the reliability of its claims prove to be trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not to say that there is not still an element of faith in trusting Jesus. Instead, this evidence can give the Christian confidence that that faith is not a blind faith, and that their trust is placed on accurate texts and historically reliable events, rather than on something they merely hope to be true without verifiable substantiation that it actually is.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Bible Interpretation
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about BIble Interpretation:
Q: When I talk with other Christians, especially those from different denominations, we often have different ways of understanding certain Bible passages. Is it possible to tell who is correct, and how would that be done?
Correctly understanding the Bible can sometimes be a challenging task when we encounter so many different interpretations surrounding us. Because people have their own personal biases and denominations desire to defend certain doctrines, we arrive at varying conclusions regarding the way certain passages are to be understood, but two contradictory interpretations cannot both be true.
First, it is helpful to distinguish between interpretation and application. On one hand, a certain passage may, in fact, have many applications for Christians. A verse which speaks of one thing may be applied by the individual in a variety of ways, depending on their circumstances. On the other hand, there can be no more than one correct meaning or interpretation of a given passage. If several people have different understandings of a passage’s meaning, it is possible that all of them are incorrect, but no more than one may be correct.
Sometimes determining this correct understanding is very simple. For example, when Jesus says, “Every man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” there is no doubt about what He is saying. Other times, finding the meaning of a passage takes deeper study. On those occasions, here are a few important principles:
The first principle is to approach the Bible to find out its conclusion rather than simply using it to defend your own. It is important that we let the Bible speak to us rather than attempting to force it to confirm our predetermined conclusions.
Context is always your best tool. Do not look at the verse alone, but look at the verses around it, the rest of the chapter, and even the rest of the book of the Bible in which you find it. Look even to other books of the Bible for passages with similar themes that can help to clarify its meaning. Always start with very clear and straightforward verses and use them to help you understand the more difficult verses—not the reverse.
Be aware what it is you are reading. Some statements are intended to be taken literally, and in those cases we should do so. In other cases (such as Apocalyptic Visions and the Parables of Jesus), the passage is intended to communicate something deeper. Consider what kind of writing it is. Is it a Psalm? A Historical account? An Epistle (or letter)? A parable? A vision? Who is writing and for whom are they writing it? This will all assist in understanding what is meant by the author.
How does the text relate to Jesus? How does a given understanding of the verse relate to Jesus? All Scripture ultimately points to Jesus, so if Jesus is central in an interpretation, it is a good sign. If an interpretation pushes Jesus aside or ignores him, this is evidence that things may have gone off track.
The Bible’s message is always consistent with itself. If a passage seems to contradict a passage which clearly states something elsewhere, further study is necessary. Reconsider your understanding of the less clear passage. It may even be wise at this point to consult a pastor, especially one who knows the Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Bible was originally written.
Even after considering these principles, there may be very rare occasions when it is just not possible to find a definite answer. Occasionally we find mysterious passages in the Bible which we simply do not have the capacity to understand. Examples of this include the phrase “because of the angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 and some of the more obscure images in the book of Revelation. In these cases, we simply return to the clear passages of the Scriptures to guide us.
Obviously, this is not all there is to Biblical interpretation. The typical seminary course on Bible Interpretation (called Hermeneutics) includes as much as 30-40 hours of classroom study, but these principles, along with a basic understanding of how to read literature in general, are typically sufficient to address the questions which the average Christian will encounter in their daily Bible reading or discussion with their friends and neighbors.
Q: When I talk with other Christians, especially those from different denominations, we often have different ways of understanding certain Bible passages. Is it possible to tell who is correct, and how would that be done?
Correctly understanding the Bible can sometimes be a challenging task when we encounter so many different interpretations surrounding us. Because people have their own personal biases and denominations desire to defend certain doctrines, we arrive at varying conclusions regarding the way certain passages are to be understood, but two contradictory interpretations cannot both be true.
First, it is helpful to distinguish between interpretation and application. On one hand, a certain passage may, in fact, have many applications for Christians. A verse which speaks of one thing may be applied by the individual in a variety of ways, depending on their circumstances. On the other hand, there can be no more than one correct meaning or interpretation of a given passage. If several people have different understandings of a passage’s meaning, it is possible that all of them are incorrect, but no more than one may be correct.
Sometimes determining this correct understanding is very simple. For example, when Jesus says, “Every man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” there is no doubt about what He is saying. Other times, finding the meaning of a passage takes deeper study. On those occasions, here are a few important principles:
The first principle is to approach the Bible to find out its conclusion rather than simply using it to defend your own. It is important that we let the Bible speak to us rather than attempting to force it to confirm our predetermined conclusions.
Context is always your best tool. Do not look at the verse alone, but look at the verses around it, the rest of the chapter, and even the rest of the book of the Bible in which you find it. Look even to other books of the Bible for passages with similar themes that can help to clarify its meaning. Always start with very clear and straightforward verses and use them to help you understand the more difficult verses—not the reverse.
Be aware what it is you are reading. Some statements are intended to be taken literally, and in those cases we should do so. In other cases (such as Apocalyptic Visions and the Parables of Jesus), the passage is intended to communicate something deeper. Consider what kind of writing it is. Is it a Psalm? A Historical account? An Epistle (or letter)? A parable? A vision? Who is writing and for whom are they writing it? This will all assist in understanding what is meant by the author.
How does the text relate to Jesus? How does a given understanding of the verse relate to Jesus? All Scripture ultimately points to Jesus, so if Jesus is central in an interpretation, it is a good sign. If an interpretation pushes Jesus aside or ignores him, this is evidence that things may have gone off track.
The Bible’s message is always consistent with itself. If a passage seems to contradict a passage which clearly states something elsewhere, further study is necessary. Reconsider your understanding of the less clear passage. It may even be wise at this point to consult a pastor, especially one who knows the Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Bible was originally written.
Even after considering these principles, there may be very rare occasions when it is just not possible to find a definite answer. Occasionally we find mysterious passages in the Bible which we simply do not have the capacity to understand. Examples of this include the phrase “because of the angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 and some of the more obscure images in the book of Revelation. In these cases, we simply return to the clear passages of the Scriptures to guide us.
Obviously, this is not all there is to Biblical interpretation. The typical seminary course on Bible Interpretation (called Hermeneutics) includes as much as 30-40 hours of classroom study, but these principles, along with a basic understanding of how to read literature in general, are typically sufficient to address the questions which the average Christian will encounter in their daily Bible reading or discussion with their friends and neighbors.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Israel
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Israel:
Q: How
do the physical locations of Israel/Jerusalem and the physical descendants of the
Israelites figure into God's will as expressed in prophecy? How does this compare to the position of the
New Testament regarding the earthly nation of Israel?
When reading
any portion of the Bible, there are some important principles to keep in mind.
First, when we encounter a section of scripture that seems unclear or
confusing, we first look to the very clear statements found elsewhere in
scripture regarding the topic, and let them inform our understanding of the
less clear sections. Secondly, the entire Bible is ultimately about Jesus
and everything contained in it points to Him. A correct understanding of
the Bible always centers on Jesus, and any interpretation that does not center
on Jesus is defective.
In Old Testament times, there was a physically identifiable area of land, named Israel, which God promised would be the homeland of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The nation of people descended from these men was also named Israel.
In Old Testament times, there was a physically identifiable area of land, named Israel, which God promised would be the homeland of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The nation of people descended from these men was also named Israel.
By the end
of the Old Testament, we find that Israel, as an independent nation, no longer
existed, that both its northern and southern kingdoms had been conquered by
outside forces, and that many of their people exiled throughout the
Middle-east.
Based on the
promises made to Eve and Abraham in the book of Genesis, we know that God's
intention was that Israel would give birth to a certain man who would save the
people of all nations from God's wrath. This descendant was Jesus, and
all promises of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Him.
Jesus
predicted in the Gospels that Jerusalem as it existed would be destroyed, which
took place in A.D. 70. Then, after an
unspecified period of time, He would return again to judge the living and the
dead—an event which we are still awaiting. Today, we live in the time
between these events. When Jesus does
return, the Bible says that He will raise all the dead and give eternal life to
all who have trusted in Him, making a new creation in which they will live.
Jerusalem existed to be the place where the worship of the One True God took place by way of sacrifice. This sacrifice was not merely the sacrifices of the temple, but more importantly, the sacrifice to end all sacrifice--that of Jesus' crucifixion. The New Jerusalem, foretold in Revelation 21, will likewise be the place where God is worshipped, but this time apart from sacrifice, because Jesus has already been offered as the final and all-sufficient sacrifice. There is also no temple there due to the direct and unveiled presence of God in that place which makes it unnecessary.
Biblically, Israel and Jerusalem are much broader concepts than mere physical locations. Israel, although it had a definable ethnic identity and national borders for a time, was only an initial expression of a much broader reality--the people of God through Christ Jesus, regardless of time or place. Likewise, Jerusalem, although it had, and still has, a specific geographic identity, is merely a shadow of a greater reality—the gathering of God's people to worship Him, both at the temple in the ancient past and around the throne of the Lamb in eternity, and even today as men and women gather to hear God's Word and receive Him through the Sacraments. With Jesus at the center, Israel and the Church, Jerusalem and New Jerusalem, are not contradictions, but the worship of the same Jesus from opposite sides of the cross.
Jerusalem existed to be the place where the worship of the One True God took place by way of sacrifice. This sacrifice was not merely the sacrifices of the temple, but more importantly, the sacrifice to end all sacrifice--that of Jesus' crucifixion. The New Jerusalem, foretold in Revelation 21, will likewise be the place where God is worshipped, but this time apart from sacrifice, because Jesus has already been offered as the final and all-sufficient sacrifice. There is also no temple there due to the direct and unveiled presence of God in that place which makes it unnecessary.
Biblically, Israel and Jerusalem are much broader concepts than mere physical locations. Israel, although it had a definable ethnic identity and national borders for a time, was only an initial expression of a much broader reality--the people of God through Christ Jesus, regardless of time or place. Likewise, Jerusalem, although it had, and still has, a specific geographic identity, is merely a shadow of a greater reality—the gathering of God's people to worship Him, both at the temple in the ancient past and around the throne of the Lamb in eternity, and even today as men and women gather to hear God's Word and receive Him through the Sacraments. With Jesus at the center, Israel and the Church, Jerusalem and New Jerusalem, are not contradictions, but the worship of the same Jesus from opposite sides of the cross.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Sabbath Day
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Sabbath Day:
Q: Since the Ten Commandments say to “Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it Holy,” then why do Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday? Are Christians required to refrain from working on certain days in order to honor the Sabbath Day?
When God created the world, He created for six days, and rested on the seventh, which is Saturday. When God gave the Commandments to Moses, He called this day the Sabbath Day and commanded that the people of Israel also rest that day, which included that they were not allowed to work or engage in certain other activities. Instead, it was typical during Old Testament times for the people to gather and hear and be taught about what was written by Moses and the Prophets.
Beyond merely being wise advice for their physical and mental health, this day also had a meaning which pointed forward to events which would occur in the future—those of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus reflects this idea when He says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Mt. 11:28 ESV)
In addition, Jesus was charged with offending against the rules of Sabbath observance because He healed a man on the Sabbath (Mt. 12, Mk. 3, Lk. 13), and He was criticized because His disciples picked grain and ate it while walking through a field on the Sabbath. (Mt. 12, Mk. 2, Lk. 6) In response, Jesus makes clear that His presence has fulfilled the Sabbath, saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Mt. 12:8 ESV)
In the book of Acts, the first two times that Jesus appears to the disciples after His resurrection, it is on Sunday, and when the Holy Spirit comes to the Christians on Pentecost, it also occurs on a Sunday. It is later recorded throughout the New Testament that when the Apostles gathered for worship, they did so on Sunday, because that was the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
However, while the Bible does instruct that Christians are expected to gather for worship (Heb. 10:25), it does not specify that they must do on a certain day. Christians throughout history, though, have overwhelmingly chosen to gather on Sunday, since it is the day on which Jesus’ resurrection, His appearances to the disciples, and Pentecost occurred, as well as the fact that Sunday worship was the example set by Jesus’ Apostles.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul even corrects those who seek to require that Christians continue to observe the Sabbath Day or that they worship on a specific day of the week. He says, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col. 2:16-17 ESV)
He also says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Rom. 14:5 ESV)
Both Jesus and Paul make it clear that for Christians there is not a law regarding they day on which they are to worship, nor is there any longer a requirement that they avoid work or business on a certain day of the week. The book of Hebrews even says, “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” (Hebrews 4:9-10 ESV)
Whoever has entered God’s rest through faith in Jesus has already experienced the fulfillment of the Sabbath according to these verses. However, this commandment does still have relevance for Christians. Martin Luther says regarding this commandment, “We should…not despise preaching and God’s Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it.”
Even though Christians are not obligated to take a certain day of rest or hold their worship services on a specific day of the week, God does still command that we do not neglect hearing and learning from the Scriptures. Instead, He invites us to read the Bible ourselves as well as gathering with other Christians to hear pastors teach about Jesus and to remember His death and celebrate His resurrection until He comes again.
Q: Since the Ten Commandments say to “Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it Holy,” then why do Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday? Are Christians required to refrain from working on certain days in order to honor the Sabbath Day?
When God created the world, He created for six days, and rested on the seventh, which is Saturday. When God gave the Commandments to Moses, He called this day the Sabbath Day and commanded that the people of Israel also rest that day, which included that they were not allowed to work or engage in certain other activities. Instead, it was typical during Old Testament times for the people to gather and hear and be taught about what was written by Moses and the Prophets.
Beyond merely being wise advice for their physical and mental health, this day also had a meaning which pointed forward to events which would occur in the future—those of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus reflects this idea when He says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Mt. 11:28 ESV)
In addition, Jesus was charged with offending against the rules of Sabbath observance because He healed a man on the Sabbath (Mt. 12, Mk. 3, Lk. 13), and He was criticized because His disciples picked grain and ate it while walking through a field on the Sabbath. (Mt. 12, Mk. 2, Lk. 6) In response, Jesus makes clear that His presence has fulfilled the Sabbath, saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Mt. 12:8 ESV)
In the book of Acts, the first two times that Jesus appears to the disciples after His resurrection, it is on Sunday, and when the Holy Spirit comes to the Christians on Pentecost, it also occurs on a Sunday. It is later recorded throughout the New Testament that when the Apostles gathered for worship, they did so on Sunday, because that was the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
However, while the Bible does instruct that Christians are expected to gather for worship (Heb. 10:25), it does not specify that they must do on a certain day. Christians throughout history, though, have overwhelmingly chosen to gather on Sunday, since it is the day on which Jesus’ resurrection, His appearances to the disciples, and Pentecost occurred, as well as the fact that Sunday worship was the example set by Jesus’ Apostles.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul even corrects those who seek to require that Christians continue to observe the Sabbath Day or that they worship on a specific day of the week. He says, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col. 2:16-17 ESV)
He also says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Rom. 14:5 ESV)
Both Jesus and Paul make it clear that for Christians there is not a law regarding they day on which they are to worship, nor is there any longer a requirement that they avoid work or business on a certain day of the week. The book of Hebrews even says, “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” (Hebrews 4:9-10 ESV)
Whoever has entered God’s rest through faith in Jesus has already experienced the fulfillment of the Sabbath according to these verses. However, this commandment does still have relevance for Christians. Martin Luther says regarding this commandment, “We should…not despise preaching and God’s Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it.”
Even though Christians are not obligated to take a certain day of rest or hold their worship services on a specific day of the week, God does still command that we do not neglect hearing and learning from the Scriptures. Instead, He invites us to read the Bible ourselves as well as gathering with other Christians to hear pastors teach about Jesus and to remember His death and celebrate His resurrection until He comes again.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Old Testament Laws
My Article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Old Testament Law:
God’s Laws?
Q: The Bible has many long lists of laws that God gave in the Old Testament. Why don’t Christians still follow all of these rules today?
In the Old Testament, God gives hundreds of laws to the people of Israel after He frees them from slavery in Egypt and as they travel to the land He promised them. During Old Testament times, all of these laws were required to be followed by every Israelite. These Old Testament laws dealt with three areas of Israelite life: Worship, Government, and Morality.
Laws regarding worship, called the Ceremonial Law, include regulations for Israel’s worship of Yahweh. A great number of these laws regard the tabernacle and temple and the ceremonies and sacrifices carried out there. In addition, the Ceremonial Law specified other requirements for the people of Israel to maintain their ritual purity, by forbidding such things as the eating of certain foods such as pork and shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, trimming of the beard, or being tattooed.
Laws for government, called the Civil Law, include regulations that protect property and provide for the poor and homeless, as well as specifying certain punishments for crimes.
The primary example of the Old Testament’s laws regarding morality is the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20, Deut. 5). The Moral law also includes other laws which serve to clarify or further explain the Ten Commandments.
When considering these laws, it is important to remember that the Bible is not merely a rule-book like the Koran or a collection of wise sayings, such as found in Poor Richard’s Almanac. Instead, the Bible is the true story of God’s actions in history to forgive sins and save humans from eternal punishment by bringing about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
As we read the Gospels, we find that Jesus endorses many of these laws, but he does not follow others, nor does He require His disciples to do so. In later New Testament books, Paul and the other apostles affirm many of these laws to be good but indicate that Christians need not observe others. Understanding how these Biblical laws from the Old Testament apply to Christians requires careful study and prayerful consideration. The most authoritative way to discern this is to pay attention to which laws the New Testament affirms and which it does not.
Because the laws regarding worship and sacrifice were intended to point forward to Jesus, as explained in the book of Hebrews, and signified by the tearing in half of the temple curtain at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27, Mk. 15, Lk. 23), they were only in force until Jesus had died, and do not apply to Christians today. Similarly, the laws forbidding work on the Sabbath day (Saturday) are specifically mentioned by Jesus (Mt. 12, Mk. 2, Lk. 6) and the New Testament authors (Heb. 4:8-12, Col. 2:16-17) as already fulfilled.
Likewise, the laws regarding government were only applicable to the people of Israel and only as long as that nation existed. This includes the punishments specified for certain moral offenses. Even though the Old Testament specified certain punishments, up to and including death, for certain crimes such as adultery, cursing one’s parents, murder, and idolatry, these punishments are not mandatory for people in New Testament times, even though the related moral laws still hold true. Jesus gives evidence of this when He persuades the Pharisees not to execute the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:1-11). He does not condone her action, but He does show forbearance in the carrying out of punishment.
While the laws regarding worship and government were for the people of Israel only, the laws governing morality reflect God’s expectations for all people in all times and places. This is evidenced in the fact that God never criticizes other nations in the Old Testament for what they eat or wear, but He does criticize them for immoral behaviors like adultery and idolatry.
Another test of whether an Old Testament law is still applicable for New Testament people is to consider whether it relates to the Ten Commandments. For example, laws regarding sexual ethics are still applicable because they explain the commandment against adultery, and laws regarding assault are still applicable because they explain the commandment against murder. Laws regarding mixed fabric clothing, pork, and shellfish do not relate to the Ten Commandments, and therefore are not applicable for people today.
Even if we understand these laws correctly, however, it is even more important that we understand that no one can be saved by obeying even these laws, but only by God’s grace through faith in Jesus.
Readers may submit questions to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
God’s Laws?
Q: The Bible has many long lists of laws that God gave in the Old Testament. Why don’t Christians still follow all of these rules today?
In the Old Testament, God gives hundreds of laws to the people of Israel after He frees them from slavery in Egypt and as they travel to the land He promised them. During Old Testament times, all of these laws were required to be followed by every Israelite. These Old Testament laws dealt with three areas of Israelite life: Worship, Government, and Morality.
Laws regarding worship, called the Ceremonial Law, include regulations for Israel’s worship of Yahweh. A great number of these laws regard the tabernacle and temple and the ceremonies and sacrifices carried out there. In addition, the Ceremonial Law specified other requirements for the people of Israel to maintain their ritual purity, by forbidding such things as the eating of certain foods such as pork and shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, trimming of the beard, or being tattooed.
Laws for government, called the Civil Law, include regulations that protect property and provide for the poor and homeless, as well as specifying certain punishments for crimes.
The primary example of the Old Testament’s laws regarding morality is the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20, Deut. 5). The Moral law also includes other laws which serve to clarify or further explain the Ten Commandments.
When considering these laws, it is important to remember that the Bible is not merely a rule-book like the Koran or a collection of wise sayings, such as found in Poor Richard’s Almanac. Instead, the Bible is the true story of God’s actions in history to forgive sins and save humans from eternal punishment by bringing about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
As we read the Gospels, we find that Jesus endorses many of these laws, but he does not follow others, nor does He require His disciples to do so. In later New Testament books, Paul and the other apostles affirm many of these laws to be good but indicate that Christians need not observe others. Understanding how these Biblical laws from the Old Testament apply to Christians requires careful study and prayerful consideration. The most authoritative way to discern this is to pay attention to which laws the New Testament affirms and which it does not.
Because the laws regarding worship and sacrifice were intended to point forward to Jesus, as explained in the book of Hebrews, and signified by the tearing in half of the temple curtain at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27, Mk. 15, Lk. 23), they were only in force until Jesus had died, and do not apply to Christians today. Similarly, the laws forbidding work on the Sabbath day (Saturday) are specifically mentioned by Jesus (Mt. 12, Mk. 2, Lk. 6) and the New Testament authors (Heb. 4:8-12, Col. 2:16-17) as already fulfilled.
Likewise, the laws regarding government were only applicable to the people of Israel and only as long as that nation existed. This includes the punishments specified for certain moral offenses. Even though the Old Testament specified certain punishments, up to and including death, for certain crimes such as adultery, cursing one’s parents, murder, and idolatry, these punishments are not mandatory for people in New Testament times, even though the related moral laws still hold true. Jesus gives evidence of this when He persuades the Pharisees not to execute the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:1-11). He does not condone her action, but He does show forbearance in the carrying out of punishment.
While the laws regarding worship and government were for the people of Israel only, the laws governing morality reflect God’s expectations for all people in all times and places. This is evidenced in the fact that God never criticizes other nations in the Old Testament for what they eat or wear, but He does criticize them for immoral behaviors like adultery and idolatry.
Another test of whether an Old Testament law is still applicable for New Testament people is to consider whether it relates to the Ten Commandments. For example, laws regarding sexual ethics are still applicable because they explain the commandment against adultery, and laws regarding assault are still applicable because they explain the commandment against murder. Laws regarding mixed fabric clothing, pork, and shellfish do not relate to the Ten Commandments, and therefore are not applicable for people today.
Even if we understand these laws correctly, however, it is even more important that we understand that no one can be saved by obeying even these laws, but only by God’s grace through faith in Jesus.
Readers may submit questions to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)