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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

Should Christians judge?

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Matthew 7:1 and judging:

Q: I read in my Bible that God has many moral laws for humanity, but in Matthew 7:1, Jesus says, “Do not judge , lest you be judged.” How can these two things be reconciled?

In recent years, this verse has become one of the most well-known in the entire Bible among Americans, perhaps even surpassing John 3:16 in familiarity. In our present culture, the making of moral or theological judgments is strictly frowned-upon, and anything that could be interpreted as judging is firmly denounced. This, however, is not the position of the Bible or of Jesus.

To begin, it is necessary to look, not just at verse 1 of Matthew 7, but at the entire five verses of the chapter where Jesus makes this statement. Jesus immediately follows by saying in verse 2, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” These words both assume that his hearers actually will judge in some way and reveal that it is not all judging that He warns against, but instead, hypocritical judgments which apply a different standard to another person than one follows himself.

This is further emphasized in the verses which follow. Jesus gives the example of a man attempting to remove a piece of sawdust from another man’s eye. Ironically, the first man actually has a large log in his own eye, which makes the task impossible. Jesus closes by saying, “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Jesus first points out the absurdity of a person making hypocritical judgments, but with His final words, He also instructs that the person who has first gotten his own affairs in order will then assist his neighbor in doing the same. This would be impossible if all judging were unconditionally prohibited.

In addition, we never read one portion of the Bible in exclusion of the others. Instead, we look at the entire history of what God has said through its authors. When we do this, we find Jesus’ Apostles, such as Peter, James, and Paul, making frequent judgments about both doctrine and morality throughout their letters that have been recorded in the New Testament.

We also see numerous instances where the Bible actually commands, requires, or even praises certain types of judging:

• To discipline public sins in the church (Mt. 18, 1 Cor. 5)
• To settle disputes between people in the church (1 Cor. 6)
• To test doctrinal teaching (Mt. 7:15-20, Acts 17:11, 1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Jn. 4:1)
• To test qualifications for church leadership (1 Tim. 3, Titus 2)

These are merely a few of the most obvious examples where Jesus, Luke, and Paul speak favorably regarding instances of judging.

The teaching of Jesus and the testimony of the Bible as a whole are not that judging is unconditionally prohibited, but that the judgments made by Christians are to live up to certain standards. First, they are to be honest rather than hypocritical (Mt. 7, Rom. 2:1). Secondly, the standard for all valid judgments is the teachings and laws of the Bible, and not any cultural or individual opinion. Additionally, not all judgments are to be openly declared for all to hear. Depending on a person’s position of authority and the nature of the issue at hand, there are criteria which determine whether one should warn another person privately or announce a judgment publicly (Mt. 18).

There are certainly situations where the most caring and compassionate thing a person can do would actually be to judge another, for example when family and friends participate in an intervention for a loved one experiencing addictive or harmful behaviors or when police arrest those who are endangering others.

Jesus certainly did not intend that Christians are to approve of all beliefs and actions without discernment. Instead, He is warning those listening at the time and those reading today not to make judgments about others out of self-righteousness rather than compassion or out of hypocritical pride rather than sincere defense of the truth.

Jesus' Resurrection

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Resurrection of Jesus:

Q:  Did Jesus actually rise from the dead on the first Easter, or is it a myth intended to teach us something?  How can we know if it is true?

The  resurrection of Jesus is an actual historical event which literally occurred approximately 1980 years ago, but it is not by blind faith that we accept that this event (and the others of Jesus’ life) actually occurred, but because they have been reported to us by reliable eyewitnesses. 

Five books of the Bible report the Resurrection of Jesus and the events of the following 40 days, in which He appeared to His follower alive.  The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by men who were first-hand eyewitnesses to these events.  The Gospel of Mark was written by an associate of Peter, based on his eyewitness testimony, and the Gospel of Luke along with the book of Acts were written by a doctor, based on his interviews of the eyewitnesses. 

The four authors who wrote these books are reporting events which they witnessed or which they heard from the witnesses, much like four television stations might all report the same news event.  Although some people today would insist that these reports are mythical stories, the authors themselves do not portray their reports as mere myths.  Instead, they wrote their reports as historical fact and make it clear that they intend them to be read as such. 

In this light, it would be only reasonable to examine these four authors’ accounts by the same standards applied to other pieces of historical literature of the time.  When this is done, it is found that the resurrection of Jesus actually has more eyewitness reports than many of the major events of Greek and Roman history which we commonly accepted without objection.

Not only do we have more eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus than these other events, but we also have more copies available to verify that the reports of Jesus’ resurrection have been accurately copied than we have of the reports of the other events.  In addition, this great number of available copies are older and more consistent than those of other events of the time.  In fact, I myself have had the privilege of visiting the Special Collections Library at the University of Michigan where I was able to read from copies of Biblical books that were almost 1900 years old, and I still have a CD with images of several of these pages.

Beyond the textual evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, we also can examine the physical evidence.  The founders of every other major religion died and their tombs are visited by countless followers to this day, because their bodies are still there.  On the other hand, the location where Jesus had been buried is uncertain, and nobody has ever produced His body to refute the claim that He rose from the dead. 

The Bible records that some of Jesus’ enemies claimed that the disciples stole His body, but His disciples were as surprised as anyone when they did not find His body, and some thought it had been moved by others.  Additionally, what would be the odds that a few unarmed Jewish fishermen could overpower the trained Roman soldiers who had been assigned to guard the grave to prevent against just such an occurrence?

Other modern objectors have claimed that Jesus did not actually die, but merely passed out, but the details given in the Gospels, especially by Luke, a doctor, clearly describe a man who has died.  Beyond that, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers—the most proficient executioners in human history, who certainly knew how to make sure that a man was dead. 

Even more, if he had merely passed out, he would not only have needed to survive two nights in a cold, sealed stone tomb, but to do so wrapped in a few dozen pounds of spices and burial cloths, and recover so well as to be able to unseal the tomb from the inside by removing a stone that would typically require at least two men to move.

If all of this were not enough evidence, His own mother and brothers, who would have known His actions most closely, as well as some of His fiercest enemies, such as Saul (later re-named St. Paul) worshipped Him as God.  Only something as miraculous as the resurrection could bring this about.  Furthermore, even under the pressure of torture, none of the disciples who witnessed His resurrection ever retracted their claims. 

There is simply no other explanation to the resurrection of Jesus than that it actually occurred, just as He predicted during His life.