Jesus Was a Terrible [1st Century] Jew

Now that I have your attention, let me explain. I know Jesus was a Jew, biologically, racially, and religiously. In fact, he was the perfect Jew, he says so himself: "I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17) However, as I read Leviticus 15 this morning I realized that by the standards of the 1st century Jewish Pharisees, Jesus was a terrible Jew. Instead, he was a great God!

Leviticus 15 deals with the Mosaic regulations concerning bodily discharges. Let me cut right to Leviticus 15:25, which connects directly to Jesus.

"When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge."

Furthermore, according to Mosaic Law, if one person was unclean, then anything they touched or anyone who touched them became automatically unclean (this has to do with God's holiness, but that's a whole series of posts).

So, we jump to 1st century Palestine, region of Galilee on the outskirts of the city Capernaum. Jesus is on his way to heal the synagogue director's (Jairus) daughter who is sick. As he is walking and being jostled about by the crowd, he suddenly stops and asks, "Who touched me?" Peter, his disciple, thinks this is an absolutely ridiculous question since they are in the midst of a crowd. But Jesus persists, "This was a different touch. Power flowed out of me into someone else."

Turns out slinking amongst the crowd was a woman who had been bleeding consistently (likely internal hemorrhaging) for twelve years--obviously far longer than the typical monthly period for menstrual discharge. She had heard about this Jesus character. So when he was in town "she came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak" (Luke 8:44a).

I want to pause here and give credit to Rob Bell (and through Rob Bell to Ray VanderLaan) for teaching me something about this story. Rob teaches that all good Jewish men (and Jesus was one) would have a prayer shawl (or cloak) underneath their garments on which tassels would hang from the edges to remind them of Torah (the first five books of the Bible). The edge of the shawl/cloak was known as the kanaph (said "khan-ahf"). The tassels were called tzitzit (said "tzeet-zeet"). In Malachi 4:2 the prophet declares God's word that "For those who revere [the Name of the Lord], the sun (or Son) of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings (literally kanaph).

So, back to the woman who has been bleeding for twelve years. She knows something about Jesus that others may or may not have figured out yet. She believes that this "man" is actually the Son of righteousness. So she sneaks up behind him and touches his kanaph. Now, since she (an unclean woman) has touched Jesus, Jesus should be technically unclean by Mosaic Law standards. Instead, "Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering." (Mark 5:29)

According to Leviticus 15:28-30, once the woman had been cleansed from her discharge, she was to bring two sacrifices (one a sin offering, the other a burnt offering) to the priest to "make atonement for her before the Lord". Jesus (being the perfect Jew) knew this law of Moses. But does he instruct the woman to go bring the sacrifices to the priests? Does he bother to cleanse himself and offer his own sacrifices like a good Jewish man was supposed to according to Mosaic Law?

To both questions I give a resounding "NO!"

Why not? Because the woman has already made atonement for herself before the Lord.

Check it out: in Psalm 51:16-17 David declares, "You do not delight in sacrifice [of animal].... The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." In Isaiah 1:13, 17-18 the prophet declares God's words: "Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow." So it is not the animal sacrifices that the Lord desires and through which atonement is made. It is the faith that God will forgive and heal us that brings atonement.

The woman who was bleeding for twelve years has faith in the words spoken by Malachi and she believes that those words speak about Jesus Christ. By having faith that even Jesus' cloak (or rather the edge of his cloak, kanaph) could heal her, she made atonement for herself before her Lord and Savior right on the spot.

And as for Jesus--well, not only did he not become unclean; his perfect cleanliness (hmm, what could we better call it--oh, wait, HOLINESS!) made the "unclean" woman clean.

I echo the sentiments of Rob Bell: "I love my rabbi!"

For those of you who thought the book of Leviticus was boring, you haven't read deep enough with a mind that was ready to learn.

A Kingdom of Priests Who Do Not Worry

The other day two biblical teachings that aren't usually associated together became associated in my mind. I can only assume this was the work of the Good Counselor helping me to further understand the good news. They are Christ's command to not worry and the teaching that the body of Christ is a kingdom of priests.

Currently I am reading my way through the book of Leviticus. Why, you ask? I am seeking Christ in the Law, of course. My Lord said himself "I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill every letter of it." Therefore I should be able to find him in every chapter of Leviticus. I'm finding him here and there, but that's not my point. While reading through Leviticus I am noticing all the ways that God provided for his priests.

• "When this goat is sacrificed, the priests are to eat the leftovers. It is their share."
• "When grain is offered, bake it into cakes. The leftover cakes are to be eaten by the priests, it is their share."
• "When a wave offering is offered, the priests are to eat the leftovers, it is their share."

The entire life of the priests who were serving involved sacrifices all day long. They didn't have time to go out to Meijer and buy groceries. They didn't have the opportunity to work a part-time job. They were hard and work from sunrise to sunset and sometimes more working for the Lord. And what did God ever do for them? Oh, how about give them food, and drink, and an income (eventually a temple tax was instituted). It was part of the Israelite community life that the priests were taken care of.

Jump to the New Testament where in Hebrews the followers of Christ are called a royal priesthood. Each one of us who follows Christ has the responsibility of being a priest in this world, interceding for the sins of the unbelievers. Working on their behalf to invite the presence of God into their lives so that the Holy Spirit might turn their hearts of stone to hearts of flesh.

And if we are priests, and we are hard at work working for the Lord, who provided for his Old Covenant priests, will he not provide for us, his New Covenant priests. The priests of the Old Covenant had plenty of food. Some of it they had to eat that very day. Sometimes they could save some for the next day, but they had to eat it on the next day or it was bad. The priests did not store away. They had to trust that God would keep them well-fed.

So, too, Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "Do not worry about what you will eat or what you will drink or what you will wear." Did he not take care of his Old Covenant priests? Yes, he did. That's what we have the Old Testament books like Leviticus, to show us the very blessings and provision of God Almighty. So now as his new royal priesthood he will take just as much care of us and so much more.

So do not worry about tomorrow, oh, my sisters and brothers of the royal priesthood. Tomorrow will worry about itself and the Lord has planned for it in advance. Each day has enough worry of its own. My the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face shine upon you and be with you. And may he give you his peace. Amen.

What If Everyone is Right?

"What if everyone is right?" asked my student.

"What do you mean?" I was seeking his definition of "right".

"What if all religious worldviews are right because the people's faith makes it right?" The student had arrived at his conclusion. I could see from his body language that my student had pondered this before and appeared to be working through it still even as he was asking the question. Unfortunately it was not directly tied to the lesson at hand, so I had to give him a short answer:

"Well, if everyone is right, then we have conflicting ideas to deal with, such as what is good and evil, or even if those two concepts exist. How do we reconcile all worldviews when many of them conflict?"

The student was not completely satisfied, but he accepted the answer as something to reconsider. So we moved on.

However, the question stuck with me. "What if their faith made it right?" I assumed the student was ruminating whether the belief held made the religion or the worldview real; whether the belief created the reality.

Forget for a moment that the numerous worldviews conflict (i.e. that the Hindu view of Atman [God] is by and large diametrically opposed to the Muslim view of Allah [God]). Let's say, for the sake of discussion that Buddha's laws of non-contradiction are in agreement with the strict Law of Moses which proposes a distinction between good (the Law) and evil (breaking the Law). If all worldviews suddenly lined up and were in full agreement with each other, let us then talk about the faith held by the religious person.

Could it be that my belief makes my reality? In other words, my belief in something makes it real, and if it is real, it is thus true. I hope you can see the inherent problem with this [particular] worldview: "What is it, then, that I'm having faith in?" That is the question of faith.

If it is my faith that makes something real, do I really have faith? Faith is believing in something I cannot essentially see or experience for certain. It believes that there is more than meets the eye. Therefore, inherent in faith is hope. Faith begets hope. Hope keeps faith alive. The two go hand-in-hand. If I have faith that my wife loves me, I have the hope that she will give me a gift on my birthday.

Eventually the hope is either fulfilled or let down and deceived. Once I receive the gift from my wife, I no longer have hope for the gift. The gift has been made manifest and my hope is fulfilled. Once my hope has been met, it is gone, and thus I no longer have faith that my wife shows me love through that gift. The gift has become tangible. The gift (as it were) has incarnated. I no longer have faith that the gift exists, I know it exists because it is in my hand.

But what if I do not receive the gift? What if I wish for the gift with all that I am and believe that my wife loves me and therefore will get me the gift? And then the gift does not appear. My belief in my wife and in the gift has clearly not made the gift real to me, no matter how much I believed in the gift or my wife's love.

And yet, why would I have hoped for the gift in the first place? Because I know the gift exists somewhere. I wish for the gift because I have seen it and desire it. Or if I have not seen it, I have been told that it exists somewhere. The existence of the object must precede the faith. My faith alone is not enough to make something real and therefore true. The object of my faith must precede my having faith in it, or it is not faith at all but rather foolishness. The man who believes he can fly, who has faith in his own wings, does not make his flight real by jumping off a building and flapping. He creates his own doom by foolishly believing in something which actually cannot be. If my faith is what makes my reality--if my belief is what makes it real--then I am a fool to be pitied among all men. I am hoping for something that does not exist. The reality that I am creating is coming from me, and I am wretched. Woe be upon me!

So it is that not all religious worldviews can be right and true in every aspect simply because individuals or the religious collective believes it. A religious worldview is right only if it has faith in, is believing in, something which actually is. C.S. Lewis puts it this way:

"The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can’t both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction." ~ God in the Dock.

One could replace "Materialist" with any one of the religious faiths/worldviews on this earth, and the quote still holds true. Therefore, we must assume that some religious worldviews are false in their beliefs. They are believing in something which does not exist. This gives great importance to evangelism. That which is real must be the worldview that is given to all peoples so that they are having faith in something which actually exists. Which is the actually real worldview? That is a discussion for another time.

"As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord." ~ Joshua 24:15

The Intrinsic Error of the Post-modern "Whatever"

I do not claim to be the first person to conceive of this error in post-modern practice. However, I do claim that I came to the realization on my own, and therefore will share it with any reader.

Post-modern philosophy (coming out of France through the likes of Derrida, Lyotard, & Foucault) has led to a cultural mentality of "Whatever." That is, "Whatever you want to do, do it." While at the same time the cultural mentality tells us "Just don't press your beliefs on others. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. Don't try and convince them otherwise."

Thus it is that the Christian faith has come under quite some fire from the post-modern culture. The Christian faith makes claims such as "Jesus is the only way to salvation," and "Jesus is the only true source of Truth because he is the Truth." Post-modern culture does not like to hear this because it is not a worldview of "Whatever" but rather what the world calls a worldview of exclusiveness. (Which, by the way, makes no sense, since Jesus invited the entire world to come to him. That alone sounds rather inclusive.)

Now, here is where post-modern practical philosophy begins to undermine itself. It is a philosophy of "Whatever" and "Don't press your ideas onto other people," but if Christians begin to press there morals and beliefs (which are Jesus' morals and teachings) upon others, post-modern philosophy turns on Christians and says, "No, you can't do that. You need to believe what we believe, and that is to leave people alone in their individualism."

Thus it is that post-modern philosophy (which professes individual living and thinking) presses itself upon Christians, trying to make Christians part of the post-modern cultural community (which is not individualism at all). So, post-modern philosophy both pushes itself on a group of people and desires them to be part of an inclusive community.

Take that.

Adendum: God's Intended Purpose in Predestination

Since my last posting, I consulted a theological friend of mine. He helped me understand a bit more about Romans 8:28-30: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." The predestining here is for believers to become like Christ--to have Christ send his Spirit upon them and work in them the process of sanctification.

The more I interact with and hear from the high school students I teach, the more I come to realize how desperately we who call ourselves Christians need to understand this idea of being changed into the likeness of Christ (sanctification). I recently finished grading an assignment by one of my students, and in her personal response she asked "Can't the gospel message just be 'Jesus has saved me to be with him in heaven.'? Can't that be the message we bring to the world?"

Yes, it can. But, oh, how that falls short of God's desire for us. (I intentionally use the word "desire" for it is something God craves and wants like a child for ice cream on a hot summer's day.) How very little it is for us to want heaven. As C.S. Lewis once wrote "It is not that we humans desire too much," (insert "streets of gold and life eternal" if you will) "it is that we settle for too little." What does Jesus want for us (not from us)? To be shaped, conformed, molded, seared, carved, broken and rebuilt into his likeness.

Christ did not come to this world to die on the cross simply that I might go to heaven when I die and at the resurrection receive my glorified body. No, Christ came to save me from myself. In Romans 7 Paul says "I find in myself this: that my sinful nature is at work and likes to do what it wants to do." That's me! If I am to be honest, I don't like it when Jesus says "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you." I want my enemies to receive due justice and penalty, and if it can be with my hands, so much the better. I want to be like the Pharisee, strutting my self-righteous spirit all over and pointing out flaws in other people.

But that is not the spirit that Christ had; that is not the life he lived, though he had every right to do it. No, Christ was a compassionate servant who was obedient, "even to death on a cross." If I don't get help from Christ, I will never live up to the commands he has given to me as His follower.

And so it is that God has predestined His followers to be shaped into the likeness of Christ. Not so that we might be saved, but that here--in this lifetime, among these people, on this earth that is our true home and final destination--we would begin to live like Christ, through the power of the Spirit. Oh, the glorious riches and blessings that we might bring to this cruel world if only we would realize the true calling God has for his children.

Grace and peace to you from God above. Amen!

God's Intended Purpose in Predestination

The issue of predestination is a heated topic in Christian circles. Anytime I cover the Synod of Dort in a Church History class, the students regularly have a difficult time accepting the concept of predestination. (On a side note, I do not fully agree with what most people believe the Synod of Dort was teaching.) Furthermore, when I teach the book of Romans to my high school students, we arrive at Romans 8 and must breach the topic of predestination. Once again, heated debate ensues to determine what God meant by predestination. (Interesting how we try to tell God what He was thinking, no?)

As I was writing a test on the book of Romans just a while ago, the Spirit hit me with a major revelation concerning predestination that I must share with someone, so I thought "Why not share it with the whole world?" or at least those of you who care to read my sporadic blogging.

The issue that I have found to be consistently at the center of the predestination debate is "How could God choose a select few to save, and condemn everybody else." I emphasize "select few" because I believe that is what most people are passionate about. They reason that if God loves the whole world (John 3:16) and is not wanting anyone to parish (2 Peter 3:9), then why is it that so few will be saved? The major error with this thinking is once again that we humans are trying to complain to God about a topic on which we have no clue. Here is what I mean -- Paul explains in Romans 9 (quoting Ex. 33:19) that God chooses who He desire to have mercy upon. End of story. Therefore, whom God chooses to save is the number He has in mind.

But here was my revelation: the number that God has saved, is saving and will save is bigger than we could possibly imagine or ask for (Eph. 3:20). Let me take you through my process of revelation. As stated above, I was working on the test on Romans to give to my students. One question I had was "Who are considered the true descendants of Abraham?" One of the false answers I provided as a choice was "the number of stars and sand". Very quickly the Spirit connected God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15 & 22 (number of stars and the sand on the seashore, respectively), to Paul's words in Romans 4 when he says that Abraham is the father of all who believe (in God's promise of the gift of righteousness, that is Jesus Christ).

Now, whenever I read about Abraham being the father of those who believe (as opposed to those who are physically circumcised), I immediately reflect on Jesus' words in John 8. Jesus is speaking to the Jews who claim to be children of Abraham. Jesus tells them they are not Abraham's children because they do not do what Abraham did, that is believe the Word of God. Jesus then calls them children of the devil (which is a lesson that should make us all check ourselves). So, even Jesus confirms that the children of Abraham are those who believe the Word of God.

Jump back to God's promise to Abraham in Genesis. Did God have in mind the entire nation of ancient Israel when He made that promise. Yes, He had to. Or else His other promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ("Your descendants will inherit this land.") does not hold up. However, the more I read the Bible, the more I realize just how far reaching (in my eyes) God's vision is. (Of course, since he exists outside of time, he sees the whole picture.) So, yes, He meant the nation of Old Testament Israel, but He meant so much more than that (which our finite brains have a general problem comprehending most of the time).

I give you John the Revelator's vision in Revelation 7 - "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb." And who are these people of the great multitude? Well, there is little doubt that it is the saints who have been saved by the Name that is above all names; those children of Abraham who have believed and it was credited to them as righteousness. And what does John declare -- "no one could count them." What does the Lord say unto Abraham in Genesis 15 -- "Count the stars, if you can. So shall your descendants be." This great multitude standing before the Lamb their Savior are the number of the stars, the sands of the seashore, the descendants of Abraham.

So we come back to the debate of predestination. The question I hear most often is "So God will save some and condemn the rest. What's the deal with that?" I think we need to revisit the promises of God and stop telling Him what He has planned. Will God save "some"? If by "some" you mean a number to much to count, then yes, God Almighty will save "some". But I think the question we rather need to ask is "If I see that person in heaven who I loathe more than any other person, how would I react?" God is in the business of salvation. He invites us to be apart of His plan to save the great multitude. He calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves, not simply because God is love and our neighbor carries the image of God, but because we may stand right next to that person when we don the white robe and join the great multitude.

Take that, and live it.