Suffering in the Kingdom

Rejoicing and celebration are often thoughts that go along with the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven. There are devout Christians, however, who through their experiences have found God’s Kingdom to be the antithesis of jubilation. For example, C. S. Lewis argued, “If God’s goodness is inconsistent with hurting us, then either God is not good or there is no God … If it is consistent with hurting us, then He may hurt us after death as unendurably as before it” (27-28).

In order to make sense of this, the biblical idea of human nature must be taken into consideration. And that is all people, every man, woman and child, are inclined toward evil and in resistance of God (Eph. 2:3). So then, the natural state of man is to resist God. If left alone, we would naturally want nothing to do with Him. In our rebellious state, God can offer us nothing we desire. Heaven would be of no value to us because the natural order of business there involves something other than the self as the center. Since true joy is found outside the self, the nature of a person needs an overhaul before it can desire Heaven. And, just as no plant can uproot itself, no person can change the self in this way. This overhaul requires God’s intervention.

But, just as most theologians would argue, this intervention does not happen at death; it happens while we occupy this husk, this body of dust. And just like any surgery on the body (that is, something outside cutting in), there is a fair amount of pain and grief involved in the soul with the spiritual equivalent of surgery. This correction is painful. It is required becaue our hearts are out of order.

This suffering for having a heart out of order, though unpleasant, is actually desirable for the regenerated Christian. Though Christians still experience sinful inclinations, their chief (new) desire is supernatural; that is, to be in relationship with their King. It isn’t heaven that a Christian yearns for. It is a person, a relationship, namely Jesus. A good example comes from the Antebellum Puritan Anne Bradstreet. She wrote, “I have thought if the Lord would but lift up the light of His countenance upon me, although he ground me to powder, it would be but light to me, it would be heaven.” So I submit it is better to have oneself derailed and suffering, than to continue in ignorant bliss down a track that ultimately leads a person from his true Love.

Christian thinkers often argue it is the presence of the Creator that makes heaven a desired place, and not the riches there. That is, were Jesus absent, a soul would feel the misery of hell. This is what Bradstreet explicitly claimed when she wrote, “could I have been in heaven without the love of God, it would have been a hell to me, for in truth it is the absence and presence of God that makes heaven or hell.” This seems accurate when considering the chief aim of the regenerated Christian is not a location, but Jesus himself. Everyone experiences this in their relationships. It is often relationships that make material objects and places enjoyable and meaningful. It is one’s relationships with other people that make certain geographic places vibrant and heavenly, and not those places in and of themselves. When I think back on a place in this world with nostalgia, it is usually a place where I shared a special time with another person, my mother, my friends, and my wife. To go back to that place, by myself, would not bring back the joy. The place represents the joy of the relationships.

This mindset, then, when followed to its logical end will conclude that heaven is not the chief desire of the Christian. Heaven is certainly not limited to the New Creation state, foreseen in the Bible, that lacks pain, sorrow and tears, (Revelation 21). If heaven is truly defined for the Christian as the presence of God, then one surely can have attained heaven in this life, amidst trials, suffering and death. That is because Jesus claims to be with his people on earth, and more literally, the Holy Spirit is in them. Jesus implicitly claimed wherever he is, there is the kingdom of heaven, (Matt. 10:7). And, as long as a Christian is in his present condition, (that is, with imperfection, sinful impulses and wanton desires,) being in the kingdom will result in suffering. That is because imperfections result in conflicts with God and He will work on a person until all imperfections are chiseled out. Or, as Lewis put it, a person must be “knocked silly before he comes to his senses” (38). And even then, no person reaches perfection before death; every person is a work in progress.

Therefore, to be a child of God means to suffer, because the sinful condition has corrupted the soul. And, since a state of corruption is disagreeable to one who yearns for righteousness, the painful discipline of God becomes an asset. It makes a person better, even in this life. In another book, Lewis argued the same point from personal experience: “most real good that has been done me in this life has involved [suffering].”

And, since Jesus is the one directly involved in the sinner’s purification, being in the Kingdom of Heaven (albeit, in a pre-New Creation state) involves abundant suffering – it, in fact, demands it.

Note: C. S. Lewis quotations came from Letters to Malcom and A Grief Observed.

Good News

This is still the best news we could ever hope for.

Although each person’s idea of proper behavior may vary a little, we all share two things in common. 1) All reasonable people agree good attributes include selflessness, love, humility, justice and courage – all agree their antonyms, such as selfishness, prejudice, arrogance, injustice and cowardice are bad; and 2) on a regular basis every person fails at certain points to live up to the standards they intuitively know to be right. In other words, no reasonable person claims to be perfect – even by their own standards.

Now, there is a God who made the universe and all creatures, including us. In Him we live and move and have our being – and this is where our intuition of morality and right and wrong come from. But in the course of human events we have developed in ourselves the instinct to rebel and seek our independence from Him. We are designed to be with Him, but perfection is a prerequisite.

However, because God loves us, and because he knows our happiness can only be in Him, he seeks each of us out. He pursues us. Being God’s offspring, he calls all people everywhere to stop where they are, and turn back on a path toward Him, and away from self. In fact, He has set a day on which he will call everyone into account for their conduct, judging fairly and impartially.

He will do this with a man who He has appointed – and this man is unmistakable because, as a sign to humanity, God raised him from the dead. There is convincing historical evidence of this.

This man is Jesus the first-century Jew. His life, death and resurrection were foretold hundreds of years before it happened in numerous ways and places.

Those who look into these things, and – based on their findings – put their trust in Jesus, will not be held accountable for their offenses. Jesus’ suffering and death is sufficient propitiation to win us back, because he was without fault, but willingly paid our debt by enduring God’s wrath.

An open door back to our creator is certainly good news – especially when we realize it is we who shut the door. But Jesus opened it back up.

These things are worth looking into. The claims of Jesus are too bold to ignore: “I am perfect.” – “I am God’s only son.” – “I am your only hope.” – “I have swallowed up death.” – “I AM The Way, The Truth, The Life.”

If he was wrong, it is worth debunking, and his words are those of a lunatic. But, if he is right – it changes your life.

(Image: photo of a portion of Jerusalem's Western Wall of the first-century Temple mount. It is the place where Jesus came to teach. It still stands today. In the cracks of the stones are letters, written to God.)

Standard of Cleanliness in a Personal Anecdote

Projectile vomiting is not a sport.

But if it were, my infant daughter would be among the elite.

Chloe suffers from chronic stomach pain because of a repairable condition she had called gastroschisis. She was born with her intestines outside her body, resulting in her noteworthy ability to propel stomach content at great distances. It is extraordinary to behold.

This is why my wife, Kyoung, and I call Chloe a two-person baby. Feeding her can be a complicated event for us, and a painful affair for her. So, when I’m home, I try to be as helpful as I can when it comes to her feedings. Recently after breastfeeding Chloe, Kyoung handed her to me for burping. It was during this time the following scene unfolded.

After 20 minutes of back-patting, (and without warning,) Chloe’s mouth erupted with jiggling curds of sour milk. She apparently wanted to share her meal. It soiled my arms and legs, as well as the folds of her neck, her chest, her shirt and blanket. Kyoung was almost hit from across the room.

This time the volume of milk was impressive. I estimated she tapped as far back as nine feet into her small intestine. The mess would take a while to clean up, so I quickly wiped her down and gave her back to Kyoung to feed again. I worked on the carpet. Cleaning Chloe herself had to wait until she was full, because a hungry baby is difficult to deal with. I planned to change her shirt and blanket and wipe her down with a warm rag, (she just had a bath).

So, she ate again and Kyoung gave her back to me for re-burping. After a few minutes she produced a dry (thankless) burp and I began the laborious process of changing her shirt and diaper. I say “laborious” because she has a low tolerance for being touched in any way unrelated to affection, (an unfortunate result of five weeks of pokes, prods, surgeries and shots). So, changing her clothes makes her cry, and this time was no exception. But the true lamenting didn't occur until I began wiping her face, neck and chest with a warm, wet cloth. (I had to; she smelled like sour milk and stomach bile.)

Despite her protesting with what I call her propeller arms and piston legs, I finally got a clean shirt back on and wrapped her in a fresh blanket to warm her up. At this point I was not in her favor. No sooner did I get her calmed down did she make a calculated statement about how she felt about me. She looked right at me with a sort of infant defiance, and calmly vomited again, in a controlled and measured manner. It was as if she was saying, "Take this dad. This is for rubbing me with that awful wet rag."

So I had to go through the whole ordeal of changing and cleaning her again. She protested and gasped, and lathered herself up in a furious little mood. That is the thanks I get for maintaining a standard of cleanliness.

She's going to hear all about this when she is older.

The Forsaken Jesus: What does he mean when asking God why?

At the moment before Jesus' death he asks a troubling question: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34). When Jesus makes a peculiar statement like this, he just might be saying much more than we first realize.

Did God forsake Jesus? Or is Jesus calling our attention to Psalm 22? His Jewish contemporaries would likely have had it memorized:

The Enemy: Parable or Personal?

Is Satan real, or only a fable?

In some Christian circles people will argue Satan is a fable, or merely an abstract force of evil personified in the imaginations of people who need someone to blame (other than God).

Some people reject the idea of Satan because the way he’s been caricatured in the West. Believing in a red-tailed, hoofed and horned boogieman, such as Gary Larson, portrays Satan as, is beneath most adults. And for good reason. But dismissing the caricature should not lead to dismissing the real thing.

Since Satan makes very few appearances in the Old Testament, some people argue the Jews adopted the idea of Satan through Persian and Greek influences over time. They will say that by the first century the erroneous idea of Satan had snuck its way in among the Jews. But this is no sound evidence to dismiss Satan as real. There are multiple possibilities explaining his few cameos in the OT – I’ll list three: 



1) The role of Satan had little to do with the communication goal of the OT – that is the rebellion of humanity (where he is mentioned in Gen. 3), the establishment of Israel as a theocracy, the need of an established sacrificial system to shadow the mission of Jesus and Israel’s rebellion (representing Adam and all of humanity). 



2) The reality of Satan may have been gradually revealed by God to the Jews. We get a very narrow picture of Satan in Eden from Genesis 3 and not much after that in the OT. But as time went by, God could have revealed more and more through the Holy Spirit to the Jews. This wouldn’t be the only time God gradually gave the Jews more knowledge about spiritual things as centuries passed. C. S. Lewis (in his book Surprised By Joy) pointed out that God gradually introduced the idea of an afterlife and heaven to Jews. He revealed only Himself first. Until a certain time the Jews believed only in earthly existence and had an idea of retributive justice (do good, you will prosper; do evil, you will suffer). The Sadducees took this line. He may have gradually revealed Satan’s role as well.



and



3) God could have introduced an accurate idea of Satan through pagan influences and revelation. God is known in the Bible to reveal special knowledge to Gentiles too. Melchizedek, Pharaoh, the Persian king, the wise men of Matthew and Cornelius are examples.

Christians who think Jews and early Christians erroneously adopted the idea of Satan must be prepared to accuse all the authors of the New Testament (plus Jesus), of this error. They all describe (or imply) Satan as a personal being who is leading an insurrection against God. (A few examples include all accounts of Jesus temptation, Mark 3:26, Acts 26:18, Rom. 16:20, 2 Cor. 2:11, 1 Pet. 5:8, and 1 John 5:19.) If God really is omnipotent, (and Satan a fable) God would have found a way to accurately communicate the truth in His inspired Word. Plus, NT authors were closer to Jewish antiquity than any of us are and had access to better historical documents that we do. Additionally, Luke and Paul were highly educated men and they along with all NT authors were capable thinkers. To assume they got it wrong and we got it right is an example of what C. S. Lewis calls chronological snobbery; that the philosophy, ideas or worldview of an earlier time are inherently inferior when compared to that of contemporary thinkers.



Christians who accept Satan as fictitious will have a hard time accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God (verbal plenary inspiration), as it claims itself to be. If Christians suppose the authors of the Bible were wrong on this account, how can they be sure NT authors are credible in other areas? If I were to be convinced Satan himself were merely a fable, (and I was honest about it), I could no longer call myself a Christian; the Bible would be nothing more than a set of errant historical documents. 



I suggest if we take away the belief of a powerful, personal, corrupt being who rebelled against God and has an agenda to influence and deceive mankind, we are putting people in a very dangerous position. The Bible commits a moderate amount of text to warning people about Satan and his schemes. If we dismiss Satan, we are not likely to take these warnings seriously – and the warnings are there for a reason.

Introspection: A convincing apologetic

A Christian need not be a well-read scholar to justify his faith. Although there is plenty of evidence supporting theism, the Bible, and historicity of Jesus, one need not be familiar with that evidence to honestly and rightly conclude Christianity is The Way.

Take the following example:

The most targeted area of attack on Christianity is the creation account in the book of Genesis. As many Christians will agree, it seems too elementary and mythological. How could the heavens and earth and all its creatures have been created in seven days? Why does modern archeology suggest the earth is so much older than what the Bible seems to suggest? What of the dinosaurs? Where did they come in? If the Bible is truly God’s inspired Word (Verbal Plenary Inspiration) why does it seem to contradict what modern science has hypothesized?

First, allow me to propose there are many scholarly and Biblical answers to these questions – that’s where good Christian apologetics come it. But one need not look at all the external and scholarly sources to draw a logical conclusion in favor of Christianity. There are plenty of theories in harmony with Genesis 1-2 that explain reasonable possibilities. For example, it is important to know that the thesis of Genesis is not to provide a scientific answer to man’s origins. This was not God’s purpose in providing the Genesis account. God did not aim to scratch the intellectual itch of all the skeptics by answering how the universe was made, and how long it took. Were this His purpose, I suppose we would have gotten way more than what we bargain for. Instead, His purpose was two-fold: (a) to introduce himself as the One supreme creator, and (b) to wake up humanity to its spiritual ruin based on the fall of its first parents. Details and time of creation are not the point of Genesis or the Bible. The point is our redemption.

But knowing things like this isn’t what inclined me to trust the Bible. When I came to believe, I did not first look at all the academic evidence before believing, (and there is sufficient evidence). I did not consider things like the dinosaurs. But even if I had looked at all the arguments against the truth of Christianity without knowing favorable arguments, it would not have altered my course (1). I did not need the secondary source of authority when I had the primary source of experience. And this experience I’m talking about is accessible to every person – namely, the fact that something is obviously wrong in oneself and the world.

Here’s what I mean. All of us (at an early age) come to find the world is not always a just and morally fair place. We find there are people who will steal from others; there are those who hate and murder based on ethnicity; spouses commit adultery; women, and even men are raped; and we find genocide in our history books, (and many find themselves the victim of these things). So we all come to the simple conclusion, based on first-hand experience, that something is not right, not just. As many apologists will point out, we get this idea of justice and morality from an authority above man, namely God. Were naturalism true, Christians argue there would be no moral instinct and no impulse to label some things as honorable (such as charity) and other things as despicable (such as avariciousness). After all, aren’t we all appealing to a higher standard when we say, “that’s not fair”? Who determines what is right and wrong if not God? And where did we get the instinct if he did not put it in our hearts? If this realization were enough to convince a person to believe in God (and ultimately Jesus,) then nearly everyone would be a theist. It took a step further to convince me. It took self-examination.

Any person who will look honestly at his own heart will find there is something seriously wrong on the inside. Any honest man will admit he has frequently violated the standard of conduct he expects from other people. The alcoholic knows his drinking is harmful, but continues to do it; the thief will protest when he himself is stolen from; the unfaithful husband does not like to find his wife being had by another man; the liar wants the truth from others. These are simple examples, but the human heart is very complicated and every person is guilty of failing to be what they themselves believe is right and good. C. S. Lewis put it best: “All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt” (2).

This is what brought me to my knees in horror and disgust. After wondering for years why there is so much madness, pain and injustice in this world, a look inside at my own heart revealed the very problem was inside me. I could no longer smugly point out the evils of this world without introspection revealing myself to be one of the culprits. When one looks in the mirror and sees a loathsome mess, despair is a common reaction. Who wants to be foul? An even further discouragement was a realization I was helpless to change. Many a religious person has attempted, through personal effort, to bring about an internal change only to make a devil of himself with hypocrisy. You can clean the junk out of a river, but if that junk is welling up from the source, it will ever be dirty.

But I looked into my heart and found ugliness and corruption there; and further, I found no effort of my own would change it. So what if behavior can be altered – when the source is contaminated, no man (save One) can change it, because it would require a new source. A plant cannot uproot itself – something outside the plant must do the uprooting. When I realized this about myself, I found no other religion offered a satisfactory answer to the problem. Hinduism claims sin comes from ignorance and we must simply become enlightened. Buddhism claims the problem is desire, and we must starve our desire to be happy. Islam agrees with Christianity about sin, but in Islam, one must do penance – no substitute or regeneration is offered. These three major religions basically expect the plant to uproot and replant itself in “good” soil – and this is impossible. Only the Judeo-Christian position provides a way for a person to be properly reunited with its creator; because we need something on the outside to come in and wrench the source of evil (our hearts) out of us. Only the heart’s maker can change the heart. Only something higher and uncreated can suck the poison out of a man’s heart, and even then, the act is a thing that kills. Ripping the root of evil from a heart tears it asunder and kills the man. That is why only God can do it – because it requires one to be brought back to life again to make it through the ordeal. Thus, it is a miserable affair, but a necessary one. As Tozer put it, “The ancient curse … must be extracted in agony and blood like a tooth from a jaw. … There must be a work of God in destruction before we are free. We must invite the cross to do its deadly work within us” (3)

This is why no amount of rhetoric and evidence will convince a man to follow Christ. If God doesn’t do the calling (John 6:44), all one can do is alter a little behavior, but the heart continues to produce rubbish. This is also why a man (like myself) can come to trust and believe without studying all the academic and historical evidence and theories. Although sufficient evidence to believe is there, that is not what causes people to trust. The heart is “deceitful above all things and desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9, ESV). A deceitful heart can and does tamper with evidence and draws convenient conclusions.

Redemption begins when the man recognizes the wretched condition of his heart and becomes undone by it. From the man’s perspective, to see the world as twisted and corrupt is troubling and discouraging; but, to see oneself as twisted and corrupt, this is unacceptable. He laments, “Something must be done!” This bad news is what makes the Good News of salvation so appealing. Jesus, the God Man, is the only person or thing that offers what we need. No other religious figure claimed to be without sin, and offered himself for the debt. No other religious figure literally resurrected from the dead in accordance with historical records. No other religion provides a thorough cleansing as a free and unearned gift.

When a man sees the corruption in his own heart, he needs no other proof that something has gone wrong. He sees himself as he knows he ought not be – as he want not be. The foul condition suggests a deviation from a proper condition – and only one Man offers a realistic restoration. When a person comes to this realization, Jesus is standing – waiting for the invitation to come in and do the deadly work – to crucify the heart. Only then will the painful process of regeneration begin. Although it is done for us (we don’t lift a finger,) it is frightening. It is so painful, I find myself praying, “God be gentle,” but the desire to be free from the filth is cause for the deeper petition, “but be thorough.”

1. Jesus is powerful and unrelenting when he calls someone. In John 12:32 he says he draws men to himself. One friend of mine who is an accomplished scholar told me the Greek word used for “draw” in that verse could also be translated “drag.”

2. Lewis, C. S. (1980). Mere Christianity.

3. Tozer, A. W. (1982). The pursuit of God. pp 29 & 43.

Strength Concealed by Weakness

Divine humility is a term created by C. S. Lewis when he could find no other words to express his experience with a God so massive, so powerful, yet who approaches humanity with modesty and gentleness. Allow me to juxtapose these two qualities: God opened his mouth and spoke the universe into existence. We don’t yet know the full size because we have never seen the end of it. So what we can see is what astronomers call the “Observable Universe.” The observable universe is so massive there’s nothing in our language that can summon the proper perspective, so we’ll deal with our galaxy, the Milky Way.

This image is an artist's rendering of our galaxy. It consists of more than 200 billion stars; and by conservative estimates our galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. Let’s unpack this: Light travels more than 185,000 miles every second. A light year is the distance it would take an object to travel at light-speed for a whole year. So, if a person were to travel at 185,000 miles per second for 100,000 years, they might be able traverse the length of our galaxy. Okay, perhaps that’s a bit too long for us. Our galaxy is disk shaped, like Frisbee, so we might choose instead to pass through the width – that would only take 1,000 light years. In fact, if we were to scale our galaxy down to the size of one hundred miles in diameter, our solar system would be less than one millimeter in size.

In case this galaxy is too small for you to stretch your limbs, God has prepared extra space for us beyond our galaxy. In fact, astronomers confirm there are more than 80 billion other galaxies in the observable universe – this is just what we can see. And, that is not stars we’re dealing with mind you, but galaxies. The number of stars in the observable universe is uncountable, but astronomers estimate somewhere between 30 and 70 sextillion. That is 10 followed by 51 zeros times 45. According to Isaiah 40:26, God has a name for each one and calls them out by ranks.

The universe is only one example we can use to behold God’s greatness. We could have gone the other direction into, say, DNA and the billions of characters of organized code in only one strand. Suffice it to say, God is unfathomably awesome.

If we left our understanding of God at this, we couldn’t possibly find anything modest or meek about him. But Lewis experienced another side of God that leaves us breathless. By virtue of this unfathomable greatness, God is the one and only being that need not bother with anything or anyone. He has no need of anything. He is justified to do away with any creation that would dare to ignore or dismiss him. He is Mighty with a capital “M” and deserves all honor and respect. But this isn’t how he does business, and that is where the “Divine humility” comes in. He endures our insults and dismissals. As Lewis (1940) put it,

… it is a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us; a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up ‘our own’ when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, He stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because there is ‘nothing better’ now to be had. … It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell: yet even this he accepts. (p. 95-96)

What is it about God that motivates him to take such a humble approach toward us? This divine yet humble nature seems paradoxical, but it is very true to the Biblical concept of God’s character. John Milton must have had this Divine humility in mind when, in his Epic, Paradise Lost, he postulated the reason Satan had the audacity to strike a rebellion against the King of kings. Satan says, “but still [God’s] strength concealed/ Which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall” (1.641-42). In other words, Satan miscalculated the strength of God because of His Divine humility, and felt it was possible to usurp the throne.

Perhaps this is why God hates arrogance – it is so unlike Himself. The Bible is clear God aims to make us more like Him. Thus we find ourselves encouraged to place ourselves last, sit in the lesser seat, be the servant, and consider others more significant than ourselves. I’m not saying he wants us to be self-defacing; but a healthy dose of self-forgetfulness would do us all good. For those of us who don’t get this, who persistently kick against the goads, God has, in His grace, provided a thorn. He would have us be great like Him, but the path to that greatness is through a weakness. This is why God afflicted Saint Paul with a "messenger of Satan to torment him" (2 Cor. 12:7), and why he chooses the “foolish in the world to shame the wise” and “what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Cor. 1:27).

The man C. S. Lewis (1954) himself is a profound modern-day example. This man is arguably the most influential Christian writer of the twentieth century. He propped up the failing hearts of the Englishmen while their island was bombed in World War II, he wrote potent and effective books on Christian apologetics, he cleverly countered atheistic attacks on Christian faith, he produced insightful allegories in his series The Chronicles of Narnia, among other fiction, and he wrote numerous academic essays. Almost fifty years after his death he is probably the most-quoted Christian author, period.

But his impact on the Church was a result of a physical handicap. He was born with only a single joint in both thumbs, limiting his ability to work with his hands. This was cause for serious dismay and disappointment because he “longed to make things, ships, houses, engines” (p. 10). After repeated effort at creating and building, he admits turning from his “failures” in tears. It was “As a last resort ... I was driven to write stories instead” (p. 10, emphasis mine).

What path would his life have taken if God had given him normal joints like everyone else? The world would have lost out on his writing and reasoning and encouragement. Lewis displayed the wonder and wisdom of God in his writings. No doubt he prayed as a child for an operating pair of opposable thumbs! But God denied him this gift, and as a result he was driven to write! What he first saw as an affliction, and a serious weakness, God used for his greatest strength. This made Lewis' life a great example of what Jesus teaches: “My power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9).

Let this be a reminder for you and me, that when failure is lodged in our path, when we find our abilities severely limited and wanting, it just may be those very weaknesses that God will use to display His might and glory through us. For God wields great and awesome power, but he conceals it with weakness. How much more would He have his children be that way as well?

References:

Lewis, C. S. (1940). The problem of pain. New York: HarperCollins.

Lewis, C. S. (1955). Surprised by joy. Orlando, FL: Harcourt

Milton, J. (2000). Paradise Lost. London: Penguin

The Reed and the Oak

There is a Jewish parable that dates back to the first century called the Reed and the Oak. In this parable, a thin reed and a giant oak tree grew up along side each other near a river.

Throughout their life span they each encountered the same weather conditions – but each responded differently to the same types of weather. As wind picked up and blew, the reed would bend and sway in response to the wind; but the oak remained erect and upright because of its great strength and deep roots.

During the course of time a great and horrible storm came upon the land. The gale-force winds were so strong, and the oak so resistant to its influence, that it was uprooted and blown over. The reed, however, survived because it bent down low to the ground, compromising its upright posture. Yet, because the reed was willing to go very low it survived. And because the oak would not budge, it was blown over. Dr. Moseley explained the moral of the parable: “There was nothing wish-washy or compromising about the oak. The reed on the other hand, would bend to the right or left, even with a slight breeze” (p. 23).

You see, the oak lost its life by refusing to compromise, but the reed could only save itself by continually bending to the will of the wind. First century Jews likely knew this parable well. Knowing it ourselves, we get a better understand of what Jesus meant when he said this about John the Baptizer: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A Reed shaken by the wind?” (Matt. 11:7) the implied answer is “No! an oak!”

Jesus said this right after John sent a message to him from prison. By disassociating John with the reed, Jesus was comparing John to the oak in the parable. This statement was a tacit prediction of John’s upcoming death. John was strong, uncompromising with his faith, and his roots went deep. Therefore, when the horrible storm came, he would not bend as a reed, and as a result he would lose his life.

The lesson we take away from this is repeated elsewhere by Jesus in different words. If you are to be righteous, if you are to be a follower of Jesus, you must be prepared to lay down your life for the cause, because in many ways, that path requires us to be uncompromising to the world and its influences.

The idea is this: it is better to be an oak and lose one’s life, than to be a weak, and bending reed, and save it.

Reference:

Dr. Moseley, Ron. Yeshua; A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church. Baltimore, MD: Lederer, 1996.

Some Reasoning for Only One Way

One of the most common objections to our faith is the exclusiveness of Jesus. Skeptics will ask, “How can God be fair, making Jesus the only way to the Kingdom, when millions of people have lived and died without ever hearing of him?”

Without ever looking deep enough, people often reject Jesus as the only way to God, preferring to accept a pantheistic approach (many roads, one destination), because it seems more agreeable to them. They will call you closed minded and write you off as a shallow thinker. Be assured, however, there is good and diverse rationale, (that doesn’t nullify God’s justice) to the exclusivity of Jesus.

First none of us deserve to be saved. Humanity is broken and fallen. We have each rejected God and he would be fair and just in leaving us to our own vices. When we adjust our perspective this way, we understand there is tremendous grace in the fact that there is even one way back to him. It is a very ugly thing to be a criminal, and when offered an opportunity for acquittal, to sniff at it and respond, “This can’t be the only way.”

But why offer some people a chance to God and not others? If we ask this question we are limiting God – how can we know this is the case just because some people die without ever (allegedly) hearing the name of Jesus? God’s message of salvation is not limited to the single vehicle of human evangelism, (although he has made it clear it is to be the primary platform for the Good News). Jesus broke through directly to Saint Paul whose salvation came as a result from his message (Gal. 1:12). There are other places in the Bible where God spoke directly to Jews and pagans through visions, dreams, and even angels. Examples are Abimelech, Pharaoh and Balaam, not to mention the prophets. This is called the Universal Opportunity view. It rightly holds that God can save who he wants, when he wants, with or without our help. I’ve heard it put it this way: “The only thing that can thwart the desire of the omnipotent Creator to save all people, is their own unwillingness to be saved” (Boyd & Eddy 183). And I would even add that God could break through our unwillingness if he so desired. Jesus makes it clear that God chooses us and draws us to him – we don’t choose him (John 12:32, 15:16, Rom. 9:16).

Even if some people never get a chance to hear the salvation message we cannot call an all-knowing God unjust. Wouldn’t our God know if someone would respond to a message if they heard it? C. S. Lewis profoundly wrote, “I believe that if a million chances were likely to do good, they would be given … Finality must come some time, and it does not require a very robust faith to believe that omniscience knows when” (126). Those who would not respond to God remain in objection to him, whether they have had a million chances or zero – they remain who they are. The peculiar thing about those who are perishing is not their ignorance of God, but their ability to block him out of their lives. This is why Lewis said he believes “the damned are, in one sense, successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside” (130).

Another position is the Inclusivist View, which claims that Jesus is ontologically necessary for salvation, but not epistemologically necessary, (that is, Jesus is the only savior of humanity, but it is possible to attain salvation without explicit knowledge of him. It could mean people will be judged by how they respond to the limited truth they have, not the information they don’t have). This would account for all the people before Christ came, infant deaths, and people with mental disabilities. We see biblical support for this where Jesus welcomes those into the kingdom who did not recall, feeding him visiting him in prison, etc. (Matt. 25:36-40). Paul also wrote, “… we have our hope set on the living God, who is the savior of all people, especially those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). This implies God can save some of those who did not have a chance to believe.

For this reason, it would not surprise me to find some people in heaven who, although never heard Jesus’ name on earth, are perplexed to find they got there by the cover of his blood, without knowing the blood was at work in their life. This very thing happens in Lewis’s allegory called, The Last Battle. One of the antagonists, who worshiped what he thought was the True God, found himself in the afterlife confronted by the One True God. Shaken to find he was worshiping the wrong god all along, the man fell at the feet of the Glorious One and this scene unfolded:

[The man thought,] Surly this is the hour of death, for [The True God] will know that I served [the wrong god] all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see [The True God] and die, than to be [ruler] of the world and live and not to have seen Him.’ But The Glorious One bent down … and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of [the wrong god]. He answered, Child, all the service thou has done to [him], I account as service done to me (517).

I left out much of the context of this allegory for the sake of brevity, but the point being made here is, God knows the hearts of men and he saves whomever he pleases (Romans 9). (This doesn’t relieve us the obligation to evangelize, for (a) we have been commanded to do it, and (b) it is better for communities to live knowing Jesus, than live without knowing him.) Thus, it is offensive for us, as mere people, to be presumptuous enough to questions God’s methods of salvation. Anyone questioning Jesus as the only Way is likely not asking with purely philanthropic motives. Dr. David Stern astutely acknowledged that people “often raise the issue not out of concern for the ‘pitiful lost heathen’ but as a dodge to justify their own unbelief; the very form of the question assumes that God is unjust, and not worthy of their trust, that the ‘primitive tribesman’ is an innocent ‘noble savage’ and God the guilty party” (335). As we know, all men, (primitive or sophisticated) are not innocent, and God cannot be guilty.

This type of objection is likely the result of a straw man the unbeliever has set up, only to knock down. They don’t have the intent to take an objective look at the claims of Jesus in the first place. Those who may have some genuine concern for the un-evangelized must first decide how they will respond to the grace being offered to them, and let God worry about those who have not yet had the privilege of the message. You can be sure God is a better caregiver than they, and he has more concern for the un-evangelized than any other person. Once the skeptic has a life changing conversion, God may very well use him or her to reach those who haven’t yet heard the Good News.

References:

- Boyd, Gregory and Eddy, Paul: Across the Spectrum; Understanding the Issues in Evangelical Theology

- Lewis, C. S.: "The Last Battle" in The Chronicles of Narnia

- Lewis, C. S.: The Problem of Pain

- Stern, David: Jewish New Testament Commentary

The Messy Rebirth

Many doctors will agree the two most traumatic and frightening events in life are birth and death. These two physical activities are not romantic or graceful, but messy, painful and unflattering. There’s nakedness, blood, struggle and panic. As followers of Jesus, we do both at once. Therefore, the Christian walk is bound to be turbulent.

When we talk of being “born again” we often have in mind a quick event like that of a physical birth. We envision the event to happen in one (earthly) day, such as the day a Christian decides to believe. But the Bible refers to this rebirth as a process that unfolds here on earth. That is why Paul refers to those in Christ as being saved, and those who are not in Christ as perishing (2Cor. 2:15, ESV). And with this rebirth, comes the gradual death of our old selves (Matt. 16:24).

Thus these two heavy spiritual events are happening at the same time for the believer, a birth, and a death – no less messy than the physical counterparts. (An excellent allegory of this process is found in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.)

Here’s what I mean. When a person comes to understand his own wickedness, and realizes he needs help, the good news of Jesus is the beginning of new life for him. He will find that all his corruption and wrongdoings are wiped off his slate, and he gets a fresh start. This forgiveness results in the joy we know. We know life with the creator is unfathomable ecstasy, and the alternative to Jesus is guilt, shame, filth, wretchedness and crime. We sing because we don’t want to be dirty, but clean, and we have been cleansed. But, after time passes, the new believer will realize he is not yet finished dying to himself. He still has sinful impulses and often must bitterly resist a hunger to do wrong. If he gives to temptation, he is heartbroken. If he resists, he is perplexed and wearied. Life becomes an undulation of joy of salvation, and disappointment over fleshly desires. At times it can be difficult to rest in forgiveness when there is still the relentless desire to do wrong.

If you struggle through this kind of perplexing tension, you can be sure the work of salvation is in you. For, the beginning of rebirth is not self-gained perfection, but only the desire to be like Jesus and be good. If you have the desire, Jesus is working on you. We see Paul struggling with this very problem: “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (Rom. 7:18). But our flesh is dying, and it won’t go down easily. It will cause us grief as long as we occupy our old husks. Many scholars believe Paul’s famous thorn in the flesh was a sinful impulse (2 Cor. 12:7). It agonized him so much he wouldn’t leave Jesus alone about it. The reply he got was, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (verse 9).

Thus we are faced with a beautiful phenomenon of God’s character: He wills us not to sin, but can use our dying flesh to perfect the rebirth we are experiencing. Although we may not fully know why God works this way, we can surely know he understands us, because he walked with us. Because of this, there is mercy enough when we stumble. As long as we hate the falling, we can be sure he will always be ready to help us back up. No one put it better than C. S. Lewis:

“[God] wants [his people] to learn to walk and must therefore take away his hand; and if only the will to walk is really there, he is pleased even with their stumbles” (p. 40).

Unfortunately, this rebirth is very unflattering. In involves becoming conscious of our own nakedness, helplessness, and weaknesses. We will wail, moan and cry. We’ll flail our pudgy spirituals limbs about. We'll need our diaper changed very often. But God will continue to care for this new creation of his. Because our desire is to be with him, he is happy to hold our hand until we can walk on our own in maturity, on the other side of this life.

Reference:

Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HaprerCollins, 1942.

The Healing Tallit

“And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, ‘if I only touch his garment, I will be made well’” (Matthew 9:20-21).

This quotation is packed with meaning and sentiment uncommon to our modern culture. First, it is easy to miss the gravity of this woman’s hemorrhage. In the first-century Jewish culture, it made her an outcast according to the Law. She was seen as dirty – people avoided her, (and the things she touched) because of her condition (1). This explains why she attempted to touch Jesus in secret, for she knew the Law said it would pass her unclean status to the rabbi (2).

But the significant part of the text is the specification of where she touched: the fringe of his garment. The word “fringe” is translated from the Greek kraspedon, which is “a tassel of twisted wool” (3). As an obedient Jew, Jesus is wearing the robe with “tassels on the corner of [his] garment,” required in Numbers 15:37-41. The corner of the garment, in Hebrew was called kanaph (כנף), which could also be translated as “wings” – hence Jews often referred to the corner of their outer garments as wings (4). The garment itself is called the tallit, which is still worn during ritual worship by observant Jews. Tassels are worn on the four corners of the tallit in fulfillment of Numbers 15 – these are called tzitzit and are considered holy because they represent the commands of the Law. According to Dr. Moseley, in Jesus time tradition held that the tzitzit (tassels) of the Messiah’s tallit (outer garment) would have healing properties. This likely had roots in Malachi 4:2, believed to be a reference to the Messiah: “But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings” (emphasis mine).

The bleeding woman would no doubt be familiar with that scripture and the tradition behind it. Her desire to be healed motivated her to touch the one place on Jesus’ garment (tzitzit/fringe), which would have healing properties if he was indeed the Messiah.

Here’s what we can take away: The woman (a) knew the scripture and (b) believed them. If she had not believed, she would not have risked public ridicule by making the rabbi unclean. Had she not known the scripture (and the scholarly interpretations) she would not have thought to touch the tzitzit. But it was her specific act of touching the tzitzit that demonstrated her faith in Jesus as the Messiah, (with healing in his wings). And Jesus clarified to her, that it was her faith in him (not so much the tzitzit) that actually healed her.

In the same way, our faith will bless us if we know the scriptures, and believe them.

NOTES:

1. Leviticus 15:19-25 gives us perspective of the plight of this woman. A woman who bleeds from her menstrual cycle was labeled unclean, and anything she touches would also become unclean – be it another person or object. It must have been a burden to remain this way for seven days – but twelve years without human contact would be misery. This would not only limit her interaction with people, but it prevented her from entering the Temple area and celebrating the holy festivals.

2. In his Jewish New Testament Commentary, Dr. David Stern notes, “normally the impure defiles the pure” (p. 38, citing Hag. 2:11-13 and the Talmud). In this case, however, the opposite occurred, the impure became clean. Realize the only other place this happens in scripture is Exd. 29:37. After seven days of consecrating the alter, it became “most holy” and “whatever touches the alter shall become holy.” We make a connection to the “most holy” alter and Jesus, who is most holy – when we touch him, (like the alter) he remains undefiled, while we are cleansed. Also, the alter happened to be the place where blood was spilled and sin was atoned for.

3. From Dr. Ron Moseley in Yeshua; A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church, p. 20.

4. This changes the way we visualize places in the Bible where God’s wings are mentioned. For example, “under his wings you will find refuge” (Psalm 91:4), and, “hide me in the shadow of your wings” (Psalm 178). Also, when the Jews pray under their prayer shall (tallit) they are considered under the protection of God’s wings.

Significance of Blood, Water and Spirit

There are good reasons Saint John reported water and blood flowed from Jesus’ side after the Roman soldier pierced him with a spear. The medical explanation is called pericardial tamponade – a condition usually resulting from major chest trauma.

Many NT scholars believe Jesus suffered from this condition in his final moments. Basically, it is a condition where water fills the sac surrounding the heart (called the pericardium). Since we know Jesus was flogged and beaten, this is where he could have suffered the chest trauma. Pastor Mark Driscoll, Marshill Church, said he believes it was either this, or that Jesus fell under his cross beam when he was carrying it. Cross beams could way more than 100 pounds (like a railroad tie) and would crush a man's chest if he fell under it. This would explain why John's gospel mentions Jesus carried his own cross, but the synoptic gospels claim Simon carried it. One could mend this surface contradiction by holding that Jesus began by carrying his cross beam, but weakened from his flogging, fell underneath the weight and was crushed, and from that point being unable to carry the beam, thus needing Simon's help.

With that kind of chest trauma, fluid would build around the heart causing massive heart failure and death. This would explain why blood and water came out when his side was pierced with a spear. This would also debunk the swoon theory, which states that Jesus merely passed out on the cross, and the Romans, (who were professional executioners) mistook him for being dead. If water came from his side, chances are he surely died from massive heart failure.

Here's why it was significant enough for Saint John to record it. Water and blood played significant roles in the ritual cleansing of a person. Baptism was a very common ritual, and the law required baptism for a number of situations. For example, a woman who finished her menstrual cycle would need to be immersed in water before being clean again. Another example is seen with the high priest, who was baptized five times before entering the Most Holy Place on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).

Also, we know that blood atones for sin, and "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22). In fact, in many cleansing rituals, blood and water were used together. For example, in order for a leper who had been healed, to be pronounced ceremonially clean, he needed to be (among other things) sprinkled with blood and water together, then baptized (Lev. 14:1-9, Heb. 9:19-20). The blood is necessary for atonement because the wages of sin is death, (Rom. 6:23) and the life of a creature is in its blood (Lev. 17:14). Water (I suppose) is significant because it is the one base substance needed for all kinds of cleaning – so blood for the life, and water for the cleansing. These things don't evoke very much imagery in our culture because we are so far removed from animal sacrifices (which required blood and lots of water). But to the first-century Jew, blood and water together evoked graphic imagery of death, substitution and purification. 1 John hammers on this: "This is he who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood" (5:6a). Additionally, water in the near east has always been a symbol of life. Consider that Jesus referred attaining eternal life through “living water” (John 4:14).

This is also why the Christian sacraments (baptism and communion) are symbols of water and blood. The third element is the Spirit, where Jesus will "baptize us in spirit and fire" (Luke 3:16). Further along in 1 John 5, the spirit is mentioned as the third witness (verses 6-9). So, water blood and the Spirit are major themes for us. One could even argue our baptism is a picture of the great flood from Gen. 6, and our immersion with the spirit a picture of how God will one day immerse the earth in fire (Rev. 8) - both having cleansing properties. We see all three elements at the cross right at the point of Jesus’ death. His last words were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" Then, water and blood flowed from his side. Water, blood, spirit.

A warning: When to "pluck out the right eye"

There are times when the study of books, even scripture, is such a focus in our lives as students, we tend to lose the proper perspective on our purpose here, (which is to love other people). This perhaps is one of my greatest struggles. It is a subtle temptation when we are deceived into taking a good thing (acquiring knowledge) and elevate it above the best thing (love). This is what makes possible the greatest of evils - because all other good things can be used for a bad purpose (charisma and charm can lead people astray, knowledge can be used for the wrong purpose, etc.). But genuine love can never be used for an evil purpose.

For this reason, the below quote is a warning to myself and perhaps anyone else who may be tempted to put knowledge, or their church, or family or self, above the virtue of love:

"We may come to love knowledge -- our knowing -- more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents, but in the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us. Every success in the scholar's life increases this danger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. the time for plucking out the right eye has arrived" (Lewis 57).

- C. S. Lewis. The Weight of Glory. New York: HarperCollins, 1949.

Good Friday - The Crucifixion

As of the time of this writing, it is 9:30 a.m. on Good Friday, which represents the very time Jesus was crucified and had been hanging for about 30 minutes on a stake. He would have another five hours and thirty minutes before his suffering is finished.

To put this into perspective, crucifixion is considered the most offensive and painful death ever invented in this world (Hengel). By the time of Jesus it had been perfected over a period of more than six hundred years, beginning with the Persians. In fact, the very word excruciating is a Latin word meaning literally “from the cross.”

The Romans had a custom of flogging most people before nailing them on the cross, just as Jesus was (John 19:1). The result of a Roman flogging was a flayed back and buttocks, leaving only ribbons of skin. According to scholars, many didn’t survive the flogging because of shock and loss of blood. The Jews had a law limiting the number of lashings to forty (Deut. 25:3), presumably to prevent death by torture – but the Romans had no such law.

Crucifixion involved being stripped totally naked (unlike how we’re used to seeing Jesus with a rag about his waist). Nails were driven through the most sensitive nerve centers in the body. A crucified man could be in only two states: rigid, with pressure on the nailed feet, allowing him to draw breath; or limp, with pressure on the nailed hands in a state of asphyxiation. Crucifixon is a state of constant agony and sometimes lasted as long as four days, or in some cases nine days (Hengel). According to Hengel, it is likely Jesus died after six hours from loss of blood due to his flogging. Mark Driscoll said he believes it was a heart attack from falling under his cross beam as he carried it. Either way, six hours is a long time to hang against a roughly hewn block of wood with a skinless back. Think about what you were doing six hours ago, and imagine hanging from then until now.

Hengel claims the idea of crucifixion was so offensive to ancient civilized society, it was the main barrier to getting people to believe. No all-powerful, dignified deity would lower himself to that level of barbarity. Paul supports this idea when he wrote the crucified Lord is “foolishness” to Gentiles (1Cor. 1:23). Indeed, the scene was filled with more than blood. During those last six hours Jesus gradually lost control of his body, whereupon his vomit, urine and feces collected with his blood at the foot of his cross. This was for everyone to see – he was naked. During the last hour, his skin (that was left) was completely white and blanched, with no blood to give it color. His beard was pulled out, his body in ribbons, and his skin blanched white. Only Isaiah captures best how people saw Jesus in his last hours: “his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind” (Isa. 52:14, ESV).

In his book called The Problem of Pain, C. S Lewis talks about the divine humility of God, that he would accept us by dying the way he did, even when He is our last resort, and our last choice. God deserves more, he demands more, and he knew we could not meet his demand – so he met it on the cross, and that is what today is all about. May all of you know, I don’t need to say “God bless you” because he already has.

Works Cited

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. London: Fortress, 1977.

The Bible: Reliable, Reputable, Well Preserved

During a recent debate on Nightline, Bishop Carlton Pearson attacked the historical reliability of the Bible, saying people are free to pick and choose what they want to believe from it. His argument was based on the Bible’s separation from us by language, culture and time. He claimed it had gone from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to German, and finally to English, over more than a thousand years.

But thanks to a science called textual criticism, we can be sure that our Bible is reliable, factual, and is perhaps one of the best-preserved historical documents – ever.

First, it is not true English translations of the Bible passed through all those languages to get what we have now, (as if it were some sort of text-based rumor). As a rule, modern translators go back to the earliest extant manuscripts to make up modern English translations. And since there are thousands of extant manuscripts in the original language, (Hebrew and some Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament) our English translations are pulled right from the ancient text.

There are currently more than 3,000 extant Hebrew manuscripts from the OT, about 8,000 in the Latin Vulgate and more than 1,500 from the Septuagint (Greek OT translated around 200 B.C.). More than 200 of the extant Hebrew manuscripts date as far back as 250 B.C. [ESV 2586]. Out of all these manuscripts, all agree with each other, in that the meaning of the texts don’t change or contradict. Areas where wording differs is very minimal, (less than one percent), “and even among that 1 percent there are no variants that would change any part of the doctrine” (2587). The sheer quantity of these texts alone is a remarkable testimony that the Word has been accurately passed down.

Since the NT was written later, those manuscripts are even more prevalent. There are more than 5,700 extant Greek NT manuscripts, some of them are fragments dating so far back the authors who wrote them were possibly still alive when they were copied (second century A.D.). Also, there are nearly 25,000 NT manuscripts available in other ancient languages. The ESV Study Bible notes that “if all these were destroyed, the NT text could be reproduced almost in its entirety by quotations of it in sermons, tracts and commentaries written by ancient teachers” (2587). This not only shows that it was well preserved, but that it was considered holy writ by the contemporaries of the authors.

In fact, the high view of scripture is one of the reasons it is so well preserved. Those who copied the OT (scribes) made a whole career just out of meticulously copying and preserving the OT. When scrolls wore out, they expressed reverence by having a ritual burial for them (2585). The exactness of the scriptures was taken very seriously, and not treated as some sort of bedtime tale.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is good evidence for the near perfection of scripture preservation. Before they were discovered in 1947, the Masoretic texts were the oldest extant OT Manuscripts, dating back to 1008 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent more than a thousand-year gap, and when compared to Dead Sea Scrolls scholars found Masoretic texts to be “very accurate” (2586).

Compared to classical ancient manuscripts, the Bible far exceeds them in number and proximity to original manuscripts. The average number of manuscripts from ancient Greek or Latin authors is less than twenty! (2587). Also, the average extant classical manuscripts are more than 500 years separated from the original writing. But there are extant NT manuscripts only seventy years separated from original writings (this is a conservative estimate) [2588].

On top of all this, if you speak English, you are more likely to have a better understanding of the original manuscripts based on the large diversity of words in this language. Author Bill Bryson calls English “The Mother Tongue” because there are more than 200,000 words in common use, (excluding scientific and technical terms). By comparison Bryson points out German has 184,000 words in common use and French has only about 100,000. English is also the only language big enough that it needs and has books devoted to synonyms. Therefore English “is able to capture nuances better and more often because there are more words to describe subtle differences” (Ragan).

The Bible has been carefully preserved, mainly because its stewards always considered it inspired by God. No other book in the world is translated into more languages. Therefore, we know it to be God’s Words – and we would expect that a God who loves people and wants to reach them, would have provided a way for all the world to know him. He has done this through the Bible.

References:

English Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Ragan Communications Inc. “First Draft” newsletter, March 2009 issue

The Temptation of Adam?

Note: What if Adam had been tempted instead of Eve? How would Satan have approached Adam? What tactics would he have used? We may never know, but I’ve taken a crack at spinning the tale myself. The following is a re-telling of the temptation in the Garden, inspired by Milton’s epic, Paradise Lost. Please let me know what you think:

So it was Eve who departed from Adam at her request. She first took a step backwards swaying her body, almost as if she were teasing him, playfully, as if inviting him to pursue her despite her request for temporary solitude (9.386). Adam resisted his urge to go after her. Could she want him to follow? This woman was so hard to understand. Would she ask for one thing and really want another? He decided to just give her the space she plainly asked for, instead of trying to decode or interpret what she wanted. Her company was his desire. But Adam loved Eve, and he refused to bully, or oppress her for the sake of his own desire. Eve’s happiness was a high priority. Thus, they separated for the day, each to their own tasks.

Eve’s absence made Adam feel a bit melancholy. He watched her lightly stepping away, and his heart raced thinking about the way she moved, the sound of her feet, her backward glances, and playful smirks. She pleased him even in her most casual expressions. God did and excellent job with her. The pink scar on his side burned.

On the day before this, pure evil waited in hiding among the untamed shrubs. It was targeting the man. The devil abandoned a previous scheme to tempt the woman for several reasons. From his careful study he found that the woman-creature lives on a cycle. “Not only does her emotions oscillate,” thought the devil, “but her body goes through a physical undulation. Now is not the time to approach the woman, for she is about to bleed. I’ve observed her emotions are strained just prior to this physical phenomenon, making her less tolerant of company. I wonder if this is why she wants temporary respite from the man. Anyway, my objective is to have her eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but during this apex in her cycle, she seems more interested in the cacao bean, and not fruit.

“Besides, am I not great enough to conquer the man? Only the cowardly and fearful go after the smaller game. Why should I, the great cherub, who rules a third of heaven’s army (Rev. 12:4) and a thousand demigods (Milton 1.796), seek out the weaker of the two? (Milton 9.382-83). Am I not up to the challenge of engaging the man? Yes. I AM. I will take man’s worship from his creator, and wear it like a garment before my Enemy.”

Hence, the devil abandoned his plan to tempt Eve. And because of that, he decided the serpent was not the best choice of form any longer. “The subtlest beast of the field might work well for the woman (Milton 9.86),” said Satan, “for her strength is in hair-splitting rhetoric. However, for the man, subtlety would pass over him.”

After careful contemplation, the devil made a new choice of animal. To serve his purpose for the man, he found the fox more cunning than any beast of the field. Now that his mind was made up, the devil made one last lament before possessing the fox:

“This sucks. Here I am, about to take on the form of a smelly dog-like beast to hide my dark intentions. I have sunk to the level of cheap shenanigans to entertain this man. I once sat with the gods of the highest heaven! But now, I am to mix with fur and drool and perform silly animal tricks (Milton 9.160-165). But I will do what it takes. My ambition and commitment to revenge are stronger than my desire to stay separate from dust. How spiteful to me is the man’s Maker! How could he make such a spirit-animal hybrid – and call it his favorite? Disgusting.” (Lewis 37).

Therefore, during the night the devil entered the fox through its nose, and took on all its animal-like instincts – but the fox slept on until morning, and arose with prey on his mind (Milton 9.187-191).

Upon first sight of the man, Satan was still. How could something made from dust so resemble the strength of the Enemy? Obviously, the man was an animal. But an animal that seemed to burst and overflow with the supernatural. The man’s spirit spilled forth from his eyes. The fox fixed his stare on the god-like face of the man. That wonderful, bushy beard was like a mane! The man’s mere presence commanded respect. Every twitch of his face; every ripple of muscle stirred up awe in the fox’s heart. The deeply grooved frown of the man’s mouth combined with his hulking body brought back a chilling memory of the devil’s last civil moments with God. Satan had to repress a reflex of fear. Was he not, after all occupying a body subordinate to the man? Déjàvu flooded his heart. With one stomp of a foot, this muscle-bound man could break every bone in the fox. But Satan’s pride redoubled its strength and his hate rekindled in a burning flame and he strengthened his resolve.

On walked Adam, alone in his contemplation after departing from his lover. But suddenly, an interesting sound distracted him from his thoughts. Up ahead, coming from the vineyard he planted, Adam heard a sound in which he would later call music. As the man moved closer, he saw a large, red, bushy-tailed fox walking in the vineyard on his hind quarters (S.O.S. 2:15). Out of the fox’s mouth flowed a deep, rich Gregorian chant, complete in four-part harmony. Adam’s jaw dropped in astonishment and his legs brought him to a halt. The fox advanced on his hind legs, each step moving in rhythm to the chant, and each syllable pronounced with pious enthusiasm. The sound was incredible. Although the fox sang in a language Adam could not understand, the music was moving, and the sound was heavy. Every time the fox hit a low series of notes, Adam felt the vibrations in his chest. The man pressed his lips together and squeezed his eyes shut, producing a single tear. The fox’s song rose in volume and pitch until finally it resolved with a reverent,

“Aaw-hawh-men!”

The fox then eyeballed Adam, and with a quick, jerky gesture, plucked a large red grape with his paw, popped it into his mouth, and smacked loudly. After licking his lips, he said to Adam, “You’re not who I’m looking for,” and turned around to walk away.

“Do my eyes deceive me?” gasped Adam. “How is it that I hear the voice of four men proceeding from the mouth of a single animal? Do not leave me fox. Please do me the favor of satisfying my curiosity. Tell me, how did you come to speak, to sing, and to do so with such charming appeal?”
“I will spare time from my search for love to tell my story, man,” said the fox. “For you are large and burly and carry an intimidating stare – that almost of a god. Your voice is like thunder, your arms hard as stones, your chest as broad as a boulder, and your legs like tree trunks. I will entertain you for a moment, for you are surely a vision of power. But alas, what I seek is a thing of delicacy and beauty, not strength and grit.

“As a dumb beast, I once roamed the fields without high thinking of any kind. There were no words in my mouth or songs on my tongue. As chance would have it, on one sunny afternoon a sweet fragrance lured my attention. The aroma was better than the smell of any egg and sweeter than honey, so I followed my nose to a towering tree with plentiful leaves and broad, bulb-like flowers. I rushed up into the branches and found these flowers, each one closed over a single fruit. They were unavailable to other beasts because of their height, and inaccessible to birds because of their thick rind. But I, with my clever paws and maw, opened the bulb and ate. Such a taste was intoxicating and full. One taste of this fruit awakened my mind and my appetite for higher things. My body grew larger, my limbs more dexterous. My tongue attained speech and my mind gained understanding. But most importantly, my heart swelled and I learned how to feel passion. A song welled up from my chest and burst out of me! I came to understand I was no longer fettered to the instincts of a lowly beast.

“With these new abilities came a desire to please another being. It is a creature of beauty that I now seek – not some lowly animal. I know there is such a being, because all desires are matched with something to fill them. And when I find this creature of beauty, my songs will enchant her and hold captive her attention for all our lives. She will love only me.”

Then Adam thought, “Who or what does this fox seek? I’ve seen every creature on earth. Indeed I have named them all. There is none of such beauty as he describes that I can think … save one, and that is Eve … oh no!”

A new feeling surged up in Adam’s chest. Something almost tart and electric – it was not a comfortable feeling, but tense and urgent. It beat against his chest and made his mouth dry. This new and unpleasant feeling squirmed inside and gave him cause for alarm. Must he compete for Eve’s love? He surely didn’t want to lose her – she was his own flesh.

Then Adam spoke. “Dear fox, I will trouble you a moment longer. Please show me this tree so that I may eat of its fruit and gain the skill of charm and chant like you.”

“It is not far from here,” replied the fox, “follow me.”

But upon arrival, Adam’s heart sank. “That is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” said Adam, “and of it the LORD commanded me not to eat.”

“Really? No! Don’t misunderstand the LORD, friend!” said the fox. “He surely did not command you not to eat. He merely said if you ate from it you would die. But you surely have the option to eat.”

“Don’t be a fool, fox,” replied Adam. “I have no desire to die.”

“Listen to me, man. You know nothing of death because you have not tasted it. Death does not mean exactly what you think.”

“But,” said Adam, “I know it involves cessation of life, and that cannot be good.”

The fox sighed, shook his head, as if this was something he dealt with often. “Let me explain,” He said in a rather snobbish and pompous tone, as if speaking to a dull pupil. “You see that plush vineyard you planted? That is an example of death. It started out as an ugly brown seed. Had that seed not dried up, died and been buried, it would not have come back as a large, beautiful vine which bears delicious, red grapes. You see? Death is like graduating to something higher.” Then the fox burst forth in a brief song:

For when I took and ate of this fruit,
My life ceased and I died as a brute.
Only to come back again,
Strong, and red, in search of my hen.
If death of this brute produced a new fox,
What would death do to human stock?
Surely a god’s form you would step in,
Impress the LORD with a new life of sin.

Then, when Adam saw the fruit’s result on the fox, that it would bring a “new” life and also make him more appealing to Eve, he took a bulb, ripped off the rind, and ate. The fox quickly ran off twitching his tail.

Then, Adam’s eyes were opened and his desire for Eve twisted out of its original shape, changing from a delightful feeling to a ravenous hunger. As chance would have it, Eve was approaching in the distance. He quickly snatched another fruit and sprinted away from the tree, adjacent to Eve’s approach, to conceal the fruit’s origin. He then uttered three simple words to his bride:

“Come ‘ere Rib!”

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. London: Penguin, 2000.

Why trash the Law?

Can anyone point out in the Bible a claim that it’s not possible for people to be able to keep the entire Old Testament Law? I often hear Christians say it is impossible to keep God’s Law, and that’s why Jesus came.

Okay, before some of you blow a vein and label me a heretic for implying salvation by works, let me first assure you I agree that no amount of work can earn salvation. Yes, we’re all unworthy of Jesus and only saved by his grace – we’re not better than anyone else. I just disagree God gave a law that can’t be followed (that would be cruel) – and there is scripture back this up.

For example, consider what God tells Moses to speak to the people after giving them the entire Law, (all 613 commandments). About these commandments God said, “‘For this commandment [to follow the whole Law] that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off … But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (Duet. 30:11 & 14, ESV emphasis mine).

Also, consider that Job was blameless, (Job 1:1) yet he admits to despising himself because of his sin (Job 42:6). Noah was “blameless” (Gen. 6:9). Of Zechariah and Elizabeth (parents of John the Baptizer) this is written: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. (Luke 1:6 emphasis mine).

Furthermore, how could Paul admit to being sinful yet audaciously claim he kept the law perfectly as a Pharisee? I’m referring to these words: “as righteousness under the law, [I am] blameless” (Phi. 3:6b). (Incidentally, he considered that righteousness as “rubbish” [3:8]).

Now, let me point out here there is a key difference between keeping the law and sinning, (otherwise, the Bible wouldn’t claim some people followed the Law blamelessly). Many people blur law-breaking and sin together. I’m saying this: It’s possible for a person to keep law and still sin. Even a cursory reading of the Pentateuch will reveal God’s Law to Israel made room for sin. That’s because he knew people were sinful and would sin. Imagine that! There is grace in the Old Testament! God provided ample opportunities for people who sinned to be keepers of the Law. That’s where the terms guilt- and sin-offerings come from. If you offer a sin offering, you’re admitting to sin while keeping the Law.

So the old form of the Law could be kept. (I say, “could” because the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and sin offerings using animal sacrifices are now superseded by Jesus’ sacrifice.) BUT Jesus didn’t come because it was inconvenient to make animal sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the upright Jew considered keeping the Law one of his purest joys (Psalm 119: 97-104) and a privilege. It was an outward way to express an inward love toward God. This is quite the contrast to what Martin Luther taught about the Law being there to terrorize sinners.

Jesus pointed out the difference between following the Law and not sinning when he said one must not only avoid adultery in action, but also in heart (Matt. 5:28). What Jesus is saying here is that in order to be without sin, one must do more than keep the Law. In other words, you can keep the law, and still be guilty of sin – as many people were and are.

This, I believe, is what Hebrews means where it seems to claim the old covenant had faults: “For if that first covenant had been found faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7). It wasn’t that God’s a Law had faults – the law was perfect (Psa. 19:7, Jam. 1:25). The imperfection is in our hearts and not the Law. That is where the law comes short of what we need – it can show us how to live, but it can’t change our hearts so that we want to live that way. It points in the right direction, but offers no inherit motivation to go there.

That is part of the genius of Jesus’ intervention. Not only does it clear our past sins, his love for us gives us the desire to want to be perfect. His sacrifice changes our hearts’ desires to him and directs us away from things of the world – the law couldn’t do that because it is merely a standard to measure by, like a plumb line or a level.

The best thing I can compare it to is the mirror analogy in the epistle of James. He compared the Word of God to a mirror that accurately reflects and reveals to a person what he looks like – flaws and all. The man without a changed heart will look in the mirror, see his flaws, and walk away forgetting about it. But the person whose desires have been changed based on what Jesus did will look into that “perfect law” and “act” on what he sees to correct it.

That is why I submit that God’s Law (in its amended form according to the Hebrews epistle) can indeed be followed – I believe the opposite view will produce apathy in striving for purity and love among Christians.

For the people who have had their hearts changed by the sacrifice of Jesus – they will delight in following the Law of God, and it will be no burden.

(As an amendment added later, I want to emphasize that any good works completed as a result of the desire to be perfect, still fails to justify the Christian/sinner. Only Jesus can do that for us. The point I'm making is not that one must follow the law of Christ, but that the true believer will want to follow it. For this reason, a Christian is always in a state of repentance. Birds fly, fish swim, Christians repent.)

Islam: peace or wrath?

Is it just me, or does it seem like the whole western world is giving Islam a giant pass when it comes to holding this religion accountable to what it teaches?

Here's the most recent example: a Muslim man, in America, cut off his wife's head after she asked for a divorce. Ironically, this happens to be the very man who founded a TV station devoted to countering the public perception that Islam encourages violence. Read the story here.

Islam experts claim this has the markings of an honor killing, which is a right of a Muslim man to kill a female relative, (without question according to Sharia Law) if she has done something to dishonor the family name. A divorce request from a wife falls into that category.

This comes after the headlines about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who made the anti-Islamic video called "Fitna" - a fifteen-minute film that juxtaposes Islamic texts calling for killing, along with scenes from 9/11 and other violent terrorist acts. This guy is being attacked for hate speech. What did he do? He put together a video with scenes of Imams (Islamic teachers) preaching hate and violence against westerners, and added texts from the Quran (the Islamic religious book) that commands the killing of non-Muslims. The video is almost entirely made up of Islamic teaching and texts, and Wilders is attacked for hate speech against Muslims.

Am I missing something here? Didn't Wilders just connect the dots? The only hate speech in the video is from Islamic teachers and the Quran calling for death and destruction of non-Muslims. There wasn't even any stretching - he packaged certain Islamic ideas all together in one spot. Here's just one article about it.

Don't worry though. There were plenty of Muslims who made a move to prove him wrong by threatening to kill him. He now requires 24-hour security because of all the death threats he's been getting.

There are some other very disturbing teachings of Islam that are hidden away and not discussed by Muslims or the media. Things such as vigilante justice, polygamy, views on rape, and the goal for global dominance, just to name a few. To get an idea of the worldview of Islam I suggest reading Nonie Darwish's book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. The author is a former Muslim who spent the first thirty years of her life in Egypt, under Islamic Law.

Another disturbing view is how Islam divides the world. To Islam, there is only two kinds of places in the world. The first is called The House of Islam. This is all the countries that live under Islamic rule and law, called Sharia. The rest of the world is called The House of War. In other words, any country or place that isn't ruled by an Islamic government, is considered a place of siege. You can read more on this in Bernard Lewis' objective book called The Crisis of Islam. (Lewis is a renowned professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.)

Now, having said all this, I know what some people may be saying: "There has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ as well. All people are evil and prone to use a religious system as justification of violence." I agree. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christendom. Christ never would have consented to it. People are evil and are capable of gross violence for the sake of advancing their own enterprises.

But here's the difference: When people who profess to be Christian commit violence and crime of this type it goes against what their Bible teaches them. But what do you do with a religion that encourages violence? When a Muslim abuses his wife and commits violence against innocent "infidels," his religious texts claim there is reward for the Muslim. He is in direct line with what his teachings call for. He may be violent, but he is no hypocrite.

Even from the very beginning Mohammad set an example for violence. He began his movement by killing nearly 800 Jews in Medina for not converting to his new religion. He and his followers made their living from raiding caravans in the desert. Muslims are quick to point out that he took Mecca peacefully, but that was only because he was marching there with an army intent on attacking. To avoid bloodshed, Meccan authorities surrendered to him.

Compare this with Jesus' life and teachings and the contrast is startling: Jesus condemned violence, taught turning the other cheek, encouraged to give Caesar his taxes, encouraged love and self-sacrifice and eventually died a cruel death for his people.

Mohammad had thirteen wives (his favorite whom he married when she was only nine years old) and fought many battles, taking women and children as booty. Yes, there are people in the Bible who did the same thing, but (a) it was never encouraged, only recorded and (b) Jesus is our example, not anyone else.

The point I'm getting at is, it is the history and texts of Islam that present a problem, and not the Muslims in themselves. People need to understand that something must be done about the teachings of Islam that incite hatred and violence - and until something changes within the core teaching, Muslims will be able to commit violence and claim that it was only in harmony with their worldview.