Posts
The AP has a story entitled, "Republican Huckabee says don't denigrate Obama" (see here). The article states: "Former US presidential contender Mike Huckabee urged his fellow Republicans on Wednesday not to denigrate Democrat Barack Obama, saying they should celebrate the historic moment of a black candidate."
Later, the article says: "Huckabee, who won the first nomination contest in Iowa on the back of support from evangelical Christians, said he hoped Republican John McCain would defeat Obama but urged his party to highlight policy differences and not race" (emphasis mine).
I have a mixed reaction to Huckabee's remarks. My response was initially quite negative, and it went like this: "What do you expect McCain to do, Mike? Fawn all over Obama? Should Obama get a free pass because of his race? And why do you encourage the party to highlight policy differences and not race? The G.O.P. hasn't made an issue of Obama's race. McCain has hit Obama on the issues. The one making an issue of Obama's race is you, Mike."
And I still feel some of this, especially the part about the Republicans not focusing on Obama's race. But, after some thought, I have some sympathy for what Huckabee is saying. Huckabee always struck me as a positive candidate. He didn't really attack people that much, if at all. If he were the nominee, he would come across as so...NICE. He'd celebrate how far America has come while praising Obama on certain things. Yet, he'd point out policy differences between himself and the Democrats.
The political atmosphere would be so different. Right now, McCain attacks Obama, and Obama attacks McCain. And here Obama is supposed to be a unifier, someone who's above such bickering. Things would be much more civil if it were an Obama-Huckabee race.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I'm Slightly Mad at President Bush
The AP has a news story today entitled, Bush to Congress: Embrace energy exploration now. The gist of the story is as follows:
"With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea. "
Bush has a good response to the environmental alarmists. The article states: "In a nod to the environmental arguments against drilling, Bush said technology has come a long way. These days, he said, oil exploration off the coastline can be done in a way that 'is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.'"
But here's the problem: Bush does not have to grovel before Congress to permit offshore drilling. It was an executive order that put the ban into place. (Bush, Sr. did this in 1990). And it's an executive order that can remove it.
But Bush doesn't want to do this. Here's more of the article: "What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress has to act first and then he would follow behind. Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said: 'He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it in tandem'" (emphasis mine).
Excuse me?! First of all, it's obviously not the most productive way, Mr. President. You asked Congress to permit offshore drilling, and it said "no."
Second, when has Congress stopped Bush before? Bush has a reputation as an imperial President. His opponents have often accused him of just ignoring Congress and doing what he wants, primarily on issues of national security and foreign policy. So why's he suddenly want to "work" with Congress?
This President talks a good game, but he's obviously not willing to take the necessary action to bring down these rising gas prices, which are hurting so many consumers. Maybe he's trying to make the Democrats look bad. In my mind, the one who comes out looking bad is him.
"With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea. "
Bush has a good response to the environmental alarmists. The article states: "In a nod to the environmental arguments against drilling, Bush said technology has come a long way. These days, he said, oil exploration off the coastline can be done in a way that 'is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.'"
But here's the problem: Bush does not have to grovel before Congress to permit offshore drilling. It was an executive order that put the ban into place. (Bush, Sr. did this in 1990). And it's an executive order that can remove it.
But Bush doesn't want to do this. Here's more of the article: "What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress has to act first and then he would follow behind. Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said: 'He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it in tandem'" (emphasis mine).
Excuse me?! First of all, it's obviously not the most productive way, Mr. President. You asked Congress to permit offshore drilling, and it said "no."
Second, when has Congress stopped Bush before? Bush has a reputation as an imperial President. His opponents have often accused him of just ignoring Congress and doing what he wants, primarily on issues of national security and foreign policy. So why's he suddenly want to "work" with Congress?
This President talks a good game, but he's obviously not willing to take the necessary action to bring down these rising gas prices, which are hurting so many consumers. Maybe he's trying to make the Democrats look bad. In my mind, the one who comes out looking bad is him.
Jesus and Bethlehem
At DePauw University, a religion professor of mine said that Matthew and Luke have different goals in their stories about Jesus' birth: Matthew wants to get Joseph and Mary from Bethlehem to Nazareth, whereas Luke wants to get them from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Both agree that Jesus was a Nazarene, for that was a well known fact. And both concur that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem, since Micah 5:2 says that the ruler of Israel shall come from that city. But, according to my professor, Matthew and Luke used different plot-lines to demonstrate how both could be true. Matthew presents Joseph and Mary moving to Nazareth from Bethlehem (with a stop in Egypt along the way), and, according to Matthew 2:23, that was how Jesus came to be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23). Luke, on the other hand, maintains that Jesus' family was always Nazarene, but Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem as part of a census (Luke 2).
Nowadays, a lot of Jews do not believe that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. When I was in Israel a few years ago, a friend and I encountered a member of the Chabad movement, who was handing out tefillin on a Friday afternoon. Many of the Chabads believe that the Messiah has already come a first time, but they maintain that he will one day return. For them, the Messiah was a Hasidic rabbi, the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was born in the Ukraine. When I asked the Chabad how he reconciled that with the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, he responded that birth in Bethlehem is not a requirement for the Messiah, at least not according to Nachmanides (a thirteenth century Jewish thinker).
I didn't argue with him, so I let myself stay puzzled, at least for a little while. Later that afternoon, as a group of us sat around a table and labeled pottery, I asked my professor how the Chabads could deny that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
"Birth in Bethlehem is not a requirement for the Messiah," he replied.
"Then how do they explain Micah 5:2?" I asked.
"They can interpret that to mean that the Messiah will be descended from someone who was born in Bethlehem, namely, David."
That doesn't really convince me, since Micah 5:2 says that the ruler himself will go out of Bethlehem. But I guess that the Chabads and Nachmanides found another way to interpret that, for whatever reason.
In the time of Jesus, however, many of the Jewish leaders apparently held that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:4-6 presents the chief priests and scribes interpreting Micah 5:2 in such a manner. And in John 7:41-42, we read of a dispute among the Jews about Jesus' messianic status:
"Others said, 'This is the Messiah.' But some asked, 'Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?'" (NRSV).
This is a strange passage. Most of the Jews of Jesus' day did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. They probably knew something about Jesus' unusual birth, for John presents the Jewish leaders telling him, "We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself" (John 8:41). According to Matthew 1:18, Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph, and many of Jesus' contemporaries most likely attributed that to fornication. I'm not sure if they had solid proof, since Mary didn't get stoned to death (see Deuteronomy 22:13-24). But there were rumors floating around that Jesus was born before his parents were married. And the Jewish leaders in John were throwing them right in Jesus' face.
But they weren't aware of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. They just presumed that he was born in Galilee. And they obviously didn't know about Jesus' descent from David either, for they point out in their anti-Jesus argument that the Messiah must be a descendent of David, which they assume Jesus is not. And how did the early Christian community respond to that? Sure, there are plenty of New Testament passages that present Jesus as the seed of David (Matthew 1; 9:27; Romans 1:3). But consider Mark 12:35-37:
"While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, 'How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.' David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?'"
Is Jesus denying in this passage that he is the son of David? Most Christian expositors hold that Jesus was saying he was not only the son of David, but was so much more in addition to that. Does this argument coincide with what the passage actually says? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. "How can he be his son?" looks like a denial to me. But Jesus wouldn't contradict the idea that the Messiah would come from David, would he? That concept is all over the Hebrew Scriptures!
A lot of conservatives have attempted to harmonize the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, which many liberals deny is even possible. But, leaving this debate aside, I think that Luke's birth story has a profound theological lesson. Micah 5:2 says that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, but Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth. Mary seems to have been pregnant in Nazareth, so one could easily expect Jesus to be born there (see Luke 2:5), if events transpire according to their natural course. Will the prophecy fall to the ground? No, for a massive global event happens that will ensure its fulfillment: Caesar Augustus decrees that the world must be registered, and so Joseph has to return to Bethlehem, the city of his ancestors (Luke 2:1-4). And that's how Jesus got to be born in Bethlehem, in Luke's account.
Why was it so important to God that Jesus be born in Bethlehem? As far as the Gospels are concerned, the answer is basically, "Because that was what the prophecy predicted." The Gospels often depict Jesus as someone who is following a script--the plan described in Scripture. Matthew 26:55-56 is an intriguing example of this:
"At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled."
Jesus could have been arrested at any time. Maybe he could've even died at any time. When the people of Nazareth were about to throw him off the cliff (Luke 4:29), who's to say that his death then and there would not have atoned for the sins of humanity? I mean, I've heard Christians say, "Jesus came specifically to die." Why couldn't he have died then? But all of the events of Jesus' life--including his death--had to occur according to a script: the script of Scripture. In the eyes of the Gospel writers, how things were to transpire had been mapped out years before, in almost excruciating detail.
One can then ask, "Okay, so why did God write the script that way? Why did he predict that the ruler would come from Bethlehem?" In the Hebrew Bible, there is a lot of typology, or repetition of historical events. Second Isaiah likens the Jews' restoration to Palestine in the sixth century B.C.E. to her exodus from Egypt (Isaiah 52:4), and First Isaiah likewise envisions a second exodus (Isaiah 11:16). Isaiah 9:4 compares Israel's deliverance from the Assyrians to the defeat of the Midianites in Judges 6-8 (the Gideon story). And so Micah 5 may be positing a repeat of a historical event: God once raised up a ruler from Bethlehem, David, who went on to defeat Israel's enemies, and God will do so a second time, with David's descendant.
But, as far as the Gospel writers were concerned, I can see them saying, "You want to know why God wrote the script that way? Why ask why? The fact is that he wrote it the way that he did, and events had to occur accordingly."
But why couldn't God have picked someone who was already in Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus? Why'd he pick someone in a different city altogether, only to have her move to the city of the prophecy? Can't God be more direct and efficient in the way he does things?
Liberal scholars can address this question in a few ways. Some might say, "Well, that's exactly what happens in Matthew's account. Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem as natives, and then they move to Nazareth." Others can assert, "Everyone knew that Jesus was a Nazarene, yet Luke wants him to be born in Nazareth to fulfill Micah 5:2. And so he grasps at straws for some way to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. He uses a census, which actually occurred in 6 C.E." (but that's another issue).
Such approaches treat the text as Christian propaganda, and that is one approach. But maybe there's a theological reason that God does things in a round-about manner: God has a plan that he will fulfill, regardless of any apparent obstacles that arise in his path. And sometimes he may use a round-about approach that actually creates obstacles, as he did when he decided to put Jesus in the womb of a woman from Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, or when he hardened Pharaoh's heart at the Exodus, or when he put David on a wild goose-chase rather than simply killing Saul in his sleep.
Through obstacles, God gives himself an opportunity to demonstrate his power and love. After all, in Luke's account, God orchestrates world events just so his Messiah can be born in Bethlehem. Caesar was the one with the power? Think again! God could use him as a mere tool, anytime he wanted. And that should encourage us that God's good plan will prevail, regardless of present circumstances, or the powers that be, or anything else in all creation.
Nowadays, a lot of Jews do not believe that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. When I was in Israel a few years ago, a friend and I encountered a member of the Chabad movement, who was handing out tefillin on a Friday afternoon. Many of the Chabads believe that the Messiah has already come a first time, but they maintain that he will one day return. For them, the Messiah was a Hasidic rabbi, the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was born in the Ukraine. When I asked the Chabad how he reconciled that with the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, he responded that birth in Bethlehem is not a requirement for the Messiah, at least not according to Nachmanides (a thirteenth century Jewish thinker).
I didn't argue with him, so I let myself stay puzzled, at least for a little while. Later that afternoon, as a group of us sat around a table and labeled pottery, I asked my professor how the Chabads could deny that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
"Birth in Bethlehem is not a requirement for the Messiah," he replied.
"Then how do they explain Micah 5:2?" I asked.
"They can interpret that to mean that the Messiah will be descended from someone who was born in Bethlehem, namely, David."
That doesn't really convince me, since Micah 5:2 says that the ruler himself will go out of Bethlehem. But I guess that the Chabads and Nachmanides found another way to interpret that, for whatever reason.
In the time of Jesus, however, many of the Jewish leaders apparently held that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:4-6 presents the chief priests and scribes interpreting Micah 5:2 in such a manner. And in John 7:41-42, we read of a dispute among the Jews about Jesus' messianic status:
"Others said, 'This is the Messiah.' But some asked, 'Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?'" (NRSV).
This is a strange passage. Most of the Jews of Jesus' day did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. They probably knew something about Jesus' unusual birth, for John presents the Jewish leaders telling him, "We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself" (John 8:41). According to Matthew 1:18, Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph, and many of Jesus' contemporaries most likely attributed that to fornication. I'm not sure if they had solid proof, since Mary didn't get stoned to death (see Deuteronomy 22:13-24). But there were rumors floating around that Jesus was born before his parents were married. And the Jewish leaders in John were throwing them right in Jesus' face.
But they weren't aware of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. They just presumed that he was born in Galilee. And they obviously didn't know about Jesus' descent from David either, for they point out in their anti-Jesus argument that the Messiah must be a descendent of David, which they assume Jesus is not. And how did the early Christian community respond to that? Sure, there are plenty of New Testament passages that present Jesus as the seed of David (Matthew 1; 9:27; Romans 1:3). But consider Mark 12:35-37:
"While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, 'How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.' David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?'"
Is Jesus denying in this passage that he is the son of David? Most Christian expositors hold that Jesus was saying he was not only the son of David, but was so much more in addition to that. Does this argument coincide with what the passage actually says? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. "How can he be his son?" looks like a denial to me. But Jesus wouldn't contradict the idea that the Messiah would come from David, would he? That concept is all over the Hebrew Scriptures!
A lot of conservatives have attempted to harmonize the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, which many liberals deny is even possible. But, leaving this debate aside, I think that Luke's birth story has a profound theological lesson. Micah 5:2 says that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, but Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth. Mary seems to have been pregnant in Nazareth, so one could easily expect Jesus to be born there (see Luke 2:5), if events transpire according to their natural course. Will the prophecy fall to the ground? No, for a massive global event happens that will ensure its fulfillment: Caesar Augustus decrees that the world must be registered, and so Joseph has to return to Bethlehem, the city of his ancestors (Luke 2:1-4). And that's how Jesus got to be born in Bethlehem, in Luke's account.
Why was it so important to God that Jesus be born in Bethlehem? As far as the Gospels are concerned, the answer is basically, "Because that was what the prophecy predicted." The Gospels often depict Jesus as someone who is following a script--the plan described in Scripture. Matthew 26:55-56 is an intriguing example of this:
"At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled."
Jesus could have been arrested at any time. Maybe he could've even died at any time. When the people of Nazareth were about to throw him off the cliff (Luke 4:29), who's to say that his death then and there would not have atoned for the sins of humanity? I mean, I've heard Christians say, "Jesus came specifically to die." Why couldn't he have died then? But all of the events of Jesus' life--including his death--had to occur according to a script: the script of Scripture. In the eyes of the Gospel writers, how things were to transpire had been mapped out years before, in almost excruciating detail.
One can then ask, "Okay, so why did God write the script that way? Why did he predict that the ruler would come from Bethlehem?" In the Hebrew Bible, there is a lot of typology, or repetition of historical events. Second Isaiah likens the Jews' restoration to Palestine in the sixth century B.C.E. to her exodus from Egypt (Isaiah 52:4), and First Isaiah likewise envisions a second exodus (Isaiah 11:16). Isaiah 9:4 compares Israel's deliverance from the Assyrians to the defeat of the Midianites in Judges 6-8 (the Gideon story). And so Micah 5 may be positing a repeat of a historical event: God once raised up a ruler from Bethlehem, David, who went on to defeat Israel's enemies, and God will do so a second time, with David's descendant.
But, as far as the Gospel writers were concerned, I can see them saying, "You want to know why God wrote the script that way? Why ask why? The fact is that he wrote it the way that he did, and events had to occur accordingly."
But why couldn't God have picked someone who was already in Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus? Why'd he pick someone in a different city altogether, only to have her move to the city of the prophecy? Can't God be more direct and efficient in the way he does things?
Liberal scholars can address this question in a few ways. Some might say, "Well, that's exactly what happens in Matthew's account. Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem as natives, and then they move to Nazareth." Others can assert, "Everyone knew that Jesus was a Nazarene, yet Luke wants him to be born in Nazareth to fulfill Micah 5:2. And so he grasps at straws for some way to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. He uses a census, which actually occurred in 6 C.E." (but that's another issue).
Such approaches treat the text as Christian propaganda, and that is one approach. But maybe there's a theological reason that God does things in a round-about manner: God has a plan that he will fulfill, regardless of any apparent obstacles that arise in his path. And sometimes he may use a round-about approach that actually creates obstacles, as he did when he decided to put Jesus in the womb of a woman from Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, or when he hardened Pharaoh's heart at the Exodus, or when he put David on a wild goose-chase rather than simply killing Saul in his sleep.
Through obstacles, God gives himself an opportunity to demonstrate his power and love. After all, in Luke's account, God orchestrates world events just so his Messiah can be born in Bethlehem. Caesar was the one with the power? Think again! God could use him as a mere tool, anytime he wanted. And that should encourage us that God's good plan will prevail, regardless of present circumstances, or the powers that be, or anything else in all creation.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
"I Feel So Clean!"
In Luke 3:19-20, we read, "But Herod the ruler, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison" (NRSV).
The phrase that intrigues me is "added to them all." Believe it or not, it makes me appreciate God's forgiveness!
Imagine being in a place where you are so bad, that one more bad deed doesn't really matter. I mean, Herod was already a condemned man. He had done numerous evil things. Even if he hadn't put John in prison, he would've still been under God's condemnation. What's one more sin?
It's like an experience I had in the fourth grade. In those days, I wasn't exactly the best student in the world, and my teacher informed me in front of the entire class that she was giving me an F-plus on an assignment. And, to be honest, I really didn't care. I had already received a number of F's, so one more didn't exactly phase me. And, as far as I was concerned, being a straight-A student appeared unattainable. In my eyes, I was already bad, and I could not be good, so why even try?
But Herod didn't have to keep on adding on to his already bad record. He could have received a clean slate--through God's forgiveness.
I'm reminded of another character in Luke's Gospel. This woman was a notorious sinner, but she wasn't entirely like Herod. She was more of a sexual sinner, whereas Herod was an adulterer, a murderer, a tyrant, and a suppressor of God's word. But she had a long list of sins, and she loved Jesus more because she felt her need for forgiveness. Jesus told a parable to illustrate:
"A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?...Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little" (Luke 7:41-42, 47).
When I was reading the parallel story in Matthew 26:6-13, I wondered how anyone could adore Jesus that much, especially since I have a hard time developing an emotionally euphoric approach to him. But Luke gives an answer: her large debt was erased. Jesus lifted a huge burden off of her shoulders. She could go through life feeling clean, with the knowledge that God held nothing against her. What freedom that entailed!
If only Herod had realized that he could've received a clean slate. He didn't have to continue being bad.
One problem in my Christian walk is that I don't exactly feel guilty. I look at my sins, and I see them as flaws that are characteristic of the entire human race. Consequently, I have a hard time beating myself up over them. I like this one paragraph from Chris Tilling's May 29, 2008 post on his blog, Chrisendom, entitled "The Gospel according to":
"In order to make people feel guilty, we invent ways of convincing people that they are sinners. We have to make a problem for them, for Jesus to be a real solution. But is that really what the gospel is about? And how do we try to make a problem for people? We try to argue that all are murderers, or all are like Hitler before God. But does this argument convince you? What does it say about God?"
I don't have a hard time agreeing that Hitler and Charles Manson are evil, since they've transgressed the boundaries of human decency. But saying that I'm evil just because I have lust, jealousy, and a failure to love every human being? I have difficulty doing that, since everyone has those kinds of issues.
And yet, do I feel clean? No, I feel defiled. And it's not only because I have a bad past. I can't really do anything about that now. Plus, unlike Herod, I don't exactly have literal murder and adultery on my record. But there are aspects of my personality now that do not satisfy me: selfishness, pride, hate, jealousy, anger, etc., etc.
But it's possible even for an upstanding human being to feel guilt about his life. In Dale Buss' Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, we read about Joe Kubishta, the step-father of Jim Dobson's wife, Shirley. Joe was a decent guy. He was a World War II hero and a hard-worker. He married Anna Deere, "lifting her and her children, Shirley and John, from the economic ravages of divorce" (294). He was like a second father to Jim after his dad (Jim, Sr.) passed away in 1977.
Although Joe went to church with his family and fit into the evangelical sub-culture, "the Dobsons and Alma Kubishta never were entirely sure that he had grasped the concept of salvation, even after Dobson took him to lunch one day specifically to talk about it" (295). When Joe was in the final stage of leukemia, Dobson feared that he wouldn't go to heaven. Buss goes on:
"Dobson came to his bedside and confronted him" 'Joe, do you know for certain that you will be in heaven with us when you die?' Kubishta wept quietly but didn't respond. A few days later, Kubishta prayed what is known as the sinner's prayer--a simple acceptance of salvation--with his Baptist pastor, and he rejoiced to share the news with his stepdaughter and son-in-law.
"'Jim, I'm saved! I'm saved!' he said. Dobson recalls how the next day, the usually stoic Kubishta looked up through his tears and said, 'I feel so clean, Jim, so clean.' He died at about 1:30 in the morning on February 19, 2003. Dobson finally has no doubt that his adoptive father-in-law will be with his family in heaven" (295, emphasis mine).
Joe Kubishta was a good man, yet he felt unclean. Only when he accepted God's forgiveness did he feel certain that he was going to heaven.
We all sin and fall short of God's glory, and even good people can feel guilty and unsure about whether or not they'll enter God's kingdom. Personally, I have a hard time feeling guilty about much of my past, but I still hope that God doesn't hold it against me. I've also learned that sins I tend to minimize may have had a damaging impact on other people. That shouldn't make me go crazy, but it should encourage me to be responsible in how I act. I need atonement for my past sins, yet I also want to be cleansed of my current character flaws.
The phrase that intrigues me is "added to them all." Believe it or not, it makes me appreciate God's forgiveness!
Imagine being in a place where you are so bad, that one more bad deed doesn't really matter. I mean, Herod was already a condemned man. He had done numerous evil things. Even if he hadn't put John in prison, he would've still been under God's condemnation. What's one more sin?
It's like an experience I had in the fourth grade. In those days, I wasn't exactly the best student in the world, and my teacher informed me in front of the entire class that she was giving me an F-plus on an assignment. And, to be honest, I really didn't care. I had already received a number of F's, so one more didn't exactly phase me. And, as far as I was concerned, being a straight-A student appeared unattainable. In my eyes, I was already bad, and I could not be good, so why even try?
But Herod didn't have to keep on adding on to his already bad record. He could have received a clean slate--through God's forgiveness.
I'm reminded of another character in Luke's Gospel. This woman was a notorious sinner, but she wasn't entirely like Herod. She was more of a sexual sinner, whereas Herod was an adulterer, a murderer, a tyrant, and a suppressor of God's word. But she had a long list of sins, and she loved Jesus more because she felt her need for forgiveness. Jesus told a parable to illustrate:
"A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?...Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little" (Luke 7:41-42, 47).
When I was reading the parallel story in Matthew 26:6-13, I wondered how anyone could adore Jesus that much, especially since I have a hard time developing an emotionally euphoric approach to him. But Luke gives an answer: her large debt was erased. Jesus lifted a huge burden off of her shoulders. She could go through life feeling clean, with the knowledge that God held nothing against her. What freedom that entailed!
If only Herod had realized that he could've received a clean slate. He didn't have to continue being bad.
One problem in my Christian walk is that I don't exactly feel guilty. I look at my sins, and I see them as flaws that are characteristic of the entire human race. Consequently, I have a hard time beating myself up over them. I like this one paragraph from Chris Tilling's May 29, 2008 post on his blog, Chrisendom, entitled "The Gospel according to":
"In order to make people feel guilty, we invent ways of convincing people that they are sinners. We have to make a problem for them, for Jesus to be a real solution. But is that really what the gospel is about? And how do we try to make a problem for people? We try to argue that all are murderers, or all are like Hitler before God. But does this argument convince you? What does it say about God?"
I don't have a hard time agreeing that Hitler and Charles Manson are evil, since they've transgressed the boundaries of human decency. But saying that I'm evil just because I have lust, jealousy, and a failure to love every human being? I have difficulty doing that, since everyone has those kinds of issues.
And yet, do I feel clean? No, I feel defiled. And it's not only because I have a bad past. I can't really do anything about that now. Plus, unlike Herod, I don't exactly have literal murder and adultery on my record. But there are aspects of my personality now that do not satisfy me: selfishness, pride, hate, jealousy, anger, etc., etc.
But it's possible even for an upstanding human being to feel guilt about his life. In Dale Buss' Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, we read about Joe Kubishta, the step-father of Jim Dobson's wife, Shirley. Joe was a decent guy. He was a World War II hero and a hard-worker. He married Anna Deere, "lifting her and her children, Shirley and John, from the economic ravages of divorce" (294). He was like a second father to Jim after his dad (Jim, Sr.) passed away in 1977.
Although Joe went to church with his family and fit into the evangelical sub-culture, "the Dobsons and Alma Kubishta never were entirely sure that he had grasped the concept of salvation, even after Dobson took him to lunch one day specifically to talk about it" (295). When Joe was in the final stage of leukemia, Dobson feared that he wouldn't go to heaven. Buss goes on:
"Dobson came to his bedside and confronted him" 'Joe, do you know for certain that you will be in heaven with us when you die?' Kubishta wept quietly but didn't respond. A few days later, Kubishta prayed what is known as the sinner's prayer--a simple acceptance of salvation--with his Baptist pastor, and he rejoiced to share the news with his stepdaughter and son-in-law.
"'Jim, I'm saved! I'm saved!' he said. Dobson recalls how the next day, the usually stoic Kubishta looked up through his tears and said, 'I feel so clean, Jim, so clean.' He died at about 1:30 in the morning on February 19, 2003. Dobson finally has no doubt that his adoptive father-in-law will be with his family in heaven" (295, emphasis mine).
Joe Kubishta was a good man, yet he felt unclean. Only when he accepted God's forgiveness did he feel certain that he was going to heaven.
We all sin and fall short of God's glory, and even good people can feel guilty and unsure about whether or not they'll enter God's kingdom. Personally, I have a hard time feeling guilty about much of my past, but I still hope that God doesn't hold it against me. I've also learned that sins I tend to minimize may have had a damaging impact on other people. That shouldn't make me go crazy, but it should encourage me to be responsible in how I act. I need atonement for my past sins, yet I also want to be cleansed of my current character flaws.
Is Dr. Dobson a Sinless Perfectionist?
Years ago, I visited the web site of Gil Moegerle, who worked for many years with Dr. James Dobson in Focus on the Family. Due to a variety of factors, Moegerle became embittered with Dr. Dobson, and he wrote a book with the subtle title, James Dobson's War on America.
One thing that Moegerle claimed on his web site was that Dobson is a sinless perfectionist. In Moegerle's eyes, that's why Dobson is so judgmental and self-righteous. It's part of his Nazarene heritage.
I first heard about the Nazarene doctrine of sinless perfection from a high school English teacher. She was a Baptist, and she and I disagreed on eternal security. One day, we were discussing salvation issues and comparing denominational notes, and she told me that the Nazarenes believe a Christian can arrive at a state of sinlessness. I had a math teacher who was a Nazarene, but I didn't ask him if that was true.
But what Moegerle was saying about Dobson did not sit well with my spirit. Dobson did not strike me as a person who considered himself sinless. In the 1990's, I heard him say about his wife, Shirley: "You know, the wonderful thing about marriage is that your spouse accepts you, while knowing about all of your flaws. That's the way Shirley is with me." In that statement, he admitted he had flaws. On a program about a couple that was doing good, Dr. Dobson said: "You know, we're saved by grace, and so you don't have to do any of this to earn God's favor. And yet it's wonderful when people like you choose to make an investment in the lives of others." He kind of sounded like a free gracer there--like a Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie type, as opposed to a John MacArthur "Lordship salvation" advocate. And so he did not strike me as a sinless perfectionist.
Dale Buss' book, Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, presents some of Dobson's religious beliefs--in his own words. Here are some quotes, and I've emboldened the parts that I want to stand out:
"[A] notion that has shaped much of Dobson's philosophy and life is...complex, and its complications come largely from the particulars of Nazarene theology. Because of its emphasis on individual free will, explains [H.B.] London (himself a former Nazarene pastor), his denomination believes in a 'theology of standing' in many ways: 'It means you can lose your salvation. You're constantly striving to measure up. [Our] definition of sin is that it's a willful transgression of God's law. And salvation isn't automatic as in the Calvinist viewpoint. As a result, not only is there guilt but also pressure to measure up.'
"Dobson stresses that salvation is a gift of God and can't be deserved by anyone. 'If we could have earned our salvation, we wouldn't have needed a Savior,' he says. Nevertheless, Dobson believes that the Christian's part of the 'contract' also calls for heartfelt repentance and right living after embracing salvation. The doctrine was strongly developed in the eighteenth century by John Wesley, the British founder of Methodism, and later further shaped by the Nazarenes. 'There is a call on our lives to be as clean as possible with the help of Jesus Christ,' Dobson says. 'We fall short; we sin. But we seek forgiveness for sin, and it's very much a part of our theology that we're obligated to live as holy a life as we can.'
"'I do believe someday I'll kneel before the Lord, and I want to hear him say, 'Well done, good and faithful servant!' What I do and how I live is important. In Matthew 7, Jesus said there will be those on [Judgment Day] who confess him but whom he never knew. Why? Because they didn't do--D-O--the work of his Father. It's an emphasis on attempting to walk the talk.'
"Dobson is hesitant to discuss this aspect of his beliefs in public because some people misinterpret his holiness doctrine as an assertion that, with enough effort, a person can lead a truly sinless life. Nobody, he affirms, can avoid sinning in the sense of having shortcomings, faults, and other flaws that display our mere humanity. 'But from the Wesleyan perspective, sin is a willful disobedience or defiance to a known law. When you refuse to do what God tells you, you know it and understand it. The apostle Paul writes that we have a conscience within us, so that none of us has an excuse. The concept of sanctification is that God gives humans the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to live without deliberately defying God.
"'Just look at Hebrews 10:26,' which promises God's vengeance on those who insist on sinning after learning the truth of the gospel, Dobson says. 'That's interpreted very differently from my Calvinist friends. But I don't believe you can disobey God deliberately, do all kinds of heinous things, and then just go sweeping into [God's] kingdom.
"The characterization that is made by people who don't misunderstand it is that Wesleyans think they're perfect or that they think they can live without any shortcomings. That's crazy. But I try real hard not to shake my fist in God's fist and defy him, and God gives me the encouragement and the strength through the Holy Spirit not to violate a known law. And that's very important to me.'
"It's clear, London says, that 'a large part of the pressure that [Dobson] puts on himself to be such a perfectionist and to achieve may come out of his theology, or at least out of the inward pressure that we Nazarenes put on ourselves to be loved and appreciated--to be the best at what we do.'
"This also helps explain the high expectations that Dobson places on others in work, in relationships, and in life. And if the heresy of fist-shaking at God sounds familiar to his fans, that's because Wesleyan theology also, as Dobson puts it, 'influences my approach to child rearing. I've talked about having a three-year-old son, and if you tell him to go open the door and he misunderstands it and he closes it instead, he'll never be aware that he's done the opposite of what you just asked him to do,' Dobson explains. 'But when he stomps his foot and says, 'I won't do it,' that's when he's most likely to face the consequences.'
"This worldview has influenced 'nearly everything about me,' Dobson says. 'My teaching all comes out of my theology'" (23-25).
According to Dobson, Christians can arrive at a state where they do not commit deliberate and willful sins, even though they may still have flaws. But what is a "willful sin," and what is a "flaw"? For example, are shyness and introversion "sins"? I know that God wants me to reach out to others and not be self-centered. But I have a lot of social anxiety, so I often don't follow that command. Am I deliberately sinning? I doubt that Dobson would think so, for he has stated that some people are just naturally quiet, and he has tried to teach us quiet types how to have a conversation. And, yet, aren't I violating a known law?
How about lust? I know that Jesus equates lust with adultery in Matthew 5:27-28. But I have it anyway, and I enjoy it. I don't understand how Jesus can command us not to have sexual desire (if that indeed is what he's doing), since it's such an integral part of the human condition. Of course, Dr. Dobson has a looser attitude on this than many evangelicals, for he says that parents shouldn't try to stop their kids from masturbating. In a book of his that I read many years ago, Dobson says that his dad told him not to worry about masturbation. "You can masturbate, and that won't hurt your Christian walk," he said. Dobson said that his dad was a conservative Nazarene, yet he was willing to make concessions to human nature. I can understand Dobson being real here, but how's that mesh with his view that Christians shouldn't deliberately sin?
There are some sins that I don't want to do, but I can't exactly shake them. I know that God equates hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22), for example, yet there are still people I hate. I don't want to see them dead, mind you, but I just have a lot of anger towards them. I would prefer to have inner peace, but I can't shake my ego, or my disappointment, or my sense of having been wronged, or my jealousy. At times, God's known will appears unattainable.
And there are times when Dobson appears more compassionate and pastoral than the above quotes seem to indicate. From the above quotes, you'd think that a Christian puts himself on dangerous ground whenever he deliberately opposes God. But, in When God Doesn't Make Sense, Dobson acknowledges that people may have legitimate reasons to be mad at God, for horrible things happen in life. But he says that we should bring ourselves to forgive God, which is not to say that God has done anything wrong. It just means that we should let go of our anger towards him. Here, Dobson recognizes that even Christians are human--with all of the imperfections that humanity entails. But how's he reconcile that with his belief that Christians should be perfect, in the sense of avoiding deliberate disobedience or bad attitudes about God?
I agree with Dobson that being a Christian should make a difference in one's life. The non-Lordship types act as if Christians are God's children even if they live in sin, whereas Dobson seems to think that deliberate sin can disqualify a Christian from salvation. I wonder if there can be a middle ground between the two positions, one that stresses the need for holiness while preserving a God of unconditional love.
Personally, I assume that God is patient with me. He wants me to be better than I am right now, but that doesn't mean that I have to stress out in an attempt to be morally sinless, all to preserve my salvation. In the words of the promises of Alcoholics Anonymous, "We seek spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection." I still think that the goal is some form of perfection, however, but that's the result of growth, not me deciding to do everything right at the present moment. And God is with me on this journey of growth.
One thing that Moegerle claimed on his web site was that Dobson is a sinless perfectionist. In Moegerle's eyes, that's why Dobson is so judgmental and self-righteous. It's part of his Nazarene heritage.
I first heard about the Nazarene doctrine of sinless perfection from a high school English teacher. She was a Baptist, and she and I disagreed on eternal security. One day, we were discussing salvation issues and comparing denominational notes, and she told me that the Nazarenes believe a Christian can arrive at a state of sinlessness. I had a math teacher who was a Nazarene, but I didn't ask him if that was true.
But what Moegerle was saying about Dobson did not sit well with my spirit. Dobson did not strike me as a person who considered himself sinless. In the 1990's, I heard him say about his wife, Shirley: "You know, the wonderful thing about marriage is that your spouse accepts you, while knowing about all of your flaws. That's the way Shirley is with me." In that statement, he admitted he had flaws. On a program about a couple that was doing good, Dr. Dobson said: "You know, we're saved by grace, and so you don't have to do any of this to earn God's favor. And yet it's wonderful when people like you choose to make an investment in the lives of others." He kind of sounded like a free gracer there--like a Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie type, as opposed to a John MacArthur "Lordship salvation" advocate. And so he did not strike me as a sinless perfectionist.
Dale Buss' book, Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, presents some of Dobson's religious beliefs--in his own words. Here are some quotes, and I've emboldened the parts that I want to stand out:
"[A] notion that has shaped much of Dobson's philosophy and life is...complex, and its complications come largely from the particulars of Nazarene theology. Because of its emphasis on individual free will, explains [H.B.] London (himself a former Nazarene pastor), his denomination believes in a 'theology of standing' in many ways: 'It means you can lose your salvation. You're constantly striving to measure up. [Our] definition of sin is that it's a willful transgression of God's law. And salvation isn't automatic as in the Calvinist viewpoint. As a result, not only is there guilt but also pressure to measure up.'
"Dobson stresses that salvation is a gift of God and can't be deserved by anyone. 'If we could have earned our salvation, we wouldn't have needed a Savior,' he says. Nevertheless, Dobson believes that the Christian's part of the 'contract' also calls for heartfelt repentance and right living after embracing salvation. The doctrine was strongly developed in the eighteenth century by John Wesley, the British founder of Methodism, and later further shaped by the Nazarenes. 'There is a call on our lives to be as clean as possible with the help of Jesus Christ,' Dobson says. 'We fall short; we sin. But we seek forgiveness for sin, and it's very much a part of our theology that we're obligated to live as holy a life as we can.'
"'I do believe someday I'll kneel before the Lord, and I want to hear him say, 'Well done, good and faithful servant!' What I do and how I live is important. In Matthew 7, Jesus said there will be those on [Judgment Day] who confess him but whom he never knew. Why? Because they didn't do--D-O--the work of his Father. It's an emphasis on attempting to walk the talk.'
"Dobson is hesitant to discuss this aspect of his beliefs in public because some people misinterpret his holiness doctrine as an assertion that, with enough effort, a person can lead a truly sinless life. Nobody, he affirms, can avoid sinning in the sense of having shortcomings, faults, and other flaws that display our mere humanity. 'But from the Wesleyan perspective, sin is a willful disobedience or defiance to a known law. When you refuse to do what God tells you, you know it and understand it. The apostle Paul writes that we have a conscience within us, so that none of us has an excuse. The concept of sanctification is that God gives humans the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to live without deliberately defying God.
"'Just look at Hebrews 10:26,' which promises God's vengeance on those who insist on sinning after learning the truth of the gospel, Dobson says. 'That's interpreted very differently from my Calvinist friends. But I don't believe you can disobey God deliberately, do all kinds of heinous things, and then just go sweeping into [God's] kingdom.
"The characterization that is made by people who don't misunderstand it is that Wesleyans think they're perfect or that they think they can live without any shortcomings. That's crazy. But I try real hard not to shake my fist in God's fist and defy him, and God gives me the encouragement and the strength through the Holy Spirit not to violate a known law. And that's very important to me.'
"It's clear, London says, that 'a large part of the pressure that [Dobson] puts on himself to be such a perfectionist and to achieve may come out of his theology, or at least out of the inward pressure that we Nazarenes put on ourselves to be loved and appreciated--to be the best at what we do.'
"This also helps explain the high expectations that Dobson places on others in work, in relationships, and in life. And if the heresy of fist-shaking at God sounds familiar to his fans, that's because Wesleyan theology also, as Dobson puts it, 'influences my approach to child rearing. I've talked about having a three-year-old son, and if you tell him to go open the door and he misunderstands it and he closes it instead, he'll never be aware that he's done the opposite of what you just asked him to do,' Dobson explains. 'But when he stomps his foot and says, 'I won't do it,' that's when he's most likely to face the consequences.'
"This worldview has influenced 'nearly everything about me,' Dobson says. 'My teaching all comes out of my theology'" (23-25).
According to Dobson, Christians can arrive at a state where they do not commit deliberate and willful sins, even though they may still have flaws. But what is a "willful sin," and what is a "flaw"? For example, are shyness and introversion "sins"? I know that God wants me to reach out to others and not be self-centered. But I have a lot of social anxiety, so I often don't follow that command. Am I deliberately sinning? I doubt that Dobson would think so, for he has stated that some people are just naturally quiet, and he has tried to teach us quiet types how to have a conversation. And, yet, aren't I violating a known law?
How about lust? I know that Jesus equates lust with adultery in Matthew 5:27-28. But I have it anyway, and I enjoy it. I don't understand how Jesus can command us not to have sexual desire (if that indeed is what he's doing), since it's such an integral part of the human condition. Of course, Dr. Dobson has a looser attitude on this than many evangelicals, for he says that parents shouldn't try to stop their kids from masturbating. In a book of his that I read many years ago, Dobson says that his dad told him not to worry about masturbation. "You can masturbate, and that won't hurt your Christian walk," he said. Dobson said that his dad was a conservative Nazarene, yet he was willing to make concessions to human nature. I can understand Dobson being real here, but how's that mesh with his view that Christians shouldn't deliberately sin?
There are some sins that I don't want to do, but I can't exactly shake them. I know that God equates hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22), for example, yet there are still people I hate. I don't want to see them dead, mind you, but I just have a lot of anger towards them. I would prefer to have inner peace, but I can't shake my ego, or my disappointment, or my sense of having been wronged, or my jealousy. At times, God's known will appears unattainable.
And there are times when Dobson appears more compassionate and pastoral than the above quotes seem to indicate. From the above quotes, you'd think that a Christian puts himself on dangerous ground whenever he deliberately opposes God. But, in When God Doesn't Make Sense, Dobson acknowledges that people may have legitimate reasons to be mad at God, for horrible things happen in life. But he says that we should bring ourselves to forgive God, which is not to say that God has done anything wrong. It just means that we should let go of our anger towards him. Here, Dobson recognizes that even Christians are human--with all of the imperfections that humanity entails. But how's he reconcile that with his belief that Christians should be perfect, in the sense of avoiding deliberate disobedience or bad attitudes about God?
I agree with Dobson that being a Christian should make a difference in one's life. The non-Lordship types act as if Christians are God's children even if they live in sin, whereas Dobson seems to think that deliberate sin can disqualify a Christian from salvation. I wonder if there can be a middle ground between the two positions, one that stresses the need for holiness while preserving a God of unconditional love.
Personally, I assume that God is patient with me. He wants me to be better than I am right now, but that doesn't mean that I have to stress out in an attempt to be morally sinless, all to preserve my salvation. In the words of the promises of Alcoholics Anonymous, "We seek spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection." I still think that the goal is some form of perfection, however, but that's the result of growth, not me deciding to do everything right at the present moment. And God is with me on this journey of growth.
Monday, June 16, 2008
A False Hope?
I've often struggled with the opening chapters of Luke. When you watch most Jesus movies (including the controversial Last Temptation of Christ), you get the following message: Jesus was a different kind of Messiah from what most Jews were anticipating. The Jews were expecting a Messiah who would beat the Romans, but Jesus wanted to free people from sin, not Rome. Moreover, according to this spiel, Jesus taught love, not opposition to the Romans.
But the opening chapters of Luke seem to give a nod to the common Jewish expectation. Look at the following passages:
The angel appearing to Mary in Luke 1:32-33: "[T]he Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (NRSV).
Mary in Luke 1:51-55: "He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever."
Zechariah in Luke 1:68-75: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a mighty savior for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us. Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days."
Luke 2:25: "Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him."
Luke 2:38: "At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem."
Jesus in the Sermon on the Plain: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh...But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep" (Luke 6: 20-21, 24-25).
The way I'm reading these passages is as follows: There were Jews who were happy that Messiah Jesus was coming, for they expected him to end their oppression. The Hebrew Scriptures predicted that God would raise up a Davidic king who would deliver Israel from her foreign enemies and restore her as a nation. And Luke presents Jews who were elated because they thought Jesus would fulfill that role. Jesus even offers this kind of good news in his Sermon on the Plain, for he promises the poor that they will be fed and laugh, as the rich go away empty.
The problem is that Jesus did none of those things in the first century. And so was God offering the Jews a false hope?
There are a variety of ways to approach this dilemma. Many of them have something to offer, but I'm not totally satisfied.
1. One can say that the Jews were wrong in their expectations. But Zechariah spoke his prophecy when he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:67). Could he be wrong?
2. One can suggest that God was telling the Jews what the Messiah would eventually do, not what he'd accomplish in the first century. I understand why people see merit in this proposal, for Jesus in Luke 20:9 presents a man going on a long journey, which some apply to Jesus' delay in returning. But the long journey includes the time of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus' first coming, not just that between Jesus' resurrection and return. So I don't think one can appeal to that parable to argue that Luke expected a long time to pass before the parousia.
Many cite II Peter 3:8-9 to argue that time is basically irrelevant to God, meaning that, in God's eyes, Christ would return soon after the first century. So God wasn't misleading the first century Jews, even though the parousia would take place in a few thousand years! I agree that II Peter 3:8-9 is making that sort of claim, but I still feel as if God was offering the first century Jews a false hope, if Option 2 is correct. Here they were, expecting their yoke of foreign oppression to be broken as God established his kingdom (in the Daniel 2 "smashing the Gentile kingdoms and destroying evil" sense). But, bummer, it won't happen for more than two thousand years! So I guess all their excitement was for nothing.
3. Some try to spiritualize the promises away. According to this view, Zechariah the priest really means that Jesus will deliver the Israelites from sin and Satan, not the Romans. The consolation of Jerusalem is not her physical restoration of the nation, but rather God's forgiveness of her sins. This is the view of my trusty E-Sword commentaries, and, in Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright similarly argues that Jesus reinterpreted Israel's restoration in a spiritual sense.
There is some merit to this, for Luke presents Jesus' exorcisms as a sign of the kingdom of God, as Jesus binds the strong man, Satan (Luke 11:17-22). But I have problems spiritualizing away the Hebrew prophecies about Israel's deliverance and restoration. When the disciples asked Jesus in Acts 1, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" they seemed to have meant Israel's political restoration, something Jesus had not accomplished during his first coming. And Jesus did not disagree with their interpretation, for he didn't say, "Hey, you got Israel's restoration wrong! It's spiritual, not political." Rather, he answers, "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority" (v 7).
That's not to suggest that Israel's restoration lacks a spiritual component, for the Hebrew prophets were clear that it would accompany God's forgiveness of her sins. And the early chapters of Luke may very well presume that God would do this through Jesus' death. Although Simeon believed that Jesus would bring about the consolation of Israel, he still expected Jesus to die at the hands of his opponents (Luke 2:34-35). Simeon is excited that Israel's deliverance as a nation is near, yet he realizes that Jesus must die before that takes place.
4. Maybe God wanted to establish the kingdom in the first century, but he chose not to do so because the Jews rejected it. This proposal has merit. In Luke 13:34, Jesus laments, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" This implies that Jesus would have restored Jerusalem, if only it had been willing.
But, alas, the Jewish authorities in Luke helped bring about Jesus' death. That's as strong a rejection as you can get! And so God offers Israel another chance. In Acts 3:17-21, we read Peter's exhortation to a group of Jews: "And now, friends, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer. Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets."
Peter is telling Israel: "Look, your nation played a role in the Messiah's death, and this was prophecied long ago. But if you repent, God will send the Messiah back to earth, and this time he'll do all the good things that the prophets predicted: he'll restore the nation, and the entire world." In this sense, Israel's restoration could have been soon, as Simeon and Mary and Anna and Zechariah anticipated. But it wasn't because Israel refused to repent.
This sounds scripturally sound, but I have problems with it. First of all, Jesus predicted in Luke 21 that Jerusalem would fall. That must mean that he expected her not to repent! One can say that Luke presents two possible scenarios (restoration vs. destruction), each of which is contingent on Israel's response to the Gospel. But is Luke filled with all sorts of contingencies? "I tell you, this WILL happen, but only if that happens first." Plus, there were many Jews who embraced Peter's message. Why couldn't God do what he promised in Zechariah 13-14: destroy Jerusalem AND preserve a righteous remnant, right before he politically restores Jerusalem? Was Peter saying that every single Jew had to receive Jesus for the Messiah to return immediately?
5. In a sense, Jesus did not offer false hope to the hungry in his Sermon on the Plain. In his teachings, the poor would receive good things soon, while the rich would walk away empty. Jesus' parables present the afterlife as a time when this would take place (Luke 12:15-21; 16:19-31). While that's true, the Jews were also expecting a political deliverance and restoration, and Jesus didn't exactly do that.
So I've not found an answer that completely satisfies me, yet I still believe Jesus' words in Acts 1:7: "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority."
But the opening chapters of Luke seem to give a nod to the common Jewish expectation. Look at the following passages:
The angel appearing to Mary in Luke 1:32-33: "[T]he Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (NRSV).
Mary in Luke 1:51-55: "He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever."
Zechariah in Luke 1:68-75: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a mighty savior for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us. Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days."
Luke 2:25: "Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him."
Luke 2:38: "At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem."
Jesus in the Sermon on the Plain: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh...But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep" (Luke 6: 20-21, 24-25).
The way I'm reading these passages is as follows: There were Jews who were happy that Messiah Jesus was coming, for they expected him to end their oppression. The Hebrew Scriptures predicted that God would raise up a Davidic king who would deliver Israel from her foreign enemies and restore her as a nation. And Luke presents Jews who were elated because they thought Jesus would fulfill that role. Jesus even offers this kind of good news in his Sermon on the Plain, for he promises the poor that they will be fed and laugh, as the rich go away empty.
The problem is that Jesus did none of those things in the first century. And so was God offering the Jews a false hope?
There are a variety of ways to approach this dilemma. Many of them have something to offer, but I'm not totally satisfied.
1. One can say that the Jews were wrong in their expectations. But Zechariah spoke his prophecy when he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:67). Could he be wrong?
2. One can suggest that God was telling the Jews what the Messiah would eventually do, not what he'd accomplish in the first century. I understand why people see merit in this proposal, for Jesus in Luke 20:9 presents a man going on a long journey, which some apply to Jesus' delay in returning. But the long journey includes the time of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus' first coming, not just that between Jesus' resurrection and return. So I don't think one can appeal to that parable to argue that Luke expected a long time to pass before the parousia.
Many cite II Peter 3:8-9 to argue that time is basically irrelevant to God, meaning that, in God's eyes, Christ would return soon after the first century. So God wasn't misleading the first century Jews, even though the parousia would take place in a few thousand years! I agree that II Peter 3:8-9 is making that sort of claim, but I still feel as if God was offering the first century Jews a false hope, if Option 2 is correct. Here they were, expecting their yoke of foreign oppression to be broken as God established his kingdom (in the Daniel 2 "smashing the Gentile kingdoms and destroying evil" sense). But, bummer, it won't happen for more than two thousand years! So I guess all their excitement was for nothing.
3. Some try to spiritualize the promises away. According to this view, Zechariah the priest really means that Jesus will deliver the Israelites from sin and Satan, not the Romans. The consolation of Jerusalem is not her physical restoration of the nation, but rather God's forgiveness of her sins. This is the view of my trusty E-Sword commentaries, and, in Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright similarly argues that Jesus reinterpreted Israel's restoration in a spiritual sense.
There is some merit to this, for Luke presents Jesus' exorcisms as a sign of the kingdom of God, as Jesus binds the strong man, Satan (Luke 11:17-22). But I have problems spiritualizing away the Hebrew prophecies about Israel's deliverance and restoration. When the disciples asked Jesus in Acts 1, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" they seemed to have meant Israel's political restoration, something Jesus had not accomplished during his first coming. And Jesus did not disagree with their interpretation, for he didn't say, "Hey, you got Israel's restoration wrong! It's spiritual, not political." Rather, he answers, "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority" (v 7).
That's not to suggest that Israel's restoration lacks a spiritual component, for the Hebrew prophets were clear that it would accompany God's forgiveness of her sins. And the early chapters of Luke may very well presume that God would do this through Jesus' death. Although Simeon believed that Jesus would bring about the consolation of Israel, he still expected Jesus to die at the hands of his opponents (Luke 2:34-35). Simeon is excited that Israel's deliverance as a nation is near, yet he realizes that Jesus must die before that takes place.
4. Maybe God wanted to establish the kingdom in the first century, but he chose not to do so because the Jews rejected it. This proposal has merit. In Luke 13:34, Jesus laments, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" This implies that Jesus would have restored Jerusalem, if only it had been willing.
But, alas, the Jewish authorities in Luke helped bring about Jesus' death. That's as strong a rejection as you can get! And so God offers Israel another chance. In Acts 3:17-21, we read Peter's exhortation to a group of Jews: "And now, friends, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer. Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets."
Peter is telling Israel: "Look, your nation played a role in the Messiah's death, and this was prophecied long ago. But if you repent, God will send the Messiah back to earth, and this time he'll do all the good things that the prophets predicted: he'll restore the nation, and the entire world." In this sense, Israel's restoration could have been soon, as Simeon and Mary and Anna and Zechariah anticipated. But it wasn't because Israel refused to repent.
This sounds scripturally sound, but I have problems with it. First of all, Jesus predicted in Luke 21 that Jerusalem would fall. That must mean that he expected her not to repent! One can say that Luke presents two possible scenarios (restoration vs. destruction), each of which is contingent on Israel's response to the Gospel. But is Luke filled with all sorts of contingencies? "I tell you, this WILL happen, but only if that happens first." Plus, there were many Jews who embraced Peter's message. Why couldn't God do what he promised in Zechariah 13-14: destroy Jerusalem AND preserve a righteous remnant, right before he politically restores Jerusalem? Was Peter saying that every single Jew had to receive Jesus for the Messiah to return immediately?
5. In a sense, Jesus did not offer false hope to the hungry in his Sermon on the Plain. In his teachings, the poor would receive good things soon, while the rich would walk away empty. Jesus' parables present the afterlife as a time when this would take place (Luke 12:15-21; 16:19-31). While that's true, the Jews were also expecting a political deliverance and restoration, and Jesus didn't exactly do that.
So I've not found an answer that completely satisfies me, yet I still believe Jesus' words in Acts 1:7: "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority."
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Another View on Judges 8
I often submit my blog posts to Helium, a web site for wannabe writers (like yours truly). You can write an article under a topic that's already on the Helium site, and that will get it published immediately.
Well, I was searching to see if anyone had started a topic on Gideon, the subject of my last post. I noticed that someone wrote an article entitled, Bible study: Judges 8:4-17. And so I cut and pasted my Gideon post under that article.
The person who started the topic was Mary Walker, and her article is beautiful. She begins by greeting her readers warmly, and then she launches into her Scripture lesson:
"When God had delivered Midian into Gideon's hand, Gideon and his three hundred men were faint, but still pursuing them when they came to the Jordan and passed over. And, also the men of Succoth and Penuel were unhospitable when Gideon and his men asked for bread. (JUDGES 8:4-17)
"What can we learn as Christians today from Gideon's example? Well, Just like Gideon in the battle against Midian, We all get faint on our quest to pursue our spirituality, but we must keep pursuing. And like the men of Succoth and Penuel, The devil will throw unhospitable agents your way to upbraid you, but you must be strong like Gideon and his three hundred men, and with God's help win the battle. (JUDGES 8:4-17)"
Finally, she tells us that she enjoyed writing her article, and she wishes her readers love and peace.
Many things intrigue me: the humility that I see in her article, my sense that she is communicating a message of encouragement that she received from the Lord, etc., etc. But what catches my eye is that she applies the text in a way that's totally different from my application, and yet we're both right.
She portrays Gideon as the good guy--as someone who keeps pursuing even though he is hungry and encounters inhospitable people along the way. By contrast, I said that Gideon was on the path to the dark side in that particular episode. He forgot where he came from, and he failed to show mercy to people with flaws that he once had (i.e., fear, lack of faith).
Yet, despite our differences, our messages are both valid. I can understand why she sees what she sees in the chapter, even though I organize its details in a different way. And both of our interpretations encourage faith, hope, and love, and that's what's truly important.
Isn't the Bible awesome? You can have two different interpretations, each of which contains an edifying truth.
Well, I was searching to see if anyone had started a topic on Gideon, the subject of my last post. I noticed that someone wrote an article entitled, Bible study: Judges 8:4-17. And so I cut and pasted my Gideon post under that article.
The person who started the topic was Mary Walker, and her article is beautiful. She begins by greeting her readers warmly, and then she launches into her Scripture lesson:
"When God had delivered Midian into Gideon's hand, Gideon and his three hundred men were faint, but still pursuing them when they came to the Jordan and passed over. And, also the men of Succoth and Penuel were unhospitable when Gideon and his men asked for bread. (JUDGES 8:4-17)
"What can we learn as Christians today from Gideon's example? Well, Just like Gideon in the battle against Midian, We all get faint on our quest to pursue our spirituality, but we must keep pursuing. And like the men of Succoth and Penuel, The devil will throw unhospitable agents your way to upbraid you, but you must be strong like Gideon and his three hundred men, and with God's help win the battle. (JUDGES 8:4-17)"
Finally, she tells us that she enjoyed writing her article, and she wishes her readers love and peace.
Many things intrigue me: the humility that I see in her article, my sense that she is communicating a message of encouragement that she received from the Lord, etc., etc. But what catches my eye is that she applies the text in a way that's totally different from my application, and yet we're both right.
She portrays Gideon as the good guy--as someone who keeps pursuing even though he is hungry and encounters inhospitable people along the way. By contrast, I said that Gideon was on the path to the dark side in that particular episode. He forgot where he came from, and he failed to show mercy to people with flaws that he once had (i.e., fear, lack of faith).
Yet, despite our differences, our messages are both valid. I can understand why she sees what she sees in the chapter, even though I organize its details in a different way. And both of our interpretations encourage faith, hope, and love, and that's what's truly important.
Isn't the Bible awesome? You can have two different interpretations, each of which contains an edifying truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)