KINGS: THE CYCLE OF SIN LIVES ON
David failed to live up to the kingly ideal of Deuteronomy 17 and so the cycle of sin that began with Adam and Eve continued to live on. But might David's son Solomon be the one to bring the Abrahamic covenant to fulfillment and restore shalom (peace) back to God's broken world? The meaning of Solomon's name certainly would suggest so ("he has made peace"). All he has to do is remain obedient to the gracious God who wants to bless him (1 Kings 2:2-4). How hard can that be?
Right off the bat, expectations surge as Solomon proves himself to be a god-fearing king. He asks for wisdom instead of power or riches and he demonstrates obedience by building God's temple. And this pays off. 1 Kings 4:20 mentions that "Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea." This is a clear allusion to the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 22:17). The passage then goes on to say that "Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt." Solomon had procured the full extent of the land promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:18-20).
But that's not all. God had used Solomon's wisdom to make his name great (1 Kings 8:41-43). We see this in particular when the Queen of Sheba visits Solomon and attests to his great counsel. Her visit also points to the fact that God is beginning to bless other nations through Israel (Deut. 4:5-8). The Abrahamic covenant is coming to fulfillment before our very eyes! God has made Solomon into a great nation (people), given him a protected land (property), and made his name great (prominence). Surely the end of humanity's cycle of sin is just around the corner.
But just when our hopes are high, the seemingly harmless details of Solomon's life given early in the story pave the way for Solomon's ultimate demise. We learn early on that Solomon has a weakness for women when he marries the Pharaoh's daughter and builds her a house (1 Kings 7:8). This weakness only gets worse throughout his life as he ultimately marries 700 wives and has 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). So much for his wisdom!
We also learn early on that Solomon has a weakness for power and possessions when he spends 13 years building his palace compared to the 7 years he spent building God's temple (1 Kings 6:38-7:1). This weakness continues to manifest itself as Solomon accumulates 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horses from Egypt (1 Kings 10:26). Both of Solomon's weaknesses are direct violations of Deuteronomy 17:16-17. And so Solomon shows himself to be anything but the ideal king. And just as with David, Solomon's sin brings God's curses upon the house of David. And so, the cycle of sin continues on.
ELIJAH: THE MOSES-LIKE PROPHET
After Israel splits into two kingdoms (Judah and Israel), a downward spiral ensues as indicated by the constant refrain "He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord." It all begins when King Jeroboam builds worship centers ('high places') in Bethel and Dan. These 'high places' ultimately become centers for pagan worship and pollute the purity of Israel's worship.
Eventually, the depravity of Israel hits rock bottom when Ahab becomes king. The text says that "he did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him." In fact, Ahab's wife, Jezebel, assassinates the prophets of the Lord in order to bring the worship of Yahweh to an end. At this low point, Elijah, a Moses-like figure, emerges on the scene to confront the evil of Ahab and Jezebel and restore Israel's worship (just like Moses did!). And so a battle ensues between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (the story reads much like Moses' battle against the Pharaoh's magicians!). Not surprising, Elijah wins and restores worship by slaughtering the prophets of Baal.
While the account of Elijah sounds pretty straightforward, the author covertly goes out of his way to parallel the life of Elijah with that of Moses. How so?
1.) Just as Moses went before the Pharaoh to announce the plagues so too does Elijah go before Ahab to announce that "neither dew nor rain would fall except by his word" (1 Kings 17:1).
2.) Just as Moses battled the Pharaoh's magicians so too does Elijah battle the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20-40).
3.) Just as Pharaoh pursued the Israelites so too does Jezebel pursue Elijah after he defeats the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:2-3).
4.) Just as Moses and the Israelites were kept in the desert by a daily supply of manna from heaven so too is Elijah provided water and cake by an angel of the Lord while in the wilderness (1 Kings 19:4-8).
5.) Just as the word of the Lord came to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai for forty days and forty nights, so too does the word of the Lord come to Elijah while he is on Mount Horeb (aka Mount Sinai) for "forty days and forty nights."
6.) Just as Moses stood in a cleft of the rock and watched God's glory pass by on Mount Sinai, so too does Elijah see God's glory pass by when sleeping in a cave on Mount Sinai (1 Kings 19:9, 11-13)
Why is this significant? Well in Deuteronomy 18:14-22, Moses had promised that an ideal prophet (much like himself) would one day emerge. Might Elijah be this prophet? Might Elijah be the one who can bring an end to the never ending cycle of sin? NO. This unfortunate answer is given in 2 Kings 2 when Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire. But Elijah's life as characterized by the author of Kings rekindles the expectation that one day an ideal, Moses-like prophet will emerge who will bring the cycle of sin to an end. Could this prophet be Jesus, the one who had a conversation with Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration? Might Elijah's mode of leaving this earth be at the forefront of people's minds as Jesus was ascending into heaven?
THE BOTTOM LINE
Ultimately both Israel and Judah are conquered and brought into exile. At this point, it becomes clear that the book of Kings aims to explain why this unfortunate outcome has come to pass (and encourage Israel and Judah to change course). However, there can also be no doubt that one of the other aims of the author in the book of Kings is to create anticipation for the arrival of God's restored kingdom. This fact is confirmed not only by the way the author tells the story of Elijah but also by the way the book ends. In 2 Kings 25:27-30, we learn that Jehoiachin, David's descendant, is still alive and has found favorable treatment with the king of Babylon. And so the line of David is still alive even despite the reality of the exile. But unfortunately so too is the cycle of sin. The author hints at this fact by pointing out that Jehoiachin shared table fellowship with the king (at a table that no doubt served unclean foods!). And so we are left awaiting the emergence of the ideal king. Until then, the saga continues...
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
HIS-story: Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings (Part 1)
When many of us think of history, we think of dates and facts but not much else. And this influences how we read Biblical history. But Biblical history doesn't just record facts, it's a TRUE STORY that records PURPOSE and DIRECTION. What does this mean? Well, the Bible records specific events that take history in a specific direction to fulfill a specific purpose...God's purpose. This is why it is called HIS-story. So what is this purpose? And how do the historical books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings direct us toward this purpose? Let's take a look.
JUDGES: THE SIN CYCLE & THE BAD TRIBE OF BENJAMIN
The author of the book of Judges clearly sets out to demonstrate a cyclical pattern that taints the entire history of Israel. The pattern is simple...Israel defiantly sins, God allows foreign nations to oppress Israel, Israel repents, God delivers Israel from the oppressors, peace is restored...(and the pattern repeats itself). The skeleton of this cyclical pattern is introduced in Judges 2 and then reinforced throughout the rest of the book with the refrain "Israel did evil in the eyes of the Lord" (2:11; 3:7; 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; 17:6; 21:25).
But that's not all...This cyclical pattern of sin also intensifies throughout the book with each new judge. The first three judges (Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah) are depicted positively by the author AND yet given very little narrative space. And then after the song of Deborah in Judges 5, three judges emerge (Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson) who are depicted very negatively BUT yet given much more narrative space. The large amount of ink given to these BAD judges helps to reinforce the author's point of the book: Israel was on a downward spiral AWAY from God.
The book of Judges ends with a sequence of stories that paints the tribe of Benjamin in a VERY negative light (Judges 19-21). It is from these negative stories that the refrain emerges "in those days Israel had no king" (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). And so the book of Judges ends with the author's PLEA for a king who will one day end this CYCLE OF SIN.
RUTH: THE GOOD LINEAGE OF RUTH
The book of Ruth brings HOPE to this PLEA. The story portrays a woman, Ruth, who is committed and faithful even though she is a Moabite. In fact, many believe the book of Ruth is placed after the book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible because Ruth embodies the wisdom of Proverbs 31. This wise woman, Ruth, then marries someone who is equally faithful to the Torah (God's Law) as demonstrated by the fact that he fulfills his obligations as a kinsman-redeemer by recovering Ruth's lost property and marrying her so that she is provided for. It is from this GOOD lineage that David, the future King of Israel, will emerge (Ruth 4:18-22).
SAMUEL: BAD KING, GOOD KING
But the first king of Israel does not come from the GOOD lineage of Ruth. NO. The first king, Saul, comes from the BAD tribe of Benjamin...the very tribe that was depicted so negatively at the end of the book of Judges. And true to his heritage, King Saul perpetuates the cycle of sin that began in the book of Judges. How? Saul fails to embrace the qualifications required to lead God's kingdom (Deut. 17:14-20). In fact, Saul goes rogue by not consulting God (through the prophet Samuel). By doing this, Saul in essence dethrones God and misrepresents God's kingdom to others. But God will have none of this.
And so God rejects Saul and selects David to be king. David is true to his GOOD heritage...he consults God, he refuses to act without God's stamp of approval, he doesn't seek revenge on his personal enemies. In short, David proves himself to be the antithesis of Saul. In fact, he demonstrates the same type of deep faith in God as that of Abraham. And just like with Abraham (Gen. 17-18), God reinforces His covenant promises to David by promising him an everlasting dynasty and a great name (2 Sam. 7). In this way, the Abrahamic covenant has been brought back onto the scene and with it an elevated sense of anticipation: Has God answered the PLEA of the author of Judges? Will David bring the cycle of sin to an end? Will the Abrahamic covenant finally be fulfilled? Will God's broken world be fully restored?
2 Samuel 11 quickly answers these questions with an emphatic NO. David sins and this unleashes a sequence of CURSES...pain, death, family tension. Does this sound familiar? If not, the author makes his allusion to Genesis obvious in 2 Samuel 13-14. A crafty friend tempts Amnon to take advantage of his sister Tamar (13:3). When Tamar brings food into the chamber, Amnon ate from her hand (13:10). Amnon's sin creates shame (13:13) and brings separation to the relationship (13:15). And just like Cain killed Abel in a field as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, so too does Absalom kill Amnon in a field (14:6). Likewise, Absalom fears being killed from retaliation and revenge (14:11) just like Cain (Gen. 4:13-14). But both men are given reassurances that they will receive divine protection (14:11b; Gen. 4:15). In all of this, the author wants us to know that the curses of Genesis have tainted David's dynasty and so the CYCLE OF SIN will live on.
THE TELIOS OF BIBLICAL HISTORY
I hope it has become obvious by now that Biblical history is essentially telling the same story over and over again. God creates ORDER and REST while human rebellion creates DISORDER and UNREST. Humans simply refuse to embrace GOD'S WAY because they want to live life THEIR OWN WAY. This was true of Adam and Eve, Seth's descendants, Noah and his descendants, Jacob and his descendants, Israel in the wilderness, the period of the Judges, and now the period of the Kings. In short, the PLEA for an ideal king who will end the CYCLE OF SIN is left unfulfilled. But will that ideal king be Solomon (a name which means, "he has made peace")? The saga continues...
JUDGES: THE SIN CYCLE & THE BAD TRIBE OF BENJAMIN
The author of the book of Judges clearly sets out to demonstrate a cyclical pattern that taints the entire history of Israel. The pattern is simple...Israel defiantly sins, God allows foreign nations to oppress Israel, Israel repents, God delivers Israel from the oppressors, peace is restored...(and the pattern repeats itself). The skeleton of this cyclical pattern is introduced in Judges 2 and then reinforced throughout the rest of the book with the refrain "Israel did evil in the eyes of the Lord" (2:11; 3:7; 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; 17:6; 21:25).
But that's not all...This cyclical pattern of sin also intensifies throughout the book with each new judge. The first three judges (Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah) are depicted positively by the author AND yet given very little narrative space. And then after the song of Deborah in Judges 5, three judges emerge (Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson) who are depicted very negatively BUT yet given much more narrative space. The large amount of ink given to these BAD judges helps to reinforce the author's point of the book: Israel was on a downward spiral AWAY from God.
The book of Judges ends with a sequence of stories that paints the tribe of Benjamin in a VERY negative light (Judges 19-21). It is from these negative stories that the refrain emerges "in those days Israel had no king" (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). And so the book of Judges ends with the author's PLEA for a king who will one day end this CYCLE OF SIN.
RUTH: THE GOOD LINEAGE OF RUTH
The book of Ruth brings HOPE to this PLEA. The story portrays a woman, Ruth, who is committed and faithful even though she is a Moabite. In fact, many believe the book of Ruth is placed after the book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible because Ruth embodies the wisdom of Proverbs 31. This wise woman, Ruth, then marries someone who is equally faithful to the Torah (God's Law) as demonstrated by the fact that he fulfills his obligations as a kinsman-redeemer by recovering Ruth's lost property and marrying her so that she is provided for. It is from this GOOD lineage that David, the future King of Israel, will emerge (Ruth 4:18-22).
SAMUEL: BAD KING, GOOD KING
But the first king of Israel does not come from the GOOD lineage of Ruth. NO. The first king, Saul, comes from the BAD tribe of Benjamin...the very tribe that was depicted so negatively at the end of the book of Judges. And true to his heritage, King Saul perpetuates the cycle of sin that began in the book of Judges. How? Saul fails to embrace the qualifications required to lead God's kingdom (Deut. 17:14-20). In fact, Saul goes rogue by not consulting God (through the prophet Samuel). By doing this, Saul in essence dethrones God and misrepresents God's kingdom to others. But God will have none of this.
And so God rejects Saul and selects David to be king. David is true to his GOOD heritage...he consults God, he refuses to act without God's stamp of approval, he doesn't seek revenge on his personal enemies. In short, David proves himself to be the antithesis of Saul. In fact, he demonstrates the same type of deep faith in God as that of Abraham. And just like with Abraham (Gen. 17-18), God reinforces His covenant promises to David by promising him an everlasting dynasty and a great name (2 Sam. 7). In this way, the Abrahamic covenant has been brought back onto the scene and with it an elevated sense of anticipation: Has God answered the PLEA of the author of Judges? Will David bring the cycle of sin to an end? Will the Abrahamic covenant finally be fulfilled? Will God's broken world be fully restored?
2 Samuel 11 quickly answers these questions with an emphatic NO. David sins and this unleashes a sequence of CURSES...pain, death, family tension. Does this sound familiar? If not, the author makes his allusion to Genesis obvious in 2 Samuel 13-14. A crafty friend tempts Amnon to take advantage of his sister Tamar (13:3). When Tamar brings food into the chamber, Amnon ate from her hand (13:10). Amnon's sin creates shame (13:13) and brings separation to the relationship (13:15). And just like Cain killed Abel in a field as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, so too does Absalom kill Amnon in a field (14:6). Likewise, Absalom fears being killed from retaliation and revenge (14:11) just like Cain (Gen. 4:13-14). But both men are given reassurances that they will receive divine protection (14:11b; Gen. 4:15). In all of this, the author wants us to know that the curses of Genesis have tainted David's dynasty and so the CYCLE OF SIN will live on.
THE TELIOS OF BIBLICAL HISTORY
I hope it has become obvious by now that Biblical history is essentially telling the same story over and over again. God creates ORDER and REST while human rebellion creates DISORDER and UNREST. Humans simply refuse to embrace GOD'S WAY because they want to live life THEIR OWN WAY. This was true of Adam and Eve, Seth's descendants, Noah and his descendants, Jacob and his descendants, Israel in the wilderness, the period of the Judges, and now the period of the Kings. In short, the PLEA for an ideal king who will end the CYCLE OF SIN is left unfulfilled. But will that ideal king be Solomon (a name which means, "he has made peace")? The saga continues...
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
1 Kings: Are God's Covenants Unconditional?
Sky had decided to give church a try after her interesting conversation with Parker and Julie. However, the sermon left her with lots of questions that she wanted to discuss with Julie and Parker at 4th period lunch.
"So I braved it this weekend and went to church for the first time. But it left me with lots of questions." said Sky to both Parker and Julie.
"Very cool. I'd love to hear about your experience," replied Parker.
"Well, the pastor was teaching through the covenants of the Bible which he told us were simply agreements that help define and set expectations for our relationship with God. And I'm glad he defined that word because otherwise I would have been clueless the entire time."
"I've experienced the same thing before. Some of the words Christians use can make them sound like martians to normal people," said Julie.
"Well I'm glad he spoke to me like a normal person. But the thing that confused me was when he said that all of the covenants in the Bible are 'unconditional' with the exception of the covenant with Moses. He went on to say that God is all about grace and so our relationship with Him is not dependent on our works or what we do or don't do. This is how he defined the 'unconditionalness' of God's covenants. Doesn't that sound like a relationship destined for failure...all the expectations are placed on God and none on people?" said Sky.
"That's the amazing thing about grace! You can come to God and he'll accept you as you are!" said Parker.
"But then why does the Old Testament make it feel like expectations are placed on people? I mean it seems like the people didn't live up to God's expectations and so God allowed other nations to defeat them and shipped them away into a life of slavery" Sky responded.
"Well, the people in the Old Testament were living under the Mosaic covenant which wasn't unconditional. Therefore, if they didn't live up to the expectations of the covenant, curses would result. And unfortunately this is exactly what happened." said Parker.
"But it seems like in 1 Kings that the covenant God made with David did have conditions (1 Kings 8:25)," rebutted Sky.
"The most important thing is that Jesus fulfilled and satisfied the Law and its requirements so that now the Mosaic covenant and the Old Testament Law are no longer in effect to Christians (Matt. 5:17). As the Bible puts it, they are 'obsolete' (Heb. 8:13). In fact, many people in my church believe that most of the promises made in the Old Testament were only given to the Jewish people and therefore don't even apply to us," replied Parker.
"So basically you're telling me that most of the Old Testament doesn't apply to me because I am not Jewish and Christians can live however they want?" said Sky wanting more clarification.
How would you contribute to this conversation?
____________________________________________________
Julie interjected, "Someone told me that labeling the covenants as conditional or unconditional is unhelpful because it leads to this type of confusion. I mean, it just seems obvious that God placed obligations on Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:1), Moses (Exod. 19:5-6), David (1 Kings 2:1-4), and even places obligations on Christians in the New Testament (Matt. 5:17-20). But what's less obvious in my opinion is why God refuses to give up on his plan and promise to restore this broken world despite humanity's constant and blatant rebellion. I would have given up on them a long time ago. And so I guess I would say that God's covenants are permanent but not necessarily unconditional."
"I think you're on to something Julie. I do recall being taught at one time that the obligations for the Abrahamic covenant given in Genesis 17:1 parallel Genesis 12:1-3. One says 'WALK before me and BE blameless' and the other says 'Go (or more literally WALK) from your land and BE a blessing.' Both sound very similar and both place obligations on Abraham. So I can see why people have trouble when this covenant is labeled 'unconditional'. That label seems inconsistent with how the story goes." said Parker.
"But I thought God's love was unconditional. Didn't you just tell me that this whole unconditional business is what makes God's GRACE so amazing?" questioned Sky.
"Personally, I think we've done the same thing to God's love that we've done to His covenants...we've tried to fit everything into one, single category. I understand that people like their simple boxes but John 3:16 isn't the only verse in the Bible. God's 'love' as described in the Old Testament seems more complicated and multi-dimensional. In one sense God loves the world unconditionally. There's no denying this. He sends rain to both evil people and nice people. And he sent Jesus to die for the entire world. But then again Jude 21 (in the New Testament) tells us to 'keep ourselves in God's love'. That sounds pretty conditional to me. In fact, that sounds a lot like God's love from the Old Testament," said Julie.
"So what you're saying is that people are saved by what they do and not by God's free grace," said Sky confused all over again.
"Well, yes and no. I guess it depends on how you define salvation. I know I sound like a broken record but we've even oversimplified the Bible's explanation of salvation. Most people define it as a get out of hell FREE card that you can get from your local insurance salesman by 'praying a prayer'. While there is some truth to this, that's not the entire story. Certainly God wants to stop people's lives from going in reverse and get them to THE heavenly destination. But He doesn't just want to put our lives into neutral NOW (while we wait for heaven)...He wants to help us move forward and overcome our hurts, habits, and hang-ups. Church people would put it this way, 'Salvation equals justification plus sanctification.' In other words, God doesn't just want to forgive people, he wants to restore them too!" said Julie tapping into some of her confirmation training.
"Now that version of Christianity is actually worth believing in compared to some of the other versions I've heard before. But you're still making it sound like people have to earn their salvation. Where's the grace?," said Sky.
"Well if you leave out the Holy Spirit then you're right, it seems like there is no grace in salvation. But Jesus' death on the cross wasn't His only act of grace. Jesus also sent His divine presence to empower people to overcome their hurts, habits, and hang-ups. People forget that the sending of the Spirit is also an act of God's grace. In fact, did you know that the Bible has another name for what we've labeled 'spiritual gifts'? The Bible calls them 'grace-gifts' (charismata). And so while Jesus' death is an act of grace because it brings forgiveness, Jesus' Spirit is also an act of grace because it empowers us. This means that the obedient life that God calls us to live is accomplished not by our effort but by the power of the Spirit. In other words, we're not saved by works but by God working through us...we're saved by God's grace. Does that make sense?" said Julie.
"I've never heard it explained that way before. I think that makes sense."
"So I braved it this weekend and went to church for the first time. But it left me with lots of questions." said Sky to both Parker and Julie.
"Very cool. I'd love to hear about your experience," replied Parker.
"Well, the pastor was teaching through the covenants of the Bible which he told us were simply agreements that help define and set expectations for our relationship with God. And I'm glad he defined that word because otherwise I would have been clueless the entire time."
"I've experienced the same thing before. Some of the words Christians use can make them sound like martians to normal people," said Julie.
"Well I'm glad he spoke to me like a normal person. But the thing that confused me was when he said that all of the covenants in the Bible are 'unconditional' with the exception of the covenant with Moses. He went on to say that God is all about grace and so our relationship with Him is not dependent on our works or what we do or don't do. This is how he defined the 'unconditionalness' of God's covenants. Doesn't that sound like a relationship destined for failure...all the expectations are placed on God and none on people?" said Sky.
"That's the amazing thing about grace! You can come to God and he'll accept you as you are!" said Parker.
"But then why does the Old Testament make it feel like expectations are placed on people? I mean it seems like the people didn't live up to God's expectations and so God allowed other nations to defeat them and shipped them away into a life of slavery" Sky responded.
"Well, the people in the Old Testament were living under the Mosaic covenant which wasn't unconditional. Therefore, if they didn't live up to the expectations of the covenant, curses would result. And unfortunately this is exactly what happened." said Parker.
"But it seems like in 1 Kings that the covenant God made with David did have conditions (1 Kings 8:25)," rebutted Sky.
"The most important thing is that Jesus fulfilled and satisfied the Law and its requirements so that now the Mosaic covenant and the Old Testament Law are no longer in effect to Christians (Matt. 5:17). As the Bible puts it, they are 'obsolete' (Heb. 8:13). In fact, many people in my church believe that most of the promises made in the Old Testament were only given to the Jewish people and therefore don't even apply to us," replied Parker.
"So basically you're telling me that most of the Old Testament doesn't apply to me because I am not Jewish and Christians can live however they want?" said Sky wanting more clarification.
How would you contribute to this conversation?
____________________________________________________
Julie interjected, "Someone told me that labeling the covenants as conditional or unconditional is unhelpful because it leads to this type of confusion. I mean, it just seems obvious that God placed obligations on Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:1), Moses (Exod. 19:5-6), David (1 Kings 2:1-4), and even places obligations on Christians in the New Testament (Matt. 5:17-20). But what's less obvious in my opinion is why God refuses to give up on his plan and promise to restore this broken world despite humanity's constant and blatant rebellion. I would have given up on them a long time ago. And so I guess I would say that God's covenants are permanent but not necessarily unconditional."
"I think you're on to something Julie. I do recall being taught at one time that the obligations for the Abrahamic covenant given in Genesis 17:1 parallel Genesis 12:1-3. One says 'WALK before me and BE blameless' and the other says 'Go (or more literally WALK) from your land and BE a blessing.' Both sound very similar and both place obligations on Abraham. So I can see why people have trouble when this covenant is labeled 'unconditional'. That label seems inconsistent with how the story goes." said Parker.
"But I thought God's love was unconditional. Didn't you just tell me that this whole unconditional business is what makes God's GRACE so amazing?" questioned Sky.
"Personally, I think we've done the same thing to God's love that we've done to His covenants...we've tried to fit everything into one, single category. I understand that people like their simple boxes but John 3:16 isn't the only verse in the Bible. God's 'love' as described in the Old Testament seems more complicated and multi-dimensional. In one sense God loves the world unconditionally. There's no denying this. He sends rain to both evil people and nice people. And he sent Jesus to die for the entire world. But then again Jude 21 (in the New Testament) tells us to 'keep ourselves in God's love'. That sounds pretty conditional to me. In fact, that sounds a lot like God's love from the Old Testament," said Julie.
"So what you're saying is that people are saved by what they do and not by God's free grace," said Sky confused all over again.
"Well, yes and no. I guess it depends on how you define salvation. I know I sound like a broken record but we've even oversimplified the Bible's explanation of salvation. Most people define it as a get out of hell FREE card that you can get from your local insurance salesman by 'praying a prayer'. While there is some truth to this, that's not the entire story. Certainly God wants to stop people's lives from going in reverse and get them to THE heavenly destination. But He doesn't just want to put our lives into neutral NOW (while we wait for heaven)...He wants to help us move forward and overcome our hurts, habits, and hang-ups. Church people would put it this way, 'Salvation equals justification plus sanctification.' In other words, God doesn't just want to forgive people, he wants to restore them too!" said Julie tapping into some of her confirmation training.
"Now that version of Christianity is actually worth believing in compared to some of the other versions I've heard before. But you're still making it sound like people have to earn their salvation. Where's the grace?," said Sky.
"Well if you leave out the Holy Spirit then you're right, it seems like there is no grace in salvation. But Jesus' death on the cross wasn't His only act of grace. Jesus also sent His divine presence to empower people to overcome their hurts, habits, and hang-ups. People forget that the sending of the Spirit is also an act of God's grace. In fact, did you know that the Bible has another name for what we've labeled 'spiritual gifts'? The Bible calls them 'grace-gifts' (charismata). And so while Jesus' death is an act of grace because it brings forgiveness, Jesus' Spirit is also an act of grace because it empowers us. This means that the obedient life that God calls us to live is accomplished not by our effort but by the power of the Spirit. In other words, we're not saved by works but by God working through us...we're saved by God's grace. Does that make sense?" said Julie.
"I've never heard it explained that way before. I think that makes sense."
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
1 Samuel 16 & 31: Is the Bible Accurate Historically?
Parker and Julie were sitting together at lunch when Parker asked Julie, "So what did you think of last Sunday's sermon on 1 Samuel 16?"
"Boring as usual. If the Pastor would talk about the book of Revelation and all its hidden references to nuclear bombs he might get my attention. The book of 1 Samuel just isn't doing it for me," said Julie.
"But didn't you find it weird that an evil spirit from the Lord was tormenting Saul? I thought God was holy. So how can He send an evil spirit on somebody?" Parker said trying to get a conversation rolling.
"Well maybe God sent one of Satan's demons to possess Saul. I don't know," Julie remarked unenthusiastically.
Parker gave the conversation one more try by rebutting, "But the evil spirit is from the Lord. Are God and demons hanging out together now?"
Sky a classmate who had been listening in on the conversation decided to make an unsolicited comment, "In my opinion, God gives Saul an evil spirit because it makes for good fiction. I just think the whole Bible thing is a hoax. It has so many historical discrepancies. Why would anyone trust it?"
"Are there any discrepancies in particular you're thinking of?" Asked Parker refusing to let Sky win at her game of skeptic.
"Well, since we're talking about the book of Samuel haven't you noticed that in 1 Samuel 31 Saul dies by falling on his sword but in 2 Samuel 1 Saul dies at the hands of a foreigner? Is that a good enough example for you? This is why I don't take the Bible very seriously."
How would you contribute to this conversation?
_______________________________________________
"I understand where you're coming from Sky. Our pastor told us this past week that reading narrative history in general can be tricky. You can't always take people in the story at their word. The only person you can really trust is the person telling the story (the narrator). He is kind of like the gatekeeper of THE objective point of view. And so the reader really needs to be dialed in to his point of view to get the point of the story," said Parker.
"Are you just trying to confuse me? How does this change anything about the Bible's contradictions?" Sky seemed confused.
"Take the book of Job for instance. We learn at the beginning of the story that God views Job as a righteous man. This is what the narrator tells us. But then when bad things start happening to Job, his older, 'wiser' friends tell him that these unfortunate things must be happening to him because he has somehow sinned against God. These guys are simply regurgitating the conventional wisdom at that time. But the reader knows from the narrator that these guys are totally on the wrong track in their analysis. Their version of wisdom is not to be trusted even though they are older and supposedly wiser."
"Okay...So how does this relate to the contradictory accounts of Saul's death?" Sky asked.
"Well, in 1 Samuel 31 the narrator (the objective gatekeeper) provides the TRUE account of Saul's death. But in 2 Samuel 1 some random Amalekite is spinning a tale about how he courageously killed Saul. I wonder why? Might he have wanted to impress the king to get some favorable treatment? But the joke was on him," Said Parker.
"That's right...off with his head." Julie chimed in.
"That makes some sense...but the narrator does tell us that an evil spirit from the Lord tormented Saul. I still don't get that," said Sky.
Parker was glad this question resurfaced, "I actually asked my pastor about this after his sermon. That's why I brought it up originally. He said that the Hebrew word for 'evil' (ra) is a very generic word. It can mean 'bad', 'unpleasant', 'uncomfortable'...you get the point. And like any word, it gains its meaning from the context in which it is being used. This is why many people prefer to call 'The Tree of the Knowledge of good and EVIL' 'The Tree of the Knowledge of good and BAD.' The story tells us that the 'ra' that came from the tree was PAIN. And childbirth pain is hardly morally evil. It's just outright BAD."
"Brevity is not your strong suit Parker. So let me help you. What you mean is that God sent some type of unpleasant spirit to Saul NOT an evil, demonic spirit?" said Sky.
"Correct. This is why some versions of the Bible call it a 'tormenting' or 'harmful' spirit."
"I feel like I'm in English class. Are we going to have a quiz on this?" said Julie jokingly.
"Boring as usual. If the Pastor would talk about the book of Revelation and all its hidden references to nuclear bombs he might get my attention. The book of 1 Samuel just isn't doing it for me," said Julie.
"But didn't you find it weird that an evil spirit from the Lord was tormenting Saul? I thought God was holy. So how can He send an evil spirit on somebody?" Parker said trying to get a conversation rolling.
"Well maybe God sent one of Satan's demons to possess Saul. I don't know," Julie remarked unenthusiastically.
Parker gave the conversation one more try by rebutting, "But the evil spirit is from the Lord. Are God and demons hanging out together now?"
Sky a classmate who had been listening in on the conversation decided to make an unsolicited comment, "In my opinion, God gives Saul an evil spirit because it makes for good fiction. I just think the whole Bible thing is a hoax. It has so many historical discrepancies. Why would anyone trust it?"
"Are there any discrepancies in particular you're thinking of?" Asked Parker refusing to let Sky win at her game of skeptic.
"Well, since we're talking about the book of Samuel haven't you noticed that in 1 Samuel 31 Saul dies by falling on his sword but in 2 Samuel 1 Saul dies at the hands of a foreigner? Is that a good enough example for you? This is why I don't take the Bible very seriously."
How would you contribute to this conversation?
_______________________________________________
"I understand where you're coming from Sky. Our pastor told us this past week that reading narrative history in general can be tricky. You can't always take people in the story at their word. The only person you can really trust is the person telling the story (the narrator). He is kind of like the gatekeeper of THE objective point of view. And so the reader really needs to be dialed in to his point of view to get the point of the story," said Parker.
"Are you just trying to confuse me? How does this change anything about the Bible's contradictions?" Sky seemed confused.
"Take the book of Job for instance. We learn at the beginning of the story that God views Job as a righteous man. This is what the narrator tells us. But then when bad things start happening to Job, his older, 'wiser' friends tell him that these unfortunate things must be happening to him because he has somehow sinned against God. These guys are simply regurgitating the conventional wisdom at that time. But the reader knows from the narrator that these guys are totally on the wrong track in their analysis. Their version of wisdom is not to be trusted even though they are older and supposedly wiser."
"Okay...So how does this relate to the contradictory accounts of Saul's death?" Sky asked.
"Well, in 1 Samuel 31 the narrator (the objective gatekeeper) provides the TRUE account of Saul's death. But in 2 Samuel 1 some random Amalekite is spinning a tale about how he courageously killed Saul. I wonder why? Might he have wanted to impress the king to get some favorable treatment? But the joke was on him," Said Parker.
"That's right...off with his head." Julie chimed in.
"That makes some sense...but the narrator does tell us that an evil spirit from the Lord tormented Saul. I still don't get that," said Sky.
Parker was glad this question resurfaced, "I actually asked my pastor about this after his sermon. That's why I brought it up originally. He said that the Hebrew word for 'evil' (ra) is a very generic word. It can mean 'bad', 'unpleasant', 'uncomfortable'...you get the point. And like any word, it gains its meaning from the context in which it is being used. This is why many people prefer to call 'The Tree of the Knowledge of good and EVIL' 'The Tree of the Knowledge of good and BAD.' The story tells us that the 'ra' that came from the tree was PAIN. And childbirth pain is hardly morally evil. It's just outright BAD."
"Brevity is not your strong suit Parker. So let me help you. What you mean is that God sent some type of unpleasant spirit to Saul NOT an evil, demonic spirit?" said Sky.
"Correct. This is why some versions of the Bible call it a 'tormenting' or 'harmful' spirit."
"I feel like I'm in English class. Are we going to have a quiz on this?" said Julie jokingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)