How Wrong Can You Be

I have been having a stimulating discussion with a neighbor recently. He has a slightly unorthodox view of exactly who or what Jesus is. By calling his view unorthodox, I place myself firmly in the orthodox or historical position of the church over the centuries. It is his sincere belief that orthodoxy left the truth behind at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The main purpose of that gathering was to discuss the teachings of a priest from Alexandria named Arius. He had begun to teach that Jesus was a created being subordinate to the Father and neither co-equal nor co-eternal with Him. This became known as the Arian heresy after the Council declared the teaching to be unbiblical.

Before you fall asleep or discount this as an irrelevant historical dispute, let me assure you that it is extremely important today. Arian thought rears its ugly head across all denominational lines occasionally, but especially in the American West where Mormonism thrives. Mormons teach that Jesus is a product of the Heavenly Father’s conjugal relations with one of his many wives. They imagine that Lucifer is his brother, created in a similar fashion. This is pure Arianism, and it should be treated as the heresy it is.

Another movement that leans heavily into Arianism is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. JW’s, as they are commonly called, teach that Jesus is “a god,” subordinate to Jehovah god, hence their name. They believe that Jesus is actually the archangel, Michael, who is obviously a created being. This thinking places them clearly in the Arian camp. Like the Mormons, they reject the idea of God as a trinity with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all being equally God and equally eternal uncreated beings. They believe they are returning to the first century beliefs of the original church. They are, if you count Arius.

There is another more subtle movement abroad today to which my neighbor has become attached. These people believe that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, teaches a strict monotheism which precludes the possibility of a co-equal Son of God. They also dismiss the idea that the Holy Spirit is a third member of the godhead by suggesting that His mention in the New Testament refers to the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ. They also devalue the position of Jesus as “Son of God” by making that mean something different from “god the son.” They insist that there can be only one god, and he cannot exist in multiple forms of separate but equal divinity. To them, the concept of the trinity is anathema, and those who believe in it are not eligible for God’s saving grace.

This is where my heart stopped. This means millions of sincere believers who have accepted the concept of a three-fold godhead throughout church history would be destined for Hell for their “misunderstanding” of God’s nature. STOP! Has anyone who seriously studies the Bible ever come to a full understanding of who God is? This is the God who said, “My ways are not your ways; my thoughts are not your thoughts.” This is the God who challenged Job with a series of questions beginning with, “Where were you when I created the world?” This is the God who said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”

Paul says, “We have the mind of Christ,” referring to born again, spirit-led Christians. But he also says, “Now we see through a mirror indirectly, but then face to face.” I believe Paul’s “then” refers to the time when we will be present with the Lord and, “know completely, just as [we] have also been completely known.” Until “then,” none of us will know God in His fulness. But we can know a great deal about Him if we study His Word carefully. The differences in our understanding of who God is, like mine with my neighbor, stem from our different interpretations of the Scripture.

While there is only one true meaning of any particular Scripture, that truth must be extracted using proper means of interpretation. Even then, it is possible for two sincere Bible students to come to different conclusions. In matters not essential to salvation, brothers can agree to disagree. However, some things are not debatable: Jesus’ existence as God’s chosen Messiah whom the prophets foretold; His divine yet human nature, which He attained by His virgin birth; His physical death and subsequent resurrection to His former glory which confirmed the efficacy of His substitutionary sacrifice. I believe these are essential truths without which no salvation is possible.

The question that plagues me is whether it is possible to be mistaken in our understanding of these essentials and still achieve saving faith. If so, how deep a misunderstanding is too deep. How wrong can we be? I fear some may find themselves in the position of the Jewish rabbis at the time of Jesus appearance in Israel. According to Michael S. Heiser, they had a binary understanding of their “one” true God. He was indeed one, yet He appeared to His people throughout their history in several forms. There was God; then there were the epiphanies of God to men. Heiser identifies four: El/Elohim; Yahweh or Jehovah; The Angel of Yahweh; and simply, The Name.

When Jesus came to the Jews proclaiming Himself to be the Son of God and referring to God as “His” Father, they became incensed. He did not fit their binary concept. They correctly took his claims to mean that He had a unique relationship with God, ultimately making Himself out to be God. To them, this was blasphemous, and they ultimately had Him executed for His presumption. From our vantage point alongside the risen Christ, we can see their fatal error. My question is whether modern expositors of Scripture who devalue Christ’s unique position fall into the same category as the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day.

I have been mildly tormented by this question ever since I did the research for my book on Mormonism. I concluded then that a person could not be saved if fully immersed in Mormon theology because it is thoroughly Arian – heretical. The discussions I have been having with my neighbor have dredged up the question again. My conclusion is this:

1.) I must believe that Jesus is fully God as that made it possible for Him to be a sinless sacrifice

2.) I must believe that Jesus was fully human because only a human sacrifice could atone for human sin

3.) I must believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave and ascended to His Father’s side as proof that His sacrifice was accepted.

I believe this is the gospel Paul delivered. I believe if you can’t say those three things, your understanding of the gospel is wrong. You can be wrong about many things in the Bible, but if you are wrong about those three, you may get an unwelcome surprise on judgment day.

Related Post: That’s Not God

The Cry of Sin

Have you ever read Romans 8:22 and wondered why creation groans: “For we know that the whole creation groans together and suffers agony together until now.” Like many other curious passages, I have wondered about this one, giving it little thought. Recently I read the words of God to Abraham when He was about to judge Sodom and Gomorrah. “Then Yahweh said, ‘Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very serious, I will go down and I will see. Have they done altogether according to its cry of distress which has come to me? If not, I will know.’” (Ge 18:20–21)

I was struck by the phrase, “Its cry of distress.” I asked myself what was crying in distress. Pardon a brief grammar lesson, but I discovered that “its cry” used a feminine pronoun meaning the antecedent had to be feminine as well. Then I discovered that “outcry” is also feminine.  The cities are not feminine. The closest possible feminine antecedent is the word “sin.” The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was making a distress cry. Being a feminine, singular pronoun, the cry was not from the cities or the people which would be plural; it was the sin that cried out to God. Huh!

Something was happening in those cities that was so terrible that it raised an SOS to heaven. MAYDAY! MAYDAY! rang through the halls of heaven, and God felt it necessary to go down and see what was happening. I know, God is omniscient; He knew exactly what was going on. But as I have written before, God must make Himself human sized occasionally to make a point about His character and His actions. This is one of those frequent interactions between God and His creation that reveals the nature of His relationship. We know that God is holy, so we can imagine that “very serious” sin would concern Him.

When we look at what sin is in essence, we might understand why it bothers God so much. The original sin – the sin of Adam and Eve – was rebellion. At its core, that rebellion was an attempt to move away from the order God had established for His creation. Creation itself is an ordering of all things into their divine place. God spoke order into chaos, and the universe came to be. Anything that disturbs that order is sin – chaos.

A look at the Hebrew word God spoke to Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah shows this. Chata (חָטָא), means to miss; to go wrong.  The most frequently used New Testament Greek word for sin is hamartanō (ἁμαρτάνω) which also means to miss the mark. God’s “mark” is perfection; whatever misses that mark is sin; it brings chaos into the order God intends for His creation. If you think of creation as a symphony, as Scripture sometimes does, sin is a sour note in the otherwise beautiful music.

I played in band throughout my high school career. When a wrong note was played somewhere in the band, I couldn’t always detect it from my seat in the third row playing my horn. In one of the schools where I taught years later, I was drafted as the director of a musical ensemble. From my position up front, I could easily tell when a note was off, and I could usually pinpoint the location quite easily. I imagine this is what God experienced when the cities of the plain cried out in distress. I sounded off tune – chaotic.

Look again at Romans chapter eight. The two verses before the mention of creation’s groaning read: “For the eagerly expecting creation awaits eagerly the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation has been subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its servility to decay, into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” What happened to cause creation to be “subjected to futility?” Genesis 3:17 tells us: “And to Adam [God] said, ‘Because you listened to the voice of your wife and you ate from the tree from which I forbade you to eat, the ground shall be cursed on your account.’” Adam sinned and chaos ensued. Darn!

We generally tend to think that the salvation wrought by Jesus on the cross was for us. Of course it was, but now I see that human redemption is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a number of Bible passages that begin to come alive with this expansion of redemption. The stars sang at creation. The trees of the field clap their hands. The stones cry out at the coming of their Redeemer. The creation groans eagerly awaiting the revelation of the sons of God. These passages which personify creation force me to see that the Earth is not just a hunk of space rock with organic life struggling to survive on its surface. Creation itself communes with its Creator.

John Mac Arthur reminds us, “We sometimes flirt with sin, but God hates it. The price He paid to redeem us from it speaks of the seriousness with which He views it. After all, ‘[We] were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold … but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.’” (John F. MacArthur Jr., Drawing Near—Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993, 24. Quoting 1 Peter 1:18–19).

As the crown of God’s creation, those created in His image, believers are foremost in the things God has redeemed. But let us not forget that sin stains God’s creation, and it grieves the Father deeply, especially when it is our sin. The next time you revel in a beautiful sunset, or enjoy the song of a mockingbird, or whatever you find precious in God’s creation, remember you are witnessing a foretaste of what it will be like when all creation is redeemed and its groaning ceases. Remember the price God paid for that blessing. Hopefully, that will stop you from making God cry again.

Related Posts: What Happened in the Fall; Helping Haiti

What Really Counts

The first and most important principle of Bible interpretation is taking the context into consideration. I should say “contexts” because there are four aspects of context to consider: historical/cultural, literary/genre, linguistic/grammatical, and global/whole Bible view. There are quite a few popular doctrinal notions that are founded upon poor interpretation arrived at through failure to consider one aspect of context or another.

In our day, we have significant historical information about the people and cultures of Bible times. Because God’s chosen people, Israel, were Mesopotamian, the culture and practices of that time and region are of special importance. If we try to understand Abraham, for example, as a twenty-first century father, we will be mystified. We will never grasp the significance of God’s orders to Joshua for conquering the Canaanites if we disregard the cosmic religious circumstances. The story of Ruth, David’s family problems, Israel’s Babylonian captivity will all be impossible to understand without considering the cultural context. That failure leads to faulty interpretation and often, bad doctrine.

One important aspect of the culture of the ancient Mesopotamians is their use of numbers. Especially now in the digital age, digits, numbers are critical to our society. Our weights and measures, chronological ages, historical events, and our computer processes are all tied to numbers with specific numerical values. Seven is one more than six and one less than eight. One thousand is ten times one hundred or nine hundred ninety-nine plus one. But to the ancient Mesopotamian mind, the Hebrew mind, seven was a symbol of completeness; one thousand was a metaphor for a large, indeterminate quantity. Our modern Western mindset wants to attach numerical significance to things that were primarily symbolic to the original audience.

I realize that with the coming of Jesus, the promised Messiah of Israel, the Gentiles were grafted into God’s family. However, every Bible author (with the possible exception of Luke) was a Jew writing to a mostly Jewish audience until Paul was sent specifically to the Gentiles. But even Paul emphasizes his own Jewishness. And though the New Testament was written almost exclusively in Greek, it was still an extension of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. The only “Bible” the authors could quote was in Hebrew; the culture out of which Christianity sprang was Jewish. Jesus was a Jewish prophet. John, though a convert to Christianity, wrote Revelation as the last book of Hebrew prophecy; his heavy reliance on the Old Testament proves this.

Speaking of Revelation, there is a cultural/literary overlap that deserves attention. Jewish literary tradition included what we call apocalyptic literature. The name comes from a Greek word meaning revelation, hence the name of John’s prophetic book. The main characteristic of apocalyptic literature is its intense use of imagery and symbolism. The Jews knew better than to try to make literal sense of apocalyptic prophecies. They understood that the outlandish, figurative imagery represented something that existed in reality.

This unspoken understanding also applied to numbers in apocalyptic writing. The threes, the fours, the sevens, the twelves, and the thousands would not have been numerical values to them. In fact, in the linguistic context, each number had a corresponding character in the Hebrew alphabet. Hebrew is a picture language like Egyptian hieroglyphics or Chinese Hanzi. This means the Hebrew letter has a meaning that transfers to its corresponding number. For example, the number six is represented by the Hebrew character vav which stands for man. Thus, repeating the number three times, a method of emphasis in Hebrew literature, 6-6-6 emphasizes the utter and complete humanness of the one being identified.

The same can be said for the number 1,000 we find in Revelation 20. Ancient Mesopotamian legends often attributed reigns of 1,000 years to their ancestral dynasties. They did not mean 999 +1; they meant to magnify the might and glory of the king with the symbolic 1,000-year reign. It is completely inappropriate to assume that there will be 1,000 periods of 365 days when Christ will reign while Satan is bound. Assigning the number 1,000 to Christ’s reign refers to its glory and power, and to Jesus’ complete victory over His enemies.

This same approach can be taken with the seven-fold cycles of judgment mentioned in Revelation 5-19. Some people see a literal application in the seven-year Roman siege of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 70 AD. Whether that will be repeated at some future time is up for debate. It is worth noting that the number seven in Hebrew numerology is represented by the character zayin which is a weapon implying warfare or judgment. Seven also signifies completeness which may explain the three sevens of God’s judgment we find in Revelation (seals, trumpets, bowls). God’s judgment of apostate Israel was fully completed when the city and the temple were destroyed.

Three is another number that appears throughout Scripture. Gimel is the Hebrew character associated with the number three. It signifies being lifted up; it is the number of God Himself, the three-fold God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Man, created in God’s image, is three-in-one: body, soul, and spirit. Abraham had three visitors who are revealed as Yahweh Himself. There were three main feasts of Israel: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Jesus’ ministry lasted three years, and He was in the grave for three days, and so on. When a Jew saw three, he knew God was involved somehow.

One of the greatest dangers in Bible interpretation is assuming a text means something without seeking to understand it in all its contexts. This must include looking at the global/full Bible context of a passage. No one denies that the book of Revelation is a prophecy of God’s impending judgment. The Bible records that from the beginning of Israel’s establishment as a nation, God warned that disobedience would cause them to lose their land. The win/loss record in the book of Judges began to reveal how true this was. God foreshadowed how complete His judgment could be with the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. When the Jewish leaders executed the promised Messiah, God took their land and their temple from them as His final judgment on them.

On the other side of Israel’s prophetic judgment, God always promised a kingdom ruled by one of David’s descendants. Enter King Jesus. His reign will last a thousand years, but that doesn’t mean 999+1; it means a very long time – in this case, until the end of time. The Bible language literally says the kingdom will last until the end of the age – the church age. I believe after that comes the final judgment then the new heaven and earth. Scripture says we should number our days; that’s a reminder that life here will end someday. Whatever we believe about the countdown to the end, what really counts is what we do while we are here. God is watching us; you can count on that.

Related Posts: Understanding the Bible as Literature; God Made Small

Where is King Jesus?

We have just been through the Christmas season, and if our hearts were right, our reason for the season was the coming of the King. I must admit that the decorations in my house look more like a celebration of the coming of a jolly old elf from the North Pole. (My wife is a Claus collector.) There are a few shepherds and mangers in the mix, but like most Christmas decorations, they lean away from the true meaning of Christmas and into the shiny, silly, worldly version. In our defense, I can only say that our traditions and our memories are so thoroughly steeped in the tree and the presents and the colorful lights that even I have to remind myself what this celebration is all about: the greatest gift ever given in the form of the baby in the manger who became the King on the throne of Heaven and Earth.

Baby Jesus had to grow into His kingship. I know – He was with God and He was God from before the foundation of the Earth. But, in His unique expression as God’s earthbound Son, He had to be born and grow and ultimately become obedient unto death. It was only after His sacrificial death at Calvary that He could ascend to the throne of Heaven. The Bible reveals that because of Adam’s sin, the rulership of Earth was relinquished to God’s arch enemy, Satan. Divine justice required a human payment for Adam’s sin. That was the reason for the incarnation, the baby born in Bethlehem came to die to redeem mankind.

More than that, Paul told the Ephesians redemption was the reason for creation itself! It is truly a mystery, as Paul said, that God would create our universe knowing that His crown of the creation, us humans, would rebel and require redemption. But that is what the Book says. Paradise lost was to become Paradise regained, but only at great cost. The entire sweep of the Old Testament is a record of God moving in human history to prepare for the arrival of the Seed/Servant/Savior, Jesus. The road from Bethlehem to Calvary was posted with signs that the prophets had written centuries before.

One of the most important things the prophets foretold was that the One who was to come would be a king. So, when Jesus finally came, most of the Jewish people were looking for a conqueror king to free them from Roman oppression. They were ready when John the Baptist and then Jesus Himself announced the coming of a kingdom. It was most frequently called the Kingdom of God, but Matthew called it the Kingdom of Heaven. This implied that there was something unearthly about it. Jesus confirmed this when He told Pilate His kingdom was not of this world.

His disciples obviously missed the distinction, though. At the time of Jesus’ return to Heaven, they asked, “Lord, is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” I can imagine Jesus sighing deeply – maybe rolling His eyes – when He answered, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has set by his own authority.” Times (χρόνος) or seasons (καιρός) could be translated “dates or circumstances.” He gave them a marker for the date: “When the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” The circumstances would only become clear after the Spirit had, in fact, come.

What became clear after the Holy Spirit guided them into the truth was that the kingdom was to be a spiritual reality. I believe they finally understood what Jesus had meant by saying, “The kingdom of God is within you.” If I could paraphrase what Jesus told the Samaritan woman it would sound like this: “The King of Heaven is a spirit being who requires those who would honor Him as king to do so using their spiritual faculties; physical locations are no longer important to Him.” I think He was trying to make the woman (and us) understand that true human existence is spiritual, and true worship of the One who made us in His likeness must be “in spirit and truth.”

We humans are so bound up in our time/space universe that we fail to see how a spiritual reality can be more real than our physical one. The Apostle Paul encourages us to think of earthly things, material things as temporary (temporal: time-bound) and passing away to be replaced by more permanent things – spiritual things. His explanation to the philosophers in Athens was that the true God did not have a physical existence as represented by their idols and related sacrifices. Rather, he said the true God made the world and everything in it, and that it is in him we live and move and exist.

The teachings of Jesus and Paul are clear: we all exist in God in one sense, but God in us only applies to those who take their place in the Son. Jesus’ disciples must have been horrified when He told them He was going away; then they were mystified when He said it would be better if He went away. What could be better than walking through life in Jesus’ physical presence, they must have asked. The answer came to them with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Once they were filled with the Spirit, they understood what Jesus meant by fulness of life – completeness of joy. They soon learned that they also had been given power to do Jesus’ work – first twelve of them, then thousands, then millions of them.

We are among those millions, those of us who have given our lives to Christ, those of us who hail Him as King Jesus. We are ambassadors of the one true King speaking into the darkness of this world, “Be reconciled to your King; escape the darkness and enter the Kingdom of Light.” Today that kingdom is a spiritual reality, true enough. But we look forward to the day when all creation will be remade; heaven and earth will be reunited at the return of the King. But you won’t enjoy Him as King then if you don’t accept Him as King now. It is the question of the ages: where is King Jesus?                                  

Related Posts: The Virgin Shall Conceive;  Toasting Christmas; Merry Priestly Christmas; Despising the Down Payment; Happy Birthday to Me

His Name Shall be Called

Names can be funny things. Modern parents seem to want to create unique names for their children. One friend named his son Bridge for some reason; another named his boys Boston, Champ, and Chief. When I was younger, a family named Lear called their daughter Chrystal Shanda. (Say the full name out loud!) The Fogg family named their daughter Misty. I had a student in a college writing class whose name threw me when I tried to call the roll on the first day. In the roster it was Britanece. I took a stab at pronouncing it, but I got a dirty look from the guy; “That’s Britannica,” he insisted, “like the encyclopedia!”

I was saddled with a name I probably would not have chosen had I known the trouble it would cause me. My first name is Clair, which is fine since my dad was also Clair, and his dad was Clarence. But when Grandma Ruthie changed her husband’s nickname, Clare, to C-l-a-i-r, she created my nightmare. It’ s a fine word in the French; it translates in English to “clear.” So far, so good. But in French, adjectives have gender; clair is masculine, while claire is feminine. For seventy-odd years I have had to give French lessons to inform people how to spell my name. For some reason Americans decided that Claire is a woman’s name (and that’s the only spelling they know), so when I appear in my maleness, they are confused.

I have learned to make jokes like, “I will have to Clairify that for you.” Or I explain that in French, clair means clear or bright; obviously, I am the bright one. In my brilliance, we named our first daughter DeAnna Michelle drawing on the family name, Anna, and the Hebrew Hanna and Mikael: it means “helper who is like God.” She is now a certified Christian counsellor, so that worked out. My son we called Benjamin John from the Hebrew meaning “son of God’s right hand” and the Greek Iōannēs (in English it’s John), meaning “grace gift of God,” John being his maternal grandfather’s name. He has been a gift to all he encounters, I am proud to say. Our last child we named Elissa Joy. In Hebrew, Eli-sha-a means “god is awesome,” and “Joy” is self-evident. She has been a joy without doubt.

In my experience, most modern parents don’t make that kind of effort in naming their kids. In Bible times, names were very important. God often told prospective parents what to call their child. More than once, a prophet was told to name a child something that would foretell what was prophesied. Isaiah was told to name a child Maher-shalal-hash-baz; how would you like to carry that around for your whole life? The most memorable prophetically given name is undoubtedly the one an angel told Mary and Joseph to call the miraculous child that was coming to them. In our English translations we read the name, Jesus. That’s fine, but it is interesting to follow the etymology of that name.

First, a Bible translation lesson: the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament mostly in Greek. This was fitting, since the first readers of the OT were Jews who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Because Alexander the Great had spread Greek culture and language across the “known world,” when God chose to send His Son, almost everyone could read Greek. The New Testament therefore was written in Greek (with a touch of Aramaic) to make it widely readable. By the fourth century, Greek was the language of scholars, and Latin (the language of Rome) was more commonly read. A priest in Rome named Jerome was tasked with writing a Latin translation of all the Scriptures. His translation, called the Vulgate, became the standard version of the Bible for centuries.

By the Sixteenth Century, Latin had become a language used only by theologians and scholars, so, King James of England commissioned an English translation. The translators used what original manuscripts they had but relied heavily on Jerome’s Vulgate. The second most popular version of the Bible in English today is the King James Version, only recently surpassed by the New International Version after nearly 400 years of dominance.

Now we are back to names. The Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Greek New Testament name for the son of Mary and Joseph was Jesu. That’s where we get the English King James name Jesus. I think the translators should have gone deeper than the Greek/Latin name. My thinking is that the angel would have used the language of Mary and Joseph’s heart: Hebrew. That would mean the angel would have told them to call their baby boy “Yeshua.” That may sound odd, but follow me. The Hebrew behind the Greek, Ἰησοῦς (Yaysous) is “Yeshua.” Yayshua: Hebrew – Yaysous: Greek. The English translation of Yeshua is Joshua which means “God saves.” If we are going to do a proper job of translating this gospel passage into English, it seems fitting to assume that the angel told Mary and Joseph to name their miraculous baby Joshua, God’s Savior.

It is also curious to me that Jesus’ closest disciples never called Him by His name except once when Philip told his brother, Nathaniel, he had found the one, “whom Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets wrote about—Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth!” Even there, he was not addressing Jesus. When the disciples did address their Savior, they called Him Lord or Master or Rabbi. The two disciples on the Emmaus Road called Him Jesus, but every other instance of the use of His name was by those outside of His closest friends.

I do not expect to change anyone’s mind after many centuries of using the name “Jesus.” I am not suggesting that English speakers start calling their Savior Joshua. I do, however, have a friend with strong feelings for the Old Testament background of the Gospels who consistently uses Yeshua when referring to his Savior. He also uses “Messiah,” a transliteration of the Hebrew word, mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ), instead of the Greek form “Christ,” which means “anointed one” in both languages. To call our Lord Yeshua Mashiach may sound strange to our modern ears, but it is as close as we can get to saying the Name in its original form. I have said all of this to emphasize that “Jesus Christ” is not the first and last name of our Lord. His name is Yeshua Meshiach which means “God’s anointed Savior.” Isn’t that what He should be called after all?

Related Posts: There’s Something Fishy about that Name

                        

Alternate Realities

I have just finished reading Philip Yancey’s Rumors of Another World: What on earth are we missing? Yancey’s thesis is that most people, even Christians, don’t live as if there is another world out there somewhere. They live as if this world is the ultimate reality. It is not uncommon for unbelievers to live as if this is all there is; many assume that when they die, they simply cease to exist. What concerns me, as Yancey suggests, is that many believers act as if there is no life after death – no other world to which they will go when they die.

This mistaken attitude is one of several common misunderstandings that are the result of a failure to think Christianly about everything. Another way to say this is that one’s world-view is not thoroughly Christian – not biblical. Paul said believers are supposed to see this world as temporary, passing away. We are supposed to see ourselves as pilgrims, sojourners passing through this world on our way to another. Rumors of that other world are all around us, according to Yancey. That unbelievers fail to see them is forgivable; that believers miss the truth is not.

First, look at the word reality. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” The “state of things as they exist” to most people refers to this world. Yancey’s point is that most people, even Christians, believe this world is the only “reality.” To these people, heaven is an “idealistic or notional idea.” To unbelievers, heaven is a foolish notion, but sadly, to many believers it is hardly more than an idealistic hope for something better someday – pie in the sky by and by.

The concept of being in the world as opposed to somewhere else (heaven or hell, for example) appears all over the New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus regularly warned of a time to come when those who believed in Him and those who did not would find themselves in radically different realities. Believers would be welcomed into His presence while unbelievers would be cast into a dark place with “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Paul wrote of being taken to another reality to receive special revelation. He also told the Corinthians and the Ephesians that believers’ true enemy was not from this world.

While I am not a strict dispensationalist as the word is used today, I do believe that the Bible often refers to ages which have different conditions. The Old Testament prophets spoke of a coming day when the Messiah would usher in a dramatic new age. The New Testament speaks often of ages. This age, the coming ages, and interestingly, Paul equates “world” with “age in Corinthians” and in Ephesians. I believe this is important because it implies that our created reality, the world as we know it is just one “age” or time period in God’s overall plan for us. The resurrection all believers look forward to will be into that rumored “world” Yancey wrote about. I have described previously what I believe about that new world in “When Destruction is not Destruction.”

Most Christians believe they will go to heaven after they die. While I agree with that sentiment in principle, I see the situation differently than some. I believe heaven and earth will become one – a restored Eden if you will. So, the “heaven” that I imagine will be a reality that combines all the best of God’s good earth with all the best of Heaven. It is not so much an alternate reality as it is a perfected reality. Heaven and earth exist for this age as intersecting realities; after Jesus returns, I believe the two will become one reality. I believe the Bible teaches that we must begin to live as if Heaven is real because it is.

 How can we make heaven more real? Hear what A.W. Tozer says: “God is a Person and in the deep of His mighty nature He thinks, wills, enjoys, feels, loves, desires and suffers as any other person may. In making Himself known to us He stays by the familiar pattern of personality. Religion, so far as it is genuine, is in essence the response of created personalities to the Creating Personality, God, [so that Jesus could say] ‘This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’”

Jesus, the God who created this world, descended from “heaven” and became flesh to show us what true reality is. If we can avoid the notion that Jesus is some far distant historical figure and fully adopt the idea that He lives today, both in us and in heaven, and if we can convince ourselves that He is a person like us in many ways, we may move closer to a proper view of reality. I believe that is the alternate reality we are called to.

Related Posts: The Presence of God; Waiting for Morning; Friendship with the World; Think, People!; Deer Camp Philosophy; Why Am I Here?; Is Heaven a Wonderful Place?

Are You Qualified?

My title is drawn from two commands Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 13:5. Most translations of the Bible read, “Test yourselves… examine yourselves” or they reverse the two imperatives saying, “Examine yourselves… test yourselves”. In the Greek, the first imperative is a different word from the second. Either one may be translated test or examine which explains why translators have difficulty differentiating between them. The difference I find is in the subsequent verses. Paul uses forms of the second word four more times in the next two verses.

This is not just a trivial linguistic issue in my opinion. The first command asks the Corinthians to test or examine themselves “to see if you are in the faith.” What he means is to see if you are truly a believer, one who is “in the faith.” Throughout church history, there has been a debate over how people can know if they are saved – “in the faith.” It is glaringly obvious that the Corinthian church had people who claimed to be in the faith but acted very much like those who were not – like unbelievers. The two letters we have from Paul to the Corinthians are full of correction and rebuke. He certainly questioned the legitimacy of their belief.

One could ask whether the Corinthians believed Paul’s message at first (got saved), but later they stopped believing (lost their salvation). The answer to this question generally comes from one of two perspectives: either Calvinist or Arminian. (I wrote about this in some detail in “Calvinist or Arminian”) The Calvinist position holds that once a person is saved, it is not possible to lose salvation: once saved; always saved. The Arminian view is that everyone makes a conscious decision to be saved and can therefore decide to be “unsaved.”

This passage may be Paul’s entrance into the debate. I say this because of the second word he wrote in verse five. Whereas test or examine is a fair translation of the first of his commands (πειράζω), the word he used in the second command is dokimazō (δοκιμάζω) which may legitimately be translated “qualify.” The fact that he used forms of this word repeatedly in the rest of the passage leads me to think he meant “to qualify” rather than test or examine. An alternative translation of Paul might read, “Qualify yourselves! Or do you not recognize regarding yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are unqualified? And I hope that you will recognize that we are not unqualified! Now we pray to God that you not do wrong in any way, not that we are seen as qualified, but that you do what is good, even though we are seen as though unqualified.”

In the larger context, Paul had been asserting his qualifications as an apostle. At this point, he told the Corinthians not to concern themselves with his qualifications but to look to their own condition. In the end, the only thing that mattered was if they were qualified as believers. So, the question becomes what Paul says qualifies one as a believer. They claimed to be “in the faith,” or in Christ. Paul insists that to qualify as a believer, Christ must be “in them.” As he said to the Colossians: “Christ in you the hope of glory.”

The important question one must ask is what kind of faith qualifies one to say, “Christ is in me.” Paul told the Roman believers, “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also make alive your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you.”

This was Jesus’ promise to His disciples on the night He was betrayed. He prayed to His Father, “that they may be one, just as we are one – I in them, and you in me, in order that they may be completed in one, so that the world may know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.” Just before this prayer for His disciples, He had told them, “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love…. This is my commandment: that you love one another just as I have loved you.” The quality of faith that proves Christ is in you is a faith that loves selflessly, agape love, the love of Jesus. This reminds me of what James said: “Faith without works is dead.”

It should be no surprise that we are called to obey Jesus; life in Christ is a “long obedience in the same direction,” according to Eugene Peterson. That direction is conforming our life to the life of Christ. In his book Rumors of Another World, Philip Yancey asserts that, “Those who invest their hope in an unseen world prove it by their actions in this world…. putting feet to Jesus’ prayer that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” If we are in Christ and Christ is in us, we must continue His work doing His Father’s will.

None of this should suggest that once I am “qualified” I am good for eternity. In the same way that I had to fulfill continuing education requirements to maintain my teaching certificate (qualifications), believers must continue to affirm their qualifications by continuing to grow up into maturity in Christ. The essential quality of maturity is demonstrating selfless love to a greater and greater degree.

One wonders how this quality of faith affects the quality of one’s life here on earth. Yancey quotes Albert Schwietzer: “The only [people] who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve.” It is no coincidence that throughout the Old Testament prophets, the promised Messiah is called God’s Servant. He shocked His disciples at the “Last Supper” by washing their feet and proclaiming that servanthood was to be the hallmark of His disciples. Jesus said He, “came not to be served, but to serve.” I believe that one important qualification for saying you are “in Christ” is servanthood. Are you qualified?

Related Posts: Necessary Obedience; Weak-day Christians