You shall be a royal priesthood

Before the establishment of the priesthood of Aaron in Exodus 28, God made a conditional promise to Israel that they would all be a nation of priests. He said to Moses,

Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and announce to the sons of Israel, “You have seen as much as I have done to them – to the Egyptians. And I took you as upon wings of eagles, and led you to myself. And now, if in hearing, you should hear my voice, and guard my covenant, you will be to me a prized people from all the nations. For all the earth is mine. And you shall be a royal priesthood and a holy nation.” These words you shall say to the sons of Israel.

Exodus 19:3-6 (AB)

The condition was that Israel must hear God’s voice, or specifically to be willing to hear God’s voice and thereafter keep his covenant. This hearing and keeping referred to the Ten Commandments and the Law which God was about to deliver. Moses was given three days to purify the people and prepare them to hear God’s voice. The people were told to abstain from sexual activity and to wash their clothes. They were warned not to approach the mountain but to keep their distance lest they die. On the third day, near dawn . . .

. . . there were voices, and lightening, and overcast clouds upon Mount Sinai; the voice of the trumpet sounded greatly, and all the people in the camp were terrified. And Moses led the people for a meeting with God from the camp. And they stood by the mountain. The Mount Sinai smoked entirely on account of God coming down upon it in fire. And the smoke ascended as smoke of a furnace. And all the people were exceedingly amazed. And there were the sounds of the trumpet advancing strong – exceedingly. Moses spoke, and God answered him by voice.

Exodus 19:16-19 (AB)

From Mount Sinai and in the hearing of all the people, God spoke what we know as the Ten Commandments.

All the people perceived the voice, and the lamps, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And fearing, all the people stood afar off. And they said to Moses, “You speak to us, and do not let God speak to us lest we might die.” And Moses says to them, “Be of courage! Because God came to you to test you, so that there might be fear of him in you, that you should not sin.” And all the people stood afar off. But Moses entered the dimness where God was.”

Exodus 20:18-21 (AB)

Never again in the Old Testament does it refer to a royal priesthood. Upon hearing God’s voice, Israel had refused to hear God’s voice. They told Moses, “Do not let God speak to us.” Not only did they refuse to listen, they refused to obey. Exodus 32 gives the account of Israel’s worshiping a golden calf in violation of at least the first two of the Ten Commandments.

One might suppose that Israel was innocent by virtue of their ignorance at this point since Moses had not yet descended the mountain with the tablets of the Law. Nevertheless, Exodus 20:18 makes it clear that “All the people perceived the voice.” In the Septuagint, which was the Scripture available to the writers of the New Testament, the word translated perceived is the same word that Paul used when he said, “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” 1 Corinthians 9:1 (AB)

“Perceived” is a good translation of the word because it implies understanding. Although Israel understood that they were not to make an idol nor worship another god, they deliberately chose to do those very things. Israel entered an unending cycle of rebellion, retribution, repentance, and reconciliation but they never attained the promised royal priesthood.

How is this relevant today? According to Peter, the royal priesthood now belongs to “. . . the ones at some time or another not a people, but now a people of God; the ones not being shown mercy, but now are shown mercy.” 1 Peter 2:10 (AB) That is to say, that the royal priesthood promised to Israel in Exodus 19:6, and rejected by Israel in Exodus 20:19, now belongs to “the living stones being built up as a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, well-received to God, through Jesus Christ.”

The writer of Hebrews, alluding to the events at Sinai, and warns us, saying:

See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN.” This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire.

Hebrews 12:25-29 (NASB)

How might we refuse the one who is speaking? In the case of Israel, their first refusal was a refusal to hear God personally. They said they would listen to Moses, but they did not want God to speak to them.

Having once heard the calling of the Holy Spirit, do we now prefer, as did Israel, to listen to men? Do we establish leaders in the model of Moses, rather than living as brothers in Christ? Do establish idols whereby we favor the physical objects of the shakable kingdom over our relationship to Christ and his unshakable kingdom?

If we prefer to hear from men than from God, have we not also rejected the royal priesthood?

What the locust has eaten

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves,
even though they do not have the law,
since they show that the requirements
of the law are written on their hearts,
their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts now accusing,
now even defending them.

Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)

Ernest Hemingway carried his readers to far more places than most men witness in a lifetime, from war in the Pyrenees to the African Savannah. As he wrote of exotic places, he also wrote of human emotion and motivation. His characters appear real even though they are often privileged and self-obsessed. When I read Hemingway as a youth, I noticed how his tragic heroes, though they were flawed, were never the source of their own undoing. In Hemingway's universe, mere men may have been created equal but his protagonist's existence is altogether stellar, tragic, and accidentally so. Hemingway, it seems, would blame the sun for Icharus' destruction rather than holding Icharus to account for his ambition. We are most blinded by our own weaknesses, so the blindness of Hemingway's heroes makes them seem autobiographical. The reader is swallowed by the writer's pity for his broken creatures. We see their faults, but we sympathize with weaknesses we might otherwise revile because we recognize them as human.

Recently, it occurred to me to read "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" again. We searched the house for the book until we were satisfied that we no longer possessed it, and then Lisa checked it out from the local library. Hemingway begins his story on the last day of his protagonist's life. Harry knows he is dying. Although Harry has lived a bawdy and selfish life, he does not regret hurting people who trusted him as much as he regrets that he will never live to write about it all. He knows that he has eroded as a person, but he believes that by writing, he might redeem himself. As he drifts into unconsciousness, Harry's vignettes seem to be a catharsis of Hemingway's own unwritten memories and imaginations. As Harry comes to an end, his regrets fall short of remorse, and true to Hemingway's prose, Harry feels cheated.

In the preface of his story, Hemingway frames Kilimanjaro as "Ngàje Ngài," or the House of God. He writes, "Close to its western summit there is a dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude." If you have not read "The Snows of Kilimanjaro," its fewer-than-30 pages accelerate toward this summit and the answer to this riddle in ways the reader would not expect. It is well worth the read.

As I read the story again, I was stricken by the religious symbolism. Harry's demise begins with a scratch from a thorn bush: From Genesis 3 through Hebrews 6, thorns are a symbol of the curse of sin. Harry is merely scratched, and he does not understand the severity of his wound: likewise the deceptiveness of sin. By the time Harry knows he is badly infected, it is too late.

As Harry's leg succumbs to gangrene, it symbolizes the creeping moral decay of his life to the point where he is useless, feels nothing, and is repulsive to others. As a symbol, gangrene is powerful expression of self-loathing. Yet the imagery takes on religious overtones, as well. The Apostle Paul, speaking of his own sin, asks, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Romans 7:24 (NIV) The prophet Isaiah quotes, the Lord, saying, "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." Isaiah 66:24 (NIV)

In the story, a hyena personifies death or the messenger of death. Likewise, Isaiah speaks of the destruction of Babylon saying,

Hyenas will howl in her strongholds,
jackals in her luxurious palaces.
Her time is at hand,
and her days will not be prolonged.

Isaiah 13:22 (NIV)

As Harry passes, he finds himself in a vision where he is flying above the savannah. He sees a vibrant earth lush, green, full of life symbolizing his past potential. In his vision, he sees "a new water he had never known of;" perhaps this is Hemingway's allusion to what might have been. As Harry continues climbing he sees clouds of locust symbolizing the erosion of all this potential and the squandering of his life. The prophet Joel wrote long before Hemingway,

What the gnawing locust has left,
the swarming locust has eaten;
and what the swarming locust has left,
the creeping locust has eaten;
and what the creeping locust has left,
the stripping locust has eaten.

Joel 1:4 (NASB)

In the end of his vision, Harry realizes he is approaching Kilimanjaro – the House of God – unrepentant and having already condemned himself by his own standards and expectations.

Some believe Kilimanjaro symbolizes the pinnacle of Harry's aspirations, and in a sense this is true. Yet Hemingway drew early attention to Ngàje Ngài, and so there must be an accounting. Harry, like the frozen leopard in the prologue, is unequipped to make the ascent into the House of God though he is drawn there in his vision by primordial impulse.

The heart of man was designed to fellowship with God. Yet hamartia both separates us from our Creator and causes us to fall short of our potential. The Apostle Paul wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Paul also writes:

We will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:

"'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.'

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Romans 14:10-12 (NIV)

In this regard, Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" employs religious symbolism to speak universal truth.

Yet Paul carries us where Hemingway cannot. Paul tells us that although we fall short of God's glory, we "are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Though Paul felt tormented by his wretchedness, asking, "Who will rescue me from this body of death?" He answered his question, declaring, "Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" The prophet Joel speaks of reconciliation to God saying,

Then I will make up to you for the years
That the swarming locust has eaten,
The creeping locust, the stripping locust and the gnawing locust,
My great army which I sent among you.

"You will have plenty to eat and be satisfied
And praise the name of the LORD your God,
Who has dealt wondrously with you;
Then My people will never be put to shame.

"Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame . . .

. . . And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Will be delivered;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the LORD has said,
Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls

Joel 2:25-27, 32 (NASB)

 

Blessed are the meek

There is a church sign near our house which this week reads, “Blessed are the meek.” Claire asked Lisa the meaning of meek, and Lisa deferred to me. The typical connotation of meek in our experience is sheepish or mousy. Meek isn’t a compliment, but in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5) Jesus alludes to Psalm 37:11 when he says, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” The word translated meek in Matthew 5, only appears in the New Testament six times including both forms of the word. Immediately before the account of the Triumphal Entry Matthew quotes Zechariah 9:9, saying, “This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
‘See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’"”

Here the word is translated “gentle” rather than “meek.” James uses a derivative word a couple times saying,

• Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. James 1:21 (NIV)
  
• Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. James 3:13 (NIV)

In 1 Peter 3:4, Peter uses the word to describe “unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit,” and again in 1 Peter 3:15 in an admonition to share our faith with “gentleness and respect.” Although the word appears only a few times, translators have chosen a variety of English words to encapsulate its meaning: meek, gentle, gentleness, humbly, and humility. The list of synonyms conjures passivity, and in this respect I think the meaning of the word is lost. Jesus did not say, “Blessed are the passive,” but sometimes I think we infer something similar to this.

James puts action behind the word referring to “deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.” Thankfully, the Septuagint gives us a wonderful illustration of meek. In Numbers 12:3, it tells us, “And the man Moses was exceedingly gentle, above all the men [that lived] upon the earth.” Moses was hardly passive. Early in his life he killed an Egyptian who was mistreating a Hebrew. Likewise Moses, after fleeing to Midian, defended Jethro’s daughters and helped them water their flock. Moses was a man of action. Later Moses with his brother Aaron confronted Pharaoh, and led Israel away from Egypt. Moses was the meekest man on earth, but he was not passive.

What quality did Moses and Jesus share that the word meek or gentle encapsulates? What character quality inherits the earth? What character quality are we supposed to emulate? Neither Moses nor Jesus was passive. Rather they were passionate. Moses defended the weak. Jesus cleared the temple of moneychangers. The meekness both men demonstrated was in their attitude toward their actions. Moses spent his life shepherding Israel through the desert of Sinai even though Moses never realized the fulfillment of the Promised Land. Jesus offered his blood as the propitiation for sin. Both men expended their lives for others in obedience to the will of God. They did not assert their own will, but rather they obeyed. The meekness of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 5:5 is not passivity but rather passionate obedience to the will of God.

The meekness of Jesus Christ is illustrated in his prayer from the Garden of Gethsemane. Before his arrest and crucifixion, he prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

When we read the Beatitudes and teach them to our children, we need to understand that meekness is not passive rather it is passionate obedience – even unto death.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Law of freedom

This morning, when I was certain that Lisa was awake, I asked her a question that I had been mulling all night. In James chapter 2, what does James mean when he says, "So speak and do as by the law of freedom"? What is the law of freedom?

Lisa asked questions about the context; then she asked if any other New Testament writer uses the same phrase, law of freedom (no other writer does). Finally, she admitted that she had no idea. "It sounds like an oxymoron," she said. Of course, she was right. The phrase, law of freedom, presents an immediate paradox. I'm convinced that James thought so, too, which makes the pursuit of this concept all the more interesting. James 2 presents two basic themes:

1. Favoritism within the assembly is sin.
   
2. Faith without works is dead.
   

Bridging these sections, James presents a conundrum. Showing favoritism violates the Law of Moses because the Law requires that one love his neighbor as he would love himself. James goes on to explain that one infraction of the Law makes one a violator of the whole Law. He uses the sins of adultery and murder as examples. If you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you are guilty of violating the Law. Once the Law was violated, there is no [CTRL-Z] undo. James' answer, then, is to "speak and do as if you are about to be judged by the law of freedom." He goes on to explain, saying, "For judgment is merciless to the one not having mercy, and mercy glories over judgment." James 2:13 (AB)

James then goes into his discourse about faith, or belief, with and without works. He concludes this section saying, "For as the body separate from the spirit is dead, so also the belief separate from the works is dead." James 2:26 (AB) James illustrates this by recalling Abraham. Scripture says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness." James 2:23 (AB), but James notices that Abraham was also justified by works, ". . . having offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar." James 2:21 (AB) If Abraham believed God, then he would have no reservations obeying God. However, if Abraham disobeyed God, then there is no evidence that Abraham believed. Faith without works is dead.

How does this relate to the law of freedom? Just as violating the Law of Moses brought man under the judgment of the entire Law, so obeying the law of freedom affirms our faith! There is a converse relationship between the two laws. Paul calls the Law of Moses, the "law of sin and death." He writes, "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:2 (AB) Violating the Law is irreversible—you cannot un-murder someone. Likewise, responding by faith to the law of freedom likewise forever sets us free from the law of sin and death. By faith, the law of freedom leverages God's mercy, and "Mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2:13 (NIV)

Abraham's example in James is especially interesting when we consider that Abraham believed and was justified before the Law (and the even the covenant of circumcision) was given (Romans 4:9-12). Abraham's actions did not emit from his obligation to the Law, but rather Abraham's actions flowed from his faith. This is how James is telling us to live. If we have no actions to show for our faith, then our faith is worthless — even the demons believe that God exists. If we indeed have true faith, however, it will fill our actions. This is the law of freedom! Actions flowing from faith may not look like a punch list; however, they stand as testimony to our faith.

James uses an example: suppose you know someone in dire need and you say something like, "Good luck with that," but do nothing to help, what good is it? On the other hand, the law of freedom causes us to intercede for the destitute. The law of freedom causes us to be merciful. The law of freedom causes us to treat people equally without discrimination. The law of freedom transforms our faith into actions.

Just as James merges two opposing concepts, faith and works, into one idea, he likewise coins the phrase, law of freedom, to describe how faith and works cooperate together. The law of freedom insists that our faith will result in works of kindness and mercy, just as the Law insists that sin results in death. The law of freedom is incontrovertible – almost like gravity – we may resist it, but if our faith is real, the law of freedom will demonstrate itself in our actions. However, the law of freedom is not a law of external coercion but rather a law of internal impulse. We will act as we believe.

Poor in the eyes of the world

Pat Robertson, the media millionaire, attracted attention to himself by implying that the Haitians had it coming. Surely, no one still takes Pat Robertson seriously. This is the same Pat Robertson that converted charitable donations into a 1.9 billion dollar for-profit media company. He then cashed it in for a personal gain of over 100 million, i.e. more money than President Obama initially promised Haiti in US aid. Is this man a credible spiritual leader?

Nevertheless, Pat Robertson tells the world that Haiti is paying the price for rebelling against French Colonial rule. It probably never occurred to Pat that Haiti might be still paying the price for enduring French colonialism in the first place. The other half of Hispaniola, the Dominican Republic (a former Spanish colony) does not fare so poorly as Haiti. Of course, this is merely my own speculation.

It takes arrogance to blame the victims while they still lie dying under the rubble of Port au Prince. If Robertson thinks that the tragedy in Port au Prince relates to some Haitians’ deal with the devil, what does his 1.9 billion dollar transaction with Rupert Murdoch portend for his future?

When tragedies occur, it is natural for people to ask, “Why?” We just need a smarter answer than Pat Robertson is likely to supply. Luke chapter 13 records people coming to Jesus wanting an answer to their question, “Why?”

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

Luke 13:1-9 (NIV)

Pilate, who was governor of Jerusalem, had killed some Galileans who apparently had come to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Rome had been in Israel for over a hundred years. Initially, they had come as a peace-keeping force, but as time went on they came to assume that they owned the place. Many Jews were hoping for a Messiah who would deliver them from the brutality of their Roman peace. Luke doesn’t tell us why Pilate killed the Galileans. Why? Probably because it doesn’t matter.

When people brought the news to Jesus, he didn’t even wait for them to ask him, “Why?” He said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?” It had crossed their minds. Jesus emphatically tells them that their assumptions are incorrect. “I tell you, no!” he said. The Galileans killed by Pilate were no worse than others. But Jesus doesn’t stop there. Instead, he directs the listener’s concern inward when he says, “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” Jesus would not entertain speculation regarding why certain people had suffered an untimely death. Instead, he directed his listener to examine his own heart.

The killing of the Galileans was a political event, so Jesus elaborates and discusses some accidental deaths. Eighteen people had been killed when a tower fell on them. Jesus asked, “Do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?” Again, it had crossed their minds. They probably assumed it to be true. But Jesus says again, “I tell you, no!” Those eighteen were no worse than others. And again, Jesus draws the listener’s attention inward, saying, “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus was telling his listeners not to speculate regarding God’s judgment when bad things happen to other people. Instead, he tells them each to examine his own heart.

After telling his listeners that unless they repent, they will perish, he tells them a parable. A man had a fig tree that was three years old. The tree should have produced fruit, but it had not. The man was tempted to cut it down. The gardener intervened and asked for one more year to nurture the tree so that it would produce fruit. The owner of the land relented.

Jesus ends the story there. He doesn’t say whether the tree produced fruit and was spared or whether the gardener’s work was for naught, and the tree was destroyed. He left the listener to imagine the outcome.

In the parable, the tree represents the listener. His destiny will be decided in the indeterminate future. The gardener represents Jesus. He came to seek and to save those who were lost. The land owner represents God, the Father, who demands fruitfulness. What is the fruit demanded by God? Clearly, what God requires, Jesus already pronounced: “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

When we see human tragedy, it is not ours to speculate why one suffers what we do not. From Jesus’ words we can be assured that we do not have a greater intrinsic value than those who suffer. When Pat Robertson blames Haitians for Haiti’s earthquake, he rejects Jesus’ instruction to avoid such speculation.

Disasters and violence do not claim lives because the victims deserve it more than the rest of us. Standing before God, we all deserve death. The Apostle Paul writes, “. . . by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 5:12 (NIV) We will all have sinned, and we will all die. There is no distinction among us in this regard.

Jesus renounced men’s speculation regarding the cause of disasters. Likewise in John chapter 9, Jesus corrected his disciples whose only question was whether the blind man or his parents had sinned. Jesus told them that the man’s blindness did not occur because of a someone’s sin, but rather so that the work of God could be revealed. Jesus then spat on the ground, made clay, and sculpted the blind man a new set of eyes. The work of God in man is a new creation to which we attain only through repentance by faith.

Perhaps the work of God’s new creation comes more easily in Haiti than in less troubled parts of the world. James, the brother of Jesus, writes, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?” James 2:5 (NIV)

The only barrier between us and the grace of God, is our pride. Repentance requires humility before God. The fruit of our repentance is faith. True faith results in faithfulness. By this faith we are transformed into a new creation. This transformation is completed at the resurrection of the dead. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, saying,

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true:

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:51-57 (NIV)

The good pleasure

by John D Ramsey

I live in a world of jargon. Jobs in multiple industries have acquainted me with a spectrum of vocabulary that is common among the cognoscenti, but meaningless to outsiders. As a technical manager, my current working vocabulary includes networking, programming, and business words and acronyms. Lisa and the little girls struggle sometimes to understand me. Sometimes I have to pause before I speak to consider whether the listener and I share a common vocabulary.

Within the context of a discipline, jargon and even acronyms are very helpful things. If you think about your own experience, there are certainly words and phrases that communicate specific meanings to industry insiders. While a reasonably informed person might be able to follow your conversations with your peers, his understanding might be more generalized. The outsider might not understand in detail exactly what is conveyed by your jargon.

The Bible also incorporates jargon; although thankfully, it does not incorporate acronyms. The New Testament writers John and Peter use the term, “born again,” for instance, as a synonym for “salvation.” Likewise, the word often translated “gospel,” in the Greek is a compound word meaning, simply, “good news.” In Luke 2:10, the angel announced “good news” to the shepherds at the incarnation of Jesus Christ. While the King James, and other translations say, “good tidings” or “glad tidings,” the same word very quickly becomes “gospel.” When Jesus, reading Isaiah, says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor,” a literal translation might say, “good news,” instead. There is no doubt that the good news that the angels brought to the shepherds is the same good news that Jesus preaches to the poor, but translators recognize the recurrence of the word, and it becomes part of the New Testament jargon.

This jargon encapsulates ideas that Christians understand in common. This is within the writers’ intent that we understand that the Christ’s coming is indeed the “good news.” Translators should not be faulted for recognizing and highlighting the jargon of the Bible. The Gospel, or good news, is the same to the shepherds as it is to each of us. God himself became a man to deliver man from his bondage to sin.

When we read the word, “gospel,” we understand that it refers to the Good News, and not just some good news. In Luke 2:14, similar word appears. The King James translates it in this context, “good will” as in “good will to men.” Unlike the “good news,” which becomes “gospel,” “good will” or, more accurately, “good pleasure” is not treated evenly when it occurs in other passages.

Matthew 11:25-26 and Luke 10:21 are nearly identical. In these verses Jesus prays,

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

The phrase translated “good in thy sight” contains the same word translated, “good will” in Luke 2:14. A literal translation might read, “it was good pleasure before you.” In other words, the “good pleasure” is the Father’s revelation of the Son! Does this pattern hold up in other New Testament passages? Surprisingly, it does. Paul evokes “good pleasure” in Romans 10 to express his desire that Israel should come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Likewise Paul refers to the revelation of Jesus Christ to believers as “the good pleasure of his will” and “his good pleasure” in Ephesians 1:5 and 9. Paul tells the Thessalonians,

We pray at all times for you, that you should fulfill every good-pleasure of goodness, and word of belief with power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should be glorified in you.

2 Thessalonians 1:11 (AB)

Fulfilling the “good pleasure” is the glorious revelation of Jesus Christ in our lives. This is the same blessing which the angels delivered to the shepherds when they cried out, “Glory to God in the highest, and peace upon earth, and good pleasure among men.”

Philippians 2:12-13 reads in the King James,

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do his good pleasure.

Other translations say things like “do what pleases him.” The King James rightly translates the word “good pleasure” in this instance, but the Greek does not read “his good pleasure;” rather, it literally means, “the good pleasure.” The article preceding “good pleasure” indicates that the Philippians should already know what “good pleasure” means. Earlier in Philippians, Paul tells them that some preach Christ because they were motivated by envy and strife, but some preach Christ through “good pleasure.” In Philippians 2, Paul says, “the good pleasure” because “good pleasure” like “good news” is part of the New Testament jargon.

“Good pleasure” refers to the glorious revelation of Jesus Christ by the will of God, the Father. When Paul writes, “God is the one operating in you both to want and to operate for the good-pleasure,” the “good pleasure” is not some hidden whimsy as some translations make it out to be. By recognizing the jargon of the New Testament, we can understand that “God is the one operating in [us] both to want and to operate for the revelation and glorification of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Christmas

I feel conflicted about Christmas. I'm happily anticipating the holiday this year for several reasons. It will be a long weekend away from the office. My older kids will come home. Dad will come down. We’ll give gifts to the kids. I enjoy the decorations Lisa displays in the house. The ornaments on the Christmas tree remind me of years past. Lisa is a wonderful cook, and I enjoy what she feeds me.

Nevertheless, there are many things that puzzle me about Christmas. The New Testament church did not celebrate what we call Christmas. The Bible is ambiguous regarding the time of Jesus’ birth, but better guesses would indicate that it did not occur in December. Personally, I think Sukkot, or Feast of Booths, is the likely anniversary of Jesus incarnation. He who came to tabernacle among men ordained this day to remind Israel that they were travelers in a hostile land. Israel was to look forward to the promise of rest that is fulfilled only in Jesus Christ. In defense of December 25, I concede that if Sukkot is the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, then sometime around the end of December the Annunciation would have occurred (Luke 1:26-38).

I am puzzled by Christians who “defend” Christmas by confronting society with what they perceive as improper celebrations. This seems by be a type of bully evangelism over the sanctity of a day never ordained in Scripture. Surely, a little peace on earth and good will toward men would be more appropriate.

At the same time, I’m puzzled by Christians who incorporate a non-Christian deity (Santa Claus) in their celebration regardless of their passion for Christmas. Consider the attributes of Santa Claus (omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, etc) and tell me that he isn’t a deity.

I am puzzled by Christians who justify the Christmas tree by quoting legends about Martin Luther, or by associating the Christmas tree with the cross. To me, the Christmas tree is a place where we celebrate family. If Jesus bore my sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 1:24), why would I hang sentimental ornaments on a Christmas tree that symbolizes the cross of suffering and shame? Moreover, if the Christmas tree holds any religious significance at all, why would I bring such an idol (object of reverence) into my house?

Around Christmastime, I remind myself that Christians have only one New Covenant holiday. According to Hebrews 3:7, Hebrews 4:7, and Psalm 95:7-8, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” Today, is the day that God established. Today, we commemorate the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ in our lives. Today, we respond to God’s voice in faith. I ask myself, while we have Today, what value does Christmas add?

While I debate the Christian’s proper response to the Christmas holiday, I am also amazed that for a day or a season, much of the world pauses and some men still contemplate that, He who was from the beginning, appeared to men, announcing the Word of life (1 John 1:1-2). I am awestruck when I contemplate that the Word, who called the universe into existence,  became flesh and tabernacled among men. (John 1:1-14, Hebrews 1:1-2)

I am reminded that upon the birth of Jesus Christ, God reached out both to the shepherds who were nearby, and to the Magi who were far away, and he drew them to His Son. We should celebrate this, Today.

Let the river run

Carly Simon recently released a new album, Never Been Gone, in which she covers and reinterprets some of her greatest songs. Within the collection is, "Let the River Run." The compelling melody delivers a lyric charged with imagery.

Let the river run
Let all the dreamers
Wake the nation
Come, the new Jerusalem.

Some might enjoy the song without understanding the allusion. In fact, Ms. Simon seems to appropriate the allusion to convey her own Utopian vision. Nevertheless, the song alludes to Scripture, and the literary minded will want to understand the origins. For the faithful, the words "Let the river run" and "Come, the new Jerusalem" elicit hope more intensely than Carly Simon might imagine. The allusion derives from the Book of Revelation.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Revelation 21:1-7 (NIV)

The river to which the song alludes is found after the chapter break,

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever.

Revelation 22:1-5 (NIV)

After listening to "Let the River Run," again last night I was reminded how lyricists in the '60's would often allude to Scripture even when their message was not particularly Christian. The imagery from the Bible was part of the common vocabulary. My perception is that the culture is now different. Scripture no longer provides the foundation for literature that it once did.

When I listen to "Let the River Run" I do not feel nostalgic for the time when Scripture laid a foundation for literature. Scripture stands alone. I do long for the day when the river will flow from the throne of God. I long for the New Jerusalem where "the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain."

Let the river run . . . Come, the new Jerusalem.

Waiting for mud to dry

This week has been a vacation from my job, but it has not been a reprieve from work. There was a "soft spot" on the tile in our master bathroom for a couple months. A couple weeks ago that soft spot became a hole and the hole became a project. Like all fun projects, the scope increased geometrically.

The logic goes something like this.

1. You cannot salvage all the tiles, no matter how careful you try to be.
   
   1. You can find coordinating tile, or . . .
      
   2. You can re-tile the entire shower.
      
2. You cannot successfully remove tile from sheetrock.
   
   1. You can "surgically" cut away the bad, or . . .
      
   2. You can re-rock every wall holding tile with new mildew and moisture resistant sheet rock.
      
3. All walls have some tile. If you intend to re-rock all walls then . . .
   
   1. This provides a one-time opportunity to replace the bathroom linoleum floor with ceramic tile.
      
   2. It also provides an opportunity to tear out the acoustic tile panels on the ceiling that the former homeowner used to cover up a disintegrating "cottage cheese" ceiling.
      
4. If you have the sheet rock off the walls then this provides an opportunity to . . .
   
   1. Raise the shower head 12 inches (this requires an additional 10 square feet of tile).
      
   2. Insulate a wall behind the tub that was stripped of insulation during a room addition by the previous owner (no wonder that wall felt so drafty).
      
   3. And to add a larger electrical box and an extra outlook next to the vanity.
      
5. Since new sheet rock must be painted, this provides an opportunity to choose a coordinating color scheme for the rest of the master bedroom.
   
6. Items out of scope:
   
   1. Bedroom carpet
      
   2. Doors and trim
      
   3. Lighting fixtures
      
   4. Tub and related fixtures
      
   5. Toilet (although the toilet has to be removed to accommodate tiling and painting)
      
   6. Sink and vanity . . . for the time being.
      

With family coming into town today and others coming next week for Thanksgiving, I feel a little time pressure waiting for mud to dry on the sheetrock. As I wait for mud to dry, I am thankful for a vacation and the opportunity to work with my hands. I am thankful for having previous experience on various projects many years ago. I am thankful that Claire and Gabby have been willing helpers. I am thankful that Lisa (always a frugal shopper) has run many errands and has displayed incredible patience with me.

I am thankful for our home. I am thankful for family. I am thankful for the many blessings that have brought me where I am today.

Repentance

I realized last night that related pieces of information have rattled around in my brain for at least 30 years without my making any correlation. Sometimes I'm slow. Now that you're curious, I'll pose the topic of my enlightenment as a question:

To the prayer of what former king of Judah was Jesus alluding when he told the scribes and Pharisees, "I have not come to call righteous ones, but sinners unto repentance."?

For those who know the answer, pat yourselves on the back. It took me thirty years to figure it out. For the rest of you, I'll simplify the question:

What former king of Judah is credited with the following prayer?

Thou therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the just, hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner: for I have sinned above the number of the sands of the sea. (King James Version)

If you answered either question correctly, I commend you for your extracurricular reading in the Apocrypha. The scribes and Pharisees had complained that Jesus and his disciples ate with sinners, and Jesus answered them, "No need do the ones being in health have of a physician, but the ones having illness. I have not come to call righteous ones but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:31-32 (AB)

In fairness to scholars, although The Prayer of Manasseh is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:18-20, there is no continuity of manuscripts proving that the apocryphal version was penned by Manasseh. Perhaps it was re-inked at a later time from oral tradition. That Jesus alludes to it, justifies our study of it especially if we contemplate why Jesus referenced the prayer.

When Jesus encountered the Jews, he always confronted them with his identity. One technique he used was to quote Scripture to associate himself with his divine nature. Luke 20:42 is an example of this. Jesus asked the scribes,

How do they say the Christ [is] the son of David? And he, David says in the book of the Psalms; "The LORD said to my Lord, sit down at my right hand, until whenever I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet." David calls him Lord, so how is he his son?

Luke 20:41-44 (AB)

Jesus refers to the Christ as being both David's son and David's Lord and then asks the Jews to explain this. Of course, they could not explain it unless they changed their theology. Were they interested in knowing the Truth, or were they content to remain muddled in their belief system? By challenging the knowledge of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus also invited the common man to consider the meaning of the Scriptures.

When he alludes to The Prayer of Manasseh saying, "I have not come to call righteous ones but sinners to repentance," Jesus associates himself with the subject of Manasseh's prayer. Manasseh prays to God saying, You have not appointed repentance to the just, but you have appointed repentance to me because I am a sinner. Who appoints men to repentance? Who calls men to repentance? Through literary allusion, Jesus confronts the Jews with his divine identity. The subtle message that Jesus conveyed was not that the scribes and Pharisees did not need to repent. Rather, Jesus conveyed that he was indeed the one calling upon all men to repent.

Manasseh was a bad character. As king of Judah, he imported foreign gods, built idols, and initiated sacrifices on the high places. God sent the Babylonians to conquer Judah, and they carried Manasseh into prison. Manasseh repented and God restored the kingdom to him. Upon his return to the throne, he destroyed the idols and commanded Judah to worship only the God of Israel. Upon Manasseh's true repentance, God turned from wrath to favor with respect to Manasseh and Judah.

Manasseh seems to make a theological faux pas when he says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had not sinned against God. However, when we consider Manasseh's words we should realize that the Patriarchs lived prior to the Law and God attributed them righteousness according to their faith (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23, Hebrews 11:8-9). No where in the Old Testament does it give an account of the Patriarch's repenting. While each had his faults, their attitudes toward God expressed unwavering faith. Abraham was justified by his faith before the Law was given. Paul explained in Romans 5, "sin is not taken into account when there is no law." Even under the Law an act of faith was credited as righteousness (Psalm 106:31). When Manasseh says that the Patriarch's were not appointed unto repentance, it need not mean that they had never sinned. Rather, he recognizes that their lives exhibited the faithfulness that his own life did not.

So who does Jesus call to repentance—all men everywhere. Paul explained to the Romans that "All have sinned and lack the glory of God." Romans 3:23 (AB) Paul declared to the Athenians at the Areopagus:

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. "For in him we live and move and have our being." As some of your own poets have said, "We are his offspring."

Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.

Acts 17:24-31 (NIV)

Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. However, as Paul also said, the same one calling men to repent will someday judge all men. Though Jesus said he came to call men to repentance by faith, he also said he was given authority to judge.

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

John 5:24-30 (NIV)

When we consider that Jesus has both the authority to call men to repentance and to judge the unbelieving, we should acknowledge our condition and pray as Manasseh did, saying, "You have appointed repentance unto me because I am a sinner." Just as Manasseh's repentance turned God's judgment into reconciliation and restoration, our repentance to faith transfers us from realm of death to eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Hitherto shalt thou come

I stumbled upon a speech by President Lyndon Baines Johnson which he delivered at the escalation of the Vietnam War. He asked, "Why must this Nation hazard its ease, and its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?" His answer? US soldiers would fight and die in Vietnam because Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had committed the US to support the government of South Vietnam. Moreover, Johnson declared, "I intend to keep that promise." His commitment was based upon a moral principle. We as a nation had vowed an oath. "To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong." He elaborated,

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia--as we did in Europe--in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."

Johnson quotes God's discourse in the Book of Job, Chapter 38. God asked Job whether Job had commanded the oceans, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?" Job 38:11 (KJV)

Perhaps Johnson overreached when he compared his resolve to stop totalitarianism with God's command of nature.

Although Johnson promised, "We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement," the Nixon administration did exactly that, and the war in Vietnam ended badly. The Killing Fields of Cambodia followed with millions paying the price of America's capitulation.

Today America's enemy knows we lack resolve. The question they ask is not whether we lack resolve, but how long before we grow tired of war. Iraqis are dying en masse again because US troops have withdrawn from the cities. US leadership equivocates regarding Afghanistan telegraphing the Taliban that they have indeed won; it is only a matter of time. Iran, North Korea, and even Venezuela beat drums of war while America talks compromise. America lacks resolve to finish the fight. We lack the resolve to deal more brutally against our enemy than they deal with us. We ignore Johnson's warning, "To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next." Perhaps there is wisdom in our cynicism. In Johnson's words,

We often say how impressive power is. But I do not find it impressive at all. The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure. They are necessary symbols. They protect what we cherish. But they are witness to human folly.

Perhaps we no longer believe, as Johnson did, that righteous wars will someday end war. Instead we see war after war on the horizon and we, like the French in Indochina, prefer capitulation to conflict. C'est la vie. Perhaps we realize, unlike Johnson, that victory will not end conflict. Consequently, we choose life above sacrifice, and assuage our moral conscience with SSRI's. How we feel about life, rather than what we do in life, becomes our standard of our self-examination.

In the 1960's, President Johnson tried to entrench against a wave of aggression in the world. His successor capitulated hoping for the praise of the people. Instead Nixon resigned in disgrace after abusing the power of the Presidency. Today America faces enemies in other parts of the globe. Nevertheless, American leadership has failed to grasp that you cannot foster freedom abroad while infringing on freedom at home. America's enemy is totalitarianism; however; we fight and eventually capitulate to external enemies while condoning the decay of freedom within our borders. If we must fight foreign wars, we should fight for stability, not freedom. Perhaps we should instead defend freedom at home with the same zeal with which we try to impose it elsewhere.

---

The church today is engaged in war. The dramatic cultural changes of the last century challenge the church to respond. Some churches have endorsed a Christ-less Christianity. A few months ago we visited a church in a city where we used to live. In the entire service, the name of Jesus was mentioned once and then only in an empty context. The songs and the sermon were ambiguous. The production quality was somewhat better than we remembered, but the content was void of Gospel truth. I suppose the church leadership would take this criticism as a compliment because this was the direction toward which they had chosen to go. Before we moved away, they expressed determination to do anything to make church attractive to the culture. Returning, I could see nothing distinguishing them from the culture.

Some church denominations are entrenching, confronting cultural change at the front door, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further." Yet the congregations lack the resolve to remain traditional. The liturgies of old seem empty and irrelevant. Reaching out to a specific demographic succumbs to pandering to a demographic. The effectiveness of church is judged based on how it makes people feel rather than its faithfulness to the Truth and the Light. Cultural morass creeps in disguised as youth programs and activities. The question of surrendering to the culture is not "whether" but "when." We fight a war of attrition to slow what we perceive as decay within the traditional church. We fail to see that the battle is not beginning, but rather this battle has continued from the beginning.

Jesus warned the Galileans, saying, "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force." Matthew 11:12 (NASB) Jesus warned that violent men use religion to increase their own power and influence. This is not a new concept. Jesus referred to John the Baptist's ministry. John the Baptist had rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to be baptized by him, saying, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance." Matthew 3:7-8 (NASB) The Pharisees and Sadducees would submit to John's baptism if it meant that they could remain relevant. Paul warned Timothy that the battle would continue.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 (NASB)

The real battle lines are not drawn then between traditionalism and modernism, but rather the battle lines are drawn between truth and deception. To the extent that the emergent church and the traditional church both promote church above Christ, they are merely opposite sides of the same coin. They both seek power and influence at the expense of their congregants. The congregations seek leaders who tell them what they want to hear. Both define church as something that Paul never described 1 Corinthians 14.

In Gary Hamel's Management 2.0 blog, "Organized Religion's 'Management Problem'", he writes, "Back in the first century, the Christian church was organic, communal and mostly free of ritual—and it needs to become so again . . ."

To the extent that church models supplant the organism—the body of Christ—with an organization, they misrepresent Christ.

We organize, but we are not organic. We take "Communion", but we are not communal. Whether we rock or recite our liturgies, we ritualize the Christian experience. From a first century perspective we have fallen away. We are the apostate church the New Testament warns against.

The apostate church battles amongst itself regarding methodologies that achieve the same eventual alienation from Christ. The assembly, the body of Christ, is not a place where unbelievers should feel comfortable. We should evangelize, but we should not compromise. Likewise, the assembly, the body of Christ, should not be cold and sterile, ritualistic and intermittent. The early Christians lived together as family because the Apostles taught them to. Do we presume to understand Christianity better than those who walked with Christ?

We have forgotten that only God can say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." Christian leaders of any variety can no more define church than Job could command the oceans. The Apostle Paul described church very clearly in his letters, especially 1 Corinthians chapter 14. What we feel that church should be has little relevance compared to the Apostle's command, but we drown our guilt with professional performances or perpetual programs.

The choice confronting Christians today is not a choice between traditionalism and modernism. Rather the choice confronting us is, as it has always been, obedience or disobedience. After hearing God's discourse, Job repented in sack cloth and ashes. What will we do?

Propitiation

The Greek word,  [propitious], is first used in Genesis 43 in the LXX (Septuagint). In this passage, Joseph's brothers have returned the silver that Joseph surreptitiously had refunded on their original trip to Egypt. His brothers plead their case, saying, "We do not know who put the silver in our bags." Genesis 43:22 (AB) Joseph replied to them saying, "Kindness, be to you, do not fear. Your God, and the God of your fathers gave you treasures in your bags." Genesis 43:23 (AB)

While Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai, Israel compelled Aaron to fashion a golden calf for them to worship. Aaron declared to the people, "These are your gods, O Israel, who hauled you from out of the land of Egypt." Exodus 32:4 (AB) Israel's rebellion angered God, and he said to Moses, "And now allow me! For being enraged in anger against them, I will obliterate them." Exodus 32:9 (AB) Moses interceded for the people, pleading, "Cease in the anger of your rage, and be propitious to the evil of your people." Exodus 32:12 (AB) In response to Moses' intercession, "The LORD dealt kindly concerning the bad which he said he would do to his people." Exodus 32:14 (AB) In this passage from the LXX (Septuagint), the root word translated in the New Testament as propitiation, appears twice: Moses asked God to be propitious, and the LORD dealt kindly.

Moses again interceded for the people in Numbers 14 after their refusal to enter the land which God had promised them. God spoke to Moses, saying, "I will strike them in death, and I will destroy them, and I will make you into a great and populous nation rather than this one." Numbers 14:12 (AB) Moses pleaded, "Dismiss the sin of this people according to your great mercy, just as kindness happened to them from Egypt to the present."

After Naaman was healed of leprosy by bathing in the Jordon River, he requested that Elisha give him dirt from Israel so that Naaman could offer burnt offerings to God on ground that was not contaminated by his former idolatry. Naaman said, "And the LORD shall deal kindly with me, your servant in this matter." 2 Kings 5:18 (AB)

David cried out to God saying, "Because of your name, O LORD, atone [propitiate] my sin! For it is great." Psalm 25:11 (AB) In another Psalm, David declares, "Lawless words overpowered us; but you shall atone [propitiate] our impieties." Psalm 65:3 (AB) Asaph, another contributor to the Psalms, writes of Israel in the desert,

And they loved him by their mouth, but by their tongue they lied to him. And their heart was not straight with him, nor did they trust in his covenant. But he is one pitying, and he shall atone [propitiate] their sins, and he will not utterly destroy. And he will fill the turning of his rage, and shall not kindle all his anger.

Psalm 78:37-38 (AB)

In these and other Old Testament passages, the words propitious, propitiate, and propitiation convey a reversal of outcome. Joseph's brothers discovered that what should have been debited against them was credited back to them. Israel's rebellion warranted God's wrath, but instead God turned his wrath into kindness. Naaman was healed of leprosy. David was forgiven his sin. When we look throughout Scripture we see propitiation turn away from the natural outcome towards kindness.

In the Old Testament tabernacle worship on the Day of Atonement, the high priest would once a year pass through the veil, into the most holy place, and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat, or propitiation seat. On this day, Israel would confess their sins, and God would propitiate. In the New Testament, the word atonement or propitiation is used to describe the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. Understanding the meaning of propitiation is crucial to our understanding of the cross. The Apostle John writes, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10 (NASB)

At times we fill words with our preconceived ideas. Often Christians fill the words atonement or propitiation with un-Biblical theology. Some perceive atonement to be a surrogate punishment; however, the principle meaning of the word deals with kindness. While other words can be translated kindness or kind, propitiation is a special type of kindness. Propitiation reverses adverse circumstance into kindness. When we read that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, we should recall that he turns God's wrath into God's favor. The word propitiation alludes to the Old Testament system of tabernacle worship, the Mercy Seat, and the Day of Atonement. The NIV translates 1 John 4:10, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." The Apostolic Bible renders the literal English translation, "In this is the love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son as an atonement for our sins." We could also translate 1 John 4:10 to say, "This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son [to deal kindly with our sins]." How does the cross of Jesus Christ demonstrates God's kindness toward sinners? The Apostle Peter writes,

He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

1 Peter 2:24-25 (NASB)

In what way did Christ's death on the cross demonstrate kindness? He demonstrated kindness toward us by carrying our sins into death. Because he carried our sins into death, we do not have to die in our sins. The Apostle Paul explains it:

God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5:8-18 (NIV)

Though necessary, why was the cross of Jesus Christ such a brutal ordeal? Would a peaceful death have accomplished the same objective? Some claim that God punished the Christ instead of punishing us. They claim that the Father poured out his wrath on the Son and then turned his face away. They concoct support for this theory based on Jesus' quoting Psalm 22 while hanging on the cross. However, Jesus' words are an invitation to read the entire Psalm, and reading the entire Psalm in the context of the crucifixion one would not come to the absurd conclusion that the Father ever despised the Son.

After crying out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" the Psalmist prophetically affirmed,

God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.

Psalm 22:24 (NASB)

Christ did not suffer by the hand of God, the Christ suffered by the hands of men as Isaiah 53 eloquently prophesies. God's supposed wrath against the Son did not propitiate our sins. Rather the complete obedience of the Son merited his Father's favor. The writer of Hebrews tells us, "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation." Hebrews 5:8-9 (NIV) Paul wrote to the Philippians regarding the depth of Jesus' obedience, saying,

Although He existed in the form of God, [he] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Philippians 2:6-11 (NASB)

Jesus excruciating death on the cross is not a picture of God's wrath against sin. Rather it is a demonstration of Jesus' complete obedience to the Father. What Adam destroyed through disobedience, Jesus restored through obedience. By the disobedience of one we became enemies of God, and by the obedience of one we are reconciled to God. God's wrath will come, Jesus said,

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

John 3:25-26

The obedience of Jesus Christ is our propitiation. In obedience to the Father, he dealt kindly with our sins. Jesus reversed our outcome of wrath into the overwhelming kindness of God.

Fire or ice

The American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote,

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Today bloggers of the world unite to discuss climate change. Politicians say the world is getting warmer, while some statisticians now say it it getting cooler. So we, the non-experts, are left to speculate, as Robert Frost once did, “Fire or Ice?”

How ironic that Blog Action Day would waste Internet bandwidth and its immeasurable electric wattage from dubious coal-fired generators to discuss the amelioration of global climate change as if the weather was an issue of social justice or morality. We have gathered together today in virtual self-righteous hypocrisy to ignore true causes of social injustice and human suffering to talk about the weather. Why? The anti-pattern, “low hanging fruit,” I suppose.

When you address the problem that isn’t a problem, then you’re guaranteed the appearance of success. Kudos, we’ve already saved the planet. Empirical evidence reveals that the earth  in previous centuries has been warmer and cooler than present. Empirically, then, we might suppose that the earth might be both warmer and cooler in the future. To claim any degree of accuracy in our calculations, however, would be absurd. Most of us can’t solve complex mathematical equations without at least a calculator, and fewer of us can program supercomputer algorithms. Even those who program supercomputers are prone to human mistakes and their algorithms fail to account for all data. Otherwise, the weather would never surprise.

Aside from the empirical, I refuse to indulge in any debate regarding global climate change because any historical data older than 30 or 40 years is woefully incomplete and possibly a work of fiction. I place no more faith in climatologists than I do in meteorologists. They can only be right part of the time. Climatologists use current datasets to extrapolate historical sets based on certain assumptions, and then use this data to prophesy doom and gloom scenarios. Their circular logic translated by politicians into social imperatives is merely a form of shamanism or juju.

We have only begun to measure the weather; let’s give technology a millennia or two to calculate man’s impact on climate change before we start extrapolating absurd conclusions. Meanwhile, let’s focus on real issues that plague our society.

I met a man the other day who works as a probation officer for a county in the Kansas City metropolitan area. He told me that the issues he faces everyday are symptomatic of the deterioration of the family. I introduced this man to another acquaintance of mine who works in a residential treatment center for at-risk teenagers. I was amused that these two strangers knew so many people in common having never met each other. Both have dedicated their careers to ameliorate the impact of the disintegration of family within our culture.  Meanwhile, both strive to protect their own families from the destructive influences of our society. I wish them success on both fronts of the culture war.

The deterioration of the family may not be the only cause of cultural morass. Selfishness is the root of all other vices. Consequently, selfishness is the root of the family decay. In Frost’s analysis of the world’s predicament, fire and ice represent the spectrum of human self-centeredness. Greed and hatred both grow from the same root of inflated self-importance. While Frost viewed fire and ice from a universal perspective, hubris devastates at home, too.

The biggest problem the ideology of global climate change faces is the absence of a norm. The earth has gone through an ice age; deserts were once inland seas; Greenland used to be green. What in-between state is the appropriate norm, and who gets to decide the acceptable variance? Meanwhile, Martian  polar caps are shrinking, begging the question whether Earth's observed climate changes might be extraterrestrial in nature.

But climate change is not about the weather. Climate change has become a weapon of political engineering wherein scientists and politicians seek to exert patrician control over the proletariat. The global-climate-change faithful exult, not in the process of cooling the planet, but rather in the opportunity to reengineer society: hence BAD 2009.

The entire culture of global climate change is predicated upon faith in fallible humans and their mystical equations. You may believe it, but I remain skeptical. Better wisdom comes from a lesser poet than Frost: “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin’ meters.” Ironically, this revolution has forgotten that governmental mandates infringe on freedom. This generation rushes headlong into a type of eco-fascism demanding that the government infringe upon personal and economic freedom of others. To what end?

The nebulous facts of global climate change propels the political rise of a new patrician class at the expense of personal and economic freedom. Whether the outcome is justified will be determined by those in control. The absence of an objective norm will leave the proletariat believing their beloved fathers saved them from from something.

I agree that social values should be re-engineered or realigned, but global climate change is not my motivator. Society cannot be reformed by top down declarations from political scientists.

Unlike global climate change, the devastation of the family and the fire and ice of interpersonal relationships can be ameliorated by applying absolute standards with predictable results. Such a claim is predicated upon faith in the Creator God who has expressed Himself through graphos and logos, i.e. the Scripture and the revelation of God through Christ, His Son.

Accepting the words of Scripture, and especially the words of Jesus, as authoritative regarding family provides a framework which will transform our personal relationships. Two of the Ten Commandments deal with familial relationships:

“Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

“Do not commit adultery.”

The commandments of God that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai did not speak in part to children and in part to adults; consequently, the command to honor Father and Mother speaks to adults as well as to children. The command against adultery has been abandoned by the most modern Christian denominations in deed if not in word.

The prophet Malachi confronted Israel’s problem with divorce. He tells them that God no longer listened to them because they had abandoned the wives of their youth. Malachi writes,

. . . guard in your spirit, and the wife of your youth do not abandon! But if by detesting, you should send her forth, says the LORD God of Israel, then impiety shall cover over your thoughts, says the LORD God almighty.

Malachi 2:15-16 (AB)

The health and prosperity of the entire nation turned upon the commitment within individual marriages. Jesus echoed Malachi’s proclamation when he said, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 (NIV) Most Christian churches today seek to affirm adulterous relationships as a type of second chance rather than encourage repentance. In so doing, the church has made itself complicit in the disintegration of the family.

The foundation of a family must be a committed marriage as defined by God from the beginning, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 (NIV)

Real marriage requires selflessness to succeed. The degree of selflessness required for a successful marriage and family is enumerated by the Apostle Paul, he wrote to the Ephesians, saying,

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 5:25-32 (NIV)

The love and respect commanded within Christian marriage mirrors Christ’s love for us and our regard for him. Society is built one family unit at at time. Some of us still have the power to contribute to the success of one family. The church, in turn, is to build upon those familial relationships and operate as extended family or community focusing inwardly toward the building up of the whole.

To be effective the church must define itself apart from the culture, “In the world, but not of the world.” Modern Christianity is clearly of the world. The erosion of family within the church is symptomatic. Many churches cater to families, not by drawing families together but by driving them apart. Church has become like a Disney family cruise, with something for everyone, but little substance to bind all together.

Even as churches resist moral decay in the culture, they do so by engaging in external political tactics rather than internal edification. The morality of the culture should not matter to the church, but morality within the church should be of high importance. The Apostle Paul did not care about cultural morality, but he cared deeply about the purity of the church, he writes, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’” 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV) Clearly, not everyone belongs in church, but modern Christianity takes a different stance – they accept everyone. Today, people are not expelled from church for immorality, but rather for confronting abusive leadership.

The man expelled by the Corinthians later repented of his sin and Paul encouraged the Corinthian church, saying,

The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.

2 Corinthians 2:6-8 (NIV)

The purity of the church and the reconciliation of sinners is not inconsistent. Yet, today, churches are so eager to forgive, and even indulge immorality, that they become a stumbling block to the innocent and the guilty alike. Children learn that there are no consequences to sin, and the sinner learns that there is no need for repentance.

The modern church is more concerned with creating a culturally accommodating environment than a spiritually nurturing environment. In so doing, church has become an extension of the culture rather than an extension of the family. The church has abandoned its first love, and one wonders whether the depreciation of marriage and the family, as Malachi lamented, is to blame.

Between the rabid lust of the culture and the moral indifference of the church, Christian families today face external perils of fire and ice.

Though the culture and the church will proceed like the weather, Christian fathers can make a choice within the family to set aside their own selfishness and take upon themselves the selflessness of Jesus Christ. This begins by obeying the command, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

Autumnal reminiscence

Last night I cleaned birch leaves from the valleys on the roof and noticed that 2009 has been a terrific year for moss.


I looked out my bedroom door this morning and saw that it had rained again. After a tentative summer, autumn has arrived unexpectedly. Leaves are falling and the apples (such as they are this year) are ripe. The little girls are picking what they can reach. The harvest will not equal last year's bounty. The cool summer, birds, and squirrels have taken a toll.


A week from tomorrow, the full moon will announce Sukkot and in our home we will remember the birth of the Christ, who tabernacled among men for a season.

John 1:1-14 (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness,
to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light,
but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

That was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world,
and the world was made by him,
and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own,
and his own received him not.
But as many as received him,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh,
and [tabernacled] among us,
(and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

Insipidity and self-importance

It is no mystery that Jesus often spoke in mysteries. When his speech alludes to Old Testament passages, He provides a dimension that should enlighten and constrain our interpretation of the passage. The second half of the ninth chapter of Mark’s Gospel appears on casual reading to contain several disconnected thoughts. A footnote in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible claims, for instance, “It appears that v. 50 cf. Mt 5:13, has been inserted here for no other reason than the recurrence of the word ‘salt’.”

Really? Imagine the self-importance of the translator – God’s editor –presuming that because he doesn’t understand something in Scripture that it just doesn’t belong there.

While chapter divisions in Scripture are arbitrary, there are apparent sections. Mark 9 is divided into three segments. The first section recounts the Transfiguration. The second deals with the healing of a demonized boy, and the third section, verses 33-50, addresses the disciples' sense of self-importance. The disciples argued among themselves who among them was greatest. When Jesus asked them about their discussions none wanted to admit to their petty competition. Jesus rebukes them saying, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the servant of all.” Mark 9:35 (AB)

Jesus then offers an illustration of what he means. Embracing a child he tells his disciples, “Whoever should receive one of such children in my name, receives me; and whoever should receive me, receives not me, but the one having sent me.” Mark 9:37 (AB)

John, remembers someone whom the disciples had not received. He tells Jesus, “We beheld a certain one in your name casting out demons, who does not follow us; and we restrained him, for he does not follow us.” Whether John was seeking clarity or justification is uncertain, but Jesus tells his disciples, “Do not restrain him! For there is none who shall do a work of power in my name, and be able to quickly speak evil of me. For he who is not against us, is for us.” Mark 9:38-40 (AB)

The disciples were obviously absorbed with their status as followers of Christ that they felt justified and even responsible to dictate the behavior of strangers. Their arrogance was so extreme that they commanded someone friendly to the cause of Christ to cease and desist performing miracles in the name of Jesus.

Rather than telling his disciples how to treat people, as he had with the child, he presents the logical converse, saying, “For whoever should give you a drink of a cup of water in my name, for you are of Christ, amen, I say to you, in no way should he lose his wage.” Mark 9:41 (AB) Earlier Jesus told his disciples that if they received a little child in his name, they received him and the one who sent him. Here he explains that strangers who likewise show the disciples favor will certainly be rewarded. Jesus presents scenarios wherein the disciples are both giving and receiving favor.

By rebuking the one casting out demons in Jesus’ name, the disciples responded to favor with disfavor. Jesus commanded them to share God’s grace both as givers and receivers.

Jesus follows his instructions with a series of warnings. Using the same child as an illustration he says, “Whoever should cause to stumble one of the little ones trusting in me, it is good to him rather if a millstone encompass around his neck, and to be thrown into the sea.” After instructing the disciples to receive a child in His name, he illustrates the severity of causing a child to stumble. He does not specify how the child would be caused to stumble, but in the context he confronts the disciples’ arrogance.

Next, Jesus again presents a logical converse. Instead of picturing the disciples causing a child to stumble, he presents three scenarios whereby something might cause the disciples to stumble. Rather than pointing to external sources for the disciples’ hypothetical stumbling he chooses three very personal things. He says,

1. If your hand should cause you to stumble . . .
2. If your foot should cause you to stumble . . .
3. If your eye should cause you to stumble . . .

Jesus points out that while a disciple might cause a trusting child to stumble, should a disciple stumble, he would have no one to blame but himself. Jesus tells them, It better to enter into life crippled, lame, or one-eyed than to be “thrown into Gehenna, into the inextinguishable fire, where their worm does not come to an end, and the fire is not extinguished.” Mark 9:48 (AB)

Many of the disciples were fishermen. Without a hand, or a foot, or an eye, their potential in first century society would be severely impeded. Moreover, once maimed, a Jewish man became somewhat of a pariah. According to Leviticus 21, a Levite with a deformity or injury was disqualified from service in the tabernacle. Surely, Jesus words must have seemed bizarre to his disciples. The very things that they might imagine as impediments to God’s acceptance were actually impediments to their salvation.

Jesus is speaking figuratively. Our hands, feet, and eyes do not cause us to stumble. Nevertheless, our pride does. Jesus was telling his disciples that anything about them that caused them to feel superior to even the lame or blind, they should forsake to gain life. When Jesus speaks of Gehenna, he alludes to Isaiah 66:24,

And they shall go forth, and shall see the carcasses of men, the ones violating against me. For their worm shall not come to an end, and their fire shall not be extinguished. And they will be a sight to all flesh.

Isaiah 65 and 66 speaks of the time of the Messianic kingdom where “. . . wolves and lambs shall graze together; and the lion shall eat straw as an ox.” Isaiah 65:25 (AB) At this time, those resisting God will be punished. By quoting Isaiah in the context of Mark chapter 9, Jesus demonstrates the severity of the disciples' pride. By comparing them to the living dead forever burning outside the city, he implies that their pride is the same as rebellion against God.

Jesus then addresses the disciples’ confusion over their proper place. They had been arguing about who among them was greatest. Jesus concludes his discourse saying,

For all shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. The salt is good; but if the salt becomes insipid, by what means shall you season? Have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another.

Here Jesus alludes to Leviticus 2:13, “every gift offering of your sacrifices shall be salted with salt. You shall not discontinue salt from the covenant of the LORD with your sacrifices.” Most of the sacrifices of the Old Testament were consumed by the priests and the giver. The salt on the sacrifice made it savory or pleasing.

In Mark 9, Jesus is telling his disciples that they will all be tried by fire. They will all make sacrifices. The salt of the sacrifice demonstrates their willingness to endure trials for the sake of Christ. The salt makes the sacrifice pleasing. Jesus tells them, however, “if the salt become insipid, by what shall you season? Have salt within yourselves, and make peace with one another.”

The disciples' imagined self-importance was making their service to Christ insipid or flavorless. While a casual reader might presume to think that Mark 9:33-50 is a disconnected narrative, Jesus is actually teaching one central thought – the consequences of pride.

• The disciples’ pride was an impediment to others’ faith.
• It was an impediment to the disciples’ relationship with God.
• Moreover, the disciples’ pride made their service meaningless.

The disciples had been arguing about who among them was greatest but Jesus tells them, “Have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another.”

As I was discussing this passage with Lisa, she heard the words “Have salt within yourself” and was stunned by the imagery that Jesus used. In the New Testament, yeast or leaven always refers to the sin of pride. Some scholars believe that Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:20 depart from this pattern, but they miss Jesus’ warning in these passages entirely. What Lisa knew about salt that I did not know, is that salt is an impediment to yeast.

In the Old Testament, leavening was banned from the sacrifices; however, salt was required.

In other New Testament passages, Jesus commanded his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (an obvious reference to the destructive power of self-importance.) In Mark 9, Jesus tells them to have salt in themselves and make peace. He warns them to cast off their pride and take upon themselves humility and sacrifice.

The disciples were displaying the affects of leaven. They were becoming puffed up. Jesus rebukes them, saying, put a little salt on that insipid pride.