TXAB: The Christ Almighty Blog

25 July 2017

The Four Seeds story.

So which soil do you figure you are?

Mark 4.1-9, 4.13-20 • Matthew 13.1-9, 13.18-23 • Luke 5.1-3, 8.5-8, 8.11-15

You’d think this particular parable would be super easy to interpret, since Jesus actually provided his students an interpretation after he told it. But never underestimate the ability of Christians who wanna weasel out of the implications of Jesus’s lessons.

The story is preceded by Jesus feeling the need to get a little bit of distance from the crowds who were swarming him. Since a number of his students were fishermen, he figured why not use this connection to his advantage?

Mark 4.1 KWL
Again Jesus went out to teach by the Galilee’s sea.
A large crowd gathered round him, so he entered a boat to sit in the sea,
The whole crowd at the sea were on the beach.
Matthew 13.1-2 KWL
1 That day, Jesus left the house and was sitting by the Galilee’s sea.
2 Large crowds gathered round him, so he entered a boat to sit in it.
The whole crowd was standing on the beach.
Luke 5.1-3 KWL
1 This happened when the crowds pressed on Jesus to listen to God’s word:
He was standing by Lake Kinneret, 2 and saw two boats run aground by the lake.
The fishermen had left them and were cleaning the nets.
3 Jesus entered one of the boats, which was Simon’s.
He asked Simon to put the boat out a little ways from the land.
Sitting in the boat, he taught the crowds.

Lake Kinneret, nowadays called Lake Tiberias, is a large lake (which is why the Galileans called it their “sea”) and the waves crashing on shore, even on a calm day, make a whole lot of noise. Jesus would’ve had to shout to be heard over them. Still, he must’ve figured this was preferable to getting crowded.

Between the surf noises and the fact Jesus didn’t explain his analogy, a number of ’em likely didn’t catch what Jesus meant by this parable. Namely that it’s about them.

Mark 4.2-9 KWL
2 Jesus taught them many things in parables, and told them in his lesson,
3 “Listen. Look, a planter came forth planting. 4 While planting, this happened:
One of the seeds fell by the road, and birds came and devoured it.
5 Another fell by rocks where it hadn’t much earth,
quickly sprang up because it had no depth of earth,
6 and once the sun rose it was scorched,
and because it had no root it was dried up.
7 Another fell in the thorns, and the thorns rose up and choked it.
It produced no fruit.
8 Another fell on good earth and was producing fruit—
rising, growing, bearing 30, 60, and 100 fruits.”
9 Jesus said, “Who has listening ears? Listen!”
Matthew 13.3-9 KWL
3 Jesus told them many things in parables, saying,
“Look, a planter came forth at the time of planting, 4 and during this planting
one of the seeds fell by the road, and the coming birds devoured it.
5 Another fell by rocks where it hadn’t much earth
and quickly sprang up because it had no depth of earth.
6 It was scorched by the rising sun,
and because it had no root it was dried up.
7 Another fell in the thorns, and the thorns rose up and choked it.
8 Another fell on good earth and was producing fruit—
one 100 fruits, one 60, one 30.
9 Listen, you who have ears!”
Luke 8.4-8 KWL
4 With the great crowds with him, traveling to him from the city,
Jesus said by a parable, 5 “At the time of planting, a planter came out with his seed.
During his planting, one of the seeds fell by the road and was trampled,
and birds of the air devoured it.
6 Another fell down in the rocks,
and as it grew it was dried up because it had no moisture.
7 Another fell in the middle of thorns,
and the thorns, growing up with it, choked it.
8 Another fell on good earth, and as it grew it produced 100 times the fruit.”
Saying this, Jesus shouted, “Listen, you who have listening ears!”

And if you also have listening ears, you’ll realize it’s just as much about you.

24 July 2017

TXAB’s spoiler policy.

In case you’re annoyed ’cause I spoiled something.

When you’re introducing your kids to the Star Wars movies, do try not to show ’em Episode III before Empire Strikes Back.

Not that a lot of parents in my circle do, ’cause Episode III is rated PG-13, and a lot of ’em take that rating very seriously. ’Cause—and here the spoilers begin—horrific third-degree burns, y’know. But if parents do show their kids Episode III before Episode VI, it means the children are gonna find out Vader’s the father of two protagonists of the ’70s films, Episodes IV through IV. And it’s gonna kill any surprised reaction they might have when Vader finally declares, “No, I am your father.”

It’s also gonna make the kids say Ewwwww! every time Luke and Leia kiss. And not just for the usual reasons kids are grossed out by public displays of affection: For the very same reasons I say Ewwwww when they make out. Yeah right George Lucas knew their backstory all along.

Star Wars nerds tend to recommend watching ’em in the order of the original Star Wars movie first (which later got renamed Episode IV: A New Hope), then Empire, then I to III (and some of ’em point out you can easily skip the kinda-slow Episode I: The Phantom Midichlorians), then Return of the Jedi. This way the kids build up a smidgen of sympathy for Annakin/Vader before Return, because if all they see are the ’70s movies, they’re gonna think, “Why on earth does Luke think he can reform him?”

And then expose ’em to The Force Awakens, and all its sequels. And the stand-alones, the TV shows, and the Holiday Special.

The bonkers thing is when I mention the whole “Who’s your daddy?” deal to people, and they immediately respond, “Dude, don’t spoil Star Wars for me.”

Um… these are 40-year-old movies. If you’re over the age of 13 and haven’t seen ’em yet, that’s on you.

I admit I myself don’t worry much about spoilers. If somebody lets slip how a movie ends, oh well. I don’t like surprises, so sometimes I’ll actually go find out a movie’s ending before I see it. Fr’instance when Batman v. Superman: Dawn of the Marthas came out, I heard some people complain it wasn’t very good; at least not in comparison with previous Superman and Batman movies. I wanted to know why, so I popped over to its Wikipedia page and read the plot. And Wikipedia gives away endings. True, there were a few surprises the director and producers wanted me to see in the theater, but tough: I wanted to know about ’em now.

Does doing this ruin the movie for me? Nah. People re-watch good movies all the time. Despite knowing the endings, because they’re good movies. If Batman v. Superman sounded any good, regardless of my knowing the ending in advance, I’d go see it anyway. But after the Wikipedia summary, I decided to skip the theater and watch it on home video. Wound up seeing the “extended edition,” which was 3 hours 2 minutes instead of the theatrical 2:21. It was okay. Still not happy Batman kills people in it: Trying to avoid guns and killing is kinda the one thing Batman’s known for. But the producers decided “Meh,” so now the Batmobile has machine guns. Meh.

Not that I blog about movies all that often. But I figure I may as well preemptively spell out my spoiler policy. So if you bellyache about my spoiling anything in future, I’ll refer you to this rant.

21 July 2017

Mary the Magdalene, apostle to the apostles.

The myths (and sexism) behind the first person to see our risen Lord.

22 July is the feast day of Mary the Magdalene, whom we also call Mary of Magdala. She’s the woman who shows up in all the resurrection stories, ’cause she’s the very first person Jesus appeared to after he was raised from the dead.

John 20.10-18 KWL
10 Then the students went away again, to their people,
11 and Mary stood outside the tomb, mourning.
As she mourned, she then bent down into the tomb, 12 and saw two angels in white,
one sitting at the head, one at the feet, where Jesus’s body was placed.
13 They told her, “Ma’am, why do you mourn?”
She told them this: “They took my Master away, and I don’t know where they put him.”
14 Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing—and didn’t know it was Jesus.
15 Jesus told her, “Ma’am, why do you mourn? Whom are you looking for?”
Figuring he was the groundskeeper, she told him, “Master, if you took him away,
tell me where you put him, and I’ll take him away.”
16 Jesus told her, “Mary.”
She turned and told him, “Rabbani!” (i.e. “teacher”).
17 Jesus told her, “Don’t clutch me. I’ve not gone up to my Father yet.
Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I’m going up to my Father and yours; to my God and yours.’ ”
18 Mary the Magdalene came and told the students she’d seen the Master,
and he’d said these things to her.

Two of Jesus’s students, Simon Peter and John, had checked out the tomb, saw nothing, and left. Jn 20.3-10 But Mary stuck around and had a Jesus-sighting. And he sent her to his students and family: “Go to my brothers and tell them…” Jn 20.17 which she did. Jn 20.18 They should’ve known Mary’s character enough to accept her testimony.

Should’ve; didn’t. Because nobody expected Jesus to rise from the dead before the End Times. The 11 apostles wouldn’t believe the women saw Jesus, Lk 24.11 and Thomas wouldn’t even believe the other 10 after they saw Jesus themselves. Jn 20.24-25 So if you think the problem was sexism, there might’ve been a little bit of that in there. More so it was just how unbelievable the idea was.

Every so often, I hear a Christian preacher say it was totally sexism. Often they’ll do it in a way which exposes their own sexism. I’ve heard preachers claim in Jesus’s day, women’s testimony was inadmissible because women get hysterical, irrational, and are inherently untrustworthy. (God help those preachers’ wives and daughters.)

It’s bunk, because these preachers don’t know the Law. In patriarchal societies, women are subject to their patriarch—their husband or father or male relative who’s in charge of them. This man was granted the right to overturn or nullify his women’s vows. Nu 30 But this made it impossible for women to testify in court. Not because women aren’t trustworthy, but because their men could cancel out their testimony.

I’m not sure whether Paul had that idea in mind when he and Sosthenes listed 500-plus folks who saw the resurrected Jesus, 1Co 15.3-8 and didn’t include the women. Mt 28.9-10 We figure this list was originally composed and recited in the middle east, where Judeans had an issue with women’s testimony. Corinthians didn’t, so there was no reason to still skip the women.

Judean courts aside, Mary was as reputable as any student, and the students should’ve believed her, if anyone. Still, this isn’t the only time Mary’s been misinterpreted due to sexism.

20 July 2017

Touch not the Lord’s anointed.

When leaders try to evade accountability by the very verse which makes ’em accountable.

1 Chronicles 16.22, Psalm 105.15

Today’s out-of-context scripture is found in two places in the bible, ’cause either Chronicles is quoting Psalms or vice-versa. (Hard to tell, since they were written round the same time.) To get the full effect, you gotta quote it in the King James Version.

1 Chronicles 16.22, Psalm 105.15 KJV
Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

The way it’s typically quoted is in the third-person form of “Touch not the LORD’s anointed!” But it doesn’t take that form in the bible.

I’ve seldom heard preachers quote it. More often I’ve heard it from people in church leadership, or people who are defending church leadership. Usually it’s to discourage us from questioning, critiquing, condemning, or otherwise interfering with those leaders. ’Cause they were anointed by the LORD—and look, it says right there in the bible you’re not to touch the LORD’s anointed.

It was written by King David ben Jesse, and you remember how he could’ve totally killed the insane King Saul ben Kish time and again? But he wouldn’t dare, ’cause Saul was the LORD’s anointed?

I should remind you the word which gets translated “anointed” is mešíakh/“Messiah”—one of the king’s titles, so I translated it appropriately. (I would hope you’re not using the title Messiah for anyone in your church leadership but Jesus.)

1 Samuel 24.4-7 KWL
4 David’s men told him, “Look, it’s the day the LORD told you of!—
‘Look, I put your enemy into your hand. Do whatever pleases your eye.’ ”
So David rose up and secretly cut the corner of Saul’s robe off.
5 Afterward, David’s heart struck him over this—that he cut off a corner of something of Saul.
6 He told his men, “By the LORD, I should never have done this thing to my master, the LORD’s Messiah;
to raise my hand to him, because he’s the LORD’s Messiah.”
7 David persuaded his men with such words and didn’t let them confront Saul.
Saul rose from the cave and walked to the road.

Yeah, it’s totally weird thinking of Saul as a Messiah, huh? Just goes to show you how much Jesus has redeemed that title.

David wouldn’t dare another time:

1 Samuel 26.8-9 KWL
8 Avišai told David, “God placed your enemy in your fist today! Now please—
I can smite him to the ground with a spear in one heartbeat. I needn’t repeat it.”
9 David told Avišai, “Don’t destroy him.
Who can raise their hand to the LORD’s Messiah and be clean?”

Get the point? Even though Saul was an absolute beast of a man towards the innocent David, he was still God’s anointed king. David had no business killing him—or even overthrowing him, or doing anything other than remaining in exile to await his king’s death. Beast or not, Saul was still Messiah, and David was never gonna depose God’s anointed king. (Now, Saul’s successor Ishbaal was another deal; David never recognized him as Messiah.)

But once we incorrectly apply the idea of an anointed king to Christian leaders, you might notice it gives ’em a free pass to be just as bad as Saul. ’Cause “touch not the LORD’s anointed.”

Now way before I ever get to the proper context, I should point out how absolutely insane it is to use Saul as an example. For Saul was insane.

The scriptures describe Saul as plagued by evil spirits. We’d nowadays call the guy demonized. The critters were only driven away when other anointed ministers worked on him, like David with his music. 1Sa 16.23 So “Touch not the LORD’s anointed, ’cause Saul,” is effectively saying, “Even if Pastor’s possessed by Satan itself, he’s anointed, so leave him be!” It’s probably the stupidest defense in Christendom.

19 July 2017

The effectual fervent prayer… of an obnoxious person.

God expects us to get in his face sometimes.

Luke 11.5-8, 18.1-8

Right after teaching the Lord’s prayer, Jesus told the Friend at Midnight Story. Yeah, he meant it in context of prayer. Yeah, it’s an odd little story. Odd because the protagonist is so annoying. And Jesus presents this as if it’s a good thing.

Luke 11.5-8 KWL
5 Jesus told them, “Any of you will have a friend,
and go to him at midnight and tell him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves,
6 because a friend of mine came off the road to visit me,
and I have nothing I’ll give him to eat.’
7 At this point, he’d say from within in reply, ‘Don’t put your trouble on me.
The door was shut already. My kids are with me. We’re in bed. I can’t get up to give you a thing.’
8 But I tell you, if he’ll not give it, nor get up for the sake of being your friend…
actually, he’ll get up for the sake of your rudeness, and will give you as much as you need.”

Now use this story as an analogy for prayer. You’re the person beating on the door. You have a friend in need; for once you’re not praying for yourself, but interceding for someone else. You’re short on resources, but you’ve gone to someone with greater resources. Like God, who has unlimited resources.

But the “friend” in this story isn’t actually God. As is made obvious by his behavior. It’s a little hard to imagine God asleep in the middle of the night. Or that he doesn’t wanna be bothered. Or that he’s latched the door for the night; he’s bundled up in bed with his kids; he’s done, and we’ve come to him too late. If we understand God’s unlimited grace, we know better. (If we don’t, we may not, which is why we might not pray as often as we ought. Might need to get to know his unlimited grace first.) The “friend” isn’t meant to be God, but to be compared to God. If this is how friends behave, isn’t God a better friend? Won’t he do way better for you?

And likewise the friend’s motivation, versus God’s. The friend doesn’t wanna do anything for you. In Jesus’s culture bedtime was after sundown, so midnight was right in the middle of the sleep cycle, where people really don’t wanna be woken up. Jesus has kinda arranged the story so you’ve come to the door at a really inconvenient time, where any good friend would be very unmotivated to do anything. Jesus’s audience would’ve experienced something like this, so they could relate.

They’d also relate to Jesus’s idea: No matter how close you may be, he may not care to help you out whatsoever. But he’ll help out just the same, because you’re just rude enough. Because he’ll want you to leave him alone. And again: If this is how friends behave, isn’t God a better friend? He doesn’t help us just to get us to shut up. He helps us out of his abundant love.

18 July 2017

Parables: Because the kingdom’s secrets are only for us.

Why Jesus was so heavy on the metaphors.

Mark 4.10-13, 25 • Matthew 13.10-17 • Luke 8.9-10, 18, 10.23-24, 19.26 • John 12.37-40

The first of Jesus’s parables is the story of the four seeds. Mk 4.1-9, Mt 13.1-9, Lk 8.4-8 But before I get to that story, I’m gonna discuss Jesus’s frequent habit of teaching things en parabolís/“in parables.” Or at least it’s frequent in the synoptic gospels; John skipped nearly all the parabolic stories, and stuck to Jesus speaking in metaphor, which is also a form of parable.

Parabolí literally means “to throw over,” kinda like the parabola a ball makes when you throw it in the air. Like such a throw, it’s deliberately meant to go over the heads of people whom you don’t want catching it. If you aren’t clever enough to figure out what Jesus means by his analogies, you’re gonna miss his point. You know, like pagans often will. And irritatingly, a lot of Christians also will, because we’re looking for the wrong things, and don’t care Jesus is trying to explain his kingdom by them.

Other ancient teachers taught by analogy. But they’d use these analogies to get attention, and explain their point as part of the moral of the story. Whereas Jesus didn’t always include a moral to his stories. Nor explain what his analogies meant. You figure ’em out—if you have the ears to hear.

Jesus did this so often, his students had to ask what it was all about:

Mark 4.10 KWL
When Jesus was with his students alone,
those around him with the 12 apostles asked him about the parables.
Matthew 13.10 KWL
Coming to Jesus, the students told him, “Why do you tell them parables?
Luke 8.9 KWL
Jesus’s students were asking him why this ought to be a parable.

At this point the commentators will weigh in with why they figure Jesus taught in parables.

The most common idea was Jesus was trying to evade the consequences of speaking about his kingdom in a politically charged environment. Herod was king of the Galilee, and Caesar the king of Judea; if Jesus spoke in any way about being king, it was considered sedition, and gave his critics and opponents the ammo they needed to get him arrested. Much like science fiction TV shows in the 1950s and ’60s, Jesus couched his radical ideas in metaphor so nobody could figure out what he really meant.

That theory gets disproven pretty quickly in Luke 20.19, where the head priests realized exactly whom Jesus meant when he talked about a “master” destroying his tenant farmers, Lk 20.16 and a stone grinding those who trip on it to powder. Lk 20.18 Jesus meant them, and they’d have totally arrested him had not the crowds been around. (Which is why they later arrested him when the crowds were gone.)

Nope, it had nothing to do with evading the opposition. They’d come regardless. It was about throwing his lessons over the heads of the crowds, ’cause he only wanted his real followers to catch them. The parables are for Christians. Not lookie-loos.

Mark 4.11 KWL
Jesus told them, “God’s kingdom’s mysteries were given to you.
To those outside, everything comes in parables.”
Matthew 13.11 KWL
In reply Jesus told them, “Because you were given knowledge of the heavenly kingdom’s mysteries.
They weren’t given that.”
Luke 8.10 KWL
Jesus said, You were given knowledge of God’s kingdom’s mysteries.
The rest is in parables, so ‘seers might not see’
and ‘hearers not comprehend.’” Is 6.9

Jesus wasn’t trying to dodge consequences. He was trying to dodge fools.

17 July 2017

Eugene Peterson’s rough week.

On the “yes” heard round the blogosphere.

Most Christians know Presbyterian pastor Eugene Peterson from The Message, his popular bible translation that’s looser than a boot on a pegleg.
Everybody’s favorite Wikipedia image of Eugene Peterson, as seen on various news sites lately.
(So loose, people gripe it’s more of a paraphrase.) Others are more familiar with his writings on pastors and church leadership. But thanks to The Message, loads of American Christians have at least that work of his on their bookshelves.

It’s because of this fame Religion News Service columnist Jonathan Merritt interviewed Peterson on a number of topics relevant to Evangelical Christianity. Plus, Peterson’s sorta retiring. He’s 84, promoting what he figures is his last book, As Kingfishers Catch Fire; he’s kinda saying farewell to his public.

But Merritt’s brief interview with Peterson, posted last Wednesday, 12 July, probably got a lot more attention than Peterson ever bargained for. The headline: “Eugene Peterson on changing his mind about same-sex issues and marriage.”

Here’s the relevant bit:

Merritt. “A follow-up: If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?”

Peterson. “Yes.”

Now. Back in October, Merritt got popular Christian blogger Jen Hatmaker to say much the same thing, as I already ranted about. As a result LifeWay Christian Resources removed Hatmaker’s books from their stores.

It’s kind of a big deal. LifeWay’s the biggest Christian bookstore chain in the United States. It’s owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, the second-largest denomination in the United States. They’d be a primary route of Hatmaker’s sales. But LifeWay feels they have a duty to police the Christian orthodoxy—as they define orthodoxy—of the authors they carry. Not that any of Hatmaker’s previous books contained any endorsement of same-sex marriage in them: LifeWay figures if you’re heretic—again, as they define heresy—they don’t want their customers getting the idea you’re a safe author. Easier to just ban your works in entirety.

Given the Hatmaker situation, Christianity Today followed up Merritt’s interview that same Wednesday by asking LifeWay whether they’d likewise yank Peterson’s books off their shelves. No surprise coming: LifeWay responded of course they would.

So on Thursday the 13th, Peterson took it all back.

When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.

Thereafter, Peterson states he’s not doing any more interviews. He’s done. Doesn’t want the controversy.

I don’t blame him. Just about every time I’ve been ensnared in controversy, it’s never been about something I intended to fight over. Or even wanted to. Or care about. It’s always the minor stuff which I don’t consider dealbreakers. Problem is, everybody else insists they’re dealbreakers. To some Fundamentalists, darn near everything’s a dealbreaker.

Same-sex marriage is definitely a dealbreaker to many Evangelicals. If you’re gay, Christian, and wanna get married, it’s not negotiable. And if you’re anti-gay, figure it’s not even remotely possible to be both Christian and gay, and consider same-sex marriage to be a state-legitimized abomination, that’s not negotiable. This isn’t a minor debate in Evangelical Christianity right now. It’s one of the bigger deals.

Eugene Peterson stepped right into this wet pile of dooky, right up to his knees.

14 July 2017

The bible’s genres.

It’s not all written in just one style of literature.

Genre /'ʒɑ(n).rə/ n. Type or category of literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, and subject matter.

Our word genre originates from the Old French word gendre/“gender.” ’Cause while men and women are both human, we’ve still got some important, distinctive differences. (Not as many as our culture dictates, but still.)

There are many types of literature. Stop by the local public library, and you’ll notice how the books tend to be lumped into categories so we can find them easier. Whether your library uses the Dewey system or the Library of Congress system, you’ll notice the gardening books are on one shelf, the photography books on another, the legal books on another, the biographies on another.

Now when the average person picks up a bible, they assume they’re picking up one category of literature: Non-fiction religious instruction. After all, that’s where we’ll find bibles in the library.

Thing is, the bible’s an anthology, a book collection. Yes, it’s religious. Yes, it’s mostly non-fiction. (You know the parables never literally took place, right? Jesus was just making ’em up to illustrate his lessons? Hope you knew this.) But within its pages are several books and letters of several different types: Commands and instructions. Logical arguments. Wisdom. Parables. Histories. Creation stories. Gospels. Poetry. Prophecy. Apocalypses.

Christians who figure it’s all one genre, and try to interpret the whole of it literally, are gonna get the bible wrong.

Problem is, even though many Christians know there are multiple genres in the bible, they figure these differences really aren’t that great, and don’t entirely matter. One part’s prose, one part’s poetry; this bit is prophecy, that part is history. But all they really care about is religious instruction, and figure they can be instructed by all parts equally.

After all, didn’t Paul say so?

2 Timothy 3.16 KWL
Every inspired scripture is also useful for teaching,
for disproving, for correcting, for instruction in rightness.

Every inspired scripture. All the bible. Every bit of it can be used for instruction in rightness, so they’re gonna try to pull that instruction right out of it. After all, the bible’s our “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth,” our guidebook for life, with all the answers to all our questions—if we analyze it just right.

So to them, genre doesn’t matter. We can find instructions in the wisdom writings or the gospels; doesn’t matter whether we quote the apostles or Moses. It’s all bible. It’s all inspired. All good. Right?

Well, let’s take apart these claims a tad.

13 July 2017

Where do Jews fit into God’s kingdom?

Did God switch kingdoms between Old Testament and New Testament?

When we confess Jesus as our Lord, and believe he’s alive, we’re saved. Ro 10.9 Duh. True of anybody—whether Christian, or people who kinda shun that title; whether women or men, young or old, knowledgeable or ignorant, gentile or Jew.

Particularly if you’re a Jew. ’Cause Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. He particularly came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Mt 10.6 And if anyone’s under the delusion there aren’t any Jews in God’s kingdom, they’re nuts. Their antisemitism is making ’em heretic.

But here we slam into a little bit of controversy.

Y’see a number of Jews don’t confess Jesus as their Lord. Don’t believe in their hearts God raised him from the dead. Yet they still figure they’re in God’s kingdom, ’cause they’re following his Law. (Their rabbis’ interpretations of the Law, anyway.) God saved the Hebrews from Egypt, gave ’em his Law, told ’em to follow it, said he’d make a kingdom out of them, so they do. So they’re in God’s kingdom, right?

Well… no.

Because people are not, and have never been, saved by following the Law.

Galatians 2.15-21 KWL
15 We’re ethnic Jews, not gentile sinners,
16 who knew people aren’t set right by working the Law unless they trust Christ Jesus.
We trust Christ Jesus, because we’re set right by trust in Christ.
Not by working the Law, because working the Law won’t set any flesh right!
17 If we who seek to be found set right by Christ, and we’re sinners, is Christ a minister of sin?
Absolutely not. 18 If what I build up, I once again destroy, I myself am the Law-breaker.
19 Through the Law, I died to the Law—so I can live for God. I was crucified with Christ.
20 I no longer live. Christ lives—in me. Though I live in flesh now, I live by trust in God’s Son.
He loved me and gave himself up for me. 21 I don’t deny God’s grace:
If righteousness came by Law, Christ died for no reason.

People are not, and have never been, saved by following the Law. Ro 3.20 That’s the false assumption people made ever since the LORD handed down the Law at Sinai, but it’s entirely wrong. The idea’s always been wrong. Every human, from Adam on down, is only saved by God’s grace.

The Hebrews were rescued from Egypt, not because they were good or mighty people, but because God chose to save ’em. We Christians are rescued from sin, not because we deserve it or grew up Christian, but because God chose to save us. None of us earned God’s favor. Nobody works their way to salvation. The Law was granted to an already-saved people. Same as Jesus’s instructions are granted to us Christians.

So when Jews claim, “I’m part of a special covenant with God, and that’s how I was saved; your insistence I can only be saved through Jesus isn’t valid,” they’re absolutely wrong.

See, an integral part of any relationship with God, no matter what form it takes, is faith. God offers us salvation, and we respond to his offer by trusting him and doing as he expects. Abraham believed God; his faith justified him; God saved him. Ge 15.6, Ro 4.3 What’s God expect of us nowadays? That we believe in the one he sent, Jn 6.29 namely Messiah Jesus. Jn 17.3 Especially if we’re descendants of Israel.

This idea that Jews get any special path to salvation which does an end-run round Jesus? Absolutely false.

12 July 2017

Don’t mess with our Messiah.

A psalm for coronation—and a warning for the nations round about.

The second psalm, Lammá ragšú goyím/“For what reason rage the nations?” (Latin, Quare fremuerunt gentes) is considered a Messianic psalm ’cause it’s about Israel’s king, and one of the king’s titles is of course Messiah. And it’s considered a Messianic prophecy ’cause Jesus is Messiah, so Christians are gonna look for ways in which it gets fulfilled in the present day—kinda like the apostles did when they quoted it.

Acts 4.23-28 KWL
23 Once released, the apostles went to their own people
and brought news of whatever the head priests and elders told them.
24 Those who heard it unanimously lifted their voices to God and said, “Master,
you who made the heavens, earth, sea, and everything in them,
25 who said through the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our ancestor David your child,
‘Why are the nations furious?—the people practice stupidity?
26 The earth’s kings stand forth, and rulers gather themselves together,
against the Lord and against his Messiah.’ Ps 2.1-2
27 For truly they gathered together in this city against your holy child Jesus, whom you anointed—
Antipas Herod and Pontius Pilate, with gentiles and Israeli people—
28 to do whatever your hand and your will predecided to happen.”

After all, if the psalmist (who’s not identified, though you notice the apostles figured it was David) was speaking of Herod, Pilate, and the head priests conspiring against Jesus, it sure does look like the first lines of this psalm.

Why was it composed? We figure it’s for coronations. When a new king was anointed, they’d sing this. The first book in Psalms appears to be from the kingdom of southern Israel (“Judah”), so likely it was sung by and to the kings of Jerusalem. The original doesn’t rhyme or have meter, but I rendered it in trochaic heptameter anyway.

Psalm 2 KWL
1 For what reason is the uproar of the nations?
Or the people found in useless meditations?
2 Kings of earth and rulers take a stand, consulting
on the LORD and his Messiah—thus resulting
3 in, “Let’s tear their chains off; throw away their bindings.”
4 Seated in the heavens, my Lord mocks their findings.
5 Then he speaks, with nostrils flaring, to their hubris.
In his burning rage he terrifies them senseless.
6 “On my holy Zion hill, I poured out my king.”
7 Let me now instruct you on the LORD God’s ruling.
“You’re my son,” he told me, “on this day I birthed you.
8 Ask me and I grant the wealth of nations to you.
Your inheritance extends to earth’s horizon.
9 Shatter with your iron staff; like jars you’ll break them.”
10 Now kings, think it through. Earth’s judges, heed this warning.
11 Serve the LORD in fear. Rejoice, but do it trembling.
12 Kiss the son lest he destroy your path in anger.
Small things make him burn. Bless all who seek his shelter.