Yes And No

Are there contradictions in the Bible? Well, it was inspired by a Creator who put contradictions into His creation. We call them paradoxes, but in essence they are still contradictions. They exist all around us, and we are in the habit of creating and using them ourselves.

In Hebrews 9, the writer makes a case that blood was used under the law of Moses on everything, in order to sanctify it (make it holy). And he makes this statement:

And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:21-22 NASB

The assertion is that forgiveness comes through the shedding of blood, and the assertion is attributed to the law which God gave to Moses. So, it is God saying that forgiveness requires the shedding of blood. But there’s a problem, or seems to be:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 10:1-4 NASB

Let’s start with the first verse of chapter 10, because it, alone, holds several…conundrums. First off, the goal of the process of the law seems to be perfection of those who worship. I don’t know that I would have drawn that conclusion from within the process, as one of the worshipers. It’s true in the sense that holiness (purity) is necessary to approach our Holy Creator. But, as he points out, this ritual purity was not “durable”.

So the problem is that the process didn’t stop the worshiper from sinning, and, therefore, becoming profane again. And that necessitated the repetition of the process regularly, daily in one sense, annually in another. The lack of durability, and that as the stated goal of the process is probably our first paradox: The solution provided by our Savior through Moses didn’t do the trick, but it alluded to the solution to come.

But, my question is, does “Jesus stop me from sinning? Am I ‘perfect’ now that Jesus is my Savior?” Paul doesn’t seem to think so (Romans 7), and neither does John (1 John 1). But they both claim there is a “freedom” from sin (Romans 8, 1 John 2), said in different ways at different places within their writings.

Perhaps a reminder of the problem being fixed is in order: access to our Creator. Nothing “unholy” or “profane” can approach our Creator. We, in our natural state, are unholy profane creatures, and it’s our own fault. The process of worship prescribed in the Law of Moses brought access through an intermediary (sort of, lots of “exceptions”). Jesus provides perfect access without dependence upon our holiness. Or, said another way, the holiness He provides is durable.

The writer of Hebrews has made a case for this durable holiness using the Law of Moses in contrast to the work of Jesus, on the cross and in heaven. And, within the argument He comes upon this paradox: There is no forgiveness without blood (Heb. 9:22), but the blood of bulls and goats is insufficient (Heb. 10:4).

Keep in mind that part of his argument relies on the various exceptions, David, Abraham, Jacob, even Moses. The following quotes from Psalms in the remainder of chapter 10 are allusions to the “Role Call of Faith” to come in the next chapter. These exceptions clue us in to the holiness enjoyed by us through Jesus. It’s not our own holiness, it’s His. His holiness is as durable as He is!

So, yes, we are forgiven through the shedding of blood, not our own, and not the blood of bulls or goats. We are forgiven through the shed blood of Jesus, shed by Him on our behalf. That forgiveness and sanctification is durable, having been done once and for all time, backwards and forwards from the point in time when it was shed.

So, this paradox having been resolved, leaves the question, what will you do? Will you, by faith, rely on the durable holiness of our Creator? Or will you seek another route, perhaps to bypass the requirement of life-blood altogether? That is the nature of rebellion, attempting to bypass the design of our Creator. I don’t recommend it. It creates its own set of deadly paradoxes (Matt. 6:25-34, 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-37, Luke 9:23-25, James 4:4).

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Advertisement

Singular Attention

One of the common themes in the criticism of modern Western Christianity is how we’ve become idolatrous. Our society has come right out of the closet, and we now have a whole show and industry around being an American Idol. We even acknowledge that idols may not be that obvious. They could be insubstantial, like time in an activity or hobby. It could be social, like football teams, or golf, or associations. It’s an obvious problem, and, mostly, Christians acknowledge it.

But no one seems to be ready or willing to embrace a solution. One of my favorites among the excuses I’ve heard is that people don’t like to read. In our culture, that may be becoming more true than it was in my formative years. In those days, I read all the time. Now we seem to want headlines, and pictures. Communication is degenerating into memes. We want icons, symbols of things and activities we want or need. And, in the background, the ironic penalty looms over us.

He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 22:20 NASB

There are two interesting ironies in this single verse. The first is the reference to “god”, and the second is the penalty itself. The first irony is missed in translation, because the literal Hebrew is “to the gods”. It’s ironic because “the gods” is also a common reference to God, singular. It’s used 366 times in Hebrew, and mostly to refer to God. In fact, in verse 8, it likely refers to God although it is often translated as “judges”.

The second irony is that the penalty for sacrificing is being sacrificed. It’s the “ban”, the complete and utter destruction instructed against God’s most heinous enemies. Everything is destroyed, nothing is left, not family, not possessions, not the house, nothing. It’s a “whole burnt offering”, in a sense.

I live under the second irony daily. As some of you may know from following this blog, I struggle with an addiction. Nothing is quite as idolatrous as an addiction. To choose to act out in my addiction is an act of transgression, a sin of rebellion against my Savior.

But, there is forgiveness. There is room for repentance. Jesus was asked by Peter how many times one should forgive another, and Jesus answered, “A lot”. But, we may forget that this is only true because we are forgiven a lot, by our Savior. That’s hard to remember, and sometimes accept, in the face of a failure.

What I deserve is complete destruction. What I want is life. The question is will I accept the forgiveness of a Savior, or will I persist my rebellion to my own destruction? And it’s not just about me, it’s my family, my friends, and whatever I have contributed to the Kingdom of Jesus that is at risk.

Think of that when you spot the idols in your life. Think of that cost when you consider your next choice, or how you will respond to your own failure. What will you do? Repent? I hope so. I’m working in that now. What are you working on?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

How Do You Know?

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which asks, “How do you know?”. It’s a bit more involved than the child asking the same question, but sometimes has way too many similarities. Still, many grudges held by people who once were friends could be resolved if this question were asked. How do you know your grudge is about something that actually happened? How do you know?

We hold grudges against our Master. We do. It sounds totally bizarre, but we sometimes have to forgive our Savior. Not for Him, or something He’s done wrong. We need to let something go we’ve been holding against Him. We more often, do the same thing with people, and it’s much easier to see there. These next two laws are about that:

“If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, he shall pay double. If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges, to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.

Exodus 22:7-9 NASB

“Here, hold this for me.” We’ve all heard it, and/or said it. Has anyone had to watch your dogs? How about “house sitting” (such American things)? But in a day when locks were neither common, nor much use, who keeps the thief from your goods you don’t carry with you when you travel? Regardless of the circumstances, there’s a risk in putting your goods in the hands of another, even someone you trust.

Let’s say you do. You give your most prized possession, some thing, to your most trusted friend (not necessarily your best friend, but the responsible one – the boring one). You go away. You return. The item is missing, their house has been “burgled”. Or has it? If the thief is caught, the laws of thieving apply. But if not, if the thief makes his escape, then what?

Verse 8 says, in the New American Standard translation, that the owner of the house must appear before the “judges”. There is a footnote stating that the literal translation would be “God”. There are arguments on both sides of translating that, but, in the end, it literally says, God. Either way, imagine it, your trusted friend with the burgled house only has to appear before God (or His representative) and declare his innocence. There is an “examination” of some sort, but there aren’t details here.

So, if God decides that your buddy didn’t do it, your stuff is gone, and you don’t have any further recourse. Are you okay with that? Can you let it go? Will you and your “trusted friend” be okay? It gets back to the basic concept of “people-over-stuff” we saw with thieves.

Here’s the second rule where resentment may be an issue:

“If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him, and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking, an oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution. But if it is actually stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is all torn to pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not make restitution for what has been torn to pieces.

Exodus 22:10-13 NASB

Here, donkeys and oxen are in view instead of silver or stuff, but the idea remains the same. They come before Yahweh (which is why I think the other law refers to God), and if the “protector” takes an oath, then the owner shall accept it. It sounds odd, but here again, God puts people over stuff. The relationship between neighbors, friends, or even family is greater than stuff, even stuff used in your livelihood. This law requires forgiveness, willing forgiveness.

The application is really about priorities; placing relationships as more important than stuff. That’s the point I believe Yahweh was making with His people, and the message we need to take away from it. There isn’t any thing that is more important than the relationships we have with those around us. Don’t let things divide us, not pets, not the ball game, not anything.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Stupid Oaths

In the Occidental mind, rule is best when spread among many individuals, either in a parliament or congress.  On the other hand the truly ridiculous is only possible with a group mentality.  Individuals are rarely this creative or destructive.  Once body parts have been sent as invitations, anything becomes possible for the resulting assembly.

Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah, saying, “None of us shall give his daughter to Benjamin in marriage.” (Judges 21:1 NASB)

Considering the problem, that Benjamin seems to persist in defending repulsive transgression, this seems like an acceptable oath.  Which father wants his daughter mixed up in a such a group.  But they are there to fix the problem, not avoid being mixed up in it.  So, actually the oath is truly ridiculous.  Once “repaired”, and Benjamin restored, this might be an important element in restoring the tribe and mitigating further transgression.  But, just as on TV, wait, there’s more!

Then the sons of Israel said, “Who is there among all the tribes of Israel who did not come up in the assembly to the LORD?” For they had taken a great oath concerning him who did not come up to the LORD at Mizpah, saying, “He shall surely be put to death.” (Judges 21:5 NASB)

Of course, anyone not answering the summons of a severed body part, that should be a capital offense.  Where is the sense of that?  The sense to them was that something detestable to God had been done (technically twice), and refusing to come deal with it was like approving of the behavior.  On the other hand, this particular oath also put the entire tribe of Benjamin under the ban.  There was no other option with this oath than to leave no survivors in Benjamin since no one from that tribe showed up to the assembly.  So, even before starting out on this expedition, the end was already determined, not by God, but by the ridiculous mob mentality of the assembly.

So, off the people go to battle, and then return, leaving 600 men of Benjamin alive at a rock.  That’s all that’s left of Benjamin.  The other 11 tribes sacked and burned all the cities, all the people were killed, men, women, children, and animals in Benjamin, except for these 600 at the rock.  Then Israel mourns for the lost tribe.  A bit late, somewhat of an afterthought, but they mourn all the same.  The senselessness of their oaths begins to settle on them.  But wait, can they somehow use these oaths to their advantage?  No, not really.

The first oath mentioned, no one gives their daughters to Benjamin, that one causes a problem of the remnant of Benjamin surviving.  There’s really no advantage there.  So, the next oath, kill anyone who didn’t show up to the assembly, they try to use to fix the first one.  They kill the people of Jabesh-Gilead so they can take their virgins to give to the remnant of Benjamin as wives.  The “solution” only nets 400 wives for 600 men, not enough.  The destruction of Jabesh-Gilead is a “sacrifice” because they put the city under the “ban”, like Jericho.  I just don’t think this is the sacrifice God was looking for.

So, what is the perspective of God in all of this?  In the previous chapter, Yahweh gives Israel marching orders, but still they fail twice against underwhelming odds.  Finally the 360,000 men are able to defeat 26,000 men of Benjamin, leaving only 600 alive.  God seems involved at least, but why the first two failures?  The people offer sacrifices, they seek His face, they cry out to Him.  But then there are these oaths?  They are made before Yahweh, and they do keep them.  But, was all that was said before God at this sacred assembly really the will of God?  I think it’s safe to say no, not all that was said was of God.  On the other hand, some was according to His will, and even according to His commandment.

We, the modern scientific human, want consistency, our favorite litmus test of truth!  As our Master reveals Himself in Scripture, He seems to want relationship.  Relationships are messy, don’t follow consistent rules, and even seem chaotic at times.  The way that Yahweh reveals Himself in Scripture, He sets out on a relational adventure, adds some laws, and then tends to ignore or break these rules while holding His chosen people to account for them.  He’s bewildering.  And He does break the covenant obligations:  He tends to be more forgiving than the covenant stipulates, shows more compassion than promised, and is more persistent in His presence among His people than expected.

That’s my view through the fence this morning.  What do you see through your knothole?

Unpardonable?

According to Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10, there is a blasphemy that can’t be forgiven.  That’s frightening enough that we should be very aware of what that is.  In the context of Matthew and Mark, the Pharisees have claimed that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Satan.  In Luke the statement occurs in the “Sermon on the Plain” and the full element reads as so:

“And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.  And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.” (Luke 12:8-10 NASB)

Most can dismiss the “unpardonable sin” because we don’t think we’re attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan.  But Luke’s version doesn’t let us off so easy.  We’re simply left concerned about the meaning of blasphemy, a word that does not roll off the tongue in  21st Century America.  Here’s how Webster’s defines the verb, to blaspheme, in English:

: to speak in a way that shows irreverence for God or something sacred : to utter blasphemy.

That still seems a bit vague, so here’s the entry on “blasphemy” (what one utters in the action, blaspheme):

1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God

• accused of blasphemy

b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity

• for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy
• —John Bright †1889

2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Basically, being irreverent toward the Holy Spirit puts you within the dangerous eternal sin, at least according to Webster’s definition.  In Luke, the Greek verb, “blasphemeo”, is used, in Mark 3:29 it’s used again, and in Matthew 12:31 the noun version of the same word, “blasphemia”, is used.  So, in each instance, the word is “blasphemy”.  But what did it mean for Jesus and His hearers?

The words in Hebrew translated into these Greek words varied.  In some cases the word might be “taunt” or “reproach” (cheraph), in others, “despised” or “spurned” (naats).  Other examples seem to be translated from the sense of a phrase rather than word-for-word.  So, the Webster’s definition seems to match that of Scripture, regardless of time. Insulting, or being contemptuous of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

But the same cannot be said of Jesus.  In all three references in the Gospels, Jesus specifically says that blaspheming Him is forgivable.  Are you wondering where this is going yet?  How does it relate to Judges?  The connective tissue lies in the correspondence between Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit.  In the Christian Scriptures, a Triune Nature of God is revealed, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  And blaspheming one is not exactly the same as blaspheming the other.

Why blaspheming one part of the Trinity is not the same as blaspheming another won’t fit in this entry (or several, probably).  But consider Micah and his idols in Judges 17.  He (and his mother) claim to be worshiping Yahweh, but do so with idols, and a Levitical Priest.  We really don’t know when the Tribe of Dan migrated north, but their capture (or kidnapping) of the idols and Levite indicates that Micah wasn’t alone in his misconception of Yahweh worship, not at this time anyway.

So, was their belief, so distorted from what was clearly stated in the Law, also “unforgivable”?  Was this an example of being contemptuous of the Spirit of God, or of the Father or Son?  We don’t know.  The Spirit of God isn’t mentioned in Judges 17 and 18, and He is when things are attributed to Him, even in the Hebrew Scriptures.  So, His absence gives us hope that there was forgiveness available for Micah and the tribe of Dan.

What about us?  Micah and the sons of Dan distorted faith in God.  This is iniquity, a word no one uses any more.  Iniquity, in Hebrew, avon, is one of three words or concepts for how one violates the relationship with Yahweh.  The other two are “sin” and “transgressions“.  Sin is missing a mark aimed at, and transgression is basically being rebellious against an authority (willfully disobedient).  Iniquity has, at the root, the sense of twisting out of shape.  This is, in essence, what Micah and the sons of Dan do.

All three types of failure in the covenant relationship with Yahweh can be forgiven.  All have consequences, repentance is possible, and forgiveness given graciously by God.  So, when is that line crossed, where the Person of the Trinity distorted or rebelled against, makes pardon no longer possible?  Did Jonah transgress against the Spirit in his treatment of Nineveh?  Or, if he actually did write the book, did his repentance restore the relationship?  In the Hebrew Scriptures, the lines defining the Spirit and other Persons of the Trinity are not very clear.

The truth is, we’ll never know whether the sins of Dan and Micah were forgivable.  First off, the point of the author excluded telling us if either repented.  Secondly, the shrine at Dan lasted until the final destruction of the northern tribes.  So, whether Micah and Dan could be restored wasn’t the point, and remains outside our ability to see.  It’s probably wise to say that there was forgiveness available had Micah or Dan repented.  Dan obviously did not, but we’re never told about Micah.

The vast mercy and grace of God make the existence of something “unpardonable” out of place, or, at least, unexpected.  There simply seems to be forgiveness everywhere in Scripture, except in regards to the Holy Spirit.  And we’re not really told why, not clearly.  So, what’s a closet theologian to do?  Stand on the holy mercy of our Omniscient Master.  He’s got it covered, and typically does so with mercy and compassion.

What’s your view through the fence this day?

What’s the Problem?

So Israel was brought very low because of Midian, and the sons of Israel cried to the LORD.  Now it came about when the sons of Israel cried to the LORD on account of Midian, that the LORD sent a prophet to the sons of Israel, and he said to them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘It was I who brought you up from Egypt and brought you out from the house of slavery.  ‘I delivered you from the hands of the Egyptians and from the hands of all your oppressors, and dispossessed them before you and gave you their land, and I said to you, “I am the LORD your God; you shall not fear the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But you have not obeyed Me.”‘” (Judges 6:6-10 NASB)

Before we even get to the discussion between Yahweh and Gideon, we have this setup by the author of Judges.  It’s important to know, not only what God does for His people, but the condition they are in before He helps them.  It’s a big part of the author’s point to his audience.

So, what is the condition of God’s people?  They cry out to Yahweh because of the oppression of the nomads, and He sends a prophet with a scathing message.  The word from Yahweh to His people that He has kept His side of the covenant by bringing them out of Egypt and into the land, but they have not kept their part of the covenant by not fearing the local deities.  That wasn’t the only part of the covenant, but it was a key, repeated, element of it.

So, you would expect repentance.  You would think at this point, if they’re crying out to Yahweh, they would also put away the other gods, idols, altars, practices, and what not?  You would think they would change their minds and hearts to agree with God’s mind, search out His heart.  And yet, no.  In fact, they seem confused by the prophet.  Yahweh has done all this stuff, and told them to not fear the gods of the Amorites.  But they did.

See, you’d think the prophet would even wake them up, wouldn’t you?  Sure they cry out, but don’t get exactly what they’re doing wrong.  In that case they wouldn’t know how to repent.  But when the prophet delivers his message, they still seem baffled.  If you keep this part in your mind as you read the rest of the chapter, the heart condition of these people is nearly unfathomable.  It’s so wrong it’s baffling, it can’t possibly be that bad.

This setting for the rest of Gideon’s story is critical to the author’s point.  After all, if you’re going to make a point that God is, and has always been, gracious, wouldn’t a drastic contrast between His goodness and the people’s rebellion be a good illustration?  The author doesn’t use the term “grace”.  Instead, he shows Yahweh, the God of the Sons of Israel, being gracious.

This chapter especially, is the Creator of the universe rescuing this ridiculous people of His in spite of themselves.  They are so far gone, they don’t even know they’re gone.  They have no concept of their wayward, rebellious, and adulterous ways.  They are confused by why Yahweh would be upset with them in the first place.  They are blind to their sin, completely ignorant of the problem.

And, so are we.  We don’t really believe that the Bible should be taken seriously.  We don’t.  Don’t even try to act innocent.  I spend hours weekly sifting minutia in the original texts, and I don’t really take it seriously.  It’s not about how much we know or don’t know.  It’s not about what church we attend or translation of the Bible we use.

It’s about, when we read the Beatitudes, whether we truly put such attitudes ahead of our cultural attitudes Monday through Saturday.  It’s about whether, when we read about the cost of discipleship, whether we pay it or not.  It’s about whether we truly love God, the One having already sacrificed His only Son for us, with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength.  We don’t.  I know I don’t.  My behavior is evidence enough of that.

So, before we characterize these unfathomable clueless people as aberrant, perhaps we should stop, and see where we stand.  Let’s ask ourselves some tough questions, like, “Do I really believe the Bible?”, “Do I live like Jesus is first in my life?”, and perhaps ask our Master for that prophet to point out in us that blind spot in our relationship with Him.

Because here’s the thing, we will always have one more thing to work on in our relationship with Him.  But, His grace to us is evidenced in that, while we wander cluelessly, He preserves our relationship with Him.  This isn’t about being good enough for Him, it’s about clinging to the One having already loved us unfathomably.

How ridiculously obtuse is it of us to consider anything of the stuff of this earth to be of any value compared to our relationship with Him?  And yet we let our relationship with Him languish, while we pursue one more thing of this world.  Silly people, let’s put things back in proper order.  Let’s do it, not because He will punish us if we don’t, but because He has already rescued us from punishment.

That’s my view through this knothole this morning.  What do you see of our Master through yours?

Great Commissions

“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”  And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.  While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.  And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising God.  (Luke 24:49-53 NASB)

When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.  And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:17-20 NASB)

Have you ever been bored?  When we consider that we’ve got all the people-groups of the world in whom to make disciples, how could we be bored.  And yet, I’m bored more often than I care to admit.  How can that be?

The “Great Commission” of Matthew 28 has a counterpart in Luke24.  While the one in Matthew is familiar, we often miss some important elements.  For instance, we’re supposed to go and make disciples.  If you would like some clarity on what that means, check out my blog entry on the topic of disciples here.  It’s not as nice and easy as it might sound.

In Luke 24, the commission sounds slightly different.  In verses 47 through 48, the commission is to proclaim repentance into forgiveness of sins to all nations in His name.  The concept of “disciples” isn’t mentioned.  That the proclamation goes into all nations is consistent.  In reality, though, repentance is what disciples do, and do for the rest of their time here on earth.  So, actually, the two commissions have more in common than appears on the surface.

All this to come back around to my original question.  Have you ever been bored?  As I mentioned, I am bored in a shameful frequency.  The sad truth is that those living close to me are probably not disciples, nor have they had “repentance into forgiveness” proclaimed to them.  At least they haven’t heard this from me.

I’m simply thinking that I can’t be bored while my neighbors haven’t heard.  If they’ve heard and reject, that’s one thing.  But if I haven’t even tried, then why would I be bored? If I really believe Jesus is all I teach in this blog, then I should be busier telling others about repentance into forgiveness.

What’s your view through your knothole this morning?

Passion Week XXIV

But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed.  The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.”  And he went out and wept bitterly.

Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?”  And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. (Luke 22:60-65 NASB)

Only in Luke does Jesus look directly at Peter when the rooster crows.  It’s probably a literary device for heightened dramatic effect.  But it’s also inspired Scripture.  To ask if Jesus did or didn’t misses the point.  The point is made in the combination of verses 31 through 34 with these verses.  Yes, Jesus predicted Peter’s denial.  But He also prayed for Peter’s faith, that he would return and strengthen his brothers.  Left by itself, without the additional context of verses 31 through 34, this can seem to be Jesus’ accusing stare.  But with the context it can be better understood as Jesus’ understanding and encouraging stare.

Peter had wandered away from his intent in the courtyard.  He had been sifted like wheat.  It was brutal.  It was a testing few of us have had to endure with such stakes.  Arguments can be made that he didn’t have the Holy Spirit at the time; Peter didn’t have the death, burial, and resurrection to bolster his understanding at the time; or whatever we can come up with to explain Peter’s struggle in the courtyard.  Whatever our explanation, the truth is that he failed to acknowledge his relationship with Jesus, and so have we.  The additional truth is that Jesus already saw that part, but looked forward to Peter’s return, and so He does with us.

What I gain from this is a view of something my Master has given me as a purpose.  He has told me that I am to wait, worship, and walk before Him.  Part of the truth of that third element is that, when I too fail, my Master looks right at me.  When I fail, my Master locks eyes with me.  He doesn’t turn away.  He doesn’t ignore what I did.  He doesn’t point a finger, but looks into my eyes, the windows of my soul.  And I believe He acknowledges that it’s time for the next step, returning.  His look is not accusatory, not a look of disappointment, not a look of disdain or rejection.  His look is one of understanding and invitation.  It’s time to return.  This is part of “walking before Him”, not that I won’t fail as I do, but that as I fail in in His presence, He calls me back.

Peter remembers his Master predicting his failure.  He leaves and weeps bitterly.  But he returns.  In the moment, it’s not about his return.  In the moment the rooster crows, and Jesus looks into his eyes, all Peter can think of is his failure.  He was sifted and found lacking.  The accuser shouts in his head that he failed, and is not worthy to even follow Jesus, perhaps even that what’s happening to Jesus is somehow Peter’s fault.  He weeps bitterly.  Judas will feel remorse and weep bitterly, but from there the paths diverge.  Peter returns and strengthens his brothers.  Judas does not.  Both betrayed Jesus in a sense.  But only one returned.

Feel the stare of Jesus.  Look into His eyes.  When you fail, stumble, or fall, what will you do?  Will you look into the eyes of Jesus and think only of your failure?  Or will you hear His voice calling you back, and when you have returned, strengthen your family of fellow believers?  It’s okay that your failure distracts you and to weep bitterly.  But don’t let it consume you.  Your Master calls you back.  We need your strengthening.

I was going to go on about how ironic it was for the guards to ask Jesus to prophesy who hit Him.  He had just had a recent prediction come to completion with Peter’s denial.  But this sort of wrote itself.  It was ironic.  I’ll leave it at that.  Now, Jesus is calling you back.  What will you do?

What’s your view of Jesus through your knothole?

Passion Week XXIII

Having arrested Him, they led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest; but Peter was following at a distance.  After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them.  And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, “This man was with Him too.”  But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know Him.”  A little later, another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!”  After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.”  But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed.  (Luke 22:54-60 NASB)

This is perhaps one of the most striking depictions of Peter in Scripture.  It is so important to the good news of salvation through Jesus that it makes it into every Gospel record.  Each is different, but each records a version of it.  Isn’t it interesting that Peter’s denial of Jesus is given such importance?  Why would that be?  Why is Peter’s failure to follow Jesus all the way to the cross so important?  It wasn’t like he was unique among the other disciples, none of them went to the cross with Jesus either.  They all fled Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested.

But Peter is caught between what he wants to be, knows he should be, and his fears.  He’s close, but afraid to be closer.  He wants to know what’s happening, what will happen, but not willing to endanger himself.  In John the ironies are pronounced as John lets Jesus in and is there as well, but isn’t bothered.  People already know him, and seem to have no problem with him.  But Peter fears being known and associated with Jesus.

Peter finds it easier to deny his association than risk not knowing what happens to Jesus.  But then the denials become the focus, and he’s less concerned about knowing what happens.  Eventually Peter discovers he’s sold out just as predicted, and leaves, not knowing what happens to Jesus.  He fails to get what he wants by trying to protect his getting what he wants.   He wants to be that strong follower of Jesus, to be that one who goes to the very end.  But Peter discovers that he doesn’t have it in him.

How is this not a depiction of us?   Which of us has not denied our association with Jesus for far less?   When have we’ve resisted bringing up our faith in conversations with our neighbors and family, or perhaps we’ve skipped church or personal time with Jesus to be around our friends, go on a vacation, or have “family time”?  How often have we made clear our priorities, and where our relationship with Jesus falls in those priorities, when we subordinated Jesus to everyone else in our life?

Jesus loves us.  He’ll understand and forgive.  We can treat Him this way.  We somehow convince ourselves we get away with it.  Think about that.  What does that even mean?  How do we get away with it?   Can we really have convinced ourselves that we can suffer no consequences for living with Jesus as a minimal priority?  Seriously?

Peter understood and wept bitterly when he discovered what he had done.  He felt remorse.  But more, he returned to the disciples.  In the beginning of the song, What if I stumble by DC Talk, Brennan Manning can be heard saying,

The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him with their lifestyle.   That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

So, yes, Peter denies Jesus three times, just as Jesus said he would.  And so do we.  The question for Peter was what he would do with that failure.  And so it is for us.  Will we continue to live in that manner, or feel remorse but go no further than feeling?  Or will we, like Peter return to our brothers and sisters to strengthen them?  Jesus has prayed for us, and continues to pray for us, that our faith might be strengthened.

Jesus wants us to return after failure.  He doesn’t want us to remain in the failure, believing that His understanding us means there will be no consequences.  He wants us to treasure our relationship with Him so highly that everything that endangers that relationship is too much for us to bear.  Jesus wants the loss or diminishing of our relationship with Him to be consequence enough.  But in case you believe that there would be nothing beyond that, please read this:

“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.  But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32-33 NASB)

Brennan Manning’s statement may be sobering, but please let this be terrifying.  Do we we really think risking being denied before the Father in heaven is worth whatever discomfort we avoid here?  It certainly isn’t comfortable to deny Jesus with our lives.  For a while it nags at us.  Fear the day it stops nagging at us.  Return!  If we deny Him three times, return!  If we live as if we are dead, return!  If we have chosen to drift with the current of this world, return!  Return to Him, and He will rescue us.  Return to Him and His love will extend to us.  He will restore those who return, He will certainly do it.  But we must return.  We must.

That’s my view through this knothole.  What do you learn of our Master from Peter?

Forgiveness

“Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” (Luke 17:3-4 NASB)

Forgiveness is one of those things Christians are supposed to do that we work really hard to find a way around.  I think we normally ignore the requirement.  Sometimes, increasing our depth of commitment to Jesus, we redefine forgiveness so that we are able to do it.  Rarely do we truly forgive as Jesus intended nor with the the frequency or priority that He places on it.  Rarely.  In fact, we’ve probably done so much damage to the concept few of us really understand it any more.

Boundaries is a book and a teaching by Henry Cloud and John Townsend in which they teach how to set appropriate boundaries in our relationships with others and ourselves.  It’s actually quite biblical.  Few have read it.  Many use the term, and most misuse the term.  Boundaries have become our favorite method of “side-stepping” forgiveness.  We don’t forgive because we can’t let someone violate our boundaries.  Or we redefine forgiveness so that we can say we have forgiven yet not violated our boundaries.

The reality is that we have set up walls and Cloud and Townsend taught that boundaries are to be fences; fences with gates.  The truth is that Cloud and Townsend teach about forgiveness in the book and how to forgive with appropriate boundaries.  The reality they point out is that unless we forgive, we actually keep stuff that isn’t ours inside our boundaries.  Forgiving is setting and maintaining appropriate boundaries.  But we fear and the fear supersedes the teaching of Jesus in Scripture.

The word forgiveness in Greek is “aphiemi”, which has a basic meaning of “to send away”.  It’s used for cancelling debt (to send the amount owed away), leave (to go away), abandon (to leave someone), send away, to divorce (to send away a wife/spouse), and to forgive.  Think about the irony in that forgiveness is the same word used for divorce.  The meaning is really derived from what is being sent away.  And I believe Jesus teaches pretty clearly what we are to send away in order to forgive.

Matthew 18 has Peter asking how many times should he forgive, suggesting 49 times.  Jesus pushes the number to 490.  But He also ties forgiveness to being forgiven by God.  That was probably as unexpected as the 490.  In Matthew 6, in explaining the Model Prayer, Jesus says that if we do not forgive we will not be forgiven.  So in Luke we see this simple summary of Matthew’s expansion in chapter 18.  Someone repents seven times, forgive seven times.  Think that through.  That would mean we would forgive repeat offenders.

Forgiveness isn’t simply something that we should do because it’s ‘good’.  Forgiveness is something we should do because it’s necessary.   Forgiveness is necessary for us to be disciples of Jesus.  What else do you think Jesus meant when He said that we would not be forgiven if we don’t forgive?  However you answer that, the answer has to include not being His disciple.  In such a case, repentance would be to forgive the person we had refused to forgive. In that case forgiveness would be ours as well.  Forgiveness is tied to repentance so closely as to be dependent. But it’s often our own repentance rather than another’s.

I believe Jesus calls us, as His disciples, to send away our resentments.  Resentments are kept on the roll-call of grievances we hold against others.  These resentments define other people in our minds and hearts.  Other people, like we us, grow and develop, and deepen their walk with Jesus.  That roll-call of grievances refuses to permit Jesus to define them for us.  We only see them as they were, not as the Holy Spirit is transforming them now.  We refuse to acknowledge their growth.

Such a view doesn’t prevent them from growing, but it does make their growth more difficult; to the degree of our continued proximity to them.  So you have a good idea of the severity of this problem, check out verses 1 and 2 of this chapter.  It would be better for the unforgiving one to swim with a millstone.  And I suspect that for us who struggle to forgive, it is a lot like swimming with a millstone.  Jesus calls us to send the rock away and swim freely with our fellow forgiven disciples.

So, that’s one view through a knothole.  What do you see and learn from these verses?