Eventually…

 Eventually, stuff works out. Below is a picture I took of the planet Mars. As I said last week, a big white spot.

It would probably be more interesting if you could see the stars around it, but that was difficult because this was just to the right of it:

And the focus on these was difficult because of distortion in the air, so this is all I was able to get.

You see, eventually, things work out. And, that is true for everything. The cliche is that “all things come to an end”. Not just good things come to an end, but all things. Eventually, there will be this event where the Creator of the universe sits on a throne to judge, and heaven and earth will flee from him, and find no hiding place…I know, right? What will that look like?

There will be a day when books will be opened, and another book will be opened. John described it this way:

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:11-15 NASB

Books were opened, and everyone, great and small, were judged by what was written in “the books”. But, at the end of the process, it didn’t depend on what was in the books, but whether your name is written in the Book of Life. Are you alive? That’s what counts.

I have been reading a book that explores theology using the Peanuts cartoons as illustrations. I was pretty intrigued by it until the author makes this case that there is no future hell, and everyone goes to heaven. Nice idea, but not Scriptural. He tries to make it so, but the problem is that his attempts are to reconcile his idea of what a “god of love” would do, rather than accept the self-revelation of the God who is love.

So, this author and I differ on that view. Eventually, we’ll know which of us is right. One day we’ll stand before this massive white throne, and our judge will be the God who is, rather the one of our imaginations. Maybe we will both be wrong, having both worshipped different gods of our imagination.

I’m trying to perceive the God revealing Himself through Scripture, and I’m relying on my hope that He won’t judge too closely on accuracy. I’ve given up on understanding Him, and now work on accepting Him as I perceive Him. Eventually, I will see Him as He is. I doubt I will understand Him, even then. And, I hope my exercise in acceptance of Him will pay off as I grapple with that “up close and personal” experience of His presence.

I hear it’s good to have goals…

Advertisement

Limiting Vengeance

My family, on my dad’s side hales from West Virginia, the land of a famous feud between the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s. It became legendary, and legend suggests it started over a pig, or something equally ridiculous. I now live in a place that had another such feud between families around the turn of the 20th-century. Two settler families hurt and killed one another over river ferry rights. It went on for over 20 years, and now neither family lives in the area.

Vengeance resonates with us, and the role of a “family avenger” goes back thousands of years, well past any sense of “honor”, back to family duty. But, it was supposed to be about justice, not angry vengeance. It was about balance, not just angry aggression. That’s difficult to do when we are wronged, when someone we love is taken from us by another. In our grief we are angry, at the loss, at the pain caused by another, and the fear it could happen again. And in response to these emotions, we want to make sure it never happens to us again.

That is not the way of our Creator. His way is significantly different, and a lot more sensible.

“If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.

Exodus 21:18,19 NASB

I love that phrase, “…he who struck him shall go unpunished”. Think about that. No vengeance for wounding someone. No city of refuge. The only requirement is to pay for his lost wages, and care for him until he recovers. That makes sense. In our day, we have insurance for such things, and don’t even think about it. We go to court to sue, seeking damages, and penalties, but here, we see God’s perspective is to restore balance. In our courts, vengeance seems to reign. But that isn’t the perspective of a disciple of Jesus.

“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Exodus 21:20,21 NASB

This one is more difficult. Here, the status of a slave, something God protected in the first law we looked at, appears relegated to “property”, yet only if injured. If the “owner” kills the slave, the law of the family avenger (blood redeemer) comes into play, along with the city of refuge, and so on. Owning a slave doesn’t entitle the owner to the life, only to the work the slave performs, and if the slave dies due to treatment, the owner is either treated as a murder, or at the minimum, is out all he paid for the person’s work.

It still seems harsh to our 21st-Century sensibilities that if the slave dies after a few days (the damage isn’t that bad), there is no punishment. Now I’m not loving that phrase as much. I don’t like thinking that this debt-slavery issue relegates this fellow Hebrew to property. Clearly, the protection and status of such slavery is limited, even by our Creator. The practice of indenturing isn’t a great institution after all. Our Creator and Savior limits the bad effects, but it’s still bad. On the other hand, wait for tomorrow.

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

Exodus 21:22,23 NASB

Does anyone else wonder how often this happened? Is it really enough that it winds up in the legal code? But think through the concepts at work. The life of the infant is what is at issue. If the infant dies, then the incident is handled as a killing. If it is injury, then the family and judges decide the penalty, but with limits. This next statement, in my opinion, is the point of the capital punishment and limiting laws.

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:23-25 NASB

The point is that the penalty does not exceed the crime. The feuding between families happens when the penalty exceeds the crime, or there is no penalty for a crime. When balance becomes crucial, “Capulet-and-Montague” problems can be avoided. And, unfortunately, this is a problem for churches as well. It’s a sad irony, but those confessing Jesus as Lord still succumb to this problem. It happens because of unforgiveness, bitterness, and a failure to live out the lordship of Jesus.

Where have you, perhaps, held resentment, and wanted revenge rather than justice? Where might you need to forgive? Or, where have you failed to punish equitably? Do you need to address a sin which you have let pass? When we, as a community of disciples of Jesus, are commanded to love each other, hold each other accountable, and correct our fellow disciples. In doing so, we help each other on the path of discipleship, leaning on each other as we strive for the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

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

Passion Week XXX

And following Him was a large crowd of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him.  But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.  For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’  Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, ‘FALL ON US,’ AND TO THE HILLS, ‘COVER US.’  For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:27-31 NASB)

My dad had a saying, probably shared by thousands of other followers of Jesus, “It’s not the things I don’t understand in the Bible that bother me, it’s the things I do understand.”  This passage really fits into one of those “don’t understand” categories, but it does bother me.

Mourner was an actually profession in first century Judea.  So, as someone approaches their death, people mourning them was not unusual, some were even paid for it.  It was not necessarily typical for those going to their execution.  Considering that the crowds of Jerusalem have more or less turned against Jesus, this isn’t expected.  And Luke is the only Gospel writer who preserves this detail.

Even more surprising than the mourners is the response of Jesus.  By all accounts (except for Luke) He has been scourged, and even in Luke, He can’t carry His own cross.  In this weakened state, He still takes a moment to have this lengthy discourse with these women?  It just seems out of place.  Although it wouldn’t fit somewhere else either.

The mourners are surprising.  That Jesus takes the time for this discourse is surprising.  And then what He says is, well it’s at least confusing, if not surprising.  Jesus tells the mourners to wail for themselves and their children.  The days are coming when those with children will be considered cursed, rather than the barren women considered cursed.  The barren won’t have to see the end of their own children.

If you look at a reference Bible, you may be sent to Isaiah 2, or Hosea 10, or both.  In Isaiah, Jerusalem (daughters of Jerusalem are the ones mourning) is prophesied against.  But the rocks and hills aren’t falling on them.  In Hosea, the Northern 10 Tribes of Israel (Samaria) are being prophesied against, and here the people want the rocks and hills to fall on them to hide them from God.

Jesus’ reference could simply be a commonly phrased prophecy which He is pronouncing on Jerusalem.  Or He could be using a phrase understood as pertaining to Samaria on Jerusalem to make clear He means the whole country, not just the city of Jerusalem.  Because He refers to the women as “daughters of Jerusalem”, it’s most likely the first option.  Either way, a bad day is approaching.  So, once again, we have a prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction in Luke.  That makes three (19:41-44; 21:5,6,20-24; 23:28-31).  For some commentators, this indicates to them that Luke was written after AD 70, and he is partially explaining why it happened to the Jews.  I’m not convinced, even with the detail Luke includes.

Jesus then completes His discourse with the cryptic, “For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it’s dry?”  Who is “they”? The “things” are probably His crucifixion, or at least His rejection by the religious leaders.  When is the “tree green”, and when is the “tree dry”?  The time of the “green tree” is while Jesus is among them, available as a tangible object of faith.  After His resurrection and ascension, would then be the “dry” time.  But that’s not necessarily the best option.  If the ‘things’ are what’s happening then, then the tree is green right then.  So, if it has to do with Jesus’ presence, what about His presence makes the tree green?

Green trees are alive, or at least not dormant for winter.  Dry trees could be either dead or dormant.  Green trees will produce fruit, while dry trees won’t.  Perhaps the timing is defined by the availability of fruit?  In any case, whichever option is used to define the “green” versus “dry” time, Jesus says the time is coming on them.  If He is referring to the destruction in AD 70, then the “green” time is when He is physically among them, and the “dry” time is after He ascends to the Father.

Having said all that, notice that the blame for what comes is left on the “they”.  “If they do this when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”  What will happen logically follows what they are doing now.  Luke is saying that the destruction of Jerusalem is judgement for Jerusalem’s rejection of Jesus.  He is crucified for the sins of the world, and the city responsible for carrying that out is judged by God and destroyed.

If Jesus is referring to Hosea earlier, then also tucked away in that chapter is this statement “Sow for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is time to seek the Yahweh, that He may come and rain righteousness upon you.” (Hos. 10:12)  Even in the midst of a judgement prophecy, there is a call to repent, there is another option than being destroyed.

That’s my “partial” view through the knothole this morning.  What’s yours?

 

Passion Week II

When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44 NASB)

Why would God hide “the things that would make for peace” from His own people, from the ones living in the city where His name dwells?  She did not recognize the day of her “visitation”.  Essentially, Jerusalem didn’t recognize Jesus.  But in what way?  They’re partying now, with Passover and tons of pilgrims everywhere, and now Jesus coming, it’s on.  And yet there was something that was missed; a massive “oversight”.

Only Luke has this prediction with specifics of the demise of Jerusalem.  “Scholars” are often quick to point out that this indicates that Luke was written late (after the destruction of Jerusalem). But this can’t be proof, as a record of Jesus’ words would have been in existence before the destruction.  The whole “let the reader understand” comment in Matthew and Mark doesn’t seem to indicate that, and yet stems from the same sort of prediction.  At least that’s how the church in Jerusalem took it, and disappeared once the Romans broke through into the Temple.

Yet Jesus is specific about both the way Jerusalem falls, and the reason.  She fails to recognize Jesus; specifically, who He is has been hidden from her.  In other contexts it’s clear that God Himself hides this sort of information.  But here it could be the culture or religious leaders, or political climate, or any number of things not mentioned.  In any case, Luke still points out she’s been “duped”, something was hidden from her, she’s a victim; of sorts.

Jesus refers to what was missed in two ways.  First He refers to “the things toward peace” in verse 42.  But then in verse 44 He says, “against which you did not know the opportune time of your oversight.”  That last word is the Greek word from which we get “episcopal”, yet it is nearly universally translated as “visitation” here.  So how does “overseer” or “bishop” get translated as “visitation”, and everyone’s okay with this?  The two aren’t even related…are they?

Back in the day, when the church I was pastoring was clamoring about me not “visiting” enough, I did a word study on church leadership.  I was fine until I included the Hebrew Scriptures in my study.  At that point, my argument that “visiting” was their job not mine fell to pieces.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word for the office and practice of those in religious leadership was a very familiar word to me.  It sounded like pa-KAD, but it meant “to visit”.  It was used in Hebrew class to teach both the declension of nouns and the parsing of verbs because it had both forms.

It was disturbing for me because it has such an enormous range of meaning.  It refers to the “visitation of God” which should terrify His people.  And it also refers to the exercising of leadership (specifically in a religious or prophetic office) over His people.  It wasn’t always a positive thing, it more often tied to “judgement” than consolation.  On the other hand it was also often tied to consolation.  So, both things were a part of why it was used to refer to the activity and title of the leadership office.

When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, in cases where “to visit” was related to the leadership office, it was translated as “episcopal” in Greek, even when it was a verb.  So, we have this very consistent extension of meaning for the word from Hebrew usage and tradition.  It is an extension because typical Greek usage saw it as a leadership office and wouldn’t tie it to a “visit” necessarily.

Okay, as my wife will say so often, “so what?”  Well, here it is: Jesus’ visitation wasn’t just to die on the cross.  There existed the possibility that the nation of Israel could have rallied around Him, recognizing Him as the Messiah they had been looking for.  I believe that, in that case, Jesus would have still died on the cross, just not out of the betrayal of His people.  There existed the possibility of the redemption of Israel right there at that Passover feast.

This is not a “slam” on the Jews, then or now.  It’s a lesson I must learn.  What am I in danger of missing for some of the same reasons they did?  What distracts me today that perhaps distracted them then?  What am I in danger of missing from God?  Is He “visiting” me and I’m missing His presence?  This is the question that brings me to my knees, and leads me deeper into my Master’s presence.  This is where He has more of me and I have less of me.  If I focus on them and refuse to learn from them, then I have let pride and arrogance cloud my vision, and the things toward peace are hidden from me.

That is my view through the fence.  What does your knothole reveal to you?

Striving For The Narrow Door

“Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.  Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’  Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’;  and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’  In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.”  (Luke 13:24-28 NASB)

We quote that it is by grace we are saved, not works.  And this is true, and extremely important.  Yet the Apostle Paul was very clear about how hard he worked for his salvation (see Philippians 3).  He knew he was saved, that he couldn’t trade his salvation even for his own people, and he knew that he was loved and excepted by Jesus.  But he worked in the Kingdom of God as if he wasn’t.  He worked, as it were, for his salvation.

Jesus says here to “strive to enter”; to work hard, get sweaty.  He’s talking about the Kingdom of God, and He says many will seek to enter, in the future, not necessarily now.  But then, in the future it will be too late.  The door will be shut, and the master of the house (I’m thinking God) will not recognize their origin, where they are from.  The thing they think gets them in, their origin, will not be recognized.  There will be those who thought that because Jesus taught in their streets, and because they ate with Him, they should be obvious shoe-in’s for the Kingdom, yet are shut out.

The key here, which is different than the key in the parallel in Matthew 7, is that the narrow door is found through striving.  But the what keeps those outside on the outside is that they did not really know Jesus.  He taught in their streets, they ate with Him, but didn’t know Him.  They figured it was enough that they hang out with Him from time to time, but it wasn’t.  He refused to recognize where they were from, and even calls them those who work unrighteousness (perform deeds contrary to righteousness or outside a relationship with God).  This should shake us up.  It scare the willies out me.

The Kingdom of God is found through striving to enter the narrow door.  It may not be popular right now, but it will be; after it’s too late.  Having heard the gospel isn’t enough.  Having shared a meal with Jesus isn’t enough.  The question plaguing me is how hard am I striving for that narrow door?  Does my life look like Paul’s?  Do I push on for the upward call of Christ?  Or am I mired in the things of this world?  Do I get so distracted by work, family, and even “church” that my relationship with my Master becomes another set of tasks?  I ate with Him, check that off.  I heard a sermon, check that off.  I did whatever, check that off.  What have I done to get into His presence?  And having been in His presence, what distracted me, and how hard am I trying to get back there?

Yes, my relationship with my family is important.  My relationship with my wife is primary among all my other human relationships  I have on earth.  And I do need to characterize Jesus as I relate to others.  But don’t I also in doing so have to do as He did in those relationships?  Jesus wasn’t “nice” to everyone.  He wasn’t, and it doesn’t take much study to see that.  Jesus didn’t try to please everyone, didn’t accommodate His preaching to everyone, didn’t tell some to repent but not others lest He offend them.  He said, “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”  In other words, “Change your mind to agree with God’s mind because His authority over all things is coming.”  The truth is that a day is coming when the narrow door will be shut.  Those inside the door will be the ones who strove to please their Maker.  Don’t my neighbors need to know that?

I see a scary passage here.  What do you see?

Fearless Transmission of the Kingdom of God

But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’  I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.  Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.  But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.  And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.  The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”  (Luke 10:10-16 ESV)

Rejection.  We fear it.  It’s a defensive part of volleyball and basketball.  We do it in fear and pain.  Rejection is a powerful human action.  In a sense, it’s also a divine action.  While the word is not used, the action of not regarding the sacrifice of Cain was rejection of the sacrifice.  But also keep in mind that God continued to speak with Cain.  It was rejection of his sacrifice, not of Cain, not until later after he killed Abel.

Here in this passage, rejection is referred to as “rejection” but also in terms of not being received.  And Jesus reserves a harsh judgement for such activity.  Consider that for a moment.  Rejection and harsh judgement are things we are not terribly comfortable with.  We fear them both.  Yet these woes and judgements of Jesus were to be encouragement to the seventy He was sending out.  In the face of rejection, the seventy were to respond with a challenge to the village.  Shaking the dust from the feet, but also a call that the Kingdom of God has come near regardless of your rejection.

The truth is I fear rejection.  I fear what others think of me.  And I shouldn’t.  Think about it sure, but fear it, no.  There’s no cause for me to fear it.  The truth is that when I bring the Kingdom of God near to others, they become responsible to receive or reject.  In a sense I have brought them to a terrible precipice.  The judgement they incur on themselves when they reject the Kingdom is severe.  Yet notice that the judgement is for the “day”.  In other words, once the Kingdom comes near, even should they reject it, they have time.  They can repent, change their minds.

So bringing the Kingdom of God near to people is both a danger to them, but also a hope.  They may reject, but they may, after rejecting, repent.  Yet all I can think of is myself, how will I feel, what if they don’t like me, how uncomfortable with I be, and so on in additional nauseating procession.  I want to be thought well of by others.  Well phoey on that!  Who cares?  While that’s easy to say and to write, it’s hard for me to live out.  But I must.  It’s not an option, it’s an imperative.  I must live out fearless transmission of the Kingdom of God to those around me.  For the Kingdom of God has indeed come near to them.  They need to know that.

I need to change.  What do you need to do?  What’s your view through the knothole?