On dismissing the contradictory Christ

Today's readings included a segment of Matthew chapter 23, which takes place immediately before the seven woes that Jesus delivers in judgement against the hypocritical pharisees:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. 

This puzzles me.

I've grown accustomed to his contradictory behaviors, breaking laws and advising that his followers break commandments.


What confuses me is how Christians, particularly of the Bible Alone style, handle this demand of Christ.

If you've been following this blog, you'll know that the question of how Christians are called to follow the law which Christ fulfilled is something I wrestle with. For many Evangelical Christians, they reject the difficulty, dismissing the many examples of conflicting instruction. Often this is handled with a statement like "Oh, he obviously meant such and such."

I'm often quite OK with the justification offered for what he meant, and even agree with it. But that doesn't change the reality of the contradiction.

It's usually a bit more veiled, but today's passage puts it right out there. Jesus himself says not only for his followers to continue obeying the law, but in fact to do EVERYTHING the law wielders tell us.

So how does the sola scriptura crowd handle this? Why are they not acting as observant Jews?

Christians wave a hand around muttering something about old testament versus new, and show that Jesus told Peter we could eat pork. But they ignore what this reality illustrates: it is not straight forward.

Jesus broke laws and told us to break others. We as Christians have cast off countless laws throughout the centuries, but remain steadfast in proclaiming that people will burn in hell if breaking whatever subset a particular denomination or church believes are still in play.

I don't have an answer to the conundrum. I just wish more Christians admitted that it exists.

What is fulfillment of the law?

Gal 5:¹⁴ For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

5:1 ^[a]It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

² Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. ³ And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. ⁴ You have been severed from Christ, you who ^[b]are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. ⁵ For we ^[c]through the Spirit, ^[d]by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Matt 5:17-20 

Throughout the history of Israel, a pattern is set in play. A promise is given, with qualifications. (Were there qualifications for Abraham?) It was in play when Moses handed the reins over to Joshua, when Joshua took over the promised land, at the end of Joshua's days, and when David died and God promised him that heirs would sit over the kingdom forever IF his descendants followed all the law. 

The model kicks off in Deut 31, when Moses says that Joshua will succeed him. "Be strong and bold is said 3 times.  31:24 When Moses had finished writing down in a book he words of this law to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying 26 Take this book of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God; let it remain there as a witness against you."

In Deut 32, Moses is told that he will die in the sight of the promised land "because both of you broke faith with me among the Israelites at the waters of Meribath-kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, by failing to maintain my holiness among the Israelites. 44: Moses came and recited all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he and Joshua son of Nun. 45 When Moses had finished reciting all these words to all Israel, 46 he said to them: "Take to heart all the words that I am giving in witness against you today; give them as a command to your children, so that they may diligently observe all the words of the law. 47 This is no trifling matter for you, but rather your very life; through it you may live long in the land that you are crossing over the Jordan to possess."

Deut 34:4 "This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there." 

Earlier stuff Deut 6: Now this is the commandment--the statues and the ordinances--that the Lord your God charge me to teach you to observe in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy, 2 so that you and your children and your children's children may fear the Lord your God all the days of your life, and keep all his decrees and his commandments that I am commanding you, so that your days may be long. 3 Hear therefore, O Isreael, and observe the diligently, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may multiply greatly in a land flowing with mild and honey, as the Lord the God of your ancestors, has promised you." Deut 29:9Therefore diligently observe the words of this covenant in order that you may succeed in everything that you do.

Similar references Deut: 4:29, 6:2, 8:6, 9:5, 11:1. Deut 17:18 When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him int he presence of the Levitical priests. 19 It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statues... so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.

Ps 132:11

¹¹ The Lord swore to David a sure oath
    from which he will not turn back:
“One of the sons of your body^[a]
    I will set on your throne.
¹² If your sons keep my covenant
    and my testimonies that I shall teach them,
their sons also forever
    shall sit on your throne.”

This is repeated throughout the chapter and subsequent chapters. The promise is connected to the complete fulfillment of the law.

Joshua 1:6 Be strong and courageous, for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give the. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, so that you may be successful wherever yo go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day an night so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful. I hereby command you: be strong and courageous; do no be frighted or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.  

In Joshua 23, Joshua is old. V6 Therefore be very steadfast to observe and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right nor to the left, 7 so that you may not be mixed... Check out chapter 23 as well. 23:25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made statutes and ordinances for them at Shechem. 26 Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak in the sanctuary of the Lord. 27 Joshua said to all the people, "See this stone shall be a witness against us; for it has heard all the words of the Lord that he spoke to us; therefore it shall be a witness against you, if you deal falsely with your God." 

In 1 Kings 2, David grows old and instructs Solomon. 2 Be strong, be courageous, 3 and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statues, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn. 4 Then the Lord will establish his word that he spoke concerning me: "if your heirs take heed to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel."

2 Sam 7 is God talking to David about building him a house, however does not list a condition of obedience. This seems to be in isolation compared with the rest.

(Are there more examples?)

Jesus turned that model on its ear. He said that HE had come to fulfill it. Prior to that, WE were asked to fulfill it. Now He was there. And the price exacted for inheriting the kingdom, the land, eternal reward was faith and love. 

"Intrinsically disordered": Isn't everyone?

Fall of Man and the Lamentation, (c1480), Hugo van der Goes

I've been thinking about the Roman Catholic use of the phrase "intrinsically disordered" to describe homosexuality.

And I've been wondering how much it differs in meaning from the bottom-line of "original sin".

In essence, it seems, very little.

Which would God choose?

Recent discussions following the Grammy award weddings prompted some thought about who God is, and about his view on what relationship is supposed to be about. And so I ask the question:

Of the two scenarios below, which would the Christian God of love prefer? Which represents this God better?

A heterosexual couple who are married in the church, treat each other with disdain, lie and cheat and dishonor one another, hide what little light they embrace under a bushel, and show the world that marriage is a bitter pill to swallow.

or

A same sex couple who treat each other with respect, live life together joyfully, mutually commit to truth and fidelity, study God's word together, worship together, serve their church together, and act as bearers of light and life, and carriers of the good news.

Obviously not all opposite sex couples fit the first profile, nor same sex couples the second. But there are examples of both types, in both types. So of these two, which better matches the Biblical example of Godly love?

Liturgy of the Grammy Awards

I watched part of the Grammy awards the other night, including the group wedding conducted at the end. The next day I read the following thought provoking commentary by David Fitch about the event:

It offers some interesting insights into the culture's look at love, and therefore, marriage.

Definitely worth a read.

Wash and pray

Last night's Holy Thursday service was a gorgeous mix of joy and sorrow. We celebrated the institution of the Eucharist and the new priesthood. We washed feet and were washed. We watched the stripping of the altar. And then we mimicked the slow plod to Gethsemane.

We began in light, and ended in darkness. We closed by pretending we would want to stay with him in that garden, singing the Taize piece "Stay with me".

As usual, I wept during the foot washing, my unworthiness to be touched by Him profoundly evident, with pride the most heinous of many crimes.

After the service I thought about a Facebook discussion I'd had earlier in the day with evangelical Christians who preach fire and brimstone for those who support same sex marriage.

I thought about what Jesus did at that supper, and the model of love that He offered to us through it.

He knew that He was about to be betrayed, and by whom. He looked Judas in the eye and in the heart, and dipped His hand with Judas into the bowl. But He did more than just that.

He washed His betrayer's feet. He acted as servant and lover for one who He knew to be so horribly in the wrong.

It made me think.

What a beautiful thing it would be if those who preach judgement and condemnation of same sex relationships would instead get down on their knees publicly, as Jesus did, and say "Let me humble myself. Let me be a servant to you."

Would not this be a more fitting way to stay with Him in the garden, watching and praying?

Please Lord, help me to be a washer of feet rather than a wielder of damnation.

Inerrant Scripture, Delivered by Errant Messengers

This week I've been contemplating the inerrancy of scripture.

Here's how Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation describes it:

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

After doing a bit of reading on the subject, it appears that some Christians believe that this inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, while others contend that it has been passed along through all the duplications and replications and translations.

An interesting argument, but I'm not going to take on either side of that debate. What I've been thinking about is what "without error" means.

Yesterday DiDi and I read scattered parts of 1 Corinthians, which prompted this thinking. Here we have Paul writing to the new Christians in Corinth, who have found themselves fractured between teachers with differing sets of rules and behaviors and interpretations they are to follow. You can almost hear Paul sighing as he writes, frustrated at the state they are in and their lack of teeth for chewing spiritual meat. Pouring out milk in the form of verbal slaps, periodically sweetened with a  sprinkle of encouragement.

He undoubtedly writes what is true. He tapped into the mind of Christ which he mentions in Chapter 2, and passed along what he thought the Corinthians needed to hear.

But just as I believe that some people confuse the Bible with God Himself, I think that some people confuse the inerrancy of scripture with the inerrancy of the individual writers.

Clearly they are not without error. In the case of this letter, Paul tells us that he himself is not innocent. In chapter 7 Paul admits several times that he is voicing his opinion rather than something that was given to him by the Lord. He is so convinced that the end is coming soon that he urges people not to marry (though he acknowledges that some of us are so weak that we can't help indulging and therefore better get hitched). And of course, we are still waiting for Christ to come again, thousands of years later. Paul believed that it was much better to live as he did, alone, celibate.
 
Are these things inerrantly true? For the purposes Paul tried to accomplish I would say yes, they were.

Are they the fullness of truth? No.

As the Vatican II document states, they were without error for that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided.

A subset of truth, those truths which God desired to be confided.

The letters were penned by people who did their best to channel the mind of Christ, to people who they assumed wanted to do the same. But those people were not perfect, at either end.

Imperfect people writing to imperfect people about perfect truth. Writing at that time, for that time, without error.

And now here we are, millenia later, reading Paul's words in chapter 11 about eating food which has been sacrificed to idols, and about how it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, and for women to pray with their head uncovered. Things which we disregard, believing them to be relics of the past, which no longer apply. Then we continue reading in the same chapter, words of the institution of the Eucharist, beautiful words which most Christians believe to be timelessly applicable.

Truth. Inerrant truth for specific purposes. Each word, each sentence completely without error, while not being globally true for every situation at every era.

Inerrant scripture yes, but delivered by errant messengers.

God's Imperfect Construct

I think I realized a major part of the problem for Christians in understanding how we are to view The Law.

For most Christians, the Bible is viewed as the inerrant word of God. If it's in the book, it is perfectly true and complete. It's veracity is ensured through the authorship of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not arguing that point, but I think this view of perfection has led to a misunderstanding. We have become confused, despite so many New Testament passages which attempt to explain it.

And what we are confused about is this; we think that because the Law of Moses is conveyed in a perfectly true book, the law itself must therefore be perfect.

Because of this, conservative Christians scramble their brains to figure out how the Law still remains completely intact, because it is perfect, while simultaneously believing that many of it's rules no longer apply. This requires rigorous mental gymnastics which inevitably result in an eventual internal dropping of the subject.

Here's a typical silent monolog:  

Jesus says He hasn't come to overturn the Law but to fulfill it, so that MUST mean it still stands, right? Expect for the bits that are discussed in Acts and the epistles, and those things that Jesus Himself did. Like circumcision, and not eating bacon. He did away with those. But if they weren't specifically mentioned in the New Testament, the laws still stand.

I DO wonder about the one related to cutting mens' hair... And the one about stoning disobedient children. And the one...
.
.
.
I should really go start a load of laundry.

We simply can't figure it out.

We think about it just long enough to realize that the concept doesn't actually make sense, and then we have to stop thinking about it, and sum it all up by saying that God knows best.

Which, of course, He does.

But I think this is all unnecessary, and it comes from a state of confusion about the Bible itself.

Somewhere along the line we have come to think that since scripture is perfect, the Law, which is in scripture, must also be perfect.

But that is not the case.

The Law was not perfect.

According to the scriptures, that is why Jesus came. Because of it's imperfection. When we read the law, we should not view it as a set of perfect instructions set down for us by God. We should view it as an imperfect construct put into place for a season.

And now that season has passed.

Here's how some passages from Hebrews explains it:

Heb. 8:1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. ...  5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

The law was imperfect. There were things wrong with it. But as Christ Himself said:

"It is finished."

It Has Been Accomplished

DiDi recently posted the following on Facebook:

John 1: 17 NIV "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." 

Seems simple, right? Thoughts?? 

 One of our friends responded, saying:

Fo' sure, but of course grace doesn't eliminate the law, not one bit.

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Not for me to define that, of course. Sin is between each man and his maker, and only resolved through renunciation and reconciliation. Where we get this daft idea that we're supposed to do a running commentary on everyone else's behavior is beyond me.

Here is my response.

Jesus spoke the words you quote as part of the sermon on the mount. But I read it differently than you do. While I won't argue about the phrase "not the smallest letter or least stroke will disappear", it's the "Until" part that I am focusing on. Because scripture tells us that Jesus DID the accomplishing.

John 4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to --finish-- his work.

John 17:1 When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth by --accomplishing-- the work that you gave me to do.

John 19:28 After this, aware that --everything was now finished--, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” 29 There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, --“It is finished.”-- And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. 

Gal 4:4-5 Brothers and sisters: When the --fullness of time-- had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

We know from Acts that letters and jots were being disregarded in the law, as directed by visions sent to the apostles, and as directed by the logic the same apostles applied to their work of evangelization.

And we know that God himself appeared to violate his own laws even prior to Jesus death through the institution of the Eucharist; His followers were commanded to drink blood, an instruction which clearly went against Jewish dietary rules. Jesus also broke the law many times by performing healings and taking other actions which violate Sabbath laws of behavior.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, not it's replacement. But everything --has been accomplished--, through Him.

The real question is, how does He want us to live, and what are the rules that should be maintained within the two greatest commandments?

Who is doing the judging, and what it is based on

For the past few months our morning meditations have centered around the books of Hebrews, James, and now, John. There is much in these books on old law versus new, and what it meant for Jesus to come in regard to judgement.

Today we looked at John 5. I was particularly drawn by the passages about Jesus as judge. For some reason, I never picked up on this before. I've always envisioned the Father as the judge, with Jesus as intermediary. But John 5 shed new light:

²⁷ And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

What a comforting thought. The one who tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and to love each other is the one who is going to evaluate our behavior.

Jesus goes on to remonstrate the pharisees who judged his healing of an invalid on the sabbath:

⁴⁵ “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

So Jesus will not accuse those who focus their attention on the dots and tittles of the law. The law itself will accuse them. As for Him, He will judge our love. 

There is much condemnation of same sex relationships based on scripture, especially Old Testament scripture. But if scripture alone is used as the basis of the argument, there is also much to show that the law is no longer what it once was. It is no longer what we must live by in some vain attempt to be righteous. The law will not be our accuser unless we set our hope in it. 
 
As Christians, we have the choice to set our hope in the law, or in Him who's mercy triumphs over judgement.

I set my hope in Him, and pray that He will judge me according to my love. And I pray that those Christians who structure so much of their faith around law, judging others based on the particular set of laws that they have chosen not to disregard, will have their hearts attuned to the words of Christ.