All these things that we do with an expectation of a return; we do it just right, we get a cosmic ‘Attaboy.

Of course, as a Christian, we don’t expect that the fates or the cosmos are doing anything like that—we push that up to God. We preach the right message, God will give an ‘attaboy: people will get saved. We make the right choices, the ones by the soft still voice, then God will give an ‘attaboy and prosper us, maybe not physically but definitely spiritually.

By the way, if you’re not picking up my sarcasm, I think this is false.

Oh, someone might say: we know, we know; spiritual blessings will definitely come in the next world. But we really know that Christ’s blessings come today, in general, when we do the right thing. We can point out Christian heroes that this worked out exactly this way. George Mueller prayed the right way, rested on the Lord the right way and the Lord rewarded him by providing for him in just the right way. You see—God prospered him because he relied on God! God is no man’s debtor; judge nothing before its time but know that in general God will reward today!

Ah, but if blessings come for doing the right thing how about all those Saints (the majority) that haven’t been rewarded in the here and now for anything they did? Maybe the end of their good work was a bloody death?

When Paul said “judge nothing before its time” it was right after he had said that he doesn’t know the quality of his own work and won’t even judge himself: let the Lord judge (1 Cor 4). Oh sure, at the point where he’s arrived at what he thought was the end of his life he sits back and says that yeah, he ran the good race and fought the good fight—but what did he have to show for it? He wrote to Timothy asking for him to bring Mark and a coat because he’s been mistreated by some and abandoned by others (2 Tim 4). He did as much as he could but wasn’t looking for a reward in general now—he was standing confident before the Lord for the judgment later on because of what Christ has done; not anything he had done.

Or what about Peter. Sure he could lead his wife about (that’s good) as he preached here and there (that’s good too, right?) but eventually he’d come to a point in his life where it all looks like it’s over. Christians are lighting up the town; Paul imprisoned and beheaded on the side of a road; he, Peter, expecting to be crucified like His master. No reward in the now.

How about all the disciples with all their good acts forgotten by history although the Kingdom spread—by which names or whose sacrifices, we won’t know on this side of eternity. How about the thousands of believers who have died in some country where no one remembers them, much less the message they preached? How about the preachers, right now, doing a good work in undisclosed locations—do you think God is rewarding them all in general right now? Even the ones in the reddest parts of China or the darkest parts of the Sudan?

Yeah, this idea of God rewarding you right now, or even giving you a pat on the back right now, is false teaching. It’s only obvious when an obnoxious person like me highlights it and makes everyone uncomfortable by saying this stuff; making everyone wonder if what they’re doing is right or wrong.

Here’s the promise of God: Christ has conquered already, trust Him (not your actions) and you will be saved. Trust Him (not your actions) and He will continue to save others. Hold on to Him, grip to Him and act in emulation of Him. Stop looking for the divine ‘attaboy in your day to day, you’ve seen Christ take up His cross—you do the same: rely on the promises of God which are yes and amen only because Christ has been raised from the dead.

That’s huge people. God rescued Christ from the dead—that’s where the hope is. Not in God scratching me (or you) behind the ears with a paycheck or a pat. When it happens, don’t take it as the reward for you doing something; take it as the care by your heavenly Father who has more concern for people than he does for flowers and birds. But not an ‘attaboy.

And weep; its okay to weep. Weep when the problems arrive. Shiver when it is cold. Cry when the bills can’t be paid. Weeping, not as if it is the end, but as a person who is living on the edge of a future which we know is better. Shiver, not as if it is the end of the world, but as a person who is living on the edge of a future which we know is better. Allow these soul wrenching things to carry the weight of sorrow that they are due but give Christ’s victory the overwhelming weight that it is due. Join the choir of the saints: “How long, O’ Lord? How long?”( Revelation 6:10)

It’s so easy, to point out what’s a false teaching when the thing is on television. There’s the tele-evangelist, clapping his hands and saying that God is no man’s debtor; that God rewards those who respond to His will; that although we should “judge nothing before its time” we do know that God prospers a man according to what he gives. Give more to the Lord and He will give more to you. Yes, says the preacher, this is a message for the future but this is a message for today—a promise we can lay hold on, as the Word of God says “the promises of God are yes and amen in Christ”! Easy peasy; the guy looks like he’s teaching error. He’s sporting the shining ring. He’s flashing the UV brightened smile.

It’s harder to point out the false teaching when it’s sincerely and softly spoken from the pulpit or the pastor or the pal. Point it out we must. By doing so we unshackle the people: the people who are listening and noticing that their situation sucks, that all they have are tears, that their preaching seems unfruitful, that their loss is great—these people realize that the expectation for ‘attaboys is false but the expectation in God’s promises are sure because Christ reigns; the people who are preaching this stuff, so that they can stop and realize that they’ve stepped off of their only true foundation and instead are standing on their situations—and that is a very shaky place to stand.

Technorati Tags: endurance, hope, suffering

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Sin, like the words naughty or bastard, is a fallen word, bereft of her previous glory, power and horror. When used it invokes images of chocolate, forbidden (and really fun) sex, or scandal—while the notion of the abject depravity of sin remains immaculately untouched; virginal in comparison.

A definition of sin begins to be found in the falling short of doing good: the person who knows to do good and doesn’t is sinning (James 4:17); the person who acts apart from conscience and faith in God is sinning (Rom 14:23); being unrighteous, not-upright, is sin (1 John 5:17). It only starts with the falling short of God’s glory (Rom 3:23)

But it progress from there. Sin is what happens when personal desire acts (Jas 1:15 it is contrived in the mind and intent (Gen 8:21); it spews out of the heart (Matt 15:19); it is evidenced in action (Rom 1); it is ultimately defiling (Prov 30:12) and an outright rebellion against God (Psalm 50-51).

And lest we think that sin is about Them and surely not about Us (Me and all Christians included) we discover that no person, except Christ (2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1Jo 3:5) is without sin (1Ki 8:46; Ec 7:20); all are under the system of sin (Gal 3:22); all people are shaped in sin (Ps 51:5); all people are born in sin (Ge 5:3; Job 15:14; 25:4; Ps 51:5); no man can cleanse himself from sin (Job 9:30,31; Pr 20:9; Jer 2:22); and no man can atone for sin (Mic 6:7). We. Are. Sinners.

It is part of reality until God decides to realize that dawning future (1 Cor 15). We can’t, of our own, do anything to get rid of it. Want to know if sin is still around? Check the graveyard because that is the ultimate end of all sin (Gen 2:17, Eze 18:4, Ro 6:23). Sin is here until God says enough.

Now the reason I draw that tight circle is to show that no matter what program we people implement, no matter what governmental solution that we come up with, no matter what level of education we enforce, no matter what religions we absolve (or create), no matter how much resources (money, food, information, help, staff) we throw at any given problem the biggest problem is that sinful people (that’s me, that’s you, that’s them) are involved. All we do is under the system of sin. Sure we do good (Acts 10 for an example) and it is really good; but if we hold up our goods before God we find that we just aren’t up to snuff; he does infinitely better.

This isn’t to say that we’re to give up but it is to say that as flawed and rebellious creatures we will mess things up and, often, skewing things in our favor (our God isn’t stuff; it’s Us). Democracy sounds great in theory but sinful people will screw it up; Socialism sounds effective in principle but sinful people will mess that up too; Nationalism isn’t that bad until sinful people get involved: we are our own worst enemies.

That’s the theological part, but here I’ll make a connection to my series on immigration even though I will likely refer to this post in other topics that I deal with (like matters of voting, or government bills, or peace contracts, etc.).

I’ve made a point of pointing out problems with the whole immigration issue and I subsequently drew various principles (both positive and negative) from Scripture that I think have some bearing on the issue. But even these principles can be (and will be) perverted by the current reality of sin in people. Moreso when this reality is implemented at the governmental level which is amoral by its nature. These ideas have to touch more than policy but should be a matter of how we as people, and especially Christians who are being molded in the image of the New Man, are to act.

So I move forward with hope, and expectation based on my conscience, but doing so with the knowledge that we will mess things up (people can’t help it); but that brings me back to the Gospel. The fact is that we have messed things up but God has taken it upon Himself to renew all things. I think here I can safely go back to a point I made in an earlier post about how we Christians should vote—but here I’ll apply it to illegal immigration or health reform or anything else. The hope and goal of any given situation isn’t these policies or laws or way of running government: these hopes are ultimately temporary and flawed. My hope is in Christ and the Gospel of God, which ensures a final victory over sin, but currently I am working with the knowledge that God has me (us) where He wants me to be.

And I think that’s infinitely important.

Technorati Tags: ideals, reality of sin, sin

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Adam, some say, is our Federal Head (1)—which is usually explained with an analogy. As American’s vote for a president who then decides acts on their behalf and implicates them accordingly, Adam acts on everyone’s behalf and his progeny is implicated after him. Adam, though not a president, acts as a representative for his people on account of being the Patriarch.

Some, using Hebrews 7 to prove this position, err by going beyond what a Federal Headship should allow. Federal Headship just has to stop at the notion of a representative (and this is why some Federal Headship proponents state that if any of us were in Adam’s position, we would have done the same thing). But, I would call this advanced Federal Headship something like Federal Union (2) or Ancestral-Progenetical Union (if I’m allowed to make up a word). The progeny of the ancestor mystically reaches through time and performs the action with their ancestor. Abraham pays tithes; so does Levi. Adam sinned; all have sinned.

Some have disagreed and noted the overemphasis on the individual—be it of Adam or of his progeny. Aa work based on the a study of the way individualism dissolves within the corporate Aborigines clan¹, noted that Ancient Israel was no different: the corporate was always above and consumed, the individual. It’s not who these people (Adam or his progeny) are or what they did (or didn’t) do; it’s the fact that they belong to the Corporate Man (3) wherein Adam acts as part of that Corporate “I”.

The construct, though later heavily criticized, was helpful in informing Hebrews 7. The Author of Hebrews isn’t making a theological case for Levi actually performing any mystical action at all (that would be absurd especially with the pithy introduction “so to speak”). Levi, say the proponents of the Corporate Personality, are part of the Tribe with Abraham who paid tithes to one greater: therefore that one is greater than Levi. Likewise in Romans 5, it it’s not that Adam’s progeny merely have a representative or worse, were somehow magically united to Adam and personally sinned through him; rather since they are Adam’s People, Adam acts without personal identity but Corporate Identity leaving the Corporate “I” guilty.

Others have rejected all three notions and said that the Corporate does not subsume the Individual, it modifies them as they identify in the Corporate. So it is not that Levi is a non-entity-part-of-the-whole, it’s actually that Levi identifies as Abraham being their Great Father—and he paid tithes to one greater while they were just seed. So in Romans 5, it is not that there are two representatives being pitted against each other; nor is it two Deciders by which people are mystically united; nor is it two people which function as Corporate Persons; it is rather that the many unite and identify in the one. The action of the Adam-Christ is not so much something disconnected from those who follow, nor is it an action that those who follow personally participate in; rather it is an action that those who follow are affected by and agree with. Allow this final iteration to be called Corporate Solidarity² (4).

But which view does the exegetical evidence in Romans 5 support?

Firstly, the argument in Romans 5 is more concerned with the action of the One resulting in Something for the Many. For example, the sin of one spread to the many (Rom 5:12), Jesus’ gift abounds for the many (Rom 4:15), one transgression resulting in condemnation to the many (Rom 5:18). Paul is making an obvious difference between the Many and the One; the Corporate Man breaks down. Thus, the Corporate Person (3) must be removed from the pool of possibility

In that same vein, any construct that makes the many performing the action also wind up suffering. For example: the many sinned but not in the likeness of Adam’s sin (Rom 5:14); the transgression of the one (not the many) resulted in death reigning (Rom 5:17); only one man disobeyed and one later obeyed (Rom 5:19). This evidence removes any strange construct of mystical union (contra 2) with the actions of the Patriarch. Thankfully this position is gone since, taken to its logical conclusion, this Mystical Union would have people atoning for their own sins on Christ’s cross!

The first and the fourth construct are still potentially viable options. With (1) you can have the people implicated in the Head’s sin without being personal performers of the sin; likewise in (4) you can have people agreeing, in some sense, with the action without being personal performers of the sin. In both models you have people affected by the actions of the One. The first, on the other hand, makes people guilty or blessed apart from their own personal agreement; while the later requires agreement in both cases.

Now, these contingencies might just be casually possible. For example, the concept of death spreading to the Many, we can readily admit that you don’t have to agree with Death to Receive It; you just have to be human. This might prove damaging to (4) if not for the fact that Paul’s entire argument thus far as been that people are justified by agreeing with God (faith) rendering a receipt of the benefits of Christ a priori incoherent.

And of course, we have the added problem of the pivotal translation of Romans 5:12: yes one man sinned, yes death spread to all men—but did all men sin as Adam sinned as a representative or did they sin in agreement by evidence of their current existence? All have sinned once for all in Adam as Representative or Because Adam sinned, therefore all, subsequently, sinned?

² Grogan, G.W. (1998).The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity In Hebrews. Tyndale Bulletin. 49.1, 159-173. The term “Corporate Solidarity” is borrowed from Grogan but he often depends on the concept of Corporate Personality with some modifications. His piece is well worth the read to see how he explains the relationship between Abraham, Levi and Melchizedek.

Technorati Tags: adam, christology, levi, melchizedek

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

ABSTRACT: In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a major issue is how he automatically presents himself to our minds. It is characteristic of most 20th century Christians that he does not automatically come to mind as one of great intellectual power: as Lord of universities and research institutes, of the creative disciplines and scholarship. The Gospel accounts of how he actually worked, however, challenge this intellectually marginal image of him and help us to see him at home in the best of academic and scholarly settings of today, where many of us are called to be his apprentices.

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Logical and Rhetorical Forms Index

Figures of Reasoning

A Fortiori — “To the stronger,” or “even more so. ” We are bound to accept an a fortiori claim because of our prior acceptance of a weaker application of the same reasoning or truth.

Aetiologia — A figure of reasoning by which one attributes a cause for a statement or claim made.

Anthypophora — A figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one’s own questions.

Appeal to Evidence

Anacephalaeosis — A recapitulation of the facts.

Apophasis — The rejection of several reasons why a thing should or should not be done and affirming a single one, considered most valid.

Argument from Analogy

Expeditio — After enumerating all possibilities by which something could have occurred, the speaker eliminates all but one.

False Dilemma

Non-contradiction

Sorites — A chain of claims and reasons which build upon one another. Concatenated enthymemes.

Figures of Ethos

Anamnesis — Calling to memory past matters. More specifically, citing a past author from memory. Anamnesis helps to establish ethos, since it conveys the idea that the speaker is knowledgeable of the received wisdom from the past.

Antithesis

Erotema

Procatalepsis

Technorati Tags: argument, logic

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The scene opens at the very pictorial retelling of Jewish captives (some Rabbinical sources think Jeremiah is the recounter) by the tree-lined rivers of Babylon. The captives, surrounded by a group of taunting Babylonians, are told to sing one of their happy Zion songs: the kind where Zion is always victorious because God is on her side. The kind that has a hint of Psalms 135 and 136 but closer to Psalm 48 with its jubilant praise of the faithful God and the holy city and how all the ends of the earth praise God’s name because what goodness He has poured out on Zion.

The kind of music that was played on the Jewish lyre which was not the high lyre that was played with a pick by a mad Nero but more that type of stringed instrument that was hand-plucked by the common man: more like a banjo than anything. An instrument for jubilant singing and God-praising placed into the hands of the captives by their tormentors during a time of loss and crumbling promises and tears.

The captives don’t play: they weep. The captives don’t dance with their instruments, they rather hang them up and sit.

They don’t see it possible to sing one of the Lord’s song in a land that isn’t the Lord’s because acquiescing to their tormentors demand is moving away from the place where God has laid his promises and in their actions, forgetting Jerusalem.

The Psalmist lays a curse on himself yet (obviously) praying corporately as he does so. If I (any of us) forget you, O Jerusalem where God has laid his promises, may my playing hand become crippled so that I can never play any joyful instrument again. If I don’t remember you and exalt you as one of my chief joys, O Jerusalem , may I become mute so that I can’t sing any joyful songs.

And since I (we) remember Jerusalem, remember (in judgment) those to whom judgment is due.

For remembrance is a forensic term where a King would look into the books and check which judgments need completion, which accounts need balancing. For example when King Ahazuearus looked at the books and noted that Mordecai had not received a due reward for his duty to the state, he remembered him (although he personally didn’t remember anything: he was reading the book to put himself to sleep). Therefore the Psalmist is asking God to bring into balance the account.

The next group of curses (note he already laid a curse on himself if he forgets), is focused at the Edomites who stood around Jerusalem and rejoiced in her destruction. This is an unbalanced account, the Psalmist pleads to God: note how they kept cheering “Tear it down, right to its foundations!” Now, the Psalmist doesn’t offer up what exactly the curse is to be here for the Edomites were guilty of rejoicing in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Lastly the Psalmist turns his eyes toward the taunting oppressors, the perpetrators of the destruction of Jerusalem. These who came in and in their savagery, took infants and dashed them to the floor, raped women, and tore out the infants from women’s womb. These, the Psalmist says will get the same and he lays a blessing on the executor of that judgment. The one who repays your actions for how you treated us (Jews) is blessed. The one who takes your infants, like how you took ours, and dashes them to pieces against the rocks, is blessed.

I get to this last bit and gasp: how can the Psalmist pray such a thing. Maybe I try to skirt around it by saying my Christian ethics are higher than the Psalmist (although Jesus would argue that our ethics are not higher in the least. For when He was asked which was the greatest of the commandments He replied “Love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself” was actually a summary of the entire law: Godward and Manward) I find myself not wanting to find an easy solution since even in the very Christian book of Revelation we see those who have been slain saints crying out “How long, O’ Lord until your judgment” (Rev 6:10)

But this bringing into balance is something that can only be fully understood by a person who has been in this sort of situation. This isn’t the cursings and railings of a merely upset person but it is the begging for judgment for the wrong done. The Jews in Auschwitz, peering out at falling ash demanding that there is an equivocation: that the same is done to their captors. The Russians starving behind a siege: demanding that the same occurs to those holding the siege.

This is the petition of a human being, the image of God, who has suffered the very worst at the hands of another Imago Dei bearer: there must be a balance or else the very fabric of God’s order becomes unhinged.

Technorati Tags: imprecatory prayer, psalms, suffering

Bookmark It

Hide Sites