Guest writers for the day – JennyPo, joeyanne and Heather
JennoPo, joeyanne and Heather discuss the very essence of Christianity – our salvation and our means of salvation. The Bible is NOT that clear what it means to attain salvation. Matthew, James and Revelation in particular seem to think you are saved by faith and the law. Paul’s letters are all about grace. What about the need for baptism? I can quote a few places that mention that. So while most Christians try to harmonize each of these conflicing passages into one plan for salvation, I have started looking at each author individually and seeing what each Gospel or letter has to say independent of everything else. You would be surprised how diverse the opinion was in early Christianity as represented in our own New Testament!
This is what the kernal of Christianity is all about, so if we are going to ask tough questions of God, it won’t get much tougher, or much more crucial, than the topic of our salvation. And with that out of the way, here are our guest writers, JennyPo, joeyanne and Heather – take it away!
jennypo Says:
March 28th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Heather sez:
God ‘foreknows’ and ‘predestines’ a lot of people who will choose Him. Now, one can say that God is still demonstrating free will because He simply knows who will pick Him – except there’s Paul’s conversion story. He received a direct vision from God which turned his life around and make him a follower of Christ. Before that vision, the Bible makes it clear that Paul was adamant in trying to wipe every last Christian off the Earth. The disciples didn’t really choose until they had proof of Jesus’s claim to the Messiah – which was the resurrection.
Heather, you continue to give me great questions and thoughts! I know that numerous Christian leaders who have taught that God chooses who will be forgiven by him. This is nothing short of ridiculous considering the teachings of the Bible, and it comes (as do most of these kinds of ideas) from taking pieces of the Bible at the expense of others.
“God…is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish…” (2Peter 3:9)
Both Old and New Testaments refer to people who are “chosen” or “set apart” by God. The question we have to ask is, what were they “chosen” for? In the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s “chosen people”. They become chosen at birth because they bear Abraham’s blood, and God promised Abraham that he would make Abraham’s descendents a blessing to the nations of the world. The New Testament marks an expansion of God’s plans for human beings, and it is no longer only Abraham’s descendants who are chosen. Under the new covenant (or testament), they are “chosen in Christ”. Those who are born into God’s family because of the blood of Jesus are immediately ushered in to something more than mere forgiveness – they are “elect” or “chosen” for a great purpose… They are not only forgiven, but God reveals that his plans for them are much bigger and that he has been planning their future since before he laid the foundations of the earth. They are destined (predestinated) to become the children of God. “…he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ…” (Ephesians 1:4-5)
God, unlike any other creator, has designed a peer – someone who will be able to love him back as he loves, at a cost and at will. In the context of the chapter, the word “predestinated” means that the future for those who have chosen Christ is non-negotiable. It isn’t dependent on their faithful church attendance, on their dedication to God. Quite simply, it isn’t going to be taken away if they mess up. God has already made his plan, and it applies to all who have accepted forgiveness in Jesus.
I hadn’t even considered Paul’s conversion in relation to our free will until you brought it up, but Heather, doesn’t it just demonstrate God’s understanding of our choices? God doesn’t zap Paul into hell for torturing his followers – instead, he looks at the choice Paul has made within his heart. Why has Paul been persecuting Christians? Because he believes they are blaspheming and misrepresenting God! It is his love to God that moves him to protect Judaism in this way. He is wrong, but God doesn’t read his actions – he reads Paul’s heart. Were Paul acting out of hatred, I don’t believe he would have been convinced, even by the vision of a blinding light, to sit on his pride and go join the people he has just been beating up. God will read our hearts, too. That’s why Thomas got answers, while Simon (the smug Pharisee who invited Jesus to dinner and mocked him in his heart for associating with a “bad” woman) got rejected.
As for the disciples’ choice, how about Peter in Luke 9:20 – “‘But what about you?’ [Jesus] asked. ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God’.”
As a side note, one of the most convincing aspects of the whole Bible for me is the fact that its main characters (and those who would seem to be its greatest promoters), including Jesus’ disciples, are portrayed in such great weakness and confusion. Were the Bible a piece of propaganda (or let’s face it, even an ordinary historical account!) it is amazing that its greatest propagators, from the Jews of the Old Testament to the disciples of the New Testament, should have been content to allow the world to see them so faithless. Is there a Christian living today who would allow such an embarrassment? Where are the revisionists and the spin doctors? Could they have been so unselfish as to have promoted their dead friend at their own expense? Could they have allowed such a threat to the credibility of their message?
joeyanne Says:
March 28th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Heather, I have been thinking of your comments on forgiveness all day (thank you for that!). I think you hit the nail on the head with the story of the prodigal son. Only, I think, you missed one important point. The father in that story did forgive without any “action” on the part of the son. But, and this is a big but, the son didn’t come into the “good” of that forgiveness until he “came to himself”, realized his sin against God and against his father, and went to his father in his humbled spirit. The forgiveness didn’t depend on the son’s receiving of it, but the son could not experience the benefit of that forgiveness without accepting it. (repentance) In the same way, God has forgiven all of us for the sake of His Son, because of the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross. However, we cannot experience the “good” of that forgiveness without repentance and acceptance of that forgiveness. I realize this is still only a picture of God’s amazing grace, but it shows the meaning.
Heather Says:
March 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Joeyanne,
Believe me, the logic gets annoying sometimes. 
There are times when I want my brain to just shut off.
I did read the article, and it will no doubt not surprise you that I have thoughts.
The arguments I see at the post are that sin leads to death, forgiveness is only found in the shedding of blood for the remission of sins, and that God being just has to punish sin. Which is saying that He can’t just ‘forgive’ sin, but must punish something in order to forgive – that’s how I’m reading it. There was a reference in the article that, “Okay, I could make this easy and just forgive everybody, but I’m going to make the rule that first, I have to kill my son and then everybody has to believe in him”. But that is basically how it’s coming across. God can only remove/forgive sin through killing His Son, and the only way around being sent to Hell is to believe in Jesus.
Sin leads to death – I would agree with this, and the Bible is big on it, too. So is that being interpreted that Jesus had to die because sin leads to death? I would say that the two aren’t automatically related, though. If we go back to the prodigal son, sin did ‘kill’ him in a way, given what it did to his life. Anyone who is caught up in hatred or lust or envy can be ‘killed’ because of how it internally changes them. Even Paul mentions that in his reference to the old man/new man. Which is why we need to be rescued because of how self-destructive sin is.
Remission of sin only in the shedding of blood – this one is the catch and it gets a bit tricky There are many OT references to God asking for Israel to return him, and He will cleanse their sins, without any blood sacrifice. ‘Shedding of blood’ isn’t listed as a requirement, so I’m curious as to where it came from in the epistle. In fact, there are references that God doesn’t want anymore sacrifices at all in the O. If we go back to the Prodigal son, we don’t see this in effect, and most of the Synoptic Gospels basically infer that returning to God with a humble heart or repentence is enough for forgiveness. Even when the disciples and Paul are preaching, it is in effect, “Repent, turn from your sins, and they’ll be erased” or “be immersed in the name of Jesus.”
God is just – this is going to depend on how one interprets justice. In the OT, many of the prophets referred to the justice as a good thing, because it equaled freedom from oppression and equality. Yet this viewpoint leaves God’s justice as something to be feared. I see God’s justice as more restoring everything, not a retributive justice.
Then I get into the punishment. What exactly did this punishment consist of? Jesus dying? Because we all still die, but only physically. The soul is eternal, so then how can death be the punishment if, in rejecting the forgiveness, hell is the punishment? It would be difficult to say that Jesus was sent to hell for three days, since he also tells a thief that ‘today you shall be with me in Paradise.’ In John, Jesus says that, “again, I am leaving the world and returning to the Father.” Or in Luke, “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit.” If it’s that God poured His wrath on Jesus, what does that consist of? Jesus does seem to suffer, but no more than any other person who would be crucified would suffer.
What if there was a different possibility? Given the disciples’ reactions at the Resurrection, it seems apparent that had Jesus died of old age, or even not resurrected, there wouldn’t have been much of a movement. What energeized them was the resurrection itself, and allowed them to fully grasp everything for the first time. Jesus was killed by sin and for sin to show that 1) the end result of sin is always death and 2) sin never trumps God’s power. Ever. No matter how much sin there is in your life, God can handle it, and remove it, and make you new. The resurrection was his ultimate proof that God has the last word. But he needed that bloody, public death, with all the mocking people because he needed to bring the sin in the forefront, in order to showcase its destructive power to the hilt, and how ineffective it is, in the end.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Hmm. I’m both flattered, and realizing I should double-check my spelling, as I tend to spell like a five year old on a sugar high.
** You would be surprised how diverse the opinion was in early Christianity as represented in our own New Testament! ** And that’s just with the canon we have now. In the early times, there were also the Gnostic Gospels, which had as much variety as the canon ones do. It’s enough to make one’s head explode sometimes.
My personal take on salvation — Jesus makes many references to a Kingdom of Heaven/God currently, not just in a future sense. I think salvation is about a new way of seeing, and of living, and of realizing God’s power, love, and forgiveness. The point didn’t seem to be to save people from hell, but changing them now.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Well Heather, I am a little busy today at home (HeIsSailing Central), so I am taking the cheap way out today by using “guest writers”. Thanks for your help!
Heather sez:
“** You would be surprised how diverse the opinion was in early Christianity as represented in our own New Testament! ** And that’s just with the canon we have now. In the early times, there were also the Gnostic Gospels, which had as much variety as the canon ones do. It’s enough to make one’s head explode sometimes. ”
That is very true Heather. I have a bizarre fascination with some of those ancient non-canonical gospels. Not that I believe any of it, but it is an interesting historical record of what many people DID believe soon after Jesus left the earth. You can check out a lot of this stuff from the library or visit this site for some real eye-opening education in the diversity of early Christian belief.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html
March 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Heather sez:
“My personal take on salvation — Jesus makes many references to a Kingdom of Heaven/God currently, not just in a future sense. I think salvation is about a new way of seeing, and of living, and of realizing God’s power, love, and forgiveness. The point didn’t seem to be to save people from hell, but changing them now.”
I think this is how John Shelby Spong views salvation. I am not too sure, myself. It is hard to soften up on what I was raised with. You know, “Believe on Jesus for the justification by faith and the remission of your sins”. I have believed that for most of my life. But the more I try to rationalize that, the less it makes sense – hence my doubt and this website. Right now, I don’t think I can believe that anymore, but frankly I don’t know what to believe. The more I study my Bible, the further I feel from my conventional God of my past belief. I feel like I am floating without beliefs for the first time in my life, and I am trying to be wise about what lifeline to grab hold of.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Heather: I will give you logic. Your way does make some logical sense. Except, why would God kill His Son (I hesitate to use the word kill, because God didn’t kill Him; He gave His own life. God gave His Son for us.), but why would God do that? God “wounded Him for our transgressions, bruised Him for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes, we are healed” (Is. 53:5). Also, “…the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:6). If I follow your logic, why would God do this to His Son? Just to prove that He trumps sin? For what purpose; so we would know that sin always leads to death? to start a movement? It seems like pretty silly reasons to “kill” the Son of God. No, I don’t want to believe in a God like that. No, I must believe that Jesus died, not just to free me from the power of sin, but to vanquish sin forever. God created me to choose Him, to love Him (and love has to be a choice). But, because of sin (in general) and my sin (personal), I couldn’t choose Him. Jesus took the judgement of God against sin. Not just my sin, but sin. If one of us were to take the judgement of God against sin, we could never satisfy that judgement because we are sinful. God’s Son had no sin. He did not have to “go to Hell” to vanquish sin. God does not give us the details of exactly how he poured the judgement of sin on His Son, but in the ressurection, Jesus showed His power over sin. The punishment was paid in full. I just don’t see any other reason for Jesus to have died/taken the punishment for sin. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” Gal.3:13
March 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
JennyPo sez:
“As a side note, one of the most convincing aspects of the whole Bible for me is the fact that its main characters (and those who would seem to be its greatest promoters), including Jesus’ disciples, are portrayed in such great weakness and confusion. Were the Bible a piece of propaganda (or let’s face it, even an ordinary historical account!) it is amazing that its greatest propagators, from the Jews of the Old Testament to the disciples of the New Testament, should have been content to allow the world to see them so faithless.”
Jenny, I have heard this argument before (thanks again Josh McDowell) and I am not as convinced about this. I view it as more of a literary technique. The apostles, particularly Peter, are made to look like buffoons in order to make Jesus stand far above and beyond them. It is a way of contrasting the wise Jesus to his dopey followers. Let’s face it – Peter says some things that are dumb beyond belief!
Regarding the old testment, most of he bad behavior from God’s people comes in Genesis. I admit, there is some really bizarre stuff in that book, a lot going behind the scenes. After that, it seems that the bad behavior from the evil is again contrasted with the mighty men of God, for instance King Hezekiah vs Isaiah or Elijah. When the godly men are wicked, for instance King David, he or his people are punished by God severely. This is a warning to the reader not to screw up before God. I don’t think this is a self-authentication by showing the flaws of the godly and the avoidance of spin-doctoring, but stern warnings not to sin before a holy God.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
This is where our Calvinist theologians have a point: What does a lost sheep do to be found by the shepherd? Nothing, the shepherd finds them. I agree with your point, it is not easy to figure out what needs to be done precisely. If it was, why are there so many opinions among theologians of different sects? However, it seems the main themes are repentence from who I’ve been, relationship with God through faith, and holding on by staying in that relationship. Perhaps again, the emphasis is left on relationship rather than creed or profession. The more I move along through my experience in the Christian life, the more convinced I am that relationship is the key. God reaches out to have relationship with all of us, and only our limitations stop us. Last week our pastor said an interesting thing about those who’ve never heard the message. Perhaps as they enter eternity, they will see God, never having heard any of the revelation of the scriptures on earth, and they will say, “If that is who you are, I want to be with you.” I’ve thought about that in terms of my life here, sometimes that is very hard to do, I’d rather be left alone to do things my way.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Thus saith joeyanne:
“I must believe that Jesus died, not just to free me from the power of sin, but to vanquish sin forever.”
joeyanne, I will concede this: If Jesus was indeed God incarnate, then I believe that his death was as an atonement for our sins and for our justification. I don’t see a way out of that either. And I am fine with that, because I believed it for most of my life. And guess what: I want do to believe it!
But that is a Big ‘IF’. Is that really who Jesus was? It all goes back to the authority of scripture.
For more, see my article “A Confession – I Want to Believe”
March 28th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
“This is where our Calvinist theologians have a point: What does a lost sheep do to be found by the shepherd? Nothing, the shepherd finds them. I agree with your point, it is not easy to figure out what needs to be done precisely. If it was, why are there so many opinions among theologians of different sects? ”
Calvinism or Araminianism?
Predestination or Freewill?
Theologians have been arguing this since.. well at least since Calvin was around! Both sides have great arguments. Both sides have scads of scripture to back up their claims. And the arguments will never be resolved and will continue until the end of the age.
Most Christians would attribute this as a paradox of an omniscient being. But the arguing and debating will never cease with that view, and both sides will claim devoted adherents. Should we just concede, call this an untenable contradiction and wash our hands of the matter?
March 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
**For what purpose; so we would know that sin always leads to death? to start a movement? It seems like pretty silly reasons to “kill” the Son of God.** Except would the movement had started without the resurrection? That is what energized the disicples, that really proved Christ’s power over sin and death. Had it been anything else, do you think Christianity would’ve survived today, unless there was the crucifixion and resurrection? Part of why there were so many martyrs is because they no longer feared death, and that had a great deal to do with the resurrection. After all, a key element in Paul saying one knows they are saved is that belieiving in the resurrection. I don’t see it as God ‘killing’s His son, I see it as inevitable given the world’s reaction to Christ. I see it as God saying, “This is what’s needed to wake My children up.” And the followers going forth and saying, “There’s a better way, Christ proved it.” God truly does have the ultimate victory over sin, because Christ conquered death. In terms of being wounded for our trangressions and sins, yes. In a way to show that every conceivable sin, all at once, is in no way able to match the power of God’s love. Jesus soaked up every bit of sin, ‘killed’ it on the cross, and then said, “Look. It’s not the end. It never is.” It was Jesus turning the other cheek.
**God created me to choose Him, to love Him (and love has to be a choice). But, because of sin (in general) and my sin (personal), I couldn’t choose Him.** I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying two different things here. God created you to choose/love Him, and yet you can’t choose Him because of sin. How could both be possible?
I understand that you can’t follow a God that I’ve laid out. But if not this, I’m left with a vindictive God. This is a God with finite mercy and love, because one only has a limited time in which to accept it. However, His justice is infinite, because it’s either used against the unrepentent sinner who is thrown into an eternal Hell, or used against Jesus so the repentent sinner can go to Heaven. One that requires an appeasement of a bloody death before He can forgive, and thus limiting the forgiveness — and that goes against what Jesus said, and much of the Old Testament. I don’t see the Bible as God holding us to some sort of debt, but rather Him saying, “Just let it go.” I do see Christ’s death and ressurection as a sacrifice — as God’s sacrifice to us, in order to change us, not because someone had to be punished. If anything, if we’re born inherently sinful, we’re to be pitied more than Adam and Eve, because we’d never have an equal opportunity to do good. We’re naturally drawn to sin and then punished for it. And what exactly is Jesus saving, if we’re born inherently sinful? If sin is that much of who we are, of our soul, then isn’t God getting a radically different person when that person reaches Heaven? It also leaves me struggling to find what about me that God created, if sin is the overriding factor.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
There is a lot more to think about from your post… and I will be considering what you have written, but this stands out to me. You said, “Except would the movement had started without the resurrection? That is what energized the disicples, that really proved Christ’s power over sin and death. Had it been anything else, do you think Christianity would’ve survived today, unless there was the crucifixion and resurrection?” What is the point of Christianity without justification? redemption? Why have God’s Holy Son, who he spent eternity before enjoying, come to earth to die? To help us all be “better people”? Why shed His blood, if it isn’t necessary? God would have “showed His power over sin” some other way!
March 28th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Heather, I think the resurrection of Christ is just as important as the death. Consider the 3 things Paul considers part of the Gospel:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
March 28th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Historically, Christianity (as anything that arouses deep passions in people) has been used to augment the power of individuals, institutions, and all manner of movements and interest groups. The “church” has used God’s name to rubber-stamp a variety of things in its own interest, as have political leaders, businesses, and individuals with smaller circles of influence.
What it is as a result of this corruption is something so far removed from the teaching of the Bible that the two are impossible to reconcile. From thence come the on-going wranglings and debates that appear as though they will, indeed, never be resolved. This is not because the information is so confusing – it is because we as humans tend to be lazy. We prefer our philosophy pre-chewed, so we depend on those whose can present their views colorfully, simply, or strongly, to establish the options from which we make a final choice.
HeIsSailing, I can relate to your process of “unlearning”. I believe you are struggling, as I have, with letting go of other people’s opinions and ideas so that I might develop my own. It is so hard to imagine where we might start questioning things and where it all might end. I see that you really would like to believe many of the things you have been taught, but that, having begun to seek a trustworthy source and a unity for your understanding of things, you can’t go back to where you were before, even if you are left in a worse place. I believe you are doing the right thing. Only please don’t give up.
Ultimately, I have found truth converging in three places: the Bible, the natural world, and my own conscience. According to the Bible, these are the realms where God has revealed himself – in the Bible to the intellect, in the natural world to the senses, and in the conscience to the moral heart of a person.
When I use the word “conscience’, I don’t mean to say that I believe everyone has the same sense of what is right and wrong. Our consciences vary as we do. What I do mean to say is that a person who reads the Bible while exercising their intellect, allows their senses to be open and exposed to nature, and sincerely seeks to be true to their own conscience in thought and action, will (whether their thinking is right or wrong) ultimately be faced with unmistakeable evidence of truth, reality, God. (Just as Paul was, thanks Heather!)
I am neither particularly smart nor particularly good, and yet I can say before the universe that I have found what satisfies the deep me, on every level. Only what I call “God” has offered me answers for the questions that rock my soul, refuge from fear, and – Love. Only he is enough for me.
I hesitate to say, “I know” while you are just beginning to say “I don’t know”. I loathe the arrogance of it, and I don’t believe for a minute that my knowing can be enough for you – only I long to offer you hope. If there is a personal God, who is the way, the truth, and the life, (I use “if” not because I doubt but because I deeply respect your doubt) then he is waiting for you on the other side of this journey.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:57 am
**Why shed His blood, if it isn’t necessary? God would have “showed His power over sin” some other way! ** I don’t think anything else would’ve sunk in in terms of God proving His power. After all, Jesus raised two people from the dead, walked on water, fed thousands, turned water into wine, and none of that seemed to be enough. But I think the crucifixion was necessary because it was the world’s strongest way of trying to say ‘no’ to God, as in, “No, you’re wrong, Jesus is just some deranged prophent.” And then when Jesus appeared three days later, it was God’s say of saying, “Care to answer that again?” Plus, the death highlights the seriousness of the message, and the self-sacrifical nature of God. It’s the strongest proof towards love there is.
Even in looking at the disicples — they weren’t able to heal with no doubts until after the resurrection, or perform most miracles until after the resurrection. It vanquished all their doubts, and just showed that death wasn’t the ending answer. And death was considered the last enemy that Christ must defeat, according to Paul.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Heather: I respect the conclusions you have come to. They make much logical sense and rationality. When I compare all, the difference between us can be summed up in one simple difference of opinion. You view the Bible as a historical record of Jesus that contains errors; what you hold as truth is the historical account that Jesus died on the cross. I, on the other hand, cannot believe that. I cannot believe that God sent His Son, had a book written, sent the Holy Spirit to reveal its truths to individuals and then sat back while His “book” was destroyed by translators, some of the writers, and, in general, those with their own agendas. If God is using the Bible to tell His message, He has preserved it for the centuries that it has been around. I mean to say that the Bible I have in front of me says EXACTLY what God wants it to say right now. But I cannot understand what He means without divine revelation from the Holy Spirit. I do not need to search back over the centuries to be sure this is the same book, or that the writers were not liars, or anything! because God is the same. If He wants something changed in His book, He has the power to change it TODAY.
All that being said, I do respect your very logical conclusions and, were it not for that one difference that makes all the difference, I would have to agree with you. I truly do respect the intellect you show in the conclusions you have drawn. I cannot reconcile our viewpoints except that we are starting from two different places – our view of the Bible. Thank you for the questions that have so made me think. Truly, I wish you well.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Hi, Joeyanne.
**You view the Bible as a historical record of Jesus that contains errors; ** I view it more as a human response to God’s inspiration, but also confined to the culture. But I agree with you that our different viewpoints towards the Bible would be why we reach different conclusions.
**If God is using the Bible to tell His message, He has preserved it for the centuries that it has been around. I mean to say that the Bible I have in front of me says EXACTLY what God wants it to say right now.** Just to make sure I understand — the Bible speaks to you, and has the same meaning, as it would for those who wrote it.
I’m going to use the following example to show why I don’t hold that viewpoint — but this isn’t me disrespecting that you do, it’s just an example.
Take the Sermon on the Mount.
“Smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other, also.” In terms of hitting someone on the right cheek – that would mean the hitter is either using his left hand, which is incredibly unclean in that culture, or the back of his right hand. Either way, it’s an insult to the person being hit. But if the person offers his left cheek, this forces the hitter to, if he wants to hit the person again, acknowledge that person as an equal.
“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.” In those times, the clothing basically consisted of the coat and cloke – so if handing the person who is suing the cloke as well, that leaves the victim naked. In that case, it’s actually the person being sued who is shamed, because he was too focused on the law to see the person. The person being sued is given the power and the worth.
“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” In those times, a Roman soldier had the authority to order a Jew to carry the Roman’s pack for one mile, and no longer. If it was longer than one mile, the Roman was punished. So if the Jew carries the pack longer than a mile, this puts the Roman in the position of having to basically beg for his pack back. It gives the Jewish person the power.
All of these situations are subversive, and using the power against the one who is behaving wrongly. It elevates the victim. But how often is this taught in the churches? And how could be possibly know this without taking the culture into consideration? If reading this through our cultural lenses, we’d read it as just be passive when confronted with aggressors. What it would say to the original readers in even 70AD is nothing like what it says today. And I don’t see how I would know this, unless I researched back to the Bible’s origins, to see what the writers meant, and what they were responding to.
**If He wants something changed in His book, He has the power to change it TODAY. ** But would any changes actually occur? Because I thought inerrency meant that it doesn’t change, and if something in the Bible could change, then it could no longer be considered the inerrent and infallible word of God.
But thank you as well for engaging in this conversation. It was really nice to be discussing this in a rational and gracious fashion. I always appreciate talks like this because finding out opposing viewpoints helps me understand why I disagree. And while I do keep asking lots of questions, I’m also glad you have a faith that brings you peace.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Heather sez:
“**If He wants something changed in His book, He has the power to change it TODAY. ** But would any changes actually occur? Because I thought inerrency meant that it doesn’t change, and if something in the Bible could change, then it could no longer be considered the inerrent and infallible word of God.”
I always imagined God’s word being infallibe and inerrant also in the sense that it had to be relevant throughout cultural context. Using your examples from the Sermon on the Mount, these saying of Jesus obviously meant something to his followers 2000 years ago. But that original meaning is lost to us in 2007AD, but because of the unchanging nature of God’s Word (Bible) it can also have relevance to us today!
I no longer hold this view. I think it makes more sense to view Jesus as the Word (Logos), not the Bible – not to take away from it’s importance, as I now view it as you do, as you say, ” view it more as a human response to God’s inspiration, but also confined to the culture”, or as I say, just man trying to make sense out of who God is.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
**But that original meaning is lost to us in 2007AD, but because of the unchanging nature of God’s Word (Bible) it can also have relevance to us today!** See, I find that fascinating, because if we interpret it based on today’s understanding, we’re totally missing the point, which was use the system against itself. Otherwise, the message is very mellow, and it’s not at all — it’s fighting back in a non-aggressive way.
**I think it makes more sense to view Jesus as the Word (Logos), not the Bible ** As do I.