Tag: Jesus
1 Are We Saved By Our Faith In Christ Or By The Faith Of Christ?
Sometimes a preposition can make all the difference.
I remember my first theology course as a freshman undergraduate, Elements of Christian Thought, with Gene Rogers. I’d just become a Christian as a Junior in High School and was only beginning to become acquainted with the actual content of our faith. The topic one week was Justification & Salvation, and I remember another student asking the TA:
‘If Christians believe we’re justified by faith in Christ, then what about people like me who don’t have faith, who’d maybe like to have faith but can’t seem to find it? Is it our fault then if we’re not saved? Why faith is essential why is it so hard? That seems like a pretty limited God.’
It hit me then and still does as a very good question. Not only does it make essential something that is sincerely elusive for many people, it also turns faith into a kind of work- the very opposite of Paul’s point- in that we’re saved by our ability to believe.
This week we continue our sermon series on ‘Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas’ with the theme of Faith vs. Works.
The irony of this historic debate among Christians, however, is that the very idea of justification coming through faith in Christ is premised on a bad translation of scripture.
Almost everywhere that is written in English is a wrong translation. It is properly translated by the King James. Take a look at this passage from Romans:
“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:20-23
In Greek, the actual wording is “even the righteousness of God, through the faith OF Jesus Christ.”
Grammar Lesson:
It is a possessive or genitive phrase. Now a genitive means that this phrase can be interpreted as either subjective or objective. In other words, it is like the phrase, the Love of God. That is either our love for God, or the love that God has. In one case it is objective (love for God), in the other subjective (God is the subject) and it describes the love that belongs to God, or God’s love.
In Greek, the faith of Jesus Christ is also a subjective genitive, but has been interpreted as an objective in almost every translation.
Why is this important?
Because it is not our faith in Jesus which justifies us, but the faith of Jesus Christ in us which justifies us. Faith isn’t a work. Isn’t our work at least. The faith that saves us and justifies us is the obedience of Christ.
In other words, it is his faith at work in us and in our hearts which produces righteousness and the God kind of life.
This explains why faith is a gift and why we are saved through faith by grace and not as a work of our own. It is not our faith which justifies, but the faith of Jesus given to us, which resides in us.
The good news is, it isn’t my faith that matters. It is the faith OF Jesus Christ given to me, that when God regards you or me God isn’t measuring our feeble attempts at faithfulness. In other words, when God looks upon us God chooses not to see us but to see Jesus.
0 Did Jesus Have a Wife?
So there’s no way you didn’t hear about the 4th century document produced by a Harvard Divinity faculty member that references Jesus’s wife. If you read the paper, surfed FB, listened to NPR or glanced at the grocery store rags last week you probably heard the claim.
4th century. Wow, that’s like only a couple centuries removed from St Paul.
I really hate how the press treats stories like this with all the self-important bluster of Dan Brown’s wildly inaccurate pronouncements couched in 2nd grade-level prose.
First, it goes with out saying that simply having a document which says something in no way corroborates the content of what is written.
Second- and this is the important point for Christians to keep in mind- if Jesus had had a wife, the early Church would’ve made damn sure you knew about it. People forget that Jesus’ singleness- and the singleness of the first Christians- was odd. After all, being fruitful and mothers and fathers are 1/5 of the Ten Commandments. Try imagining Jesus as he must’ve appeared through 1st century Jewish eyes: a single guy who’s sworn off his ‘family’ hangs out with 12 other dudes all the time and has a soft-spot for eyebrow raising women.
There’s no way, if Jesus was a normal married Jewish rabbi, the early Church would’ve left that out. Jesus’ peculiarity was a stumbling block to Jewish and Roman converts.
Biblical scholarship has a general principle in assessing the historical veracity of a passage. Basically the gist is that which would be embarrassing to the faithful is most likely true; otherwise, the faithful would have no motivation to make it up and put it in scripture and every reason to redact it out. For example, Peter’s thrice betrayal of Jesus. Doesn’t paint a very flattering picture of the lead apostle, does it? Thus, it’s probably historically reliable. The disciples all turning tail and abandoning Jesus when it matters most. Doesn’t say much about Jesus’ persuasive teaching, does it? Thus, it’s probably reliable. Paul, formerly stoner of Christians, becomes the chief evangelist of the faith. An unsavory character and one that would’ve been hard for plenty of Christians to swallow. Thus, you can trust it. Supposed Savior and Promised King dies a death reserved for criminals, a death so shameful the word cross (crux) was the first century equivalent of the F-Bomb? Trust it. It’s true because NO ONE would want a crucified Lord.
Jesus’ wife? Maybe he had one. I don’t know; I don’t care, and I don’t think it changes anything we confess about him. But if it was true why on earth didn’t the evangelists make sure we knew. A messiah who was just a bit less odd would surely have rendered a more palatable message to win hearts and minds: ‘See, he’s just like you.’
0 Some Jesus Thoughts on Yom Kippur
Today at sundown Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, begins. It’s been my experience that Christians know very much about Passover, since the links to the Passion story are explicit in the Gospels, but know very little about Yom Kippur (or the other Jewish Holy Days) and how they interact with and inform what the Gospel writers were attempting to convey.
Another reason why Christians don’t know much about Yom Kippur is that it’s outlined in the Book of Leviticus, probably the most neglected book of the Old Testament by Christians. Recovering the connection is key, though, because many Christians believe Jesus suffered God’s wrath towards us on the Cross in his body. But Yom Kippur isn’t about suffering wrath, it’s about removing sin.
The ancient church fathers believed the Book of Hebrews was originally one long sermon on Leviticus 16, which would make it longer even than one of Dennis’ sermons.
Leviticus 16 details God’s instructions to Moses for the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur.
Yom Kippur revolves around the high priest. The person who represents all of God’s people, the only person who can ever venture beyond the temple veil and into the Holy of Holies, where the ark and the presence of God reside, and ask God to remove his people’s sins.
Remember, in the Hebrew Bible God is a consuming, refining fire.
And as much as God loves us and as much as we love God, in the Hebrew Bible no one can come near God’s presence.
And live.
So when the high priest enters the Holy of Holies, he risks his life.
And because of that, every detail of every ritual matters.
The high priest must bath the right way.
The high priest must dress the proper way.
The high priest must make prescribed sacrifices for his sin and his family sin.
When he’s done with the preparation, the high priest is brought two goats.
Lots are cast so that God’s will would be done.
One goat is sacrificed to cleanse the temple of sin. The second goat is brought to him alive. The high priest lays both his hands on the head of the goat and then confesses onto it all the iniquities of the people of Israel. The priest removes all the people’s sins and places them on the goat. And after the priest’s work was finished, the goat would bear the people’s sin away in to the wilderness.
The wilderness symbolized exile and forsakenness and death.
The high priest transfers the sins of the people onto the goat and then the goat is sent away to where the wild things are. You see, Yom Kippur isn’t about God wanting to punish you for your sin.
Yom Kippur’s about God wanting to remove your sin.
The Day of Atonement is not about appeasing an angry, petty God. It’s about God removing that which separates us from God and from each other and sending it away so that it’s not here anymore.
While the high priest prayed over the goat, the king of the Jews would undergo a ritual humiliation to repent of his people’s sins: he’d be struck, his clothes would be torn, the king would ask God to forgive his people for they know not what they do.
When the high priest’s work is done, the goat’s loaded with all the sins of the people. Chances are, you wouldn’t want to volunteer to lead that goat out into the wilderness. So the man appointed for the task would be a Gentile. Someone with no connection to the people of Israel. Someone who might not even realize that what they’re doing is a dirty job. That Gentile would lead the goat away with a red cord wrapped around its head- red that symbolized sin.
The name for the goat is ahzahzel. It’s where we get the word ‘scapegoat.’
Ahzahzel means ‘taking away.’
The Gentile would lead the scapegoat into exile while the people shouted ‘ahzahzel.’
Take it away. Take our sin away.
So that it’s not here anymore.
The Gospels all say Jesus dies during the Passover Feast not Yom Kippur.
But I’m not sure it’s as simple as that.
Because the Gospels tell you the calendar says Passover, but what they show you looks an awful lot like the Day of Atonement.
The Gospels show you Jesus being arrested and brought to whom?
The high priest.
The Gospels show you the high priests accusing Jesus of blasphemy, placing what they say is guilt and sin upon him when in reality all they’re doing is transferring their own guilt onto him.
The Gospels show you Pilate’s men ritually humiliating this ‘King of the Jews.’ Mocking him. Casting lots before him. Tearing his clothes off him.
And then wrapping a branch of thorns around his head until a cord of red blood circles it.
The Gospels tell you that the calendar says Passover, but what they show you is Pilate holding Jesus out to the crowd and Pilate asks the crowd what to do with Jesus.
And what do the crowds shout? Not ‘Crucify him!’ Not at first.
First, the crowds shout ‘Take him away!’
Then they shout ‘Crucify him!’ (John 19.15)
The Gospels tell you that the calendar says Passover, but what they show then is Jesus being led away, like an animal, with a red ring around his head, with shouts of ‘ahzahzel’ ringing in the air- led away from the city by Gentiles to Golgotha.
A garbage dump.
A barren place where some of his last words will be ‘My God why have you forsaken me?’
The Gospels tell you its Passover, but what they show you isn’t a Passover Lamb but a Scapegoat.
This is what the Gospels show you when Jesus breathes his last and the veil of the temple- the entrance to the Holy of Holies- is torn in two, from top to bottom.
This is what the Gospels show you when they quote the prophet Isaiah:
‘He has born our grief.’
‘He has carried our sorrow.’
‘Laid on him is the iniquity of us all.’ Those are all references to Leviticus.
This is what the Gospel shows you at the very beginning right after the Christmas story when John the Baptist points to Jesus and says he’s the one who ‘ahzahzels the sins of the world.’
This is what St Paul alludes to when he says that because of Jesus Christ ‘nothing can now separate us from God.’
The Gospels tell you the calendar says Passover, but what they show you is a Day of Atonement.
Unlike any other.
1 What Do You Say to Your Kids About Dinosaurs and the Bible?
Question: ‘Dad, did God make dinosaurs too?’
Answer: ‘God made everything.’
Question: ‘Well, why doesn’t it say in the bible that God made dinosaurs with everything else?’
Answer: ‘Go brush your teeth.’
Whenever the family and I go someplace like the National Zoo or the Natural History Museum, I have a little game (read: annoying habit) of embarrassing my wife. Looking at the skeletons of dinosaurs, say, or an evolutionary chart in the ape house I’ll loudly say something like: ‘Of course, if you actually believe in that Darwin nonsense’ or ‘Naturally, it’s all a conspiracy by liberal humanists.’
It only adds to my wife’s embarrassment (read: irritation) when my mock pronouncements are actually met with ‘Amens’ from overhearing bystanders. I admit I’m always a bit surprised by them too. I can only imagine what sort of experience a zoo must be to those who don’t believe in the underlying premise behind every cage and exhibit. It must be a maze of lies and misinformation to such people, begging the even more problematic question of why, if evolution etc isn’t true, God has created a world seemingly designed to mislead us.
My boys have started trying to juxtapose dinosaurs (which they love) with God (whom they love). I take a less sarcastic angle with them and try to make sure I don’t say more than the bible tries to say.
Creation is our worship theme for the coming weekend and its got me thinking of those people I always run into at zoos and museums. And I’m wondering where you fall on this topic?
Do you think the Genesis account is literally true? Do you think its something else? How many creationists are out there actually?
On a related note, here’s NPR’s story about an evolutionary themed Dr Pepper ad that’s provoked complaints from Christians.
0 What If Islam Wasn’t The Only Religion Defined In Terms Of Submission?
Through the years I’ve had friends and close acquaintances who are Muslim. As a prison chaplain I worked alongside a Muslim Imam. In every instance, I’ve always noticed how I actually have MORE in common with them than I do with many of my cultural (non-practicing) Christian friends. Given how radically secular our culture and my generation is how could it be anything but? In college, for example, the only other people I knew who prayed besides myself did so to Allah.
As many of you know, Islam is defined literally as ‘submission’ to God’s will and teaching. The closet Mennonite in me, which is to say the Methodist in me, has always admired the Muslims’ notion of submission. After all, most Christians define Christianity as what? Beliefs…faith in…Jesus as Savior? That’s part of it certainly but I’ve always been uncomfortable with how so many Christians define their faith in a way that conveniently sidesteps or makes optional the actual teachings and example of Christ.
I’ve been thinking this week about the doctrines of incarnation and trinity for the Sunday sermon and I’ve been struck once again how those beliefs work to secure Jesus’ place in the God-head. In other words, the one who gave the sermon on mount wasn’t merely an historical teacher whose words can be dismissed or ignored. He’s God. The sermon on the mount is, literally, the word of God.
So that’s why I’m thinking about submission. I’m wondering what the Church would look like, what the world would look like, if Christians understood THEIR religion as submission to the teachings of Jesus.
3 A Christian Justice?
The Christian tradition has typically opposed the death penalty for a number of compelling reasons. Our savior was an innocent victim of it. Our awareness of human sin means that establishing someone’s guilt beyond doubt is always fraught with error, intentional or not. Our belief in God’s sovereignty precludes us from taking life.
Of all these perspectives, one that I find particularly compelling- and one that has also elicited evangelical sympathies- is the argument that capital punishment eliminates a prisoner’s ability to seek redemption for his or her crimes. The electric chair ‘ends’ their story before they’re able to seek a better ending to their story.
This religious ‘right’ is usually put in opposition to the rights and stories of the victims and their families so that, not just in the act of murder itself but even after, the stories of victim and victimizer are held in opposition forever, making healing and forgiveness a near impossibility.
What’s got me thinking about this is the conclusion to the murder trial of Behring Breivik in Norway. No doubt you’ll remember he’s the man who ignited a bomb in Oslo last summer, killing 8, and then shot 69 at a youth camp on a nearby island.
What’s distinguished the trial is how the court has taken as its goal not only justice (proper defense of the accused and punishment for the crime) but healing.
How have they done this?
The court, damn the costs and the time, has made it a point to hear the story of every single victim. Even before the trial began, the court appointed and paid for 174 lawyers to see to the rights, privacy and needs of the victims family. The court took the time to compassionately listen to 77 autopsy reports, each of which was followed by a photograph and detailed biography of the victim. After the closing arguments, the victims’ families were allowed to speak, often eloquently about their loved ones and their experience of grief. The court did all this without sacrificing the defendant’s rights to a fair trial; Breivik was allowed to have the final word, spouting his rants without any one censoring him.
As an op-ed in the NY Times puts it: By affirming the humanity of each victim, the court tried to satisfy a traumatized society’s thirst for truth and justice without denying the defendant’s right to a fair hearing.
We give a lot of shallow lip service to ours being Christian nation but we seldom flesh that out. Meanwhile here’s a perfect example of Christian justice in action (ironically in a mostly secular nation). For Christians- just as there’s no cross without easter- healing must always be a component of any notion of justice.
1 Are Atheists (and Rich People) Stingy?
At least according to this study by the Chronicle on Philanthropy. As news chatter swirls in the media about tax rates and entitlements, this study offers interesting, objective data on how generous we are with our money.
It’s an important question to explore.
After all, any argument to reduce entitlements for the poor must surely rely on private and faith-based giving as an alternative.
Just as surely, another could push back by wondering if those who advocate entitlements do so because they do not believe, or participate themselves, in faith-based charity.
The Chronicle study found that lower-income Americans tend to give more, as a percentage of their income, to the poor. The study also found that wealthier Americans give more when they live in proximity to those who are poor.
(Both of which may go towards explaining how our own zip code here in Fairfax scores so high in generosity.)
On both these counts, the study really only verified what churches have known for a long time.
It’s important, from a Christian perspective, to note how it’s proximity to need that elicits a compassionate response. To the extent that poverty is an abstraction generosity suffers. It’s about relationships, in other words.
In the same way that it’s easy to demonize homosexuals when you don’t know any, if you don’t know any actual poor people, your generous response will always be further down your priority list.
You have to know real faces and names and homes and concrete needs and problems.
And if, as Christians believe, generosity is a necessary expression of our humanity, as we’re made in God’s image, then our proclivity to isolate ourselves from the poor with sheltered lives and gated communities actually renders us less human.
The study also found that people of faith tend to be more generous too, which accounts for higher levels of giving in regions that report greater church attendance.
This isn’t surprising. What the Chronicle study finds is what Christians already knew from Jesus, who saved one of his harshest pictures of hell for someone who was willfully ignorant of the hunger and suffering of poor Lazarus literally at his doorstep.
This is why the Church has always emphasized not charitable giving but hands-on works of mercy for the poor. Writing a check to an abstract cause or a face and name in a magazine is one thing. Having to look in the eyes and learn the name and about the life of a person in poverty is another, more transformative, thing entirely.