By What Right?

I was reading in Romans the other day and was struck anew by the opening lines of the second chapter:

“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things” (2:1). 

Those who have read Romans are familiar with the first chapter, particularly the portion beginning in verse 18 which speaks of the wrath of God for the grievous sins of mankind.  This section contains verses which are usually the first ponies trotted out in the arguments against a homosexual lifestyle (see 1:26-27).  While it seems likely that this is what Paul was writing about when he spoke of ‘unnatural relations’ there is a more definite word he could have chosen which he uses is 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10.  But I digress slightly. 

My point is that far too many read this portion of Romans 1 with this extremely limited view, seeing homosexuality as the main focus.  It’s not.  To find the main point of this section, you need to expand your view beyond one sin and consider them all.  Romans 1:18 is clear that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (my emphasis).  God’s problem is not one particular sin, but SIN- the “ungodliness and unrighteousness” present in the hearts of ALL people. 

If we were forced to identify one sin which stood out as the most heinous, a deeper reading of the chapter leads to the only conclusion- idolatry.  Verses 19-23 are evidence that mankind abandoned the plain knowledge of its Creator for worship of the creation.  The invective against same-sex relations must be read in light of this, for all sexual sin is a form of, some might say the highest form of, idolatry; worship of the self.  This self focused idolatry is not however limited to sexual sin, as in verses 28-31, Paul lays out a sweeping condemnation of all mankind for sins ranging from envy to pride to deceit and, for good measure, is keen to point out that it is not only practitioners of these deeds who are guilty, but those who whether by their assent or their silence, allow them to continue.  And since “none is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10; Psalm 14:1-3), there exists not one man, woman or child who can wriggle their way off this list!

So then, by what right do we condemn others for their sin? 

Please do not misunderstand me here, I am not excusing sin nor do I intend to minimize its destructive force.  I am simply asking, if we cannot avoid facing ourselves in the list of 1:28-31, by what right do we take the role of judge and jury upon ourselves?  Isn’t that exactly what Paul is stating in 2:1-3?  Yes it is!  Beware O Christian, the self righteous attitude which uses portions of God’s Word, such as Romans 1:26-27 to condemn the ‘sinner’, when we ourselves are classed along with them.

Now, though, we are presented with the great news that through the mercy of God, Jesus Christ was given to be the sinner’s substitute and that through faith in His death and resurrection I stand before Him, no longer condemned but acquitted.  No longer am I under wrath for the ungodliness and unrighteousness of mankind, but live with the reality of forgiveness. 

But this new standing before God does not confer upon me some divine right to sit in judgment on my fellow men; that is the province of the Lord alone.  I certainly am called to speak about sin, but ever and always it is to point to its universal stranglehold on humanity and the freedom offered to all in Jesus Christ.  My calling is to preach His redemptive gift and to teach those who have been redeemed how to live a life under the leading of the grace of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit.          

So, you “who were dead in your trespasses” but now whom “God [has] made alive…having forgiven [you] all [your] trespasses” (Colossians 2:13), no longer seek a false right to condemn others, but take hold of the calling of God to proclaim to all that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2)

May you find blessing in the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus, may He ever be praised!

A Theology of Hope over A Theology of Horror (part 3)

Let me begin by thanking you for continuing to read and reflect on these matters with me. This will be the final post on this particular topic.

If it can be demonstrated from the Scripture that man is not a naturally immortal being, but depends wholly upon the life giving power of God, not only for life now, but for life to come, which I affirmed in part 1, and if it can be demonstrated that nowhere does the Bible sanction the idea of an eternity of pain and suffering in an eternal 'hell' for those without Christ, which I took on in part 2, then the question is to be asked straightforwardly: Why do so many of pastors, preachers and teachers throughout Christendom continue to hold, to promote and insist on a position which is completely contrary to the revealed Word of God?    

One reason may be simple ignorance.  This is what they were taught and they never thought to question those who taught them.  We may overlook such ignorance with gentleness and enter into constructive dialogue which leads us to God’s Truth.

Another reason may be fear.  The notion of ‘hell’ is such a pervasive dogma within our religious structures, that to be seen as going against it is to invite the condemnation of going to it!  There may be those (and I was once among this group) whose consciences are seared by the fallacy of eternal conscious torment, yet are perhaps too young in their ministry or too dependent on the good graces of church or denominational boards for their livelihood to challenge ‘hell’, even with the power of the Word behind them.  We encourage boldness to do the right thing no matter the personal cost. 

Yet another reason, more sinister by far, is the exercise of power and control.  To stand before a congregation, the majority of whom are unlearned in these matters, and wield the power of eternal hell, or more specifically, the power to decide who may avoid hell’s horrors and how, is power indeed!  Isn’t that part of what the Protestant Reformation erupted against?  The Catholic machine believed itself the possessor of the ‘keys of the Kingdom’ and dictated the terms of salvation.  We decry it this as an outrage against Christ.  I am not saying that the preachers of hell do this intentionally; it is a by-product of a false theology.  

The repercussions for holding to the notion of eternal punishment are many.  It cheapens salvation; devaluing Christ.  This position we oppose has an unmistakable conclusion: you don’t need Jesus to have eternal life, you need Jesus to have eternal life free from torment.  ‘Life’ in ‘hell’ may be horrific beyond measure…but it is still life.  It sets people up to seek goodness in their own merit to improve their own personal experience, after all, how bad can ‘hell’ be for the best of men left to their own goodness.    

The position gravely misrepresents the character of God.  When God passed before Moses He declared of Himself, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty…” (Exodus 34:6-7)  Do we now declare, and here I quote H.L. Hastings, “The Lord, unmerciful, implacable, and Who will preserve countless myriads of His creatures eternally, for the sole and only purpose of torturing them without mercy, without intermission, without end, without aim and without object.” (Hastings, H.L. After the Verdict.  Himes Publications: Lennox MA., 1982. p54)  How do we draw people to the love of God if we call them to an unloving God? 

What is the remedy?  It is found in the title of these posts.  We need to proclaim a theology of hope rather than a theology of horror.  How often is Christ preached as the escape from ‘hell’?  We proclaim Jesus not as escape from an eternity of torment and torture, but Jesus as the means to enter into an eternity of blessedness and peace.  As Conditionalists, we do not desire to dwell on the terror of God’s judgment, though we will not dismiss it; rather we prefer to proclaim Jesus Christ “the Author of life” (Acts 3:15).  When we do preach the consuming fire of God’s wrath it is not to scare people into the Kingdom of Heaven, but to set in stark and infinite contrast the consuming passion of God’s love through Jesus.  We call people to seek life, to flee the inevitable and irreversible death which is the only end for mortal creatures.  We offer the hope of the Gospel; hope that through Jesus is eternal life found; in spite of our sin and shame He reached out to us and lifted us from the stench of decay and set us in green pastures.  We say with the Psalmist, “The LORD is my chosen portion and my cup; You hold my lot.  The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance.” (Psalm 16:5-6)

A theology of horror keeps people in line; keeps them under control; keeps them dependent on human institutions rather than on Christ.  

A theology of hope sets people free; free to seek Christ with joy and gladness through His Word; free to live not under a shadow of judgment but in the sunshine of His pleasure both now and forever.

Well.  Much has been said and much has been necessarily left unsaid.  My voice is but a whisper compared to the mighty shouts of others who have stood to defend the Truth of Life only in Christ against the tide of dogma.  I do not ask you now to agree with me, but to yield to the Word of God on these matters?  I ask you to boldly look satan in the eye and say with all boldness, “Yes, God hath truly said!”  I ask you to devote yourself to the theology of hope: “this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” (1 John 5:11)

We say with Luther, “I cannot choose but adhere to the word of God, which has possession of my conscience; nor can I possibly, nor will I even make any recantation, since it is neither safe nor honest to act contrary to conscience!  Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God! Amen.” 

A Theology of Hope over A Theology of Horror (part 2)

In the first part I began to explain the grounds by which I reject the notion of an eternal hell where the wicked suffer without end for all time.  In this post I would like to share some of those passages which are commonly brought forward to defend eternal torment and offer my perspective on where such interpretation fails the test.  It is not my intent to unveil every passage on the subject.  For those interested in a more comprehensive treatment, I would highly suggest The Fire That Consumes or Hell, A Final Word by Edward Fudge, The Unspeakable Gift by J.H. Pettingell or After the Verdict by H.L. Hastings

We must agree at the outset that for language to have any value, words must mean what they mean in their plain sense.  For example, if we are discussing a lovely day and I say, ‘look how bright the sun is shining’, we would understand that I am referring to the bright, hot sphere around which our planet orbits.  There is no ambiguity of what is being said and to change the meaning of my words without cause is unwarranted and indefensible.  If you can agree with me on this, then I invite you to continue reading.   

Some of the most common words/terms used in the Scripture to speak of the destiny of the lost are 'destroy(ed)', 'perish', 'come to an end', 'come to nothing', 'cease'.  These words, in the plain nature of their meaning, convey one and the same sense- the utter and complete end of those apart from God.  Nowhere do they mean, nor can they be made to mean, ‘linger forever in conscious torment’.

In speaking of the enemies of God who come against Jerusalem, the prophet says, “For the ruthless shall come to nothing and the scoffer cease, and all who watch to do evil shall be cut off…”(Isaiah 29:20esv)  Three different descriptions in one verse which leave no doubt that the wicked will not remain.

In the New Testament, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus, is pledged not an eternity of conscious torment, but complete destruction.  He says, “…do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [literally ‘Gehenna’].” (Matthew 10:28esv)  I was raised on the notion of the everlasting torment of the lost and it was this verse that set me on my path to discovering Conditionalism.  The image Jesus used for this final punishment was ‘Gehenna’ (the valley of Hinnom), a garbage dump outside of the city of Jerusalem where the refuse was thrown to be eaten by worms and burned with fire.  The word ‘destroy’ is apollumi and, contrary to those who would try to change the meaning of the word, it means utter, irreversible destruction.  Things which went into the dump, didn't linger forever and they never came back. 

Okay, you ask, what of the passages which seem to teach this never-ending torment? Let me share just a few.

In several places the phrase ‘eternal fire’ is used.  For example: “And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.” (Matthew 18:8esv) or “…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7esv).  Surely this settles the matter- the wicked face an eternity in fire.  Except that’s not what the passages say or mean.  It should be obvious that it is the fire which is ‘eternal’ not the punishment of those cast into the fire.  Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning are they?

But doesn't an eternal fire necessitate that there should be something in the fire eternally?  And isn't this therefore what the images of the undying worm and the unquenchable fire signify?  First we must discover the meaning of the word ‘eternal’.  We assume it to mean ‘forever and ever’, however the Greek word for ‘eternal’ (ainos) does not always mean eternality in quantity, but eternality in quality.  It is not the fire itself which is eternal, but the effect which the fire produces, total destruction, which is eternal.  When Jesus refers to the worm and fire (Mark 9:48), He does so in allusion to Isaiah 66:24 which speaks of the final destruction of God’s enemies: “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me.  For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”esv  See how that verse begins- “…they shall go out and look on the dead bodies…”  Not living, tormented souls, but dead things upon which worms feed and fire consumes.  The choice becomes permanent; the penalty is irreversible; the effects are everlasting.         

Okay, what about Revelation 14:10: “…he [anyone receiving the mark of the beast] also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.”  Well that seems pretty straightforward- “tormented with fire and sulfur.”  Just a moment; a couple questions.  First, who is to be tormented?  Those who receive the mark of the beast.  Regardless of how you interpret Revelation, it should certainly be agreed that there is a very large segment of the unbelieving human population who has lived and died prior to the events depicted in this verse, so to make this a blanket statement about all the wicked cannot be justified.  If it could, it still wouldn't make the case, for it says nothing about an everlasting torment.  Conditionalism does not dispute the notion that those placed under God’s wrath will suffer; but rather that they will not suffer without end.

Wait!  You need to go to Revelation 14:11- “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”  Let’s be sure we understand what is being described here.  First, judgment is an inevitable result of the persistent and deliberate rejection of the Lamb in favor of the beast and this particular judgment is upon those who have sided with the beast.  Additionally, please see that it is the results of the judgment and not the torment itself which is eternal: “…the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever…”  The image of ‘no rest’ is not to communicate eternal torment but is to draw the contrast between the saved and the lost out to its fullest.  For those redeemed by Jesus, there is a future ‘rest’, a welcome into the peaceful Kingdom of God.  For the wicked, there is ‘no rest’, not meaning that they remain in an active state, but rather the pledge that there is no eternal Kingdom waiting for them. 

What of Revelation 20:10: “…and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”  We concede no ground here, as the context is abundantly clear that this judgment is for the sinister agents of evil, satan, the beast and the false prophet.  And while unredeemed humanity is also thrown into the Lake of Fire, nowhere is it said, nor can it be postulated that their torment is forever.   

Consider, as I wrap this section up, how Revelation 21 can make any possible sense in the light of the never ending torment of the wicked. 

The Apostle writes in Revelation 21:4 that God will “will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore…”  This blessing applies to the redeemed.  If the text ended there it could be postulated that the wicked remain to endure in mourning, crying and pain, but the text does not leave it there; it continues, “…for the former things have passed away.”  What are the former things if not everything belonging to the age prior to the coming of Christ and the establishing of God’s perfect Kingdom?  That word ‘eternal’ can also mean ‘age’ or ‘ages’.  The place of punishment, the Lake of Fire, belongs to this first age of ‘former things’ and will exist only as long as the age to which it belongs and no longer.  The worm and fire will do their work until the last scrap is consumed and then comes the promise of God, Who is “making all things new.” (Revelation 21:5).  What does ‘all things’ refer to?  No one would say that God makes sin new, would they?  The notion of eternal torment must of necessity believe that there will be a place where ‘old things’ survive; unless we are to actually believe that God plans on making a ‘new hell’ and also makes new those who inhabit that place.  This is a plainly ridiculous notion is it not? 

When the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire, it may be that most will be snuffed out instantly, while others may remain for a short while- I will leave that for God to determine.  What I do know is that finally, when all vestiges of evil and sin have been purged, satan will also be consumed and the lake of fire will burn itself out.  The last sun will set on the old age a new and eternal morning of God’s eternal age will begin.

If you have made to this point, I appreciate you sticking with me and hope you come back for part 3.  

A Theology of Hope over a Theology of Horror (part 1)

The following series of posts are likely to challenge the assumptions of some of my readers and provoke a range of responses.  I appreciate your feedback, but please do so with the same grace in which these posts are offered. 

I am writing in challenge to and refutation of the concept of the eternal torment of the lost.  

Here is why I feel compelled to write.  

First, what one believes about what will happen to those apart from Christ on Judgment Day is itself not a 'salvation' issue and should not be used as any type of litmus test.  Our primary concern should be for those without Christ now and our responsibility to share the Good News of Jesus with them now.  How long will the second level issues prevent unity in the Body of Christ?  (One might question the wisdom of such dogmatic statements on these types of issues being part of an 'official statement of faith' in the first place.)  

Second, for me, the issue of the nature of final punishment is a matter of integrity in Biblical interpretation.  Can the notion of eternal torment be defended with sound interpretive principles?  If it can, then so be it.  If not, then why do we insist on holding to it in opposition to the sacred text?

The position of eternal burning hell rests on the assumption of the natural immortality of man's 'soul' which must therefore live forever in some condition either of blessedness or torment.  But what happens to an eternal hell if man's 'soul' is not immortal?  Then the concept of eternal hell shudders and collapses as a house of cards deprived of its underpinnings.

Here is the truth of God's Word.  Man is not naturally immortal.  Whoa!  What of that old saying, "may God have mercy on your immortal soul"?  It's false.  It's blatantly un-Biblical.  

Scripture tells us plainly that God "alone has immortality" -1 Timothy 6:16. The word 'alone' is the Greek monos (from where we get the prefix 'mono' meaning one, or only).  Immortality is an inherent quality of Divine Being; to say that any other possesses what belongs to God alone is, and I use the word with precision, heresy.  There really is no way around this verse.  It is direct and simple.  It is not ripped from its context to stand as a proof text.  Only God possesses immortality.

Man therefore can only exist eternally by the will of Him Who alone possesses the power to confer that blessing, the Triune God (God the Father through the agency of God the Son in the power of God the Spirit- so see John 5:21, 6:63)

And what of those on whom God does not choose to confer the blessing of eternal life?  The opposite of life is death- a complete end to existence.  The opposite of eternal life is not eternal torment or even eternal dying, but eternal death, an end of existence that cannot be undone.   

The position I hold, a position which goes back into the earliest centuries of the Christian Church*, is that of 'Conditional Immortality', namely that the promise of any enduring, eternal existence is completely contingent upon the gift of God through Jesus Christ.  Thus, those without Christ will not and cannot indefinitely exist in any form, even in the torturous horrors of 'hell'.

The concept of man's immortal soul appeared in the late 200's AD with the synthesizing of Christian theology and pagan Greek philosophy, notable with theologians such as Origen and Tertullian.  Biblical theology was submerged and drowned in a pagan philosophy which posited the duality of matter and spirit, body and soul.  It was that philosophy which taught an immortal nature which was to be set free from the bonds of its material prison (here is the roots of the idea of 'going to heaven when we die').  Rather than refute philosophy, the theologians embraced it and mutilated the Scripture to say what it was never meant to say.

To uphold the natural immortality of man's 'soul', a part of man which cannot die, is not only poor theology, but treads into some very dangerous territory: "But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die.'"- Genesis 3:4.  God told Adam that disobedience would lead to death; satan refuted God's words. 

Friends, with humility I ask, if God tells us in His Word that the "wages of sin is death (Greek  thanatos)" -Romans 6:23, and the plain meaning of death is a cessation of all life, by what right do we have to declare that what God said is not right and that the wages of sin is not death, but a continuation of 'life' in unending torment?  Do you see where this road leads?  I will not, and I pray you see also that you cannot, hold to the 'traditional' view of hell which drips with the poison of a serpents fangs.

In my next post I will explore some of the texts that are often used to defend the notion of eternal torment and, with grace, show why they cannot be made to say such things.

    

*Notable post-Biblical theologians and teachers who held to Conditionalism: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Watts, Pannenberg  

  

Principles vs. Patterns

In this post I would like to share some things I am thinking regarding how we often lock ourselves into ways of doing things which either hinder growth or prevent it entirely.

Consider that portion of the 'Sermon on the Mount' in which Jesus addresses giving, praying and fasting (Matthew 6:1-18).  In each of these sections, the Greek grammar leads us to conclude that Jesus expects His disciples to engage in these disciplines.

A necessary question arises: why did Jesus choose to highlight these three particular practices.  The answer is given by the Lord in the text itself.  In each case Jesus urges His disciples that when they engage in the particular practice being discussed, that they refrain from acting in certain ways which are the marks of the 'hypocrite'.  Each of the practices, giving, praying and fasting, were used by the self-righteous as a means to show off their piety.  They announced their giving with trumpets; they prayed loudly and repetitively on the street corners; they moped around publicly when they fasted.  They took something God designed for the healthy growth of His followers and twisted it; yet because they were doing the action, they considered themselves 'mature'.

Jesus draws His disciples back to the principles of these activities, reclaiming their power to strengthen a person's spiritual life. We find many things in the life of the Church which seem good on the surface, but because we are only concerned with keeping the pattern or structure of the action, we miss its purpose and its power.

An example from my own experience comes from a time when I changed the format of the Lord's Table.  I wanted people to see that it is the participation of faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, as symbolized in the bread and cup which is the important matter.  On this particular Sunday, I put out a simple card table, poured the juice into Dixie cups and used plain crackers.  Before the service had even begun, one person walked out in 'protest'.  I wonder how many who remained felt the same urge.  I am glad he left to be honest, because it showed that he was more concerned with the external pattern rather than understanding the principle behind it.

Another area where I have heard complaint from one believer towards another is in their all important Sunday morning attendance.  I have ministered to people who faithfully attended a mid-week prayer or study groups but had spotty attendance on Sunday.  The 'pious' mutter and wonder where these people are.  It doesn't matter how many other days the 'offender' was engaged in the life of the church, it only matters that the pattern of Sunday worship be slavishly upheld.  

The principle of the Word of God is given in Hebrews 10:24-25: "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." (ESV).  The principle is a commitment to regular, ongoing fellowship with the family of God.  Specifically when this takes place is largely irrelevant.  The majority of Christendom has elected to meet on Sunday morning, but let them not despise or criticize those who choose to gather at other days and times.

When we lock ourselves into patterns and structures, we risk stagnation in our spiritual life and the life of our churches.  Jesus warned those who had such a restricted view that the 'new wine' would rupture the 'old wine skins' and neither would be of any profit.  If you are reading this and you are content with a specific way of doing things, then I urge us, so long as you recognize the heart behind the habit, keep at it.  But if you are 'set in your ways' thinking they are the only right ways, please hear a gentle warning- your old wine skin is about to rupture.

We must recognize that the Holy Spirit leads us to live out the Faith in a variety of ways.  So long as we are not violating the principles which God has established, let us celebrate the diversity of life in the Body of Christ.        

Taught by the Word

In my last post, I shared some thoughts surrounding Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees over their exalting of man's rules at the expense of men themselves,  In this post I would like to continue that line of thinking as it relates to Jesus' response.  

But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?" (Matthew 12:3-5 NASU)

The disciples had been picking heads of grain as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath. In order to eat the grain, they needed to rub the heads of the stalks between their hands, breaking off the husks and revealing the kernels. According to the Pharisees, not only had the disciples harvested grain, but had also 'winnowed' it and therefore were in violation of Sabbath laws (this prohibition can be seen in the Jewish collection of laws and traditions known as the Mishna, specifically in Shabbat 7.2.3, 5, 6.  While the Mishna was not codified until around 200AD, it reflects rules and traditions which had been advocated for many generations.  But I digress.) These regulations became the grounds for accusation and condemnation.  In response, Jesus appeals not to man's rules, but the perfect Word of God, as He calls to their minds events in the life of David (see 1 Samuel 21:1-6) as well as the ministry of the priests on the Sabbath (see Numbers 28:9-10 for example).  Jesus trumps man's law with the plain truth of God's Word.

Our appeal must always be to the plain teaching of God's Word.  So often we hold up the opinions and viewpoints of men- this popular teacher says this while that 'sage' of our time says that; but "have you not read"? Do we not have God's Word to guide us?  True, there are portions which we struggle to grasp or agree upon, but the great majority of the Word is plain and open, and only a deliberate twisting of the text causes confusion.  

The Pharisees were so locked in by their rules that they could not see the broader teaching of God's principles; but before we vilify them, should we not confess that we too fall into the same trap?  Don't we often become blinded by our own social, political or theological perspectives?  It is so easy to believe in our own rightness and we struggle to admit that we could ever be wrong or incomplete in our understanding; so we become arrogant, closed off and unteachable.  We must open ourselves to be taught by the Word of God and the Spirit which inspired the writing of that Word.  

Jesus Cares for Men More than Man's Rules

It's been a while since I posted- life can get away from us pretty quickly can't it!

I'd like to share some thoughts from a recent journal entry.

1At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.  2But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath."  3But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?  5Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?  6But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.  7But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matthew 12:1-7NASB)

On several occasions Jesus came into conflict with the Pharisees over the Sabbath and the 'rules' for keeping it.  Often, their rules hindered, or would have hindered someone from receiving a blessing- such as the man whom Jesus healed as recorded in Mark 3:1-5 -or, in this passage from Matthew, having a need met. Jesus' disciples were hungry, but by the standards of the Pharisees, it would have been better for men to go hungry than for them to break the rules of men.  By His response (which I will post in another blog), Jesus affirms the dignity of man and rejects the validity of man's law.

It poses an interesting question doesn't it?  When do our 'rules' get in the way of meeting the real needs of the people around us?  When are we so blinded by our 'laws' that we cannot see those who are hurting, hungry and helpless?  It probably happens more than we'd care to admit.  We resist moving beyond our rules out of fear; fear of what new doors may open- what God might begin to do; fear of upsetting neatly packaged theological ideas; fear of what the 'establishment' might say, think or do.  Jesus shows us that it is man who matters, not the rules men put in place by which they might control other men.  Jesus sets us free from those rules, free to serve and love God and our neighbor without fear.

I offer this prayer: Lord, Your Word is clear in its call to love You and love others by setting aside man's artificial rules and walking with Jesus 'through the grain fields'.  Amen.