Try it out. It's a brief history lesson with Flash.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Bible Misunderstood
Many Muslims quote various passages in the bible saying that they preach hate, violence or pornography. These passages are seriously misunderstood and are totally out of context. Let's take Matthew Chapter 10:
1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority
to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is
called Peter) and his brother Andrew; ...
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ...
16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as
shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17 Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the
local councils and flog you in their synagogues.
18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings
as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or
how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,
20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you.
21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the
end will be saved.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me;
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me
is not worthy of me;
38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me
is not worthy of me.
39 Whoever finds his life will lose it,
and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
Review:
The first important observation is to recognize that Jesus does not speak about "the sword", but about "a sword". Jesus is not a prophet of the sword. The sword of violence, force and war has no place in his message. What kind of sword is he talking about?
The above passage speaks about the consequence of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to preach his message. Some will listen and accept it but many will reject it and react violently.
We will be hated for the message of repentance that we have to bring. We will be hated because we call people from evil to light and because this message exposes their evil deeds.
For many it will mean that even our own family will turn against us.
What kind of sword? It is the sword of division that God's word brings. It is the division of truth from error, and the reaction of the darkness against the light. The sword that Jesus brings, is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others.
And exactly that happens in many countries. The fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers. Christians are gathering peacefully, yet are persecuted.
______________________________________________________________________
John 8: 42-44
Many Muslims use this verse to show that Jesus called the Jews "Children of the Devil"
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Review:
Once again it's a totally wrong to assume that he was against Jews. After all he himself was a Jew, why would he condemn Jews in general. This passage is actually referring to anyone who does not listen or believe in Jesus and who is blinded (spiritually) by the Devil. He is challenging the pharisees to tell him whether they can find any sin in him. In verse 48 they condemn him be calling him a "Samaritan and Demon-possessed". They not only deny his divinity (which all of the Muslims do) but also call him demon possessed. He goes on in verse 51 "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." Here Jesus is claiming his divinity.
52 At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Yet Muslims still need proof of his divinity!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Matthew 15:
A woman is being called dog by Jesus of Bible.
Matthew 15:26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.
Review:
Let's look at the passage first:
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Important details are added from the parallel passage in Mark 7.24-29:
Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."
At first blush, Jesus' reply to this needy woman seems harsh and insensitive (this bothered me for years and years), but as we get into the details of this exchange, the wisdom and tenderness of our Lord's work will become apparent.
First, let's look at some background material-- historical, literary, theological, pedagogical.
*
Historically, Jesus is taking his disciples aside for some very needed rest. So, William Lane (NICNT:in.loc.):" The purpose of Jesus' withdrawal to Tyre was to secure the rest which had been interrupted both in the wilderness (Ch. 6:30-34) and in the district of Gennesaret (Ch. 6:53-56). The house provided a place of retreat for Jesus with his disciples."
*
Jesus went into the vicinity of Tyre--not the city. He was trying to escape notice, and get some badly needed rest for His disciples [Note: His purpose was to minister to His disciples--He was not seeking rest for HIMSELF. His focus of ministry at that point was on His disciples]. The woman would have had to travel to find Him.
*
From a literary standpoint, this section is wonderfully placed--the wonderful woman serves as a foil against both the Jewish leaders and the disciples (in both Gospels). So, D.A. Carson, EBC:Mt, in. loc.:
Of greater interest is the placing of this periscope in both gospels. It not only records Jesus' withdrawal from the opposition of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (cf. 14.13) but contrasts their approach to the Messiah with that of this woman. They belong to the covenant people but take offense at the conduct of Jesus' disciples, challenge his authority, and are so defective in understanding the Scriptures that they show themselves not to be plants the heavenly Father has planted. But this woman is a pagan, a descendant of ancient enemies, and with no claim on the God of the covenant. Yet in the end she approaches the Jewish Messiah and with great faith asks only for grace; and her request is granted.
and Lane (op.cit.):
the faith of the Syrophoenician woman contrasts dramatically with the determined unbelief of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem while her witty reply to Jesus indicates a degree of understanding which puts the disciples to shame.
*
Theologically, Jesus was sent (as Messiah) to the Jew only. The biblical intent was that the Nation of Israel would accept the Messiah, receive the Spirit, and turn-around and evangelize/minister to the whole world (as they will some day--Romans 11.15). The Gentiles were included in the covenant promises to Abraham, but the blessings to them would come "through Abraham" (Gen 12.3). Cf. Jesus remarks in John 4: "Salvation is from the Jews." So, His PUBLIC ministry was semi-confined to the nation of Israel. [In fact, this scene is the only known traveling of the adult Jesus outside of Palestine--and it was to hide!]
But, AS A JEW HIMSELF (not as the Jewish Messiah), Jesus had a responsibility to non-Jews. As a private citizen, He was to show kindness to foreigners (Lev 19.33ff; Ex 22.21; Dt 10.18ff). Israel was supposed to be a 'kingdom of priests'--to mediate to non-Israel the blessings of God (Ex 19.6). Jonah is an OT book whose central theme is Jewish evangelism of gentiles (Assyria).
Jesus illustrated this in his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4) and the Gentile Centurion of Luke 7--and here. The crowds that listened to Jesus--for example, hearing the Beatitudes-- included foreigners (Mk 3.8; Lk 6.17), and He had a specific ministry to the Jews among the Gentiles in Galilee (Mt 4.15), so His fame would have not been bound to national boundaries.
*
Pedagogically, we have to remember that Jesus (as were traditional rabbi's of the day) was fond of using questions, challenges, and puzzles to engage a student in the learning/growing process (e.g. Mt 13.51; 15.34; Mt 16.13; 17.25; 19.17; 20.22; 20.32--esp. 22.41; Mk 3.4; Lk 10.36; Lk 20.17; John 5.6). Silence-as-response was used by Rabbi's in teaching (e.g., B Ket 77b), and Jesus had used silence-as-response in John 8.1-11, to dramatically heighten the event, and may be using it here in this way. [Or He might be simply developing her faith, as He did when He listened to the disciples' many discussions without responding until later...and as He does constantly with me in MY prayer life, silently waiting for me to be persistent in prayer--smile]. He obviously had SOME point to it, since He did NOT simply send her away immediately.
Now let's look at the flow of the text:
1.
Jesus hides in a house with his disciples, presumably in the countryside, to get the rest Jesus had promised his disciples in Mark 6.31.
2.
News of Jesus' proximity reaches the woman, who immediately drops what she is doing and seeks out the house in which Jesus is staying (Mk 7.25)
3.
She is apparently outside of the house, where she cries/yells out to Him, using the messianic title "Son of David"
4.
Jesus doesn't yell an answer back to the woman from inside the house (Mt 15.23), nor does he speak to the disciples about the matter (they are SUPPOSED to be resting).
5.
They decide to approach Jesus about her, and ask him to grant her request and send her away (Mt 15.23)[Notice that this is the kind of behavior God wanted the Jews to have--to intercede for Gentiles (although it might likely be motivated more by their desire for 'quiet')! Was Jesus silent at first, to provoke the disciples to do this ministry?]
6.
Jesus makes a theological comment, to the disciples (ONLY), about Him being sent "publicly" only to the house of Israel, but this remark (or its tone--which cannot be conveyed by the text) SOMEHOW encourages them to let the woman inside the house!
7.
The woman, only now with full access to Jesus (Mt 15.25), makes her appeal in humility. (The standard understanding of the nature of demonic exorcism--involving physical proximity, cf. Mt 17.14ff-- would have made her request into a 'please come to my house, and drive out the demon'. Cf. Also Jairus in Mark 5.22ff..
8.
Jesus uses a mini-parable or household image about children getting temporal priority at feeding time over their play-pet "puppies" (He actually doesn't even say 'no' to the woman--only something like "something else must be done first").
9.
Seeing exactly the subtle hint that Jesus has provided in the image, she agrees with Jesus (the adversative 'but' in many English translations is simply NOT in the text at all--the kai gar is everywhere else in the NT translated "for even"!), and points out that sometimes the puppies get little morsels BEFORE their regular feeding time, by simply hanging around the dinner table and catching the parts not used by the kids.
10.
Jesus is deeply moved by such a powerful faith--He addresses her in Matthew with "O, Woman!"--a Greek construction (in Hellenistic Greek, not Classical) indicating deep emotional response (Carson, EBC, Matthew, p.356).
11.
Jesus compliments her on her great faith, and explains that the demon has already left her daughter--(and that, by implication, there is no need for Him and the disciples to travel to her home.)
12.
She leaves (apparently trusting Him with that powerful faith--like the Centurion in Luke 7) and finds her daughter cured.
Notice that there is not the slightest indication that the woman felt insulted, discouraged, or even frustrated in this narrative--and also notice that this woman's incredible faith is immortalized forever in the NT (cf. Mk 14.9!).
Now, let's make some observations about this flow:
*
First, Jesus has made an implicit commitment to allow the disciples to rest. If Jesus were to go with this woman, the crowds would be thronging them, and they would be right back where they were in the last 2-3 chapters. Jesus has to "draw the line" somewhere. There is a time to rest and a time to work.
*
Jesus' comment to the disciples about 'the lost sheep of Israel' does two things: (1) it 'sets them up' pedagogically on a different track for His dialogue with the woman; and (2) SOMEHOW, encourages them to let the woman into His presence.
This latter point could be accomplished in a number of ways, many of which are not able to be conveyed in the text. We know, for example, of several cases of irony/sarcasm in Jesus' words that can only be learned from the setting (cf. Luke 13.33: In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day -- for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! or John 16.31: "You believe at last!" Jesus answered. ) For all we know, this verse might have been said with a 'tired irony'--something like the modern--"I was sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel--yeah, right!". In any event, his words or his tone or his gestures encouraged them to 'let her in'.
*
The woman now makes a request "(come to my house and) perform an exorcism" which conflicts with Jesus' current 'mission' to provide rest for his disciples. But instead of saying "No," he turns the event into a three-pronged teaching and development session--for her, for his disciples, for us--WITHOUT compromising His commitment to his disciples' rest, or His compassion for this woman's need.
*
He responds with a mini-parable or image of supper-time, little children, and their inside pets. This image is so well chosen, that it will deliver two 'payloads' to two different audiences.
Remember, the disciples were 'set up' with the theological statement about 'to the Jew only/first.' They will 'process' the words of Jesus with the equivalencies of "children-Jews"//"puppies-Gentiles". They will hear Him speak about how God has a special place for the Jew in the salvation of the world.
The woman, on the other hand, has probably neither heard this remark, NOR has the theological sophistication to make this connection. She is not an Israelite, and although she uses the Son of David title for Jesus, probably has little or no understanding of the theological subtleties required to process the words in the same way as the disciples. But she has already had some interaction with the disciples, and they have probably told her that they are there to rest, not minister. So SHE will hear the words of Jesus and make the equivalencies of "children-disciples"//puppies-me". She will understand Jesus to be saying that she WILL GET FED, but that He must take care of His disciples FIRST. There is not a 'NO' in Jesus' words at all--just an implicit "WAIT."
This "WAIT vs. NO" scenario is what prompts the woman to persevere. Either the image or the tone of Jesus encourages her to make her quick-witted response.
*
The image Jesus has chosen is an image of endearment, not insult. The picture of supper-time, with little kids at the table, and their pet "puppies" (the Greek word for 'dog' here is not the standard, 'outside' dog--which MIGHT BE an insult--, but is the diminutive word, meaning 'household pets, little dogs'... see gooddoggy.html) at their feet, maybe tugging on their robes for food or play. The puppies, dear to the children and probably so too to the master (cf. 2 Sam 12.3f: but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.), were to be fed AFTER the children (notice: not DENIED food--there was no "NO" in Jesus image--only "WAIT"). But the temporal order is clear--Jesus must take care of His disciples FIRST, and if meeting her need involved interrupting their rest and GOING SOMEWHERE, then it was going to have to wait.
*
Implicit in Jesus' image, however, is a very obvious 'hint' to the woman as to how next to proceed. His word choices are interesting. He COULD HAVE SAID "it is not fitting to take the children's food and give it to the (outside) dogs", but instead said "it is not fitting to take the children's food and TOSS it to the (inside) pets." The image, using the different Greek form for "inside puppy-pets" rather than that of the "outside dog" (cf. Luke 16.21), makes the "toss/inside puppy-pets" stand out in the saying. If the woman had ever had any inside pet-related experiences, she would have instantly visualized the obvious--the little pets NEVER sit still away from the table--they are always (esp. the puppies) 'hounding' the children, with the often result of a morsel here or there BEFORE their real mealtime. The hint is there; and the quick-witted woman instantly seizes upon it.
*
And the woman apparently took no insult, nor was discouraged at all. Instead, realizing the dynamics of the image, she instantly saw the built-in "way out"--she didn't want to interrupt the meal--she only wanted a simultaneous 'bite'. She quickly agrees with Jesus ("You are absolutely right Lord, I do not want to interrupt that...") and develops a latent feature in the image ("...in fact, I want you to do that so abundantly so that some of it 'falls off the table' to me the puppy--that way I can eat my little bite at the same time")! This amazing statement amounts to believing (1) that Jesus can do the two things at once--bless His disciples with rest, while He heals her daughter; and (2) that the miracle she needs is a simple 'crumb-size' work for the Son of David! This is 'action at a distance' (without the physical presence of Jesus), an implicit version of the Centurion's faith in Luke 7:
"Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, `Go,' and he goes; and that one, `Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it." 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel."
And, accordingly, earns the same praise and deep response from Jesus.
*
The woman, upon getting the 'your request in granted', maintains her great faith, and leaves without needing Jesus to return with her. Her faith has proven strong, but she has also learned something--that there will still be a BIG FEEDING time for the "puppies"--in the future. This notion of the future time for blessing of the gentiles is ALSO present in that image, and this would have been instructional both for her personal faith, and for the theological education of the disciples--they needed to know about the later mission to the gentiles that would occur (cf. John 10.16: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.).
*
Thus the Teaching Master, in a masterful stroke, instructs the woman, heals her daughter, avoids the spotlight, grants rest to his disciples (while teaching them), and creates a masterful example to us all!
Summary: This passage proves to be a masterful teaching session by the Lord. It does not contain the traditionally-assumed insults to the woman, nor the insensitive rejection of her anxious request. Instead, it shows a sensitivity to her urgent need AND the disciples' needs. Through the skillful selection of a warm, household image, Jesus creates a situation that leads the woman to a more informed faith, a more precise hope, and the disciples to a greater appreciation of their role and of their privilege. Jesus has stayed true to His priority at the time (His disciple's needs), but was willing to interrupt that (briefly) to minister to a needy, faith-filled heart and to use that in leading His disciples to the greater rest that comes from greater faith in God. And this situation, recorded in scripture, challenges US to recognize His power and His willingness to meet our needs, although we MAY have to learn something in the process too...:>)
Such a Savior!
1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority
to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is
called Peter) and his brother Andrew; ...
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ...
16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as
shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17 Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the
local councils and flog you in their synagogues.
18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings
as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or
how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,
20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you.
21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the
end will be saved.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me;
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me
is not worthy of me;
38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me
is not worthy of me.
39 Whoever finds his life will lose it,
and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
Review:
The first important observation is to recognize that Jesus does not speak about "the sword", but about "a sword". Jesus is not a prophet of the sword. The sword of violence, force and war has no place in his message. What kind of sword is he talking about?
The above passage speaks about the consequence of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to preach his message. Some will listen and accept it but many will reject it and react violently.
We will be hated for the message of repentance that we have to bring. We will be hated because we call people from evil to light and because this message exposes their evil deeds.
For many it will mean that even our own family will turn against us.
What kind of sword? It is the sword of division that God's word brings. It is the division of truth from error, and the reaction of the darkness against the light. The sword that Jesus brings, is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others.
And exactly that happens in many countries. The fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers. Christians are gathering peacefully, yet are persecuted.
______________________________________________________________________
John 8: 42-44
Many Muslims use this verse to show that Jesus called the Jews "Children of the Devil"
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Review:
Once again it's a totally wrong to assume that he was against Jews. After all he himself was a Jew, why would he condemn Jews in general. This passage is actually referring to anyone who does not listen or believe in Jesus and who is blinded (spiritually) by the Devil. He is challenging the pharisees to tell him whether they can find any sin in him. In verse 48 they condemn him be calling him a "Samaritan and Demon-possessed". They not only deny his divinity (which all of the Muslims do) but also call him demon possessed. He goes on in verse 51 "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." Here Jesus is claiming his divinity.
52 At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"Yet Muslims still need proof of his divinity!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Matthew 15:
A woman is being called dog by Jesus of Bible.
Matthew 15:26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.
Review:
Let's look at the passage first:
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Important details are added from the parallel passage in Mark 7.24-29:
Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."
At first blush, Jesus' reply to this needy woman seems harsh and insensitive (this bothered me for years and years), but as we get into the details of this exchange, the wisdom and tenderness of our Lord's work will become apparent.
First, let's look at some background material-- historical, literary, theological, pedagogical.
*
Historically, Jesus is taking his disciples aside for some very needed rest. So, William Lane (NICNT:in.loc.):" The purpose of Jesus' withdrawal to Tyre was to secure the rest which had been interrupted both in the wilderness (Ch. 6:30-34) and in the district of Gennesaret (Ch. 6:53-56). The house provided a place of retreat for Jesus with his disciples."
*
Jesus went into the vicinity of Tyre--not the city. He was trying to escape notice, and get some badly needed rest for His disciples [Note: His purpose was to minister to His disciples--He was not seeking rest for HIMSELF. His focus of ministry at that point was on His disciples]. The woman would have had to travel to find Him.
*
From a literary standpoint, this section is wonderfully placed--the wonderful woman serves as a foil against both the Jewish leaders and the disciples (in both Gospels). So, D.A. Carson, EBC:Mt, in. loc.:
Of greater interest is the placing of this periscope in both gospels. It not only records Jesus' withdrawal from the opposition of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (cf. 14.13) but contrasts their approach to the Messiah with that of this woman. They belong to the covenant people but take offense at the conduct of Jesus' disciples, challenge his authority, and are so defective in understanding the Scriptures that they show themselves not to be plants the heavenly Father has planted. But this woman is a pagan, a descendant of ancient enemies, and with no claim on the God of the covenant. Yet in the end she approaches the Jewish Messiah and with great faith asks only for grace; and her request is granted.
and Lane (op.cit.):
the faith of the Syrophoenician woman contrasts dramatically with the determined unbelief of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem while her witty reply to Jesus indicates a degree of understanding which puts the disciples to shame.
*
Theologically, Jesus was sent (as Messiah) to the Jew only. The biblical intent was that the Nation of Israel would accept the Messiah, receive the Spirit, and turn-around and evangelize/minister to the whole world (as they will some day--Romans 11.15). The Gentiles were included in the covenant promises to Abraham, but the blessings to them would come "through Abraham" (Gen 12.3). Cf. Jesus remarks in John 4: "Salvation is from the Jews." So, His PUBLIC ministry was semi-confined to the nation of Israel. [In fact, this scene is the only known traveling of the adult Jesus outside of Palestine--and it was to hide!]
But, AS A JEW HIMSELF (not as the Jewish Messiah), Jesus had a responsibility to non-Jews. As a private citizen, He was to show kindness to foreigners (Lev 19.33ff; Ex 22.21; Dt 10.18ff). Israel was supposed to be a 'kingdom of priests'--to mediate to non-Israel the blessings of God (Ex 19.6). Jonah is an OT book whose central theme is Jewish evangelism of gentiles (Assyria).
Jesus illustrated this in his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4) and the Gentile Centurion of Luke 7--and here. The crowds that listened to Jesus--for example, hearing the Beatitudes-- included foreigners (Mk 3.8; Lk 6.17), and He had a specific ministry to the Jews among the Gentiles in Galilee (Mt 4.15), so His fame would have not been bound to national boundaries.
*
Pedagogically, we have to remember that Jesus (as were traditional rabbi's of the day) was fond of using questions, challenges, and puzzles to engage a student in the learning/growing process (e.g. Mt 13.51; 15.34; Mt 16.13; 17.25; 19.17; 20.22; 20.32--esp. 22.41; Mk 3.4; Lk 10.36; Lk 20.17; John 5.6). Silence-as-response was used by Rabbi's in teaching (e.g., B Ket 77b), and Jesus had used silence-as-response in John 8.1-11, to dramatically heighten the event, and may be using it here in this way. [Or He might be simply developing her faith, as He did when He listened to the disciples' many discussions without responding until later...and as He does constantly with me in MY prayer life, silently waiting for me to be persistent in prayer--smile]. He obviously had SOME point to it, since He did NOT simply send her away immediately.
Now let's look at the flow of the text:
1.
Jesus hides in a house with his disciples, presumably in the countryside, to get the rest Jesus had promised his disciples in Mark 6.31.
2.
News of Jesus' proximity reaches the woman, who immediately drops what she is doing and seeks out the house in which Jesus is staying (Mk 7.25)
3.
She is apparently outside of the house, where she cries/yells out to Him, using the messianic title "Son of David"
4.
Jesus doesn't yell an answer back to the woman from inside the house (Mt 15.23), nor does he speak to the disciples about the matter (they are SUPPOSED to be resting).
5.
They decide to approach Jesus about her, and ask him to grant her request and send her away (Mt 15.23)[Notice that this is the kind of behavior God wanted the Jews to have--to intercede for Gentiles (although it might likely be motivated more by their desire for 'quiet')! Was Jesus silent at first, to provoke the disciples to do this ministry?]
6.
Jesus makes a theological comment, to the disciples (ONLY), about Him being sent "publicly" only to the house of Israel, but this remark (or its tone--which cannot be conveyed by the text) SOMEHOW encourages them to let the woman inside the house!
7.
The woman, only now with full access to Jesus (Mt 15.25), makes her appeal in humility. (The standard understanding of the nature of demonic exorcism--involving physical proximity, cf. Mt 17.14ff-- would have made her request into a 'please come to my house, and drive out the demon'. Cf. Also Jairus in Mark 5.22ff..
8.
Jesus uses a mini-parable or household image about children getting temporal priority at feeding time over their play-pet "puppies" (He actually doesn't even say 'no' to the woman--only something like "something else must be done first").
9.
Seeing exactly the subtle hint that Jesus has provided in the image, she agrees with Jesus (the adversative 'but' in many English translations is simply NOT in the text at all--the kai gar is everywhere else in the NT translated "for even"!), and points out that sometimes the puppies get little morsels BEFORE their regular feeding time, by simply hanging around the dinner table and catching the parts not used by the kids.
10.
Jesus is deeply moved by such a powerful faith--He addresses her in Matthew with "O, Woman!"--a Greek construction (in Hellenistic Greek, not Classical) indicating deep emotional response (Carson, EBC, Matthew, p.356).
11.
Jesus compliments her on her great faith, and explains that the demon has already left her daughter--(and that, by implication, there is no need for Him and the disciples to travel to her home.)
12.
She leaves (apparently trusting Him with that powerful faith--like the Centurion in Luke 7) and finds her daughter cured.
Notice that there is not the slightest indication that the woman felt insulted, discouraged, or even frustrated in this narrative--and also notice that this woman's incredible faith is immortalized forever in the NT (cf. Mk 14.9!).
Now, let's make some observations about this flow:
*
First, Jesus has made an implicit commitment to allow the disciples to rest. If Jesus were to go with this woman, the crowds would be thronging them, and they would be right back where they were in the last 2-3 chapters. Jesus has to "draw the line" somewhere. There is a time to rest and a time to work.
*
Jesus' comment to the disciples about 'the lost sheep of Israel' does two things: (1) it 'sets them up' pedagogically on a different track for His dialogue with the woman; and (2) SOMEHOW, encourages them to let the woman into His presence.
This latter point could be accomplished in a number of ways, many of which are not able to be conveyed in the text. We know, for example, of several cases of irony/sarcasm in Jesus' words that can only be learned from the setting (cf. Luke 13.33: In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day -- for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! or John 16.31: "You believe at last!" Jesus answered. ) For all we know, this verse might have been said with a 'tired irony'--something like the modern--"I was sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel--yeah, right!". In any event, his words or his tone or his gestures encouraged them to 'let her in'.
*
The woman now makes a request "(come to my house and) perform an exorcism" which conflicts with Jesus' current 'mission' to provide rest for his disciples. But instead of saying "No," he turns the event into a three-pronged teaching and development session--for her, for his disciples, for us--WITHOUT compromising His commitment to his disciples' rest, or His compassion for this woman's need.
*
He responds with a mini-parable or image of supper-time, little children, and their inside pets. This image is so well chosen, that it will deliver two 'payloads' to two different audiences.
Remember, the disciples were 'set up' with the theological statement about 'to the Jew only/first.' They will 'process' the words of Jesus with the equivalencies of "children-Jews"//"puppies-Gentiles". They will hear Him speak about how God has a special place for the Jew in the salvation of the world.
The woman, on the other hand, has probably neither heard this remark, NOR has the theological sophistication to make this connection. She is not an Israelite, and although she uses the Son of David title for Jesus, probably has little or no understanding of the theological subtleties required to process the words in the same way as the disciples. But she has already had some interaction with the disciples, and they have probably told her that they are there to rest, not minister. So SHE will hear the words of Jesus and make the equivalencies of "children-disciples"//puppies-me". She will understand Jesus to be saying that she WILL GET FED, but that He must take care of His disciples FIRST. There is not a 'NO' in Jesus' words at all--just an implicit "WAIT."
This "WAIT vs. NO" scenario is what prompts the woman to persevere. Either the image or the tone of Jesus encourages her to make her quick-witted response.
*
The image Jesus has chosen is an image of endearment, not insult. The picture of supper-time, with little kids at the table, and their pet "puppies" (the Greek word for 'dog' here is not the standard, 'outside' dog--which MIGHT BE an insult--, but is the diminutive word, meaning 'household pets, little dogs'... see gooddoggy.html) at their feet, maybe tugging on their robes for food or play. The puppies, dear to the children and probably so too to the master (cf. 2 Sam 12.3f: but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.), were to be fed AFTER the children (notice: not DENIED food--there was no "NO" in Jesus image--only "WAIT"). But the temporal order is clear--Jesus must take care of His disciples FIRST, and if meeting her need involved interrupting their rest and GOING SOMEWHERE, then it was going to have to wait.
*
Implicit in Jesus' image, however, is a very obvious 'hint' to the woman as to how next to proceed. His word choices are interesting. He COULD HAVE SAID "it is not fitting to take the children's food and give it to the (outside) dogs", but instead said "it is not fitting to take the children's food and TOSS it to the (inside) pets." The image, using the different Greek form for "inside puppy-pets" rather than that of the "outside dog" (cf. Luke 16.21), makes the "toss/inside puppy-pets" stand out in the saying. If the woman had ever had any inside pet-related experiences, she would have instantly visualized the obvious--the little pets NEVER sit still away from the table--they are always (esp. the puppies) 'hounding' the children, with the often result of a morsel here or there BEFORE their real mealtime. The hint is there; and the quick-witted woman instantly seizes upon it.
*
And the woman apparently took no insult, nor was discouraged at all. Instead, realizing the dynamics of the image, she instantly saw the built-in "way out"--she didn't want to interrupt the meal--she only wanted a simultaneous 'bite'. She quickly agrees with Jesus ("You are absolutely right Lord, I do not want to interrupt that...") and develops a latent feature in the image ("...in fact, I want you to do that so abundantly so that some of it 'falls off the table' to me the puppy--that way I can eat my little bite at the same time")! This amazing statement amounts to believing (1) that Jesus can do the two things at once--bless His disciples with rest, while He heals her daughter; and (2) that the miracle she needs is a simple 'crumb-size' work for the Son of David! This is 'action at a distance' (without the physical presence of Jesus), an implicit version of the Centurion's faith in Luke 7:
"Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, `Go,' and he goes; and that one, `Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it." 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel."
And, accordingly, earns the same praise and deep response from Jesus.
*
The woman, upon getting the 'your request in granted', maintains her great faith, and leaves without needing Jesus to return with her. Her faith has proven strong, but she has also learned something--that there will still be a BIG FEEDING time for the "puppies"--in the future. This notion of the future time for blessing of the gentiles is ALSO present in that image, and this would have been instructional both for her personal faith, and for the theological education of the disciples--they needed to know about the later mission to the gentiles that would occur (cf. John 10.16: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.).
*
Thus the Teaching Master, in a masterful stroke, instructs the woman, heals her daughter, avoids the spotlight, grants rest to his disciples (while teaching them), and creates a masterful example to us all!
Summary: This passage proves to be a masterful teaching session by the Lord. It does not contain the traditionally-assumed insults to the woman, nor the insensitive rejection of her anxious request. Instead, it shows a sensitivity to her urgent need AND the disciples' needs. Through the skillful selection of a warm, household image, Jesus creates a situation that leads the woman to a more informed faith, a more precise hope, and the disciples to a greater appreciation of their role and of their privilege. Jesus has stayed true to His priority at the time (His disciple's needs), but was willing to interrupt that (briefly) to minister to a needy, faith-filled heart and to use that in leading His disciples to the greater rest that comes from greater faith in God. And this situation, recorded in scripture, challenges US to recognize His power and His willingness to meet our needs, although we MAY have to learn something in the process too...:>)
Such a Savior!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Have you read the Gospel of Jesus?
As a Good Muslim - Have you read the Gospel of Jesus?
The Gospel of Jesus and Old Testament (Torah): "Guidance and Light"
- Surah 2:87 - And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit,
- Surah 3:48 - And He (Isa/Jesus) will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat (Torah) and the Injeel (Christian Gospel).
- Surah 3:50 - And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat (Torah) and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden t you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.
- Surah 5:44 - "Surely We revealed the Taurat (Torah/Bible Old Testament) in which was guidance and light", with it the prophets who submitted themselves....
- Surah 5:46 - And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat (Jewish Torah) and We gave him the Injeel (Christian Gospels) in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
- Surah 5.68 - Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord;
- Surah 6.154: Again, We gave the Book (Torah) to Musa to complete (Our blessings) on him who would do good (to others), and making plain all things and a guidance and a mercy, so that they should believe in the meeting of their Lord.
- Surah 6.155: And this (Torah) is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and guard (against evil) that mercy may be shown to you.
- Surah 29:46 "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one;
- Surah 32:23 - And certainly We gave the Book to Musa, so be not in doubt concerning the receiving of it, and We made it a guide for the children of Israel.
- Surah 43:63 - When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.
- Surah 46:12 we are told.... "And before it the Book of Musa (Moses) (Torah) was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and as good news for the doers of good......"
The Gospel of Jesus and Old Testament (Torah): "Guidance and Light"
- Surah 2:87 - And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit,
- Surah 3:48 - And He (Isa/Jesus) will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat (Torah) and the Injeel (Christian Gospel).
- Surah 3:50 - And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat (Torah) and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden t you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me.
- Surah 5:44 - "Surely We revealed the Taurat (Torah/Bible Old Testament) in which was guidance and light", with it the prophets who submitted themselves....
- Surah 5:46 - And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat (Jewish Torah) and We gave him the Injeel (Christian Gospels) in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
- Surah 5.68 - Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord;
- Surah 6.154: Again, We gave the Book (Torah) to Musa to complete (Our blessings) on him who would do good (to others), and making plain all things and a guidance and a mercy, so that they should believe in the meeting of their Lord.
- Surah 6.155: And this (Torah) is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and guard (against evil) that mercy may be shown to you.
- Surah 29:46 "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one;
- Surah 32:23 - And certainly We gave the Book to Musa, so be not in doubt concerning the receiving of it, and We made it a guide for the children of Israel.
- Surah 43:63 - When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.
- Surah 46:12 we are told.... "And before it the Book of Musa (Moses) (Torah) was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and as good news for the doers of good......"
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Religious Tolerance in Islam?
Does Islam teaches us to be friends with one another or is that friendship only for other Muslim brother and Sister?
Sura 5:51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Sura 5:51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Women in Islam
How can anyone justify Islam's treatment of women, when it imprisons Afghans under blue shuttlecock burqas and makes Pakistani girls marry strangers against their will? How can you respect a religion that forces women into polygamous marriages, mutilates their genitals, forbids them to drive cars and subjects them to the humiliation of "instant" divorce?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Ten and Me
Interesting article I found on http://minuteswithmessiah.tripod.com/minutes/notunder.html
The Ten and Me
by Tim O'Hearn
Where in the Bible does is say that it is wrong to eat pork? When did God change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Since Moses said to kill all homosexuals, why don’t we do so today? These are some questions that I have answered on the “What Does the Bible Say About..?” portion of my web site. That they are even being asked, and especially that the question about pork is one of the most frequently visited pages of that site, shows a fundamental error of many who consider themselves Christians today. The Law of Moses, which includes the Ten Commandments, does not apply to most of us today.
Over the past year or more there have been stories of people demanding that schools remove copies of the Ten Commandments. There was the case of the judge who refused, in the face of a court order, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from view in a courthouse. When people ask me whether I think the commandments should be displayed I have a standard answer. “I have no objection to the Ten Commandments being displayed in government buildings any more than I have an objection to portions of the Koran being displayed. If they are going to display these scriptures, they should also display a selection of Christian scriptures as well.” Frequently people are taken aback at this response, thinking that the Ten Commandments are Christian scriptures.
Then I point out that the Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews. My possibly Jewish male ancestor notwithstanding, I am not Jewish and so have never been subject to the Law of Moses. If a Christian who has been by ethnicity or conversion a Jew chooses to follow the laws of kashrut (kosher), keep the Leviticus 23 festivals, and observe Sabbath, that is a matter of personal choice that is not binding on me. If I choose to eat a ham sandwich with cheese, that is a personal choice that I must not bind on him.
Two questions usually come up when I say that non-Jewish Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments or any part of the Law of Moses. How can you say that? Does that mean that we can murder, commit adultery, or steal?
Where Does It Say That?
First of all, what I say about the Law of Moses is not original with me. I am just repeating what Jesus, Paul, and whoever wrote the book of Hebrews had to say. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matt 5:17) “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” (Gal 3:19) “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:11-12)
What does Jesus mean by “to fulfil” the law? What is the difference between abolishing and fulfilling? Jesus explained it in part in Luke 16:16-17. “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” The law had a term limit, and that limit was the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah, which was announced by John. After the “seed should come,” it had no more standing. Perhaps we can find a parallel example. If I borrow $10 from Les, I have an obligation to that debt. If I pay the money to Les, then I fulfill the debt. If Steve comes to me, while I owe Les, to ask that I pay him $10, I have no obligation to do so. The debt is not to him. If I loan him $10 after I paid Les, my obligation is to Steve, not Les.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Heb 10:11-14)
Jesus fulfilled the Law by paying the debt that the sacrifices under the Law could not pay in full. Paul even argues (Gal 4:4-5) that Jesus had to be born under the law so that he could save those who were also under it. Once Jesus died on the cross, the law was fulfilled. Its purpose was complete. Its time expired. We are no longer under obligation to a law that is no longer in force.
In keeping with what Jesus had said, he fulfilled the law. In doing so he did not destroy the law. (The King James Version uses the unfortunate mistranslation of “abolish” for “destroy.”) To destroy the law would be to end the law before its time. Jesus did not come to utterly destroy the Law of Moses. It was not his purpose or intent to do away with the law without fulfilling its term. While he lived on earth he kept the Law of Moses. Unlike anyone else, he kept it perfectly. If he were come to destroy the Law he would not have kept the Law. He would, rather, have gone out of his way to violate it. Instead he made sure to meet all of its terms.
Then Why Not…
When I tell people I am not under the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, the next logical question is whether that means I think I can covet my neighbor’s wife or steal or kill. There are at least two responses to this ridiculous question.
The first response is that there are certain things that God considers sinful, regardless of any specific code of law. He didn’t need to have given the Ten Commandments for Cain to know that it was wrong to kill his brother Abel. Long before the giving of the Law a Pharaoh of Egypt knew it was wrong to take Abraham’s wife for his own. (Gen 12:13-20) Some of these are expressed in the Ten Commandments. Some are not.
The second response is related. Just because I am not subject to the Law of Moses doesn’t mean I am not subject to another law of God. If God has forbidden something separate from the Law of Moses, and under the law of Christ, then I am obligated to obey it, even if it is also under the Law of Moses. When a person in the United States breaks a law they are entitled to a trial by jury. Trial by jury was invented by King Henry I of England, and expanded by the great Henry II. Does the American citizen who commits a crime have the right to a jury trial because it is an essential part of English common law? No. When the United States won its independence from England it also won its independence from English law. An American jury trial is based on American law. Since the eighteenth century Americans have been freed from British law. When Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses he brought us into another law. (Heb 7:12, see above) If that law includes loving God and man, not stealing, not committing adultery, and any other thing that was part of the Law of Moses, it is not because it was part of the Law but because it is part of the Law of Christ.
Why not the Gentiles
Included in the Ten Commandments is a law that God never gave to anyone else before or since, the Sabbath. The only people that were ever required to keep the Sabbath were the Jews. Part of the Law of Moses established clean and unclean animals. Under that part of the law, it became wrong to eat pork. Why? Because God said so. There is no other reason that some animals should be singled out as unclean. These are part of what the rabbis consider unexplainable laws. They are so simply by decree of God. Just because it was part of the Law to the Jews doesn’t mean it is part of the law to me.
The state of Texas has no personal income tax. As a New Mexico resident, could I argue that I did not owe any income tax to New Mexico or the United States Government because of the Texas law? I would probably end up in jail. Laws that apply elsewhere don’t necessarily apply where I live.
Laws that were given to the Jews, and the Jews only, are not binding on those of us who are not and never have been Jewish. To try to make them binding on most Christians merely shows a lack of understanding of the principle of law. Paul said I should not condemn Jewish Christians for keeping Sabbath. At the same time he said they should not condemn me for not keeping it. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col 2:16-17) I can not judge anyone who keeps these things, but they were a shadow, and not to be bound on me.
If anyone chooses to eat pork, or observe Sabbath, or hold a Passover Seder I would be wrong to prevent it. My objection to Sabbatarians and those who mistakenly tell me Jesus told me not to eat pork comes only when they try to bind those things on me. If they rely on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, they don’t need to go to the Law of Moses for authority for anything. But as long as they continue to rely on Christ and not on keeping law, they have the right to observe things out of the law. And non-Jewish Christians have a right not to observe those things.
The Ten and Me
by Tim O'Hearn
Where in the Bible does is say that it is wrong to eat pork? When did God change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Since Moses said to kill all homosexuals, why don’t we do so today? These are some questions that I have answered on the “What Does the Bible Say About..?” portion of my web site. That they are even being asked, and especially that the question about pork is one of the most frequently visited pages of that site, shows a fundamental error of many who consider themselves Christians today. The Law of Moses, which includes the Ten Commandments, does not apply to most of us today.
Over the past year or more there have been stories of people demanding that schools remove copies of the Ten Commandments. There was the case of the judge who refused, in the face of a court order, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from view in a courthouse. When people ask me whether I think the commandments should be displayed I have a standard answer. “I have no objection to the Ten Commandments being displayed in government buildings any more than I have an objection to portions of the Koran being displayed. If they are going to display these scriptures, they should also display a selection of Christian scriptures as well.” Frequently people are taken aback at this response, thinking that the Ten Commandments are Christian scriptures.
Then I point out that the Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews. My possibly Jewish male ancestor notwithstanding, I am not Jewish and so have never been subject to the Law of Moses. If a Christian who has been by ethnicity or conversion a Jew chooses to follow the laws of kashrut (kosher), keep the Leviticus 23 festivals, and observe Sabbath, that is a matter of personal choice that is not binding on me. If I choose to eat a ham sandwich with cheese, that is a personal choice that I must not bind on him.
Two questions usually come up when I say that non-Jewish Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments or any part of the Law of Moses. How can you say that? Does that mean that we can murder, commit adultery, or steal?
Where Does It Say That?
First of all, what I say about the Law of Moses is not original with me. I am just repeating what Jesus, Paul, and whoever wrote the book of Hebrews had to say. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matt 5:17) “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” (Gal 3:19) “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:11-12)
What does Jesus mean by “to fulfil” the law? What is the difference between abolishing and fulfilling? Jesus explained it in part in Luke 16:16-17. “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” The law had a term limit, and that limit was the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah, which was announced by John. After the “seed should come,” it had no more standing. Perhaps we can find a parallel example. If I borrow $10 from Les, I have an obligation to that debt. If I pay the money to Les, then I fulfill the debt. If Steve comes to me, while I owe Les, to ask that I pay him $10, I have no obligation to do so. The debt is not to him. If I loan him $10 after I paid Les, my obligation is to Steve, not Les.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Heb 10:11-14)
Jesus fulfilled the Law by paying the debt that the sacrifices under the Law could not pay in full. Paul even argues (Gal 4:4-5) that Jesus had to be born under the law so that he could save those who were also under it. Once Jesus died on the cross, the law was fulfilled. Its purpose was complete. Its time expired. We are no longer under obligation to a law that is no longer in force.
In keeping with what Jesus had said, he fulfilled the law. In doing so he did not destroy the law. (The King James Version uses the unfortunate mistranslation of “abolish” for “destroy.”) To destroy the law would be to end the law before its time. Jesus did not come to utterly destroy the Law of Moses. It was not his purpose or intent to do away with the law without fulfilling its term. While he lived on earth he kept the Law of Moses. Unlike anyone else, he kept it perfectly. If he were come to destroy the Law he would not have kept the Law. He would, rather, have gone out of his way to violate it. Instead he made sure to meet all of its terms.
Then Why Not…
When I tell people I am not under the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, the next logical question is whether that means I think I can covet my neighbor’s wife or steal or kill. There are at least two responses to this ridiculous question.
The first response is that there are certain things that God considers sinful, regardless of any specific code of law. He didn’t need to have given the Ten Commandments for Cain to know that it was wrong to kill his brother Abel. Long before the giving of the Law a Pharaoh of Egypt knew it was wrong to take Abraham’s wife for his own. (Gen 12:13-20) Some of these are expressed in the Ten Commandments. Some are not.
The second response is related. Just because I am not subject to the Law of Moses doesn’t mean I am not subject to another law of God. If God has forbidden something separate from the Law of Moses, and under the law of Christ, then I am obligated to obey it, even if it is also under the Law of Moses. When a person in the United States breaks a law they are entitled to a trial by jury. Trial by jury was invented by King Henry I of England, and expanded by the great Henry II. Does the American citizen who commits a crime have the right to a jury trial because it is an essential part of English common law? No. When the United States won its independence from England it also won its independence from English law. An American jury trial is based on American law. Since the eighteenth century Americans have been freed from British law. When Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses he brought us into another law. (Heb 7:12, see above) If that law includes loving God and man, not stealing, not committing adultery, and any other thing that was part of the Law of Moses, it is not because it was part of the Law but because it is part of the Law of Christ.
Why not the Gentiles
Included in the Ten Commandments is a law that God never gave to anyone else before or since, the Sabbath. The only people that were ever required to keep the Sabbath were the Jews. Part of the Law of Moses established clean and unclean animals. Under that part of the law, it became wrong to eat pork. Why? Because God said so. There is no other reason that some animals should be singled out as unclean. These are part of what the rabbis consider unexplainable laws. They are so simply by decree of God. Just because it was part of the Law to the Jews doesn’t mean it is part of the law to me.
The state of Texas has no personal income tax. As a New Mexico resident, could I argue that I did not owe any income tax to New Mexico or the United States Government because of the Texas law? I would probably end up in jail. Laws that apply elsewhere don’t necessarily apply where I live.
Laws that were given to the Jews, and the Jews only, are not binding on those of us who are not and never have been Jewish. To try to make them binding on most Christians merely shows a lack of understanding of the principle of law. Paul said I should not condemn Jewish Christians for keeping Sabbath. At the same time he said they should not condemn me for not keeping it. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col 2:16-17) I can not judge anyone who keeps these things, but they were a shadow, and not to be bound on me.
If anyone chooses to eat pork, or observe Sabbath, or hold a Passover Seder I would be wrong to prevent it. My objection to Sabbatarians and those who mistakenly tell me Jesus told me not to eat pork comes only when they try to bind those things on me. If they rely on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, they don’t need to go to the Law of Moses for authority for anything. But as long as they continue to rely on Christ and not on keeping law, they have the right to observe things out of the law. And non-Jewish Christians have a right not to observe those things.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Fitna
The controversial film Fitna. I would like the readers to know that I don't like this film, because this film is not trying to expose Islam and Muhammad, but instead stereotyping Muslims based on the actions of a few Muslims. Also, the maker of this film is a politician, in a country which is extremely racist. So in my opinion this his effort to win votes and nothing more. Not all Muslims do these heinous crimes against society, only the ones that have been brain washed in the name of Islam.
To Muslims, yes we know that not all Muslims are into committing these acts but the question you have to ask yourself is that why don't you do something about it? or the people who do these acts what is their interpretations of Islam? Why is it different from yours? Could it be that they are right you are wrong?
To Muslims, yes we know that not all Muslims are into committing these acts but the question you have to ask yourself is that why don't you do something about it? or the people who do these acts what is their interpretations of Islam? Why is it different from yours? Could it be that they are right you are wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)