The initial draft of this was pretty harsh. As I was mulling it over, I read James 3 which is about the power of the tongue and so I rewrote this, coming at it from a different angle. My heart is this: to see more fruit, both in my own life and well as in the lives of other believers I know. What I see in myself, at times, and in many others around me, is a lack of intention and seriousness - this bears itself out in Biblical illiteracy and theological laziness...Peter has a very straight-forward exhortation in 2 Peter 3 which reads, "But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess." It is with that in mind that I write these things - to encourage us all to search out the Scriptures so that we might have an answer for those who ask.
The Premise
The Bible can be read, in English, by anyone and be understood at a surface level. I believe that even at a surface-read level, it has the power to change a heart because it is the very words of God himself. Having said that - simply reading through the words of Scripture is milk. The author of Hebrews says, "Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." (Hebrews 5:13-14) I think the important part of those verses is the section that says, "who by CONSTANT USE have TRAINED themselves." Our faith requires something of us, and in order to properly understand what we are reading, we are likely going to have to work (i.e. train).
I want to give some examples of some of the ideas I see on X/Twitter (and other places) that are a result of shallow understanding.
Paul is Against the Law - Fallacy
I've seen and heard this idea many times and it's that Paul (and some even say Jesus himself) was preaching against the Law of Moses. If you read Deuteronomy 12:28-13:18, Paul and Jesus would be considered false witnesses if that is what they were teaching (punishable by death). Jesus was falsely put to death on these grounds, and so was Paul, but in a less direct way. There isn't some new standard that is suddenly applied when Jesus comes on the scene. Paul is not rewriting Torah and making up stuff as he goes...he would have been considered a Biblical expert (which is to say, Old Testament expert) in his time and everything he says is fully informed by the Tanakh. If it appears he is saying that the Law of Moses is not longer in force, then either a) we have translated his message poorly and have mixed up what he is saying or b) we are misunderstanding him.
Scriptural supports for both Paul and Jesus upholding the Law abound, but here are two that are quite direct:
1.) In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, he very directly addresses the Law early on. He says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them [most accurately read, "to fill them up" or to "make them fully known"]. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)
I don't know how this verse is misunderstood or ignored. Jesus is clearly supporting the Law of Moses (the "Law") and also saying that the Law will not disappear until heaven and earth disappear. I just looked out the window and the earth is still here. Furthermore, Jesus goes on to say that anyone who sets aside the law and teaches others to set aside the law is in danger of hell itself.
2.) In Acts 21, Paul arrives back in Jerusalem and immediately has an audience with James (likely the apostle James and brother of Jesus) and they confront him with him with a false rumor that "you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses [code for "the Law"], telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs". (Acts 21:21) There is then a discussion on what can be done to prove to the people that this rumor is indeed false. What do they prescribe? "We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the Law." (Acts 21:23-24)
Paul goes and does what they have prescribed which assumes that he in agreement with them. All of this was done to prove that not only does Paul uphold the Law, but that even He himself lives in conformity with the Law of Moses.
Replacement Theology/Supercessionism - Fallacy
This is another example and one that I have spoken against many times on this platform; it is the idea that the Church has replaced Israel or that the Church is now the "Israel of God". This kind of conclusion is born out of shallow thinking and Biblical illiteracy. God himself is utterly consistent throughout the Old Testament that he will remain faithful to his covenants - all of which are made to Israel, with the Nations in mind as well.
Jeremiah 33:20-21
"This is what the Lord says: 'If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night do not occur at their proper time, then My covenant with David My service may also be broken...'"
I won't belabor this point - if you want to read more of the argument for why replacement theology is unbiblical, go and read other posts I have made about it. In summary - if one tries to make the claim that Jesus or Paul are saying that God has given up on Israel and transferred His promises to the Church, then a) you have the burden of proof to show that in the Scriptures, and not just using a verse or two that have been cherry-picked. In order for God to change something he has sworn himself to it would take a thorough amount of explanation. And b) you have to ask yourself: "If God would give up on the people of Israel because of their unfaithfulness, then what assurance do you have that He wouldn't also give up on the Church, if indeed the Church has replaced Israel?" If God can just decide to be done with Israel, then He can just decide, on a whim, to be done with the Church; our track-record is pretty bad to be honest. This, to me, eats at the very character of God himself which is why I now hold quite firmly to the belief that God remains faithful to Israel. I don't know exactly what is meant by national Israel in a modern context, but my full understanding is not required.
There's More Happening with the Thief on the Cross
Another example is the one I made a post about a few months ago - the whole idea of the "thief" on the cross and this misguided idea of a 'death-bed conversion'.
Annihilationism - Fallacy
Another example is how many people, without putting much thought into it, believe in some form of annihilationism despite the fact that this idea is not supported by scripture. This is the idea that God is going to destroy the earth and believers will either go to Heaven, or to some newly created Earth. They base the idea on a couple of passages, one in Peter and one in Revelation, that on face value appear to be saying that this earth is destined for destruction, but miss the point of those two passages. How this plays out practically is this idea of "the earth is not my home" or "I'm just passing through" - as if the goal of Christian life is to escape to some other place. Let's look at the verses.
The verses are: 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 21:1.
"Now, the Day of the Lord will arrive like a thief, at which time the heavens will pass away with a crackling sound rushing and violent, and the elements, burning with fierce heat, will be unleashed, and the earth and the things done on it will be laid bare." (2 Peter 3:10, Blessed Hope Translation) and a couple of verses later "That day will bring about the destruction of the heaven by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:12-13)
"Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Revelation 21:1)
At first glance - these verses appear to be saying that our current reality will be destroyed. I humbly submit that the key to understanding these verses is the words "pass away". When someone dies - we say they have "passed away". But, as believers, do we believe they are gone? No. We believe that one day, God will give them a new, resurrected body (just like Jesus was given a glorified body) and that the person who has 'passed on' is still a living being...it's just that their earthly body has died. In the same way, the Earth as we know it will be 'resurrected'...that is, made into a glorified state...released from the curse placed upon it by God himself. Imagine, if you will, both bodies and a creation that no longer war with God, that no longer have the stain of sin and evil.
In an indirect way - a restoration perspective also has implications for both Israel and us Gentiles. I believe that God has given Israel it's land forever (God says as much in Genesis 13:14, among other places)...but I also believe that He has given me a home. Though I would not hold on to this firmly, I believe that in the restored earth, I will live in the United States and my home will be there, as it has been for my entire life up to this point. Jesus will rule the Earth from Jerusalem, the seat of his ancestor David, and we will be able to visit him there, but that none of what exists now will cease to exist, it will rather be redeemed and glorified with all stain of sin and evil removed.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Not So Simple
A final example is this idea that Jesus is a literal sacrifice for our sins - this is a doctrine known as "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" or PSA. From my own experience attending churches over the past 30+ years, I believe this is the standard doctrine in most Western churches. So...I realize what I am speaking against here - but nevertheless, this doctrine has serious flaws and those flaws are primarily a result of a poor understanding of Levitical law and of the Sacrificial System.
Here's what I know for sure: For followers of Yahweh, human sacrifice is outlawed in Leviticus. Not only that, but the Sacrificial system laid out in Leviticus provides very precise instructions for making a sacrifice. It must be a kosher animal. It must be unblemished (physically). It must be done in the temple. It must be overseen by a priest, etc. Jesus was not an animal, he was not unblemished, he was not sacrificed in the temple, etc. Ergo, Jesus cannot be a literal sacrifice - where Sacrificial language is used in the New Testament, it must be metaphorical.
Jesus willingly laid down his own life and God honored that by recognizing its efficacy for others. In other words, because of Jesus' morally perfect life and his perfect obedience, Jesus' death on the cross is recognized by God as having the ability to cover over the sins of other people. He doesn't do that for anyone else. Jesus willingly laid down his own life in order to restore the broken relationship between God and man...not as an appeasement to an angry God who needed something/someone to pour his wrath out on, an idea which is found nowhere in Scripture.
Let's even go so far as to give proponents of PSA the benefit of the doubt and say that they agree that God is not an angry God in need of appeasement and rather, this is all about Justice and mercy meeting at the cross (which I would argue is just changing words, but I digress). I still think this falls short of explaining why someone would have to die. The Sacrificial system allowed for the blood of animals to be used in order to achieve atonement...why couldn't we have just kept that going? It doesn't explain the need for a human to die. I wrote about justice a few weeks back and I think that enters the discussion here. True justice is the reversal of wrongs - the reversal of evil. It looks like resurrection (restored life), like perfect provision (restored property, abundance of necessities aka no sinful inequalities), like fully repaired relationships. Jesus' death qualifies him as a) ultimate judge and b) for his current position which is to be at the right-hand of God. His resurrection serves as a guarantee that God is going to actually reverse the wrongs done.
I may have to do an entire post on this because I keep thinking of more things - even the idea that Jesus 'dies in our place' is misguided (the substitutionary part of PSA). We still die. Almost every human being that has ever lived has died (save for Enoch and Elijah) and that is as a result of God's curse on mankind going back to Genesis 3. I'll just leave it at that for now because if I keep going, this will end up being way longer than it needs to be.
I don't know where to fall on this subject to be straight-forward...but what I do know is that the standard doctrine of PSA seems to fall short of fully/accurately explaining what was accomplished on the Cross. Instead of viewing Jesus' death on the cross as a substitution, my current thinking is that Jesus' death on the cross should rather be understood as an invitation. Jesus says, "take up your cross and follow me" (Matt 16:24)
Here are some of the resources I've looked at. There is a book I've been meaning to read but haven't gotten around to it called "Lamb of the Free" by Andrew Rillera. Another one that has been recommended is "Pierced for Our Transgressions" by Andrew Sach and Steve Jeffery. Here are resources I've looked at, both for an against PSA. Mike Winger has an extended YouTube live series on this subject and I generally like him and find him insightful. I don't agree with him on PSA, but its worth listening to if you want to do a deep dive.
Andrew Rillera talking about 'Lamb of the Free': https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-80-lamb-of-the-free-with-andrew-rillera/id1677338684?i=1000715387767
Mike Winger (pro-PSA): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHttVR0rkvhBfA-IKrg5SGcp
Berean Patriot (present both pro-PSA and an anti-PSA arguments): https://www.bereanpatriot.com/the-biblical-case-for-and-against-penal-substitutionary-atonement-psa-series-intro/
Skip Moen on PSA: https://skipmoen.com/2019/07/penal-theory/
Wrapping Up
The bottom-line is that understanding theology is not as simple as reading your Bible. It involves more work than that because the Bible is a library of (now ancient) books and it has a pretty specific audience in mind. This is particularly true in the New Testament and with the New Testament, there is an extra layer of difficulty in the sense that the ENTIRETY of the New Testament assumes a thorough understanding of the Old Testament, which was universally "the Scriptures" for the writers of all New Testament books. Put another way, no writer of a Gospel or Epistle was making stuff up out of thin air -- they all (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc) knew their Scriptures and the Old Testament was the basis, the fundamental, for their theology and worldview. My desire for myself and for all fellow believers is that we would endeavor to know the Scriptures as well as they did.
No comments:
Post a Comment