King Sacrifice

As the kids and I wrap up our long-running OT reading (and minimal discussion) of the history of Israel's kings (finishing up 2 Chronicles), one notable takeaway is this: 

So prophets are intermediaries between God and men, often bringing God's word to his people, right? And then priests are another kind of intermediary, offering sacrifices to God? 

So also the "good" kings of Israel are another kind of intermediary, specifically in how they are often asked to bear punishment from the Lord for the people. David, Hezekiah, and Josiah (and Moses too, in fact!) are all "tested" on this point, when faced with God's imminent judgement upon the people of Israel.

For example, David sees the angel of the Lord raising his sword over Jerusalem, and he exclaims, "Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Please let your hand be against me and against my father’s house."

There's a kind of completeness to the work of Jesus, a completing of these OT roles of prophet, priest, and king. But there's a deep connection between his death on the cross and his role as king. After all, he establishes a "Kingdom of God" based on sacrifice and suffering in his earthly ministry. It's as the kingly descendant, the "lion of Judah, the root of David", that he appears in Revelations as the slain lamb. And just a couple of verses later we have the ultimate summation: 

"Worthy are you to take the scroll

and to open its seals,

for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God

from every tribe and language and people and nation,

and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,

and they shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9,10)

Jesus is the king that sacrifices himself, to create his kingdom. He's the one that conquers and triumphs over the world through his death. We become a nation, and he claims us as his subjects, when he takes our sins upon his own head. "Worthy is the Lamb" indeed!

Musings on blame

The great lie of the modern age is that we need to have an "opinion" on everything, along with the need to assign blame.

On Ukraine, on Trump or Biden, on famous people in the news, on this or that social issue, on powerful people throughout history.

On your nation, on your city, on your church, on your family, on yourself. 

Reality is complicated. It's hard to uncover the truth of things. And moreover, even when things are uncovered, we aren't very good at weighing the merit or moral quality of this action compared to that. 

We cannot set wrongs to right, here on earth, we can only mitigate the damage, and deal with things as they are. As a righteous man said once,

"Do not judge anything before the appointed time. Wait until the Lord returns. He will bring to light what is hidden in the dark. He will show the intents of the heart. And, at that time, each person will finally receive their reward from God."

"Impeccability" and flesh and blood

In Sunday School this past week, we talked about Jesus' "impeccability"; that is, his *inability* to sin. I think I had heard it before, but never really contemplated it. But the more I thought about it, the more I found it edifying and rich with meaning; for example, considering that Jesus did not need to demonstrate "overcoming temptation" in order to be the Christ.

So when we read the accounts of Jesus' life, is it about a man who was commended at the end of a righteous and upright life? Perhaps it's similar to Job, who was a good man who faced great trial late in his life? 

Or perhaps we can look at Moses as a parallel story, who led his people out of bondage, but only after learning humility for decades in the desert? 

In short, was Jesus "special" at the beginning of his life, or only at the end? Did he BECOME the Messiah, or was he BORN the Messiah? Or perhaps he was merely PROMISED to be Messiah early in life, and needed to be prepared for it?

No, of course Jesus was Messiah -- fully Messiah -- from birth... and even before birth, in the announcement to Mary. Is this confirmed in his childhood? Yes, of course, even as a youth he called the temple "my Father's house". 

Now, there is the passage in Hebrews which speaks of Jesus "being tempted in every way yet without sin", which some have taken to mean that Jesus was subject to the *internal* temptation of sinful desires. But rather, the context of Hebrews is about Jesus becoming man, to be a "fitting High Priest" whose sacrifice saves us. What kind of "temptation" is this, then? Jesus is described as "suffering when tempted", experiencing the weaknesses of having flesh and blood, reminding us of the temptation in the wilderness, when Jesus experienced bodily pain and hunger. Jesus experienced all these things just like us, and so can sympathize with us and "help those who are being tempted."

It also reminds us that this kind of "temptation through physical suffering" comes up over and over in the scripture. Consider Job, whose PEAK suffering and temptation came AFTER his family members died, when his body was racked with disease. Consider Paul and his "thorn in the flesh". Consider Israel in the wilderness, provoked to sin through hunger and thirst. 

Sure, the immediate doctrine tells us important things about Jesus and his character and his person. But it's also an invitation to consider the nature of "temptation", to consider those who are experiencing physical pain and suffering, doing what we can to ease those burdens, consider the moral temptations that such sufferings bring, reminding us to exhort and encourage those suffering in this way, to hold fast to the Lord and to Jesus, to hope for that resurrected body that will no longer experience pain and hunger. Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly! 

The Christian freedom to not have an opinion

So I think this is a pretty interesting article, though perhaps not for the reasons that the author intends. I think it displays clearly some of the exaggerated moral terms, and irrational ideological fervor, for the dramatically pro-Ukraine secular perspective of American journalistic and political responses to the situation. For example, here's some quotes from this article:

"Ukraine is the most important story of our time, that everything we should care about is on the line there."

"[A] few things are morally clear: slavery, and genocide, and Russia’s attempt to destroy Ukraine."

"For the first time in my life, I felt hopeless about America. And because I have no transcendent beliefs, the loss of this earthly one left a void of meaning that made me sick.

Here was another motive—the strongest and most dubious of all. I wanted a gulp of Ukrainian air. I wanted to breathe its hope. What a thing to ask of people fighting for their lives."

"I asked what she was fighting for.

“Democracy, a new nation, survival—all together,” Olesya said. “This is a sacred war. It’s everything good against pure evil.” "

In the absence of any transcendental beliefs, in the absence of a trust in God's hand directing the nations, the secular voices of media NEED to believe that the democratic systems of the United States have moral and/or ethical superiority over the other nations. And when they doubt or lose that trust in America's systems, there is the frantic need to find moral absolutes, to bind one's cause to a place like Ukraine, a place that needs to be squeeeeeezed into representing our ideals for democracy, and then the war is squeezed into our ideal of "fighting to protect democracy". The war becomes a proxy for the fight that (supposedly) is not happening, or even losing here in the US. Isn't it strange that the Ukraine flag is displayed by people who have never been there, who know nobody there?

As Christians, it's certainly appropriate to pray for those affected by war -- especially our affected Christian brothers and sisters -- and pray for wars to cease, but thanks be to God that we are NOT obligated to have any opinions these political and military situations, whether domestic or international. That is, American Christians are not obligated to support US policies, and are certainly not obligated to worry about the political or military policies or outcomes of the war in Ukraine. 

One of the greatest "freedoms" that Christians enjoy is the freedom to "let God be God" and free our hearts from worry about situations hopelessly out of our control. We are "free" to put our primary care on holiness and righteousness and repentance, both that of ourselves and that of our Christian brothers and sisters in our local congregations. 

I think it's a uniquely Christian blessing, that we have the freedom to say, "No, I don't know much about that, I don't really follow the news," through our trust in God's providence in all things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/ukraine-invasion-civilian-volunteers-survival/671241/

In Memoriam, Gary Martin, 1947 - 2022

I remember doing a lot of watching of my dad.

I have early memories of his Twin Lakes Club in Wrightwood, CA, watching him and my grandfather fixing things, and watching my dad playing and teaching racquetball, tennis, and handball.

I remember watching him building a house in our backyard for my grandparents, and planting fruitless mulberry trees.

I remember him showing me his architecture offices, his blueprint machines, his plotter printer, his landscape drawings.

I also remember seeing him sick in the hospital, sick but bright-eyed and warm to be near.

I remember a lot of *places* with my dad. Like offices, backyards, building sites, tool sheds, train sets, places with equipment, where stuff happened, where stuff was built or fixed.

And he was always showing me things.

And when I was older, I remember watching him in matters of faith as well. We talked about Jesus, about scripture, about theology. I saw him firm in faith and hope and grace, I can attest to that.

But now, even if I can't watch him anymore, my dad was watched, and continues to be watched, by the Lord, by his savior and God. The Lord of all sees him, and knows him as one of his own. The Lord knows his life, his deeds, and his heart completely, and sees him and loves him today.

As I get even older, the Lord willing, I have hope that I will know my dad even better, as I walk down paths that he walked before me. Even if I can't see him, I hope I still can learn things from him, as my life experiences bring memories of him to mind. Or even as I unconsciously imitate him, because of how much time I've spent with him throughout my life. 

And as I continue to follow my God and his God, keeping my eyes "fixed on Him", and be changed by the same Holy Spirit, I hope to be close to my dad in that way as well, as I pursue the same Lord and Savior, and walk down the same path of faith.

My father is with the Lord. And I look forward to the day when I will see him and walk with him once more.

Reflections on the Sabbath

 Reflecting on the Sabbath

So recently I've been trying to think a bit more biblically when it comes to the Sabbath, and I think I have something that works well, both from the text and practically. So here's the summary:

Regarding the day, the Sabbath is from creation, and it's more-or-less confirmed in the New Testament, so we should take it seriously. However, the Sabbath being on Sunday is just a matter of practicality and tradition. I mean shoot, the New Testament church moved the "regular day of rest" from Saturday to Sunday. Furthermore, people in ministry often take a proper "day off" on Monday if they have obligations all day Sunday. That's a proper Sabbath too. We should also remember that the Sabbath was "made for man", and so adjusting the day to suit circumstances seems very scriptural.

That's not to take the "regular" Sunday Sabbath lightly, we should endeavor to share that rest with our Christian brothers and sisters in our local congregation, when possible. But we shouldn't get too hung up on the day. In fact, it's noteworthy that Paul specifically warns the Colossians against putting the old Jewish burdens on the Gentiles:

"see to it that nobody takes you captive... according to human tradition..., and not according to Christ. [L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

As far as "what to do on the Sabbath", we should put a priority on simply "resting from normal labors", which is very consistently taught in the Old and New Testament. We can make the "rest" more spiritual, but just like the other parts of the law, it is AT LEAST what it says, a rest from regular physical labor. From scripture, we should also be VERY careful not to be quick to say, "you should do X on the Sabbath", and thus place obligations on others on their day of rest. The Pharisees were rightly condemned for such things.

Now, we do "obligate" worship on Sunday, though perhaps we can agree that it's an example of the more spiritual fulfillment of the Sabbath? We are certainly not "working", but instead receiving blessings and communion and the sermon, through no effort of our own.

Now, for a specific application that I struggled with once, should Christians go out to eat on Sunday? I think it's completely fine. The person serving my food is working on Sunday, but as I've mentioned above, I think it's unscriptural to get too hung up on WHICH day is the day of rest. This person serving food has his or her own day off, but if their employer doesn't allow them a day off, they are certainly violating God's institution of a Sabbath rest. And if going out to eat helps a Christian feel rested on the Sabbath, that sounds like a GREAT thing.

The Absence of Personal Holiness in the Ten Commandments

So, as a new Christian, I learned pretty quickly to avoid naked legalism, that I could earn God's favor and redemption through strict adherence to his commands, but I believe now that I was still suffering under incorrect thinking, not about salvation, but about sanctification. When thinking the Old Testament Law in general, and the Ten Commandments specifically, I often thought in terms of "personal holiness". That is, I felt I ought to peer into my soul and root out any impure thoughts, motives, and intentions; that is, the ones that were not in accord with the underlying principles of God's commands. And then confess, reflect, and further monitor my thoughts and desires, so that my entire being could be transformed, and so that my behavior could be called "good". I now think, however, that this is simply not very biblical, and reveals an immature understanding of God's priorities in his commands.

So what is the priority of the Old Testament laws and commands, if not this idea of "personal holiness"? Looking back to the Ten Commandments, it's noteworthy that they are not presented as a summary of all sin. They were not, for instance, given in the Garden of Eden, and not given when Noah steps out of the ark. They were given when God called out a people as his own, who needed a foundation for this new holy community. 

So the first few commandments define who and how we worship, and are not really the main thrust of my argument here. But it is noteworthy that the motivation is not rooted in God as the Creator, but as the one who chose and saved a particular people for himself. It's the community he chose, and wants to make holy.

For the commandments regarding one's obligations to each other, let's take "You shall not murder" as an example. When Jesus generalizes this command to include "anyone who is angry with a brother or sister", I think it's common for Christians to further generalize this statement into having angry or hateful feelings or thoughts. So, as a new Christian, I felt like it was my duty to "not have bad thoughts". I thought this was the fullest expression of that law. 

Is this really scriptural? Today I would say a STRONG no to that. What is the "summary of the law and the prophets"? Not "having righteous thoughts/actions", but rather, "loving your neighbor as yourself." This transforms those "underlying principles", so that instead of being focused on my own righteousness, I am invited to proactively seek the good of another. So taking the "You shall not murder" as an example, I am invited to consider, preserve, and even protect the live and well-being of my neighbor.

Some also point to the tenth commandment -- about coveting what a neighbor has -- as being a kind of summary of the later part of the commandments, and it's easy to see why: it's forbids the grasping after the blessings of another person. It's a short step from that to rejoicing in the blessings of another, of putting another's well-being even before my own, which is of course the very hallmark of love.

Now, I understand that "personal holiness" is still a good thing, but I think it's best approached as a kind of side-effect of loving others. Surely we do want our thoughts and desires to be free from sin, but as an end to itself, it seems incomplete. Perhaps such a thing was in mind by the Preacher of Ecclesiastes when the reader is warned to "not be overly righteous." Perhaps there's a temptation and danger in becoming a monk on a mountaintop, purifying our thoughts and not engaging with others in community.

So I think this is an opportunity to move beyond "straining at gnats" when it comes to examining one's own sin. Let us be set free to pursue the weightier matters of the law, of binding ourselves together in community, of accountability and confession of sins as they relate to the community of believers we find ourselves in. Surely this is the love that is the fullest expression of the law.