Jesus and the Temple

Jesus challenged ethnic segregation in the Temple, and also promised coming judgment. I discuss this in a 4-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmk10JZANyU

Earlier short videos include:

The meaning of the tabernacle in the Old Testament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkqIQclvwTI

The new temple in Paul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpfVbCo955g

Jesus favors the lowly, not the proud–Mark 12.35-44

In this passage Jesus challenges the scribes (Bible teachers) and defends widows. This all fits Jesus’s own role as Lord.
Asbury welcomed me to give a homily today, and since I already had the outline in front of me, I wanted to make it available to anyone else who would be interested (if you have 10 minutes and 44 seconds free … otherwise, I have posted some shorter videos also 🙂 ).

Which day is the Sabbath?

Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for people’s benefit (Mark 2:27). Years ago an Adventist layman wrote in to our Ohio town’s local newspaper, arguing that the Bible never speaks of the Sabbath being changed to Sunday. As I read the letter, I had to admit that the author was correct. Shortly afterward in the newspaper a local pastor countered, “We’re not under the law; therefore the Sabbath is on Sunday.” If you think that the pastor’s argument makes sense, you are a more clever person than I.

Some years after that I was doing my PhD work when I read an article from Christianity Today about “The Case for Quiet Saturdays.” It argued that the particular day was less essential than that we kept a special day for rest. That got my attention, because, whether the proper day is Saturday, Sunday, or just any day, at the time I was working every day of the week.

Sabbath is important

As I tried to study the biblical text honestly, I could see that this was not just a matter of keeping laws designated for Israel; God actually modeled the Sabbath rest in creation (Gen 2:2-3). Whether we take that narrative literally or not, the principle of the Sabbath is there, and it apparently is an example for all people, not just those who are ethnically descended from Abraham.

Moreover, it seemed clear that in Scripture, keeping the Sabbath was a serious matter. The law mandated a death penalty for violating it (Exod 31:14-15; 35:2; Num 15:32-36). Although most of us would not endorse execution for all other capital offenses in Moses’s law today, normally we at least view them as sins—offenses such as murder, sorcery, blasphemy, and sexual relations outside of marriage. Likewise, observing the Sabbath is one of Ten Commandments (Exod 20:8-11). We take all the other Ten Commandments as universal; why exclude this one? In the Prophets, God promises to welcome Gentiles into his covenant, provided that we observe his sabbaths (Isa 56:6-7).

Many festivals in Israel commemorated various events; for example, Passover commemorates redemption, tabernacles dwelling in the wilderness, and first fruits celebrates the beginning of harvest. Depending on how we read Exod 20:11, possibly the Sabbath celebrates God’s action of creating the universe in which we live; in any case, it recalls his model of rest afterward, as already noted.

A particular day?

Is the Sabbath necessarily a particular day of the week? This question arouses greater controversy among Christians, and answers often reflect different Christian groups’ interpretive considerations. Churches that accept early Christian traditions beyond the New Testament, traditions from the second century or later, have traditionally said that the Sabbath day must be Sunday. Even those who disagree with them can still appreciate the conviction and devotion of someone like the runner Eric Liddell (“Chariots of Fire”), who kept that day for the Lord.

This tradition affects especially those churches ultimately influenced by the church in the Roman empire, which is the majority of churches today. Nevertheless, the Ethiopian church through its long history often observed both Sunday as the Lord’s Day and Saturday as the Sabbath. Some other African and Chinese indigenous churches, as well as Messianic Jewish believers and Adventists today, observe the Sabbath on the same day as in Scripture.

Those who regard second- and third-century traditions as normative will observe Sunday, but this need not be normative for churches that start only from Scripture. The instructions for the first day of the week in 1 Corinthians 16:2 are for individual members, not about a specified meeting day; the meeting on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 is probably a Sunday evening gathering (see my Acts commentary for details), and is probably assembled simply because Paul is leaving town the next day.

Churches that insist on following New Testament practice may thus consider a Saturday Sabbath. In Acts, “Sabbath” continues to designate the seventh day (technically Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); although most instances refer to traditional Jewish practice there, there is certainly no indication that the day was changed. Personally, when I discovered the Sabbath principle, I began following it on Saturday, like my Jewish friends. I couldn’t observe the Sabbath on Sundays because, as an associate pastor in a Baptist church at the time, I had special responsibilities on that day. (I took the duties seriously enough that I skipped my doctoral graduation because it would have conflicted with our Sunday service. Although having one’s main worship service on one’s day of rest might be easier for most worshipers, it can be more difficult for some of us with significant ministry responsibilities!)

Others say that the principle applies to any day. Paul appears to approve of both those who honor one day above another and those who honor every day the same (Rom 14:5). Many Gentiles belonged to the Roman church (Rom 1:13; 11:13), and those who were employed by Gentiles, whether as slaves or free persons, could not choose when they would not work. At the same time, we should note what Paul says and what he does not say. Honoring “every day alike” would mean to keep all days sacred (cf. also the broader principle of Sabbath rest in Heb 4:9); those devoting our whole lives to God are not expected to limit worship to a single day. Paul does not, however, list the option of keeping no days sacred!

Keeping the Sabbath principle

Whatever the day, the way God designed our bodies, we need a day of rest. Living things need rest to rejuvenate; the law mandates this principle also for livestock and, by sabbatical years, for fields (Exod 20:10; 23:11-12; Lev 25:4; Deut 5:14). Our activity (or perhaps, non-activity!) of resting further communicates theology by what we do (or don’t do): we recognize our limitations as mortal humans. Observing a day of rest also requires us to trust God to make up for this day set aside in devotion to him. For ancient Israelite farmers to observe the Sabbath even during harvest (Exod 34:21) would demand faith in God.

If we do keep a Sabbath, we need to be careful not to treat this as a matter of spiritual superiority, looking down on other believers (Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16). Paul repeatedly warns believers against division, rivalry, arrogance, and looking down on one another. Such attitudes defeat the purpose of depending on God, and are like doing our righteousness for other people’s approval instead of God’s (Matt 6:1). Jesus contested his contemporaries’ application of the Sabbath, so we recognize that today we should keep it in different ways than Jesus’s contemporaries (cf. Matt 11:28—12:8).

We have noted that Sabbath remains valuable for our health. For those who cannot devote every day directly to God’s work, it is also important to set aside at least a day to focus attention on him and renew our spiritual purpose for the rest of the week. Although pure legalism is counterproductive, I confess that I have to discipline myself somewhat rigidly to observe the Sabbath. That’s because I become so engrossed in my work that I wouldn’t take a break if I didn’t have to. That is, I wouldn’t stop until my body made me stop; by that point we in fact lose more productivity in the long run!

When I realized that the Sabbath principle really was biblical, I was initially unhappy about it. I was working on my PhD and thought I was too busy—even though I am far busier now than I was back then. At that time, the stress of nonstop work was building up, week after week. Recognizing the principle to be biblical, however, I realized that I needed to obey it and I began observing Sabbath.

What I immediately discovered was that it was like a circuit breaker. Granted, stopping my work Friday evening felt like breaking me in a different way—I felt like I was putting the brakes on suddenly. But before the Sabbath was over, I had been able to fully relax, and the stress of the past week dissipated. This way I never carried a week’s work-related stress for more than a week, and it couldn’t accumulate. Hopefully my seventeen books so far (one of them roughly four thousand pages long) illustrates that God enabled me to be productive nonetheless, whether you think that’s because, or in spite of, taking a Sabbath.

I do have to admit that I did eventually learn that we need more than just a day of rest. (Even though there’s no biblical requirement for how many hours a person should sleep a night, lack of sleep does catch up to one!) Also, in the early days I sometimes tested the limits to see what could be subsumed under the category of rest. (Writing this some weeks before April 15, I can tell you that doing some of one’s income tax on that day is not a restful activity.) For myself, I lay aside all my book and article writing on the Sabbath; while I am happy to talk about the Bible on any day, I don’t perform my official faculty responsibilities on that day. This discipline helps me not to fixate on my writing and teaching as if there is nothing else in life, like Jack the proverbially dull boy (presumably a less interesting Jack than the one who fell down and broke his crown).

Nevertheless, besides normal prayer and spending time with my family, I do try to catch up on some emails to friends during the Sabbath, as well as reading some of my mail, and so forth. An Orthodox Jewish scholar friend laughs that I keep Shabbat like a Reform Jew (though he graciously welcomed me to spend Shabbat the Orthodox way with his family; that was a particularly enjoyable Sabbath for me).

Not everyone will draw the boundaries in exactly the same places. What is helpful for all of us to realize, however, is that God built us with limits. Observing those created limits by celebrating Sabbath helps us function the way that God designed us. A restaurant chain used to say, “You deserve a break today.” Whether we deserve it or not, God made the Sabbath for people (Mark 2:27)—for our good. It’s a wonderful way to renew your joy and strength.

The Spirit-baptized life: a model–Mark 1:8-13

What does the Spirit-baptized life look like? Jesus is the model, and Mark presents him as such in his opening verses.

The Gospel of Mark mentions God’s Spirit explicitly only six times, but half of them appear in Mark’s introduction (1:8-13), where he introduces some of his central themes. (That is what ancient introductions often did.) Mark’s other uses emphasize the Spirit’s work in empowering Jesus for exorcism (Mk 3:29-30), Old Testament prophets to speak God’s message (12:26) or Jesus’ witnesses to speak his message (13:11).

In the introduction, John the Baptist announces the mighty one who will baptize others in the Holy Spirit (1:8); this Spirit-baptizer is Jesus of Nazareth. Immediately after this announcement, we see Jesus baptized and the Spirit coming on him (1:9-10). The Spirit-baptizer thus gives us a model of what the Spirit-baptized life will look like, for he himself receives the Spirit first. That is why what the Spirit does next appears all the more stunning: the Spirit thrusts Jesus into the wilderness for conflict with the devil (1:12-13). The Spirit-filled life is not a life of ease and comfort, but of conflict with the devil’s forces!

The rest of the Gospel of Mark continues this pattern. Shortly after Jesus emerges from the wilderness, he must confront an evil spirit in a religious gathering (1:21-27). Throughout the rest of the Gospel, Jesus continues to defeat the devil by healing the sick and driving out demons (cf. 3:27), while the devil continues to strike at Jesus through the devil’s religious and political agents. In the end, the devil manages to get Jesus killed–but Jesus triumphs by rising from the dead.

In the same way, Jesus expects his disciples to heal the sick and drive out demons (3:14-15; 4:40; 6:13; 9:19, 28-29; 11:22-24), and also to join him in suffering (8:34-38; 10:29-31, 38-40; 13:9-13). His disciples seemed more happy to share his triumphs than his sufferings, but the Gospel of Mark emphasizes that we cannot share his glory without also sharing his suffering. That lesson remains as relevant for modern disciples as for ancient ones!

Of course, Jesus is different from us. In light of the Old Testament, where only God can pour out God’s Spirit, Jesus’s role of Spirit-baptizer identifies him as divine. That is why John the Baptist feels himself unworthy to carry even his sandals—to take the posture of a servant–though the Old Testament prophets were called “servants of the Lord.” Nevertheless, Jesus also identifies with us fully in our humanity, and Mark shows that he depended on the Spirit’s power. Jesus both empowers us and shows us what a Spirit-empowered life can look like.

–For other posts about the Spirit and life in the Spirit, see http://wp.me/p1MUNd-eN (The fruit of the Spirit — Galatians 5:22-23); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-3N (How can we hear the Holy Spirit accurately?); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-fD (In God’s presence—John 14—16); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-fq (As the Father sent me, I send you—John 20:21); http://wp.me/p1MUNd-fO (“The down payment”); and other posts in the file marked “Holy Spirit”
For Craig’s video lectures about the Spirit, see (for short ones): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2sk-POYC4 (Pentecost); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdcwx18dIWw (Water Imagery in the Gospel of John)
For a longer one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9FzsR6rY6w (Luke’s Theology of Mission in Acts)

Historical Reliability of the Bible

Craig wrote an article on the historical reliability of the Bible for the Exploring God website, focusing on the periods of Abraham and the patriarchs, 2 Kings, and the Gospels. (The available historical evidence to examine these passages in the Bible increases from one discussion to the next.)
The article is available at:
http://www.exploregod.com/is-the-bible-reliable-paper

The devil in the details–Satan in the Gospels

Christianity Today recently invited Craig to write an article addressing the deletion of the devil from the new Son of God movie, but also explaining Satan’s role in the Gospels. With the help of a CT editor, Craig contributed the article at the link below.

Satan does play a key role in the Gospels, where he is mentioned more than 30 times and is described performing various activities. These passages help us to better understand Christ’s mission, the challenges we face, and the reality in which we live.

The full article is now online at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/casting-out-devil.html

When would Jesus permit divorce?

In the previous post, I emphasized Jesus’s teaching on preserving and, where possible, restoring marriage. Jesus used graphic language to challenge some of his religious hearers’ insufficient commitment to marriage. In doing so, however, he was not seeking to make matters worse for those whose marriages were being broken against their will. Indeed, as noted briefly in that post, these were the very people that Jesus was defending.

Here I will first raise a problem—a way of reading a verse that some have used to prohibit and even break up remarriages. I will then show from the context of Jesus’s larger teaching on divorce, and other New Testament interpretations of his teaching, that this first way of reading the passage takes Jesus’s point out of context.

When Jesus speaks of remarriage after divorce as “adultery” in Mark 10:11, what does he mean? When used literally, adultery means sleeping with someone who is married to another person, and/or sleeping with someone other than one’s own spouse. (Most of the ancient world gave more license to the husband so long as his paramour was single, but the New Testament does not allow this double standard.) Thus, if Dedrick is married to Shamika and sleeps with Shonda, that is adultery.

But Jesus here seems to be saying that if Dedrick divorces Shamika and marries Shonda, that is still adultery despite the official divorce; that is, he treats Dedrick as still married to Shamika. In other words, he speaks as if human, legal divorce does not actually end a marriage in God’s sight.

The question is: Does Jesus mean this literally, or is he simply using a graphic way of warning against divorce? I argue here that he is using a graphic way of warning against divorce—that he is using hyperbole, that is, a rhetorical overstatement to drive home a point. Keep in mind that the point of hyperbole is not so we can dismiss its message, saying, “That’s just hyperbole.” Rather the rhetorical and literary device of hyperbole is a way to challenge us to examine whether we are living up to its message. How we take this matters: strongly warning against divorce is not the same as denying that God recognizes the legitimacy of new marriages.

Like (but even more than) many of his contemporaries, Jesus used graphic hyperbole to communicate many of his points. Anyone who is not willing to recognize that a given teaching at least might be hyperbole, before examining it, needs to reimmerse himself or herself in Jesus’s teachings. A camel does not normally literally fit through the eye of a needle; scrupulous Pharisees did not normally literally gulp down camels whole; and we have no record of Jesus’s first followers moving any literal mountains. These were graphic ways of communicating a point.

Moreover, the literary context of at least one of Jesus’s divorce sayings involves hyperbole. Just before his teaching about remarriage and adultery in Matthew 5:32, Jesus warns that whoever looks on a woman to covet her sexually has committed adultery with her in his heart (5:28). I often tell my students that I am proud to see that none of them has committed this sin. How do I discern their innocence? The solution to this sin, which appears in the next verse, is for the transgressor to tear out his eye. In fact, nearly all of us recognize that command as hyperbole—a graphic way of underlining the point that we must put away sin. No sane reader will follow this command literally.

Further, it may be relevant that Jesus does not tell a woman married five times that she was married once and that all the rest of her relationships were adulterous. Rather, he says that she has had five husbands but the man with whom she lives now is not her husband (John 4:18). One could argue that Jesus is speaking literally in John 4:18 but figuratively in Mark 10:11, or one could argue the reverse; but one who affirms the authority of both texts cannot easily have it both ways. Further evidence shows which reading is likelier.

Matthew and Paul recognize exceptions to Jesus’s graphic statement. In Matthew, Jesus says that a man cannot divorce his wife and remarry unless the wife is unfaithful (Matt 5:32; 19:9). (Some try to make the exception here something narrower than adultery, but the Greek term is actually broader than, rather than narrower than, adultery. It is only the context that limits it even to adultery.) The basis for remarriage being adulterous would be that God did not accept the reality of the divorce (all monogamists recognized that a valid divorce was necessary for remarriage). Here, however, God accepts the reality of the divorce if the spouse was unfaithful.

Yet if Shamika is not still married to Dedrick, how can Dedrick still be married to Shamika? If even an explicitly guilty party is not married to their first spouse in God’s sight, we cannot say that God literally regards the first partners as still married, or that remarriage is therefore literally adulterous. That a true follower of Jesus should work to preserve their marriage is clear, but that anyone should break up remarriages as adulterous unions, as some suggest, is not.

Paul explicitly allows the believer abandoned by an unbeliever (someone who is not following Jesus’s teachings) to remarry. (Laws in Corinth treated marriage as a matter of mutual consent; the departure of either party legally dissolved the marriage.) When Paul says that the believer is “not under bondage,” or “not bound” (1 Cor 7:15), he uses the exact language of ancient Jewish divorce contracts for freedom to remarry. This is precisely what the language meant when people in antiquity discussed divorce, the issue that Paul addresses here.

We should note what the two clear exceptions have in common: in neither case does Jesus’s follower break the marriage covenant; it is broken by the other person. One person working hard can often lead to the restoration of a marriage, but it is not guaranteed; the partner has their own will and can still choose to do the wrong thing (1 Cor 7:16). Paul had to address a local situation that Jesus did not explicitly address. Today we might think of physical abuse as an analogous kind of situation where the abuser is the one breaking the marriage covenant. Beyond such extreme circumstances, however, we need to be very careful, recognizing that some people will take any excuse to opt out of responsibility for a marriage (such as burning the toast, as mentioned in the earlier post). Paul makes clear that we are expected to do our best.

Not only do the biblical exceptions suggest that Mark 10:11 includes hyperbole, but so does that very verse’s context. Jesus demands, “Therefore what God has joined together, LET no one separate” (Mark 10:9). The point remains that we must not break up marriages. Yet the wording shows that marriage is not indissoluble in God’s eyes; Jesus warns against breaking marriage, rather than arguing that it is impossible to break. That is, the context of Mark 10:11, like Jesus’s and Paul’s other teachings on the subject, shows that Mark 10:11 uses hyperbole.

Jesus graphically summons us to commitment to marriage. Yet to break up remarriages (the solution that some readers have argued) actually undermines his point. Moreover, Jesus is certainly not seeking to make matters more difficult for those divorced against their will, as some churches have done. Treating someone divorced against his or her will to “stand against divorce” can be like treating someone raped or murdered against his or her will to stand against those actions.

I recognize that short posts cannot address all situations; these two posts have explored principles, but pastoral counselors must apply those principles in a wide range of concrete situations. What I hope is clear is that the biblical issue is less about whether someone eventually remarries than about the need to be faithful to marriage to begin with. (From a counseling perspective, it is unwise to enter a new relationship immediately after a divorce even if one was completely faithful to one’s previous marriage; the wounded heart is too vulnerable and needs time to heal. But at this point the expertise belongs not to me but to pastoral counselors and related professions.)

The narrowness of the explicit exceptions reminds us, however, that Jesus wants us to value and be committed to marriage. The point of exceptions is that they must be a last resort (though of course someone in physical danger is probably already at that point). Counseling or therapy can often save marriages. But we need to recognize that just as prayers for healing are not always answered (everyone acknowledges, for example, that godly people are not immortal), neither are prayerful attempts to save marriages when they involve only one party.

Believers must do their best to preserve marriage, but we must not abuse those whose marriages have broken, especially if it was not their choice. Jesus warned some religious people: “If you had understood the meaning of these words—‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’—you would not have condemned the innocent” (Matt 12:7).

Why did Jesus warn about divorce?—Mark 10:1-12

Jesus’s followers knew that he condemned divorce; his warning appears in Paul, in Mark, and in another form shared by Matthew and Luke. Disagreement involves the extent to which and the circumstances under which he condemned it.

The next post will address exceptions that Jesus would have allowed to his teaching, but this one will explore some reasons why Jesus opposed divorce in stronger words than did his contemporaries. I only ask readers to keep in mind that I am speaking here in generalities, not every kind of situation.

We do not always know the why for some biblical teachings, especially at the beginning. Sometimes we as believers just have to trust that God loves us and is wise in what he asks of us. In other cases Scripture does give us reasons for what God asks of us. Here I will emphasize two reasons that seem to matter in Mark 10:2-12.

The first is God’s original design for marriage, to which Jesus appeals in Mark 10:6-9. Jesus cites a passage that presents marriage as a union established by God and not meant to be broken. Jesus appeals to the first biblical narrative about marriage in Genesis. (Genesis was considered part of the law of Moses.) The narrative from which Jesus quotes appears in the context of God’s benevolent gifts to humanity. Yet, as Jesus points out, Genesis not only recounts the story of this union; it also offers an explanation that it applies to all marriages: the man clings to his wife, and they become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Being one flesh was the language of family (e.g., Gen 29:14) or other blood relations that demanded loyalty (2 Sam 5:1). Marriage united a couple as deeply as blood ties, forming a new family unit.

Although modern Western readers might miss the point, breaking blood ties was normally unthinkable. Of course, it did happen, perhaps even often, but except when higher loyalties prevailed, ancient writers view betrayal of family ties as wicked. Moses did allow divorce (Deut 24:1-4), Jesus concedes, but this “was because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mark 10:5). Jewish teachers recognized that some laws were concessions to human weakness, less than God’s ideal, and Jesus places divorce in this category. Jesus said that God revealed his ideal in the beginning: a tie as permanent as blood ties ideally were. Because God ordained the marriage union, Jesus concludes, people have no right to sever it (10:9).

Modern studies reinforce some insights that many premodern societies recognized from long experience. Any of us who have experienced betrayal in a relationship recognize that it is painful; the deeper the relationship, the more painful the betrayal. This was not a burden God designed our hearts to bear. Intimacy flourishes in the context of trust, and trust flourishes in the context of commitment. Where love is highly conditional it is more difficult to trust; one’s guard must always be up.

Thus many children who grow up in broken homes, or even in a society where marriage appears very impermanent, find it more difficult to trust that marriage will work. Romance invites commitment, but when romantic feelings fade for one or both parties, it is commitment that keeps the parties together through that test. Enduring that test builds a love that is more unconditional, durable, and, for many couples, ultimately more satisfying. (Again, I am speaking in general.)

The passage also suggests a second reason for Jesus supporting persevering in marriage. Note Jesus’s warning that whoever divorces his wife commits adultery against her (10:11). I will address the nature of Jesus’s strong language in the next post, but here I want to draw attention to the words “against her.” Jesus’s warning against divorce is not an arbitrary rule, but is an expression of his compassion for those who can be betrayed by a spouse’s unfaithfulness.

In this context, Jesus is answering a question posed by the Pharisees (10:2); one of the two schools of Pharisees in Jesus’s day allowed a husband to divorce his wife only if she was unfaithful. The other, by contrast, in principle allowed him to divorce her even if she burned the toast—i.e., for basically any reason. (Apart from extenuating circumstances, Judean wives apparently could divorce husbands, as in 10:12, only if the wives had much money. Pharisees did not approve of wives divorcing their husbands, although under a wife’s extreme circumstances elders would compel the husband to grant her a divorce.)

Given the limited access to income available to average women in Judea and Galilee, a wife so divorced could become destitute unless she had some sort of family support. In ancient marriages, children nearly always went to the husband. Jesus was well aware that breaking the marriage covenant had economic implications, implications for the children, and implications for wounded hearts.

Most of our cultures today differ from the one that Jesus directly addressed, but the most central principles remain the same. God’s ideal remains the same; God’s love for us and concern for the wounding of betrayed hearts remains the same. God knows that the uniting of two different people can involve difficulties up front, but he also knew that attachments can become deep and enduring. He also knew that marriage was meant to offer a safe place for nurturing the next generation for their relationships and those that would follow.

What happens, however, in cases where betrayal does occur? Or in cases of abuse? Such circumstances offer the focus of the next post. Although we must always work for the ideal, we also must deal with real people facing situations not always of their own choosing.