Think about "the Gospel" for a moment. Whatever that means to you.
Now, remove anything related to Christ's death and resurrection. [[Note, this is a thought experiment, I'm not actually advocating that we remove such things from the gospel. Just work with me a bit...]
Now, remove anything related to Jesus being the Messiah.
What do you have left?
I think for most Christians the answer is "not much."
I'd like to challenge those Christians and everyone else to ponder a bit the gospel message of Jesus and His apostles.
The Bible indicates a wide variety of instances where Jesus and others spread "the Gospel" prior to His death. This includes John the Baptist preaching "the Gospel" before Jesus' public ministry. It includes Jesus preaching the Gospel throughout His three years of ministry on Earth [the word "Gospel' is not used in John's account, but "Word" is more or less his equivalent.] The disciples are sent out partway through Jesus' third year of ministry to preach the gospel to the surrounding areas.
What were these people preaching...and why is it called "The Gospel"?
At this point you might be looking at me like I have a third eye or a "I love Twisted Sister" tattoo on my forehead. But I'm serious...what do you think Jesus and His disciples preached as "The Gospel" during that time?
The reason why this is an interesting question is that no one knew Jesus was going to Die. Of course Jesus knew He was going to die, but the disciples didn't. Luke 24:26-27 and John 20:9 makes very clear that none of His disciples had realized that He was going to die, so what kind of Gospel were they preaching if no one had figured this out?
Note, I'm not saying Jesus never alluded to His coming death. It's sad I have to write this disclaimer, but you would not believe how many people read the last two paragraphs and immediately attack me for saying that Jesus never said He was going to die. I'm not saying Jesus never alluded to this event, I'm saying that it could not have played a role in the Gospel He and His disciples taught because no one understood His teaching.
We are told of many people who "believed" the message Jesus gave, and the apostles took that message to everyone else...which means whatever that message was, it couldn't have anything to do with Jesus' death. It would be hard for disciples to take a message to everyone that they themselves did not know!
Furthermore, whatever this message, this "Gospel" was, it couldn't have anything to do with Jesus being the Messiah either. It was not until rather late that even His own disciples identified Him as the Messiah, and that was not due to Jesus' instruction but by divine intervention [as Matthew 16:17 makes clear.] Furthermore, after Jesus verifies this, He tells them not to tell anyone!!
And that brings up another great question. It's easy to see why the gospel the modern Christian church preaches counts as "good news." But that message more or less disappears once you remove any reference to Jesus' death...that means that not only do we have to wonder what the message Jesus and His disciples taught was, but we have to wonder why it was good news (which as most know, is what "gospel" means)!
To add to the bizarre state of things, we see that even the message Jesus tells His apostles to take to "all nations" is not at all like the gospel Christians teach today. If you read Matthew 28:18-20 carefully, you'll note that Jesus is not saying "Go tell everyone about me in order to save them from Hell."
Instead Jesus says "Go teach them to obey the commands I have already given you, because I have been made Lord over Heaven and Earth."
It is worth pointing out here that these apostles that were told to make disciples of all nations only went to the Jews. No one preached to the Gentiles until nearly ten years after Jesus' resurrection. Anyone who believes the original Gospel was about "saving souls" is instantly making villains out of Peter, John, and the other apostles. Do we really think these holy men of God desired to abandon all gentiles to Hell? That is the logical deduction one is led to if we believe the early Gospel was about "saving souls from Hell."
But that isn't what the early Gospel was about. In fact, the word "hell" doesn't even appear in all of Acts. Not one time. Acts is the most abundant repository of early teachings to new believers by the original apostles, and the word Hell never even comes up in the nearly 20 passages describing their teachings in Acts.
So, regardless of what we teach as the Gospel today, we owe it to all Christians and anyone else to point out the original apostles never thought they were "saving souls" in the way the Gospel is described today. While we're at it, it might prove worthwhile to consider what the Gospel Jesus and His apostles preached really comprised.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Silent Responsibility and Danger of the Great Commission
When you say "The Great Commission," all good Protestants know what you are talking about: Matthew 28:19-20 .
Everyone takes this as an active call to go make converts [though clearly that is not the point... Jesus tells people to make disciples and to teach people to obey everything He has commanded, which fits well into the view of salvation shown in the Later Prophets, but Christians have never been very good about letting those passages encroach on their doctrine...perhaps if Paul had written Ezekiel and Malachi the would be read more...] but I digress, I think it is important to look at the non-evangelistic side of this responsibility.
Consider Matthew 5:19 and Luke 17:2 [which may or may not be referring to believers], and then consider Luke 12:42-47
Luke 12:42-47 is an interesting parable describing a steward left in charge of a household. The master comes back and finds people not doing his will. Jesus describes 3 classes of people. The steward in charge is both killed and "assigned a lot with the unbelievers." Those who knew what they should be doing but were not doing it were punished severely while those who did not know what they were supposed to be doing [and hence were not doing it] are given few lashes.
At the time of Jesus' telling the parable, He is referring to the priests who had failed in teaching the Jews how to please God. That aspect of the parable is clear. [Most of the middle chapters of Luke deal with attacking the leaders of the Jews who had failed in their roles as shepherds.]
What is unclear are the eschatological implications [what does it mean to have a light beating? How does a severe beating differ from being assigned a lot with the unfaithful...which for the Jews would mean being cast out of the covenant...]
It's not surprising that the eschatological implications are unclear, the Jews have never had a clear understanding or prescription of the afterlife. There is almost nothing about the afterlife in the entire Old Testament, and even though Daniel 12:2 describes a resurrection the idea really didn't take hold in Jewish culture until the intertestamental time.
What is more concerning and important is the application of this passage to Christians today, assuming there is some application. Given that God has removed the barrier between Jews and Gentiles and subordinated all of Creation to Christ's rule, we must think of all men [including those who do not believe or have never known of Christ] as being "in the household.' Jesus is, after all, the propitiation for the entire world [1st John 2:2] and savior of all ("especially those who believe") [1st Timothy 4:10], so it is best to think of all people as in God's nation....just some do not know who their King is.
But if that is the case, and Christians are instructed to show others how to please God, as the great commission indicates, what ramifications does that have for us when our actions drive people away from Christ or following Christ's teachings? Christians need to take very seriously the effects we have when we are not "spreading the Gospel."
If verses like Ezekiel 3:18 [one of many verses that say the same thing] are any judge, if we fail to adequately warn people of the need to repent [one of the most common teachings in acts] and indeed cause them to "stumble" by turning them off due to our stereotypical judgmentalism and hypocrisy, there could well be a reckoning. After all, recall Jesus' warnings to His own disciples in Mark 9:50 [people would do well to note that the entire passage in Mark is told only to the disciples]
Everyone takes this as an active call to go make converts [though clearly that is not the point... Jesus tells people to make disciples and to teach people to obey everything He has commanded, which fits well into the view of salvation shown in the Later Prophets, but Christians have never been very good about letting those passages encroach on their doctrine...perhaps if Paul had written Ezekiel and Malachi the would be read more...] but I digress, I think it is important to look at the non-evangelistic side of this responsibility.
Consider Matthew 5:19 and Luke 17:2 [which may or may not be referring to believers], and then consider Luke 12:42-47
Luke 12:42-47 is an interesting parable describing a steward left in charge of a household. The master comes back and finds people not doing his will. Jesus describes 3 classes of people. The steward in charge is both killed and "assigned a lot with the unbelievers." Those who knew what they should be doing but were not doing it were punished severely while those who did not know what they were supposed to be doing [and hence were not doing it] are given few lashes.
At the time of Jesus' telling the parable, He is referring to the priests who had failed in teaching the Jews how to please God. That aspect of the parable is clear. [Most of the middle chapters of Luke deal with attacking the leaders of the Jews who had failed in their roles as shepherds.]
What is unclear are the eschatological implications [what does it mean to have a light beating? How does a severe beating differ from being assigned a lot with the unfaithful...which for the Jews would mean being cast out of the covenant...]
It's not surprising that the eschatological implications are unclear, the Jews have never had a clear understanding or prescription of the afterlife. There is almost nothing about the afterlife in the entire Old Testament, and even though Daniel 12:2 describes a resurrection the idea really didn't take hold in Jewish culture until the intertestamental time.
What is more concerning and important is the application of this passage to Christians today, assuming there is some application. Given that God has removed the barrier between Jews and Gentiles and subordinated all of Creation to Christ's rule, we must think of all men [including those who do not believe or have never known of Christ] as being "in the household.' Jesus is, after all, the propitiation for the entire world [1st John 2:2] and savior of all ("especially those who believe") [1st Timothy 4:10], so it is best to think of all people as in God's nation....just some do not know who their King is.
But if that is the case, and Christians are instructed to show others how to please God, as the great commission indicates, what ramifications does that have for us when our actions drive people away from Christ or following Christ's teachings? Christians need to take very seriously the effects we have when we are not "spreading the Gospel."
If verses like Ezekiel 3:18 [one of many verses that say the same thing] are any judge, if we fail to adequately warn people of the need to repent [one of the most common teachings in acts] and indeed cause them to "stumble" by turning them off due to our stereotypical judgmentalism and hypocrisy, there could well be a reckoning. After all, recall Jesus' warnings to His own disciples in Mark 9:50 [people would do well to note that the entire passage in Mark is told only to the disciples]
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Paul was a Murderer
I don't write the above as an attack on Paul. Paul makes no efforts at denying his past. [See 1st Timothy 1:15-16 and Acts 9:1-2]
Rather, I remind people of this because it seems to me Christians are particularly guilty of all manner of sin in how we consider and deal with those of storied past.
There are many tracts of Conservative Christians whose sense of moral superiority is nowhere more clearly shown than when they describe their opinions of those with unsavory brushes in their history.
More liberal Christians, while being in general less disposed to such contempt, are somewhat compromised for a different reason. Those with a history bespeckled by violence, especially violence toward the innocent, the weak, children, or women, are likely the ones in most need of help as they work to make a life in a world where all roads lead uphill. Unfortunately, those in the more liberal regions of Christianity, who might normally be the most willing to help those in need, can find themselves having a bit of cardiac dissonance when trying to bless those whose previous activities have run so counter to their general principles of peace and pacifism and so tragically victimized the groups they are most sympathetic toward.
There's a great deal of heated discussion and opinion regarding how the Christian church should view certain groups, in particular homosexuals and women. The former is traditionally censured, the latter restricted. The reason behind these battles is largely the basic meme of "it's not their fault?" [Which sorta sounds stupid when referring to women, but I think people understand what I mean.]
The idea is that someone should not be restricted or censured based on whatever qualities they are born with, whether that be race, orientation, or gender. And it is this meme pitted against a view that arguably rejects it that causes the tension in the church and society.
But none of that is true regarding the group "people with an unsavory past." There is no real battle being waged regarding how they should be treated. No respectable Christian church can openly denounce or cast negativity toward such individuals without being in severe contradiction of Christ's own teachings, yet you also do not see much in the way of people advocating more awareness in the church or exhorting people to actively help these people. It is a hypocritical luke-warmedness that comes from a minority suffering no institutionalized discrimination nor having a champion to attack the more subtle, unofficial variety of the same.
You don't see anyone standing up for compassion and forgiveness in this arena because there's no particular doctrine or statute to attack, only people's dispositions, which generally cannot be bothered with anything as silly as appeals to scripture or logic.
Rather, I remind people of this because it seems to me Christians are particularly guilty of all manner of sin in how we consider and deal with those of storied past.
There are many tracts of Conservative Christians whose sense of moral superiority is nowhere more clearly shown than when they describe their opinions of those with unsavory brushes in their history.
More liberal Christians, while being in general less disposed to such contempt, are somewhat compromised for a different reason. Those with a history bespeckled by violence, especially violence toward the innocent, the weak, children, or women, are likely the ones in most need of help as they work to make a life in a world where all roads lead uphill. Unfortunately, those in the more liberal regions of Christianity, who might normally be the most willing to help those in need, can find themselves having a bit of cardiac dissonance when trying to bless those whose previous activities have run so counter to their general principles of peace and pacifism and so tragically victimized the groups they are most sympathetic toward.
There's a great deal of heated discussion and opinion regarding how the Christian church should view certain groups, in particular homosexuals and women. The former is traditionally censured, the latter restricted. The reason behind these battles is largely the basic meme of "it's not their fault?" [Which sorta sounds stupid when referring to women, but I think people understand what I mean.]
The idea is that someone should not be restricted or censured based on whatever qualities they are born with, whether that be race, orientation, or gender. And it is this meme pitted against a view that arguably rejects it that causes the tension in the church and society.
But none of that is true regarding the group "people with an unsavory past." There is no real battle being waged regarding how they should be treated. No respectable Christian church can openly denounce or cast negativity toward such individuals without being in severe contradiction of Christ's own teachings, yet you also do not see much in the way of people advocating more awareness in the church or exhorting people to actively help these people. It is a hypocritical luke-warmedness that comes from a minority suffering no institutionalized discrimination nor having a champion to attack the more subtle, unofficial variety of the same.
You don't see anyone standing up for compassion and forgiveness in this arena because there's no particular doctrine or statute to attack, only people's dispositions, which generally cannot be bothered with anything as silly as appeals to scripture or logic.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Surprised by Hope [Book by N.T. Wright]
I recently finished reading Surprised by Hope, written by a CoE Bishop, N.T. Wright, which happens to be a charactonym because he writes about the NT.
I would first like to say that I highly recommend this book to every Christian, for the importance of the message found in the first 75 pages is absolutely critical and under-appreciated. Wright is willing to take on the traditional [and quite non-Biblical] bromides Christians tend to throw about regarding life after death, and in doing so he shows emphatically how and why the resurrection of Christ was so important to the Christian church.
I've written before that the apostles were clearly far more focused on the resurrection than they were on certain other teachings that dominate today's church. Wright explains clearly why this is, and in doing so explains what "Christian Hope" and, by my reading,"Christ Crucified" really mean.
For those points, as well as the general temerity to say things at odds (just a smidge) with Orthodoxy, NT Wright is to be praised, and this book recommended.
I do have some particular nitpicks and less positive comments that I hope are taken in the spirit of the above.
Bishop Wright suggests that when Jesus referred in parables to a master returning to see how his goods were used, He was referring to Christ's own 1st Century coming. While this may be true, it's hard to see Jesus' thief-in-the-night or vestal virgins parables in this light (especially given how late in His ministry they were given). It is also hard to see the parables of the Minas/Talents in this way (which are the parables Wright specifically references) unless they were meant as a type of post mortem "here were the possible ways you could have responded, and we know which one you picked, and now it should not surprise you that your grace will be removed" decree. Furtherore, it is hard to see what the "middle" level person (the one who earned 5 talents, etc.) represents in that case.
Bishop Wrght also gives the impression that Paul might not have held very firmly to a resurrection of both the just and unjust, saying that he only indicates that view one time [in 1st Corinthians]. That is an odd statement to make since Paul most definitely indicates a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous in his testimony in Acts.
Bishop Wright casts Jesus language regarding Hell in a present-day, political sense. He claims that Jesus was warning the Jews that if they continued acting in the way they were acting, it would lead to Roman invasion and destruction. This is a remarkable statement given that Jesus says things like Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Wright suggests an odd version of eternal "punishment" whereby those who do not "make it" simply devolve into non-human creatures who no longer bear the likeness of God. These creatures [given the deformed nature of their spirit] would no longer even be interested or desirous of God's presence, which does not mesh very well with the frustration and gnashing of teeth we see described by Jesus. Wright openly admits that this novel belief comes from his own repulsion at the idea of eternal torture, rather than in any particular Biblical evidence.
I would first like to say that I highly recommend this book to every Christian, for the importance of the message found in the first 75 pages is absolutely critical and under-appreciated. Wright is willing to take on the traditional [and quite non-Biblical] bromides Christians tend to throw about regarding life after death, and in doing so he shows emphatically how and why the resurrection of Christ was so important to the Christian church.
I've written before that the apostles were clearly far more focused on the resurrection than they were on certain other teachings that dominate today's church. Wright explains clearly why this is, and in doing so explains what "Christian Hope" and, by my reading,"Christ Crucified" really mean.
For those points, as well as the general temerity to say things at odds (just a smidge) with Orthodoxy, NT Wright is to be praised, and this book recommended.
I do have some particular nitpicks and less positive comments that I hope are taken in the spirit of the above.
Bishop Wright suggests that when Jesus referred in parables to a master returning to see how his goods were used, He was referring to Christ's own 1st Century coming. While this may be true, it's hard to see Jesus' thief-in-the-night or vestal virgins parables in this light (especially given how late in His ministry they were given). It is also hard to see the parables of the Minas/Talents in this way (which are the parables Wright specifically references) unless they were meant as a type of post mortem "here were the possible ways you could have responded, and we know which one you picked, and now it should not surprise you that your grace will be removed" decree. Furtherore, it is hard to see what the "middle" level person (the one who earned 5 talents, etc.) represents in that case.
Bishop Wrght also gives the impression that Paul might not have held very firmly to a resurrection of both the just and unjust, saying that he only indicates that view one time [in 1st Corinthians]. That is an odd statement to make since Paul most definitely indicates a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous in his testimony in Acts.
Bishop Wright casts Jesus language regarding Hell in a present-day, political sense. He claims that Jesus was warning the Jews that if they continued acting in the way they were acting, it would lead to Roman invasion and destruction. This is a remarkable statement given that Jesus says things like Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Wright suggests an odd version of eternal "punishment" whereby those who do not "make it" simply devolve into non-human creatures who no longer bear the likeness of God. These creatures [given the deformed nature of their spirit] would no longer even be interested or desirous of God's presence, which does not mesh very well with the frustration and gnashing of teeth we see described by Jesus. Wright openly admits that this novel belief comes from his own repulsion at the idea of eternal torture, rather than in any particular Biblical evidence.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Healing in Your Face, Literally. An answer to prayer.
...Okay, so perhaps more like "in my face."
A small, and I emphasize "small," miracle happened last night I wanted to share, in a departure from my normally more abstract posts.
I recently got a few sores. In general they are just painful, but there is always the danger that they might go into "sepsis." (which just means the infection hits your bloodstream...which is very not good)
I thought I was getting over them, but last night I had a fever, which is one sign of sepsis. I had felt some chills as well (another sign), but I think that was unrelated. In any event, I was a little concerned.
I vaguely thought about going to the quick-care clinic, but decided not to. My decision was based on some combination of not wanting to bother with it and figuring God still had a use for me. I figured I wouldn't die in my sleep.
I had been re-reading the later prophets recently [which I highly recommend all Christians do], and I have been struck by how important it was to God that Israel rely on the Almighty rather than Egypt or other nations. I offered up a prayer for healing and indicated that I wanted to rely on God's providence in this matter.
I was shocked when, no more than 3 minutes later, I just felt my fever go away. I had never experienced such an abrupt change in my life. It felt like the fever was literally being pulled from my body. I touched my forehead, which had been very warm just 3 minutes earlier, and the fever was completely gone. My forehead was the same temperature as my hand.
I was amazed. I immediately checked with my other hand, and then I felt it again a few minutes later, almost scared lest I find I had imagined it.
Anyway, I just wanted to share this for whatever it is worth.
Glory to God and the Lord Jesus Christ!
A small, and I emphasize "small," miracle happened last night I wanted to share, in a departure from my normally more abstract posts.
I recently got a few sores. In general they are just painful, but there is always the danger that they might go into "sepsis." (which just means the infection hits your bloodstream...which is very not good)
I thought I was getting over them, but last night I had a fever, which is one sign of sepsis. I had felt some chills as well (another sign), but I think that was unrelated. In any event, I was a little concerned.
I vaguely thought about going to the quick-care clinic, but decided not to. My decision was based on some combination of not wanting to bother with it and figuring God still had a use for me. I figured I wouldn't die in my sleep.
I had been re-reading the later prophets recently [which I highly recommend all Christians do], and I have been struck by how important it was to God that Israel rely on the Almighty rather than Egypt or other nations. I offered up a prayer for healing and indicated that I wanted to rely on God's providence in this matter.
I was shocked when, no more than 3 minutes later, I just felt my fever go away. I had never experienced such an abrupt change in my life. It felt like the fever was literally being pulled from my body. I touched my forehead, which had been very warm just 3 minutes earlier, and the fever was completely gone. My forehead was the same temperature as my hand.
I was amazed. I immediately checked with my other hand, and then I felt it again a few minutes later, almost scared lest I find I had imagined it.
Anyway, I just wanted to share this for whatever it is worth.
Glory to God and the Lord Jesus Christ!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
I am in you, you are in me...interesting note on John 14:2
No, John 14:2 is not one of those "I am in you, you are in me" or "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" verses, but it did make me think of it.
It's easy to see these phrases (John 10:38, John 14:10-11, 1st John 2:24, John 6:56, John 14:20, John 15:2, John 15:4-7, John 16:33, John 17;21) and sorta just take it as saying that some "relationship" is involved. Of course, many Christians try to turn some of them into a Trinitarian message, but that would imply that all believers were of the same substance as God, so we'll leave that to the side.
But it came to me that perhaps there is a finer point to be made here. After all, it is one thing to say "Jesus is in me," but what does it me to say that "I am in Christ"? What does that mean, really?
This brings me to John 14:2. What does it mean when Jesus says there are many abodes in His Father's house?
The word "abodes" is itself a theologically interesting term to look into (the translation "mansion" is rather bizarre), but what does Jesus mean when He says "Father's house."?
I think we generally think of "heaven," but if that is what Jesus meant, He could have just said "heaven." The interesting thing here is the Jewish conception of "house" is different from what we think of. The focus there is on the people inside. So when we say "The house of Jacob," we don't mean a structure, but a people.
So, the "Father's House" in that sense would referring to "God's people." This gives an "adoptionist" metaphor that I will not go into.
But the term "Father's house" also refers to the temple. For example John 2:16 and other discussions of the temple cleansing [and perhaps is what is meant in Luke 2:49, but that is certainly not clear.] In the OT we see several examples of God calling the temple "My house:" 1st Chronicles 28:6, Isaiah 56:7, and later when abominations are described.
Thus the notion of "house" can have an external, umbrella-type meaning of "Everyone under God's banner," or an internal meaning of "The temple where God resides among God's people."
In that latter sense, Jesus is referring to entering the temple [much as described in the theology of Hebrews]. Indeed, the theology of Hebrews helps us understand what "prepare a place for you" means. It appears Jesus is referring to the cleansing of the temple(s) of our souls so that we can receive His Spirit...but receiving His Spirit is what brings us into the New Covenant (and hence makes us a member of the Father's House in the other sense of the term.) Note that the word for "abode" in John 14:2 is the same as the word in John 14:23
I just found it striking how both uses (interior and exterior) of the term "House" can be combined in a single statement...without apparently anyone realizing it.
I actually see an interesting allegory here between:
Exodus -> Sinai -> Davidic Kingdom
Passover -> Shavuot -> Building of Temple
Crucifixion -> Pentecost -> 2nd coming of Christ
The first of all 3 of these refer to a freedom [Freedom from Egyptian rule, Freedom of bondage to Sin], the second regards the beginning of the covenant and its requirements [Command to keep the Mosaic Law, Command to keep the Spirit's Law]. In between the second and the third we have the "temple" being a temporary tabernacle (that "abodes" in John 14:2 and John 14:23] where God resided (as our current bodies are), and in the last we have a kingdom purged of ungodliness where God's Temple can be moored.
Note that the Crucifixion occurred on Passover and Pentecost is the same day as Shavuot.
It's easy to see these phrases (John 10:38, John 14:10-11, 1st John 2:24, John 6:56, John 14:20, John 15:2, John 15:4-7, John 16:33, John 17;21) and sorta just take it as saying that some "relationship" is involved. Of course, many Christians try to turn some of them into a Trinitarian message, but that would imply that all believers were of the same substance as God, so we'll leave that to the side.
But it came to me that perhaps there is a finer point to be made here. After all, it is one thing to say "Jesus is in me," but what does it me to say that "I am in Christ"? What does that mean, really?
This brings me to John 14:2. What does it mean when Jesus says there are many abodes in His Father's house?
The word "abodes" is itself a theologically interesting term to look into (the translation "mansion" is rather bizarre), but what does Jesus mean when He says "Father's house."?
I think we generally think of "heaven," but if that is what Jesus meant, He could have just said "heaven." The interesting thing here is the Jewish conception of "house" is different from what we think of. The focus there is on the people inside. So when we say "The house of Jacob," we don't mean a structure, but a people.
So, the "Father's House" in that sense would referring to "God's people." This gives an "adoptionist" metaphor that I will not go into.
But the term "Father's house" also refers to the temple. For example John 2:16 and other discussions of the temple cleansing [and perhaps is what is meant in Luke 2:49, but that is certainly not clear.] In the OT we see several examples of God calling the temple "My house:" 1st Chronicles 28:6, Isaiah 56:7, and later when abominations are described.
Thus the notion of "house" can have an external, umbrella-type meaning of "Everyone under God's banner," or an internal meaning of "The temple where God resides among God's people."
In that latter sense, Jesus is referring to entering the temple [much as described in the theology of Hebrews]. Indeed, the theology of Hebrews helps us understand what "prepare a place for you" means. It appears Jesus is referring to the cleansing of the temple(s) of our souls so that we can receive His Spirit...but receiving His Spirit is what brings us into the New Covenant (and hence makes us a member of the Father's House in the other sense of the term.) Note that the word for "abode" in John 14:2 is the same as the word in John 14:23
I just found it striking how both uses (interior and exterior) of the term "House" can be combined in a single statement...without apparently anyone realizing it.
I actually see an interesting allegory here between:
Exodus -> Sinai -> Davidic Kingdom
Passover -> Shavuot -> Building of Temple
Crucifixion -> Pentecost -> 2nd coming of Christ
The first of all 3 of these refer to a freedom [Freedom from Egyptian rule, Freedom of bondage to Sin], the second regards the beginning of the covenant and its requirements [Command to keep the Mosaic Law, Command to keep the Spirit's Law]. In between the second and the third we have the "temple" being a temporary tabernacle (that "abodes" in John 14:2 and John 14:23] where God resided (as our current bodies are), and in the last we have a kingdom purged of ungodliness where God's Temple can be moored.
Note that the Crucifixion occurred on Passover and Pentecost is the same day as Shavuot.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Documented Virgin Births
So, not exactly likely to still the tongues of naysayers, but still something you might be interested in:
Scientists find shark that has no father.
Scientists find shark that has no father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
