Ephesians is starting to flow into rough draft, but it will be a while before I start to publish the fruits of study here because it truly is a heavily theological letter. However, as I study Ephesians, I find that John MacArthur’s book “The Truth Wars”, though based on Jude, has bearing upon Ephesians.  Ephesians is about truth and MacArthur’s book is about the state of truth in our post-modern society.  It is extremely timely to share a bit of what I’ve been reading because MacArthur is right – we are in the middle of a war for the very definition of truth.

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul wrote that Timothy and the church at, ironically enough, Ephesus, might “know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” MacArthur points out early in the book that there has arisen an “idea that the Christian message should be kept pliable and ambiguous” and this seems “especially attractive to young people who are in tune with the culture and in love with the spirit of the age.”

MacArthur notes that “much of the visible church nowadays seems to think Christians should be at play rather than at war. The idea of actually fighting for doctrinal truth is the furthest thing from most churchgoers’ thoughts.”

Some of this is perhaps understandable. In the United States, most Christians have never known persecution for their religious faith. Some of us recognize the seeds of persecution in the acts of 911, but truly, to be perfectly honest, the attacks were motivated by cultural disagreements as much as by religion. We are not used to needing to defend the faith and it is easy to become lulled into thinking we never will need to. We are also surrounded by a culture with a deepening skepticism about truth and the fruit of truth claims.

The early Church leaders, starting with the apostles, were absolutely convinced that they knew the truth and the Truth was Jesus. Knowing this and being equally convinced that they must tell the world, they did as they had been tasks. Most of them ran into trouble with the Jewish or Roman authorities (often both working together) early on. Many of them died for their refusal to compromise on the truth. They understood that they were in a war for the truth and that war means casualties. Yet, the war they fought didn’t require they pick up swords or torture or kill others. It required that they love others enough to tell them the truth, even if it meant they themselves might be martyred for what they were teaching. In the past, it was considered heroic to give your life for what you believed in. Today, that is no longer necessarily the case.

In our modern times, terrorists and suicide bombers have co-opted the term “martyr”, strapping on suicide belts and blowing themselves up in the vicinity of those they call “infidels” because their victims do not believe. Do you see the subtle and yet cavernous distinction. The Christian martyrs chose death over compromise of their beliefs. The modern-day Islamic “martyrs” choose death as a means of murdering those who do not believe as they do. There is a complete difference between the two sets of “martyrs”. By turning the definition of martyr on its head, the terrorists have given people the impression that adherence to truth – any truth – is dangerous.

Of course, Christians should know there is a difference between God’s truth and whatever the various entities of the world might call truth. The difference does not lie in the tenets of the truth, but in the Person Who is the Source of Truth – Jesus Christ. It is because of the Source of Truth that Christian truth is worth fighting for. It is because of the Source of the Truth that Christians who refuse to compromise on the truth are the ones killed, not the ones doing the killing.

God is Truth, which means that truth is not some amorphous thought construct to be debated, but is embodied in a Person Who defines what is truth. And, that makes all the difference!

[The following is a reprint of a Holman Bible Dictionary article that I found useful in explain Bible study to my youth Sunday School class.]

 

The science of interpreting the Bible (or any piece of literature) is called hermeneutics. Interpreting the Bible is not a simple process of reading what has been written. The art of biblical interpretation developed slowly. While there have always been some people who interpreted the Bible in ways similar to what we do today, the science of biblical interpretation began to develop in the days of the Renaissance and Reformation and was given new importance by the work of Luther and Calvin.

 

The meaning of a piece of writing is seldom clearly self-evident to anyone who happens to read it. This is especially true of a very old document, written for someone who lived in a very different cultural-historical setting. If we want to interpret a piece of literature, we must ask at least five questions:

1) Who was the writer and to whom was he writing?

2) What was the cultural-historical setting of the writer?

3) What was the meaning of the words in the writer’s day?

4) What was the intended meaning of the author and why was he saying it?

5) What should this mean to me in my situation today?

These basic questions lead into other questions that must be explored in a serious attempt to understand the message of the Bible. The reader today must somehow try to enter the world of the biblical writer and seek to understand what the writer was saying. Then he must bring that ancient message into today’s world where the reader lives.

There are some basic principles that should be observed by the interpreter of the Scriptures.

1) The Bible is a divinely inspired book (2 Tim. 3:16) and should be reverently approached. Perhaps the reader should hear what was said to Moses as he stood before the burning bush: “Put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5). We must be careful to reverence the divine character of Scripture.

2) The Bible has a genuinely human element, also, since God used ordinary people to write the Scriptures. Recognition should be given to the human elements utilized by the Holy Spirit in giving us God’s Word. To miss the human element is as much a mistake as to miss the divine element.

3) The primary aim of the interpreter is to discover the original meaning of the author who wrote the passage under consideration.

4) Preference should be given to the interpretation which is clearest and simplest, the most obvious.

5) Only one meaning should be given to any passage of Scripture, unless a later passage of Scripture assigns it a second meaning. Only an inspired writer of Scripture can be allowed to give a passage more than one meaning.

6) Careful attention must be given to the literary form of a passage in determining its meaning. 7) Careful attention must be given to the historical situation of a portion of Scripture.

Interpretation begins with a historical task. The interpreter needs to know as much as possible about the writer and his cultural-historical setting. If we know nothing concerning who wrote a passage, when it was written, or under what conditions it was written, we are almost left to guess what its meaning might be. Knowing what an author has experienced and what the thought forms of his day were aids us in understanding his writing. It is important to know the approximate date when a passage was written. For instance, words about God’s Spirit written before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost might be given one meaning while they would be given a different meaning after Pentecost. The reader also needs to know who the intended recipients of a passage were. Words addressed to unbelievers would be interpreted very differently from words addressed to believers. The meaning of a passage might depend upon knowing whether the original audience was Jewish or Gentile. The interpreter also needs to know what occasioned the writing, or why the writer wrote his message and what his purpose was.

A literary task follows the historical task of the interpreter. The literary task begins with the task of translation of the Scripture from the ancient Hebrew and Greek into the language best understood by the interpreter. Translation is itself a stage of interpretation. For translation is more than simply substituting English words for the Greek and Hebrew words. If you cannot do a good job of translating Greek and Hebrew into English (or whatever your language is), then you must rely upon good translations of the Bible. You really should utilize several good translations to help you understand what the ancient writer was trying to say to you.

Lexical study is the next phase of your literary study of the Bible. You must consult a lexicon or dictionary to find the meaning key words had when the original writer used them. His words may have a different meaning today, and you must know what they meant when originally used.

The next stage of the literary task of the interpreter is the grammatical or syntactical phase. Here, you must examine the form of the writer’s grammar: what is signified by the grammatical constructions, the verb forms used, what is given emphasis in a sentence, the relationships of the words to each other, etc. The tense, voice, mode, case, etc. of the words used is very important in understanding what the writer was trying to say to you, the reader. These matters are acutely important in the work of translation, but they also must not be overlooked in the process of interpretation. You should consult good critical commentaries that analyze these grammatical matters for you, even if you do your own translation.

Rhetorical analysis is another important phase of the literary task of interpretation. Here, the interpreter seeks to determine what kind of rhetoric, or language, the ancient writer was using. It is extremely important to recognize the various literary forms that are used by the different writers of the Bible. Major portions of the Bible are written in ordinary prose, plain descriptive narrative. Other portions are pure poetry. Sometimes vivid figures of speech are incorporated in narrative portions. Such figures of speech must be interpreted in their symbolic sense rather than as literal, descriptive language. Portions of the Bible are written in apocalyptic language, a well-known literary style often used in the ancient world, but hardly known to us today. Apocalyptic literature employs vivid symbols and fanciful images to convey some message or mystery or prophecy in a veiled, highly imaginative way. The Book of Revelation and certain portions of Daniel and Ezekiel are examples of apocalyptic literature in the Bible.

Consideration must be given to the context of a passage of Scripture. No portion of Scripture ought to be interpreted without regard to its content. The context is the setting in which the particular passage is located. Generally, the paragraph in which a statement appears is the minimum context. However, the context of a passage may be the whole chapter in which a verse occurs; it could even be the entirety of a book, in the case of the shorter books of the Bible. Meaning that is given to a verse, without regard to its context, is very likely to be the wrong meaning. The Bible is made to say many things the original writers did not intend by interpreting particular statements without regard to their contexts.

The literary task of the interpreter must include comparing the meaning given to a passage to what is taught elsewhere in the Scriptures. This does not mean that we should arbitrarily force one viewpoint upon all of the Scriptures. But it does mean that we should be careful not to interpret Scriptures in such a way that we introduce contradictions into our interpretation of the Bible. There is an overall unity to the Bible; it teaches one theme, one message. But within that unity, there is also diversity. There is diversity due to the vast amount of time spanned in the writing of the Bible. There is diversity due to the many different authors employed by the Holy Spirit. There is diversity due to the progressive nature of revelation. God gradually revealed more and more of Himself and of His will for humans as the message of the Bible proceeded from Genesis to Revelation. While there is progression, there is not contradiction in the Scriptures. The careful interpreter will always want to compare an interpretation of a passage with what the Bible teaches elsewhere to see if the interpretation “fits” with what the Bible says in other places.

There is a personal, spiritual task of the interpreter. One who would be a good interpreter must be devoted to diligent, careful study of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15), prayerfully seeking the leadership of the Holy Spirit continually while interpreting the Scriptures (John 16:12-15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). Only illumination or divine guidance can lead to correct interpretation. On the one hand, the Bible is a piece of literature that is to be interpreted just like any other piece of literature. On the other hand, the Bible is unique in that it is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit; one who reads the Bible should therefore seek the guidance of God in understanding what is written there.

One additional task remains for the interpreter. Seek to apply the teaching of the Bible to your present situation. It is important to know what the Bible said to its original readers, the people to whom it was originally addressed. But it is equally important to apply the ancient message to us today in our life situation which may be very different from that of the ancient world of Moses or Jesus or Paul. If the Bible is a living revelation of God to us, as we say it is, then we must do more than decipher its ancient history. We must apply the principles discerned in that ancient history to our life situation today.

J. Terry Young

 

The title refers to what a DJ friend of mine calls it when he can't settle on a music genre. Tim works for an eclectic station and thus usually does his shows based on jazz, contemporary, Gospel, some particular genre, but when he can't seem to settle he calls it Musical Chopsuey. I'm in flux study-wise at the moment, so I'm utilizing Christian Chopsuey.

Basically, I'm using up some time while I wait upon the Lord with regard to the next area of Bible study. As many of you know, I teach from the overflow of my Sunday School class. I learned this concept from a retired missionary to the Arctic who, as a Southern Baptist woman, would never ever claim the title of preacher, but who led a lot of Bible studies/church services by "teaching from the overflow." I love working with youth (grades 7-12), but there are limits to what many of them can grasp and, so the more mature thoughts find their expression here. The problem is that I can post to this blog every day, but I only need a Sunday school lesson once a week. I'm waiting upon the Lord for my next set of instructions with regard to this blog.

In the meantime, I'm following general instructions and basically making use of my intellect. When it comes to interests, I'm a bit wide-ranging.

For example, I'm reading John MacArthur's "The Truth Wars" currently. I'm about halfway through it and I have found a lot to agree with him on. The Church has always and continues today to be in a battle against heres(ies) that many of us do not want to fight. We'd rather just not argue and make nice with the heretics that are trying to hijack the Christian faith so that we don't have to be seen as confrontational. Oh, my, that's the new slur, don't you know? We wouldn't want to be "confrontational".

I actually don't like confrontation for the sake of confrontation myself, but I do like to respond to lies with truth, particularly information or Scriptural truth. So, while I wait for Jesus to speak to me on Ephesians, I'm going to throw some thoughts out there. Probably I'll touch on MacArthur's book. My lunchtime read currently is The Screwtape Letters. A few of those seem very much like people and attitudes I know today, so I may just type them up for reader enjoyment. I'm also working on an archeology study as part of a class I'm taking, so I'll probably throw some of that in. Don't worry, I'm not leaving the Bible study forever. I'm just waiting for the Holy Spirit to flesh out my understanding of Ephesians. And, since the topics I'm touching on are all Biblically-related, I think we won't be very far from the Source.

And, who knows, maybe my topics will spawn some good discussions.

BJ noted something this morning that I thought was very interesting. The first Easter was not a celebratory day for Jesus' disciples. They were hiding in Jerusalem, grieving and in terror for their own lives. Some were already headed out of town. The women were headed to care for the body of the man they had thought was the Messiah. It was a depressed and desperate time for the Church. Yes, Mary Magdalene and a few others found reason to rejoice that day when they saw the Risen Savior. Yet, some of the disciples remained clueless for days afterward and they remained sequestered in apparently fear for more than a month after. It wasn't until the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost that the disciples found their joy. When they did, they burst out into the streets of Jerusalem and began to tell everybody the good news --

HE IS RISEN!

All subsequent Paschas were celebrations unlike the first!

Being a Baptist by membership, I don’t really observe most of the liturgical calendar, but I have several friends of other denominations that do, so for Easter, I thought I’d touch on that subject with special emphasis on Easter.

 

Although the dates of observance and specific practices of the Christian festivals developed over the centuries, major festivals all center on the life of Christ. As the church grew, some felt the need for ordered worship increasing along with the need for focusing on the central affirmations at the heart of the Christian message. By the 5th century, the basic elements of the church calendar were firmly established, although modifications continued to be made throughout the Middle Ages and the Reformation. The symbols and rituals of the festivals vary according to denomination, culture, and personal preference.

 

The original Christian festival and the basic building block for all the church year is the Lord’s day, Sunday. The earliest Christians set aside Sunday, the day of the resurrection, as a time of special remembrance of Christ. By the 2^nd century, most Christians were observing a special celebration of the resurrection at Easter. In most areas, the season before Easter, later called Lent, was a time of penitence and the training of new Christians. Similarly, the 50-day period after Easter was one of triumph during which fasting and kneeling to pray were forbidden. This period culminated in Pentecost, which means “50th day,” the celebration of the descent of the Holy Spirit. By the 3^rd century, many Eastern churches held a special observance of Christ’s birth and baptism at Epiphany. In the 4^th century, most Christians began to celebrate Christ’s birth at Christmas and to observe Advent as a period of preparation.

As the dates and practices for these celebrations became more standard throughout the Christian world, the dimensions of the church year were established. Advent came to be regarded as the beginning of the church year and the half-year between Advent and Pentecost, the period during which all the major festivals occurred, came to be regarded as a time for Christians to concentrate on the life and work of Christ. The rest of the year, from Pentecost to Advent, became a time for concentrating on the teachings of Jesus and the application of those teachings in the lives of Christians. The development of the church calendar helped to assure that Christian worship would deal with the entire breadth and depth of the Christian gospel.

 

Not surprisingly, given the centrality of the resurrection of the early Christian faith, the special celebration of the resurrection at Easter is the oldest Christian festival, just a bit later than the weekly Sunday celebration. Although the exact date was in dispute and the specific observances of the festival developed over the centuries, it is clear that Easter had special significance to the early generations of Christians. Since Christ’s passion and resurrection occurred at the time of the Jewish Passover, the first Jewish Christians probably transformed their Passover observance into a celebration of the central events of their new faith. In the early centuries, the annual observance was called the “pascha,” the Greek word for Passover, and focused on Christ as the paschal Lamb.

 

Although the New Testament does not give any account of a special observance of Easter and evidence from before A.D. 200 is scarce, the celebrations were probably well-established in most churches by A.D. 100. The earliest observance probably consisted of a vigil beginning on Saturday evening and ending on Sunday morning and included remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion as well as the resurrection. Evidence from shortly after A.D. 200 shows that the climax of the vigil was the baptism of new Christians and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. By about A.D. 300 most churches divided the original observance, devoting Good Friday to the crucifixion and Easter Sunday to the resurrection.

The early centuries saw considerable controversy over the proper date for the Easter celebration. This might have reflected the Jewish and Gentile divide within the Church. A minority, influenced by the Jewish origins of Christianity, insisted that the celebration should occur on 14 Nisan of the Jewish calendar, the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John.  Most Christians rejected this practice because it meant that the special yearly celebration of the resurrection would usually not occur on Sunday, the weekly day of the resurrection. Since about A.D. 300, the date of Easter has been determined by a complex calculation using the lunar calendar. In general, Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox.

Since Easter occurs in the spring, many of the traditional non-Christian springtime symbols of the renewal of nature became attached to the Christian celebration. In some cases an attempt has been made to Christianize the symbols. Thus, for centuries many Christians have regarded the egg as a symbol of the resurrection. The English word “Easter” comes from the name of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of the dawn. Although this is perhaps an unfortunate naming, it does not invalidate the purpose of the celebration called “Easter”.

“Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, “There is no resurrection of the dead”? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith [Or preaching is useless, and your faith also is useless].  In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified about God that He raised up Christ—whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
Therefore those who have fallen asleep [John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–15] in Christ have also perished. If we have placed our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.” 1Corinthians 15:12-18

Nothing is more central to the Christian faith than the resurrection. Without it, Christians are worshipping the air. The apostles believed because they’d seen the risen Christ. Paul hoped that the Corinthians would believe because they trusted what Paul had told them, that he had seen the risen Christ. We are not just worshipping the air, but the God Who is there and has not been silent.

A look at the Resurrection requires a look at the alternative theories to the Resurrection. After all, there are many people who insist that miracles like resurrection just don’t and can't happen, so there must be an explanation other than actual resurrection for what occurred in Palestine 2005 (thereabout) years ago.

One thing that almost all Bible scholars, including the staunchly skeptical miracle-deniers, agree on is that Jesus’ disciples believed He’d risen from the dead. They were so convinced that they came out of hiding, flooded into the streets of Jerusalem and began preaching the very thing that had gotten their rabbi killed. Whatever might have convinced them of His Resurrection, they were mega-convinced. This means they didn’t steal the body because people are unwilling to die for what they know to be a lie. The apostles and many other early Christians who claimed to be witnesses to the Resurrection died martyrs’ deaths for the belief that Jesus was risen from the dead. We can speculate about what really happened, but we cannot argue that the apostles made it up, because they showed no signs of wavering in the central conviction of their faith – that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead.

Philip Schaff, the great historian wrote, “the purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.” Lots of people have tried to explain away the resurrection, which is the central theme of Easter. We’re not allowed to just make up history as we go along. While many theories have been advanced attempting to show the resurrection as a fraud, I think we must be conscious of two principles when look at the evident and evaluation what happened on that first Easter. First, alternate explanations must take into account all the acts surrounding the resurrection. Second, we must not force the evidence into a preconceived conclusion, but let the evidence speak for itself.

I’m only going to look at a few of the most popular alternative explanations that have been advanced. Let’s be honest upfront and recognize that those advancing these theories have mostly been unbelievers in Jesus Christ or liberal theologians who very often operate out of a desire to explain away the resurrection. They reject evidence not because it is insufficient, but because they fear its moral implications on their lives.

The first alternate explanation advanced is the “swoon” or “resuscitation” theory.  This theory advances that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross. He only fainted. In the cool of the tomb, He revived and sought out His disciples, who in their state of grief just mistook His survival for resurrection.

Okay, you can stop laughing now! Seriously, does anyone think Jesus could conceivably have survived hours of beating, then nailed to a cross, suffocating in his own pulmonary fluids, losing blood in the hot Israeli sun, stabled in the side, and merely fainted from exhaustion? In the coolness of the tomb, He revived, stretched, worked the kinks out, threw a heavy stone away from the opened and departed? Can you breathe yet?

This theory ignores the evidence to a ridiculous degree. It would require a greater miracle than the resurrection. In the cool damp air of the tomb, instead of dying from blood loss, pulmonary edema, and hypothermia, Jesus was healed. Upon throwing the stone across the garden, he fought off the Roman guard posted outside His tomb and then appeared in perfect health to His disciples.

Verses showing this theory to be unsupportable:

John 19:31-35 “The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath for that Sabbath was a high day, asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.”

Mark 15:43-45 “Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.”

These circumstances proved Christ died. He was dead in the judgment of the soldiers, who were professional executioners, in the judgment of Pilate, in the judgment of the Jews who requested the guard for the tomb, and in the judgment of the women who went to the tomb to further prepare the body by heaping spices over the body. Let’s try to remember that the people of the 1^st Century were intimately familiar with death. They lived in a society where people died at home and family members cared for the body of the deceased. They knew what death looked like.

Matthew 28:6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.”

Mark 16:6 “And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.”

John 20:5-8 “…and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, ⁷ and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. ⁸ So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed.”

The swoon theory cannot explain the linen wrappings lying undisturbed, exactly as they had been when around the body of Christ. Christ would have had to perform a miracle of wiggling out of the wrappings which were wound tightly about the body with over a hundred pounds of spices in the wrappings without someone to help unwrap Him, as in the case of Lazarus in John 11. Brock Gill’s got nothing on this guy!

If Christ had only swooned, He still would have been half dead. A great deal of time would have been needed for recuperation. In His weakened condition He could not have walked the seven miles on the Emmaus road. It would have been impossible for someone who had gone through what Jesus suffered in the crucifixion to so quickly give the impression that He was the Conqueror of death and the grave, the Prince of Life. In fact it was this belief which turned the disciples around and became the foundation of the rest of their ministries. A beaten and weakened Jesus would not have inspired anyone to give His life for the faith.

A second alternate explanation is the “Hallucination” theory.  This theory says that all of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances were really only supposed appearances because the witnesses were actually hallucinating.

I work for community mental health and have access to actual psychiatrists, most of whom are atheists, but all of them say pretty much the same thing. Contrary to a popular book in the 1970’s, there is no such thing as group hallucinations. Hallucinations, according to psychiatrists, are individual manifestations of illnesses. Yes, illusionists can make a crowd for a few seconds believe they’re seeing something they’re not really seeing, but Jesus appeared before crowds of people and interacted with them for extended periods of time. There is no evidence that 500 people can see the same hallucination at the same time. There’s never been a documented case of a crowd of that size having a sustained illusionary experience. The disciples detailed in the New Testament don’t show any evidence of mental illness. They were reluctant to believe in the resurrection in the first place! They were not amendable to delusions.

Scriptures showing this theory to be unsupportable:

Mark 16:11-16 And when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country. And they went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. ^“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Luke 24:11-12 And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.  (But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at that which had happened.)

John 20:24-30 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” ²⁸ Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

The hallucination theory is simply not plausible because it contradicts laws and principles which psychiatrists say are essential to hallucinations. Psychiatrists claim only certain kinds of people have hallucinations, usually high-strung, highly imaginative, and very nervous people and even those rarely absent of schizophrenia. But Christ appeared to many different types of people, not restricted to people of any particular psychological make up. Hallucinations, which are usually restricted to when and where they occur, are linked in an individual’s subconscious--to his particular past experiences and this was certainly not a part of any past experience. Hallucinations usually occur in a nostalgic atmosphere or in a place of familiar surroundings which places the person in a reminiscing mood. Hallucinations occur in people when there is a spirit of anticipation or hopeful expectation. The historical record shows no such anticipation existed. They were prone to disbelieve even after they were told of the resurrection.

For further study see, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 257f, and The Resurrection Factor, p. 82f.

A third alternate explanation is the “Impersonation” theory. This views the appearances of Christ as someone impersonating Him. Those holding this view point to the evidence that sometimes His disciples didn’t recognize him.

This ignores some strong Biblical testimony. The disciples were reluctant to believe in the resurrection, were doubtful and would have been hard to convince unless it was really Him, as was the case with Thomas.  It would have been impossible to impersonate Christ’s wounds. This was Christ’s proof to Thomas that it was really Him (John 20:24). At times their inability to recognize Him was a phenomenon of His glorified body brought about by His own purposes as in Luke 24:16, “But their eyes were restricted that they should not recognize Him.”  These men had traveled with the Lord for three years and it is incredible that anyone could have gotten away with an impersonation particularly due to their reluctance to believe.  They were meeting in locked chambers in some instances, and He suddenly appeared in His glorified body. No one could impersonate such a miraculous act other than the resurrected Christ.

A fourth alternate explanation is the “Spiritual Resurrection” theory. This is the view that Christ’s resurrection was not a real physical resurrection. Proponents here assert that Jesus’ body remained in the grave; His real resurrection was a spiritual resurrection.

Note what William Craig says in his book entitled, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, Our Response to the Empty Tomb:

“We need to see clearly that there can be positive theological implications of the resurrection only insofar as its historical reality is affirmed. While many theologians may find such a conviction hopelessly antiquated, the man in the street knows better. His common sense tells him that there is no reason why a dead man should be decisive for his existence today, and I agree with him. Once doctrinal teachings are detached from their historical realities, we have entered the arena of myth. And there is simply no good reason to prefer Christian myths over other myths or, for that matter, secular philosophies. The resurrection is only real for our lives today if it is a real event of history.” (Introduction, p. xiii)

A physical body did disappear from the tomb. If it was only a spiritual resurrection, then what happened to the body? History shows there was a body there and it disappeared. The enemies of Christ were never able to produce the body nor disprove the resurrection.

The resurrection accounts are not presented in parabolic or symbolic language, but as hard fact. John 20 is full of what Greek grammarians call vivid historical present tenses to stress the historical reality of the Gospel message.  The record states He was touched and handled, that He had a body, and that He even ate with the disciples (Luke 24:30, 41; John 21:12).  First Corinthians 15 teaches us that Christ not only arose, but that He arose bodily. He possessed a glorified body which had unique capacities. First Corinthians 15:44 calls it a spiritual body, but it was nevertheless a physical body as well. Note the following facts about the body of Christ:

• He could appear in different forms (Mark16:12).
• He could eat though it was not needed for sustenance (Luke 24:30).
• He could appear and disappear and could pass through solid objects (John 20:19, 26).
• He could pass in a moment from one place to another (Luke 24:31).

Philippians 3:21 shows that His body was glorious and unique, but nevertheless, still a body which Scripture says we will someday receive a similar one. Jesus’ body was spiritual, glorified, and yet a physical body of flesh and bone.

A fifth alternate explanation is actually the first one advanced. It is the “Theft” theory. The Jewish authorities claimed it in the beginning. “The disciples stole the body and claimed that He rose from the dead.”

Matthew 28:11-15 Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ ^“And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

Again, such a theory ignores the evidence of the linen wrappings and the empty tomb. If someone had stolen the body, they would have either taken the body and left the wrappings scattered or piled in a heap, but only resurrection could account for the position of the linen wrappings with the body absent.

Further, there is the question of the probability of who COULD and WOULD steal the body under the circumstances.  The Romans would not; they were there to guard it with their lives by Roman law. They had sealed the tomb and were there to protect it against theft. The presence of the Roman soldiers and the Roman seal over the door made the possibility of the religious leaders claims of theft a thousand times more difficult if not impossible.

The religious leaders had provided their own refutation against such a theory (Mat. 27:63-66).  The women could not for they could not have removed the stone and were wondering who would remove it for them when they went early Sunday morning to finish burial preparations (Mark16:3-4).  The disciples would not because they were perplexed and scattered, huddled together in hidden rooms. Two had even left town and were on their way to Emmaus. The likelihood of these timid, scared Galilean disciples stealing the body of Jesus out from under the noses of a guard of highly disciplined and skilled Roman soldiers while they all slept (an offense punishable by death) is ridiculous.

A sixth alternate explanation is the “Unknown Tomb” theory, which was also presented early on to explain everything away. This theory says the disciples did not know where the tomb was located and could not have found the empty grave. This theory depends on the belief that those who were crucified were tossed into a common pit and were not allowed to be buried.

This theory also disregards totally the straightforward historical narrative about the events surrounding Christ’s burial and the post-resurrection scene. The Gospel record indicates that Joseph of Arimathea took the body to his own private tomb--not a public mass burial ground. According to Scripture, the body of Christ was prepared for burial according to the burial customs of the Jews; the women sat opposite the tomb and watched. Not only did Joseph of Arimathea and the women know where the tomb was, so did the Romans--they placed a guard there.

In conclusion, none of these natural theories adequately deals with the evidence of the known facts that surrounded the resurrection of our Lord. The evidence says He arose and this resurrection marks Him out as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), as the Savior of the world and the means of justification and peace with God through personal faith in Christ (Rom. 4:25-5:1), or if one rejects the Risen Savior, as their judge at the day of judgment (Acts 17:30-31).

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. ^“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. ^“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is the official anniversary of the first Lord’s Supper, so I thought I would focus on that in celebration.

Jewish ceremonial law revolved around an annual calendar of special festivals that were meant to attend to certain aspects of God or of the Jewish history of following God.

The first of the three annual Jewish festivals was the Passover. Commemorating the final plague on Egypt when the firstborn of the Egyptians died and the Israelites were spared because of the blood smeared on their doorposts (Ex. 12:11,21,27,43,48), Passover took place on the 14^th day (at evening) of the first month, according to Lev. 23:5. The animal (lamb or kid) to be slain was selected on the 10th day of the month (Ex. 12:3) and slaughtered on the 14th day and then eaten (Ex 12:3, Deut. 16:7). None of the animal was to be left over on the following morning (Ex. 34:25). The uncircumcised and the hired servant were not permitted to eat the sacrifice (Ex. 12:45-49).

The Passover was also called the feast of unleavened bread (Ex. 23:15; Deut. 16:16) because only unleavened bread was eaten during the seven days immediately following Passover (Ex. 12:15-20; 13:6-8; Deut. 16:3-8). Apparently connected to the barley harvest, unleavened bread remembered that the Hebrews had no time to put leaven in their bread before their hasty departure from Egypt.

During New Testament times large crowds gathered in Jerusalem to observe this annual celebration. Jesus was crucified during the Passover event. He and His disciples ate a Passover meal together on the eve of His death. During this meal Jesus said, “This is my body,” and “this cup is the new testament in my blood” (Luke 22:7, 19-20). The New Testament identifies Christ with the Passover sacrifice: “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). See Passover

What Protestant churches call the Lord’s Supper remembers a memorial celebrated by the early church to signify Jesus’ sacrificial death for humankind’s sin. The form of the observance was established by the Lord at the Last Supper when He symbolically offered Himself as the paschal Lamb of atonement. His actual death the next day fulfilled the prophecy. Only Paul uses the phrase “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), although it is implied in Revelation 19:9 (“marriage supper of the Lamb”). Church fathers began to call the occasion the “Eucharist” (that is, “Thanksgiving”) from the blessing pronounced over the bread and wine after about A.D. 100. Church groups celebrate the Lord’s Supper regularly as a sign of the new covenant sealed by Christ’s death and resurrection and it is considered by most churches to be an ordinance of faith.

^“On the first day of  Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare the Passover so You may eat it?” “Go into the city to a certain man,” He said, “and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My time is near; I am celebrating the Passover at your place  [Literally Passover with you] with My disciples.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.” Matthew 26:17-19

 

Jesus had planned ahead for this event. In another gospel, He instructed His disciples to look for a man carrying a water jug. Men in those days never carried water jugs; it was considered women’s work and, therefore demeaning, to get the water. Jesus had prearranged a signal for his disciples to easily find their host, the owner of the upper room and apparently a follower of Jesus. By this time, Jesus’ enemies were massing and it was best to be circumspect. Jesus knew that His time was near, but I don’t think He knew the exact details of what was going to happen. His caution was born of true anxiety, just like any human who was not God Incarnate would feel in this situation.

 

The disciples obeyed. One commentator I read suggested that this is a spiritual command to us, that if we want His presence at the Lord’s Supper we must obey His command and example concerning the Lord’s Supper. I will agree that we must obey Jesus in everything to the best of our capabilities. Heart-searching examination and fervent prayer are especially proper before the Lord’s Supper, because we are remembering Christ’s sacrifice for us. As we keep this feast, we should renew our repentance and surrender ourselves once more to His service.

 

^“When evening came, He was reclining at the table with the Twelve. While they were eating, He said, “I assure you: One of you will betray Me.” Deeply distressed, each one began to say to Him, “Surely not I, Lord?” He replied, “The one who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl—he will betray Me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Then Judas, His betrayer, replied, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” “You have said it,” He told him.” Matthew 26:20-25

 

We know from the other Gospels that more than just what is recorded in Matthew was going on, but we shall focus on Matthew for the time being.  Jesus had predicted He would die, but now we see that there was more involved in His death. There was also betrayal. Not all gathered around Jesus were true followers of Him. Some were there, as they say, for the donuts. Judas was such a man. I don’t think Jesus was ever in the dark about Judas’ character. Jesus was very good at knowing the hearts of men and Judas had betrayed himself on several occasions. However, I think that Judas had been in the dark about his own character. Until quite recently, he’d thought himself a follower of Christ, but he hadn’t understood where Jesus was leading. He had only recently felt malice toward Jesus, perhaps feeling himself slighted because Jesus didn’t treat him like Judas thought he should be treated. Of course, by the time of the Supper, Judas had already spoken with the Jewish authorities about betraying Jesus. It seems clear here that he hadn’t actually done it yet, but Jesus knew that he had decided to do it.

 

Judas departed from the company at this point, which should be significant for us. Unbelievers should not partake of the Lord’s Supper, just as Judas did not partake. It is not a simple ceremony with no import in our lives and it is not without consequences when we partake of it unworthily. On believers in Jesus Christ should partake of the Lord’s Supper.

 

With the unbelieving Judas departed, Jesus began the ceremony. Realize that this was part of a ritualistic meal. You might consider attending a sedir service sometime for further details, but there were courses to the meal that had specific meanings and cups of wine that also had specific meanings. That was all done with, the scholars claim. They were reclining at the table in rest following the meal when Jesus added a final round to the celebration.

 

 

 

The ordinance of the Lord's supper is the Christian passover meal. In it we commemorate a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. In saying take and eat, Jesus was offering His disciples to take part in His death. Obviously, since Jesus was still alive, the bread did not magically become His flesh. He had previously spoken of eating His flesh and the disciples had misunderstood; many had turned away thinking He was advocating cannibalism. Now, sitting in the upper room with Jesus still alive, the disciples understood that He was speaking of spiritual things. We should understand that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are metaphors to help us grasp spiritual concepts. No magic tricks are involved. The bread that night signified and represented Jesus’ body because He was still alive. The bread today signifies and represents Christ’s body to us because He is still alive. A commentator gave me this mental picture. We partake of the sun, not by having the sun placed in our hands, but by the beams of sunlight flowing over us. In the same way, we partake of Christ by partaking of His grace and remembering His sacrifice on our behalf. The bread is broken that we might remember that Jesus died for us. The wine signifies and represents the blood of Jesus, which pardons from sin all true believers. Paul, later writing to the church at Corinth, wrote that we take the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus. Again, no magic trick; just metaphors that help us to understand what Jesus has done for us.

 

My commentary also noted that Jesus did not partake of the Lord’s Supper, claiming that He would wait until after all things had been made new. While we look at the metaphorical symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood for the remission of our sins, we should recollect that the feast cost him as much as though he had literally given his flesh to be eaten and his blood for us to drink.

 

^“Then Jesus said to them, “Tonight all of you will run away [Or stumble] because of Me, for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. [Zch 13:7] 
But after I have been resurrected, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” Peter told Him, “Even if everyone runs away because of You, I will never run away!” “I assure you,” Jesus said to him, “tonight—before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times!” “Even if I have to die with You,” Peter told Him, “I will never deny You!” And all the disciples said the same thing.” Matthew 26:31-35

 

Best guard ourselves and recognize that we’re human and therefore weak. Only as we allow Christ to work in us are we able to stand in circumstances that would make mere mortals like us crumble. We rely on Him when we remember what He did for us and we put our trust in that. The early church made this ceremony a central focus of their worship because they recognized the power of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ and the rejuvenating influence of remembering that sacrifice had upon their own souls.

“Do this in remembrance of Me.” 1 Corinthians 11:24&25

The greatest act of worship, indeed the central worship experience in Christianity, is to remember that our God died for us and yet He still lives!

Boaz acted quickly to secure the marriage of Ruth. I think he did this for several reasons. One, he had decided he really wanted this virtuous woman if she really wanted him. Two, he knew that some of his servants might have recognized Ruth’s voice or guessed at her identity and might gossip about her before the day was out. While they were tied up with the harvest, they wouldn’t be about town spreading rumors. He wanted the marriage contract written before untoward details started to circulate.

Boaz and Ruth had actually done nothing wrong, but as is often the case, the appearance of things matters more than the actual events. Naomi knew this and she had used a potentially compromising situation to force the outcome she wished – an heir in Mahlon’s name who would be obligated to take care of her. Ruth would get Boaz, which I’m fairly certain pleased Naomi. I don't think she was a monster. It was simply that her own interests had more of her attention.

Boaz may well have been an elder of Bethlehem as he was of middle years and a wealthy man. Some commentators suggest he was chief elder since he approached the gates with authority. It is my understanding that anyone could hold court in the gates on business that must be officially recognized, like marriage contracts, but I will give the commentators that. Boaz was the grandson of Nahshon, a prince of Judah.

It was apparently not a court day, but Boaz quickly gathered 10 elders to judge the case. This number was likely the custom of the city.  Court was held in the gates of the city where everyone, literally, passed by and could observe the events, perhaps step in and put their opinion to it if they had one. The primary kinsman of Naomi passed by, perhaps on his way to his fields or on some other business. Boaz seems to have expected this. The gates were highly traveled. This man’s name was not recorded, so I’m going to follow my daughter’s fashion of naming such characters. I’ll call him James. No reason, just convenient.

“James, come over here. I have somewhat to discuss with you,” Boaz called as his cousin crossed the gate yard.  James noted the 10 elders and figured Boaz must have some official business to discuss with him.

Naomi still possessed Elimelech’s land and Boaz proposed that, as primary kinsman, James might buy the land to give Naomi cash to live on. Its likely Naomi would have been allowed to continue living in the cottage on the land. In this way, Boaz was perhaps feeling out if James knew that he was first in line for the kinsman-redeemer. Boaz also served James, as the legitimate redeemer, notice that he was also interested in the land. Boaz is acting in perfect honor here. Though he knew of the sale prior to the kinsman, he did not take advantage of it without discussing it first and in a court of law, so that all was above-board.

James fancied adding more land to his holdings and said he would like to buy the land. However, he changed his mind when he heard that it came with a bride. Levirate marriages were perfectly legal in Israel, but it had been known to complicate inheritance. Apparently, James was married, but had no male heirs as yet. Though the child of a concubine had no legal standing that would override a legitimate heir born later, there was apparently some murkiness surrounding the child of a Levirate marriage. At the very least, any child born of that marriage would have some claim to the land that accompanied Ruth. Boaz had decided to present it that Naomi’s requirement for purchase of the land was that the buyer takes Ruth as bride. James did not want to complicate the inheritance process. It may have been that, not knowing Ruth as Boaz had come to know her, he assumed she was an idolater and therefore likely to raise idolaters. He might also have feared strife with his first wife. Or perhaps he feared she came with many children who would all need to be provided for. He feared for his inheritance, but also seemed to fear for his reputation.

I would note that many people avoid coming to Christianity because they fear that such an affiliation won’t look good for them in the world. Years ago, a friend related a conversation he had once had with his father who was a prominent businessman in a large city. My friend had become a Christian in college and was now seeking to find an evangelical church to join. His father expressed concern and suggested the Episcopal Church because “at least that has a good reputation and not many rules of conduct.” The father feared that his son would ruin himself for business by gaining a reputation for consorting with people of lesser status and wealth and with narrow-minded ideas about marriage, drinking, sex, etc. Actually, my friend’s father was right and one reason my friend moved to Alaska was because here people pay less attention to your church affiliation and more attention to your business acumen.

The right of redemption had passed from James to Boaz. The Nuzi texts do include the ceremony that passed here in Ruth, so it can be supposed this was common practice in ancient Israel. Rather than write down the contract whereby Boaz took James’ right of redemption, James removed one of his sandals and showed before witnesses that he was in agreement with the proposal by passing it to Boaz. While it might seem weird to us, it was the way business was conduct in those days.

For our modern-day considerations, we should pay attention to the open and fair dealing in this matter of contract and commerce. Boaz acted in honor and honesty rather than secretly undermining his kinsman through a direct marriage contract with Naomi. Honesty remains the best policy.

Seeing his way clear, Boaz did not delay to perform his promise to make Ruth his wife. There in the gates, before the elders and anyone passing by, Boaz published a marriage contract between himself and Ruth, thus purchasing Elimelech’s entire estate and any encumbrances. This act of incredible generosity speaks highly of Boaz’s character, for he understood that his wealth was worth nothing if he couldn’t use it to do service for his kinsman’s family. Boaz’s publication meant that anyone owning Elimelech’s former lands or holding mortgages on it would be required to come to him for the redemption price. This public announcement prevented fraud.

He also acknowledged that he had purchased Ruth in the bargain. Some of us feel a great deal of resentment at the idea that a man can “purchase” a woman, but in reality that was what was occurring because of the society in which they lived. At least Boaz liked Ruth, maybe even was coming to love her.  Often marriage contracts in that day were between the parents and the bride and groom met on the wedding day.

One reason for Levirate marriage was to prevent the passing of a man’s name from history. Mahlon had died without heirs and thus had no one to remember him. Yet, his name is recorded in the marriage contract of Ruth and Boaz and he was the legal father of the first child Ruth and Boaz produced. Mahlon’s name is remembered in the genealogies of David and Jesus down through the ages.

Of course, commentators always draw parallels between the characters of Ruth and different aspects of salvation. Jesus, like Boaz, looked upon the deplorable state of mankind in our fallen state and at vast expense redeemed us to a heavenly inheritance which, we had, through sin, mortgaged and forfeited and that we would never be able to redeem on our own. Jesus purchased a “peculiar people” as Boaz purchased the foreign Ruth. As Boaz humbled himself to marry a poor foreign widow, Jesus humbled Himself to die on a cross for us.

Ruth, through providing children and a household for Boaz, certainly fulfilled her obligations to Boaz for his generosity. Do we fulfill our obligations to Christ for His? How many Christians, coming to Christ, neglect to make a public profession? I know people claiming the name of Christian who insist they don’t need to make such ceremonies, that what matters is completely within their hearts. How many refuse full immersion baptism? I know those who claim to be Christians who insist that they don’t need to “demean” themselves to that extent. How many are ashamed to share the gospel of Christ, in defiance of Jesus’ last command to His followers. Do we not realize that to whom much has been given much will be required?  Yet many of us do very little to return Christ’s generosity.  We were bought with a price and that price was His suffering and pain. Are we not obligated?

I would note that though Naomi had not always acting with due character, God saw that she was provided for through Ruth and Boaz. If they held anything against her in the manner in which she manipulated their relationship, they showed no outward sign. Obed was likely raised by Ruth to be as generous and faithful as she was and by Boaz to have a deep character and fine honor. He no doubt took good care of Naomi for as long as she lived.

It might be noted that in the genealogy of Jesus there are only ever two women noted and both are foreigners – Rahab and Ruth. I have often wondered about that in the past, but I now think I may have figured it out. Rahab and Ruth prefigure us Gentiles. They were adopted into the kingdom of Israel because they agreed to follow the One True God. In both cases, they stepped out in faith in response to hearing about God. They risked their old lives and ventured forth to secure promises they could not wholly grasp when they started. Both made public professions before witnesses of their faith in God. Is this not how we all come to Christ? As Romans 10:9-10 says (paraphrase) “we come to Christ by believing in our hearts that Jesus is the Messiah and can save us from our sins. Our public profession of our faith secures our salvation.”

Ruth is an Old Testament example that faith, not works or following some rules, is the way in which God has always dealt with His people. Let us always remember that, for that is truth.

The Book of Ruth has three main characters – the bitter and manipulative Naomi, the faithful and committed young widow Ruth, and Boaz, the older gentleman with the huge heart. We’ve looked at Naomi and Ruth. These two women can be contrasted with one another in more ways than age, for Ruth acted in amazingly honorable ways in support of her mother-in-law while Naomi’s character is in question by her behavior and advice to Ruth. We also must look at Boaz.

Boaz, whose name might have meant “lively.” Was a wealthy relative of Naomi’s husband, Elimelech. He appears to have been an older gentleman and we can guess he was prosperous because Ruth chose to glean grain in his field, suggesting that she thought this was a lucrative location.  As we first see Boaz in Ruth 2, he greets his overseer in the name of the Lord and his overseer responds similarly, indicating that Boaz was a man of easy faith and well-known for it. He also appears to have had a good relationship with his servants. It would appear he was unmarried, which would have been unusual for a man of middle years in that time. It may be that he had been married before and his wife had died or perhaps, since he clearly possessed a fine honor, he may have had high standards in his spouse, preventing him from marrying until he found jus the right woman. It also appears that he had no heirs, which indicates he probably had not been married previously.

As I said, he was a man of character. He noticed Ruth right away. She was a stranger in town who perhaps, being Moabite, dressed somewhat differently than his female servants who were also in the field. Some commentators make much of his being taken with her beauty, but I think he saw her at a distance and merely inquired as to who she was. Ruth had a legal right as a poor widow to glean any fields she chose. Hebrew law required that farmers leave some grain behind for that purpose. Boaz was simply asking after the conditions of his field, not bird-dogging the young widow. “Who does that young woman belong to?” he asked in Ruth 2:5. He thus indicates his assumption that Ruth was taken. She was probably old enough, having been married to Mahlon for 10 years, that Boaz could safely assume she was married. The overseer told him that she was Naomi’s daughter-in-law and noted that she was a hard worker. This, I believe, is what piqued Boaz’ interest.

Boaz was cousin to Elimelech and therefore, in line as kinsman-redeemer for Naomi, who had the right to ask for support from Elimelech’s family. For that matter, Ruth had the right to ask for support as Mahlon’s widow. Instead, she went to work in the fields, which indicates that the kinsman-redeemer with prior status had not stepped forward in any fashion and that Ruth was unaware of the laws of kinship in Israel. Boaz knew that he was second-in-line and now, seeing Ruth in the fields, recognized that obligation was unfolding in his direction. Thus, during the common meal shared under the shelter, he provided her with a ration of roasted grain. It was here that he was able to observe that Ruth controlled her appetites, keeping some of the grain aside to take to Naomi. Boaz was impressed with her character. He complimented her faithfulness and offered the Lord’s blessings, but he treated her as a daughter, not as a love interest. He even called her “daughter”. He then gave his servants instructions to protect her and to allow her to pick up more grain than she might ordinarily have been entitled to.

I think Boaz was thinking “What is my cousin doing, not taking care of these women? Well, the least I can do is help this courageous woman in her task of taking care of herself and Naomi.”

I don’t think it ever really occurred to Boaz that he might marry Ruth. My belief is based on a couple of simple premises. First, there was an age difference between them and Ruth was pretty; thus Boaz figured she had better prospects than he and would not be interested in him. Second, Ruth was a foreigner and though Boaz had seen proof of her faith and a belief in Yahweh, he had to assume she was an idolater. To a faithful man of Israel, marriage to an idol-worshipping foreigner invited one to raise idol-worshipping children. It was forbidden in Hebrew law for the Israelites to take foreign wives, though there had been exceptions. Boaz’ ancestress was Rahab the harlot who had protected the spies in Jericho. Certainly Boaz would have wanted time to observe Ruth before marriage came into his thoughts. Moreover, it was customary for the parents of a woman to approach a man (or his parents in many cases) with a proposal to make a marriage contract. Naomi apparently never approached Boaz, which might have indicated to him that she was pursuing other potential contracts for Ruth.

The time of the harvest meant a lot of hard work occasionally broken by enjoyment of the fruits of the field. Boaz ate a good meal and drank a bit of wine and lay down in the cool of the threshing floor to sleep until morning. His servants surrounded him. At some point in the night, he turned over and felt warmth at his uncovered feet. The beautiful Moabite woman, Ruth, lay there.

As I said earlier, though many commentators claim that it was common practice in Hebrew society for a woman to ask a man to marry her by uncovering his feet and lying down at them, there’s no historical evidence supporting that assertion. It’s not mentioned in the Nuzi texts, which often parallel what we know of Jewish customs of the era. It’s not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. On a gut level, it seems like a very provocative behavior for an unmarried woman to lie down at the feet of an unmarried man. It rather reminds me of a female dog submitting to her chosen mate. This is not to claim that Ruth did anything in a knowingly improper way. She was obeying Naomi and may well have believed this was a common Hebrew practice. Let us look at the interaction of Ruth and Boaz so that we can understand what really occurred.

Naomi had noticed that Boaz had been kind to Ruth and she knew he was in line as a kinsman-redeemer. I think she knew he wasn’t the first in line. I think she believed (and it turned out to be correct) that the primary kinsman would reject a marriage contract. We’ll look at the reasons for this later. Because Ruth was a foreigner, a traditional marriage contract to a prominent landowner like Boaz would have been problematic. Naomi had no dowry to give and, in reality, Boaz may not have been required to act as kinsman-redeemer in a traditional marriage contract. Naomi therefore, sought to manipulate the situation. The true prize was a leverite marriage that would produce an heir to support Naomi even if Ruth and Boaz died.

“Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, shouldn’t I find security for you, so that you will be taken care of? Now isn’t Boaz our relative? Haven’t you been working with his young women? This evening he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash, put on perfumed oil, and wear your best clothes. Go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let the man know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, notice the place where he’s lying, go in and uncover his feet, and lie down. Then he will explain to you what you should do.” So Ruth said to her, “I will do everything you say.” Ruth 3:1-5

I’m sure Ruth was not naïve. She’d been married before and was familiar with sex. She knew that donning nice clothes and daubing on perfumed oil was a means for attracting the opposite sex. However, she would not have known much about the marriage customs of Israel. This might have seemed like the acceptable way to approach a man for marriage. I would note that it appears the mothers of Moab were in charge of the households and likely in charge of the marriages. Perhaps Ruth just assumed that in Israel women asked the men for marriage. She trusted Naomi not to lead her astray. Unfortunately, when we trust untrustworthy people we sometimes find ourselves in dangerous situations. Ruth was very lucky it was Boaz Naomi chose for her seduction and not some other man.

“Then she went in secretly, uncovered his feet, and lay down. At midnight, Boaz was startled, turned over, and there lying at his feet was a woman! So he asked, “Who are you?” “I am Ruth, your slave,” she replied. “Spread your cloak over me, for you are a family redeemer.” Ruth 3:7b-9

Naomi had coached Ruth in what to say and Ruth did as she was told. I can imagine Boaz sitting up, hair in tufts, staring blurry-eyed at this woman at his feet, startled to find her there. Upon learning that it was Ruth and that she was asking for him to become her kinsman-redeemer, he felt a mix of shock, fear and exhilaration. Here was a beautiful young woman and she was proposing marriage to him, but oh, my, the circumstances really would not look good in Israel where rules of marriage and male-female interaction were strict.

At this point, however, we get the hint that what Ruth has done in following Naomi’s instructions might not be taken well in Hebrew society.

It’s also noteworthy that Boaz made a vow here that is the equivalent of an engagement. He vowed upon God Himself that he would marry her if the primary kinsman would not. Again, given the situation, it was a proper way of a man of character to act.

Ruth left behind what she knew and in faith launched across the Jordan River to pursuit Yahweh and a culture of which she knew very little. This weekend, I was able to get away from my hometown to the big city for a youth conference and God worked it out so I would learn a slightly different perspective on Ruth than what I started with. The Native pastor at the church where we were staying had some interesting things to say about the Book of Ruth and its characters. I didn’t agree with him wholly, but I have incorporated his perspective because of its freshness and contrariness.

Although Ruth was a new convert, we do well to acknowledge that she had a great deal of faith. She was probably mostly illiterate concerning Jewish laws and customs, though Moab might have shared some with Israel, since Moab was the result of the children Lot produced with his eldest daughter. They didn’t worship the same God, however. The Moabites’ primary god was Chemosh (whose name meant “subdue” and whose purpose it was to provide land for the Moabites, but they also would have worshipped other gods as the seasons and circumstances dictated. Therefore, Ruth’s decision to embrace the Israelite God before even leaving Moab was indeed a great act of faith. That she apparently understood that Yahweh accepted only sole worship shows amazing insight.

Naomi was probably the primary person who witnessed of Yahweh to Ruth, but we shouldn’t consider her a good role model for the faith. We can excuse her for being depressed and maybe even bitter; she’d lost everything and her future didn’t look so bright, but we can judge her for her past and those actions that totally disagree with faith.  She advised both her daughters-in-law to return home to the gods of their people, knowing that way led to damnation. Orpah obeyed, thus sealing her spiritual fate. Ruth, however, refused, though Naomi urged her once more to return to Moab. Naomi should have known that Ruth had adopted the Hebrew God and thus could not return to Moab and the worship of Chemosh.  Still, she urged her to return home and only stopped her urging when Ruth made it clear that she had committed to Naomi and the Hebrew God and wasn’t going to be dissuaded from either. Naomi later advised Ruth in the seduction of Boaz. Naomi is no heroine of the Bible. She comes under the classification of “Sometimes when you’re doing wrong, He uses it for good.” Naomi’s sins started way back when she and Elimelech traveled to Moab. She apparently brokered the marriages of her sons to Moabite women, following the death of her husband. She did not seek to return home until she heard that things might be better there. This sign of avarice and selfishness does not bode well for Naomi.

The pastor I spoke with believes – and I admit, it’s a pretty imaginative theory – that Elimelech and Naomi left Bethlehem owing money. He notes that upon her return to Bethlehem, Naomi is able to set up independent housing rather than relying on her friends. This indicates to him that the Jubilee year had come and gone and that the land Elimelech no doubt sold prior to leaving Israel had returned to his ownership (or the ownership of Naomi, as his widow). Since the sons would have had to pay Elimelech’s debt, the family never planned to return to Israel and this is why shortly after Elimelech died, Naomi married her sons off to Moabite women. It was only when her sons died and she had no other recourse that Naomi returned to Israel, because she had heard that things had grown prosperous there. Ten years is long enough for the 50^th year Jubilee to have passed, for debts to be forgiven and land to be returned to its ancestral hands. Moreover, Naomi knew that Elimelech’s family were legally required to take care of his widow.

Relatives had certain obligations to one another in ancient Israel. Should a relative become destitute and required to sell his land, his relatives were obligated to purchase the land so it would remain in the family. Should a relative, because of debt, be required to sell himself into slavery, his relatives were obligated to purchase his debt price. Should a relative die and leave no heirs to support his mother or widow, a male relative was obligated to marry the widow and provide a heir to support her (yes, this sometime resulted in polygamy, but it seems God found this preferable to allowing the women to starve; this does not indicate that polygamy is a good or even Godly idea, simply that sometimes it was necessary). As Elimelech was from Bethlehem, his family lived there and they did have obligations to Naomi to act as kinsmen-redeemers.

Why did they not jump to cover their obligations as soon as she arrived? I don’t know. I do know why Boaz didn’t. He wasn’t the first in line as kinsman-redeemer. He was not obligated to step forward because there was someone ahead of him. Why did that cousin not immediately step forward? Well, we see a partial reason in the later chapters, but I have to wonder if it didn’t also have to do with Naomi’s past. We know nothing about it, but the pastor I spoke with suggested that Elimelech had a bad reputation within his own family, so that the menfolk did not want to embrace Naomi too readily. I might say that I’ve known people like that, who had manipulated and connived so much in their lifetime that their own family could not even see fit to embrace their children after their death. Moreover, Ruth was a foreigner and they had a reasonable expectation that she was an idol-worshiper, so that they might have been hesitant to produce an heir for Mahlon with her. Hard to know if the pastorhas the right of it, but there does seem to be some intrigue that isn’t quite addressed in the Biblical text.

It might be noted that Naomi, upon her joyful welcome, didn’t acknowledge her own part in her life circumstances. She instead blamed God, Whom she recognized as all-powerful, but she found cruel and capricious. She did not acknowledge that her own choices might have been responsible for where she was, but instead blamed God.

Naomi’s actions with regard to Ruth and Boaz are more troubling. Ruth set out to find work to support herself and Naomi and was successful. Her hard work made her known in Bethlehem and drew the attention of Boaz, who was a close cousin of Elimelech and Mahlon. Boaz was kind to her, providing her with a safe place to work and a bit extra in her “pay packet” just because he recognized a woman of character when he met one. It seems from his discussion of her with his overseer that he considered her “taken” – “to whom does that young woman belong?” he asked in Ruth 2:?. Naomi certainly knew that Boaz was second-in-line as kinsman-redeemer. This is likely why she didn’t approach him with a proposal, as was customary in marriage contracts. Instead, she coached Ruth in a seduction. Although a margin note in my Bible suggests that Ruth’s actions of uncovering Boaz’ feet and lying down by them was a customary way to ask a man for marriage, Boaz’s reaction to her behavior indicates it was not actually a common custom and I have read some commentary that this is uncertain. Was Naomi hoping to trap Boaz into marrying Ruth by this provocative ritual? It is entirely possible. Perhaps she thought the first kinsmen-redeemer would turn her down for a marriage proposal, but she had noted that Boaz was kind to Ruth and had learned that he was a man of character and faith. His greeting to his overseer suggests this (see Ruth 2:?).  Naomi coached Ruth to make herself attractive, to approach Boaz when he was well-fed and maybe slightly drunk, and to perform this very provocative ritual. Perhaps this ritual skirted a line that should not be cross. Certainly Boaz’ reaction appears to suggest that. It certainly seems to me that the ritual Ruth performed could as easily have been considered a request for sex. Rules in Israelite society were so strict that such behavior could easily have been grounds for a “shotgun wedding”. So, it would seem that Boaz, when faced with this situation, being a man of character and faith who had judged Ruth to be a woman of character and faith, acted honorably in a situation that invited dishonor.

 Consider this. After a hard day of work in the harvest, Boaz enjoyed a good meal and a drink. His heart was merry because of the festive occasion, but also because of the wine. If he’d been a man like many, a beautiful woman lying down near to him might have been taken wrongly. That Boaz reacted to protect Ruth’s identity and his own reputation makes it seem likely that Naomi had advised Ruth wrongly, toward seduction rather than marriage, knowing that by Hebrew law Boaz was bound to make the situation right.

Certainly Naomi was in a desperate situation, but she knew the laws of Israel as well as Boaz. Ruth, however, was probably ignorant of much that went on around her. Naomi’s use of her as a seductress was not fair or moral and it should not be excused simply because the plan came to a good end.

Naomi was not a good role model for the faith. She may have been the one who brought the gospel to Ruth, but she appears to have lacked faith in the One True God herself. She also did not act in a Christ-like way.

Some will object to my using Christian terms to discuss an Old Testament event, but in reality, the time of the Judges was a precursor of the Christian era. It was a time when each Israelite had a direct responsibility to listen to and obey God. There was no king between them and God. The nation (or confederation of tribes) stood or fell based upon the sins of its individual participants. This is very similar to the Christian position before God. I cannot claim my Christianity comes from my grandmother or from living in America. My salvation is based solely upon my relationship with Jesus Christ. That my grandmother had a similar relationship or that America was founded by people largely with similar relationship does not enhance my own salvation one bit. I am responsible to God all by myself, as was Naomi, as was Boaz, as was Ruth.

Commentators make much of Naomi, Boaz and Ruth all representing certain aspects of Christianity. Naomi personified Israel in a less than flattering way. Portraying an attitude of entitlement, she was bitter toward God for not pouring out His blessings on her. She did not seem to grasp God’s grace and did not acknowledge any sin on her part. She left Israel with her husband, but did not return until years later, after her sons had married Moabite wives. Her reason for returning to Israel was food, pure and simple. She had little regard for the spiritual well-being of her daughters-in-law, attempting to send them back to their families and a heathen religion. Once in Israel, she was bitter and manipulative, not telling Ruth everything she might have needed to know and not approaching Boaz in a direct manner. Even if my assessment of Naomi is unduly harsh, there is little to say in her favor. In spite of her failures and bitterness God graciously poured out His blessings on her, and it was, to a great degree, through a Gentile. Is this not reminiscent of Romans 11:11-32, where Paul wrote of the salvation of the Gentiles being part of God’s plan to save the Jews?

I must conclude from all these facts that Naomi was seeking to bring about Ruth’s marriage in a provocative and manipulative way, rather than in a principled way. In my opinion, this does not speak well for Naomi.

Do we not have Christians today who also seek to bring about God’s plan in a manipulative fashion? Have there not been modern-day media prophets, claiming the name of Christ, who have made predictions or provocative statements in an apparent attempt to shock non-Christians into following God’s will? How do we as a Christian community react and respond to this? Far more often than not, we are silent, allowing the world to think that Christians as a monolithic community agree with the statement of these “prophets”. Occasionally, when their “prophesies” don’t pan out, we stop listening to them, but do we make any attempt to educate the non-believing public in what constitutes a real prophet or do we allow them to continue to believe that self-appointed Christian leaders can make any sort of statement they wish to make and we follow dumbly after like sheep? I’m afraid we baa for the public far more than standing up for the truth – that would be the true Truth of the gospel and not the false truth of our TV false prophets.

I’m taking a brief break from the New Testament to revisit a favorite Old Testament book – Ruth.

Ruth is the record of a historical event that occurred during the time of the Judges – the approximately 350 years between the Israelite settlement of Canaan and the selection of Saul as king (time period?). It was a time characterized by the Israelites alternately ignoring God and worshiping Baal (the native fertility god of the Canaanites) and begging God for His assistance from their enemies, who were many. The book of Ruth doesn’t really tell us very much about the specific condition of the Israelite nation at the time of the events. It mentions no specific judges or surrounding events that would help date it, but we know a couple of things -- Boaz was the son of Rahab, who helped the Israelites conquer Jericho in the early days of their repossession of the land and Ruth and Boaz, the main characters of the story, were King David’s great-grandparents. This would indicate a time somewhat in the middle of the period of the judges.

I’m going to forego my usual posting of Bible passages and ask you to read it for yourselves. I will post occasional specific passages, but my main interest is the story itself and what it teaches us. I have previously touched on Ruth, but this will be a more in-depth study.

It was a time of famine in Israel. This could have been caused by local or regional conditions, but Elimelech and his family moved to Moab, a country just across the Salt Sea (what we call the Dead Sea) from Israel, seeking better conditions, so it was probably a more localized phenomena. It might have been caused by one of the frequent Amalekite raids, which usually carried off resources, trampled crops and killed or enslaved Israelites. It is also entirely possible, given that it appears Bethlehem prospered during their absence, that Elimelech had fallen into debt and been forced to sell his land, leaving him destitute in Israel where your land was your wealth. He choose to travel to the other side of the Jordan where he might claim land and farm. Elimelech and his family were from Bethlehem, the future home of King David and the future birthplace of Jesus. Bethlehem was in Judah, to the south of Jerusalem. Today we would consider it a suburb of Jerusalem, but at the time, it was a two-day journey on foot to the Canaanite fortress which was not in Israelite hands. This was a different time from what we’re used to from study of the New Testament – a time when the Israelites did not control all of what would become Israel. They lived cheek-by-jowl with the Canaanites and other tribes who were just passing through. They were often victimized by their neighbors.

So Elimelech moved to Moab with his wife Naomi and their sons Chilion and Mahlon. Elimelech soon died and the boys married local Moabite women. They had apparently planned on remaining in Moab, as evidenced by their taking non-Israelite wives. This was something expressly forbidden in the Hebrew law. Foreign wives bring their foreign gods with them and teach their children to worship these. This was something the intolerant, strict God of the Israelites did not permit. After about 10 years living in Moab, Chilion and Mahlon also died, leaving three widows to fend for themselves.

Israel had certain laws in place that protected widows. Elimelech’s family, who had adopted Naomi at her marriage, owed her certain obligations. This was apparently not so in Moab and certainly would not have applied to the foreign Naomi anyway. The daughters-in-law were welcome to return to their mothers’ homes, where new contracts for marriage could be sought, but for Naomi, Moab no longer held any comfort or safety. She had heard that things were better in Israel. Perhaps the Jubilee year had passed and Elimelech’s forfeited land had returned to him. Naomi knew she would do better in Israel.

Her daughters-in-law belonged to her, by custom in that part of the world. They had been given to her family. At the death of her sons, she became their owner, essentially, and could do with them what she wanted. She allowed them to accompany her to the border, but then she told them to go home to their mothers and seek new husbands. The girls apparently felt a great deal of affection for her, because they begged to go with, but Naomi explained that she couldn’t give them any more husbands. She was an old widow and out of the one resource that mattered the most in a patristic society – sons. Orpah recognized the soundness of her argument and departed with tears, to return to her people and the gods they worshiped. In the societies surrounding Israel, gods were interchangeable. Moab worshiped Chemosh, but they also would have worshiped Baal, the Canaanite god, when it suited them. And, it is likely the young daughters-in-law had been taught of the Hebrew God by Naomi, in a hope that they would teach their children about Him. Orpah readily set aside her allegiance to Naomi and anything she knew of the Hebrew God to return to her people and their polytheism. Ruth, however, was made of sterner stuff.

"Do not persuade me to leave you or go back and not follow you.

For wherever you go, I will go, and wherever you live, I will live;

your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.

Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.

May the Lord do this to me,

[A solemn oath formula; 1 Sm 3:17; 2 Sm 3:9,35; 1 Kg 2:23;

2 Kg 6:31]

and even more, if anything but death separates you and me."

Ruth 1:16-17

Ruth made a solemn vow before God in the manner of men, offering to put her head on the proverbial chopping block if she broke it. She would follow Naomi where ever Naomi went, adopting her nationality and her God, and dying where ever Naomi died. She swore it, essentially, on the Bible, binding herself for life.

It was a bold move for a penniless young widow and it shows us a few things about Ruth.

She loved her mother-in-law. I’m sure Orpah was fond of Naomi and felt a lingering attachment to her through Chilion, but she was practical enough to know that Naomi had nothing to offer her. Ruth, however, loved Naomi for Naomi. She felt an obligation to her that was as strong, or stronger, than the obligation she had toward Mahlon during his lifetime.

Ruth had accepted the Hebrew God. The god(s) of your people were very important among the Middle Eastern nations at that time. Although you might worship many gods, even foreign gods, you clung to the particular gods of your people. Ruth apparently had set aside the polytheism of her people to embrace the Living God of Israel. She was familiar enough with Him to vow an unbreakable vow to Him.

Ruth was a committed person. The vow she made was normally made by men (see the noted Bible verses). Women were not held to the same standards because their lives were not their own to command. Ruth made a solid commitment to follow Naomi in a way that sets her as an individual before God. This was uncommon among women of her day, but sets an example for all of us who are Christians today.

Ruth had no reason to believe that her life following Naomi was going to be better than the life her mother could provide for her in a new marriage contract. Naomi was a widow with no prospects. Ruth was young, but a foreigner in Israel, so she probably did not think she would marry. She had only her assurance of Naomi’s love and a burning desire to follow it into the unknown.

Christians come to Jesus in the same way. Our evidence, pre-faith, is scanty. The draw of grace leads us to consider that Jesus might be real, that salvation might be possible. An inventory of our current situation will often reveal that things don’t look so bad. We can turn to our former life of secularism and live just as well as we did before. However, there is something about Jesus! What? That is hard to define. In order to know more, we must commit to a journey into the unknown, to take a few steps onto a bridge of faith of which we cannot see the far end.

We could turn aside at this crisis of faith, to do as Orpah did and return to the familiar. Instead, Christian choose the Ruth option – we make a decision to follow Jesus, which is a life-long commitment that cannot be broken. Jesus assured us that we are in the double-grip of God the Father and Jesus the Savior and we cannot be removed from that unbreakable hold (John 10:28-29). I recently explained to a friend who wanted to know why Christians could not simply set aside our salvation to consider other possibilities (she’s a American Buddhist) that to do so would be like trying to live without half my DNA. Jesus is such a part of me that I cannot distinguish where I leave off and He begins. Removing half my DNA would probably result in some sort of pool of goo. Removing Jesus would result in something similar on the spiritual level. It is inconceivable and this is why Christians are not amenable to alternative religions. Our God is not interchangeable. We have set out on an irrevocable journey to far better things than what we have left behind.

Heresy is as prevalent in the 21^st Century as it was in the 1^st. I started this series by saying that truth casts a big shadow and many things can be spawned in the dusky of that shadow. In Paul’s day what stirred in the shadows was Judaizing (perhaps the first Christian heresy), proto-gnosticism (the seeds of which actually harkened back to Plato’s assumption that matter is evil), Nicolaitanism (Christians can live in this world and enjoy all its fruits and still go to heaven) and probably a few others. We don’t know which of these were active in Colossae, but it seems that Paul may have been addressing several or perhaps a unique hybrid heresy native to Colossae and the surrounding area. The bright light of truth was available, but then as now, some prefer what crawls out of the shadow.

 

Paul’s advice for combating heresy was simple. Focus on Jesus and on Who He is. Get to know the real deal. Reject any doctrine that doesn’t line up with the original gospel. Yet, Christians are human. Most of us don’t do so well living in ivory towers. We need to be in the world, interacting with the world. Thus Paul advised the Colossians on how best to interact within the church and within the family, which practice would improve their interactions with the world.

 

In summing up his letter, he reminded the Colossians of the most important thing Christians can do in any circumstance.

 

 “Devote yourselves to prayer; stay alert in it with thanksgiving. At the same time, pray also for us that God may open a door to us for the message, to speak the  mystery of the  Messiah—for which I am in prison— so that I may reveal it as I am required to speak.  Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person.” Colossians 4:2-6

 

Paul admonished his readers to pray. Prayer is communication with God and we should seek to do it gratefully. He reminded them to use their wisdom around outsiders, to remember that the time for planting the gospel might be short. We should remember that we are commanded by grace to spread the gospel message, so it is a gentle, but firm message we should be advancing. Remembering that we were not so long ago standing outside of the kingdom of God, we should always be ready to answer the questions of non-Christians in a loving and clear manner. Far more than that, our communication with God through the Holy Spirit allows us to get to know Him even better than through the descriptions we find in the Bible. We can become so familiar with those communications, with  how they line up with Scripture, that when someone speaks to us – even that still small voice in our head – in a manner that does not line up with God’s previous communications we know when we’re hearing heresy. This is vitally important. We protect ourselves from falsehood by being intimately familiar with reality.

 

“Tychicus, a loved brother, a faithful servant, and a fellow slave in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, so that you may know how we are,^[1] Other mss read that he may know how you are and so that he may encourage your hearts. He is with Onesimus, a faithful and loved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you about everything here. Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, greets you, as does Mark, Barnabas’ cousin (concerning whom you have received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him), and so does Jesus who is called Justus. These alone of the circumcision are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” Colossians 4:7-11

 

Paul named several Jewish Christians who were with him. It was a small group, he indicated. Tychicus and Onesimus are going to deliver the letter. Onesimus appears to have been the slave sent to Colossae to work out things with his master Philemon. I am guessing that they did indeed work things out as he is granted a measure of freedom here. Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus called Justus also worked with Paul there in Rome. He asked the Colossians to pray that their ministry might have an open door, even though Paul himself was imprisoned. I would also note the apparent personal endorsement Paul gives Mark. By this time, Biblical historians tells us, Mark probably would have written the Gospel that bears his name. Paul seems to have been telling Christians to accept him and treat him well as he perhaps circulated this gospel or traveled to various places with it.

 

 

Then Paul listed the Gentile Christians. I don’t really know why he listed the two groups separately, unless it was to show the Colossians that Paul worked with both Jews and Greeks, which would have been important to those with Judaizing sentiments. Many scholars think that Epaphras was probably Epaphroditus. I’m going to disagree with the scholars on logical grounds. Ephaphroditis was apparently from Philippi as he acted as a messenger from there to Paul in prison. It is unlikely he was also in Colossae, since that is in Asia Minor and Philippi was in Macedonia (north-east Greece). Paul denoted that he was “one of you”. Maybe a Colossian or a Gentile like the Colossians. Paul called him a slave of Christ Jesus. This doesn’t mean he was actually a slave owned by a human being in the way Onesimus was, but that he had submitted himself to Jesus as a minister for Christ. Epaphras prayed often for the Colossians, asking God to give them the maturity to be confident in their beliefs. It sounds like Epaphras was a circuit preacher, preaching in the tri-cities of the Lycus River valley.  Luke and Demas were gathered there also. As I noted before, this may have been the occasion when Mark and Luke met to compare gospels.

Nympha, a woman, hosted the church of Laodicea in her home. Paul sent her greetings and asked that the two letters he was sending by the same messengers be read in both churches. We don’t know if the letter to the Laodiceans was mislabeled as to the Ephesian church or if the letter to the Laodiceans was somehow misplaced in history. My future study of Ephesians will probably explore that more. Paul also mentioned Archippus, who we know from Philemon was one of the ministers in Colossae. He is of special note because Paul admonished him to pay attention to the ministry you have received in the Lord, so that you can accomplish it.”  What ministry? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter. The word comes clear to us today. If God has given you or me a task to do, we should do it!

There are cults active in our world that claim they have a new understanding of Christianity. Often through clever use of redefined Christian terms, they make it sound like they might be Christian, just with a slightly different view of things. Orthodox Christians, in our excessively tolerant view, are biased and close-minded when we point out that what these groups believe doesn’t line up to the Bible. The Bible is open to interpretation, we’re told. Your interpretation is no better than anyone else’s.

The Bible is a book and a book should be read for what it says, not what we would like it to say. In order to know what it says, you must open the pages of the book and read it. When reading it, you can’t just take a verse here and a passage there out of context and say “this is truth and the rest is chaff.” It all works together. Therefore, you need to read the whole thing, probably in its original groupings (i.e., Paul’s letter to the Colossians) so that you can understand what the overall message is. In addition, it is important to remember that the Bible was written in a historical context. Jesus and His disciples lived in the 1^st Century eastern Mediterrean. We can apply what the apostles wrote to our lives today, but we need to understand that what was written was written for a specific group of people living in specific circumstances. We must look at those background issues if we are to understand the Bible.

Finally, the Bible was written in a foreign language. I don’t read Hebrew and I don’t read Greek. I know a few people who do. I own a Bible dictionary and a Greek Interlinear and refer to these whenever I think the words I’m reading in English are not clear. Although I know people who are far more knowledgeable of the Bible than I am, I don’t necessarily automatically agree with them. I want to, within my own limitations, ask questions and find answers. I realize that some people would rather just jump to conclusions about what they read without actually studying it. I know some people would rather just get their knowledge from this or that source depending on what they wish the Bible said. And, there is no way Christians can stop people from creating deities of their own design.

Yet, Paul’s words ring down to us from 20 centuries ago. Jesus was the all-powerful, all-sufficient God-man who created and sustains the universe and stepped into human history as a human being to redeem the world.  That is the original – no copies, no airbrushing. If we focus upon that original picture, all else will quickly show itself to be counterfeit.

I finish this study with something a teenager wrote on my chalkboard in the Sunday School room.

THE REALITY OF JESUS ROCKS!

Despite skeptical critics who find the anti-heresy theology of Colossians inconsistent with Paul’s previous letters, I found convergence here.  Paul had frequently commented that there is no difference between various Christians because we now all are adopted into the family of God. In combating proto-gnosticism which said that only the wise could truly understand God or Judaizing, which taught that keeping the Jewish law made a Gentile Christian specially favored by God, Paul insisted that such favoritism was not a part of God’s make-up. This is not divergence from Paul’s previous teachings. In Chapter 3, Paul strongly stated, repeating himself from Galatians and Romans, there is now no difference arising from different country or circumstance of life. All Christians have the duty to be holy (set apart for God’s purposes) and all have the privilege to receive from God the grace to do so. Christ came to take down all partitions, anything that might prevent our access to God. Because of Christ giving His all for us, He is my ALL – the only Lord and Savior and all my hope and happiness.

 

This demands an attitude adjustment in our interactions with the world.

 

It is often said that church is not a place for the perfect, but a hospital for the ill. It is a training ground for our interactions with the world. In our church home is where we should be able to put Christian ethics into play and practice. Yes, we will make mistakes and sometimes anger others. Where better to do this than in our church where others are also adjusting their own attitudes?

 

“Therefore, God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, put on heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, accepting one another and forgiving one another if anyone has a complaint against another. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so also you must forgive.” Colossians 3:12-13

 

Not for the first time, Paul reminded his readers that they were loved of God and set aside for His purposes. He exhorted them as holy individuals to exercise mutual love and compassion. Just above he had told them to put off anger and the resulting wrath, but now he told them to replace those all-too-human conditions with kindness.  Don’t be haughty; remember that you were once outside of the love of God too. Bear with your fellow human beings in their faults. Hopefully they will bear with your faults too. You will have complaints about one another (this is very human), but forgive one another because the Lord has forgiven you. Because the Lord has forgiven us, we are required to forgive.

 

“Above all, put on The bracketed text has been added for clarity. love—the perfect bond of unity.
 And let the peace of the Messiah, to which you were also called in one body, control your hearts. Be thankful. Let the message about the Messiah dwell richly among you, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, and singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” Colossians 3:14-17

 

Continuing his theme of clothing oneself in everyday righteousness, Paul advised his readers that the most important attribute of Christianity to don is love. This acts like the outer garment. It finishes the garment. Without it, we remain undressed. Love among Christians encourages unity that is not false or contrived, but heart-felt. Allow the peace you now possess through Jesus to control your hearts. Because Christians are right with Him, we shouldn’t be at odds with our fellow Christians. Peace should be evident in all of our lives.

 

We should be incredibly thankful for what Jesus has given us. We were bound for hell before we accepted Him as Savior. He owes us no more than what He has already given us, which we didn’t earn. We should want to do His will simply because He has given us such incredible riches just because He loves us. This gratitude should result in our desire to know Him more and better. We should desire to know His message and to share it with others. Sometimes we are called to confront our fellow Christians or even a hostile world with the truth of the gospel. We cannot do this properly if we don’t know the Bible and understand what we know. We disseminate the gospel far better if we assuage the soapbox and megaphone on the street corner and show the world that Jesus living inside of us is a wonderful thing. Make no mistake; this is what the disciples were doing at Pentecost before Peter began to speak. They were telling the crowd what a wonderful thing it is to be a Christian. One way to do that is singing spiritual songs where people can hear them.

 

A friend of mine who went to the Lord last summer became a Christian in his 30s. He was a musician for a secular band at a bar in downtown Anchorage. Every Sunday morning on his way home, he would walk past a Baptist church and hear the singing through the windows. He thought they were horrible singers (Baptist churches aren’t often known for their beautiful choirs; though there are exceptions, this church was not one of them). Mike finally decided to go in and talk to the pastor about helping these people learn some music. The pastor was thrilled to hear he would be willing to play the piano and work with the choir. Through that experience, Mike became a Christian. He never did make that church choir sound like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but he learned to appreciate heart-felt singing.

 

Whatever we do as Christians, whether in church or at work, in our homes or on the freeway, we should do as if we are doing it as a representative of Jesus. We are representatives of Jesus wherever we go and whatever we do. Are we good representatives or do we scare people away from the message of Jesus? Do people want to be like us? Should they?

 

When we speak gospel truths, do we do it in the authority of Jesus, by the strength derived from Him? Are we seeking His glory rather than our own?  When we pray is it a communication with the Godhead or merely a laundry list of wants? Do we thank God as we should?

 

Paul now turned his attention from general conduct in the Christian community to the specifics of marriage and family.  This following passage might have been some sort of doxology or hymn in the ancient churches, according to the margin notes in my Bible.  I rather think it might have been a parts song, where the women sang one portion, the men sang the next and so forth. We can’t know, but that is what some scholars believe we have here. Consider it early church teaching, sort of like “Bless Be the Tie That Binds.”

 

“Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Husbands, love your wives and don’t become bitter against them.
Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord.
Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so they won’t become discouraged.” Colossians 3:18-21

 

How we are to act in the general assembly of the Christian community has a bearing and is born upon by how we are to act in our own homes. A commentary I scanned noted that the epistles that are most focused on the divine glory Jesus as God are also seem to be the ones that stress relationship dynamics within Christian communities. It is good to remember that we should never separate doctrine from discipleship. The two go together like a hand and a glove.

 

The corner stone of the family unit is the married couple, so it is fitting that Paul directed his initial comments to the duties of wives and husbands. Sometimes I wish the New Testament writers had been more specific in their directions, but in reality, maybe it is that we need to be more careful in our investigation of their instructions. Because we are Christians, we are to exemplify Jesus in everyway. The Church is called the Bride of Christ. Read in English, this says wives are to submit to their husbands as Christians are to submit to Christ. The Greek word used is the same as that used to express our duty to the government (Romans 13:1).  Ephesians 5:21 says we are to submit ourselves to one another. There is a voluntariness here that does not connote subjugation, but agreement on the order of authority. Within the same year as Paul wrote this, he also wrote Ephesians, where he told husbands that they were to love their wives as Jesus loved the Church and be willing to die for them. A friend of mine who first heard that verse soon after she left her physically abusive husband said “Well, if he’d loved me that much, I’d have had no problems submitting.” (I would note that in her second marriage, she has a man who loves her that much and she seems to have no difficulty submitting).

 

Here, Paul speaks briefly to the husbands. Love your wives and don’t become bitter toward them. I tend to think this means don’t begrudge them food, clothing, shelter. Rather, hold them in deepest affection in the same way Christ loves the Church. This would preclude unkindness, hard language, and abusive treatment. In other words, submit to each other in the proper relationship of love and under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

 

The second line of relationship in the family is parent to child. In Paul’s day, it was a patriarchal society. The father was in charge. Thus Paul structured his advice based upon his cultural norms. This does not mean that mothers are not addressed by inference. We are and we should take these admonitions to heart in the same way the men should.

 

Children are to obey their parents in all things, which would include their lawful commands as parents. God is greatly pleased by children who honor their parents because it exercises the same sort of obedience He wants Christians to show Him. Ephesians 6:2 says this is the first commandment with a promise. Obedience and dutiful children are the most likely prosper in the world and enjoy long life.

 

Again, it’s not a one-way street. Parents are to be tender and loving toward their children. We’ve all seen the harm an abusive parent can do to a child. I work in community mental health and one of my long-time coworkers used to be a pastoral counselor. Mark says one of the greatest stumbling-blocks he’s encountered to people really understanding God and accepting Him is their image of a father has been warped by the abusive jerk who raised them. Children are to be obedient and parents are to love.

 

In the 1^st Century, slavery was a part of the basic fabric of society and so Paul addressed this normative relationship. In the 21^st Century, we can substitute slaves for employees. 

 

“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but [work]^* The bracketed text has been added for clarity. wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” Colossians 3:22

 

“Masters, supply your slaves with what is right and fair, since you know that you too have a Master in heaven.” Colossians 4:1

 

Yes, I rearranged the verses a little because the couplet was separated here and I wish to address them together. Slaves are to obey their human masters in everything. Servants, employees, slaves, must do the duty that is assigned and obey their master’s commands in all things. Note that Paul uses the term “human masters”.  God’s commands stand higher than that of a human master. This is a proviso we should remember well.

 

Don’t you just hate coworkers who are lazy, gossiping, do-nothings until the boss comes around and then suddenly they’re taking credit for everything that of worth, whether they did it or not. Paul says these people are not pleasing to God. Workers are to be diligent, doing their work even when they are not being watched. We are always being watched by God, so we should work as if our Master were right there looking over our shoulder. Yeah, there He is!

 

The return flow on this is that masters (employers) are to supply their slaves (employees) with what is right and fair, just as if their Master in heaven were watching them, because He is. Right is right and fair? Well, I think even people who insist upon giving short-shift know what is right and fair. I know business owners who refuse to pay more than minimum wage and then are shocked that they can’t find good help. Well, McDonald’s pays better than minimum wage, so why would someone want to work for less?  We know what is right and fair and, if we have a doubt, the market often teaches us what is right and fair.

 

“Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, [Literally do it from the soul] as something done for the Lord and not for men, knowing that you will receive the reward of an inheritance from the Lord—you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism.” Colossians 3:23-25

 

Many of us struggle with doing what is right. Paul said that he willed to do what was right, but his flesh was weak. We stand next to him with the same complaint. We are commanded by God to do whatever we do in our lives enthusiastically, as if we were doing it for Jesus and not for the humans who are benefiting. If no other benefit derives from our activity, God will give us a just reward for serving Jesus. The wrongdoer will also be paid back for what he has done wrong. God sees all and He doesn’t play favorites. Christians may be saved with no fear of losing eternal life, but we will face consequences for wrong-doing. Make no mistake about that. Our consequences won’t be eternity in hell, but we will be saved as through the fire (reference?). Among Christians and among non-Christians, the righteous Judge of heaven and earth will be impartial on the Day of Judgment. He won’t care if one was a rich man or a poor man on this world. The field among Christians in heaven will be level.

 

This is vitally important when looking at the subject of heresy, which so often tries to set a certain sect of Christianity as more important, more blessed than another. Paul didn’t believe this. He saw heresy as a dividing wall that would destroy Christianity. He continually warned his readers to remember what they had first been taught of the gospel and to continue with likeminded Christians so that they would not be swayed by the alluring arguments of the heretics. To follow heresy meant to move away from the Lord and this was not something Paul desired for his pupils in any fashion.

 

Holding to the unity of God’s message, which is now embodied in the New Testament, we can treat our fellow humans with dignity and God-granted respect. Sometimes it is not easy, especially as misinformation and Biblical ignorance piles up, but we are called by Jesus to do this task, which I will explore a bit further in the conclusion.

Colossians presents Jesus as the all-supreme, all-sufficient God-man Savior, Who is the unique Creator and Sustainer of the universe and the total solution for man’s needs both for time and eternity. Having redeemed and reconciled the universe to Himself, Jesus asks that the universe submit to Him and be conformed to His will. This requires lifestyle and attitudinal changes.

Christianity can rightfully be accused of being intolerant and narrow. This is not the fault of Christians, unless perhaps in the way we describe it, but is a result of how our God has presented salvation. Having given Himself in sacrifice for the forgiveness of our disobedience, He has decided that only those who want to live by His rules are permitted to take up that forgiveness. That is intolerant by today’s politically correct standards, but it is very much compatible with the God of all time. There is a narrow entrance, Jesus said, and if you want to get into heaven, you have to enter through that little door. You can’t go over the hedge, you can’t dig under the wall and you can’t come in unclothed by faith. There’s only one way in and that’s God’s way.

Christians are those who have gotten in line for the narrow door, but we are also called to remain in line and to follow the rules (God’s rules) while we are there.

“So if you have been raised with the Messiah, seek what is above, where the Messiah is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on what is above, not on what is on the earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with the Messiah in God. When the Messiah, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.” Colossians 3:1-4

The early church rejected all forms of syncretism. Because they were convinced that Jesus alone was God and the only way to salvation, the early Christians refused to dabble in a little bit of this and little bit of that religion. They drew the ire of the Roman Empire because they would not worship Caesar, even though Caesar was okay with them worshipping Jesus at the same time. He didn’t understand that Jesus was not okay with Christians worshipping Caesar at the same time they worshipped Him. The letter to the Colossians firmly stresses this truth. Thus, as with the early church, so the church must not tolerate the syncretism of our day. We can tolerate genuine pluralism, the idea that the religions of the world can peacefully co-exist, but not syncretism, the idea that the beliefs of various religions can be mindlessly combined. Our society today wants a tolerance that mindlessly accepts all beliefs. This kind of tolerance is unacceptable to Bible-believing Christian because it is incompatible with what the Bible teaches.

Let’s be clear about what tolerance is and what it is not. Legal tolerance is the right of everyone to believe in whatever faith (even atheism) we wish. This sort of tolerance is very important in American society and Christians should maintain our conviction that none should ever be coerced into believing as we do. Social tolerance is a commitment to respecting all persons even if we vigorously disagree with their religion and ideas. When we engage other religions and moral issues in the ideological marketplace, it should be with courtesy and kindness. We must live in peace with all, even those of divergent faiths (or no faith at all). Self-righteous Christians who piously judge others without humble admission that we are all part of a fallen imperfect human race do the cause of Christ no favors. We are all created in the image of God. We should grieve for our fellow humans that stand outside of grace, not hate him because of his lack of understanding.

However, our current national obsession with “tolerance” is something quite different. This uncritical tolerance seeks to avoid vigorous debate in the quest for truth. This new sort of tolerance insists that we have no right to disagree with, for example, a liberal social agenda; we should not defend our views of morality, religion and respect for human life. This tolerance respects an abundance of absurd ideas, but will castrate anyone who believes in absolutes or who claims to have found some truth. The current tolerance, someone said “includes every point of view except those points of view that do not include every point of view.” The current view of tolerance is only for those who march in step with those who subscribe to the same view of tolerance. It is every bit as intolerant as “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me.” Held as an excuse for perpetual skepticism, for keeping any religious commitment at arm’s length, it is oddly a doorway of vulnerability to the most bizarre ideas. Truth, it assumes, might exist in mathematics and science, but not in religion or morality, so therefore we can believe anything, just not too deeply. Pressure to accept this uncritical form of tolerance grows every year.

“Therefore, put to death whatever in you is worldly:  sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, God’s wrath comes on the disobedient, and you once walked in these things when you were living in them. But now you must also put away all the following: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and filthy language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of his Creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, [a term for a savage slave] and free; but Christ is all and in all.” Colossians 3:5-12

 

I admire Paul’s clarity here. Jesus Christ has saved your immortal souls, therefore …

 

Paul was extremely matter-of-fact in the consequence of accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. He didn’t say anything wishy-washy. By accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, Christians have obligated themselves to follow certain commands from God.

 

Put to death anything worldly in our nature. Christians are “in the world, not of it”. This means that we are not supposed to indulge in immorality, of which Paul named several varieties.

 

Sexual immorality is a huge subject that includes fornication (sex prior to marriage), adultery (sex with someone other than your spouse), homosexuality, sexual perversions like child molestation, bestiality, etc. We are also commanded to “put to death” impurity and lust, which takes sexuality beyond what we merely do with our bodies and encompasses our minds – pornography, fantasies, phone sex, etc.

 

Christians are sometimes accused of being obsessed with sex, as if this is the only sin. This is an incorrect assumption by our accusers. The Bible mentions sex often because it is said to be the one sin that a person commits against their own body. There is something about the acts of sexual immorality that we have a harder time getting shed of then other sins. This does not mean that there are no other sins. Evil desires could be quite a large subject as well. Last week, I heard that an old enemy has cancer and for a moment, I thought “Good, he deserves it.” This is a thought I had to repent of, much as I didn’t want to. We are to “put to death” evil desires.

 

Greed is defined here as idolatry. Some people find this a hard concept to grasp. The things of this world can become far more important to us than God. Often our stuff is worth more to us than our relationship with Jesus, our church family or even our own flesh and blood. Watch the aftermath of a natural disaster sometime and note how many people mourn the loss of their possessions and hardly even mention that their neighbor lost two family members. Greed is the love of this world and Christians are commanded not to love this world.

 

Some people truly object to the lack of “tolerance” in Christianity. They don’t understand why God isn’t more flexible, more reasonable. After all, a truly loving God would grant His creation some leeway … wouldn’t He? In Ephesians, Paul depicted a powerful, universal Deity Who was always the most powerful Being in the Universe from before the beginning. Such a Being could not hope to understand human beings unless He became a human being, which He did. However, just because He understands us does not mean He’s obligated to play our petty little human games. He’s granted us a great deal of tolerance. He created the human race, He breathed life into us. Every heartbeat bears His name. He died upon the cross for us so that we might escape the consequences of our disobedience to Him. That is a great deal of tolerance granted. God loves us and He’s proven it in very clear ways. So, does the pot get to tell the potter how and for what purpose it should be made? According to Romans, no! There is still a narrow way into heaven and God requires we get in line and stay in line if we want to enter that gate.

 

Is it intolerant? Depends on your point of view. Is it loving? Yes!! God has opened the gateway for us that previously was sealed shut by our own actions. We may enter by exercising faith. We don’t have to do anything incredibly heroic. We don’t have to give our bodies to be burned in the fire. We simply have to exercise faith and allow God to lead us through the gate.

 

Do not adjust your computer! You are experiencing déjà vu! This passage was part of my most-recent post; since my main subject is heresy, I didn’t intend to deal with the specifics. However, a post on the blog has caused me to reconsider and to address the specifics given here.

 

We don’t know the exact nature of the heresy that Paul was combating in Colossae. It seems to be several historically important heresies or one that mixed the many together into one. Paul simply didn’t identify it in detail. And, truly, it doesn’t matter. His entire writing ministry, whenever Paul addressed heresy, he urged his readers to refer to what they had previously been taught by himself and his ministry team (or in the case of the Romans, by those Christians who had brought the gospel from Pentecost). In Galatians, he was very strident. If even Paul himself returned teaching something that was different from what he had taught previously, they were to utterly reject what he was saying.

 

This is strong evidence that what was written in what we now call Scripture – Paul’s letters – did not differ from what Paul had previously taught. If Paul’s letters did differ from “tradition” (oral teaching), the Christians he was writing to were instructed to reject what Paul was writing. That they accepted it, copied it, and eventually called it Scripture indicates they found no disagreement between what they knew to be the gospel and what Paul was teaching. This flies in the face of Roman Catholic assertions that oral tradition can seem to disagree with the written scriptures because the two were complementary. NO! Paul wrote in Galatians that the latter writing much agree with the earlier teaching or be rejected! He didn’t equivocate on the subject. God forbid! He insisted that no wavering from the gospel message was allowed! So, when someone says that tradition can disagree with Scripture and still be valid, I always point back to Paul’s warnings to the early Christians and say “I don’t see how they would have allowed that.”

 

Moreover, when some other cult groups say that revelation can be continuing and can change with the times – NO! Paul said for the Christians to reject it. He did not want believers to be swayed in the future by artful arguments that led them from the true path!

 

Though we don’t know the exact nature of the heresy (probably heresies) Paul was combating, we can learn a great deal from what Paul specifically wrote.

 

“Therefore don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day.These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his fleshly mind. He doesn’t hold on to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and tendons, develops with growth from God. If you died with Christ to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations:
“Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines. Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value against fleshly indulgence.” Colossians 2:16-23

 

I’m going to take it mainly by sentence. You have the full passage to refer to. I’ll copy the individual sentences.

Paul starts right out combating Judaizing. Christians are not to allow anyone to judge them based upon the food or drink we ingest or whether we observe certain holidays. Nor are we to put much stock in Sabbath days.

From early in the Christian era, there were those who wanted to add to Christianity. The Judaizers believed that the path of faith must walk closely with the law of the Hebrew Scriptures. There were certain foods Jews didn’t eat because they were considered unclean. Peter’s vision of the unclean animals that were now clean established the idea that Christians needn’t worry about such things. I know Christians today who will insist that we are not to eat or drink certain things because the “Bible says it’s wrong.”  Where? Here, Paul wrote that we should not be judged as Christians by what we eat or drink. There are personal choices each of us may make, but unless the Bible (particularly the New Testament) specifically forbids or requires it, we should not automatically judge those who do not walk in lock step with us.

The Jewish Christians worshipped in the Temple on Saturday as all Jews did. They met to celebrate Christ on Sunday (at least in many instances). When they moved into Gentile areas, the Saturday worship was dropped and the Sunday worship became pre-eminent. We have groups today who insist you must worship on Saturday to be right with God. There are groups that insist upon this or that ritual being absolutely necessary in the form in which they do it. Paul wrote here that these groups are wrong! Regulations about food and drink and religious liturgy are merely shadows that suggested the Messiah. They might be helpful for some people to focus on God, but they are not essential. Faith in Jesus Christ is essential. All else is window dressing.

“Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his fleshly mind. He doesn’t hold on to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and tendons, develops with growth from God.”

Don’t risk growing away from God because you are focused upon ceremonies that deny or punish the flesh.  A couple of years ago, a coworker who is a Catholic used Lent as a way to quit smoking. This was a good thing for her physically, but I didn’t see any deepening relationship with God (for example, she continued to pick up men in bars and sleep with them). Our purpose in religious observance should be to build our faith, not to mortify our flesh in some vain hope that this will make us acceptable to God and wipe away other sins. It won’t!

Don’t worship angels. Never is there anywhere in Scripture where humans are encouraged to worship angels. Yes, some mystics claim this gives us access into the spiritual realm, but Paul wrote this is merely ego working upon weak minds. Anyone claiming that the worship of angels is a true spiritual activity (remember, the spirit we’re talking about is the Holy Spirit) doesn’t understand Jesus (the head) Who wants His Church (the body) to grow through a relationship with God. In our world today, there are many who believe in angels and spirit guides. I know a social worker who is a big advocate of “talking circles”. The way she does them, they use a lot of guided imagery and “getting in contact with your inner spirit.” I walked out of the training because to me, it is idol worship.

“If you died with Christ to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines. Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value against fleshly indulgence.”

Christians have died with Christ. We are no longer subject to the superstitions or the elemental forces of this world. The worship of elementals (earth, air, water, and fire) was central to many mystery religions in ancient times. Such animistic forces have no power over Christians and Satan doesn’t have a hook in us any longer. So, if we know that, why would we choose to live under the yoke Jesus freed us from? “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch” – all these refer to human commands and doctrines that have lost their power because Jesus Christ came in the flesh and died for us.

Yes, some human beings esteem such practices highly, but they are not of value against the lusts of the flesh.

These are the words of Paul, the apostle, who combated heresy in the 1^st Century AD several years after he met Jesus Christ in resurrected form on the road to Damascus. Paul recognized that there are many things in this world, philosophies and wives’ tales, that make sense to our human minds, but if they lead us away from Jesus, even into the life of ascetic seclusion sought by some Christians, they are valueless and should be rejected as heresy.

We all know Christian sects who focus tightly on one aspect or another of worship or self-denial. Sometimes, for that group of people, there is spiritual efficacy there.  Many people shouldn’t drink wine, for example, so it might be a good idea for churches with open communion services not to offer wine with the Lord’s Supper. Abstaining from much of the modern world has worked wonders for the family and community solidarity of the Amish. However, the Amish don’t insist anyone outside of their communities live in the same fashion. It is a choice they make for reasons unique to them.

Yet, we also all know Christians who insist that their way of doing things is necessary. To a certain extent, this may be true. We should always pay close attention to the Biblical (particularly New Testament) example. Baptism was clearly of adult (well, thinking) believers who could make their own choices and it appears to have always been by immersion (every time details are given, it is so). Thus, we should consider hard whether there is a Biblically acceptable alternative to full-immersion believer’s baptism. I don’t think there is in a perfectly correct sense. On the other hand, are we going to deny baptism of a respirator-dependent quadriplegic who cannot be immersed based upon that example or might we consider that Jesus would have made an exception in that instance?

Strict adherence to Scripture is a fine thing; legalism to the point of ignoring the spirit of faith in deference to the letter of the law is an evil thing. It can lead to heresy and in some churches with magnificent historical pedigrees, it has.