“God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, . . . and God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.’”
Genesis 1.25-28
Last week, on The Chattanooga Times editorial page, Frank Bruni raised an interesting issue in his column “2 dads, 2 daughters, 1 big day.” (written in reference to the state of New York legalizing same-sex marriage) He said the 8 and 6 year-old daughters of a same-sex couple wondered why their “2 dads” were not married “like our friends’ parents.”
One wonders if 6 and 8 year-old children, all on their own, are interested in why two men are not married to one another. Perhaps, with some help from their “2 dads,” these two young girls entertained such a notion. Quite frankly, one can imagine more easily Maeve and Georgia (the two girls mentioned in the article) wondering why one of their “2 dads” was not married to their mom. In most states in America, Maeve and Georgia would have no friends who had same-sex parents who were married. Ironically, their question, if they in fact asked it, might have had more to do with the absence of a mother. One does wonder where their mom is.
According to Scripture, God’s design for the human race, like other species, is male-female relationships. In fact, among all living things, distinct categories are the rule. The boundaries of these categories cannot be breached. One species cannot go outside of its own “kind” to produce offspring. For an apple seed to be produced, the male gamete from one apple blossom is transferred to another blossom where the female gamete is fertilized. Thus, an apple seed is produced, capable of developing into an apple tree. Apple and orange trees cannot produce offspring. Each must function within its own species.
Further, two male gametes in an apple blossom cannot produce a seed; a male and female gamete are required. These biological facts are unbreakable laws in nature. Only males and females can produce offspring, and can do so only within their own species. According to Genesis, God was pleased with this set up; he saw that it, distinct biological categories, was good. Nature always has and always will function only within the boundaries established by these laws. One “kind” is not produced from another “kind.”
As the height of the creative process, mankind must function within these divinely established boundaries. That fact is underscored by the account of the creation of the human race. “‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;’ . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’” In these verses, the noun man and the pronouns him and them all refer to the human race as a collective: males and females.
When God created human beings, he created them “in His own image.” Further, he created them “male and female.” While we might argue the image of God is found in each of us as individuals. We have a stronger argument in favor of God’s image being expressed in “them,” in male and female together. Thus, we can say the highest expression of the image of God in “man” is within the bounds of the procreative relationship of males and females; in other words, within marriage. As God willfully chose to create, we humans have the capacity to reproduce volitionally. Apple trees, cattle, chimpanzees and birds reproduce simply as a matter of biology. Humans procreate based on a choice. Plants and animals do not choose to reproduce; only humans do.
The sad situation of Maeve and Georgia illustrates the problems associated with ignoring the boundaries established by God for all living things. We function best only as we honor all the laws of God; biological, physical, social and spiritual. We ignore these laws at our own peril. When we do, young children are forced to deal with the poor choices of adults, who willfully choose to reject the designs of God.
The irony of same-sex marriage is the inability of same-sex couples to fulfill the intent of the Creator: “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” All of us are born genetically predisposed and biologically designed as heterosexuals. No such thing exists as a biological design for homosexuality. Homosexuality is a way of acting, not an orientation or genetic predisposition. Homosexuality is not something God has chosen as an option for human beings. “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’”
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Indeed, Has God Said?
“Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, . . . and they said, ‘Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?’ And the Lord heard it.”
A troubling trend has developed in our contemporary Christian culture. More and more people, including both laity and clergy, are asserting God has spoken to them. Given the incident of Miriam and Aaron’s jealousy of Moses and their assertion God had spoken to them as well, others in times past have done the same thing. The question is, had God spoken to Miriam?
The problem of jealousy seemed to be more of an issue with Miriam than with Aaron. As far as Aaron was concerned, God indeed had spoken to him. Most of the time, when God spoke, he spoke to Moses and Aaron together. What about Miriam? Did God speak to her? Scripture gives no evidence of God ever having spoken to her in the way he did to Moses and Aaron.
Miriam and Aaron got into a lot of trouble because of their rebellion against Moses. Miriam was cursed with leprosy and had to be isolated outside the camp of the Israelites for seven days? Why wasn’t Aaron stricken with leprosy or some other disease? Was God a sexist? First of all, Aaron seemed to be unable at times to act on the basis of principle. When the Israelites wanted a god while Moses was speaking with the Lord on Mt. Sinai, Aaron went along with them. In the same way, he went along with Miriam. The greater sin seemed to have been Miriam’s.
When this sister and brother made their claim, “the Lord heard it.” He called them and Moses to the tent of meeting. There, he declared in no uncertain terms how and to whom he would speak. God declared, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, he is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?”
Can we say, given the biblical evidence, things have changed? Is the Lord now speaking openly, “mouth to mouth,” with believers? Few individuals, according to Scripture, ever heard the Lord speak to them apart from dreams and visions. Oddly, only once does the Bible record a conversation between Jesus and the Lord. When he was in Jerusalem, some Greeks asked to see Jesus. He saw this as a the sign of his “hour.” He then prayed, “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour '? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then, the Lord answered him “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Interestingly, in Gethsemane, Jesus made a similar plea: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” The Father was silent.
Too many casually declare “God said to me,” without really thinking about the implications of what they are saying. God does not speak casually, and when he has spoken, what he has said is not open to interpretation or debate. For that reason, and because we believe the Bible is inspired by God, we assume the infallibility, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. If God speaks, he speaks in that manner: infallibly and inerrantly. Further, if Scripture is sufficient, why would God need to say more?
We must remember what was said about Moses. The Lord chose to speak to him “mouth to mouth, even openly,” and only to Moses in that manner. Further, we must remember as well the closing words of Deuteronomy: “Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” We have no Moses in our midst today.
We must remember also the little comment following the jealousy-inspired assertion of Miriam and Aaron. “And the Lord heard it.” Not only did the Lord hear, he also held Miriam and Aaron accountable for what they had said. Simply declaring God had spoken to them did not make the assertion true. The standard by which their declaration was judged is the same for us today. To whom God has spoken, and the how, has been established by the Word of the Lord. He has not changed his mind or his methods.
Numbers 12:1-2
A troubling trend has developed in our contemporary Christian culture. More and more people, including both laity and clergy, are asserting God has spoken to them. Given the incident of Miriam and Aaron’s jealousy of Moses and their assertion God had spoken to them as well, others in times past have done the same thing. The question is, had God spoken to Miriam?
The problem of jealousy seemed to be more of an issue with Miriam than with Aaron. As far as Aaron was concerned, God indeed had spoken to him. Most of the time, when God spoke, he spoke to Moses and Aaron together. What about Miriam? Did God speak to her? Scripture gives no evidence of God ever having spoken to her in the way he did to Moses and Aaron.
Miriam and Aaron got into a lot of trouble because of their rebellion against Moses. Miriam was cursed with leprosy and had to be isolated outside the camp of the Israelites for seven days? Why wasn’t Aaron stricken with leprosy or some other disease? Was God a sexist? First of all, Aaron seemed to be unable at times to act on the basis of principle. When the Israelites wanted a god while Moses was speaking with the Lord on Mt. Sinai, Aaron went along with them. In the same way, he went along with Miriam. The greater sin seemed to have been Miriam’s.
When this sister and brother made their claim, “the Lord heard it.” He called them and Moses to the tent of meeting. There, he declared in no uncertain terms how and to whom he would speak. God declared, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, he is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?”
Can we say, given the biblical evidence, things have changed? Is the Lord now speaking openly, “mouth to mouth,” with believers? Few individuals, according to Scripture, ever heard the Lord speak to them apart from dreams and visions. Oddly, only once does the Bible record a conversation between Jesus and the Lord. When he was in Jerusalem, some Greeks asked to see Jesus. He saw this as a the sign of his “hour.” He then prayed, “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour '? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then, the Lord answered him “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Interestingly, in Gethsemane, Jesus made a similar plea: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” The Father was silent.
Too many casually declare “God said to me,” without really thinking about the implications of what they are saying. God does not speak casually, and when he has spoken, what he has said is not open to interpretation or debate. For that reason, and because we believe the Bible is inspired by God, we assume the infallibility, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. If God speaks, he speaks in that manner: infallibly and inerrantly. Further, if Scripture is sufficient, why would God need to say more?
We must remember what was said about Moses. The Lord chose to speak to him “mouth to mouth, even openly,” and only to Moses in that manner. Further, we must remember as well the closing words of Deuteronomy: “Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” We have no Moses in our midst today.
We must remember also the little comment following the jealousy-inspired assertion of Miriam and Aaron. “And the Lord heard it.” Not only did the Lord hear, he also held Miriam and Aaron accountable for what they had said. Simply declaring God had spoken to them did not make the assertion true. The standard by which their declaration was judged is the same for us today. To whom God has spoken, and the how, has been established by the Word of the Lord. He has not changed his mind or his methods.
What About Doubt?
SBCVoices recently posted the article “What do we do about doubt?” The author, Mike Bergman, made the following comments. “Let’s face it—most if not all Christians, whether we want to admit it or not, experience moments where we identify very much with Thomas and you might as well dub us as ‘Doubting’ Mike or Suzanne or Ichabod! But what do we do with our doubt?” Doubt is common to all believers. None of us ever get beyond this purely human response to our situations and circumstances in life. So, we must ask with Mike Bergman, what do we do about doubt?
Doubt is not a sin. Like many of our other emotional and intellectual responses to life’s challenges, doubt arises all by itself. We do not summon fear, or doubt, or revulsion; these things simply are responses to our circumstances and situations. What we do about these reactions to life is a different matter altogether. We might not choose to have doubts enter our minds, but we surely can choose what to do about the uncertainties.
Thomas, infamously called the “Doubter,” does not stand alone in Christian tradition. Peter doubted, and so did John. Just because their doubts stemmed from situations different than Thomas’s does not get them off the hook. Was not Peter the man who walked on water, but, after surveying his situation, started to sink? Further, the very appearance of the word doubt in the NT suggests doubting was a common phenomenon among early followers of Jesus.
James encouraged those to whom he wrote to view their difficult circumstances, their trials, in a particular way: their faith was being tested. For those who were undergoing a variety of trials, doubt was a component of their experiences. For one thing, they probably doubted whether or not the challenging situations they were encountering had any purpose at all. So, James told them if they lacked wisdom, the ability to perceive God’s purposes, they were to ask the Lord and he would give them the insight they needed.
But, he warned them, when one seeks God’s wisdom, “he must ask in faith without any doubting.” Obviously, doubt was a factor in those believers’ lives, or James would not have raised the issue. But, what did he mean about asking in faith without doubting? James was addressing a topic Jesus himself had spoken to. “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen.” (Matt. 21.21)”
So, what about doubt? Both the Lord and James were not saying believers do not doubt, both were declaring how believers should deal with doubt. Simply put, we should not allow our doubts to determine our response to the Lord or to our situations. Doubt, even when it lurks in our unconscious mind, is always present. We have the freedom, though, to choose how we will deal with our doubt.
Eve doubted, and from the moment of her fateful choice in the Garden of Eden till today, the big question for human beings is does God have credibility? Is he believable? How we respond to our doubts is based on our relationship and response to the Lord himself. If God is believable, if he is a credible witness to himself, we will trust him. If we allow our doubts to determine our response to God, if we doubt him and his witness to himself, we will then be, as James said, waves of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. We will live a life without substance or stability. Further, because we allow our doubts to determine our response to the Lord, we should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. (Jam. 1.7)
Ultimately, God wants us to trust him and him alone. What he would have us do is rely wholly upon him without any evidence to do so apart from who he is. We of course look to the biblical record and our own experiences of God’s faithfulness to his people. Yet, in the final analysis, God wants to be trusted for who he is. Eve had no record of God’s faithful acts of deliverance. All she had was God’s command. All the Lord wanted from Adam and Eve was for them to trust him. Eve was consumed by her doubt, and, so, she was deceived. She, nor any of us, if we put our doubts aside, cannot and will not be deceived.
We all doubt; at some point in our walk with the Lord, questions arise in our minds about whether the Lord will deliver us or not. We can, though, choose to trust him. We can choose to lay our doubts aside and not let them be the determining factor in our response to the Lord. We can trust God. At some point, we must ignore all the competing voices, all the questions arising in our minds and the fear doubt engenders. We must, in spite of all these things, trust God. That is what we do about doubt.
Doubt is not a sin. Like many of our other emotional and intellectual responses to life’s challenges, doubt arises all by itself. We do not summon fear, or doubt, or revulsion; these things simply are responses to our circumstances and situations. What we do about these reactions to life is a different matter altogether. We might not choose to have doubts enter our minds, but we surely can choose what to do about the uncertainties.
Thomas, infamously called the “Doubter,” does not stand alone in Christian tradition. Peter doubted, and so did John. Just because their doubts stemmed from situations different than Thomas’s does not get them off the hook. Was not Peter the man who walked on water, but, after surveying his situation, started to sink? Further, the very appearance of the word doubt in the NT suggests doubting was a common phenomenon among early followers of Jesus.
James encouraged those to whom he wrote to view their difficult circumstances, their trials, in a particular way: their faith was being tested. For those who were undergoing a variety of trials, doubt was a component of their experiences. For one thing, they probably doubted whether or not the challenging situations they were encountering had any purpose at all. So, James told them if they lacked wisdom, the ability to perceive God’s purposes, they were to ask the Lord and he would give them the insight they needed.
But, he warned them, when one seeks God’s wisdom, “he must ask in faith without any doubting.” Obviously, doubt was a factor in those believers’ lives, or James would not have raised the issue. But, what did he mean about asking in faith without doubting? James was addressing a topic Jesus himself had spoken to. “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen.” (Matt. 21.21)”
So, what about doubt? Both the Lord and James were not saying believers do not doubt, both were declaring how believers should deal with doubt. Simply put, we should not allow our doubts to determine our response to the Lord or to our situations. Doubt, even when it lurks in our unconscious mind, is always present. We have the freedom, though, to choose how we will deal with our doubt.
Eve doubted, and from the moment of her fateful choice in the Garden of Eden till today, the big question for human beings is does God have credibility? Is he believable? How we respond to our doubts is based on our relationship and response to the Lord himself. If God is believable, if he is a credible witness to himself, we will trust him. If we allow our doubts to determine our response to God, if we doubt him and his witness to himself, we will then be, as James said, waves of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. We will live a life without substance or stability. Further, because we allow our doubts to determine our response to the Lord, we should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. (Jam. 1.7)
Ultimately, God wants us to trust him and him alone. What he would have us do is rely wholly upon him without any evidence to do so apart from who he is. We of course look to the biblical record and our own experiences of God’s faithfulness to his people. Yet, in the final analysis, God wants to be trusted for who he is. Eve had no record of God’s faithful acts of deliverance. All she had was God’s command. All the Lord wanted from Adam and Eve was for them to trust him. Eve was consumed by her doubt, and, so, she was deceived. She, nor any of us, if we put our doubts aside, cannot and will not be deceived.
We all doubt; at some point in our walk with the Lord, questions arise in our minds about whether the Lord will deliver us or not. We can, though, choose to trust him. We can choose to lay our doubts aside and not let them be the determining factor in our response to the Lord. We can trust God. At some point, we must ignore all the competing voices, all the questions arising in our minds and the fear doubt engenders. We must, in spite of all these things, trust God. That is what we do about doubt.
What Is the Meaning of Faith?
“Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
In March of this year (2011), two children, one almost two years old and one 14, died of what is believed to have been pneumonia. Their parents refused medical treatment for their children and relied solely upon prayer and the laying on of hands. Probably, the verse from James inspired their behavior. Were their actions wrong? Does the Bible exclude medical intervention in the case of illness?
The word “anointing” in James 5.14 is an interesting word. The Greek word, aleiphÅ, means to anoint or to pour. Most of the occurrences of the word in the NT have to do with the anointing of Jesus feet by Mary. Twice, the word is used in conjunction with the sick (Matt. 6.13; Jam. 5.14). One time, in Matt.16.1, women had come to the grave of Jesus to anoint his body. The word is not used in any of these situations to suggest the pouring of oil had a spiritual significance. The word is descriptive only of the act of pouring.
What about its use in regard to anointing the sick? Are we to infer from the two instances where the sick were anointed the pouring of oil involves some kind of ritual power? Perhaps, but, perhaps not. When Isaiah described the sinfulness of Israel, he said, “Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, nor softened with oil.” Pressed out means no medicinal plaster had been applied; no bandages were on the wounds; no oil had been used to soften and help cure the sores. The body was scabby and putrefying. Israel was sick and needed medication.
Now, the question is not whether the Bible allows for medical care or not. Without question, Scripture authorizes medical treatment. In 2 Kings 20, we can read the story of the fatal disease of Hezekiah and his plea for help. In response, Isaiah received a word from the Lord and gave the following order. “‘Take a cake of figs.’ And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.” No praying or laying on of hands, just the application of a “home remedy” was all Hezekiah needed. In similar fashion, Paul recommended to Timothy to “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Tim. 5.23) We must remember as well what the Good Samaritan did for the unfortunate traveler who had been beaten and robbed by thieves. He “came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them.” In Scripture, both wine and oil were considered to be medicines.
Anyone who relies solely on prayer, laying on of hands and anointing with oil for healing has missed the true intent of Scripture. The Bible nowhere requires a believer to forgo medical care. Such teaching is a perversion at worst, and a misunderstanding at best of what the Bible teaches about faith and healing. John 5.1-9 shows clearly faith was not always a factor when Jesus healed someone. Jesus healed the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda even as the man protested.
Why must healing be the focus of our understanding of biblical faith? Does not faith involve more than being delivered from disease? James was clear about the meaning of true faith. True, biblical faith is transformational. When a person trusts the Lord, he is transformed in the depth of his being. He is changed from a disobedient doubter to an obedient follower of Jesus. Faith changes our values and our behavior. James argued throughout his letter true faith requires a different kind of behavior than false or superficial faith.
He declared one cannot trust God and ignore the plight of the less fortunate. He argued if one sees a brother or sister in need of clothing or daily food, yet does nothing for them, the faith that kind of person claims to have is dead. True faith demands the believer act, or work, on behalf of the needy. False faith results only in religious ritualism; true faith manifests itself in ethical behavior. As the old hymn declares, we must “trust and obey, for there's no other way. To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”
Does healing require faith? No necessarily. Does faith require good works? Absolutely!
James 5.14
In March of this year (2011), two children, one almost two years old and one 14, died of what is believed to have been pneumonia. Their parents refused medical treatment for their children and relied solely upon prayer and the laying on of hands. Probably, the verse from James inspired their behavior. Were their actions wrong? Does the Bible exclude medical intervention in the case of illness?
The word “anointing” in James 5.14 is an interesting word. The Greek word, aleiphÅ, means to anoint or to pour. Most of the occurrences of the word in the NT have to do with the anointing of Jesus feet by Mary. Twice, the word is used in conjunction with the sick (Matt. 6.13; Jam. 5.14). One time, in Matt.16.1, women had come to the grave of Jesus to anoint his body. The word is not used in any of these situations to suggest the pouring of oil had a spiritual significance. The word is descriptive only of the act of pouring.
What about its use in regard to anointing the sick? Are we to infer from the two instances where the sick were anointed the pouring of oil involves some kind of ritual power? Perhaps, but, perhaps not. When Isaiah described the sinfulness of Israel, he said, “Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, nor softened with oil.” Pressed out means no medicinal plaster had been applied; no bandages were on the wounds; no oil had been used to soften and help cure the sores. The body was scabby and putrefying. Israel was sick and needed medication.
Now, the question is not whether the Bible allows for medical care or not. Without question, Scripture authorizes medical treatment. In 2 Kings 20, we can read the story of the fatal disease of Hezekiah and his plea for help. In response, Isaiah received a word from the Lord and gave the following order. “‘Take a cake of figs.’ And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.” No praying or laying on of hands, just the application of a “home remedy” was all Hezekiah needed. In similar fashion, Paul recommended to Timothy to “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Tim. 5.23) We must remember as well what the Good Samaritan did for the unfortunate traveler who had been beaten and robbed by thieves. He “came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them.” In Scripture, both wine and oil were considered to be medicines.
Anyone who relies solely on prayer, laying on of hands and anointing with oil for healing has missed the true intent of Scripture. The Bible nowhere requires a believer to forgo medical care. Such teaching is a perversion at worst, and a misunderstanding at best of what the Bible teaches about faith and healing. John 5.1-9 shows clearly faith was not always a factor when Jesus healed someone. Jesus healed the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda even as the man protested.
Why must healing be the focus of our understanding of biblical faith? Does not faith involve more than being delivered from disease? James was clear about the meaning of true faith. True, biblical faith is transformational. When a person trusts the Lord, he is transformed in the depth of his being. He is changed from a disobedient doubter to an obedient follower of Jesus. Faith changes our values and our behavior. James argued throughout his letter true faith requires a different kind of behavior than false or superficial faith.
He declared one cannot trust God and ignore the plight of the less fortunate. He argued if one sees a brother or sister in need of clothing or daily food, yet does nothing for them, the faith that kind of person claims to have is dead. True faith demands the believer act, or work, on behalf of the needy. False faith results only in religious ritualism; true faith manifests itself in ethical behavior. As the old hymn declares, we must “trust and obey, for there's no other way. To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”
Does healing require faith? No necessarily. Does faith require good works? Absolutely!
Faith and Faithfulness
Matthew 8:5 “And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.’ Jesus said to him, ‘I will come and heal him.’ But the centurion said, ‘Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, “Go!” and he goes, and to another, “Come!” and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this!” and he does it.’ Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, ‘Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ And Jesus said to the centurion, ‘Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed.’ And the servant was healed that very moment.
“When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: ‘He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.’”
The two narratives above present a dilemma. Why was such emphasis placed on the faith of the centurion and no mention was made of faith at all in the story of Peter’s mother-in-law and the sick who came to Jesus? Given Jesus’ statement about the “sons of the kingdom” being cast into outer darkness, presumably because they would not trust, some kind of disconnect seems to be present in these stories. Why would such a condemnation be made of the Israelites in one verse, and healing of sick Jews be found immediately following?
The centurion came to Jesus seeking the healing of one of his servants. He was not looking for anything for himself. His concern was for a simple slave who was paralyzed. His desperation had driven him to Jesus. We can safely assume this man was at the end of his rope; if Jesus could not or would not help, what hope did he or his servant have?
The “great faith” of the centurion was put into contrast with the response to God of the people of Israel. Jesus said he had not found “anyone in Israel” with the kind of faith the centurion expressed. Look closely, though, at the exchange between Jesus and the centurion. The Roman had asked Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus replied, “I will come and heal him.” Oddly, the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.” This man knew, because of his behavior, he did not deserve the honor of Jesus coming into his home.
Even if that Roman did not realize the fact, he was asking for grace. That is what set him apart from “anyone in Israel.” In his dealings with the Pharisees, Jesus typically was tolerated and condescended to. The Pharisees had a sense of entitlement; they deserved God’s favor because of their behavior. They obviously deserved God’s favor because they so scrupulously observed the Law. They were unable to see they were no more deserving of God’s grace than an unclean Roman. Grace was granted to the centurion, and by extension, to his slave (who might have been a Jew). Grace was available to the Jews, yet, they were not interested in grace.
Jesus was faithful to his on offer of grace when he healed the Roman’s servant. He responded to the man’s faith, not his behavior. So, what about those sick Jews who were healed by Jesus? We might justly infer faith was a part of that event as well. The sick were brought to Jesus by others who, at the least, hoped and believed Jesus would heal their family members and friends.
In the healing of the sick Jews, Jesus was being faithful to himself. As those who had been healed proclaimed, “He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” The Lord understood why he had come to this earth. He came to give himself for those who did not know their own need. Jesus did not die for those who realized their sin; he died for those who were trapped and enslaved by their sin and could see no way out. He died for those who did not recognize at all their own sinfulness.
So, in healing the centurion’s servant and those sick who had been brought to him, Jesus was being faithful to himself. He was responding to human need, both in healing sicknesses and sins. The power of grace is without limit. The faith of the Roman centurion was the interface between the need of his servant and God’s grace. The needs of the sick were also a connecting point. Grace responds to need, whether asked for or not. The Cross proved that truth. Jesus died for those who did not love him nor accept him. He died because of humanity’s great need. He was and is faithful.
“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Rom. 5.6)
“When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: ‘He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.’”
Matthew 8.5-17
The two narratives above present a dilemma. Why was such emphasis placed on the faith of the centurion and no mention was made of faith at all in the story of Peter’s mother-in-law and the sick who came to Jesus? Given Jesus’ statement about the “sons of the kingdom” being cast into outer darkness, presumably because they would not trust, some kind of disconnect seems to be present in these stories. Why would such a condemnation be made of the Israelites in one verse, and healing of sick Jews be found immediately following?
The centurion came to Jesus seeking the healing of one of his servants. He was not looking for anything for himself. His concern was for a simple slave who was paralyzed. His desperation had driven him to Jesus. We can safely assume this man was at the end of his rope; if Jesus could not or would not help, what hope did he or his servant have?
The “great faith” of the centurion was put into contrast with the response to God of the people of Israel. Jesus said he had not found “anyone in Israel” with the kind of faith the centurion expressed. Look closely, though, at the exchange between Jesus and the centurion. The Roman had asked Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus replied, “I will come and heal him.” Oddly, the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.” This man knew, because of his behavior, he did not deserve the honor of Jesus coming into his home.
Even if that Roman did not realize the fact, he was asking for grace. That is what set him apart from “anyone in Israel.” In his dealings with the Pharisees, Jesus typically was tolerated and condescended to. The Pharisees had a sense of entitlement; they deserved God’s favor because of their behavior. They obviously deserved God’s favor because they so scrupulously observed the Law. They were unable to see they were no more deserving of God’s grace than an unclean Roman. Grace was granted to the centurion, and by extension, to his slave (who might have been a Jew). Grace was available to the Jews, yet, they were not interested in grace.
Jesus was faithful to his on offer of grace when he healed the Roman’s servant. He responded to the man’s faith, not his behavior. So, what about those sick Jews who were healed by Jesus? We might justly infer faith was a part of that event as well. The sick were brought to Jesus by others who, at the least, hoped and believed Jesus would heal their family members and friends.
In the healing of the sick Jews, Jesus was being faithful to himself. As those who had been healed proclaimed, “He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” The Lord understood why he had come to this earth. He came to give himself for those who did not know their own need. Jesus did not die for those who realized their sin; he died for those who were trapped and enslaved by their sin and could see no way out. He died for those who did not recognize at all their own sinfulness.
So, in healing the centurion’s servant and those sick who had been brought to him, Jesus was being faithful to himself. He was responding to human need, both in healing sicknesses and sins. The power of grace is without limit. The faith of the Roman centurion was the interface between the need of his servant and God’s grace. The needs of the sick were also a connecting point. Grace responds to need, whether asked for or not. The Cross proved that truth. Jesus died for those who did not love him nor accept him. He died because of humanity’s great need. He was and is faithful.
“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Rom. 5.6)
Sin and Brokenness
In the SBCVoices post “Yes, We're Worse Than Broken; But I Still Use the Term. Response to Randy Newman,” (July 13, 2011) Mike Leake defended the use of the term brokenness as appropriate in describing the human condition. Randy Newman, in his book Bringing the Gospel Home, said “the word doesn't go deep enough to move us forward in sanctification.” Leake responded, “I do continue to use the word. I continue to use the word for two primary reasons. First, I use it precisely because it actually does help me to explain a robust biblical theology and the multifaceted concept of sin.” He further stated, “Secondly, I use that word because people feel broken.”
I must agree with Mike Leake. Brokenness does help in our understanding of the consequences of sin. In a way, I agree as well with Randy Newman; brokenness does not go deep enough. If all we had was the term brokenness, we could not understand just how flawed and failed our condition is. We have, though, more than just the term brokenness. Interestingly, the word brokenness is not well-attested in Scripture. Only Jeremiah used the term in a manner close to how we employ the concept today (see Jer. 6.14; 8.11, 21). Jeremiah spoke of the “brokenness of My people,” and “the brokenness of the daughter of My people.” His charge was the wise men, prophets and priests were superficially healing the brokenness of Israel, but that healing would provide no peace. The word peace also means soundness or wholeness. The healing had no lasting effect.
Jeremiah got to the heart of the problem. Our sin is a deep and incurable illness. We cannot cure our condition. Anyone who offers a superficial solution for sin , or who makes sin itself a superficial problem, has been false and untruthful. God alone knows the depth of our sinful condition, and he alone has offered the only true healing for sin. Through the Cross, the Lord solved the problem of sin and made available the only real and lasting solution. In fact, the Cross underscores the depth of the sinful condition of human beings. Only a radical solution can heal a radical condition.
We can understand the nature of sin only by relying on the full range of biblical words used to describe the full nature of sin. The Bible uses the words iniquity, trespass, transgression, lawlessness, unrighteousness, wickedness, disobedience and evil to explain the depth of our failure. We are guilty of iniquity because we sin; we have trespassed the laws of God and transgressed them because we sin; we are guilty of unrighteous, wicked and evil behavior because we have sinned. We indeed are in a pitiable state if we have not received the forgiveness of our sin. We sin because we are broken, just as Jeremiah said Israel was broken. We are broken because something deep inside of us is not what it should be. We are broken because of the fall of Adam. We are broken because we are born into a broken world. We are broken because, when given the choice, we have failed to live up to God’s demand. All sin. None is righteous; none of us conforms to God’s expectations of us. We are both the victims of sin, and the guilty perpetrators of sin. We did not ask to be born into a sinful world. Yet, when given the choice, we all have chosen to disobey God.
We are indeed broken. We each need to be healed of that brokenness. “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.” Jesus was pierced, crushed, chastened and scourged because of what we have done. Ultimately, he died in our place. So, through the horrible agony, mistreatment and death of Jesus, the Lord made possible the forgiveness, yes, the healing, of our brokenness. The seal of that transaction was his resurrection, because of which, we might walk in newness of life, broken no more.
I must agree with Mike Leake. Brokenness does help in our understanding of the consequences of sin. In a way, I agree as well with Randy Newman; brokenness does not go deep enough. If all we had was the term brokenness, we could not understand just how flawed and failed our condition is. We have, though, more than just the term brokenness. Interestingly, the word brokenness is not well-attested in Scripture. Only Jeremiah used the term in a manner close to how we employ the concept today (see Jer. 6.14; 8.11, 21). Jeremiah spoke of the “brokenness of My people,” and “the brokenness of the daughter of My people.” His charge was the wise men, prophets and priests were superficially healing the brokenness of Israel, but that healing would provide no peace. The word peace also means soundness or wholeness. The healing had no lasting effect.
Jeremiah got to the heart of the problem. Our sin is a deep and incurable illness. We cannot cure our condition. Anyone who offers a superficial solution for sin , or who makes sin itself a superficial problem, has been false and untruthful. God alone knows the depth of our sinful condition, and he alone has offered the only true healing for sin. Through the Cross, the Lord solved the problem of sin and made available the only real and lasting solution. In fact, the Cross underscores the depth of the sinful condition of human beings. Only a radical solution can heal a radical condition.
We can understand the nature of sin only by relying on the full range of biblical words used to describe the full nature of sin. The Bible uses the words iniquity, trespass, transgression, lawlessness, unrighteousness, wickedness, disobedience and evil to explain the depth of our failure. We are guilty of iniquity because we sin; we have trespassed the laws of God and transgressed them because we sin; we are guilty of unrighteous, wicked and evil behavior because we have sinned. We indeed are in a pitiable state if we have not received the forgiveness of our sin. We sin because we are broken, just as Jeremiah said Israel was broken. We are broken because something deep inside of us is not what it should be. We are broken because of the fall of Adam. We are broken because we are born into a broken world. We are broken because, when given the choice, we have failed to live up to God’s demand. All sin. None is righteous; none of us conforms to God’s expectations of us. We are both the victims of sin, and the guilty perpetrators of sin. We did not ask to be born into a sinful world. Yet, when given the choice, we all have chosen to disobey God.
We are indeed broken. We each need to be healed of that brokenness. “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.” Jesus was pierced, crushed, chastened and scourged because of what we have done. Ultimately, he died in our place. So, through the horrible agony, mistreatment and death of Jesus, the Lord made possible the forgiveness, yes, the healing, of our brokenness. The seal of that transaction was his resurrection, because of which, we might walk in newness of life, broken no more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)