This PDF lists the genealogies of the sons of Noah and connects them with the areas of the world that they are understood to have inhabited.
Jacob Wrestles with God
October 30, 2011 By Leave a Comment
When Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau it was because he had just stolen Esau’s birthright and was afraid that Esau would come after him. Their mother told Jacob to go to her uncle Laban and marry someone from her family. This was very important—and one of Esau’s downfalls is clearly expressed as both his marriages to the Canaanite women early in his life and even moreso through his marriage to Ishmael’s daughter after this event. As Jacob is on his way to his mother’s homeland he strikes a deal with God. God meets with Jacob in a dream and promises him protection and many other things including that He will bring him back to the Land. “Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me on this journey that I take, and will give me food to eat and garments to wear, and I return to my father’s house in safety, then the LORD will be my God.” (Gen. 28:20-21)
Jacob makes his way to Laban’s house and tells his uncle his story. His uncle replies that Jacob is clearly one of his kin—an acknowledgement that doesn’t speak highly of Jacob. And we then go into the part of Jacob’s story that usually gets the most attention. Jacob is promised Rachel’s hand in marriage in exchange for 7 years of working for Laban and then is surprised to find, after his wedding night, that he has been given Laban’s older daughter Leah as a wife. In exchange for another 7 years of working for Laban Jacob is allowed to marry Rachel. He doesn’t have to wait another 7 years; she becomes his wife as soon as his wedding week with Leah is completed. In a continuation of sibling rivalry into the marriage bed Leah and Rachel begin competing for Jacob’s love and for position in the home—a competition that grows to include Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants for Leah and Rachel.
The storyline continues and Jacob is blessed by God and prospers, despite his uncle’s attempts to take advantage of him. “Then the LORD said to Jacob, ‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you.’” (Gen 31:3). Jacob heeds the call from God to return to the Land and presents his plans to his wives who agree that this is what they are to do. At this point it seems that God has fulfilled his earlier promises to Jacob—the promises that Jacob said would need to precede his own faith and relationship with the Lord. Yet even at this point he says to Laban, “If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had not been for me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the toil of my hands, so He rendered judgment last night.” (Gen 31:42) At this point God has fulfilled His promises but Jacob has not fulfilled his vow. But he is obeying God and returning to the Land.
Jacob learns that his brother Esau is coming out to meet him as he gets closer to home, and he speaks this to the Lord:
Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your relatives, and I will prosper you,’ I am unworthy of all the lovingkindness and of all the faithfulness which You have shown to Your servant; for with my staff only I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two companies. Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, that he will come and attack me and the mothers with the children. For You said, ‘I will surely prosper you and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which is too great to be numbered.’” (Gen 32:9-12)
Jacob then sets aside many gifts for his brother Esau to appease him. And then Jacob goes to sleep.
Gen. 32:24-32
Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” Now the sun rose upon him just as he crossed over Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh. Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip.
After this encounter with God Jacob has his meeting with Esau who wants nothing from him and seems to have grown up during the 20 years that Jacob was gone. He even invites Jacob to dwell with him but Scripture makes a point of telling us that Jacob left this meeting with Esau and went instead to a place where he built a dwelling for himself and booths for his animals and because of this the place was named Succoth.
This is surely a challenging portion of Scripture. Most believers are comfortable with Jacob realizing that he has wrestled with God because we accept that Yeshua was God in the form of a man and, in fact, most believers will argue that this is Yeshua wrestling with Jacob. Not everyone is convinced of this, but I take no issue with this idea, mostly because I don’t believe that is ultimately the point of the text. Rather I believe the meaning of this text is best found in the placement of events in the greater context of the story of Jacob’s life.
At the beginning of the story we have Jacob proclaiming a vow that if the Lord would fulfill the promises to bless, prosper and restore Jacob to the Land of his father then Jacob would worship Him. After all of the time with Laban, during which the Lord has grown Jacob’s family and prospered him greatly, Jacob is still speaking of the Lord of his father Abraham and the Lord of his father Isaac. And this is where God calls Jacob to return to the Land—just as all Israel was to be called to return to the Land during the month of Elul before Rosh Hashanah. In obedience, Jacob returns.
As Jacob gets closer to his homeland he is confronted with the need to get right with his brother against whom he has sinned. Esau, he learns, is not only waiting for him, but is coming to see him. Jacob is afraid. He puts in motion the plan to make things right with his brother by sharing of his possessions, and then Jacob spends the night wrestling with someone in an encounter that changes his life.
One particularly challenging portion of this text involves the reality that at times Jacob appears to be winning this wrestling match. This is one reason many have been unwilling to accept that Jacob is in fact wrestling with God. Wrestling is a very physical and kinesthetic thing, but it can also be a very metaphysical thing. Many people have wrestled with the text of Scripture or even wrestled with God over the application of something or the meaning of something or even just how to respond in some situation. If the wrestling that Jacob did with God was more metaphysical than physical it would account for the ability of Jacob to be winning at any point—if Jacob was refusing to submit His will to God’s instruction then Jacob would be winning at the wrestling (even if he was losing at the eternal level).
Another particularly challenging part of the text is that “the man” tells Jacob to “let him go” because it is “almost daybreak.” It makes no sense that the Light of the World would be afraid to be caught in the sunlight of morning. What is helpful to this point is to understand that the ancient root of the Hebrew word for “daybreak” also means “understanding”. The darkness cannot comprehend the light but those who walked in darkness are told they will see a great light and when they accept that light they experience their own daybreak.
Because this experience of wrestling with God takes place between being called to return to the Land and, at the end of the story, progressing to Succoth, it is not unreasonable to place this encounter with God during the Days of Awe between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. If that is in fact the time of this wrestling then what takes place at this time is very relevant to the story.
Tradition teaches that “the books” are opened on Rosh Hashanah. In Revelation 5 we learn that the One who is worthy to open the books is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. In Revelation 20 the books are opened. Tradition teaches that these books are the Book of the Righteous, the Book of the Wicked, and the Book of the Undecided. All of the books are opened on Rosh Hashanah, but the Book of the Righteous and the Book of the Wicked are also closed on Rosh Hashanah. The judgment of those within these books is already set. The Book of the Undecided remains open during the Days of Awe and those within have 10 days to move their name into one of the other two books.
If we place this encounter between Jacob and God into this context we find Jacob—whose father and grandfather are most assuredly written in the Book of the Righteous—having his name in the Book of the Undecided. He has returned to the Land and here the One who is worthy to open the Books confronts Him and they begin to wrestle. Physically? Quite probably. More importantly, they wrestle over what is Truth and what must Jacob do to fulfill his vow to the Lord. They wrestle over what Jacob will choose. Sometimes Jacob’s stubbornness has him firmly resisting the Lord. Ultimately, though, the One wrestling with Jacob tells him to stop fighting—he has understanding. It is time to choose. Jacob says he will stop wrestling and let him go but only if He blesses him. The blessing Jacob receives is a new name (Isaiah 62 and Revelation 2 speak of God giving a new name to those who believe) and a more humble walk (literally and figuratively). As Yom Kippur arrives, the day that the Book in which Jacob’s name has remained, he finally confesses faith and receives a new name and a humble walk. The wrestling is over. More importantly, Jacob is ready to move to Succoth. From this point forward Israel is dwelling with God.
Rosh Hashanah Service
September 26, 2011 By Leave a Comment
I am hoping that those of you who are celebrating alone and using this as a guide will be blessed on this Feast of Trumpets
When should we celebrate?
September 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment
This is a very good question and one that I believe every individual and family needs to work out for themselves. However, I hope that sharing how I approach this issue will give some questions for you to consider as you wrestle with the issue and make the decision for yourself.
You might be surprised to even learn there are options about when to celebrate. The calendar says when the holiday is so what is the problem? Well the problem is that the calendar was pre-set after the Jewish people went into diaspora (dispersion around the world) and the Biblical instructions for celebration are based on sighting the new moon in Israel each month. For some more black and white thinkers this creates a moral dilemma. Before modern times the moral dilemma was easier to address–we aren’t in Israel and we can’t see the moon there. In modern times, however, not only is Israel a Nation where many Jewish people are living and can report seeing the moon, but the internet provides the opportunity for the appointed appropriate people in Israel to post the sighting of the new moon and everyone to have that info fly to their cell phones and email accounts. It could even be posted on facebook! And, in fact, that is what some have opted to do.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with this approach. At the same time, I see very impractical issues here. For instance, Israel is 9 hours ahead of where I live. So do I begin my celebration of Rosh Hashanah when the new moon is sighted in Israel and stop what I’m doing around 8 or 9 in the morning and gather with everyone to corporately celebrate (because if we’re being sticklers for the instructions this is a corporate worship festival). Or do I wait until night fall which is 9 hours later than the original sighting in Israel which makes it still not the exact time that Scripture says we are to celebrate?
Even more important to me than seeking to engage in a literally accurate celebration is Yeshua’s admonition that love of God and our neighbor is to be our guide for whether or not we are approaching the instructions and commands in Torah with the right goal. While it’s true that our congregation isn’t currently engaged in hardcore outreach to the Jewish people, it is also true that a desire to teach all believers who are on the tree of Israel (whether grown there by birth or grafted in) to live in such a way that the Jewish person who has removed himself from the tree will desire to be grafted back in (see Paul’s Olive Tree teaching in Romans) means we have the current and local Jewish community in mind when we approach these decisions.
What I see in Scripture is that Yeshua was a Pharisee. And he upheld all of the tradition that wasn’t constructed in error of interpretation. Very often he told the people listening to him to do everything the Pharisees *said*–just to not live the way they were living because that wasn’t in agreement with their words. It was the Pharisee sect that had power in Yeshua’s day and in order to be recorded as reading in the Temple, and discussing the things he did wtih the people he did he would have had to be part of their sect. In fact, it was the Pharisees who held to the Resurrection of the Flesh and other things that the Torah teachers and scholars and rabbi’s questioned Yeshua about directly to see where he stood. Yeshua also told his disciples that they had the authority to interpret Torah and trust that He was guiding them in the interpretation–and that their interpretation was to be binding for all of the believers.
When Yeshua chastised the Pharisees it was in the area of creating obstacles for people wanting to get to God. It was for causing Torah living to be experienced as a burden. When it comes to asking people living in diaspora to celebrate the feasts and festivals according to the sighting of the New Moon in Israel I have three great concerns that weigh in.
1) While living in diaspora believers are in different communities and quite often not in a place to practically stop everything at 9am on an unplanned day to celebrate. Because many moadim are shabbats, or days of rest, it is important that they be able to set up time to take off of work or plan to not be in school. Corporate holy days require planning of time and location for everyone to be present–this is especially challenging for those communities who do not have a regular place for meeting. There are very often more instructions for how to properly celebrate a moed than just making sure the timing is right. There are foods that must be prepared, often in advance, and there are items for ritual that must be gathered. Using the current calendar that was set up for those living in diaspora allows those in diaspora to do these things and be ready for the celebration.
2) If one of the reasons for celebrating the moadim is to provoke the modern Jewish person who does not know their Messiah to envy so that they will want to be grafted back into the tree that they were always intended to be a part of, it creates an additional and unnecessary stumbling block to their acceptance of Messiah if the call for them to come and worship not only includes this new presentation of Messiah, but an insistence that their own worship of God has been on the wrong date and not done correct according to Scripture. It becomes, “You need to know Messiah . . . AND let me tell you how you’re doing everything wrong.” When I follow Yeshua’s instruction to take everything back to love this leaves me feeling there is much lacking.
and 3) I ask myself in most things what my motivation is for doing something how I’m doing it. Everything I read about observing the high holy days based on the sighting of the New Moon in Israel is focused on being “right” in our celebration. Please don’t hear what I’m saying as an argument for being wrong. What I’m saying is I don’t think that right and wrong are supposed to be our standard for concern. As I already mentioned, Yeshua himself said that love was to be our standard for whether we are properly interpreting things. And I go back every time I look at this issue to the instruction that timing everything based on the sighting of the New Moon in Israel is for “when you are in in the Land which the Lord will give you.” So if I were in Israel I would most assuredly take literal and serious the instruction for how we should time our celebration. And I would rally everyone around me to follow this instruction so that we could corporately experience the expectation of waiting and the ambiguity of the exact time and date would create excitement in me! While in am not in the Land, however, I am very comfortable with planning my celebration–my practice for the time to come when we will see and understand even better the reasons that we are called to practice these things each year and to learn from them each time we celebrate–around the calendar that is being used by everyone around the world who is anxiously awaiting the coming of Messiah (whether they understand it to be His first coming or, like us, His second).
As a last thought on this topic, in Yeshua’s day it was the Sadducees who were the group that held most tightly to the literal interpretation and application of what was in Scripture and rejected the oral tradition that helped interpret and apply these things. It would be the Sadducees today who would be arguing loudest for the celebration wherever you are of the High Holy Days to be celebrated according to the sighting of the New Moon in Israel–regardless of where you personally live. It was the Sadducees in Yeshua’s day who rejected the resurrection of the flesh and other things that Yeshua challenged them about. Yeshua did not come as a Sadducee. This doesn’t suggest to me that Yeshua loved them less–only that Yeshua was not as concerned with being literal and right in the way that we humans sometimes set as our personal goal.
Ultimately, though, as I said at the beginning, everyone needs to determine for themselves how they will approach this question and how they will answer it. I encourage you to embrace the dating that will best support your celebration of Messiah, your obedience to the commands and instruction of Torah, and your love for God and your neighbor. As you do these things, I pray that you will have a blessed and holy celebration!
Do Gentiles have to obey the Law?
September 17, 2011 By 1 Comment
I hear this question often and, from what I’ve seen, it’s an area of interest to be debated among current and even former members in the Messianic Movement. I’ve heard people argue for every position and I’ve found myself intrigued that there is even such an argument. I’d like to weigh in on the issue but, first, would like to make some general observations.
–Those who argue that Gentiles have to come “under the Law” don’t seem to understand Law the way I see it presented in Scripture
–Those who argue that Gentiles aren’t expected to obey the Law are arguing from a position that it’s “special and reserved for the Jews” and are being exclusive. (I admit, this position being linked to by Gentiles for why they don’t have to observe the Law is always something that catches me off guard–very few things will have people shouting, “I don’t have to do it–see, so and so says I’m not special enough. So there!”)
–Those who talk about *only* the Spirit of the Law being in effect seem to be missing the importance I see God applying to the actual acts He outlines
–Those who are focused *only* on the Letter of the Law are legalistic and oppressive
–And. . . most groups that have been around awhile have created their own hedges and infused their own culture and don’t seem to know the difference anymore
I’m just not satisfied with any of these positions.
First of all, God’s Torah and the Law it contains are a gift to man. They are God providing the “instruction manual” for His creation that I’ve heard so many Christians who come from the “Torah isn’t for you” camp bemoan not having when they have tough choices to face that they know are impacted by moral issues.
Second, God says that it is for the Israelite and the Sojourner among you (or the proselyte depending on your translation). Paul explains to the non-Jews in his letter to the Romans that they have been grafted into the trunk of Israel. Those more focused on the cultural aspect of things might argue that this makes non-Jews Jews, others seem to take this as some sort of doctrine of “replacement” despite the ending warnings to those grafted on, but Paul is definitely explaining that the believer who has been brought in–even without circumcision of the flesh–has been circumcised in the heart and is part of that great Tree of God’s Nation, Israel. It seems this would qualified as “the Israelite and the Sojourner among you”.
Third, Paul’s “warnings” about “going under the Law” seem to speak more to the attitude and less to the application–since he admonishes the believers in every place to put off the sin man and begin to live in a way that fully expresses God’s Law. And if we view God’s Law as something “to be gone under” then we aren’t approaching it the way that God lays it out and presents it. This is what I want to focus on.
God’s Law contains His instructions for His creation about how to love God, love your neighbor, and love yourself. I can say this with confidence because Yeshua stated, in his answer about the two greatest commands which He summed up with these words, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:20) What He is saying is if you want to follow the Law and the Prophets you will be doing these things and if you do these things you will be fulfilling all of the Law and the Prophets. To this I say, “Amen!”
There are different parts to the Law. There are the aspects of Priestly worship in the Temple that I see as teaching us how to love God. The way I would explain the purpose of the sacrificial system is that every sacrifice is part of the big picture of what Yeshua has done. No one sacrifice can give a full and complete picture, but as you put them together you start to see an amazing picture that I see Paul trying here and there to sort through. The author of Hebrews even takes a stab at some aspects of this. Ultimately, though, it wasn’t the shed blood of any animal that truly covered the Israelites sins or preserved them for another year. It was their obedience to participate in a very kinesthetic act of sacrifice that over time would give them a better understanding of what was ultimately needed to remove their sins. When the sacrificial system is relegated to “a temporary way that animal blood could ‘hold them over’ while they waited for Messiah” OR “the way that those Jews got cleansed, but not for non-Jews” there is a grave misunderstanding of the purpose and it is not what I see expressed in the writings of the ancient sages as they spoke about Messiah and what they were learning from the sacrificial system.
Even today when there is no sacrificial system, because there is no standing Temple, I believe there is a lot to learn about what Yeshua has done for us by studying this–and by participating in the Feasts and Festivals. And there is still plenty of room for free will offerings as well as love offerings and the portions that we are told are to be set aside for the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan. I’ve always been intrigued by traditions that argue for the Priesthood of all believers but wants to learn nothing about the expectations of the Priesthood. This is how to love God. And this is why John can say that we love Him because He first loved us! (1 John 4:19)
Then there is the aspect of loving your neighbor. This is, by far, the largest portion of the Law (outside of the Priestly duties). Over and over God states through Moses that the rules and commands being given are so that they can be a holy community and will live at peace with one another. I cannot understand any argument that suggests ancient Israel needed instruction in how to be good neighbors but we modern believers don’t need to rely on those rules. Do we have some intuitive ability provided by the Holy Spirit to just *be* good neighbors with no instruction at all? Is this why churches have split and people have left the fold because of having been wronged and injured by either their fellow believer or, in many cases, those who hold the position and title of clergy?
Among the “good neighbor” portions of Torah you will find such “offensive” and “unnecessary” instructions as “if your bull is known to get out, build a better fence–you will be held accountable if they gore,” (the precursor to our modern day dog bite laws); “If you have an oozing wound do not spit on anyone,” (honestly, you can tell me all day long I’m not “under the Law” but if you spit on me while you have an oozing wound you are not convincing me I’m still clean and don’t need to bathe and wash my clothes!); “If you are entrusted with something by your neighbor and it goes lost or stolen on your watch, you’re responsible for it,” ; and such wretched and outdated regulations as, “If you are caught with stolen property you have to repay 3 times what you stole.” Who would argue we haven’t evolved above needing such instruction? ME–that’s who!
One of the things I do when someone is trying to explore whether living out God’s Law applies to us today is present to them an outline of all of the “rules” they have been told don’t apply. Even setting aside the Priesthood of all Believers and the sacrificial system as it relates to Yeshua, I suggest going through the Laws and marking only those that apply to them. For everyone living today without a standing Temple that would leave off the laws for the Levite and the Priest in the Temple. For most people it would leave off those covering animal husbandry and farming. Everyone is either a male or a female so they can ignore those intended for each group specifically that they are not a part of. In the end it always comes down to . . . taste buds.
Which brings me to the third category I see present in the two greatest commands–love yourself. This is how I look at the kosher laws presented in Scripture, and at the sexual laws (though it is true that this is also about loving your neighbor–and what love really is and isn’t), and a few others. When I feed my body what God says is food I am loving myself. When I care for myself the way God teaches I am loving myself. If God says that certain things are not food for me then I accept that. He loves me so much and has proven how trustworthy He is over and over and over again. If He says X isn’t food for me, I don’t need a ton of science to convince me (even though it’s out there). I trust Him and love myself enough to not eat what He says to not eat.
And, ultimately, this is what I think is missing from the greater argument going on. If the Law is a burden to you then you are misunderstanding it. Yeshua explained that His yoke is light and easy to carry (Matthew 11:30). He was not saying this because He was removing things from needing to be done! He was explaining this as part of being The Prophet sent to be like Moses–the one who would teach everyone how to understand God’s Law even more clearly than Moses was able. In Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses tells the people, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.” And Peter explains to the crowds in Acts 3 that this is what God has done with Yeshua.
If you read the Law and see it as anything other than a light and easy burden then you are misunderstanding what is being asked–or, rather, you are not reading it as the Spirit Man you have become because of Yeshua. The flesh does not want to be restrained. The flesh is where we focus when our taste buds are the stopping point in our willingness to embrace all of the other amazing instructions in Torah. And if your taste buds are where you cannot comply then set even that aside for a moment and embrace what you can see is good. Your taste buds might just be brought into agreement in time.
So my answer to the question, “Do Gentiles have to obey the Law?” is this . . . NO ONE has to obey the Law. Yet ALL are called to obey it. When you see it as loving instruction from a loving God to the creation that He loved so much He sent Yeshua to teach and redeem us you begin to see the value in following His instructions. I do not ever want to be “free” from doing the things God says are good. I do not ever want to argue that Lawlessness is the best way to show my faith in Messiah–the one who came as promised in the Law. I do not ever want to present to the world a faith that I argue was taught by the one who had to do nothing to violate God’s Torah in order for Him to be the true Messiah. If the One that I follow did away with the Torah then I am lost–and so is the world with me. That is not good news.
Bell’s Last Two Chapters
May 31, 2011 By Leave a Comment
I’m finishing up the review today so that my husband can take the book back to the library. I finished reading the book over the long weekend but we were very busy as a family and I didn’t have time to sit down and write much.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and wasn’t sure what all the controversy is about. The few people I specifically talked to about the book who had read it also couldn’t tell what the controversy was all about. My best guess is that those with the biggest problem with Bell’s book haven’t taken the time to read it. Isn’t that usually the case in Churchianity, though.
In the second to the last chapter, The Good News Is Better Than That, Bell takes a look at the parable of the Prodigal Son. I rather like what he does with the parable–I think it’s supportable and consistent with the bigger picture being conveyed in the Parable. He basically suggests that both of the sons’ problem is rooted in their story of their life being inconsistent with their father’s story of their life.
The youngest son’s story, at the time of his return, is that he isn’t worthy of being a son anymore. He’s too “bad”; he hasn’t lived “right”; the best he hopes for from the father is to be hired back as a slave–he knows his father treats his slaves better than he was being treated in the world. But the father says to him that the real story of his life is that he is the son and what he is worthy of is a party with the finest.
The oldest son’s story, when he returns from the field and finds the party being thrown for the younger son, is that he has been there the whole time, slaving away, and the father hasn’t acknowledged his good work and how unfair is that? Not even a goat for him to throw a party with his friends–nothing special has been rewarded him for doing what he was supposed to do. But the father informs him that while he has been there all the time everything the father had was available to him.
Ultimately, when our story about ourselves is wrong we can’t appreciate the awesomeness of someone else’s story. So many people need there to be a hell because they can go yet another day suffering and struggling to do what is expected of them as a Christian with the assurance that at least all those people out there doing what they aren’t allowed to do are going to get theirs someday. But God doesn’t tell that story in His Word.
Lots of people have their hope tied up in a Rapture where they get to escape all the suffering of the Great Tribulation because they’ve done what they needed to get out of that–and that Fire Insurance is going to pay off for that high price they’ve believed it to cost. All those people who wouldn’t listen to them about Jesus are going to know who had it right in the end! But God doesn’t tell that story in His Word.
If it turns out after we die that we find there is a hell something like traditional Christianity adopted from the Greek and Roman mythologies then isn’t the response that reveals a love for your neighbor that is like your love for yourself to be broken-hearted and tormented to learn that anyone has gone there? If there is going to be a Great Tribulation the likes of what is described in Left Behind theology then isn’t the response that reveals a love for your neighbor that is like your love for yourself to be a desire to STAY and help them through it since you have the hope of Jesus and they don’t?
And maybe, just maybe, no one will need that kind of “reward” for themselves or “come uppance” for their neighbor if they really understood the message that God has written in His Word about them. Because those of us who have been in the Father’s House all along are not slaves–we’re His Children. And those of us who have gone out into the world thinking we could do things better if we followed our own ideas aren’t so damaged and broken that the best we can hope for is a position as a servant in the Father’s house–we’re His Children. And maybe, just maybe, THAT is the kind of love and the message of hope that would cause people to rush in droves to the Father. I know it has transformed my life.
Ultimately I don’t hear Bell saying that there isn’t a hell, or a heaven, or judgement–what I hear is Bell challenging why so many in the Church NEED there to be these things. Most of what people believe about these things comes from a handful of verses that may or may not be talking about what they are constructing them to be about–like a lot of doctrinally “sure” things people are convinced of. But if God wanted us to really understand the afterlife–and wanted that to be the reason we live however we live in this life, I have no doubt He could have been very clear about what would be awaiting us. Yet He wasn’t. I think that is because when we know Him we can trust Him. And when we don’t know Him we often don’t care much about what happens to us. I’m all about loving my neighbor enough to share with them that they can enter heaven now–the Kingdom of God can be in their hearts NOW! And I love God and trust Him enough to trust Him with the neighbor who seems to not want anything to do with Him in this life. If there is something akin to hell in the afterlife I’m convinced that those who go there will really have to want to be there–and if God were to choose at the last minute to let everyone stay with Him, I’m okay with that. I don’t believe that scenario is given in Scripture, because I do read of not everyone wanting to be with Him–but I do believe that the opportunity for everyone to be with Him has been extended. And I think a lot more people are going to be there than some people seem to think.
And I think when we see what the real plan is for eternity we’re going to be so amazed–and whatever we have thought about it will seem so silly to us. Every time we humans think we have the mind of God I figure that will be the case.
Rob Bell–ch 6 of Love Wins–there are rocks everywhere
May 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment
Okay, I’ve gotten used to liking the points people are trying to make even when I can’t connect to the support they offer for the point. I don’t know why it surprised me to find it here, but Bell has been so close with so many points that to see him so off in this chapter . . . and off in a way that makes me want to yell, “Did you read the Torah? The whole thing?”
In a nutshell, Bell is addressing the issue of “the rock” from which the Israelites received water in the wilderness is Jesus–and we know this because we’re told by Paul in the epistles. And He explains that the spiritual source of everything is Jesus. And we can trust this. And with the point of this chapter I mostly agree.
But he’s not understanding the rock!
on pp 142-143 he speaks of God telling Moses to strike the rock in the wilderness to provide water for the people and animals. Then on pg 143 he writes:
“The story goes on, telling us about their continuing journey, the obstacles in their way, God’s patience with them, and Moses learning how hard it is to lead people and not lose your sanity in the process.
But the rock–we don’t hear any more about the rock.
Until more than a thousand years later.”
BUT WE DO! If you keep reading the story about the Wilderness journey of the Israelites you find that the rock travels with them. And it is this rock that Moses is later told to speak to and when he, instead, hits it again, he loses the privilege of going into the Promised Land. This rock is a huge deal! And it undermines the Scriptures to minimize it to one encounter where Moses is told to strike it.
When the people come to Moses in Numbers and complain about being thirsty and needing water, Moses goes to God and tells Him that the people and animals need water. In the Hebrew God responds with a correction–the animals need water to drink, the people need spiritual water. So in order to provide it Moses is told that he is to go and speak to the rock. Instead, Moses strikes the rock–it worked before, right? The sages suggest that Miriam, Moses sister, had been carrying the rock and that she had died so they didn’t know which rock it was. This is supported with the fact that in the Hebrew it is called “the rock” and not “a rock.” They state this indicates a known rock. For whatever reason–whether he didn’t know which rock it was, or he just got frustrated, he didn’t do what he was instructed to do.
And the observation from the sages is interesting. But before I share the commentary from the Chumash (the Hebrew Scriptures broken into Torah portions with commentary), let me explain the amazing significance of “et”, or, in Hebrew, aleph tav.
Yeshua said, “I am the alpha and omega.” Well, actually he didn’t. That’s the Greek of what he said, but what he really said is, “I am the aleph and the tav.” Alpha and aleph are the first letter of the Greek and Hebrew alphabet respectively. Omega and tav are the last letters. Proper translation. But “alpha and omega” doesn’t have nearly the meaning that “aleph tav” has. See, there is one word in Hebrew that *to this day* the rabbi’s do NOT know how to translate. It is usually treated as a direct object, often translated into English as “to”, but if you look at a Hebrew interlinear Bible you will find symbols under the aleph and tav to indicate that they do not know how to properly translate this word. This “word” that was “in the beginning”–as in, literally in the first verse of Genesis! And when he said, “I am the aleph and the tav,” Yeshua was making the claim that HE is the WORD they do not know how to translate!
That may take some time to sink in–no doubt it was a very shocking statement to the Pharisees and Torah teachers of his day! But why share that here?
Well remember that I said Moses asked for water for the people and the animals. Listen to what the sages say about that:
“Here, in God’s command to Moses that he bring water to the nation, the word [aleph tav] separates assembly from animals. However, the word [aleph tav] does not appear in verse 4, which contains the nation’s grievance, or in verse 11, which recounts the appearance of the water. These variations are significant. When the people asked for water, they equated themselves with their animals, implying that the physical need for water is the same in all living beings — but God did not want that. He wanted the nation to realize that if He wills it, there is a spiritual blessing in food that enables people to be nourished and satisfied, that people are not like animals. God inserted the word [aleph tav] in His command to Moses to indicate that there should be a difference in kind between the drinking of the assembly and that of their animals. In reality, however, that failed to happen. Moses and Aaron did not sanctify God’s Name . . , so that the people did not become as elevated as God had wanted. Consequently, when the water flowed and they drank (v. 11), there was, tragically, no [aleph tav] to differentiate between the assembly and their animals (Meshech Chochmah).” pp 843-844
The rabbi’s KNEW that the Israelites didn’t get the message and were missing something important. And they knew that the important thing they were lacking was something they didn’t know how to translate. Paul knew that Yeshua is the aleph tav–the Word that John explains was in the beginning–and the rock that Paul makes a big deal about.
So, yeah, there are rocks everywhere–but there is only one Rock.
Chapter 5 “Dying to Live” from Love Wins by Rob Bell
May 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment
After explaining sacrifice (after talking about Eminem . . . these are the jump arounds that I think lose some people) Bell explains where some of the explanations for what Yeshua accomplished on the cross come from in Scripture. He sums up:
“What happened on the cross?
is the cross about the end of the sacrificial system
or a broken relationship that’s been reconciled
or a guilty defendant who’s been set free
or a battle that’s been won
or the redeeming of something that was lost?
Which is it?” (pg 127)
His answer is “yes” to all of the above. Though I have to disagree with him a bit as he has (probably unknowingly) slipped into a traditional Christianese understanding of the sacrificial system. His explanations of what sacrifice was all about come from the pagan world and do not at all resemble God’s stated intent, purpose or experience of sacrifice within the ancient Israelite’s world. For one thing, the early believers continued offering sacrifices until the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. In the book of Acts Paul pays for the sacrifice of some young men who had taken a Nazirite vow (and some have suggested he also had taken the vow with them). The book of Ezekiel speaks of the sacrificial system existing in the Millenial Kingdom (another reason I don’t believe we are in it yet).
Yes, Yeshua is the *end* of the sacrificial system–in the same way he is the *end* of the Law. He is the ultimate goal, what they both point to, the final destination of the journey. But neither *ceased to be* because of him. Neither was ever the way to receive salvation, or atonement. They were the means through which one came to understand salvation and atonement. They were done so that the person participating in both would be walking in the practices of pictures that regularly refreshed their hope in Messiah to come. And just as Yeshua admonished his disciples to celebrate every Passover seder they ever participated in from that night on “in remembrance of” him, so any sacrifice offered after his ultimate sacrifice on the cross, when done in remembrance of him, would be a worthy sacrifice.
Of course who you understand the author of Hebrews to be (who Bell is referencing as saying the sacrificial system is ending), and when you believe they are writing, will determine a lot about what you believe of their message. I agree with Bell that it was most likely a woman, but I also believe it was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD and that one of the purposes was to encourage the Hebrews (the Messianic Believers, more specifically) that it was okay that they could no longer offer the commanded sacrifices they had continued to offer. The author presents a beautifully Hebraic picture of the interconnection between the sacrifices being offered up until that point in the earthly Temple by the Levitical Priests and the ongoing sacrifices being offered in the heavenly Temple by the High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Yeshua HaMashiach! The comfort is given that Yeshua has accomplished what every single one of those sacrifices was a picture of him accomplishing and since he was the *end* of them–the goal, the aim, the bullseye, the destination–when you have received him as your savior, and his ultimate accomplishment on the cross is applied to you, then you do not need to offer the actual sacrifices in the actual Temple (that you cannot offer because it doesn’t stand). You are covered; you are good. What peace that must have given the readers of the letter to the Messianic Hebrew Believers.
What Bell is attempting to tackle with all of this, however, is the reality that the authors of the Epistles presented diverse metaphors for Yeshua’s death on the cross and what it accomplished. They used images that were meaningful to their audience and they used lots of different ones to explain the same things. At different times and in different parts of the world there has been preference for one image over another. Even within different individuals it is okay if one metaphor holds more meaning. An attorney may best understand the legal imagery while someone working in the world of finance may be relate to a debt being paid/cancelled. And that’s good.
He is also trying to make the point that there isn’t one “better” metaphor. All of the metaphors used in the epistles are good and meaningful. We do not have to feel obligated to stick with one over the others–especially if there is not as much cultural understanding for the meaning as there was in the time the letter was written using that metaphor. In the modern Western world we don’t really get the meaning and heaviness of living in a culture that offers regular sacrifices. Unless and until we study these things, it’s perhaps the hardest metaphor for us to relate to. This is one reason why I teach about the sacrificial system so that we can understand what the authors are talking about when they reference it.
And, Bell goes on to point out, his death wasn’t anything unusual or special. He died the way thousands of people died at the hands of Rome. Naked on a cross. What is unique about Yeshua is that he rose from the dead. I do understand that Bell is going with convention at one point–which I find ironic considering his almost obsessive need to challenge convention at most other points–but the cross was not accomplished on “Friday” with a subsequent resurrection on “Sunday”. Yeshua is clear earlier in the gospels that he would be “three full days and nights in the tomb” and Friday at sundown to Sunday at sunrise barely accomplishes a day and a half. Now, I know the general come back is “he just had to be in the tomb part of each of those days for it to count.” Which sounds like a good argument–except that it’s ridiculous. First, a day for the Jewish person would start at sundown and end at sundown; Second, it was not until the person had been dead for three FULL days that they were pronounced truly dead. My understanding is that something close to 80-90% of coma cases come out of the coma within the first 3 days. In the ancient world without our modern day medical technology it would be impossible to determine if someone was in a coma or dead–and since it was observed that lots of people woke up within 3 days, they waited 3 days to pronounce them dead. This gives a lot of background to all of the stories where Yeshua brought people back from the dead after seeming to intentionally wait three full days. So if Yeshua only spent part of 3 days in the tomb then he didn’t die and thus he wasn’t resurrected–in which case those of us who pin our faith on him and what he accomplished have a real, serious problem. Plus, this whole Friday to Sunday picture misses the whole connection between Yeshua’s resurrection and the Feast of Firstfruits that he was fulfilling in his resurrection. But since that isn’t where Bell goes, I suppose I digress . . .
Only Bell then goes on to try to make a point using John that is . . . I’m sorry to say after loving the book so much up to this point . . . juvenile and revealing how much Bell is missing in his study of the Gospel of John. Bell points out that Yeshua turning water into wine is called the first sign by John, and that healing the official’s son is the second, according to John, and then Bell starts numbering things so that raising Lazarus from the dead becomes number 7 and he talks about 7 being the number of the days of creation, etc. Except that the number 7 and its reference to the days of creation in the book of John is culminated in the miracle of turning water into wine–not begun there. Now I’m okay with layers of 7′s in John, especially because John is writing in the Sod level (the 4th level, the highest level, the secret level reserved for learned rabbi’s at least 30 years of age and found worthy of studying this level), but to then skip to the end of the gospel and make the 8th sign Yeshua’s resurrection and claim that is the “beginning of a new week” . . . it sounds good, but it does NOT work. Nice try, but missed the boat. Because in order for Yeshua’s resurrection to be the “8th sign” in the Gospel of John we have to jump ahead a LOT of chapters and ignore miracles and “signs” being done in each of them.
All to make a point that I partially agree with. NO–the old has not gone and the new come. The new is the same as the old–just interpreted correctly, explained, lived out instead of only hoped for. But *it* is the same. And, yet, I do agree that the story John is telling is “one about God rescuing all of creation.” (pg 134)
I do agree that when the Gospel message is presented only in terms of Yeshua coming to reconcile man to God via death on the cross for our sins we are making humans the center of the story. And I agree this is missing the bigger point. And it is true that Scripture presents Yeshua acting to reconcile all of creation to himself! Yes, our reconciliation is part of that–but the bigger picture is the bigger point.
And with all I’ve disagreed with Bell about in this chapter, I do agree with this:
“A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small.
A gospel that has as its chief message avoiding hell or not sinning will never be the full story.
A gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the “in-ness” of one group at the expense of the “out-ness” of another group will not be true to the story that includes ‘all things and people in heaven and on earth.’” (pg 135)
I also agree with Bell that the intimately personal part of this whole story is that we are called to die to self in order to live with Messiah. We are called to die to our pride, our sin, our egos, our old selves, our ideas about how things should be . . . and then to live with the reality that Yeshua presents of how things are. Life comes through death. In fact, that is one of the reasons I love that the Hebrew days is sundown to sundown is that the day begins with night–death–and in the morning there is new life–resurrection; a picture of the Gospel is built into each and every new day–sort of gives new depth to choosing this day whom we will serve.
Love Wins Chapter 4
May 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment
My guess is this chapter, more than the previous ones, are where people conclude that Bell is a Universalist. I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion *from this chapter*, but I see why they may think that. Rob Bell asks the question in chapter 4, “Does God get what God wants?” I’ve long said that one reason I can’t believe in Calvin’s definition of “election” being for only those chosen while others are rejected is because God says He desires that all should be saved. If God can’t fulfill His own desires–If God actually creates a system (Calvin’s Election) that sabotages what God says He desires–then how can we have faith in His ability to fulfill the promise to grant us the desires of our heart? It has never made sense to me.
Rob Bell also presents what can be a very scary reality for those who have studied their denominations doctrine on these eschatalogical things but not done a lot of church history digging . . . the reality that devout Christians in different ages and at different times in history have held to a variety of end times scenarios. Certainly, in times past there was the expectation that many, if not MOST, people would be with God in the end! Yeshua’s words in the Gospels speak of people coming from the North, East, South and West, and He rejects the idea of fighting to get through a narrow gate, or of anyone being left out who wants to be there.
Bell presents a few ideas including that individuals can come to the Lord in this life or in the afterlife. That is consistent with a position held by many of the sages in ancient Israel. Bell pushes the envelope a bit by suggesting different end times, or not, for this to take place. I don’t believe that Scripture presents an unending option of coming and going from the Kingdom.
Bell also moves on to support a belief that God has given us free will and therefore we can choose to reject God. We can choose to not have relationship with Him. We can reject. God loves us enough to not make us be with Him forever if we really don’t want to be. But I believe, as it seems Bell does, that we have to really be committed to not being with God to not end up with Him. I do believe a lot more people are going to be there than many think–and that some won’t be there who might surprise people.
One thing I do believe Bell misses in this chapter is an understanding that in Hebraic thought “all” does not necessarily mean “every single last one.” It means “all who do.” So “all the earth will be saved” would mean “everyone who is at all inclined to be with God is going to be,” rather than, “Whether they want to or not every single person is.” Not understanding this word use can lead to a more universalist reading of the text than I believe is warranted. And I do believe that Scripture presents us with a judgment where some will still want nothing to do with God. But I do have to agree with Bell that, at the end of the day, we don’t know exactly what it will be like. Despite all the claims of post-death enlightenment from those who have come back to share, we do not have a clear and provable Truth about what happens after we die. The whole point of eschatology is that it is a study of what has yet to come–what will be at the end. So I can agree with Bell on this for sure:
“Whatever objections a person might have to this story, and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it. We can be honest about the warped nature of the human heart, the freedom that love requires, and the destructive choices people make, and still envision God’s love to be bigger, stronger, and more compelling than all of that put together. To shun, censor, or ostracize someone for holding this belief is to fail to extend grace to each other in a discussion that has had plenty of room for varied perspectives for hundreds of years now.” (pg 111)
Ultimately, I am comfortable relying on God’s grace to be bigger than everything and if God chooses to let everyone into His Kingdom and take everyone with Him into eternity then I would rejoice in that and have no disappointment in me. And, if God honors the desire of those who insist to the end that they want nothing to do with Him then I trust fully that God is good and He knows what He is doing and it is not with any malice or lack of thought that He would allow the to go their own way. I don’t need someone to suffer so that I can feel more special; I don’t need someone to not get into the Kingdom so that I can find my place more secure. And some day, when we stand before the Lord, we’ll know His plan for certain. Until then it’s both speculation and a revelation about who we believe God to be–what we believe about Him and His character.