Sanitized Scripture

1 Samuel 15 is a hard chapter of the Bible to read.  Not because it's difficult to understand, but because some of what is described therein seems to be so brutal and barbaric that it's hard to think that God condoned what took place.

But he did.

In this chapter of scripture, God gives King Saul a mission: go and completely obliterate the Amalekites - man, woman, child, and animal.  This Saul does, albeit not completely.  He saves some of the choicest animals and he also saves Agag, the king of the Amalekites, presumably to show him off as a trophy of his victory.

But this is not what God has commanded.  Instead, God commanded the complete annihilation of the Amalekites, including their animals, and including their king.  In response to what Saul left undone, Samuel himself finishes the job, so to speak: "And Samuel said [to Agag], 'As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.'  And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal." (1 Samuel 16.33, ESV, emphasis added)

I don't know about you, but hearing that anyone was "hacked to pieces" is enough to make me wince, let alone hearing that it was done "before the Lord."  It's a description that is mean to illicit a visceral reaction from us, the readers, and I think it's safe to say it succeeds in doing so.

As I was studying to preach this text recently, I read the same passage in the NIV, and was surprised to find this translation of the same verse: "But Samuel said [to Agag], 'As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.'  And Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal." (1 Samuel 16.33, NIV, emphasis added)

You'll notice that the description of Agag's death in the NIV is much more sanitized and palatable.  It's a lot easier to read that someone was "put to death" rather than "hacked to pieces."

The most literal translation of the original Hebrew follows more closely with the ESV rendering of "hacked to pieces."  Why then does the NIV translate the same verse as Agag simply being "put to death"?  Clearly this rendering takes our modern sensibilities into account.  We don't like to hear about a human being having been "hacked to pieces."  It's easier and less messy and creates fewer questions to hear about them being simply "put to death."

But as difficult as it is for us to read, I think we need to retain the language of Agag being hacked to pieces.  Is it brutal?  Yes.  Is it graphically violent?  Yes.  Does it illicit reactions of shock and disgust?  Yes.

And that's the point.

We bristle when we think that God told Saul to wipe out the Amalekites completely, man, woman, child, and animal (1 Samuel 15.3).  We put up our defenses, based mostly on our 21st century sensibilities, and we accuse God of over-reacting.  Certainly it's not necessary to kill everyone and everything in the nation of Amalek, is it?  Even the children?  Even the animals?  What did they do?

Not long after being released from slavery in Egypt, and right after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites were attacked by the Amalekites (Exodus 17).  And not only that, but when the Amalekites attacked, they purposely attacked the weakest people in Israel: the women, children, elderly, and ill (Deuteronomy 25).  Like a schoolyard bully picks out the weakest kid on the playground to pick on him, knowing that he won't fight back, so the Amalekites chose the weak, under-nourished, untrained Israelites to pick on right after leaving 400 years of slavery.  As a result, God declares holy war upon the Amalekites and promises their destruction (See Exodus 17.14 and Deuteronomy 25.19).

By the time of King Saul, the Amalekites had continued to be a thorn in Israel's side for centuries, and, put simply, their cup of wrath had filled up to the brim.  God was merciful to not destroy them outright at the very beginning.  Instead he was patient and long-suffering, giving them hundreds of years to repent and turn to him, but they never did.  So now the time has come for their sin to be dealt with.  And the means of dealing with them that God has chosen is to send in Saul and the Israelites to utterly wipe them out - man, woman, child, and beast.

This is why, I think, it is important to know that Agag, king of the Amalekites was "hacked to pieces" and not simply "put to death."  God cannot allow sin to go unpunished, and his punishment must be severe - severe enough to satisfy the justice of a perfectly holy, perfectly righteous God.  What does that kind of justice look like?  It looks like the total decimation of the Amalekites, and the hacking to pieces of their king.  God's justice is more than just a "put to death" kind of justice.  It's a "hacked to pieces" kind of justice.  Although it might seem harsh and brutal to us, it is just.  It is a picture of how grievous sin is to a holy God, and how desperate our need is to be made right with him.

But in actuality, the destruction of the Amalekites and the grisly death of their king is but a shadow of the divine justice of God.  It is nothing compared to his wrath upon sin that will be poured out for all eternity in hell.  As severe as the punishment of the Amalekites was, and as much as we recoil in horror at the thought of Agag being hacked to pieces, both of these pale in comparison to God's eternal vengeance toward sin, in a place where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched (Mark 9.48).

I don't say these things for their shock value, but rather to magnify the glory of the cross.  Because you and I are just like the Amalekites.  We have spurned God at every possible opportunity, and we deserve the same fate as the Amalekites and that of King Agag.  Actually, if we're honest, we deserve worse.

But God did the unfathomable: he sent his Son into the world to suffer that fate for you.  Jesus Christ willingly offered himself to be decimated and "hacked to pieces" in my place, himself suffering the eternal vengeance of a holy God on my behalf.  "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved - and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2.4-7).

This is why I appreciate the ESV translation of 1 Samuel 15.33, hard as it might be to digest.  When the consequences of sin are magnified (like being hacked to pieces), the glorious grace of God in the gospel is likewise magnified.

Time had run out for the Amalekites.  Their cup of wrath was full and it was time for justice to be served.  But there is still time for you.  You don't have to share their fate.  You don't have to live in the fear and regret of offending a holy God, because that same God sacrificed his Son to save you from destruction if you will call out to him.

The Greatest Miracle in the Bible

What is the greatest miracle recorded in the pages of scripture?  Certainly there are many from which to choose.  Depending on how you define what is or isn't a miracle, the Bible records more than 100 miracles performed by a small number of individuals, each of them displaying the glory of God to varying degrees.

Is it possible to classify or rank the miracles of the Bible?  Perhaps we could classify them by their perceived greatness, or the effort that it took to perform a particular miracle, or by the number of people affected by the miracle.  Is the parting of the Red Sea a greater miracle than Elisha parting the Jordan River, since the sea was bigger than the river?  Is Jesus' greatest miracle the feeding of the 5,000 because it affected so many people at one time?

If we define a miracle as a supernatural action or indecent that is unexplainable by natural processes, then it seems to me that one of, if not the greatest miracles of the Bible must be when the sun stood still in the sky, recorded in Joshua 10.  Joshua and the Israelites are in pursuit of their enemies, but once darkness falls they will be significantly inhibited from routing them entirely.  So Joshua prays that the sun would stand still in the sky, creating continuous daylight so that Israel can hunt down and destroy her enemies completely.  And it does.  The sun stands still in the sky!  Of course, we know that the sun did not stand still in the sky, but rather that the earth ceased its spinning for a period of time.  Imagine that: the earth stood still.

When we think about miracles as enlighten human beings, we want answers.  We want to be able to explain these unexplainable phenomena.  For instance, one scientist has attempted to show how the 10 plagues of Egypt could have been caused by global warming.  Many have attempted to do something similar in the case of the sun standing still by showing how, scientifically speaking, the earth could not possibly have stopped spinning without devastating and catastrophic consequences.  After all, the earth weighs 1000 trillion tons.  How can that much rock and water simply stop or slow down without falling apart?  What about life on earth?  How could it survive if the earth stoped spinning?  What about gravitational forces?  The moon?  There are serious scientific objections to the assertion that the earth miraculously stopped spinning.

In response to these objections, an 18th century Anglican minister named Bishop Watson said, "The machine of the universe is in the hand of God; he can stop the motion of any part, or of the whole, with less trouble than any of us can stop a watch."  In other words, of God is the Creator of the universe, and if he is sovereign over the universe, the notion that God either stopped or slowed the spinning of the earth in order to aid in Joshua's military actions is not only reasonable, but very believable.  Regardless, the halting of the earth's rotation at the request of Joshua must certainly be one of the greatest miracles of the Bible.

But it is not the greatest miracle, not by any measure.  There is one greater, although we don't usually think of it as a miracle.  The greatest miracle of the Bible must be the incarnation: God becoming man.  The incarnation is not just a miracle, but the miracle of miracles.  Because unlike the sun standing still in the sky, or the sick being healed, or even the dead being raised, there is no scientific theory or assertion that we can use to begin to explain how it happened.

Is it possible to make a square circle?  Of course not.  The question poses a logical impossibility, so the very notion of a square circle is nonsensical.  Yet that is similar to the incarnation.  Not that the incarnation is nonsense, but that it is beyond the ability of our minds to comprehend.  We cannot conceive of the infinite, let alone the infinite becoming finite.  How does the one who holds the stars in the palm of his hand, and who uses the earth as his footstool fit in the crook of his mother's arm?  How does the eternal God become bound by time in a human body that ages?  How does the one who created all plants and animals for food need to be fed?  How does spirit become flesh?  How do the invisible hands that created all life and matter become the flesh and blood hands nailed to the cross - the very wood and metal he himself created, nailed there by the very life he created?

These are questions that we can't even begin to answer.  They remain mysterious to us, so far above our capacity to understand that we can but wonder at the glory and power at work in the birth of Jesus Christ, the God-Man.  Just try to think about it for a few minutes, and then take a rest when your brain starts to hurt!

As you contemplate this greatest miracle of history this Christmas, allow yourself to be overwhelmed by the glory and power that God that was at work when God the Son became a human being.  And allow yourself to be overcome by the reality that God worked this miracle for you.

Did Jesus Go To Hell?

Tricky Bits
When my kids were young, they watched the wonderful "What's in the Bible?" series created by Phil Vischer.  One of the segments that was featured in the show was called "Tricky Bits with Buck Denver."  Buck Denver was one of the puppets on the show and he would explain some of the harder parts of the Bible to understand.

The book of 1 Peter has several "tricky bits."  In fact, in my estimation, there aren't too many other books of the New Testament with more tricky bits than Peter's first letter.  It's ironic that Peter describes Paul's writings as "hard to understand" when, in my opinion, Peter is easily more confusing than Paul!

There are two "tricky bits" in just three verses of 1 Peter 3 that have confused Christians for centuries, and have even been used as a justification for division between Christian denominations (just Google "Did Jesus go to hell?" and you will find dozens of answers and explanations!).  The goal of this post, and the following post, will be to try to give an explanation for these tricky bits.

The first tricky bit from 1 Peter 3 comes in verses 18-19: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison..."  These verses make it sound as though after his death, Jesus went somewhere - a "prison" - and spent at least a bit of time preaching to people who were incarcerated in such a prison.  In the very next chapter, Peter also says that the gospel is preached to those who are dead.  Could this mean after his death, Jesus preached the gospel to dead souls presently in hell?  Seemingly in support of this notion, Paul says in Ephesians 4.9 that Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth."

These passages and one or two others have led some to believe that, after his death, Jesus spent at least some time in hell, doing something, although what exactly it was he was doing is still up for debate.  This idea became so prevalent that even the Apostle's Creed, embraced and recited in churches around the world, says, "...he was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell..."

So did Jesus go to hell and do something during the three days when he was "dead?"  That's definitely a "tricky bit," and we'll try to answer that question now, although it should be noted that the answer I'm going to give is my own, based on my personal study, and is by no means definitive or authoritative.  You are free to disagree.  Just make sure that scripture carries your thinking.  Also, note that this is far from a comprehensive study.  I'm only addressing the two sections of 1 Peter that speak to this question.

First, let's be clear that the Bible never explicitly teaches that Jesus went "to hell."  It might appear to imply or suggest it here and there, but it is never explicitly said.  

Second, there are words used in the verses noted above that are frequently used in a variety of ways in scripture.  Knowing how those words are translated and understood in the context of the passages they are in will determine our interpretation of these verses and help us to answer the question.

That being said, no, I don't believe Jesus ever went to hell.  Let's look at the two verses we've already noted.

1 Peter 3.18-19 - In these verses Peter notes Christ's death and resurrection, and seems to imply that in the interim he went and preached to "the spirits in prison."  In order to understand this verse, we need to know what Peter means by the words "spirits" and "prison."  It seems unlikely that the "spirits" mentioned in this verse refers to disembodied souls in hell, or even in a "place of the dead" such as the oft-mentioned Sheol, because of what verse 20 says: "...because they formerly did not obey..."  The idea of there being a second chance to hear and believe the gospel after death is contrary to every other teaching of scripture (see, for instance, Luke 16.19-31).  Scripture is clear that the time that we have to hear and respond to the gospel is the time between our natural birth and natural death.  The Bible never tells us that there is a second chance to hear and believe the gospel.  If this is what Jesus did for spirits that were imprisoned in hell, it would be in contradiction with the rest of scripture.

Rather, because of Peter's comparison of what Jesus did to what Noah did, it seems more likely that the "spirits in prison" refer to human beings alive at the time of Peter's writing.  The Bible describes Noah as a preacher of righteousness who preached God's judgment and salvation.  Noah's audience were "spirits in prison" (of sin) who "did not obey."  Jesus similarly came to preach God's judgment and salvation to "spirits in prison" who "did not obey" (us).  And Just as Noah was saved from God's judgment by the ark, we are saved from God's judgment by the Ark of God's Son.  Peter's readers were to see themselves as the people to whom Noah went and preached, and to see the ark that rescued Noah as the Ark that rescued them.

1 Peter 4.6 - In the next chapter, Peter says, "For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does."  Many have understood this to mean that Jesus traveled to hell to preach the gospel to its dead inhabitants.  Here again, we need to know what Peter means by the word "dead."  The Bible frequently refers to human beings as "dead" even though they are very much alive.  The implication is that the word "dead" describes their spiritual condition.  For example, Ephesians 2.1 describes unregenerate human beings as being "dead in...trespasses and sins..."  Paul clearly doesn't mean that we were dead and in hell in trespasses and sins, and we know that because he goes on to say that God made us spiritually alive.  So it is unlikely that when Peter says that "the gospel was preached even to those who are dead" that he is referring to actual dead people who are in hell.  Rather, it seems much more likely that Peter is referring to the dead spiritual condition of those to whom the gospel has been preached.

It is also possible that Peter is merely referring to a temporal distinction between those who are alive presently, and those who were alive in the past but are now dead.  The previous verses indicate that God is the judge of "the living an the dead."  The "living" certainly can hear the gospel presently, but the dead cannot.  That is why "the gospel was preached even to those who are dead," meaning that, when they were alive, the gospel was preached to them, but now they are dead an cannot hear the gospel.  It's just a temporal indication, not meaning that they were preached to while physically dead.

Does it really matter if Jesus went to hell or not?  
It is possible for Christians with differing opinions on this question to have unity with one another.  We need not separate ourselves over whether or not we believe that Jesus went to hell between his death and resurrection.  In fact, those who argue that Jesus did  go to hell have wonderful an gospel-affirming reasons for doing so.  It is my opinion, however, that the Bible simply does not support Jesus going to hell during the time of his death.

Apart from that, we can be encouraged that Jesus experienced everything that we have or will experience - including death.  And, like him, at our time of death, we will leave our bodies and join him in paradise, absent from the body but present with the Lord.  As Jesus cried out on the cross: "It is finished!"  There is no need for us to fear death or hell.  We can live in confidence that he has paid the price for our salvation in full, and we can live each one of our days with confidence in his victory over death.

My Bibles

About a month ago my wife and I celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary.  It has been my practice to follow the "traditional" anniversary gifts for my gifts to her.  This means that for our 15th anniversary I got her a crystal vase with our names engraved into it.  It was very nice, if I do say so myself.

But then, on the way to meet her at the restaurant to celebrate, I dropped the vase on the concrete sidewalk and it broke into a million pieces.  So much for that.

My anniversary gift for my wife didn't work out, but she got me a gift too: a new Bible.  It's a compact, yet large print, ESV Bible with my wife's nickname for me ("Hubbz") imprinted in gold on the front cover.  I was excited to receive it, and immediately moved my previous "go-to" Bible from its spot on my desk to a retirement position on my bookshelf.  It had gotten worn out over the past 10 years or so that I've had it, and it was time for a new one anyway.

That got me to thinking about the Bibles I've owned through different seasons of my life, all of which I still have in my possession.  Each one of those Bibles tells a story about my life at the time I was using it.

The first Bible I ever wanted for myself was a King James Version.  For some reason I don't recall, my friend and I were fascinated with the old-times feel of King James english so I asked my mom to get me a copy, and she did.  I was probably about 12 years old at the time.  It was a large print King James, with the words of Christ in red (which I don't recommend).  At the time I got this Bible, I wasn't a Christian, and the King James english proved to be more challenging than I thought it would be.  This Bible is still in great shape because it was almost never read.

The second Bible I remember having was given to me at some point in time when I was a teenager.  I don't remember who or why it was given to me, but it was.  This one was a NIV Student Bible.  Inside of this Bible are little explanatory notes that help the reader understand the context of scripture.  This is a special Bible to me.  In high school, I used to bring this Bible with me to school and place it on the top of the chest-high lockers in the school and read it before class started in the mornings.  As you can see from the picture, there are plenty of teenage indicators on the Bible: stickers, duct tape, and lots of highlighting and underlining and drawings in the margins (I don't highlight or underline anything in my Bibles anymore - you can, but it's not something that helps me).  This Bible is also special to me because it is the Bible I used when I read the Bible from cover to cover for the first time in my life.  According to a note I put in the margin, I finished my first read-through on August 4, 2002.  This Bible - by far - is the most-used one I've ever owned.  It went with me through my teenage years and also through college, and its pages are stuffed with notes, cards, and other mementos from that time in my life.

After I got married, I bought my next Bible: a New King James Version of the John MacArthur Study Bible.  This Bible got me through my first years of vocational ministry, and helped me immensely as a budding preacher in his mid-twenties.  MacArthur's commentary is wonderful, and the New King James translation is solid.  One of the significant factors of this Bible was the price tag, a hefty $70.00, which was a big deal for a newly married couple.  I remember that when I got home with it, I plopped into a hammock we had hanging outside and began to read.  These days the cover is frayed and torn a bit, and the bookmark was somehow cut off, but overall, it's still in good shape.

My next regular Bible is the one that I've just retired.  I've been using it regularly for about 10 years or so.  This is the Bible that could tell the most stories about ministry.  It's been to hospital rooms, to the bedside of the sick and dying, in broken homes, and and through many counseling sessions.  As I said earlier, I don't like to write in my Bibles, but this Bible has some writing in it.  But the writing all has to do with counseling sessions I've used it in.  If there is something underlined or written in it, it was done in order to show someone else what it was saying.  One of my favorite things about this Bible is the single-column text, which seems to be a rarity in Bibles these days.  I really love having the text in a single column for some reason.  I think it makes it easier to read.  There are some torn pages, and as you can see in the picture, the cover is well worn.

Finally, here's the new Bible my wife got me as an anniversary present.  Who knows where I'll go with it, or where it will take me.  Just as God used and directed my use of his word in throughout the seasons of my life, I know that he will do so again as I look to the future of studying and applying his word.  Truly, there is no greater gift than a new Bible.

Come Sunday

Last night I logged onto Netflix and immediately saw a new release to the streaming service - a movie called "Come Sunday."  I watched the trailer for the movie and was intrigued.  It's a true story about a Pentecostal minister named Carlton Pearson who eventually adopted a universalistic theological stance and was subsequently excommunicated from his church and denomination.  I clicked "Play" and found the movie engaging and intriguing.  Although Pearson eventually comes to adopt what I would consider to be an unorthodox and heretical theology, I thought it was a good movie and one that is worthy of being watched.  In fact, I would recommend that parents of high school-aged children watch the movie and work together to think biblically about how Pearson comes to his conclusions outside of the guidance of the Bible and against the counsel of close and trusted godly friends.  If anything, the movie is a fantastic example of how man's wisdom fails and the wisdom of God as found in his word holds true.  (Note: the movie contains a couple of "mild" swear words and some discussion of homosexuality).

Pearson starts out as an orthodox Pentecostal minister who consistently and persuasively preaches the biblical gospel to his church and to all those who will hear.  As time goes on, however, he becomes increasingly disturbed by the plight of Africans - particularly Rwandans - who are dying as a result of war and atrocity.  He cannot bring himself to understand how God - a loving God - would condemn to hell those who have not heard the gospel due to no fault of their own, and who are condemned to perish forever in hell simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born in a country where Christianity is not prevalent, and ruthless violence is a regular part of life and death.  Pearson is torn by what the Bible teaches about the punishment of hell for unbelievers, and the plight of his unevangelized fellow human beings.

Later, Pearson tells his church that he has had a direct revelation from God - hearing a voice "as clear as my own" -  that those who die without ever hearing the gospel are already saved and in heaven.  In short, Pearson adopts a universalistic soteriology, meaning that he believes that all people will be saved, regardless of their knowledge or belief.  When members of his church - including trusted friends - push back against his newfound universalism, Pearson clings to the personal revelation he received as his reason for not being willing to recant.  After all, why would God have told him that all people would be saved if it weren't true?  Even when encouraged to consider the possibility that the devil told him this, and not God, Pearson balks, and holds that his personal revelation is from God and is true.

The rest of the film deals with the consequences of Pearson's new beliefs (such as losing his church, his excommunication, strained family relationships, etc.).  The movie is superbly acted, especially by its star (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who was heretofore unknown to me, and is entertaining and engaging to the end.  I especially appreciated how the movie was fair and balanced to the different stripes of Christian belief that were present.  In other words, none of the characters were made to seem as Bible-thumping crazy religious people, even though they held very different views.  Additionally, the movie's treatment of homosexuality was good and balanced.  It's refreshing to watch a movie with religious themes that doesn't make you feel like your beliefs are getting picked on.

Although the movie is indeed entertaining and engaging, it is worth noting that the primary issue that it raises (Pearson's struggle over how God can allow people to go to hell who have never heard the name of Jesus, and his eventual embrace of universalism) is not new, nor is he the first to succumb to its draw.  This is a question that honest believers have wrestled with - and provided solid, biblical answers to - for centuries.  In fact, one of the characters in the movie (Pearson's closest friend and advisor, Henry) gives Pearson a solid biblical answer to his questions.  He says that everyone has exposure to God, regardless of their geographical location or cultural eccentricities (Romans 1.19-20) according to what has been made (creation), and are therefore responsible to seek him.  Indeed, even God's invisible attributes are made known to all people.  Those who seek God according to his natural revelation will find him, as Henry says, "...through a missionary, or through a dream or a vision."  This answer, however - both generated from scripture and from the mouth of a wise and godly friend - is not enough to persuade Pearson.

Perhaps the biggest warning given by the movie to Bible-believing Christians is the danger of so-called personal revelation.  After all, Pearson's persuasion to universalism is primarily and almost completely founded on "hearing God's voice."  The foundation for Pearson's move to universalism is that he allegedly heard God speak to him and tell him that all people are saved.  To be fair, Pearson does use 1 John 2.1-2 as a proof text for his newfound beliefs, but his argument from scripture for universalism takes a far back seat to the personal revelation he received from God (not to mention that 1 John 2.1-2 is not even close to teaching universal salvation, nor does the film portray Pearson dealing with the immensity of scripture that teaches individual salvation).

This is the danger of "hearing" from God outside of his word.  We have no objective way of knowing that the voices, impulses, or feelings that come and go in our hearts and minds are from God, or are from the undigested bit of pepperoni pizza I ate last night.  If we regard personal "revelation" and feelings from God to be authoritative in our lives, a large number of people would venture out on all sorts of crazy crusades.  Indeed, a brief observation of history yields a myriad of examples of people who have done just that!

Instead, we must trust that God has spoken to us through his word, and that his communication to his people in these last days is limited only to his word.  We know that God has spoken to us through the Bible; we are very much less certain about feelings and hearing voices in our heads.

Moreover, to suggest that in order to answer life's difficult questions we need personal revelation from God, the implication is that the Bible is not enough to answer those very same questions.  Pearson had a very legitimate and honest question: "What happens to people who die who have never heard the name of Jesus?  Will they go to hell?"  To find answers to that question, he relied on a "voice from God."  What Pearson apparently didn't know was that God has already answered this question with the voice of his word (see Romans 1.19-20).  If Pearson believed that he needed a personal revelation from God to answer his question, then he (either knowingly or unknowingly) implied that the Bible was not sufficient to answer his question.

Bible-believing Christians reject this notion.  In his word, God has given us everything we need for life and godliness.  If we were in need of additional revelation from God to be able to think, live, and answer difficult questions in life, then by necessity the Bible is insufficient.  And, as Pearson's story so vividly and painfully illustrates, when we elevate personal revelation above the revelation of God in his word, we are very easily drawn away from the true and saving message of the gospel.

The Bible is enough.  Know it.  Love it.  Live it.

What Does it Mean to Take the Bible Literally?

Living Biblically? 
Last night I watched the first two episodes of a new sitcom on CBS called "Living Biblically."  The show tells the story of a man who recently lost a best friend to death, and who also recently received news that he and his wife were expecting their first child.  As a result of these two significant life-changing experiences, he decides to make a change in his life, and that change is to take the Bible "literally," word for word, for at least the next nine months until his child is born.  As you can probably guess, his commitment to the "literal" interpretation and application of the Bible leads to (supposedly) hilarious outcomes (although I watched the first two episodes and only snickered once).

But this isn't the first iteration of the culture's attempt to take the Bible literally.  10 years ago, author A.J. Jacobs wrote the book The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible to rave reviews among secularists and Christians alike.  In the book, Jacobs describes what his life is like when he follows every command of the Bible to the letter.  And just a few years ago, Rachel Held-Evans wrote A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband 'Master', in which Held-Evans recounts her attempts to "literally" obey every biblical command directed toward women for the period of one year.  As you might expect, both Jacobs and Held-Evans have plenty of interesting and strange stories about what it's like to follow Old Testament laws and commands in a 21st century world.

If nothing else, these cultural excursions into the realm of biblical Christianity have served to show that people are generally very confused about what it means to take the Bible "literally."  The culture believes that taking the Bible literally means following each Old Testament command to the letter, and obeying every obscure Jewish ritual and tradition.  For instance, one of the first changes the character Chip makes in his life in the show "Living Biblically" is to make sure that he only wears clothes that are made of a single type of fabric.  After all, Leviticus 19.19 says "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (NIV).  So if we take the Bible literally, we shouldn't mix fabrics, right?

Similarly, Christians are often maligned in the culture when they insist upon the Bible as an absolute source of moral authority.  Christians are charged with inconsistency at best, and hypocrisy at worst because, after all, there are plenty of laws in the Bible about not eating shell fish, and we don't follow those.  The accusation leveled against Christians is that we pick and choose which parts of the Bible we want to take "literally."

So what does it mean to take the Bible "literally?"  According to the culture (and even to some within Christendom), it means to follow every jot and tittle of every command in the Bible, irrespective of when the command was given, why it was given, and to whom it was given.  If the Bible says it, it must be obeyed, no matter what - shell fish, fabrics, and everything else.  And that's what it means to take the Bible "literally."

Except, no.  That's not it.  Not even close.  As with almost every attempt the culture makes to determine just what it is Christians believe about a particular doctrine, this one is a resounding swing and a miss.  To take the Bible literally does not mean to follow it word for word, or to obey commandments that were given to a nomadic people group three thousand years ago as they wandered around in the wilderness.

Well then, what does it mean to take the Bible literally?

First, it means to believe that God wrote the Bible.
Taking the Bible literally means believing that it is actually inspired by God, and that the Bible contains God's message to human beings.  The Bible is a revelation of God's character and nature (who he is and what he is like), and a message to human beings as to how we are to respond God's revelation of himself.  What does he want from us?  How are we to act towards him?  Can we live in relationship with him?  And if so, how?  God himself tells us these things in the Bible.  Did you catch that?  God himself tells us these things in the Bible.  The Bible was written by God - the Creator of the universe.  If we are believing that the Creator of the universe communicated with us personally, we will be far less likely to treat the Bible flippantly or in some silly manner.  The first step to taking the Bible literally is to believe the Creator of the universe wants to communicate with you, and he has done so through his word contained within the Bible.

Second, it means to receive what God has said in context.
The Bible wasn't written to you and I - it was written for you and I.  Over 70% of the Bible (the Old Testament) was written to the ancient Israelites who lived 3000 years ago in and around the nation of Israel as shepherds and farmers.  Thus, the commands were given to them in their specific time, geographic location, cultural context, etc.  It would be (and is) ridiculous to try to "literally" apply commands given to nomadic shepherds 3000 years ago to our modern day lives.

Put simply, there are a myriad of differences between us and the people to whom the Bible was written (time, culture, language, political, geographical, covenantal, etc.).  It would be ludicrous to not recognize these differences as we seek to understand and apply the Bible in our lives today.  However, this is exactly what A.J. Jacobs, Rachel Held-Evans, and the producers of "Living Biblically" are doing when they universally apply commands given to a specific people, in a specific geographic location, in a specific culture, etc. to our present circumstances.  It's no wonder that several Old Testament laws seem foreign to me: I'm not a wilderness-wandering shepherd living in 3000 B.C.

In order to take the Bible literally, we must understand it in its historical and grammatical context.  This means that in order to understand what God told his people, we first have to understand them: their history, their culture, their language, their socio-political circumstances, etc.  God's commands to them will only make sense to us if we know who they were, how they thought, how they lived, etc.

This does not mean, however that because I am not a wilderness-wandering ancient Israelite that the Old Testament is obsolete or irrelevant to me as a 21st century American.  Far from it!  Remember, the whole Bible shows us God's character and nature.  So although I don't apply the Old Testament purity and cleanliness laws (such as the laws regarding fabrics, shellfish, etc.), those laws tell me about a holy and righteous God who desires to live in relationship with his people.  I don't apply the laws literally, but I apply the principles communicated by the laws when understood in context, literally.

Also, we need to realize that the Bible contains different genres of literature.  This means that different parts of the Bible function differently from others.  For example, history books tell an historical story.  Poetry books contain poetry.  You wouldn't read a poetry book to learn history, nor a history book to learn poetry.  So then, we have to take the Bible "literally" according to the rules of interpreting literature.

Case Study: Exodus 21.28-29
Let's use an example to see how we can apply Old Testament commands literally.  Exodus 21.28-29 says, "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable.  But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death."

This law was given to a vagabond nation of wanderers about 3500 years ago.  These people kept livestock as a regular part of everyday life, so God gave them rules and laws that would bring order to their society and help them to live in relationship with him.  Then how can I - a 21st century urban American who does not own livestock - apply this command "literally?"  By knowing the history of the people to whom the law was given, and the genre and grammar of the literature in which it was communicated.

According to our culture, in order to apply this command literally, I'd have to go out and buy some oxen and then make sure to keep them penned up securely.  But to do so would be just as ridiculous as wearing clothes of the same material or swearing off shellfish.  Instead, I can literally apply the principles of this command by interpreting what it is saying.  For instance, from this command we learn at least three things about God: 1) Human life is valuable to God.  God does not desire that men and women be killed by animals.  2) Personal responsibility is important to God.  God expects people to act responsibly so as to minimize any potential threat to others or to the community.  3) Justice is important to God.  In each scenario, punishment is meted out to fit the crime.

When we take this command literally, we don't go out and buy oxen and make sure to put up a sturdy fence around them, because this command was not given to us.  Instead, we interpret the command, and apply the principles the command teaches to our lives literally.  This means that we literally love and value life because God does; it means that we literally take responsibility for our actions for the betterment of ourselves and our communities; it means that we literally work and advocate for justice in our society.  If we do these things, we will have obeyed the command to keep our rambunctious ox penned up, literally.

*Note: for a great guide to how to read and apply the Bible literally in the ways briefly mentioned here, check out the book Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays.  

Magnify God, Not Your Problems

During the Christmas season we often focus on Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, and the many things that they did in order to prepare for the birth of their divine son.  In many ways, our idea of what they went through is probably inaccurate.  For example, we often think of them traveling to Bethlehem on their own, when in reality, they were most likely with a large group of family members.  And when we conceptualize Jesus' birth, the picture we get in our minds is one of Mary and Joseph alone in a stable, surrounded by animals.  This is almost certainly not the way it happened.  In ancient cultures, fathers had almost nothing to do with the actual birth of a baby.  Instead, midwives carried the mother along through the labor and actual birth.  In our modern context, we simply know of a mother and father going to a hospital for a few days, and then coming home with a baby.  But in first century Israel, it was a process that usually involved the whole extended family and a team of midwives.

I think another thing we misunderstand about the birth of Jesus is the social and cultural implications there would have been for Mary.  After all, she was most likely a teenager when the angel Gabriel announced to her that she would be the mother of Jesus.  And not only that, but she was also betrothed (engaged) to Joseph.  An unexpected pregnancy no doubt brought suspicion of unfaithfulness on Mary's part.  For example, upon learning of her pregnancy, Joseph assumed that she had been unfaithful to him and became pregnant outside of their betrothal, so Joseph actually decided to divorce (annul the engagement) Mary.  If this would have happened, Mary would have found herself an unmarried teenage mother on the verge of destitution and poverty, and probably starvation. In first-century Israel, women relied upon men for their provision and even their daily food and shelter.  Without Joseph, Mary and her baby would almost certainly be doomed to die.

No doubt these potential difficulties were going through Mary's mind when Gabriel told her that she would miraculously conceive in spite of her virginity.  There must have certainly been flashes of fear, doubt, and uncertainty going through her mind.  After all, she had no idea how Joseph would respond to her unexpected pregnancy, no less the news that it was immaculately conceived.  And Mary likewise had no idea what the social and cultural response to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy would be.  Put simply, from all natural indicators, Mary appeared to be staring down the barrel of a very difficult time in her life.

But the fascinating and wonderful thing about Mary is that she does not focus on what could happen as a result of this unexpected pregnancy, but instead she focuses on the faithfulness of what God had done in the past.  Rather than magnify the many uncertain circumstances of her life that could lead to difficulty and even pain and suffering, instead she chooses to magnify the faithfulness of God.  In so doing, she gives us a wonderful example for how we should respond to difficult circumstances in life.

Have you ever looked into a microscope?  I have, but probably not since sophomore year biology in high school.  But if you're familiar with the concept, you'll be able to follow what Mary wants to teach us.  When something is magnified it becomes bigger in appearance.  A microscope "blows up" an image so we can see it larger and in more detail.  The tiny features that were hidden before become obvious and apparent.

Mary's remedy for dealing with the potential problems in her life brought about by her circumstances is to magnify (or "blow up") the truth about God in her mind.  She says in Luke 1.46-47 "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."  Here Mary makes a conscious decision to focus intentionally on truth about God, and to put that truth into practice in her life by believing it and acting upon it.  In the sermon I preached this past Sunday, we looked at five truths about God that Mary "magnified" instead of magnifying her problems in life.  I'd like to focus on just two of those truths now.

1. First, Mary magnifies the truth that God watches over his people.  In Luke 1.48 Mary says, "...for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant."  God is a God who looks upon and sees his people, and when he looks, he sees them through eyes of compassion.  Sometimes the image that we have of God is that he is sitting up on his throne in heaven, watching us, just waiting for us to mess up and make a mistake.  But this is not at all how God watches over his children.  Instead, he watches over them with eyes of tenderness and compassion (1 Peter 3.12).  He knows where his children are and what is going on in their lives, and he responds to their prayers.  You and I can't even see what's going on in the other room next to us (without a window), but God can.  He can see in every corner of the earth at all times, and that included Mary and her potential problems brought about by this unexpected pregnancy.

Mary also says that not only is God watching, but he is watching here even though she is in not a very important person.  Mary was from the town of Nazareth, which was known at the time as something of a ghetto.  It wasn't a city that had a lot of culture, and the people from Nazareth had a bad reputation of being low-class individuals (John 1.46).  But that didn't matter.  No matter where Mary came from or who she was - even if she was a nobody - God was watching, and he knew exactly what was going on in her life and what she needed.

The same is true for you.  God sees you.  He knows exactly what is happening in your life, and he knows exactly how it's going to play out.  He knows exactly what you need to get through your challenges, and he is faithful to give you what you ask for in prayer.  And he knows all of this because he is watching.  When life gets difficult, as it has the tendency to do, don't magnify your problems.  Instead, magnify the truth that God sees you and he is watching you with eyes of compassion.  Blow this truth up in your mind, and believe it, and then act on it.

2. Second, Mary magnifies the truth that "He who is mighty has done great things for me."  That's what Mary says in Luke 1.49.  One of the biggest temptations that we face when life is difficult is to forget all that God has done in the past.  We can get so caught up in the moment and the difficulty of our circumstances that we can become shortsighted.  It's easy to let the discomfort of "the now" to cloud our memory of all the great things God has done for us in the past.

Scripture teaches that the gift God has given us to fight for faith in the present is remembering what he has done in the past: "I will appeal to this to the years of the right hand of the Most High.  I will remember the deeds of the Lord; yes, I will remember your wonders of old.  I will ponder all your work, and meditate on your mighty deeds" (Psalm 77.10-12).  The remedy for getting caught up in the present difficulty of life is to remember that "he who is mighty has done great things for me."  It's magnifying what God has done rather than magnifying the present discomfort.

This is what Mary must have been saying to herself: "You know, things are pretty hard for me right now, but I can take comfort because he who is mighty has done great things for me.  And if he has done great things in the pasty, he will again in the future."  That, my friends, is hope.  Instead of magnifying your present difficulty, magnify the truth of the mighty things God has done in the past.  That knowledge should give you hope for today, tomorrow, and any time in the future.

Let's be frank: when troubles come, it is very easy to get caught up in the nagging questions about how and why we ever ended up in such a difficult spot in the first place.  It's easy to find ourselves questioning God and even being angry or feeling sorry for ourselves.  It is in those times that we must resist the temptation to magnify our problems, and instead magnify what we know to be true about God: that he looks upon his children and knows their suffering, and that he is faithful to keep his promises.  Make your faith in those promises big, and your problems will begin to seem much smaller.

The Fullness of Time

Have you ever wondered why Jesus came 2,000 years ago instead of some more recent time in history?  Why didn't God wait to send his Son after the invention of the printing press?  Imagine how easy it would have been to print his words on a press rather than copying them by hand.  Or, why didn't Jesus come some time after the advent of the internet, or after smart phones became common?  Imagine if we could take videos of Jesus' sermons on our smartphones, or document his miracles on video and share them on our Facebook pages.  Wouldn't that have been more efficient (and convincing to unbelievers) than having Jesus come during a time when there weren't even still images or newspapers to spread the word?  In a lot of ways, it seems like Jesus came into the world too early.

But rather than coming too early, the Bible says that Jesus came at just the right time.  Galatians 4.4 says, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law..."  What this verse is saying is that God had predetermined a date that Jesus would come into the world to solve the sin problem.  No, the date almost certainly was not December 25, 0 B.C., but there indeed was a date that God had determined would be perfect.  And when that perfect date arrived ("when the fullness of time had come"), God sent his Son into the world.  It was exactly at just the right time, right according to schedule.  God didn't make a mistake by sending Jesus 2,000 years before the 21st century.  It was the perfect time for him to come.

2,000 years ago, for the first time in history, the known world was unified and enjoyed relative peace under the "Pax Romana," or the peace of Rome.  The Roman empire had gone out to virtually every known inhabited nation and had built roads that centralized commerce and communication.  For the first time in human history, messengers could travel by road safely, and sea travel had advanced to the point that it was common and relatively safe.  As Jesus' disciples would take the message of his life and death across the world, they would use these new roads by land and sea to bring their news.  And since Rome ruled the known world, there were no impenetrable borders or places that were off limits to the gospel.

Moreover, since Rome ruled most of the known world, their language also dominated almost every culture.  Practically everyone spoke the predominant language of the time: Greek - a language that is more articulate than even modern English.  This made it easy for essentially all people of the known world to hear and understand the message of the gospel.  No Bible translators were necessary because, in addition to their native languages, almost the whole world knew Greek.

God foresaw this time in human history, and he determined that this was the perfect time into which he would send his Son to solve the sin problem, once and for all.

But from our perspective, the time doesn't seem so right.  Forget about the Roman roads and dangerous sea voyages - we have air travel!  We can fly to the other side of the word in relative safety with the message of the gospel in less than a day.  And for all for he technological and cultural advancements initiated by the Roman empire, the 21st century and all of the technological advancements that we alluded to earlier (smart phones, the internet, television, etc.) would be much more ideal time for the message of Jesus to spread to the whole world.  Wouldn't it?

No, not really, for at least three reasons:

1. Technology becomes irrelevant and obsolete over time.  We think of the technology of the Roman empire as irrelevant and obsolete because we have made amazing advancements over the past centuries.  But at the time, the ancient advancements mentioned earlier were cutting edge.  Similarly, the cutting edge technology we have today will be irrelevant and obsolete 100 years from now (if not sooner).  If Jesus came today, in 100 years people would be lamenting that he came to early, given the technological advancements that will have been made in the next 100 years.  If we judge the appropriate time for Jesus' advent according to humanity's technological advancement, then no matter when Jesus comes, it will have been too early, because technology will always be better at some later date.

2. Additionally, regardless of whatever means there are to propagate the message of the gospel - and no matter how convincing you can make it or how widely you can spread it - people will always find reasons to not believe.  For instance, if Jesus were performing miracles on the earth today and those miracles were captured with a smart phone camera, providing video evidence of his divinity, someone would find a reason to doubt that the video was genuine.  They'd say the footage was doctored, or that the testimony of the witnesses was unreliable.  People will find any number of reasons not to believe the truth.  Furthermore, no matter how clear the evidence might be, it is very possible for two distinct people to examine the same evidence and come away with different conclusions.

Jesus came 2,000 years ago and proved his divinity in a variety of ways.  And despite the witnesses and the wide reports of his power, people did not believe.  They looked the evidence square in the face and refused to believe.  The same thing would happen if a video of Jesus' miracles was the most-viewed video on Facebook.  Technological advancement does not produce faith.  Only God can do that.  Moreover, the scriptures testify to the faithfulness of God's word and the accounts therein that testify to the divinity of Jesus and to the veracity of the story of his life, death, and resurrection, yet people refuse to believe it.  If they don't believe the Bible, why would they believe a Facebook video?

3. In Luke 16 Jesus tells a story about a rich man who dies and goes to hell.  In hell, he asks Abraham, who is in heaven, to resurrect a poor man named Lazarus who had also died, so that Lazarus may go and preach to the rich man's brothers so that they might not suffer a similar fate.  The rich man is convinced that if a dead man goes and preaches to them, then his brothers will surely believe such a miraculous sign.  But Abraham says that the rich man's brothers already have Moses and the prophets preaching to them from God's word, and if they won't believe Moses and the prophets, then they wouldn't believe even a dead man who came back to life.  The same is true of our world today: if people won't believe Moses and the prophets, they also wouldn't believe a miracle caught on camera.  Jesus came when he came.  His life, death, and resurrection were meticulously recorded and preserved to serve as a testimony to all people who came after him about what he has done.  This testimony is enough.  It is sufficient.

The bottom line is that God knew the exact right time to send Jesus into the world, and that's when he came.  God had been waiting thousands of years for the right time to come, and it came roughly 2,000 years ago.  At Christmas we celebrate not only that Jesus came into the world, but also God's perfect timing in sending the Savior.

Digging Deeper: The Toilet Bowl of the Bible

Each Monday I try to maintain a series on this blog called "Digging Deeper."  The purpose of these posts will be to "dig deeper" into the text that I preached the previous Sunday.  It is almost always the case that there is more that could be said on every text that I preach at Riverview, and sometimes time constraints don't allow me to say everything that could be said about a particular text we are studying together.  Invariably, some things get left on the cutting room floor.  For this reason I thought it might be helpful to pick up some of those scraps on Monday and try to learn from them.

Some commentators have described Judges 19 as the "toilet bowl of the Bible."  While that may seem to you to be a rather crass description, it is accurate in the sense that the events described therein are utterly disgusting and vile: gang rape, murder, and mutilation are only the tip of the iceberg of depravity described in Judges 19.  

So then, why is it in the Bible at all?  As you can probably guess, many critics of the Bible believe that Judges 19 essentially disqualifies the entire Bible from believability.  Why does God allow these horrible actions to transpire?  Does he approve of this?  Why didn't he stop it?  Why should we believe and follow him if he allows something like this to happen?  How are we to understand Judges 19 and the brutality it describes? 

Over the years there have been several attempts to answer these questions and to either justify God or the characters in the story.  This has been particularly evident in more modern biblical scholarship, as some have interpreted this text from a feminist point of view, and also from a pro-homosexual viewpoint.  For instance, the feminist readings of Judges 19 have focused on the plight of the women in the story, and condemned the patriarchal society in which the events unfolded (and by implication and even explicit statement, God himself).  Homosexual readings of Judges 19 have determined that the primary sin of the men of Gibeah was not homosexuality, per se, but was instead a lack of hospitality towards strangers.  Each of these readings, however, force modern (and subjective and personal) sensibilities onto the text.  Instead, as interpreters, it is our job to remove as much of ourselves as possible when we interpret the text, and let it speak for itself.  We should not feel it necessary to attempt to justify God or anyone else as we read the Bible, and we should be very hesitant to force our own personal, cultural, or societal sensibilities onto the text - even when our sensibilities are righteous and good.

One of the most important things we need to remember when reading scripture - and especially hard parts like Judges 19 - is the genre of the literature we are reading.  The book of Judges is an historical narrative, and so the author of the book writes as a dutiful historian: just the facts, with very little - if any - personal commentary.  This is particularly true of the book of Judges.  Throughout its pages, you will find very few moral judgments made by the author.  That is, the author very rarely ever pauses to interject his own feelings about the morality of a given scenario.  For instance, when Samson marries a Philistine woman, the author does not say that it was the wrong thing to do - even though it was.  Later, when Samson visits a prostitute, he is not condemned by the author - even though he could have been.  The reason for this is that the author's primary purpose is to relay historical facts, and not necessarily to comment on the morality of a given situation.  We know, however, that the morality of the book of Judges is in the gutter because we know God.  We allow our knowledge of scripture and the character and nature of God interpret the events of the book of Judges.  Not what we think is right or wrong, but what God thinks is right and wrong.  

This is also true of Judges 19, and more generally, of Judges 17-21.  These chapters are filled with historical events of a dubious moral nature and, for the most part, the author remains silent about the morality of the events he describes.  For instance, there are only two moral judgments made by the author (that I can find, at least).  First, he calls the men of the town of Gibeah "worthless fellows."  Second, he says that the moral and spiritual climate of Israel at the time was one that could be characterized by the reality that "there was no king in Israel..."  Both earlier and later in this book, the moral and spiritual climate of Israel is more succinctly described as "everyone did what was right in their own eyes."  Aside from these somewhat abstract moral judgments, the author's main purpose is to record and communicate historical facts.  Most moral judgments that we make regarding the events described in this book come from outside of the actual text.  And as we've seen, we need to be careful about forcing our own sensibilities onto the text.  

Since the author is writing an historical account, we also need to remember that neither the human author - nor the spiritual author - necessarily condone what is being described.  We often make the mistake of thinking that God approves of the history that is recorded in the Bible.  In many cases, he does not.  Although the events are recorded for us to read, that doesn't mean that God approves of what unfolded.  We also should remember that just because the Bible records historical events, that doesn't mean that we should seek to duplicate or recreate those historical events.  History is history - not a direct command for us to obey.  Think of reading a history text book when you were in high school: you didn't interpret your history text book as being a direct command for your to follow or an event for you to recreate for yourself.  History describes things that have happened in the past - it doesn't prescribe things that should happen in the present or future.  The same is true of the Bible: it records history, and sometimes that history is brutal, unforgiving, and even barbaric.  

Then how should we read difficult texts like Judges 19?  We should read it for what it is: an historical narrative about a group of people at the depths of their depravity, doing wicked, vile, and evil things.  And we can make those judgments because we the rest of the testimony of scripture: we know that the character and nature of God is contrary to the events described in Judges 19.  God did not approve of it, nor desire for it to happen.  

But also, we know from the rest of scripture that even though mankind is at his most depraved in Judges 19, he has not moved so far away from God as to be unredeemable.  Yes, the events of this chapter are horrific and demand our condemnation and swift justice and punishment.  Indeed, God will see that justice is done for the nameless concubine who is horrifically raped, murdered, and mutilated.  Justice will be served for those responsible, either through an eternity of punishment in hell, or through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.  Judges 19 is a picture of just how sinful we all truly are.  No, you may have never committed acts like those described in this chapter, but you certainly have fallen - and far - from God's grace, perhaps through murder of the heart by hating your brothers, or perhaps through sexually violating someone in the secret thoughts of your heart and mind.  Nevertheless, you are not too far away to be redeemed.  The scandal of grace - and the message of the book of Judges - is that God can even redeem rapists and murderers - even you.  

Digging Deeper: Stop Wasting Time

Each Monday I try to maintain a series on this blog called "Digging Deeper."  The purpose of these posts will be to "dig deeper" into the text that I preached the previous Sunday.  It is almost always the case that there is more that could be said on every text that I preach at Riverview, and sometimes time constraints don't allow me to say everything that could be said about a particular text we are studying together.  Invariably, some things get left on the cutting room floor.  For this reason I thought it might be helpful to pick up some of those scraps on Monday and try to learn from them.  

The story of Samson is tragic.  As we've gone through his story, recorded in Judges 13-16, we've seen that he has done things according to his own desires, or, as Samson says what "is right in my eyes."  Needless death, revenge, womanizing, betrayal, and more are all part of Samson's story.  But perhaps the most tragic and telling verse of Samson's story is Judges 15.20: "And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years."

Samson never knew a single day of his life apart from Philistine oppression.  The Philistines had occupied Israelite land before Samson's birth, and their occupation continued even after his death.  Samson is the only leader of Israel in the book of Judges who did not release his people from the oppression of their enemies.  Even louts like Barak, Gideon, and even Jephthah (!) took up arms to follow God's lead and bring their people out from under the oppression of their enemies.  Samson, however, was too busy serving his own desires to be bothered to organize his people under the banner of God.  Never had a man with more God-given potential achieved so little.

In spite of Samson's disregard for God's program, God still used him to strike several blows against the Philistines' oppression and occupation of Israel (see, for example, 14.19, 15.4, 8, 15, etc.).  But the sad reality is that God worked in spite of Samson, rather than through his willing obedience.  At the end of Samson's brief life, Israel was still in the same predicament as when it began.

This is not to say that Samson's life was meaningless, and that God couldn't work through him.  Before Samson was born, God told his parents that he would use Samson to "begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines" (Judges 13.5, emphasis mine).  Israel wouldn't be free from Philistine influence until the time of king David.  Indeed, however, God did use Samson to begin to free his people from the Philistines.  But imagine what Samson could have done if he hadn't wasted his time pursuing his own desires!  Imagine what Samson could have done if he had dedicated himself to holiness and obedience instead of doing what was right in his own eyes.  Instead of investing his time and efforts into God's overarching purpose for his life, Samson invested his time and efforts into his own purpose for his life.

I cringe when I think about how much time I spend on frivolous pursuits that pique my interest: things that are not essential to my well-being; things that are not eternal or meaningful (Facebook, anyone?); things that are here today and gone tomorrow; things that seem enjoyable in the moment; things that I wish I hadn't done; things that are innocuous and only serve to fill/waste time.  If you do the math, you spend about 1/3 of your life sleeping.  I wonder how much of my life is spent doing pointless or even sinful things.  I shudder to think.

There's a cliche story about how, after your death, your tombstone will record the date of your birth and the date of your death.  And in between those two dates there is a dash - a mark that symbolizes everything that happened between those two dates.  That dash symbol is the story of your life.  Everything you've ever done will be characterized by that dash.  The dash that characterizes Samson's life does indeed include a few instances where God used him to help his people.  But the list could have been longer.  When people saw the date of Samson's death on his tombstone, they no doubt compared it to the date of the end of the Philistine oppression and remembered, sadly, that Samson's death came long before.  Samson wasted his time.  Even though he was set apart for the service of the Lord before he was even born (Judges 13.5), he never saw even a fraction of the potential of his special status as a Nazirite.

When we read that Samson "judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years," it's a warning to us to get busy while the getting is good.  When we read Samson's story, it's an encouragement to us to not waste the time that we have here on frivolous and selfish pursuits; it's an encouragement to us to use the things that God has given to us for his plans and purposes in this world; it's an encouragement to us not to take the gifts and talents God has given to us for granted.

God has a purpose that he is working out in this world - a grand, universe-sized plan that is constantly unfolding, second by second.  It is the high calling and privilege of every Christian to be a part of what God is doing in the world.  God will still use us for his purposes even if we aren't willing, and even if we're too self-absorbed to get with his program, but I certainly don't want that to be the story of my "dash."  To an extent, Samson's legacy is as a man whom God gifted greatly, but who squandered those gifts on temporal - and even sinful - pleasures and pursuits.  I want my legacy to be the opposite: that I used everything that God has given me for his glory; that I partnered with God in what he is doing in the world so that his name might be known throughout the ends of the earth; that I used my very brief time on earth well; that I used the gifts God had given me to the utmost.

No Such Thing As Bible Heroes

When I was a kid I went to Sunday School and learned all about the heroes of the Bible.  People like David, Moses, Gideon, Samson, and many others, and all of the amazing things they did through the power of God were brought to life through flannel graph.  I marveled with childish wonder at the strength of Samson, the deadly accuracy of David, and the strategy of Gideon.

The first time I ever read through the Bible cover-to-cover I was around 20 years old.  I remember being shocked that many of the "heroes" I had learned about as a kid weren't really very heroic.  In fact, most of they seemed like downright scumbags!  The picture I had learned about them in Sunday School as a kid was very incomplete.  Yes, Samson was physically strong, but he was also a womanizer, liar, and a vengeful jerk.  Sure, Gideon trusted the Lord and took on more than a hundred thousand Midianites with just 300 men, but he was also narcissistic and bloodthirsty and bent on revenge.  And yes, David did defeat the giant Goliath, vanquish the Philistines, and lead Israel into its golden age, but his personal life was a shambles, consisting of womanizing, adultery, lies, and murder.  

Why was I ever taught that these guys were heroes?  It's no wonder that some people who, like myself, grew up in the church and learned all their Bible stories became disenchanted with the Bible after having read it as adults.  All of those men and women we were told were heroes and who were worthy of emulation seem to be anything but.  In my opinion, the people whom God used in the Bible are decidedly not heroes.  A quick look at the accounts of their lives easily disqualifies them from heroic status.  

The problem is that, in trying to find human heroes throughout the pages of scripture, we have inadvertently overlooked the one true Hero of the Bible, the only One worthy of admiration or emulation: God.  God is the hero of the Bible.  The Bible shows us no other hero but Him.  All of the other characters in the story of the Bible are broken, flawed, damaged, sinful human beings who are empowered by God to perform heroic deeds in spite of their very significant personal moral failings.  If we look to the Bible for human heroes, we won't find many, because human heroes will always have flaws.  But that's not the point of the Bible.  The point of the Bible is to focus our attention on the only Hero who is worthy of praise.   

One of the amazing things about the Bible is its transparency.  "History is written by the victors," as the saying goes, and usually the victors write their history in such a way as to magnify their own strength, courage, power, and glory.  This is not the case when it comes to the Bible, however.  In almost every instance of the Bible's portrayal of a person whom God used for his purposes, you not only get a sense of their God-empowered courageous actions, but also of their significant personal shortcomings.  The Bible bares all when it comes to its heroes: their glorious victories, and their most depraved failings.  

But this reality should not cause us to despair that all of our childhood Sunday School heroes are frauds.  Instead, this reality should serve to magnify God's amazing grace, and leave us in awe and wonder that God can even extend his saving grace and use the scumbags recorded in the pages of scripture for his purposes.  

Think about it: Samson was a man who was only concerned with his own selfish desires.  This led him to womanizing and the loss of innocent life.  But God extended his grace to him, and even used him in the process of delivering the Israelites from their oppressors.  What kind of God does such a thing for such a lowlife as Samson?  Only a truly heroic God could do such a thing.  Or consider Gideon: fueled by bloodlust and a sinful desire for revenge, he went on a rampage and ultimately led his people away from God by creating a false object of worship.  What kind of God could reach down and rescue such a wayward individual?  Only a truly heroic God could do such a thing.  And think about David: his power and lust led him from woman to woman, until he ultimately murdered a woman's husband so he could have her for himself, and then he tried to cover the whole thing up.  Certainly only the most amazing of grace could come into his sleazy, murderous heart and deliver him from such sin.  Finally, think about Jephthah, whom God raised up to deliver Israel from their oppressors, but who was also the barbaric thug that convinced himself that sacrificing his own daughter was the right thing to do.  The kind of grace that is required for his redemption is no doubt inconceivable to the human mind.  

No, there is no such thing as a Bible hero, and that's a good thing.  Because if there were, they wouldn't need grace.  Thank God that all of the people we read about in the Bible are failures.  Thank God that all of them have debilitating character flaws.  Because it is in the contrast between their failures and God's kindness towards them that his grace is most magnified.  In other words, because our Bible "heroes" were such louts, we can more clearly see the true Hero who rescued them through his amazing grace.  

So don't become disillusioned when you read about the failings of the people recorded in scripture, and don't try to fool yourself into thinking that they weren't actually as bad as they were.  These were first class losers.  But don't forget, they're just acting like sinful people, just like the rest of us.  It just so happens that their failings are different than yours and mine, but we are all on the same level when it comes to our need for grace.  

Unfortunately, we sometimes try to sugar-coat the characters of the Bible, especially when we teach their stories to our kids.  We shouldn't.  Instead, we should know them in the fullness of all of their magnificently sinful failures.  Because when we realize who the heroes of the Bible aren't, we'll know who the true Hero is.  The more we can know their (and our own) sin, the more we will know and appreciate God's amazing grace that saves them (and us).  

Digging Deeper: Did Jephthah Really Sacrifice His Daughter?

Each Monday I'm going to try to maintain a series on this blog called "Digging Deeper."  The purpose of these posts will be to "dig deeper" into the text that I just preached on the previous Sunday.  It is almost always the case that there is more that could be said on every text that I preach at Riverview, and sometimes time constraints don't allow me to say everything that could be said about a particular text we are studying together.  Invariably, some things get left on the cutting room floor.  For this reason I thought it might be helpful to pick up some of those scraps on Monday and try to learn from them.  Hopefully this series will be helpful to some, and interesting to those who want to dig deeper into the text.

The first installment in this series will center around Judges 11.1-12.7.  These verses contain the story of Jephthah - one of the judges of Israel.  The most shocking and controversial portion of the story is verses 11.30-40.  In these verses Jephthah vows that if the Lord gives him victory over the Ammonites, then he will sacrifice as a burnt offering to the Lord the first thing that comes out of his house to meet him upon his return.  No doubt Jephthah assumed that one of his animals would be the first thing out of his house to meet him, but this was tragically not the case.  Instead, Jephthah's daughter was the first one to meet him.  Being a man of his word, Jephthah laments that he will now have to offer up his daughter as a burn offering to the Lord.  But does he, really?

Many people have interpreted this part of Jephthah's story differently.  Some scholars believe that, instead of sacrificing his daughter, Jephthah merely dedicated her to the service of the Lord, perhaps in some fashion at the Tabernacle or in some other means.  There are several reasons that many have arrived at this interpretation.

1. God does not honor human sacrifice.  The primary reason that some believe that Jephthah didn't actually kill his daughter as a sacrifice is because the Old Testament clearly prohibits the practice of human sacrifice.  "You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods." (Deuteronomy 12.31)  God hates human sacrifice.  He finds it to be "abominable."  Surely God would not have been pleased with Jephthah's vow, and the fulfillment of said vow.  Jephthah would have known that, and would have backed off when the first thing to come out of his house to greet him was not an animal, but instead a human being.  Or certainly God would have done something to prevent Jephthah from carrying out his vow literally.  But, still wanting to be faithful to his vow, Jephthah "sacrificed" his daughter to the Lord by dedicating her to his service for the rest of her life.

2. Jephthah's daughter mourns her virginity.  When Jephthah's pronouncement is made ("Alas, my daughter!  You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me.  For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow." Judges 11.35), his daughter's concern doesn't seem to be her impending death, but instead her virginity.  In fact, she asks her father to give her two months so she and her friends can go up into the mountains and weep not because of her impending demise, but because of her virginity.  Many have understood this as meaning that part of the service to which she would be dedicated (in place of being offered as a burnt sacrifice) would require life-long celibacy.  Thus the mourning she does is for her impending life-long commitment to celibacy (not being married, not having children, not having the same fulfillment that others might have, etc.), and not her death.

3. The occasion became a national holiday.  A third piece of evidence for this interpretation is that the Israelites used the occasion as a type of holiday.  Every year the "daughters of Israel" would remember Jephthah's daughter and her virginity (Judges 11.39-40).  Had Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering, it is very unlikely that Israel would have marked such a barbaric and godless occasion on their yearly calendars.  It seems more likely that this remembrance was of the occasion of her forced celibacy, not her death.

Others, however, have not found this evidence persuasive, and I count myself among them.  It is my opinion that Jephthah did actually sacrifice his daughter to the Lord as a burnt offering.  I affirm, however, that God abhors human sacrifice, and that it is prohibited in the Old Testament Law, and that the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter was not pleasing to God.  But this doesn't mean that Jephthah didn't do it.  Many people have committed heinous acts in God's name - both in the Bible and throughout history - and we should count Jephthah among them for burning his daughter on an altar.  In his wisdom and for his purposes, God did not stop them from doing the evil deeds they did in his name.  There are several reasons why I believe this to be the case with Jephthah.

1. The plain reading of the text indicates that Jephthah carried through with his original vow.  When interpreting the Bible, there's a rule of thumb that is almost always true: "the plain reading of the text is almost always the correct reading."  Nowhere in the story of Jephthah is it even ever intimated that Jephthah did something other with his daughter than what he said he would do.  In fact, it is stated overtly: "And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made."  Any attempt to posit that Jephthah did something else with his daughter other than sacrifice her as a burnt offering is speculation.  The most plain reading of the text is that Jephthah did indeed sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord.

2. Jephthah's spiritual life was syncretistic.  Religious life in Israel during the time of the judges was overwhelmingly dominated by syncretism.  Syncretism is the combining of ideas and beliefs into one.  Israel had become so influenced by other cultures and religions that their religion was virtually indistinguishable from other religions.  All of the "Gods" of the peoples looked pretty much the same.  This meant that the Israelites regarded Yahweh - the true God - as being pretty much one in the same, or at least on the same level, as all the other gods that "existed."  Other gods demanded human sacrifices, so it follows that the syncretistic thinking of the Israelites led them to believe that Yahweh also delighted in human sacrifice.  Thus, regarding God simply as a god, Jephthah makes the mistake of thinking that Yahweh desired human sacrifice.  There seems to be a good amount of contextual evidence for this.  First, Israel's main problem in the book of Judges is idolatry.  They mix themselves into other cultures and religious thinking all the time.  It is the perpetual thorn in their side.  Second, Gideon appears to make a religious symbol that, at least to some extent, is to represent God or his will (Judges 8.27).  This is blasphemy.  God is spirit, and is not represented in any symbol, statute, painting, or otherwise.  Third, Jephthah himself appears to equate Yahweh, the true God, with Chemosh, the false God of the Ammonites by intimating that both "Gods" have the power to bless their people with physical resources such as land.  In Jephthah's mind, Yahweh and Chemosh are on the same level, so then to him it stands to reason that Yahweh would approve of human sacrifice just like Chemosh did.  I believe that syncretistic thinking led Jephthah to make his tragic, profane, and detestable offering.

3. Human sacrifice fits with Jephthah's pattern of life and behavior.  When considered as a whole, there's not much (if anything) about Jephthah's life that is commendable or worthy of admiration or emulation.  Indeed, it is difficult to find a single redeeming quality in the man's story in scripture.  While of course serious and reprehensible, human sacrifice is not the only mark against Jephthah.  He has many other issues that would serve to condemn him in the eyes of God.  Jephthah's story in Judges appears to be characterized by self-centeredness, wickedness, and a lust for power.  If this is true, and if his thinking was so deluded so as to bring about his other sins recorded in scripture, then it certainly isn't that much of a leap to think that he was led by his faulty thinking to the sacrificing of his own daughter.  Is it really so surprising that a selfish, wicked, power-hungry warlord would sacrifice his own daughter if it served his self-centered purposes?

In Hebrews 11.32 we read that Jephthah's faith is commended.  It is my belief that many have attempted to explain away Jephthah's barbaric action of sacrificing his daughter in an attempt to justify him, or to make him seem not as bad as he looks, as though Jephthah would have been a stand-up fellow if it weren't for that human sacrifice business.  After all, how can God save such a vile, wicked human being?  How could God justify using Jephthah for his purposes when he has done such horrible things?  This kind of thinking is unnecessary, though, and in fact, diminishes the glory of the gospel.  The mystery of the gospel is that God is a God of infinite grace who pays for the debt of sinners - horrible sinners.  All sin is a horrendous offense against a holy God, from white lies, to pirating music or television from the internet, to human sacrifice.  And God's grace can and does cover them all through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin.  Rather than justify Jephthah by diminishing the severity of his sin, I think an honest accounting of this text rather serves to magnify the grace of God.  God's grace can cover any sin.  Even the sin of child sacrifice.