Skip to content

Category: Bible

On Keeping the Gates Closed

Published by mhelbert on July 11, 2013

I was going to write more about relationships today. But, something else has been knocking on the inside of head trying to get out. So, I’m going to get back to the messiness of living with other, ugh, people some other time.

Every morning I take time to read something from the story of Jesus. I find this story intriguing. Not so much for what the writers state that Jesus said, but for their depictions of what he did. This is not to take away from reading the red, as some say. Whether Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him or not is not as important as the fact that the early church ascribed those words to him. They are completely consonant with their view of Jesus’ actions.

This morning I read from Matthew’s take on Jesus. The part of the story that I read was the account of Jesus as he stood before a roomful of men who were desperately trying to find a reason to execute him. The particular text states, “Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled” (Mat. 26:57). I stopped to imagine that scene. Jesus’ hands were bound as he stood in the midst of a group of very angry men. These men were the leaders of the Jewish culture. They were the educated ones, the intelligentsia, and the gatekeepers. These were the men who decided what was orthodox and what was heresy. What I found striking in this scene was who was not present. There were none of the people that Jesus spent his time with. Where were his friends? Where were the people who were healed or fed? Could someone please bring in the character witnesses?!

Jesus self-stated mission, or purpose, was stated in Luke’s version of the story. He wrote that Jesus’ raison d’être was to give good news to the poor, proclaim release for those who were bound, let the blind see, free those who were oppressed and to proclaim that the time of God’s favor had arrived. If one reads the stories, paying close attention to the things Jesus did, it becomes clear that he fulfilled that mission. Jesus hung out with the outcasts and marginalized. He enjoyed having dinner and partying with lepers and women. He played with children and put up with 12 slow learners. And, ultimately, the gatekeepers couldn’t tolerate this kind of subversive behavior.

Jesus didn’t play by the rules that the leaders made. Please note that. “The rules that the leaders made.” That made him a threat to their world. A threat so serious that they had to conspire to kill him. Now, what’s key to this is that these leaders thought that their rules were God’s rules. They read their holy book as a users’ manual or rule book that had to be adhered to or God would get really ticked and maybe kick them out of their homes and take away their religious liberty. What they did was considered the only appropriate response to Jesus’ brand of unorthodoxy.

I have observed a similar mindset in many of the so-called ‘gatekeepers’ today. Men like Al Mohler, John Piper and Owen Strachan have set themselves up as experts in the law. They, like those who stood around Jesus that night, perceive Jesus as a threat. Of course, they would never say that. But, they really do. They read their holy book as a users’ manual or rule book that must be followed to the letter or God may get really ticked and punish everyone.

I’m sorry, (well, not really), but they are mistaken. If we are to take Jesus’ birth, life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension seriously we must take Jesus’ mission seriously, also. That mission was directed to the people that the gatekeepers’ rules excluded. Jesus reinterpreted their sacred story to include everyone, especially it seems, the outcasts and marginalized. We should be willing to do the same.

Leave a Comment

Hate what God Hates…Whatever that is

Published by mhelbert on April 21, 2013


Last week I visited a local church. It’s one that I’ve visited a few times over the past few years. I find meaning in the liturgy there. It’s not like the evangelical free church that I was a part of for many years. This church understands the importance of symbol and celebration in a way that actually embodies, at least how I understand it, the work of God in worship. However, the senior pastor made a statement during a prayer that puzzled me. He prayed that we would love what God loves, and hate what God hates. Now, to most evangelicals, this sounds like a good prayer. It is asking God to show us how and where to direct our affection and our disdain. It seems to be asking for wisdom and discernment. Good things, right? But, there is more to this, I think. First, what does God love and hate? The prayer left this wide open to every speculation and opinion. Although, in his sermon he alluded to some moral concerns, primarily directed to young people, there was no direction for any of us to take in order to discern these things. So, I decided to take a quick trip through the Scripture to see if I could find anything that could help me to love the things God loves, and to hate what God hates.
First, I want to say that this is in no way a comprehensive study. Most Christians would not understand it if it was. This is a quick view that any interested person could do in a short amount of time. It is, in its brevity, accessible to anyone.
In the New Testament I found very few references to God hating anyone or anything. There is a reference to Mal. 1:2 in Romans 9. It reads that God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. In the Romans context, Paul was trying to explain God’s sovereignty in the form of election. God will have mercy on who God chooses. It’s not up to human actions. In the Malachi reference, it appears that God was explaining that through divine choice, God considered Esau as an enemy. Again, no reason other than God’s choice. PLEASE NOTE that this is an example of God’s own divine choice. It is not something that we could ever possibly act out on our own. We cannot hate Esau because we do not have a reason to. God alone gets to make that call. Besides, for the pastor’s prayer above to have any meaning for us today, we would need to know who the heck Esau is. We cannot hate Esau.
In Hebrews 1:9 we find that Jesus apparently hated lawlessness, but loved righteousness. Again, no definitions here. What did the writer mean by lawlessness? Kittel, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, wrote that in this particular instance, lawlessness could be synonymous with sinfulness. So, the writer was basically making the statement that Jesus hated sin. But, the sin, or lawlessness here appears to be that which Jesus hated in his own life! Not in anyone else’s. Because of this, God set him above his companions. Ok, so we can learn to hate sin IN OUR OWN LIVES. This text does not give us privilege to hate it in anyone else’s life.
There is a statement in Revelation that is a tad confusing. Apparently, God hated the deeds of someone referred to as Nicolaitans. No one really knows for sure who these folks were, nor what deeds are being referred to. Can’t hate what we don’t know about.
So far, there isn’t much that I can find that would help us to hate what God hates. Mostly because, it doesn’t appear that God hates too much.
The Hebrew testament has some interesting things to say about what God hates. Without giving specific references, I found that God hates dishonest gain. Hmm… If we were to bring that statement forward a couple thousand years, perhaps God would not be happy with Western economic systems that reward those who get ‘gain’ using any means, including dishonest ones. Of course, when these people or institutions are found out, there is a great public outcry for a day or two. Then, back to business as usual. Maybe we could find an object of hatred there. But, as Jesus told those who brought the adulteress to him, let whoever is without sin toss the first rock.
The Scripture is clear in many places that God hates idolatry…all idolatry. What can we learn from that? Most people would define idol worship as anything that a person places importance on at the exclusion of other things, especially God. That could be money, house, job, spouse/kids, lover, prestige, RV, or cable TV. Here again, though, it is idolatry that we have in our life that is important here. It’s not up to us to point out the idolatry that we may sense in others. We are pretty much incapable of having accurate discernment.
In Proverbs chapter 6 the writer gave a list of things that God hates. Now, with this kind of list, the main point is usually the last item in the list. In this one that item is one who spreads strife among brothers. In fact, all of the items are interpersonal things. Lying, shedding innocent blood, etc. God apparently doesn’t like it when people treat other people badly. Ok, I can understand that. So, how does that play out as we relate to the LGBT community? What’s that look like as we objectify and marginalize women? Immigrants? The poor? Just something to think about.
There are other texts that I could reference, but, I’ll finish with this one. Amos 5:21-24,
21 “I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.
22   “Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,I will not accept them;
And I will not even look at the  peace offerings of your fatlings.
                   23  “Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
                   24  “But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Perhaps, now I’m just speculating here, God isn’t all that happy when people use that authority of the pulpit to speak for God. At least, when making general statements that are loaded with emotion. Maybe our church leaders would do well to make sure that the words that come out of their mouths are accurate and precise. From what I’ve found out, these are the ones who may experience God’s displeasure.
Leave a Comment

Published by mhelbert on May 13, 2012

I saw this cartoon over at Dr. John Byron’s blog. For me, it sums up the position of biblicists. Folks who come to the scripture with presuppositions that specify how God must act, speak, exist in order to shore up a poorly designed position of biblical inerrancy. More on that to come.

Leave a Comment

Peter Enns and Adam

Published by mhelbert on March 28, 2012

There is an interesting thread beginning over at http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/.
Dr. John Byron has blogged about Peter Enns’ book, The Evolution of Adam: What theBible Does and Doesn’t say about Human Origins (Brazos Press, 2012).
The book has the potential to free many from the shackles of biblical idolatry, (bibliolatry). So many of us put the scripture in bondage to something that it was never intended to be. It is not a history, although it contains some. It is not intended to be science. Regarding some of the factors that Enns proposes we approach Adam today, Dr. Byron wrote, “(1) literalism is not an option, (2) that the Bible and science speak different languages and ask different questions, (3) that inspiration should embrace God’s use of cultural idioms, and (4) that a rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not just adding evolution to theology.”
I am waiting anxiously for Amazon to get my copy of Enns’ book into my hands. It sounds like a refreshing take on an old discussion.

Leave a Comment

The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Published by mhelbert on March 15, 2012

The ongoing discussions about biblical inerrancy continues to fascinate me. I’ve read the Chicago definition. I find it wanting. Mostly, because it tries to define God in an extremely narrow manner. It also, I feel errantly, raises the biblical text to the place of godhood. It is, as they say, bibliolatry. What really got me thinking about this was the nastiness that many display when this question comes up.
While struggling with this, and other issues related to the biblical literalist position, a professor of Old Testament asked an interesting question. While considering both Ruth and Esther as stories that most likely were not accounts of actual events, he asked if it was possible for truth to be expressed in fiction. Hmm….Heck Yeah! I began to think about the story of Scripture as narrative…a love story from Yahweh to creation. The inconsistencies in the text disappeared as did the battle between science and theology. In this world all can live together in the discussion. Inspiration has never been an issue with me. The text is inspired. It is, however, free to express God’s love, mercy, compassion, etc. without the hindrance of having to line up with, or do away with observable truth. Yea, God!
Anyway, I bring this up to share a link to another blog where this topic is being chewed on once again.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/03/15/absolute-perfection-oh-my-rjs/
Enjoy!

Leave a Comment

Lead us not…

Published by mhelbert on March 15, 2012

Temptation. That word has sent shivers up and down the spines of countless faithful for centuries. The prayer that Jesus taught his disciples in some translations has the line,  “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” peirasmós, translated temptation, (because of the negative sense derived from the context w/evil), also has the idea of test or trial. James wrote that the person who perseveres through trial is blessed. Thomas à Kempis wrote about this in The Imitation of Christ. No one, according to him, is immune to temptations and trials. They are, “troublesome and severe, are often useful to a man, for in them he is humbled, purified, and instructed.” In another place, he refers to Paul’s statements that temptations are common to humanity. In these God will leave a way to get through them. The task, for à Kempis, is to not run from trials, but to let God help us through them. “Fire tempers iron and temptation steels the just.”
This way of thinking seems to run counter to what we in the West would think. We want quick fixes. We don’t want to experience any discomfort, especially internally. When temptation comes, it starts in the mind. We are “tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed” (Jas. 1:14). The battle ground is laid within our thoughts and desires. Sin, then is born and matures into death. This is what scares people. What if I fail? Why can’t I simply get past these tests? We want to ‘pass’ them and graduate. There is no graduation in this life. Reliance on God the Holy Spirit is how we persevere. It is the crucible in which our minds are renewed and we are transformed; metamorphosed into the likeness of Christ. Rather than running from these trials, it seems that it is more important to embrace Yahweh and walk through the fire.

Leave a Comment

Slow Learner

Published by mhelbert on March 8, 2012

One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that it can take me awhile to wrap my head around some things. In seminary, especially, this was true. I could read a text or hear a lecture and it may have been days later, after reading and re-reading, ruminating and otherwise pondering that the light would turn on and I would ‘get it.’ This has been the process for understanding a question that has bothered me about some folks’ understanding of the new heaven and new earth mentioned in Scripture.
Let me offer some background. I began following Christ a long time ago. Over the years I have been involved with faith communities that are pretty much fundamentalist in their approach to Scripture. As a result, much of their ‘gospelling’ has been to state that we should not be concerned about ecology or economics, (unless it’s conservative), but, rather we should get people saved so as to populate some disembodied heaven of the future. After all, the physical realm is going to burn up and pass away. Now, I have to say that this never really resonated with me. There seemed to be a disconnect between this mindset and what Jesus actually did and said. But, there was a certain logic to the idea that if this cosmos is going to be, at the very least, replaced, why should we concern ourselves with running out of fossil fuels or holes in the ozone layer.
After reading N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church 3 times, (I said I was slow), something clicked. In the book Wright mentioned that people should be involved in bringing justice and wise stewardship to this world, now, in anticipation of that new creation. If humans are to be stewards and co-regents with God in the care and oversight of the new creation, then we should be about that business today, in this world. Not that it’s a practice run, but Paul wrote that nothing that is done in this life will be lost on the next in the resurrection. We can, therefore, justify social justice and ecological justice here and now without diminishing the importance of the kerygma of the Gospel.

Leave a Comment

The Vineyard revisited

Published by mhelbert on March 2, 2012

@font-face { font-family: “Times New Roman”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }span.nowrap { }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

I was thinking about this text this A.M. Jesus spoke the parable in the context of being questioned by the religious leaders at the temple. They wanted to know who had given him the authority to speak and teach as he did. We know that Jesus threw the question right back at them by asking about John’s baptism. When they would not reply, Jesus proceeded:
Luk 20:9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time.
Luk 20:10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
Luk 20:11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed.
Luk 20:12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
Luk 20:13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
Luk 20:14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’
Luk 20:15  So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?
Luk 20:16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
We know that Jesus directed this to the leaders. Luke wrote in verse 19, “The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them.”
One of the things that modern evangelicals in particular like to do is appropriate scripture and try to apply a literalist interpretation to the world and culture today. In the case of this text, I’ve heard preachers and teachers state that the tenants can be represented today by those who are outside of the church, as they understand it. This would equate to the government, gays and lesbians, pro-choice advocates, or any other person or organization that they choose to anathematize. But, in the parable Jesus was addressing the religious leaders. Those who had set up their religious sensibilities to exclude anyone who believed, practiced, or tried to understand Torah in any way other than their particular party line. 
I think that a refreshing way to look at this text would be to challenge the so-called religious leaders to see that Jesus was seeking justice and righteousness in them. That the marginalized in our culture are not who he is speaking to. He is speaking to the people who dismiss and disregard the poor, hungry, homeless, gays and lesbians, handicapped, and I could go on listing others. Jesus came a redefined who is accepted…and who should be accepted by God. Who are called to take on Jesus’ yoke. Who have no voice of their own.
Leave a Comment

The Bible…really, The Bible

Published by mhelbert on February 28, 2012

There are a couple blogs that I follow pretty closely. Some are listed to the right. One of them, Allan Bevere’s, had a link to an interesting CNN blog by Steven James. In it he points out that the Bible is really a text that is “Very raw. Very real.” I agree with much of what he has to say. The church has tended to make the Scriptures some high and hallowed thing that the average person cannot hope to reach or touch. Many others, like James, have attempted to strip away the religious veneer that obscures this real and living compilation of inspired words.
There is the danger, however, that we push the humanity too far and neglect the calling that these words place on us. We are called to move beyond “partying with Jesus” into a real, living, vibrant relationship with him. Yes, that means to go to the wedding at Cana and party down. It also means to climb the rocky path to Calvary and lay down our lives with him.
James’ piece is good and necessary, but it is not the final word.
Here is a link:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/25/my-take-stop-sugarcoating-the-bible/

Leave a Comment

Abiding

Published by mhelbert on February 19, 2012

I have recently been working through a small portion of Scripture in the Gospel according to John. Many of the ancient spiritual mystics and contemplatives wrote about union, or communion with God. In these writings one can get the idea that ‘abiding’ with, or in, Christ is foundational. I read John 15:1-7. In the 2011 NIV the verb, meno, has been rendered, “remain.” So, verse 4 reads, “Remain in me, as I also remain in you.” According to BDAG there are several ways to understand the language of ‘remaining.’ One of them is, of course, to remain in a certain place or position. It refers to location. In a sense, it can carry with it the flavor of dwelling or lodging. When I read ‘remain,’ however, I get the idea that it is something static that is left where it was found. ‘Remain in the house’ means to be static and stuck in a position or location. The NASB rendered this word “abide.” Again, BDAG, confirms this, also. Part of their definition is, “to denote an inward, enduring personal communion.” TDNT contains, “By the use of μένειν Jn. seeks to express the immutability and inviolability of the relation of immanence.”1God abides in the Son, believers abide in Christ, Christ abides in believers, believers abide in God, and God in believers. Kittel goes on to assert that, in this use of the present tense, “the eschatological promise of salvation becomes immediate possession [of believers].2
For me, the use of ‘abide’ rather than ‘remain’ is a more accurate understanding. Abide in English carries the color of relationships in active growth. It is a ‘green’ word. It is not a ‘steely gray’ word like “remain.”
The text in John is deserving of long, quiet meditation to allow the Holy Spirit to “abide” in us.
1&2Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (4:576). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Leave a Comment