Category: Theology

Rapture: A Closer Look

Published by mhelbert on February 25, 2018

So, let’s move along to the text from Paul’s first letter to the church at Thessalonica that folks of the dispensationalist disposition use to “prove” that at some point in time Jesus is going to show up, someone’s going to blow a horn, and all of the good christian folks are going to be taken up into heaven. They will all sit around in joyful bliss while the world they left behind, all of the people, family; friends; and loved ones, are being tormented by plagues and death. I wonder, will those joyous few be munching on chips watching death unfold as if they were watching the Super Bowl? “Hey, pass the nachos!”

Here is that text,

13) But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
15) For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16) For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17) Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (New American Standard Bible, 1995 update, LaHabra, CA, The Lockman Foundation.)

Like I wrote earlier, the fact that some of the people in this particular community of Christ followers had died was the concern here. So, Paul shares a bit about that. (The term “asleep”, or “fallen asleep” here refers to death.)

However, the verse I want to focus on now is the last one, v. 17.

From a first glance, it appears that maybe Darby got it right. On what the late Billy Graham would call a ‘simple reading’ of the text, it does seem to say that those who believe like Paul did will, in fact, be ‘caught up’ to be with Jesus forever and ever, Hallelujah, ain’t it grand!

But, if we take a closer look, things may not be like they seem.
(Insert diabolical laugh here.)

The actual word ‘rapture’ does not appear at all in this text. Many scholars think that the term is an English take on the Latin version of this verse. In that version, the word translated ‘caught up’ is rapiemur. That literally means “we shall be carried away.” The English word also carries a meaning of some “lofty emotion” or “feeling of ecstasy” which could have influenced its use here. In any case, this is the term assigned to an event that Paul wrote about.

The question, though, is this the point that Paul was explaining to his young sisters and brothers? Was he trying to give them the actual blow-by-blow sequence of events that would occur at Jesus’ return? And, did he intend that they should understand it as being whisked away to the great by-and-by where they would be eternally separated from the world that they were born into?

Here’s where it’s important to know a bit about the social and cultural context of the writer and the readers. This period of time in the world controlled by Rome was vastly different than the time in which we live. They had different beliefs, different goals and ways to achieve them, they were, in a word or two, “Not Us.” Yet, so many people who interpret these ancient documents read them as if they were written yesterday. Simply put, we cannot sit down and read the Bible like we would the latest Stephen King novel. Anyone who says different is either playing you or just plain ignorant.

I wrote earlier that Paul was addressing a question that the young community at Thessalonica had. “When Jesus returns, what’s going to happen to our friends and family who are already dead?” Paul had apparently told them that Jesus was going to return to institute God’s righteous kingdom. And they, the Thessalonians, would be members of that kingdom.

These people were primarily from a pagan background. They worshiped the gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon as well as Caesar and Roma. They had no concept of resurrection from the dead like Paul did. Paul might as well have been talking gibberish to them. But, they accepted his words and believed that somehow this Jewish prophet from Palestine had, indeed, risen from the dead and was taken up into the heavens. But, they didn’t seem to be able to apply that to anyone other than Jesus. “Yeah, sure, Jesus was special and all. But, what about my husband? My business partner? They all believed in Jesus. Are they going to miss out on Jesus’ coming?”

This was the question Paul was attempting to answer. Not, “Hey Paul! What’s gonna happen to us when Jesus comes back?” This is the question that moderns ask. It’s an entirely different issue. And, if we start from there, we will miss Paul’s point completely.

So, knowing the question, what was Paul’s response? This is where the literal, simple readers of the text get completely turned around. They generally say something along the line of what Darby & Pals did.

And, they would be mistaken.

The language that Paul used was something that everyone to whom he wrote would understand. It was, after all, part of their culture. Paul responded that when Jesus returned all who had died would be raised from the dead. Resurrected just like Jesus. (I can hear the collective “Whew!” from everyone hearing this.) After that, all who were alive would be snatched up to meet Jesus somewhere in the clouds.

That’s it. Nothing more. There is nothing in this text that indicates where they would go from there. Yes, they were promised that they would be with Jesus always. But, the location is nowhere to be found in this letter.

This truly begs the question, WHY NOT?

The short answer to that is that they already knew!

“Whoa! What! Hold on, Mike! How could they know if Paul didn’t tell them?”

Context, context, context my friends. It’s all about the context.

And, in the next post we’ll see what this means.

Please use the comments to share your thoughts and questions.

And, Please share with one and all! Your friends, neighbors, the mailman!

Leave a Comment

Context, Context, Context!

Published by mhelbert on February 22, 2018

We now have an idea about where the idea of dividing history into Ages or Dispensations came from.

Theologians, trying to make sense of how God seems to change the way that God relates to humans, came up with a structure that allowed the ‘unchanging’ God to actually ‘change.’

This idea grew and morphed until Darby and Friends created the Dispensationalism that we have all grown to know and love. They devised a mechanism that allows God to judge the World with wrath and fire. At the same time they added an escape hatch for “true believers.” (And, we all know that “true believers” were ONLY those who believed exactly as they did.)

So, let’s begin to take a closer look at the so-called Biblical basis for this.

DISCLAIMER:
I realize that some of you who read this blog have not spent a lot of time studying the Bible. You may not have opened one since you were a teenager. Some of what I write here may seem strange. That’s because, well, it is. At least for those of us living in the 21st century. I will attempt to keep my assumptions and language accessible to everyone. PLEASE, if I am not clear about something, let me know in the comments and I’ll try to explain things better.
Thanks!

Context! Context! Context!
Anyone who has seriously studied ancient texts knows that context is everything. Not just literary context, how one part of the text is related to others around it. But, the social and cultural contexts of the writer and original reader of the text is also necessary. Missing this piece may cause folks to read an ancient text and assume that their own contemporary context is what’s important in any interpretation. It is Not! That’s where folks like Darby get things seriously wrong.

There are a few primary Biblical texts that dispensationalists use to build their fantasy. The first one that I want to deal with is in St. Paul’s first letter to the Church at Thessalonica. These people lived in an area of Macedonia, (modern day Greece), on the northern tip of the Aegean Sea. It’s location as a port city meant that the population was pretty diverse. It also meant that the population was decidedly pagan. Yes, there was a small community of Jewish folks. We know that because the story of Paul’s arrival recorded in Acts 17 states that there was a “synagogue of the Jews.” It was Paul’s custom to go to the synagogue of each city he came to. In the synagogue he would attempt to reason with the Jews in order to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, their long-awaited Messiah. However, like in most Greek cities Paul & Co. visited, there were a number of non-Jewish people who also attended the synagogue. These folks were referred to as “God fearing Greeks.” As Paul spoke he convinced some of his Jewish sisters and brothers about Jesus. It was also recorded that a “large number” of the Greeks were convinced as well. This ultimately lead some of the Jews to stir up opposition to Paul and his team. So much so, that they had to hurriedly leave Thessalonica to save their skin.

That leads us to Paul’s letter.

Most scholars believe that after Paul got kicked out of Thessalonica he worried so much about the people that he’d left that he sent an envoy back to check on them and to encourage them. Paul was that kind of guy. He didn’t simply blow into town, sell some snake oil, and skate out of town. He was truly a pastor who cared about people.

When his partner, probably a guy named Timothy, returned he gave a report that both encouraged and concerned Paul. The small community that he had established was doing well in some areas. They understood what it meant to love one another and that it was necessary to stick together in the face of mounting opposition from others in the city. You see, it was very difficult for people to try to follow a God who was not Caesar. But, they seemed to be doing ok.

There were, however, a couple areas of concern for Paul. Because he had to leave in a hurry, he did not have the time to teach them fully. There were things that were lacking in the Thessalonians’ knowledge base that Paul needed to address. One of those things had to do with what would happen when Jesus returned to Earth. “Returned to Earth!” you say. Yes, you read that right. One of the foundational beliefs of the Christian Church is that one day Jesus will return to Earth as King and Judge. Paul had apparently begun to talk about this to the Thessalonian believers. However, it seems as though he didn’t really get to elaborate much about the details. We don’t have any letters or other documentation to show exactly what the Thessalonians were wondering about. But, from Paul’s responses we can get an idea.

Apparently, the Thessalonians were under the impression that when Jesus returned the people who were alive would see that and receive whatever blessing and advantage that Jesus brought. But, since Paul had left, some members of the community had died. What was going to happen to them? Would they be totally left out?

Hence, Paul’s letter of explanation.

Well, this post is getting pretty long. So, Paul’s explanation and what I, and many others, believe about this rapture thing will need to wait til the next post.

Again, if you have questions or other ideas, let me know in the comments.

Leave a Comment

Dispensationalism: The Short Version

Published by mhelbert on February 16, 2018

Ok, class. It’s time for a vocabulary quiz.

What was that word I used in the last post?

“Dispossessed?”

“Antidisestablishmentarianism?”

“Dipsy-doodle?”

Nope, none of the above.

It was “dispensationalism.”

Yeah, I know, it’s a mouthful.

But, what exactly is it? And, what does it have to do with that thing called the Rapture?

Besides being a thing that fundamentalists like to say in order to sound intelligent, it’s an idea that has it’s roots in the earliest writings of the Church.

In his seminal work, City of God, Augustine of Hippo viewed history as divided into various stages. In books 15 – 17 Augustine divides the history of the world by Biblical events. The time of Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel until Noah’s flood. From the flood up to Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. He then follows Abraham until the time of Israel’s kings; the kings through until the time of Christ. For him these were distinct eras that revealed how God related to humanity.

Darby, too, viewed history through the lens of the Christian scriptures. His view, as reconstructed by C.I. Scofield after him, was a bit more detailed and religious sounding. His view looked a bit like this:

Innocence, between creation and the Fall.
Conscience, between the Fall and Noah’s flood.
Human government, from the flood to the call of Abraham.
Promise, from Abraham to Moses.
Law, from Moses to the death of Christ.
The Church, from the resurrection to the present.
The Millennium.¹

Such divisions are tools that some theologians use to describe how God relates to God’s universe so we may perhaps understand how God works. People like patterns. We see them in the wood grain of doors and in the clouds. Theologians see patterns in Holy Writ and try to describe them so that we might better understand God.

The problem with Darby and Scofield’s view is that in order for it to work the Bible must be taken literally. Every historic event must have happened just as it was written. God must have created the earth ex nihilo, out of nothing. There must have been only two humans created by God, Adam and Eve. From them all the humans who have ever lived must have been descended. An actual Earth ending flood must have occurred in which only a handful of people survived aboard a big boat. And, that boat contained representatives of every species of animals from the whole earth!

The parts of the Bible that are considered ‘prophetic’ are also read literally. And, this misunderstanding is the foundation of dispensationalism. One writer noted, “The hermeneutic [interpretation] of ethnic and geographic literalism in prophecy is base on the assumption that prophecy is nothing but history ahead of time. Consequently, it ascribes to the prophetic portrayals the exactness of a photographic picture in advance.²”

Ok, ok…I get it. This theological mumbo-jumbo is all well and good. But, what does it have to do with the so-called ‘rapture’?

It all ties in with Darby’s view of history. Another writer stated,

What separated Darby’s dispensationalism was his novel method of biblical interpretation, which consisted of a strict literalism…and the separation of the rapture (the “catching away” of the church) from Christ’s Second Coming. At the rapture, he said, Christ will come for his saints; and at the Second Coming, he will come with his saints.³

Ah, there it is! The Rapture! What Darby was saying was that at the end of the sixth dispensation, “The Church,” Jesus was going to return to Earth and ‘snatch’ all of the Christians who had ever lived up into the clouds to join Him. He then would take them to heaven. This would happen just before the Great Tribulation and the 1,000 year reign of Christ. (All of this was mentioned in my previous post.)

Darby added a couple of things. Instead of the dispensation of the Church leading right into the 1,000 year reign of Christ, (the Millennium), he added the rapture and the tribulation.

But, why did he do that?

It goes back to his literal reading of the Bible. There are several passages that he used to develop this idea. And, in the next post we’ll begin to dig into those passages to see what the writers were actually trying to say.

¹ McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology:An Introduction, 4th ed., Blackwell, Oxford, 2007, p. 476.
² LaRondelle, Hans K., The Israel of God in Prophecy, Berrien Springs, Mich., Andrews University Press, 1983, p. 141. Qtd. In Bloesch, Donald G., The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory, IVP Academic, 2004, p. 97-98.
³ http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/pastorsandpreachers/john-nelson-darby.html. Accessed 01/27/2018.

Leave a Comment

The Rapture Invented

Published by mhelbert on February 9, 2018

John Nelson Darby – The Father of Modern Dispensationalism

When I was a member of the Evangelical church I was taught that we, and we alone, were a direct descendants of the original 1st century church. You see, the other churches had in some way compromised the original teachings and doctrines through traditions and other accouterments to make people feel better and more comfortable. The original church was militant and counter-cultural. Not like those Romans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. So, we needed to recapture that original zeal and press forward. You know, Onward Christian Soldiers and all of that.

Part of our position was that we were learning the true, original doctrines that built that first Church. While the Roman Church had their ‘direct link’ through the papacy, we had ours through the Word of God! Ha! Our Word trumps your weird hat!

This belief included the so-called truth about what the writers of the Bible called the ‘end of days.’ And, of course we had the true understanding of what Paul and Jesus and Peter and the writer(s) of Daniel meant when they wrote about such things. Oh, and it goes without saying we completely understood what John the Seer meant when he penned his magnum opus, The Revelation.

We knew that they all wrote about events that were absolutely going to happen. There would be a period of time when people would fall away from the true faith. Check. That happened a long time ago. And, things were only getting worse.

Jesus was going to return to judge the world. This was clear from the Scripture. But, before that judgment, Jesus himself was going to gather all of the ‘true believers,’ (re. Everyone who believed just like we did). He was going to “snatch” us up into the clouds and take us to live with him forever in heaven. Wow! How exciting was that!

After the snatch and grab, there would be a 7 year period when a guy called the “anti-Christ” was going to set up shop. Lots of plagues and really bad stuff was going to happen to all of those poor folks who were left behind. At the end of the 7 years there was going to be a big war called Armageddon and Jesus would come back and destroy all of his enemies and establish a 1,000 year reign. During that time there would be blissful peace and a whole lot of Kumbaya.

Hey! Don’t be like that! It’s in the Book. Anyone with any sense can see it. As Larry Norman sang, “How could you have been so blind?”

In the Book?

Exactly what the original Church believed?

Really?

It’s time for a brief history lesson.

One source stated “Prior to 1830, no church taught it [the rapture] in their creed, catechism or statement of faith.”

Prior to 1830? What happened to all that stuff about the Original Church believing this? Didn’t they preach about the ‘snatching up’ of the faithful? Hmmm…

More importantly, what happened in 1830?

What changed then to inaugurate this whole rapture thing?

First, I think that it’s important to understand that this particular period of history was one in which there was rapid change in society. These changes were reflected in philosophy, theology, and pretty much every other area of life and culture. This was precipitated by the period known as the Enlightenment. While the actual period of the Enlightenment was in the late 17th through the 18th century, it’s effects were felt well into the 19th. The idea that humanity was on an upward trajectory toward some elusive perfection was one hallmark of this movement. The industrial revolution was in full swing during this period. Darwin published “On the Origin of the Species.” The idea that human reason was the most important resource in the universe was coming to fruition.

The old way of thinking about God and Providence was questioned. And, in many cases, found wanting.

Foundations were shaken. The entire Western worldview was being recast in the image of Humankind.

So, it’s not unreasonable that there were various reactions against this move against the divine. Nor is it surprising that during this time other neo-Christian organizations were born. Joseph Smith and the Mormons: 1830; Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science: 1879; Charles Taze Russel and the Watchtower: 1881.

There was also a less famous movement that began during this period. (At least less famous because it did not result in an entire new belief system.) A man named John Nelson Darby, 1800-1882, formed a group that became known as the Plymouth Brethren. Through this group Darby developed a theological model that he called “dispensationalism.” This idea gave birth to what we now call the “rapture.”

But, how this worked in Darby’s mind is the topic of my next post.

Stay tuned!!!

Leave a Comment

I Wish We’d All Been Ready

Published by mhelbert on February 6, 2018

A couple weeks ago a friend of mine on Facebook mentioned that she had talked with someone about Jesus. During the conversation an old song was brought up. The song was “I Wish We’d All Been Ready” by Larry Norman. The song was released in 1969. It became a hit among Christian evangelicals who were becoming caught up in what might be called “rapturemania.” Films like “A Thief in the Night” produced by Donald W. Thompson and a book by Hal Lindsey entitled “The Late Great Planet Earth” became popular during this time.

I was a freshman in High School when I read Lindsey’s book. At that time, I was what later became known as a ‘seeker.’ I was searching for my identity and finding the idea of Jesus and the Christian faith a viable option. Lindsey seemed to be able to unlock secrets in the Bible and link them to the condition of the world at that time. This “revelation” made the Bible something other than an ancient document written by a bunch of dead people. It made it alive and relevant. To a 15 year old kid Lindsey’s book was transforming.

The reason I mention this is because the imagery of Biblical language, like that found in the books of Daniel and Revelation touches people at a deep, emotional level. It’s not like the legal and history-like language that makes up much of the Scripture. This type of literature, called apocalyptic, is full of exciting images of beasts and fire. There is cosmic warfare and people who loom larger than life. All of this can touch people at a visceral level like no other genre of literature can. When someone like Lindsey comes along and links these images to current reality, people sit up and listen. We ask, “Can this really be true?” We then may answer ‘Yes.’ At that point we are drawn into something that is larger than we are. Something with Earth changing potential. And, it’s still a secret to everyone else. It’s a secret that we’re privy to. And, that adds to the allure of these things.

So, what exactly am I talking about?

I’m talking about how the concept of the ‘end times’ as explained by Norman, Lindsey, and others like Tim LaHaye and John Hagee have turned people’s hearts and minds to something that at best is an errant theology. And, at worst a heresy that has the potential of destroying people’s lives.

I hope to explain some of this in this post and subsequent ones by showing where these ideas came from, why it is misleading, and why it is so very toxic to people and to the Church.

First, let me share the lyrics to Norman’s song. This song is a snippet of what many in the Evangelical church believe as ‘rapture theology.’

“I Wish We’d All Been Ready” by Larry Norman
Life was filled with guns and war,
And everyone got trampled on the floor,
I wish we’d all been ready
Children died, the days grew cold,
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold,
I wish we’d all been ready,
There’s no time to change your mind,
The Son has come and you’ve been left behind.

A man and wife asleep in bed,
She hears a noise and turns her head, he’s gone,
I wish we’d all be ready,
Two men walking up a hill,
One disappears and one’s left standing still,
I wish we’d all been ready,
There’s no time to change your mind,
The Son has come and you’ve been left behind.

Life was filled with guns and war,
And everyone got trampled on the floor,
I wish we’d all been ready,
Children died, the days grew cold,
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold,
I wish we’d all been ready,

There’s no time to change your mind,
How could you have been so blind,
The Father spoke, the demons dined,
The Son has come and you’ve been left behind.
Larry Norman, “I Wish We’d All Been Ready”, 1969, Capitol Records, Prod. Hal Yoergler

The words are a poetic take on a portion of the Bible found in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. These images are part of Jesus’ discourse with his disciples about something Jesus had just said to them. They were leaving the Temple in Jerusalem after Jesus had pretty much dismissed the religious leaders as a bunch of self-seeking men who took advantage of people in order to look good themselves, (and improve their own image).

Jesus began by stating that the Temple was going to be completely destroyed. He said, “There will most certainly not be one stone upon another left here that will not be torn down.” Then the writer recorded a long litany of things and events that would happen before the Temple’s ultimate destruction.

These things and others will be the topic of future posts.

So, stay tuned!

2 Comments

Young Jesus at the Temple

Published by mhelbert on October 22, 2017

We briefly meditated on some of the events of Jesus’ birth. Now, I want to take us on a brief side trip to the Temple at Jerusalem when Jesus was a young boy. This meditation is based on text from the Gospel according to Luke.

I am following the actual text with a brief explanation of why I think that these types of meditations can have real meaning. Later this week, I’ll share the meditation from this text.

Luke 2:41-52 (NASB)

41) Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the
Passover.
42) And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast;
43) and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,
44) but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.
45) When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him.
46) Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.
47) And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.
48) When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.
49) And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”
50) But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.
51) And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.
52) And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

It’s important to remember that the purpose of these exercises is to learn to know Jesus better in order to love him more. That’s a difficult endeavor. After all, Jesus died 2,000 years ago. I’m sure that many of you have heard the statement, “dead men tell no tales.” But, the New Testament does tell a tale. It is the story of a young man who lived and loved passionately. He had a special place in his life for those who dwelt on the margins of society. The sick and infirm; the hungry and poor; the oppressed and rejected. These were the people he was drawn to…and, who were drawn to him.

At the end, the tale seems to grow taller. This young man was cruelly put to death by the Roman occupiers of his homeland. He was buried in a tomb. Three days later, so the story goes, he came back from the dead. He was seen by many others who later attested to this miraculous event. Then, he was gone. There are many people who try to say where it is that he went. The consensus opinion is that he went to a heavenly paradise where he lives to this day.

If there is any veracity to this tale, then perhaps it is possible for us, today, to get to know him. Of course, it’s easier to get to know folks on Facebook. At least there we can see text and images that real flesh and blood people share. We can’t know Jesus that way. We can only know him through something that the ancients called ‘faith.’ That’s a really hard word to get a handle on. So, let’s change it a bit. The New Testament was written in a form of Greek. The word that was used to express ‘faith’ is the same word that was often used to denote ‘trust.’ So, let’s say that we can know the person, Jesus bar Joseph, if we trust him. If we trust that when we use our minds to enter the stories as participants or observers, Jesus actually guides us. How does that work? Well, what do you get when you cross an elephant with a rhino? But, I trust. I truly think that as I insinuate myself into the stories, Jesus somehow shares a bit of himself with me. He allows me to know him a little better. And, the more I get to know him, the more likely I am to follow him.

Yeah, it’s a convoluted process. It depends on thinking somewhere outside the box. But, for me, it’s reality.

And, I’m sharing a bit of my reality with you. A part of me hopes that I can introduce the human Jesus to you. Not that theological, otherworldly myth created by the church. You know, the one where Jesus stands with his finger on the ‘Smite’ button. Ready to squash any so-called sinner or heathen for the slightest misstep. But, the Jesus who touched and healed a blind beggar. The man who released people from the bondage of disease and death. The person who loved his friends and literally gave his life so that they could live.

I want to introduce you to Jesus, my friend.

Please share your thoughts in the comments and click on the ‘Subscribe’ button!

If you know anyone who might be interested in reading these, please share!

Leave a Comment

Flight to Egypt

Published by mhelbert on October 19, 2017

This is the fourth part of my meditation on the Nativity. It will also be the last on this topic. In the next installment we’ll take a quick detour through Jesus’ childhood before spending substantial time on his public ministry.

King Herod was livid. He had met a few days earlier with a group of astrologers from the East, so-called Magi. They reported seeing a star that, according to their charts, revealed the birth of a new King in Israel. Arriving in Jerusalem, they had been brought to Herod, the current King of Israel. He welcomed them and inquired about their journey.

“In the western sky, the heavens revealed a new thing!” one of them exclaimed. “A King has been born! A King who will rule over Israel!”

Another said, “We followed the star so that we may worship the child!”

While Herod was gracious to these strangers, he was not happy about their message. However, he wanted to keep them happy in order to get as much information from them as possible.

The travelers were treated to a special feast before being sent on their way to continue following the star.

“When you find this child, return to me with a full report. I, too, wish to see this new King and worship him,” Herod charged them.

Days later, reports came to Herod that the Magi had left Israel secretly. No one crossed Herod! He had killed one wife and several of his own children! The great Caesar Augustus had once remarked that it would be better to be one of Herod’s pigs than one of his sons. Who did these damned foreigners think that they were? All of Jerusalem was on edge because of the King’s rage. Herod considered himself God’s anointed King. After all, he had built up the Temple and made it the envy of the whole world. His building projects were unrivaled in the Roman empire. How could God allow something like this? In Herod’s world, there was only ONE King!

Someone would pay for this. He would send a clear message to ANY would-be usurpers. A message that would not be quickly forgotten.

Meanwhile, in Bethlehem, Joseph had a dream. In the dream an angel warned him that Herod was sending soldiers to kill Joseph’s new son.

“Flee! Go where Herod cannot find you! Go west to Egypt!”

Joseph woke soaked with sweat and his heart racing.

“Mary! Wake up! The Lord sent a warning! We must leave here! NOW!!!”

The young family packed quickly and found a group of merchants going to Egypt. When they finally arrived, they found a community of Jews where they were welcomed. Joseph was especially welcomed. A good carpenter was always needed. Mary, Joseph, and the young Jesus were comfortable and safe there. But, it was not ‘home.’

As they were on their way to Egypt, Herod’s forces arrived in Bethlehem. They went from door-to-door and put all boys who were two years old and younger to the sword. Herod made sure that he would have no rivals.

A few years later Joseph was again visited in a dream. The messenger told him that it was safe to return to Israel. Those who had plotted to kill the young Jesus were now dead.

Joseph packed up his family and traveled back to Israel. But, because of fears about Herod’s successor, Joseph took the family to Nazareth rather than back to Bethlehem.

As I reflected on this story I felt the fear and anxiety that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus experienced. We in this culture can’t truly understand what it’s like to pack up all of our belongings and run for our lives. They went from a comfortable home with family and friends to refugee status over night. I sensed, though, that both Mary and Jesus had a deep trust in Joseph’s leadership.

So many historiographers portray Jesus as somewhat immune to ordinary emotions such as fear and anxiety. He is shown as a person who is in total control, rather than a normal child. For these writers Jesus would certainly not trust in a mere human! He had a hotline to God! Yet, the stories in the synoptic Gospels show a human side to Jesus. I can follow someone who understands life as a vulnerable person. He was a child who depended on his parents for his life and well-being. He was a real person whom I can relate to.

However, not everything about this meditation was easy. I had a very difficult time with this story. God had sent a messenger to Joseph to warn him of Herod’s plan. There is nothing here that would indicate that Joseph knew the lengths to which Herod would go. I don’t think that he would have run away without warning others if he knew that Herod was going to kill all of the young boys. And, if Joseph would have warned others, why didn’t God? They could have taken their children away until Herod’s anger cooled. But, that didn’t happen. How many children lost their lives in this massacre because God neglected to warn them. Did God not care? These are the kinds of hard questions that people ask. And, for many, or most, the answers are wholly inadequate. Who could swear allegiance to and follow a God who would allow such an atrocity?

I asked the Father, why? Why were the parents not warned? I sat quietly waiting for some kind of response. Eventually, I got a ‘reply.’ I did not hear any audible voice. I can’t say with certainty that ‘God said…’ This was all taking place in my mind. But, according to Albus Dumbledore, that doesn’t mean it’s not real.

What I heard was, “Do you really believe that I would do that?”

Whoa! What? You’re saying that the story is not true? If not, why did the writer include it? Did he add this simply in order to use the Jewish Scriptures to add some kind of credibility to the life of Jesus? He wrote about Rachel’s wailing and how God called his son out of Egypt. Both plot points that this story makes possible.

In the light of what I’ve learned about God over the last several years and the response noted earlier, I must view this passage as a literary device. It appears that the writer, 1) Did want to tie the passages in the Jewish Scriptures to show that Jesus was, indeed, the Chosen One of Israel, and 2) To show the utter depravity of Herod. And, by extension, the entire Herodian culture.

We can dismiss the historicity of this passage. But, we cannot cut it out of the text. Regardless of what we may think, this story is part of the inspired canon. What we can do, however, is put it in its place under the feet of God.

I’m fairly sure that Ignatius wouldn’t approve of where I’ve gone with this. But, it is impossible for me to attribute the massacre of innocent children to the loving and merciful Father that I know. Nor, can I ascribe some abstract notion of sovereignty and authority to this.

The God that I worship would NOT be complicit in such an act…PERIOD!

Please use the comments section to share any thoughts that you may have.

Also, consider sharing this with others!

Leave a Comment

More Sunday Musings

Published by mhelbert on October 15, 2017

This morning I was listening to Fr. Gene Sherman continue his messages on the Apostles’ Creed. The purpose of this series is to give people a basic foundation for belief held my followers of Jesus. While I don’t agree with some of what Gene shares, (there is no compulsion to do so), I do find it refreshing listening to someone who actually learned how to do exegesis. Unlike so many others that I’ve heard.

Today Gene spoke on the portion of the creed that states, “I believe…in the forgiveness of sins.” That idea is absolutely foundational to Christian belief. God is the one who is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.”

One example he used was the story of the Father and Two Sons in the Gospel according to Luke, Chpt. 15. Gene gave the usual take on how gracious the father was to both sons. After being so unjustly used by the youngest, the father received him home again with open arms.

What struck me today, though, was something I had read dozens of times, but failed to really recognize. That’s not unusual with a pericope like this that is so packed with good stuff.

The story goes that a young man left his father and brother and took his inheritance. He then lost it all living an extravagant lifestyle. Ultimately, he had to hire himself out to someone who put him to work feeding pigs. To a Jewish ear, no one could fall further than that. Finally, the young man “came to his senses” and thought that while he sat there with nothing to eat, his father’s servants had plenty to fill their bellies.

What caught my ear was that when he realized what he had done, the first thing he thought of was his stomach. Hunger had driven him to a place where he could decide to return to his father’s home. It overcame his pride and shame.

So, he left for his fathers home, all the while rehearsing the lines he would use to ingratiate himself with his father.

(Now, before anyone gets their boxers in a bunch about how I worded that last sentence, let me be clear about something. I truly believe that the young man in the story was repentant. Somewhere along the line he realized that he had treated his father shamefully. He had, in fact, wished him to be dead by asking for his inheritance. I’m not diminishing that at all. But, we all have many motives for the things that we say and do.)

When he finally returned home, his father ignored all social protocol and ran to meet his son. He welcomed him home with new clothes and reinstated him to the family with his own signet ring. What happened next is what struck me.

He held a banquet and slaughtered the ‘fattened calf.’

The young man came to his senses spurred on by his hunger. Here, his father lavishly welcomed him with a great feast.

Many who exegete this emphasize the father’s role with both sons. With the youngest is the way in which the father went ‘over the top’ in his welcome. Jesus used this story to show the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, (those who thought that they were the true keepers of the faith; the ‘gatekeepers’ to bring it into contemporary parlance), that they, in fact, did NOT know the Father. Their preconceptions of a righteous and just God mandated that their ‘god’ be bitter and retributive to those who acted, well, like the young son in the story. Yet, Jesus revealed a Father who was willing to stoop to unbelievable low levels in order to welcome the young man and lavish good things on him.

That is how God is. When we are hungry and starving, God is there to prepare a great feast for us when we return. God gives from God’s own abundance to the weary and wayward. BTW, God also gives “everything he has” to the older son who remained with him faithfully. But, for those of us who come to our senses, God has a special welcome for us.

Please feel free follow this blog and share your thoughts in the comments!

Also, if you know anyone who may be interested in some of the things written here, Please share with them!

Leave a Comment

How Can a Follower of Jesus Reconcile Violence in the Scripture?

Published by mhelbert on September 3, 2017

*Note: This by no means a comprehensive treatment of the question of violence in the Scripture. These mental ramblings are simply meant to inspire thoughtful reflection.

I read and listen to a lot of different people with widely varying worldviews. There are evangelicals and progressive Christians. Over there are the atheists and the Nones. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists. I entertain the thoughts and ideas of many people. Every once in a while, even a fundamentalist Christian sneaks in.

The reasons that I do this are many and varied. I’m not afraid of ideas and questions. We are all passengers on this Pale, Blue Dot hurtling through space. We all have responsibilities to each other and to the planet itself. We neglect these responsibilities at our own peril.

I’ve interacted with folks outside of my own faith tradition, several who question the basic morality of Christians and even the Christian God.

They react to Christians who say “God is love,” or “You can’t be a moral person without God as your moral compass.” They site the number of people who say that they follow Christ, yet live like someone has placed a magnet too close to their ‘moral compass.’ It doesn’t seem to lead them toward true North, but toward some barren desert on the outskirts of BFE, (you can Google that yourself).

It isn’t a far stretch for them to observe that if someone claims to live according to the words of their god, then that god MUST be of similar moral and ethical fiber as they are themselves.

So, the questions arise, “What about how your God commanded His people to totally destroy their enemies”? “Their enemies’ women and children?” “What kind of god would command such a thing?”

And, they are justified to ask such hard questions. The sacred texts of all of the Abrahamic faiths have passages that talk about the so-called righteous destruction of god’s enemies. And, in some cases, people who are not enemies, but happen to be living in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Believers then feel compelled to defend God. (Like that’s even possible.) They respond with things like, “Well, God is God and can do whatever God wants to do.” Or, “God must have given those people a chance to repent, but they chose not to.” Still others simply say, “I don’t know, but if God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Worse yet, many conservative believers use these texts to excuse violence against ‘others.’

Progressives don’t fare much better. They rationalize the text by alluding to the fact that these are ancient texts written by and for ancient people. So, it looks like God simply met them where they were culturally and ‘allowed’ certain behaviors that we enlightened folks in the 21st century find abhorrent. Or, they just ignore these texts. Of course, these are non-answers that simply seek to avoid the hard questions.

In fact, any and all responses like these do nothing more than perpetuate the idea that God is some sort of sadistic monster.

Then there’s the curve ball…Jesus.

The God that I see revealed through Jesus as recorded in the Gospels looks nothing like the God displayed in the Hebrew Bible.

What should one do with this apparent contradiction?

One person in the 2nd century C.E. came up with a unique way to look at this conundrum. His name was Marcion. Marcion came up with the idea that the God of the Hebrew Bible was not the same God as the Father of Jesus Christ. According to theologian Alister McGrath, Marcion believed that “The Old Testament relates to a different God from the New; the Old Testament God, who merely created the world, was obsessed with the idea of law. The New Testament God, however, redeemed the world and was concerned with love.”^[1] Historian Justo L. Gonzalez adds, according to Marcion “Jehovah is an arbitrary god, who chooses a particular people above all the rest. And he is also vindictive, constantly keeping an account on those that disobey him, and punishing them. In short, Jehovah is a god of justice–and an arbitrary justice at that.”^[2]Marcion went so far as to create his own canon that eliminated texts that did not conform to his special interpretation.

I suppose that’s one way to deal with the hard sayings of the Bible. Just cut them out and ignore them.

The thing is, we really don’t have that option. We’re stuck with what we’ve got.

So, how do we reconcile God with divine and human violence?

Simply put, we don’t; we can’t.

To explain away texts that the Church considers inspired in some simple, easy-to-wrap-my-brain-around-the-unwrappable isn’t something that we are entitled to do.

But, there may be another way to read these texts without ignoring or reading past them.

Recently, while spending time in contemplation, a thought occurred to me. Human history has been fraught with acts of violence and genocide. We don’t need to look any further than our own history in the U.S. Our very existence as a nation came about at the hands of European domination that was given strength by the Bishop of Rome, himself. In the late 15th century, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal Bull entitled, “Inter Caetera.” Basically, the Pope stated that any land that was not inhabited by Christians was available to be “discovered” and dominated by Christians. That’s how Columbus could get lost, yet “discover” land that was already occupied.

But, all of this is another post.

Some countries have recognized the abuses that have been heaped upon others. Notably, South Africa and Canada. Both of these countries have taken steps to reconcile their violent and oppressive pasts.

South Africa had a history of treating the indigenous Blacks living there with forced domination and violence. This system of “apartheid” was designed to keep the white minority in power over Blacks and other people of color at any cost. And, the costs were high. Many died and the freedom of all was taken away.

Finally, after much domestic and international pressure, South Africa ended apartheid in 1994. They set up a tribunal type commission whose mandate was to work toward reconciliation of ALL of South Africa’s citizens. The commission allowed people to have grievances and abuses recorded and, in some cases allowed for amnesty for those who came forward to report their own culpability. It was NOT a way for the oppressed minority to ‘get even.’ It was a way to get the wounds out in the open where they could be treated and healed.

The results have been breath-taking. South Africa has created a functioning democracy that they can be proud of.

Canada also began a process to help heal its own genocidal past. As European colonists invaded North America they ushered in an age of systematic elimination of the Indigenous People who had inhabited this continent for many thousands of years. The brutality and injustice of the colonists knew no bounds. From dislocation, to starvation, to the infamous Boarding Schools, Aboriginal people suffered.

“Reconciliation is about forging and maintaining respectful relationships. There are no shortcuts,” one person involved with the process wrote. It is, in a nutshell, the overarching framework for the Canadian effort. There are many who don’t feel that this goes far enough,. Canada still asks the Aboriginal people to accept the reconciliation effort on the terms of the colonists. This is a valid complaint. But, it is a start. The Canadian government is beginning to understand their own culpability in the genocide and are becoming more inclined to work toward a better relationship with the First Nations.

A common thread in these actions is acknowledging and repenting from earlier behavior that caused hurt to others.

What if we read the violence written in the Scriptures in a similar way?

We could truthfully acknowledge the violence. Yes. Whether the violence actually happened or not, the ancient writers recorded them. And, the people who gathered the early Church Councils canonized them. These facts we must accept because, Duh!, they’re written down.

However, we don’t need to accept the interpretations of these texts that have been passed down to us. God gave us rational minds with which to think and contemplate these words. We are, I believe, commissioned to read the Inspired texts and allow them to live and breathe in our contemporary world. Therefore, we can forcefully denounce the violence for what it was: an abhorrent violation of humanity. There really is no way around it. The actions depicted in Scripture are hateful and bigoted. There is NO redeeming value to them whatsoever.

Through confession and repentance we could claim LIFE for ourselves, our friends and enemies, and the whole of the Cosmos.

I believe that the God revealed in the Gospels would be pleased with this. In fact, maybe God has been patiently waiting for humanity to grasp this. Perhaps we can enter into a new aeon of peace and prosperity with all of our co-inhabitants on this Third Stone From the Sun.

^[1] McGrath, Alister E., “Christian Theology: An Introduction”, 4th Ed., Blackwell Pub., 2007, p. 126.

^[2] Gonzalez, Justo L., “The Story of Christianity:Vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation”, HarperSanFrancisco, 1984, p.61.

***If you like some of things that I share in this space, please feel free to give me a Follow. Also, please share with others who may be interested in these discussions.

As always, feel free to use the comments to express your own thoughts.

Blessings!

Leave a Comment

Thoughts About Original Sin

Published by mhelbert on June 4, 2017

Detail from Jan Breughel & Peter Paul Rubens: The Garden of Eden (1615)

According to some Western Christians, sometime between 7 and 10 thousand years ago, God created the Universe. This event is recorded, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” As the story unfolds, we read that every plant and animal came into being ex nihilo,(out of nothing), through Divine fiat. God spoke it; it came into being. At the end of this first part of the story, God created humans. And, it must be noted, God created the original humans in God’s own image. For millions of people this is historical fact.

In the next part of this story, we learn a little bit more. The actual physical location where God created these humans isn’t known. The story only tells us that after forming the first Human, God put this person in a garden in order to serve and protect it. It was there, in that garden, that God formed the first Woman from a rib taken from the Man. These first Humans lived in that God-made paradise until they were duped by a talking reptile. This talking reptile,(from here known as, the serpent), talked the Woman into eating the fruit from a tree that God had expressly forbidden the humans to eat from. She ate and gave some to the Man, and he ate. This meal even has a name, “Original Sin.”

The whole concept of Original Sin has been discussed among Christians since very early in the Church’s history. However, it really took off in the late 4th century C.E. when a guy named Augustine of Hippo included it in his autobiography, “Confessions.” Taking the Biblical story as his starting point he was able to trace his own personal proclivity toward sin back to the Original couple. Now, we need to understand that there was a belief in the ancient world that character traits could be passed from one generation to the next through semen. Therefore, Augustine understood that the guilt of Adam was passed to every subsequent person ever born. And, this also allowed Jesus to be born without that taint. (Virgin birth and all.)

Later, John Calvin doubled down on this idea. He concluded that not only death and guilt were part and parcel of Original Sin. But, shame and total depravity came along for the ride. And this, my friends, is the heart of reformation theology. There is absolutely nothing good about humanity. In fact, it is impossible for anyone to think or do anything good. God’s wrath and hatred are hanging over us. Only by looking at Jesus can God’s Holy anger be placated. But, heaven help us if God should happen to get a glimpse of our worthless and hated selves.

But, what if that’s not how things happened? What if 7,000 years have not passed since the Earth was formed, but rather, over 4 billion years? What if all the stuff that science has discovered is the truth and there was no first couple? And, therefore, no Original Sin?

This can, (and should), turn the Reformed way of thinking on its head. If there was no Original Sin, then why did Jesus come, live and die? I mean, many of us who were involved with the Fundagelical world of religion preach that Jesus HAD to die in order to break the bonds of Original Sin. He cleansed us from that and enabled us to start over with a clean slate. For lack of a better term, to be “born again”! If Original Sin is out of the mix that whole house of cards crashes.

What’s interesting is that sin isn’t even mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis. God never pointed a Divine finger and said, “Oh, you guys! You really sinned now.” No. God said that death would now become a part of their lives. In fact, sin doesn’t enter into the equation officially until Gen. 4 when God spoke to Adam’s son Cain. God said that sin was crouching at Cain’s door. Cain was encouraged to ‘master’ sin. If there was an Original Sin that was so dire that nothing could ease its effects, how was Cain supposed to be able to master it? No, I don’t think that Original Sin as the Western Church has understood it is a reality. I don’t believe that humans are born depraved as Calvin and Co. would have us believe. But, I do believe that there is an enemy to be overcome. A reason that God chose to come and “pitch a tent,” (John 1:14), among us. And, that enemy is death.

Let this thought percolate for a bit. What does it mean if there was no Original Sin? How does that affect the meaning of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension? Use the comments to express your own thoughts.

Admittedly, this asks more questions that it provides answers. But, it may also open locks on chains that bind many people…too many people.

Leave a Comment