We Protestants have heard so much about 'law versus grace' that the role of the Old Testament has become muddled in our thinking. Our thought model, the paradigm in which we think, is that of 'law versus grace', as if the Old Testament were in opposition to grace. That is what 'versus' means after all, like in an athletic contest, one team versus another as opponents. That is an unfortunate development that, in my opinion, seriously misreads the apostle Paul on this matter.
The epistles of Romans and Galatians both come to mind. In Romans we read things like 'by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified' (Rom. 3:20) and 'for you are not under law, but under grace' (Rom. 6:14). Surely that sounds like the two are opposed! And what about 'Oh foolish Galatians!...did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law?' (Gal. 3:1-3) and again 'by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified' (Gal. 2:16). Yet this same Paul goes to great pains to point out that the Law is good! 'The Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good' (Rom. 7:12), and 'For we know that the Law is spiritual' (Rom. 7:14); in Galatians, he goes on to say that the Law is good because it in fact leads us to grace, rather than being 'versus' grace, when he says, 'Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ that we may be justified by faith' (Gal. 3:24). In both Romans and Galatians, in the very same chapters where he speaks strongly about being under grace instead of under law he also takes pains to point out that the Law is good, holy, and leads us to faith. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah says that in the New Covenant God will write the Law onto the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:31-33). The very nature of grace, of the New Covenant, is that the Law will be written onto our hearts! How can it be 'law versus grace' if receiving God's grace results in God's Law being written on our hearts?
If you look up the word 'Torah', which is the Hebrew word usually translated 'Law', the primary meanings given are 'teaching' and 'instruction' rather than 'Law'. We think of it in terms of 'the Law of Moses' but this Law was given to Moses as God's instructions to mankind. If we replace 'law versus grace' with 'teaching versus grace' it doesn't even make sense; God's instructions to us lead us to grace, they don't oppose it. That makes Paul's comment about the Law being our 'tutor' so much more clear: of course it teaches us! That is the very meaning of the word 'Torah'!
Paul, as a Jew, would have considered the Torah, the Law, a gift from God. He says as much in Romans 9:4 in talking about how God 'gave' the Law and the promises of the Old Testament. In fact, if you ask someone Jewish what they are celebrating at Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks which is also called Pentecost, they will tell you that Shavuot remembers and celebrates the gift of the Torah to Moses, and according to Exodus 19 the first time the date for Shavuot occurred after the first Passover was while Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving the Torah from God. This helps me understand the Acts 2 Pentecost as well: at the first Pentecost, we received the gift of the Law and at the Pentecost of the New Covenant we received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which writes the Law on our hearts!
Viewing the Old Testament as promise and the New Testament as fulfillment, as Dr. Walt Kaiser points out so often in his writing, is a better paradigm than 'law versus grace'. The Torah instructs us so that we might come to grace, which then writes that Torah on our hearts.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Embodied Worship
I have recently been reading Desiring the Kingdom by James K. A. Smith, which considers the importance of our embodied nature on worship and education. I agree with the idea that as evangelical believers we often have a dualistic view of human nature, viewing ourselves as 'souls' that happen to have a body rather than as embodied creatures with a body/soul unified nature. Recognizing that our very humanity involves our bodily nature is the starting point for thinking about whether our worship and education has become too centered on ideas as separate from living in bodily form. This seems to me a worthwhile issue to think about. In the book he challenges the mindset of people as beings whose lives are determined mostly by what we think by proposing that we are beings whose lives are determined mostly by what we love and deeply desire. He proposes that both our worship and education should show forth what we love in visible, bodily ways as well as in propositions and ideas. This kind of approach that involves body as well as ideas he calls 'liturgy'.
What if our worship has unwittingly taken on the 'liturgy' of the shopping mall, he asks? He walks through some 'liturgies' of the secular world like the shopping mall, athletic events, and the university in the book. The question arose in my mind: has the interest in 'contemporary' worship unwittingly taken on the 'liturgy' of the rock concert? Does this show forth our love of God, or our love of the rock concert experience? I recently went to the contemporary service at our church and this book reminded me of the unexpected bodily reaction I had to it. I physically felt it in my stomach, and it was not good. Not quite nausea, but close to that. As I thought of this while reading the book, it occurred to me that what I felt was rather like what I had felt as a college student.
This is something of a diversion, but I entered college at age 17 and did not turn 18 until near the end of my first quarter of school (we were on quarters rather than semesters then). One of the 'rites', or what the book would call 'liturgies' of entering college was that dormitory groups (typically a 'corridor', the area of one dorm Resident Assistant) would have a 'beer blast' with a neighboring dorm (one guys dorm RA and one girls dorm RA as the organizers). While only 3.2% beer was legal for 18 year olds, I was not 18 so I could go along but not drink. I recall how I felt during that 'liturgy', and it was the feeling of being in the wrong place and wishing I was not there. I have had similar physical feelings, 'in the pit of my stomach' so to say, at sports events when surrounded by drunks (though I have not felt that at similar events when surrounded by friends). That feeling is a physical, bodily reaction to what is happening. It isn't just a thought or idea. I had similar feelings at the 'rock and roll' church service.
There is much in the book I don't agree with, however. He seems to be invested in the idea of bodily sacraments as 'means of grace', which I cannot agree with. I think he gives liturgy and bodily habit more credit than it is due in formation of character. As I look at folks I grew up with, those from more liturgical churches have been less like to live out their faith than those from Evangelical churches with less liturgy. Still, most churches have at least some of what the author would call liturgy, and I do think those bodily evidences of faith (like baptism and the Lord's supper) are important. They are just not enough, and in some (especially the so-called 'mainline' churches) there seems to be little beyond the ritual.
Yet, my own bodily reaction at that recent contemporary service tells me that there is something here worth pondering.
What if our worship has unwittingly taken on the 'liturgy' of the shopping mall, he asks? He walks through some 'liturgies' of the secular world like the shopping mall, athletic events, and the university in the book. The question arose in my mind: has the interest in 'contemporary' worship unwittingly taken on the 'liturgy' of the rock concert? Does this show forth our love of God, or our love of the rock concert experience? I recently went to the contemporary service at our church and this book reminded me of the unexpected bodily reaction I had to it. I physically felt it in my stomach, and it was not good. Not quite nausea, but close to that. As I thought of this while reading the book, it occurred to me that what I felt was rather like what I had felt as a college student.
This is something of a diversion, but I entered college at age 17 and did not turn 18 until near the end of my first quarter of school (we were on quarters rather than semesters then). One of the 'rites', or what the book would call 'liturgies' of entering college was that dormitory groups (typically a 'corridor', the area of one dorm Resident Assistant) would have a 'beer blast' with a neighboring dorm (one guys dorm RA and one girls dorm RA as the organizers). While only 3.2% beer was legal for 18 year olds, I was not 18 so I could go along but not drink. I recall how I felt during that 'liturgy', and it was the feeling of being in the wrong place and wishing I was not there. I have had similar physical feelings, 'in the pit of my stomach' so to say, at sports events when surrounded by drunks (though I have not felt that at similar events when surrounded by friends). That feeling is a physical, bodily reaction to what is happening. It isn't just a thought or idea. I had similar feelings at the 'rock and roll' church service.
There is much in the book I don't agree with, however. He seems to be invested in the idea of bodily sacraments as 'means of grace', which I cannot agree with. I think he gives liturgy and bodily habit more credit than it is due in formation of character. As I look at folks I grew up with, those from more liturgical churches have been less like to live out their faith than those from Evangelical churches with less liturgy. Still, most churches have at least some of what the author would call liturgy, and I do think those bodily evidences of faith (like baptism and the Lord's supper) are important. They are just not enough, and in some (especially the so-called 'mainline' churches) there seems to be little beyond the ritual.
Yet, my own bodily reaction at that recent contemporary service tells me that there is something here worth pondering.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
The Tyranny of 'Rights'
As our country has lost sight of the idea of the 'common good' and descended into a collection of conflicting interest groups, the focus has increasingly become 'my rights'. Everyone is concerned about maximizing their personal 'rights' regardless of what that might mean to the common good. Many claim only to want to defend their rights when no else is harmed but that strikes me as patently untrue since their view of 'harm' seems limited to physical attack and pays no mind to even physical harm in the case of abortion, which kills a baby. In fact, the rights talk of today seems to me to have more in common with the arguments used in the mid-1800's to defend slavery than seems to be recognized.
For example, the pro-abortion interests like to say that 'it's my body, my right'. Regarding slaves, the owners felt that 'it is my property, my right' to treat slaves as they wished. The pro-abortion lobby essentially treats unborn babies in the same manner as a slave was treated by owners, as a piece of property to be treated as they chose. The intent seems to be to make it look as if the issue is not about people; rather, it is about property or a 'blob of tissue' which is clearly mine.
Some who favor abortion like to say that the aborted baby is 'better off', assuming that they would be unwanted and therefore abused or at least neglected if allowed to be born. Supporters of slavery often argued that slaves were 'better off', being looked after by a master since most had no education and few if any marketable skills.
Many supporters of slavery liked to circumvent the slavery issue by claiming that the real issue was 'states rights', not slavery. They were just fighting for the rights of states to make their own decisions, they were not defending slavery, even though the main decision that the states wanted to defend was the decision to keep slavery legal. This is much like the 'my body' argument but at the state level instead of the personal level; 'it is our state, and we get to decide'. Similarly, abortionists try to avoid the issue of life by talking about 'freedom of choice' instead of 'right to abortion' since the idea of choice is so much more palatable than killing babies. Both in the case of slavery and in abortion, the idea is that 'freedom of choice' supersedes all other rights, including the right to life itself.
The homosexual lobby takes a similar approach. The approach is to focus on personal autonomy and choice with our own 'property' (body) and neglect the issues about morality and the common good. The idea that marriage is purely private rather than a public institution takes this approach, claiming that homosexual 'marriage' is somehow a right, but this seeks to ignore the public nature of families and child rearing and the common good to society of marriages that both produce children and raise them with both male and female role models, which nearly all studies on the subject have repeatedly demonstrated as vitally important. It is in fact the disintegration of the family that is responsible for much of the social dysfunction in our society, and homosexual 'marriage' adds to that destructive legacy even further.
So it seems to me that the pursuit of 'rights' has become more like tyranny than like freedom, especially since the approach has been to try to force them upon the nation via court action rather than by legislative approval. The pursuit of rights has become a matter of tyranny rather than of freedom.
For example, the pro-abortion interests like to say that 'it's my body, my right'. Regarding slaves, the owners felt that 'it is my property, my right' to treat slaves as they wished. The pro-abortion lobby essentially treats unborn babies in the same manner as a slave was treated by owners, as a piece of property to be treated as they chose. The intent seems to be to make it look as if the issue is not about people; rather, it is about property or a 'blob of tissue' which is clearly mine.
Some who favor abortion like to say that the aborted baby is 'better off', assuming that they would be unwanted and therefore abused or at least neglected if allowed to be born. Supporters of slavery often argued that slaves were 'better off', being looked after by a master since most had no education and few if any marketable skills.
Many supporters of slavery liked to circumvent the slavery issue by claiming that the real issue was 'states rights', not slavery. They were just fighting for the rights of states to make their own decisions, they were not defending slavery, even though the main decision that the states wanted to defend was the decision to keep slavery legal. This is much like the 'my body' argument but at the state level instead of the personal level; 'it is our state, and we get to decide'. Similarly, abortionists try to avoid the issue of life by talking about 'freedom of choice' instead of 'right to abortion' since the idea of choice is so much more palatable than killing babies. Both in the case of slavery and in abortion, the idea is that 'freedom of choice' supersedes all other rights, including the right to life itself.
The homosexual lobby takes a similar approach. The approach is to focus on personal autonomy and choice with our own 'property' (body) and neglect the issues about morality and the common good. The idea that marriage is purely private rather than a public institution takes this approach, claiming that homosexual 'marriage' is somehow a right, but this seeks to ignore the public nature of families and child rearing and the common good to society of marriages that both produce children and raise them with both male and female role models, which nearly all studies on the subject have repeatedly demonstrated as vitally important. It is in fact the disintegration of the family that is responsible for much of the social dysfunction in our society, and homosexual 'marriage' adds to that destructive legacy even further.
So it seems to me that the pursuit of 'rights' has become more like tyranny than like freedom, especially since the approach has been to try to force them upon the nation via court action rather than by legislative approval. The pursuit of rights has become a matter of tyranny rather than of freedom.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Re-teaching the Jewish Feasts
In the Sermon on the Mount, as has been argued by Dr. Walter Kaiser and other Old Testament scholars, Jesus re-teaches Torah. The formula He uses there, 'you have heard it said....but I say' takes a number of mis-taught portions of the Old Testament and re-states them as they are to be understood by the Christian. He also takes on a number of controversial topics like divorce and lust and re-teaches those as well. This re-teaching of Torah is a key component of the gospel of Matthew in his effort to reach out to the Jewish community of his time.
The gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite different from Matthew and indeed from all of the 3 synoptics. As I have recently been reviewing the Jewish festivals and their connection to the New Testament, I took another look at the gospel of John. It is in the gospel of John that 3 Passovers are mentioned, and from that we know that Jesus ministry lasted about 3 years. Some say there were 4 Passovers, thinking that the 'feast of the Jews' mentioned in chapter 5 was another Passover, though I think that unlikely. I tend to agree with Irenaeus on that matter, thinking Pentecost more likely for the event in chapter 5. What I have not heard taught or have read much about is how John seems to organize his entire gospel around the festivals of the Jews. The first Passover mentioned is in Chapter 2; then in Chapter 5 is this unspecified 'feast of the Jews'; in chapter 6 another Passover; in chapter 7 is Tabernacles; in chapter 10 is the 'feast of Dedication', which we know as Hanukkah; and then from chapter 12 until the crucifixion is the final Passover. The other gospels take place primarily in Galilee with short episodes at Jerusalem until the Passion, but in John the action takes place primarily in Jerusalem at these various feasts with periodic episodes in Galilee. This is quite stunning to me yet is rarely even commented upon by preachers or commentaries. John builds his whole story around the times in Jerusalem for these feasts. What's more, the teaching in each feast section aligns exceedingly well with the content of that feast if you know anything about the feast. For example, at Tabernacles Jesus talks about the Light of the World and living water, both of which are dominant themes in the 'last, great day of the feast' as 'living water' is ceremoniously drawn from the spring of Gihon, marched 7 times around the altar and then poured out on the altar, and as giant candelabra with wicks made of old priests garments are lit on the last day that light up the city of Jerusalem so much that it could be seen for miles as it stood on the hill of Zion. Clear connection with the feasts can be made in the other sections as well.
It seems to me that we have overlooked a key aspect of John's gospel. Just as the re-teaching of Torah is a key aspect to the gospel of Matthew, a re-teaching of the meaning of the feasts seems to be central to what John is doing in his gospel. It seems to me that as John presents Jesus as the Christ, part of his argument is based on the feasts, showing how Jesus fulfills the feasts and how he re-taught the feasts to show His fulfillment. This part of his gospel, it seems to me, would be aimed at Jews, not Gentiles. Only Jews would readily make those kinds of connections. That seems to be true still: we Gentiles seem to totally overlook the importance of the feasts in John.
The gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite different from Matthew and indeed from all of the 3 synoptics. As I have recently been reviewing the Jewish festivals and their connection to the New Testament, I took another look at the gospel of John. It is in the gospel of John that 3 Passovers are mentioned, and from that we know that Jesus ministry lasted about 3 years. Some say there were 4 Passovers, thinking that the 'feast of the Jews' mentioned in chapter 5 was another Passover, though I think that unlikely. I tend to agree with Irenaeus on that matter, thinking Pentecost more likely for the event in chapter 5. What I have not heard taught or have read much about is how John seems to organize his entire gospel around the festivals of the Jews. The first Passover mentioned is in Chapter 2; then in Chapter 5 is this unspecified 'feast of the Jews'; in chapter 6 another Passover; in chapter 7 is Tabernacles; in chapter 10 is the 'feast of Dedication', which we know as Hanukkah; and then from chapter 12 until the crucifixion is the final Passover. The other gospels take place primarily in Galilee with short episodes at Jerusalem until the Passion, but in John the action takes place primarily in Jerusalem at these various feasts with periodic episodes in Galilee. This is quite stunning to me yet is rarely even commented upon by preachers or commentaries. John builds his whole story around the times in Jerusalem for these feasts. What's more, the teaching in each feast section aligns exceedingly well with the content of that feast if you know anything about the feast. For example, at Tabernacles Jesus talks about the Light of the World and living water, both of which are dominant themes in the 'last, great day of the feast' as 'living water' is ceremoniously drawn from the spring of Gihon, marched 7 times around the altar and then poured out on the altar, and as giant candelabra with wicks made of old priests garments are lit on the last day that light up the city of Jerusalem so much that it could be seen for miles as it stood on the hill of Zion. Clear connection with the feasts can be made in the other sections as well.
It seems to me that we have overlooked a key aspect of John's gospel. Just as the re-teaching of Torah is a key aspect to the gospel of Matthew, a re-teaching of the meaning of the feasts seems to be central to what John is doing in his gospel. It seems to me that as John presents Jesus as the Christ, part of his argument is based on the feasts, showing how Jesus fulfills the feasts and how he re-taught the feasts to show His fulfillment. This part of his gospel, it seems to me, would be aimed at Jews, not Gentiles. Only Jews would readily make those kinds of connections. That seems to be true still: we Gentiles seem to totally overlook the importance of the feasts in John.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Was Passover a Sacrament?
An article about the recent Southern Baptist debate concerning Calvinism was posted recently on the First Things website, written by a Lutheran who attends the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. Here is a link to that article:
Much of the article has to do with how the Lord's Supper is viewed among Baptists, Calvinists, and Lutherans. At issue is whether the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic and done as remembrance (the traditional Baptist view) or whether it is a sacrament which conveys grace to the participant, which is the traditional Catholic view that was retained by the Reformers when the Protestant churches broke away from Catholicism.
The historic Baptist view seeks to be Biblical, placing most emphasis on Jesus words to 'do this in remembrance of me' (Luke 22:19) and Paul's statement that in partaking we proclaim the Lord's death till He comes and we do this in remembrance of Him (I Cor. 11:24-26). Paul even says it twice, that we do this in remembrance of Jesus. The verses where Jesus says 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood' are taken to be metaphorical, not literal. The sacramental view takes these verses literally, which leads to their teaching of 'transubstantiation' in which these elements become the actual body and blood of Jesus when believers receive the sacrament. Baptists call it 'The Lord's Supper' and do not call it 'Communion' to make it clear that they do not view it as a sacrament since the word 'Communion' (as well as 'Eucharist') are used by churches that view it as a sacrament.
The article linked above, and most Christian discussions of this topic, do not address the Jewish roots of the Lord's Supper. Jesus was observing a Passover Seder when He instituted it. It is clear that He was the fulfillment of Passover as the apostle Paul points out in I Cor. 5:7 ('Christ our Passover has been sacrificed'). Paul's stressing of doing this in remembrance of Christ's work at Passover accords well with the teaching about Passover when it was instituted in Exodus 12:14 where the Scripture says 'this day will be memorial to you'; clearly it is done in remembrance. Exodus also calls it a 'permanent ordinance' for the Jews, and Baptists also refer to the Lord's Supper as an 'ordinance' of the church, not a sacrament. Judaism did not have anything equivalent to sacraments (and still doesn't). However, there were consequences for not keeping commands like keeping the Passover. On that first Passover, failure to apply the blood meant death, and failure to keep it thereafter resulted in being 'cut off' from Israel (Num. 9:13). Paul also lays out consequences for not properly keeping the Lord's Supper in I Cor. 11:27-30 saying that improper observance has resulted in many of them in Corinth being sick or even dying! Paul's teaching about observing the Lord's Supper seems very much in accord with the Jewish ideas about keeping the Passover.
So it seems to me that it is very likely that both Jesus and the disciples would have viewed what Jesus taught in that last Passover before His crucifixion in a similar manner to the way they viewed Passover. It was instituted as a memorial, but with consequences for not being properly observed. In that way it was more than something that is 'merely symbolic' as Baptists are accused of teaching (and often do teach) but was not viewed as a sacrament. It was something in between those two extremes.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
The Beautiful, the Good, and the True
I was reading recently an article reviewing the life and work of theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (you can see the April issue of First Things if interested). It seems that he organized his theological trilogy (which occupies 15 volumes!) around Plato's three 'transcendentals': the beautiful, the good, and the true. The article points out that to von Balthasar the order of these 3 is important; he argues that the beauty of Christ and Christianity is something we perceive in our soul first and that causes us to proceed on to conversion and obedience.
That line of thinking intrigues me. No one would accuse me of being an artist of any kind; I am not overly concerned about style in clothing, cars, or furniture; I don't like a lot of 'stuff' cluttering the wall of my house. So, I don't really spend much time thinking specifically about beauty, at least not in the ornamental sense. In fact, I am rather put off when churches in particular spend a lot of money on what appears to be merely ornamental. When I hear arguments about how we should spend lots of money on furnishings for a church because 'God deserves our best!', I generally consider that as code-speak by whomever is talking for 'I come to this church, and I deserve the best!'. I am much more interested in buildings, cars, and clothing being practical than about their being beautiful. Not that I prefer ugly things; I just think that it should be practical first of all and it should not be overtly ugly. I ordinarily do not think of myself as seeking out something JUST because it is beautiful. I can relate to the Good, since moral excellence stands out so much in our decadent society. I can relate to the True and I tend to think of Christianity primarily as the truth about us, God, and how we relate to each other. I tend not to focus as much on beauty, at least not as an intentional thing.
And yet if I am honest with myself there are some obvious exceptions to this. Music immediately comes to mind. What is it about music that touches us? Some really good music has a special way to reach us that is hard to explain in any way other than because of its beauty. Handel's Messiah, which combines great passages of Scripture with great music, is absolutely majestic at times. I listen to it often, solely for its beauty.
The beauty of nature is another example of beauty that moves my soul. When I have stood at the edge of Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park or on the rim of the Grand Canyon or viewing the Grand Teton mountains across Jackson Lake I have been awed by both its natural beauty and what that beauty reveals to me about the Creator and His beauty.
While I may not be as oriented toward a daily focus on beauty as perhaps an artist or musician might be, still I see that beauty has a unique way of impacting my life and how I understand the world. In reading this thought about how beauty comes as a first, intuitive way of understanding God it did make me wonder about how different folks need different types of witness. While I have responded most to things like the apologetic reasoning of folks like C. S. Lewis, others may respond much more to other things. To my way of thinking, apologetics seems to come first; to von Balthasar, it came last. Beauty came first.
All of this reminds me of Philippians 4:8; '..whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.' To say that we should think on the beautiful, the good, and the true would be a pretty good summary of that!
That line of thinking intrigues me. No one would accuse me of being an artist of any kind; I am not overly concerned about style in clothing, cars, or furniture; I don't like a lot of 'stuff' cluttering the wall of my house. So, I don't really spend much time thinking specifically about beauty, at least not in the ornamental sense. In fact, I am rather put off when churches in particular spend a lot of money on what appears to be merely ornamental. When I hear arguments about how we should spend lots of money on furnishings for a church because 'God deserves our best!', I generally consider that as code-speak by whomever is talking for 'I come to this church, and I deserve the best!'. I am much more interested in buildings, cars, and clothing being practical than about their being beautiful. Not that I prefer ugly things; I just think that it should be practical first of all and it should not be overtly ugly. I ordinarily do not think of myself as seeking out something JUST because it is beautiful. I can relate to the Good, since moral excellence stands out so much in our decadent society. I can relate to the True and I tend to think of Christianity primarily as the truth about us, God, and how we relate to each other. I tend not to focus as much on beauty, at least not as an intentional thing.
And yet if I am honest with myself there are some obvious exceptions to this. Music immediately comes to mind. What is it about music that touches us? Some really good music has a special way to reach us that is hard to explain in any way other than because of its beauty. Handel's Messiah, which combines great passages of Scripture with great music, is absolutely majestic at times. I listen to it often, solely for its beauty.
The beauty of nature is another example of beauty that moves my soul. When I have stood at the edge of Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park or on the rim of the Grand Canyon or viewing the Grand Teton mountains across Jackson Lake I have been awed by both its natural beauty and what that beauty reveals to me about the Creator and His beauty.
While I may not be as oriented toward a daily focus on beauty as perhaps an artist or musician might be, still I see that beauty has a unique way of impacting my life and how I understand the world. In reading this thought about how beauty comes as a first, intuitive way of understanding God it did make me wonder about how different folks need different types of witness. While I have responded most to things like the apologetic reasoning of folks like C. S. Lewis, others may respond much more to other things. To my way of thinking, apologetics seems to come first; to von Balthasar, it came last. Beauty came first.
All of this reminds me of Philippians 4:8; '..whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.' To say that we should think on the beautiful, the good, and the true would be a pretty good summary of that!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Faith Working Through Love
I have recently been reviewing the lives of Leah and Rachel, the two sisters who both were wives of Jacob in the book of Genesis. I find it interesting that so few sermons are preached about Leah. Everyone wants to talk about the love story of Jacob falling in love with Rachel and working for her father, Laban, seven years in order to gain her hand in marriage only to be deceived into taking Leah and having to serve another seven years for Rachel (though he received her in marriage after one week with Leah). There is little mention of Leah in most sermons, and then it is to remark about her 'weak eyes' and how much less attractive she was than Rachel.
God apparently takes a different view. In Genesis 29:31 we see that God had compassion on Leah because she was unloved, and He opened her womb. What is almost never discussed in church is who those children turned out to be. In Genesis 29 and 30 it goes on to list her children. Among her children were both Levi, the ancestor through whom both Moses and the priesthood of Aaron would come, and Judah, the ancestor through whom both David and Jesus the Christ would come. That is to say, both the Torah (the Old Covenant) and Messiah (the New Covenant) were descended through Leah. God's promise to Abraham involved all of Jacob's descendants, but the direct carriers of the promise to bless all nations through Abraham came through Leah.
The picture we have of Rachel, while limited, is not very pretty, though she is depicted as being physically pretty. Her jealousy of Leah's fertility is spoken of in Genesis 30; in Genesis 31 she steals her father's household idol when the time comes for Jacob to leave and return to Canaan. While Leah was worshipping God and seeking to win the favor of both God and her husband Rachel was worshipping idols and acting in jealousy. God shows his favor on Leah, and His promise is carried to fulfillment by her sons, Levi and Judah.
By the time they die it seems that Jacob has finally figured this out: Leah is buried at the same site with Jacob where Isaac and Rebekkah as well as Abraham and Sarah are also buried (see Genesis 49:28-33). Rachel was buried alone at Bethlehem where she died after giving birth to Benjamin, which is about 15 miles from Hebron where Abraham and Sarah were buried. One would think he could have chosen to bury Rachel there since he insisted his own remains be carried there from Egypt. Alternately, he could have asked to be buried with Rachel. It seems that in her burial Leah was recognized as bearer of the promise along with Sarah and Rebekkah. My suspicion is that Jacob had come to recognize that as well.
Of the two, it seems that Leah was the better wife. In our modern glorification of romance we tend to ignore that. In Galatians after a lengthy discussion of Abraham and Sarah, Paul comments that 'In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.' Marriage is always an act of faith but certainly Leah had to act in faith in order to seek the favor of her husband despite such clear disfavor at the start. As C. S. Lewis has pointed out in The Four Loves, romantic love is never enough to provide a firm foundation for marriage, especially in God's eyes.
'Faith working through love'; I like that phrase. It reminds me of Leah.
God apparently takes a different view. In Genesis 29:31 we see that God had compassion on Leah because she was unloved, and He opened her womb. What is almost never discussed in church is who those children turned out to be. In Genesis 29 and 30 it goes on to list her children. Among her children were both Levi, the ancestor through whom both Moses and the priesthood of Aaron would come, and Judah, the ancestor through whom both David and Jesus the Christ would come. That is to say, both the Torah (the Old Covenant) and Messiah (the New Covenant) were descended through Leah. God's promise to Abraham involved all of Jacob's descendants, but the direct carriers of the promise to bless all nations through Abraham came through Leah.
The picture we have of Rachel, while limited, is not very pretty, though she is depicted as being physically pretty. Her jealousy of Leah's fertility is spoken of in Genesis 30; in Genesis 31 she steals her father's household idol when the time comes for Jacob to leave and return to Canaan. While Leah was worshipping God and seeking to win the favor of both God and her husband Rachel was worshipping idols and acting in jealousy. God shows his favor on Leah, and His promise is carried to fulfillment by her sons, Levi and Judah.
By the time they die it seems that Jacob has finally figured this out: Leah is buried at the same site with Jacob where Isaac and Rebekkah as well as Abraham and Sarah are also buried (see Genesis 49:28-33). Rachel was buried alone at Bethlehem where she died after giving birth to Benjamin, which is about 15 miles from Hebron where Abraham and Sarah were buried. One would think he could have chosen to bury Rachel there since he insisted his own remains be carried there from Egypt. Alternately, he could have asked to be buried with Rachel. It seems that in her burial Leah was recognized as bearer of the promise along with Sarah and Rebekkah. My suspicion is that Jacob had come to recognize that as well.
Of the two, it seems that Leah was the better wife. In our modern glorification of romance we tend to ignore that. In Galatians after a lengthy discussion of Abraham and Sarah, Paul comments that 'In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.' Marriage is always an act of faith but certainly Leah had to act in faith in order to seek the favor of her husband despite such clear disfavor at the start. As C. S. Lewis has pointed out in The Four Loves, romantic love is never enough to provide a firm foundation for marriage, especially in God's eyes.
'Faith working through love'; I like that phrase. It reminds me of Leah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)