Monthly Archives: March 2018

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT “PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST”

Posted on by

Since I still teach a variety of Bible classes, as well as have significant personal interest, I see most movies that are about the Bible and/or Christianity. Some are better than others, and some are simply bad — not just filling in details absent in the biblical account, but contradicting what is there. My take on “Paul, Apostle of Christ” is that it is pretty good.

The New Testament book of Acts ends with Paul waiting in Rome for two years for a hearing before Caesar (Acts 28:30 and 31). Primarily following reliable tradition, the movie picks up where the New Testament account ends and tells the story of the Apostle Paul from there through his martyrdom.

The tradition is that Paul was released at the end of the two years, did more evangelism and ministry, and was arrested again when persecution of Christians intensified under Nero. The movie is set during the time when Christians in Rome are being persecuted because Nero blamed them for the great fire in Rome (which most people thought Nero set himself).

In addition to Paul, key characters in the movie that are in the New Testament are Luke and the husband and wife team of Aquila and Priscilla. In the Bible Luke was a physician, a traveling companion with Paul in his ministry, and the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. The movie gets it right in terms of Luke, except we do not know from the Bible if Luke visited Paul in prison as the movie depicts. Aquila and Priscilla are also in the New Testament book of Acts, and in the movie are the leaders of Christians in Rome staying out of sight so as not to be killed.

There are three key players in the movie’s story that are not mentioned in Acts or in tradition. A key figure is Mauritius, the overseer of the prison in which Paul and other Christians are being held, and his wife and daughter are also important to the story.

As would be necessary and expected in any biblically based film, some of the characters and story are no doubt fictional. While Aquila and Priscilla were certainly real in the book of Acts, we do not know if they had a role during Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome. In the movie their leadership with the Christians in hiding is creative and contributes to the story.

The situation of Mauritius and his family also makes a significant contribution to the story being told. I won’t say more about the situation so as not to ruin it for readers who want to see the movie, but it is not hard to imagine something taking place like the movie shows.

If you are inclined to see “Paul, Apostle of Christ” I encourage you to do so. I think you will enjoy it as well as be challenged and encouraged. Remember, a lot of the movie is fiction, but a lot of it also is biblical and based on reliable tradition. At first I was disappointed because my expectations were too high, but I did enjoy it and am glad I went.

Feel free to leave a comment below and/or share this post on Facebook or other social media.

 

 

THIS GOT MY ATTENTION

Posted on by

Usually in these posts I write what I’m thinking, but in this one I want to do something out of the ordinary. Since it was Spring Break last week I did not go to school to teach; and because I had a Texas’ panhandle cold I stayed home all week. I took advantage of the opportunity and as I lay around I did a lot of reading rather than just watching TV. Some of what I read got my attention and I thought some readers might be challenged and encouraged as I was by a few quotes that got my attention.

An observation by Lois Tverberg in her book Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus about devotional reading: “A lot of us do Bible study microwave-style. We gulp down a prepackaged, presweetened devotion with a few slurps of coffee before heading off to work. Is it at all surprising when it’s bland and unmemorable, like a vending machine sandwich?” (p. 10)

Ouch! If our daily (or regular) devotional reading is basically just going through the motions, we probably need to give it a little more focus and energy to get out of it what we need.

A comment from John Dickson in his book A Doubter’s Guide to Jesus about the original sin in the Garden of Eden: “The story of Adam eating from the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ has nothing to do with gluttony and sensuality; it is all about man [sic] wanting to determine for himself, without God’s involvement, what the parameters of ‘good and evil’ should be” (p. 198).

Uh oh! It sounds like it is not up to us to decide what is right or wrong, but that determination is made by God and we need to accept it.

An interpretation of the Bible’s general teaching about submission from Dallas Willard in his book Life without Lack: “. . . submission is not assigning our responsibility to others, abandoning our own judgment, or allowing others to simply dictate to us. It is setting aside our own ideas as supreme and our own will as ultimate, freeing us from the burden of having our own way and of being all-wise in our own eyes” (p.64).

What? So submission is not a dirty word, nor is it exclusively intended for wives. It’s the opposite of thinking we know it all and are always right.

An assessment of Jonathan Edwards in article about him in Comment Magazine by Ray Pennings: “He had a whole-hearted desire to live life to God’s glory. His faith wasn’t simply a set of propositions; it had a comprehensive scope, impacting how he thought about food, vocation, old age, and relationships. A few years later a university friend helped me to put a finger on it when he described Edwards as ‘making natural things spiritual and spiritual things natural.’”

I think I would like to be more like Jonathan Edwards; and I have a ways to go in my growth as Christian.

A teaching from Jesus recorded in Mark 12:38-40, “Jesus also taught: ‘Beware of these teachers of religious law! For they like to parade around in flowing robes and receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces.  And how they love the seats of honor in the synagogues and the head table at banquets.  Yet they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property and then pretend to be pious by making long prayers in public. Because of this, they will be more severely punished’” (NLT).

My mom would have called this “showing off.” I wonder if any of us (especially pastors and preachers) ever act like those bad teachers of religious law.

Feel free to leave a comment below and/or share this post on Facebook or other social media.

PRIME TIME

Posted on by

The phrase Prime Time is used in a variety of contexts. Most prominent, perhaps, is the period of TV programming in the middle of the evening when the most people are watching. Many years ago when we purchased a timeshare (that we finally unloaded a couple of years ago) I noted that certain weeks of the year were designated Prime Time and the rules for using the timeshare those weeks were different.

For the past 45 years or so in my life, Prime Time has meant something different to me vocationally and personally. Prime Time for me comes once a year, but is not the same time each year — it varies. Nor is its length always the same for me; it’s sometimes longer and sometimes shorter. This year Prime Time began for me on Monday.

Prime Time for me each year is anywhere between seven and three weeks before and including Easter Sunday. It was Prime Time for me vocationally all these years because I was serving as a pastor. I never preached the same series, but I always preached a series of sermons leading up to Easter focusing on the life and ministry of Jesus, concluding with his resurrection.

But the reason the time leading up to Easter was Prime Time for me was not just because of the preaching. That period was Prime Time for me also because I always used it to focus on and cultivate my personal spiritual life. Preparing to preach was part of it, but certainly not all of it.

This year will be the fourth Easter since I retired after 30 years as pastor of Discovery Christian Church. It will be the fourth year I haven’t prepared a sermon series leading up to Easter or preached on Easter Sunday. And I am fine with that. Preparing sermons and preaching is a great joy and privilege, but it is also a lot of work!

I haven’t prepared a series or preached on Easter the past three years, but I have maintained my practice of focusing on and cultivating my personal spiritual life. I started reading the Gospel of Mark on Monday thinking if I read a chapter a day five days a week I would read about the crucifixion (chapter 15) on Good Friday and the resurrection (chapter 16) on Saturday or Sunday.

If you don’t have a plan for this year’s Prime Time I invite, challenge, and encourage you to join me. One chapter a day five days a week of Bible reading doesn’t take long, but can be very rewarding—especially during Prime Time!

(Let me know below if you are going to join me in reading Mark these three weeks and/or share this post on Facebook or other social media.)

 

 

 

WHEN IS DIVORCE PERMISSIBLE?

Posted on by

During his ministry Jesus was often questioned by his critics. Several of those questions are still relevant today, and for some the one about divorce is especially challenging.  I have had some significant discussions about divorce the last couple of months and thought a review of the back and forth between Jesus and his critics might be helpful.

Both Matthew (19:1-12) and Mark (10:1-12) record the incident, but the reports are not exactly the same. Nor is this exchange with the Pharisees the only time Jesus discussed marriage and divorce. There is a brief teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:21 and 22 and another in Luke 16:18, neither of which was prompted by a question.

The questioning about divorce took place as Jesus and his disciples traveled from Galilee to Jerusalem. Matthew indicates “Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there” (19:2) while Mark notes “crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them” (10:1). It was typical of Jesus’ ministry that he both healed and taught, and he did so as he made his way to Jerusalem for the last time. What was also typical in the midst of His teaching and healing was that some Pharisees would test Him.

Both Matthew and Mark tell us the Pharisees came to test Jesus, but Matthew’s account of their first question has an additional phrase Mark’s does not have. Mark reports they asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (verse 2). Matthew, however, reports they asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (verse 3). While the questions are not exactly the same, both do reflect the culture of the time with regard to men and women: divorce was an option only for men. A wife did not have that option.

The additional phrase in Matthew’s record of the question not included by Mark (“for any and every reason”) reflects Old Testament teaching and rabbinic interpretation that is not immediately obvious to us when we read it today. And we need keep in mind the initial question in Matthew was intended to “trap” Jesus concerning the acceptability of divorce “for any and every reason.” The question reflected controversy at the time of the interpretation of the teaching about divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1. The New International Version renders Deuteronomy 24:1, “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and writes her a certificate of divorce . . . .”

The question that was debated was the meaning of “something indecent about her.” The two main schools of interpretation were from two rabbis (Shammai and Hillel) who represented a strict position and a lenient position. The lenient position was represented by the phrase in the question “for any and every reason.” (The example often cited for this position is that if the wife was a bad cook she could be divorced!) The strict position limited permissible divorce to some kind of sexual infidelity by the wife. The Pharisees were drawing Jesus into the dispute about the interpretation of the phrase with the hope he would give an answer that contradicted the Mosaic Law.

In Matthew’s report Jesus did not directly answer their question, but went all the way back to the Genesis account of the creation of male and female and the establishment of marriage. Jesus reminded his questioners that Genesis teaches “at the beginning the Creator made them male and female.” And in marriage a man “is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Jesus then adds his own observation that because of that, “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:6). With his first response Jesus seems to be suggesting there is no lawful reason for a man to divorce his wife.

The Pharisees, however, responded to Jesus’ answer by asking Him about a key provision in the Law about divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They paraphrased, “Why then did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (Matthew 19:7). There was indeed teaching in the Old Testament about divorce, but the Pharisees cited only the first part of it in order to press Jesus.

Jesus, of course, knew what Deuteronomy 24 said and was not surprised by their follow up question to his first response. He replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (verse 8). Note how Jesus changed their word “command” from Moses to “permitted” and again pointed them back to what he had already stated from Genesis. The “certificate of divorce” was a legal document indicating the dissolution of the marriage that allowed the woman to remarry. It was for her protection.

After Jesus’ response regarding the “certificate of divorce” he returned to their original question and in verse 9 answered it: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Jesus took the strict position only allowing divorce in the case of sexual unfaithfulness. While there is no unanimity among scholars concerning the exact meaning of the Greek word translated “sexual immorality,” I agree with John Stott and others who suggest it points to behavior that in itself destroys the “one flesh” covenant reality of marriage.

Something still needs to be said about the parallel account and why Mark does not have “the exception clause” included in Matthew. I confess I don’t have an answer; nor do I find any of a variety of proposals that have been put forth totally satisfying. If pressed on the matter I think the observation made by some, that everyone at the time agreed sexual unfaithfulness was just cause for divorce, Mark took it for granted his readers knew that.

In talking about and dealing with divorce today I think Christians should follow the example Jesus set in his responses to the Pharisees. Before divorce is discussed we should first make sure we give attention to the meaning and purpose of marriage. Jesus did that by going back to the creation account of the institution of marriage. In contrast to so much thinking today, marriage is not a contract, but a covenant. After the marriage ceremony “they are no longer two, but one flesh.” Therefore, God’s original intent for marriage was and still is that it be life-long.

In addition to the divine ideal, however, there is also the reality of human failure. God’s ideal is not always carried out. And that is what is at the root of the Deuteronomy 24 passage, however it is interpreted. Jesus was clear that God permitted divorce because their “hearts were hard.” Because of the reality of human failure marriages fail and divorces take place. The dissolution of a marriage may be the lesser of two evils, but the divine concession does not cancel the divine intention for marriage.

Permission for divorce was granted because “sexual unfaithfulness” violated the “one flesh” unity and foundation of marriage. But just because divorce was permissible under such circumstances, it is not mandatory. In fact, most readers probably know couples who have experienced unfaithfulness in their marriage, but worked through it and have rebuilt a stronger “one flesh” partnership than they had prior to the breach.

I cannot answer all the questions Christians ask about divorce and remarriage. Entire books have been written about the issue, and all Christian leaders and teachers are not in total agreement. I have tried to emphasize what Jesus emphasized in his response to the Pharisees’ attempt to trap him. We have to understand that according to Jesus, in God’s eyes marriage is a permanent covenant commitment. And we need to hold high God’s divine ideal.

But I think we also have to realize human beings do not always carry out God’s ideals–we sometimes fail. That is the reason for the teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Because of human hardheartedness, and going beyond sexual unfaithfulness, some marriages end in divorce. Thankfully, neither adultery nor divorce are unforgiveable. In the same way that we hold God’s divine ideal for marriage high, we also need to hold high the grace, love, and forgiveness of God. In terms of marriage and divorce my best suggestion is to begin with people where they are and go from there.

(This post is adapted from chapter 9 of my book Questioning Jesus: Considering His Responses. Feel free to leave a reply below and/or share this post on Facebook or other social media.)