Q. When Satan took Jesus up the the heights and promised him the world if he would fall down and worship him…why would Jesus have been tempted to worship Satan?
We do usually think of “temptation” as what happens when our desire for something becomes so irresistible that we’re inclined to make some moral compromise to get that thing. That picture does apply to the other two temptations that the devil offered Jesus, though it doesn’t quite apply to the one you’re asking about. (The temptation of Jesus by Satan is described near the beginning of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.)
We can understand, for example, how Jesus would have had a strong desire for food after fasting for 40 days in the wilderness. Ordinarily there’s no compromise involved in satisfying a legitimate physical need within the limits of moderation. But in this case Jesus had been called to an extended time of fasting so that he could consider the implications of the voice he’d just heard at his baptism, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” He was called, in other words, to reflect on the nature of his calling to be the Messiah, which most interpreters say was confirmed definitively for him by this voice at his baptism. So it would have been a compromise to break that fast prematurely just because he was hungry, or just to prove that he had God’s favor. (“If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread,” the devil had said.)
Similarly, leaping off the highest point of the temple and landing safely on the ground might actually have been something that appealed to Jesus. He was a 30-year-old single man and we can well imagine that he might have gone in for extreme sports! It would be like bungee jumping, with the assurance of God’s power of deliverance providing the same confidence and security as a bungee cord. However, Jesus recognized that it would have been improper to put himself in danger just to prove that God would protect him. We are supposed to do our part to care for ourselves, and we’re supposed to trust in God by faith, without needing proof of God’s care when we’re not in any real danger.
But the third temptation was different. Jesus wouldn’t have found it desirable to worship Satan. So what the devil actually tried to tempt him with was power over all the kingdoms of the world. “Just think of all the good you could do if you had that power,” was the subtle lure. Satan’s pitch was that worshiping him would simply be a “necessary evil,” a means to a desirable end. The fallacy, of course, is that if we compromise to get into a position of power, then we’re compromised once we get there, so we can’t do the good we intended. This would certainly have been the case for Jesus if he’d tried to get power by literally selling his soul to the devil.
So the takeaway is that we aren’t always “tempted” by things that seem desirable, attractive, or alluring. Sometimes unpleasant things “tempt” us because we think of them as a means to an end. But God always has a better means to any legitimate end, a means that doesn’t require moral compromise.
Q. Several years back, a few of my close Christian brothers and I met a guy who was gifted, it was said, with the ability to prophesy. (That still exists, right?) If someone were to prophesy over you and tell you, “When I look at you, I see a man of the Trinity,” how would you interpret that?
First, I do believe that God still gives some believers the gift of prophesy. That is, God gives them insights about the character and gifting of a person or group to encourage them, and also gives them insights about the likely future consequences of the course that a person or group is on, either to warn or encourage them. But believers also have a responsibility to “weigh” what self-described or popularly-accepted prophets say, assessing it by the full counsel of the Scriptures and by the community’s collective wisdom. “Prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
As for what a (presumably genuine) prophet might mean by a “man of the Trinity,” I suspect that this involves more than just a belief in God as three-in-one. I would take it to be describing someone who had a relationship with God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We know that in some mysterious way, God is three persons in one being. A man or woman of the Trinity, I’d say, would know each of these persons individually, without in any way compromising the unity that they have together.
In other words, such a person would know God as their kind, loving, generous, care-giving but also disciplining heavenly Father. (“As a father has compassion on his children,so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him.” “The Lord disciplines those he loves,and corrects each one he accepts as his child.”)
Such a person would also know Jesus as their Lord and Savior and in addition as their brother and friend. (“Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family, so Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.” “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends.”)
And a man or woman of the Trinity would also know the Holy Spirit as comforter, companion, helper, counselor, and advocate—all the various translations of the term paraclete that’s used at the place in the gospel of John where Jesus promises the Holy Spirit shed a bit more light on the role that the Spirit is supposed to play in our lives.
So your question provides, for all of us, a good point of reflection. How well do I know each of the persons of the Trinity? Do I know God as Father, or do I have “father issues” that make me keep my distance from a God I regard as stern, harsh, and remote? Do I appreciate Jesus primarily for something he did for me 2,000 years ago, or can I say with the hymn writer, “What a friend we have in Jesus”? Is the Holy Spirit primarily a mysterious force to me, or do I speak and pray to the Holy Spirit and recognize the voice I hear in response? (If you’re not used to praying to the Holy Spirit, consider as examples the many hymns and songs that do this: “Gracious Spirit, Dwell With Me”; “Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart”; “Spirit of the Living God”; “Spirit Fall”; “Breathe On Us.”)
Q. I have a question about contrasting interpretations. Since we do not accept a Magisterium [an official, authoritative teaching], believers like me and you and many others seem to have no way to convince another about what Scripture teaches, if the other simply does not agree. This means we end up with the challenge of having many denominations, let alone many believers, each believing many different things, including things that are mentioned in Hebrews as being “milk” doctrines, things that are to be taught to new believers, yet even with these items, some teachers teach things that are incompatible with what others teach, so they cannot all be true; for example, either infant baptism or believer’s baptism. As far as I can see, we will only achieve unity in the faith when all of us sit at the Master’s feet. Do you have any wisdom about this state of affairs?
I think you’re right that in the absence of a Magisterium (that is, a recognized authoritative teaching office such as there is in the Roman Catholic church), the principle of sola Scriptura—appealing to Scripture alone as our authority—does not bring about agreement among believers. I think the main reason for this is that people approach the Bible with different interpretive presuppositions, so that they can look objectively and honestly at the same data and come to opposite conclusions.
One of the best examples I’ve seen of how this works comes from my seminary days at Gordon-Conwell. Dr. Gordon G. Fee, who was then on the faculty, agreed to do panel discussion on the topic of women in ministry with a professor whose name I unfortunately no longer remember, but who was from a Presbyterian seminary. Dr. Fee didn’t feel it would be respectful to women to have a “debate” about them, so he suggested, and the other professor agreed, that the two of them should instead explain what they felt had led them to their positions on the issue, and allow the other person to ask questions about this. They met and prayed together beforehand.
Dr. Fee went first and explained that he’d grown up in the Assemblies of God denomination, where he’d seen many women pastors minister very effectively with the gifts God had given them. He felt he’d seen God bless their work and give it much fruit. And so, he said, to be honest, this was likely a significant factor why he wasn’t persuaded by arguments, even from the Bible, that said God didn’t want women to be in these roles.
The other professor then explained (and I really appreciated his honesty) that he’d grown up in a Presbyterian denomination that taught predestination, and it seemed to him that if God had chosen one group (the elect) to be saved, and another group (the reprobate) not to be saved, then certainly God might also have chosen one group (men) to be in certain roles in the church, and another group (women) not to be in those roles—that was a smaller thing.
I think this illustrates that while Protestants don’t have an official Magisterium, all of us who are Protestant probably do walk around with an unofficial Magisterium in our heads, consisting of the teachings, precedents, experiences, approaches to the Bible, etc. that we’ve been exposed to in the past. This whole constellation of things probably changes over time, but very slowly, as new things are added and others are dropped or come to be regarded as less authoritative. But it is this unofficial Magisterium that you need to move in order to persuade someone, from Scripture, of a viewpoint different from the one they currently hold. That’s unlikely to happen as the result of one conversation or online exchange, though they might budge things slightly.
So I guess I am granting that “we will only achieve unity in the faith when all of us sit at the Master’s feet.” How should we respond to this reality?
I think Dr. Fee and his conversation partner provide a further good example here. While they were on opposite sides of an issue that inflames great passions, they spoke to and about one another very charitably. Dr. Fee said of the other professor that he was “welcoming him to our campus as a brother.” They didn’t move an inch closer to one another’s positions during the conversation, and afterwards they both went back to communities that had different and mutually exclusive practices. But nevertheless I think something very positive was accomplished. They demonstrated that they had “unity in the faith” in another sense, in that while they didn’t agree, they were still part of one body and united by the love of Christ.
I think this is the most we can hope for in this world, but I think it’s actually something very positive and powerful. We often say that Christians are free to disagree on minor, non-essential points, so long as they agree on the major, essential ones. But then we discover intractable disagreements on things that seem pretty foundational, such as baptism (as you mention), and we realize how few “essential” beliefs there are that Christians really all do agree on (such as the divinity of Christ).
So failing that kind of agreement, I think instead we should first strive to be “fully convinced in our own minds,” as Paul writes in Romans about some issues that must have seemed pretty crucial for belief and practice in his day (keeping the Sabbath, and whether one could eat and drink certain things). The more settled our minds are, the more calmly and graciously we will be able to engage others. I think most of the damage is done not by the fact of disagreement itself, but by people vilifying those who differ, impugning their character and questioning their good faith. A gracious, Christ-like attitude is probably the best evidence we could ever offer someone for the possibility that we could be right about something we believe that they currently don’t.
Let me close by telling a story about baptism, which I agree is a good example of a “milk” or foundational doctrine that you’d think Christians should be able to agree about. My example once again comes from my seminary days.
One evening my wife and I hosted several friends for dinner and the topic turned to baptism. Those who baptize infants and those who baptize believers at least agree that a given person should only be baptized once. Churches either baptize infants and confirm believers, or else dedicate infants and baptize believers. But it turned out that in our dinner party of eight, my wife was the only person who’d been baptized just once. Everyone else had been baptized at least twice.
And it wasn’t just that several of us who’d been baptized as infants later felt that, with all due respect to our parents and home churches, we wanted to be baptized as believers. One woman had been baptized by immersion as a believer at age 12. She sincerely believed in Jesus at the time, but this was on the basis of what her parents and church had taught her. Later, as a young adult, her faith became more first-hand, through the ministry of a Methodist church she was then attending. Their help had been so meaningful to her that she wanted to be baptized as an adult, as her own personal expression of faith, “in the Methodist way”—by sprinkling. And another guest had been baptized once as an infant, again as a believer, and a third time, for good measure, in the Jordan River while on a tour of Israel.
So the fact that various churches held different positions on the issue of baptism had allowed us, as we moved back and forth between them, to have experiences (double and triple baptisms) that nobody was teaching were normative. For me, this is something of a parable: Maybe what matters most is not that all of these differences be resolved, even though they seem to be about very important things, but that people genuinely grow and learn and deepen their faith and commitment to God as they are exposed to these various understandings. Because it’s entirely possible that some of the truths of our faith are so profound that no one perspective entirely does justice to them. Maybe in some cases it’s the sum of the understandings resident in the community of faith that’s closest to the truth that will enable us to “reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
Q. I’ve seen it written that the Sermon on the Mount can be thought of as a job description for Christians. I’m thankful that God has given us one! Yet I find some of its passages confusing at best and very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. It also seems that Jesus is outlining some harsh judgements for us when we fail, which it seems most of us will. So I then question, “What about Gods grace?”
What’s known as the Sermon on the Mount is the first extended collection of Jesus’ teachings found in the gospel of Matthew.
Matthew divides his account of Jesus’ life into five thematic sections. Each one begins with a series of narrative episodes, followed by a discourse made up of Jesus’ collected teachings. The narrative and the discourse explore a common theme in each case. The first section, whose discourse is the Sermon on the Mount, is about the foundations of the kingdom, which are in an inward righteousness, not in external conformity to the law. The concept of “righteous/ness” is introduced in the preceding narrative episodes (“Joseph was a righteous man,” etc.), and the term appears in a key location in each section of the Sermon on the Mount:
“Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.”
“Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
And so forth.
Since this is a matter of inward character, rather than of outward conformity to rules of behavior, it’s something that we have to grow into. Jesus is presenting the ideal to which we should constantly aspire. We should be encouraged as we see ourselves making progress towards it. We shouldn’t beat ourselves up about the extent to which we still fall short, but instead let that be a spur towards greater maturity.
The penalties Jesus describes are simply his way of saying that this is what the law is truly aiming at. For example:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
This is, on one level, the rhetorical device of hyperbole or exaggeration, a favorite of rabbis and of Jesus himself. No one is going to be sent to hell for speaking two particular words. But we need to see the point behind this hyperbole. If we think of the law as something with stipulations and penalties, then we should let the penalties described help us recognize the stipulations that the law is really aiming at: love for others, rather than hatred for them. You’re not okay with God just because you manage to avoid murdering someone whom you hate in your heart.
In the so-called “Beatitudes” at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, we see the positive character qualities whose cultivation will enable us to fulfill the deepest intent of the law. If we are merciful and peacemakers, for example, we won’t hate. So this opening section is something of a key to all that follows.
I hope this is helpful. And I’m glad you’re meditating on this material as a “job description”! It really is meant to have the practical effect you’re envisioning.
Q. I’ve always wondered why Jesus said that Mary sitting at his feet listening to him was “better” than Martha working to fix a meal for him and his disciples. Wasn’t that an important and needed form of service? Isn’t hospitality supposed to be a spiritual gift?
My understanding is that this was an informal occasion–travelers entertained spontaneously in a home along their route–for which a basic meal would have been sufficient. It was not a wedding or similar occasion that called for elaborate preparations. The “main event” was simply having Jesus in the house and having the opportunity to converse with him, and that was where the emphasis should have been placed.
But Martha apparently wanted to go “above and beyond” what the situation required and put on a really fancy meal. In fact, she wanted to do far more than she could do alone, and so she asked Jesus to tell her sister to help her. I think Jesus was saying, “It’s one thing if you want to go ‘above and beyond,’ that’s your choice, but you can’t also choose it for someone else who wants to give her attention to what should be the ‘main event’ here.” In other words, when simple will suffice, if you want to do more, that’s on you, not anybody else.
This is not to say that the ministry of hospitality was not important to Jesus or to the new community he was founding. In Jesus’ instructions to his disciples in the gospels, there’s great appreciation for those who receive traveling messengers of the kingdom of God into their homes, as Martha was doing here. We find the same emphasis in the epistles. In his third letter, for example, John praises Gaius for receiving traveling messengers from his community, saying, “We ought to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth.”
And Martha eventually did get to host a more elaborate banquet for Jesus and his disciples. She did this to celebrate the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead. (Now that called for a full celebration!) So Martha’s gift and ministry of hospitality did find a place for its appropriate expression within the life of the community of Jesus’ followers. I hope that those today with the same gift and ministry will find and be given similar opportunities, but also that we will all recognize when an occasion calls for something simpler and a different focus.
Q. In the Bible, the prophet Malachi says about marriage, “Has not the Lord made the two of you one? You belong to him in body and spirit. And why has he made you one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.” Does this mean that we should expect the offspring of couples who “belong to the LORD in body and spirit” will naturally be “godly”? Or, since the translation note says, “The meaning of the Hebrew for this section is uncertain,” is the English translation still debatable?
It would certainly be wonderful if there were a promise in Scripture that a husband and wife who both belong wholly to the Lord will have children who grow up to be godly. Unfortunately, as you note, there is some uncertainty about what the text actually says here.
In fact, it’s quite amazing how widely English translations of this statement by Malachi vary. You quoted it from the TNIV (2005); in the latest update to the NIV (2011) it reads, “Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.” So the translators who are responsible for both these editions have rethought things a bit: no longer “God made you one,” but now “the one God made you.” And look at how some other translations of this first part of the statement are even more different:
“Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his.” (NRSV)
“No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this.” (NET)
“And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit.” (KJV)
“God wants husbands and wives to become one body and one spirit.” (ERV)
“Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?” (RSV)
(These examples are all taken from the comparison feature on Bible Gateway; you will see even more variety if you visit the site.)
English translations differ so much because of a couple of ambiguities in the Hebrew original. Its wording is quite sparse, so translators need to supply much of what they believe to be the meaning. Its first phase reads either “Did not one make?” or “Did he not make one?” The second part reads either “flesh spirit to him” or “remnant spirit to him” (the same Hebrew consonants provide the root both for the word “flesh” and for the word “remnant”).
So translators need to decide whether Malachi is saying that “the One” (God) made something (and if so, what?), or whether someone (who?) made someone or something to be “one.” They also have to decide whether Malachi is talking about flesh and spirit (meaning the whole person?) or a remnant or residue of the spirit.
These ambiguities are inherent in the original Hebrew and I honestly don’t believe they can be definitively resolved. English translations will continue to differ. However, I think your question can still be answered in light of the context of this statement within the book of Malachi.
In this section of the book, the prophet is warning the people against divorce. (That is why some translations say that what “the One” made was marriage.) Whatever the first part of this statement means, the second part is clear: God is seeking godly offspring—children who will grow up to know Him—and so “do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.” (Translators are widely agreed that this is the meaning of the second part of the statement.)
In other words, even if we don’t have a promise here that godly couples will naturally have godly children, there is an encouraging explanation that God’s design is for faithfulness in marriage to promote faith in children. Indeed, studies have shown that the single most important factor in determining whether the children of Christian parents will grow up to be Christians themselves is whether they perceive that their parents love one another and are committed to each other. This is far more important than whether the children are homeschooled or go to public school, whether the church they attend has a youth pastor, what translation of the Bible the family reads, etc.
So even if there isn’t a promise or a guarantee here, there is certainly hope and encouragement, and a challenge for couples who do “belong to the LORD in body and spirit” to make sure that their marriage is strong and lasting, for the sake of the “godly offspring” they trust God will help them raise.
Q. The book of James says, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds.” Isn’t that an unrealistically high standard to expect us to meet? I mean, does anybody really feel nothing but joy when they go through trials?
Let me say first that I think you’ve correctly understood James’s meaning when he says we should consider it pasan charan when we encounter trials. I think that “pure joy” or “all joy,” as many versions translate the phrase, should be taken in the sense of “nothing but joy,” as in the NRSV and NET Bibles. (Mounce’s translation has “sheer joy,” with the same meaning.) Some other translations say things like “consider it a great joy” or “an occasion for joy,” but as I see it, that’s taking something off a statement that’s pretty unqualified.
So is it also unrealistic, and not true to the experience of even the most mature and committed followers of Jesus, for James to expect this? No, because he isn’t saying that we should feel or experience “nothing but joy” simply on account of our trials. He gives an explanation of what we should be so joyful about: “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”
In other words, we can be joyful in an unqualified and unrestricted way, even in our trials, because we recognize that God is going to be at work in our lives through them to bring us to maturity—to “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” as Paul puts it in Ephesians. We can rejoice because our trials are not thwarting God’s purposes, but actually advancing them, if we respond to them in faith with perseverance.
I might also add that the “joy” envisioned here is not so much a feeling as a reckoning, a decision to look at things in a certain way so that we concentrate on their value rather than on their cost.
And so I think it is realistic for James to ask us to choose to view our trials in this way and consequently to cultivate the qualities of faith and perseverance that will allow these trials to be avenues for God’s continuing work in bringing us to maturity. And when we see Christ’s character taking deep root in our lives—well, that does bring nothing but joy!
God certainly doesn’t tempt people the way that evil forces do, trying to get them to commit sin. The New Testament book of James explains this quite clearly: “Remember, when you are being tempted, do not say, ‘God is tempting me.’ God is never tempted to do wrong, and he never tempts anyone else. Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away.”
However, the Bible does describe places where God “tests” people; some translations actually use the word “tempt” in these contexts. For example, we read in Genesis that God “tested” Abraham (this is the reading of the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, etc.) by telling him to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. (I discuss that episode more fully in this post.) The KJV and a few other translations say that God “tempted” Abraham, while others say that God “proved” him (ASV, ERV, Jubliee Bible).
Whatever the translation, this was testing with the expectation of success, not testing designed to expose a person’s weaknesses and inadequacies and “flunk them out.” Abraham not only proved his absolute loyalty and obedience (“Now I know that you fear God,” the Lord told him), God was able to use the occasion to offer a polemic against human sacrifice (which was supposed to be the takeaway from the episode for the later Israelites who would be tempted to adopt this pagan practice).
So while God may sometimes “test” people so that the virtues they are developing can be vindicated and displayed, God never “tempts” people to do wrong. Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” that is, we should ask God to keep us away from temptation. Paul writes in several of his letters that we should “flee” from things that would lead us to do wrong. Since God does not want us even to get close to things that might lead us to sin, but to move actively away from them, God would not actively tempt us to sin.
How, then, do we explain the statement in Matthew’s gospel that “Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil”? (Luke says similarly that Jesus was “led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.”)
Once again we should recognize that from God’s perspective, this was intended as a “test.” It was meant to show that Jesus, who had just been identified at his baptism as the “Son of God” (that is, the Messiah), would choose to be the right kind of Messiah when the devil—trying instead to “tempt” him to make the wrong choice—tried to get him to present himself as some kind of magician, or a world ruler, or someone who would primarily meet material needs. By continually answering the devil’s temptations from the Scriptures (“it is written,” Jesus said over and over again), Jesus demonstrated his godly learning, character and priorities.
This “test,” from God’s perspective, showed that He was right to say confidently, at Jesus’ baptism just earlier, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” But the “temptation,” from the devil’s perspective, failed—Jesus was not sidetracked into becoming the wrong kind of Messiah. (This dual significance is present in the Greek verb that is used; as the NIV translators’ note explains, “The Greek for tempted can also mean tested.”)
We see that in a typical situation, God has one plan, while evil forces have another plan. In his first epistle, Peter explains God’s purpose in trials or tests: “These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” In the gospel of John, Jesus explains the devil’s plan and how it contrasts with his own mission: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
So it is important to recognize that any situation can be a temptation that we might fail, if evil plans succeed, or a test that validates and strengthens our Christian character, if God’s plan succeeds. The important thing is to recognize God’s plan in the situation and follow it. As Paul explains, “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
So if you ever feel as if God might be tempting you, recognize instead that you are actually in a situation where your devotion and loyalty to God can be proven afresh, if you seek to discern God’s plans and purposes for the situation and join in with them.
Q. I’m in a group that’s discussing the gospel of Mark, and when we got to the place where Mark says that Jesus “declared all foods clean,” the question arose as to whether Jesus actually did away with all the Levitical dietary restrictions. The suggestion was made that Jesus was declaring only that all of the foods that Jews considered to be foods were clean — thus, “all foods” declared to be clean would exclude things such as pork, shellfish, etc. I’m familiar with the arguments of Daniel Boyarin about this, but I’m unpersuaded, especially by his insistence that if Jesus had undone the kosher food laws, he would have been a false prophet, per Deuteronomy 13. What do you think?
I haven’t yet studied Boyarin’s arguments myself, so I can’t comment on them, but let me share some general thoughts in response to your question.
All Jesus actually said was, “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” This was the principle that Jesus taught. Different early communities of his followers then sought to apply that principle to themselves, in the context of the particular milieu of life into which God had called them to live out their faith.
For Matthew, writing as an observant Jew to other observant Jews, the takeaway is simply, “Eating with unwashed hands does not defile” a person. This was the direct issue at stake: The Pharisees had asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
But for Mark, writing for an essentially Gentile audience, probably in a Roman context (Mark has to explain the whole issue of washing, which Matthew’s audience already understands), draws a broader application for life in the context of their calling: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.”
And so one could well argue, on the authority of the gospels, that Jesus did not actually declare all foods clean for observant Jews (and being one of those is still a valid way of being a follower of Jesus today). He only set aside a human tradition requiring ceremonial washing (something not in the law of Moses) in favor of the pursuit of true inner virtue. But he did declare all foods clean for those who are called to live out their faith in many other contexts (but not all contexts, for example, not for Jesus-followers who continue to be cultural Muslims).
Paul, in his letters, declares not a radical freedom to eat all foods, but a radical freedom from trying to be righteous by works that allows one to eat, or not to eat, in whatever way best serves another person in love: “If what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat”—now that’s radical freedom!
(The Jews of Jesus’ time weren’t keeping kosher in order to earn a righteous status by works. For them, this was a sign or boundary marker of the covenant to which they already belonged. Rather, Paul was writing to Gentiles who were being encouraged to keep kosher as a way of being righteous before God—as a kind of “sanctification by works”: saved by grace, but then maintained in righteousness by things like observing special days and keeping kosher. Thus Paul had to write to the Colossians, for example, “Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
In short, as has well been said, there is no such thing as a disembodied “gospel.” We can only engage the gospel of Jesus when we experience it contextualized for us in our own milieu of life. When it comes to this particular saying of Jesus, the Bible actually models for us a couple of different ways in which his earliest followers contextualized it for themselves. Trying to pick one or the other of these (“anything goes” vs. Levitical dietary restrictions for everybody today) does not do justice to the rightfully demanding process of understanding how Jesus’ words apply to us today, a process all of his followers are called to pursue faithfully and diligently–as you are doing by asking questions like this one.
Q. Is it possible to sin in dreams? Do you think that dreams in any sense reflect one’s state of morality absent of inhibitions or consequences? Do you think that they serve as warnings in terms of what might be the consequences of various actions? Or are they just dreams and shouldn’t be paid much attention?
Whether it’s possible to sin in a dream depends on what sense of sin is in view.
The Bible envisions sin in two different senses. In one sense it’s conscious willful disobedience to the known wishes of God, or, put more simply, doing something that you know is wrong. This involves a choice of the will, and that’s why it’s not possible to sin in this sense in your dreams.
Dreams are symbolic subconscious expressions of our imagination, impulses, wishes, and desires. They tend to depict something we want to happen, or else something we don’t want to happen, or they represent the realization of something that’s been apparent before us but hasn’t previously registered in our consciousness. (In this last sense a dream may indeed serve as a warning.)
We are not morally responsible for every idea that pops into our heads, every thought that flits through our minds, or every feeling or desire that wells up inside us. So dreams don’t really reflect what we would be like morally if we had no consequences to fear.
What we are responsible for is what we choose to do with these things that come into our minds and show up in our dreams. It’s not a sin to become angry with someone, for example. (The Bible itself says, “Be angry, but do not sin.”) But it is a sin to choose to take a further step and hold a grudge, plot revenge, or lose our temper and become verbally or physically abusive.
For example, suppose you have an argument with someone during the day. That night, you dream about killing them. This is not a sin. It’s the expression of a feeling. But when you wake up, you are morally responsible for what you choose to do in response to that feeling, which you have now become vividly aware of. Following the Bible’s teaching, you should seek forgiveness and reconciliation with that other person.
In other words, what happens in dreams represents only the first stage in the process–an idea, or wish, or desire. Since our wills are not active in our dreams, but instead our unconscious mind paints a lively symbolic scenario based on an idea, wish, or desire, there is no moral culpability–no sin–on our part, no matter what happens in the dream.
But as I said, there is another sense in which the Bible envisions sin. It’s also a force that’s active within us to shape our thoughts, words, and actions towards evil, in ways we are often not aware of. This force is active even in our dreams. The very things we imagine, desire, and wish for are not necessarily morally neutral, but influenced by the force of sin.
And in that sense, while we still do not sin in our dreams, we dream while under the influence of sin, and so the way we put things together in our heads while dreaming, the way we organize the events and incidents of the day and week while we are asleep, may be “sinful” in the sense that it does not reflect God’s perfect balance of love and justice, but rather some skewed version of it that appeals to us in our sinful state.
So while we still do not need to “repent” of anything that happens in our dreams in the sense of confessing guilt and asking forgiveness, we do need to “repent” in the literal sense of re-thinking the way we have put things together in a dream, critiquing that apparent resolution or aspiration in light of biblical teaching prayerfully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the full light of day.