| Q. Jesus healed a leper by touching him. According to the law of Moses, that contact with a leper should have rendered Jesus ceremonially unclean. But he was not defiled. Instead, this contact purified the diseased man. Is that because Jesus is God? Here is the episode you are asking about, from the gospel of Matthew: “A man with leprosy came and knelt before Jesus, saying, ‘Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.’ Stretching out his hand, Jesus touched him, saying, ‘I am willing, be clean!’ Immediately the man was cleansed of his leprosy.” As I have discussed in other posts on this blog (such as this one and this one), Jesus was able to do the remarkable things he did on earth not because he was God (though he was indeed God), but because he was fully yielded to God and empowered by the Holy Spirit. In that way Jesus sets an example for us and offers a challenge to us, to be equally yielded and empowered and to do great things in his name. So if it was not because Jesus was God that he did not become unclean by touching the leper, why, then, did Jesus not become unclean? I think the answer lies in the nature of God’s acts. When God does something, at what point is it accurate to say that he has done it? When we see the actual results on earth? Or when God declares that it is his purpose for something to be? When Jesus healed the leper, this was a “performative action,” that is, an action that was “performed” by speaking. It was along the same lines as when Ephron the Hittite said to Abraham, “I hereby give you the field,” meaning that by virtue of saying that, he was transferring the field to Abraham. The Greek text of the episode we are discussing makes clear (by using a present participle) that Jesus said “I am willing, be clean!” as he was stretching out his hand to touch the leper. So Jesus touched the leper not in order to heal and cleanse him but in order to affirm that the leper had been healed and cleansed and could now be restored to human community. (Jesus sets a further example for us here by being concerned not just for the man’s physical health but also for his restoration to warm human relationships.) Matthew relates that the leper was cleansed “immediately” when Jesus made this declaration and touched him. That is, all traces of the disease disappeared from his body. But this was the manifestation of what was already true as soon as Jesus declared it. I think there is a devotional application here for all of us: What things has God declared about us that are in the process of being manifested? How can we cooperate with that manifestation process? |
Do we have to be even more righteous than very good people in order to go to heaven?
| Q. I have been troubled by what Jesus says in Mathew 5:20, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Of course I want to do what is righteous, but as humans we all fall short. I always thought we were saved and would join Jesus in heaven by His grace and that His sacrifice is enough if we invite him into our life. And yet there seem to be stipulations. Jesus made the statement you are asking about not to specify stipulations but to correct a misunderstanding. He introduces it by saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” It appears that some people were misunderstanding Jesus’ emphasis on loving God and neighbor as the fulfillment of the law to mean that people no longer needed to measure their conduct by the law and conform to it. Some people apparently thought that Jesus was saying they could now do whatever they wanted. So Jesus was correcting that wrong impression. However, Jesus was nevertheless not making a prescriptive statement but a descriptive one. While he made the statement negatively, it has a positive meaning. Jesus was saying, in effect, “If you will enter the kingdom of heaven, then your righteousness will surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law.” He meant that loving God and neighbor would result in people fulfilling the law even more perfectly than scrupulous observance. These results would come specifically through the transforming effects of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life. (The apostle Paul explains this well in his letters.) And the expectation is not that a believer in Jesus will immediately be transformed and start fulfilling the law completely through loving obedience to God. Jesus also told parables comparing the kingdom of God, in the world and in a believer’s life, to seeds growing and yeast rising. In other words, Jesus used examples of slow, organic growth to describe the progress of God’s work. And that is what we should be looking for: growth, progress, in obedience. If we see that and recognize it as the effects of the Holy Spirit’s influence through our faith in Jesus, we can be encouraged that we will indeed enter the kingdom of heaven. |
Are we really supposed to “command” God as it says in Isaiah?
| Q. In Isaiah 45:11, God says, “Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command me.” Does God really want us to command him and tell him what to do? God is using the imperative form here (“ask,” “command”) in an ironic sense. God is actually telling those who would challenge him that they do not have the wisdom or the power to question what he is doing or to try to keep him from doing it. This is clear from the immediate context, in which God says, Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker … Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’? Woe to the one who says to a father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to a mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ So it is clear that God actually does not want the people he is addressing to question him or tell him to do something else. Many versions translate the imperative form in such a way as to show that it is ironic. For example: “How dare you question me about my children or command me regarding the work of my hands!” Other versions translate the imperatives as rhetorical questions. For example: “Do you question what I do for my children? Do you give me orders about the work of my hands?” Both of these approaches show what is really going on in this passage. We sometimes use ironic imperatives in English. For example, if someone threatens us, we might say, “See if I care.” In other words, “Go ahead and carry out your threat, and see if I care what you have done.” We do not really want the other person to carry out the threat. We are simply telling the person that what they are threatening to do would make no difference to us, and so they should not even bother doing it. We are actually telling them not to do it by telling them to do it—an ironic imperative. |
Does the Bible say that we should or shouldn’t cross ourselves?
| Q. Is there anywhere in the Bible that says we should or shouldn’t cross ourselves? Or is there an example where someone may have crossed themselves? Or is there anything in the Bible that’s supports me crossing myself? By crossing ourselves, I mean the expression of the Holy Trinity, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Thanks for any help. The Bible does not say that believers in Jesus should or should not cross themselves. The Bible does not depict anyone crossing himself or herself. However, the activity falls into a category that the Bible provides very clear teaching about. I refer to activities in this category as “insignia.” They are things that we do to signify that we belong to God. Further examples would include wearing a cross on a necklace or pin, wearing a WWJD bracelet, refraining from certain activities on Sundays, abstaining from certain foods or drinks, or calling fellow believers “brother” and “sister.” In the Old Testament, insignia were required. God told the Israelites, for example, to eat certain foods and not to eat other foods. This was a way of showing that they belonged to him. He said in Leviticus that they must “make a distinction between clean and unclean animals,” that is, between those they could eat and those they could not eat, because “I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.” Similarly God told the Israelites to observe the seventh day of the week as a day of rest on which they would do no work. He said in Exodus, “You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come.” But the people of God in the New Testament are not a single nation that God has set apart from all the other nations as a model of how God wants people to live. The people of God are now a multinational community. There are still insignia in a sense: The character qualities that the Holy Spirit builds into the life of each believer are a sign that that believer is living as part of a community that belongs to God. Jesus said of love, the supreme character quality that underlies all the others, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” But the people of God now follow a wide variety of cultural practices, so insignia of the Old Testament type have become a matter of personal conviction. They are not required, and they are not forbidden. Rather, the principle is, as Paul wrote in the case of Sabbath observance, “Each person should be fully convinced in his or her own mind” that it is appropriate either to participate in the insignia activity or not to participate in it. The New Testament says the same thing about some other specific activities such as eating or not eating certain foods and drinking or not drinking wine. These specific teachings express the general principle I have described. The same principle would apply to crossing oneself. If you are comfortable doing that as a non-verbal form of prayer (perhaps accompanying verbal prayers, spoken or silent) or as an act of worship (upon entering a sanctuary, for example) or as a way of identifying yourself as a follower of Jesus, then you are perfectly free to do so. But you are not required to do so. If you belong to a particular group of believers who have agreed among themselves to follow this practice, while it would still not be required biblically, you would probably want to follow the same practice yourself as a shared devotional expression with the believers with whom you are in closest fellowship. Let me finish by sharing a story. I customarily bow my head and give thanks silently to God before a meal. One day when I was in college, I wanted to do this in the dining hall, but I also didn’t want to make things uncomfortable for anyone who might not understand what I was doing. So I waited until everyone else at the table was otherwise occupied. Then I briefly bowed my head, closed my eyes, and said grace. When I lifted my head and opened my eyes, the girl sitting across from me was looking right at me. She asked, “No … ?” and made the sign of crossing herself. “No,” I replied somewhat awkwardly, “I’m not …” and made the same sign myself. I learned from the experience that crossing oneself actually is something that most people understand and are comfortable with! |
Was Peter forgiven without ever asking for forgiveness?
Q. Peter betrayed Jesus. He apparently was sorry for his sin, but I don’t understand how he asked for forgiveness from Jesus. Please explain. I also want to understand the way Jesus forgave him. Could this be a this a model for repentance and forgiving in today’s Christian and/or secular culture?
It is true that the gospels never specifically describe Peter asking Jesus for forgiveness for denying him. It is clear, as you say, that Peter was sorry for what he did. Both Matthew and Luke record that as soon as Peter realized he had denied Jesus, he wept bitterly. Peter also “brought forth fruits worthy of repentance,” to use John the Baptist’s phrase. Until Jesus restored him, Peter gave up his role as an apostle and returned to being a fisherman. Through this action, I believe, Peter was indicating that he did not consider himself worthy to be an apostle any longer.
We should consider the possibility, however, that Peter did have the opportunity to ask Jesus for forgiveness on an occasion that the Bible mentions but does not describe in detail. According to Luke, when the two disciples who met Jesus after his resurrection on the Emmaus Road returned to Jerusalem, the apostles there told them, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon” (that is, to Peter). Paul wrote similarly to the Corinthians that Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” and that he “appeared to Cephas [Peter] and then to the Twelve.” So it appears that Peter may have had the opportunity to speak privately with Jesus after his resurrection, and we can certainly imagine that Peter would have asked forgiveness at such a time.
Still, the Bible does not depict this, and so we are left with the picture of Jesus forgiving Peter without Peter asking for forgiveness. Perhaps, as you say, this may even be intended as something of a model for us. I think it’s important to understand, as I say in this post, that forgiveness takes one, while reconciliation takes two. Insofar as it depended on him, Jesus had already forgiven Peter on the cross, when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
So we are really talking about Peter recognizing his need for forgiveness, asking for it (whether verbally or non-verbally), and accepting it. Personally I think that Jesus recognized that Peter was ready to take all of these steps, and so Jesus gave Peter the opportunity to say three times that he loved him, as a way of taking back the three times he had denied him. Sometimes more time and work are required (and are well advised) before forgiveness extended and accepted can become reconciliation, that is, the restoration of a broken relationship. But I think Jesus knew that Peter was ready for that as well, and Jesus was too.
In terms of application to today’s world, I would say first of all that we ourselves can forgive others unilaterally and unconditionally, without waiting for them to ask. (In some cases that might be a long wait!) We forgive them because God has forgiven us. That sets us free from bondage to bitterness. But please read the post I have linked above for important considerations such as that forgiving someone does not mean giving them the chance to hurt you all over again.
Indeed, our task once we have forgiven is to see whether it is safe to pursue meeting with someone to extend our forgiveness to them in person. The model of Jesus suggests that we do not necessarily have to wait for them to ask for forgiveness before we do this. But the model of Jesus also suggests that we should have good reason to believe that the person is truly sorry before meeting with them. So there is a risk, but it might also be a risk that we have valid grounds to take. Whether forgiveness develops into reconciliation depends on how things go from there.
Where is the search feature on your blog?
Q. Where is the search feature on your blog?
There is a search box in the right sidebar, just above my picture. There is another search box a little farther down the right sidebar, just above “Most Viewed Posts.”
To use either box, type some key words into the box and then click on the Magnifying Glass icon. You will get a list of posts by title, with the most relevant results first.
I would encourage anyone who wants to ask a question first to use the search feature to see whether someone else has already asked the same question or a similar one and I have answered it. People often submit questions that have already been answered, and in those cases I do not write a further reply, even to point the questioner to a post that would answer their question. (I need to devote my time to responding to new questions!)
So please look around before asking a question, and if you do ask a question and don’t get a reply within a few weeks, please look around again. As of this writing, I am still catching up with questions (including this one) that were asked during the time when I was not able to answer them, but I hope to catch up soon and to have a turnaround time once again of no more than a few weeks for most questions. Thanks.
Was Jesus’ brother Judas the same Judas who betrayed Jesus for silver?
| Q. Was Jesus’ brother Judas the same Judas who betrayed Jesus for silver? No, the two men are not the same. In New Testament times, people did not have last names, but individuals were identified by their father’s name or by the city or region they came from, and that enables us to identify these as different men. The Judas who betrayed Jesus is called Judas Iscariot, most likely meaning that he was from the village of Kerioth. Hebrew or Aramaic “man of Kerioth” would be ish-Kerioth, and English Bibles present a Latinized version of that name, Iscariot. The Judas who was the brother of Jesus came to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah, and he actually wrote one of the books of the New Testament, the epistle of Jude. In that book he identifies himself as “the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James.” James, another brother of Jesus, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and at the time when Jude sent out his letter, identifying himself as the brother of James was a clear way for Jude to let his recipients know specifically who he was. (Jude and James were actually half-brothers of Jesus. They had the same mother, Mary, but they were sons of Joseph, while Jesus was the Son of God.) |
Do I not truly believe if I have not done things such as handling deadly snakes or drinking poison unharmed?
Q. I am perplexed by Mark 16:15-18, “These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” Is Jesus saying that in order to have eternal life, we must exhibit the signs he has outlined? While I believe and have been baptized, I do not speak in tongues and have not cast out demons. In all fairness, I have not tested the snake theory or tried to drink any deadly thing, but I am not sure that would be wise.
Jesus is not saying that in order to have eternal life, we must exhibit the signs he is describing. He says quite clearly just before outlining these signs, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (And baptism itself is an expression of saving belief, not a further requirement for salvation.) Then he adds, about those who have shown that they believe this way, that these signs will accompany them. But the signs accompany the whole community of believers, so it is not the case that each individual believer needs to have every sign in order to be sure that they are saved. So, put that snake back in its cage, put down that deadly drink, and rest assured in your salvation!
Who was the book of Hebrews written to?
Q. Who was the book of Hebrews written to?
Here is what I say about that in my study guide to Hebrews and Deuteronomy. (You can read the study guide online or download it for free at this link.)
The book of Hebrews was, like Deuteronomy, originally delivered as a
public address. It’s made up of four messages that were originally given in
gatherings of Jesus’ followers. (At the end the author calls the whole work
a “word of exhortation,” the technical term for a sermon or homily in the
Jewish synagogue.) These messages were then collected into a book and sent
out like a letter. The ending of Hebrews follows the form for letters in this
period. (The usual opening of a letter is missing, however, and that’s why the
author is unknown today.) This ending provides details that, together with
other references in the book, help us identify its recipients.
We can tell that they lived in the Roman Empire, most likely somewhere
in Italy (since the author sends them greetings from their friends who have come from Italy), perhaps in the city of Rome itself. We know that they lived
in the middle of the first century, some time before AD 70 when the Romans
destroyed the Jerusalem temple, because the author says that sacrifices are still
being offered there. They were Jews (descendants of the ancient Israelites)
who were facing a particular threat. At this time followers of Jesus were beginning to be distinguished from other Jews and singled out for persecution.
The believers addressed here were tempted to try to escape by going back to
the old covenant and identifying themselves simply as Jews. The author of
Hebrews urges them instead to remain faithful to the new covenant, despite
the risks and dangers, and show their fellow Jews and people of all other
nations how God has brought their rich spiritual heritage to its glorious
culmination through Jesus.
How can we address the problem of political polarization within the American Christian community?
| Q. I have become increasingly upset about the intense polarization of political life in the United States. However, I am even more alarmed that this polarization has become part of Christian life in the United States. I will state up front that I am totally turned off by so-called “Christian nationalism,” by Christian support for Donald Trump, and by the Christian banners/themes on display on January 6 at the Capitol. So that is my bias. My questions are: What do you think happened (or has it always been this way, just not so visible)? And what can we do about it? I’m torn between wanting pastors to address this from the pulpit but, at the same time, not wanting to further inject politics into spiritual life. And do you have any advice for how I can set aside my own political biases and be part of the solution, not part of the problem? When Jesus sent out the twelve apostles, he told them, “Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’ And if a person of peace is there, your peace will rest on that person, but if not, it will return to you.” I think that is what you are looking for in the first instance: “people of peace” within the American Christian community with whom you can begin to share your concerns. One unfortunate fact of the current political polarization is that Christian people, in some cases, have come to believe, or have been led to believe, that certain political commitments are so important that they must not be challenged but instead be held and defended vigorously. The apostle James wrote, “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, and sincere.” This is the kind of godly wisdom and character that we as Christians should cultivate. But unfortunately, as I said, some these days seem to have come to consider certain political commitments to be more important than being impartial and open to reason. But fortunately, this is not the case for everyone. I think that if you look around carefully, you will find Christians on the side of the political spectrum that you describe who would actually be very open to hearing your concerns and considering them fairly. Those are the people you need to start with. You will probably not be able to speak constructively right now with people who are less open. But the people you are able to speak with now may eventually be able to speak with further people. Readers of this blog will recognize from other posts that I largely share your concerns. I am recommending to you the approach that I have been following myself. For example, if I address a political issue on social media, I am selective about the people I share my thoughts with. I actually have a pared-down list of contacts that I use for such posts. I don’t want to alienate someone who would not be open right now to hearing what I have to say but who might become a collaborator for peace later on. About some things we simply must speak up and hope that we are doing so in such a way that our manner will give no offense. If people with different political commitments are offended, let them be offended by the specifics of what we have to say, not by how we say it. And if we get push-back, let us deal with that graciously. For example, on this blog I recently had occasion to explain that Jesus was indeed a refugee (specifically, an asylum seeker) in response to a claim to the contrary by a high-profile political figure. Such posts sometimes draw comments that suggest all Christians should be on the other side of the issue. But as I explain in my “About” feature, “Comments may be edited for length, tone, and content.” You can do the same thing yourself as you seek to engage others constructively about the concerns you have described. You can edit comments in your own head for length, tone, and content, and decide from there how best to pursue being a “person of peace” with the person making the comment and with others as well. |
Good Question 