Our study has ended for the year. Be back in the fall!

One of the most difficult passages of scripture to live with is Matthew 5:48. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Himself says: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." It's that word PERFECT that throws us. We have been so thoroughly schooled in the idea that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Ro. 3:23) that we suffer "cognitive dissonance" when we read this passage from Matthew about being perfect. We immediately began back pedaling.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism in 18th century England, read this passage with a great deal of interest. He noted several things about the verse: 1) Jesus, our Lord Himself, gives the teaching, not Paul or some later, and perhaps "lesser" teacher; 2) It is given as command, not ideal or advice; 3) God would not command something, thought Wesley, that is not possible to attain. Only a very unfair god could command us to do something impossible to attain. That would be like demanding a child to get a cookie out of the cookie jar that was intentionally placed above his or her reach.

OK, so being perfect is attainable. Or is it?

Mennonite Robert Friesen notes, "Believers through the centuries have debated about what Jesus meant by this command for perfection. Devoted Christians have always recognized the need to be obedient to their Lord’s commands. But there has been much disagreement on how to interpret these words. Some believers claim to have reached this required state of perfection while other, equally devout, Christians have declared that it is impossible. Throughout the history of the Church there has been a great variety of opinion on the subject of Christian perfection. Ignatius wrote to Ephesus: 'No man truly making a profession of faith sinneth; nor does he that possesses love hate anyone.'1 Irenaeus2 and the Shepherd of Hermas3 also believed that perfection was possible while Tertullian did not expect perfection until after death.4"

As we begin to wind our way through this tangle, we need to note that the NT word translated "perfect" is the Greek word teleios, which does not speak of moral perfection, but rather, of something reaching the end or purpose for which it was created. The word "mature" probably misses the meaning of teleios on the low side, "perfection" misses it on the high side. Paul often used the word teleios but it is usually translated "maturity." See, for example, 1 Cor. 2:6, Eph. 4:13, Phil. 3:12 and 3:15, Col. 1:28 and 4:12. The word also appears 8x in Hebrews and in James 1:4 and 3:2.

Our Disciple study this week takes us into the books of 1, 2, and 3 John. In 1 John, we meet teleios again, but this time with an interesting -- and perhaps clarifying -- twist. In 1 John 2:12, we find: "If anyone obeys His word, God's love is made perfect ('made complete' NIV) in him." In 1 John 4:12, "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made perfect ('complete' NIV) in us." Same sense in vv. 17-18.

So whatever perfection is, it has to do with love, particularly God's love, being made complete in us. John Wesley understood perfection to be perfect love, i.e., loving as Christ loves. This is Christian maturity, to love God and others as we have been loved. This is consistent with what Jesus Himself meant in Matthew 5:48. The teleioi are those who love God and love neighbor. When Jesus uses the word in Matthew 5:48, He begins with "Therefore, be perfect..." He is referring to what He said earlier in verses 5:43-47 where Jesus was talking about love. To quote Friesen again, "The teleioi are those who love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. The Father in heaven is their example. He is even-handed in his love toward all ('He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends his rain on the righteous and the unrighteous'). Jesus is saying that we should exercise the kind of love which God shows to all men. The epitome of this kind of love—the love which shows us to be teleioi—is love for one’s enemies."

Jesus points out that THIS kind of love does not come naturally. It's relatively easy to love those who love us: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" (Matt. 5:46) It's relatively easy to love those we know closely: "And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" (Matt. 5:47) To love our enemies, to love those who persecure us is to love as Christ loved, it is to reach the end or purpose for which we were created. To love this way is perfection.

Going on toward the perfection of Christ's love is the goal of our salvation.

"Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

What a contrast Jesus’ resurrection is to the raising of Lazarus: "When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, ‘Take off the grave clothes and let him go.’" (John 11:43-44) Lazarus arose from death with the wrappings of death still upon him. Jesus arose from death with the wrappings of death completely left behind, so far behind they were folded up by themselves. Lazarus was not resurrected. Lazarus was resuscitated. Jesus was not resuscitated. Jesus was resurrected.

Resuscitation is restoration to an earthly life. It’s miraculous, certainly, but resuscitated people will die again. Jesus was resurrected. He entered into a new realm of existence, or rather, He resumed the realm of existence He left to be incarnated. Jesus will not die again. Those who die joined to Him will also enter a new realm of existence, from which they cannot die.

In my post for February 22, I talked about what Luke Timothy Johnson calls "cognitive dissonance" as an experience of the first Christians. It is the tension one feels when there is conflict between our convictions and our experience. Please read that post to make sense of this one.

The first Christians resolved the tension of cognitive dissonance by reinterpreting the convictions that came from Torah. A good example is found in today's reading from Hebrews 10:1-25, expecially verses 5-7, which read:

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.'"

This is a quotation from Psalm 40:6-8 taken from the 2nd century B.C. Greek translation known as the Septuagint (often abbreviated LXX, or 70, in our Bible footnotes). If you look up Psalm 40:6-8 in your Bible, it will be a bit different:

6Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. 7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—it is written about me in the scroll. 8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."

The writer of Hebrews is reading Psalm 40 Christologically, i.e., as if it is Christ speaking to God. This is typical of the way first Christians reinterpreted Torah to resolve their cognitive dissonance. OT scripture -- read in the Septuagint version -- suddenly appeared to foreshadow Christ at every turn. In v. 5, "a body" is from the LXX, which understands the Hebrew "ears you have pierced" (or, "ears you have dug for me" literally) as the creation of a body out of clay, as of Adam in the beginning. Here, our author finds a reference to the incarnation. It is not likely the author of Psalm 40 had that in mind originally, but now Christians are finding references to Christ everywhere. This is apparently what Luke understood, too, as in Luke 24, Jesus opens up the Law and the Prophets to the travelers on the road to Emmaus.

The same can be said when the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:33-34, which he uses in 8:8-12 AND in 10:15-18. He understands that the coming of Christ makes further sacrifices unnecessary.

Cognitive dissonance. A sociologist's fancy word for the tension we call "doubt." Yet, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it became the source of new faith for the first Christians and all who followed. We need not fear our doubts!

During Jesus' trial before Pilate, John's Gospel reads in 19:13, "When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down (GR: ekathisen) on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha)." The word translated here "sat down" is the Greek word ekathisen. This word can be interpreted to mean either "Pilate sat on the judge's seat" OR "Pilate sat him (Jesus) on the judge's seat."

The synoptic gospels clearly have Pilate sitting on the seat, as do most translations of John. But John may be playing off the double meaning here. It is in keeping with the mockery of 19:1-3 and Pilate's taunting of the religious leaders in 19:4-5 for Pilate to seat Jesus on the judge's seat.

This lends a profound irony to this final scene of the trial of Jesus. Pilate intends to mock Jesus and the Jewish leaders by placing Jesus, their "king," on the judge's seat, but he unknowingly places Jesus in His rightful place as judge. (Other characters in John's Gospel unknowingly reveal truth about Jesus. See Caiaphas' statement in 11:50-51.) The world attempts to judge Jesus, but in the end, Jesus judges the world.

Jesus talks a lot about the Holy Spirit, or what in Greek is called the Paraclete in His Farewell Discourse of chapters 14-17. (This comes from parakletos, which means "called" - kletos and "alongside" - para. Attorneys, or counselors, were "called alongside" to defend and counsel.)

The prominence of the Paraclete addresses a key set of theological questions:

1) If Jesus as the incarnate Word of God brings a distinctive revelation of God to the community, what happens when the incarnation ends?
2) Was the revelation of God in Jesus available only for those who had firsthand experience of the historical Jesus and His ministry?
3) Is Jesus’ revelation of God limited to one moment in history, or does it have a future beyond its particular historical moment?

In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus reveals the Paraclete as the link between His ministry in that moment of history and the future life of the church after Jesus’ death. What does the Paraclete, or the Holy Spirit, do? Jesus reveals several roles (these come from our Disciple IV manual, with my observations in [ ]):

1) The Paraclete will come only after Jesus leaves. The Paraclete’s coming makes Jesus’ going advantageous to the believer. (John 16:7)
2) The Paraclete will come from the Father in Jesus’ name. As the Father sent Jesus, Jesus sends the Spirit. (John 14:6; 15:26)
3) The Paraclete will say what Jesus wants Him to say just as Jesus has said what the Father wanted Him to say. (John 16:13-15)
4) The Paraclete will help disciples remember all Jesus said and did, "remind you of all that I have said to you." (John 14:26)
5) The Paraclete will teach and explain new things that disciples prior to the Crucifixion and Resurrection were not able to understand. Jesus still has much to teach us. (John 16:12) [John’s Gospel itself is evidence of this. It is interpretation of the events of Jesus’ lifetime, written after some 60 years of reflection and living with the Paraclete in the church. This truth about the Paraclete’s new teaching would later cause trouble, however, as people arose in the 2nd century claiming direct revelation from Jesus that was contrary to orthodox teaching, e.g., the Gnostics. It’s still an issue.]
6) The Paraclete will give us peace, not someday but now. As Jesus said to the disciples in the boat, so the Spirit will say, "Do not be afraid." (John 6:20; 14:26-27)
7) The Paraclete will convict the world of its sin and show the world righteousness as Jesus did. Wherever Jesus’ Spirit is present, judgment takes place, revealing light and darkness, life and death. (John 16:8-11)
8) The Paraclete is the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of Truth. Jesus is the Truth. The Holy Spirit will say and do only what Jesus would say and do. (John 16:14) [It’s interesting to note that Luke in the Book of Acts uses the terms "Holy Spirit" and "Spirit of Jesus" interchangeably.]

The Holy Spirit is the least understood person of the Trinity. We do well to understand what John reveals to us about the Paraclete.

More thoughts on John 15....

At the beginning of John’s gospel, when the two disciples of John begin following Jesus, they ask, "Rabbi, where are you staying?" (John 1:38) The word translated "staying" is the Greek word meno, which means "to remain, abide." This word "abide" is a major theme in John 15:1-17. It appears over and over and over, in verses 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 16. The NIV translation is "remain," but in the NRSV or KJV you can see "abide" over and over. When a word is repeated that often, it’s a clue – something’s going on. And in John’s gospel, everything "going on" is theologically significant.

The new disciples’ question, "Where are you meno?" is a major question John’s gospel sets out to answer. In one of His controversies with the Jews, Jesus’ opponents stammer, "We know where this man is from. But when Christ comes, no one will know where He is from." (John 7:27) Do they really know where Jesus is from? No. That’s the problem. They think He is from Nazareth. But where DOES Jesus abide?

The answer as the gospel develops is that Jesus is from the Father. Not only that, but He abides in the Father. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) "The Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38) "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (John 14:7) Jesus shares the divine life with the Father. He meno’s in the Father.

But what is truly amazing is that Jesus invites US to "abide" in Him. "Abide in me and I will abide in you." (John 15:4) This is not simply an admonition to continue reading our Bible, praying, going to church and Sunday School. This is nothing less than an invitation TO US to participate in the divine life shared between Jesus and the Father. Jesus invites us to meno in the Father and the Son. "In him was life, and that life was the light of men." (John 1:4)

Wow.

Another insight from attending the Jim Fleming lectures...

John 15:1-2 is the famous "I am the true vine..." statement where Jesus compares life in Christ with a vine. Verses 1 and 2 read: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. (NIV)" The Greek word translated here "cuts off," or "takes away" in other translations, is the word airo (pronounced 'ah-ee-ro'). Like many English words, it has many meanings. It can mean "to take away," or "to remove." But it can also mean "to elevate, raise, lift up; to raise from the ground." (Check it out for yourself here.) If the meaning is this definition, then we don't get the image of the gardener "cutting off" unproductive branches, rather, it's an image of the gardener "lifting up" the unproductive branches. What could that possibly mean?

Dr. Fleming showed us a picture of a biblical vineyard. Here it is...


Contrary to our modern image of vines growing on an elevated framework or wiremesh trellis, this biblical vineyard showed the vines all growing on the ground, with the bigger vines elevated on stones. If an end of a vine should touch the ground, it would start to sink roots. Sounds good, except that it then begins to take its own nourishment and no longer draws it from the "mother vine," or "true vine." It becomes unproductive. To prevent this, the farmer piles stones under the vine, he "lifts it up" to make it more productive.

That sort of changes the picture of what Jesus is talking about. The Father is not about being judgmental or vindictive. He is about producing fruit. So unproductive branches he "lifts up" so that they will again draw nourishment from the "true vine."

It sure helps to understand the biblical culture, doesn't it?

Who wrote the Gospel According to John? Who is "the beloved disciple" constantly referred to in this Gospel? I just returned from a lecture by Dr. Jim Fleming. I bought his lecture book on the Gospel of John. In it, he offers an explanation to these questions I've never seen before!

Dr. Fleming points out there are two major characters in the gospel story who are never named in John's Gospel -- they are referred to as "the disciple Jesus loved," and "His mother." This probably refers to John and Mary. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus sends Peter and John on ahead of Him to prepare for the Passover. In John, Jesus sends Peter and "the beloved disciple." We know, of course, that Jesus' mother was named Mary. She is never named in John.

Why would this be, that John and Mary would not be named? Dr. Fleming writes, "It sounds strange, but in 1st century Judaism great honor was shown for someone by not naming them. The example par excellence is God's name. A Jew is Jesus' day would never pronounce God's name."

He goes on to suggest that the Gospel of John probably contains the memories of these two disciples. When Jesus was dying on the cross, he told the beloved disciple, John, to take care of His mother, Mary. Apparently, according to Dr. Fleming, Mary and John did stick together. Though probably written by a disciple of John's -- John would never have referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- this gospel, which comes out of a community in Asia Minor, is based on the memories of John and Mary, interpreted with the kind of theological reflection that writing some 60 years later brings.

Professor Luke Timothy Johnson (no relation) speaks of the very early Christians experiencing what he calls "cognitive dissonance." He defines this as the tension we feel when our experience does not match our convictions. An abused child, he says as as example, feels cognitive difference due to the tension created when his convictions -- parents are good, they love you -- and his experience -- my parents are beating me.

The first Christians experienced cognitive dissonance. Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:23: "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." It was a stumbling block to Jews because their convictions told them that Jesus was cursed. Deuteronomony 21.23 says, "anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse." Jesus hung on a tree, He must be under God's curse. For Greeks it was foolishness because Jesus' manner of death certainly did not match what they expected of a "son of God."

And yet, their experience told them Jesus was alive! He was like a magnetic power, an energy field living in their lives. How could one cursed by God live again? So the early Christians felt cognitive dissonance, a tension between their convictions -- Jesus is cursed -- and their experience -- Jesus is alive. No one likes to live with cognitive dissonance -- it must be resolved. But how for these early Christians?

Professor Johnson points out that one can resolve cognitive dissonance in one of two ways: either in favor of the conviction -- "My parents beat me, parents are loving, therefore I must be deserving of this beating" -- or in favor of the experience -- "My parents are beating me, I am not deserving of this beating, therefore parents must be capable of being not-loving." The early Christians resolved their cognitive dissonance in favor of their experience of the resurrection. Jesus must be blessed, not cursed, by God.

They then began to read their Old Testament with new eyes, looking for ways in which Jesus was to be found there. They found many examples. One we encounter in today's reading of John 10:1-21, where Jesus says, "I am the gate for the sheep" and "I am the Good Shepherd," along with Ezekiel 34, where God condemns the shepherds of Israel (their kings and religious leaders) and promises to be Israel's shepherd Himself. It is easy to see how the early Christians saw Jesus all over this Ezekiel passage. "For thus says the Lord GOD: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out." Read that and then hear Jesus say, "I am the Good Shepherd" and the connection is easy to make and the cognitive dissonance begins to melt away. Jesus was there in the scriptures all along. Jesus is not cursed. This is all somehow part of God's plan. The punishment Jesus endured must be for, not His own sins, but for the sins of the world.

"I was blind, but NOW I see."

John 6:53-56 reads "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." These words are reminescent of Matthew 26:26, and parallels, "This is my body." There is an obvious reference here to Holy Communion.

Since the Reformation in the 16th century, Christians have debated what this means. In what sense is the bread of Holy Communion Christ's body? And the fruit of the vine His blood? These are not unimportant questions.

Four positions are sketched by Ted A. Campbell in his book Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials. Those four are laid out below:

* MEMORIAL: "Some churches maintain that the Lord's Supper is merely a memorial or reminder of Christ's sacrifice and a sign of Christian fellowship. Many Evangelical churches and a minority of Reformed churches have maintained this Zwinglian understanding of the Supper." (Ulrich Zwingli, who lived from 1484-1531, was a Swiss theologian who was an early leader in the Protestant Reformation. He and Martin Luther, while agreeing on many things vs. the Roman Catholic Church, never could agree on how Christ was present in Communion.) This view takes its weight from Luke 22:18-20: "And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

* VIRTUALISM: "Historic Reformed churches maintain that although Christ's body ascended to heaven, the Supper of the Lord, when received with true faith, conveys a unique spiritual power. Because the Latin term for this spiritual power is virtus, this perspective is sometimes described as 'virtualism.'" This position is very similar to that which the Anglican Church calls the "real" presence of Christ. Christ is present not in bodily form, but in a real spiritual presence.

* CONSUBSTANTIATION: "Lutheran churches maintain that Christ's true, human body is present with the elements of bread and wine in the celebration of the Supper. This perspective is described as belief in the 'corporeal' (bodily) present of Christ." Contrary to Roman Catholic belief (see below), the bread and wine are not CHANGED into Christ's body and blood. They continue to be bread and wine. But somehow, in a mystery too deep for words, Christ's body also becomes present.

*TRANSUBSTANTIATION: "Historic Roman Catholic teaching maintains not only that Christ's human body is present, but that the essence of bread and wine are changed, with only their physical visible reality persisting. This perspective is historically described as 'transubstantiation.'"

The United Methodist position is definitely not #1, and definitely not #4 (a view which is specifically condemned in the Methodist Article of Religion no. 18.) Our position, while not doctrinely specified, is somewhere between #2-3.

Which view do you subscribe to? Here's how you can tell... The closer your beliefs are to #4, the more you believe that Christ is physically and spiritually present in Communion, the more often you will want to receive it. Catholics celebrate Mass daily because they believe Christ is physically present. Baptists, who view the Lord's Supper as a memorial, celebrate it maybe twice a year, which is enough to remember. How often do you desire to celebrate Holy Communion?

Today we look at John 5:1-24, the healing of a lame man by the Pool of Bethesda. The kicker is, Jesus healed this man ON THE SABBATH, a big "no-no" to the Jews. The saying "Israel keeps sabbath, God keeps Israel" shows how important sabbath keeping was to the Jews. It is based, of course, on the fourth of the Ten Commandments, "Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy." (Exod. 20:8). Jesus, in the eyes of the religious leaders, violated this command of God's by ordering the man to carry his mat and walk.

Jesus argues that healing a person is restoring life to that person. And giving and restoring life is not forbidden "work" on the Sabbath. How does He know this? Because it is what He sees God doing. Yes, God rested on the 7th day. But God still brings babies into the world, still causes the crops to grow, still makes the sun to rise and set even on sabbath days. God continues to go about life-giving, even on sabbath. Since Jesus does whatever He sees the Father doing, He does the same.

Life-giving is the heartbeat of Torah. In focusing on the intricate sabbath regulations, the religious officials missed the point of the Law. Unfortunately, I've experienced Christians doing the very same thing.

A few years ago, we were preparing for a Christmas Eve service in our sanctuary. A young man came into the sanctuary wearing a baseball cap. Many Christian men remove their hats when they walk into a sanctuary -- most were taught to do so as little children as a sign of reverence to God. This is not a "law," but a custom that gives men a way of showing respect for God. But this young man was obviously not a "churched person." But somehow, the Spirit of God had moved him to be in church Christmas Eve.

Unfortunately, one of our church members -- a very good friend of mine -- who HAD been taught as a young child to respect God by removing his hat in the sanctuary, was incensed upon seeing this young man sit in a pew with his hat still on. My friend went over to our visitor and demanded he remove his hat. The young man resisted, perhaps thinking, "Who is this guy -- is he trying to take my hat?" He had not been brought up in the church. No one had ever told him to respect God by removing his hat. Therefore, in his mind, he was showing no disrespect for God. However, my friend's temper flared so high, he almost demanded the visitor leave our sanctuary. In doing so, he would have been working 180 degrees CONTRARY to God's purpose in bringing that young man to church, even though my friend thought he was working TOWARD God's purpose. He saw -- and still sees it this way -- that he was HONORING God.

When he told me about this incident later, I felt the same way I do when I read John 5. In trying to respect God, we disrespect God. We work contrary to God's purpose. We do what the Jewish leaders did -- in focusing on intricate regulations (and customs), we miss the point.

I'm sure God groans in dismay when we do so.

Our "Mark of Faithful Community" for this 2nd week in the Gospel According to John reads "Being in faithful community, we see life as both PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL, and while we exist in the physical, we live in new life graciously offered by God in Christ Jesus."

In John 1:12-13, we find in the NIV translation: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right ("power" in the NRSV) to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." So today's blog, having just finished the audio book, Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis, is about the physical and spiritual life and their relation to our being children of God.

As our Mark of Faithful Community notes, the Greek New Testament knows of two kinds of "life." The one, which is physical or biological, was known as bios in Greek. It has to do with the pure physical act of living -- breathing, eating, transferring oxygen to the cells and waste products from the cells, reproducing, and so on. This is the word from which we get "biology," the study of life. This is the sense which we usually think of when we say "life" in English.

But the Greeks also knew another word for life. That word was zoe, which is what we might call in English "spiritual life." It is not about biology. It is about being in right relationship to God and the wholeness that results. It is not just about being physically healthy, the absence of disease, it is about being spiritually healthy, the absence of separation from God. In John 1:4, when John says "In Him was life...", he is actually saying, "In Him was zoe...", not bios.

What is the relation of this to John 1:12-13, which speaks of our being given power to become "children of God?" The Bible and the ancient creeds speak of Jesus being "begotten" by the Father, not "made." We don't use that word, begotten, much anymore, so its theological significance may be lost on us. "Begotten, " or the related "begat" is to parent offspring. The one who is "begotten" is of the same substance as the one who does the "begetting." We find ourselves saying of persons who are begotten, "Oh, he has his father's nose! Doesn't she look just like her mother?"

Things that are "created" or "made" are totally separate from their maker. They are not made of the same substance as their maker, they do not bear any resemblance to their maker. They are totally different.

Do you begin to see the significance of the fact that Jesus is "begotten, not made" by the Father? Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. They share a oneness that we can only begin to approximate through our understanding of "begetting." Jesus is the "Son of God." But not in the biological sense. In the spiritual sense that He is "begotten, not made." He shares a oneness with the Father. The Father and the Son share "life" together, but it is not bios, it is zoe.

Now let’s turn to a problem created by John 1:12. Aren't all people "children of God?" Why does John want to limit this only to "those who believe?" When John says that Jesus gives us power to become "sons of God," he means that Jesus gives us power to share in the life, the zoe that the Son and the Father have in common. When we use the term "children," or "son" or "daughter" in everyday English, we are usually thinking children in the sense of bios, biological offspring. In the sense that God gave us all biological life, we are all "children of God;" i.e., in the bios sense. But John is not talking about bios. He is talking about zoe, which is the word he uses. He is saying we are given power to share in zoe through our belief in Jesus as the Christ, the One who gives us power to enter into the divine life shared between the Father and the Son, between the Begetter and the Beloved Begotten. Remarkably, John claims that we can be drawn up into that very life and in some mysterious way, share not only the divine zoe, but also become of divine substance. Not that we become "gods," as the Mormons claim, but that we become "children of God" in the sense of becoming "begottens." We are in very deep territory here!

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave (power) to become children of God... In Him was LIFE." Have a great day!

"Now (Jesus) had to go through Samaria." (John 4:4) Of course, Jesus didn't HAVE to go through Samaria physically. Most Jews traveling between Galilee and Jerusalem went east, along the Jordan River valley, to avoid the territory of the hated Samaritans. (See 2 Kings 17 for why Jews hated Samaritans.) But Jesus is not "most people." His work is to reveal the Father's glory. It is what fed and sustained Him (John 4:34). In that sense, He HAD to go through Samaria to meet up with the Samaritan woman at the well. It was the work He was sent to do.

What I find interesting in this passage is the woman's deepening understanding of who Jesus is. (A common technique in John's gospel. We see the same thing in chap 9 with the man born blind.) The titles the woman uses to refer to Jesus show a deepening understanding of Who He actually is:

VERSE JESUS' ACTION LABEL UNDERSTANDING
4:15 Asks for water "Sir" Literal water, Jesus is just a man
4:19 Speaks of 5 husbands "Prophet" Sees into hearts, no secrets hid
4:25 "Spirit & Truth" "Messiah?" Proclaimer of Truth
4:29 "I am he" "Messiah" Witness: Come and see

Perhaps John is telling us something about ourselves and our response to Jesus. The longer we hang around Jesus, the more we converse with Him, the more we listen to Him, the more we get to know Him personally (rather than simply listen to what others tell us about Him), the deeper our understanding of Him becomes.

Where are you on this progression of understanding? Do you need to "hang around Jesus" some more today?

"Are you born again?" That's a favorite question of our evangelical brothers and sisters. "You must be born again," the conversation between me and a co-worker went. "And you must be able to tell me the date and time." I couldn't. I had grown up in the church. So I must not be "saved," another favorite term.

I'm not sure why people latch onto John 3:3 as the be all and end all way of entering the Kingdom of God. First, the Greek itself, anothen, can be translated either "born again" or "born from above." The NRSV uses the latter translation. Second, the term ONLY appears here, in this conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to Jesus in the darkness (literal and spiritual) of night.

Jim Jackson suggests that because Nicodemus was a Pharisee, he would understand that the Kingdom belonged to Israel, and him in particular, by birth. This covenant relationship with Yahweh was, Nicodemus thought, a birthright thing. But no, Jesus said. If you think it comes to you by birth, you must be born again, or born from above. "Feel the wind, Nicodemus? It blows wherever it wants. It is not as certain as a birthright."

Jesus' "selling" of the Kingdom of God is not formulaic. He does not preach "you must be born again" to everyone, in fact, He doesn't preach it ever again in this gospel. As Jesus goes about revealing the Father's glory, His approach to each person -- the woman at the well, His own disciples, etc. -- is unique each time and tailor-made for each individual.

I wish I had known this when talking to my co-worker. I wouldn't have felt inferior!

In John's Gospel, Jesus does not do "miracles." In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus does "miracles," which are a translation of the word "dunameis," or "acts of power." (Incidently, this is the same word from which we get our "dynamite.") In John, Jesus does not do "dunameis," He does "semeion," or "signs." These signs, like all signs, are meant to point to some reality beyond themselves. In this gospel, signs point to the glory of Jesus, which is the revealed glory of God.

Today we read Jesus' first sign -- turning water into wine at a wedding feast in Cana, a town in Galilee. It is sometimes said that the Jesus revealed in John's Gospel is the most divine, the most unlike us, that is, His humanity is downplayed and His divinity is played up. Yet, I find it very interesting what Jesus chose (and He did CHOOSE) as His first sign -- helping a host avoid the embarrassment, the social nightmare, of running out of wine. This is a VERY human act.

Think about this. Signs reveal the glory of God, the character of God. God's glory had never before been visible to human beings (see my Jan 28 blog). Jesus, in revealing something about God through His signs, might have wanted to do something BIG -- turn the sun blood red, or delay the rising of the moon, or something equally dramatic. But no. Jesus goes to a wedding, a very important, even to this day, human social feast. And He turns purification water into wine. What aspect of God's glory, or God's character, does this point to? God is very concerned about us. God sweats the little things as well as the big things. God is with us.

What's going on in your life today that you would wish God would sweat with you?

"From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another." (Jn 1:16)

Just a small observation today. From the fullness of Jesus' grace, being the fullness of the glory of the Father, John says we ALL receive grace. This contrasts with what John says in 1:12 - "to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..."

I may be drawing too fine a point, but in 1:16, John seems to be acknowledging that Jesus brings God's grace in some form to ALL the world. Within that set of those who receive grace, there is a subset -- those who receive him -- who receive a specific grace, power to become children of God. Yet there is grace for ALL the world also. It's a different grace, but it's there none the less.

The Old Testament acknowledges that God sends the grace of rain upon the just and the unjust. ALL get to share in the grace of Creation, in which the Word was a participant. Even Paul acknowledges in Romans 1:20 that there is a revelation of God for all -- "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..."

From the fullness of Jesus' grace, we ALL receive grace upon grace.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, NIV)

The Old Testament makes a big deal out of God's glory. We're not allowed to see it. Just before Moses receives the Law on Mt. Sinai in Exodus 19:12, God tells him, "You shall set limits for the people all around, saying 'Be careful not to go up the mountain (where God is) or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death."

Later, after the Golden Calf fiasco, Moses pleads to be able to see God. Not an unreasonable request, it seems, after all the pleading, and intercession Moses has been engaged in for the people with God. "Show me your glory, I pray," Moses says in Ex. 33:18. God says no. But God makes Moses a deal. "You cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live. ...There is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen." (Ex. 33:20-23)

And that is what God does. Afterward, Moses descends from Mt. Sinai and his face is glowing. "Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God." (Ex. 34:29) This just from viewing the BACK SIDE of God, hidden in a cleft of rock, with God's hand covering Moses' eyes!

In Isaiah's great vision of God in chapter 6 of his prophetic book, Isaiah sees Seraphs, special 6-winged angels, hovering new God. In the Hebrew equivalent of underlining, CAPITALIZING, and bolding a phrase for emphasis, they are singing "holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts." Yet even these special attendants of God may not look upon Him. With two wings, they are covering their eyes. (Isa. 6:2)

I can understand why this would be so. Who can look upon God's purity and truth and love. When Isaiah gets a glimpse (in a vision), he cries out in Isa. 6:5, "Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips..."

With that background, John the Evangelist so easily writes, "We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only." So we get to see the glory of God at long last. And live. We had to be prepared. The time was not yet right in the Old Testament. But when God finally revealed His glory, what did it look like? Jesus. And what we see in God's glory is not Law, but grace. And Truth with a capital T. And in seeing, we received grace upon grace.

It was worth the wait.

Wow, my last update was Jan 11th. I'm bad. But we were studying the Psalms. I try not to update anything unless I have a moving thought. After the first week of reading Psalms, I guess my brain went dead.

But now we are studying the Gospel According to John! The New Testament at last. I feel like our group was sort of crawling to the finish line. But we made it. Here we are.

"In the beginning was the Word..." John begins his gospel with a prologue about the Word. The concept is logos in Greek. What an inspired concept John used. Here's why...

Hebrews understood the concept of God's Word as something connected to creation. "God said...and it was." From the Hebrew wisdom literature, wisdom was personified as standing with God at creation. The Gentile Greeks understood logos as the central organizing principle of the universe, sort of the content of God's mind if you will. So this one concept, Word or logos, would speak powerfully to both camps, Jew and Gentile. It was a bridge between the central theological ideas of Jew and Gentile.

And the logos became flesh and dwelled among us. His name is Jesus.

"Hallelujah!" Praise the Lord! So begins, and ends, the last psalm of the Psalter, Psalm 150. This is a hymn of the community that gives praise to God. It recounts none of the Lord's benefits, as other psalms do. It asks nothing of God, as other psalms do. It does not lament anything God has not yet done, as other psalms do. It is pure praise. The psalmist identifies WHO should praise (everything that has breath), why they should praise (God's surpassing greatness), and how they should praise (with every kind of music imaginable).

I find this interesting because it sort of makes this psalm the answer to the Satan's charge against Job. Remember that scene in the heavenly court when the Satan approaches God and says, basically, that the only reason Job, and other human beings, worship God is because of what God does for us? "Have you not put a fence around him (Job) and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face."

Satan's charge is that human worship of God is based solely on THANKSGIVING. We can be grateful for what God has done for us and what God gives us. But absent those, we will not worship God for Who God is. Our worship of God is not based on PRAISE. Or so charges the Satan.

Psalm 150 is therefore the "anti-Satan." It is pure praise. No thanksgiving for what God gives us or what God does for us. No asking God for anything. Just pure praise for God's "surpassing greatness."

Job never knew of the heavenly debate. But in the end, Psalm 150 vindicates him!

Praise the Lord!

Today we read Psalms 42-43, 46, 51, and 57.

Here's an interesting tidbit when reading Psalms 42-43. These two psalms, which were originally one psalm, begin Book II of the V books of Psalms (like the 5 books of Moses). The inscription says they are "of the Korahites." Who?

Korah was an influential figure from the wilderness wandering period of Israel's history. Like Moses and Aaron, he was a descendant of Levi according to Exodus 6:16-24. He led a revolt described in Numbers 16:1-40 against Moses and Aaron. He died in his attempt to seek priestly equality with the descendents of Aaron. As the descendants of Aaron consolidated their priestly power in the period of the Jerusalem Temple, the Korahites were reduded to peripheral roles. The "sons of Korah" were Temple singers, guardians, gatekeepers, bakers, and so on. But they never got to serve as priests in the "holy of holies" as the descendants of Aaron did. They were 2nd class priests because of what their ancestor did.

Might this explain why their soul was downcast? Might this shed light on tears being shed day and night? Might this explain the taunts they suffered, "Where is YOUR God?"

Sometimes our destiny seems stuck on a trajectory launced by our family history. Sometimes that trajectory can cause us great pain. Addictions. Poverty. Dysfunctions. If so, we're in good company. Psalm 42 and 43 are our lanterns of light. Despite the "black sheep" in their family, one who was swallowed up by the earth at God's command (a really bad black sheep!), still they could write, "My soul thirts for God, for the living God." It is understandable that they should feel like castoffs. But look at the hope! "Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my help and my God."

You can be proud of your great-great-grandkids, Korah. They have redeemed your name.

Continuing our study of the Psalms of faith, we look today at Psalms 1, 2, 22, and 23.

Let me share some thoughts on Psalm 23. These insights have always meant a lot to me because they were given to me as I mourned my father's sudden death in March of 1990.

When I was in the 3rd grade, we were "forced" to memorize the 23rd Psalm in Sunday School. Then we recited it as a class before the whole church. As difficult as that may have been then, it made the Psalm stick with me. I've recited it often, read it, heard it read. It was always the same. But when I really needed this insight, it was given to me.

The Psalmist describes God as his shepherd. Notice that he is not talking about a shepherd with a whole flock of sheep, but of a shepherd and ONE of his sheep. It is about relationship with the shepherd. It is about intimacy with the shepherd.

Look how the Psalmist describes the shepherd: "HE makes me lie down in green pastures; HE leads me beside still waters; HE restores my soul. HE leads me in right paths for his name's sake." The word "he" grammatically is a third person pronoun. It is used to refer to someone in the abstract, or someone not currently present. It's as if the Psalmist's relationship with the shepherd is theoretical -- sort of the difference between intellectual assent or belief, and intimate relationship.

Now notice how those pronouns referring to the shepherd change after the Valley of the Shadow of Death. In v. 4, "Even though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I fear no evil." Why? "For YOU are with me; YOUR rod and YOUR staff -- they comfort me." Now the Psalmist is using second person pronoun. He is referring to someone actually present, no longer "theoretical," but somone with whom he is having a relationship.

It has always been my contention that a walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death does that to you. No matter what your relationship to the shepherd prior to that Walk, your relationship changes. God is no longer "He," theoretical, abstract -- God is now "You," right here, with me.

I often tell families in their time of grief that this insight means that no matter what relationship their loved one had with the Shepherd prior to their death, I believe the Shepherd comes to them in that dark valley, and they come to see Him as never before. I believe that is how it is with my father, who was never a deeply spiritual man. Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10) came to him and dad's pronouns changed from 3rd person to 2nd person. "I will fear no evil; for you are with me..."

This insight has always brought me great comfort.

I received an insight today into the Book of Psalms that I had never thought about before. It came from our study guide.

I knew that the Psalms are poetry, and that in typical Hebrew poetic fashion, the art is expressed not in meter or rhyme, as in English poetry, but in parallelism ... where one line of thought is repeated or expanded upon by a second. "Praise the LORD, all you nations! Extol him, all you peoples!" (Psalm 117:1)

What I hadn't realized is this: The Hebrew Psalms have been translated into all modern languages. Had they been built on rhyme or meter, the poetic force would have become language-specific. It would have lost its force in translation. But because the Psalms are built around parallelism, their poetic beauty and spiritual insight is preserved.

When you think about it, that is what you would expect from a God who intends these poetic hymns to be used by people across the centuries and in every conceivable place and time. What a provision! What a gift!

Today, I continue to read "Song of Songs" with the help of Bernard of Clairveaux, the 12th century mystic. Bernard, like all the early interpreters, Jewish and Christian, saw in the SOS a metaphor of love between God (Christ) and His people. Regarding the "kiss" so frequently mentioned in SOS, Bernard says, "any one who has received this mystical kiss from the mouth of Christ at least once, seeks again that intimate experience, and eagerly looks for its frequent renewal. I think that nobody can grasp what it is except the one who receives it. For it is 'a hidden manna,' and only he who eats it still hungers for more."

But Bernard does not think that one can immediately kiss Christ on the mouth, which represents the epitome of intimacy with the Lord. No, instead, he says, "I do not wish to be suddenly on the heights, my desire is to advance by degrees." Advance by degrees. One begins as a repentant sinner, prostrate before Christ, kissing only His feet. Then one rises a bit and kisses Christ on the hands. After Christ forgives the repentant sinner, by His hand He helps us up and sustains us, so that we may not, like a dog, return to our vomit (says Bernard). Therefore, we kiss the hand that sustains us.

Only then are we ready for the intimacy the kiss on the lips represents. "Once you have had this twofold experience of God's benevolence in these two kisses, you need no longer feel abashed in aspiring to a holier intimacy. ...It is my belief that to a person so disposed, God will not refuse that most intimate kiss of all, a mystery of supreme generosity and ineffable sweetness." Again, as Bernard sees this, "first, we cast ourselves at his feet, we weep before the Lord who made us, deploring the evil we have done. Then we reach out for the hand that will lift us up, that will steady our trembling knees. And finally, when we shall have obtained these favors through many prayers and tears, we humbly dare to raise our eyes to his mouth, so divinely beautiful, not merely to gaze upon it, but I say it with fear and trembling - to receive its kiss."

You may read the whole sermon from which these thoughts come at: http://glorifyhisname.com/sys-tmpl/b5/

Where do you need to be in this progression today?