Escorted through the gates of hell

Back when I worked for a paycheck I worked with a group of corporate attorneys.  I vividly recall a meeting with all of management where the chief attorney made a statement that got everyone’s attention big-time.  The subject of the meeting was handling and disposition of toxic waste, and the following of government regulations.  He said that there was personal jail time for anyone caught intentionally disregarding the regulations—that the government had gotten serious on the matter and was no longer simply levying fines on corporations.  Someone in the audience asked if there would be personal representation by the corporate legal staff, to which the answer was yes.  The chief attorney went on to say that he had represented people in the past—represented them all the way to the jail cell.  His point was, if found guilty, there was little that could be done about it, even with a high-powered lawyer by our side.

Which brings up the reason for this blog post.  The last post about the marriage escape clause has generated some less than complementary emails. (And some complements too.)  But as I think about it, we humans, the created, want to have our way when it comes to running our lives, regardless what the Creator intends.  We even go so far as to manipulate the Creator’s instructions (Scripture) to come to conclusions that suit ourselves, totally ignoring those instructions that condemn.  And we love religious leaders who support our waywardness…invariably out of fear of alienating the masses that fuel the system.  When this happens, it brings back memories of that chief attorney escorting his clients to jail, except in our case our religious leaders are escorting their flocks all the way through the gates of hell.

But nothing is new under the sun.  Jesus was facing the same situation with religious leaders 2,000 years ago.  They benefited by leading the people in what Moses permitted regardless of what God intended.  Their catering to human desires and tradition brought them on a collision course with our Lord.  Are we being led on a collision course too?  I think so. 

Gene Pool             

        

The marriage escape clause – a delusion or truth

“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”   Wow, what a startling statement made by Jesus’ disciples. They were in shock by what they had just heard him say.  What is it he could have said that would have produced such a reaction?  Have you ever wondered? 

Ol’ Gene can’t imagine what it would be like not married to Cess, his beautiful bride of over half a century.  But the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 19 actually said it would is better not to marry if certain conditions were true.  Have you ever thought about what those conditions might be?  It has to be important…no, more important than important.  It has to be monumental since marriage is one of the things God ordained of humans in Genesis.  So what was it that was so shocking?

Looking back in previous verses, Jesus was responding to religious leaders about marriage and divorce, and how God intended it to be.  At first glance, his response appears straightforward.  He mentioned that famous marriage escape clause so many have used over the centuries to divorce their spouses with, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality.”  But that’s certainly not shocking or monumental.  We have been taught (and generally accepted) that to be true.  But wait, let’s remember we are not looking at what Jesus actually said, but rather someone’s translation of what he said.  In the original Greek the word translated sexual immorality is porneia.  And porneia is a word with several meanings, only one of which is sexual immorality.  Translators of our Bibles had to pick one of the meanings so they choose sexual immorality.  But another equally viable word they could have chosen is “incest,” marriage between close relatives.  That choice would have been supported with Jesus’ listeners since in Leviticus (Torah) incest is considered to be an illegal marriage—a marriage not recognized by God as legitimate.  It would have also been in-line with the trapping questions that were presented to Jesus by religious leaders.  Remember that John the Baptist had been recently executed for speaking publically against King Herod’s incestuous marriage.    

Hmmm.  Now there’s a thought.  So Jesus could have been saying “if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than discovering she is a relative,” that would surely shock the disciples.  It would mean there are no biblical grounds for a divorce at all—and that “what God has joined together, let no one separate” is not a contradiction.  Even if one’s spouse was out cheating on him, he could not divorce her and be in right-standing before God.  That could easily have resulted in his disciples saying “if this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

O dear!  Do you realize the ramifications of the incest interpretation?  It would mean the escape clause has not been an escape clause after all.  And that all the divorces in the past 2,000 years are null and void.  People are still married in God's eyes to their living first spouses.  Maybe that is why Jesus went on to say “not everyone can accept this word.”  

We had better stop dwelling on this subject else we end up as shocked as the disciples.

Until next time,

Gene Pool

Purity in the Community of God’s People

Ol’ Gene sat through some Scripture teaching this morning that triggered several thoughts for ponder.  One of the Scriptures was in Joshua 7 where a Judahite named Achan held back a portion of war spoil that was to be given over to Jehovah.  And Scripture says “the LORD’s anger burned against Israel.”  In the end, Achan was stoned and burned along with his entire family, his animals, and even his tent.  And then Scripture says “then the LORD turned from his fierce anger.”  

Wow!  One man sinned, and the Lord got angry with everyone!  Now that conflicts with our contemporary way of looking at individuals and groups, and what we consider to be “fairness.”  But with God’s people, in this case, the group is definitely punished for the act of one person.  In fact, we find examples of this throughout the Bible, the many suffering for the sinfulness of the few.

What does this mean?  Well, this Scripture, as well as many others, says to me that God has high expectations for His people--expectations to maintain purity within the community--expectations for them to be a holy people.  He expects them to be intolerate of willful sin.  And if His people tolerate it, that is, if they corrupt the community by allowing sin in the group, God will not go with them as proved by Israel’s defeats at the hands of its enemies.

This can be brought forward and applied to the new covenant church.  God still expects purity within the community of His people.  Those who think He doesn’t ought to ask Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  He killed them to keep impurity from creeping into the infant church.  Later God gave His people instructions by way of Paul’s letters on how to handle corruption among themselves.  And if His people ignore those instructions, they will suffer spiritual defeat.  God will depart from their midst and remove His lamp stand.  Satan will defeat them. 

At least this is the way Ol’ Gene Pool puts together the totality of Scripture.  God is the same today as He was yesterday.  So don’t discard those harsh stories in the Bible as being old fashioned, unloving, and not applying to us in this day in age.  If you do, well….check the Scripture for yourself to see what it says on the matter. 

Blessings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Gene Pool

Complaining: Lesson From Scripture

Ol’ Gene Pool was sick as a dog with a head cold today.  So, it being Sunday, Cess and I stayed home from gathering with the other believers as church.  When we do not assemble with the brothers and sisters, which is seldom, we assemble anyway, just the two of us here at our little house in the boonies.  I usually take the phone off the hook where we won’t be interrupted, and for the morning we share our individual walks with the Lord the past week, we share Scripture that is on our hearts, and we pray for many things and many people, especially for the Lord to return soon.  So it was this morning.  It’s always a blessed time. 

During Cess’ share of Scripture, she pointed to Numbers 10 and 11 where “the children of Israel set forward according to their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai.”  God arranged His people in an order.  First Judah, then the other tribes of Israel in an exact order.  Last were the non-Israelites, those mix of peoples who had fled Egypt with them.  They brought up the rear when traveling, and camped on the parameter of the camp when they stopped. 

Scripture tells us that the people complained and when God heard it His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.  It goes on to say that the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting; and also the sons of Israel wept again and said, “Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish which we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and the garlic, but now our appetite is gone. There is nothing at all to look at except this manna.”

Now ol’ Gene definitely doesn’t intend to lessen the responsibility of the Israelites, but it is interesting to note that the complaining seem to begin with the non-chosen, the mixt multitude who tagged along.  And God’s wrath was displayed first on the outskirts where they camped.

Which brings me to today.  It is normal for complaining to begat complaining.  Once one person starts it, no matter how good they have it, someone else inevitably chimes in.  I witnessed it at work for 40 years.  And it started with misfits--people who could not work with, or for, others--people who were never satisfied no matter how much catering to they received--the basically unhappy.  And before it was over, even some of the contented were fault-finding.

It seems so it is with the vast majority of today’s visible churches.  One starts to murmur or complain, and before you know it the fire is raging.  Could it be that the story in Numbers has a lesson in it?…where the non-chosen were the ones who started the trouble?  Could it be that if the visible church was made up believers there would be no complaining?  Hmmm.  Now that’s food for thought!

God's blessings,
Gene       

He may be the one looking for your love

Certain scriptures have been rolling around in ol' Gene Pool's head the past few days.  One is from the Gospel of John and goes like this:  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” 

Our Lord did not suggest this, or say if one felt like it, He commanded His followers to love one another—that they must love one another.  It’s non-optional.

Another is where Paul echoed Jesus’ command in 1 Corinthians:  “These three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”  And Peter wrote in one of his letters:  “Above all, love each other deeply.”

So the bottom line is, Christians are to love one another and one can recognize them by their doing such.  But it is often not the case.      

I have long ago lost track of how many times have I watched people who “go to church” and claim to be Christian act rude, unloving, and downright mean to one another.  I have lost track of how many times I personally have experienced this rudeness and lack of love from church-goers, no matter how much love, kindness, and cheek-turning is poured their way.  And it seems the more rural the church, the ratio of the rude and mean to loving is higher than is found in big city churches.  It also seems that the more rural the church the more apt the rude and mean are to go unchecked by shepherds (pastors), because rural churches have a propensity to derail the careers of pastors…also known as run ‘em off.

All that said, the other day a friend introduced me to a gentleman who was very discouraged with his previous church, and was looking for another group of believers to gather with.  After being asked my suggestion, I commented that wherever he visited to look for love.  And no matter how dynamic the preaching was, no matter how good the programs were, no matter how much he agreed with the doctrine, and no matter how magnificent the facilities were, that if he couldn’t clearly see genuine love among the brethren to turn on his heels and flee.  In my opinion, church should possess, first and foremost, genuine love among one another.  And if there isn’t love, it isn’t church.  I will probably never see this gentleman again and I will wonder if my suggestion was of any value to him.  But he got what was asked for.

So if you see a man about 40 with sandy hair show up Sunday as a visitor, he may be the one looking for your love. 

Blessings,
Gene Pool

Searching the “fine print” in Scripture

“Son, pay attention to the fine print.”  Those words still echo in my head.  They are what my late father used to impress upon me, especially when dealing with matters of importance.  And he was right…as usual.  I learned well that spending the time to read and understand what the fine print says, and doesn’t say, can save a bunch of trouble later on down the road.  I recall one of my pals learning the hard way about “balloon payments” back when we were young men.  And it was all there in the fine print if he had just taken the time to read it.    

Lately in my early morning and late evening studies I have been digging into what I call the “fine print” in Scripture—those little things said, sometimes intentionally left unsaid, contrasted, and hinted at—that never get taught in Sunday School.  These little pearls are often obscure to us in our fast-moving western culture.  But they illuminate the deeper meanings of Scripture—meanings missed and substituted with meanings based on our worldview rather than worldviews of Biblical writers.  Discovering these pearls gives deeper understanding, and many times a corrected understanding of the Bible.

That said, Jesus regularly used rabbinic techniques in his teaching, after all he was a rabbi.  One of those techniques would be to quote a portion of a distinctive phrase from Scripture (usually Torah) and then let the audience fill in the rest.  Unlike us, the stories and laws of Scripture were common knowledge among his hearers so they “got it” when Jesus would do that.  In the Israel of Jesus, Scripture and the law were the yardstick by which all of life was measured.  They were continually on peoples’ minds.

In Matthew 18:22 [NIV] we find a well known example of rabbinic teaching.  Peter asks, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother who sins against me?  Up to seven times?”  Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”  Now I have been taught all my life that Jesus was telling Peter that the number of times he (and we) are to forgive others is infinite.  With that understanding I was missing Jesus’ punch line, but I am sure Peter did not.

The key to Jesus’ meaning is embedded in the Torah passage to which he alluded, Lamech’s song in Genesis 4:24.  The phrase “seventy-seven times,” an unusual biblical number, is found only there in the entire Bible.  Lamech is an obscure character we seldom give a thought to, but looking at his words, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.  If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times,” it is plain to see he was one very bad dude.  Anyone who crossed Lamech would be paid back big time, not just seven times (the number representing completeness), but seventy-seven times.  He was a vengeful and merciless man.

It might be good to point out that Peter was also a volatile personality, known to be a passionate reactor in situations—rough and tumble as most commercial fishermen are. 

In Jesus’ response, he was making a scriptural reference that Peter (his hearer) understood.  So what did Peter understand?  What did Jesus want Peter to understand?  I am convinced he was conveying the idea, not of infinite forgiveness (which is a logical guess), but of forgiveness that exceeds the sins against him to the same degree as Lamech’s revenge exceeded the wrongs done to him.  Jesus was telling Peter that his forgiveness was to be passionate forgiveness, just as Lamech’s revenge was passionate.  And this is the meaning we ought to take away.

Now some of you are thinking “Gene, that is total blasphemy!  My preacher never said anything about that!  You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about!”  All I can say is think about it.  If Jesus had meant an infinite number of times, he would have said so.  Or he would have pointed to a Scripture that indicates such.  But he didn’t, did he.  If you have one of those Bibles with the center column of small print references, check it out for yourself.  Look at Matthew 18, verse 22.  There you will find a microscopic letter giving reference to the center column…where it references none other than Genesis 4:24.  Jesus was pointing to Lamech’s exuberant vengeance as the contrast to what Peter was to do.

I have another example found in Matthew 13:33 where Jesus said “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.”  But it is best saved for another time.  I am finding that some of my readers skip long blogs, and this one is already getting too long.  So until next time, try to look beyond the logical…and beyond your Sunday School quarterly.

Gene Pool

Over-confidence in what we “definitely” know

Serious students of Scripture understand that all Bibles printed in the English language are translations.  They also understand that translating requires interpretation. 

Second, all serious students understand that verses and passages are to be viewed in context, not only of the verses nearby, but in the totality of the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation.  And that taking a verse or passage out of context leads to a high probability of being misunderstood.

I reflect back and think about the times I heard someone in a discussion of Scripture say “this verse means thus-n-such,” and “that passage means thus-n-such” with such confidence that it caused me to cringe.  The same when I have heard “this institution firmly stands for right teaching, and we will not tolerate wrong teaching” with such conviction that one can visualize a burning at the stake if some invisible line was crossed.  Listening to these speakers, I always wondered how long it would be before they had revelations where they changed their positions they were once so sure about…and how much debris would be in their wakes.

Now don’t take me wrong.  There is no way I would say that all Scripture and passages fall into this category.  Some are plain and straightforward such as “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” and other direct commands of God.  No one challenges those (with the exception of violators).  But other units of Scripture can have meanings far from their contemporary English words and sentences.  And those meanings can be different based on the use of words over time, cultural bridges, translators’ selection of words, etc.    

With that said, have you ever read a Bible passage that either did not fit with other Scripture, or it almost but did not quiet fit?  I have.  And those troubled me until I could reconcile them.  I have occasionally analogized this as like a giant puzzle where all the pieces are perfectly shaped and are known to fit together perfect.  But in some cases the worker of the puzzle has a piece that is close but won’t quiet snap in.  Or when it is forced in, it places a bind or pressure on other pieces around it.  It just doesn’t quiet fit perfect like it is supposed to.

Looking at the scriptural problem (and the problem is not the Scripture), for this writing let’s look at translators’ interpretations, specifically their understandings and selections of words.  Translators must read and digest ancient manuscripts in other languages, interpret what the original author conveyed, and then chose words based on their understandings to hopefully mean the same thing to their readers.  A question is, do interpreters always chose correctly?  I say not…and that is a definite not.  I am confident enough to say this by simply comparing a few words in different translations.  Verses are often translated with different words that send readers off on poor if not misunderstandings of complete areas of Scripture.

Let’s look at an example.  In Malachi 6:5, this is how various translators translated God’s tsĕdaqah (righteousness):

NIV   “…that you may know the righteous acts of the LORD.”
NASB   “…that you might know the righteous acts of the LORD.”
KJV “…that ye may know the righteousness of the LORD.”
ESV“…that you may know the saving acts of the LORD."
RSV  “…that you may know the saving acts of the LORD."

Our popular understanding of righteousness is someone who maintains an admirable standard of morality, obeys the law, and is known as a “decent person.”  But surely that is not intended to describe God’s righteousness.

From the earliest times, Israel celebrated Yahweh as the one who bestowed on His people the all-embracing gift of His righteousness.  And this tsĕdaqah (righteousness) bestowed on Israel is always viewed as a saving gift.  So God’s righteousness is His gracious gifts of mighty saving acts and the call for a reflective response to that grace. [1] 

So the ESV and RSV translators made a correct selection in their choice of words, and thus the entire block of Scripture, from 6:3-8 makes sense to contemporary English speaking people.  Their choice took the bind off that little piece of the puzzle, making the surrounding pieces fit without pressure.

Here is another Scripture to ponder.  In Matthew 19:9 our Lord said “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication.”  The word “fornication” is porneia in the manuscripts.  And one of the definitions for porneia is “sexual intercourse with close relatives” (incest)—a marriage that was illegal by Israel’s Torah.  So if the verse read “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for incest,” what would that do for understanding of Matthew 19:3-12 as well as all of 1 Corinthians 7?  It would be as correct a translation as what we have.  Would it take any pressure off the puzzle pieces?  It does for me.

The bottom line question: what do we do with this?  Do we become fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and get a PhD in the theology of ancient Israel?  Do we memorize lexicons?  Hardly not.  But what we can do is take a serious look at what may be our over-confidence in what we “definitely” know, and also…

“turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding indeed, if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.”   (Proverbs 2:2-6)

Gene Pool

[1] modified from Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p345