What I'm Learning From Ezekiel

It's been a while since I've read Ezekiel. Honestly, the main thing that I remembered were the weird stories like cooking over human excrement and stuff.

I'm up to chapter 29 now, and it's a really interesting book. It speaks of Israel's coming punishment and of the destruction of the countries about it, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, but not so much of it is in verse. I don't know what it's called specifically, but you know, it's indented like a poem, and most of Ezekiel is regular prose.

The main thing that keeps sticking out to me, though, is how God does not discriminate between laws. Christians have a lot of manmade categories for Old Testament laws: ceremonial, civil, and moral. And yet look at these passages from Ezekiel:

"In you they have treated father and mother with contempt; in you they have oppressed the foreigner and mistreated the fatherless and widow. You have despised my holy things and desecrated my Sabbaths. In you are slanderers who are bent on shedding blood; in you are those who eat at the mountain shrines and commit lewd acts. In you are those who dishonor their father's bed; in you are those who violate women during their period, when they are ceremonially unclean. In you one man commits a detestable offense with his neighbor's wife, another shamefully defiles his daughter-in-law, and another violates his sister, his own father's daughter. In you are people who accept bribes to shed blood; you take interest and make a profit from the poor. You extort unjust gain from your neighbors. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign Lord." ~Ezekiel 22:7-12

"Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. . . .The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the foreigner, denying them justice." ~Ezekiel 22:26-29

See also Ezekiel 18:5-9.

In these two passages, defaming the Sabbath, sleeping with a woman on her period, and seeing no difference between clean and unclean are listed right next to murder, robbery, and mistreating the poor and foreigner. I think this is one of the many places in the word that emphasize there is little distinction between the laws of Tanakh.

That said, I do think there is some. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus himself said, "You [the Pharisees] give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

But you'll see the last phrase - without neglecting the former. So while some matters of the law are weightier, Jesus would still have us follow all of it.

What an interesting book! Maybe I'll post again when I'm finished. :)

Jonah & Nahum

The other day, I was volunteering at the Salvation Army Kroc Center, asking people to sign thank you cards for service members overseas. During a slow part, I decided to see if I could write all 66 books of the bible. I remembered all of them but four - James (I really don't know how I forgot that one), Jonah, Nahum, and Habukkuk. I finished my reading through Luke that night, and the next morning, I figured I should read through the minor prophets, since those were the ones that escaped my memory.

So, I read through Jonah. What a crazy story! Well, the part with the whale is a fairly common story, but it's mainly the last chapter that is so intriguing to me.

The first three chapters tell the popular story: God tells Jonah to go to Ninevah, he refuses, running off and getting on a ship. There's a great storm, and the men are forced to throw Jonah overboard. He ends up in the belly of a fish for three days, but when God releases him, Jonah goes to Nineveh and preaches for repentance. Nineveh listens to his message and repents.

The last chapter, however, Jonah is angry that God turns his anger from Nineveh.

"But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. He prayed to the Lord, 'Isn't this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? This is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.' But the Lord replied, 'Is it right for you to be angry?'" (Jonah 4:1-4)

Wow, how often do we have the same attitude? We pass judgment and we like to think we know who is righteous and who isn't. We would gladly choose who received punishment or blessings from God. But we are mere men, and God is - well, he's God.

Then Jonah goes to place outside of the city and wait to see if anything will happen to them. It's hot, so God gives him a gourd for some shade. But when a worm comes and eats the gourd, Jonah gets angry again and says he's so angry he wants to die.

"But the Lord said, 'You have been concerned about this gourd, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hands from their left - and also many animals?'" (Jonah 4:10-11)

And that's the end of the book. We don't know how Jonah responded, if he ever got over himself, or if was just miserable because God spared the Ninevites.

But again, how often does this happen? We care about worthless things and turn away from our fellow human beings. We get angry over things we can't control. We cry out to God for ourselves while we ourselves our cruel to our neighbor. I don't know what happened to Jonah or his attitude, but I hope we can accept God's will, even if we don't agree with it. I hope we can approach life with a dose of humility, realizing he's in charge and we're not. I hope we can choose to have the same compassion and love that God has.

I read Nahum this morning, and it's also about Nineveh. Nahum's prophecy is against Nineveh, predicting its destruction. Out of curiosity, I looked up the dates that Jonah and Nahum are thought to be written. Jonah is placed somewhere from 786-746 BCE, and Nahum 615-612 BCE. So while Nineveh repents in Jonah, they have done evil again to bring about the prophecies in Nahum.

This echoes the story of Israel - there were many times God warned them, and Israel did repent. But it only lasted for a short while, they soon fell away again, turning to false gods and cruelty. It appears God did this with Nineveh - he delayed destruction when they repented, but Nahum places some serious charges on them (1:14 speaks of idolatry, 3:1-4 of violence and prostitution, 3:19 of "endless cruelty"). While some individuals may have changed when Jonah came, the society as a whole didn't. God is merciful, but he did have to carry out judgment on them.

Proverbs 26:11 says, "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." May we have the strength to stay away after the first time.

Using the Internet for Good

The internet can be a source of good! This is a post of awesome websites that support charities, literacy, and other good causes. Use them as much as you can! And comment if you know of a good one I left out.

Better World Books is an online book seller. Their mission:
Better World Books collects and sells books online to fund literacy initiatives worldwide. With more than six million new and used titles in stock, we’re a self-sustaining, triple-bottom-line company that creates social, economic and environmental value for all our stakeholders.
I've found that they are usually the same price, if not cheaper than, Amazon, mainly because they offer free shipping within the US. It can take a little longer for the books to arrive (app. 11 days), but for only 99 cents, your item will arrive in 2-6 business days.

Free Rice is a trivia website, and for each right answer you get, the website donates 10 grains of rice to help end world hunger.

GoodSearch is an online search engine. Once you choose a charity, each search you conduct will donate to said charity. There are almost a hundred thousand charities participating (http://www.goodsearch.com/charitylist.aspx) and you can install toolbars for your browser or make it your default search on Google Chrome. (Here is a list of more charity search engines.) If people used these search engines as much as they used google, they'd change the world!

The Hunger Site is a place - you click, and a cup of food is donated because of your click. According to this website, there are almost 2 billion people hooked up to the internet. If each person clicked on The Hunger Site daily, that would be 2 billion cups of food! On the website, there are lots more links to similar websites.

That's all I have for now, but I'm going to keep looking to find more awesome places to help others through your internet connection!

The Social Network

I saw The Social Network last night with my husband for his birthday. It's about the founder of facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and how the creation of the social networking site leads to two lawsuits for Zuckerberg. One is a trio who approached Zuckerberg with a very similar idea and is now suing for intellectual property theft. The other is Zuckerberg's friend and colleague Eduardo Saverin who was tricked out of his shares of the company much later in facebook's development.

When I left this movie, I didn't really know what to think. It's a very well done movie, and I thought the script and acting were spectacular. The cinematography was great, too. I just didn't know what I thought about the arrogant Zuckerberg as he strove to be cool and make facebook something great, not caring much about who got in the way.

I stumbled upon this article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39501838 It's about how the older generation reacted to the movie compared to the younger generation. Older viewers typically saw Zuckerberg obsessed with ambition, driven by greed, and generally morally frowned upon, while younger views typically admired Zuckerberg for his entrepreneurship and saw his ambition as necessary. This quote from the article sums it up:

“I was asked by older people again and again how I could play a character who is capable of being so mean, as if I were almost condemned by this role,” he [Jesse Eisenberg, who plays Mark Zuckerberg] said in a phone call. “But young people never had that reaction. They kept saying, ‘This guy was a genius. Look what he has created.’ ”

Well, I think I've decided how I feel about Zuckerberg's actions, especially when I think about this verse:

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" ~Matthew 16:26

Zuckerberg did do something amazing. Facebook changed the way we communicated. But he wasn't honest with the people who presented him with the idea in the first place or his best friend. He cast them aside for more numbers, for a greater vision of facebook. Some people may view this as necessary. The movie's poster said it: You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.

I just read through Ecclesiastes, and the word hebel is used dozens of times. It means vapor or breath. It's been translated as meaningless, futile, pointless, vapor, vanity. Solomon looks at all the things man strives after in his life - money, pleasure, wisdom, power, prestige - and says it's all in vanity. It's like a vapor, it will be here for a moment and gone the next. Facebook may have changed our lives today, but it'll vanish, along with everything else on this material earth.

Zuckerberg may have decided that his company and vision was more important than those relationships, but why? Money doesn't make anyone truly happy. Eduardo said at the end of the movie, "I was your only friend." But after being dishonest and letting his ambition overrule common laws of decency, Zuckerberg had millions of members on his website and no true friends.

And let's not get into the misogyny in this movie. Two female college students that had personalities and two female lawyers. The rest of the females were half-clothed, drunk, clingy, ready to do it in a dirty bathroom stall, getting high, oogled at, dancing on tables, or on the website that Zuckerberg created to compare undergrad females at Harvard based on hotness. Or looking at it in horror.

I can't deny that it was an extremely well done movie, though. I actually recommend it.

Disclaimer: Who knows how far or close this movie is from the actual truth. I know it's based on a nonfiction book, The Accidental Billionaires, but I haven't read it, and anything I've said in this post just deals with the characters and actions in the movie.

What is a Christian?

A facebook friend of mine posted a link to this article and inspired a debate about whether President Obama is a Christian or not. I don't want to get into politics. Maybe I should be more interested, but most of it just aggravates me. But, it did bring up the question what the definition of a Christian is.

I think when looking at this, we can see just how relative language can be. I don't know where I heard it, but I love the quote: "Words don't have meanings, meanings have words." Language is just a way of labeling the thoughts and ideas in our head. It's just one way of communicating unspoken meanings. And language changes. Words take on different meanings depending on context - who is speaking, how it was said, the time, the place, and so much more. "Christian" is no exception.

Everyone seems to have a different idea about what a Christian is. Someone who believes in God. Someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God. Someone who goes to church. Someone who wants to be like Jesus. And all of these different "Christians" are going to act differently. Someone who believes in God doesn't necessarily go to church, and someone who goes to church doesn't necessarily live like Jesus. When we think about it, Jesus' life is one rarely mimicked by people today: traveling around and forsaking his family, wealth, and comfort to preach about the kingdom of God, reach out to the poor, and eventually die a gruesome death.

The word "Christian" appears in the bible three times:
Acts 11:26: "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Acts 26:28: "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
1 Peter 4:16: "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."

The Greek word used here is Christianos. (here is the Blue Letter Bible page for it.) Literally, it means a "Christ follower." So, if we were going to use the word Christian in that sense, it would be someone who followed Jesus Christ of Nazareth and his teachings. If only it were that easy, right? If every person who said they were a Christian read Jesus' teachings everyday and made consistent actions to follow them, what would happen to this world? It would be a different world, that's for sure.

But, honestly, I think Jesus' words can seem empty without their context. Again, language changes, and what Jesus said in Hebrew or Aramaic that was written down in Greek is going to sound a lot different a couple thousand years later in English.

For instance, in Matthew 6:22 Jesus says, "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" After some study (here, here and here), we find out the reference to a good eye versus bad eye refers to generosity versus stinginess.

You have to understand Jesus' foundation, as well. You would not believe how many times Jesus quotes the Tanakh (the Old Testament) or the Talmud (a collection of writings and saying by Jewish rabbis). Here is a list of similar phrases, and that's just from Matthew 5-7. To understand Jesus, I think we need to study the Tanakh just as much as we may study Jesus' teachings. After all, God and Jesus are the same person, right? The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Talmud can also offer a wealth of wisdom, and it can tell us about some of the leading teachers and ideas in Jesus' time.

I could go on about this. I love the English language, but words have power. Words are loaded, and everyone looks at them with a different point of view. That's why I don't call myself Jewish, and I rarely call myself Christian. I prefer "believer" or sometimes even "God-fearer." It'll always take explanation, of course. These labels are never a sure sign that someone will hold all the same views as you (but if we al had the same views, then life would be too easy). Language is too fluid. I think someone's fruit will speak for itself. But then you get into defining what a Christian's fruit is. . .and then I would say Galatians 5:22-23. . .and someone would ask, "Then why do Christians consider homosexuality a sin?" And on and on it goes! I love it. Some call it midrash.

Circumcision

It's been a while since I posted! But I've been thinking about the commandment of circumcision lately, and how it does or doesn't fit into the life of a believer.

I did some research to find out how the majority of the Christian church responds to circumcision, and I found this. I think this sums mainstream Christianity's view on circumcision pretty well. I also think there are some flaws in this thinking. I'll try to keep this short.

Circumcision in the Tanakh
Circumcision is first mentioned in Genesis 17. God presents circumcision as a sign of the covenant with Abraham. It's interesting to look at the narrative, and Tim Hegg believes it tells us about the purpose for circumcision. Two chapters earlier, in Genesis 15:4-7, God first makes promises to Abram:

"Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness."

Genesis 16 tells the story of Abram sleeping with Hagar in an attempt to have a child. Instead of waiting for God's providence, he and Sarai decided to try things their own way.

Then comes Genesis 17, which contains the commandment of circumcision.

"Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." ~Genesis 17:9-14

The circumcision is now a sign of the covenant. Circumcision involves cutting away of the flesh, and I think this is symbolic of the fact that we cannot rely on our own flesh, as Abram and Sarai tried to. They cut away a part of themselves and waited for God's work, not their own. This can also point to our Messiah - he wasn't born from human methods, but born to a virgin. Only God's power brought him into human form.

We see a lot of circumcision in the Tanakh (Old Testament). There are commands that refer to men and slaves in the community being circumcised, there are periods of history when the Jewish people stop the ritual of circumcision.

There is also a spiritual kind of circumcision spoken of in Leviticus 26:40-42, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4.

"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done-- burn with no one to quench it." ~Jer. 4:4

I think God makes it clear throughout the Tanakh that he desires one's heart and dedication, not meaningless rituals. (Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:4-5, 11:13; 1 Samuel 16:7; Psalm 51:16-17; Micah 6:8; Hosea 6:6) Often, however, dedication is shown by obedience. Circumcision was one of these commands, and dedication to God could be shown through carrying out this command. We too are heirs of Abraham, as it says in Galatians 3:29.

The Apostolic Scriptures
This is where stuff gets sticky. Many Christians claim Paul preached against circumcision. I believe the majority of the time Paul uses the phrase "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" he is referring to "Jews" and "non-Jews", and many times the ritual of circumcision is actually a ritual of conversion.

'Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."' ~Acts 15:1

This is what sets off the Jerusalem council. I believe the "circumcision" refers to the ritual of conversion.

"Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" ~Acts 15:10

Is Paul referring to the Paul of Moses? If so, he's saying God gave the Israelites a burden, a yoke that no one could handle. Pretty cruel. Yet contrast this with Deuteronomy 30:10-14:

“For this command which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond your reach. It isn’t in the sky, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ Likewise, it isn’t beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will cross the sea for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ On the contrary, the word is very close to you - in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you can do it!”

From the mouth of God.

Instead, I think Paul (and Jesus in Luke 11:46) is talking about the oral law that had come up around the Torah. Instead of merely God's commands, rabbis and sages had added on extra manmade laws to make sure no one broke a Torah command. Why would Paul and Jesus call the law a burden or a yoke when the writers of Psalms 19 and 119 loved the law and wanted to bury it in their hearts?

You can also see that in the very next chapter, Paul has Timothy circumcised. This is a bold move for someone who says in Galatians 5:2, "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

Why would a simple command make Christ useless to us? No, it was the fact that these men wanted to be officially recognized as Jews. They were doing this for men, not God.

This theory is supported by 1 Corinthians 7:18-19:

"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts."

If Paul was talking merely about the cutting away of the foreskin, then how could a man who was circumcised become uncircumcised? In this verse, and arguably in many others, he is talking about the ritual of conversion, which was called circumcision. I guess you could call it slang of the day.

I believe Paul still considered the Tanakh and all of its commands as valid (Romans 3:31, 7:12), which would lead him to believe that circumcision was still a command.

Fortunately, God realizes we are humans, we still sin, and he offers grace and salvation through his Son. Praise Him!

Food

Sometimes when I tell people that I am allergic to wheat, dairy, and potatoes, I get some interesting responses. "Oh, my god, I am so sorry." "I could never live without cheese!" "That's so sad, I love bread."

I don't really know if these responses are supposed to comfort me. I think, usually, people are putting themselves into my position. Wheat, dairy, and potatoes constitute a large portion of the American diet, especially fast food diets. Those allergies rule a lot out. I'm forced to think out of the box. I have to go to special stores and usually pay more. It's not fun or convenient.

I think it's kind of melodramatic, though, when people say they would never live without those things. Actually, you can. Your body will survive without wheat products. Hard to wrap your mind around, I know.

I was reading Deuteronomy today and came across this verse: "He [God] humbled you, allowing you to become hungry, and then fed you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had ever known, to make you understand that a person does not live on food alone but on everything that comes from the mouth of Adonai" ~8:3.

Jesus used this verse against Satan after forty days of fasting. Satan asked him why he didn't just change the rocks into bread, and Jesus said this.

I think God made food to be pleasurable. He didn't make processed cheese puffs and mountain dew, but he made cows for their meat and milk. He made fruits that are sweet. He wanted us to enjoy his creation. But it's not the only thing we survive on.

Think about it - a large majority of people in this world have never had the chance at as much variety as we do in our society. We have pastas, cheeseburgers, quesadillas, oatmeal - I could go on and on! A lot of people, though, have meat just a few times a year. They could never dream of all the crazy things people cook these days.

Our society loves food, and I think we've come to the point where we think it's one of the centerpieces of our lives. Of course you need it to survive. Of course, God gave us certain things to enjoy. But I need to remember that wheat bread and ice cream and mashed potatoes aren't going to make my life better. I need to survive on every word from the mouth of Adonai.

Galatians 3

The third chapter, the one that brings all the controversy! Links: Bible Gateway - NIV, Blue Letter Bible - KJV, Bible Gateway - ESV. Again, I'll be quoting from David Stern's translation unless otherwise noted.

To recap: during chapter one and two, Paul recognized that there was a gospel being preached that was contrary to the true gospel. This gospel claimed that the Galatians had to undergo the ritual of circumcision and officially convert to Judaism to be saved. At the end of Galatians 2, he says that this is silly: merely following these laws is not sufficient to save someone.

Paul uses the first five verses of chapter 3 to call the Galatians stupid (hehe) and ask if they forgot how the Spirit worked. "Are you that stupid? Having begun with the Spirit's power, do you think you can reach the goal under your own power? . . . What about God, who supplies you with the Spirit and works miracles among you - does he do it because of your legalistic observance of Torah commands or because you trust in what you heard and are faithful to it?"~3:3, 5

Basically: how can you honestly think doing this will save you? Who do you think you are? You think you can EARN salvation? No, no, no, it is God's grace, and nothing else. You must have forgotten who you're dealing with - the Lord of all creation, who makes us holy.

He uses Abraham to drive the point home. He trusted in God, and it was credited to his account as righteousness. Voila! What's interesting is while Paul uses Abraham to drive this point of faith home, James uses Abraham to speak about deeds coupled with faith.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." ~James 2:21-24 (ESV)

James says that works and faith go hand in hand. This isn't contradictory to what Paul says, is it? I don't think so. Romans 3:31 says, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law!"

We can't just take bits and pieces of the bible to support certain beliefs - that's called prooftexting. Scripture interprets scripture.

Anyways, continuing in Galatians 3. Verses 10-14 speak of curses. This can be misinterpreted. Many people say that the law itself was a curse. I'm sorry, but that doesn't match up with everything else in the bible.

"So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good." ~Romans 7:12.

ALL of Psalm 119.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple." ~Psalm 19:7 (and also 8-10)

“For this command which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond your reach. It isn’t in the sky, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ Likewise, it isn’t beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will cross the sea for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ On the contrary, the word is very close to you - in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you can do it!” ~Deuteronomy 30:10-14 (from the big guy himself!)

So, what IS this curse? Well, it's the curse that comes from not keeping the law. Deuteronomy 27:26 says, "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." No one can follow every command. That is the reason God sent his Son. Jesus DID carry out every command in the law. He was flawless, but he still took the punishment of death for those of us who couldn't be perfect. And he did this so that we might receive the Spirit! The Spirit does show up in the Old Testament a few times (Genesis 1:2, Proverbs 1:23, 1 Samuel 19:18-24), but Ephesians 1:13-14 says that the Holy Spirit is a seal guaranteeing our inheritance. Paul speaks in Romans 8 how one can live by the Spirit. We have received an awesome gift!

Galatians 3:15-18, Paul speaks of oaths and promises. "When someone swears an oath, no one else can set it aside or add to it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed. It doesn't say, 'and to seeds', as if to many; on the contrary, it speaks of one - 'and to your seed' - and this 'one' is the Messiah. Here is what I am saying: the legal part of the Torah, which came into being 430 years later, does not nullify an oath sworn by God . . . For it the inheritance comes from the legal part of the Torah, it no longer comes from a promise." ~3:15-18

God's promise was not nullified by the legal part of the Torah. He promised blessings for Abraham and his seed, and the commands later given to Moses do not affect the promise. Paul is mentioning this because the Galatians are listening to a gospel that claims that the law has more power than the promise. Sorry, but no.

What is interesting about this passage is a lot of contemporary Christians ignore it. They speak of a 'New Covenant' over an 'Old' one, and say that the Old Testament has been abolished and we no longer need to follow any of the commands. And yet Paul says that one covenant cannot cancel out another! An oath cannot be added to! In Exodus 19, the Israelites made a covenant with God, saying they would follow his law, and, in return, they would be his treasured possession. I'm not sure why people think this oath just vanished with the coming of Christ. YES, the curse of this law is gone - Christ has taken all the punishment for our imperfections and sins. But the covenant is still there, and if we claim to be a part of Isreal (Romans 11), why would we not attempt to follow all of his laws?

Paul speaks of the reason for the legal part of Torah in Gal. 3:19: "It was added in order to create transgressions." He goes on to ask, "Does this mean that the legal part of the Torah stands in opposition to God's promises?" His answer: "Heaven forbid!" They are not in opposition, but instead the legal part shows how things are sinful so that the promise may be carried out.

Gal. 3:23 is interesting. Here is the verse in the King James Version: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." Unfortunately, many versions use words to imply that we were imprisoned to the law until Christ came. The word 'until' is not found in the original Greek, and the word 'shut up' is a tricky word. It's only used four times in all the New Testament:
1) Luke 5:6, "When they had done this, they INCLOSED a great multitude of fishes; and their nets broke."
2) Romans 11:32, "For God hate CONCLUDED them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon them all.
3) Galatians 3:22, "But the scripture hath CONCLUDED all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
4) Galatains 2:23, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, SHUT UP unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed."

If we look at the context of each verse, it seems like this word means something like 'enclose' or 'group together.' So, all who were kept under the law (and its curses) were grouped together (as sinners) and blinded to the faith that should be revealed. Before faith came, we kept trying to achieve righteousness on our own.

"Accordingly, the Torah functioned as a custodian until the Messiah came, so that we might be declared as righteous on the ground of trusting and being faithful. But now that the time for this trusting faithfulness has come, we are no longer under a custodian." ~3:24-25.

Other versions use the words tutor and teacher instead of custodian. In a way, it's like we graduated high school. The Torah was an important thing, and it kept us until Messiah came, but we are no longer under its rule. So, yes, we are no longer subject to the curses of the law. I just wonder where it says that the standard of righteousness had changed. Isn't this still God's measure of right and wrong? Where in the bible does it say differently? Where does he or his apostles say that the law no longer needs to be followed? I agree that we rely on God's grace for salvation, that he alone can save us and make us righteous, but where does it say that the Torah is no longer what God wants for us?

The last few verses of chapter 3 emphasize Paul's disagreement with some men who preach only Jews can be saved and encouraged the new Christians to undergo the formal ritual of conversion. "For in union with this Messiah, you are all children of God through this trusting faithfulness; because as many of you as were immersed into the Messiah have clothed yourselves with the Messiah, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor freeman, neither male nore female; for in union with the Messiah Yeshua, you are all one. Also, if you belong to the Messiah, you are seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise." ~3:26-29.

If Galatians is a book in which Paul tells new believers that they don't have to follow the Torah, these verses seem a little out of place. Sure, they're nice to hear, but what would they have to do with Paul discarding the entire Tanakh (Old Testament)? If, instead, this book is a response to men who are telling the Galatians the only way they can be saved is through a formal conversion, then these verses fit in perfectly. Paul says that, in Messiah, we are all one. We do not have to be Jews, male, or freemen, to becoming heirs. Anyone can belong to Messiah, not just converts to Judaism.

Thoughts on Philippians

I won't go through every chapter, because Galatians is taking me months to finish. Just a few passages that stuck out to me...

"I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength." ~Phil. 4:10-13

Man! If I could truly master this - being content in EVERY situation. Not complaining. Not thinking anything is a waste of my time. Not questioning God. Paul was okay with not having tons of money or even food. Chris (my husband) and I want to move to Tacoma, but we know we'll need first month's rent, deposits, jobs, etc. I was recently took off the Salvation Army's insurance because I'm now married, and I keep thinking about how much I'll have to pay if something happens, or if I want a simple doctor's visit. But Paul says we can do all things through God who gives us strength!

Verse 6 of chapter 4 says, "Don't worry about anything; on the contrary, make your requests known to God by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving." Ah, if only it were that easy.

The beginning of chapter 3 confused me a little bit. Paul boasts about his human qualifications: circumcised, from the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, blameless by the law, etc. But verse 7 says, "But the things that used to be advantages for me, I have, because of the Messiah, come to consider a disadvantage." It seems like he's saying that all of those things were disadvantages to him. If we took just Philippians 3, we could make that assumption, but it seems contradictory to other things he says.

For example, Romans 7:12, "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." And also 1 Timothy 1:8, "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."

Also, I don't think he would consider following the law of Moses a human qualification. He believes it comes straight from the word of God (Romans 7:14, "For we know that the law is spiritual."). Perhaps in verse 6 he's referring to the oral Torah, the Torah built up by the sages throughout time. And in verse 5, when he says he was a Pharisee - that wasn't a title found in the Torah itself, but made by men. It was a human title.

But he cast all of this off for the Messiah. Instead of depending on how men said he was worthy, he relied on the Messiah's grace and love. Yikes, we've got all kinds of self-important things today. Titles from men, things that we do so others will consider us righteous (things not found in the bible), relying on what men say about us and our righteousness.

Throughout this whole letter, Paul calls for unity and love. I think he would have really liked some aspects of the hippie movement. Setting aside differences, coming together for a common purpose.

"Therefore, if you have any encouragement for me from your being in union with the Messiah, any comfort flowing from love, any fellowship with me in the Spirit, or any compassion and sympathy, then complete my joy by having a common purpose and a common love, by being one in heart and mind. Do nothing out of rivalry or vanity; but, in humility, regard each other as better than yourselves - look out for each other's interests and not just for your own." ~Phil. 2:1-4

*verses taken from the NIV and David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible.

Galatians 2

Here is the long awaited second chapter! Links to translations: Blue Letter Bible - KJV, Bible Gateway - NIV, Bible Gateway - ESV. Again, I'll be quoting from David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible.

In this chapter, we see what the real problem is. We see the reason for this entire letter and the beginning of Paul's defense for the true gospel.

Paul continues to speak about his interaction with the other apostles. He said he returned to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus and spoke to the leaders. It seems like he is making sure that he hasn't been preaching the wrong gospel. I like the ESV translation of verse 2: "I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain." This confirms his earlier points at the end of chapter one. His message was from God, but he did want to make sure he was preaching the same message as other men of God.

Verses 3-5 says, "But they didn't force my Gentile companion Titus to undergo circumcision. Indeed, the question came up only because some men who pretended to be brothers had been sneaked in - they came in surreptitiously to spy out the freedom we have in the Messiah Yeshua, so that they might enslave us. Not even for a minute did we give in to them, so that the truth of the Good News might be preserved for you."

So, this is where it comes out. Paul is shedding light on the problem that caused him to write the letter of Galatians in the first place. Throughout the rest of the chapter (which we'll get to), he talks about separation between Jews and Gentiles. The 'men who pretended to be brothers' were interested in making Titus undergo circumcision, and Paul claims that it was linked to enslaving them.

Is the circumcision referred to merely the command of circumcision? By the time of Jesus, circumcision had become directly connected to the act of proselytizing, converting to Judaism through a set of rituals deemed by men. This act of conversion through circumcision isn't seen anywhere in the bible itself - the foreigner is to be accepted and welcomed, not cast aside until he does the proper ritual. This is the reason Paul was fighting against such proselytizing, and as a shorthand way, he called it merely circumcision. This makes sense, since later on in the chapter, he calls the Jews 'the Circumcised' and the Gentiles 'the Uncircumcised.'

This understanding of Paul's language also sheds light on why Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). Later on in Galatians in 5:2-3, Paul himself says, "Mark my words - I, Paul, tell you that if you undergo circumcision, the Messiah will be of no advantage to you at all! Again, I warn you: any man who undergoes circumcision is oligated to observe the entire Torah! you who are trying to be declared righteous by God through legalism have severed yourself from the Messiah! You have fallen away from God's grace!" Is Paul contradicting himself? Is he making Messiah of no benefit to Timothy? It would definitely make more sense if in chapter 5, he is talking about seeking salvation through the ritual of proselytizing or converting. He says many times in his letters that a man's righteousness depends on his faith, so why would a Gentile feel compelled to make his conversion to Judaism official? Either he is seeking the approval of the Jewish men who are pushing for such conversion or he is seeking righteousness through the conversion, and both motivations are wrong. If you are still convinced Paul is talking about the mere act of circumcision, why would following one command in the Hebrew Scriptures completely negate the benefit that Christ has for Gentile believers? I believe he is talking about something much more.

For more information on how Paul's language of circumcision refers to the act of proselytization, you can read Tim Hegg's commentary on Genesis 17:1-27.

In Galatians 2:6-10, Paul talks about how the leaders he met with in Jerusalem recognized that he was to be a missionary to the Gentiles just as Peter would be a missionary to the Jews. They had fellowship, and everyone urged Paul to remember the poor.

2:11-16, Paul talks about his confrontation with Peter. "For prior to the arrival of certain people from [the community headed by] Jacob, he had been eating with the Gentile believes; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he was afraid of the faction who favored circumcising Gentile believers. And the other Jewish believers became hypocrites along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy" (2:12-13). Here is where Peter was in the wrong. He ate with Gentile believers, but when a certain group of people arrived, he wouldn't eat with them because he was worried about the approval of men. Other people also followed his example - and Paul calls it hypocrisy.

Paul is very clear that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ Jesus - Gal. 3:27-28, Eph. 2:11-16, Col. 3:11. All have sinned, and all have the opportunity to be forgiven. Those preaching to the Galatians claimed there were clear divisions between Jews and Gentiles, and the only way to be saved is by becoming a 'real' Jew - being circumcised and converting properly in the eyes of the sages.

This is Paul's response: "But when I saw that they were not walking a straight path, keeping in line with the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter, right in front of everyone, 'If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why are you forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by birth, not so-called Gentile sinners'" (2:14-15).

Peter was being a hypocrite! He was a Jew, and he wanted Gentiles to be like the Jews, but he was not accepting the 'truth of the Good News' - that all are equal in the name of Jesus Christ.

"Even so, we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through the Messiah Yeshua's trusting faithfulness. Therefore, we too have put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of Messiah's trusting faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of Torah commands. For on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, no one will be declared righteous" (2:16).

I know that verse is much different than most translations, but it has the same message. The works of the law will not save a person! Relying on the law for salvation is silly; our salvation comes only through the faithfulness from God. Paul says, 'Even us Jews rely on that grace, not only Gentiles. No one can be declared righteous through observance of the law!'

Verse 19 is the one many people use to say 'We don't need the law anymore!' Here it is in the NIV: "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." We can't look at this verse alone. Here is 20-21, also in the NIV: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Paul speaks of a new life. A life not bound to the curses of the law (and there are a lot in the Torah), but a new life as a result of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. He lives by faith and clings to God's grace. Great, we all agree!

Usually, however, people disagree on the part the 'law' - I prefer Torah - plays in the life of a believer. Paul has made it clear: the works of the law don't make us righteous, and we are now dependent on God's grace as opposed to the curses of the law. Does that mean the law is completely irrelevant now?

If it does, than was the purpose of the law before Christ to make one righteous? Was the purpose of the law before Christ to bring judgment on anyone who couldn't follow all the laws? God knew his people wouldn't be able to follow every single law. Was he being harsh? Cynical? Was he giving the people a law they couldn't follow? Why would a loving, merciful, compassionate God do such a thing?

Well, in Galatians 3, Paul talks more about the role of the Torah. I will post about that chapter soon, I promise.