"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
Galatians 3:28 has been called the "Magna Carta" of Christianity. It supposedly sets everyone free to be whatever they believe the Lord wants them to be, and eliminates all gender-based distinctions and roles in the body of Christ. But as incredibly empowering and liberating as this verse is, the context indicates something different from what a lot of Christian pastors, authors and theologians are saying about it these days.
In the verses that immediately precede it, Paul says that we are "...all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (v. 26). Now as politically incorrect as it is today, Paul is saying that all of us who are trusting in Christ as the One who died in our place are "sons of God". The point is that all of us, men and women alike, have a high and privileged position in Christ, and in fact, God sees us not as sinners anymore, but as those who are "clothed...with Christ" (v. 27). He now sees Christ when He looks at us. We are clothed in His righteousness. Is that awesome or what?
Now in verse twenty-eight, Paul is saying as a result of this, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. We are all now "one in Christ Jesus". But the word "one" does not technically refer to equality. Rather it is a reference to unity. We are all "one" body of Christ, spiritually-speaking. We are all now Christians and members of the body of Christ without spiritual distinction.
Now there is implicit in this a note of equality. But it is not equality of roles in the home and church that is being proclaimed here. It is rather that men and women are equally important and valuable, spiritually-speaking, in Christ. God does not value the salvation of a man over a woman, and in Christ, a man is not more important or valuable than a woman. Now men and women are both "...heirs according to promise" (v. 29) (see also I Peter 3:7).
The spiritual reality now is that women are "coheirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). This does empower them to serve in ways that were denied them under the Law, and they now must be treated with same respect and dignity as men in the church and home. But this verse cannot be used as a proof text that women are free in Christ to do or be whatever they want. This is not an issue being addressed here. The issues are salvation, spiritual unity and our spiritual position in Christ. The practical implications of all this for women have to be worked out from other passages in the New Testament, and it is not within the scope of this post to discuss these. Suffice it to say that the New Testament passages regarding the roles of men and women have been seriously misinterpreted by both traditionalists and feminists, in my opinion. But as I said, that is another post (or posts).
My point here is that as wonderful and liberating as Galatians 3:28 truly is, it simply does not teach what many today says it does. But what is does say was revolutionary in Paul's day, and still is in ours. We as Christians are still struggling to live up to the incredible ideal that it proclaims. May God help us to make greater progress for His glory, and the benefit of Christian men and women everywhere!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Case For The Resurrection - Matthew 28:6
"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said..." Matthew 28:6
Other religions do not necessarily rise or fall upon a single historical event, but Christianity does. As Paul says to the Corinthians, "...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless..."(I Corinthians 15:17). So the resurrection is of paramount importance to the Christian faith. It is also one of the key issues that sets it apart from all other major religions. None of the founders of the world's great religions ever claimed to be God, but Jesus did (see Mark 14:61-62), and all the other founders of world religions are dead and buried. Only Jesus claimed He would rise from the dead in three days, and did. Can we prove this? Not in the sense that it can proved so definitively that no human can deny or disbelieve it. But yes, in the sense that it can be proven far beyond reasonable doubt.
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona explain that there are five "minimal facts" about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "Minimal facts" are based on data that is "...granted by virtually all scholars on the subject even skeptical ones." These five minimal facts are:
1. Jesus' Death by Crucifixion
2. The Disciples' Belief That Jesus Appeared to Them
3. The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the Persecutor
4. The Conversion of James, the Skeptic
5. The Empty Tomb
Habermas and Licona explain that these five minimal facts form a compelling argument for the resurrection that cannot be explained away. That doesn't mean that people don't try, or that people have to believe, but what it means is that our faith in Christ is not a blind or even an unreasonable faith. It is built on a very solid, logical and historical foundation, but it is still faith. It requires a measure of belief beyond the evidence. We still have to step out and say, "I believe in the resurrection", because it is unique in the history of mankind. Nothing like it has ever occurred before or since. This fact can lead a person to either doubt it or embrace it. We have to decide for ourselves. Just in case you were wondering, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now more than ever. I strongly encourage you to do so as well. No issue is more important in the entire universe. Happy Resurrection Sunday!
Other religions do not necessarily rise or fall upon a single historical event, but Christianity does. As Paul says to the Corinthians, "...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless..."(I Corinthians 15:17). So the resurrection is of paramount importance to the Christian faith. It is also one of the key issues that sets it apart from all other major religions. None of the founders of the world's great religions ever claimed to be God, but Jesus did (see Mark 14:61-62), and all the other founders of world religions are dead and buried. Only Jesus claimed He would rise from the dead in three days, and did. Can we prove this? Not in the sense that it can proved so definitively that no human can deny or disbelieve it. But yes, in the sense that it can be proven far beyond reasonable doubt.
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona explain that there are five "minimal facts" about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "Minimal facts" are based on data that is "...granted by virtually all scholars on the subject even skeptical ones." These five minimal facts are:
1. Jesus' Death by Crucifixion
2. The Disciples' Belief That Jesus Appeared to Them
3. The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the Persecutor
4. The Conversion of James, the Skeptic
5. The Empty Tomb
Habermas and Licona explain that these five minimal facts form a compelling argument for the resurrection that cannot be explained away. That doesn't mean that people don't try, or that people have to believe, but what it means is that our faith in Christ is not a blind or even an unreasonable faith. It is built on a very solid, logical and historical foundation, but it is still faith. It requires a measure of belief beyond the evidence. We still have to step out and say, "I believe in the resurrection", because it is unique in the history of mankind. Nothing like it has ever occurred before or since. This fact can lead a person to either doubt it or embrace it. We have to decide for ourselves. Just in case you were wondering, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now more than ever. I strongly encourage you to do so as well. No issue is more important in the entire universe. Happy Resurrection Sunday!
Thursday, April 21, 2011
It Is Finished - John 19:30
"When He had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished'. With that, He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." John 19:30
As we approach Good Friday, the day when our Lord died for us on the cross, I am reminded of John 19:30. This is the verse that tells us that just before He died, Christ cried out, "It is finished!"
Now a lot of people have pointed out that this cry of victory was Jesus exulting in His finished work. He had accomplished the task that the Father sent Him to do (see John 17:4). He had borne the sins of the world and paid for our forgiveness with the sacrifice of His own body and blood. This is the most important point and we need to remember it often, not just on Good Friday. Having stated the obvious, there are still a few other truths that not everyone realizes (I didn't at first).
First, when the verse says He "...gave up His spirit", we need to recognize that Jesus was not just involuntarily succombing to death. He was actively choosing at that particular moment to die. As Jesus stated earlier in His ministry, no one could take His life away, He would lay it down by His own authority, and He would raise Himself back up by His own authority (see John 10:18). In Matthew 27:50, the literal translation is that He "sent it away", referring to His spirit. Only the Son of God could choose the exact moment His spirit would depart. No mere mortal could do this. When His work was done, Christ chose to die.
The second very interesting truth related to this verse is that Jesus took a drink of "sour wine" offered to Him by a soldier in response to Him saying, "I am thirsty". We know from Matthew 27:45-50, a parallel passage, that this occurred at the ninth hour. The Jewish ninth hour was 3 pm in the afternoon; the time of the afternoon sacrifice in the temple. The point is that when an animal, probably a lamb, was being sacrificed as a temporary covering for sin, the Lamb of God was atoning for the sins of the entire world. No longer would animal sacrifices be necessary. Jesus had paid it all! These sacrifices continued until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD because of the ignorance and rebellion of sinful men. But in truth, the work of redemption was done. Hallelujah, what a Savior!
As we approach Good Friday, the day when our Lord died for us on the cross, I am reminded of John 19:30. This is the verse that tells us that just before He died, Christ cried out, "It is finished!"
Now a lot of people have pointed out that this cry of victory was Jesus exulting in His finished work. He had accomplished the task that the Father sent Him to do (see John 17:4). He had borne the sins of the world and paid for our forgiveness with the sacrifice of His own body and blood. This is the most important point and we need to remember it often, not just on Good Friday. Having stated the obvious, there are still a few other truths that not everyone realizes (I didn't at first).
First, when the verse says He "...gave up His spirit", we need to recognize that Jesus was not just involuntarily succombing to death. He was actively choosing at that particular moment to die. As Jesus stated earlier in His ministry, no one could take His life away, He would lay it down by His own authority, and He would raise Himself back up by His own authority (see John 10:18). In Matthew 27:50, the literal translation is that He "sent it away", referring to His spirit. Only the Son of God could choose the exact moment His spirit would depart. No mere mortal could do this. When His work was done, Christ chose to die.
The second very interesting truth related to this verse is that Jesus took a drink of "sour wine" offered to Him by a soldier in response to Him saying, "I am thirsty". We know from Matthew 27:45-50, a parallel passage, that this occurred at the ninth hour. The Jewish ninth hour was 3 pm in the afternoon; the time of the afternoon sacrifice in the temple. The point is that when an animal, probably a lamb, was being sacrificed as a temporary covering for sin, the Lamb of God was atoning for the sins of the entire world. No longer would animal sacrifices be necessary. Jesus had paid it all! These sacrifices continued until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD because of the ignorance and rebellion of sinful men. But in truth, the work of redemption was done. Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
When The Bible Is Not Explicit - Romans 14:5
"Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." Romans 14:5
What do you believe and what do you do when the Bible is not explicit about a certain belief or practice? There are a lot of things in this world that are not explicitly commanded or prohibited in Scripture.For instance, years ago a man in my church was convinced that VCRs were unbiblical. But when I asked him for a chapter and verse, not surprisingly, he could not show me a single verse that said, "Thou shalt not use a VCR." His belief was that they were an instrument of the devil, but he could not back it up with an explicit prohibition. I know that VCRs can be used for sinful purposes, but so can a lot of other devices. The truth is they can also be used to glorify God. The point is that when the Bible does not specifically state that a given belief or practice is right or wrong, Romans 14:5 is our verse. We have to make a decision.
Now we can decide to never do or believe anything that isn't explicitly commanded or positively modeled in Scripture. This is a very commendable and safe choice, and some people attempt to do this. But what I have found over the years is that this is difficult, if not impossible to do in real life.
People have tried to convince me, for instance, that our church should only practice what is explicitly commanded or modeled in Scripture, which sounds very, very right. But these same people will use something like a DVD to get their message out. Where is that in Scripture? Where does it say that it is okay for believers to use DVDs. You can check the whole Bible, but it is not there and that's the inconsistency. No one I know consistently follows specific commands and prohibitions in Scripture only. There are too many areas of life where God has allowed us to make choices. The question is how will we make these choices.
When the Bible is not explicit, we can't just say that we can do whatever we want. We have to follow biblical principles that inform and govern our choices.
What do you believe and what do you do when the Bible is not explicit about a certain belief or practice? There are a lot of things in this world that are not explicitly commanded or prohibited in Scripture.For instance, years ago a man in my church was convinced that VCRs were unbiblical. But when I asked him for a chapter and verse, not surprisingly, he could not show me a single verse that said, "Thou shalt not use a VCR." His belief was that they were an instrument of the devil, but he could not back it up with an explicit prohibition. I know that VCRs can be used for sinful purposes, but so can a lot of other devices. The truth is they can also be used to glorify God. The point is that when the Bible does not specifically state that a given belief or practice is right or wrong, Romans 14:5 is our verse. We have to make a decision.
Now we can decide to never do or believe anything that isn't explicitly commanded or positively modeled in Scripture. This is a very commendable and safe choice, and some people attempt to do this. But what I have found over the years is that this is difficult, if not impossible to do in real life.
People have tried to convince me, for instance, that our church should only practice what is explicitly commanded or modeled in Scripture, which sounds very, very right. But these same people will use something like a DVD to get their message out. Where is that in Scripture? Where does it say that it is okay for believers to use DVDs. You can check the whole Bible, but it is not there and that's the inconsistency. No one I know consistently follows specific commands and prohibitions in Scripture only. There are too many areas of life where God has allowed us to make choices. The question is how will we make these choices.
When the Bible is not explicit, we can't just say that we can do whatever we want. We have to follow biblical principles that inform and govern our choices.
- Does it glorify God? (I Corinthians 10:31)
- Are we being controlled by it? (I Corinthians 6:12)
- Could it be a stumbling block to a weaker Christian? (Romans 14:13)
- Does it make for peace and the building up of others? (Romans 14:19)
- Does it build us up spiritually (I Corinthians 10:23)
Monday, April 11, 2011
Is Lent Biblical? Matthew 4:1-2
"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He has fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry." Matthew 4:1-2
These days it is becoming more and more fashionable for evangelical protestants to observe Lent. By Lent I am referring to the forty days leading up to Easter as a time of self sacrifice and soul-searching. People observe Lent very differently, but generally-speaking today it usually involves giving up some favorite habit, possession, food or drink for the duration of Lent. Am I making a definitive judgment about the motives of those observing Lent? I am in no position to do that. Nor am I saying that observing lent is categorically wrong. When something is not specifically commanded or prohibited by Scripture, we as Christians should not make a definite judgment about it (see Romans 14:4-6). But having said this, I am still concerned about the observance of Lent.
First of all, as just stated, we have no command to observe Lent. Yes, Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days to fast and to prepare for His temptation by Satan, but this example does not relate to us unless we are able to discern that Satan is going to attack us on Easter and we feel the need to be prayed up to meet the challenge.
This brings up the biblical practice of fasting. My father (who has a doctorate in theology) doubts that fasting is even for today. But even if that position is rejected out of hand, there is still no command in Scripture for us to fast. Fasting is something that we can do voluntarily to be more focused in prayer and to draw closer in our walk with the Lord. I have zero problem with that. But when people publicly tell people what they are giving up for Lent, this seems dangerously close to what Christ condemns in fasting (see Matthew 6:1-6).
Also, there is a danger that some Christians might observe Lent and sacrifice something because they think that in doing this they are sanctifying or purifying themselves in some way. This is all well and good if you are a practicing Catholic. It fits fine with Catholic theology. But if one is a committed Protestant, following the principles of the Reformation, and more important, Holy Scripture, then we have to remember that Christ paid for all our sins on the cross (I Peter 2:24), and we do not need to do any penance or in any way make payment for our sins. Christ paid it all! We do nothing but trust in the merit of Christ (to use a good Catholic term).
Now before anyone says it, or course, we should live holy lives and avoid sin at all costs. But that is different from us picking something to give up for forty days that is not prohibited by God's Word. If God says in Scripture that we are not to do something, we should give it up 365 days a year. But us arbitrarily picking something to give up is at best unnecessary, and at worse, us deciding to play God and make a decision to give up something that God does not tell us to give up.
My point is this, Lent observance is not explicitly biblical, and depending on your motivation and how you observe it, it can definitely be unbiblical. Am I saying you should not do it? No, but I am sounding a word of warning. We should not do Lent because it is "cool"; because we are spiritually bored; because others are doing it; or because we think we are making up for some deficiency in the sacrifice of our Lord. We should only observe Lent if we are fully convinced that God wants us to do it (see Romans 14:5,23), and our purpose is to abstain from something that may hinder our devotion to God or led us or someone else into sin. But this should be true for us every day of our lives.
These days it is becoming more and more fashionable for evangelical protestants to observe Lent. By Lent I am referring to the forty days leading up to Easter as a time of self sacrifice and soul-searching. People observe Lent very differently, but generally-speaking today it usually involves giving up some favorite habit, possession, food or drink for the duration of Lent. Am I making a definitive judgment about the motives of those observing Lent? I am in no position to do that. Nor am I saying that observing lent is categorically wrong. When something is not specifically commanded or prohibited by Scripture, we as Christians should not make a definite judgment about it (see Romans 14:4-6). But having said this, I am still concerned about the observance of Lent.
First of all, as just stated, we have no command to observe Lent. Yes, Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days to fast and to prepare for His temptation by Satan, but this example does not relate to us unless we are able to discern that Satan is going to attack us on Easter and we feel the need to be prayed up to meet the challenge.
This brings up the biblical practice of fasting. My father (who has a doctorate in theology) doubts that fasting is even for today. But even if that position is rejected out of hand, there is still no command in Scripture for us to fast. Fasting is something that we can do voluntarily to be more focused in prayer and to draw closer in our walk with the Lord. I have zero problem with that. But when people publicly tell people what they are giving up for Lent, this seems dangerously close to what Christ condemns in fasting (see Matthew 6:1-6).
Also, there is a danger that some Christians might observe Lent and sacrifice something because they think that in doing this they are sanctifying or purifying themselves in some way. This is all well and good if you are a practicing Catholic. It fits fine with Catholic theology. But if one is a committed Protestant, following the principles of the Reformation, and more important, Holy Scripture, then we have to remember that Christ paid for all our sins on the cross (I Peter 2:24), and we do not need to do any penance or in any way make payment for our sins. Christ paid it all! We do nothing but trust in the merit of Christ (to use a good Catholic term).
Now before anyone says it, or course, we should live holy lives and avoid sin at all costs. But that is different from us picking something to give up for forty days that is not prohibited by God's Word. If God says in Scripture that we are not to do something, we should give it up 365 days a year. But us arbitrarily picking something to give up is at best unnecessary, and at worse, us deciding to play God and make a decision to give up something that God does not tell us to give up.
My point is this, Lent observance is not explicitly biblical, and depending on your motivation and how you observe it, it can definitely be unbiblical. Am I saying you should not do it? No, but I am sounding a word of warning. We should not do Lent because it is "cool"; because we are spiritually bored; because others are doing it; or because we think we are making up for some deficiency in the sacrifice of our Lord. We should only observe Lent if we are fully convinced that God wants us to do it (see Romans 14:5,23), and our purpose is to abstain from something that may hinder our devotion to God or led us or someone else into sin. But this should be true for us every day of our lives.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
How Jesus Presented the Truth - John 3-4
In certain evangelical circles today there is a debate about how we as Christians should present God's truth to people. Some say that we should be theocentric, that is, we should never begin with man and his felt needs, but always with God and what He says are man's real needs, even if unfelt. Our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 would certainly give support to this position.
Nicodemus comes to Jesus under the cover of darkness, and says that "...we know that you have come from God..." (vs. 2). Nicodemus barely gets the words out of his mouth when Jesus very firmly tells him that he must be born again (vs. 3-5). Our Lord then proceeds to answer his questions and concerns about this concept and then finishes by clearly pointing to Himself as the only means of salvation and eternal life (vs. 13-15). Jesus is very direct. He focuses on unfelt needs and presents the truth to Nicodemus. He starts with God's truth about our need to be born again, and then ends up pointing to Himself as the sole solution to this great need.
If one only looks at this passage, one would come away from Scripture thinking that this is God's ordained pattern for presenting the truth; a purely theocentric approach with no concern for what people consider their needs to be. But then immediately after this historical account, we have the one about the woman at the well in John 4, and our Lord's approach to her is radically different.
Instead of immediately telling her she is a sinner who needs His help, Jesus asks her for a drink of water (v. 7). He does this to break down a cultural and social barrier between men and women in that day, as well as one between Jews and Samaritans. Having confronted those issues with a few simple words, our Lord quickly addresses her felt need. She didn't want to have to keep coming to the well in the heat of the day to draw water. Christ offers her "living water" (vs.10-14). When the woman asks for the "living water" (v. 15), Jesus brings up the issue of her sinfulness, but in a very gentle way. He could have blasted her for her many husbands and for living with a man outside of wedlock, but instead He gently makes her realize that He is aware of her sinful state (vs.16-18). Some think at this point she trys to divert attention from herself by bringing up a divisive question about worship (vs.19-20). I personally think that she genuinely wanted to know the truth and was testing Him to see if He really was a "prophet". When the woman brings up the subject of the "Messiah", Jesus finally reveals to her that He is indeed the Messiah (v.16). The result as we already know is that she believed in Jesus and became His first witness to the Samaritans (vs. 28-30).
The lessons from these two chapters are that, first of all, we can and should approach people who are familiar with God's truth, but unconverted, with a theocentric approach. As a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus should have been aware of his need for a spiritual birth, but he wasn't (v.10), and so Jesus is loving, but much more direct with him. Our Lord starts with the unfelt need and then points to Himself as the solution. With the woman at the well, Jesus takes an anthropocentric approach. He starts with her felt need and then moves systematically to revealing Himself as the only one who can meet her deepest need.
The bottomline is that each of these methods is biblical and utilized by Christ Himself. Neither is more biblical than the other. But what is of paramount importance is where we end up. Regardless of whether one begins with felt needs or unfelt needs, the conclusion of the matter has to end up with a clear presentation of Jesus Christ as the only solution to men and women's greatest needs. This is the biggest problem with those today who begin with felt needs. In too many cases, they attempt to address the felt need, but they don't end with Jesus. They often offer humanistic solutions mixed with scripture, and that will not ultimately work.
Those who advocate the theocentric approach can also be guilty of neglecting Jesus. One can talk about "God" a lot, but unless you specifically point to Christ as the One who is sufficient for every need, we have failed to present the whole truth. May God help us to be discerning and faithful in how we present His truth. But regardless, it is ultimately about Christ! If He is not the focus and conclusion of our message, we have not presented God's truth correctly.
Nicodemus comes to Jesus under the cover of darkness, and says that "...we know that you have come from God..." (vs. 2). Nicodemus barely gets the words out of his mouth when Jesus very firmly tells him that he must be born again (vs. 3-5). Our Lord then proceeds to answer his questions and concerns about this concept and then finishes by clearly pointing to Himself as the only means of salvation and eternal life (vs. 13-15). Jesus is very direct. He focuses on unfelt needs and presents the truth to Nicodemus. He starts with God's truth about our need to be born again, and then ends up pointing to Himself as the sole solution to this great need.
If one only looks at this passage, one would come away from Scripture thinking that this is God's ordained pattern for presenting the truth; a purely theocentric approach with no concern for what people consider their needs to be. But then immediately after this historical account, we have the one about the woman at the well in John 4, and our Lord's approach to her is radically different.
Instead of immediately telling her she is a sinner who needs His help, Jesus asks her for a drink of water (v. 7). He does this to break down a cultural and social barrier between men and women in that day, as well as one between Jews and Samaritans. Having confronted those issues with a few simple words, our Lord quickly addresses her felt need. She didn't want to have to keep coming to the well in the heat of the day to draw water. Christ offers her "living water" (vs.10-14). When the woman asks for the "living water" (v. 15), Jesus brings up the issue of her sinfulness, but in a very gentle way. He could have blasted her for her many husbands and for living with a man outside of wedlock, but instead He gently makes her realize that He is aware of her sinful state (vs.16-18). Some think at this point she trys to divert attention from herself by bringing up a divisive question about worship (vs.19-20). I personally think that she genuinely wanted to know the truth and was testing Him to see if He really was a "prophet". When the woman brings up the subject of the "Messiah", Jesus finally reveals to her that He is indeed the Messiah (v.16). The result as we already know is that she believed in Jesus and became His first witness to the Samaritans (vs. 28-30).
The lessons from these two chapters are that, first of all, we can and should approach people who are familiar with God's truth, but unconverted, with a theocentric approach. As a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus should have been aware of his need for a spiritual birth, but he wasn't (v.10), and so Jesus is loving, but much more direct with him. Our Lord starts with the unfelt need and then points to Himself as the solution. With the woman at the well, Jesus takes an anthropocentric approach. He starts with her felt need and then moves systematically to revealing Himself as the only one who can meet her deepest need.
The bottomline is that each of these methods is biblical and utilized by Christ Himself. Neither is more biblical than the other. But what is of paramount importance is where we end up. Regardless of whether one begins with felt needs or unfelt needs, the conclusion of the matter has to end up with a clear presentation of Jesus Christ as the only solution to men and women's greatest needs. This is the biggest problem with those today who begin with felt needs. In too many cases, they attempt to address the felt need, but they don't end with Jesus. They often offer humanistic solutions mixed with scripture, and that will not ultimately work.
Those who advocate the theocentric approach can also be guilty of neglecting Jesus. One can talk about "God" a lot, but unless you specifically point to Christ as the One who is sufficient for every need, we have failed to present the whole truth. May God help us to be discerning and faithful in how we present His truth. But regardless, it is ultimately about Christ! If He is not the focus and conclusion of our message, we have not presented God's truth correctly.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
How Jesus Treated Women - John 4
Over the past three decades I have read many books and listened to many opinions about our Lord's view of women. A lot of people have tried to portray Jesus as a social revolutionary who totally went against all established social norms, and completely liberated women so that in Christianity women could essentially do or be anything that men can do or be.
The truth is that Jesus never went as far as some like to think. He never included women in the twelve disciples. He never made statements that clearly indicated that the roles for men and women were interchangeable. I am aware of the claims of the Gnostics, but even in their own literature, the elevation of Mary Magdalene and the liberation of women is far from certain. The statements are very obscure and contradictory.
But the other truth is that Jesus was revolutionary in how he treated women. Jesus was shocking to other Jewish men in how he related to them and allowed them to participate in His mission to present Himself as the Messiah.
In John 4 we see Jesus deliberately passing through Samaria when most devout Jews would have detoured around it, and He sits down by a well near the city of Sychar at the hottest time of the day, high noon. When a Samaritan woman comes out to draw water, He says to her "give me a drink" (vs. 7). Now to us today, this hardly sounds revolutionary, but in Christ's day it was.
First of all, "good" Jews did not speak or have contact with Samaritans. The Samaritans were half-breeds who were considered "dogs" along with Gentiles, and they were looked at as theological heretics as well. Plus this Samaritan was a woman.
Jewish men considered women inferior to men in every way. The prayer that every devout Jewish man prayed every day included explicit thanks to God that he was created a man, and not a woman. Jewish men did not talk to women any more than was absolutely necessary. Even married Jewish men did not talk to their wives in public as a matter of rule. They certainly would never talk to a Samaritan woman. That was unthinkable. This is why when the disciples returned and realized that Jesus had been talking with a Samaritan woman, they "...marveled that He had been speaking with a woman" (vs. 27). They simply could not process this in their Jewish male minds.
But Jesus does a lot more than simply speak to her. He begins a dialogue with her that culminates with Him revealing to her that He is the Messiah (vs. 25-26). At this point she believes Him and goes back into the city to be a witness for Christ. As a result, "...many of the Samaritan believed in Him because of the word of the woman..." (vs. 39).
So, Jesus teaches this sinful woman (see vs. 18) about Himself, which was considered a complete waste of time in His day. Women were not taught spiritual truth because they were considered too dumb and sinful to make any significant use of such knowledge. But Christ not only instructs her about spiritual things, but He also uses her as a witness to her own people. Again, in that day, women were not allowed to testify in legal settings. Their testimony was worthless in court. They were seen as too sinful and unreliable. Yet Christ employs her as his first and primary witness to the Samaritan people.
The point is that although Jesus did not break with every social norm, He broke with several in regard to women. He treated them as human beings with value and intelligence. He was willing to interact with them as He did with men. He was also willing to teach women (see Luke 10:39), and send them out as witnesses for Himself. Most importantly, He made it clear that the salvation of a woman was every bit as important to Him as the salvation of a man. In this passage Jesus demonstrated the truth of what Paul proclaimed in Galatians 3:28, that is, that God looks at men and women as equally important in a salvific sense. In terms of salvation, we are all one in Christ.
No man ever treated women more lovingly, more fairly, and more respectfully than Jesus Christ. No woman could ever have a better friend and supporter than He. Now if the rest of us guys could just follow His example!
The truth is that Jesus never went as far as some like to think. He never included women in the twelve disciples. He never made statements that clearly indicated that the roles for men and women were interchangeable. I am aware of the claims of the Gnostics, but even in their own literature, the elevation of Mary Magdalene and the liberation of women is far from certain. The statements are very obscure and contradictory.
But the other truth is that Jesus was revolutionary in how he treated women. Jesus was shocking to other Jewish men in how he related to them and allowed them to participate in His mission to present Himself as the Messiah.
In John 4 we see Jesus deliberately passing through Samaria when most devout Jews would have detoured around it, and He sits down by a well near the city of Sychar at the hottest time of the day, high noon. When a Samaritan woman comes out to draw water, He says to her "give me a drink" (vs. 7). Now to us today, this hardly sounds revolutionary, but in Christ's day it was.
First of all, "good" Jews did not speak or have contact with Samaritans. The Samaritans were half-breeds who were considered "dogs" along with Gentiles, and they were looked at as theological heretics as well. Plus this Samaritan was a woman.
Jewish men considered women inferior to men in every way. The prayer that every devout Jewish man prayed every day included explicit thanks to God that he was created a man, and not a woman. Jewish men did not talk to women any more than was absolutely necessary. Even married Jewish men did not talk to their wives in public as a matter of rule. They certainly would never talk to a Samaritan woman. That was unthinkable. This is why when the disciples returned and realized that Jesus had been talking with a Samaritan woman, they "...marveled that He had been speaking with a woman" (vs. 27). They simply could not process this in their Jewish male minds.
But Jesus does a lot more than simply speak to her. He begins a dialogue with her that culminates with Him revealing to her that He is the Messiah (vs. 25-26). At this point she believes Him and goes back into the city to be a witness for Christ. As a result, "...many of the Samaritan believed in Him because of the word of the woman..." (vs. 39).
So, Jesus teaches this sinful woman (see vs. 18) about Himself, which was considered a complete waste of time in His day. Women were not taught spiritual truth because they were considered too dumb and sinful to make any significant use of such knowledge. But Christ not only instructs her about spiritual things, but He also uses her as a witness to her own people. Again, in that day, women were not allowed to testify in legal settings. Their testimony was worthless in court. They were seen as too sinful and unreliable. Yet Christ employs her as his first and primary witness to the Samaritan people.
The point is that although Jesus did not break with every social norm, He broke with several in regard to women. He treated them as human beings with value and intelligence. He was willing to interact with them as He did with men. He was also willing to teach women (see Luke 10:39), and send them out as witnesses for Himself. Most importantly, He made it clear that the salvation of a woman was every bit as important to Him as the salvation of a man. In this passage Jesus demonstrated the truth of what Paul proclaimed in Galatians 3:28, that is, that God looks at men and women as equally important in a salvific sense. In terms of salvation, we are all one in Christ.
No man ever treated women more lovingly, more fairly, and more respectfully than Jesus Christ. No woman could ever have a better friend and supporter than He. Now if the rest of us guys could just follow His example!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)