THE ODD PAIRING

Photo by Ylanite Koppens on Pexels.com

There were many contexts to the words, “your kingdom come” by Jesus. Among contexts were the words and life of Moses.  To speak of the Jewish roots of kingdom with in “the gospel of the kingdom” without Moses and Aaron would be incomplete.  By looking at the missions of Moses and Aaron we can see the end of the foundation of biblical holiness and the beginning of biblical unity by which we then see fulfilment in Christ and the Body of Christ.  

Moses was a transitional figure among the Old Testament king themes.  In Adam and Melchizedek, we see the role of the king-priest in each man.  In earthly things in Adam had “dominion” and Melchizedek ruled Salem.  Yet they had priestly roles in sanctifying, blessing and worship symbolizing God’s holiness. Moses’s role straddled the foundations of holiness and unity in the Law from God, the Levitical priesthood and establishing clear authorities. It was after Moses and Aaron laid ruling and sanctifying foundations within the holiness of God that David contributed a fully unifying foundation. Moses was like a proto- king and Aaron was the first Levitical high priest serving missions of holiness and unity for Israel. 

Another view of kingship in Moses’ life is with God as king and Moses as a prime minister and chief teacher of the holy faith.  Moses had humility functioning as king without the title and glory.  Examples in various kingdoms in the world are prime ministers of kings or regents for young heirs. However, Israel was a holy nation by the covenant of their fathers while others did not.  

God introduced himself to Moses with unmistakable holiness for the context of covenant love, reverence and obedience. It was in appearing to Moses through a burning bush.   

Then he said, “Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” He said further, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God (Exodus 3:5-6).

The totality of the mission to free Israel was too much for Moses. God gave a partner to Moses who governed and Aaron to speak for him.  “The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1).

Eventually Aaron has a further calling than prophet and becomes the high priest heading up a clan of worship and sanctification. “Then bring near to you your brother Aaron, and his sons with him, from among the Israelites, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar (Exodus 28:1). 

Aaron prefigured Christ as high priest though of the order of Levi.  He also contributed to the foundations of holiness explicitly and unity implicitly. 

How very good and pleasant it is
    when kindred live together in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
    running down upon the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
    running down over the collar of his robes.

It is like the dew of Hermon,
    which falls on the mountains of Zion.
For there the Lord ordained his blessing,
    life forevermore (Psalms 133:1-3).

The role of Moses still had limits in that he could not be a sign directly of sonship.  The true king who rules in a conventional way on earth was a “son” of a deity in the ancient Middle East and even Julius Caesar or Tiberius. The author of Hebrews makes that distinction in another aspect that Jesus was superior to Moses.  There is no Biblical reference to Moses being a son and thus making Jesus as the New Moses distinct as the Son of God.   

Yet Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.  (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that would be spoken later. Christ, however, was faithful over God’s house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope (Hebrews 3:3-6).

Moses led Israel through the Red Sea putting bondage behind them in the tyrannical government of Egypt. Yet only partial success in sanctification.  The crossing foreshadowed the victory Christ gives us in baptism.    

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,and all ate the same spiritual food [manna], and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

The implication of authority was so clear in the overlap that in Jesus’ day there was a brief impulse of the 5,000 he miraculously fed with bread to make him king.  In this they misunderstood him as effective only in the temporal order of things.  “When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:15). 

Jesus had to withdraw from them because they had no idea of how he, as king and priest, governs and sanctifies beyond what Moses and Aaron did.   However, though they jumped to conclusions, their premises had foundations for what believers in Messiah could fully realize.   

For example, in their longing for rescue from Rome, God’s king would elevate them as well or better than the promise in Moses’ time.  

Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine,but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites (Exodus 19:5-6).

Peter wrote about the royal and the priestly experiences of all believers.  “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).  

Only the elders had a brief sample of being a holy nation in fellowship with God in Christ.  

Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. God did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also, they beheld God, and they ate and drank (Exodus 24:9-11).  

Moses did not preside over a kingdom but he did rule over a confederation of tribes as leader, lawgiver and interpreter of the law.  He had his time and sadly the rebellious generation died in the desert falling short of the Promised Land with stomachs full of manna.  Their bodies and homes were set apart but their hearts were nominal at best.  As tribes they were an “are” in need of grace with governance to unite them as an “is.”  It is in such needs Jesus would come but with an authority that had a context of family and founding a spiritual nation instead of the flesh.   

It is in Christ that such mystery manifests in history with the fulfillment of what Moses prefigured as greater; the antitype is greater than the type.  In Christ grace supersedes law and mercy triumphs over judgment.  

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’”)  From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known (John 1:14,16-17).

A superior liturgy to Moses is in the “lived among” us which carries on from the foundation of holiness of the king-priest motif in Christ.  The Greek for “lived” (some Bible versions say dwell) here is skoono’o. The use of this in the Bible is, “to fix one’s tabernacle, have one’s tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle” (Bible Study Tools https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/skenoo.html). What Moses and Aaron foreshadowed Christ fulfills.  

Many Jews in the time of Christ had some standards from the life of Moses but were short sighted on what the Messiah could be like as the New Moses.  

So they said to him, “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven (John 6:30-32).

Here we see some incorrect premises and emphasis.  They asked for a sign as a condition of their faith.  They assumed the Messiah would be a conventional performer and see the miracle worker as the end in himself.  Jesus reminds them that the heavenly provision was from the Father which denotes the kinship integrated in liturgical worship.  In other words Jesus founded a liturgical kingdom for right belief, prayer and living.  

Moses was the end of the foundation of holy authority in salvation history with an implicit start to oneness of a holy nation.  200 years later God would raise up a shepherd from Bethlehem with the explicit mark of authority and structured government for oneness: King David.  

ENEMY AT THE GATES

Often in the history of Rome they used the term for barbarians as “the enemy at the gates.”  It was a fearful word to rally with obvious military conventional weapons like mace and swords.  In 1^st Century Christianity and for generations after Rome would see Christians like barbarians at the gate as an existential threat to their way of life.  And they were right on the latter point.   

To Roman soldiers, Paul/Saul of Tarsus and his friends hardly looked like scary barbarians.  Paul and his companions headed to Rome in chains instead of weapons. While Paul had vulnerability he was strong spiritually with faith in God who always has his covenant people outlast their enemies.  Neither Paul, nor Peter, would defeat the Roman empire but Christ working through them and the Church.  But as we will see, in humility, they would both be the first apostolic impact in the city of the latest enemy empire.  

Three months later we set sail on a ship that had wintered at the island, an Alexandrian ship with the Twin Brothers as its figurehead. We put in at Syracuse and stayed there for three days; then we weighed anchor and came to Rhegium. After one day there a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. There we found believers and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we came to Rome. The believers from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage.

When we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him (Acts 28:11-16).  

an Alexandrian ship– – – To see the Old Testament revealed in the New, this is one statement of many in Acts 28 that is pregnant in meaning.  From Daniel 2 there is a prophecy that of kingdoms with corresponding imagery fitting the conquest of the Jews by Babylon, Medes-Persians, Greeks and Romans.  The imagery of Rome suggests that a kingdom to come would break it and grow in its place with a kingdom that has no end.  (Daniel 2:24-45).  Alexandra, a city in Egypt effected by the Greek conqueror Alexander, is another reference to what had happened in salvation history.  

with the Twin Brothers as its figurehead- – – Luke drops another hint with several double meanings of likely intent and prophetically foreshadowing events to come likely far beyond his knowledge. Part of Rome’s worship included the pagan gods Castor and Pollux who were revered as gods of sailing. Rome’s historical founding was Romulus and Remus.  Rome in its worship had mystery and politically had its history.  The gospel of Jesus Christ can be expressed in both modes because Christ came in mystery and history.   

What the New Testament scriptures make implicit, and church history makes explicit, is a spiritual re-founding of Rome to come through Peter and Paul bringing the gospel. 

We will first look at Paul.  Paul’s agenda, though in chains, was the gospel which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).  As one can see later in Acts, Paul spends two years in Rome on house arrest teaching the faith to all who would hear him. This would be placed at 62-63 AD.  Paul later returned  with most historians placing the martyrdom of Paul at 67 AD.  

But there was also Paul’s “twin.”   

When Paul wrote to the church in Rome, he expressed an understanding there was already a foundation of the gospel in Romans 15:20. This lends to an apostolic foundation already in Rome so he would write in such humility.  Thus, he could have his “twin” already there but discreetly for historical purposes. 

Peter wrote this in his first papal encyclical salutation.  “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Peter 5:13).  The historical Babylon at that time was a ghost town but due to the Daniel passage, but it made it a perfect pseudonym for Rome nearly certain.  

Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, wrote that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon” (303 AD). 

Other early church writings affirm the combination of Peter and Paul in the founding.  

Tertullian, one of the first early church writer to use the term “Trinity,” wrote, [“H]appy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [John the Baptist, was decapitated]” (The Demurrer Against the Heretics, 200 AD).    

Tertullian also wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Prescription Against Heretics 36, 200 AD).   Clement of Rome, was the fourth bishop of Rome. Peter himself ordained him into lower ministry. Clement wrote in his own letter to the Corinthians after Peter and Paul were killed a reference to Peter ending his life where Paul did. 

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He then says the two departed Rome, perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49). A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor—-that is, the second pope—-and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus) and then Clement of Rome (Primacy of Peter, Catholic Tradition http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/peters-primacy6.htm).

Yet before big impacts in the Christian faith there would be small steps of message, welcoming the stranger, and close engagement.   

The believers from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us– – The first was a post station known to be a one- day journey marker from Rome.  The latter was known as a local welcoming place for travelers.  Messaging and welcoming are two major characteristics of the Church Jesus founded.  Christianity done right should do both

On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage.- – Paul was still human.  In the endeavors of ministry he still could starve for authentic community.  Ministers are still human and Paul needed the encouragement of God’s kingdom that can emerge anywhere: even a tavern.   

When we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him– – Typically this time of incarceration would include being chained to the soldier.  Where it involves light and darkness, he did not have a chance.  The soldier that is.  The “barbarian” was past the gates with the grace of God working in him. Paul could share the message of Christ’s love one enemy in Rome at a time.  

In the long run Rome did not have a chance. Jesus said in the shadow of a Roman garrison decades before that, “Upon this rock I will build my church.  And the gates of hell will not stand against it” (Matthew 16:19).   

LIVING UP TO THE NAME

It is no small thing to coin a phrase to describe a group at its start.  It is that important to tie the mission and the name together.  

In a modern cultural context the term “Christian” has developed baggage. Some may think it has always been a reference to Western Europe and thus ethno-centric. Others say Christians disobeyed Christ’s command to not “live by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).  

But when the term was first used it was centered on the accomplishments and message of Jesus Christ.  This was a counter-cultural message to the literal writing on the walls that “Caesar is Lord” and instead they proclaimed, “Jesus is Lord”.  As things picked up in the early Church, we can see that it was not an ethno-centric nor violent movement.   

As we review below the context of the start of the title “Christians,” consider how Christ is priest, prophet and king and how that is reflected in the life of the Church.  

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni′cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre′ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord. News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a large company was added to the Lord. So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians (Acts 11:19-26).  

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution– – -In the flesh they were pushed.  In the sovereign will of God they were being strategically placed to conquer the world with the the gospel proposition.  That is opposed to imposition which is far from the teachings of Christ.  

speaking the word… spoke to the Greeks also…. preaching the Lord Jesus– – –  They were testifying to the truth of Jesus and impacting people about the reign of Christ.  As to the prophetic nature of this, “the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 19:10).  

And the hand of the Lord was with them– – – Although this was not to say that a five-fingered hand of God was on them, this language speaks of anointing language like “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me….” (Isaiah 61:1).  Their work had an infusion of God that was relational.  

When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad– – – It is fitting that this was recognized by Barnabas.  His name was a nickname for “son of encouragement” and a few times he was noted in scripture to advocate on a very holistic, merciful side for people like Paul (former persecutor of the Church) to be given a chance.  He also rallied for his relative Mark to be given a second chance. He saw people living a full life in Christ as all that mattered and not ethnicities.  That is what grace does because “grace perfects nature.”  

they met with the church– – – The word for “met” here is synago. This connects with synagogue but literally connects with “connect”.  Consider the Synoptic Gospels and the synapses in the brain.  It is a matter of such interconnectedness that there is praiseworthy unity for a mission.  

And in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians– – – Christ means “anointed one” and it is crucial that in this context the term Christian was considered fitting for the first time with Christ as king, priest and prophet.  To be a king is to reign and to change.  To be a priest is to encounter God and let his encounter flow through you one person at a time.  To be a prophet is to testify to God’s nature and intent.  

There is no real deficit above in Christians living the royal calling of all believers and the prophetical calling but nothing that infers the priesthood for this passage.  However, the priesthood of all believers, participating in right worship, shows up in Acts whenever Christians gather, worship and have communion.  We see this earlier in Church history.  “They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, fellowship, breaking of the bread and prayer” (Acts 2:42).  

This is Christianity as intended for Christians by Christ to live Christianity in word and deed.  The royal, prophetic and priestly nature of it all stands together like a three-legged stool that falls if you take out one.  The design was the same in principle then as it is today for anyone who should be called a Christian.    

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So, Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore, let us go forth to him outside the camp, bearing abuse for him.  For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God (Hebrew 13:8-16).

PRE-TEST PART ONE

Photo by Ylanite Koppens on Pexels.com

Final lessons before a test are crucial and good to prepare.  They are generally easier to remember if they come right before it.  But early lessons are still important foundations for later.  

There was a sort of key lessons towards the end of Christ’s ministry which also served as a pre-test of sorts for Passion Week.  In the first week of Christ’s ministry the lessons were about Christ being the Son but likely understood at the time as a kingly son of God.  His sacrificial love was implied (John 1:29). Peter received his own calling in his change of name. By the end of the week Peter and many others placed their faith in him after seeing him change water to wine (John 2:1-12).  

Since then, his disciples have walked with him for three years hearing his teachings and seeing his miracles.  The sum of it all was a growth of understanding of Jesus but some as just head knowledge.  

Peter was an example in this week of lessons on what can being spiritually taken to heart but due to the nature of sin too easily discarded.  This includes discerning Christ’s true agenda explicitly of sacrificial love on the cross. There were lessons Jesus was going to teach they would take to heart at different levels immediately, in the weeks to come and even the years to come.  

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things’ (Matthew 16:13-23).  

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi– – -The kingdom connection starts here.  This was a major Roman outpost in the hills and where the Jordan River starts (where downstream Jesus was baptized). “Caesarea” is a kingly reference because it is connected to Caesar of Rome.  

‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ – – Jesus used that term several times but there was a backdrop to saying this at a Roman outpost as we will see in the book of Daniel.  It connects to messianic expectation in Palestine especially under Roman rule.  

I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
    there came one like a son of man, 
and he came to the Ancient of Days
    and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
    and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
    should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
    which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
    that shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:12-13).  

But how would this kingdom come about?  Earlier Daniel interprets the dream of his pagan king.  Theologians agree that the details describe then present Babylon, Medes-Persians, Greeks and finally Rome which would meet its end through a rock.  Daniel described a succession of kingdoms with something pivotal happening to the fourth conquering empire.  

As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces; then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth (Daniel 2:34-35).

Peter was a name change for Simon by Christ meaning rock.  Peter was not the prophesied one but he had a pivotal calling for the eventual Roman downfall and sparking Christianity.  This crucial event here was part of that.  

‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ – – This is good.  He affirms the anointing of Jesus (Acts 10:38) and his authority.  Does he see “Son” as just a royal term like everyone else had thought? I would suggest he knew something more than that due to the positive feedback he was going to get and the key term “living.” 

‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! —  We see in other gospels that Peter is called son of John.  A contradiction? I would suggest not.  The purpose in other verses may have been more biographical but here it is a metaphor by Jesus.  Simon Peter was a fisherman.  Jonah was swallowed by a fish. Eventually both were witnesses of God’s message to the power centers of the oppressors and fostering repentance.  One could call them both prophets to the nations.  

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. – – This is a case of revelation knowledge.  Some things are taught and some things are caught.  

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rockI will build my church, – – He is speaking here in kingly language.  The Messiah, anointed king, was choosing his chief steward for his kingdom after the pattern of the Davidic dynasty.    

and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it- – Peter not only gets the news that he will be prime minister in a kingdom and, as we will see, assumes a conquering kingdom.  Beating Rome is just around the corner! Or so he thought.  Instead, 400 years later.  

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’- – Remember Eliakim from Isaiah 22:15-25.  Keys is the “key” word.  There is also a rabbinical context with the loosing reference since this was a power of the chief rabbi.  

So the takeaways for Peter are the following: 

1: The nature of revelation can apply to the humble. 

2: Jesus was building a kingdom with a hierarchy with Jesus being king. 

3: This kingdom would be a tangible light against all that is evil including the power of death. 

Grade for Peter: A 

Peter was doing well and tapped into a great mystery. But as we look further, he misses the premise that Jesus is Lord and is entitled to be and do whatever he wants.  

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem …be killed, and on the third day be raised. – – – This kingdom would also be that of love.  And this love would be sacrificial.  And power would bloom greatest through sacrificial love. 

‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ – – God of our understanding should not be confused with God of what we attempt to usurp do to the emotional arguments inside of us.  

‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’– – Our emotions are natural and fine as long as we do not make them objective truth.  When this is done in modern Christianity the arguments end up critiquing the deposit of faith to view by sentimentality.  Modernity or subjective truth should always surrender to the light of God’s revelation to see if it fits.  If at all. 

Grade: F

What is my grade for the Christian? N/A.  Christians are called to know God as Father by the finished work of Christ.  Fathers do not grade us.  But they do form us into the image of Christ including through discipline. Such discipline helps us accept Jesus in his many mysterious paradoxes. 

Jesus is a conquering king but Prince of Peace. He is “the high priest of our good confession” (Hebrews 3:1) and the Lamb of God (John 1:29).  Therefore, he supplies all of our needs that are foreshadowed in the Old Testament without delegating them out.  That is the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 13:14). 

We can also draw from this story some points of consideration on what it means to discern God’s will much more broadly than the specifics of this story.  

1: Jesus is Lord and I am not.

2: Love means sacrifice.  There are times where it is God’s will to surrender ones self to such a circumstance for something better in God’s will in the big picture.  

3: We should consider where we blur the lines of human things at the expense of God’s things. 

The question for us that I ask my fellow sinners is: Are we open to the mysteries of his grace that includes sacrifice? If so, when we seek his kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:33), we will perceive it.   Here and later this week Peter comes so close to understanding but falls short as do we all at times.   

But what is clear is how the authority and sacrifice of Christ hold together as a paradox that works in changing the heart and the world.  Our job starts with just “yes.”  

SOLOMON’S SCORECARD: ALMOST AND THANK YOU

• 

Almost does not necessarily need to be a bad thing.  It can be demeaning when said to a person when the intention is to center on that as a fault.  “You almost are enough.” Would be an example.  

But it can be an encouragement as well. It can be said from one person to another with the view of the worth as a person and their endeavor to be very good and worthy of dignity.  “You are almost there” can be said in an encouraging way.  

In my nearly eight years as a Catholic, I believe the key words I have to my Protestant background are both “almost” and “thank you”.  I would even add that there are many things done among the various forms of Protestantisms that are quite noble, well executed and worthy of compliments.  Some examples include evangelization, Christian apologetics (e.g. Mere Christianity by CS Lewis), community involvement, gifts of the Holy Spirit and Bible memorization.  

So with that in mind I will still be direct below using the blueprint and scorecard from Solomon’s temple and royal court (read 2 Chronicles 7:1-11, 1 Kings 1-8). Christianity in its fulness should reflect the principles of this “blueprint” if it is going to be the best voice to exclaim “Hosanna to the Son of David”.  I score by how words or actions reflect those essentials. 1 is implicit. 2 is bordering on explicit and 3 is very clearly explicit. 

I will attempt to give the best scores possible from the best parts of Christianity I encountered when I was a Protestant.  It would serve no good purpose if I go by doctrine or practice fringe Protestant groups.  

1: God’s favor in his substantive presence.  

From the Bible and Sacred Tradition that makes up the complete deposit of faith we can draw three distinctions of God’s presence.  The first is in the omnipresence of God such as God’s glory covering the earth which is mentioned in the Bible many times (i.e. sensing God’s presence at the beach or in the woods).  The second comes where there is a prayer of gathering among any when in the name of Jesus (Matthew 18:20).  The third would be in the Real Presence which is in the Eucharist. 

The highest Protestants can go is in the second since they do not have a valid Eucharist.  How I come to that will be covered below.  

Fulfilment: 2 

2: Divine worship at the highest level possible in the Psalms with much of it written by either David, some sponsored and contemporaneous entity or someone inspired by the unique themes of his life.  This includes an elevation of beauty in holiness.  

Worshipping with evangelical fervor is a beautiful thing.  Jesus said in John 4 that in the coming kingdom there would be worshippers who would worship in spirit and in truth.  The highest form of worship was established by Christ in the Eucharist.  A way this can be described is that in receiving Christ in the Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and fruit of the unique atonement of Christ.  To commune of and with the Son is a point of giving glory to the Father in the Son.  

Fulfilment: 2 

3:  True reverence.

In terms of the disposition in the best situations I have seen as a Protestant I have experienced many moments where the sense of the Holy Spirit was strong. To be fair in assessing among the Protestantisms at their best I would say it was very valid at times in the receptive disposition in format and intent of the majority there.  And yes, many Protestants could put many Catholics to shame in revering God in true humility.  

Fulfilment: 3

4: Giving thanks to the Lord for his nearness.  

Similar to #3 in the subjective intent of many congregations.  

Fulfilment: 3 

5: Acknowledging the covenant love of God with the Scripture as a key part of that emphasis. 

On this I want to compliment how often there is an emphasis on the Bible and intending to rightly divide the doctrine in it.  I have received over the years many insights from Protestant Bible teachers including how “The New is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New”. 

But I need to be blunt: “Bible Christians” should have the entire Bible.  Consider the Bible as a holy library.  What if someone were to come into a library with 73 books, remove 7 and cut out portions of 2 others.  This would seem like theft or vandalism. 

That is essentially what Protestantism did.  From pivotal regional councils in the late 4^th Century until the early 16^th, the Bible was understood by the vast majority of Christendom to be 73 books.  The general sense of the faithful, sensus fidelum, saw it that way.  Protestants began aggressive steps to remove 7 books and portions of 2 others beginning with Martin Luther. Luther used some of those 7 books the first few years after his famous 95 points to confirm doctrine. Those books were not “added” like many Protestants say but only reaffirmed at a higher level of magisterial teaching at the Council of Trent in 1565 to respond to a controversy like Nicea responded to the Arian heresy in the hypostatic union.  For more on this subject I recommend Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta.  

Fulfilment: 2 

6: Consecrated leadership.

Protestants have leadership but it is not consecrated in a manner foreshadowed in the Solomon blueprint and not in an objective continuity with the leadership of the New Testament.  This was passed on in the “laying on of hands” (Acts 7:17,19; 1 Timothy 4:14).  For a Protestant to lay claim to be objectively tied to Christ himself they would have to be in a line of laying on of hands one generation after another all the way back to the Upper Room. 

Due to an immense and sincere desire, I would give at least one point for a subjective interpretation where something may be passed on.  But that is a subjective experience and not objective and historical.  

Fulfilment: 1

7: Complimentary and ordered response by the laity. 

In the sacramental sense, no pastor has true apostolic succession.  In an objective and historical sense in light of Sacred Tradition a Protestant pastor and a Protestant lay person are both laity. However, there are many Protestant leaders that seem to enjoy and bear Christlike gifting of the Holy Spirit so the complimentary nature of seen between priests and laity in the dedication of Solomon’s temple (2 Chronicles 7:1-11) is not without some substance.  

Fulfilment: 1 

8: Balance of fasting and feasting.

Assessing from what I have seen among Protestants at their best there has been great cases of this. 

Fulfilment: 3

9: The king and the assembly accomplish what they were supposed to do.

I have seen many cases of Protestants doing what they are supposed to do.  I know of making disciples of all nations and baptizing validly (Matthew 28:18-20), loving God, loving neighbor.  

But Jesus said “Do this in memory of me” and “This is the blood of the New Covenant”.  No holy orders means no true Eucharist and therefore a significant instruction from Christ is not done.  

Fulfilment: 2

The next points are especially for the beginning year or so for Solomon. In viewing these details properly through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition we can see how they are unveiled in a new way in the Christian context by further examination.    

10: A prominent factor of the queen mother and her intercession.  “So Bathsheba went to King Solomon….The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her….and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right” (1 Kings 2:19).  Adonijah was a brother of Solomon who asked for her intercession.

Protestants generally give Mary as little attention as possible. The vast majority of Protestants would never ask for her intercession and believe she was a sinner in needed of salvation in the exact same process as anyone else.  

Fulfilment: 0 

11: Someone was placed to be in charge second to the king.  This is comparable to a president’s chief of staff or Vice-President.  An example of this for Solomon is Ahizar. He was Chief of the Household/ Prime Minister (1 Kings 4:6).  He is a servant to “the Lord’s Anointed”.  This office was occupied several times going forward in the Davidic dynasty.  

In all fairness, the head of a Protestant denomination exercises many of the same leadership faculties as a pope with subjective interpretations of what was laid down in public revelation.  But no apostolic succession means no papal succession.  

Fulfilment: 1 

12: Prominence of a priest and prophet in partnership with the installing of the anointed king.  “They made David’s son Solomon king a second time; they anointed him as the Lord’s prince, and Zadok as priest” (1 Chronicles 29:22b).  Also 1 Kings 1:8. Before Solomon we see Samuel who was both a priest and a prophet who anointed Saul and David personally.  

Confirmation completes this in a way.  But no valid priest of apostolic succession means no Sacrament of Confirmation which is the most equivalent to the king, priest and prophet above.  

There is room however for the role of something prophetic as a gift of the Holy Spirit.  And the vast majority of Protestants have the valid Christian baptism as prescribed by Christ in matter and form.  

Fulfilment: 2 

13: Emphasis of the Ark of The Covenant (2 Chronicles 5:2-10) in the carrying of God’s word and the Holy Spirit coming upon it in a powerful way.  

Some wording reflects this in a pattern in Charismatic movement contexts.  But those experiences at best are subjective experiences and may be called at best as “worthy of belief” regarding prophetic utterances.  However, outside of the Eucharist, there can be an intentional and great experience truly happening by the Holy Spirit that is not without some merit. 

Fulfilment: 2 

14: In the prayer of dedication access to the nations outside of Israel are affirmed.  

‘Likewise when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a distant land because of your name—for they shall hear of your great name, your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm—when a foreigner comes and prays towards this house, then hear in heaven your dwelling-place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and so that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built (1 Kings 8:41-43).

I have seen some great evangelistic fervor among Protestants like Billy Graham, Hudson Taylor, Luis Palau and others.  However, there has been many more cases of Protestant missionaries being ethno-centric and colonizing.  

Have there been long-term efforts to do that among Catholic missions at the highest level?  Not long-term.  There have been grave sins in that area but overall have been quickly corrected. The papal bull, Sublime Deus, of 1537 specifically says that the indigenous people are not to be forced into conversion but the missionaries are to be persuasive and be good role models of the Christian life.  The sins of some does not speak to the whole regarding missionary endeavors of either Catholic or Protestant communities.  

But for how universal the Catholic Church is, without a doubt there has been great inclusivity of languages and cultures all over the world for 2,000 years.   

Fulfilment: 2 

15: Divine wisdom either directly through Solomon or someone very much tied to his theological and anthropological standard.  We see this in several books of the Old Testament like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.  This is an elevation of truth both in theology and godly understanding of anthropology especially through the family.  This is an elevation of truth.  This does not relay on the ongoing personal holiness of Solomon or others involved.

Due to a lack of unity among the various Protestant communities it is difficult to say that there is a united take on many essential points of theology including moral issues from a united Christian anthropology.  A celebrated Protestant apologist named Norm Geisler was pro-choice for a time but changed his mind partly under the influence of Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas.  

Fulfilment: 2 

16: A blessing on the “son of David”. 

Nothing of note on that built into a Protestant church service nor of the pattern of a structured government that would reflect the throne of David which Jesus sits on eternally.   

Fulfilment: 0 

Score: 27 59%

MUCH ADO ABOUT THE WORD

A lot can go wrong when someone opens the Bible raring to go with interpretation.  Lots of words, themes and cultural contexts that can be hard to sift through.  One can get tripped up on what is confusing and overconfident in what is “obvious”.  There is a lot that can be overlooked on fundamentals of what makes up the Bible and how to interpret it responsibly.

I like the rules on hermeneutics, textual interpretation, I was taught but they only took me so far since I also had to challenge my internal assumptions.

First, the Bible is not a book.  It is a library.  It is a collection of books written by an uncertain amount of authors in 3 continents over 2,000 years.  If it is just one book then there is easier to pin on interpretation since it would be one genre.  But instead the Bible is full of many genres that have to be looked at in their respective contexts.

So what is the purpose of this library?  Borrowing from what is called in the apostolic churches we can call it Sacred Tradition written down and the Magisterium collected them in that context.  The Magisterium looked at divine revelation up until the 1^st century and discerned that to be the latest date of what is considered public revelation.  From there decided what books belonged in how orthodox the text was, the date limits above and how universally they were read in formal Christian meetings.

So what does the Bible mean when one reads it?  It means what it means.  It is does not always mean what it says.  If it always means what is says then we would be bound to God creating Earth literally in 6 days and Jesus commanding us to cut our hands off if we are prone to sinning with it.

Apologist Patrick Madrid uses this illustration: “I never said you stole the money”.  He gets his person or general audience to affirm they understand what it means.  Then he puts a stress on several of the words one at a time and make the point that with vocal stress on one word the context completely changes.  The hearer of the illustration then concedes it is no so clear.  How much more the Bible with millions of words?

The Bible is not to be appropriated as the final authority but it is infallible.  These terms are to be seen as respective in meaning.  Final authority suggests that the materials of truth are there and that it can have formal directive to the person or group.  In other words one would say it has material and formal sufficiency.  For that purpose to work then the reader would need to interpret infallibly and not denominations would split over interpretations.  Infallibility in interpretation would mean an objective truth that is final.  There is a time and place for that but with wrongfully placed attempts you get division where a new church sprouts up with a pastor who says what the Bible “clearly says”.

There are some potentially wrong lenses to use when interpreting the Bible.

1: That is how it was always interpreted in my tradition.  What if it is wrong?

2: That is how it fits in the culture I am from.

3: I need to reject the interpretation of a tradition I am opposed to since that tradition is “always wrong”.

4: Going with the interpretation that is the most emotionally comfortable.

There are interpretive rules that unify more than divide in the process of interpretation.  These are used virtually by all Christians and seem to lack controversy.

1: Read the verse in context of the passage.

2: Read the passage in context of the book of the Bible.

3: Read the book in context of the author if he has other books of the Bible he has written.  In this way one can compare Moses with Moses, The Chronicler with The Chronicler, Paul with Paul.

4: Read the book in the context of whichever of the testaments of the Bible it is.

5: Pick apart a word or phrase in its original language and compare how that word is used in the Bible regardless of who the author is.  Compare to contemporary secular writings if needed regarding etymology of the word.

6: Research the general culture context and how that could influence what was said or done in that verse.

7: Consider the working hypotheses that the Bible is set up to equip us for our salvation, and to be centered on Jesus as the most present member of the Trinity through the Bible.

8: In light of an informed Christology (theology about Jesus) we can say with St. Augustine that “the Old [Testament] is revealed in the New, and the New is concealed in the Old”.

9: Therefore the antitype is never as good as the type.  So when we see Noah and his family saved by water, that cannot be as glorious as what happens in baptism in “how baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

Though those principles above are effective they are not complete,. They are effective to a great extent but fall short of the unity Jesus prayed for (John 17:21).  I say that because with over 2 billion Christians in the world I would count at least four groups of Christians (Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox and Protestant with Protestant estimated in the thousands in sub-groups).  Any number above the “that they may all be one” is a scandal to the world.

For passages of significant importance and/or ambiguity there are the sources of inter-testament mishnahs, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the early church fathers.  The former is a genre of rabbinical sayings that inform us of the Old Testament culture and messianic expectation.  They illuminate what New Testament Jews were hoping for.

As to the latter, early church fathers provide an invaluable contribution.  Keeping in mind the “stole the money” illustration one can look at verses in the New Testament that are ambiguous with a lens from them.  For example, Clement the fourth bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter to the presbyterate and mentioned by name in an epistle of Paul.  Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were taught by John the apostle.  They were in close enough proximity to provide more clarity than a later tradition.

A critical point for me was to come at the Bible through a broader historical lens that helped me understand the organic application of the Bible and its natural habitat in which it best flourishes.

Seeing the sovereignty of God in the Church through early development in Sacred Tradition also tells us what books should be in the Bible.  There was a list in 367 by Bishop Athanasius (major defender of doctrine) of Alexandria and then affirmed in the Council of Rome in 382, Council of Carthage in 393, Council of Hippo in 397, and Council of Florence in 1442.  The number in all of those lists was 73.

Contrary to a frequently stated canard in many Protestant circles the Catholic Church did not “add to the word of God” in the Council of Trent in the 1500’s.  That list was ratified in what is called by the Catholic Church the extraordinary magisterium in 1565 in response to a public subtraction led by Martin Luther (John Calvin affirmed Baruch so his tradition would be 67).  So the number of books overwhelmingly supported by Church history is 73 and not 66 (the latter does not even have all of the content of Daniel and Esther).  So if you hold in your hands a Bible with 66 books you are holding the “Lutheran library”.

In summary, the Bible is to be read devotionally, intellectually, boldly and in its completeness.

CHASING THE WIND

Truth has a way of getting out whether we like it or not.  Years ago, there was a book written called “An Inconvenient Truth” which sold well and inspired a movie.  Something resonated from a marketing perspective that some of the more worthwhile truths are not convenient.  The marketing was that the inconvenience was epitomized in speaking truth to power and power being unreceptive.  

In the early years that Christianity began to flourish, there was a 24-hour period that was crucial.  The high priest in Jerusalem had the apostles arrested and put in their temple jail.  But an angel set them free and they went back to teaching in the name of Jesus. The next morning the elite were deliberating what to do next when they got news of Christians acting very “inconvenient”.    

Then someone arrived and announced, ‘Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!’  Then the captain went with the temple police and brought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.’  But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, so that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him’ (Acts 5:25-32).  

Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!– – -Christianity is not supposed to be promulgated on personalities of the message bearers.  The fulness of development of the Christian message was coming together but for then it had to be by those apostles.  Ultimately the preaching of the gospel and demonstration it is meant to be by all who believe.  

‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, – – – Orders are not bad depending on the context.  Later Christians would deal with the Roman Empire who said that “Caesar is Lord” but in a way the religious leaders acted as if religion is an end it in itself. Therefore they miss where their prudential judgment ends and what is intrinsic to God begins.  I would have to say that this can be seen replayed even within established Christianity when those in authority make the same mistake.  

yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching- – – The compliment to the Body of Christ from its enemies is that it is too influential.  What fills the culture is the proclaiming of Christ.  

you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us- – – This borrows from what Jesus said in how “the world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil” (John 7:7).  The correct expression of the gospel is not to shame the person.  To have shame is to be in a state of spiritual shock that immobilizes the person from having faith.  But when we are convicted of our sin with the love of Christ on the cross and the truth of resurrection the guilt turns to repentance.  When we resist that tug of conviction then what is equally immobilizing is our pride resisting the truth that our sin crucified the promised Anointed One (Christ).  

We must obey God rather than any human authority- – When confronted Peter declares a boundary but not in any way meant to be obnoxious.  Peter lays down how their priority is to live in obedience to God as the prime reality.  Caesars or fads come and go but God stays the same.  

 

God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior- –  Ultimately there is the dual between the City of God and the City of Man.  Peter speaks not as a political revolutionary but a spiritual one and making a case full of faith and reason.  The calling for all Christians to declare Christ is to declare “Jesus is Lord” in place of “Caesar is Lord”.    When speaking to the powerful or the meek, we have the mind of Christ and propose Christ as the reason (logos) of the Father.  

so that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins- – GK Chesterton was a Christian who wrote detective stories where evidence was collected and the guilty one was punished.  But as an apologist for Christianity he stated that the Church collects evidence and points out what sin is with the fullest elaboration to instead declare God’s forgiveness.  Obviously in scenes like this one and many others, the party receiving this word do not see it that way.  Peter gives emphasis to God’s mercy to that effect.  

we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit- – – Peter speaks as a symbol of the Church and knows the intertwining reality of the Holy Spirit with the life of the Christian community. “What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church (St. Augustine, Sermon 267,4:PL 38,1231D).  Peter standing as a symbol personally is even emphasized when he deals with two liars in the Church saying,  “ ‘Ananias,’ Peter asked, ‘why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit’ ‘(Acts 5:3)? In short, while Christ is the head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church.

When the Church shares and lives the gospel there may be success, persecution or maybe a bit of both.  Exact paths of either is ultimately up to the sovereign will of God and the faithful are to trust Him along the way.  But hope remains the same if it is persecution with no immediate results. And thus right teaching and doctrine of what the Church is becomes practice.  

and when they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 5:40-42).  

Such faith and joy would be the soil for the martyrs.  And those martyrs would in turn be the seed of a harvest of souls.  

Conversion to The Fundamental Good

Flash in the pan experience can take us only so far if we want to change the fundamental things in us.  We have to go deeper for it to matter.  Transitions that matter for the person have to go from the inside out.

For two disciples of John the Baptist there were two days of transition that were ending one time of discipleship and getting ready for another.  They saw the baptism of Jesus but for whatever reason following Jesus was not meant to happen that very day though much was illuminated about him.  But for them a conversion of heart began.

But the next day, like many who hear the gospel and understand it, is a time of action to make conversion real or inaction that makes it all like a goose-bump that fades.

 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon (John 1:35-38).

Look, the Lamb of God!– -Just like the passover lamb was the game changer in the time of Moses, so from this point forward everything changes.  And just like the time of Moses where the lamb had to be consumed in all, so Jesus must be received fully. Jesus is being pointed to as one who would in fact give of himself fully.  Such giving seems foolish to the world.

What do you want?– – Jesus asks them something that could be considered a test.  Their response can say a lot of what they are looking for in light of the teaching they already had. When God draws us to himself in the context of initial or ongoing conversion, it is fitting to reflect of what we want and if it really matters.

Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?– – They come to Jesus on the right terms in obedience and are teachable to the Teacher.  This is what matters.  What is more, by asking the “Rabbi” where he is staying they want more than a quick answer but to abide, metaphorically, in the schoolhouse.

But coming to God with the requests that matter and are thus consistent with his nature is also a partnership initiated by God the Father.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. (John 6:44-45)

Come, and you will see– – – Unlike many other times, Jesus does not answer the questions with a question.  This could be seen as a matter of the simplest questions being the best ones generally.

To fully understand what is being covered here, consider the beautiful things in life that are appreciated in themselves.  If I take out my keys, and one asks why, I answer that I am going to my car.  Asked more, I could say which freeway.  If I finally say that I am going to have coffee with my daughter, the question why would not make sense.  This is because certain things, the fundamental goods, are without need of being put in a definable box.  If Jesus was just somebody to do business with, then the meaning is dry. But this beautiful movement forward is both greatness in the person and a dynamic of the Holy Trinity at work. Jesus is The Fundamental Good and fellowship is an end in itself.

they went and saw-  Taking these verses, one could think this is a small real estate story.  But, considering they were sent off to “behold the Lamb of God” we can see these disciples took in that day something deeper about him.  Ideally, the ongoing process of the believer is to keep your eyes open to God.  This is where the believer stays in a state of purity.  “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).  It is not seeing God’s plan but seeing God.  Again, God is the Fundamental Good.

they stayed with him that day— To experience the passover lamb in the Old Testament is not a fast food experience but is communal.  What we see here are the apostles John and Andrew coming to the man they call Teacher and connecting with him in a meeting of dwelling.  The natural follow up for the convert is to join Jesus where he is and stay there.

There is something to be said about joining Jesus such as in the context of prayer: It is normal.  That is to say, much of the lifestyle of being a Christian that has a relationship is not sensational.  The day before this narrative was sensational.  Some heard a voice and some perceived the Holy Spirit to come down on Jesus as a dove.  But to an uninformed eye, these were just three men that were under the same roof, likely sharing a meal and talking.  No flash and no snappy one liners.

On the hour of their decision to follow Jesus they believed with obedience in coming to to him, inquired, saw and stayed.  Coming to Jesus is nice, staying is everything.  Getting a quick question answered gives knowledge.  But dialogue with Jesus grants wisdom.  Such dialogue we can have today if we just ask and immerse ourselves in the presence of the Lord.  The reader may ask if it is an audible voice to which I would say that is not necessary.  This is because today and every day we can approach Jesus while Jesus approaches us and that is an end in itself.  Jesus can be our Fundamental Good- – if we let Him.

Called to Conversion And Unity

Tomorrow is going to be my fifth Easter as a Catholic.  These years, from when I first investigated into the claims of the Catholic Church to my entering it, then my wife and now nearly two years of college level formation has been a whirlwind.  It has been a great ride and I am excited for what the Lord is going to do in the years to come for my family and I.  I see conversion as a continual call as a Christian to take up ones cross and follow Jesus wherever He leads.

I would like to address my anniversary as a Catholic with a different reflection for a moment.  Yes, I have a bias that the Catholic Church is awesome but I am also aware that for many Christians who are not in communion with Rome they have not yet discerned that this is their spiritual home.  So what is the meeting place I should have with Christians of good conscience that are tied to the same basics of the historic Christian faith?

I like Nicea as a meeting point.  What that is for theologians of both the Catholic and Protestant persuasions is where a council took place that elaborated on the Apostles’ Creed.  This was especially a referendum on the theology of who Christ is.

God from God, light from light, True God and True Man begotten not made.  Consubstantial with the Father He came down from heaven and by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary He became man

As Rich Mullins said about this creed, “I did not make it.  No it is making me”.

There could be a reader of what I am writing that still is persuaded that Catholicism is not true Christianity.  For me, that is sad.  I would suggest to all of my Protestant brothers and sisters two points: I have grown closer in my relationship to Jesus Christ in these last several years and that there is more that unites us than divides us.  My love for Jesus and my neighbor has only increased.  My prayer time is better and I have a renewed love for the scriptures in engaging my faith with a good breadth of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Now more than ever, it is important that Christians learn to stand together as we consider the growing wave of persecution against Christianity across the globe.  In fact, last year there was a crucial meeting between Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kiril in Cuba about how to find a defense for their flocks mutually.  This is a good development  when I consider how the one unanswered prayer of Jesus is “that they all be one” (John 17:21). Or in the words of Peter Kraft about ecumenism “Brothers tend to stop fighting when there is a mad man at the door”.

The Nicene Creed addresses four marks of the Church.  These are applicable for discussion whether one sees Church of church in it.  The first is “one” which I addressed above.

The second is “holy”.  This has many facets to it and in light of a recent event it worth exploring particularly with the sacramental point of view.  Recently a lifelong Protestant known as the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hennegraff, was received into the Greek Orthodox Church. Some are editorializing that he has left biblical Christianity.  For me, I admire his courage even though I am a Catholic.  Some may object to my wording but at some point he must have thought , “Here I stand, I can do no other”.  He speaks of theosis which is where Christians partake of the divine nature through communion with Christ.  He connects that in context with the Eucharist particularly.  The sacramental perspective can be verified with an open mind by reading the early church fathers and their interpretation of the New Testament which was written closer to their time than that of the reformers.

There is Catholic and then there is catholic.  Either way, I hope that Christians of good conscience can see that there is a universality to the gospel, how universally it should be proclaimed and universally experienced.

Apostolic can seem like a scary word.  Really, it does not have to be.  When the Pharisees asked Jesus by what authority he said or did things, one could say that this was healthy skepticism.  Who really wants to follow someone who made himself pastor and has a close circle of fans?  How far is that from a cult?  Apostolic succession simply means that one can trace in the authority that hands were laid on them with a sacred imparting of an anointing that started in the upper room when Jesus breathed on his apostles the Holy Spirit to represent the redemptive aspect of Him.  With the Bible Answer Man, he is going to a source that I as a Catholic would affirm has a history of guarding the deposit of faith including in the sacramental expression of Christianity.

But this is not to put down my Protestant history.  It is from my Protestant experiences I can talk about my love for bible memorization, my first zeal in pointing to Jesus and time in prayer.  I am thankful for the pastors and other loved ones that invested into me so much that I am an evangelical still albeit I believe fulfilled in that in the Catholic Church.  With a renewed fervor, I hope that increasingly my Protestant and Orthodox brothers can join me in loving each other as Jesus prayed and telling the world He is risen indeed!

Crossing The Tiber– Three Years Later and Going Strong

It is an interesting divide at times since I became a Catholic.  There are some in my professional field of social work/counseling that would see me as a cultural throwback and obstinate to change.  My brothers and sisters in Christ in the Protestant communities would say that I have gone way back to Mosaic law and yet that I would attempt to not be in a black and white Christianity.

One such well meaning brother I will call Bob would like to see me come back into the light and see things clear.  The catalyst for this letter is that he wanted me to respond on the verse “I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).  I did not want to respond to this on my iPhone.  I also thought about how we do not communicate with each other as well as I wish.  That is me with him but many of his other friends that are in the loop.  One of many things I hope to point to is the sense of mystery that God has in the Christian faith and particularly in the Catholic Church.  I also address below a sense of the need for the right authority on doctrinal matters.  Ultimately, I would say that if there is no standing authority to sort out what the Bible “clearly says” then I would have to question the Lord part in Jesus Christ.  After all, he said “upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Last, before my Protestant brethren read my retort below, please know that I appreciate what I got out of the Protestant communities over the years I was in them.  I learned to appreciate the Bible, I learned first about the power of community, prayer and the many roles of the Holy Spirit.  Most importantly I was first formed in my walk with Jesus there.  I do not wish to offend anyone.  But please know that if you still will not “cross the Tiber” into the Catholic Church that you will consider that we could be brothers in Christ right now.

****************************

So now that I have time on my hands and the kids are quiet (by the way, I hope you and “Janet” had a Happy Easter), I can write out better on my response with my Mac rather than my iPhone.

A few things are coming to mind where it seems we are talking past each other.  The first is the role of Sacred Tradition (which lends itself to apostolic succession).  I immediately recoiled at the Catholic Church when I remembered that I would be heading into “the traditions of men” and that I “did not want to be religious”.

This worry dissipated after considering several things.

!: Protestants have about as many traditions as Catholics.  It’s just that Catholics are better at writing them down.

1: There are Traditions and there traditions.  I know a married priest in the Byzantine rite who does not personally do the rosary.  He is not against it.  It is just not his thing.  And they have rosaries in his rite.  The canon of the New Testament is an example of Tradition.  I assume you agree with that one.

2:  Christianity has survived for 2,000 years.  It survived until 402 when Pope Donasus ratified the canon.  But it did not do it alone.  Jesus set up a Magisterium with a line of succession and that line of succession including the popes discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Bible.

3:  You can deny that last premise.  But like RC Sprout said in that matter “We have a fallible list of infallible books”.  This is difficult.  Hebrews almost did not make it in.  The Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas almost did.  Maybe the apostasy had started already and those books are meant to be in.  I am a big fan of two of those non-canonical books but I trust the sovereignty of Jesus working through the Church that he has preserved from dogmatic error including the pope when he speaks ex cathedra.

4:  Just as I said about traditions are on both sides, there are magisteriums as well.  Below are leaders in these respective denominations who stated their cases of where the Bible is very clear.  Remember, I am not quoting people on the social fringe like David Koresh or the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas.  Their titles and statements speak for themselves and show that sola scriptura is found wanting.

“The Bible clearly teaches, starting in the tenth chapter of Genesis and going all the way through, that God has put differences among people on the earth to keep the earth divided.” – Bob Jones III, defending Bob Jones University’s policy banning interracial dating/marriage. The policy was changed in 2000.

“The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” – Rev. Richard Furman, first president of the South Carolina State Baptist Convention.

“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool…wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” – Martin Luther in “Table Talk” on a heliocentric solar system.

He added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, to make it read “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith ALONE without the deeds of the law.  This was to buttress his new philosophy that we are “saved by faith alone.” He also kicked out 7 books of the Old Testament that he didn’t like – Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit. These books were all included in the very first printed bible, the Gutenberg Bible, in the century before Luther was born. He also changed the nuanced meaning of other verses to make them more “German,” and more in line with Luther’s thinking of what God should have said. Imagine if some Pope did this!  The Protestants would be up in arms, and rightly so. But because Luther did it, and stuck it to the Catholic Church in the process, he gets a pass.

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ – Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so:  Papist and ass are one and the same thing.  Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge.  Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”, from J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants quelle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138.

“Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents…We have sufficient light from the Word of God for our proceedings.” – Captain John Underhill, defending the Puritan decimation of the Pequot tribe.

“The evidence that there were both slaves and masters of slaves in churches founded and directed by the apostles, cannot be got rid of without resorting to methods of interpretation that will get rid of everything.” – Rev. Leonard Bacon, in defense of American slavery. (Christian ministers wrote nearly half of all defenses of slavery, often citing Scripture to make their case.)

“The Bible is the revealed will of God, and it declares the God-given sphere of woman. The Bible is, then, our authority for saying woman must content herself with this sphere…Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class. There may be exceptions, but the majority prefer an infidel’s cheer to the favor of God and the love of the Christian community.”  – Rev. Justin Dewey Fulton in his treatise against women’s suffrage.

“Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble….These religious liberals are the worst infidels in many ways in the country; and some of them are filling pulpits down South.  They do not believe the Bible any longer; so it does not do any good to quote it to them.  They have gone over to modernism, and they are leading the white people astray at the same time; and they are leading colored Christians astray.  But every good, substantial, Bible-believing, intelligent orthodox Christian can read what the Word of God and know that what is happening in the South now is not of God.” – Bob Jones Sr., in his treatise against integration entitled, ‘Is Segregation Scriptural?’

Someone needs to be a body of interpretation.  Like the Protestant JND Kelly said about Moses, “Moses taught without error”.

Now this gets practical in what is called a theological normative.  This term applies to a doctrine or practice that is the norm but allows for God to work in a mysterious way.

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved”.  Great! Hallelujah!  But what if you were born without a tongue?  Hell for you.  The thief on the cross did not know about the resurrection.  No belief?  Hell.

“It is appointed once to die…after that, the judgment”.  Amen!  Except what about Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, Jairus’ daughter and Dorcas?  It’s a miracle!  They have to be alive today!  We should find them.   Hope they speak English.

Now as to John 14:6.  “I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father but through me.”  But how can an unborn baby or severely mentally disabled comes to God?  What if there is a mystical encounter with Christ that comes in the twinkle of an eye between life and death?  Then through that encounter with Jesus that we in our flesh can’t witness Jesus brings them to the Father with all their faculties intact.  This is why I have confidence that the three children I have lost are in heaven.  As a Catholic I have hope.  I see not under a God of law or the courthouse.  I have a God who is gracious yet holy.  If the day came that I embraced again your theology I would have to accept that my innocent children are in the lake of fire for all eternity.  I would then lose 7 books of the Bible, sacraments that were founded by Jesus in the scripture (I can give you verses if you wish) and by default embrace a Christianity that died after Carthage but was revived by an anti-Semite named Martin Luther.  I would also have to question if Jesus is Lord because then there is no evidence of this “True Church” between Carthage and Luther though Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.

As a member of the Body of Christ, my eyes are fixed on Jesus.  But my ears are not he successors to the apostles.  After a while in my discernment I was down to  Catholics, Orthodox and maybe Coptics.  Now I enjoyed all of Jesus’ grace and am more free to love God and love my neighbor standing on Jesus and “the church, the pillar and foundation of truth”.