How many churches can you belong to?

Q: How many churches can you belong to?

I haven't seen any statistics, but people who study the church have noticed that a growing number of Christians in America are involved with two churches. I know some people who primarily serve in one church, and are fed in another church. Other people split their time between two churches because they like different programs at each church, like worship in one church and the children's program in another.

The first thing we should consider is what we mean by church and belonging to. In the first century, Christians already used the word church in several ways: individual house churches (Rom 16:1, 5); all the churches in one town (Acts 11:22, Rev 2:1), and all Christians everywhere (Acts 9:31, Col 1:18). The most important meaning is the last one: all Christians are "baptized by one Spirit into one body" (1 Cor 12:13). So all true Christians, regardless of location or denomination, belong to the one true church. In the first century, Christians were "members" of one house church, but sometimes several house churches met together, and sometimes people (especially leaders) would visit other house churches.

So there is nothing wrong in principle with attending more than one church; in fact, it may be evidence of unity between Christians. But there is a second question: what does it mean to belong to a church? If we walk through the pages of the New Testament, we see a whole list of "one anothers" that should define our churches: love one another, value one another in humility, serve one another, build up one another, forgive one another, be united with one another, and show affection to one another (see here for 60 passages describing how Christians should treat one another). And that's only a start - we could add a whole list of other things that we should be doing as members of our churches.

With that in mind, we need to ask a question about motive: am I attending so that I can be part of the "one anothers" at both churches? Or am I only church two-timing - trying to get what I want from each church? It's possible to bless and be blessed by two churches - or it's possible to just take from each church and give nothing. Whether we attend one or two churches, we need to fully participate, giving and receiving.

If your involvement at two churches blesses other Christians and blesses you, then it may be a good thing. I have a small group Bible study that has people from four churches, and it helps build up all four churches. I attend other churches when they invite me to preach. But if you are just a consumer at both churches, then you should work on engaging in the "one anothers" at just one church.

Use of NT in OT

I just finished writing an article on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, which will be published in the Baker Handbook on the Bible in 2010. For copyright reasons, I can't post the whole article here, but here is an excerpt:

A quotation or allusion to the OT can be pictured as an hourglass. The upper chamber of the hourglass is the context of the OT reference; the neck of the hourglass is the quotation or allusion; and the lower chamber of the hourglass is the context of the NT quote. The NT’s brief reference to the OT is often a way of showing connections between the theology of an entire OT passage and the theology of the entire NT passage. In many cases, references to the OT that at first appear strained make sense when the connections between the theology of the OT and NT passages are observed. For example, the five OT references in Matthew’s birth narratives (Mt 1:23/Isa 7:14; Mt 2:6/Mic 5:1-3; Mt 2:15/Hos 11:1; Mt 2:18/Jer 38:15; Mt 2:23/Isa 11:1) are troublesome because some appear to ignore the meaning of the OT passages. However, a careful reading of the context of the OT passages reveals a common theme: the desperate plight of God’s people and their promised rescue. Matthew is showing a connection between God’s OT promises of rescue and the NT birth of the rescuer...

There are a variety of reasons for a NT author to make use of OT material. It is important to understand first what the NT author is not doing. The NT author is rarely engaging in exposition of the OT text; that is, he is not trying to merely explain what the OT author meant in the fashion of a commentary or expository sermon. The NT author has his own message, and he refers to the OT to advance that message. This is not to say that the NT author is disinterested in what the OT author meant; rather, he is interested in the theology of the OT passage and how it can be used to advance the NT author’s message.

Baa! We're Lambs (John 10)

Thought you might like to see this video, inspired by John 10, Matt 18 and Luke 15. There's a version with better graphics here, but it didn't have embedding enabled, so I used this version instead.

Judas' Kiss (Matthew 26:50, John 13:27)

Question: There seems to be a great difference in the translations for Matthew 26:50.

And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for.” (NASB)
But Jesus said to him, “Friend, why have you come?” (NKJV)

It seems as if these are two completely different translations. Is there a correct one and which one is it? Also, what is the reason for italics to be used on words?

In the original Greek, the phrase in Matt 26:50 can actually be read either way, at least at first glance. In the first century, they had not yet invented the question mark, or most other punctuation for that matter. They didn't even put spaces between the words! As a result, there are a few places in the New Testament where it is a little unclear whether we should read a question or a statement.

In Matt 26:50, there are a few hints that "do what you have come for" is more likely correct, although it's not a slam dunk. First, the way it is phrased works slightly better as a question according to normal Greek grammar. Second, in the parallel passage in John 13:27, where there is no difficulty with translation, Jesus says "What you do, do quickly."

Nerd note: the phrase in question is eph ho parei (literally, "for which you are present"). You can see why it could be read as a question: "For what are you present?" But there are no other examples in the NT or in the LXX of a question starting with the preposition epi (or eph), making it a little less likely. So the other option is an implied command: "do!" There are a few other places in the NT with implied imperatives.

If you do a little looking around, you can see that most modern translations choose this option. In general, I don't advise using the NKJV, at least for the New Testament. It's not really bad - not as if you will become a heretic by reading the NKJV! But the NKJV always follows the decisions made by the translators of the 1611 KJV, even when better ancient manuscripts are found, or when scholars have learned more about how Greek works. Modern translations like the NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, NET and RSV are all better.

You asked about italicized words in the NASB. All translators occasionally have to add words that are implied in the original languages, so that the translation will make sense in English. The NASB translators decided to italicize such words, while most other translators leave them in the same font. By the way, this is not anything to be concerned about. In English, we regularly omit words that are obvious to us. For example, if I say "I like chocolate, but not butterscotch," I am leaving out the phrase "I do not like" from the second half of the sentence. Someone translating the sentence into another language might put "I do not like" in for clarity in the other language.

Bonus: Jesus calls Judas "friend" in Matt 26:50 (hetaire in Greek). Jesus has used this word twice before in parables (Matt 20:13, 22:12). In both cases, the speaker is implying that the "friend" has taken advantage of his kindness.

Another bonus: Jesus' disciples probably normally greeted him with a kiss as a sign of respect. Anyone who didn't know Jesus would guess that he was the rabbi by seeing his disciples kiss him. So it was a very obvious way that Judas could point out the rabbi to the waiting soldiers.

The picture: The Kiss of Judas, ca. 1308, by Duccio di Buoninsegna.

This Generation Will Not Pass Away (Matthew 24:34)

Question: In Matt 24:34, Jesus says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." But we are still awaiting his return. I know in this text, the word 'generation' also means race, or as I heard before, 'people of the Promise'. How do you explain this passage?

Matthew 24:34 has troubled interpreters throughout Christian history! So although there are several proposed answers, none of them is entirely satisfactory. You mentioned the idea that the Greek word genea can be translated as race rather than generation. However, there are no other passages in the NT where race is the best way to translate genea. The NIV, NASB, and NLT never translate genea as race. So the best way to read the verse is as it is translated, implying that Jesus' prophecies would be fulfilled within one generation, about 40 years after his words.

The best solution is found in the context. In Jesus' sermon so far, he has listed a number of signs. These signs have to do with when the Temple will be destroyed (24:2). In fact, all of the events described in vv. 5-25 actually happened in the 40 years after Jesus gave this sermon, and the Temple was destroyed in AD 70. There was persecution, there were false Christs in the wilderness, there was an "abomination of desolation" (the presence of Gentiles in the holy place), and there were wars and earthquakes. And although we know that the Gospel had not yet been literally preached to all nations (Matt 24:12), Paul was quite willing to say that the Gospel had been "proclaimed to all creation under heaven" (Col 1:23) by the 50s.

Jesus makes it quite clear that these signs are not signs of the end (Matt 24:8), but signs of the end of the Temple. Jesus only clearly speaks of his return in 24:29-31. He says that "after the tribulation of those days," the Son of Man will return. In other words, the signs that will occur within a generation are the signs of the destruction of the Temple, but the return of Christ will be at some point after the destruction of the Temple. That time is unknown to everyone, even the Son (24:36, 42-44). The "these things" of v. 34 refers to the "these things" of v. 33 and v. 8 - which are all signs of the destruction of the Temple.

So the destruction of the Temple will happen within a known period of time (one generation, 40 years), but the return of Christ will happen at an unknown time. The "immediate" language is related to what the rest of the chapter teaches: we must always be ready for the immediate return of Christ. Since the fall of Jerusalem, every generation of Christians has had to be ready for Christ to return.

This is admittedly not a perfect explanation! But here are the other options: 1) Jesus predicted his return within 40 years, but he was wrong; 2) Jesus did return within 40 years, but in some metaphorical fashion rather than literally; 3) "this generation" refers not to Jesus' generation, but the future generation right before Christ returns. None of these explanations really fit the evidence of the passage very well.

How does this matter to Christians today? Jesus gives the relevance in the following parables (24:45-25:30): Jesus' followers must be busy doing his work, since he could come back for "inspection" at any moment. In the first parable, the slave wrongly thought that his master would be late; in the second parable, the bridesmaids wrongly thought that the bridegroom would come early. The point of the parables is not to panic about the imminent return of Christ, but rather to keep busy doing the work of a disciple of Jesus.

The picture: The crowning of Aragorn from Return of the King. Tolkien's portrayal of the prophesied king is influenced by the Bible's portrait of Jesus as returning King. Tolkien's publisher picked the title Return of the King for the third volume of Lord of the Rings; Tolkien was reportedly quite irate that the title "gave away the whole story."

Eutychus Drama

At a recent chapel at Pacific Rim Bible College, where I teach, students had to quickly perform odd scenes from the Bible. Here is their performance of the story of Eutychus (Acts 20).

Cast:

Paul: Paul Kiriakos

Eutychus: Justin Masuda

Audience: Sabeth Erungel and Christina Youngs

Stunt crew: Antonio Criado and Michael Soraoka

Chair: Gabe Diaz

Victory at Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4-7)

The following is a devotional that I wrote for my church's Bible reading plan.

1 Samuel 4-7
This section of Scripture starts and ends with the people of God at war against the Philistines in a place called Ebenezer (“Rock of Help”). After being defeated in the first round of battle, the elders of the nation decide to bring out the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of the presence of God. The presence of the Ark had brought victory to Israel before. (Remember that line in Raiders of the Lost Ark: “The Bible speaks of the Ark leveling mountains and laying waste to entire regions. An army which carries the Ark before it… is invincible.”) The presence of the Ark even terrifies the opposing army and convinces them that they are about to be destroyed (1 Sam 4:6-9). But it is not enough. The army of Israel is defeated, the two sons of the high priest are killed, and the Ark is taken captive by the Philistines. Eli, the high priest, falls down dead when he hears the news, and his newborn grandson is named Ichabod, “the glory has departed,” as a sign of mourning.

About a year later (after a number of fascinating and even humorous events that bring the Ark back to Israel), the army of Israel again fights the Philistines at Ebenezer. But this time, although they don’t bring out the Ark, Israel is victorious and casts off the oppression of the Philistines. What happened to make the difference? Why did the first army fail, and why did the second army succeed?

The first army suffered from fatal flaws. First, they thought that religious ritual alone could bring victory and blessing. There is no sign that they did anything else to honor God – just brought out the Ark. Like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, they thought that mere possession of the Ark would grant power. Second, Israel relied on immoral leaders. God had already warned Eli the high priest that they were in danger because his two sons were breaking the priestly laws, extorting gifts from worshipers, and sleeping with the women who were appointed to serve in the Tabernacle (1 Sam 2:15-25). These were not the men to carry the Ark and bring the presence of God before the people.

Why did the second army succeed? Samuel led the people into an inner transformation that went beyond just ritual. He helped them experience the real presence of God in their lives rather than trying to control God by bringing out the Ark. Samuel called the people to take inner and outer steps of repentance as they turned to God. They got rid of their idols to other gods, they fasted, prayed and confessed their sins; and when they went off to battle, Samuel remained behind, offering a sin sacrifice and praying for the people (1 Sam 7:3-10).

We cannot expect blessing, whether as a whole congregation or as individual Christians, if we think that religious ritual alone pleases God. We are sometimes tempted to think that God has to bless if we attend everything we are supposed to. We sometimes expect victory because we experience emotional worship or because we make great promises to God. But the story of the victory at Ebenezer reminds us that God delights in genuine repentance and utter faithfulness to him. Both Samuel and the sons of Eli used religious ritual – but it only Samuel’s that was acceptable to God. Samuel’s ritual (the sin sacrifice) was valuable because it was connected to genuinely transformed hearts. I believe that any ritual we participate in – whether it is worship, communion, baptism, laying on of hands, fasting or any other common Christian practice – only matters to God if it represents repentant and transformed hearts.

Lord, as a church, we want to please you and experience your blessing. Please help our hearts to match our Christian habits and rituals. Cause us to seek repentance and transformation, not merely empty ritual. And Father, we pray that all the rituals that we practice will be pleasing to you because they represent the reality of your presence in us.

Blind and Lame (John 5, John 9)

Two of Jesus' miraculous signs, the healing of the lame man in John 5 and the healing of the blind man in John 9, come into sharper focus when we place them next to each other. The set of remarkable similarities and striking differences between the two scenes suggests that John wants us to flip back and forth between these pages. Let's start with the similarities. Both:

Have had many years of suffering

Are singled out by Jesus for healing

Are healed in association with a pool in Jerusalem

Are healed on the Sabbath, resulting in controversy

Talk to the Pharisees about the healing

Are sought out by Jesus after the healing

Healings result in a discourse by Jesus about his identity (John 5:17-47, 9:35-10:30)

But there are some significant differences as well:

The lame man hopes to be healed at a well-known healing pool (Bethzatha), but Jesus heals him by declaration; the blind man is sent for healing to a pool not known for healing (Siloam). Siloam was known as the source of the water used in the water ceremony at the Feast of Tabernacles. This is the same ceremony at which Jesus had declared himself to be the source of living water (John 7:37-39). In one healing, Jesus rejects a superstitious (or at least manipulative) method of healing; in the second, Jesus reminds us that he is the source of living water.

When the lame man talks to the Pharisees, John subtly portrays it as a betrayal by a spiritually dim man. When the blind man talks to the Pharisees, John portrays it as an act of belief, courage and even cleverness. Jesus has no reason to be at the trial, because the blind man capably uses all the sorts of arguments that Jesus would use to prove that Jesus must be from God.

When Jesus seeks out the lame man, he warns him about his sin (John 5:14). But when Jesus seeks out the blind man, he reveals his identity as the Son of Man, (John 9:35-39); he defends the blind man as one who truly sees (John 9:39-41); and even hints that the blind man is one of his true sheep, who hears the voice of the Shepherd (John 10:4-5, 27).

Jesus' warning to the lame man, "Don't sin any more, so that nothing worse may happen to you," affirms his agreement with the Jewish belief that some suffering results from sin. But when Jesus sees the blind man, he reveals something new: "Neither this man nor his father sinned; he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him" (John 9:3). Jesus reminds us that suffering is not necessarily because of something but for something.

Both healing scenes are an opportunity for John to reveal something about Jesus. In John 5, Jesus teaches that he can give life to whomever he wishes (as he picked out the lame man) - both now and on the last day. In John 9-10, Jesus is revealed as the source of light and the good shepherd, in contrast to the leaders of Jerusalem.

The sharpest contrast between the two scenes is about discipleship. The lame man is uncertain if he wants healing, has no recognition of who heals him, and informs the Pharisees as soon as he knows who broke the Sabbath by healing him. There is no evidence that he believes or comes closer to belief. In contrast, the blind man begins the scene as an innocent man. At Jesus' command, he leaves his begging post and walks across town to Siloam (surely an act of faith for a blind man). Before he ever sees Jesus, he testifies in defense of Jesus, refuses to back down, is labelled a disciple of Jesus by Jesus' enemies, and suffers rejection. When he learns more about Jesus, he believes even more, and worships Jesus (John 9:38).

The picture: Healing of the Blind Man, by Duccio di Buoninsegna, ca. 1308.

The Rolling Stone

Question: How do we know the stone [on Jesus’ tomb] was too heavy for anyone to roll away? How did they get it there in the first place? (posted by Anonymous, 4-13-09)

Many tombs in first-century Israel were blocked by a stone, either square or round. Rolling stone tombs have a large disk-shaped rock door that rolls in a stone slot, usually sloped downward. Rolling stones recovered by archeologists are 4-6 feet across and a foot thick, and weighed a ton or more (my calculation, but seems to match the estimates given by others). They were thus very hard to open, but easy to close. Presumably several men would roll the stone up the slot and wedge it in place when the tomb was needed, and then it could be easily closed by removing the wedge. Such tombs were designed to hold entire families, so they needed to be reopened occasionally. In between openings, they were often sealed with clay, although Jesus’ tomb probably had not yet been sealed in this fashion. Rolling stone tombs were mainly used by wealthy families, matching the gospels’ account that Jesus was placed in tomb space donated by Sanhedrin member Joseph of Arimathea.

Matthew and Mark record that the stone was too big for the three women to move (see Mark 16:1-5) and that it was "very large." One later Christian document says that twenty men were needed to roll away the stone, but this is probably exaggeration.

Why does the weight of the stone matter? In the past few centuries, skeptics have claimed that Jesus was not really dead (also an unlikely claim), and that he awoke in the tomb and rolled away the stone. Others have claimed that the women stole the body. The size of the stone makes both claims historically unlikely.

If you watch these video clips of resurrection expert William Lane Craig, you can hear why such conspiracy theories are not accepted by reputable historians. Even more important, Craig correctly points out that almost all Jesus scholars, whether they are Christians or not, agree that Jesus really died, that his tomb was found empty, and that the disciples had some experience that convinced them that Jesus was alive.

Nerd note on the weight of the stone: Archeological records list rolling stone size as radius 0.7-0.8 m and width 0.3-0.4 m. That produces a volume of about 0.5 cubic meters (pi*r^2 *w). Workable stone such as granite weighs about 2500 kg (5500 lbs) per cubic meter, giving a weight of at least 2750 lbs.

The picture: Another rolling stone tomb outside Jerusalem. Jesus' tomb was covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre centuries ago, and the opening was destroyed.

Roman Soldiers at the Tomb

Question: How do we know Roman guards were posted at [Jesus’] tomb? Why would the Romans put guards there? (from Anonymous, posted 4-13-09)

This is an important question, since it serves as part of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. First, let me highly recommend a series of video clips from one of the best experts on the resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig. If you want the short version, just look at this clip, but I encourage you to watch the whole playlist (I tried to post one of the clips on this blog, but Blogger does not support their format).

How do we know that Roman guards were posted at the tomb? First, because Matthew records it (see Matt 27:62-66, 28:11-15). The chief priests had heard at least one claim that Jesus would rise from the dead, so they asked Pilate to post a Roman guard contingent to prevent the disciples from tampering with the evidence. Although some people might discount Matthew's testimony, it is important to remember that most historical facts are based on single documents, often not even based on eyewitness. In this case, Matthew is a document based on eyewitness accounts written within 30 to 40 years of the event; and both Matthew and Luke reveal evidence that they relied on documents even closer to the date of the resurrection.

Second, Matthew's claim is historically plausible. Some of the biggest political problems in first-century Israel were violent uprisings backed by messianic claims (at least eleven occasions from AD 6-140). The chief priests and the Roman governor had to quell these movements quickly to avoid civil disorder or open war (see John 11:47-53). On one occasion, Pilate sent cavalry to attack a Samaritan messiah-figure and his followers who were trying to dig up their lost temple artifacts. This event proves that the Roman government would use force to deal with religious beliefs.

The Roman government in Judea was on alert every Passover because of political and religious tensions - after all, Passover celebrated God’s rescue of Israel from Gentile oppressors. Every Passover, the Roman governor left the Roman regional capital in Caesarea Maritima and brought a cohort of soldiers to Jerusalem to deal with potential problems.

By this period in Pilate's career, he also had to try to placate the Jewish authorities. Jewish leaders had complained to the emperor about Pilate, and the emperor had warned Pilate that he would be removed if there were further incidents. So it makes sense that Pilate would accede to the request of the chief priests to guard the tomb.

The picture: The Resurrection, from a Chinese Bible from the 1800s. Note the soldiers with Chinese weapons and the seal on the tomb door.