Why It's OK to Have a Christmas Tree

At least three times in the last year, I have heard from Christians who are concerned that they shouldn't have a Christmas tree, or maybe shouldn't celebrate Christmas, because many Christmas customs are adopted from pagan customs. Some Christians worry that the date of Christmas was picked to replace pagan holidays such as Saturnalia (likely true), that the Christmas tree came from pagan rituals (uncertain, but possible), or that the star on the tree comes from star worship (not too likely, in my opinion).

To answer this concern, let me ask a very different question: is it OK for Christians to use the names for the days of the week and the months? The days of the week honor Norse gods: Sun day, Moon day, Tiw's day, Odin's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, Saturn day. Some of the months honor Greek and Roman gods (Janus, Mars, Aphrodite, Maia, Juno) while others honor deified Roman emperors (Julius, Augustus). But no one seems to have a problem with this, for a very good reason: when Christians say "Thursday," they are not worshipping Thor, and no one else thinks they are, either. The Bible prohibits idolatry, but idolatry consists of worshipping other gods. Worship is not something that one does unintentionally; it's a matter of the heart.

This is why it's OK to have a Christmas tree, give gifts, put a star on your tree, and celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25 (even if he wasn't born then). When I erect a Christmas tree, none of my neighbors thinks I am worshipping some old druid god, and I certainly have no intent to worship anything. In fact, to genuine pagans, my devout observance of Christmas in honor of Jesus is a testimony to my faith in Christ, not my worship of any other god.

Symbols and words are not permanently tainted merely because they are used by another religion ("I know and am convinced in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself..." says Paul in Rom 14:14, referring to meat sacrificed to idols). Cults misuse baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that does not mean we should no longer baptize or share in communion. When Solomon built the first temple for God in the Old Testament, there had already been pagan temples for at least two thousand years. The design of Solomon's temple even had some similarities to Egyptian temples. The fact that temples were used by other religions did not make it wrong to build a temple to God or to use the temple as a metaphor for God's people. There are lots of other examples in the Bible of using (or redeeming) terms and symbols from the pagan world. Paul quotes the poem "A Hymn to Zeus" in Acts 17:28. While astrology and the worship of stars is condemned in the Bible, stars are repeatedly used as symbols of Jesus, Israel, and the church - so it is OK for you to put a star on your Christmas tree.

Finally, celebrating Christmas is allowable because the Scripture gives us personal freedom in such matters. In 1 Cor 8-10, Paul tells Christians not to participate in idol feasts, because idol feasts involved acts of worship to other gods, and everyone knew such feasts were designed to honor other gods. But in 1 Cor 10:25-33, Paul says that Christians can eat meat that was sold in an idol market, because it is not an act of worship, and the meat is not permanently tainted. Paul also says that Christians have freedom to celebrate religious holidays or not according to their own conscience, and even warns us not to condemn others for their decisions in these areas of freedom (Rom 14:1-14, Col 2:16-17). The Bible forbids worship of other gods - but celebrating Christmas by putting up a Christmas tree does not constitute worship, especially when we do it in honor of Jesus.

"Do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking [or celebrating Christmas or not!], but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 14:16-17). The Christian life is primarily about living out the virtues of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. If Christmas is a good thing for you that leads you to think about Jesus, then enjoy it - but more importantly, make sure that your Christian life is primarily about things that really matter, not minor quibbles about Christmas.

The picture: The Nativity, by an unknown Ottonian, ca. 1025-1050.

Bible Translation Quotes

I came across some good quotes on the nature of Bible translation as I was preparing to lecture on the subject for my Bible Interpretation classes:

“If one translates a verse literally, he is a liar; if he adds thereto, he is a blasphemer, and a slanderer!” (Rabbi Judah, b. Kiddushin 49a, quoted in HTPAT, Fee and Strauss)

“Let them not drag me into court if the text does not agree with the original word for word, for, try as you may, it cannot be done.” (Erasmus, Apologia 170:20-1)

"You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed." (Preface to Sirach, ca. 200 BC)

“I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses… Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew author – that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, “Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?” … Let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the German he knows. (Martin Luther, commenting on translating the Old Testament into German, quoted in HTPAT, Fee and Strauss)

And we can't omit the Italian proverb "Traduttore traditore" ("the translator is a traitor.")

The picture: Acts 15:22-24 in Codex Laudanius, a parallel Greek/Latin manuscript, 6th century. Note the scribal correction in the line fourth from the bottom: the original says etaran, but the corrector changed it to etaraxan (they troubled). Also note the faint lettering in the background, which is probably text on the other side of the page that has bled through.

Book of Acts Wordle

A wordle of the book of Acts. I fed in the text of the NASB, then did a find and replace to get the most common verbs in the same tense. Like all wordles, the size of the text shows the relative frequency of the word in the text. From wordle.net.

I Am Not Elijah, Part 4 (John 4:50, 1 Kings 17:21-24)

The following is part 4 of a paper I presented at the Evangelical Theological Society in Nov 2009. For all sections of the paper, see here.

4. “Your Son Lives”

1 Kings 17:21-24 (LXX)
[Elijah prayed,] “Oh Lord my God, please let the life of this child return to him.” It happened as [he had prayed], and the child cried out. [Elijah] led him down from the upper room into the house and gave him to his mother, and said, “See, your son lives” (ζῇ ὁ υἱός σου). The woman said to Elijah, “Behold, I have known (ἔγνωκα) that you are a man of God and the word of the Lord is true (ἀληθινόν) in your mouth.”

John 4:50 Jesus said to him, “Go, your son lives. (ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ)” The man believed the word that Jesus said to him and began going.
… ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ ζῇ (4:51)
… ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ (4:53)

In John, repetition and final sayings are often keys to the meaning of stories. “Your son lives” is Jesus’ final saying in this pericope, and it is recorded three times. Jesus’ saying reminds us of John’s theme of Jesus as the source of life, found in almost every pericope in John. As with the rest of the “signs” in John, the healing of the nobleman’s son is designed primarily to reveal something about Jesus’ identity.

“Your son lives” also seems designed to draw the readers’ attention to Elijah’s famous healing of the widow’s son at Zarephath. The phrase is distinctive; it is not found elsewhere in the NT or LXX. It also functions as an allusion in that the phrase causes the reader to notice other connections between the two miracle accounts. In both cases, the miracle results in the parent’s belief that the healer is genuinely from God and speaks for God. The nobleman believed when he heard Jesus (4:50), and then he believed when he heard news of his son’s healing (4:53). The widow’s response to the healing affirms her belief in Elijah in terms that could be comfortably applied to Jesus in the gospel of John. The use of the perfect ἔγνωκα to intensify or solemnize a statement of belief is well-known in John (6:69, 11:27; cf. 1:34, 1:41, 1:45, 4:42). Elijah, like Jesus, is a “man of God” who speaks the word of God. John may have even been drawn to this passage because of his interest in “truth” (ἀληθινόν).[1] Although many books in the LXX use ἀληθινόν, in the NT, it is primarily a Johannine term, and usually applies to Jesus or his message (23 of its 28 occurrences in the NT are in John, 1 John, or Revelation). John’s theology of signs is very similar to the theology of Elisha’s miracle: both produce faith in God’s representative and his message.

If John 4:7 contains an allusion to 1 Kings 17:10 (argued above), then John 4 contains two successive allusions to two successive passages in the Elijah narrative. In intertextual studies, repeated allusions to the same text or nearby texts is one of the criteria for verifying the genuineness and strength of an allusion. The second allusion confirms the suspicion in the reader that the first allusion was intentional. Combined, the allusions suggest that John wanted to show a Jesus who was like Elijah.

John is not the only NT author to allude to Elijah’s raising of the widow’s son. Luke’s account of the raising of the widow’s son at Nain contains the allusive phrase “and he gave him to his mother” (καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ, Luke 7:15/1 Kings 17:23).[2] Luke’s allusion is stronger than John’s, since it has more details in common (the raising of a dead widow’s son by touch rather than the healing of a nobleman’s son at a distance). This suggests that John’s appropriation of Elijah imagery for Jesus is not unique to John.

[1] Similarly, John’s ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ (John 15:1) is an allusion to Jeremiah’s ἄμπελον… ἀληθινήν (Jer 2:21).
[2] A similar allusion can be found in Acts 20:7-10/2 Kings 4:32-37. Paul raised Eutychus from the dead by laying down on top of him, as Elisha did to raise the son of the Shunammite woman.

Evangelical Theological Society

I am again in nerdvana - nerdvana for lovers of biblical studies, that is. This year, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Society of Biblical Literature, are holding their conventions in New Orleans. Today I listened to a few lectures, tweaked my paper (which I will present Friday, and maybe post here as well), and tried to stay awake after my all-night flight from Honolulu.

One lecture today was from Mark Strauss, who talked about the purpose of Luke-Acts. I attended this session because I will be teaching an Acts class in the spring. Mark summarized the views that have been presented on the purposes of Luke-Acts - a defense of Paul before Roman officials, an evangelistic booklet to convert god-fearers (Gentiles who were interested in Judaism), and several others. Mark suggested that the purpose that best covered all the evidence in Luke is that the purpose of Luke-Acts is to legitimize the church and defend it. Maybe I'll post his reasons later - right now my brain is too jet-lagged to type it out in any coherent manner.

Jesus' Prayer for Lazarus (John 11)

As Jesus stands before the open tomb of his dead friend Lazarus, he says an interesting prayer: "Father, I thank you because you heard me. I know that you always hear me, but I said it because of the crowd standing around me, so that they may believe that you sent me."

The phrase in italics is from Ps 118:21 (117:21 in the LXX numbering). The psalmist says "I thank you because you heard me, and because you have become my savior/salvation." Remember that the Psalms served Israel as both a song book and a prayer book. Even a barely educated (but pious) first-century Jew would be able to sing most the Psalms from memory.

Why does Jesus refer to Ps 118 while praying? First, this Psalm is a central part of Jesus' self-understanding. The following verse, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone" (Ps 118:22) is quoted several times in the New Testament to describe how Jesus was rejected by the leaders of Israel but chosen by God (Matt 21:42-44, Acts 4:10-11, 1 Pet 2:4-7). Just a few weeks after the raising of Lazarus, the crowds at the Triumphal Entry acclaim Jesus as king (and therefore Messiah) by singing Ps 118:25-26 to him, "Hosanna! (Save!) Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (John 12:12-13).

Second (and perhaps most importantly), Ps 118 is an appropriate one to the situation of the death of Lazarus. It describes God's help in a time of severe need. V. 17 is especially appropriate: "I will not die, but live, and recount the deeds of the Lord."

Finally, there are three interesting possible plays on words in Ps 118. When the crowds shout "Hosanna," they are intentionally connecting the Psalm to Jesus. The Hebrew phrase is hoshiyah-nah, (save, please!), and hoshiyah is from the same root as Jesus (Yeshua = Savior, salvation). While that may be obscure to us, it is fairly clear in Hebrew. In the same way, Ps 118:21 reads "you have become my Yeshua (= Savior/salvation)." Last (and this is quite speculative, as if the rest of this post were not!), Lazarus is a nickname for Eleazar, "God has helped" - and this phrase is found in Ps 118:13.

What I find most interesting is that in a moment of deep emotion, Jesus naturally turns to a prayer that he has probably often prayed before, a prayer that communicates his own and Lazarus' deep needs. Jesus wants God to help (Eleazar), he wants God to bring salvation (Yeshua). He wants this for the sake of Lazarus' family, but mainly so that Lazarus will recount the deeds of the Lord (as he does, John 12:10-11, 17) and so that many will believe that Jesus is sent (John 11:42), or rather that he "comes in the name of the Lord" (John 12:13/Ps 118:26)

Nerd note: John uses updated Greek in this allusion to Psalm 118, as he does in other allusions to the OT. Psalm 118 uses the older epakouo for hear and exomologeomai for thank. John updates to the more normal 1st century akouo for hear and eucharisteo for thank.

The picture: The Raising of Lazarus, by Giotto di Bondone, 1308.

Baptized with Water and Spirit

Question: What's the difference between water baptism and baptism by/ in/of/ with the Holy Spirit? If one is baptized in the Holy Spirit, does one need to be water baptized? What does it mean to be baptized by/in/of/with the Holy Spirit?

Quick answer: Baptism in the Spirit is the giving of the Spirit, and it happens at conversion. Water baptism is a meaningful ritual that symbolizes the giving of the Spirit and our conversion, and we should do it right away after conversion.

Long answer: Baptism is derived from washing images and rituals in the Old Testament. The OT prophets often promised that a new age was coming, called the new covenant or the messianic age. They eagerly awaited not only the coming of the Messiah, but also the giving of God’s Spirit on all of God’s people. The prophets often used water as a picture of the cleansing work of the Spirit. It would be a cleansing of the inner person, not just the ritual cleansing practiced under the Law (see esp. Ezek 36:25-27; also Isa 32:15-17, 44:3, Ezek 39:28-29, Joel 2:28-29, Zech 12:10, 13:1).

When John the Baptist began his ministry, he baptized with water. He described this as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” His baptism also prepared the people for the “coming one,” who would baptize with the Spirit (Mk 1:4-8). That is, John’s water baptism was a picture of the giving of the Spirit from the Messiah. So “baptism with the Spirit” is a metaphor for receiving the Spirit. (By the way, there is no difference in meaning between the phrases by/in/with the Holy Spirit.)

But Jesus did not immediately give the Spirit. John tells us that the giving of the Spirit had to wait until after Jesus’ “glorification” – that is, his death, resurrection and ascension (John 7:37-39). This giving of the Spirit (= the baptism of the Spirit) happened first at the day of Pentecost (or maybe in the upper room, but I’ll save that for another post). Even the disciples had not yet received the Spirit, because they had to wait until Jesus’ atoning death.

Although most Christians no longer use the term this way, in the New Testament, “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is another picture of conversion. When we come to Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit, and are therefore baptized with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; see also Rom 8:9, 14, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Gal 3:2-6, 4:6). Later in life, we may have many experiences where we sense the work of the Spirit through us. Acts describes these as “being filled with the Spirit” (Ac 4:8, 4:31, 13:9-10, and others).

After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the church began to practice water baptism immediately upon conversion (Ac 2:41). The water ritual served as a picture of the Spirit baptism that was taking place at conversion. Immersing in water also became a picture of the believer’s union with Christ, dying and rising with him (Col 2:12).

Do we need to get baptized with water? For a full answer, see this post. A quick answer: we don’t need baptism for salvation, but the NT commands it, and it should be a ritual of celebrating our new life in Christ. You can go simple and just sign a marriage contract to get married – but why not have a wedding to celebrate?

Another common view: Pentecostals sometimes use the phrase “baptism in the Spirit” to refer to a significant experience of the Spirit later in one’s Christian life, accompanied by speaking in tongues. They use the term this way because they think all believers should have the same experience as the first disciples: belief in Jesus, and then some time later, baptism of the Spirit with speaking in tongues (as at Pentecost). However, if you read through Acts, you can see that the pattern of Pentecost is never exactly repeated, and is probably a unique historical event like the resurrection of Jesus. Further, the rest of the New Testament never indicates that baptism of the Holy Spirit is a later event, or that it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, or that all believers should speak in tongues.

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.

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

Darrell Bock on Acts

This morning, I attended an ETS lecture by Darrell Bock, "Contemporary Claims on Ancient Historiography and Acts: Hengel or Penner: Which Model for Acts is Better?" This session dealt with the historical value of the book of Acts. Conservative scholars like Martin Hengel often point out that Luke imitates the style of ancient historians like Thucidydes and Xenophon, even writing an introduction much like standard introductions to ancient histories. This suggests that Luke was a careful historian like other ancient Greek historians. But Penner wrote a book pointing out that these "careful Greek historians" often were more interested in rhetoric or moralizing, calling their objectivity into question. Penner's conclusion is that Luke is like these other historians, and thus he is so interested in defending Christianity that he is not an objective historian. According to Bock, Penner's attack on Luke's historical value is worth paying attention to, becaue Penner does careful work in both Acts and in the work of ancient historians. Bock thinks there are two ways to address this: a) scholars need to carefully work through the works of ancient historians to address their level of objectivity and factuality; b) on the basis of careful study in both Acts and other ancient historians, demonstrate that is possible for a historian like Luke to be factual even while having rhetorical, political or ideological goals.

Eutychus Legos

The Brick Testament added a section entitled "Bored to Death," about the story of Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12. Click on the arrows to cycle through nine frames illustrating the story of Eutychus.

The author makes all scenes entirely out of Legos, and he has a rather warped sense of humor - enough so that some of his scenes have a rating system to indicate sex, violence, nudity or cursing. In other words, although many of the scenes are very creative and funny, you might not choose to have your young children look at all the pictures without supervision. I have featured his art in several of my previous blog posts.

More Preaching

I am speaking at Mililani Community Church on Sunday, June 29, 10:15 am. The sermon will be on Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12 (of course!), and the title is "Eutychus Rising: The Church as it Ought to be." Actually, I have never given a sermon on this passage, so this will be a first. I will also be teaching at their adult Sunday School class (9:15 am) on the topic of Challenges to Faith, in which I will address some of the major controversies concerning Jesus and the Scriptures in the last two years.

I will also be speaking at Kailua Baptist Church on Sunday, July 6, at 10:00 am. Same sermon! But probably a little better second time around.

I'll try to have the sermon podcasted as soon as the church I am visiting posts it (see podcasts at right).

That Melchizedek Guy (Psalm 110, Hebrews 5-7)

Question: What is the cultural/historical significance of Psalm 110:7? Am I correct that this is a messianic psalm? "He shall drink from the stream by the wayside, therefore he shall lift up his head." - Anonymous

Psalm 110 is a fascinating hymn written to honor the king of Israel and the King above him. It has special application to King David, but was likely sung on other occasions in honor of later kings of Israel. Since Jesus the Messiah is (among other things) King of Israel and descendant of David, Psalm 110 also can be applied to him (as we find in Matt 22:41-46, Acts 2:34-36, and Hebrews 1:13, and chs. 5-7).

The opening line is perhaps a little clearer in this translation from Hebrew: "Yahweh said to my master (adonai)..." This Psalm pictures God speaking a war-blessing over the king of Israel. The king will rule even with enemies around (v. 2); the people of Israel will serve in battle willingly (v. 3), the enemies will be defeated (vv. 5-6); and after war, the king will receive refreshment and rest from God (v. 7).

Verse 4 seems rather strange to us today. Why would a war-blessing describe the king of Israel as "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek"? There is a somewhat convoluted story behind this title. Jerusalem (earlier called Jebus, even earlier called Salem) was under the control of the Jebusites until the time of David. After becoming king, David captured the city and made it his capital (2 Samuel 5:6-10). By ancient custom, he thus acquired the title of the previous king of Jerusalem - Melchizedek. This word, meaning "righteous king," was possibly a hereditary title rather than a personal name. As in other ancient near eastern cities, the king of Jerusalem was also the city's high priest. In the time of Abraham, the king of Jerusalem (Salem) served El Elyon - the Most High God (Gen 14:18-20). Of course, Gen 14 refers to events over 1000 years before David, so we have no idea if the Jebusite kings of Jerusalem still served El Elyon at the time of David. They were still using the hereditary title Adoni-zedek (Master of Righteousness) at the time of Joshua (Josh 10:1).

So the original meaning of the psalm was that God had provided David with victory over Jerusalem, a new title, and rest from war. In later generations, the psalm could be sung in faith that God would again provide victory to other faithful kings. As the NT points out, Ps 110 ultimately applies to Jesus, the Son of David and greatest king of Israel. Jesus' victory is over the evil powers, and is accomplished at the cross (Acts 2:33-36). Like the kings before him, Jesus has the title of "priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," which allows him to serve as a unique mediating priest between God and people (Hebrews 5-7). Like David, Jesus had rest after his battle was complete (Ps 110:7).

Additional note: The Hasmonean dynasty ruled over Israel from about 140 BC to 37 BC, before being replaced by the Herodian dynasty. The Hasmoneans were neither decendents of David nor Aaron, but they served as both kings and high priests. The last direct descendents of Aaron had died or fled Israel, so there were few options for filling the role of high priest.They justified their priestly role by their descent from a non-Aaronic priestly line and on the concept of the Melchizedekan priesthood. Since they ruled Jerusalem, they reasoned that they could inherit the high priestly role. The application of this priesthood to Jesus in Hebrews was understandable to Jews of the first century, many of whom looked back on the Hasmonean dynasty with some fondness.

The picture: Communion of the Knight, ca. 1250, depicting Melchizedek blessing Abraham, in Notre Dame de Reims. This cathedral was the coronation site for the kings of France, making an interesting connection to Genesis 14 and Ps 110.

Overthrowing Dictators

The following is an answer to a question I received by email:

What does... Romans 13:1-7 mean? It seems to conflict with our beliefs in freedom and justice.This is not what I expected because it seems to be saying that rebelling against a dictator is wrong. It's like the American Revolution and like overthrowing Saddam Hussein were sinful. So how do we reconcile this with our beliefs in freedom and justice? - Thanks, L.L.

First, it is important to know that wise and godly Christians today and throughout history have not always agreed on this issue, so we need to be humble and understanding of other people's opinions. For example, during the Revolutionary War, many Christians felt that that they should support the Revolution, but many believed that the Bible would not allow them to rebel against their king.

What did Paul mean when he wrote this passage almost 2000 years ago? At the end of Romans 12, Paul explained how Christians should respond to those who hate or persecute - by doing good and blessing. He naturally moved into the topic of how to respond to the government, which at that time was dictatorial and occasionally persecuted Christians. Paul said that the Christian's response to government injustice was not to take up arms against the government or stop paying taxes. Christians, Paul said, should obey the government as much as possible (compare to Romans 12:18). Of course, Christians should not obey the government if it tells us to disobey God (see Acts 4:18-20, for example).

What did Paul do when he was persecuted? He used the legal system to defend himself, but he never advocated violent overthrow of the government, even when he was persecuted. In fact, even after being unfairly imprisoned repeatedly, he only advised that Christians pray for rulers so that Christians could be free of persecution (1 Timothy 2:1-4). The church throughout history has generally followed this advice - when persecuted by their own government, Christians have rarely used force to resist.

This suggests (at the very least) that it should be a very rare event for Christians to ever rebel against their lawful government, although we should not obey the government if it tells us to do something clearly against God's will. We should try to use legal means to change the government as much as possible. On rare occasions, Christians have decided that they must use violence to overthrow an evil government when it is no longer a legitimate government. Since there is so little Scriptural support for such a practice, Christians should be very cautious before ever taking such an approach.

Your question about Iraq is slightly different. Paul told Christians not to rebel against their own government, but the war in Iraq is one government overthrowing another. The Bible does not give clear guidelines on when one government is justified in going to war against another. Many Christians throughout history have followed the "Just War" guidelines of the theologian Augustine. This answer is already too long, so I won't attempt to fully explain Just War (wikipedia has a good introductory article on it). The basic idea is that governments have an obligation to defend their people and to right wrongs; but governments must have just reasons for going to war and just ways of conducting war. Christians today disagree over whether the war in Iraq qualifies as a just war, and over whether there is such a thing as just war.

"Your Son Lives" (John 4:46-54)

In John 4:46-54, John tells the story of Jesus healing the son of a nobleman of Capernaum. I used to think that this story was kind of plain vanilla, especially when compared with the stories nearby - Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and the paralytic of Jerusalem. But it turns out, as you might suspect, that there is more than meets the eye.

1. In each scene, John shows Jesus confronting, replacing or fulfilling a major institution of Judaism. Jesus is compared with purification rituals and the Temple (ch. 2), with a great rabbi (ch. 3), with a sacred well (ch. 4), and with the sabbath (ch. 5). In this scene, Jesus is compared with the rulers of Israel.
2. The story has similarities to the healing of the centurion's servant (Matt 8:5-9) in that it involves healing at a distance in Capernaum. The The Gospel of John, a great movie, depicts this scene as if it were the same as Matthew's. But John tells the story with a Herodian nobleman and his son, not a centurion and his servant.
3. Most scenes in John show Jesus as the source of life, echoing the idea found in John 1:3-4. The nobleman says "come, before my child dies;" Jesus says "go, your son lives" (4:50); the servants say "his child lives" (4:52); the nobleman remembers that Jesus said "your son lives" (4:53). Repeating it three times, as well as ending the account with the saying, tells us that John thinks it is important: Jesus is the source of life.
4. Jesus uses the same words as Elijah does when he raises the son of the widow of Zarephath (ze ho huios, in Greek; see LXX 1 Kings 17:22). This may be an intentional allusion. Jesus is elsewhere compared to Elijah; here, he is seen as greater than Elijah by healing at a distance. (Paul does something similar in Acts 20:7-12; see this post).
5. John is encouraging faith, as he often does. Jesus begins by pointing out the shortfall of signs-based faith (John 4:48). The nobleman then "believed the word that Jesus said" before he saw the miracle (4:50); then "he himself believed" after seeing his son, along with his whole household (4:53). He is a model believer - his faith grows, and through him, others come to believe.
6. Most scenes in John have a foreshadowing of the death of Jesus. This one doesn't, but I don't know why.

The picture: The Healing of the Official's Son, from Auslegung der Episteln vnd Euangelien..., by Martin Luther, published 1544 (Courtesy of the Digital Image Archive, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University).

What did Jesus Teach After the Resurrection?

My friend wrote me a question about Jesus' post-resurrection teaching (by the way, feel free to post other questions and I will try to tackle them). Why is it that we have so much of Jesus' teaching before his death, but very little after his resurrection? First, let's list what we know about Jesus' teaching during those approximiately forty days:

• Instructions to inform other disciples about his resurrection (Mt 28:10; John 20:17-18)
• Demonstration that the resurrection was in a new body - thus showing that the new covenant age had begun (Lk 24:38-43; John 20:27)
• Explanation of how Jesus' death and resurrection fulfills the OT prophecies (Lk 24:25-27, 44-46)
• Blessing on those who believe in his resurrection (John 20:29)
• Foundation of the church with people from all nations as disciples (aka the Great Commission) (Mt 28:19-20; Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8; John 20:21, 23)
• Promise of the Holy Spirit and/or giving of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5, 8; John 20:22)
• Restoration and re-appointment of Peter (John 21:15-19)
• Unspecified teaching about the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3)
• Unknown time of the fully restored kingdom (Acts 1:6-7)
• Promise to be with his disciples to the end (Matt 28:20)

Notice three basic categories. Jesus teaches about

1. his death and resurrection (its nature, significance, and connection to the OT)
2. the founding of the church (its nature, its source of power, and its human leadership)
3. Jesus' return (the unknown time, the restoration of the kingdom, and Jesus' presence until then).

I'll post more on this topic in the next few days. I'd love to finish now, but my sons are informing me that it's time to begin a sacred Maundy Thursday ritual. It will be held at the Hawaiian Waters Adventure Park. :)

The picture above is a stained glass depiction of Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene. It is displayed in Trinity Church, New York, and was designed by by Sir Edward Burne-Jones in the late 1800s.

Enough of Eutychus Already

One of my friends asked if my blog would be about something besides Eutychus. "But why?" I asked. "Everything you need to know about life you can learn from Eutychus." All Eutychus, all the time.

OK, maybe not. But one more post on Eutychus will help provide the final touches to the story. To understand the heart of the story, read the last post on the topic. But there are some other interesting side notes to the story that make it come alive even more.

• It was the Easter season (Acts 20:6, "Unleavened Bread"). Quite likely, Paul was preaching about the death and resurrection of Christ before Eutychus died and was raised.
• The church was meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). This is perhaps the first reference to the Christian practice of worshipping on Sunday. At first, Christians worshipped on the Jewish Sabbath, which is sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Christians increasingly began to worship on Sunday, apparently to have a weekly celebration of the resurrection of Christ. They also met during the week in people's homes (Acts 2:46).
• Since it was Sunday, that means Eutychus and the rest of the church had worked all day. Jews and Christians originally rested on the Friday/Saturday Jewish Sabbath. Pagan Romans and Greeks did not keep a weekly rest day (in fact, they sometimes mocked Jews for this practice). However, Roman law protected the Jewish right to observe the Sabbath. There was not yet a Sunday rest custom, and Roman law would not have granted it. This probably explains Eutychus' sleepiness - he worked all day, and then listened to Paul teaching in a warm room for several hours.
• The Christians at Troas met "to break bread." This probably included both a meal together and the celebration of the Lord's Supper, much like Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. Paul condemned the practice in Corinth only because they were misusing it - some going hungry, some overeating and getting drunk.
• Eutychus is described as a "young man" (Greek neanias) and "boy" (pais). It was common to use the second term to describe a boy aged 10-14 (although it can be used in other ways).
• When Paul goes downstairs to find Eutychus dead, he stretches himself out on the dead boy and embraces him (Acts 20:10). Why? Paul is imitating Elijah and Elisha from the Old Testament (1 Kings 17:21, 2 Kings 4:34). In both cases, Elijah and Elisha felt personally (although unintentionally) responsible for the death of a boy. In both cases, they stretched out on the dead boy, embraced him and asked God to raise him. In the middle of Paul's distress over the death of Eutychus, he took a step of faith and acted like Elijah and Elisha. That also took a great deal of boldness, since Elijah and Elisha were great heroes - not necessarily the sort of men just anyone can imitate!

OK. Now look at the tools we used to interpret the Eutychus story:

• Far context: looking at the themes and purposes of the book of Acts, we saw that Luke included this story to show the vitality of the early church (see Eutychus, Part II and Eutychus, Part III).
• Near context: looking at the nearby story in Acts, we saw that the story of Eutychus showed Paul as a model apostle (see the end of Eutychus, Part III).
• Historical-cultural context: in this post, we saw how knowledge of the history, culture, and Old Testament background can add significantly to our grasp of the story.

Eutychus, Part III

In my last post, I asked you why Luke included the story of Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12. To be honest, I think Luke included the tale partly because it was funny! But Luke intended the story of Eutychus to show us what the church can be like. Notice the following connections between Luke's ideal church qualities (from Acts 2:42-47) and Eutychus' church in Troas:

Ideal Church----------------------Church at Troas
devoted to learning from the apostles ---believers learned from Paul all night
genuine and generous community ------believers gathered for a meal
the visible power of the Holy Spirit ------Paul raised Eutychus from the dead
spontaneous worship and prayer --------sharing of communion

constant conversion------------------------???

glad and sincere hearts -------------------believers were greatly comforted

The only one of Luke's themes that isn't obvious in the story of Eutychus is constant conversion. And there is even a hint of that here: the church at Troas has sprung up with no account of the proclamation of the gospel there. Eutychus is a pagan name, which hints that he was born a pagan and converted to Christianity. So the story of Eutychus' raising is another of Luke's illustrations about what the church was and can be.

There's another reason Luke included this story. Shortly before this journey, Paul wrote to the Romans that "it has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known," but that for now "I am... in the service of the saints" (Romans 15:20-25). Acts 20 contains three accounts describing this mission of service. In Acts 20:1-6, Paul exhorts or encourages (parakaleo) the churches in Macedonia; in Acts 20:7-12, the raising of Eutychus comforts (parakaleo) the church at Troas; and in Acts 20:17-38, Paul exhorts the elders of Ephesus.

So the story of Eutychus, in addition to giving us a good chuckle, has two central messages. The church as it ought to be: devoted to learning, genuine community, worship, the power of the Spirit, constant conversion, and glad and sincere hearts. Paul as a model apostle: he would rather just plant new churches; but in obedience to the Spirit, Paul also strengthens the established churches.

Eutychus, part II

So what's the point? Why would Luke tell us this strange little story about Paul's killer sermon (Acts 20:7-12)? Is it supposed to be a warning against sleeping during church? Or against preaching too long? or is it supposed to be a note of comfort to boring preachers that the Spirit will come to the rescue if you kill one of your flock? Somehow we suspect that Luke was just a little more sophisticated than that.

One of the keys to understanding any scene in Scripture is to re-entangle the scene in its book. Luke, like all the authors of the Bible, wrote with purpose. He chose stories and told them intending to make a difference, not just get the facts straight. Luke was not only a historian, but a pastor and a master story-teller.

Luke wrote the book of Acts to describe the success of the Holy Spirit in spreading the church from Jerusalem to Rome, from the capital of Israel to the capital of the world (as the Romans saw it). Acts is designed to show us how the church was and can be. Gordon Fee reminds us that Acts is about "our roots, not our fruits," but that was only a warning that we should not treat Acts too simplistically as a how-to manual for the church. It's true that church discipline should not usually include death pronouncements (Acts 5:1-11) and that believers should not expect to use their heads as Bunsen burners (Acts 2:3). Once we get away from that sort of silly over-simplification, it becomes obvious that Luke has some ideas about what the church ought to do and be.

Near the beginning of Acts, Luke gives a description of the church at Jerusalem that serves as a picture of the ideal church for the rest of the book. I'll let you look up the passage (Acts 2:42-47), but here are the qualities of that model church:

• devoted to learning from the apostles
• genuine and generous community
• the visible power of the Holy Spirit
• spontaneous worship and prayer
• respect from non-believers and constant conversions
• glad and sincere hearts

Luke's list illustrates some of the key themes of Acts. Luke is telling us that church should be characterized by learning, relationships, power, worship, prayer, evangelism, and a different temperament. He doesn't tell us that only in Acts 2; it shows up in scene after scene in the whole book.

OK, now here's where you come in. Look back at the story of Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12. Why did Luke include this story?

Eutychus

I have always been fascinated by the story of Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12. Paul is preaching in a third-floor meeting room in Troas. As he continues to speak on past midnight, a young man named Eutychus goes over to sit on the windowsill to try to stay awake. His eyelids lose the battle, and he tumbles out the window to his early demise. Paul hurries down the stairs, throws himself upon the corpse, and then pronounces Eutychus living (L.O.A.?). After Eutychus gets up, they go back upstairs, have something to eat, and Paul continues teaching until dawn.

Why do I love this story? When I was in high school, it was cool for Christians to sign each other's yearbooks with their favorite verses. Most people signed with something normal, like John 3:16 or Philippians 4:13. But I always signed with Acts 20:7-12. To be honest, I did it primarily to maintain my quirky reputation (OK, maybe "quirky" is being generous). Maybe I like the story because of the strange incongruity. A boy named Eutychus (Greek for "Lucky") is so unlucky as to die from falling asleep when Paul couldn't stop talking; but then is so "lucky" to happen to have an apostle handy to raise him from the dead. Paul preaches one of his flock to death; then after healing him, he decides that light refreshments are all that is needed before preaching for another six hours or so.

In the end, I think I am fascinated by this story because it is one of those passages of the Bible that is both profoundly human and eerily divine.

Next post: What does this passage mean? What did Luke hope for us to get from the story?