That We Pray

I recently looked at the first part of the Sermon on the Mount in the fifth chapter of Matthew. The next area I’d like to touch on is prayer. I call this “That We Pray,” for I believe we deal with a different problem than the people in the days of Christ. For them, the problem was that they were praying to be seen by men. For us, the problem is often that we are not even praying.

Now the exception to this is when we are in a church service or a Bible Study. Does anybody else suspect that several people when giving a public prayer in such a setting are trying to make it sound as good as possible? You listen to them and sometimes wonder “I wonder if that’s really what they pray like in private.” Maybe I’m the only one like that and I hope my public prayers match my private prayers. 

That goes along with my suspicion though about all of us putting on a spiritual face when we get together. We often tell people “I’ll pray for you,” but I wonder how often we really do this. In fairness, I must admit I have some friends who are very dedicated to the prayer life. One tells me the reason she prays so much might be to compensate for those of us who don’t. I’m very thankful for her and other prayer warriors like her.

I’ve noticed also that whenever I hear someone preach a sermon on prayer, they say that that is something they need to work on as well. Those of us in ministry have a really difficult time with this I believe. We can get so caught up in the service of God that we often forget that we need to spend time with God himself. C.S. Lewis warned of the dangers of those of us who spend so much time defending the existence of God that some, including us, might think he has nothing better to do than to exist. 

The only other time we pray is when we’re really in a bind or want something very badly. All of a sudden, prayer comes naturally to us. Many of us have a problem with praise prayer. Christian speaker and resurrection expert Gary Habermas has joked that some of us might not be comfortable with praise because somebody might think we’re charismatic. This is a valuable lesson that those of us who aren’t charismatic though need to learn from our charismatic brothers and sisters. It is okay to break forth in praise to God. 

To get further to the that we pray, I’ll go on and confess that for me, this is something difficult as well, but I do it every night. I’ll turn out the lights after some reading and the last thing I do before I doze off is purposefully focus on God and pray. It’s amazing that in many cases, that is the happiest I am during the day and one wonders “Why don’t I do this more often?” 

Before getting into content, which will be for another day, let’s be sure that there are different ways to pray. Some people prefer to kneel down. I have a steel rod on my spine. Kneeling is not the #1 posture I prefer to be in. I tend to lie down. If I’m in church and we stand for prayer, I have often sat down. I try to keep humility in doing so for I do not believe I am worthy to stand in the Lord’s presence and I want to remember that I am privileged to enter his presence.

As for time, I will tell you to not worry about it. Some of you think you should pray for a long period of time. Some of you can. God bless you. If you can only pray for five minutes though, give him five. If you can pray for half an hour and do so because you really want to pray and not just to pray for half an hour, then pray for half an hour. Prayer is meant to be a joy. Not a matter of legalism.

Bottom line though. Pray. It’s a command and a gift.

Quantum of Solace Thoughts

I went to see the new Bond movie tonight so if you haven’t gone to see it, you might want to save off on this blog until you do go see it. I try to not give many spoilers out anyway, but some are inevitable for a review unfortunately. 

This Bond movie continues the story behind Casino Royale with Bond still suffering from the loss of the girl that he loved. This is quite different from what we normally see of Bond who is generally just a playboy going around from girl to girl and not forming any commitment whatsoever to them. The girl in the last Bond before this was different and the loss of her was all the harder.

While normally, Bond is cool and stoic, and in this one he is in many scenes, one still sees something in him that is anger. There is a drive for revenge in this one. The quest is personal as he is seeking something. It is not just answers. This is a case where it seems more information will not help him out. He wants more.

In my conclusion, this movie is about forgiveness.

I have heard that Philo once said, “Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle.” I wonder how much we consider that. I wonder how much I consider that. Each person that you meet each day is having their own struggles. There are things even close friends can be hesitant to reveal to one another. Some things you just don’t want to bring up.

One of those involves forgiveness. There is a story where in a town once someone wired a message to twelve of the most important people in town one evening that said “All is revealed! Flee now!” By the time morning had come, half of them had left town. What if you got such a message? Would it send a shiver up your spine?

Forgiveness is an odd thing. It doesn’t come cheap, as it cost the blood of the Son of God, but at the same time, it comes easily. Picture if someone sold all they had to give you one thing. Giving that one thing to you could be an easy act, but that easy act comes at a great cost. I believe that forgiveness is really easy for God. In fact, it’s a delight for him. He wants us to know how gracious and loving he is. It comes at a great cost though.

It’s not that God won’t forgive us. Many of us know deep down he has.

It’s that we don’t forgive ourselves.

If we can’t forgive ourselves, part of us thinks God doesn’t.

I wonder how it would be if we could just pause and finally realize one day that God has indeed forgiven us. 

This Bond movie had a lot of the normal characteristics of Bond movies. It had the explosions and the bullets and the stabs and the beautiful women, but it was quite different. Bond leaves the final villain to be eliminated by those he has betrayed. There is one Bond girl in the movie who you expect to see it happen as it always does to a Bond girl, but it doesn’t. This is the one time I remember that he doesn’t sleep with the Bond girl. She even says she wishes she could set him free.

Biblically, we know the truth will set us free.

What is that truth?

Forgiveness.

What is a quantum? There are many definitions in the dictionary, but I think the one that we are to go for is that which refers to a quantity. Solace would refer to the peace. Bond is one in this movie who isn’t sleeping well. He has no peace. At the end, M asks him if he found what he was looking for and he says yes.

He found that quantum of solace.

He found that forgiveness.

Now we Christians realize that true forgiveness comes from God and without that, any self-forgiving is useless, but we can still take that valuable message from the movie. We can’t let the past control us. We can’t put together broken eggs. There’s no sense crying over spilled milk. We cannot live in the past and in the present both. It must be one or the other.

We too must find our quantum of solace.

For us, it truly is in God. The question is, have we truly realized it?

Kingdom People

I had a friend over tonight for our regular Smallville viewing on Thursday nights and afterwards, we started discussing apologetics issues and this time, it came to biblical interpretation and the role of the law in the life of a Christian. It’s late as I write this, so I’d simply like to focus on one point I brought up and explain it further.

When we read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has a total reversal. The Beattitudes that he starts out with have as the blessed, the very ones that you would not expect to see as blessed. The ones that are despised by the world are the ones that are honored in the kingdom. The kingdom is about what kind of person you are.

Yet in Matthew 5:20, we are told how great our righteousness must be. Our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees. We look at that group and as much as we condemn them, we also realize that these were the big lawkeepers of the day. If anyone was said to be moral, it would be them.

Yet turn to a passage like Matthew 23 or Luke 11 and you see Jesus turning on them and telling them exactly how he sees them. Jesus does not deny that they keep the externals of the law. He talks about how they are inside though. What kind of lives are they living in response to the moral law that is written on our hearts?

So we have a command telling us not to murder. Well, I don’t know about you all, but I haven’t murdered anyone lately. I’ve decided to limit that to days that end in “Y.” Few of us hopefully have murdered anyone. Jesus says “Okay. You haven’t murdered. How’s your heart?” This is when we get to the real matter.

What’s your attitude towards your brother? Do you love your brother or do you hate him? 1 John tells us that loving our brother is essential. How are you doing on this? Is this something that you do easily? Isn’t it hard when your brother does something that truly annoys you? What if he genuinely wrongs you? Are you loving him then?

Anybody else having a challenge?

What about adultery? Most of us I hope have not committed that. But what about the internal reality? I could safely say I’ve made mistakes involving the opposite sex. I think most single guys especially would say that. I can only speak as a guy of course, but I don’t think the struggle is easier for our female counterparts. 

Men. How are you handling yourself sexually? Are you living a pure life there, or is it something that is controlling you? Keep in mind I’m not talking about sexual desire per se. You should have that. The question is, do you have the desire or does the desire have you? Do you control your sexual drive or does your sexual drive control you?

What about oath keeping? Jesus raises the bar. Here’s how good your word should be. There should be no need to emphasize anything or even call on oaths. Your word should be gold. How about it? Is your word trustworthy? When you say you will do something, do you do it? How are you measuring up to the commandments?

I could go on, but I want this point to be clear. Jesus is raising the bar, but I think the good news must be said. He has fulfilled that as well and he is making us into that kind of people. We must be perfect as our Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48) However, he is helping us on that perfection. When we stand before God, we will have been brought to that goal. 

Furthermore, if you think about Heaven, consider this. Heaven will be a place full of kingdom people. Read the Sermon on the Mount and think about what kind of world we would live in if everyone kept that sermon perfectly. That’s an idea of what Heaven is like. Heaven is for Kingdom People, and Christ is preparing us for that.

Open-Ended

For my birthday a couple of months ago nearly, my roommate got me “The Complete Works of Flannery O’Connor.” He told me he really liked her material and thought I would to. Now there have been some stories I’ve got lost on and I have no idea what really happened, but there are others I’m finding later on that I’m being completely drawn into. There’s something I do notice about her work though.

Her stories don’t really seem to conclude. You get to the end and you realize something has happened, but you don’t know where the characters are going to go from there. In some earlier stories, some characters move on to another story. Maybe that happens in some later stories. I haven’t read all of them yet.

As I read that, I realize that that’s the way our stories are. I’m not sure if I’m the only one who does this, but being in this mindset of reading stories now, I can picture myself in a story and wonder what it would be like for someone else to describe my story from their perspective. What would they say if they could see how my mind was interpreting things? Sometimes I hear the words in my own mind as I describe what I am seeing and thinking and my reaction to it.

I have a friend on here who would be surprised that I’m thinking of him in this as I know he wrestles with a lot of questions. I hope he can identify himself from that. I saw him put some pictures of himself up on Facebook and they were the first ones I’d seen and when I saw them I thought “This is someone going out and living his own adventures.”

Isn’t that what we’re all doing though? We’re all involved in an adventure. I was recently out with my roommate and a mutual friend of ours and we were talking about apologetics and what it’s like being an apologist. Our friend spoke of it in a way I’ve seen it. I go about my job now and my knowledge is not something that’s visible, but I just realize that at any moment, I might have to deal with some objection and then enter into a sort of “battle mode” and debunk an argument.

That doesn’t mean that you see the opponent and think “Must destroy.” No. It can be done subtly and for me, I prefer to debate that way. It’s more of a Socratic technique. I like asking questions so that my opponent can realize what they are doing. Now sometimes, that’s not the best format. When we had the Mormons up here though, it was the one we used. When dealing with matters of fact though, I still had to give straight answers and did so for questions like “Why do you think the text of the Bible is reliable?”

Each day I wake up in apologetics, I see it as that adventure. (Or rather, I try to.) I think that there is something new I can learn today. I can dive deeper into my faith today. My adventure is going on. There are arguments to answer and Christians who are doubting to rescue and adversaries to be dealth with. Friends might come needing support and I best be able to help them out.

I also know that God is in charge of my story. In fact, he’s in charge of yours, and I find it amazing that so many stories are coming together in such a beautiful way and will do so. I think of my roommate and how across space and time, our paths converged and our stories came together and while we’re each playing out our own story, in some ways, we are playing out a dual story now where our accounts come together.

Are there some minor stories concluded as it were? Yes. However, before me is the grand sheet of what the master author is writing and like any good author, I trust he is going to work out all things for the heroes in his story for good.

I look forward to the next entry of my story.

Thankful For Freedom

While a question was raised in an earlier comment, today, I’ve chosen to write on freedom due to it being Veteran’s Day. Any time I’m out and I get to see a veteran, I’m always thankful and usually salute them. It’s incredible what these men do. They are the ones that are willing to go out and face death from an enemy just so I can be free.

In Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, he speaks of how valuable freedom is and why it must be defended. He is certainly right on this. Here in America, freedom has always been of rank importance. I’ve said that I’m skeptical as to how much freedom we’ll have in our next administration, but despite that I don’t favor it, I still urge people who want to enlist, do it. We had a clip playing here before the election of John McCain saying something every American should agree with. “America is worth fighting for.”

Too often, we don’t really think about what happened. I’ll be blunt and say that veterans haven’t been on my mind much today. I fear that I am not alone. I wonder how many people have gone through today and not even realized that it is Veteran’s Day? How many people are living in a land of freedom and not considering how that freedom came about?

Freedom does not come cheap and with things that come cheap, we should hold them in awe. As Christians, for example, we should hold our forgiveness in awe and realize the graciousness of God in giving it, for it certainly did not come cheap, but it involved the very Son of God coming and living among us so we could be free from sin.

How many veterans have their been in history? How many people put on a uniform and took up arms and kissed their wives and children good-bye not knowing if they would ever return again? How many of them are overseas right now as the Thanksgiving holiday gets started simply because they believe in fighting for their nation?

Even if you disagree with the war now, those are still our troops over there in it and we should honor them. One reason you are walking around free and not fearing terrorist attacks now is because someone else isn’t. Someone is in an area and for all they know, they could be attacked by the enemy and die tomorrow. For all we know, some of them might go to sleep tonight and be the recipient of a bomb in their sleep and wake up in glory. We don’t know.

Neither do they.

And I speculate, they don’t really care either.

Now I’m not saying they don’t love their life and wouldn’t like to get back and see their families? I’m saying that they enlisted because they are willing to pay that price in order to bring about freedom for the land that they love. When they enlist, they know what they are fighting for and they are ready to go fight for it.

We saw this after 9/11. Immediately, one of the first stories I recall seeing is that of several people going to offices to enlist for the military. Someone had attacked their homeland and they wanted that someone to know that they don’t take that lightly. These men were immediately ready to drop what was going on in their lives because they love their country.

I still love America. I’m not pleased with all that’s going on in it now and I’m not pleased with the way the upcoming administration looks, but I still think I live in the best nation on Earth. At this moment, I can go and worship where I want and I can speak what I want. I have a job and I have education and I have family and friends. I have that not as a freebie though, but at the price of many men who died in combat so I could be free. If we could count that number, I wonder how great it would be.

Today though, there are some who fought and lived to tell the tale and we need to honor them. Let’s remember though that it is not just today that we are free. We are free everyday because people were willing to fight. Honor the Veterans today that you know.

Why Doesn’t God Heal Amputees?

By now, I suppose that we’ve all heard this one if we’ve been on the internet in apologetics discussions for any length of time. I was quite stunned though to hear a well-known skeptic in the public arena use it Saturday night. This argument has been going around and when a non-Christian speaks, he references this as if it is a good argument?

Bizarre.

Now let’s suppose I granted the main assumption. Let’s suppose that no amputees have been healed. I say this because I don’t know about all miracle cases past and present. Could it have happened somewhere? Maybe. I’m certainly open to the possibility and if one is there, then it would seem the atheists will need a new track. (Which will be just as bad.) Let’s suppose though that they’re right and no amputees have been healed.

First off, the skeptic who presented this presented it as if this was something obvious unlike cancer which would have just gone into remission. We all know there are cases out there that doctors describe as just miraculous. Maybe I should believe them? Because X is not healed, then that means Y was not healed? It does not follow. If cancer is removed in a way described as miraculous, it does no good to say “That couldn’t have been God because an amputee wasn’t healed.”

Let’s also keep in mind that we all know what it’s like to pray for someone to be healed and it doesn’t happen. I’ve been through enough sicknesses and hospital visits to know about that. It doesn’t always happen and frankly, it won’t. Eventually, everyone is going to enter into this little condition that we like to call death.

However, this brings us to another point and this is again assuming the stance that no amputees are healed. One can ask “Why should God do so?” The answer I received was that it would be something more obvious. One wonders then if God should heal an amputee just so the atheist will say that he has something obvious to look at. Will that lead someone to immediately falling down and embracing Christ as Lord? Could not one then simply form a God of one’s own choosing?

Now could there be some that would convert? Possibly. Yet as I ponder that, I think that God must have a reason. Could it be such a person would be a flaky Christian who would fall away? Could it be that God knows that person will come to Christ in another way that will lead him to lead a richer life? We don’t know and frankly, I tend to not like to speak about such things when I have no business as I’m in a position of ignorance. When people would ask me if Hurricane Katrina was the judgment of God, I would say “It’s not my call.” Then it’d be a quick turn to Luke 13 with the message of “Repent anyway.”

Notice this though. Let’s suppose I was straight-forward when asked this question and just said “I don’t know.” What has been proven by the non-Christian? It’s been proven that I am not omniscient. Well geez. If that was your goal at the start of the debate, all you had to do was ask. I’d have been glad to tell you that I was not omniscient. 

The skeptic though is the one making an assertion in saying that he knows there is no good reason for God to not do this. Oh really? How would you go about demonstrating such? It would be something impossible to do. I’m fine to just say “I really don’t know” and go about my day. Some may think that’s kind of shallow, but other factors must be kept in mind.

For instance, this question is not asked in a vacuum. If all we had was this, I could understand skepticism. However, I live in a world that I believe is designed, that I believe contains absolute moral commands that I ought to follow, where there exists a Bible that I believe to be an accurate account of historical events including miraculous ones, where I believe that a man named Jesus who claimed to be the incarnate Son of God lived among us, died, and rose agian. I live in a world where I can philosophically reflect on many arguments such as the infinite regress and believe a God exists, or see the argument from beauty and believe God exists, or see the philosophical backing of such Christian documents as the Trinity.

I’d consider it foolish to abandon all of that just because I don’t understand how God works in one area, like I was ever supposed to….

Yet I consider it just as foolish though for one to abandon all other areas in the interest of one. This argument will not stand on its own. I’ve got all the other arguments and I’m happy to live with another unknown variable. One wonders if the skeptic wishes to use this as a main argument if he is not just putting forth an emotional doubt masking itself as intellectual.

Virgin Birth: The Expression “Jesus Christ”

Friends. This will be a short one for tonight’s entry at http://www.wallsofjericho.info doesn’t have much. I am giving the link again so anyone can be sure of the argument I am dealing with:

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32

The claim is that the NT has fostered the idea that Jesus Christ is the name of the central figure in the NT and the name is exclusive to him.

If you mean name as in a birth name, no. A birth certificate of Jesus would not say “Jesus Christ.” Jesus is the given name. Christ is a name describing his position. 

Our writer is correct that Jesus is the variant of Joshua and would be read as Yeshua. It was a common name even in the time of Christ. There are even some reports that Barabbas, whom Pilate released instead of Jesus, was named Jesus and Barabbas was a surname. If that is the case, it would have meant his name was “Jesus, son of the father” in opposition to Jesus, Son of the Father.

Our writer is also correct that there are four other people in the Bible named Jesus. Again, this goes along with it being a common name. 

Our writer is also correct about Christ meaning “Anointed one”, which could have a limited perspective as it did for Cyrus, but the Jews were also waiting a specific anointed one, a greater one that we would call “The Messiah” today and Jesus was certainly claiming Messianic status for himself and there can be no doubt that’s what the Christians at least meant to attribute to him by calling him Jesus Christ.

Our writer wishes to say that since this information was so lost and distorted beyond recognition, then this can explain how the same could happen with a fact like the birth of Christ.

No. Instead, it shows that the church today is ignorant. A friend of mine tonight was talking about Zeitgeist and I said that while it is quite false, most Christians couldn’t answer it. This friend asked me if I really believe most of the church is that uninformed. I sadly had to say yes. I really wish I was wrong. I do. I don’t think I am though.

I don’t think Walls of Jericho gives good arguments against the virgin birth. However, it does tell me that our churches need to be better informed for in our state, we will even succoumb to bad arguments for a false position. Keep this in mind fellow apologists. Just because you see an argument as pathetic, it doesn’t mean the person sitting in the pew next to you does.

Virgin Birth: Isaiah’s Prophecy

Tonight, we continue our look at the doctrine of the Virgin Birth in reply to wallsofjericho.info. For those wanting another installment last night, I apologize, but I had a busy evening and I had to get up early today and as I heard someone say in quoting that great philosopher of the last generation, Red Skelton, “Late to bed, early to rise, makes me a lot sleepier than other guys.”

For those interested, I will be dealing with the argument here:

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=31

We are first told that the foundation of the virgin birth is Isaiah’s prophecy cited in Matthew. Matthew spells it out more explicitly, I’ll grant, but I think the case could easily be drawn out of Luke as well. The difference is that Matthew does cite the OT and whether that citation is valid or not is certainly an important question. To use a reference I’ve referred to before, I suggest the reader try to get a copy of “Jesus: Divine Messiah” by Robert Reymond. Reymond spends nearly 20 pages on this one prophecy and he devotes more time to others afterwards.

Walls of Jericho states that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled within his lifetime. There is no problem with this. I have no doubt that Isaiah was speaking of a young woman in the court and saying “That woman will be with child!” That the child will be able to survive would be a sign that God had delivered his people from the threat that was coming.

The point is also made on how Matthew is going with a dual fulfillment of prophecy in that one fulfillment is greater than the other. For those who believe in the virgin birth, while Isaiah did speak of a young woman who would have a child, which would be a more natural sign, Christ is the ultimate fulfillment in a greater way in that he would be conceived of a virgin. This will be looked at more later. For now, let us look at the word used in Isaiah that is translated as virgin by some translations.

I will agree that Almah does not mean virgin. However, it does refer to a young woman and it does not refer to a married woman. It can mean a virgin though. That is all that matters at this point. While there are various references given, none of them really address the argument. I could agree with much of what is said and not have a problem.

Also, was the young woman already pregnant? I don’t know if she was or not. My thinking is that she wasn’t, but that is left for the Hebrew scholars. I would simply ask “Does it make a difference?” For the prophecy of Isaiah, not really. When it comes to Matthew, he would apply it properly for his own time and again, I don’t see much difference. If the virgin is with a child while a virgin, it still counts. If the virgin will miraculously conceive without sacrificing her virginity, it still counts.

It’s also noted that Matthew did not mention Isaiah’s sign. Why should he though? This is the style of format called pesher where there didn’t have to be a literal one-to-one correspondence on everything but that rather there was a type of sorts being shown which is a rather “This for that” method of interpreting a passage in the OT.

There is not much need to speak on the name Immanuel and how it was used. Our writer says that none of the other names refer to someone being God when used of them. I think the ones that he has such as Elijah meaning “God Himself” could better be read “The Lord is God,” and Elihu could best be read as “He is my God.” Immanuel though while a name for the child in the sense that God is with his people, was fulfilled in a greater sense in Christ with God literally being with his people. This gets into a Trinitarian attack and while I would be glad to focus in on that, that is for another blog entry. This isn’t about the Trinity but the virgin birth.

A point is also made about other Greek translations that don’t translate as Matthew does the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. However, all of these were second century and Aquila, for instance, was done in response to the Christians and trying to get a translation to avoid the Christian ideas that were coming from the OT.

Now we get back to our earlier point about Matthew showing Jesus re-living the history of Israel. Our author is right on that but doesn’t grasp the full connotation. Let’s consider.

The child goes to Egypt like Israel.

The child leaves Egypt like Israel.

The child is baptized as Israel was vis a vis 1 Cor. 10.

The fulfillment of Israel in Matthew 4.

Then we get to Matthew 5 and Jesus goes up and gives the law from the mountain. This is why it says “out of his mouth” even. That would seem obvious that that was where his words came from, but Matthew is making a great statement. Jesus is the lawgiver par excellence that exceeds Moses. Moses received the Law. Jesus GAVE the Law. This is a strong argument for who Jesus is.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are also referenced and it is said that they say nothing about a virgin birth. I read this and I’m thinking “You were expecting them to?” I really don’t see the difficulty with this. If this is a miraculous fulfillment to come in the future, why would the Jews have been expected to know about that entirely? (I do understand that there are some findings that call the claim that the DSS don’t see the prophecy that way into question.)

Overall, I really think the article in this case is sound and fury with no substance.

A Theology Of Sex

I’ve had a busy night and I have to get up early tomorrow morning. Tonight’s blog is going to be an article I wrote a long time ago called “A Theology of Sex.” It can be found on TheologyWeb also. Enjoy.

Perhaps one of the great developments of modern theology, and a witness to our age, which needs it so desperately, will be a glorious new theology of sex. (Kreeft TGWLY 153)

 

            I was rather pleased when I read that sentence in Kreeft’s book. Kreeft has been a philosopher that has put the finishing touches on something I had pondered for so long. As a Christian, I do not believe God created characteristics of this world on accident, and that includes sexuality. Being a young man thinking about sex, I kept pondering why God did things the way he did and if he’s revealing something of his nature, especially since Scripture is replete of terminology of a marriage relationship such as the bride of Christ and Hosea and Ezekiel 16 and the entire Song of Solomon.

            Thus, I am here to present a theology of sex. I will be looking at what I see in the Scriptures and in general revelation. If God is revealing himself in both places, it behooves us to understand what message he is given us. In modern American culture, one would have to be blind to deny that sex is the national obsession. Perchance a good theology of sex will help us realize the beauty that God intended sex to be and the shameful way the world treats it.

            Already, some who know me may be raising an objection. “You’re a virgin! What can you tell us about sex?!” At first, this seems to have weight, except that I also parallel sex with Heaven, something else I have not experienced, but I believe through Scriptural revelation and through the desires placed in our heart, such as C.S. Lewis has done in such works as “Surprised By Joy,” we can get clues as to the nature of Heaven. By looking at desire and what little I do know, I could give an alternative view that more parallels mystery and wonder.

            To begin with, I would like to suggest that we start talking about what sex is. We often look at it is as something that you do, when in reality, it is something that you are. If you will consider a nun or a monk, both of them are sexual creatures. The nun does all that she does as a woman and the monk does all that he does as a man. That neither of them function in a sexual way does not deprive from either of them being fully male or fully female. We cannot say that the lover on his honeymoon acts and then he becomes a sexual being. He acts, because he is already a sexual being. Thus, I will be referring in the future to the act itself as intercourse and the status of the person as sex.

            Now that the terms are defined, it is time to look at where this wonder came from. Christians will agree that sex was first the idea of God. However, could it be that sexuality comes closer to the heart of God than we realize? Could it be that what we consider sexuality is actually an aspect of the nature of God?

            Let me be clear to the first argument I anticipate. John 4:24 says that God is Spirit. Are you describing God in physical terms? The problem with such an argument is that it views sex as purely physical. I am not in anyway describing the Trinity as having male or female genitalia. While intercourse is a physical act no doubt, I believe it’s an act of the soul as well. I believe that while there are male and female characteristics of our bodies, we also have souls that are male and female. Based on the doctrine of traducianism, I would say that our bodies are often matched to correspond to our souls.

            Is there any biblical evidence for saying that sexuality belongs at the heart of God? There is. In Genesis 1:26-27, we are told that God created man and woman in his image. Christians do not believe that the image is something physical. While there may be differing interpretations, I see the image of God as humanity bearing many attributes of God though in a far lesser sense. We are rational, have a spiritual sense, possess morality, have an implicit understanding of logic, etc. Along these lines, I will include sexuality.

            This shouldn’t be a shock. We know that masculinity and femininity is more than how the body is built. One can be a heavyweight bodybuilder and still not be a man at heart. A female could be a supermodel dazzling every male onlooker with her beauty, and still not be a woman at heart. Instead, we see certain traits that embody each gender. For instance, the masculine gender is a warrior gender that longs to be the breadwinner for the woman, to conquer the world for her, to defeat the enemy, and to protect her from all evil. The feminine gender we tend to picture as the caring and sensitive one, the nurturer for the wounded child, the heart for those who are downcast, and the sustainer of life.

            All of these characteristics come from God and God put the male and female together with each embodying some of the characteristics that he possesses in unique strength. When we look at God though, we have to realize that while he possess attributes that we would consider masculine and feminine, he also transcends them. I believe that God identifies himself in male roles simply because leadership was to be the responsibility of the man. Having the first person of the Trinity describe himself as Father and the second reveal himself as Son shows us the value that masculinity plays, while not downgrading the role of the feminine.

            What do I mean by this? Now is the time to start explaining with romance. The idea of dating is a new phenomenon. However, I do believe that our desires still indicate much of the truth of what God intended. Of course, I can only speak entirely from a guy’s perspective, but this is probably for the best since it will parallel how God pursues his bride in Scripture.

            The romance starts with seeing the beauty. Something about her stands out and before too long, one is thinking of Song of Songs 4:7. “You are altogether beautiful my darling, and there is no blemish in you.” The sight of the beauty leads to the desire. Before too long, the beauty is all that can be thought about and every moment of the day is spent wondering what can be done to win over the heart of the beauty. Dante will not allow anyone to tell him that Beatrice is just a peasant girl and neither will the man longing for the desire of his eyes.

            For the true man who is seeking to win her heart, while he is no doubt thinking about intercourse, he wants more than that. He can’t describe it. He wants her. He cannot separate her beauty from her or her sexuality from her. It is built into her just as her DNA is. If he just wanted her body, we could present him with a corpse. He wants more. He wants body and soul.

            Let us suppose this man is blessed and wins the beauty. What a night this must be! The beauty reveals herself little by little inviting the man to go to places he’s never been before and experience wonders he’s never experienced before. She is ready to trust him and she must be. She has to expose herself fully and make herself vulnerable for the act to be true. Nudity is not essential, but it would lessen the mood as it would make one think that something was being held back. No. Nothing must be held back at this moment.

            So, the woman invites the man to come into her. He is invited to release his strength and his life into her and the woman receives with expectation. He gives her all that he has and she willingly receives. The woman does not have to give anything back as simply her trust and love of him is enough. All he asks at that moment is for her.

            Such a beautiful scene this is and how it rages up desire within the soul, especially for those of us who still wait for this. We are truly getting a portion of eternity within this moment. Intercourse is a picture of the most powerful commitment on Earth and is a reflection of the love of God. How much we must respect this sacred and holy gift!

            Too many today though are not respecting this gift though. Instead, intercourse is seen as merely a tool for pleasure. Indeed, many a man in our society says he is looking for a woman, but that is the last thing he wants to find. He is looking for pleasure and he just wants a female body to be the tool to bring about that pleasure.

            I recently thought about this more as I have a situation where I think a friend of mine might be living with his girlfriend. Picture if this is true the pressure each is put under. The woman realizes that she is being tested for marriage so she must perform sexually to please. There is no freedom to be who she is. She has to perform or she doesn’t get the commitment. The man also is lowering himself. Does he just believe that he’s not sure if he can please the woman? Is he not testing himself as well?

            Intercourse must take place in the proper order. Trust must be given before there is fellowship. How romantic is it to be giving all of yourself to someone of the opposite sex realizing that they just aren’t willing to commit to you? We cannot reduce sexuality to a mere function. It is the nature of our souls and we only lower ourselves in the process.

            Furthermore, consider the spiritual implications. When we split apart the atom, we end up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki ruins. If we cause that much damage in the physical realm for treating physical bonds lightly, will we not suffer for treating spiritual bonds lightly in the spiritual realm? When we come to see sex as sacred though, we will honor it more and hopefully, enjoy it more.

            This is truly something beautiful on Earth, but what if we took it further. Consider that in Genesis 2:24, the man and woman are described as echad. In the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, the same word is used to describe God as one. This refers to a one that is a unity. Unity in diversity in fact, is a strong philosophical argument for belief in the Trinity.

            What if this love is a picture of the relationship within the Trinity? We have to remember that we cannot label the persons of the Godhead as purely male or female. Instead, they transcend both. This is where the Filoque clause comes into such importance. The Son we say in Trinitarian theology is eternally begotten. There has always been love going on then between the Father and the Son and from the love of the Father and Son proceeds the Holy Spirit. Is it any wonder that when we have the love of man and woman on Earth, that out of that love proceeds new life?

            Thus, the most intimate of relationships on Earth is a picture of the intimate love that goes on in the Trinity. The physical act has a spiritual counterpart. This doesn’t downplay the physical. The physical is good. God created it after all and God has blessed the marriage union within the context of marriages. It should not come as a surprise since it’s picture of the love that we are invited to partake of.

            Could this be what our great desire of? Could this be what the human heart entirely is longing for? We are looking for the awesome love of God and too often, are trying to find it in casual intercourse. Even marriage will not totally satisfy this desire, but it will get us closer. Also, if we consider this pleasure as a picture of Heaven while being the experiencing and two persons coming together in union, then we could say that this is a correspondence to Heaven. In the latter case, we desire to be with God and be in him and he in us.

            Could it also be that God is showing us some of this in miracles? God is releasing his love into the world and new life comes in as a result. Miracles are indeed heaven sent as God sends his love down to us each time, with the greatest of all taking place in the resurrection, where God showed us exactly how much he loves us and desires to be with us, the strongest of romantic gestures.

            We should also learn from this that sex is to be relational. God is relational at his very heart and we should be relational as well. Christianity has no place for someone to be a lone wolf. This would lead to us being confessing Trinitarians and practicing Arians. We are to be relation in our existence as the Trinity is relational.

            This also tells us then how to love others which effects how we love sexually. We are to love each other for who they are not for what they do. The Father loves the Son simply because he’s the Son. So, we should love our fellow man simply because they bear the image of God. Today, we often love people based on what they do, a contradiction to what we see in the Trinity.

            In conclusion, I would like to suggest that we take sexuality more seriously. We cannot shame this as a disgusting part of the creation. On the other hand, we cannot fully indulge in it carelessly as a small part of our being merely for pleasure. Sex too is a revelation of God and we should thank him for it and enjoy it.

            

Virgin Birth: Luke

We’re looking at wallsofjericho.info now and going over their critique of the Virgin Birth doctrine and tonight, covering the book of Luke.

The first point to address is that of the address to Zacharias vs. that of Mary. Why is it that no one thinks of a virgin birth in the case of John the Baptist? There is a simple reason for this though. This was Elizabeth we were talking about and considering that they were married, it’s quite likely that Elizabeth wasn’t a virgin and so there wouldn’t be a virgin birth. Zacharias would have ruled that out immediately. He is doubting God’s power then to do what he says based on Elizabeth being old. (You gotta wonder if this guy was sleeping in priest school when Abraham was talked about.)

Mary’s question is not an objection but pointing to a mystery. A virgin birth had never been done before so when this virgin hears that she’s going to have a son, she wants to know how this can be. This is not the same as saying “God cannot do this.” This was more along the lines of saying “How can God do this?” In response to what she said though, WallsofJericho makes this interesting observation:

Mary’s question directly addresses this conundrum, and nothing more. This becomes clear when we consult the Greek, in which Luke’s gospel was composed, to see what is meant here by the word know.

Young’s Concordance shows the Greek word used in Mary’s question is ginosko – to know.  Luke uses it on 22 other occasions, for example in Zacharias’ question:

18  And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man,

     and my wife is well advanced in years.”

On these 22 occasions, ginosko (to know)  never refers to sexual intercourse. Each time it is used in the sense of “learning” or “knowing” about something.

 

 

This sounds convincing at first until one considers an obvious problem. They weren’t frequently talking in the gospels about two specific people having sexual intercourse. For instance, our website makes no mistake in saying that when Matthew uses the term of Joseph knew her not until they were married, that it would refer to sexual intercourse. That’s the only time Matthew uses it that way though! Does it mean it’s wrong? No. It was an idiom Jews would recognize. There just wasn’t a reason to use it.

The idea is that Mary was wondering how this would be since she knew not a man with the credentials needed. I’m left wondering “What? Is Mary going to be raped on the way to visit her cousin or what?” The idea is something that is thrown in ad hoc. There is no reason to read it any other way than referring to sexual intercourse.

We’re also told about how when the Holy Spirit came on others, we’re not told of a virgin birth? Why in this case?

Could the context be a clue?

Let’s look at the ones given also.

  • Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; And I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”  (Jeremiah 1:4-5) 

  • So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.  (Ruth 4:13)
  • And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. (1Samuel 2:21)
  • And the LORD visited Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.  (Genesis 21:1-2)
  • Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from the LORD.”  (Genesis 4:1)
  • And the Angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son.  (Judges 13:3)

The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.  (Job 33:4)

 

 

These all involved people that were married. Presumably, Jeremiah’s parents were married and had sexual intercourse. Adam and Eve would also be married by God and have sexual intercourse. What Elihu’s statement has to do with this is a good question. Maybe we should ask if Elihu has the Spirit of God, why isn’t he pregnant? That just gets us into absurdities though.

We are also told the term holy one refers to being the firstborn. Why think such though? When a Jew thought of the holy one, they would not think of a firstborn son. If one wants to say “That’s what David said though. His son would be firstborn!” That just makes the case. This is a unique son unlike any other. This is the unique Son of David.

For Son of God, WallsofJericho says that this doesn’t refer to a biological son. We agree. No one is talking about the biology of God. This Son of God bypassed the normal means. It is granted Son of God does have multiple meanings within Scripture and again, context determines usage. Son of God along with Holy One and the rest of the book points to Jesus’s divine identity as the eternally begotten of the Father and the Messiah of Israel.

Tomorrow, we shall look at Isaiah’s prophecy.