The Parable of Factory-Made Homes (Matthew 7:24-27)

Drew and Scott, 2 co-workers, were both shocked and surprised to see each other at Big Al’s Factory-Made Home Sales. After chatting in the waiting room a bit, the two men realized it made sense for both of them to be there. Both men worked for the same company, under the same job title with job description. Both of them worked the same shift and hours, and both got paid the same wages. Both of them put aside a little of each paycheck in a savings account to put towards a house, and now both of them had saved enough to purchase a house, so they could move out of their small apartments. It only made sense that they both went to Big Al’s Factory-Made Home Sales, the most affordable homes in the area.

After a short while, Big Al invited both men into his office to finish signing and initialing papers, so they could officially become home owners. As both men signed here and initialed there, Big Al spoke up in his southern draw, “Now I’m going to give you boys a tip. I know my houses look so fine that they look like you can move into them day one, but these houses need a foundation. Heed my advice and build a foundation for your home before moving into them.” Drew and Scott paused and looked at each other. They knew they both thought the same thing, but only Scott bravely spoke. “Are you kidding me?! You know how much money I’ve poured into this home! Now you want me to spend even more money by building foundation?! I think not! I suppose I could save some by cutting labor costs and providing my own labor, but I already burned enough of my free time working overtime in order to save up for this home, and I’m not about to waste anymore free time by building a foundation. Please deliver the home to the address I provided in the paperwork and place it on the cinder blocks. It will be good enough for me.” With that, Scott signed his last signature, initialed his last initials, snatched his keys and walked out of the office.

Drew leaned back in the office chair. He thought about what Scott said, and he could definitely relate. He too worked a lot of overtime and spent a lot of money on his home. Big Al, on the other hand, made a good point, too. Al had worked in the business so long, he must knew what he was talking about. After signing his last signature and initialing his last initials, Drew asked Big Al if he could kindly hold on to the home until Drew had a foundation in place on his lot. Big smiled and agreed. Drew then went back to his apartment and called his landlord to see if he could extend the lease a bit longer. The landlord understood and agreed to extend the lease another month. Then Drew began laying his foundation. It might have taken him a few more weeks to move in his new home than Scott, but finally, Drew could move into his new house.

Shortly after Drew moved into his new home, meteorologists buzzed on the news about Hurricane Damion. “Hurricane Damion is on its way! Just because this hurricane has been downgraded from a category 5 hurricane to a category 3 hurricane does not mean it should be taken lightly! Gather up supplies. You may go days without power or water. Board up your houses. When the hurricane comes, remember to stay in the center room of your house on downstairs floor.” Everyone listened the meteorologists. Anyone who attempted to go to a grocery store within a 5-mile radius of their home found all the bottled water and batteries sold out! Both Drew and Scott prepared for the storm, buying extra supplies and boarding up the houses. Both felt confident in their new homes. Drew felt especially assured with his newly laid foundation. Scott did feel confident, but as the hurricane got closer, Scott thought about how his father and mother complained that he never visited enough, so Scott decided now would be a good time to visit his parents out in the Great Plains.

The day came when the Hurricane Damion arrived. It only took 1 day to pass through, but it left its mark, from the uprooted trees to the down power lines. When Drew heard the hurricane passed over, he walked out the front door, took a few steps out into the front lawn, and he looked back at his house. The hurricane’s winds had ripped off a few shingles and a strip of siding, but besides that, the home stood intact. Drew smiled, glad he took Big Al’s advice. A few days later, Scott’s flight home touched down in the airport. From there, Scott drove home…or at least he thought he did. When Drew got there, he found an empty lot. He went to go look at the house number on the mailbox, but the mailbox had disappeared, too. He checked the GPS on his phone, and yes, he had the write address. Where was his house? After driving around a bit, in the nearby trailer park, Scott found his home…or what he believed to be his home. In reality, Scott found a pile of wood, drywall and insulation. Scott pulled out his cell phone, dialed up his mother, and said, “Hey mom, you know how you always complain that I never visit enough? Well, guess whose coming back to visit?”

What you have just read is what I call The Parable of the Factory-Made Homes. This is a 21st century version of a parable Jesus told in the 1st century. Back while in seminary, my preaching professor taught us that when teaching a parable of Jesus, a preacher should re-tell the parable in a 21st century context. I agree with his teaching. All the parable Jesus taught Jesus extremely contextualized, so his open-minded audience would understand the message, while the close-minded audience would not understand. Therefore, Jesus used the 1st century culture as his context, a context which would make no sense to the modern-day culture in the 21st century. So preacher should study what Jesus intended the parable to mean, and then teach the parable in a 21st century cultural context that the audience could comprehend. Still, because I am not an omniscient rabbi, my parable fails in comparison to the Lord’s parable, so let’s understand the original parable in light of the 1st century context.

I invite you to turn Matthew 7:24-27. Recall that Matthew is a Jewish man, writing to a Jewish audience, convincing them that Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. Matthew does so by stocking his Gospel account full of Old Testament references. Old Testament references does not merely refer to quoting Old Testament Scripture. Matthew constantly paints Jesus in light of the Old Testament heroes of faith, like Abraham, Moses and David, to display HIM as like these men, but better. This parable comes from the Sermon of Mount. Just as Moses taught the Israelites the Law on Mount Sinai, so Matthew paints Jesus, on the Mount, teaching the Law, just like Moses. In accordance with covenants, after listing the laws and stipulations of the covenant, Moses would then pronounce blessings to those who obey and denounce curses on those who disobey. In the same way, Jesus ends his teaching with promises to bless the obedient and curse the disobedient, in the form of a parable. More specifically, this famous parable concluding the Sermon on the Mount. This context gives a stronger meaning to the Sermon on the Mount itself. Jesus just finished teaching believers about kingdom of heaven living. This parable challenges the audience to follow the teaching Jesus just laid before them. Jesus knows the crowd heard his teaching, and now he challenges the crowd to listen to his teaching. The choice does not lie within which teachings to accept and reject, but rather, the crowd can only choose to either follow the teachings presented before them. If the people put the teachings of Jesus into practice, the people have accepted them, but if they don’t put Christ’s words into practice, the people reject them. As commentator R.T. France states, “The teaching of the Sermon of the Mount is not an ideal to be admired, but a law to be obeyed.”

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” ~Matthew 7:24

Following the pattern of Proverbs (see Proverbs 10:8&14), Jesus parallels a wise man and foolish man, only with a slight different, demonstrating that the contrasting decisions result in contrasting consequences. For the first simile, Jesus compares those who listen to his words to a wise man who built his house upon the rock. In the Greek, Jesus emphasizes the word “mine,” demonstrating that his teaching is not another rabbi’s interpretation but the truth from God himself. Up to this point, the Jewish people put their hopes in the traditions and interpretations of the Pharisees, which were like shifting sands. Jesus called the crowd to put their trust in his truth, which came from God, the same God they knew from the Old Testament. In the parable, the wise man builds his house on the rock. Jesus took advantage of his setting, and this statement would have made sense to all the locals. In Galilee, a man building a house on a rock foundation would not have to dig far, and sometimes did not have to dig at all. A Jewish audience would immediately know the rock refers to God. The Old Testament refers to God as the rock numerous times because the metaphor illustrates the strength, security and stability of the Lord (see Deuteronomy 32:4, 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:3, Psalm 18:2 and Isaiah 17:10).

“And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.” ~Matthew 7:25

What Jesus describes in Matthew 7:25 is your typical Galilean autumn storm. Most often, Galilean autumn storms would cause flash flooding. Galilee can become quite dry in the autumn. The dry ground cannot speedily absorb the torrential downpour, resulting in flash flooding. Not only would the heavy rains themselves cause the land to flood, but the rains would cause nearby rivers to overflow, adding to the floods. Pretty, during these Galilean autumn storms, it would appears as if the waters came from both down and up. Jesus uses 2 action verbs to describe the winds, emphasizing that the winds came from every direction and that suck winds have the power to knock over buildings. Those listening to the story would expect the house to collapse, yet it does not. The Galilean homes built on a rock foundation would survive such storms. In the last independent clause of verse 25, the Greek text emphasizes “stood firm,” but past perfect indicative passive state. This tense emphasizes that the house stood firm because of its rock foundation. Likewise, those who hear the words of Jesus and put them to practice will survive the storms of life, both literally and metaphorically.

“And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” ~Matthew 7:26,27

The Jewish audience, familiar with the Proverbs, expect Jesus to provide a counter example to contrast the fates (see Proverbs 10:25, 12:7 and 14:11). For this counter example, Jesus describes someone who does not apply his words as a foolish man who builds his house on sand. The Greek word used here for foolish is μωρός (moros), from which we get the English word “moron.” Scholars have attempted to locate where the sandy lands might be, but the consensus seem to be that Jesus means the land that’s not the rock foundation. Notice the words Jesus used to describe the storm that hit the house with the sandy foundation matches the words used to describe the house with the rock foundation. The floods caused by the Galilean autumn storms would wash away sands and destabilize any house built on the sand foundation. While a home built on the rock might receive some wear and tear from the story, a house built on the sand would face utter destruction. Likewise, anyone who does not pay attention to the words of Jesus lead themselves down the road of utter destruction.

In both Christ’s parable and my re-telling of Christ’s parable, the reader will see the main characters had many similarities. Both men wanted to build a house. Both men got a house which looked ready to move into and settle. Both men might have even used the same design and the same materials to build the house. The variance, however, was the foundation. That variance resulted in impacting the men differently. When the storms came, the wise man still had a house, but the foolish man had a pile of rubble where the house one stood. To bring the parable up to its meaning, in the same way, multiple will hear the words of Jesus numerous times. The only thing separating those people is whether they apply, or do, those words.

Rabbis during the time of Jesus actually debated if hearing or doing was more importance. Although the consensus seemed to be both hearing and doing, a lot of them actually concluded hearing was more important than doing. They figured that a believer cannot do unless the hear, and thus, hearing had to be more important. Jesus, however, says contrary. If someone hears his teaching, he or she now has a duty to follow them. Perhaps Jesus might have intended to call out the Pharisees nearby, who knew what the Law had to say, but they did not obey it. If I may roughly paraphrase the words of commentator A.T. Robinson, “If a Christian wants to live dangerously, the Christian should listen to sermons with no intention of following them.”

Readers tend to think of the storms representing hardships in life, and rightfully so, but the storms could also represent God’s justice. Think about it. In the parable, those who built their home on the rock find themselves rewarded with a safe and secure home during storms, while those who build their house on the sand find themselves cursed with a destroyed house. In the same way, everybody who hears and does the words of Jesus will find themselves blessed on the day of judgment, while everyone hears the words of Jesus and does not do them will find themselves cursed. In the end, at the final judgment, it will all come down to what God thinks, not what other people think, nor what we think of ourselves. Therefore, the best application of this parable is to prepare ourselves for the final judgment by doing what Jesus has taught us.

While the final judgment will be the last and greatest judgment of all, the Christian should not focus solely the great, final judgment that will come in the future. Judgment can happen in the present, just as much as it will in the future. Judgment will sometimes come from God, but judgment can also come in forms from the world and from life in general. Until the day of the great, final, judgment, the Christian should interpret the storms on the trials and tribulations that will lead up the eschaton. The trials and tribulations, although small in comparison to the great, final judgment, will prepare and test the Christian for the great, final judgment. Those who deny their faith when the trials and tribulations on this earth come will not pass the great, final judgment. Those who will survive the trials and tribulations of life, as well as the great, final judgement, are those who heard the words of Jesus and put them into practice. Just like in the parable, many will hear the words of Jesus, and many will go through trials, tribulation and judgment. Those who put the words of Jesus into practice will survive all trials, tribulations and judgments, but those who did not practice Christ’s words seal their fate. And what’s the number 1 test and trial? Time. False apostles, prophets and teachers stop speaking of the faith in a matter of time, but the true children of God live act out the Word of God until their final breath.

This parable teaches Christians 3 lessons.

First, the parable leaves Christians to ask themselves, “What do we really believe?” Clearly, this parable teaches that true belief doesn’t simply profess. Belief does not simply parrot the words of Jesus, either. True belief leads the believer to act. If believers really believe something, it will cause the believer to act in a certain way. If Christians proclaim the Lord has omnipotent, or all-power, Christians should depend on him when they feel powerless, rather than on their own strength. If Christians proclaim God as omnibenevolent, or all-good, Christians should blame him for when evil happens in their life. If Christians act contrary to their doctrine, or don’t act at all, do they really believe their doctrine?

Second, this parable instructs Christians to work hard on their faith. I took this parable of out Matthew because most Christians recognize the parable from Matthew, but Luke also records Jesus teaching this parable during his Sermon on the Level Plain. While the two variations of the parable have slight differences (some of which probably account to the location), one sticks out in particular. Luke records Jesus mentioning that the wise man dug deep into his foundation on the rock. Foundations take hard work to build. When the bedrock of Galilee sits on or near the surface, to make it function as a sturdy foundation, the builder has to dig deep into it. One of my ancient sources comes from a Greek historian. He records that once he visited an Arab man in Galilee. The Arab man knew of the earthquakes and floods that hit the land, so he dig 10 meters (or 30 feet) deep into the bedroom to make sure the pillars would not move during a natural disaster. The Greek historian looked on in amazement, not at the elegance of the pillars, but rather, at the how deep the Arab man dug just to make sure the pillars stood still. I understand this amazement. I assisted on an archaeological dig when I visited Israel. For this archaeological dig, I had to wake up at 3:00 a.m. to get ready for a dig at 4:00 a.m. Just like a typical work shift, I ended at noon. An archaeological dig need to happen so early in the morning because the sun is brutally unforgiving. Temperatures could easily rise 100 degrees Fahrenheit by noon. I carried around a half gallon jug of water every day, and every day, I finished it by the end of the day. Even with an awning over the dig site, working outside, even washing pottery, becomes unbearable. This is the 21^st century, with digital alarm clocks and light bulbs. Imagine living in Galilee in the 1^st century A.D. Digging requires the sunlight to see, so the digger of a foundation has work in the heat of sun. The builder faces temptation to build in the sand because of ease. The builder has to spend less time in the sun and doesn’t have work as building his home on a sandy foundation. The rock foundation requires the builder to spend all day out in the hot sun and requires extra work. As the parable demonstrates, however, the hard work pays off in the long run because it creates the house that stands firm in the storms.

Do Christians work that hard at their faith? Human nature tends to lean to easy route, but the Bible calls Christians to move than the easy route. Jesus did not take the easy route, but instead, he took the route to cross. As Christians, the Bible calls Christians to follow the path of Jesus. Christians must not succumb to the easy route. As the parable shows, the easy route leads to shaky foundations in the faith. On the flip side, the Christians who work hard on their faith will find themselves on the firm foundation of Jesus. The new nature the Holy Spirit provides all Christians the strength to endure these hardships. May Christians embrace this gift the Holy Spirit has given them to build up their faith.

For the 3^rd application, if someone asks for a one-word summary this meaning of this parable, the answer is “Choose.” If someone asks for a two-word summary this meaning of this parable, the answer is, “Actively choose.” I believe this parable teaches that if you’re not on the foundation of the rock, that automatically places you on the sand. Unless you actively choose to listen and follow the words of Jesus, then by default, you face utter destruction. If you have not actively chosen Jesus, I urge you to do so, confessing your sins and believing in Jesus. If you have actively chosen, trust in Jesus to help you stand firm during hardships and judgments.

Not Rape but Restoration (Exodus 22:16&17)

INTRODUCTION

If you would’ve read the Midway newspaper on a certain morning, under the police report, you would have read that he Midway Police Department issues Kasity Roberts’s citation to shut down her business or else face fines and even imprisonment. At first glance, it may not seem like a big deal, but it will all the sudden become a big deal when you learn that Kasity is girl in elementary school. The business she was illegally running? A lemonade stand. Upon receiving the news, Amy Roberts, Kasity’s mother, marched down to the police station, demanding to know the reason for the citation. Kelly Morningstar, the Midway chief of police, sat down with Amy and kindly explain that the state laws regarding food safety in food service are meant to protect its citizens from unsafe and unhealthy food and drink. The police didn’t know who made the lemonade or what the lemonade was made with, and therefore needed to shut down the operation until the business was deemed to safe to serve. Amy reluctantly agreed, but she still felt a bit baffled. After all, different police officers from the Midway Police visited the lemonade stand the previous day, bought lemonade, and then complimented Kasity for choosing to make lemonade from fresh lemons instead of a powdered drink mix. You think that’s bad?

It gets worse. In Scottsdale, Arizona, Dr. Reed Turozi received a citation and fine breaking Scottsdale’s “nuisance of property maintenance” law. His crime? He was growing an illegal tree in his yard. The fine was for $2,000, and for every day he did not cut it down, he would receive another $2,000 fine. if he could not pay, he would face imprisonment. Reed was baffled. That tree has been growing at that house for all 10 years he lived in it, and nobody said a thing. In fact, he recalls that part of the reason he bought the house 11 years earlier was that it came with that tree. He marched down to City Hall to look through all the laws, and sure and off he found out that his tree was not approved by the city of Scottsdale. He still decided to take it to trial. In his defense, he pointed out all his neighbors grew the same tree in their yard. The authorities replied, “just let us know, and we’ll cite and fine then, too!” Needless to say, Reed is not a friend with his neighbors anymore.

It gets even worse. Abner Schoenwetter ran his own seafood importing company. For 13 years, he ran his buisness the exact same processes and procedures, and every time he cleared both customs and FDA regulations without any problems. Then, one day, in his 14^th year of business, he wakes up to hear a knock on his door. There’s 13 FBI agents on his deck. They proceed to arrest Abner. His crime? He transported the lobsters in plastic bags, not wooden crates. What makes this so interesting is that a Honduras law, not a United States law. Since Abner transported the lobsters from Honduras, he had to follow Honduras law. Since the United States did not want to ruin relations with Honduras, they had to arrest Abner. A judge sentenced Abner to 8 years in prison. After 6 years in jail, Abner appealed the ruling. He spent thousands of dollars on a attorney, who got a Honduras government official to testify that no such law ever existed in Honduras. By then, it was too late. Out of business for 6 years, Abner and his family went broke, and it broke apart the family.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, this is the worst. Jack and Jill (no joke, that’s their real name) wanted to build a new house on their property. The county government came down to inspect the foundation, and they approved the building of the house. There was only one problem. A drainage ditch, owned by the state government, was clogged with logs. Jack ass the state government to fix their drainage ditch. That’s the government admitted that they were six months backed up, so it would at least take half a year to get to his problem. Jack volunteered to do it himself. State government, not wanting to have to pay more money, gladly agreed to give him permission to clear out the clog with his backhoe. Shortly after clearing the clog and building the house, the federal government handed Jack and Jill a felony citation for building on a wetland, which is protected by federal law. Yes, the clogged drain flooded the ground, which gave the appearance of a wetland, and the EPA stepped in protect it. Jack dug an 8-foot-deep hole to prove no water ever existed there prior to the flooding, yet the EPA wouldn’t listen. They still brought him to court. A jury did find Jack not guilty, but at a price. Jack had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an attorney to prove his innocence. They had to sell their home to prevent bankruptcy. They now live in a trailer in a trailer park, and they miss their farm dearly.

Laws, am I right? We all know we need laws. Laws exist to keep the citizens in a society safe and to protect their rights. The laws I mentioned do seem to fall under that purpose. Midway Chief of Police Kelly Morningstar did have a point. I should be eat or drink at any restaurant, rest assured it’s safe and healthy, not worrying who made or how they made it. Perhaps the tree Dr. Reed Turozi had in his yard is an invasive plant species that would have taken over Scottsdale, Arizona like a weed. Maybe marine biologists and animal activists determined that it was cruel to transport lobsters in plastics bags. And wetlands deserve protection. As much good as these laws intended, how could they miss the mark, criminalizing people who aren’t criminals.

THE PROBLEM WHEN CHRISTIANS READ OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Honest Christians might admit that they feel the same way about God’s Laws found in the Old Testament. They have all read Psalm 19:7-11. They have all read the positive impact God’s Laws had on David, and they rush to the Pentateuch to gain the same benefits. When Christians read these laws in the Torah, however, they struggle to reap the reward David received for reading them. They find the laws repetitive, boring, harsh, confusing, outdated, obsolete or irreverent. Therefore, most Christians end up marginalizing or neglecting the laws found in the Pentateuch. When these laws surface, people end up belittling or vilifying the law, they end up spiritualizing or allegorizing the law, or they abuse the law, like pushing a political agenda.

Paul doesn’t seem to help the Christian here. Just look at what Paul says in the book of Romans alone. On the one hand, Paul informs Christians that they are “not under the law but of grace” (Romans 6:14) and “released from the law” (Romans 7:6). Furthermore, Paul reminds Christians that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4). On the other hand, Paul describes the law as “holy and righteous and true” (Romans 7:12), as well as “spiritual” (Romans 7:14). As matter of fact, Paul encourages Christians to uphold the law (Romans 3:31)! What gives, Paul?

THE SOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS READING OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Fortunately, Paul did provide a hermeneutic for how Christians living in the New Covenant on how to exegete Old Testament Law. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul appeals to the church in Corinth that pastors deserve pay. Paul adds many proofs to his thesis, but one stick as odd. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. Deuteronomy 25:4 reads, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading the grain.” Any reader, either back then or now, might think, “What does that have to do with anything?!” Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 9:10, “Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.”

From 1 verse, Paul has made a 6-point hermeneutic. First, Paul reminds believers that law came from the Word of God. Second, since the law comes from the Word of God, it reflects God’s heart and mind. Third, since the law has come from the Word of God, it has more authority than humanity authority. Fourth, God spoke the law into existence with humanity’s sake in mind. Fifth, this law, originally, spoken to the young nation of Israel before the time of Christ, still has relevance to Gentile Christians in the 1^st century A.D. Sixth, all God’s laws have relevance to New Covenant Christians, not just the 10 Commandments. Some Christians try to solve Old Testament law problem by claiming that only the 10 Commandments have significance in the Christian’s life, and all other laws in the Old Testament have no importance. On the contrary, Paul would disagree, as he quotes a law which many Christians would call obscure.

From those 6 principles, Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, has created a 4-step hermeneutic for interpreting Old Testament Law. His hermeneutic modifies Dr. David Dorsey’s “CIA” hermeneutic, adding in Cristocentrism at the beginning and the end. I have adopted a very similar hermeneutic, which, being the good Cristocentric Mennonite I am, further strengthens the Cristocentrism aspects.

First, back-read the law from the New Testament context. Does the New Testament reference it? What does the New Testament have to say about the law? Whatever New Testament has to say trumps the actual law in the Old Testament. For example, Leviticus 21:7 forbids anyone to marry a prostitute, and in 1 Corinthians 6:15, Paul states that a Christian should never unite with a prostitute because a Christian is united with the Lord Jesus. Since the 1 Corinthians 6:15 command repeats the Leviticus 21:7 command, Christians should keep the command in its present form. Leviticus 11 lists the unclean animals which Israelites cannot eat. In Acts 10, however, a sheet drops from heaven, full of unclean animals, and a voice from heaven tells Peter to kill and eat. When Peter objects, calling the animals unclean, the voice from heaven reprimands Peter for calling something God made unclean. Therefore, Christians can conclude that God now allows Christians to eat meat once considered unclean.

Second, examine the law in its Old Testament context. Old Testament laws did not come from a timeless and spaceless vacuum. They came from a history, a geography and a culture. They had a context. This step requires Christians to understand what the author meant and how the original, intended audience would have understood the text. This step requires Christians to understand when the text is historically, where the text is in geographically and what the text is culturally.

Third, theologize the law to its universal context. At this step, the Christian does not look for a what but a who. The Christian does not look for a principle but for a person, that is, God. The Christian asks, “What does this passage reveal about God?” This truth might include God’s attributes, his character, his thought, his feelings, his priorities or his morals. Furthermore, a Christian should ask, “How does this law point forward to Christ? How did Christ fulfill this law? Did Jesus live out the law, so Christians must also live out the law, or did Jesus live out the law, so Christians don’t have to?” From these universal truth, the Christian can move on to the next step.

Fourth, apply the law to the current context. If the New Testament referenced the law in step 1, whatever commandment that came with the New Testament reference gets carried over to step 4. In step 4, the applications come from the truths about God in step 3, not necessarily the understanding of the law in step 2. The application may look exactly like the commandment found in the Torah, but the application might also look nothing like the commandment in the Pentateuch. Just like step 2 brought about understanding in the history, geography and culture of back then and there, step 4 should bring about understanding about the history, geography and culture of here and now.

A CASE STUDY OF EXODUS 22:16&17

Of course, you know me. I don’t let you off easy. Of course, I picked an awkward, uncomfortable and controversial (in the sense in might cause offense) law I could find. My pick, however, comes with good reason. This law can serve as an apologetic. Many anti-Christian atheists will use this law to attack God’s holiness and righteousness. They will read this law and say, “Just look at your God! This poor girl gets raped, and your God commands the girl and the rapist to marry, and the rapist only has to pay a fine?! How can you call your God both holy and loving when he treats young women like that?!” Did God really say that? Did he really command that? If so, how do Christians follow that command in their everyday life? Let’s BETA test it!

Step 1: Back-read from a New Testament Context

Back-reading from a New Testament asks the Christian to first seek what the New Testament has to say about this law. Indeed, the New Testament remains silent on this Old Testament law. The New Testament neither repeats the law with instructions to follow it, nor does the New Testament teach something contrary to that law. Therefore, the Christian can’t assume that the Christian, in the New Testament should continue to follow the law or cease to follow the law. The Christian needs to move on to the next steps, so the Christian can understand the verses in its original context, what the law teaches about God and how the Christian can apply it.

Before moving on, however, I want to remind us of 2 things. First, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes like shifting shadows. Therefore, this law reflects the character and nature of God, which was true back in Exodus and is true in the 21^st century. Second, Jesus has come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. As the fulfillment of the Law, this individual, specific law, found in Exodus 22, will somehow point forward to Jesus.

Step 2: Examine the Law in its Original Context

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible did not originally come in English. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Since this law appears in the Old Testament, the Israelites originally heard it in Hebrew. Anyone multilingual will tell anyone else that translating words into different languages does not always have a one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, some of the words in this law need more careful attention.

Seduce (v.): פָּתָה (pātâ). The root of this word means to be open. The full word means to allure, beguile, coax, deceive, entice or seduce. The Hebrew language might have went from the root to the full word is because a young, immature youth might easily be open to enticement or seduction, without thinking about the ramifications. The full word, in this context means “to convince someone to engage in coitus through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience.” The Contemporary English Version provides a good translation: “talks her into having sex.” The New Century Version also provides both a good interpretation: “tricks her into having sexual relations.” The persuasion could have come about as result of coaxing, charming, flirting or deceiving, but it’s definitely not by force, so it’s definitely not rape.

Virgin (n.): בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh). The בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) has three qualifications. First, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is a young woman, even as young as adolescence in age. This points back to our original point of פָּתָה (pātâ) about taking advantage of the inexperience and immaturity of youth. Second, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is someone who has never engaged in sexual activity. Third, Old Testament Hebrew usually reserves בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) for an unmarried person. Now as we see in our Exodus 22 passage, בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) can also refer to someone not yet married, as in betrothed or engaged. The law in Exodus 22:16-17 probably refers to a woman in any or all qualifications. It refers to a young woman who has never had sex, whether that young lady is single, engaged or married.

Bride-price (n.): מָהַר (mohar). In English translations מָהַר (mohar) most often receives the translation dowry or bride-price, although the latter sounds a little deceiving. The מָהַר (mohar) is most definitely not the groom buying a bride. As part of the engagement, the groom-to-be agreed to pay a מָהַר (mohar). According to the traditions formed by the rabbis, on average, the מָהַר (mohar) equaled 50 shekels of silver, but the actual מָהַר (mohar) varied from woman to woman. Factors affecting the מָהַר (mohar) included the man family’s social standing, the woman’s family’s social standing, the number of possible future husbands, the woman’s attractiveness and the woman’s virginity. Anything less would result in a lower מָהַר (mohar). The man would pay the מָהַר (mohar) to the woman’s father, and the father would gift the מָהַר (mohar) to the bride on her wedding day. The מָהַר (mohar) was never considered the woman’s father possession before marriage or the husband’s possession after marriage. The מָהַר (mohar) is always considered the woman’s possession. The מָהַר (mohar) had a few functions in the Ancient Near East. First, it displayed the suitor’s dedication to the woman. The מָהַר (mohar) was not cheap. A man would have to save up a while to have enough. This demonstrated the man could earn, save and afford to bring in the young to his home and take care of her. Second, it would provide the young couple financial stability. If hard times arose, the young couple would have a “nest egg” on which they could fall back. Third, if the woman ever found herself widowed or divorced, and she had no family to fall back on, the מָהַר (mohar) would work as life insurance today, giving her money until she could remarry or some other means of income.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, let me create my own paraphrase by inserting the definitions into the verse. “If a man approaches a sexually-inactive, unmarried, young woman and convinces her to engage in sex through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience, either by charm or deception, he must give the full, customary engagement gift and marry her. If the young woman’s father forbids to give the man the young woman in marriage, however, the man still has to go through paying the engagement gift.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, and we have a more clarified verse, let’s look at how the situation might play out in life. Imagine, if you will, Joe and Jane are 2 Israelite teenagers or 2 Israelites young adults, madly in love with each other. Only one problem arises. Jane has already been betrothed to John. One day, while the young couples grieves that they will never be together, Joe gets, what seems to him, a good idea. “Wait,” Joe says, “In your betrothal, your father promised you as a virgin, right?” “Yeah, so?” Jane answers, not putting one and one together. “That’s it!” Joe exclaims. “If you are a virgin no longer, John will no longer want to marry you. The betrothal will become null and void. Then we can get married! It only makes sense. We want to get married one day. I mean, I do love you. Don’t love me?” Jane thinks about it. She does love Joe. Not only does he look attractive, he’s always so nice and kind to him, always giving her a warm smile and a hearty laugh. She wishes she could marry him. If they did marry one day, they would consummate the marriage. Why not do it sooner? With no objection coming to her mind, Jane agrees. One day, when Joe and Jane know they will be unsupervised, they sneak off and have sex. Afterward, Jane does ask Joe to hold off saying anything, to which he agrees. Jane wants to wait for the “right time” to her father and John and to figure out a way to put them down nicely, without hurting their feelings. Besides, they still have time before the planned wedding. Soon, however, Jane finds out she doesn’t have as much time as she thought. Jane finds out she’s pregnant. This makes Jane uneasy, but it makes Joe feel even more easy. Joe felt ready to become a husband, but he did not feel ready to become a father. Now Joe plans to back out of his own plan. After all, only Jane heard Joe’s plan. With no witnesses around, Joe’s word would have more a say than Jane’s word.

Before moving on to our next section, our theology about God, I want close this section about the doctrine of sin. We commonly think of sin as the sinner committing the sin directly on a victim. Sin has bigger consequences than that. Sin victimizes everyone. Take a look at the possible scenario I gave and see how it turns everyone into a victim.

Obvious, the young woman is a victim. Because of what happened to her, she has become extremely vulnerable. In most Ancient Near East societies, the father, the fiancé or the future father-in-law could have the girl put to death, either legally or illegally, because of her fornication. In any other Ancient Near East society, despite the sex that went between the man the woman, since the man never officially got engaged with the woman, he never has to go through with marrying her. At the same time, her fiancé has every right to exit the marriage because she broke the contact Now the woman will find it harder to marry because she is not a virgin. Even if the man involved, or any man for that matter, agrees to marry her, she will get less or an engagement gift, if any gift at all.

The young woman’s father is a victim. The father loves his daughter very much. All he wants is for his daughter to have a happy life. As any loving father, his deepest concern is that someone will love and take care of his daughter for the rest of her after he passes away. He has raised her to become a godly wife. He took the time to pick out a husband suitable for her, and her arranged for her to receive the perfect dowry. Now, because of his daughter’s sinful act, the daughter has brought down disgrace and humiliation upon her father’s name as head of the household. The daughter has disrespected the father’s careful choosing of a husband. He might have to have the awkward and embarrassing conversation with the fiancé and his family about his daughter breaking the engagement vow. The father will have a hard time arranging another marriage. If he can arrange another marriage, or even if the fiancé chooses to go through with the marriage, the father would collect a very small (if any) dowry price. All in all, whatever security the father planned for his daughter now will no longer happen.

The fiancé is a victim. Just because the woman loved another man does not mean the fiancé did not love his fiancée at all. As a matter of fact, the fiancé did love his fiancée very much, and he probably began preparing himself to become a husband. He might have learned the family trade, so he could earn an income of his own. He possibly either built his own wing right off his father’s house, or possibly built a house on his father’s property, so the newlywed couple would have a home where they could live. Most importantly, being the good Israelites he was, the fiancé had remained sexually pure until marriage, ready to present his virginity as a gift to his bride. Upon hearing his bride-to-bear gave up her virginity to another man, the fiancé now suffers from a broken heart. He had spent so much time and effort showing how much he loved her by preparing a future, especially remaining sexually pure, and she in return has done nothing for him. Now the fiancé has a tough choice to weigh out on his mind. If he chooses to marry her, he will have to live with the fact he shared her with another man (and has to deal with the gossip about it), or he can leave, despite loving her so much.

Even the man who seduced the woman is a victim. Back in the Ancient Near East before the time of Christ, a man who committed such a crime could face castration or even death. Even with Israelite law forbidding, the woman’s family and friends still might face the temptation to take matters into their hand and castrate or execute the man, no matter what the law says. If the man does not end up marrying the woman he seduced, he has reduced the likelihood of finding another woman to be his wife. A good Israelite woman would only seek out a man who has remained sexually pure. By become sexuality active, he has great reduced the number of women who would consider becoming his wife.

Step 3: Theologize the Law to Its Universal Context

God’s Law reflects the character and nature of God himself. Before diving into what this law specifically says about God, pause and take the time to appreciate how this law, like all the other laws, reflects God’s justice. God has compassion for the victim. His heart breaks when someone becomes a victim of a sin, and he mourns with the victim. When God administers justice, he rules in an equal, fair, rational and satisfying way. In his omniscient wisdom, God knows that unequal, unfair, irrational and unsatisfying ruling will only make things feel worse, causing more hurt among all those victimized. Now, let’s move on to the specifics of Exodus 22:16&17.

First, God has a very high reverence for all women. He wants all women to enjoy life to its fullest, having a happy life, a healthy life and a holy life. Because God makes every woman in his image, God sees all women as valuable, even when the people around her don’t. Therefore, even when a woman sins, makes the wrong choice or brings shame upon herself, God still loves her and has compassion on her. The Lord still offers her his protection and help.

Second, God expects men to keep his libido in check. Men should withhold from having sex until marriage. If a man does have sex with a woman, he should take responsibility by pursuing the relationship through to marriage, with her family’s blessing. If her family forbids it, the man must find a way to demonstrate he has truly repented.

Third, God truly loves the sinner and hates the sin. God hates the sin the sinner committed, and he expects the sinner to take responsibility. At the same time, God demonstrate his love for the sinner by finding a way for the sinner to reconcile with his God, the victim and the community.

Fourth, God is a God of culture. God speaks to people within their culture. God asks all his people to examine their culture in light of his principles. God only calls people to reject the parts of their culture which stands in stark contrast to the culture, and if they can fix any part of their culture to keep it, they should do so.

As for how this law points forward to Christ, during his ministry, Jesus encountered women who had questionable sexual history, like the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 and the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11. In both of the instances references, Jesus held the women in high reverence. He forgave them of their sin, so they be reconciled, but he also requested that they put their sinful life behind them.

Step 4: Apply the Law to the Present Context

In general, this law falls under the category “love your neighbor as yourself.” More specifically, this law falls under the subcategory, “do not commit adultery.” Together, God calls all Christians to honor and respect those of the opposite gender, putting their self-esteem and well-being above sexual desires.

Christian men, as sons of the Most High God, respect all women as the daughters of God they are, made in the image of God. Just as God wishes all his daughters to have a healthy, holy and happy life, a godly Christian man also desires that all women, especially their sisters in Christ, will have that healthy, holy and happy life. Therefore, Christian men should pursue every women’s well-being over their own sexual desires. Good Christian men should not take advantage of women, especially young or immature women. Those who do will have to face God on the judgment throne.

Christian women, believe that the Lord values you as worthy of him. You are daughters of Yahweh, the king of king and lord of lords! As daughters of the king of heaven, that makes every Christian woman a heavenly princess! Therefore, God calls Christian women to think, speak and act like heavenly princesses. Do not surround yourself with men who only want to take advantage of you and your body. Instead, surround yourself with men who concern themselves with your happiness and who will keep you accountable as your pursue holiness. Respect all men, especially your brothers in Christ, as you want to be respected.

If anyone here, men or women, sinned and fell short of God’s expectations for you in life, remember your God loves you. God does not hold you accountable because he hates you. God holds you accountable loves you. He wants you to confess and repent because he wants to pour out forgiveness on you, and he wants to reconcile you to your original value and worth.

CONCLUSION

In Psalm 119:47&48, David wrote, "For I find my delight in your commandments, which I love. I will lift up my hands to your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statues." Let the words of David become your prayer. I pray that you will find the same love and delight of the Old Testament Law that David found, and I pray it will encourage you to study the Torah more.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I an eternally grateful to Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, Pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, for fleshing the Christian approach to Old Testament Law in his paper "Imitators of Christ: A Theocentric Approach to the Christian Preaching of Old Testament Law," which can be found in Evangelical Journal Vol.32 No.2 (Fall 2014)

I also appreciate Joshua D.Jones, pastor of Therfield Chapel in Cambridge, England for his article "Does the Bible Encourage Rape?" on his blog Sanity's Cove (September 26, 2016).

I also consulted the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Robert Harris, Gleason Archer and Bruce Waltke (1981) for the Hebrew definitions.

Casting Crowns (Revelation 4:9-11)

Good morning! He has risen! He has risen indeed! No, I have not mixed up my Sundays. For the first 10 years of my life, I grew up in traditional German Reformed church, which meant the church followed the liturgical calendar to the letter. I understand why some Christians step away from tradition and liturgy. They feel both tradition and liturgy will lead to rote repetition of words without thinking about their meaning. I appreciate the tradition around this time of year. If you look on the liturgical calendar, today is the 2^nd Sunday of Easter. The liturgical calendar reminds us that Easter is to be remember for more than just 1 Sunday. Keeping with the spirit of the liturgical calendar, I have spent the past week continuing to reflect on Easter. As much as I kept trying to think about Easter Sunday, the Holy Spirit kept pulling me back to think about Palm Sunday. My pastor, Jim Heindel, gave a wonderfully expository, exegetical and hermeneutical sermon on the Triumphal Entry. My favorite part was when he cross referenced the Triumphal Entry with Revelation 7:9&10, which reads, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, ¹⁰ and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” These verses remind that Palm Sunday not only looks to the past to recall and celebrate a past event, but Palm Sunday also prepares us to look forward to second Triumphal Entry, when Jesus establishes his kingdom on heaven and on earth. I wondered to myself, “Is Easter like that? Does Easter Sunday not only look back to celebrate a past even, but does Easter Sunday also point forward to a future event?” Well, I got my answer about Palm Sunday from the book of Revelation, so of course I would get my answer concerning Easter Sunday also from the book of Revelation.

If you haven’t already, I invite you to turn to the book of Revelation. Anyone can find the book of Revelation easily. Just turn to the back, and it ends the Bible as the last book in the Bible. Everyone knows the book of Revelation for its end-time prophecy, but no one should limit the book to just end-time prophecy. For starters, in the first 3 chapters of Revelation, John writes letters to the seven churches he oversees, all located in then Asia Minor, which is today Turkey. Even before John gets to all the death and destruction that make a smashing good film, John spends the next 2 chapters, chapters 5 and 6, depicting the Lord God on his heavenly throne, receiving praise and worship from the heavenly host. Chapter 4 emphasizes the Father as the Creator, and chapter 5 focuses on the Son as the Redeemer. The order makes sense. Before anyone can call Jesus Redeemer, that person first must acknowledge the Father as creator. The sinner worships the created, but the righteous worships the Creator. The sinner abuses God’s creation, but the righteous are good stewards of the creation. Revelation 4 teaches its readers how to rightfully worship the Lord as creator.

And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever. ~Revelation 4:9 ESV

Beginning Revelation 4:9 with the word “whenever” might sound like it contradicts the previous verse, which states the 4 living creatures never cease to praise the Lord. It might mean that the 4 living creatures praise God repeatedly but not continually. John input the whenever to emphasis the eternal repetition into the future. The whenever might refer to not the 4 living creatures, but rather, it refers to the 24 elders. The 24 elders receive their cue from the 4 living creatures. The 4 living creatures praising the Lord leads to the 24 elders worshipping God.

John describes the 4 living creatures’ praise as giving “glory and honor and thanks.” Giving does not mean the 4 living creatures provide the Lord’s attributes, but rather, the 4 living creatures proclaim the attributes of God. To proclaim the Lord as glorious, the 4 living creatures proclaim God as majestic and wonderful. To give the Lord honor, the 4 living creatures proclaim God’s fame and worthiness. To give the Lord thanks, they proclaim the blessings that outflow from God.

Together, John paints a picture of the Lord seated on his heavenly throne, surrounded by the heavenly host. This image should not be new to any Bible reader, it would not have been new to John. The Old Testament describes God as seated on the heavenly throne, surrounded by the heavenly host, in numerous Old Testament passages (e.g. 1 Kings 22:19, 2 Chronicles 18:18, Psalm 47:8 Isaiah 6:1-3, Daniel 7:9). What might be new, however, is adding the attribute of God’s eternity to this description. The closes in the Old Testament that happening is Daniel 4:34, where Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges the Lord’s eternity. Coupling the Lord’s sovereign rule with his eternity, John wants the recipients of his letter to clearly understand that God’s rule is not temporal, but it is as eternal as he is.

the twenty-4 elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying, ~Revelation 4:10 ESV

At the same time the 4 creatures worship the Lord, the 24 elders join in worshipping God. Verse 10 repeats the same 2 attributes of the Lord as in verse 9. While this repetition from a modern perspective might sound redundant. The repetition to ancient reader would have meant John wants the reader to focus attention of these 2 attributes. John draws our attention to these 2 combined attributes for a few reasons. First, John wants the reader to contrast the Lord’s eternal reign to the temporal reigns of the kings and lords on the earth. It doesn’t matter if you think Revelation speaks to the persecuted churches under the Roman emperor, or the earth under the Antichrist during the Tribulation, or both, or anyone in between, all these reigns are temporal. God’s reign is eternal. Second, John wants to assure his reader that God is indeed the ruler over all the universe. Since God is the creator the universe, he is also the king of the universe. Third, John repeats the exact same attributes with similar actions, so they reader may also respond in a similar fashion. If the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders worship the Lord as the eternal ruler, then Christians should respond similarly.

The 24 elder do not simply worship in word or song. Their worship also contains action. First, the 24 elders fall down in worship. The verb does not mention if the 24 elders fall down by bending the knee, bowing or fully prostrate, but the verb tense clearly states that this action shall be ongoing into the future forever. Then the 24 elders cast their crowns before the throne. The verb “cast” might sound like a forceful throwing. Roman historians Cicero and Tacticus record that when kings of smaller kingdom would visit the Roman emperor, the emperor would make the lesser king lay down his crown at the throne, symbolizing submitting the power of the Roman emperor and his empire. These kings would forcefully throw their crown down, showing they followed the emperor’s commands, although they didn’t approve. Revelation doesn’t sound like that all. It really means to lay down the crown, which, if you think about it, kind of paints of picture of humbling kneeling to lay it down. Here, the 24 elders lay down the crown voluntarily and humbly. The crowns represent the power and authority to rule. By bringing their crowns to the throne, the 24 elders acknowledge God as the king of kings and lord of lords. The Lord is the only true sovereign ruler.

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” ~Revelation 4:11 ESV

To continue to emphasize God’s sovereign rule, the 24 elders address their praises to the Lord and God. Emperor Domitian used the Latin version of this total to refer to himself. John’s uses the title to affirm the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the only true Lord and God, as well as the true king of kings and Lord of lords. In the Greek, the adjectives glory, honor and power all have definitive article. A translation of that line in verse 11 could read, “to receive the glory, the honor and the power.” John probably used the definitive article to emphasize all the glory, honor and power goes to God, or to refer back to the same glory, honor and power state in verse 9. Verse 11 differs from verse 9, however, because the 24 elders worship God for his glory, honor and power, whereas the 4 living creatures give glory, honor and thanks. Giving thanks partially draws attention back to the self. The 24 elders focus all their praise totally onto God. Verse 11 goes on to explain the Lord God deserves glory, honor and power because he created all things. God’s creation demonstrates his power because he has the power to create all things. God’s creation displays his glory and honor because the creation came about as a result of God’s will. Since God created the world, only he deserves to rule the world.

At the end of verse 11, the 24 elders sing, “by your will they existed and were created.” The verbs might sound redundant to us, but they probably had meaning to the 1^st century audience. Perhaps the synonyms created a synonymous parallelism, emphasizing nothing comes into existence unless God creates it. Maybe the elders hint that when God creates something, he creates it twice. First, he creates it as a thought in his mind, and then he creates it again when he brings it into existence. The verb tense provides better hint. The first verb comes to us in the simple past, whereas John pens the second verb in the ongoing past. Therefore, John attempts to teach the reader that not only God creates all things into existence, but every living thing’s ongoing existence depends on God, too. Such a message would have meant a lot to the persecuted churches John oversaw. These churches needed to know that their evil emperor’s reign existed only temporarily, but God would preserve the church eternally through his eternal reign. God stands above all kings and lords, and kings and lords below him must submit to his good will, not their evil will.

As verse 11 close chapter 4 of Revelation, we see how verses 9 to 11 contribute to the overall message and themes in chapter 4. John highlight the Lord God as the Creator of the universe. The Lord created the world and universe out of his almighty power. Nothing exists apart from God. Because the Lord created the universe, God alone has sovereign rule over all the universe. Any other ruler, either from heaven or from earth, must submit to the will of God Almighty. Therefore, the Lord deserves glory, honor and thanks from his creation, in both heaven and earth. As Creator and Sovereign Ruler, God deserves worship from the creation as such.

As mentioned earlier, the crown in the original context of Revelation represents the power and authority to rule. To bring the truths of Revelation 4 to our 21^st century, I ask you, what is your crown? I believe your crown is anything, either material or non-material, that your take pride in.  Your crown might be a high school or college diploma. More specifically, it could be a cum laude, magna cum laude or summa cum laude GPA. Your crown might be award or trophy you once wpm competing in a sport or extracurricular school activity. You might consider your crown your job security, your tenure or your salary. You could call your house or your car a crown, especially if you worked hard to earn it. If you haven’t caught on yet, yes, I would say that any blessing the Lord has given you is your crown, but remember, God gave you that blessing to bless others and give him the glory and the honor. Therefore, just like the 24 elders, Christians need to cast their crowns before the throne of God above.

I know you might think to yourself right now, “But Revelation 4:10 says the 24 elders cast their crowns before the throne, not the multitude of Christians, like in Revelation 7:9.” I hear you. I actually wrestled with that myself, but listen to how apostles talk about crowns in the epistles-

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. ~Revelation 2:10 ESV

I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. ~Revelation 3:11 ESV

And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. ~1 Peter 5:4 ESV

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him ~James 1:12 ESV

Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. ~2 Timothy 4:8 ESV

From all these New Testament verses, I believe that all Christians will receive crowns in the new heaven and new earth. Now if I see the 24 elders, who actually deserve the authority to rule, lay down their crowns at the heavenly throne of God, how can I keep my crown on my head? How can I not also lay down my crown at the throne of Jesus? That’s the application John wants his readers to get from Revelation. When the 4 living creatures praise the Lord, the 24 elders join in worshipping God, adding their worship by falling down and laying their crowns. The 24 elders have set an example, and the Christians need to follow that example. If the 24 elders can humbly relinquish their authority to rule, then Christians need to humbly submit all blessing the Lord has given me, whether by giving them directly back to God, or passing them off to someone else who needs that blessing. Christians need to realize the same thing the 24 elders did. All our blessing belongs to the Lord. In his sovereignty he grants it to us.

On the 1^st Sunday of Easter, a lot of churches will celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus by writing their sins on a notecard or some piece of paper, and then nail those papers to a cross. My church, Stony Brook Mennonite Church, participated in the practice. I really liked how Becca Grosh, our worship leader, reminded the congregation that nailing our sins to the cross should not be sad, like on Good Friday, but on Easter Sunday, it should be a celebration. I really liked that. Indeed, when Christians nail their sins to the cross, they should celebrate that when they come to the cross with a confessing and repenting heart, they will assuredly receive forgiveness and reconciliation. Let’s be honest, though, that’s the easy part. Born-again Christians want to rid themselves of sin. If Jesus willingly wants to take that burden, Christians will throw that burden onto him. When Christians come to the cross, however, Jesus calls them to give more than just their burden. Jesus asks for their all. In order to nail that sin to the cross, it requires to first lay that crown at the foot of the cross. To rid ourselves of sin, we must rid ourselves of our all, including our “crowns.”

When I see churches celebrate Palm Sunday by waving palm branches, I remember Revelation 7:9, and I tell them they are doing a “practice.” They practice waving the palm branches today, for one day will wave their palm branches when Jesus reigns victorious over sin and evil. I invite you to do a “practice round” of Revelation. Make a crown out of paper (or if you’re not that creative, go get one from Burger King). Next, decorate it. Then, write on it what your crown represents: your schooling, your job, your achievements, your awards, your worldly possessions. Finally, I invite to somehow symbolically lay it at the foot of the cross. If you have a cross decoration at your house, put it below it (and if you don’t, you might want to buy/make one!) Use it as bookmark in your Bible. Whatever you do, remember you participate in a practice round of Revelation 4. I can confident assure you that you will do it again in the new heaven and new earth, but then you will lay in front of the real throne of Jesus Christ.

Dirty Dishes (Luke 11:37-41)

A mother once lamented on Facebook, “I don’t know what’s harder: instilling good habits into my children or removing bad habits from them!” I bet all parents can think up one of those times raising their children. For my parents raising me, my parents struggled to get me to brush my teeth twice a day every day. I think even at one point we a chart to check off every time I brushed my teeth, and if I filled a whole month, I got some kind of reward, like my choice of video rental. Still, I preferred not brushing my teeth over choosing a movie rental. Every time my mother took me to the dentist, she would tell the dental hygienist to talk about my teeth brushing habits. My mother really didn’t have to tell her; she could tell just by looking at my teeth. She would always tell me, “Suppose for dinner your parents fed you a bowl of spaghetti, drenched in tomato sauce. Then for dessert you had ice cream, and for the following morning, you had your favorite cereal, but you had the same bowl. Would you eat out of that?!” Of course, I chimed in, “I don’t like tomato sauce!” but I could see the moral of the story. Eating with unbrushed teeth was like eating out of a dirty bowl. In the 21^st century world, such a bad habit only concerns hygiene. At most, people might stand away from you because of your bad breath. In the 1^st century, however, such a bad habit could bring into question your righteousness. Imagine someone calling you a morally bad person because of the way you clean or wash. Crazy, right? Don’t worry, Jesus found it crazy, too, and he addresses it in Luke 11:37-41.

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. – Luke 11:37

The scene opens with Jesus accepting an invitation to eat with a Pharisee at his house. While Luke does not give a name to the Pharisee, Luke wants his audience to identify this man as Pharisee. While Pharisees differed from the Sadducees in many ways, the big difference, in regards to this story, is the authority of the written law and the oral law. The written law refers to what Christians call the Pentateuch, which are the first 5 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The oral law refers to the traditions and interpretations of the written law. According to the Sadducees, the written held the primary seat of authority, while the oral law held a secondary seat. According to the Pharisees, the written law had equal standing with the oral law. All God’s laws had equal standing with the Pharisees’ rules, according to the Pharisees. This will play an important role as the story continues (and if I may foreshadow more, the oral law concerns the external more than the internal or spiritual). Knowing the hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus, the reader might find it odd that a Pharisees has invited Jesus over for a meal. Some commentators, like Warren Wiersbe, suggest that the Pharisee might have wanted to watch Jesus more closely to hopefully catch him sinning in everyday life, but more probable Luke records this event at a time early on in the ministry, when the Pharisees are at least open to hear what Jesus has to say. In fact, in the 1^st century Jewish culture, Jesus should have felt honored that a Pharisee would invited Jesus to the Pharisee’s home for a meal because that meant the Pharisee felt impressed by the teachings of Jesus and wanted to hear more.

In the 1^st century Jewish culture, the Jews ate 2 main meals during the day. The Jews ate the first meal, called ἄριστον (áriston), around mid-morning, and the Jews partook of the second meal, named δεῖπνον (deípnon), sometime around late afternoon or early evening. If a Jew had a physically demanding job, he would also have a third, additional meal early in the morning to provide him enough calories to handle the tasks for the day. Since Luke 11:37 records the Pharisee asking Jesus to ἀριστάω (aristao), a verb form of the noun ἄριστον (áriston), the Pharisee probably invited Jesus to the mid-morning meal. A translation could accurately write that the Pharisee asked Jesus “to brunch” or “to lunch” with him. Also following the culture of the 1^st century, tables stood low to the ground, so people would recline next to the table to eat.

The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. -Luke 11:38

The host feels astonished that Jesus did not wash, specifically his hands, before the meal, or his lunch. Before moving on any further, the modern reader should not think the Pharisees made this rule because they had a deep concern for hygiene. This had nothing to do with scrubbing dirt off of hands. In fact, the Greek word used in the Greek text is βαπτίζω (baptizo), from which the English gets word “baptize.” Thinking about immersion baptism would give a hint at the Pharisee’s practice. The Pharisees would dunk their hands in a large bowl or basin, and then they would lift up their hands in an upward motion, until the water ran down to their elbows. Again, this baptism of hands really didn’t wash them clean. In reality, their hands could be as dirty as before, except now they went from a dry dirty to clean dirty. For the Pharisees, washing hands brought the religious ceremonies of the temple to daily life.  As Christians, we believe that Jesus, as the perfect God-man, lived a sinless life, meaning Jesus did not break any of God’s laws. Therefore, we can assuredly assume that this washing of hands cannot be found in the Torah. Indeed, no Old Testament Law command such a thing; this washing is merely part of the oral traditions of the Pharisees. If anything comes across as odd, the reader might wonder if Jesus could have at least been courteous enough to follow his host’s house rules. In the Pharisee’s mind, because Jesus did not wash his hands, Jesus still was unclean and unfit to share a meal with clean Pharisees. Jesus could have been polite enough to make his host feel comfortable, but perhaps Jesus purposely left out washing his hands to teach the Pharisees a lesson.

And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.” – Luke 11:39

There are 2 schools of thought on how to interpret the words of Jesus in Luke 11:30. The first interpretation, and most popular, is to understand the words of Jesus metaphorically. To criticize the Pharisee’s concern with cleanliness, Jesus makes an object lesson using objects present at the meal. When I worked for Child Evangelism Fellowship, training to become a summer missionary, my friends and I would play a game called “object lesson.” One person would name a random object, and the other person would have to someone connect it to sharing the gospel message of Jesus Christ. Apparently, this game is very biblical and very Christ-like, as Jesus does the same thing. Naturally, the Pharisees would have bowls and cups out as dishes to serve the meal. Jesus uses the bowl and the cup to draw comparison to the Pharisees. Just like a dish clean on the outside and dirty on the inside, the Pharisees’ rules had made their actions look righteous, but their hearts were still dirty with greed and wickedness. The metaphor works perfectly. If you think about it, when you use a bowl or cup, you only use the inside. The outside can be dirty, and it will not impact your dining experience, but if the inside is dirty, the disgusting, leftover and rotting food will ruin the taste.

Consider the following example. At the Holcomb home, we run the dishwasher right before we go to bed. Praise the Lord that it hasn’t blown up or caught on fire. I’m the first one to get up in the morning. I might start my morning by eating a bowl of cereal for breakfast. First, I check the cupboard for a bowl. When I find no bowl, it will remind me that we ran the dishwasher the night before, and all the bowls still reside in there. I open the dishwasher. Before I go on any further, I have to pause and explain my dishwasher philosophy, for my dishwasher philosophy differs from a lot of people. I’ve noticed a lot of people, after scraping the leftovers off the dish, procced to rinse the dish before putting it in the dishwasher. Not me, that’s the dishwasher’s job, not mine! I throw it right in the dishwasher. If the dishwasher misses anything, I will get it afterward. Remember that. I open the dishwasher and pull out the first bowl. I notice the first bowl has this big splotch or stain on the inside of the bowl. I’m going to think myself, “Yuck, that will touch the cereal, that will touch the milk, that’s disgusting.” I put that bowl in the sink, and I’ll wash it when I get home from work. I then grab the second bowl. This second bow has a splotch or a stain on the outside, not the inside. I will probably think to myself, “Well, the spot is on the outside. It won’t touch the cereal or milk,” and I’ll proceed to eat out from that bowl. Again, the inside is more important because I use he inside not the outside. To connect to the Pharisees, the Pharisees had taken the time to cleanse the outside, but the inside remained unclean. The Pharisees had forgotten to clean the most important part!

Let me sum up the metaphorical meaning with my own metaphorical paraphrase of Luke 11:39. It is as if Jesus says to the Pharisee, “You see these dirty dishes? Wouldn’t it be foolish if you only washed in the outside of the job and not the inside? We’d miss the important part because that’s the part from which we eat. But that’s exactly you’re doing! You ceremonially wash yourselves on the outside, but on the inside, you are dirty with greed and wickedness. You missed the most important part!”

Some scholars, however, argue the words of Jesus could be interpreted literally. To be fair to the Pharisees, the Pharisees didn’t invent this rule out of pure imagination. While the Torah has nothing to say about washing hands, the Old Testament Law, specifically Leviticus, had a lot to say about clean dishes. In Leviticus 11, the chapter about clean and unclean animals to eat, Leviticus 11:33-35 adds, “If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. ³⁴ Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. ³⁵ Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean.” In Leviticus 15, a chapter about handling human blood and other human bodily fluids, Leviticus 15:12 reads, “A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.” The Pharisees knew the Law had a lot to say about clean dishes. In fact, these two Leviticus passages were on of the hot topics of the day! Some Pharisees believed that these laws referred merely to the cleanliness of the inside of the dish, whereas other Pharisees believed the outside could make the dish clean, even if the inside remained unclean (once again, reiterating that cleanliness here has nothing to do with hygiene, just ritual). Perhaps the Pharisees wanted to go above and beyond what the Torah required. After all, the dish could be clean, but if someone with unclean hands touched it, it would become unclean. They wanted to make sure their vessels remained clean by washing their hands clean. While the Pharisees remembered these laws, and they went above and beyond to follow the law, at the same time, the Pharisees lived lives full of greed and wickedness. Luke, in his gospel, will constantly call them out as lovers of money, who will go to great lengths, and even evil lengths, to obtain money (see Luke 16:14 & 20:47). The had ignored the laws against greed and wickedness, which greatly outnumbers the cleanliness laws.

To review the literal interpretation, may I offer another paraphrase, with a little sarcasm. Imagine Jesus sarcastically saying, “Congratulations! You found some unknown, obscure law in the Torah, and you made sure you followed it to the letter, dotting every i and crossing every t, yet the Law has so much to say against greed and wickedness, and you managed to ignore all of them! But hey, as long as our dishes our clean, who cares if our greed makes the poor poorer!”

“You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?” -Luke 11:40

In Luke 11:40, Jesus calls the Pharisees ἄφρονες, (aphrones), or foolish. The Greek language has a couple ways to call someone foolish. The UBS Handbook on the Gospel of Luke defines ἄφρονες, (aphrones) as “indicating culpable ignorance and carrying a strong note of reproach.” If I may paraphrase, ἄφρονες, (aphrones) means “someone is so stupid he should be apologizing for it because he has willingly chosen ignorance.” Jesus doesn’t mind calling the Pharisees such a strong, negative word because the Pharisees stand fully guilty. They have chosen to ignore their sins of greed and wickedness, and they have instead chosen to pride themselves in ritualistic washing of hands.

For the subject of his next sentence, Jesus uses the generic pronoun “he.” Does the “he” refer to the potter who made the dishes or the Lord who made humanity? This ambiguity leaves room for double meaning. Just like the potter of a clay vessel creates the both inside and outside of the vessel with one lump of clay, so the Lord, the potter of man, has created both the internal of the external of the person. Therefore, the Lord who created both the external and internal has the authority over both the external and internal alike. Here, Jesus insinuates a command to clean both the internal and the external.

“But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you.” -Luke 11:41.

If the Pharisee did not catch the implicit command Jesus provides, Jesus gives the Pharisee an explicit command, which will solve the inward uncleanliness. Translation and interpretations of Luke 11:41 have caused problems for scholars. Most scholars believe that when Jesus spokes this sentence in Aramaic (the native tongue of the land during the 1^st century), he probably included some wordplay, which does not translate well into Greek. Most Bible translations, like the English Standard Version (ESV), the Kings James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV) and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates the command as “give [as/for] alms” that which is within, and that will make the unclean clean. The solution makes the perfect sense. What made the Pharisees internally unclean was greed, the selfish desire for more than what is needed. The instructions Jesus provided encourages the Pharisees to a life of charity instead of a life of greed.  If the Pharisees change their heart from a greedy heart to a charitable heart, they will willingly and easily give alms, thus cleansing them. Instead of their greedy heart storing money to live a wealthy life, the Pharisees’ charitable heart will give their money to the poor and other people in need. Now the Pharisees will truly grasp God’s Law. They Pharisees thought they upheld the Law better with their traditions and interpretations, but they were having an adventure in missing the point. God gave the Israelites the Law so the Israelites could live together as the people of God. Giving alms benefited the community of God’s people, but ceremonially washing hands didn’t do anyone any good. Jesus challenged the Pharisees to think of the true heart of the Law, not some interpretation to make them feel comfortable about themselves. Then their outward appearance would accurately reflect they had the right relationship with God and His Law internally.

In light of the metaphor of cups and dishes, the command Jesus gives has even stronger meaning. Jesus might have referred to the food and drink in the dishes and cups. No doubt the Pharisees probably brought costly foods and drinks to the lunch. Jesus saw right through the expensive presentation. Jesus knew the money paying for the luxurious meal came about through the Pharisee’s greed. For their first step of changing the Pharisees’ hearts from greedy to charitable, the Pharisees should use their money to give food to the poor of needy, instead of using their money to buy expensive foods to show off to guests.

Note that verse 42 ends with Jesus saying, “everything is clean for you.” Let’s clarify what Jesus does not mean by these words. Jesus does not axe any Law in the Torah. Jesus does not claim that the good work of giving would provide penance for their sin. What Jesus wants the Pharisees to do here is to work on cleansing the inside so thoroughly that the overflow of the internal cleansing will also clean the outside. Instead of washing their hands, Jesus wants the Pharisees to wash their hands. If anything, Jesus might suggest that if the Pharisees can internally clean their heart, the internal cleansing will flow out to cleanse them externally, meaning all those extra laws and rules and external cleansing will no longer apply because it will come naturally. The Pharisees could truly eat with clean hands, not because they washed their hands, but because their hands did not partake in any greedy money grabs. After all, external cleansing without internal cleansing is a superficial cleansing. The Pharisees were guilty of exactly that superficial cleansing. The Pharisees did practice the giving alms, but once again, the Pharisees concerned themselves more with external than the internal. Jesus wants the Pharisees to give their hearts with alms, displaying a genuine concern for the poor, instead of simply giving because the Lord commands it in his law.

When Christians reads a pericope about Jesus in Gospels, temptation easily comes to put themselves in the place of Jesus. In reality, Christians might better put themselves in the place of the Pharisees. When Christians read Luke 11:37-41, they have to take a seriously look at themselves and wonder, “Am I making the same mistakes as the Pharisees?”

Do I concern myself more with my outside than my inside? Luke 11:37-41 exposes several dangers of focusing on the external over the internal. Concerning ourselves with the external over the internal will leave the Christian with an unhealthy view of God, of others and of the self.

As born-again Christians, with the blood of Jesus justifying us and the Holy Spirit sanctifying us, Christians strive to think and feel with God. The Bible clearly states how God does think and feel about this. In 1 Samuel 16:7b, the Lord has to remind his prophet Samuel, “For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” When Christian look at the inward, they see things as God see things. When Christians look more at the outward, they do not reflect Christ.

When Christians focus on the outside over the inside, Christians don’t see humanity, the creation God made in his own image, as God sees it. That’s a shame because it can cause Christians to miss out on God moving out on people. Let’s think back to the illustration of the bowls and cups. We know metaphors of bowls and cups which are clean on the outside but dirty on the inside represent people like the Pharisees, who hypocritically make themselves look good on the outside while they remain wicked on the inside. What about, though, a bowl or cup that is clean on the inside but dirty on the outside? Who would that represent? Does such a person exist? I suppose that this person is a newly born-again Christian. He or she has received the gospel message, and he or she has received it with great joy. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross has justified that person from all sin, and the Holy Spirit has begun sanctifying the person, giving them a pure, clean heart. Addictions and habits from the old, sinful nature, however still can be found ingrained in the flesh. That’s the person who is like a bowl or cup clean on the inside but dirty on the outside. Imagine if the Christian saw that person based on the outward appearance. The Christian might disregard the person as sinner, stuck in his sinful nature. The Christian might not approach him or her, or worse, not allow him or her into the church. If the Christian, however, can look at the person like God does, the Christian will see a person seeking to reflect Jesus. Not only should that cause the Christian to praise God for saving another soul, it should also cause the Christian come alongside the struggle newly born-again Christian to help him or her fight addictions and other sinful habits.

When a Christian concentrates on the outside more than the inside, it does not allow the Christian to properly self-evaluate spiritual growth. This is how tradition, which is a spiritual experience has passed the test of time, gets turned into a dogma, a tradition followed merely for the sake of tradition. The Christian finds himself or herself practicing the spiritual discipline just because that’s just what Christians are supposed to do. The Christian now focuses on what he or she is supposed to do for the spiritual discipline, instead of who he or she is supposed to become through the spiritual discipline. If not done properly, this can leave the Christian in a worse condition. The Christian now tries to cover up internal sin with more external good deeds, instead of changing the heart. Consider, for example, a child with a dirty mouth spewing foul words. A parent might choose to punish the child by washing his mouth out with soap. Now I get that the punishment comes from the nasty taste of the soap bar will discourage the child from cursing, but it doesn’t matter what brand of soap the parent uses, no soap brand can make the child stop cursing. The child has to make a change within the heart, and that internal change will lead to, not just action, but habit. In the same way, if think the problem lies in their outward actions, the problem will never be solved because they are not fixing the root of the problem. Instead, Christians need to spend time cleaning their heart and the mind, the thoughts and the feelings. Then, the outward actions will follow. Listen, I get why C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity, “Do not waste time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.” He feared that if Christians wait to act loving until they felt loving, they would never get around to actually loving. My fear, however, is that Christians will fall into the same trap as the Pharisees. They will look loving on the outside, but on the inside, they will be filled with wickedness. I would expect those Christians to get the same reaction from Jesus as the Pharisees did.