Don't Bring God Cows

According to the liturgical calendar, today is the 3rd Sunday of Easter. Yes, there is more than 1 Sunday of Easter. As I have said in the past, while we should be living out the truth of the resurrection every Sunday (after all, Christians moved the Sabbath to Sunday because of the resurrection), Easter can be a time to reflect on how much we actually do live out the resurrection, and if we're not, a time to get us back on track. Clearly, doing so will take more than 1 Sunday or 1 week, so Easter needs to extend beyond 1 Sunday. This 3rd Sunday of Easter, let's take some more time to reflect on what the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did for us. Today, we're going to look in the most unusual place - the life of King Saul, as found in 1 Samuel.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (ESV)-

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. 18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Before heading into 1 Samuel, I'd like to take a quick pit stop in Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 17. The first question that arises when examining King Saul is, "Did Yahweh really want Saul to become king?" Before asking that question, however, a better question to ask would be, "Did the Lord want Israel to have a king in the first place?" Well, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 has laws for a king, but your interpretation on why those laws exist all depends on whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian, whether you fall more on the side of predestination or free will. If you're Calvinist or believe in predestination, you believe God did predestine Israel to have kings, best proved by the fact that Yahweh established laws for a king centuries before a king takes the throne. The point of the Judges was to prove why Israel could not establish a theocratic government in which the Lord directly ruled over the people. Simply put, according to the Calvinists, the book of Judges proves why Israel can't have nice things. If you are Arminian or believe in free will, you believe God did want to rule directly over his people in a theocratic government, like in the book of Judges, but he foresaw the people of Israel asking for a king. Therefore, Yahweh got ahead of the people by establishing laws for a king, so he could grant their request in a way that was mutually beneficial to both sides. Simply put, according to the Arminian, it is as if the Lord is saying, "I don't like kings, but I will allow kings, as long as I can put up safeguards." Either way, these laws in Deuteronomy 17 prove that God did not disprove of Saul merely because he was a king. If you were to ask me which side of the debate I fall on, however, I would probably say the Arminian or free will side, for I think the life of Saul would support that side of the argument.

So did Yahweh really want Saul to become a king, especially when David is a man's after God's own heart, whereas Saul had no heart for God? After all, if you do the math, David would have been 18 years old when Samuel anointed Saul king of Israel. Surely the Lord could have Samuel anoint David instead of Saul. The best answer to that question is, again, simply put, to prove to Israel why it can't have nice things. Yahweh picks the first king according to Israel's standards. The fact that 1 Samuel 10:23 mentions that Saul was a head above the average Israelite meant that Saul looked the part of a king - he was tall, dark and handsome. The Lord picks the second king in accordance to his standards. David might be ruddy, as stated in 1 Samuel 16:12, but this ruddy boy becomes the man after God's own heart. Yahweh has to remind even his own prophet Samuel to look beyond the boy David's looks to see the heart of a king, as found in 1 Samuel 16:7. Therefore, I would not say God predestined Saul to fail as king, but rather, God foresaw Saul would fail, so he made it an opportune time to teach the people of Israel a lesson.

Indeed, I do believe Yahweh gave Saul a fair chance to serve both Yahweh and Israel as king, as evident in the book of 1 Samuel. To borrow baseball terms, reading through 1 Samuel, it becomes apparent that the Lord gave Saul 3 strikes before he was out, and each strike came with discipline or a punishment. The first strike resulted in loss of a dynasty, as evident in 1 Samuel 13:8-15. The second strike resulted in loss of kingship, as can be read in 1 Samuel 15. The third strike results in loss of life, as recorded in 1 Samuel 28. Of those 3 passages, I imagine most people are most familiar with 1 Samuel 28, as that chapter is the famous (infamous?) Witch of Endor passage, in which Saul consults a medium. The other 2 passages are less familiar, but they are both important passages for Saul's life, for upon closer examining, they reveal the same truth about Saul. Without further ado, take a closer look at Saul in 1 Samuel 13:8-15 and 1 Samuel 15.

1 Samuel 13:8-15 (ESV)-

8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. 9 So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. 10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. 11 Samuel said, “What have you done?” And Saul said, “When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, 12 I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the Lord.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” 13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” 15 And Samuel arose and went up from Gilgal. The rest of the people went up after Saul to meet the army; they went up from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin

1 Samuel 15 (ESV)-

1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ” 4 So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction. 10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Speak.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 23  For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” 24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord.” 26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul bowed before the Lord. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

In both passages, Saul has received commands from Yahweh, in written in the Law or spoken by the prophet Samuel. In both passages, Saul instead does what is right in his own eyes, and he attempts to justify it. It is as if Saul is saying, "No, God really wants this" or "No, I got something better for God that he'll enjoy more." It's like Saul thinks he know God better than God knows God! In both passages, instead of Saul truly confessing and repenting of his sin, Saul opts for doing penance. In other words, whereas Saul should have said sorry, learned his lesson and stopped his disobedience to the Lord, Saul instead tries to do something good in its place, hoping that the Lord will forget about the sin or no longer care about the sin. In both passages, God punishes Saul's kingship, in hope that the discipline would make Saul learn a lesson, but Saul does not learn his lesson. The message should have been clear to Saul: You can't pay off the Lord!

While the message was not clear to Saul, the message became very clear to David, Israel's next king. David saw the mistakes his predecessor made, and he must have vowed that he would not repeat those mistakes. That's why Saul was the man who had no heart for God, and David became the man after God's own heart. One of those ways was the handling of sin. David was by no means perfect. He too sinned. Where David improved from Saul, however, is he knew what do when he sinned. Whereas Saul would attempt to justify his sin or try to do penance for his sin, David knew what the Lord really wanted him to do when he sinned: confess and repent. Just read about it in Psalm 51:16&17.

Psalm 51:16&17 (ESV)-

16  For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalm 51:16&17 is a psalm David wrote after he commited adultery against Bathsheba, murdered Uriah and was confronted by Nathan. David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up with Uriah, and then murdered Uriah when the cover up did not work. If Saul would have committed the same sin, Saul probably would have justified as his right as king, or he would have made sacrifices, hoping the sacrifices would make everything go away. Again, David realizes the mistakes Saul made and decides not to make the same mistakes. Instead of justifying it, or making a sacrifice or a burnt offering, he merely confesses and repents. that's why David ends up the man after God's own heart, despite the sins he committed against Bathsheba and Uriah. David's attitude is again reflected in the previous psalm, Psalm 50. Now Psalm 50 is written by Asaph. While not everybody agree with this, I believe Asaph was David's worship leader for the tabernacle and eventually the temple. Therefore, I imagine David and Asaph shared ideas, such as David learning from Saul's mistakes and not making the same mistakes. The lesson David learned from Saul to not make sacrifices or do penance for sins must have stuck with Asaph, for he has a similar reflection.

Psalm 50:7-11 (ESV)-

7  “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8  Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9  I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. 10  For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 11  I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.

Asaph understood why you can't pay off the Lord - because the Lord already owns everything! Since Yahweh created everything, he is the owner of everything in the world, including all the wealth of the world. There is nothing that a human being can give God that God does not have because he made it all. Psalm 50:7-11 not only teaches why it is impossible to pay off the Lord, but it also reminds the reader the reason the sacrificial exists in the first place. Sacrifices were never meant as a penance to sin. The point of offerings were to recognize that there has been a loss on the victim's side (even if that loss is a loss of relationship trust, which would be the case for sins against God), which has brought about pain. Thus, the sinner, by performing the sacrifice, was personally and voluntarily taking on a loss himself or herself, which would bring pain upon sinner. Not only would this voluntarily sacrifice allow the sinner to emphathize with the victim, the pain of loss on the sinner's part would deter the sinner from ever committing the sin again. In short, the point of offerings was to provide a way to show how you were sorry or to show how sorry you were, not to be a way do penance or make up for your sin. Therefore, by doing sacrifices or giving an offering, you are not paying off the Lord, but rather, you are disciplining yourself before God to demonstrate your repentance.

Not only does David reflect on how his predecessor Saul made the mistake of attempting to pay off the Lord, the prophets, both major prophets and minor prophets, make the same reflection in the hopes of communicating to the respective audiences how much Yahweh wants them to stop sinning instead of giving offerings and sacrifices alongside sinning. To start, check out the words of the major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah 1:11-17 (ESV)-

11  “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12  “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13  Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15  When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16  Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17  learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

Jeremiah 7:22-24 (ESV)-

22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

This Jeremiah passage I have to pause to comment on briefly because I myself did not believe. Yes, I fact checked the Lord by briefly skimming over Exodus, and indeed, in the book of Exodus, God does not command anything concerning burnt offering and sacrifices. Yes, in Exodus 10:25, Moses casually mentions to Pharaoh that the people of Israel need their livestock for sacrifices and burnt offering, but this line is more of Moses informing Pharaoh of the purpose of going out into the desert to worship, and it is less of Yahweh commanding the the people of Israel how to perform the sacrifices and burnt offerings. True, Exodus 20:22-26 provides laws on how to build altar, which verse 24 states has the purpose of sacrificing, but in the passage, the Lord never goes into detail how the Israelites are to perform these sacrifices and offerings. God holds that all off until the book of Leviticus. In the book of Exodus, all the laws and instructions center around loving God and loving your neighbor, not performing sacrifices and offerings. Clearly, God holds in preference obedience over sacrifices, as the minor prophets will continue to demonstrate.

Hosea 6:6 (ESV)

6  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Amos 5:21-24 (ESV)-

21  “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22  Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. 23  Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24  But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Micah 6:6-8 (ESV)-

6  “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8  He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Notice the words of the major prophets and minor prophets sound very similar to what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul. I would argue that the major prophets and the minor prophets here are purposely alluding to or echoing the former prophet Samuel. When the major and minor prophets prophesied these words, they are thinking about what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul, and they realized that the people of Israel and Judah are acting no different than their king from antiquity. It is as if the major and minor prophets are prophesying to the people of Israel and Judah, "You should have learned from your former king of old that you can't pay off the Lord!" More specifically to Isaiah, Amos and Micah, notice how these prophets substitute Samuel's words of obeying with justice. On the surface level, I believe that this is God, in his grace and mercy, revealing to Israel and Judah their specific sin, so they know what exactly sin from which they need to confess and repent. It is like Yahweh is crying out the people of Israel and Judah, "I don't need sacrifices and offerings because of your sin of injustice; I just need you to stop the injustice and start the justice!" On a more deeper level, however, the prophecies of Isaiah, Amos and Micah teach why you can't pay off the Lord - a God that can be paid off is an unjust God, for a God that can be paid off favors the rich and shows partiality against the poor. Think about it. If somebody can pay off God and is rich, that somebody can afford to sin. It doesn't matter if the rich person has a wild and crazy night of sinning, as long as he or she makes the correct offerings or sacrifices the next morning, that person is fine, and that person can continue the pattern for all his or her life and end up in heaven. If someone can pay off the Lord, but that someone is poor, he or she doesn't dare to sin because he or she cannot afford to sin. If that poor person does sin, that person will be in debt all his or her life, become even poorer and still worry about going to hell because he or she could not afford to give God the payment for sin. This isn't fair; this isn't just. Nobody should be able to afford to sin; no one should fear to sin because they don't have wealth. Everybody should have access to way to repent from sin and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, despite money, assets or other wealth. That is the just God we worship, not an unjust God that can be paid off. We need to worship God in a way that reflects that. Any attempts to pay off God does not reflect that.

So far, all the Bible passages covered have all come from the Old Testament, so the question that then arises is if the 1st century church of the New Testament ever struggled with this sin of attempting to pay off God. As far as my recollection of the New Testament stands, I cannot think of such of an example. Some may bring up Simon the Magician/Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24, but he's trying to pay John and Peter for the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of sin. Others might bring up Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, in Acts 5:1-11, but their sin is lying about the amount of money offered to the church, not paying off the church for sin. No, the 1st century church does not seem to struggle with this sin, or even is tempted with the sin. This does not mean, however, the church has been immune from this sin. Going through church history will reveal that the church has struggled with this sin.

In the 900s AD, the church began the practice of indulgences, which is a monetary payment paid to the church for the forgiveness of sins. Some church historians have argued this practice of indulgences began in the 600s AD, but at best, this practice of indulgences indirectly exchanged money for the forgiveness of sins. For example, a person could donate a large sum of money to a charity, and the church would recognize this donation to charity as an act of penance. As another example, a person would go to confessional to confess their sins, the priest would tell them, "You need to pray 50 unique prayers as your act of penance," and it would just so happen that the church is selling a book of prayers. Again, this person would be paying for a book of prayers, not paying the church specifically for the forgiveness of sins. No, it's not until the 900s AD that the church would allow a donation of money directly to the church as an act of penance, but even then, indulgences was just 1 of many ways a person could do penance. It's not until the 1500s that the practice of indulgences became a sin the church struggled with, thanks to Pope Leo X. See, Leo X was born into nobility, so he's next in line to become a king of a kingdom, but he gets stuck with the assignment of pope. That wasn't going to stop Leo X from living like a king. He would not only redecorate the Vatican and the papal palace with the best artwork of the day, he would constantly host parties with kings and other nobility to prove he was one of them. Naturally, doing so racked up a big bill, one that dried up the Vatican's funds, which is hard to do, but Leo X did it. Leo X found the solution to the lack of money problem in pushing the sales of indulgences, so much so that many friars and monks pretty much became indulgences salesmen. Things were going smoothly until Martin Luther appeared on the scene. The sales of indulgences became one of the top targets of his 95 Theses. It's worth looking at some of the theses that do target indulgences, for they drive home the point of all the verses examined in 1 Samuel, the Psalms and the prophetic books. Before doing so, however, one other point is worth mentioning. Most Christians today know that putting money in the church offering plate does not forgive sins or bring about salvation. Even the Roman Catholic Church understands this, as they abolished the sales of indulges in the 1970s! Many Christians, however, still sometimes think that God will forgive their sin, or at least forget their sin or ignore their sin if they do some good work or practice some spiritual discipline. With that in mind, I encourage you, as you're reading these theses, replace the word indulgences with a good work or a spiritual discipline that you or some Christian might think they can do as penance for the forgiveness of a sin or to bring about salvation from sin. Without further ado, take a look at these theses from Martin Luther against indulgences.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

The 613 Laws can be summarized in the greatest and second greatest commandment, the greatest being to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and the second being to love your neighbor as yourself. As Samuel said to Saul, the Lord will always desire obedience to the Law over any offering or any sacrifice. Put it together, and God will always want you to love him and to love others over any offering ans sacrifice. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual discipline will ever become more important than loving the Lord God and loving your neighbor.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

Again, reflect back on the words of Isaiah, Amos and Micah. The Lord revealed through these prophets that people of Israel and Judah angered him by thinking they continue acting merciless and unjustly towards other people, especially the poor, if they continued the offerings and sacrifices. Instead, God would have been more satisfied if they turned around from merciless to merciful and from injustice to justice. Again, the Lord God will always prefer bringing justice to injustice over any offering, any sacrifice, or any spiritual discipline. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual will ever become more important than justice and mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observed people passing poor beggars on their way to pay large sums of money for indulgences. This fact carries a sense of irony, for this practice of receiving indulgences for giving money began as a practice of giving alms to charities, not the church! Those poor beggars needing the money more than the pope, for the poor beggars needed the money to survive, whereas the pope needed the money to continue living in luxury. Once again, this fact calls back to the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. The poor and needy should not live in poverty, so the church can become rich. If so, then the church becomes guilty of the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. If the church has its bank book balanced, and as long as the church does not spend its money wastefully, any offering to the poor will mean more to the Lord God than tithing to a church. If this fact offends the chuch, and the church still insists tithing has more importance than offerings to the poor and needy (and the charities that focuses on the poor and needy), then the church should dedicate a percentage of their tithes to the poor, the needy, the widow and the orphan.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

While the Lord does command tithing and offerings, tithing and offerings do not make anybody a good person. Anyone can give tithes and offering, yet that person can still live in sin. A person becomes less like the old, sinful self and more like new, Christ-like self by loving the Lord God will all his or her heart, soul, mind and strength, loving his or her neighbor like the self. That's the sanctification the Lord God requires of every Christian, not giving money. (For the record, I think the phrase "is merely freed from penalties" is Martin Luther attempting to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church)

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

Since the first half of this thesis already has the same meaning has thesis number 43, the second half of this thesis will take on the main focus here. If anything, thesis 43 and 45 are two sides of the same coin. Thesis 43 puts it in a positive light. Those who give offerings to the poor and needy instead of buying indulgences please the Lord and make the Lord happy. Thesis 45 puts it in a negative light. Those who buy indulgences instead of giving that money to the poor and needy displease God and make God mad. If anybody thinks that good works or spiritual disciplines make the Lord happy enough to avoid the sin, quite the opposite is true. The wrath of God burns against anyone who use good works or spiritual disciples to cover up sin. Again, Martin Luther points out the irony that those people buying indulgences thought they just bought the Lord's pleasure instead bought God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observe financially-stable families bring themselves to poverty buying indulgences, not just for themselves but also for their dead relatives (another way Pope Leo X expanded indulgences to get more income to the church)! The Lord had a reason for commanding the Old Testament Israelites to tithe ten percent, and not just because Abraham did so to Melchizedek. Whether rich or poor, anybody giving ten percent will always have ninety percent left to take care of the family. Giving tithes and offerings should never bankrupt a family, as the indulgences that Pope Leo X promoted and Martin Luther rejected did.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

Tithing is mandatory; offerings are optional. Thanks to the New Covenant, the New Testament teaches that there is no tithing; there is only offering. In accordance with 2 Corinthians 8-9, Jesus only commands believers to give generously and give joyfully. Such a command does not excuse Christians from giving if they give neither generously nor joyfully, but rather, the command encourages Christians to develop a heart that desires to giving generously and joyfully. If you want to give money because you feel thankful for what Jesus did on the cross for your sins, that's amazing! If you want to give because you want your heart to match Christ's heart, and you want to work with the Holy Spirit to make yourself less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christ-like self, that's awesome! If you want to give money because you want to participate alongside the church in a worth cause that needs financial backing, that's excellent! If want to give money because your heart breaks for those suffering in their poverty, that's fantastic! No one, however, should give because they feel like their Savior demands it from them. As witnessed in Psalm 50, the Messiah already owns all the wealth of the world. He does not need yours.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

For the Roman Catholic reader out there, keep this statement as pope. For the Protestant Christian reader, change pope to pastor. A good pope or a good pastor knows more power exists in prayer rather than in money, and therefore, a good pope or pastor asks for prayer more than money. On the flip side, a bad pope or pastor asks for money more than asking for prayer. Thus, Pope Leo X was a bad pope. If you have a pastor who always seems concerned about the income of church, aside from numbers in the red (unless the church spends excessively), then you have a toxic pastor, and you don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

Any good work or any spiritual discipline should bring the Christian closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not further away from him. The difference may lie in whether the Christian believes that the good work or the spiritual discipline determines whether the Christian has salvation and gets to go to heaven. If the Christian put his or her trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life, all good works and spiritual disciplines, including the giving of offerings, can be beneficial for spiritual growth. If the Christian thinks that good works and spiritual disciplines, including giving offerings, bring about salvation and eternal life, not a relationship with the Lord Jesus, then that Christian has taken a step back in the faith.

The list could go on and on, as Martin Luther mentions indulgences in 45 of his 95 theses, yet for the sake of time, the list stops here. While worth reading all 95 theses, especially the 45 that cover indulgences, these 9 theses testify to the same points the Scriptures mentioned. You can't pay off the Lord! God will always desire obedience, especially obedience in terms of justice, over any offering or sacrifice.

To conclude the way I introduced this topic, as we reflect back on Easter and the resurrection, I want everybody know that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid your debt of sin in full. There's is nothing more that you need to do. You don't need to pay off the Lord for your sin because Jesus already paid his Father with his life. Again, I repeat, Jesus paid it all. With that in mind, if you are a Christian, who believes Jesus paid it all, stop trying to pay off the Lord with your good works. If you're doing good works as a sign of thankfulness for the salvation Jesus has given you, that's amazing! If you're doing good works because you're working with the Holy Spirit to create that clean heart that's less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christlike self, that's awesome! If you do good works because you want to see the kingdom of God on earth, that's excellent! If you do good works because your heart breaks for those suffering in their sin, that's fantastic! If you're doing good works, however, hoping the Lord will ignore the sin in your life or to justify the sin in your life, you are attempting to pay off the Lord. Once again, you cannot pay off the Lord! If that's the case, stop doing good works and start confessing and repenting.

Easter has another importance. Easter marks the end of Lent. Many Christians choose to fast for Lent. This teaching should get you reflecting on why you fast during Lent. If you fasted from something during Lent because you realize you've made that something a higher priority in life than the Lord, and you chose to fast from it to put the Lord back in the number 1 spot in your life, you've done your Lent fast correctly. If you fasted from something during Lent because you were going to that thing for something when you really should have been going to God, and you fasted from it to put your dependency back in God, then you did your Lent fast right. If you fasted from something during Lent because you think it impressive God, then you did your Lent fast wrong. What "impresses" the Lord is a repentant heart, not spiritual disciplines.

In closing, for those disappointed that I did not use a New Testament verse, let me throw in 1 New Testament verse-

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)-

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In the few couple theses of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, Martin Luther cited Matthew 4:17 as the start of the downfall of the church. No, it has nothing to do with what Jesus said, it has everything to do with St. Jerome said. Jerome is the man who translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. When Jerome got to Matthew 4:17, he took Jesus's first word μετανοέω (metanoeo), which most English translations accurately translate as "repent," and Jerome translated it as poenitentia, or "do penance." This mistranslation got the ball rolling into a Roman Catholic church that accepted indulgences for a payment of sin, which Martin Luther saw deserving criticism. Still, the truth remains that the kingdom of heaven is not seen at hand when we give offerings, do good works or practice spiritual disciplines. No, the kingdom of heaven is seen at hand when people repent of their sin.

Is the Jesus of Suburbia the Jesus of Nazareth? (Jeremiah 17:9)

I want to start off with a story you might have heard of, or some form of it, for multiple versions of it exist on the internet. A five-year-old girl was having one of those trouble-filled days with her mother. It seemed they spent the day arguing back and forth. No matter what the mother asked her to do, the young girl would always stomp her foot and scream loudly, “NO!” Finally, the mom had enough. "Jane, go sit in the corner, right now! Your time does not start until you sit in that chair, and don’t you dare stand up until I tell you to!" The little girl, fists clenched, stomped over to the small, wooden chair in the corner and plopped down in it. Arms crossed, she looked back at her mother with the dirtiest look and said, "Mom, I am sitting down on the outside, but I am standing up on the inside!"

Parents here probably can relate to this story, for they might have had similar experiences disciplining their children. Other people, parents or not, might be able to relate if they are willing to admit they were that child! Of course, I couldn’t think of any time I was that child (although if you asked my parents, they could probably tell you). Being the good big brother I am, though, I could think of a time my little sister did. It was Halloween 2001. At my sister’s elementary school on Halloween, the kids would have this Halloween parade, where the kids would dress up in their Halloween costumes and march around the school. Family would come in to watch the parade. For some reason unknown to me, my sister, that year, wanted to be Cleopatra for Halloween, perhaps because the Cleopatra costume came with makeup. For whatever reasons my mom had (I’m pretty sure they were good ones), she instructed my sister not to put on the makeup. I remember at that breakfast my mom told my sister over and over again not to put on the makeup on, and my sister said over and over again she would not. That afternoon, my mom invited to come along to the elementary school’s Halloween parade, since my middle school had the day off. We waited patiently for the fourth graders. When my sister came around the corner…well, let’s just say she looked as good as a nine-year-old putting on makeup for the first time could look.

What drives a person to act this way? Some simply credit it to immaturity. After all, the examples I just gave you all were of children. But let’s be honest. We’ve seen adults act like this, too, perhaps at work. How can even mature adults act like this? I bet the prophet Jeremiah wondered the same thing, for God provides an answer to the question in Jeremiah 17:9.

Please turn in your Bibles to Jeremiah 17:9. While you’re turning there, I am going to put the verse in context. Remember, I’m big into context. Personally, I believe that so many bad interpretations of the Bible and bad theologies started as a Bible verse taken out of context. We, in our western minds, like dissecting things (like that frog in 6^th grade). We like breaking things down and analyzing each piece. There’s some good to that, but to borrow from a metaphor I hear commonly at my seminary, we sometimes spend so much time staring at the tree, we forgot that we’re standing in a forest, with other trees around us, and we forget how that tree is a part of the forest. Before we break down and analyze Jeremiah 17:9, I want to put Jeremiah 17:9 in 3 contexts: the far context, the near context and the immediate context. First, we’ll look at the far context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute to the whole Bible? Second, we’ll look at the near context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute to the book of Jeremiah? Third, we’ll look at the immediate context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute Jeremiah 17?

In the far context of the whole Bible, Jeremiah 17:9 will help Bible readers better understand humanity’s struggle with rebellion towards their God. The Bible has clearly established that God is holy, just, faithful and loving. He looks out for his Bible. These attributes of God alone should provide enough reason to trust in God and follow his commands. Yet throughout the whole Bible, Bible readers can see people throughout history make choices that side them against God. Think about the famous stories of the Bible. Why did Adam and Eve choose to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when God clearly commanded them, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Why did the people of Israel choose to wander 40 years in the desert rather than enter the land God promised them, a land flowing of milk and honey? Yeah, there were some bad spies who convinced the Israelites that the people there were as tall as giants, but hadn’t God told them that he would take care of it, and hadn’t God proven it with the way he dealt with Egypt? Why did the new nation of Israel, during the time of the Judges, keep going to back to the idolatrous way by worshipping the pagan gods, even though they knew it would lead to the foreign nations conquering and enslaving them? This isn’t just before Jeremiah’s time, for it happened after Jeremiah’s time, too. The biggest example yet is in the New Testament. Why would the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the teachers of the law, the experts of the law and the masters of law, have the long-awaited Messiah right in front of their faces, and yet they deemed him a blasphemer deserving death? If you ever wondered any of those questions, Jeremiah 17:9 will provide an answer.

In the near context, Jeremiah 17:9 plays a crucial role in preparing Jeremiah for what he’ll face in rest of the book of Jeremiah. Over the years, Jeremiah has received the title of “the weeping prophet” from Bible scholars and church layman alike, for a number of reasons. Mainly, the title comes from the bad news he always has to deliver and how Jeremiah responds to it. Indeed, after receiving his first batch of bad news, Jeremiah says in Jeremiah 9:1, “Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” I call Jeremiah the weeping prophet, not just due to the bad news Jeremiah has to give the people, but I believe the way the people received the news must have caused Jeremiah to weep as well. Just take a look at these 3 instances. In Jeremiah ch. 27&28, Jeremiah goes out to the people of Judah and preaches, “Because of your sin, God has handed you over to King Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and you will serve them!” How do the people of Judah respond? Out of them arise false prophets and sorcerers (more like “fortune tellers”). They preach to the people, “It’s not that bad. At the worse, King Nebuchadnezzar will be around for 2 years. But after that, it’s peace and restoration!” Of course, the people favor the latter and no one will take Jeremiah seriously. Then, in chapter 38, Jeremiah proclaims to Zedekiah, the King of Judah, “If you want King Nebuchadnezzar to spare you, your family or any of household, just surrender and the Lord will take care of you. If you do not surrender, however, you will face utter destruction, and so will your family and household. Of course, King Zedekiah and his household don’t take too kindly to this. They throw Jeremiah into a muddy cistern, and Zedekiah and his family attempt to flee anyway. Long story short, Jeremiah gets out of the cistern. Zedekiah witnesses his two sons murdered in front of him, and then King Nebuchadnezzar blinds Zedekiah so the last thing Zedekiah sees is his sons dying. Once King Nebuchadnezzar takes away the upper class citizens of Jerusalem, Jeremiah gathers the leaders of the lower class remnant and says to them in chapter 42, “Stay here, and God will take care you. Just whatever you do, don’t go down to Egypt, for if you do, Nebuchadnezzar will follow you down there, and you will be walking into your own demise.” In chapter 43, the people respond to Jeremiah, “No, you’re wrong, God did not tell you that. We’re going down to Egypt, and we’re taking you along as our good luck charm, you like it or not.” Jeremiah almost literally goes to Egypt kicking and screaming, and he stays there until he dies. Sure enough, King Nebuchadnezzar decides to continue his campaign right into Egypt, and the Jews who fled to Egypt find themselves right in the middle of it again. Poor Jeremiah! God has granted Jeremiah one of the most precious gifts of his time, to be the mouthpiece for God, and the people do the opposite of what Jeremiah says. Fortunate for Jeremiah, God prepared Jeremiah ahead of time with Jeremiah 17:9.

In the immediate context, Jeremiah 17:9 answers Jeremiah 17:5-10. In this section of the book of Jeremiah, the Lord reminds Judah about the covenant they entered with him. Prior to Jeremiah 17:5, God exposes Judah for breaking the conditions of the covenant. Now comes the time for the Lord to remind Judah that those conditions came with a promise of blessing to those obeyed and curses those who did not. In Jeremiah 17:5-8, the Lord contrasts the man who trusts in man and the man who trusts in the Lord with an illustration of a shrub in the desert and a tree planted by water. Just like nothing good ever happens to a shrub in the desert, the man who trusts in man is cursed, and no good will come to him. Just like the tree planted near water, the man who trusts in the Lord bless. He will continue to reap blessings, even when hard times comes, like a well-watered tree will continue to produce, even during a heat wave or drought. From this illustration, the right answer should be clear. You’d want to be like that well-watered tree, that tree planted near water, so you could always reap the blessings. Therefore, you should want to put your trust in the Lord so you could reap his blessings. Yet Judah had chosen to be like the shrub in the desert by choosing to trust in man. Soon, this illustration would become quite literal, as the invading Babylonians would destroy that land so badly, that even the most fertile lands would look like barren deserts. Clearly, from this illustration, choosing the desert shrub is the wrong answer! Why would anyone choose that, knowing it will lead only to curses?

The answer to the far context, the near context and the immediate context all come to answer in Jeremiah 17:9. It all comes back to the heart. Jeremiah 17:9 describes what the heart is like that causes it to act this way. First, it says it is “deceptive,” or in the Hebrew, עָקֹב (aqob). Yes, this is Hebrew root from which get Jacob. If you recall, the name Jacob literally means “grasps at heel,” but metaphorically means “deceiver.” Think back to Jacob in the book of Genesis. How did Jacob get the birthright? By taking advantage of his brother’s weakened state of hunger. How did Jacob get the blessing? By tricking his father Issac to believing he was Esau, even making sure he felt like Esau, smelt like Esau, and had stew that tasted like Esau. That’s what your heart does to you! It takes advantage of your weakness to get you to do the wrong thing. It gets you to go out of way to do something you don’t even want to do, just to satisfy the sin.

Second, Jeremiah 17:9 describes the heart as אָנַשׁ (ʾānašh). The New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version definitely have the most literal translation of the word. It means “to be sick” or “to be ill,” but in the case, the Hebrew tense is in the absolute, meaning there’s an emphasis on the word, almost to an extreme, hence the “desperately” part. It’s almost like chronic illness, a sickness that has no cure, hence why the NIV says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” But keep in mind this isn’t a medical heart illness, like coronary heart disease or a heart palpitation. No, this is an inner heart disease, a spiritual heart disease. That’s why this time I turn to the King James Version’s interpretation of Jeremiah 17:9. The KJV says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” The heart desires and yearns to that which is selfish and wicked, even if it brings about harm to others and self. It has no desire to be healed. It only wants more sin.

After understanding how depraved the heart really is, you might wonder aloud the rhetorical question the ends verse 9. “Who can understand the heart?” Sin has corrupted the heart. Since the heart is so deceitful, no person can even trust his or her own heart. That’s where the Lord steps in. The Lord can understand the heart, for he is the omniscient God who can search it and test. God cannot be deceived, for not even the worst heart can hide evil intentions from the Lord. Only a holy God can therefore be trusted, for he has not been corrupted or deceived by evil.

And may I be clear this isn’t an intellect vs. emotions kind of thing. As much as I would like to say this verse is promotion us to abandon our emotions and feelings for strict intellectual thought, being the intellectual thinker I am, it is not. In this passage, the “heart” is verse 9 is paralleled to the “mind” (Actually, the Hebrew word literally translates to “the kidneys.” You might be tempted to laugh at that, but if you think about, how much medical research proven that the heart’s job is to solely work with the blood in our circulatory system, and yet we still use it as a metaphor for the source of our emotions.) in verse 10, which means they are treated as synonyms. In the original audience’s context, in the Hebrew context, the people of Judah would not have separated intellect and emotions like we do, but have understood both heart and mind as synonyms symbolizing the inner being. Still, for our context, the parallel reminds us that the sinful nature infects both the head and heart alike.

Someone who would have understood this the doctrine of sin nature would be Aurelius Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo. Augustine struggled with what has been described as “every man’s battle.” Augustine struggled with lust, making him very relatable to every man. Now usually people don’t ask questions like, “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why do bad things happen to good people?” until the bad or evil thing happens to them. Not for Augustine. Augustine recognized that he was the evil, and he needed to know how to stop. Augustine tried many worldly philosophies attempting to solve his questions, but they could not. The best solution came from the Scripture. In his studies of the Scriptures, Augustine learned a lot about sin. For example, he learned how sin was the absence of good. Most importantly, he learned that his fallen heart had enslaved him to sin. If Augustine knew about drugs like we do in the 21^st century, he would have described our sin nature just like a drug addiction. Just like the drug addict will lie, cheat and steal to get his or her fix, so they sinful nature will commit all kinds of sinful act to get his or her selfish wants, even if it destroys him or her.

Now I know what I am preaching right now would be a hard message for the non-Christians, those outside church. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and anthropologists would all say that all people are born good and all throughout their lives are generally good people. Yeah, they will admit people do bad things, but they account those bad things as good people doing the wrong thing, almost like “mistakes,” but still call them good people. Only a few people can truly receive the title of “evil,” like Nebuchadnezzar, Nero, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Yet I am going to a bold statement. In all honesty, I really think that Americans of the past two centuries, the 20^th and 21^st centuries, don’t really believe this, and I have both a classical example and a more modern example to prove my point.

Who has read the book The Coral Island by R.M. Ballaytne, whether that be in a college, high school or middle school literature class? Written in 1857, the book is about 3 British boys, eighteen-year-old Jack, fifteen-year-old Ralph and thirteen-year-old Peter, who all get shipwrecked all alone on an island in the Pacific Ocean. Despite having little modern technology, they are able to create a self-sustaining lifestyle on the island, adequately providing themselves with food and shelter. Life is idyllic and idealistic on the island. It is almost as if they made their own little utopian society with the three of them thereon the island. Eventually they decide it is time to leave the island with the boat they have made. They come upon another nearby island, where they meet a barbaric and savage Polynesian tribe. Through teaching Victorian-era manners and ideals, however, these 3 young men are able to civilize the whole village. Once again, the boys leave the island and come ashore on another island. Here, they run into Christian missionaries, who have struggled to convert the native polytheist to Christianity. Again, once the boys teach the native people proper Victorian etiquette, the missionaries can successfully convert the Polynesian polytheists to Christianity. I’m betting a lot of you never read this books, and I think there’s a reason for that.

But who has read The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, even if it is in a college, high school or middle school literature? This book was written in response to The Coral Island. William Golding read The Coral Island and thought to himself, “No, that’s not how it would happen.” He wrote his book, The Lord of the Flies, as a response, almost a satire, of The Coral Island, even giving the main characters the same name. In the same way, Jack, Ralph and the other boys find themselves stranded on an inhabited island. Instead of working together to form a self-sustaining society, they argue with each other, they curse at each other, they bully each other, and even near the end (spoiler alert!) they begin to kill each other! By the end, the last “good” boy is merely trying to survive from the other boys on the island!

I bet a lot of you have read The Lord of the Flies, at least a lot more than The Coral Island. Indeed, The Lord of the Flies seems to be more popular than The Coral Island. One reason some books become more popular than others is because of how relatable they are. With popular books, we can relate with the character and their life more than in the unpopular books, where we can’t relate to the characters. The Coral Island is unpopular because we can’t relate to that experience; The Lord of the Flies is popular because we can relate to that story. We have no experiences of everyone coming together to create a greater good, yet we can name the countless experiences where people have turned on us, betrayed us, and caused stress and conflict just to get what they wanted. See, people really don’t believe that good-at-heart philosophy. They too recognize the heart is sick with evil.

But The Coral Island was written in the late 1800s, and The Lord of the Flies was written in the early 1900s. What about the 21^st century? Maybe we’ve matured or culture ourselves so we are working together for good. Let’s use less of a classic example and more of modern example. In the late 1980s, three teenagers in Los Angeles came together to form a punk rock band which the world would come to known as Green Day. At first, their songs were about typical things that caused 90’s teenagers angst: parents, teachers, school, work, friends and girlfriends. Eventually, everyone got tired of their music, including the band themselves! In 2005, instead of the typical songs, lead singer Billie Joe wanted to create album that told of story from his life. This album would become known as American Idiot. To date, this is their most popular album, so popular, it became a tour, a live album and even a music. Let’s take a look at it.

 

The first track serves as a prologue of the story of the album, and it sets the scene. The song “American Idiot describes how the main character sees the world he is in. American is run by politics and the media, all driven by agendas and bias. They tell the American people what to believe in how to act. They use propaganda as a tool, and it only leads to a paranoid people. In the end, it turns all Americans into American Idiots, hence the title of the album and the song title [“American Idiot”].

The second track of the album introduces the main character. Billie Joe Armstrong gives him the name “Jesus of Suburbia.” Armstrong has carefully chosen the name, as the first part of the song uses Biblical imagery to describe his main character. The lines “the bible of none of the above” and “No one died for my sins in hell” describe the Jesus of Suburbia as a self-centered and self-righteous egotist. He says/sings, “There’s nothing wrong with me. This is the way I’m supposed to be,” yet he seeks answers for the problems of life. He starts his search in his hometown, following the adage “home is where your heart is,” but it only leads to disappointment. Singing “…everyone’s heart doesn’t beat the same, we’re beating out of time,” he says there is no connection in relation.  He sings, “Like the holy scriptures of a shopping mall /And so it seemed to confess / It didn't say much / But it only confirmed that / The center  of the earth / Is the end of the world.” He means that no one knows the answer any better than he does, and he concludes that listening to one another then just make everything worse.  So the Jesus of Suburbia denounces his home city, concluding it to dead and damned [“Jesus of Suburbia” Part 2 – City of the Damned]. What hurts Jesus of Suburbia is that no one seems to care, even looking upon the dirty faces of lost children. Jesus of Suburbia denounces them again, calling them liars, hypocrites, and the worse, “hearts recycled but never saved.” He condemns their beliefs as “make believe,” and therefore he doesn’t believe. So he replies in the song, “If you don’t care, then neither do I!” At the end of part 3, subtitled “I Don’t Care,” two phrases describe the Jesus of Suburbia: not believing and not caring [“Jesus of Suburbia” Part 3 – I Don’t Care.” Jesus of Suburbia cries out for help, hoping someone can give him therapeutic advice, but no one answers, further reinforcing his belief that no one cares about anyone but himself or herself [“Jesus of Suburbia” – Part 4 Dearly Beloved] Because of his home city’s lack of concern, Jesus of Suburbia concludes he will never find his answer in his home city. To stay and die there would be tragic because he’d never have his answers. So he runs away, and leaves the city behind, to find out what he really believes [“Jesus of Suburbia” – Part 5 Tales of Another Broken Home].

Jesus leaves his home city for the big city. The big city give him new life. For Jesus of Suburbia to be in the big city, it’s like his life is one big holiday, one big vacation (In British English and Australian English, the words “holiday” and “vacation” can be used as synonyms)[“Holiday”]. Yet when the emotional high of new beginnings settles down, Jesus of Suburbia then experiences an emotional hangover. Despite being in a big city, he realizes he is all alone. The only companion is his own shadow. He still longs for someone to find him and give him his answers [“Boulevard of Broken Dreams”].

Upon realizing he is alone, the Jesus of Suburbia begins to have his doubts. Things seem to be no different. Whether he’s in his home city where he is metaphorically alone (no one cares),  or the big city where he’s literally alone, he ends up alone either way. Doubts enter his mind, “The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie.” He repetitious scream, “Are we, we are, are we, we are the waiting” has him thinking, “What am I waiting for?” He feels like he’s waiting for something that will never happen, something that will never come true, a fairy tale [“Are We The Waiting”].When all of a sudden, lo and behold, another character enters the story. Billie Joe gives him the name St. Jimmy. St. Jimmy describes himself as “the needle in the vein of establishment,” “the product of war and fear that we’ve been victimized” and twice “I'm the patron saint of the denial, with an angel face and a taste for suicidal. St. Jimmy seems to be the typical bad boy. He interests are in crime, gangs, sex, drugs and rock and roll [“St. Jimmy”].

St. Jimmy convinces Jesus of Suburbia to take the same route as he does. Jesus of Suburbia follows St. Jimmy’s footsteps. He takes drugs to numb the pain his problems have caused [“Give Me Novocain”]. It appears that Jesus of Suburbia will fall into a slump he will never get out off, when all of a sudden a new character appears out of nowhere. Armstrong gives her the name Whatserface, which will make more sense by the end of the album. The singer describes Whatserface as a rebel, a saint, salt of the earth, dangerous, vigilante, missing link on the brink of destruction, the symbol of resistance and the mother of all bombs. Her path of life involves liberating people of the old way of thinking and starting a revolution of new thinking [“She’s A Rebel”].

Jesus of Suburbia falls in love with Whatserface. The two enter some kind of relationship, whether it be friendship or a romantic one. Either way, Jesus of Suburbia falls deeper in love with her, both with who she is and what she does. Unlike the people of his home city, Whatserface legitimately cares for people. Jesus of Suburbia finds Whatserface to be an extraordinary girl. Yet problems arise in their relationship. [“Extraordinary Girl”]. It’s not her; it’s him. In “Letterbomb,” a letter from Whatserface to Jesus of Suburbia ending the relationship, Whatserface confronts him with his problems. For Whatserface, Jesus of Suburbia not only represents the problems in the city she’s trying to solve, he seems to be contributing to them. The climax of the song, and the album, comes near the end of the song. Whatserface says/sings, “You're not the Jesus of Suburbia. The St. Jimmy is a figment of your father's rage and your mother's love, made me the idiot America.” This reveals so much. For the first time, the listener realizes that St. Jimmy isn’t real. St. Jimmy either been a schizophrenic hallucination or a bipolar alter ego. On top of that, Whatserface calls out the main character for daring to call himself the Jesus of Suburbia. His whole title, “son of rage and love,” was from his father’s rage and his mother’s love, and both of them were formed by the American Idiot condemned at the beginning of the album. If the main character really was the “Jesus of Suburbia,” he would be doing more like what Whatserface was. Ultimately, Whatserface blames Jesus of Suburbia for the city’s problems. She decides to take the same path Jesus of Suburbia (we’ll still call the main character that until the end to prevent further confusion) took at the beginning of the album and leave the city behind, and leave Jesus of Suburbia behid with him [“Letterbomb”].

In the song “Wake Me Up When September Ends,” Jesus of Suburbia realizes that he still had some innocence in him, and now he lost the last bit of innocence. His innocence led him to think that he could find the perfect answer to all his problems. His innocence led him to believe that the big city and the “holiday feeling” could give him the answer.  His naïve innocence led him to follow St. Jimmy’s path of sex, drugs and rock and roll for an answer. Instead of gaining from his innocence, those events resulted in losing innocence. And ultimately, he loses Whatserface as a result.

In the beginning of the song “Homecoming,” Jesus of Suburbia finds himself alone once again, with doubt. St. Jimmy makes another appearance. He argues that Whatserface was wrong. He blames other people, mainly Jesus of Suburbia’s mother and father, and offers the solution, returning to the world of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Jesus of Suburbia faces a challenge. He can either return to St. Jimmy or start all over and try again. The end of part 1 of the song sums up the decision: “St. Jimmy died today. He blew his brains out into the bay. In my state of mind, my own private suicide.” St. Jimmy’s metaphorical suicide represents that Jesus of Suburbia acknowledged St. Jimmy was not real, but a part of Jesus of Suburbia, a part that needed to stop [“Homecoming” Part 1 - The Death of St. Jimmy]. Yet it comes at a cost. St. Jimmy at least made Jesus of Suburbia felt like he had company. After killing St. Jimmy, Jesus of Suburbia comes to an even harder realization that he is alone, and no one cares. Aiming to really become his namesake, Jesus of Suburbia signs up for community service (Part 2 is called East 12^th Street. East 12^th street is where Billie Joe Armstrong had to do community service after his DUI arrest). The job is not as life changing as Jesus of Suburbia hoped, as he is only doing paperwork. He finds himself wishing again to get out [“Homecoming” Part 2 - East 12^th Street]. Yet Whatsername’s word won’t get out of his head, “Nobody likes you. Everyone left you. They're all out without you havin fun.” Not only can he not get her words out of his head, he can’t her out of his head. He finds himself constantly missing her, hoping she’ll come back [“Homecoming” Part 3 – Nobody Likes You]. Going back to his old life in the big city isn’t an option. In a postcard from a friend, Jesus of Suburbia learns that his friend Tunny has sobered up and cleaned himself up, which allowed him to start a famous and successful rock band. His friend asks Jesus of Suburbia to get off his case and leave him alone [Homecoming Part 4 – Rock and Roll Girlfriend]. So Jesus of Suburbia decides to return to his home city. Running away has not solved his problem. When he left home, his problems followed him, and the big city made them worse. Neither the holiday feeling of the big city or St. Jimmy’s lifestyle gave him the answer. Jesus of Suburbia gives up on finding the answers out there and just goes home. Yet, Jesus of Suburbia still can’t get Whatsername’s words out of his head, “Nobody likes you. Everyone left you. They're all out without you havin fun.” [“Homecoming” Part 5 – We’re Coming Home Again].

The last song, “Whatserface,” takes place years after the previous song “Homecoming.” It would seem that Jesus of Suburbia has changed to be like Whatserface, which would be liberating people from the old way of thinking to start a revolution of new thinking. This is why Jesus of Suburbia says/sings in the last line of the last song of the album “Forgetting you, but not the time.” While Jesus of Suburbia might have forgotten the girl’s name, hence calling her “Whatserface,” he has not forgotten her personality and what she stands for. He lives on her legacy by living out that lifestyle himself. Yet he can’t help but miss her and wish she was back [“Whatserface”].

Now that we have all observed a summary of the story in American Idiot, let’s make some interpretations. Now that we have a full view of the story, the listener comes to recognize that St. Jimmy was never a real person. I’d like to go further and say that the Jesus of Suburbia is not a real person either. Jesus of Suburbia too is a name given to describe the personality of a character. Then who is the main character? The album does not say. The musical, which goes by the same name, gives the main character the name “Johnny,” so let’s call him Johnny.

So what does Jesus of Suburbia and St. Jimmy have to do with the main character, Johnny, if each one is not the main character himself? For that, you need to know some Freud. In Freud’s model of the psyche, Freud said that the ego was mediator between the super ego and the id. The id is the part of the self that drives the instinctual drives, desires, wants and needs. Of course, Freud being Freud, is was about sex and power. The super ego is the critical and moral side of the self. In short, the ego is made up of the balance between id and superego. What does this have to with American Idiot? I believe the Freudian psyche model accurately describes what is happening to the ego of Johnny. The super ego is the Jesus of Suburbia. Johnny’s superego, Jesus of Suburbia, is not happy with American being idiots. He wants change. The id is St. Jimmy. Sex, drugs, and punk rock are examples of things the id goes after. The whole story is about this battle between Johnny’s id and super ego to comprise his ego. At first, it’s Johnny’s super ego which pushes him to not accept unbelieving unsympathetic society he’s grown up in. Then the id steps in under the name of St. Jimmy, telling Billie the answer is in sex, drugs and rock and roll. Johnny listens to him, but his problems only become worse.

There it is again. We see again the heart’s tendency to lean towards the evil and lean away from the good. Johnny found it easier to listen to St. Jimmy, but found it hard to listen to Jesus of Suburbia. I believe this album became so popular because people could relate on how easy it is to evil and how hard it is to do good. Also, we notice another key aspect everyone can relate to: the struggle part. For years, people have tried to explain what this struggle could be.

Sigmund Freud tried to explain this is in terms of id, superego and ego. For Freud, the id is the selfish wants and desires that demands “I want it now,” the superego is the altruistic, utilitarian and moralistic side that informs you, “That’s not right,” and the ego is the real you, the compromise between the superego and the id. While Freud might have been onto something, I don’t like his conclusions. For starters, a Jew gone atheist does not belong in the church. Most importantly, Freud’s ego consists of a compromise between the selfish and the altruistic, the good and the evil. Freud’s philosophy states that the ego finds a moral excuse to act immorally. The Bible clearly teaches that no action is moral unless our thoughts and feelings are also moral.

The media tries to explain it, mainly in children’s cartoons. It is portrayed in the imagery of a “shoulder angel” and a “shoulder demon.” The shoulder angel whispers into one ear the right, good thing to do, and the shoulder demon whispers into the other ear the mean, selfish things to do. My favorite example of this comes from the Disney animated film The Emperor’s New Groove. While this may help explain to children moral decisions and moral dilemmas, I wouldn’t build a theology around it. This illustration makes it look like the shoulder angel and shoulder demon have equal strength and an equal opportunity to influence the person. The Bible makes it clear that the person with the deceitful heart is enslaved to do evil, unless the Almighty God intervenes, which we will get to now.

So how should Christians respond to this doctrine of the sinful nature?

First, people should admit and confess their sinful nature. There’s a saying that goes something along the lines of, “The greatest lie the Devil ever told was convincing people that he didn’t exist.” I would say along those lines that the next greatest lie that the Devil ever told was convincing people that they are good. When people are convinced they are good, even the most basic sense, they refuse to work on better themselves when they do sin. This is even harder for Christians. We know are process of sanctification, the process of becoming less sinful and more holy, yet that doesn’t mean we don’t deal with temptation or sin. That’s where we can get tripped up. We can allow the devil to convince us, “Well, you’re born again and you’re in the process of sanctification, so that thought/feeling must be right.” We must put our guard up. If Judah might have confessed their sin and guilt, God might have spared them from Nebuchadnezzar, but that would have required humility, which Judah did not have. Let us humble ourselves to admit our sin and confess we cannot do anything along.

Second, people need to receive the cure. If you read Jeremiah 17:9 in the New International Version, it reads, “The heart is deceitful and beyond all cure.” I get what they’re doing here. They are attempting to explain that absolute adjective form, which the English Standard Version explains as “desperately.” I don’t like their interpretive move because, simply put, there is a cure. Jeremiah may have given a lot of bad news, but Jeremiah did give some good news. Jereiah got to foresee the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31. Specifically, in Jeremiah 31:33,34, the Lord says, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” There is a cure, and his name is Jesus. Jesus was both a rebel and a saint. He rebelled against the legalistic religiosity of Pharisees and the Sadducees, and yet he did not break a sing law, staying holy. Christ’s death and resurrection ushered in the New Covenant that Jeremiah foresaw. Instead of a heart bent towards to sin and evil, the New Covenant gives us a heart towards holiness. How is that possible? The prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, also saw the New Covenant. In Ezekiel 36:26 God announces that he will give those in the New Covenant a new heart. Only a brand new heart can break this addiction to sin and allow sanctify ourselves. That heart can only come through Jesus. If you haven’t called on Jesus, believe in him, and you will get your new heart.

Third, we must remove all sin in our lives. Sin is destructive, both to the individual and the corporate. If we don’t rid our lives of sin, it will only lead to destructive results. Romans 8:13 says, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” I like how John Owens, a Puritan preacher, said it, “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

Fourth, what we about the sinful nature of the heart should lead to praise God for his grace and mercy. Now I am getting back to those still struggling with this teaching. Those struggling with this doctrine might be thinking right now, “What about non-profit organizations, like the Red Cross? Are you really trying to convince me that they are evil?” I would not say they are evil, but I will not say that the goodness they create is a goodness that comes from their own heart. I credit that goodness to the grace and mercy of our Lord God. All things good can only come our Heavenly Father (James 1). When we credit goodness to humanity’s own head, heart and hands, we rob God of praise he deserves. Let us praise God bringing goodness down to earth through his grace and mercy, even when it seems like humanity is doing the opposite.

Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey - Chapter Review: 2. God's People Then

Good Bible Hermeneutics takes a deeper look at the Bible passage by understanding everything about it: history, geography, culture, the people and everything else. If Conrad L. Kanagy wants to use Jeremiah to examine the Mennonite Church in the USA, he's got to help the reader fully understand Jeremiah's message in the first place. This includes understanding Jeremiah as a prophet and understing the people he's prophecying to, like what they believe politically and religiously.

The interesting thing about Conrad Kanagy's backround information is that he flip flops on its importance. On one hand, Kanagy says that "scholary views of the book of Jeremiah do no matter" (p.35), is not part of the task at hand(p .34). He also says it's more important to focus on what it means now then what it meant back then (p. 34-35). On the other hand, Conrad does go into detail about the book's background information. He lists all the kings Jeremiah prophecied under. He draws up a map of Israel, Judah and the surrounding territories. He describes where the people of Israel and Judah are religiously and politically during that time. While it may seem like Conrad Kanagy is contradicting himself, I'm glad he did. His background information on the book provides a fuller understanding of Jeremiah's role as prophet and the message he'll deliver.

Conrad Kanagy helps set the message of the book by explaining the all-encompassing roles of a prophet. The roles Conrad Kanagy gives Jeremiah as prophet is a futurist, a time keeper, a social analyst, an activist and a blasphemer. I had two favorites from this list. The first was the social analyst. As prophet, Jeremiah was called to make the people aware of where they were religiously and politically. Sometimes when people become so enamored in their culture, it's hard to realize where they truly are and whether they are doing the right or wrong thing. A prophet must tell it like it is, whether the people like it or not. Perhaps Conrad sees himself as a prophet in this way. His statistics will tell the Mennonite congregations, "This is they way it is, whether you like it or not." The other favorite I had was activist. As a prophet, "Jeremiah not only spoke prophetically for the truth, but also acted prophetically on behalf of the truth" (p. 41). I once heard that stating a problem without providing a solution is just complaining. Jeremiah is not just a complainer about the people falling away from God. He's going to do his to contribute to the people turning to God.

There are two roles that Conrad Kanagy gives a prophet in which I agree with the concept, but I believe he could have chosen a better word. On the lighter end, instead of calling Jeremiah a futurist, I would have called him a visionary. Jeremiah did not merely see the future, but he also saw what it meant in terms of the people moving forward spiritually. For example, not only did Jeremiah foresee the destruction of the temple, but he knew that meant it was sign of hope for the future, for the people would be able to have relationship with God without the temple, holy of holies or the ark of the covenant. On the heavier side, I really don't like Kanagy calling prophets "blasphemers." Blasphemy is the worst sin in the Old Testament, if not the whole Bible. Blasphemy is detestable and unforgivable to God. Why? Because of its definition itself. Blasphemy is speaking lies about God as if it is the truth. It is a misrepresentation of God. Prophets is no way misprespresented God. What they really did was get the people back to the true meaning. The easiest example would be Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus, God the Son, spoke fervently against what the high priest, chief priests, and all the other religious rabbis taught. It wasn't the Scriptures that the religious leaders were teaching from that Jesus spoke against, but rather their intepretation of it. Jesus saw the Pharisees and Sadducees using God's Law to uplift themselves and weigh down those "sinners" not like them. That's what Jesus spoke against. What Jesus really is doing is getting them back to the true meaning of the Scriptres. Certainly Jesus, God the Son, is not a blasphemer. In the same way, Jeremiah is no blasphemer. He is in no way speaking lies about God. Instead, Jeremiah is attempting to get the people back to the true meaning of God, the Scriptures, and the temple. Maybe Kanagy should have chosen the term "revivalist" instead of "blasphemer." Jeremiah is truly a revivalist, reviving the people from an idolatrous faith to a real faith with the true God. I understand why Kanagy might have chosen the term "blasphemer," for it might have seem like blasphemy to the people. But this is in no way a call for Christians as or a whole or Mennonites specifically to be blasphemers. It's a call for Mennonites specifically but to Christians a whole to return to the true meaning of Scripture, instead of emotions or tradition.

Conrad Kanagy concludes with a conclusion that could easily serve as an introduction for the next chapter. Conrad Kanagy already starts to connect the Mennonites of today to the people of Jeremiah's time. Conrad states some of the sins of the Mennonites as the same as the people in Jeremiah's time: apathy, disobedience and idolatry (p. 43). As Jeremiah stated to his people, judgment will come if Mennonites do not turn from this sin. But Jeremiah's message is double-edged, and in a good way. If the Mennonites repent of their sin, God will deliver them and bless them. The question that remains is, "Are Mennonite really guilty of such sins?" The next chapter will reveal if this is true.

Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey - Chapter Review: 1. Road Signs and Guideposts

This summer, the church I am attending, Stony Brook Mennonite Church, is combining the adult Sunday Schools. Together, the adults will be reading and discussing Roads Signs for the Journey: A Profile of Mennonite Church USA by Conrad L Kanagy. Simply put the book is a church member profile project. It reports the data recorded from surveys of Mennonites in the United States and it interprets that data. This interpretation of data can be anything from predictions of the future to suggestion for improvement. When I was introduced to the book, I was currently reading unChristian by David Kimmerman and Gabe Lyons, another book that analyzed and evaluated data. Skimming through it, I found it interesting because I could connect the data between the two books. I am excited for this book that we're studying. Unfortunately, because it's the summer, I naturally have other plans that will not allow me to attend every Sunday School class. Yet I want to be engaged in the discussion. So I am going to do a chapter-by-chapter review of the book, plugging in my thoughts and comments for every chapter.

Naturally, as most survey books, the first chapter explains the author's intent and how the author came about to write the book. In this "making-of" chapter, authour Conrad Kanagy admits he had some hostility with his idea. One of the big problems Kanagy had was that some church pastors were not on board because they saw the surveys as mere information collecting. He quotes a pastor saying, "We don't need anymore information that doesn't lead to transformation." I know how Conrad feels. I often too have felt adversity for presenting information or doctrine in a Sunday School classroom because it doesn't lead to application, transformation, or a feel good feeling. Kanagy makes himself well aware of this criticism and he comes preapred. It can be summed up two words: display and suggest. Corad wants to display where Mennonites are right now, where they might be going, and give advice along the way. And Conrad Kanagy doesn't like where it's going.

Just like most first chapters in most survey books, the first chapter introduces the basic data and his basic interpretation. What Conrad Kanagy's data shows is that most Mennonites in the United States live similiar lives to most middle class white Americans. This disturbed Conrad, as well as myself, because it's not Christian and it's not Mennonite. It's not Christian because Paul gives many verses in Bible telling us not to conform to the world, but to be transformed by living counterculturally. It's not Mennonite because the founding Anabaptists fathers lived by the creed, as found in Acts, "We must obey God rather than men!" Anabaptists beliefs, from simplicity to infant baptism can be traced back to living counter culturally. It's as if the Mennonites today are becoming less Mennonite. Fortunately, Kanagey seems a glimmering light at the end of the tunnel. There is a small blip on his survey radar that has continued to successfully live counter culturally. They are the urban Mennonite churches, which mainly consist of minority races. Conrad believes the rest of the Mennonites in America can learn from these minority churches, and he plans to use their practices as suggestions to improve.

Another topic I'm glad Conrad Kanagy is tackling is the role of politics in the Mennonite life. Personally, I have heard mixed beliefs among Mennonites when it comes to politics. Some of the first Mennonites I first met seemed to be so against the political proccess they even refused to vote. Then I met Mennonites who simply stated that Mennonites were allowed to vote, but the church will not sway anyone to vote a certain way. In high school, the Mennonites I met believed interaction with politics was necessary to bring about social justice. All in all, what I'm trying to get to is that the answer I have received has been mixed. I wondered if Conrad's data would give a more solid answer. What Conrad discovered was that the Mennonite church was heavily influenced either by the conservative evangelicals or liberal mainline protestants. Either, like the conserative evangelicals, look to politics to create a moral civil religion, or like the liberal mainline protestants, they look towards politics to bring about social justice. Both use politics, but by doing so, both unknowingly embrace the dicotomy of them too. By embracing the conservative evangelical's moral civil religion, they have "abandoned the costly requirements of the cross, compromised the truth of the gospel, created questionable alliances with political leaders...and abandoned the poor and needy of society" (Kanagy 26). By embracing the liberal mainline protestant's social justice, they have "ignored the power of Jesus Christ to overcome sin in both the social structure and individual lives" (Kanagy 26). I believe this is where it would be good for Mennonites to sit down and have a council to write up their doctrine of government involvement and political involvement. I hope Conrad Kanagy agrees with me and goes further into this.

Corand Kanagy believes the best Biblical passage to approach this study from is the book of Jeremiah. I will admit that when people announce they plan to talk about Jeremiah, I am a little hesistant to listen. It's because of so many misuses of the book. Too many times I have heard people center the whole book around Jeremiah, making it a feel good story, when the real message of the book is far from it. Too many times I have heard people (mainly charsmatics) use the book in a militaristic way, turning Israel to America, and thus turning to message to call America into a moral nation in order to get God's earthly blessings. I'm glad Kanagy does not use Jeremiah either way. It seems that Kanagy gets what Jeremiah is all about: a severe warning for God's people to change the ways they are going wrong or face dire consequences. I can't wait to see how Kanagy exegetes Jeremiah in the next chapter.