Whose Land, Whose Promise? What Christians are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians by Gary Burge is as much about how little we know about the Palestinians and Palestinian Christians in particular as it is about how little we know about the modern state of Israel. This book was the most eye-opening accounts I’ve heard of the history and current situation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, especially having grown up in a conservative Christian, pro-Israel church and household. Burge not only takes you on a brief journey of the ancient history of the region and its people, but gives an increasingly in depth look as he gets closer to the current situation.
After surveying the history, he takes us through the biblical material related the question of Israeli nationhood, focusing specifically on what God required of his people in order to maintain this gift. The conclusion is that modern Israel has not followed these requirements much as past versions of Israel failed in the same way and was severely punished for it. The evidence for this conclusion occupies the majority of the space in the book, and it is well documented and convincing. This idea is summed up best with a quote.
“A prophetic voice needs to be heard today in the Middle East, not an apocalyptic voice that announces the fulfillment of prophecies and the end times. Israel has strayed, and like an ox that has forgotten its master and its home, Israel has forgotten the voice of God (Isa. 1:3). I am convinced that if Isaiah were in Jerusalem today, his words would be unrelenting and his willingness to unearth Israel’s sins would put his well-being in jeopardy. Indeed, those who criticize Israel will undoubtedly be surprised by the reactions – reactions not unlike those received by the Old Testament prophets.”
I have certainly seen these reactions all of my life and still see them to this day. But you owe it to yourself to hear a story you probably haven’t heard, a story most people don’t have a desire to hear. The evidence for this conclusion occupies the majority of the space in the book, and it is well documented and convincing. This evidence is a litany of facts and statistics although these are given their proper place. The bulk of the evidence is stories of real people and families with names and even pictures. That is what makes the book such a page-turner. It is eerie how similar Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians during the establishment of their state was to the Nazi treatment of their parents generation just a few years earlier. Now the Palestinians are treated very similar to the way blacks in America were treated before the civil rights movement.
The plight of these Palestinian Christians is the other key focus in the book. We tend to lump all Arabs in the same category, often as Muslim, and at the very best passive supporters of terrorism. Many of us think that opposition to Israel is simply against Christian principles. Boy, was I in for a rude awakening. I am grateful to Gary Burge for bringing to light the situation that the Palestinian Christian find themselves in and for highlighting their stories and their need of our support.
If you are after the truth about what has been going on and continues to go on in Israel, please read this book. We conservative Christians tend to set up a straw man argument for the Palestinian cause so that we can easily knock it down. Those who are not setting up the straw man are buying into it without ever hearing a truly quality argument from a qualified voice in the other perspective. Gary Burge, an evangelical Christian who spent a good deal of his life living, working and studying in the middle east offers us just such a quality perspective. This book is near the top on my all time list. Please pick this one up.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#50 Was Paul a Liar?
Dear Return,
I’d like to respond to your comment on my post #49 Gates, Buffett, and the Apostle regarding Paul’s apostleship by going through each point in order because you bring up many different issues that need to be dealt with separately before I can decide on the whole picture. I also took a look at your website and will eventually get to responding to the rest of your points. But for now, here are numbers 1-4. I’ll put your comments in bold and mine in regular print.
#1 Paul wasn’t ordained an apostle by Christ (Mat 10).
Solid point. I have to agree with you here.
#2 He didn’t qualify to be an apostle (Acts 1:16-26).
I assume by stating that there is a qualification for apostleship in this passage, you are referring specifically to verses 21-22, which state, “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us – beginning with the baptism of John, until the day he was taken up from us – one of these should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Though they are intending that the witness they choose be from among those who were with Jesus, the question of whether we have here a qualification for apostleship hinges on what the word ‘necessary’ refers to.
To me it seems at least remotely possible that what is necessary is that they choose an apostle, not that they be from among those that were with Jesus, though that is important to them. But, even here, I admit that there is a high probability that the passage means what you are taking it to mean, though I wouldn’t say that this particular qualification can’t be subject to change.
#3 Paul’s doctrine is proven false:After Christ died and rose he appeared to his apostles. The gospels record him as appearing to the “eleven” (remember, Judas had died), but Paul’s doctrine is in clear error as he tells us that Christ appeared to the “twelve”:Paul said twelve:1 Corinthians 15:4-6:4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelveMark said eleven (Mark 16:14)Luke’s mentions the “eleven” (luke 24:9)Acts mentions eleven (Acts 1:26)Paul is a liar, and a proven false witness. Christ, in Revelation 2:2 commends the church of Epheus for figuring out false aposles. He said, “…thou hast tried them which say they are apsostles, and are not, and hast found them liars. Remember, Paul preached at Epheus.
Now though you defeated me on the last two points, this one is one where I think my antithesis is more likely to be the case then your thesis. As stated in Acts 1:22, cited above, Matthias was chosen because he was a witness to not only Jesus life but also to his resurrection. At this point, he is officially declared an apostle. Therefore at this point in time there are twelve apostles. You even affirm on your website (“Fact 12”) that Jesus confirms 12 apostles based on Revelation 21:14 which states, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the lamb.” Paul is simply affirming what Luke has already stated in Acts 1:22, that Jesus appeared to the not only the eleven but also others such as Cephas, the women (who were actually the first witnesses) as well as others. So to state that Paul’s ‘doctrine’ is in error is to say that Luke is in error in Acts 1:22 when he implies that Jesus had also appeared to Matthias and Barsabbas.
As far as the references in the gospels are concerned, I believe you have stretched those to the breaking point. Mark did indeed say eleven, but it is specifically mentioned in the context of a story which takes place before the selection of Matthias during a gathering at a table. Mark does not say he appeared to eleven at that time and only eleven and only at that time. You’ve got to account for the timing of that particular appearance.
I think you’ve also got to take a look at Luke 24:9 again. This is clearly also a story that took place before the choosing of Matthias. This does not even state that he appeared to the eleven, so that no inference can be drawn that he only appeared to eleven. This is actually states that the women went and told the eleven of the empty tomb and the appearance of the angels. We both agree that there were eleven at this time. For Paul to say twelve is not a doctrinal error.
#4 The apostles did not believe Paul was a disciple:Acts 9:2626And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.After Barnabas told the apostles that Paul had “seen the Lord” and that he preached boldy in the name of Jesus, the Apostles didn’t tell him to join them, but they sent him home to Tarsus. Remember, Jesus told us (Mat 13:57) that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country and in his own house . The apostles sent Paul to a place that no one would believe him.
Since we all come to the text with differing perspectives, we all tend to employ verses to support our particular point of view. I am guilty of this over and over without even knowing it. And please do point out where that is the case. But here is one place where I think you are given to this habit.
Let me show you why I say that. As you say, Acts 9:26 clearly states that the disciples were afraid of him. After all, up until this point he had violently persecuted the church to the point of death. But if you consider this verse in light of the rest of Luke’s story, Paul clearly becomes a respected colleague, not necessarily apostle, of the others. He is clearly not a person that they would send to a place so that “no one would believe him” as you say.
In fact, there is an interesting story that I am just learning about thanks to this interaction with your comments in Acts 15:13-35. The background is the council at Jerusalem and the ensuing discussion about how to handle the Gentiles that were turning to God. James is the main character here and decides that rather than “trouble” (v. 19) these Gentiles with circumcision, they merely write a letter to them to encourage them and instruct them on what they consider to be the basics, namely, abstaining from things contaminated by idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood.
This letter was to be delivered to them in Antioch by Paul and others. Listen to a portion of the letter (v. 24-26) that Luke transcribes for us, “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Clearly we can at the very least see here a great respect, admiration, and love between the leading disciples and Paul. This was not someone that the phrase “afraid of him” applied to anymore. This was not someone they were ashamed of. Furthermore, to claim that the disciples took Jesus message that a prophet was not without honor except in his own country to be a strategy for what to do with Paul is perhaps the biggest stretch of the above four points.
This specific motive is not indicated by the text but can and has arisen out of your belief that Paul is a liar. I think it is very important that our careful study of the text inform our beliefs about Paul, and not the other way around. To decide Paul is a liar and then force texts to support our position is not faithful to the historical record. If you’re at all interested in what I’m saying in these last few sentences, see my post called, #5 From Exegesis to Theology.
Once again, thanks for the great comment and the valuable research! Though I am obviously not objective here, if I were to keep score on our “debate” we are having here, I would have to say that we are tied 2 to 2 after four rounds, with you winning the first by knockout, the second by a decent margin and me taking the next two with a solid comeback.
I’d like to respond to your comment on my post #49 Gates, Buffett, and the Apostle regarding Paul’s apostleship by going through each point in order because you bring up many different issues that need to be dealt with separately before I can decide on the whole picture. I also took a look at your website and will eventually get to responding to the rest of your points. But for now, here are numbers 1-4. I’ll put your comments in bold and mine in regular print.
#1 Paul wasn’t ordained an apostle by Christ (Mat 10).
Solid point. I have to agree with you here.
#2 He didn’t qualify to be an apostle (Acts 1:16-26).
I assume by stating that there is a qualification for apostleship in this passage, you are referring specifically to verses 21-22, which state, “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us – beginning with the baptism of John, until the day he was taken up from us – one of these should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Though they are intending that the witness they choose be from among those who were with Jesus, the question of whether we have here a qualification for apostleship hinges on what the word ‘necessary’ refers to.
To me it seems at least remotely possible that what is necessary is that they choose an apostle, not that they be from among those that were with Jesus, though that is important to them. But, even here, I admit that there is a high probability that the passage means what you are taking it to mean, though I wouldn’t say that this particular qualification can’t be subject to change.
#3 Paul’s doctrine is proven false:After Christ died and rose he appeared to his apostles. The gospels record him as appearing to the “eleven” (remember, Judas had died), but Paul’s doctrine is in clear error as he tells us that Christ appeared to the “twelve”:Paul said twelve:1 Corinthians 15:4-6:4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelveMark said eleven (Mark 16:14)Luke’s mentions the “eleven” (luke 24:9)Acts mentions eleven (Acts 1:26)Paul is a liar, and a proven false witness. Christ, in Revelation 2:2 commends the church of Epheus for figuring out false aposles. He said, “…thou hast tried them which say they are apsostles, and are not, and hast found them liars. Remember, Paul preached at Epheus.
Now though you defeated me on the last two points, this one is one where I think my antithesis is more likely to be the case then your thesis. As stated in Acts 1:22, cited above, Matthias was chosen because he was a witness to not only Jesus life but also to his resurrection. At this point, he is officially declared an apostle. Therefore at this point in time there are twelve apostles. You even affirm on your website (“Fact 12”) that Jesus confirms 12 apostles based on Revelation 21:14 which states, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the lamb.” Paul is simply affirming what Luke has already stated in Acts 1:22, that Jesus appeared to the not only the eleven but also others such as Cephas, the women (who were actually the first witnesses) as well as others. So to state that Paul’s ‘doctrine’ is in error is to say that Luke is in error in Acts 1:22 when he implies that Jesus had also appeared to Matthias and Barsabbas.
As far as the references in the gospels are concerned, I believe you have stretched those to the breaking point. Mark did indeed say eleven, but it is specifically mentioned in the context of a story which takes place before the selection of Matthias during a gathering at a table. Mark does not say he appeared to eleven at that time and only eleven and only at that time. You’ve got to account for the timing of that particular appearance.
I think you’ve also got to take a look at Luke 24:9 again. This is clearly also a story that took place before the choosing of Matthias. This does not even state that he appeared to the eleven, so that no inference can be drawn that he only appeared to eleven. This is actually states that the women went and told the eleven of the empty tomb and the appearance of the angels. We both agree that there were eleven at this time. For Paul to say twelve is not a doctrinal error.
#4 The apostles did not believe Paul was a disciple:Acts 9:2626And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.After Barnabas told the apostles that Paul had “seen the Lord” and that he preached boldy in the name of Jesus, the Apostles didn’t tell him to join them, but they sent him home to Tarsus. Remember, Jesus told us (Mat 13:57) that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country and in his own house . The apostles sent Paul to a place that no one would believe him.
Since we all come to the text with differing perspectives, we all tend to employ verses to support our particular point of view. I am guilty of this over and over without even knowing it. And please do point out where that is the case. But here is one place where I think you are given to this habit.
Let me show you why I say that. As you say, Acts 9:26 clearly states that the disciples were afraid of him. After all, up until this point he had violently persecuted the church to the point of death. But if you consider this verse in light of the rest of Luke’s story, Paul clearly becomes a respected colleague, not necessarily apostle, of the others. He is clearly not a person that they would send to a place so that “no one would believe him” as you say.
In fact, there is an interesting story that I am just learning about thanks to this interaction with your comments in Acts 15:13-35. The background is the council at Jerusalem and the ensuing discussion about how to handle the Gentiles that were turning to God. James is the main character here and decides that rather than “trouble” (v. 19) these Gentiles with circumcision, they merely write a letter to them to encourage them and instruct them on what they consider to be the basics, namely, abstaining from things contaminated by idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood.
This letter was to be delivered to them in Antioch by Paul and others. Listen to a portion of the letter (v. 24-26) that Luke transcribes for us, “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Clearly we can at the very least see here a great respect, admiration, and love between the leading disciples and Paul. This was not someone that the phrase “afraid of him” applied to anymore. This was not someone they were ashamed of. Furthermore, to claim that the disciples took Jesus message that a prophet was not without honor except in his own country to be a strategy for what to do with Paul is perhaps the biggest stretch of the above four points.
This specific motive is not indicated by the text but can and has arisen out of your belief that Paul is a liar. I think it is very important that our careful study of the text inform our beliefs about Paul, and not the other way around. To decide Paul is a liar and then force texts to support our position is not faithful to the historical record. If you’re at all interested in what I’m saying in these last few sentences, see my post called, #5 From Exegesis to Theology.
Once again, thanks for the great comment and the valuable research! Though I am obviously not objective here, if I were to keep score on our “debate” we are having here, I would have to say that we are tied 2 to 2 after four rounds, with you winning the first by knockout, the second by a decent margin and me taking the next two with a solid comeback.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
#49 Gates, Buffett, and the Apostle
There is an old argument for capitalism that goes something like this: “When the tide goes up it takes all the boats rise with it,” with the rebuttal being “True, but what if you don’t have a boat.” That’s an insightful response to an originally short-sided and oversimplified statement. But for a while it seemed that those who held the capital would never catch on to the failure of the rising tide of capitalism to improve the lives of everyone. That is, until now.
In a sign that the apocalypse may be upon us, Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world who recently decided to give away 85% of his wealth (around $30-$40 billion), had this to say:
“A market system has not worked in terms of poor people”
His assets will mostly be given to the foundation started by Bill Gates, the richest man in the world with whom Gates shares “a common disdain for inherited wealth and a shared view that the capitalist system that has enriched them so handsomely is not capable alone of addressing the root causes of poverty,” according to The New York Times.
The NYT went on to say, “As for any thought he might have had in giving the bulk of his billions to his three children, Mr. Buffett was characteristically blunt. ‘I don't believe in dynastic wealth,’ he said, calling those who grow up in wealthy circumstances ‘members of the lucky sperm club.’” Excellent point and exactly the point I made in my post #28 The Death Tax: The Greatest Tax of All.
So perhaps we are starting to see a top-down reeducation in America of just what capitalism can and can’t do. Buffett and Gates are finally realizing something that the rest of us have known for a long time. Will it take these two champions of capitalism to teach us its failures? Shouldn’t Christians be leading that charge?
The importance of treating the poor in the Bible cannot be overstated. Many of the passages placing importance on care for the needy have been highlighted ad nauseum elsewhere. See Jim Wallis’ book Faith Works for a typical exposition. It was truly an eye opening and political/religious/world-view changing book for me and I’ll never think, vote, or be the same again. But I’d like to highlight a passage from the first part of Galatians that I’ve never seen pointed out before and I’ve never noticed focused in on in my own reading.
Based on comments Paul makes in the letter, we can estimate that it was written at least 17 years after his initial conversion. He recounts the story of his call in this letter and how he went away to Arabia and Damascus for three years before going to Jerusalem “to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him for fifteen days.” I would love to have been a fly on the wall during those first two weeks as Peter and Paul were getting to know each other and sharing their experiences and beliefs!
He states emphatically that the only other apostle he saw while in Jerusalem was James, Jesus’ biological brother. He left after those two weeks and didn’t return to Jerusalem again for another 14 years, because as he made very clear throughout the first part of the letter, he was called to preach among the Gentiles. He then picks up in chapter 2, verses 7-10 with what might have been one of the most important meetings in the history of the church but it has been overlooked only because we don’t have great detail on the story.
7“...seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Peter, and John, who were reputed to be the pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the poor – the very thing I also was eager to do.”
The first thing to notice from this passage is the parallel of James, Peter, and John’s mission to the Jews with Paul and Barnabas’ mission to the Gentiles. This contrast is so important that Paul mentions to the Galatians here three times, in verses 7, 8, and 9.
The second thing to notice is that though Paul had been preaching the gospel for at least 17 years, it was not until this meeting that he says that he was given “the right hand of fellowship.” It seems highly probable that it was at this moment that the Paul was first recognized as an apostle on equal footing with those who had been with Jesus. It is as if before this day, the responsibility for the mission to spread the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles had rested primarily on the backs of “the pillars.” Now they were saying that Paul was officially one of them.
But this declaration was something bigger than just voting him in as part of an exclusive club or council that would manage the spread of the gospel. Due to the repeated contrast of the Jewish mission and the Gentile mission, this looks like more of a passing of the baton, a handing over of the keys to the Mustang, a division of responsibility. Paul was no longer in training. The pillars would no longer be looking over his shoulder.
This reminds me of a kid learning to drive but who doesn’t yet have his license. As the mom sits in the passenger seat, she is constantly giving tips and criticisms, occasionally shouting, sometimes quiet, but always retaining authority on where to go and how fast to get there. Then the child turns 16 and receives his license and as he heads outside to take the car out on his own for the first time, his mom says,
“Drive carefully.”
“I will Mom.”
“Don’t forget to wear your seatbelt.”
“Of course Mom”
“Don’t drive too fast!”
“I know all of this Mom!”
“I know you know what to do. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t nag you. I only want to ask one thing of you. Don’t drink and drive. That’s it, the rest is your responsibility.”
This story is an analogy of how I believe this epic meeting of the five apostles took place. Peter, James, and John, the pillars, the disciples that Jesus’ took with him on the mountain to see him transfigured, were giving Paul equality, autonomy, and the great responsibility of ministering to the Gentiles. They believed that God had called Paul and that he was trustworthy. He would portray Christ to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.
A proper understanding of God by the Gentiles was at stake here, but they left that up to Paul. They could’ve warned Paul about various heresies, emphasized a theological point, or reminded him that salvation is by faith, They could’ve told him about the evils of slavery, abortion, homosexuality, and foul language. They could’ve eschewed personal responsibility, family values, or the importance of dressing up for and attending church. But as he walked out the door for his first solo drive, they only asked one thing. Remember the poor, the very thing Paul also was eager to do.
In a sign that the apocalypse may be upon us, Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world who recently decided to give away 85% of his wealth (around $30-$40 billion), had this to say:
“A market system has not worked in terms of poor people”
His assets will mostly be given to the foundation started by Bill Gates, the richest man in the world with whom Gates shares “a common disdain for inherited wealth and a shared view that the capitalist system that has enriched them so handsomely is not capable alone of addressing the root causes of poverty,” according to The New York Times.
The NYT went on to say, “As for any thought he might have had in giving the bulk of his billions to his three children, Mr. Buffett was characteristically blunt. ‘I don't believe in dynastic wealth,’ he said, calling those who grow up in wealthy circumstances ‘members of the lucky sperm club.’” Excellent point and exactly the point I made in my post #28 The Death Tax: The Greatest Tax of All.
So perhaps we are starting to see a top-down reeducation in America of just what capitalism can and can’t do. Buffett and Gates are finally realizing something that the rest of us have known for a long time. Will it take these two champions of capitalism to teach us its failures? Shouldn’t Christians be leading that charge?
The importance of treating the poor in the Bible cannot be overstated. Many of the passages placing importance on care for the needy have been highlighted ad nauseum elsewhere. See Jim Wallis’ book Faith Works for a typical exposition. It was truly an eye opening and political/religious/world-view changing book for me and I’ll never think, vote, or be the same again. But I’d like to highlight a passage from the first part of Galatians that I’ve never seen pointed out before and I’ve never noticed focused in on in my own reading.
Based on comments Paul makes in the letter, we can estimate that it was written at least 17 years after his initial conversion. He recounts the story of his call in this letter and how he went away to Arabia and Damascus for three years before going to Jerusalem “to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him for fifteen days.” I would love to have been a fly on the wall during those first two weeks as Peter and Paul were getting to know each other and sharing their experiences and beliefs!
He states emphatically that the only other apostle he saw while in Jerusalem was James, Jesus’ biological brother. He left after those two weeks and didn’t return to Jerusalem again for another 14 years, because as he made very clear throughout the first part of the letter, he was called to preach among the Gentiles. He then picks up in chapter 2, verses 7-10 with what might have been one of the most important meetings in the history of the church but it has been overlooked only because we don’t have great detail on the story.
7“...seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Peter, and John, who were reputed to be the pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the poor – the very thing I also was eager to do.”
The first thing to notice from this passage is the parallel of James, Peter, and John’s mission to the Jews with Paul and Barnabas’ mission to the Gentiles. This contrast is so important that Paul mentions to the Galatians here three times, in verses 7, 8, and 9.
The second thing to notice is that though Paul had been preaching the gospel for at least 17 years, it was not until this meeting that he says that he was given “the right hand of fellowship.” It seems highly probable that it was at this moment that the Paul was first recognized as an apostle on equal footing with those who had been with Jesus. It is as if before this day, the responsibility for the mission to spread the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles had rested primarily on the backs of “the pillars.” Now they were saying that Paul was officially one of them.
But this declaration was something bigger than just voting him in as part of an exclusive club or council that would manage the spread of the gospel. Due to the repeated contrast of the Jewish mission and the Gentile mission, this looks like more of a passing of the baton, a handing over of the keys to the Mustang, a division of responsibility. Paul was no longer in training. The pillars would no longer be looking over his shoulder.
This reminds me of a kid learning to drive but who doesn’t yet have his license. As the mom sits in the passenger seat, she is constantly giving tips and criticisms, occasionally shouting, sometimes quiet, but always retaining authority on where to go and how fast to get there. Then the child turns 16 and receives his license and as he heads outside to take the car out on his own for the first time, his mom says,
“Drive carefully.”
“I will Mom.”
“Don’t forget to wear your seatbelt.”
“Of course Mom”
“Don’t drive too fast!”
“I know all of this Mom!”
“I know you know what to do. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t nag you. I only want to ask one thing of you. Don’t drink and drive. That’s it, the rest is your responsibility.”
This story is an analogy of how I believe this epic meeting of the five apostles took place. Peter, James, and John, the pillars, the disciples that Jesus’ took with him on the mountain to see him transfigured, were giving Paul equality, autonomy, and the great responsibility of ministering to the Gentiles. They believed that God had called Paul and that he was trustworthy. He would portray Christ to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.
A proper understanding of God by the Gentiles was at stake here, but they left that up to Paul. They could’ve warned Paul about various heresies, emphasized a theological point, or reminded him that salvation is by faith, They could’ve told him about the evils of slavery, abortion, homosexuality, and foul language. They could’ve eschewed personal responsibility, family values, or the importance of dressing up for and attending church. But as he walked out the door for his first solo drive, they only asked one thing. Remember the poor, the very thing Paul also was eager to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)