There are a few sayings, parables and stories by Jesus about buried or hidden treasure. One of them is about how someone finds something of great value and sells all that he has in order to acquire the land with the hidden treasure. It's a message about giving up everything in order to take hold of the treasure of the Gospel.
But there are two intriguing stories about a man who is given something of value and then buries it.
The two stories are similar and some scholars have argued that they are simply two different accounts of the same story, remembered differently by the Gospel-writers. In my opinion they are two similar yet different stories, spoken around the same time but with slightly different details and possibly a slightly different message.
Matthew tells the story of the 'parable of the talents' (25:14-30) as a parable about the kingdom of heaven; and Luke has a similar 'parable of the pounds [or, minas]' (19:11-27) "because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately" (v. 11).
In both stories a man travels into a far country, and before going he divides some money amongst his servants (in Luke's story they each receive one mina, and in Matthew's they receive a varying number of 'talents'). When he returns he calls them all to account to see how they have done. He commends the servants who have traded or invested well, and condemns one servant who did nothing with the mina or talent he was given. In Luke's story the last servant to give account says he hid the money wrapped in a handkerchief, while in Matthew's story the last servant reports how he buried it in the ground.
Both stories end with the owner of the money reprimanding the 'lazy' servant and telling him he ought to have at least put the money in the bank so he could have gained some interest.
The point of both stories is fairly obvious - we ought to put the talents, resources and opportunities we have been given to good use so that they produce something worthwhile for our Master. In both stories the master shows that he is delighted by a ten-fold increase, or even a doubling of what he has given on trust, but that he is extremely annoyed to simply receive back what he has entrusted. In Matthew's story the 'lazy' servant argues that he has kept 'safe' what he has been given. Both stories have this servant saying "I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed [Matt and Lk], and collecting what you did not deposit [Lk]".
There are two important things to note here.
1. First we should note the attitude of the various servants to their master;
2. Then we should note the attitude of the 'lazy' [Matt] or 'wicked' [Lk] servant to what was entrusted to him.
The lazy servant says "I knew you to be a hard man ..." John Wesley, in his Notes on the New Testament, observes that "he never knew Christ who thinks him to be a hard master". This is a valuable observation. The servant who said "I knew you ..." was the servant who didn't know his master at all. On the other hand, the other servants put to good use what had been entrusted to them and produced outstanding results. In one story they double their money, while in the other they increase it 5 or 10 times! These servants didn't produce such a good return on their investment by good luck. They too had observed their master over the years, noted how he'd produced amazing results (apparently "reaping where he had not sowed"), and no doubt they had used some of the same manners and methods they'd observed in their successful and prosperous master. They were ultimately successful because they had imitated their master.
The lazy servant didn't know his master, nor did he know what was in his hand. Rather than see its potential to achieve some wonderful results he saw it as an onerous responsibility, a burden to be carried. Rather than see it as life-giving (when the master said he wanted to see his money back "with interest" the Greek literally means "with children") he saw it as something to be "wrapped up" and "buried". He mummified it!
What are we doing with whatever it is God has entrusted to us? Do we see them as talents, resources and opportunities which can produce amazing and outstanding results if only we imitate our Master's manners and methods? Or do we see it as something to be "preserved" and then handed back "intact" when we are called to account.
I often hear brethren speak of "preserving the Truth" as though all we have to do is to make sure nothing ever changes. These brethren often fight hard to make sure that creeds, dogmas, statements of faith, and other expressions of "the faith" are preserved "intact" and that any challenge to them is resisted and put down. I hear people, especially in the minority 'splinter' groups, boast that they are the closest things to "original Christadelphians" and that nothing with them has changed in 140 years. If this is what God wants then He doesn't really need anyone to help - He can bury it in the sands (like the Dead Sea scrolls) and preserve it for as long as He wants.
But God hasn't called us to "preserve" the truth - He has called us to put it out there so that it can produce children! He has called us to exercise faith, to take risks, to look for challenges and opportunities. If the master in these stories wanted to take the "safe" way, then he would have put his money in the bank. But instead, he put it in the hands of men who really knew him and would follow his example. In my experience it is often the people who think they know the most about Christ are the ones who know Him the least. Like the lazy/wicked servant they think they know Him, but their failure to follow His example, to use His methods and to have a heart for the things and for the people for which he has a heart, they demonstrate that they never knew Him at all.
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Friday, January 19, 2007
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Doctrine & Conduct (10) - "Faith" in the rest of the NT
I concluded the previous post with an assertion that Jesus never referred to "the faith" as a set of doctrinal statements, or a system of belief or theology, or fundamentals/foundations/first principles of things which must be believed in order to belong to the people of God. To Him "faith" meant a practical trust in the power of God to provide and to meet physical needs.
But what about the early Christians, specifically Paul and the other writers of the New Testament? Before looking at any of the other NT references to "faith" I just want to make the general comment that I feel that commentators often interpret the Gospels in the light of Paul and the other apostles, rather than interpreting Paul in the light of the Gospels. For example, it's common to define "Christianity", or "the Gospel", or to determine the fundamentals or first principles from the writings of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. This is such a common practice that Paul, rather than Jesus, has at times been described as the founder of Christianity (for example, in Gerd Ludemann's book Paul: the Founder of Christianity). By starting from a position that Paul's letters were written before the Gospels, C.S. Lewis concluded that the Gospel is not in the Gospels! Based on the claim that Paul's message was primarily about the cross Billy Graham wrote that "Jesus came to do three days work. Jesus came not primarily to preach the Gospel ... But He came rather that there might be a Gospel to preach." (For references see this article by Anthony Buzzard).
Some people might criticise these comments while themselves interpreting many of Jesus' sayings against a background of Paul's writings, rather than interpreting Paul as a follower of Jesus. So it appears that we sometimes have Paul in conflict with Jesus because we have approached his letters from the wrong end. I don't want to go off on a tangent (although I might write a digression about this later), but I'll just give one example of how this works in practice. The idea that women must be silent in church and have no leadership role is based solely on the writings of Paul while it seems that Jesus acted radically against custom and convention. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus, by example, taught the opposite of Paul: Jesus spoke with women in public (it was forbidden for rabbis to speak to a woman in public in case it appeared that he was teaching her!); a group of women followed Him, supported Him from their livelihood, and were part of His inner circle; and on one occasion Jesus said it was better for a woman to sit at His feet and learn from Him than to attend to domestic chores. Jesus raised the social status of women. From a casual reading of Paul's letters it appears that he contradicted himself: on one occasion he said there was no difference between men and women in Christ, while on another he said women should be silent in church. However, the apparent contradictions soon disappear when we interpret Paul in the light of Jesus' radical transformation of the place of women. While Jewish society and the religious leadership taught that women should not be educated in Torah, Paul, acting on Jesus' example, said "a woman should learn" (1 Tim 2:11) and should not exercise leadership until she has first had an education in spiritual matters. The idea that women should be in submission to men isn't in Paul's writings at all - these ideas came later from the likes of Tertullian and Augustine and Paul has been misquoted in order to defend them. Take the "church fathers" out of the picture and read Paul as a disciple of Jesus and we find him teaching something quite different. (My apology for going off on a tangent).
Coming back to faith we see that Paul built on the teachings on Jesus that "faith" means a practical trust in the power of God to provide, to meet physical needs and to save. Paul used the noun pistis 142 times, compared to 101 times in the rest of the NT. He used the verb pisteuo 54 times and the adjective pistos 33 times. Thanks to Paul's considerable teaching on the subject faith became established as of central importance in Christianity.
Tied in to his teaching about faith, Paul also emphasised that salvation is a gift of grace and cannot be earned. We cannot merit salvation - we can only trust in God to provide. When he writes that we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" and refers to Christ as "a sacrifice of atonement" he immediately adds that this is effected "through faith in his blood" (Rom 3:24-25). In other words, God has done everything necessary for our salvation - it is "freely by his grace" - there is nothing we can do to merit it. Our role is to trust (pistis) Him to save. The link between grace and faith is also made elsewhere (e.g. Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"). As Leon Morris has written: "Grace is important in understanding faith, for it emphasises that salvation is a free gift, not a reward for human achievement of any sort, even as a reward for outstanding faith" (my emphasis - "Faith" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters).
Nowhere does Paul write of faith as something that can be acquired through learning. He describes it as a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9, Rom 12:3), as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and links it to the indwelling of Christ in the believer (Gal 2:20).
The expression "the faith" is often used by believers as way of referring to correct doctrine - the one, true, apostolic faith. It has become another way of speaking of a system of theology, or as a set of distinctive doctrines which separate one denomination from others. So the theological position of a church or denomination is often summarised as their defining "Statement of Faith". It has sometimes been claimed that conflicts, divisions, debates and arguments in defence of a doctrinal or theological position are actually a defence of "the faith" and are required by Jude 3 - "contend for the faith". Ironically, I have actually seen some ungodly behaviour defended on the basis that it was justified because it was in defence of "the faith".
However, Paul distinguished faith from knowledge (Eph 4:13) and emphasised that "my message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Cor 2:4-5). Nothing could be clearer: "faith" is not defended by persuasive arguments but through the demonstration of the power of God in our lives.
What did Paul mean then by "the faith" (with the definite article)? Leon Morris answers this well:
But what about the early Christians, specifically Paul and the other writers of the New Testament? Before looking at any of the other NT references to "faith" I just want to make the general comment that I feel that commentators often interpret the Gospels in the light of Paul and the other apostles, rather than interpreting Paul in the light of the Gospels. For example, it's common to define "Christianity", or "the Gospel", or to determine the fundamentals or first principles from the writings of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. This is such a common practice that Paul, rather than Jesus, has at times been described as the founder of Christianity (for example, in Gerd Ludemann's book Paul: the Founder of Christianity). By starting from a position that Paul's letters were written before the Gospels, C.S. Lewis concluded that the Gospel is not in the Gospels! Based on the claim that Paul's message was primarily about the cross Billy Graham wrote that "Jesus came to do three days work. Jesus came not primarily to preach the Gospel ... But He came rather that there might be a Gospel to preach." (For references see this article by Anthony Buzzard).
Some people might criticise these comments while themselves interpreting many of Jesus' sayings against a background of Paul's writings, rather than interpreting Paul as a follower of Jesus. So it appears that we sometimes have Paul in conflict with Jesus because we have approached his letters from the wrong end. I don't want to go off on a tangent (although I might write a digression about this later), but I'll just give one example of how this works in practice. The idea that women must be silent in church and have no leadership role is based solely on the writings of Paul while it seems that Jesus acted radically against custom and convention. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus, by example, taught the opposite of Paul: Jesus spoke with women in public (it was forbidden for rabbis to speak to a woman in public in case it appeared that he was teaching her!); a group of women followed Him, supported Him from their livelihood, and were part of His inner circle; and on one occasion Jesus said it was better for a woman to sit at His feet and learn from Him than to attend to domestic chores. Jesus raised the social status of women. From a casual reading of Paul's letters it appears that he contradicted himself: on one occasion he said there was no difference between men and women in Christ, while on another he said women should be silent in church. However, the apparent contradictions soon disappear when we interpret Paul in the light of Jesus' radical transformation of the place of women. While Jewish society and the religious leadership taught that women should not be educated in Torah, Paul, acting on Jesus' example, said "a woman should learn" (1 Tim 2:11) and should not exercise leadership until she has first had an education in spiritual matters. The idea that women should be in submission to men isn't in Paul's writings at all - these ideas came later from the likes of Tertullian and Augustine and Paul has been misquoted in order to defend them. Take the "church fathers" out of the picture and read Paul as a disciple of Jesus and we find him teaching something quite different. (My apology for going off on a tangent).
Coming back to faith we see that Paul built on the teachings on Jesus that "faith" means a practical trust in the power of God to provide, to meet physical needs and to save. Paul used the noun pistis 142 times, compared to 101 times in the rest of the NT. He used the verb pisteuo 54 times and the adjective pistos 33 times. Thanks to Paul's considerable teaching on the subject faith became established as of central importance in Christianity.
Tied in to his teaching about faith, Paul also emphasised that salvation is a gift of grace and cannot be earned. We cannot merit salvation - we can only trust in God to provide. When he writes that we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" and refers to Christ as "a sacrifice of atonement" he immediately adds that this is effected "through faith in his blood" (Rom 3:24-25). In other words, God has done everything necessary for our salvation - it is "freely by his grace" - there is nothing we can do to merit it. Our role is to trust (pistis) Him to save. The link between grace and faith is also made elsewhere (e.g. Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"). As Leon Morris has written: "Grace is important in understanding faith, for it emphasises that salvation is a free gift, not a reward for human achievement of any sort, even as a reward for outstanding faith" (my emphasis - "Faith" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters).
Here is where some people make a mistake. They rightly insist that salvation is not earned by good works, but they then insist with equal force that it is dependant on good doctrine!The main thrust of Paul's argument in Roman and Galatians is that both Jews and Gentiles are saved on the same basis - faith. He relies heavily on the example of Abraham and says that Abraham was accepted by God simply because he trusted God to perform what He had promised. Paul argued that Gentiles are accepted on the same basis: those who are "of faith" are the "sons of Abraham" and are "are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith" (Gal 3:7-9).
Nowhere does Paul write of faith as something that can be acquired through learning. He describes it as a gift from God (1 Cor 12:9, Rom 12:3), as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and links it to the indwelling of Christ in the believer (Gal 2:20).
The expression "the faith" is often used by believers as way of referring to correct doctrine - the one, true, apostolic faith. It has become another way of speaking of a system of theology, or as a set of distinctive doctrines which separate one denomination from others. So the theological position of a church or denomination is often summarised as their defining "Statement of Faith". It has sometimes been claimed that conflicts, divisions, debates and arguments in defence of a doctrinal or theological position are actually a defence of "the faith" and are required by Jude 3 - "contend for the faith". Ironically, I have actually seen some ungodly behaviour defended on the basis that it was justified because it was in defence of "the faith".
However, Paul distinguished faith from knowledge (Eph 4:13) and emphasised that "my message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Cor 2:4-5). Nothing could be clearer: "faith" is not defended by persuasive arguments but through the demonstration of the power of God in our lives.
What did Paul mean then by "the faith" (with the definite article)? Leon Morris answers this well:
"So fundamental is faith that the term may be used to categorise the whole Christian way, and the expression 'the faith' comes into being, not simply as a way of referring to the trust in Christ that is so basic, but as a means of drawing attention to the whole body of teaching and practice that characterises the Christian group ... the whole Christian system of truth that so strongly emphasised the importance of faith ... the Christian way of belief that results from that trust" (ibid).Paul has the whole faith-based Christian life in mind when he writes "examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith" (2 Cor 13:5), or "stand firm in the faith" (1 Cor 16:13). His emphasis was on the practical outworking of faith in Christian lives. So he wrote in Phil 1:27 "Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then ... I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel".
Paul was not appealing for doctrinal uniformity, but for steadfast and consistent Christian living.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Doctrine & Conduct (9) - "The Faith"
In earlier posts I've shown that the primary use of the noun pistis/"faith" and the corresponding verb pisteou/"believe" in the Gospels is in reference to a person's trust in God or Christ to provide, heal or save.
Faith, or faithfulness (which may be a better representation of pistis) is a distinctive characteristic of the people of God. Some of the elements of this faithfulness are loyalty, risk-taking, sometimes radical disobedience to authorities , persistance and cross-carrying; and it is deeply rooted in the principles of justice, equity and fairness. I said earlier:
In modern usage the word "faith" is oftened preceeded by the definite article "the" to refer to doctrinal orthodoxy - "the Faith" - and is often used as a kind of shorthand to refer to the one, true, apostolic faith. To have fellowship with the people of God, one must understand and give assent to the faith, usually defined in a Statement of Faith, or a Declaration of the Faith, or similar.
The translators of the New International Version, for example, have gone for this usage in translating Matthew 24:10, where they have "many will turn away from the faith" even though the Greek does not contain the word pistis at all. In fact, the KJV and most other translations render it more literally as "many will be offended" or "many will stumble". The Greek word is skandalizo and means to be trapped, ensnared, tripped up, to stumble, or be enticed [to sin]. It does not refer to "the faith" at all. The NIV translators got this one wrong.
There is only one place in the Gospels where the word pistis may have the possible meaning of "the faith" as kind of creedal faith, or as "religion" rather than "trust". In Luke 18:8 Jesus asks the rhetorical question: "when the Son of Man comes, will he find [the] faith on the earth?" The NIV translators at least got it right here and avoided the definite article - "will he find faith on the earth?" The context is about faithfulness and God bringing about "justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night". However, some Christadelphians prefer to read this as "the faith" to support a remnant theology that says that only a relative handful of people will believe "the Truth" in the last days prior to the Lord's return. I touched on this in an earlier post: there is absolutely no Biblical evidence, in my opinion, for a remnant theology which says "the Truth" or "the Faith" will progressively be perverted and apostasised so that hardly any at all will accept it at the end (if you want me to deal with this in more detail please email me). In this verse Jesus is simply asking a rhetorical question: when the Son of Man comes will He find the kind of persevering faith or faithfulness He just talked about. There is no hint of a suggestion here that the "one true apostolic Faith" will have disappeared, or almost disappeared, by the time of the Second Coming.
In my next post I would like to address what the other writers of the New Testament wrote about faith.
Faith, or faithfulness (which may be a better representation of pistis) is a distinctive characteristic of the people of God. Some of the elements of this faithfulness are loyalty, risk-taking, sometimes radical disobedience to authorities , persistance and cross-carrying; and it is deeply rooted in the principles of justice, equity and fairness. I said earlier:
Faith is a lifestyle - not a dogma. It's not about what people think, but about what they do.
In modern usage the word "faith" is oftened preceeded by the definite article "the" to refer to doctrinal orthodoxy - "the Faith" - and is often used as a kind of shorthand to refer to the one, true, apostolic faith. To have fellowship with the people of God, one must understand and give assent to the faith, usually defined in a Statement of Faith, or a Declaration of the Faith, or similar.
The translators of the New International Version, for example, have gone for this usage in translating Matthew 24:10, where they have "many will turn away from the faith" even though the Greek does not contain the word pistis at all. In fact, the KJV and most other translations render it more literally as "many will be offended" or "many will stumble". The Greek word is skandalizo and means to be trapped, ensnared, tripped up, to stumble, or be enticed [to sin]. It does not refer to "the faith" at all. The NIV translators got this one wrong.
There is only one place in the Gospels where the word pistis may have the possible meaning of "the faith" as kind of creedal faith, or as "religion" rather than "trust". In Luke 18:8 Jesus asks the rhetorical question: "when the Son of Man comes, will he find [the] faith on the earth?" The NIV translators at least got it right here and avoided the definite article - "will he find faith on the earth?" The context is about faithfulness and God bringing about "justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night". However, some Christadelphians prefer to read this as "the faith" to support a remnant theology that says that only a relative handful of people will believe "the Truth" in the last days prior to the Lord's return. I touched on this in an earlier post: there is absolutely no Biblical evidence, in my opinion, for a remnant theology which says "the Truth" or "the Faith" will progressively be perverted and apostasised so that hardly any at all will accept it at the end (if you want me to deal with this in more detail please email me). In this verse Jesus is simply asking a rhetorical question: when the Son of Man comes will He find the kind of persevering faith or faithfulness He just talked about. There is no hint of a suggestion here that the "one true apostolic Faith" will have disappeared, or almost disappeared, by the time of the Second Coming.
Having examined every reference to pistis/pisteuo in the Gospels I can confidently assert that Jesus never referred to "the faith" as a set of doctrinal statements, or a system of belief or theology, or fundamentals/foundations/first principles of things which must be believed in order to belong to the people of God. To Him "faith" meant a practical trust in the power of God to provide and to meet physical needs.
In my next post I would like to address what the other writers of the New Testament wrote about faith.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Doctrine and Conduct (8) - "Faith" in the Gospels - continued
Matthew records two incidents with some striking similarities: both involve Gentiles; both include miraculous healings of a third party; and in both cases the Gentile is commended for their remarkable faith. In recording these two incidents Matthew gives us an important insight into our Lord's view of faith as a basis for inclusion in the people of God.
Matthew 8:5-13 - a Roman Centurion's servant is healed by Jesus from a distance, and the Centurion is commended: "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel".
Matthew 15:21-28 - a Canaanite woman's daughter was healed, also from a distance, and the woman is commended: "Great is your faith".
An interesting similarity between the two stories is that they both include a statement that the servant/daughter was healed "from that very hour", an expression not found elsewhere in the Gospels. Perhaps Matthew intended that we should see similarities between the two incidents and learn from them.
The second incident includes some puzzling remarks by Jesus and deserves some exploration. First, it seems that Jesus acts rudely by ignoring the woman when she pleads with him to heal her daughter - "he said not a word". Then, when the disciples appeal to Jesus to send her away because she is becoming a nuisance, He answers "I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel". Finally, in what to our western minds would appear to be an insult of the most discriminatory kind, Jesus says it is not fitting to give the children's food to dogs - obviously referring to Canaanites in particular or Gentiles in general as "dogs".
There have been several attempts to explain these comments. Most explanations I’ve come across are based on the assumption that when Jesus initially ignored the Canaanite woman it was because His mission was to Israel and not to Gentiles, and He was serious in His statement that “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”. Well, I can almost hear people saying already “of course He was serious! Jesus should always be taken seriously!” Was Jesus serious when He said “If your eye offends you pluck it out”? I don’t see many Christians with one eye, so I guess we don’t take that seriously; or, at least we don’t it literally. Was Jesus serious when He referred to planks in the eye, camels going through the eye of a needle, or swallowing camels? If we don’t interpret His views literally there, then we should be open to the possibility that His words which were addressed to the Canaanite should not be taken literally either.
We are faced with another problem if we take this statement literally. Jesus had already healed the servant of the Centurion. Why didn’t he say to the Roman Centurion that “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”? Why didn’t he ignore him, or call him a dog? In fact, Jesus commended this Gentile for his faith, so why treat the Canaanite woman differently?
So what did Jesus mean?
In actual fact, I don’t think Jesus treated the Canaanite woman differently, or with contempt, and I don’t believe He insulted her. It seems to me that most of what Jesus said here was actually intended for the benefit of His disciples. Look carefully at the sequence of events: (a) the woman cried out to Jesus (presumably from some distance), but He did not answer her, then (b) the disciples become agitated and ask Jesus to send her away because she was crying out (literally “shrieking/screaming”). The disciples’ request implies that they thought disparagingly of her. Did they object when Jews cried out for help? Would they have asked Jesus to send away a woman in Israel who was in need? This suggests to me that Jesus’ initial silence may have been deliberately to see how the disciples would react to this situation, and this would be consistent with His practice on other occasions*.
Notice the next words in the sequence: “Then He answered, ‘I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel’.” Answered whom? These words were probably addressed to the disciples, although within the woman’s hearing. Jesus was reflecting what the disciples were thinking, and articulating their unspoken belief that He shouldn’t be ministering to non-Jews. The woman was not put off, and she came and fell at His feet and asked directly for His help.
Again, Jesus articulates the beliefs of the disciples by saying “It is not fitting to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs”. No doubt the disciples would have approved of this response! Perhaps this was the kind of thing they’d heard (or even said) before in the race-related insults which were hurled freely between the various ethnic groups living in this part of the world (and remember, Jesus is here in non-Jewish country, outside Israel proper – He’s in her territory!)
Her response was amazing: “even the dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall from their Master’s table”. Like the Centurion who acknowledged Jesus’ authority over disease, this woman also acknowledged that Jesus was her “Master”. A Canaanite woman accepting that this Jew was her Master was indeed remarkable, and her trusting submission to that authority was rewarded immediately and her faith commended.
Was Jesus sent “only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”? In fact, these words were spoken outside Israel, in Gentile territory. In the next few verses we read of Jesus feeding four thousand Gentiles (in a similar manner to the feeding of 5,000 Jews), and he heals the sick amongst a Gentile multitude so that they “glorified the God of Israel” (there would have been no need for Matthew to say this if it had been anything other than a Gentile crowd). Later, Jesus chased the money-changers out of the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple, saying His Father’s House should be a House of Prayer for “all nations” (literally, all goyim, all Gentiles). Jesus did in fact heal Gentiles and had a concern for them. After His resurrection He gave the Twelve a specific commission to take His teachings to the Gentiles, and later called Paul to be an apostle with this specific task. It’s simply not true that He was sent only to Israel.
The main purpose of this language was to first articulate what the disciples were thinking, so that they then would be shamed by seeing “great faith” being demonstrated by this Gentile “dog”. It was another lesson in inclusiveness. In various dramatic ways throughout His ministry Jesus demonstrated that those who had been rejected by the religious leaders as “unclean” or “defiled” were regarded by Him as “clean” and acceptable. He touched those who were condemned by the Law of Moses as unclean and allowed them to touch Him. He welcomed those who had been excluded and condemned: the dirty, the poor, the diseased, the disabled, the mad, sinners and now Gentiles. The basis for inclusion in the Kingdom of God was faith – not race, religious observance, ceremonial correctness, or doctrinal purity, but a devoted trust in the One who could provide.
* For example, on one occasion the disciples said to Jesus “send the crowd away so they can buy something to eat (Matt 14:15), and Jesus challenged them by responding “you give them something to eat” – His response was to designed to provoke a reaction from them.
Matthew 8:5-13 - a Roman Centurion's servant is healed by Jesus from a distance, and the Centurion is commended: "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel".
Matthew 15:21-28 - a Canaanite woman's daughter was healed, also from a distance, and the woman is commended: "Great is your faith".
An interesting similarity between the two stories is that they both include a statement that the servant/daughter was healed "from that very hour", an expression not found elsewhere in the Gospels. Perhaps Matthew intended that we should see similarities between the two incidents and learn from them.
The second incident includes some puzzling remarks by Jesus and deserves some exploration. First, it seems that Jesus acts rudely by ignoring the woman when she pleads with him to heal her daughter - "he said not a word". Then, when the disciples appeal to Jesus to send her away because she is becoming a nuisance, He answers "I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel". Finally, in what to our western minds would appear to be an insult of the most discriminatory kind, Jesus says it is not fitting to give the children's food to dogs - obviously referring to Canaanites in particular or Gentiles in general as "dogs".
There have been several attempts to explain these comments. Most explanations I’ve come across are based on the assumption that when Jesus initially ignored the Canaanite woman it was because His mission was to Israel and not to Gentiles, and He was serious in His statement that “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”. Well, I can almost hear people saying already “of course He was serious! Jesus should always be taken seriously!” Was Jesus serious when He said “If your eye offends you pluck it out”? I don’t see many Christians with one eye, so I guess we don’t take that seriously; or, at least we don’t it literally. Was Jesus serious when He referred to planks in the eye, camels going through the eye of a needle, or swallowing camels? If we don’t interpret His views literally there, then we should be open to the possibility that His words which were addressed to the Canaanite should not be taken literally either.
We are faced with another problem if we take this statement literally. Jesus had already healed the servant of the Centurion. Why didn’t he say to the Roman Centurion that “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”? Why didn’t he ignore him, or call him a dog? In fact, Jesus commended this Gentile for his faith, so why treat the Canaanite woman differently?
So what did Jesus mean?
In actual fact, I don’t think Jesus treated the Canaanite woman differently, or with contempt, and I don’t believe He insulted her. It seems to me that most of what Jesus said here was actually intended for the benefit of His disciples. Look carefully at the sequence of events: (a) the woman cried out to Jesus (presumably from some distance), but He did not answer her, then (b) the disciples become agitated and ask Jesus to send her away because she was crying out (literally “shrieking/screaming”). The disciples’ request implies that they thought disparagingly of her. Did they object when Jews cried out for help? Would they have asked Jesus to send away a woman in Israel who was in need? This suggests to me that Jesus’ initial silence may have been deliberately to see how the disciples would react to this situation, and this would be consistent with His practice on other occasions*.
Notice the next words in the sequence: “Then He answered, ‘I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel’.” Answered whom? These words were probably addressed to the disciples, although within the woman’s hearing. Jesus was reflecting what the disciples were thinking, and articulating their unspoken belief that He shouldn’t be ministering to non-Jews. The woman was not put off, and she came and fell at His feet and asked directly for His help.
Again, Jesus articulates the beliefs of the disciples by saying “It is not fitting to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs”. No doubt the disciples would have approved of this response! Perhaps this was the kind of thing they’d heard (or even said) before in the race-related insults which were hurled freely between the various ethnic groups living in this part of the world (and remember, Jesus is here in non-Jewish country, outside Israel proper – He’s in her territory!)
Her response was amazing: “even the dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall from their Master’s table”. Like the Centurion who acknowledged Jesus’ authority over disease, this woman also acknowledged that Jesus was her “Master”. A Canaanite woman accepting that this Jew was her Master was indeed remarkable, and her trusting submission to that authority was rewarded immediately and her faith commended.
Was Jesus sent “only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”? In fact, these words were spoken outside Israel, in Gentile territory. In the next few verses we read of Jesus feeding four thousand Gentiles (in a similar manner to the feeding of 5,000 Jews), and he heals the sick amongst a Gentile multitude so that they “glorified the God of Israel” (there would have been no need for Matthew to say this if it had been anything other than a Gentile crowd). Later, Jesus chased the money-changers out of the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple, saying His Father’s House should be a House of Prayer for “all nations” (literally, all goyim, all Gentiles). Jesus did in fact heal Gentiles and had a concern for them. After His resurrection He gave the Twelve a specific commission to take His teachings to the Gentiles, and later called Paul to be an apostle with this specific task. It’s simply not true that He was sent only to Israel.
The main purpose of this language was to first articulate what the disciples were thinking, so that they then would be shamed by seeing “great faith” being demonstrated by this Gentile “dog”. It was another lesson in inclusiveness. In various dramatic ways throughout His ministry Jesus demonstrated that those who had been rejected by the religious leaders as “unclean” or “defiled” were regarded by Him as “clean” and acceptable. He touched those who were condemned by the Law of Moses as unclean and allowed them to touch Him. He welcomed those who had been excluded and condemned: the dirty, the poor, the diseased, the disabled, the mad, sinners and now Gentiles. The basis for inclusion in the Kingdom of God was faith – not race, religious observance, ceremonial correctness, or doctrinal purity, but a devoted trust in the One who could provide.
* For example, on one occasion the disciples said to Jesus “send the crowd away so they can buy something to eat (Matt 14:15), and Jesus challenged them by responding “you give them something to eat” – His response was to designed to provoke a reaction from them.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Doctrine and Conduct (7) - "Faith" continued
I'd like to look at some examples of how faith is demonstrated in the Gospels, for insights into what our Lord meant when He spoke of "faith".
In Mark 5:21-34, Matthew 9:20-22 and Luke 8:40-48 there is a story which ends with the words "Daughter, your faith (pistis) has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering." It is followed immediately by Jesus' advice to another person asking for a miracle: "Don't be afraid; just believe (pisteuo)." This story gives us a remarkable insight into what Jesus found was so commendable about faith.
Try to picture this woman's situation. "She had been subject to bleeding for twelve years". This was obviously a serious medical condition because, as Mark says, "she had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse." (As an aside, it always amuses me how Luke, the doctor, instead of saying how her condition worsened under the care of doctors, simply says "no one could heal her".) Here are just some of the consequences of her condition:
1. Her illness would have left her physically debilitated.
2. Under the Law of Moses this condition would have made her unclean. Uncleanness of this type meant that anyone who drank from the same cup or ate from the same plate, or even sat on the same chair as this woman would have become "unclean" themselves and would have to go through ceremonial purification rituals before the day was over.
3. Anyone she touched would become unclean. This meant she could not go out to the usual places, such as a market, because she would have "defiled" or contaminated (in a ritual sense) anyone she touched.
4. She was not allowed to attend synagogue or visit the Temple. She was cut off from normal worship and religious activities. Being shut out of the "house of God" no doubt she would also have felt cut off from God.
5. Life would have become very lonely, as visitors would have had to go through inconvenient purification rituals after any contact with her. Over time less and less people would have visited, and visited less frequently. Her isolation would have become intense.
6. Normal community life would have ended. She couldn't go shopping, sit in a park, go to a relative's wedding, attend synagogue, watch a parade, fully participate in family occasions, hug friends or family, or play games with children. In fact, there wasn't much she could do!
7. With isolation and helplessness inevitably comes depression, and after losing contact with family, friends and community, becoming poor and destitute, and suffering physically from her serious illness, I imagine the depression could have become unbearable.
It's hard to imagine a sadder or more hopeless situation.
However, Luke tells us that "she heard about Jesus" and thought "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." Whatever it was she'd heard, she was convinced that she would be healed. This was not just a last-hope kind of thinking. It wasn't the kind of desperation that says "oh well, it can't hurt - it's worth a try". This woman knew "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed."
Now imagine the lengths this woman went to in order to touch Jesus.
First, she broke the Law by venturing out into a crowd where she would knowingly and deliberately touch people and thereby make them unclean. Both Mark and Luke make the point that the disciples said to Jesus "the people are crowding and pressing against you." It would have been impossible for this woman to get near Jesus without making many people unclean. But it didn't matter.
Second, if she'd been recognised by someone in the crowd she could have been in big trouble for so wantonly defiling so many people without regard for them or the Law which protected them from defilement. This was a risky venture and she would have to be discrete. I suspect this is what is implied in the words in Luke's account "She came up behind him ..." Perhaps she also thought that after she received her miracle she could also slip back home, undetected.
Finally, for a physically debilitated woman to force her way through a thick crowd of people who were "crowding and pressing" against each other would have been exhausting and would have taken every ounce of strength and courage.
Everything was against her.
Amazingly, she was successful in forcing her way through the crowd and in getting to Jesus. Mission accomplished: "immediately her bleeding stopped", she was "instantly healed" (Luke). But then the unthinkable happened - she was caught! "Who touched me?" Jesus asked. Luke implies, as I noted earlier, that she tried to slip away undetected. He says she realised that "she could not go unnoticed" and "came trembling [with fear - Mk] and fell at his feet". Jesus, however, was not about to rebuke her - He wanted to commend her. "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."
When Jesus then turned and said to Jairus "Don't be afraid; just believe (pisteuo - i.e. have faith)" He was undoubtedly saying something like this: "you've just seen real faith demonstrated - now have that kind of faith."
What was so commendable about her faith?
(a) It was a determined faith - nothing would stand in its way. Nothing would stop her from connecting with Jesus - not even the Law of God! (We should really think seriously about the implications of that, and I'll come back to it in a later post).
(b) It was the kind of faith which would lead someone to take risks. Obeying the rules and not "rocking the boat" might be "safe" but is it commendable?
(c) This is an enabling faith - it enabled her to call up all her reserves of courage, energy and determination in order to achieve her mission.
(d) It was an overcoming faith. This woman overcame her own fear, her weakness, and every obstacle which stood in her faith.
(e) Faith like this always leads to action. This woman didn't say "Jesus could heal me if He wanted to", or "If only Jesus came here then I might be he healed", or "I might suffer now, but in the age to come I'll be freed from my suffering". No, she said "I will be healed" and she did absolutely everything she could to make sure she was!
This is not the safe "theological" faith which expresses itself in a "statement of faith" and leads to arguments and disputes about words. This kind of faith is commendable because it is empowering and leads to action. It is a demonstration of trust. It is liberating ("be freed from your suffering").
We should note how Jesus said "your faith has made you whole" (KJV). He uses the Greek word sozo which is often translated "saved" (as in "He shall save his people from their sins"). Her faith saved her. Perhaps we are to see in this story an example of how this kind of faith results not only in miracles and healings, but in the complete salvation of the whole person. This is the kind of faith that is spoken of when Scripture says we are "saved by faith" - not by understanding or giving intellectual assent to a creed or doctrinal statement, not by having the right "beliefs", not even by knowing "the Truth", but by knowing and trusting Jesus so fully that we are driven to action, determined to connect with Him no matter what obstacles lie before us, regardless of what religious leaders might say or the community might demand. This kind of faith changes people. It enables them to do the impossible, empowers them to do the unthinkable, and brings healing and wholeness in the process.
In Mark 5:21-34, Matthew 9:20-22 and Luke 8:40-48 there is a story which ends with the words "Daughter, your faith (pistis) has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering." It is followed immediately by Jesus' advice to another person asking for a miracle: "Don't be afraid; just believe (pisteuo)." This story gives us a remarkable insight into what Jesus found was so commendable about faith.
Try to picture this woman's situation. "She had been subject to bleeding for twelve years". This was obviously a serious medical condition because, as Mark says, "she had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse." (As an aside, it always amuses me how Luke, the doctor, instead of saying how her condition worsened under the care of doctors, simply says "no one could heal her".) Here are just some of the consequences of her condition:
1. Her illness would have left her physically debilitated.
2. Under the Law of Moses this condition would have made her unclean. Uncleanness of this type meant that anyone who drank from the same cup or ate from the same plate, or even sat on the same chair as this woman would have become "unclean" themselves and would have to go through ceremonial purification rituals before the day was over.
3. Anyone she touched would become unclean. This meant she could not go out to the usual places, such as a market, because she would have "defiled" or contaminated (in a ritual sense) anyone she touched.
4. She was not allowed to attend synagogue or visit the Temple. She was cut off from normal worship and religious activities. Being shut out of the "house of God" no doubt she would also have felt cut off from God.
5. Life would have become very lonely, as visitors would have had to go through inconvenient purification rituals after any contact with her. Over time less and less people would have visited, and visited less frequently. Her isolation would have become intense.
6. Normal community life would have ended. She couldn't go shopping, sit in a park, go to a relative's wedding, attend synagogue, watch a parade, fully participate in family occasions, hug friends or family, or play games with children. In fact, there wasn't much she could do!
7. With isolation and helplessness inevitably comes depression, and after losing contact with family, friends and community, becoming poor and destitute, and suffering physically from her serious illness, I imagine the depression could have become unbearable.
It's hard to imagine a sadder or more hopeless situation.
However, Luke tells us that "she heard about Jesus" and thought "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." Whatever it was she'd heard, she was convinced that she would be healed. This was not just a last-hope kind of thinking. It wasn't the kind of desperation that says "oh well, it can't hurt - it's worth a try". This woman knew "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed."
Now imagine the lengths this woman went to in order to touch Jesus.
First, she broke the Law by venturing out into a crowd where she would knowingly and deliberately touch people and thereby make them unclean. Both Mark and Luke make the point that the disciples said to Jesus "the people are crowding and pressing against you." It would have been impossible for this woman to get near Jesus without making many people unclean. But it didn't matter.
Second, if she'd been recognised by someone in the crowd she could have been in big trouble for so wantonly defiling so many people without regard for them or the Law which protected them from defilement. This was a risky venture and she would have to be discrete. I suspect this is what is implied in the words in Luke's account "She came up behind him ..." Perhaps she also thought that after she received her miracle she could also slip back home, undetected.
Finally, for a physically debilitated woman to force her way through a thick crowd of people who were "crowding and pressing" against each other would have been exhausting and would have taken every ounce of strength and courage.
Everything was against her.
- The Law was against her - not just the civil law, but the Law of God!
- The religious leaders, always obsessed with purity and avoiding defilement or contamination, would definitely have been against such an enterprise.
- Her own physical condition was against her - it would take every bit of strength and willpower that she could muster if she was going to get close to Jesus.
- There was always the risk that someone would recognise her and prevent her from carrying out her mission.
Amazingly, she was successful in forcing her way through the crowd and in getting to Jesus. Mission accomplished: "immediately her bleeding stopped", she was "instantly healed" (Luke). But then the unthinkable happened - she was caught! "Who touched me?" Jesus asked. Luke implies, as I noted earlier, that she tried to slip away undetected. He says she realised that "she could not go unnoticed" and "came trembling [with fear - Mk] and fell at his feet". Jesus, however, was not about to rebuke her - He wanted to commend her. "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."
When Jesus then turned and said to Jairus "Don't be afraid; just believe (pisteuo - i.e. have faith)" He was undoubtedly saying something like this: "you've just seen real faith demonstrated - now have that kind of faith."
What was so commendable about her faith?
(a) It was a determined faith - nothing would stand in its way. Nothing would stop her from connecting with Jesus - not even the Law of God! (We should really think seriously about the implications of that, and I'll come back to it in a later post).
(b) It was the kind of faith which would lead someone to take risks. Obeying the rules and not "rocking the boat" might be "safe" but is it commendable?
(c) This is an enabling faith - it enabled her to call up all her reserves of courage, energy and determination in order to achieve her mission.
(d) It was an overcoming faith. This woman overcame her own fear, her weakness, and every obstacle which stood in her faith.
(e) Faith like this always leads to action. This woman didn't say "Jesus could heal me if He wanted to", or "If only Jesus came here then I might be he healed", or "I might suffer now, but in the age to come I'll be freed from my suffering". No, she said "I will be healed" and she did absolutely everything she could to make sure she was!
This is not the safe "theological" faith which expresses itself in a "statement of faith" and leads to arguments and disputes about words. This kind of faith is commendable because it is empowering and leads to action. It is a demonstration of trust. It is liberating ("be freed from your suffering").
We should note how Jesus said "your faith has made you whole" (KJV). He uses the Greek word sozo which is often translated "saved" (as in "He shall save his people from their sins"). Her faith saved her. Perhaps we are to see in this story an example of how this kind of faith results not only in miracles and healings, but in the complete salvation of the whole person. This is the kind of faith that is spoken of when Scripture says we are "saved by faith" - not by understanding or giving intellectual assent to a creed or doctrinal statement, not by having the right "beliefs", not even by knowing "the Truth", but by knowing and trusting Jesus so fully that we are driven to action, determined to connect with Him no matter what obstacles lie before us, regardless of what religious leaders might say or the community might demand. This kind of faith changes people. It enables them to do the impossible, empowers them to do the unthinkable, and brings healing and wholeness in the process.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Doctrine and Conduct (6) - "Faith" continued
In my last post I dealt briefly with the way "faith" (and the related verb "I believe") is used in the Synoptic Gospels, and said I would deal with John's Gospel later.
In fact, the noun pistis ("faith") does not occur at all in John, although the verb pisteuo ("I believe") occurs nearly 100 times. It has been suggested (e.g. by R.T. France, et al) that the reason for this may well be that by the time John wrote his Gospel towards the end of the first century the noun had begun to be used to designate the body of Christian doctrine, whereas John was more interested in the relationship expressed by the verb form. Of course this is speculative, although it does fit in well with what we know of John.
One of things that is really interesting about John's use of pisteuo is that his most frequent usage is to write of belief/faith in/into Jesus (in fact only two cases refer to belief in God - all the rest are to belief in/into Jesus). R. T . France comments: "This is in striking contrast with the Synoptics usage ... where only one passage explicitly mentions believing in Jesus. While faith in the Synoptics is primarily faith in God and is directed principally toward the experience of miraculous power, in John it is faith in Jesus, and its focus is not on miracles and on the meeting of physical need, but on the establishment of a relationship which results in eternal life" (op cit). This must be read as similar to Paul's language about the incorporation of believers "into" the body of Christ so that they are "in Christ".
John has an interesting thing in common with the Synoptics: Jesus is never spoken of as believing in God. Jesus is the object, not the subject, of faith.
In fact, the noun pistis ("faith") does not occur at all in John, although the verb pisteuo ("I believe") occurs nearly 100 times. It has been suggested (e.g. by R.T. France, et al) that the reason for this may well be that by the time John wrote his Gospel towards the end of the first century the noun had begun to be used to designate the body of Christian doctrine, whereas John was more interested in the relationship expressed by the verb form. Of course this is speculative, although it does fit in well with what we know of John.
One of things that is really interesting about John's use of pisteuo is that his most frequent usage is to write of belief/faith in/into Jesus (in fact only two cases refer to belief in God - all the rest are to belief in/into Jesus). R. T . France comments: "This is in striking contrast with the Synoptics usage ... where only one passage explicitly mentions believing in Jesus. While faith in the Synoptics is primarily faith in God and is directed principally toward the experience of miraculous power, in John it is faith in Jesus, and its focus is not on miracles and on the meeting of physical need, but on the establishment of a relationship which results in eternal life" (op cit). This must be read as similar to Paul's language about the incorporation of believers "into" the body of Christ so that they are "in Christ".
John has an interesting thing in common with the Synoptics: Jesus is never spoken of as believing in God. Jesus is the object, not the subject, of faith.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Doctrine and Conduct (5)
If Jesus did write a statement of faith, I wonder what it would look like? I think we can work it out from the Gospels.
Let's start with that word 'faith'.
The Synoptic Gospels (I'll talk about John later) use the noun pistis 'faith' almost always in connection with miracles which are performed in response to faith (either the faith of their sufferer, or those who requested Jesus' help). In one place Jesus couldn't do any miracles because of their "lack of faith" (Mark 6:5-6). R.T. France sums it up nicely when he says "Faith in such contexts focuses on a practical trust in the power of Jesus to meet physical need" ("Faith" in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels).
The verb pisteuo 'I believe' is almost always used to describe the response to the preaching of the Gospel and becomes almost a synonym for "to be a disciple" and refers to "the need for practical trust in the power of God to provide for the necessities of life, to heal or to deliver from physical danger. To fail in such practical trust is, even in disciples, a mark of an 'unbelieving generation'." (ibid).
In two stories in particular, about the faith of the Roman centurion (Matt 8:10-13) and the faith of the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:21-28), it seems that Jesus is emphasising that participation in the blessings of salvation is no longer to be on the basis of race, but on the basis of faith. 'Faith' in both these contexts is the absolute trust in the authority of Jesus to provide for physical needs, and not on intellectual assent to doctrine. Faith is the way into the kingdom of God.
Faith, or faithfulness (which may be a better representation of pistis) is a distinctive characteristic of the people of God, and involves loyalty to God even when such loyalty is costly. It is spelled out in the stories of risk-taking (stepping out of a boat in the middle of a storm), and of disobedience to authorities ('unclean' people going out in crowds and touching Jesus); in the sayings about persistance and cross-carrying; and in the call to live-out the principles of justice, equity and fairness.
Faith is a lifestyle - not a dogma. It's not about what people think, but about what they do.
Let's start with that word 'faith'.
The Synoptic Gospels (I'll talk about John later) use the noun pistis 'faith' almost always in connection with miracles which are performed in response to faith (either the faith of their sufferer, or those who requested Jesus' help). In one place Jesus couldn't do any miracles because of their "lack of faith" (Mark 6:5-6). R.T. France sums it up nicely when he says "Faith in such contexts focuses on a practical trust in the power of Jesus to meet physical need" ("Faith" in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels).
The verb pisteuo 'I believe' is almost always used to describe the response to the preaching of the Gospel and becomes almost a synonym for "to be a disciple" and refers to "the need for practical trust in the power of God to provide for the necessities of life, to heal or to deliver from physical danger. To fail in such practical trust is, even in disciples, a mark of an 'unbelieving generation'." (ibid).
In two stories in particular, about the faith of the Roman centurion (Matt 8:10-13) and the faith of the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:21-28), it seems that Jesus is emphasising that participation in the blessings of salvation is no longer to be on the basis of race, but on the basis of faith. 'Faith' in both these contexts is the absolute trust in the authority of Jesus to provide for physical needs, and not on intellectual assent to doctrine. Faith is the way into the kingdom of God.
Faith, or faithfulness (which may be a better representation of pistis) is a distinctive characteristic of the people of God, and involves loyalty to God even when such loyalty is costly. It is spelled out in the stories of risk-taking (stepping out of a boat in the middle of a storm), and of disobedience to authorities ('unclean' people going out in crowds and touching Jesus); in the sayings about persistance and cross-carrying; and in the call to live-out the principles of justice, equity and fairness.
Faith is a lifestyle - not a dogma. It's not about what people think, but about what they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
