BOOK REVIEW - "IDENTITY AND IDOLATRY: THE IMAGE OF GOD AND ITS INVERSION" (NEW STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY)

 What should we consider the source of our identity either as a human being or as a believer? And why do we end up falling into idolatry?

In "Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and its Inversion," Richard Lints gives an interesting persective in this book. With all the emphasis on our individual identity (e.g. race, gender, etc.) I expected this to be a critique of this mindset and pointing out that image seeking could be rooted in idolatry. Nope. He goes back to the beginning (Genesis 1), and investigates what is meant when the Bible teaches mankind is made in the image of God. He then goes to how humans have rejected worship of God and have created idols, such as when a month after Israel heard the voice of God give them the Ten Commandments, they ask Aaron to make a golden calf, and then declared that statue was the God who delivered them.

Lints also looks at how Christianity attacked idolatry, and then how Enlightenment Philosohers like Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche use the arguments Christians employed to discredit idols to discredit Christianity (and religion as a whole).

Definitely a though provoking book. I recommend it and also the New Studies in Biblical Theology series "Identity and Idolatry" is a part of.

DOES CHRISTIAN LIBERTY EXTEND TO SIN ISSUES AND DOCTRINAL DISPUTES? - A STUDY ON ROMANS 14, PART 5 OF 11

 

Squirrel at our house; nice pose, huh?

 Are there limits to Christian liberty as in Romans 14? If there are, are they based on solid Biblical teaching, or are they excuses to silence those who disagree with us?

Romans 14 gives two examples of where Christian Liberty applies in verses two through six: eating meat or not, and observing certain days or not. I will look at those aspects, but let me first deal with possible limits.

I had a friend who believed we have freedom in those area, but only those two areas: that if an issue isn't given freedom, there isn't any. I find that contrary to Scripture as a whole. Most would agree that food and day-observance were merely examples that extends to other issues. However, I've heard two areas where this freedom does not apply. One is if we're talking about sin, and the other is doctrine.  

Do I believe that Romans 14 extends to behavior the Bible attends as sin? God forbid! If the Bible says an activity is wrong in the sight of God, then it's wrong. A change in opinion or polls doesn't change that. The same is true with doctrine: Christian Liberty doesn't allow for teaching works salvation or denying the Deity of Christ.

Yet, those Paul who was writing to DID consider eating meat to be a sin issue. Likewise, those WOULD identify day-observance as a doctrinal matter.

Needless to say, some who set up the limits are interested in excluding behaviors they consider wrong. Some would say it's a sin to listen to rock, so they justify condemning Christian rock music. There are Calvinists who have concluded they figured things out theologically, and anybody who falls short of their standard is an Arminian and thus teaching a false Gospel.  

It is true that many Christians want to unite from those they should be divided from. Yet, it's no less dangerous to divide from those we should be united with. Those who want to divide may believe they're seeking truth, but they have an appearance of wanting to shorten the list of those they're called to love and have been taken captive by pride.

A careful look at the two examples in Romans 14 show Christian Liberty is expanded beyond where we may think. For example, 1 Corinthians 8-10 deals with eating meat sacrificed to idols. After all, the pagan's "gods" don't have much of an appetite when they're offered food, so then it goes to the discount aisle of Main Street Grocery Store. Some avoid eating any meat because they don't want to take a chance of eating food offered to idols and thus taking part of idolatry; others don't care where the meat came from and like the good price.

I naturally assume that Romans 14 deals with the same issue, but in studying this chapter, I've realized this issue is not specified here. Yes, it is logical to consider that the above issue is covered in Romans 14, but it isn't limited to it.

Moving to verses 5-6 which talks about observing days: At first, I assumed it was important festival days from the Old Testament such as Passover. Then, looking at the wording, I came to believe that it's referring to the Sabbath. Reason? It refers to day in the singular; if it's referring to the holy days, it would be in the plural. Also, it is the more radical suggestion to the Jewish mind.

However, David Stern in the Jewish New Testament Commentary made a valid point: We automatically assume that "the day" that is esteemed is connected with Judaism. But it doesn't say which day, meaning it could be any day - Jewish feast day, Christian calendar event, or the Academy Awards. He's not saying that it doesn't apply to the Passover or the Sabbath, but that it's not limited to them.

The focus of this chapter is that we need to receive one another, and we too often look for a good alibi to exclude others.

Are there any areas where you are quick to exclude other Christians that probably shouldn't be excluded? How about ways you try to reach out to others and showing liberty and tolerance?

CHRISTMAS AND THE SECOND COMMANDMENT

 

Nativity scene at Christ Cathedral, Indianapolis at night

Several years ago, I joined a Calvinistic FaceBook group late in the year. One of the rules was about not sharing photos that violate the Second Commandment, and the Administrator commented that Christmas time was when a lot of violations occur.

First, though: What is the Second Commandment? Some people will be thinking of Jesus' answer to the lawyer and wondering how Christmas disobeys the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. However, others will be thinking it refers to the second of the Ten Commandments.

But again, what is the Second Commandment? You see, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants break them up differently. For the Jews, the First Commandment is "I am the LORD your God who brought you up out of the house of bondage," and they combine "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" and "Thou shalt not make any graven image." Catholics also combine what Protestants consider two separate commands, but consider it the First Commandment, thus making "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD in vain" as the Second Commandment and splitting the commandment "Thou shalt not covet" into two separate commandments.

I will admit: When I was young, I could easily see why those two commandments were combined. However, separating them into two separate commandments bring about a distinction. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" clearly means we should not worship gods other than Yahweh, the LORD, such as Molech and Baal and the Ashteroths. The commandment about graven images deals with false representations of the true God. Remember that both Aaron's and Jereboam's golden calves were images of Yahweh and were declared to be the God who brought them out of Egypt.

Some could interpret the Second Commandment to mean that we should not carve statues. Biblically, this doesn't fit, because God commanded the artists making the tabernacle to carve cherubim for the Ark of the Covenant and Moses to make a bronze serpent, and there also were the twelve oxen in the temple to represent not God but Israel. After all, the issue of the Commandment dealt with the purpose of the graven image, condemning the creation of objects to worship.

How about statues and for that matter paintings/drawings of God? This falls more into what the Commandment teaches. Remember that no one has seen God the Father at anytime (John 1:18; 4:24; 1 John 4:12). 

But this brings us to why Christmas is on a collision course with the Second Commandment: What about statues and paintings of Jesus? After all, Jesus is God come in the flesh. Yes, He was fully man but He was also fully God. So are we violating the Second Commandment when we set out a statue of a baby in a manger?

Once again, we need to look at the complete commandment. The activity commanded is making items to worship. Are we bowing down to the carved baby in the hay? Are we burning incense to paintings of Jesus with the children? I don't. 

No, we don't know what Jesus looked like, except we know He was a Middle Eastern Jew. Any drawing or sculpture is an artistic representation. I have no problem with that. Did Jesus look like a blonde haired European? No, but it doesn't bother me to see Him drawn that way. Likewise, I enjoy seeing how other cultures portray Him. Becky and I have several nativity scenes, and one of our favorites is one done by an African believer.

Reality? There are times we do carve Jesus in our image - maybe not as a statue but by how we perceive Him. We need to avoid and repent forcing our convictions on God. But does God condemn artists who love Him drawing scenes of Him in the manger or accepting the children or calling Matthew or talking to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection? I don't believe so.

As Jesus told the Samaritan woman, "The time is coming and now is when the true worshipers of the Father will worship Him in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." John 4:23-24

 

ARE THERE IDOLATROUS PRIESTS IN OUR CHURCH? (Zephaniah Part 3)

 

"I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land," Says the Lord. "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place, The names of the idolatrous priests with the pagan priests-- Those who worship the host of heaven on the housetops; Those who worship and swear oaths by the Lord, But who also swear by Milcom; Those who have turned back from following the Lord, And have not sought the Lord, nor inquired of Him." Zephaniah 1:3-6, NKJV  

 

 

Looking at this following section, we see the scope of God's judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. (If I forgot to mention, Zephaniah was a contemporary of Jeremiah.) But notice who he narrows in on?

 

In Zephaniah 1:4, God states He'll cut off the names of the idolatrous priests with the pagan priests. But aren't the two the same? Not necessarily. The pagan priests are the official priests of pagan deities. The idolatrous priests are those who are supposed to be serving the Lord but are actually worshiping other gods as well as the True God.

 

One thing that is helpful in looking at the Minor prophets is to realize if they're speaking to the Northern Kingdom as Hosea and Amos focused on or to the Southern Kingdom as Zephaniah is when they're discussing priests. When the Kingdoms divided, Jeroboam of the northern kingdom allowed anybody who wanted to be priest become one, while the Southern Kingdom maintained the Levitical priesthood. 

 

Let me give you an example to distinguish pagan priests from idolatrous priests. If a secular politician is promoting secular humanism or a New Ager is propagating New Age teaching, they are the equivalent of a pagan priest. If a Christian minister stands up behind the pulpit and teaches the same secular humanism or New Age beliefs, he's an idolatrous priest.

 

Verses five and six list three specific steps taken, starting from the most pagan to the least, but all refer to an idolatrous heart.

 

First are those who worship the host of heaven on their rooftops. The Law forbade such a practice. Here is complete and blatant disobedience.

 

Second are those who worship and swear by the Lord. They, unlike the first group, are saying they serve God. But that's not enough. They also swear by Milcolm (aka Molech). They are worshiping God, but not only the true God. But is this truly worshiping God?

 

Finally, there are those who have turned back from following the Lord and do not seek Him. They are not trying to balance serving false gods with the true God, but they've stopped following the true God. In other words, they are trusting in the Lord with none of their heart but leaning on their own understanding.

 

We may not serve Baal, but do we worship Ball, as in FootBall, BaseBall, BasketBall? We may not have a golden calf carved out, but is there a golden donkey or elephant or porcupine in our hearts? We may not be trying to serve both God and Milcolm, but are we trying to blend Christianity with Freudian psychology or scientific theory?

 

Is there any secret idols in our heart? And if Judah didn't escape, should we expect to?