Matthew 18:7-9

I've decided to do a commentary on one of Jesus' most well-known talks about sin.

In Matthew 18:7-9 Jesus talks about the importance and the weight of sin. Most Christian commentaries focus on two things about this passage: 1. The fact that Jesus never actually meant for us to mutilate ourselves and 2. That this is not a salvation-related issue (though some Reformed circles have started tackling the issue of "perseverance of the saints" and reconciling it with this verse, stating that those who are unwilling to take extreme precautions against sin and who are not taking it seriously as Jesus puts it here, might not be saved to begin with though this will not be the focus of this commentary). I want to focus in on historical study of the verse by understanding what might have been heard and understood by Jesus' disciples at that time which might provide us with another perspective on what Jesus might actually be tackling in this verse and why Jesus used the language that he did to describe the precautions that must be taken to addressing sin.

Jesus mentions gouging off one's eyes (verse 9) and cutting off limbs (verse 8). After reading this verse many times in preparation for the small groups I was attending that week, I recalled the other instances in scripture where "eye-gouging" seems to be mentioned. Exodus 21:23-25 can be summarized as "if there is harm that is incurred to another party in the form of physical damage, then it must be repaid likewise". Other instances of eye-gouging are in Judges 16:21 when Samson was blinded, 1 Samuel 11:2 when Nahash offered to make peace with Gilead on the condition that every man in the city must gouge his right eye, and in 2 Kings 25:7 when King Zedekiah's sons were executed and the Babylonians blinded him. The last three verses were tied to conquest and the idea of gouging your enemies' eyes out carries with it a burden of shame. I don't think it would have been directly related to what Jesus was teaching, though it might be important to note that eye-gouging might have had that connotation attached to it in those days.

However, the idea of gouging your eyes out and mutilating yourself made me look into how Jews at the time viewed this idea. In most commentaries I've read about the rabbinic laws against self-mutilation seems to point to the idea that it is forbidden. In rabbinic Judaism, human beings are not given uncontrolled autonomy over their bodies and actions, but instead are to be stewards of the body that God ultimately created and owns. This emphasizes the importance of preserving the living human body. Even agents who are hired to carry out acts (that would endanger or physically harm the party, that either hired them or waived the right to be free from harm from the agent) are liable for even partaking in an act that would injure an individual physically. Jesus, in mentioning that the measures one must take to cutoff sin, seems to condone (at least on the surface) an illegal act at the time. Jesus' disciples and those who would hear about this teaching, would be aware of what Jesus was saying and that Jesus used an example that if to be taken literally, would mean to break the law.

The existence of this mindset is further reinforced in the Mishnah and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Simon Bar Kokhba, a messianic figure in the early-2nd century led a revolt against the Roman empire. In order to have the support of the majority of the Jewish people he needed to have the support of the rabbis. One of the practices he was forced to abandon was how he initiated soldiers into his army. The Talmud points out that one of the two initiation methods of Simon Bar Kokhba was to cut-off the initiate's finger. The rabbis frowned upon this self-mutilation and thus Bar-Kokbha had to resort to the alternative initiation method, which was that each soldier must uproot a cedar tree. The Mishnah also states that a person asking to be injured is liable to the self-injury, as well as anyone else who was asked to participate even if it was stipulated that any party involved would be exempt. The only instance where an exemption would be accepted is if the damage asked to be performed is not to a physical body (Bava Kamma 8:7)

So what was really Jesus getting at? At surface value it seems that Jesus is truly forcing the listeners and readers to consider the weight of sin and its eternal consequences. However, understanding the mindset behind Jewish self-preservation of the body should force us to consider that it's possible Jesus is also attacking this issue. Jesus knew that the people at the time had a self-preservation mindset that to an extent dilutes the message of scripture (another example of this is Leviticus 19:16, and Jesus giving the parable of the Samaritan) and often muddles the true heart of these laws. And so I believe Jesus presented the Jews at the time with a dilemma: whose law are they truly obeying. In this episode Jesus implies a dichotomy between the laws of the land (the end of which is protecting people and encouraging good moral behavior) and the expectations of scripture (where protection and moral behavior are by-products and not the end).

While you can interpret what Jesus said in many ways, he still decided to use mutilation as the extreme approach, knowing that mutilation was illegal at the time. And the unwillingness to perform the illegal act is eternal damnation. Many Christians today would assert that Jesus is just highlighting the severity of sin BY pointing out hell, but Jesus actually highlights the severity of hell BY contrasting it against temporary shame (as pointed out earlier) and possible punishment from the law.

Many Christians are hindered from fighting sin and taking it seriously, blinded by the false assurance that they are already saved. Though no one is ever in a position to say one is not saved, the opposite can also be said: no one is ever in a position to say one is assuredly saved (both err on the presumption that we know other men's hearts and that the fruit of the Spirit are complete in any one person). Jesus confronted a problem at his time which is still prevalent in our time, especially in Western Christianity. This should bring a sense of urgency in our lives and we must constantly test ourselves as Paul asserts in 2 Corinthians 13:5

God's Sovereignty and His Ordaining Sin

Armenians vs. Calvinists:

There are many points that separate these two groups of Christians. One of the points that separate these two groups is the concept of predestination and free-will. I believe the difference is rooted in how one perceives sin, blame, and action, and how those concepts are tied together into someone's understanding of who God is. 

The Armenian perception is that God "knows" what's going to happen, but is not the one who "ordains" the act. My aunt and uncle put it best when they pointed out that God is a "gentleman", who is permissive in his ability to will something to happen. In terms of our responsibility, we are given the autonomy and the ability to say to God whether He can or can't do something in our lives, and we are given the power to become the ultimate cause to the end for which something becomes.  This also allows us to throw the blame away from God and thus explains why we're a sinful people. Our sinfulness is our "free-will" to choose God at some points in time, and at some points not choose.

To put the Armenian belief with respect to sin, blame, and action, God does not commit sin because humans, in their ability to choose, are the ones who commit bad acts toward one another. This is often the best explanation for Christians trying to explain disasters or terrible events. The blame is on creation or human imperfection, but when good things happen God gets the credit. I believe there is an inconsistency with this perception, in that if we are just as capable to choose evil and get credit, why shouldn't we get credit for being able to choose and do good?

But if the ability to choose good was never really our own, is it safe to say apart from the source of that good, we are sinful? Isn't that the concept of total depravity? And we have to put into perspective what sin is. A Calvinist would explain God's sovereignty and maintains His position of sinless and blameless in terms of how we define sin. Sin is all forms of ungodliness (which Jerry Bridges in Respectable Sins defines as not pursuing God's glory or not mindful of God). Sin is not contained in just what we do to others, but rather when we are not about and for God, through a Biblical perspective.

Sin is our tendency to not think about God, not pursue His Glory through our actions/thoughts/words, and not delight in His being glorified. And to bring it back to God and sin, God can't sin because God is always about God, regardless of the actions He takes to do so. Sovereignty is not something we should dismiss because it could put the blame of sin on God, because it is through that sovereignty that God can be all about God. God ordaining some things to pass is not sin IF the ends to which He is doing so is His glory. That's the difference between Armenian and Calvinist perspectives: God does not sin because He does not involve Himself in our acts of sin vs. God does not sin because all things He does, He does for His glory.

Ash Wednesday Prayer

"Heavenly Father, make death and eternity more real to me. Remind me that if Jesus is to be our example, let us lay down our life for the Glory that you deserve. Build in me a heart  Father that opens my eyes to the reality of my situation, the reality that I'm going to die and I will have to stand before your throne naked before the heavenly hosts. And on that day, I may be reminded of Your Grace, that you saved me from standing there in shame because I have wasted my life in worldliness.

Destroy in me any traces of idolatry toward my relationship with my girlfriend, my hopes for a strong/glamorous career, and a family. And let me be JOYFUL in dwelling in You, even if that means I'm might not be in a relationship, even if it means I will not have the career to be proud of or the money to support myself, even if it means I will not have support from anyone. Let my heart grasp what it truly means to give up myself during Lent. Let my heart abandon its fruitless dreams. Let me live a life that looks to the world like my treasure is up in Heaven and not on Earth.

As I enter this Lenten season, deprive me Father of things that don't bring You Glory. Open my eyes to the work that the Spirit is set to finish in me, and let me share in Your joy as the craftsman of my soul. Bring to remembrance what Your Son has done for me at the cross daily. This I pray in Christ's name, Amen"

Counseling Others for God

So I took a long hiatus from blogging because it's becoming a drudgery and I'm having a hard time finding joy in the work God has placed before me. In Exodus 18, Moses meets up with Jethro, his father-in-law. Here we see three things about counsel and the intentions with which we must pursue or give them with.

1. In counseling others, we must be open with each other with the intent of glorifying God in truth, not in deceit . In this passage, Moses' recounts God's provision during the Israelite's escape from Egypt. Usually however, when we tell someone about how God is working in us we leave out the small dark times we go through, or the complacent times we experienced. Even in our testimonies we use the more glorified version of the events of our lives to make it a more astounding. In this recounting, I believe Moses held nothing back from Jethro, and it's a reminder that the joy from pronouncing God's goodness comes not from our interpretation of God's sovereignty over the events of our lives but comes from God Himself, allowing us to enjoy in His work through another person.

2. Always have a God-centered approach to providing advice. Notice in verse 17-23, Jethro counsels Moses about how he is spending his time. The biblical idea behind this is that duty before God that precedes relationship with God is detrimental to the overall growth of a Christian. Now Jethro didn't give this advice because he felt Moses was doing a poor job at it. He gave this advice so that the Word of God will also be with the people and Moses can have more time to devote to God. And it's also important to discern between godly advice and worldly advice. Note that Moses distinguished between advice Israelite and the elders demanded of him, and the advice that Jethro gives to him. The difference in my opinion, is the center or intent behind the advice. Providing food, nourishment, and basic needs for a large group of people isn't bad advice, but the heart is one that distrusts where God has placed the Israelites in that moment in time. At the same time, doing less ministry work is not necessarily a bad thing, if the intent of doing so is to focus more on God. So the issue here is not the advice given, but the heart of the one giving the advice.

3. Heed godly counsel with reverence and obedience, with a promise of God's provision at the end. Jethro leaves with a note in verse 23. He promises that through his advice, God will 1. Direct Moses, 2. Moses will endure and 3. The people will go home satisfied/in peace. All three of these things are good promises, but the 1st one is what serves as an indicator of Jethro's advice being a godly one. Jethro gave advice, leaving it up to God both how Moses will handle it, how it will be received, and whether it will work or not. And the rest of the promises (two and three) is an assurance of the gifts of the spirit (can also be a reference of Romans 5:3-5). Often when we give advice or counsel we don't become involved in the process as well. Our role is constant prayer over that situation and for wisdom/discernment in future situations where we might be counseling to others as well.

The Elephant and the Blind Men

I'm sure many of you have heard of relativism, an idea that reality is subject to the perspective of others and outside of people's perspectives, there is no absolute truth. And if there is an absolute truth, then no one really has it grasped yet or it would be arrogant to think they he/she does know it. The most common interpretation illustration for this is the Indian story of the Elephant and the Blind Men. 

The story goes that there was an elephant surrounded by blind men, and as each blind man grasps a part of the elephant he describes what he thinks he sees. One man claims that what he's holding is a snake because what he is holding is elongated and stretchy so it must be a snake. Another claims what he's holding is large and tough, so he concludes it must be a tree trunk. And as the story goes, the observer is supposed to come to the conclusion that each of the blind men's perspectives is true, but each are a part of a bigger piece. This is often attributed to religious beliefs.

The problem with the illustration is that in order for the blind men to be wrong, we need to assume that the observer is right. We need to trust the narrator sees the elephant and is correct in doing so. And if we step back and look at the scenario, that's the arrogance that we're considering to be "tolerance". Let me put it in context of religion: When someone says that "all religions are right", that person is making a doctrinal statement about his or her own beliefs that he/she is unknowingly imposing on those who believe otherwise. To relate it back to the elephant parable, it's arrogant to place the rest of the world's religions in the blind men's situation and have the all-tolerating agnostic in the narrator's seat. And people are always willing to bash the Christian for being close-minded, when in doing so the very accuser is guilty of the very same act. 

To bring it back to my first point, relativism is a belief/personal doctrine that is on the same level as the other faiths. To say that "everyone is right" is just as bigoted and ignorant (in the words of those who don't like religion) as "there is only one true God". In fact, to say everyone's beliefs is right is a religious belief in of itself that thrives on society's misconception of what tolerance really is. 

Tolerance should be "Listen, I still think you're wrong, and I don't believe what you're saying, but we can still talk about it" and not "Hmm, I think everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs". This is because the first person is willing to acknowledge the beliefs of the other person, when the latter ignores it. The first opens his/her mind to the possibility of it being right/wrong, when the latter just outright rejects it by not even considering right/wrong. And in writing this spiel, I'm taking a stance on this issue of relativism that has muddled what we know about culture, faith, and the true meaning of tolerance.

A Frustrated People

So Lord-willing I'll be able to keep up my devotions this semester, much like I did last summer. Things picked up for me in terms of academics this past semester, and I've realized that in situations where there is a trade-off, what you value the most is what you hold on to. Although that's common sense, we tend not to want to think of it that way because more often than not, we give up what should be most valued for things of lesser value. In my situation, sleep and studies for the study of God's word.

We're often dealing with frustrations in our lives and we don't know how to go about approaching them. I believe Exodus 17 provides for us a picture of how God warns us against our frustrations and how to approach it.

Exodus 17 opens with the Israelites wandering the desert as God had instructed them to. They become frustrated with Moses because in obeying God, the Israelites believed they deserve certain provisions for doing so. Often times our own frustrations come from expectations placed on God stemming from our own self-righteousness. And it's important to point out that they turned to Moses about the problem, not God. At the same time, Moses frustrated that they have turned against him when they should've turned against God. This passage teaches is that obedience to God does not mean He will provide what we want or expect from obeying Him. We are not entitled to anything in obedience to Him, and this means that if there is something to be expected in following God, it would be hardship.

God does address the issue and He calls Moses to gather up the tribe leaders and strike a rock with his staff so that water can quench their thirst. The implications of this passage is staggering, at least from a practical perspective. First, God's calling to Moses is ridiculous and doesn't make logical sense, yet it yielded what God had wanted for the Israelites which was water. That says a lot about our own walk with God and how His calling will lead us in our walk with Him, that we'll be called to do something that we wouldn't see as rational or normal. Second, the fulfillment of God's calling to Moses is public, in that His glory is to be displayed for others to see. This isn't pompous because the credit is not to Moses but to God. That is why the staff was used, as a reminder that it was the God who delivered them out of Egypt that will provide for them.

The last verse deals with being a leader and praying. The power of prayer is magnified in this passage, demonstrated by the success of either Israel or Amelek in the battle when Moses raises his hands/doesn't raise them. Moses is leading the battle differently, and it speaks about how we view leadership. Leaders aren't always the one in the front lines fighting the battle. Leaders also need help and assistance in their work, much like Moses did. Lastly, leaders must turn to God with all things, not just on themselves. Joshua led trusting God behind Moses, and Moses led the prayer trusting in God's provision.

What's even more interesting is the perseverance in prayer, and this is how I believe God wants us to approach prayer. Prayer will be tiring and it will often lack because of our own inability to want to praise God out of our limitations. In this situation, Moses persevered in prayer even though he doesn't know the result of the battle. Often times we pray for things that we want to happen, rather than praying for things that can change us. Like the Israelites, we would rather pray for water and food, rather than pray that somehow through this situation satisfaction in God is magnified and His glory be the goal to which they get water or not. We would rather pray for a better life without worries, rather than pray for a life that glorifies God in suffering and pain. We are so caught up in our own needs that prayer is what we turn to the least, knowing that God's will is not aligned with what we pray for.

Bible and Jobs

So I've taken a long time off from Bible study because of both my lack of desire to really just read God's Word and my preoccupations with finding a job/internship. I just wanted to thank you all for your prayers as I would like to share with all of you who've prayed for me/supported me in this time what God has revealed to me this past few months.

Just recently, I received an internship offer (one I didn't prepare for), while I got rejected from another (one I prepared so much for, even sending customized thank you letters to each interviewer based on their background and the conversation we had). The latter internship was paid and was in a nice building near the aquarium. The internship that I was offered was unpaid, working with just one other person, and was in downtown Boston in a one room office in the 3rd floor of a building you could easily miss. Through this experience, God really revealed the pursuit of my heart which was the glamour of business and all that it entails.

I learned so much about God's provision, that ultimately our preparation does not add to the glory He gets, yet we still prepare because it is a responsibility that has been instilled in us from the moment we were born. The problem with preparedness is that it creates in us a sense of entitlement. We make hard work = payoff a divine law (often citing Proverbs), only to realize that EVERYTHING we ever receive or get was ultimately through God's provision. This revelation comes when we finally lose everything, as Job did in Job1:21. The implications of this is that God's provision, NOT ours, is what's sustaining us. It means that we work not to provide for ourselves (because there are millions of people around the world who could barely sustain themselves from the same work we're doing) but to honor God's command for creation. Work also glorifies God in that work serves to magnify grace, in that the latter produces fruit while the former displays how much more important the latter is because it doesn't.

And I feel that whenever I prepare for an interview or whenever I prepare for an exam God reminds me this lesson because I worked hard for my grades yet I just can't get those As. As someone told me, God made people who are going to be B students. I prepared so much for my interviews, did research on how to do it right, and even sent in nice thank you letters, but I didn't get the internship. God has a specific calling for each of us, especially in terms of a career. Why burden ourselves with the feeling that we're inadequate because we didn't get a job or a certain grade if 1. Our worth is in Jesus, not our success and 2. It was never our provision and preparedness that gets us to where we're supposed to be.

So why prepare? Proverbs 21:31 tells us that the victory is God's, not ours. I sincerely believe that we prepare because it is Biblical. Jesus' parables hint at the preparation for the coming of the Kingdom. We prepare not because it increases our chances to get the interview, the upcoming job, the better grade, or anything that is better in this life. We prepare because in our obedience, we honor God's calling for us to work. The difference between this mindset and what I was talking about before is that internships, jobs, etc... have God at the end, not money, position, career, and family at the end of it. That even if we work hard and never get that internship, work hard and never get those As, work hard and never make a decent living in this life, God's glory was still magnified to be a goal worth more achieving than family, friends, money, provision, power, and anything worldly. In this we rejoice and boast (Romans 5:2) that our hope is in God's glory, not in ours.

Again, I just want to thank you all for your prayers. Lord-willing I will start writing more about my thoughts on scripture on a more regular basis.