Spare the Rod or Discipline

Proverbs 13:24 speaks of the sparing the rod (Shebet) is equivalent to hating one’s son. It is one of the most talked about verses when speaking of corporal punishment and raising children. The big question is what does this verse mean for today. For that answer, we must look at the usage of the word rod in context.

The etymology of Shebet originally references the scepter of a ruler. The Ruler would use the scepter as a sign of authority, showing that since he held the rod, he had the authority to correct, discipline, and care for his community. It does not mean that the rod was applied as a beating device, but was a symbol to be used appropriately in matters of disciplining the community.

Shebet in Proverbs 13:24 was used in this context to reference an instructor correcting a young man who had made a mistake. This would mean something as simple as quoting something incorrectly and being snapped with a small piece of wood so that he would correct himself. The use of this rod is not specified to be used as discipline for disobedience and rebellion against the teacher, but as a general indicator that a mistake was made and needs to be corrected, much like a shepherd taps sheep to correct their path.

Proverbs 10:13 is another verse with the word, but states that a rod is to be applied to the fool’s back (cf. 14:3). It uses the same word Shebet. The Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) states the classroom usage was used multiple times, and in the same way used above. Is this metaphor or literal? If we interpret 13:24 as literal, should we interpret this verse as literal too? If we use a literal lens on one specific verse of Proverbs, it would make sense that we apply it to all uses unless something directs our thinking in the direction of a metaphor. Good exegesis would also say that we must not use modern culture’s understanding of corporal punishment as a way to interpret the use of the word rod, but the usage most likely used at the time of the writing, which in this case would be historic Israel from King David’s reign to the acceptance of the Hebrew canon by the Jewish people (1,000 B.C. -90 A.D.)*

The interpretive problem is the question “Is the focus on a type of discipline or discipline itself?” If the type of discipline is key, then it follows that people who are God followers are able to use corporal punishment in general. This would mean that if a child starts acting up, we are able to strike him in order to correct him. It also means that if someone leaves his cell phone on in the church, we can correct him in the same manner. However, if discipline itself is the key, the goal is to reach a certain conviction in the heart and mind of the one receiving the discipline. The former model can be a type of legalism. latter is redemption oriented. As Christians, we are focused on redemption, which means that discipline is the focus and not a type of discipline.

We can see this fact by looking at Hebrews 12:9-10 and asking “What is the nature of Discipline?” Discipline here is any act of inconvenience and possibly suffering that can potentially result in being sanctified. Note here that the kind of discipline applied is not mentioned directly, but discipline itself is mentioned. Also, as with any act of God, the discipline is mysterious. No one can truly say how much of the inconvenience is God’s actions and how much is human actions. We can say at some level, God is somehow initiating an act of discipline in order to bring us back to him, whatever that discipline may be.

In order to be a Christian, we must focus on the discipline and correction while not being wrapped up in a type of discipline. There is no magic formula to change your child’s heart. All we can do is correct in love and pray that God will transform them into people after God’s own heart.

Sex and Community

When we think of sex, we have many differing thoughts based on our traditions. Some do not mention it and act like it is a vulgar topic. Some think of it as dirty. Some think that it is free. Some think of it as recreation. There are many views of it, but in this post, we will explore the worldly view of it and the view that the Bible attempts to promote.

Contemporary Western Culture views sex in a few different ways depending on age and circumstance. For the young it is supposed to be controlled since it has led to many unwanted diseases and pregnancies. For kids, it is unmentionable. For adults, it is as you like it. If you want to abstain, go ahead. If you want to have a free for all, you can do that too. One thing that sex never is is a community project with agreed upon rules.

In Genesis 2, we see that woman is made from the rib of man and they work together in the garden. Eventually they have sex and bear two sons, Cain and Abel. It is interesting that Adam says that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. This connection that he observes shows us that there is something very important about the sexual connection between a man and a woman when it comes to intimacy and procreation. It shows that they have to be team and together through the entirety of the sexual experiences, even the results of them.

Sex as a symbol of community is about living together and working together with common goals of intimacy and procreation. This does not mean that anyone in a community can go to bed with any other mate, as long as the goal is reached because the goal will not be reached in that way. The goal of intimacy must be reached by acting in loyal intimacy. True intimacy of that nature will say that I will not leave the other if I truly love that person. Sexual aspect is merely an expression of that intimacy. Being open and free with a person in this way takes trust and to break the loyalty is to break that trust. The other aspect is that  this is a form of procreation. The two become a community of producing life together and to go outside of that boundary is to demote sex to not important. It takes all of sexuality, even the results of the sex event, and the responsibility involved and tries to push it all onto the other partner. This is not intimacy, loyalty, or even procreation, because procreation means not only to produce biological life, but to support it until it can support itself. To not respect the procreation element would be to show no value of human survival.

These two things are the driving factors with which we view sex, survival and relationship. These makes it a form of community. This community must be between a man and a woman for procreative purposes, but also must be a system of loyalty and intimacy as its logical end. Such a pursuit would make marriage worthwhile and would keep much of our marriages together. Because, let’s be honest, no one truly wants a marriage to fall apart. It is painful and we all know that something is wrong when marriages break up.

How have you experienced marriage? Do you want a good marriage? Can you commit to a view of marriage based on community and respect for what God has made?

Marriage and Divorce

One major problem in American Christianity is divorce. The problem is so prevalent that it is now on par with more worldly culture which encourages divorce as a readily available option (not to be confused with saying “desirable option”). This immensity of the problem has cause major backlash, that proof-texting Christians have pursued verses to counter this negative trend, leading to negative trends in their own right.

Matthew 5:31 is the primary text for combatting divorce. The grounds, according to Jesus is Adultery. There is some context to remember in this case. First that the men were the ones being addressed since they held the power to divorce and women did not. Second, the adultery charge gets double meaning since many of God’s laws address taking care of women in marriage and not leaving them to die. The reason for this was that women generally were not able to survive on their own and divorce was practically a death warrant since it left them to their own devices for survival (such as prostitution). Jesus is here addressing the men who would dismiss their wives over things like burnt toast or being too unattractive. Though our culture is very different and more egalitarian, there is still application for today, since many divorces end up in huge legal battles the end up hurting both of the spouses and children if any. We Christians must learn that God’s heart is not oriented towards harm, but is instead for peace. If we are His ambassadors, we must make His peace the center of our homes.

1 Corinthians 7:10-17 is an interesting passage that is not preached as often. In it Paul says that two believers must stay together if married. Paul also says that if someone does leave another believer somehow, then they must remain single. He must have been thinking of Christ’s passage on adultery and marriage (Matthew 5:31-32 & Luke 16:17-18). He doesn’t call her an adulterer however, even though she is divorced. If there is a non-Christian involved, they must stay if the opposite party is willing. It makes no mention of pagan prostitution practices, which would be considered adulterous in the Biblical tradition. The Christian practices holiness and brings it into the home , which was a form of evangelism. However, if the unbeliever told them to leave, then they may leave (if a woman, they would have no choice and it would be up to the church to take care of the shamed woman). Obviously, Paul has some almost confusing statements when considering Jesus’ words. We must keep in mind that evangelism and peace towards others was a major goal of Paul’s. Christians must honor each other’s marriages and not try to shame them. Even an unbelieving spouse must be shown grace and peace. We must work hard to love those we marry, and not in the sense that we stick it out and maybe some happiness will come of it. We are supposed to love them so much that we would strive to bring them joy and celebration over this wonderful union.

Luke 16:17-18 brings some perspective on adultery and divorce. In this section Jesus says all parties commit adultery if a divorce takes place. Jesus is addressing the entrapment and systemic evils that the Jewish people were practicing in those days. The problem was that the men were charged with the caring of women, but if evil men are told to care, they care in the only way they know how, and that is in selfishness. Such evil needs to be combatted. When the Church begins to confront these evils, we begin to imitate Christ’s mission to convict people of treating another person with evil intentions and being a shelter for the oppressed. The main sin being addressed is adultery, which was expressed by prostitution or seduction. Prostitution and seduction, however, was usually a last act of survival after divorce or in some other desperate circumstance.

The problem in the church is legalistic tendencies to entrap the abused party by placing laws based on misunderstood texts. This leads to a few points to consider about the mind of the person involved in this issue (some of this comes from a recent Greg Boyd sermon on the matter):

1) Abuse of people runs rampant and is not limited to the couple directly involved in the marriage due to legalism. Legalism has rules to simply say no to divorce with no concern over the details of the situation. The legalist makes the surface text about adultery the only legitimate circumstance (Although they usually focus on the Gospel passages and ignore the 1 Corinthians 7 passage). The receptive parties of these rules, if they find themselves in a miserable situation, pray that the other will commit adultery. This would give them a loophole to escape the marriage. This shows the legalist perspective on divorce leads to a desire for escape that does nothing to reflect Christ to others and seeks the selfish desires.

2) The abused people end up scared of the spouse, the religious leaders, or the Bible. The fear of the spouse is natural and should exist. The fear of the Church or the Bible is not healthy, since it is a fear that says, “Keep silent, and accept your fate,” as if God has designed an evil, inescapable plan for marriages. The Bible actually preaches otherwise.

3) Legalism also leads to a negative perspective on divorce. People either have to stick it out in misery or run away in misery. This is not a biblical approach to marriage, especially when Adam says of Eve in Genesis the partner is “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Yes, loyalty is the driving factor of the institution of marriage, but it does not mean the marriage is a cold, distant relationship. We can know each other on many levels, including, but not limited to, mental, emotion, and physical.

One more passage to consider about marriage is Matthew 22:23-30. In this passage, we see that after the resurrection there will be no marriage. The only relationship that will be recognized is the one that makes us loyal to God. No one else will hold any sway over us. The point to realize in this verse is who or what are you loyal to? Does this institution hold your loyalty over God? Does it hold so much control over you that you would oppose God’s will in order to support this holy institution? We must keep loyal to God. It is only in that loyalty that we will know how to handle divorce, adultery, abuse, and marriage.

What are your perspectives on marriage and divorce? Are we in an inescapable system? Or is their mercy in the Kingdom of God?

Fasting and Dependence

We depend on food and air for physical survival. To get food, we usually do everything from asking a servant to get it for us, to getting it at the grocery store, to begging for food on the streets. We strive to attain, but where does it truly come from? It can seem that with food, we are gaining our needs by our own strength. Reality, however,says otherwise.

Food is a minimal provider of energy. It is true that hunger is powerful and starvation seems to be problematic in our world. Scientifically speaking, it is a minute source. Yet we tend act like this source of energy that we control provides the most energy.

Air provides the most energy for the human body. Our bodies use the oxygen more than any other fuel we take in any other way. This is why we breathe all day and night as opposed to eating just a few times a day.We may think we have done everything to provide for our survival, but we are actually helpless to control and provide this necessity. Which raises the question, are who is the source of all we need and is there a greater work going on?

In the end, we provide nothing and God provides everything. One way to realize this is to practice Fasting. Although you can fast from many things, the traditional object is food. The reason is that abstaining from this teaches us that faith and trust is needed when following God. Going without trains us to say that I am powerless to truly provide. Jesus said in Matthew 6 that we are not to store up our life treasure with this world, in selfishness and fear, but to allow God to provide the needs and take us to the places that we need to go. This is challenging, which is exactly why fasting is challenging. Trust is never easy for what we do not see, but when we trust God in our lives, we will in the end know His great peace and wholeness.

Are confident in your ability to provide? Can you actually make things appear or grow for your survival? Are you willing to practice spiritual disciplines such as fasting in order to learn trust? Are you willing to let go of pride in order to trust God?

Arminianism and Pelagianism

Last week we looked at Calvinism and the potential towards bad theology. Today, however, we turn to Arminianism to study its one pitfall. Arminianism historically was part of the Reformed tradition. I tend to stand with theologians such as Stanley Grenz in thinking that it still should be considered a part of that tradition. In this tradition, there is an alternative view of God’s planning in that it is not set in utter stone from the beginning of time or directly after the fall. God is still sovereign since he gets what he wants by working more creatively with humans. God, however, chooses the grouping of people who will be saved and the other groups will be condemned (The God followers vs. the God opposers). This is a form of predestination different than Calvinism. To be saved, one must choose the group to be in, and in a sense chooses the salvation, but only since God has foreordained the route to salvation. Also, no one can choose God without God first doing a work in them.

The last point is important since it points to a weakness in Arminian circles. This weakness that you will find in Arminian groups is Pelagianism. Pelagianism teaches that all are able to choose good on their own. They have the power in themselves to choose God and choose their very salvation. Works and the individuals ability becomes the basis of salvation. This is a problem in good Christian theology, since we must believe that God initiates the salvific act. According to Genesis, we see that man chose evil, but God promised ultimate salvation. When Christ came, he came calling people to Him. In Romans 12:1, we see that God must transform us, albeit, if we let Him. We do not do this ourselves!

We want good theology. That does not mean a theology that sounds good. There are many things that are sweet to are ears, but true theology is challenging. It is not easy to hear that we had to be rescued. It might strikes us as unfair that someone had to call us from our state or we would have stayed there, but we must remember that the Scriptures repeatedly speak of God as coming into our history and starting a work in us. We still have to choose to accept and allow His transformative work, but He must begin it. John Wesley, a major influence of modern Arminian theology used a term called Prevenient Grace (that grace which cames before salvation). In this aspect of grace, Wesley taught that God is trying to reach to us and transform us before our moment of accepting Jesus as Lord. This counters the twisted view that we can approach salvation and righteousness on our own. Any good work is by hearing the Spirit of God’s guidance and taking the direction that He instructs.

What’s more, the way of righteousness, as long as the fallen order of the world is still in existence, is a difficult path. Jesus once said that this way is narrow, meaning that it is difficult and unattractive. That means that the natural inclination is to choose the well beaten path of the world. We need God’s intervention so that we are able to choose the right path, even to be saved. May God guide us in the way of righteousness.

What is your perception of God? Are you able to do what  you need to do without God? Or is God necessary to our holy living? Are you using your own effort as the way to heaven? Or allowing God to guide your steps?

Calvinism and Deism

One of the major sections of Reformed Protestant Christianity is Calvinism. Named for John Calvin, it has its roots in a theology that started soon after the Reformation and has been a major developing theology ever since.

There are five unique elements to Calvinist theology. Predestination is the one we will take a brief look at. In this theology, God has foreordained who will be saved. It is debated the exact when of the declaration (before or after the fall), but there is a plan along this line. The point of this is sovereignty. How can an all powerful God be if he has not ordered salvific history? It is a good question. Though I am part of the Arminian side of the Reformed tradition, this question does baffle me.

One thing I have noticed in Calvinism is a lean to Fatalism. Fatalism says that what fate has been given to is unaltered by the decisions you make. This is not true. Throughout the Scriptures, God interacts with decisions in an intimate way. Fatalism creates an impersonal God that cares nothing about personal decision.

A major view that says God is impersonal is Deism. Deism teaches that God place the world into motion, but made it in such a way that it would run itself. This meant for the Deist that God created the universe, but would not intervene. God made a great plan, but it is unfortunately an impersonal plan. If Calvinism heads in this direction, it will not fit with Biblical Christianity’s view that God is active in history.

Developing a good Calvinist theology means not getting Christian Theology mixed up with an alternative theology. Going to Fatalism and Deism will not help us live in Christian hope. Looking at John 3:16 and the teachings of the Gospel accounts teaches us that God incarnated to human form. God, even if he made plans like a Calvinist would teach, he still must be involved. God decided that he would hear the cries of His people and got involved. God, if he foreordained the events of History, only does it in response to the cries of his people. If God is fulfilling a plan he made before the world began, it has to be because the plans are full of His promises of salvation and rescue. Isaiah 54:10 teaches that God’s will remain faithful even in the worst chaotic event imaginable to the human mind. The point of theology is to study who God is, but that means that we must focus on God’s Love for us, even if sovereignty is a concern.

What is your view of God’s plans? Do you think he is distant and watching things run? Is he that distant and unloving? Or is he acting in love, fulfilling his promises in the here and now?

 

Poem

“Here is the place where one man rises and all others die.

The place where all who are with him are lifted high.

Here is the age where paradox is found and life is hidden.

The moment where love is the ground on which stand all who are risen.

Blessed is the one who was, and is, and is to come.”