Rahab, part 1 -- An example of faith

Day 79

OT Reading: Joshua 1-3

NT Reading: Luke 1:57-80

For those of us thousands of years removed, and knowing how the rest of the story goes, Rahab's choice is simple. We tell Rahab, "Trust in God...that's how things turn out well for you." But Rahab didn't have the luxury of reading her own story in a nice leather-bound best-seller. Rahab had to make a choice...one that could not have been easy.

On one hand Jericho was home to Rahab. She lived there, worked there and her family was there. And if the Israelites succeeded in their attempt to overtake Jericho, it is quite likely that all her friends, neighbors, most everyone she knew...would be killed.

But she had heard about what the God of these Israelites had done. She had heard about how he parted the Red Sea, she had heard about different nations that had been overthrown. She had heard a great deal about Israel and their God, even though she did know him. If she helps their spies and they succeed, she and her family will live. But if she's discovered...or if Israel's conquest of this fortified city fails, she'll likely be executed.

Ultimately (as you'll read) Rahab chooses to trust in the God of Israel, even though she did not know him. And while she could not read the rest of the story, she had faith that by following and being obedient to Him, things would ultimately work out.

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see."

Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

Funny thing...we like all the details worked out and the risk removed from any action that we might take. Yet, we see faith acting in just the opposite way. Even though, like Rahab, we don't know how things are going to turn out, we simply trust that God will accomplish what is best.

So ask yourself, when was the last time you made a decision, not based on having a fool-proof plan or completely secure logic, but based on the fact that you will trust God even when you have no idea how things will turn out?

Back on track...with a touch of controversy

Day 78

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 33-34

NT Reading: Luke 1:24-56

Ok...I admit it. I made it 75 days, reading every single day. I'd fight back sleep, I've gotten back out of bed, I've read from random Bibles that happened to be nearby and even on my iPhone. But on day 76...I missed my reading. Not only that, I missed day 77 too! So there you go, I made it that far, but have officially missed days. So today I did three days worth of reading to catch up. So don't feel too guilty if you've missed a day here and there. I can easily say we've all done it :-).

As for the readings, we've finished Deuteronomy (PRAISE JESUS!) as well as the Gospel of Mark, and there is a lot of material that is swimming through my head right now. From all that, there is a great deal that I could write on. But I suppose I'll stick with just one item. But...I'll make it just slightly controversial to make it up to you.

As you were reading, you probably saw a line in your Bible (it may have been a footnote in your translation) after Mark 16:8 which reads something like, "Earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20." Well for some this will be thisclose to heresy, while for others this will not be a big deal. But I, Mark Messmore, personally think verses 9-20 were not written by Mark and were in fact added later. What's more, if it were up to me...I'd remove them.

If you were in the class I taught at CCJ last spring (or listened to it on the CCJ podcast) on the Gospel of Mark, you've heard me voice my opinion on this matter before. And I do in fact have my reasons which I'll be glad to discuss - if, say, I got a comment requesting backup for my position ;-). But from what I see and understand, I don't believe they belong.

That being said, I'm not dogmatic about it. You can completely disagree with me on this matter and we still both go to heaven. As long as you're not basing an entire doctrine or a big piece of your theology on one of these verses alone, I don't have a problem with you accepting them. Just know that I personally question their authenticity and won't likely be referencing any of them in a sermon any time soon :-).

The many details of Mark 15

Day 75

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 28

NT Reading: Mark 15:27-47

Mark 15 is just littered with details regarding the events leading up to and involving the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Here I'd just like to hit rapid-fire style a number of items we see.

15:1 - "Very early in the morning"

It was actually illegal according to Jewish law to have a trial take place during the night. Therefore even since they had been meeting for some time, it seems that the Sanhedrin took recess then came back to have their "official" trial at first light. That way they wouldn't technically be breaking the law...well...that one at least.

15:1 - "Handed him over to Pilate"

We see that it was Pilate's custom to meet with the people and settle disputes before noon. And since according to Roman law the Jews could not convict someone to die, they needed Roman approval.

15:2 - " 'Are you the King of the Jews?' asked Pilate. 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."

The literal response of Jesus that Mark records would read, "the designation is yours." In other words to answer Pilate's question Jesus essentially says, "Hey...you said it, not me." Thereby affirming his answer...while not officially affirming his answer. Well played Jesus...well played.

15:6 - "Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner..."

Outside of this reference we do not read anything else about this custom in first-century area of Palestine. We do, however, see this sort of custom played out in many of the surrounding regions. Therefore it's not hard to see how it would take place here as well.

15:7, Barabbas...the insurrectionist

Outside of what we see in the Bible, we know nothing more of the particular uprising Barabbas was a part of. They were pretty common in Judea, so it's hard to say what happened. But with this example we further get the idea that Pilate wanted to return Jesus given the violent alternative he offers.

15:15, "Wanting to satisfy the crowd..."

Pilate was a pretty ruthless character, and this got him into some trouble with the locals as well as back in Rome. But more than one local leader had been replaced if they did not have the ability to keep riots and uprisings from happening. So, wanting to try to appease this crowd, Pilate relents.

15:16-20, The soldiers mock Jesus

The fact is, there were a lot better places in the Roman empire to be stationed than here in Judea. The weather wasn't all that great and the locals were often a tremendous amount of trouble and hassle. So these soldiers take a bit of pleasure in beating one who claims to be their king.

15:20, Jesus led out to be crucified

This was not a short trip. On this journey the crossbeam of the cross (called the patibulum) would be placed on the condemned man's back and he would be beaten as he walked to where he'd ultimately die. The route went through some of the busiest parts of town, showing off what happened to those who crossed the Roman empire as well as allowing bystanders to spit on and mock the condemned.

15:21, Simon forced to carry the cross

By Roman law a soldier could, at will, enlist a civilian to carry something for one mile. This could be his armor, supplies, or in this case...a condemned man's cross.

15:24, Cast lots for Jesus clothing.

Those carrying out the crucifixion would get to split the clothing or whatever other possessions the condemned man had on him at the time of his arrest. But in doing this, they unintentionally fulfilled a prophesy about what would happen to the Messiah (Psalm 22:18).

15:26, The written notice

It was common to write the offense of the condemned and post it above his head so that everyone would see the terrible crime(s) he committed.

15:27, They crucified two robbers with him

Since it was the Roman practice to crucify together those who had been involved in the same act, it's quite possible that these two had been in league with Barabbas.

15:34, "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice..."

Two details. One, Jesus was only on the cross for six hours. Typically death by crucifixion took days...it was designed to extract the most amount of pain and humiliation possible. Pilate even is surprised by Jesus' quick death. Second, Jesus cried out in a loud voice. Most deaths by crucifixion were by someone suffocating. This was not the case with Jesus as he would not have been able to cry out in such a loud voice.

15:43, Joseph of Arimathea

Being a prominent member of the council, it would have made political sense for Joseph to keep his faith in Jesus a secret. However by asking for Jesus' body that's no longer an option. Joseph takes a bold stand in doing this.

There sure is a lot of polygamy...

Day 73

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 23-25

NT Reading: Mark 14:53-72

So let me get this straight...

If a man marries a woman, then dies without a son, his brother has to marry the widow to make sure that his (the now deceased man) name is continued.

Yep. That's about right.

To us, that seems really, REALLY weird. To most of us the idea of polygamy or even marrying someone's brother-in-law just seems to be ridiculously out of the question. In fact, if our understanding of the New Testament is right, God seems to indicate that a man should be the husband of just one wife (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). So...why is all this happening? Is it really ok or did God just change his mind somewhere along the way?

This is a fairly common question, especially when we deal with Old Testament topics. So I'll do my best to deal with what all was happening.

1. God never condones polygamy. No where in the Old Testament (at least...if it's there I haven't found it) does God explicitly say that having multiple wives is ok. So in a sense God is kind of just tolerating this sort of activity during this time. And really, we'll see that God tolerating man's actions isn't really uncommon.

When we get to 1 Samuel we'll see the nation of Israel ask for a king. God assures them they don't need a king and actually has Samuel lists off all sorts of reasons that having anyone besides God as their king is a bad idea. Yet as the people persist God basically says, "Ok...you wanted it. You've got it."

Now as it turns out, everything that God predicted through Samuel happened (go figure). But God let them have what they asked for. Here God doesn't directly condemn the activity nor condone the activity, but simply deals with the way things are operating. And at the time this practice was common among all the surrounding cultures.

2. The people believed they were obeying God's first command. If you remember back to the very beginning in Genesis God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply." But at the time he didn't qualify "with only one person." So it didn't take too long for people (men I'm guessing) to determine that there might be a more "efficient" way to fulfill that command (and that sounds like how a man would say it). Granted, I wouldn't want to try to have that sort of conversation with my wife...(Happy Anniversary again by the way honey) but to these guys it was all part of obeying God.

3. The Israelites had a different view of living eternally. So far through our readings while we may have references to "God's kingdom lasting forever" and the like, there has been no official mention of heaven to this point. As it turns out our view of heaven and hell has developed as our understanding and knowledge of God has developed. To the Israelites...don't miss this...their understanding of living forever, was through their offspring. This, of course, made child bearing one of the most important actions that one could undertake. So for them, the more kids I can have, the more I can live on.

Does that mean that God's ok with this, as some groups may claim? No. I don't believe so. Like everything if we limit what portions of the Bible we look at, we can find a Scriptural basis for just about anything. But as we take a more holistic view of the Bible we see that marriage was not developed just so women could pop out babies and to keep men from shacking up with whomever they wanted in the name of "following God's command." But the entirety of Scripture shows us how intimate this sort of relationship is to be. So intimate that God chose the marriage relationship to be the illustration of the relationship that exists between Christ and his church. And that is not a concept to be ignored or downplayed.

But yes...as we go on...there sure is a whole lot of marrying going on.

Who was that?

Day 72

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 20-22

NT Reading: Mark 14:26-52

The Gospel of Mark, like all the gospels, has its own unique features, one of which we read today. In the later part of chapter 14 during the scene of Jesus' arrest we read this:

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Mark 14:51-52 (NIV)

None of the other gospels include this little detail, which leads us to ask the question, "What was this all about?"

In reality we don't know. There is no definitive answer to be found in the Bible or in history about exactly who it was or why the detail was included. But church tradition leads us to believe that this man who ran off naked...was none other than...the gospel writer Mark himself.

And that seems to make some sense. I mean, nobody else finds it important enough to mention, but if I were there I would love to get a bit of my own story in. And frankly the story isn't a flattering one, so we'll just call the guy "a young man" instead of putting my own name out there. It's like going to the doctor or a counselor or a minister to tell him about a problem your "friend" has.

Is it relevant to anything? Not really. Though I'm positive entire sermons have been made out of that little detail. I just find it as an interesting little addition in the Biblical narrative.

Can I trust the Bible? -- Part 3

Day 71

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 17-19

NT Reading: Mark 14:1-25

Over the last couple days I've been dealing with a lot of the big questions and hesitations most people offer when considering whether or not to trust the Bible. I see today's topic as a more informative one than persuasive one. Yet since I often get this question I figured here may be the best place to deal with it.

How exactly did we get the Bible?

As we've stated, the Bible was penned by over 40 authors residing on three different continents over a period of 1500 years. And contrary to what some believe, it did not descend from heaven in a nice, leather-bound study edition with the words of Jesus in red-lettering. But instead took a much, much longer journey.

The Old Testament

Depending on the date of the exodus from Egypt, the actual writing of the Old Testament took somewhere between 800-1100 years. It is generally believed that Moses was the one to pen a majority of the first five books of the Old Testament and that he had received his information either from God himself (I mean...Moses did spend a lot of time talking with the Guy up on those mountains) or through oral tradition. These writings were the beginning of a practice writing down the teachings, instructions, history and prophecies that occurred in Israel that continued for centuries until the writing of Malachi around the year 400 B.C.

Regarding the Old Testament, there really was not a lot of debate as to which ones were accepted and which were not. For centuries the Israelites understood their "Bible" to consist of:

The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

The Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

The Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles

To the Hebrews, this wasn't a debated issue, it was an accepted issue about which books had been passed down from generation to generation and were deemed part of their canon (a big fancy theological word meaning the books they accepted as inspired). There was one council in 90 A.D. in a city called Jamnia to discuss whether the canon was closed (i.e. no new books) or open (i.e. we welcome new books). Scholars disagree on the level of importance this council actually held, but from this council did come a decree that the Jewish scriptures were in fact "closed."

The New Testament

The New Testament, however, was written in a much more abbreviated amount of time. While Jesus in fact lived from about the year 4 B.C. (yes...seriously but I can discuss that another time if you like :-) ) to around the year 29 A.D., the apostles began to pen the words of the gospels and letters several years later. Our best estimates place the earliest letters written around 50 A.D. with the last letter (Revelation) being penned around the year 95 A.D, and the gospels being written in the 60's.

The New Testament is much more of a hot-button topic. Turn on the History Channel or walk through the aisles of your local bookstore and you'll likely hear about the "lost books of the Bible" or the ones that "were not accepted by the church." Well in the years following Jesus' death and the growth of the New Testament church, there came an influx of writings about Jesus. Some were legitimate, some were falsified, most were given the name of some already-known biblical character (Thomas, Barnabas, Mary Magdalene, etc.) So who decided what made the cut?

Well, to make it into the canon, a writing had to pass the following tests:

1. Can we verify it was written by someone close to Jesus?

One may think that this refers to just those works written by the apostles, except that several letters and books were written by non-apostles. People like Luke, Mark, James and Jude all had direct contact with the work and life of Jesus and therefore their writings were considered authoritative.

2. Does it fit an appropriate timeline to have been written by those connected to Jesus?

Can we trace this work back to the time of the apostles or did it show up a couple hundred years later (as many of the works did)?

3. Is this writing Christ-centered?

The Bible is about Jesus. If a writing was not focused on Him, it did not belong.

4. Is this writing consistent with the Jesus that we know?

In one of these writings is a story about Jesus creating clay pigeons and bringing them to life...mainly because he was bored. I'm not saying Jesus couldn't do that. But in every situation I understand, Jesus' miracles are for a reason. Along these same lines, it was quite common for people to write stories about Jesus acting or teaching certain things, to support their own positions and philosophies (not that anyone would ever do that).

That's by no means an exhaustive criteria, but I think you get the point. While several independent groups created their own lists, in 325 A.D. the council of Nicea declared what we have in our New Testament today to be the final, authoritative message from God.

I hope discovering that the Bible was not delivered by an angel or discovered in a field in a never-before-heard-of-language does not shake your faith in what you read. As we saw yesterday each decision was not made hastily, but instead with a great amount of thought, discussion and prayer before coming to a final determination.

There is a great deal more that could be said, but considering my eyes are crossing already and I believe it's time for me to wrap up this post for the night. Yet I want you to know that I welcome any further questions about this or any topic we may cover. I in fact know of several angles in each of the last three posts that I intentionally did not cover due to space and time. But I hope that through understanding the thought, care, concern and attention to detail that has been dedicated to this very book for the last 3,500 years, you can come to see it as an accurate, reliable witness and testimony to the Truth that is Jesus Christ. But perhaps even more than that, you can see the power the story of Jesus carries even to this day and how drastically someone's life can change by the reading and understanding of the Bible. That, my friends, is the most convincing evidence that I can offer.

Can I trust the Bible? -- Part 2

Day 70

OT Reading: Deuteronomy 14-16

NT Reading: Mark 13:14-37

Can I really trust the Bible? It's a question that I'm betting you already have an opinion about...most people do. And yesterday I began a multi-post series dealing with what I perceive to be the most common hesitations regarding the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Of course if I do not answer a major question that you've had posed to you, feel free to comment here, on Facebook, or shoot me an email and I'll either answer it directly, or include it in this series. How many posts will this entail? I haven't quite figured that out yet. We'll see how quickly I (or you) get tired of it :-).

The Bible has been translated and re-translated. How can I trust that what I'm reading is accurate?

This is an excellent question...whether being asked from pure motives or not. If in fact this book was written between 2,000 and 3,500 years ago, how do I have any assurance that what I'm reading in my particular English version is actually what God wants me to know? While there are a number of avenues I could take to dealing with this question, I think tonight I'll very briefly touch on the transmission of the text through the years, and the modern day translation of our nice leather-bound English versions.

Exactly how the Biblical texts were passed on from one generation to the next changed over the course of several centuries and millennia. Between cultural changes, technological changes in paper (parchment vs. papyri vs. scrolls) inks and more...significant change happened between generations that impacted how the Bible was copied.

To be fair, a complete depiction of the past several millennia, from the earliest oral traditions to now, would easily fill multiple books. But the one thing I want you to understand, the one feature consistent from one generation to the next, regardless of the location, time or technology was the commitment to accurately pass on the Word of God.

Allow me to offer an example. As I understand it, typical transcription happened with one individual at the front of the room, reading a text, while the trained, professional scribes each penned their own copy. Here was the kicker. These scribes had developed intricate processes to ensure that no mistakes had been made in their copies. For instance, Scribes knew not only how many words should be on a page, but how many letters there were and where those letters should fall. So at certain times, the scribes would stop and count, lining up their pages, counting numbers and letters to ensure that they were right on track.

Then, if a page were discovered to have a mistake, that page would immediately be burned. Scribes were not ok with manuscript they knew to be 99% accurate, textual purity was considered a non-negotiable as they were dealing with nothing less than the very word of God. This is the type of scene we see played out across a myriad of cultures, times and locations as each held in high importance the transmission of the message of Jesus.

But what about all that translation? I mean...how much was lost in all that?

Another great question. And one that would especially be valid if the Bible had been translated through five or six different languages before appearing in the seats at our church. The advantage we have today, however is that archeology has produced for us a number of reliable copies from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek. So for those uber-scholars in the room, they can pick up a Greek or Hebrew copy and read it for themselves.

But what about the rest of us...the ones who cannot read Hebrew or Greek? Well first off let me assure you, I'm there with you. I did take two years of Greek, and while I know a little more than most, my Greek knowledge has basically disappeared into the same parts of my brain that had to memorize the inner-workings of the earthworm. So I don't have a significant head-start here. But there are a couple general ideas I'd like to point out about all this:

1. A majority of the translations we have on the shelves today are well done. These are translations done by people who have Ph.D's in classical languages. Not just one or two, but dozens and dozens of them all working together to achieve an accurate, reliable translation for you and me. Early on I did a post about the translations of the Bible, and I talked a little about why differences exist between say an NLT and an NIV. So if you're curious, feel free to take a peek there. Just know that each word choice has been made with thought, discussion and prayer.

2. If you know anything about foreign languages, you understand that rarely does a translation go perfectly from one language to the next. It's just the nature of language. Most of the time you can get awfully close. Many times there will be no significant change in meaning. However we just need to realize there will be times when we have a difficult translation. This is another reason for variations between English translations. Even though the end result often does not have a great impact on how we would understand and apply the text.

In short, since the Bible first started to be penned people have understood the magnitude of the words that they were copying. These were not just words in a letter from a family member, these were instructions, tales, encouragement and admonishment from the very Creator. And from the beginning individuals have taken weighty measures to ensure accurate, reliable transmission of this text to the next generation so that we too would be able to read these very words of God.

If you'd like to know more, feel free to ask questions or I can offer suggestions on articles/books detailing more information about how the Bible has been treated/translated over the years.

Tomorrow's topic: How exactly did we get the Bible?