I don’t want men in the women’s bathroom either …

Tags

1st Corinthians 10, 2nd Amendment, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, bathroom stalls, Bible, Biblical argument, bigotry, body parts, children, Christ, Christians, coed bathrooms, coed dorms, Columbia, Curt Schilling, danger, discredited psychiatrists, discredited studies, discrimination, Dispute, doors, Ephesians 4:15, eunuch, evidence, female, findings, fruit of the Spirit, gender assigned at birth, God, Gospel of John, gun control, hatred, high murder rate, ignore, innate gender, Jesus, John's epistles, Leon Lott, liberal, lies, Love, male, Matthew 19:12, medical community, men, mind, misrepresentation, moral argument, murders of transgender people, New Testament, nudity, Old Testament, Paul's epistles, personal testimony, plot, protection of women, real-life experience, research, Richland County, right to privacy, rogue organizations, sex offenders, Sheriff, South Carolina, spirit, Spirit of truth, state capital, steadfast faith, Transgender, transgender women, true gender, truth, underreported, women, women's bathrooms

I don’t want men in the women’s bathroom either …

… but as always, the devil’s in the details … and in the definitions.

So this is the new rallying cry, is it?  “No men in women’s bathrooms.”

Well I happen to agree.  A man has no right in a public women’s bathroom.  What I disagree on is their definition of man and woman, male and female.

It continues to sadden me that certain segments of the Christian population are spearheading this attack on the safety of transgender people.  But what saddens me particularly today is the blatant disregard for truth by these Christians.  Love of the truth should be one of the hallmarks of a Christian.

The word “truth” occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and 118 times in the considerably shorter New Testament.  It is a major theme in the Gospel of John and John’s epistles.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. – John 8:32

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. – John 14:6

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – John 14:17

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. – John 17:17

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. – 1^st John 2:21

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.  And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. – 1^st John 3:18-19

John was not the only New Testament writer to deal with truth.  Here are some verses from Paul’s epistles.

[Charity] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; – 1^st Corinthians 13:6

But [we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. – 2^nd Corinthians 4:2

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. – 2^nd Corinthians 13:8

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. – Ephesians 4:25

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) – Ephesians 5:9

And still more verses from the New Testament:

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. – James 3:14

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: – 1^st Peter 1:22

Now what truth does this segment of Christianity ignore, deny and dispute?

• They dispute our personal testimony. Even with conservative estimates of the frequency of transgenderism, hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and millions around the world claim that this is our story, our experience, our reality.  It is the testimony of little children whose lives are improved when they are allowed to live in their true gender identity.  It is the testimony of people of my generation, baby boomers, who tried to repress and deny the truth about ourselves even more than our opponents do.  But our identities persisted despite everything we did.  It is the testimony of many fine, upstanding citizens and many whose potential is untapped because of discrimination.  It is the testimony of Christians like me who have and continue to proclaim Christ, tenaciously holding onto our faith in the face of every attack we have received from those who claim to speak for the church and for Christ.
• The ignore the danger that transgender people face every day because of bigotry and hatred against us. They ignore the horrific murder rate against transgender people, a rate that is most likely even higher than reported in a world where many murders are reported with the transgender identity of the victim hidden behind rejected name and gender; where there are many countries (e.g. Russia and China) where our very existence is denied.  They ignore the even greater danger we would face if forced to use spaces based on our gender assigned at birth rather than our true gender.
• They outright lie about transgender people being a danger. Earlier this month, a sheriff with 41 years of law enforcement experience unequivocally gave testimony to the legislature of his state that he has “never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom. This is a non-issue.”  This is not a sheriff in the liberal Northeast or California.  This is Leon Lott, Richland County (SC) Sheriff since 1996.  His county includes the state capital, Columbia, so he serves in a populated area.  In addition, any law enforcement official at his level is going to keep up-to-date on crime trends and issues outside of his own area, especially once the issue rises to the be on the front burner in his state and around the country.  The plain truth is that of the jurisdictions that have passed laws protecting the right of transgender people to use bathrooms consistent with their innate gender, laws that have been in place for many years in some cases, there have been ZERO problems.  In addition, when transgender people are in public, we have to use restrooms.  So even in locales where such protections don’t exist, we fearfully use the restroom that corresponds to our identity.  Again there have been ZERO problems.
• They dispute the preponderance of learned opinion of the medical community, in the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were very willing to accept their findings decades ago when these groups had little to go on in the way of research and real life experience.  But with nearly three full generations of evidence at hand (and more being gathered), these respected organizations have updated their opinions and protocols based on the enlightenment gathered from their findings.  Somehow in our opponents mind, without evidence, this is all a plot.  Instead, they lean on discredited studies, discredited psychiatrists, rogue organizations and misrepresentation of valid studies.  (I’m old enough to have lived through this before.  I can remember when rock ‘n roll was supposedly a communist plot.)
• They often lie and hide their true motive for waging this battle. But not always.  With a debate version of three-card monte, they deftly shift from reason to reason behind their legislation and umbrage.  When the moral/Biblical argument is rejected, they shift to the need to protect women as the purpose.  When that argument is countered, then it becomes a matter of a right to privacy: balancing the rights of transgender people against that of cisgender women.
  • As far as the moral/Biblical argument, I will touch upon that in the next bullet point. As far as the protection argument, I have already shown that to be a canard.  But I will take it one step further.  There is a group known to be a danger primarily to women and children.  They are the people on the sex offender list.  Where is their hue and cry about such people being allowed to use public bathrooms?  And as far as transgender protection laws opening the door for perverts to take advantage of it (recently parroted by Curt Schilling, among others), not only doesn’t it happen, they (many of whom are staunch 2^nd Amendment defenders) would never apply the same rationale to strict gun control measures just because a small minority of people in our society actually do carry out horrific violence using firearms.
  • As far as the privacy argument, the only bathrooms I have ever seen where the stalls had no doors was in men’s locker rooms. (I hated them.  I avoided using them whenever I could.)  A naked cisgender woman in a public women’s bathroom would likely receive a negative response unless it was a clear case of a medical problem.  I have never seen someone in a public bathroom whose genitals were in plain sight unless they were on the changing table.  In spaces where nudity is more likely to be involved, the topic is more sensitive.  (I never totally disrobe when I go to my gym, and there are private changing stalls if I ever would need to.) But even here, social custom is changing for reasons other than transgender.  When I went to my 40^th college reunion two years ago (Cornell), the dorm where my class was housed is a coed dorm.  Most of the student rooms do not have private bathrooms.  The common bathrooms (including showers) are also coed.  This is a growing trend according to what I have read.
• They distort or err on what the Bible says on the topic of transgender. I have written many blog posts countering their arguments (in conjunction with all the medical evidence that has been gathered on the nature of transgenderism).  The short version is that very little can be found in the Bible on the topic and the term is not found in the Holy Scriptures.  Of course, there are many modern terms (e.g. democracy and republic) that are not found there, either.  The closest we can come is when Jesus describes three types of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12.  The person who is born a eunuch could describe a number of situations, including someone who is transgender.  Most importantly, Jesus does not condemn any of the three examples, consistent with many instances in which the new and better covenant is more inclusive than the old.  And as to whether God defines us by our mind/spirit or our body parts, I have shown by many verses the preponderance of evidence that He identifies us by our mind/spirit.

Please understand that this is not a transgender vs Christianity issue, nor should it be.  I and a number of friends are evidence that a person can be both.  And I have many devout conservative Christians in my life who are accepting and supportive.

I know full well that there are a number of topics on which Christians are in disagreement.  And there is always room for honest disagreement.  But what hurts the most is the vitriol directed by this segment of the Christian population at the transgender community.  And even if Christianity has come under attack from some segments of the transgender community (and I will not descend into a “who started it” black hole), Christians are not supposed to return evil for evil.  We are called to a higher purpose.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. – 1^st Corinthians 10:32-33

When you read the many verses earlier in my post, you may have noticed a connection between truth and a loving attitude.  (If not, look again.)  Even if the segment of Christians who I have called out in this post earnestly believe what they are preaching about transgender people, all Christians are admonished to be “… speaking the truth in love …” (Ephesians 4:15).

God bless,

Lois

Christian Mom Encounters Transgender Woman In Bathroom: These ‘Ghastly Things’ Happened Next

Lazy Religion: Harmful to the Transgender Community; Harmful Throughout History

Tags

1st Samuel 21, Acts 10, Acts 15, anything goes, Bible, Bible Study, Blacks, Boaz, Christ, Christian, church, circumcision, condemnation, Cornelius, dead orthodoxy, death, faith, flesh, gender confirming surgery, Gentiles, God, good works, Gospel of Matthew, grace, healing, Holy Spirit, hormones, hypocrisy, Israelites, Jericho, Jesus, Jew, Jewish, Jewish leaders, King David, lazy religion, legalism, letter of the law, life, literal interpretation, loveless legalism, mercy, Messiah, messianic identity, miracles, Mosaic Law, New Testament, Peter, Pharisees, Promised Land, prophets, Rahab, Ruth, Sabbath, Sadducees, salvation, saved, scribes, Scripture, segregation, showbread, silly sentimentality, spirit, spirit of the law, Testimony, Transgender, truth

I sometimes hear negative comments about Christians who interpret the Bible literally.  My reply takes them by surprise at first until I explain.  The problem is not belief that the Bible is literally true.  It’s that those Christians who disparage the transgender community don’t read the Bible carefully enough and apply all of it as it is written.

Jesus never rebuked anyone for using too much scripture or taking it literally. He did accuse the Sadducees of not knowing the scriptures (or the power of God) when they asked Him about the woman who was widowed in succession by each one of seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-32).  He challenged the Jewish leadership by comparing scripture verses that would point to His identity as the Son of God (e.g. that the Messiah is the Son of David, but David calls Him Lord: Matthew 22:42-45 referring to Psalm 110).  He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of hypocrisy for being preoccupied with minutiae and ignoring more important matters: judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23, especially verses 23 and 24).

He accused them of ignoring the judgment of the prophet Hosea on their forefathers: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6:6.  He accused them of not understanding the message in the story of David and his starving soldiers when the priests fed them the hallowed showbread that only the priests were permitted to eat under the Law.  (1^st Samuel 21:1-6; Jesus’ teaching reported in Matthew 12, Mark 2 and Luke 6).

Jesus was grieved that the religious leaders in His time did not understand that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: that His disciples did not deserve condemnation for plucking and eating a few grains from stalks in the field on the Sabbath; nor did He deserve condemnation for doing good works on the Sabbath, such as His healing of the sick or infirmed and casting out demons (often by only speaking a word and using no physical activity at all).  Most grievous of all was the fact that the ministry and messianic identity of Jesus was confirmed by far greater miracles than displayed by Elijah and Elisha.  Yet the scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the Law, who venerated those prophets from centuries earlier, did not accept the message of Jesus for the sake of His good works.

What if legalism had stopped Boaz from marrying a foreign woman?  Then he would have never married Ruth, the Moabitess, the great-grandmother of King David.  Fortunately, the testimony about Ruth, her goodness towards her mother-in-law, her love of God and her faith and trust in the Lord, was more important to Boaz.

What if legalism had stopped the two men sent by Joshua to spy on Jericho from lodging with a prostitute.  Then those men would not have received protection from Rahab, they would have been captured by the people of that land and another generation of the children of Israel probably would have been discouraged from entering the Promised Land.  Fortunately for the Israelites, those two men were more concerned with their mission, and they also believed it when Rahab testified her belief that the God of Israel is the only God in heaven and earth.  Both the faith (Hebrews 11:31) and works (James 2:25) of this common harlot are praised in the New Testament.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17.  Human nature makes it difficult to have both grace and truth in our hearts. We tend to tilt towards one or the other since at first glance they seem incompatible.  But what is impossible for man is made possible by God.  So our Christian walk requires us to do what God enables us to do: that we so walk as to keep the two in balance at all times.  For if we heavily emphasize grace, the result is silly sentimentality and an attitude that anything goes.  But if we heavily emphasize truth, the result is dead orthodoxy and loveless legalism, driving away people from God by beating them over the head with scripture.

But don’t ever think that grace is weaker than truth.  (Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. – 2^nd Timothy 2:1.)  Now that’s even stronger than Ajax!

So why do I call legalism ”lazy religion”?  Because it is much easier to justify one’s position by pointing to cold, hard facts in scripture, especially the “thou shalt not(s)”.  It takes more work to temper truth with grace, to practice speaking grace seasoned with salt instead of the other way around, and to understand the spirit of the law in addition to the letter of the law.

Those Christians who pursue legalism and the letter of the law need to heed these verses:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. – Romans 2:29 (In the same chapter, Paul warns the Church to leave condemning judgment to God because we will all be judged by Him.)

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. – Romans 7:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. – 2^nd Corinthians 3:6

That sure grabs my attention.  I can minister life to people by the spirit of the law, but death to people by the letter.  Why would I want to minister death to people?  Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (John 3:17).  He came so that we would not only have life, but abundant life. (John 10:10)

In my Christian walk, I have the same choice that God told Moses to proclaim to the children of Israel: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19

Therefore, it is a joy when I find another scripture passage that illuminates both the letter and spirit of the word; both the grace and truth of Christ: especially as relates to God’s mercy towards those people who are transgender; those of us who were born that way.

I recently came across some passages in Acts (which I have read dozens of times) during the Women’s Bible Study that I attend at my church.  The topic was the importance of evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the first Gentile converts so that they would be welcomed into the body of Christ.  It starts in Acts 10 when the Lord sent visions to the centurion Cornelius and the Apostle Peter to bring them together.  Peter was the one who needed convincing.  Had he been stuck in legalism, he would have refused to go to the house of a Gentile (Acts 10:28).  But once there, Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius, his family and close friends who eagerly desired to hear about God.  And to the surprise of the Jewish followers of Christ who accompanied Peter, they saw strong evidence of the Holy Spirit being poured out on those who had gathered to hear Peter, similar to what had happened a decade earlier at Pentecost to Christ’s disciples.

But that didn’t end the matter.  Now Peter had to go back to Jerusalem and defend his actions to those who want to know why he visited these Gentiles (and even ate with them!) contrary to the Law.  Fortunately, Peter was able to recount the whole story and convinced those who originally opposed what he had done that they would also be opposing God if they did not accept that the Lord had chosen Gentiles to be part of the body of believers in Christ.

Then people like Paul and Barnabas journeyed to preach the Gospel in the synagogues in more distant cities where Jews have settled and also to the Gentiles there.  From both groups, some believed and some did not.  And with these new Christians, both Jew and Gentile, new churches were planted.

But as reported in Acts 15, a new dispute arose.  Some legalistic Jewish Christians (mostly Pharisees) came behind the evangelistic work being done and told the new Gentile believers that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised according to Mosaic Law.  So now the early Church had to deal with legalism in relation to the Gentiles once again.  Those who were bound in the dead letter of the law instead of the living spirit of the law refused to believe that these Gentiles were already saved.

So now a new meeting of the early Church leaders was convened.  From the Bible’s “minutes” of that meeting:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. – Acts 15:7-11

The bottom line is that because of the words of Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James, it was recognized that circumcision was not required for a Gentile to be considered saved and part of the Church.  They realized that they were requiring something (circumcision as adults) that they would not have been able to handle themselves.  They saw that the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person was what counted, not the particulars of their body.  For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. – Galatians 5:6

But if legalists had their way, Gentiles would have been barred from becoming part of the Church; at the very least, they would have been required to be circumcised and even then they still might have been made to remain separated from the Jewish Christians.  This is very similar to how legalist preachers, misinterpreting scripture, tried to justify the continuance of enslaving Blacks.  Fortunately, they also did not prevail; nor did those who tried to justify segregation of the races in all walks of life.  And yet, many Christians today, almost all of whom would be considered Gentiles (and more than a few of whom are Black), misuse scripture and ignore mounting evidence, thereby forbidding transgender people the right to be something that they could not bear: denying their own identity.

Can someone get a nose job, or breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, or a cleft palate repaired and still be saved?  Yes!  Can someone take hormones to treat menopause or prostate cancer and still be saved?  Yes!  Can someone have gender confirming surgery or take hormones to treat transgender issues and still be saved?  Yes!  It’s what’s in your heart, your mind and your spirit that matters, not your flesh.  And if it applies to one’s standing as a Christian, it certainly applies to one’s standing in the human race.

God bless,

Lois

Guest post from My Longing: Matthew 23:1-12, The Humility Required of Teachers

Tags

Amoraim, Apostle Paul, assigned gender, children, Christ, condemnation, Council of Jerusalem, father, Francis of Assisi, Gemara, Gentiles, God, God's approval, God's covenant with Noah, God's love, Gospel, Gospel of Matthew, Halakah, humble, humility, indictment, inner things of the heart, Jerusalem, Jesus, Jews, justified, learning, master, Matthew 18:6-7, Matthew 23, Mosaic Law, Moses' seat, My Longing, New Testament, Oral Law, outward appearance, People's approval, Pharisees, Rabbi, Rabbi Shammai, Romans 2, Sadducees, scibes, self-justification, socialization, teacher, Torah, Transgender

I am going to work smarter, not harder, to make this post.  I am providing a link to the blog post of my friend, a pastor in Northern New Jersey.  The teaching in this post touches on two very important points: the relationship between Jesus and the law, and how are transgender people faithful to the way God created us.  In particular, it addresses how transgender children respond to the messages they receive that would have them conform to the way the world sees them on the outside rather than who they are on the inside.

I have only one note to add.  The pastor refers to how the word “Jews” is used at times in the New Testament.  According to my lexicon of Greek words in the New Testament, the Greek word used can refer to either the Jews collectively as a people or the Jewish leaders.  It is the same way we might say that America did such and such, meaning the U.S. government, not the collective American population.  Therefore, at times “Jews” will refer to just the Jewish leaders.  How it is used can be discerned by the context.

Without further ado, here is the link:

http://mylonging.net/?p=2561

And here is the KJV text of Matthew 23:1-12:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 

God bless,

Lois

Thoughts on the scourging of Jesus

Tags

Beth Moore, Bible, blood of Christ, Calvary, chastise, crucifixion, excruciating, Golgotha, Gospels, Greek words, healed, Herod, Isaiah 53, Jesus, John, Lee Strobel, Luke, Mark, Matthew, mocking, New Testament, Passion of Christ, Pontius Pilate, Roman, Sanhedrin, Satan, scourging, soldiers, stripes, The Cross, translation, wounds

For a number of years, and heightened by the film, The Passion of Christ, something has nagged me about the common depictions of the way Christ was treated between the time of his arrest and the crucifixion.  Like Lt. Columbo, there was something bothering me.

Having done my share of laundry over the years, I am very aware that blood is one of the hardest stains to remove.  (One of the awesome things about God is that, contrary to the blood of people and animals, the blood of Jesus removes all the stains of sin.)

So I was trying to harmonize three things: that the back of Jesus was torn apart over and over by the scourging of Roman soldiers, using whips with sharp objects embedded in them; that sometime after the scourging, they put Jesus’ garments back on him again; that his garments were divided amongst the Roman soldiers.  Maybe it is just me, but I would have no interest in a blood-soaked garment that had been pressed against the gory results of the severe scourging of Jesus, as is commonly believed.

What was done physically to Jesus after His arrest?  In general:

1) The Jewish leaders order Him to be struck.  In various accounts, He is slapped, punched or spit upon.  Some of the punches might have swelled and disfigured His face.  But it was done by the Jews, not the Roman soldiers.

2) He is led to the judgment hall to be delivered to Pilate.

3) In Luke’s account only, He is sent to Herod because Jesus is from Galilee. The Jewish leaders accompany and accuse Him there.  Herod’s soldiers are the ones who mock Him and put the purple robe on Him, not the Roman soldiers.  In Luke, when Pilate pronounces final sentence, he releases Barabbas and he sends Jesus to Golgotha with Simon being required to carry the cross.

4) In the other three gospels, it is the Roman soldiers who mock Jesus.  But the only physical action taken against Him by them is putting the crown of thorns on His head, spitting on Him and hitting Him with a thin reed (like they were knighting Him).

Specifics of the Gospel accounts:

Matthew and Mark are fairly consistent parallel accounts after He has been tried and convicted by the Jewish council.  They bring Him before Pilate.  Pilate questions Jesus.  He seeks to release Jesus as the prisoner he was accustomed to release at Passover.  The crowd asks Barabbas to be released and demand that Jesus be crucified.  Pilate scourges Him.  Jesus is delivered to the soldiers. The soldiers mock Him, put His own clothes back on Him and lead Him away to Golgotha with Simon carrying the cross.

In Luke, they bring Him before Pilate, who briefly questions Jesus.  Pilate then sends Him to Herod.  Herod questions Him and He does not answer.  Herod’s soldiers mock Him and put the purple robe on Him (but no mention of anything done physically to Jesus by them).  He is sent back to Pilate.  Twice, Pilate tells the Jewish leaders that he finds no fault in Jesus, but he will chastise Him and let Him go.  It is not specifically mentioned that Pilate actually does chastise Him, but it is not out of the question that he actually did it.  At the crowd’s insistence, Pilate releases Barabbas and he sends Jesus to Golgotha with Simon being required to carry the cross.

In John, they bring Him before Pilate and Pilate questions Him.  Pilate seeks to release Jesus and the crowd demands Barabbas instead.  Pilate scourges Jesus.  Then the soldiers mock Him.  John’s account says that they struck Jesus with their hands.  Pilate then presents Jesus to the crowd again and proclaims His innocence.  When the crowd calls for Him to be crucified, Pilate tells them that they should do it.  The Jews respond that He deserves to die under their law because of His blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God.  Pilate continues to try to negotiate on behalf of Jesus.  When the Jews continue to demand the death of Jesus, Pilate sends Him to Golgotha.

The language used to describe the scourging:

Matthew 27:26-27 – Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.  Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

Mark 15:15-16 – And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.  And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.

In both passages, the verb for “scourged” is the Greek word “phragelloo.”  It is presumed that this is where we get the English word, “flagellate”.  These are the only two times that the word is used in the New Testament.  In these passages, there is no separate Greek word for “he”.  It is assumed from the verb.  The verb is in the active voice which means the subject of the sentence did the action.  If Pilate had commanded him to be scourged rather than doing it himself, a different voice would have been used.

Luke 23:16 – I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

Luke 23:22-26 – And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.  And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.  And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.  And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.  And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

The two mentions of the verb “chastise” is the translation of the Greek word “paideuo.”  While it can be used in cases of scourging, the sense of the word is related to the training or correction of children.  It also describes correction by striking another, probably more like our spanking (though not necessarily on the same part of the body).  Again there is no separate word for “I” and it is assumed from the verb.  And again the verb is in the active voice.

John 19:1-3 – Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.  And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

John used a different Greek word, “mastigoo,” for “scourge”.  It is used seven times in the New Testament and translated as scourge every time.  But this time, we actually have a subject in the Greek text.  This time it directly says that Pilate was the subject of the sentence.  It is also in the active voice.  Pilate clearly is indicated as the one who did the scourging.

In none of the Gospel accounts is it ever mentioned that the soldiers scourge Jesus.

In one account they punch Him, but never rip His flesh with whips.

After I studied each of the Gospel accounts that described the scourging of Jesus I had three additional insights.  The first was fruit from continuing to pray and meditate about the subject.  The Holy Spirit laid on my heart that there is a reason why so much attention has been given to the believed brutality of the scourging of Jesus.  Satan is subtle and often uses ideas that sound godly to distract believers and seekers from what is important.  Among the things that Satan hates and wants to distract us from are the Word of God, the name of Jesus, prayer and the cross.

Lee Strobel wrote about how agonizing it is to be crucified.  Not only have nails been pounded into the flesh to attach it to pieces of wood, but hanging there, gravity pulls at your body and begins to tear the nails through the flesh.  In homage to Jesus, people have tried to replicate the event, but they aren’t able to last anywhere close to the time that Jesus hung on that tree.  And they were in sound and rested condition when they began the attempt.  The agony of hanging on the cross was so unlike any before experienced, a new word was invented for it: excruciating.

It was not during His scourging that Jesus said “It is finished” (i.e., paid in full).  It was on the cross.  Whether a Christian or a seeker, one is well-served by keeping the cross of Calvary in sight, not the scourging.

The second insight came when the phrase came to mind, “by his stripes we are healed”.  So I went back to Isaiah 53 and read these familiar words in verses 4 & 5:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All the punishments that Jesus suffered after his arrest until the tomb are contained in this prophesy.  The descriptions in the four Gospel accounts and their slight variations show that all of these were fulfilled: Jesus was buffeted and bruised, He was chastised, He was scourged, and His ultimate wounds came on the cross.  It was by these, but especially the ones on the cross, that our healing was complete.

I was lead to look at the Hebrew word that was translated as “stripes” in Isaiah 53:5.  There are three variant spellings of the word in English, the most common is “chabbuwrah“.  It appears seven times in the Old Testament and is translated as stripes (3 times), and one time apiece as hurt, wounds, blueness and bruise.  My Strong’s lists its recognized meanings as bruise, stripe, wound, blow.  In other words in this case, stripes is more than just the results of the whip.  It encompasses all that the body of Jesus suffered at this time at the hand of man.

The most recent insight occurred as a result of participating in the Ladies Bible Study at my church.  We are studying Beth Moore’s teaching: “Living Beyond Yourself: Exploring the Fruit of the Spirit.”  During the week when the lessons were on joy, part of the material was to read Acts 16:16-40, to show that part of the reaction of Paul and his fellow Christian prisoners to their shackles and imprisonment was to rejoice.

Verses 22 & 23 leapt out at me.  This topic came back to mind, even though I had not been thinking about it when I had started the lesson.

And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them.  And when they had laid many stripes on them, they cast them into prison, commanding the jailor to keep them safely. 

Did you see it?  The magistrates commanded to beat them.  The language is in contrast to all four Gospel accounts about the scourging of Jesus.  Why, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write (and the KJV translators give the translation) that indicates Pilate was the one doing the scourging?  But here we clearly see Luke writing that the common practice of superiors commanding subordinates to do the scourging had occurred.  Surely there is a reason for the difference.  There are no accidents in the word of God.

So the choice is, do we believe the popular account or do we believe the Bible?

God bless you all as we remember the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord,

Lois

The Witness of Miracles

Tags

1st Kings 17, ascension, Bible, Elijah, faith, God, healing, Jesus, Mark 6, ministry, miracles, Moses, New Testament, raise the dead, resurrection, Supernatural, witness

Another area where the effects of the “hand of God” are clearly seen is the existence of miracles: those events that cannot be explained by natural phenomenon or trickery.  In a previous post, I have already explored the miracle of manna and the difficulty of explaining it in any way other than as a miracle.

There are times when God performs the miracle directly as He did when He sent the manna.  For example, to help Israel be victorious in a battle, He caused the sun to stand still until the battle was won (Joshua 10).

On other occasions, God anoints certain people with the power to perform miracles to prove to others that He has sent them as prophets or for some other purpose.  In 1 Kings 17, Elijah is sent by God to a widow and her son who had only enough food left for one more meal.  The woman expects that this will be their last meal, and then they will die.  Elijah persuades her to divide that remnant of food three ways so he may eat also.  He explains to her that God will cause this tiny remnant of food to last for “many days”.  And indeed it is so, apparently until a natural source of food comes along and the supernatural is no longer required.

Yet this alone was not enough evidence for the woman.  For when her son falls ill and dies, she rebukes Elijah that as a man of God, he is responsible for killing her son as a judgment against her for her sins.  Elijah takes the son aside and prays to God to revive the son.  The Lord hears the prayer and the son came back to life.  Here is the testimony of the mother in response:

And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth. – 1 Kings 17:24

In the New Testament, the ministries of the Apostles and Jesus Himself are accompanied by miracles.  In my post about God approving of the healing of birth defects, we saw how Peter healed a man unable to walk from birth.  Paul raises two people from the dead.  And at Pentecost, at the beginning of the Apostle’s ministry after the ascension of Jesus, everyone who heard them speak heard them in them in their own (the listener’s) language.

The ministry of Jesus is filled with miracle after miracle.  In previous posts, I have already talked about the feeding of thousands with a small amount of food, the healing of a man born blind, a woman hemorrhaging for many years, and the raising from the dead of a 12-year old girl.  There were others raised from the dead, many others healed, storms calmed, walking on water, demons cast out, minds read, and Moses and Elijah temporarily brought back to life while Jesus is transfigured.  The ultimate miracles are the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

Are there other supernatural forces that can do miracles?  According to the Bible, yes.  For example, when God gives Moses the power to bring miraculous plagues upon Egypt to prove that Moses was sent to Pharaoh by God, Pharaoh’s magicians are able to replicate the first few plagues.  But compared to the power of God, this supernatural power is limited.  They could not replicate the fourth plague or any of the others thereafter.  Furthermore, the Bible strictly warns us against using any such powers because if it is not from God, the source is evil.

By count, healing was the most frequently performed type of miracle by Jesus.  This may be due in part to the relatively primitive nature of medical care at that time, but it also is an allegory for the spiritual healing that every person needs.

It is not surprising, therefore, that this is the area that frauds and charlatans use to attempt to validate themselves.  Sadly, many do this in the name of the Lord, and there are even some who even claim to believe that this is condoned by God as long as people who witness such events are saved.  Unfortunately, no lie is of the truth, and the truth has a way of coming to light.  When the fraud is revealed, it is likely that those who began to draw near based on these so-called miracles will turn away from God.

There are a number of common tactics among the phony faith healers.  At most meetings, the only people healed are people planted in the audience, people who no one else has ever seen before or since.  They claim easily faked ailments, like being stooped over or coming up front in a wheelchair; then suddenly with the work of the faith healer, they straighten up or leap out of the wheelchair, supposedly healed.  Another typical indicator is that more miraculous healings, the type that would be difficult or impossible to fake, only happen in certain third world countries where there is no one around to record or give independent corroboration of these miracles.  (It will be interesting to see what happens to the reports of these miracles in the next few years as technology spreads to even the poorest regions of the world and everyone becomes capable of posting videos on sites like Facebook and You Tube.)  Of course, these perpetrators claim that those who weren’t healed didn’t have enough faith and that there is greater faith found among the people in these poor countries.

Jesus didn’t need to plant people in the crowds.  He didn’t hold special healing meetings advertised in advance.  In fact, after some of the more dramatic healings, He even told the person who was healed to not tell others.  It is reported that most of them did not listen and spread the word anyway.

Furthermore, most of these healings occurred in front of many witnesses, including those who opposed Jesus and accused Him (among other things) because He healed on the Sabbath.  Their very accusation is confirmation that the healing occurred.

Here is one of many examples of how the people were brought to Jesus by their friends and family, people who were known to the local population to have infirmities:

And when they had passed over, they came into the land of Gennesaret, and drew to the shore.  And when they were come out of the ship, straightway they knew him, And ran through that whole region round about, and began to carry about in beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.  And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole. – Mark 6:53-56

I have personally known people who were healed in ways that their doctors could not explain.  These healings came in response to fervent prayer, sometimes accompanied by laying on of hands or anointing with oil.  But such healings are rare and those who helped bring them about give the credit to God, not themselves.

Seven years ago, my hand was professionally examined and I was told that surgery was the only remedy for my thumb locking.  It was a painful case of trigger finger that I had been experiencing for four months.  Two months later without any medical intervention, continuing only to pray for it (myself and others), the trigger finger departed and has never returned.  Praise be to God for His healing touch in answer to prayer.

In my next post, I will talk about still other types of witness to the existence of God.

God bless,

Lois

A further look at how God sees us (2 of 3 additional passages for Christians to consider)

Tags

Apostle Paul, Bible, body and blood, Bread of Life, Christ, Christian identity, Christianity, church division, communion, early Christian church, eternal life, Galatians 3, Gender Identity, Holy Spirit, Jesus, John 6, Messiah, miracle, New Testament, science, Transsexual

(If you have not done so, please read the previous post on the same topic before reading this post.)

In Galatians 3:28, part of the verse states that “there is neither male nor female”.  We have to be careful not to take this out of context and make this phrase say more than it really does, for there are a number of other passages in the New Testament that speak about separate roles and differences between men and women.  However, none of these differences are spiritual.

The full picture is seen by looking at Galatians 3:26-29.  This passage is saying something similar to Acts 10, but it extends it beyond Jew and Gentile (“Greek” means Gentile in this context).  It is extended to slave and free, as well as gender.  Elsewhere, we read that the poor and rich should be treated equally.  The Apostle Paul is denouncing the divisions that were creeping into some early Christian churches: divisions based on identity differences that were spiritually unimportant.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Galatians 3 tells us that when Christians are saved, we put on Christ.  Spiritually speaking, God no longer sees us in our filthy rags.  He sees us in Christ’s shining robes of righteousness.  The price of the clothes we wear, the color of our skin or what is between our legs have no bearing on that marvelous fact.

Throughout the Bible, we see people make the mistake of focusing on the physical and temporal, what they could see, rather than the spiritual and internal, including what God sees inside us.  This is the same mistake that mainstream Christianity made when beginning to consider the question of transsexualism once awareness of transsexuals began to reach the general public about 60 years ago.

Fortunately, many Christians are seeing things in a new light, based on a combination of Scriptural truth and scientific fact.  And to be fair to those who are holding onto old beliefs, many of those old beliefs were held until fairly recently by many in the scientific community, specifically in the fields of medicine and mental health.  So I can understand that they would be slow to jump when science says, in effect, we were wrong before but we are correct now, so go along with us.  This is one reason I consider a thorough examination of the Bible in this matter of utmost importance in terms of persuading Christians to accept that transsexualism is not a sin.

The sixth chapter of John’s Gospel is another account of people missing the point: focusing on the physical when they should be focused on the spiritual.  Starting in verse 26, Jesus upbraids them for their response to His miracles, particularly the miracle of feeding the thousands (verses 5-13).  They had continued to follow Him, looking to fill their bellies when they should be seeking His spiritual food (teaching).  In turn, they ask Jesus to validate His ministry.  (As if the miracles they had already seen weren’t enough!)

Jesus begins His response in verse 32.  During this response, in which there are some further exchanges between the crowd and Jesus, allegories continue to be made to spiritual food by Jesus.  He tells them that He is the bread of life which came down from heaven, among other things.  The crowd begins to grumble at this statement, in part because of mistaken identity.  They refer to Mary and Joseph, who they have known as His parents.  Jesus is talking about His spiritual origin from His heavenly Father.

But now, Jesus takes it more than a step further.  As far as the crowd and even a number of His own disciples are concerned, He goes way out on a limb.  Here are those apparently outrageous remarks in verses 50-58:

“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

It’s a good thing that they did NOT have mass communication in Jesus’ day.  Can you picture the tweets and Facebook posts?  “Self-proclaimed Messiah offers strange menu.”  “Son of God or son of cannibals?”  “Jesus shocks crowd by offering them his flesh and blood for a snack.”  And there would be at least a hundred You Tube videos by those with presence of mind to pull out their cell phones and start recording.  Prominent leaders would call on Him to retract His remarks.  One group after another cancels His upcoming appearances.  His synagogue threatens to remove Him from the membership rolls if He doesn’t recant.

These reactions are not speculation.  They are the 21^st century equivalent of what took place nearly two thousand years ago.  Even some of His disciples grumbled when they heard these remarks.  First He poses a rhetorical question, asking them how they would react if they saw Jesus ascending to heaven (which He did after the resurrection).  Then he speaks the key statement that clearly explains what He meant by eating and drinking His flesh and blood.

In verse 63 He says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In 1611, the verb “quickeneth” meant to give life.  It is used in the Apostles’ Creed in its nominative form when it talks about Jesus judging “the quick and the dead”.

It is the spirit that gives life.  Jesus is talking to them about spiritual food, spiritual flesh and blood, not literally physical flesh and blood.  And the physical?  It isn’t profitable for anything, nothing truly important.  Yes, it helps us by providing communication, mobility, dexterity and the five senses.  But compared to the far more important spiritual, that which is related to eternal life, the physical is useful for nothing.  When compared to eternity, life on earth is a mere blink of the eye.

This wasn’t the kind of Messiah that many, even among those who were following Jesus, were looking for.  They wanted a Messiah who would only speak smooth words, who would pour out miracle after miracle upon them, build up a large enough following to drive out the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom.  So even after this clarifying answer, John records that many of those who had been following Jesus turned away and departed from Him.

Enough of them departed that Jesus even asked His inner circle of twelve if they would also leave Him.  Peter, often the first to respond, gets it right this time.  He answers (verse 68), “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”  God has revealed to him which of the two is more important.

When so many who were in the presence of Jesus and who heard His explanation get it wrong, it is understandable that some Christians today get it wrong, too.  But that doesn’t excuse the error.  They know how the story unfolds.  They have the entire Bible to see verse after verse and passage after passage that emphasizes that it is the spirit, the things unseen and eternal, that are more important because they are the source of eternal life.  Why would they base their gender identity on the physical (if in fact they do for themselves) and insist on basing the identity of others (transsexuals in particular) on the physical?  Why would they believe that this is how God sees it?

The third and final additional passage I will consider on this topic will be discussed in the next post.  The Apostle Paul has some interesting things to say about identity by looking at his own.

God bless,

Lois

How does God see people? (2 Scripture passages especially for the Christian who denigrates transsexuals)

Tags

1st Samuel 16:7, Acts 10, Bible, Bible interpretation, Christian, clean and unclean animals, Cornelius, Gender Identity, Gentile, God, Gospel, Holy Spirit, Jew, Jewish Christians, Life verse, magnifying God, New Testament, no respecter of persons, persona, Peter, public identity, salvation, Scripture, Seeing as God sees, Transsexual

Surely we have time for one more Christmas song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Z6ZKJaW5Q

“Said the night wind to the little lamb, ‘Do you see what I see …’”

It is important to see things the way God sees them.  A key question in the consideration of how God sees transsexuals is how does God see people in general?

Many Christians have what we call a life verse.  My life verse (But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. – 1^st Samuel 16:7) was chosen long before my transition, and when I was not expecting that I would ever transition.  A significant reason for choosing it was that I longed for people to see the real me inside, not who I appeared to be on the outside.  I was not a hunk or a fine dresser.  I dressed the part for business, especially when jacket and day was part of the required uniform for a stock broker.  But otherwise, I was not especially concerned with my appearance.

I spend much more time on appearance now.  I discovered I have a knack for women’s clothing when I was in my mid-30’s.  I enjoy putting together outfits for the occasion: meeting a client, going to church, attending a support group meeting or party and so on.  On the other hand, men’s clothes are boring, and I made it worse in male mode because I avoided wearing anything that might reveal my inner secret.  In retrospect, it is easy to see my conflict in this area: wanting people to see the real me while desperately hiding it at the same time.

The most important thing is that God always sees the real me, sees who all of us are inside, no matter what we look like on the outside.  Deep down, that was always very comforting to me and that was also a part of choosing my life verse.  Nothing about me is hidden from God, including all my faults and imperfections.  Yet, He still loves me anyway, and He also knows that my love for Him is genuine.  Being genuine, being authentic, is an extremely important motivation for me, more now than ever before.

I was under no illusion that all of the Christians in my life would accept my decision to transition.  The only thing that took me aback was their accusations that I was twisting the meaning of Scripture when I included verses like 1^st Samuel 16:7 to provide a Biblical basis for my position that my transition was acceptable in God’s sight.  I shake my head when I think of this verse and many other verses in the Bible that indicate that God says the unseen spiritual things are more important as a basis for judgment and a warning from Him about our tendency to not see things the way He does.  On top of that, their responses had so little in the way of Scripture to back their position.

I have posted responses to various objections that Christians raise and will continue to do so from time to time.  But what the Lord says is more important to me and that is what this post will focus on.  Scripture interprets Scripture.  So let’s look at other verses that give further evidence of how God sees us in terms of identity.  Are they in agreement with 1^st Samuel 16:7?

There are two primary actors in Acts 10: the Apostle Peter and Cornelius, a Roman centurion (a Gentile) who is highly regarded by the Jewish people and who fasts and prays to God.  When we first meet Cornelius, we are told that an angel visits him, telling him that God accepts his prayers and good works.  The angel instructs Cornelius to send messengers from Caesarea to Joppa and ask Peter to come to him.

Shortly before the messengers complete their long journey, Peter is waiting for his midday meal.  He has a vision in which God, three times, tells him to take and eat of the animals that God presents to him, even though they are unclean under the Mosaic Law.  God tells him (verse 15), “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”  God is setting the stage by which Jew will no longer be separated from Gentile and the parts of the Mosaic Law that symbolized separateness (such as clean and unclean animals) would no longer apply.

While Peter is still pondering this vision, the Holy Spirit tells him that the messengers are looking for him and he should go with them to meet Cornelius.  Arriving, he finds that Cornelius has gathered many other Gentiles to hear Peter’s message.  Peter is starting to get it: These Gentiles want to hear the Gospel and God wants them to receive it.  Here is Peter’s reaction at this point (verse 28):

“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

Peter understood.  God is opening the gates of Heaven to all the nations of the earth, as was foretold.  It is the last part of his statement that is most significant for the purpose of our discussion.  Peter realizes that with the walls of separation having been taken down, it is no longer his responsibility or right to judge any other people based on their identity.  By extension, if it is true for an Apostle of Christ, it is true for all.  We are still called upon to examine the actions of other people, but their identity is not important.

At this point, Peter asks Cornelius why he was summoned.  Cornelius explains the vision he received a few days earlier.  Then he tells Peter that he and the people he has gathered have submitted themselves to God so they can hear the message that God is commanding Peter to tell them.

This clinches it for Peter.  His response is even more emphatic in verses 34 and 35:

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

At this point, Peter begins to preach the Gospel message, and before he finishes, God confirms that He is accepting these Gentiles who have assembled to hear Peter.  The Holy Spirit descends upon them, similar to what happened a decade earlier to Christ’s disciples at Pentecost.  To the astonishment of the Jewish Christians who accompanied Peter to Caesarea, a large group of Gentiles have been saved in their midst.  They cannot deny that these Gentiles have been brought into spiritual fellowship with them and they have the right to water baptism.  The course of Christianity had forever been changed.

Let’s take a closer look at the phrase “respecter of persons”.  The fact that God is not one is important in understanding how God sees us.  If He is not a “respecter of persons”, then what is He?

This key phrase is translated from a single Greek word: prosopoleptes.  This is the only time it is used in the New Testament.  According to my Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, it means someone who discriminates.  God does not discriminate.  But He doesn’t discriminate based on what?

Not all discrimination is bad.  A person with discriminating taste knows that a filet mignon prepared by a master chef at his best is superior to a Big Mac.  A teacher who can discriminate between ordinary and superior work by the students and grades accordingly deserves praise; a teacher who discriminates on the basis of skin color or some other type of identity needs to be retrained or fired.  Which type of anti-discrimination applies to God?

The word “person” is derived from the Latin word “persona”, which means “mask”.  A mask conveys an identity to others, whether true or a disguise.  Therefore, we can interpret this phrase that God does not discriminate, He does not show partiality, based on external identity.

In the Old Testament, the children of Israel started with a spiritual advantage.  But God still punished the wicked among His chosen people, while Gentiles who loved Him and followed Him (like Ruth) found favor with Him.  Once the Messiah came to the world for all nations, the slate is wiped clean and everyone from every nation starts at the same spiritual place.  No nation, race or gender is favored over another.

No wonder those assembled Gentiles responded to Peter by magnifying God (verse 46).  Can you imagine what it felt like to know that something precious you longed for but thought was impossible was now given to you, too?  I don’t have to imagine it.  I know: twice, in fact.  My Christian identity is now secure and my female identity is now very public.

Because of the length of the post and the time it was taking to complete it, I will close the post here, with more verses to be examined in the next post (coming soon).

God bless,

Lois

Acceptance and Rejection – Christian

Tags

Christ, demons, healing, Isaiah 53, Jesus, Jews, leper, leprosy, Matthew 8, Matthew 9, miracles, Mosaic Law, New Testament, raising the dead, rejection, Romans, unclean

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.  Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. – Isaiah 53:3-5

I quoted this portion of Scripture when I concluded my previous post on the topic of acceptance and rejection.  They are worth repeating as they apply so well to this topic.  They are wonderful and challenging verses.

Upon hearing or reading these verses without a reference given, many people, both Gentile and Jew, guess that they are from the New Testament.  Indeed, most Christians see this passage as an accurate description of the ministry of Jesus Christ, relating both to his purpose and the reaction to him while He walked the earth.

I have chosen Matthew 8 for the primary text discussed in this post.  There are many passages that describe both acceptance and rejection of Jesus and eventually his disciples as well.  I found the ones in this chapter especially interesting.

In the first four verses of this chapter, it is Jesus who does the accepting.  In fact, it is the acceptance of a person who, under Jewish law, was despised and rejected.

A leper approaches Jesus, worships Him and declares his faith in Jesus’s ability to heal him, saying, “if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” (v. 2)  Jesus’s response in verse three blesses the man and rewards his faith: “And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean.”  The leprosy departed immediately.  Jesus then tells him to show himself to the priest and as a testimony offer the gift commanded in the Mosaic Law.

This story is uplifting to read today.  But unless we are familiar with Mosaic Law and how it was applied at the time of Jesus’s ministry, we do not realize how radical this passage is.  Jesus not only accepts this man because of his faith, He touches him to heal him.

First of all, the leper is not even supposed to approach Jesus and his disciples.  He is required to keep his distance and shout “unclean” to any who might approach him.  (Leviticus 13:45)  But Jesus goes a step further by touching him.  Under the Law, that made Jesus unclean.  But Jesus, showing His power even over that which previously made a person unclean, instead heals the leper and makes him clean.

In the next chapter of Matthew, Jesus continues to show His ability to overcome uncleanness.   First, the daughter of a Jewish ruler has died.  In Luke’s account, he is identified as Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue.  Jesus goes to the man’s house, lifts the young girl by the hand and she returns to life.  Under the Law, anyone touching a dead person was unclean for seven days.  (Numbers 19:11)

Yet on His way to the ruler’s house, Jesus performs another healing.  A crowd has gathered around Jesus, pressing in on Him closely.  A woman who has no business being near Him under the Law believes by faith that she can be healed by just touching only the hem of His robe.  Her uncleanness under the Law is due to the fact that she has suffered an unabated flow of blood for many years.  She is hoping that she can go unnoticed in such a thick crowd and that even Jesus will not be able to tell that she touched His garment.  Not only does Jesus feel power going out of Him when she touches His robe, He commends her faith.  She is healed immediately, something none of the doctors were able to able to accomplish.

Not only are the accounts of these healings intermingled, there is an interesting fact related to time.  The woman who was healed suffered from the flow of blood for twelve years.  The young girl raised from the dead was twelve years old.  Much more could be written about these matters, but it would take us away from the topic of acceptance and rejection.  For now, it is important to simply show that a part of Jesus’s ministry was to take those who had previously been rejected, heal them and bring them back into fellowship with the rest of the community.

Returning to Matthew 8, beginning with verse 5, we see someone else approach Jesus, also someone we would not expect.  It is a Roman centurion.  A centurion was the equivalent of a sergeant.  With the same root word as century, it tells us that he commanded 100 men.

Jews stayed away from their Roman occupiers as much as possible, and the Romans had little regard for the Jews.  So why does the centurion approach?  He has a Jewish servant who is painfully afflicted with some sort of infirmity that affects his muscles.  This Roman has had little reason to know about Jesus, and even less reason to put stock in any of the stories he heard about Jesus’s miracles.  And yet here he is.

Then an even more amazing thing happens.  To perform the healing, Jesus offers to go where no Jew of His day would willingly go: to this Roman’s house.  The centurion, calling Jesus “Lord”, responds by telling Jesus that he is unworthy for Jesus to even be in his house.  I can picture jaws dropping on the faces of those standing by.  Romans simply don’t show anywhere near this sort of respect to their Jewish subjects.

But before they can recover, the officer takes it a step further.  He states that he knows Jesus can heal his servant by merely proclaiming that he has been healed.  He explains that as a soldier, he is well acquainted with authority, and that his men comply with his verbal commands.  He is acknowledging that Jesus has authority over disease.

This Gentile’s humility and faith are so astounding that even Jesus marvels at it.  Accepting this man’s faith, Jesus tells him to return to his home, for his request has been granted.  And the servant was healed that very hour.

After healing many others, Jesus and his disciples take a ship across the Sea of Galilee (verse 23).  This is the voyage during which Jesus is asleep in the ship, and after He is awakened He calms the storm.

Upon arrival, Jesus and His disciples encounter two men living among tombs. Possessed by many demons, they exhibited abundant strength and hostility, along with a wild insanity.  Confronted by Jesus, the demons protest that He, the Son of God, has come for them before their time of torment.  (An amazing aside: the demons know about their eventual eternal punishment, yet persist in their evil ways nonetheless.)

Expecting to be cast out of the men and thinking they can make a compromise with Jesus, they beg Him to put them into a herd of swine that are grazing on a hill nearby.  Jesus sends them there.  In frenzied reaction, the swine run down the hill into the sea and drown.  Matthew gives a condensed version of this event.  In other gospel accounts, we find out that those who were possessed are now in their right minds.

The herdsmen run into the city and tell the whole story to its citizens.  There is considerable debate about whether the herdsmen were Jewish.  For our purposes, it matters little because the “whole city came out to meet Jesus” (verse 34).  We know from historical accounts that this was an area settled heavily by Greeks before the Romans arrived.  But when the Jews rebelled against the Romans about 30-40 years after the time of Jesus on earth, the Romans heavily attacked this area in response.  The evidence is that this is an area of mixed population, both Jew and Gentile.

The point is that when this mixed population hears about this miracle, as soon as they see Jesus, they beg Him to leave.  Within a few hours, we have a Roman who accepts Jesus even before He performs a miracle for him, but an entire city of Jews and Gentiles who reject Him after He performs such a wonderful work in their midst.

Indeed, like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, Jesus is well acquainted with being despised and rejected.  We see many instances in the New Testament where Jesus is accepted by the Jewish common people.  But He is generally reviled by the leaders.  The few who do accept Him do so in secret, fearful of losing their reputation and position.  Of course, the ultimate rejection of Jesus brings Him to the cross.

Once it is clear that Christ’s disciples are going to proclaim His name after His ascension, the Jewish leaders reject them as well, in part because of the very acceptance of the Gospel by many of the Jewish common people.  And when Christians begin witnessing to Roman citizens, converting many away from worshipping the Roman gods and (more importantly) the Emperor, they reject Christians even more violently.

Among the apostles whose ministry continues after the ascension (i.e., not including Judas, who rejected Jesus with betrayal), only John died by natural causes.  The rest were executed.  In 2^nd Corinthians 11, Paul recounts all the things he had suffered, whether it was from Jews, Romans or even other Christians who were jealous of him: scourging, imprisonment, beatings and stoning.

In Jesus, we have one we can turn to who knows how we suffer when we are rejected by others.

Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known … – 2^nd Timothy 4:17 (portion)

God bless,

Lois