The Gospel of Mark According to Me

I started a project today translating the Bible be more understandable for the contemporary audience, while also trying to portray more scientific accuracy and provide a more accurate meaning of certain passages.  I also provide some notes in passages I feel need some explanation.  I intend to do this with all of the Gospels at the very least, and will publish the four Gospels from my translation.  I do not pretend that my translation is in any way inspired by God or that my translation is intended to replace more authorized versions of the Gospels.  At best my translation is a paraphrase, intended for purposes of making the Gospels clearer to a contemporary audience.  I hope you enjoy.  Below is the first chapter of Mark according to the translation of Brandon Parks.

1:1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the chosen one, the Son of God; 

1:2 As it is written in the prophets, take notice, I send my messenger before you, and he will prepare the world for your arrival.

1:3 The voice of one calling out in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his path straight.

1:4 John baptized in the desert, and preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of our failings.

1:5 And everyone from the land of Judaea, and from Jerusalem, travelled to see John, and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their imperfections.

1:6 And John dressed in camel's hair, with underwear of animal skin; and he ate locusts and wild honey; 

1:7 And preached, saying, One is coming after me who is greater than me, whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with his own Spirit. (Meaning Jesus will fill you with his Spirit that will clean you any failings.  See Psalm 51:10-12.).

1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan River.

1:10 And immediately coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 

1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, You are my beloved Son. I am very proud of You.

1:12 And immediately the Spirit led Jesus to pursue solitude in the desert. 

1:13 And he spent forty days in the desert, struggling with temptation; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels took care of him.

1:14 John was put in prison, and Jesus went to Galilee, preaching the good news of God’s perfect government, 

1:15 And saying, The time has come, and God’s perfect government has arrived: turn to God, and believe the good news.

1:16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishermen.

1:17 And Jesus said to them, Come with me, and I will make you fish for men.

1:18 And immediately they abandoned their nets, and went with him.

1:19 And when he had gone a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship fixing their nets.

1:20 And immediately he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went with him.

1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath day he entered the synagogue, and taught.

1:22 And they were amazed at his teaching: for he taught them as one with authority and personal knowledge, and not as the teachers of the day.

1:23 And there was a man in their synagogue who was sick and misunderstood (likely someone with paranoid schizophrenia); and he cried out, 

1:24 Saying, Leave us alone; what have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Are you here to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.

1:25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Be quiet, and leave him.

1:26 And when the illness hurt him, and the man cried with a loud voice, the man was cured of his illness.

1:27 And they were all amazed, and questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? what new doctrine is this? For with authority Jesus commands even sickness, and even ailments obey him.

1:28 And immediately his fame spread throughout all the region around Galilee.

1:29 And immediately after leaving the synagogue, they went into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

1:30 But Simon's mother-in-law lay sick of a fever, and soon they told Jesus of her.

1:31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she waited on them.

1:32 And in the evening, when the sun had set, they brought to Jesus everyone who was sick, (the original said “and those possessed of demons.” To reflect our knowledge today, I have removed that phrase as those “possessed with demons” likely had illnesses the people of the time were unfamiliar with).

1:33 And everyone from the city was crowding the door.

1:34 And Jesus healed many that were sick of diverse diseases; and asked that no one speak of him being the Son of God.

1:35 And in the morning, waking up before dawn, Jesus went out, and found a solitary place where he prayed.

1:36 And Simon and they that were with him followed him.

1:37 And when they had found him, they said, Everyone is looking for you.

1:38 And he said to them, Let us go into the next towns, so I may preach there also: for that is why I came here.

1:39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and Healed those who were sick.

1:40 And a leper came to him, begging him, and kneeling down to him, saying, If you want, you are able to heal me.

1:41 And Jesus, feeling immense compassion for this man, put forth his hand, and touched him, saying to him, I will; be clean.  (Note: at this time touching a leper made a person unclean.  This man likely had not experienced a loving human touch for many years.  Jesus showed that a person does not become unclean for touching someone, but that by touching someone who is unclean, we can make that person clean).

1:42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was clean.

1:43 And Jesus immediately charged him, and then sent him away; 

1:44 And said unto him, Make sure to say nothing to any man: but go right away and show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

1:45 But he went out, and began to tell everyone who would listen, and to spread everywhere the details of his healing, so much so that Jesus could no longer openly enter the city, but was outside the city in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

Does Paul Condemn Homosexuality?

In celebration of my soon to be released book, What Did Jesus Do, I am posting a portion from chapter three, discussing how Christian leaders have mis-represented the Bible at times, interpreting it in ways it was not intended. In this section I discuss how Romans 1 is so often used to condemn homosexual behavior, when that is not the purpose of the passage at all. Here I go in-depth explaining what Paul's purpose is and how we can better interpret the Bible today. Enjoy!

One of the most commonly twisted passages in Scripture today comes from Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

This passage is often quoted in order to bring judgment and condemnation on homosexuals for their behavior which, in turn, makes them feel alienated from the Church. When Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality, and are asked, “where is homosexuality prohibited in the bible?” they invariably point to these verses as the authority that once and for all condemns homosexuality as a sin.

I will not deny that this passage is describing same sex behavior. There is no doubt that this passage says women and men traded natural relations with the opposing sex for unnatural relations with the same sex. What is important is to take this passage in its context. Within the book of Romans, Paul is engaged in an argument in which he is describing God’s saving activity in which He brings humankind back into a right relationship with himself. He is laying out a logical argument in which he is showing why the saving act of Jesus dying on the cross was necessary for us to be brought back into the intended relationship with God. Paul is arguing in Romans 1-7 that the reason we need Jesus to be brought back into right relationship with God is because all of humankind has lost this right relationship by entering into sin. This passage is understood better when we go back earlier in the first chapter of Romans. The crux of Paul’s argument comes in vv 17-18 where Paul begins, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith,’” and then goes on to say, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” Beginning verse 18 with “for” Paul is using verse 18 to support verse 17 (Moo, 1996, 99). The righteousness of God is God’s saving activity to bring all of humankind back into a right relationship with him.32 This saving activity, as it is revealed later in Romans, was Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection (Romans 3:22, 24, 26; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1, 2, 11, 34, 39; 10:9). If verse 18 is supporting verse 17, then what this passage is saying is that God’s righteousness was revealed in Jesus because of the wickedness of men and women which revealed God’s wrath. Because of God’s wrath being revealed in the wickedness of humankind, God’s righteousness was revealed through Jesus’ death and resurrection. In other words, because of the wickedness of humankind, God’s wrath filled the earth. In order to end His wrath, it was necessary to send Jesus to die on the cross and rise from the dead in order to bring humankind back into right relationship with God.

What is important is that in verse 18 we read, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (emphasis added). Paul is not singling anyone out in the list of sinful behavior that follows. Paul is trying to point to the underlying sin in all humankind that makes God’s saving act in Jesus necessary. We read in Moo’s commentary that “Verse 18...begins with a universal indictment: all people stand condemned under the wrath of God” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is going to argue for universal condemnation as the state of humankind prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans is a letter directed mainly to the Jewish Christians in the Roman church, and one of the issues Paul is addressing is the feeling of superiority the Jewish Christians had over the Gentile Christians.33 Essentially, Paul is laying out an argument that will put the Jewish Christians on an equal plane with the Gentiles. The way Paul does this is by setting up a case against the Gentiles in chapter one, placing the Jews in a superior, yet vulnerable, position, and then pulling their superiority out from under them. Paul, then, begins his argument at the end of chapter one, which serves to condemn the Gentiles. Moo supports this with two points: 1. “the passage is reminiscent of Jewish apologetic arguments in which Gentile idolatry was derided and the moral sins of the Gentile world were traced to that idolatry,” and 2. “the knowledge of God rejected by those depicted in 1:18-32 comes solely through ‘natural revelation’” whereas the Jews were “responsible for the special revelation they have been given in the law” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is trying to bait the Jewish Christians in Rome to feel condemning of the Gentiles for their “sinful” behavior because he is trying to prove a point. The point comes with a twist in Romans 2:1 where Paul says, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things” (emphasis mine). The situation Paul is describing in chapters one and two is the situation as it would look before the saving act of Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul is trying to tell the church in Rome that all are condemned without Jesus regardless of what their behavior is. We are all on an equal footing without Jesus, and we are therefore all on an equal footing with Jesus. So what we have in Romans 1-2 is a depiction of the sinful state of humanity as a whole (the Gentile and the Jew) which, therefore, needs the saving grace of God through the act of Jesus’ death and resurrection. We are smart to remember that Paul goes on to say in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). Paul was not singling out any sin in Romans as wrong, or as being worse than any other. In fact what he was doing was placing all sins on an equal plane. He was simply describing the state of fallen human kind. Therefore it manipulates Scripture to point to Romans 1 as a prohibition of homosexuality and, therefore, a justification of excluding them from worship in our churches. We might as well exclude everyone from worship in our churches since all have sinned.

It is really interesting that the passage many Church leaders point to as a judgment against homosexuality is a passage which, in its context, condemns those who judge sinful behavior. This passage says there is no difference between sinners. Moo discusses the fact that homosexuality being singled out in Romans 1 has to do with the fact that this is not something Jews would have participated in because of how ingrained it was in their culture that homosexual behavior was impure and sinful. Yet Paul says that the Jews, in their own sinfulness, have done the same things (Romans 2:1; Moo, 1996, 113-117). What this passage in Romans does, more than anything, is condemn us today for doing the same thing the Jews were doing in the church in Rome, considering ourselves superior because we have the law on our side, when in fact the sins we have committed have made us just as guilty.

Again, the point of Paul's letters is not to condemn people, but to show people how truly loving, and merciful, and compassionate God is. Let us begin showing this side of God to people.
Blessings,
-Brandon

What Religion Am I?

For many of you the answer to the title question may seem obvious; you would say I am a Christian. If you had asked me a year or more ago what religion I belong to, I would have said Christian also. But I'm not sure this label fits me anymore, and let me tell you why: it is because I do not believe that Jesus himself accepted any labels for himself, and I believe that labels represent everything that Jesus was against. It creates a me-against-them mentality that Jesus was adamantly opposed too. Search in the Bible and tell me where Jesus claims a religion for himself. You can't because he doesn't. Sure, Paul labels himself a Jew, but the famous mantra is not "what would Paul do" but "what would Jesus do," and Jesus did not accept labels.

I do not want anyone to be mistaken; I believe in Jesus, I read the Bible, and I pray to God. But I am open to people of other faiths. I make no attempt to convert people from their belief to mine. How arrogant is it of me to say "I am right and you are wrong." Instead, I want to be like Jesus who accepted the Mithra worshipping Centurion who had more faith than anyone in Israel (Matthew 8:5-13). I want to be like Jesus who accepted the pagan Gentile woman with whom he had the longest dialogue in all of Scripture whose faith was so great (Matthew 15:21-28). Jesus applauded these people who worshipped a different god than he did, yet ridiculed the religious leaders of his day who belonged to his own religion.

By claiming a religion, I am doing that which Jesus worked so hard against: building boundaries. Jesus worked to tear down the boundaries that his religious group set up. His religious group set up boundaries between those who were clean and those who were unclean. Lepers could not remain in the city or have any contact with their family or friends. They were required to remain on the fringe of the city. Jesus allowed for them to reenter once he healed them. The clean were not supposed to dine with the unclean, yet that is exactly what Jesus did, and he was rebuked for it. Yet he wanted to establish that there was no boundary to be placed between the clean and unclean. Jesus overthrew the moneychangers at the Temple in Jerusalem because of the broken Temple system which created such boundaries that the farther in you go into the Temple, the less types of people were allowed in, until finally only the high priest could enter into the Holy of Holies. It was upon Jesus's death that the curtain of the temple was torn, thus tearing down the final boundary that was established by the Jews between humankind and God.

Now, think about the kind of boundaries one is setting up by calling themselves Christian. They are placing themselves in a position opposing other groups, such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. The immediate connotation that enters the head of one who hears that someone else is a Christian is, "oh, he/she thinks they are right and I am wrong." Immediately there is a sense that that person has that he/she needs to defend him/herself. One then turns to think of all of the cruelty that has been done in the name of Christianity. It is rare anymore for a non-Christian to hear the label "Christian" and think in positive terms. Instead the term works to build walls instead of bridges. To conclude, I do not know what to call myself, but I can no longer call myself a Christian. I do not deny Jesus the Christ. What I do denounce is this label which has become a term not of respect, but of derision.
Sincerely,
-Brandon

Would Jesus Be Welcome in the Church?

The title question of this post is based off of an interview with Rick Warren done recently in his News and Views Blog where the Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church and author of A Purpose Driven Life defends against attacks from those who are saying he has compromised his faith recently because of eating with a group of Muslims after Ramadan ended. The attacks claim that Rick Warren is sacrificing his Christian faith by eating with the Muslims which is a sign of collaborating with them to form a new church. Rick Warren simply calls it "being a good neighbor." He goes on to question whether Jesus would even be allowed in some of these churches which protest so strongly against actions that even Jesus himself might be caught doing. So the questions arises: "would Jesus be welcome in the Church today?"

If a Christian today who is seen eating with Muslims is said to be compromising his faith, then it certainly seems like Jesus would be considered by those same believers also to be compromising his faith when he eats with tax collectors and prostitutes. If association with a particular group that one considers to be antithetical to Christianity makes one less of a Christian, than certainly Jesus fits that bill.

We can look even further and see how the behavior of Christians that go to bars is viewed. My Senior Pastor's son was killed three and a half years ago outside of a local bar. Many people were stunned by the brutality and raged against this heinous crime. Unfortunately some could not get passed the fact that a pastor's son was at a bar. The issue of the evil of the attack didn't even come to bare in this situation for those who questioned the integrity of this "supposed Christian." But wouldn't Jesus go to the bar today? He sat and visited with people that were seen as the vilest scum of the earth, like the Samaritan woman, or the Gerasene demoniac who could only find solace among the tombstones. Why not say that Jesus would also visit bars and prisons on a regular basis. I can imagine Jesus going down to skid row and death row. I can see him hanging out with the crips and the bloods. These are today's versions of the people we see Jesus hanging out with in the Bible. And yet if any of us were found with these types of people, we would immediately be seen as backsliders and expelled from the church.

The moment a Christian becomes accepting of homosexuality and speaking up for gay rights, that person is immediately singled out in the church as a heretic and made to leave. Do Christians not see and understand that their behavior matches exactly the behavior for which Jesus so adamantly criticized the religious leaders of his day. Among those religious leaders Jesus was seen to be a drunkard, a reveler, a rioter, and someone who laughed too much. He was the life of the party. And he certainly would not have been welcomed in the Church today. He would have been viewed as a heretic and a backslider. This is certainly something to think about the next time we begin to criticize someone for their "anti-Christian behavior."
Blessings,
-Brandon

To Be Forgiven, We Must Forgive

"And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."

These are some of the hardest words of Jesus for us to accept as Christians. They are difficult because it not only means forgiving our family and friends for minor offenses such as lying, breaking promises, or calling us names, it also means forgiving those we consider our enemies for offenses we consider outrageous and terribly sinful. It means that we no longer let their offense bother us no matter how wrong their action or behavior. It means considering themselves reconciled to us, even when it seems unfair. This seems especially difficult when we are asked if we must forgive Hitler or Bin Laden for their misdeeds. Let me assure you that forgiveness does not mean forgetting, or, if someone's offense is a crime, letting them off Scott free (who is Scott and why is he free anyways). If someone is killing people or molesting children, they need to go to prison for obvious reasons. Forgiveness is letting go of the hold another person's offense has on you. Lewis Smedes puts it this way, “You will know that forgiveness has begun when you recall those who hurt you and feel the power to wish them well.”

What we learn from the above words of Jesus is that in order to receive forgiveness, we must forgive the sins of others. He is very clear, if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. So what does forgiveness look like?

I am not going to address forgiveness for major crimes or criminals in this post because I do not think that is the most difficult area of forgiveness for Christians. I think the most difficult area of forgiveness for Christians is forgiving what we perceive to be sin, even minor sin, in other people. Premarital sex is no crime, but how difficult is it for us to forgive such an offense. If the Church finds out the youth pastor has been engaging in premarital sex with his fiance, he gets relieved of duty. Even though the plan is to for the couple to get married, and even when the youth pastor is repentant, we cannot forgive even though God does.

If we find out one of the ladies in our bible study has had an abortion, it is all over, she will be run out of that bible study so fast no one will know what happened. She may be feeling devastated about the abortion. She may be repentant every day and forgiven by God. But she is immediately and forever condemned by us.

If two women walk into the Church holding hands, we stare viciously at them and, like a scene from Forest Gump, tell them "this seat is taken," even though no one has sat in that pew for twenty years. (For those wondering, I continue in the idea that homosexuality is not a sin, and will continue to lead people to my post Is Homosexuality a Sin? as long as I am alive. But the majority of Christians will continue to think of homosexuality as a sin, and so I am speaking to them from their world-view). These women are forgiven of their sins by God, but not by the body of Christ.

We are told in Scripture that the gate to heaven is narrow. I do not think this is because of the vast amount of sinners there are in the world. I think it is because of the vast amount of grudges people hold. I think it is because even Christians are not willing to forgive people of their sins unless they are their own. I think a large amount of Christians will not enter into the kingdom of heaven because they are not willing to forgive people for what they perceive to be sin (not everything Christians condemn as "sin" are really sins in the Bible. Many churches consider long hair on women to be a sin, while other churches consider short hair on women to be a sin. Some churches consider smoking to be a sin. Some consider drinking alcohol to be a sin. None of these things are in fact sins in the Bible). If the Church continues in its lack of forgiveness, that gate will be much narrower than we ever thought.

Jesus commands us to be forgiving. This means that we will not let it bother us if a Christian is struggling with sin. Show me a Christian who is not struggling with sin. And if you come forward telling me about how above reproach your pastor is, my guess is he or she would be relieved of duty if his/her sins were found out. No Christian is free from sin...that is unless we practice forgiveness.

You see, Jesus died on the cross, he paid it all because our debt was too great to pay. The only way to sever our debt was to provide a way for that debt to be forgiven of us, instead of paid by us. And if God can forgive us of our sin, shouldn't our appreciation be shown by forgiving others of their sins. To illustrate this, Jesus tells this parable in response to a question from Peter in Matthew 18:

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
"When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
"But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
"So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'
"And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
"But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.'
"So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
"But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
"So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

It is obvious in this parable that the lord of the servant represents God. The amount of time it would have taken the servant to work in order to pay back the debt would have been 130,000 years, according to David Jeremiah in Prayer, The Great Adventure. In other words, this debt was impossible for him to pay off. And yet the lord forgave it. Because of his great generosity, it was expected that the servant would have shown this same kind of generosity. But instead he threw a fellow servant in prison for a debt that would have taken a few months of work to pay back. The moral of this story is that the sin God forgives in us, is greater than any sin we will ever have to forgive in another. God asks that we show the same generosity for lesser debt that he showed us for an impossible debt to pay back.

What this means for us today is that when we see someone entering our church who we perceive to be a sinner (whether their behavior is actually sin or not) we must treat them as forgiven members of the body of Christ, just like we are. In other words, God forgives and forgets their sin, counting them innocent and guiltless; therefore we should as well. Whether a person is gay or straight, has had an abortion or not, has engaged in premarital sex or not, they are no longer considered sinners before God; they should therefore no longer be condemned by us.

Finally, this means that those of us who experience harsh judgment and criticism from the Church, as difficult as it may be, must learn to forgive also. Part of the healing for those of you in the LGBT community and for those who have had abortions or are part of other communities that Christians judge and condemn, is to let go of the hurt caused by forgiving those who persecute us. As always, know that Jesus loves you and I love you.

Please enjoy the video below which was made by Intersections International as part of a movement they are calling Believe Out Loud. I think you will like it.
Blessings,
-Brandon

The Jesus Response to Homosexuals

I was reading through the forums today and happened across a post from a Christian man who is struggling with his sexuality. His question was essentially this: "how do I come out to my straight Christian friends without losing their friendship?" Let me say how heart-wrenching it is for me to hear someone fear losing a friendship for being true to himself. No one should have to fear ending a relationship for being oneself; especially if one's friend is a professed Christian. Jesus of all people felt the hurts of humankind and grew closer to people in such a situations, instead of moving away from them. If you are a Christian and have shown any sort of judgment on a person for being gay or for having had an abortion or for having gotten divorced or for anything, if you have acted in a way that pushed someone from the Church, know that Jesus would have reacted differently, and that he calls us to act contrary to that. Jesus calls us to support other people and love them, even if we disagree with something they do.

I would like first to address Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and who, therefore, feel it necessary to exclude the LGBT community from worship and/or leadership. I am not going to argue with you here that homosexuality is not a sin. If you want to see my argument you can go to Is Homosexuality a Sin? What I am going to argue is that we are interacting with so-called sinners in a completely unbiblical way. We are treating homosexuality as an unforgivable sin that precludes a gay person from being a Christian. When a Christian comes out of the closet we immediately void their Christian membership card and exclude them from all things Church related. I know a man who was involved in a Church ministry who as soon as he came out of the closet was expelled from that ministry and banned from leading any ministry from that point on. But did Jesus exclude people from ministry because of sin? Absolutely not, that was the job of the Pharisees. That was what Jesus criticized the Pharisees for doing. We read in Matthew 23:13 (if you haven't figured out yet, one of my favorite chapters in the Bible) "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." This applies not only to the afterlife, but to this life as well. When Jesus describes cutting people off from the kingdom of heaven, he is also describing cutting people off from the Church, which is what we tend to do with sinners.

Jesus dined with all kinds of sinners and selected them as his inner circle of twelve. I described in the post Reaching Out to the LGBT Community that Jesus selected tax collectors and prostitutes (the worst of all "sinners" in Jesus' time) as his closest disciples. So why do we pick out a particular group, call them sinners, and treat them differently from all other sinners. For instance, we call divorce a sin, yet we allow two divorced people to marry. We consider premarital sex a sin, yet we allow two people who have partaken in "fornication" to marry. Why do we not allow gay people to marry? Why do we lift up one group of people as sinners, and place them above every other group of sinners?

But most importantly, why do we create an atmosphere where gay people do not feel comfortable being honest with us? Why do we create an environment where no sinner feels comfortable coming clean. Sinners had no difficulty coming to Jesus with their sin, and that is because Jesus did not treat them with condemnation or judgment. That is because Jesus did not respond with shock and awe at their sin. Jesus simply smiled, told them all was forgiven, and changed the subject. Jesus showed love and compassion and made people feel comfortable and safe to be honest around him. And that is what we need to do as Christians.

For my gay brothers and sisters, I know that it is difficult being honest with your straight brothers and sisters about who you really are; and I am sorry that is the environment we have created for you to come out in. You know that I do not believe homosexuality is a sin and you can use my article on that when discussing your homosexuality with your straight brethren. I want you to know that I am here to support you when you make the leap of faith to come out to your friends, and that I know of many other Christians, gay and straight, who are here to support you too. Most importantly, know that Jesus is here to support you and he will not ever let go of his tender grasp on you. He will hold you up forever.

Let me suggest that when you come out to your brothers and sisters in Christ, that you do it individually with each one. Let me suggest that you make them aware of how difficult this is for you and how much you need their support. Let me suggest that you tell them the acceptance you have experienced from Jesus and how much you need their compassion and love as you make this difficult step in coming out. Let me suggest that you then pray together. Be completely honest with yourself and with them during this process. If they accept you, then all is well and you can ask for their support as you tell others. But if they do not accept you, do not argue with them. Do not fight with them. Give them some time to think and some time to come to an acceptance of what they have heard. If they do not, and they desire to end the relationship, grieve over the loss of the friendship. But do not give up hope in finding a community of believers that will accept you and love you for who you are. If it at all helps, you may use my letter entitled A Letter to My Gay Brothers and Sisters as a tool to assist you and support you.

To all of my readers, know that I love you and that Jesus loves you.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Osama bin Laden's Death and the Christian Response

In yesterday's post I started off by saying that I was not going to tackle such a difficult topic as the killing of Osama bin Laden. I am glad I did not address the topic yesterday since I needed some time to think about it. But I now think it is my responsibility, as one who professes to explain the contemporary Christian response based on Jesus' interactions in Scripture, to address this complex issue.

I had someone ask me yesterday, "as a religious person, what do you think about bin Laden being killed?" Thinking I had to give her an immediate response, I vomited up a response I am not proud of, without having had time to think about it. Now that I have had time to think about it, I can give a more thoughtful response.

But before I get all spiritual on you, I must say that my first response was joy. I was happy to hear that that murderous (insert profanity here) was finally taken from this earth. Good riddance, I thought; one less evil in this world. I want to let you know that I think this is an extremely natural response and one that I do not condemn. The kind of response (the Christian response) I am about to advocate for, is a hard one to develop, but a necessary one. I will tell you why it is necessary in a moment. But first to the response.

As for the model of any Christian response I turn to Jesus who is above and beyond the exemplar of all things in relation to how we respond to our fellow human being. The question is, which responses of Jesus should be our example for how we should, as the body of Christ, respond to Osama bin Laden and his being killed? I think many would look to Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees, and particularly to Jesus' diatribe against them in Matthew 23 where he comes just short of spitting on them. Today we would say that Jesus ripped them a new one. But the reason Jesus treated the religious leaders the way he did was because they were given the truth through the Jewish law and they twisted the truth they were given and manipulated it to oppress the Jewish people. They had drifted from God and the true faith, and were abusing their authority. It was because of these things that Jesus railed on them the way he did. (For more on Jesus interactions with the religious leaders of his day, go to Jesus and the Religious Leaders in the Bible).

Now, I do not believe Jesus ever intended us to use his railing as an example for our own interactions (though it is nice to use this passage to justify such railing sometimes), but it is for another post to discuss how to interact with our own religious leaders. What is important to know for this current post is that this type of reaction is intended for our own religious leaders and not for those outside of our religious perspective. It would be absurd for us to expect someone from a different ethical world-view to act according to our own ethical belief system. Bin Laden held to an extremist, terrorist worldview, so it would be absurd for us to expect him to adhere to Christian ethical practices which alone would justify such a railing. That does not mean that we should stand by and let that person do harm to others. If that person's behavior (i.e. bin Laden) was harmful, we are justified in doing everything necessary to prevent that person from doing more harm. But does that mean we should rejoice in their death? I think the answer is "no."

When Jesus came across an enemy of his from outside of Judaism, he was sorrowful. We are even told that Jesus lamented over Jerusalem. When he was being crucified, he prayed for those nailing him to the cross saying, "forgive them Father, for they no not what they do." Jesus told his followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them.

Evil begets evil, and when evil is killed it begets evil through the rejoicing of something terrible: the killing of another human being. I am not saying that bin Laden's death was not justified or necessary. I think his being killed was necessary; but it was a necessary evil that should not be celebrated, but mourned over.

Proverbs 24:17 states, "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles." Instead of rejoicing that Osama bin Laden was killed, it is the Christian response to lament that there was no other way; it is the Christian response to lament that he had to die so others may live; it is the Christian response to lament that he had to be killed because he caused so many deaths.

It is the terrorists' response to rejoice when his or her enemy dies. So for us to do the same, sinks us to their level. It is the Christian response to love at all times and to forgive our enemies. Forgiving does not mean that we forget what has happened. Forgiving does not mean that we diminish the severity of the evil committed. Forgiving does not mean that we forego punishment. Forgiving is simply not letting what someone else did hold us back from living our lives. When we fail to forgive, as atrocious as the crime may have been, we hold ourselves back from being who we really are, and we let the criminal win.

If more people practiced the Christian response of love and compassion, if more people forgave and let go, maybe there would be more peace; maybe more people would get along.

I do not rejoice that Osama bin Laden had to die. Frankly, now that I have had time to think about it, it makes me sorrowful that he had to die. It makes me sorrowful that one more soul is lost. It makes me sorrowful that his life had to be a waste. Maybe if more people felt sorrow over the killing of a person, there would be less killing in this world. Maybe, if we practiced what Jesus taught, it would be contagious and the whole world would feel sorrow at the loss of a life. Imagine living in such a world.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Reaching Out to the LGBT Community

Hello again, and thank you for stopping by. I wanted, today, to address a positive issue and highlight a church that I think other churches should aim to emulate. I came across an article about Central United Methodist Church in Toledo, Ohio that is working to unite people, showing acceptance and helping others to feel like they are included in the church. They are working to undo the perception many have of Christianity being judgmental and condemning. They are working to be more like Jesus, bringing love to people, especially those who are more often than not shown hatred from the Church.

What is it this church has done: it has placed a billboard beside the road that reads, "Being Gay is a Gift from God."
This is a far cry from the way many churches treat homosexuals, condemning them as sinners and asking them to leave the church if they won't seek "treatment," as if homosexuality is a disease. One person, in response to this billboard, even said (as if this makes him a saint), "I am not against gays worshiping in our church, just against them holding leadership positions and teaching that being gay is okay with god." I do not recall Paul saying that one could not be gay and be a leader in the Church. Jesus certainly never even addressed homosexuality. So I am not sure why someone from the LGBT community would be allowed to worship in the church, but would not be allowed to take on a leadership role.

In fact, when we read Scripture, we realize that it was the Pharisees going around and being the sin police that had Jesus in such an uproar against them. Read Matthew 23 for a real understanding of what Jesus was upset about. It had to do with the Pharisees missing the point of the law. The law was meant to bring about love and mercy (v 23), not hatred and condemnation which is what the Pharisees were using it for. Jesus was fighting the Pharisees for doing the very same things the Church does today: picking out specific laws and judging people for breaking them.

What Jesus did was an amazing thing though. By being with people who "broke the law" he made them innocent, without ever needing to effect a change in them. But this assumes the point of my argument is that the "sin" of homosexuality needs to be cleansed. The more I read Scripture the more I realize that it is not clear about what "homosexuality" being a sin means.

What I do know is that Jesus took those who were perceived as sinners, and he took those who were not perceived as sinners, and he showed love and acceptance to them all. Most of all, he took those who were perceived as sinners by the religious elite and showed that they (the religious elite) were wrong, showing instead that it was the so-called "sinners" who made the best religious leaders. Jesus took a man who denied him and made him the rock on which the Church was built. Jesus took two tax collectors and made them leaders in the Church (if you have read previous blogs or the Bible, you will know that tax collectors were perceived as worse sinners than homosexuals are perceived today). Jesus took prostitutes and made them leaders in the Church. Jesus even took a murderer of other Christians and made him a leader in the Church. If he can do that, I think it is an easy task to take a homosexual and make them a leader in the Church.

Jesus was really good at reversing things. He said, "those who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first." He said, "those who try and save their life will lose it, but those who are willing to sacrifice their life, will gain it." He said, "in order to lead we must become servants." Jesus also turned "sin" on its head by showing people that they are wrong to judge others for what they perceive as sins.

Let us start emulating Central United Methodist Church, as it truly is doing the work of Christ by bringing his love and acceptance to those who need it the most.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Christians Shooting Our Wounded

Yesterday I finished my series on core doctrines of the Christian Church, and concluded that one of the major issues in the way Christians interact with each other today is the lack of distinction between core and marginal issues. Today I want to point to the other major issue that causes problems for Christians in their interactions with each other, a lack of compassion and understanding.

Let me start our with a scenario: you are in a bible study group that meets every Wednesday night. There are six of you and you all get along together really well. You have been together for about seven months and all of you feel like you can rely on your other brothers and sisters in the group for support. One of the group members, Jason, comes to group one night and everyone can tell that something is on his mind. Near the end of the study, the group leader, Phil, finally turns to Jason and says, "is something bothering you, it's apparent you've been upset all night?" Jason looks up with tears beginning to well up and tells your group that he fears he will not go to heaven because of some "sin" in his life. After some prodding Jason finally reveals that he is gay and that as much as he has been trying to repress it, it is just too hard. After some waiting, Phil finally responds by saying that Jason is right to be concerned because the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin and that he needs to repent and stop sinning. At this point Jason is sobbing and the tension is felt throughout the whole group.

Many of you reading this blog may see nothing wrong with this encounter. This kind of thing happens every day in the Church, driving numerous people away from the Church and away from a relationship with Jesus, and yet those within the Church find this completely acceptable. But now I would like to point to how Jesus handled similar situations in Scripture.

In Luke 19:1-10 we have the story of Zaccheus the tax collector. The passage describes Zaccheus as a tax collector and a sinner (vv 1, 7; in those days tax collectors were seen as terrible sinners not to be associated with, and were always associated with prostitutes). When Jesus saw Zaccheus he said, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house." Before Zaccheus repented, and without any word of warning to Zaccheus about his sinful lifestyle, Jesus showed acceptance to Zaccheus for who he was. Jesus knew the hurt Zaccheus dealt with being a tax collector and was able to emphathize with him, having compassion for him, and so he asked Zaccheus if he could dine with him. The Pharisees were upset that Jesus would eat with a sinner (a big no-no to the religious leaders who felt that would make a clean person unclean). Instead, Jesus showed the man love, without judgment or ridicule for his sinful lifestyle, and it was just by being in the midst of such love that Zaccheus decided for himself to change.

In a similar story in Matthew 9:9-13, Jesus pick Matthew to be one of his twelve disciples. Matthew happens to be another tax collector and is reviled for his sin, except by Jesus. Jesus showed him acceptence, picking him, a sinner, as one of his inner circle. Again, Jesus dines with Matthew, along with some other sinners, and is criticized by the religious authorities who said to his disciples (the very sinners they are referring to), "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus himself responds, and responds classically: "But when Jesus heard this, He said, 'It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 'But go and learn what this means: "I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE," for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'"

Jesus' concern was not people's sins; his concern was people's hurts and his desire to heal those hurts, bringing them love. I love that last line, "I desire compassion, and not sacrifice." It reminds us that all the sacrificing we do (sacrificing salvation of others, sacrificing our relationships with others, sacrificing other people's sins) is not what Jesus commands. What Jesus commands is that we have love for one another, showing compassion to each other.

This requires us to look at things not from our own perspective, or bias, but to allow ourselves to look at things from everyone else's point of view. We do not need to sacrifice our own beliefs or even our own presuppositions. What we need to do is to recognize that many things that we often take as fact (e.g. that homosexuality is a sin) are actually our own presuppositions that blind us from emphathizing with others, and therefore from feeling compassion for them. Our role as Christians is to love one another, those outside the Church and those within.

In the above scenario, it would have done Phil right to place himself in Jason's shoes, to shed his own bias about homosexuality and to really see things from Jason's perspective, in order to better handle that situation. For, if homosexuality is a sin, Jason may be able to overcome it just by being around the love and compassion of the bible study, just like Zaccheus did by being around Jesus. And if homosexuality is not a sin (to see my views on homosexuality and Scripture, see "Related Posts" below), then Phil placed an unnecessary barrier between Jason and God. It is not our role as Christians to point out other people's sins. It is our role to be loving and compassionate, because it is only then that we assist a person in their salvation.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Related Posts
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/homosexuality-robert-schuller-crystal.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/being-compassionate-without-ulterior.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/jesus-shows-compassion-to-outsiders.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/manipulating-scripture.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/gay-christians.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/jesus-and-religious-leaders-in-bible.html

Jesus Died, a Core Doctrine: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

Yesterday I talked about Jesus' divinity as core to our faith and an issue that we cannot compromise on. I brushed over the fact that Jesus' humanity is equally important in our faith, and the culmination of his humanity took place on this day nearly 2000 years ago in his death on the cross.

This is not an issue many people argue about (nor do many argue anymore that Jesus was fully God). But the point of this series is not to decide on what we should and should not argue about, but about deciding on what we can agree upon, and knowing that the rest should not points of division in the church.

That Jesus really died on the cross during the first good Friday is absolutely essential because if he did not, then he did not actually defeat death, which was the main enemy he was battling in his crucifixion. If the greatest punishment ever given was that of death, given to Adam and Eve outside of the garden, the greatest gift we can receive is victory over death. Therefore, if Jesus did not actually die, he did not accomplish what was necessary.

This is also true because of the necessity of a sacrifice for the sins of the people. Leviticus 16 discusses the day of atonement when the priest goes into the holy of holies and provides for the forgiveness of peoples sins, first by sacrificing for his own sins, and then by sending off a scapegoat with the sins of the people of Israel.
Jesus' death on the cross is necessary as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the people so that no sacrifice is ever needed again. If Jesus did not die, then a sacrifice is yet to be paid.

So the second core doctrine of Christianity that we need to agree on is that Jesus actually died, which will tie into the third and final core doctrine to be discussed in my next post.

Before I end this post, I want to focus for a minute on the death of Jesus. One thing we often forget is that Jesus died so that everyone will live in eternity with God, not just Christians. This does not mean that I believe in universalism and that all will be saved. What I do believe it means is that just because we are Christians we are not better than non-Christians. I think we too often have a superior attitude that makes us condemn and ridicule non-Christian sinners in ways that were not intended. But if Jesus was willing to die for them, certainly we can make the sacrifice to love them and show them love, can't we? As we move from good Friday, into Saturday, we are meant to experience the feeling of hopelessness that the disciples felt on the Saturday before the first Easter, as they felt that their chance for salvation was lost in the death of Jesus. For those two days (Good Friday and Saturday) Jesus' followers experienced the worst hurt anyone could feel, the hurt of grief. Grief over the loss of a friend. Grief over the loss of dreams and hopes. Grief over the loss of their own lives, as they had devoted the last three years to what turned out (or so they thought) to be a lie. If you can emphathize with their hurt, you can emphathize with the hurt everyone goes through. Let us use good Friday as a day to learn to love, even those that are hardest to love.
Blessings,
-Brandon

End Times, a Marginal Belief: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

Beginning our series on core vs. marginal beliefs, I have decided that I will start by discussing marginal beliefs and end the series by discussing core Christian beliefs. That was the easy part as I planned for this series. The difficult part was deciding what marginal beliefs to discuss. As I discuss the marginal beliefs, I want to pick out the ones that Christians today tend to fight most over. It would do no good to point out marginal beliefs that most Christians already agreed were marginal. What is important is that we establish what marginal beliefs we most argue over with the hope that, knowing they are not part of the core of what we believe, we will no longer view them as worth arguing over. One of the most divisive of all of these marginal doctrines centers around end times theology, or eschatology.

I have seen churches split over end times theology. I have seen members thrown out of churches because of their eschatology. I have seen Christians attack each other in the name of the end times. When the number two commandment in Scripture is to love your neighbor as yourself, defending end times theology to the death is wrong whether it is a core belief or not.

There are several different beliefs regarding the end times that have caused many splits and many different factions within Christianity. There are churches that devote every worship service to preaching the end times. But is end times theology all that important? Does it make a difference in the lives of Christians? Does our salvation depend on having a correct eschatology? The answer to the last question will determine whether eschatology is a core doctrine or a marginal one.

As I read Scripture, though it is important for us to know that Jesus will come again, it is not important for us to know when or how. Matthew 25:1-13 is a parable that many interpret as a parable about the return of Christ at the end of time. Verse 13 is especially insightful: it starts our by telling us to "be on the alert" for his return. So we are asked by him to acknowledge that he will come back and to be aware that it could be anytime. But the second part of the verse warns, "for you do not know the day nor the hour." This verse assumes that even we today do not know when his return will be, or even if we will still be here on this earth. Therefore, to conjecture about when Jesus' return will be is fruitless, and to argue over the details and fight with other Christians about it, is to miss the point of the end times: we do not and cannot know when it will be.

Finally, Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36 are informative: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." If not even Jesus himself knows about the details of the end times, who are we to think we can? If only the Father knows, is it that pertinent for us to attempt to attain such high knowledge? Our eschatology, our knowledge of the end times do nothing for our salvation and say nothing about our position in the Church, within the body of Christ. The Bible is clear on this, end times theology is a marginal belief that should not be defended to our utmost. If there is any core doctrine in Christianity relating to the end times, it is that Jesus is going to return, and I question even if that is core. Whether we believe if Jesus will return or not does not effect our salvation according to Scripture.

So as we interact with other Christians, let us continue to engage each other with an attitude of love and compassion, and when we are debating about the end times, let us be willing, for our edification and theirs, to let go of arguing, knowing that this is a marginal belief.

The Bible and the Will of God: a Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

From the beginning of Church history, all the way up until today, the most divisive issue for us Christians is doctrine. One person believes in infant baptism and another does not, so you fight. One person believes in having communion every week and another does not, so you fight. One person believes Jesus will return before Christians are taken up another does not, so you fight. I have been staying away from the Christian message boards because instead of being places of love and compassion, acting out Jesus' example, they are more like theological boxing rings where Christians try to knock the other person out with their best argument for their particular theology. But this is not how Jesus intended for Christians to treat each other. 1 Thessalonians 5:10-11 says "[Jesus] died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing." This is the purpose of the body of Christ, the Church, to build one another up in mutual encouragement, not to tear each other down for bad theology.

That does not mean that we are not to beware of false teachings, however. We are taught in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Bible is clear in many places that we are to beware of false teachings. Paul himself wrote many times to defend against false teachings that were being brought into the Church.

During Jesus' ministry, he warned against false teachings that came from the Pharisees called "the tradition of the elders." We find this in Mark 7 where Jesus and his disciples were eating. While they were eating, we are told that the Pharisees came up to Jesus and asked him why his disciples had not washed their hands properly before eating. This had nothing to do with germs, and everything to do with spiritual cleanliness. The Pharisees believed in the traditional teachings from older scribes who interpreted the Old Testament law in such a way that they believed it taught that one had to wash their hands a very specific way before they could eat. There were many such laws that came from the tradition of the elders, that the Pharisees believed in and was much of the reason they went around criticizing Jesus and his disciples, because they were not abiding by such traditional laws, which the Pharisees felt they needed to in order to maintain their Jewish identity against the foreign occupation of Rome.

In much the same way, Christians today hold on to interpretations that come from tradition of men rather than from the Bible, and argue for their beliefs in such a way that if you do not believe in them, you are not a good Christian. The problem is two-fold. First of all, it comes from a lack of distinction between core and marginal beliefs. Core beliefs are those beliefs that one truly must believe in order to consider oneself a part of that world view. For Christians, a core belief is a belief that is necessary for one to believe, in order for that person truly to be a Christian. Marginal beliefs are beliefs held by Christians that one can change, reformulate, or even drop, and still be considered a Christian. What often happens is that marginal beliefs are confused with core beliefs and people argue for these beliefs as if they are the most important belief one can hold. This often happens with end times beliefs. End times beliefs are really a marginal belief that many people count as a core, necessary belief, and they get enraged if you call yourself a Christian and do not believe the doctrine as they do. I will discuss this more later this week as we go through this series on core vs. marginal beliefs.

The second problem for Christians is there argumentative style. We are reminded in 1 Peter 3:15 "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." It seems like we all too often forget that "with gentleness and reverence" part.

As we argue for our beliefs, we need to match our tenacity with the kind of belief it is. The more core a belief, the more tenacious we can be in how we argue. If it is a marginal belief, give-in if it is obvious the other person is being stubborn. It is not worth the argument. If it is a core belief, you don't have to give-in, but remain loving, gentle, and reverent through the entire debate.

We are supposed to be Christian brothers and sisters in Christ, present for the mutual uplifting of one another. For the next three or four days I will discuss certain core beliefs that we should remain strong on, and certain marginal beliefs that we need to begin being less strong on. Remember as I go through these core and marginal beliefs that what is most important is that we follow the two greatest commandments taught to us by our Lord Jesus Christ: "to love the Lord God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength; and to love our neighbor as ourself." Never lose sight of the greatest commandments: the commandments to love.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Hell: What Is It Good For

I have often been accused of beating a dead horse until it was unrecognizable. For fear of losing this reputation I have decided once again to speak on the topic of hell. The subject of the eternal place of fiery torment for those who haven’t accepted Christ was resurrected (excuse the pun) when Rob Bell wrote his book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. I do not intend to rehash anything here that I have discussed in previous blogs (to see those previous blogs see: Related Posts below). I am writing on the topic again because of the numerous debates I have had with people recently who are so certain the Bible is clear that when unbelievers die, they go to a place of eternal torment. I have decided to do some research on the Christian doctrine of hell and have made some interesting finds. And so I present the findings of this research today.

First off, there was not an official doctrine of hell until 500 years after Jesus’ death in 543 AD at the Council of Constantinople. Before that time, the early Church Fathers were mixed as to what hell was. Geoffrey Bromiley tells us in an article in his International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Concerning [hell’s] nature, many early fathers, including the apologist Justin, and the Latin fathers Tertullian and Jerome, assumed a fiery hell. Origen, on the other hand, gave it a spiritualized sense, in which the emphasis fell on remorse and separation from God…Origen…introduced the possibility of a remedial hell that might form a final stage of reclamation even for demons.” Some of Origen’s (an early church father who lived from 185-254 AD) quotes worth noting are as follows:

“We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the fire with which each one is punished is described as his own; for he says, ‘Walk in the light of your own fire, and in the flame which ye have kindled’ (Is 1:11). By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself” (De Principiis II, 10, IV).

“And again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness” (De Principiis III, 1, XXI).

From the first quote we can see that Origen did not believe in an actual hell, but saw hell as a place we create for ourselves when we engage in sinful behavior, as it makes life difficult for us. From the second quote we can see that Origen believes in a place of purification one who has rejected Jesus goes, where they can be restored because of the punishment they have endured. This is in line with the idea I discussed in Rob Bell, “Love Wins,” and the Universalist in which a punishment must be corrective and therefore cannot be eternal. So as one can tell, the doctrine of hell was not clearly spelled out to the early church fathers, and so there were many different theories to begin with, and it wasn’t until 500 years after Jesus’ death that one theory was picked as orthodox.

But what about the bible itself, doesn’t it say that when people die they will be in eternal torment? The answer to that question is “no.” Hell did not develop as a concept until the intertestamental period after the last book of the Old Testament was written, but before the first book of the New Testament was. When the Old Testament speaks of where the wicked will go after dying, it speaks mainly of Sheol. Sheol, translated from the Hebrew, means “grave” and is the place both the good and the bad go after they die. It was a place void of consciousness, as can be attested from Psalm 6:5, “For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks.” In the Old Testament, there is no hell, only Sheol. And Sheol is a place where consciousness does not exist. As the idea of the afterlife began to evolve, Sheol began taking on some aspects that make it seem like a possible hell, such as Daniel 12:2 which says, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” But any concept of hell such as we have today of a fiery, eternally conscious torment, placed in the Old Testament is wrong as it places a future idea into the minds of those in the past.

There are only a handful of places in the Bible that mention anything resembling an eternal torment: Daniel 12:2 (quoted above) and Matthew 25:46 which says, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." I know that the phrases “everlasting contempt” and “eternal punishment” seem damning to my argument, but we often read our pre-set beliefs into passages such as these. We have been conditioned to believe in an eternally tormenting hell and so we simply read into passages like these that concept of hell. But notice they do not say “eternal torment.” When it says “eternal punishment” and “everlasting contempt” it is just as likely that these passages mean that the person who chooses to reject God will be eternally separated from him without consciousness. Essentially, they will eternally cease to exist. The punishment is not being aloud to live in God’s kingdom for all of eternity, instead of being sent to a fiery, tormenting hell. An article which discusses the original Greek in the Matthew passage can be found at "Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language and discusses that this is the only passage that has the two words “eternal” and “punishment” together, making for a compelling case against the idea of an eternal hell. He also mentions how the term translated “eternal” does not always mean eternal, and can simply mean an indefinite period of time. This makes for a more coherent belief in an all-loving God. It also makes for a more accurate reading of the Bible.

When you read in Scripture any of the passages that refer to a punishment for the wicked after death, you will see that not one of those passage indicates it is eternally conscious, leaving open the option that hell is a place where one can be restored, and for those who are passed the point of restoration there is the option of ceasing to exist for all of eternity. Any indication that hell is eternal, is read into the Bible because of tradition, and cannot be read out of Scripture objectively. Below are some passages that you can read on hell, and you can see for yourself that no indication of eternality can be found (Matthew 8:11-12; Matthew 13:41-42; Matthew 13:49-50; Matthew 22:12-13; Matthew 24:50-51; Matthew 25:29-30; Luke 13:27-28).

I want to end by explaining why I chose to write about this subject on a blog about engaging our society based on how Jesus engaged his. One of the things Jesus fought the Pharisees on was their strict adherence to certain biblical precepts that in the long run excluded people from the kingdom of God, and did not accord with God’s will (Matthew 23). I believe there are certain doctrines that Christians need to stand strong on without budging: the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, and so on. But there are other beliefs from which we do not budge that in the long run will exclude people from the kingdom of God. If the eternity of hell were something that was clearly in Scripture, I would say we need to adhere to the doctrine regardless of how wicked it seems. But the Bible is not clear. It is everything but clear. And since it keeps so many people away from Jesus, I think it is a doctrine we as Christians need to be prepared to scrap. We need to stop fighting people as if this is the sole doctrine on which Christianity rests, and do more to bring the doctrines of love and grace to the forefront. Who knows, maybe in the long run we will bring more people to Christ that way.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Related Posts:
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/threat-of-punishment-or-promise-of-love.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/rob-bell-love-wins-and-universalist.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-christian-god-to-be-feared.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/interacting-with-contemporary-church.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/jesus-and-religious-leaders-in-bible.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/manipulating-scripture.html