Your Moment of Zen

Jeremiah 29:11 is NOT ABOUT YOU!

Recently on Facebook I came across the image on the left, which someone had placed up as their profile cover. I asked the person: "Are you an ancient Jew living in Babylon?" My comment got deleted and I was told not to post it again. I explained my position in a detailed, respectful post, in which I went over the context, as seen in the very image itself. You can see in verse 10 that the Lord, through the prophet Jeremiah, states: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again." Immediately, what is the context? Who is being spoken of in this verse? The Jews who would live in the Babylonian Captivity, which was to last seventy years. They're the subject of discussion. We then go to verse 11: "For I know the plans I have for you"...now let's stop here - who is the you here? It's still the same context; that is, it's the Jews of verse 10. God is saying: "For I know the plans I have for you [the ancient Jews enduring the Babylonian Captivity], plans for good and not for disaster [that is, the nation would be restored], to give you a future and a hope [that is, that their nation and Temple would be rebuilt]." It isn't about people living in the year 2012, and the "good," "future" and "hope" are all specific. You can especially see this latter point later on in verse 14, where the Lord says, "I will end your captivity and restore your fortunes. I will gather you out of the nations where I sent you and will bring you home again to your own land." Again, I'm demonstrating this from the very image itself: it shows that the highlighted verse is being taken out of context. All this was what I wrote the individual - and my post was, of course, immediately deleted, as was any evidence a conversation had taken place. Social media is, for many, a chance to "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18).

I have been told that people will read the Bible and see the context any way, but I don't believe people really do. How many times have we heard this verse uttered on K-LOVE? How many times have we seen bumper stickers of this? How many times have we seen this sold on goofy business cards at Christian bookstores? How many times has this been shared on social media like Facebook? If people as a whole understood the context of the verse, they wouldn't abuse it so frequently. I've beaten this dead horse before, I know. Some might be sick of hearing about it, or wonder why I spend so much time on it. Why is it such a pet peeve for me? I'll tell you why. It's because this kind of thing teaches "feel good" theology. It teaches a sappy world where God just wants you to be happy. It tells you good things will only get better, because that's what God wants.

Folks, you don't need to be the love child of Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen to understand how bad a theology that is. Even an extreme atheist will tell you life is not like that. Sometimes life just stinks. Only too recently I experienced some of the worst years of my life. By God's grace, my life is doing better now, but who am I to suppose the circumstances around the end of my life will be happy? The fact is, the "plans" God may have for your life, especially near the end, may not be "good" or "hopeful" with a great "future" ahead. As I've brought up before, you might end your life peacefully, or you might end it like Paul, Ignatius, Tyndale, or Bonhoeffer - killed for your faith in an embarrassing or violent way.

So why do I hate the abuse of Jeremiah 29:11? I hate it because it's an abuse of God's word. I hate it because it's a sacrifice of context for "Evan-jellyfish" theology. I hate it because it teaches people to look for emotional kicks in the Bible rather than God's truth. I hate it because it gives a distorted presentation of what God's word says on how our lives will be. I hate it because it's a smack in the face to every Christian whose life ended because he was torched by Hindu radicals, or shot by Muslim extremists, or executed by atheists. I hate it because it's insulting to God, as if we're trying to tell Him that we're expecting hope and good despite His actual plans for us. I hate it because I have seen people abuse this verse and turn it into an idol, and respond harshly to those who dare question the power of this idol.

What will you do, dear Christian, if God does not desire hope and goodness for your future? What if He desires suffering, as many early Christians endured? What if He desires that you shall lose your high paying job (as the apostle Paul did), or lose a beloved one (as the prophet Ezekiel did), or find yourself hated by most within your society (as the prophets Elijah and Jeremiah did)? Where will be your faith then? What drove the early Christians on as they endured three hundred years of persecution? Was it the silly idea that eventually they would find greener pastures because of eisegeting an Old Testament passage? Or was it because, as the apostle Paul wrote, they considered "the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Rom 8:18). Do you truly have this mindset, dear Christian? Are you ready to endure pain and anguish in this life knowing that God has provided the one thing you truly need? That is, your very redemption. Are you ready to be like the blind man in John 9 who, after persecution and banishment, still desired to see and worship Christ? Do you have such a heart?

Consider these things prayerfully. God bless.

Song of Solomon: Literal or Allegory?

Dante and Beatrice, by Maria Spartali Stillman

My fiance and I had gone through the Gospel of Matthew a few months ago, and went through the Epistles of Jude and 3 John not too long after that. After some time, she asked if we could go through another book together. With some meditating and thinking, I decided on the Song of Solomon, as that was about a married couple, and we ourselves are soon to be a married couple. I studied through it and then went over it with her, and at this time we've finally completed the whole book. It's been a wonderful experience.

My initial studies into it led me to ponder over the controversy on how to interpret the book - namely, is it allegorical or literal? That is, is it a literal story of two people in love, or is it, as so many commentators throughout history have said, an allegory of Christ and the church? In fact, this latter interpretation didn't start with Christians - the earliest Jewish commentators believed that Song of Solomon was essentially one huge allegory about God and the Jewish people. This continued into the early Church Fathers and Christian commentators, who applied it to the Christ and the Church allegory, and continued well into the nineteenth century.

Perhaps it should be noted that people seem to fall into extreme camps: either it's completely allegorical or it's completely literal. For my own part, I find those who take the completely allegorical approach run into many, many problems with the language of the book. For example, in the very first chapter, the bride says to herself:

Draw me after you; let us run. The king has brought me into his chambers. [Song of Solomon 1:4a]

As the NET translation notes point out, this transition from present tense to past tense signifies a hope and desire. The "chambers" mentioned here are bedchambers. If we were to translate this into plain speaking, the bride would be saying: "I really, really want to make love to the king."

Another incredibly problematic verse is seen much later on, spoken this time by the bridegroom:

Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. [Song of Solomon 7:7-8a]

During his long description of his wife, the husband turns to her chest. He describes her stature like a palm tree (specifically, a date palm tree), and compares her breasts to clusters. He then describes climbing up the palm tree (which date farmers had to do) and "laying hold of its fruit." In other words, he would like to fondle her breasts. Please forgive me, dear reader, for my bluntness, but that is precisely why I described this verse as "problematic" for those who take the full allegory route for the entire book. What person, in his right mind, would compare this to Christ's relationship to the church?

It will be granted that those in the full allegory camp give responses to verses such as this. However, and with all due respect to them and the memory of those in days past, they do so in the worst possible way - they do it by naming the breasts: Old Testament and New Testament; Moses and Jesus; Law and Grace; etc. I am not making this up (similar treatment is given to the mention of breasts in the far more harmless passage in Sol 1:13). Something that usually women of loose morals do is now being done by theologians and applied to the woman in Song of Solomon, in an effort to conform with the presupposition that she must represent the church. It's as if some are saying, "No, it can't possibly mean what I think it means!" Especially today, with society's over-objectification of the female chest, it might make many a Christian man cringe to think that such a passage could be in the Bible.

I believe all this stems from a misunderstanding of what the book is truly about. Regarded as a giant allegory by some, regarded as pornography hidden away in the Bible by others, the Song of Solomon is either misunderstood or misrepresented by many who try to read it. The truth of the matter is, like the book of Revelation, Song of Solomon can be a wonderful read if properly understood. For it to be properly exegeted, its premise must first be properly understood.

The Song of Solomon is, at its heart, the story of two people of God in love with one another. However, this is not an empty love, or the vague idea known as "love" by many in today's society - this love grows over time, and is nurtured by the couple as well as their friends (Sol 1:11) and family (Sol 8:8-9). The moments of true physical intimacy only happen after the couple are married: those who are shocked by the descriptions and events of chapter four forget that the couple were married in chapter three, and are only now consummating their marriage. The love in the book is true love blessed by God, for the flames of love are called "the very flame of the LORD" (Sol 8:6). In short, the Song of Solomon is a literal love story about a believing man and woman.

It will also be granted here that there are those who tend to "oversexualize" the book, turning every single verse into a sexual metaphor. For example, the verse in which the husband is trying to get into the room where his wife is, and puts his hand through the latch of the door (Sol 5:4), is believed by some to be a metaphor for sexual activity. However, reading the entire context of this section, as well as looking into how doors of that time functioned, makes us realize that the husband is reaching through the latch of the door to unlock it, and nothing more.

So what of the more intimate moments which we know for certain are speaking of physical relations? Should they shock us? In fact, it might surprise some that there is nothing sinful about the attraction between a husband and wife, even in a Christian household. It is all too common for people today to confuse attraction with lust. The apostle Paul himself wrote:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [1 Corinthians 7:1-5]

In these verses, the apostle explains that the husband and wife are to enjoy one another physically. In like manner, this is to be an equal enjoyment - too often today, some Christian women take the extreme that they are to "just lie back and think of England" when it comes to their marital duties. It might also be worthy to note that, in both these verses and in the entirety of the Song of Solomon, procreation is never mentioned. Now, this does not mean that birth control is to be utilized by the Christian couple, nor does it mean that a Christian husband and wife should not think about and be aware of the reproductive function of their bodies. However, it does present to us the realization that sex is supposed to an enjoyment for them. It is meant as part of the blessing of their relationship. It is not simply for procreation, although that is it's primary function. The act of lovemaking is partially what the very idea of becoming "one flesh" means (cf. Gen 2:24). We should not be shocked with the idea of a husband enjoying the physical features of his wife, as seen in passages such as Sol 7:7-8. It is perfectly fine for a husband and wife to enjoy one another in the confines of marriage - in fact, it's perfectly biblical.

A question that may arise from all this: is there any room for allegory in reading the Song of Solomon? Yes and no. We've already established that it is impossible to make every single verse allegorical without, at some point, becoming unintentionally blasphemous. However, there are certainly some sections of the book where we could find allegory. As most people know, the apostle Paul used marriage as an allegory for Christ and the church (Eph 5:22-33). However, when we go looking for allegories, it is first important to understand the plain context of what we are reading. We need to know what is being said before we go looking for deeper meanings.

Permit me to use art as a metaphor. When studying the trade of art, one of the things they first teach you is that you have to study how the world works in a plain way before you go into abstractions. For example, Picasso, in his early life, painted beautiful semi-realistic paintings. Later on in life, he began to dabble in the Cubism and other styles that made him world famous. In the image below, you see his work Science and Charity (painted in 1897) on the left, and a section of his later work Guernica (painted in 1937) on the right.

The one on the left was done when Picasso was just 16-years old, while the one on the right was done when he was 56-years old. No, I did not mix up the ages. Picasso once told someone that it took him his childhood to learn to draw like an adult, and his adulthood to learn to draw like a child. The point is that, before dabbling in the more abstract forms of natural representation, Picasso learned how to portray the world as it was. Before we deal with the abstract, we must understand the natural. In like manner, before we deal with allegory, we must understand the literal. Otherwise, we completely lose the original meaning of the passage we are dealing with. You won't be able to understand what is being represented without first understanding what can be represented. This is what was seen with Harold Camping, who would take a section of scripture and turn it into an allegory that completely contradicted its original context. Like Mr. Camping, we can become so engrossed looking for allegories that we can separate ourselves from the original intention of the authors.

So while it is not impossible to find allegory in the Song of Solomon, it is vital that its immediate context be understood first. Yet even with all the allegories thrown out, the Song of Solomon can still be read as a beautiful and wonderful book within the larger canon of Holy Writ.

Authority of Exposition

The following is from Adam Clarke's commentary on the Song of Solomon. Although he was referring specifically to that book, I think it pays to remember these words when attempting to over-allegorize any book of scripture.

In the preceding notes I have carefully avoided all attempts to spiritualize this song. My reasons I have already given in the introduction; and in the course of writing these short notes I have seen no cause to alter my opinion. Any man may allegorize it; that is an easy matter; for when he once considers it to be an allegory, his own creed will furnish him with enough to say, write, or preach, upon the spiritual meanings of every part, which will be an exhibition of his own confession of faith! But when he has finished his work, the question will recur, By what authority do you give it these meanings? And till the day of judgment none shall be able to say, "I have the authority of God for my exposition."

Did Jesus Heal Slowly?

The conundrum of today's supposed faith healings or medical miracles is that they are rarely as quick and instantaneous as those of Christ the Apostles: a person may be declared "healed" of their broken leg, and yet still need to go through the recovery any non-healed person would need; a person may be declared "healed" of their deafness, and yet be told that they'll still need to learn how to speak (you know, like most deaf people need to do any way). Many people involved in the miracles and wonders movement, or who believe in what is called by some "power evangelism," will argue that it's possible for God to heal gradually. I would argue that this confuses miracles with providence. To explain it this way: a miracle from God is a man with a broken leg being healed instantaneously, with no need for further medical attention; providence is God providing a man with a broken leg the right doctors and medical treatment and the appropriate resting time for the gradual healing of said leg. The latter situation is a wonderful example of God's love and care for an individual...but it's not a miracle.

Still some want to try to find ways to demonstrate gradual faith healing either with or from scripture. Two such arguments I have heard from the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, and from their leadership itself. One (which I reviewed before) was by Daniel Lim, the CEO of IHOP-KC: the argument was essentially that whether it takes one second or one month is irrelevant, as it's still a span of time. As I pointed out in the linked post, however, this is a case of special pleading, as those who promote faith healings demand that they are able to do all that Christ and the apostles used to do...except, of course, when it comes to instantaneous healings. For some unknown reason, that's a rule that doesn't apply to them.

Another and more recent argument I heard was by Wes Hall, during the Prayer and Prophetic Conference held earlier this year (and which I tweeted about). In attempting to explain away gradual healings of so-called miracles, Mr. Hall made reference to an account from Mark's gospel:

And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.” [Mark 8:22-26]

Of course, right off the bat, trying to use this to justify gradual faith healings presents a problem: Jesus did not halfway heal the man and then send him on his merry way - the man went home fully healed. You can't possibly compare this to a crippled individual who goes to a faith healing session, feels an emotional tug, then goes home not fully healed. This was not slow faith healing in the context of which most faith healers describe it: Jesus did two actions, the first one of which he asked what the man saw, and the second one which, again, resulted in a full healing. Jesus did not touch the man's eyes twice, then shrug his shoulders and say, "Might take six months or so. Just go back home and remember: keep the faith!"

More importantly, it is clear from Christ's actions that he had a purpose behind this method of healing - indeed, everything Christ did, especially those actions which the Evangelists explicitly describe to us, served some larger purpose. The centurion's servant was healed without any word or action so as to justify the centurion's faith (Matt 8:5-13); the paraplegic man was healed with a command (Matt 9:1-8); the Canaanite woman was initially ignored to demonstrate her steadfast faith (Matt 15:21-28); the man blind from birth was ordered to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam to eventually become an example of those who have never met Christ and yet have great faith in him during persecution (John 9:1-38). Those who quote Mark 8:22-26 to promote slow faith healings (and indeed, it's the only passage to which they can refer) seem to suggest that Christ either failed the first time or was "out of his game" during this one instance in the Gospels. The fact is, Christ knew what he was doing, and he had a purpose for it.

Enough on this, however. As the movie Inception said, "we have to go deeper" - let's study the context and meaning behind this story.

Christ and his disciples, coming from a brief quarrel with the Pharisees, are entering the town of Bethsaida. This town does not have a good history, as it was already marked as one of those cities which had rejected Christ and would face judgment (Matt 11:21). Yet as Christ and his disciples are entering, some of the people bring to Christ a blind man (v. 22). This account of the blind man of Bethsaida is only found in Mark's gospel, as it isn't recorded in Matthew, Luke or John, and all we know about the man thus far is that he is blind and little else.

Christ takes the man and leads him out of the village, so that they could be alone (although the disciples might have been there as witnesses). This was done for a few possible reasons: 1) as a judgment against Bethsaida, whom Christ deemed not worthy to witness such miracles; 2) to continue Christ's practice of not performing his healings as public acts like a circus performance (something modern day faith healers could take to heart).  Matthew Henry rightfully comments: "Never had a poor blind man such a leader."

Having taken the blind man aside, Christ does an unexpected thing: he spits on him (v. 23). More specifically, on his eyes. This has led some commentators to suggest that the man's initial problem may have been crust keeping his eyelids shut. There are certainly eye conditions, such as infections, which result in crust forming on the eyelids if they have been shut for a prolonged time, either by the individual or from sleeping. This is one of the only accounts of our Lord healing using spit, the other one being with the man born blind, wherein the Lord spat onto the ground and used mud to rub on the man's eyes (John 9:6).

Greek commentator AT Robertson makes the interesting note that the Evangelist Mark uses the Greek word omma (specifically the ommata form) for the word "eye," rather than the traditional opthalmous. In the Gospels, the word only occurs here and in Matthew 20:34. Outside the New Testament, omma is often used in a more poetic sense, and hence there might already be a hint of something more significant here.

Christ asks the man what he says, to which the man looks up and says, "I see people, but they look like trees, walking" (v. 24). Obviously the man could see, but had difficulty in doing so. There are two possible explanations for his description: 1) the man saw the disciples (who might have been there, as suggested earlier) and thought they looked like trees; 2) the man saw trees (which Bethsaida does have), and thought they were men - in other words, they were trees! In either case, the man did not have clear vision. In that society and time period, he still would have been unable to survive on his own.

Now as stated earlier, we need to reject the idea that Jesus either failed or only managed to do a halfway job at healing by some fault of his part. Therefore, what was the purpose of this methodology? Perhaps a further hint is seen in the three touches of Christ found in this story:

1. Christ touched the man's hand and led him out of Bethsaida. The town was sinful and rejecting the Gospel, and had already been cursed by Christ. By taking the man out of the town, Christ in essence removes the man from a world of sin and condemnation.
2. Christ touches the man's eyes the first time, revealing his inadequate sight. Whether or not we are to believe Christ spat and used his hands in a more natural way (to remove crusts sealing the eyelids shut), Christ's initial touch served to reveal to the man his own inadequacy. The man sees somewhat, but not enough. He's unable to discern truth - he would be unable to survive and function in the world. He still needs true healing - he still needs Christ.
3. Christ touches the man's eyes the second time, and the man is fully healed. At this point, Christ's full sovereignty is displayed. Not using spit, by simply his own touch, he brings complete healing to the man's eyes. The man can now see clearly, and has a full grasp on the truth of the world around him.

Here we see the deeper, spiritual meanings of the verses. The blind man here was used by Christ as an example of our own spiritual state: 1) we are taken by God out of the village of sin; 2) we are shown of our deeper need for Christ; 3) we are given full sight from God, taking us out of our spiritual blindness. This was the purpose behind Christ's actions.

Therefore, Mark 8:22-26 cannot be used to try to promote slow faith healings, for all the reasons and exegesis presented in this post. Christ and the apostles always healed fully and as quickly as possible. Even in this case - the sole example in scripture of a gradual healing - Christ did not leave the man halfway healed, or incompletely healed. The reason this is the sole example in all of scripture is because it had a purpose, and that purpose was to remind us not to rely on faith healings or cold calling, but upon Christ for saving faith and regeneration.