Over the last several posts, we have been talking about four strange verses of hope. In case you missed the beginning of this series of posts, you can access it here: Strange Verses of Hope. We then mentioned that Adam rebelled in the Garden and lost out by inadvertently turning his kingdom over to the Adversary, Satan. Despite this, God gave Adam’s descendants hope. Today, I want us to look at this hope.

So, what then was their hope?

The Sacrifices and the Law were given for the hope of what was to come. I know that may sound the opposite of hope because the sacrifices were burdensome and the Law restrictive. But God is not about convenience, but of truth. Let’s look at the five types of sacrifices:

1. Burnt Offerings (Lv 1) – dedication of oneself to God

2. Grain Offering (Lv 2) – offering one’s best to God and recognize God as sustainer

3. Fellowship Offering (Lv 3) – God wants a relationship with his people

4. Sin Offering (Lv 4) – Atonement for one’s sin against God

5. Guilt Offering (Lv 5) – Atonement for one’s sins against one’s fellow man

These had to be repeated continuously and thereby pointed to the One who was to come who would fulfill them all. How do we know they recognized these offerings as the need for one to come?

We find this verse in the Gospel of John: The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1:29). Not only John, but many Jews understood the purpose of the sacrifices and their prophetic meaning. The nation and the people had been waiting for this moment. John the Baptist was announcing that their wait was over!

Not only the people, but the Jewish leaders were waiting as well. But if they were waiting, then why did they reject Jesus as their coming Messiah? For one, he did not fit their preconceived idea of their coming Messiah. They believe their messiah could come and free them from all oppression, especially Roman oppression, set up a kingdom, and make Israel the pinnacle of kingdoms on this earth. But instead of doing this, Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees for their teachings which were leading Israel astray from the intension and purpose of the Law God had given. Rather than asking questions to clarify, they dug deep into their resistance. Sometimes, it is easier to believe in something knowing it will not come true in your lifetime. When it is fulfilled in your lifetime, you may have to make changes and realize that the way God is working is not how you thought he would work. These Jewish leaders fell into this trap. Unfortunately, they were not willing so realize God may be working differently than they had thought.

Now, let’s concentrate on what John meant when he said, “Lamb of God.” It means Christ became the ultimate sacrifice for their atonement. We need to understand the Hebrew and Greek words for atonement and what these words meant:

Old Testament: kipur (to cover)—This means the sacrifices did not take away their sin but just covered their sin for a time until they could be dealt with properly. They were taken out of view, but not taken away. These sacrifices and duties of the priests were symbolic of how their sins would be taken away sometime in the future, but these activities did not do that for them then and was the reason they had to be repeatedly performed.

As an example, I can give an incident from my childhood. Growing up, I hated green peas. While I love them now, I certainly did not then. One evening at dinner, my mother insisted that I had to finish eating my peas before I could get up from the dining table. Such a conundrum. What do I do? Well, it so happened that we also had mash potatoes that evening as well. I’m not sure why I didn’t eat all of them, as I loved mash potatoes, but it proved fortuitous for me that evening. I decided I would hide my peas under the mash potatoes. When my mother wasn’t looking, I would push a few peas under the potatoes. I couldn’t do them all at once, right? Can’t afford a suspicious mother. LOL. Well, when they were all under the mash potatoes, Mother let me get up from the table. Now, I had not complied with my mother’s demand, but they were no longer visible and thereby I was allowed to get up from the table. Now, I’m sure she discovered them when she cleaned the plate. But that is how kipur worked. The sins were just hidden but not taken away.

Now, sometimes, my father would eat my peas. This took care of the situation completely. They were not on my plate. They were gone. Not that I took care of them myself, but the problem was taken care of by my father. This is similar to the word used for atonement in the New Testament.

New Testament: katallage (to reconcile)

The writer of Hebrews gives us more information about this: He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption (Hb 9:12, NIV). And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hb 10:10, NIV).

As my father did for me, Jesus did for all of us. His actions solved the sin debt for us—not just hiding the problem, but reconciling the problem—making it no longer a problem at all.

But do we fully understand this sacrifice Christ made for us?

This is what I would like for us to explore further next time. It may amaze you to know the extent and length Jesus did for us so that we don’t have to face the judgment and consequence of our sin debt. It was truly not an act of cover up, but an act of reconciliation for which we should all be entirely grateful.

Come join me next time. Until then. God bless.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

We have been talking about some of Jesus’ unique claims. However, there were many things about Christ that were unique. One of those things was how he healed. The Mosaic Law stated that those who were impure due to illness and/or disease were to come to the high priest after they were cured for pronouncement of being cleansed (Lv 14). This is because the high priest could not be near a diseased person without becoming impure himself (Lv 21).

However, if that which was holy touched something it became holy (Lv 6). Holiness was more powerful than the unclean. Now let’s look at how Jesus healed.

 Matthew 9:25 – Jesus touched the girl before bringing her back to life.

 Mark 6:5 – Jesus laid his hands on the sick and they were healed.

 Luke 4:40 – Jesus laid his hands on them, and they were healed.

 Luke 8:44 – A woman touched Jesus and was healed.

 Luke 8:54 – Jesus took the hand of a dead woman before he said, “Arise.”

 Luke 22:51 – Jesus touched a man’s ear to heal it.

These are just a few examples, but they tell an interesting story. Why did Jesus not wait to touch these people until after they were healed? Didn’t he become unclean in the process? Later on, we read about Peter healing, and he did what any law abiding citizen would do, he touched the person after they were healed so as to not contaminate himself.

This was not the case with Jesus. On the contrary, since these afflicted people were healed there was no impurity present. Why, because the holy had touched the unclean and so the unclean became clean. I thought this concept was brilliantly displayed in one of the episodes of the first season of The Chosen. A leper came to Jesus and the program showed Jesus full of love and compassion for this one in such a hideous state. With no repulsion whatsoever Jesus placed his hands on the cheeks of this one whose flesh was basically falling off his face. Jesus’ touch however changed all of that. The man’s face went from being rotting flesh to pure unblemished skin. It was an amazing scene. Just as the sin offering made those who touched it clean even so our sin offering made those he touched clean. Isn’t that amazing? Does this not also prove Jesus’ superiority over man and his sin problem?

Jesus continues to do that for us. When we accept him by faith our unworthiness is covered by his blood and God s acceptance to us is now because of Jesus Christ. Isn’t it a beautiful plan God has instituted? All praise be to Him!

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

In my last post, we saw that Jesus stressed the spirit of the Law rather than just the letter of the Law. He did not shy away from making things awkward with the Jewish leaders of this important nuance. However, this turned to not be a true nuance but a very contentious matter. This week we will see another aspect of this that also made the Jewish leaders at odds with Jesus.

Jesus exposed the error of their thinking process. In Matthew 5, Jesus stated that keeping the Law was a heart matter and not a matter of ritual. He stated that although Moses commanded one to not commit adultery, this even meant that if anyone lusted after another woman other than his wife he was still guilty of breaking the command just as if they had actually committed the act.

Later, in Matthew 15, Jesus stated that “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean,” because these things come from one’s heart. There is no hedge that one can put around one’s thought process, or not very easily. This teaching from Jesus angered the Jewish leaders because for them to accept this it would mean that everything they had been doing and all their superiority in leading such dedicated lives of devotion to the Law of Moses based upon deeds was all wrong and their righteousness was indeed “as filthy rags” as stated by Isaiah (Is 64:6). They just could not accept this.

When one is faced with actual truth, there is usually two polar opposite responses. One either realizes the error of their ways and embraces the truth, or the person vehemently opposes what is being stated and rejects the truth presented. Unfortunately, the Jewish leaders responded the latter way.

Do we not do the same thing? We have our traditions that we do and like. However, sometimes we cannot even give a reason for the tradition even when we do stop to think why. The original intent is lost. Yet when someone points out the true original intent, we get mad because that does not now fit with our preconceived ideas as to why we have the tradition. Or perhaps the tradition has morphed into something not recognized by the original intent. I think this is more likely what happened here. The Jewish leaders had focused so long on the obedience component of the Law, they no longer stopped to think of the original intent of the obedience. Therefore, the obedience became the focal point rather than the intent of the Law one’s obedience was portraying. Sometimes, we, too, need to stop and look at why we do what we do and see if God has a lesson for us that is not at first obvious. God can teach us new things from old things if we stop long enough to hear what He is teaching.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

While it is true that the Jewish leaders of the day thought Jesus' teachings were radical, they were not as radical as people think. Many Old Testament prophets also preached similarly. However, Jesus did create quite a stir wherever he went. Why? Well, Jesus exposed the spirit of the Law rather than the letter of the Law. The Jewish leaders were overly concerned about people breaking the Law of Moses, so over time many self-imposed regulations were placed upon everyone to form a “hedge of protection around the Law.” As usual, although efforts have a good original intent, over time they lose their original purpose. The same was true here. Over time, these man-made, self-imposed, regulations became as binding as the Law itself and even equal in authority. They taught the more observant one was of these laws to the smallest detail, then the more spiritual, the more righteous, one became. Many of the Jewish leaders would tithe not only what the Law required but also tithed from the very spices they obtained. Of course, any time one’s goodness is tied to actions, pride can take hold and make one feel superior to others. Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders for this attitude they had against others. He told them they neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness—the spirit of the law. It was not that they should not do the things they were doing, but they should not neglect the weightier matters of the Law.

However, can we be too critical? Don't we do the same? Aren't we sometimes very legalistic and miss the true spiritual meaning of what we are trying to do? Let's start doing what Jesus did. Let's look at what Scripture is saying in spirit and not just in deed. Jesus raised the Law to a higher plane to show we can only achieve this by allowing the Holy Spirit to work through us. This keeps us humble. If we think we are doing well, then we probably are not; we are really relying on ourselves. It is only through Christ that all things are possible. Let's learn this lesson of what Jesus was teaching for ourselves and become all we can be in Him.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

We have seen that Paul was appointed by God as an Apostle to the Gentiles. So what caused so much controversy between Paul and the Christian Jews? Paul taught that circumcision was not necessary for salvation (Ac 15:1-2) and that Gentiles did not have to keep the Law to be a Christian (Ga 2:16). Many of the persecuted Jewish believers had fled to Antioch and other churches teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in addition to accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior. In other words, you had to first be a Jewish proselyte to become a follower of Jesus Christ. Paul was opposed to this and went to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem where they heard how God was blessing Gentiles and were receiving the Holy Spirit without being circumcised. This created quite an argument, but Peter also told how he had seen the Holy Spirit given to Gentile believers without them being circumcised (Ac 10, 15:7-11). From Peter’s statement, the Jerusalem council said they would be satisfied if the Gentile believers would not eat meat sacrificed to idols, not eat meat from strangled animals, not eat blood, and would keep themselves sexually pure (Ac 15:20). This Paul did (Ac 16:4).

So did Paul give up his Jewish customs? At times he did, for he did not want to be a stumbling block to others and confuse them (1Co 9:20-22); however, for the most part he kept a lot of the Jewish customs. On his second missionary journey, he hurried back to Jerusalem to keep Passover (Ac 18:21). On this journey he also seemed to have kept a Nazarite vow (Ac 18:18). On his third missionary journey, he observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Philippi (Ac 20:6) and wanted to get to Jerusalem in time for Shavuot [Pentecost] (Ac 20:16). Therefore, Paul did not live like a Gentile in every aspect. However, he was not bothered by blending the two.

So how do we reconcile this? Paul’s main emphasis was that Jesus Christ came and died for the sins of mankind and everyone needs to hear about him, accept him, receive salvation through him, and receive the Holy Spirit in order to live a life then pleasing to God. Everything else was just tradition. The Law of Moses had shown them their sin (Ro 3:20); keeping it did not save them (Ro 3:23, 28). Salvation through Jesus Christ is for all, both Jew and Gentile (Ro 3:21-31). Paul saw no problem with keeping the Jewish traditions/customs, or even the Law itself, as long as it was kept in its proper context. It is something one chooses volitionally to do but not committed to do. Therefore, there was no need to impose this on Gentiles as it was not necessary for salvation. However, anyone, either Jew or Gentile can decide to keep the Jewish feasts and any other customs if they know this is not making them any better than anyone else (1Co 8:8).

Paul’s teaching is a good lesson for us today. Our customs and heritage are especially important to us, as well as they should be. However, we should not let any custom or tradition make us feel superior to anyone else. We are all equal in Christ. Jesus Christ came to die for the salvation of all. It is our faith in him that saves us and that is the equalizer. All other things we do or do not do are based upon personal conviction and have no bearing on our goodness or righteousness. It is not how much faith we have but the object of our faith that makes the difference. Let’s let Paul’s example be our guide.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Last time we talked about what the Jewish audience to whom John and Jesus preached would have been thinking when spoken to about the “kingdom of God.” So, it would appear they were speaking of a literal kingdom. After all, the mere word ‘kingdom’ implies a king, subjects over whom to rule, and a land over which to govern. So, that makes sense. But if that was the case then, what happened to make so many people think it is something spiritual rather than something literal?

I think one thing that has led to this is the misconception that Jesus came to change things. Therefore, a change in definition would not seem too out of line since he changed so many things. Jesus certainly did come to challenge and to correct but not to change. It wasn’t that the Jewish leaders were wrong in applying the Law—just in their way of executing it. They were making man-made “laws” equivalent to God’s Law, and it caused a misapplication of what God had originally intended. Therefore, Jesus did not come to change the Law or to null the Law but to fulfill it. Jesus himself stated this: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Mt 5:17-18).

But wait a minute, you may say, Paul stated that we are no longer under Law but under grace. That is true but not because Jesus did away with the Law. After all, if Jesus did away with the Law even the Ten Commandments would be null and void, but they are still in effect. So, how do we put this together? We must recognize that a large part of the Law was prophecy. When a prophecy is fulfilled, you don’t go back and say the prophecy is in effect. It is now a done deal and, in some way, null and void—not because it won’t happen but because it did happen. The same is true here. Jesus fulfilled the Law. He was the one to whom all the sacrifices and rituals pointed. When he came, died, was buried, and rose again, these animal sacrifices and rituals were made null and void. Again, not because the concept was no longer needed, but because Jesus fulfilled the concept. A sinless sacrifice was needed, and Jesus fulfilled that requirement. There is no longer a need to use an older system when something newer is now in effect. Therefore, Paul could say he was dead to the Law because he was now alive in Christ, the fulfillment of the Law. And we can only keep the Ten Commandments because of the Holy Spirit who indwells us—not because we can do it ourselves.

So . . . if Christ did not come to change but to fulfill, how does that relate to the term “kingdom of God.” Well, he was preaching He was the fulfillment of that—if only the people and the Jewish leaders would accept him. He was also referring to a literal kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom.

Let’s look at a few scriptures where the misalignment has occurred. To better understand, we will need to look at the context of what was said and not just what was being said.

The scripture that has been the linchpin of Christ teaching a spiritual kingdom has been Luke 17:20-21: Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘there it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” The Greek word for ‘within’ is entos. While it can mean ‘within,’ it can also mean ‘among’ or ‘midst.’ So, how do we know which one is implied? We need to look at the context surrounding the statement. Jesus was talking to the Pharisees so it would seem odd to say to them that the kingdom of God was within them. After all, Jesus had called them “hypocrites,” “whitewashed tombs,” and that they were condemned (Mt 23:25, 27, 33). How would Jesus then state that His kingdom was within them—or in their hearts? Jesus was rather saying that the kingdom was in their midst. Actually, right in front of them. Jesus had been preaching he was the one to bring the kingdom to them. Therefore, Jesus was saying that if they would only believe in Him, the kingdom would be established at this time. Still not convinced? Then look at the next few verses. Jesus is then telling his disciples he must first suffer many things before his kingdom is established; but when it will come there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind then—it will be as obvious as lightning (Lk 17:22-25). This further proves that Jesus was referring to a literal kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom. With this verse now being shown to be consistent with a literal interpretation of “kingdom of God,” it then sheds different light on other scriptures that have been interpreted in light of Luke 17:20-21.

What about all the parables of the kingdom? To be honest, I am not sure how they get interpreted as being spiritual or of the kingdom being in our hearts. They all end in a separation of the “good” and “bad” at the “end of the age” (Mt 13:40) or as the literal Millennial Kingdom is set up. The parable of the sower (Mt 13:1-23), of the weeds (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43), of the mustard seed (My 13:31-32), of the yeast (Mt 13:33), and of the net (Mt 13:47-50) all show Satan will have followers disguised as those of the light to create confusion and deceive many. However, God knows who is who, and all will be sorted properly in the end (Mt 13:49). Then the parable of the hidden treasure (Mt 13:44) and the pearl (Mt 13:45) show the priceless value of understanding the importance of the kingdom of God. Actually, the interpretation of these parables could apply to our current life looking forward to the literal kingdom or could apply to the literal kingdom itself. We know that in the millennial kingdom not everyone will be pleased with King Jesus (Ps 2:9; Is 65:20). Then when Satan is let out of the Abyss (Rv 20:7), he works with those dissatisfied and again makes war with Jesus and Jerusalem (Rv 20:8). He is ultimately defeated, but it is surprising just how many recruits he gets even after a perfect environment is established (Rv 20:8-9). This shows how wicked our human hearts can really be. We cannot blame our state entirely on Satan. He only uses what we make available to him.

There is no place in scripture where Jesus redefined what the Jews were expecting when he preached the kingdom of God. What he preached, how he taught his disciples how to pray, and the parables he told were all about a literal kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom. So what is happening today, the time between Christ first coming when he died for our sins (fulfilled the prophecy of the Law and the first 3 Jewish festivals) and his second coming when he will set up his literal kingdom (a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles)? If we are not part of his spiritual kingdom, what are we? We, as the Church, are his bride (Ep 5:22-23) and will rule with him in his kingdom. We are not ruling now, we are preparing ourselves for our bridegroom to return. We are seeking to help others know of his coming so they, too, can be part of the ceremony and rule with him as well (2Co 5:11). After all, Peter states that we are no longer of this world (1Pt 2:11), so our kingdom is not in this world but of the world to come. We, too, can state with John, “Come Lord Jesus” (Rv 22:20) because our happiness will only become greater in the life to come in the real and literal kingdom of God.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens