QUESTION: (PART 2) I fully believe that when non-Christians do good things there is no redemption in their actions. That's only through Christ... But isn't the fact that they are even able to do something good --"good" being something one can only define by God's principles -- a sign of God's image/creation?
ANSWER: Satan's sin was not the desire to be opposite of God, but to be like Him (Is 14:13). He has ministers of righteousness who teach people how to be righteous (2 Co 11:14, 15). How to do good. It is a total corruption of what God is. Satan has systems -- religion is the best of them -- for corrupting God's plan and subtly impugning his character. If you look at sin as being beyond immorality, but really thinking and acting in independence from God, which is what it is, then the good is only good in man's eyes, and is despicable in God's.
As I said yesterday, all those righteous deeds performed in the power of the flesh revolt Him. That which is highly esteemed in the eyes of men is detestable to God (Luk 16:15). I guess I'd have to say technically you're right in that the counterfeit and corruption do point to the original... but what is the point of looking at the alleged "good" being performed by people as being a sign of God's image? It's like looking at a counterfeit bill and saying, "Well, this counterfeit bill tells me there's a real bill somewhere that this was copied and corrupted from."
Hmm. Actually, you wouldn't even know it was a counterfeit unless you were already totally familiar with the real. It's almost like what's being said in this line of thinking is that even though the good done in human power is totally disgusting to God, it's actually a little bit good because it's a sign of God's image.
I don't think so. I think because it's a corruption of God's character, and a substitute for God's ways, that it's a great deception and evil, a deception designed to turn people away from God. And if God thinks it's gross and disgusting, then I think we should, too.
Grace,
Karen
Showing posts with label Q and A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Q and A. Show all posts
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Q and A: Residual Imprint or Human Good?
QUESTION: I've enjoyed your thoughts/truths again in your blogs, "Planting Thoughts" and "Spiritual Schizophrenia" and had a question to pose: While those who are "dead in...sins" (Eph 2:1) and our sin nature are completely opposed to God, we are still made in God's image, albeit fallen. And so, in my mind, there is still that residual imprint of His--we see it everywhere, in His creation, in human beings--it is why we long for restoration in Him. Would you agree with this, or do you believe that's just the "human good" that's showing up?
ANSWER: I'd like to start by pointing out something that people always seem to miss when they bring up the "God created us in His image" concept. Actually, God created Adam and the woman in His image, as documented by Gen 1:27. However, after Adam fell, he "lived one hundred and thirty years [and] became the father of a son IN HIS OWN LIKENESS, ACCORDING TO HIS [i.e., Adam's] IMAGE, and named him Seth (Gen 5:3) Since the Bible is careful to make a distinction here, I think it's important we understand why.
In Gen 1:27, the word for image connotes a shadow image and is talking primarily about the soul. Our souls are framed in God's image as it were, with self-consciousness, mentality, volition, vocabulary, norms and standards, memory, etc. All qualities God's word shows that He has as God. Adam and the woman were also perfect in body and soul and spirit, but once they fell they were not perfect. Their bodies were corrupted with a sin nature and they were spiritually dead, incapable of having a relationship with God on their own and, being cut off from God at that point, incapable of doing anything good in His eyes. All our righteousnesses are as filthy, menstrual rags. From the top of our head to the bottom of our feet, there is no soundness in us.
We can't actually see God in His creation, but even in its fallen state, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that [unbelievers] are without excuse." Creation brings us to the point of being conscious that there is a God, and from there we decide whether we want a relationship with Him or not. I don't consider that as falling under the "human good" category.
Nor do I think the longing after Him is human good. The reason some of us yearn for Him is because "He has set a desire for eternal things in the heart of every man..." (Eccl 3:11) When a person reaches the point of realizing there is a God and has a desire to know about him, then God will bring the appropriate information to him. Which is what I think you are talking about in our yearning for Him.
This longing is a fragile spark and if it is not nurtured or acted upon it will grow dim. Thus not everyone longs for God. Many people want nothing to do with Him. They may feel the lack, the hole but instead of filling it with God, they seek to fill it with the things of the world. Which is futile, as the book of Ecclesiastes shows us. Others convince themselves they are quite satisfied with their lives as they are living them, happy to believe the lie that they are the "Captain of their own ship and the masters of their fate".
It's volition that determines the difference. The desire to know God versus the desire to go independent from Him, which is really what Satan's original sin was about. Being independent from God.
I also believe there is an element of yearning in us for what we lost in Adam -- the original glory that Adam had, the spiritual element that he lost -- I think we're all in some way conscious of the lack, conscious of the fact that without Him we are not whole. But it may not be a cognizant consciousness. Just a general sense of incompleteness that tends to drive people again, toward all those experiments Solomon pursued in Ecclesiastes.
And of course there is the sin nature part, that makes it even more obvious how flawed we all are.
Tomorrow, part two of this reader's question.
Grace,
Karen
ANSWER: I'd like to start by pointing out something that people always seem to miss when they bring up the "God created us in His image" concept. Actually, God created Adam and the woman in His image, as documented by Gen 1:27. However, after Adam fell, he "lived one hundred and thirty years [and] became the father of a son IN HIS OWN LIKENESS, ACCORDING TO HIS [i.e., Adam's] IMAGE, and named him Seth (Gen 5:3) Since the Bible is careful to make a distinction here, I think it's important we understand why.
In Gen 1:27, the word for image connotes a shadow image and is talking primarily about the soul. Our souls are framed in God's image as it were, with self-consciousness, mentality, volition, vocabulary, norms and standards, memory, etc. All qualities God's word shows that He has as God. Adam and the woman were also perfect in body and soul and spirit, but once they fell they were not perfect. Their bodies were corrupted with a sin nature and they were spiritually dead, incapable of having a relationship with God on their own and, being cut off from God at that point, incapable of doing anything good in His eyes. All our righteousnesses are as filthy, menstrual rags. From the top of our head to the bottom of our feet, there is no soundness in us.
We can't actually see God in His creation, but even in its fallen state, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that [unbelievers] are without excuse." Creation brings us to the point of being conscious that there is a God, and from there we decide whether we want a relationship with Him or not. I don't consider that as falling under the "human good" category.
Nor do I think the longing after Him is human good. The reason some of us yearn for Him is because "He has set a desire for eternal things in the heart of every man..." (Eccl 3:11) When a person reaches the point of realizing there is a God and has a desire to know about him, then God will bring the appropriate information to him. Which is what I think you are talking about in our yearning for Him.
This longing is a fragile spark and if it is not nurtured or acted upon it will grow dim. Thus not everyone longs for God. Many people want nothing to do with Him. They may feel the lack, the hole but instead of filling it with God, they seek to fill it with the things of the world. Which is futile, as the book of Ecclesiastes shows us. Others convince themselves they are quite satisfied with their lives as they are living them, happy to believe the lie that they are the "Captain of their own ship and the masters of their fate".
It's volition that determines the difference. The desire to know God versus the desire to go independent from Him, which is really what Satan's original sin was about. Being independent from God.
I also believe there is an element of yearning in us for what we lost in Adam -- the original glory that Adam had, the spiritual element that he lost -- I think we're all in some way conscious of the lack, conscious of the fact that without Him we are not whole. But it may not be a cognizant consciousness. Just a general sense of incompleteness that tends to drive people again, toward all those experiments Solomon pursued in Ecclesiastes.
And of course there is the sin nature part, that makes it even more obvious how flawed we all are.
Tomorrow, part two of this reader's question.
Grace,
Karen
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Q and A: Violence in Christian Fiction
QUESTION: Having read your books, Perreti's and Dekker's novels - I see that there is a lot of violance in them. I suppose the genre in which you write would not allow for anything different. I also do take into account that these represent everyday fight of good versus evel. However, I can't get over the fact that Christianity is a truly non-violent faith, and I am not sure that even self-defence would be justified in His eyes. I am sure you have thought this through and are ahead of me - so I would appreciate your explanation.
ANSWER: Regarding the notion that Christianity is a non-violent faith, I'd have to disagree with you on that. The premise comes from part of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount where He talks about turning the other cheek, but that is for the Millennial reign when He will be in total charge, there will be no armies, and any affront or crime will be instantly dealt with by Him. His admonition to Peter in Mt 26 to put down the sword because those who live by it will die by it is referring to murder. The Old Testament Commandment not to kill (Ex 20), is more properly rendered "You shall not commit murder." And murder is mentioned in God's list of 7 worst sins (Pro 6:16-19), whereas killing in battle or defending one's life, family or property is not.
Also, when Jesus met the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8, he healed the man's son, and marveled that he had "not found such great faith with anyone in Israel." This was a man whose job was to be a soldier. To fight for Rome. To kill people and to be very, very good at it. If Christianity is non-violent, why didn't Jesus reprove him for his wicked choice of jobs instead of praising him to the skies? He didn't praise anyone else in all the four gospels as much as he did this guy.
Finally it was God who taught Israel to war (The Book of Numbers), God who taught David's fingers to fight (Ps 144:1). And it is Jesus who will return on a white horse with a sword to personally slay the armies of His enemies (human armies) until the blood runs as high as the horse's bridles... (Rev 14:20)
I say all that so you will know that I do not in any way believe I am compromising my faith to read books with violence in them (nor to write them, for that matter) so long as it lines up with the divinely instituted principles God has provided for life. In particular the violence of military function is needed for the perpetuation of nationalism which is important in preserving the freedom to spread the gospel and to grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. (yet another huge subject!)
Grace,
Karen
ANSWER: Regarding the notion that Christianity is a non-violent faith, I'd have to disagree with you on that. The premise comes from part of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount where He talks about turning the other cheek, but that is for the Millennial reign when He will be in total charge, there will be no armies, and any affront or crime will be instantly dealt with by Him. His admonition to Peter in Mt 26 to put down the sword because those who live by it will die by it is referring to murder. The Old Testament Commandment not to kill (Ex 20), is more properly rendered "You shall not commit murder." And murder is mentioned in God's list of 7 worst sins (Pro 6:16-19), whereas killing in battle or defending one's life, family or property is not.
Also, when Jesus met the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8, he healed the man's son, and marveled that he had "not found such great faith with anyone in Israel." This was a man whose job was to be a soldier. To fight for Rome. To kill people and to be very, very good at it. If Christianity is non-violent, why didn't Jesus reprove him for his wicked choice of jobs instead of praising him to the skies? He didn't praise anyone else in all the four gospels as much as he did this guy.
Finally it was God who taught Israel to war (The Book of Numbers), God who taught David's fingers to fight (Ps 144:1). And it is Jesus who will return on a white horse with a sword to personally slay the armies of His enemies (human armies) until the blood runs as high as the horse's bridles... (Rev 14:20)
I say all that so you will know that I do not in any way believe I am compromising my faith to read books with violence in them (nor to write them, for that matter) so long as it lines up with the divinely instituted principles God has provided for life. In particular the violence of military function is needed for the perpetuation of nationalism which is important in preserving the freedom to spread the gospel and to grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. (yet another huge subject!)
Grace,
Karen
Monday, February 11, 2008
Q and A: On Studying and Writing
QUESTION: I wondered whether you study [God's word] according to what you're gonna write, or do you write according to what you've studied? As you study does an idea spring out at you and you write about it or is it the other way around? And how do you know it's God's idea and not your own? How do you perservere with the story? How did God inspire you to write things like 'The Guardian King' series?
ANSWER: As I've said in this blog before, I believe the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit gives certain men the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher for the training and equipping of the saints for the Christian life (Eph 4:11,12) and that each of us are assigned to a specific man (I Th 5:12), as the man himself is assigned a specific congregation (1 Pe 5:2,3).
Having found one's right pastor-teacher, the Christian's "sacrifice" (Ro 12:1) is then to bring his body to the place where he can hear his pastor's teaching on a daily basis, either face to face (which is preferable) or by means of techology (which is what I've had to do). The pastor then is the one who decides what I'm going to study, not me.
Yes, I could pick and chose from among his many lessons, but I've learned that is not the best way to go about it. We need the whole realm of doctrine, not just the subjects that interest us or that we think we need. Plus God the Holy Spirit often speaks specifically through the pastor to me regarding events going on in my life at the time regardless of the subject matter of the lesson.
With that as my base, I might do an additional study on the side based on what I've chosen to write about. For example, I'm incorporating nephilim in my current book, so I've done a separate study on that (though of course, the whole idea for including them came from my pastor's teachings on them a couple years ago).
As to how exactly I choose what I'm going to write about... I go by what interests me, what I care about, what occurs to me. Frankly it's a mysterious process and usually I don't even know what I am writing about until I have at least a first draft.
How do I know if it's God's idea? It has to line up with scripture for one. And of course, I pray constantly for His guidance in the matter. After that, I don't much worry about it.
In the case of Black Box, I came up with the idea and submitted it, thinking there was no way Bethany House would want it. When they did, I knew it was definitely God's will for me to write it. With the Legends of the Guardian King series, which didn't get published for 25+ years after I started working on it, it was just that I loved it and couldn't give up on it. I know it was God's will and God's idea and that He intended me to do it. The idea and the desire just never let up, despite numerous disappointments and frustrations. It was something like Jeremiah's "burning in my bones" that would not be shut up.
Not to say I didn't struggle with doubt. I prayed about it, asking God if I should keep at it. Since the desire never left and I continued to have the time to pursue it, I concluded that I was to keep on. Moreover, I knew I was to write for God -- not for publication, nor other people, but because He'd given me a gift. I wanted to exercise it in that way, and I would trust Him to do whatever He wished with it. I knew that I was in His plan because I was obeying the commands to "worship by means of (the filling of the) Spirit and of (learning/applying) truth (God's word, of course)" and that was all that was necessary.
I wanted to do it, I believed God had given me the desire and the ability to do it (and others I respected agreed). I would take a risk on Him and go forward with it. Bottom line is, "sure" does not equal faith. If you are sure then there's no faith. And without faith it's impossible to please Him.
Grace,
Karen
ANSWER: As I've said in this blog before, I believe the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit gives certain men the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher for the training and equipping of the saints for the Christian life (Eph 4:11,12) and that each of us are assigned to a specific man (I Th 5:12), as the man himself is assigned a specific congregation (1 Pe 5:2,3).
Having found one's right pastor-teacher, the Christian's "sacrifice" (Ro 12:1) is then to bring his body to the place where he can hear his pastor's teaching on a daily basis, either face to face (which is preferable) or by means of techology (which is what I've had to do). The pastor then is the one who decides what I'm going to study, not me.
Yes, I could pick and chose from among his many lessons, but I've learned that is not the best way to go about it. We need the whole realm of doctrine, not just the subjects that interest us or that we think we need. Plus God the Holy Spirit often speaks specifically through the pastor to me regarding events going on in my life at the time regardless of the subject matter of the lesson.
With that as my base, I might do an additional study on the side based on what I've chosen to write about. For example, I'm incorporating nephilim in my current book, so I've done a separate study on that (though of course, the whole idea for including them came from my pastor's teachings on them a couple years ago).
As to how exactly I choose what I'm going to write about... I go by what interests me, what I care about, what occurs to me. Frankly it's a mysterious process and usually I don't even know what I am writing about until I have at least a first draft.
How do I know if it's God's idea? It has to line up with scripture for one. And of course, I pray constantly for His guidance in the matter. After that, I don't much worry about it.
In the case of Black Box, I came up with the idea and submitted it, thinking there was no way Bethany House would want it. When they did, I knew it was definitely God's will for me to write it. With the Legends of the Guardian King series, which didn't get published for 25+ years after I started working on it, it was just that I loved it and couldn't give up on it. I know it was God's will and God's idea and that He intended me to do it. The idea and the desire just never let up, despite numerous disappointments and frustrations. It was something like Jeremiah's "burning in my bones" that would not be shut up.
Not to say I didn't struggle with doubt. I prayed about it, asking God if I should keep at it. Since the desire never left and I continued to have the time to pursue it, I concluded that I was to keep on. Moreover, I knew I was to write for God -- not for publication, nor other people, but because He'd given me a gift. I wanted to exercise it in that way, and I would trust Him to do whatever He wished with it. I knew that I was in His plan because I was obeying the commands to "worship by means of (the filling of the) Spirit and of (learning/applying) truth (God's word, of course)" and that was all that was necessary.
I wanted to do it, I believed God had given me the desire and the ability to do it (and others I respected agreed). I would take a risk on Him and go forward with it. Bottom line is, "sure" does not equal faith. If you are sure then there's no faith. And without faith it's impossible to please Him.
Grace,
Karen
Monday, February 04, 2008
Q and A: Favorite Books, Part 2
QUESTION: How do you decide which book to take into your hands, and which book to stop reading if it goes too far, and how do you detach yourself from the content of it?
ANSWER: One of the important things I've learned about is the existance of "Divine Institutions", a social order of authority that God has set up for mankind. There are four of them and they are, 1) the sanctity of each person's individual volition in choosing things in life, 2) marriage (with the man in authority over the woman), 3) family (parents in authority over the children) and 4) nationalism (which includes military activity, which the Bible sanctions. Another huge subject). These institutions are not just for Christians but for everyone, and many unbelievers abide by them. Particularly in times past.
Many so-called "secular" books uphold these principles as they tell their stories. The Hornblower series comes to mind in this regard. Honor, courage, self-sacrifice and true principles of leadership and chain of command abound. As well as many other elements, including some analogies to Christ that I doubt the writer intended, but that I've found very illuminating.
Generally secular books portray people as they are without a relationship with Christ. Personally I'm not interested in reading about too much of this without the establishment principles -- I don't care for books that follow a person as he sins and sins and sins and that's the end. I want books that end well, where the characters learn something valuable and true, because the truth is, we who have a relationship with God through Christ do have a good ending ahead of us. Another truth is that people who live by the divine institutions as unbelievers will be blessed. I like books where justice and good prevail, because in the end they do. I can usually tell from the synopsis of the book or a review where it's going, and make my decision about reading a book accordingly.
As for how do I detach myself from the content, usually I don't do it very well. Which is one reason why I try to stop reading before I get far enough into it that I'm going to have a problem. And also another support for daily study of God's word. It helps to break the influence some books' worldly and evil contents might have gained over my thinking.
Grace,
Karen
ANSWER: One of the important things I've learned about is the existance of "Divine Institutions", a social order of authority that God has set up for mankind. There are four of them and they are, 1) the sanctity of each person's individual volition in choosing things in life, 2) marriage (with the man in authority over the woman), 3) family (parents in authority over the children) and 4) nationalism (which includes military activity, which the Bible sanctions. Another huge subject). These institutions are not just for Christians but for everyone, and many unbelievers abide by them. Particularly in times past.
Many so-called "secular" books uphold these principles as they tell their stories. The Hornblower series comes to mind in this regard. Honor, courage, self-sacrifice and true principles of leadership and chain of command abound. As well as many other elements, including some analogies to Christ that I doubt the writer intended, but that I've found very illuminating.
Generally secular books portray people as they are without a relationship with Christ. Personally I'm not interested in reading about too much of this without the establishment principles -- I don't care for books that follow a person as he sins and sins and sins and that's the end. I want books that end well, where the characters learn something valuable and true, because the truth is, we who have a relationship with God through Christ do have a good ending ahead of us. Another truth is that people who live by the divine institutions as unbelievers will be blessed. I like books where justice and good prevail, because in the end they do. I can usually tell from the synopsis of the book or a review where it's going, and make my decision about reading a book accordingly.
As for how do I detach myself from the content, usually I don't do it very well. Which is one reason why I try to stop reading before I get far enough into it that I'm going to have a problem. And also another support for daily study of God's word. It helps to break the influence some books' worldly and evil contents might have gained over my thinking.
Grace,
Karen
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Q and A: About Your Favorite Books List
QUESTION: "As a relatively new believer, I now read ... exclusively books written by Christian authors. I have seen the list of books you recommend, and many of those books are not written by people who believe. How do you select these books for you? How do you keep from being affected by views of people who may not know the truth? I know it is essential for you, being an author, to develop your skills through reading other authors, but how do you decide which book to take into your hands, and which book to stop reading if it goes too far, and how do you detach yourself from the content of it?"
ANSWER: The single most important way I protect myself is through the daily intake of the Word of God by means of the man I believe is my right pastor teacher. My pastor studies the Bible daily and deeply, then teaches (almost daily) based on his understanding of the original languages, the historical and cultural setting at the time of writing and how other pertinent scriptures in the Bible compare to the one being looked at.
After becoming saved, the new believer is challenged "to grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ." "God is spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit (the Filling of the Holy Spirit) and in truth (knowledge, belief and application of the word of God)." We are to "present our bodies a living sacrifice" (bring them to where they can hear the word being taught) so that our minds might be renewed or, more accurately, renovated. God's ways and thoughts are not our ways. There is a complete worldly/human way of thinking that is totally different from God's viewpoint. We must set ourselves to learn His viewpoint and make it ours.
In any subject we care to master (tennis, bridge, computer games, a foreign language, math) the more we study and practice it, the faster and better we learn it. Daily practice is the best. So why not apply that obvious principle to the most important thing of all: our spiritual lives and relationship with God? Through the daily study of God's word I come to learn what is truth and what is false.
It's not just knowledge of the word of God, however, that helps me choose my reading material. I also rely on the filling of the Holy Spirit to guide me. If I start a book and don't like the things I'm reading... I quit.
I suggest you do likewise. If you don't feel led to read a book at all, don't. If you read something by an author that you see is very much against the Word but is being presented as fine and even good or normal, stop and don't read any more by that author. I have a couple of authors whose past work I've loved but who are moving in directions I don't care for. Life is short. You don't have to finish every book you start and you certainly don't have to read all the books you think you might like to or that people tell you you should. (Also, if I'm not completely caught by a book in the first chapter or so, I often skim through to find out where it's going, how it ends. If I don't like it, I set it aside, which is just what I did -- standing in the store -- with Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy .)
You're right to be concerned about all this. We are to take care what we hear and see and read...
Tomorrow, Part 2: A few things that help me to select and enjoy secular books.
Grace,
Karen
ANSWER: The single most important way I protect myself is through the daily intake of the Word of God by means of the man I believe is my right pastor teacher. My pastor studies the Bible daily and deeply, then teaches (almost daily) based on his understanding of the original languages, the historical and cultural setting at the time of writing and how other pertinent scriptures in the Bible compare to the one being looked at.
After becoming saved, the new believer is challenged "to grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ." "God is spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit (the Filling of the Holy Spirit) and in truth (knowledge, belief and application of the word of God)." We are to "present our bodies a living sacrifice" (bring them to where they can hear the word being taught) so that our minds might be renewed or, more accurately, renovated. God's ways and thoughts are not our ways. There is a complete worldly/human way of thinking that is totally different from God's viewpoint. We must set ourselves to learn His viewpoint and make it ours.
In any subject we care to master (tennis, bridge, computer games, a foreign language, math) the more we study and practice it, the faster and better we learn it. Daily practice is the best. So why not apply that obvious principle to the most important thing of all: our spiritual lives and relationship with God? Through the daily study of God's word I come to learn what is truth and what is false.
It's not just knowledge of the word of God, however, that helps me choose my reading material. I also rely on the filling of the Holy Spirit to guide me. If I start a book and don't like the things I'm reading... I quit.
I suggest you do likewise. If you don't feel led to read a book at all, don't. If you read something by an author that you see is very much against the Word but is being presented as fine and even good or normal, stop and don't read any more by that author. I have a couple of authors whose past work I've loved but who are moving in directions I don't care for. Life is short. You don't have to finish every book you start and you certainly don't have to read all the books you think you might like to or that people tell you you should. (Also, if I'm not completely caught by a book in the first chapter or so, I often skim through to find out where it's going, how it ends. If I don't like it, I set it aside, which is just what I did -- standing in the store -- with Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy .)
You're right to be concerned about all this. We are to take care what we hear and see and read...
Tomorrow, Part 2: A few things that help me to select and enjoy secular books.
Grace,
Karen
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Q and A: About the Need for Blood
I've had a number of questions from readers on various things, from my books, to some of the blogs I've posted, to my opinions on various matters so I thought I'd start a new category, Q and A, to answer some of them. This question relates to one of my previous posts, The Need for Blood.
QUESTION "[I know] blood sacrifice is a key factor in the pre-Messianic covering of sin, but what about those in the Bible who weren't able to do the sacrifices? The best example would be Daniel. That would be a Mosaic Law example. But then there's the factor of all the pre-Mosaic Law people like Noah, Abraham and even Melchizedek. We know of blood sacrifices (you described Cain and Abel), but to what extent were there sacrifices? How much blood was there?"
ANSWER: Let me start with the pre-Mosaic law people, who were part of a patriarchal form of worship where the patriarch of the family served the priestly role by offering sacrifices for himself and his family. They were animal sacrifices. Like Abel who kept the flocks and offered the lamb/ram, so did all after him.
Noah was required to bring "every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female;" whereas the unclean were only to come by two, a male and his female. Sacrificial animals are definitely among the clean animals and Noah offered sacrifices after deliverance from the Flood in Gen 8:20. The specifics of his offering are not detailed beyond the fact he's offering animals and birds and they are burnt offerings.
Job, who was pre Abraham, offered burnt offerings for each of his 10 children after their feasting cycle, in case "my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." He did this after every cycle or "continually" (Job 1:5) and we assume they were animals because til then that was the only sacrifice that had been described (God with his skins for Adam and the woman; Abel; Noah) At the end of Job, God tells Job's three "friends" that his wrath has been kindled against them and they need to "take for yourselves 7 bulls and 7 rams and go to My servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves..." (There were only three guys and they needed 14 animals: that's a lot of blood)
Abraham was a shepherd and he offered animal sacrifices numerous times during his journeys, but the most significant was when he and Isaac were traveling to Mt Moriah where he was to offer Isaac. Isaac noted the presence of the wood and the fire, but wondered "where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham said God would provide his own sacrifice, which He did in the form of the ram stuck in the bush. (Gen 22)
That incident, of course, is incredibly telling -- a total picture of the cross, and Christ, and how the lambs/rams that are being sacrificed represent his spiritual death on the the cross to come. Of course they didn't know it was to be on a cross because nobody did crucifixion until Roman times. They didn't know it would be a man in Abraham's day, either, just that God would provide the sacrifice. It wasn't until Isaiah that they began to realize the sacrifice would be a man (Is 53).
In Egypt, Moses asked Pharoah to let the people go so they could go offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to their God (which was why they needed to take their livestock with them --Ex 10:25,26). (And occurred before the giving of the Law.) Then on the first Passover as part of the ten plagues, a lamb was to be killed, its blood put in the points of a cross on the door posts and the death angel would pass over the house -- another picture of Christ.
As NT believers, having the completed canon of Scripture and the privilege of being able to look back and see the fulfullment of OT sacrifices in Christ we now know clearly that the Lamb was crucial in sacrifices and offerings. The references to the lamb are all over the word of God. And the connection between Christ and the Lamb, as well. That's no accident, and that's part of how we conclude that all those who came before the Law did indeed sacrifice animals, in particular, lambs. I suspect that it was sheepskins that God made for Adam and the woman.
Another factor to consider is the widespread practice in other cultures of offering animal sacrifices to pagan gods. Was that something they came up with on their own? I don't think so. I think it was perversion of the truth. From Cain on, it spread out, animals sacrificed to the wrong gods. Abram's father was priest to the moon goddess in Ur, where they offered sacrifices... what I'm saying is, the demon worship was a corruption of the sacrifices God had originally commanded.
Regarding Daniel and the other prisoners being unable to offer sacrifices... you have to remember that the temple had been destroyed, the country defeated, the shekinah glory was out of the temple long since. As a nation, the Jews were under discipline . But God is fair and knows the heart. If the heart understands the doctrine and desires to obey, then that is all that is needed. Conversely, sacrifices and offerings made without the right mental attitude are useless.
The Law was sent to show men they could not keep it. That they needed a savior. The Levitical offerings are all teaching aids and shadows of what would happen on the cross. Abraham believed God and it was credited to his account as Righteousness (Gen 15:6). The Law was never a means of salvation, only a picture of the need for it and the way God would provide it. Fulfilling the Law should have been an act of gratitude and recall of what man needed and what God would one day provide...
In His Grace,
Karen
QUESTION "[I know] blood sacrifice is a key factor in the pre-Messianic covering of sin, but what about those in the Bible who weren't able to do the sacrifices? The best example would be Daniel. That would be a Mosaic Law example. But then there's the factor of all the pre-Mosaic Law people like Noah, Abraham and even Melchizedek. We know of blood sacrifices (you described Cain and Abel), but to what extent were there sacrifices? How much blood was there?"
ANSWER: Let me start with the pre-Mosaic law people, who were part of a patriarchal form of worship where the patriarch of the family served the priestly role by offering sacrifices for himself and his family. They were animal sacrifices. Like Abel who kept the flocks and offered the lamb/ram, so did all after him.
Noah was required to bring "every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female;" whereas the unclean were only to come by two, a male and his female. Sacrificial animals are definitely among the clean animals and Noah offered sacrifices after deliverance from the Flood in Gen 8:20. The specifics of his offering are not detailed beyond the fact he's offering animals and birds and they are burnt offerings.
Job, who was pre Abraham, offered burnt offerings for each of his 10 children after their feasting cycle, in case "my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." He did this after every cycle or "continually" (Job 1:5) and we assume they were animals because til then that was the only sacrifice that had been described (God with his skins for Adam and the woman; Abel; Noah) At the end of Job, God tells Job's three "friends" that his wrath has been kindled against them and they need to "take for yourselves 7 bulls and 7 rams and go to My servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves..." (There were only three guys and they needed 14 animals: that's a lot of blood)
Abraham was a shepherd and he offered animal sacrifices numerous times during his journeys, but the most significant was when he and Isaac were traveling to Mt Moriah where he was to offer Isaac. Isaac noted the presence of the wood and the fire, but wondered "where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham said God would provide his own sacrifice, which He did in the form of the ram stuck in the bush. (Gen 22)
That incident, of course, is incredibly telling -- a total picture of the cross, and Christ, and how the lambs/rams that are being sacrificed represent his spiritual death on the the cross to come. Of course they didn't know it was to be on a cross because nobody did crucifixion until Roman times. They didn't know it would be a man in Abraham's day, either, just that God would provide the sacrifice. It wasn't until Isaiah that they began to realize the sacrifice would be a man (Is 53).
In Egypt, Moses asked Pharoah to let the people go so they could go offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to their God (which was why they needed to take their livestock with them --Ex 10:25,26). (And occurred before the giving of the Law.) Then on the first Passover as part of the ten plagues, a lamb was to be killed, its blood put in the points of a cross on the door posts and the death angel would pass over the house -- another picture of Christ.
As NT believers, having the completed canon of Scripture and the privilege of being able to look back and see the fulfullment of OT sacrifices in Christ we now know clearly that the Lamb was crucial in sacrifices and offerings. The references to the lamb are all over the word of God. And the connection between Christ and the Lamb, as well. That's no accident, and that's part of how we conclude that all those who came before the Law did indeed sacrifice animals, in particular, lambs. I suspect that it was sheepskins that God made for Adam and the woman.
Another factor to consider is the widespread practice in other cultures of offering animal sacrifices to pagan gods. Was that something they came up with on their own? I don't think so. I think it was perversion of the truth. From Cain on, it spread out, animals sacrificed to the wrong gods. Abram's father was priest to the moon goddess in Ur, where they offered sacrifices... what I'm saying is, the demon worship was a corruption of the sacrifices God had originally commanded.
Regarding Daniel and the other prisoners being unable to offer sacrifices... you have to remember that the temple had been destroyed, the country defeated, the shekinah glory was out of the temple long since. As a nation, the Jews were under discipline . But God is fair and knows the heart. If the heart understands the doctrine and desires to obey, then that is all that is needed. Conversely, sacrifices and offerings made without the right mental attitude are useless.
The Law was sent to show men they could not keep it. That they needed a savior. The Levitical offerings are all teaching aids and shadows of what would happen on the cross. Abraham believed God and it was credited to his account as Righteousness (Gen 15:6). The Law was never a means of salvation, only a picture of the need for it and the way God would provide it. Fulfilling the Law should have been an act of gratitude and recall of what man needed and what God would one day provide...
In His Grace,
Karen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
