Posted on November 3, 2008 - by Stephen Murray
Second Guessing the Basics
I tend to read my Bible far more critically than I did two or three years ago. Things I’d normally just gloss over as a given I now sit and toy with in my head, second guessing myself as to whether or not some of the foundational things I believe are really there or if they apply to me.
This morning I read Matthew chapter 1. Now in verse 21 an angel tells Joseph that he should name the child in Mary’s womb Jesus because he will save his people from their sins. Now normally that would be a fairly standard thing to read – Jesus has come to save people from their sins - we all know that, but that’s not actually what it says. It says that Jesus has come to save Israel from the national sin and guilt that hangs over them in their constant rejection of their covenant God – well at least that’s how a first century Jew (Matthew’s proposed audience) would have read it. From there my mind jumps into overdrive second guessing my understanding of Jesus’ coming to save people from sin.
So I start asking myself all sorts of questions: Did Jesus come to save everyone from their sins or just national Israel? When the New Testament talks about sin is it talking about the way modern evangelicals talk about it or is it talking about the specific covenantal sin of Israel? All these sorts of questions pop into my head. In the end I had to turn to Acts and read the accounts of Phillip and the Ethiopian and Peter and Cornelius just to be reminded that ultimately Christ’s work does extend to all the nations and all sorts of sin. It was fairly handy exercise for me in the end as my faith in Christ’s work was firmed up yet at the same time I read the gospel story with a bit more historical clarity and integrity. It can seem a bit of a risky exercise but it does yield fruit in the end.
3 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Reply
Here's your chance to speak.
Stephen Murray
Christian, husband to my beautiful Robin, missional dreamer, pastor, church planter, Arsenal, Sharks and Springbok supporter, surfer (in the real sea), patriotic South African, Capetonian. Find out more about the church planting work I'm involved in at my support blog.
Visit My Website
November 3, 2008
Permalink
Jenny Hillebrand said:
I love the fact that the Bible and our faith can take that sort of struggling and wrestling. I wonder what Joseph would have made of the name Jesus/Joshua? Just the Hebrew meaning of saviour – or an identification with the guys in the Bible of that name. I wonder if there were other Joshua’s in the Jewish tradition that didn’t make it into the Bible, but that Joseph would have known. And how much Joseph understood about the sin of Israel. And why does it seem that Joseph and Mary kept this thing so quiet? Nuff questions. Thanks for helping me think!
Visit My Website
November 4, 2008
Permalink
Susan Keegan said:
Stephen, this very morning I was doing my own second-guessing and I’d appreciate your views. In Acts 2:38-39 Peter says “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.” I don’t have any commentaries to check how widespread the interpretation is that “all who are far off” means the Gentiles, but I’m pretty sure it’s standard. But Peter could not possibly have been meaning the Gentiles when he said it; he had no idea that the Gentiles would receive the gift of the Spirit(unless they first became Jews). He may have meant more than he realised, but he certainly didn’t know it then… and we all know the hermeneutical principle – first determine what it meant in its historical context.
So Peter was saying that the promise of the outpoured Spirit was for “all God’s people” who repent and are baptised. And in his mind “all God’s people” would have been “you Jews standing here, the next generation of Jews and all the other Jews scattered around the world.” (As an aside, does this mean that baptism is not a sign of “being one of God’s people” (in Peter’s mind the sign is still circumcision) but more narrowly a sign of faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?)
What do you think – not about the baptism part – but about whether he meant Jews or Gentiles?
Visit My Website
November 4, 2008
Permalink
Stephen said:
Sounds about right. As far as your aside is concerned you’d have to reconcile that with Col 2. Besides, just as he wasn’t aware of who would ultimately make up God’s people he wouldn’t have been aware of what role baptism would ultimately fulfill for the people of God. I guess a lot hinges on what Jesus told him during those 40 days – and there we can only speculate.