Lukewarm Water

Paul’s colleague Epaphras worked in Colossae, as well as in Laodicea and Hierapolis (Col 4:13). It was a less notable city than Laodicea, but it had one thing Laodicea didn’t: a cold, freshwater spring. In fact, it was water—or the lack thereof—that set Laodicea apart. Unlike its neighbors, Laodicea had no springs at all. It had to import its water via aqueduct from elsewhere: hot mineral water from Hierapolis or fresh cold water from Colossae. The trouble was, by the time the water from either city made it to Laodicea, it had lost the qualities that made it remarkable. The hot water was no longer hot; the cold water was no longer cold. The Laodiceans were left with all the lukewarm water they could drink. Surely they wished their water was one or the other—either hot or cold. There isn’t much use for lukewarm water. I suspect that the meaning of the Lord’s warning was clear to the Laodiceans. He wished his people were hot (like the salubrious waters of Hierapolis) or cold (like the refreshing waters of Colossae). Instead, their discipleship was unremarkable.
 
    The point of this story is that where we stand influences how we read—and ultimately apply—the Bible. In the revivalist traditions of North American Christianity, the text reads as a warning against nominal Christian commitment. Eugene Peterson explains what this interpretation demanded of the religious leaders of his youth (and mine): “High on every pastor’s agenda was keeping people ‘on fire’ for Jesus. Worship in general and the sermon in particular were bellows for blowing the smoldering embers into a blaze.” “Hot” (committed) was best, but “cold” (lost) was preferable to “lukewarm” (nominal), because it was honest!
 
    From the marble streets of Laodicea, hot and cold are equally acceptable. In both places and times, the meaning may seem plain, even though the interpretations are plainly different. In whatever place and whatever age people read the Bible, we instinctively draw from our own cultural context to make sense of what we’re reading.

- E. Richards & Brandon J O'Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: 

Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, 2012.

Ethnic Division in the Bible

Paul begins his first letter to the Corinthians with a plea for unity. “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, …” he writes, “that all of you agree with one another … and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Cor 1:10). We might ask ourselves what caused the divisions in Corinth. All we know is what Paul tells us: “One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ’ ” (1 Cor 1:12). What likely goes without being said for us is that the church was divided either theologically or over devotion to different personalities. These are two common causes of church divisions in the West. We tend to fall out along doctrinal lines or because we are drawn to one charismatic pastor over another.
 
    It is possible, though, that the divisions among the churches in Corinth were not theological. We may be failing to note ethnic markers that Paul sprinkled all over the text. Apollos was noted as an Alexandrian (Egyptian) Jew (Acts 18:24). They had their own reputation. Paul notes that Peter is called by his Aramaic name, Cephas, suggesting the group that followed him spoke Aramaic and were thus Palestinian Jews. Paul’s church had Diaspora Jews but also many ethnic Corinthians, who were quite proud of their status as residents of a Roman colony and who enjoyed using Latin. This may explain why Paul doesn’t address any theological differences. There weren’t any. The problem was ethnic division: Aramaic-speaking Jews, Greek-speaking Jews, Romans and Alexandrians.
 

- E. Richards & Brandon J O'Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: 

Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, 2012.

Prioritizes Healthy Relationships

We sometimes exchange our relationship with the living God for adherence to static rules. This tendency shows up in our theological language. Many evangelicals describe our standing before God in terms of forensic justification. While there is nothing wrong with the doctrine, it casts our connection to God in terms of rules, not relationship. But as Preben Vang argues, grace and faith are relationship markers and not forensic decrees. Paul used these terms to define a relationship, not to explain a contract or a court ruling. Likewise, holiness is a relational and not a forensic term.
 
Our tendency to emphasize rules over relationship and correctness over community means that we are often willing to sacrifice relationships on the altar of rules. Exegetes may discuss which party in Corinth was “right.” Paul doesn’t seem to address their theology. He is more concerned with the status of their relationship. This raises an important question: does relationship ever trump theology? Such a question could convene a heresy trial in many denominations. But Jesus prayed that his followers would “be one” (Jn 17:11). Does this mean that we must somehow “correct” the theology of all other believers so that, as a result, we can “be one”? Paul in Acts 21 does not take the opportunity to correct James’s theology. Most of us awould not have been able to let it slide. This may be an indication that Paul prioritizes healthy relationship over doctrinal precision (Rom 12:18).
 
We are called to “live by the Spirit” (Gal 5:25). Even after two thousand years, we are still uncomfortable with Paul’s law-free gospel. It still seems to us that the best way to avoid sin is by knowing and keeping the rules, even though Paul asserts, “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16). It is an uncertain path, but it leads to abundant life. To do this, we have to learn to identify when the Bible is prioritizing relationship instead of rules or laws.
 
One way to do this is to pay attention to the motivation or rationale a biblical writer offers for a commandment. For example, the Ten Commandments, as they are recorded in Exodus 20, begin with this claim: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt” (Ex 20:2). This reminder, which precedes the first command, puts the rules (commandments) that follow in relationship terms. There is an implied “therefore” between “I am the God who brought you out of Egypt” and “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3).
 

- E. Richards & Brandon J O'Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: 

Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, 2012.

  

 

Relationships as Rules

In the West, rules must apply to everyone, and they must apply all the time. In the ancient world, rules did not seem to require such universal compliance. God announces about Ephraim: “Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them” (Hos 9:15). Later he says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8). God’s judgment was influenced by his relationship with sinners (Hos 11:9–10). Exodus 12:40–49 explains that all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet in Joshua 5:5–7, it is obvious the sons born during the wanderings had not been. If rules apply except when they don’t, then as Westerners perhaps we need more wisdom in discerning when they don’t. (We need help seeing the kairos for applying the rules; perhaps there really is a season for everything under the sun.)
 
Likewise, in the ancient world of the Bible (and in many non-Western cultures), rules did not necessarily apply to 100 percent of the people. The Israelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, every Israelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yet the very next story is about a Canaanite who was given an inheritance, Rahab (Josh 2; 6). The story after that tells of the Israelite Achan, who was cut from his inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme of sacrifices to the Lord. Everything captured was to be devoted (sacrificed) to the Lord. In Jericho, Rahab and her family were exceptions to the sacrifice. Because Achan kept some of the sacrificed things (gold) from Ai, he and his family were exceptions and were added to the sacrifice. By the way, did you notice the collectivist viewpoint? The deeds of Rahab were credited to her entire family. Likewise, the deeds of Achan were applied to his entire family. Before you begin to rail against the injustice of such group judgments, consider that we “have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20): that is, the righteous work of Jesus is credited to his followers.
 

- E. Richards & Brandon J O'Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: 

Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, 2012.

Dealing with Hidden Sin

Sin is a reality with which we all must live. No one can escape the struggles we have with rebelling against God’s call on our lives (cf. Romans 3:10, 23). However, it is possible to choose whether one will vigorously fight the battle that wages against the flesh or not. The battle can be overwhelming, but it does not have to result in demoralizing defeat.
 
One, among many, devastating strategies of Satan, which is fed by our own shame, is to fight, or rather retreat, in silence. From the very beginning, sin resulted in hiding and shame as Adam and Eve hid from one another by covering themselves (cf. Genesis 3:7) and from the presence of the Lord in the garden by crouching among the trees (cf. Genesis 3:8). A similar type of “hiding” is also evidenced in the refusal to own the sin when confronted. What do Adam and Eve do when confronted? They blame-shift in order to direct the attention of the Lord away from self. They do not want to be “seen” in their sin so they justify it. The belief seems to be that, if the eyes of the Lord shift to the other and away from themselves, they can remain hidden. In either case the sin is avoided, hidden away, and not dealt with in an honest manner. Our natural tendency is to not deal with sin. Out of sight... out of mind... or is it?
 
The beauty of the cross is that we are clearly judged to be “sinners” but given a new identity as “redeemed,” “children of God,” and “joint heirs with Jesus Christ.” We do not have to hide our sin or justify it because Jesus has paid the penalty for us, bringing us undeserved forgiveness. He “hides our sin” as far as the east is from the west, and he justifies us by his shed blood. However, until we reach heaven, we, the “redeemed,” wrestle with the realities of that old flesh (cf. Romans 7). It does no good to be pretentious about our sin. It is useless to pretend that we are better than we are. I would rarely advocate “wearing” our sin “on our sleeve,” but it is futile to deny it or pretend it does not exist.
 
A good example of the futility of denying the reality of sin in our lives is King David in 2 Samuel 11-12, Psalm 32, and Psalm 51. In these passages, we find:

2 Samuel 11-12: King David lusts, sins, seeks to hide the sin by committing more sins, and then, after confrontation, repents. Psalms 32 and 51 are probably found within the “hiding” context of this story.
Psalm 32: King David reveals the struggle that results from hiding his sin and the subsequent peace that results from repentance.
Psalm 51: King David shows us that repentance is seeing our actions in the way the Lord sees them and coming to him honestly, without hiding.
 
Let's look at each of these passages more closely to see if there is any help found in King David’s experience.
 
2 Samuel 11-12

In 2 Samuel 11-12, King David hides his sin so that it is not exposed. It is clear that a major point of this story is that hiding sins leads simply to more sin. He executes two plans, which involve even more sin, to keep his sin hidden:
 
Plan #1: King David brings Uriah home to give him a report on the war. He throws him a party, gets him drunk, and hopes that he will have intercourse with Bathsheba, offering a cover-up for her pregnancy. The lies, manipulation, and impact on the armed forces who remain in battle without one of their leaders is obvious. Plan fails.
 
Plan #2: King David puts Uriah on the front line so that he will be killed in the intensity of battle. The disregard for human life in order to keep his sin hidden is again obvious. Plan succeeds.
 
It is important to note the plans King David is willing to pursue in order to keep his sin from being exposed. It takes all of his energies, and the one sin multiplies itself into more sin. If it were not exposed by Nathan, the multiplying of sin might continue on for years.
 
Psalm 32

Psalm 32 is probably scribed in the context of David’s manipulative plans to cover-up his sin. Verses 3 and 4 teach us that to hide sin leads to this experience:
 
“When I kept silent (about my sin), my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer. Selah (i.e., let this sink in).”
 
What kind of life is this? We all know the experience to varying degrees. Hiding sin can drain us of our resources. It can “eat” at us. In a sense, we have no energies to invest in the lives of others for fear of being exposed or found out. Our energy is invested in covering up our sin, not in ministering to others. A good example of this is found when one chooses to speed while driving. It is difficult to sit back, put on an easy-listening CD, and enjoy the beauty of God’s creation. One’s energies are spent being on the lookout for the next police officer, who might ruin his day with a ticket at a high price. He is seeking to hide his sin, to not be found out. However, if he drives the speed limit, then he can sit back and relax. Peace is not available in deception. In fact, unfortunately, we can find ourselves frantically falling deeper and deeper into sin.
 
Being in this state of deception should be contrasted with the freedom that comes with openness. When King David comes to a place where he is willing to be honest about his sin, note the result in verses 5 through 7:
 
“I acknowledged my sin to you, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord;’ and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah (i.e., let this sink in). Therefore, let everyone who is godly pray to you in a time when you may be found; surely in a flood of great waters they will not reach him. You are my hiding place; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with songs of deliverance.”
 
This is obviously a good place to be in life. Previously in verses 1 and 2 it shows that a man is “blessed” who comes to the Lord and openly acknowledges his sin. Hiding does not bring this blessing. In fact, later in verse 10 it states, “Many are the sorrows of the wicked.” Sorrow upon sorrow upon sorrow. There is an appearance of being intact, but inwardly the sin eats away at the sinner. But, here in verse 5-7, when David acknowledges his sin, the Lord becomes his “hiding place,” “preserv(ing him) from trouble,” and “surrounding (him) with songs of deliverance” (verse 7).
 
Psalm 51

Psalm 51 explains the process of repentance that King David likely undertook when/after he was confronted. In 2 Samuel 11:25 King David states literally, “Do not let this thing (i.e., the thing that he did) be evil in your eyes.” Later, in verse 27, it states, “But the thing that David had done was evil in the eyes of the Lord.” No questions asked. King David had done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Of course, he had not seen it this way. He saw it as an obstacle that needed to be overcome or an inconvenience that needed to be fixed. So he devised his two plans to “fix” the situation. He was hiding and running from honestly dealing with his life.However, in verses 3-4, he pleads for forgiveness because he has come to realize:
 
“For I know my transgressions and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, I have sinned and done what is evil in your eyes, so that you are justified when you speak, and blameless when you judge.”
 
Note the process:
 King David’s assessment:“do not let this thing be evil in your sight” 11:25
The Lord’s assessment: “the thing that David had done was evil” 11:27
King David’s repentance: “I have sinned and done what is evil in your eyes” 51:3-4

The primary turning point for sinful humanity is to see with our eyes what the Lord sees with his eyes. We need to see our lives as he sees them. Hiding is simply an attempt to divert one’s and other’s attention away from what is true about self with the hopes that everything will be okay. King David’s life reminds us that it is not that simple. After seeing our sin as God sees it, we need to acknowledge it before him and ask for his forgiveness. King David’s prayer in verses 1-2 was “be gracious to me,” wash me thoroughly,” and “cleanse me” (see also verses 7-17).
 

- by David L. Talley.

Definition of "Sins"

The Hebrew word for "sin" is חטאה (hhatah, Strong's #2403) and literally means "miss the mark." From my understanding of the Bible, there are two types of sin, accidental and deliberate. I explain it this way. The Hebrew people were a nomadic people and their language and lifestyle is wrapped around this culture. One of the aspects of a nomad is his constant journey from one watering hole to another and one pasture to another. If you are walking on a journey (literal or figurative) and find yourself "lost from the path," which is the Hebrew word רשע (rasha, Strong's #7563), you correct yourself and get back on the path. This was a "mistake" (accidentally missing the mark), but not deliberate. Once you are back on the right path, all is good. However, if you decide to leave the path and make your own, you are again "lost from the path", but this time, being a deliberate act, it is a purposeful mistake (missing the mark on purpose). In the Bible God gives his "directions" (usually translated as "commands") for the journey that his people are to be on. As long as they remain on that journey, they are tsadiq (Strong's #6662, usually translated as "righteous," but literally means "on the correct path"), even if they accidentally leave the path, but return (this is the Hebrew verb shuv, Strong's #7725, usually translated as "repentance," but literally means "to return") back to the correct path.

from: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/definition/sin.htm

The wrath of God

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Generally speaking, there are two types of sin — discord with God and discord with one’s neighbor. Paul mentions them both, putting discord with God first because it is the greater sin, and calling it “ungodliness.” Then he mentions the second kind of discord, the one with one’s neighbor, calling it “wickedness. 

    ----Gennadius of Constantinople, in Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, 15.356.