What is Me?

For those of you who follow this blog, you know that I think somewhat uniquely. Today I want to take up the challenge of defining what ‘you’ are. I’ve heard frequently about how we need to die to self, because ‘you’ are not holy. I think that we as Christians need to be extremely cautious and careful with the words and definitions of those words that we choose. In one moment we can say that God loves you, and that He accepts you just as you are, so come to Him for salvation, and then we turn right around in the next statement to say that you need to die to self, you are a sinner, the sinful nature cannot please God, and all sorts of statements like this.

I have a difficult time with this.

Why is it that Jesus would come to give us life and life abundantly, and then expect that we should only die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die? Are these contradictions? If they are, then why do we continue to teach them? If they are not, then what exactly is being expressed?

Lets start with a simple statement.

Salvation is based upon new birth. What does that mean? The new birth goes back to prophecies like Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:33. Now, if we read the context, it is quite obvious that what is being spoken of is intended for national Israel. Let’s look at these two verses in specific. “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel) “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah)

When we read our New Testaments, we find the teaching of the apostles declaring that this has already broken forth. For example, “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on the tablets of human hearts,” 2 Corinthians 3:3. “He saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” Titus 3:5. “Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty consciences and having our bodies washed with pure water,” Hebrews 10:22. “In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” 1 Peter 1:3.

I think that this is what we’re talking about with the “dying to self” thing. We die to self, which is to say, our old man. What is the “old man”? The old man is the person that we had become before conversion, the one destined to destruction. There were habits, mindsets, attitudes, sinful ambitions, greed, lust, anger and bitterness, and all sorts of evil built up in that old ‘you’. But when we come to Christ, when we enter the Kingdom of God, that heart of wickedness is taken out and replaced with a heart of flesh – the heart that desires only to do what is good and right. Where, then, is there room for statements of dying to self? Our self is no longer evil. Therefore, Paul boldly proclaims, “He who is in Christ is a new creation; behold, ALL things are become new.”

I actually have a problem when people say that we are continually supposed to die to self. I think it is semantics, though. We are indeed to die to the flesh – that old nature – and live from the power of God. We conform no longer to the pattern and mindsets of this world, but are instead transformed by the renewing of our minds. To this I give a wholehearted amen. My contention, then, is simply on the word “self”. What do we mean by this?

David, for example, in Psalm 56 asks the question, “What can mortal man do to me?” If we really think about it, especially when we look at the context of the Psalm, man can do a lot to David. He is already being persecuted. He is already being slandered and tormented by evil men. Obviously, mortal men are already doing something to him. So, the question can’t be about whether men can harm David physically or socially. The question seems to imply a different definition of the “me” that David is speaking of. What David is speaking of is the new man. It is who David is in the deepest depths. This is who David is in God – who the Maker has created David to be.

Let us go back to the initial difficulty.

Why is there always so much language about death? It seems to me that if you’ve died with Christ and been raised by the glory of the Father that you’ve already died and don’t need to keep dying. This is true. You’ve entered into new life, and therefore you don’t need to any longer “die to self” – unless, of course, you haven’t truly died to self. So, the question is no longer about “me” at that point, but instead about the sin that lives in me. As Paul says, “It is no longer I that sin, but the sin that dwells in me.”

The ‘you’, the ‘me’, it is speaking of who Christ has made us to be. It is speaking of that deep depth of who we are. There is nothing in that that needs to be put to death. When we come to Christ, we find that we’re not living from who God has made us to be. The essence of our being has been suppressed and cast aside – covered over with masks and supposed personality traits – twice dead. We indeed were dead in our trespasses and sins, but don’t neglect that Christ has made us alive through resurrection!

What we need to ask is two things. Does my life conform to how Scripture says I am to live and act? Am I living from who God has intended me to be, instead of someone else’s projection what what “Christ-likeness” is (including my own projection)?

To conclude, then, I hope this is freedom for some of you. Some of you have been oppressed and suppressed through language of dying and always needing to repent and surrender over to God. Have I sinned today? My conscience is clear – God is my judge; I do not even judge myself. Why should I repent of something that I don’t know about? What is the point of that? And if I repent simply because I’m “supposed to”, then is it really repentance? What is more important to me is answering those two questions in regards to everything I do. Am I living out of who God has made me to be, and have I projected a false image of what that means by misinterpreting – or completely ignoring – the Scripture? At the end of the day, those two things are truly what it all comes down to. It is all based upon living out of the core of who you now are in Christ – from the new heart – which is to say, to live out of love for your neighbor.

There is no greater love than this: to lay down your life for your friends. Paul even says that “I die daily”. But there is a significant difference between the dying to self when we enter the Kingdom and Paul’s daily death. It was self-sacrifice on behalf of others – HUGE difference. The wisdom of God is manifest in that when I die, or suffer, on behalf of others, life is imparted to them. This “death” is not about dying or suffering, but about serving. It is about taking up ultimate purposes. As Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 1:6, “If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer…”

The cross is experienced in the life of the believer once and for all to die to sins, and taken up again to give our lives as a ransom for many. Death and suffering are never glorified, but rather the life and power that come as a result of sacrifice. If we are focusing upon the death and suffering, then we have left the Christian faith. The beauty of the cross is found in the power over death itself, and not in the “Jesus died for me” alone. Why is it that Jesus’ death moves us? Is it simply because He died while I was still a sinner? Or is there something beyond that? I think that what moves us is the significance of the act, and not the act itself. Through His death, He has brought life. Through His resurrection, He has secured eternal salvation for all who come to Him. Likewise, we take up our crosses and follow Him.

On Interpreting the Prophetic Scriptures

*Disclaimer: This is a rant about they who have studied the prophetic texts and actively try to teach them*

I am extremely zealous over this. I spend a lot of time in the prophetic texts of the Bible, and a lot of time reading various opinions on these texts. Something I’ve noticed is rampant is that the prophetic texts – especially the ones full of symbolism – are used to say whatever the person wants it to say. I’ve seen far too often verses pulled completely out of context just so that certain false doctrines could continue to be presented.

I’ll give a couple examples.

The woman in the book of Revelations is Israel – not the Church. In chapter twelve, it is Israel that flees from the dragon. How do I know this? Look at the symbolism. She is standing on the moon, her face is like the sun, and the crown on her head has twelve stars. Go back to Genesis 37 and read of Joseph’s dream where the sun, moon, and eleven stars bow down to him. This is Israel. Jump forward in Revelations 12 to where the serpent chases her. Check the Greek in verse 6. She flees to the wilderness where they will take care of her for 1,260 days. Who are the they? It is the Church. How do I know this? Go later in chapter 12 to verses 13-17. These are further details of that flight into the wilderness. What happens? The earth swallows the flood – something that is looking back to Numbers 16 where Korah is swallowed by the earth. Korah is a type of Antichrist. Who swallows the water? It is the Church. How do I know? Look at verse 17. The result is that those who obey the commands of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus are persecuted. Who are they? That is the Church – something separate and distinct from the woman.

Lets look at the two witnesses. Who are they? People want to say that they are symbolic of the whole Church. What language is used to describe them? They are two olive trees and two lampstands. This is a direct translation from the Hebrew of Zechariah 4:11. These two in Zechariah 4:11 are Joshua and Zerubbabel. Joshua and Zerubbabel are types. What do I mean by type? A type is a pattern. God is foreshadowing through the prophetic words over these two men something larger that is to happen way in the future. These men will perform miraculous plagues. In Revelations 11:6, we see these plagues are likened to Elijah and Moses. Does that mean these two are Elijah and Moses? No. Elijah and Moses are being used as patterns. Just like Elijah and Moses brought about plagues against the kingdom of darkness (see Exodus 12:12), so these two men will also plague the kingdom of darkness.

Everything in the prophetic Scriptures form together. They aren’t independent symbols that we need to “figure out” so that we can become famous because we found hidden symbolism in the Bible. The Branch is spoken of by many of the prophets. Every time, it is a reference to the messiah. There is the ominous king of the north – sometimes defined by the Assyrian, sometimes by Babylon, sometimes by another enemy of Israel, and sometimes just a shadowy figure “from the north”. Every time, it seems like the prophecy extends beyond the person being spoken of to the Antichrist that will arise at the end of the age.

This is the way that you read prophetic Scripture. You compare Scripture with Scripture, prophet with prophet, vision with vision, prophecy with prophecy, and even story with story. Many times there are patterns in the stories of the Scripture. Amalekites tried to destroy Israel when they were walking around the desert in Exodus. Later, Saul is told to destroy the Amalekites and doesn’t kill Agag. This causes Samuel to weep through the night. We find in the book of Esther that Haman was an “Agagite” – a descendant of that king of Amalek. The Amalekites have the pattern of always seeking the destruction of Israel. That is a pattern set up in the Scripture.

It is incredibly important that we learn this. King Saul was anointed by God, and yet we find at the end of his life he is possessed by demons and seeking the counsel of a witch. We find that John calls Judas who betrayed Jesus the “son of perdition” – one who was entered by Satan to betray his friend. In Psalm 55:13-14, we find David use that same language about Saul – the companion and friend is the one who betrays him. In 2 Thessalonians, we find Paul call the Antichrist the “son of perdition” – the only other time in the New Testament that this phrase is being used. This is a pattern. These men are types and foreshadowing.

What is the point of all this? If we do not want to do the digging necessary to understand the prophetic texts, we should just keep our mouths shut. That isn’t to say that I have all of the correct interpretations, but to say that when we just make up interpretations that “sound good”, we really do more damage than help. It is more beneficial when I read or listen to someone who has done their homework and they challenge my view biblically than when I’m talking to an internet infidel who doesn’t know that the prophetic words intertwine.

What is Divine Inspiration?

I've been challenged to provide a definition of inspiration. Words have meaning. Therefore, it behooves us to come to terms seeking to understand what that term means. To place upon a word our own interpretation of that word is both disservice and dangerous. The most extreme case to point to would be Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Both Hitler and Stalin redefined what it meant to be a person. Because they redefined what it means to be a person anyone who does not add up to that definition is then less than human - subhuman. Subhumanity is dispensable, so can we truly say that the annihilation of 6,000,000 Jewish people is really that terrible? You get my point.

When we come to the idea of inspiration, we use phrases that are very fuzzy. I've heard that Divine inspiration means that the Bible says the words that God had intended the Bible to say. Well, who gets to determine what exactly that means? Or the classic example of what I've heard Divine inspiration would mean would be to say that the words are "God breathed." Yet, once again, we don't have a very specific idea as to what that means. These are general definitions, but I'm afraid that our definitions are intentionally fuzzy so that we are not required to take a stand.

Then there are the King James only-ers. These are people that aren't necessarily wrong in criticizing English translations of the Bible - many times quite accurately. Yet, the problem that I have is that they use unequal weights and measures. For example, the Hebrew is poetic. Words are not simply translated because "ruach" means spirit. Ruach has three "translations": spirit, breath, and wind. Which of those three translations do we choose? Oh, well you choose whichever fits the best. But the problem really lies in that Hebrew paints pictures with its words. Ruach is the Divine energy that stirs up the creation. So, if we're going to translate it as wind, we would be correct. In fact, it is equally as correct as breath and spirit. So how do we translate it? That's the difficulty.

I'm not going to say that any one translation is better than another. I think that all English translations have their shortcomings, and the different manuscripts that we have of both Hebrew and Greek show slight variations. They are very slight, but they exist. So, if we're going to say that Divine inspiration means that God had literally breathed this version of the Bible, and every other version must line up to this plumb line, we're left with a difficulty. Which one do we pick? If we say that the King James Version is the ultimate, then what about the later versions that had better technique and understanding in how to translate the biblical Greek?

But then this also goes with all the other versions. If we say that the New International Version of the Bible is the absolute authority, then we end up having to ask about those pesky verses that are omitted from the Bible. But what if we're actually going about this all wrong? I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore I believe in a literal creation of the world exactly as it is stated in Genesis 1-11 (or so). I believe that when the prophet spoke, they spoke the very words of God.

So how would I define inspiration if not by saying that these are the very words of God in textual form? In order to answer that, we only need to ask why it is important to have an inspired text? What is the point of Divine inspiration?

When I engage, or I hear of others engaging, in dialogue about the Bible, the most common criticism is that the manuscripts aren't exactly the same, and we really can't be sure that they were written when we say they were written, and how do we know that this wasn't added years later? The attack isn't so much about what is said, but instead on when it is said. The attack isn't so much on whether what was said is true or not, but instead on whether it was ever said, or if we just made the whole thing up. Why? It is easier to attack the manuscripts and say that we can't be certain of their validity than it is to disprove the statements. If the texts that make the statements can be proven fallacious, then the whole of the text is fallacious.

So Divine inspiration is really getting at the heart of, "Yea, hast God said?" This isn't an issue of whether the Bible is correct when it uses this word rather than that, but instead an issue of the revelation of God. So when we're trying to define what Divine inspiration is, we need to stand it up against the understanding that this reveals God as He is. Divine inspiration, then, is not found in the original texts, nor in the modern English versions. It is found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. From that revelation, we come to a further questioning of the texts. Does what is written here in my English version align with the person of Christ Jesus and who He has revealed God to be?

The debate is not over textual analysis and whether we translated the words correctly. The debate is over whether this reveals the heart of God, or whether it instead reveals something contrary to God. So debates on whether this or that passage/verse is supposed to be in here, should we go with the Texas Receptus, or the Latin Vulgate, or the Massoretic, or the Septuagint, etc are really only a little higher than nonissue. What is first and foremost to be presented is Christ and the character of God. Once we have that established, lets then go into the texts and decide as to which one seems to fit the best. Slight copyist errors and other minor variations in the original manuscripts can be trifled about later. First and foremost, we need to ask whether this is truly revealing God, or if it is a perversion.

Divine inspiration is the idea that God has breathed the whole of Scripture to reveal Himself. That is slightly different than saying that this or that version is the word of God. It is taking up the whole counsel and then wrestling from that revelation of Christ with the smaller details. Lets first and foremost get the foundation laid. When we're debating with atheists or Muslims or our Jewish brethren over whether the New Testament documents are valid, the best thing to do is not to quarrel over various texts and we believe the King James, but instead to display the glory of Christ and how the whole of the Bible displays the progressive revelation of God.

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God because I read "All Scripture is inspired..." I believe the Bible is the word of God because God has revealed Himself to me through the eternal Spirit giving illumination. God took out my heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. Now when I read the Bible, whether I'm reading the NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, or the Message, I have something greater than the words on the page to line up to. Sometimes things just aren't worded correctly, and when we go back to original language we ask, "Why did they translate it like that?" Sometimes we need to read a cumulative and broad range of English versions to understand the point being made. But the reason I read the Bible the first place was because of the Spirit bearing witness in me. It was not until later, after I had learned a bit more about the whole of the Bible, that I started even asking such questions.

Ultimately, I think that when we simplify too much we lose a lot of doctrinal reality. God is Triune, therefore I believe that He has and does communicate with Himself. He has also communicated and revealed Himself to His creation through speaking. Because He has communicated Himself, I have every reason to believe that He has given us an inspired Word that reveals Him perfectly - not because such and such text is 100% accurately speaking the very inclinations and thoughts of God, but rather because God has given a revelation of Himself through those texts.

There are sometimes where I would say, yes, God is speaking directly through this text the very words out of His mouth. There are other times, like in the book of Job, where there is a revelation of God being expressed. God was upset with Job's friends because they did not accurately depict Him. That is the beauty of inspiration. It shows us God as He in fact is, so that when we read His word we can better understand His heart through the revelation that He continues to express through the Spirit. We don't read it as undiscerning nincompoops. We have been given every tool necessary to discern the text for what it is truly saying. That is the Divine inspiration: the Spirit bearing witness.