Are Tattoos OK for Christians? (Part 1)

Jerusalem Cross - Razzouk Tattoo

The world's oldest tattoo shop is situated in the Christian Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem. That in itself may come as a surprise to those who -- like me -- grew up in Christian communities that frowned on tattoos.  It's not your average tattoo parlour. For 28 generations (since 1300AD!), the Razzouk family has been tattooing Christian pilgrims, first in Egypt, and now in Israel. The shop is filled with Christian symbols -- the Jerusalem cross, the crucifix, Mary, St. George and the Dragon, the crown of Christ's victory, the dove of the Holy Spirit, and many others. 

Growing up, I don't remember seeing tattoos on any of the Christians in my community. My grandparents and parents were so firmly against the idea that the topic never even came up in our home. It was simply obvious that Christians shouldn't get tattoos because it directly contradicted Scripture. The Old Testament book of Leviticus clearly says, "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD." (Lev. 19:28 NIV) For many Christians, that ends the discussion. 

But since childhood I've met many Christian friends with tattoos that did not predate their conversion. Were my grandparents wrong about this? Are tattoos actually ok for Christians? Or are these Christians disobeying Scripture?

This is a complex question that requires us to carefully think through several related issues.

To answer that question, we must consider a few things: (1) the role of Old Testament law for followers of Jesus the Messiah, (2) the purpose of this particular law in Leviticus, and (3) what a modern-day tattoo communicates. I'll talk about each of these in a separate blog post.

The Role of Old Testament Law for Christians

Christians take a variety of positions on this issue. On one end of the spectrum are those who say that all the laws have been set aside in Christ. We'll call this view the anti-law group. On the other extreme are those who say that Christians need to obey all of them. We'll call this the pro-law group. Most Christians fall somewhere in the middle, seeing ongoing validity to some laws, but not all of them. Deciding which ones still apply--and how--is the tricky part.

In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus insists that his purpose was not to do away with the Torah or the Prophets, but to bring them to their fulfillment. He says "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Torah until everything is accomplished" (v. 18; modified NIV). It's obvious why those in the pro-law group would gravitate toward this passage. In fact, Jesus insists that "anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven!" (v. 19)

This is one reason I wrote a book with the subtitle Why Sinai Still Matters. I don't think that Christians can ignore the commands of the Old Testament. However, it's not as simple as following all of them. Many of the commands can no longer be kept because the temple was destroyed in 70AD. Laws pertaining to ritual purity and the sacrificial system are no longer relevant in the same way they used to be. Not only was the temple destroyed, but Jesus claimed to replace the temple with himself (John 2:19-22; Matthew 12:6). The apostles spoke of believers in Jesus as being built into a new temple (e.g. 1 Peter 2:4-8; 2 Cor. 6:16). That tells me that we no longer need to observe the laws pertaining to temple purity in the same ways that Israel did. However, we can see that Paul still felt they were instructive for believers. He tells the Corinthians that their role as the temple of the Spirit necessitated their separation from worldliness (2 Cor. 6:17). These laws still teach us about holiness and help us understand Jesus' relationship with purity, and they instruct us by analogy to ways of honoring God.

The purpose of some of the other laws (e.g., kosher diet and circumcision) was to separate between Jews as God's covenant people, and non-Jews. What we eat marks us as a community and either prevents or allows our fellowship with other people. I'm writing this post from the JFK airport in New York, where I've just come from a week in Israel. I saw firsthand how carefully Jewish communities still keep kosher food laws. Jewish passengers on my flight had different meals and scrutinized even the fruit juices to see if they were ok to drink. 

In Acts 15, leaders of the early church met together to determine how to handle Gentiles who wanted to follow Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. They prayerfully decided that Gentiles could follow Jesus as Gentiles. They did not have to first convert to Judaism by undergoing male circumcision and keeping Kosher food laws. The basis for their decision was James' exposition of Amos 9:11-12, which explicitly refers to "all the nations that bear my name." To bear Yahweh's name was to be a covenant member. The idea that Gentiles could be covenant members seemed revolutionary, but it was right there in the Prophets! 

Peter added to James' insight by noting that as he preached to Gentiles, the Spirit came upon them. Since the Spirit is a sign of covenant renewal, Peter's experience testified that God had already chosen Gentiles to belong to him. Early Jewish followers of Jesus needed to adjust their expectations of what constitutes covenant membership. 

First Peter 2:9-10 confirms this idea that Gentile followers of Jesus are covenant members. Peter is writing to a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, but he applies to them the covenant titles conferred at Sinai: royal priesthood, holy nation, treasured possession. 

Acts 15 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 are the reason why I believe that Christians are members of Yahweh's covenant with Israel, and why I conclude that Sinai still matters for us. In Paul's words, we have been grafted into the covenant (Romans 9-11). That means the law is still relevant, even if aspects of it change on the other side of the cross. We cannot easily dismiss the rest of the laws of Leviticus. That brings us to our second question: what was the purpose of the law against tattoos? 

As I've already noted, not all the laws apply today in the same way as in Old Testament times. That doesn't mean that we can go through the Torah with a black Sharpie, crossing out the laws that no longer apply. Every law remains useful for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness," as Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 3:16). For an extended discussion of the ongoing relevance of the law with examples, see Richard Averbeck's new book The Old Testament Law for the Life of the Church. Averbeck has spent a lifetime studying and teaching Old Testament law from a Christian perspective and his approach to the subject is very helpful.

I'll address the answer to the question of the purpose of this particular law in Part 2 of this series. 

Why Andy Stanley's Statement on the Old Testament Concerns Me . . .

Andy Stanley rocked the internet this week by saying that Christians ought to “unhitch” their faith from the Old Testament. No doubt a great many who heard this were relieved. There’s a lot of gnarly stuff in the Old Testament that people struggle with (I should know. I’m an Old Testament professor whose students line up to see me during office hours.) Stanley’s pastoral motivation for making the statement is commendable. He has watched countless people leave the faith because they could not swallow the Old Testament or its God. His hope was to win them back by focusing on the resurrection of Jesus. But unhitching from the Old Testament is not the right solution.

Stanley is not the first person to talk this way. Not long after the resurrection a leader arose in the early church who felt the same way. His name was Marcion. Marcion saw a strong distinction between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament. He rejected the Old Testament and even those New Testament books that he thought were “too Jewish.”

And he was rightly condemned as a heretic early in the 3^rd century.

But why?

What’s so important about the Old Testament?

Stanley concedes that it is inspired, and that it gives us the “backstory” so that we can understand the New Testament. That in itself should be enough to motivate us to keep reading it. The New Testament makes little sense without it. But the relevance of the Old Testament goes deeper than that.

New Testament authors consistently use the Old Testament as their primary source for ethical reflection. In fact, they appeal to the Old Testament far more often than they appeal to things Jesus said while he was on earth, not just for the backstory, but to guide their behavior.  In other words, they are not just reminiscing about the “bad ole’ days” when they cite the Old Testament. It remains their authority. It tells them how to live after the resurrection.

Stanley made his appeal for Christians to “unhitch” from the Old Testament while preaching on Acts 15. This is a grand irony. Acts 15 narrates the proceedings from the first church “council” meeting. Leaders have gathered to figure out what to do now that there are Gentiles who want to become disciples. Do they have to convert to Judaism first? Or can they follow Jesus as Gentiles? Conversion requires circumcision, but these folks have already received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which complicates matters. The Spirit is a sign of covenant membership, but these are not Jews, at least not yet. What to do?

James stands up in the meeting and delivers the clincher. He quotes Amos 9 (which is, if you don’t know, in the Old Testament). It’s a mic drop moment -- not because he has just undermined the Old Testament Law, but because he demonstrated from the Old Testament itself that Gentiles can be considered covenant members without first converting to Judaism. The council is unanimous – no circumcision necessary for Gentiles. Still, they issue 4 directives for Gentile Christians – no eating food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals, and no sexual immorality – each of which is associated with pagan worship practices. The reason given for these directives is the law of Moses (Acts 15:21). Did you catch that? The book of Acts demonstrates precisely the point that Stanley's statement seemed to deny, namely, the law of Moses retains relevance for both Jewish and Gentile believers.

Reading it well can be tricky. Each cultural situation requires us to re-engage with it, asking new questions as we seek to be faithful to the covenant. But what we cannot do is relegate it to the archives as something of merely antiquarian interest.

So before you head out and buy your copy of the new “Perforated Bible” (which allows you to remove the parts you don’t need), wait first and read the New Testament. You’ll discover that the Old Testament cannot be so easily dismissed.

----------

Update (3/29/19): Stanley requested an interview with Dr. Michael Brown in July 2018 in which he clarified what he meant by his controversial statement. I can now better appreciate what Stanley was trying to do. That is, Stanley sees the early church leaders unhitching from the wrong worldview they had developed, a worldview associated with the Old Testament law that had misunderstood it at some level. The evidence of this worldview is Peter's unwillingness to enter a Gentile home before his vision in Acts 10. That mistaken worldview was in conflict with the new covenant and it was time to let that go. Stanley doesn't want to get rid of the Old Testament altogether. He affirms that the Old Testament, when properly understood, is essential and enriching to the Christian life. He insists that we should take our cues from Paul and Jesus for how to read it.

Stanley's primary burden is to introduce people to the reality of the resurrected Jesus first, before trying to make sense of the Old Testament. He wants them to set aside any baggage they have about the Old Testament that prevents them from entering into a relationship with Jesus. So the Old Testament is not discarded, but put on hold temporarily. I'm relieved that we have more common ground than it seemed at first. I've updated this post in light of Brown's interview, which was recently shared with me, but I'm not deleting it because Stanley's original statement still concerns me. I hope I've articulated an important corrective to the growing sentiment among Christians today that the Old Testament is irrelevant.

Time Travel, New Testament-Style

The world of the New Testament is foreign to us -- languages, customs, religions, geography, and politics are so different from our own -- and crossing that gap can be challenging. Thankfully, two esteemed New Testament professors have made it a little bit easier for the rest of us to experience that world. Bruce Longenecker (Baylor University) and Gary Burge (Wheaton College) have each written an imaginative work of historical fiction to illuminate the New Testament.

Burge's book, A Week in the Life of a Roman Centurion (IVP, 2015) follows an officer of the imperial army, Appius, and his trusted servant, Tullus, as they are assigned to various locations around Syria and Palestine. At the end of the book, they are assigned to Capernaum and their paths cross that of a simple prophet from Galilee, an encounter that changes everything. Burge's novel is easy to read and hard to put down. The story pulled me in. Informative text boxes are placed strategically throughout the book, offering background information on 1st century practices.

Longenecker's book, The Lost Letters of Pergamum (Baker, 2003/2016), is set a few decades after Jesus' resurrection, in the Asian city of Pergamum. His main character is a Roman nobleman named Antipas whose life revolves around the acquisition of both wealth and honor and the avoidance of shame. The story itself is the collected correspondence of Antipas and Luke, who had been a traveling companion of the apostle Paul and the author of a 2-part Gospel (known to us as Luke and Acts). Luke and Antipas share a love of history and a familiarity with the Roman way of life. However, when Antipas begins reading a copy of Luke's Gospel and associating with Christians, his world begins to unravel. A surprise ending brings the book to a satisfying finish. The genius of Longenecker's book is that we encounter Jesus and his teachings through the eyes of someone at home in the Roman empire. His sophisticated tale takes a bit more effort than Burge's to engage, given the appropriately stilted style of letter-writing, but it is well worth the energy.

The two novels are exactly the same length (187 and 189 pages, respectively). Both are rooted in extensive research on New Testament backgrounds, and involve real figures such as the Emperor Domitian and Herod Antipas. Burge takes his point of departure from the New Testament stories recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Longenecker's inspiration is Revelation 2:13, and he clarifies in an appendix which points of the narrative are fictional and which are not.

Sensitive readers should be forewarned that both books are rather bloody, giving detailed descriptions of gladiatorial games, and (in the case of Burge) battle scenes. Burge also incorporates aspects of the sexual lives of his characters (with concubines and prostitutes in particular), illuminating age-old problems. I read both of these within the past week, hoping to decide which to assign for my students to read in "Gospels, Acts, and Revelation" next semester. Unfortunately, it didn't make my decision any easier! I loved them both. Which one will you read first?

refugees and religious extremists -- what to do?

Did you hear the story about the Christian man from Syria? To protect his identity, let's call him "Hanan." Unlike most of his neighbors, Hanan is a follower of Jesus. I don't know a lot about his life, but I know that being a Christian is dangerous in his part of the world. It's a volatile place, with various factions vying for control. Hanan is respected by his neighbors, even those of other faiths, but still he has to be careful. You never know who can really be trusted. One day Hanan had a vision. The Lord directed him to go into Syria's capital to a specific house and ask for a man by name. When Hanan heard the name, he shuddered. The man he was to seek out was a religious extremist, bent on destroying the Christian faith. He had made a name for himself capturing Christians, imprisoning them, and torturing them to the death. Would the Lord really ask Hanan to go into harm's way? This didn't make sense! He protested, but Jesus reassured him and so he obeyed. He went to the house he had seen in his vision, asked for the terrorist by name, and prayed for him, inviting him to surrender his life to Jesus.

Are you curious how the story ends?

Actually, I don't know how things turned out for Hanan. What I do know is that the terrorist he met that day was a transformed man. He went on to spread Jesus' teachings all over Syria, Turkey, Greece, and then Rome. He corresponded with those who came to Christ, and those letters were collected in the New Testament. We call him Paul. The man I called "Hanan" is Hananias, or Ananias, and we meet him in Acts 9. Did you recognize his story?

Acts 9 is a key chapter in the study of Paul and his writings, but we don't typically spend much time thinking about Ananias. All we know about him is that when Jesus called, he obeyed, even at risk to himself. That single act of obedience changed the course of history.

Our obedience does not guarantee our safety, but it gives us a front-row seat to watch God transform lives.

In the words of Jim Elliot, "The will of God is always a bigger thing than we bargain for, but we must believe that whatever it involves, it is good, acceptable, and perfect." Or in the words of the popular song, "Spirit lead me where my trust is without borders, let me walk upon the water, wherever you would call me." (c. Hillsong United, 2013)

Ananias was a peacemaker. He walked into danger at God's command and extended Christian love to a dangerous man named Paul. Because Paul had not yet encountered Jesus, his religious zeal was misplaced.

Syrian Refugees (Photo: Angelos Tzortzinis/Getty)

Even today, across the Muslim world, the risen Lord is appearing in dreams and visions to our monotheistic cousins. Some of them — driven by war or propelled by opportunity — will cross oceans and arrive on our own shores. Many are zealous for the faith of their parents. Will we meet them with scowls and tell them to go somewhere else? Or will we welcome them warmly, building bridges so that in this place of religious freedom and physical safety they can openly pursue a relationship with him? In other words, will we view this as a problem or as an opportunity?

A friend of ours who has lived and worked closely with Muslims in the Middle East and Asia for many years explained to me that Muslim extremism thrives wherever Muslims experience rejection and hatred from others. One of the best ways to prevent Muslims from radicalizing is to offer them a warm welcome and a place to call home. It's much harder to hate those who reach out in love. Muslims who encounter suspicion, fear, and rejection become vulnerable to the clever recruitment tactics of radical Islam.

Last month, Evangelical leaders gathered to pen a declaration of Christian response to the refugee crisis. They remind us, "the refugees fleeing this violence are not our enemies; they are victims." The statistics of this burgeoning humanitarian crisis are staggering: "Never have so many people been recorded as being displaced, put in danger, and sent on the move. In Syria alone, more than 13 million children and their parents need humanitarian aid. Nearly 4.4 million have been forced to flee to neighboring countries for safety."

I am not writing as a politician, or even as a politically active citizen. Our nation's leaders will decide how to handle the refugee crisis. Beginning today, American citizens can cast their vote to decide who is best equipped to make those decisions. My challenge relates to the 'now what?' If and when the refugees arrive in our own communities, what would a Christian response look like? Are we willing to welcome them in the name of Jesus?

Our obedience does not guarantee our safety, but it gives us a front-row seat to watch God transform lives.

Perhaps among the throngs of refugees there is another Paul, one whose determination to destroy Christianity is fueled by deep devotion to Allah and a desire to purge the world of untruth. At any moment, Jesus could reveal himself to one such as this as the Lord of all the earth. And when he does, would we be as responsive as Ananias? When Jesus calls, are we ready to step out in obedient faith?

Our single act of obedience could change the course of history.

and the winners are . . .

After many happy hours perusing possible textbooks for my spring course on the Gospels/Acts at Multnomah, I have selected my favorites.

Because I have had little training in New Testament Greco-Roman backgrounds, I found The New Testament in Antiquity to be especially helpful. A trio of esteemed Wheaton professors - Gary Burge, Lynn Cohick, and Gene Green - pooled their expertise to produce a beautiful volume filled with crisp photographs, clear maps, helpful diagrams, and the latest in New Testament research, written for the non-specialist. Although the other volumes I considered would have worked, this seemed to be a book students could continue to use for years to come as they study the rest of the New Testament. It includes the right amount of information, written at the right level for college students.

It's a special bonus to know each of the authors and to have grown personally from interactions with each of them, but what was even more important to me was the testimony of a recent MA graduate from Wheaton who said this was her favorite book from grad school. The New Testament in Antiquity is the next best thing to taking students on a tour of the holy land. Having just been there myself in May, it was easy to tell that the photos in this book (as compared to others I saw) were the most up-to-date.

One of the strategic priorities of Multnomah's new president, Dr. Craig Williford, is to cultivate a diverse learning community. This not only includes variety in the types of students who populate our classes, but also variety in the authors and perspectives to which students are exposed during their studies. For this reason, I'm delighted to introduce students to Kenneth Bailey's Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels.

Bailey lived and taught in the middle east for 40 years, and his book helps readers take off their western lenses so they can read the text from a cultural perspective much closer to the ancient New Testament world. More than anything else, Bailey helps us consider new ways of reading and understanding the Bible. His book is endorsed by an impressive cadre of New Testament scholars, including Lynn Cohick and Gary Burge (above), Craig Keener, and Craig Evans.

Finally, students will need a good atlas as they follow Jesus' steps through the Gospels and the travels of the early apostles in the book of Acts. I considered a number of atlases, but in the end my favorite happened to be the most compact and affordable as well (that should make students happy!). It's paperback and slightly smaller than our main textbook. My biggest priorities were crisp photos, pleasing graphics, and maps that would give students a sense of the physical topography of the land of Israel. Now that I've been there, I feel that this aspect is so important. Carl Rasmussen's Zondervan Essential Atlas of the Bible provides all of these and more.

Here's my personal favorite, shared with permission from Zondervan:

Just a few months ago I sat on the edge of the ridge just south of Nazareth, looking out over the Jezreel Valley at Mt. Tabor and the Hill of Moreh. Now I can see that just over the ridge beyond Mt. Tabor is the Sea of Galilee. That would have been quite a hike!

I'm grateful to Zondervan and IVP for free exam copies of these books and others as well, and to Zondervan for providing free access to digital photos and maps for use in teaching. While I was not required to write a review of these books, I felt compelled to share these great resources with you.

full to bursting

Has your heart ever been so full you think it might burst?

I remember the moment as if it was last month. I think it was the fall of 1999. The trees were golden yellow. The air was sharp and crisp. The sun's angle cast a glow on the fluttering leaves, the well-trimmed hedges throwing long shadows. I walked down the campus path, drawing a deep breath of autumn. It was the same path I had walked dozens of times, past aging buildings toward home, but that day everything swelled with rightness. 

I had just finished teaching a "lab" section of Advanced Bible Study Methods to upperclassmen at Multnomah Bible College. My heart swelled with gratitude for the opportunity to guide students on their quest to understand the Scriptures. I was doing what I was born to do. As I walked home under the bright canopy of leaves, with joy welling up inside, a seed of hope was born.

I didn't know how or when. But I knew that I wanted to return someday, not as a lab instructor, but as a professor. I belonged here. Teaching. Multnomah didn't hire women as Bible Professors back then. I had it on good authority that they probably never would. But I didn't let that stop me from dreaming. I watered that seed of hope with hours and days and weeks and years of graduate-level education. Maybe someday . . .

Multnomah has not had an easy road these past few years. President Dan Lockwood died of cancer just one year ago, in the midst of financial challenges and unhappy lay-offs. But then our road has not been easy either. Multnomah may not be not the same place it was that fall day 15 years ago. Neither am I. But God is up to something wonderful.

Dr. G. Craig Williford,
5th President of Multnomah University

Fast forward to this afternoon. Danny and I had the privilege of witnessing the inauguration of Multnomah's 5th president, Dr. Craig Williford. The faculty -- men and women who have profoundly shaped who we have become -- paraded by in full regalia to the sound of bagpipes. Retired Professor David Needham prayed, transporting us directly to the throne room, as he did countless times as we sat under his teaching. Luis Palau spoke. Surrounded by beloved faculty and staff, it was hard not to smile. But I had another reason to celebrate, too, because the man who took office today is not just leading my alma mater. In a few short months he will also be my boss.

Are you sitting down? This Spring you'll find me on campus twice a week teaching a Freshmen class on the Gospels and Acts. I keep pinching myself. I have spent the past 19 years getting ready for this moment. Now it's suddenly here and I'm full to bursting. What a joy to begin this stage of my teaching career at the very place it all began!


(No, I'm not finished with my dissertation yet. Revisions will take the better part of this year, at least. But I have the feeling that this experience will give it wings to fly. It has me!)

bringin' in the big dawgs

I've been meeting with some Jehovah's Witnesses off and on for about 17 months now.  We met regularly for 6 months and then took a break for the summer. We met a few more times and then I asked if we could wait until April and meet to talk about the Trinity.

I have learned a lot from Lula. She is a godly woman, dedicated to the ministry, who really knows her Bible.  She has refused to be intimidated by my 6 years of formal Bible training and knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew.  Though not formally educated herself and not paid a dime for her ministry, she has continued to come week after week to meet with me and study the Bible.  Each time we meet she brings along someone different, always another woman volunteer. Can I make a confession?  For a long time now I've wondered when she would call in her supervisor. Today she finally did.

Kevin is the district substitute superintendent for the entire Charlotte area all the way to Spartanburg.  Like Lula, he is mystified that anyone could actually read the Bible and persist in believing in the Trinity.  Often I tell them that I can see how they could read the passage in the way that they do, but that I understand it differently. Today Kevin finally asked me (in exasperation?), "If a straightforward reading of the Bible implies that Jesus is not God, but sent from God as his representative, then what would motivate you to elevate him further?"

I was so glad he asked.  I pointed immediately to a brochure Lula had given me last year entitled, Should You Believe in the Trinity? They do a good job of introducing the topic, and I especially like this: "If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal ..." (3). This is why it matters: because right worship depends on knowing God as He really is.

Though there is a number of passages that seem to suggest that Jesus was not equal to the Father (John 14:28; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:27), there are many other indications in Scripture that Jesus was more than just God's representative (John 1:1; 17:21; Acts 2:21 with 4:12). Jesus did things that only God can do.  He forgave sins, he raised the dead, he healed a man blind from birth. Jesus also made claims that were tantamount to claiming deity.  He called himself the "light of the world" (John 9:5 with Isa 60:1-2), the "good shepherd" (John 10:11 with Eze 34), the "son of man" (Matt 17:9 with Dan 7:9-10, 13-14; Rev 1:12-18), and the "I am" (John 8:54-59 with Ex 3:3-4). These claims caused great consternation among the Jewish leaders, and in several cases they tried to stone him for blasphemy! His followers worshipped him (see John 9:38), and he did not object.

I recommended two books that have been helpful for me on this issue.  One is Donald Fairbairn's Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers. Not only is it written simply and beautifully, it is changing the way I think about salvation.  I highly recommend it!  Fairbairn explains that the earliest followers of Jesus saw salvation as an invitation to share in the life of the Trinity the way the Father and Son share life together.

The other book is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity. This one is not quite as easy to read, but terribly profound. Bauckham argues that Jesus' actions and claims about himself prompted his early followers to include him within their concept of "one God." The first century Jewish idea of monotheism was flexible enough to allow for Jesus' inclusion in the deity without seeing God as "more than one." At the end of our discussion, Kevin admitted that he needed to go back and reexamine some things in the Bible.  And that's what every good Bible discussion should do -- push us back to the Scriptures with fresh eyes to see once again what God has revealed and how we are to respond.  Please pray for Kevin, and for me and Lula as we continue to study the Bible and discuss what it teaches.

was Paul a hypocrite?

This past Sunday's sermon was a unique one.  Rather than preparing ahead of time, Pastor Talbot was 'on the spot', ready to answer questions from the congregation about the Bible.  The series we're in is called 'Text Message', a series all about the text of Scripture and what it has to say.  Appropriately, we were asked to text our questions to Talbot during the service.

Someone texted this fascinating question:  Why does Paul tell the Judaizers that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to join the faith, but then he makes Timothy get circumcised?

The story is found in Acts 16:1-3, directly on the heels of the biggest doctrinal showdown in the early church.  Acts 15 records a debate that arose between those who taught that Gentiles must first be circumcised to be saved (the Judaizers) and those who strongly disagreed (including Paul).  All the big wigs gathered in Jerusalem to duke talk it out.  Peter gave a testimony about how God had poured out the Holy Spirit on uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 15:7-11).  This in itself would have been a strong indication that Gentiles were "in" because the Old Testament never predicts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles, only on the restored people of Israel.  Then Paul added his two cents (Acts 15:12).  James followed this with a knockout punch by using Old Testament Scripture to demonstrate that Gentile inclusion was envisioned by the prophets long ago (Acts 15:13-29).  His quotation from Amos 9 is bolstered by allusions to as many as 5 other prophetic passages, each of them contributing to the overall message that Gentiles can be included in the faith community as Gentiles, that is, without converting first to Judaism.* 

Why then, just a few verses later, does Paul require Timothy to undergo this most unpleasant surgery?  Acts 16:1 tells us that Timothy's father was Greek (apparently his Jewish mother had been unable to convince her husband of the value of such painful mutilation).  Timothy had a good reputation among the believers, and Paul wanted to take him along on a missionary journey.  Acts 16:3 tells us why circumcision was part of the orientation process for him: "because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."  Timothy's circumcision had nothing to do with his standing before God.  It was not part of "being saved." It was for the sake of those to whom they hoped to preach.  Paul didn't want anything to stand in the way of the important message they had to share about the coming of the Messiah, Jesus.  If anyone asked Timothy, "Why should I listen to an uncircumcised scumbag like you?" He could honestly tell them, "Oh, but I am circumcised."  The door would open once again for their message.

Paul was no schizophrenic.  He was an outstanding theologian, and what's more, an apostle sent to bring the good news far and wide.  And his modus operandi was this: "I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some." (1 Cor 9:22) This doesn't mean that Paul led a double life.  He lived by his convictions.  But he was willing to make sacrifices if it meant that the gospel would gain a wider hearing.  And so was Timothy.  Listen to what Paul said about him later to the church in Philippi:

"I hope to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be encouraged by hearing news about you. For there is no one here like him who will readily demonstrate his deep concern for you. [no kidding!] Others are busy with their own concerns, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know his qualifications, that like a son working with his father, he served with me in advancing the gospel."  (Phil 2:19-22)

----------

*If you want to dig more deeply into James' sermon, I recommend an absolutely brilliant article by Richard Bauckham.  Fair warning: It's rather scholarly, but so impressed me that I nearly framed it for my bedroom wall! [“James and the Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21).” Pages 154-184 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts. Edited by Ben Witherington. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.]