Ask the Pastor

Sermon: The Holy Trinity

2008-05-18T23:59:00.001-05:00

Focusing Jesus on Distorted Teachings

2008-05-15T23:22:00.005-05:00

Q: I’m a Christian, baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church, who likes reading about Christianity. The Jesus Is Savior web site disturbs me. The author fills it with essays denying much of what I’ve been taught, from “basic” Christian beliefs to some Lutheran specifics. Some sections claim that Lutheranism is a false religion that will send its followers to hell. The article that specifically caught my eye involved especially teachings about the Christian Church and about the Virgin Mary. Can any of what he says be true?

A: This site’s author, David J. Stewart, habitually calls any denomination, organization, or confession within Christianity a “religion” if he disagrees with it. Claiming to believe that we are saved by grace through faith, he makes a mockery of the Faith, writing with ungracious venom about those whose beliefs or practices he opposes.

Jesus Is Savior (JIS) is equally guilty of sectarian excess and crass bibliolatry. In other words, JIS puts Scripture above Christ, using its (mis-) understanding of God’s Word to comprehend Jesus and His teachings rather than using Christ as the lens through which to interpret the Scriptures. Stewart furthermore denies baptismal regeneration, our Lord’s body-and-blood presence in Holy Communion, and any number of other Gospel truths.

Stewart has more conspiracy theories than I ever imagined one person could hold. He’s flat-out wrong on any number of subjects, but since you mentioned the article “Lutheran Lies,” let’s look at what he says in it. One quote that stood out refutes what’s not only a “Lutheran” teaching but one of the earliest theological statements of Christianity. Stewart writes, “There is NOTHING in the Bible which even hints that the church was ever supposed to be our ‘Mother.’ (emphasis his)”

Now read this quote: “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:1-6)”

Let’s see, Stewart says the Church is not our mother. John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes both of Mary (the actual, biological mother of the Christ) and of the Church (which stays in the wilderness on earth even though the Son ascends to His Father). The “male child ... who is to rule ... with a rod of iron” obviously is the Christ, as foretold in Psalm 2:9. So who’s the mother?

If this were an “either-or” translation situation the Christian Church actually fits the entire passage better than does the Virgin. After all, while Mary physically bore the Christ Child, she died and was carried safe to the Lord. Meanwhile, the Church still lives in the “Wilderness” of this earth, nourished by God through the Son’s Word and Sacrament. Such an understanding becomes even easier to grasp when we realize how the Lord so often named the Church (Israel) as His wife and He her husband in the Old Testament (e.g., Jeremiah 31:32 and Hosea 1-2). However, I think that John wrote in a “both-and” manner, using the Virgin mother to connect his readers thoughts to the Mother Church.

Stewart appears incapable of allowing various sections of Scripture to inform his understanding of other parts. No one, simple sentence anywhere in the Bible says, “The Christian Church is the Christian’s mother,” so he refuses to see how the total testimony points to this very fact. One passage comes very close to a complete and direct refutation of this false teaching. Saint Paul (whom JIS elsewhere quotes to its own advantage) wrote, “The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Galatians 4:26)” Didn’t Jesus also indicate this when speaking of His followers (the Church!) as His “mother and brothers” (Luke 8:21)? And when talking with Nicodemus in John 3, He compared natural birth with the spiritual birth of Baptism, encouraging the comparison of our biological mothers’ wombs with the “womb” of our spiritual “Mother,” the Church.

Stewart denies almost 2000 years of teaching by men wiser and better steeped in the Scriptures than can he ever hope to be. I did a bit of research and compiled a partial list of theologians who refute Stewart’s error. They include Clement of Alexandria (AD 153-217), Tertullian 125-220), Cyprian (?-248), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), Athanasius (293-373), Jerome (347-420), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Augustine (354-430), and others.

Seeking to drive a deeper, wider wedge, Stewart continues his anti-Lutheran diatribe by claiming that Lutherans practice “Mary Worship.” He says, “It is ... disconcerting (and unbiblical) for anyone to recognize her at all. Mary is no more to be praised than any other godly mother.” Quoting Lutheran author Darrel Paul, he takes offense with Lutherans (or anyone else) saying, “Hail, favored one.” Luke 1 certainly disagrees with him. First, I guess that Stewart forgot the visit that Gabriel paid on a certain young lady from Nazareth: “[Gabriel] came to her and said, ‘Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’ (v. 28)”

Then, Stewart compounds his error by ignoring the trust that the Virgin placed in the Lord’s words spoken by the angel. Mary wasted no time in visiting Elizabeth, discovering immediately that part of Gabriel’s message was irrefutable, since her pregnant kinswoman stood before her. After their exchange of greetings and blessings, Mary spoke or sang the words that Christianity repeats to this day, beginning by saying, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.... (vv. 46-47)”

Before continuing on to all that the birth of this Child would mean, she declared how and why she, of lowly, sinful birth was able to perform this “magnification” of the Holy One of Israel. She acknowledged the special office into which God had placed her: “He has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed. (v. 48)” Is the Virgin still the Lord’s “favored one”? Are we part of “all generations” following Mary? Nothing in the Bible says otherwise, so just in this one brief page, Stewart has completely painted himself into a corner, showing himself the be the false prophet he claims Luther to be.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: heresy | false doctrine | false teaching | ignorance | Jesus Is Savior | David J. Stewart | David Stewart | Luther | Martin Luther | religion | church | Christian | Christian Church | Christianity | Lutheran Church | Confessional Lutheran | Lutheran | Lutheranism | doctrine | theology | systematic theology | dogmatic theology | dogmatics | polemics | apologetics | sectarianism | sectarian | Law and Gospel | Law | Gospel | Christology | Jesus | Jesus Christ | Christ | Mariology | Mariolatry | Mary worship | Annunciation | Visitation | exegetical theology | exegesis | historical theology | Church history | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #539

Eyes, Teeth, and Lives

2008-05-14T21:19:00.006-05:00

Q: Exodus 21:24 says “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” What Scripture tells us that God wishes He would not have said this?

A: Actually, no verse shows God having a change of heart or offering an apology. However, in the Law’s completion in Christ, we Christians are given a more merciful path to follow.

Before talking about that, though, we first need to understand this section of the Bible in its context. We look at it in AD 2008 and think, “That’s horrible!” However, Israel’s former oppressors and their future neighbors almost without fail punished much more harshly. If any of them happened to know the language and heard or read this section, he’d probably have thought, “These Hebrews are a bunch of sissies with a cream-puff god.”

God actually set these regulations to protect people from excessive punishment, private revenge, and false testimony. In Deuteronomy, He that it took “the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses” and that “a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness (17:6).” A little bit later, the Lord expanded this protection: “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (19:15)”

Quite often in the ancient world, if you accidentally (or purposefully) took out someone’s eye, he would be allowed to kill you, take your possessions, and sell your family into slavery. Even in the more “civilized” parts of the Middle East, where governments claimed the right of justice and retribution, the judgment was much harsher than was the original offense. So among the many regulations and commands in Exodus-Deuteronomy, God took several opportunities to restrict payback to a commensurate level. To use Sir William Schwenk Gilbert’s famous expression from The Mikado, the Lord commanded His people to “let the punishment fit the crime.”

Besides rules limiting punishment, He also forbade individuals from taking the law into their own hands (Deuteronomy 32:35) This command Paul (Romans 12:19) and the writer of Hebrews (10:30) reiterated. And though the extended family — clan or tribe — formed much of Hebrew government, not just any kinsman was supposed to “even the score.” While we don’t have many details, it seems that the“avenger of blood” was a somewhat official office within each larger family unit. They could pursue and kill intentional murderers but those committing accidental homicides could flee to one of the “six cities of refuge” to await trial or to stay in exile “until the death of the high priest” (see Numbers 35:9-34).

Again, we read that a murder conviction needed the testimony of “witnesses,” not just “one witness. (Numbers 35:30)” Yet since God holds human life so sacred, one intentionally ending another’s life could have “no ransom” because he was “guilty of death” and had to be “put to death. (v. 31)” Even one guilty of manslaughter could not buy his way back to his own people. Since this return would “pollute the land” because of the victim’s blood, the killer could only be brought back in order to die, for “no atonement” save “the blood of the one who shed it (v.33)” was allowed.

This system was in place and (sometimes) enforced throughout Israel’s history, from the time of the Judges through the Roman conquest. However, laws were sometimes ignored or intentionally disregarded. We see particularly in Jesus’ trial. The Sanhedrin was “seeking testimony against him ... but they found none. (Mark 14:55)” Even among their hand-picked witnesses, “their testimony did not agree. (v. 56)” They finally used Jesus’ flat statement that He was the Christ to convict Him of blasphemy — even though He obviously (from our perspective as believers) was telling the truth.

Divine Law, more recent Jewish laws, and Roman law were all violated, including these: Night arrests and trials weren’t allowed; Sabbath or Sabbath eve trials were illegal; the Council only was to judge — not instigate — any charges; the charges changed from blasphemy in the Jewish court to civil insurrection before Pilate; no two witnesses ever agreed; and the Sanhedrin had no authority to pronounce a death sentence.

As I said earlier, there was no “repentance” on God’s part for ever decreeing these regulations for His covenant people. However, in fulfilling all written about Himself “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, (Luke 24:44)” Jesus also had the authority to redirect the thinking of those who continued to believe in the God of Israel through their faith in the Son. The world’s authorities can still make, judge, and enforce laws (see Romans 13:1-7)” However, the Church and individual believers are completely removed from the sphere of judgment and compensation.

Regardless of the provocation, Christ calls His followers to act as He did when hatefully and unlawfully persecuted and prosecuted: “‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ (Matthew 5:38-39)”

The civil authorities may still require eyes, teeth, or even lives, for “the governing authorities ... have been instituted by God. (Romans 13:1)” Therefore, lawbreakers should be afraid of their rulers, for the legal authority, “the servant of God,” doesn’t “bear the sword in vain. (v. 4)” The Christian who holds civil office may, according to the laws of his land, judge, sentence, or carry out punishments. However, the Church and her members are called to forgive, even to the point of doing “good to those who hate” us.

Even if the authorities justly condemn and properly execute the most heinous murder, if the murderer repents and throws himself on God’s mercy in Christ Jesus, our Lord forgives him and God’s people welcome the penitent into our midst.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: killing | murder | revenge | vengeance | retaliation | capital punishment | an eye for an eye | a tooth for a tooth | justice | Christian | Christianity | doctrine | theology | exegetical theology | historical theology | Biblical theology | exegesis | Holy Bible | Bible | Scripture | Word of God | God’s Word | Law and Gospel | Law | Gospel | Church history | Lutheran | Lutheranism | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #538

Apostles and Disciples, Then and Now

2008-05-13T18:38:00.005-05:00

Q: What is the difference between apostles and disciples and how does this relate to us today? My question may seem trivial but has been confusing to me as I study God’s Word.

A: Even if the answer isn’t earth-shattering, anything leading to a greater understanding and application of the Scriptures is certainly worth the asking. In English, “disciple” looks suspiciously like “discipline.” That makes sense, since they both come to us from Latin via Old English and French. Originally, discipulus meant a student of a particular teacher. During the Middle Ages, it took the special meaning of one of the followers of Jesus during His earthly ministry.

The Greek word mathetes similarly meant a follower of a particular teacher. The idea grew out of Hebrew, where a limmud was one under instruction. It was rarely used in the Old Testament, although Isaiah wrote concerning some of his own followers, “Bind up the testimony; seal the teaching among my disciples. (8:16)” The idea of the student attaching himself to a particular rabbi (teacher) grew during intertestamental times and the Gospels regularly mention such followers. Mark 2:18 speaks of “John’s disciples” and “the disciples of the Pharisees.”

When Jesus healed the man born blind (see John 9), some of the Jewish leaders investigated the circumstances. Upset that the healing happened on the Sabbath, they sought to discredit Jesus. They questioned the man, who called Jesus “a prophet. (v. 17)” They questioned his parents, who worried so much about being put out of the synagogue that they passed the buck back to their son (see vv. 18-23). When they returned to grill the man further, he grew tired of their continuing questions and “answered them, ‘I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?’ (v. 27)”

Their growing hatred toward Jesus is evident in their response. Verse 28 says that “they reviled him, saying, ‘You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.’” The bitter exchange continued briefly, until the leaders gave up on the man. “They answered him, ‘You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?’ And they cast him out [of the Jerusalem synagogue].’ (v. 34)”

In almost every usage of either limmud or mathetes, the disciple joined himself to a suitable teacher. An established rabbi might actually have to reject some pupils in order to keep his “class” to a manageable size. The Lord, however, works differently. We don’t choose to follow Him, He calls us to be His followers. He chose His own people by calling Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and He made certain men to be His prophets.

Instead of waiting for students, Jesus began His public teaching by calling men to follow Him. First, John the Baptist pointed out Jesus as “the Lamb of God” to “two of his disciples. (John 1:36-37)” When they left John, Jesus invited them to stay with Him. After hearing Him, they reached out to gather family and friends to hear Jesus and Jesus, in turn, called them to be the first of His special learners (vv. 38-51). It seems that in those early days, some of the disciples may have gone back and forth between following Jesus and staying with familiar work and family. He may have even issued multiple invitations to the same men, but Christ finally gathered the Twelve to Himself.

These comprised the core but others were added to form a wider group. Some chose to follow Him for various reasons. At other times, Jesus extended an invitation to join with Him. Much in the manner of later seminaries, Jesus first kept His students close-by, focusing on the Scriptures and their interpretation and application (theology). After He’d taught them for a time, Jesus “called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. (Luke 9:1-2)”

This is where some of the “disciples” also became “apostles.” In Greek, apostolos meant a person who was sent. It usually implied that the person was sent out to perform a specific and often very special task. In secular writings, apostles were often emissaries or ambassadors of a ruler. So also here, the King sent out His emissaries to “proclaim the kingdom of God” — His own kingdom that He was establishing.

Some time later, after the first apostles returned, “the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. (Luke 10:1)” His sending instructions were quite similar to those heard by the original twelve: “Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ (vv. 8-9)”

We don’t know the exact chronology, but not everyone who came to Him remained either a disciple or an apostle. Well before Christ’s crucifixion, His teachings drove off numerous followers. John 6 specifically notes the difficulty that “many of his disciples (v. 60)” had in believing His teaching that He was the “Son of Man” and that no one would have “eternal life” unless he would “eat the flesh” of the Son and “drink his blood (vv. 53-54)”

John 6 continues, “After this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you want to go away as well?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’ (vv. 66-68)” Also in this narrative, Jesus emphasized that the one who chooses establishes the real difference between His disciples and those of the world. He told the larger crowd, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (v. 44)” After the mass desertion, He reminded the Twelve, “Did I not choose you? (v. 70)” However, He warned in the same verse that still another deserter still lived among them, for “one of you [obviously Judas] is a devil.”

Finally, the Bible sometimes uses “apostle” for those not commissioned by Christ but rather sent out by the early church. Matthias was chosen by lot to succeed Judas (Acts 1:26). Paul, of course, was commissioned by Christ, but not in the same manner as the original disciples. That more than just the twelve were, at least sometimes, considered to be apostles is clear from 1 Corinthians 15. In verse 5, he tells how Jesus appeared “to the twelve” and “then to all the apostles (v. 7)” while Barnabas is named an apostle along with Paul in Acts 14:14.

What does all this mean for our day? In a parallel, all Christians are disciples, called by the Holy Spirit through Gospel and Holy Baptism to be “students” of Christ’s Word. While Jesus no longer directly ordains apostles to go out with His message of salvation, His Church continues to commission and send forth their heirs. The successors to the apostles are the missionaries, evangelists, teachers, and, particularly, the pastors who carry the Word of Salvation to the believers within the Church and to those living in unbelief, that they might be saved.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: apostles | disciples | Jesus | Jesus Christ | Christ | ambassadors | evangelists | teachers | missionaries | the twelve | kingdom of God | Paul | Matthias | Barnabas | Christian | Christianity | doctrine | theology | exegetical theology | historical theology | Biblical theology | exegesis | Holy Bible | Bible | Scripture | Word of God | God’s Word | Gospel | Church history | Lutheran | Lutheranism | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #537

Reverend Lord, Reverend Pastor

2008-05-12T17:51:00.004-05:00

Awesome, Honored, Cool, or Terrifying?

Q: Hello, pastor. I am from Malaysia. Why do pastors call themselves “Reverend” when it is clearly stated of God that “holy and reverend is his name (Psalm 111:9 KJV)”? Thank you.

A: Good day, dear friend in Christ. After I’ve been involved for more than a decade in this column, yours is, as far as I know, the first question or comment to come from your land.

Before getting into the Biblical dimension of your question, we should touch on a bit of grammar. Remember that “reverend” is an adjective; that is, a word describing someone or something. It isn’t intended to be a title, although current English usage normally does just this. If we use it correctly in connection with a person, we would speak of “the Reverend So-and-So” rather than directly addressing the person as “Reverend So-and-So.”

I obviously think that it’s foolish to compare any pastor with this “reverend” God. However, we need to examine the translation you use. In English, “reverend” changed in meaning since the translation of the King James Version of the Bible, which you cite in your question. Its Hebrew root is the verb yara, meaning “to be afraid.” Another form appears in the next verse, where the KJV, the ESV, and most other Bibles say, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Fear — both awe and terror — formed the basic understanding of reverence in 17th Century English. In the years that followed, it lost such a strong connotation and moved toward our present understanding of “honored” or “highly respected.”

Most newer translations use a word other than “reverend” coupled with “holy” in verse nine. Recently, most seem to favor “awesome.” The Revised Standard Version gets closer to the root meaning: “Holy and terrible is his name!” This follows Jerome’s rendering in the Vulgate, Christianity’s first great Latin Bible. Due to numbering differences, we read Psalm 110:9, which says, “Sanctum et terribile nomen ejus.” A direct, literal translation into English would be “holy and terrible (or terrifying) His name is.”

I prefer “terrible” because “awesome,” like “reverend” before it, has lost its most fearful connotations. Most people use “awesome” and “cool” as synonyms — and “cool” is a weak word to describe Yahweh Elohim, the Lord God who “created the heavens and the earth, (Genesis 1:1)” who generated “thunders and lightnings (Exodus 19:16)” atop Sinai, before whom “the mountains melt like wax. (Psalm 97:5)”

Again, compare any pastor with this “reverend” God: None of us is “holy and terrifying” — unless terror is strictly an emotional response to our occasional sinful behavior. However, with “reverend” commonly understood as “honored” or “respected,” I don’t mind being called “the Reverend Pastor Walter Snyder,” as long as the respect is not nearly so much for me as a person as it is for this office instituted by Christ Jesus to preach His Gospel and administer His sacraments to bring salvation to His people.

Finally, in a bit of a personal editorial comment, consider the Ray Boltz song Our God Is an Awesome God. It gets clobbered by many liturgically-minded Christians as one of the major mistakes of “Contemporary Christian Music.” While I am not particularly fond of it, Boltz still captures a more Biblical understanding of awesomeness than do many others. The song refers to the Creation, God banishing Adam and Eve from Eden, Christ’s shedding of blood for our sins and His return in judgment, “judgment and wrath” over Sodom but “mercy and grace” at the cross, and God’s eternal reign in “wisdom, pow’r, and love.”

For a bit more, you can read an earlier column, Addressing the Clergy.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: clergy titles | reverend | pastor | pastors | Lord | God | Yahweh | Elohim | I Am | awesome | terrifying | terrible | awe | fear | reverence | Christian | Christianity | doctrine | theology | exegetical theology | Biblical theology | interpretation | exegesis | Holy Bible | Bible | Scripture | Word of God | God’s Word | Lutheran | Lutheranism | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #536

Sermon: Pentecost

2008-05-11T19:53:00.000-05:00

Seventh Day Adventism

2008-05-10T16:11:00.001-05:00

Q: Is the Seventh Day Adventist religion a cult?

A: While many “mainline” Christian churches and individuals made this claim years ago, few continue such thinking today. It is true that Adventism counters much of Christianity, paying much stronger attention to keeping the laws of the Old Testament, including Sabbath (Seventh Day) worship. However, that body has rethought many of its original positions and moved to a less different (or sectarian) set of beliefs while non-Adventists, in turn, have reevaluated their churches’ original difficulties and have announced greater agreement in recent years. In other words, most Christian churches teach that Adventists hold some different beliefs from the majority of Christendom, but not so many as to be considered a cult.

For a more extensive look at differences and divisions in Christianity, please see Christian (dis-)Unity.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Seventh Day Adventism | Seventh Day Adventist | Sabbatarianism | Adventism | Christian unity | Christian | Christianity | doctrine | sects | cults | heresies | heresy | theology | dogma | systematic theology | comparative theology | symbolics | polemics | apologetics | Lutheran | Lutheranism | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #535:3

Grape Juice, Wine, and Holy Communion

2008-05-10T14:06:00.002-05:00

Q: Some congregations use grape juice for Communion, using Proverbs 23:31 to defend the practice: “Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.” Their argument continues, “The word when is a time reference, meaning that there is a time when the wine is not red, but purple, as in grape juice. The word wine can then be denoted as wine that is not red; i.e. grape juice. If that is the case, we can then use grape juice for the Sacrament of the Altar, since the element is to be wine which can be either wine or grape juice.” Can you please address this argument?

A: While their argument could be made from this passage alone, let’s see how the word translated “when” means much more in Hebrew. Translators may render it as “for” or “because,” as in, “Give thanks to the Lord for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever. (Psalm 106:1, et al.)” Other translations include “if”, “in case,” “even when,” “even though,” “as,” “which is,” “who is,” and the like. Even the use of “when” isn’t strictly temporal. In English, we may use it to indicate a general state of being, independent of time.

Secondly, nothing in Scripture (or science) indicates a lack of alcohol in either red or purple wines. Except among prohibitionists, theologians generally agree that whatever the exact color, “wine,” “new wine,” “old wine,” “mixed wine,” and “fruit of the vine” all refer to the end product of grape fermentation; that is, wine. Differing types may have varied in strength but all contained alcohol.

If we examine the surrounding verses, from 29 through 35 we read an entire section indicting drunkenness and the intentional abuse of alcohol. The rhetorical questions in verse 29 beg the answers that follow. What causes all these problems? Not wine, but too much wine, taken too often. The final lines obviously aren’t spoken by a responsible social or religious consumer — they sound exactly like alcohol and drug addicts of our current age: “When shall I awake? I must have another drink.” Only “real” wine taken too frequently or at too great a volume will leave one drunk and then hung over.

I would say the intent of the verse is, “Don’t gaze longingly over cup of sparkling red wine, lest it gently seduce and then harshly ensnare you.” And if wine seduces and ensnares anyone drinking of the cup of the blood of Jesus Christ, he has problems beyond any interpretation of this verse.

Previous posts touching on this topic include Communion Practices and Two Wines? Too Much!

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: Holy Communion | Lord’s Supper | Communion | Eucharist | wine | new wine | old wine | mixed wine | red wine | purple wine | fruit of the vine | grapes | grape juice | theology | systematic theology | dogmatics | sacramental theology | exegetical theology | exegesis | practical theology | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #535:2

Muslim-Christian Marriage Possibility

2008-05-10T13:19:00.005-05:00

Q: I’m a Muslim woman in love with a Christian man, both of us of Pakistani background. He wants to be a Christian pastor and currently attends seminary. Is marrying him allowed according to the churches? He is Evangelical Protestant and neither of us is willing to convert, for we both are practicing individuals. Would any church hire him? We have discussed this many times and are not willing to leave each other. Neither of us is willing to end the relationship. I am just concerned as to how the church will handle it and if he will be hired, would any one accept him and me?

A: So much here depends upon your individual beliefs and consciences, as well as upon the particulars of the church to which your beloved seminarian belongs. He would need to speak with the leaders of his church body to see first of all if they have any set rules and then what the unwritten expectations might be. In my part of Lutheran Christianity, pastors not only are told not to marry outside of the Christian Faith, we’re not even supposed to marry non-Lutherans. Some churches have similar requirements while others do not. In most bodies where married ministers are allowed and encouraged, the pastors are specifically forbidden to marry outside the Faith and even those that have no specific rules largely frown on mixed-faith marriages.

Of course, we’re so far only mentioning the Christian side of this — does not Islam also frown on marriages with non-Muslims? And like Christianity, are there not differences among various branches of Islam, as well as cultural and national variances? Of course, I imagine that they would be greater should you be a Muslim religious leader looking to marry a Christian.

This leads us to the matters of faith and conscience. Christianity holds to God’s Word through Paul concerning the unmarried: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14)” If two non-Christians are married and one becomes a Christian, the apostle applied a different standard: “If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (1 Corinthians 7:12-13)”

These, however, only speak of the generalities. I ask you to consider the specifics, not only as a prospective pastor and his possible wife but also as two people who strongly believe different and often contradictory teachings. First of all, whether one or the other of you changes or not, how will each of your families cope with this marriage? What stress will each of you face through the years if each of you is certain that the other will not share eternity with you? Does either of you want to leave the other behind, facing not only separation but also damnation? Will these concerns alienate either of you or move you to zealous efforts to convert the other?

With all this in mind, I strongly encourage both of you to sit down individually to think of and list any and all particulars and possible current and future challenges. Then, after comparing, discussing, and combining your lists, speak with the important people in each family and then sit down with your religious leaders. Remember that the attraction of love is strong — but the ties and the walls of belief can be stronger still. In my opinion, concerns about future employment matter much less than concerns about your marriage and about faith and eternal life.

See also a post from several years ago, Muslim-Christian Marriage.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: marriage | mixed marriage | mixed faith marriage | mixed faith | wedding | believers | unbelievers | religious differences | differences | unequally yoked | couples | wives | husbands | wife | husband | Jesus | Christ | Jesus Christ | Christian | Christianity | Muslim | Mohammedan | Islam | Moslem | Allah | Qur’an | Quran | Koran | Lutheran | confessional Lutheran | Lutheranism | Holy Bible | Scripture | Word of God | God’s Word | God | theology | practical theology | premarital counseling | pastoral counseling | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #535:1

On the Marriage of Cousins

2008-05-07T16:05:00.005-05:00

Q: I love my cousin and am having difficulties helping the family understand that what forbids cousins from marrying is our society and not God’s law. Would you please reply with your views on the subject? I am totally in love with him and need help showing my family that our souls are not in jeopardy for loving each other. Thank you for your help.

A: The legal term covering your dilemma is “consanguinity.” Literally referring to people of the same ancestry or bloodline, its extent spreads also to relationships by marriage, although this relationship is often called “affinity.” For example, Leviticus 18:6-18 specifically condemns both types, covering relationships with parents, step-parents, and children, brothers- and sisters-in-law, siblings, uncles, aunts, nieces, and nephews, and grandparents or grandchildren. Saint Paul severely chastised the church in Corinth for tolerating a situation where “a man has his father’s wife, (1 Corinthians 5:1)” urging that they “purge the evil person (v. 13)” from their midst.

Laws concerning consanguinity, affinity, and incest weren’t originally established either by God or by man. The beginning generations of mankind following both Creation and the Flood by necessity had to marry close kin. Perhaps the genetic problems often seen in marriages of close consanguinity were not such a problem until later in human history, as our genetic code had increasing opportunity to mutate or deteriorate.

You don’t say where you live. This is important because society’s laws concerning cousin marriage vary throughout this land. During the 1800s, American lawyer and anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan apparently blamed his children’s various birth defects and deaths his consanguineous marriage and actively worked to extend prohibitions on blood marriages. While little scientific evidence supported his claims, his zeal moved a number of states to go beyond their previous norm — a norm usually based upon the Bible. Currently, some states only allow marriages between people as close as second cousins. Others permit first cousin marriage, while North Carolina bans “double first cousin” marriages, where the parents of the bride are each either brother or sister of the parents of the groom.

Regarding the Christian Church, God’s Law certainly covers a wide range of people forbidden to marry. However, neither the Old nor the New Testament has any prohibition of cousin marriages, leaving specifics open for individual churches’ interpretation. It’s quite possible, for example, that Abraham married a close relative. His father Terah “fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. (Genesis 11:26)” Later, “Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. (v. 29)” This rather convoluted sentence leads many Bible scholars to equate Sarai with Iscah, since Sarai can be a term of endearment meaning “my princess.”

We are certain that the subsequent patriarchs kept their marriages “all in the family.” Abraham told his servant, “[S]wear by the Lord ... that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites ... but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac. (Genesis 24:3-4)” The servant obliged, bringing back “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (v. 15)” to be Isaac’s bride.

Esau and Jacob tangled things even more. Abraham and Rebekah didn’t want their sons to marry Canaanite women. Esau, however, took two Hittites as wives (Genesis 26:34-35) before also taking “Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son [by Hagar], the sister of Nebaioth (28:9)” as his bride. Meanwhile, Jacob had already followed Isaac’s instructions: “[G]o to Paddan-aram to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father, and take as your wife from there one of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. (v. 2)” Of course, thanks to Laban’s trickery, Jacob ended up marrying two of his cousins, his beloved Rachel and her older sister Leah (see Genesis 29:1-30).

In America, first-cousin marriages are banned by the Orthodox Church, subject to diocesan approval in Roman Catholicism, and variously permitted or forbidden among other Christian bodies or individual congregations. Therefore, if you marry, deciding where to marry is essential as is your church affiliation. And even if both Church and state permit your marriage, you may still be facing familial resistance because their idea of what is right versus what is incestuous differs from the thoughts of God, government, and the two of you. Think long and hard about possible alienation from your already shared family. Talk it over with both your pastor and a lawyer who understands these laws in detail. They can help you make a final decision based not only on love of each other but also that for family. Perhaps you can also recruit them in helping you to persuade your families that what you desire isn’t against God’s Law nor even the law of the state where you marry.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: marriage | cousins | incest | consanguinity | affinity | state law | church | love | relationships | God | Bibles | Scripture | Old Testament | New Testament | God’s Word | family | church | Orthodox Church | Catholic Church | Protestant | Lutheran | confessional Lutheran | Lutheranism | Christian | Christianity | theology | counseling | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #534:2

Keeping Foolish Vows

2008-05-07T15:35:00.003-05:00

Q: A friend, frustrated when her boyfriend left her, swore that she would never have another boyfriend. Now a boy, also a Christian, is approaching her. She likes him but keeps thinking that what she promised in front of God is a serious vow and is afraid to break it. How can I help her? Do you know any Bible verses concerning a similar situation?

A: Your friend is correct: Any promise is serious — even if it’s not sworn to God or “on a stack of Bibles.” As James wrote, “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. (5:12).” While the Old Testament set standards for formal vows, Jesus specifically forbade swearing oaths under the New Covenant (cf. Matthew 5:33-37). Most Christians believe that this pertains especially to voluntary oaths and promises made between believers.

The all-time extreme example of keeping a foolish oath belongs to Jepthah. Judges 11:30-31 says, “Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever [or whoever] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it [him] up for a burnt offering.’” Living among the heathen likely skewed his understanding of God’s Word; he probably thought that the Lord would be as pleased with human sacrifice as were pagan deities such as Molech. Since he was well-off, he could have expected a household slave as the first one to come out to greet him.

Jephthah discovered his error when he returned home and saw not a household slave first coming to greet him. Instead, “His daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (v. 34)” Devastated, he said, “I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow. (v. 35)” He allowed her two months to go off with her friends and mourn her fate. Then “she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made. (v. 39)” Later, Herod similarly bound himself with a foolish promise that led up to the execution of John the Baptist (see Mark 6:21-29).

Your friend, you, I, and all others are much too casual with our plans and promises. As James elsewhere wrote, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” (4:15)” And aside from Jephthah. how often does anyone keep his word regardless of the consequences? Are we not all guilty of telling someone else that we’ll do something with or for them at a certain time and then find ourselves unable to keep that promise without going against another promise or obligation?

Yet just as much as God hates liars and oath breakers, even more does He delight in forgiving. He recognizes that while some swear oaths to spite Him, more of us make poor promises or swear unkeepable oaths out of ignorance, fear, or foolishness. For example, Peter three times lied and renounced Jesus. With the final lie, “he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know this man of whom you speak.’ (Mark 14:71)” However, Jesus forgave Peter, restored him into leadership among the apostles, and granted him years of faithful service before his death.

Throughout much of Christian history, the Church kept a distinction between deliberate denials of good vows and the inability to keep an oath that never should have been taken. As noted in Article XXVII of The Augsburg Confession, “All the canons show great lenience and fairness toward those who have made vows in their youth, as is the case with large numbers of priests and monks who entered their vocations out of ignorance when they were young.” The medieval Decretum of Gratian quite thoroughly compiles numerous sources advocating such leniency.

So what should your friend do? She should not stop at contrition (mere sorrow over a sin) — in so doing, Judas despaired and committed suicide. Instead, she needs true repentance — i.e., sorrow over sin, faith in forgiveness through Jesus Christ, and desire to amend sinful behavior — that she might be freed from the double guilt of swearing and then of breaking what became an untenable oath. Just as Jesus restored Peter, so also will God grant forgiveness and bring comfort to her.

Scripture quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version™, © 2001 by Crossway Bibles.

Send email to Ask the Pastor.

Walter Snyder is the pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Emma, Missouri and coauthor of the book What Do Lutherans Believe.

Technorati Tags: vow | vow | oath | oaths | foolish | promises | promise | swear | swearing | God | stack of Bibles | cross my heart | contrition | repentance | sorrow | forgiveness | grace | restoration | Lutheran | confessional Lutheran | Lutheranism | Christian | Christianity | theology | theology | counseling | Pastor Walter P. Snyder | Walter Snyder | Ask the Pastor

Newspaper column #534:1