Shaun Groves
It’s not “seeker sensitive” or “emergent.” It’s just good communication.
In high school a youth minister talked to a group of us about waiting until marriage to have sex. He used a line from the bible that said we Christians shouldn’t be “unequally yoked together” with non-Christians. (Whether that bit of the bible has anything to do with sex is another post.) After his speech we broke into smaller groups to discuss what we’d just heard. Our group leader asked what we thought it meant to be “yoked.”
Silence.
Then a friend of mine, an outgoing thespian who’d never been to church before this retreat we were on, broke through the awkward pause with a brilliant guess. He explained how human beings are like eggs, having a hard outer shell and a deeper unseen more substantive part too. This is the yolk, he elaborated, the part of us that no one gets to see very often. God, he reasoned, must not want us to open up and share the deepest secrets we have with just anyone. We should only trust other Christians, he concluded.
Brilliantly wrong.
The problem was this word “yoke” – not “yolk.” The youth minister, the group leader and I all assumed that word was a familiar one that didn’t need explanation. The word “yoke” here, we knew, referred to a device used to tie two oxen together. The picture of being unequally yoked is one of a large ox and a smaller ox trying to pull a load while tied together. They’d work best with an ox of their own size and abilities.
Last year I studied another piece of the bible in which Jesus says His “yoke” is easy. I assumed He wasn’t talking about eggs. I assumed He was talking about oxen again, about something that binds two animals together. Maybe Jesus was saying being bound to Him makes life easier.
Then I discovered that a yoke is what a rabbi in the first century (when Jesus said these words) called his interpretation of a passage of scripture. A yoke is an explanation of what a particular part of the scriptures means. When Jesus said His yoke was easy some Jewish scholars think Jesus was declaring He had an interpretation of scripture that wasn’t easy to follow, but easy to understand, compared to others’. He summed up his interpretation of every law and every word of every prophet easily: Love God with everything you have and are, and love people. Easy to understand. Difficult to do at times.
Now, talk about a yoke to a Jew living 2000 years ago, living in an agricultural community, understanding the lingo of the Jewish teachers called rabbis and there would be far less confusion wouldn’t there? He’d know when Jesus was talking livestock and when he was talking interpretation of scripture and when he just wanted some breakfast.
This is the paradox I’m in right now. On the one hand I’m told by the teacher in the New Testament named Paul that I don’t have to know anything more than I do already in order to love God and people the way Jesus did. On the other hand, I wrestle daily – DAILY! – with what this book called the bible means for us today by figuring out what it meant when it was written.
I find myself having to define words the original audience of the bible didn’t have to define. I don’t have to but…If I let modern American vocabulary and culture define the words and concepts of the bible for me I wind with a Jesus who says following him is easy, a “peace” that allows for war, a “salvation” that is only about forgiving my sin, a
kingdom of heaven” that is in the clouds, a “good news” that is told only after Jesus does on the cross, “joy” that is happiness, “evangelism” that is telling people Jesus died for them, a “repent” that is being sorry, “worship” that must be musical and a “church” that must be in a building. And I could end up worshipping a Jesus who doesn’t love God or people as well as the original did.
I’m thinking about all this today because the guest preacher yesterday spent forty-five minutes “teaching” us and I don’t know what he said. But he sure sounded smart.
Mark says:
There is much from the Bible that the everyman can understand. But there are things like that that need study to fully understand.
I never knew that before, and that’s with two years of Bible college under my belt.
Thanks for sharing.
Shaun Groves says:
I guess what I’m realizing though, Mark, is that the “everyman” CAN understand and discover these things. It takes some time and all of us sharing what we learn with each other but it doesn’t take tremendous smarts and definitely doesn’t take a degree in anything special.
Grovesfan says:
Thanks for sharing. Christ was so willing to speak to people in a language they could understand and relate to. If we practiced that more, we’d reach more people too.
Beth
Rethinking "Church" says:
I find it interesting in our culture how much we have to define our vocabulary.
I mean, do we really have to define what “is” means?
But I think the “church” has so wrapped itself up with teaching the “deeper” things of Christianity that we’ve overlooked the simplicity of the Gospel. Hence 45 minutes of sounding smart but not really communicating anything worth tuning into.
(sorry for the rockstar quote abuse)
MamasBoy says:
“Then I discovered that a yoke is what a rabbi in the first century (when Jesus said these words) called his interpretation of a passage of scripture. A yoke is an explanation of what a particular part of the scriptures means.”
You’ve made a couple very intrigue statements about 1st century Jewish rabbinical teachings over the past few months (and probably more which I’ve missed). Is there a book that you get these from? If so, it sounds like a good read. Pretty please, let us in on your source.
——————-
My two cents regarding the paradox. Jesus didn’t mean for the average believer to decide doctrine, but he did mean for it to be accessible. There are passages of Scripture that are very difficult to understand. Those who are ignorant won’t come up with the right interpretation (I Peter 3:16). If one is going to interpret the Bible properly, ignorance doesn’t cut it.
On the other hand, while study is great and highly recommended, Jesus didn’t intend for our main business to be about figuring the Scriptures out, but about loving God and our neighbor. To that end, he gave us a Church to help lead us and answer questions that would otherwise divide the church. This is as necessary today as in the 1st century, when the apostles and elders met to decide on whether the gentiles would need to be circumcised or as in the 4th century when the bishops met to decide on the Arian heresy which stated that Jesus was neither coeternal nor coequal with the Father.
Jesus also intended that what was decided properly in one generation would be binding on the next, so that we don’t have to constantly reinvent the wheel and rehash the debates on the canonicity of James and Revelation that took place in the 4th century. Back in the second century, lots of people left those books out and we don’t think any less of them for it. Today, if somebody leaves them out, we rightly think they are acting pridefully and endangering their faith.
I find this especially helpful when faced with difficult contemporary problems like divorce and remarriage, women’s ordination, gay marriage, abortion, fetal stem cell research and the canonical status of NT books like Revelation or the gnostic gospels. It is much easier to focus on loving people when there is a sure authority one can go to to find solid reasons and answers to questions that would take decades to properly research from scratch (assuming any single person could be an expert in all the pressing questions of the day).
Of course, this world is full of people with false confidence. To find evidence of this, look no further than the debates regarding the canon or women’s ordination or some other topic. There are people brimming with confidence on either side with mutually exclusive views. It is important to balance confidence with humility, while at the same time avoiding the trap of relativism.
MB
Shaun Groves says:
You just used the word “gospel.” Not attacking but definitely using your comment to make a point. Please forgive me for putting you on the spot, but define the word “gospel” please.
I hear you saying we’ve concerned ourselves too much with the deeper things of Christianity (it seems as if definitions of words fall into this “deeper” category in your mind) tot he point that we’ve forgotten how simple the “gospel” is. Define this simple thing called the “gospel” for us.
Shaun Groves says:
<i>Jesus also intended that what was decided properly in one generation would be binding on the next, so that we don’t have to constantly reinvent the wheel and rehash the debates on the canonicity of James and Revelation that took place in the 4th century.,/i>
OK, I get this in theory. In practice even…to a point. But let’s look at the words I’ve brought up. Let’s look just at “saved.”
My kids went to vacation bible school at a local Baptist church last week. They were told they could be “saved” by the ABC method. That’s what they called it: the ABC method.
A=Admit you’re a sinner.
B=Believe Christ died for you.
C=Confess Jesus is Lord
OK. You’re six. You know you do bad stuff so you’re told you’re a sinner. You believe Jesus died if the teacher told you He did. You pray a prayer after the teacher telling Jesus He’s Lord.
BAM! You’re saved. You get counted as a conversion. The number of kids converted gets told to the church the following Sunday morning. Everyone claps. Everyone gets excited and volunteers to work VBS next year.
BUT. Are you saved?
Better question. Can you find an example of someone being “saved” in three easy steps?
What about Paul? Do we see A, B and C happening in his life? How about the thief on the cross next to Jesus? Any of the disciples? If this is the way to be “saved” (if we even know what “saved” means in the bible) then why don’t we see it happening more often? Why doesn’t Jesus preach this?
So, yes the history of the church, the definitions passed down, help us. But they get screwed up. IN this case the great revivals in this country, the crusades in stadiums, tent meetings etc – these things, at their peek in the fifties, redefined and narrowed our definition of the word “saved.” We exchanged biblical salvation which is a salvation of all things for a concept of salvation which is intensely and solely personal. “Personal Savior.” And of course He is that, but He’s more than that. Belief became a mental agreement to propositions about God and not a realignment of the entire self and life to the will of God – an allegiance swap, if you will.
The definitions of some very key words have been slowly changed over time until we are not as in line with the teachings of Jesus as I once thought we were. Church history is made by men. And men, all men, make mistakes. We have a responsibility don’t we to be archeologists of our faith and reclaim parts of our faith buried under layers of culture and the passage of time?
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
I’ll respond to you if you answer my first non-controversial question about books you’ve read that talk about Jesus teaching in the context of 1st century rabbinical teaching. J
In general, I don’t mind being put on the spot, as long as folks are willing to hear me out without prejudging what I’m going to say. I think you are capable of that. Also, I have an MS in engineering degree not a T. Div. degree, and I still have lots to learn, so please don’t automatically assume that I speak for the Pope or anybody other than me. Last disclaimer, I sometimes state things clumsily, so if you get offended or think I’m being rude, please, ask for clarification.
Moving on to the response: You said I “used the word “gospel.”“ and then asked me to “Define this simple thing called the “gospel” for us.”
First of all, I wasn’t aware that your original post was specifically about the gospel. Honestly, I went back and looked for that term to see what obvious thing I missed. I didn’t find it. Now I could have missed it a second time. If not then you probably had that in mind when you were writing your post, and it is probably obvious to most people. However, I missed it. Please, forgive me.
I was responding most specifically to the paragraph on Biblican interpretation and Paul saying we already know enough to “love God and people the way Jesus did.”
Specifically, I was focussing on this paragraph: “This is the paradox I’m in right now. On the one hand I’m told by the teacher in the New Testament named Paul that I don’t have to know anything more than I do already in order to love God and people the way Jesus did. On the other hand, I wrestle daily – DAILY! – with what this book called the bible means for us today by figuring out what it meant when it was written.“
Sheesh. That’s a lot of words and I haven’t even answered your question. Moving on.
———————————————————————————————————
So, defining the gospel. Big task. The work of genius. I hope I don’t come across as flippant, but I do think there is a lot that is packed into that question, much more than I can tackle in the space available. I’m sure many will skip even this brief summary due to a lack of time on their break from work/family life. The gospel is at once simple enough for a child to understand and deep enough for the greatest theological mind to study for his or her entire life and never fully comprehend.
I think most Christians know the gospel literally means, “good news,” but that obviously begs the question. What is the good news. At this point, there are several definitions of gospel, all of which are true.
In common usage, A gospel is a written record of the teachings of Jesus. Clement and Iranaeus as early as the 100’s referred to the four “gospels” as the Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc. so we can accurately say that the first four books of the Bible are gospels.
However, even before the gospels were written, the good news was being spread, so we know that the word has an even more ancient definition. For this, we must look to the scriptures and there are a couple of ways to approach this. First, from the gospels, we hear that the disciples are to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom of God. But what is this kingdom of God? This is a nuanced question since it is described variously at different points in the gospels. Indeed some of the explanations are not contained in the gospels themselves or even in the New Testament, but are prefigurede in the Old Testament.
The word gospel can also mean rule, and combining it with the phrase “gospel of the kingdom of God” some have described it as the rule of God in men’s hearts or alternately the sway of grace in men’s hearts.
As the gospels were being written, Paul was also writing his epistles and he puts a slightly different spin on the term gospel. In I Corinthians 15 Paul exhorts the people to “hold fast to the gospel” “by which” they “were saved.” He then goes on to recapitulate what his message to them had been from the first, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4: that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5: and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…”
Combining those two, I would say that one summary of the gospel would be thus:
That Jesus came to earth to bring the sway of grace and the rule of God in the hearts of mankind. That Jesus did this first and foremost by his death on the cross for our sins and by his resurrection. That Jesus established his kingdom also by establishing his church which he commisioned to be his body in this world and to go out into all the world and proclaim this good news, of whom the apostles are of note as having received special authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins and also to retain sins.
Does this cover everything, though? By no means!!! For what is sin and why do we need to be saved from it? Are there any consequences if we don’t keep believe and hold fast as Paul spoke of in I Cor 15:1-2 and following? If Jesus established a kingdom, then he must be a king. Do all of his subjects have the same jobs or authority or might some have different jobs/authority within his body? If Jesus gave the keys of this kingdom to Peter and to Peter only, does that have any significance? Is there any prefiguring of the keys of the kingdom in the Old Testament? I’m glad you asked. Yes, there is. The keys of the kingdom are a reference to the steward of the house of David, (similary to a viceroy or prime minister) in the Davidic kingdom. The keys symbolized the authority of the king and were kept by the person who would exercise that authority in the absence of the king. Isaiah describes this authority and office when he foretells of the fall of an unfaithful steward and the rise of another to take his office (which did not collapse due to the unfaithfulness of the former).
Isaiah 22: 19-25
[19] “I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
[24] And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
[25] In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
I hope I have answered your question sufficiently. I have tried to show that the gospel is at once simple and at once deep. I have also tried to show various definitions of gospel from the early church and the Scriptures.
Once again, forgive me for missing the point of your first post. I really thought you were talking about interpreting Scripture and the study that takes that reliable interpretation relies on contrasted with Paul’s exhortations to go out there and love people with what we already know.
MB
Shaun Groves says:
MB, I haven’t read your entire answer yet, because it’s 1AM. It’s along one and I”m sure worth my reading. I will read it all. Looking forward to it after some sleep.
Before I go to bed, just to clarify, you seem a bit confused about why I asked you to define “gospel.” It’s only because in your comment here you called the gospel simple. Simple as in, I assumed, easy to understand and talk about, define even. Then why the long comment to try to define it?
Again, I haven’t read your comment so maybe you define “gospel” in one sentence and then move on to other things. We’ll see.
I did see that your question about books again. I can name a few but not a ton at the moment.
*Jewish New Testament Commentary
*Parables by Brad H. Young
*Jesus the Jewish Theologian
And then there’s a little of the Jewish background of Christianity, not much, in that book Static I recently blogged about.
Related to all this but not about Judaism necessarily: The Bible As It Was
Hope that helps.
Heading to bed.
MamasBoy says:
Oh, boy. You posted while I was composing my response. Parallel conversations between two people can be confusing, but I’ll do my best to keep them straight. I’ve also used up almost all my allotted time so we’ll see how far I get with the next.
S: “What about Paul? Do we see A, B and C happening in his life? How about the thief on the cross next to Jesus? Any of the disciples? If this is the way to be “saved” (if we even know what “saved” means in the bible) then why don’t we see it happening more often? Why doesn’t Jesus preach this?”
MB: Well, honestly, I’m not sure Jesus didn’t explain things in more detail to the apostles than what is recorded in Scripture. For one thing, the gospel of John itself tells us that it records only a small fraction of his teaching. Much of Jesus’ teaching was left to be transmitted orally or not at all. Paul exhorts people to obey not just what he writes, but what he says.
Also, the summary you give of being saved is very Protestant, finds its particular expression in 20th century and is based on specifically Protestant theology. Without going into the once saved/always saved controversy, the Acts of the apostles gives a much messier description of the process of being saved, almost randomly matching the elements of faith, repentance and baptism. At least it strikes me as random, since I can’t see a good reason to leave out one or the other thing in any particular passage. Anyways, I think you knew I would agree with this, which is why you likely chose the particular example.
S: “The definitions of some very key words have been slowly changed over time until we are not as in line with the teachings of Jesus as I once thought we were. Church history is made by men. And men, all men, make mistakes. We have a responsibility don’t we to be archeologists of our faith and reclaim parts of our faith buried under layers of culture and the passage of time?”
MB: Here we get to the crux and I think we actually have more to agree on here than might appear at first glance. Yes, we absolutely have the responsibility to reclaim the parts of our faith that are buried under layers of culture and the passage of time. I think where we might differ is regarding what parts have been buried. I for one, have a deep gratitude for the renewal in Biblical scholarship that numerous Protestant theologians, archaeologists and historians have spurred along in the last century. We owe a great deal to those who have advanced this area, both the liberal and conservative including Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.
At the same time, I don’t completely agree with the idea that church history is made by men. end of story. I honestly doubt if you do either. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we both agree that God is the author of history. To quote Seth Ward who was quoting Tolkien a few days back, “The story of Christ was the True Myth, a myth that works in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened- a myth that existed in the realm of fact as well as in the realm of truth. In the same way that men unraveled the truth through the weaving of story, God revealed the Truth through the weaving of history.” So, if we both agree that God is ultimately the author of history, then we need to wrestle with when and how he intervenes in history.
That’s the amazing thing about Scripture. God used screwed up, fallible human beings to leave us with a reliable means of knowing His Truth with a capital T. That’s also the amazing thing about His Church through the functioning of the magisterium. God uses screwed up, fallible human beings to give us a true and reliable means of knowing his Truth. In fact, if people didn’t believe this at some level, they wouldn’t be able to trust the creeds or even the Scriptures, because the creeds and the canon were laid out by fallible men long after the fallible apostles penned their final words.
In summary, the infallibility of fallible men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in specific circumstances is something we all agree on. Where we may differ is the extent of those circumstances (i.e., the who, what, when, where and why we trust people to reliable communicate God’s message). That’s why Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have books in their Old Testaments that Protestants don’t have in theirs, and partly as a result why Catholics and Orthodox believe praying for the dead is beneficial while Protestants shun the practice.
MB
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
Thanks so much for the book recommendations!!!! First century Jewish history has always fascinated me.
Also, thanks for the clarification on the your question putting me, “on the spot.” Looking back at my original comment, I referred to the gnostic gospels regarding NT canonical controversies. That was the only specific reference I could find to the term gospel. I don’t recall saying it was simple. Were you perhaps mixing me up with the guy who posted just prior to me? I had thought from the last paragraph that the comment was directed at me? Was I thinking you were responding to me when you were really responding to somebody else? Did I? Did I? Did I? Do we disagree that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be properly referred to as gospels. Do we agree that the same term can be applied (though in an obviously misappropriated way) to the gnostic gospels?
Of course,I don’t expect you to answer all of those questions, I just wanted to let you in on how confused I am. Whatever the case, I suspect it will lead to some good discussion.
Thanks again for the book recommendations.
MB
euphrony says:
It’s so true that we have developed a lingo that we, as Christians, know well but which separates us from the world that doesn’t know it. We can even differentiate between different faiths by their lingo – like accents.
Paradox is the only way we can talk about God and His message to us. Paul talks repeatedly about the mystery of God and His relationship with us; at the same time, he reiterates Jesus simplicity of righteous living. Jesus “yoke” was simply love God, love your neighbor. Paul returned to this by saying let no debt remain outstanding except the debt of love, which is the fulfillment of the law. How does that involve angels, the Spirit, knowing the mind of Christ, or a host of other things? Well, that’s the mystery we debate for millennia. But still, it simply comes down to living in love. Both aspects of our lives, one most basic and accessible by anyone and one the object of a lifetime of devotion. Paradox indeed.
As an aside, speaking of terminology, I’ve come to understand “gospel” to mean more or less “story of”. I understand there is a gospel of Julius Caesar, along with many other prominent figures. It is a story of their lives, in the 1st century lingo. Today, gospel is synonymous with the Christian message.
Good post, Shaun.
(Hey, MB, what is your degree in? I have an MS in Chemical Engineering, though I eschew pocket protectors. Just curious.)
Shaun Groves says:
Yes, MB, I thought I posed the question to Rethinking Church but when you jumped in and answered I assumed you thought the same as he did – the gospel is “simple” – and since RC didn’t answer I just started discussing the issue with you. Confusing eh? SOrry about that.
More later.
MamasBoy says:
Euphrony,
Since you ask, mechanical engineering with a specialization in vibration and structural dynamics.
MB
euphrony says:
MB,
I could have used your help a couple of weeks ago. I’m a fluids man, and I had some people asking me about water hammer and vibration in pipes, to help with the building of a very large ship in Korea. Now, they being one of the largest, richest multinational companies (and being the ones who decided to build the ship in the first place), I would have thought that had these answers already. It took me most of three days to first decide what they really wanted and then go back over stuff I haven’t looked at in more than a decade to answer their questions.
Sorry, Shaun, for the technical turn this wonder post has taken. No more technobabble from me here.
Best engineering Colleges in mumbai says:
thanks for sharing.
Yeni Diziler says:
Thanks for sharing. Christ was so willing to speak to people in a language they could understand and relate to.