Sunday, July 27, 2014
God is light and in Him there is no
darkness. Jesus is the light of the
world, a light the darkness cannot overcome.
The Gospel of John and First John both offer a binary faith. It is an either/or seeing. As a man, a dad, a Christ-follower – in all
of life, I can take the this-or-that as I strive to choose and speak as Jesus
would have me choose and speak. The
A-or-B, this or that process is one
way of seeing for a disciple of Jesus.
Firsy John chapter 2:22 says, “Who is
the liar, but the one that denies Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti-Christ.” A lot of confusion arises in Biblical reading
and Christian literature over that term, ‘anti-Christ.’ Christian fiction like the Left Behind series would have us
anticipating one specific future person who is the anti-Christ. Other
villains of history were bad, but until he appears, the anti-Christ has not yet
come, so the teaching goes. First John
actually teaches that the anti-Christ is anyone who denies that Jesus of
Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of God, and God in human flesh. Verse 18 says there are many
anti-Christs. It is a way of talking
about anyone who denies the divinity and necessity of Jesus. And of course 1st and 2nd
John are the only places in the Bible the term ‘anti-Christ’ is used.
That’s “A” – the liar, the one who
denies Jesus is an anti-Christ.
Then, “B” is seen in verse 29. “If you know that he is righteous you may be
sure that everyone who does right has been born of him.” Two ideas are asserted. First, Jesus is just or righteous. Second, people who work for justice or do the
right thing are born of Jesus. The word
for right, as in ‘do the right thing,’ also means ‘justice’ and could just as
easily be translated that way.
So we have “A”, the one who denies
Jesus is a liar and is an anti-Christ.
And we have “B”, the one who is righteous, that is who does justice, is
born of God through faith in Jesus. It
is this, or it is that. What a clean way
of visualizing Christian thought.
Unfortunately history shows it is
rarely that simple. In fact, the history
of the works associated with John in the New Testament reveal how cluttered
theological dialogue can be. The so
called Johanine literature is comprised of the Gospel of John, and 1st,
2nd, and 3rd John.
And many also include the book of Revelation. It was also written near Ephesus, where all
the other works are supposed to have been written. And, Revelation is the only book in the
collection whose author actually give his name - John. He does not claim to be one of the 12. He just claims to be John, a Christ-follower
in exile on the Island of Patmos.
The Gospel, the Epistles, and the
Revelation were written in different contexts, as responses to forces that
threatened the Christian community. A
major theme in the Gospel is the tension between Jesus and synagogue leaders
who reject the idea that He is the one sent by God. Throughout John, we read that Jesus was
opposed by “the Jews.” This does not
mean all Jews, though tragically, it
has been used that way in history. This
evil misrepresentation of the Gospel has been a tool of hate filled
anti-Semitism, something God vehemently opposes. When John was written, most Christ-followers
were Jewish and were persecuted by Jews who rejected him. The Gospel was the voice of a persecuted
minority.
In the Epistles, the opponents are not
synagogue Jews that oppose Jesus. The
opponents are fellow church members who believe in Christ but offer a different
interpretation of him, an interpretation that minimizes his earthly life and
ethical example. And, in the situation
of the book of Revelation, the opponents are Roman authorities who persecute
Christ-followers because they refuse to worship Caesar.
When we read ‘anti-Christ’ in 1st
and 2nd John, the only place we’ll find it, we need to realize that
those who wrote the term did not anticipate a future evil person who would try
to rule the world. If the writer of the
Gospel of John had used the term, he would have applied it to synagogue and
temple leaders that reject Jesus as the Messiah. In Revelation other terms are used, terms like
dragon and beast. IN that work, these
terms in refer to the Roman emperor. And
the elder of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John used the
term to refer to other Christians whose doctrine he opposed.
With the context in mind, do we still
find the this-or-that method of thinking theologically helpful in our reading
of 1st John?
In our situation, we don’t have another religious group
threatening our worship, so whatever our struggles are, they not those faced by
the author of the Gospel of John. We
don’t have a powerful government crucifying our preachers or throwing us to the
lions. We aren’t facing the situation in
which Revelation was written. We do
understand church splits, but HillSong is not going through that and even if we
were, I hope we wouldn’t be calling each other ‘anti-Christs,’ though I have
seen that sort of spite in other church splits I have experienced. What can we make of 1st John?
I hope recognizing context keeps us
humble in our theology and in our practice of Christian life within the community. We need to be patient with each other because
situations change, get muddled. Because
of our sins we can count messes being made.
In the future, messes will come and we will find ourselves waist-deep in
them. This is why 1st John
uses such harsh language for the opponents who are causing a church split.
God is even more dependable than
sin. We can count on human sin bringing
chaos, but we can also count on the love of God restoring order and calling us
into God’s embrace. This is why Jesus came
– to save the world from itself. We can
be sure God loves us and wants us to have joy.
This truth –that we can rely on God as we know Him in Jesus – helps the
binary thought make sense.
It is absolutely so: the one who
denies Jesus is a liar. That one is an
anti-Christ where ‘anti’ means against.
In that vein, Muslims who refer to Jesus as a prophet but not as the son
of God are against him and against our message that salvation is in him. I am not saying Muslims are worse sinners
than Christians and are bent on destroying the world. Maybe that is true of a few, but most Muslims
are just people like Christians, people who need God. But, if they deny the lordship of Jesus, then
they are against the message we preach.
Similarly those in Judaism who reject
Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, are against our proclamation that salvation
is in Him and Him alone. In this
respect, they are ‘anti,’ against the idea that Jesus is the Lord.
The “A”-or-“B” approach helps clarify
this. When a written work is called a
polemic, it means that work is an argument against an opposing doctrine. Works in the New Testament like 1st
John, 2nd Peter, and Jude, are polemics, arguments against false
statements about Jesus. These harshly
written pieces give us a sense of clarity. We can see why it is absolutely
necessary to know the truth about Jesus, speak that truth, and not allow any
wiggle room.
We cannot accept flaky ideas like the
wishful notion that “many paths lead to God,” or “all religions teach the same
thing,” or “religious truth is a private thing and we’ll all find out who was
right when we get to heaven.” All
religions do not teach the same thing. We
reject pluralism and universalist fluff in matters of theology and expressions
of faith. We insist that Jesus is Lord –
the Jesus we meet in the New Testament and in the Holy Spirit. This is true for all people whether they
acknowledge it or not. Jesus is Lord and
must be followed and worshipped.
The binary way of seeing gives clarity
even when we know our situation is vastly different than the numerous 1st
century environments in which Christianity was born. There was more than one context then and ours
is different than all that existed then.
The world in which we live is not like the world in which the Bible was
born. Yet, we are clear about Jesus and
what we need to believe about Him because the Bible, inspired by the Spirit,
transcends generations and continents and cultures.
The “this-or-that” viewpoint also tells us what is true about
us. “He has promised us eternal life” (1st
John 2:25).” And we are to abide in him
because “everyone who does what is right, [read who does justice as the prophet Micah says], is born of him” (2:29).
The sign that we are his is our
treatment of people. We do the right
thing. Doing the right thing does not
earn us salvation. God gives it. Our efforts at right-living are the signs
that we have received the salvation God gives.
The A-or-B point of view is only somewhat helpful in fully understanding
the New Testament but it is extremely important in our lives as Christ
followers.
Our birthright is eternal life. Jesus rose and we will rise. Death of the body is coming because the fall
has corrupted God’s world, but Jesus has overcome death. He rose and all who are in him will
rise. Death has been defeated. We will enter resurrection in bodies that
cannot die and will be with God forever.
Our birth responsibility is to live as
Jesus lived. We are to do the right
thing. No matter how hard the choice is,
no matter much easier other choices appear we are to work for justice, to do
right, and to obey God in all things.
When you or I say we are in
Christ, we are saying we have committed to live life on his terms. In matters of how we treat people whether it
is daily interactions or larger societal issues, we are guided by the same
compassionate love that God showed in sending Jesus for us.
Or, as 1st John 4:7 puts
it. “Beloved let us love one another
because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God.” We live with hope and joy because eternal
life is our birthright. We live in love
showing compassion to all who hurt as we work for justice because it is the
right thing to do. This is our birth
responsibility.
AMEN
No comments:
Post a Comment