Gentle God

Here is a great blog post that one of my fellow classmates posted recently...please read, it will be worth you time.

http://echoesandmemory.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/gentle-god/

Why Work?

If you just answered..."To make as much money as possible, of course!" I would like to suggest thinking of the activity of work a little differently...and I will start by defining the underlining problem with thinking of work as something secular or separate from worshiping or glorifying God.

Dualism: the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil or the belief that a human being embodies two parts, as body and soul.

The Church had its first battle with dualism when the heresy of Gnosticism threatened the truth laid out in the Bible not long after the death of Christ. This way of thought has managed to penetrate the minds of Christians, especially in the west, and manifests itself in several ways as a radical discontinuity between Creator and creature, spirit and matter, religion and nature, religion and economy, worship and work, body and soul, and so on. This dualism is the most destructive disease that afflicts us. For now I will focus on the separation that has been made between work and worship.

Personally, I have had a dualistic mindset and am just now learning to change my worldview concerning these things. Over the weekend I read an amazing essay by Dorothy Sayers titled, Why Work? This essay addresses how for the majority, we have disconnected work from worship and work from pleasure. Sayers calls for a revolution in our whole attitude to work. She suggests that work should not be primarily looked upon as just a necessary drudgery to be undergone for the purpose of making money, but as a way of life in which the nature of man should find its proper exercise and delight and so fulfill itself to the glory of God. In this way work, which takes up the majority of a person's life, takes on a deeper meaning and purpose as it should. When we even hear the word work we tend to cringe. Sayers writes, "that it should, in fact, be thought of as creative activity undertaken for the love of the work itself; and that man, made in God's image, should make things, as God makes them, for the sake of doing well a thing that is well worth doing."

We should measure work not by the money it brings to the producer, but by the worth of the thing that is made. When work is reduced to a mere means of making money, although this is an obvious gain from work, one can find themselves becoming enslaved by work. Work then becomes a chore and a burden, something that is hated and despised. It is only when work has to be looked on as a means to gain that it becomes hateful; for then, instead of a friend, it becomes an enemy from whom tolls and contributions have to be extracted. What most of us demand from society is that we should always get out of it a little more than the value of the labor we give to it. By this process, we persuade ourselves that society is always in our debt...a conviction that not only piles up actual financial burdens, but leaves us with a grudge against society.

The second consequence of looking at work apart from worship is that at the present time we have no clear grasp of the principle that every man should do the work for which he is fitted by nature. The employer is obsessed by the notion  that he must find cheap labor, and the worker by the notion that the best paid job is the job for him. Only feebly do we ever attempt to tackle the problem from the other end, and inquire: What type of worker is suited to this type of work? People engaged in education see clearly that this is the right end to start from; but they are frustrated by economic pressure, and by the failure of parents on the one hand and employers on the other to grasp the fundamental importance of this approach.

A third consequence is that, if we really believed this proposition and arranged our work and our standard of values accordingly, we should no longer think of work as something that we hastened to get through in order to enjoy our leisure; we should look on our leisure as the period of changed rhythm that refreshed us for the delightful purpose of getting on with our work, that is if you value enjoying what you do. When one is engaged in a work that he or she loves and enjoys instead of how much it pays, then work becomes a pleasure and a joy. What do you love to do?

In nothing has the Church so lost her hold on reality as in her failure to understand and respect the secular vocation. She has allowed work and religion to become separate department, and is astonished to find that, as a result, the secular work of the world is turned to purely selfish and destructive ends, and that the greater part of the world's intelligent workers have become irreligious, or at least, uninterested in religion. All that God made was declared good and Christians should be able to do the same as they engage in the creative process of working. Every maker and worker is called to serve God in his profession or trade not outside it. How does one serve God while working? By doing well whatever it is that person is doing, and if it is enjoyable and a pleasure to do this will be done with ease because it is done with passion and perseverance. Work then becomes an expression of ourselves and not just a tiring burden in which we have no interest. When work becomes separated from worship then a person will end up spending most of their lives laboring poorly, not doing their best and thus not fulfilling the purpose for what they were naturally created to do. Bottom line...do what you love and take joy in your work!

Worship versus Magic: In Jesus' name!

Often, especially in the Charismatic and pentecostal circles, worship is confused with magic. By magic, we do do not mean slight-of-hand or baffling tricks as performed by Houdini, but rather an attempt to manipulate a deity or spirit and its power through incantation or invocation of the spirit's name. Note that the name of God was hallowed, and great care was taken lest one presume to use the Name apart from the will of God (John 15:43). To use God's name without a submissive relationship to his will could be disastrous (Acts 8:9-24; 19:13-20). The attitude of worship acknowledges and submits to the transcendent power of God, his will and program. Magic, however has an acquisitive attitude which tries to manipulate or control the power and the deity from which it comes. Magic may look like worship, and worship may be misunderstood for magic, but they have different presuppositions. Though Simon the magician was baptized, and though he saw the miraculous power of God at the hands of the Apostles, he mistook the salvation event at Samaria as an opportunity for power. Wishing to buy the power, he offered them money saying, "Give me also this power, that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:19). Instead of power he received Peter's stern curse and rebuke.

In Ephesus the seven sons of Sceva presumed that Paul was casting out devils by a new magical name, the mane of the Lord Jesus. So they tried their new found power-word in an exorcism, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims" (Acts 19:13). The evil spirit corrected their faulty assumption in its response, "Jesus I know, Paul I know; but who are you?" (19:15) To speak in the name of Jesus one must be in a submissive, obedient relationship with the Lord Jesus which they did not have! The words of Jesus himself give clarity of true values: "Do not rejoice at this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:20).

Yes, there is power in the worship and service of God, but God remains the Lord of power. Do we worship the person of God or the power? As the Bride of Christ, we love the Bridegroom, not his money or clout. Imagine if the bride married just to eat the wedding cake or to get the groom's credit card. Because God is a God of power, power is available in his worship, and the temptation is always there to reduce worship and prayer to the mere exercise of acquisition of power. This is magic.

Magic is a manipulation of spirit or divinity to make it do what one wants. This is forbidden to Christians; we must always fearfully respect the name of Jesus. In all of our exercise of faith, we must submit to the sovereignty of God: he will do what he thinks best regardless of our best attempts and formulas to get him to act. God is not waiting on us to do a certain thing so that he can finally move and act but he does call us to participate with him in prayer and action because he desires a relationship.

Source: A Pendulum Swing between Prosperity and Suffering: What is the Role of Faith? (Essay) By: Dr. James Shelton

Does God exist?

 Here is a great article I found defending the existence of God, check it out:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/269

The Blood of Grapes: A quick case against abstinence

Wine was an important drink in the ancient world, and it figures significantly in the imagery of Jesus' death as well as his parables. Wine was consumed at daily meals (Gen. 14:18; Lk. 7:33-34). It was customary in Greek, Roman, Jewish and early Christian cultures to mix wine, usually with water. Wine mixed with water acted as a purifier and made the water safe to drink. Jesus appropriated wine as an element of the Lord's Supper and it symbolized his blood poured out as the blood of the pascal lamb slaughtered for the redemption of humankind. Wine was the table drink used in fellowship meals to affirm Jesus' banquet. It was also usually associated with feasting and celebration. In Hebrew, the word for feasting or banquet derives from the word for drinking. A great feast celebrated in the presence of God is common to the prophetic and apocalyptic imagery of later Judaism and anticipates the messianic heavenly banquet mentioned in Jesus' teaching. Wine was just a natural element in such feasts.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament view wine drinking favorably. Abundant wine was considered a sign of blessing and prosperity from God (Ps. 104:15) as was a season of good wine production. Wine was also considered a source of joy and one of the good things created for people. Conversely the lack of wine was a symbol of judgment and calamity (Deut. 28:30). In the Judeo-Christian tradition, complete abstinence from drinking was not the norm but the exception for reasons of strict religious purity. Daniel and his friends abstained from the king's wine, probably because it was somehow involved in the pagan cult and drinking it would be in violation of Jewish dietary laws (Dan. 1:8-16).

Jesus upheld the popular attitude toward wine. He drank wine and permitted its use in festivities like the wedding of Cana. So, the case for abstinence cannot be built from what the NT says of wine. Abstinence was not an issue in the early church, and there is no direct prohibition of the use of wine in the NT. However, as in the OT, drunkenness and excessive use of wine (which leads to addiction) is forbidden. Moderation is the watchword. The use of wine is dependent upon the conscience and the sensitivities of others. It is not to be indulged in if it will lead others to drink against the conscience.

A Cultural look at the Birth of Jesus

Luke 2


2:3 And everyone went to his own town to register

During this time there were only about 3 tribes left of Israel, the others had been scattered so much around the world that they no longer really existed together. One of these three tribes was the tribe of David. The decree for everyone to go to city of their ancestors was probably not a very good strategy to take a census. Joseph and Mary were probably more than happy to leave Nazareth and go to Bethlehem since such an odd occurence had taken place with Mary...looking as though she had committed adultery. So, this huge caravan of people were heading to Bethlehem...and this was a problem because if anyone has ever seen Bethlehem they know that its just a little bitty town built on the side of a steep hill. More people were coming to the town to be registered than the town could hold.

2:6-7 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

While they were there...Joseph and Mary had been in Bethlehem for a little while before she gave birth, contrary to the usual story where Mary is almost about to give birth while they are looking for somewhere to stay. She gave birth to her firstborn....this is evidence that Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters. It is said that he was the first of about 6 others. There was no room for them in THE inn. This indicates that there was only one inn in the little town of Bethlehem and because there were so many people coming to the town to be registered for the census, it was of course packed. So, people would stay in the places for the animals, which were usually dug out of the hillside like a little cave. Before someone would stay in a place like this, they would run the animals out...they wouldn't stay with the animals! Mary placed Jesus in a manger...an animal trough, probably after laying down some fresh straw in the trough.

2:8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.

This is probably the most obvious indication that Jesus was not born in December, but rather sometime in the spring. The only time the shepherds would actually live out in the fields were when the lambs were lambing or having their young, which would be in the spring time. If anyone knows anything about lambs giving birth then they will tell you that they need a little help unlike some animals. This is the reason that the shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks and living in the fields; to help the lambs give birth if they began to have a great struggle. Another good indication that Jesus was not born in December is the fact that the census was called. Anyone in their right mind would not call a census and have people relocate to the land of their ancestors during the harsh winter. The reason that we celebrate Jesus' birthday in December is the fact that pagans used to also have a celebration during the spring time where they would worship the sun. So, the church decided (not sure exactly when) that they did not want to be associated with this pagan holiday and look like they were doing the same and made the celebration of Jesus' birth to be in December. So there you have it.

The Gift of Life: A look at the concept of the afterlife in the Old Testament (research paper)

DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE IN THE OLD TESTEMENT

Being a Christian that lives today, now having the New Testament and the Good News that it proclaims, how should we view the Old Testament concept death and the afterlife? Ancient Israel had little concept of a life after death or eternity spent with God. They just accepted that they did not know what happened after death, but it is apparent they believed one ceased to live and went to the grave or “Sheol.” The issue of death and the afterlife in the Old Testament is complex and more emphasis was given to life in the here and now. Death was viewed as a shadowy existence and the idea of a resurrection, found in Daniel, is commonly viewed among scholars as a late innovation that was influenced by foreign influences. Others believe that the concept was not adapted from foreign influences but rather has its roots in earlier Old Testament faith. It is not uncommon to hear some Christians question how the Israelites could believed in God since they had no idea of a future life. Roland Murphy in his book, The Gift of the Psalms, says, “This kind of reaction reveals how much Christians need to integrate the OT understanding of God and of life, if they would appreciate what the NT offers them. Belief means accepting God on God’s terms, as they are revealed.”
Concept of Death
Hebrew literature does not hide a sense of death’s power nor does it separate death from life as though it did not exist. Death is accepted and seen as the normal end of life. A good death is portrayed when an individual dies with sufficient offspring and at an old age. When it comes to asking the question of the origin of death, there seems to be little concern as well. The questioning for Israel focused more on how to understand the invasion of death into life. In contrast to the surrounding nation’s polytheistic view of life and death, this invasion was not articulated through speaking of divine powers which were threatening Yahweh and with whom battle must be done (ABD, “Death,” 2:109). Yahweh was seen as the ultimate source of life and death. In the Israelites mind, it was not possible to place the blame on competing divine forces. Although the Israelites did not have this polytheistic view, they certainly used the images from Canaanite mythology to represent Yahweh’s power over chaos and death. A great example of this imagery can be found in the book of Job when God is seen as in control of leviathan (Job 41). Yahweh was known to give or take away life (2 Kings 20:1-11). Life was dependent upon Yahweh whether one looked at this from an individual or communal perspective. Life in the here and now was of far more concern to the Israelites. The most prominent theme for Israel when talking about life and death was that life provided an opportunity for the individual and community to praise Yahweh. Praise of God was the sign of life. The inability to praise was a signal of death, even in life. The Hebrew Bible is abounding with the idea that death consists of silence and that the major characteristic of life is to praise Yahweh (ABD, “Death,” 2:109). The images of the underworld, or Sheol, as the space apart from Yahweh, assisted in the depiction of life. Death appears as a parallel to Sheol whether it is metaphorically speaking of death in the present life or death at the end of the physical life.
The attitude towards Death in the Old Testament can be seen as viewed with fear, anger and hostility. The most beautifully crafted text on the fear of death can be found in Ecclesiastics. Qoheleth seems to be very concerned with his own death. Some view his writing as a deep sense of fear brought before this reality of death. Others argue that although he may fear death, he is just simply expressing acceptance of his inevitable fate. However, the dominate attitudes towards death in the wisdom literature are anger and hostility as found in Psalm 6 and 102. Proverbs presents another view of life and death and relates them both to wisdom. The possession of wisdom is identified with life. When wisdom gives her speech in Proverbs 8 she says, “For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the Lord, but whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death” (Prov. 8:35-36). Compared to Ecclesiastics, death in Proverbs is portrayed not to be feared because it is understood as a natural part of existence. Dying is understood as a negative way of living. It is a mode of living against the way of life as seen in the depiction and warning of the son not to get entangled with the “strange woman” or “wayward wife” (Prov. 2:19). Although the thought of death sometimes produced feelings of fear and anger, there were conditions when it was seen as an acceptable occurrence. First, death had to come at the end of a long life (Job 42:17). Second, the deceased had to leave behind descendants. Finally, funeral rites and the proper burial of the corpse had to be strictly observed (ABD, “Resurrection,” 5:683).

Sheol

The Old Testament books of wisdom literature reflect, for the most part, the standard Israelite perspective that there is no meaningful existence beyond death. However, there are a few passages that give the hope in some form of continued communion with God, which is later developed in the rest of the Old Testament in books such as Daniel and Isaiah. The traditional Israelite view is that death leads to a shadowy, insubstantial existence in the underworld called Sheol (ABD, “Dead, Abode of the,” 2:102).
There are many passages throughout the wisdom literature that reflect the idea of Sheol such as, “In death there is no memory of you; in Sheol who will praise you?” (Ps 6:5). Sheol is found to be the most common word used n the Hebrew Bible to refer to the abode of the dead, occurring approximately 66 times. Thirty-four times Sheol refers to human destiny, twenty-five it is linked directly with the fate of the ungodly. In seven passages the righteous contemplate descent into Sheol, though these are generally in times of crisis. This term is also used in the New Testament several times as the word Hades, most commonly translated to Sheol in the LXX. Hades shares many of the physical characteristics of Sheol and can be understood as the underworld. Sheol is typically depicted as a place to which one “goes down” and represent the lowest place imaginable. This word is often used in contrast with the highest heavens as found in Job 11:8.
The concept of Sheol is much like the description of the underworld found in Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, but in comparison, few descriptive details have been found of Sheol (ABD, “Dead, Abode of the,” 2:102). The gates of Sheol are mentioned several times n the Hebrew Bible; one example being Job 38:17. This can be compared with the gates and gatekeepers found in the Egyptian and Mesopotamian conceptions of the netherworld. Bars and gates have to do with the Israelite view of the imprisoning power of Sheol and its impassable nature that prevents escape. Sheol, like Death, is described in the Hebrew Bible as having an insatiable appetite as seen in Prov. 27:20. This view is very closely related with the Canaanite’s deity Mot, who is associated with the underworld and also has a great appetite (ABD, “Dead, Abode of the,” 2:102). Later in the Old Testament, Isaiah plays on this imagery and turns the tables by having Yahweh swallow up Death forever. The term Sheol in the Wisdom literature was understood by the Jews as a place for the wicked or ungodly. It was also associated as a place where those that die an early death would find themselves. However, there are two passages which seem to point to Sheol as a universal destiny: Psalm 89:48 and Ecclesiastes 9:10. Sheol is further characterized as a place where there is no reward, and no knowledge or wisdom (Eccl. 9:10); and from which there is no return (Job 7:9; cf. 2 Sam. 12:23; Isa. 26:13–14). As such, Sheol is viewed as unwelcome and threatening. It does not offer hope for life after death or a basis for continued fellowship with God; and it is easy to see why an alternative view of the destination of the dead, especially of faithful Jewish martyrs, was considered desirable in later Old Testament times.
When reading through the Old Testament, one could easily assume that Sheol was the place where all the dead, both righteous (Jacob and Samuel being examples) and ungodly, eventually reside. For Ecclesiastics, stating that all human beings go to Sheol can be seen as a part of the overall tone of the book with an over exaggeration on the meaninglessness of human existence. On the other hand, there are other passages that suggest Sheol as the place for the wicked only. The latter view is most commonly used throughout the wisdom literature and the rest of the Old Testament. Thus, one can conclude that there is no evidence for the idea that Sheol is the permanent resting place for the righteous or all humanity. If it was in fact the destiny of all humanity, there would seem to be no point in largely cosigning Sheol as a place for the wicked and those under the judgment of God. Sheol is also often associated with those that die an untimely death or “evil death,” compared to the common fate of all humans. Comparatively, a natural death is associated with unification with kin and Sheol is never mentioned in this context.
Some questions have been raised to whether or not those who resided in Sheol could be consulted through necromancy and if it was indeed practiced by the Israelites. It is commonly known that such practices were expressly forbidden as seen in Deut. 18:11. Although it was forbidden, one can see that there are instances where a few Israelites did practice consulting with the dead (1 Sam. 28). There is abundant evidence for cults of the dead in the pagan world that surrounded Israel. Although this practice surrounded Israel, there is no clear evidence for a cult of the dead among the Israelites. However, there can be no question that many of the elements associated with the cult of the dead are found in the Bible such as laments, periods of mourning, acquisitions of tombs along with the erection of monuments and memorial stones (ABD, “Dead, Cult of the,” 2:106). For example, the cave at Mechpelah was originally purchased as a burial place for Sarah (Gen. 23:4). It also eventually became the grave of Abraham, then of Isaac and Jacob, along with Rebecca and Leah. It is mentioned in the Bible that the site is still a shrine for the children of Abraham in Hebron to this day. Such ongoing practice of visiting a tomb indicates that the Israelites continued to share many of the cultural and social assumptions of the Canaanites when it came to honoring the dead (ABD, “Dead, Cult of the,” 2:106). In other places one can see that the Israelites blatantly adopted the practices of Canaanites in disobedience to God. An example of this can be seen in Judges 17:5 when Micah had a shrine and made an ephod, later installing one of his sons as his priest. Several passages also speak about someone who has died as being “gathered to his people” (Gen 25:8). This may relate to joining ancestors in the afterlife, which could not be in Sheol since it is associated with isolation. This could indicate a belief in an alternative destination for the righteous but as said before, this idea is not clearly stated. Even though some Israelites practiced communing with the dead, Yahwism opposed these cult centers because private, family shrines threatened the Deuteronomic ideal of one God worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem. In the Exile, when the nation was at an all time low, the practice of consulting the dead was seen as morally offensive and was addressed more forcefully. Memorials and tombs were announced as unnecessary for the righteous dead, whose deeds would be memorial enough, while the wicked would “have no reward, but the memory of them is lost” (Eccl. 9:5).
The Israelites portrayed a heavy emphasis on living a long life as a sign of being blessed by God. Living a full life and being able to have many descendents to carry on the family name and family line was very important. To the ancient Israelite this was thought of more than the afterlife. Those who died in this way did not need their personal existence to be prolonged beyond the grave. As the Old Testament writers looked forward to the coming of God’s Kingdom, their main concern appears to be focused on what would happen to the community. It was understood that individuals might not survive to participate personally in Israel’s future glory, but because they saw themselves as being vitally linked to the community, the continued survival of the nation became their hope.
It can be seen that Sheol promised no hope for an afterlife but just a resting place for the dead. Some traces of the view of an actual afterlife can be found in the wisdom literature and is slowly developed throughout the rest of the Old Testament. As mentioned before, this view was especially popular during and after the Exile. Although hope for an afterlife was developed in later times and is said to be influenced by surrounding nations, there was little if any vision of an afterlife in Israel in the earlier Old Testament era. It is almost unanimously agreed that the country’s “healthy materialism” and “healthy eroticism” required it “to examine the meaning of man’s earthly existence to a degree and to a depth seemingly without parallel in the thinking of its contemporaries” (ABD, “Death,” 2:109).
The Old Testament writers encourage God’s people to seek knowing God’s presence and blessing now, rather than in the hereafter. The desire is for such a life to be long and fulfilled, avoiding the possibility of an untimely or unfortunate descent into Sheol. When reading through the wisdom literature, one can see that Israel is more attached to life and in no way dreams of a marvelous life hereafter. Human existence is viewed as a divine gift. The concept that life is the greatest gift and should be enjoyed as a gift from God is a major theme in Ecclesiastics. Death in the Israelite mind is only seen as something that comes to disturb life. In general, the person of the Old Testament was comfortable with the thought that they would not see immortality. They recognized and accepted that life returned to God who had loaned it in the first place. An example of this kind of thought would be, “when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send you’re your Spirit, they are created” (Ps. 104:29-30).

Development of Afterlife

The longing for an alternative to Sheol was satisfied in time, in the doctrine of resurrection set out in Daniel 12:1-3, which is seen now, not as something entirely new, but the clearer articulation of a hope that is rooted in Israel’s confidence in the justice of God and in his power to preserve his faithful people even from the threat of death. Even though there are traces of an alternative hope besides Sheol in the Old Testament, they are rare and dissimilar. The emphasis on a life after death started in Hosea’s time period and scholars mention that it was influenced by a Canaanite context. Between Hosea and Daniel, the resurrection idea was mentioned here and there, but it was mainly to point toward the political renewal of the people of Israel. If a resurrection was in the mind of Israel, it seems that the breath or spirit of life would have to return to its creator and then return back to the individual at a later time (1 Kings 17:21-22). The concept of the human existence was also different during Israel’s time than in our own. It was believed that the human being was composed of body and soul (breath). The person was not constituted of a perishable element, which would be our understanding of the flesh, and of an immaterial reality endowed with immortality, which we would call the soul (ABD, “Resurrection,” 5:684). Life ceased at the very moment when the breath loaned by God was taken back. This thought can be seen when Qoheleth says, “and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7). For Israel, there could be no victory over death unless a complete renewal of the human being was to occur. Also, it was believed that death could lose some of its sting if a person left behind a son or was buried in the tomb of his ancestors. It was accepted that the Israelite died, but through the continuation of the family line, Israel as a whole was preserved and continued to live.
Little by little, as the nation of Israel faced hardships and persecution, people began to ask about the fate of the faithful and the ultimate future that was prepared for him or her. While the faithful faced harsh persecution, the Yahwistic cause began to seem a lost one to the people. The doctrine of a resurrection is argued by some scholars as a reaction and fruit of the Jewish resistance to the Hellenistic world (ABD, “Resurrection,” 5:684). It is commonly accepted that the idea of a resurrection in the Old Testament was the result of external influences that came into play in various ways over the course of the history of Israel. Although this doctrine may have been influenced by external influences, the concept can be seen as being birthed out of an understanding of Yahweh’s character. The Old Testament largely proclaims Yahweh’s power and sovereignty, especially in Job. God is seen as the master of life and death. The remembrance of God’s character was called into play when the faithful people of Israel began to ask questions about life after death, namely his justice and faithfulness. The resurrection of the dead allowed God’s character to be displayed as one who was faithful to his servants, even beyond death. The doctrine also affirmed his power and control over death. The Jews began to assert that physical death does not nullify God’s justice nor cancel his covenantal relationship with individuals. Psalms 16 is an example of a text that points in this direction. Also, the idea that God will one day overcome death forever gave hope to the faithful and magnified His justice and power. Thus, the development and belief in the resurrection of the dead was based on Yahweh’s power, justice and love (ABD, “Resurrection,” 5:684).

Final Statement

After looking at death, life and the concept of an afterlife in the Old Testament, one can better appreciate and praise the view of the afterlife that is presented in the New Testament. The New Testament speaks of God alone as immortal, contrasting humans as only mortals which is evidence by their death and promise of a future gift of immortality. 1 Corinthians shows a prime example of the mortality of humans with the promise of immortality in the future, “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with the immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53). The New Testament is clear that death was not a part of God’s original plan for the human race (Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). Christ’s death is seen as destroying the one who hold the power of death and as now having the keys to death and Hades. Death is now viewed in the light of the resurrection of Jesus. He is seen as the first from the dead. Death does not separate us from Christ (Rom. 8:38-39). As in the Old Testament, one can experience a living death in the New Testament as well. One can be dead in sin and pass from death into life when encountering Christ in this life. The New Testament depicts eternal life as given now, but not in fullness. The tension between the already and the not yet is seen clearly and “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). Only by understanding the Old Testament concept of the afterlife and reverence they had for God as in control of both life and death, can one begin to fully appreciate the eternal life that is offered in the New Testament. In his Letters and Papers from Prison,
Dietrich Bonheoffer expresses this understanding:
My thoughts and feelings seem to be getting more and more like those of the Old Testament, and in recent months I have been reading the Old Testament much more than the new. It is only when one knows the unutterability of the name of God that one can utter the name of Jesus Christ; it is only when one love life and the earth so much that without them everything seems to be over that one can believe in the resurrection and new world…

After understanding Israel’s perspective of death and the afterlife through reading the wisdom literature and the rest of the Old Testament, one can see how it presents a refreshing emphasis and appreciation of the present life. Throughout the ages, the emphasis has undergone a turn from focusing on the life here and now to a greater preoccupation with the afterlife and an eternity spent with God. As a Christian today, one can learn from the mindset of the ancient Israelites and begin to not only thank God for the gift eternal life with Him, but also stand in awe and receive the gift of life with gladness.

Relationship: More than words

Today I was just thinking about our relationship with God and how, at times, it can be very shallow. When I think about my relationship with God I tend to relate it to human relationships because this is all I have to go by when asking myself..."What does a relationship with God look like, or how can I deepen my relationship with God?" The latter question is what I desire. Although I do communicate with God and am getting better at being honest with him about myself (which is a funny thing to think about, how we try to hide our inner thoughts from God and not express to him in prayer what we are really thinking even though he knows our thoughts!) I find that sometimes my life and actions do not line up with my words. This is the acid test of how much I truly love and honor him. Since I value my relationship with God, I try to find ways that I can demonstrate it. I am finding that a deeper relationship with God consist of just more than communicating with him. We can also deepen our relationship with Him by how we live our lives, the choices that we make and the attitude of our hearts towards Him. We can honor our relationship with him by our actions, how we truly live day by day. I know this is nothing new, but rather an old and well known teaching by Christ himself. But if we are honest with ourselves and each other, at times this proves to be a challenge. Let us seek to deepen our relationship with Christ by moving beyond just communicating with Him to honoring and loving Him by the way we live and the choices we make daily. I believe the key to this making the daily choice to humble ourselves, dethroning ourselves, our selfish will and desires, so that God would be honored and glorified. In this way we can move into a deeper relationship with God where we actually walk and live with him instead of just talking with him occasionally.