For me it was the autumn of my 46th year. It was a culmination of decades of learning and unlearning, a new beginning of sorts. A portal was opened to a new dimension of living, like walking into an ordinary wardrobe, clawing past the fur coats, and finding myself in Narnia. Shivering in the Narnian winter, clueless, alone, afraid, yet very much alive and very much full of wonder.
I was only part way through Rob Bell’s book “Velvet Elvis” when this shift started and this doorway opened before me. So much of what I had been taught for decades, entire schools and systems of biblical understanding, were being shown for the inadequate, inaccurate, man-made things they were. And it all resonated deep within my heart – what I was reading was making so much more sense than the empty explanations I had heard all my life. It clicked with reality.
It started with simple things like “binding” and “loosing”. Rob discussed how scripture by its very nature had to be interpreted (something the rabbis knew for quite a long time). Some rabbis had very strict interpretations for passages in the Torah, while other rabbis were more lenient in how to apply it. In the end, however, the goal was to actually DO what the scriptures commanded, and the question was how.
When a rabbi forbid an activity, he was said to “bind” it; when he allowed the activity, he “loosed” it. The collection of the rabbi’s interpretations of what is “bound” and what is “loosed” in scripture was called the rabbi’s “yoke”. For anyone familiar with the book of Matthew in the New Testament, bells should start going off in your head, because the rabbi Jesus used these very terms with his apprentices. He talked about how his “yoke” was easy, and later told his apprentices that they had the power to “bind” and “loose” (which they exercised in the book of Acts).
In some mysterious way, the apostles’ interpretation of scripture (which at that time consisted of Genesis to Malachi) had authority on earth AND in heaven. They partnered with God to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed. And if you look at their determinations in Acts, there were only a few things they bothered to “bind” or “loose” (though these days there are many who love to bind).
Anyway, that simple explanation from a Jewish historical context was mind-blowing to me. It made me wonder what else I had been taught wrongly simply because my teachers did not know (for one reason or another) the actual context of the passage, what the terms really meant to the speakers and hearers. Rob included a number of concepts that he had learned from Ray Vander Laan, Dallas Willard, and other teachers – many that I had been exposed to for years – and brought out new perspectives and angles I had never heard before. I felt ashamed and excited, dumb and enlightened at the same time.
But the most devastating blow to my old way of thinking came as he gently addressed a common, glaring error in interpretation that is one of the key stops along the old “Romans Road”. I originally memorized the verse in the King James Version, and it went like this:
The English Standard Version of the scriptures translates that passage as follows:
Which, of course, meant that if I ask Jesus into my heart (perhaps confessing that I’m a sinner), and believe deep down inside that He as second person of the Trinity died for my sins and rose again, I have done a transaction that guarantees me an afterlife in heaven and an escape from the lake of fire. Right?
But does it really mean that? Is that what the text really says?
When Paul wrote to the followers of Jesus in Rome, he was writing to a group of individuals who lived in the capital city of the civilized world. The military headquarters was there. The emperor was there… and he was considered to be a god. One of the requirements of Rome’s citizens was to honor him in ways that we’ve seen in the 20th century; where in Nazi Germany the people were required to shout with outstretched arm “Heil Hitler”, in Paul’s day Roman citizens were required to say “Caesar is Lord!” (whether you bought the whole emperor-god thing or not). If you wanted to survive, you said it.
Paul encouraged the followers of Jesus to participate in a dangerous and subversive activity – to go against the grain (at the risk of punishment or death) and say that Jesus, not Caesar, is the ruler. In other letters Paul reminds his readers that we are citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, not of the Roman Empire (though Paul gladly used his Roman citizenship to his advantage when appropriate). And the further you study the anti-Roman implications in Paul’s writings, the more you understand the subversive nature of his teachings and how he encouraged such a counter-cultural stand for God’s kingdom.
And what does the word “saved” mean in the context of Romans 10:9 if it doesn’t mean saved from hell and guaranteed access into an afterlife of bliss? Pretty much what it means in many other places in scripture when we use the synonyms “delivered”, “rescued”, and “protected”. Scan the Old Testament and you will see that over and over God delighted to rescue his people from danger. It’s the big story that his people get to gratefully recount to others – the various ways God came through for them in their time of need. Paul appears to be telling his readers don’t worry about taking a counter-cultural stand for Jesus as the king who rules over Caesar because Jesus will rescue them one way or another (either in this life so they can share their story, or they will be resurrected one day just like Him).
Wow. So what else have I gotten wrong? What else did my teachers not know, did not interpret (binding or loosing) correctly and accurately? And if it’s not about securing a good spot in the afterlife, what IS it about? For that, I had to go back to the teachings of Jesus himself…
Studying Jesus’ teachings led me back to the writings of Dallas Willard and his landmark book “The Divine Conspiracy”. Though I’ve read it twice before, I had completely missed the implications; perhaps I wasn’t ready yet. But as he discussed the failure of “gospel of sin management” to really foster Christ-likeness and as he expanded on the brilliance of Jesus’ teachings that we call “the sermon on the mount”, my eyes were opened and my heart humbled and my spirit was shaken by the possibilities.
And that led me to others who have been influenced by his writings, including Scot McKnight, Rick McKinley, and Brian McLaren. It also led me back to John Eldredge who was an influence on me several years ago as his writings prepared me to live authentically and stop being a “poser”, in spite of the resistance. And that led me back to the songwriters I’ve come to love for their honesty and integrity…
That’s me – just another beginner, just another humbled, desperate soul trying to follow the way of Jesus. I hesitate to even call myself a Christian anymore because the term is so over-used that it can mean just about anything, which in the end indicates that it means nothing. And if it is supposed to mean “Christ-like” or “little Christ”, well, that ain’t me. But I’m trying…
It’s a world filled with doubts and questions. But I guess I’m not afraid of that anymore, because the God who created all of this and who has rescued (saved!) me time and time again – well, he’s not afraid of the questions either. And questions are exactly what inquisitive children are supposed to bring to their father. And it’s not that I don’t look forward to an afterlife with him – I do – but more importantly I look forward to his presence in my here and now every single day as I see his wishes become my reality. And I think puts me in a better position to be humble, perhaps like a child, as I seek to follow him in faith.
- Bob Young (3/12/2008)