Confession Is Good for the Soul
I was listening to one of my favorite teachers a couple days ago, Ray Vander Laan, and he was teaching on the subject of stoning.
In the first century, the act of stoning involved more than simply throwing rocks at someone, though that would not be considered a small thing in itself. When someone was found guilty of a sin punishable by stoning, the person would be brought to the edge of a cliff at least eighteen feet high where they would be asked to confess their sin. If the person confessed, he or she would still be stoned, but they would “go to heaven.”
Once the person was stoned, they were then thrown off of the cliff. Upon hitting the bottom, if they were still alive, those who believed them to be guilty would drop large stones on top of them while standing on the edge of the cliff.
If the person was still alive, then the stoned person would be deemed innocent by God.
When Jesus was on the cross with the two thieves, one said “Get us down” and the other said, “Don’t you fear God since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve” (Luke 23:30-42).
Here in the common Jewish repentance practice during punishment this second thief confesses his sin. And Jesus reminds him in the usual Jewish custom, “Today (when you die) you will be in paradise.”
This portion of Scripture is often taught with the emphasis being that one thief did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, while the other did and it was his belief in Jesus’ Messianic position that caused Jesus to grant him entrance into heaven. The knowledge of this first-century Jewish custom of repentance, gives us a clearer understanding of the context of this event.
The true message of this passage would appear to be that “confession is good for the soul.”
Forever learning,
Johnny
19 comments:
Walker said
Don't forget verse 42:
"Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Namaste
Thanks, Walker.
I'm glad you pointed that out. The historical point here is that the confession was the requirement, in the minds of the Jews, for entering paradise following the death penalty.
The thief's recognition of Jesus as Messiah may not have been what led Jesus to tell the thief that he would go to heaven. I would suggest that the Scripture including verse 42 does not lead us to believe that recognition of the Messiah gave the thief entrance into heaven, unless we infer it based on Western commentaries.
Historically the right of passage was by way of confession. Therefore, there should be no reason to add any other understanding to the context of this situation in Luke 23.
Johnny
Walker said:
Could that passage have been intended to "accomplish" both purposes?
That is, present a picture of Jesus attractive to the Jews, recognizing the importance of repentance (atonement?) and attempting to convince those (Jew and Gentile) who had trouble with accepting a Messiah who died the same death as a common criminal instead of as a mighty "warrior?"
A "related" issue.
It seems to me that "we" too easily fall into a mode of accepting "discussion" of Biblical passages at whatever face value our current 'teacher' perceives, and forget that people in those days were no different than those of today, and the church politics were certainly also as likely and varied as those of today.
Not here, of course - the attitude of learning and thoughtfully processing the information we share is a primary reason I celebrate this blog and the related discussions
Interesting post about the cliff . . .
In Luke 4, all the people in the synagogue were so ticked off at Jesus (because of what he said) that “they got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way. (Luke 4:28-30)”
Perhaps they had intended to stone him. I wonder if they would have expected him to repent.
Good post.
Blessings,
Bret
Walker,
I am really enjoying this dialogue.
Based on the historical context of the events in this passage, and according to the research and knowledge of first century Jews from Ray Vander Laan, I would assume that this passage of Scripture points to Jesus' acceptance of the belief that confession is important for salvation as defined by "eternal life," and to the thief’s acceptance that Jesus is the King of the Jews whose kingdom is not only a reference to Jesus' band of followers, but also points to an ecclesiastical kingdom.
With that said, I still don't believe that this specific passage teaches that "believing that Jesus is the Messiah is how one enters paradise. I truly believe that the message here pertains to the importance of confession.
However, I am not suggesting that belief in the Messianic position of Jesus is not required for entrance into eternal life after death. Otherwise, I would be disqualifying the teachings of Paul in Romans 10.
I think it is important to understand each passage of Scripture in its own context and in the context of the whole of Scripture. The danger of misinterpreting the context of a specific passage is seen with the Scripture that we are discussing, because it has led many to believe in "deathbed acceptance prayers" where a person who has lived their life in rebellion to God, finally says, "I believe in Jesus" and they are "saved." This passage of Scripture is often pointed to for support. However, if the message in this passage of Scripture is about confession, then maybe it's not "Jesus, come into my heart" that needs to be prayed, but an open confession of sins committed.
This seems to be worth, at the very least, some thought.
Thanks, Walker.
Johnny
Bret,
Thanks for the addition. Ray Vander Laan pointed that passage out in his teaching and made the point that he was able to leave because there was no one who beleived he was guilty of anything.
RVL also says that it wasn't a sin or a crime to say that you were the Messiah, therefore, the people who would have held him next to the cliff and asked him for confession were non-existant, even though there were people who didn't like him and wanted him killed.
Not liking someone was not a good enough reason to stone him or her, so, no one would have allowed it.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Walker sez:
I'm reminded of an English teacher I had in high school. (He had a southern accent,which dropped about 3 states when ladies were present at an otherwise monastic boarding school ... but I digress)
"Well, gentlemen, reasonable people may come to different conclusions.
I appreciate your elucidation of the events, and agree that knowledge of the importance of repentance/confession in the culture puts a whole new light on the exchange.
Off topic question: did then contemporary Hebrew and/or Armenaic(Sp?) and/or Greek include grammatical articles: "a" or "the?" Or otherwise provide ground to distinguish between, say
"I am a hero" and
"I am the hero?"
Namaste
Hey Walker,
I can answer yes to your question, but only to a minimal expertice. I have studied Greek only a little, though it is part of my Masters program and I will be learning more about the language this year.
Why do you ask?
Johnny
A long way from the initiating blog subject:
Just thinking about:
John 14:2 "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you.
. . . .
"6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Awhile ago you mentioned the "adding a room by a bridegroom" as a pre-nuptial custom of te time
Thinking of the 'Christ as the bridegroom' concept, and "many rooms" suggesting many brides of many of "my Father's sons", that is, many other "Christs" (other religions?) I'm trying to see if 14:6 really establishes the exclusivity that many read there.
Is there a better way to return to subjects already discussed?
Namaste
Walker
Walker,
That is an amazing thought. If I am reading you correctly, the question has to do with many grooms (sons of the father who owns the insula, and Jesus being one of those sons), when referring to Jesus as the son who will go back for his bride.
I would not infer that there is more than one Christ, and not because I'm a Christian, but because the picture of the insula has to do with rooms being built to accommodate the new children (daughters) of the owner, not necessarily a reference to how many sons the father has. In this case with the teaching of Jesus, he was making a statement about many people living in the same home.
With all of that said, I'm not sure I have even convinced myself with the words I have written, but I do believe that the reference to an insula would have been understood as a place where a "father" allows many others to move in and serve together as a family.
I don't mind going back to other subjects. I visit them often in my own studies and mind constantly anyway.
Thanks, Walker.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
We'll, I'm uncomfortable with claims of exclusivity of some Christians - that Christianity is the only 'true' religion and all others are the whelps of Satan
In part because of my understanding of (at least modern day use of the word) faith being "a belief which can be neither proven nor disproven; in part because by (most) definition God is beyond our understanding, in part because of my basis in Tillich and the existentialist Christians, and in part, probably, because of my natural cussidness (obstinate, cantankerous) when told something is "an absolute truth."
On the other hand, John 14 doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room.
In the "many rooms" metaphore, I'm thinking more along the lines of reading it as "there are many religions accepted by my father," Although it's a strectch,so far.
I confess that this blog hurts my brain. I long for a simplicity when it comes to God.
Walker,
I can't argue with you on the basis of questioning the exclusivism of Christianity. All I know is that I have chosen to trust that when Jesus taught his yoke, he was claiming that his yoke was the best yoke in the world. And I believe him.
Others will have to choose for themselves which yoke they will follow. Once we've made the conscious decision to believe that there is a God, we then have to decide, based on reason and research, who and what God is. Once we decide who and what God is, we have to ask, "Does He have standards?" If the answer is yes, then we have to seek out His standard.
With anything in the world, if we aim at all, we hit nothing. I accept that as truth, therefore, I have chosen to aim at the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth. I don't work to dispel others or their beliefs, but to spread the teachings of the Jewish teacher from Nazareth who was born 2000 years before me, and whose teachings I trust completely to be true and the best to live by.
Following the teachings of Jesus makes me a Christian, not the bashing of other religions.
The teachings of Jesus are to give us the ability to benefit the whole world, not just Christians. And, according to the Bible, which I believe to be God's word despite its obvious flaws in translations, everyone can benefit from practicing what Jesus taught.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Jason,
I thought the Bible would simplify God for me, until I started really studying it. Now I realize that I have to have these conversations to bring some level of understanding to what I'm discovering.
If there is one thing that I've learned about learning, it's that I can never stop learning.
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Walker said
Re simplicity
I don't have my notes with me, but in my study group on Sunday on Romans, I recall adding a question in the margin: "Paradox?"
I'm toying with the idea of exploring paradox as part of Christ's message and as a possible tenent of His (or our) "theology"
I haven't really started to dig yet, but am thinking of such juxtapositions as "Christians should be humble" and "be bold in your faith."
Namaste
I don't think longing for simplicity is the same as not wanting to be constantly learning....it's just not wanting to over-complicate what we're learning.
Walker,
That's a great subject. I was just reading in Marvin Wilson's "Our Father Abraham" about that very issue.
In Wilson's book he points to the fact that to the Hebrew mind, paradox was simply a part of who God is. To have a paradox did more to prove that it was of God than it did to show an inconsistency in God's commands.
For the Greek, paradox was seen as inconsistency and, therefore, proved a work to be fallible. This understanding of paradox gave proof of contradiction to the Western thinker. For the Eastern thinker, it only proved the mystery of God and fed their desire to know Him more.
The inconsistencies in Jesus’ words are known as “block logic.”
Please allow me to quote from Dr. Wilson:
“Greek logic, which has to a large extent influenced the Western world, was different. The Greeks often used a tightly contained step logic whereby one would argue from premises to a conclusion, each step linked tightly to the next in coherent, rational, logical fashion. The conclusion, however, was usually limited to one point of view—the human being’s perception of reality.
By contrast, the Hebrew often made use of block logic. That is, concepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on through and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antinomy, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension—and often illogical relation—to the other. Hence, polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic.
It is particularly difficult for Westerners—those whose thought-patterns have been influenced more by the Greeks and Romans than by the Hebrews—to piece together the block logic of Scripture. When we open the Bible, therefore, since we are not Orientals, we are invited, as Robert Martin-Achard states, to ‘undergo a kind of intellectual conversion’ to the Hebraic world of the East.”
Grace and peace,
Johnny
Kathy,
Thank you for clarifying. Blog comments are very subjective.
Walker said:
Thanks for that source
I'm also reminded of some(?) eastern religions such as Zen Buddhism which use koans (some of which which use of paradox, I suspect) as part of communicating their theology:
"Koans are said to reflect the enlightened or awakened state of such persons, and sometimes said to confound the habit of discursive thought or shock the mind into awareness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan
Post a Comment