"Who will go for us?": Henotheism & Isaiah 6

"And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me.'"

- Isaiah 6:8 (RSV)

Who is the "us" mentioned in Isaiah 6:8?

In traditional Christian theology, this has typically been interpreted as a pre-Incarnation reference to the Holy Trinity. Certainly, John Wesley's Explanatory Notes take this view. While that is certainly a legitimate interpretation, I'm not convinced that it's entirely accurate.

Isaiah of Jerusalem's ministry took place in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. The world was unquestionably polytheistically pagan at that time. It was taken for granted, in fact, that there existed many, many gods.

Other nations found Israel odd largely because they were at least officially devoted to one god, YHWH. But early Hebrew religion did not claim that YHWH was the only god; the claim was made simply that YHWH was the sovereign god, and that the Hebrews were allowed to worship no other god.

The belief that while there are many gods only one should be worshiped is called "henotheism" by scholars, "monolatry" by theologians. Personally, I prefer the former term, as it seems less aggressive and more merciful to our ancestors in the faith.

I believe that the Hebrews were orginally henotheistic...perhaps the first true henotheists in the world. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses...they all seem to have been willing to accept the idea that other gods existed (or at least other divine beings), but were adamant in their devotion to YHWH as their unique covenantal god.

The first of the Ten Commandments seems fairly henotheistic to me, as the sole worship of YHWH is strongly endorsed without denying the existence of other divine beings. Some of the more repulsive stories of sin in the Old Testament refer to human sacrifice (especially of children) to terrible gods such as Chemosh and Molech...evidence that Israel at times practiced actual polytheism, and not even true henotheism.

In short, I believe that to be a faithful Jew for many centuries meant being a faithful henotheist. Isaiah of Jerusalem certainly qualifies. I believe that when the prophet hears and records God's words in Isaiah 6:8, he hears them through the lens of henotheism. God revealed his presence, truth, and salvation gradually, preparing us for his Incarnation.

When we read the words, therefore, "...who will go for us...", "us" refers to the other members of the heavenly court...the "hosts of heaven".

This is one reason why one of my favorite titles for God is "YHWH Sabaoth"... "the LORD of hosts" (used powerfully by Martin Luther in verse two of the first great Protestant anthem "A Mighty Fortess Is Our God"), and why I often use Bible translations which retain this translation, such as the RSV, NRSV, and ESV (the NIV and TNIV translate the phrase as "Sovereign LORD" which, while true, doesn't capture the full thrust of its historic meaning).

It's also a reason why perhaps my favorite creation story in the Old Testament is Psalm 89, which is really a masterpiece of henotheistic thought, recounting the tale of "YHWH Elohim Sabaoth", the Divine Warrior, who presides over his heavenly court and defeats the monster of chaos ("Rahab") to construct the world. Very Near Eastern, very mythological, extremely beautiful (though, like the more famous stories in Genesis 1 and 2, not meant to be taken completely literally).

Henotheism is a very strong part of our faith heritage, but Hebrew religion did not remain henotheistic. At some point, likely during the period of the Babylonian captivity, the Jews made the transition from henotheism to monotheism. Psalm 89, formulated in the Davidic era (but likely perfected at a later date), portrays creation from a henotheistic perspective; the first of the two creation stories in Genesis, largely an Exile era work, is a masterpiece of monotheism.

Even in the Book of Isaiah, we can see the transition. Whereas Isaiah of Jerusalem (or "First Isaiah") operates from a henotheistic weltanschauung, "Second Isaiah" is decidely monotheistic, as these verses demonstrate. By the time Jesus was born, the Jews were strongly monotheistic...the first true monotheistic faith in the world (despite the highly inaccurate claims of Zoroastrianism scholars such as Mary Boyce).

What does this mean for us, practically? Not much. Judaism is today a monotheistic faith, as is Islam. Christianity is a modified monotheistic faith (though Trinitarian is a better term). Henotheism survives today among the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as among Zoroastrians. While a part of our faith history, it is not a part of the Church's present or future.

Still, as a lover of history and as someone who eagerly desires to understand how our faith grew into its current form, henotheism remains a fascinating subject for study.

(More on: Hebrew henotheism)

- modified from original post made on 1/31/07

3rd Sunday in Lent Year C

"Hey, all who are thirsty, come to the water! You who have no money, come! Buy and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk without money and without cost!

Why pay money for something that will not nourish you? Why spend your hard-earned money on something that will not satisfy? Listen carefully to me and eat what is nourishing! Enjoy fine food!

Pay attention and come to me! Listen, so you can live! Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to you, just like the reliable covenantal promises I made to David.

Look, I made him a witness to nations, a ruler and commander of nations.

Look, you will summon nations you did not previously know; nations that did not previously know you will run to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he bestows honor on you.

Seek the LORD while he makes himself available; call to him while he is nearby!

The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle and sinful people their plans. They should return to the LORD, and he will show mercy to them, and to their God, for he will freely forgive them.

Indeed, my plans are not like your plans, and my deeds are not like your deeds, for just as the sky is higher than the earth, so my deeds are superior to your deeds and my plans superior to your plans."

- Isaiah 55:1-9 (NET, adapt.)

Rerun: Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant "correction", "chastisement", "instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they are freed from their cell, having served out their punishment.

It would be inappropriate for a judge to then say, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan sisters and brothers to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

- Originally posted 3/19/2007

Rerun: Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant
"correction", "chastisement",
"instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they freed from their cell, having served out their punishment. It would be inappropriate for a judge to then s ay, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan brethren to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant
"correction", "chastisement",
"instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they freed from their cell, having served out their punishment. It would be inappropriate for a judge to then s ay, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan brethren to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

Isaiah 6: Here am I; send me!

"And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me.'"

- Isaiah 6:8 (RSV)

Isaiah of Jerusalem experienced a vision of God. He was transported, in some way we cannot yet fully understand, to the very throne room of heaven. There, he witnessed angelic worship of the LORD God, and was himself cleansed of the guilt of sin (the Hebrew words used, "cuwr" and "kaphar", actually refer to atonement). What a frightening and glorious experience!

The response of Isaiah to this experience is a response God can rightly expect of us all. The prophet responded to God's presence, holiness, glory, and merciful atonement by answering the call to ministry and service: "Here am I! Send me!"

Priests are called to stand between God and the people, representing each on behalf of the other. They are called to do the work of ministry on behalf of the people. Pastors are called to lead the people in mission and equip the saints for ministry.

Isaiah was neither priest or pastor, not a part of the "professional clergy"; he was a faithful layperson who responded faithfully to the Lord's call. Each of us is called to respond to God's call to minister and to serve. We are all ministers!

The prophet responded not out of fear, but out of love and gratitude. We as the people of God are not merely saved from something (Hell); we are saved for something - holiness, ministry, and service. We are SAVED TO SERVE!

Those who say, "I am not worthy" or "I don't have the right gifts to serve" are absolutely wrong; it isn't about our ability, but our availability.

On the eve to the year's greatest sporting event, the Super Bowl, we can look at two football players as examples. Randy Moss is a wide receiver currently with the Oakland Raiders. He may be the most talented wide receiver in the history of the game. Despite his enormous talent, he hasn't won too many games and has never appeared in a Super Bowl. Part of the reason for this is that Randy Moss is not a team player. He gives up on his team and on the games in which he plays, displaying an incredibly bad attitude and an unwillingness to utilize his great talent to its fullest potential.

On the other hand, Hines Ward of our own Pittsburgh Steelers doesn't have Randy Moss' size or raw talent, but makes up for it with determination, teamwork, and great heart. As a result, Hines Ward is one of the best two or three receivers in the game, a Super Bowl MVP and a likely future Hall of Famer. His willingness and his heart make the difference.

God can use us in wonderfully miraculous ways if we simply make ourselves available to him, if we answer his call as Isaiah did centuries ago, "Here am I! Send me!"

I am reminded of a beautiful old song by the Christian rock and roll band Petra...

"I Am Available"
(Words & Music by Bob Hartman)

I don't have much to offer you,

I don't have much to give
There's so much I may never be

as long as I may live
I may never be all I want to be

although I'll always try
But if you choose me, to use me,

there's just one reason why

I am available, I am available
I will go when you say, "Go"
I am available, I am available
I will stop when you say, "No"
My whole life was incomplete

till I laid it at Your feet
So use me as You will,

I am available

I'm not the most dependable,

sometimes you can't rely
There's no excuse,

there's no defense,

there's only one reply

I am available, I am available
I will go when you say, "Go"
I am available, I am available
I will stop when you say, "No"
My whole life was incomplete till I laid it at Your feet
So use me as You will, I am available

I know that my ability is not Your main concern
It's my availability and willingness to learn

I am available, I am available
I will go when you say, "Go"
I am available, I am available
I will stop when you say, "No"
My whole life was incomplete till I laid it at Your feet
So use me as You will, I am available

Isaiah 6: Who will go for us?, or, "Don't hate me because I'm a heretic."

"And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me.'"

- Isaiah 6:8 (RSV)

Who is the "us" mentioned in Isaiah 6:8?

In traditional Christian theology, this has typically been interpreted as a pre-Incarnation reference to the Holy Trinity. Certainly, John Wesley's Explanatory Notes take this view. While that is certainly a legitimate interpretation, I'm not convinced that it's accurate.

Isaiah of Jerusalem's ministry took place in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. The world was unquestionably pagan at that time. It was taken for granted, in fact, that there existed many, many gods.

Other nations found Israel odd largely because they were at least officially devoted to one god, YHWH. But early Hebrew religion did not claim that YHWH was the only god; the claim was made simply that YHWH was the sovereign god, and that the Hebrews were allowed to worship no other god.

The belief that while there are many gods only one should be worshiped is called "henotheism" by scholars, "monolatry" by theologians. Personally, I prefer the former term, as it seems less aggressive and more merciful to our ancestors in the faith.

I believe that the Hebrews were orginally henotheistic...perhaps the first true henotheists in the world. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses...they all seem to have been willing to accept the idea that other gods existed (or at least other divine beings), but were adamant in their devotion to YHWH as their unique covenantal god.

The first of the Ten Commandments seems fairly henotheistic to me, as the sole worship of YHWH is strongly endorsed without denying the existence of other divine beings. Some of the more repulsive stories of sin in the Old Testament refer to human sacrifice (especially of children) to terrible gods such as Chemosh and Molech...evidence that Israel at times practiced actual polytheism, and not even true henotheism.

In short, I believe that to be a faithful Jew for many centuries meant being a faithful henotheist. Isaiah of Jerusalem certainly qualifies. I believe that when when the prophet hears and records God's words in Isaiah 6:8, he hears them through the lens of henotheism. God revealed his presence, truth, and salvation gradually, preparing us for his Incarnation.

When we read the words, therefore, "...who will go for us...", "us" refers to the other members of the heavenly court...the "hosts of heaven".

This is one reason why one of my favorite titles for God is "YHWH Sabaoth"... "the LORD of hosts" (used powerfully by Martin Luther in verse two of the first great Protestant anthem "A Mighty Fortess Is Our God"), and why I often use Bible translations which retain this translation, such as the RSV, NRSV, and ESV (the NIV and TNIV translate the phrase as "Sovereign LORD" which, while true, doesn't capture the full essence of its meaning).

It's also a reason why perhaps my favorite creation story in the Old Testament is Psalm 89, which is really a masterpiece of henotheistic thought, recounting the tale of "YHWH Elohim Sabaoth", the Divine Warrior, who presides over his heavenly court and defeats the monster of chaos ("Rahab") to construct the world. Very Near Eastern, very mythological, extremely beautiful (though, like the more famous stories in Genesis 1 and 2, not meant to be taken literally).

Henotheism is a very strong part of our faith heritage, but Hebrew religion did not remain henotheistic. At some point, likely during the period of the Babylonian captivity, the Jews made the transition from henotheism to monotheism. Psalm 89, formulated in the Davidic era (but likely perfected at a later date), portrays creation from a henotheistic perspective; the first of the two creation stories in Genesis, largely an Exile era work, is a masterpiece of monotheism.

Even in the Book of Isaiah, we can see the transition. Whereas Isaiah of Jerusalem (or "First Isaiah") operates from a henotheistic weltanschauung, "Second Isaiah" is decidely monotheistic, as these verses demonstrate. By the time Jesus was born, the Jews were strongly monotheistic...the first true monotheistic faith in the world (despite the highly inaccurate claims of Zoroastrianism scholars such as Mary Boyce).

What does this mean for us, practically? Not much. Judaism is today a monotheistic faith, as is Islam. Christianity is a modified monotheistic faith (though Trinitarian is a better term). Henotheism survives today among the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as among Zoroastrians. While a part of our faith history, it is not a part of the Church's present or future.

Still, as a lover of history and as someone who eagerly desires to understand how our faith grew into its current form, henotheism remains a fascinating subject for study.

Isaiah 6: Holy, holy, holy

"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

And one called to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.'

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.

And I said: 'Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!'

Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar.

And he touched my mouth, and said: 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.'

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me.'"

- Isaiah 6:1-8 (RSV)

The first thing that strikes me about the call of God to Isaiah of Jerusalem (or "First Isaiah" as he is known by contemporary scholars) is that when placed in the presence of Almighty God, the prophet is overcome with a sense of his own inherent sinfulness, unworthiness, and inadequacy. How can a mere sinful human being be in the throne room of heaven, in the very presence of our Creator and Lord?

Isaiah is, after all, only worthy to speak the word of the Lord after his mouth is scorched and cleansed by divine fire.

Christians have historically believed that each Lord's Day as we gather to worship God as the Body of Christ, we are also in the presence of the Almighty, and that our sanctuaries are earthly reflections of that divine throne room.

Does our worship reflect that reverence?

Are we awed by the presence of God?

Are we overcome with unworthiness and inadequacy as we enter into the presence of the Holy One of Israel?

Do we remember that the God who is with us and is immanent is also far beyond and above us and is completely transcendent, entirely different from us, "wholly Other"?

Are we too comfortable with Almighty God?

Is he too much "our buddy" and not enough "the LORD God of hosts", whose very name is too holy to speak?

Too often, we enter worship as a routine...traditional worship gone stale.

Many enter worship gleefully, as if the Super Bowl party is about to begin...contemporary worship gone mad.

While joy and celebration are certainly proper Christian practices, we should never allow our worship to be so "Happy, happy, happy" that we forget "Holy, holy, holy".

Orthopraxis

"The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to Jesus,
and unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written:

'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
for he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'

He then rolled up the scroll,
gave it back to the attendant, and sat down.
And the eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on Him.

He said to them, 'Today, in your hearing, this Scripture is fulfilled.'"

- Luke 4:17-21

At JUMC, we are continuing our discussion about what constitutes a divine vision, as we seek God's vision for our future.

Jesus' own "vision statement" is contained in this week's Gospel lesson, in which Our Lord makes reference to Isaiah 61. One of the interesting aspects of this passage is its counterpart in Mark 6. Mark's Gospel mentions Jesus speaking in Nazareth, but omits the precise passage.

Most scholars agree that Luke utilized Mark as a primary source. Why did Luke, then, add this passage?

We see hear a clear example of the "Lukan gospel". Whereas Mark emphasizes penitence and belief, Luke emphasizes orthopraxis, or "correct practice". Far too often, Christians (especially evangelicals) have emphasized "correct belief" (orthodoxy) at the expense of "correct practice". As a result, those on the margins of Church and/or society have often been neglected or forgotten.

We need orthodoxy and orthopraxis. In my view, historic Methodism embodies this dichotomy beautifully. Certainly John Wesley proclaimed the importance of orthodox Christian belief, and is rightly considered one of the key forefathers of contemporary evangelicalism. But Wesley also placed a great deal of emphasis on the "means of grace", both works of piety (prayer, Bible reading, communion, etc.) and works of mercy (feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, etc.).

Local churches tend to be relatively effective at performing works of piety. Works of mercy are a bit more difficult, though, since they often require us to "step outside of ourselves", roll up our sleeves, and get our hands dirty. The important sacrificial aspect of Christian living can be found in these works of mercy, and we need to be involved in these sacrifices. After all, Jesus makes it clear in Luke's Gospel that what we do is at least as important as what we believe.

As retired Salvation Army officer Henry Gariepy puts it, "Holiness without social concern is as a soul without a body, but social concern without holiness is as a body without a soul. One is a ghost, the other a corpse. Only when they are wedded together do we have a healthy, life-giving gospel."

* Read this for an excellent and concise discussion of orthopraxis and John Wesley.

* Read this for an excellent and concise study of the means of grace in Methodism.

Epiphany 2007

"Arise, shine, for your light has come,
and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.

For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
and thick darkness the peoples;
but the Lord will arise upon you,
and his glory will be seen upon you.

And nations shall come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your rising.

Lift up your eyes all around, and see;
they all gather together, they come to you;
your sons shall come from afar,
and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.

Then you shall see and be radiant;
your heart shall thrill and exult,
because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,
the wealth of the nations shall come to you.

A multitude of camels shall cover you,
the young camels of Midian and Ephah;
all those from Sheba shall come.
They shall bring gold and frankincense,
and shall bring good news, the praises of the Lord."

- Isaiah 60:1-6 (ESV)

Episkopoi

For World Communion Sunday (Oct. 1), I'll be preaching on Philippians 1:1-11, focusing on verse three.

Verse one, however, is problematic for many Christians, particularly evangelicals. This is evidenced by the New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV), among other translations.

I believe that when it comes to translating the Scriptures, one must be faithful to the text, but also should take into account the historic translation and understanding of the text. An example of this is the famous translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Revised Standard Version (RSV):

"Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign.
Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel."

While it is true that "young woman" is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew word "almah", Church tradition had faithfully used "virgin" (or sometimes "maiden") for centuries, and the decision of the RSV translators to ignore this precedent resulted in a great backlash against this otherwise excellent translation upon its release in the 1950s (which eventually prompted evangelicals to produce the NIV, among other translations).

There exists a similar problem regarding Philippians 1:1. It reads in the King James Version (KJV):

"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi,
with the bishops and deacons..."

Evangelical translations (such as the NIV and ESV) often translate the Greek word "episkopos" as "overseer", rather than "bishop" ("episkopoi" becoming "overseers" rather than "bishops"). Why are these translators afraid of bishops?

In an attempt to free themselves from traditional Church hierarchy (and, one could argue, traditional ecclesiology), translators seem to have translated a key Church word in a new way. Aside from being guilty of the same crime of which the RSV translators were guilty, they have shown disrespect to great bishops throughout history, such as Bishop Francis Asbury (above).

One of the greatest faults of 20th century evangelical theology was a weak ecclesiology. Presbyterianism provided a model for some, but even that system has weak roots and generally ignores "episkopoi". Both Reformers and evangelicals wished to distance themselves from the medieval Roman Catholic Church, with its imperial trappings. But it seems to me they threw out the baby with the bath water.

Bishops serve a proper and powerful purpose in the Church.

First, they represent our connection with the Church throughout the ages. The Constitution of the UMC states, "There shall be a continuance of an episcopacy in The United Methodist Church...", which, aside from making reference to our predecessor denominations, also infers an historic continuance through the ages. While this "succession" is impossible to verify historically due to the poor records kept during the Dark Ages, Christians can have faith that the historic faith has been faithfully transmitted through the centuries.

Second, bishops order the life of the Church as a whole, even as pastors (elders, local pastors, priests, whatever) order the life of the local congregations. When no one is minding the store in the episcopal sense, disaster can occur, ranging from denominational or jurisdictional collapse or a loss of clarity regarding the mission of the Church (which often results in cynicism and pessimism).

Third, and most importantly, bishops are charged with defense of the apostolic faith. It is the responsibility of the bishop to see to it that all Christians adhere to the essential doctrines and teachings of the Church. They have a supervisory and disciplinary role that we ought to take more seriously.

These three "fundamental roles" for bishops, whether for historic figures such as Bishop Asbury or contemporary leaders such as Bishop Thomas Bickerton of the Pittsburgh Area (above, between my lovely wife and myself), whether for United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Lutheran bishops, are what we need to look for in our episcopal leaders. When a bishop or a group of bishops demeans or fails to enforce Church teaching, they not only diminish themselves and the historic role of the episcopacy, they endanger the life and ministry of the Church. Bishops, too, need to be held accountable.

I would encourage more independently-minded Christians to pray about and study the role of episkopoi. Perhaps in the 21st century, evangelicalism can finally develop a sound, faithful ecclesiology, and bring the movement more in line with traditional Christian teaching in this area.

(An excellent online article regarding Methodism and apostolic succession can be found here.)

A Vision of Peace

"A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear;
but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins.
The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder's den.
They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

- Isaiah 11:1-9 (NRSV)

The Lenten Journey

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

(Image taken from the Crucifixion window in the sanctuary of
Cochran Memorial United Methodist Church, Dawson, PA)