Musings on Doctrinal Development

But first...

Rather than pretend that the knowledge I impart is from a genuine study of the subject I am imparting knowledge about, I'd much rather blog about my musings on the given subject. I'd like to do this mostly because it is more honest in that I'm not simply regurgitating what I found elsewhere, though re-purposing that information is inevitable to discuss any subject.

Everything that I write about could be credited to all of the historians, theologians, philosophers, etc. that I stand on to help me develop my thinking. How else do we learn?

So the primary purpose of this blog is to present it to my readers as a genuine reflection on the given subject  "according to Daniel" and to hopefully provide it in an accessible manner so that the subject is easily understood.

The secondary purpose of this blog is to fulfill my burning desire to write and learn. Having a blog allows me to have conversations about the things I like to have conversations about when "real life" doesn't present those opportunities. I've found that most people simply do not like talking theology, philosophy, history, and like subjects. This blog fills the gap between those occasions where I do find myself in the presence of someone who is intellectually curious and the very long periods of time where I don't encounter those people.

That being said, indulge with me for a moment about a subject I am most unqualified to muse about...

Doctrinal Development

One of the most striking features of Catholicism is their definition of doctrine compared to the rest of the worlds religions. What we find in Catholicism is a "code" with walls and all. Defining what we believe is essential in maintaining what we believe as time goes on and cultures change.

 If there ever was an institutional mainstay in society, the Catholic church is it. This is evident when we consider a controversial topic such as that of contraception. The Catholic church has not changed her position on the subject for 2,000 years and despite getting opposition from non-Catholic Christians and secularists alike, they still won't change their position. 

Interestingly enough, one of the accusations Catholics receive from Protestants about doctrine in general is how certain doctrines developed over time. If I held the "bible alone as the sole rule of faith" presupposition, then I'd probably be suspicious of Catholicism as well. In fact, I was when I was a Protestant, despite having grown up in the Catholic church. But once that presupposition gets called into question, the dominoes fall in order and you start to see why Catholicism makes more sense. 

Cardinal John Henry Newman is the person to look to when it comes to the subject of doctrinal development and you can find a lot of his work online regarding it. For now, all I want to do is point out one particular thought of his regarding development.

In order for anything to "develop" it first needs to be living. I think that makes a lot of sense when thinking about things in nature or even abstract laws or constitutions. From this perspective, one can see that development is not necessarily a bad thing. So the question isn't about whether it is good for something to develop or not, but rather whether something has developed genuinely or fraudulently.

In other words, is this development corrupt or does it derive from its original source? Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition, which is the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation."

That oral revelation combined with the written revelation work hand in hand to make up the sacred deposit of faith. With oral revelation, in order for it to be living, it needs to be handed down from its source, the same way written revelation is handed down. This is where the Living Magisterium of the Church comes in. That is just a fancy way of saying the "teaching authority" of the Church. These teachers are legitimate successors to the Apostles who handed down the deposit of faith to men they chose to be their successors.

Whether we can prove that these teachers, the successors of the Apostles, are truly successors can be addressed in another post. But suffice it to say that there is no other plausible contender for such a position in light of history. It is virtually undeniable.

Now, this is the context in which we can now look at the essence of doctrinal development. It must be understood that the deposit of faith does not comprise of dusty books from the ancient world, but is "living and active" being that it is the Word of God (Heb. 4:12). And as I have mentioned before, anything that develops is assumed to be living.

Now, many non-Catholic Christians take it for granted that they also are a part of a tradition whether they like it or not. Even if you're part of a non-denominational church, there is an inherent connection to some other tradition that ultimately has its origins in the Reformation. Whether these Protestant traditions develop is evident by their various characteristics. For example, evangelical fundamentalism in America looks nothing like the Lutheran churches, though they essentially have their origins in the Reformation. Evangelicalism is largely the fruit of the seed planted during the "Great Awakening" in the 19th century and Lutheranism is closer to what was originally planted during the Reformation.

All of this was a round about way of pointing out that regardless of whether or not you think you're simply a "bible Christian," you're part of a larger theological tradition that has developed, evolved, and grown into something different than what it once was.

This brings me to my thoughts on Primivitism, which in and of itself has many forms within Christendom. Primivistism is the idea that the Church became corrupted at a certain point after the period of the Apostles and the primary goal of Christians should be to restore "pure Christianity." In its extreme form, you get Mormonism. It its more docile form, you get different types of Protestantism.

Protestants believe that the purest form of the deposit of faith from the Apostles is found in the New Testament, not Tradition. Ever since the Reformers planted this seed into peoples minds, protestant Christianity mutated and multiplied exponentially. This was mostly because of the invention of the printing press which essentially allowed more people access to Sacred Scripture.

When it was established in peoples minds that there wasn't a need for a teaching authority and that they now have the purest form of the deposit of faith in their hands, they believed they could legitimately start their own church according to their interpretation of the written word of God.

What Protestants take for granted is their own assumption that the Church was ever corrupted, but it's this view that the Church did become corrupt that drives their suspicious of doctrinal developments in Catholicism.

Going back to what I said earlier, the question isn't whether development is bad, but whether its corrupt or legitimate. Protestants essentially say that most Catholic doctrines are corrupt and they do so on the basis that certain doctrines (such as Marian doctrines) are "un-biblical."

So now we arrive at a point in the discussion that can go either of two ways. We could take the micro-level view and pick each doctrine apart and see whether or not it developed, or we could look at the macro-level and see whether doctrinal development makes any sense in the first place. I'd rather take the macro-level view.

Once we establish that doctrinal development makes sense, then we can see why Catholicism is the best possible option for anyone wanting to experience full Christianity.

The Trinity

There is perhaps no better example of doctrinal development than the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Holy Scripture does not contain any explicit formula for the doctrine of the Trinity and as such has been the source of many heresies.

We can access this concept via philosophy and define it from there, but none of these definitions are found in Scripture, at least explicitly. What the Church received regarding the Trinity contained in it the purest form of its truth, which is that God is one, yet is three distinct persons. There is a certain potentiality that exists in this doctrine that allows itself to be worked on while maintaining its most basic truth, namely that God is a Trinity of Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 

But how we grow to understand the trinity, though it may seem to have foreign language in its definition when compared to what was originally said about it, is something that cannot help but grow. One can look a car they look and find it very pleasing on the outside and they understand it to an extent. They know what it looks like. But that is all together different than knowing how it drives and once you do know how it drives, you've grown in your understanding of that vehicle. And in understanding how it drives, you don't lose what you previously knew about the vehicle, but you gain more knowledge. 

The purpose of me giving you that measly analogy is simply to point out that one can grow in their knowledge of something that is complete, but at various points not know it completely. The Trinity seems to have that characteristic, as do many other doctrines. We've grown in our understanding of how it would work using our reason and thus can define it more clearly. Defining it more clearly and explicitly only helps us to avoid falling into heresy by not believing what was divinely revealed to us. When we see it from that perspective, doctrinal development is a very good thing.

G.K. Chesterton and Protestant Logic

“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

In Defense Of My Catholic Shenanigans

It's not easy being Catholic you know. 

I have to go to Confession, can't use contraception, and must go to Church every Sunday. The horror! But seriously, it's not exactly convenient. 

Here's the thing, being Catholic for me was a choice that I chose because I had every reason to choose it. I was a Protestant since I "trusted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" when I was 18. Then on my way to the Catholic church I was involved in all sorts of shenanigans. I started to dissent. 

First off, I couldn't stand using crackers and little plastic cups of grape juice every first Sunday of the month for communion. Secondly, Church was like a concert with a conference-esque talk in between. Along with the funky lights and the fancy flat screens, the lack of intellectual depth in the sermons were annoying. 

I'm just being honest and maybe I sound like a pompous you-know-what, but I can't help that I felt that way. I wasn't being prideful. I just couldn't stand the self-help talk every Sunday because I knew Christianity was more real than that. 

Then I read Thomas Aquinas and my expression was...

Is this guy really Catholic? So faithful, so devout, so...umm...Christian? He knew the Bible, he knew theology, philosophy, and all that good stuff and still defended the Church's Marian dogmas!

"Nonsense," I screamed. 

But that was all I had. No counter. Just annoyance to the nth degree. Why? Because I loved Aquinas and he was a damn Catholic and Catholics are idol worshippers who put Mary on a peddle stool and don't know the Bible. 

Then I read Augustine and...

This guy is Catholic too? Ah heck no! I delighted in reading Augustine until I found out he was a good Catholic. What's up with all the good guys, why are they all Catholic? 

This question ate away at me. Then I read John 6 and it was at this point that I was like...

And the rest followed. You see, I believed Jesus and that is ultimately why I am a Catholic. Everything in me knew deep down that the Eucharist (what we commonly call communion) was the center of Christian life and worship. And when I reflected on it and asked myself what Church celebrated the Eucharist in this way, I discovered it was the Church I grew up in—the Catholic church. 

I had come to believe that Jesus really meant what He said when He said:

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. (Jn. 6:53-56)

Compare that to..."This is my body" and "This is my blood" speaking about the bread and wine. Wait, wait, wait. So Jesus just said I have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life and be raised up and then he said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood...

So I thought to myself, "What Church believes that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine?" Then I started to become Catholic. For real G. I didn't become Catholic because I had some deep intellectual awakening that proved my protestant logic wrong (okay, maybe a little bit), but because I believed Jesus in everything He said. 

The rest was an intellectual thing. It didn't help that I was part of a fundamentalist church called Calvary Chapel where there is an unacknowledged spirit of anti-intellectualism. But I'm not being Mr. Intellectual Superior here, I'm just saying that a little critical thinking wouldn't kill anybody. 

Besides all that, what I really had an intellectual problem with was the two fundamental doctrines of Protestanism. The first was, "The Bible Alone" as the sole and final rule of faith. The second was, "Faith alone" for salvation. 

The first is by the far the most important tenant of Protestantism. It was called into question when I was in a conversation with my friend about Catholicism when I was still a Protestant and told him, "I believe in the Bible alone," to which he responded, "Where is 'the Bible alone' in the Bible?" 

To which I had no answer. 

I went home frantically searching my Bible to find evidence for this fundamental Protestant tenet of faith, but I was found wanting. My only hope was 2 Timothy 3:16 - 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Aha! But not really. This didn't establish "the Bible alone," it merely established that Scripture is "useful" or "profitable" for these things. Even still, when Paul wrote this particular passage, he was speaking about the Old Testament. Surely the Old Testament alone didn't count for all Scripture.

All of the arguments from Protestants to establish "the Bible alone" were weak and found wanting. What's more is that without this principle, there is no reason to accept any church in Protestantism as an authority. There was always much talk about "submitting" to your church leaders, but why? If the Bible is my ultimate authority, why should I submit to a pastors particular interpretation of the Bible? If the Bible was the foundation of truth, then why submit to any church when I could read it for myself and come up with my own interpretation?

Then I read 1 Timothy 3:15 -

"...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Say whaaat?! The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Yes, that is what Holy Scripture tells me and what Tradition has always said. But, which Church?

That's when all sorts of buffoonery starts happening in your brain. 

You walk into your Protestant church on Sunday and all of the sudden you don't feel very exicited. You want to go to a Catholic church but everything inside of your rebels against the idea of ever stepping foot in the Catholic church.

I lost that battle obviously. I couldn't hold it in anymore. It was like what G.K. Chesterton said:

“It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair.”

It was a love affair alright. I found myself thinking about her all of the time and wanting to sneak off on Sundays to go sit in the back of the church and experience the liturgy of the Mass. I was secretly in love with the Church.

It would be an injustice to not mention the role of N.T. Wright in all of this. N.T. Wright is an intellectual titan by today's standards. Do a wikipedia search for some background, but his insights made an incredible impact on my theological and intellectual journey to Catholicism.

N.T. Wright probably doesn't know it, but he took me by the hand and dropped me off in Rome. He might not approve of such a notion, but it's true. I'm not the first or the last person to have that happen to them.

He took every pillar of my evangelical fundamentalist logic down with an academic prowess and poetic prose that I simply couldn't refute. It was biblical, well reasoned, and obvious once he pointed it out.

Then I went on a search for a new church. The only option seemed to be the Episcopalian church which was the American wing of Anglicanism, the tradition that N.T. Wright was a part of. That's when I went on a camping trip with my good Catholic friend.

He conveniently brought with him some audio to listen to in the car and a man by the name of Scott Hahn said something that played on the strings of my Catholic leaning heart.

He was a former Protestant converted to Catholicism and on his journey to the Catholic faith he came to a decision point—he had to change churches too.

That's when he mentioned he thought he should become Episcopalian after coming to the same conclusions that I came to. Then he threw down a line of defense for not being Episcopalian that compelled me to go home and start getting some answers.

Then, my good friends, I decided it was over.

This is not a perfect conversion story and it certainly doesn't contain all of the details, but it gets the point across. I became Catholic because I couldn't help it and to me, that's a good defense of my position. 

In reality, I know you might not feel compelled to come to the same conclusions, but I'm leaving room to write more about it in the following posts. I hope you'll stay tuned. 

Sugar and Sin

For the last week and a half I have been seriously starving my body of sugar. Part of it has to do with doing the South Beach Diet in which the first phase calls for a serious drop in carbs. I don't see myself as being seriously overweight, but I needed to make some adjustments to be comfortable with myself. I've lost probably about 8 lbs when you count in the fluctuations one might have from day to day.

At the start of this, I was 201 and now when I wake up in the morning  after fasting all night in my sleep, I weigh about 190.5. My pants are certainly fitting better and I feel better, but one thing has been very apparent to me in his last week and a half. My addiction to sugar was pretty bad. By eliminating, if not limiting, anything that causes a spike in my blood glucose levels, I realized just how much I was overloading my body with toxic sugar. 

Seriously, in the morning I'd wake up and have one full glass of orange juice and if there was a piece of bread around, I'd eat it. Go check out how much sugar one glass of orange juice has and consider the fact that since it is a juice, it will be absorbed much faster. I would eat some sort of bread, whether it was toast or my personal favorite, pan dulce (sweet bread). I'd pour my cup of coffee with creamer and sugar or a flavored creamer and the day is just getting started!

Lunch comes around and I would exercise virtually no self control. Whatever sounds good, I went to go get it. Burritos, hamburgers, fries, chips, sandwiches, it didn't matter. After lunch, that mid-afternoon craving for more sugar would set in and I'd find myself at the store buying some delightful peanut butter cups or Snickers to satisfy my need for more sugar.

Then dinner comes around and I may exercise some restraint on the fast food, but it was none the better because even if I was making tacos at home I considered it "home made food." Needless to say, my blood glucose levels were off the charts all day long and with my routine at work which consists of a lot of sitting, my body was storing fat like it was getting prepared to hibernate. 

The first week of not eating this way was difficult because the cravings don't go away. You eat a high-protein, very low-carb meal and you feel satisfied for a little while. But the craving for some sugary delights kicks in very quick and you have to exercise some amount of control over yourself not to give in. 

The weekend is the hardest with the many temptations it brings. Luckily, I was home most of the weekend and on Sunday for mothers day when my wife and I went to my parents house, they cooked grilled chicken tacos and all I had to do was eliminate the tortilla. 

So here I am on Wednesday almost done with a full two weeks of very low sugar intake. Here is the biggest surprise I am learning from this experience. Our addiction to sugar is unknown until we start to cut off all the food sources that give us sugar. I'm not talking about just candy and soda, I'm talking about breads, sauces, and fruit juices, and yogurts, all of the above that have too much sugar and very little nutritional value. I did not understand how dependent I was on sugar, it is an addiction. 

Here's what I am feeling right now. My sugar addiction has subsided. I have very little need to stop at the store and grab chips and a candy bar. The morning is much easier now. I wake up and make coffee with a non-fat creamer and sweet and low and have bacon or eggs, which are full of protein. I also try to have a full glass of water.

Lunch has become a cinch. Today, for example, I had a shrimp salad with a small amount of balsamic vinaigrette. It helped that the Mexican restaurant who made it does a good job with the shrimp, but you can get a good salad like this anywhere. My only real indulgence has been diet sodas which I know are bad for you in one sense, but they don't cause an insulin response (though there are some studies that indicate some may). 

Dinner is a no brainer and is very easy if you're willing to put in the effort. The bottom line has been that eliminating or seriously limiting the amount of carbs I take in, I have effectively curved my craving for sugar. It's completely manageable. In the midst of chips and salsa and the guy next to me eating a burrito, I was happily eating my shrimp salad. I keep thinking of my progress and how good I feel and how I don't want to undermine that, so I keep on pushing on. 

Applying Spiritual Principles

How can any of this apply to spiritual principles? Sin is an addiction of sorts and if we can successfully starve the spirit that causes sin, I think we can curve the need to sin. I'm not trying to build a theology around it, but I think there is some validity to this. Just as in anything else, there is lots of discipline and practice involved in becoming an effective disciple of Jesus. One thing that can throw us off track is sin, which can be likened to sugar in this case. 

I can go right now and pig out on peanut butter cups. Or I can choose not to. Last week, it would've been easy to go to the store and take my choice of sweet indulgences. Right now, I can firmly resist because I don't have a deep sense of urgency to get sugar into my body. 

Right now it may be easy for all of us to engage in some particular sin. Maybe its really easy to get angry and hurt someone. Maybe its really easy to sit in front of your computer to look at explicit content. Maybe its really easy to cheat on your husband and wife with that guy or girl you've been flirting with for a while. 

Whatever it is, the key is to starve it. 

This takes discipline and you may not be presently tempted by certain sins, but ultimately you want to protect yourself from all sin. The way we can all do this is my exercising restraint in our life with all things concerning sin. 

If you're constantly listening to bad music that doesn't uplift and edify, too much of it will be stored in the fat cells of your spirit like sugar to the fat cells of your body. It becomes part of you. This can be applied in many other things such as flirting when your not supposed to, looking at things your not supposed to, hurting people, being angry, acting in malice, lying, etc. When you're taking too much in, it will become part of you.

When it becomes part of you and you're carrying all that extra weight of sin, you have only one choice but to starve it and work out your spiritual muscles. This requires discipline, a focus on the end goal, and lots of prayer. It most certainly requires a serious dedication Jesus. 

We want to be as perfect as we can be and seeking perfection is not done in vain. God has called us to be perfect even though we know perfect won't come until the Resurrection. But, as we know, right now we are called to live holy lives to God. If we dabble in "little" sins all of the time, like little indulgences of sugary snacks, how can we expect to resist that big piece of succulent chocolate cake when it is presented to us?

The little sacrifices we make count because they are investments in the kingdom of God. As you slowly remove your need to sin from your spirit, overtime the big temptations are easy to overcome. Yet still, sin will be crouching at the door always and we must overcome it and we can do this by first stopping it in its tracks and also occupying our lives with good works. 

The Tragedy of a Miscarriage

Writing about this is intensely personal and I hope to share just a few thoughts about my recent experience that is both a tragedy and a lesson.

My wife had a miscarriage and it was tremendously hard to take her to the doctors when we suspected something might be wrong. The whole way down to the doctors I was praying silently hoping that everything was okay and that if it wasn't going to be okay, God would give us the strength to endure.

Both my wife and I were extremely anxious about what the doctor would find out which made sitting in the lobby almost unbearable. After being called in, we sat inside of the doctors room in silence. I looked up at my wife and she seemed scared and sad. I reassured her that whatever happens, God is always here. She shook her head in agreement, but with little change in her expression.

The doctor came in and asked my wife a few questions and mentioned that what she was experiencing happens in a lot of pregnancies. This offered a little bit of hope for me that everything was going to be fine. The doctor then proceeded to tell us that we would have to do a sonogram to make sure everything was okay and it was at this moment that I became extremely nervous.

My wife closed her eyes for a moment with a worried look on her face as the doctor was preparing for the sonogram. I simply uttered prayers underneath my breath that the baby would be fine.

As the image pulled up on the screen, my heart immediately dropped. I knew exactly what I was looking at and the tears on my wife's face confirmed that she knew as well. There was no heartbeat, no movement, just dead silence. The doctor spent a few more seconds looking and looking, but I suspect she knew what she was looking at too.

It was at that point that the doctor looked up at Yesenia to say sorry and tell her that she miscarried. This of course brought tears to her eyes and my heart broke into pieces, not just for my baby, but for my wife who I could sense was immensely sorrowful at the mention that our baby was no longer alive.

The doctor finished up and left us to ourselves. I embraced my wife the way a husband should, grabbing her head to place on my chest and holding her tightly. But this was all I could do. I mourned with her and just held her there while she cried. After a few minutes, I looked at my wife in her eyes to assure her that within God's providence all things work together for good.

It is at this time that faith plays an important role in peoples lives. There are many couples who suffer much harder things. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a stillborn or go almost full term and have a miscarriage.

To us, this was big, but at the end of the day it can't break us from the hope that is in us. I spent the next few days with my wife at home while she would go in and out of crying. It was a hard few days. We had to spend time in prayer and I had to make sure that my spiritual leadership came into serious play here.

It is with these small battles, whether in marital problems or in tragic things like miscarriages, that we learn whether or not we are up to the task to endure. This is not to say that there is no pain or heartache, or that there is no suffering. Rather, these battles show us whether we are prepared to endure the pain, heartache, and suffering.

If there is no intimacy between you and your wife and your consolation only comes at a time of trouble, it will be difficult for your wife to hear your words. I must work to gain the trust of my wife and this can only come through the discipline of living a life after the Messiah's own heart. In the discipline, I must provide my wife with guidance in our marriage all of the time and when I do so I prepare her for battle as well. Our job as husbands is to protect and provide. This is not limited to physical sustenance and shelter, but to spiritual sustenance and shelter as well.

If in my passion for Jesus I become more like him and my wife follows my example, we will be prepared to endure these battles by the armor that we have put on. We are not immune to suffering, but we can travail the rocky terrain when we encounter it and we can only do this if we have properly trained for the task.

This miscarriage is a tragedy for us and for our family. We want a child that we can call our own. But, in this tragedy I have learned the immense value in being a disciple of Jesus and the tremendous obligation to be passionately dedicated to imitating Him in every facet of my life so that my wife and future child or children will be equally prepared for the battles of life by knowing and imitating Jesus as well.

Standing below Scripture

With all of our ideas, philosophy, theology, and other scholarly endeavors (be it in school or not) there is the very real temptation to stand above Scripture in criticism not realizing that ultimately Scripture stands above us.

If we don't handle the Word of God with fear and trembling, we can make the fatal - and I mean that in a serious sense - mistake of making the Word of God a book at your disposal, ready to be used for your purposes rather than His.

Theology is necessary. Philosophy is important. Most Pastors in the evangelical realm have very little discipline in this area, which is a tragedy. But they exist as parts of the whole. Approaching Holy Scripture as a spiritual species is vital. The Bible is a Spiritual book first, not in the pagan sense, but in the sense that it is full of the Spirit. It is the living word of God, not simply a book of disposed historical facts or sayings.

I say all this as a reminder to myself. I approach the Word with my head low, not taking the study of it as a light task with highlighters and notes as if it were a text book.

This is Spiritual food, Holy Testimony. It stands above all of us.

The Clouds of Heaven

For this post we'll be discussing Mark 14:62, which reads:

“And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Now, for any regular church going Christian, this verse would mean only one thing--Jesus' second coming. But, what if I told you that's not what He was referring to?

If you simply read Scripture in a devotional way where you hand pick certain readings on a daily basis, coming to this verse may be of no help. Rather than letting Scripture interpret Scripture, we're all prone to our biases when reading certain verses. In the case of Mark 14:62, most Christians (I'm assuming) would think that Jesus is very directly referring to His second coming. But, when we allow Scripture itself help us understand Jesus' statement, we see an entirely different interpretation.

For this discussion, we have to ask ourselves the first question? What is Jesus' talking about?

If you're familiar with the book of Daniel, you'll know exactly what Jesus is talking about. We have to start there in order to "interpret" why Jesus is saying what He is saying and what it all means.

There is no dispute that Jesus here is referring to Daniel 7:13 (hover over this verse link and you'll see the verse pop up).

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

Before we dive into this verse, it is first necessary to build context around it. For this we have to start at verse 9 and 10:

“As I looked, thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened."

We are clearly in a heavenly court scene. The "Ancient of Days" is none other than YHWH, the Judge. So, as Daniel is watching his vision, he is seeing heaven and YHWH taking His seat. What follows is Daniel seeing the beast being destroyed and "stripped of authority."

Now we can get the verse in Mark.

Jesus is referring to himself as the "son of man" and his hearers would know that Jesus was referring to Daniel. Here's where everything gets interesting.

As I said in the beginning of this post, most people think this is speaking about the Second Coming. But, as we can see in Daniel, we get a very different meaning. Part of the confusion is language. We're accustomed to hearing about the Second Coming and when Jesus says you will see him "...coming on the clouds of heaven," we make the connection. Ah!, we say, this must be the talking about the Second Coming, what else? 


Here's what we know. Jesus is clearly, without a doubt, referring to Daniel 7:13 when he says you will see Him "...coming on the clouds of heaven." Since that is what he is referring to, we must necessarily go to Daniel to also  understand what Jesus is saying and why.

Take this into account. Daniel's vision is very clearly set in a heavenly scene, it would be hard to disagree with this. Although heaven doesn't have a locale within space and time, it is symbolically referred to as being "up there."

As Christians, we understand Jesus' final advent as a descent into our universe, coming from heaven to earth as it were. It's not that we understand it as Jesus will physically be coming out of the sky (though some do) into earth, it's just that "coming from above" is a way of saying "coming from heaven." The final advent, of course, is when all things are restored and heaven and earth are finally united.

So it helps our conversation to understand the "location" of heaven and earth as we understand it. Heaven is above, earth is below.

When Christians read Mark 14:62 here, they may imagine that this is Jesus "coming" from heaven to earth. But, as I mentioned earlier, in order to know what Jesus is talking about we have to refer to what he is referring to, which is Daniel 7:13.

When we go to Daniel 7:13, we can build some context as long as we read that verse within its own context.  Now that you've read Daniel 7:9-10 (if you haven't, do so now), lets look at Daniel 7:13:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." 

I put the last sentence in bold. Maybe you know what I'm getting at already, but lets elaborate. The first sentence describes the "...son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven." Then right after, "He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

Who is the Ancient of Days? YHWH.

Where is YHWH's throne? Heaven.

Who is the son of man approaching? YHWH

Where is the son of man approaching Him? Heaven.

So, the "...coming with the clouds of heaven" has an upwards trajectory not a downwards. This can mean only one thing--this verse is not referring to the Second Coming.

Verse 14 adds more context to this:

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power

If what Daniel saw in his vision was the Second Coming, are we to suppose that Jesus only has authority, glory, and sovereign power at that time?

We don't need to guess. First, in Matthew 28:18, post-resurrection, Jesus says:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

And of course, Stephen see's Jesus, post-resurrection in heaven:

“I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

It is clear also that placed against the backdrop of Caesar, followers pulled no punches when they proclaimed Jesus as king:

“These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” (Acts 17:5-7)

There are many other places and references we could make both in the OT and NT, but the point is that Jesus HAS authority on earth and in heaven.

This leaves us coming away from Mark with something completely different. Jesus isn't referring to his second coming, he is referring to the resurrection and everything that comes after.

This is not to say that there is no Second Coming, but that this reference isn't talking about the Second Coming. Jesus is the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven TO the throne of YHWH where he will be vindicated and given authority over heaven and earth. When he delivers the death blow to Satan on the cross, He shows his victory in the resurrection and has authority over heaven and earth. We are called to exercise that authority by preaching the sovereign rule of Jesus as King and Lord. I will be posting on this topic soon.