Nathan Birr - The Official Site
  • Home
  • Bio
  • Books
  • Inspiration
  • Contact
  • Reviews
  • Links


"...With All

My Mind"


Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'"
-Matthew 22:37 (NIV)

Contact Me

                                                                                                                 A Tense Situation      

1/29/2015

0 Comments

 
“I am the greatest! I am the greatest thing that ever lived.”

These were the words of Cassius Clay (soon to change his name to Muhammad Ali) after defeating then-Heavyweight Champion Sonny Liston in 1964. They would prove prophetic, as Ali is widely considered as “the Greatest” boxer of all time. His words identified him.

There are countless examples of people boldly proclaiming their identity, from the braggadocios Clay to President John F. Kennedy declaring, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” in support of West Germany to Darth Vader infamously telling Luke Skywalker, “I am your father.” But today I want to talk about the boldest of the bold, the greatest proclamation of self-identity the world has ever seen or heard.

But first, some context. In John 8, we find Jesus debating with the Jews over His identity and authority. The Jews claim to be children (physical descendants) of Abraham. Jesus responds by telling them they are not Abraham’s children (spiritually, that is, possessing Abraham’s faith) but are actually children of the devil. They go back and forth until the Jews think they have Jesus trapped when he states that Abraham anticipated seeing His (Jesus’) day and rejoiced when he saw it. To which the Jews point out that Jesus was not even fifty years old. How have you seen Abraham? they ask. It is at this moment that Jesus pronounces some of the most powerful, jam-packed, consequential words ever spoken as He makes the greatest claim of identity of all time:

“I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I AM!” (John 8:58)

On the surface, it doesn’t seem to be that spectacular. It would also appear grammatically incorrect. But let’s unpack this a little. There are four major elements to this statement:

1) “Before Abraham was born . . .” Jesus is establishing preeminence by outdating Abraham. The Jews had claimed he was less than fifty, so to have been in existence before Abraham, either Jesus had aged remarkably well and found the secret to extraordinary long life, or He possessed some sort of supernatural ability. At the very least, He was capable of time travel. The Jews insisted that he was just a regular man. Just this part of Jesus’ statement, if true, would counter that argument. But we’re only getting started.

2) “I AM” was the name God gave to Moses when speaking to him from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). It was the most holy name the Jews had for God. It was so holy, in fact, that they wouldn’t even speak it. John Phillips, in his book Exploring the Gospels: John, writes the following: “It is said that when a scribe was copying the Scriptures and came to this name for God he would take a new pen just to write that name. It is said that when a reader in the synagogue came to this name in the sacred text, he would not read it; he would bow his head in worship, and the congregation, knowing he was thinking the ineffable name, would bow in worship too.” Yet Jesus not only uses the name (imagine a pastor or priest taking God’s name in vain . . . that’s what this was to them) but uses it to describe Himself. Talk about a shocking statement.

3) “I AM” Remember, this is the name with which God Almighty identified Himself to Moses. By using this term, Jesus was claiming to be the very God the Jews esteemed, the God of Moses, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was not a parable, nor was Jesus speaking in unfamiliar terms to them. There could be absolutely no mistaking what He meant. After a long dialogue, Jesus essentially says, “Let me make this real simple for you: I am the Lord God Almighty.”

4) “I AM” not “I was.” As I mentioned earlier, at first glance, Jesus’ statement seems grammatically incorrect. Had He said, “Before Abraham was born, I was,” His words would have still been powerful. But by speaking in the past tense regarding Abraham (“was born”), and then in the present tense regarding Himself (“I AM”), Jesus is stating His eternal nature. He transcends time and space. He is not limited by human, earthly measurements. He did not come into being. He was not created. Before Abraham was born, even before the world was formed, “I AM.” We speak of all things in the past in past tense, and all things in the future in future tense. So we could say, Jesus was (past), is (present), and will be (future). But to be accurate, we should say, Jesus is, is, and is. As the author of Hebrews put it, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (13:8)

This simple statement has drastic consequences. The Jews saw it. They tried to stone Jesus. And, were His claims not true, they would have been justified in doing so. Either Jesus was committing the most brazen, blatant blasphemy of all time, or He was making the greatest truthful claim of all time.

C.S. Lewis is famous for his trilemma regarding Jesus, claiming He must be either “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord.” Calling Jesus a “Liar” doesn’t make much sense. If He was just a guy seeking attention, maybe a little full of Himself, don’t you think He would have pulled the plug somewhere around the first lashing of the flagellum? Maybe sooner. Similarly, “Lunatic” doesn’t hold up either. A close examination of the words and works of Jesus give no indication that He was clinically insane. He didn’t foam at the mouth. He didn’t convulse. He didn’t talk nonsense. Instead, He befuddled people with the logic of His arguments. He taught with authority that their teachers of the law did not possess. He never gave the slightest suggestion that He lacked mental faculties. If “Liar” and “Lunatic” don’t pan out, what does that leave us with?

It was a critical question to the Jews of Jesus’ day, and it is equally critical to all of us today. If Jesus was a liar, he deserved the wrath of the Jews and to be scorned by us. If Jesus was a lunatic, a wacko who talked about time travel and made claims of deity, then He should be pitied. If, however, He was accurate in His claim, if He IS the Lord God Almighty (in infinity past, at present, and in infinity future), then the only rational response is to listen to His words and obey His teaching. The choice is yours. As Jesus famously asked Peter, so He asks you:

“Who do you say I am?”


Phillips, John. Exploring the Gospels: John. Loizeaux Brothers, Inc. 1988

Tweet
0 Comments

A Radical Idea

1/13/2015

0 Comments

 
Repeat after me: “Rad-i-cal Is-lam.”
There, was that so hard?


Many in this country (from President Obama to the mainstream media to liberal/left-wing/Democratic pundits) refuse to acknowledge the presence of radical Islam. In fact, in his address to the nation back in September, President Obama made it very clear that ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria)—also known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) was not Islamic. The question is, why does our president (I pick on him since he is the leader of the free world and the most-widely heard voice in our country, but he is by no means alone in this) refuse to recognize that there is such a thing as radical Islam?

There are clearly two (if not more) groups of people who claim to be Muslims. There are “radicals” or “extremists,” also known as jihadists. Or terrorists. Or the scourge of the earth. Then there are “moderates,” or “peaceful” Muslims. We are told over and over again that Islam is a religion of peace, that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and that these “radicals” aren’t truly Muslims in that they don’t adhere (mentally assent to or practically follow) the core beliefs of the religion. That may all be true. But those same radicals claim they are the true Muslims and that the “moderates” are weak-kneed cowards who will have no place in Paradise. And both of them quote the Quran in defense of their position. The problem is, I don’t know which of them is right. And frankly, I don’t care. Group A—“radicals”—want to kill me. Group B—“moderates”—don’t. I don’t mind, although I disagree on many points, with group B. I want Group A dead or in Gitmo as fast as possible lest they kill me or the ones I love.

I’ve studied Islam a little bit. I am by no means an expert. I cannot say with confidence whether radical Muslims or moderate Muslims more closely adhere to the intent of Muhammad when he penned the Quran. I can pull snippets of text from the Quran that would clearly indicate that Islam is not a religion of peace, just as Muslims can point to passages that would plainly affirm the exact opposite. But it wouldn’t be fair for me, unschooled as I am in their religion, to try to interpret the Quran, any more than it would be fair for an atheist to tell me what the Bible says and why I don’t believe my religion accurately. But I don’t think it matters for the point of this discussion.

Let’s look at a similar situation. There is a group in Kansas called the Westboro Baptist Church, most well-known for hating homosexuals and protesting funerals of veterans. The Westboro Baptist Church is part of the “Christian” religion. But they do not believe what I believe. Nor do they believe what the majority of “Christians” believe, and the term Christian is used to describe a broad group of people and beliefs. By all accounts, the members of Westboro Baptist Church are extremists. A hate group. “Radicals,” even. But they are still considered by pretty much everyone (the mainstream media, pundits on both sides of the aisle—and even by myself, if using the term as defined above) to  be part of the “Christian” religion. Isn’t it only fair then, that we apply the same standard to Islam?

Again, I don’t know the true “heart” of Islam. If the moderates are correct, then the radicals do not truly belong to the religion. But they use the name Islam. They carry out their murderous acts in the name of Islam. They oppose those who aren’t part of Islam. To not call them “radical Muslims” would be intellectually dishonest. (That’s a fancy of saying stupid.)

So why won’t President Obama et al. refer to them as such? Why can’t we seem to drag the words “radical Islam” from his mouth? Is he afraid of what radical Muslims might do if he applies the well-fitting shoe? Does he sympathize with the religion and not want to tarnish it by admitting that it has bad apples in the barrel? Has he just not applied standards of logic to his thoughts?  I don’t know. Only he could tell us that. Same is true of the mainstream media, pundits, etcetera. But the question begs to be asked.

Why does it matter? What difference does it make what name we give this group? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” and dung by any other name would . . . well, you get the idea.

Why does it matter? It matters because ideology dictates action. It matters because knowing your enemy is essential in war, and make no mistake, this is a war and they are the enemy. It matters because this isn’t a few troublemakers or a “JV team,” but an organized, determined army that wants us dead. It matters because the world (including Muslims, both radical and moderate) is watching us, looking for our leadership and watching for our weakness. And it matters because accuracy and truth matter. That, in and of itself, should be enough for the President of the United States of America. Sadly, it is not.

Tweet
0 Comments

    Archives

    April 2018
    July 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013

    Categories

    All

    Author

    I'm a thinker. For better or worse, my mind is always running. As a writer, I also love the method of communication. I think there's an artistry to it. This blog is my way of giving my constant thinking a place to express itself artistically.

    RSS Feed

Copyright © 2022, Nathan Birr