Linus was correct!

   Throughout my entire youth, I knew little about Jesus.  Sadly, there were only two witnesses to me which I recall about the identity of Jesus.  One of the two came from a character I was familiar with whose name is Linus.  Watching all of the Peanuts holiday shows from our television was an annual event in my childhood household.  One year when watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, where Charlie Brown and the entire group were involved in presenting a Christmas play, the monologue by Linus contained a message that resounded in my heart.
   Thanks to the Scripture from Luke 2:8-11 which was presented in the beloved cartoon, I learned of the proclamation of the good news that a Savior has been born.  I did not know what the Savior could save me from.  And I did not know how to receive the great joy that had been proclaimed.  Yet I did learn that God had made some glorious opportunity available.
   And now I answer those questions which were unknown by me for many years.  First: Why do we need a Savior?  Because God, the giver and sustainer of life, is Holy; perfectly good and loving.  Being Holy, He maintains a loving union with those who are made holy.  For us who have done anything wrong, which always interferes with a truly loving relationship, we need forgiveness, and we need to be enabled to enter an everlasting loving friendship with Him, which means we need to be enabled to be truly loving.
   Before I received Jesus as my Savior, I normally did not consider myself a person in need of a Savior, though there were windows of time when I sensed such a need, such as when I listened to Linus, and during a rough time in high school.  I rarely got into trouble in school, and I was Captain of the Safety Patrols, even earning an award for being the second best Safety Patrol in all of Fairfax County for the 1978 to 1979 school year.  Many people often wrote in my yearbook that I was a "nice" guy, and I earned the rank of Eagle in Boy Scouts with all three Palms.  At Virginia Tech, I was a Resident Advisor, and I received many compliments for that job which was done into my sophomore year, and then throughout my junior and senior year.  In my youth, I was only in a few fights, I only stole one library book, and once I stole a dollar (which I returned years later, after I became a Christian).  I rarely lied, and I only kissed two young ladies, one of whom was a Fairfax County police officer.  (A group of counselors and officers were playing a game when I was a counselor at the superb Fairfax County Patrol camp.)
   However, I easily recognize now that I had anger and lust in my heart which was ever increasing.  As a result, I increasingly did things that hurt myself, other people, and which interfered in developing a relationship with God.  Truly loving is not about being more caring than a bunch of other people, rather it is about being like Jesus.  Anything short of His love results in spiritual death, because eternal life requires true love.
   And secondly: How can a person receive the Savior?  By believing in Jesus (see John 11:25-26).  Jesus, the Messiah, the Hebrew word for Christ, died on a cross for the forgiveness of sins of anyone.  Jesus spiritually died as the substitute for the consequence of wrong doings.  Jesus was the atoning sacrifice!  And then?  Jesus was resurrected.  If you believe in Jesus, you will have eternal life.
   Do realize that if you truly believe in Jesus, you will even be changed.  I have written in my journal many times; "The perfection process is a painful process, but the perfection process leads to goodness."  That change involves a lifetime sanctification process for a follower of Jesus.  Yet God will be there to rely on.
   I now believe with all of my heart that Linus was right: a Savior has been born.  You can believe in Him right here and now.

   Merry Christmas, and I hope this season is truly blessed for you.  Jesus loves you.
love, Hunter

Peanuts, Linus, and Charlie Brown are all trademarks under the copyright of PEANUTS Worldwide LLC.

To God be the glory, I graduated from Colorado Christian University!!

Today I graduated from Colorado Christian University!  I now have a second B.A. in Youth Ministry, and I give thanks to God!

   Boy, in this world, going for dreams requires much sacrifice, yet being obedient to God, going by His loving guidance, encouragement, and help, results in goodness.

   This accomplishment is a dream come true!
   CCU is a great university, and graduating summa cum laude is due to God enabling me to persevere during the smooth times as well as the rough times.  I have a passion for learning about God, and I went all out in my studies at CCU!  I gave it my all!  In four and a half years as a part-time student, I think I only missed 3 classes, though it may have been four.  Giving it my all, I could not go another semester, yet on the flip side, I feel totally ready to teach Bible.  I only was able to do what I did because of God.

   It has been one of the best and most unique things I have done.  Many may wonder why I would go for a second B.A. rather than go to seminary considering that my B.A. and grades at Virginia Tech could have gotten me into most seminaries in the U.S.  My answer is, "Do you want the long story or the short story?"  The short story is that CCU is where I wanted to go, thanks to my mentor Dr. David Beckman.  Then I had God's unique affirmation, the primary time being, of all places, during my lunch period at my part-time job.  The other time was when I was frustrated once during the second semester of my first year, and standing in a corner of my room praying.  If God encourages you to do something, I have learned to do it even if it seems a little crazy.  I know I had God's blessing by studying at CCU!

   CCU is academically challenging.  In the course of my studies over four and a half years, I wrote 187 pages worth of papers, not counting bibliography pages and cover pages obviously.  There were countless sacrifices.  For Thanksgiving my first year, after three days of distributing flyers in a Denver neighborhood that week to make some needed money, I spent the bulk of Thanksgiving Day working on a history paper.  (Or that may have been my second year, and the work was on a Western Civilization paper.  I was really tired when I wrote this, and I do not remember now.)  Then there was my birthday which is always near final exam time.  My first year, I spent much of my birthday working on a fifteen page paper for my Biblical Interpretation class.

   Colorado Christian University is a special school, an inter-denominational university, which is rare for an evangelical university.  In retrospect, how incredible there are students and professors from a vast variety of denominations and doctrinal convictions, all learning together at the same college.  Being inter-denominational obviously has it challenges.  Student and professor convictions were across the spectrum.  For example, one professor, who I like, who is no longer teaching undergrad at CCU, taught that the Biblical book of Jonah is fictional, (the only such book of the Bible), meant to be a biblical parable.  That is one example of some of the variety of teaching you have at CCU.  I add that I spoke up with my reason as to why Jonah is not a fictional book.

   I had some disagreements with some of the professors over the course of my time there, but the key about CCU is that almost all professors allow all students in class to give his or her opinion.  I think this is an enriching forum for good inter-denominational teaching, more so, that is an enriching forum for education.  To allow open discussion fosters learning for those who genuinely seek the truth.
   I have heard of Christian colleges and seminaries where students are not permitted to discuss disagreements in class.  I would never recommend such colleges, since there is a difference between preaching and teaching.  Teaching needs to involve discussion, and there needs to be the acceptance, even by professors, that not everyone is going to agree.  The "open" method at CCU, the fact that CCU is overall an evangelical university, and the fact that CCU has many extremely special people as a part of that family, is a reason I am a supporter of CCU!

   (I add here, after writing and posting this on a day where I was extremely tired, that I look back on my time at CCU and realize that I gained a great education.  Granted much of that was because I was engaged in the entire learning process.  Yet it was also due to some extraordinary classes.

   My favorite class was my New Testament survey class, yet there were so many other quality classes.  And the biggest surprise: I think the class of which I benefited the most from the teaching was "Research Writing" taught by Dr. Windy Petrie.  Looking back, my writing has been vastly improved by some simple basic lessons taught by Dr. Petrie at the beginning of that semester.)

   And the outstanding moral standards exemplified at CCU are not for the sake of showing off.  CCU moral standards are about living a life that is good, resulting in more and more love poured out for God and for other people.  Sin blocks love.  Living God's way results living by true love.  We people at CCU are human, yet the advocation at CCU of living by the teachings of Jesus are embraced, and the love of God is flowing at CCU.

   I love students at CCU!  I thank Jesus for enabling me to be a loving big brother-in-Christ with numerous students, the most important thing for me at CCU.

   Seriously, this was one hope of mine as I planned to be a new student, though old student, at CCU: I wanted to be a supportive big brother-in-Christ to at least one student in some special way.  I was, in unique ways, to several students.  It was God who put me in a special position to be a big brother!

   Even on the second day of classes, there was a freshman who was perplexed about something discussed in a class, maybe even disturbed.  I had the opportunity to comfort her with an explanation and encourage her.  That would be the first of many opportunities to assist my fellow students as someone who has followed Jesus for over twenty years by His mercy and grace.

   One huge blessing at CCU was my job in the CCU library for three years and four months.  I liked working in the library in a big way, because I liked helping students, and I liked seeing the oodles of cool Biblical books we have.  Granted I have my weaknesses.  On my first day on the job at the library, I was told to quiet down.  For those of you who know me, I am not a quiet person.  I honestly have trouble lowering my voice.  Fortunately I got quieter with time, since I was getting older with time.  I also socialized a bit too much, yet on the whole, I worked darn hard in that job, and I miss serving students already.  And I am thankful to the Director of the CCU Library, Gayle, who gave me a huge compliment at our Christmas party, saying I was the pinnacle of giving service to students.  Also the going away gift, a CCU blanket, is great and useful.
   Then there was my tutoring job.  The privilege of tutoring students for New Testament and Old Testament general education classes for one year was one of the most blessed activities of my life.  I only did it for one year, since I could not give my all to my course work and to the tutoring.  Yet it was an incredible CCU experience.  Supporting students in a manner which fit my passion was awesome, and I thank each student who worked with me to learn more about the Bible.

   I have worked a number of jobs in my life, and they all have one thing in common: they were short term.  I am thankful God opened the door, and helped me all along, so that I am now a graduate of Colorado Christian University.  This positions me for a career.  The difference between a job and a career is that a career is long term.  And a career needs to fit you in some unique way in order to be fulfilling.  And I am thankful that because of my calling from Jesus, my career is rooted in a calling, which is possible for all followers of Jesus.

   There were challenges being an older student at CCU that I would never have imagined.  And being 41 when I started at CCU, it was a social challenge simply being back in college.  Yet God used the unique circumstance for good, and I learned much about even my own flaws and the need to improve.  And having the dream of doing vocational ministry work, and the dream of being married one day, I have confidence that my CCU education will contribute to both of those dreams, even after such a long wait.

   And then there is a statistic I will never forget.  In four and a half years at CCU, I went on one date.  Good thing it was a nice date.  It did not go romantic between us; there was not even a second date, but she is still a dear friend.  I am thankful for a compliment she gave me at a later time, which was one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me.  She is a special woman.  I will not embarrass her by giving her name, but she can smash a volleyball.

  I have to add I think it is great so many students get engaged at CCU.  When I was in college the first time, I never knew anyone to get engaged before graduation.  To see so many students at CCU who are mature enough and godly enough to get married at what I consider such a young age was encouraging to me.

   I want to thank every single person who supported me on this challenging journey!  I give a special thanks to those who supported me all along, and I was thankful I took the opportunity to personally name them in my Christmas letter.  And I am grateful to those who came last night to the graduation banquet: my mom, sister Holly, Becky, and Dave.

   Today after my last final exam, I went out to the edge of the duck pond and cried!  Then I gave God the glory for enabling me to flourish at CCU.  Then I knelt and prayed.

   After my time beside the duck pond, I went to the classroom where I had my second class at CCU, starting on Monday morning, August 25, 2008.  (Ironically, that class my first semester, New Testament Introduction, was my favorite class of my entire time at CCU, though I had a number of other incredible classes.)  I sat in the exact chair where I sat for the whole semester.  Then going to the class where I had my first class at 8:00 am that same Monday morning, a great history class, I sat down in my same seat and said the Lord's Prayer.  It was an incredible time of acknowledging the finish.

   For my success at Colorado Christian University, I say, "To God be the glory!!!"

Hunter

[Picture from the fantastic spring CCU graduation, which I attended, after having graduated mid-year!  A happy alumnus!!]

Please note: I edited this piece on two different occasions after posting it.  I was so tired out that Thursday evening, I do not know how I even was able to write this.  It shows how excited I was.

   Back to how exhausted I was, the mid-semester graduation banquet was Wednesday the 19th.  Then Thursday the 20th, I had my last final exam.  Though drained, against all odds, I aced it.  Quite rare.

   Honestly, looking back, succeeding at CCU was against all odds for me, and I remain thankful for God's help!

I add the link to my new beloved second Alma mater.
www.ccu.edu

Why do many Hindus refrain from eating meat, yet many Christians do not?

   Below is my last paper, the last of many, done for course work here at CCU.

   Note the original paper was done using the CMS citation, but I had to do MLA for this posting because there were technical issues with the 29 footnotes.

COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SUPPORTING BELIEFS FOR VEGETARIAN OR MEAT EATING DIET PRACTICES

IN HINDUISM AND CHRISTIANITY

SUBMITTED TO DR. RYAN MURPHY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

PHL 315 - WORLDVIEWS

BY

HUNTER IRVINE

12/12/12

   Vegetarianism is common among people who engage the Hindu faith. Vegetarianism is not prevalent among Christians, yet I am a Christian, and I rarely eat meat.  Primarily a pescatarian, someone who eats only fish meat, I committed to this diet back in 2007.  A vegetarian connection between many people of the Hindu faith and myself is the reason I chose this topic. First, in order to give context for my subject, I will examine the diet ordained by Hindu conviction, past and present, and then examine the diet ordained by Christian conviction, past and present. Secondly, I will argue my thesis: the worldview of what is sacred for Hindus influences their diet conviction; likewise the worldview of what is sacred for Christians influences their diet conviction.

   What was the ordained diet practice of Hindu people back in ancient times? Arguing my thesis will involve the two different worldviews of sacredness. Sacredness is “That which is ultimate, either of a spiritual or secular nature, and which orders reality for believers” (Young 425). In leading to my argument, how appropriate to take into account the claim by both Hinduism and Christianity that they rely on what are deemed sacred texts for God’s wisdom or revelations. “The Hindu traditions have a multiplicity of sacred texts in Sanskrit and regional languages” (Coogan 42). The oldest writings which Hindus claim are scriptures, sacred writings, are the Vedas, texts put into writing around 1500 B.C. “Their origins are ambiguous and a matter of great controversy as some scholars attribute them to the Indus-Valley civilization and others to the Indo-European ‘Aryans’…” states Deepak Sarma, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Case Western Reserve University (Sarma 5). Whatever their origin, many Hindus consider them sacred, and some consider the Vedas to be “…trans-human, that is, not authored by human beings” (Coogan 42).

   There is a debate concerning the diet practices of ancient Hindus. According to Professor Constance Jones and Dr. James Ryan, most scholars claim that Hindus did not embrace vegetarianism until as late as the 6th century as a result of the influence of the Jains and the Buddha (Jones and Ryan 485). They claim the Vedas show people eating meat, including beef (Jones and Ryan 283). On the other side of the debate are scholars such as prolific Vaishnava author Steven J. Rosen {Satyaraj Das}. A Jewish man who converted to Vaishnava Hinduism in 1972, Rosen served as the “editor-in-chief of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies, an academic quarterly that is esteemed and supported internationally by scholars in the field” (Berry 92). “As a measure of the high esteem in which he is held by Indian scholars, his works have been issued by three of India’s prominent publishers…” (Berry 91). Rosen claims Hindus were vegetarians from the start, quoting from Hindu sacred texts which support animal protection. For example, Rosen quotes Yajur Veda, 12.32: “One should not use their God-given body for killing God’s creatures, whether these creatures are human, animal or whatever” (Rosen 182).

   However, one fact is admitted by scholars on both sides of the fence: the Vedas sanctioned the eating of meat which was sacrificed to the "gods." An example of this meat eating is found in a section of the Vedas which concerns sacrificing a horse to the ‘gods.’ “The Invoker, the officiating priest, the atoner, the fire-kindler, the holder of the pressing-stones, the reciter, the priest who prays – fill your bellies with this well-prepared, well-sacrificed sacrifice” (Sarma 13). This passage in the Vedas clearly sanctioned eating meat as part of a ritual sacrifice to the gods, and the passage is so elaborate, it almost seems like such activity was being encouraged.

   This grand exception for eating meat balanced with a prohibition of eating meat is reflected in a later Hindu text called Manavadharmasatra, which is commonly termed The Law Code of Manu. This dharma (duty or righteousness) text is more of an ethical text than sacred text. It reflects the dichotomy between abstaining from meat and indulging if meat is properly consecrated to the gods. However, it also reflects some contradiction, since Chapter 5, verse 55 states: “There is no fault in eating meat, in drinking liquor, or in having sex; that is the natural activity of creatures. Abstaining from such activity, however, brings great rewards” (Sarma 250). This seems to go against an earlier statement in the Manu that “killing living beings is an impediment to heaven” (Sarma 250).

   Currently, what is the stance within the Hindu community concerning a vegetarian diet? Steven Rosen argues that vegetarianism prevails in the Hindu culture, with 80 percent of Hindus in India being vegetarians or quasivegetarians. “As evidence, one need merely observe how meat-oriented restaurants in India advertise to their vegetarian clientele—with a sign in the window saying, ‘nonvegetarian.’ In the West, where meat eating is more common, it’s just the opposite” (Rosen 182). One catch here is that “quasivegetarian” could even just mean abstaining from meat on Hindu sacred days. A concise summary statement comes from Professor Jones and Dr. Ryan regarding the influence of Hindus who advocate vegetarianism: “Vegetarianism is highly valued in Indian culture” (Jones and Ryan 485). So even if some Hindus eat at McDonald’s restaurants, which have been in India for years, the Hindu faith still has such an influence as to cause that giant corporation at one time to substitute cow meat with water buffalo in certain towns (Jones and Ryan 283). And one clear fact of vegetarianism for Hindus is that Orthodox Brahmins embrace a vegetarian diet.

   The same two questions must be addressed for Christians. First, what was their diet practice in ancient times? The Bible is the single sacred authoritative text for many Christians, and to a degree diet is shown or discussed in the Scriptures. Controversy does loom since a minority, like myself, advocate that God created people as vegetarians, and that people remained vegetarians until after the Flood. This is supported by the statement to earliest humanity, “Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food’” (Genesis 1:29 NIV). There is no mention of God ordaining animal flesh to be eaten by people, and there is no record of meat being eaten by humans until after the Flood. There was an offering to God by Abel of “fat portions” from the flocks. If people were not eating meat at that time, there was some killing of animals in sacrifice to God. But many Christians interpret Genesis to allow for humans eating meat from the start.

   Second, what is the current diet practice of Christians? After Noah and his family survived the Flood, God said to Noah and his sons, “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (Genesis 9: 3 NIV). A vast majority of Christians are in agreement that at this juncture, God ordained eating meat as permissible for human beings. There may be a small minority of Christians who are not in agreement with this.

   The question, “What is sacred?” is our seventh worldview question which we have pondered all semester for various faiths. In examining this question, a point of agreement between Hindus and Christians is that both religions see a Supreme Being as sacred. Yet a point of disagreement is that Hinduism sees sacredness in all living things, since Brahman indwells all living things, whereas Christians see goodness in all created things, which were all created by God, but do not acknowledge them as sacred. Christians do recognize humans as created in the image of God, yet we were created as individual beings. With context presented, I now argue that the worldview regarding what is sacred directly influences both Hindus and Christians concerning their diet.

   Hindus say that Brahman (or another deity such as Vishnu), and the life he has created is sacred! The ancient practice of animal sacrifice diminished, possibly due the teaching of the Buddha, and the focus shifted to Brahman dwelling in all living beings. This strong view of what is sacred influences the Hindu honor for vegetarianism.

   Classified within the Vedas are the Upanishads, which were written by different authors from the seventh to third centuries B.C. (Sarma 24). I find there to be contradictions in these texts regarding the Brahman. For example, there are statements like: “This is brahman’s super-creation. It is a super creation because he created the gods, who are superior to him, and, being a mortal himself, he created the immortals” (Sarma 31). This contradicts with statements that deem Brahman as “Immortal,” and is in contradiction with passages such as Chapter 3, verse 7 of the Svetasvatara Upanisad, which states: “Who is higher than that, higher than brahman, the immense one hidden in all beings, in each according to its kind, and who alone encompasses the whole universe…” (Sarma 60). Yet overall, the texts portray Brahman as the One due reverence, and the One who is everything.

   As I stated, animal sacrifice played a prominent role in the ancient Vedas. Professor Sarma understands the Upanishads to have promoted the shift away from such acts, and he states: “The Upanisads [different spelling] were largely concerned with the internalization of the sacrifice and with laying the foundations for the theological system that was to supplant the ritual world of the Vedas” (Sarma 24). Thus we have a shift away from ancient sacred text advocating animal sacrifice, which included people getting to partake of the meat, to a new focus on spiritual teachings. And a central teaching concerns Brahman, who is overall acknowledged as “Immortal,” and “pure Spirit.” And the dwelling place of Brahman? “As fire, though one, takes new forms in all things that burn, the Spirit, though one, takes new forms in all things that live. He is within all, and is also outside” (Mascaro 64). In scholarship terms, this is termed pantheism – “The belief that all reality is infused with God” (Young 424). “…Brahman is all” (Mascaro 79).

   Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, the epic Hindu tale, which is extremely popular among Hindus. In the Eighteenth Teaching, verse 61, Lord Krishna states to Arjuna, “Arjuna, the lord resides in the heart of all creatures, making them reel magically, as if a machine moved them” (Sarma 140). Here is a sacred story that emphasizes the teaching that creatures are indwelled by deity. And we have read Huston Smith all semester, and he stated, “This infinite center of every life, this hidden self or Atman, is no less than Brahman, the Godhead” (Smith 21).

   So if Hindus believe Brahman is in you, me, animals, and even plants, I argue a natural result is a worldview which adheres to a reverence for all living creatures. I support this argument by giving examples of how two vegetarian Hindus utterly adhere to this doctrine that all creatures are a dwelling place of God. Mahatma Gandhi was a famous religious leader who is known worldwide and still revered by many of people. Gandhi was a Hindu, and he was a devout vegetarian. What was his basis for such a diet practice? Gandhi once said, “The only basis for having a vegetarian society and proclaiming a vegetarian principle is, and must be, a moral one” (Roberts XV). And Gandhi had morals from his Hindu faith, and such faith influenced him to believe and proclaim, “All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God” (Roberts 15). This is a conviction with broad ramifications, as Gandhi is saying that every form of life is God in flesh.

   Steven Rosen is an avid vegetarian, and he dedicated one of his books to the person who taught him this Hindu belief. “To His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who taught me to see God in every living creature” (Rosen xi). If you give reverence to God, and if you believe God is in every creature, then you are going to give reverence to every creature. And reverence to creatures indwelled with God involves abstaining from violence against such creatures. Non-violence against all living things is precisely what Gandhi advocated to the world, and what Steven Rosen advocates so strongly.

   One contradiction I saw immediately with this worldview on the practice of vegetarianism was the logic that if God is even in plants, then how could a person justify eating a plant any more than an animal. I add that beside thinking Brahman is in every living thing, Hindus also believe that people are reincarnated. If a person digresses in the reincarnation process, he or she can even become a plant. The Katha Upanishad states, “The soul may go to the womb of a mother and thus obtain a new body. It even may go into trees or plants, according to its previous wisdom and work” (Mascaro 64). The only suggestive answer Hinduism gives is that even though there seems to be no hierarchy within Brahman in his complete form, there is hierarchy of things assigned in this world, even a hierarchy of human beings. As part of that hierarchy, plants were meant for food, but flesh was not. Yet I add that a Hindu is even supposed to respect the plant world, and not be reckless with them. So I adamantly argue that Hinduism favors vegetarianism because they believe Brahman is sacred, and they believe Brahman is in all living beings. Thus all living things have a sense of sacredness, and abstaining from killing animals is important.

   Likewise with Christianity, beliefs regarding the sacred influence diet. God, a Supreme Being, is sacred. A term used often for God in the Christian Scriptures is that God is Holy. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8 NIV). We also find in the Hebrew Scriptures, which Christians include as part of Scriptures on the whole: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isaiah 6:3 NIV). This indicates the sacredness attributed to God. This belief by Christians has a point of agreement with Hinduism.

   Yet there is a serious point of disagreement with Christianity compared to Hinduism! Christians affirm that God’s creation is good. “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:25 NIV). Before I go any further, note the word “livestock.” I do not know Moses’ intention with this word, but before the Flood, there was livestock, and they were not necessarily being butchered by people. Livestock was imperative from the start since cows give milk, chickens give eggs, and sheep give wool.

   So God’s creation was good, yet Christians believe that God is separate from His creation, what is termed transcendent. Different to the view of Gandhi expressed in the quote I gave, Christians believe the sole incarnation of God has been when Jesus became a human being, a Person who was fully God and also fully man. Jesus is the Incarnate.

   And only human beings, and no other aspect of God’s creation in this world were or are made in the image of God. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27 NIV). God is transcendent, separate from His creation, and creation is not sacred, not even living creatures. Christians proclaim people can be united with God, who is sacred. Humans are not one with God or eternal by nature. Yet humans are loved by God, and can be united with God if they believe in Jesus, because of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross as He atoned for the wrong doings of all human beings. For a person who believes in Jesus, she or he is united with the Sacred One.

   Thus the worldview of Christians is that only the triune God is sacred, and there is potential for people to be united with that sacredness. Since neither animals nor plants are sacred, the fact that many Christians eat meat fits their worldview. And that worldview is supported by their sacred writings, which are clear concerning the fact that God has allowed people to eat meat ever since the post-Flood period.

   Being a vegetarian Christian, I would be quick to engage a Hindu on this topic of conversation, since I would have some common ground with the person. I would emphasize my admiration of the Hindu concern for living creatures, stating that Christians should share that concern since God does. And I would express my Biblical conviction is that God originally created a world where no one was permitted to eat meat. But then I would further explain that Christians have their hope in only one incarnation, and that is the Incarnation of Jesus. Then I would shift to the fact that ancient Hindus carried out animal sacrifices. Though not highlighted, near the conclusion of the passage on horse sacrifice in the Vedas, there is the statement: “Let Aditi make us free from sin” (Sarma 14). There was purpose God had for asking for animal sacrifice in the ancient world. We people have done what is wrong in the eyes of a sacred God, and the result is physical and spiritual death. In order for there to be forgiveness, the just demand was sacrifice. Yet praise be to God, animal sacrifices no longer need to be made. Jesus, who is Divine, and who became incarnate, has made the all-encompassing sacrifice, once for all! He died as a substitute for people, thus those who believe in Him and receive Him will have eternal life.

   In conclusion, Hindus believe Brahman is sacred, and the religious belief that Brahman is in all living things has delegated a sense of sacredness to all living things, which has strongly influenced the Hindu conviction that vegetarianism is an honorable practice. The Christian belief is that God is sacred, and that Jesus, God the Son, became incarnate here in this world to save people, who were made in His image, from the results of our wrongdoing. He will one day create a new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more death, even of animals. Yet God created plants and animals as separate from Himself, and not sacred, thus Christian conviction is that both plants and animals can be eaten at this time as food.

Hunter Irvine

Colorado Christian University 12/12/12

http://hunter-ntintro.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-do-many-hindus-refrain-from-eating.html  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berry, Rynn. Food for the Gods:

    Vegetarianism and the World’s Religions.

    New York: Pythagorean Publishers, 1998.

Coogan, Michael D., ed. Eastern Religions.

    Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Holy Bible: New International Version. 

    Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Jones, Constance A. and James D. Ryan.

    Encyclopedia of Hinduism.

    New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2007.

Mascaro, Juan, trans. The Upanishads. 

    New York: Penguin Books, 1965.

Roberts, Holly Harlayne.

    Gandhi the Vegetarian: Gandhi’s Message of 

    Non-violence, Non-abundance and Merciful 

    Living. 

    Little Silver, New Jersey: Anjeli Press, 2007.

Rosen, Steven J. Diet For Transcendence:

    Vegetarianism and the World Religions.

    Badger, California: Torchlight Publishing, Inc.,

    1997.

Rosen, Steven J. Essential Hinduism.

    Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers,

    2006.

Sarma, Deepak, ed. Hinduism; A Reader.

    Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing,

    2008.

Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions.

    New York: HarperOne, 1958.

Young, William. The World’s Religions: 

    Worldviews and Contemporary Issues.

    Boston: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Does God heal?

One day this past week, I was taking a super walk in one of my favorite parks on a day that was extremely warm for a December day in Colorado.  Walking along a forest path, I suddenly saw a small group of runners coming toward me.  I quickly deduced they were the cross country team from the nearby high school.  They were all students except for one adult who was probably the coach.  I only watched as they ran by, but what I had the urge to do was talk with them.  Deep down I even wanted to yell out, "How's my friend?!"  That is because in my former church where I did youth ministry work, one of the students who worships in that church has two brain tumors.  And she use to run cross country for that high school.  I continued walking and thinking about my former church until I got to a point where I was ready to turn around and start walking back to my car.  Before continuing on, I got my water bottle out of my daypack and was guzzling water.  Then I saw the runners and the coach again on a distant parallel path as they ran back the other way back towards the high school.  Yet a detail I noticed was that there was one student missing from the group, and I figured it was the same one who was tailing a bit behind when they had passed me earlier.  I waited to see if she would come along.  A little while later, I saw her in the distance.  She was running at a steady pace, but she had really slowed down.  I wondered if she felt alone, being so far behind her coach and teammates.  I prayed for her.
Then I again thought of my friend with the two brain tumors.  I realized there was only one thing I could do for her, and that was to pray.  Yet does praying really help anything?  I have known people who sincerely prayed for an individual who was extremely ill, and yet they died anyway.  First, when you pray for yourself, you are truly submitting yourself to God so that He can do spiritual work in you, and that spiritual benefit will even benefit you physically, yet that does not mean you will have some grand physical healing.  And if there is something you pray for where the answer is "no," then you can be more at peace about that knowing that you asked.  (This is easier said than done!  Sometimes it takes me quite awhile to get peace when God says "no.")  Now there have been times when I know that I got some physically healing from God.  Yet I usually still needed to go to the doctor as well!  And first and foremost, in my heart I get healing all of the time from Jesus!
Now praying for someone else is a bit different, because God is not going to force Himself on them if they are unwilling.  Yet my friend is willing to have God heal her.  Is God willing?  I would claim that God does desire to heal, yet His plan is a long term plan, and the core is Jesus.  In this world at this time, God's core action always starts with the heart.  For instance, when Jesus was physically in this world, He healed a blind man.  Yet someone may be blind now, and not receive sight.  When I was a young Christian, I had two friends at my large church who were blind.  Both were devoted to Jesus; neither had miraculous restoration of eyesight.  Yet the Bible teaches that one day they will be able to see.  In heaven, all children of God are given a new body.  There will be no blind people in heaven.  A person may have to be blind for many years in this world.  But one day their body is going to be restored.  Here and now, the first and foremost concern of God is that people have their heart made anew, because the heart is the core of a person, and all humans need our heart changed by Jesus to be truly loving, and to be united with God.
  Standing there in that beautiful place on a gorgeous day, feeling helpless to help my friend who is suffering from such a horrible thing, I realized that praying was all I needed to do.  Prayer helped me right then and there!  First, I had a realization that my friend's life is in God's hands.  I can see her running down that path soon.  Yet young people do die.  I have a friend from when I worked at the National Rehabilitation Association in Alexandria, Virginia, who died of cancer.  She was an incredible woman of faith, yet she physically died.  But that leads to a second reminder from my prayer, which is that God loves everyone.  And anyone who submits herself or himself to Jesus has life eternal in the Kingdom of Heaven, and can have a certain peace here on earth in this world that God created which is good.  When Jesus told the man who was being executed for stealing, who had put his faith in Jesus, that he would be with Him in Paradise, Jesus meant it.  Jesus was not using the term flippantly, rather it was a promise to a physically dying man (see Luke 23:43).  The Kingdom of Heaven is Paradise, because the King there is Jesus, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.  And any human being can become a citizen in the Kingdom of God!  Can you believe that?  As Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones stated, "The Christian message is that the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, came out of heaven into this world in order to save us." (1)  He goes on to say how Jesus accomplished this: "...He has borne my sins in His own body..." (2).  The consequences of sin is spiritual death.  Yet Jesus took the consequences!  Because of the forgiveness He made available, any person can be united with God, which starts by having the heart indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which is having the King in your heart!  We people are not simply material particles.  We people have a soul, something not empirically detectable by us limited humans, because God made us in His image, and God is Spirit (John 4:24).  And our souls can be bonded to God here and now, and then one day Jesus is going to come a second time into this world.  He will judge the unrighteous and deem their punishment, which is spiritual death, and He will establish His Kingdom anew in heaven and on earth.  Love will abound in the Kingdom of God!  And His citizens, who are even His adopted children, and who will have new bodies, are going to be able to be with Him in full forever!  To God be the glory!

Hunter Irvine
(1) Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Kingdom of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992), 151.
(2) Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Kingdom of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992), 151.

Darius the Mede - I claim he was King Astyages

Darius the Mede by Hunter Irvine

“That very night, Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two (Daniel 5:31-32 NIV).

   There is a big dispute as to the identity of “Darius the Mede,” since he is not found by name in other historical sources.  Incredible as this may sound, I have learned this all boils down to a name issue.  But I start by acknowledging that many people think Darius the Mede was a ruler put in place by King Cyrus immediately after he conquered Babylon.  The evidence against this theory:

   First: Though the Persians and Medes were allies, I doubt King Cyrus would have appointed a Mede be a king with the power to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, as is shown in Daniel 6:1!  I support this by noting what Herodotus said: “It will be seen that the governorship (or satrapy, as the Persians call it) of Assyria is by far the most coveted of all their provincial posts…” (Book One; 192)(1).

   Second: If Darius the Mede was simply put a ruling position in Babylon by King Cyrus around 536 B.C. (or some scholars say 539 B.C. while other scholars say 538 B.C.), then that means the incident of Darius putting Daniel in the den on lions would have taken place when Daniel was at least 85 years old, because Daniel was taken to Babylon around 605 B.C.

   So who is Darius the Mede?  The only reason I was able to detect his identity is because there was a period in the spring of 2008 when I would come home after a big day of work and read sections of The Histories by Herodotus, though I skipped over a number of sections and the end chapters since there is so much violence.  In carefully reading certain sections of that ancient history which has been studied for centuries, I was able to discern Darius the Mede was King Astyages; he fits the description.

   First, in Daniel 5:31 we learn Darius the Mede was age 62 when he took over.  And Herodotus tells us Astyages had reigned for 35 years before he was defeated by King Cyrus.  That would mean that his reign ended between 561 B.C. and 550 B.C., thus he would be older during that time period.

   Second, Astyages was portrayed by Herodotus as violent, the type of person who would throw a nice guy in a lion’s den.

   This is not my new theory or a recent theory.  I have seen one scholar propose Astyages as Darius the Mede.  That scholar was the author of a book from around the mid-1900's which I read a part of standing in a used Christian bookstore around ten years ago, the reason I got to pondering the subject myself.

   But then why do so many people dispute this?  If Asytages was Darius the Mede, and he took over Babylon in the 550's B.C., they conclude there would be no grounds for King Cyrus conquering it in 536 B.C.  Makes sense.  Yet I figured out the golden point!  King Astyages, a Mede, gained control over the resistant Babylon after “Belshazzar” was slain.  But then it would have only been a few years later, with this all happening between 561 B.C. and 550 B.C., that King Cyrus the Persian defeated King Astyages.  The golden point is that just because King Cyrus defeated King Astyages, does not mean that Cyrus immediately inherited what had been the entire Median Empire.  Many provinces, including Babylon, which was never fond of foreign rule, went back to self-rule I propose, based on information Herodotus gives.  King Cyrus had to recapture certain lost territory!

   Support of this is the fact Babylon even had a revolt later under Persian rule, and gained self rule for a short period of time!  This happened under the reign of King Darius the third Persian ruler, not the Mede.  “The revolt had been long and carefully planned; indeed, preparations for withstanding a siege had been going quietly on all through the reign of Magus and the disturbances which followed the rising of the seven against him, and somehow or other the secret never leaked out” (Book Three; 150) (2).

   Herodotus goes on tell about how King Darius (not Darius the Mede) worked to get Babylon back.  "[Babylon] could not be taken, not even when Darius, after all else failed, attempted to repeat the method which Cyrus had previously used with success.  The Babylonians were always on the watch with extraordinary vigilance, and gave the enemy no chance" (Book Three; 152) (3).

   You can read about how the Persians regained Babylon from there in a story which shows how the Persians even resorted to deranged measures in their effort to regain rule over Babylon.  So what Herodotus calls the second capture, I would agree was a second for Persia, yet previously, the Medes had captured Babylon sometime near the end of the reign of King Astyages, probably only a short time before Babylon went back to self rule after Astyages, Darius the Mede, was defeated by King Cyrus the Persian.

   Thus King Astyages, as called by Herodotus, was called by the Hebrew author of the book of Daniel "Darius the Mede."  And the Median rule of Babylon by him and the rule by King Cyrus, had a period of Babylonian self rule in between!  Wow.

Hunter Irvine

(1) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 84.

(2) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 235.

(3) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 236.

Creation or evolution?

One of my most boring classes at Virginia Tech was Biology.  For two quarters I had Dr. Patterson.  He was the nicest guy, but also a boring professor.  From those classes in 1986 and 1987, the main thing I learned is that calcium is used in a huge number of chemical functions in the body.  There you have it.  I am not a scientist of any sort.  High school Biology, Chemistry, and Physics will get me no where in the scientific world today.  Fortunately for me, and for others who are not science experts, we can still know God.  And in fact you will not discover God through science.  Why?  God is Spirit! (see John 4:24)  Being Spirit, we are only able to know God because He revealed Himself to us.  Incredibly enough, God has revealed Himself to us as the Spirit became incarnate (in flesh).  Jesus was fully God, and fully human.

What does this all have to do with evolution?  I propose you need to know God before you can truly understand what it is to be human, because of our limitations.  In knowing God, you learn that God is purposeful in what He does.  In God's creation, there is telos.  The theory of evolution is based on random activity.  Why?  Because mutations are random.  Not only that, mutations usually have a negative affect, not a positive affect.  Yet God did not haphazardly create the universe.  Genesis shows He created it with a purpose, and with distinct order.

   Within the Christian community, us folks who believe evolution is false (not to mistake evolution with adaptation, which are changes that take place which are available within the genes) are in a minority.  In fact, I think many in the Christian community look down on me because I believe evolution is false.  Yet I totally believe that Adam and Eve were real people.  I totally believe that living beings were created directly from the work of God.  I stand by my interpretation of Scripture.  And I encourage you to investigate the telos of God for yourself.

Hunter Irvine

A fun Colorado Christian University memory

Editing in progress...

Footnotes for The Holy Kiss

The Holy Kiss

by Hunter Irvine

Footnotes

(1) Fred Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), 74.

(2) Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin; Chapter 65” The Sage Digital Library; Volumes 1 & 2 (Albany, Oregon: Sage Software, 1996), 353.

(3) Alfred Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1913), 151.

http://books.google.com (accessed March 2010).

(4) William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, eds.,

A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities 

(Harford, London: J.B. Burr, 1880), 903. 

http://books.google.com (accessed March 11, 2010).

(5) John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, ed. William Young (London: Macmillan and Co., 1877), 220.

http://books.google.com (accessed March of 2010).

(6) F.C. Conybeare, “New Testament Notes; 3. The Kiss of Peace,” The Expositor No. LIV (1894): 462.

http://books.google.com (accessed April 2, 2010).

(7) Ibid.

(8) Warren J. Moulton, “The Samaritan Passover,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 22, No.2, 1903: 191.

http://www.jstor.org (accessed March 4, 2010).

(9) Shirley Coles, “Grandma Rachel’s Passover Pounce and Pinch,” The Jewish Magazine,

April 2006: 2. http://jewishmag.co.il/101/passoverrachel/passoverrachel.htm.

(10) John E. Toews, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Romans (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2004), 360.

(11) James Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960), 248.

(12) D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959), 29.

(13) Ibid., 21.

(14) Ibid., 29.

(15) Michael Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001), 8.

Bibliography

Coles, Shirley. “Grandma Rachel’s Passover Pounce and Pinch.”

The Jewish Magazine, April 2006.

http://jewishmag.co.il/101mag/passoverrachel/passoverrachel.htm

(accessed March 6, 2010).

Conybeare, F.C. “New Testament Notes

1.The Holy Spirit as a Dove. 2.The Seamless Coat. 3.The "Kiss of Peace.”

The Expositor. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884.

http://books.google.com (accessed April 2, 2010).

Eadie, John. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians.

Edited by William Young. London: Macmillan and Company, 1877.

http://books.google.com (accessed March of 2010).

Fotheringham, T.F. “The Offering.”

The American Journal of Theology, April 1905.

http://www.jstor.org (accessed March 4, 2010).

Freeman, James. Manners and Customs of the Bible. (no date).

Reprint, Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1972.

Gorman, Michael. Elements of Biblical Exegesis; A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers.

Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001.

Guy, Laurie. Introducing Early Christianity; A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs and Practices.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Holy Bible. “The New International Version.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Johnstone, Robert. The First Epistle of Peter: Revised Text, with Introduction and Commentary.

Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1888.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1936.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount.

Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959.

Masterman, E.W.G. “Social Customs in Palestine.” The Biblical World, April 1900.

http://jstor.org (accessed March 4, 2010).

Masterman, E.W.G. “Dress and Personal Adornment in Modern Palestine.” The Biblical World, October 1901.

http://www.jstor.org (accessed March 4, 2010).

Moulton, Warren. “The Samaritan Passover.” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 22, No. 2 1903.

http://www.jstor.org (accessed March 4, 2010).

Murray, John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans.

Edited by F.F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968.

Plummer, Alfred. The Church of the Early Fathers; External History.

New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1913.

http://books.google.com (accessed March of 2010).

Smith, William, and Samuel Cheetham, eds. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.

Hartford: The J.B. Burr Publishing Company, 1880.

http://books.google.com (accessed March 11, 2010).

Stifler, James. The Epistle to the Romans; A Commentary Logical and Historical.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

The SAGE Digital Library; Volumes 1 and 2. Albany, Oregon: Sage Software, 1996.

Toews, John. Believers Church Bible Commentary; Romans.

Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2004.

Wight, Fred H. Manners and Customs of Bible Lands.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.

Yaconelli, Michael. Messy Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

The Holy Kiss

The Holy Kiss

by Hunter Irvine

Student at Colorado Christian University

Submitted to Dr. Windy Petrie

in partial fulfillment of English 104: Research Writing

April 19, 2010

   At many wedding ceremonies, the minister concludes with the long anticipated final statement, “You may kiss the bride,” and then the newlyweds share a romantic kiss.  Rather than a kiss expressing romantic love, this examination will center on a “holy kiss.”  “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16 NIV), is stated by Paul four times, in his epistles, general letters, to Christians, including in Romans 16:16, I Corinthians 16:20, II Corinthians 13:12, and, with a small variance, in I Thessalonians 5:26.  Peter tells people to whom he wrote his letter to greet one another with a “kiss of love” (I Peter 5:14).

   Evidence will display the practice of holy kissing during the course of the past two thousand years.  Then I will present my conviction the “holy kiss” springs from the root of the sacrificial love of Jesus, the distinguishing factor that separates a “holy kiss” from any other type of kiss.  Finally, I will give an explanation why no one must give the “holy kiss” today, yet then I will advocate the love of Jesus should continue to be expressed by followers of Jesus today in appropriate manners.

   Though Israel was influenced by the Greek culture in the wake of conquest by Alexander, and was influenced by Roman culture in the wake of conquest by that Empire, realize the root culture of Judea was "oriental," as was the culture of Judea’s neighbors.  And the norm in the oriental culture was to greet acquaintances with a kiss on both cheeks, as a means of showing brotherly and sisterly love, friendship affection, or simply respect.

   There are examples of such action early on in Israel’s history, such as when David and Jonathan kiss in I Samuel 20:41.  The event of Jesus attending a dinner as the guest of a Pharisee named Simon shows how the practice of a kiss was expected by a guest who was welcomed into a house two thousand years ago in Judea.  In response to Simon’s remarks about the action of a woman in the house, Jesus told Simon, “…I came into your house.  You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.  You did not give me a kiss…” (Luke 7:44-45).  Even in the twentieth century, cheek to cheek kissing was a common greeting in Israel.  The greeter would kiss the right and then the left cheek. Such an observation was recorded in a book by Fred Wight in 1953. (1)

   The encouragement was given in Scripture to greet with a “holy kiss,” and disciples of Jesus did so.  Record of Christians engaging in the “holy kiss” during corporate worship continued through the centuries.  Justin Martyr, the prolific early Christian writer, who lived approximately from 114 A.D. to 165 A.D. stated, “Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.” (2)

   Another prolific writer, Tertullian, lived in the second and third century, and he strongly advocated the “holy kiss!”  The eclectic disciple of Christ, Origen, discussed the “holy kiss” practice in his writings on Romans.  Thascius Cyprian accepted Christ in 246 A.D. and later became the bishop of Carthage.  His writing reveals that he gave “holy kisses.”  Clement of Alexandria and Athenagoras are others who mentioned such kissing in the early centuries, and as time went on, the subject was addressed by Christians such as Augustine and St. John Chrysostom.

   A key aspect of kissing in the early church that distinguished the “holy kiss” from a cultural greeting was that the “holy kiss” took place between people of both genders.  Yet it probably matched the cultural greeting as a kiss on both cheeks.  Tertullian even expressed the challenge of a Christian woman kissing her brothers-in-Christ if her husband was not a Christian, obviously understanding that the husband would likely not understand or be happy with such kissing by his Christian wife.

   The “holy kiss” was swiftly embedded in corporate Christian worship, but the expansion of worship services brought rise to accusations against Christians by people who were not Christians.  We know much about these accusations, because some educated Christians responded to the accusers with written defenses of Christianity and Christian practices.  The word “apology” used by Christians throughout the centuries did not have the common current definition of saying sorry for a wrongdoing, rather the word “apology” had the definition of giving an explanation.  One accusation against Christians was that they employed themselves in sexual orgies during “love feasts,” which was plainly stated by the scholar Dr. Alfred Plummer in 1913. (3)  The “holy kiss” was obviously the base for this lie.

   Another challenge arose as there were an increasing number of people who were not Christians who were attending Christian worship services, who engaged in the kissing for sexual stimulation.  Two scholars, Dr. William Smith and Professor Samuel Cheetham, edited A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities in 1880, and they offered to Christian academics a premier source of information on the history of the “holy kiss.”  Their incredible history explains that the giving of the “holy kiss” was given freely among both genders until restrictions were implemented due to abuses by “false brethren.” (4)

   Yet remaining in accord with the Oriental culture, the practice of holy kissing in churches in the ‘East’ continued in many Christian churches into modern times.  In the ‘West,’ the practice continued until the thirteen century.  Around that time, the “holy kiss” was substituted with the “osculatorium,” (5) which at first was an image of a crucifix, which was handed around for people to kiss.

   With a brief history of the “holy kiss’ presented, a question results: What makes the “holy kiss” holy?  The holiness of Jesus makes the kiss holy, with the sacrificial love of Jesus as the root of the “holy kiss.”  Prepare for the presentation of evidence to support my conviction that the “holy kiss” is rooted in the sacrificial love of Jesus.  Secondly, the attribute of the holiness of Jesus will be presented.

   Passover is a key concept in bringing us to the sacrifice of Jesus.  Paul stated, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (I Corinthians 5:7).  And what was the motivation of the sacrifice?  John 3:16 makes it clear the motivation of the sacrifice was love.  Jesus died on a cross because He loved people.  These biblical facts lead to my proposal that as kissing was done in joy following the sacrifice done by Israelites after the Passover lambs were slain, kissing was all the more done by followers of Jesus out of the joy in the love received from Jesus who was the perfect sacrifice on the cross.

   Now Passover lambs were to be slaughtered by people in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:5-6).  Rather than the sacrifice of a single lamb in the Temple, as is popular opinion, each household was suppose to slaughter a lamb, a command logically evident from Deuteronomy 16:7, where the people are told to roast the lamb and to eat it.  Since everyone was eating, the slaying of numerous lambs was necessary.  This was the Passover prescription of the Torah.  Note that today there are a number of people who are Jewish who celebrate the Passover engaging in a completely different ceremony, which was developed in the 10th century, and which does not even involve a lamb.

   Because of the changes which have taken place surrounding the Passover through the centuries, I must piece together evidence relating to the Passover and kissing.  The Passover around the time of Christ was celebrated by family units or groups of friends all over Jerusalem, and possibly not at all in synagogues.  Yet kissing in a religious context would help support kissing at a celebration commanded in the Mosaic Law.

   In the academic extraordinaire publication The Expositor, Professor F.C. Conybeare of Oxford wrote a ground breaking piece for modern scholarship in 1894.  Professor F.C. Conybeare illuminated two pieces of writing from “Quaestiones in Exodum,” a writing fragment of Philo which has been preserved.  The language of the piece was Armenian, yet Professor Conybeare, proficient in Greek, also knew Latin and Armenian.

   In Sermo ii., s 118, Philo uses the phrase “the kiss of love.” (6)  Now Professor Conybeare refers to this phrase as a “metaphor,” and Philo was not making a direct statement that this kiss was carried out in synagogues.  Yet Professor Conybeare had the conviction that such usage of that phrase implied that such kissing was done in a “formal and ceremonial use.” (7)  The possibility of Jewish people kissing in a Judeo religious context during the first century offers indirect support of kissing done at the Passover.

   Now examining more direct evidence: Kissing took place in the early 1900's in Samaria during the Passover celebration observed by Samaritans.  Numerous scholars state that Jewish people did not like Samaritans in the first century.  The province of Samaria had been part of the northern kingdom of Israel before Israel was conquered by Assyria around 722 B.C.  “…In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the Israelites to Assyria” (2 Kings 17:6).  Such deportation of citizens was typical of Assyrian conquering strategy, and then the king transported people from other countries to settle in the area of Samaria, as revealed in 2 Kings 17:24.  Thus Hebrews who lived in the land of Judea may have resented people of other ethnic groups living in their former land.

   But one act by the Assyrian king put the Samaritans on a path to adopting some Jewish religious practices.  The king of Samaria sent an Israelite priest to teach the Samaritans about the covenantal practices of worship prescribed by God as recorded in the Mosaic Law.  Though the Samaritans at first were still devoted to their false gods, they did learn about Israelite precepts from the Torah within the covenant between God and the Jewish people.

   This all leads to the first hand observation by Dr. Warren Moulton of traditional Samaritan celebration of the Passover on Mount Gerizim in 1903.  In his fascinating article published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Dr. Moulton recorded a detailed account of the entire event.  That event involved the killing of lambs, which was followed by giving kisses: “When the lambs had been slain the congregation exchanged joyful greetings after the usual oriental manner, falling with a kiss first on the right and then on the left shoulder…” (8)  A key to Dr. Moulton’s observation lies in the fact that the kiss was a response of “joy” that the sacrifice had been made.  Note that the sacrificing of lambs is still done today for the Passover on Mount Gerizim!  Pictures, which I downloaded, were posted on a website for all to see of the Passover in 2007.  In one of the pictures, you can see some men embracing one another, and two men are apparently given the “holy kiss,” right here in the 21st century.

   Thirdly, though far removed from the time of Christ, and though done in conjunction with the utterly different contemporary Passover practice in contrast with the Passover requirements of the Torah, kissing is done by some people who are of Jewish ethnicity at the Passover event today.  Could this practice have been preserved in spite of all of the changes that have taken place in the worldwide Jewish community’s adherence to the Passover celebration?

   In an article published in The Jewish Magazine in 2006, Shirley Coles, a Jewish woman, told about experiencing Passover with her family.  Kissing was a part of the evening!  “…despite all efforts to protect one’s face, [Grandma] would pounce on the hapless victim, grab both cheeks, pinch mightily as she kissed so loudly that we feared being inhaled.” (9)  This confirms that in this day kissing takes place for some who engage in the Passover feast.

   How frequently in biblical exposition do we hear of the kiss that Judas Iscariot gave Jesus at the time of the Passover to betray Him.  How exciting to learn of joyful kissing done in a religious Jewish context, both in the time of Philo and in the present day.  And how noteworthy that a kiss was given after the sacrifice of the lambs by Samaritans who celebrated the Passover in a manner that fit Torah specifications, with the exception of the location.

   Now what makes the “holy kiss” holy?  How is the “holy kiss” distinguished from any other kiss?  With the sacrificial love of Jesus as the root of the “holy kiss,” the holiness of Jesus makes the kiss holy.  There is testimony in Scripture of the holiness of Jesus, such as when Peter states in John 6:69: “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

   The explanation in one commentary that the kiss was holy since it was “an act of family bonding in the Christian community,” (10) and the view in another commentary that the kiss was holy as it was a greeting between “brethren in Christ," both come short of a genuine explanation. (11)  These views recognize the unique love within the family of Christ, however, what if a Christian gave a kiss of love to someone who was not a Christian?  That would not negate the holiness.  The context of the “holy kiss” does not determine the holiness, rather the true love the kiss expresses determines the holiness.  And the love of Jesus, who is Holy, who is the Messiah, and who was sacrificed as the Passover Lamb of God, is true love.

   Since the “holy kiss” was encouraged in Scripture, should we followers of Jesus partake in holy kissing today?  I lead into this question first addressing what takes place today in various Christian churches around the world, as foreign as that may sound here in America.  Christians in some Eastern Christian churches still practice the “holy kiss” in our day.

   The “holy kiss” remains a part of the worship in a number of churches in some countries such as Kazakhstan.  Colorado Christian University professor David Bosworth worshiped in a church in Kazakhstan where people gave a “holy kiss” during a worship service.

   However, common during worship in this day in numerous Christian churches in America is an activity referred to as "The Peace,” or a ‘greeting.’  In the Anglican/Episcopal denomination, standard in the worship liturgy is “The Peace.”  In a Rite II service, by far the most common Episcopal worship service, the priest states, “The peace of the Lord be always with you.”  The congregation replies, “And also with you.”  Then people in the congregation shake hands or hug, and many people say to one another, “Peace of the Lord,” “Peace,” or simply a standard greeting such as “Good morning.”

   Similar greetings take place in churches of other denominations, and less formal greetings are common in numerous churches, including non-denominational churches.  In the non-denominational church in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area, Windsor Gardens Community Church, where Dr. David Beckman was the lead pastor for a total of twenty years, in the midst of worship, instruction by the pastor comes during the service for the congregation to greet one another.  People shake hands or hug, and say a standard greeting such as “Good morning,” or “Good to see you.”

   Pertaining to our topic, I advocate that all of these activities during worship involving physical contact bonds the present with the past.  Numerous hugs and handshakes are given.  In the church where I am a member, I have given a countless number of hugs during this church worship greeting time over the past decade.  And yes, there are even a few married couples who greet each other during ‘The Peace’ with a kiss.  Such kissing is obviously a combination of a “holy kiss” and a romantic kiss.

   ‘The Peace’ and the ‘greeting,’ partaken of every Sunday in numerous churches in America is a remnant of the worship practice which involved the “holy kiss.”  The designation ‘peace’ cries out as the link.  Though Tertullian may not have personally designated the synonym name of the “kiss of peace” for the “holy kiss” and “kiss of love,” he is the earliest Christian writer found who used the former term in reference to the “holy kiss” and “kiss of love.”  As time went on, the three terms became synonymous among Christians.  Kissing may have been discontinued in most churches in the West in the 13th century, yet “The Peace” has continued on in different forms into our current age, involving mostly hugging or handshakes at the current time in the West.

   Finally, should we holy kiss our brothers and sisters-in-Christ in churches right now? Peter and Paul said to do it as was identified at the beginning of this paper. What are we waiting for?

   The classic book by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, can guide us.  Not agreeing with everything he said in that long book, he gave some insights into the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ which were unprecedented in that century.  Dr. Lloyd-Jones was a medical doctor who committed to Jesus in the early 1920's, and then became one of the most renowned preachers in Great Britain in the twentieth century.

   In chapter Two, entitled ‘General View and Analysis,’ priceless advice for biblical interpretation is given.  “The Christian, while he puts his emphasis upon the spirit, is also concerned about the letter. But he is not concerned only about the letter, and he must never consider the letter apart from the spirit.” (12)  The bottom line: Bible interpretation involves not only semantics, but the message!  “… I do feel constantly the need to warn myself and everybody else against becoming so immersed in the mechanics of Scripture that we miss its message.” (13)

   Dr. Lloyd-Jones gives a explanation using the powerful example of playing Beethoven’s ‘Moonlight Sonata,’ an excellent illustration which highlights that a musician can fail to play a piece as the composer intended.  Dr. Lloyd-Jones stated: “He was mechanically striking the right notes, but missing the soul and the real interpretation.” (14)  Likewise, some people in history have done great damage as a result of interpreting the Bible with a sole focus on the semantics rather than extracting the message using sound hermeneutic principles.  Fortunately, many people in history, have done eternal good gaining the message of Bible passages, and then sharing those messages with many, using sound hermeneutic principles.

   So what are sound hermeneutic principles?  Exegesis of a biblical passage is a principle. “Exegesis may be defined as the careful historical, literary, and theological analysis of a text.” (15)

   And back to Dr. Lloyd-Jones, he gave two great principles: First, using my own language, he taught to take a verse in the context of the passage, and a passage in the context of the chapter, and the chapter in the context of the entire book, and the book in the context of all Scripture.

   Second, he gave the principle I gave above, regarding gaining the spirit over the letter.

   Lastly, I advocate a key principle: Studying Bible verses by the guidance of the Holy Spirit is essential.  Jesus told His disciples, “All this I have spoken while still with you.  But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:25-26).  The apostles of Jesus needed guidance from the Holy Spirit, and the rest of His followers do likewise.

   Having learned some history of the "holy kiss," even though there is little discussion of it in written Christian history, we can discern that the practice advocated by Paul and by Peter had a cultural foundation.

   Having examined that kissing on the cheeks as a greeting was appropriate in the Middle Eastern culture in the time of Jesus, yet knowing that kissing is not a cultural greeting now in America, we can realize that abstaining from holy kissing is not immoral.

   And applying the Dr. Lloyd-Jones first principle, get broader context, in examining the passages that call for a “holy kiss” or “kiss of love” to be given among Christians, we see these instructions were clearly not mandates of worship.  Every single passage was stated among the personal greetings of the given apostle, and not in any sort of worship instruction, nor in a corporate church command.

   Regarding the principle of guidance from the Holy Spirit, may we agree this leads to an understanding that trying to force people to give a greeting that would make them uncomfortable or ashamed is not a biblical command.

   Yet the message for followers of Jesus to give one another a “holy kiss” or “kiss of love,” is applicable today.  Applying these statements of Scripture, I extract the message that brothers and sisters-in-Christ are called to express love to one another, as Jesus commanded in John 15:12.  In whatever manner is morally and culturally appropriate, we are to love, and to express love!

   In the early 1990's when I was a new follower of Jesus, I attended worship at "The Falls Church," in Falls Church, Virginia.  (Yes, that large city was named after that Anglican church.)  When "The Peace" was given during the worship service, I was usually sitting with friends from the singles group of that church, "Salt and Light."  We would all hug each other.  As a new Christian, the expression of Christian love shown by that group was extra special to me.  One reason is I was raised in a household where there was not much physical contact.  Family members were rather verbal, yet hugging was an infrequent act in my family.

   In 1985, my entire family took the trip with me down to Blacksburg to see me off there at the start of my freshman year at Virginia Tech.  All these years later, I vividly recall hugging each of my family members just before they left my dorm room, since hugging them was so rare.

   Thus all of the hugging done at The Falls Church during the worship service was relished by me.

   Christians are totally relieved of any kissing obligations, yet expressions of brotherly and sisterly love are imperative.

   Have you ever visited a new church where you felt lonely because no one came up to greet you?  Visiting a church one Sunday, after the service I stood in the fellowship hall with a lemonade in hand.  Every other person in that room was talking with someone else, and I did not even see anyone else look at me.  Standing there for quite awhile after the service, I had a stinging desire for someone to greet me.  I felt lonely.  Quite unusual for social me.  After continuing to stand by the refreshment table without any attention for what seemed like a long time, a woman finally did introduce herself and engaged in a conversation with me.  I was so thankful.

   And expressing the love of Jesus Christ is not simply about a brief greeting in church or in the fellowship hall.  Expressing the love of Jesus involves interacting with brothers and sisters-in-Christ, and all people, in caring ways, using discernment as to the particular expression on that particular day.

   May we followers of Jesus express the love of Jesus to everyone in a morally correct, culturally acceptable, and personally comfortable manner, even this day.

Hunter Irvine

Scripture Love Blog

(A personal statement: Dr. Windy Petrie's Research Writing class was one of the best college classes I have ever taken.  I am grateful for her instruction!)

(Please note this posting of my CCU paper from my spring semester of 2010 is abbreviated.  I removed some personal interviews with some fellow CCU students which were solely given for the purpose of my academic paper.  Also, there was slight editing, including near the conclusion in order to offer a more personal completion.)

The Atonement

   Christianity is a religion which is completely based on a relationship with Jesus.  The radical claim is that in being in a relationship with Jesus, you are in a relationship with God, because Jesus is God the Son, one Person of the Triune God.

   How is this relationship with God possible? The Atonement!

   People have been separated from God ever since the Fall involving Adam and Eve.  And people have been further straying ever since Adam and Eve.  The result of this is that all people sin, which is doing that which is counter to the perfect will of God.  The consequence of sin is the spiritual death of people.  Yet praise be to Jesus, salvation was made possible, because Jesus became what theologians term the penal substitutionary atonement.

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." (I Peter 3:18 NIV).
Also - "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 NIV).

And - "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV).

   That "him" is Jesus, and Jesus is God the Son, who had no sin in the first place.  Truly only Jesus could be the substitute for sins, because only Jesus, who is infinite, could die for all humans, who are finite.  I add that Jesus died for everyone, yet His atonement is the choice of a person.  Each individual chooses whether she or he will believe in Jesus.

by Hunter Irvine

Where did the Bible come from?

A youth group Sunday school lesson I taught this summer, I present this piece now, though it is a tad different than how it was presented and discussed in youth group. Hunter Irvine
+
Hebrews 1:1-2 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe" (NIV).
+
So what you have in history is God speaking!
+
And what you have today in the Bible is the writing that some people wrote down about what God said, and about what God did.  They were witnesses!
+
Key question: There have many people who have said that God spoke to them, that started false religions or that even did horrible things like kill people. How do we know that God truly spoke to authors of the Bible, or that the writings of authors of the Bible were inspired by God?
+
For the Old Testament, many people were witnesses of the ministry of the prophets in the Old Testament. The Jewish community recognized the individuals as prophets.
For an example in the Old Testament, the ministry of Moses involved numerous people. They were involved with the miracles God was doing with Moses as His chosen leader. They were witnesses of his relationship with God, and the result is that the Old Testament is still a foundation of the Jewish people on the whole.
Thus, many Jewish people witnessed and identified prophets as people who listened to God.
+
And in the New Testament, the Apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus, God incarnate. They were listening to God by listening to Jesus.
An example in the New Testament can be summed up by the claim of Peter the Apostle of how he was an eyewitness.
II Peter 1:16 “…we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Apostles were the people who wrote the New Testament, or who had some sort of friendship with those few who wrote a New Testament book who were not apostles.
And as the Apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus, other people witnessed the Apostles do miracles, and they witnessed men who were willing to die for their Messiah.  Thus the Apostolic writings preserved witness to Jesus, and other witnesses preserved and took those writings to be sacred.
Thus, we have human witness galore!
+
Second, the Holy Spirit is a witness!
+
II Peter 2:21 “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Those prophets and Apostles listened to God, being enabled by the Holy Spirit to write what is truly inspired by God. And we must rely on the Holy Spirit to be affirmed of the witness of Scripture, and to correctly interpret it.
+
Biblical Authorship
Remember two important points for both the Old & New Testaments:
+
Regarding the Old Testament -
First, the authors, at least the vast majority, were either prophets, priests, or kings.
Second, the authors were all Jewish!
+
Regarding the New Testament -
First, the authors were all Apostles or friends of an apostle. [An apostle was a person who spent much time with Jesus and witnessed Him do ministry work!!!]
Second, the authors were all Jewish except for one – Luke. (Luke was a friend of Paul, who was an Apostle. See I Colossians 4:11- 4:14).
+
The concept of God's work, which impacted the Bible since the authors were people who listened to God, is all so wonderfully summarized by John Stott:
“Christianity is essentially a historical religion. God’s revelation…was not given in a vacuum but in an unfolding historical situation, through a nation called Israel and a person called Jesus Christ.”
[John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 45.]