a man under authority (being Elite part 3)

Posted on by
Reply

What is an elite Christian? If you are reading this post check out part 1 which lays out the main idea. In part 2 we looked at the Canaanite woman who was recognized for her great faith. Today we examine the centurion who was also noted for his great faith.

When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” (Matt 8:5-7 ESV)

As we engage in this story we must remember that the man who approaches Jesus was a warrior in the army of Rome.

He is a leader responsible for around 80 men, called a century. His century would be one of six that comprised a larger combat unit called a cohort. This is similar to the way the military divides men into platoons, companies, and battalions today. As a centurion this man has lead troops into battle. And he has charged the enemy lines and faced his enemy face to face in combat. He has likely killed many people during these battles. The centurion is a tough and strong individual who has earned the right to lead.

Not every man was fit for service in the Roman army. According to Book 1 of “De Re Militaria” (On Military Matters), dating to the 4th century, the new recruit was evaluated before being accepted as a Roman soldier:

The recruit, however, should not receive the military mark as soon as enlisted. He must first be tried if fit for service; whether he has sufficient activity and strength; if he has capacity to learn his duty; and whether he has the proper degree of military courage. For many, though promising enough in appearance, are found very unfit upon trial. These are to be rejected and replaced by better men; for it is not numbers, but bravery which carries the day.

And from Book II of the same work, fewer still would be fit to serve as a centurion. This person was one who excelled in the art of combat, discipline, and self-control:

The centurion in the infantry is chosen for his size, strength and dexterity in throwing his missile weapons and for his skill in the use of his sword and shield; in short for his expertness in all the exercises. He is to be vigilant, temperate, active and readier to execute the orders he receives than to talk; Strict in exercising and keeping up proper discipline among his soldiers, in obliging them to appear clean and well-dressed and to have their arms constantly rubbed and bright.

This man has likely formed a strong relationship with his servant, having relied on each other through many trying times. Showing both compassion and humility he realizes his friend needs more help then he can provide, so the centurion approaches Jesus. Recognizing the man’s faith and humility, Jesus is ready to heal the centurion’s servant by offering to go to his house.

Who is serving who?

Most people like when people drop everything to take care of their request. They would respond “great, Lord, let’s go”. That’s what I would have done. I would have been so focused on getting what I wanted that I would grab Jesus by the arm and start heading toward home. But the centurion is not like most people.

… the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

This warrior must have known that Jesus was sent from God and able to heal otherwise he would not have sought Him out. But he also understands that anyone who can heal a broken body and restore a person back to health is someone with authority. He reasons that if an officer in the Roman army can issue commands to the soldiers under him with the full expectation that they will be carried out then Jesus can issue the command for the healing and it will be accomplished.

And anyone with authority over the physical world and diseases has authority over him and deserves to be served and obeyed. Not serve him. Just as John the Baptist knew that he was unworthy to untie the sandals of the Messiah, the centurion puts it all together and humbly realizes that he is not worthy of having Jesus come to his home.

And that is what I would have missed. In my pride I would not have recognized how unworthy I really was in the presence of Jesus. I would have expected Jesus to come follow me to my house. I expect Jesus to fulfill my requests. Now, the account doesn’t tell us what Jesus and his disciples were doing, but whatever it was, the centurion had just interrupted them. Had I been there I would have put Jesus “in a box” and expected Him to do what He has always done and heal through physical contact. Jesus would have come and altered His plans and come to heal my friend. But I would have missed out on truly understanding the power and authority of Jesus.

When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Take me to your leader

Most people like to be in authority rather than under authority. But the centurion is not like most people and Jesus is amazed at his response. To be under authority requires humility and the recognition that another has control and power over you.

Paul, writing his last (extant) letter to Timothy before his pending execution reminds us that serving Jesus takes hard work:

Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one in military service gets entangled in matters of everyday life; otherwise he will not please the one who recruited him.  (NET 2 Tim 2:3-4)

He compares serving Jesus to being a soldier who was to work hard and focus on his training so that he might be prepared to fight and engage in battle. His focus must be on obeying the one who is in command. Without a good leader to train and exercise his men they are unprepared and on the battle field they are more vulnerable. Without the trust and respect for the leader and his authority the soldiers will be disorganized and defeated when the enemy advances.

Jesus said, “no one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.”  He also said “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. If we are going to be elite we are going to have to be like the centurion who was humble enough to accept the authority of Jesus.

Why is Creation complaining?

Posted on by
Reply

This post was originally published on November 24, 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Origin of the Species. Wrestling with origins is likely something people will do until the return of Jesus, however the discussion over historical Adam seems to have created more interest in this topic so thought I would repost.

Darwin’s Origin of Species was published 150 years ago today sparking debate over the origins of man. So I thought it fitting to post some thoughts on origins today. Darwin himself seems to have struggled with the First Cause…

But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide.

Life and Letters Vol. 1 (page 306-307)

He goes on to say in later reflections…

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Life and Letters Vol. 1 (page 312-313)

One of my favorite theology blogs has recently [it was recent in 2009] analyzed the various views one might have relating to creation and evolution. [but their is this recent post on that topic] has As I reflect on these options as well as what Darwin has written I turn to Romans 8 and have to wonder what creation is groaning about if chance and natural selection are the basis of our origins.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:19-25 ESV)

For if God did use evolution (macro/common descent) and natural selection to create man then what was creation subjected to and when?

It would seem that subjection to bondage and corruption would require a state of creation that existed prior to its being subjected. And that state must be something different than what exists today. But in theistic evolutionary views the earth is required to be essentially the same for the 4.5 billion years (give or take) of its existence because the “7 days” of creation in Genesis 1 are where the work of natural selection processes were at work culminating in the evolution of man.

But if that is the case then what freedom and state is creation aspiring too? What does that look like? And what affect does this have on our own hope in the future since our hope and that of creation seem to be intertwined with restoration at Jesus return?

Science Roundup: Dawkins, Doubt, and Probability

Posted on by
Reply

Several interesting articles were published over the last few days that deal with science and origins. Since exploring that topic, based on the release of Enns new book, was a popular series here I thought I would share these.

On February 23rd 2012 Professor Richard Dawkins debated the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams on the ‘nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin’. The moderator was Sir Anthony Kenny.

The debate is available on You Tube, though I have not watched it as of yet.

The report from the Guardian was that the bout did not live up to the hype.

In normal boxing matches, the duty of the referee is to keep the fighters from gouging and biting; but when you get a theologian and a scientist in the ring together, the referee’s job is get them to try to hit each other and not flail at the air. …

With such a formidable referee there was some chance that the contestants might land some blows on each other, and the Sheldonian theatre in Oxford was packed for this intellectual bloodsport. They would be disappointed, despite all Kenny’s best efforts.

Dawkins explained his view:

The laws of physics have conspired to make the collisions of atoms produce plants, kangaroos, insects, and us.

yet also admitted in the same debate:

the world’s “most famous atheist” now says he is not 100 percent sure that God doesn’t exist — but just barely.  … the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

xkcd: The Difference

Dawkins comments came out around the same time as the NYT book review on Lawrence Krauss’ new book – “A Universe From Nothing”, which claims the opposite:

Scientists may be at least theoretically able to trace every last galaxy back to a bump in the Big Bang, to complete the entire quantum roll call of particles and forces. But the question of why there was a Big Bang or any quantum particles at all was presumed to lie safely out of scientific bounds, in the realms of philosophy or religion.

Now even that assumption is no longer safe … science can explain how something — namely our star-spangled cosmos — could be born from, if not nothing, something very close to it.

According to Krauss that something isn’t God but “randomness”.

Maybe in the true eternal multiverse there are truly no laws …

Maybe indeed randomness is all there is …

Maybe. But that does not sound certain to me, and something close to nothing is still not nothing.

Lastly, the neutrino that broke the light speed barrier and therefore the theory of special relativity may have been the result of a faulty conductor according to Guardian.

So it looks like neutrinos respect the speed limit after all. At least, the OPERA experimentalists announced a couple of days ago that they have found one problem (with a connector in their experiment) which could have led to a faulty timing measurement. When they run again with this fixed, they may well get a result compatible with the speed of light.

Something Discover pointed out right away:

So don’t let your imagination run away with this just yet. This result will, in my opinion, probably turn out to be incorrect for some reasons dealing with measurement. Faster than light travel is still a dream, even though I wouldn’t say it’s impossible… just very, very, very, very unlikely.

Here the author raises the issue regarding the possibility of particles that are faster than light, reminding us that, however unlikely, even the theory of special relativity’s claim, that the maximum speed achievable is the speed of light, is not  “certain”.  The Guardian does offer an interesting question? Should the results about the neutrino have been published and would we be questioning the results as much if it did not contradict a widely held theory.

Experimentalists get ignored if they are right, and hugely cited if they are wrong.

Theorists get ignored if they are wrong, but a Nobel Prize if they are right.

When the “most famous atheist” is willing to admit that science cannot disprove the existence of God, even if he thinks it is highly, highly improbable and scientists may have observed particles that are traveling faster than light it reminds us that the scientific conclusions on origins and cosmology,which are based on inductive reasoning of current observations and experiments can not be “proven” with error-free certitude. They can only be considered in degrees of probability. Something to keep in mind when wrestling with the claims of both science and theological interpretations.