“Missing the Mark” May Be Missing the Point

“Missing the Mark” May Be Missing the Point

Picture

Have you ever heard the explanation that the meaning of the word “sin” in the Bible is to miss the mark”? 

​To some extent the words translated “sin” in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament can convey this meaning.  In the Book of Judges we read of skilled Hebrew fighters  and that “Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred select troops who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss” (Judges 20:16).  The word “miss” in this scripture is the same Hebrew word chata often translated “sin.”

But this Hebrew word is by no means limited to the idea of missing the mark. The same word is often translated in many other ways.  For example, we find the various forms of this word are translated as: “bear the blame,” “bear the loss,” “bewildered,” “cleanse,” “forfeit,” “indicted,” “miss,” “offended,” “purged,”  “purified,” “reach,” and in other ways.
  
So it is certainly an over-simplification to say that the word sin means to “miss the mark” like an arrow that does not quite hit the bull’s eye of the target.   There is another problem with this view.  To understand sin as simply “missing the mark” makes it seem almost like not getting a perfect score on a test – to  miss the “perfect” mark and only get 85% or perhaps to “only just miss” and to score a 98 or 99% out of 100.   Such a view makes sin seem to be a matter of degree – only a problem to the extent we “miss the mark.” It encourages us to think that our failures are perhaps not as bad as those of others.  You may well have heard people say “Well, I may do this [smoke, swear, tell “white lies” or whatever], but it is not like I do that [steal, cheat, murder or whatever].”  Thinking that sin means essentially to “miss the mark” is to make sin relative and perhaps even reasonable if it is only “slightly less than perfect.” 

So is there a better way to understand the concept of sin?  If we gather all the instances in which sin is mentioned in the Old Testament (and in which the Hebrew word is clearly talking about sin and not something else), the underlying or common thread between them is perhaps closer to alienation.  Sin is that which offends or breaks our relationship with God or with others.
 
The New Testament shows us clearly that anything that breaks the law of God is sin (1 John 3:4) – regardless of “degree”  – and it is interesting  to notice that the first time sin (chata) is specifically mentioned in the Bible we find a parallel definition:  “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (Genesis 4:7).  Here we see sin is simply not doing what is right.
 
The earliest example of sin – even if the word is not used there – is of course the Garden of Eden story where Adam and Eve are shown to have cut themselves off from God through their sinful behavior (Genesis 3:6-8).  This aspect of separation is nowhere made clearer than in the Book of Isaiah:  “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).
 
So it can be a mistake to think of sin as merely missing the mark.  Our unrepented sins cut us off from God no matter how small they may be, and sin always affects our relationships with others in some way.  To see sin as simply to “miss the mark” may be to miss the point – “missing the mark” misses the fact that sin separates and ultimately breaks relationships.  Sin is never relative, abstract or impersonal – it is always absolute, concrete and personal.  That is why we should not think of sin as simply missing something.  It is breaking something that we need to take to God to forgive and fix.  


Another FREE E-Book for You!

Another FREE E-Book for You!

Picture


W
e are very happy to announce that our latest free e-book is now available for download.   How We See Things  looks at the way we see physical things, ourselves, others and God – and shows that how we see things affects every aspect of our Christian lives.

You do not need to have an e-book reader to enjoy our books – the PDF version can be read on any computer – though you also have the option to download Kindle and Nook or ePub formats if you wish.

Like all our e-books, you do not need to register or give an email address to download How We See Things – just click on the download link and it’s yours!

You can download this free new e-book here.


Seriously?

Seriously?

Picture

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts and civilizations — these are mortal. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously” (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, p. 46).

C. S. Lewis penned these words over three-quarters of a century ago, but their significance is perhaps even clearer today as a result of modern psychology.   In the book What Makes Us Tick? The Ten Desires That Drive Us (2013), psychologist and social commentator Hugh Mackay stresses that the primary need of human beings – once the basic biological needs of food, sleep, etc., are taken care of – is “to be taken seriously.” Mackay’s research indicates that knowing we are of worth is more important to human beings than any other psychological need or desire.  
 
Why do we have this need to be taken seriously?  We might well be able to survive without it; but as Christians we might well suspect that this, like any need, is there for a reason.  Could it be that we all have a deep innate need to be taken seriously in order to help us to take other people seriously? Could it be that is one of the lessons this life gives us opportunity to learn?

The word of God certainly shows that God takes people seriously.   When Scripture tells us he is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), it means that he takes everyone seriously.  When God repeatedly told ancient Israel to be kind to strangers among them (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19, etc.), he was commanding them to see them as people like themselves – to take them seriously.

And when we look at the life and ministry of Jesus, it is clear that he took people seriously.   He took sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors seriously, although most everyone else in that society did not. He took women seriously in an age when most did not. He took Samaritans and Phoenicians – those of entirely different religious backgrounds – seriously, just as he took doubters within his own faith seriously.  Uniquely in that age, he even took those who perhaps had no understanding of faith at all – little children – seriously. 

In some ways, Jesus’ determination to take everyone seriously was one of the most radical aspects of his ministry and his message, and it is an approach that we who try to follow him must never forget.  But do we take those who live contrary to the Way in which we believe seriously?  It is a question we can ask of any group, of any individual.  Do we take fellow Christians in other denominations seriously? Do we really take those of other political, social, religious, economic, or regional backgrounds to ours as seriously as we should?

Ultimately, we must all ask “Do we take every human being seriously?” It is one of the most fundamental messages within the Scriptures that God takes every individual seriously, and that we should also.


When Bad People Do Good Things

When Bad People Do Good Things

Picture

​Sometimes it seems that it’s easier for many Christians to understand good people doing bad things than it is for them to accept the idea of bad people doing good things.  It’s not that we don’t want to give others the opportunity to turn their behavior around, of course, but experience and common sense often cause us to be suspicious of seemingly “good” deeds by those who are not normally known for them!

The Book of Jeremiah contains a fascinating example of just such a “bad person” and his good behavior, however. Jeremiah 52, the last chapter of the book, tells us how:

“… in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison. And he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table, and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, according to his daily needs, until the day of his death, as long as he lived” (Jeremiah 52:31-34).

To understand the significance of this story we must realize that the Babylonian king the Hebrew biblical text calls “Evil-merodach” was Amil-Marduk (Man of [the god] Marduk), the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar.  Amil-Marduk is mentioned in several ancient king lists, and some 30 Babylonian cuneiform tablets are dated to his reign between 562-560 B.C. His reign was also recorded by the Hellenistic Babylonian historian Berossus  who used ancient Babylonian records and texts that have not survived to us to write his Babyloniaca or History of Babylonia.  Berossus tells us that Amil-Marduk was a bad man who ruled in an “illegal and impure manner,” and that he was eventually deposed and killed by his successor, Nergal-sharezer who was praised for his good deeds.

We do not know how much the description of Amil-Marduk that has survived to us is colored by political and other factors of the time, but the historical evidence we do have shows that he was not seen as a “good” person.  Yet his kindness to the Judean king Jehoiachin is made clear by the Bible and reminds us of David’s kindness to Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan and grandson of King Saul (2 Samuel 9:1-13), whom David brought out of obscurity and restored his possessions, telling him “you shall eat at my table always” (2 Samuel 9:7, 13).
   
This act of great kindness that was recorded of David (of whom we might expect it) is nearly identical to that done toward Jehoiachin by Amil-Marduk (of whom we certainly might not expect it). Once again, we do not know all the circumstances – it is possible that Amil-Marduk was being influenced by God – yet the fact remains that he clearly performed a good deed in this case.

It’s a small story that might prompt us to ask if there are  individuals in our lives of whom we don’t expect good deeds or behavior – people we distrust if they do something out of character as we know them. Sometimes we must remember that just as God says he will forget the bad things people have done if they turn and do good (Ezekiel 18:27), we should always be aware of the possibility of good coming from those of whom we might least expect it. 


Seeing the Image of God

Seeing the Image of God

Picture

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them …” (Genesis 1:27).

In a world conditioned by perfectionist ideas of physical beauty, we can perhaps see the idea of  perfection in the gods portrayed in classical  Greek statues and other works of human imagination, but it is not as easy to see the image of God in actual flawed and broken human beings. 

Yet, as Christians we know that  every human is made in the image of God – not just the more physically perfect ones (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).   In fact, the Scriptures suggest God himself was purposely shaped in imperfect form as a human:  “… He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,  nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:21), and that description certainly fits the Jesus of the Gospels who was not easily recognized and who slipped through crowds unnoticed (Luke 4:30, John 10:39). Religious art and movie casting notwithstanding, the second century writer Celsus may even preserve a tradition that Jesus was short and not attractive.

In any event, Christ’s evident compassion for the physically flawed and broken of this world, as well as the spiritually broken (Mark 1:40-45, etc.), perfectly illustrates the attitude of seeing every person as an image of God  despite outer appearances. But in addition to the  compassion and true acceptance we must have for those the world considers physically unattractive or undesirable for whatever reason, there is perhaps a second and less obvious way in which we can apply the principle that we are all made in the appearance of God.

The Book of Genesis tells us the story of how the patriarch Jacob cheated his brother out of his inheritance and how, after a length of time, the two brothers met again. The biblical account states: “Jacob looked up and there was Esau, coming with his four hundred men” (Genesis 33:1).  Think about this situation.  Jacob knew what he deserved from his brother and here was Esau, with a large fighting force, coming directly toward him.  Jacob probably didn’t expect Esau to be at all friendly at this point, let alone brotherly.  

We might well ask ourselves how we would have met Esau in that situation – with justification for our own actions, with mistrust of Esau, with fear?  Humanly, it is easy to demonize not only our enemies, but also those we mistrust and are afraid of. We see their worst points and use those things to justify our own actions and thoughts. But notice what Jacob told Esau as soon as he realized he could speak safely with his brother: “To see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Genesis 33:10). 

These amazing words show us clearly that Jacob was able to look past his own fear and mistrust and to see his brother as he should – as someone made in the image of God – just as Esau, as it turned out, was willing to see him.  In that instance, such an attitude, such a viewpoint, avoided revenge and possible mayhem involving hundreds of people. 

​In our own lives this attitude can help us just as much in our own one-on-one relationships. If we, too, can learn to see even those we mistrust or fear  as potentially bearing the image of God, no matter how their behavior may work against that identification, we are growing toward that image of God ourselves.


The Gifts the Wise Men Gave

The Gifts the Wise Men Gave

Picture

Although many give gifts to each other at this time of year, supposedly in honor of the gifts the Magi or “wise men” gave to Jesus, perhaps we can find a timely reminder in that story of the focus of those individuals who gave gifts to Christ.

We really don’t know how many wise men brought gifts to the young Jesus (it’s only tradition that there were three of them), where they came from (other than “the East”), or even when they came (the New Testament shows it could have been up to two years after the actual birth of Jesus when they arrived at the house in which he was living).  The one thing we do know for sure is what the gifts were that they gave to the young Jesus: “On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11).

The three types of gift (the origin of the tradition that there were three wise men) were all illustrious ones, and perhaps the most expensive, by weight, that could be given in that ancient culture. It’s easy to understand that gold was considered a gift fit for kings. Frankincense was an expensive fragrance used in the making of incense offered in the Temple (Leviticus 2:1-2) and was thus a fitting gift to be given to a priest (Hebrews 4:14-16). Myrrh was another expensive fragrance which was often used in embalming the dead – as it was for Jesus (John 19:39-40). In that sense it was a fitting gift to one destined to die for humankind. Whether these symbolic aspects were realized by the wise men or not, the three gifts were all certainly appropriate for the king and priest who was born to die.

Although those physical gifts are not ones that we can give directly, the New Testament does show that just as the gold, frankincense and myrrh had symbolic associations, if we choose, we too can offer things in our own lives that are associated with the same gifts. 

Faith: 1 Peter 1:7 tells us: “These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” Rather than  gold, we can give the better gift of faith.

Relationship with God: The Book of Revelation refers to the prayers of the saints as fragrant incense before God: “Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne” (Revelation 8:3-4). The incense offered to God on the heavenly altar is directly associated with the prayers that we can offer.

Relationship with others:  2 Corinthians 2:14-16 says, “But thanks be to God, who… uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life.” Just as the pleasing fragrance of myrrh could be used in contexts of life and death, our walk before others can be a pleasing fragrance of life to those who can appreciate it. 

So we can give, if we so choose, the symbolic equivalents of the gifts the wise men gave to Christ. If we let it, the story of their gift-giving can inspire us to develop, through God’s grace, our underlying faith, our relationship with God himself, and our relationship with others. Even those of us who might feel we have little to give can give even better gifts – that may please the Son of God even more – than the gifts the wise men gave. 

*Reproduced from a December 2014 post on our sister site, LivingWithFaith.org