Today at church we read about Jesus and the woman found in adultery. The verse which gets the most attention in that short narrative is Jesus' response to the stone wielding group. "Whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
First of all, stones are not metaphorical in this confrontation. It was real flesh and blood men holding real stones. Stones which would bruise and break the human body of the real flesh and blood woman who was their intened victim. This was going to be brutal.
Secondly, the stone carriers were correct. According the the Law they were supposed to stone the woman. Her offense was a serious offense (hard for modern Americans to believe, in our promiscuous culture, but not so hard for a husband or wife who experienced such a betrayal). So the lynch mob was correct, but they were not right. Why do I say this? Because the woman is alone, where is her accomplice? One does not need to be a Feminist to recognize an injustice here. How is it that she is punished with death while he has escaped scrutiny? Therein, perhaps, is part of Jesus' problem. Therein we find the hypocricy. One challenge to all of us 'law and order' types is the reminder that Justice is blind, but we are not. We tend to pick on the weaker folks (or outsiders) when delivering judgment. The rich, powerful and well connected live under 'different rules.'
Thirdly, Jesus makes clear, the woman sinned. That is not what is being debated here. Jesus does not say, "No big deal. Sexual desires are a blessing so she needs to be free to find her passions fulfilled." Jesus does not rail against marriage as a construct of male domination crushing and dehumanizing woman. Jesus does not salute the woman as a courageous explorer, willing to transgress society and its stifling and oppressive rules. In fact, the story closes with His admontion, "do not sin again." Mercy is coupled with the demand for holiness.
What Jesus does do is connect the sinner's desire for mercy with the sinner's responsibility to show mercy. This theme appears in a variety of guises throughout the Gospel. In the Lord's prayer (forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors), in parables (the servant who owed millions), in preaching (it is mercy I desire not sacrifice) Jesus repeats the theme. All of us are sinners. All of us deserve the death penalty. No one is clean. In light of that, He is clear, be slow to torture and kill (especially the ones different from you) in the name of God or justice.
The problem? In a family counseling session last week two parents shared that their college aged daughters have adopted the motto "who am I to judge?" The post-modern perversion of Jesus' words are rampant. Even traditionalists (like me) feel the weight of such sentiments. Clearly, in a diverse world with so many opinions it is tempting to step back and "live and let live" and accept that "to each his own" is a more peaceful way to coexist.
The kicker is, Jesus seems to say, "stop sinning" even as He invites us to forgive. He says, let the sinless one throw the first stone. We are called to awareness of our sin. We are not told there is no sin. We are told to stop sinning because there is sin. So what to do in a world where the next generation seems reluctant to identify sin? If we prayed more and studied Scripture more perhaps we would find ourselved being shaped by God more. I do not think the judgment-free culture is judgment free. I think it is hostile to faith, particularly Christian faith. I think it advocates for sin. I think we who know and love Jesus need to find ways to procalim His message.
Showing posts with label Bible study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible study. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Wrangling
This morning prior to our eucharist I was praying Morning Prayer. The reading from 2 Timothy 2:14-21is a difficult one for me. Paul tells the young churchleader "avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening."
Obviously, I am not a fan of picking a verse (or in this case, part of a verse) and building a God-delivered mandate for every time and season. The truth is, the Scriptures are always best utilized when we apply them correctly. There is a time to build up and a time to tear down, etc. Our dilemma is reading the signs of the time.
Therefore, it appears to be an oversimplification to simply state "avoid wrangling over words" as if we can simply sidestep every argument. Theology is the art of wrangling over words. Trying to keep a balance, we must exercise extreme caution, as we carefully construct our definitions. Careless statements about God are very dangerous. People can be led into all manner of evil because they have not thought through their theology, or they have failed to grasp the true teachings about God.
Yet, there is much wrong with the constant arguing and fighting amongst Christians. There are times when one church or another identifies some line in the sand and draws swords (figurative and literal) to stand to the death (their own or others). Finely tuned arguments can turn vicious and divide the church into factions. But the refusal to wrangle can result in each person going his/her own way without a thought to what others are saying. To say "we just agree to disagree" can be a polite way of saying, "Go thee hence!"
Wrangling! The world is full of it and most of us are very weary of hearing it and participating in it. Would that we all embraced the truth and lived in the truth. Yet, sadly, this side of the Kingdom, seeking the truth entails more wrangling and conflict than most of us want. For as Paul continues in the same letter, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by Him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth." Explaining that word of truth, unfortunately, leads to wrangling.
Obviously, I am not a fan of picking a verse (or in this case, part of a verse) and building a God-delivered mandate for every time and season. The truth is, the Scriptures are always best utilized when we apply them correctly. There is a time to build up and a time to tear down, etc. Our dilemma is reading the signs of the time.
Therefore, it appears to be an oversimplification to simply state "avoid wrangling over words" as if we can simply sidestep every argument. Theology is the art of wrangling over words. Trying to keep a balance, we must exercise extreme caution, as we carefully construct our definitions. Careless statements about God are very dangerous. People can be led into all manner of evil because they have not thought through their theology, or they have failed to grasp the true teachings about God.
Yet, there is much wrong with the constant arguing and fighting amongst Christians. There are times when one church or another identifies some line in the sand and draws swords (figurative and literal) to stand to the death (their own or others). Finely tuned arguments can turn vicious and divide the church into factions. But the refusal to wrangle can result in each person going his/her own way without a thought to what others are saying. To say "we just agree to disagree" can be a polite way of saying, "Go thee hence!"
Wrangling! The world is full of it and most of us are very weary of hearing it and participating in it. Would that we all embraced the truth and lived in the truth. Yet, sadly, this side of the Kingdom, seeking the truth entails more wrangling and conflict than most of us want. For as Paul continues in the same letter, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by Him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth." Explaining that word of truth, unfortunately, leads to wrangling.
Friday, January 20, 2012
It Happened Again
On Wednesday we have a Bible study which meets in the morning and evening. In that class we are studying the "historical books" (Jewish Bible calls it The Prophets, which includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and we began reading Ezra this month. In the early chapters, exiled Jews are returning from their exile per Cyrus' (and God's) decree.
Jerusalem had been leveled by the Babylonians seventy years before, so the first altar is constructed on a ruins. [I led a eucharist on a monastic ruins while on tour in England. It is quite moving.] Later in the chapter they lay the foundation for a new Temple. In exegeting the text we talked about the literal meaning, i.e., building. Afterwards, I did an excursus on the Church Father approach to the text (the deeper or Spiritual-Symbolic). "What," I asked, "is the true foundation of the Temple?" Obviously, it is God. So we discussed the Psalm (If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do the builders labor) and then we talked about Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman. She had asked Jesus about the true Temple (to avoid His probing into her messy personal life) and Jesus talked about worship in Spirit and Truth. As one reads interpenetrating Scriptures together, there is a broader and deeper insight into texts. It reminds us of our foundation and the foundation of real worship.
On Thursday we are studying 2 Esdras, a first century Jewish work in the Apocrypha. Probably, in light of the recent destruction of the (second) Temple in 70AD, the writer used Ezra as the "author" to draw parallels to their situation and the situation 500 years prior. [psedonyms were a very common practice at this time to lend authority to a text] It is written with Ezra as the central figure, this time he is akin to the John of the Book of Revelation. Much of 2 Esdras is focused on Judgment and Suffering and the questions "why?," "what is the point?," and "what will happen in the future?" The chapter we looked at dealt with the state of the soul after death and his explanation is very much what most Christians seem to think will happen. In the course of discussion we got off on numerous tangents and at one point we talked about the Jewish/OT understanding of fatherhood. Abraham contains all of his descendents (in potentia) in his loins. I said that this appears in the Hebrews text concerning Abraham and Melchizedek. It is part of the argument to explain why Jesus is the New High Priest and supplants what took place before.
Today at Morning Prayer both the woman at the well and Hebrews on Abraham were the readings. Once more I am amazed how God works. It is a reminder that our regular study of Scripture must be supplemented by reading Scripture in worship. It also bears out the value of a lectionary. I sometimes struggle with the the silence of God. Perhaps, this is a reminder that God whispers, frequently, if we pay attention. I know the recurring pattern of connection between classes and lectionary is statistically unlikely. God does speak. We are challenged to avail ourselves to this communication and recognize it when it happens.
Jerusalem had been leveled by the Babylonians seventy years before, so the first altar is constructed on a ruins. [I led a eucharist on a monastic ruins while on tour in England. It is quite moving.] Later in the chapter they lay the foundation for a new Temple. In exegeting the text we talked about the literal meaning, i.e., building. Afterwards, I did an excursus on the Church Father approach to the text (the deeper or Spiritual-Symbolic). "What," I asked, "is the true foundation of the Temple?" Obviously, it is God. So we discussed the Psalm (If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do the builders labor) and then we talked about Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman. She had asked Jesus about the true Temple (to avoid His probing into her messy personal life) and Jesus talked about worship in Spirit and Truth. As one reads interpenetrating Scriptures together, there is a broader and deeper insight into texts. It reminds us of our foundation and the foundation of real worship.
On Thursday we are studying 2 Esdras, a first century Jewish work in the Apocrypha. Probably, in light of the recent destruction of the (second) Temple in 70AD, the writer used Ezra as the "author" to draw parallels to their situation and the situation 500 years prior. [psedonyms were a very common practice at this time to lend authority to a text] It is written with Ezra as the central figure, this time he is akin to the John of the Book of Revelation. Much of 2 Esdras is focused on Judgment and Suffering and the questions "why?," "what is the point?," and "what will happen in the future?" The chapter we looked at dealt with the state of the soul after death and his explanation is very much what most Christians seem to think will happen. In the course of discussion we got off on numerous tangents and at one point we talked about the Jewish/OT understanding of fatherhood. Abraham contains all of his descendents (in potentia) in his loins. I said that this appears in the Hebrews text concerning Abraham and Melchizedek. It is part of the argument to explain why Jesus is the New High Priest and supplants what took place before.
Today at Morning Prayer both the woman at the well and Hebrews on Abraham were the readings. Once more I am amazed how God works. It is a reminder that our regular study of Scripture must be supplemented by reading Scripture in worship. It also bears out the value of a lectionary. I sometimes struggle with the the silence of God. Perhaps, this is a reminder that God whispers, frequently, if we pay attention. I know the recurring pattern of connection between classes and lectionary is statistically unlikely. God does speak. We are challenged to avail ourselves to this communication and recognize it when it happens.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Serendipity again
This morning all three readings assigned for today had been part of the two Bible studies I did on Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday we are studying Ezra and Nehemiah, having just finished the Second Book of Kings. We looked at two prophets who worked in the time period of the exile, Isaiah 40-55 and Ezekiel. Thursday, studying 2 Esdras, we turned to Revelation 21 to shed insight on the text we were wrestling with. I will limit myself to Isaiah today.
The first reading Isaiah 49, was one of the chapters we looked at while a quote from Isaiah was found in Matthew 12. I have shared before how often this happens. It seems to be the Hand of God at work, to me. Yet, I am also aware that there is no way to prove such a thing. At any rate, the message of Isaiah 49 is pretty amazing. The prophet is living in exile with a conquered people. He is preaching a message of hope, reminding them that God made everything, that God alone is God and that He intends to redeem and rebuild His people. Such sentiments are understandable and, in fact, a few years after this the people did leave exile and return home. Yet tucked away in all of this is a most unexpected verse: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." What stands out to me is how (humanly) inappropriate such sentiments would be in this setting. Only God could be thinking along those lines!
That this people, crushed and insignificant, are to play a key role in the salvation of the entire world seems unfathomable. Yet, that is what they are told. Jesus picks up on this same theme (perhaps originally in a sermon on this text?) and His words, found in Matthew ("you are the light of the world"), remind His Jewish listeners (and by extension, Christian readers) of this vocation.
Epiphany is the season of Light and revelation. Jesus is revealed to the world. He is manifest among us. After many years of obscurity, He comes forth to begin His ministry. The church members of today's congregations are to be an Epiphany people. We are to manifest Jesus in word and deed (and deed tends to be more effective). If the world can be a dark place at times, we do have His light to share. Perhaps some of the darkness is a function of our failure to do just that.
The first reading Isaiah 49, was one of the chapters we looked at while a quote from Isaiah was found in Matthew 12. I have shared before how often this happens. It seems to be the Hand of God at work, to me. Yet, I am also aware that there is no way to prove such a thing. At any rate, the message of Isaiah 49 is pretty amazing. The prophet is living in exile with a conquered people. He is preaching a message of hope, reminding them that God made everything, that God alone is God and that He intends to redeem and rebuild His people. Such sentiments are understandable and, in fact, a few years after this the people did leave exile and return home. Yet tucked away in all of this is a most unexpected verse: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." What stands out to me is how (humanly) inappropriate such sentiments would be in this setting. Only God could be thinking along those lines!
That this people, crushed and insignificant, are to play a key role in the salvation of the entire world seems unfathomable. Yet, that is what they are told. Jesus picks up on this same theme (perhaps originally in a sermon on this text?) and His words, found in Matthew ("you are the light of the world"), remind His Jewish listeners (and by extension, Christian readers) of this vocation.
Epiphany is the season of Light and revelation. Jesus is revealed to the world. He is manifest among us. After many years of obscurity, He comes forth to begin His ministry. The church members of today's congregations are to be an Epiphany people. We are to manifest Jesus in word and deed (and deed tends to be more effective). If the world can be a dark place at times, we do have His light to share. Perhaps some of the darkness is a function of our failure to do just that.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Jeremiah's Complaint
Yesterday's Bible study was a brief run-through of Jeremiah. We are studying 2 Kings and the chapters we are reading correspond to Jeremiah's career. We are attempting to go a bit deeper into the history of the text by looking at some orignal sources.
As part of our overview, we read Jeremiah 12. I provide the text below:
"You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?"
One of the arguments against our Christian faith is this very thing. People ask how God could allow such injustice to flourish. The great irony, to me, is that the very book which we call "God's Word" and which we identify as "God's Revelation" contains the same complaint.
While it is hard to fathom the injustice and unfairness. It appears that over 2500 years ago the same questions gnawed at a man who was deeply committed to God. A man called a prophet and revered as God's special servant. Many of us join Jeremiah in crying out to heaven, but I wonder how many share his humility? Jeremiah begins acknowledging that God will be in the right. In other words, there is a mystery at work. There is more than we can know or understand. We are facing something beyond our grasp. [Perhaps, in the end, the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? Believers do not understand it all, but they still acknowledge God is right.]
The story does not address Jeremiah's complaint. Or at least it does not seem to at first read. Rather than provide a theodicy (a defense of God's goodness in the face of evil) it instead portrays God as a hard-nosed drill sargeant who, to paraphrase, warns Jeremiah that "you ain't seen nothing yet!" "How," God asks, "will you run with horses if you are tired running with men? If you cannot walk on level ground how will you deal with thickets?" The Lord shows little mercy or kindness, as popularly understood in our current God-talk. Rather, exhorting and challenging, one gets the impression that the Almighty is demanding strength and courage from the frustrtaed prophet. The message continues, that Jeremiah will be betrayed by family and friend as well. Jeremiah ponders a sublime mystery while God responds with an updateof a new crisis from the real world!
It is a question which many of us ask and ponder. Why do the evil flourish. In the end, at least in Jeremiah 12, the answer seems to be: 'focus on being faithful'. That is hard to do, but the Lord seems not to care. If we cannot handle struggles now, how will we pass through the worse things headed our way? As pampered Christians living in luxury and ease, it is well for us to read, meditate upon and digest this dialgoue between God and Jeremiah. It just isn't easy!
As part of our overview, we read Jeremiah 12. I provide the text below:
"You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?"
One of the arguments against our Christian faith is this very thing. People ask how God could allow such injustice to flourish. The great irony, to me, is that the very book which we call "God's Word" and which we identify as "God's Revelation" contains the same complaint.
While it is hard to fathom the injustice and unfairness. It appears that over 2500 years ago the same questions gnawed at a man who was deeply committed to God. A man called a prophet and revered as God's special servant. Many of us join Jeremiah in crying out to heaven, but I wonder how many share his humility? Jeremiah begins acknowledging that God will be in the right. In other words, there is a mystery at work. There is more than we can know or understand. We are facing something beyond our grasp. [Perhaps, in the end, the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? Believers do not understand it all, but they still acknowledge God is right.]
The story does not address Jeremiah's complaint. Or at least it does not seem to at first read. Rather than provide a theodicy (a defense of God's goodness in the face of evil) it instead portrays God as a hard-nosed drill sargeant who, to paraphrase, warns Jeremiah that "you ain't seen nothing yet!" "How," God asks, "will you run with horses if you are tired running with men? If you cannot walk on level ground how will you deal with thickets?" The Lord shows little mercy or kindness, as popularly understood in our current God-talk. Rather, exhorting and challenging, one gets the impression that the Almighty is demanding strength and courage from the frustrtaed prophet. The message continues, that Jeremiah will be betrayed by family and friend as well. Jeremiah ponders a sublime mystery while God responds with an updateof a new crisis from the real world!
It is a question which many of us ask and ponder. Why do the evil flourish. In the end, at least in Jeremiah 12, the answer seems to be: 'focus on being faithful'. That is hard to do, but the Lord seems not to care. If we cannot handle struggles now, how will we pass through the worse things headed our way? As pampered Christians living in luxury and ease, it is well for us to read, meditate upon and digest this dialgoue between God and Jeremiah. It just isn't easy!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Wedding Garment and Torture 4
Having looked at how Luke shaped the parable yesterday, we are now ready to see how Matthew (22:1ff) has done the same.
The first thing we notice is that Matthew has placed the parable much later in the Jesus story. It follows after His entrance into Jerusalem. Jesus rides in, fulfilling Scripture, prophetically cleans and then heals the blind and lame in the Temple. The day culminates in Jesus defending the children who have called Him the Messiah (Son of David).
The next day, in the morning, a hungry Jesus curses a fig tree. (Mark says the next day it is found withered up, while Matthew indicates it happens immediately.) This prophetic image (the tree is Jerusalem, temple and people) sets up an angry exchange as the Jewish leaders demand to know the source of Jesus' authority. He asks them a question in turn, was John the Baptist from God? The leaders, aware that they are being set up, declare that they do not know. Jesus says, "I will not tell you either." What is noteworthy is Mark and Luke share this same basic narrative flow to this point. Like Matthew, they have the parable of the landowner next, but Matthew has created a different context for that parbable.
He has sandwiched the parable of the landowner between two other parables. The first, which occurs only in Matthew, is about two sons. A father asks them to do something, one says yes, the other no. The one who said yes does not follow through, while the one who said no repents and does what he is asked. Jesus then declares that tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the Kingdom ahead of the Jewish leaders (who reject Him). John the Baptist is a preacher from God whom the sinners trusted. This theme, the conversion of the lost and outcast, is a key to our parable.
Next, the parable of the landowner, is about fruits (refer to the cursed fig tree). It is also about the son of the owner being killed. Matthew rearranges the words. In his Gospel they take the son out of the vineyard and killed him. (This minor detail seems significant as it conforms to the death of Jesus, who was crucified outside the city) The parable ends with the threat that the owner will kill the tenants and replace them with other people who will produce. A not so veiled reference to the outsiders previously mentioned.
Finally, we get to our parable of the wedding garment. It is only found in Matthew and Luke. Mark does not have it. As we saw yesterday, Luke places it earlier in the Gospel in a meal setting. Matthew uses it here. The setting is the first major change. Matthew has others.
Luke's parable, about a man having dinner, is expanded in Matthew. Now it is a king having a wedding feast for his son. It is an allegory. Earlier in the Gospel Jesus identifies Himself as the groom. The wedding feast is a dominant image in the Apocalypse for the Kingdom. Matthew, using images from Jesus, now adds another layer to the parable. It is also an allegory about salvation history. Matthew adds others slaves to Lukes single one. The group of slaves goes out in two groups (representing OT prophets and Christian prophets). The second group are given the excuses but it is summarized briefly (one goes to his farm, another to his business) with an amazing addition. Now the rest, we read, harm and kill the messengers.
This is a turn which makes little sense in the original parable (about rejected invitations). Now, Matthew's allegory is in full force. It is about rejection of the King (God). It is about harming and killing His servants (the prophets). It is about what has been taking place since the beginning of Israel. It is about the death of the Son (tied back to the previous parable of the vineyard).
What follows, the destruction of the city, reflects actual history. Jesus' prophetic warning to Jerusalem is encapsulated here. Matthew is speaking to his church, reminding them of the warning Jesus gave (and the real life destruction of the real city). So, when the King says, afterward, the food is on the table, get others to eat, we understand that what makes no sense in the parable (how can one have time to fight a war while food sits on the table) is actually directed to us.
But Matthew makes two other additions. While Luke identifies the outcast as invitees, Matthew says those gathered are "good and bad." Matthew is more focused on the morals of the church. He is also focused on the final judgment. There is no escape from that. We are accountable. The church, even in his time, was a mixed group. Throughout the Gospel there are warnings about this. The church is not "all saints, all holy, all pure." It is a mixed bag.
The man without a wedding garment represents those within the church who have been "saved by grace" but have been unfaithful. He was invited in for no reason beyond the King's kindness. However, Matthew wants it made clear (as clear as Paul makes it in Romans) that the offer of grace is not without expectation. "Where is your wedding garment?" the King asks.
This question is not logical in the flow of the parable. How could someone scooped up off the streets be prepared? My guess it is a teaching of Jesus from another setting which has found its way here. Matthew is less concerned with the past, when Jesus explained how God's offer extends to include the outcast. Matthew wants to focus the church's attention on God's demand of righteousness (to them). The wedding garment, as is indicated in the Apocalypse and interpreted by the Church Fathers, is our righteousness. Judgment.
So the speechless man, he has no defense, is cast out. An image (horrible and terrifying) of the Last Judgment. This is not an act of senseless torture, though it originally seems to be. Instead, it is Matthews taking a turn. His image of Jesus shines through. His warning to the church is clear.
We cannot earn salvation, but without fruits, we can buy damnation. That is the rest of the story. Another angle on the message of Jesus. I hope I have given some insight into how imporant comparing the Gospels is and how helpful it is to look at the context to hear the message.
i will not be blogging for most of the next week. God bless!
The first thing we notice is that Matthew has placed the parable much later in the Jesus story. It follows after His entrance into Jerusalem. Jesus rides in, fulfilling Scripture, prophetically cleans and then heals the blind and lame in the Temple. The day culminates in Jesus defending the children who have called Him the Messiah (Son of David).
The next day, in the morning, a hungry Jesus curses a fig tree. (Mark says the next day it is found withered up, while Matthew indicates it happens immediately.) This prophetic image (the tree is Jerusalem, temple and people) sets up an angry exchange as the Jewish leaders demand to know the source of Jesus' authority. He asks them a question in turn, was John the Baptist from God? The leaders, aware that they are being set up, declare that they do not know. Jesus says, "I will not tell you either." What is noteworthy is Mark and Luke share this same basic narrative flow to this point. Like Matthew, they have the parable of the landowner next, but Matthew has created a different context for that parbable.
He has sandwiched the parable of the landowner between two other parables. The first, which occurs only in Matthew, is about two sons. A father asks them to do something, one says yes, the other no. The one who said yes does not follow through, while the one who said no repents and does what he is asked. Jesus then declares that tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the Kingdom ahead of the Jewish leaders (who reject Him). John the Baptist is a preacher from God whom the sinners trusted. This theme, the conversion of the lost and outcast, is a key to our parable.
Next, the parable of the landowner, is about fruits (refer to the cursed fig tree). It is also about the son of the owner being killed. Matthew rearranges the words. In his Gospel they take the son out of the vineyard and killed him. (This minor detail seems significant as it conforms to the death of Jesus, who was crucified outside the city) The parable ends with the threat that the owner will kill the tenants and replace them with other people who will produce. A not so veiled reference to the outsiders previously mentioned.
Finally, we get to our parable of the wedding garment. It is only found in Matthew and Luke. Mark does not have it. As we saw yesterday, Luke places it earlier in the Gospel in a meal setting. Matthew uses it here. The setting is the first major change. Matthew has others.
Luke's parable, about a man having dinner, is expanded in Matthew. Now it is a king having a wedding feast for his son. It is an allegory. Earlier in the Gospel Jesus identifies Himself as the groom. The wedding feast is a dominant image in the Apocalypse for the Kingdom. Matthew, using images from Jesus, now adds another layer to the parable. It is also an allegory about salvation history. Matthew adds others slaves to Lukes single one. The group of slaves goes out in two groups (representing OT prophets and Christian prophets). The second group are given the excuses but it is summarized briefly (one goes to his farm, another to his business) with an amazing addition. Now the rest, we read, harm and kill the messengers.
This is a turn which makes little sense in the original parable (about rejected invitations). Now, Matthew's allegory is in full force. It is about rejection of the King (God). It is about harming and killing His servants (the prophets). It is about what has been taking place since the beginning of Israel. It is about the death of the Son (tied back to the previous parable of the vineyard).
What follows, the destruction of the city, reflects actual history. Jesus' prophetic warning to Jerusalem is encapsulated here. Matthew is speaking to his church, reminding them of the warning Jesus gave (and the real life destruction of the real city). So, when the King says, afterward, the food is on the table, get others to eat, we understand that what makes no sense in the parable (how can one have time to fight a war while food sits on the table) is actually directed to us.
But Matthew makes two other additions. While Luke identifies the outcast as invitees, Matthew says those gathered are "good and bad." Matthew is more focused on the morals of the church. He is also focused on the final judgment. There is no escape from that. We are accountable. The church, even in his time, was a mixed group. Throughout the Gospel there are warnings about this. The church is not "all saints, all holy, all pure." It is a mixed bag.
The man without a wedding garment represents those within the church who have been "saved by grace" but have been unfaithful. He was invited in for no reason beyond the King's kindness. However, Matthew wants it made clear (as clear as Paul makes it in Romans) that the offer of grace is not without expectation. "Where is your wedding garment?" the King asks.
This question is not logical in the flow of the parable. How could someone scooped up off the streets be prepared? My guess it is a teaching of Jesus from another setting which has found its way here. Matthew is less concerned with the past, when Jesus explained how God's offer extends to include the outcast. Matthew wants to focus the church's attention on God's demand of righteousness (to them). The wedding garment, as is indicated in the Apocalypse and interpreted by the Church Fathers, is our righteousness. Judgment.
So the speechless man, he has no defense, is cast out. An image (horrible and terrifying) of the Last Judgment. This is not an act of senseless torture, though it originally seems to be. Instead, it is Matthews taking a turn. His image of Jesus shines through. His warning to the church is clear.
We cannot earn salvation, but without fruits, we can buy damnation. That is the rest of the story. Another angle on the message of Jesus. I hope I have given some insight into how imporant comparing the Gospels is and how helpful it is to look at the context to hear the message.
i will not be blogging for most of the next week. God bless!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wedding Garments and Torture 3
thanks for the e-mail message telling me this is helpful. I appreciate the feedback and will try even harder to make this worthy of your time!
(open Bible to Luke 14:16ff) Luke's parable is less complex than Matthew's.The story line is simple. A man has a banquet and sends his slave to tell the invited guests that it is time to come and eat. This was a common practice in ancient times. An invitation went out far in advance and then the reminder came the day of the event. We notice that the scale of the story. There is a man with a slave. Only three guests respond, but one assumes that they are representative. The excuses which are given are mundane: one bought land, another oxen, and the last is newly married. (The first and third excuses echo Deuteronomy 20, where young men could be excused from war) So the man sends his slave to gather up the street people (poor, crippled, blind, lame) but the hall is not yet full. So the slave is sent out again to get more people in the outer reaches of the city.
The original parable of Jesus provides an insight into God's offer of inclusion to all people. No doubt when told to the Jewish leaders it had a judgmental edge to it. (Hence the parable's conclusion "none of those who were invited will taste my dinner") For such an audience, the parable serves as a declaration (and rationale) for doom. However, one can also imagine other settings where Jesus is showing the 'outcast' that they have access to the Feast! In such a case, the story would have a wondrous dimension. People who were destitute were invited to imagine a scenario where they are scooped up, off the road, and brought into the home a wealthy man. There a grand feast is spread out before them and they sit in the seats of honor intended for others. As I said yesterday, Jesus no doubt told this story, or a variant of it numerous times to different groups in diverse settings. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in some cases he even shaped the characters to reflect his actual audience. One can picture Jesus talking about the outcasts, and then, gazing at the dirty face of a poor mother holding her child, adding that "a woman and her child, a child of three" (as he looks at her child) "hurried into the meal, and ate with great joy." Would a tear roll down her cheek as she made the connection between her plight (and salvation!) and the story of Jesus? Would a divine tear roll down His human cheek as he gazed at the woman?
As Luke works this story into his Gospel, we notice several things about the setting. First of all, it occurs at a dinner party (14:1 it is a Sabbath meal at the house of a leader of the Pharisees). Jesus heals a man (which creates an uproar). Then Jesus notices how people are vying for a place of honor. Luke quotes Jesus on humility. The Jesus tells the host, "when you give a dinner invite, not your friends, but the "poor, cripple. lame, blind." Notice, this is the same group who populate His parable! Luke had a heart for the poor and his Gospel refers constantly to the needy.
(Lk 14:25) Immediately after the parable Jesus is teaching a crowd where He demands that we love Him more than family and friend. He continues, that those who follow Him must crry their cross. He concludes, "none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up your possessions." [The announcement of grace is always balanced with the total demand of the Kingdom. Everyone gets in free, but it costs everything!]
Now the parable is illuminated further. Luke is certainly keying in on inviting the poor, but we can see the 'excuses' in new light. The people who were originally invited in the parable are not street people. One is a land owner, the second is quite wealthy (ten oxen is a huge number). The third, newly married, is at least of sufficient means to have a wife. Luke's concern, that we understand Jesus' commitment to the poor and outcast, is present throughout the chapter and is woven into the texture of the parable itself. He narrows the outcast to the poor and needy (as opposed to the 'sinners,' tax collectors and whores, in other Gospels)
Now some might ask, "Did Luke emphasize the poor because Matthew and Mark got it wrong?" The answer of course would be, 'yes and no.' Yes, Luke emphasized something which they didn't, but the others were focused on other areas of Jesus' identity. Keep remembering, Jesus is bigger than any single protrait of Him. Once we escape a shallow, wooden literalism (while avoiding the cynical, unbelief of the Liberal/Modernist or post-Modernist) we can emerse ourself in the revelation of God, through the human writer, about our Lord. Like facets of a diamond, the different angles on Jesus provide us a richer, complementary view, not a contradictory one.
Luke has given us Jesus' teaching from a particular (valid) angle. We know Him as He confronts us with an immensely difficult collection of stories (who among us regularly feeds unknown needy people instead of our families?). The difficulty is intensified as we live our generally materialistic Western lifes. Jesus would be stunned at how rich His followers are, and how reluctant we are to share our abundance. That is enough to ponder for one day.
Next we turn to Matthew, and we will see how thoroughly he reshapes the parable, placing it in a totally different setting and actively making it an allegory about Jesus (and us).
(open Bible to Luke 14:16ff) Luke's parable is less complex than Matthew's.The story line is simple. A man has a banquet and sends his slave to tell the invited guests that it is time to come and eat. This was a common practice in ancient times. An invitation went out far in advance and then the reminder came the day of the event. We notice that the scale of the story. There is a man with a slave. Only three guests respond, but one assumes that they are representative. The excuses which are given are mundane: one bought land, another oxen, and the last is newly married. (The first and third excuses echo Deuteronomy 20, where young men could be excused from war) So the man sends his slave to gather up the street people (poor, crippled, blind, lame) but the hall is not yet full. So the slave is sent out again to get more people in the outer reaches of the city.
The original parable of Jesus provides an insight into God's offer of inclusion to all people. No doubt when told to the Jewish leaders it had a judgmental edge to it. (Hence the parable's conclusion "none of those who were invited will taste my dinner") For such an audience, the parable serves as a declaration (and rationale) for doom. However, one can also imagine other settings where Jesus is showing the 'outcast' that they have access to the Feast! In such a case, the story would have a wondrous dimension. People who were destitute were invited to imagine a scenario where they are scooped up, off the road, and brought into the home a wealthy man. There a grand feast is spread out before them and they sit in the seats of honor intended for others. As I said yesterday, Jesus no doubt told this story, or a variant of it numerous times to different groups in diverse settings. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in some cases he even shaped the characters to reflect his actual audience. One can picture Jesus talking about the outcasts, and then, gazing at the dirty face of a poor mother holding her child, adding that "a woman and her child, a child of three" (as he looks at her child) "hurried into the meal, and ate with great joy." Would a tear roll down her cheek as she made the connection between her plight (and salvation!) and the story of Jesus? Would a divine tear roll down His human cheek as he gazed at the woman?
As Luke works this story into his Gospel, we notice several things about the setting. First of all, it occurs at a dinner party (14:1 it is a Sabbath meal at the house of a leader of the Pharisees). Jesus heals a man (which creates an uproar). Then Jesus notices how people are vying for a place of honor. Luke quotes Jesus on humility. The Jesus tells the host, "when you give a dinner invite, not your friends, but the "poor, cripple. lame, blind." Notice, this is the same group who populate His parable! Luke had a heart for the poor and his Gospel refers constantly to the needy.
(Lk 14:25) Immediately after the parable Jesus is teaching a crowd where He demands that we love Him more than family and friend. He continues, that those who follow Him must crry their cross. He concludes, "none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up your possessions." [The announcement of grace is always balanced with the total demand of the Kingdom. Everyone gets in free, but it costs everything!]
Now the parable is illuminated further. Luke is certainly keying in on inviting the poor, but we can see the 'excuses' in new light. The people who were originally invited in the parable are not street people. One is a land owner, the second is quite wealthy (ten oxen is a huge number). The third, newly married, is at least of sufficient means to have a wife. Luke's concern, that we understand Jesus' commitment to the poor and outcast, is present throughout the chapter and is woven into the texture of the parable itself. He narrows the outcast to the poor and needy (as opposed to the 'sinners,' tax collectors and whores, in other Gospels)
Now some might ask, "Did Luke emphasize the poor because Matthew and Mark got it wrong?" The answer of course would be, 'yes and no.' Yes, Luke emphasized something which they didn't, but the others were focused on other areas of Jesus' identity. Keep remembering, Jesus is bigger than any single protrait of Him. Once we escape a shallow, wooden literalism (while avoiding the cynical, unbelief of the Liberal/Modernist or post-Modernist) we can emerse ourself in the revelation of God, through the human writer, about our Lord. Like facets of a diamond, the different angles on Jesus provide us a richer, complementary view, not a contradictory one.
Luke has given us Jesus' teaching from a particular (valid) angle. We know Him as He confronts us with an immensely difficult collection of stories (who among us regularly feeds unknown needy people instead of our families?). The difficulty is intensified as we live our generally materialistic Western lifes. Jesus would be stunned at how rich His followers are, and how reluctant we are to share our abundance. That is enough to ponder for one day.
Next we turn to Matthew, and we will see how thoroughly he reshapes the parable, placing it in a totally different setting and actively making it an allegory about Jesus (and us).
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Wedding Garments and Torture 2
One of the advantages of four Gospels is we are provided comparisons. In trying to understand what the inspired Gospel writer is telling us, it is sometimes helpful to see how a particular story is reshaped or how it is bundled with other stories.
The parable of the wedding feast occurs in two locations in the New Testament. Matthew 22 and Luke 14. Luke places it much earlier in his Gospel than Matthew. That is a helpful reminder that much of the Gospel story is not on a time line. This should come as no surprise. In the early church, one of the first mentions of the authors of the Gospel tell us that Mark wrote down the teaching of Peter, 'though not in order.' This is how human memory works. Many of us can recall in great detail some event from the past, yet we can not remember if it is ten or twenty years ago. "Remember the time...." we enthusiastically ask. Another problem is Jesus' life style. The trouble with Jesus is He was a traveling preacher. He spent hours teaching and preaching in one town after another. No doubt some people came to Him to talk and ask Him to explain things. Probably, He told and retold stories, each time with a twist.
Last night I watched the debates. I can tell you Herman Cain has a "9-9-9" tax plan. Yet there are probably four different, though similar, quotes from that event alone which refer to his plan. So three 'different' versions could be produced from one single appearance. How many times did Jesus tell stories about crops, sheep, and landowners?
Jesus probably talked for hours every days, formally or informally. Add it up. Imagine He spent a minimum of two hours a day doing some kind of sharing, instruction or reflecting. If His ministry was one year, that is easily 700 hours of teaching and even up to 2500. If His ministry was longer, maybe three years we are now looking at 2,000 to 7,500 hours. Our Gospels record less than a couple of hours of dialogue each. Mark has less than an hour's content. Think about all that content....
So every parable of Jesus is two things. One, it is a particular version of a teaching. Little details about characters or numbers could be changed without damaging the point He was making. My guess is those details were fluid in the disciples' retelling. The other thing each parable is (and this is important) is an opportunity for the Gospel writer to explain who Jesus is and what He means. In other words, the authors have a vision of the Lord which shapes their telling. Matthew uses different terms than Luke or Mark. Each one emphasizes different aspects of the story. Each one places the parable in a context to shed light on the identity of the Lord. We can learn as much from that as we can the actual parable!
Whatever else we know, it is clear that Matthew, Mark and Luke have followed each other closely in many places. Someone wrote the initial Gospel. The others wrote to supplement, and I assume, to improve on, what they read. They wanted to clarify the Jesus story for their readers (and us). So changes are made to do just that. The changes are based on the eyewitness testimony of many. The changes are made to give a fuller view. The church acknowledges four of these as authoritative. They are trustworthy.
As we look at Matthew and Luke we will see how each has shaped the telling of the parable. God inspired these two men to tell us, not a newspaper account of a singular event, but, rather, a teaching of Jesus, shaped by other teaching of Jesus, and influenced by teaching about Jesus (remember the Gospels are written some fifteen to fifty years after Jesus). The Gospels are a venue to encounter Jesus. We are blessed to have them.
The parable of the wedding feast occurs in two locations in the New Testament. Matthew 22 and Luke 14. Luke places it much earlier in his Gospel than Matthew. That is a helpful reminder that much of the Gospel story is not on a time line. This should come as no surprise. In the early church, one of the first mentions of the authors of the Gospel tell us that Mark wrote down the teaching of Peter, 'though not in order.' This is how human memory works. Many of us can recall in great detail some event from the past, yet we can not remember if it is ten or twenty years ago. "Remember the time...." we enthusiastically ask. Another problem is Jesus' life style. The trouble with Jesus is He was a traveling preacher. He spent hours teaching and preaching in one town after another. No doubt some people came to Him to talk and ask Him to explain things. Probably, He told and retold stories, each time with a twist.
Last night I watched the debates. I can tell you Herman Cain has a "9-9-9" tax plan. Yet there are probably four different, though similar, quotes from that event alone which refer to his plan. So three 'different' versions could be produced from one single appearance. How many times did Jesus tell stories about crops, sheep, and landowners?
Jesus probably talked for hours every days, formally or informally. Add it up. Imagine He spent a minimum of two hours a day doing some kind of sharing, instruction or reflecting. If His ministry was one year, that is easily 700 hours of teaching and even up to 2500. If His ministry was longer, maybe three years we are now looking at 2,000 to 7,500 hours. Our Gospels record less than a couple of hours of dialogue each. Mark has less than an hour's content. Think about all that content....
So every parable of Jesus is two things. One, it is a particular version of a teaching. Little details about characters or numbers could be changed without damaging the point He was making. My guess is those details were fluid in the disciples' retelling. The other thing each parable is (and this is important) is an opportunity for the Gospel writer to explain who Jesus is and what He means. In other words, the authors have a vision of the Lord which shapes their telling. Matthew uses different terms than Luke or Mark. Each one emphasizes different aspects of the story. Each one places the parable in a context to shed light on the identity of the Lord. We can learn as much from that as we can the actual parable!
Whatever else we know, it is clear that Matthew, Mark and Luke have followed each other closely in many places. Someone wrote the initial Gospel. The others wrote to supplement, and I assume, to improve on, what they read. They wanted to clarify the Jesus story for their readers (and us). So changes are made to do just that. The changes are based on the eyewitness testimony of many. The changes are made to give a fuller view. The church acknowledges four of these as authoritative. They are trustworthy.
As we look at Matthew and Luke we will see how each has shaped the telling of the parable. God inspired these two men to tell us, not a newspaper account of a singular event, but, rather, a teaching of Jesus, shaped by other teaching of Jesus, and influenced by teaching about Jesus (remember the Gospels are written some fifteen to fifty years after Jesus). The Gospels are a venue to encounter Jesus. We are blessed to have them.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Wedding Garments and Torture 1
This was an interesting weekend. I preached on the assigned Gospel, Matthew 22:1-14. It is the famous 'wedding garment' parable which has confused me for many years. You have probably heard it. There is a king who has a wedding feast, the invited guests refuse to come and instead they maim and kill the messengers. The king raises an army, destroys the city and then says, "Hey the food is on the table, let's get some guests!" So the servants go round up everyone they can find and the party is on. Then as the king walks through the party he spots one guy with no wedding garment. So he asks him, "Where is your wedding garment?" The guest is speechless. So the king ties him up and tosses him into the alley. We then hear, "Many are called but few are chosen."
Most people, including me, think this is a strange teaching from Jesus. It isn't that we do not want to honor and obey Him, it is just that we cannot follow the logic. How, for example, can a king find time to raise an army and destroy a city in a couple of hours? More pressing, why would you tie a guy up and through him in an alley because he didn't have on the right clothes? And why would you expect someone who was invited, unprepared, to show up in anything else but what he was wearing? (and who wears wedding garments around all the time, just in case?) So why is a man tortured like this?
The key to the answer would seem to be the man, but he is speechless (not unlike Jesus at His trial). Who is this man and what is the rest of the story? Most of the explanations I have heard did not help me terribly. One is that a wedding garment is really just clean clothes. Can an 'unexpecting' guest be expected to carry a change of clothes? And wouldn't it be enough to ask him to leave? Why tie him up? Another is that the host provides the wedding garment. Well, why did the king not simply redirect the guest to the place where he can get the garment?
My thinking is this was a hard parable for lots of people. My thinking is that we frequently try to "cover for" Jesus (or the Biblical writer) when a reading is hard to understand. We live in a world where people reject the authority of Scripture so we get worried. For years I did that. But, now I think I understand the parable. My sermon is online at the church website, but I intend to walk through the interpretative process the next couple days. It is pretty exciting to me. I think I can make sense of the parable, even the 'torture.'
Most people, including me, think this is a strange teaching from Jesus. It isn't that we do not want to honor and obey Him, it is just that we cannot follow the logic. How, for example, can a king find time to raise an army and destroy a city in a couple of hours? More pressing, why would you tie a guy up and through him in an alley because he didn't have on the right clothes? And why would you expect someone who was invited, unprepared, to show up in anything else but what he was wearing? (and who wears wedding garments around all the time, just in case?) So why is a man tortured like this?
The key to the answer would seem to be the man, but he is speechless (not unlike Jesus at His trial). Who is this man and what is the rest of the story? Most of the explanations I have heard did not help me terribly. One is that a wedding garment is really just clean clothes. Can an 'unexpecting' guest be expected to carry a change of clothes? And wouldn't it be enough to ask him to leave? Why tie him up? Another is that the host provides the wedding garment. Well, why did the king not simply redirect the guest to the place where he can get the garment?
My thinking is this was a hard parable for lots of people. My thinking is that we frequently try to "cover for" Jesus (or the Biblical writer) when a reading is hard to understand. We live in a world where people reject the authority of Scripture so we get worried. For years I did that. But, now I think I understand the parable. My sermon is online at the church website, but I intend to walk through the interpretative process the next couple days. It is pretty exciting to me. I think I can make sense of the parable, even the 'torture.'
Friday, October 7, 2011
The End of the Age
We are studying 2 Esdras on Thursdays and the High School Sunday School class is doing Revelation. So I have been reflecting a bit more on apocalyptic writing lately. In the last few years I have been more intent on trying to understand ancient writing. What exactly is their purpose?
These two lines, 2 Esdras 4:26-27, jumped out at me yesterday:
The world's history is measured by two types of time. Linear time is the long stretch from creation (Beginning) to Final Judgment (The Harvest). However, the movement from beginning to end includes cycles. Cyclical time is the repetition we see throughout history in the proverbial "rise and fall" of one Empire after another. This is why we divide history into ages. We often refer to "the end of an era" when marking the passing of a significant time period. (I am sure the death of Steve Jobs is just such a marker for his industry.)
So a cyclical 'end of the age' is a type of the linear final 'end of the ages.'
No one quakes today at the Italian army, but the Roman legions were certainly the world power for a long time. Babylon and Persia were Empires while Iraq and Iran are their truncated remnants. Our biblical apocalyptic writings were written about the Roman Empire, but often used the name Babylon (symbolic metaphor). The are a model for understanding the rise and fall of any empire set against God and His people. For Americans, the current shifting of global power to China has all the feel of another such end/beginning.
Yesterday's headline, "World's Economy Worst Ever" may be another such 'apocalyptic' message. Sir Mervyn King says that the current global disaster is the worst since 1930 and quite possibly the worst ever. My grandparents lived through the depression. My parents were born in 1934, smack dab in the middle of it. I recall their stories, but they are all long dead and my living connection with that period of history was buried with them. I wonder about my newborn son, will his world be like theirs?
Ten years ago I read a prophetic blog pretty regularly. In it, he shared visions of a coming time of great upheaval. He warned of judgment and exhorted to greater faithfulness. My preaching has often included a warning of the coming days. It was almost a vague feeling. I remember telling folks, "it is coming" not always sure what the it was. At times I feared I was just being morose. (Thats what people tell me, that I am pessimistic....) I have noticed that I do not preach about it so much the last couple years. As I ponder why, I think it is because the time has come. Now it is more imporant to preach repentance and hope.
I know that we are in the end of the age. The 'foundations' are being shaken. The changes in Europe, the Middle East, China, and the US are all substantial. I am not an economist, but I can figure out that the ongoing employment and financial problems are a big deal. I do not know if this end is the final end. I am not sure Jesus would have me speculate on that. I do know that Jesus warns me (and you) that we need to get our own house in order. It is time. The way it was is not the way it will be. This age passes away. Will the next age be better or worse? It depends on what matters most to you. Perhaps we are given a second chance to reset our priorities: a chance to worship, trust and serve the Triune God more completely and to love one another in word and deed. It is an apocalyptic end of the age, there is suffering and there will be more. Wars and rumor of wars (check out the Israeli military preparations today), earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, economic collapse and widespread riots---these are NOT the end, but they are the birth pangs. And so the church prays, "Maranatha!" Come Lord Jesus!
These two lines, 2 Esdras 4:26-27, jumped out at me yesterday:
- "If you are alive, you will see, and if you live long, you will often marvel, because the age is hurrying swiftly to its end. It will not be able to bring the things that have been promised to the righteous in their appointed time because this age is full of sadness and infirmities"
The world's history is measured by two types of time. Linear time is the long stretch from creation (Beginning) to Final Judgment (The Harvest). However, the movement from beginning to end includes cycles. Cyclical time is the repetition we see throughout history in the proverbial "rise and fall" of one Empire after another. This is why we divide history into ages. We often refer to "the end of an era" when marking the passing of a significant time period. (I am sure the death of Steve Jobs is just such a marker for his industry.)
So a cyclical 'end of the age' is a type of the linear final 'end of the ages.'
No one quakes today at the Italian army, but the Roman legions were certainly the world power for a long time. Babylon and Persia were Empires while Iraq and Iran are their truncated remnants. Our biblical apocalyptic writings were written about the Roman Empire, but often used the name Babylon (symbolic metaphor). The are a model for understanding the rise and fall of any empire set against God and His people. For Americans, the current shifting of global power to China has all the feel of another such end/beginning.
Yesterday's headline, "World's Economy Worst Ever" may be another such 'apocalyptic' message. Sir Mervyn King says that the current global disaster is the worst since 1930 and quite possibly the worst ever. My grandparents lived through the depression. My parents were born in 1934, smack dab in the middle of it. I recall their stories, but they are all long dead and my living connection with that period of history was buried with them. I wonder about my newborn son, will his world be like theirs?
Ten years ago I read a prophetic blog pretty regularly. In it, he shared visions of a coming time of great upheaval. He warned of judgment and exhorted to greater faithfulness. My preaching has often included a warning of the coming days. It was almost a vague feeling. I remember telling folks, "it is coming" not always sure what the it was. At times I feared I was just being morose. (Thats what people tell me, that I am pessimistic....) I have noticed that I do not preach about it so much the last couple years. As I ponder why, I think it is because the time has come. Now it is more imporant to preach repentance and hope.
I know that we are in the end of the age. The 'foundations' are being shaken. The changes in Europe, the Middle East, China, and the US are all substantial. I am not an economist, but I can figure out that the ongoing employment and financial problems are a big deal. I do not know if this end is the final end. I am not sure Jesus would have me speculate on that. I do know that Jesus warns me (and you) that we need to get our own house in order. It is time. The way it was is not the way it will be. This age passes away. Will the next age be better or worse? It depends on what matters most to you. Perhaps we are given a second chance to reset our priorities: a chance to worship, trust and serve the Triune God more completely and to love one another in word and deed. It is an apocalyptic end of the age, there is suffering and there will be more. Wars and rumor of wars (check out the Israeli military preparations today), earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, economic collapse and widespread riots---these are NOT the end, but they are the birth pangs. And so the church prays, "Maranatha!" Come Lord Jesus!
Friday, August 26, 2011
Adam, Eve, History, Truth (1)
I like blogs because I get a sense of what is going on with other people. Yesterday I ran across three(!) blogs in a row on Adam and Eve. One, an English philosopher of science and Christian apologist, has long been among my favorite writers. He writes about the age of the earth, using analysis of Scripture:
http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2011/02/bible-and-age-of-universe-part-1.html
The second is a friend of a friend. She is an evangelical who is seriously engaging her doubts about the particular Christian worldview in which she was raised. She and many of her commentators, are no longer at 'home' in their old view. They wonder what it means. She writes here.
http://thinkandwonderwonderandthink.blogspot.com/
The last one I recently ran across. I think he is part of a movement trying to get back to a purer understanding of Jesus. He is responding to Al Mohler on Adam and Eve here:
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/08/25/the-beginning-of-the-gospel-rjs/
I am a priest (preacher/teacher) who has studied the Bible for thirty five years. I am not, however, a Biblical scholar. I have not read all the religious texts written in the Ancient Near East prior to 500BC. I also do not have complete dexterity with the Hebrew text. But I have read books by people who have this knowledge. And I have read, studied and prayed about it for years. The issue of Adam and Eve is a difficult one. So many people equate their faith in God with a particular way of approaching Scripture. If you mess with anything their entire faith structure collapses. This is unfortuate, unnecessary and, to be blunt, our own fault. Let me start with the fault issue first.
Since I was a teenager, I have heard many Christians make the claim, "If a single word of the Bible is incorrect, then the entire book cannot be trusted." That is a powerful statement. It conveys, very strongly, a sense of how important inerrancy is. But there is a problem, it assumes that the only thing we can trust is something which cannot make even a single mistake. That is simply not true. Errors in detail do not negate the entire communication in any other area of life, so why would it with the Bible. Does the message: "God made us. God saved us. God wants us to be in faithful, loving, obedient relationship with us" really depend on an accurate count of dead and wounded in a battle between Caananites and Israelites? REALLY? The central message of the Bible is false if it turns out that the census numbers are not accurate? Why would any Christian create that sort of problem for faith for another Christian?
And that is the growing problem, especially for Evangelicals. It does not take very long to find things in the Bible which might be considered "errors." In fact, by Genesis 2 there is already one big, fat, glaring contradiction:
So what then do I recommend? Well, to begin with, get rid of the idea that to be trustworthy the Bible must be "inerrant". OR, if you want to hold inerrancy, then define it (This goes back to a post a couple days ago about the meaning of words). The problem is "inerrant" means "no mistakes". But what is an inerrant text? The Bible is literature, not math. Literature is, in part, art. There are a wide variety of literary forms, each with its own rules. For example, ever notice how often in movies it is raining? Rain is a literary image. So the appearance of rain in a movie or book has more than meterological significance. It symbolizes. In the Bible (especially in an ancient, pre-scientific culture) the straightforward meaning of a text is understood in the straightforward way of thinking of those times. And we need to get clear, literal is not more true than symbolic. To say "it is 93 degrees" is not more true than saying "it is hotter than hell today." In fact, the latter conveys a subjective experience that the mere measure of temperature doesn't. That is why the words, "it is only symbolic" are fighting words for me (and I use the term fighting symbolically. I will not actually hit someone. I may not even argue with them. But I do think that it is silly and ignorant and that is what I mean by "fighting words"!)
I think that we need to seriously look at the word 'inerrant.' We also need to stop setting our kids up for a fall. We need to ask what we think the Bible is. How did it get written? Where and by whom? What was the process of composition? What was it reacting against? What was its audience? What is the author trying to tell us?????
Well, there a thousand questions but you get the point.
So to begin. Did the ancient authors of Genesis not notice the difference in order (vegetation & man)? In other words, was this an error? Did some later copyist make a mistake and rearrange things? (and if he did, how does that impact the claim of inerrancy? Does it matter that the originals are inerrant when we do not have the originals?) Is this a mistake? OR....
Were there originally two different stories which circulated in different times and communities? Were the two stories only written down after years and years of the oral story being passed around by people who live, not with books, but with spoken words? People who wander around deserts with tents and flocks. People who want to know: "why am I here?" and "what does it mean?" Is it possible that the stories, hundreds of years later, were edited and composed as written stories? Written down at a time when Israel actually had cities and resources to compose books (a very costly adventure in time and money). Maybe the first of the stories was written by a priest, composed to explain the importance of the Sabbath (hence seven days) and to emphasize we live in a world of order (hence the sterotyped language and neat divisions), under threat by chaos, but sustained and protected by God. And perhaps those priests were using the creation texts of their neighbors (who are also their racial relatives, Abraham was an Aramean!) as a foil. Maybe they were correcting the errors of pagan belief and that is why we see the similarities and differences. Perhaps the first account ends with the creation of man as the summit of creation. It tells us that this was God's final act. It makes clear to us 'who we are' and 'what are relationship with Him is' (image and likeness, to rule the earth). It makes clear that He creates by speaking a word because He is not like the gods of the pagan neighbors. He is not one among many. He is different from the gods they worship. His creation is not a cosmic battle of gods but a creative word spoken by a singular, all powerful God.
Perhaps in Genesis 2 man is created first because that author is making the same point. This time man is fashioned from dirt to remind us of our destiny (dead bodies disintegrate). The intimacy of God is emphasized here by using the image of a potter (rather than the distant God who "speaks and it is") Man is made first because the ultimate purpose of creation is man, and everything follows from that. Maybe it isn't about revealling the order of creation (vegetation or man). Maybe first (ultimate cause) or last (final goal), in this case, actually mean the same thing. Maybe each author tells us that "man is IMPORTANT to God." In that case, there is no contradiction. The two stories are telling us the same thing (i.e. the point of the story) using different images... Maybe we can let our kids read what the Bible is actually telling us (not make the Bible say what we want it to say). Maybe we can stop telling our kids that if they ever run across something that does not fit "perfectly" then the Bible must not be true. Maybe we can find a way. More on the 'first couple' in the days ahead.
http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2011/02/bible-and-age-of-universe-part-1.html
The second is a friend of a friend. She is an evangelical who is seriously engaging her doubts about the particular Christian worldview in which she was raised. She and many of her commentators, are no longer at 'home' in their old view. They wonder what it means. She writes here.
http://thinkandwonderwonderandthink.blogspot.com/
The last one I recently ran across. I think he is part of a movement trying to get back to a purer understanding of Jesus. He is responding to Al Mohler on Adam and Eve here:
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/08/25/the-beginning-of-the-gospel-rjs/
I am a priest (preacher/teacher) who has studied the Bible for thirty five years. I am not, however, a Biblical scholar. I have not read all the religious texts written in the Ancient Near East prior to 500BC. I also do not have complete dexterity with the Hebrew text. But I have read books by people who have this knowledge. And I have read, studied and prayed about it for years. The issue of Adam and Eve is a difficult one. So many people equate their faith in God with a particular way of approaching Scripture. If you mess with anything their entire faith structure collapses. This is unfortuate, unnecessary and, to be blunt, our own fault. Let me start with the fault issue first.
Since I was a teenager, I have heard many Christians make the claim, "If a single word of the Bible is incorrect, then the entire book cannot be trusted." That is a powerful statement. It conveys, very strongly, a sense of how important inerrancy is. But there is a problem, it assumes that the only thing we can trust is something which cannot make even a single mistake. That is simply not true. Errors in detail do not negate the entire communication in any other area of life, so why would it with the Bible. Does the message: "God made us. God saved us. God wants us to be in faithful, loving, obedient relationship with us" really depend on an accurate count of dead and wounded in a battle between Caananites and Israelites? REALLY? The central message of the Bible is false if it turns out that the census numbers are not accurate? Why would any Christian create that sort of problem for faith for another Christian?
And that is the growing problem, especially for Evangelicals. It does not take very long to find things in the Bible which might be considered "errors." In fact, by Genesis 2 there is already one big, fat, glaring contradiction:
- Genesis 1:9-13 "Then God said, Let the earth put forth vegetation...And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation." This is from day three. On the sixth day God made humans. Very clear.
- Genesis 2:4-7 "In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up---then the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground.
So what then do I recommend? Well, to begin with, get rid of the idea that to be trustworthy the Bible must be "inerrant". OR, if you want to hold inerrancy, then define it (This goes back to a post a couple days ago about the meaning of words). The problem is "inerrant" means "no mistakes". But what is an inerrant text? The Bible is literature, not math. Literature is, in part, art. There are a wide variety of literary forms, each with its own rules. For example, ever notice how often in movies it is raining? Rain is a literary image. So the appearance of rain in a movie or book has more than meterological significance. It symbolizes. In the Bible (especially in an ancient, pre-scientific culture) the straightforward meaning of a text is understood in the straightforward way of thinking of those times. And we need to get clear, literal is not more true than symbolic. To say "it is 93 degrees" is not more true than saying "it is hotter than hell today." In fact, the latter conveys a subjective experience that the mere measure of temperature doesn't. That is why the words, "it is only symbolic" are fighting words for me (and I use the term fighting symbolically. I will not actually hit someone. I may not even argue with them. But I do think that it is silly and ignorant and that is what I mean by "fighting words"!)
I think that we need to seriously look at the word 'inerrant.' We also need to stop setting our kids up for a fall. We need to ask what we think the Bible is. How did it get written? Where and by whom? What was the process of composition? What was it reacting against? What was its audience? What is the author trying to tell us?????
Well, there a thousand questions but you get the point.
So to begin. Did the ancient authors of Genesis not notice the difference in order (vegetation & man)? In other words, was this an error? Did some later copyist make a mistake and rearrange things? (and if he did, how does that impact the claim of inerrancy? Does it matter that the originals are inerrant when we do not have the originals?) Is this a mistake? OR....
Were there originally two different stories which circulated in different times and communities? Were the two stories only written down after years and years of the oral story being passed around by people who live, not with books, but with spoken words? People who wander around deserts with tents and flocks. People who want to know: "why am I here?" and "what does it mean?" Is it possible that the stories, hundreds of years later, were edited and composed as written stories? Written down at a time when Israel actually had cities and resources to compose books (a very costly adventure in time and money). Maybe the first of the stories was written by a priest, composed to explain the importance of the Sabbath (hence seven days) and to emphasize we live in a world of order (hence the sterotyped language and neat divisions), under threat by chaos, but sustained and protected by God. And perhaps those priests were using the creation texts of their neighbors (who are also their racial relatives, Abraham was an Aramean!) as a foil. Maybe they were correcting the errors of pagan belief and that is why we see the similarities and differences. Perhaps the first account ends with the creation of man as the summit of creation. It tells us that this was God's final act. It makes clear to us 'who we are' and 'what are relationship with Him is' (image and likeness, to rule the earth). It makes clear that He creates by speaking a word because He is not like the gods of the pagan neighbors. He is not one among many. He is different from the gods they worship. His creation is not a cosmic battle of gods but a creative word spoken by a singular, all powerful God.
Perhaps in Genesis 2 man is created first because that author is making the same point. This time man is fashioned from dirt to remind us of our destiny (dead bodies disintegrate). The intimacy of God is emphasized here by using the image of a potter (rather than the distant God who "speaks and it is") Man is made first because the ultimate purpose of creation is man, and everything follows from that. Maybe it isn't about revealling the order of creation (vegetation or man). Maybe first (ultimate cause) or last (final goal), in this case, actually mean the same thing. Maybe each author tells us that "man is IMPORTANT to God." In that case, there is no contradiction. The two stories are telling us the same thing (i.e. the point of the story) using different images... Maybe we can let our kids read what the Bible is actually telling us (not make the Bible say what we want it to say). Maybe we can stop telling our kids that if they ever run across something that does not fit "perfectly" then the Bible must not be true. Maybe we can find a way. More on the 'first couple' in the days ahead.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Is it God?
Yesterday I wrote about the image of God. In my reflections I referenced Colossians 1:15ff. A couple hours later we gathered for Morning Prayer. This liturgy includes recitation of Psalms and two readings from the Bible. As we sat listening, the reader announced the first reading.......from Colossians! She then proceeded to read the very words I had quoted prior that morning. I felt the surge I always feel when this happens. And it happens frequently. Dozens of times I have been teaching in my bible study and make a reference to a verse, or section of scripture, which I believe is connected to what we are studying, only to have it appear the next day in the readings. It happens regularly, too regularly to be ignored.
Yesterday was the feast of William Hobart Hare. He was a dedicated missionary to the Sioux and the bishop of South Dakota. He has been dead just over one hundred years. In the Anglican Cycle of Prayer yesterday, we prayed for North and South Dakota. It made me smile. Not long ago we prayed for a parish in Memphis where an early African American leader had served, on the day of his memorial. Connections!
When is a coincidence the work of God? Some people say that there are no coincidences, but they rarely mean to apply this to bad things. [It is always helpful to work out the details a bit when you cast forth your theories.] I can imagine that the Holy Spirit at work within a person can inspire words in such a way that there is later a connection to the readings. In fact, I think it is very probable. Praying for the Dakotas while remembering Hare? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there are intentional human decisions made to help that happen. In any case it is lovely to remember the past and pray in the present and see them connected.
Last year I was in chapel reading Matthew (at the clergy conference in Mississippi). Someone came in to tell me that a dear parishioner was taken ill and in the hospital. His condition, though serious, did not require my immediate return to Memphis. A couple days later I was home and went to see him. He shared with me his favorite section of Scripture, sort of just blurted it out. It was the very chapter I was reading when I found out about him. The next week the reading came up in the lectionary. At what point do coincidences become mathematically so unlikely that you just say, "God!"? I do not know for sure, but I can say that the trifecta we hit there seemed to be a fair place to start.
I think it best to be 'open eared ' for the Holy Spirit at all times. I am reluctant to ever declare ex cathedra what God is doing. (I also think the same humility requires that one not declare it is 'not God'.) I am not reluctant, however, to hope. Nor is listening and watching for these synchronous events a waste of time. God is speaking in our midst. We need to listen. Why wouldn't He connect our thougths and words with HIS THOUGHTS in HIS WORD?
One other thing, last week my son asked me about the most runs ever given up by one pitcher. He asked several other related questions. My guess was about fourteen or so. Yesterday on the radio I learned that Indians had put up fourteen runs on a relief pitcher, which led the commentator to share the most runs ever by a pitcher was twenty four. What a coincidence! However, if it begins to happen as often as bible verses pop up, then I might think God cares about baseball statistics too!
So I believe there are coincidences. I do not think every time there is one that I need to declare it is a mighty work of God. On the other hand, I do need to be aware. God is talking. We need to be listening. All the time.
Yesterday was the feast of William Hobart Hare. He was a dedicated missionary to the Sioux and the bishop of South Dakota. He has been dead just over one hundred years. In the Anglican Cycle of Prayer yesterday, we prayed for North and South Dakota. It made me smile. Not long ago we prayed for a parish in Memphis where an early African American leader had served, on the day of his memorial. Connections!
When is a coincidence the work of God? Some people say that there are no coincidences, but they rarely mean to apply this to bad things. [It is always helpful to work out the details a bit when you cast forth your theories.] I can imagine that the Holy Spirit at work within a person can inspire words in such a way that there is later a connection to the readings. In fact, I think it is very probable. Praying for the Dakotas while remembering Hare? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there are intentional human decisions made to help that happen. In any case it is lovely to remember the past and pray in the present and see them connected.
Last year I was in chapel reading Matthew (at the clergy conference in Mississippi). Someone came in to tell me that a dear parishioner was taken ill and in the hospital. His condition, though serious, did not require my immediate return to Memphis. A couple days later I was home and went to see him. He shared with me his favorite section of Scripture, sort of just blurted it out. It was the very chapter I was reading when I found out about him. The next week the reading came up in the lectionary. At what point do coincidences become mathematically so unlikely that you just say, "God!"? I do not know for sure, but I can say that the trifecta we hit there seemed to be a fair place to start.
I think it best to be 'open eared ' for the Holy Spirit at all times. I am reluctant to ever declare ex cathedra what God is doing. (I also think the same humility requires that one not declare it is 'not God'.) I am not reluctant, however, to hope. Nor is listening and watching for these synchronous events a waste of time. God is speaking in our midst. We need to listen. Why wouldn't He connect our thougths and words with HIS THOUGHTS in HIS WORD?
One other thing, last week my son asked me about the most runs ever given up by one pitcher. He asked several other related questions. My guess was about fourteen or so. Yesterday on the radio I learned that Indians had put up fourteen runs on a relief pitcher, which led the commentator to share the most runs ever by a pitcher was twenty four. What a coincidence! However, if it begins to happen as often as bible verses pop up, then I might think God cares about baseball statistics too!
So I believe there are coincidences. I do not think every time there is one that I need to declare it is a mighty work of God. On the other hand, I do need to be aware. God is talking. We need to be listening. All the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)