At Fellowship Bible Church, one of our core values is an adherence to the Scriptures. While we readily admit that we are imperfect and that our observation of Scripture is most often in the breach, we still see the Bible as our authority for faith and practice. Asked to summarize in a phrase what makes our church different from many others, we would probably say "it's Bible believing."
Luke 16 reminds me why we are committed to the Scriptures as we are. At the end of Luke 16, Jesus tells a story of Lazarus and the rich man. In many ways, this story is tough to interpret. Does the story represent the reality of the afterlife before judgment to heaven and hell? Is Jesus merely using a conception of the afterlife from His culture to make a different point? There is a lot to debate here. But for all that isn't clear, there is much that is.
In the story, the rich man is trapped in a hell like place. In the distance, he sees Abraham and next to him the beggar who used to sit at his gate. Both men are in a heaven like place. The rich man seeks some amelioration of his sorrow but is told this isn't possible. So selflessly, the rich man asks if Lazarus might be resurrected to go to his brothers and to warn them of the agony that is to come. What Abraham says in response to this is very interesting: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them." The rich man objects. The Scriptures haven't been enough. A sign like someone resurrected is what they need to believe. Abraham replies: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Abraham says to the rich man you are confused. You think the resurrection is the more powerful sign, but you are wrong. The Scriptures are the more powerful too. If they won't believe the Word of God, they won't believe even if someone comes back to life. Perhaps this is because the Scriptures provide the knowledge and insight to interpret the resurrection event. It is interesting that at the end of Luke Jesus will appear to two men on the Emmaus road. At first, they will not recognize Him. And Jesus chooses not to immediately reveal Himself. What does He do instead? He teaches them from the Old Testament things concerning Himself. Only after the Old Testament instruction do they see who is. Certainly not every resurrection appearance is preceded by an Old Testament Bible lesson. But it is interesting that there are times when it seems that acceptance of the Word is a prelude to true, saving belief.
Luke 16 reminds us to never sell short the power of the Word. While we can debate what it means to be faithful to the Word and how the Word is to be used in our lives and churches, we must never forget that we as Christians are a people of the book. And in that book is a power and wisdom that can't be replicated in signs or wonders or any other phenomenon. We pay attention to the Scriptures because through them we have life. And through them we also have power.
Every Letter, Every Pen Stroke (Matthew 5:18)
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Luke 15: The Parable of the Ungrateful Son
What's in a name? A great deal when it comes to the interpretation of a parable. For years, I knew Luke 15:11-32 as the "Parable of the Prodigal Son." Prodigal isn't a common word anymore. Dictionary.com tells us that prodigal means "wastefully or recklessly extravagant." So obviously the title "Parable of the Prodigal Son" tells us that the focus of the parable is on the youngest son, the son who squanders half his father's great fortune in riotous, hedonistic living.
There is no doubt that viewed from the perspective of the "prodigal son," this parable of Jesus gives us some great lessons about grace. Through the story of the youngest son, we see how willing Jesus is to receive and forgive even after the gravest of offenses. And not only does He forgive, but He restores. The son receives great reward from His Father. This is a wonderful picture of how our Heavenly Father welcomes and receives us when we come to Him through Jesus.
But for all of the lessons that we can draw from the prodigal son, I don't think that this parable is properly called "The Parable of the Prodigal Son." I think it should be named the "Parable of the Two Sons." As I interpret the parable, the focus is every bit as much on the eldest son as it is on the youngest.
Luke 15:1-2 sets the context for all of the parables that Jesus tells in this chapter. Those verses say: "Now the tax collectors and 'sinners' were all gathering around to hear him. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, 'This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.'" All of the parables in this chapter address that comment of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. They all address the question of why Jesus eats with "sinners" and "people of bad reputation."
In short, the Pharisees and teachers of the law are the eldest son. They are the ones that are upset that Jesus is having a party for people who haven't always been faithful. The Pharisees have abided by the law. They have fasted several times a week. They have tithed all that they have made even their spices. They have gone to Temple and offered sacrifice on every occasion that it was required. In their mind if Jesus is going to have a party for anyone, it should be them. But Jesus doesn't seem to celebrate them. He seems to celebrate the Johnny come lately crowd. He participates in parties for those who have not been faithful and for those who have pushed the envelope of grace. Angry, the Pharisees and teachers of the law refuse to welcome the lost coming back to the fold. They won't join the party. Jesus tells the parable of the two sons to encourage the religious leaders to receive those whom God is saving.
It is easy for us to be eldest sons especially if we became followers of Jesus at a young age or have been in the church a long time. It is easy to forget that church is not designed to celebrate the saints but to save the sinners. I have seen Christians in a church grow uneasy and discontented when new people start to enter. The whole dynamic of a church can start to change as a fresh breath of the Spirit blows through. We need to be careful not to grow angry at God because others seem to be supplanting us in His affections. Instead, we need to be confident that our Father has enough love for all. We need to celebrate the grace of God that has called others home and blessed them.
There is no doubt that viewed from the perspective of the "prodigal son," this parable of Jesus gives us some great lessons about grace. Through the story of the youngest son, we see how willing Jesus is to receive and forgive even after the gravest of offenses. And not only does He forgive, but He restores. The son receives great reward from His Father. This is a wonderful picture of how our Heavenly Father welcomes and receives us when we come to Him through Jesus.
But for all of the lessons that we can draw from the prodigal son, I don't think that this parable is properly called "The Parable of the Prodigal Son." I think it should be named the "Parable of the Two Sons." As I interpret the parable, the focus is every bit as much on the eldest son as it is on the youngest.
Luke 15:1-2 sets the context for all of the parables that Jesus tells in this chapter. Those verses say: "Now the tax collectors and 'sinners' were all gathering around to hear him. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, 'This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.'" All of the parables in this chapter address that comment of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. They all address the question of why Jesus eats with "sinners" and "people of bad reputation."
In short, the Pharisees and teachers of the law are the eldest son. They are the ones that are upset that Jesus is having a party for people who haven't always been faithful. The Pharisees have abided by the law. They have fasted several times a week. They have tithed all that they have made even their spices. They have gone to Temple and offered sacrifice on every occasion that it was required. In their mind if Jesus is going to have a party for anyone, it should be them. But Jesus doesn't seem to celebrate them. He seems to celebrate the Johnny come lately crowd. He participates in parties for those who have not been faithful and for those who have pushed the envelope of grace. Angry, the Pharisees and teachers of the law refuse to welcome the lost coming back to the fold. They won't join the party. Jesus tells the parable of the two sons to encourage the religious leaders to receive those whom God is saving.
It is easy for us to be eldest sons especially if we became followers of Jesus at a young age or have been in the church a long time. It is easy to forget that church is not designed to celebrate the saints but to save the sinners. I have seen Christians in a church grow uneasy and discontented when new people start to enter. The whole dynamic of a church can start to change as a fresh breath of the Spirit blows through. We need to be careful not to grow angry at God because others seem to be supplanting us in His affections. Instead, we need to be confident that our Father has enough love for all. We need to celebrate the grace of God that has called others home and blessed them.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Luke 14: How to Throw a Real Party
In Luke 14:12-14, we read: "Then Jesus said to his host, 'When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.'" In this passage, we find the true definition of hospitality.
Hospitality was (and still is) a carefully proscribed ritual in the Middle East. Generosity was almost always extended in the expectation of reciprocity. If you invited your neighbor to a lavish dinner, the expectation was that they would they would in turn invite you to a lavish dinner. With hospitality, the rule was: "Do unto others that they might do unto you."
In our world, hospitality is less defined by expectation of reciprocation. Still, when we have dinners or parties, we often invite people who are like us. We invite people of the same class, of the same culture, even of the same faith. While we don't expect a corresponding return on our beneficence, we like being with people who share our interests and can provide some return in terms of our comfort level. Our hospitality, when practiced at all, rarely ranges far afield from a carefully circumscribed group of family, friends, and colleagues.
Jesus casts a wider net for hospitality in these verses. He says that rather inviting people like us or inviting people from whom we might expect similar invitations, we should invite the downtrodden. We should invite those whom society has looked down or those whom society has pushed to the margins. Blessing is not found in welcoming those the world welcomes. It is found in welcoming those whom the world rejects. It is found in casting God's love and value upon those whom the world has deemed unlovable and worthless.
What might this look like today? Perhaps it is a church having a party for a group home for adults with special challenges. Perhaps it is a Christian inviting their immigrant neighbor who barely speaks English to a meal. Perhaps it is reaching out to a poor neighborhood with a Thanksgiving feast. Perhaps it is a celebration for people who have been forgotten by their families in a retirement home. The expression of the act can vary, but as Christians we must act. I would be curious for your thoughts. How can we as a church live out Jesus' radical vision of hospitality?
Hospitality was (and still is) a carefully proscribed ritual in the Middle East. Generosity was almost always extended in the expectation of reciprocity. If you invited your neighbor to a lavish dinner, the expectation was that they would they would in turn invite you to a lavish dinner. With hospitality, the rule was: "Do unto others that they might do unto you."
In our world, hospitality is less defined by expectation of reciprocation. Still, when we have dinners or parties, we often invite people who are like us. We invite people of the same class, of the same culture, even of the same faith. While we don't expect a corresponding return on our beneficence, we like being with people who share our interests and can provide some return in terms of our comfort level. Our hospitality, when practiced at all, rarely ranges far afield from a carefully circumscribed group of family, friends, and colleagues.
Jesus casts a wider net for hospitality in these verses. He says that rather inviting people like us or inviting people from whom we might expect similar invitations, we should invite the downtrodden. We should invite those whom society has looked down or those whom society has pushed to the margins. Blessing is not found in welcoming those the world welcomes. It is found in welcoming those whom the world rejects. It is found in casting God's love and value upon those whom the world has deemed unlovable and worthless.
What might this look like today? Perhaps it is a church having a party for a group home for adults with special challenges. Perhaps it is a Christian inviting their immigrant neighbor who barely speaks English to a meal. Perhaps it is reaching out to a poor neighborhood with a Thanksgiving feast. Perhaps it is a celebration for people who have been forgotten by their families in a retirement home. The expression of the act can vary, but as Christians we must act. I would be curious for your thoughts. How can we as a church live out Jesus' radical vision of hospitality?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Luke 9: Fighting Fundies and Jesus
In Luke 9:49-56, we see the disciples protecting their religious territory and battling for the Kingdom of God. First, in verses 49-50, John reports to Jesus that he and the other disciples tried to stop a man who was driving out demons in Jesus' name. How they tried to stop him we are not told. All we know is that this man wasn't a part of the Twelve. He hadn't received the commission that the disciples had received earlier in the chapter so in the mind of the disciples he needed to be stopped. After that, in verses 51-56, James and John (the disciples known as the "Sons of Thunder") desire to destroy a Samaritan village that has refused Jesus hospitality. The Samaritans did not believe that true worship happened at the Temple in Jerusalem. They worshiped instead at Mount Gerazim. Thus, they were not willing to help those traveling to what they considered a false temple. Jesus is told to keep moving along. This enrages John and James who wish to see fire come out of heaven and destroy that Samaritan village as punishment for their sin.
These two incidents show that the spirit of conflict was alive and well in the disciples. They were ready to battle both with other followers of Jesus and with the world. In many ways as I read these verses I am reminded of the famous "double separation" of American fundamentalism. Fundamentalist pastors proudly boast of being divided both from the world and from those parts of the church that don't value their theological commitments. This double separation of American Fundamentalism is not passive. It is militant. It involves not just separation to avoid "spiritual contamination" but also militant retaliation. Denouncements and calls for judgment are part and parcel of the Fundamentalist rhetoric. And it's not just the classic Fundamentalists who engage in this behavior. As we approach the 2012 election, I see more conservative Christian voices invoking the same type of rhetoric and threats. They draw lines inside the Kingdom of God and they spew harsh judgment against those who in their mind block the forward movement of Jesus.
Note though that Jesus will have none of this among His disciples. In verse 50, Jesus tells His disciples not to stop the man casting out demons. He famously says: "whoever is not against you is for you." And in verse 55, Jesus' response is even stronger. It says in that verse that He rebuked James and John. This means that He identified James and John's response as sinful and made it clear it was not to happen again. Jesus was not pleased by the penchant for boundary drawing among His disciples. Nor was He thrilled with their desire to rain down judgment on their enemies.
Certainly as Christians we are have to discretion. We are to differentiate among teachings and movements and ministries. The problem as I see it in Luke 9 is the militaristic tone that often accompanies our discretion. We should not be so hard and fast in drawing boundaries between followers of Jesus. We should not wish God's judgment on our enemies but the mercy of salvation. One village won't welcome you. Don't curse them. Just move on. Fundamentalism may have it's place. But the fighting in "Fighting Fundies" is not something Jesus sees room for among His disciples.
These two incidents show that the spirit of conflict was alive and well in the disciples. They were ready to battle both with other followers of Jesus and with the world. In many ways as I read these verses I am reminded of the famous "double separation" of American fundamentalism. Fundamentalist pastors proudly boast of being divided both from the world and from those parts of the church that don't value their theological commitments. This double separation of American Fundamentalism is not passive. It is militant. It involves not just separation to avoid "spiritual contamination" but also militant retaliation. Denouncements and calls for judgment are part and parcel of the Fundamentalist rhetoric. And it's not just the classic Fundamentalists who engage in this behavior. As we approach the 2012 election, I see more conservative Christian voices invoking the same type of rhetoric and threats. They draw lines inside the Kingdom of God and they spew harsh judgment against those who in their mind block the forward movement of Jesus.
Note though that Jesus will have none of this among His disciples. In verse 50, Jesus tells His disciples not to stop the man casting out demons. He famously says: "whoever is not against you is for you." And in verse 55, Jesus' response is even stronger. It says in that verse that He rebuked James and John. This means that He identified James and John's response as sinful and made it clear it was not to happen again. Jesus was not pleased by the penchant for boundary drawing among His disciples. Nor was He thrilled with their desire to rain down judgment on their enemies.
Certainly as Christians we are have to discretion. We are to differentiate among teachings and movements and ministries. The problem as I see it in Luke 9 is the militaristic tone that often accompanies our discretion. We should not be so hard and fast in drawing boundaries between followers of Jesus. We should not wish God's judgment on our enemies but the mercy of salvation. One village won't welcome you. Don't curse them. Just move on. Fundamentalism may have it's place. But the fighting in "Fighting Fundies" is not something Jesus sees room for among His disciples.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Luke 8: Jesus and the Women
The chapters in Luke are long. In reading, they feel longer than most of the chapters in the other Gospels. That means there is a lot that could be commented on in each chapter. I imagine it would be possible to preach five or six sermons at the minimum on most of the chapters in Luke's account of Jesus' ministry. Yet for all there is to say on each chapter, I couldn't get past the opening words of Luke 8. Luke 8:1-3 says: "After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means" (NIV, 1984).
These verses raised a lot of questions in my mind. Why does Luke mention these women? Why does he mention them here as opposed to at some other point in the Gospel? How would Luke's readers have felt about Jesus and His disciples traveling around with these women? Would they have seen this as normal or would they have seen it as scandalous? How did the people of Jesus' day (in a different place and different generation than Luke's audience) regard the presence of these women with Jesus?
It seems almost certain that the people of Jesus' day would have regarded the presence of women among a traveling rabbi and his disciples scandalous. Women had a highly circumscribed role in first- century, Jewish society. I have read accounts that suggest that men and women could not even have a general conversation in public (if true, that is a convention that is broken in the Gospels several times). Certainly, men and women sat on opposite sides of the room in the Jewish synagogue. Even at "church," there could be no intermingling of the sexes. It seems hard to deny that the presence of women in Jesus' entourage must have raised some eyebrows or worse. Yet, there is one thing I find interesting here. Jesus is never accused by His enemies of being less than circumspect in His relationship with women. If Jesus' travel with these women was so scandalous, wouldn't His enemies the Pharisees and Sadducees and teachers of the law have commented on this fact? The Gospels show us that these groups weren't averse to creating false charges to get Jesus in trouble. These groups tried to set up traps that might cause Jesus to stumble and to alienate the populist following He had developed. Wouldn't they have accused Jesus of immorality if they really though this violated some cultural virtue? Perhaps this wasn't the scandal that some would think.
Assuming that Luke is writing to a Roman audience, Jesus' actions would have hardly seemed scandalous. It was not unusual for wealthy women in the Ancient Mediterranean to act as patrons for noble and charitable causes. While it was unusual for women to have wealth at their disposal, when they did they freely supported noble and worthy causes. For Luke's audience it may have spoken well of Jesus that He had women who gave to His support and the support of His disciples. Perhaps in their cultural context, Luke's readers would have seen the support of these wealthy women as a validation of Jesus' ministry and work.
I think my point here is simple. This is a fascinating passage that raises a lot of questions that we can't answer. Yet, this is a passage that is often given great significance by those on all sides of the debate over women's roles in the church. I can see how this passage would support both those who want to argue for an expanded role for women and those who want to argue for a more "traditional" stance. Perhaps we should just let the passage speak to us in a simpler way. How was Jesus able to undertake His ministry? How were He and His disciples able to preach full time, traveling all over the Judean and Galilean countryside without any visible way to support themselves? Luke 8 gives us the answer. God raised up givers. These women gave out of tremendous gratitude for what Jesus had done for them (being healed of demons). And Jesus has done tremendous things for us as well. Will we give to support His disciples? Will we give that the Kingdom of God might be proclaimed?
These verses raised a lot of questions in my mind. Why does Luke mention these women? Why does he mention them here as opposed to at some other point in the Gospel? How would Luke's readers have felt about Jesus and His disciples traveling around with these women? Would they have seen this as normal or would they have seen it as scandalous? How did the people of Jesus' day (in a different place and different generation than Luke's audience) regard the presence of these women with Jesus?
It seems almost certain that the people of Jesus' day would have regarded the presence of women among a traveling rabbi and his disciples scandalous. Women had a highly circumscribed role in first- century, Jewish society. I have read accounts that suggest that men and women could not even have a general conversation in public (if true, that is a convention that is broken in the Gospels several times). Certainly, men and women sat on opposite sides of the room in the Jewish synagogue. Even at "church," there could be no intermingling of the sexes. It seems hard to deny that the presence of women in Jesus' entourage must have raised some eyebrows or worse. Yet, there is one thing I find interesting here. Jesus is never accused by His enemies of being less than circumspect in His relationship with women. If Jesus' travel with these women was so scandalous, wouldn't His enemies the Pharisees and Sadducees and teachers of the law have commented on this fact? The Gospels show us that these groups weren't averse to creating false charges to get Jesus in trouble. These groups tried to set up traps that might cause Jesus to stumble and to alienate the populist following He had developed. Wouldn't they have accused Jesus of immorality if they really though this violated some cultural virtue? Perhaps this wasn't the scandal that some would think.
Assuming that Luke is writing to a Roman audience, Jesus' actions would have hardly seemed scandalous. It was not unusual for wealthy women in the Ancient Mediterranean to act as patrons for noble and charitable causes. While it was unusual for women to have wealth at their disposal, when they did they freely supported noble and worthy causes. For Luke's audience it may have spoken well of Jesus that He had women who gave to His support and the support of His disciples. Perhaps in their cultural context, Luke's readers would have seen the support of these wealthy women as a validation of Jesus' ministry and work.
I think my point here is simple. This is a fascinating passage that raises a lot of questions that we can't answer. Yet, this is a passage that is often given great significance by those on all sides of the debate over women's roles in the church. I can see how this passage would support both those who want to argue for an expanded role for women and those who want to argue for a more "traditional" stance. Perhaps we should just let the passage speak to us in a simpler way. How was Jesus able to undertake His ministry? How were He and His disciples able to preach full time, traveling all over the Judean and Galilean countryside without any visible way to support themselves? Luke 8 gives us the answer. God raised up givers. These women gave out of tremendous gratitude for what Jesus had done for them (being healed of demons). And Jesus has done tremendous things for us as well. Will we give to support His disciples? Will we give that the Kingdom of God might be proclaimed?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Luke 3: God's Heart for the Poor
In Luke 3, Luke tells us about the ministry of John the Baptist. He tells us that John's ministry was largely about repentance. John called people to seek forgiveness of their sins and to change the way that they had been living, learning to follow God's commands rather than their own desires. John told the people that it wasn't good enough to be born a Jew. God expected fruitfulness.
The question of course is what kind of fruitfulness would God expect? In Luke 3, we see the crowds and the tax collectors and the soldiers asking John what type of obedience God expected of them. The answers, I think, are surprising, at least to our ears. We might expect John to say pray. We might think he would say go to synagogue. We might suspect that he would say bring sacrifices to the Temple. But he says none of those things. Instead, he says share with the poor. Don't take advantage of people. Don't use the political and social power you have to exploit others. John's words about obedience all focus on political and economic justice. His words show that God has a heart and a concern for the needy.
I think this aspect of obedience has been lost in the American church. We rarely hear that serving the poor is a touchstone of Christian obedience. Our faith is often about serving ourselves not about serving those in need. But the Bible makes very clear that God has a heart for the poor. It makes very clear that giving to the poor is a key act of obedience for godly people. While there are many areas in which we can and must obey Jesus, charity for the needy is as important as any.
Where do you give to help the needy? Perhaps like the crowds that came to John, we need to learn to repent and share with others.
The question of course is what kind of fruitfulness would God expect? In Luke 3, we see the crowds and the tax collectors and the soldiers asking John what type of obedience God expected of them. The answers, I think, are surprising, at least to our ears. We might expect John to say pray. We might think he would say go to synagogue. We might suspect that he would say bring sacrifices to the Temple. But he says none of those things. Instead, he says share with the poor. Don't take advantage of people. Don't use the political and social power you have to exploit others. John's words about obedience all focus on political and economic justice. His words show that God has a heart and a concern for the needy.
I think this aspect of obedience has been lost in the American church. We rarely hear that serving the poor is a touchstone of Christian obedience. Our faith is often about serving ourselves not about serving those in need. But the Bible makes very clear that God has a heart for the poor. It makes very clear that giving to the poor is a key act of obedience for godly people. While there are many areas in which we can and must obey Jesus, charity for the needy is as important as any.
Where do you give to help the needy? Perhaps like the crowds that came to John, we need to learn to repent and share with others.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Luke 1: The Intention of Knowledge
It feels odd reading Luke 1 on Valentine's Day. This passage is one we associate with December 25 not February 14. Still, Luke 1 is a passage that knows no season.
What impresses me as I read the opening chapter of Luke's Gospel again is the opening four verses. We usually rush past those verses to get to the Christmas story, but we shouldn't do that. Those beginning verses are important for how Luke views his narrative and indeed for how all of the Gospel authors viewed what they wrote.
Some will suggest that the Gospel writers knew they were writing myth, that they knew that their claims about Jesus were less than historical. But the opening four verses of chapter 1 make it clear that Luke did not feel that what he wrote was myth. He viewed the story of Jesus as true, verifiable historical fact. While such a claim may not settle easily with us postmoderns, it should not be simply dismissed. Luke writes this Gospel to Theophilus (which is Greek for 'God lover'- perhaps a code name for someone in the Emperor's house where Christianity would have been dangerous. Cf Acts 1). He tells Theophilus that he writes so that "you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught." Luke believed the story of Jesus was true.
He also believed that he was not at liberty to change or alter details of the story. In verse 2, Luke says that what he recounts about Jesus comes from faithful eyewitnesses. People saw what Jesus did and passed it on in a reliable fashion. He also says that he received his facts about Jesus from "servants of the word." This is an interesting phrase. On the one hand, "servant of the word" could simply be shorthand for preacher or apostle. But on the other hand this suggests something about how these preachers viewed their activities. "Servant of the word" suggests that these men served the story. They let the story shape them rather than seeing themselves as shapers of the story. Modern scholars often suggest that the facts of the Gospel were shaped to serve the need of the churches to whom they were written. But Luke's phrase "servants of the word" suggests something else. It suggests that transmission of events as they actually happened was very important.
Of course, none of this proves that Luke or any other Gospel is true. Arguments that support our epistemological certainty about the Gospel are based on other premises and texts. But these verses at least show the intentions of the Gospel authors. They did not write to create a story. They wrote to serve a story. And it was very important to them that the story be true.
What impresses me as I read the opening chapter of Luke's Gospel again is the opening four verses. We usually rush past those verses to get to the Christmas story, but we shouldn't do that. Those beginning verses are important for how Luke views his narrative and indeed for how all of the Gospel authors viewed what they wrote.
Some will suggest that the Gospel writers knew they were writing myth, that they knew that their claims about Jesus were less than historical. But the opening four verses of chapter 1 make it clear that Luke did not feel that what he wrote was myth. He viewed the story of Jesus as true, verifiable historical fact. While such a claim may not settle easily with us postmoderns, it should not be simply dismissed. Luke writes this Gospel to Theophilus (which is Greek for 'God lover'- perhaps a code name for someone in the Emperor's house where Christianity would have been dangerous. Cf Acts 1). He tells Theophilus that he writes so that "you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught." Luke believed the story of Jesus was true.
He also believed that he was not at liberty to change or alter details of the story. In verse 2, Luke says that what he recounts about Jesus comes from faithful eyewitnesses. People saw what Jesus did and passed it on in a reliable fashion. He also says that he received his facts about Jesus from "servants of the word." This is an interesting phrase. On the one hand, "servant of the word" could simply be shorthand for preacher or apostle. But on the other hand this suggests something about how these preachers viewed their activities. "Servant of the word" suggests that these men served the story. They let the story shape them rather than seeing themselves as shapers of the story. Modern scholars often suggest that the facts of the Gospel were shaped to serve the need of the churches to whom they were written. But Luke's phrase "servants of the word" suggests something else. It suggests that transmission of events as they actually happened was very important.
Of course, none of this proves that Luke or any other Gospel is true. Arguments that support our epistemological certainty about the Gospel are based on other premises and texts. But these verses at least show the intentions of the Gospel authors. They did not write to create a story. They wrote to serve a story. And it was very important to them that the story be true.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Mark 16: End Run Around
If you read Mark 16 in the New International Version, you will that the translators include verses 9-20, but only with a note that most manuscripts end at verse 8. The translators of the NIV have concluded that verses 9-20 were a later addition to the chapter and that Mark either ends at verse 8 or the original ending after verse 8 was lost. This are tricky issues about which I have neither time nor full expertise to write a post. If you are interested in the issue, read the link below. I don't know much about this website, but I find their post on this particular issue to be rather level headed. It will probably provide far more information than most would want on this issue!
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Mark 12: Give It Your All
At our church, we have an annual budget figure that is approved by our congregation. Each week, when our offering is collected by our financial secretary, he compares the offering collected to the total budget figure divided by 52. If that offering is greater than 1/52 of our budget, we think of it as a good week. If our budget is lower than 1/52, it wasn't such a great week. In church terms, our offering becomes a zero sum game. It is very clear if a certain week is good or not.
Jesus challenges our conception of giving in Mark 12. He reminds us that giving is not really about amounts but about context. The rich people come and pile up the cash. I can imagine the treasurer looking on saying, "It's going to be a good Passover season. We are going to be in the black this year." But Jesus is less impressed. He knows that the rich are not giving sacrificially. They may be giving a lot but the reality is that they could give more. Jesus is far more impressed with the giving of a poor widow that He sees. Widows in Jesus' world were in a tough spot. Ancient Israel was indeed a man's world. A woman without a man would have had a hard time both producing income and protecting that income from unscrupulous people when she produced it. Thus, widows were often the poorest of the poor. In fact, widows function as symbols of abject poverty in the Bible. And this widow that Jesus sees was poor. She had basically two cents to her name. Yet, she put those two cents in the offering. Two cents wasn't going to impact the balance of the Temple ledger sheet. It would hardly be a great offering when balanced against Temple expenses. Yet, Jesus is impressed. He recognized that the giving of the widow was much more sacrificial than the giving of the rich people.
While it is good stewardship to track our offerings versus our budget, we should never think that amounts tell the bottom line about an offering. When it comes to offerings, we should not just ask how much but more importantly we should ask how sacrificial? Do we give what we give because it seems large enough to us, because it surpasses most of the other offerings and brings us a reputation as generous? Or do we give what we give as a sacrificial act of worship, knowing that we are being generous only with what God has entrusted to us?
Jesus challenges our conception of giving in Mark 12. He reminds us that giving is not really about amounts but about context. The rich people come and pile up the cash. I can imagine the treasurer looking on saying, "It's going to be a good Passover season. We are going to be in the black this year." But Jesus is less impressed. He knows that the rich are not giving sacrificially. They may be giving a lot but the reality is that they could give more. Jesus is far more impressed with the giving of a poor widow that He sees. Widows in Jesus' world were in a tough spot. Ancient Israel was indeed a man's world. A woman without a man would have had a hard time both producing income and protecting that income from unscrupulous people when she produced it. Thus, widows were often the poorest of the poor. In fact, widows function as symbols of abject poverty in the Bible. And this widow that Jesus sees was poor. She had basically two cents to her name. Yet, she put those two cents in the offering. Two cents wasn't going to impact the balance of the Temple ledger sheet. It would hardly be a great offering when balanced against Temple expenses. Yet, Jesus is impressed. He recognized that the giving of the widow was much more sacrificial than the giving of the rich people.
While it is good stewardship to track our offerings versus our budget, we should never think that amounts tell the bottom line about an offering. When it comes to offerings, we should not just ask how much but more importantly we should ask how sacrificial? Do we give what we give because it seems large enough to us, because it surpasses most of the other offerings and brings us a reputation as generous? Or do we give what we give as a sacrificial act of worship, knowing that we are being generous only with what God has entrusted to us?
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Mark 11: A House of Prayer
In Mark 11, Jesus famously overturns the tables of those buying and selling in the Temple. He blocks trade from moving through the courts of the Temple as well. In the course of His actions, Jesus quotes from two Old Testament verses to justify what He is doing. The second verse from Jeremiah 7 makes obvious sense. The merchants have turned the Temple into a den of robbers by taking advantage of those who shop there. But why the first quote? Why does Jesus say that the selling of the merchandise detracted from the Temple's mission of being a house of prayer for all nations?
Many scholars believe that the buying and selling of the merchandise was going on in the court of the Gentiles. This was the part of the Temple into which people of all nationalities could enter. Jews could move beyond this point to inner courts to pray and worship but Gentiles could not. This was as far as a non Jew could go if they wanted to worship God. It would have been very hard for a Gentile to come to the Temple to worship the true God with the bleeting of sheep, ther cooing of doves, and the sounds of merchants hawking their wares filling her ears. The selling of merchandise upset Jesus because it compromised the Temple's mission of evangelism.
The Temple was more concerned with the needs of insiders than with outsiders. It wanted to cater to faithful, sacrifice-offering Jews more than to those who were not yet part of the community. This same mindset troubles many churches today. We need to remember that as much as the Church exists for its members, it also exists for those who are not yet members. We should always make sure that room and space is provided for those yet to join and to come.
Many scholars believe that the buying and selling of the merchandise was going on in the court of the Gentiles. This was the part of the Temple into which people of all nationalities could enter. Jews could move beyond this point to inner courts to pray and worship but Gentiles could not. This was as far as a non Jew could go if they wanted to worship God. It would have been very hard for a Gentile to come to the Temple to worship the true God with the bleeting of sheep, ther cooing of doves, and the sounds of merchants hawking their wares filling her ears. The selling of merchandise upset Jesus because it compromised the Temple's mission of evangelism.
The Temple was more concerned with the needs of insiders than with outsiders. It wanted to cater to faithful, sacrifice-offering Jews more than to those who were not yet part of the community. This same mindset troubles many churches today. We need to remember that as much as the Church exists for its members, it also exists for those who are not yet members. We should always make sure that room and space is provided for those yet to join and to come.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Mark 10: Theyrrrre Grrrreat
In Mark 10, James and John come to Jesus with a request. They tell Jesus that they wish to sit on Jesus' right and left in His glory. They make no specific request about which of them would sit where so I assume that they would leave that detail up to Jesus to decide. Whoever sat where, the request was really a simple one. James and John wanted to be great. They wanted to be more important than everyone save Jesus Himself.
The other disciples are not pleased with this request. But it is important to note that their consternation does not arise out of a sense of morality. They aren't upset with James and John because of the stunning lack of humility on their part. No, the other disciples are upset because James and John beat them to the punch. Like the two brothers, the rest of the disciples also wanted to be great.
If I were Jesus, I would tell the disciples to knock off all of this greatness stuff. I would tell them to be humble and to not worry about seeking greatness. But that is not what Jesus does. Jesus does not criticize the disciples' desire for greatness here. Instead, He rebukes the disciples for the way they are seeking greatness. The disciples are seeking greatness through throne and sceptre. They think that power is the key to greatness. But Jesus says that there is another way. In verses 42-45, Jesus says: "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Jesus says the key to greatness in God's kingdom is not thrones or sceptres. Instead the key to greatness in God's kingdom is service. The great one doesn't sit on a throne having others meet his or her needs. The great one is on their knees before others, serving sacrificially. Greatness in the church is not found in office. It is found in sacrifice and service.
Jesus of course is the best example of this. How did Jesus lead His disciples and His Church? He led by service. He led by ultimate sacrifice. And we are called to do the same. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a great Christian, a great person in the Kingdom of God. There is something wrong with seeking that greatness in the wrong way.
The other disciples are not pleased with this request. But it is important to note that their consternation does not arise out of a sense of morality. They aren't upset with James and John because of the stunning lack of humility on their part. No, the other disciples are upset because James and John beat them to the punch. Like the two brothers, the rest of the disciples also wanted to be great.
If I were Jesus, I would tell the disciples to knock off all of this greatness stuff. I would tell them to be humble and to not worry about seeking greatness. But that is not what Jesus does. Jesus does not criticize the disciples' desire for greatness here. Instead, He rebukes the disciples for the way they are seeking greatness. The disciples are seeking greatness through throne and sceptre. They think that power is the key to greatness. But Jesus says that there is another way. In verses 42-45, Jesus says: "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Jesus says the key to greatness in God's kingdom is not thrones or sceptres. Instead the key to greatness in God's kingdom is service. The great one doesn't sit on a throne having others meet his or her needs. The great one is on their knees before others, serving sacrificially. Greatness in the church is not found in office. It is found in sacrifice and service.
Jesus of course is the best example of this. How did Jesus lead His disciples and His Church? He led by service. He led by ultimate sacrifice. And we are called to do the same. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a great Christian, a great person in the Kingdom of God. There is something wrong with seeking that greatness in the wrong way.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Mark 5: All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name
It is sometimes hard for us to appreciate the texts of the Gospels as their original readers did. Living in a much different time and culture, there are elements of stories that we simply don't comprehend in the same way that they would have. Often this is to our impoverishment. A knowledge of the customs and beliefs of Jesus' culture can often help us see old familiar stories in a way that is much more complete.
The story of the demoniac in Mark 5 provides an excellent example of how a knowledge of first century culture and beliefs might help us to flesh out a text. Some random thoughts and examples:
1. The demoniac man had been unable to be restrained. This was unusual. While demoniacs may not have always been healed, typically they could be restrained. In Jesus' day, there were certainly Jews who practiced exorcism, perhaps even with some success. In addition, there was undoubtedly a whole body of folklore about the materials and substances that might lead to restraining a person possessed by demons. The fact that this man had been unable to be restrained for his safety and for the safety of others speaks to the power and number of the demons that were within him. Undoubtedly, Mark's readers would have regarded this man's plight as an extreme case almost beyond imagination and certainly beyond remediation.
2. People in the ancient world knew that demons did not normally cower in fear in front of those who came to exorcise them. Quite the opposite would have been expected. They might have been expected to curse or taunt the one who came to battle them. They might have been expected to brag about their hold or power. None of that happens here. This suggests that Jesus is not your run of the mill exorcist. He is indeed the Son of the Most High God.
3. In the ancient world, many thought that the key to exorcising a demon was to know its name. Knowing the name of a demon gave power over it through magical incantation. Exorcists would work to try to get a demon to reveal its name through trickery or guile. Jesus needs no conniving. He asks the demon(s); its name is told. Again, this speaks to the power of Jesus.
4. The demons ask Jesus not to be sent out of the area but instead to remain local. In particular, they ask to be cast into a herd of pigs. This probably reflects several beliefs about demons in the ancient world. On the one hand, it was believed that demons were territorial. They were given control over certain places or topographies (like desert or forest or sea). To be sent from their place would entail a battle with and possible subjection to the demons who ruled over the area where they were banished. Thus, the demons wish to avoid leaving where they live. On the other hand, it was believed that demons hated to be disembodied. Thus they beg Jesus to send them to the bodies of pigs. This was preferable to existing without corporeal reality. The demons believe Jesus might be favorable to this request for reasons we will see next.
5. Pigs were hated by the Jews. Not only were they unclean under Old Testament Law, but they were also symbols of pagan corruption and oppression. In the time of the Maccabees, Jewish heroes had endured torture and even death for the sake of not eating pork that was forced upon them. Pigs continued to remain symbols of pagan corruption both spiritual and political. This is why the demons think Jesus might let them go into the pigs. They imagine that as a Jew Jesus would have no love for that animal.
6. There may have been a belief that demons that were inside a living thing when it died faced banishment to the Abyss, a place where certain demons were held until the day of God's judgment. If this belief existed, then Jesus would be seen as tricking the demons. Since the pigs jump off the cliff and die, the demons are all banished out of this world. Jesus has a powerful victory.
In the Ancient mind, the story of the demoniac would have been an incredible demonstration of Jesus' power and wisdom, one that we miss out because we come from a different culture and mindset.
The story of the demoniac in Mark 5 provides an excellent example of how a knowledge of first century culture and beliefs might help us to flesh out a text. Some random thoughts and examples:
1. The demoniac man had been unable to be restrained. This was unusual. While demoniacs may not have always been healed, typically they could be restrained. In Jesus' day, there were certainly Jews who practiced exorcism, perhaps even with some success. In addition, there was undoubtedly a whole body of folklore about the materials and substances that might lead to restraining a person possessed by demons. The fact that this man had been unable to be restrained for his safety and for the safety of others speaks to the power and number of the demons that were within him. Undoubtedly, Mark's readers would have regarded this man's plight as an extreme case almost beyond imagination and certainly beyond remediation.
2. People in the ancient world knew that demons did not normally cower in fear in front of those who came to exorcise them. Quite the opposite would have been expected. They might have been expected to curse or taunt the one who came to battle them. They might have been expected to brag about their hold or power. None of that happens here. This suggests that Jesus is not your run of the mill exorcist. He is indeed the Son of the Most High God.
3. In the ancient world, many thought that the key to exorcising a demon was to know its name. Knowing the name of a demon gave power over it through magical incantation. Exorcists would work to try to get a demon to reveal its name through trickery or guile. Jesus needs no conniving. He asks the demon(s); its name is told. Again, this speaks to the power of Jesus.
4. The demons ask Jesus not to be sent out of the area but instead to remain local. In particular, they ask to be cast into a herd of pigs. This probably reflects several beliefs about demons in the ancient world. On the one hand, it was believed that demons were territorial. They were given control over certain places or topographies (like desert or forest or sea). To be sent from their place would entail a battle with and possible subjection to the demons who ruled over the area where they were banished. Thus, the demons wish to avoid leaving where they live. On the other hand, it was believed that demons hated to be disembodied. Thus they beg Jesus to send them to the bodies of pigs. This was preferable to existing without corporeal reality. The demons believe Jesus might be favorable to this request for reasons we will see next.
5. Pigs were hated by the Jews. Not only were they unclean under Old Testament Law, but they were also symbols of pagan corruption and oppression. In the time of the Maccabees, Jewish heroes had endured torture and even death for the sake of not eating pork that was forced upon them. Pigs continued to remain symbols of pagan corruption both spiritual and political. This is why the demons think Jesus might let them go into the pigs. They imagine that as a Jew Jesus would have no love for that animal.
6. There may have been a belief that demons that were inside a living thing when it died faced banishment to the Abyss, a place where certain demons were held until the day of God's judgment. If this belief existed, then Jesus would be seen as tricking the demons. Since the pigs jump off the cliff and die, the demons are all banished out of this world. Jesus has a powerful victory.
In the Ancient mind, the story of the demoniac would have been an incredible demonstration of Jesus' power and wisdom, one that we miss out because we come from a different culture and mindset.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Mark 4: The Miracle of Growth
I like Mark 4:26-29. As a pastor, they are verses that I find very encouraging. In those verses, Jesus says:
"He also said, 'This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. 28 All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come'” (NIV, 1984).
In Jesus' day, the harvest was always a minor miracle. Farming techniques were rudimentary to say the least. Farmers put the seed in the ground and hoped. They chased pests away. They hoed and did the little they could to facilitate growth. First-century farmers certainly knew nothing of the science of agriculture that we have today. Yet, somehow and in some way, the crop arrived.
As a pastor, I often feel like a first-century farmer. Despite all the books I have read about church growth, I don't really know how a church grows. I don't know how it grows in number. I don't know how it grows in depth of spirituality. I know the faithful things that I can do. I know I can preach the word, and pray, and encourage and admonish. But those aren't really things that bring the growth. It's the movement of the Spirit. I can't dissect that movement. I can't explain it, predict it, measure it, or invoke it. But I can thank God that from time to time I see it. And in the seasons and rhythms of the church, growth and harvest comes.
In the last few months, we at FBC have been blessed to see many visitors and to see a good number of those visitors lose the visiting tag and become regular attendees, a part of our church family. I am at a loss to explain why this is happening now. Why not at some other point in my 5 years here? I don't know. There is no special program we can point to. There has been no ministry initiative that can explain it. All I can say is that though we don't know how, the Lord brings His harvest. What an encouraging thought!
"He also said, 'This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. 28 All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come'” (NIV, 1984).
In Jesus' day, the harvest was always a minor miracle. Farming techniques were rudimentary to say the least. Farmers put the seed in the ground and hoped. They chased pests away. They hoed and did the little they could to facilitate growth. First-century farmers certainly knew nothing of the science of agriculture that we have today. Yet, somehow and in some way, the crop arrived.
As a pastor, I often feel like a first-century farmer. Despite all the books I have read about church growth, I don't really know how a church grows. I don't know how it grows in number. I don't know how it grows in depth of spirituality. I know the faithful things that I can do. I know I can preach the word, and pray, and encourage and admonish. But those aren't really things that bring the growth. It's the movement of the Spirit. I can't dissect that movement. I can't explain it, predict it, measure it, or invoke it. But I can thank God that from time to time I see it. And in the seasons and rhythms of the church, growth and harvest comes.
In the last few months, we at FBC have been blessed to see many visitors and to see a good number of those visitors lose the visiting tag and become regular attendees, a part of our church family. I am at a loss to explain why this is happening now. Why not at some other point in my 5 years here? I don't know. There is no special program we can point to. There has been no ministry initiative that can explain it. All I can say is that though we don't know how, the Lord brings His harvest. What an encouraging thought!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)