Good Morning!
One of the things that we didn't really hit from Jn 20 yesterday was the giving of the Spirit.
vs 22-23: When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
This is a very interesting passage that, as you can imagine, has received a lot of comment over the years. Some people see John's version of "Pentecost" here. After all, the Book of Acts may appear like its own stand-alone document in our Bible, but that isn't the case. It is really Vol. 2 of Luke's Gospel. So it is argued that John the evangelist had no access to the story of Pentecost (and it is likewise assumed that he, the writer, wasn't one of the ones present that day).....yet he wanted somehow to get the story of the giving of the Holy Spirit out there, so this is how he did it.
Um.....yeah. Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Lutheran theology sees this episode as a very specific and necessary part of the life of the church--not just that church of that day, but rather The Church of all days. This is where Jesus authorized human representatives to do God "things."
Before I went to seminary we had some delightful neighbors who lived across the street from us; good people; Christian people. They went to the Baptist church. But one sunday they showed up at our church. I don't recall the circumstances. But some time afterward I was talking to my neighbor and I asked him what he thought of it. He said it was fine, & that he had actually been there before, but that his ONLY problem was the way it started with "confession & forgiveness." It really kinda bothered him that, "The Pastor said *he* forgave our sins.....when in reality, only *God* can forgive sins."
It's interesting to note that these were the same charges leveled against Jesus in Luke 5 when he heals the paralytic. The Pharisees grumble that only God can forgive sins. One counter to bringing Luke 5 into the discussion is that Jesus is "God in the flesh" (certainly true) and hence he's right & the Pharisees are wrong. But that still leaves John 20 unaccounted for.
In the end, most of the non-sacramental faith traditions ignore the implications of John 20. It is truer to say that only God has the *power* or *authority* to forgive sins, but that God is not stingy. In His grace He has given this gift out--first to His own blessed Son during his earthly ministry, and then through His Son to the Apostles, the first Church, and the Church of all time. The grace of God comes among us through ordinary 'means,' such as bread & wine, water, and the human voice.
Cheers!
TM
About Me...what is an 'evangelical-catholic?'
- Pastor Tim Manwell
- Elk Grove Village, IL, United States
- I was born & raised in rural mid-Michigan (M-go blue!). Life & work have taken me to many different places. God has too, as I've come to learn that faith is a pilgrimage. I very much resonate with the label 'EVANGELICAL-CATHOLIC.' I was raised Baptist, but found myself drawn to the Sacraments & Liturgy of the Church. I appreciate very much the words of the Augsburg Confession: "...nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic." Evangelical-catholic is a term of self-designation used by Christians coming from a broad spectrum of theological perspectives and commitments, ranging from Lutherans, Anglicans, and various Evangelicals yearning for greater catholicity .....to faithful Roman Catholics longing for an evangelical renewal of the Church. Perhaps beneath the apparent denominational differences there lies a common...groaning of the Spirit of God, who is seeking to draw the members of Christ’s mystical body into a communal life that is both fully catholic and fully evangelical. One can always hope and pray!
Listen to Current Sermons (hi speed)
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Easter Sunday, morning after thoughts
Good Morning!
Well, the main thought I have leftover bouncing around in my head from yesterday's readings is a minor variation in some of the manuscripts used to construct the New Testament.
In the passage we read yesterday, Matthew 28:5 & 6 say: "But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay." But some other manuscripts have vs 6: reading: "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay." This, for instance, is how the KJV & NKJV translations read.
Without getting into a deep quagmire on textual criticism and how the new testament is constructed, I'll simply say that the older manuscripts don't have the word "Lord," but merely say "he"......thus it is considered that a zealous scribe somewhere along the way ADDED that word--and copies from his text from that point on contained the word.
While I am generally ok with accepting that Matthew's original Gospel probably didn't say "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay," I can certainly sympathize and even agree (on a theological level) with the nameless, zealous scribe who made the addition. His point is a very valid one.......that even in DEATH, even in that cold dank tomb, Jesus remains Lord of the situation.
Moving into the realm of super-speculation, perhaps this had even been part of the scribe's personal experience in faith. Perhaps he too had recognized that even in his darkest hour, even at a time his world had come unraveled, Jesus had not deserted him, but remained Lord of his life. It's a neat concept to think about....
Cheers,
TM
Well, the main thought I have leftover bouncing around in my head from yesterday's readings is a minor variation in some of the manuscripts used to construct the New Testament.
In the passage we read yesterday, Matthew 28:5 & 6 say: "But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay." But some other manuscripts have vs 6: reading: "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay." This, for instance, is how the KJV & NKJV translations read.
Without getting into a deep quagmire on textual criticism and how the new testament is constructed, I'll simply say that the older manuscripts don't have the word "Lord," but merely say "he"......thus it is considered that a zealous scribe somewhere along the way ADDED that word--and copies from his text from that point on contained the word.
While I am generally ok with accepting that Matthew's original Gospel probably didn't say "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay," I can certainly sympathize and even agree (on a theological level) with the nameless, zealous scribe who made the addition. His point is a very valid one.......that even in DEATH, even in that cold dank tomb, Jesus remains Lord of the situation.
Moving into the realm of super-speculation, perhaps this had even been part of the scribe's personal experience in faith. Perhaps he too had recognized that even in his darkest hour, even at a time his world had come unraveled, Jesus had not deserted him, but remained Lord of his life. It's a neat concept to think about....
Cheers,
TM
Monday, March 17, 2008
Passion Sunday, morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, I have to confess that even my 'morning after thoughts' are still hung up on the irony & interplay between the 2 men standing before Pilate in Matthew 27.......Yeshua Bar-Abbas.....and Yeshua of Nazareth. So many similarities. As I mentioned yesterday, Bar-Abbas literally means "son of the father," and we know that Jesus revealed himself as *the* Son of the Father. It's so thick with irony that I'm sure the evangelist wants us to notice.
But beyond that, have you ever thought further about who it was that Jesus was crucified with? We commonly call them the "two thieves".....but this is misleading. In our minds, a thief is someone who breaks in & steals our television while we're not home. That's not who these guys were. These guys were the same type of person that Bar-Abbas was. They were BANDITS. Historians tell us that banditry was common in these days, due to oppressive economic conditions. Cut-throat lending practices would often, if not always, refuse to assign interest on a loan--usually out of pious-sounding dedication to the Torah. But then if the borrower couldn't pay the loan back, the lender would confiscate whatever meager piece of land the borrower had to his name--turning the borrower into a serf. Some eventually refused to travel the road of increasing serfdom and slavery, and instead turned to the innumerable caves that dotted the Palestinian countryside and took up a life of banditry. When Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers in Matthew 21, he says in vs 13: "you have made my Father's house a cave/den of thieves/bandits," he was talking about the sort of place & life that Bar-Abbas would call "home."
There's a further element to banditry, though. Some bandits, it's true, were simple pirates.....merely trying to survive and even thrive at a life that was preferable to the life they could have inside the law. But others were more like folk heroes; striking out at the pagan Roman occupiers, and the despised Jewish social elite that collaborated with them. Such men were wanted outlaws not simply due to their thievery, but also because they were insurrectionists. Their actions were INTENDED to disrupt the political status quo, and even, perhaps lead to open rebellion. This is why Pilate is so curious about Jesus' title "King of the Jews," and in the end, this is why Jesus is executed as an enemy to the Roman state. The sign above his head, listing the charges, is clear......if you're going to set yourself up as an alternative "king"......if you're going to go against Rome.....this is the fate that awaits you.
I wonder if the 2 guys crucified with Jesus were part of Bar-Abbas's gang? I guess this is just one of millions of questions we'll never really know the answer to.
Cheers,
TM
Well, I have to confess that even my 'morning after thoughts' are still hung up on the irony & interplay between the 2 men standing before Pilate in Matthew 27.......Yeshua Bar-Abbas.....and Yeshua of Nazareth. So many similarities. As I mentioned yesterday, Bar-Abbas literally means "son of the father," and we know that Jesus revealed himself as *the* Son of the Father. It's so thick with irony that I'm sure the evangelist wants us to notice.
But beyond that, have you ever thought further about who it was that Jesus was crucified with? We commonly call them the "two thieves".....but this is misleading. In our minds, a thief is someone who breaks in & steals our television while we're not home. That's not who these guys were. These guys were the same type of person that Bar-Abbas was. They were BANDITS. Historians tell us that banditry was common in these days, due to oppressive economic conditions. Cut-throat lending practices would often, if not always, refuse to assign interest on a loan--usually out of pious-sounding dedication to the Torah. But then if the borrower couldn't pay the loan back, the lender would confiscate whatever meager piece of land the borrower had to his name--turning the borrower into a serf. Some eventually refused to travel the road of increasing serfdom and slavery, and instead turned to the innumerable caves that dotted the Palestinian countryside and took up a life of banditry. When Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers in Matthew 21, he says in vs 13: "you have made my Father's house a cave/den of thieves/bandits," he was talking about the sort of place & life that Bar-Abbas would call "home."
There's a further element to banditry, though. Some bandits, it's true, were simple pirates.....merely trying to survive and even thrive at a life that was preferable to the life they could have inside the law. But others were more like folk heroes; striking out at the pagan Roman occupiers, and the despised Jewish social elite that collaborated with them. Such men were wanted outlaws not simply due to their thievery, but also because they were insurrectionists. Their actions were INTENDED to disrupt the political status quo, and even, perhaps lead to open rebellion. This is why Pilate is so curious about Jesus' title "King of the Jews," and in the end, this is why Jesus is executed as an enemy to the Roman state. The sign above his head, listing the charges, is clear......if you're going to set yourself up as an alternative "king"......if you're going to go against Rome.....this is the fate that awaits you.
I wonder if the 2 guys crucified with Jesus were part of Bar-Abbas's gang? I guess this is just one of millions of questions we'll never really know the answer to.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, March 10, 2008
Former religious right folks...
Here's a link to a VERY interesting story...
If you're a "religious right" watcher as I am, it's always interesting to keep tabs on who's bailing out of the movement & why. This story does just that. Highly recommended.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/78818/
TM
If you're a "religious right" watcher as I am, it's always interesting to keep tabs on who's bailing out of the movement & why. This story does just that. Highly recommended.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/78818/
TM
Lent 5, Morning after thoughts
Good morning:
I've got my mug of hot black coffee here, & in fact, I'm on my 2nd cup now.....so ready to dig in to some "morning after" thoughts on yesterday's reading.
Although, I think I'm going to cheat just a little bit. You see, one of the main things bouncing around in my head about that text from yesterday was--strictly speaking--not really part of the text, cuz the bulletin inserts we used chopped the reading off before the end of the chapter. Here's the missing verses in the TNIV translation, starting with vs 45:
[After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead]
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation." 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
There are several interesting things about this passage. First of all, not that many years down the road, in 70AD the Romans did *indeed* come and take away their Temple. Herod's magnificent structure was more or less leveled, leaving only what is today known as the "Wailing Wall." And in 135 AD the second great Jewish rebellion (commonly called the Bar Kochba Revolt) ended in defeat, with the old city of Jerusalem being completely leveled, and Jews being banned from the new settlement--a pagan center dubbed Aelia Capitolina by Emperor Hadrian. In other words, the ironic part of Jn 11:48 is that not everyone put their faith in Jesus, not everyone began following him, and yet the thing(s) they feared most happened ANYWAY.
The second thing that stands out to me about this passage is that one of the most wonderful events of human history--the raising of a man LONG DEAD--is greated with the overwhelming urge to KILL the holy man who performed the miracle. This seems ludicrous on the one hand, yet on the other it's understandable. Isn't that just like human nature? If Jesus had "played nice" with the religious authorities of Jerusalem, this probably wouldn't have been the case. But he was such a THREAT to them that they couldn't tolerate him--and this last act, raising Lazarus from the dead, was the straw that broke the camel's back for them. Preservation of THEIR status quo--what they deluded themselves into thinking was for the "good of the people"....was more important to them than this man's life. But in the irony of ironies, the Father used their attitudes to accomplish something even greater--and on behalf of ALL PEOPLE OF ALL TIME.
Cheers!
TM
I've got my mug of hot black coffee here, & in fact, I'm on my 2nd cup now.....so ready to dig in to some "morning after" thoughts on yesterday's reading.
Although, I think I'm going to cheat just a little bit. You see, one of the main things bouncing around in my head about that text from yesterday was--strictly speaking--not really part of the text, cuz the bulletin inserts we used chopped the reading off before the end of the chapter. Here's the missing verses in the TNIV translation, starting with vs 45:
[After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead]
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation." 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
There are several interesting things about this passage. First of all, not that many years down the road, in 70AD the Romans did *indeed* come and take away their Temple. Herod's magnificent structure was more or less leveled, leaving only what is today known as the "Wailing Wall." And in 135 AD the second great Jewish rebellion (commonly called the Bar Kochba Revolt) ended in defeat, with the old city of Jerusalem being completely leveled, and Jews being banned from the new settlement--a pagan center dubbed Aelia Capitolina by Emperor Hadrian. In other words, the ironic part of Jn 11:48 is that not everyone put their faith in Jesus, not everyone began following him, and yet the thing(s) they feared most happened ANYWAY.
The second thing that stands out to me about this passage is that one of the most wonderful events of human history--the raising of a man LONG DEAD--is greated with the overwhelming urge to KILL the holy man who performed the miracle. This seems ludicrous on the one hand, yet on the other it's understandable. Isn't that just like human nature? If Jesus had "played nice" with the religious authorities of Jerusalem, this probably wouldn't have been the case. But he was such a THREAT to them that they couldn't tolerate him--and this last act, raising Lazarus from the dead, was the straw that broke the camel's back for them. Preservation of THEIR status quo--what they deluded themselves into thinking was for the "good of the people"....was more important to them than this man's life. But in the irony of ironies, the Father used their attitudes to accomplish something even greater--and on behalf of ALL PEOPLE OF ALL TIME.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, March 3, 2008
Lent 4, Morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, I guess one of the things that's still rattling around in my head this morning is the reaction of the Pharisees. Earlier in John's gospel, it says that after Jesus turned the water into wine, the Disciples saw the sign "and they believed." In fact, much of the story of John's gospel has to do with people seeing the signs and believing. One can't help but wonder, WHY ....after seeing as many signs as the Pharisees saw....did they remain in unbelief?
I guess the first answer is that NOT ALL of them did remain in unbelief. As I said in an earlier post, Acts 15:5 is one of the most intriguing verses in the whole Bible. I wish it were a whole chapter and not just one verse, but it clearly indicates that the infant Jerusalem church--comprised of Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah--**INCLUDES** members of the Pharisee sect. So not all remain in unbelief--tho it seems fair to say that believing Pharisees are in the minority.
...Which brings us back to the question, why do the signs not convince the majority of Pharisees? When I was a kid, oh 8yrs old or so, I remember one Christmas morning I was the first one up. I tip-toed out to the living room to check out the haul under the tree. It was difficult to see much cuz I didn't want to turn on the light, but off to the side of the tree was something BIG and it had a white sheet over it! When I first noticed it, I JUMPED! It was so out of place. I don't know *what* I thought it was, maybe a ghost? All the cartoons always depicted ghosts as having sheets over their heads. I don't remember much else, I think I just went back to bed and waited for everyone else to get up. Well, turns out that the thing under the sheet was just a really big present. My folks had bought a chord organ for me, and my Dad had taken it out of the box & put it all together. The finished product was too big to fit under the tree & too big to wrap, so they threw a sheet over it. Bottom line: I didn't recognize the thing as a Christmas present because it didn't come to me in the form I *EXPECTED*.
I can't help but think that this was a basic hangup for the Pharisees. They of all people had greater faith that Messiah would come, but when Messiah came, he came wrapped in a form other than what they expected. Rather than conquering hero & judge, he came in meekness and humility--he came with a mission, but that mission was to die.
Cheers,
TM
Well, I guess one of the things that's still rattling around in my head this morning is the reaction of the Pharisees. Earlier in John's gospel, it says that after Jesus turned the water into wine, the Disciples saw the sign "and they believed." In fact, much of the story of John's gospel has to do with people seeing the signs and believing. One can't help but wonder, WHY ....after seeing as many signs as the Pharisees saw....did they remain in unbelief?
I guess the first answer is that NOT ALL of them did remain in unbelief. As I said in an earlier post, Acts 15:5 is one of the most intriguing verses in the whole Bible. I wish it were a whole chapter and not just one verse, but it clearly indicates that the infant Jerusalem church--comprised of Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah--**INCLUDES** members of the Pharisee sect. So not all remain in unbelief--tho it seems fair to say that believing Pharisees are in the minority.
...Which brings us back to the question, why do the signs not convince the majority of Pharisees? When I was a kid, oh 8yrs old or so, I remember one Christmas morning I was the first one up. I tip-toed out to the living room to check out the haul under the tree. It was difficult to see much cuz I didn't want to turn on the light, but off to the side of the tree was something BIG and it had a white sheet over it! When I first noticed it, I JUMPED! It was so out of place. I don't know *what* I thought it was, maybe a ghost? All the cartoons always depicted ghosts as having sheets over their heads. I don't remember much else, I think I just went back to bed and waited for everyone else to get up. Well, turns out that the thing under the sheet was just a really big present. My folks had bought a chord organ for me, and my Dad had taken it out of the box & put it all together. The finished product was too big to fit under the tree & too big to wrap, so they threw a sheet over it. Bottom line: I didn't recognize the thing as a Christmas present because it didn't come to me in the form I *EXPECTED*.
I can't help but think that this was a basic hangup for the Pharisees. They of all people had greater faith that Messiah would come, but when Messiah came, he came wrapped in a form other than what they expected. Rather than conquering hero & judge, he came in meekness and humility--he came with a mission, but that mission was to die.
Cheers,
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
