Luke 2:41-52
41 Every year His parents traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover Festival. 42 When He was 12 years old, they went up according to the custom of the festival. 43 After those days were over, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents did not know it. 44 Assuming He was in the traveling party, they went a day's journey. Then they began looking for Him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for Him. 46 After three days, they found Him in the temple complex sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all those who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers. 48 When His parents saw Him, they were astonished, and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You." 49 "Why were you searching for Me?" He asked them. "Didn't you know that I had to be in My Father's house?" 50 But they did not understand what He said to them.
51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people. (HCS)
This small passage from Luke is the only glimpse we get into the ‘boyhood’ of Jesus from canonical sources—making it interesting if for no other reason. The “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” for instance, is keen to present a young Jesus as a miracle worker (albeit somewhat capricious), whereas St. Luke’s presentation seems much more down to earth.
Vss 41-45: Here Luke presents the “holy family” as the ultimate in Jewish piety. Passover was one of the 3 pilgrim festivals that all Jewish males were supposed to attend (scholars seem agreed that this was optional for women & children). The key word, though, is “supposed.” The further away one lived, the less likely it would be that they’d make the journey (Barclay says the cutoff was usually 20 miles, but he doesn’t footnote his comment). For some, merely making the pilgrimage once in a lifetime was the goal. Nazareth to Jerusalem was a good three-days journey. That Jesus’ **peasant** parents are presented as making the trip yearly is borderline incredible. And yet, I confess that this passage holds an interest for me in a tangential sense. Like most protestants, I accept that Jesus was the *oldest of his siblings, with James coming next. And, given my insatiable interest in James, I have often wondered how the son of a “simple peasant carpenter” could grow up and become such an eminent Jewish sage. In the case of Jesus we always make ‘allowances,’ cuz after all, he’s the Son of God. But James wasn’t. As with most cases, we’re not presented with nearly enough textual evidence to draw many conclusions, but the tiny fragments we are given seem to present this family as incredibly over the top in terms of old fashioned Jewish piety. The “traditional” view that the gospels go silent on Joseph relatively quickly means that Joseph must’ve died is an argument from silence. Perhaps they go quiet on Joseph because the gospels aren’t about Joseph, they’re about Jesus. Regardless, it seems *very possible that James got his piety and influence from the same place a lot of children do—his father.
The pilgrimage to Jerusalem took place in a group—a caravan of other kinsfolk or villagers all going ‘up’ for the same reason. Sidenote: one always goes UP to Jerusalem, regardless of which point on the compass one’s journey originates from. Jerusalem is physically “up” in that it is built on hills, but it is also theologically “up”…..one always goes up to the HOLY CITY. As Malina points out, travel in this culture was always potentially dangerous, but this danger is mitigated if undertaken in groups. It’s pure speculation (and so pointless) as to HOW the group could’ve left without all noses accounted for. Luke obviously doesn’t care, or he would’ve told us. Barclay says the women & children left first & were joined by the men later (another non-footnoted remark), but who knows? The point of the NARRATIVE at this juncture is that we are to understand that from Mary & Joseph’s perspective, life was supposed to be getting back to “normal.” They’d done their religious duty, now they were headed back to Nazareth to pick back up with life. But that storyline is interrupted with the fact that Jesus wasn’t with them.
Vss 46-47: The “after 3 days” remark is not intended to conjure up later resurrection motifs. Today’s critical scholars have done a good job of pointing out that in Luke’s gospel resurrection motifs are symbolized by the term “The third day.” Hence, “after three days” is simply a way of marking time. Jesus is found sitting among the teachers. Older and more romantic takes on this passage have Jesus as the ‘star lecturer’ among the teachers, but most commentators these days recognize that as a completely fanciful interpretation. It is enough to present the BOY Jesus as supremely curious and excellently responsive when it comes to what the teachers of Torah have to say.
Vss 48-50: These verses comprise both the central core of the text, but also some of the biggest interpretive hurdles—at least they seem to cause a lot of hand-wringing among commentators. For instance, some are befuddled that MARY is the one doing the talking. Some are troubled that Mary is evidently scolding the Son of God. Others are equally troubled that Jesus has severely bent—if not broken—the 4th commandment…..either in dishonoring his parents by staying behind in the first place, or by doing so here in his retort to his mother.
In simply letting the narrative **BE**, however, these problems disappear. It seems clear that Luke’s primary goal is CHRISTOLOGICAL. He wants to show that the boy Jesus understands himself as uniquely God’s son (whether this understanding came to him prior to entering the Temple this time or at this precise moment is speculation). This understanding, in Luke’s gospel, comes YEARS before Jesus’ baptism. But in order to get this out in the narrative sense, dialog must take place. It makes sense that Mary makes the initial statement because that allows for the dual use of the word Father: “your father and I have been looking for you,”…..and “I HAD to be in my Father’s house.”
That “they didn’t understand what he said to them” is simply indicative that even as parents of the Messiah, theirs is a journey of faith not so unlike our own.
Vss 51-52: These are perhaps my favorite of the entire text. I used to have a prof back at the seminary who would get his feathers ruffled at the idea that “the baby Jesus didn’t have diaper rash.” His point was that Jesus was FULLY human, and that at various times in church history this has been forgotten. Too often we get the impression that being the Son of God meant that (in today’s thought) Jesus would naturally have been a straight A student (with no effort), plus captain of the swim team, etc. etc. etc. In other words, too often we have the mistaken impression that Jesus cruised through being human without any of the bumps in the road that regular people experience. Not only is this untrue, but we don’t really WANT it to be true. To paraphrase the old church father, ‘what Jesus didn’t take unto himself, he didn’t redeem.’ In today’s lingo, we need Jesus to have struggled with long division, tipped over on his bike & skinned his knee, and who struck out with the bases loaded. We NEED a savior who experienced humanity the same we we have, not with a free pass at every critical juncture. This is what it means that he [was able to] “increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people.”
Final note: Primary thoughts on this passage have come primarily from Nolland, and Brown....who, imo, seem to have nailed it pretty well. Not sure yet how I'll go homiletically, but as I think the passage was intended to be primarily christological, I could envision a sermon highlighting the HUMANITY of the Savior. We need always to be reminded that a Jesus from the planet Krypton does us no good whatsoever. The nails would never be able to pierce his hands.
cheers,
TM
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sunday Dec. 20th, thoughts going in
39 And Mary arose in these days and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah; 40 and entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; 42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? 44 For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed [is] she that believed; for there shall be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her from the Lord. 46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, …(ASV)
BIG THOUGHTS—In spite of the real world issues that lie ahead in these two pregnancies, Luke’s primary emphasis seems to be that of JOY…..joy….and nearness to completion. Two separate promises have been delivered by the angel—one to Zechariah and one to Mary. Now those promises are well on their way to fulfillment.
Vss 39/40: Malina points out that travel alone in this culture was considered deviant behavior. He surmises that Mary considers the fetus Messiah to be something of an amulet against the all too present danger in such a journey. It’s interesting stuff, but the text doesn’t say she went alone, so its supposition on his part. Brown assumes she joined a caravan (also supposition). Regardless, nobody is too sure about WHERE she went. A “city of Judah” is pretty nebulous. Commentators suspect she was anywhere from 3-5 days’ journey from her home.
One is equally unsure as to the proposed elapsed time between vs 38 (Gabriel’s departure) and vs 39 and the “these days” statement. In other words, the question arises…just HOW pregnant was Mary when she took her trip? Did she leave the next day? The flow of the narrative seems to suggest a fairly quick departure.
Another question surrounding Mary’s departure is WHY? Some commentators (citing Calvin & others) see doubt in Mary and a need to verify the angel’s words with some sort of tangible evidence. This seems more consistent with a generally protestant urge to ‘humanize’ Mary. After all, she may be ‘highly favored,’ have ‘the Lord with her,’ and be ‘blessed among women,’ ….but we don’t want her getting a big head (!). This is just goofy. There are two items of interest about the account (a) why she went and (b) why Luke included it. It seems easy enough to assume that she went out of sheer JOY. The angel had tied the joy of her news to that of her cousin Elizabeth’s, thus going to share this joy seems to be the most natural and least contrived option.
As to why Luke included it, several things come to mind. First, Luke had already told us that John the Baptist would be anointed with the Holy Spirit from the womb (1:15)—which always implies prophetic ability. By placing the two characters of Jesus & John in such close proximity, Luke is able to show the fulfillment of 1:15. There could be deeper theological stuff going on too, though. When one combines the leaping of John the Baptist with Elizabeth’s proclamation about “the mother of my Lord,” one senses a high Christology at work. In other words, if all one had was Mark’s gospel it COULD be possible to assert an adoptionistic Christology: the MAN Jesus BECAME the son of God when God adopted him at his baptism. Adoptionism is much harder to hold in Luke’s & Matthew’s Gospels, and impossible in John’s Gospel. Luke could be subtly addressing some forms of proto-adoptionism. Finally, if nothing else, one CLEARLY detects the subjugation of John the Baptist in these texts. This is an important detail, as we know from first century accounts that even after his death John the Baptist continued to have a ‘following’ of sorts. Here John clearly bows to the greater significance of Mary’s Son.
Vss 41-45: The fact that Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit turns her into a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense of the word—at least temporarily. As such, she is able to discern at least 3 things that would otherwise be indiscernible: (a) Her own infant’s leap was more than just a typical phenomenon experienced with every pregnancy. She [correctly] interpreted not only that it was a sign, but the meaning of that sign. (b) She discerned that Mary was pregnant. Had Mary left Nazareth soon after Gabriel’s departure, there would be no outward indication of her pregnancy. This was simply revealed to Elizabeth at the moment. (c) Finally, she was able to discern the IMPORT of Mary’s pregnancy: “42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?”
Strange as it may seem, I’m less interested in the actual verbiage of the Magnificat, hence I’ve omitted those verses. Brown makes a pretty compelling case that the hymn is probably pre-Lukan……but I’ll leave that debate to the critics.
Summary: Maybe I’m taking an overly ‘modern’ view of the Visitation, but to me it seems that what WE can glean from this text is an amazing and deliberate JOY at being included in God’s big plan. If I have a bone to pick with the modern evangelical movement (and I do have several bones to pick), it’s that they frequently trivialize the joy of being “in God’s will” to simple happiness……as in…..now you will be fulfilled, your kids will turn out great, you’ll live happily ever after, and your whole life will look like a something from a Norman Rockwell painting. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there is both JOY & FULFILLMENT at being part of God’s big plan, but it comes at personal cost (the Church calls this discipleship). The blessing of Elizabeth’s son in her old age means that now she, at the age of a grandmother, is going to be chasing around a 3yr old…and if she lives long enough, she’ll suffer the pain of her son’s martyrdom. From Mary’s perspective, she will likely suffer the ostracization that comes with a ‘questionable’ pregnancy for her whole life—to say nothing of her own sorrow at the cross. The point is that we can and do experience JOY & FULFILLMENT when our purposes are aligned and allied with God’s, but the JOY & FULFILLMENT we experience is that of a disciple knowing that he or she is doing the Masters bidding, **not** a shortcut to realizing the American Dream.
cheers,
TM
BIG THOUGHTS—In spite of the real world issues that lie ahead in these two pregnancies, Luke’s primary emphasis seems to be that of JOY…..joy….and nearness to completion. Two separate promises have been delivered by the angel—one to Zechariah and one to Mary. Now those promises are well on their way to fulfillment.
Vss 39/40: Malina points out that travel alone in this culture was considered deviant behavior. He surmises that Mary considers the fetus Messiah to be something of an amulet against the all too present danger in such a journey. It’s interesting stuff, but the text doesn’t say she went alone, so its supposition on his part. Brown assumes she joined a caravan (also supposition). Regardless, nobody is too sure about WHERE she went. A “city of Judah” is pretty nebulous. Commentators suspect she was anywhere from 3-5 days’ journey from her home.
One is equally unsure as to the proposed elapsed time between vs 38 (Gabriel’s departure) and vs 39 and the “these days” statement. In other words, the question arises…just HOW pregnant was Mary when she took her trip? Did she leave the next day? The flow of the narrative seems to suggest a fairly quick departure.
Another question surrounding Mary’s departure is WHY? Some commentators (citing Calvin & others) see doubt in Mary and a need to verify the angel’s words with some sort of tangible evidence. This seems more consistent with a generally protestant urge to ‘humanize’ Mary. After all, she may be ‘highly favored,’ have ‘the Lord with her,’ and be ‘blessed among women,’ ….but we don’t want her getting a big head (!). This is just goofy. There are two items of interest about the account (a) why she went and (b) why Luke included it. It seems easy enough to assume that she went out of sheer JOY. The angel had tied the joy of her news to that of her cousin Elizabeth’s, thus going to share this joy seems to be the most natural and least contrived option.
As to why Luke included it, several things come to mind. First, Luke had already told us that John the Baptist would be anointed with the Holy Spirit from the womb (1:15)—which always implies prophetic ability. By placing the two characters of Jesus & John in such close proximity, Luke is able to show the fulfillment of 1:15. There could be deeper theological stuff going on too, though. When one combines the leaping of John the Baptist with Elizabeth’s proclamation about “the mother of my Lord,” one senses a high Christology at work. In other words, if all one had was Mark’s gospel it COULD be possible to assert an adoptionistic Christology: the MAN Jesus BECAME the son of God when God adopted him at his baptism. Adoptionism is much harder to hold in Luke’s & Matthew’s Gospels, and impossible in John’s Gospel. Luke could be subtly addressing some forms of proto-adoptionism. Finally, if nothing else, one CLEARLY detects the subjugation of John the Baptist in these texts. This is an important detail, as we know from first century accounts that even after his death John the Baptist continued to have a ‘following’ of sorts. Here John clearly bows to the greater significance of Mary’s Son.
Vss 41-45: The fact that Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit turns her into a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense of the word—at least temporarily. As such, she is able to discern at least 3 things that would otherwise be indiscernible: (a) Her own infant’s leap was more than just a typical phenomenon experienced with every pregnancy. She [correctly] interpreted not only that it was a sign, but the meaning of that sign. (b) She discerned that Mary was pregnant. Had Mary left Nazareth soon after Gabriel’s departure, there would be no outward indication of her pregnancy. This was simply revealed to Elizabeth at the moment. (c) Finally, she was able to discern the IMPORT of Mary’s pregnancy: “42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?”
Strange as it may seem, I’m less interested in the actual verbiage of the Magnificat, hence I’ve omitted those verses. Brown makes a pretty compelling case that the hymn is probably pre-Lukan……but I’ll leave that debate to the critics.
Summary: Maybe I’m taking an overly ‘modern’ view of the Visitation, but to me it seems that what WE can glean from this text is an amazing and deliberate JOY at being included in God’s big plan. If I have a bone to pick with the modern evangelical movement (and I do have several bones to pick), it’s that they frequently trivialize the joy of being “in God’s will” to simple happiness……as in…..now you will be fulfilled, your kids will turn out great, you’ll live happily ever after, and your whole life will look like a something from a Norman Rockwell painting. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there is both JOY & FULFILLMENT at being part of God’s big plan, but it comes at personal cost (the Church calls this discipleship). The blessing of Elizabeth’s son in her old age means that now she, at the age of a grandmother, is going to be chasing around a 3yr old…and if she lives long enough, she’ll suffer the pain of her son’s martyrdom. From Mary’s perspective, she will likely suffer the ostracization that comes with a ‘questionable’ pregnancy for her whole life—to say nothing of her own sorrow at the cross. The point is that we can and do experience JOY & FULFILLMENT when our purposes are aligned and allied with God’s, but the JOY & FULFILLMENT we experience is that of a disciple knowing that he or she is doing the Masters bidding, **not** a shortcut to realizing the American Dream.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday Dec 13th, thoughts going in
Well, as I said last week, Advent 3 is a continuation of Advent 2. The lectionary spreads the apocalyptic prophet John the Baptist over two Sundays. Last Sunday he was introduced--along with the concept that after long centuries of silence, the "Word of God came" among His people. This Sunday the emphasis is more on the specifics of John's message.
Right off the bat there's an interesting textual variant between Luke's account of John's preaching and Matthew's. Luke says in 3:7 "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" Whereas, Matthew reserves the name-calling for only the Pharisees & Sadducees coming out for baptism (being evidently unconcerned with the slight oddity that Sadducees would wander *away* from Jerusalem & the Temple, Mt. 3:7). As most scholars date the writing of Matthew before that of Luke and see in Luke an intentional 'tinkering' or 'corrective,' one wonders why Luke would broaden the invective to include EVERYONE.
Some thoughts come to mind, but in the end (as always) it's mere speculation. Of course it goes without saying that the earlier the writing, the closer we get to the Jewish revolt of 66-73AD. Students of this era know that this was no "peasant's revolt." It began as a result of a series of missteps among the Jewish Ruling class (see Martin Goodman: "The Ruling Class of Judea"). Matthew, as an earlier writing, *may* have been trying to highlight a negative portrayal of the ruling class, in essence saying: 'not only can these guys not be trusted to successfully guide the country through revolt against Rome, but if you look back, even the prophet John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers.' Whereas, by the time Luke came along (likely in the 80s) all of the dust had settled. Perhaps this was Luke's way of simply being more 'egalitarian,' pointing out that ALL in the crowd were of equal need of repentance. Before we leave the topic, however, one last item of 'ownership' needs to be mentioned. It is a sad irony that we can detect very early on in the life of the church a certain anti-Semitic sentiment. It doesn't take long for the consciousness of the Church to *forget* that Jerusalem *had* been the mother church, and that the first believers were Torah-observant Jews. By the time Ignatius of Antioch comes on the scene the idea of a Torah-observant Jewish believer in Jesus seems almost repugnant to him (cf his letter to the Magnesians). One *hopes* that Luke's egalitarian treatment of all Jews in this text is not part of that early developing anti-Semitic sentiment.
In Luke 3:8, John says: "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. It has been mentioned by some that a "stone" or "stones" is metaphorical for Gentiles in Rabbinic thought. Hence, maybe John is pointing to the Gentiles in the crowd & saying: "these 'stones' could be children of God.....so don't brag about your ancestry from Abraham.'" Hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe. But we don't have a lot of evidence that John was steeped in Rabbinic thought. It might be safer to simply assume that stones means stones.
We find an interesting sentence in vs 14 "Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do ?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
Some commentators wish to make these soldiers Roman troops. If so, I suppose that would at least put *some* Gentiles in the crowd for the 'stone' metaphor to work. It seems safer, however, to assume that the troops are Herodian and of some Jewish extraction. We need to remember that when John lands in hot water, he doesn't find himself before a Roman court, he's imprisoned by Herod.
The passage ends by saying:
15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water ; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals ; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn ; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.
Vs 18 is one of those great "Lutheran-killers" in the new testament. By which I mean, the Lutheran hermeneutical tradition wants always to see a nice clean dichotomy between LAW and GOSPEL. Law = God's demands on us (that we, at best, can only marginally meet), whereas Gospel = God's loving gifts for & toward us. And I have to admit that this method works pretty good most of the time. Occasionally, however, it falls flat. Luke 3:18 is a pretty good example of that. John the Baptist gives a boatload of fiery exhortations and Luke calls that THE GOSPEL.
So, what's going on here?
It seems to me that Luke is portraying a prophet who's trying to stir an apathetic people to ACTION. He calls them ALL a brood of vipers, not just their leaders. His question "who warned you to flee the coming wrath" seems redundant. HE WARNED THEM.....by just his presence drawing their attention, if nothing else. And concerning his ritual immersion, all of them would be familiar with rites of immersion (for instance, before ascending to the Temple), but this rite seems to come closer to the idea of 'proselyte baptism,' the ritual cleansing that happens when a Gentile converts to Judaism. He's asking Jews to behave like Gentile converts--in essence, to start all over again in NEW RELATIONSHIP with their God. His ethical teachings about 'whoever has 2 coats should share with those who have none' have a two-fold meaning: (1) you share with those closest to you; your family; your community. John wants those being baptized to see themselves in communal terms. But also (2) there is journey symbolism at work. If you're headed out on a journey, you'll just be weighed down if you're trying to pack along a lot of un-needed extra items. Best to share with those who don't have enough, that way all will be able to journey in a state of preparedness. The journey is metaphorical.....in that it is a journey of *faith*.....but John and Jesus were not gnostics. It's also a journey in the literal sense of *renewal*. In the Christ event, the very thing that John is trying to prep his listeners for (and us), God is all about renewing the brokenness of his creation PERSONALLY.....first and foremost through the redemption brought by Christ on the cross, but then literally & physically through the good works of His Church.
cheers,
TM
Right off the bat there's an interesting textual variant between Luke's account of John's preaching and Matthew's. Luke says in 3:7 "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" Whereas, Matthew reserves the name-calling for only the Pharisees & Sadducees coming out for baptism (being evidently unconcerned with the slight oddity that Sadducees would wander *away* from Jerusalem & the Temple, Mt. 3:7). As most scholars date the writing of Matthew before that of Luke and see in Luke an intentional 'tinkering' or 'corrective,' one wonders why Luke would broaden the invective to include EVERYONE.
Some thoughts come to mind, but in the end (as always) it's mere speculation. Of course it goes without saying that the earlier the writing, the closer we get to the Jewish revolt of 66-73AD. Students of this era know that this was no "peasant's revolt." It began as a result of a series of missteps among the Jewish Ruling class (see Martin Goodman: "The Ruling Class of Judea"). Matthew, as an earlier writing, *may* have been trying to highlight a negative portrayal of the ruling class, in essence saying: 'not only can these guys not be trusted to successfully guide the country through revolt against Rome, but if you look back, even the prophet John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers.' Whereas, by the time Luke came along (likely in the 80s) all of the dust had settled. Perhaps this was Luke's way of simply being more 'egalitarian,' pointing out that ALL in the crowd were of equal need of repentance. Before we leave the topic, however, one last item of 'ownership' needs to be mentioned. It is a sad irony that we can detect very early on in the life of the church a certain anti-Semitic sentiment. It doesn't take long for the consciousness of the Church to *forget* that Jerusalem *had* been the mother church, and that the first believers were Torah-observant Jews. By the time Ignatius of Antioch comes on the scene the idea of a Torah-observant Jewish believer in Jesus seems almost repugnant to him (cf his letter to the Magnesians). One *hopes* that Luke's egalitarian treatment of all Jews in this text is not part of that early developing anti-Semitic sentiment.
In Luke 3:8, John says: "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. It has been mentioned by some that a "stone" or "stones" is metaphorical for Gentiles in Rabbinic thought. Hence, maybe John is pointing to the Gentiles in the crowd & saying: "these 'stones' could be children of God.....so don't brag about your ancestry from Abraham.'" Hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe. But we don't have a lot of evidence that John was steeped in Rabbinic thought. It might be safer to simply assume that stones means stones.
We find an interesting sentence in vs 14 "Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do ?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
Some commentators wish to make these soldiers Roman troops. If so, I suppose that would at least put *some* Gentiles in the crowd for the 'stone' metaphor to work. It seems safer, however, to assume that the troops are Herodian and of some Jewish extraction. We need to remember that when John lands in hot water, he doesn't find himself before a Roman court, he's imprisoned by Herod.
The passage ends by saying:
15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water ; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals ; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn ; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.
Vs 18 is one of those great "Lutheran-killers" in the new testament. By which I mean, the Lutheran hermeneutical tradition wants always to see a nice clean dichotomy between LAW and GOSPEL. Law = God's demands on us (that we, at best, can only marginally meet), whereas Gospel = God's loving gifts for & toward us. And I have to admit that this method works pretty good most of the time. Occasionally, however, it falls flat. Luke 3:18 is a pretty good example of that. John the Baptist gives a boatload of fiery exhortations and Luke calls that THE GOSPEL.
So, what's going on here?
It seems to me that Luke is portraying a prophet who's trying to stir an apathetic people to ACTION. He calls them ALL a brood of vipers, not just their leaders. His question "who warned you to flee the coming wrath" seems redundant. HE WARNED THEM.....by just his presence drawing their attention, if nothing else. And concerning his ritual immersion, all of them would be familiar with rites of immersion (for instance, before ascending to the Temple), but this rite seems to come closer to the idea of 'proselyte baptism,' the ritual cleansing that happens when a Gentile converts to Judaism. He's asking Jews to behave like Gentile converts--in essence, to start all over again in NEW RELATIONSHIP with their God. His ethical teachings about 'whoever has 2 coats should share with those who have none' have a two-fold meaning: (1) you share with those closest to you; your family; your community. John wants those being baptized to see themselves in communal terms. But also (2) there is journey symbolism at work. If you're headed out on a journey, you'll just be weighed down if you're trying to pack along a lot of un-needed extra items. Best to share with those who don't have enough, that way all will be able to journey in a state of preparedness. The journey is metaphorical.....in that it is a journey of *faith*.....but John and Jesus were not gnostics. It's also a journey in the literal sense of *renewal*. In the Christ event, the very thing that John is trying to prep his listeners for (and us), God is all about renewing the brokenness of his creation PERSONALLY.....first and foremost through the redemption brought by Christ on the cross, but then literally & physically through the good works of His Church.
cheers,
TM
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sunday Dec 6th, thoughts going in
One of the great things about Advent is that regardless of what year of the lectionary cycle we're in, the 4 Sundays all have very *pronounced* themes. The first Sunday of Advent is always about the SECOND ADVENT. This is important. It helps us avoid the trap of sentimentalizing Advent (and Christmas). It is impossible to "look forward" in a real sense to the birth in Bethlehem. It has already happened. But we most definitely can & should look forward to the Second Advent of our Lord. Then the next two Sundays belong to John the Baptist, and finally the last Sunday of Advent belongs to Mary. It's the same every year.
The Gospel reading for this year for Advent 2 comes from Luke 3:1-6:
1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. 5 Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. 6 And all people will see God's salvation.'
I'm immediately struck with 2 things: (1)The original audience would've detected a 'shock value' in how Luke grounded what he said by mentioning the movers & shakers of his day. In our day he may have said something like "when Barack Obama was President of the United States, and Patrick Quinn was Governor of Illinois, and Benedict the XVI was Pope, .......something of immense cosmic importance occurred with a homeless guy living in Busse Woods." Get the drift? NOTHING that Obama is doing .....NOTHING that Quinn is doing.......and NOTHING that Benedict XVI is doing can even hold a candle to what is happening with this complete unknown/non-entity. Luke's day & age is not so different from our own. We think & expect that the world's problems can be solved by global decision makers, but God more often chooses to make His presence known through the small & insignificant.
The second thing that jumps out at me is where it says: "the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah in the wilderness."
I'm curious as to why Luke uses the phrase "rema Theou" instead of "logos tou Theou." Both can be easily translated "the word of God," but the latter is the highly recognized introduction to prophecy found in the Greek version of the Old Testament. When **ALL** of the prophets say that the word of the Lord came to them, it's appears as "logos tou Theou." Either Luke did not know his Greek Old Testament well, or this phrase was avoided for some other reason. The Greek 'rema' can mean *more* than just word or utterance, it can also mean 'voice' or the *sound* of speech. I wonder if Luke was attempting to heighten the prophetic nature of John's ministry, in essence by saying: not only does the Word of God come to John, but John being the last of the OT Prophets actually heard the VOICE of God.
I'm not sure I have the answer to that one just now, but it's fun to think about.
Cheers,
TM
The Gospel reading for this year for Advent 2 comes from Luke 3:1-6:
1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. 5 Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. 6 And all people will see God's salvation.'
I'm immediately struck with 2 things: (1)The original audience would've detected a 'shock value' in how Luke grounded what he said by mentioning the movers & shakers of his day. In our day he may have said something like "when Barack Obama was President of the United States, and Patrick Quinn was Governor of Illinois, and Benedict the XVI was Pope, .......something of immense cosmic importance occurred with a homeless guy living in Busse Woods." Get the drift? NOTHING that Obama is doing .....NOTHING that Quinn is doing.......and NOTHING that Benedict XVI is doing can even hold a candle to what is happening with this complete unknown/non-entity. Luke's day & age is not so different from our own. We think & expect that the world's problems can be solved by global decision makers, but God more often chooses to make His presence known through the small & insignificant.
The second thing that jumps out at me is where it says: "the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah in the wilderness."
I'm curious as to why Luke uses the phrase "rema Theou" instead of "logos tou Theou." Both can be easily translated "the word of God," but the latter is the highly recognized introduction to prophecy found in the Greek version of the Old Testament. When **ALL** of the prophets say that the word of the Lord came to them, it's appears as "logos tou Theou." Either Luke did not know his Greek Old Testament well, or this phrase was avoided for some other reason. The Greek 'rema' can mean *more* than just word or utterance, it can also mean 'voice' or the *sound* of speech. I wonder if Luke was attempting to heighten the prophetic nature of John's ministry, in essence by saying: not only does the Word of God come to John, but John being the last of the OT Prophets actually heard the VOICE of God.
I'm not sure I have the answer to that one just now, but it's fun to think about.
Cheers,
TM
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Sun Nov 15th, thoughts going in
It was very eye opening for me to read all of Mark chapter 13 in the light of our recent study in the book of James. Verses 1-23 could almost have come from Josephus, as they sound like a cross between ominous prophecy of things to come and on-the-scene reporting. It's also interesting to see what the modern "RAPTURE!" preachers do with this text. They rightly discern that from vs 24 onward Jesus is talking about his "second coming" (commonly known as the Parousia), but whether because they don't really know their history or just plain poor exegetical methodology, they attempt to see the previous 23 verses as also having something to do with the "end times."
This is hardly the case. We need to remember that in the narrative the thing that motivates Jesus to speak is the disciples' question in verse 4 "tell us when all these things will happen." In vs 6 when Jesus says that "many will come in my name claiming 'I am he' and will deceive many..." it needs to be understood that Jesus is NOT saying that many will show up on the scene and claim to be JESUS OF NAZARETH--either then in history or at some future point. The claim 'I am he' is "messianic." Jesus is predicting a plethora of "false messiahs." Again, one need only read Josephus or some of the great books on the period to realize that from Jesus time to Bar Kochba (135 Ad) this happened time and time again. The "wars & rumors of wars......and nation rising up against nation" fits very well into the time frame leading up to 70AD. The destruction of the Temple did not happen in a vacuum, nor did it happen overnight. There was actually a prolonged campaign, of nation rising against nation (including at the very least the nations of Judea, Samaria, Syria, and Rome). Verses 9-11 which talk of being flogged in the synagogues for one's witness of Christ have absolutely NO belonging in "end times" thought. This is a [sad] reality that harks from the earliest days of the Church when it was primarily still Jewish a institution, but more and more being rejected by the Jewish leadership and developing rabbinic teaching. The remaining verses, having to do with an "abomination" in the Temple, and the troubled flight from *Judea* at the last minute ONLY make sense if viewed in the buildup to the final conflict between Rome & Jerusalem in 70AD. Attempts to place these verses in an "end times" context make no sense. What could a possible "flight from Judea" mean to a believer living in Thailand or Europe etc. etc.?
In the end, vss 1-23 are Jesus' response to a specific set of circumstances SOON to take place. Mark 13:23b--24 presents a SEGUAY from those events to the end times events.
A pertinent question, then, is what can we learn from the 1st part of the discussion--primarily the verses of the pericope for the 24th Sunday after Pentecost (vss 1-8, to which I've added 9 & 10)?
To my thinking, the topic is....how to hang on when your world collapses.
We in America often have such high opinions of ourselves as a nation--and a quasi christian belief that God owes us our existence cuz we sing "God bless America" at ball games--that we literally cannot begin to imagine a set of circumstances that would entail our DEMISE. The closest we get are the "RAPTURE" preachers who see the end of America as being part/parcel with the end of the world. How egotistical! And yet, how human. No doubt those hearing Jesus' words in Mark 13 would also equate the end of the Temple as the end of the world. Certainly it was the end of THEIR WORLD, and the world as THEY KNEW IT. In some strange way it seems almost..........er.........*soothing*....in a sense....that if MY world has to end, then at least it's the end of EVERYTHING.
But what if it doesn't work out that way?
It didn't in 70AD.
The world surrounding the Temple ended, but everything else just kept plugging along and here we are, 2000 years downstream.
Clearly, the message is one of faith not in the external structures we see around us, but in the God who is in control of human history and who ONE DAY will inaugurate the true end of this age & beginning of the next. Until then, our call is to do the same things Jesus told his disciples to do in Mark 13: don't be mislead, don't be frightened, be prepared, and take our stand for Christ.
Cheers,
TM
This is hardly the case. We need to remember that in the narrative the thing that motivates Jesus to speak is the disciples' question in verse 4 "tell us when all these things will happen." In vs 6 when Jesus says that "many will come in my name claiming 'I am he' and will deceive many..." it needs to be understood that Jesus is NOT saying that many will show up on the scene and claim to be JESUS OF NAZARETH--either then in history or at some future point. The claim 'I am he' is "messianic." Jesus is predicting a plethora of "false messiahs." Again, one need only read Josephus or some of the great books on the period to realize that from Jesus time to Bar Kochba (135 Ad) this happened time and time again. The "wars & rumors of wars......and nation rising up against nation" fits very well into the time frame leading up to 70AD. The destruction of the Temple did not happen in a vacuum, nor did it happen overnight. There was actually a prolonged campaign, of nation rising against nation (including at the very least the nations of Judea, Samaria, Syria, and Rome). Verses 9-11 which talk of being flogged in the synagogues for one's witness of Christ have absolutely NO belonging in "end times" thought. This is a [sad] reality that harks from the earliest days of the Church when it was primarily still Jewish a institution, but more and more being rejected by the Jewish leadership and developing rabbinic teaching. The remaining verses, having to do with an "abomination" in the Temple, and the troubled flight from *Judea* at the last minute ONLY make sense if viewed in the buildup to the final conflict between Rome & Jerusalem in 70AD. Attempts to place these verses in an "end times" context make no sense. What could a possible "flight from Judea" mean to a believer living in Thailand or Europe etc. etc.?
In the end, vss 1-23 are Jesus' response to a specific set of circumstances SOON to take place. Mark 13:23b--24 presents a SEGUAY from those events to the end times events.
A pertinent question, then, is what can we learn from the 1st part of the discussion--primarily the verses of the pericope for the 24th Sunday after Pentecost (vss 1-8, to which I've added 9 & 10)?
To my thinking, the topic is....how to hang on when your world collapses.
We in America often have such high opinions of ourselves as a nation--and a quasi christian belief that God owes us our existence cuz we sing "God bless America" at ball games--that we literally cannot begin to imagine a set of circumstances that would entail our DEMISE. The closest we get are the "RAPTURE" preachers who see the end of America as being part/parcel with the end of the world. How egotistical! And yet, how human. No doubt those hearing Jesus' words in Mark 13 would also equate the end of the Temple as the end of the world. Certainly it was the end of THEIR WORLD, and the world as THEY KNEW IT. In some strange way it seems almost..........er.........*soothing*....in a sense....that if MY world has to end, then at least it's the end of EVERYTHING.
But what if it doesn't work out that way?
It didn't in 70AD.
The world surrounding the Temple ended, but everything else just kept plugging along and here we are, 2000 years downstream.
Clearly, the message is one of faith not in the external structures we see around us, but in the God who is in control of human history and who ONE DAY will inaugurate the true end of this age & beginning of the next. Until then, our call is to do the same things Jesus told his disciples to do in Mark 13: don't be mislead, don't be frightened, be prepared, and take our stand for Christ.
Cheers,
TM
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sun Nov 8th, thoughts going in
Mark 12:38-44
38 As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely."
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." (TNIV)
As I go in to this week and having studied this reading now for a few days in a row, several things pop out at me. In vs 38 “as he taught…” the Greek word used there is “didache.” To coin a term, this could be translated: “as he catechismed.” Meaning, when the word didache is used, the emphasis is that what follows was a regular, core component part of Jesus’ instruction. Thus, I find it interesting that Jesus apparently stressed the hypocrisy of the teachers of the Law to his disciples as if it were part of his catechism to them. Perhaps this was to counter any [future] inadequacy they may feel regarding their own ability to “teach the Law” in the days ahead following the Lord’s return to Heaven.
Another thing that strikes me about this passage is that it really seems like 2 discreet matters sort of joined together by the Gospel’s author. Other than the presence of the word “widow” in vs 40, part 1 (38-40) doesn’t seem to have much to do directly with part 2 (41-44).
A final problem with the text has to do with the nature of Jesus’ comment regarding the widow’s offering. It’s very interesting to read the commentaries on this. Most of the older ones extol the virtues of the widow for her faith, her willingness to sacrifice etc. In short, they see Jesus words as commending the widow to us as an ultimate example of virtue. Newer commentaries, however, are very quick to point out that Jesus never actually compliments her; he simply points out a truth with no attached value judgment. This causes the newer commentators to speculate that the widow is actually a “victim” in this instance—practically in the same manner as today’s widow who has only her social security check to live on, and yet she sends regular checks to a crooked televangelist.
OBVIOUSLY….it makes a difference as to which way one should go with this text. If the widow is an ultimate example of faith, it gets preached one way; if she’s the victim of a crooked & manipulative religiosity, it gets preached a totally different way.
Cheers,
TM
38 As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely."
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." (TNIV)
As I go in to this week and having studied this reading now for a few days in a row, several things pop out at me. In vs 38 “as he taught…” the Greek word used there is “didache.” To coin a term, this could be translated: “as he catechismed.” Meaning, when the word didache is used, the emphasis is that what follows was a regular, core component part of Jesus’ instruction. Thus, I find it interesting that Jesus apparently stressed the hypocrisy of the teachers of the Law to his disciples as if it were part of his catechism to them. Perhaps this was to counter any [future] inadequacy they may feel regarding their own ability to “teach the Law” in the days ahead following the Lord’s return to Heaven.
Another thing that strikes me about this passage is that it really seems like 2 discreet matters sort of joined together by the Gospel’s author. Other than the presence of the word “widow” in vs 40, part 1 (38-40) doesn’t seem to have much to do directly with part 2 (41-44).
A final problem with the text has to do with the nature of Jesus’ comment regarding the widow’s offering. It’s very interesting to read the commentaries on this. Most of the older ones extol the virtues of the widow for her faith, her willingness to sacrifice etc. In short, they see Jesus words as commending the widow to us as an ultimate example of virtue. Newer commentaries, however, are very quick to point out that Jesus never actually compliments her; he simply points out a truth with no attached value judgment. This causes the newer commentators to speculate that the widow is actually a “victim” in this instance—practically in the same manner as today’s widow who has only her social security check to live on, and yet she sends regular checks to a crooked televangelist.
OBVIOUSLY….it makes a difference as to which way one should go with this text. If the widow is an ultimate example of faith, it gets preached one way; if she’s the victim of a crooked & manipulative religiosity, it gets preached a totally different way.
Cheers,
TM
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sun Oct 18th, thoughts going in...
Mark 10:35-45
Jesus has several problems on his hand. The first seems to be that NOBODY seems to be listening. In the narrative, this passage follows immediately after a passion prediction. Vs 33 says: “When we get to Jerusalem,” he told them, “the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”
No sooner does he finish saying that, and in the story we read:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”
Did they miss that whole suffer & die part? Or maybe they caught it, but rushed right past it because they thought that "rising again" might be a metaphor for the inauguration of the earthly Messianic kingdom.
Of course there's nothing new/different/strange in their request. The cultural milieu of the day was based on 'patronage.' Patrons--people with power, authority, wealth, influence, assured themselves of loyal followers through the issuance of favors. Likewise, those seeking to raise their status in life showed 'initiative' by seeking such patronage. James & John were using the accepted means of the day for "getting ahead" in life. When vs 41 reports that the other 10 disciples were "indignant," there's at least half a chance that their feelings arise from jealousy that THEY hadn't thought to ask for this themselves!
It causes one to pause and reflect concerning just what their EXPECTATIONS must have been at this juncture. They're on the way to Jerusalem, the seat of power and authority in the Jewish world. Their own numbers are few, but they're following a mighty prophet, a sage, a holy man, a combination of Moses, Elijah, and maybe a little King David all rolled into one. No doubt they expect a battle, even an ostensibly lop-sided battle, but it also seems clear that they expect some sort of Divine assistance--for the outcome they envision is a glorious victory for their side.
Ironically, the Gospels all portray the cross as a "glorious victory" but never in the sense in which the Disciples are thinking before the fact.
Regardless, with the request of James and John Jesus now has another problem on his hands, he has the outbreak of factionalism within his group. It's like having a bunch of kids who all want to be quarterback, and nobody wants to block. Instead of wasting a lot of time telling each of them that they have specific talents etc. etc., he points to HIMSELF. He re-centers their thinking on the sort of leader HE IS. He says that he came not to be served, but to serve, and that this is the definition of leadership in HIS GROUP.
Application questions for us to consider:
1. Are we still plagued with the problem of "selective hearing" in the church? And isn't there a certain balance that needs to be sought? After all, we want our children to learn to pray and we want them to trust that God hears their prayers, and yet so much of the Christian faith is wrapped up in learning how to cope when God seemingly doesn't answer our prayers, or answers with a resounding "no." So what are we supposed to 'hear?' Are we supposed to hear that God is for us, on our side, protecting us, helping us.....(all of which sounds good & glorious).....or are we supposed to hear that the road of faith leads through valleys of the shadow of death; through cross after cross; through apparent abandonment from God?
2. Does this text distinguish between life in general and life in the Kingdom of God's grace? As a parent I hope my children are successful in life and I would like to encourage them to pray that God would bless their efforts. Jesus clearly defines success in terms of servanthood. Is he speaking only within the context of the Church? Or is there perhaps a melding of ideas here.....that within a distinctively christian ethos the greatest "successes" are those who undertake careers/professions that are helping/service oriented. There is certainly a great tradition for this thinking in the history of the church.
3. How and in what way in vs 45 does Jesus give his life as a "ransom for many?" Bruce Malina brings out: "Why would anyone take one person as a 'ransom' for others? It would happen only if the person being accepted as ransom were of higher honor status than those being set free....for example, in ransom value, a king, although a single person, is worth a whole kingdom of other individuals even millions of persons." That sentiment alone says a lot as to the royal status of Jesus, but a nagging question is just WHO or WHAT is holding the people captive in the first place? To whom/what does Jesus offer his life as ransom? This question has plagued theologians down through the centuries, with answers going something like this:
(a) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Heavenly Father. Specifically, it is the Father's unyielding sense of holiness that is offended by humanity's sin, and this holiness demands satisfaction. Jesus, the perfect/sinless one, is uniquely able to offer himself as ransom.
(b) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Law. This is roughly the same idea as option A, the only difference that it de-personalizes the 'captor.' Instead of it being God, it's God's Law.....the law that demands perfection/holiness, but "all have sinned".....so all are to some degree held captive by the law's demands (death).
(c) Jesus offers his life as a ransom to the Devil. This theory has the benefit of removing God from the equation, (it's easy for God to come off sounding like a wicked tyrant in options a & b), yet at the same time this option also unduly elevates the Devil to near-divine status--as if God, backed into a corner, now has no other choice than to sacrifice his own son to placate the Devil.
In the end, each of these theories has weaknesses and there is no perfect explanation.
As others have suggested, perhaps instead of concentrating on the WHO behind the ransom, we should concentrate on the HOW. In many ways, we could say that Jesus voluntarily becomes the world's greatest/biggest "scapegoat" (2cor 5:21). In this sense, the 'ransom' is that Jesus goes into "captivity" as the ultimate scapegoat, while we go free. He agrees to take the blame. Whose fault is it that there is genocide? Whose fault is it that there is corporate greed? Whose fault is it that there are wars, injustices, hatred, and intolerance? IT'S JESUS' FAULT. No, not really, ......but he's agreed to take the blame for it all.....he wants to be blamed for it all.....and YEP....we punished him for it, when we drove those nails into his hands & feet.
That means 2 things: (1) We're free to stop holding the sins & weaknesses of others against them (just as we hope they stop holding our sins/weaknesses against us). The idea behind the old revival hymn "Jesus paid it all" applies here. He paid it **ALL**. Even though it shatters our sense of justice/blame, that means the greatest sinner in the world is forgiven. In Mark 10:45 language, the greatest sinner in the world has been REPLACED BY/WITH JESUS. (2) When we fall back into our old cycle of blame/grudge-holding, what we're actually doing is trying to un-ransom Jesus with someone else. We're saying that ether Jesus isn't qualified to stand in place of others, or his offer/sacrifice isn't "good enough."
Hmmmmm, think about that one!
cheers,
TM
Jesus has several problems on his hand. The first seems to be that NOBODY seems to be listening. In the narrative, this passage follows immediately after a passion prediction. Vs 33 says: “When we get to Jerusalem,” he told them, “the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”
No sooner does he finish saying that, and in the story we read:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”
Did they miss that whole suffer & die part? Or maybe they caught it, but rushed right past it because they thought that "rising again" might be a metaphor for the inauguration of the earthly Messianic kingdom.
Of course there's nothing new/different/strange in their request. The cultural milieu of the day was based on 'patronage.' Patrons--people with power, authority, wealth, influence, assured themselves of loyal followers through the issuance of favors. Likewise, those seeking to raise their status in life showed 'initiative' by seeking such patronage. James & John were using the accepted means of the day for "getting ahead" in life. When vs 41 reports that the other 10 disciples were "indignant," there's at least half a chance that their feelings arise from jealousy that THEY hadn't thought to ask for this themselves!
It causes one to pause and reflect concerning just what their EXPECTATIONS must have been at this juncture. They're on the way to Jerusalem, the seat of power and authority in the Jewish world. Their own numbers are few, but they're following a mighty prophet, a sage, a holy man, a combination of Moses, Elijah, and maybe a little King David all rolled into one. No doubt they expect a battle, even an ostensibly lop-sided battle, but it also seems clear that they expect some sort of Divine assistance--for the outcome they envision is a glorious victory for their side.
Ironically, the Gospels all portray the cross as a "glorious victory" but never in the sense in which the Disciples are thinking before the fact.
Regardless, with the request of James and John Jesus now has another problem on his hands, he has the outbreak of factionalism within his group. It's like having a bunch of kids who all want to be quarterback, and nobody wants to block. Instead of wasting a lot of time telling each of them that they have specific talents etc. etc., he points to HIMSELF. He re-centers their thinking on the sort of leader HE IS. He says that he came not to be served, but to serve, and that this is the definition of leadership in HIS GROUP.
Application questions for us to consider:
1. Are we still plagued with the problem of "selective hearing" in the church? And isn't there a certain balance that needs to be sought? After all, we want our children to learn to pray and we want them to trust that God hears their prayers, and yet so much of the Christian faith is wrapped up in learning how to cope when God seemingly doesn't answer our prayers, or answers with a resounding "no." So what are we supposed to 'hear?' Are we supposed to hear that God is for us, on our side, protecting us, helping us.....(all of which sounds good & glorious).....or are we supposed to hear that the road of faith leads through valleys of the shadow of death; through cross after cross; through apparent abandonment from God?
2. Does this text distinguish between life in general and life in the Kingdom of God's grace? As a parent I hope my children are successful in life and I would like to encourage them to pray that God would bless their efforts. Jesus clearly defines success in terms of servanthood. Is he speaking only within the context of the Church? Or is there perhaps a melding of ideas here.....that within a distinctively christian ethos the greatest "successes" are those who undertake careers/professions that are helping/service oriented. There is certainly a great tradition for this thinking in the history of the church.
3. How and in what way in vs 45 does Jesus give his life as a "ransom for many?" Bruce Malina brings out: "Why would anyone take one person as a 'ransom' for others? It would happen only if the person being accepted as ransom were of higher honor status than those being set free....for example, in ransom value, a king, although a single person, is worth a whole kingdom of other individuals even millions of persons." That sentiment alone says a lot as to the royal status of Jesus, but a nagging question is just WHO or WHAT is holding the people captive in the first place? To whom/what does Jesus offer his life as ransom? This question has plagued theologians down through the centuries, with answers going something like this:
(a) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Heavenly Father. Specifically, it is the Father's unyielding sense of holiness that is offended by humanity's sin, and this holiness demands satisfaction. Jesus, the perfect/sinless one, is uniquely able to offer himself as ransom.
(b) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Law. This is roughly the same idea as option A, the only difference that it de-personalizes the 'captor.' Instead of it being God, it's God's Law.....the law that demands perfection/holiness, but "all have sinned".....so all are to some degree held captive by the law's demands (death).
(c) Jesus offers his life as a ransom to the Devil. This theory has the benefit of removing God from the equation, (it's easy for God to come off sounding like a wicked tyrant in options a & b), yet at the same time this option also unduly elevates the Devil to near-divine status--as if God, backed into a corner, now has no other choice than to sacrifice his own son to placate the Devil.
In the end, each of these theories has weaknesses and there is no perfect explanation.
As others have suggested, perhaps instead of concentrating on the WHO behind the ransom, we should concentrate on the HOW. In many ways, we could say that Jesus voluntarily becomes the world's greatest/biggest "scapegoat" (2cor 5:21). In this sense, the 'ransom' is that Jesus goes into "captivity" as the ultimate scapegoat, while we go free. He agrees to take the blame. Whose fault is it that there is genocide? Whose fault is it that there is corporate greed? Whose fault is it that there are wars, injustices, hatred, and intolerance? IT'S JESUS' FAULT. No, not really, ......but he's agreed to take the blame for it all.....he wants to be blamed for it all.....and YEP....we punished him for it, when we drove those nails into his hands & feet.
That means 2 things: (1) We're free to stop holding the sins & weaknesses of others against them (just as we hope they stop holding our sins/weaknesses against us). The idea behind the old revival hymn "Jesus paid it all" applies here. He paid it **ALL**. Even though it shatters our sense of justice/blame, that means the greatest sinner in the world is forgiven. In Mark 10:45 language, the greatest sinner in the world has been REPLACED BY/WITH JESUS. (2) When we fall back into our old cycle of blame/grudge-holding, what we're actually doing is trying to un-ransom Jesus with someone else. We're saying that ether Jesus isn't qualified to stand in place of others, or his offer/sacrifice isn't "good enough."
Hmmmmm, think about that one!
cheers,
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
