Thoughts going in, Sunday Nov 10th

Luke 20:27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" 34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.

            I've never been a fan of the Soaps, and I don't believe I've ever watched this particular show, but the title "One life to live" comes to mind when I consider this passage about Jesus vs the Sadducees. We don't need to get real hungup on who/what the Sadducees were all about, but for the sake of rounding things out I'll mention a couple of quick details. The Sadducees were the religious/social elite; comprised primarily of well-to-do priestly families. They were entirely focused on the Temple in Jerusalem, and so we only find them in Jerusalem in the biblical stories. Under the watchful eye of Rome, they constituted the ruling class. Not a few people suspected a certain degree of collusion between the Sadducees and Rome. Regardless, they appeared to be the so-called 1% capable of prospering regardless of who was "in charge."

            Religiously they were minimalists. The Jewish historian Jospehus echoes the New Testament in saying that the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. For them, this life constituted all the heaven (or hell) a person had coming. And for them, this life wasn't too bad.

            And so we have this encounter with Jesus and the Sadducees. Now, of course the encounter doesn't happen in a vacuum. Jesus has been in the temple area for a day or 2. He has made his 'triumphal entry' into Jerusalem. He has 'cleansed' the temple. From that point onward ALL of the religious authorities have been looking for a way either to entrap him into committing an offense (and thus arrest him) or discredit him in the minds of his followers (and thus nullify him). In chapter 20 of Luke's gospel the jousting match begins in vss 1 & 2: 1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?" Not long afterward Jesus tells the parable of the tenants, which is obviously directed at the religious leadership. Luke follows that up with vs 19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.  This, then, is the context of the Sadducees question. It is to discredit and nullify Jesus as a bringer of good news.

            As I consider this text, it strikes me that these things persist to this day. There is still no shortage of those who would seek to discredit or nullify Jesus as a bringer of good news. There is still no shortage of those who would say we have one life to life... and that's here and now. And in our more rational moments, that may seem like the most sensible approach. After all, we have no ironclad proof of anything else. After all, it's not as though we've been to the other side and then come back to tell others about it. In a vacuum, the position of the Sadducees seems fairly well reasoned. But then Jesus reminds us that life isn't lived in a vacuum. HE MENTIONS NAMES: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All of a sudden there's CONTEXT. These are names that all of his hearers would know. These are names that all of his hearers would consider important ancestors; important family members. We all have names like that. For me, those names are Clinton, Marion, Richard, Gene, Gladys, and Ralph. These are my immediate ancestors. This is the context I'm immediately vested in. And so when Jesus says in vs 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive... I WANT to believe him. I want to CLING to that idea. I WANT him to be right & the Sadducees to be wrong. I WANT this hope to hold on to. And I rejoice that there is more than one life to live.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday Nov 3rd

11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory. 15 For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all his people, 16 I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that can be invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

            Like many churches we will transfer the festival of All Saints from November 1st to this Sunday, Nov 3rd, and call it "All Saints Sunday." YES, it's a shame that we can't simply have a special service on Nov 1st and expect people to be able to come and enjoy it. Yes, it's a shame that the normal propers for the Sunday are displaced.... but in the oft-repeated existential phrase of our day, it is what it is. A far worse case scenario, in my opinion, would be to simply let the standard Sunday propers stay in place and not mention anything about the observance of All Saints. The Sundays & Seasons website gives us a good introduction to the festival: 

            The custom of commemorating on a single day all the saints of the church, especially the    many unknown martyrs, originated in the fourth century. By the eighth century, the  festival commemorating all saints had been moved in England and Ireland to November 1 in order to Christianize the Celtic harvest festival of Samhain which marked the beginning of winter and communal attention to the dead. In current Christian use, the day is dedicated to thanksgiving for all the unnamed who died in the Lord. In many assemblies, the names of those who have died over the previous twelve months are read aloud, a practice originally associated with All Souls Day on November 2. The conflation  of the two emphases fits with the Protestant beliefs that all the Christian dead are saints, none needs release from purgatory, and it is only to God whom we pray.

With that in mind, and given the appointed readings, I decided to focus in on the Ephesians text. It's a very dense text that can be used to discuss any number of aspects of the life of faith. Regarding vs 18 above, I took the liberty of correcting the TNIV rendering. Originally, the TNIV--normally my preferred translation for public reading of the Bible--rendered vs 18 as: I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his PEOPLE... The Greek of the text is 'toi hagio.' "Hagios" is an adjective meaning "holy." In the plural (plural definite article), toi hagio becomes 'the holies'... or more appropriately, the holy ones... aka SAINTS. Most other English translations render the word 'saints' in vs 18, so I can only think that the NIV/TNIV tradition has a slight bias against the word and what it has come to mean in its narrow Roman Catholic sense. Thus, as I say, I've taken the liberty to 'correct' the TNIV & render the verse: I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his saints.

            The thing is, a healthy PROTESTANT understanding of the saints... and All Saints day.. will always have two thrusts. Thrust #1 is the understanding that it's not JUST the super-heroes of the faith that constitute "saints," but ALL BELIEVERS by virtue of their baptism have a saintly status. This means that we have our own personal SAINTS. This means that in our lifetime we have rubbed shoulders with THE SAINTS. Again, I like how the Sundays & Seasons website fleshes this out:

           

            Who is your saint? Often in surveys, people are most likely to identify a parent, a    grandparent, a close family friend, a mentor. Hearing each other's stories—of real saints,  the ones that really matter to us, can be incredibly powerful. Did you have a grandmother who peppered her letters with quotes from scripture, or a grandpa who sang hymns robustly in worship? Did your own parent give themselves to the cause of justice? Who is your saint? Share your stories, and trust that it will resonate with others who have their own.

And then the second important thrust in a Protestant understanding of the saints is that this status of sainthood applies to US PERSONALLY, as baptized believers. This is where vs 18 from the above text really shines. Paul is urging his readers (the Ephesian Christians 2000 yrs ago AND us today) that the eyes of our hearts would be enlightened and that we would KNOW what we've been called to. We've been called to this status of SAINTHOOD. We've been called to be HOLY ONES. **NOT, by the way, "holier-than-thou" ones.... but holy ones; people set apart for God's purpose on earth; people set apart to proclaim the good news; people set apart to be agents of grace in this broken world; people set apart to reflect the love of Christ to those who only know despair; people set apart to offer the world a different vision, a vision of God's reign of justice and equity.

            Sainthood isn't just for superstars. All of God's people have a saintly status by virtue of their baptism, and that means that all of God's people have a saintly CALLING in which to aspire.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday Nov 3rd

11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory. 15 For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all his people, 16 I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that can be invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

            Like many churches we will transfer the festival of All Saints from November 1st to this Sunday, Nov 3rd, and call it "All Saints Sunday." YES, it's a shame that we can't simply have a special service on Nov 1st and expect people to be able to come and enjoy it. Yes, it's a shame that the normal propers for the Sunday are displaced.... but in the oft-repeated existential phrase of our day, it is what it is. A far worse case scenario, in my opinion, would be to simply let the standard Sunday propers stay in place and not mention anything about the observance of All Saints. The Sundays & Seasons website gives us a good introduction to the festival: 

            The custom of commemorating on a single day all the saints of the church, especially the    many unknown martyrs, originated in the fourth century. By the eighth century, the        festival commemorating all saints had been moved in England and Ireland to November    1 in order to Christianize the Celtic harvest festival of Samhain which marked the           beginning of winter and communal attention to the dead. In current Christian use, the         day is dedicated to thanksgiving for all the unnamed who died in the Lord. In many          assemblies, the names of those who have died over the previous twelve months are read          aloud, a practice originally associated with All Souls Day on November 2. The conflation   of the two emphases fits with the Protestant beliefs that all the Christian dead are saints, none needs release from purgatory, and it is only to God whom we pray.

With that in mind, and given the appointed readings, I decided to focus in on the Ephesians text. It's a very dense text that can be used to discuss any number of aspects of the life of faith. Regarding vs 18 above, I took the liberty of correcting the TNIV rendering. Originally, the TNIV--normally my preferred translation for public reading of the Bible--rendered vs 18 as: I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his PEOPLE... The Greek of the text is 'toi hagio.' "Hagios" is an adjective meaning "holy." In the plural (plural definite article), toi hagio becomes 'the holies'... or more appropriately, the holy ones... aka SAINTS. Most other English translations render the word 'saints' in vs 18, so I can only think that the NIV/TNIV tradition has a slight bias against the word and what it has come to mean in its narrow Roman Catholic sense. Thus, as I say, I've taken the liberty to 'correct' the TNIV & render the verse: I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his saints.

            The thing is, a healthy PROTESTANT understanding of the saints... and All Saints day.. will always have two thrusts. Thrust #1 is the understanding that it's not JUST the super-heroes of the faith that constitute "saints," but ALL BELIEVERS by virtue of their baptism have a saintly status. This means that we have our own personal SAINTS. This means that in our lifetime we have rubbed shoulders with THE SAINTS. Again, I like how the Sundays & Seasons website fleshes this out:

           

            Who is your saint? Often in surveys, people are most likely to identify a parent, a    grandparent, a close family friend, a mentor. Hearing each other's stories—of real saints,            the ones that really matter to us, can be incredibly powerful. Did you have a            grandmother who peppered her letters with quotes from scripture, or a grandpa who            sang hymns robustly in worship? Did your own parent give themselves to the cause of             justice? Who is your saint? Share your stories, and trust that it will resonate with others    who have their own.

And then the second important thrust in a Protestant understanding of the saints is that this status of sainthood applies to US PERSONALLY, as baptized believers. This is where vs 18 from the above text really shines. Paul is urging his readers (the Ephesian Christians 2000 yrs ago AND us today) that the eyes of our hearts would be enlightened and that we would KNOW what we've been called to. We've been called to this status of SAINTHOOD. We've been called to be HOLY ONES. **NOT, by the way, "holier-than-thou" ones.... but holy ones; people set apart for God's purpose on earth; people set apart to proclaim the good news; people set apart to be agents of grace in this broken world; people set apart to reflect the love of Christ to those who only know despair; people set apart to offer the world a different vision, a vision of God's reign of justice and equity.

            Sainthood isn't just for superstars. All of God's people have a saintly status by virtue of their baptism, and that means that all of God's people have a saintly CALLING in which to aspire.

Cheers,

TM

Philemon, Onesimus, & the rest of the story

For those who were unable to attend the final class on Philemon this past Sunday, I wanted to post the details behind the “Paul Harvey ‘Rest of the Story’” finish to our study.

The million dollar question regarding the letter of Philemon is: what was Philemon’s response? Paul is somewhat short on specifics regarding his ‘request.’ He urges Philemon to take Onesimus back; he urges him to receive Onesimus as a brother, etc. etc, but Paul never comes right out and urges freedom for Onesimus. How does the story end?

It’s impossible to say with certainty, but history has left us some interesting clues. For the sake of argument we can accept that the letter of Philemon was written around 60AD. We can also assume that Onesimus was roughly 20yrs old at that time.

Fast forwarding to the year 117AD, we find the Church Father Ignatius of Antioch on his way to Rome to be martyred in the coliseum. On his way to Rome Ignatius wrote letters to the churches—letters that have been preserved to this day. The following excerpt is from his letter to the church at Ephesus:

CHAPTER I.--PRAISE OF THE EPHESIANS.

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him "who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,"[ye hastened to see me]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.

Bishop Onesimus?? That part seems incontrovertible. THE QUESTION is whether or not this is the same Onesimus from Paul’s letter to Philemon. Of course there’s no real way to know. However, whoever Bishop Onesimus was, he must’ve had a similar story. “Onesimus” wasn’t a common name that Mr. & Mrs. Roman citizen would give to their baby boy. It was, rather, a slave market name; a ‘sticker on the merchandise,’ if you will… saying ‘buy this one…he’s a useful worker.’ [the very definition of the word onesimus]

Putting two and two together, the tradition of the Church has it that Philemon did indeed welcome back Onesimus as per St. Paul’s plea, and not only that, Onesimus was freed by Philemon and became a leader in the movement, following Timothy as the Bishop of Ephesus. As far as the math, Bishop Onesimus, the former slave of Philemon, would've been in his late 70s or early 80s at the time Ignatius wrote his letter. It's certainly POSSIBLE.

And THAT, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story.

Cheers,

TM