Posts
Translation:
(36) But about that day and hour no one knows; neither the angels of heaven nor the Son but only the Father. (37)For just as the days of Noah, thus the coming of the Son of Man will be. (38)For as it was in those days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah entered into the ark. (39)And they did not know until the flood came and swept everything away. Thus the coming of the Son of Man will be. (40)At that time two people will be in the field, one will be taken and one will be left behind. (41)Two people will be grinding with the mill stone, one will be taken and one will be left behind. (42)Therefore be alert, because you do not know which day your Lord comes. (43)But come to know this, that if a householder had known during which guard the thief was coming, he would keep watch and not allow his house to be broken in. (44)Therefore, you also must be ready because you do not know the hour the Son of Man comes.
This picture of the coming of the Lord has frightened people for centuries. Though I haven't read the books, I imagine this must be the scriptural basis for the "Left Behind" series. Isn't it the truth that from our youngest memories, even as children, our worst fear is to be "left behind." Left behind by a parent or grandparent, inadvertently at the grocery store. To be left behind by the popular kids at school. To be left behind when promotions are given.
I do not think this scripture is intended to invoke fear. I think, rather, it is intended to be a guide to us as God continues to work in this world. The allusion to Noah is likely not an allusion to the wickedness of the people, as it is described in Genesis 6. Jesus makes no mention of the flood as retribution for their wickedness. Rather, the allusion is to the lack of knowledge that any impending disaster was on the way. People lead their lives as they ordinarily would. They didn't build levies or build their homes on stilts because they had no idea that a flood was coming.
The same is true for those that work in the field or grinding with the millstone. These are tasks that would have probably been carried out by the lower classes of society; likely slaves. Their work will continue right up until the time the Jesus comes. Even the believers will simply continue with their ordinary daily tasks with no foreknowledge about the coming of the Son of Man.
And when the Son of Man comes, some will be taken and some will be left behind. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw: "In the event of rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned." I doubt Jesus had this statement in mind. Rather, what is said is that some will be taken or gathered into the saved community, just as some were taken into the ark at the time of Noah. At the time of Christ's coming (parousia) even though the two workers in the field or two grinders at the mill may seem very much alike, this final judgment will prove their fundamental differences.
Far from being a scripture to cause anxiety, I believe this scripture is meant to be a comfort. Prepare your heart and mind for the coming of Christ every day, and you will be prepared for the day that he comes in final victory. This scripture is a comfort, an assurance that when Christ comes again, believers will be gathered into the community of the saved. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, believed that you will know that you are a member of the community of the saved when you feel the assurance of salvation in your heart. Wesley tried as best he could to describe what assurance might feel like, but ultimately this is between you and God. Only you can know what assurance feels like in your own heart.
It may seem strange that this kind of reading is the first reading for the Advent season, a season of preparation for Christmas, but this scripture calls us to prepare our hearts and minds for the coming of Christ. Shopping until we're broke is probably not the way to do this. Using Advent as an opportunity for prayer and devotional time is probably a better use of our time in preparation for the Christ child. What could you do to prepare?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Isaiah 65:17-25 for Sunday, November 18, 2007
Translation
(17) For behold I created new heavens and new earth and the first will not be remembered and they will not come to mind. (18)But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create, for behold I created Jerusalem to be a joy and her people to be a gladness. (19)I rejoice in Jerusalem and I exalt in my people. It will not still be heard in her a crying voice and a voice of distress. (20)There will not be an infant who lives a few days or an old person who does not fill his days, for the young boy will live 100 years when he dies and a sinner a 100 years will be cursed. (21)They build houses and dwell and plant vineyards and eat fruits. (22)They will not build and others dwell [in their houses] and they will not plant and another eat for like the days of a tree [are] the days of my people and they will wear out the work of their hands. (23)They will not toil in vain and they will not bring forth dismay. Offspring will be a blessing of the Lord--them and their descendants with them. (24)Before they call I answer, while they are still speaking I hear. (25)The wolf and the lamb will pasture together and the lion like the ox will eat straw. But the serpent: dust [is] his food. And they will not be evil and they will not destroy on all of my holy mountains, says the Lord.
The book of Isaiah is a tricky one unless you know what the context is. Most scholars believe that Isaiah was an 8th century BCE prophet that composed about the first half of the book of Isaiah that we now have in our Bibles. What we call "First Isaiah" was composed in the 8th century CE and consists of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah. This prophesy comes from a time prior to the Exile and Isaiah admonishes Judah not to revolt against their Assyrian neighbors, but acknowledges that Judah's defeat looms large in the future.
Second Isaiah (chapters 40-55) are assumed to have been written by another author. In our contemporary age, plagiarism is a major problem. In the ancient world, writing in the name and style of a famous writer was a way of honoring them. At some point, the community decided that the writings of Second Isaiah were enough in the style of First Isaiah to be included in the scroll (and so with Third Isaiah as well). Second Isaiah writes from a period in Exile, and writes almost exclusively oracles of hope. The prophet announces that the time in Exile is nearly over and that God is about to do a new thing.
Third Isaiah, where chapter 65 resides, includes chapters 56-66 and is sometimes attributed to the same author as Second Isaiah. The major theme in Third Isaiah is rebuilding Jerusalem. The exiles have been released from Babylon by Cyrus and are once more living in the land of Judah. Naturally, the tone of Third Isaiah is much different than that of First Isaiah.
This scripture seems almost mystical the way a new heaven and new earth are described. Truly, this is a new era in Israel's history with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is a new chapter in their relationship with God. Surely during Third Isaiah's age, the people saw this as a hope for the future in Jerusalem. But, the beautiful thing about this scripture is that it continues to live and breathe even for us today.
When we read this scripture we often think of a recreation. We think of a time when God will recreate the world into something more peaceful, something that operates in exactly the ways God intended from the beginning. A world without sin, a world without violence. This is the kind of city the people surely imagined as they rebuild Jerusalem. It is the kind of city we should still dare to imagine. The wonderful thing about God's Word in Scripture is that even as it spoke to ancient Israelites long ago, it still has the power to speak to us in new and wonderous ways.
(17) For behold I created new heavens and new earth and the first will not be remembered and they will not come to mind. (18)But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create, for behold I created Jerusalem to be a joy and her people to be a gladness. (19)I rejoice in Jerusalem and I exalt in my people. It will not still be heard in her a crying voice and a voice of distress. (20)There will not be an infant who lives a few days or an old person who does not fill his days, for the young boy will live 100 years when he dies and a sinner a 100 years will be cursed. (21)They build houses and dwell and plant vineyards and eat fruits. (22)They will not build and others dwell [in their houses] and they will not plant and another eat for like the days of a tree [are] the days of my people and they will wear out the work of their hands. (23)They will not toil in vain and they will not bring forth dismay. Offspring will be a blessing of the Lord--them and their descendants with them. (24)Before they call I answer, while they are still speaking I hear. (25)The wolf and the lamb will pasture together and the lion like the ox will eat straw. But the serpent: dust [is] his food. And they will not be evil and they will not destroy on all of my holy mountains, says the Lord.
The book of Isaiah is a tricky one unless you know what the context is. Most scholars believe that Isaiah was an 8th century BCE prophet that composed about the first half of the book of Isaiah that we now have in our Bibles. What we call "First Isaiah" was composed in the 8th century CE and consists of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah. This prophesy comes from a time prior to the Exile and Isaiah admonishes Judah not to revolt against their Assyrian neighbors, but acknowledges that Judah's defeat looms large in the future.
Second Isaiah (chapters 40-55) are assumed to have been written by another author. In our contemporary age, plagiarism is a major problem. In the ancient world, writing in the name and style of a famous writer was a way of honoring them. At some point, the community decided that the writings of Second Isaiah were enough in the style of First Isaiah to be included in the scroll (and so with Third Isaiah as well). Second Isaiah writes from a period in Exile, and writes almost exclusively oracles of hope. The prophet announces that the time in Exile is nearly over and that God is about to do a new thing.
Third Isaiah, where chapter 65 resides, includes chapters 56-66 and is sometimes attributed to the same author as Second Isaiah. The major theme in Third Isaiah is rebuilding Jerusalem. The exiles have been released from Babylon by Cyrus and are once more living in the land of Judah. Naturally, the tone of Third Isaiah is much different than that of First Isaiah.
This scripture seems almost mystical the way a new heaven and new earth are described. Truly, this is a new era in Israel's history with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is a new chapter in their relationship with God. Surely during Third Isaiah's age, the people saw this as a hope for the future in Jerusalem. But, the beautiful thing about this scripture is that it continues to live and breathe even for us today.
When we read this scripture we often think of a recreation. We think of a time when God will recreate the world into something more peaceful, something that operates in exactly the ways God intended from the beginning. A world without sin, a world without violence. This is the kind of city the people surely imagined as they rebuild Jerusalem. It is the kind of city we should still dare to imagine. The wonderful thing about God's Word in Scripture is that even as it spoke to ancient Israelites long ago, it still has the power to speak to us in new and wonderous ways.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Luke 20:27-38 for Sunday, November 11, 2007
Translation:
(27)And some Sadducees were approaching (who say there is no resurrection), they asked him (28) saying: "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, if someone's brother should die having a wife and he is childless, that his brother may take the wife and have children for his brother. (29)Now there were seven brothers and the first married and died childless. (30) And the second (31) and the third married her, but likewise the seven did not leave a child and they died. (32) Finally, the wife died. (33)Now then, in the resurrection, whose wife is she? For the seven had her as a wife." (34)And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and they are given in marriage, (35) but those counted worthy of that age and obtain the resurrection from the dead, they do not marry and are not given in marriage. (36)For they are not able to die, for they are like angels and they are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (37)And that the dead are raised, even Moses made known in the passage about the burning bush, where he spoke to the Lord God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob. (38)But God is not of the dead, but of the living, for all to him are alive."
This passage is filled with some cultural nuances that are lost on us, and would probably have seemed a bit foreign to Luke's audience as well. Luke wrote his Gospel for gentile-Christians (those who came to the faith, but not through Judaism), so some of the nuances of Levite marriage laws would probably have been a bit foreign to them.
In Israelite society, it was common that if a man was married and died without leaving children (without an heir to his property), his widow was not to marry a stranger (and hence, leave family property to chance). Rather, his brother was to take the widow as his wife and have children with her. The children would be considered his brother' s children and the problem of an heir would be solved. You can find these laws in Deuteronomy 25.
Luke introduces the Sadducees, a group we know little about and a group Luke's audience probably didn't recognize either, which is why he tells us that they do not believe in the resurrection. It is obvious that since the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection, they are testing Jesus with a relatively ridiculous story to see if his resurrection beliefs will hold up.
Jesus' answer is very logical and points the Sadducees in another direction. Jesus says that those who are raised do not marry. It makes sense since they are not dead and there is no reason, therefore, to worry about heirs. So, the question the Sadducees pose is irrelevant. The resurrection is not the same as life as we know it, so the question of marriage in the resurrection is a moot point.
Moreover, Jesus provides evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove to the Sadducees that the resurrection is a truth. He reminds them of the familiar story of Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3) when Moses calls on the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Judaism, it is a well known fact that God is the God of the living, not the dead. In Judaism there is a belief that when one dies they go to Sheol, an shadowy underworld that is a mirrored existence of this life, but with less luster. God is not available in Sheol. In other words, God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. If Moses could call on the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then these figures must be alive to God.
It's a very logical argument, but it all rests in an understanding of the culture and the people. I find Jesus' answer reassuring. The resurrection is not like this life. The resurrection is not Sheol, a shadowy underworld, mirrored to this existence. That means that the resurrection is open to a wider possibility, outside of Levite marriage laws, and outside anything we know. It's an exciting answer to a question that makes resurrection sound ridiculous.
(27)And some Sadducees were approaching (who say there is no resurrection), they asked him (28) saying: "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, if someone's brother should die having a wife and he is childless, that his brother may take the wife and have children for his brother. (29)Now there were seven brothers and the first married and died childless. (30) And the second (31) and the third married her, but likewise the seven did not leave a child and they died. (32) Finally, the wife died. (33)Now then, in the resurrection, whose wife is she? For the seven had her as a wife." (34)And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and they are given in marriage, (35) but those counted worthy of that age and obtain the resurrection from the dead, they do not marry and are not given in marriage. (36)For they are not able to die, for they are like angels and they are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (37)And that the dead are raised, even Moses made known in the passage about the burning bush, where he spoke to the Lord God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob. (38)But God is not of the dead, but of the living, for all to him are alive."
This passage is filled with some cultural nuances that are lost on us, and would probably have seemed a bit foreign to Luke's audience as well. Luke wrote his Gospel for gentile-Christians (those who came to the faith, but not through Judaism), so some of the nuances of Levite marriage laws would probably have been a bit foreign to them.
In Israelite society, it was common that if a man was married and died without leaving children (without an heir to his property), his widow was not to marry a stranger (and hence, leave family property to chance). Rather, his brother was to take the widow as his wife and have children with her. The children would be considered his brother' s children and the problem of an heir would be solved. You can find these laws in Deuteronomy 25.
Luke introduces the Sadducees, a group we know little about and a group Luke's audience probably didn't recognize either, which is why he tells us that they do not believe in the resurrection. It is obvious that since the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection, they are testing Jesus with a relatively ridiculous story to see if his resurrection beliefs will hold up.
Jesus' answer is very logical and points the Sadducees in another direction. Jesus says that those who are raised do not marry. It makes sense since they are not dead and there is no reason, therefore, to worry about heirs. So, the question the Sadducees pose is irrelevant. The resurrection is not the same as life as we know it, so the question of marriage in the resurrection is a moot point.
Moreover, Jesus provides evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove to the Sadducees that the resurrection is a truth. He reminds them of the familiar story of Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3) when Moses calls on the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Judaism, it is a well known fact that God is the God of the living, not the dead. In Judaism there is a belief that when one dies they go to Sheol, an shadowy underworld that is a mirrored existence of this life, but with less luster. God is not available in Sheol. In other words, God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. If Moses could call on the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then these figures must be alive to God.
It's a very logical argument, but it all rests in an understanding of the culture and the people. I find Jesus' answer reassuring. The resurrection is not like this life. The resurrection is not Sheol, a shadowy underworld, mirrored to this existence. That means that the resurrection is open to a wider possibility, outside of Levite marriage laws, and outside anything we know. It's an exciting answer to a question that makes resurrection sound ridiculous.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Luke 19:1-10 for Sunday, November 4, 2007
Translation:
(1)And, he was entering Jericho, passing through, (2) and behold there was a man called Zacchaeus and he was a tax superintendent and he was wealthy. (2)And he was always seeking to see who Jesus was and he was never able because of the crowd, since he was short. (4)Running ahead before, he went up a sycamore tree in order that he might see him because he was about to pass by. (5)And when he came upon the place, looking up, Jesus said to Zacchaeus, "Hurry! Come down! For today I must stay in your house." (6)Hurrying he came down and welcomed him, rejoicing. (7)All who saw complained saying, "He lives along side sinful men" (8)But Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I give to the poor. And if I cheated anyone anything I will pay four times as much." (9)And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham." (10)For the Son of Man came seeking and to save those who have been lost.
Zacchaeus is known to us as the "wee little man," but in his day he was known as more of an IRS agent. Zacchaeus was a "tax superintendent." The Roman officials contracted local people to collect the prescribed taxes and tolls from the people. These contractors signed and paid the contract before collecting the taxes. Then, they hired others to collect the taxes and hopefully they would yield a profit. Obviously, if the tax collectors took a little extra on top of the prescribed tax, the profit margin was greater. So, naturally Zacchaeus was probably not a well-loved man in Jericho. Tax collectors were usually seen as dishonest people. The fact that Zacchaeus is described as "wealthy" leads us to believe he may have been more dishonest than some.
The way the Greek story reads, Zacchaeus was very eager to see who Jesus was. The Greek says that he kept on seeking out Jesus, but was never tall enough to see through the crowd. Just as Jesus is about to leave town, Zacchaeus catches a glimpse of him from a tree. In Luke, wealthy people never make out too well, and Jesus spots Zacchaeus right away. With a tone of urgency, Jesus tells Zacchaeus to come on down because he plans to stay in his home this evening. Indeed Zacchaeus rushes down the tree and rejoices as he welcomes Jesus.
In a stunning moment, Zacchaeus announces to Jesus that he will give half of his possessions to the poor and repay four times anything he cheated anyone. This is an astounding change in character! Upon meeting Jesus for just a small time, Zacchaeus is prepared to sell his possessions! It's difficult for most of us to understand (myself included) but his response is one of joy. How could Zacchaeus be happy to give away all of his things?
As it turns out, the Gospels are pretty much right about possessions--they never really make us happy. I often read No Impact Man's blog. No Impact Man is a man who lives in New York City who has decided to live "green" for a whole year. This has changed his lifestyle and the lifestyle of his family. They only buy food from a local farmer's market, they stopped eating out, don't drive or take taxis and they agreed not to buy anything new. There are other caveats to the project, and you can read about them on his blog if you're interested. Though No Impact Man does not say that he is Christian, he does tell his readers that living "green" has made him think about the role "stuff" plays in his life. He doesn't have a TV, they've turned off the electricity in their small apartment, and he rides a bike everywhere. He says that his life is better than it ever has been. He spends more time with his family, even if they have fewer "things" to keep them busy.
The fact of the matter is that our possessions never really make us happy. If anything, they can have a tendency to isolate us. Psychologists now say that wealth only gives us momentary happiness. What we all need for long-lasting happiness is relationships. Ever since I got email, I've been less likely to call someone or even write a letter. Ever since TV, children have been less likely to play outside with friends. Sometimes owning more things means that our relationships with our families, friends, colleagues, and our WORLD suffer. What kind of possessions do you have that keep you from seeing the needs of your neighbor? Which of your possessions make it so that you don't even know what the poor need? It's worth considering because those possessions will never really make your life better anyway.
(1)And, he was entering Jericho, passing through, (2) and behold there was a man called Zacchaeus and he was a tax superintendent and he was wealthy. (2)And he was always seeking to see who Jesus was and he was never able because of the crowd, since he was short. (4)Running ahead before, he went up a sycamore tree in order that he might see him because he was about to pass by. (5)And when he came upon the place, looking up, Jesus said to Zacchaeus, "Hurry! Come down! For today I must stay in your house." (6)Hurrying he came down and welcomed him, rejoicing. (7)All who saw complained saying, "He lives along side sinful men" (8)But Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I give to the poor. And if I cheated anyone anything I will pay four times as much." (9)And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham." (10)For the Son of Man came seeking and to save those who have been lost.
Zacchaeus is known to us as the "wee little man," but in his day he was known as more of an IRS agent. Zacchaeus was a "tax superintendent." The Roman officials contracted local people to collect the prescribed taxes and tolls from the people. These contractors signed and paid the contract before collecting the taxes. Then, they hired others to collect the taxes and hopefully they would yield a profit. Obviously, if the tax collectors took a little extra on top of the prescribed tax, the profit margin was greater. So, naturally Zacchaeus was probably not a well-loved man in Jericho. Tax collectors were usually seen as dishonest people. The fact that Zacchaeus is described as "wealthy" leads us to believe he may have been more dishonest than some.
The way the Greek story reads, Zacchaeus was very eager to see who Jesus was. The Greek says that he kept on seeking out Jesus, but was never tall enough to see through the crowd. Just as Jesus is about to leave town, Zacchaeus catches a glimpse of him from a tree. In Luke, wealthy people never make out too well, and Jesus spots Zacchaeus right away. With a tone of urgency, Jesus tells Zacchaeus to come on down because he plans to stay in his home this evening. Indeed Zacchaeus rushes down the tree and rejoices as he welcomes Jesus.
In a stunning moment, Zacchaeus announces to Jesus that he will give half of his possessions to the poor and repay four times anything he cheated anyone. This is an astounding change in character! Upon meeting Jesus for just a small time, Zacchaeus is prepared to sell his possessions! It's difficult for most of us to understand (myself included) but his response is one of joy. How could Zacchaeus be happy to give away all of his things?
As it turns out, the Gospels are pretty much right about possessions--they never really make us happy. I often read No Impact Man's blog. No Impact Man is a man who lives in New York City who has decided to live "green" for a whole year. This has changed his lifestyle and the lifestyle of his family. They only buy food from a local farmer's market, they stopped eating out, don't drive or take taxis and they agreed not to buy anything new. There are other caveats to the project, and you can read about them on his blog if you're interested. Though No Impact Man does not say that he is Christian, he does tell his readers that living "green" has made him think about the role "stuff" plays in his life. He doesn't have a TV, they've turned off the electricity in their small apartment, and he rides a bike everywhere. He says that his life is better than it ever has been. He spends more time with his family, even if they have fewer "things" to keep them busy.
The fact of the matter is that our possessions never really make us happy. If anything, they can have a tendency to isolate us. Psychologists now say that wealth only gives us momentary happiness. What we all need for long-lasting happiness is relationships. Ever since I got email, I've been less likely to call someone or even write a letter. Ever since TV, children have been less likely to play outside with friends. Sometimes owning more things means that our relationships with our families, friends, colleagues, and our WORLD suffer. What kind of possessions do you have that keep you from seeing the needs of your neighbor? Which of your possessions make it so that you don't even know what the poor need? It's worth considering because those possessions will never really make your life better anyway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)