11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul. (NRSV)
I find this verse hard to move past. Mainly because it speaks to me quite deeply. We need to think carefully about what it does and doesn't mean, but the personal force of it is impossible to sidestep.
The warning is not to read this verse in a dualistic fashion. Here's how this might look
Beloved, I urge you as those in exile on earth, waiting to go to heaven, to abstain from the desires of the body that wage war against your eternal souls, bound for heaven.
The problem with flesh versus soul is that we immediately jump to physical versus spiritual. It doesn't help if you see exile in purely spiritual terms and not in social terms as Scott McKnight does - though there is no doubt we are exiles in a world where God's kingship is not clear to all. Here's another way of looking at it
Beloved, I urge you as outsiders in an ungodly world to abstain from the desires of the unregenerate part of your humanity that wage war against you.
So apart from the sociopolitical comments (see a couple of posts ago), it isn't about things of the body versus spiritual matters, but that part of us that isn't transformed versus who we are to be. To be sure, the word for flesh is used to describe our material bits at times, but the Greek word soma is used more for that than the word sarx (of form of which is used here). In other words, it isn't the body, the physical stuff which is somehow evil, but the desires unchecked, passions at war with our true identities. Soul is most often used in the Old Testament to mean the whole person. Sometimes in the New Testament, Paul will use soulish as opposite to spiritual, but we can't always use Paul to interpret Peter.
So given that is cleared up, it is clear that our desires can war against us. There is real struggle, real angst, real frustration and often a real sense of defeat. But of course we know in Christ that while the battle rages, the war has been won.
We are called to abstain. Now abstinence is not a popular idea in today's world - probably a topic for another time. Think about voting. If you abstain, you refuse to vote. You refuse to countenance what is being raised. In abstaining, we refuse to give credence to fleshly desires, refuse to acknowledge their validity. We step outside of that world and not take part.
This is easier said than done when so much of this is internal, within us and not merely without. This is why it is a spiritual thing - why we need the Holy Spirit to help us discipline ourselves, hence prayer, fasting(?), bible reading, etc. Once that battle has started, we are equipped for the external factors - changing friendships, web filters, whatever can act as an external aid to avoid temptations. I feel some reflections on the full armour of God coming on, but another time.
Monday, 6 May 2013
Sunday, 5 May 2013
Subversive honour: reflections on 1 Peter 2:13-17
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (NASB)
Hearing a sermon on this was kind of interesting. On the one hand, there was some excellent historical background on Nero, persecution, etc. And then there is, how the heck do we apply all of this??
The previous passage and my last post made it clear that in being Christian, one could end up doing things that were considered evil yet were really good deeds that could lead to people glorifying God. Included in this was not worshiping Caesar as divine, or any of the other Gods. This meant accusations of atheism and treason. It meant not holding offices, not serving in the army, hard to take part in the local economy, social exclusion, and so on. So clearly to be a Christian in that context was to be deeply subversive and counter cultural. Now that isn't simply a matter of dressing badly and calling each other bro.
Interestingly, Pliny as a governor was not punishing evildoers when trying people for being Christians (see his letter to Trajan and the response), not in the sense in which we'd understand evil. So is there a double play happening? Evil could be slander and not real evil in verse 12, and hence verse 14 could be ironic, whereas Peter says don't commit real evil in verse 16.
Note too that everyone is to receive honour in verse 17, but only God is to be feared or reverenced, i.e. worshiped as God. Yet Caesar demanded this too! So our honour is subversive, as I think it is in Romans 13. There is a real contrast between the kind of honour to be given to an oppressive regime and the community life in the body of Christ (Romans 12). Understand too that the language of body was also used by the Romans with Caesar at its head. Our head is Christ. We are a polis (city) on a hill, and therefore a new body politic.
Jesus made it clear that non-violence was deeply subversive of such authority while seeming to honour it. As both Walter Wink and Tom Wright have pointed out - being struck on the right cheek was done with a demeaning backhander. Turning the left said 'hit me again as an equal'. Taking a burden a second mile meant potentially getting the Roman soldier who could command such a task into trouble. You were being too helpful. Getting sued for your outer garment and then handing them your undergarment too and walking out of court naked was an outrageous thing to do. Maybe hyperbola, pointing to a way of thinking. Resist, but do so honourably and non-violently.
So given all of this, how do we honour so much that is ungodly (yet thank God not yet violent as in other parts of the world) while subverting it? How do we honour our politicians if we despise their policies? Be patriotic while not being nationalistic? Love our footy team without being fanatical? Buy and sell goods while not being materialistic or contribute overly to a system destructive of lives and creation?
One thing I think we should avoid in this country is the kind of anti-government paranoia seen in other places like the US. Governments do good things, even if often badly. Certainly the system is broken and we don't look to better government for salvation; but a working democracy is the best of bad systems. It just seems to me that there isn't a lot of good really in view here in 1 Peter.
So then, I think that our rhetoric and our behaviour must be honouring and affirming yet critical where need be. Pulpits can be respectful while prophetic. Respectful disagreement must mark us out - sometimes vocal and sometimes passively in our workplaces, in the public sphere, in our relationships. Whether we are really free or under some real compulsion (one can have a bad boss but not actually be a slave), we are to honour all, even self-deluded leaders. Love of the agape kind is for our brothers and sisters who are part of the City on a Hill (not just the church of the name but all believers), and fear is only to be of God.
Ok, so the quick tips:
Hearing a sermon on this was kind of interesting. On the one hand, there was some excellent historical background on Nero, persecution, etc. And then there is, how the heck do we apply all of this??
The previous passage and my last post made it clear that in being Christian, one could end up doing things that were considered evil yet were really good deeds that could lead to people glorifying God. Included in this was not worshiping Caesar as divine, or any of the other Gods. This meant accusations of atheism and treason. It meant not holding offices, not serving in the army, hard to take part in the local economy, social exclusion, and so on. So clearly to be a Christian in that context was to be deeply subversive and counter cultural. Now that isn't simply a matter of dressing badly and calling each other bro.
Interestingly, Pliny as a governor was not punishing evildoers when trying people for being Christians (see his letter to Trajan and the response), not in the sense in which we'd understand evil. So is there a double play happening? Evil could be slander and not real evil in verse 12, and hence verse 14 could be ironic, whereas Peter says don't commit real evil in verse 16.
Note too that everyone is to receive honour in verse 17, but only God is to be feared or reverenced, i.e. worshiped as God. Yet Caesar demanded this too! So our honour is subversive, as I think it is in Romans 13. There is a real contrast between the kind of honour to be given to an oppressive regime and the community life in the body of Christ (Romans 12). Understand too that the language of body was also used by the Romans with Caesar at its head. Our head is Christ. We are a polis (city) on a hill, and therefore a new body politic.
Jesus made it clear that non-violence was deeply subversive of such authority while seeming to honour it. As both Walter Wink and Tom Wright have pointed out - being struck on the right cheek was done with a demeaning backhander. Turning the left said 'hit me again as an equal'. Taking a burden a second mile meant potentially getting the Roman soldier who could command such a task into trouble. You were being too helpful. Getting sued for your outer garment and then handing them your undergarment too and walking out of court naked was an outrageous thing to do. Maybe hyperbola, pointing to a way of thinking. Resist, but do so honourably and non-violently.
So given all of this, how do we honour so much that is ungodly (yet thank God not yet violent as in other parts of the world) while subverting it? How do we honour our politicians if we despise their policies? Be patriotic while not being nationalistic? Love our footy team without being fanatical? Buy and sell goods while not being materialistic or contribute overly to a system destructive of lives and creation?
One thing I think we should avoid in this country is the kind of anti-government paranoia seen in other places like the US. Governments do good things, even if often badly. Certainly the system is broken and we don't look to better government for salvation; but a working democracy is the best of bad systems. It just seems to me that there isn't a lot of good really in view here in 1 Peter.
So then, I think that our rhetoric and our behaviour must be honouring and affirming yet critical where need be. Pulpits can be respectful while prophetic. Respectful disagreement must mark us out - sometimes vocal and sometimes passively in our workplaces, in the public sphere, in our relationships. Whether we are really free or under some real compulsion (one can have a bad boss but not actually be a slave), we are to honour all, even self-deluded leaders. Love of the agape kind is for our brothers and sisters who are part of the City on a Hill (not just the church of the name but all believers), and fear is only to be of God.
Ok, so the quick tips:
- If you end up having to do something above and beyond the call of duty at work, or are being taken advantage of in a relationship, you might want to say so in not so many words, and let them know as a Christian you are doing this.
- You have to pay taxes, even if they go to somethings you don't agree with. For example, overseas aid money is being diverted to offshore processing. I find this abhorrent myself, so I pay my taxes but join various forms of protest about this.
- When you are being punished as an evildoer simply for being a Christian, you may have opportunity to protest. Take it, but do so honourably. Paul is a good example of this during his persecution which eventually led him to Rome (and probably release the first time). If a colleague has a complaint, you still need to honour them while trying to resolve the issue.
Monday, 29 April 2013
Excellence in behaviour - reflections on 1 Peter 2
"The
greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who
acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by
their lifestyle." - Brennan Manning
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatama Gandhi
"Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation." - 1 Peter 2:11-12
After the most recent sermon at City on a Hill, I've been pondering these two verses as I think about leading two different study groups.
Scott McKnight in his commentary points out that they readers of this book may have been people who lacked Roman citizenship, and hence really were aliens and strangers in their context, lacking the rights the citizens did. But what is more, their identification with the Messiah marginalized them even more.
Now there was much in the ancient world that was considered normal that was ungodly. Imagine if you had to offer incense to the emperor as divine before going into the market, or worship him as divine in allegiance to serve in the army or as a public official, or worship some patron deity to be part of some artisan's guild? What if not worshiping these other gods got you labelled as an atheist? Or calling fellow Christians brother and sister made you guilty of incest? If taking part in the Lord's Supper made you a cannibal, eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood? Perhaps being faithful to your wife and not taking a male or female sexual partner outside of marriage made you a prude?
In other words, there were things that Christians did that saw them as being evil in the sight of broader culture, yet were in the end good things. Of course the New Testament is replete with examples where the church was involved in fleshly lusts; 1 Corinthians is full of them.
But I want to focus on modern examples of where we might go against the grain, and how to make sure the accusations we suffer as evildoers are for making well based judgment calls on moral issues without making 'tools' of ourselves in the process.
Take ANZAC Day for example. The day we honour those who died in war. What do we make of it? In one corner we have the popularist, militarist, modern civic religion that it forms part of with the Mecca of ANZAC cove. In the other extreme with have the howls of patriarchy, hierarchy, etc. In the middle we need the recognition of bravery, mourning of loss and attitude of never again. We need to proclaim the Prince of Peace even when pragmatism tells us and on occasion demands the lesser of evils [as a side note I'm not a full-blown pacifist, but killing is killing is not an ultimate good]. Perhaps one of the hardest roles in this context is military chaplain, one who tends the spiritual and emotional needs of those damaged by the horrors of armed conflict, and upholds the ultimate peace through death on a cross.
A second example is the rampant sexualisation of culture. From looks that are too long and too searching, to porn, to endorsing sexism - there are plenty of ways in which Christian men can satisfy or deny fleshly lusts, and in the end be seen as an evil doer, a prude. Yet hopefully too seen as upright, embracing the physical and sexual (just our wives) in positive ways, and speaking out more broadly when needed. I once posted against the Lingerie Football League online. Not sure how I was perceived by some, but deep down such a 'sport' deeply objectifies women, and you'd hope such a stance stands out as a good deed.
Finally, there is work. Men are expected to hold down good jobs, be good at them and work hard and long. Yet what of family, wife and kids? What of the fact that money and success are idols? That global capitalism (and yes Marxism too, but we live in Australia so...) is responsible for slavery, environmental degradation and the destruction of community as we work longer, harder, faster, etc. Jobs are good, making things people need is good, being warm and fed is good. But clearly things in the West have moved beyond that. If you have a nanny, a gardener, a cleaner and often eat out - things are broken. Try leaving early or taking time off for sick kids in some work places. Try working part time - it will affect which projects you get given. Maybe what you have your Super invested in or what sort of work your company does needs scrutiny? Or how people get ahead needs comment (nepotism, sleeping to the top, etc)?
So Mars, Aphrodite and Mammon are alive and well in 21st c. Australia. Our 'flesh' craves to worship them, but in resisting so and risking being called evildoers - unAustralian, unblokey, wowsers - so long as we are pursuing them in the right way, the hopefully our good characters (as opposed to self-righteousness) will shine. The goal of course is not merely personal satisfaction but witness in deed so that God might be glorified when Christ returns at his visitation - the resurrection of the dead and the renewing of all things.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatama Gandhi
"Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation." - 1 Peter 2:11-12
After the most recent sermon at City on a Hill, I've been pondering these two verses as I think about leading two different study groups.
Scott McKnight in his commentary points out that they readers of this book may have been people who lacked Roman citizenship, and hence really were aliens and strangers in their context, lacking the rights the citizens did. But what is more, their identification with the Messiah marginalized them even more.
Now there was much in the ancient world that was considered normal that was ungodly. Imagine if you had to offer incense to the emperor as divine before going into the market, or worship him as divine in allegiance to serve in the army or as a public official, or worship some patron deity to be part of some artisan's guild? What if not worshiping these other gods got you labelled as an atheist? Or calling fellow Christians brother and sister made you guilty of incest? If taking part in the Lord's Supper made you a cannibal, eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood? Perhaps being faithful to your wife and not taking a male or female sexual partner outside of marriage made you a prude?
In other words, there were things that Christians did that saw them as being evil in the sight of broader culture, yet were in the end good things. Of course the New Testament is replete with examples where the church was involved in fleshly lusts; 1 Corinthians is full of them.
But I want to focus on modern examples of where we might go against the grain, and how to make sure the accusations we suffer as evildoers are for making well based judgment calls on moral issues without making 'tools' of ourselves in the process.
Take ANZAC Day for example. The day we honour those who died in war. What do we make of it? In one corner we have the popularist, militarist, modern civic religion that it forms part of with the Mecca of ANZAC cove. In the other extreme with have the howls of patriarchy, hierarchy, etc. In the middle we need the recognition of bravery, mourning of loss and attitude of never again. We need to proclaim the Prince of Peace even when pragmatism tells us and on occasion demands the lesser of evils [as a side note I'm not a full-blown pacifist, but killing is killing is not an ultimate good]. Perhaps one of the hardest roles in this context is military chaplain, one who tends the spiritual and emotional needs of those damaged by the horrors of armed conflict, and upholds the ultimate peace through death on a cross.
A second example is the rampant sexualisation of culture. From looks that are too long and too searching, to porn, to endorsing sexism - there are plenty of ways in which Christian men can satisfy or deny fleshly lusts, and in the end be seen as an evil doer, a prude. Yet hopefully too seen as upright, embracing the physical and sexual (just our wives) in positive ways, and speaking out more broadly when needed. I once posted against the Lingerie Football League online. Not sure how I was perceived by some, but deep down such a 'sport' deeply objectifies women, and you'd hope such a stance stands out as a good deed.
Finally, there is work. Men are expected to hold down good jobs, be good at them and work hard and long. Yet what of family, wife and kids? What of the fact that money and success are idols? That global capitalism (and yes Marxism too, but we live in Australia so...) is responsible for slavery, environmental degradation and the destruction of community as we work longer, harder, faster, etc. Jobs are good, making things people need is good, being warm and fed is good. But clearly things in the West have moved beyond that. If you have a nanny, a gardener, a cleaner and often eat out - things are broken. Try leaving early or taking time off for sick kids in some work places. Try working part time - it will affect which projects you get given. Maybe what you have your Super invested in or what sort of work your company does needs scrutiny? Or how people get ahead needs comment (nepotism, sleeping to the top, etc)?
So Mars, Aphrodite and Mammon are alive and well in 21st c. Australia. Our 'flesh' craves to worship them, but in resisting so and risking being called evildoers - unAustralian, unblokey, wowsers - so long as we are pursuing them in the right way, the hopefully our good characters (as opposed to self-righteousness) will shine. The goal of course is not merely personal satisfaction but witness in deed so that God might be glorified when Christ returns at his visitation - the resurrection of the dead and the renewing of all things.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Reflections in 1 Peter 1
Ok, so dropping the ball on this blog is bad since it is meant to help me read the bible. I picked John's gospel because a) I love it and b) we did it at church and c) doing it now doesn't look like trying to argue with what was preached. But I've been slack, and so since I am involved in leading two community groups at church, I thought I'd reflect here on a few things we looked at this week. The text was 1 Peter 1:1-12.
One of the major themes of 1 Peter is suffering for the faith (1:6-7), copping flack for being a Christian. In the first century, being an artisan or part of a trade guild, involving a patron god. Becoming a Christian basically meant becoming an atheist in this context, and social isolation. If we give up worshiping mammon (money) in our workplaces, or success, fame, office politics, and so on, we should expect to 'be persecuted' at our work, not to advance as far as others in our careers and so on. But given we have an imperishable inheritance, then this shouldn't be an issue (v7).
Two further things of note. Firstly, our persecutions are nothing compared to countries where unemployment, imprisonment and death are on offer. Secondly, while we can't 'take it with us' and we should be building networks and a legacy of faithful witness and loving relationships, there is nothing wrong with excelling at a job or earning money to support family and church.
One of the other things to stand out to me is when Peter says that the outcome of our faith is the salvation of our souls (v9). Now in the Hebrew mind this is not some ghostly part of us, but the whole of us as humans. My aging body, my inner being, all of it. When Peter speaks of 'revelation of Jesus Christ' (v7), he means the resurrection of the dead, so it isn't some Platonic idea of heaven but the marrying of heaven and earth. Our inheritance is kept in heaven, but just like kids don't go into the cupboard to play with their Christmas present, but have it brought out for them on Christmas day, so our inheritance will be brought to Earth to play with for eternity.
When you look in the mirror, who do you see? Do you see someone who is basically ok or someone whose soul needs saving? It may very well come through a period of suffering - but be careful to distinguish between being persecuted for the faith and suffering because of your sin and that of others. We all make out beds and lie in them, and when we wake up in the morning and see that face in the mirror, see someone who needs saving and who is being saved, and who will be saved.
One of the major themes of 1 Peter is suffering for the faith (1:6-7), copping flack for being a Christian. In the first century, being an artisan or part of a trade guild, involving a patron god. Becoming a Christian basically meant becoming an atheist in this context, and social isolation. If we give up worshiping mammon (money) in our workplaces, or success, fame, office politics, and so on, we should expect to 'be persecuted' at our work, not to advance as far as others in our careers and so on. But given we have an imperishable inheritance, then this shouldn't be an issue (v7).
Two further things of note. Firstly, our persecutions are nothing compared to countries where unemployment, imprisonment and death are on offer. Secondly, while we can't 'take it with us' and we should be building networks and a legacy of faithful witness and loving relationships, there is nothing wrong with excelling at a job or earning money to support family and church.
One of the other things to stand out to me is when Peter says that the outcome of our faith is the salvation of our souls (v9). Now in the Hebrew mind this is not some ghostly part of us, but the whole of us as humans. My aging body, my inner being, all of it. When Peter speaks of 'revelation of Jesus Christ' (v7), he means the resurrection of the dead, so it isn't some Platonic idea of heaven but the marrying of heaven and earth. Our inheritance is kept in heaven, but just like kids don't go into the cupboard to play with their Christmas present, but have it brought out for them on Christmas day, so our inheritance will be brought to Earth to play with for eternity.
When you look in the mirror, who do you see? Do you see someone who is basically ok or someone whose soul needs saving? It may very well come through a period of suffering - but be careful to distinguish between being persecuted for the faith and suffering because of your sin and that of others. We all make out beds and lie in them, and when we wake up in the morning and see that face in the mirror, see someone who needs saving and who is being saved, and who will be saved.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Sin and washing my gi
Last night someone managed to rub their bike chain against my new white BJJ gi (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu uniform). I was annoyed to say the least. It was on the back of the pants near my backside, where the jacket would probably cover, but I'd always know it was there. Accident, but very annoying.
After spraying it with a stain remover, soaking it and then washing it, I still needed to apply some soap and elbow grease before the stains came out, and then another machine wash to rinse it through. As I was scrubbing, it came to me that just as I would never be satisfied with a gi that had a stain on it, black standing out on white - that sin spoils our character, who we are as people made in God's image. As I scrubbed I realised both the significance of the cross in erasing our sin, and the ongoing nature of scrubbing known as sanctification. It takes real effort to erase our sinful habits and inclinations, and sometimes we ourselves can't remove the consequences - there are marks always to remind us even if the stain is largely gone. We have to await the final washing, the bringing to completion of that which was begun in us; hence these two texts:
Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool." (NASB)
Achieved on the cross.
Philippians 1:6
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (NASB)
So start scrubbing!
After spraying it with a stain remover, soaking it and then washing it, I still needed to apply some soap and elbow grease before the stains came out, and then another machine wash to rinse it through. As I was scrubbing, it came to me that just as I would never be satisfied with a gi that had a stain on it, black standing out on white - that sin spoils our character, who we are as people made in God's image. As I scrubbed I realised both the significance of the cross in erasing our sin, and the ongoing nature of scrubbing known as sanctification. It takes real effort to erase our sinful habits and inclinations, and sometimes we ourselves can't remove the consequences - there are marks always to remind us even if the stain is largely gone. We have to await the final washing, the bringing to completion of that which was begun in us; hence these two texts:
Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool." (NASB)
Achieved on the cross.
Philippians 1:6
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (NASB)
So start scrubbing!
Sunday, 3 March 2013
A matter of trust
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. (NASB)
Billy Joel had a song (showing my age here) called A matter of trust. It's a typical love song of boy meets girl, girl has been hurt and needs boy to show he he isn't a jerk. Girl needs to trust boy.
Today's passage is in a way something that blows apart the whole WWJD (what would Jesus do?) thing. I don't think we are called to follow Jesus precisely in this. Let's have a look why.
Jesus was doing signs - things that pointed beyond themselves to the fact he was Israel's Messiah/Christ/King and God pitching his tent with his people Israel. Of course we can do things that point towards this too - mostly our love for one another, perhaps some times signs in the form of miracles, and the way in which we love other people.
On the basis of what Jesus was doing, people believed in his name - but everything we see from the gospels shows us that this belief was very limited to Jesus as the King they wanted, rather than the king they were getting. They saw the signs but didn't see past them. It is hoped that when people look at Christians they can see beyond them to Jesus. Very often we get in the way - either because we do not reflect Jesus very much or if we do, we try and take the credit, hence people believe in our name. Neither are we to do, and in the context of this passage not really being WWJD, we should definitely not have people believe in our name.
So why did Jesus not entrust himself to people? Because he knew them. They would not understand his mission until it was done, were not prepared for a suffering Messiah, a crucified God. They were not ready. Do we entrust ourselves to people? Most certainly. Share you plans and dreams in God. Christ has come and the time for hiding is over (except perhaps in countries where persecution is rife). Yes many might think us mad (in and outside of the church) for our dreams - be they building new orphanages in Japan, publishing books on science and faith, representing Jesus in the grappling world - whatever your dream. Yes we know what is in people, but because Christ new that and let them lead him to a cross, we can and at times should entrust ourselves to others, all the more with those who might share our dreams.
Billy Joel had a song (showing my age here) called A matter of trust. It's a typical love song of boy meets girl, girl has been hurt and needs boy to show he he isn't a jerk. Girl needs to trust boy.
Today's passage is in a way something that blows apart the whole WWJD (what would Jesus do?) thing. I don't think we are called to follow Jesus precisely in this. Let's have a look why.
Jesus was doing signs - things that pointed beyond themselves to the fact he was Israel's Messiah/Christ/King and God pitching his tent with his people Israel. Of course we can do things that point towards this too - mostly our love for one another, perhaps some times signs in the form of miracles, and the way in which we love other people.
On the basis of what Jesus was doing, people believed in his name - but everything we see from the gospels shows us that this belief was very limited to Jesus as the King they wanted, rather than the king they were getting. They saw the signs but didn't see past them. It is hoped that when people look at Christians they can see beyond them to Jesus. Very often we get in the way - either because we do not reflect Jesus very much or if we do, we try and take the credit, hence people believe in our name. Neither are we to do, and in the context of this passage not really being WWJD, we should definitely not have people believe in our name.
So why did Jesus not entrust himself to people? Because he knew them. They would not understand his mission until it was done, were not prepared for a suffering Messiah, a crucified God. They were not ready. Do we entrust ourselves to people? Most certainly. Share you plans and dreams in God. Christ has come and the time for hiding is over (except perhaps in countries where persecution is rife). Yes many might think us mad (in and outside of the church) for our dreams - be they building new orphanages in Japan, publishing books on science and faith, representing Jesus in the grappling world - whatever your dream. Yes we know what is in people, but because Christ new that and let them lead him to a cross, we can and at times should entrust ourselves to others, all the more with those who might share our dreams.
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Cleaning house
13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. 15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them
all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out
the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; 16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house will consume me.” 18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (NASB)
I've taken a while to get to this passage as I've struggled to try and keep away with overly technical issues. This blog is about trying to be devotional, or at least exegetical to think about Scripture and life, and not just the academy. This account of Jesus clearing the temple is in Mark 11, Luke 19, Matthew 21 and is clearly set in Jesus' final week, following his acclamation is Messiah (king) by the pilgrim crowds. John clearly wants us to think about this at the start of Jesus' ministry and I think it unlikely that there were two clearings. John is doing what Tarantino does in some of his movies, not always presenting things in chronological order even though he is still doing history.
Like the turning water into wine, this is all about a changing of the guard - from practices actually commanded or based upon those to practices that won't divide Jew and the rest of the world, and will do the job properly as it were. So ceremonial washing as alluded to in the wedding sign don't make ceremonially clean for all time. Likewise, sacrifices in the temple don't deal with human sin and evil for all time. Hence, the stopping of trading in sacrifices is a statement about the greater sacrifice for sin present in Jesus. And the comments about the money changers seems to relate to an abuse of the whole system - perhaps in the way in which pilgrims were ripped off for profit where they should have been allowed to do their religious duty by making sacrifices to God free from extortion.
The other aspect of course is that as in the opening passage, Jesus is God who pitches his tent amongst his people, and hence as the presence of God among his people he is the true temple. His authority is of one who is God, not merely one who speaks for God. This is what makes Christianity unique.
What this passage makes clear is that if Jesus' claims are meant to be taken seriously, he needs to have risen from the dead. Otherwise, he's another (if not strange and non-violent) first century Jewish revolutionary proclaiming a renewed Israel. The fact that he is crucified as a false pretender marks his rejection by the politico-religious elite and typically harsh treatment by the dominant empire of the day. The resurrection shows they were both wrong, and that we too if we put our religious, political or personal agendas above those of God, are also wrong. Having said that, if we read this whole thing purely in 'religious' terms, and don't see that the resurrection is world transforming, including empire challenging - our gospel is too small.
I've taken a while to get to this passage as I've struggled to try and keep away with overly technical issues. This blog is about trying to be devotional, or at least exegetical to think about Scripture and life, and not just the academy. This account of Jesus clearing the temple is in Mark 11, Luke 19, Matthew 21 and is clearly set in Jesus' final week, following his acclamation is Messiah (king) by the pilgrim crowds. John clearly wants us to think about this at the start of Jesus' ministry and I think it unlikely that there were two clearings. John is doing what Tarantino does in some of his movies, not always presenting things in chronological order even though he is still doing history.
Like the turning water into wine, this is all about a changing of the guard - from practices actually commanded or based upon those to practices that won't divide Jew and the rest of the world, and will do the job properly as it were. So ceremonial washing as alluded to in the wedding sign don't make ceremonially clean for all time. Likewise, sacrifices in the temple don't deal with human sin and evil for all time. Hence, the stopping of trading in sacrifices is a statement about the greater sacrifice for sin present in Jesus. And the comments about the money changers seems to relate to an abuse of the whole system - perhaps in the way in which pilgrims were ripped off for profit where they should have been allowed to do their religious duty by making sacrifices to God free from extortion.
The other aspect of course is that as in the opening passage, Jesus is God who pitches his tent amongst his people, and hence as the presence of God among his people he is the true temple. His authority is of one who is God, not merely one who speaks for God. This is what makes Christianity unique.
What this passage makes clear is that if Jesus' claims are meant to be taken seriously, he needs to have risen from the dead. Otherwise, he's another (if not strange and non-violent) first century Jewish revolutionary proclaiming a renewed Israel. The fact that he is crucified as a false pretender marks his rejection by the politico-religious elite and typically harsh treatment by the dominant empire of the day. The resurrection shows they were both wrong, and that we too if we put our religious, political or personal agendas above those of God, are also wrong. Having said that, if we read this whole thing purely in 'religious' terms, and don't see that the resurrection is world transforming, including empire challenging - our gospel is too small.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)