Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Passages

  • Reading the Passion Narratives

    I was reading from Darrell Bock’s book Jesus According to Scripture, and I was struck by a footnote. I’ve been reading from the passion narrative in Matthew, because it is the lectionary selection for this year, but I like to read Bock’s notes because he points out the similarities and differences between the various accounts.

    In his note on the last supper (p. 359n54) he comments that:

    . . . To the extent that an interconnected tradition makes these points about the event, whether explicitly or implicitly, the order of the Gospels becomes less relevant, beca7use the basic symbolism of the event is there in all these elements in all versions.

    I’m not writing to critique Bock’s approach, though he is somewhat more conservative than I am. But I’d like to suggest a couple of things about reading. First, no single gospel story makes a train wreck of the passion accounts, i.e. the message is still there. Second, each gospel account has a unique emphasis, which we should watch.

    We tend to read these stories for history, which is why reconstructions of the sequence of events, telling us precisely how many cock crowings there were, or when Peter made each denial, or clarifying just who went to the tomb and when they did it. That sort of thing has a certain interest. But when we’re looking at those details and compiling a full story from our multiple sources, we can easily be missing the message of the gospels.

    As a believer, I like to read these stories simply for the impact, the symbolism, or might I say, the “mythical” element. “Myth” has a bad name, but one element of myth is that the story has a meaning beyond the narrated facts. A myth explains how one’s world hangs together and why. What I mean by looking at the mythical elements is to read the story for its broader meaning in salvation history. Change the questions. Go asking, “How can this story impact my life and the life of my church?”

    I have no problem with reading for history, but such reading is only a small part of truly absorbing the text and letting God work on your life through what you read. I would recommend reading or hearing these texts read aloud. I know the passion narratives are long, but the gospels spend all that time on them because they are important. Read them slowly. Absorb the symbolism. Let God speak.

    It’s much more important than sorting out the crowing cocks and denying disciple!

  • Thinking about the Servant – Isaiah 50:4-9a

    I made a mental connection this morning while reading the lectionary passages for Palm Sunday/Passion Sunday. I’m not certain just how valid this is, but I thought I’d write about it. There are multiple views of the servant passages in 2nd Isaiah. Some see each passage separately, with some being prophecies of the Messiah, and others not. Others see a collective Israel that occasionally gets specified down to one individual.

    This passage, seen as Messianic by many Christians, is one that is frequently identified with the voice of the prophet himself, the writer of 2nd Isaiah. He has a message to give, it comes from God, and he is to present it in spite of opposition. (As an example, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Anchor Bible: Isaiah 40-55, pp. 319-323.)

    Earlier in the day I wrote a devotional emphasizing that Philippians 2:5-11 addresses us collectively as a church (“you” is plural) and not merely as individuals. It seems to me that the collective and the individual commands are much less distinguished in scripture, i.e. the tasks to be performed by God’s people and those performed by God’s person tend to blend into one another. Thus an extremely “clean” interpretation is not particularly desirable. The focus can shift freely.

    I should note that I am already quite invested in a collective interpretation of the servant passages, with Jesus Christ presented in the New Testament as the ideal Israelite, not to mention ideal person, but I think this connection kind of gives me a better feel for how this works.

  • Parsimony of Miracle Assumptions: Matthew 21:1-7

    Or I might title this “Was Jesus a Horse Thieving Magician?”

    I learned this story so long ago I don’t remember just when it was, but I got a Sunday School version that left me with the impression that because Jesus was God, either he knew everything, or his father revealed to him the location of the donkey, and the words to use so that the disciples could get away with it. Probably the divinity of Jesus and his command shone through his disciples, thus preventing their arrest as horse (or donkey) thieves.

    This left a glow in my mind until I thought about the story some more later. I’ve observed this same interpretation in debates online. Someone objects to the story on the basis that Jesus is supposed to be sinless, so how could he steal a donkey? (Or perhaps merely borrow one without permission.) Sadly, in the most recent case I observed, the next comment from the defender of Christianity (non-professional variety) was that Jesus could take the donkey because he was God, and after all owned everything. So who was the owner to object?

    While it’s true that in Christian theology Jesus is God, and God owns everything. But if you think about it a bit, such an argument could make the sinlessness of Jesus pretty meaningless. Why was he sinless? Well, anything he did could be justified by the fact that he was God.

    Now real Christian apologists will generally regard this as a particularly weak stab at Christianity, though I would have to say that I take seriously those objections that objectors take seriously, even though it sometimes requires effort. There is, however, no reason to get stuck on this one.

    There is no need to justify donkey stealing. Let’s go back to the start, sticking with only the version in Matthew 21. There is simply no suggestion of a miracle, such as miraculous knowledge of the donkey’s location. There is no suggestion that divinity needed to flash forth to make the story work. It is simply told bare bones. So supposing this is a modern scene, and you’re walking down a road with someone, and he says, “Go over to that farm you can see off to the left, and you’ll find a horse tied to a tree. Untie it, and bring it here. If anyone asks, say, ‘His owner needs him.’”

    Would you assume that your walking partner had received a vision, or that he knew there was a horse normally tied up there, or perhaps had some valid reason to know there was one tied up there now? Would you assume that he was asking you to participate in a bold act of horse theft, or that he had the appropriate rights to use the animal? I suspect our first assumption would be that the person had naturally acquired information, and that unless he was some kind of criminal, that he was not choosing this casual means to launch a life of crime.

    So why do we assume that Jesus did otherwise? We know he fed the 5,000, but we don’t assume that he miraculously produced every breakfast. We assume he’s sinless, so why would we assume an explanation here that opens him up to the charge of theft?

    Imagine this story instead. The day before, Jesus was going through that village, and a follower there offered him the donkey for his use. He told the man that he didn’t need the donkey that day, but would call for it later, and they agree where it would be. When he was ready to use it, Jesus used this purely mundane information to call for a donkey to which he had every right. And that is hardly the only possible set of assumptions that works with the story.

    So why didn’t Matthew fill in a few more blanks for us? First, I doubt he thought anyone would make the assumption that Jesus was stealing the donkey. Second, Matthew is trying to present Jesus as king, and telling the story in this bare bones way leaves open the impression of a sovereign requisitioning what he needed to accomplish his mission.

    Most objections to scripture result more from what we say about scripture than from what scripture says itself. Don’t get stuck with unnecessary assumptions, even if they sound miraculous and holy.

  • A Difference in Agendas – John 11:1-16

    I noticed a theme in this passage that I think is important. If you look at the response of the disciples when Jesus proposes to go to Bethany (v. 7-8). They believe it’s too dangerous to go there. It appears to me that for the two days that Jesus delayed, the disciples assumed that he was not going to Judea because of the danger.

    It doesn’t say that explicitly at the beginning of the chapter, but since that is their immediate reaction when Jesus says he is going, I suspect they spent those two days in relief that Jesus had chosen not to go to Lazarus, even though he was sick.

    But when Jesus announces that he will go to Bethany, the disciples suddenly realize that Jesus is not on their program. He has a kingdom agenda. He is going to do the thing that brings glory to God. Ultimately, this trip is dangerous–so dangerous that it leads to the cross.

    The question for each one of us is this: When we come to that fork in the road, which agenda is first for us: personal safety or advancing the kingdom?

  • Anointing in the Passages for Lent 4A

    For finding lectionary passages online, I recommend Textweek.com, which provides some quite valuable services for lectionary passages.

    This is just a brief note on this theme which has been very striking to me as I repeatedly read these passages. Anointing has a variety of implications in the Bible, and these passages would allow one to teach or preach on those uses.

    In 1 Samuel 16:1-13, God instructs Samuel to anoint David as king. In this case anointing represents a selection and empowerment for a particular position of authority. It’s interesting that the two books of Samuel make a fairly strong case that the king of Israel must be chosen by God and that the prophet is the one who executes that decision. This tradition presumably lasted, as we find it applied to Jehu, who is a general in the army (2 Kings 9:1-13). Once one of the sons of the prophets anoints Jehu, he goes and claims the throne. Now Jehu is a general, and certainly has the force behind him, but the anointing clearly has effect as a catalyst, and in bringing people in behind him.

    In Psalm 23 we have anointing more as grooming and comfort. You feel good when you are anointed, and this anointing shows God’s care for the psalmist.

    In John 9, we have the anointing with mud made with spit. The material is interesting, and the result is also different, in this case the giving of sight. I’m not sure the two (empowerment/authority and healing) are not related to some extent. Notice that throughout the passage the actual chosen (were some anointed?) religious leaders were unable to see, while the man who had been born blind but is now healed sees clearly.

    Ephesians 5:8-14 may seen unrelated because it doesn’t reference anointing. But it references light and darkness, seeing and not seeing. It ties very closely to John 9. While we tend to focus on the physical miracle, the spiritual implications are front and center for the gospel writer, and for Paul. Once one encounters Jesus, one sees in a way that one has not seen before. The contrast is light (after Jesus) versus darkness (before Jesus). The healing (anointing?) presence of Jesus makes the difference.

    I haven’t really fleshed this out, but these are some initial impressions on these passages.

  • Healing and Restoration from Jeremiah 32

    Thomas Durst has a nice, short, devotional post drawn from Jeremiah 32:36-44, which he quotes from The Message. It’s titled Healing and Restoration.

  • Testimony – John 4:39-42

    There’s a short sequence of thoughts here at the end of the story of the Samaritan woman (Woman at the Well) that makes an important point about testimony. Many Christians are hesitant to share their testimony. One of the reasons is that they’re afraid they don’t know enough. But you don’t have to know very much to express what has happened to you personally.

    The woman at the well gives her testimony that Jesus had told her everything she had done (John 4:39). The same verse notes that many believed because of her testimony. But what did her testimony accomplish? Did it, by itself, convince people to believe in Jesus?

    In verse 42 we get the testimony of the people afterward. They have come and seen Jesus because of her testimony, and now their belief no longer rests on her words, but on their own knowledge and experience of Jesus. The weight is off the woman who originally gave testimony. Her testimony didn’t need to do anything more than bring the people who heard it to Jesus.

    That’s all our own testimony needs to do. We can be joyful when people come back and say, “It’s no longer because of what you said that I believe. I’ve seen and experience Him for myself!”

  • 10 Psalms Not Heard (much) in Modern Worship

    Don has a post titles 10 Tough Psalms for Worship Songs that deserves some serious thinking. I relate it to my recent post Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?. Do we tend to censor the more challenging material in our worship?

  • Tension Between Tradition and Innovation in John 4

    I have used John 4 in many ways, especially in discussing various methods of teaching. But something struck me more forcefully this morning than it has before–the tension between tradition and innovation. It is not that Jesus denies all tradition and favors innovation, which one could conclude based on the living water vs. well water contrast (4:10-14). It’s clear that is not the case when he says that salvation is “of the Jews” (v. 22).

    I think the author of John could hardly have built up the tension any better than setting this story beside Jacob’s well, yet the wall is in Samaritan territory. Both Samaritans and Jews claimed to be coming from the same traditional “well.” Notice also that while Jesus affirms the Jewish position as the source, he doesn’t support their continued position as sole possessors of current truth. He points to himself for that.

    In fact, in the Johannine community, I would say it is the Samaritans of this story who are playing the Jews who are opposed to the community. Since the Johannine community was probably Jewish, but Jews who had been recently forced out of the synagogue, you can see the interesting interplay. Salvation is from the Jews, but through Jesus comes the innovation–the living water that doesn’t fail. This parallels the “spiritual worship” in which the location (synagogue, temple, or other location) no longer matters. The Samaritans, who think they are the heirs, are really not, but have to come to Jesus (represented in the Johannine community) in order to get the living water and truly quench their thirst.

    On the other hand, there is encouragement for the community, who are to look back at those who have thrust them out, and consider them ready for harvest.

    I just have to add that I find John endlessly fascinating with its layers of meaning.

  • Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?

    A few days ago I blogged about Psalm 95 and how I felt that Matthew Henry had missed the emphasis. I’ve mentioned before that my current devotional exercise is to read the lectionary texts for coming Sundays starting two weeks ahead until the Sunday in question. Thus I’m continually reading two sets of lectionary texts. These tend to lead me to various interesting sources of study.

    Today, I read Psalm 95 from my New Interpreter’s Study Bible, which has an interesting note. On Psalm 95:8, the point at which the Psalm turns the corner from praise into a call for repentance, there is this note:

    . . . In the very midst of Israel’s worship, it seems, prophets would occasionally interrupt the proceedings and call the people to repentance and amendment of life.

    On consideration of just Psalm 95, I didn’t find that very convincing. I felt (and to some extent still feel) that the combination of praise and a willingness to listen and obey went well together in a context of worship. However, if one reads Psalm 81, to which reference is made earlier in the same note, there is an even more abrupt transition between praise and the call to repentance. There the praise seems almost to be only an introduction to the meat of the Psalm, which is strong admonition.]

    I find this an interesting concept, considering that obedience is scripturally placed above various acts of worship, 1 Samuel 15:22-23 being a good example. Obedience is seen in scripture as an act of worship. I have only seen this sort of thing rarely in modern charismatic worship. Most congregations would regard such a prophetic word as an unseemly interruption of the flow of the service of praise. I have even heard pastors express a strong preference for “words from the Lord” that are positive over those that involve rebuke. I think if one were to survey prophetic words in scripture, one would find that the balance is precisely the opposite.

    In addition, of course, one wonders just how one is to get one’s desired balance of positive and negative words from the Lord. If they are, indeed, from the Lord, one would assume he would set the balance!