Category: General

I find it very interesting to watch the way Christians handle the ten commandments. On the one hand, they have become an icon of our Christian culture, so that nobody wants to claim that they don’t keep them. They’re regarded as a foundational and basic icon, so we keep trying to make them the firm foundation of something, even if we’re not sure what. Indeed, many Christians are certain they keep all the commandmenst, but are not sure just what those commandments actually are.

The problem is that very few, if any Christians keep the commandments in the way that they were intended.  I grew up as a Seventh-Day Adventist.  Adventists have one of the best claims to actually keep the commandments, yet still they are somewhat less strict than Orthodox Jews would be, and probably less strict than ancient Israelite priests would have been.  Most importantly, we probably all fail through the use of religious imagery.  Our use of pictures of Jesus, for example, would have looked much too much like idolatry to that early generation.

I think it is important to remember that the ten commandments were given to a group of Israelites escaping slavery and beginning to learn about God.  If you read the Pentateuch carefully–something few Christians do–you’ll find that the ten commandments are quite fundamental, but they are neither the constitution of the government of Israel, nor are they designed to express a fundamental moral law in a broad sense.  Those elements are scattered through the Pentateuch, and are reflected in the ten commandments.  Of those two elements, the fundamentals of morality are most reflected, while the constitution of the nation is reflected only in the key statement of the theocracy.  How this functions is left for other places.

Thus from the start, the ten commandments cannot directly provide the foundation for a secular government.  Rather, they provide a moral foundation for living well.  This moral foundation is set in a particular set of cultural circumstances.

Now some will think I’m trying to diminish the value of the ten commandments or dismiss them in this way.  But recognizing what something actually is, and also what it is not is not to dismiss it.  Rather, it provides us an opportunity to apply it successfully.  Christians worship on Sunday, for example.  Why?  I frequently hear this expressed as “keeping the fourth commandment.”  But the fourth commandment doesn’t tell you that.  It doesn’t say you should go to church on Sunday.  It doesn’t even say you should go to church–or even the Synagogue–on Saturday.  What it tells you to do is to rest and refrain from labor on the seventh day.

I used “you” there, but that is another point of understanding.  The fourth commandment was first expressed to those Israelites.  It is quite proper to ask just how it applies to you and me as opposed to them.  One starting place is to note that, by connection with creation, the fourth commandment expresses God’s sovereignty over time.  That means over your time–over all your time!

The earlier commandments express exclusive worship of one God, and ask us not to misrepresent that one God.  (I’m not going to expand on this today, but I might later in the week.)  This orders that we don’t portray God as an idol.  When I read the ten commandments in their historical context, I know this means that the Israelites are not to make idols and bow down to them.  One reason is that God is much bigger than this.  In your normal temple of the ancient near east when you got to the inner sanctum you would find an image of the God.  In Israel’s temple, you found an empty space.  God could not be so portrayed.

Might this say something about some of our confident systematic theologies?  I’m not calling systematic theology idolatry.  But overconfidence in one’s theology might well be idolatry.

But finally, when we try to portray the ten commandments as a sort of constitution, we show that we either don’t know what a constitution is, or we don’t know what the ten commandments are.  The basic law of Israel was already established at the time.  God is in charge.  Period.  Over time we see different ways of that rulership being expressed, and the elements of a constitution do occur in the Pentateuch.  But only that one element is expressed in the ten commandments, and that one element is not an element of a secular constitution.

At the same time, it can be the fundamental moral statement of God’s people living in a secular society, and in fact I would suggest it should be.  But first we’re going to have to know what it actually is.  Let me suggest something:  Narrow the principle, then broaden the application.  Try to find the key to what is being taught in the commandment, defined narrowly.  Extract the basic principle(s) from it.  Then apply it broadly.

God is in charge of time.  There is one authority in the universe, not many.  The family is a fundamental unit.  Those are things we can use in life, as God’s people living in a secular society.

Note: I’m presenting a series on this topic on my Participatory Bible Study Blog, starting here.

Some of my readers who know that I employ historical-critical methodologies in my Bible study may be surprised to know that one of my most useful books on the gospels is Darrel Bock’s Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels.

There is a simple reason for this.  I believe that before you can properly understand a critical view of a passage, you have to understand the passage in relation to others, and know how it has been interpreted in the past.  Many people reject views of scripture without understanding them.  They reject chronologies based on the early geneaologies of Genesis 5 & 11, but have often never read them.  On the other hand, people reject source theories of the Pentateuch without actually being able to state the theories themselves.  In the gospels, many reject a reconciling approach to the various synoptic passages without every trying to do it.

Now in the end, I think the reconciliation of these passages tends to fail.  There’s no complete reconstruction that is actually historically probable, even if one allows miracles.  At the same time there are two benefits at least to checking out how passages are reconciled.  First, the church has used this approach for centuries, and it’s worthwhile understanding how it was done.  Second, attempting reconciliation helps fill out the complete picture of how a set of passages can relate.  Before you have done that, you are on questionable ground if you choose a particular understanding of the history of the passage in question.

So having spent that much time on why I want to do this occasionally, what does Bock have to say about this passage?

There are two elements that I’d like to mention. To get all the details you’ll need the book as he outlines the items where Matthew, Mark, and Luke differ on this passage. These differences are not that great.

The first issue is the authenticity of the story. For many historical Jesus scholars, it is a basic criterion of authenticity that Jesus never claims to be the Messiah during his lifetime. I think this is not so much a criterion as a conclusion, and it is a conclusion that is questionable at best. So I wouldn’t reject the authenticity of this saying on that basis. It clearly comes from a single source, i.e. all three gospels are working from the same material.

Bock notes three reasons to regard this as authentic (p. 232):

1. There is already a pattern of response that shows opposition. I would note that this indicates that Jesus was something more than an innocuous teacher; he roused opposition.
2. There is the precendent of John the Baptist. In other words, it is not unreasonable for Jesus to expect that such a fate might await him if he continued his activity.
3. The prediction itself presents an ambiguity. If you were creating a prediction after the fact, would you not make it a bit more ironclad?

While none of Bock’s reasons for regarding this as authentic are absolutely conclusive, they are suggestive, and again tend to make me question the certainty with which some scholars maintain that Jesus never made such a claim but that it was made for him after the fact.

The second area of interest is in the prediction that some there would not taste death. Bock points out the differences in the predictions. Mark says “the kingdom of God has come with power.” Luke simply says “the kingdom,” while Matthew says “Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” There is ambiguity here as well, though I think most hearers would interpret this as saying that there might be suffering now, but eventually the son of man would come in his kingdom. The disciples would have heard it as an early inkling that there would be a second appearing. There must be some other way to handle the meaning of the passage, such as the conditional nature of prophecy (Jonah, Jeremiah 18).

One thing that always interests me in the lectionary is the passages we don’t read.  Often these are signaled by commas indicating a number of verses left out.  At other times it may be interesting portions before and after.  I see three interesting cases in the lectionary for Lent 2B.

The first is in Genesis 17, where part of the omission is obvious.  We are told to read Genesis 17:1-7 and then skip to 15 and 16.  What happens in the intervening verses?  The sign of circumcision is instituted.  Christians don’t comprehend circumcision all that well, and perhaps it is good that the pastor won’t have to explain that portion, but I find the omission interesting, considering that we will also read Romans 4 in which Paul will use this passage for something quite different than what it was originally intended for.  In fact, he uses quotes from it mixed with those from Genesis 15 to point away from the sign of circumcision.

A few years ago I wrote an essay, Was Paul an Exegete?, in which I maintain that clearly he was not.  The problem is that the word “exegesis” has so positive of a connotation amongst many pastors and Bible scholars that suggesting Paul isn’t an exegete sounds positively sacriligious.  Paul isn’t doing exegesis when he uses Hebrew scripture, but that doesn’t mean that he’s either a liar or a bad person.  Rather, he’s doing something else entirely.  Shouldn’t we be interested in seeing just what?  Reading the whole passage will help.  I would suggest at least reading Genesis 17:1-16 straight through if you are using the lectionary in a Bible study group.  For a scripture reading, it’s possible you should use it as is.

But there’s more!  If we read forward, verse 17 informs us that Abraham fell on his face and laughed.  He didn’t believe the promise.  We see that also in chapter 18, where it is Sarah who laughs.  Yet in Romans 4:20-21 we’re informed that Abraham’s faith was strong and he was convinced God could do what he had promised.  I call this the “faith” view, one that makes the heroes of the faith look better as we give them credit for what they grew into, not what they were at the time.  But Paul’s view and that of the author of Genesis are not quite in line, and we miss that if we don’t read the whole passage.

Then there is Psalm 22:23-31.  Here we have a contiguous block of praise, but we lack the reason for the praise, which is that the Psalmist has been ill and suffering and prayed for healing.  The praise is thanks to God for bringing him through (possibly prospectively) that situation.  Now we will read the rest of the Psalm on another day in the lectionary, but it’s omitted here.

Finally, in Mark, we have Peter’s rebuke of Jesus and Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in return, but we don’t have the story that brought it on.  The positive part of Mark’s passage is removed, while the negative part of the Psalm is removed.

The Romans passage is in good shape, other than the fact that it is well-nigh impossible to get the right balance from any small portion of Romans.  Yet we could hardly read the whole book, could we?

Psalm 22:23-31 is an interesting passage of praise.  It’s easy to read these praise passages as kind of interchangeable–which Psalm shall we use to praise God today.  But there are generally some special features of each passage.

I believe that we are to focus on God when we worship and praise him.  But at the same time, God is focused on us.  Keeping that in mind might help keep the balance.  There are many reasons to praise God, because he is our creator, because he’s great, because he’s good, and so forth.  Anyone in the congregation can list them.

But there’s another reason illustrated in this passage. We need to praise God because other people need to hear us do it.  No, this is not because we need them to think better of us seeing as they have heard us offer praise to God.  Rather, it’s because they need to hear what God has done.  The classic Psalm based on this idea is Psalm 78, but it is equally well expressed in shorter form here in Psalm 22.

Verse 30:  “our children will also serve him.  Future generations will hear about the wonders of the Lord.”  (NLT)

Verse 31:  “His righteous acts will be told to those not yet born.” (NLT)

The thing about a silent faith is that it is dead in the most important way–it doesn’t reproduce.  Reproduction is one of the key elements that defines biological life.  It is also a key element in defining spiritual life.

Here’s a question for you and for your Sunday School class or congregation.  Have you provided enough of a basis for your faith to survive?  Is there anything known about it that would make people want to join your community of faith and carry on?

I’m going to try to write something daily, even though I never intended this site to be blog-like.  I link to my blogs from here which have shorter thoughts on various passages, but I rarely get into the themes and the relationships between the passages in the lectionary in my blogging.  Over the last few weeks I have found it much easier to get notes on paper and in the margins of my Bibles than to get them into an article here.

This week I was struck by several themes, so let me list them in order:

1. God does it!  That comes through all the passages.  In Genesis 17, our lectionary reading skips Abraham’s response of laughter, and emphasizes God speaking of the blessing and how it will be done.  There is almost the sense that God intentionally waits until Abram (now renamed Abraham) is 99 and his wife Sarai (now Sarah) is 90 years old in order to emphasize that he is the one who does.  Psalm 22 ends on the words “he did” referring to divine action.  In Romans the focus is on the righteousness of faith as opposed to righteousness we manufacture ourselves.  I can’t help but think this righteousness must be real and manifest in the person in and on whom God works, and not merely transactional.
2.  Death is no barrier.  One common question Christians ask is why Jesus had to die. There are so many answers.  But one is simply that for God death is no real barrier.  In Genesis 17 we have Abraham viewing himself as effectively dead–no longer able to produce life, something Paul picks up on in Romans 4:19.  (Note that our lectionary passage skips Genesis 17:17 in which Abraham laughs, and Paul seems to ignore it too, seeing Abraham as a perfect example of faith!)  In Psalm 22, God receives worship even of those who go down to the pit(v. 29).  Finally, while Jesus has his human reactions to his coming death in various places, when he discusses it with the disciples it is a simple necessity.  Death is no barrier to God.
3. Sarah and Abraham are blessed together.  In a culture in which the man was seen as generating seed, and the woman was more or less a place for it to grow, God makes it clear that Sarah is part of this as well.  Thus we remember Abraham and Sarah together.  We might think of this when considering the difference between a God’s eye view and a culture eye view on men and women.
4. God’s word and action is effective.  This is a big topic, but I would simply note that when God blessed Abraham, it wasn’t only transactional.  So when Paul speaks of the righteousness of faith, should it not also be effective and accomplish something in the life of the person who believes?  It is all God’s action, but God’s action is effective.

Passages:  Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Psalm 22:23-31; Romans 4:13-25; Mark 8:31-38.

One of the fascinating themes of the gospel of Mark is the interaction between Jesus and the demons.  There are many surprising things, but one of these is that the demons react to Jesus just because he shows up.  Another is that one of the things the demons want to do is identify Jesus.  Why is that?

First, let me note that I’m not trying to discuss the existence of demons here.  Using the word “exist” with spiritual entities, not to mention using the word “entity” with spritual “whatsits” leads to all kinds of problems.  But it is quite possible to discuss spiritual issues and events using this vocabulary whatever one thinks the reality behind it is.

So we have an interesting trio of elements when Jesus shows up.  First, demons start to speak.  Second, these demons are trying to say something true by correctly identifying Jesus.  Third, Jesus doesn’t want the demons to tell the truth.

We can start with one important lesson:  There are times when it is wrong to tell the truth.  We all encounter this in cases of confidentiality, for example, in which telling the truth to someone who doesn’t need it can be extremely damaging.  A counselor who repeats facts about his or her clients wouldn’t last very long.  A pastor who passes on parishioner gossip may be telling the truth, but is telling it at the wrong time.

I have experienced “true” introductions that have not been appropriate to the occasion.  For example, once when I was speaking in a worship setting on prayer, a time suitable for a devotional style of homily, I was introduced following the time of worship in music.  The introduction was glowing, and to the extent that it referenced facts, it was also factual.  I do, in fact, read the Bible in Greek, for example. But in this case, we took people from a contemplative mood ready to meditate on prayer, to an attitude of listening for intellectual content.  Further, the focus should have been on the scripture from which I would speak and on God who gave it, but it turned to me instead.  Thus a complimentary and largely true introduction became a barrier to the spiritual purpose.

So why would Jesus object to the activities of the demons?  I think these demons illustrate a key fact.  Evil, and by that we should think people who have given themselves over to evil, will always react negatively to good.  The purer the good, the nastier the reaction of true evil to it.  The faster Jesus was identified as the son of God, the sooner his ministry would come to an end and there were things he needed to do.

It was an issue of agendas–God’s agenda as put into practice by his Son Jesus vs. the agenda of evil.  The demons weren’t identifying Jesus to help move his agenda forward.  Jesus knew that and has to silence the voice of evil–even when it is telling the truth.

In trying to write these lectionary notes I have found that it is so much easier to get notes into my Bible margin, or on sticky notes marking the pages as I read, than it is to write them up for others.  I hope some of you will be patient enough to stick with me until I can get to the point of getting more of my thoughts actually posted.

There were several things that struck me as “first thoughts” in my lectionary reading this week.

1.  The focus seems to be on healing.  I even see healing as Jesus retreates for prayer (Mark 1:35ff).  Those who do the work of ministry need to rest and also receive ministry.

2.   There is a time when even speaking the truth can be demonic.  Note how Jesus silences the demons in Mark 1:34, not because they are lying, but because they know him and are speaking at what is apparently the wrong time.  I would like to expand on this later if I have time.

3.  Just because ministry is bustling in one place doesn’t mean we need to stay there.  In fact, our tendency is to stay with success until it stops being success and becomes just repetition.  We need to move on to other calls (Mark 1:38-39).

4.  Healing and restoration go together.  Look at both Isaiah 40 and Psalm 147.

5.  Some of the things Paul says he is willing to be in order to reach people are frightening!  (1 Corinthians 9:22).

6.  It is because God is creator that he is also redeemer (Isaiah 40).

7.  Why do you imagine that the demons reacted when Jesus showed up and those in need of healing flocked to him?  Jesus never seems to need any instroduction or hype–people just come to him.

I’m including audio of my lecture on 1 Corinthians 6 from 2003.  This is more than 20 minutes of audio, so be prepared for the download times.

 {audio}03_1_Cor_6.mp3{/audio}

For many Christians, especially those who love theology, the Gospel of John is a favorite.  There’s a good reason why it is used in the lectionary on high holy days–it reflects on the meaning of the events in the life of Jesus.

For me, however, the gospel of Mark has always had a special place.  I like the fact that it skips over all the complex birth issues and just gets right down to the meat.  Here’s Jesus.  He’s proclaiming the word.  Demons argue, but then flee.  Disease must give up.

In Mark, it’s a story much more than a theology.  Of course there are always theological considerations–that’s what gospels are for.  But there is a bright, crisp, sense of Jesus on a mission and what that did to the people around him.

When I had been out of the church for a number of years and then returned (see my testimony), one of the first things I did for devotional reading was to go through the gospel of Mark with an Upper Room guide.  It was so much fun and so refreshing to read the story of Jesus in short form.  Who was he?  What did he do?

Of course, one can’t answer all those questions from just one gospel, but one can get a good outline.  That is what the gospel of Mark is for me–the introduction to Jesus–in action.

This is the relevant presentation from my audio series on the gospel of John for Epiphany 1B.  Though the scripture reading ends at verse 41, the presentation covers the transition from the baptism to the wedding feast at Cana.

 {audio}2-1-baptism_to_ministry.mp3{/audio}