April 1, 2007

The narrow gate, watch for false prophets, and the House on the Rock

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.  The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.  But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.  The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash” (Matthew 7:24-27).

Ever notice that sermons on the house built on sand or rock usually lean toward the scare-tack or are negatively applied and illustrated?  When sermons on the house built on sand or rock are preached, it seems that the preacher tends only to reach back to the “narrow gate” comments in verses 13 and 14 for the context.  Very convenient for them.  So, I start there:

It should be noted that the narrow gate implies few find it.  According to Jesus, elsewhere and here, there was no expectation that throngs would show up at the gate to enter, meaning only a small gate to enter into God’s kingdom is needed.  The path (or road, depending on the translation) is wide and the gate wide that lead to destruction, not because there are more things that are evil or immoral to end one in destruction, but because there will be more to show up at that gate—more will find it, thus needing a larger gate.  Consequently, the narrowness is not our standards—the gate is not narrow because of our personal standards (of how to dress, who to hang with, what music or TV or media to enjoy, what habits are good vs. bad), nor our judgments and loathing of cultural and social habits.  The narrowness of the gate, its width, does not refer to some narrow, yet “allowable” cultural involvements that Christians may participate in.  Thank goodness.  This now begs my comments on how Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount ends and what we are to make of it.

Shoddy exegesis and poor exposition is often hidden and disguised through clever (and often passionate), cliché-filled sermonizing and harsh rhetoric.  I have rarely heard a message on this passage that actually expounds what’s there and promotes Jesus’ (and Matthew’s) intended meaning.  What I usually hear are two things: a pompous account of how righteous the preacher is (through multiple references and illustrations of and about himself or herself) and, I hear, not a sermon, but an agenda.  One learns more about the preacher than the text (or what God is saying through the text) in many such sermons.

I find it odd, and of course overlooked by many a preacher, that the Sermon on the Mount’s ending is preceded by a number of commands, even before the descriptions (of gates, paths, roads, trees, fruit, houses, sand, rocks, false prophets, wise and unwise builders) are laid out.  The Sermon on the Mount stretches from Matthew 5:1 through the end of chapter 7—we should not ignore this.  Generally speaking chapter 5 is a description of living a blessed life as one who understands and acts according to the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived.  The series of commands just prior to the close of the Sermon on the Mount reaches back to Matthew 6:1 and is, indeed, an interesting set that preachers of this passage should heed and take serious note:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven” (6:1).

And then, the cousin of this command to refrain from being self-righteous is given in Matthew 7:1: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”  I suggest these two commands should dissuade preachers from, well, being so judgmental and self-righteous in how and what they say about the wise and unwise house builders and its implications on the audience.  To be frank, how we preach this text should be seriously guided by the very words of Jesus Himself in 6:1 and 7:1 less we fall under the same warning and caveat found in 7:2ff and be called a hypocrite ourselves.

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye” (vv 2-5).

It is interesting, as well, that the Sermon on the Mount’s final teaching contains a command to watch and measure prophets to see if they be false or not.  Furthermore, there is no appeal to faulty Christians, or less fervent followers, or even nasty outsiders (i.e., the lost) here.  But, to the hearers of the Sermon on the Mount.  My take on this is, part of hearing God’s word and building one’s house upon the rock must be related to whom we listen to, whether there is the producing of the fruits of the Kingdom (i.e., that’s chapter 5!) or not in who preaches (or in the workers, so-called, who claim to follow Jesus).  The command here is not that we might be false-prophets bearing bad fruit, but that we should watch out for them.  Look out!  They will be those who look like good prophets who do miracles and call Jesus “Lord, Lord,” but they are not producing the fruit that stems from a life that resembles Chapter 5 of the Sermon, nor do they refrain from judging and displaying their righteousness (which is a false righteousness).

Read chapter six, it is mostly addressed to those whom we are to following—that is Church leadership.  One builds his or her house on a rock, if they watch out for false prophets.  If someone is trying to get the speck out of your eye, my guess is that person is a false prophet.  Watch out for them!

Finally, a comment on building that house on the rock.  Jesus clearly says in Matthew 7:24 that it is those who hear these words (meaning all the words of the Sermon on the Mount!), these are the ones who build on the rock and are able to withstand the rain and winds for misfortune.  If someone sets themselves up as the authority, with a direct line to God, who tells more about their status and righteousness than speaks of the text, who claims to be prophetic—watch out, this one is a false prophet even if he or she is using every spiritual catchword in the language.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

November 26, 2006

Sharing the tithe with the poor (Malachi 3, the threat, and distribution of the tithe)

The tithe in the Malachi 3 passage so often quoted to beef up congregational giving (to pay the bills, pay for pastoral salary, for 401K retirement plans, for even “spiritual” (so-called) endeavors to support church growth, etc.) is not only mis-quoted, but unfaithfully twisted from its context.  Pastors who use this verse to get their congregations to tithe, that is to give at least 10% of their before-taxes income, are remiss to point out that such a tithe concept in Malachi is build on the tithe concept of the Pentateuch: The income brought in by the people’s tithe was to be share with the poor of the land.  Now, how many pastors do this, or are willing to do this?  So how are we robbing God?  In the tithes not shared with the poor.

“Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings.  You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you!  Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.  Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes,” says the LORD of hosts.  “All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land,” says the LORD of hosts.  “Your words have been arrogant against Me,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ You have said, ‘It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept His charge, and that we have walked in mourning before the LORD of hosts? So now we call the arrogant blessed; not only are the doers of wickedness built up but they also test God and escape.’”  (Mal 3:8-15)

I make note of this in my paper on Mark 12:38-44: What should also strike the reader, after the context of Malachi 3 is taken into consideration.  For immediately before the “tithing” text of Mal 3:8 we heard:

 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts (Mal 3:5).

The charge, in Mal 3:8, is against the leadership of Israel, and specifically the temple establishment.  It is they who have disregarded God’s “statutes” (Lev 5, et. al.?).  They are charged with “robbing” God’s temple through the misappropriation of tithes and offerings.  Interestingly, the priests who received the tithe was to share it with the poor—“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied” (Dt 26:12; cf. Dt 14:29; Lv 27:30).  “Robbing God” was then related to the misappropriation of the widow’s share of the tithe, that is refusing to correctly distribute it among the poor—neglecting to share the tithes and offering with the poor.  Imagine a pastor preaching his or her willingness to share his annual income with the poor, or giving direction to the budget committee to ensure that the offerings collected during the year will be shared with the poor.  Could you imagine how God would open up the widows of heaven and rain His blessing on the congregation that shares the tithe and offerings in this way?

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

September 1, 2006

An obligatory tithe?: the problem with the primary prooftext

Let’s start with the primary prooftext found in Hebrews 7:

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.  Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also [Hebrews 7:1-12].

The first and primary problem is that there is no context here in this text to naturally assume or lead to a command that sounds something like,

“Abraham, who proceeded Levi, the founder of the first redemptive priesthood, gave a tenth of his captured spoils to Melchizedek, who is a type of Christ and foreshadowed the present redemptive era, which is better [the language of the writer of Hebrews], ultimate, and final, therefore you are, as a Christian are obligated to give a tithe of your earned income before taxes.”

Not.  This type of command simply does not follow the line of thinking in the Hebrews text.  If one argues that the “tithing of Abraham” was before the law and the temple and as such does not come to an end as does the law and the temple, then why not other things such as sacrificing that happened before the temple?  In fact, Abraham sacrificed as well—does this mean we should be obligating Christians to make such sacrifices still, even though the temple and law are finished?  I think not.  Such argumentation is both unbiblical (certainly not exegetical from the text) and it is silly.  This text is there to establish that Jesus belongs to a priesthood that is eternal.  The command that follows (in application to) this text is: “Be faithful and do not abandon your commitment to Christ.”

In fact, the writer of Hebrews gives us his main point:

Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man [Hebrews 8:1-2].

Part of a longer argument that reaches to Hebrews 10:18, and then, in verse 19, we hear the application, the “therefore” of this argument regarding Jesus’ supremacy as the consummate head of an eternal priesthood:

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus…Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near [Hebrews 10:19ff].

The writer wants the new community of believers to know who they are and that they, despite opposition, persecution, the “things of this world,” and death, are indeed the true community of an eternal city not made with hands.  This text is about perseverance, not tithing, and certainly not for recreating a building-centered religious bureaucracy made with hands that replaces the temple made with hands.  Supporters of tithing as a Christian obligation need to look elsewhere for “proof” of its biblical authority (if there is one).  (Again, please note, this is not to argue that giving to one’s local church is wrong or should be withheld.  Ultimately I will discuss what the context and content of “giving” ought to be.) more on this subject>>

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

July 26, 2006

It is not about the money, stupid

In His teaching He was saying: “Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.”  And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums.  A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent.  Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.”  (Mark 12:38-44)

Mark (and Luke) both lead their material on the “end times,” the destruction of the temple, and the persecution of the faithful (Luke 21; Mark 13) with the famous—and most abused—story of the widow who gives her last two coins to cover the temple tax so she may enter into the temple.  The majority of the popular interpretations of this text—really application, for interpretation of this text is most often eschewed, ignored, or worse, manipulated—posit a positive spin on the occasion.  “Yes, despite the bad scribes who ‘devour widows’ homes’ and fake righteousness, there is still faithful people, pious individuals; despite the hypocritical religious system of the wayward Jewish temple, see people still give sacrificially.  See that widow, she gave ‘till it hurt.  She gives everything she has to live on.  Look how faithful.  How pious.  How trusting she is of God.”  And then, the preacher uses this story to get you and me to “give ‘til it hurts,” to give sacrificially to the temple—oh, I mean to the church or parachurch budget.  This application is most definitely turning this text up-side-down, literally turning it on its head.  This use of this text places this widow story, in my opinion, in the top of the most-abused texts by so-called Christian preachers, teachers, and leaders.  Awful doesn’t even come close to the term to say here.  Blasphemous, is more like it.  Sure the comparison is there (between the robbing, malicious scribes and this poor widow).  And, the comparison between the value of the gift weighted by the heavenly scale and the larger sums being placed in the trumpet-like jars, of course, is being made: she did give more because she had less.  This isn’t a hidden, mysterious spiritual truth.  Nothing mysterious here.  Actually, this is just good math (Jesus’ comment that the widow gave more in her last two coins than the rich who put in out of their riches).  Proportionally she did give more—in this case all she had.  I would contend that someone giving out of their riches at even 10% of their income is not giving as much as someone who is giving 100% out of the poverty.  The comparison doesn't need math or accounting expertise; but it (the comparison) needs leadership-eyes, humble Christian eyes to see that it reveals that we place the burden of the church-concept (not a New Testament concept, or for that matter any teaching of Jesus) of tithing, or giving ‘till it hurts—sacrificial giving is a burden placed upon us disproportionately and inequitably.  The so-called tithe might be a tenth of someone’s income, but that tenth is not equal in terms of actual value and need to each individual person or family (one income or two to make ends meet).  And, we haven’t even considered the issue of the widow giving to a temple, made with hands that will be destroyed.  This story is a final verdict against those who had corrupted God’s system of righteousness, grace, forgiveness, and God-beauty.  This story is not about sacrificial giving, but the taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us to pay for the appearance of righteousness.  This “sacrificial” giving was actually wasted giving—not a praise from Jesus’ lips, but actually a lament, even a sarcastic comment.  This widow was forced to contribute to the very system that had already “devoured” her home (probably the reason she had only two last coins).  The ironic thing is: the only hint of church financial offering as part of community life of the congregation was related, not to sustaining its staff, utility bills, 401k retirement plans, or new chairs for the sanctuary, but for the poor and those hit by unfavorable times (I Cor 16; 2 Cor 8-9).  It should not surprise us that the first conflict in the Church’s young history was over taking care of widows (Acts 6:1ff), nor should we just read hesitantly over James 1, where there is an issue of rich versus poor in how one was treated over another, and not far was the reminder of taking care of the orphaned and the widowed.  So, it is not about the money: it is about supporting a new system (the coming of the kingdom of God and the arrival of the end of times) where resources are not wasted on “things to be destroyed” and where righteousness is indicated by the public advocacy of the most vulnerable among us, not taking their money.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

June 7, 2006

Nonbiblical-bible literalists and consumeric marketers on the same page

Here is wisdom: Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six (revelation 13:18).

All day, from many differing sources, I had to listen to those making the observation that June 6, 2006 was 666 day.  NO IT WASN’T!  Even if you write it in it’s abbreviated form, it was 6606 day—that’s 6/6/06 or 6/6/2006, not 666.  But true to form we had nonbiblical-bible literalists and consumeric marketers all on the same page for a day (which came and went, by the way, as any other day on the planet).  The remake of the Omen opened on June 6, 2006 (not 666) and countless end-time watchers utilized the coincidental date to promote their brand of poor bible teaching.  Listen folks, even the Biblical reference in Revelation 13 is figurative—666 is figurative—and points to a person or persons not a date.  (I lean toward persons anyway, but we can argue that elsewhere.)  In fact, 666 is, without question, a gematria, that is, a number representing the spelling of a word or name.  No one disputes that Nero’s gematria is 666 (the adding up of corresponding letters-to-numbers adds to 666).  Also, if you look closely at good translations, there is a textual footnote in many Bibles that indicates that some manuscripts actually have 616.  That’s because Nero is spelt two ways (Neros, NeroV and Nero, Nero) in Greek, each with differing gematria results—616 and 666.  Although the emperor Nero is the obvious referent, Saint John’s intention was probably to harness the anti-Christian stance of Nero’s king-of-the-world position and symbolically simply point to humanity (anti-messiah humanity) as a whole.  I am not convinced that 666 or 616 points to a specific person at all. The last of verse 18 is often translated, “for the number is that of a man,” giving the impression the beast = a man.  But the Greek can be as well translated “for the number is that of humanity.”  In fact, if you search the Revelation for all the references to the word “number” or to numbers themselves, every single one, with no exception, is always figurative and symbolic.  In fact, when the word “number” (ariqmoV) is used, it most often means “uncountable.”  When the once boiled-in-oil, left on a prison-isle, Apostle John was faithfully portraying a heavenly message to convince the Church on the mainland to be remain faithful, I am sure of one thing: John was not portraying the anti-Christian and anti-messiah beast in Revelation 13 so it could be used to market movies, promote books, or (and especially) scare and control church people.  Now that’s a mark of the beast!

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

April 4, 2006

What are you wasting? (Part Two)

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table.  But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste?  For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.”  But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman?  For she has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.  For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her."  (Matthew 26:6-13).

This story in the life of Christ, as mentioned in the previous Gemara, deals with a latent sense of false righteousness that can easily be passed off by the community of faith as a righteous, separatist stand on purity.  “We don’t associate with that kind!”  This attitude hits at two unrighteous levels of expression: First, the rejectionist, self-righteous attitude of purity cuts across the truth of the Kingdom of God, namely that all have access to God through Christ’s gracious gift of His death.  This should hit hard at our view of the disciples and so-called righteous spiritual leaders—they didn’t get it as to why Jesus was here; however, this rejected, sinner, prostitute of a woman, she gets it.  This woman understands that Jesus is to die, for we read that she pours the perfume on Jesus as a sign, a preparation for His burial.  What a scene.  The tables are turned.  The one being most rejected from the table of the Kingdom is the one who understands Jesus must die.  Secondly, the self-righteous comments about the “costly perfume” being sold and the funds being distributed to the poor have an ironic, even comic side to it.  Jesus cuts the self-righteous attitude into a million little pieces of dung with his comment, “For you always have the poor with you.”  This ironic thing was, they had someone poor right there in their midst—this sinful woman!  The comment should have been: “This woman has humbled us, for she has understood why Jesus came to earth.  Someone make sure she is clothed, fed, and has a job (and health care!).  That phrase “For you always have the poor with you” is often used to justify why it is futile to tend to the needs of the poor.  But this is hardly a comment about the availability of the poor—their continued abundance.  No.  This is a comment that the poor will always be associated with the Christian community—they will always be in its midst, just as this woman is now in their midst.  As someone reminds the Christian community, we take care of the poor to humble us, to remind us of the grace given to us.  Problem is, our self-righteousness will be a barrier to this Kingdom principle.  That is why this woman will be remembered far longer than all the self-righteous so-called spiritual people that are in her midst.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

April 2, 2006

What are you wasting? (Part One)

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table.  But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste?  For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.”  But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman?  For she has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.  For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her."  (Matthew 26:6-13).

Odds are, the vast majority of times this passage is preached, taught, read, or heard, we are apt to want to identify with the “woman” who is accepted by Jesus.  In Luke’s use of the story (Luke 7:37-39), we like that the women (who is a “sinner”) is, in the face of rejection, snide comments, and judgments, forgiven by Jesus.  Whereas we like to find ourselves touched by the story in that we, too, are accepted by Jesus and can receive his gracious offer of forgiveness, Matthew and Luke (as well as Mark in 14:3-9) wants us to identify with the judging Pharisees and, as well, the too-quick-to-judge disciples (yes, they’re culpable, too, here!).  I can’t find in any of the passages, whether in Matthew’s version or Luke’s or even Mark’s, one hint that we are to see this story as one to point out how loved and accepted we are and how free God’s forgiveness is (although all true for sure, but that’s not the point).  We hear this story from the life of Jesus and we act (in applying it) as if it were meant to warm the hard of sinners (“you, too, can receive Jesus’ forgiveness) or it was told to affirm to our own hearts that though we might be judged and rejected, Jesus loves us and accepts us “just as we are.”  This is a poor reading of this text.  I believe many Christians like Christianity because we can tell others how “I” am supposed to be treated—“see God says so in the Bible.”  We have this backwards.  Christianity, that is following Christ, is all about how we are to treat others.  That’s why we read (hear) this, and parables like it, backwards.  This parable, as most are, are in our canon in order to define whom us, the community of faith, that is, who we are supposed to be.  We are to be wasting our selves on the undesirable.  As my pastor said (and I agree), we all too often place sins like adultery (apparently what made this woman a “sinner”) as worse than self-righteousness.  The authors of our Gospels want us to identify ourselves in the community who was judging this woman, and once recognized as self-righteous we are to redefine ourselves as a community of faith that understand the Gospel is for all people, especially the undesirable.  For in the end, it will indeed happen, that the self-righteous will be the truly undesirable and they will not have access to the Kingdom of God.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

January 30, 2006

He who has ears to hear—why I am glad I wrote “The Sower who sows”

“That day Jesus went out of the house and was sitting by the sea.  And large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.  And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, ‘Behold, the sower went out to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up.  Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil.  But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.  Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out.  And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.  He who has ears, let him hear” (Matthew 13:1-9).

I knew I’d be frustrated, itchy, uncomfortable.  Here we go again, I said to myself—applying the parable of the Sower who sows as if Jesus was actually telling me, and other “poor soiled” people, to change our soil (i.e., change our hearts).  “Be good soil.”  Simply put: ain’t there in the text—nowhere, nada, isn’t even hinted at.  Totally made up.  And I don’t care who says it, whether it is John MacArthur  (whom I have heard preach it that way), my own pastor, or my best friend.  Such a view of Matthew 13:1ff (and Mark 4) is a grid—an idea—placed on the text, not one derived from the text.

You can read my Rough Cut exegesis of Mark 4 , “The Sower who sows,” for yourself.  I also believe the same exegetical conclusions can be made of the Matthew 13 text—and even more so.  What interests me here is the way the following six parables, all in chapter 13, are almost totally ignored as to what Jesus (and Matthew) is getting at.  And, when they are considered, there is little attempt to make a connection between the “interpretation” of the first (i.e., the parable of the Sower) with the “interpretation” or obvious conclusions of the last six.

The following six parables are about the harvesting or the value of the Kingdom—the end product of the age of “sowing,” the way the kingdom spreads despite difficulties and enemy sowing, the wideness of the reach of the Kingdom, and the value of the Kingdom (a value often hidden), and a separation of the harvest what is bad and what is good.  The parables are: Tares among wheat, vv 24-20, 36-43; the mustard seed, vv 31-32; the leaven, vv 33-35; hidden treasure, v 44; a costly pearl, vv 45-46; and a dragnet, vv 47-52.  Each parable helps explain the nature of the others, and it is said, “If you don’t get the first one” (i.e., the Sower), how can you get any of them.  If read in context, without placing a “heart” or “change your soil” grid over the text (which isn’t there in the first place), the hearing is for disciples to participate in the actions of the Sower—to follow the mission of the Sower.  And, to add to the tension, the drama of the gospel story, Matthew records an immediate encounter as “Jesus Revisits Nazareth” (vv 52-58) and finds “poor soil” among His own family and hometown.  Why didn’t he just tell them, “Change your soil?”

Even my wife said today as she was reading through the Matthew text, “I see it, just sow the seed no matter what.  It is about the sowing.  We’re not to determine what kind of soil we are sowing on.”  The one who has ears to hear, let him (or her) hear.  We need to hear from this text, that is we who are Jesus' followers, His disciples, that we, too, are to be about the business of His Kingdom, sowing the seed of the Gospel, despite obstacles and enemy sowing, and let God care for the soil.  The Master Sower knows what He is doing; for those who have ears to hear, we follow the Master Sower.

Rough Cut, "The Sower who sows"…

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

January 2, 2006

Answering the right question from widow’s two small coins story

“And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums.  A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent.  Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on’” (Mark 12:41-44).

I have begun drafting a paper I hope to present at the next Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting (in ’06), which just happens to be in Washington DC and on “Christianity in the Public Square.”  Right up my vocational alley.  I have decided I want to write a paper that demonstrates how a text of Scripture should mold the local church’s presence, community action, and voice in the public square.  My working title is:

“Widows in our Temple Courts (Mk 12:41-44): Molding the local congregation for the public square”

Obviously I am working with the Mark 12 story of the poor widow whom Jesus compares to the wealthier givers.  Although I will develop the paper through the exegesis of this text, I am struck by the popular interpretation that most have of this passage.  Most seem to understand Jesus to be illustrating, through the widow, how we are supposed to be more committed to “giving” money to the church.  In fact, this text is often used to provoke more giving or at least more guilt in order to provoke us to give more—and usually give more of to the church budget.  Pastors and preachers are more utilitarian in their approach to interpreting the sacred text than they are biblical or exegetical.  Nothing at all in this text suggests that is how Jesus intends this story to be applied.  Nothing.  Not a hint.  In fact, both times the same story is used by Mark and Luke (chapter 21), it immediately precedes the passage on the destruction of the temple.  The widow is offering all she had to a system that 1) is corrupt, 2) religiously flawed and would ultimately reject and kill the Messiah, 3) offers little protection, civically, to the vulnerable (like the widow), and, most notable in the text, 4) would soon be destroyed. 

“As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’  And Jesus said to him, ‘Do you see these great buildings?  Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down’” (Mark 13:1-2).

Contextually, the “you should give sacrificially to the church” is not in the text—in fact I find such a rationale for church giving turns the text on its head.  The text screams out—she isn’t supposed to be giving, she shouldn’t have to.  The widow’s life would soon be dismantled for the system she supports with her sacrificial offering will soon be destroyed.  This text should mold the local congregation.  The story bridges the section where Messiah Jesus answers a series of questions which point out how wrong the keepers of the system are and the destruction of the temple with Jesus’ teaching on faithful obedience.  The story of the widow is meant to move the local church in Rome toward a faithful, obedient, believing community, molded by the aims of the Gospel, not the sustaining of a new religious system that utilizes earthly structures to maintain itself.  The question for the church (and by this I mean the local expression of the church, i.e., the church community within a municipality) is not, how much are we to give to the church system, but what are we making the vulnerable among us pay for?  What system are we supporting, and does that system take advantage of the poor and place undo burdens on them?  Hearing these questions arise from this story places the church within the public square and if answered biblically, offers God’s voice in that public square.  Hearing this text in its own setting moves us to different application, less on how we pay for church and more on who we are in the public square.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

October 30, 2005

Turning curse into blessing—to the ends of the earth

“Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed’” (Genesis 12:1-3).

Andreas Kosternberger and Peter O’Brien, in their book Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A biblical theology of mission, make the observation that in Genesis 1-11, the word curse is used five times and that these five “curses” are met with the five times “blessing” is used in Genesis 12:1-3, Abram’s call to go.  We should be thankful that there are those who discover and observe what might be glossed over in causal reading.   We have here “in the summons of Abram [soon to become father Abraham]…the divine response to the human disaster of Genesis 3-11."

 “The LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life’” (Genesis 3:14).

“Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, “You shall not eat from it”; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life’” (Genesis 3:17).

 “Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand” (Genesis 4:11).

“Now he called his name Noah, saying, ‘This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the LORD has cursed’” (Genesis 5:29).

“So he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants He shall be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25).

God, through the calling of Abraham, would make “His blessings flow far as the curse is found” as the Christmas Hymn “Joy to the World” reminds us.  The effects of the devil (i.e., the serpent), the consequence of sin on the workings of the world, and the results of sin in the heart and outcomes of man find their reversal in God’s redemptive narrative, actuated in the call of Abraham and moved through human history.  The calling of Abraham is both promise and prophecy.  God promises to bring redemptive blessing through the human narrative—through history, culminating in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ—and has indicated that His mission is to bring salvation to the ends of the earth—to all the families of the earth.

Appreciate the muse, please pass it on...        Comments, good, bad or ugly? send me a note...

October 25, 2005

Taking the poor and meek out of the poor and meek, Part II

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).

Previously on October 23, I suggested two overlooked aspects to consider when reading Matthew 5, verses 3 and 5.  Now for numbers 3 and 4…

3) I use the New American Standard Bible above, where in Matthew 5:5, the word under consideration is translated gentle.  The New International Version and the King James Version render the Greek, meek.

NIV—“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth”

KJV—“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

The Message, which is not a translation, but a paraphrased interpretation—and sometimes a poor one at that—destroys all of Jesus intention and causes barriers to any original understanding or historic meaning:

TM—“You're blessed when you're content with just who you are--no more, no less. That's the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can't be bought.”

The TM rendering makes me ill, actually.  Not only does it take the poor out of pour and the meek out of meek, it tells them to accept their status.  The more I dig, the more these verses really deserve a Rough Cut exegetical essay—but, still, for another time.  The word used here for meek/gentle is prays (πραΰς) and its Old Testament (Hebrew) equivalents are ΄ānî and more generally ΄ānāw.  The sense for both the Hebrew and the Greek is poor, afflicted, humble, and meek.  Never strong, nor strong under control.  The connotation is one who is disenfranchised, without a voice to advocate on one’s behalf, without means, and functionally, one who lacks owned property.  An OT example is found Psalm 37, verses 11 and 14:

“But the humble will inherit the land and will delight themselves in abundant prosperity” (v 11).

“The wicked have drawn the sword and bent their bow to cast down the afflicted and the needy, to slay those who are upright in conduct” (14).

The Hebrew understanding gives the sense that the poor and meek were those in Israel who were without property.  They are wrongly disinherited and deprived of status, even of God’s blessing.  They are often victims of exploitation (Isaiah 32:7, Job 24:4, and as mentioned already, Ps 37:14).  In OT language, the poor and meek change from being the earth’s needy to those who humbly cry out for the help only God can give, or the ones who have found that help.  In Matthew, some commentators have posited that the poor of verse 3 and the gentle/meek of verse 5 are both actually the poor (I agree actually).

4) We understand that Jesus became poor on our behalf.  In Matthew He also explains that he is “gentle” (meek) and “humble in heart” (11:29), and by yoking ourselves with Him and learning from Him we will “find rest for our souls” (probably a reference to Isaiah 66:2).  The attributes of humility and meekness attributed to Jesus are, not because He is strong, yet controlling His attitudes, but because, in His messiah status, He too is without inheritance, with no place to lay His head.  Like Jesus, those who follow Him, that is, His disciples, will find that they might be bereft of status and place in this life, but theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven and they will inherit the earth.  This is why they are blessed, namely because eyes of flesh and the pride of life offer place and status in this life, but those—even those who are without status and place—who follow the Messiah and His ways will find ultimate reward in the end of days. 

The Sermon on the Mount turns everything in this earthly life on its head.  I am wondering why we keep turning it back?  I believe we, as modern American Christians, are so far from the intentions of Jesus' words here that we need to take out the sting and replace it with modern, more comfortable concepts.  Perhaps we are afraid that these verses might not apply to us because we are the opposite of poor and meek--namely we prize and treasure ownership of the things or earth and crave the status we have "in the flesh."

See October 23, 2005 Gemara for Numbers 1 and 2...