Road Trip: What is Luke's travel narrative?

Scholars recognize a shift in Luke's gospel with the phrase "When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem" (Luke 9:51 ESV). After this point Jesus seems to be always heading toward Jerusalem. Because of this many have called it "the travel narrative." The travel narrative here is not all that dissimilar to many of the travel narratives that gained popularity in the Twentieth Century. Like "Travels with Charley" by John Steinbeck, the trip was made because Jesus knew his death was close at hand, and like Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" the trip is filled with more with teachings and illustrations then a narration of the traveling itself.

But don't get me wrong there is much more going on here then a teacher making a trip. Like the word Tao, the Greek word hodos can mean a path or road, but can also indicate a way of life. While Jesus is on the hodos to Jerusalem expect to see a great deal about the hodos of discipleship.

Understanding Jesus' travel narrative does require a quick crash course in geography. Up to this point Jesus had been doing the majority of his ministry in an Galilee (the area north of the modern day West Bank). As he "sets his face" towards Jerusalem he begins to travel there. Jerusalem is in the southern part of Israel. Between Galilee and Jerusalem is an area called Samaria. To get to Jerusalem the most expedient route would be to cut through Samaria. Which is what we see Jesus doing during the very first part of the travel narrative when he sends messengers ahead of him to make ready for his travels (9:52).

Unlike John, Luke has Jesus travel to Jerusalem only once. On his way there are some major themes in which quite a bit of the material plays off of. Look for key pieces when trying to figure out what each section looks like. Putting a few pieces together will help you see where everything else fits. The questions that will help the most are these. What is Jesus doing? Where is Jesus? Who is interacting with him, and how are they interacting? Is what is going on in one section related to anything going on in a nearby section?

Its Advent

The first Day of advent is drawing to a close. Light the first candle and sing a song... This one's always a classic.

Can you think of a time when you waited for something or someone?

Luke: A longer walk with Jesus

I would like to take a brief look at Luke as a whole. When I work on a puzzle I often find it useful to take a good look at the whole picture before I examine the individual pieces. By doing this I feel comfortable working on a small section; the larger picture helps me understand the smaller parts. Reading the bible is somewhat similar. If you want to understand a passage getting a good look at the context of the whole book is quite helpful, and it's something many of us don't take time to do.

The Gospel of Luke is the longest of the four Gospels and the third in order of occurrence in the New Testament. It is one of the synoptic gospels along with Mark and Matthew. Synoptic comes from a Greek word which means "seen together." These three gospels are so designated because of their remarkable similarity to one another in contrast to John which is a more divergent source. Passages in Luke will often have a parallel in another gospel in which the same story is told in a slightly different way. In examining any passage in the Bible one must look for parallels elsewhere. This is especially true in Luke.

There are a few things you should know about Luke that will make interpreting this Gospel a richer, and somewhat more cognizant experience.

1. First Luke was probably written for more of a Gentile context then Matthew or Mark, because of this he does have a tendency to explain more about Jewish culture then the other synoptics. That is not to say that he does not use Jewish culture and history freely within the text, he does. In fact there are some things in Luke which are deeply entrenched with the culture and history of Judaism that without having a good understanding Judaism in the first century you could easily miss what is going on. While reading Luke or any other gospel you should always ask yourself if there is anything in the background you need to know more about.

2. Another thing you should keep in mind while reading Luke is that he is using sources. He tells us at the beginning of this Gospel that it is a result of research from a variety of sources. So do not be shocked if Luke seems to be interacting with other material here and there, he probably is.

3. Finally Luke seems to have an emphasis on the poor and the widow. Luke links the life of Jesus strongly to a way of life that uplifts the oppressed, and marginalized in society. Much of what Jesus says in Luke will challenge your allegiances and your pocketbook, that is if you are actually willing to take it seriously.

The book has often been divided into six separate parts. These parts are not outlined in the text itself. Rather they are the invention of scholars who have broken down the text in order to make some sense out of what is going on. The sections are as follows:

1. Introduction (1:1-4) - This section is an introduction to the book. In it he dedicates the book to Theophilus. Who or what Theophilus is remains a mystery.

2. Jesus is born, and grows up (1:5- 2:52) - This section deals with the early life of Jesus. His birth is foretold, as well as the birth of John the baptist. He is born, and Luke then recounts about some early encounters in the life of Jesus.

3. Baptism and Temptation (3:1-4:14) - Jesus is baptized by John the baptist, and is tempted in the wilderness. At this point we also get a genealogy of Jesus.

4. Jesus' ministry in Galilee (4:14-9:50) - This is a large section in which Jesus is teaching, healing, and working miracles in a region at the northern end of the Jordan river called Galilee. It is just north of the modern day "West Bank." It is here that he calls his 12 Disciples.

5. The travel narrative (9:51- 19:27) - The Longest section of Luke, this is a section I will talk about in greater detail in the next segment. In this section Jesus does a great many things while traveling toward Jerusalem. In it he calls and sends, blesses and curses, praises and laments. Through it all we see glimpses of the Kingdom of God, and sometimes they are hard to accept.

6. Jesus in Jerusalem, His death, and resurrection (19:28-20:53) - Great stories are full of confrontation. Jesus' life is no different. In this section the climax of the Jesus story rolls in. He enters and teaches in Jerusalem, then is arrested and is crucified. He dies, and then rises from the dead and ascends into heaven. It leaves you begging for a sequel, which you actually do get in a book called "Acts." Acts picks up where Luke leaves off and follows the early years of the church. Although I think it is important to view Acts and Luke together, I won't get into the themes and structure of that book here.

So there you have it: Luke, fast and furious. Now you are ready to start working on the puzzle.

An anwser to "Could God Create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it"

I have often heard the question asked "could God create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it" or more recently "could God create a burrito so hot he could not eat it"... there are potentially millions of these examples.

Today I would like to answer these questions for you.

First: we should get our terminology right. I am a theist so what God means to me is a being which is outside of the universe, who created the universe. I don't mean a life force within the universe or anything like that. I assume transcendence of all when I use the term God. Some might not, and for them the answer to this question might be quite different.

Second: all these examples I have heard deal with an attribute of an object contained within the universe. (a rock, a burrito, etc...). The attribute itself is something that is relative to the empirical capacity of the one who is experiencing it, and/or relative to the environment in which the subject is being interacted with. (i.e. the weight of a rock changes based on the gravitational field in which you experience it, the heat of a burrito is something that is only experienced by beings and objects that have the proper receptacles to register the effects of the capsaicin in the peppers used.)

Third: For God to be able to interact with these objects in a way that answers these questions he would have to manifest himself in the world in a way that is particular rather then transcendent. He would have to choose to enter the world in a form that has the capacity to be limited by the laws of physics.

Fourth: We have a term for this, it's called "incarnation." For the question to be answered God would have to become incarnate in a form that is able to interact with the given object in a way that allowed him to experience the attribute or quality relative to the question within a point of reference where the attributes are manifest in a way in which the incarnate God could experience them in a way that allowed the question to be answered.

Fifth: as a Christian I believe God did this in the Person of Jesus Christ, and within this form there were many rocks God had created that Jesus was not strong enough to lift. And although I don't know if Jesus ever had a burrito, there probably were some foods to hot for him to eat.

So I guess the answer to most of these questions would be: YES

The Lord's Supper - Part IV - Thanksgiving!!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
σήμερον εὐχαριστῶ διά ὑμῖν - I give thanks this day because of you!

In greek the word for "give thanks" is εὐχαριστῶ (Eucharistéō ). It is from this word that we get the word Eucharist.

You can see where we get it in the passages below:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks (eucharistéō), He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
(1 Corinthians 11:23-24, NASB)

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks (eucharistéō), He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."
(Mark 14:23-24, NASB)

Today as we (Americans) gather together to break bread and give thanks. I hope we can keep the Lord's supper in our minds.

I don't have to much to say today. My wife's whole family is crowded in out little apartment and I have to make sure I get some of our thanksgiving meal started, but I just wanted to remind you that the thing I am MOST thankful for is the cross of Christ Jesus. Thanks for reading!

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Lord's Supper Part III - Do we do this in Rememberence?

This week we have been examining the Lord's Supper from a number of angles. In dealing with every Biblical text we must recognize that we do not have the original autographs of any of the books we have. What we have is a collection of manuscripts which never agree with one another 100%. Most of the variants are insignificant and deal primarily with simple scribal errors in the process of copying. However the "words of institution" do contain a variant that merits closer examination.

In a number of early manuscripts Luke 22:19b-20 is missing. This text includes the words "which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" As I discussed earlier in our examination of the various accounts the version in Luke of Jesus' words has two cups. One before the bread and one after. By removing these verses the text resembles the other passages with only one cup. We must ask the question, "which version is correct," and "does it matter?"

According to Bruce M. Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994) the shorter reading is most possibly the result of a confused editor who was puzzled by the order, or perhaps the shorter version was a result of the so called "Disciplina Arcana" (or "The Discipline of the Secret.") Early Christians may have changed the wording on Gospels made to be distributed to unbelievers. They would do this because the words of the omitted verses are very similar to what many scholars believe to be the words of the liturgy in the church at that time. The distribution of copies that omit this passage would be done to protect the Eucharist from being profaned by those who would be tempted to abuse it. However all this is hypothetical.

There is textual evidence that the shorter version is less authentic as well. The shorter version is only found in the "Western type" of text. The longer version on the other hand is found in all ancient text types INCLUDING the "Western type."

Although I believe the Longer version is probably the original, it should be mentioned that there are those who argue the shorter version is authentic. They argue that there is non-Lukan linguistic features used in the section in question. However this could indicate Luke was using a source which would not be at all surprising since by his own admission he did collect a number of accounts to craft this Gospel. The other primary criticism is that in general shorter readings are preferred over longer ones in New Testament textual criticism. However this argument is based on an assumption made before the text is even examined, and is therefore suspect.

We can't ignore the remarkable similarities between the Luke passage and the passage from 1 Corinthians. We may never know what the original origin of this phrasing is, but I have no trouble believing that wherever it came from it can be traced back to Christ Jesus' own words which inspired the sacred liturgy.

Did Darwin Kill God?

Check out this documentary...
What do you think??

The Lord's Supper: Part II - Is John 6 the Lord's Supper?

You may have noticed that while we went through FOUR accounts of the words of institution we only covered THREE of the four Gospels! What is blue blazes is going on here!! Don't worry all ye who love John. Although the fourth Gospel does not include the "words of institution" it does include a passage very much worth talking about.

Check out John 6:22-59. The passage is pretty long so I'm not going to post the whole thing here. But in it Jesus is met by a crowd that is looking for him so that they might receive bread from him. They want to see him work a sign like was done in the time of Moses in the desert. This miracle is referenced throughout the Hebrew Bible (Ps 78:24; Ex 16:4, 15; Neh 9:15; Ps 105:40) as a sign of God's provision for his people. Jesus responds in a very bizarre way. He says "I am the bread from heaven." Instead of associating himself with moses, he associates himself with the manna which is consumed. Many throughout the history of the church have associated this with the "Lord's Supper." I know I have run into
verses 53-55 over and over again as "proof texts" for transubstantiation, they read as follows:

"So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. "

These verses at first glance seem to close to the Lord's supper to be unrelated. However that connection is not explicit in the text. Although I think it is very important to think about this passage in the context of the Christian practice of celebrating the "Lord's Supper" which was in practice in many churches at the time this Gospel was written, we have to be careful that we don't import or export meaning that isn't there. In this passage Jesus is actually making a DISTINCTION between himself and bread. The people came looking for food. Jesus offers himself instead. In the other four accounts Jesus relates himself to physical bread which is distributed. In this encounter people come looking for physical bread and Jesus offers his flesh. In response the Jews ask this question (verse 52), "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

I believe that question is one that we must never rest easy on. Is there a way that we encounter Christ in communion. I believe there is. Is that the end of the story? No, absolutely not! Jesus is confronting those who follow him for temporal satisfaction, and calling them to life eternal. This passage confronts the institution more then it establishes it. If we do not allow room for it to confront and transform our own lives we have missed the main point. This passage is not about transubstantiation, consubstantiation, sacramental union, or the Consensus Tigurinus. What I see more here is that the indwelling of Christ in us becomes so tactile and all encompassing that we are always finding ourselves somewhat offended at it's uncouth occupation.

The Lord's Supper: Part I - Compare the Words of institution

The Christian religion is made up of many sects, denominations, and churches. One of the themes that you will find in almost all of the is a celebration of the "Lord's Supper." The "Lord's Supper" was instituted by Jesus during his last meal with his disciples before his execution. In the gospels we have 4 accounts of the words of institution (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; and also 1 Cor 11:23-26.) Each of them is a little bit different. How Christians understand the "Lord's Supper" rests upon these verses, and how a group interprets their words and their differences. So lets take a look at what each one says. First lets look at Matthew and Mark they are the most similar of all four accounts. Notice the BOLD words in the English, these are differences. I have provided the Greek as well for reference.

1. Matthew 26:26-29
   
1. Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ
   Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν, Λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ' ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ' ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου.
   
2. "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you;
   for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
   
2. Mark 14:22-25
   
1. Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν, Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.
   
2. "And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
3. Luke 22:15-20 - As we move on to Luke I will only be highlighting NEW content we have not seen in Matthew or Mark.
   
1. καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἐπιθυμίᾳ
   ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν: λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς: λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.
   
2. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
   
4. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - Here we will continue to highlight things we have not seen yet!
   
1. Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἧ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν, Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ.
2. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,
   that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
5. Recap:
1. Notice in Luke this Passage the Cup is passed first! THEN there is another cup incident after supper.
2. Some of the Changes in Luke are pretty much the same, but with slight differences wording.
3. There is a greater focus of the disciples in Luke.
4. In Luke the kingdom "comes" in Matthew
5. In Luke tells us Jesus Desires to eat "passover" with his disciples. In Mark and Matthew there is a mention of passover frequently in the preceding passages. 1 Corinthians does not mention passover
6. 1 Corinthians gives context which makes sense since it's not part of a Gospel.
7. Paul says he's "received [this] from the Lord"... How?
8. "Remembrance" is mentioned for both bread and wine in 1 Corinthians 11, and only for the bread in Luke. It's never used in Matthew or Mark.
9. 1 Corinthians seems to be more similar to Luke

Now We've Got our feet wet. My question is are these differences significant?

I know some of you are thinking "WHAT ABOUT JOHN??" Don't worry We'll get there read the rest of the series!

preserve, protect and defend

For what do we Weep?

"Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people."— Jer 9:1

Jeremiah is known as the “weeping prophet.” A theme of tears seems to follow him wherever he goes. Jeremiah cries out for his people, for their coming destruction, as a call for moral reform, and over the destruction that eventually does lay waste to Jerusalem. Christians throughout the history of the Church have asked the question, “over what do we rightly weep?” In each generation there is a place to weep over the troubles and evils in our world, and there is a place to cry out for peoples and cultures to turn away from the things that break and wound their relationship with their creator.

Today we cry out for many things. Some of us weep over our broken relationship with our environment, others over abortion. Some weep for they fear the “Family” as they know it is breaking down and yet others cry for an end to wars. There is no end to brokenness over which we should weep. However the most common response I see in the world in a failure to weep at all.

We are a culture that is complacent to the brokenness around us until it breaks in upon us with violence. We weep when tragedy and terror strike, when the shattering of lives finally is able to soften our hearts to the shattered nature of this world. It is at this time that many preachers have often stood up like Jeremiah and called people to reform.

I read a sermon by Charles Spurgeon this week that did just that. It was entitled “India's Ills and England's Sorrows,” and it used the occasion of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to call people to weep for their own broken community. I am always impressed with Spurgeon’s masterful use of language and emotion to pierce people’s hearts. I suppose that is why he is called the “prince of preachers.” He relates the desire for war stirred up in the hearts of the British after a brutal slaughter of English men and women to what should be their desire to wipe out the sin that so entangles their community. His prayer and call is this, “Ah, may God be pleased to raise up many who shall warn this city, and bid Christian people by day and night ‘for the slain of the daughter of our people!’ Christians, never leave off weeping for men's sins and infamies!”

But what do we cry for? And how do we cry? I am reminded of the proclamations of many religious leaders after 9/11 and hurricane Katrina that the causes of our ills were to be placed upon the shoulders the homosexuals and abortionists. To me this sort of proclamation is not that of a prophet, but of a propagandist, a call not out of love, but from a loathing that is sickening to me. It sickens me because I see the same dark tendency within my own heart.

If we are to see any tragedy as a call to repentance, it must be FIRST a sorrow over the brokenness of our own ability to love like Jesus. THIS is what I want to weep for, it starts with me, and if my own heart is so hard I cannot weep over my own brokenness how could I ever expect to be equipped to call out another. The hope of the Gospel is that we have a healer that has called us to love. Any condemnation that we give out is a condemnation of the church that we have not loved like Christ, for any brokenness we see shows us we have not allowed the healer to reign.

The Power of Poverty - Jeremiah 33:14-16

14The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 33:14-16 NRSV)

Jerusalem had been under Siege for a year and a half. SIEGE the word itself would send shivers down your spine. The armies of your enimies surround you, cut off food suplies, and wait. It was nothing less then the slow suffocation of a city. There was no way to eat, and there was no hope to survive. It turned people into monsters that did things that even the most corrupt men dare not whisper. Siege was the kind of bondage that would eat you from the inside out. As you body wasted away so often your humanity would fade. Even the most sacred bonds of love and family became twisted and depraved as the survival instinct overcame every ideal and virtue.

Jerusalem had been under Siege for a year and a half, and there wasn't much hope that they would pull out of it alive.

Jeremiah had warned the people this would happen. He really had, he had done it with word and signs and cries. He had persisted even when other Prophets had been executed for saying the kinds of words he was saying, and now he was locked away by order of the King, darkness was at the door and there was little hope he would make it out alive.

The situation was BEYOND dire when Jeremiah heard the words of the prophesy above that WE so often associate with such hope and Joy. We, in the church, read this passage to "Kick off" advent and the new church year in just a couple weeks. In the season of advent we set aside time to prepare our hearts for Christmas when we remember when Jesus Christ took on flesh and came into this world. At this time we remember the words of those who waited for a savior, and rejoice in the knowledge that God was faithful to all his promises.

These words have come to mean far more then the thin hope they held for the original hearers. For us in the church they are how we begin the story that will take us through the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These words offer a powerful language that the earliest Christians grabbed hold of as they encountered the Kingdom of God and said, "You see this (pointing to the the words of Jeremiah), THIS (pointing to the kingdom of God) is what he was talking about!"

There is such a sweetness to a promise that you can take hold of. There is such Joy in a God you can see at work. There is indescribable beauty in these words because for us they are such a powerful testimony to God's faithfulness.

But remember Jerusalem had been under Siege for a year and a half, and when Jeremiah heard the words "The days are surely coming when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel" there wasn't a good chance Jeremiah would ever make it out of prison alive to share the word of what God had spoken. This promise was not one he would taste in his lifetime, but he was still faithful, and there is something about that that stirs me.

In C.S. Lewis book "The Screwtape Letter" presents a series of letters from one Demon to Another on how to tempt and draw his charge to the gates of Hell. Over and over the Senior Devil, Screwtape, corrects the Junior devil, Wormwood, who seems intent on tempting in simple and obvious ways, the real truth requires a deeper understanding then is immediately obvious. In one exchange Screwtape explains the curious habit of God withdrawing from his beloved ones with these words, "Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."

When someone who has been stripped of everything still fights for what they know is right there is a new kind of force unleashed. There is a mysterious power in poverty. All of us recognize it. That is why we are moved by stories of faithful suffering.

• Nelson Mandela brought the attention of the world to Apartheid, because he suffered for 27 years in prison, much more then his actions that convicted him did.
• Mother Theresa's life of service is incredible in and of itself, but is even more powerful in light of her memoirs in which she describes a period of 11 years where she felt completely isolated from God.
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer is seen as an authority on discipleship because he believed what he said enough to die for it at the hands of the Nazis.
• The early Church so inspired the world around them through their suffering that the church father Tertullian wrote: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" (Apologeticus, Chapter 50)
  

We are moved by stories of faithful suffering...We recognize the power...But some people don't just recognize the power, they know it. Jeremiah, like so many before and after him, knew that Power. And so did Jesus.Jesus Christ emptied himself, and took on flesh. He was mocked, he was ridiculed, he cried out to have the Cup of suffering taken away from him, but he was faithful to the end. THAT is why at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is LORD.

Christ calls, "follow me, take up your cross, and suffer, join with me in the work of saving this world." But he doesn't explain how it will work, he just calls us to do it, and in it we experiance something mystical. As we die we find there is a saving power of resurrection.So often we want it in reverse. We want resurrection without death. We want salvation without the cross. We want glory without humility. We turn God into a means for our love, joy, and peace... and rarely do we see that he is calling US to be HIS love, joy, and peace. Even when it costs us our lives.In John 12 Jesus says these words, "Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also."Have you allowed God to plant you? Think about it. Have you allowed God to plant you? To bury you?Are you content to be a seed in comfort when God intends for you to sow in tears?

The Joy we know in the promise given through Jeremiah did not come through complacent people who were content to stay where they were but though those who looked round upon a universe from which every trace of God seemed to have vanished and still obeyed. And the one who cried "my God my God why have you forsaken me?" reconciled ALL THINGS to himself (Colossians 1:20).That my Friends is the mystery of our faithSo I ask you again, have you allowed God to plant you...The call is never over... Jesus tells us in Luke 9 ""If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. "

Not weekly, Monthly, or Yearly
It's not about the mission trip you did last year. Or the year of service before that. It's not about the soup kitchen last month, or the coat you gave away. It's about who rules your life, DAILY

Let's read that passage again

"The DAYS are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15In those DAYS and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16In those DAYS Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 33:14-16 NRSV)

Are those days our days?

We rejoice in the Work of Christ Jesus, but to we live under his rule?

The pain of life is all too real some days, but the power of the Gospel is revealed in continuing to pick up the cross when we fall and to follow in the steps of our Lord on the way to Golgotha.

May God grant us all the grace to hold fast during the storms, and bring us into New Life Daily.

Jeremiah Then And Now - David A. Hasey

I've been working of some material related to Jeremiah this week. I'll post some of my thoughts on the man early next week, but until then I thought you might like this. A reader and a friend of mine wrote this poem a few years ago... It's pretty Clever... It's called Jeremiah Then And Now.

If you like it, check out the rest, at David's Blog http://ivebeenthinkingessays.blogspot.com/

Grace and Peace
-Billy Kangas

Jeremiah Then And Now

In the younger years of king Josiah,
The Lord first spoke to Jeremiah.
Before he saw the light of day,
The Lord had formed him out of clay,
And called to him, set him apart
Commanding him, “Speak from the heart.”
The youthful bride has turned away,
When other gods lured her astray.
“The nation turned away from me
To follow other gods, you see.
Unfaithfulness do I abhor,
You’ve turned away again, and more.
To follow after false god Baal.
For this offense I now will rail.”
“You steal and kill and also lie.
There is no sin you will not try.
Forsaken are the Ten Commands
On which your moral precept stands.
E’en though you sin you have no shame,
On someone else you place the blame.
The prophets, leaders, priests, and kings
Have placed their trust in worthless things.
They all are seeking unjust gain,
And on their victims cause much pain.”
“Beware of friend, don’t trust your brother,
For each will now deceive the other.
Prophet and priest practice deceit,
In every house, on every street.
Widows and orphans they have robbed,
‘Gainst righteous men they too have mobbed.
False gods are worshipped in temple spaces.
For the Lord of Hosts there are no places.”
“Peace… Peace...” they always say,
E’en though true peace is far away.
“Peace… Peace…” a hollow echo,
When king Josiah was killed by Necho.
Some vied for Asshur, some for the Nile,
To follow God, futile denial.
Still others looked to Babylon’s aid,
Their independence thus did trade.
Independence at any cost
Resulted in their freedom lost.
As each party would vie for power,
The rest would stand aside and glower.
Bringing their wrath ‘gainst Jeremiah,
Imprisoned under Zedekiah.
Placed in pillory and stock,
While people came to jeer and mock.
He spoke against their evil ways,
He prophesied for all his days.
Jehoiakim his words did spurn,
He cast them in the fire to burn.
And so he grabbed his mighty pen,
And wrote them all back down again.
He called to them, “You must repent,
That God fierce anger might relent.”
And spoke of grand and glorious day,
When new cov’nant would come our way.
Yet they refused to change their way,
Causing the Lord in grief to say,
“An army comes from distant land,
As vast it is as grains of sand.
To capture ev’ry city and town –
Jerusalem to be knocked down.”
At sound of them the Jews take flight,
In fear and awe they fled at night.
The watchfire signals all die down,
They’ve captured ev’ry other town.
Jerusalem is all that’s left,
The city that the Lord has left.
Their army scattered on the plain,
Some were captured, some were slain.
The people then were led away,
Jer’miah’s words came true that day."

David A. Hasey
© 2005

Where is God when Life Tumbles In? - Theodicy when it counts

This week I read one of the most powerful sermons I've ever encountered. It was written by Arthur John Gossip the day after his wife passed away very suddenly, and unexpectedly. It is entitled "But When Life Tumbles In, What Then?"

In this image Gossip stands up and invites the congregation through the dark torrents of despair, pain and confusion. He weaves the image of the Jordan flooded, cold, dreadful and terrifying throughout an onslaught of raw humanity. He shows us Christ's own suffering at the thought of his calling, the anger of the prophets, the shadows of Dante, and the image of a God who seems as if he steps on us as ants. There is pain dripping from his words, just as our lives in the torment of grief can feel undone, betrayed, and meaningless.

Religion is often entered into some sort of contract. All is well while God runs parallel to our own ambitions and desires, however when people in deep pain turn to God they often find in their time of greatest need he has parted ways with them. At this point a question must be asked. Is God uncaring? Cruel? or is he faithful? It is at this point our religion is tested, where we see if our love for God is simply a "fair-weather affair."
The crux of Gossip's message hangs on his statement,

"I do not understand this life of ours. But still less can I comprehend how people in trouble and loss and bereavement can fling away peevishly from the Christian faith. In God's name, fling to what? Have we not lost enough without losing that too?"

We do not have a God who is indifferent to our suffering. Along with images of pain and confusion Gossip talks about a painting of Christ crucified, subtle in the background is God's form supporting Christ, and a face in greater agony then the savior's own. We have a God whose grace is known best not in times of spring, but in times of winter.
To forfeit one faith at a time of suffering is to forfeit the only hope which can carry us across the raging deluge. Gossip knows this better then I ever had, and closes with these words:

"I don't think you need to be afraid of life. Our hearts are very frail, and there are places where the road is very steep and very lonely, but we have a wonderful God. And, as Paul puts it, 'What can separate us from his love? Not death,' he writes immediately. No, not death, for standing in the roaring of the Jordan, cold with its dreadful chill and very conscious of it terror, of its rushing, I, too, like Hopeful in Pilgrim's Progress, can call back to you who one day in your turn will have to cross it, "Be of good cheer, my brother, for I feel the bottom and it is sound."

A Crash Course in Dicipleship

Something I need to think about every day!!

Art, Mystery, And Christ

Should we Censure Religious Extremists?

This afternoon I had lunch with Amos N. Guiora, professor of Law at J.S. Quinney Law School, University of Utah, and fellow Ann Arbor, Michigan native. We discussed his new book Freedom From Religion: Rights and National security. I must say Guiora speaks with a candidness that is both provocative and disturbing. In his book he addressed the issue of Religious Extremism.

In his view extremism emerges when a "doctrine of certitude" is disseminated throughout a religious body by religious leaders who use it to promote a narrow and violent stream of the religion.

This extremism can be seen in I. Beliefs - Which he argues can't be changed II. Conduct - Which shouldn't be changed and III. Speech - which he argues must be censured.

The of proposition of censure is surprising coming from Guiora. The First amendment is something of a sacred cow in constitutional law. So how does a law professor get to this point?

Today he laid out his case clearly. Religious terminology is full of deep and nuanced language. Often a religious leader can say something that is coded and dangerous. Guiora gave the example of a Fatwah as something that is not a direct order for assassination, but is interpreted as that by some in the audience.

We also discussed many of the ways that internal censure has failed. He gave the institutionalized statutory rape of the FLDS, and their practice of abandoning teen boys in Salt Lake City as one example. I must confess these are topics I know little to nothing about. He also spoke about honor killings within Muslim families, the "lost boys of Minneapolis", the prayers for Obama's Death by some, and the role of Radical Judaism in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

I agree with Guiora that there may be some sort of censure of extremism required, and I do realize that internal moderation has not and will not be effective. BUT I'm not sure his means are a good solution. I don't think we should ever put censure in the hands of the state.

Guiora argues that we should expand the definition of a "clear and present danger" established by Schenck v. United States. Thus the State would means by which extremism is defined by each society.

Guiora believes this is necessary because "the greatest threat to civilized society is religious extremism." I would argue that this may just put the government itself in a position where they become the most clear and present danger.

It's a difficult issue, and we haven't even begun to talk about what this sort of legislation would to to religious communities. There is already too much of a strong human tendency to marginalized those seen as "the Other." I believe this idea may cause much more injustace then it prevents.... What do you think?

Discipleship

Born of Water and the Spirit

John 3:3-8 (English Standard Version)
³ Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." ⁴ Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" ⁵ Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷ Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' ⁸ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

The idea of Christian rebirth is found most frequently in the Gospel of John. It is from John that we get the idea of being "Born Again." In fact out of the 6 occurrences of the Greek word gennan (the term that John uses to describe rebirth from God) in John FIVE of them occur in the short passage above. So what does it mean?

Jesus uses 5 parallel sayings to refer to this one idea:

“born from above“ in 3:3
“born from water and Spirit“ in 3:5
“born from the Spirit“ in 3:6
“born from above“ in 3:7
“born from the Spirit“ in 3:8

Out of these Five sayings one of them doesn't fit as neatly...
Can you guess which one?

If you said “born from water and Spirit“ in 3:5 you are right!

Born of spirit fits pretty well. Most people will explain it as some form of the life of God [however whether that is the Holy Spirit, God in essence (John 4:24), the words of Jesus (John 6:63), or simply the life of a Child of God is still debated].

The real problem in understanding this passage comes with trying to grasp what John was talking about when he said "Bord from water." My whole life I have heard this passage explained in so many different ways I didn't know what to do with it. Perhaps you've heard a few of them yourself:

1) Water is being contrasted negatively with Spirit. John the Baptist baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Spirit. Another hallmark of this view is a removal of the parallelism in this section. However suggestion fails to notice the fact that “water and Spirit” are governed by one preposition and must be viewed as referring to one entity.

2) Water is a reference to the baptism of John, and it's a good thing. My question in this understanding is: why would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he needed to enlist in the followers of John the Baptist? Another question that may be even more important is: why would the the writer of John give such emphasis on John's baptism?

3) Water refers to Christian baptism. For this to be the case the passage would have to be anachronistic, which is not out of the question. I have to say i am skeptical of this idea though. The Gospel keeps separate that which is pre-resurrection and that which is post-resurrection (e. g., 2:21-22 and 7:39). Also note that the author does not make baptism a prerequisite for entering the kingdom or having eternal life at any other point.

4) Water is to be understood of physical birth. I've heard this one a few times. It means one should be born physically (through semen and/or amniotic fluid) and spiritually. This makes the verse a parallel to the verse that follows, but is a little weird.

5) The passage is using the water to indicate semen like above HOWEVER it's not a physical seed but a “spiritual seed.”

6) “Water and Spirit” is a hendiadys. John “pairs in tension” frequently. In these pairs the word "And" (kai in greek) indicates the first word or concept is additional explanation or explanatory material which describes the second word of concept which is the more important one. In this structure the second word is seminal and defines and explains the first. In this view John does not mean anything different with “water and Spirit” than he means with “Spirit” in 3:6 and 8. Interestingly enough the Hebrew Bible and Judaism associate “water” and “Spirit” in describing the life-giving work of God. (See Isa 32:15; 44:3; 59:19; Ezek 36:25-27; Zech 12:10; 1QS 3:7-9; 4:21; 1QH 16:12. See also 1 Cor 12:13 and Titus 3:5.)

So what do you think? Which of these 6 ideas makes the most sense to you?

//special thanks to Klyne Snodgrass who put a great deal of this information together...

Are you Born Again?

John 1 should blow your mind

As long time readers know John 1:1-18 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible; it also one of the hardest passages in the Bible for scholars to figure out. John in General is very difficult to figure out (much of the scholarship for the last few centuries has been turned on it head for one reason or another)…

This passage is often called the “prologue of John.” Some scholars once theorized that this section was a Hymn inserted based on the uniqueness of certain terms (logos and grace in the prologue that appear nowhere else in the Book). This idea doesn’t take into account much of the significance of this passage to the whole. The prologue in John sets the stage for the rest of the book. It shows the areas of focus John takes in Gospel: A) Jesus’ Divine role, and B) the authority of those who believe in God.

Alan Culpepper (“The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” New Testament Studies 27, 1980, 1-31) believes that the prologue is a chiasmus with 12b at the center. I think he might be on to something take a look at the structure:

A vv.1-2 The Word as God and with God
. B v. 3 Creation came through the Word
. . C vv. 4-5 We have received life through the Word
. . . D vv. 6-8 John the Baptist is sent to testify
. . . . E vv. 9-10 Incarnation and the response of the world
. . . . . F v. 11 The Word and his own (Israel)
. . . . . . G v. 12a Those who accepted the Word
. . . . . . . . H v. 12b Authority to become children of God
. . . . . . G’ v. 12c Those who believed the Word
. . . . . F’ v. 13 The Word and his own (believers)
. . . . E’ v. 14 Incarnation and the response of the community
. . . D’ v. 15 The testimony of John the Baptist
. .C’ v. 16 We have received grace through the Word
. B’ v. 17 Grace and truth came through the Word
A’ v. 18 The Word as God and with God

As in any chiasmus we should pay close attention to the Beginning and the turning part (the “As” and the “H”)

In the A’s we see an on the identity of Logos (the word – which is Christ) as God

In the H section we see authority/ right to be children of God

The theme’s of John’s Gospel are laid out right from the get go! STUNNING!

But it gets better!! Take a look at Exodus 33:12-34:9 this passage is basically the primary text dealing with the revelation of God in the Old testament. In this passage Moses wants to see God's glory. God allows him to see his "back" but not his face since no one could see him and live (note John 1:18).

Then God passes by and proclaims his name.

a name is a semetic context is more then what you are called... it reffers to What a person stands for, and has accomplished.

So God passes by and Proclaims his name as these words:
"The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in Hesed ve 'emet"

"Hesed ve 'emet" is a hebrew phrase, which is
rendered in John’s Greek as charis kai alētheia (“grace and truth”).

"Grace and Truth" is a part of the Holy Name of God. Now go back and read John 1:1-18

John 1 should blow your mind

The one God who would not show his face to any man, even Moses, has been to shown to us through incarnation. Jesus IS THE UNIQUE GOD of verse 18 and he has MADE GOD KNOWN, and given us the right to be children of God....

Amazing!

//Thanks to Klyne Snodgrass who helped me see this!

The Outlaw Preachers

I finally got around to listening to the first "Outlaw Preacher" podcast today. It came out late last month.

Who are the "Outlaw Preachers?" I'm not sure if you've run into them at all, but they are a new band of pastors and other Christians who have been stirring up some dust in the more wild regions of the internet. This band of "law breakers" has been causing trouble and plans on causing more.

This is a group of folks I've been following for a while. They've come under a bit of heat because of their association with Jay Bakker, a very influential and controversial Pastor.

Bakker's ministry is grace focused and that emphasis led him to reach out to the Gay community with acceptance a few years ago. As a result of this acceptance Bakker has lost a lot of support and is now the target of a great number of "Heresy Hunters." These "Heresy Hunters" have begun condemning anyone who is connected to Bakker by virtue of association.

I was curious about what this group is all about so I decided to find out. One of their ringleaders, Khad young, is an old friend of mine. We used to ministry together many years ago...

Last time I talked to Khad I asked him what this whole "outlaw preacher" thing was all about...

his response: GRACE

Being an "outlaw preacher" has very little to do with doctrine, and quite a bit to do with love. They belive that God loves everyone and so should we. Love is something that needs to be shown even with those we disagree with.

Take a look at http://www.outlawpreachers.com/ to hear the first Podcast

OR
go to http://twitter.com/outlawpreachers and listen in on the conversation

Beautiful Chaos

Worship doesn't always go as planed Just ask the folks in the temple the day Jesus decided to show up with a whip... (John 2:13-16)

Hiccups in worship are my favorite part of a Church Service. I think it's amazing when things go completely NOT according to plan, but wind up being perfect because of it...

I have caused quite a few hiccups. I have fallen off stages on more then one occasion. One day I forgot to bring the Power Point Slides so we had to pull them off the web in real time. In the process we had a worship service with pop up ads of girls in Bikinis going off while singing "The Wonderful Cross." I have broken probably 100 strings on stage in my whole Career as a worship leader.

These are all technical glitches... Even better then these are spiritual glitches.

I have gone up to Preach and had a sense I was preaching the wrong thing as I got up to the Pulpit and just spoke from my heart. These are some of the best sermons I've ever preached.

I have seen people get up and say something during worship that has thrown all the plans out the window because it was a truth that we needed to spend some time with... Even if it came in the wrong Church Season.

These moments are powerful... One of my favorites was when Jay Bakker spoke at the St. Louis Youth Specialties conferance in 2003... If you haven't seen it Track it down!

If you don't know what I'm talking about check out the following video, it's a hiccup that I thought was pretty interesting:




Have you ever experienced Beautiful Chaos in Worship?

Virtual Community? Virtual Incarnation?

I have often wondered what Marshall McLuhan has to say to theologians, and Christians. One man who has been asking these questions for a few years now is Shane Hipps. He is one of the few voices out there actually dealing with the theology of media.

Shane argues that Incarnation is the Medium by which God works in Christianity. Flesh and blood is a form of media by which the Divine chooses to work...

This is very much in line with what McLuhan has to say about Jesus in The Medium and the Light:

"In Jesus Christ, there is no distance or separation between the medium and the message: it is the one case where we can say that the medium and the message are fully one and the same."

This "Flesh and blood" understanding of the message of Jesus is powerful but has a tendency to look at community that is not "flesh and blood" as counterfeit. In the following video Shanes explains why he denies the possibility of virtual community.

For perspective on media in theology that gives more room for virtual community look at what Chris Ridgeway is doing over at "Jesus Under Plastic"

I myself have a "virtual community" I love it dearly... All of you are a part of it!

Take a look at the video!



I have Three questions for Shane:
1) You rightly say History is required for community. However I fail to see HOW virtual communities LACK a history. Many of my friends online are people I have had a long history with. Some I have been talking to me for years though we haven't met. Some I talked to for years and were instant friends when I moved to Chicago. Others were friends I had from Michigan but I now only see online.

2) You talk about "message boards" but fail to take into account how we can now have "face to Face" contact over the Web. When my wife and I are apart we video Chat and play boardgames online Just like we do at home. It feels like she's still with me even though she might be hundreds of miles away. I understand that we could not sustain a healthy marriage indefinitely that way, but why not a friendship and a community?

3) Why is Proximity contingent on "flesh and blood"? A simple question, that probably has no easy answer.