Today's reading was all about interpretative meaning. The OT reading was pretty obvious, but had an object lesson that is important. Joseph was given the gift of interpreting dreams, and he interpreted dreams so accurately that he was redeemed from prison.
In the NT reading, the disciples ask Jesus why He tells stories when He talks to the people. His response is that those who are open to the teaching will have a greater understanding, and that those who are not open will have even more taken from them.
In this method, rather than teach people directly, Jesus is teaching in parables so that his human listeners can ponder and wrestle with the meaning. Again, the act of wrestling with the meaning hearkens back to a prior reading when God changed Jacob's name to Israel, or "one who wrestles with God."
By contemplating the words, and the meaning behind the story, we have to use our intellect to try to understand the nature of God. It is in the process of thinking about God that our minds become attuned to God. What you feed in your mind is what grows. By meditating on the word of God, our minds grow to be more richly in tune with God. This is not only a desired goal in worship, but is also a way Jesus is protecting His flock. Storms will come, bad things will happen, but a mind that is richly in tune with God will be like a house on a stone foundation. It will survive, with much more of its structure intact, than will a house built on sand.
So we are asked to meditate on the word and interpret it. Does that mean that we can interpret it any way we want, as the deconstructionists would say? Or that there is no meaning at all? Well, we see in the OT reading a clear method for interpretation.
Before Joseph interpreted any dreams, he stated, only God can do such a thing. By giving credit and glory to God in all we do, we automatically have a guide for interpretation. If He is our fixed point of reference, then we can do things that others don't understand, and can't believe.
Similarly, meditating on the word of God requires placing faith in God's ability to lead us to an interpretation that makes sense according to His will and nature.
So how do we know how to do it? The Proverbs reading gave another clue. The Lord mocks at mockers, but He shows favor to the humble. With an approach of humble desire, we seek to understand. Not necessarily to teach, but to learn. It's those that try to say they "know" for sure what He means, that try to "Lord" their knowledge over others, it's those people who will be "put to shame." The proud will fall.
So, we are given license to interpret. But, we are also given a guide on the tools we need to interpret. Faith, humility, and desire seem to be those tools. But faith, most of all.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
No middle ground
Every so often, there is one of those sections that makes you scratch your head, until you think more about it and see the end result of the thought process.
In today's NT reading, Jesus says "Anyone who isn't helping me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me."
But, when the disciples tell Jesus that they stopped someone from casting out demons in Jesus' name because "he was not one of us," Jesus reminds them (Luke 9:50) "Don't stop him. Anyone who is not against you is for you."
What if someone isn't doing anything? In the first instance, that person is working against Jesus. In the second instance, that person is not necessarily against the disciples.
It seems that there are a couple of ways to look at this dichotomous philosophy. Either Jesus has different rules for himself than he does for the disciples, brooking less complacency than he would allow for followers of his disciples, or Jesus is trying to create a yin/yang approach to the commands He is giving. The inherent push/pull of interpretative attempts again creates in the user the need to hold two opposing viewpoints in his mind at the same time. This can definitely broaden one's perspective and help one to grow spiritually and intellectually, but unfortunately, it can create legalistic pitfalls, especially in the issue of complacency.
Jesus clearly brooks no middle ground. He says, flat out, that someone who is not actually for Him is against Him. Looking at our interaction with our deity, I fully believe in that. If you don't believe in God, then you actively disbelieve in Him. Non-belief is disbelief. There is no middle ground. And if you actively disbelieve in Him, then (if He exists) you are working *against* Him. But if you believe in Him, you are working for Him by your faith that He exists. There's no getting out of it.
But with man, things get muddled. If man is imperfect (he is), then man can have imperfection in the understanding of theology/divinity. And complacency, therefore, can be protective because one may not be "getting it right" and you can be allowed to be a little complacent, figuring things out, as long as you are not actively working against another man.
Either approach one takes to this dichotomy yields great meaning, I think. But, at the end of the day, there is no middle ground of faith.
In today's NT reading, Jesus says "Anyone who isn't helping me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me."
But, when the disciples tell Jesus that they stopped someone from casting out demons in Jesus' name because "he was not one of us," Jesus reminds them (Luke 9:50) "Don't stop him. Anyone who is not against you is for you."
What if someone isn't doing anything? In the first instance, that person is working against Jesus. In the second instance, that person is not necessarily against the disciples.
It seems that there are a couple of ways to look at this dichotomous philosophy. Either Jesus has different rules for himself than he does for the disciples, brooking less complacency than he would allow for followers of his disciples, or Jesus is trying to create a yin/yang approach to the commands He is giving. The inherent push/pull of interpretative attempts again creates in the user the need to hold two opposing viewpoints in his mind at the same time. This can definitely broaden one's perspective and help one to grow spiritually and intellectually, but unfortunately, it can create legalistic pitfalls, especially in the issue of complacency.
Jesus clearly brooks no middle ground. He says, flat out, that someone who is not actually for Him is against Him. Looking at our interaction with our deity, I fully believe in that. If you don't believe in God, then you actively disbelieve in Him. Non-belief is disbelief. There is no middle ground. And if you actively disbelieve in Him, then (if He exists) you are working *against* Him. But if you believe in Him, you are working for Him by your faith that He exists. There's no getting out of it.
But with man, things get muddled. If man is imperfect (he is), then man can have imperfection in the understanding of theology/divinity. And complacency, therefore, can be protective because one may not be "getting it right" and you can be allowed to be a little complacent, figuring things out, as long as you are not actively working against another man.
Either approach one takes to this dichotomy yields great meaning, I think. But, at the end of the day, there is no middle ground of faith.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Law vs Instruction
Another inspiring sermon today. Our pastor discussed the translational difficulties of the bible and pointed out the struggle between legalism and intent which was occurring at the time of Jesus ministry.
Apparently, the original sacred texts had been recorded in Hebrew, but at the time of Jesus, the common tongue of the translation was Greek. Therefore, there was a dichotomous approach to the bible. The "learned scholar" studied the original Hebrew translation, but the common flock had only a Greek translation by which to adhere.
The disparity of this approach created, in itself, an in-group and out-group of the faithful, breeding by itself its own brand or legalism. The "correct interpretation" of the sacred text became more important than the deeper meaning behind the text. Judaism could be seen at the time to have been frozen into this legalistic top-down approach, where authority was given to those who had the intellectual gifts and opportunities to translate the bible the "right way."
In one translation, Torah could mean "instruction." In another, it could mean "law." As society spreads and cultures rise and fall, languages change, and ideas evolve, we see that there is a constant struggle to understand. In one of the the earliest messages given to us by God (in yesterday's reading), we see that God changes Jacob's name to Israel, meaning, one who wrestles with God. One of my great friends tells me that this is why his religion (Judaism) reveres the intellectual and moral responsibility to wrestle with the Word, so that the Word creates a meaning in our lives, personally, for us to keep in mind in all our daily activities.
So, we see this struggle being played out in today's NT reading. The Pharisees, representatives of this legalistic, top-down, approach to religion, try to trap Jesus in several ways. They ask Him if it is right to harvest grain on the Sabbath. They ask Him if it is right to heal a man on the Sabbath.
His responses hearken back to something He had already stated, that it is the intent which guides us, that which is in our hearts, that matters, not necessarily the representation of the "law." He once again quotes Hosea 6:6, reminding the Pharisees that God wants mercy, not sacrifice. He also reminds them of the story of the great hero of their faith, David, who ate sacrificial bread when he was hungry. By giving these replies, Jesus once again shoots down a heartless legalism in favor of tenderness and mercy in one's heart.
Society will always struggle with legalism and emotionalism, translational difficulties, the rational vs the irrational. And as in yesterday's scripture, we see the validity of the effort by the results which arise from it. If David created a nation even though he broke a "law," and that nation were just and moral, how does one judge his actions? If a man's hand gets healed, even though a narrow minded interpretation is violated, how does one judge that action?
How does one judge any legalistic vs non-legalistic approach? What benefit to the poor and suffering do nihilistic deconstructionists espouse? What benefit to the poor and suffering do heartless religious legalists, more concerned with doctrinal purity than mercy of heart, show?
It's interesting that the psalm of David describes who may enter God's presence, those, "...speaking the truth with sincere hearts..." Not only is an attempt intellectually to understand God's word important (truth), but the engine of that intent is equally important (sincerity of heart). What are the fruits of a labor such as this? What goodness will grow by this discipline?
It's a constant struggle, and it seems that this struggle is important, because it is in the struggle, if that is where my mind is focused, that I grow more toward God in my actions and my words. If I don't concentrate on this, I become complacent and fearful. Wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it. Comparing those two sets of results, I think that the former, the struggle, is the wiser course.
Apparently, the original sacred texts had been recorded in Hebrew, but at the time of Jesus, the common tongue of the translation was Greek. Therefore, there was a dichotomous approach to the bible. The "learned scholar" studied the original Hebrew translation, but the common flock had only a Greek translation by which to adhere.
The disparity of this approach created, in itself, an in-group and out-group of the faithful, breeding by itself its own brand or legalism. The "correct interpretation" of the sacred text became more important than the deeper meaning behind the text. Judaism could be seen at the time to have been frozen into this legalistic top-down approach, where authority was given to those who had the intellectual gifts and opportunities to translate the bible the "right way."
In one translation, Torah could mean "instruction." In another, it could mean "law." As society spreads and cultures rise and fall, languages change, and ideas evolve, we see that there is a constant struggle to understand. In one of the the earliest messages given to us by God (in yesterday's reading), we see that God changes Jacob's name to Israel, meaning, one who wrestles with God. One of my great friends tells me that this is why his religion (Judaism) reveres the intellectual and moral responsibility to wrestle with the Word, so that the Word creates a meaning in our lives, personally, for us to keep in mind in all our daily activities.
So, we see this struggle being played out in today's NT reading. The Pharisees, representatives of this legalistic, top-down, approach to religion, try to trap Jesus in several ways. They ask Him if it is right to harvest grain on the Sabbath. They ask Him if it is right to heal a man on the Sabbath.
His responses hearken back to something He had already stated, that it is the intent which guides us, that which is in our hearts, that matters, not necessarily the representation of the "law." He once again quotes Hosea 6:6, reminding the Pharisees that God wants mercy, not sacrifice. He also reminds them of the story of the great hero of their faith, David, who ate sacrificial bread when he was hungry. By giving these replies, Jesus once again shoots down a heartless legalism in favor of tenderness and mercy in one's heart.
Society will always struggle with legalism and emotionalism, translational difficulties, the rational vs the irrational. And as in yesterday's scripture, we see the validity of the effort by the results which arise from it. If David created a nation even though he broke a "law," and that nation were just and moral, how does one judge his actions? If a man's hand gets healed, even though a narrow minded interpretation is violated, how does one judge that action?
How does one judge any legalistic vs non-legalistic approach? What benefit to the poor and suffering do nihilistic deconstructionists espouse? What benefit to the poor and suffering do heartless religious legalists, more concerned with doctrinal purity than mercy of heart, show?
It's interesting that the psalm of David describes who may enter God's presence, those, "...speaking the truth with sincere hearts..." Not only is an attempt intellectually to understand God's word important (truth), but the engine of that intent is equally important (sincerity of heart). What are the fruits of a labor such as this? What goodness will grow by this discipline?
It's a constant struggle, and it seems that this struggle is important, because it is in the struggle, if that is where my mind is focused, that I grow more toward God in my actions and my words. If I don't concentrate on this, I become complacent and fearful. Wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it. Comparing those two sets of results, I think that the former, the struggle, is the wiser course.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
...what results from it...
I skipped my entry yesterday. I got caught up with meaningless household chores on the last day of my vacation, and the time just got away from me. The purpose of this process is as a mitzvot, a task designed to bring one closer to God. By allowing "chores" to supersede the time I spent on this, I gave over to my own brand of idolatry. I would like to say I am over-reacting, but having been raised the way I was raised, I know that I am not. Making chores, things, more important than people, or relationships, corrupts the soul and leaves one isolated. My past can attest to that, and my hope is that this process could make some changes in me. Of course, if this becomes just another "task," then I will have fallen far short of the change I was hoping to make.
In the NT reading today, Christ touches on a truth about wisdom, and without being too glib about it, we see echoes of this in such culturally diverse representations as Beavis and Butthead.
Christ says that "wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it." In much the same way, He had previously given a warning about which we may know false prophets in the same way we know a tree is good or bad by the fruit it creates. To know something as "good" by the downstream effects of it creates an opportunity for interpretative license. I was brought closer to God when my marriage fell apart, does that make the divorce "good?" Was it "right" for us to get divorced, as the marriage was not a haven for me spiritually? That really begs the question of what is the more important thing. Personal salvation or an adherence to religious custom? The comic end expression of such a thought process is the Beavis and Butthead ideology of "we like things that are cool, we don't like things that suck."
The definitions, the interpretations, of things then create the opportunity for a re-interpretation, or for millions of re-interpretations, one for everyone involved in viewing it. Given the number of re-interpretations, it's no wonder that deconstructionists fail to find moral authority, or any meaning at all, in the Bible. One day, Jesus talks about bringing a sword, the next He says how humble and gentle He is. However, it is this simple truth that appears to tie it all together. At the end of the day, it is what results that counts. Consider the world response to Haiti. People are in anguish over an island that is populated by the poorest of the poor, that has no infrastructure, and is afflicted yet again by disaster. Prayers are offered up all over the world for these poor people. It is something in our hearts that is stirred when the defenseless are beaten down even more. It's the best part of us, throwing aside division and strife, and responding to those humans who simply have the greatest need. It is pity, tenderness, and love, and I believe it is the downstream effect of the teachings of Christ.
"Thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike." Jesus often speaks of the most faithful as the most like a child in faith and belief. By not honoring the powerful or the clever, Jesus creates in us a humility and a soul of a servant. In this way, when disaster strikes, we see the good results of the worldwide response to it and understand the wisdom of His words and His life given for us. Even though we may become complacent to suffering, and allow such poverty to exist, we still can react, when shocked, and become the best parts of ourselves, because it is in times like these, that we truly know how to act.
I wish I could do more. I know we all do. But I am comforted to know that my contribution is just one small contribution of many, and that the motivation of that contribution arises in a world shaped by this philosophy. I am thankful that I at least can witness it.
On a personal level, I have to seek what is "right" and hope for the best results. I can only hope that by being honest, good things will follow, for others and for myself. I used to think that wisdom was following everything back upstream until I figured out exactly what I was, but now I know that it's the results that matter, and it's whether there is goodness being shown at the end of the day that determines the validity of the process, or the wisdom of the search.
In the NT reading today, Christ touches on a truth about wisdom, and without being too glib about it, we see echoes of this in such culturally diverse representations as Beavis and Butthead.
Christ says that "wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it." In much the same way, He had previously given a warning about which we may know false prophets in the same way we know a tree is good or bad by the fruit it creates. To know something as "good" by the downstream effects of it creates an opportunity for interpretative license. I was brought closer to God when my marriage fell apart, does that make the divorce "good?" Was it "right" for us to get divorced, as the marriage was not a haven for me spiritually? That really begs the question of what is the more important thing. Personal salvation or an adherence to religious custom? The comic end expression of such a thought process is the Beavis and Butthead ideology of "we like things that are cool, we don't like things that suck."
The definitions, the interpretations, of things then create the opportunity for a re-interpretation, or for millions of re-interpretations, one for everyone involved in viewing it. Given the number of re-interpretations, it's no wonder that deconstructionists fail to find moral authority, or any meaning at all, in the Bible. One day, Jesus talks about bringing a sword, the next He says how humble and gentle He is. However, it is this simple truth that appears to tie it all together. At the end of the day, it is what results that counts. Consider the world response to Haiti. People are in anguish over an island that is populated by the poorest of the poor, that has no infrastructure, and is afflicted yet again by disaster. Prayers are offered up all over the world for these poor people. It is something in our hearts that is stirred when the defenseless are beaten down even more. It's the best part of us, throwing aside division and strife, and responding to those humans who simply have the greatest need. It is pity, tenderness, and love, and I believe it is the downstream effect of the teachings of Christ.
"Thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike." Jesus often speaks of the most faithful as the most like a child in faith and belief. By not honoring the powerful or the clever, Jesus creates in us a humility and a soul of a servant. In this way, when disaster strikes, we see the good results of the worldwide response to it and understand the wisdom of His words and His life given for us. Even though we may become complacent to suffering, and allow such poverty to exist, we still can react, when shocked, and become the best parts of ourselves, because it is in times like these, that we truly know how to act.
I wish I could do more. I know we all do. But I am comforted to know that my contribution is just one small contribution of many, and that the motivation of that contribution arises in a world shaped by this philosophy. I am thankful that I at least can witness it.
On a personal level, I have to seek what is "right" and hope for the best results. I can only hope that by being honest, good things will follow, for others and for myself. I used to think that wisdom was following everything back upstream until I figured out exactly what I was, but now I know that it's the results that matter, and it's whether there is goodness being shown at the end of the day that determines the validity of the process, or the wisdom of the search.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Don't change your tune
This NT reading has always been one of my favorites. I have often found myself in a situation where the people I am with do not understand or believe the things I am saying, and I wonder how long I am supposed to stay. Twice in this section, Jesus tells the disciples to leave rather than face martyrdom. He tells them not to leave angrily, or with hostility, but to shake the dust from that place of their feet as they leave. Sure, that can be a symbol of disrespect, but it is also a warning to take no part of that village or that village's life with them as they go.
He also tells them that when they are persecuted in one town, they should flee to the next. These seem like pretty straightforward proscriptions against martyrdom, if it is avoidable. However, He also warns that they will be arrested and they will be beaten for following Jesus. And He promises them that the appropriate words will come into their mouths for their defense at the appropriate time. That these words of defense will come from the Spirit of the Father.
One thing missing in these warnings is a recommendation to change one's story. That is, Jesus states that God's words will come to a disciple's defense, and that they will be punished for their faith, and if they can they should flee. But He does not tell them to change their story to avoid punishment. It seems easy to "get along" by changing one's faith story to fit the crowd one is in, but changing the faith story too much is clearly not encouraged. Christ-followers will suffer for their beliefs, but in the end be saved as they endure to the end.
So clearly, there is a warning against changing the story, for that could be interpreted as not "enduring to the end." But then the question arises, what facets of the story are the most important, and if one minimizes one facet, does that create a "different enough" story that clearly runs against the intent of the command to endure and not change one's tune? And if the act of minimizing one facet of the story causes another Christ-follower to think that the story is too far changed, has a sectarian division been created?
So, anti-sectarianism seems to be a Christian approach, for it maintains purity of the faith story, and keeps human divisions and rational domination of the story at bay. And in the end, maintenance of the purity of the story, despite all obstacles, will result in salvation.
He also tells them that when they are persecuted in one town, they should flee to the next. These seem like pretty straightforward proscriptions against martyrdom, if it is avoidable. However, He also warns that they will be arrested and they will be beaten for following Jesus. And He promises them that the appropriate words will come into their mouths for their defense at the appropriate time. That these words of defense will come from the Spirit of the Father.
One thing missing in these warnings is a recommendation to change one's story. That is, Jesus states that God's words will come to a disciple's defense, and that they will be punished for their faith, and if they can they should flee. But He does not tell them to change their story to avoid punishment. It seems easy to "get along" by changing one's faith story to fit the crowd one is in, but changing the faith story too much is clearly not encouraged. Christ-followers will suffer for their beliefs, but in the end be saved as they endure to the end.
So clearly, there is a warning against changing the story, for that could be interpreted as not "enduring to the end." But then the question arises, what facets of the story are the most important, and if one minimizes one facet, does that create a "different enough" story that clearly runs against the intent of the command to endure and not change one's tune? And if the act of minimizing one facet of the story causes another Christ-follower to think that the story is too far changed, has a sectarian division been created?
So, anti-sectarianism seems to be a Christian approach, for it maintains purity of the faith story, and keeps human divisions and rational domination of the story at bay. And in the end, maintenance of the purity of the story, despite all obstacles, will result in salvation.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The prince of demons...
It seems like today's reading had lots in it to exemplify deconstructionist criticism.
Jesus healed men of their blindness and then warned them not to tell anyone of this. Yet, earlier, He had given the command, "Let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father." I have thought about my purposes in writing this in such a way that others might read it, and again, I would want others to read it mainly so that they could have a few more minutes in contemplation of Jesus and the meaning of biblical literacy.
So, in a way, I try to make a daily thought on this both for myself and to serve as a "good deed" that could inspire thought in someone else if they took the time to read it. Yet, Jesus admonishes two formerly blind men not to tell anyone about the miracle. He gave a similar admonishment to a leper he healed. It seems that these are contradictory statements, and in the setting of contradictions, one sees an openness to interpretation. That is, if these statements are contradictory, then one must be right, and the other wrong, so let's use our intellect to parse out this theological doctrine and figure these things out.
Leaving this open to interpretation has an unfortunate side-effect, because openness to interpretation can then go far beyond what is truly meant so that one tries to bend the nature of the miracle to one's own take on reality. As Jesus was threatening the established power-structure of Phariseeical domination, the reality of the Pharisees was that they were scared by what Jesus represented, and therefore they used their own intellect to "interpret" what Jesus was doing:
"'He can cast out demons because he is empowered by the prince of demons.'"
In this section, we see the opposite end of the spectrum of an open interpretation of Jesus' life and acts. Motivated by fear and jealousy, the Pharisees used evil intent as the core of their interpretation of Jesus' behavior. And we see the outcome of that interpretation. They stated that Jesus was in league with Satan.
Where is our "heart" when we interpret Jesus? Are we like Him and feel great pity as he did for the crowds? Do we feel tenderness and mercy when we come across contradictions, and then seek guidance in our interpretation from that standpoint? Or do we come at the bible as the Pharisees did at Jesus, with fear and preconceptions that blind us to the reality and gifts of faith?
The greater the faith, the greater the story of its salvation. A woman knows that merely touching His robe will heal her, without Jesus' conscious awareness. Yet, unbeknownst to her, Jesus does feel her, recognizes the depth of her faith, and heals her. It's good to remember that the negative interpretation of the Pharisees results in their eventual downfall. The positive interpretation of the woman results in her salvation.
Contradictory statements are often found in the bible. The statement about the Pharisees seems to underscore the notion of where open interpretation, if led by fear and jealousy, will end. But if led by faith, we see, as in the story of the woman, that interpretation result in amazing healing.
Jesus healed men of their blindness and then warned them not to tell anyone of this. Yet, earlier, He had given the command, "Let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father." I have thought about my purposes in writing this in such a way that others might read it, and again, I would want others to read it mainly so that they could have a few more minutes in contemplation of Jesus and the meaning of biblical literacy.
So, in a way, I try to make a daily thought on this both for myself and to serve as a "good deed" that could inspire thought in someone else if they took the time to read it. Yet, Jesus admonishes two formerly blind men not to tell anyone about the miracle. He gave a similar admonishment to a leper he healed. It seems that these are contradictory statements, and in the setting of contradictions, one sees an openness to interpretation. That is, if these statements are contradictory, then one must be right, and the other wrong, so let's use our intellect to parse out this theological doctrine and figure these things out.
Leaving this open to interpretation has an unfortunate side-effect, because openness to interpretation can then go far beyond what is truly meant so that one tries to bend the nature of the miracle to one's own take on reality. As Jesus was threatening the established power-structure of Phariseeical domination, the reality of the Pharisees was that they were scared by what Jesus represented, and therefore they used their own intellect to "interpret" what Jesus was doing:
"'He can cast out demons because he is empowered by the prince of demons.'"
In this section, we see the opposite end of the spectrum of an open interpretation of Jesus' life and acts. Motivated by fear and jealousy, the Pharisees used evil intent as the core of their interpretation of Jesus' behavior. And we see the outcome of that interpretation. They stated that Jesus was in league with Satan.
Where is our "heart" when we interpret Jesus? Are we like Him and feel great pity as he did for the crowds? Do we feel tenderness and mercy when we come across contradictions, and then seek guidance in our interpretation from that standpoint? Or do we come at the bible as the Pharisees did at Jesus, with fear and preconceptions that blind us to the reality and gifts of faith?
The greater the faith, the greater the story of its salvation. A woman knows that merely touching His robe will heal her, without Jesus' conscious awareness. Yet, unbeknownst to her, Jesus does feel her, recognizes the depth of her faith, and heals her. It's good to remember that the negative interpretation of the Pharisees results in their eventual downfall. The positive interpretation of the woman results in her salvation.
Contradictory statements are often found in the bible. The statement about the Pharisees seems to underscore the notion of where open interpretation, if led by fear and jealousy, will end. But if led by faith, we see, as in the story of the woman, that interpretation result in amazing healing.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
For I desire mercy...
Today's reading was complex to me.
On the face of it, it seems difficult. Here is the man, one of the main progenitors of Judaism, Jacob, who is shown not only to be crafty, but also dishonest. "I am Esau," he says, which is a clear lie. And through this lie, he gains his father's blessing, making him lord over his brothers.
The literalists must shake their heads at this example of the reward of dishonesty. What lesson are we to learn from this? But there seems to be a larger lesson to learn. Jacob does these things at the instigation of his mother, and we clearly see a twice-told story in Genesis of how Abraham's servant is told to go find a woman for Isaac. This servant asks God for the favor of meeting Isaac's future wife in a very specific way, that she be the first to greet him and fetch him water for his camel's. The woman that greets him this way turns out to be Rebekah, the woman he had been sent to get as a wife for Isaac. God clearly puts this woman into the life of Isaac, creating the downstream effect of channeling the birthright and blessing away from Esau and into the life of Jacob. It's the story of Rebekah that we hear, not so much the story of Jacob. Through the miracle of Rebekah's presence, we are instructed of God's plan for the life of Isaac, Esau, and Jacob, and the heritage of the Jewish people. Even thought the specific example may seem to be an example of dishonesty on the part of Jacob, it is really a fulfillment of a prior gift of faith by Abraham's servant. God has done several things in our life prior to today that have fruits and consequences in today's life, and for our future life.
Opening one's perspective to a larger view allows one to encompass, perhaps, more of God's vision. Maybe that is the point of Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees. As Jesus is partying with the tax collectors, He is repudiated by the Pharisees. And so Jesus again lets us know that a larger perspective is necessary. It is easy to live by one's rationality, and hate those who have harmed us. The wickedness and the corruption of the tax collectors were well known at this time. They were the reviled agents of Roman occupation, Jewish "collaborators" who worked as agents of the Romans and profited themselves by this. So, it was easy to turn one's back on their behavior and create an outcast group. But does turning your back on someone bring them back to you? The message of Jesus is that it does not.
His lesson in perspective is that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. He quotes Hoseah 6:6, reminding the Pharisees of God's desire for mercy. In other words, ritual, for ritual's sake, becomes hollow unless it is representative of a healing heart of tenderness, love, and compassion. It is the intent of the inside of the heart that matters to God. By being with the outcasts, yet not condoning their sin, Jesus offers the light of a way back. He brings Matthew back in this way, by offering Matthew a place at his side, when probably nobody else would. While deconstructionists can parse linguistic inaccuracies until they try to remove all meaning, the inclusion of this book in the tome of the Christian sacred text underscores the meaning of mercy and sacrifice. The presence of the first book of the Bible has a concrete example of mercy.
So while we get hung up on our rational, human understanding of lessons and ritual, we are reminded of broadening our perspective, as we had to do in the story of Rebekah and Jacob. As Jesus states, new wine belongs in new wineskins. It has no place in older wineskins, for if one tries to shoehorn a new faith perspective into an older faith custom, one ruins both. For a new covenant, there must be a new perspective, and as confusing as it is for all of us who try to orient our actions and reactions "rationally," faith becomes key to our behavior.
Tomorrow's reading shows Isaac's mercy toward Jacob. Jesus preaches about God's requirement of a merciful heart over blind ritualism. Re-orienting ourselves to have a wider perspective seems to be the message. A richer meaning comes from this wider perspective.
All this is interesting, but what should it mean to me? Should I "rightfully" turn my back on those who have harmed me? Is that what it means to be a Christ-follower? I don't think that is the perspective I should have from this reading. All of this is meaningless wordplay unless it makes a change in me. Showing mercy and love, keeping steadfast in His commands, and above all, maintaining faith... That's a hard mission.
On the face of it, it seems difficult. Here is the man, one of the main progenitors of Judaism, Jacob, who is shown not only to be crafty, but also dishonest. "I am Esau," he says, which is a clear lie. And through this lie, he gains his father's blessing, making him lord over his brothers.
The literalists must shake their heads at this example of the reward of dishonesty. What lesson are we to learn from this? But there seems to be a larger lesson to learn. Jacob does these things at the instigation of his mother, and we clearly see a twice-told story in Genesis of how Abraham's servant is told to go find a woman for Isaac. This servant asks God for the favor of meeting Isaac's future wife in a very specific way, that she be the first to greet him and fetch him water for his camel's. The woman that greets him this way turns out to be Rebekah, the woman he had been sent to get as a wife for Isaac. God clearly puts this woman into the life of Isaac, creating the downstream effect of channeling the birthright and blessing away from Esau and into the life of Jacob. It's the story of Rebekah that we hear, not so much the story of Jacob. Through the miracle of Rebekah's presence, we are instructed of God's plan for the life of Isaac, Esau, and Jacob, and the heritage of the Jewish people. Even thought the specific example may seem to be an example of dishonesty on the part of Jacob, it is really a fulfillment of a prior gift of faith by Abraham's servant. God has done several things in our life prior to today that have fruits and consequences in today's life, and for our future life.
Opening one's perspective to a larger view allows one to encompass, perhaps, more of God's vision. Maybe that is the point of Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees. As Jesus is partying with the tax collectors, He is repudiated by the Pharisees. And so Jesus again lets us know that a larger perspective is necessary. It is easy to live by one's rationality, and hate those who have harmed us. The wickedness and the corruption of the tax collectors were well known at this time. They were the reviled agents of Roman occupation, Jewish "collaborators" who worked as agents of the Romans and profited themselves by this. So, it was easy to turn one's back on their behavior and create an outcast group. But does turning your back on someone bring them back to you? The message of Jesus is that it does not.
His lesson in perspective is that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. He quotes Hoseah 6:6, reminding the Pharisees of God's desire for mercy. In other words, ritual, for ritual's sake, becomes hollow unless it is representative of a healing heart of tenderness, love, and compassion. It is the intent of the inside of the heart that matters to God. By being with the outcasts, yet not condoning their sin, Jesus offers the light of a way back. He brings Matthew back in this way, by offering Matthew a place at his side, when probably nobody else would. While deconstructionists can parse linguistic inaccuracies until they try to remove all meaning, the inclusion of this book in the tome of the Christian sacred text underscores the meaning of mercy and sacrifice. The presence of the first book of the Bible has a concrete example of mercy.
So while we get hung up on our rational, human understanding of lessons and ritual, we are reminded of broadening our perspective, as we had to do in the story of Rebekah and Jacob. As Jesus states, new wine belongs in new wineskins. It has no place in older wineskins, for if one tries to shoehorn a new faith perspective into an older faith custom, one ruins both. For a new covenant, there must be a new perspective, and as confusing as it is for all of us who try to orient our actions and reactions "rationally," faith becomes key to our behavior.
Tomorrow's reading shows Isaac's mercy toward Jacob. Jesus preaches about God's requirement of a merciful heart over blind ritualism. Re-orienting ourselves to have a wider perspective seems to be the message. A richer meaning comes from this wider perspective.
All this is interesting, but what should it mean to me? Should I "rightfully" turn my back on those who have harmed me? Is that what it means to be a Christ-follower? I don't think that is the perspective I should have from this reading. All of this is meaningless wordplay unless it makes a change in me. Showing mercy and love, keeping steadfast in His commands, and above all, maintaining faith... That's a hard mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)