16 The best-equipped army cannot save a king,
nor is great strength enough to save a warrior.
17 Don’t count on your warhorse to give you victory—
for all its strength, it cannot save you.

18 But the Lord watches over those who fear him,
those who rely on his unfailing love.
19 He rescues them from death
and keeps them alive in times of famine.

20 We put our hope in the Lord.
He is our help and our shield.
21 In him our hearts rejoice,
for we trust in his holy name.
22 Let your unfailing love surround us, Lord,
for our hope is in you alone.

~New Living Translation

Any questions?

Traditional Persian wedding feast

I was looking over yesterday’s reading from Matthew 22 and got seriously distracted, so I’ll finish that post now….

Jesus tells a kingdom parable. The set up is immediately recognized not only by his original audience, but by us. Who hasn’t been invited to a wedding where there is a huge spread and people are impressed by the opulence? Imagine the nicest food, the best table linens, the most tastefully expensive decorations, and a nice soundtrack. That’s pretty much it. The host sends out invitations in advance and everyone knew the party was in the works but when the actual day arrived, people started sending in regrets. No one came.

It doesn’t take much imagination to feel the emotions underlying the story; humiliation, anger, frustration. Rather than throw in the towel and admit failure, the host sends servants out into the byways and invites people who weren’t on the original guest list. They all accept the invitation and have a great time, except for one dude who didn’t bother to dress for the occasion. He is bound and thrown out into the dark night to weep and wail with the other outsiders.

Scholars point to Jesus’ own frustration with resistance shown to his message as the basis for this story. Matthew shows clearly that Jesus’ initial ministry on earth was to “the lost sheep of Israel”. By the time we get to this point in Matthew’s gospel, the lost sheep have shown themselves very reluctant to be found. Jesus turns instead to the outsiders, the Gentiles with the message of righteousness and salvation. Some traditions have used this reluctance and acceptance as an excuse to excoriate Jews and even today, this passage can be used as a prop for one’s own prejudices as to who is “in” and who is “out” in the church.

Yet, Jesus does not give us any easy tools for discrimination here. Yes, the invited guests were excluded by their own choice and yes, the uninvited were given access at the last minute but even they were subject to some standards. William Loader, former professor of New Testament at Murdoch University in Australia writes:

Just when hearers might have been tempted to retreat into a self-righteous sectarian huddle, bemoaning how evil the world is out there, Matthew expands the parable to bring the spotlight on those who turn up at the feast. ‘Where’s your suit and tie?’ Whatever the expectation, someone came wrongly dressed. The breech of this cultural norm may mean little for those who know God looks on the heart (although it is fascinating how it persists in various forms today), but it serves Matthew as a vehicle for challenging his hearers about clothing one’s life in righteousness, a familiar image. It is Matthew’s theme (Jesus’ theme, John the Baptist’s theme) returning: no privilege on the basis of status, not even the status of having joined the Christian community. Only a life of transformed attitude and performance counts. Matthew undermines the ‘them and us’ approach. There can be no sectarian righteous elite.

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians can affect an exclusive attitude toward the Gospel. This parable makes crystal clear to me who “owns” the good news of God in Jesus Christ — Jesus Christ. Not us. We have been given the responsibility to be gate keepers but our work at that gate is to preach good news given by grace to us and to others. It is our responsibility to give tools for transformation and dinner jackets to those coming to the feast unprepared. But notice who it was that had the authority to eject the guest — the host Himself.

Our work is to preach and teach and sometimes even use words to show grace and mercy and offer times and places where the lost can be found and meet face to face the Host of the party. If we turn our minds at all to the question of who “deserves” to be in the dining hall, we would do well to look in a mirror.

Happy birthday, beautiful daugher who is now fifteen! I treasure you….

I don’t really have anything else to add to the Symphony post. Except… I interpret Matthew’s Greek word to mean that God will hear our requests (or the desires of our hearts which is how I would translate aitesotai which can also mean “crave”) when we make them after having worked out how we will present them. This makes me think of how we rehearse for worship — we would never just pick an anthem up and go sing it cold, even though I think our choir is pretty darn good and could probably make a very decent presentation of a cold reading. No, we stop and go over parts that are difficult and fine tune parts where dynamics are needed and we concentrate on diction and we remember to breathe and then we stand before God in the sanctuary and sing.

I think our corporate prayers should be this well thought prior to bringing them to God as well. I don’t mean to suggest that spontaneous prayers are verboten — hardly. But I think when believers know they need to bring something to God they work it out among themselves before they approach the throne of grace so that God will hear voices in harmony and not a discordant mess.

This idea of praying in agreement fits with the Proverbs 6 passage for today:

16 There are six things the Lord hates—
no, seven things he detests:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that kill the innocent,
18 a heart that plots evil,
feet that race to do wrong,
19 a false witness who pours out lies,
a person who sows discord in a family.

I can see how any of those things that the Lord detests can derail an earnest request and how being prepared in the request will go a long way toward eliminating those ugly and displeasing elements of a prayer. Heh. Nice to finally get a comment about Proverbs in there….!

Whew. Long break. I guess this is what happens when one moves her One Year Bible from beside her bed to a table in the basement!

I was beginning to think I would simply comment on miscellaneous Bible stuff, but picked up the One Year Bible and flipped through today’s reading. This passage in Matthew caught my attention — mostly because I had underlined it last year!

Matthew 18:19:

“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.”

Fascinating. What does the Greek say?

Πάλιν [ἀμὴν] λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν δύο συμφωνήσωσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γενήσεται αὐτοῖς παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.

Palin amen lego humin hoti ean duo sumphonesomin ex humon epi tays gays peri pantos pragmatos ou ean aitesontai, genesetai aoutois para tou patrosmou tou en ouranois.

Let’s look at some of those words.

amen -
1) so be it 2) let it be so
Whenever a Gospel writer records Jesus using the word “amen”, the writer is emphasizing Jesus’ own authority behind the teaching. Jesus isn’t just repeating something he’d learned or heard others say; he was teaching as one with autonomous authority. Therefore, according to Matthew as he heard it from Jesus, this is something we want to pay attention to. Where else have we heard the words, “Let there be….?” Yep, in Genesis. (Well, the Beatles used it to, but that’s another post.)

sumphonesomin -
1) to agree together 2) to agree with one in making a bargain, to make an agreement, to bargain
Say the word. Sum-phon-es-o-min. Do you hear the beginning of the word symphony here? What is a symphony? A gathering of musicians, all playing their instruments in a way that produces a memorable piece of music; a piece that is united in its execution and production, a piece that shares melody, harmony, rhythym, and pace. What would it be like for those of us who call Jesus Lord to be like a symphony whenever we come together? To have counterpoints, to have new information, to be able to riff on a melody yet not stray so far from the root chord as to become dischordant — what would that be like?

pragmatos -
1) that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact 2) what is done or being accomplished 2a) spec. business, a commercial transaction 3) a matter, question, affair 3a) spec. in a forensic sense, a matter at law, case, suit 4) that which is or exists, a thing
Pragmatic. Common sense. Use your head. Rational. Think about it! Take your time. Listen. Reason together. Something tactile or a tactic. We are supposed to use the grey matter God gave us. If we can be symphonic, if we can bargain and see one another’s view and hear one another’s voice, we will make a pleasing sound for God and it will be done for us.

I will come back at a later date (maybe tomorrow?) and finish looking at this passage. Meanwhile, go to the Greek Bible and click on the words in the passage — what a joy to have language and be able to communicate ideas through millenia! whoot!

Too much coffee today. Sorry

Genesis 32:13 — 34:31 
Dinah’s rape. Some scholars suggest that it wasn’t an actual rape, but an inappropriate fraternization that offended the culture in which Jacob’s family lived. The fact that the Israelites have strict rules about intermarriage in later centuries can lead one to see that overfamiliarity may be all it takes for the outrage in this passage. Our modern sensibilities tend to allow only sexual aggression to be the catalyst for such a violent and premeditated response.

Either way, I am struck with the violence — again — and wonder what larger purpose this story serves. Since I am way sleepy today (first day back to school after a long weekend), I am not going to pursue this anymore today. I just don’t have the computing capacity. I may return to it later….

The image above is an engraving by Hoet, Gerard (Dutch painter and draftsman, 1648-1733). It portrays Simeon and Levi slaying Hamos and Schechem.

Genesis 31:17-32:12
When I was a kid, I remember the ladies of the church ending their gatherings by reciting the Mizpah Blessing. When I got older and actually read the passage in Genesis whence it comes, I was astonished. Either the ladies had been given some really bad advice about what this blessing or covenant was, or they secretly hated each other. I am tempted to think it was a combination of the two.

Mizpah is a place named by a promise Jacob and Laban made to each other when they parted ways after twenty years. Their relationship had deteriorated of late and the final parting was not one of sorrow or loss but a wary cessastion of ties and a sneaking suspicion about the motives of the other, especially of revenge. In a sermon written almost eleven years ago, Jon M. Walton says:

That Mizpah blessing is probably the first blessing I ever learned in Sunday School, years ago. Isn’t it one that almost all of us know by heart? “May the Lord watch between you and me when we are absent one from the other.” I am told that the Eunice Circle here at Westminster uses this blessing as a parting benediction whenever they meet.

But when you know the story this way, you realize that it is not all sweetness and light. It is blessing borne of mistrust, bound by the need to make peace between two of God’s children who have fundamental disagreements and good reason to want to keep an eye on each another. It settles only that the two of them will not hurt or scheme against one another any longer and that all the rest shall be entrusted to God’s watchful eye and care.

It is not well resolved, this tension between them. And their predicament reminds us that sometimes on earth there is no way to settle a disagreement so fundamental between two people other than to call a truce, and accept that the cost of continuing the battle is a price neither party is willing to pay.

Both Laban and Jacob use words in their own languages to name the pile of stones they set up as a physical reminder of the covenant between them. Laban calls it “Jegar Sahadutha” and Jacob calls it “Galeed”. The first means “pile of testimony” and the other means “heap of witness”.

I find those names intriguing and wonder what life would be like if we were to erect monuments to the tremulous relationships we have in our lives. What would our “heap of witness” or “pile of testimony” look like? Would they be artwork, a legal document, or even a group of people we engage to bear witness and testimony? How would we act when we see them and are reminded about the promise we made by erecting them with the intention of putting the unresolved issues in God’s lap? How would our world look if we truly left our hurts and grudges in God’s care?

Durn it. I clicked the wrong button and lost everything I had just typed. No biggie, since I hadn’t gone too far with it. I am going on a retreat this weekend with the youth of our church and won’t be able to blog the readings for Saturday or Sunday.

Genesis 26:17-27:46
After Abraham’s death, Isaac moved away and re-established himself in Gerar. He re-opened wells that the Philistines had filled in and met with some grief about it. He named the wells Esek, Sitnah, and Rehoboth, or Dispute, Opposition, and Room to Breath. Guess which well remained in his possession? I love to have literal (or approximate) translations of places’ names; it makes the story so much more vibrant.

Isaac was also growing old and wanted to give his blessing to his first born son, who had already sold his birthright to his brother for a bowl of chowder. I wonder if Isaac knew this? Maybe the blessing was not dependent on that? Not sure..

Anyway, Rebekah overhears Isaac’s plans and takes matters into her own hands. She tells Jacob to go get choice animals from the flock and she will prepare them. Isaac had told Esau to go get wild game; surely, the taste must have been different and I wonder if Rebekah was aware of that and had a plan to cover for it. She certainly had a plan to cover Jacob to make him feel like his brother.

We all know the rest of that story; it is reinterpreted in later years as the Matriarch Rebekah’s intention to keep the covenant with Abraham ensconced in a righteous individual. Apparently, Esau was a fighter and had married local women and was proving himself to be unfit to perpetuate the promise. I suppose if I had been raised in a tradition that had these alternate interpretations, I would be less inclined to see Rebekah and Jacob’s actions as deception. I tend to take Esau’s point of view — he is incensed at what his younger brother has done and I can see his point.

Now the question is: which interpretation is correct? The one that seems to come with the plain meaning of the text, to whit Rebekah and Jacob colluded against Esau and Isaac, OR Rebekah understood the significance of God’s promise to Abraham better than her menfolk and took roundabout means to ensure a more apt fulfillment of it through a more thoughtful son?

Does one of them have to take precedence? They look opposed to one another because the basic underlying character of each role is changed. Esau is still a bruiser and he either gets shafted or what he deserves. Jacob is either a co-conspirator with his mother or a more appropriate candidate for blessing. Rebekah is either a scheming overprotective mother or a wise, far-seeing prophetess who makes a truly tough decision. Isaac just comes off looking old and sentimental, either way.

I like the second interpretation because it redeems Rebekah from the traditional, Western imaging of women as essentially evil and not to be trusted. Initially, I didn’t like it because it seems to push the plain reading of the text beyond what is on the page. But since when have I been one to aquiesce to tradition?

Yet, it is still a bit difficult to totally go with that interpretation because Rebekah seems surprised and worried about Esau’s reaction to Jacob. She takes Jacob aside and tells thim to flee to her brother Laban’s house and then goes to Isaac and cooks up a story about the Hittite women not being suitable wives for their second son. Overall, the two interpretations may best be like two colors of Playdough combined in a way where some spots are totally blended and make a new color but where other spots still have dominant hues that don’t eliminate all evidence of either.

Genesis 24:52-26:16
The ongoing saga of finding Isaac a wife from among his father’s people. This being set apart and their exclusivity of association is probably the one thing most anti-Semites would point to for their hatred of Jews if they are honest. It is a purity issue for the Jews but it takes forms that lead outsiders to think, “Well, aren’t they special?” and hate them for it.

Torah.org has extensive commentary about the mission to which Abraham and Sarah dedicated their lives.

Early in the Book of Genesis, we read about Sarah and Abraham, who have devoted their lives to spreading novel, monotheistic ideas to a world steeped in idol worship.

I suppose this may be what they had in mind although in the Genesis texts themselves, the mission that God gives them is to be faithful. I am not entirely convinced that Abraham and Sarah had this worldwide ministry in front of them when they were just starting out. My impression is that it was a huge leap of faith and that the daily struggle of remaining true to that was more consuming than what the Canaanites would get from witnessing their lifestyle, which included some incredible wealth given to Abraham as a way to get him to take his “sister” and go away, so this may be another source of anti-Semitism, as well.

I think the “light to the nations” part of the blessing came LONG after the initial drama had reached a more obvious conclusion, once the threats to the covenant had passed and become history. I suspect it is easier to see this evangelical zeal to the patriarch’s mission from the perspective of many generations down the road.

Matthew 8:18-34
After much healing and teaching, Jesus hops into a boat and crosses the sea to the region of the Gedarenes which in Mark’s gospel are the Gerasenes. I intend to go look for the reason for this discrepancy* in a moment. He encounters the furious storm which he calms with a word and then two demon possessed men meet him on the other side. They are still coming from the tombs, so that bit of nastiness is the same as in Mark’s account.

* It would seem to be an error of geography, according to the link above. Gerasa is about 50 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee and therefore “far too far” for Jesus to reach immediately upon leaving the boat. Gerada is right there on the other side and so scholars suggest that Mark simply messed up with is town names. Or not. It could just be a slap at Rome. Heh.

The Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio (c.1569-1609), Uffizi Gallery, Florence

Genesis
God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. When I read this passage as an outsider, someone who has not read or isn’t familiar with the whole story of the Bible, I am appalled. What kind of God asks this from his adherents? (Here is an interesting link I found while looking for the artwork for this post. If anyone is reading this, post a comment to tell me what you think about this.)

In the overall story of Abraham and the entire Bible, this sort of sacrafice is asked of those who would be faithful regularly. The command to actually bind our loved ones and put a knife to their throats is more metaphorical but the idea of being loyal only to God is not. Jesus talks about this when he says he came to bring a sword. Not words that we readily accept without a great deal of struggle.

Matthew
“By their fruit you will recognize them.”

I thought about this one while in the shower. I am an apostate, according to the further right reaches of the church. I will burn in hell for “forsaking God’s law” and welcoming sinners into leadership positions in the church. In June 2001, I worked with other Presbyterians at the General Assembly in Louisville, KY to overthrow a bit of our constitution that was inserted four years previously to prohibit homosexuals from being ordained.

This bit of our constitution is for me and will always be, “Amendment B”. It is written in such a way that it effectively bars anyone who is gay form ordination or installation into office or pastorates. It is also written in a way to exclude durn near everybody from ordination and installation because the framers of this bit couldn’t come right out and make a declaration against homosexuals. They would have been accused of bigotry and exclusion, morally, and discrimination, legally.

To complete an end run around these obstacles, they couched the language in terms that catch all people in teh net of sin in order to capture the bigger fish of gays and lesbians to throw back into the waters.

I am apostate for thinking this is horrible polity, terrible theology, and totally graceless.

I thought about this as I pondered the above quote. Jesus told his disciples to watch out for false prophets and gave them a helpful tool for discerning who these people would be. The false prophets are the ones who shout about false prophets in other parts of the church and do everything in their power to eradicate them, alienating the seekers, making the church irrelevant to the culture, and shattering the body of Christ.

I am apostate because I would rather welcome people as they are and trust that the power of God’s Spirit through Jesus Christ will work the needed transformation in their lives, making them strong, mighty disciples for God.

I am apostate because I do not believe it is my business or my call to “keep the church pure”. I believe that is Jesus’ function as he stated repeatedly in this kingdom parables. That ultimate sorting will happen at the end of things and will be his responsibility because he knows the hearts of the people. I don’t.

I can only be the best disciple I can be and attempt to bear the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. I would ask those that are busy bringing about the purity of the church in our time, “What are you making more of, disciples or enemies?”

I am apostate, according to others. I wonder what Jesus will tell me?

The Laing Art Gallery

Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, oil on canvas, 1852, John Martin

Genesis
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels sent to destroy the city go out of their way to make sure Lot is out of there. Lot is very reluctant to leave. I suppose that is because this is his home, regardless of its morality. As a matter of fact, Lot seems to understand Sodom and Gomorrah’s morality in that he meets the visitors at the city gate, insists that they stay with him and sends out his virgin daughters to the mob in order to protect them from molestation. (So, what about his daughters, eh?) Being at the city gate meant he was a prominent citizen and it seems that Abraham argues with God for mercy because he knows his nephew lives in Sodom.

This commentary states that the surrounding area has raised the outcry to God for justice from oppression but I am not sure what is being referenced, here. Are the Sodomites enacting oppression and if so how? Is it because of their own lawlessness? Regardless, Lot is reluctant to leave his home, the land he chose when Abraham gave him the option.

The passage itself doesn’t state plainly what Sodom and Gomorrah have done other than demand Lot give over the visitors to be raped. Well, that’s pretty ugly, but is it for this specifically or for the underlying rot that allows a society to act as a mob? I suspect it is the latter that is the reason for destruction — not necessarily homosexual activity. I think this story is written primarily for people who were immersed in the culture of the time; Lot’s grandsons-by-incest are identified as progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites who are long standing enemies of the Israelites.

This does not forgive moral decay, but takes the lessons of this story and sinks them in a place and time. Jesus references the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah but doesn’t mention specific sins, either. I don’t think homosexual activity is sinful; rape is.

Matthew
In this reading, we get the Golden Rule after Jesus instructs his disciples against worrying. I have always liked this passage. I worry about stuff I have no control over but I love that Jesus is saying, “Stop it. Sit down, look around and see that life is sufficient for living right now.” It removes false timetables and pressure to do things that do not matter and drops the burden of hassling expectations. So what if my couch is covered in dog hair or that we are driving cars that are old or live in West Virginia. God has given us a home, transportation, food for the day, health, and a beautiful place to live. What else do we need?