Bible Challenge Day 109: The Earliest Church (Acts 5)

I am loving Samuel and Acts! Both tell dramatic stories, and both leave lots of room for our historical imagination. The single line that particularly struck me from Acts five was verse 11: “Great fear seized the whole church.” A lot has happened in just a few chapters!

In Acts one, even before the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, Peter and the others had enough faith in the future of the Christian movement that they appointed a replacement for Judas. I have always seen that as a first step towards the creation of a church alongside the temple. Then the Holy Spirit strikes and “about three thousand persons were added” to the movement in a single day (2:41). Miracles happen. Growth continues. Opposition mounts. And the responsibility/authority of Peter and the others grows.

That last is what is so striking in the chapter for today. Barnabas (and presumably some others) sells his property and brings the proceeds to the apostles for distribution. Ananias and Sapphira decide to do the same thing, but they are not quite all in. Holding some money back seems to have been OK. What is not OK is holding some money back but claiming to donate it all. Both are stuck dead in turn. And after each death, Acts reports that fear seized the community (5:5, 11). I get that!

As best I can tell, two things are happening in the earliest church. First, it is taking discernable shape over against other religious options of the day. An inner core is highly committed, to a degree that can seem uncomfortably cult-like. And leaders are emerging with a near total authority over a least the inner core. This is what Acts emphasizes.

At the same time, the movement begins to attract a larger circle of presumably less committed members. Surely the thousands who are described as joining in a single day did not all immediately sell their possessions. Indeed, if the movement did grow that quickly, many of the new converts would have had little opportunity for personal interaction with the apostles and therefore little opportunity to learn the details of Jesus’ story.

Leading such a movement must have been quite a challenge! Peter and the others have to contend with hostile authorities, curious but uncommitted onlookers, a totally dedicated inner circle, and a growing circle of more loosely committed and largely ignorant members. As we will see tomorrow, the challenge proves too much: the apostles appoint another layer of leaders to handle some of the responsibilities that the apostles themselves simply cannot manage. The fact that they manage to hold it all together, or at least to hold enough of it together that the movement can continue to grow, is inspiring. And, in my view, attention to the human challenges they faced makes their success seem that much more miraculous.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 106: David’s Rise to Power (1 Sam 25-27)

Carrie and I are watching House of Cards on television. It is the story of a man’s relentless rise to power from Democratic Whip in Congress to Vice President (so far). He rises by lying and manipulating everyone around him, with an occasional murder to cover his tracks. Somehow the main character manages to be charming and awful at the same time.

David is not portrayed as awful in 1 Samuel. Quite the contrary, David is the great hero of the book, the man after God’s own heart, the man with the Spirit of the Lord, the man chosen by God to establish the kingdom on a secure foundation. And yet . . . First Samuel makes it clear that David was also a tough, talented, and ambitious politician. He would make a worthy opponent for Frank Underwood.

Samuel anoints David as the king to replace Saul (16:13). But the anointing was not made public, and Samuel and David seem to have spent little time together. At no point did David rely on Samuel to build his power base.

But from the beginning, David was interested in power. When he visits his brothers at the battlefield, long before he himself becomes a renowned warrior, David hears that Saul will reward the man who agrees to fight Goliath. David immediately asks, what will that man get (17:26)? He does not receive an answer, but kills Goliath and enters Saul’s service, where he quickly distinguishes himself.

After a short time, Saul recognizes, rightly, that David’s popularity threatens to eclipse his own, which destabilizes Saul’s reign. Saul’s erratic behavior makes things worse, particularly when he alienates his own family and kills the priests of Nob. Meanwhile, David is consistently loyal to Saul. It is the only part of David’s behavior that does not advance his own interests.

When David flees from Saul, he first seeks sanctuary among the Philistines in Gath, but they do not trust him (21:0f). Next he gathers around himself a kind of bandit gang composed of his family and everyone who was in distress, debt, or generally discontented (22:1-3). He and his army of 400-600 roam the territory of Judah (David’s tribe), fighting the Philistines and eluding Saul. He is also building a power base.

In the chapters for today, David essentially asks for protection money from the very rich Nabal, and eventually marries Nabal’s wife. Then he and his men return to Gath, where he enters the service of the Philistine king. David seeks, and is granted, a tributary city in the territory of Gath. But David is not honest with the king of Gath. Each day, David raids the various non-Israelite tribes to the south. Each day he slaughters everyone so that no one can report back. And each day he tells the king that he has been raiding Israelites. The king concludes that David has fully alienated his former people and so will remain loyal to the Philistines when in fact David is keeping his options open.

Throughout it all, David continues to consult God. But he is also a shrewd political player who totally outmaneuvers his opponents at each stage. As a result, I have never really known what to make of David. And, also as a result, I find him endlessly fascinating.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 105: On The Road (Acts 1)

I am happy to be starting Acts of the Apostles, which I have always loved. And I like what Sam Candler had to say in the Bible Challenge commentary for the day. (It helps that I know him a little bit. He lives near my parents and serves at the Cathedral in Atlanta where I attended Church as a child.)

Sam makes two important points. First, Acts continues the story of the Gospel of Luke. Second, 1:8 sets the agenda for the book. Jesus sends his disciples out to be his witnesses (1) in Jerusalem, (2) in Judea and Samaria, and (3) to the ends of the earth. The action follows this three-part scheme, which provides the basic structure of the book.

This makes the point that the disciples are supposed to hit the road. They are not supposed to stay in Jerusalem and enjoy intimacy with Christ and with each other. They are supposed to go out into the world to do the work of Christ.

The emphasis on the road continues from the Gospel of Luke. Much of the action of the Gospel, including many of the most famous parables, takes place on the road.

We see the same thing in my very favorite part of this chapter. Jesus ascends into heaven. The disciples are standing around, looking after him. Suddenly two angels appear and challenge them. “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven?” Get to work! The rest of the book is about them doing just that.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 102: Religion and Politics (1 Samuel 16)

The political scene described in our readings for today makes me feel better about politics in America! Tension and danger are everywhere.

The problem that inspires the people to ask for a king in the first place was enemies encroaching on all sides. The greatest threat was the Philistines, who despite some overly optimistic summary statements, dominated Israel off and of from Samson’s time, through Samuel’s leadership, through Saul’s reign, and into David’s time. At no point in all this period was Israel really safe.

Israel was also internally convulsed. Samuel is a ruthless power broker. Leaving God out of the story for the moment (!), Samuel has made Saul king even though Saul did not want the position (e.g. 10:22). Saul proves effective by defeating the enemies of Israel. But as soon as Saul shows signs of independence, Samuel cuts him off. When Saul offered a sacrifice himself, rather than waiting for Samuel to offer the sacrifice, Samuel threatened that God would take away the kingdom (13:14). When Saul failed to slaughter absolutely every Amalekite as Samuel had instructed, Samuel repeated the threat (15:23).

Saul’s reaction is pitiful—he begs Samuel not to desert him (15:30). Samuel refuses, and instead secretly anoints David as the next king. When Samuel arrives at Bethlehem to do the deed, the elders of the city come to him trembling and ask if he comes in peace (16:4). Clearly Samuel was a man to be feared!

But Saul has his own power. When God tells Samuel to go to Bethlehem to anoint a son of Jesse, Samuel fears that Saul will kill him (16:2). The anointing is secret, and no one acts on it for quite some time.

I take this to be a classic example of the conflict between religious power on one hand and political/military power on the other. Samuel does not have an army, but he speaks for God. Samuel is the one who confers religious legitimacy on Saul. Without that religious legitimacy, Saul may not be able to hold the loyalty of his people. But Saul does have a professional army. As long as they remain loyal, Saul may not need Samuel.

Clearly Samuel is aware of the danger he is in. And so is Saul. When David emerges as a popular military leader, Saul’s only remaining power base is undermined.

The tragedy in this story is the impact on everyone else. Ordinary people were caught between Samuel and Saul, to say nothing of the Philistines. The royal family itself is increasingly divided, as Saul’s son and daughter side with David against their father. This was not a good time to live in ancient Israel! It is amazing to think that David and the golden age emerge out of it.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 99: From Judge to King (1 Samuel 7-9)

The period we are now covering is fascinating. Up to the reading for today, the people of Israel have been organized as a loose confederation of tries under the occasional leadership of Judges. Today, we begin the transition to monarchy. Soon we will get Israel’s golden age under Kings David and Solomon. And yet, the transition to monarchy is troublesome and ultimately unsuccessful. The kingdom of the twelve tribes lasts considerably less time than the period of Judges. And today we can already see the problems that will emerge.

Samuel seems to be the dominant figure as the transition begins. In chapter seven, he functions as the last Judge. Israel has sinned, once again opening the door to domination by a foreign power, the Philistines. Like earlier judges, Samuel recalls the people to covenant loyalty (7:3-4), and then leads them in victorious battle against the oppressor (7:7-11). After the victory, “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life” (7:15). If his story ended there, Samuel would be a judge in the pattern of the early, faithful judges described in the book of Judges.

But when Samuel is old, Israel asks him for a king. Twice they say they want a king so that they can be “like other nations” (8:5, 20). It is a bad idea. Israel was called to be different. God tells Samuel to do it, even though the request is a rejection of God (8:7-9). At God’s command, Samuel warns the people that their king will oppress them (8:11-18). Most of his predictions come true during Solomon’s reign.

Finally, we meet the man destined to be Israel’s first king, Saul. Saul is really tall, but not particularly bright. His father sends him to find some lost donkeys. For three days, Saul wanders MILES of countryside. When he finally bumps into Samuel, Samuel tells him that the donkeys were found long ago. More importantly, Samuel tells Saul that he will be king. Saul hesitates. And we know his hesitation is justified. If he cannot keep track of a few donkeys, how can he rule a nation?!

Over the next few days, we will follow Saul’s tragic career, David’s incredible rise to power, and the turbulent period of monarchy. But we can already see that the monarchy is a rejection of God, that it will lead to the oppression of the nation, and that the kings will often be hapless!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 95: Ruth and Jesus (Ruth, John 14)

Two unrelated things struck me in our readings for today.

First, Ruth is a relief after Joshua and Judges. We have had a lot of violence. Joshua is, among other things, a story of genocide. Judges ends with the most graphic and distressing story in the entire Bible: the story of the Levite’s concubine. But, for today at least, the violence is on hold. The value celebrated is family love and loyalty. Women are the main characters. Most surprisingly, a Moabite (i.e. foreign) woman is the hero. At the end, we learn that the Moabite Ruth is the grandmother of King David. There could be no better reminder that foreigners are not all bad, Joshua notwithstanding.

The other thing that struck me was the famous line, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6). It is interesting to reflect on what it means to BE the truth. We normally talk about knowing the truth or teaching the truth or discovering the truth. But Jesus is claiming to be the truth, to fully and perfectly embody the truth.

I cannot wrap my mind around what that means. But one thing seems clear. The kind of truth Jesus is is not a fact. It cannot be captured in a proposition. Truth is not something we can know with our heads. Instead, truth is personal. Truth is a person. Truth is someone we love, not something we know. To say we know truth, in this sense of the word truth, means to be in relationship with truth.

If we connect the claim that Jesus is the truth to the opening lines of the gospel of John about all things coming into being through the Word, then we can say that creation is much more than inert matter. Creation itself is personal, in the sense that a person stands at its heart. We should interact with creation in a way analogous to our interactions with the people we love. At the very least, we should not abuse and exploit it!

I sense there is much more to the claim that Jesus is the truth. But, perhaps appropriately, I have reached the limits of my understanding. Maybe I should go commune with Jesus!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 92: Samson’s Women (Judges 13)

Much of the Bible is a man’s book, at least in the sense that the main actors are men. From the time that Moses first challenges Pharaoh until the end of his life, women do not get a lot of air time, not even Miriam, Moses’ sister, who was clearly important in her own right. In Joshua, the only important woman is Rahab, and she only appears in two chapters.

But Judges is an exception. From the beginning to the end of the book, women matter. Deborah is the most impressive of all. But one or more women are important to the storyline for most of the judges, and they are absolutely critical in Samson’s story. The most famous woman in Samson’s life is Delilah, but we will not read about her until tomorrow. Today I was struck by his mother.

Samson’s mother was barren, but an angel of the Lord appears to her to promise her a child. This put her in the line of barren mothers from Genesis: Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel. Her husband missed the encounter, so he prays that God will send the “man” again. God does, but again sends the angel to Samson’s mother, not to Manoah. She hurries to call her husband, so that he too can hear the divine message. Manoah asks the angel about Samson’s rule of life, and the angel gives a rule for Samson’s mother. Finally, when the angel ascends to heaven, Manoah assumes that he and his wife will die since they have seen the Lord. She reassures him that God would not have accepted their sacrifice if God intended to kill them.

At each point, the angel has privileged her over her husband and even over her son to be born. And the story makes clear that she has more wisdom and insight than her husband. This pattern is consistent enough that it must be part of the lesson of the story. Precisely because the Bible tends to be male dominated, I value the exceptions and want to notice and celebrate biblical women when I can. Thank God for Samson’s mother. Would that Samson displayed her good sense and judgement one he becomes an adult!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 89: The Judges Spiral (Judges 7-9)

The book of Judges has a cool, spiral pattern.

At one level, the book follows a repeating pattern, like a circle. The pattern is established in chapter two, verse 11 forward. I take this chapter to be generic. It is not talking about a single event (e.g. verse 16) but rather introduces the pattern for each judge. First, Israel sins. God hands them over to a foreign oppressor. Eventually Israel cries out to God. God calls a “judge” (more like a general, normally) to deliver the people. The judge defeats the oppressor. The people remain faithful for the rest of the judge’s life, but then relapse and start the cycle all over again. The lesson is clear enough. Sin leads to punishment. Repentance and covenant loyalty lead to restoration.

Once we notice the pattern, then the deviations from the pattern become interesting. And it turns out the deviations are following a pattern too. Each judge is a little worse than the previous one.

So far we have read about Othniel (3:7-11), who follows the pattern perfectly. Then Ehud (3:12-30), who also follows it closely except that he begins to deliver the people by a political assassination that is described as disgusting. Deborah and Barak are third (4-5). Deborah is great, and perhaps the most impressive woman in the Old Testament. But Barak is the military leader, and he is less impressive. He won’t fight unless Deborah goes with him. As a consequence, he does not get the glory of killing the enemy leader (4:8-9).

Finally, today we get Gideon, who needs multiple signs before he is willing to act, and who is also explicitly told that neither he nor Israel as a whole will get the glory of the victory (7:2-8). Worse yet, Gideon slaughters non-cooperative Israelites and then constructs an ephod that ultimately leads him, his family, and his people astray. Then his son makes himself king ad fights a minor civil war.

We will continue the downward slide with Jephthah and Samson and especially with the Levite at the end.

The result is a kind of spiral, as the book circles around the theme of sin and punishment, repentance and restoration, but also moves consistently downward.

Where we are heading is social collapse and the need for a new start under a king. But the monarchy to come is set-up in Judges not as a wonderful institution so much as a desperate response to a desperate situation.

Fr. Harvey

 

Bible Challenge Day 87: Conquest, Twice! (Judges 1)

Because I am a history geek, I have always found Judges one intriguing. At the end of Joshua, the Israelites appear to have conquered and settled virtually all of the Promised Land, basically wiping out the Canaanites who stood in their way. But Judges one offers a quite different picture of conquest.

 

A few clues indicate that Judges one is indeed a second version of the same events. Joshua dies at the end of the book bearing his name (24:29). Joshua dies again in Judges two (verse 8), implying that Judges one covers material that took place during his lifetime. Also the episode of Othniel and Achsah is narrated twice, in very similar words (Joshua 15:15-19; Judges 1:11-15). Several places described as conquered in Joshua are again described as attacked in Judges. The most interesting example is Jerusalem, which is described as conquered in both Joshua 12:10 and Judges 1:8, but then described as successfully resisting the Israelite attack in Judges 1:21.

 

I conclude a couple of things. First, the editors of the Bible were not particularly interested in smoothing out discrepancies. Competing accounts of the same event are put side by side with no effort to determine which is more accurate (or if either is). Second, the conquest was not quite so total as Joshua seems to indicate. That is a relief to me since the book of Joshua seems genocidal. For once I am glad that the facts were more complicated than the story as told!

 

Most important, however, is the question, why tell the same story twice? And why tell it differently? In my view, the answer is literary and theological. The book of Joshua portrays the Israelites as faithful and united as they finally experience the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham so long ago. This version of the story teaches that God rewards faithful (and patient!) people. Judges, by contrast, is largely the story of Israel’s sin and gradual loss of control of the Promised Land. It is therefore unsurprising that the tribes are portrayed as less united, less successful, and less faithful. This version of conquest sets up the lesson that God punishes unfaithful people, but will forgive and restore them when they repent.

 

What emerges from this kind of analysis is less emphasis on historical accuracy in all its details and more on literary art and theological lessons. And that seems appropriate for a religious book whose primary purpose is to teach us how to relate to God!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 85: Healing? (John 5)

I have read this chapter of John many times, and always interpreted the healing in it as a straight-forward miracle story. Since John is never entirely straight-forward, that was foolish! Recently, a commentator drew my attention to the healed man’s poor behavior, which changes everything.

Jesus asks the man, “do you want to be made well” (5:6)? The man does not actually answer that question. Instead, he offers excuses as to why he has not previously been healed even though he lays beside a miraculous healing pool all day every day. His excuse is that no one else will put him in the pool when its healing powers are activated. Clearly his (unspecified) illness is not his fault. Of course, Jesus had never suggested that it was. Jesus just asked if he wanted to be healed of it. Apparently the answer is, not really. Unasked, Jesus heals the man, who takes up his mat and walks away.

In the next scene, we learn that this was on a Sabbath. Some religious leaders tell the man that it is not lawful for him to carry his mat on the Sabbath. Once again, his immediate reaction is to insist that it is not his fault: “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and walk’” (5:11). They want to know who made him well, but he doesn’t know.

In the third scene, Jesus meets the man again. The man says nothing to Jesus, but “went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well” (5:15).

What a jerk! As I now interpret this set of exchanges, we are supposed to see him as too attached to his ailment to want healing, too committed to his own disempowerment to accept responsibility, and too afraid of the people around him to embrace the new life he has been given or to show gratitude to the one who gave it.

But I suspect that we all have a little of this man in us. I know that I hold on to some of my own wounds rather than seeking genuine healing. I sometimes blame others for my own failures. I sometimes retreat from God’s invitation to new life because I am more comfortable with what is more familiar. Ironically, I like John’s story much better now that I like the healed man much less. Now it gives me a picture of how I must sometimes look and thus an incentive to do better!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 80: Holy Violence (Joshua 7-9)

I had not planned to write anything during Holy Week, but I need to process my thoughts. I have always found Joshua to be the most troubling book in the entire Bible. Parts of other books trouble me, but always something inspires me as well. In Joshua, where virtually the entire book is about conquest, genocide, and expropriation, that is not as true.

I heard once that different ethnic groups in the United States during the nineteenth century typically responded to the story of Moses and Joshua in very different ways. Black people emphasized Moses the liberator who freed God’s enslaved people. White people emphasized Moses the lawgiver who established the (hierarchical) social order. Native Americans emphasized Joshua, the successor of Moses and the leader of an invading army which wiped out the native inhabitants of Canaan. I am guessing some Palestinians today would hear something similar. Sigh . . . .

The verse that particularly struck me today was 8:24-25: “When Israel finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and when all of them to the very last had fallen by the sword, all Israel returned to Ai, and attacked it with the edge of the sword. The total of those who fell that day, both men and women, was twelve thousand—all the people of Ai.” That is after Joshua’s troops killed every man, woman, and child in Jericho, along with all the oxen, sheep, and donkeys (6:21), and before they enslaved the Gibeonites, who survived only by deceit (chapter 9).

The lesson of Joshua is that God rewards the faithful people by honoring the covenant promises God made to Abraham. And there is a bright spot: Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute is spared because she recognizes the God of Israel. She then gets a cameo mention in the New Testament as part of the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5)! But this is not much good news in a pretty grim book.

One grand irony helps me a bit. The names Joshua and Jesus are very similar in Hebrew. The one I follow is not the fierce warrior but the prince of peace. This week, of all weeks, is a reminder that God suffers with and for us. God does not command genocide. Still, I struggle with what we are reading these days . . . .

Fr. Harvey