Bible Challenge Day 76: Standing By Jesus (Luke 22)

“You are those who have stood by me in my trials” (22:28). That is what Jesus says to the disciples at the Last Supper. But it is an incredibly ironic verse. He has just announced that one will betray him (22:21). Then they dispute about who is the greatest (22:24), something they have done consistently since he began warning them about his coming death.

That is what immediately precedes this verse. What immediately follows it continues the pattern of failure. The next verse is his prediction that Peter will deny him (22:31). Then they all go to Gethsemane, where he instructs them to pray but they fall asleep (22:39f).

In the midst of all that, Jesus praises them for sticking by him, and goes on to promise that they will eat and drink at his table in God’s kingdom!

I have always taken perverse pleasure in the failure of the disciples because it enables me to see myself in them. And so I take great comfort in Jesus’ praise of these bumbling failures as ones who stand by him. I assume what he means is not that they succeed, but that they try. Peter is the great example. He follows Jesus to the courtyard of the high priest’s house, where Jesus is being “tried.” Peter denies Jesus. But he is there.

That seems a lot like me. Following as best I can. Failing when tested. But still trying to stay close by. Maybe I, maybe we, can hear Jesus’ promises to the disciples as directed to us too, despite our failures. Hopefully that can help us to keep trying to follow, even despite our failures.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 74: Blessings and Curses (Deuteronomy 28-30)

“If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God . . . , then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you . . . . But if your heart turns astray and you do not hear,  . . . you shall perish” (30:16-18). This verse encapsulates what we read today in Deuteronomy. Over and over again, it says, obey and be blessed; disobey and be cursed.

In its historical context, I get that. Deuteronomy was probably a manual for national reform at a time when the author thought the nation faced destruction for its sin. The many warnings about exile (e.g. 28:25f) show that the stakes were high. The author therefore preached a strong and clear message: repent and obey, before it is too late. That message helped the Israelites to survive exile with their faith intact.

I also believe that this message is generally true. Things go better when we do right. Things go worse when we do not. In the long run, I like to think that the moral arc of the universe does bend towards justice.

But of course it often does not work out that way in individual lives. If one were to take Deuteronomy as a kind of contract between God and every individual, with a guarantee that everything will always balance perfectly, then I would have to reject the whole. I imagine that everyone knows people who certainly seem faithful and good and yet suffer. Probably we all know people who are not nearly so good who seem prosperous.

And so I have very mixed feelings about the basic theology of Deuteronomy as I understand it. Historically important. True and valuable in the long run. A terrible oversimplification that can lead to insensitivity and gross injustice when interpreted too literally or rigorously. . . .

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 69: The True Prophets (Deuteronomy 18)

Last week someone asked the question, how could people know which leader to follow? We were talking about First Corinthians, so the question was about Paul. How could those earliest Christians in Corinth know to listen to Paul and not to Paul’s opponents? The question is just as relevant today: given all the voices clamoring for our attention, who should we heed?

Deuteronomy asks the same question. There is a promise that God will raise up a prophet like Moses (18:15). In the Acts of the Apostles, that gets applied to Jesus (3:22; 7:37). But Deuteronomy seems to be speaking about prophets more generally, and gives two criteria for recognizing them. If prophets speak in the name of another God, they are false (18:20). And if prophets predict something that does not come true, then, too, they are false (18:22).

But that second is not always a good standard. Jonah is commissioned by God and (eventually!!) says what he was supposed to say: “Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (3:4). But the people of Nineveh repented, “God changed his mind” (3:9—itself an interesting thing to think about!), and the prediction did not come true. Still, Jonah was a prophet. Apparently the criteria are more fluid than it initially seems.

Still I think they can be translated into language that makes them applicable today. We should only follow those who speak in the name of God. God can do and say surprising things, but on balance this seems to me to look backwards. The standard we have for judging whether someone speaks in the name of God is Scripture and tradition. Religious leaders seeking our attention should be recognizably in conversation Christians of the past.

Predicting the future is a more difficult criterion, if only because we cannot know until after the fact if the prediction comes true. But we can think of this as the forward looking criterion. Religious leaders today need to offer a compelling vision of the future if they claim to speak in the name of God.

That is all still pretty nebulous. I guess God gives us enough freedom that we have to take the responsibility of judging for ourselves even when it is hard. But Deuteronomy 18 can help. . . .

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 66: Mustard Seeds and Yeast (Luke 13)

The parables for Day 66 are intriguing. Jesus says, the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that grows into a tree (13:18-19). Our commentator notes that the mustard seed is small, but grows to be “a large tree, several feet high,” and says the kingdom is like that. But that misses the point, I think, which is considerably more ironic than he suggests. “Several feet high” is not a large tree; it’s a shrub!

In the Old Testament, the natural comparison to the kingdom is of God is the Cedar of Lebanon. We had one in our yard in Georgia and they are big trees. But a mustard tree, as I understand it, is more like a woody weed. A mustard plant grows fast and is vigorous. Indeed, mustard plants can take over. But they are not noble, not the kind of thing you would normally compare the kingdom of God to. Comparing the kingdom of God to a mustard seed sounds more like parody than a serious parable.

And that is the point, as I understand it. The kingdom of God is not what we expect it to be. It starts small. It spreads fast. It takes over. But it is NOT particularly impressive or imposing. It is composed of very ordinary people with very obvious wounds and limitations. The growth is in spite of its lack of grandeur, not because it is grand. A contemporary comparison is Kudzu. And the lesson is, God works in strange ways and with strange people—people like us.

The comparison of the kingdom to yeast (13:20-21) makes exactly the same point. Yeast could make bread ritually unclean. Jews were not supposed to eat leavened bread at Passover, for example. So to compare the kingdom of God to yeast leavening the wheat is borderline offensive. And again the point is, it starts small, spreads fast, takes over. And it is NOT AT ALL what we expect it to be!

The message of these two parables, at least as I understand them, is that God is surprising. Thank God for that!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 64: The Moral Arc of the Universe (Deuteronomy 1-3)

I am glad to be starting Deuteronomy. I know that scholars think of it as forming the basic theological framework for most of the historical books that are coming soon (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings). And I have not read Deuteronomy straight through with any care in quite some time.

A couple of the things that I think of as characteristic of Deuteronomy do not appear in our chapters for today. Soon we will read about God’s love for Israel and the command that we love God in return. There has not been a lot of love talk to this point in the Old Testament, so I look forward to that in the next few days. By chapter twelve, we will also get into the emphasis on sacrificing at the ONE place that God will choose—the temple. Sacrifices anywhere else are considered, almost by definition, idolatrous.

What we do get in this passage is a clear lesson that God punishes those who are not faithful and obedient, and God rewards those who are. As Moses surveys what happens after the Hebrew people leave Mount Sinai, he reminds them that God punished them with forty years of wandering in the desert for their refusal to fight the Canaanites when God first told them to. We all know that it doesn’t always work out that way. Sometimes unfaithful people prosper, and sometimes very faithful people suffer. Still, I like Deuteronomy as long as we take the long view. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

The commentary for today notes that Moses is reviewing the past failings of the people. The commentator says, remembering our own past failings can be part of spiritual growth, but that brooding over them can also be damaging. That is a helpful point. We participate in the moral arc of the universe as it bends towards justice when we learn from our mistakes. We do not when we get stuck, obsessing about our mistakes rather than living into the future. The next step for the Hebrew people who have been wandering in the wilderness for so long is to enter the Promised Land and construct a model society. They fail at that in many ways. But they do use their past mistakes as a springboard to future action, at least theoretically informed by a theological vision of God’s justice. I like that.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 60: Women (Numbers 30 and Luke 8)

My thoughts about the readings for today are not very coherent. The Numbers chapters were tough, particularly chapter 31 on the massacre of the Midianites, including killing my man Balaam. But we will face a lot more of that kind of violence when we get to the book of Joshua in a few weeks so I leave it for now.

The thing from Numbers that I do want to think about are the rules about women’s vows. I assume the vows being legislated are religious vows in which women commit to making particular sacrifices to God. Numbers is thoroughly patriarchal on this point. If a man makes a vow, he is bound to keep it (30:2). But a woman’s vow is not normally binding until the male authority figure in her life (father or husband) hears about it and lets it stand. The man has to nullify the vow immediately, or else it is his responsibility (30:15). And widows or divorced women (presumably women without a male authority figure in their lives) can make vows on their own (30:9). But this is still a very clear example of the way patriarchal society limited the autonomy of women: not even a vow to God is binding unless a man implicitly confirms it!

I suspect this ultimately had to do with property rights. The issue was, could a woman offer family property as a sacrifice? The answer was, yes, but only as long as the true property owner—the man—agreed. Perhaps I should take comfort in the fact that women could, in some circumstances, make the vow, just as women could, in some circumstances, own land (e.g. Numbers 27). But this is still pretty unsatisfying.

The woman with the hemorrhage in Luke 8 is a partial answer. She touches Jesus and is healed. Jesus knows power has gone out of him, but seems not to know who received it (8:45). Eventually the woman confesses that she was the one. What strikes me is that she was the active agent in her own healing. Power flowed through Jesus, but Jesus did not—so it seems—control the power. It is as if the woman’s touch unleashed his latent healing power without his consent. There is a lot to think about in this. But in connection with the Numbers material, I notice mainly that a woman exercises initiative. Clearly in this case a woman has access to God independent of any man in her life and even—amazingly—without Jesus’ conscious agreement. In this odd story, the woman is not a purely subordinate figure. Thank God for that!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 58: Woe to the Rich (Luke 6)

Today we began Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount. Like Matthew, Luke has beatitudes. Jesus pronounces blessings on the poor, the hungry, and those who weep. Unlike Matthew, Luke also has Jesus pronounce parallel woes. “Woe to you who are rich . . . . Woe to you are full now . . . . Woe to you who are laughing now . . . .”

I like Jesus to be nice, and normally he is. But this passage in Luke is a reminder that Jesus is not always nice. Sometimes Jesus tells hard truths. I am not rich by US standards, but I am certainly rich by the standards of peasants in ancient Israel. I am full. I laugh. I would like to think those are not bad things. But Jesus’ sermon in this chapter of Luke means at the very least that I should not be complacent.

A friend once put it this way. If we want to be with Jesus, we should go where he says he is going to be, and that is with the poor. This passage from Luke suggests that the consequences of failing to be with the poor are serious. Another friend of mine preached a sermon last Sunday about the angry Jesus. Apparently she said that she appreciates Christ’s passion for justice and his anger at injustice. The woes in this chapter come from that passion.

I still do not know exactly what to do with this passage. But I know that I need to spend time with it, despite my great temptation to read over it as quickly as I can!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 57: A Talking Donkey! (Numbers 21-23)

It is hard to know what to make of a story that includes a talking donkey!! In the Old Testament reading for today, a worried Moabite king asks a prophet to curse the Israelites. Balaam, the prophet, refuses to go, then agrees on the condition that he will say only what God tells him to say. God tells Balaam to bless the Israelites, to the king’s great disappointment. The details of the story are the odd part. The most striking thing is the talking donkey. I do not take that part of the story literally, but even so, it is a little hard to see what lessons one might draw from it. But this is my best shot . . . .

Point one: I appreciate the fact that Balaam, a non-Israelite, functions as a prophet of God. He consults the LORD (i.e. Yahweh, the God specifically of the Israelites whose name was revealed to Moses at the burning bush) and proclaims the word of the Lord. This is a reminder that God speaks to us through some surprising people.

Point two: God tells Balaam to go, and then sends an angel to kill him for going. This is odd! But it parallels a briefer but generally similar story about Moses (Ex 4:24-26). Whatever else is going on, the parallel legitimizes Balaam as God’s agent in this story. And perhaps it reminds us that serving God can be a dangerous business!

Point three: In addition to being charming, the story of the talking donkey has a positive environmental message. The donkey can see the angel when even the prophet cannot. The donkey patiently suffers abuse from Balaam even as the donkey saves Balaam’s life. God enables the donkey to speak in order to protest Balaam’s injustice in beating him. All of that reminds us that animals are part of God’s creation and that God cares about them. Animals are not simply for our benefit, to use as we see fit. They have a right, for example, not to have their habitats eliminated or to be factory-farmed.

I still find the story odd, but I do like it, particularly as a break from all the ritual material and then the string of complaints that we have been reading about!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 52: A Holy Nation (Numbers 10-11)

At last the Hebrew people are leaving Mount Sinai! As they move out, they are organized by tribe, under designated leaders, all placed around the ark of the covenant. The order of their march has an important symbolic value. When they left Egypt, the people were a disorganized mob, leaving so quickly that they did not have time to let their bread rise, much less organize themselves. When they arrived at Mount Sinai, God called them to be “a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). But it was not true yet. Fifty-eight chapters later, as they leave Sinai, they have become a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. The law is the gift from God that makes the transition happen.

But the transition to a holy nation is not yet complete. Moses has trouble leading the people, so God calls others as prophets to share the leadership burden. Joshua is jealous of two of the new prophets on Moses’ behalf. And Moses says that he wishes all of God’s people could be prophets (11:29). Fast forward several centuries. The prophet Joel repeats that hope: “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days I will pour out my spirit” (2:28-29). But still it remains a hope not a present reality.

Fast forward several centuries more, to the first Christian Pentecost. The Holy Spirit comes on the demoralized followers of Jesus, and they speak in tongues so that “devout Jews from every nation under heaven” understand their proclamations of God. Peter stands up to interpret what is happening, and he refers back to Joel, with the addition that all are prophesying (Acts 2:17-18). At last, Moses’ hope has been fulfilled and God’s people really are a holy nation, through the work of our risen Lord and the Holy Spirit. What the law began has been fulfilled.

 

Unfortunately Christians have not been able to sustain this vision of a community of prophets, all in communion with God and with each other. But in our reading for today, and in the events that it anticipates, we at least catch a glimpse of what God invites us to experience more fully.
Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 50: Recognizing the Son of God (Mark 15:39)

Today we reached the real climax of the gospel of Mark. Tomorrow we get the empty tomb, and that is big, of course. But today we finally see someone recognize that Jesus is the Son of God.

From the beginning, Mark tells us that Jesus is the Son of God (1:1). In case we miss the point, a voice from heaven almost immediately repeats it at Jesus’ baptism (1:11). But the disciples don’t get it. After Jesus stills a storm, they ask, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him” (4:41)? Jesus pushes them, asking, “who do you say that I am?” Peter’s answer is good, but still incomplete (at least as recorded in Mark): “You are the Messiah” (8:27). So once again, the voice from heaven reminds us “This is my Son” (9:7). And still, no human being in the gospel of Mark recognizes Jesus as the Son of God.

At last, in the penultimate chapter of the gospel, someone calls Jesus the Son of God. And it is the centurion who crucifies him (15:39)!! He is the only one in the entire gospel of Mark to discover the secret at its very heart: Jesus is the Son of God.

Compounding the paradox is how the centurion knows. Not by watching Jesus work miracles or teach or confound opponents. The centurion recognizes Jesus as the Son of God by watching him die in agony! Jesus cries with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” “Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son.’” “In this way he breathed his last”! Mysteriously, God is revealed in suffering. Only when Christ dies is his divinity finally apparent. What an amazing climax to an amazing gospel!

Fr. Harvey