vs 33
Oooh, these guys think they are so smart! Jesus could surely never answer suck a curly question! Notice that the Sadducees are trying to win on two fronts - they want to make Jesus look foolish by not being able to answer a question, and they want to score theological points for their worldview.
vs 34
Fairly obvious statement.
vs 35
Now that's a very interesting idea. Some people think of heaven as a totally different world to this one. Some think of it as pretty much the same. In this verse, Jesus is playing up the difference of heaven. No marriage there.
vs 36
Few lessons here. Firstly, there will be no death after the final resurrection. Secondly, angels can't die - interesting sublesson. Those who take place in the resurrection age (not just those who are resurrected) will also be children of God.
vs 37-38
And here's the counter-assault. In this verse, Jesus shows that a name which Moses uses for God (and which surely the Sadducees used as well) calls upon the names of the dead. But what kind of God is a god of dead people? No, these promises live, so these people must also live. They may not be alive to us, but they are alive to God. And his opinion is surely the one that matters.
vs 39
In other words, "Bam!" to the Saducees and their crazy beliefs. Bam indeed - not only did he foil their attempt to make him look bad, but they also ended up looking like fools who didn't know God.
vs 40
But after that ribbing by Jesus, people weren't so keen to go and ask more questions. He's already deflected the character assassins, maiming them with their own attacks. It's time for the actual assassins.
vs 41
Jesus isn't finished, though! He goes on the offensive and starts into an argument of his own! His attack, though, is rather odd - he is questioning the title of the Messiah as being the 'Son of David'.
vs 42-43
He quotes a Davidic Psalm where there is obviously a messianic bent.
vs 44
But the question is a curly one. David calls this Messiah 'Lord', and a father is always deserving of honour from his son. So how can this Messiah be both a son of David and his Lord? The fact is that no one can be a lord over David, because was is king! The only person who was Lord over David is God. But then God would be talking to God, "The Lord said to my Lord". Jesus doesn't answer the question plainly. He lets them think about it. But what other conclusion can they come to, except that if this is a messianic psalm, that the messiah will be God?
vs 45
I take it they're not listening to Jesus, because Jesus is busy talking to the disciples. Unless Luke just means that he continues talking, but now he's addressing the disciples (even though what he's about to say is anti-Pharisee). Otherwise, 'all the people' might have been busy listening to the ensuing argument over the psalm.
vs 46
In other words, these people like to be self-important.
vs 47
"Devour widow's houses" is an interesting term. Remember, widow = poor. I'm pretty sure you can't read this literally - widows were too poor to all live in gingerbread houses. My opinion is that the teachers of the Law were harsh enforcers of the tithe, and that it was through their religious taxation that they devoured the homes of the widow. That's just poor.
Jesus says they'll be punished severely. Probably for the best.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Luke chapter 20
vs 21
Labelling them 'spies' is quite nasty, really. Luke makes his opinion clear. Or at the very least the opinion of his eyewitness.
Flattery, they think, will get them everywhere. But also, the preamble to their question is part of the trap. They are reminding Jesus that he is supposed to follow God's truth impartially, even if what he says will make him unpopular. Of course, they haven't done their homework - they would know that Jesus has taught some really unpopular things during his ministry already, and is not afraid to do that.
vs 22
The trap being of course that if he says "It's right" he loses popularity with the fairly militant anti-Roman jews. If he says "It's wrong" they can use it as a reason to get him arrested.
vs 23
Jesus is smarter than them.
vs 24-25
The coin is Caesar's because it bears his image and inscription. Jesus says, therefore, that anything that bears the image and inscription of God should be given to God.
vs 26
Jesus foiled them so terribly well in one answer, that they couldn't think of another way to even try and trap him. That's pretty awesome.
vs 27
Luke reminds us of what the Sadducees believe, thankfully, because we'd probably have no idea otherwise.
vs 28
This is weird, but true. Now, for all those people who say that they follow the OT law, I bet you $1 million that they don't follow that one :P
vs 29-32
In these verses, the Sadducees draw up a crazy SitCom plot where seven husbands marry this woman, and none of them father a child with her, before dying, and she eventually dies (of exhaustion). Can I point out how useless verse 30 is? Interesting that in the KJV, there are a bunch of words in vs 30 that simply don't exist in the greek. They must be so tenuous that the NIV and NASB don't even list them as "some late manuscripts add"!
Labelling them 'spies' is quite nasty, really. Luke makes his opinion clear. Or at the very least the opinion of his eyewitness.
Flattery, they think, will get them everywhere. But also, the preamble to their question is part of the trap. They are reminding Jesus that he is supposed to follow God's truth impartially, even if what he says will make him unpopular. Of course, they haven't done their homework - they would know that Jesus has taught some really unpopular things during his ministry already, and is not afraid to do that.
vs 22
The trap being of course that if he says "It's right" he loses popularity with the fairly militant anti-Roman jews. If he says "It's wrong" they can use it as a reason to get him arrested.
vs 23
Jesus is smarter than them.
vs 24-25
The coin is Caesar's because it bears his image and inscription. Jesus says, therefore, that anything that bears the image and inscription of God should be given to God.
vs 26
Jesus foiled them so terribly well in one answer, that they couldn't think of another way to even try and trap him. That's pretty awesome.
vs 27
Luke reminds us of what the Sadducees believe, thankfully, because we'd probably have no idea otherwise.
vs 28
This is weird, but true. Now, for all those people who say that they follow the OT law, I bet you $1 million that they don't follow that one :P
vs 29-32
In these verses, the Sadducees draw up a crazy SitCom plot where seven husbands marry this woman, and none of them father a child with her, before dying, and she eventually dies (of exhaustion). Can I point out how useless verse 30 is? Interesting that in the KJV, there are a bunch of words in vs 30 that simply don't exist in the greek. They must be so tenuous that the NIV and NASB don't even list them as "some late manuscripts add"!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Luke chapter 20
vs 11
A second servant is treated the same as the first.
vs 12
This is pretty serious stuff - because, of course, how you treat the messenger is a message to the master who sent the message. And everyone knows you don't shoot the messenger.
vs 13
At this stage this parable gets a little unbelievable. Who, after having his messengers treated in such a way, would put his son into this situation? Who, after the banditry of these tenants, would assume on their honour and loyalty to their son?
vs 14
The thought processes of the tenants was pretty different - kill the heir, take his inheritance. As if that's going to work! But remember what this is a parable of - the religious leaders and their treatment of God and Jesus. And this parable gives us key insight into their motivation behind ignoring and, eventually, killing Jesus. They wanted his position for themselves. They were happy with the current arrangement, the status quo, even if God wasn't! Even if God was moving in another direction! This can't bode well...
vs 15
Of course, thinking about it and doing it are two different things (in the course of reality), but they actually do go ahead and do it.
And Jesus asks his rhetorical question, which he will answer. It's more of a build-up for the climax of the story.
vs 16
It would be nice to think that the reaction of the crowd was because they loved their leadership so much, or they realised the complicity they had in allowing their leadership to stray so far from the path.
Instead, I think they were just shocked at the story. We've heard it a million times. We know what it means, and how it ends. The crowd, I think, were just shocked at it. It's an MA15+ story.
vs 17
Again, they don't answer him, but the message is clear - not everyone is glorified by the plan of God. Some people will despise it, and they will suffer the consequences.
vs 18
Either way, it's not a happy ending. It's a sad panda ending. Either you stumble on Christ because of your preconceptions and feelings and desires, and you break to pieces, or he has to fall on you for your disobedience and rebellion, and you're crushed.
vs 19
The chief priests etc knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Well, perhaps not. But perhaps so. I mean, in our intellectual culture, we tend t o believe that if people are shown the facts, then they will abide by them. But it's not true. People know things, but do things contrary to their knowledge all the time. We have blinded ourselves by thinking education solves problems.
It is possible that the chief priests didn't understand what Jesus was saying, but knew it was against them and was bad. But it is entirely possible that they understood what he was saying, denied its truth, and went to kill him anyway. It is possible, but really, really unlikely, that they knew he was the Son of God, and killed him regardless.
vs 20
Spies. I mean, come on. This is some serious muckraking campaign. But at the end of it, they want to kill him, not just his career. Nasty stuff. Just imagine what it takes for a group of people to get together and conspire to kill someone. There's a lot of hate in that. Again, do we really see that when we read? Or do we just read over it as a story we know so well?
A second servant is treated the same as the first.
vs 12
This is pretty serious stuff - because, of course, how you treat the messenger is a message to the master who sent the message. And everyone knows you don't shoot the messenger.
vs 13
At this stage this parable gets a little unbelievable. Who, after having his messengers treated in such a way, would put his son into this situation? Who, after the banditry of these tenants, would assume on their honour and loyalty to their son?
vs 14
The thought processes of the tenants was pretty different - kill the heir, take his inheritance. As if that's going to work! But remember what this is a parable of - the religious leaders and their treatment of God and Jesus. And this parable gives us key insight into their motivation behind ignoring and, eventually, killing Jesus. They wanted his position for themselves. They were happy with the current arrangement, the status quo, even if God wasn't! Even if God was moving in another direction! This can't bode well...
vs 15
Of course, thinking about it and doing it are two different things (in the course of reality), but they actually do go ahead and do it.
And Jesus asks his rhetorical question, which he will answer. It's more of a build-up for the climax of the story.
vs 16
It would be nice to think that the reaction of the crowd was because they loved their leadership so much, or they realised the complicity they had in allowing their leadership to stray so far from the path.
Instead, I think they were just shocked at the story. We've heard it a million times. We know what it means, and how it ends. The crowd, I think, were just shocked at it. It's an MA15+ story.
vs 17
Again, they don't answer him, but the message is clear - not everyone is glorified by the plan of God. Some people will despise it, and they will suffer the consequences.
vs 18
Either way, it's not a happy ending. It's a sad panda ending. Either you stumble on Christ because of your preconceptions and feelings and desires, and you break to pieces, or he has to fall on you for your disobedience and rebellion, and you're crushed.
vs 19
The chief priests etc knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Well, perhaps not. But perhaps so. I mean, in our intellectual culture, we tend t o believe that if people are shown the facts, then they will abide by them. But it's not true. People know things, but do things contrary to their knowledge all the time. We have blinded ourselves by thinking education solves problems.
It is possible that the chief priests didn't understand what Jesus was saying, but knew it was against them and was bad. But it is entirely possible that they understood what he was saying, denied its truth, and went to kill him anyway. It is possible, but really, really unlikely, that they knew he was the Son of God, and killed him regardless.
vs 20
Spies. I mean, come on. This is some serious muckraking campaign. But at the end of it, they want to kill him, not just his career. Nasty stuff. Just imagine what it takes for a group of people to get together and conspire to kill someone. There's a lot of hate in that. Again, do we really see that when we read? Or do we just read over it as a story we know so well?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Luke chapter 20
vs 1
They're like a posse. Nothing new under the sun, homey.
vs 2
They've tried this trick before - last time, the suggestion was that Jesus' authority was from Satan. This time, they're being more subtle, and asking him where his authority comes from. It may have been a subtle delicate ruse, execpt for the fact that all of them are standing there together demanding it of him.
vs 3-4
I'm not sure if the etiquette of Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic or whatever they were speaking allows for people to answer a question with a question. But Jesus does anyway. It seems an odd question to us, because we don't put a lot of focus on John TB. But remember - John TB was a superstar. He was heaps more well known than Jesus, at least in the early days. People from all over Judea had come to get baptised by him. So for Jesus' sake, it's probably an ordinary question. But for the sake of the other people listening, judging between Jesus and the leaders, it is a fundamental question.
vs 5
They discuss it - they can't answer from heaven, because they did not give John's ministry the stamp of approval. They were not baptised, apparently. Probably they didn't think they had any need to repent of their sin. If that's why they weren't baptised, then it shows how deep in trouble the Judaism of the day was - that no reptentance for sin was found.
vs 6
They are not afraid of getting the answer wrong. They obviously believe that John TB was not a prophet. Either that, or there is the possibility that they are now convinced that John TB was a prophet, but they think that Jesus will give them a tongue lashing for not believing him in the first place, and they want to be spared more ridicule. Their discussion is not to save them from untruth and help to find the truth. They are discussing their answer because they want to a) achieve an answer from Jesus to their original question b) keep their respectabilty and c) not get stoned to death by the people. Noble goals?
vs 7
The problem is that their answer puts them in a position of ridicule. Jesus was a master of argument. This question, no matter how they answered it, was going to put them in a bad position. Wedge politics, we like to call it. The problem with their answer is that if they don't know whether John TB was a prophet or not, then who is supposed to? Aren't these guys the spiritual leaders of Israel? And yet they can't even tell if John TB was a prophet? Saying "I don't know" not only makes them seem political (instead of just answering the question), but it makes them seem stupid.
vs 8
This is Jesus' version of saying, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" And they can't, because their answer to Jesus of his question shows clearly that the truth is not on their agenda.
vs 9
Jesus now starts on what is one of the most scathing parables against the Pharisees etc that he tells in his lifetime. Note the very important context of it, so that you know that it really is specifically against the religious leaders of the time. The picture is pretty self explanitory so far.
vs 10
So the tenants suck. It's not that they have no fruit - it's that they want to keep all the fruit for themselves. Think about what this says about the religious leaders of Israel. God asks for fruit, and they treat his servants shamefully. When you align these wicked tenants with real people, they look truly awful. No wonder the Pharisees etc get truly peeved at Jesus!
They're like a posse. Nothing new under the sun, homey.
vs 2
They've tried this trick before - last time, the suggestion was that Jesus' authority was from Satan. This time, they're being more subtle, and asking him where his authority comes from. It may have been a subtle delicate ruse, execpt for the fact that all of them are standing there together demanding it of him.
vs 3-4
I'm not sure if the etiquette of Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic or whatever they were speaking allows for people to answer a question with a question. But Jesus does anyway. It seems an odd question to us, because we don't put a lot of focus on John TB. But remember - John TB was a superstar. He was heaps more well known than Jesus, at least in the early days. People from all over Judea had come to get baptised by him. So for Jesus' sake, it's probably an ordinary question. But for the sake of the other people listening, judging between Jesus and the leaders, it is a fundamental question.
vs 5
They discuss it - they can't answer from heaven, because they did not give John's ministry the stamp of approval. They were not baptised, apparently. Probably they didn't think they had any need to repent of their sin. If that's why they weren't baptised, then it shows how deep in trouble the Judaism of the day was - that no reptentance for sin was found.
vs 6
They are not afraid of getting the answer wrong. They obviously believe that John TB was not a prophet. Either that, or there is the possibility that they are now convinced that John TB was a prophet, but they think that Jesus will give them a tongue lashing for not believing him in the first place, and they want to be spared more ridicule. Their discussion is not to save them from untruth and help to find the truth. They are discussing their answer because they want to a) achieve an answer from Jesus to their original question b) keep their respectabilty and c) not get stoned to death by the people. Noble goals?
vs 7
The problem is that their answer puts them in a position of ridicule. Jesus was a master of argument. This question, no matter how they answered it, was going to put them in a bad position. Wedge politics, we like to call it. The problem with their answer is that if they don't know whether John TB was a prophet or not, then who is supposed to? Aren't these guys the spiritual leaders of Israel? And yet they can't even tell if John TB was a prophet? Saying "I don't know" not only makes them seem political (instead of just answering the question), but it makes them seem stupid.
vs 8
This is Jesus' version of saying, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" And they can't, because their answer to Jesus of his question shows clearly that the truth is not on their agenda.
vs 9
Jesus now starts on what is one of the most scathing parables against the Pharisees etc that he tells in his lifetime. Note the very important context of it, so that you know that it really is specifically against the religious leaders of the time. The picture is pretty self explanitory so far.
vs 10
So the tenants suck. It's not that they have no fruit - it's that they want to keep all the fruit for themselves. Think about what this says about the religious leaders of Israel. God asks for fruit, and they treat his servants shamefully. When you align these wicked tenants with real people, they look truly awful. No wonder the Pharisees etc get truly peeved at Jesus!
Monday, August 27, 2007
Luke chapter 19
vs 41
Has he wept over any other city or town? I don't think we're told. But the importance of Jerusalem and Jesus' feelings towards it cannot be underestimated. This city has been the centre of God's promises since David (and more loosely to Moses).
vs 42
Jesus has reached the point of no return. Jerusalem is blind, and not even Jesus can heal her blindness now. It's a spiritual blindness, an inability to recognise who Jesus is, and what his coming to this city means.
vs 43
All too soon, too. About 40 years after Jesus dies, if my mind serves me correctly.
vs 44
Certainly they don't get the temple rebuilt in three days. They don't get it rebuilt ever, from that point on. The jewish people as a whole did not recognise God's coming to them in Jesus (lots did), and so God had to be firm with them and remove the object which they thought placed them at the centre of God's will and heart - the temple.
vs 45
And I know I was right, because now here is the focus on the temple. Jesus doesn't hate the temple. It's symbolism is still strong. But he hates what it has become - a marketplace.
vs 46
And not even a marketplace with honest scales, from the sound of it. Apparently there was some sort of heist going on where you had to buy a form of temple currency to make sacrifices in the temple or something. I'm not really that up with it. Regardless, Jesus wasn't happy about whatever they were doing.
vs 47
See, Jesus was happy to teach at the temple. This temple, which God would destroy in 40 odd years because it represented a stumbling block to his people coming to understand the new relationship he was offering, is the place where Jesus chose to stand and speak in Jerusalem. It's still the centre of the city. It's still the Mecca of the jews. Jesus uses that place as his base in Jerusalem, so that people know he is linked with God.
Again we are given the information about the priests and leaders wanting to kill Jesus. Rightly so that Luke reminds us - we are only a week or so away from Jesus' death.
vs 48
For the moment, Jesus is safe - popular opinion is with him, and people enjoy listening to him. How much of an impact did his words have? Well, I think that can be judged by how many disciples there were at the end of the story. True, there may have been a lot of people who were impacted, but when the rubber hit the road and Jesus was being charged with blasphemy, they ran and hid. Hey, even some of the apostles did that. But with the groundswell of support that the religious leaders are able to stir up later, makes you think that most of them were just using Jesus eloquent words as a substitute for television.
Has he wept over any other city or town? I don't think we're told. But the importance of Jerusalem and Jesus' feelings towards it cannot be underestimated. This city has been the centre of God's promises since David (and more loosely to Moses).
vs 42
Jesus has reached the point of no return. Jerusalem is blind, and not even Jesus can heal her blindness now. It's a spiritual blindness, an inability to recognise who Jesus is, and what his coming to this city means.
vs 43
All too soon, too. About 40 years after Jesus dies, if my mind serves me correctly.
vs 44
Certainly they don't get the temple rebuilt in three days. They don't get it rebuilt ever, from that point on. The jewish people as a whole did not recognise God's coming to them in Jesus (lots did), and so God had to be firm with them and remove the object which they thought placed them at the centre of God's will and heart - the temple.
vs 45
And I know I was right, because now here is the focus on the temple. Jesus doesn't hate the temple. It's symbolism is still strong. But he hates what it has become - a marketplace.
vs 46
And not even a marketplace with honest scales, from the sound of it. Apparently there was some sort of heist going on where you had to buy a form of temple currency to make sacrifices in the temple or something. I'm not really that up with it. Regardless, Jesus wasn't happy about whatever they were doing.
vs 47
See, Jesus was happy to teach at the temple. This temple, which God would destroy in 40 odd years because it represented a stumbling block to his people coming to understand the new relationship he was offering, is the place where Jesus chose to stand and speak in Jerusalem. It's still the centre of the city. It's still the Mecca of the jews. Jesus uses that place as his base in Jerusalem, so that people know he is linked with God.
Again we are given the information about the priests and leaders wanting to kill Jesus. Rightly so that Luke reminds us - we are only a week or so away from Jesus' death.
vs 48
For the moment, Jesus is safe - popular opinion is with him, and people enjoy listening to him. How much of an impact did his words have? Well, I think that can be judged by how many disciples there were at the end of the story. True, there may have been a lot of people who were impacted, but when the rubber hit the road and Jesus was being charged with blasphemy, they ran and hid. Hey, even some of the apostles did that. But with the groundswell of support that the religious leaders are able to stir up later, makes you think that most of them were just using Jesus eloquent words as a substitute for television.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Luke chapter 19
vs 31
I have considered using this sentence so many times. But truly, I don't think I've ever needed something that God hasn't already given me to do his work. It would be a hella different world if Christians did this more often - you'd be scared to invite missionaries over to your house, wouldn't you? Perhaps not if we gave more money to them.
vs 32
Not surprising, really. You think they'd be used to this by now. In fact, after reading so many gospels, you get used to it as the reader. "Yes yes, Jesus is super cool, let's move on, I'm more interested in what he has to say now!"
vs 33-34
It wouldn't be fair for this not to happen, after Jesus had told them what to do if it did happen.
vs 35
I guess they didn't steal a saddle for it. Cloaks will do.
vs 36
Now Jesus might be used to having people do stuff like putting their cloaks on a donkey for him to ride, but how many donkeys are used to having cloaks to walk on? It's not the kind of thing you do for just anyone, is it? Obviously people are making a big deal about the coming of Jesus.
vs 37-38
Notice something very important about this verse, if you haven't read it before. It is the disciples who are doing this. The people who followed Jesus. Not just the 12, obviously. There was a bit more of a crowd than that. But they are doing it because of all the miracles they had seen. They even call him king in their calls. Now there may have been some passers by caught up in this, but according to Luke, this was a stage set by the disciples.
vs 39
I mean, they were causing a ruccus, they were clogging up the road with cloaks, and they were calling him king! Come on Jesus, this isn't on. Of course, if Jesus were to call them off, then he would be saying that he does not deserve this sort of welcome into Jerusalem.
vs 40
But he does deserve it. In fact, he deserves it so much that if the disciples didn't sing it, the stones would! And if the Pharisees threw their cloaks over the stones to stop them, the angels would sing! This is the most important person ever to walk into the city, at the most important time, who is about to do the most important thing in the history of humanity... someone's got to sing about it.
I have considered using this sentence so many times. But truly, I don't think I've ever needed something that God hasn't already given me to do his work. It would be a hella different world if Christians did this more often - you'd be scared to invite missionaries over to your house, wouldn't you? Perhaps not if we gave more money to them.
vs 32
Not surprising, really. You think they'd be used to this by now. In fact, after reading so many gospels, you get used to it as the reader. "Yes yes, Jesus is super cool, let's move on, I'm more interested in what he has to say now!"
vs 33-34
It wouldn't be fair for this not to happen, after Jesus had told them what to do if it did happen.
vs 35
I guess they didn't steal a saddle for it. Cloaks will do.
vs 36
Now Jesus might be used to having people do stuff like putting their cloaks on a donkey for him to ride, but how many donkeys are used to having cloaks to walk on? It's not the kind of thing you do for just anyone, is it? Obviously people are making a big deal about the coming of Jesus.
vs 37-38
Notice something very important about this verse, if you haven't read it before. It is the disciples who are doing this. The people who followed Jesus. Not just the 12, obviously. There was a bit more of a crowd than that. But they are doing it because of all the miracles they had seen. They even call him king in their calls. Now there may have been some passers by caught up in this, but according to Luke, this was a stage set by the disciples.
vs 39
I mean, they were causing a ruccus, they were clogging up the road with cloaks, and they were calling him king! Come on Jesus, this isn't on. Of course, if Jesus were to call them off, then he would be saying that he does not deserve this sort of welcome into Jerusalem.
vs 40
But he does deserve it. In fact, he deserves it so much that if the disciples didn't sing it, the stones would! And if the Pharisees threw their cloaks over the stones to stop them, the angels would sing! This is the most important person ever to walk into the city, at the most important time, who is about to do the most important thing in the history of humanity... someone's got to sing about it.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Luke chapter 19
vs 21
The motivation for what the servant did was fear, but also a twisted sort of sense of justice. He feared his master, sure. But I think he also thought it was unfair that his master benefited from work that was not his own. Considering his master was a rich noble, it is possible he'd benefited from work not his own his whole life.
vs 22
Uh oh. The master sounds pissed.
vs 23
This is a good point. I mean, putting money in the bank (or equivalent) is not exactly hard work, and the money still would have shown some fruit. He wouldn't have come anywhere near the other two servants, who obviously worked their asses off getting that money to replicate, but he could have at least possibly met inflation head on.
This shows all the more that I think the servant didn't want his master to earn anything off this money.
vs 24-25
You can almost hear the words of the mooks, "But, but, that's not fair!" This is the catch-cry of the loser. My reply has long been to this statement that life, indeed, is not fair. And God, too, apparently is not fair. Now, I say this guardedly, because to say it fully you need to point out that justice and fairness are two separate things. One is about treating people the way they should be treated, and the other is treating all people the same. Sometimes we say 'It's not fair' when we mean 'It's not just' - that's mostly because I think justice as a word is so linked to our flawed legal system that we don't think about it all that much. Instead, especially in Australia, we are hooked on this idea of a 'fair go'. God is actually more than fair. He is gracious. He gives people stuff they don't deserve. He is merciful. He stops people getting what they do deserve. But we don't tend to see it that way. We just see one person with 10 minas get an 11th mina, and we say "But but but, that's not fair!"
vs 26
How much do we struggle with this verse? This is God's mighty economy - that those with lots of God's stuff (whether it me money, faith, time, love) will, if used devotedly, be given yet more of that stuff. Or perhaps even different stuff. But those who have little of God's stuff and do not devote it to him, will end up with precious little of anything.
Take money away for a moment, and look at love (I'm interested in love at the moment because of Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz). If you have lots of love for someone, and you devote yourselves to them, are you going to love them more or love them less? Conversely, if you have very little love for someone, and don't work at all on the relationship you have with them, then where is that relationship going to go?
vs 27
I think this includes the guy who buried the mina. Why did people not want this man to be crowned king? Because he was a hard man, because his subjects hated him. They worked hard to stop him from becoming king, but you don't vote for kings. So, since he's a nasty king in the first place, and since they took the gamble of challenging him, now he shows them how nasty he will be.
Now God is not an evil king. But he is a just king. And he certainly deserves to be king. The points of this parable are many - if you serve an unjust king, and he weill reward you for hard work, how much more will a benevolent king reward you? But if you are not devoted to the king, how will he repay your lack of devotion, but to take away what you've got and give it to someone useful? Finally, you cannot rebel against kings and think you will get away with it. That never stops some people. There are always people who are discontented with the system. So they rebel against the authority. And hey, sometimes I think they are right to do so. But God is the ultimate authority. What are you fighting for if not God? Freedom? What is freedom without God? God has already granted everyone freedom to disobey him. They use it to rebel. They get punished. Game over.
vs 28
Pushing towards Jerusalem seems to keep getting mentioned.
vs 29
It's good to be the king - you get to send disciples out to do stuff.
vs 30
This is basically grand theft - livestock. Just imagine Jesus walking into Sydney, saying "go ahead of us and into the town. You'll find a soft-top Lotus convertible. Bright red. (So he can stand up in it as it drives along). Jump in and drive it back here."
You see these two scruffy looking guys eyeing off your Lotus. They jump in and somehow start the car. Ack!
The motivation for what the servant did was fear, but also a twisted sort of sense of justice. He feared his master, sure. But I think he also thought it was unfair that his master benefited from work that was not his own. Considering his master was a rich noble, it is possible he'd benefited from work not his own his whole life.
vs 22
Uh oh. The master sounds pissed.
vs 23
This is a good point. I mean, putting money in the bank (or equivalent) is not exactly hard work, and the money still would have shown some fruit. He wouldn't have come anywhere near the other two servants, who obviously worked their asses off getting that money to replicate, but he could have at least possibly met inflation head on.
This shows all the more that I think the servant didn't want his master to earn anything off this money.
vs 24-25
You can almost hear the words of the mooks, "But, but, that's not fair!" This is the catch-cry of the loser. My reply has long been to this statement that life, indeed, is not fair. And God, too, apparently is not fair. Now, I say this guardedly, because to say it fully you need to point out that justice and fairness are two separate things. One is about treating people the way they should be treated, and the other is treating all people the same. Sometimes we say 'It's not fair' when we mean 'It's not just' - that's mostly because I think justice as a word is so linked to our flawed legal system that we don't think about it all that much. Instead, especially in Australia, we are hooked on this idea of a 'fair go'. God is actually more than fair. He is gracious. He gives people stuff they don't deserve. He is merciful. He stops people getting what they do deserve. But we don't tend to see it that way. We just see one person with 10 minas get an 11th mina, and we say "But but but, that's not fair!"
vs 26
How much do we struggle with this verse? This is God's mighty economy - that those with lots of God's stuff (whether it me money, faith, time, love) will, if used devotedly, be given yet more of that stuff. Or perhaps even different stuff. But those who have little of God's stuff and do not devote it to him, will end up with precious little of anything.
Take money away for a moment, and look at love (I'm interested in love at the moment because of Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz). If you have lots of love for someone, and you devote yourselves to them, are you going to love them more or love them less? Conversely, if you have very little love for someone, and don't work at all on the relationship you have with them, then where is that relationship going to go?
vs 27
I think this includes the guy who buried the mina. Why did people not want this man to be crowned king? Because he was a hard man, because his subjects hated him. They worked hard to stop him from becoming king, but you don't vote for kings. So, since he's a nasty king in the first place, and since they took the gamble of challenging him, now he shows them how nasty he will be.
Now God is not an evil king. But he is a just king. And he certainly deserves to be king. The points of this parable are many - if you serve an unjust king, and he weill reward you for hard work, how much more will a benevolent king reward you? But if you are not devoted to the king, how will he repay your lack of devotion, but to take away what you've got and give it to someone useful? Finally, you cannot rebel against kings and think you will get away with it. That never stops some people. There are always people who are discontented with the system. So they rebel against the authority. And hey, sometimes I think they are right to do so. But God is the ultimate authority. What are you fighting for if not God? Freedom? What is freedom without God? God has already granted everyone freedom to disobey him. They use it to rebel. They get punished. Game over.
vs 28
Pushing towards Jerusalem seems to keep getting mentioned.
vs 29
It's good to be the king - you get to send disciples out to do stuff.
vs 30
This is basically grand theft - livestock. Just imagine Jesus walking into Sydney, saying "go ahead of us and into the town. You'll find a soft-top Lotus convertible. Bright red. (So he can stand up in it as it drives along). Jump in and drive it back here."
You see these two scruffy looking guys eyeing off your Lotus. They jump in and somehow start the car. Ack!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Luke chapter 19
vs 11
Luke does it again! God bless editorial comment. So this parable to come, then, is for people who thought the Kingdom of God was going to come all at once. I think some people still hold this view, but warped a little differently by 2000 years of waiting.
vs 12
As you do. I mean, this is a regular experience for us all, right?
vs 13
Why did he do this? I don't know. Because he had a crap load of money? He felt like making his servants work harder? He didn't trust his corrupt manager? It's a story, it doesn't matter.
vs 14
What's this verse here for? I don't get it. I guess it shows that the guy is not a nice guy. He's a hard guy, who people don't like. Sets up context about the rich guy.
vs 15
There's no time period put here. He could have been away for some years. Who knows. But eventually he returns.
vs 16
Far out! How many investments do that? 10 to one is a huge amount! I wish I had that guy working for me!
vs 17
And rightly so, If this guy can turn 1 mina into 10, then he should be looking after 10 cities.
vs 18
This is still awesome. I challenge you to find anywhere you can invest money and make 5 times as much, even within 10 years.
vs 19
No wonder this guy got crowned king even without his subjects liking him - he's got a Rothschild and a Branson working for him! And now he's got them running 5 whole cities. He'll be king of the world in no time.
vs 20
So this guy hid the mina. Which doesn't sound so bad, until you consider the boss might have been gone for 10 years, in which case it has probably depreciated considerably (I'm not sure what inflation was like back then - probably not so bad as now). In any case, it has been basically worthless, sitting somewhere out of the way.
Luke does it again! God bless editorial comment. So this parable to come, then, is for people who thought the Kingdom of God was going to come all at once. I think some people still hold this view, but warped a little differently by 2000 years of waiting.
vs 12
As you do. I mean, this is a regular experience for us all, right?
vs 13
Why did he do this? I don't know. Because he had a crap load of money? He felt like making his servants work harder? He didn't trust his corrupt manager? It's a story, it doesn't matter.
vs 14
What's this verse here for? I don't get it. I guess it shows that the guy is not a nice guy. He's a hard guy, who people don't like. Sets up context about the rich guy.
vs 15
There's no time period put here. He could have been away for some years. Who knows. But eventually he returns.
vs 16
Far out! How many investments do that? 10 to one is a huge amount! I wish I had that guy working for me!
vs 17
And rightly so, If this guy can turn 1 mina into 10, then he should be looking after 10 cities.
vs 18
This is still awesome. I challenge you to find anywhere you can invest money and make 5 times as much, even within 10 years.
vs 19
No wonder this guy got crowned king even without his subjects liking him - he's got a Rothschild and a Branson working for him! And now he's got them running 5 whole cities. He'll be king of the world in no time.
vs 20
So this guy hid the mina. Which doesn't sound so bad, until you consider the boss might have been gone for 10 years, in which case it has probably depreciated considerably (I'm not sure what inflation was like back then - probably not so bad as now). In any case, it has been basically worthless, sitting somewhere out of the way.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Luke chapter 19
vs 1
Jericho - on his way to Jerusalem.
vs 2
Tax collectors don't get wealthy because people say "keep the change". They get wealthy by ripping people off.
vs 3
Cursed with a gravitational challenge! Even great wealth can't buy you that.
vs 4
The guy certainly has some nous - and is obviously keen.
vs 5
Jesus even knew his name! I mean, it is possible that Jesus got him involved in conversation first, and then told him he needed to stay at his house. But I think the more exciting version is right.
vs 6
Zacchaeus not only got to see Jesus, and talk with Jesus, but also to host him at his house! Which would have been so rare for a tax collector, because people saw them as dirty, and wouldn't eat with them.
vs 7
See.
vs 8
So, a couple of things are obviously evident from this statement by Zacchaeus. Firstly, he didn't make all his money from tax collecting - if he did, this promise would have put him in debt, because he would have been giving away more than he had. Secondly, it seems pretty obvious that Zacchaeus would not make this decision based simply on the willingness of Jesus to have dinner with him. He has obviously been challenged by Jesus, and responded.
Nevertheless, the gladness with which Zacchaeus accepted the offer (really more of a command) may show us that acts of simple kindness, like having dinner with someone and showing interest in them, break down huge barriers.
vs 9
Now, what is Jesus saying here? He is saying that until today, salvation hadn't come to the house. So salvation came with Jesus. That much I think everyone will agree on.
Is he saying that salvation came because he was willing to give up his posessions? I think not. I think Zacchaeus' generosity to the poor and to those he has wronged is proof of a change of his heart, though.
Now we get to the tricky bit - Jesus' reason for salvation coming to the house is to do with Zacchaeus being a son of Abraham. He obviously doesn't mean a jew - all the Pharisees were jews. And it's not as easy as turning to Ephesians and pointing at the sons of Abraham bit - because that hasn't been written when Jesus says this (and although it may have been written when Luke wrote it, it's not a good idea to make one passage of scripture rely on another one to make sense - who writes like that?).
vs 10
I think this verse sheds a little bit of light on the matter. Jesus' mentioning his quest to seek and save the lost makes us realise his mission, and in the context of verse 9, shows us that Zacchaeus was lost, but now is found. So I think Jesus is making the term 'son of Abraham' a spiritual designation, which Zacchaeus now has because of his encounter with Jesus. And it means, according to the context, found, as opposed to lost.
Jericho - on his way to Jerusalem.
vs 2
Tax collectors don't get wealthy because people say "keep the change". They get wealthy by ripping people off.
vs 3
Cursed with a gravitational challenge! Even great wealth can't buy you that.
vs 4
The guy certainly has some nous - and is obviously keen.
vs 5
Jesus even knew his name! I mean, it is possible that Jesus got him involved in conversation first, and then told him he needed to stay at his house. But I think the more exciting version is right.
vs 6
Zacchaeus not only got to see Jesus, and talk with Jesus, but also to host him at his house! Which would have been so rare for a tax collector, because people saw them as dirty, and wouldn't eat with them.
vs 7
See.
vs 8
So, a couple of things are obviously evident from this statement by Zacchaeus. Firstly, he didn't make all his money from tax collecting - if he did, this promise would have put him in debt, because he would have been giving away more than he had. Secondly, it seems pretty obvious that Zacchaeus would not make this decision based simply on the willingness of Jesus to have dinner with him. He has obviously been challenged by Jesus, and responded.
Nevertheless, the gladness with which Zacchaeus accepted the offer (really more of a command) may show us that acts of simple kindness, like having dinner with someone and showing interest in them, break down huge barriers.
vs 9
Now, what is Jesus saying here? He is saying that until today, salvation hadn't come to the house. So salvation came with Jesus. That much I think everyone will agree on.
Is he saying that salvation came because he was willing to give up his posessions? I think not. I think Zacchaeus' generosity to the poor and to those he has wronged is proof of a change of his heart, though.
Now we get to the tricky bit - Jesus' reason for salvation coming to the house is to do with Zacchaeus being a son of Abraham. He obviously doesn't mean a jew - all the Pharisees were jews. And it's not as easy as turning to Ephesians and pointing at the sons of Abraham bit - because that hasn't been written when Jesus says this (and although it may have been written when Luke wrote it, it's not a good idea to make one passage of scripture rely on another one to make sense - who writes like that?).
vs 10
I think this verse sheds a little bit of light on the matter. Jesus' mentioning his quest to seek and save the lost makes us realise his mission, and in the context of verse 9, shows us that Zacchaeus was lost, but now is found. So I think Jesus is making the term 'son of Abraham' a spiritual designation, which Zacchaeus now has because of his encounter with Jesus. And it means, according to the context, found, as opposed to lost.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Luke chapter 18
vs 34
So they stood their with their mouths open, figuring it was a figure of speech, and probably that he'd still be crowned king once they got to Jerusalem.
This little story is the fulcrum of the book - the book more or less pivots on Jesus' decision to go to Jerusalem. He is now headed on the path that will lead him to his destiny.
vs 35
As they do.
vs 36
Since he couldn't see.
vs 37
If that's really all they told him, then what happens next is pretty special.
vs 38
Jesus was by no means an international man of mystery. It's not like people in Rome had heard of him. But he obviously was something of a local celebrity, because even a blind man in Jericho had heard of him. More than that, he had heard that Jesus must be the Son of David (a typical messianic term, and in fact the most easily recogniseable messianic references in the OT refer to the Son of David) and so wants him to have mercy on a poor blind man.
vs 39
Honestly, you would think that the people who had followed Jesus around for a while would have by now worked out that Jesus did heal people. And yet they still want to silence the blind guy. Well, good for him, he won't have a bar of it, and he shouts all the louder.
vs 40-41
It would be funny if the old guy said "I am affected by a bald patch!" but no, he was serious. This is a typical God question - what do you want? Of course he wants to be able to see! But you ask in order to get the answer.
vs 42
His faith was shown by his tenacity in asking for mercy, despite the silencing efforts of the mob. Huzzah for Jesus!
vs 43
He praised God for his sight, and other people who saw it praised God too. That's a good response.
So they stood their with their mouths open, figuring it was a figure of speech, and probably that he'd still be crowned king once they got to Jerusalem.
This little story is the fulcrum of the book - the book more or less pivots on Jesus' decision to go to Jerusalem. He is now headed on the path that will lead him to his destiny.
vs 35
As they do.
vs 36
Since he couldn't see.
vs 37
If that's really all they told him, then what happens next is pretty special.
vs 38
Jesus was by no means an international man of mystery. It's not like people in Rome had heard of him. But he obviously was something of a local celebrity, because even a blind man in Jericho had heard of him. More than that, he had heard that Jesus must be the Son of David (a typical messianic term, and in fact the most easily recogniseable messianic references in the OT refer to the Son of David) and so wants him to have mercy on a poor blind man.
vs 39
Honestly, you would think that the people who had followed Jesus around for a while would have by now worked out that Jesus did heal people. And yet they still want to silence the blind guy. Well, good for him, he won't have a bar of it, and he shouts all the louder.
vs 40-41
It would be funny if the old guy said "I am affected by a bald patch!" but no, he was serious. This is a typical God question - what do you want? Of course he wants to be able to see! But you ask in order to get the answer.
vs 42
His faith was shown by his tenacity in asking for mercy, despite the silencing efforts of the mob. Huzzah for Jesus!
vs 43
He praised God for his sight, and other people who saw it praised God too. That's a good response.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Luke chapter 18
vs 22
Wait a minute, I didn't read anything about that in the 10 commandments!
I see this a little bit like God challenging Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Would Jesus have actually forced the guy to sell all his stuff? Or was he just challenging him to be prepared to separate himself from anything that might become an idol?
Some people have done this in the past, and I'm sure they've been blessed. The truth is, you will have treasure in heaven, and that is more important than having it here.
Perhaps Jesus just didn't have the time to have rich rulers following him, constantly getting entangled in their ruling, always on their mobile phone about their riches etc. He needed devotion.
vs 23
Did he leave? Did he stay? Don't know. He did become sad. It seems to him like more of a shame to give up everything he owns, because there's lots of it. As if it's easier for poor people to give things up.
vs 24
Either Jesus is looking at his back as he leaves, or is looking him in the face when he says this. Powerful either way.
vs 25
There is no Jerusalem gate called the "eye of the needle" where camels needed to crouch to get in, and have their wares taken off. We couldn't find any historical basis for this at college, anyway. I challenge anyone to show me some evidence to the contrary.
Jesus is talking about camels, and needles. Yes, one cannot go through the eye of the other. (It is reversible, although messy).
People complain that this makes the strictness for getting into heaven too hard.
vs 26
Funny, they did that back then too. Of course it's hard to get into heaven!
vs 27
So then, Jesus clears up their misunderstandings and ours - getting into heaven is not a cakewalk for poor people either. Being rich just piles trouble on trouble, apparently, but it is in fact impossible for men to get into heaven. Only God can make it possible. Do we need any more clarity than that? Camel. Eye of needle. Impossible. But God can make it happen.
vs 28
Which might be why Jesus asked the rich guy to give it all up, too. Jesus said "Everyone else had done it, are you prepared to follow suit?" But anyway, Peter here is blowing his own trumpet, and those of his disciples, a bit. They're better than rich men, right?
vs 29-30
Jesus loves Peter and his other disciples, but instead stresses the universality of this truth. This statement of course includes the disciples, but is not limited to them. Which is good, because it also cuts out the "follow me" part of Jesus' command. Not that we don't all 'follow him' as Christians, but I mean we don't actually have to have been members of that small group of people that followed him while he was walking around to get this blessing of eternal life and stuff.
vs 31
Woo! I bet the disciples were stoked! Going to the big city, and everything that the Son of Man does will be fulfilled there. So he's going to crunch the Romans, and become king, and bring Israel back to God, right?
vs 32
Wait. We're talking about the same Messiah, right? Same prophets, right? Where does it say all this stuff about gentiles and floggings and death?
vs 33
What now? I don't recall any prophecy saying the Messiah will die and come back to life. Craziness. By this time, the disciples are starting to think "Oh, man, have I joined some wacky cult?" But remember, he preached with authority, he did miracles. Surely he's switched on.
Will the disciples understand? Stay tuned!
Wait a minute, I didn't read anything about that in the 10 commandments!
I see this a little bit like God challenging Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Would Jesus have actually forced the guy to sell all his stuff? Or was he just challenging him to be prepared to separate himself from anything that might become an idol?
Some people have done this in the past, and I'm sure they've been blessed. The truth is, you will have treasure in heaven, and that is more important than having it here.
Perhaps Jesus just didn't have the time to have rich rulers following him, constantly getting entangled in their ruling, always on their mobile phone about their riches etc. He needed devotion.
vs 23
Did he leave? Did he stay? Don't know. He did become sad. It seems to him like more of a shame to give up everything he owns, because there's lots of it. As if it's easier for poor people to give things up.
vs 24
Either Jesus is looking at his back as he leaves, or is looking him in the face when he says this. Powerful either way.
vs 25
There is no Jerusalem gate called the "eye of the needle" where camels needed to crouch to get in, and have their wares taken off. We couldn't find any historical basis for this at college, anyway. I challenge anyone to show me some evidence to the contrary.
Jesus is talking about camels, and needles. Yes, one cannot go through the eye of the other. (It is reversible, although messy).
People complain that this makes the strictness for getting into heaven too hard.
vs 26
Funny, they did that back then too. Of course it's hard to get into heaven!
vs 27
So then, Jesus clears up their misunderstandings and ours - getting into heaven is not a cakewalk for poor people either. Being rich just piles trouble on trouble, apparently, but it is in fact impossible for men to get into heaven. Only God can make it possible. Do we need any more clarity than that? Camel. Eye of needle. Impossible. But God can make it happen.
vs 28
Which might be why Jesus asked the rich guy to give it all up, too. Jesus said "Everyone else had done it, are you prepared to follow suit?" But anyway, Peter here is blowing his own trumpet, and those of his disciples, a bit. They're better than rich men, right?
vs 29-30
Jesus loves Peter and his other disciples, but instead stresses the universality of this truth. This statement of course includes the disciples, but is not limited to them. Which is good, because it also cuts out the "follow me" part of Jesus' command. Not that we don't all 'follow him' as Christians, but I mean we don't actually have to have been members of that small group of people that followed him while he was walking around to get this blessing of eternal life and stuff.
vs 31
Woo! I bet the disciples were stoked! Going to the big city, and everything that the Son of Man does will be fulfilled there. So he's going to crunch the Romans, and become king, and bring Israel back to God, right?
vs 32
Wait. We're talking about the same Messiah, right? Same prophets, right? Where does it say all this stuff about gentiles and floggings and death?
vs 33
What now? I don't recall any prophecy saying the Messiah will die and come back to life. Craziness. By this time, the disciples are starting to think "Oh, man, have I joined some wacky cult?" But remember, he preached with authority, he did miracles. Surely he's switched on.
Will the disciples understand? Stay tuned!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Luke Chapter 18
vs 11-12
I don't know if you've ever prayed like this before. I have. I have been thankful for my pleasant situation, for my lack of attraction to certain sins, and that sort of thing. I don't think that's the problem with the Pharisee. I think his two problems are more specifically the beginning of his prayer "I am not like other men" - which of course he is, because he's human; and the end of his prayer in verse 12, which seeks to make himself look good because of what he does. Note that giving a 'tenth of all you get' is not something to boast about - that's just keeping the law. He get's a cookie for that one. I don't know the rules of fasting enough to go into that one.
vs 13
Anyone can pray this prayer. Even that Pharisee could have. He's not a sinner because he's a tax collector, in the same way that the Pharisee isn't a righteous man because he's a Pharisee.
vs 14
Prayer isn't about exaltation of ourselves. We don't need to defend ourselves, or build ourselves up, or sell ourselves to God. God knows us, he knows what he's getting for the purchase price (of Jesus' blood). He knows we suck. So we can just admit it.
Not only that, though, but God is Master, is in authority, and it doesn't do to go poncing yourself up and down in front of authority. You say, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir".
vs 15
I mean, who wants to touch babies?
vs 16-17
OH the number of times this verse gets bandied about! I swear, children are the Baal of the modern world. Yes, children are idols, you heard me right. People fawn over then and cuddle them and say "Will somebody think of the children!" If you want someone to take your point of view seriously, you point out the effect it's having on children (because starving adults are boring - that's not it actually: it's because people callously think that starving adults should get a job). If you mention children in a political address or any sort of argument, then if you argue against that point you are heartless and hate babies. Witness aboriginal protection legislation.
"Children are in danger, so we need to take away Aboriginal land and rights."
"But, don't they need those rights?"
"See? You hate children!"
(I know the issue is larger than that, but I've heard this argument in parliament all the time this week and last week as the legislation gets debated.)
Anyway, there is one good thing about this baby&child-idolatry - it proves my point about the misapplication of this verse! Why are babies and children idolised and given first priority? Is it because they're cute? Perhaps a little (that's why we save the whales and the dolphins, but not the rare mosquitos). Is it because they are innocent? It shouldn't be (babies and children are sinful - ask their parents). Is it because of maternal/paternal instinct? If we write legislation according to instinct, then shouldn't there be some legislation forcing women with nice legs to wear miniskirts?
It's because they are helpless, isn't it? The main reason we worry about children, seek to protect children, and cry "Won't someone think of the children!?" is because they are helpless. They can't protect themselves. They can't think for themselves. They can't be trusted to do what is best for themselves. Sounds fine for babies, but we treat children like this right up until they are 18. Kids are such a danger to themselves, apparently, that we must legislate about when they can get married, have sex, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy porn, live on their own, work full time, choose what they want to study, travel on their own, and more - and we make sure they can't vote in elections to change it either.
(I know I'm going off topic, but if we protect children because they are unable to look after themselves, then why do adults suddenly get freedom? Two thirds of alcohol consumption in Australia is 'high risk' and causes 3300 deaths per year. People spend (lose) $7 million per day on poker machines in Victoria. Apparently 50% of that is lost by problem-gamblers. Should we prevent their right to breed and vote? I know what Hitler would say.)
Back on topic - the point that Jesus is making is that children, especially babies (which are what is being brought to him) are helpless. The kingdom of God belongs not to those who accept it with a simple, child-like faith. Not to those who innocently accept God without putting their brain in gear. I'm sorry, but those things are wrong. I think the Jesus who said "Love the Lord your God with all your mind" would be shocked to hear someone say that. Besides, are you saying that sceptics cannot become Christians? There's a kind of processed meat which describes this situation well.
No, it is because of helplessness. We come to God like children - utterly unable to look after ourselves. Completely in need of his help, care, love and attention.
Feel free to take me on over this one, baby-lovers - I can just delete your comments if I feel like it :P
vs 18
The simple answer being "be born into the Eternal Life family? How else to you inherit something? Get adopted?"
vs 19
First of all, Jesus wants to make sure that this guy is going to take his answer seriously. He wants the ruler to make sure that he realises what's on the line here. You have asked for the words of God on this question. And that's what you'll get. Will you treat them that way?
vs 20
Thankfully, Jesus is a lot more loving than I am, and gives him this answer. If you love God, follow his commandments. Jesus is pretty clear on that throughout his ministry.
vs 21
Liar! But in a surface sense, it is entirely possible that he believes he's pretty much got these covered.
I don't know if you've ever prayed like this before. I have. I have been thankful for my pleasant situation, for my lack of attraction to certain sins, and that sort of thing. I don't think that's the problem with the Pharisee. I think his two problems are more specifically the beginning of his prayer "I am not like other men" - which of course he is, because he's human; and the end of his prayer in verse 12, which seeks to make himself look good because of what he does. Note that giving a 'tenth of all you get' is not something to boast about - that's just keeping the law. He get's a cookie for that one. I don't know the rules of fasting enough to go into that one.
vs 13
Anyone can pray this prayer. Even that Pharisee could have. He's not a sinner because he's a tax collector, in the same way that the Pharisee isn't a righteous man because he's a Pharisee.
vs 14
Prayer isn't about exaltation of ourselves. We don't need to defend ourselves, or build ourselves up, or sell ourselves to God. God knows us, he knows what he's getting for the purchase price (of Jesus' blood). He knows we suck. So we can just admit it.
Not only that, though, but God is Master, is in authority, and it doesn't do to go poncing yourself up and down in front of authority. You say, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir".
vs 15
I mean, who wants to touch babies?
vs 16-17
OH the number of times this verse gets bandied about! I swear, children are the Baal of the modern world. Yes, children are idols, you heard me right. People fawn over then and cuddle them and say "Will somebody think of the children!" If you want someone to take your point of view seriously, you point out the effect it's having on children (because starving adults are boring - that's not it actually: it's because people callously think that starving adults should get a job). If you mention children in a political address or any sort of argument, then if you argue against that point you are heartless and hate babies. Witness aboriginal protection legislation.
"Children are in danger, so we need to take away Aboriginal land and rights."
"But, don't they need those rights?"
"See? You hate children!"
(I know the issue is larger than that, but I've heard this argument in parliament all the time this week and last week as the legislation gets debated.)
Anyway, there is one good thing about this baby&child-idolatry - it proves my point about the misapplication of this verse! Why are babies and children idolised and given first priority? Is it because they're cute? Perhaps a little (that's why we save the whales and the dolphins, but not the rare mosquitos). Is it because they are innocent? It shouldn't be (babies and children are sinful - ask their parents). Is it because of maternal/paternal instinct? If we write legislation according to instinct, then shouldn't there be some legislation forcing women with nice legs to wear miniskirts?
It's because they are helpless, isn't it? The main reason we worry about children, seek to protect children, and cry "Won't someone think of the children!?" is because they are helpless. They can't protect themselves. They can't think for themselves. They can't be trusted to do what is best for themselves. Sounds fine for babies, but we treat children like this right up until they are 18. Kids are such a danger to themselves, apparently, that we must legislate about when they can get married, have sex, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy porn, live on their own, work full time, choose what they want to study, travel on their own, and more - and we make sure they can't vote in elections to change it either.
(I know I'm going off topic, but if we protect children because they are unable to look after themselves, then why do adults suddenly get freedom? Two thirds of alcohol consumption in Australia is 'high risk' and causes 3300 deaths per year. People spend (lose) $7 million per day on poker machines in Victoria. Apparently 50% of that is lost by problem-gamblers. Should we prevent their right to breed and vote? I know what Hitler would say.)
Back on topic - the point that Jesus is making is that children, especially babies (which are what is being brought to him) are helpless. The kingdom of God belongs not to those who accept it with a simple, child-like faith. Not to those who innocently accept God without putting their brain in gear. I'm sorry, but those things are wrong. I think the Jesus who said "Love the Lord your God with all your mind" would be shocked to hear someone say that. Besides, are you saying that sceptics cannot become Christians? There's a kind of processed meat which describes this situation well.
No, it is because of helplessness. We come to God like children - utterly unable to look after ourselves. Completely in need of his help, care, love and attention.
Feel free to take me on over this one, baby-lovers - I can just delete your comments if I feel like it :P
vs 18
The simple answer being "be born into the Eternal Life family? How else to you inherit something? Get adopted?"
vs 19
First of all, Jesus wants to make sure that this guy is going to take his answer seriously. He wants the ruler to make sure that he realises what's on the line here. You have asked for the words of God on this question. And that's what you'll get. Will you treat them that way?
vs 20
Thankfully, Jesus is a lot more loving than I am, and gives him this answer. If you love God, follow his commandments. Jesus is pretty clear on that throughout his ministry.
vs 21
Liar! But in a surface sense, it is entirely possible that he believes he's pretty much got these covered.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Luke chapter 18
vs 1
I'm sorry, what was that Luke? Did you just tell us what this parable is all about? You're a saint!
vs 2
So this guy is the very height of selfish. And he happens to be a judge. There is no justice there.
vs 3
Widows are poor. So she can't bribe him, and if we assume she's old, she can't offer him any hanky-panky either. Not that all widows are old, I'm just trying to narrow the variables.
vs 4
Poor guy talks to himself. But don't we all? Go on, admit it!
vs 5
So even the most selfish and inward looking judge is going to eventually cave in to your demands if you keep bugging them for justice, even though they have no desire for justice to be done. Of course, if the widow had been asking "Make a false judgement against my adversary" then you could argue that the judge would have also given in eventually - he doesn't care about God or men, after all. But then, this isn't a picture of God - it's a picture of a selfish judge.
vs 6
Even when he talks to himself!
vs 7
Jesus does this a fair bit, comparing sinful humans with God, and then highlighting a logical argument that if God is omnibenevolent, then surely he will do better than men in loving his people.
But apparently, sometimes God will "keep putting them off". But then, we've got to remember the lessons of verse 5. Firstly, God is a just judge, not a selfish judge, so you are not actually going to annoy him into doing something. Secondly, God is just, and will therefore not do something unjust because you ask for it day in and day out.
vs 8
Jesus reckons that God will ensure justice occurs, and quickly. But then, we know that's not true. The write of Ecclesiastes knew that wasn't true. So we fall back on the "God's timing" argument, that a day is like a thousand years. It's not that I don't believe this, obviously I do, but it just gets old, applying it to every verse like this. We evangelicals really have attempted to neuter the gospel a little, by saying that "The only thing that Jesus promises is that in the end, evil is punished and good rejoices. Anything beyond the end times, any temporal promises, are not promises".
The thing is, I know that's not true through experience! And yes, I know that my experiences are not empirical. But come on, what Christian out there has not seen immediate temporal answers to prayer?
Sometimes I think that prayer is like the Force - we know that God can do anything, that he can move the object no matter how big. I mean, sure, the Force is an uncaring unemotional unfeeling force which you shape to do good or evil, whereas God is a person with that power who actually works towards good. But my point is the same - we pray for a carparking spot, or for a job application to go well, or for someone to get better through the treatment of excellent doctors, and hey, they do. Praise God. But if we get on our knees and pray for justice in a bad situation, and pray for it over and over again, according to Jesus we will get it, and quickly.
His rhetorical question to the disciples is, though, "Will the Son of Man find faith on this earth?" The presence of the future tense question may be suggesting that this is a question Jesus is asking about his return. Of course, that somewhat strengthens the evangelical end-times position (but less so the pre-mil eschatology). But I don't know - I mean, he is teaching his disciples this lesson right then and there. I think he's as much asking the question in the third person, and the future tense is because I guess it just sounds more natural to talk about the messiah coming than him being here. Yeah, I know, that's a little weak. But I'm not a translation scholar, so I can't say that it's a typo :P
vs 9
Look! Luke does it again! So Luke is recording a series of discourses, that may not be all chronological, but they are like a series of parables which are pre-empted with their subject. Like a little parable textbook.
vs 10
The two characters in our story are a Pharisee and a tax collector (KJV calls him a 'publican', and the NASB interestingly translates as 'tax collector', but calls him 'publican' in the sub-headings!), both of which are going to the temple to pray. Will their prayers be answered? Will justice come swiftly? Tune in tomorrow!
I'm sorry, what was that Luke? Did you just tell us what this parable is all about? You're a saint!
vs 2
So this guy is the very height of selfish. And he happens to be a judge. There is no justice there.
vs 3
Widows are poor. So she can't bribe him, and if we assume she's old, she can't offer him any hanky-panky either. Not that all widows are old, I'm just trying to narrow the variables.
vs 4
Poor guy talks to himself. But don't we all? Go on, admit it!
vs 5
So even the most selfish and inward looking judge is going to eventually cave in to your demands if you keep bugging them for justice, even though they have no desire for justice to be done. Of course, if the widow had been asking "Make a false judgement against my adversary" then you could argue that the judge would have also given in eventually - he doesn't care about God or men, after all. But then, this isn't a picture of God - it's a picture of a selfish judge.
vs 6
Even when he talks to himself!
vs 7
Jesus does this a fair bit, comparing sinful humans with God, and then highlighting a logical argument that if God is omnibenevolent, then surely he will do better than men in loving his people.
But apparently, sometimes God will "keep putting them off". But then, we've got to remember the lessons of verse 5. Firstly, God is a just judge, not a selfish judge, so you are not actually going to annoy him into doing something. Secondly, God is just, and will therefore not do something unjust because you ask for it day in and day out.
vs 8
Jesus reckons that God will ensure justice occurs, and quickly. But then, we know that's not true. The write of Ecclesiastes knew that wasn't true. So we fall back on the "God's timing" argument, that a day is like a thousand years. It's not that I don't believe this, obviously I do, but it just gets old, applying it to every verse like this. We evangelicals really have attempted to neuter the gospel a little, by saying that "The only thing that Jesus promises is that in the end, evil is punished and good rejoices. Anything beyond the end times, any temporal promises, are not promises".
The thing is, I know that's not true through experience! And yes, I know that my experiences are not empirical. But come on, what Christian out there has not seen immediate temporal answers to prayer?
Sometimes I think that prayer is like the Force - we know that God can do anything, that he can move the object no matter how big. I mean, sure, the Force is an uncaring unemotional unfeeling force which you shape to do good or evil, whereas God is a person with that power who actually works towards good. But my point is the same - we pray for a carparking spot, or for a job application to go well, or for someone to get better through the treatment of excellent doctors, and hey, they do. Praise God. But if we get on our knees and pray for justice in a bad situation, and pray for it over and over again, according to Jesus we will get it, and quickly.
His rhetorical question to the disciples is, though, "Will the Son of Man find faith on this earth?" The presence of the future tense question may be suggesting that this is a question Jesus is asking about his return. Of course, that somewhat strengthens the evangelical end-times position (but less so the pre-mil eschatology). But I don't know - I mean, he is teaching his disciples this lesson right then and there. I think he's as much asking the question in the third person, and the future tense is because I guess it just sounds more natural to talk about the messiah coming than him being here. Yeah, I know, that's a little weak. But I'm not a translation scholar, so I can't say that it's a typo :P
vs 9
Look! Luke does it again! So Luke is recording a series of discourses, that may not be all chronological, but they are like a series of parables which are pre-empted with their subject. Like a little parable textbook.
vs 10
The two characters in our story are a Pharisee and a tax collector (KJV calls him a 'publican', and the NASB interestingly translates as 'tax collector', but calls him 'publican' in the sub-headings!), both of which are going to the temple to pray. Will their prayers be answered? Will justice come swiftly? Tune in tomorrow!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Luke chapter 17
vs 30
So when Jesus returns, it will be much like the Flood or the judgement of Sodom. Not simply because of the coming of judgement - although that is a commonality. No, the similarity is that people will be living out their normal lives, much in the way they have been doing since, well, before the flood apparently.
We tend to look at our world and say "It's getting worse, going to hell in a handbasket". It's not true. the reason we think it's getting worse is because we think the past was somehow better. The truth is, people have always been sinful, and that it looks pretty much the way it always has.
vs 31
So on that day, some calamity will strike, the disaster of which is so potent that you will want to get away as fast as possible.
vs 32
Not only will you want to go away as fast as possible, but even desiring to turn back for any reason and face God's judgement is a bit of a death sentence. Also salty.
vs 33
This verse is oddly placed. If you seek to keep your life (by fleeing the wrath) then you will lose it? Or is it that if you are seeking to keep your life (that is, your old life of stuff that you're turning back to redeem from the wrath) you will then lose your actual life?
Or is this a new statement of Jesus, that sits pretty much on its own? It doesn't really link up with his next idea. If it is on its own, then we could assume the more typical meaning of this verse (that of losing your life to Christ is the only way to save it), although then it seems to lack context.
vs 34-35
Obviously we assume married in the first instance. But perhaps not so.
This verse is often interpreted as meaning the rapture. The truth is that, on the teaching of this verse alone, you don't know who is going or where. Yes, I understand that you can interpret Scripture with Scripture, but remember also that what was said here was said to mean something, and what Luke wrote here was written to mean something to its readers. It was also written by him before, say, John's Revelation (although probably after Thessalonians).
Anyway, my point is to remember that you can't base a theology on one verse (well, it's literally two verses, but you know what I mean).
vs 37
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that vultures are not seen as fun, happy servants of God in the removal of carrion waste. I'm going to assume they have a culturally negative connotation in jewish (and probably gentile) culture of the time, because of their link with corpses.
In that case, the connotation of the answer "Where [are they going]?" is not at all a positive one. Of course, if the question is "Where [will this happen, and what will happen to those left behind]?" as some commentators read it, then of course the answer, while a little more cryptic, just basically says what we'd expect - that those left behind get judged.
I will admit I'm not happy with that reading of the question, because it does not seem at all natural to me. When Jesus says "Some people will be taken away somewhere, others will be left behind" and you ask "Where?" then surely you are asking where the people are being taken? I mean, that seems the most interesting part of the statement by far.
Of course, Jesus' answer then doesn't fit with a rapture theology if you read it that way. Oh no!
So when Jesus returns, it will be much like the Flood or the judgement of Sodom. Not simply because of the coming of judgement - although that is a commonality. No, the similarity is that people will be living out their normal lives, much in the way they have been doing since, well, before the flood apparently.
We tend to look at our world and say "It's getting worse, going to hell in a handbasket". It's not true. the reason we think it's getting worse is because we think the past was somehow better. The truth is, people have always been sinful, and that it looks pretty much the way it always has.
vs 31
So on that day, some calamity will strike, the disaster of which is so potent that you will want to get away as fast as possible.
vs 32
Not only will you want to go away as fast as possible, but even desiring to turn back for any reason and face God's judgement is a bit of a death sentence. Also salty.
vs 33
This verse is oddly placed. If you seek to keep your life (by fleeing the wrath) then you will lose it? Or is it that if you are seeking to keep your life (that is, your old life of stuff that you're turning back to redeem from the wrath) you will then lose your actual life?
Or is this a new statement of Jesus, that sits pretty much on its own? It doesn't really link up with his next idea. If it is on its own, then we could assume the more typical meaning of this verse (that of losing your life to Christ is the only way to save it), although then it seems to lack context.
vs 34-35
Obviously we assume married in the first instance. But perhaps not so.
This verse is often interpreted as meaning the rapture. The truth is that, on the teaching of this verse alone, you don't know who is going or where. Yes, I understand that you can interpret Scripture with Scripture, but remember also that what was said here was said to mean something, and what Luke wrote here was written to mean something to its readers. It was also written by him before, say, John's Revelation (although probably after Thessalonians).
Anyway, my point is to remember that you can't base a theology on one verse (well, it's literally two verses, but you know what I mean).
vs 37
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that vultures are not seen as fun, happy servants of God in the removal of carrion waste. I'm going to assume they have a culturally negative connotation in jewish (and probably gentile) culture of the time, because of their link with corpses.
In that case, the connotation of the answer "Where [are they going]?" is not at all a positive one. Of course, if the question is "Where [will this happen, and what will happen to those left behind]?" as some commentators read it, then of course the answer, while a little more cryptic, just basically says what we'd expect - that those left behind get judged.
I will admit I'm not happy with that reading of the question, because it does not seem at all natural to me. When Jesus says "Some people will be taken away somewhere, others will be left behind" and you ask "Where?" then surely you are asking where the people are being taken? I mean, that seems the most interesting part of the statement by far.
Of course, Jesus' answer then doesn't fit with a rapture theology if you read it that way. Oh no!
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Luke chapter 17
vs 23
It doesn't matter who the men are, or how convincing their arguments or their attitudes. Jesus says "Don't bother chasing after such people". So don't.
vs 24
My understanding is that he's saying Jesus will reappear in a fashion so obvious that everyone will see it, like you see huge flashes of lightning. And I think that's cool.
vs 25
He's got to be persecuted and then rise from the dead, and then leave before this cool thing can happen. The disciples still aren't really clear on that.
vs 26-27
I guess we tend to think of the days of Noah as full of immorality and vice and horribleness. They were, but the truth is that they weren't that out of the ordinary. Because they were just people. It's not like the antideluvians were all Hitler.
vs 28
Basically, people don't do evil all the time, because people need to do all these everyday things. But what does Genesis say? That "every inclination of the thoughts of people's] heart was only evil all the time." It was the thoughtlife of humanity that caused the flood!
Now, Sodom was a little different, but the fact is that the people there were still just people.
vs 29
The result was the same though - judgement. God judges evil, even if it doesn't look all that evil to us. Of course, it's not all fire and floods - but all evil will be judged.
It doesn't matter who the men are, or how convincing their arguments or their attitudes. Jesus says "Don't bother chasing after such people". So don't.
vs 24
My understanding is that he's saying Jesus will reappear in a fashion so obvious that everyone will see it, like you see huge flashes of lightning. And I think that's cool.
vs 25
He's got to be persecuted and then rise from the dead, and then leave before this cool thing can happen. The disciples still aren't really clear on that.
vs 26-27
I guess we tend to think of the days of Noah as full of immorality and vice and horribleness. They were, but the truth is that they weren't that out of the ordinary. Because they were just people. It's not like the antideluvians were all Hitler.
vs 28
Basically, people don't do evil all the time, because people need to do all these everyday things. But what does Genesis say? That "every inclination of the thoughts of people's] heart was only evil all the time." It was the thoughtlife of humanity that caused the flood!
Now, Sodom was a little different, but the fact is that the people there were still just people.
vs 29
The result was the same though - judgement. God judges evil, even if it doesn't look all that evil to us. Of course, it's not all fire and floods - but all evil will be judged.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Luke Chapter 17
vs 13
Ok, so they don't ambush Jesus, unless you call asking him to have pity an ambush. But maybe they think their voices will have more weight in numbers.
vs 14
Jesus had to simply walk past them to heal them. Didn't touch them or anything. 10 guys, all at once! What an awesome guy. But the story doesn't end there.
vs 15-16
All lepers were equal when they had leprosy. They were equally worthless in society's eyes. But now that they're healed, they are people again, so you can discriminate against them using other things, like their race.
Now, I'm not actually sure what the happening order is here. It doesn't actually say that any of the guys go and present themselves to the priest. They are all healed before that, because they are healed as Jesus passes by.
I'm actually of the opinion that they didn't go to the priest straight away. Well, perhaps the others all ran off to do that, while the Samaritan guy threw himself at Jesus' feet first instead. And fair enough, too. I mean, he's a Samaritan - does he have to go and present himself to a priest that he doesn't even agree with?
vs 17
But Jesus is shocked that of all the 10 who were healed, only one came to thank Jesus for what he had done. Like I said - perhaps the other 9 went off to find a priest, in accordance with Jesus' command.
vs 18
Jesus does say 'Return', which does make you think that they first went to the priest (even the Samaritan) and then he returned afterwards. I'm unsure - I mean, Jesus said "Go present yourself to the priest" but they were healed before they did that - so it is possible that since they'd been healed, they all went off and did what Jesus said. But then the Samaritan barneyed back up the road to find Jesus and thank him.
That's probably how it is interpreted by most people, I'm just interested that priests are not again mentioned. The point Jesus makes, specifically, is that this guy isn't even a Jew, and yet he is the one who comes and thanks Jesus afterwards. The other nine go about their lives, I guess. Almost like they expected Jesus to heal them! Instant ownership of the Messiah, because he's jewish.
vs 19
Now, all 10 were healed, but Jesus only says this to the one guy. Did the other guys all break out in leprosy again? I think not. But this guy is commended on his faith. And also, should be commended for going the next step and seeking relationship. I mean, it's not like he became best friends forever, but he sought out Jesus to give him thanks. That puts Jesus in his proper place, as Master (which all 10 lepers called him) and his place at Jesus' feet puts the Samaritan in the right place as servant.
vs 20
Tell that to all the people who sit with Revelation open on their laps trying to recognise the signs of the times. There is a case to make that this is a worthwhile Christian thing to do. I think it's secondary to Jesus command to "Be ready" when he comes, rather than to try and recognise when he comes. I think when he comes will be obvious. Will we be ready, or will be have been too busy sitting on our porches with Revelation open wondering if credit cards are the anti-christ?
vs 21
Jesus in this case is in fact referring to the breaking in of the Kingdom of God into our earthly time. Which, of course, comes from him coming into the world. The translation issue here is a mega one. We spent ages on this in class at college. Most scholars think it is obvious that Jesus isn't saying "within", because the Pharisees obviously did not have the kingdom within them. So instead, he is saying "among" you, and by that referring to himself.
I totally agree that this is the typical, conservative interpretation and textual critique. But there are some, like my wife, who think we are too hard on the Pharisees, and point out that not all of them were total messiah-killing bastards. So they seek a different interpretation, but to be honest, even then it is hard to declare what "within" could mean in this context. I have heard it interpreted as "within your grasp" - as if they are close to it, but need to have faith in Jesus. That's not just a stretch, it is an apparent translation possibility.
vs 22
So obviously he's going away, and he won't come back. Of course, he comes back for a little while, but then he goes away again, to return, well, more than 2000 years later.
This topic of conversation, of course, fits in well with the previous one with the Pharisees, especially if Jesus meant that the kingdom was "among" them - because he is saying that the kingdom will, in one sense, leave. Adn they will long for the days when the Kingdom of God was breaking into this world like it did when Jesus was there. Don't we all sometimes?
Ok, so they don't ambush Jesus, unless you call asking him to have pity an ambush. But maybe they think their voices will have more weight in numbers.
vs 14
Jesus had to simply walk past them to heal them. Didn't touch them or anything. 10 guys, all at once! What an awesome guy. But the story doesn't end there.
vs 15-16
All lepers were equal when they had leprosy. They were equally worthless in society's eyes. But now that they're healed, they are people again, so you can discriminate against them using other things, like their race.
Now, I'm not actually sure what the happening order is here. It doesn't actually say that any of the guys go and present themselves to the priest. They are all healed before that, because they are healed as Jesus passes by.
I'm actually of the opinion that they didn't go to the priest straight away. Well, perhaps the others all ran off to do that, while the Samaritan guy threw himself at Jesus' feet first instead. And fair enough, too. I mean, he's a Samaritan - does he have to go and present himself to a priest that he doesn't even agree with?
vs 17
But Jesus is shocked that of all the 10 who were healed, only one came to thank Jesus for what he had done. Like I said - perhaps the other 9 went off to find a priest, in accordance with Jesus' command.
vs 18
Jesus does say 'Return', which does make you think that they first went to the priest (even the Samaritan) and then he returned afterwards. I'm unsure - I mean, Jesus said "Go present yourself to the priest" but they were healed before they did that - so it is possible that since they'd been healed, they all went off and did what Jesus said. But then the Samaritan barneyed back up the road to find Jesus and thank him.
That's probably how it is interpreted by most people, I'm just interested that priests are not again mentioned. The point Jesus makes, specifically, is that this guy isn't even a Jew, and yet he is the one who comes and thanks Jesus afterwards. The other nine go about their lives, I guess. Almost like they expected Jesus to heal them! Instant ownership of the Messiah, because he's jewish.
vs 19
Now, all 10 were healed, but Jesus only says this to the one guy. Did the other guys all break out in leprosy again? I think not. But this guy is commended on his faith. And also, should be commended for going the next step and seeking relationship. I mean, it's not like he became best friends forever, but he sought out Jesus to give him thanks. That puts Jesus in his proper place, as Master (which all 10 lepers called him) and his place at Jesus' feet puts the Samaritan in the right place as servant.
vs 20
Tell that to all the people who sit with Revelation open on their laps trying to recognise the signs of the times. There is a case to make that this is a worthwhile Christian thing to do. I think it's secondary to Jesus command to "Be ready" when he comes, rather than to try and recognise when he comes. I think when he comes will be obvious. Will we be ready, or will be have been too busy sitting on our porches with Revelation open wondering if credit cards are the anti-christ?
vs 21
Jesus in this case is in fact referring to the breaking in of the Kingdom of God into our earthly time. Which, of course, comes from him coming into the world. The translation issue here is a mega one. We spent ages on this in class at college. Most scholars think it is obvious that Jesus isn't saying "within", because the Pharisees obviously did not have the kingdom within them. So instead, he is saying "among" you, and by that referring to himself.
I totally agree that this is the typical, conservative interpretation and textual critique. But there are some, like my wife, who think we are too hard on the Pharisees, and point out that not all of them were total messiah-killing bastards. So they seek a different interpretation, but to be honest, even then it is hard to declare what "within" could mean in this context. I have heard it interpreted as "within your grasp" - as if they are close to it, but need to have faith in Jesus. That's not just a stretch, it is an apparent translation possibility.
vs 22
So obviously he's going away, and he won't come back. Of course, he comes back for a little while, but then he goes away again, to return, well, more than 2000 years later.
This topic of conversation, of course, fits in well with the previous one with the Pharisees, especially if Jesus meant that the kingdom was "among" them - because he is saying that the kingdom will, in one sense, leave. Adn they will long for the days when the Kingdom of God was breaking into this world like it did when Jesus was there. Don't we all sometimes?
Friday, August 10, 2007
Luke chapter 17
vs 1
Note, that these things are being said to his disciples, so it's more teachy, and less pointedly aimed at people.
There will always be sin on this world. But if you cause someone else to sin, then you're in big trouble. Which puts a lot of us in big trouble, because there's not often that our sin sticks to ourselves.
vs 2
"Little ones" might mean children, but it might also mean the disciples. I actually think the second definition is more plausible, but I'm open.
vs 3
Sin is to be rebuked, but repentance is to to be met with forgiveness. I don't think we do nearly enough of either of these in our modern culture.
vs 4
This is obviously a divine model. It also shows the fact that some people can sin, and be really honestly repentant, but yet continue to sin because of a lack of control! This warrants both rebuke (for the sin) but also forgiveness for the repentance. I think we do rebuke people who sin over and over, but we find it harder to forgive them more than once or twice, especially if we don't struggle with the same kind of sin.
vs 5
Do they say this out of the blue? Or do they say it in response to what Jesus just said? I think it's the latter. Because I think we all find this a really hard part of scripture.
Oh, look, Luke calls the Apostles Apostles here. Exciting!
vs 6
Our responses are always "then we must have a pretty small faith." And I guess we do. But also, of course, there is no reason that God requires mulberry trees in the sea. I bet Jesus liked mulberries, and that they stained his fingers just like when we eat them :)
vs 7-8
The second one is obviously what servants would have to do. I often wonder, even in the times of Jeeves and Wooster, how much of a strain being a gentleman's gentleman would have been, because the welfare of your man is so important, that you deny yourself for his sake all day and night.
vs 9
And all that without thanks. Well, perhaps with a little thanks, but not a huge tickertape parade. This is what I was talking about earlier - that servants do servants work because they are servants.
vs 10
For Jesus, the practical outworking of doing God's will for the apostles is quite simply "Do it until it is done". It's just our job to do it, because God is God and we are to serve him. And at the end of it all, we should have the attitude "We didn't do anything special, just what we are meant to do." Of course, if God has the generous attitude "Well done, good and faithful servant" then that is his business of being awesome. But it's not necessary.
vs 11
Oooh, Samaria. Home of the giant nasty Samarians! Boogie boogie boogie! Wait, no, that means get down and dance. Oh well, do it now.
vs 12
Ten guys with leprosy are amushing Jesus! What are they gonna do? How will Jesus respond. Tomorow we find out!
Note, that these things are being said to his disciples, so it's more teachy, and less pointedly aimed at people.
There will always be sin on this world. But if you cause someone else to sin, then you're in big trouble. Which puts a lot of us in big trouble, because there's not often that our sin sticks to ourselves.
vs 2
"Little ones" might mean children, but it might also mean the disciples. I actually think the second definition is more plausible, but I'm open.
vs 3
Sin is to be rebuked, but repentance is to to be met with forgiveness. I don't think we do nearly enough of either of these in our modern culture.
vs 4
This is obviously a divine model. It also shows the fact that some people can sin, and be really honestly repentant, but yet continue to sin because of a lack of control! This warrants both rebuke (for the sin) but also forgiveness for the repentance. I think we do rebuke people who sin over and over, but we find it harder to forgive them more than once or twice, especially if we don't struggle with the same kind of sin.
vs 5
Do they say this out of the blue? Or do they say it in response to what Jesus just said? I think it's the latter. Because I think we all find this a really hard part of scripture.
Oh, look, Luke calls the Apostles Apostles here. Exciting!
vs 6
Our responses are always "then we must have a pretty small faith." And I guess we do. But also, of course, there is no reason that God requires mulberry trees in the sea. I bet Jesus liked mulberries, and that they stained his fingers just like when we eat them :)
vs 7-8
The second one is obviously what servants would have to do. I often wonder, even in the times of Jeeves and Wooster, how much of a strain being a gentleman's gentleman would have been, because the welfare of your man is so important, that you deny yourself for his sake all day and night.
vs 9
And all that without thanks. Well, perhaps with a little thanks, but not a huge tickertape parade. This is what I was talking about earlier - that servants do servants work because they are servants.
vs 10
For Jesus, the practical outworking of doing God's will for the apostles is quite simply "Do it until it is done". It's just our job to do it, because God is God and we are to serve him. And at the end of it all, we should have the attitude "We didn't do anything special, just what we are meant to do." Of course, if God has the generous attitude "Well done, good and faithful servant" then that is his business of being awesome. But it's not necessary.
vs 11
Oooh, Samaria. Home of the giant nasty Samarians! Boogie boogie boogie! Wait, no, that means get down and dance. Oh well, do it now.
vs 12
Ten guys with leprosy are amushing Jesus! What are they gonna do? How will Jesus respond. Tomorow we find out!
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Luke 16
vs 22
So Lazarus was a poor beggar. Angels carried him to Abraham's side. Awww, isn't that nice. It's especially nice when compared with the rich man's death - he died and was buried, not nearly as poetic.
vs 23
Quite simply, the rich guy went to hell. We aren't told why. We assume that living in luxury isn't a sin - but perhaps doing so while a man lies begging with sores at your doorstep is. But now he lives in torment. It's a very matter of fact statement.
I think it's fascinating that Jesus uses a greek word for hell here, Hades, which just goes to show how much linguistic transference there is between religious ideas. I think it also shows that Jesus was prepared to use the word that people would understand.
The rich man sees Lazarus and Abraham, so he sees heaven, from hell. Which is quite interesting - I don't think we generally think of that.
vs 24
The rich man wants mercy, because the constant agony is unbearable. Yet still, he wants Abraham to send Lazarus to do it, as if he were a servant or something.
vs 25
I don't think this sentence of Abraham's is giving the reasons why the rich guy is in hell - it's not just because he lived in comfort his whole life, in the same way that Lazarus is not in heaven because he only received bad things his whole life. Abraham is simply pointing out that the tables have turned. This is still an important point! The rich man's earthly life, which had good things all his life, is contrasted with his eternal spiritual life, which is constant agony. So it is with Lazarus, whose earthly life was full of bad stuff, is contrasted with his heavenly life of comfort. Jesus (via Abraham) here is not talking about how they got to heaven - he is saying "Lazarus' crappy life doesn't look quite so bad, when you look at it in the face of eternity, does it?"
vs 26
So although they can see each other, far in the distance, and talk to each other, they can't cross that chasm. How real a picture of hell and heaven is this? To be sure, I don't know. Maybe it is possible for the two to see each other. Maybe not. But it makes a hell of a good story to make Jesus' point here.
vs 27-28
Now that he's suffering something he wasn't expecting, he wants someone to go to tell his brothers. So the rich guy's not a complete selfish arse - who is? - but has a concern for his family.
vs 29
And it's true - Moses and the Prophets make it clear that God is righteous and wants holy people who live in relationship with him. It was enough for Lazarus, apparently.
vs 30
Basically, the rich man is saying "That wasn't enough for me! I ended up here, and I heard Moses and the Prophets, and didn't listen!" Which is a shame, but God must be just. God has exercised a heap of grace through Moses and the Prophets already.
vs 31
Abraham makes it clear, though - God's word will in the end convince people, or it won't. All the miracles in the world, even the raising to life of a person who is dead, will not be enough. Miracles are great for getting attention, or for object lessons, or for proving power and even authority, but in and of themselves, they will not generally convince people of their need for a saviour. You've got to listen to what God says to understand that. People need a conviction of sin, as well as a conviction of God's authority and power.
So Lazarus was a poor beggar. Angels carried him to Abraham's side. Awww, isn't that nice. It's especially nice when compared with the rich man's death - he died and was buried, not nearly as poetic.
vs 23
Quite simply, the rich guy went to hell. We aren't told why. We assume that living in luxury isn't a sin - but perhaps doing so while a man lies begging with sores at your doorstep is. But now he lives in torment. It's a very matter of fact statement.
I think it's fascinating that Jesus uses a greek word for hell here, Hades, which just goes to show how much linguistic transference there is between religious ideas. I think it also shows that Jesus was prepared to use the word that people would understand.
The rich man sees Lazarus and Abraham, so he sees heaven, from hell. Which is quite interesting - I don't think we generally think of that.
vs 24
The rich man wants mercy, because the constant agony is unbearable. Yet still, he wants Abraham to send Lazarus to do it, as if he were a servant or something.
vs 25
I don't think this sentence of Abraham's is giving the reasons why the rich guy is in hell - it's not just because he lived in comfort his whole life, in the same way that Lazarus is not in heaven because he only received bad things his whole life. Abraham is simply pointing out that the tables have turned. This is still an important point! The rich man's earthly life, which had good things all his life, is contrasted with his eternal spiritual life, which is constant agony. So it is with Lazarus, whose earthly life was full of bad stuff, is contrasted with his heavenly life of comfort. Jesus (via Abraham) here is not talking about how they got to heaven - he is saying "Lazarus' crappy life doesn't look quite so bad, when you look at it in the face of eternity, does it?"
vs 26
So although they can see each other, far in the distance, and talk to each other, they can't cross that chasm. How real a picture of hell and heaven is this? To be sure, I don't know. Maybe it is possible for the two to see each other. Maybe not. But it makes a hell of a good story to make Jesus' point here.
vs 27-28
Now that he's suffering something he wasn't expecting, he wants someone to go to tell his brothers. So the rich guy's not a complete selfish arse - who is? - but has a concern for his family.
vs 29
And it's true - Moses and the Prophets make it clear that God is righteous and wants holy people who live in relationship with him. It was enough for Lazarus, apparently.
vs 30
Basically, the rich man is saying "That wasn't enough for me! I ended up here, and I heard Moses and the Prophets, and didn't listen!" Which is a shame, but God must be just. God has exercised a heap of grace through Moses and the Prophets already.
vs 31
Abraham makes it clear, though - God's word will in the end convince people, or it won't. All the miracles in the world, even the raising to life of a person who is dead, will not be enough. Miracles are great for getting attention, or for object lessons, or for proving power and even authority, but in and of themselves, they will not generally convince people of their need for a saviour. You've got to listen to what God says to understand that. People need a conviction of sin, as well as a conviction of God's authority and power.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Luke chapter 16
vs 11
This verse shows up our lack of kingdom focus so much that it isn't funny. We in the west are so well off, so rich, that we don't even recognise how rich we are. If we can't recognise that, how are we ever going to recognise true riches, that is, spiritual richness?
vs 12
We are not rich with our own property! All this stuff very much belongs to God, in the same way that all the master's stuff belonged to the master, and not the manager. A father is always going to have problems passing on his hard-earned fortune as inheritance to a son who does not show that he has the ability to manage it well.
vs 13
Just aside from the God and Wealth thing a moment, this sort of talk by Jesus is incredibly politically inflammatory. Judea is currently run by a Roman government, and then has a Jewish religious hierarchy. So Jesus, in saying that you can't serve to masters, could well be interpreted by people as talking about those who are loyal to the High Priest, and those who are loyal to Caesar. Even though that is not his main message here, to the Jewish mind it would be clear that Jews cannot serve both masters.
It is interesting also that, 2000 years ago, Jesus' main warnings about idolatry are regarding wealth. It is God vs Money to Jesus. Also, God vs Religion. And yet, even though Jesus was stronger on these than probably any other sinful attitude or activity, these are probably still the two things the western world struggles with more than anything else. Amazing.
vs 14
I'll bet there's a lot of people today who would sneer at Jesus too. We're even worse - we tend to put our faith into money to make things happen. "Need a cure for cancer? If we had 25 billion dollars, I'll bet we could do it!"
vs 15
Jesus sees their sneers, and he pounces on them! No holding back, the gloves are off for Jesus. Remember, though, that this statement by Jesus is not a formula. It doesn't work that "IF men like something THEN God detests it." If you really want to be formulaic about it and yet remain theologically sound, you would have to reverse it, "IF God detests something, THEN men are sure to value it due to their sinful nature".
The truth is that we as humans can value the things of God, and that doesn't therefore make holiness and righteousness detestable. But the Pharisees were seeking the justification of men, not of God, and that is detestable.
vs 16
Of course, the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed after John TB as well. What Jesus is doing is drawing a basic dividing line, saying that until John the Baptist, the Law and the Prophets was the preaching people heard. Now, with the arrival of Jesus, there is a new era - a preaching that focuses on the kingdom of God.
There is a translation debate about vs 16, regarding the 'forcing their way into it'. Some people say that biazo, to force, is passive, and therefore it should read "all people are urged insistently to enter in". This therefore allows for the fact that people generally aren't rushing to enter the kingdom of God.
I can handle that, but obviously there are other scholars to think that "forcing his way into it" is the proper translation. And I think there are heaps of people who try and do this. Under the Law, the Pharisees did this - they tried to force their way into Heaven through obeying a set of rules that they made up, drawing the standard at a level where they could accomplish it. People still do this today. "I am basically a good person" is what most people think will get them into heaven.
So then the Law and the Prophets wane in focus and the good news of the Kingdom ofGod is in focus. Do people still try and force their way in? You bet! "If God is a loving God, he won't send me to hell!" they say! Again, they are adjusting theology to draw a line which will get them into heaven (but not evil people like Hitler - never Hitler or Paris Hilton).
I'll let you decide what you think it says, but I'm happy with either of those. I think the translation as it stands makes a whole lot of sense to me and my experience of the average person's theological bent.
vs 17
Jesus wants to make the point clear, though, that those who drop the Law and Prophets in favour of the Kingdom of God are going to be sorely disappointed. In the same way that you can't rewrite the Law to let you be perfect, you also cannot drop the Law and make God a cosmic Granddaddy who lets in everyone and gives them a lolly. The existence and ferverent preaching of the Kingdom by Jesus does not make the Law disappear.
vs 18
He makes that clear in this verse. This verse is not about adultery. Ok, it is about adultery, but Jesus doesn't just bring it up out of the blue here, and Luke doesn't just say "Oh, Jesus said that thing about adultery, I need to slot that in. Chapter 16 will do, I've got some room in between that story about Lazarus and that sermon about the Law and the Prophets". The point Jesus is making is that just because he is preaching the good news about the Kindgom, that doesn't annul your marriage. The Law on marriage, divorce, and adultery, does not disappear because Jesus is preaching the Kingdom. In fact, it is a lot harsher than you might expect! The Law is eternal, just like the Kingdom of God is eternal. You can't rewrite the Law just because the Kingdom of God is near.
You might say "What, so Christians have to follow every jot and tittle of the OT Law?" That issue isn't covered here.
vs 19
Now we go onto another story. I heard someone say the other day that this story is not a parable, it is a true story, because it doesn't say "And Jesus told this parable". Sorry, I think that's a load of baloney. Having said that, I also think the people who say "Hell isn't real, because Jesus only talks about it in stories" is like saying that rich and poor people aren't real, because he only talks about them in stories. Grow a brain!
So, there's this rich person. Purple is a very expensive colour back in the day, hence it is the colour of royalty. This rich person doesn't necessarily exist, but rich people do as a rule.
vs 20-21
At the rich man's gate, there's a complete loser called Lazarus. He's obviously poor, he's covered in sores, and even dogs lick him. Poor guy. That doesn't mean that Lazarus is a real person, but it also doesn't mean that poor people with sores don't exist. As a rule, they did. Probably more of them than there were rich people wearing purple.
This verse shows up our lack of kingdom focus so much that it isn't funny. We in the west are so well off, so rich, that we don't even recognise how rich we are. If we can't recognise that, how are we ever going to recognise true riches, that is, spiritual richness?
vs 12
We are not rich with our own property! All this stuff very much belongs to God, in the same way that all the master's stuff belonged to the master, and not the manager. A father is always going to have problems passing on his hard-earned fortune as inheritance to a son who does not show that he has the ability to manage it well.
vs 13
Just aside from the God and Wealth thing a moment, this sort of talk by Jesus is incredibly politically inflammatory. Judea is currently run by a Roman government, and then has a Jewish religious hierarchy. So Jesus, in saying that you can't serve to masters, could well be interpreted by people as talking about those who are loyal to the High Priest, and those who are loyal to Caesar. Even though that is not his main message here, to the Jewish mind it would be clear that Jews cannot serve both masters.
It is interesting also that, 2000 years ago, Jesus' main warnings about idolatry are regarding wealth. It is God vs Money to Jesus. Also, God vs Religion. And yet, even though Jesus was stronger on these than probably any other sinful attitude or activity, these are probably still the two things the western world struggles with more than anything else. Amazing.
vs 14
I'll bet there's a lot of people today who would sneer at Jesus too. We're even worse - we tend to put our faith into money to make things happen. "Need a cure for cancer? If we had 25 billion dollars, I'll bet we could do it!"
vs 15
Jesus sees their sneers, and he pounces on them! No holding back, the gloves are off for Jesus. Remember, though, that this statement by Jesus is not a formula. It doesn't work that "IF men like something THEN God detests it." If you really want to be formulaic about it and yet remain theologically sound, you would have to reverse it, "IF God detests something, THEN men are sure to value it due to their sinful nature".
The truth is that we as humans can value the things of God, and that doesn't therefore make holiness and righteousness detestable. But the Pharisees were seeking the justification of men, not of God, and that is detestable.
vs 16
Of course, the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed after John TB as well. What Jesus is doing is drawing a basic dividing line, saying that until John the Baptist, the Law and the Prophets was the preaching people heard. Now, with the arrival of Jesus, there is a new era - a preaching that focuses on the kingdom of God.
There is a translation debate about vs 16, regarding the 'forcing their way into it'. Some people say that biazo, to force, is passive, and therefore it should read "all people are urged insistently to enter in". This therefore allows for the fact that people generally aren't rushing to enter the kingdom of God.
I can handle that, but obviously there are other scholars to think that "forcing his way into it" is the proper translation. And I think there are heaps of people who try and do this. Under the Law, the Pharisees did this - they tried to force their way into Heaven through obeying a set of rules that they made up, drawing the standard at a level where they could accomplish it. People still do this today. "I am basically a good person" is what most people think will get them into heaven.
So then the Law and the Prophets wane in focus and the good news of the Kingdom ofGod is in focus. Do people still try and force their way in? You bet! "If God is a loving God, he won't send me to hell!" they say! Again, they are adjusting theology to draw a line which will get them into heaven (but not evil people like Hitler - never Hitler or Paris Hilton).
I'll let you decide what you think it says, but I'm happy with either of those. I think the translation as it stands makes a whole lot of sense to me and my experience of the average person's theological bent.
vs 17
Jesus wants to make the point clear, though, that those who drop the Law and Prophets in favour of the Kingdom of God are going to be sorely disappointed. In the same way that you can't rewrite the Law to let you be perfect, you also cannot drop the Law and make God a cosmic Granddaddy who lets in everyone and gives them a lolly. The existence and ferverent preaching of the Kingdom by Jesus does not make the Law disappear.
vs 18
He makes that clear in this verse. This verse is not about adultery. Ok, it is about adultery, but Jesus doesn't just bring it up out of the blue here, and Luke doesn't just say "Oh, Jesus said that thing about adultery, I need to slot that in. Chapter 16 will do, I've got some room in between that story about Lazarus and that sermon about the Law and the Prophets". The point Jesus is making is that just because he is preaching the good news about the Kindgom, that doesn't annul your marriage. The Law on marriage, divorce, and adultery, does not disappear because Jesus is preaching the Kingdom. In fact, it is a lot harsher than you might expect! The Law is eternal, just like the Kingdom of God is eternal. You can't rewrite the Law just because the Kingdom of God is near.
You might say "What, so Christians have to follow every jot and tittle of the OT Law?" That issue isn't covered here.
vs 19
Now we go onto another story. I heard someone say the other day that this story is not a parable, it is a true story, because it doesn't say "And Jesus told this parable". Sorry, I think that's a load of baloney. Having said that, I also think the people who say "Hell isn't real, because Jesus only talks about it in stories" is like saying that rich and poor people aren't real, because he only talks about them in stories. Grow a brain!
So, there's this rich person. Purple is a very expensive colour back in the day, hence it is the colour of royalty. This rich person doesn't necessarily exist, but rich people do as a rule.
vs 20-21
At the rich man's gate, there's a complete loser called Lazarus. He's obviously poor, he's covered in sores, and even dogs lick him. Poor guy. That doesn't mean that Lazarus is a real person, but it also doesn't mean that poor people with sores don't exist. As a rule, they did. Probably more of them than there were rich people wearing purple.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Luke 16
vs 1
As opposed to managing them with due diligence, we assume.
vs 2
He has no chance to save his job - he will give an account, and then lose his job regardless. Obviously the owner did not just here some scattered remarks, he must have heard some good evidence for him to make such a bold move.
vs 3
I am also not strong enough to dig, and I wouldn't want to have to go out and beg. But you have to make a living somehow. And with an "inefficient manager" stamp on your CV, you might have to wait a while till you get another job. There's no social security, and no unemployment benefit, so until then, he's going to starve. He's probably got a family to feed too.
vs 4
So he hatches onto a plan. That plan relies on having good relations with people so that, if he were to suddenly find himself out of work, they would show him hospitality and friendship.
vs 5
He finds the people that, in his position, he can help out - those people who owe his master.
vs 6-7
For the first debtor, he drops his debt by 50%, and the second he drops by 20%. This is obviously going to make those who are indebted to the manager's master very happy, and he is hoping that their sudden removal of 50% of a debt will persuade them to be friendly towards him.
vs 8-9
The word used, Phronimos, is also translated as 'prudent' and 'wise'. So Jesus is saying two things in this verse - one, that the rich man commends his manager because of his wisdom in fortifying his own position. Secondly, Jesus says that kingdom people generally aren't quite so wise and prudent as wordly people.
I think the meaning here is that the manager in the example used worldly wisdom to feather his own nest and benefit his position on earth. Meanwhile, kingdom people tend to be far less prudent in securing for themselves a beneficial position in eternity. Now of course we know that you can't buy your way into heaven. That's not the suggestion here. To make that suggestion would be to suggest that the manager was buying a place into his master's debtor's houses. He wasn't. He was using his wealth to improve relationships, and it was the improved relationships that secured his position. We in the same way shouldn't try to buy a comfy bed in heaven - it doesn't work that way. Instead, we should be using our wealth to influence people down here, so that they will be more open to the ministry of God, and that will give us further security on our heavenly dwelling.
vs 10
So honest people are honest and dishonest people are dishonest, regardless of value or importance. This truth does not stand on its own - you have to read it with the next verse for it to make sense.
As opposed to managing them with due diligence, we assume.
vs 2
He has no chance to save his job - he will give an account, and then lose his job regardless. Obviously the owner did not just here some scattered remarks, he must have heard some good evidence for him to make such a bold move.
vs 3
I am also not strong enough to dig, and I wouldn't want to have to go out and beg. But you have to make a living somehow. And with an "inefficient manager" stamp on your CV, you might have to wait a while till you get another job. There's no social security, and no unemployment benefit, so until then, he's going to starve. He's probably got a family to feed too.
vs 4
So he hatches onto a plan. That plan relies on having good relations with people so that, if he were to suddenly find himself out of work, they would show him hospitality and friendship.
vs 5
He finds the people that, in his position, he can help out - those people who owe his master.
vs 6-7
For the first debtor, he drops his debt by 50%, and the second he drops by 20%. This is obviously going to make those who are indebted to the manager's master very happy, and he is hoping that their sudden removal of 50% of a debt will persuade them to be friendly towards him.
vs 8-9
The word used, Phronimos, is also translated as 'prudent' and 'wise'. So Jesus is saying two things in this verse - one, that the rich man commends his manager because of his wisdom in fortifying his own position. Secondly, Jesus says that kingdom people generally aren't quite so wise and prudent as wordly people.
I think the meaning here is that the manager in the example used worldly wisdom to feather his own nest and benefit his position on earth. Meanwhile, kingdom people tend to be far less prudent in securing for themselves a beneficial position in eternity. Now of course we know that you can't buy your way into heaven. That's not the suggestion here. To make that suggestion would be to suggest that the manager was buying a place into his master's debtor's houses. He wasn't. He was using his wealth to improve relationships, and it was the improved relationships that secured his position. We in the same way shouldn't try to buy a comfy bed in heaven - it doesn't work that way. Instead, we should be using our wealth to influence people down here, so that they will be more open to the ministry of God, and that will give us further security on our heavenly dwelling.
vs 10
So honest people are honest and dishonest people are dishonest, regardless of value or importance. This truth does not stand on its own - you have to read it with the next verse for it to make sense.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Luke 15
vs 21
This was his plan, remember - he was going to be happier as a servant in his father's house than as a servant in a strange foreigner's house. That's all he wanted.
vs 22
Man, his son had gotten so poor that he didn't even have shoes! These are not things that you do for your servants, not even your best servant. A ring is s great symbol of family value.
vs 23
I make this point a lot, but eating meat was not a common thing for all but the richest of people. Meat was something you ate at a religious feast (if you were poor, that would be a lamb stew once a year at passover), or a few times for several feasts if you were richer. Or at weddings and great celebrations. And this guy's son returning to him is cause enough to kill a fattened calf. It's a big deal.
vs 24
The reason for the celebration - as far as he was concerned, his son was dead. It didn't really matter whether he was or not - he may as well have been since he had more or less dropped off the face of the earth. It's obvious he hadn't just gone for the weekend. At least a full season of famine had passed. Probably a few years. Of course, we will never know the exact time, because it's just a story. The point of him asking for his inheritance early is that he was leaving and never coming back.
vs 25
And he thought "Strange, karaoke night isn't until Wednesday. What is father celebrating about?" Just to make a quick point here, all the people celebrating is probably the father and son, the servants, other family members, and quite possibly some neighbours and friends - I mean, you always invite people around for a party.
vs 26
Fair enough: too much partying to just walk in and shout "What's going on?"
vs 27
The servant tells it like it is, and probably goes back to blowing on his party whistle and dancing the Safety Dance. He probably doesn't even think this news will cause any different reaction from brother to father.
vs 28
Of course it does, though. The brother feels indignant - his dropkick failure of a brother has returned, and he's being welcomed with a party? Of course, the father wants to see reconciliation between his two sons, but the older son won't have a bar of it.
vs 29-30
The older brother has an air of righteousness about him, as if there had been some injustice perpetrated, but really, it's just selfishness. He doesn't care that his brother is home - what he cares about is that he never gets to celebrate with meat. His brother gets 'rewarded' with the fat calf (the prize choice of meat livestock) for screwing himself over, losing his whole inheritance, and then returning a shameful failure. And on the face of it, that seems like an injustice for the good brother, who is diligent and works hard for his father. But he's not really upset about that - he just wants to know why he was never rewarded for his good works.
vs 31
The fact is, though, that sons were meant to work their asses off for their father. They weren't meant to disrespect him or disobey him. In common parlance, this guy is saying "But Dad, I go to work, and I work hard, and I I don't get any special recognition for it!" What is our response to such people in Australia? I believe it goes something like "Well, what do you want, a friggin' medal? Everyone works hard." And the truth is that his younger son has already taken his inheritance, so everything the Father has really does belong to the older son now. Even if he is a whinger.
vs 32
The celebration is not for a son that has lived the good life of ale 'n' whores. It is for a son thought dead, but now found to be living. For unexpected joy. for the lost being found. We know that it's human nature to be happier about and reward something that is good but unexpected, but that we tend to get blazé about things that we expect to be good and right. We don't go up to policemen and say "Wow, I am so glad you're not taking bribes and shooting strangers and causing mayhem! Thanks!" because we expect them to be good. When we hear about someone taking justice into their own hands and kicking ass and taking names, we think "Wow, there's someone who's doing something above and beyond the call of duty!" (or perhaps you think "What a terrible criminal" because of course vigilantism is against the law, but it's also very cool - what a conundrum!). So it's interesting to hear that the Kingdom of God is not really much different - God delights in the repentance of a sinner (what a unique and joyous event!) but when good people do what they are supposed to do, he might say "Well done, here's a cookie" but we shouldn't be expected to be hugely rewarded for doing basically what we're meant to do anyway. Because the Kingdom of God isn't about good people doing good. It's about sinners coming to repentance. So God is more interested in a person (good or not) realising that they need salvation, than a hundred people who think they are doing good not making that realisation. So don't feel too bad next time you aren't set on fire by someone doing something they are expected to do. But feel free to give them a cookie.
This was his plan, remember - he was going to be happier as a servant in his father's house than as a servant in a strange foreigner's house. That's all he wanted.
vs 22
Man, his son had gotten so poor that he didn't even have shoes! These are not things that you do for your servants, not even your best servant. A ring is s great symbol of family value.
vs 23
I make this point a lot, but eating meat was not a common thing for all but the richest of people. Meat was something you ate at a religious feast (if you were poor, that would be a lamb stew once a year at passover), or a few times for several feasts if you were richer. Or at weddings and great celebrations. And this guy's son returning to him is cause enough to kill a fattened calf. It's a big deal.
vs 24
The reason for the celebration - as far as he was concerned, his son was dead. It didn't really matter whether he was or not - he may as well have been since he had more or less dropped off the face of the earth. It's obvious he hadn't just gone for the weekend. At least a full season of famine had passed. Probably a few years. Of course, we will never know the exact time, because it's just a story. The point of him asking for his inheritance early is that he was leaving and never coming back.
vs 25
And he thought "Strange, karaoke night isn't until Wednesday. What is father celebrating about?" Just to make a quick point here, all the people celebrating is probably the father and son, the servants, other family members, and quite possibly some neighbours and friends - I mean, you always invite people around for a party.
vs 26
Fair enough: too much partying to just walk in and shout "What's going on?"
vs 27
The servant tells it like it is, and probably goes back to blowing on his party whistle and dancing the Safety Dance. He probably doesn't even think this news will cause any different reaction from brother to father.
vs 28
Of course it does, though. The brother feels indignant - his dropkick failure of a brother has returned, and he's being welcomed with a party? Of course, the father wants to see reconciliation between his two sons, but the older son won't have a bar of it.
vs 29-30
The older brother has an air of righteousness about him, as if there had been some injustice perpetrated, but really, it's just selfishness. He doesn't care that his brother is home - what he cares about is that he never gets to celebrate with meat. His brother gets 'rewarded' with the fat calf (the prize choice of meat livestock) for screwing himself over, losing his whole inheritance, and then returning a shameful failure. And on the face of it, that seems like an injustice for the good brother, who is diligent and works hard for his father. But he's not really upset about that - he just wants to know why he was never rewarded for his good works.
vs 31
The fact is, though, that sons were meant to work their asses off for their father. They weren't meant to disrespect him or disobey him. In common parlance, this guy is saying "But Dad, I go to work, and I work hard, and I I don't get any special recognition for it!" What is our response to such people in Australia? I believe it goes something like "Well, what do you want, a friggin' medal? Everyone works hard." And the truth is that his younger son has already taken his inheritance, so everything the Father has really does belong to the older son now. Even if he is a whinger.
vs 32
The celebration is not for a son that has lived the good life of ale 'n' whores. It is for a son thought dead, but now found to be living. For unexpected joy. for the lost being found. We know that it's human nature to be happier about and reward something that is good but unexpected, but that we tend to get blazé about things that we expect to be good and right. We don't go up to policemen and say "Wow, I am so glad you're not taking bribes and shooting strangers and causing mayhem! Thanks!" because we expect them to be good. When we hear about someone taking justice into their own hands and kicking ass and taking names, we think "Wow, there's someone who's doing something above and beyond the call of duty!" (or perhaps you think "What a terrible criminal" because of course vigilantism is against the law, but it's also very cool - what a conundrum!). So it's interesting to hear that the Kingdom of God is not really much different - God delights in the repentance of a sinner (what a unique and joyous event!) but when good people do what they are supposed to do, he might say "Well done, here's a cookie" but we shouldn't be expected to be hugely rewarded for doing basically what we're meant to do anyway. Because the Kingdom of God isn't about good people doing good. It's about sinners coming to repentance. So God is more interested in a person (good or not) realising that they need salvation, than a hundred people who think they are doing good not making that realisation. So don't feel too bad next time you aren't set on fire by someone doing something they are expected to do. But feel free to give them a cookie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)