Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Social Protests and over the top responses

My friend Keith Tonkel raised the issue of our "lost art of protest." I'm not certain we ever had it. And, I admit that a post like this is risky. I don't want to raise the ire of those whose ire is already raised. Neither do I want to act as if I "know." So, ok, I will admit it. I don't have any answers! And, if there is any value, any thought worth pursuing in this, I'm thankful.
In my life time, social protests have always had their share of violence and vitriol. The 60's were full of it. MLK Jr's non-violence was met with violence, and more. The documentaries are filled with video and photos that should make us all feel ashamed that any society would respond that way.
Our modern spiral back into darkness may be, in part, the result of our society's blind eye toward the struggle of the poor. At first it was the "urban sprawl" and the ghetto. Those who could answered by moving to suburbia. Now there are different groups rising. The loss of technical schools is taking it's toll as the new labor skills needed for a changing job landscape, disappeared.** Joining the ranks of the poor are many who once considered themselves middle class as they face stagnant wages and loss of "status."
In the 1950's, a period of great prosperity in the USA, public high schools, which included vocational education, produced the best trained work force in the world. We failed to keep it up. In Europe, today's higher education is focused from day one. As they train a 21st Century work force, course work not related to your chosen work goal which would extend your education and with it your debt, is eliminated. In a day when students can search the Web for detailed information on almost any topic, our colleges continue to overburden students with courses not related to their focus. Is this simply a product of failure to adjust by continuing a path made redundant by changing times? In the end, excessive college debt with limited job opportunities just creates another group of unhappy protesters.
Beyond the economic issues such as the failing infrastructure of our highways and cities and other signs of distress, social issues are not faced with integrity. People have their minds made up and look for ways to prove themselves right. There is little search for truth. To me, there is more truth in today's study of physics, which continually faces what we don't know with open minds, than in our facing "Black Lives Matter" or the issues of LGBTQ, rehabilitation for our veterans, and so much more. People cannot talk about these for they already "know their answers." And we who call ourselves Christians may find ourselves among the worst.
One more thought. In Jesus day, the Romans were very successful peace keepers (Pax Romana -- the Peace of Rome) using their very substantial power. The High Priests of Jesus day, using their negotiated relationship with Rome, chose to have one man killed rather than risk their power over the people. Jesus never said: "Blessed are the peace Keepers." Instead Jesus said: "Blessed are the peace MAKERS for they shall be called the children of God." (That begs an entirely different discussion)
Please forgive my rant. It makes me feel like one of those angry protesters -- and I guess, as bad as I hate to admit it, it is. :)
**(Please note that this is being addressed in some areas of our country. In Mississippi, one example is the Golden Triangle Industrial Park, their partnership with Community Colleges and Universities are making a difference in training workers.)

Friday, March 7, 2014

ON WHY I HOLD THE HOPE FOR PEACE:

I often sign my letters or email, "Grace and Peace." For me, they are essential to who I am and who I want to become. Without the grace of God, I am lost and without the hope for peace, what is there? 

In the middle east, we often greet one another, in whatever language is being spoken, "Peace be unto you." In parting, the same words may be spoken in combination with other words of friendship or simply 'peace'. 

We don't have much knowledge of that in our culture. For us, peace is a often merely a cessation of anger or violence, we think or feel that we are at peace when we are not fighting with each other or other nations -- in other words, we treat peace like a truce that may or may not last. 

That is not peace. Peace is where God is, it is embodied in the "presence" of the ONE. That's why Jesus is called the "Prince of Peace" as he is the Word incarnate, the Word spoken by the creator that formed and shaped the world -- and that is what real peace does for it is the word that shapes and forms our world. ("Not by power, nor by might, but by my Spirit," saith God.)

Peace forms and shapes the world. In a peaceful world, there is a place for each of us and all of us. There is a place in a peaceful world for the stranger and the lost child, the outcast and the least one among us. It is that mystical place where the lamb lies down with the wolf and the calf eats grass alongside the lion. Yes, that peace exists only in the kingdom of God that Jesus came to reveal; yet speaking or writing the word reminds me to long for that kingdom. Speaking peace reminds me that I must do my part to see it come to pass. "Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven." GRACE AND PEACE TO ALL OF YOU.

sam

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Tempting Jesus!


Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13
The temptation of Jesus may be viewed as archetypal of the temptations which every human being faces. How is this true? Before answering this question, consider some observations concerning the details of the gospel story of Jesus’ temptation. First, it is the Spirit of God that leads Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted. According to James, God is neither tempted by evil nor tempts any human being. 
James 1:13-15 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
This rather terse statement, written by the Hebraist, James, may call our interpretation of this story into question. If the Spirit of God led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted, can you get God off the hook, so to speak, even though it is the Satan who does the actual tempting? Or, does this beg another question. Are all temptations inherently evil?
Is it possible that most temptations humans face center on choices that may be either good or evil with the determination made by the one choosing? Is this the case in this gospel account of Jesus time of testing? Are the temptations faced by Jesus archetypal for all temptations faced by humanity? For the subject of discussion, let’s assume that they are archetypal.
Archetypal Temptation #1
At the end of his prayerful fast, Jesus is famished. The time for the fast is forty days. Literally, forty days has a meaning. Frequently, the literalness of the forty days commands our attention. After all, forty days is forty days? Correct? Forty days is a metaphorical phrase signifying a complete period. How long did it rain in the flood story? Forty days and 40 nights or long enough. How long were the Hebrews in the wilderness? Forty years or long enough for the doubting generation to die. How long was Moses on Mount Sinai? Forty days or long enough to receive the law of God. That is the picture. Forty signifies a period that is long enough to accomplish it's end.
Without doubt, it was long enough for Jesus to experience great hunger. He was famished.  A person who is famished will do almost anything to satisfy their hunger. They feel close to death. They feel the physical threat of their condition and the instinct to survive takes over. At this juncture of Jesus temptation, the Satan offers Jesus a "quick fix." "Turn these stones to bread," he challenges.
The middle east is full of stones--wonderful, beautiful, mineral laden stones. Stones for building. Stones to enrich the soil. Stones, stones, stones. Why not make them bread, if you have the power?
This is something that human beings do all the time. We make stones into bread. The Mississippi Delta could feed the world. In places, the top soil is 40 feet deep. However, at one time the delta was swamp land until the levies drained the swamp and the “stones” turned into bread.
The Holy Land is full of limestone. Limestone is a primary stone in the rebuilding of the Temple. Stones into bread? Or, in this case, stones into the center of religious life. Stones=bread. Everyday.
The idea of stones into bread concerns the physical world which human beings, according to scripture, inhabit for a period as sojourners in time. Later in his ministry, the gospel writers will let us know that Jesus has the power to turn stones into bread (to continue the metaphorical application of this temptation). After all, he will feed the multitudes on more than one occasion with a few loaves and fish with baskets left over. 
So why not turn a few small stones into bread when you are famished. After all, as Robert Capon said in his book, “The Third Peacock,” it’s as if Satan says, “You have the power, use it for your own benefit.”
The battle over the spiritual and the physical is as old as creation. Adam and Eve will choose a piece of fruit over faithfulness to God. Cain will choose violence over cleaning up his own life. Esau will trade his spiritual birthright for a bowl of soup. Balaam considers and ultimately does sell his prophetic powers to the highest bidder. Many of us just want enough money to pay the bills and have a few things for which we hunger. After all, what's so bad about that?
Jesus response to Satan brings the spiritual into focus: "Adam, humanity, cannot live by bread alone." Later, Jesus will testify: "Blessed are those that hunger and thirst after the right path ...." 

The most basic of all hungers may be the baby crying for a bottle (bread). Soon however, out of all the parents and grandparents in the world, that child will cry for a particular parent or grandparent. That second cry, to know and be known, may be the substance on which life and civilization is built. The second hunger will ultimately create community and can us into a relationship with the Creator -- or not.
Yet, it is the that first hunger, the cry for bread, that threatens to overshadow our hunger to "love mercy and walk humbly before the Lord," to "have no other Gods before me." The basic cry to satisfy physical needs can overshadow everything else if we succumb to it. Focus on it and you will never make enough money, never have enough clothes or pairs of shoes. It can cause you to lose sight of all else and the tempter knows this is true.
Jesus answers the Satan by quoting from the scripture in Deut. 8:3. It is helpful to read the entire verse: 
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that people do not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. (Duet. 8:3 TNIV)

Archetypal Temptation #2
When physical hungers fail to sidetrack Jesus, the Satan offers Jesus another one of those golden opportunities to have his name appear in lights. After all, if one is going to become influential, a friend once said, you cannot do so in Waycross, Georgia. The city, there's the action. Go to Atlanta, New York, Los Angles, somewhere big. Look for your chance to do something sensational. People will get to know you. Once you become a star, they'll ask your advice on any number of subjects whether you know anything about them or not. There is no high that compares with standing on stage and hearing the applause. Is this the second temptation?
In Jesus day, Jewish life centered on the Temple. It was to the Temple that people looked for guidance. The Romans sought to control the high priest and thus to control the people because the high priest led the great celebrations in the Temple on the highest of the holy days. To go to the Temple and throw himself down would have created quite a stir. Satan was saying: Do it. It will be a spiritual act, a spiritual high for you and for the people. After all, influence is what you came to exert, isn’t it? In offering this temptation, Satan quotes scripture:
Psalm 91: 11-12 “For he shall give his angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. 12 They shall bear you up in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone.”


In his gospel, Matthew wants us to know that angels do “bear him (Jesus) up” as they minister to Jesus at the end of the temptation -- but not in the way the Satan suggests. When Satan quotes Psalm 91:12 "It is written, 'He will bear you up lest you cast your foot against a stone," he uses it in a way that focuses on the literal hungers of our humanity.
As a young minister, a former senior pastor called me to ask if I would come and serve with him for three years. After three years, I’ll step down and you can be the senior pastor. The church was by far the largest church in that Conference. The conversation went as far as a visit to the bishop of that area. At the end of the three hours we spent together, he said: “The time has past when we have to bring a prima donna from another area into our great churches, but I trust [the senior pastor] and the congregation. They feel this is best for them and we will do it.” Then he turned to me and asked wisely: “Everyone has an ego. You do realize your ego in this?”
It was true. With three small children at thirty-three years old, was this wise? The tempter said, “You’ll never have another chance like this one. If you are in that church, people will recognize your leadership. There will be no stopping you.” From what? Stopping from what? The most difficult part of saying no was disappointing the pastor who was my friend and the people in the church that I loved. Although my tenure there was during my student years, they had accepted me as one of the ministers of the church. No was the path but the glitz and the glitter called loudly. 
The contrast is unmistakable. The angels come at God's direction after the temptation and not at our command or our testing the promises of God. Look at the movement of the mystery of God. Jesus will live for a time in relative safety in a city controlled by Herod Antipas (Capernaum). For a time, he has the favor of the crowds. What he does not do is use his spiritual insight as fodder in any quest for influence or power. As he submits to the will of the Father, Jesus will die and refuse to stay dead trusting the promise, “He will bear you up….”

Archetypal Question #3
Temptations two and three may appear out of order. Think about it. How does it feel? Could obtaining a false spiritual influence and power be easier to attain than temporal power (see the magician Simon in Acts 8). Set up a booth, open a physic telephone line, make a few good predictions or just plain good guesses and people may come to you in numbers. Real spiritual power and influence takes longer to establish for it is not within the temporal or secular world’s realm. The test of the true prophet is in the fulfillment of the prophesy -- not the moment of making the prophesy. What about temporal or earthly power?
Temporal power is something else. You can be born into it, buy it, work for it and even be in the right place at the right time. In the temporal realm, Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world. It is the great deceit.

When I first read that passage, I thought that Satan was offering Jesus the "big house." For a poor man, born in a barn and raised in a cave, palace life certainly would have appeared splendid. After all, everybody wants and needs a home. Even Jesus will lament his lack of a place: "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head."
This is not the issue here. Jesus faced that temptation in temptation number one: Turn these stones .... Now he faces something else--something even more sinister. The kingdoms of the world.
Some years ago, one of my peers remarked: "When we get the power ...." His implication was, when we are in places of influence, we'll do things differently. The truth: if we do not master the power and influence already in our hands with it's current potential for good, we will not use any other power or influence for good, no matter how well founded our intentions.
The lure of authority is strong. What could we do with money and power!! Who has not considered it. Certainly, we would work differently than any other leader who has ever attempted to wield the monarch's scepter. Just pass a few decrees. Make it law. People will have to change. When you are King or Queen and you speak, everybody listens! What a sinister lie. From the outside, it may look this way--if we have the power.
Later, Jesus walks away from the Galilee villages and seeks the lonely places when his movement grows strong and the people want to make him King. The deceit: Change the World by Being Powerful. The truth: Change the World Through Weakness for it is in our weakness that God is made strong.
The response of Jesus is clear. It is this response that ultimately answers every temptation. All you have to do is worship me, the Satan declares. Set your goals on the physical world and the power it wields. Worship it. Worship me, says the Satan. Jesus response is unambiguous. In Luke 4:10, Jesus said to the adversary, Away from me, Satan! For it is written: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."
It is not that the world is inherently evil for after all, the world is the creation of a loving God. To love of the created above the Creator, that is evil. That is the deceit. That is the lie. Make that choice and the fig leaves of life cannot hide you from the corruption of mortality -- as in Adam, all die.
 Turning away from the lure, the deceit, the lie, the temptation, this is the only answer. It is the significance of the question asked in traditional baptism about evil. Do you reject evil in all it’s forms? Only after this  “... the devil left (Jesus), and angels came and attended him.”


Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Was Jesus Married?


Although the following is an article I wrote several years ago, it still has relevance in the light of a papyrus fragment found where Jesus reportedly introduces his wife. At first, this appeared as another sensational story. Shortly after the news release however, the Harvard Theological Review decided not to publish the paper as it was most likely a forgery. Even the author of the paper, Karen King, stated that it would not prove anything other than the possibility that some early disciples (4th CE) might have thought Jesus was married. That statement by Dr. King was before most experts pointed out the high probability that the fragment is a forgery.
My article takes the question seriously and I offer it for dialogue. I encourage you to read it in its entirety. And, to discourage you from jumping to the end, I do not believe that Jesus was married. There is a journey to be taken as the question is engaged.
Blessings,
Sam


Was Jesus married? What a sensational question! There are those for whom the Virgin birth, in their words, does not matter. Then they turn around and focus on questions like this one as if it matters most of all. Actually, I like the question “was Jesus married?" And, in defense of those who take it seriously, the Torah, the Law, the Pentateuch (the same by each name), compels us to take it seriously as well. 
Why does it matter?
To the Adam, the human beings of creation, ... God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
 As the earth belongs to God, this is a profound offer and a mitzvah or command. Was Jesus compelled by this command to marry?
Serious scholars ask the question. Those who look for the edgy issues and sometimes possess the “I know something that you don’t know” attitude, ask the question. For whatever reason, the question is legitimate. Jewish people married and they followed the Torah. That was the norm in the time of Jesus. And, among religious Jews, it is the norm today. Before exploring this question with Jesus specifically, let’s ask a more obvious question: Why? Why did Jewish people marry and then study Torah?
Genesis 2 sets forth an order of human creation in contrast to the order of Genesis 1. But, let us assume that both Genesis 1 and 2 are intentional. Rather than being two separate traditions as critical scholarship sometimes asserts, assume that the two chapters build upon each other. Chapter 1 declares that the Creator creates Adam (humanity) in the creators image, male and female. It is not the man or the woman that are created in God’s image. The man and woman together are created in God’s image.
In chapter 2, the Adam is created and placed alone in the garden. The Adam (human) in Genesis 2 remains this androgynous being (male and female) until the close of the chapter. When Adam falls into a deep sleep and is divided (literally a side is taken from him), the Hebrew changes and the word Adam is not used to finish the story. Now, instead of the word Adam, the word is the Hebrew vy™IaEm or Ish. Ish or the man, now calls the newly formed woman, Ishshah (h$DÚvIa). As the text explains, Ish says, She shall be called Ishshah (woman or wife) for she was taken out of Ish (man or husband).  This is significant and reaffirms what is stated in chapter 1 and restated in Genesis 5:2. “He (God) created them male and female, and He (God) blessed them and named them ‹M∂dDaèDh   (Adam) in the day when they were created.”

The first story of creation
Genesis 1 is about creation and the relationship of the creation to God. For this study, let us consider Genesis 1 as a theological statement first. In contrast, consider Genesis 2 as pragmatic first and theological second.  Let me explain.
In the broad themes of Genesis chapter one, we are confronted with the Creator God who orders the chaos. The LXX characterizes the world as invisible. An invisible world where the Spirit of God moves across the void until the moment when God says: Let there be light. 
What if we think of this first story of creation as two verses of one hymn. Genesis 1:1-19 and Genesis 1:20-2:3. Genesis one contains ten instances of the phrase “God said.” Five in the first nineteen verses and five in the subsequent verses. Like two movements in a great symphony, the non-living world and the living world are formed and given purpose. Let your imagination listen until you hear the climactic crescendo in the creation of human beings. Light created and ordered. Life created and ordered. The invisible is made visible in the creative acts of the invisible God.
There is another word, another use of the powerful phrase, God said; but it is not until chapter 2:18. In that word, the two stories are inexorably connected.


There is much more to Genesis chapter one. Again, I believe that this is a deeply theological chapter. To reduce the truth of this chapter to the mechanistic modality of creation is a mistake for it ignores the greater truth. God is and we only exist at the will and in the purpose of the Creator.
What is our relationship with God? Are we merely part of creation, just another of God’s creatures? Why did God create human beings? Are we merely to care for the earth as stewards as chapter one suggests? Is it our destiny to multiply and fill the earth as we subdue and care for it? Why are we here?
Applying the question, why, to chapter 2 gives balance, setting the stage for our relationship to God and to one another. In deeply theological terms (the third question of the triad), Genesis 2 forms the basis for humanities relationship with God in the human relationship of husband and wife. Yet, this relationship is first pragmatic. Here is the reality of our existence. Indeed, here is the image of the words: It is not good for man to be alone. 
Marriage forms a metaphor to comprehend our relationship to God. The Lord your maker is your husband (Isa. 54:5; Hos. 2:16). If you want a child to understand God’s love, let the child see that love reflected in parents who love one another. Pragmatic, earthy. This is where we live.
In our triad of questions, this is question 2: What does the text mean? Certainly any attempt to leave out the very human reality is mistaken. For this reason, we cannot view the passage solely from the standpoint of our relationship to God for there are human ramifications of great significance in this narrative. Restating the question: What does it mean? How does this affect our halakhah, our way of walking, our corporate life?
In Genesis chapter 1 and 2, Adam, meaning human, is created male and female. In chapter 2, the Adam of chapter one appears first only to give way to the words for man and woman or husband and wife after the deep sleep (ish and ishshah). Clearly in the text, ishshah, the woman or wife, is taken from ish, the man or husband. Consider the reverse. Suppose that the story described woman as the first order of human creation in Genesis 2. What difference would it make in our human understanding?
The natural tendency is to load this question with age old cultural baggage. And, for most of us, it is impossible to clear the ‘dim lenses’ (1 Cor. 13:12) through which we view scripture. Out of our pain and brokenness, we speak to the scripture first without scripture so much as uttering a word. The Word becomes silent! As a result, we muddle along with our assumptions based on personal analysis of our cultural realities. 
This being said, I invite you to enter a dialogical relationship with this passage. Speak to it. You cannot stop yourself anyway. Tell it everything that you adore or that you despise. Rant, rave or remain quietly dumbfounded why any 21st Century person would spend much time with such an ancient narrative. Whatever you do, after you are finished, listen! Listen for the Word in the midst of your words. Listen for the message that may speak life. Listen for words, given through human beings, yet given by God as a love letter to the adam in all of us.
First, this chapter presents a major theme of Torah: For human beings, life comes from God’s own being. Hear the poetry in the passage. God breathes life into the Adam (the human), giving the breath of life. God fashions the human from the dust of the earth, from death to life. Life is no mere biological function. It is not a protein molecule forming in some primordial soup. Life is not a sea creature crawling from the water to the ground. Nor is it an evolved primate reaching a higher level of intelligence. Not in this story.
While we do not know the amount of time between adam’s formation from dust until the breath (soul) enters – whether it is eons or an instant – that line of inquiry is entirely irrelevant for Genesis 2 and in this approach to the text. This chapter is not about science, nor fossils, nor time. It concerns a basic reality; human life is different from the rest of creation. In the narrative of Genesis, human life is more than a biological existence. Human life comes from God and exists because of God.
Michelangelo’s image in the Sistine Chapel as the hand of God touches the newly created human is powerful. It is the touch of lovers’ longings, as expressed in ballet. Watch the stage as the ballerina moves nearer to her partner. They touch in an image that feels ethereal, an image that is reflected in Michelangelo’s understanding as portrayed in his famous painting. Perhaps we can understand why Michelangelo choose the image of ballet for the ballerina image paints a picture of intimacy and intimacy is primary to the story. 
Contrast Genesis 2. Genesis two is more earthy than Michelangelo’s painting. It is CPR. It is a kiss. It is intimate. God gets down and dirty with humanity, breathing into the nostrils of the human with the result that the creature becomes something more. Adam, the creature, becomes a ‘living being.’ There is nothing illusive about the story. God forms Adam from dust and breathes into Adam the breath of life. Figuratively, God is all over Adam from the loving hands caressing the clay or dust of the earth to the breath that is shared with the lifeless matter. Could this be what Jesus referred to when he said, I have come that you might have life and have it abundantly? (John 10:10)

EDEN
Although God places the human creation in an idyllic place, something is missing. This one creative act in Genesis 2 lacks the unqualified declaration of goodness. Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that Adam should be alone….
  There is a certain humor about Genesis 2. Nothing in all creation fills the void in Adam’s life. “… but for [the Adam] there was not found a helper as his partner.”
  
Remember when you were a teenager and your mom or dad reminded you of your chores right after promising you that you could go be with your friends. Taking out the garbage, washing the dishes or cleaning your room took such an indeterminable amount of time that you felt it would never end. If you recall your emotions, then certainly you could relate to this story as God tells Adam it is not good to be alone and promises a power like his own, only to remind Adam of his job. “Ok Adam, let’s name all the animals.” Certainly there must have been a parental twinkle in God’s eye as the scene unfolds into disappointment. After Adam had surveyed the animals at God’s direction, the text simply states: but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
 If one tries to visualize that scene, the humor leaps out of the story. There he is, poor Adam, naming all the animals and looking for someone to help him overcome his loneliness. How about this one Adam? God might have said as the ostrich parades before him. No wonder Adam fell into such a deep sleep. If Adam had been as most of us, the entire experience possibly left him depressed at the prospects -- or lack there of.
Because Genesis 2 is not as much about creation as it is about relationships, it poses an interesting dilemma. For men and women to stand beside one another with equal respect and mutual value in a relationship, God takes the female from Adam leaving the man (ish) who exclaims that what was formed from him is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. From Adam, Ain Sof, the One, removed a side to form the woman.

I realize that this explanation must feel technical, intense or even unnecessary to many. Why not leave the story as we have always understood it? We could. Without question, the story speaks without any of this probing. And for those who are comfortable, there is the temptation to move on to another subject and leave this one. Let me encourage you to press on. Don’t stop. Give it a little more time. Let your mind and your heart open wider to hear the deeper echoes as the Word takes on flesh in your life.

Considering the text together, Adam is both male and female for the woman will be taken from his side. Woman was taken from man, bone of bones and flesh of flesh. It would never be so again. From that time forward, man would come from woman. Thus from the narrative you avoid the inevitable catch 22. If woman is created first and then gives birth to man, woman becomes the co-creator with God in a way that the male can never share. For men and women to clearly stand together in need of a relationship with the creator, each must receive their life from God. There is no argument. The male did not participate. There was no creative partnership. God created both and the narrative tells the story in such a way as to give both of these primary characters a way to understand their lives as having come from God and God alone. 
Nature demonstrates the reality that women are the givers of life, an order determined by God. Yet, from the narrative of Genesis 2, the intricately interwoven lives of male and female and God emerge clearly.
Christian theology reverses the order from male to female to female to male, perhaps for similar reasons. God enters the world and lives as a man in our midst. Does this put men over women? Not when you consider the vessel through which God entered the world. Jesus was taken from no man’s side. Neither was he taken directly from the dust of the earth. The messiah is born of a woman, a chosen vessel, a co-creator of the new Adam. How interesting.
In the Genesis story, there is no mistake. God creates. In the Christian gospel, the good news comes through a partnership between God and a willing vessel, a highly favored one, a woman. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, God’s son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary….” As in the story of creation, a story that offers a balance between female and male, who, though different, achieve a unity, the gospels describe a similar unity. While salvation comes through a male human incarnation of God, that incarnation was first held within a female, without whom this story would not have taken place. Once again, the narrative of scripture teaches mutual respect and value for both men and women in God’s creation.

Is there anything more?
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. 1 John 3:1  
This treasured image, written to Christians, whom John addresses as ‘my little children,’ 
 forms the prevailing image in the church of human life in relation to God. Expressed in our liturgy and in our practice, we are the children of God.
In one of our local church preschool classes a four year old fretted all morning looking for the ‘dot.’ Over and over, he walked the room and asked, “Where is the dot?” The perplexed teacher quizzed his mother who expressed surprise, responding that she had no clue. Starting to walk away, a moment of dawning sprang into the mother’s mind. She hurried back to the preschool teacher and told her. “I have a dental appointment today at 11:30 a.m. I told Johnny to be ready at 11:00 o’clock on the dot.” 
We understand the childish literalism – or do we? Many Christians never make the connection – children grow into adults. To limit our understanding by only defining ourselves as God’s children, restricts our relationship and prevents us from becoming co-creators with God. There are at least two other images defining our relationship to God. … and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ -- if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. Romans 8:17  Paul makes the connection with adulthood declaring us ‘joint heirs’ with Christ – sisters and brothers of Christ. While claiming Jesus as our elder brother feels good, it should be understood in the culture of the first century. While our elder brother has “gone to prepare a place for us,” he expects us to take care of family business until he returns. We do this as adults and not children. For those who grow in the grace of God, saying that we are children of God is a reassurance of family connections and not a disavowal of responsibility for becoming co-workers with God.
Take it a step further. Jesus prayer for disciples in John 17 asks God to make us one: … that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17:21  
Viewed through the lens of Genesis 2, we hear the declaration of marriage: For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Isaiah declares (54:5): ‘the Lord your maker is your husband.’ Revelation 19:7 presents the church as the bride of Christ.
 On the journey into adulthood, Jewish people married. God invites us to a wedding feast and the wedding is our own – we enter into union with God – metaphorically and actually.

The relationship between God and humanity is intimate!
At weddings, couples often light a marriage candle. They use two smaller candles, frequently lit by each of the couple’s mothers, signifying the individual lives of their children and acknowledging their connection to family. I used to tell couples: When you light the marriage or unity candle, leave the other two burning. I would say: The marriage relationship is something entirely different, larger than either of you. It has been compared to a tree growing in the middle of your home. You can build your life around it but you cannot ignore it. Even in unity, you are individual persons. By giving yourselves to one another, you allow for the relationship of marriage to develop. You are two whole persons who make up one whole marriage – you do not cease to exist when you marry. So, you may leave your individual candles burning and light the marriage candle.
That was in the days before the leave and cleave mother. Ignoring all other possibilities, this mother of the groom marched to the chancel at the end of the wedding when the wedding party gathered for pictures and blew out the individual candles. “It says, leave and cleave,” she announced loudly. “And I mean for them to do just that.”
She had a point. From her vantage, she was not blowing out the individual lives but rather severing the relationship that previously existed between parent and child. The couple would now find their comfort and love in one another first and the extended family second.
Not to belittle the role of the extended family for many people, this mother taught me a lesson. To marry, one relationship is severed and another is formed. And, while that other relationship still exists, it exists in an altered state. Although still biologically connected, there is a union between the wife and husband superseding the relationship of parent and child.
A country western song of the 1960’s announced the complex and confusing relationship of a man whose family had a tangle of marriages resulting in the title: “I’m my own grandpa.” The marriage relationship is complex. Whether it is romance, a feeling of joy or fulfillment, mutual satisfaction or just companionship, marriages ebb and flow like the tide. We build our sand castles; yet, they are transitory. Borrowing from a 70’s pop tune by the Moody Blues, The tide rushes in and washes our castles away. Or worse, the tide goes out and we walk away without giving it the opportunity to wash the shore again.
As a metaphor for our relationship with God, marriage speaks of the complexity and it witnesses to the reason most people abandon this relationship for the more accessible and less responsible one of parent/child. After all, aren’t parents supposed to forgive, forget and let us muddle about as we go on our way with growing freedom from their interference. While the previous sentence may be more a reflection of our actual parental experience and not a description of Levitical legalism which describes a harsher relationship, it aligns with the narrative stories of David and Absalom or Jesus parable of the Prodigal Son. 
Once, as I asked my four year old grandson to do something he did not want to do, I attempted to encourage him by saying: “You’re a big boy now and big boys act differently.” Quickly, he responded, “I don’t want to be big. I want to stay small.” From an adult vantage, life appears easier for children and complex for adults. Such complexity compounds. Adult relationships require something from us that was not expected from children. 
Let’s continue by describing the marriage relationship as a metaphor for our relationship with God. Starting from a negative point – we don’t want to be overly idealistic – observe the Biblical condemnations of adultery aimed at Israel as she goes ‘whoring after other gods.’ Israel is to keep herself for Yahweh just a husband and wife keep themselves for one another. Difficulties for the marriage relationship in contemporary times underline this complexity. We are torn between love of God and love of this world. How can we be in the world and remain faithful to a divine lover when the world feels so near to us? Paul declares:  … I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified. 1 Corinthians 9:27  
There are those who experience mutual surrender to one another, grow in confidence in and commitment to one another. Perhaps we should rejoice over couples who find success and fulfillment in marriage and quit berating ourselves for the failures. Marriage is complex.  
“We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities in high places….” said Paul in Ephesians 6:12. While the battle may feel physical for we are drawn to the passions of this life, the call to intimacy with God is spiritual. Paul alludes to the struggles we have in the physical world. Often, they hide the real issues – they blind us. When Jesus prays for us in John 17, he prays that we should be protected from the evil one – the god of this world. Thinking about this in terms of the relationship, many passages emerge to define and draw boundaries. Consider: The Lord your God is a jealous God; you shall have no other gods before me.
The creation narrative of Genesis 2 is intimate. It describes a relationship with God that can only be understood in the most intimate of terms. It is as marriage – a good marriage – a marriage where mutual love, mutual respect and loyalty rule. It is filled with the desire to unite, become one, to find a union that is beyond the physical connections. While sexual intimacy remains a pivotal metaphor for understanding the intimacy God desires with us, every husband and wife know that ‘good sex’ depends on many intangibles. Sex is a powerful emotion before it is a powerful physical act. Nurture the emotion and a couple’s touch is far more intimate. Focus on your partner rather than yourself and oneness is more achievable. In fact, good sex like good snow skiing depends upon surrender to forces that transcend our sense of self and unite us with something greater than ourselves. For snow skiers it is unity with the mountain – you stop fighting and move with it’s curves and motion. With a husband and wife, it is mutual surrender, mutual giving, and submission to one another. You may apply this analogy to many aspects of life. You can’t enjoy the sunset if your mind is somewhere else. If your friend’s presence is a nuisance because of other responsibilities, your conversations will be pained. We’ve all heard it. Learning to be ‘present’ in this very moment takes discipline and practice. It’s that way with relationships – especially with God.
Why would God want to be in a relationship with us? I don’t know the answer but I know it is the question of lovers. Why did you pick me from all the girls or guys? Why do you love me? they ask one another.
JÏ‹rgen Moltmann speaks of the ‘humiliation of God.’ Moltmann describes God’s willingness to enter time, to be with the people, to follow in a cloud and pillar of fire, to enter the world as a human being. For Moltmann, the human God is a God of love responding to the suffering of creation by suffering with us. Marriage becomes the perfect metaphor for our relationship with God. Even the words of the marriage covenant describe the reality: “For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish ….” More importantly, it is the metaphor God chose.

The Relationship is Not Equal
In reality, there is never an entirely equal relationship between the husband and wife. One is perhaps brighter, healthier, prettier or more handsome, wealthier, etc. Try to make them equal by describing what each one brings to the relationship and ‘equal’ fails the test. The two are only equal in their equal surrender. In our life with God, surrender is the only option. God surrenders to us and we surrender to God. What a gift! We lose our life to find it again – abundantly.
Martin Buber wrote: In the beginning was the relation….” Everything exists in relation to God and to creation. Consider, “In Christ [God] we live and move and have our being.” This is the image of Genesis 2. Men and women exist because God gives them life. No other living creature is given life by the breath of God. Such intimacy is reserved for humans alone.
If the analogy is appropriately applied, an interesting dilemma arises. “It is not good for adam to be alone.” Does this now apply to God’s own being? It is not good for God to be alone? In James Weldon Johnson’s book, God’s Trumbones, a good example of African American oral tradition, God says: I’m lonely. I’ll make me a man [human].
The passage begs the question. And while some might criticize by pointing out the anthropomorphism aimed at God (speaking of God as expressing human motivation), I would remind us that Genesis one declares we are created in God’s image. To further explain this, Jewish mystics suggest that Ain Sof, the One, created a personality for himself/herself for the purpose of being in relation with creation and then stamped that personality on humanity. In reality, the Biblical narratives are filled with anthropomorphisms. It is God who searches for us, who pursues us. God desires a relationship with us. “I will be your God and you will be my people.”

Was Jesus married?
Jewish people marry and then study Torah. I guess that you realize we have jumped back to the initial question. Jewish people are forbidden to study mysticism until they are married and are at least forty years old with a belly full of Torah. I know, it’s sounding more and more like an argument for Jesus being married. Just give me a moment.
Several years ago while staying at Hion, a Jewish kibbutz on the south eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, I walked alone near the lake in the early morning. Wanting to be alone and pray, I tried to ignore the Jewish man approaching me from the main group of buildings. I moved toward the water and walked along the edge, all the while hoping he would take the hint. He did not. Instead, he approached me directly and started talking, wanting to know what I felt about recent events. The recent events was the massacre precipitated by Baruch Goldstein, a resident of the Jewish settlement in Hebron, who walked into the mosque during morning prayers on the first day of Ramadan in 1994 and opened fire on the worshippers, killing many before his gun jammed. Tragedy followed tragedy. I had interviewed doctors and patients at the Arab hospital in Jerusalem a few days previously. My heart felt the weight of that sorrow and I expressed it to this stranger.
“Everything we need for peace is in the Mishnah,” he exclaimed. 
In the oral tradition? My response held the aura of surprise.
You know about the Mishnah, he said. I told him that I did and in fact, I had recently purchased an entire set that was in the back seat of the car parked near the guest house where I was staying.
I knew a man who knew Mishnah here, he declared, pointing to his head. The entire Mishnah.
All eight volumes I said with some shock. He went on to say that once all Jewish people knew Mishnah in their heads but no longer.
As I reflected on his assertion, it dawned on me that it had the essence of truth. While not all Jews of Jesus’ day knew the tradition equally, they all knew some of the tradition and a few, like the scribes (lawyers) knew it well. Jesus ability to interact intelligently with the Scribes of his day strongly suggests that Jesus knew the Mishnah or oral tradition in his head and heart.
My anonymous friend made another declaration that shocked me. “I knew,” he said, “a man who knew Talmud here” – once again pointing to his head. “The entire Talmud. He was married to Talmud.” Without waiting for me to respond, he explained, “A few great Jewish sages never marry, they marry Talmud.”
The Talmud did not exist in the time of Jesus. Neither did the Mishnah. They both come into being as Jews are scattered from the land following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. While the Mishnah is based entirely on the oral tradition, the Talmud includes the oral tradition plus the Gemara, or commentary on the Mishnah. The most often used number for referring to the Mitzvot or commandments of Jewish law, is 613. They begin with the Ten Commandments. Number 14 states: You shall not add to the commandments of the Torah, whether in the Written Law or in its interpretation received by tradition (Deut. 13:1) Christians can mistakenly hear this as a requirement to stay away from the sages. This is an error. The Mitzvot reminds us that all tradition stands on the foundation of Torah; yet it recognizes the requirement of every generation to meditate on the law of God that we may know God. And, while the Torah stands unchanged, our understanding, which as Paul declares is in part, changes and grows as we apply the light of scripture to our lives.
To form a relationship to the Torah and the oral tradition where witnesses would declare of Jesus, He speaks as one who has authority within himself, would demand a life dedicated to Torah and the traditions of Torah. Jesus demonstrated knowledge of the Torah and the prophets and the writings. Some of his references, You have heard it said of them of old time, do not come from the Hebrew Scriptures as we have them but from the tradition (as verified in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls). 
Although Jesus would die before reaching forty, there is little question that he demonstrates the power and presence of the great prophets, sages, priests and teachers. He was married. He was married to Torah.

What is the Jewish view of Torah?
Torah comes from God. It is the Word of God. Not many years ago, New Testament scholarship often spoke of John’s gospel as Hellenistic, or filled with Greek influence. After all, John is not written in classical Greek but in the koine, or Greek spoken in the common tongue of the day. The assumption, for this and other reasons, was that John’s thought process was not Jewish but a combination of Jewish, Hellenistic and Christian influence. The Logos or Word of John 1 (In the beginning was the Word…), was considered Greek thought. Since the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, have begun to declare that John is the most Jewish of all the gospels. While I suggest that we reserve judgment on that declaration, I believe that John is filled with Jewish imagery and, in particular, Jewish mystical imagery.
In the early 1990’s, I discovered a Hassidic art shop in Tiberias in the Galilee in Israel. This shop fascinated me for several reasons. First, contrary to many Jewish groups, this one was evangelistic, looking for converts to Judaism. And, their art was filled with the imagery of Jewish mysticism. One intriguing picture showed two great lights being let down from God out of heaven. They represented the two tablets which represented the law of Moses, the Torah. As the two great lights touched the Mountain of God, thousands of little lights, all a reflection of the great lights, began to take shape and form across the mountain, through the valley and to the world beyond. The picture shouted: Take the light. You are a light to the nations. You are the light of the world.
Reflecting on the possibility that John’s gospel is Jewish and not Hellenistic, I began to read it differently. “In the beginning was the Torah.” Jewish wisdom literature speaks of Torah as being with God in the beginning. With whom did God consult when God created the world. Like a master builder reviews plans, so God consulted Torah.
The possibility exists that John introduced no new idea in his gospel until chapter one verse 14: And the word [Torah?] became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory.
To become the incarnation of the Word of God, Jesus lived Torah, became one with Torah, was Torah. This is not an argument against the divinity of Jesus; rather, it is an argument for Jesus’ humanity. As the One, who emptied himself to take on the veil of flesh, Jesus will ‘learn obedience through what he suffered.’ Once again, I believe that Jesus and the Word are One. …. And the two shall become one …. Jesus was married to Torah. 



Pragmatically, it is important to pause and do a check up before proceeding. Let me suggest the following question: How is your relationship with God? Honestly, access your relationship. Are you living in the same house (the church) and don’t really talk or know one another? Remember, we are talking about God and not your sisters or brothers in church. Have you settled for a relationship of convenience? Or, do you have an intimate, loving relationship with your Creator? 
You can. That’s what God wants.


The Seventh Day
The final act of creation in Genesis one hallows the seventh day and in the symphony of creation, there is a gentle word. The mighty wind that moved across the waters of chaos, comes to rest on the seventh day. No longer is God distant. As the scripture unfolds, we will observe that God is present with God’s people when God is at rest. “I will bring you into my rest.” 
Sabbath defines the people of God. Proclaim Sabbath (Shabbot). Be a people of Sabbath. Make known the God who enters into the created order. As impossible as it sounds, as improbable as it appears, God with us can only be understand in relation to the seventh day of creation. In the New Testament, when Jesus, the Lord of Sabbath appears, we begin to understand the meaning of God with us.
One further word about Sabbath. Consider these words from Hebrews 4:
4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,”6 5 but to repeat the text cited earlier:7They will never enter my rest!”  6 Therefore it remains for some to enter it, yet those to whom it was previously proclaimed did not enter because of disobedience.  7 So God8 again ordains a certain day, “Today,” speaking through David9 after so long a time, as in the words quoted before,10O, that today you would listen as he speaks!11 Do not harden your hearts.”  8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God12 would not have spoken afterward about another day.  9 Consequently a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God.  10 For the one who enters God’s13 rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his own works.  11 Thus we must make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by following the same pattern of disobedience.  12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.  

Hebrews 4 goes on to proclaim that God has given a new name to the day of rest -- the name: Today. We live in the seventh day of creation. Today.
The key to understanding is that the observance of Sabbath is just that -- an observance. It is a way of anticipating and remembering that “Today is the day of salvation.” This is indeed the day that the Lord has acted. If we consider that the first chapter of creation actually continues until Genesis 2:3, this becomes clear. The Creator rests on day seven and it is on the seventh day when we may know God and be known by God.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Shared from the blog www.extendbiblestudy.blogspot.com

This is actually a blog that I wrote for a Bible Study group but wanted to share it with friends beyond. Feel free to enter the discussion and comment.


The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23ff

Sunday, September 25, 2011, we spent most of our evening discussing the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23ff with some comparisons to Matthews account in Matt 1:1-17. It was a great discussion. Thanks to all who were able to participate.

This will be for those who were not present and also a way to let those present (and absent) to add their comments to the discussion. Feel free to respond.

Some of our observations.

1. Matthew opens his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew 1:1 "An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Mat 1:1 NRS) With clarity, he establishes Jesus link to Messianic kingship (the Davidic Covenant) and Israel's covenant as a people (the Abrahamic covenant). Jesus link to the Jewish covenant and his fulfillment of the promises they hold is a theme throughout Matthew's gospel.

The question asked the previous week: WHY DID LUKE WAIT TO GIVE THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS IN COMPARISON TO MATTHEW?

Of course, the simple and obvious answer is that Luke acknowledges in Luke 1:1-3 that, while other orderly accounts have been written, after careful consideration (study?), he too will write an orderly account.


"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus," (Luk 1:1-3 NRS)

From this, we may assume that the order of Luke's account is significant. The placement of the genealogy is no mere afterthought.

Consider:
Luke 1:4 opens the story of the birth and role of the messenger sent to prepare the way. In Jewish tradition, this was Elijah, the great prophet. John is born of the high priestly lineage as both his parents are descendants of the Aaronic line of priests. The name of the messenger, while not Elijah, embodies the message for the name John, means "the grace of the Lord." What a fitting name. At the close of every Seder meal (Passover Meal), the cup of Elijah or the cup of Redemption, is poured but left untouched to wait for the Messiah. Indeed, this hope is found in the "mercy of God."

In Luke, every key character in these opening chapters recognizes that Jesus birth is the birth of the Messiah. From Elizabeth and Mary to Joseph and the Shepherds, they know. The events of Luke 2 further intensify the drama of this remarkable birth as a boy in the temple surprises the elders with his questions.

As the narrative continues with John the Baptizer's ministry, it becomes even more climactic. John declares:


 As the people were filled with expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Messiah, 16 John answered all of them by saying, "I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire  17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
 (Luk 3:15-17 NRS)

Following his account of John's imprisonment, Luke returns to the event of Jesus baptism as the stage is being set. At the baptism, a heavenly voice speaks: "and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Luk 3:22 NRS)

God's son! It is time for the genealogy.

While Matthew begins with Abraham and David, declaring the covenant, Luke begins with Joseph, who we already know from Luke, is not the real father of Jesus. Luke moves through the generations back to David, to Abraham and continues all the way to Adam (of the earth). Luke 3:38b "... Adam, son of God."

Our lives come from God, the creator. Our redemption, our place within the family of God, comes in a son, who like Adam, was born through the mystery and power of the Creator's love. This second Adam has something new to give, something more. Luke does not want us to miss it. This is God at work within creation. The Lord of Sabbath is here. God has personally intervened and come to save us.

Wow!

Keep reading. It just gets better.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Did Jesus really call that woman a dog?

A friend of mine recently heard a sermon on Matthew 15:21-28 from another pastor.


In Matthew's retelling of the story, Jesus calls the Canaanite woman a dog. In some ways, the sermon's exegesis left him troubled. I just couldn’t envision Christ doing it out of frustration (seems very near to sin) or that he was taught anything by an earthly being.


Honestly, this has been an ongoing dialogue for me in understanding the humanity of Jesus. And, I have heard it said: "Historically, the church has struggled far more with the humanity of Jesus than we have with the divinity of Jesus."


Here is a brief account of some of my reflection on the story:


Some people take the position (an interpretation) that Jesus knew what he was doing and was putting the woman to the test to see how she would respond. My problem with this is that I do not see Jesus doing this. The Pharisees often put Jesus to the test. Jesus challenged people to do things that they might otherwise choose not to do; however, he never appears to put them to the test. In truth, he teaches us to pray, "Lead us not into temptation…" which can also be translated, "Lead us not into the time of testing…" Even then, the testing comes from life and life circumstances rather than God recalling in Hebrews 12 that we are told to consider difficulties as God's discipline.


In Jesus, the Son of God, we see God's mercy and love. And, after Jesus, God gives the judgment over to Jesus, who, as Paul notes in Romans, "died for us and sits at God's right hand and prays for us." In relation to this passage, it is Jesus who leads us in the right paths as the good shepherd leads the sheep.


So, the question, what's going on in this passage that would result in Jesus calling this woman a dog? The Bible makes it clear that Jesus came as a human being, lived as a human being, died as a human being and faced life's trials as a human. The New Testament teaches us that Jesus emptied himself of his divinity so that he could become like us. This means that he had to "grow in wisdom and stature" as every human being. It means that he learned "obedience through what he suffered" (Hebrews) even though he was God's son.


The implication in this is that Jesus would "come to know" his mission through the scripture, his tradition and in his relationship with the Father of all. Or, to put it into plain terms: Jesus would "come to know" with tools that are available to every human being.


Assuming that Jesus was fully human, as the scripture teaches and that he would learn in the way of humans, I believe that this story was a turning point (again, as I understand the scripture).


God works in mysterious ways. God speaks to his people. And certainly, the relationship of the Son, while the same as ours, is unique at the same time. I expect that one of the most important questions is: How does God speak to us? How do we learn? All of us know that people learn in many different ways. And, in reality, most of us do not learn simply by study or even prayer. We learn in the experiences of life. And, sometimes, God speaks to us through the stranger or even through those who may come from very different places. Was this true for Jesus as well?


My friends observation about how Jesus response might be "very close to sin" is a question that cannot be ignored. This question requires that we examine again a definition of sin in the Bible. How do we define sin? In Romans, Paul gives a Jewish explanation. Paul explains that before the "law" (the Torah), sin did not exist. He goes on to say that the Torah was given so that we might recognize sin. In short: When we are enlightened by God, if we choose to make the light darkness, it is sin (my interpretation). This means for Paul that before the law was given to the people, sin did not exist -- although he says that there is a law given to every person that is literally written on our hearts -- but these laws are broad and non-specific about human actions -- rather they are the laws of the created world that allow us to know there is a God and to come to know this God. The specific law Paul speaks about is the Torah that God gave to Moses for the chosen people. About this he says that it was given to show us that we were sinners but it could not save us or make us righteousness (holy). The only thing he writes that can make us righteous is the righteousness of Christ.


Which brings us to your issue. If we follow some of this, does it mean that Jesus sinned? No. The difference between Jesus and us is that when the light comes on for Jesus, he never makes the light darkness. For this reason, we say with confidence, he was without sin. Consider what the gospel of John says about the light: the light (Christ) has come into the world but people preferred darkness to that light.


Someone might ask the question, did Jesus inherit the original sin from Adam if he was fully human? It depends on how we define original sin. For me, what we inherit from Adam is death. As in Adam, all die. It is this reality that Jesus comes to defeat -- in the flesh he will defeat death by dying.


Ok, this is deep. Back up. Look one more time at the story of Matthew 15.


What is the meaning of the story:

1. Jesus is seeking to be alone with his disciples and away from the constant probing of the scribes and Pharisees who argue about non-issues.

2. He goes to a non-Jewish region.

3. A non-Jewish woman approaches him with a Jewish plea (as if she is a Jew), "Son of David, help me."

4. He ignores her (if he is testing someone, it is his disciples).

5. The disciples say send her away.

6. She persists.

7. He reminds her that the "Son of David" (a messiah term) would be sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel -- save the Jews and they will save the world (Exodus 19 tells us that Israel is chosen to be a nation of priests and a light to the nations or gentiles)

8. She persists.

9. It is not right, Jesus says, to give bread prepared for children, to their dogs.* (Reminding her that she is not a Jew?). Perhaps this means, "Woman if you know about the Messiah, you will know this."

*As a Jew, you would expect Jesus to respond in this manner. What surprised everyone, was the woman's response.

10. The woman surprises all, even Jesus, with a declaration of faith that is bathed in humility. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs from their master's table." It is a statement that acknowledges the scripture (Salvation is from the Jews) and opens Jesus to the dreadful reality that will come. To be savior of the Jews, he must also be savior of the world and die a terrible death at the hands of some of the very people he came to save.

11. The question then comes, Did God use this woman to reveal this truth to Jesus? The transfiguration that takes place in chapter 17 of Matthew seems to put this forward. As Jesus tells his disciples that he must die, they reject it. In the transfiguration, God speaks to Peter, James and John and tells them: "This is my Son, the beloved. Listen to him." (LISTEN TO HIM). Could this also be affirmation for Jesus that he is on the right path. After this, Jesus steps beyond the hesitancy of his disciples and walks resolutely to Jerusalem. Even so, he must go through Gethsemane where he prays, Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. But if not, not my will, they will be done.


There is one other intermediate event worth noting that comes after the encounter with the woman: The second miracle of the loaves and fishes occurs after the encounter. And this time, seven (for the seven most mentioned Gentile nations?) baskets of bread are left over -- does this mean that the crowd is most likely all Gentile? Previously, there were twelve baskets left over for the 12 Tribes of Israel. Enough bread for Israel. Enough for the World.


Now the real question: What does this mean for us that Jesus might have experienced life as we do? Does it make Jesus less? Certainly not. It means that Jesus overcame the weakness of the flesh so that he could truly defeat sin in the flesh. If he overcame sin as God, we could not follow him. He overcame sin in his humanity. However, this does mean that he limited himself to knowing God's will in the same way that you and I may know the will of God. This is why he could entrust the gospel message to human beings.


If we pursue this, it can give us confidence to ask, seek and knock as Jesus taught us, so that we might also come to know God's will. Can we learn to tap into the same power that Jesus found through prayer, the support of the scripture, in learning to hear the voice of God and through knowing that God still send his messengers to watch over us (remember how the angels ministered to Jesus at times) in critical moments?


I offer this as dialogue as one who also seeks. Please feel free to raise issues and respond.


Sam