Category: Bible

Bible, sermon, Uncategorized

Nunc Coepi (Now I Begin!)

Posted on by Jay Givens

Judges 13-16

Philip Rivers was an eight-time Pro Bowl Quarterback who primarily played for the San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers. A Roman Catholic, Rivers frequently referenced a phrase he attributed to a nineteenth century priest: Nunc Coepi, which roughly translates as, “Now, I begin.” Rivers said this phrase helped him do his best. Whether he had a bad play or a good play, he would say, “Nunc Coepi!” (I must begin again.) Whether he threw a touchdown or an interception, he had to begin again. Nunc Coepi! He applied this to his work, to his faith, to his relationships, and to his life. So can we.

In the book of Judges, Samson is the person most discussed—four chapters. Jdg 13:2-5 begins with a great promise. Though his mother was barren and childless, the angel told her she would have a son. Nunc Coepi–she must begin again! This child was to be set apart as a Nazirite from birth. If a Hebrew took a Nazirite vow, they set themselves apart until the vow was fulfilled. Samson, however, was to be a Nazirite even from his mother’s womb. This meant he was never to drink wine or any fermented drink; he was never to touch anything dead; and he was never to cut his hair. (Normally, Hebrews would cut their hair at the fulfilment of their vow.) Samson had a divine call on his life. He was set apart to deliver the Israelites from the hands of the Philistines.

Yet throughout the chapters detailing the events of his life, we find that Samson denied his divine call. Instead of leading the fight against the Philistines, we always read about him being with the Philistines, especially Philistine women (his wife, a prostitute, Delilah). Slowly through the story, he violated his set apart status, cavalierly flaunting the rules given to him from birth. Though we are not explicitly told he drinks wine, the town of the woman he fell in love with is specifically said to have vineyards (Jdg 14:5). A few verses later, we read about what sounds like a bachelor party for his impending wedding (Jdg 14:10-11). In many other places in the Bible, we are told that feasting included drinking. It is hard to imagine this feast didn’t also include Samson drinking.

He joked and even bragged about touching dead things! He found bees making honey in the mouth of a lion carcass he had killed earlier. He ate some without telling his parents (obviously knowing they would rebuke him), thus touching an unclean dead body. But then he joked about it during the wedding feast in the form of a riddle to outwit his Philistine companions. Later, when the Philistines were attempting to kill him, he picked up a fresh donkey jawbone and used it as a club to kill a thousand Philistines. He then bragged about this feat by composing a verse and naming the place Jawbone Hill (Jdg 15:15-17)!

Finally, to get Delilah to quit nagging him, he told her the truth about his hair, the one remaining thing that set him apart as a Nazirite. If his hair was cut, he would be like any other man (Jdg 16:16-20). Sometimes, people think his hair was the key to his great strength, but it was only the final surrender of the things that set him apart to the Lord. His strength was from Lord (Jdg 16:20) through the empowering of the Holy Spirit (Jdg 13:25).

And so, Samson squandered his great promise. The Lord left him. The Philistines subdued him and gouged out his eyes. They turned him into a blind slave who worked for them. They would bring him out for entertainment in order to mock and insult him.

Samson’s story was intended by the author of Judges as a cautionary tale for the Israelites. Like Samson, they were born of great promise. The opening of Sarah’s womb was like the opening of Samson’s mother’s womb. The Exodus story was about the sudden birth of a new people of God who would enter a land promised to their ancestors. The Israelites were also set apart. Samson was to be a Nazirite. The Hebrews were rescued by God from slavery to be his treasured possession. As the Nazirite vow had rules to obey, so the Israelites were to obey the covenant to show their thankfulness to God for redeeming them from slavery (Exod 19:4-6). Like Samson, they violated the covenant (eventually losing their set apart status in the exile). They also had a divine calling. They were to be a kingdom of priests and a holy (set apart) nation. Through their communal life, they were to bless all the nations of the earth (Gen 22:18). Yet over and again, they wanted to be like all the other nations (1Sa 8:19-20).

Samson’s story is also a warning to the church! We were birthed in great promise through Christ Jesus’ defeat of death in his crucifixion and resurrection and his outpouring of life through the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:22-24; Rom 8:9-11). We are set apart through the filling of his Holy Spirit to love one another and to live as one body (2Cor 5:5; 1Jn 3:23-24; Eph 3:6). We have a divine calling to be his witnesses, to make disciples, and to labor for his kingdom (Acts 1:8; Mt 28:18-20; 1Tim 4:10). We must remember the great promise, maintain our set apart status, and live into our divine calling.

But even if we fail, hope remains. We are told in Judges 16:22 that Samson’s hair began to grow again. The hair is not magical or embued with power. It is simply a sign that he can reclaim his Nazirite status. Finally, at the end of his life, we read that Samson for the first time prays to God! It is never too late to turn back to God or call out to him (Jdg 16:28)! “Nunc Coepi!,” Samson thought. “Now I begin!” He placed his hands on the pillars of the temple filled with mocking Philistine crowds, pushed with all the might God bestowed upon him, and we are told his attempt to fulfill God’s call was greater in his death than it had been throughout his life (Jdg 16:29-30). So his tragic life ended in a tragic, though victorious, death.

But turning to God or rededicating yourself to him doesn’t have to have a tragic end. King Josiah found a scroll announcing the destruction of his nation. He was told by a prophetess that what was written there would only happen after his death, because he had repented on hearing the words. Did Josiah say (like King Hezekiah before him), “at least it won’t happen in my day!”? No. He said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” and started a massive reform movement throughout the land, attempting to change God’s mind! Though he wasn’t successful in stopping God’s destruction of Judah, he did delay it. And we are told that there was never a king before or after him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, soul, and strength (2Ki 23:25)! In the New Testament, Saul persecuted the early Christians, arresting many and standing in support of their death. One day, Jesus called him. Saul could have followed Jesus in a quiet manner but allowing his past actions to hold him back from service. But Paul instead said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” He became the most influential of the apostles, writing thirteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament.

In church history, just two examples more will suffice. Ignatius of Loyola was a military soldier known for womanizing and living a worldly life. A cannonball shattered his leg during one campaign. While convalescing, he began to read the lives of the saints and to reflect on the image of Jesus on the crucifix hanging on his bedroom wall. Suddenly, he said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” He not only became a committed follower of Christ but young men began to gather around him to learn from him of his way of devotion. This group eventually became the Society of Jesus (aka, Jesuits), which launched the first truly global missionary movement. John Newton was an English slave trader. After many years, he became a Christian. He said, “Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!” and studied to become an Anglican priest. He also an active abolitionist, helping to end the slavery in England. He is probably best known for writing the words to the hymn “Amazing Grace.”

Whether in your own life, your relationships with family or friends, your church, or your community, it is never too late to start something new. The venerable Bruno Lateri was the nineteeth century Roman Catholic priest Philip Rivers so often quoted. His full statement was, “If I should fall even a thousand times a day, I will with peace in my heart turn to God, ask his forgiveness, and begin again.”

Nunc Coepi! Now I begin!

0
Bible, Christian living, current-events

Whose Land Is It, Anyway?

Posted on by Jay Givens

I recently saw a meme floating around social media: “Israel doesn’t occupy the land.  They OWN it. Gen 15:18-21.” There were multiple amens attached.  Certainly, the intent was to show support for Israel in response to the horrific attack on civilians by Hamas last October.  While there is a promise made in Genesis 15, it is curious that a verse referencing “everlasting” was not used, such as Genesis 13:15.  “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.”  This promise to Abraham was restated to him (Gen 17:8), then confirmed to Isaac (Gen 26:3) and Jacob (Gen 35:12). 

The main problem with the meme, however, is that it assumes God’s promise was without condition.  That’s certainly the response of many to the meme: “God does not break his covenants;” “Truth!” “Of course!” “I stand with Israel.”  Yet the Bible itself does not support the idea that God gifted the land to Abraham’s descendants in perpetuity without condition.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Before we consider these conditions, however, we must first address the wording of the meme.  God’s promises to the Patriarchs does not mean Israel “owns” the land.  God explicitly rejects such a concept in Leviticus 25:23.  “The land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”  God is the only owner of the land.

God set conditions that the people must not sin but obey his commands in order to remain in the land (Deut 4:1; 5:33; 11:8-9; Josh 23:16; 2Chr 7:19-22; 33:7-9; Jer 11:5; 32:21-23).  Abraham, though a foreigner at the time, was told by God that the land was an everlasting possession for him and his descendants, and they must keep God’s covenant (Gen 17:8-9).  As Abraham was a foreigner in the land he possessed, so his later descendants were also foreigners.  Before entering the land, God warned Israel that if they did not keep his commands, the land would vomit them out as it did the Canaanites (Lev 18:25-28; 20:22).  By the monarchy’s end, God tells them, “You came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable” (Jer 2:7).  These detestable acts included idolatry (Deut 4:25-27; 11:16-17; 30:17-18, Josh 23:16; 1Ki 14:15-16; Jer 16:13-15) and unethical treatment of their fellow human beings.

If Israel wanted to remain in the land, they were to follow the way of justice, treating people fairly and without partiality (Deut 16:18-20).  They were not to mistreat the foreigner living among them, but were to treat them as native-born.  “Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt,” God commands (Lev 19:33-34).  Israel was driven from the land because of violence and bloodshed (Ezek 7:23-25), because they did not care for the orphan and the poor (Jer 5:28). 

Many American Christians think they are called to unwavering support of Israel, regardless of the civilian casualty count.  Some even believe Israel is entitled to the whole land, to expel the Palestinians.  This, however, contradicts the statements above (love the foreigner, care for the orphan and poor).  I believe it also misreads the biblical story, as the New Testament authors continuously spiritualized the return to the land and the restoration of Israel, reading these as the gathering of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.  For instance, the writer to the Hebrews says we don’t look toward the earthly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; 13:11-14), but join with the Hebrew faithful, who lived as foreigners and strangers on the earth . . . longing for a better country to come (Heb 11:13-16).  Remember, he’s writing to Hebraic Jews, saying the land and temple are no longer important.

Now God can give the land to whomever he wants, whether Israeli or Palestinian.  That is up to God.  But as Christians, we should not turn a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians—both Christian and Muslim—who did not take part in nor condone October 7.  We should not encourage Israel to violate the command of God, to limit retribution to no more than an eye for an eye (Exod 21:23-25).  1,200 died in Israel that day; why is it okay for 35,000 civilians to die in Gaza? (Even if these deaths have been overreported by 90%, that is still 3 “eyes” to 1!)

Even if the restoration texts apply to the modern state of Israel, they are not living by these texts.  The return described by the prophets were of a people with the law written on their hearts (Jer 31:31-34) of flesh, filled with God’s Spirit to obey the commands (Ezek 11:14-21; 36:22-32), and wholeheartedly fearing the Lord (Jer 32:36-41).  Isaiah says, strangers would be united to those returning (Isa 14:1-2).  Ezekiel adds that they would treat the foreigner residing in the land as a native-born and give them an inheritance in the land in whatever tribe they resided (Ezek 47:21-23).  God the shepherd would gathers his lost sheep, caring for the weak and injured but destroying the sleek and strong (Ezek 34:15-16).  It would seem Israel should strive to find a way to leave in peace with their Palestinian neighbors, not take their land nor prosper at their expense, lest they themselves be destroyed. 

The modern secular state of Israel does not live the righteous life described within the Hebrew Bible.  In many ways, their response is far more like the people of Ezekiel’s own day than his vision of the future people of God.  Just after Jerusalem’s fall to Babylon, the attacked people say to themselves: “Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land.  But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as our possession” (Ezek 33:24).  Yet God tells them they violated his commands, worshiped idols, shed the blood of the innocent, defiled their neighbor’s wives, and relied on their own sword rather than on him.  “Should you then possess the land?” (Ezek 33:25-26) asks the God who was, and is, and is to come (Rev 1:8).

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

0
Bible, Christian living, Jesus

When the Prodigal Son Met Esau and Cain

Posted on by Jay Givens

Luke 15; Genesis 4:1-16; 32:3-33:17

In Luke 15, Jesus tells a parable to the Pharisees and scribes, who were complaining that he hung out too much with tax collectors and sinners. Although many modern translations add subtitles to imply this chapter contains three distinct parables, Jesus really tells a single parable composed of three stanzas—a parable that ends without resolution. Jesus stops short of telling us the older son’s response to his father’s admonition, forcing the hearer/reader to reflect on what his or her own response would be in similar circumstances.

The repetitive framing of the parable suggests what the proper response should be.  A shepherd, who loses one sheep, will leave the ninety-nine until he finds that one, after which he throws a party to celebrate with friends.  A woman who loses one of ten valuable coins searches for it until she finds it, after which she throws a party to celebrate with friends.  Jesus ends both stories by comparing these earthly celebrations with the rejoicing of the angels in heaven when one sinner returns to God.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

In the final story of the parable, however, Jesus adds a sudden twist, breaking this frame of reference. Instead of ending with heaven rejoicing, Jesus creates a new scenario: “meanwhile, the other son . . .” The older brother represents Jesus’ critics, who have a choice. Will they be an older son like Adam’s older son Cain or like Isaac’s older son Esau? You see, Jesus embedded allusions to these two stories about rival siblings, which his religious critics would surely have noticed.

The younger son demands his inheritance and leaves for a far country, echoing the story of Jacob. Jacob stole his brother’s birthright and blessing, making Esau so angry with Jacob that the younger sibling had to flee for his mother’s homeland to avoid death. Jacob prospered in that foreign land, not (as he supposed) because of his many schemes, but because of God’s grace. In contrast to Jacob’s prospering, the prodigal threw wild parties until he sunk into abject poverty. When his hunger became so great he thought of eating with the unclean pigs he was tending, the prodigal suddenly realized his father’s servants were well fed and cared for, without having to do such humiliating work. When the prodigal left home, he had arrogantly demanded his rights as a son. Perhaps if he returned home renouncing those “rights,” his father would accept him as a servant. Knowing he deserved nothing, he humbly returned home with the hope his father would show mercy.

Jacob, on the other hand, returned home content with his wealth and family . . . until he heard his older brother Esau was coming with a large force of men. In terror, Jacob prayed, acknowledging for the first time that he was nothing more than God’s servant, unworthy of all the blessings he had received. The next day, when he went to face Esau, he fearfully and humbly bowed to the ground seven times as he approached. Fear motivated Jacob’s approach. Hope motivated the prodigal. As he journeyed, he rehearsed a speech over and over to himself: I am not worthy to be called a son. No doubt there was a little fear that his father would not accept him, but the prodigal’s hope persisted. We are told that, while the prodigal was still a long way off, the father responded to him just like Esau responded to his younger brother Jacob. Both ran to the one who had formerly affronted them. Both threw their arms around the returning wanderer and kissed them. Both rejoiced because, at last, they were reconciled. We are not told the father wept as Esau did, but likely this was part of the compassion that filled him upon seeing his son returning to him on that dusty road.

And then there is the older son in the prodigal story. When Jesus introduces him, he says that he was “in the field.”  Jesus wants us to think immediately of Cain, who took his younger brother out into the field in order to murder him.  Both Cain and the prodigal’s older brother lose face in relationship to their younger brothers.  For Cain, it was when God looked favorably on Abel’s sacrifice of the fat portions of the firstborn of his flock, but did not look favorably on his own offering of some of his produce.  In Jesus’ parable, instead of the younger son offering his heavenly father the fattened animal, Jesus says the prodigal’s father ordered the fatted calf to be killed so everyone could celebrate the younger son’s safe return.  The older son believed the father was dishonoring him through this misplaced celebration. Like the Pharisees and scribes, who thought Jesus was squandering his time with the riffraff, Cain wanted God’s attention and did not think his younger brother deserved what should rightly go to the older son.

Just as Cain became very angry over God’s response to Abel, the prodigal’s older brother became angry and refused to enter the house to attend the party.  Yet the older son is not exiled like Cain.  Instead, the father “exiles” himself from the party in order to plead with the older son to come into the house. He is like the shepherd, leaving the ninety-nine to find the one.  The older son refers to his daily duties at his father’s home as “slavery.”  Where are the blessings of sonship he deserves? Where is the party thrown in his honor for “never disobeying” the father’s “orders!”  The older son’s insistence on his right to be honored as a (slaving!) son is the opposite attitude of his younger brother, who wanted to be accepted only as a servant because he believed he no longer deserved to be called “son.”  The older son was like the servants in a later teaching of Jesus. He wanted to be praised, rather than saying what Jesus told us all to say: “We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty” (Lk 17:7-10).  Like Abel, the younger brother was honored because he came with a better gift.

So the question for the Pharisees and scribes was what type of older brother would they be to these tax collectors and sinners?  Would they be like the father, who followed the example of older brother Esau?  Both lost material wealth to the younger son, but ultimately both valued restoration of relationship far more than earthly treasures.  Neither accepted the returning one’s offer to become a servant; both restored the returning brother’s status as sons and heirs.  Or would the Pharisees and scribes be like the older brother, who patterned his response after Cain?  Both felt God/the father didn’t honor their firstborn status.  Both thought their service deserved more praise than it received.  The question Jesus leaves hanging is whether we (not just the Pharisees and scribes long ago) will respond like Esau—rejoicing that the lost one has been found and restored—or like Cain—angry at the other and prideful about our own self-worth.  Even if we don’t murder these younger brothers and sisters, do we sin against them in our heart (Mt 5:21-24)?

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Painting: The Return of the Prodigal by Pompeo Batoni (1773), public domain, accessed 4 January 2024 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son#/media/File:Pompeo_Batoni_003.jpg

0
Bible, Christian living, creation care

Wildflowers in the Field (Earth Day 2023)

Posted on by Jay Givens

Originally written as a devotional for Creation Care Week 2023 at Wayland Baptist University.

Jesus said . . . “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. . . .  Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!”

Luke 12:22, 27-28, NIV

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Easter weekend, as I drove through Central Texas, I marveled at the fields of bluebonnets and Indian paintbrush.  I took some time to stop and photograph along the drive. The experience reminded me of this passage in Luke. 

Jesus taught his disciples to trust God and not worry about the needs of life.  If God is a gracious and good Father, why would he not care for his children?  God cares for all of his creation.  Just look out in the fields, Jesus said.  God lovingly decorates the grasses of the fields with wildflowers, so that they are more wondrous than a king’s finest robes.  God does this even though the grass and wildflowers are only here a short time.  The grass is “here today and tomorrow is thrown into the clibanos,” an earthen vessel used for baking bread (translated as “fire” in NIV).  God cares for the most commonplace elements of his creation, something so mundane that humans gather it as fuel to make their bread.  Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread.  Here we learn that God royally clothes the very things we take for granted while cooking that bread.  If today he clothes the grass that is gone tomorrow, how much more will he care for our needs?

Just as God cares for his creation, he calls us to join him in caring for creation and for one another.  This is part of what it means to be created in his image.  Lady Bird Johnson heard this call in the 1965.  Inspired by the wildflower seeding program of the Texas Highway Department, she convinced her husband to push for the Highway Beautification Act.  Known as “Lady Bird’s Bill,” it included a provision to plant wildflowers across the nation’s Interstate highways.  Lee Clippard, director of communications at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, described her care for creation.  “People wanted to see beautiful flowers and beautiful landscapes, but she saw it as a way to heal the land.  She knew it was a way to improve the lives of people.  She always saw landscapes and people together.” (Texas Highways, 7 April 2019).

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

0
Bible, Christian living, Jesus

Reflections on a Donkey, Crying Stones, and Jesus’ Tears

Posted on by Jay Givens

A Rebuke of Culture Wars and Religious Nationalism

Each year, Christians celebrate Palm Sunday, Jesus’ so-called “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem.  The gospels do depict the crowds celebrating triumphantly, but what if Jesus himself was rebuking his own followers? What if he did not agree with their hopes for the Messiah? What do Jesus’ actions and words really say in Luke 19:28-44, if we have ears to hear?

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

A Donkey

Jesus excited his disciples’ imagination by taking the route of Joshua toward Jerusalem (crossing the Jordan into Jericho).  Then he sent two disciples on a secret mission. Was this not the same number of spies Joshua sent to prepare the Conquest? Maybe they were scouting out Jerusalem’s defenses! Instead, they return with a donkey. Readers have wondered how Jesus knew this donkey would be tied up. Some think the owner has great faith to surrender his animal to unknown people simply because, “the Lord needs it!” Yet it is far more likely Jesus pre-arranged this with the owner.  He would tie up his donkey on this day and recognize Jesus’ men if they used the correct passphrase. Perhaps this is why John abbreviates the entire story: “Jesus found a young donkey.” John and Matthew quote this event as a fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, but they do not mean it was a series of divine coincidences. Jesus intentional acted out this prophecy as a proclamation he was Messiah, and what he understood this to mean.

Many Jews believed Zech 9:9 was part of a prophecy that Messiah would bring peace for the Jews through a war against the nations.  Their response to Jesus riding a donkey fits this common Jewish hope.  People threw cloaks down before Jesus’ path, just like Jehu’s men when Elisha anointed him to become King of Israel.  Interestingly, there was already a King of Israel! Jehu became Messiah to assassinate King Joram. People also waved palm branches and threw them down before Jesus, just as Jews did a century earlier during the Maccabean Revolt. Simon was greeted by cheering crowds and palm branches after his army liberated Jerusalem from Syrian occupation and cleansed the temple. Finally, Matthew, Mark, and John tell us the crowds shouted out Hosanna! Save us! The people had nationalistic dreams Jesus would successfully lead a rebellion against the Romans.

Crying Stones

Luke makes it clear this is how the Pharisees interpreted these events since they tell Jesus to quiet his disciples. No doubt they were eyeing the Roman soldiers standing watch on Jerusalem’s walls, fearing they might become agitated and move to put down this apparent protest movement calling for rebellion. Instead of quieting his disciples, however, Jesus replied, “If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Perhaps Jesus’ disciples thought he was referencing Habakkuk 2:10, where the stones of the walls would cry out against the injustices they bore witness to within the city. After all, Luke emphasizes the crowd is descending into the Kidron Valley.  Across the valley, they could all see the massive stones of Jerusalem’s walls.

Jesus’ Tears

Then, Jesus wept as he looked across at Jerusalem. He mourned that the people did not grasp the true meaning of peace. He wept because his people’s desire to defeat the cultural intrusion of Rome through physical force would result in the loss of all the institutions they held dear. He shed tears because his beloved people loved the power and glory of Jerusalem, the temple, and the land of Israel. They hoped Jesus was the strong man they needed to make Israel great once again through a violent expulsion of the Romans.

The Rebuke of a Prophetic Act

Jesus, however, had a very different vision for the Kingdom and his role as Messiah. Riding a donkey was not a message of conquest. The “triumphal entry” surrounding him was just Satan’s latest temptation to lure Jesus to desire the very power structures he had rejected since the voice from heaven told him his role as Messiah was to be a suffering servant.  Jesus intentionally acted out Zechariah 9:9 rather than some other messianic prophecy precisely because of his rejection of Messiah as conquering king. Zechariah was the only Israelite prophet who emphasized another aside from the king who was also anointed with oil—the chief priest. Jesus riding a donkey was pointing us to reflect on the entire book of Zechariah.  Zechariah 4 speaks of two trees pouring out oil into a single lampstand.  They are called two Messiahs (king and priest). Zechariah 6 then orders a crown to be placed on the chief priest, who will rule from his throne and bring “harmony between the two” (king and priest). Zechariah shifts the focus from the king to the priest.  Jesus proclaimed himself to be a priest-king.  He would serve his people’s spiritual needs rather than rule with might to enforce his people’s desire for power and prestige. John understood Jesus to be priest-king.  John has Jesus quote Zech 6:13 (rebuild the temple) as justification for cleansing the temple (John 2:19) and Pilate quote Zech 6:12 (here is the man) as he presents Jesus before the crowd in purple robe and crown of thorns (John 19:7).

Not only was the donkey Jesus’ rebuke of violent revolution, but his statement that the stones would cry out was not about the stones of Jerusalem’s walls. As noted before, Luke emphasizes the crowd was going down the Mount of Olives into the Kidron Valley. This area, both then and now, was a vast Jewish graveyard. There were stones everywhere: in front of tombs as well as atop crypts. The stones themselves would not be crying out, Hosanna! Save us! Rather, it would be the dead behind those stones shouting out for Jesus to remember them when he came into his Kingdom. In Zechariah, there is a promise from God attached to the one who rides the donkey: “because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit” (9:11). Jesus’ decision to be a priest-king, to sacrifice his life, would result in the salvation of those who were in the grave (the waterless pit) as well as those of us who have yet to die. This Prophet like Moses would not liberate the people from slavery to an occupying force.  His exodus would lead people out of the grave!  This Messiah had not come to defeat the Romans.  He would destroy the common enemy of all people (whether Jew or Roman): death itself.

Jesus wept because he knew many there that day rejoicing in his enactment of a messianic claim would ultimately reject his servant priest-king conception of what it meant to be Messiah. They would instead follow after various revolutionaries who rose up before and after him, until the Romans eventually had enough and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.  As with this “triumphal entry,” Jesus’ whole life was a repudiation of power politics and cultural wars. Jesus foresaw the exaltation of religious nationalism as the destruction of his people . . . and he wept. When will American Christians put off the power dynamics of Cain and put on the servant righteousness of Jesus the Messiah?

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Reflections on a Donkey, Crying Stones, and Jesus’ Tears

0
Bible, Christian living, creation care

Creation Cries Out

Posted on by Jay Givens

A devotional written for Creation Care Week at Wayland Baptist University. Published on Earth Day 2022.

If you missed it somehow, a war is raging in Ukraine the past two months.  While stories of the war seem ever-present in our newscasts and newsfeeds, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is by no means the only war presently occurring in the world.  What, you might ask, does war have to do with Creation Care?

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

War does not only have a heavy human toll through death, dismemberment, and mental trauma.  Nor is it limited to the destruction of cities and infrastructure necessary for civilization and human thriving.  War also affects the environment.  One study of greenhouse gas emissions released by weapons of war discovered 1.2 million metric tons of gases were released during the twenty year global War on Terror—an annual emissions rate more than double that generated by all U.S. automobiles.  Wildfires from incendiary bombs or simply human negligence is another threat.  In 2008, a wildfire destroyed large portions of the forests of Borjomi and Khagarauli national parks during Russia’s war with Georgia.  During the battles around the port city of Kherson, fires erupted in the Black Sea Biosphere Refuge, fires severe enough to be seen from space.  The biosphere was the winter home for many migratory birds and an important breeding habitat.  Even when habitats aren’t destroyed, the frequent movement of troops and equipment and the constant noise of war leads to disruption of the animal population.  According to a Georgian environmentalist, there was a noticeable migration of animals fleeing over the Caucasus Mountains from Chechnya to Georgia during the Chechen insurrection against the Russian Federation in the 1990s.

War also creates ecological damage when human industry is targeted.  Intentional damage to oil export equipment along the Black Sea has destroyed marine habitat.  The sudden closures of mines in the Donbas region as civilians flee the current Russian assault may result in toxins seeping into aquifers as no one is at the mines to ensure proper pumping operations.  Chemical plants and nuclear power plants could being hit, releasing toxins or radioactive material into the atmosphere, land, and watershed.  And the ecological impact of this war isn’t limited to Europe.  Ukraine and Russia account for a third of grain exports worldwide.  Between the Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports and Western sanctions against Russian exports, the United Nations warns a food crisis will likely impact Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

Creation is in distress because of human actions.  As Paul puts it, “creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it” yet there is still “hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into . . . freedom and glory.”  This hope is rooted in creation’s “eager expectation” for the disclosure (apokalupsin) of the “Sons of God.”  Creation waits for this hope, groaning in its suffering and crying out in its anticipation of this apocalyptic moment when the Sons of God reveal themselves as healers, redeemers, and liberators (Rom 8:18-22).  Now, your English translation might have “children of God” (as the NIV does) instead of the literal “Sons of God.”  “Children” certainly is a more inclusive term and does fit Paul’s overall meaning, but “children” loses the symbolic nuance of what Paul is asserting. 

The term “Son of God” was a term for the kings of ancient Israel.  When Jesus was called “Son of God” during his earthly life, those who used the title meant the human king who would restore David’s kingdom.  (Only after the resurrection does the title begin to develop divine signification.)  Paul says Christians are kings (and queens).  We are part of Christ’s mission.  We are to work to establish the Kingdom of God.  Paul tells us we are adopted as sons (and daughters) by God to be “co-heirs” with Christ, sharing both in his suffering and in his glory (Rom 8:15-17).  Jesus himself referred to believers as Sons of God.  “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. . . .  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God” (Matt 5:5, 9).  Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has argued that Vladimir Putin is the Defender of the Russian Orthodox faith on a divine mission to reclaim the sacred lands of Holy Rus (a land that includes Ukraine).  Yet Jesus says the true Sons of God are not warmongers or authoritarian strongmen, whether Tiberius Caesar or Vladimir Putin, but are instead meek peacemakers.

As we strive to see the Lord’s Prayer realized, working with the Father to bring earth into alignment with his will just as heaven already is (Matt 6:10), we should be reconcilers, peacemakers, and healers—not just for humans, not only for societies, but for creation itself.  While we will not fully realize our potential until Jesus returns and the Kingdom comes in its fullness, we are called today to live in the Spirit and to strive to live up to our calling as kings and queens (i.e., Sons of God) co-reigning with Jesus.  Can you hear creation?  It cries out with Jesus, “Blessed are the meek!  Blessed are the peacemakers!”

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

References

Image by Anastasia Vlasova from Getty Images as used in the ABC News story below. “A rocket sits in a field near grazing cows on April 10, 2022 in Lukashivka village, Ukraine.”

The Holy Bible, New International Version, NIV. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011 (with clarifying modification).

Anthes, Emily. “A ‘Silent Victim’: How Nature Becomes a Casualty of War.” The New York Times, April 20, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/science/war-environmental-impact-ukraine.html

Jacobo, Julia. “Experts Predict Lasting Environmental Damage from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” ABC News, April 20, 2022. https://abcnews.go.com/International/experts-lasting-environmental-damage-russias-invasion-ukraine/story?id=83347671

Kekenadze, Davit. “The Environment: The Silent Causualty of the Ukraine War.” Euronews, April 17, 2022. https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/17/the-environment-the-silent-casualty-of-the-ukraine-war

1
Bible, Jesus, sermon

When All Is Lost, Look to the Cross!

Posted on by Jay Givens

There is perhaps no better known verse in all the Bible than John 3:16.  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (NIV).  Tim Tebow wore this scripture reference on his eye black during the 2009 National Championship.  During the game, Google reported over 90 million searches for the verse!  Even though the verse is well-known even by non-Christians, however, many Christians read the verse in isolation and do not consider its context within John’s gospel.  In particular, the two verses that precede it state, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him” (John 3:14-15, NIV).

The story of the snake Moses lifted in the wilderness is in Numbers 21:4-9.  Jesus says that he himself must be lifted up as the snake, so it is important to understand what this snake was and how it functioned in the story of Moses to understand better the love of God for the world and why he would send his Son.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

The Snake Lifted Up in the Wilderness

First, we find that the people rebelled against God.  They grew impatient and questioned God’s ways.  They said he brought them to the desert to die, when in reality he was leading them through the desert to a land promised to their ancestors.  They complained there was no water, even though, by this point in the narrative, God had provided water on two occasions when it was desperately needed.  The people even asserted there was no bread, even though each morning they found a miraculous substance on the ground, a gift from God, which they could harvest, grind, and bake into bread.  But instead of being thankful for this bread from heaven, they despised it and called it “miserable” and “detestable.” 

What the people don’t seem to understand is that God was providing the best for them in the midst of a very bad situation.  They began to romanticize their old life in Egypt.  It isn’t stated in this story, but we read elsewhere how they reminisced about the diversity of food back in Egypt—forgetting they had been suffered as slaves there.  They also ignore the reality that the only reason they are even in the wilderness at this point was their lack of faith.  God had taken them rather quickly to the very edge of the Promised Land of Canaan, but instead of trusting God would help them conquer the land, they rebelled in their fear, so God cursed them to wander for forty years in the wilderness.  Yet despite their complaints and rebellion, God remained with them, guiding them and providing for them daily.

Even today we often think we know better than God and so we go our own way.  Sometimes we make destructive decisions for short-term moments of pleasure.  Other times, we act on what we think is a great opportunity only to discover many hidden traps.  Perhaps worst of all are the times we act like the these Israelites, following God half-heartedly but grumbling the entire time.  We neglect to see how our choices lead to slavery, lifelong consequences, hardened and embittered hearts, and/or even death.  This, however, is what the Israelites soon discovered.

Second, God judges the people’s sin.  Snakes came among the people and began to bite them.  Many of the affected people died.  If they thought God’s gift of Manna was miserable, just imagine how they felt now!  While some see the story as the act of a vengeful or vindictive God, the bigger picture emphasizes God is with the people through both good and bad times.  He is judging them not to punish so much as to discipline them.  Like a parent, he sees the direction their immediate choices will have on their future and the future of their children.  God hopes to correct them now so that they will mature in their faith and enjoy a better in the future.  He want to make them aware of their sinful state and its impact on their relationship with him and with each other.

Third, the people repent of their sins.  They agree with God that their actions are wrong (“we sinned against God”) and they ask Moses to pray for them.  Asking Moses to pray doesn’t mean they need a “professional” to whom they confess their sins.  Rather, it is a recognition that their sin wasn’t just against God but also against Moses’ leadership (“and we sinned against you”).  Asking Moses to pray for them was an act of repentance and reconciliation, acknowledging him as their appointed leader.  What is far more significant than who should pray, however, is what they ask him to pray: “take the snakes away”!

Finally, the Lord provided deliverance.  Moses is told to make a bronze snake and put it on a pole.  What God does is take the object of their suffering and affliction—the snakes—and turn it into the source of their healing and deliverance.  Death, in the shadow of the bronze snake, is transformed into life.  Chaos is given order.  Despair gives way to hope as one looks in faith upon the very image of despair.

Notice God says anyone “can look.”  When someone was bitten, they didn’t have to look.  If they did so, it was an act of trusting God, an act of faith. . . . but they didn’t have to.  In fact, what sense did it make?  There was a far more obvious solution: kill the snakes!  Don’t wait to get bitten.  But if you were bitten, there was a a more sensible action: take steps to remove the poison before it filtered through your body!  Imagine if a man showed up in Mariupol, Ukraine holding a staff with a bronze artillery shell on it.  If he told the people there, whenever you hear the whistle of an incoming shell, you’ll be fine if you just look at this bronze shell and trust God, they would think he was mad!  There are far better options!  Find an evacuation route to get out of the city.  Why stay in harm’s way?  Flee to a bunker to ride out the shelling.  Why remain in the open?  But this is just how ludicrous Moses probably sounded to the people back then.  Yet salvation doesn’t come through our own actions.  It comes from God and we need to trust him to provide for us in our times of need.

Also notice that God didn’t take the snakes away as the people requested.  Instead, God gave the people a bronze snake.  We are told that “when anyone was bitten,” if they looked at the symbol, they lived.  But God didn’t remove the snakes, at least not right away.  He provided a way through the situation, a way to bear up under it.  When someone becomes a Christian, they aren’t immediately translated into the Kingdom of God.  Rather, they remain here in this world of suffering, pain, and death.  But now they have been reconciled to God and he promises to provide them a way through the suffering, a way that leads towards healing and hope.  For the Israelites, they endured the snakes for a time.  They endured the wilderness for even longer.  But their story didn’t end there.  The goal was the Promised Land, the Land of Canaan that became the Land of Israel.  So we look to a future full of healing, joy, and life in the Kingdom of God, a hope made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Son of Man Lifted Up on Calvary

Here is the meaning of John 3.  Just as the snake was lifted up, so the Son of Man would be hung on a cross.  In the first century world, the cross was the most humiliating form of execution.  It was purposefully torturous to emphasize why no one should consider rebelling against the Roman Empire.  It was a symbol of rebellion, futility, and death.  Yet today, Christians see the cross as a symbol of forgiveness, hope, and life.  Many wear it as jewelry or hang it as art in their homes.  The snake and the cross were both objects of suffering and death that were transformed by the creative work of God into sources of healing and life.  Both were means of his salvation.  Christians hope for new life because the cross wasn’t the final word.  The cross was followed by the empty tomb, Jesus raised from the dead now seated in heaven.  Jesus suffered and died for us that we might live for him as we look to him in faith.

Just as in the wilderness, God doesn’t want to condemn the world.  He sent his Son to be lifted up so he could draw all people to himself.  But we have a choice, just as the dying Israelites did when bitten by the snakes.  “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (Jn 3:17-18).  Just as the snakes were already destroying the people because of their rebellion, so we are already separated from God and dying on account of our own sinful actions and choices.  There is only one choice that can heal.  When all is lost, look to the cross!

https://www.usatoday.com/

Father Brian Jordan ministered to the workers at Ground Zero during the months of cleanup after September 11, 2001.  One day after mass, one of the construction workers, Frank Silecchia, approached him and asked, “Do you want to see God’s house?”  Soon, Father Jordan found himself descending with Mr. Silecchia into the rubble of the fallen towers.  After a while, they reached the lowest-most level where the foundation had been lain.  Eventually, they stood in front of a steel column that had survived the destruction.  Attached to the column that rose from the ground was a steel girder, a crossbeam, which held fast despite the weight of the building’s collapse.  As the priest looked into the eyes of the workers there, he saw hope rising within them from this remnant.  In the midst of the rubble and chaos of death and destruction all around them, these two steel beams stood in the shape of a cross.  These beams weren’t not simply part of the wreckage.  They were something far more significant.  These beams were a symbol of hope and endurance.  All was not lost in the shadow of the cross.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

When All Is Lost, Look to the Cross!
John 3:14-18 / Numbers 21:4-9

0
Bible, Christian living

When Life Comes Crashing Down

Posted on by Jay Givens

How do we respond to life crashing down around us? The prophet Jeremiah understood this question all too well. He was called to be God’s servant in Jerusalem during the final decades of the Hebrew monarchy. Jeremiah had to help his countrymen wrestle with trusting God while the Babylonian army laid siege to their city on multiple occasions. He wrote to the first wave of exiles to Babylon, encouraging them to make sense of the radical changes in their life. He attempted to help those left behind to understand how God could possibly be in control of all the chaos surrounding them. He himself felt the weight of years of seemingly fruitless ministry and cried out to God: How long did he have to keep doing this? What was the value of his existence? Ultimately, Jeremiah wasn’t even able to remain in the land of his birth. He was kidnapped by Jews fleeing to Egypt–Jews who subsequently refused to listen to his encouragement to rebuild their relationship with God.

Within the book of Jeremiah, there are two stories placed back to back to emphasize the two different responses we can have whenever the very foundations of our life is shaken to the core. These stories appear in Jeremiah 18:1-12 and 19:1-15. Whether it was the nation of Judah in the sixth century B.C., America in the twenty-first, our community, our church, or our individual lives–these two stories show us the right and wrong way to respond to crisis.

Subscribe to receive email notifications of new posts

In the first story, God tells Jeremiah to go and watch a potter at work on his potter’s wheel. Jeremiah sees a clay pot being made by the potter, but as he watches the pot becomes imperfect. The potter then smashes down the clay pot and begins his work all over again. Soon, a new pot rose up out of the clay that once had been the first pot. The new pot did not retain the imperfections of the first pot. It was new . . . yet it originated from the same old lump of clay. God spoke to Jeremiah in that moment. God asked Jeremiah if he could not do the same thing to the nation if they would turn to him and trust him. God told Jeremiah that even though life as the Judahites had known it was going to be completely upended by the terrible destruction that was coming, he could use this troubling time to rebuild the nation into something better . . . if the people would trust him through the chaos. Isaiah, at a different point in time, used the same imagery to emphasize that we are nothing more than clay; God alone is the potter. We cannot reform ourselves or work away the flaws within us. We must trust him with our lives–flaws and all–and believe that he can rework us into something beautiful and useful to his service. And so we pray not only that God will remake us but will not remember our sins forever (Is 64:7-9).

In the second story, God told Jeremiah to purchase a finished pot from the potter’s home and take it, along with the elders, to the valley of Ben Hinnom, a place containing shrines to various foreign gods. Jeremiah told the people judgment was coming to the nation and it would be as destructive as what was about to happen to the pot in his hands. Jeremiah then threw the pot down to the ground and it shattered into irreparable pieces.

What was the difference between these two pots? Why did one shatter so it could never be put back together while the other could be remolded and reformed? The answer is in the character of the pots themselves. The pot in the first story was still made of soft clay while the pot in the second story had been hardened in a kiln’s fire. Jeremiah was telling the people that the life-shattering events coming to Jerusalem could not be stopped. The city would fall. The temple would be destroyed. Many would be killed and others taken into exile. Only a few would remain in the land, but life as everyone knew it was coming to an end. Life was going to crash down around them. That was inevitable. But how it would impact them wasn’t? If their hearts were still soft, if they trusted God and held on to the steadfast hope that the potter was compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in love and faithfulness (Ps 86:15), God could reform them into something new. This did not have to be the end, even though the smashing was coming. God could work even that destruction for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purposes (Rom 8:28). If they resisted, however, if their hearts were hardened to his work and his call, if they loved the other gods more than him, then the very same smashing would destroy their lives and leave them irreparably damaged.

You can see these two responses play out in life-shattering events all the time. The same situation can hit two families or two individuals. While both have their lives upended, one family comes closer together through the experience while the other is ripped apart; one individual finds new life and new purpose even in the midst of heartache while the other turns to drugs or alcohol to numb the pain, or even to suicide in hopes of escape.

In all of our lives, there are times when the world crashes down upon us. When those times come, some of us cry out to God in the midst of our brokenness while others try to rebuild our lives on our own. Peter and Judas both experienced the sorrow of Jesus not starting the revolution they hoped he came to lead. Both saw Jesus sentenced to crucifixion. Judas let it destroy his life. He only saw the crucifixion but didn’t wait to see what lay beyond. He only focused on his role in bringing it to pass. On the other hand, Peter, even though he ran away instead of defending Jesus and denied knowing him in order to avoid his own death, discovered hope on the other side of the sorrow. He experienced the resurrected Jesus. Both these men’s stories revolve around the story of Jesus, who himself experienced the crashing down of life in his betrayal, suffering, and agonizing death. Yet in the midst of the darkness, Jesus entrusted himself to his Father, who proved himself faithful by raising Jesus from the dead. So when life crashes down, be like Jesus and trust God all the way through to the end. Keep your heart soft and attentive to God in the midst of the chaos. Avoid the temptation to harden your heart and reject the help of God and others. The same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is living and active today in the midst of your chaos.

newborn – we are tender and weak
in death – we are rigid and stiff

living plants are supple and yielding
dead branches are dry and brittle

so the hard and unyielding belong to death
and the soft and pliant belong to life

an inflexible army does not triumph
an unbending tree breaks in the wind

thus the rigid and inflexible will surely fail
while the soft and flowing will prevail

Tao Te Ching 76
0
Bible, Christian living

What about Phoebe? When Scripture “Contradicts” Scripture

Posted on by Jay Givens

Rick Warren has done it now, if you listen to some of the current leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention. While I appreciate much of what current president J.D. Greear has tried to do to guide the SBC through the pandemic and the many politically tumultuous issues that have occurred in the past year, I do not support Greear’s view that Saddleback Church’s ordination of three women pastors is “disappointing,” because Scripture “clearly reserves the office of pastor . . . for qualified men.” Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and candidate for SBC President in 2021, sees this action as going against the “codified . . . convictional issues” of the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, which he calls a “clear” statement several times in his blog. I do not doubt he considers it clear, since he was its primary architect (according to a 2000 letter I received from Adrian Rogers, the BFM chair, directing me to Mohler when I asked why the criterion of faith statement had been removed). Another presidential candidate, Mike Stone, says SBC churches do not have to adhere to every point of the BFM (2000), but he does support removing the SBC’s second largest congregation from the convention because of this issue. It appears Stone views the ordination of women as a doctrine of the first order, on par with denial of the triunity of God or the deity of Jesus.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

These men appeal to the Bible for the view that men only may hold the title of pastor, primarily 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Mohler connects this issue to 1) liberal theology, 2) liberation theology, 3) “second wave” feminism, and 4) LGBTQ issues, assuming that one or more of these underlies the motives of any Baptist who, though holding a high view of Scripture, comes away with a different reading of the text. While Mohler is clearly driven by a cultural war mentality prevalent in many sectors of American Evangelical Christianity, Greear seems more open to engagement with contemporary culture in his blog and position paper. Yet both Mohler and Greear come to similar views, making a distinction between “minister” (which both men and women can hold as a title) and “pastor” (which may only apply to men). They do not mean only the “senior pastor,” as Mohler articulates in his blog (saying that is an unbiblical term). They mean that a woman may be called a “youth minister” but not a “youth pastor.” The latter implies “authority” while the former indicates you are “under” some elder or pastor’s direction. In Greear’s position paper, he creates non-biblical categories of “general teaching” and “special teaching” (which he also calls “elder teaching”). Women can do the first with both men and women present, but they cannot do the latter. For instance, the position paper says women cannot preach the “weekend sermon” because that implies the woman’s speech “functionally acts with the authority of an elder.” (Interestingly, the paper cites Lottie Moon’s work in China to men and women positively but assumes it was not “preaching” or “elder teaching.” This is strange when Kevin Howard on SBC Voices stands against Moon’s teaching men as part of her mission work in China.) Mohler completely dismisses any Christian who wrestles with the whole of Scripture when he thinks his selected proof-texts settle the issue. “Simply put, the only way to affirm women serving in the pastoral role is to reject the authority and sufficiency of biblical texts such as 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.”

This is disingenuous. Its black and white approach ignores the multicolored world of Baptist life. The Baptist Standard noted that some Southern Baptist churches clearly had a different perspective on women preaching from the pulpit. It noted Anne Graham Lotz spoke at Second Baptist, Houston, the SBC’s largest congregation. (Billy Graham called his daughter “the best preacher I’ve ever heard,” not son Franklin.) Beth Moore and Kay Warren preached at other SBC churches on Mother’s Day.

Baptist scholar E. Earle Ellis, deceased professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and renowned in his day as a premier New Testament scholar, argued 1 Corinthians 14 was not about all women but was narrowly focused on the wife of a husband when both were prophets within the congregation (The Making of the New Testament Documents). Ellis, a complementarian like Mohler and Greear, noted the injunction for women to be silent is in a chapter on the proper use of gifts within orderly worship and immediately follows instructions to prophets to speak one at a time while the other prophets weigh the prophecy being uttered. Ellis said Paul’s emphasis was that the spirits giving rise to prophecy were “under the control” of the prophets (so they could speak or not speak as appropriate to the situation), and this applied to a wife “weighing in” on the prophetic speech of her husband. If the husband stood to prophesy, the wife should not speak in public regarding her husband’s prophecy, whether for or against its authenticity, as part of her official ministry to test the spirits (a role she was expected to play with any other member of the community and which sounds surprisingly like “elder teaching” which Greear says women should not do). In other words, she shouldn’t create a public spectacle by disagreeing (perhaps out of an emotional flareup about a pre-service disagreement on some other matter, according to Ellis’s in-class commentary) nor should she attest to the truth of his prophecy (when it could be planned collusion somewhat akin to the Ananias and Sapphira story, again based on Ellis’s in-class commentary). Ellis viewed 1 Timothy 2 as a pre-formed tradition based on the 1 Corinthians 14 passage and so applying in the same limited scope. (I personally find the 1 Timothy 2 passage the more problematic one, as there doesn’t seem to be a clear context that provides explanation for his injunction.)

Ellis’s reading of the text is but one of several ways to understand the context for 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 as a temporal prohibition on women’s speech that might not be an eternal mandate or prohibition from the role of pastor. (For example, some see the prohibition as referencing the general lack of educational opportunities for women in the first century. They shouldn’t ask questions during the service but wait and ask in private afterwards. If that were the case, then universal education in twenty-first century America should not create the same barrier for pastoral leadership.)

Now, to the point of this blog’s title. There is the curious status of Phoebe in the letter to the Romans. She is mentioned at the start of the final chapter. Without mentioning her by name, Greear’s position paper takes account of Phoebe’s role as a deacon of Cenchreae in its allowance that women might serve in Summit Church as deacons. But Phoebe is only standing before the Roman church as the letter is first read (and thus in need of introduction to the church within the letter) because she was the letter’s carrier. As Baptist scholar E. Randolph Richards notes in his chapter on Paul’s use of letter carriers (Paul and First-Century Letter Writing), Paul did not consider the role of letter carrier lightly. Whether it was Timothy, Titus, Tychicus–or Phoebe!–the letter carrier was Paul’s envoy to the church. The letter carrier was trained before going in how to perform the letter before the community. (Many scholars prefer the term “perform” to “read” because there would have been rhetorical flourishes intended as one read the text in public.) Once the letter was read, Paul expected the letter carrier to be able to answer any questions about Paul’s meaning within the letter. Do you see the issue that results if Phoebe was the letter carrier? She read the Scripture to the whole congregation–both men and women. She stood in the place of Paul as his representative. She likely did this on the Lord’s Day (during what Greear calls the “weekend sermon” from which women are prohibited in his church). When she answered questions about the letter, she spoke with the authority of Paul himself (using what Greear refers to as “special teaching” or “elder teaching”–speaking with the authority of the elder Paul, one of the four primary leaders of the early Christian movement). She authoritatively taught men and women the truth of the gospel.

So what do you do when one Scripture (Rom 16:1-2) seems to contradict another Scripture (1 Tim 2:12-14)? Many scholars and pastors would say that you have to listen to the arc of the entire biblical narrative. What is the trajectory of the biblical witness? What is the direction toward which it is pointing that would allow continued movement beyond the written text of any specific passage? As Baptist E.Y. Mullins used to say, the Bible didn’t create the community. The Bible came into being within the community (The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression) and the community continues to grow and develop beyond the writings of the Bible but always under its direction. Phoebe (and Priscilla and others) seem to indicate that, while there certainly is a prohibitive statement about wives being quiet in church, there were exceptions to this rule that were setting us on the trajectory that “you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

It appears Mohler rejects this Biblical trajectory approach to the Bible, that there can be a hermeneutical arc that points in the direction of a specific position that lies beyond what is literally stated in the text. Mohler asserts, “the Holy Scriptures have not changed and cannot change.” Yet this concept is found within the biblical community itself. (For example, the Jerusalem Council tells Gentiles to avoid meat offered to idols yet Paul later gives some caveats to this prohibition when they do not fall within religious contexts.) Without this arc of biblical narrative premise, how could Baptists develop a doctrine of the sanctity of the unborn? There is not a specific text about abortion. Instead, the sanctity of the unborn is argued as the logical conclusion to a biblical arc of passages affirming the sanctity of life of the born and the sacred mystery of God’s work in the womb.

Mohler labels any attempt to interpret statements like 1 Cor 14 or 1 Tim 2 on the basis of textual or historical contexts “revisionist arguments” and “biblical subversion.” Certainly such condemnations were made of Martin Luther when he re-read the doctrine of justification in a new way and launched the Reformation movement. He also appeals to the long history within the Christian tradition as evidence that ordination of women as pastors is wrong. The same thing was said about the Anabaptists and Baptists when they rejected infant baptism after a millennium of such practice. Baptist and Protestant theology is based on the belief that we are unable to read the text from an omniscient or untainted vantage point, knowing we cannot read without error. This is why the churches of the Reformation are the churches which are always reforming, though our basis of faith must always be the God-breathed Scriptures as we read within the Body of Christ through the empowering work of the Sprit.

To look at the issue from another perspective, why do Greear and Mohler take Paul literally to say that women can never at any time teach or have authority over a man yet they do not take the next injunction literally, that women are only and ever saved through childbearing? Certainly they do not assert such a position (as it would mean single and barren women could not be saved). The point is that we all pick and choose what is “literal” and what is to be interpreted, what to foreground and what to recede into the background. In reality, all Scripture must be interpreted.

It is certainly understandable for Greear, Mohler, and Stone to come to a position that the biblical witness is against women holding the role of pastor. There is a case to be made from the Scripture for that view and history backs it up. It is not acceptable, however, for Mohler or Stone to assert that those who come to a different position automatically do so because they are not committed to the authority of the Bible. This is a complicated issue without as clear a statement within the Bible as some might wish to claim. One thing the New Testament is not ambiguous about, however, is the importance of seeking unity within the Body of Christ. Therefore, we should all be very careful about a desire to incite division between two groups that both seek to honor Christ and to be led by his Spirit simply because each arrives at a different understanding of the same Scripture they both affirm as divinely inspired.

0
Bible, Jesus, sermon

Beloved Daughter

Posted on by Jay Givens

Happiness comes and goes. Sorrow and suffering can be with us for years or can come upon us suddenly. Yet we can find hope in the midst of sorrow. We can trust in the Trustworthy One in the depths of our despair. Mark 5:21-43 tells the story of a man and a woman from two very different lives, though both know sorrow and suffering. The story tells us of a father who fears losing his daughter and a woman who long ago lost the hope of being called daughter. Throughout the story, we see Jesus acting intentionally to take on our uncleanness in order to make us clean, to make us whole, and to give us hope.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

An Outcast Woman; a Beloved Daughter

We first meet a man who seems to have it all. He has a family. As a synagogue ruler, he has prestige in his community. Most likely, he is middle to upper income to have the time to serve as ruler. Yet at the moment we meet him, none of this matters to him. He is losing his daughter. He is desperate to save her.

The woman we meet partway through the story has likely lost everything. We are told she has an issue of blood that has not ceased for twelve years. That is, something about her body does not allow her menstrual cycle to ever fully stop. According to Jewish Law, women were ritually unclean during the days of their period. She has been unclean for twelve years. Like a leper, she would have to call out to those who came near her, “unclean!” to warn them not to come into contact with her. If they did, Jewish Law said they also became unclean until they performed a ritual cleansing. So this woman has probably has lost her family during the years. At the least, she has become a source of public shame for them because everyone in the town knows she is theirs. She is isolated from her community and the touch of others. All dignity is gone. She is an object of scorn to be avoided. She has been stripped of her personhood.

For twelve years, the woman had been unclean, suffering from humiliation and struggling with pain. We’re told she spent all she had on doctors but her condition only got worse. The man’s daughter was twelve years old. What a different life she had lived. Twelve years of love, joy, the benefits of wealth, and the loving touch of family. Twelve years ago, her mother had life come from her womb. But for the past twelve years, the woman had only death coming from her own womb.

Years of Grueling Anguish; Days of Sudden Sorrow

The woman for twelve years suffered physically and psychologically. She also lost all of her money, unlike the ruler who probably was middle to upper income. Yet in the story, she appears to still have hope for recovery. She is willing to try to touch Jesus’ garment to see if he might have healing power to help end her suffering. Despite her loss of family, community, and money, she still had hope. Where she had been suffering for years, the man had only suffered a few days (maybe a few weeks). His daughter was ill. He was in despair. His hope, his faith, was in tatters. His money, his power, his family and community connections–none of it could solve the problem he faced of his daughter’s grave illness. While Mark uses describes the girl as his “little daughter,” Luke tells us she was his monogenes, his “one and only” daughter. She was his life and her life was ebbing away.

We have no idea how the woman handled her illness when it first appeared, but we do know how she handled it now, twelve years later. Although she suffered greatly and had lost everything, we never hear her complain or cry out. Later, when Jesus gets to the man’s home, the family and friends of the girl are wailing and causing a commotion. Yes, the girl was dead, and likely some who were there were professional mourners. But the sudden illness and loss of this young life created sharp emotions and led many to cry out loudly in their grief.

Public Restoration

The man clearly was seeking to find Jesus in his despair. We are told that “when he saw” Jesus, he fell at Jesus’ feet. Though he had prestige in his community, he humiliated himself in public with this act. He knew the crowds could see him and hear his pleas that Jesus would heal his daughter. He literally says, “My little daughter is at the end.” This is a final act of desperation. She is about to die. He went to seek the healer. Perhaps, like his colleagues, he had mocked Jesus before. Now, however, he was pleading for Jesus to help him. He wanted Jesus to save his daughter from death and give her life. The word sozein can mean healing, but it can also mean salvation. Jesus intentionally acts in the moment. He departs to go with the man.

We then encounter the woman in the story. She doesn’t seek out Jesus as the man had. We are told that she “hears about” Jesus. We’re told crowds are around Jesus and Jairus as they travel. No doubt some were talking about the healer and how he was on the move to do it again! The woman also wanted to be saved from her infirmity. She wanted to be healed. Unlike the man’s public actions, however, she hoped to be healed privately without anyone knowing. She thought she could just sneak up behind Jesus and touch his robe. That would be enough to heal her. She didn’t want to be a bother to anyone. She didn’t want to cause a fuss.

Immediately, she knew she was healed. Mark says she could feel the “fountain” of flowing blood “dry up.” She was freed from the affliction. Literally, it says she was freed from the whip, the common belief of people that God was actively punishing those who suffer for something they must have done wrong. At the same time, Jesus immediately knew power had gone out from him. We then see his second intentional act. He does a 180 to look behind him. He asks who touched him and looks from person to person in the crowd. The disciples are incredulous. “Jesus,” they reply, “how can you ask that! This crowd is constantly pushing up against you.” But Jesus looked into the eyes of each person until eventually the woman couldn’t stand it.

Jesus forced this private act to become public. Unlike the bold though desperate synagogue ruler, the woman fell to Jesus feet trembling in fear. She told him the whole story. She had hoped for a private healing to avoid what was now occurring. Jesus would know that this unclean woman had touched him. She had made him ritually unclean. Would he be upset with her? He had been on important business and she now had interrupted him. What’s more, if the disciples are telling us the truth, she must have bumped into many others in her attempt to touch Jesus. How many did she make unclean just now? How would they respond, since she didn’t cry out “unclean” to warn them? Would they be angry and stone her for her transgression of the Law? For twelve years, she had been alone and unnoticed. She was nothing to these people except as an object to be feared and avoided. Why, she wondered, did Jesus make her visible?

Jesus doesn’t reply with anger or rebuke. Instead, he called her “daughter” and told her that it was “her faith” that healed her. Jesus made this public so she could be welcomed back into community, into his kingdom. More than that, we welcomed this woman who had probably not had family connections for twelve years into his own family. Moreover, he honored her by saying it was her faith, not his power, that had healed her. Jesus made himself a servant to her needs and showed his love through inviting her into relationship and restoring her to community. She wanted healing, but he told her to go with “peace” for she was no longer unclean but cleansed (the Greek word hygiēs from which we get “hygiene”) from the whip.

Private Reunion

Part of the reason Jesus honored the woman was to welcome her back to her community. Another reason was for Jairus. He probably saw this woman as a distraction who was wasting precious minutes that his little girl couldn’t afford to lose. Indeed, while Jesus was speaking the good news to the woman, members of Jairus’ community came with the worst news imaginable. His daughter was dead. “Why bother the teacher any longer?” they asked. If they shared the skepticism of many Jewish leaders, this might have been said sarcastically. Why bother with “the teacher” any longer?” Not the healer, notice. The woman had feared public exposure and was forced to face it. Now, the man faced something even worse: the fear that all hope is lost. His little girl was dead.

For the third time, Jesus does something very intentional. He first went with the man. He then looked and found the woman. Now, he intentionally ignores the words of these messengers. He tells the father, “Don’t fear. Just trust!” Perhaps Jesus pointed toward the woman nearby who, despite her fears, showed great faith and now stood there healed. Again, Jesus seems to honor the woman as he encourages the man.

Jesus and the father go with three of Jesus’ disciples to the man’s house. We are not told that they stopped at a mikvah for a ritual cleansing to purify themselves from the woman’s unclean touch. So Jesus apparently entered Jairus’ home unclean. This made Jairus’ home unclean and all within it–including Jairus himself–unclean. What we see is that Jairus cared less about rituals than about relationship. He was willing that he and his whole family become unclean like this man if Jesus could give him back his daughter. In this way, he also identified himself with the woman and her faith.

Jesus was possibly mocked by his disciples (or the crowds) when he asked who touched him. He may have been mocked by the messengers who said the girl was dead. Certainly, he is laughed at and ridiculed for saying the girl wasn’t dead but just asleep. Jesus then ran everyone except the parents and his disciples out of the house. Doing this forced Jairus, a man who had been in the public eye as a leading member of the community, to learn the importance of privacy and intimacy.

Then, for the second time that day, Jesus was made unclean. The first time, it happened to him when the woman touched him. This time, he intentionally took the hand of the dead girl. Then, where power unconsciously went out from Jesus to the woman, Jesus consciously touched the girl and gave a verbal command to rise up. He calls her “little girl,” not “daughter” because the girl already had a family. She had a father who loved her and believed she would live again. Immediately, she stood up and walked around. Maybe she was walking to each of her parents to hug them. As the woman was freed from her affliction, the girl was freed from the power of death.

Not only was this a private healing and reunion for the family, but Jesus made sure the privacy continued for several minutes. He told the parents not to share what had happened, that is, don’t shout out to the crowd outside. He then told them to get the girl something to eat. As the family shared table fellowship, Jesus and the disciples exited the house. Not only did Jesus still bear the “uncleanness” of the woman and the girl, but he had to endure the mocking of the crowd as he passed them by. No doubt they continued to laugh at his ignorance, not knowing the difference between death and sleep! How could he be a great teacher if he was so unaware? But Jesus bore the mocking to allow community and restored relationship to thrive inside the home.

Final Thoughts

What do we learn from this story? First, we see that Jesus doesn’t truly become “unclean” from his contact with the women. Instead, his life-giving power flowed out to these women and made them whole, healing and restoring life to them. He also restored the woman to community and the girl to her family. Believers in Jesus are called to the same engagement with others. We are to enter into the messiness of life and seek to heal and restore community. We even have to bear mocking or misunderstanding to do the work of the kingdom.

Second, we see that it is not physical contact with Jesus that saves or makes one whole. It was the woman’s faith. It was the father’s faith. Trusting in Jesus to save and heal is something we can do the same as the woman. Though Jesus is no longer on earth, he now sits at his Father’s right hand and can bear our uncleanness and make us how.

Third, both women teach us about the Kingdom of God. The woman gives us hope that in the kingdom, whatever troubles we encounter in this life, they are not the end of the story. We will be freed and healed to experience peace and wholeness. The girl helps us see that our greatest need is to be raised to new life in Christ. This life is not something we can bring about apart from Jesus any more than the dead girl could raise herself. There is also the hope of reunion with those we love in the kingdom. Also, the verbs used of the girl, “rising up” and “standing up” are both used of the resurrection in other parts of the New Testament. Her rising to new life came after only a short period of death. Though we die, it is but a twinkling of an eye and then we will be raised to new life in the new heavens and new earth.

Today, your life might be full of struggles or it may be filled with joy. You may be in the midst of years of suffering a debilitating disease or enduring a long, lingering death. You may be experiencing a rapid loss of a loved one or a sudden change in fortune. In all situations, we are called to trust in Jesus. He is the source of our healing, life, and wholeness. He welcomes us all into community as he saves and heals us. He calls you beloved son. He calls you beloved daughter.

Beloved Daughter (Mark 5:21-43)

3