Old Testament for September 24, 2023

“The whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness”
Exodus 16:2-15 (World English Bible)

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Exodus 16:2-15
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

There are any number of wonders in the accounts of Israel’s escape from slavery in Egypt — the ten plagues that are catastrophic in nature; the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud identifying Yahweh’s protecting and guiding presence with Israel; the miraculous parting of the Red Sea which enabled the entire nation of Israel to cross over safely as they escaped the Egyptian war chariots.

However, there is another “wonder” that arouses our curiosity.  No sooner have the Israelites safely arrived in the wilderness of Shur than they begin to complain!  This evokes a sense of wonder in us! How very human, and yet how disappointing.

The concerns that the Israelites have about this frightening experience are understandable.  There are six hundred thousand men, plus women and children.  Estimates of the actual number of such a mass would easily exceed one million, perhaps even close to two million people!  They are no doubt asking themselves — and soon Moses and Aaron — where are we to live?  Where will we get water?  What about food?

Very soon after the crossing of the Red Sea, and after Moses and Miriam sing their song of victory praising Yahweh (Exodus 14:1-15:21), the people grow thirsty.  They travel three days journey in the desert without water, and no doubt they begin to experience a growing sense of panic.  When they arrive at Marah, they find that there is water, but it is undrinkably bitter — perhaps even toxic. Moses purifies the water under the direction of God so they are able to drink (Exodus 15:22-25).  Moses then leads Israel to the oasis of Elim, where there are twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees (Exodus 15:27).  We note the significance of the number of springs — one spring for each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

But this crisis of provision is hardly over in the minds of the Israelites. They may have water to drink — for now.  But what about food?  So they begin to murmur against Moses and Aaron.  Their complaints take on an unrealistic tone.  They actually begin to compare their current conditions in the wilderness unfavorably to slavery in Egypt!

We wish that we had died by Yahweh’s hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots, when we ate our fill of bread, for you have brought us out into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

They forget the genocide many decades before, when Egyptians had thrown their infant sons into the Nile River.  And they seem to forget the more recent oppressions.  All they can recall is that food in Egypt was plentiful, though they were slaves.

However, Yahweh has a plan for provision.  And with this provision there will be a test of Israel’s faith in and obedience to Yahweh:

 Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from the sky for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law, or not. It shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.”

This is a matter of trust.  This bread from heaven would be given each day, but they were to begin observing the Sabbath (this commandment precedes the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai).  They are not to work on the Sabbath, so extra bread would be given the day before so they weren’t required to gather and could observe the Sabbath rest.

So Moses and Aaron relay Yahweh’s message to Israel, and declare that this provision will also be a time of divine revelation to them:

Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, “At evening, then you shall know that Yahweh has brought you out from the land of Egypt; and in the morning, then you shall see Yahweh’s glory…”

Moses and Aaron’s message to the Israelites is quite pointed.  The two brothers who are their leaders are letting the people know that when they complain they aren’t complaining against flesh and blood, but against God himself!

“…he hears your murmurings against Yahweh. Who are we, that you murmur against us?”

Yahweh is generous — he sends flocks of quail in the evenings, and the bread in the morning, in the form of small round pieces that linger after the dew clears. This is a moment of theophany, when God reveals his glory to them in the cloud, and provides for their needs.  Moses and Aaron have been as clear as possible — they are merely Yahweh’s representatives.  Yahweh tells Moses that he is to speak to Israel so they know exactly who the source of their food is:

I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At evening you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread: and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God.’

The Israelites, who have murmured and complained, are being put on notice.  Yahweh is not pleased with their attitude!

Even their attitude concerning this bread from heaven seems a bit derogatory:

When the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they didn’t know what it was. Moses said to them, “It is the bread which Yahweh has given you to eat.”

(What is it?  is Manna in Hebrew).

APPLY:  

There are two warnings and a promise, suggested for the people of God in this passage.

The first warning has to do with our attitude toward God.  We marvel at the complaints of Israel, especially after all that God has done for them.  But we aren’t so different.  God liberates us from oppression and delivers us from our enemies — but the moment there is a little adversity, are we inclined to waver in our faith? Is our default attitude complaint and whining?  If we are honest, that is often the case. We are reminded that when adversity comes, and when provisions seem short, we are to trust God.

The second warning has to do with leadership. When our pastors and leaders sincerely seek to follow God’s will, do we blame them for circumstances beyond their control?  After all, Moses and Aaron have a pretty good record of success in following God’s guidance and leading Israel.  And yet they are blamed when conditions aren’t temporarily suitable for the Israelites.  Perhaps our take-away from this is that we must give our leaders the benefit of the doubt if their leadership in the past has been solid and Godly.  We must remember that when we criticize them, we are really criticizing God!  As Moses and Aaron remind the people:

Yahweh hears your murmurings which you murmur against him. And who are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against Yahweh.

And there is also a promise.  God is not oblivious to our needs.  And as he has delivered us from oppression, he will also meet our needs.  God’s provision will come on his terms, and in his ways, not ours.  We are to respond faithfully and obediently… and quit complaining!

RESPOND: 

I confess that sometimes my default attitude is negativity rather than thanksgiving.  I suppose I can identify with the Israelites to some extent.  God has been profoundly gracious to me — he is my Savior, my Provider, my Guide.  I have been supremely blessed with a wonderful wife, family, and opportunities for ministry — not to mention the basic needs of housing, food, and a decent standard of living.

But how human is it to worry about what we don’t yet see right in front of us?  Abraham Maslow, the psychologist, developed a psychological system based on what he called the Hierarchy of Needs. Using a pyramid diagram, Maslow identifies an ascending system of needs, with “physiological” needs at the base, followed by “safety,” “belonging” and “love,” “esteem,” “self-actualization,” and culminating in “self-transcendence.”

In my opinion, God fulfills all of these needs, as illustrated in part by our lectionary passage — God delivers his people and feeds them because he loves and esteems them, forms them together into a community, and reveals his own transcendence as a way of leading them deeper into relationship with him.  The difference is that we are not self-actualizing or self-transcending.  We only experience this when we are identified with God by faith and obedience.

This has consistently been my experience with God over the past sixty-two years of my own life, despite whatever adversity and challenges I may have experienced.  What have I got to complain about?

Lord, forgive me for negativity and complaints.  You have provided all of my needs, from physiological to love and esteem.  If I am to be “actualized” it is only through your grace that enables me to fulfill my potential.  And you are the only one who is truly transcendent.  Thank you for fulfilling all of my needs. Amen.

PHOTOS:
“Complaint Department” by Judson Weinsheimer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.

Epistle for September 17, 2023

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Romans 14:1-12
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

We can easily forget just how radical this new religion of Christianity was.  True, it was predicated on the prophecies and principles of the Jewish faith.  But it was a sharp departure from the legalism that had come to characterize the Pharisaical expression of Judaism.

Paul addresses some of the trickier aspects of Christian culture that will require some nuance — food and festivals.  For contemporary Christians, these concerns may seem quaint, but for Paul’s time they were of extreme importance.

First of all, he makes it clear that food and festivals are not critical to Christian identity.  And he also makes it clear that the church is not a place to wrangle about such issues:

Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions.

This is a reassuring word.  The church is not given boundaries that keep out those who are weak in faith.  The church is to be a place where they can receive sound instruction and grow in faith.  However, the church is also not meant to be a debating society.  There are some things that are clearly revealed as true, that are not disputable within the church.  And there are some things that are matters of opinion and personal practice — what some might call adiaphora, which is defined as “matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless permissible for Christians or allowed in church.”

Some of these adiaphora include what Christians choose to eat, and what special times they observe.  Paul makes it very clear from the very beginning that dietary laws are not central to the Christian faith.  This is radical for a Jew who has been steeped in the Pharisaical tradition.  The dietary laws of Leviticus were of such importance that they had spawned a cottage industry of commentary in the Oral Laws of the Pharisees — concerning pork, shellfish, blood, lobsters, rabbits, etc.  These Oral Laws had come to be regarded as almost equal to the Written Law, but were actually the traditions and interpretations that had been passed down since the exile of Israel in the 6th century B.C.

Paul makes it clear that what a person chooses to eat or not eat is a matter of personal conscience, not religious legislation.  Peter had already broken this ground when God called him to cross the line separating Jews and Gentiles.  When the Centurion Cornelius invited Peter to come to his home and preach, Peter had experienced a vision preceding this invitation:

He saw heaven opened and a certain container descending to him, like a great sheet let down by four corners on the earth, in which were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and birds of the sky.  A voice came to him, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”   A voice came to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call unclean” (Acts 10:11-15).

This vision seemed to have a dual purpose.  On the one hand, symbolically, God was telling Peter that Gentiles were to be included in the church.  But on the other hand, Peter was being told that the prohibited foods were no longer forbidden.  They had been a part of Israel’s cultural identity, but Christianity transcends cultural and ethnic identity issues.

So Paul’s Solomonic wisdom on this issue is that each person must decide in their own mind what is appropriate to eat.  The one thing that he insists on is that whatever a person chooses to eat, as dictated by their own conscience, should not be a matter of division or a source of disapproval:

 One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.  Don’t let him who eats despise him who doesn’t eat. Don’t let him who doesn’t eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him.

In a word, church members are not to judge one another based on diet.  Their only judge is God:

Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.

Paul then turns to festival days and sabbaths.  The same rule applies:

One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.  He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn’t eat, to the Lord he doesn’t eat, and gives God thanks.

The sabbath observation in Judaism, and the three major feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) were central to the identity of Judaism, along with other minor festivals. Paul is not denying the importance of corporate worship in the church.  He assumes that Christians meet together on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 11:18-26; 16:2).

But he is also insistent that the ritual system of sacrifices has been superseded.  Certainly, the Gentile is not bound by these Jewish rituals, although we have really good evidence that Paul himself continued to observe them as a Jewish Christian.  For example, when he was returning from his missionary journey from Macedonia and Greece, he was eager to arrive back in Jerusalem in time for Pentecost (Acts 20:16).  It may well be that Pentecost had assumed a dual purpose, as both a Jewish feast day and a Christian commemoration of the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line for Paul, though, is the importance of the Christian community established by unity in Christ:

For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.  For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

What a person eats, or doesn’t eat; or whether they observe all the same holy days, is not relevant.  What is relevant is that they belong to the same Lord, who paid for their salvation with his blood.  The mark of identity in this new community of faith is following Christ — not kosher foods or high holy days.

The bottom line is that every person will be held accountable for their actions and their own conscience before God.  It is not up to individual members to judge one another:

 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Lest we draw the conclusion that Paul has renounced his Jewish heritage, he quotes the Hebrew Scriptures, from Isaiah 45:23:

 For it is written, “‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘to me every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess to God.’”

Ultimately, every person will be judged according to their own relationship with God, not according to human custom or tradition:

 So then each one of us will give account of himself to God.

APPLY:  

There are a few old cliches that may describe the issue Paul addresses: “don’t major in the minors” and “don’t sweat the small stuff.”

Paul is advising the church in Rome that a person’s diet doesn’t define their faith, nor does their observance of special days.  What defines their faith is their relationship with Christ and his church:

For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.  For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

One thing we are not to do is judge someone based on their dietary habits or whether they fast, or how they observe the liturgical calendar.  Fasting, for example, is a spiritual discipline that is encouraged in both the Old and New Testaments.  But the person who fasts is not superior to the person who doesn’t. That is a personal decision.  If it enhances our relationship with God, it is commendable.  But if a person chooses not to do so, that is between themselves and God.

To take the cliches a little farther — as someone has said: “Don’t sweat the small stuff — and it’s all small stuff.”  One person fasts, another doesn’t.  One person eschews meat, another eats it.  That is not an “essential” matter for salvation.

RESPOND: 

Paul’s counsel is ultimately directed toward individual accountability on personal lifestyle issues.  That doesn’t mean that these lifestyle decisions don’t matter.  Fasting is encouraged in the Christian tradition as a means of enhancing our prayer life and reminding us of our dependence on God.  Too much meat, though permissible, does have health consequences — and a vegetarian diet can be of great benefit.

But what we often see, especially in our time, is a kind of moral superiority even among those who are non-religious.  The vegetarian may condescend to the person who orders a hamburger at dinner.  There are Christian denominations that absolutely prohibit meat, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine.  The use of these substances may be debated, and some of them are absolutely of no benefit to the body, but it can’t be demonstrated from Scripture that they separate a person from God.  Gluttony and drunkenness are regarded as sins —but those are sins of excess and a lack of self-control. We don’t stop eating simply because of the risk of overeating.  Anything that we crave, or to which we become addicted, can become our god — and that can separate us from our primary loyalty to God.

And then there is the warning about time.  I tend to like the observance of the liturgical year as observed in my own church — Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost.  And all the “holy days”: Christmas Eve, Epiphany Day, Baptism of the Lord, Transfiguration Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Holy Week (including Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday), Easter Sunday, The Day of Ascension, Pentecost Sunday, All Saints Day, Christ the King Sunday.  And I will admit, that when I’m in a church that doesn’t display the “correct” colors for the proper season, it bothers me a little.  Then I have to remember this passage from Romans 14.

At the same time, those from a non-liturgical background should be reminded that they are not to judge traditionalists.  Paraments and special days and unique traditions (I think of the beautiful icons in Orthodox churches) don’t save anyone.  But as long as those traditions are an enhancement to worship and not the object of worship, the non-liturgical Christian should have no objection.

The bottom line is clear — Christ doesn’t have a “special menu” that every Christian is supposed to choose. Nor does he demand that we all observe the liturgical year.  What ultimately matters is that we live to the Lord.

Lord, I do find that when I fast, it makes me more aware of you. And there are special times of the year that raise my awareness of your story.  But I don’t seek to impose those practices on others.  Help me to live my life by precept and example so that others see you at work in my life, and are drawn to you by my lifestyle.  Amen. 

 PHOTOS:
"Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" uses this background:
"stickynote" by WINNING INFORMATION is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Gospel for March 19, 2023

Note from Celeste:

Before we look at today’s lectionary reading, I’d like to draw your attention to my Holy Week Bible Study book.

Go and Find a Donkey is the latest installment of the Choose This Day Multiple Choice Bible Studies series.

The daily devotionals take 10-15 minutes and include:

• Scripture passage (World English Bible)
• Fun, entertaining multiple choice questions focused directly on the Scripture passage
• Short meditation that can be used as a discussion starter.

Use them on the suggested dates, or skip around.  Designed to be used during Holy Week, this nine-day Bible study takes you from Palm Sunday through Easter Monday.

Use this book personally during a coffee break or with the family in the car or at the breakfast table.

Order Go and Find a Donkey  today to prepare your family for this year’s Easter season!
CLICK HERE for Amazon’s Kindle book of Go and Find a Donkey.
CLICK HERE for Amazon’s Paperback of Go and Find a Donkey.

AND NOW, BACK TO TODAY’S LECTIONARY READING:

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
John 9:1-41 
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

Jesus is presented with a serious question about suffering and the problem of evil when his disciples ask him why a man was born blind.

This passage takes the dialectical method of Jesus — the “point/counterpoint” dialogue — to a new level.

• There is the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples.
• There is the dialogue between Jesus and the blind man.
• The blind man interacts with the crowd and the Pharisees.
• The Pharisees interrogate the blind man’s parents.
• The Pharisees confront Jesus.

The effect that this dialogue creates is almost like theater — except that it is real.

The first and most important question is posed by the disciples about the blind man:

Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus, as always, surprises.  He assesses no blame — the blindness is not because of guilt. This repudiates the familiar notion at the time that suffering was always the consequence of sin.  However, Jesus does proclaim that even suffering may be a means of glorifying God:

that the works of God might be revealed in him.

Jesus reminds the disciples of his purpose for coming into the world — to overcome the effects of darkness:

I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.  While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

This is a reminder of the pressures of time that Jesus is experiencing.  He brings light, but the darkness of betrayal and the cross is coming.  So there is a sense of urgency to his ministry. He has no time to waste.  For now, he offers his light while he can.

Jesus makes a paste of mud with saliva and anoints the man’s eyes.  A seemingly very mundane recipe — but one offered by the Lord of Life himself. He then instructs the blind man to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, along the southern wall in the older section where King David’s citadel had been located.

John the evangelist adds the interpretation of the meaning of Siloam, which is one of several pools of water in the city used as reservoirs.  Siloam means Sent.  This is appropriate for one sent by Jesus to receive healing.

The description of the healing itself almost seems mundane — the blind man washes away the mud — but the reaction of the people around him is more dramatic.

First, his neighbors, who knew he was blind from birth, were astonished and looked for alternate explanations:

He looks like him.

The blind man confirms his own identity, and explains the procedure Jesus used to give him sight.  Immediately the neighbors ask for Jesus; and when the formerly blind man can’t produce Jesus, they drag the man before the Pharisees.

Now, to quote the cliche, the plot thickens.  The Pharisees have already proven their hostility to Jesus, and even attempted to have him arrested in John 7:32.  So this new development adds to the tension.

The legal problem presented here is that this was a Sabbath day when Jesus did this healing “work.”  The Pharisees’ strict interpretation of the law forbade any semblance of work on the Sabbath.  Jesus is elsewhere critical of their legalism. Although he observed the Sabbath by attending synagogue services, the practical needs of preparing food and works of mercy superseded the legalistic demands of the law.  He says in the Gospel of Mark:

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28).

The ex-blind man must again repeat the entire account of his healing for the Pharisees, some of whom immediately declare:

This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath.

Now we begin to see that that the Pharisees are not always unified in lockstep with one another.

Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was division among them.

We will see this division develop later when Nicodemus, also a Pharisee, argues that Jesus should have the right to defend himself in the face of charges (John 7:50-51).

What ensues is an intense interrogation that turns into a debate between the Pharisees and the ex-blind man.  The Pharisees ask the blind man what he thinks of Jesus.  The blind man has no doubt about this much:

He is a prophet.

The Pharisees attempt another tactic.  They try to undermine the credibility of the miracle by casting doubt on the man’s blindness.  They summon his parents — almost a kind of subpoena! — and question whether the man was really born blind.

The parents are terrified — they state what they know, that he was born blind, but they deflect the questions back to their son:

He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.

The parents aren’t afraid of physical harm, but spiritual harm.  The Jewish leadership had decreed that anyone who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, would be excommunicated.  The life of a Jew was centered in the religious community and the life of the temple and the synagogue.  To be put out of the synagogue would be to become a social and religious pariah.

So the Pharisees continue their interrogation of the ex-blind man again.  They demand that if he acknowledges God, he must testify that Jesus is a sinner.

What follows is dialogue worthy of the theater.  To appreciate the verbal repartee, I recommend that it be read aloud from verses 25-34.

The ex-blind man is honest, and very blunt.  When told to confess that Jesus is a sinner, he knows what he doesn’t know, but also what he does know:    

 I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see.

The Pharisees won’t let up.  When they ask again how it happened, the ex-blind man almost seems a little impertinent:

He answered them, “I told you already, and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t also want to become his disciples, do you?”

The ex-blind man almost seems to be taunting them.  Certainly he is astute enough to realize that most of the Pharisees are implacable enemies of Jesus.  Naturally, they are offended, and they begin to lose their composure:

 They insulted him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.  We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.”

They accuse the ex-blind man of already being Jesus’s disciple, and proudly proclaim their own allegiance to Moses.  This is a false dichotomy — Jesus isn’t opposed to the law of Moses, but to the accretions and traditions that the Pharisees have added to the law of Moses.

The ex-blind man increases his taunts:

 The man answered them, “How amazing! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.”

Now, he turns the tables.  He begins to testify to what God has done in his own life through Jesus:

 We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God, and does his will, he listens to him.

The ex-blind man quotes Scripture to confirm the fact that Jesus must not be a sinner, therefore this healing is from God.  He cites Psalms 66:18:

If I cherished sin in my heart, the Lord wouldn’t have listened.

And also:

Yahweh is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous (Proverbs 15:29).

After invoking the authority of Scripture, the ex-blind man then cites human history — suggesting that this is an unprecedented event:

Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind.

He adds these two factors together — the claims of Scripture that God doesn’t hear the wicked, and the fact that he has been healed by Jesus — and he comes up with what seems undeniable as the sum — Jesus must be from God:

 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.

The Pharisees are outraged:

“You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?” They threw him out.

When they threw him out, what that suggests is that he is excommunicated from the synagogue.  He has gained his eyesight, and lost his community.

But not for long.  Jesus learns that the man he has healed has been thrown out of the synagogue, and seeks him out.  Again, there is another dialogue.  Jesus asks him:

Do you believe in the Son of God?

This is a leading question. In a sense the ex-blind man has already affirmed that Jesus must be from God, otherwise he couldn’t do the works that he has done.  The ex-blind man’s answer seems innocent:

Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?

This suggests that the ex-blind man is definitely leaning toward faith.  All that is required is for Jesus to provide substance.  And so he does:

You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you.

Once again, Jesus has revealed himself to an unlikely person — not the famous or the powerful or the pious or the wise.  Instead, he reveals himself to a poor blind man.

The response of the ex-blind man is appropriate:

 “Lord, I believe!” and he worshiped him.

He trusts in Jesus; but even more he worships him.  This provides the substance. It is only appropriate to worship God. The Son of God is the only begotten Son of God, the Word made flesh, God incarnate.

There is yet one more short dialogue in this passage.  Jesus makes a declarative statement about his purpose and mission:

I came into this world for judgment, that those who don’t see may see; and that those who see may become blind.

This reminds us of the definition of judgment from John 3:

He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.  This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.  (John 3:18-19).

Once again, the Pharisees are offended when they hear this:

 Are we also blind?

The answer of Jesus is worthy of the dialectics of Socrates, or the enigma of a Zen koan:

If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

This is the paradox — that the Pharisees claim to see, and yet they fail to recognize that the Son of God, the Christ, the Lord of Life, is in their midst.  How tragic.  To think that they are the enlightened ones, and yet they walk in darkness.

APPLY:  

The motif of spiritual darkness and light returns again in the Gospel of John, and finds a literal application in the blindness of the man healed by Jesus.  This is a powerful spiritual application for us.  The darkness of the soul is far greater than the darkness of physical blindness.   And the darkness of religious Pharisees, who presume superiority to others, may be the deepest darkness of all.

There is an old saying that is still relevant today:

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Those who have the faith to see Jesus, as does the blind man, have true vision; whereas those whose religion has been reduced to mere rules and rituals, without relationship with God, are in darkness.

RESPOND: 

This is a fascinating encounter recorded in dialogue worthy of Shakespeare, or of the dialectical method of Plato’s dialogues.  We find ourselves swept along in the drama of this blind man who discovers the Light with his new vision; while those who “see” are blind to the Light that shines in their midst.

There is another aspect of this account that fascinates me, though.  It is almost a mere footnote to the story. The disciples see this blind man as the account begins, and they ask Jesus:

Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

They begin with an assumption — that if there is a congenital physical defect, it must be the result of sin. This principle could be expanded to nearly any physical malaise.  This seems a classic example of “blaming the victim.”

This is also the principle behind the Eastern concept of karma — that people must continue to pay for their sins in successive lives through cycles of suffering until they have been purified.

Jesus repudiates this notion.  The problem of suffering cannot be reduced to the consequences of sin, and cannot be expiated by karma. 

The roots of suffering are complex — but we cannot simplistically blame the sufferer for their own suffering.  In the end, Jesus transforms suffering into good:

that the works of God might be revealed….

Lord, you have come to bring Light and Sight to those who have the eyes of faith to see you.  Open my eyes to see you.  And enable me to work the works that you send me to accomplish as well, while it is day.  Amen. 

PHOTO:
“The most deluded people” uses this photo:
“Blindfold chess exhibition game” by Poek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license.

Gospel for August 28, 2022

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Luke 14:1, 7-14
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

Jesus addresses the unlikely topic of manners and hospitality.  Actually, he himself has been invited to the home of one of the leaders of the Pharisees for a meal.

The Pharisees were not unanimously united against Jesus, but the majority seemed to want to see him stumble. They were watching him closely on the Sabbath to see if they could catch him yet again in a violation of their interpretation of Sabbath observance.  Already Jesus has challenged their oral traditions about the law of the Sabbath by offering his own compassionate views (Luke 6:1-11; Luke 13:10-17).

However, Jesus takes the offensive by changing the subject to their customs and manners.  He has been observing the behavior of the guests at the meal, and apparently has noticed that some had jockeyed for position based on their own sense of self-importance:

When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host; and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this person your place,’ and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place.

His counsel is that they should choose their seating with modesty instead of self-importance.  But Jesus is clearly making a broader spiritual point about personal character:

For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

This is a message consistent with Biblical tradition.  Time and time again, the humble heart is exalted, and the proud are humbled:

For you deliver a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down (Psalm 18:7).

And then he turns to those who are in position to offer generous hospitality.  He advises the leader of the Pharisees that hospitality should not be offered as a means of gaining advantage or currying favor, but as a means of true ministry to those who cannot offer anything in return:

When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid.  But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

Such compassion won’t be repaid by the poor, crippled, lame and blind — but God takes notice of such unconditional kindness, and offers a more lasting compensation:   

And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

APPLY:  

Somehow it seems strange that Jesus addresses matters we might think more fitting for Emily Post or Miss Manners.  This is a reminder to us that everything that we do is a matter of kingdom ethics.  How we live — how we use earth’s resources, how we treat other people, even how we behave in social situations — are all part of our lives and thus part of our Christian lives.

We cannot compartmentalize our lives into spiritual things vs. earthly things.  Everything in our lives matters to God.

In this case, even a dinner party teaches us about humility and true hospitality.

In a world where we are encouraged to be “number one” and to gain superiority and honor over our peers, Jesus teaches us to humble ourselves so that we may be exalted.

And in a world in which generosity becomes a means of gaining esteem and “earning points,” Jesus teaches us to give without expecting anything in return.

This is also a lesson in deferred gratification.  The teachings of Jesus do promise reward — but it is a reward that is not yet realized.  We must wait.  So instant gratification is not a kingdom virtue.  

RESPOND: 

A rabbi’s disciple once asked his rabbi a difficult question. “Rabbi, why do people not see the Lord today as they once did in the times of the Patriarchs and the Prophets?”  The rabbi thought about it for a moment, and then said, “Perhaps it’s because we don’t humble ourselves low enough to see him.”

The modern world is all about competition, getting ahead, and reaching for the highest rung of the ladder.  But true self-awareness and detachment from this world brings us to the awareness that there are always those who exceed us, and in comparison to the glory of God we must always recognize our humility.  That is perspective.

The paradox is that as we gain perspective about our limitations, God lifts us up:

Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you (James 4:10).

Lord, I recognize that being your follower is not just about my “spiritual” life — it’s about every aspect of my life.  It’s about how I treat others, and it’s about recognizing my limitations and my need for you.  Help me to treat others as you treat them.  Amen. 

PHOTOS:
"Seating Assignments" by erinsikorskystewart is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic license.

Gospel for August 21, 2022

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Luke 13:10-17
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

This account of a sabbath’s day in a synagogue is inserted amongst seemingly unrelated teachings and healings.  However, we also detect a subtle and steady increase in the level of tension between Jesus and the authorities.

The town in which the synagogue is located is unnamed.  But we know that Jesus is drawing closer and closer, at least psychologically, to confrontation in Jerusalem:

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51).

We see the storm clouds of that coming confrontation already gathering here in Luke 13.

Jesus has already established himself early in his ministry as a healer and an exorcist — casting out demons even on the Sabbath (Luke 5:31-37).

Given his previous ministry, it comes as no surprise that a crippled woman should approach Jesus, even on the Sabbath in the synagogue.  Luke’s Gospel makes it clear that this affliction that causes her to be bent and unable to straighten up has a demonic source.

It is important to note that she doesn’t ask Jesus to heal her — he is proactive, and takes the initiative when he sees her misery:

When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment.”  When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God.

If the story had ended here, we might simply have said that this was another example of Jesus’ healing power and left it at that.  But the leader of the synagogue couldn’t leave well enough alone.  This person was likely either a lay leader or a professional rabbi who was sympathetic to the concerns of the priests and the scribes who insisted on strict Sabbath observance.

What happens next illustrates the growing tension between Jesus and the priests, scribes, and Pharisees.  The leader of the synagogue is indignant toward Jesus, but he scolds the crowd, rather than Jesus for gathering to seek healing on the Sabbath day:

“There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.”

Obviously, he is annoyed at Jesus, but perhaps the religious authorities have begun to figure out that confronting Jesus directly doesn’t work all that well.  So this leader of the synagogue does something that Family Systems Theory calls triangling. He takes his wrath out on the crowd instead of on Jesus.

Jesus doesn’t let him get by with that.  What Jesus does is called de-triangling.  He confronts the leader, and in so doing also addresses the priests, scribes and Pharisees who might be muttering to one another. Jesus says to them:

“You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?”

Jesus isn’t necessarily denying the importance of the Sabbath as a day of worship and rest.  He himself observed the Sabbath.  However, he is criticizing the preposterous interpretation that would prevent acts of compassion.

It would be illogical and inhumane not to lead an animal to water to drink on the Sabbath day; how much more not to heal this fellow Jew (a daughter of Abraham) who had been in bondage to Satan for 18 years!

Jesus had already addressed their legalistic interpretation of the Sabbath earlier in his ministry, declaring to them that:

The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5).

And when he healed a man whose hand was withered he asked the pointed question:

I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?(Luke 6:9).

Mark’s Gospel quotes Jesus’ eloquent perspective on the proper use of the law, which is meant to benefit human beings, not enslave or oppress them:

The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

It is clear that Jesus won this round — as he does every round:

When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.

APPLY:  

We Christians need to get past the false opposition between law and grace.  The law is never described in the New Testament as an evil thing.  Legalism, which is the effort to attain salvation by one’s own obsessive-compulsive ritual righteousness instead of relying on God’s grace, is the problem.

Salvation is not a human achievement of any kind — through works, the law, or spiritual discipline. Salvation is a gift of God for the sake of Christ.

The law doesn’t save, and the law never trumps love and compassion. However, the moral law, used properly under the auspices of the law of love, can provide moral guidance to the Christian.  Jesus observed the law by resting and worshiping on the Sabbath because of his love for his Father.

But when law becomes legalism, and morality becomes moralism, then the law becomes a bludgeon instead of a tool for spiritual growth.

The obsessive-compulsive rigidity of the leader of the synagogue misses the whole point of the law of the Sabbath.  A day that is created for rest and renewal becomes instead a day of rigid rules that increase religious anxiety and guilt, and neglects those who are suffering.

Jesus reminds us that the law at its best is for the spiritual growth and benefit of human beings.  The law at its best can be an extension of his loving grace rather than a source of oppression.

RESPOND: 

This passage makes me think of Victor Hugo’s masterpiece, Les Miserable.  Jean Valjean, the protagonist, has been imprisoned because he broke the law — he stole a loaf of bread for his starving family.  The law is strict and rigid concerning theft.

After he is released — 19 years later — he is offered hospitality by a kindly bishop who finds him shivering and homeless on the street.  Valjean tries to steal the bishop’s silver, but when he is arrested the bishop insists to the authorities that he had given the silverware to Valjean.  Valjean goes free, a much richer man because of the grace of the bishop.  The bishop tells Valjean that his life has been spared for God’s sake, and he should use the silver to make a better man of himself.

The major complication of the novel is the character of Inspector Javert.  As the plot develops, Valjean has become the compassionate, generous mayor of a French city, and a wealthy and just owner of a factory.  But Javert becomes suspicious — he begins to remember Valjean from years before when Javert was a prison guard, and learns that Valjean has been accused of another crime.

Javert makes it his life’s mission to obsessively hunt Valjean and arrest him.  In a moment of dramatic irony, Javert falls into the hands of revolutionaries, and Valjean contrives to spare his life.  But Javert cannot live with the conflict of his rigid devotion to the law and the merciful goodness of his intended victim, Valjean.  Because of his intense inner conflict, he finds the contradictions irreconcilable and drowns himself in the Seine River.

That is a rather elaborate illustration of the principle that there is a spiritual law of grace and love that always trumps the rigid law of legalism.

Lord, I love your law — but it is the law of love that I seek to follow.  I pray that you will give me a healthy respect and obedience to your law, but always illumined by your love and compassion.  Amen. 

PHOTOS:
"Orthodoxy" by timchallies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Old Testament for September 20, 2020

“The whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness”
Exodus 16:2-15 (World English Bible)

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Exodus 16:2-15
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

There are any number of wonders in the accounts of Israel’s escape from slavery in Egypt — the ten plagues that are catastrophic in nature; the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud identifying Yahweh’s protecting and guiding presence with Israel; the miraculous parting of the Red Sea which enabled the entire nation of Israel to cross over safely as they escaped the Egyptian war chariots.

However, there is another “wonder” that arouses our curiosity.  No sooner have the Israelites safely arrived in the wilderness of Shur than they begin to complain!  This evokes a sense of wonder in us! How very human, and yet how disappointing.

The concerns that the Israelites have about this frightening experience are understandable.  There are six hundred thousand men, plus women and children.  Estimates of the actual number of such a mass would easily exceed one million, perhaps even close to two million people!  They are no doubt asking themselves — and soon Moses and Aaron — where are we to live?  Where will we get water?  What about food?

Very soon after the crossing of the Red Sea, and after Moses and Miriam sing their song of victory praising Yahweh (Exodus 14:1-15:21), the people grow thirsty.  They travel three days journey in the desert without water, and no doubt they begin to experience a growing sense of panic.  When they arrive at Marah, they find that there is water, but it is undrinkably bitter — perhaps even toxic. Moses purifies the water under the direction of God so they are able to drink (Exodus 15:22-25).  Moses then leads Israel to the oasis of Elim, where there are twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees (Exodus 15:27).  We note the significance of the number of springs — one spring for each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

But this crisis of provision is hardly over in the minds of the Israelites. They may have water to drink — for now.  But what about food?  So they begin to murmur against Moses and Aaron.  Their complaints take on an unrealistic tone.  They actually begin to compare their current conditions in the wilderness unfavorably to slavery in Egypt!

We wish that we had died by Yahweh’s hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots, when we ate our fill of bread, for you have brought us out into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

They forget the genocide many decades before, when Egyptians had thrown their infant sons into the Nile River.  And they seem to forget the more recent oppressions.  All they can recall is that food in Egypt was plentiful, though they were slaves.

However, Yahweh has a plan for provision.  And with this provision there will be a test of Israel’s faith in and obedience to Yahweh:

 Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from the sky for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law, or not. It shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.”

This is a matter of trust.  This bread from heaven would be given each day, but they were to begin observing the Sabbath (this commandment precedes the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai).  They are not to work on the Sabbath, so extra bread would be given the day before so they weren’t required to gather and could observe the Sabbath rest.

So Moses and Aaron relay Yahweh’s message to Israel, and declare that this provision will also be a time of divine revelation to them:

Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, “At evening, then you shall know that Yahweh has brought you out from the land of Egypt;  and in the morning, then you shall see Yahweh’s glory….”

Moses and Aaron’s message to the Israelites is quite pointed.  The two brothers who are their leaders are letting the people know that when they complain they aren’t complaining against flesh and blood, but against God himself!

“….he hears your murmurings against Yahweh. Who are we, that you murmur against us?”

Yahweh is generous — he sends flocks of quail in the evenings, and the bread in the morning, in the form of  small round pieces that linger after the dew clears. This is a moment of theophany, when God reveals his glory to them in the cloud, and provides for their needs.  Moses and Aaron have been as clear as possible — they are merely Yahweh’s representatives.  Yahweh tells Moses that he is to speak to Israel so they know exactly who the source of their food is:

I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At evening you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread: and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God.’

The Israelites, who have murmured and complained, are being put on notice.  Yahweh is not pleased with their attitude!

Even their attitude concerning this bread from heaven seems a bit derogatory:

When the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they didn’t know what it was. Moses said to them, “It is the bread which Yahweh has given you to eat.”

(What is it?  is Manna in Hebrew).

APPLY:  

There are two warnings and a promise, suggested for the people of God in this passage.

The first warning has to do with our attitude toward God.  We marvel at the complaints of Israel, especially after all that God has done for them.  But we aren’t so different.  God liberates us from oppression and delivers us from our enemies — but the moment there is a little adversity, are we inclined to waver in our faith? Is our default attitude complaint and whining?  If we are honest, that is often the case. We are reminded that when adversity comes, and when provisions seem short, we are to trust God.

The second warning has to do with leadership. When our pastors and leaders sincerely seek to follow God’s will, do we blame them for circumstances beyond their control?  After all, Moses and Aaron have a pretty good record of success in following God’s guidance and leading Israel.  And yet they are blamed when conditions aren’t temporarily suitable for the Israelites.  Perhaps our take-away from this is that we must give our leaders the benefit of the doubt if their leadership in the past has been solid and Godly.  We must remember that when we criticize them, we are really criticizing God!  As Moses and Aaron remind the people:

Yahweh hears your murmurings which you murmur against him. And who are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against Yahweh.

And there is also a promise.  God is not oblivious to our needs.  And as he has delivered us from oppression, he will also meet our needs.  God’s provision will come on his terms, and in his ways, not ours.  We are to respond faithfully and obediently… and quit complaining!

RESPOND: 

I confess that sometimes my default attitude is negativity rather than thanksgiving.  I suppose I can identify with the Israelites to some extent.  God has been profoundly gracious to me — he is my Savior, my Provider, my Guide.  I have been supremely blessed with a wonderful wife, family, and opportunities for ministry — not to mention the basic needs of housing, food, and a decent standard of living.

But how human is it to worry about what we don’t yet see right in front of us?  Abraham Maslow, the psychologist, developed a psychological system based on what he called the Hierarchy of Needs. Using a pyramid diagram, Maslow identifies an ascending system of needs, with “physiological” needs at the base, followed by  “safety,” “belonging” and “love,” “esteem,” “self-actualization,” and culminating in “self-transcendence.”

In my opinion, God fulfills all of these needs, as illustrated in part by our lectionary passage — God delivers his people and feeds them because he loves and esteems them, forms them together into a community, and reveals his own transcendence as a way of leading them deeper into relationship with him.  The difference is that we are not self actualizing or self-transcending.  We only experience this when we are identified with God by faith and obedience.

This has consistently been my experience with God over the past sixty-two years of my own life, despite whatever adversity and challenges I may have experienced.  What have I got to complain about?

Lord, forgive me for negativity and complaints.  You have provided all of my needs, from physiological to love and esteem.  If I am to be “actualized” it is only through your grace that enables me to fulfill my potential.  And you are the only one who is truly transcendent.  Thank you for fulfilling all of my needs. Amen.

PHOTOS:
“Complaint Department” by Judson Weinsheimer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.

Epistle for September 13, 2020

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Romans 14:1-12
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

We can easily forget just how radical this new religion of Christianity was.  True, it was predicated on the prophecies and principles of the Jewish faith.  But it was a sharp departure from the legalism that had come to characterize the Pharisaical expression of Judaism.

Paul addresses some of the trickier aspects of Christian culture that will require some nuance — food and festivals.  For contemporary Christians, these concerns may seem quaint, but for Paul’s time they were of extreme importance.

First of all, he makes it clear that food and festivals are not critical to Christian identity.  And he also makes it clear that the church is not a place to wrangle about such issues:

Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions.

This is a reassuring word.  The church is not given boundaries that keep out those who are weak in faith.  The church is to be a place where they can receive sound instruction and grow in faith.  However, the church is also not meant to be a debating society.  There are some things that are clearly revealed as true, that are not disputable within the church.  And there are some things that are matters of opinion and personal practice — what some might call adiaphora, which is defined as “matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless permissible for Christians or allowed in church.”

Some of these adiaphora include what Christians choose to eat, and what special times they observe.  Paul makes it very clear from the very beginning that dietary laws are not central to the Christian faith.  This is radical for a Jew who has been steeped in the Pharisaical tradition.  The dietary laws of Leviticus were of such importance that they had spawned a cottage industry of commentary in the Oral Laws of the Pharisees  — concerning pork, shellfish, blood, lobsters, rabbits, etc.  These Oral Laws had come to be regarded as almost equal to the Written Law, but were actually the traditions and interpretations that had been passed down since the exile of Israel in the 6th century B.C.

Paul makes it clear that what a person chooses to eat or not eat is a matter of personal conscience, not religious legislation.  Peter had already broken this ground when God called him to cross the line separating Jews and Gentiles.  When the Centurion Cornelius invited Peter to come to his home and preach, Peter had experienced a vision preceding this invitation:

He saw heaven opened and a certain container descending to him, like a great sheet let down by four corners on the earth, in which were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and birds of the sky.  A voice came to him, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”   A voice came to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call unclean” (Acts 10:11-15).

This vision seemed to have a dual purpose.  On the one hand, symbolically, God was telling Peter that Gentiles were to be included in the church.  But on the other hand, Peter was being told that the prohibited foods were no longer forbidden.  They had been a part of Israel’s cultural identity, but Christianity transcends cultural and ethnic identity issues.

So Paul’s Solomonic wisdom on this issue is that each person must decide in their own mind what is appropriate to eat.  The one thing that he insists on is that whatever a person chooses to eat, as dictated by their own conscience, should not be a matter of division or a source of disapproval:

 One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.  Don’t let him who eats despise him who doesn’t eat. Don’t let him who doesn’t eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him.

In a word, church members are not to judge one another based on diet.  Their only judge is God:

Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.

Paul then turns to festival days and sabbaths.  The same rule applies:

One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.  He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn’t eat, to the Lord he doesn’t eat, and gives God thanks.

The sabbath observation in Judaism, and the three major feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) were central to the identity of Judaism, along with other minor festivals. Paul is not denying the importance of corporate worship in the church.  He assumes that Christians meet together on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians  11:18-26; 16:2).

But he is also insistent that the ritual system of sacrifices has been superseded.  Certainly, the Gentile is not bound by these Jewish rituals, although we have really good evidence that Paul himself continued to observe them as a Jewish Christian.  For example, when he was returning from his missionary journey from Macedonia and Greece, he was eager to arrive back in Jerusalem in time for Pentecost (Acts 20:16).  It may well be that Pentecost had assumed a dual purpose, as both a Jewish feast day and a Christian commemoration of the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line for Paul, though, is the importance of the Christian community established by unity in Christ:

For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.  For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

What a person eats, or doesn’t eat; or whether they observe all the same holy days, is not relevant.  What is relevant is that they belong to the same Lord, who paid for their salvation with his blood.  The mark of identity in this new community of faith is following Christ — not kosher foods or high holy days.

The bottom line is that every person will be held accountable for their actions and their own conscience before God.  It is not up to individual members to judge one another:

 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Lest we draw the conclusion that Paul has renounced his Jewish heritage, he quotes the Hebrew Scriptures, from Isaiah 45:23:

 For it is written,“‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘to me every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess to God.’”

Ultimately, every person will be judged according to their own relationship with God, not according to human custom or tradition:

 So then each one of us will give account of himself to God.

APPLY:  

There are a few old cliches that may describe the issue Paul addresses: “don’t major in the minors” and “don’t sweat the small stuff.”

Paul is advising the church in Rome that a person’s diet doesn’t define their faith, nor does their observance of special days.  What defines their faith is their relationship with Christ and his church:

For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.  For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

One thing we are not to do is judge someone based on their dietary habits or whether they fast, or how they observe the liturgical calendar.  Fasting, for example, is a spiritual discipline that is encouraged in both the Old and New Testaments.  But the person who fasts is not superior to the person who doesn’t. That is a personal decision.  If it enhances our relationship with God, it is commendable.  But if a person chooses not to do so, that is between themselves and God.

To take the cliches a little farther — as someone has said: “Don’t sweat the small stuff — and it’s all small stuff.”  One person fasts, another doesn’t.  One person eschews meat, another eats it.  That is not an “essential” matter for salvation.

RESPOND: 

Paul’s counsel is ultimately directed toward individual accountability on personal lifestyle issues.  That doesn’t mean that these lifestyle decisions don’t matter.  Fasting is encouraged in the Christian tradition as a means of enhancing our prayer life and reminding us of our dependence on God.  Too much meat, though permissible, does have health consequences — and a vegetarian diet can be of great benefit.

But what we often see, especially in our time, is a kind of moral superiority even among those who are non-religious.  The vegetarian may condescend to the person who orders a hamburger at dinner.  There are Christian denominations that absolutely prohibit meat, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine.  The use of these substances may be debated, and some of them are absolutely of no benefit to the body, but it can’t be demonstrated from Scripture that they separate a person from God.  Gluttony and drunkenness are regarded as sins —but those are sins of excess and a lack of self-control. We don’t stop eating simply because of the risk of overeating.  Anything that we crave, or to which we become addicted, can become our god — and that can separate us from our primary loyalty to God.

And then there is the warning about time.  I tend to like the observance of the liturgical year as observed in my own church — Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost.  And all the “holy days”: Christmas Eve, Epiphany Day, Baptism of the Lord, Transfiguration Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Holy Week (including Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday), Easter Sunday, The Day of Ascension, Pentecost Sunday, All Saints Day, Christ the King Sunday.  And I will admit, that when I’m in a church that doesn’t display the “correct” colors for the proper season, it bothers me a little.  Then I have to remember this passage from Romans 14.

At the same time, those from a non-liturgical background should be reminded that they are not to judge traditionalists.  Paraments and special days and unique traditions ( I think of the beautiful icons in Orthodox churches) don’t save anyone.  But as long as those traditions are an enhancement to worship and not the object of worship, the non-liturgical Christian should have no objection.

The bottom line is clear — Christ doesn’t have a “special menu” that every Christian is supposed to choose. Nor does he demand that we all observe the liturgical year.  What ultimately matters is that we live to the Lord.

Lord, I do find that when I fast, it makes me more aware of you. And there are special times of the year that raise my awareness of your story.  But I don’t seek to impose those practices on others.  Help me to live my life by precept and example so that others see you at work in my life, and are drawn to you by my lifestyle.  Amen. 

 PHOTOS:
"Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" uses this background:
"stickynote" by WINNING INFORMATION is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Gospel for March 22, 2020

Note from Celeste:

Before we look at today’s lectionary reading, I’d like to draw your attention to my Holy Week Bible Study book.

Go and Find a Donkey is the latest installment of the Choose This Day Multiple Choice Bible Studies series.

The daily devotionals take 10-15 minutes and include:

• Scripture passage (World English Bible)
• Fun, entertaining multiple choice questions focused directly on the Scripture passage
• Short meditation that can be used as a discussion starter.

Use them on the suggested dates, or skip around.  Designed to be used during Holy Week, this nine-day Bible study takes you from Palm Sunday through Easter Monday.

Use this book personally during a coffee break or with the family in the car or at the breakfast table.

Order Go and Find a Donkey  today to prepare your family for this year’s Easter season!
CLICK HERE for Amazon’s Kindle book of Go and Find a Donkey.
CLICK HERE for Amazon’s Paperback of Go and Find a Donkey.

AND NOW, BACK TO TODAY’S LECTIONARY READING:

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
John 9:1-41 
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

Jesus is presented with a serious question about suffering and the problem of evil when his disciples ask him why a man was born blind.

This passage takes the dialectical method of Jesus — the “point/counterpoint” dialogue — to a new level. There is the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples; between Jesus and the blind man; the blind man interacts with the crowd and the Pharisees; the Pharisees interrogate the blind man’s parents; and the Pharisees confront Jesus.  The effect that this dialogue creates is almost like theater — except that it is real.

The first and most important question is posed by the disciples about the blind man:

Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus, as always, surprises.  He assesses no blame — the blindness is not because of guilt. This repudiates the familiar notion at the time that suffering was always the consequence of sin.  However, Jesus does proclaim that even suffering may be a means of glorifying God:

that the works of God might be revealed in him.

Jesus reminds the disciples of his purpose for coming into the world — to overcome the effects of darkness:

I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.  While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

This is a reminder of the pressures of time that Jesus is experiencing.  He brings light, but the darkness of betrayal and the cross is coming.  So there is a sense of urgency to his ministry. He has no time to waste.  For now, he offers his light while he can.

Jesus makes a paste of mud with saliva and anoints the man’s eyes.  A seemingly very mundane recipe — but one offered by the Lord of Life himself. He then instructs the blind man to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, along the southern wall in the older section where King David’s citadel had been located.

John the evangelist adds the interpretation of the meaning of Siloam, which is one of several pools of water in the city used as reservoirs.  Siloam  means Sent.  This is appropriate for one sent by Jesus to receive healing.

The description of the healing itself almost seems mundane — the blind man washes away the mud — but the reaction of the people around him is more dramatic.

First, his neighbors, who knew he was blind from birth, were astonished and looked for alternate explanations:

He looks like him.

The blind man confirms his own identity, and explains the procedure Jesus used to give him sight.  Immediately the neighbors ask for Jesus; and when the formerly blind man can’t produce Jesus, they drag the man before the Pharisees.

Now, to quote the cliche, the plot thickens.  The Pharisees have already proven their hostility to Jesus, and even attempted to have him arrested in John 7:32.  So this new development adds to the tension.

The legal problem presented here is that this was a Sabbath day when Jesus did this healing  “work.”  The Pharisees’ strict interpretation of the law forbade any semblance of work on the Sabbath.  Jesus is elsewhere critical of their legalism. Although he observed the Sabbath by attending synagogue services,  the practical needs of preparing food and works of mercy superseded the legalistic demands of the law.  He says in the Gospel of Mark:

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.(Mark 2:27-28).

The ex-blind man must again repeat the entire account of his healing for the Pharisees, some of  whom  immediately declare:

This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath.

Now we begin to see that that the Pharisees are not always unified in lock-step with one another.

Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was division among them.

We will see this division develop later when Nicodemus, also a Pharisee, argues that Jesus should have the right to defend himself in the face of charges (John 7:50-51).

What ensues is an intense interrogation that turns into a debate between the Pharisees and the ex-blind man.  The Pharisees ask the blind man what he thinks of Jesus.  The blind man has no doubt about this much:

He is a prophet.

The Pharisees attempt another tactic.  They try to undermine the credibility of the miracle by casting doubt on the man’s blindness.  They summon his parents — almost a kind of subpoena! — and question whether the man was really born blind.

The parents are terrified — they state what they know, that he was born blind, but they deflect the questions back to their son:

He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.

The parents aren’t afraid of physical harm, but spiritual harm.  The Jewish leadership had decreed that anyone who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, would be excommunicated.  The life of a Jew was centered in the religious community and the life of the temple and the synagogue.  To be put out of the synagogue would be to become a social and religious pariah.

So the Pharisees continue their interrogation of the ex-blind man again.  They demand that if he acknowledges God, he must testify that Jesus is a sinner.

What follows is dialogue worthy of the theater.  To appreciate the verbal repartee, I recommend that it be read aloud from verses 25-34.

The ex-blind man is honest, and very blunt.  When told to confess that Jesus is a sinner, he knows what he doesn’t know, but also what he does know:    

 I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see.

The Pharisees won’t let up.  When they ask again how it happened, the ex-blind man almost seems a little impertinent:

He answered them, “I told you already, and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t also want to become his disciples, do you?”

The ex-blind man almost seems to be taunting them.  Certainly he is astute enough to realize that most of the Pharisees are implacable enemies of Jesus.  Naturally, they are offended, and they begin to lose their composure:

 They insulted him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.  We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.”

They accuse the ex-blind man of already being Jesus’s disciple, and proudly proclaim their own allegiance to Moses.  This is a false dichotomy — Jesus isn’t opposed to the law of Moses, but to the accretions and traditions that the Pharisees have added to the law of Moses.

The ex-blind man increases his taunts:

 The man answered them, “How amazing! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.”

Now, he turns the tables.  He begins to testify to what God has done in his own life through Jesus:

 We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God, and does his will, he listens to him.

The ex-blind man quotes Scripture to confirm the fact that Jesus must not be a sinner, therefore this healing is from God.  He cites Psalms 66:18:

If I cherished sin in my heart, the Lord wouldn’t have listened.

And also:

Yahweh is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous (Proverbs 15:29).

After invoking the authority of Scripture, the ex-blind man then cites human history — suggesting that this is an unprecedented event:

Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind.

He adds these two factors together — the claims of Scripture that God doesn’t hear the wicked, and the fact that he has been healed by Jesus — and he comes up with what seems undeniable as the sum — Jesus must be from God:

 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.

The Pharisees are outraged:

“You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?” They threw him out.

When they threw him out, what that suggests is that he is excommunicated from the synagogue.  He has gained his eyesight, and lost his community.

But not for long.  Jesus learns that the man he has healed has been thrown out of the synagogue, and seeks him out.  Again, there is another dialogue.  Jesus asks him:

Do you believe in the Son of God?

This is a leading question. In a sense the ex-blind man has already affirmed that Jesus must be from God, otherwise he couldn’t do the works that he has done.  The ex-blind man’s answer seems innocent:

Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?

This suggests that the ex-blind man is definitely leaning toward faith.  All that is required is for Jesus to provide substance.  And so he does:

You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you.

Once again, Jesus has revealed himself to an unlikely person — not the famous or the powerful or the pious or the wise.  Instead, he reveals himself to a poor blind man.

The response of the ex-blind man is appropriate:

 “Lord, I believe!” and he worshiped him.

He trusts in Jesus; but even more he worships him.  This provides the substance. It is only appropriate to worship God. The Son of God is the only begotten Son of God, the Word made flesh, God incarnate.

There is yet one more short dialogue in this passage.  Jesus makes a declarative statement about his purpose and mission:

I came into this world for judgment, that those who don’t see may see; and that those who see may become blind.

This reminds us of the definition of judgment from John 3:

He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.  This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.  (John 3:18-19).

Once again, the Pharisees are offended when they hear this:

 Are we also blind?

The answer of Jesus is worthy of the dialectics of Socrates, or the enigma of a Zen koan:

If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

This is the paradox — that the Pharisees claim to see, and yet they fail to recognize that the Son of God, the Christ, the Lord of Life, is in their midst.  How tragic.  To think that they are the enlightened ones, and yet they walk in darkness.

APPLY:  

The motif of spiritual darkness and light returns again in the Gospel of John, and finds a literal application in the blindness of the man healed by Jesus.  This is a powerful spiritual application for us.  The  darkness of the soul is far greater than the darkness of physical blindness.   And the darkness of religious Pharisees, who presume superiority to others, may be the deepest darkness of all.

There is an old saying that is still relevant today:

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Those who have the faith to see Jesus, as does the blind man, have true vision; whereas those whose religion has been reduced to mere rules and rituals, without relationship with God, are in darkness.

RESPOND: 

This is a fascinating encounter recorded in dialogue worthy of Shakespeare, or of the dialectical method of Plato’s dialogues.  We find ourselves swept along in the drama of this blind man who discovers the Light with his new vision; while those who “see” are blind to the Light that shines in their midst.

There is another aspect of this account that fascinates me, though.  It is almost a mere footnote to the story. The disciples see this blind man as the account begins, and they ask Jesus:

Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

They begin with an assumption — that if there is a congenital physical defect, it must be the result of sin. This principle could be expanded to nearly any physical malaise.  This seems a classic example of “blaming the victim.”

This is also the principle behind the Eastern concept of karma — that people must continue to pay for their sins in successive lives through cycles of suffering until they have been purified.

Jesus repudiates this notion.  The problem of suffering cannot be reduced to the consequences of sin, and cannot be expiated by karma. 

The roots of suffering are complex — but we cannot simplistically blame the sufferer for their own suffering.  In the end, Jesus transforms suffering into good:

that the works of God might be revealed….

Lord, you have come to bring Light and Sight to those who have the eyes of faith to see you.  Open my eyes to see you.  And enable me to work the works that you send me to accomplish as well, while it is day.  Amen. 

PHOTO:
“The most deluded people” uses this photo:
“Blindfold chess exhibition game” by Poek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license.

Gospel for September 1, 2019

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Luke 14:1, 7-14
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

Jesus addresses the unlikely topic of manners and hospitality.  Actually, he himself has been invited to the home of one of the leaders of the Pharisees for a meal.

The Pharisees were not unanimously united against Jesus, but the majority seemed to want to see him stumble. They were watching him closely on the Sabbath to see if they could catch him yet again in a violation of their interpretation of Sabbath  observance.  Already Jesus has challenged their oral traditions about the law of the Sabbath by offering his own compassionate views (Luke 6:1-11; Luke 13:10-17).

However, Jesus takes the offensive by changing the subject to their customs and manners.  He has been observing the behavior of the guests at the meal, and apparently has noticed that some had jockeyed for position based on their own sense of self-importance:

When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host; and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this person your place,’ and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place.

His counsel is that they should choose their seating with modesty instead of self-importance.  But Jesus is clearly making a broader spiritual point about personal character:

For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

This is a message consistent with Biblical tradition.  Time and time again, the humble heart is exalted, and the proud are humbled:

For you deliver a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down (Psalm 18:7).

And then he turns to those who are in position to offer generous hospitality.  He advises the leader of the Pharisees that hospitality should not be offered as a means of gaining advantage or currying favor, but as a means of true ministry to those who cannot offer anything in return:

When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid.  But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

Such compassion won’t be repaid by the poor, crippled, lame and blind — but God takes notice of such unconditional kindness, and offers a more lasting compensation:   

And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

APPLY:  

Somehow it seems strange that Jesus addresses matters we might think more fitting for Emily Post or Miss Manners.  This is a reminder to us that everything that we do is a matter of kingdom ethics.  How we live — how we use earth’s resources, how we treat other people, even how we behave in social situations — are all part of our lives and thus part of our Christian lives.

We cannot compartmentalize our lives into spiritual things vs. earthly things.  Everything in our lives matters to God.

In this case, even a dinner party teaches us about humility and true hospitality.

In a world where we are encouraged to be “number one” and to gain superiority and honor over our peers, Jesus teaches us to humble ourselves so that we may be exalted.

In a world in which generosity becomes a means of gaining esteem and “earning points,” Jesus teaches us to give without expecting anything in return.

This is also a lesson in deferred gratification.  The teachings of Jesus do promise reward — but it is a reward that is not yet realized.  We must wait.  So instant gratification is not a kingdom virtue.  

RESPOND: 

A  rabbi’s disciple once asked his rabbi a difficult question. “Rabbi, why do people not see the Lord today as they once did in the times of the Patriarchs and the Prophets?”  The rabbi thought about it for a moment, and then said, “Perhaps it’s because we don’t humble ourselves low enough to see him.”

The modern world is all about competition, getting ahead, and reaching for the highest rung of the ladder.  But true self-awareness and detachment from this world brings us to the awareness that there are always those who exceed us, and in comparison to the glory of God we must always recognize our humility.  That is perspective.

But the paradox is that as we gain perspective about our limitations, God lifts us up:

Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you (James 4:10).

Lord, I recognize that being your follower is not just about my “spiritual” life — it’s about every aspect of my life.  It’s about how I treat others, and it’s about recognizing my limitations and my need for you.  Help me to treat others as you treat them.  Amen. 

PHOTOS:
"Seating Assignments" by erinsikorskystewart is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic license.

Gospel for August 25, 2019

START WITH SCRIPTURE:
Luke 13:10-17
CLICK HERE TO READ SCRIPTURE ON BIBLEGATEWAY.COM

OBSERVE:

This account of a sabbath’s day in a synagogue is inserted amongst seemingly unrelated teachings and healings.  However, we also detect a subtle and steady increase in the level of tension between Jesus and the authorities.

The town in which the synagogue is located is unnamed.  But we know that Jesus is drawing closer and closer, at least psychologically, to confrontation in Jerusalem:

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51).

We see the storm clouds of that coming confrontation already gathering here in Luke 13.

Jesus has already established himself early in his ministry as a healer and an exorcist — casting out demons even on the Sabbath (Luke 5:31-37).

Given his previous ministry, it comes as no surprise that  a crippled woman should approach Jesus, even on the Sabbath in the synagogue.  Luke’s Gospel makes it clear that this affliction that causes her to be bent and unable to straighten up has a demonic source.

It is important to note that she doesn’t ask Jesus to heal her — he is proactive, and takes the initiative when he sees her misery:

When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment.”  When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God.

If the story had ended here, we might simply have said that this was another example of Jesus’ healing power and left it at that.  But the leader of the synagogue couldn’t leave well enough alone.  This person was likely either a lay leader or a professional rabbi who was sympathetic to the concerns of the priests and the scribes who insisted on strict Sabbath observance.

What happens next illustrates the growing tension between Jesus and the priests, scribes, and Pharisees.  The leader of the synagogue is indignant toward Jesus, but he scolds the crowd, rather than Jesus for gathering to seek healing on the Sabbath day:

“There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.”

Obviously, he is annoyed at Jesus, but perhaps the religious authorities have begun to figure out that confronting Jesus directly doesn’t work all that well.  So this leader of the synagogue does something that Family Systems Theory calls triangling. He takes his wrath out on the crowd instead of on Jesus.

Jesus doesn’t let him get by with that.  What Jesus does is called de-triangling.  He confronts the leader, and in so doing also addresses the priests, scribes and Pharisees who might be muttering to one another. Jesus says to them:

“You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?”

Jesus isn’t necessarily denying the importance of the Sabbath as a day of worship and rest.  He himself observed the Sabbath.  However,  he is criticizing the preposterous interpretation that would prevent acts of compassion.

It would be illogical and inhumane not to lead an animal to water to drink on the Sabbath day; how much more not to heal this fellow Jew (a daughter of Abraham) who had been in bondage to Satan for 18 years!

Jesus had already addressed their legalistic interpretation of the Sabbath earlier in his ministry, declaring to them that:

The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5).

And when he healed a man whose hand was withered he asked the pointed question:

I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?(Luke 6:9).

Mark’s Gospel quotes Jesus’ eloquent perspective on the proper use of the law, which is meant to benefit human beings, not enslave or oppress them:

The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

It is clear that Jesus won this round — as he does every round:

When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.

APPLY:  

We Christians need to get past the false opposition between law and grace.  The law is never described in the New Testament as an evil thing.  Legalism, which is the effort to attain salvation by one’s own obsessive-compulsive ritual righteousness instead of relying on God’s grace, is the problem.

Salvation is not a human achievement of any kind — through works, the law, or spiritual discipline. Salvation is a gift of God for the sake of Christ.

The law doesn’t save, and the law never trumps love and compassion. However, the moral law, used properly under the auspices of the law of love, can provide moral guidance to the Christian.  Jesus observed the law by resting and worshiping on the Sabbath because of his love for his Father.

But when law becomes legalism, and morality becomes moralism, then the law becomes a bludgeon instead of a tool for spiritual growth.

The obsessive-compulsive rigidity of the leader of the synagogue misses the whole point of the law of the Sabbath.  A day that is created for rest and renewal becomes instead a day of rigid rules that increase religious anxiety and guilt, and neglects those who are suffering.

Jesus reminds us that the law at its best is for the spiritual growth and benefit of human beings.  The law at its best can be an extension of his loving grace rather than a source of oppression.

RESPOND: 

This passage makes me think of Victor Hugo’s masterpiece, Les Miserable.  Jean Valjean, the protagonist, has been imprisoned because he broke the law — he stole a loaf of bread for his starving family.  The law is strict and rigid concerning theft.

After he is released — 19 years later — he is offered hospitality by a kindly bishop who finds him shivering and homeless on the street.  Valjean tries to steal the bishop’s silver, but when he is arrested the bishop insists to the authorities that he had given the silverware to Valjean.  Valjean goes free, a much richer man because of the grace of the bishop.  The bishop tells Valjean that his life has been spared for God’s sake, and he should use the silver to make a better man of himself.

The major complication of the novel is the character of Inspector Javert.  As the plot develops, Valjean has become the compassionate, generous mayor of  a French city, and a wealthy and just owner of a factory.  But Javert becomes suspicious — he begins to remember Valjean from years before when Javert was a prison guard, and learns that Valjean has been accused of another crime.

Javert makes it his life’s mission to obsessively hunt Valjean and arrest him.  In a moment of dramatic irony, Javert falls into the hands of revolutionaries, and Valjean contrives to spare his life.  But Javert cannot live with the conflict of his rigid devotion to the law and the merciful goodness of his intended victim,  Valjean.  Because of his intense inner conflict, he finds the contradictions irreconcilable  and drowns himself in the Seine River.

That is a rather elaborate illustration of the principle that there is a spiritual law of grace and love that always trumps the rigid law of legalism.

Lord, I love your law — but it is the law of love that I seek to follow.  I pray that you will give me a healthy respect and obedience to your law, but always illumined by your love and compassion.  Amen. 

PHOTOS:
"Orthodoxy" by timchallies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.