Proper 8, Saturday: Musings on the afterlife
Today's Readings:
In Samuel, Saul calls another roll. Jonathan is not there. Saul has the ark brought forth. As chaos ensues in teh Philistine camp (thanks to Jonathan), Saul draws his army into battle. Israel wins the day. Saul commands the troops not to eat before nightfall. Jonathan does not hear this order and eats some honey. Jonathan complains against his father.
In Acts, God tells Ananias, a man in Damascus, to got ot he house of Judas to lay hands on Saul. Ananias resists, knowing Sauls reputation, but relents when God assures him that things are working out. He goes to Saul and lays hands on him and baptizes him.
In Luke, Jesus is crucified. He prays for God to forgive 'them'. One of the criminals who are hung with him derides him, but the other rebukes him. Jesus promises that one that "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
The Gospel reminds me of a discussion in Lynne Truss' book
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. The comma in Jesus' statement is theologically important. I don't think the original Greek had punctuation. I may be wrong, but if that is true, then all punctuation in the English Bible is editorial, and here it plays a deeper role. In the back of the
BCP the 39 articles of religion state that it is believed that Jesus went into hell, or sheol, after the crucifixion, and some of the non-canonical books have great stories about the harrowing of hell, but Jesus' statement, with the comma where it is, tells me that Jesus didn't think that he was going to spend any time in hell. Jesus felt that he was going straight to heaven.
The other implication of the comma before 'today' is that death-bed conversions work. We don't like to think that they work. We don't like to ponder Charlie Manson begging God for repentance right before he dies and being baptized and being forgiven and going to heaven. It doesn't fit right with what we commonly understand to be 'Justice.' But in truth, what we consider to be 'Justice' is more often than not 'Revenge' or 'Retribution'.
This passage is unique to Luke in the canonical Gospels. I haven't surveyed the rest of them, but it means that the Lucan community wanted true believers to go straight to heaven.
Here are some other dangerous thoughts. Jesus thought that he was on his way to paradise. Tradition states that he was resurrected on the third day, but he was put in the tomb on Friday and nobody went to look until Sunday. The resurrection could have happened any time after the rock was rolled into place. But tradition also says that Jesus was seen for forty days after the crucifixion in fleshy form, and this is in the Book of Acts, which is the second part of the Lucan Gospel, so what is going on here?
I dismiss the idea that Jesus survived Good Friday, woke up in the tomb, and then lived for a little while and taught a little more, using his 'death' as a weapon, before dying of his injuries (or, as one rumor had it, going East and ending up in Japan and keeping a rice farm). I dismiss any notion that Jesus survived Good Friday at all, no matter how much you add to the story to make it sound plausible. I can't reject the corporeal resurrection of the flesh of Jesus. The tomb was empty. As for his post-death appearances, I'm still not entirely convinced, but Jesus was resurrected into his flesh, and I believe that I will be resurrected into my flesh at the end of time.
Looking at the rest of the readings, Ananias questions Jesus. If Luke is pushing the idea of pure faith in Jesus, then that probably doesn't include questioning Jesus. Of course, the desciples questioned Jesus, usually for clarification, and they also gave Jesus orders, which He ignored. Ananias questioned, and we need to remember that. He was not chastised, but he served Jesus and God because he had--eventually--faith and trust.
From Jonathans complaint, I would say that the sin of Saul was letting his own personal goals hinder his people.
Proper 8, Friday: Why did Jesus die? Pt 1.
Today's Readings:
- Psalm 140,142
- 1 Samuel 13:19-14:15
- Acts 9:1-9
- Luke 23:26-31
In Samuel,there is no smith in Israel, so there are no weapons to fight the Philistines. Jonathan, one of the few with armor and weapons, goes to a Philistine camp and kills twenty or so.
In Acts, Saul seeks approval to travel and arrest followers of 'The Way' when he sees a light and hears a voice. He is blind after this, and fasts.
In Luke, Jesus is marched away, and Simon of Cyrene is given the task of carrying Jesus' cross. Women wail at this march, and Jesus stops for a chat. I find it amazing that Jesus would be allowed to stop and chat. He tells them "for the days are surely coming when they will say 'blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'fall on us' and to the hills 'cover us.'
This last bit is a quotation from Hosea, which requires a lot of research to fully understand. It's on my list of projects to look into.
Last night I heard a radio program that tried to explain Limited Atonement, one of the five points of Calvinism. I disregard atonement theology for a number of reasons, but it got me thinking about why Jesus was killed. Atonement theology states that Jesus died to wash away our sins, or make salvation possible, depending on the variety of atonement theology in question. So why did Jesus die? If it wasn't to wash away my sins, then did he have to die by execution at all? I doubt Jesus would have seen old age. Human history has shown that when one person starts talking about peace and justice in a big picture kind of way, there is a small percentage of people in power who start thinking about ways of shutting this person up. Jesus' last words in Luke, then, prove to be of extreme importance.
As I search for meaning behind these words of Jesus, I first think that Jesus is talking about punishment against Israel. Hosea, like all the prophets, discusses infidelity leading to punishment, leading to redemption, leading to reclaiming the land God promised them. Jesus seems to imply that by executing him, Israel will suffer punishments for their sins. Jesus is not saying 'Do not weep for my death, for through it you will be saved.' Jesus is saying, things are going to get a whole lot worse for Israel. Not solely because of their treatment of Jesus, but their treatment of Jesus is a cog in a wheel of systematic injustice. That is why Israel will fall.
Proper 8: Thursday
Today's Readings:
- Psalm 131,132
- 1 Samuel 13:5-18
- Acts 8:26-40
- Luke 23:13-25
Several years later, the Philistines prepare for anothe battle, and Saul organizes the troops again, but Samuel does not show up on the seventh day. Saul takes itupon himself to offer the sacrifice. Samuel arrives and chastices Saul. Philip is told to head south, he meets a Eunich, baptizes him, and is taken away to Caesaria. Pilate offers Jesus to be freed, but the chief priests demand Barabbas, an insurgent, to be freed instead.
So maybe Pilate isn't a nice guy after all, because despite finding Jesus innocent, he still offeres to have Jesus flogged before setting Him free. What kind of judgement is that? "Well, he's innocent of any crime, but since you hate him so much I'll have the bejezus whipped out of him and let him go." Doesn't make sense. My Bible has no footnotes linking any of this portion of Luke's Gospel to other parts of scripture, so there is no obvious prophecy this portion ofthe text is meant to fulfill, which probably means that the historical Jesus was treated this way.
I am also confused by Samuels Chastising of Saul. Okay, yesterday I read a passage entitled "Samuel's Farewell Address" and here in Chapter 13, after an unknown number of years plus two (the numbers are missing in the Hebrew and Septuagint according to my Bible), Samuel is still around. The custom of wating seven days to rousethe troops before going to war I get. It can take time to get people where they need to be for any project, but why was it out of place for Saul to make the burnt offerings of good will? He did it to rally his troops, keep morale (and his numbers) up. Why is this a bad thing? Samuel doesn't explain why it's bad, just tells Saul that his time is up, and God is looking for a better King.
At least the book of Acts gives me something to grasp onto. The Rector of my parish has a few famous quips. One of them is "Never resist a generous impulse." Phillip doesn't resist the generosity to baptize the eunich. Also, I find this interesting, when Phillip went to Samaria and baptized with water, the Holy Spirit (reportedly) didn't come to them until Peter arrived. Here, on the road to Gaza, a wilderness road, the eunich is baptized and recieves the holy spirit. Why this difference? It probably had something to do with the various Jesus Movements that were started after the crucifixion. I reject the notion that the New Testament is the sum total of all the books written about Jesus, and we know that several others were written, but eventaully not included in the Christian Bible. There were twelve apostles, and several people who followed Jesus throughout his public ministry: Mary Magdalene, Matthias, and others. There were epistles and gospels written all over the place, and I'm sure that one group believed that only Peter could pass the Holy Spirit to people, and others thought that anyone who was baptized could do it.
I step out of it all by assuring myself that the Holy Spirit is there all the time, spiritual practice is about feeling that spirit no matter where you are.
Proper 8: Wednesday: A Dangerous Thought about Pilate
Today's Readings:
- Psalm 119:145-176
- 1 Samuel 12:1-6,16-25
- Acts 8:14-25
- Luke 23:1-12
Samuel begins to say good-bye. he challenges anyone to charge him with misdeeds, and gives the people a final warning to be faithful to God. (Note: he doesn't tell them to repent from their sins, just to stop them). In Acts, the Samarians believe in Jesus because of Phillip, and Peter and John come to annoint them with the Holy Spirit, because it had not come to them. Simon the magician tries to buy the Holy Spirit, and Peter tells him to repent. In Luke, Jesus is questioned by Pilate, who sees no wrong in Him, and sends Him to Herod, who was looking forward to meeting Jesus but his questions go unanswered, so he deliveres Jesus back to Pilate.
Here's a dangerous thought: PIlate has always seemed to me to be a non-villian in the story of Jesus. I got the impression, as a child, that I should hate Pilate, but I never could, because he seemed to be a nice guy who tried to help Jesus. So what if the Gospel writers tried to convince their readers to trust and work with gentile political leaders? They knew that the Chief Priests would not help the various Jesus Movements, and there was already a movement to bring gentiles into the movements. The leaders of the early Jesus movements knew that if the gentile leaders could be in the movement, or at least sympathetic, the teachings of Jesus could continue. The lesson the writers may have wanted their readers to get from Pilate was "be nice to the govenors, because they'll eventually be our allies." The tactic (if it existed) paid off in 323 A.D.
On the way home from a workshop last night, I listened to a Christian broadcast about the Holy Spirit and the speaking of tongues. During the broadcast, the speaker tried to explain how we can see the signs of the spirit. I wonder what it looked like in Samaria. How are people baptised into Jesus without the Holy Spirit? I've always understood baptism to be a door to the Holy Spirit.
Year One, Proper 8: Tuesday: The mantle of Kingship
Today's Readings:
- Psalm [120],121,122,123
- 1 Samuel 11:1-15
- Acts 8:1-13
- Luke 22:63-71
Saul hears of the Ammonites aggressions and raises an army by threatening Israel's population of oxen. Saul defeats the Ammonites. The people fall in line and want to kill Saul's earlier detractors. King Saul forbids it.
Saul/Paul begins to arrest members of the Jesus movement, and Phillip preaches in Samaria, converting many, including a magician names Simon. Jesus is mocked and beaten.
The way Saul raises an army is very suspicious. He slaughters a yoke of oxen and dismembers them, sending the animal bits across the territory and telling people that if they don't follow Saul and Samuel into war, their oxen will suffer the same fate. Of course, Samuel told the people that a king would not really solve their problems, but gave them a King because they demanded it. Saul seems to be ill-equipped to handle the mantle of King.
He goes from being a humble man to a bully pretty quick, probably in about a month, but during that month he did not have popular support. At least he was wise enough not to let his supporters kill the people who didn't support him when Samuel annointed him King. Saul also didn't really understand the task set before him when searching for his flock. The servant boy who was with him seemed to lead the way. Saul did not really know who he was, nor his destiny, and because the demand of a King would be a military protector, he steps into that role without it being part of his nature.
I may have this completely wrong. I'll admit it right up front.
Another interesting note is Simon the magician. We are warned about false prophets, and there are Christians today who refuse to watch illusionists because it is too close to 'magic' which is associated with 'satan'. Simon the magician declared himself great, but not a prophet. I don't know if he stopped performing his magic after his conversion. Hopefully we'll hear a few more things about him soon.
Year One, Proper 8: Monday
Today's Readings:
- Psalm 106:1-18
- 1 Samuel 10:17-27
- Acts 7:44-8:1a
- Luke 21:52-62
Samuel summons the people of Israel at Mizpah and announces that Saul is their king. Nahash, king of the Ammonites, tortures Jews across the Jordan. Stephen finishes his narrative, he declares that God is in heaven (quoting Isiah) and not in the house that Solomon built. He levies his charge against the council and they stone Stephen to death. Young Saul looks on and approves of the killing. Peter denies Jesus.
There seems to be little here that doesn't go into politics. If Saul is justified in going to war because of torture, then why aren't Islamist extremists justified in going to war against the United States because of the torture going on on our military bases? Why are we allowed to torture people and partly justify it with "Well, these people have no respect for life." We should be above such things. We don't have the right to torture anyone, just because they torture and they behead their enemies, it doesn't justify when we do these things. The council wasn't justified in stoning Stephen, yet Saul, the man Christians revere for his teachings, approved of it, even though he didn't participate in the stoning.
As a progressive, it is easy to dismiss Paul, but since so much of his writings serve as a foundation for the religion, we must deal with what he wrote. Many things should be dismissed ("Women should keep quiet and have no voice in church," for example) but he probably did say a few good things that we need to ferret out. Dismissing him entirely is not worthwhile, because it closes the door on any truth he did write.
Year One, Proper 8: Sunday: Faith as Trust
Today's Readings:
- Psalm 118
- 1 Samuel 10:1-16
- Romans 4:13-24
- Matt 21:23-32
Samuel annoints Saul and gives him signs of future encounters. Saul prophesies, but what he says is not recorded. Saul returns home but does not tell his father about being annointed. Paul's letter to the Romans describes the promise God made to Abraham coming through faith. Matthews Gospel tells the same story from Proper 5, Saturday, and also the parable of two sons, telling the chief priests that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter heaven before them, because the sinners recognized John, whereas the chief priests did not.
The Faith of Abraham may have been more than simple blind obedience to a bullying God. Let's face it, waiting over a hundred years for a child, only to be told to sacrifice the boy, is not what we expect of an all loving God. But the word 'faith' has several meanings. As Marcus Borg pointed out in his book
The Heart of Christianity, part of faith is trust. I've also been reading a few books on Zen Christianity (for lack of a better term) and with those books, I think I realize that what Abraham had was material detachment. My wife's favorite passage is Jesus' "consider the Lillies of the field" speech. Jesus taught us not to worry, but have trust in God that things will be all right. Abraham did. Recently we read James' progression from desire to death. One of the side effects of desire is worry that our desires will not be met. Last November, my wife had to have surgery that would affect our chances of having a child ourselves. I barely understood the procedure, but trusted the hospital and the surgeons, and I trusted my wife's strength. I had no worries about the surgery or the recovery period, and everything has been fine since. My wife's recovery was miraculously short and free of pain medication. I didn't so much want the surgery to go well and for my wife to recover. I just sort of knew that it would be so. I had trust in God and the systems at work. So, have trust that all will be well.
