Two weeks ago I received some of the best news of my life. My friend Shelley had been enduring chemotherapy for 4 months, then had major surgery to remove any "leftover" cancer. On January 5, she was told there was no cancer in the tissue they had removed, or the lymph nodes. For me, a friend in a different time zone who found out in a Facebook post, this was indeed great news--it ranks in my life with "Will you marry me?" "It's a girl!" and "It's a boy!" in terms of being life-changing, transformational news.
The next morning I sang Matins, Psalm 95: "Let us come before God's presence with thanksgiving and raise a loud shout to the Lord with psalms." The significance of "thanksgiving" rattled my bones as I prayed--indeed, I am thankful in a new way for this new life for Shelley and for our relationship. It's so much more than appreciation or relief, though they are both part of the experience. It is deep, deep gratitude that God knows each cell of our bodies, even the cancerous ones, and that God desires wholeness for us, body, mind, and soul. It's a "come to Jesus" moment in which I realize I never really can return the favor or pay God back in any way, not even close. This is a gift in the truest sense, no occasion or persuasion or expectation of return.
The feelings I have around this are not polite--"Remember to say 'Thank you'". These feelings are intense and hard and sure and deep, and a little scary. This isn't just "something I picked up for you" kind of gift, but a gift that has changed the way I think about the world and my, and Shelley's, place in it.
I am very thankful, to God, for Shelley. And, as the psalmist suggests, I think I may have shouted!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Jan/Feb Bible Study: Mark
Because of various scheduling conflicts, the first Bible study of 2012 will meet on these dates:
Jan. 18 10 am @ Clarie's (WELCA)
6:30 pm @ Bailey's (Buda)
Jan. 25 6:30 pm @ Ruge-Jones's (San Marcos)
Feb. 1 6:30 pm @ Schlortt's (Kyle)
Feb. 8 6:45 pm @ Helen's (Austin)
Welcome Phil Ruge-Jones, our resident Mark scholar, who has written this month's blog intro to the Bible study. Read the Gospel of Mark (all of it!) and we'll see you at one of the gatherings.
Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark around 70 AD, during the time of the Jewish-Roman war that reached its brutal climax with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. In the midst of this massive destruction, the people of faith were perplexed and trying to sort out how in God’s name this could happen. How could God’s dwelling place and the city of God have been destroyed by imperial forces? Where was God in the midst of this national tragedy? How could God allow thousands of the chosen people to be slaughtered without mercy? With the temple destroyed, the people of faith had to figure out one more time what it meant to be the people of God in a new circumstance.
The Gospel of Mark is one response, but its purpose is not merely to explain what had happened. The gospel became a vessel capable of carrying their profound grief and perplexity. By telling of the crucifixion of Jesus, they also heard echoes of the Roman crucifixion of husbands, brothers, neighbors, and children. Their grief at what humanity did to Jesus flowed into their more recent grief. But also the hope that grew out of Jesus’ promised resurrection filled them with hope for a new future.
These people continued to live in the shadow of the Roman Empire. This imperial power was the global reality that dominated and shaped their lives on even the most intimate levels. They remembered the one called Jesus who spoke of another empire, the empire of God. Although we are more familiar with the translation the “kingdom of God” one could also translate the Greek word for kingdom as “empire”. This captures the tension between Rome’s empire and the one announced by Jesus. Jesus’ phrase was intentionally oppositional. For those who knew too well the brutality of the Roman Empire, Jesus proclaimed and enacted a very different kind of empire. This one had God’s initiation as its source and it gave people healing, bread, and life. Jesus’ commitment to proclaiming and living in this alternative empire eventually cost him his life.
One of the immediate contexts for proclaiming Jesus's story as the Gospel of Mark may have been on Easter eve at the vigil. Those who had studied the Christian way for as long as a year would hear the story of the life of Jesus as one last reminder of the way that they were beginning to walk. Hearing the story was part of the ritual that marked the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ in their lives.
As you read ask yourself these questions:
Where would this gospel address the loss its original hearers felt?
Where would it give them hope?
What is the “empire” that Jesus announces like?
How would you characterize it?
What does it mean for you to live in the way that Jesus announced and embodied?
Jan. 18 10 am @ Clarie's (WELCA)
6:30 pm @ Bailey's (Buda)
Jan. 25 6:30 pm @ Ruge-Jones's (San Marcos)
Feb. 1 6:30 pm @ Schlortt's (Kyle)
Feb. 8 6:45 pm @ Helen's (Austin)
Welcome Phil Ruge-Jones, our resident Mark scholar, who has written this month's blog intro to the Bible study. Read the Gospel of Mark (all of it!) and we'll see you at one of the gatherings.
Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark around 70 AD, during the time of the Jewish-Roman war that reached its brutal climax with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. In the midst of this massive destruction, the people of faith were perplexed and trying to sort out how in God’s name this could happen. How could God’s dwelling place and the city of God have been destroyed by imperial forces? Where was God in the midst of this national tragedy? How could God allow thousands of the chosen people to be slaughtered without mercy? With the temple destroyed, the people of faith had to figure out one more time what it meant to be the people of God in a new circumstance.
The Gospel of Mark is one response, but its purpose is not merely to explain what had happened. The gospel became a vessel capable of carrying their profound grief and perplexity. By telling of the crucifixion of Jesus, they also heard echoes of the Roman crucifixion of husbands, brothers, neighbors, and children. Their grief at what humanity did to Jesus flowed into their more recent grief. But also the hope that grew out of Jesus’ promised resurrection filled them with hope for a new future.
These people continued to live in the shadow of the Roman Empire. This imperial power was the global reality that dominated and shaped their lives on even the most intimate levels. They remembered the one called Jesus who spoke of another empire, the empire of God. Although we are more familiar with the translation the “kingdom of God” one could also translate the Greek word for kingdom as “empire”. This captures the tension between Rome’s empire and the one announced by Jesus. Jesus’ phrase was intentionally oppositional. For those who knew too well the brutality of the Roman Empire, Jesus proclaimed and enacted a very different kind of empire. This one had God’s initiation as its source and it gave people healing, bread, and life. Jesus’ commitment to proclaiming and living in this alternative empire eventually cost him his life.
One of the immediate contexts for proclaiming Jesus's story as the Gospel of Mark may have been on Easter eve at the vigil. Those who had studied the Christian way for as long as a year would hear the story of the life of Jesus as one last reminder of the way that they were beginning to walk. Hearing the story was part of the ritual that marked the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ in their lives.
As you read ask yourself these questions:
Where would this gospel address the loss its original hearers felt?
Where would it give them hope?
What is the “empire” that Jesus announces like?
How would you characterize it?
What does it mean for you to live in the way that Jesus announced and embodied?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
It's Advent, the 4 weeks prior to Christmas when we "get ourselves ready". It's my favoritest season of the whole year, on any calendar. But it isn't an easy one: the stories are of incredible (as in unbelievable) events: the upsetting of "natural order" at the end of time; a crazy baptizing preacher from the wilderness; pregnancy for women for whom pregnancy doesn't seem possible.
Maybe those are the things I like about the stories in Advent. I can't explain them, I don't know why God works in such illogical and messy ways, but that is where God seems to do the best work. These stories keep the mystery of God, rather than trying to be logical and understandable. HOW God is present isn't as important as THAT God is present, after all.
In Advent we live in this paradox time: the hope of what is to be in Jesus, and the confidence that it's already fulfilled in Jesus. Add it to the list of mysteries, I guess.
I'm listening to "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee (somehow missed reading that before). There was a memorable quote today: "There are just some kind of men [sic] who are so busy worrying about the next world, they've never learned to live in this one." Advent is a time when we prepare to celebrate that God is present in THIS world, at THIS time, born again each year in Jesus--not that God needs a do-over, but we sure seem to need a reminder.
In the midst of tents being staked out and mobs descending at Wall Street and Wal-Mart, I invite you to remember God's presence and promise with us. The incarnation, after all, is about God finding this world "good"-- good at creation, and good enough to dwell in in Jesus.
I have for decades had a postcard on my wall, given to me by a friend in seminary: "Indeed! If God is really in this place, we know God is, we can't be in too much trouble now, can we?" (Thomas Merton)
May you be blessed in Advent, with discovering something about God and yourself, and with the trust gained by not needing to know more, which is one facet of faith.
Maybe those are the things I like about the stories in Advent. I can't explain them, I don't know why God works in such illogical and messy ways, but that is where God seems to do the best work. These stories keep the mystery of God, rather than trying to be logical and understandable. HOW God is present isn't as important as THAT God is present, after all.
In Advent we live in this paradox time: the hope of what is to be in Jesus, and the confidence that it's already fulfilled in Jesus. Add it to the list of mysteries, I guess.
I'm listening to "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee (somehow missed reading that before). There was a memorable quote today: "There are just some kind of men [sic] who are so busy worrying about the next world, they've never learned to live in this one." Advent is a time when we prepare to celebrate that God is present in THIS world, at THIS time, born again each year in Jesus--not that God needs a do-over, but we sure seem to need a reminder.
In the midst of tents being staked out and mobs descending at Wall Street and Wal-Mart, I invite you to remember God's presence and promise with us. The incarnation, after all, is about God finding this world "good"-- good at creation, and good enough to dwell in in Jesus.
I have for decades had a postcard on my wall, given to me by a friend in seminary: "Indeed! If God is really in this place, we know God is, we can't be in too much trouble now, can we?" (Thomas Merton)
May you be blessed in Advent, with discovering something about God and yourself, and with the trust gained by not needing to know more, which is one facet of faith.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
November Bible Study: Esther
We’ve talked a lot lately about the law as we’ve looked at Jonah, Amos, Zephaniah, and Malachi in the Hebrew testament. What we translate as “law”, Torah, is the instruction of God, mostly about how to live together well to preserve the identity and well-being of the community. The Torah sets a boundary around those who observe it: they are defined over and against other communities, nations, and religions. We tend to view Torah as rules and regulations; things you “have” to do or God will get mad at you. But I think Torah is more like customs that distinguish a group of people, as we might say, “Oh, those Germans drive so fast on their autobahn” or “Texans love brisket” (stolen from an ad I saw today!). These are not stereotypes (though they could be) as much as they are what’s “famous” about the group as a whole. Torah functions somewhat like this: God’s people keep Torah, know the laws, know how the relationship with Yahweh is structured; others do not.
In the book of Esther, there is more “over and against” defining of who God’s people are. Esther takes place after the divide into two kingdoms, after the Babylonian exile, after the return home and rebuilding of Jerusalem. But after a few generations of relocation, not everyone thought of Israel as “home”, so the Jews were scattered throughout the region, having established homes and families in foreign countries.
The city of Susa, in what is now Iran, was the winter capital of the king of Persia, which was a very diverse kingdom made up of locals as well as immigrants and refugees who had been taken captive or dispersed abroad under the Babylonian empire. The book of Esther provides a contrast between the rich and powerful Persians and the humble Jews, who seem to be trying to fit in and to remain faithful (although, interestingly, God is never mentioned in this book!).
The most striking contrast is between those who live by fate and those who live by faith. The Persians put stock in fate: casting lots (“Purim”) to determine significant days in the calendar (3:7), and attributing bad policy and the suffering of others to “fate” (1:15, 8:8). The Jews, however, trust that God will provide, and they take action on their own behalf to “make room” for God to intervene: Esther is put forward as a candidate for queen (2:8) giving her privilege and power she, or any Jew living as a foreigner in the country, would not have had. Her influence with the king in gaining an audience and exposing Haman’s plot can be seen as “divine intervention”, although God is not credited in the story.
Esther is one more story of God saving God’s people in the midst of imminent danger, when they are about to be wiped out—and a thorough destruction it would have been if Haman’s decree had been carried out. It is less explicitly Jewish than other books, in that “what it means to live as people of the covenant” is not described or addressed, and God is not even mentioned. It is a story about accountability as, and to, the community, by those in power on behalf of those on the margins (4:14).
Q: Does this story remind you of any others, in the Bible or outside the Bible?
Q: How explicit do we have to be about our faith in order to be considered faithful? Is the absence of God’s name a problem, considering this is a Biblical book?
In the book of Esther, there is more “over and against” defining of who God’s people are. Esther takes place after the divide into two kingdoms, after the Babylonian exile, after the return home and rebuilding of Jerusalem. But after a few generations of relocation, not everyone thought of Israel as “home”, so the Jews were scattered throughout the region, having established homes and families in foreign countries.
The city of Susa, in what is now Iran, was the winter capital of the king of Persia, which was a very diverse kingdom made up of locals as well as immigrants and refugees who had been taken captive or dispersed abroad under the Babylonian empire. The book of Esther provides a contrast between the rich and powerful Persians and the humble Jews, who seem to be trying to fit in and to remain faithful (although, interestingly, God is never mentioned in this book!).
The most striking contrast is between those who live by fate and those who live by faith. The Persians put stock in fate: casting lots (“Purim”) to determine significant days in the calendar (3:7), and attributing bad policy and the suffering of others to “fate” (1:15, 8:8). The Jews, however, trust that God will provide, and they take action on their own behalf to “make room” for God to intervene: Esther is put forward as a candidate for queen (2:8) giving her privilege and power she, or any Jew living as a foreigner in the country, would not have had. Her influence with the king in gaining an audience and exposing Haman’s plot can be seen as “divine intervention”, although God is not credited in the story.
Esther is one more story of God saving God’s people in the midst of imminent danger, when they are about to be wiped out—and a thorough destruction it would have been if Haman’s decree had been carried out. It is less explicitly Jewish than other books, in that “what it means to live as people of the covenant” is not described or addressed, and God is not even mentioned. It is a story about accountability as, and to, the community, by those in power on behalf of those on the margins (4:14).
Q: Does this story remind you of any others, in the Bible or outside the Bible?
Q: How explicit do we have to be about our faith in order to be considered faithful? Is the absence of God’s name a problem, considering this is a Biblical book?
Monday, October 3, 2011
October Bible Study: Amos, Zephaniah, Malachi
This month we’ll read books of three distinct prophets, to see how time and context shape their message. This simple timeline may be helpful:
1020 United kingdom (Saul, David, Solomon)
922 Split of kingdom (10 tribes of Israel; 2 tribes in Judah)
786-746 King Jeroboam, Amos
721 Assyrians defeat Israel; Jerusalem taken; temple destroyed
640-609 King Josiah, Zephaniah
587 Exile under Babylonian empire
538 Return under Persian empire
515 return to Jerusalem; temple rebuilt
After this, Malachi; no longer a king for the people
(If you have a Lutheran Study Bible, there’s a timeline on p. 30-32)
As you read each book, try to answer these questions for each:
--What is God / prophet upset about?
--Will there be punishment? What does it look like?
--Will there be reconciliation? What does it look like?
--Can you think of anything specific that happened that could have been interpreted as punishment or reconciliation?
Book details:
Amos writes before exile, and addresses the northern tribes of Israel primarily. He assumes they are familiar with the Torah, the Law, and so they’ll see the error of their ways and return to the covenant YHWH established with all twelve tribes (the split was their idea; they left the other two, Judah and Benjamin).
Zephaniah writes after the destruction of Jerusalem, the capital of the promised land and center of God’s kingdom; but before the Babylonian exile. There is concern for loyalty to YHWH, especially in the midst of other nations exerting their power over the Israelites; will they remain faithful, will they be able to find God, outside of Jerusalem? The name Ba’al means “master” or “lord” and is used as an honorific title, rather than referring to a particular deity. There were many “baalim” followed by “false prophets”, and were probably various local deities favored by a village. Remember that YHWH is a jealous God, and does not want the people honoring any other god as holy.
Malachi writes after the exile and return to Jerusalem, after the temple has been rebuilt and rededicated. The people are “home” again, with a new “home” for God, but things are still not right. The name “Malachi” means “messenger” and does not refer to a particular person, but is a general message to God’s people in a time of transition. Things are not the same and never will be, but in 500 years God will do a new thing (Matthew is next!)
Dates and locations for October: (all Wednesdays)
10/5 6:30pm Rasmussen's (Kyle)
10/12 10:00am Living Word (Buda)
10/12 6:30pm Bouzard's (San Marcos)
10/19 6:30pm Marshall's (Buda)
10/26 6:45pm Just's (Austin)
See you soon! Of course you may bring a friend...
1020 United kingdom (Saul, David, Solomon)
922 Split of kingdom (10 tribes of Israel; 2 tribes in Judah)
786-746 King Jeroboam, Amos
721 Assyrians defeat Israel; Jerusalem taken; temple destroyed
640-609 King Josiah, Zephaniah
587 Exile under Babylonian empire
538 Return under Persian empire
515 return to Jerusalem; temple rebuilt
After this, Malachi; no longer a king for the people
(If you have a Lutheran Study Bible, there’s a timeline on p. 30-32)
As you read each book, try to answer these questions for each:
--What is God / prophet upset about?
--Will there be punishment? What does it look like?
--Will there be reconciliation? What does it look like?
--Can you think of anything specific that happened that could have been interpreted as punishment or reconciliation?
Book details:
Amos writes before exile, and addresses the northern tribes of Israel primarily. He assumes they are familiar with the Torah, the Law, and so they’ll see the error of their ways and return to the covenant YHWH established with all twelve tribes (the split was their idea; they left the other two, Judah and Benjamin).
Zephaniah writes after the destruction of Jerusalem, the capital of the promised land and center of God’s kingdom; but before the Babylonian exile. There is concern for loyalty to YHWH, especially in the midst of other nations exerting their power over the Israelites; will they remain faithful, will they be able to find God, outside of Jerusalem? The name Ba’al means “master” or “lord” and is used as an honorific title, rather than referring to a particular deity. There were many “baalim” followed by “false prophets”, and were probably various local deities favored by a village. Remember that YHWH is a jealous God, and does not want the people honoring any other god as holy.
Malachi writes after the exile and return to Jerusalem, after the temple has been rebuilt and rededicated. The people are “home” again, with a new “home” for God, but things are still not right. The name “Malachi” means “messenger” and does not refer to a particular person, but is a general message to God’s people in a time of transition. Things are not the same and never will be, but in 500 years God will do a new thing (Matthew is next!)
Dates and locations for October: (all Wednesdays)
10/5 6:30pm Rasmussen's (Kyle)
10/12 10:00am Living Word (Buda)
10/12 6:30pm Bouzard's (San Marcos)
10/19 6:30pm Marshall's (Buda)
10/26 6:45pm Just's (Austin)
See you soon! Of course you may bring a friend...
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Bible Study: Matthew 25-26
The thing I'm noticing as I read these last few chapters of Matthew is a feeling, and it's a little claustrophobic, a little intrusive. At the beginning of Matthew, the story starts at a point (Nazareth) and expands across the whole region, following Jesus and the disciples as they travel. Now it's starting to zoom back in, the scope of the story is getting smaller. In chapter 26 especially things get intense and start to happen quickly; I feel like a lens has zoomed in on Jesus and I'm noticing lots of small details.
Another thing I sense about these chapters is a call to loyalty: are you in or are you out? It's time to make up your mind. Are you ready to go, with plenty of oil (25:1-13)? Do you know what to do (25:14-30)? Have you learned what I've been teaching you, and have you been practicing it (25:31-46)? Saying you believe is not enough; Jesus has come to make the world new, to transform God's people and the very way we live together--does it appear that you are being transformed?
Chapter 26 continues episodes of dis/loyalty: The Roman establishment (chief priests, elders, high priest--although they are Jewish religious officials, they are also pawns of Rome) is not loyal; a nameless woman who anoints Jesus is; Judas is not; Peter swears he will be; Jesus himself is not sure about the whole thing.
Q: Is there a difference between loyalty and faithfulness when it comes to our relationship with God? If so, what's the difference? Is one more important than the other?
Notice the sequence of events in this chapter, and the sense that we are "zooming in" on the climax of the story. In one chapter, the plot to arrest Jesus gets formed (v. 4), a woman anoints him in an acceptance of his death (6-13), Judas agrees to betray (14), they celebrate Passover and the shift to communion is commanded (26-29), the disciples declare their loyalty, they go to Gethsemane, take a nap while Jesus prays, Judas kisses him, he's arrested, he heals an ear, the disciples flee, Jesus is interviewed by Caiaphas and the elders and convicted, and Peter denies him. Wow. There is no time for reflecting on events; only for reporting them.
The church year sets a rhythm for us to feel the story in this way. At this time, from Pentecost to Advent, we are in "ordinary time". We hear stories of what Jesus was doing in his "ordinary time". They are slower, stretching out over these lazy months, allowing us to keep pace with him. But in Lent, and particularly Holy Week and the "triduum" (three days, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday) there's this intense focus on just a few hours of Jesus' life, and death. We zoom in on this story, the way the story zooms in for us. We have been taught to focus on "Jesus died for our sins", but there's so much more to the story. What about the disciples and their loyalty, or lack thereof? What about the Romans, and the deals made between the government and the religious establishment? And most importantly, what about the rest of the story? For me, the important piece is not why Jesus died (for my sins, or because of the Romans); but that God did not let that death be the end of Jesus' influence, reign, and presence in creation. But, this isn't supposed to be a sermon, and we haven't got to that part yet... so tune in again next week.
Another thing I sense about these chapters is a call to loyalty: are you in or are you out? It's time to make up your mind. Are you ready to go, with plenty of oil (25:1-13)? Do you know what to do (25:14-30)? Have you learned what I've been teaching you, and have you been practicing it (25:31-46)? Saying you believe is not enough; Jesus has come to make the world new, to transform God's people and the very way we live together--does it appear that you are being transformed?
Chapter 26 continues episodes of dis/loyalty: The Roman establishment (chief priests, elders, high priest--although they are Jewish religious officials, they are also pawns of Rome) is not loyal; a nameless woman who anoints Jesus is; Judas is not; Peter swears he will be; Jesus himself is not sure about the whole thing.
Q: Is there a difference between loyalty and faithfulness when it comes to our relationship with God? If so, what's the difference? Is one more important than the other?
Notice the sequence of events in this chapter, and the sense that we are "zooming in" on the climax of the story. In one chapter, the plot to arrest Jesus gets formed (v. 4), a woman anoints him in an acceptance of his death (6-13), Judas agrees to betray (14), they celebrate Passover and the shift to communion is commanded (26-29), the disciples declare their loyalty, they go to Gethsemane, take a nap while Jesus prays, Judas kisses him, he's arrested, he heals an ear, the disciples flee, Jesus is interviewed by Caiaphas and the elders and convicted, and Peter denies him. Wow. There is no time for reflecting on events; only for reporting them.
The church year sets a rhythm for us to feel the story in this way. At this time, from Pentecost to Advent, we are in "ordinary time". We hear stories of what Jesus was doing in his "ordinary time". They are slower, stretching out over these lazy months, allowing us to keep pace with him. But in Lent, and particularly Holy Week and the "triduum" (three days, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday) there's this intense focus on just a few hours of Jesus' life, and death. We zoom in on this story, the way the story zooms in for us. We have been taught to focus on "Jesus died for our sins", but there's so much more to the story. What about the disciples and their loyalty, or lack thereof? What about the Romans, and the deals made between the government and the religious establishment? And most importantly, what about the rest of the story? For me, the important piece is not why Jesus died (for my sins, or because of the Romans); but that God did not let that death be the end of Jesus' influence, reign, and presence in creation. But, this isn't supposed to be a sermon, and we haven't got to that part yet... so tune in again next week.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Bible Study: Matthew 23-24
As you continue your reading in Matthew, are you getting a sense of Jesus demonstrating and contrasting what IS faithful and what is not? Jesus redefines, in some ways, what it means to be faithful or obedient, what it means to keep the law.
In ch. 23, for example, Jesus rages against the “scribes and Pharisees”, who probably cannot be faulted in their observance of the law, in a technical sense. Jesus knows that the law is given to provide a framework within which God’s justice is practiced in God’s creation for God’s people. The piety of the scribes and Pharisees (some, not all, of them) has been reduced down to a mere following of the letter of the law, without meaning. The law has become an end in itself for them, not a means to the greater goal of justice. And so Jesus chastises them with this list of seven “Woe!”s , and almost makes fun of their religious accessories (phylacteries and fringes)—which he may himself wear.
Q: can you think of an example of “official religion” or the institution following a practice or declaring a decree that makes it less credible, and consequently, makes God less credible? How do we know where the line is between “variety of religious expression” and unfaithfulness that may discredit religion/God? Whose responsibility is it to monitor that line or to call those who cross it to account?
Vs. 37-39 Jesus’ lament to the city, “Jersualem, Jerusalem!”, conjures in me Jonah’s question when he is sent to Ninevah: “why would you want me to go there? They won’t listen.” And here we see a feminine image of God: the mother hen who gathers the chicks safely under her wing. Yet Jerusalem has been the stray, chirping around unprotected, thinking itself invincible.
As we near the end of this gospel, we enter into what I think of as “the last chance”—there’s more for Jesus to teach and more for them to learn, and he’s trying to cram it all in. His speeches get longer and he moves around less. He uses many metaphors to talk about the change to come, and refers to Hebrew stories and scripture.
It is interesting to remember that the gospel of Matthew was probably written down between 50-60 c.e., and the temple was destroyed in 70 c.e. As Roman oppression increased to the point of revolt, the people increased their hope that Messiah would come and deliver them. They probably “saw”or witnessed many who seemed trustworthy but turned out to be false. They felt the pain of those birth pangs, of hoping with all their being for deliverance from their situation, for a new day that God would usher in. The language here is very strong and very full; these are real images and some of these things are happening right around them.
Q: these are some of the more frightening images of how the kingdom of God breaks in. Do you find them compelling? Helpful? Do they make you want to “straighten up your act” or give up? In what tone do you hear Jesus saying them: warning, frightened, matter-of-fact? Do you find yourself “making the cut” but worrying about others who might not? Will the coming of the Son of Man be a good thing, or maybe not?
Keep in mind the larger context of the gospel of Matthew: he is demonstrating to a Jewish audience that Jesus is Jewish enough to qualify as the Messiah. In a time of rebuilding the community--literally, after the revolt--he is advocating that the Way of Jesus is the best way to be religious. Remember when we read just a paragraph at a time, it's easy to misunderstand or misinterpret the point of the whole story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)