Fallen Into Knowledge

For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you

Tomorrow is Palm Sunday, when remember Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem. If we back up a couple of steps in his story from that entrance, we remember that Jesus “set his face toward Jerusalem” knowing full well what awaited him there. Even as people set palm branches in his path, he walked toward the cross. This radical obedience of Christ is paradigmatic for our own service for him: we lay down our lives for the sake of others. Giving up our “rights,” we lift others’ up.

(incidentally, Paul uses the above argument to preface a discussion about how the corinthian church should deal with their finances.)

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subject to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

The center point of a Christian Ecology is the recognition that (1) the creation itself experienced fracturing effects of the Fall and (2) that the reconciliatory sacrifice of Jesus also extends - through the church - to creation. As a result of this the Church, which acts as God’s agent in the world (ministers of the message of reconciliation) for reconciliation, takes up the prelapsarian role of caring for Creation and thus demonstrating God’s own care and creativity.
Thus, a Christian Ecology must move beyond contemporary concerns for humankind’s impact on the earth (while not ignoring those concerns); such concerns, while valid, fall short of imagining a restored relationship to the earth. Rather, a Christian Ecology must imagine and enact - for its own sake and for others’ - living on the land as if it were God’s own cherished possession - as indeed, it is.

Since I this blog a higher word to picture ratio than I like, here is a picture.

Those of us in Portland experienced a beautiful day today - we experienced the sun.  I ate my lunch while sitting on the porch in shirtsleeves, went on a bike ride, and enjoyed the tree pictured above which went from no flowers to lots of flowers in a day.

While reading the book of Acts today, I was thinking about how the Bible never comes to us systematized. The Bible is full of theology, for sure, but that theology is rarely, if ever, abstracted from a particular set of circumstances. The may speeches given by Paul and others in Acts triggered this line of thought; in each case these speeches function as theological justifications for are certian set of actions - like Peter explaining the apostles’ speaking in tongues.
I guess what I am driving at is that there is nothing in the Bible that approaches “systematic theology.” Theology, in the bible is occasional - theological reflection is instigated by a certain occasion.
Tomorrow I begin reading Paul’s letters to various churches - a chunk of scripture that Protestant theologians and pastors have heavily relied on during the last couple of centuries. We have often used these texts as a starting point for developing an abstract theology. Capital “T” truth: truth that is universal, de-particularized - and I am beginning to think, therefore foreign to the language of the Bible.

{edit: Right after posting this, I happened upon a post entitiled “Ten propositions on being a theologian” on another blog, which says what I would like to have said, had I sufficient grasp on language - or my mind. Read that instead.}

Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have com to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Some people, when having a crisis of faith, question the existence of God. For myself, in times of crisis, I do not wonder if God exists, but if He’s good.
When I feel that everything is going wrong, and when I am angry at God for something or the other, I often find myself thinking about the above passage:

What alternative do I have? To whom shall I go, if not crawling back to my Saviour?

In the Law of Moses, the Sabbath was not merely a law, it was an idea that sat at the center of Israel’s economics - or, at least, the economics of Israel as envisioned by Moses.
Consider:

The command to rest every seventh day was often accompanied by the explanation, “you shall not do any work - you, your son, your daughter,, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your town.” The command to rest had a social aspect; namely, that the Israelites were to provide rest for all those whose labour they benefitted from. (Exodus 20)

In addition to resting every seventh day, there was also to be a sabbath years’ rest. On the sabbath year the Israelites were to let the land rest: they were to let the land lie fallow. This law also comes with an explanation: “so that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animals may eat.” Then the sabbath day law is re-iterated: “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey may have relief, and your homeborn slave and the resident alien may be refreshed.” Again, The Israelites were to cease work, for the purpose of providing rest for others. The sabbath year extends that rest to the land itself. (Exodus 23)

Finally every seventh seventh year was to be a year of jubilee: the year of jubilee extends the “provision of rest” theme even further. In addition to the provisions of the sabbath year, in the year of jubilee the slaves were to be freed, and the land which had been bought and sold was to be returned to its ancestral family. The year of jubilee was nothing short of a re-distrubution of wealth. It also highlights another aspect of Israel’s economy - they did not own the land on which they lived:

The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; and with me you are but aliens and tenants. Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land.(Leviticus 25)

The sabbath, then is not just a law that happened into the decalogue, but indeed is central to the economic life of Israel as envisioned in the Law of Moses.

Fast forward to Luke.

In Luke we see Jesus clash with the religious leaders concerning the sabbath several times. The first incident, which is typical, is told to us in Luke 6 in two parts; in the first, Jesus’ disciples are munching on some wheat as they walk through the fields, and in the second part, Jesus heals a man with a withered hand.
Now, growing up, I was told that we were no longer required to obey the sabbath, as christians who were no longer under the law. One of the justifications of this claim (since although we did not have to obey the sabbath commandment, we were still not allowed to covet) was that since Jesus did not regard the sabbath law, we were not obliged to either.
However, given the background discussion above, it should be clear that far from annulling the commandment to keep the sabbath, Jesus was refocusing our attention to its purpose: the provision of rest for the weary.

What do we make of this? Perhaps this: The Sabbath is not primarily something we take, but something we are called to provide.

Some thoughts on the “Longer Ending of Mark:”

1. It doesn’t matter whether or not Mark wrote it, its still scripture.

2. It seems that, of the whole ending, the only part that seems strange to our ears is vss. 17-18. while reading this today , I found it less strange than I had before. Although I’m not sure that I recommend drinking poison, I think that this passage fits in the general framework of the gospel story. If we read Jesus as ushering in the Kingdom - the era when God rules righteously over his people, a kingdom characterized by peace (free of the fracturing of the fall), then the things described in this passage wouldn’t be a big deal for the citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom.

2a. It must be said that the disjunction between the vision of Mark 16:17-18 and the reality that we experience is likely the impetus for much of Paul’s writings. That and the fact that the Messiah of the Old Testament came, then died and then left.

{there are 28 chapters in Matthew - Its a sign!}

The last few days have been spent in the prophets, and the parts of the Bible with which I am least familiar (Jonah excepting). Matthew, on the other hand…
After paying particular attention to the passages in the Old Testament concerning “the day of the Lord” and the time when Israel would be restored to the Land, Jesus’ actions gain new potency. Jesus announces the Kingdom, for sure - but he also enacts it: everwhere he goes life and redemption and restoration follows behind. People are restored to community: leppers, the unclean, the lame - all those excluded are brought back in by Jesus. All the while he speaks against those who would exclude the same “sinners” from fellowship.
Jesus’ life is an emphatic “no” to a world drenched in sin - even death could not keep him.

When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not wrong? And when you offer those that are lame or are sick, is that not wrong? Try presenting that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the Lord of Hosts.

Ouch. How often do I “squeeze god into my schedule?” Even the concept of “my schedule” seems to put the priority on myself, as if my needs were the most important thing, and of the highest priority.

{thus ends the Old Testament. I have to say, right now I am tired. I think the prophets, since I am not nearly as familiar with them as I ought to be, are hard to read. Easter is coming, Matthew is tomorrow.}

Okay. Zechariah has to be the strangest book in the Bible. Hands down.
I really don’t know how to read Apocalyptic literature. Clearly the language is not “literal” in a “please buy sour cream at the store” kind of way, but beyond that, I am not really sure how it functions, rhetorically speaking. Or, to say that a little clearer: What is the author’s expected response to this strange book?