Why I love John Wesley:
“Strive to enter the narrow door.
Strive, as in an agony of holy fear. A promise has been made of your entering into His rest (see Hebrews 4:9-11). Strive, lest you come short of it.
Strive, in all the fervor of desire, with groans that words cannot express.
Strive by prayer without ceasing. At all times, in all places, lift up your heart to God. Give Him no rest till you, like the Psalmist, ‘awake with God’s likeness’ and are satisfied with it.
To conclude: strive to enter in at the narrow gate. Strive, not only by this agony of soul, of conviction, of sorrow, of shame, of desire, of fear, of unceasing prayer. Strive, likewise, by putting in order all of your conversation, your whole life, by walking with all your strength in all the ways of God–the way of innocence, of piety, and of mercy. Shun all appearance of evil. Do all possible good to all people. Deny your own will in all things, and take up your cross daily.
Be ready to cut off everything that would hinder, and to cast it from you. Be ready and willing to suffer the loss of possessions, friends, of health–of all things on earth–so you may enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
(From How to Pray: The Best of John Wesley on Prayer, p. 17)
Here is the second part of my somewhat lengthy book review. See Part I for the first half.
A third cultural value discussed by DeSilva is the concept of family and how important family and community were to first century people. In the West today, we still know what it means to be in a family, although, individualism has greatly affected our understanding of what it means to be a part of a people. The idea of family and kinship in the first century went far beyond the immediate family (i.e. father, mother, siblings) to include one’s nation or ethnicity. The family or group was also a means of identity: “A person’s family of origin is the primary source for his or her status and location in the world and an essential reference point for the person’s identity [emphasis mine]” (158). From this value of kinship, we have a context for the New Testament’s description of the church as the “household of God” and believers as “children of God.” If status is derived from “family connection,” then what better way to assure believers than by claiming our inheritance as part of God’s family?
A second aspect of kinship, is how families were to treat each other as a family. This helps make sense of the many passages in the New Testament about “loving one another,” “carrying one another’s burdens,” and “seeking the good of the other.” Certainly families should do this! Lastly, the church as family transcends “bloodline or natural lineage” to include all who have “attached” themselves to Jesus Christ (200).
The final value that DeSilva discusses that affected both Greco-Romans and Jews in the first century is the issue of purity—what is clean or unclean. While we tend to think of the purity laws found in the Old Testament for Israel, issues of purity affects every culture in one way or another. For example, in our culture today, food out on a counter is acceptable in one’s house when preparing a meal—it’s considered clean. However, if the food was spread out over the staircase we would certainly see it as “unclean” (244). Humans naturally set boundaries of clean and unclean. Yet, in order to fully understand the New Testament’s “rewriting” of the Jewish purity codes, one would need to “step behind a millennia of ideology to recover the meaningfulness of the observance of purity regulations” (242). DeSilva seeks to make us aware of purity issues in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, to show that while the Church has abandoned some of the more archaic purity regulations, the central idea of being a pure and holy (i.e. separate) people before God is still very much intact.
If DeSilva’s goals in writing this work are to give a cultural context to our reading of the New Testament so that interpretations reached two millennia later will be faithful to the original context, and to provide the body of Christ with practical ways to be faithful to these interpretations, then DeSilva does a masterful job. Rather than evaluate the work as a whole, I will rather explore a difficult passage of scripture within the context of the patron-client relationship, and describe one area of practical guidance involving how the twenty first century church could implement the concept of honor to strengthen discipleship.
A notoriously difficult passage theologically is found in the sixth chapter of Hebrews, when the author writes that “it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened…and have tasted the good word of God…since on their own they are crucifying again the son of God and holding Him up to contempt” (Hebrew 6:4-6). Can we lose our salvation? Are we eternally secure? These are questions that this passage has provoked throughout the history of Christianity. Yet, in the context of the patron-client relationship, we may arrive at a deeper understanding that avoids striving over the concept of eternal security. In the writings of the ancients concerning the patron’s responsibilities, we find the idea that patrons are to give without the expectation of return: “He who gives benefits imitates the gods, he who seeks a return, money lenders” (107). This quote from Rabbi Ben Sira implies that the patron never gives to “get” a return. Yet, we know that the responsibility of the client is to give a return by honoring the benefaction of the patron. Each side of the relationship had obligations to fulfill, yet the patron was to give as if there was no reciprocation to take place. Each side was to fulfill its obligations. When we understand this, we realize that the author of Hebrews is writing to clients of God’s grace, laying down guidelines for showing their appreciation of the “goodness of God.” This passage says nothing of the patron’s responsibility—it’s a warning to the clients of how unfortunate it will be if they fail to uphold their side of the “deal.” The warning is so strong because, as DeSilva notes, “The doctrine of eternal security threatens to distract us, who are clearly in the role of clients, from focusing on what is our proper business” (151). But in the end, the passage, because of its emphasis on warning the client, says nothing about the continued benevolence of the patron in spite of unfaithfulness on the part of the client—something that patrons were expected to do in their instruction. God, as our patron, will continue to bestow his grace, but we need the warnings to uphold our part of the relationship. Thus, a deeper understanding of the patron-client context helps us avoid interpretive conclusions that the writer of Hebrews did not intend.
Knowing the grace bestowed on us by our Father and patron, a healthy understanding of honor will help us remain faithful, in spite of the lure of the world and society to conform to its values. DeSilva suggests that while America (and other Western countries) are not “honor cultures” per say, we do seek to “find their self-respect in achieving those marks society sets forth as the definition of successful” (85). We want to be seen as “worthy.” Yet, just as in the first century, society defines “worth” by values that are incompatible what God deems as “honorable”—material gain, prestige, position. Understanding God’s view of honor, the church can once again look to become an “alternate ‘court of reputation’ in which members reinforce for one another the centrality of God’s values” through intimate small group settings (87). We would do this by “admitting rather than suppressing the truth of our fallenness, ceasing our efforts to create and preserve a perfect image” (92). We must learn to expose individualism, and be vulnerable about our sin, so we can encourage one another to pursue a life that is honoring to God. Here, DeSilva provides the Church with application of his work, taking it out of the realm of the scholar, and placing within the realm of the pastor. We need more scholarly works that do this.
In the end, DeSilva does exactly what he sets out to do. He provides the resource for students of the New Testament, and followers of Christ, to place the writings of the New Testament within the context of the central cultural values of the first century cultures. He then shows how a deeper understanding of these values will help us today be faithful in our communities of faith to honoring God, responding to grace, living together in the love of Christ, and being pure and holy before a holy God.
Here is a book revew I did this summer on a very influential read concerning the 1st century Mediterranean culture. It’s long, so it will be broken into two parts. This will not likely interest many readers, but if you’re interested in the cultural background of the 1st century, or you want to see what a graduate level book review looks like (hopefully!), then this is for you:
Context is crucial and culture forms our understanding and interpretation of scripture. So argues David DeSilva in his enlightening contextual study of first century Mediterranean culture in Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. There have been a great many studies in recent years on the impact of Second Temple Judaism on Christianity, as there have been numerous works on the impact of Greco-Roman culture on the early church. Recently, students of Christianity and the New Testament have seen the necessity of understanding the cultural milieu in which Christianity arose, and DeSilva’s work certainly adds to the discussion, but I believe in a way that is unique. While other works usually focus on either Jewish culture or Greco-Roman culture, DeSilva chooses four significant cultural values that impacted both Roman and Jewish peoples of the first century. These four values, mentioned in the title, are those of honor and shame, the patron-client relationship, kinship and family codes, and issues of purity and separation codes. He then shows how the New Testament writers communicated with these cultural values impacting their message. DeSilva writes, after all, that “culture…provides the framework for all communication,” and this would not be any different for the New Testament writings (17-18).
In writing about these four cultural values, DeSilva seeks to accomplish two purposes. The first is to provide insight into the cultural world of the New Testament writers. In order to “hear” the texts of the New Testament correctly, we must seek to understand the culture of these writers (18). This is so, because according to DeSilva, “Modern readers, too, are fully enculturated into a set of values, ways of relating and so forth. Without taking some care to recover the culture of the first-century Greco-Roman writers…we will simply read the texts from the perspective of our cultural norms and codes” (18). The New Testament writings are interpreted in a vacuum without the cultural contexts. Secondly, understanding these values helps us “not to miss what it is the text does seek to convey and what effect and formative power it would wish to have on us and our communities of faith [emphasis mine]” (18). DeSilva writes with a heart for the contemporary church and how knowing these cultural values and contexts may provide us with new and fresh interpretations of scripture that is more faithful to its original intent. Thus, he ends each section with practical guidance for appropriating understandings reached for the building up of our communities of faith. In the end, DeSilva claims that his work will seek “to equip readers to become better readers of Scripture so that they may become better shapers of disciples and faith communities” and this, I feel, he does in a way few people can (21).
In terms of the outline of the book, DeSilva’s approach is simple. He begins by tracing the particular cultural value (beginning with honor and shame) through Greco-Roman and Jewish writings, showing how pervasive the value was to first century Mediterranean society. He then devotes a second chapter of the same value to showing how it is presented in the writings of the New Testament. Here, DeSilva offers a wealth of passages showing how in the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of the apostles, each value is expressed and embodied. After he relays the New Testament material, he ends the chapter with practical admonitions about how we might, today, implement our “new” contextual understandings of the scriptures in our congregations. Because we live with a different set of values, understanding these writings within the context of the first century cultures helps us reevaluate how we’ve applied certain passages of scripture, so that we offer the most faithful interpretation and application possible. It will be appropriate here to quickly survey each of the four values that DeSilva discusses.
Like many Eastern cultures today, the world of the first century was built on the concept of honor and dishonor (23). DeSilva notes that the Roman statesmen Seneca and others like him, expected people to “choose one course of action over another, or to approve of one kind of person over another, and in short, to organize their system of values, all on the basis of what is ‘honorable’” (23). This concept of honor often played out in moral instruction. DeSilva writes about how the orator Isocrates would uses phrases in his instruction such as “it is honorable” rather than “it is right,” or “it is disgraceful” rather than “it is wrong” (24). Perhaps the most enlightening aspect of issues of honor, is that this value is a communal value. Honor and shame were used as a means of preserving the boundaries of what is acceptable in a given community. This is especially important for the early church, whose way of life was often at odds with the surrounding Greco-Roman culture. DeSilva shows how the language of the New Testament places high value on what is honorable behavior as a follower of God. Take for instance Peter’s admonition in his letter: “Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they may malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God…” (I Peter 2:12). What is especially surprising about the New Testament’s concept of honor, however, is that it often runs counter to the greater surrounding culture. While wealth, power, success, and class (outside appearances) were means of honor for the first century societies, Christians had a different system of honor: the work of God in the believer (75-76). In fact, it is often weaknesses that are “honorable” to God as the beatitudes of Jesus show. In any case, the concept of honor and its opposite—shame—were necessary for the continuity of the life of the community of believers in the first century, especially since they were often ridiculed by society at large. Ultimately, DeSilva argues that the contemporary Western church, which has often succumbed to the influence of what the surrounding society values, needs to rediscover how to live “honorably” as a community of Christ followers—letting the church be the “court of reputation” as he calls it, rather than becoming a “mirror of society’s values” (87).
The second cultural value, probably the most difficult for contemporary Westerns to get—the patron-client relationship—was a deeply embedded value for Roman and Jewish peoples. While those, in many Western societies, have governments and public welfare to provide safety nets in difficult times, people of the first century had no protection (96). In such community driven societies, people needed help from one another and the primary way to acquire it was through patronage. Briefly explained, the patron-client relationship was a way for people to gain access to favors (i.e. “clients”) from the people who had the capacity to give such favors (i.e. “patrons”). In return for the favor, the clients would proclaim the benevolence of the patrons wherever they went (97). It was thus, a mutually beneficial relationship. Each side had a “part” to play. How does this concept play out in the New Testament? According to DeSilva, it impacts our understanding of grace (104). When the followers of Jesus announced the grace of God, listeners would have understood it in the context of this patron-client relationship. God is seen as a benevolent patron, bestowing favors on his clientele. In response, the recipients of such grace would proclaim God’s fame and honor, by spreading the word (evangelism) and living lives worthy of such grace. This understanding of grace helps explain the reciprocal nature of God’s initiative to bestow grace on his children.
“Fast one meal each week until Christmas for the two billion people who live on less than a dollar a day” –Asbury Reader (Fall 2009), p. 17
“This is the kind of fast I’m after:
To break the chains of injustice,
get rid of exploitation in the workplace,
free the oppressed,
cancel debts.
What I’m interested in seeing you do is this:
sharing your food with the hungry…”
Isaiah 58
I’ve been thinking, recently, about some tangible ways in which as a follower of Christ, I could take my beliefs beyond the area of the mental, and into the “real” world. If the kingdom of God is here now, and the Church is a vital expression of God’s kingdom, then what can we do to show the heart of God to people?
I have to start small. I’m not a giant of faith. The above quote impacted me recently, because I believe it gives a solid way to live out faith. Fasting. We normally think of fasting as some spiritual exercise to make our prayers more effective. And I think it does. But I think it can be so much more. If the Christ-centered life means an “others-centered” life then fasting can take on a whole new element.
Here’s my thought. What if we fast one meal a week ( Remember start small!)? In this fast, we are doing three important things.
- We are denying our appetites, so that we may feel what it’s like to be hungry. 40 million people are starving, and do not have the choice. We do.
- We are living in solidarity with all of those people. We are saying, “We know you’re hungry…for this meal, we will be hungry with you, and we will pray for you that God would give you nourishment.” And then we pray—and we implore God to feed those who are hungry. And then we hear His reply: “You give them something to eat” (Matt. 4: 16).
- We take $3 and set it aside. Three dollars would be the average of what we might spend on any meal. Most meals cost more, but if we were eating at home, this might be the average amount that we would spend. We put this $3 away once a week until Christmas. Then we find an organization that feeds the poor. World Vision or Compassion International are two that come to mind. And we give them this money, so that they can feed those who are hungry.
Now our fast has become something tangible and real. We certainly pray for our own needs and the needs of our family and friends. God cares about that too. But we realize that we have been blessed far beyond measure, and so we live for others who are waiting for the people of God to show them God.
Imagine if 500 people did this. Imagine if 5,000 people did this. Imagine if this became a movement, and 500,000 people did this. Imagine if the entire Church did this. Imagine if we didn’t do this from now until Christmas, but every week of the year. People who are hungry, would not be hungry any more.
If this impacts you then do two things: practice fasting, and take this idea (or any similar idea) to your church. Let’s start a movement of living in solidarity.
Blessings.
Tonight I shared a small sermon at my church. I decided to write the whole text ahead of time. My friend does this and because I’ve normally free-styled it, I thought it might be good to try this way. I know that it helped me stay on track better. Unless you speak regularly, you get that dose of adrenaline that sends your brain into auto-drive, and it’s easy to forget things. On the other hand, you have to work to craft the sermon and it’s difficult (unless you know it very well) to deviate from it, if necessary, and come back to it. In any case, it makes for a good blog afterward. 
Anyway, here it is:
“Coals of Fire: Forgiveness Leading to Repentance”
(I didn’t really have a title, so I’m making one now!)
Have you ever read a passage in the Bible that just didn’t sit right with you? Like you knew something was missing, either in the wording, or in your understanding of the context? To me Romans 12 is one of those passages. In verse 9 Paul begins to lay out what the Christian life looks like in the life of a believer, and it’s beautiful! Yet, when we get to the end of the chapter, Paul mentions something that, in my opinion, is downright nasty. Let’s begin in verse 9 and to see what I mean. Listen closely to what the Christian life sounds like:
“Love must be without hypocrisy. Detest evil; cling to what is good. Show family affection to one another with brotherly love. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lack diligence; be fervent in Spirit; serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope; be patient in affliction; be persistent in prayer. Share with the saints in their needs; pursue hospitality. Bless those who persecute you [Where have you heard this before?]; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. Be in agreement with one another. Do not be proud; instead, associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own estimation.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Try to do what is honorable in everyone’s eyes. If possible, on your part, live at peace with everyone. Friends, do not avenge yourselves; instead, leave room for His wrath [The literal Greek reading does not include “His” or the “wrath of God.” That’s added by interpreters. Also, Paul’s usage of the word wrath has more to do with justice than it does with downright anger—as if God is really ticked off.] For it is written: Vengeance belongs to me, I will repay, says the Lord. But [and here Paul quotes from Proverbs 25: 21-22]: If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. [And here is the part that drives me crazy!] For in so doing, you will heap fiery coals on his head.” (!!!)
Say what?! You mean, I’m supposed to do all of these incredibly beautiful things to my enemy, just so I can set my enemy’s head on fire?? I know..this isn’t literal, but it’s kind of how it sounds right? It seems like the motivation for doing good to those that persecute us is that in the end they will get what’s coming to them. JUSTICE! SWEET REVENGE.
For the longest time, I would read this passage and be amazed at the potential for the Christian life, just to come to this bitter end, where burning coals are going to be poured out on our enemies. After all, there is hell to think about, and it’s quite common to think of God as really angry at people.
I want to submit to you that this is not the right way to read this passage. And maybe you’ve never read it this way; maybe it’s just me that has thought that this motivation for doing good to our enemies is kind of messed up.
After reading some material for a class that I’m taking, I ran across the context for this odd phrase, and believe that it shines a whole new light on it. As I’ve mentioned, Paul is quoting from Proverbs 25, and he is using this idea of burning coals as a metaphor. But it’s not a metaphor of judgment! Instead, it’s a metaphor of forgiveness. In ancient Egypt, when a person wanted to publically repent, or seek forgiveness from someone, they would walk through the streets, or approach the person with a tray of burning coals as a sign of their repentance.
Of course, this was their own doing. They were the ones responsible for acknowledging their wrong and coming to repent. Yet here, Paul says that through our kindness to our enemies, we will be putting “coals of fire on their heads.” In other words, we will show them forgiveness ahead of time, in the hopes that they will be led to repentance.
So what implications does this have for the Christian life? I think everything. The concept of the Kingdom of God is extremely popular in Theology today—and it should be. The central teaching of Jesus is on the Kingdom of God coming to earth. Everything that Jesus did was to show what God looks like; what His kingdom looks like; what His reign looks like. And you know what? As Christians (the body of Christ) we’ve been invited to do the same thing. Paul says in II Corinthians that “we are ambassadors for Christ…pleading on Christ’s behalf: ‘Be reconciled to God.” As Christians we are called to express the Kingdom of God in and out of our lives. As the body of Christ, we ARE the image of God in this world.
When we love and serve our enemies, we’re “pouring coals of fire on their head”—we’re inviting them to consider their need for forgiveness and repentance. As an ambassador—a kingdom representative—we are expressing the forgiveness of God through our kindness. And by doing so, you’re imitating the Son of God, who said things like, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing.” You’re imitating the way God brings about forgiveness for “God show His love to us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.” God’s way to lead people to repentance, is to show them mercy and kindness; and he invites us to do the same.
When we show extravagant acts of kindness to those who are on the outside—not just those we don’t like, but those who don’t yet know God—we are becoming the image of God to them. We are saying to them, “This is what our God is like; this is how he feels about you.” And we do it all, in the hopes that they will come to repentance. For them to acknowledging their wrong against us is a small thing. Them coming to the goodness of God is HUGE.
I’ve struggled with this idea lately. I work in a job [I’m a server in a restaurant], where it is so easy to get angry and show unkindness to the people I work with and to those I serve. Yet, I’m coming to recognize that I am the image of the Kingdom of God to people. I’m beginning to see that we are the Christ that people see on a regular basis. We need something more than just a set of good morals that show what upstanding people we are. (Being a “good Christian” is MORE than just not sinning! It’s embracing the beauty and righteousness of God in our lives, so that it flows out of us into the lives of others!) We need to begin to emulate and embody Jesus Christ and his heart on this earth. This is how the kingdom of God advances. And forgiveness and reconciliation are at the heart of God’s beautiful kingdom. He’s called us to show that forgiveness through the way we treat others.
So, will you consider “heaping coals of fire” on the head of those that may be your enemy? Would you consider expressing kindness and forgiveness ahead of time so that they might experience the mercy of God? If you do, if we do, God’s kingdom will advance in our hearts and in this world.
When we begin to ask what the conditions of spiritual renewal are, we receive essentially the same answers from nearly all of those we have most reason to respect. One major answer is the emphasis on discipline. In the conduct of one’s own life it is soon obvious, as many as have learned the hard way, that empty freedom is a snare and a delusion. In following what comes naturally or easily, life simply ends in confusion, and in consequent disaster. Without the discipline of time, we spoil the next day the night before, and without the discipline of prayer, we are likely to end by having practically no experience of the divine-human encounter. However compassionate we may be with others, we dare not be soft or indulgent with ourselves. Excellence comes at a price, and one of the major prices is that of inner control.
We have not advanced very far in our spiritual lives if we have not encountered the basic paradox of freedom, to the effect that we are the most free when we are bound. But not just any way of being bound will suffice; what matters is the character of our binding. The one who would like to be an athlete, but who is unwilling to discipline his [or her] body by regular exercise and by abstinence, is not free to excel on the field or track…failure to train rigorously and to live abstemiously denies [that person] the freedom to go over the bar at the desired height, or to run with the desired speed or endurance. With one concerted voice, the giants of the devotional life apply the same principle to the whole of life with the dictum: Discipline is the price of freedom.
-From The New Man for Our Time by Elton Trueblood
Just a quote that I read this morning that I wanted to share with anyone who comes across this blog. In contemporary theology, the primary metaphor for our interaction with God seems to be the relational metaphor, be it marriage, father, friend, or brother. While I think that is great, to over look other metaphors such as the athlete in training or the soldier in war time, is to miss the urgency and diligence that the biblical writers wrote with concerning our spiritual growth.
Keep it in balance.
Blessings.
I know that these posts may not be all that exciting, but it’s about the only posting I can do these days. Again, this is an assignment, where we are basically thinking “out loud” about a text. It’s kind of fun, because afterwards, you can read what you wrote and there are usually things that you haven’t thought about before that you wrote while thinking throug the text. It really helps me connect themes, passages, and explore my thoughts about a particular biblical passage.
Anyway, here is a close reading of John 9:1-10:
Up to the point of John 9, if we take the previous eight chapters in a somewhat chronological fashion, we realize that Jesus has been encountering a lot of opposition for the good deeds that he has been doing. In fact, he has just escaped a stoning as he walks up on the blind man of John 9. This opposition may be important to note, because Jesus seems to realize that “night is coming” (John 9:4), and this makes sense in lieu of the mounting opposition that Jesus is facing.
In any case, “as he [Jesus] walked along” he sees a blind man whom the text says had been that way from birth. His disciples ask him a logical question and enquire as to who sinned to cause this man to be born this way—his parents or him. This question is important for a number of reasons. First, it brings to mind an incredibly significant passage in the Old Testament—the giving of the commandments found in Exodus 20. As God reveals Himself to Moses, He claims in the second commandment:
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me [emphasis mine]” (Exodus 20: 5).
In light of this statement by God, it seems only reasonable that the disciples make the correlation between the blindness of the man and the sin of his parents or his own sin as the cause.
Secondly, this question also brings to mind the friends of Job who claim that it is Job’s sin that causes the many terrible things to happen to him. Oddly enough, the book of Job doesn’t present that assumption as accurate, for God chastises the friends of Job on their false assumptions.
Thirdly, Jesus himself does not relate the sin of the blind man or his parents to the blindness of the man. We can assume, from the question that the disciples ask, that this belief is a normal one for Israelites to hold. We see it come up over and over again—women who believe that their barrenness is punishment from God, lepers who are told that their disease is a result of uncleanness, and so on. Yet, astoundingly, Jesus denies (at least in this case) that there is a connection between the ailment of the man and prior sin.
Jesus then says (according to the text): “he was born blind so that God’s work might be revealed in him” (John 9: 3). [This is outside the functions of an interpretive assignment, but I’ve read elsewhere that the actual Greek wording of this statement is more like: “No! But let the works of God be revealed.” If this is so, it would further the idea that God is not behind the blindness, but is rather concerned with healing]. Jesus does not claim that sin had anything to do with the blindness, but makes the connection, instead, to the purposes of God to heal—perhaps for the “purpose” of glorifying Jesus’ ministry. However, with the current rendering of the verse, it does seem to imply that this man’s blindness is a direct result of God’s involvement, hence why I prefer the alternative Greek translation. No matter the case, the point is clear, Jesus wants to reveal the purposes of God through healing. God is in favor of healing this blind man!
Jesus continues with the idea that “we” (!), as in Jesus and his disciples, must do the works of “him who sent me” [God] while it is still day, for “night is coming when no one can work.” This is a mysterious statement to me, but contains a lot of information to work with. First, Jesus includes the disciples in the “work” of the Father. I assume that this work is the miraculous healings, feedings, and deliverances that Jesus has been doing. It’s pretty amazing that he would include the disciples in this work. However, he says that there is “night” coming when no one can work. This day/night imagery resounds with the light/darkness imagery used a number of times throughout the gospel. My own stab at this, is that Jesus is referring to the mounting opposition that he is facing, knowing that it will eventually lead to his death. The working while it is “still day” possibly refers to continue on with his ministry purposes while he is still alive and well. I mention this, because I don’t believe that Christ is saying that the works of Christ are supposed to cease infinitely—only that there will be a period of time when “darkness” will reign (crucifixion and death). Obviously we know that the works of Christ did continue with the early church. Darkness doesn’t have the last word.
His claim that “as long as [he] is in the world, [he] is the light of the world” confirms this idea that he is to continue his healing/deliverance ministry while he is still alive. Jesus proceeds to heal the blind man. While often Jesus simply says a word to be healed, this healing is more complex. Jesus spits on the ground and makes some mud to put over the blind man’s eye. He then tells him to go wash in the pool of sent (Siloam). I’m not sure what the Greek would look like here, but it seems to be a play on words. “Go to Sent” and be healed. Could this whole act (the mud, the going, the pool called “Sent) be faith in action? As you “go” you will receive your healing, and when you reach the place of Sent, you will have been healed.
Neighbors who had previously known this man begin to make a commotion about the healing, asking if this was the blind beggar, while others saying it must be someone else. I like the wording of the text: “he kept saying” that he was the blind beggar. It’s almost as if he’s insisting on this healing, but no one is listening. It’s a strong pictorial moment. They finally ask him, “Then, how were your eyes opened?” This obviously has to do with his physical eyes, but it connects with the themes of light and darkness, believing and not believing, seeing and not seeing.
The blind man explains, and I love the simplicity of his explanation. It’s straightforward and matter-of-fact. This pericope ends with the people asking where Jesus is, and the man not knowing. This is not the first time Jesus is there and then not there. In fact, this seems to be a motif of John—Jesus seems to come and go without people noticing. In John 5, he does the same thing for a crippled man. My conclusion of this is that Jesus is trying to do the ministry of God and heal people without attracting too much attention to Himself, but he continues to attract it anyway. The day is revealing the night, but the night is fighting back.
In the end, Jesus shows that God’s ministry and purposes is to heal and deliver. Jesus is doing the work of “him who sent me” while he can. This passage says a great deal (explicitly and implicitly) about sin, sickness, evil, God’s intentions and purposes, etc. And in the middle of all this is a man, blind from birth, who can now see.
Below is an assignment from my New Testament class in school. The goal of the assignment is to do a close, interpretive reading of a particular text, in order to gain a deeper understanding. It could be used as a precursor to a research project, to hash out questions or observations, a way to interact in a community of interpreters–bouncing off ideas and thoughts off of each other, or even as a way to prepare for a sermon. This assignment is done without the use of commentaries or other outside sources, so it’s more about what stands out in the text to the reader. That way, when commentaries and outside sources are used, an interpretive aim has been established.
This is lengthy, so feel free to skip it. However, you are invited to share your insights into this passage, as we become part of an interpretive community together.
A Close Reading of Luke 19:1-10
Before I begin with the close reading, I would like to go ahead and ask some guiding questions. Some of these will help me with my close reading; some of these are just questions of curiosity.
Why did Zacchaeus want to see Jesus so badly? Had he heard of Jesus’s table fellowship with other tax collectors? Did he just want to see what a famous prophet/healer? The text says that he wanted to see “who Jesus was,” but does that really account for his diligence?
How does Jesus know Zacchaeus? He comes up and addresses him by name—was this simply because Zaachaeus is a “chief” tax collector, or is this part of Jesus’ prophetic ministry?
When the people begin to complain, are they doing so in the presence of Zacchaeus? Does he hear their harsh words about him, when he responds, “Look, half my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor” (19:8).
These are questions that help me place myself within the narrative. When I do so, this story becomes highly emotive, especially when I think about the personal encounter of “salvation” that Zacchaeus has with Jesus in the face of the “complainers.”
__________________________________
In any case, Jesus is passing through Jericho, as he does in many other towns, and of course he is surrounded by crowds of people. Interestingly enough, in this account, one among the crowd is specified by name—Zacchaeus—as he tries to see Jesus passing through. We know some details about him, mainly that he is a “chief” tax collector (the main one in Jericho?), he’s rich, and he’s not very tall—a man “short in stature.” We would know the reason why he is rich: he taxes his own people for the Roman authorities. In all likelihood, his wealth has come by his taking advantage of his fellow Israelites.
Zacchaeus, because he cannot see, “ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree,” because he knows that Jesus is coming by (19:4). From the text, we can assume that Zacchaeus has never met Jesus before, and desires to see who this man is, from the words, “He was trying to see who Jesus was” (19:3). However, it seems there may be more than just a casual desire to see a person, as he runs and climbs the tree. It would be like if President Obama (or Bush if you prefer) was coming into my town; I would do whatever I needed to do to catch a glimpse! Zacchaeus is desperate to see this famous healer/prophet/teacher.
Based on this understanding of their relationship, what happens next is most surprising! Jesus comes to the tree, “looked up and said to him, Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, I must stay at your house today” (19:5). From the text, we assumed that they did not know each other, and now we have Jesus calling him by name. Jesus has “sought” Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector out. Of course, Zacchaeus hurries down and “welcomes him.” In Luke, we find this happening a good bit—tax collectors and sinners seem to flock to Jesus and are happy to have him around. In Luke 15, “all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him.” And of course, it’s the Pharisees who are unhappy that Jesus is congregating with sinners. In any case, there’s a level of comfort that sinners seem to have in the presence of Jesus.
Jesus says to Z (I will abbreviate at this point if that’s okay), “I must stay at your house today.” Jesus is initiating a table fellowship with Z, and Z is all too happy to oblige. Of course, an unspecified group of complainers, do not like that fact that Jesus “has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner” (19:7). It seems that this is the consensus of the entire crowd based on the words, “all who saw it.” The question that remains is: are these people complaining in the presence of Jesus and Z? It’s almost as if in the narrative, they have shrunk to the background, and the narrative zooms in on the conversation between Jesus and Z, like they’re the only ones around.
Z must be aware of the crowds, because he offers to give half of his possession to the poor and restore to anyone he had defrauded. This, to me, is the crucial part of the narrative, because it follows the story of the rich ruler in Luke 18! In this passage, the ruler wants to know what he must do to be saved, and Jesus asks him to give “all that you own,” give it to the poor and follow him. Two things are of great interest here. First, it is Zacchaeus who offers to give his money. He seems quite willing to “make things right.” He seems to know what it will take to follow Jesus, and he’s on board. The rich young ruler on the other hand, seems to think that he’s already in good shape, and so Jesus’ demand is virtually “impossible” to fulfill. Second, Zacchaeus only offers “half” his possessions, and this is enough for Jesus, because Jesus responds by saying, “Today, salvation has come to this house.” Yet, for the rich young ruler, Jesus requires that he sell “all” his possessions.
What is the difference here? I would assume that it is in the differences of approach. The rich young ruler approaches Jesus with the assumption that he’s done what he needs to do, so Jesus demands that he give “all.” Z knows that he’s a sinner (he’s a tax-collector for goodness sake), and he approaches Jesus with that stigma attached. I can imagine that great humility was involved. Money is not the issue here, and so Jesus doesn’t require that Z give all. Forgiveness and reconciliation is the issue here, and so Jesus is quick to respond with “salvation.”
Perhaps the second motif (maybe this is the most important) is the fact that Z is “too a son of Abraham.” The theme that Jesus has come to “seek out and save the lost” is once again evident. I like the words used here, “seek out” because that is certainly what Jesus did. Upon entering Jericho, he chose to “seek out” a main object of disdain for the other children of Abraham—the tax collector. This episode is the parable of the lost sheep, coin, and son in action. Jesus embodies his teaching here!!
Let me end by again stressing the emotive element of this narrative as we place ourselves in the story. Can you see it happening in your mind? Can you see the crowds complaining as Jesus and Z have this life changing conversation? Who knows why Z became a tax-collector in the first place. But we do know that he was an outsider to his society (the children of Abraham) because of it. And as Jesus singles him out of the crowd, addresses him by name, and speaks “salvation” to him, the crowd and the accusation of sinner, shrinks into the background, and Z responds to the “seeking” of Jesus with genuine repentance.
This will be my last picture blog for awhile. Some things are brewing in the old noggin, and I hope to get them down on my virtual filing cabinet. In any case, here are some more pictures of Cambodia–my trip to Anchor Wat.
This is the main temple in the Anchor complex. These groups of temples are one of the seven wonders of the world. It will probably be the only wonder that I visit, but maybe not.
I thought that trail off in the distance was quite beautiful. Very Lord of the Ringsish.
One of the hallways. The headless Buddhas are so because bandits would come in and steal them.
One of the courtyards.
A sacred spots for monks. Notice how young they are.
Wow Matt, what are you doing here??
This is the temple where some of Angelina Jolie’s Tomb Raider was filmed. It’s unique because of the large trees that grow over the structure.
This guys said he would be my dad fill in for my “father-son” pic.
Blessings.
In this last year in Thailand I had the privilege of visiting my friend Matt and his orphanage in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Matt is actually my connection to Thailand, and he and I had an interesting meeting experience. We actually first met on Facebook in a theology group where he, one other guy, and myself valiantly battled 800 Calvinists! It was intense! In any case, as we were greatly outnumbered, we banded together and began to talk frequently on Facebook. It was him that I one day asked, “Hey man, how do I get to Thailand?” Within four months–I was there.
Matt took over an orphanage in Cambodia last year through an organization called PCL. He has twenty-five or so kids who have been rescued from utter poverty–most were scavengers on the streets of the local village in the area. These kids have been redeemed! It was my two visits here that has shown me more about Christ’s redemption and rescue than anything else. They know that they’ve been rescued and are utterly grateful to God for it. These kids are incredible!!
The pictures that I will post over the next couple (or three) posts will speak for themsevles, but I want to share with any who come across this blog, the incredible experience of visiting an orphanage in Cambodia, loving these beautiful children, and the most beautiful picture of God’s redemption that I can think of. Hope you enjoy!
This is the orphanage in the village. Cambodia is an incredibly poor country–the average monthly salary is between $50 and $80 dollars. The cost of living is low, but not to the point where most people don’t live in utter poverty.
Another view.
These are three of the four girls that I would adopt if at all possible! They absolutely melt your heart. Absolutely! This is before Matt’s daily English lesson…
He’s a dedicated teacher.
This group of pictures is actually from my Christmas trip over there. I went at Christmas and in April right before I came home. During Christmas time the kids get to do a lot of fun stuff, like this pool party.
A couple of the workers at the orphanage with their children.
She’s s a little shy, but quite the cutie.
Here is the local boat house community. This was the area of the the heaviest poverty. Oddly enough, millions of dollars of tourism comes to Cambodia through tourists visiting this very area, but because of the corruption of the Cambodian government, these people see very little of that money–after all, if things improved here, it wouldn’t be nearly as exciting for tourists now would it. PCL has a school boat and a medical boat for this community to reach some of their needs.
These were the students of the river boat.
Getting ready for their performance at the local church for Christmas.
They played the bells to a couple of Christmas songs.
Last one…this is a picture of the local village children coming to the orphanage for food on Thursday lunch (right Matt?). These kids have families, but they definitely need all the help they can get, and so the orphanage uses a portion of its funds to feed them. Powerful eh?
Blessings.
