Even though it's got some great stories and is rather interesting historical reading, 1 and 2 Kings is kind of long and dreary. It's the account of the decline and fall of Israel, and it's a little like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
According to the Deuteronomistic History theory, it's the final part of the corpus that starts with Joshua, or possibly Deuteronomy, that explains why God's Chosen Nation of Israel ended up conquered first by the Assyrians and then by the Babylonians.
And the reason is pretty straightforward. Over and over and over, it says that so-and-so "did evil in the eyes of the LORD," which meant they did not worship Yahweh solely, exclusively, whole-heartedly.
I noted chapters 16 and 17 of 2 Kings the other day when I was reading. These went into great detail about the apostasy, how some of the later kings deliberately added in worship rites and objects that came from pagan civilizations. In chapter 16, it was because king Ahaz of Judah was trying to curry favor with Tiglath-Pilesar of Assyria. In chapter 17, it was a broader indictment of all of Israel, which was only slightly more apostate than Judah.
I got to thinking about how the Bible rails again and again about worship practices, that is, worshiping false gods of other nations. I've wondered in this blog before about which "gods" or idols people of our time worship rather than the Creator we recognize in the Bible.
Another thing the Bible rails about again and again is social injustice--neglecting the poor, the widowed, the orphaned. Also, unethical business and judicial practices are frequently in the crosshairs.
Ya know what the Bible doesn't rail on and on about? Homosexuality. Yes, there are a handful of passages that seem to condemn it--but there are lots more that condemn adultery of any kind. And of course, everyone knows what Jesus said about homosexuality.
Okay. I came out of the closet. I'm conflicted about an issue that just doesn't seem that cut-and-dried to me, based on how I read the Bible.
Mark Twain once said, "It's not those parts of the Bible I don't understand that scare me — it's the parts I do understand.” I interpret that to mean that each of us has enough on our plate doing what the Bible tells us clearly. I, for one, don't have much patience with people who are so sure of their righteousness that they can rail against less obvious principles.
Well. I'm glad I got that off my chest. And perhaps at some point God will show me that my ambivalence on this topic is tantamount to the apostasy of the nation of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. I actually ask Him pretty often to make it clear to me and to show me where I'm being stiff-necked.
Meanwhile, I'm going to keep reading my Bible slowly, deliberately, in alphabetical order. Hopefully, this will help keep me from my own slo-mo train wreck.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Judges: Not for the faint of heart
I guess it's not good to say you have a particular favorite book of the Bible. Perhaps we should comment about them as we do our children. That is, we love all of them; just in different ways.
Well, I suppose I do love Judges differently than I love, say, Luke or James or Ruth. But I really do love Judges a lot.
It has some of the most engrossing stories in the whole Bible. Probably everyone is familiar with the stories of Samson, especially the "Samson, Delilah, and the Fateful Haircut" story. If you've been in Bible study classes for a while, you may know about Gideon and his incredible conquest of the Midianites.
If you have kind of a feminist proclivity, you may know about Deborah, who was not only a prophetess, but also a pretty effective judge, military leader, and poet. Or her co-heroine Jael who wielded a tent peg and hammer to the gory demise of an enemy general.
One of my favorite stories is about Ehud who pretty much eviscerated Eglon, king of the Moabites, who was "a very fat man."
I have had the good fortune to be able to teach the book of Judges three or four times, and it's always fun and exhilarating. I was also extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to study Judges in a Hebrew class at Dallas Seminary as well as in an Old Testament history class. Those seminary classes helped me see stuff in Judges that I think it's easy to miss if you're just breezing through the book.
Namely, the story of Judges is a chilling, horrifying look at the downward spiral of the moral character of the Israelites following the death of Joshua. There are a couple of places where the author of Judges clearly lays out what happened. "Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals [that is, foreign gods]. They forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers who had brought them out of Egypt....In His anger against Israel the LORD handed them over to raiders who plundered them...Whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of the LORD was against them to defeat them, just as He had sworn to them. They were in great distress. Then the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of these raiders. Yet they would not listen to their judges but prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them....They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways" (Judges 2:11-12, 15-17, 19).
So the book is a carefully crafted narrative, not necessarily in chronological order, designed to illustrate the increasing corruption. A closer examination of some of the more prominent judges, Gideon and Samson, reveals that they were hugely flawed characters, just barely loyal to Yahweh. Nevertheless, God used them to rescue His people. It says much more about Yahweh's compassion and faithfulness than it does about the "heroism" of those judges.
Then there's Jephthah, who was filled with the Spirit to allow him to fight the Ammonites. But he ended up sacrificing his only daughter to fulfill a rash and unnecessary bargain he'd made with God.
Even worse, there's Micah from the hill country who paid to have his own pet priest. Worst of all is the Levite who let his concubine be gang-raped--and probably but not definitely murdered--then chopped up her body and sent the parts to other Israelite clans as a call to arms. The final section is about a civil war that nearly wiped out the whole tribe of Benjamin. Only by kidnapping girls to be wives to the remaining Benjamites were they able to prevent the tribe's demise. Charming.
The stories are colorful and compelling. I also just love the way the book is constructed. It's supposedly part of that Deuteronomistic History that seems to build the case of why Israel was eventually sent into Exile. Also, it sets the stage beautifully for the stories about Saul, David, and the following kings of Israel. In fact, the last line of Judges is "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" (Judges 21:22).
Frankly, Judges is not for the faint-hearted. There's a lot of activity in it that's violent and offensive. If you're going to read it, and as you might guess, I really recommend that you do, try to find a great study Bible or commentary. Take the time to understand what's going on and ask the questions of "Why would this person act this way?" It's often not a very flattering answer.
Well, I suppose I do love Judges differently than I love, say, Luke or James or Ruth. But I really do love Judges a lot.
It has some of the most engrossing stories in the whole Bible. Probably everyone is familiar with the stories of Samson, especially the "Samson, Delilah, and the Fateful Haircut" story. If you've been in Bible study classes for a while, you may know about Gideon and his incredible conquest of the Midianites.
If you have kind of a feminist proclivity, you may know about Deborah, who was not only a prophetess, but also a pretty effective judge, military leader, and poet. Or her co-heroine Jael who wielded a tent peg and hammer to the gory demise of an enemy general.
One of my favorite stories is about Ehud who pretty much eviscerated Eglon, king of the Moabites, who was "a very fat man."
I have had the good fortune to be able to teach the book of Judges three or four times, and it's always fun and exhilarating. I was also extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to study Judges in a Hebrew class at Dallas Seminary as well as in an Old Testament history class. Those seminary classes helped me see stuff in Judges that I think it's easy to miss if you're just breezing through the book.
Namely, the story of Judges is a chilling, horrifying look at the downward spiral of the moral character of the Israelites following the death of Joshua. There are a couple of places where the author of Judges clearly lays out what happened. "Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals [that is, foreign gods]. They forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers who had brought them out of Egypt....In His anger against Israel the LORD handed them over to raiders who plundered them...Whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of the LORD was against them to defeat them, just as He had sworn to them. They were in great distress. Then the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of these raiders. Yet they would not listen to their judges but prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them....They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways" (Judges 2:11-12, 15-17, 19).
So the book is a carefully crafted narrative, not necessarily in chronological order, designed to illustrate the increasing corruption. A closer examination of some of the more prominent judges, Gideon and Samson, reveals that they were hugely flawed characters, just barely loyal to Yahweh. Nevertheless, God used them to rescue His people. It says much more about Yahweh's compassion and faithfulness than it does about the "heroism" of those judges.
Then there's Jephthah, who was filled with the Spirit to allow him to fight the Ammonites. But he ended up sacrificing his only daughter to fulfill a rash and unnecessary bargain he'd made with God.
Even worse, there's Micah from the hill country who paid to have his own pet priest. Worst of all is the Levite who let his concubine be gang-raped--and probably but not definitely murdered--then chopped up her body and sent the parts to other Israelite clans as a call to arms. The final section is about a civil war that nearly wiped out the whole tribe of Benjamin. Only by kidnapping girls to be wives to the remaining Benjamites were they able to prevent the tribe's demise. Charming.
The stories are colorful and compelling. I also just love the way the book is constructed. It's supposedly part of that Deuteronomistic History that seems to build the case of why Israel was eventually sent into Exile. Also, it sets the stage beautifully for the stories about Saul, David, and the following kings of Israel. In fact, the last line of Judges is "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" (Judges 21:22).
Frankly, Judges is not for the faint-hearted. There's a lot of activity in it that's violent and offensive. If you're going to read it, and as you might guess, I really recommend that you do, try to find a great study Bible or commentary. Take the time to understand what's going on and ask the questions of "Why would this person act this way?" It's often not a very flattering answer.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Joshua: DH Part One
If you've been reading my blog entries (and I'm not kidding myself that more than one or two or you actually are) you may be waiting for me to say one of the books of the Bible is NOT one of my favorites. Well, here I go: Joshua is not a fave.
One thing I kind of like about Joshua is that it's the first (possibly second) book in what they call the Deuteronomistic History, or DH. That is, it is the first part of the ongoing narrative about the Chosen People and how they increasingly wandered from their original covenant relationship with God. The narrative winds up at the end of 2 Kings with the destruction of Israel, the Exile, and only a promise of the Restoration. So, it's interesting to read Joshua while observing the hints of the future downfall.
There are a couple of great stories: Joshua and the Battle of Jericho (when the walls came tumblin' down); the destruction of Achan, after he sneaked some plunder that should have been destroyed; the sun standing still while the Israelites fought the battle at Gibeon.
But a lot of it is about the division of the land among the tribes. Yawn. Sorry.
I do have to say, however, that this was the first time I paid much attention to those passages that describe the boundaries and cities of the territories. I guess our Sunday school class study of 1 and 2 Samuel has made me more sensitive to some of those locations because of the way David and Saul maneuvered throughout the territory. This just goes to show that the more one studies the Bible, the more interesting it becomes. Right, Gentle Reader? Are you finding that true for yourself?
The best verse in Joshua is the famous 24:14-15. It's part of Joshua's farewell speech and charge to the people: "Now fear the LORD and serve Him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River [that is, back on the other side of the Euphrates in Abraham's day] and in Egypt and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Gives me chills; wish I could have been there for that speech.
One thing I like about that passage is that it really emphasizes the part that choice and decision have in people's faith. Religion, any flavor, requires some kind of leap of faith. Religious tenets are difficult to believe because they typically defy rationality and empirical evidence. For Jews, it would have been a leap of faith to believe in one invisible God, or that sacrificing a bull would be pleasing to Him. For Christians, it takes a leap of faith to believe that a man could be born of the Holy Spirit, change water into wine, walk on water, etc., etc., and rise from the dead. Those things just don't happen in our normal experience. Believing they did happen in the person of Jesus Christ--God Incarnate, if you please--is ipso facto faith.
I think there's kind of a qualitative difference, too, in what Joshua instructed his people--to choose which god they would serve--versus the teaching of Jesus: "He who believes in me will not perish." In one way, Joshua called his people to serve through a deeds-oriented religion calling for obedience and tangible sacrifice. Christianity, however, is in some ways more of a faith-oriented religion that depends on the law "written on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33). But let me not push that distinction too far. I think that what God really wanted from the ancient Jews--as well as from modern-day Jews, Christians, and anyone else--is wholehearted devotion and surrendered faith as demonstrated by moral living and compassion for other people.
One thing I kind of like about Joshua is that it's the first (possibly second) book in what they call the Deuteronomistic History, or DH. That is, it is the first part of the ongoing narrative about the Chosen People and how they increasingly wandered from their original covenant relationship with God. The narrative winds up at the end of 2 Kings with the destruction of Israel, the Exile, and only a promise of the Restoration. So, it's interesting to read Joshua while observing the hints of the future downfall.
There are a couple of great stories: Joshua and the Battle of Jericho (when the walls came tumblin' down); the destruction of Achan, after he sneaked some plunder that should have been destroyed; the sun standing still while the Israelites fought the battle at Gibeon.
But a lot of it is about the division of the land among the tribes. Yawn. Sorry.
I do have to say, however, that this was the first time I paid much attention to those passages that describe the boundaries and cities of the territories. I guess our Sunday school class study of 1 and 2 Samuel has made me more sensitive to some of those locations because of the way David and Saul maneuvered throughout the territory. This just goes to show that the more one studies the Bible, the more interesting it becomes. Right, Gentle Reader? Are you finding that true for yourself?
The best verse in Joshua is the famous 24:14-15. It's part of Joshua's farewell speech and charge to the people: "Now fear the LORD and serve Him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River [that is, back on the other side of the Euphrates in Abraham's day] and in Egypt and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Gives me chills; wish I could have been there for that speech.
One thing I like about that passage is that it really emphasizes the part that choice and decision have in people's faith. Religion, any flavor, requires some kind of leap of faith. Religious tenets are difficult to believe because they typically defy rationality and empirical evidence. For Jews, it would have been a leap of faith to believe in one invisible God, or that sacrificing a bull would be pleasing to Him. For Christians, it takes a leap of faith to believe that a man could be born of the Holy Spirit, change water into wine, walk on water, etc., etc., and rise from the dead. Those things just don't happen in our normal experience. Believing they did happen in the person of Jesus Christ--God Incarnate, if you please--is ipso facto faith.
I think there's kind of a qualitative difference, too, in what Joshua instructed his people--to choose which god they would serve--versus the teaching of Jesus: "He who believes in me will not perish." In one way, Joshua called his people to serve through a deeds-oriented religion calling for obedience and tangible sacrifice. Christianity, however, is in some ways more of a faith-oriented religion that depends on the law "written on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33). But let me not push that distinction too far. I think that what God really wanted from the ancient Jews--as well as from modern-day Jews, Christians, and anyone else--is wholehearted devotion and surrendered faith as demonstrated by moral living and compassion for other people.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Jonah: Beyond the fish tale
Oh, I love me some Jonah.
We studied Jonah in my second semester of Hebrew, so it was great to work through it verse by verse, nuance by nuance. I've also trotted it out as a Bible study lesson many times. It's just loaded with wisdom.
What's not to love about this wonderfully constructed tale of a reluctant prophet and that bodacious fish? And it's fun to watch skeptics of the Bible go nuts as they deal with that fish thing. As if believing some kind of great fish swallowing then vomiting Jonah is the litmus test of faith. Ha.
What caught my attention this time reading Jonah is the way God deals with the non-believers in the story. We see the sailors, who realize there's something kind of (sorry) fishy about Jonah, turn to worship Yahweh as they see how He controls the wind, waves, and storm.
Then, there are the people of Nineveh, who were supposedly the baddest group of heathens in Mesopotamia at the time. They received one short, terse message from Jonah ("Forty days more and Nineveh will be overturned") and they repented. That is, they took God and this message seriously and everyone from the king on down to the cattle put on sackcloth, and gave up their evil and violent ways. That's it! They didn't seem to overhaul their state religion and tear down their temples. But because they repented sincerely, God relented and did not destroy them in the 40 day time period.
Friends, how easy it is to repent and receive God's forgiveness.
Now, history shows that the Ninevites didn't stay "converted" very long. They came back as the Assyrians and conquered Israel in brutal fashion. But for a while, they behaved.
The behavior, obedience and salvation of the Ninevites stands in stark contrast to the snarly, recalcitrant Jonah who just wanted to see them wiped off the face of the earth. The compliance of the people of Nineveh also stands in stark contrast to the people of Israel who were continuously reluctant and stubborn about being obedient and faithful to Yahweh.
A couple of other points from Jonah:
That big fish was pretty darn scary, but it was God's means of rescuing Jonah from certain death by drowning. I think the fish metaphor suggests that God sometimes puts very scary things in our path as a way of saving us from spiritual peril.
I have to wonder what Jonah expected to see when he went out on the hillside to watch what would happen to Nineveh. I'm pretty sure he was hoping to see fire and brimstone rain down on the wicked city. After all, the whole reason he tried to run away from his command to go preach was because he feared God would indeed refrain from blowing up the Ninevites. Jonah and God talk about that in the final scene of the book.
But God has the last word. He gently points out Jonah's self-involvement and contrasts with His own heart for the lost world. "But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left [i.e., cannot discern God's truth] and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that city?"
See my blog post about 1 John, which I wrote earlier today. The book of Jonah, ancient as it is, carries the same message as John's writings: God is Love, and God's people are commanded to love one another.
We studied Jonah in my second semester of Hebrew, so it was great to work through it verse by verse, nuance by nuance. I've also trotted it out as a Bible study lesson many times. It's just loaded with wisdom.
What's not to love about this wonderfully constructed tale of a reluctant prophet and that bodacious fish? And it's fun to watch skeptics of the Bible go nuts as they deal with that fish thing. As if believing some kind of great fish swallowing then vomiting Jonah is the litmus test of faith. Ha.
What caught my attention this time reading Jonah is the way God deals with the non-believers in the story. We see the sailors, who realize there's something kind of (sorry) fishy about Jonah, turn to worship Yahweh as they see how He controls the wind, waves, and storm.
Then, there are the people of Nineveh, who were supposedly the baddest group of heathens in Mesopotamia at the time. They received one short, terse message from Jonah ("Forty days more and Nineveh will be overturned") and they repented. That is, they took God and this message seriously and everyone from the king on down to the cattle put on sackcloth, and gave up their evil and violent ways. That's it! They didn't seem to overhaul their state religion and tear down their temples. But because they repented sincerely, God relented and did not destroy them in the 40 day time period.
Friends, how easy it is to repent and receive God's forgiveness.
Now, history shows that the Ninevites didn't stay "converted" very long. They came back as the Assyrians and conquered Israel in brutal fashion. But for a while, they behaved.
The behavior, obedience and salvation of the Ninevites stands in stark contrast to the snarly, recalcitrant Jonah who just wanted to see them wiped off the face of the earth. The compliance of the people of Nineveh also stands in stark contrast to the people of Israel who were continuously reluctant and stubborn about being obedient and faithful to Yahweh.
A couple of other points from Jonah:
That big fish was pretty darn scary, but it was God's means of rescuing Jonah from certain death by drowning. I think the fish metaphor suggests that God sometimes puts very scary things in our path as a way of saving us from spiritual peril.
I have to wonder what Jonah expected to see when he went out on the hillside to watch what would happen to Nineveh. I'm pretty sure he was hoping to see fire and brimstone rain down on the wicked city. After all, the whole reason he tried to run away from his command to go preach was because he feared God would indeed refrain from blowing up the Ninevites. Jonah and God talk about that in the final scene of the book.
But God has the last word. He gently points out Jonah's self-involvement and contrasts with His own heart for the lost world. "But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left [i.e., cannot discern God's truth] and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that city?"
See my blog post about 1 John, which I wrote earlier today. The book of Jonah, ancient as it is, carries the same message as John's writings: God is Love, and God's people are commanded to love one another.
Jude: Encouragement for Discernment
Jude does not immediately follow 3 John in alphabetical order. However, since it has so much in common with the shortes epistle attributed to John, it is almost always grouped with it.
The book of Jude is revered largely because of its author who tells us he is the brother of James (the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem) and the bondslave of Jesus. James and Jesus were brothers, so Jude would be a brother of Jesus, too.
Jude's message is a warning against so-called "Christians" who reveled in sinful behavior because they thought salvation gave them license to sin. This sentiment was characteristic of some of the Gnostics; apparently some of the early Gnostics were plaguing Jude's readers as much as they were plaguing John's. Again: it's amazing how quickly divisions sprang up in the early Christian community.
The warnings against teaching bad interpretations of Christ's gospel are dire, as Jude points out. Modern-day Christians, including myself, should take this to heart. We must be on our guard to discern right and wrong in preaching and other "religious" communication. We must strive to perceive the truth as we evaluate the words and deeds of others. As I write this, I'm thinking about the issues of homosexuality (e.g., gay marriage), and even the Mormon religion. I struggle daily trying to figure out what's "right" according to the letter and spirit of Christ's teaching.
The last two verses of Jude are helpful and encouraging in this struggle:
To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy -- to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore.
Amen.
The book of Jude is revered largely because of its author who tells us he is the brother of James (the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem) and the bondslave of Jesus. James and Jesus were brothers, so Jude would be a brother of Jesus, too.
Jude's message is a warning against so-called "Christians" who reveled in sinful behavior because they thought salvation gave them license to sin. This sentiment was characteristic of some of the Gnostics; apparently some of the early Gnostics were plaguing Jude's readers as much as they were plaguing John's. Again: it's amazing how quickly divisions sprang up in the early Christian community.
The warnings against teaching bad interpretations of Christ's gospel are dire, as Jude points out. Modern-day Christians, including myself, should take this to heart. We must be on our guard to discern right and wrong in preaching and other "religious" communication. We must strive to perceive the truth as we evaluate the words and deeds of others. As I write this, I'm thinking about the issues of homosexuality (e.g., gay marriage), and even the Mormon religion. I struggle daily trying to figure out what's "right" according to the letter and spirit of Christ's teaching.
The last two verses of Jude are helpful and encouraging in this struggle:
To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy -- to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore.
Amen.
1,2,3 John: Short, Sweet and Timely
First, Second, and Third John are so short, they just naturally get grouped together. I will group them in this brief blog post as well.
This time, I read them in my Greek-English diglot. That just means I read them in English but I could quickly refer to the Greek when I felt like it. This process made me more aware than ever of the similarities between 1 John and the Gospel of John.
1 John is, I think, known as the "Love Book." The word "love," or "agape" in Greek, is used about a zillion times. (I know, Greek students, I could easily look up the exact number of uses with one of my Bible tools, but I'm too lazy.)
One can't walk away from reading 1 John without some soul-searching on how seriously "we" take Jesus' commands to love one another. More often, we judge one another. We disdain one another. We are suspicious of one another. We get caught up in one another's life style or other choices. We love our neighbor very much less than we love ourself.
Really: What would happen if all of us in this highly charged election year started from a position of loving others? What if we were able to look past people's words, deeds, political convictions, moral choices, sexual orientation, etc., etc. and just begin by loving them? Would it cut down on the ideological standoffs, the political screed? Worth a try, don't you think?
"Love one another" is nothing less than Jesus Christ's New Commandment (1 John 3:23). Love, agape, is nothing less than the very nature of God (1 John 4:8,16).
1 John talks about sin, too. He chides us to discontinue our sins because a sinful life is inconsistent with a life steeped in God's love. And how do we move out of a sinful life? "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). And, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins....We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4:10,19).
"Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth" (1 John 3:18).
I have much less to say about 2 and 3 John. They are such short, personal letters. One wonders exactly why they were included in the canon of the New Testament, but apparently they were from the earliest times. Perhaps because they were attributed to the same author, who was so revered for his other writings. Maybe they were just tucked into the same envelope as they traveled about Christendom.
Still, the main thrust of both epistles is a warning against itinerant preachers of the day who went around spouting heretical teaching, probably an early version of Gnosticism.
I find it amazing that within just a few decades of Jesus' resurrection, the group of His followers were having to deal with heretical, charlatans who were twisting the message of the gospel just enough to attract slightly confused adherents.
Does that sound familiar, some 2000 years later?
This time, I read them in my Greek-English diglot. That just means I read them in English but I could quickly refer to the Greek when I felt like it. This process made me more aware than ever of the similarities between 1 John and the Gospel of John.
1 John is, I think, known as the "Love Book." The word "love," or "agape" in Greek, is used about a zillion times. (I know, Greek students, I could easily look up the exact number of uses with one of my Bible tools, but I'm too lazy.)
One can't walk away from reading 1 John without some soul-searching on how seriously "we" take Jesus' commands to love one another. More often, we judge one another. We disdain one another. We are suspicious of one another. We get caught up in one another's life style or other choices. We love our neighbor very much less than we love ourself.
Really: What would happen if all of us in this highly charged election year started from a position of loving others? What if we were able to look past people's words, deeds, political convictions, moral choices, sexual orientation, etc., etc. and just begin by loving them? Would it cut down on the ideological standoffs, the political screed? Worth a try, don't you think?
"Love one another" is nothing less than Jesus Christ's New Commandment (1 John 3:23). Love, agape, is nothing less than the very nature of God (1 John 4:8,16).
1 John talks about sin, too. He chides us to discontinue our sins because a sinful life is inconsistent with a life steeped in God's love. And how do we move out of a sinful life? "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). And, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins....We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4:10,19).
"Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth" (1 John 3:18).
I have much less to say about 2 and 3 John. They are such short, personal letters. One wonders exactly why they were included in the canon of the New Testament, but apparently they were from the earliest times. Perhaps because they were attributed to the same author, who was so revered for his other writings. Maybe they were just tucked into the same envelope as they traveled about Christendom.
Still, the main thrust of both epistles is a warning against itinerant preachers of the day who went around spouting heretical teaching, probably an early version of Gnosticism.
I find it amazing that within just a few decades of Jesus' resurrection, the group of His followers were having to deal with heretical, charlatans who were twisting the message of the gospel just enough to attract slightly confused adherents.
Does that sound familiar, some 2000 years later?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)