God’s Lament Over His People (v. 34-36)
The text continues with a “therefore”, but the way it appears here in Matthew it is not clear what the context is. Luke’s version is more detailed: “Therefore, God’s wisdom says”. Apparently this is a well-known quote, whose origin we know nothing about. It is about what God will do with his people, and it says what many prophets already had said. God constantly sends new messengers to his people and the people kill them. The words are applicable also to Jesus and those whom he sends. It will continue like this until the end. Then the accounts will be settled and the blood of the martyrs will come on “this generation”. This could mean this generation or this people. And every sin against the witnesses of God, all the way from Abel to Zechariah, that is from the first to the last martyr in the Old Testament, will be accounted for. Zacharias is the Greek form for Zechariah, the last of the twelve minor prophets, who was Berekiah’s son (Barachias). However, there was another prophet named Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, who was killed in the outer court of the temple, as it is told in 2 Chronicles (24:20f), which at that time was the last book in the Jewish bible. Luke only talks about “Zacharias” and one of the oldest manuscripts does not here mention “Berekiah’s son” either. Apparently there has been some uncertainty concerning whom Jesus was talking about. Yet, the meaning is clear - in all its seriousness.
You Would Not (v. 37-39)
Why does any human being have to be damned? Why is not everyone saved? Even Jesus has been asked this question. Here he gives us the answer. God wanted everyone to be saved. He sent his Son to save man from the disaster that was threatening - as the hen gathers the brood under her wings when the hawk is approaching. But they would not.
“Your house is left to you desolate” most likely means that God will leave his temple. He will take his hand off that place which he had chosen. It might also mean: your home will be desolate and stand as ruins. Then no more prophets and messengers will be sent to Israel. God’s people will not see their Messiah before he comes in the clouds of heaven. They had greeted him when he rode into Jerusalem with the old words from the Psalm: “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” If they rejected him now, they would not get a new opportunity to say this before his last coming.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Giertz on Advent IV
The Savior’s Birth (v. 18-25)
Among Jews, betrothal was a solemn act with legally binding consequences, just as the wedding ceremony is to us (or betrothal in the old times; therefore this might be a justification for using the old word “betrothal”). After the betrothal the couple was called husband and wife, even though the woman still lived with her parents. The wedding meant that the husband “took his wife”, so that they formed their own home and lived together. If the husband died during the betrothal, the wife was considered to be a widow. It was adultery if a betrothed woman gave herself to another man. This could bring severe punishment and in any case shame. Joseph wanted to protect his betrothed from this and thus planned to divorce her quietly. In a dream he then sees an angel, who tells him that Mary is innocent and that the child that she carries has been conceived in a way which no other child in the world has. Joseph is therefore to take his wife and name the child Jesus, because this Jesus “will save his people from their sins”. This statement does not have a real meaning in Swedish (or Greek), unlike Hebrew or Aramaic. The name Jesus (which is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament) means “The Lord saves”. Jewish names had more meaning than ours do. They often contained a confession or a motto. They were considered to bear the innermost essence of a person. Therefore, there was a proclamation and a promise from God in the name Jesus itself.
There is also a special meaning in the words “save his people from their sins“. It was a general Jewish belief that Messiah was to save his people, but he would do it by freeing them and overthrowing their enemies. The words of the angel give another picture of Messiah, a picture which Matthew will draw on in his gospel. It is a picture of a suffering Savior, one who is persecuted and rejected, but precisely in this way he wins forgiveness of sins for his people.
All this happened, Matthew says, so that the words of Scripture would be fulfilled, and then he quotes Isaiah’s word about the virgin who would give birth to a son (Is 7:14). He quotes the Greek translation, which was commonly used among Jews (and is called the Septuagint). In the Hebrew text a word which can mean both virgin and young woman is used for “virgin”. Our current church bible “young woman” is used in Isaiah, but the word “virgin” is used in this passage, in the same way as the Greek translation did.
In the future, we will continue to meet this thought over and over again in Matthew, that the Scripture (that is, the Old Testament) has been fulfilled in Christ. In this Matthew often uses a way of quoting and interpreting of the Scripture, which may seem a bit strained to us, but this way of reading and explaining the Scripture was widely accepted in this time. While modern scholars today take it for granted that one should try to determine what the authors of the Bible themselves meant with their statements, the Jews - and also Jesus - were convinced that there is more to the words of the Bible than that meaning, which the words may have had in a particular historic situation. For they were convinced that God spoke to them through these words and that he had enclosed inexhaustible riches in them, which were possible to find through an attentive study. To “examine the Scriptures” was therefore to compare one passage with another, to pay attention to the bigger picture in Scripture, and to find hints and reference to that, which happened both previously and later. They entered deeply into all the details in the texts, were mindful of both pronunciation, as they had learned it, and the written text, which consisted of consonants with vowels and thus opened up for other pronunciations and new meanings.
Here we have an example of this way of reading. Isaiah says that the son of the virgin is to be called Immanuel. This, Matthew now says, has been fulfilled when Mary’s son was named Jesus. This conclusion makes no sense if one has not - as Matthew - realized that both these names mean the same thing. For “the Lords saves” means that “God is with us”. That God who should be against us, shows that he makes our lost cause his when he sends us his Son as a Savior. He comes to us and will never abandon us. This idea is prevalent through the whole gospel of Matthew, even to its last verse: Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Now one may of course ask: How did Matthew know what he here tells about Jesus’ birth? It is understandable that many have wanted to explain away this as legend, since it goes against everything that we usually count on. Fifty years ago it was often claimed that the legend about Jesus’ supernatural birth arose on Hellenistic soil. Among the Greeks there were many myths about sons of gods, who had lived on earth, and it was not strange if they had similar thoughts about Jesus. However, that theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It is namely possible to show that the narratives about Jesus’ birth (as we have them in the first two chapters in Matthew and in another version in Luke) must have had its origin among people, who knew and spoke Aramaic and knew the Hebrew Bible. Thus, they must have originated on Jewish soil, in Palestine or Syria. That changes the whole issue. To a Jew it was by no means natural, but rather offensive to think that Messiah would be born in this way. Among the Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria, the first church in Jerusalem had a entirely dominant position until 70 AD, when the city was destroyed. In the first church Jesus’ own brother Jacob was the leading figure until his death (ca 62 AD). Relatives of Jesus were among the Christians in Palestine at least until 130 AD. It therefore seems strange if legends could have occurred in these circles, when their leaders knew that they were unfounded. However, the process becomes understandable, assuming that stories which went back to those who were closest to Jesus, had been preserved in the first church. What Matthew here tells is the sequence of events as it may have been told by Joseph, while the other version, which Luke tells, give us the events as they should have seemed from Mary’s point of view.
Among Jews, betrothal was a solemn act with legally binding consequences, just as the wedding ceremony is to us (or betrothal in the old times; therefore this might be a justification for using the old word “betrothal”). After the betrothal the couple was called husband and wife, even though the woman still lived with her parents. The wedding meant that the husband “took his wife”, so that they formed their own home and lived together. If the husband died during the betrothal, the wife was considered to be a widow. It was adultery if a betrothed woman gave herself to another man. This could bring severe punishment and in any case shame. Joseph wanted to protect his betrothed from this and thus planned to divorce her quietly. In a dream he then sees an angel, who tells him that Mary is innocent and that the child that she carries has been conceived in a way which no other child in the world has. Joseph is therefore to take his wife and name the child Jesus, because this Jesus “will save his people from their sins”. This statement does not have a real meaning in Swedish (or Greek), unlike Hebrew or Aramaic. The name Jesus (which is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament) means “The Lord saves”. Jewish names had more meaning than ours do. They often contained a confession or a motto. They were considered to bear the innermost essence of a person. Therefore, there was a proclamation and a promise from God in the name Jesus itself.
There is also a special meaning in the words “save his people from their sins“. It was a general Jewish belief that Messiah was to save his people, but he would do it by freeing them and overthrowing their enemies. The words of the angel give another picture of Messiah, a picture which Matthew will draw on in his gospel. It is a picture of a suffering Savior, one who is persecuted and rejected, but precisely in this way he wins forgiveness of sins for his people.
All this happened, Matthew says, so that the words of Scripture would be fulfilled, and then he quotes Isaiah’s word about the virgin who would give birth to a son (Is 7:14). He quotes the Greek translation, which was commonly used among Jews (and is called the Septuagint). In the Hebrew text a word which can mean both virgin and young woman is used for “virgin”. Our current church bible “young woman” is used in Isaiah, but the word “virgin” is used in this passage, in the same way as the Greek translation did.
In the future, we will continue to meet this thought over and over again in Matthew, that the Scripture (that is, the Old Testament) has been fulfilled in Christ. In this Matthew often uses a way of quoting and interpreting of the Scripture, which may seem a bit strained to us, but this way of reading and explaining the Scripture was widely accepted in this time. While modern scholars today take it for granted that one should try to determine what the authors of the Bible themselves meant with their statements, the Jews - and also Jesus - were convinced that there is more to the words of the Bible than that meaning, which the words may have had in a particular historic situation. For they were convinced that God spoke to them through these words and that he had enclosed inexhaustible riches in them, which were possible to find through an attentive study. To “examine the Scriptures” was therefore to compare one passage with another, to pay attention to the bigger picture in Scripture, and to find hints and reference to that, which happened both previously and later. They entered deeply into all the details in the texts, were mindful of both pronunciation, as they had learned it, and the written text, which consisted of consonants with vowels and thus opened up for other pronunciations and new meanings.
Here we have an example of this way of reading. Isaiah says that the son of the virgin is to be called Immanuel. This, Matthew now says, has been fulfilled when Mary’s son was named Jesus. This conclusion makes no sense if one has not - as Matthew - realized that both these names mean the same thing. For “the Lords saves” means that “God is with us”. That God who should be against us, shows that he makes our lost cause his when he sends us his Son as a Savior. He comes to us and will never abandon us. This idea is prevalent through the whole gospel of Matthew, even to its last verse: Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Now one may of course ask: How did Matthew know what he here tells about Jesus’ birth? It is understandable that many have wanted to explain away this as legend, since it goes against everything that we usually count on. Fifty years ago it was often claimed that the legend about Jesus’ supernatural birth arose on Hellenistic soil. Among the Greeks there were many myths about sons of gods, who had lived on earth, and it was not strange if they had similar thoughts about Jesus. However, that theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It is namely possible to show that the narratives about Jesus’ birth (as we have them in the first two chapters in Matthew and in another version in Luke) must have had its origin among people, who knew and spoke Aramaic and knew the Hebrew Bible. Thus, they must have originated on Jewish soil, in Palestine or Syria. That changes the whole issue. To a Jew it was by no means natural, but rather offensive to think that Messiah would be born in this way. Among the Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria, the first church in Jerusalem had a entirely dominant position until 70 AD, when the city was destroyed. In the first church Jesus’ own brother Jacob was the leading figure until his death (ca 62 AD). Relatives of Jesus were among the Christians in Palestine at least until 130 AD. It therefore seems strange if legends could have occurred in these circles, when their leaders knew that they were unfounded. However, the process becomes understandable, assuming that stories which went back to those who were closest to Jesus, had been preserved in the first church. What Matthew here tells is the sequence of events as it may have been told by Joseph, while the other version, which Luke tells, give us the events as they should have seemed from Mary’s point of view.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Giertz on Advent III
The Baptist’s Question (v. 2-6)
A legation comes from the Baptist. He himself is in prison. He has now heard about “the works of Christ”. One could also translate it “Christ works” or “Messiah works”. That was what Jesus did. The prophets had said it: When God came to his people, then “the blind receive their sight...and the deaf hear”. Then shall “the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy” (Is 35:5f). Yet it was not exactly the kind of works, which John had expected. He had talked about the winnowing fork and the fire, where the chaff would be burned. What happened to these?
Thus John asks his question: Are you the one who would come? And Jesus asks the disciples to tell about what they had seen and heard themselves. This is the evidence: the word and the works. This is evidence enough for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. He is able to see that Messiah has come and that the Kingdom is here. That is why disease and death now has to retreat. Greatest of everything that God is now doing is this: The poor have good news preached to them. The poor are those whom Jesus turned to in his sermon on the mount. This is the greatest miracle of all: that God makes these poor his children. This has to be enough evidence for the Baptist. And Jesus adds: Blesses is the one who is not offended by me. The one who does not see nor understand when God works in this way, he will never understand. The one who is offended that God revels himself in this way and not in overwhelming power and glory, he will never get to know God. This is a warning, that Jesus is probably not directing to the Baptist, but maybe rather to his messengers and surely to the people who are standing around listening.
Who Is The Baptist? (v. 7-15)
Now Jesus is turning to the people. He is talking about the Baptist. Who did they really think that he was? Surely they did not go into the wilderness to see a cautious politician, who stuck his finger in the air to see where the wind was blowing? Surely they did not expect a well-dressed and bowing servant of the king’s house? They all knew what they were waiting to see. They wanted to meet a prophet, a real prophet. And that is what the Baptist really was, Jesus says. Even more than a prophet. He was the greatest in a long line of men of God who had lived on earth until now. And yet - so great was this new time, that now was breaking in, that the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven (in other words, the kingdom of God) is greater than this the greatest of all the prophets. It cannot be said any clearer, that the kingdom of God comes with something that is completely new, something that did not exist in the old covenant, something that not even the Forerunner, the great Baptist owned. This was what Jesus brought. This only existed in him and with him.
The shocking thing is now, Jesus continues, that people think that they will be able to prevent the Kingdom by force. They have thrown John in jail. They will continue in the same way. Jesus only touches slightly on the subject, but one senses that he is looking forward to his own suffering. Violent men want to steal the kingdom. All the prophets and the law - that is the whole Scripture - had borne witness about what would come. Thus people should know better. But now that Elijah had come, as it had been said, then he was treated like this!
Here Jesus intentionally talks in cryptic words all the time. Only the one who understands the mystery of the kingdom of heaven will understand. Therefore he adds, as in so many other occasions: He who has ears to hear, let him hear! And the scholars still argue today about what he really meant. The words as they are in Greek can lingustically be translated in a different way. In the Swedish Bible from 1917 they are translated as “the kingdom of heaven advances with power and people rush ahead to snatch it”. But both linguistically and in fact this translation seems to be less likely.
A legation comes from the Baptist. He himself is in prison. He has now heard about “the works of Christ”. One could also translate it “Christ works” or “Messiah works”. That was what Jesus did. The prophets had said it: When God came to his people, then “the blind receive their sight...and the deaf hear”. Then shall “the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy” (Is 35:5f). Yet it was not exactly the kind of works, which John had expected. He had talked about the winnowing fork and the fire, where the chaff would be burned. What happened to these?
Thus John asks his question: Are you the one who would come? And Jesus asks the disciples to tell about what they had seen and heard themselves. This is the evidence: the word and the works. This is evidence enough for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. He is able to see that Messiah has come and that the Kingdom is here. That is why disease and death now has to retreat. Greatest of everything that God is now doing is this: The poor have good news preached to them. The poor are those whom Jesus turned to in his sermon on the mount. This is the greatest miracle of all: that God makes these poor his children. This has to be enough evidence for the Baptist. And Jesus adds: Blesses is the one who is not offended by me. The one who does not see nor understand when God works in this way, he will never understand. The one who is offended that God revels himself in this way and not in overwhelming power and glory, he will never get to know God. This is a warning, that Jesus is probably not directing to the Baptist, but maybe rather to his messengers and surely to the people who are standing around listening.
Who Is The Baptist? (v. 7-15)
Now Jesus is turning to the people. He is talking about the Baptist. Who did they really think that he was? Surely they did not go into the wilderness to see a cautious politician, who stuck his finger in the air to see where the wind was blowing? Surely they did not expect a well-dressed and bowing servant of the king’s house? They all knew what they were waiting to see. They wanted to meet a prophet, a real prophet. And that is what the Baptist really was, Jesus says. Even more than a prophet. He was the greatest in a long line of men of God who had lived on earth until now. And yet - so great was this new time, that now was breaking in, that the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven (in other words, the kingdom of God) is greater than this the greatest of all the prophets. It cannot be said any clearer, that the kingdom of God comes with something that is completely new, something that did not exist in the old covenant, something that not even the Forerunner, the great Baptist owned. This was what Jesus brought. This only existed in him and with him.
The shocking thing is now, Jesus continues, that people think that they will be able to prevent the Kingdom by force. They have thrown John in jail. They will continue in the same way. Jesus only touches slightly on the subject, but one senses that he is looking forward to his own suffering. Violent men want to steal the kingdom. All the prophets and the law - that is the whole Scripture - had borne witness about what would come. Thus people should know better. But now that Elijah had come, as it had been said, then he was treated like this!
Here Jesus intentionally talks in cryptic words all the time. Only the one who understands the mystery of the kingdom of heaven will understand. Therefore he adds, as in so many other occasions: He who has ears to hear, let him hear! And the scholars still argue today about what he really meant. The words as they are in Greek can lingustically be translated in a different way. In the Swedish Bible from 1917 they are translated as “the kingdom of heaven advances with power and people rush ahead to snatch it”. But both linguistically and in fact this translation seems to be less likely.
(translated by Kristina)
Friday, October 22, 2010
Giertz on Pentecost 22
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 8:9-14)
This parable is unlike the previous one; it is a “example story,’ which immediately shows how one should live or not live. This, too, contains an explanatory introduction. It is directed to those who rely on their pious way of life and think that they really live better than many other men. It is directed, thus, not towards hypocrites but toward that moralism, which is so natural for many people. They think they are right with God because they live an honest and upright life - maybe even hold on to some tradition extra strictly. The pharisee fasted twice a week. It was not mandated by law, but it was a good pious custom (a custom which was followed in the early church, although they were fasting on different days than the Jews). The pharisee was also scrupulously careful to do the right thing when it came to tithing, that is the tax to the temple. The problem was that he felt that he had done his duty and that he could draw a thick line between himself and all those who did not meet the demands of morality.
Against him, Jesus now sets a tax collector, who is conscious of his guilt. He only dares to ask for one thing: that God in his grace would “reconcile himself”, as it literally says, that is, to have mercy on him and forgive him. And Jesus explains that this man went home “justified.” Here Luke uses a word which is very common in Paul’s letters. In the gospels it most often means “to give someone justice,” but here it has the same meaning as in Paul: God declares someone righteous. We see here, how right Paul understands Jesus. Many trust that they are justified because of their moral conduct. That is self-deception and arrogance. The teaching of Jesus was to show these people that they, despite all their morality, still were guilty before God. Only one who humbles himself and confesses this guilt, can be free from it.
With that we have reach the end of what the exegetes call “example stories” (reseberättelser). As we have seen, this name is not a good choice. Luke does not have any interest in narrating Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. His wish has been to reproduce words and events from Jesus’ life, that did not occur in Mark and that he has not been able to insert earlier. Here he has found a suitable place to do this without having to break up the sequence of events in Mark. Now he is done with this large addition and goes back following the course of events, as Mark depicts them.
Jesus and the Children (15-17)
Luke talks about infants, babies. They had to be carried to Jesus. They could not understand what was happening. It is understandable that the disciples wanted to prevent them. But Jesus says that the Kingdom is for precisely such as these. Even the adults had to become like children to be able to enter into it. To able to understand these words, one has to know that a child in the ancient world did not have any rights or value. To “become like a child” means to waive any claims, to not have anything of one’s own to show up. This is the likeness between children and the tax collector in the temple. One received the kingdom of God as a gift. One can never earn it. Nor is faith a merit or characteristic that makes one earn the God’s gift. It is the beggar’s outstretched hand, which does not earn the gift, but receives it. And Jesus here teaches that children are able to receive that undeserved gift.
A Christian Facing Death (ii Tim 4:6-8)
Paul is counting on a conviction and is facing martyrdom. It is therefore possible that he does not have long to live. In the face of martyrdom, he does not feel bitterness towards his judges. He knows that he is a offering on God’s altar, and that this offering in some way will benefit the gospel. He is ready to move on. After all, death is not the end, but a gateway to the real life, at home with the Lord Jesus Christ. His life has been full of struggle. He has given everything, like a runner on the last leg. Now he is almost at the finish line. He knows that he owns the only necessary thing. He has kept the faith. Everything that is behind him is covered by forgiveness. Before him is laid up a crown, one that requires a whole-hearted effort as if only one could win it, even though it is for all those who believe in Christ and who longingly run to meet with him.
Paul’s First Defense Before the Court (v 16-18)
We do not know what Paul is referring to when he talks about the first time he was to defend himself before the court. For those who believe that he is now writing from Caesarea it is clear that it has to be a hearing in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Those who prefer to think of Rome as the scene have to choose between the year when the process was finally taken up at the Emperor’s supreme court or the first court hearing in a second captivity. One has to remember that what Paul mentions here should have been news for Timothy. It causes some difficulties for the theory that the letter would be written in Caesarea, because the first hearings should have taken place while Timothy still was with Paul. Those who count on a second captivity have often placed it in connection with the persecution by Emperor Nero (some time during fall 64 or into the year 65). However, it is highly unlikely that there would have been an orderly process against Paul during this persecution, when the whole legal system seems to have ceased to function. It seems impossible that he would have asked Timothy to come to Rome and take Mark with him during the persecution. Thus, this captivity must have begun before the persecution or occured a few years after. It is possible that the trial was going on when the persecution broke out and that they then cut the process with Paul short.
Anyway, what Paul has to say is that no one came to help him by offering to testify in his favor. That the case nevertheless had a somewhat good ending Paul sees as a proof that God still wanted him to carry out his message. This is almost exactly what is told about his dispute with the Jews and the Roman authorities in Jerusalem in the summer of 57 (Acts 23).
This parable is unlike the previous one; it is a “example story,’ which immediately shows how one should live or not live. This, too, contains an explanatory introduction. It is directed to those who rely on their pious way of life and think that they really live better than many other men. It is directed, thus, not towards hypocrites but toward that moralism, which is so natural for many people. They think they are right with God because they live an honest and upright life - maybe even hold on to some tradition extra strictly. The pharisee fasted twice a week. It was not mandated by law, but it was a good pious custom (a custom which was followed in the early church, although they were fasting on different days than the Jews). The pharisee was also scrupulously careful to do the right thing when it came to tithing, that is the tax to the temple. The problem was that he felt that he had done his duty and that he could draw a thick line between himself and all those who did not meet the demands of morality.
Against him, Jesus now sets a tax collector, who is conscious of his guilt. He only dares to ask for one thing: that God in his grace would “reconcile himself”, as it literally says, that is, to have mercy on him and forgive him. And Jesus explains that this man went home “justified.” Here Luke uses a word which is very common in Paul’s letters. In the gospels it most often means “to give someone justice,” but here it has the same meaning as in Paul: God declares someone righteous. We see here, how right Paul understands Jesus. Many trust that they are justified because of their moral conduct. That is self-deception and arrogance. The teaching of Jesus was to show these people that they, despite all their morality, still were guilty before God. Only one who humbles himself and confesses this guilt, can be free from it.
With that we have reach the end of what the exegetes call “example stories” (reseberättelser). As we have seen, this name is not a good choice. Luke does not have any interest in narrating Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. His wish has been to reproduce words and events from Jesus’ life, that did not occur in Mark and that he has not been able to insert earlier. Here he has found a suitable place to do this without having to break up the sequence of events in Mark. Now he is done with this large addition and goes back following the course of events, as Mark depicts them.
Jesus and the Children (15-17)
Luke talks about infants, babies. They had to be carried to Jesus. They could not understand what was happening. It is understandable that the disciples wanted to prevent them. But Jesus says that the Kingdom is for precisely such as these. Even the adults had to become like children to be able to enter into it. To able to understand these words, one has to know that a child in the ancient world did not have any rights or value. To “become like a child” means to waive any claims, to not have anything of one’s own to show up. This is the likeness between children and the tax collector in the temple. One received the kingdom of God as a gift. One can never earn it. Nor is faith a merit or characteristic that makes one earn the God’s gift. It is the beggar’s outstretched hand, which does not earn the gift, but receives it. And Jesus here teaches that children are able to receive that undeserved gift.
A Christian Facing Death (ii Tim 4:6-8)
Paul is counting on a conviction and is facing martyrdom. It is therefore possible that he does not have long to live. In the face of martyrdom, he does not feel bitterness towards his judges. He knows that he is a offering on God’s altar, and that this offering in some way will benefit the gospel. He is ready to move on. After all, death is not the end, but a gateway to the real life, at home with the Lord Jesus Christ. His life has been full of struggle. He has given everything, like a runner on the last leg. Now he is almost at the finish line. He knows that he owns the only necessary thing. He has kept the faith. Everything that is behind him is covered by forgiveness. Before him is laid up a crown, one that requires a whole-hearted effort as if only one could win it, even though it is for all those who believe in Christ and who longingly run to meet with him.
Paul’s First Defense Before the Court (v 16-18)
We do not know what Paul is referring to when he talks about the first time he was to defend himself before the court. For those who believe that he is now writing from Caesarea it is clear that it has to be a hearing in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Those who prefer to think of Rome as the scene have to choose between the year when the process was finally taken up at the Emperor’s supreme court or the first court hearing in a second captivity. One has to remember that what Paul mentions here should have been news for Timothy. It causes some difficulties for the theory that the letter would be written in Caesarea, because the first hearings should have taken place while Timothy still was with Paul. Those who count on a second captivity have often placed it in connection with the persecution by Emperor Nero (some time during fall 64 or into the year 65). However, it is highly unlikely that there would have been an orderly process against Paul during this persecution, when the whole legal system seems to have ceased to function. It seems impossible that he would have asked Timothy to come to Rome and take Mark with him during the persecution. Thus, this captivity must have begun before the persecution or occured a few years after. It is possible that the trial was going on when the persecution broke out and that they then cut the process with Paul short.
Anyway, what Paul has to say is that no one came to help him by offering to testify in his favor. That the case nevertheless had a somewhat good ending Paul sees as a proof that God still wanted him to carry out his message. This is almost exactly what is told about his dispute with the Jews and the Roman authorities in Jerusalem in the summer of 57 (Acts 23).
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Giertz on Trinity 21
A Christian Facing Death (v 6-8)
Paul is counting on a conviction and is facing martyrdom. It is therefore possible that he does not have long to live. In the face of martyrdom, he does not feel bitterness towards his judges. He knows that he is a offering on God’s altar, and that this offering in some way will benefit the gospel. He is ready to move on. After all, death is not the end, but a gateway to the real life, at home with the Lord Jesus Christ. His life has been full of struggle. He has given everything, like a runner on the last leg. Now he is almost at the finish line. He knows that he owns the only necessary thing. He has kept the faith. Everything that is behind him is covered by forgiveness. Before him is laid up a crown, one that requires a whole-hearted effort as if only one could win it, even though it is for all those who believe in Christ and who longingly run to meet with him.
Paul’s First Defense Before the Court (v 16-18)
We do not know what Paul is referring to when he talks about the first time he was to defend himself before the court. For those who believe that he is now writing from Caesarea it is clear that it has to be a hearing in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Those who prefer to think of Rome as the scene have to choose between the year when the process was finally taken up at the Emperor’s supreme court or the first court hearing in a second captivity. One has to remember that what Paul mentions here should have been news for Timothy. It causes some difficulties for the theory that the letter would be written in Caesarea, because the first hearings should have taken place while Timothy still was with Paul. Those who count on a second captivity have often placed it in connection with the persecution by Emperor Nero (some time during fall 64 or into the year 65). However, it is highly unlikely that there would have been an orderly process against Paul during this persecution, when the whole legal system seems to have ceased to function. It seems impossible that he would have asked Timothy to come to Rome and take Mark with him during the persecution. Thus, this captivity must have begun before the persecution or occured a few years after. It is possible that the trial was going on when the persecution broke out and that they then cut the process with Paul short.
Anyway, what Paul has to say is that no one came to help him by offering to testify in his favor. That the case nevertheless had a somewhat good ending Paul sees as a proof that God still wanted him to carry out his message. This is almost exactly what is told about his dispute with the Jews and the Roman authorities in Jerusalem in the summer of 57 (Acts 23).
Paul is counting on a conviction and is facing martyrdom. It is therefore possible that he does not have long to live. In the face of martyrdom, he does not feel bitterness towards his judges. He knows that he is a offering on God’s altar, and that this offering in some way will benefit the gospel. He is ready to move on. After all, death is not the end, but a gateway to the real life, at home with the Lord Jesus Christ. His life has been full of struggle. He has given everything, like a runner on the last leg. Now he is almost at the finish line. He knows that he owns the only necessary thing. He has kept the faith. Everything that is behind him is covered by forgiveness. Before him is laid up a crown, one that requires a whole-hearted effort as if only one could win it, even though it is for all those who believe in Christ and who longingly run to meet with him.
Paul’s First Defense Before the Court (v 16-18)
We do not know what Paul is referring to when he talks about the first time he was to defend himself before the court. For those who believe that he is now writing from Caesarea it is clear that it has to be a hearing in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Those who prefer to think of Rome as the scene have to choose between the year when the process was finally taken up at the Emperor’s supreme court or the first court hearing in a second captivity. One has to remember that what Paul mentions here should have been news for Timothy. It causes some difficulties for the theory that the letter would be written in Caesarea, because the first hearings should have taken place while Timothy still was with Paul. Those who count on a second captivity have often placed it in connection with the persecution by Emperor Nero (some time during fall 64 or into the year 65). However, it is highly unlikely that there would have been an orderly process against Paul during this persecution, when the whole legal system seems to have ceased to function. It seems impossible that he would have asked Timothy to come to Rome and take Mark with him during the persecution. Thus, this captivity must have begun before the persecution or occured a few years after. It is possible that the trial was going on when the persecution broke out and that they then cut the process with Paul short.
Anyway, what Paul has to say is that no one came to help him by offering to testify in his favor. That the case nevertheless had a somewhat good ending Paul sees as a proof that God still wanted him to carry out his message. This is almost exactly what is told about his dispute with the Jews and the Roman authorities in Jerusalem in the summer of 57 (Acts 23).
The Evil Judge (Luke 18:1-8)
This brings us near to the end of the “moral stories” of Luke. There remain only two sections. Both contain parables which only appear in Luke. The first one is about a corrupt and dishonest judge, who does not seek what is right, but who in the end gives in to a stubborn widow and lets her have what is her right. It is one of the many parables which use a picture of impious and immoral man’s life and lets it illustrate something in God’s kingdom. Our word “parable” is not exactly right when it comes to these “moral stories.” It leads man to believe that there is to be a real likeness between the people in the parable and a Christian - or in some cases God himself. And because man so often imagines that morality must be the essence of religion, they look for this likeness first and foremost in this moral sphere. Then they ask indignantly: Should one really live like this? Like the dishonest steward? Or the man who schemed to get a field where he knew a treasure was? Is God really like this judge here, so that he only hears a prayer if one nags him and wears him out?
How one then totally misunderstands such stories, Luke shows us here. Already from the beginning he says what, in this case, was the purpose: to exhort the disciples to persevere in prayer. He records Jesus’ own explanation: If even a bad judge listens to a poor widow, who does not stop praying, how much more, then, must the good God hear his own children! The meaning is thus that they will know, that he will set things right. And justice here does not mean their private matters, but faith in God and His kingdom. The words, “Does he wait to help them?” is a sentence in which both the text and the meaning are unsure. According to another reading, one could translate “...even if he seems to delay to help them.” When it says that God will help his elect “with haste,” it probably refers to that he suddenly and unexpectedly intervenes and lets His Kingdom come. This explains the subsequent melancholic question: But will the Son of Man find faith on earth when He comes? This is a glimpse of the future which is consistent in the New Testament. The Gospel shall be preached to all people. The majority will reject it. Those who believe until the end will be a persecuted minority. Then God lets the end come.
The promise of help and the exhortation to persevere, of course, does not only concern extreme tribulation. Jesus just said to the disciples that there will come a time, then they would like to see “the day of the Son of Man.” But they will not see it (17:22). Yet they are to pray and be sure that God hears their prayers, though He answers them in a way they had not expected.
This brings us near to the end of the “moral stories” of Luke. There remain only two sections. Both contain parables which only appear in Luke. The first one is about a corrupt and dishonest judge, who does not seek what is right, but who in the end gives in to a stubborn widow and lets her have what is her right. It is one of the many parables which use a picture of impious and immoral man’s life and lets it illustrate something in God’s kingdom. Our word “parable” is not exactly right when it comes to these “moral stories.” It leads man to believe that there is to be a real likeness between the people in the parable and a Christian - or in some cases God himself. And because man so often imagines that morality must be the essence of religion, they look for this likeness first and foremost in this moral sphere. Then they ask indignantly: Should one really live like this? Like the dishonest steward? Or the man who schemed to get a field where he knew a treasure was? Is God really like this judge here, so that he only hears a prayer if one nags him and wears him out?
How one then totally misunderstands such stories, Luke shows us here. Already from the beginning he says what, in this case, was the purpose: to exhort the disciples to persevere in prayer. He records Jesus’ own explanation: If even a bad judge listens to a poor widow, who does not stop praying, how much more, then, must the good God hear his own children! The meaning is thus that they will know, that he will set things right. And justice here does not mean their private matters, but faith in God and His kingdom. The words, “Does he wait to help them?” is a sentence in which both the text and the meaning are unsure. According to another reading, one could translate “...even if he seems to delay to help them.” When it says that God will help his elect “with haste,” it probably refers to that he suddenly and unexpectedly intervenes and lets His Kingdom come. This explains the subsequent melancholic question: But will the Son of Man find faith on earth when He comes? This is a glimpse of the future which is consistent in the New Testament. The Gospel shall be preached to all people. The majority will reject it. Those who believe until the end will be a persecuted minority. Then God lets the end come.
The promise of help and the exhortation to persevere, of course, does not only concern extreme tribulation. Jesus just said to the disciples that there will come a time, then they would like to see “the day of the Son of Man.” But they will not see it (17:22). Yet they are to pray and be sure that God hears their prayers, though He answers them in a way they had not expected.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Giertz (20th Sunday after Pentecost)
Luke 17:11-19 - Ten Lepers
Again Luke has a story about a Samaritan. This shows that the gospel is for every people and that even the despised has their own place in God’s kingdom. The event takes place somewhere in the borderlands between Samaria and Galilee. It arouses our curiosity, because Luke has given the impression that Jesus has left this area a long time ago, and he now approaches Jerusalem through Perea on the other side of the Jordan. Some believe that Luke did not have a clear grasp of the geography of Palestine. That is not very likely, since he gives a accurate account of the rather complicated division therein (3:1). Personally, he seems to have been in Jerusalem and the coastal country, but maybe never in Galilee or Samaria. It is possible that he gathered his material here in the “travel story” without trying to arrange it in a chronological or geographical order. Unless we have here - as some believe - yet another point in common with the material that John is the only one supposed to have. According to John, Jesus has during this last winter visited Jerusalem and stayed in northern Judea for some time. It is supposed that he traveled northward from there and met the pilgrims, and then followed them the usual way beyond the Jordan and then past Jericho to Jerusalem. It gives at least a hint of how the traditions of the Synoptics and John can be reconciled. But it is nothing more than a guess. Here we have to - as so many other times - refrain from inserting what is told in a clear chronological order.
The meaning is nevertheless clear. Outside a village, there is a group of lepers. Aware of their obligations, they stay far away and cry out to Jesus. They ask for mercy. He tells them to go and show themselves to the priests. This was an order that required faith. The priests had the mandate to determine whether someone had been cleansed from their leprosy and could be reintroduced into the society. On their way there, the ten lepers are healed, but only one of them cares to go back to give thanks, and he happens to be a Samaritan. He is then told, that his faith has saved him. This may also be translated as “helped”. The Greek word means both help, rescue and save. In this case, it is probably about salvation. The Samaritan man has not only been healed. He had been included in God’s kingdom. Jesus’ own countrymen had received God’s blessing as a natural thing, as something they were entitled to because they were children of Abraham. Precisely because of this, they were deprived of the Kingdom.
II Timothy 2:1-13 - Exercise of the Office in an Apostolic Spirit
Paul now gives Timothy instructions, which may apply to all bishops and leaders of the Church. Paul knows that even the leaders of the Church are sinners. It has been hinted at several times, that the faithful Timothy easily becomes discouraged. Paul does not, however, ask him to pull himself together. Instead he urges him to be strengthened by the grace that only is in Christ, that is in the forgiveness of sins and faith in the atonement. After this, he reminds him of his duty to preserve the apostolic doctrine as he received it from the apostle. Paul refers to the many witnesses, who knew that so Jesus said and so he said. Now it is the duty of Timothy to ensure that the message is passed on through reliable men, who know the apostolic faith thoroughly and are able to teach it to others. The time of the apostle is drawing to an end. Now others are to follow them as carriers of the message. The pastoral office is taking shape.
In following the apostles, one has to be prepared to suffer. Paul inculcates this with images we recognize from his earlier letters, the image of a soldier, an athlete and a farmer (peasant?). The last image also shows that the laborer is worthy of his wages. The one who preaches the gospel is entitled to live by it (1 Cor 9:14). In order to bear one’s suffering right, it is necessary to keep one’s eyes on Jesus. Here Paul seems to be quoting a few lines from an ancient Christian confession: ...risen from the dead, the offspring of David. He reminds that he himself, in this moment, suffers for the sake of the gospel, as he is bound with chains. And full of conviction he says: the word of God is not bound. After all, he knows how the Word is spread out there throughout the Roman Empire. He himself, even in prison, is helping out and doing part of the work by his suffering. For it is possible to bring blessing into the world by suffering - when one suffers together with Christ. Paul has said it before: The measure of suffering for Christ which he is to endure, that he does for the benefit of the body of Christ, which is the Church (Col 1:24). He knows that when he suffers distress, it is for the comfort and salvation for other Christians (2 Cor 1:6). It has always been clear to him that life with Christ includes both to suffer with him and to be glorified with him. This he also says here, with words which are assumed to be a part of an early Christian hymn. We die with Him so that we may live. If we share in his suffering, we also will share in his royal power. But the one who denies him, he will also deny him before his Father. And if we are faithless... Here the thought suddenly is the opposite of what one expects and it is said: He remains faithful, He cannot deny himself. That is the ultimate foundation for our security. In the end, it does not depend on our faithfulness, but on his.
In following the apostles, one has to be prepared to suffer. Paul inculcates this with images we recognize from his earlier letters, the image of a soldier, an athlete and a farmer (peasant?). The last image also shows that the laborer is worthy of his wages. The one who preaches the gospel is entitled to live by it (1 Cor 9:14). In order to bear one’s suffering right, it is necessary to keep one’s eyes on Jesus. Here Paul seems to be quoting a few lines from an ancient Christian confession: ...risen from the dead, the offspring of David. He reminds that he himself, in this moment, suffers for the sake of the gospel, as he is bound with chains. And full of conviction he says: the word of God is not bound. After all, he knows how the Word is spread out there throughout the Roman Empire. He himself, even in prison, is helping out and doing part of the work by his suffering. For it is possible to bring blessing into the world by suffering - when one suffers together with Christ. Paul has said it before: The measure of suffering for Christ which he is to endure, that he does for the benefit of the body of Christ, which is the Church (Col 1:24). He knows that when he suffers distress, it is for the comfort and salvation for other Christians (2 Cor 1:6). It has always been clear to him that life with Christ includes both to suffer with him and to be glorified with him. This he also says here, with words which are assumed to be a part of an early Christian hymn. We die with Him so that we may live. If we share in his suffering, we also will share in his royal power. But the one who denies him, he will also deny him before his Father. And if we are faithless... Here the thought suddenly is the opposite of what one expects and it is said: He remains faithful, He cannot deny himself. That is the ultimate foundation for our security. In the end, it does not depend on our faithfulness, but on his.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Giertz (19th Sunday after Pentecost)
II Timothy 1:1-14
The Heading of the Letter (1-2)
The heading of this letter is very similar to First Timothy, so similar than one can assume that it is a pattern, which could be used as naturally as a modern day church leader uses his printed letterhead or a secretary forms a heading of a letter according to a certain model even when one writes to a close co-worker.
The Apostle and His Disciple (3-12)
After the formal opening, the letter has a very personal tone. It shines through how fondly attached the apostle is to his spiritual son. The divorce has been very painful and he longs to see him again. At the same time he is very thankful to have such a son in the faith. We are informed about what a good inheritance Timothy has received from his mother and grandmother. Paul calls them by name. This is one of the many small details, which speaks for the authenticity of the letter. One may ask whether the grandmother really had had time to become a Christian, or if she was dead when Paul came to Lystra. It is not impossible that Paul talks about her as a pious Jew. After all, he says about himself that he serves God, “as did his ancestors”. They lived in faith in the coming Messiah. Paul had seen him come. For Paul, this was the same faith. The only difference was that the fathers lived in the time of promise, while he himself lived in the time of fulfillment. He and they worshipped the same God “with a clear conscience,” in the same sincere faith in his word. This was exactly what Paul had said when he first defended himself before the Governor Felix in Caesarea (Acts 24:14f), something that is pointed out by those who believe that this letter is written shortly after.
Paul reminds Timothy that is was he who once ordained him into that office, which he now exercises. It occured during the laying on of hands by the council of elders (presbyterna) and by Paul himself. At that time Timothy received a spiritual gift (a charisma), which Paul here does not name, although he indicates that is was a gift of power, love and self-discipline. This charisma Timothy is to revive - or “to fan into flame”, as Paul literary says. Thus, a charisma does not work automatically. It has to be revived and kept alive, like anything else in the Christian life.
The heading of this letter is very similar to First Timothy, so similar than one can assume that it is a pattern, which could be used as naturally as a modern day church leader uses his printed letterhead or a secretary forms a heading of a letter according to a certain model even when one writes to a close co-worker.
The Apostle and His Disciple (3-12)
After the formal opening, the letter has a very personal tone. It shines through how fondly attached the apostle is to his spiritual son. The divorce has been very painful and he longs to see him again. At the same time he is very thankful to have such a son in the faith. We are informed about what a good inheritance Timothy has received from his mother and grandmother. Paul calls them by name. This is one of the many small details, which speaks for the authenticity of the letter. One may ask whether the grandmother really had had time to become a Christian, or if she was dead when Paul came to Lystra. It is not impossible that Paul talks about her as a pious Jew. After all, he says about himself that he serves God, “as did his ancestors”. They lived in faith in the coming Messiah. Paul had seen him come. For Paul, this was the same faith. The only difference was that the fathers lived in the time of promise, while he himself lived in the time of fulfillment. He and they worshipped the same God “with a clear conscience,” in the same sincere faith in his word. This was exactly what Paul had said when he first defended himself before the Governor Felix in Caesarea (Acts 24:14f), something that is pointed out by those who believe that this letter is written shortly after.
Paul reminds Timothy that is was he who once ordained him into that office, which he now exercises. It occured during the laying on of hands by the council of elders (presbyterna) and by Paul himself. At that time Timothy received a spiritual gift (a charisma), which Paul here does not name, although he indicates that is was a gift of power, love and self-discipline. This charisma Timothy is to revive - or “to fan into flame”, as Paul literary says. Thus, a charisma does not work automatically. It has to be revived and kept alive, like anything else in the Christian life.
Right now it is important not to lose heart because Paul is in prison. Unfortunately, we do not know where. It may have been in Caesarea, on the Mediterranian coast, farthest to the east, somewhere in the Roman Governor’s residence, as a prisoner on trial, accused by the Jews for revolutionary activity, but still treated respectfully as a Roman citizen. In that case, it should have been around 58 AD. But it is also possible that it is six to nine years later in Rome. In the previous case, it cannot have been too long since he departed from Timothy, since he had just travelled to Jerusalem with Paul in 57 AD, the trip which for Paul ended with the tumult in the temple, where he almost was lynched. Many believe that Timothy then went to Caesarea to help Paul with work he could do from prison. They think that it was during this time that the letters to Colosse, to Philemon and to Ephesus, and maybe also the letter to Philippians were written. In three of them, Timothy is mentioned as a co-author. He must have sent to Ephesus soon after this - all this presuming that 2nd Timothy is written in Caesarea.
Paul now asks him to be of good cheer. For the Christians it was, of course, troublesome that one of their leaders was imprisoned, accused of treason. But Paul reminds that he suffers without shame. It is, after all, for the sake of the gospel. In a few short sentences he reminds about the main points in this gospel: not because our works, only through God’s gracious decision, made before the ages begun and manifested through Jesus Christ, who abolished death. Paul knows in whom he believes. He knows what kind of message he is bringing. He has received something that has been entrusted to him. He uses (as in 1 Tim 6:20) the word “parathéke”, a deposit, a treasure which he is to manage and which he will be accountable for “on that day”. But he is certain that in the end God is the one who will preserve the treasure and is the one who is responsible that it does not go to waste - whether Paul is in prison or not.
Faithfulness to the Confession (13-14)
Now Timothy has to guard this “parathéke” - once again Paul uses this word. His task is not to be creative. He is to repeat what he has learned from the apostle. But it does not mean only a repeating by heart. No one can render the sound doctrine right without help from the Holy Spirit. He is to trust that he has access to this help. After all, the Spirit lives in us who are baptized and believe. The one who has the Spirit does not make up new doctrines, but is able to lay out the apostolic truth “in the faith and love which Christ Jesus gives” (Giertz translation). The Gospel is thus something fixed, which never changes; at the same time as it is to be brought forth with a personal conviction and with love toward the ones who are listening.
Luke 17:1-10
v. 1-3a - The Inevitable Temptation
In this fallen world one can’t avoid evil, and where sin is, there is always the risk that people will fall into sin (“kommer på fall” - Swedish idiom) Jesus here uses a word which one can translate “temptation” or “offense” and which originally denotes that part of a set trap which triggers it to snap shut, if one touches it. Such traps one has to count on, but woe to the one who sets them, says Jesus. It is better to be drowned, than to draw a single one of these “little ones” into perdition. By “little ones” Jesus means those who believe in Him, as is shown in parallel passages (Matt. 18.6; Mark 9.42) - it can be people in all ages. They are “little” according to the world’s way of evaluating and measuring. They are in one way or another dependant on others. It is because of this, therefore, that it is such a great sin to abuse one’s authority and influence to take their faith from them.
v. 3b-6 - Unlimited forgiveness and Miracle-working faith
If a Christian encounters evil in a “brother” - which in the New Testament means one who believes in Jesus - he has a double obligation: one the one hand (å ena sidan) to speak up and try to correct him and, on the other hand (å andra sidan) to forgive. And there is no limit for that. Jesus surely uses this image which is on the edge of absurdity deliberately: someone sins against you as often as seven times the same day and asks for forgiveness seven times. The meaning is clear: Just as God does not tire of forgiving, neither should we.
It is difficult to say if there is any connection between the different pieces in this chapter, or if Luke here has collected various sayings of Jesus and stories that he wanted to put together. It is at least possible that there is a connection between Jesus’ words about unlimited forgiveness and the apostles’ request about increased faith. After all, the apostles were to be commissioned representatives and act on his behalf. They were to admonish and forgive as he did. They were also to heal the sick. It is understandable if they asked for “increased faith,” but Jesus answers that it is not increased faith that they need. If one only has the slightest hint of the faith in question everything is possible. Apparently, this is the “miracle-working faith”, which according to Paul is one of the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:9). Jesus never questioned the fact that also the weak disciples, the ones he calls incredulous, believed in him and belonged to him. At the same time he admonishes them - and us - that they do not have the faith which makes the impossible possible. He uses an image which deliberately talks about something impossible. A mulberry tree was considered to be deeper rooted that any other tree. That it would be uprooted and planted in the sea was a marvellous thought. Jesus does, of course, not mean that his disciples should do such things - but maybe things that seem just as impossible, yet that God nevertheless commissioned them to do.
v. 7-10 Unskillful Servants
At such words every Christian feels like a unskillful servant. But even if we were able to do such things, we would still only be unskillful servants, who would not expect any praise. Jesus tells this using a parable, one of the many which only Luke has preserved for us. It is, as usual, an image from everyday life, such as it is in this evil world. A poor slave comes home after his labor in the field. Now he has to continue with the tasks at home. Only when his lord has been waited on and had his food is the servant allowed to eat. He does not receive a thank you, and has not expected this either. After all, he cannot demand anything. And neither can we from God. Even if we have done everything which was commanded - and when have we done that? - we have to say: We are unskillful servants, who are not good for much. Here Jesus uses a strong word, which means useless, incompetent or bad, the same word which is used about the worthless servant who hid his talent in the ground (Matt 25:30). The servant knows that even when he seems to have done well, he is not that remarkable. He does not deserve any praise.
In this fallen world one can’t avoid evil, and where sin is, there is always the risk that people will fall into sin (“kommer på fall” - Swedish idiom) Jesus here uses a word which one can translate “temptation” or “offense” and which originally denotes that part of a set trap which triggers it to snap shut, if one touches it. Such traps one has to count on, but woe to the one who sets them, says Jesus. It is better to be drowned, than to draw a single one of these “little ones” into perdition. By “little ones” Jesus means those who believe in Him, as is shown in parallel passages (Matt. 18.6; Mark 9.42) - it can be people in all ages. They are “little” according to the world’s way of evaluating and measuring. They are in one way or another dependant on others. It is because of this, therefore, that it is such a great sin to abuse one’s authority and influence to take their faith from them.
v. 3b-6 - Unlimited forgiveness and Miracle-working faith
If a Christian encounters evil in a “brother” - which in the New Testament means one who believes in Jesus - he has a double obligation: one the one hand (å ena sidan) to speak up and try to correct him and, on the other hand (å andra sidan) to forgive. And there is no limit for that. Jesus surely uses this image which is on the edge of absurdity deliberately: someone sins against you as often as seven times the same day and asks for forgiveness seven times. The meaning is clear: Just as God does not tire of forgiving, neither should we.
It is difficult to say if there is any connection between the different pieces in this chapter, or if Luke here has collected various sayings of Jesus and stories that he wanted to put together. It is at least possible that there is a connection between Jesus’ words about unlimited forgiveness and the apostles’ request about increased faith. After all, the apostles were to be commissioned representatives and act on his behalf. They were to admonish and forgive as he did. They were also to heal the sick. It is understandable if they asked for “increased faith,” but Jesus answers that it is not increased faith that they need. If one only has the slightest hint of the faith in question everything is possible. Apparently, this is the “miracle-working faith”, which according to Paul is one of the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:9). Jesus never questioned the fact that also the weak disciples, the ones he calls incredulous, believed in him and belonged to him. At the same time he admonishes them - and us - that they do not have the faith which makes the impossible possible. He uses an image which deliberately talks about something impossible. A mulberry tree was considered to be deeper rooted that any other tree. That it would be uprooted and planted in the sea was a marvellous thought. Jesus does, of course, not mean that his disciples should do such things - but maybe things that seem just as impossible, yet that God nevertheless commissioned them to do.
v. 7-10 Unskillful Servants
At such words every Christian feels like a unskillful servant. But even if we were able to do such things, we would still only be unskillful servants, who would not expect any praise. Jesus tells this using a parable, one of the many which only Luke has preserved for us. It is, as usual, an image from everyday life, such as it is in this evil world. A poor slave comes home after his labor in the field. Now he has to continue with the tasks at home. Only when his lord has been waited on and had his food is the servant allowed to eat. He does not receive a thank you, and has not expected this either. After all, he cannot demand anything. And neither can we from God. Even if we have done everything which was commanded - and when have we done that? - we have to say: We are unskillful servants, who are not good for much. Here Jesus uses a strong word, which means useless, incompetent or bad, the same word which is used about the worthless servant who hid his talent in the ground (Matt 25:30). The servant knows that even when he seems to have done well, he is not that remarkable. He does not deserve any praise.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Giertz (18th Sunday after Pentecost)
A somewhat regular feature Kristina and I are going to work on is translating Bo Giertz's commentaries which correspond to the upcoming Sunday Gospel and Epistle reading. We'll see how it goes! Here is the first installment for next Sunday, September 26:
Luke 16:19-31 - The Rich Man and Lazarus
Parables can be of different kinds. Some use an image from everyday life to illustrate something concerning God's kingdom (for example, the parable of the dishonest steward). Such parables must be interpreted (explained). But - as we have already said - there are other types of parables, which one usually calls "example stories" (exempelberättelser). They present simple and clear examples of how one should act or not act, concerning God and one's neighbor. This is where the story of the good Samaritan belongs; likewise the story of the wealthy landowner and his plans to build (storehouses). Here it seems we have a third parable of the same type. In actual fact, it belongs together with the previous type. The parable of the dishonest steward is about considering the future and using money wisely. Following this is a new image of a man who didn't do this, a man who owned everything a man could wish for himself, but still lived a wasted life. Against him is set the poor man Lazarus. We know nothing about him, except that he lived in absolute poverty. Nevertheless, his life was not wasted. It lead to the destination God has set for all mankind: the great joy in God's kingdom. The parable confronts and deals with the common Jewish (judiska) notion that happiness/success in this life must be a sign of God's good favor (välbevågenhet), while adversity is punishment. The parable says, instead, that there is much in this vicious world which seems unfair and incomprehensible, but which God will correct, when one is "of" him. It does not say explicitly that Lazarus is of God, but it is apparent from what follows that this is what is crucial. The rich man realizes too late that he should not have neglected that which had to do with God. His fault was not that he was rich, but that he was a squanderer, who did not use what he received properly. As opposed to this rich man Jesus sets forth another rich man, who managed his possession rightly. He could let it go. He let Lot take the best part of the land. He was willing to offer even his only son, if God wanted this.
The parable's meaning is, thus, not that man gains heaven only because one is poor. But it says the same as Paul expresses with the words, "the distress we now suffer prepares for us glories which in many ways outweigh everything that can be imagined, and which lasts eternally." (II Cor. 4:17 - from Giertz's own translation)
Jesus sketches the picture of life on the other side with strokes which were well-known to his contemporaries. In this matter he says nothing new and his words are probably not meant as a teaching concerning the state after death. The fundamental feature of the image is the same as elsewhere in Jesus' preaching. There will be joy or judgement. The verdict cannot be changed. Aside from this, we must be careful in our use of details. It is not helpful to ask whether this happens before or after the final judgement or if it really is possible to make contact between these worlds. That is not what this parable is about.
On the contrary the parable has a second part, which is also part of the message. The rich man wants Lazarus to return to earth to warn his brothers. Abraham answers, they have already received what they need to know. This is, of course, God's word. The rich man answers that they do not care about such things. But should anyone come back from the dead, then they surely would repent. Then Abraham said to him, the one who is not convinced by the word of God, he will not repent even if someone is raised from the dead. With these words, Jesus gives justification for why he rejected all demands that he should do miracles as proof for who he was. Doing so creates no real faith. No one can love God as a result of calculations. Most explain away everything they saw of His power anyway. When Luke wrote this, he knew right Jesus had been. His adversaries had not at all allowed themselves to be convinced by His resurrection from the dead.
The details in the parable are as concrete as always. Purple-dyed fabric was an exclusive fabric, colored by the extract from a little gland of the Purpura mollusk (they had to use thousands of these to color one robe). The fine linen was called silk (? - byssus) and was almost as expensive as the purple fabric. The dogs were Middle-Eastern, half wild street dogs. The rich man was laid in a grave; however, nothing is said about Lazarus. He probably ended up in the trash heap where the jackals took care of his legs.
The parable's meaning is, thus, not that man gains heaven only because one is poor. But it says the same as Paul expresses with the words, "the distress we now suffer prepares for us glories which in many ways outweigh everything that can be imagined, and which lasts eternally." (II Cor. 4:17 - from Giertz's own translation)
Jesus sketches the picture of life on the other side with strokes which were well-known to his contemporaries. In this matter he says nothing new and his words are probably not meant as a teaching concerning the state after death. The fundamental feature of the image is the same as elsewhere in Jesus' preaching. There will be joy or judgement. The verdict cannot be changed. Aside from this, we must be careful in our use of details. It is not helpful to ask whether this happens before or after the final judgement or if it really is possible to make contact between these worlds. That is not what this parable is about.
On the contrary the parable has a second part, which is also part of the message. The rich man wants Lazarus to return to earth to warn his brothers. Abraham answers, they have already received what they need to know. This is, of course, God's word. The rich man answers that they do not care about such things. But should anyone come back from the dead, then they surely would repent. Then Abraham said to him, the one who is not convinced by the word of God, he will not repent even if someone is raised from the dead. With these words, Jesus gives justification for why he rejected all demands that he should do miracles as proof for who he was. Doing so creates no real faith. No one can love God as a result of calculations. Most explain away everything they saw of His power anyway. When Luke wrote this, he knew right Jesus had been. His adversaries had not at all allowed themselves to be convinced by His resurrection from the dead.
The details in the parable are as concrete as always. Purple-dyed fabric was an exclusive fabric, colored by the extract from a little gland of the Purpura mollusk (they had to use thousands of these to color one robe). The fine linen was called silk (? - byssus) and was almost as expensive as the purple fabric. The dogs were Middle-Eastern, half wild street dogs. The rich man was laid in a grave; however, nothing is said about Lazarus. He probably ended up in the trash heap where the jackals took care of his legs.
1 Tim 3:1-7 - Qualifications for Overseers (biskopar – bishops)
Here follows a list of conditions, which are to be fulfilled if someone is to be considered for the position of bishop or deacon. These offices are mentioned already in Philippians (1:1). In Swedish we still use the same words, but they do not have the exact same meaning. In Greek, bishop is episkopos, and that word actually means "overseer" or "manager" (föreståndare). Every congregation had several of them. It was not before the year 100 that the church in a certain place begun having only one bishop as a leader. The ”angels” of the churches in the book of Revelation could have been such leaders. Around 110 AD the martyr bishop Ignatius insists in his letters that this is the right order. Thus the word bishop received a meaning which it still maintains. Therefore, the Greek word episkopos is usually not translated as "bishop" when it appears in the New Testament, instead ”overseer” or something else that indicates the same meaning is used.
Paul says that this is ”a noble task”. Maybe he does this for the sake of the heretics. When we then hear about what would be required of a bishop candidate, it is difficult not to be surprised that the demands are so basic. He cannot be a lover of money or wine, he cannot be quarrelsome or a troublemaker, who could even resort to violence. He cannot have a bad reputation among ”outsiders”, the ones who are not Christians. Here we get – as in many other letters by Paul – a reminder of what kind of a life many of the Christians had led before and how they always had to fight against what they had brought with them from paganism. Every missionary who has worked with starting a congregation of all new Christians knows about this. We must be careful not to believe that congregations in the early Church only contained sanctified human beings. Rather, they were a congregation (assembly) of fire, who had been pulled out of the fire and who still smelled of smoke. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the leading positions were held by men, who had shown that their former lives were indeed something of the past. They were to be irreproachable, so that nothing in their behavior could be criticized. In this context, it is also said that an episkopos must be ”the husband of one wife”. This also is an basic requirement for a Christian. Roman law allowed a man to have concubines, so illicit relations were not considered offensive. But a Christian was to live in strict monogamy and was not allowed to divorce. To divorce one's wife in order to take another wife could be considered a kind of polygamy, and such a thing an overseer could not be guilty of.
Most the positive qualifications which are mentioned are basic for every human being: dignity and wisdom, self-control and moderation, as well as the ability to manage one's own household and children. Here the same word as in the case of an ”overseer” of the congregation is intentionally used. The congregation was God's family. If one was to take care of God's family, one must also be able to take care of one's own family. The overseer could not be a recent convert. The church in Ephesus had at this point (if the letter is written after Paul was released from prison) existed long enough for it to have experienced and proven people. If a newcomer was appointed, it could go to his head.
It is interesting to look at what is not mentioned, namely, personal faith in Jesus and a willingness to witness, suffer and sacrifice for one's faith. Such things must have been assumed to be obvious for everyone who belonged to the church. On the contrary, the ability to teach is mentioned. Not everyone had that. To teach was one of the most important and demanding tasks that an overseer had to do.
1 Tim 3:8-13 - Qualifications for Deacons
The deacons did not only have what we would call ”diaconal” tasks. They were the bishops' assistants, and it is striking that the qualifications regarding their personality and lifestyle are largely the same as for the bishops. We hear that they too have to be examined before they are appointed. Thus, there must have been such an examination of the bishops as well. It does not mean a probationary position, but a scrutiny of qualifications and characteristics. In this context, women are also mentioned. These are probably deaconesses, although some believe that the words refer to the wives of the deacons, because the female helpers (medhjälpare) of the church are specifically dealt with in another chapter later on.
Here the decisive Christian qualification is mentioned: [to hold] the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. The mystery of the faith is the gospel, the great mystery of God, which has been hidden throughout the centuries, but now has been revealed through Jesus Christ. This is what the deacons must have understood and received, and they must have kept it in a clear conscience, so that they do not in any matter live a double life in unresolved sins. Even regarding the deacons, it is stressed that it is an office which carries an authority when it is performed in the right way.
Here follows a list of conditions, which are to be fulfilled if someone is to be considered for the position of bishop or deacon. These offices are mentioned already in Philippians (1:1). In Swedish we still use the same words, but they do not have the exact same meaning. In Greek, bishop is episkopos, and that word actually means "overseer" or "manager" (föreståndare). Every congregation had several of them. It was not before the year 100 that the church in a certain place begun having only one bishop as a leader. The ”angels” of the churches in the book of Revelation could have been such leaders. Around 110 AD the martyr bishop Ignatius insists in his letters that this is the right order. Thus the word bishop received a meaning which it still maintains. Therefore, the Greek word episkopos is usually not translated as "bishop" when it appears in the New Testament, instead ”overseer” or something else that indicates the same meaning is used.
Paul says that this is ”a noble task”. Maybe he does this for the sake of the heretics. When we then hear about what would be required of a bishop candidate, it is difficult not to be surprised that the demands are so basic. He cannot be a lover of money or wine, he cannot be quarrelsome or a troublemaker, who could even resort to violence. He cannot have a bad reputation among ”outsiders”, the ones who are not Christians. Here we get – as in many other letters by Paul – a reminder of what kind of a life many of the Christians had led before and how they always had to fight against what they had brought with them from paganism. Every missionary who has worked with starting a congregation of all new Christians knows about this. We must be careful not to believe that congregations in the early Church only contained sanctified human beings. Rather, they were a congregation (assembly) of fire, who had been pulled out of the fire and who still smelled of smoke. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the leading positions were held by men, who had shown that their former lives were indeed something of the past. They were to be irreproachable, so that nothing in their behavior could be criticized. In this context, it is also said that an episkopos must be ”the husband of one wife”. This also is an basic requirement for a Christian. Roman law allowed a man to have concubines, so illicit relations were not considered offensive. But a Christian was to live in strict monogamy and was not allowed to divorce. To divorce one's wife in order to take another wife could be considered a kind of polygamy, and such a thing an overseer could not be guilty of.
Most the positive qualifications which are mentioned are basic for every human being: dignity and wisdom, self-control and moderation, as well as the ability to manage one's own household and children. Here the same word as in the case of an ”overseer” of the congregation is intentionally used. The congregation was God's family. If one was to take care of God's family, one must also be able to take care of one's own family. The overseer could not be a recent convert. The church in Ephesus had at this point (if the letter is written after Paul was released from prison) existed long enough for it to have experienced and proven people. If a newcomer was appointed, it could go to his head.
It is interesting to look at what is not mentioned, namely, personal faith in Jesus and a willingness to witness, suffer and sacrifice for one's faith. Such things must have been assumed to be obvious for everyone who belonged to the church. On the contrary, the ability to teach is mentioned. Not everyone had that. To teach was one of the most important and demanding tasks that an overseer had to do.
1 Tim 3:8-13 - Qualifications for Deacons
The deacons did not only have what we would call ”diaconal” tasks. They were the bishops' assistants, and it is striking that the qualifications regarding their personality and lifestyle are largely the same as for the bishops. We hear that they too have to be examined before they are appointed. Thus, there must have been such an examination of the bishops as well. It does not mean a probationary position, but a scrutiny of qualifications and characteristics. In this context, women are also mentioned. These are probably deaconesses, although some believe that the words refer to the wives of the deacons, because the female helpers (medhjälpare) of the church are specifically dealt with in another chapter later on.
Here the decisive Christian qualification is mentioned: [to hold] the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. The mystery of the faith is the gospel, the great mystery of God, which has been hidden throughout the centuries, but now has been revealed through Jesus Christ. This is what the deacons must have understood and received, and they must have kept it in a clear conscience, so that they do not in any matter live a double life in unresolved sins. Even regarding the deacons, it is stressed that it is an office which carries an authority when it is performed in the right way.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
New blog, new ambitions
My beautiful, talented wife and I plan on using this blog as a forum for posting translations we're working on. As the name of the blog suggests, these will be from the Nordic lands. Kristina, of course, is versed in all of the necessary languages, and I have just begun in earnest to struggle with Swedish. As we finish little projects, they'll go up.
One on-going project that we plan on both contributing to will be a translation of Bo Giertz's commentary which corresponds to the Gospel and Epistle lesson for the upcoming Sunday in the 3 year lectionary. We'll be using Förklaringar Till Nya Testament (Explanation of the New Testament), which isn't available in an English translation.
Look for the first one in a couple of days!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)