The One Year Bible: "Jesus the Badventist"

 This is a continuing reflection on last week's readings in the gospels. . .

Jesus heals the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath as depicted in The Chosen

One thing that I've noted for some years now in my reading of the gospels, is what poor "Adventist" arguments Jesus makes. The theological points he scores just don't hold up to what I've experienced as the Adventist standard of sound Biblical thinking.  Two examples:

Jesus's "Careless" Approach to the Sabbath.  

"His hand healing on the seventh day
His love wearing no disguise"

                             --Michael W. Smith "Secret Ambition"

On more than one occasion Jesus heals on the Sabbath.  Not only that but he encouraged people to carry their beds on the Sabbath day.  He even defended his disciples when they were caught snacking on grain they pulled off wheat plants they passed by. When challenged on his disciple's conduct, Jesus refers to the example of David who ate the bread in the sanctuary that only the priests were allowed to eat.   What exactly is the takeaway here? What is the message about Sabbath keeping?

 We are quick to argue that the religious leadership of Jesus's day had become legalistic and obsessed with Sabbath-keeping minutia.  Our Sabbath principles aren't anything like that, we insist.  But aren't they? The amount of debate I've heard throughout my life about what constitutes Sabbath-breaking doesn't feel so different from the Jews of Jesus time.  Why wasn't Jesus more conscientious about not being a "stumbling block" to others?  If He were a good Adventist, he might have said--get up and walk, but leave the mat here until sundown.  He might have said to his disciples--"Fellas, lets hold off on the grain for now."

Jesus's Declaring that Satan Would Not Cast Out  His Own Demons

Terrible theology, just terrible. Of course Satan can do miracles, including casting out his own demons, to deceive if possible even the very elect. Jesus himself says that many will claim in the judgement day, "Lord, Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles", and Jesus will reply "I never knew you."  Yet, when accused of casting out demons by Satan's power (a very Adventist argument, especially since exorcism is not a major part of our spiritual practice) Jesus presents the argument that if Satan casts out Satan he is fighting against himself. I have to conclude that Jesus was talking about more than run of the mill exorcisms.  Jesus was saying that his whole life and ministry were in direct opposition to the Satan's goals.  It would not make sense for Satan to empower someone to send people straight into the loving arms of God.  Jesus wasn't "putting on a show", conducting thrilling exorcisms for the benefit of the masses and to increase his own following and reputation.  Satan can "cast out" demons, but he would never genuinely deliver people.  And that's what Jesus was doing--bringing light and life to those imprisoned by dark forces.

I'm not trying to diminish the faith tradition I belong to.  I believe in the core Adventist teachings--the seventh-day Sabbath, the second coming of Christ etc. The Adventist teaching about the nature of hell and the state of the dead alone is worth the price of admission.  But I do think we have to be careful as Christians, Adventist or otherwise, of placing our faith more in the traditional understanding of our church doctrine than in Christ.  Being theologically "correct"  doesn't save anyone. You can be "right" and still be wrong.  It was not bad theology that caused the religious leadership to turn away from Jesus, it was bad hearts.

A Question:

I've always wondered why Jesus allowed the demons he cast out of the demoniac (or two according to Matthew) in the Gadarenes to go into the pigs. Why would he bother to do the demons any favors?  And two thousand pigs drowned in the lake?  That has to be a major health hazard right?  The people of the region plead with Jesus to go away and leave them alone.  It's easy to say the wicked people of that area valued their lost pigs more than the saved man in front of them.  But I do wonder why Jesus couldn't have just sent the demons packing rather than allowing them to wreak more havoc?  Would He have had a more receptive response without the property damage and pollution?  I also find it interesting that Jesus did not let the man he delivered follow him. Instead he sent him off to tell his story, without the benefit of further tutelage. I'm not sure why Jesus did these things, but I trust that He knew what He was doing.

An Observation:

It's interesting to note how Satan and his demons suddenly come roaring to the spiritual forefront in the New Testament after barely making an appearance in the Old. Also there is a strong emphasis on the judgement and the afterlife, that barely gets a mention in the Old Testament.  I'm sure there is an explanation for these remarkable shifts.  I'll have to do more research.  In the meantime, I just thought I'd share that observation.

The One Year Bible: "I Do Not Think That Means What You Think It Means"

 The gospels are so rich!  I could write a post on every chapter and verse and still there'd be more to say. And it's all so accessible.  There are no lengthy floor plans for a temple, endless genealogies, or repetitious prophetic doom saying.  Every verse is packed with the words or actions of Jesus.  Whether you prefer the long chapters of John, rich with detail and dialogue, the brisk pace of Mark, or the perspectives of Matthew or Luke, there's a lot of good stuff!

In last week's reading alone we covered:

• Sabbath Healings
• The Sermon on the Mount
• The Faith of the Roman Centurion
• The Questions of John The Baptist: "Are you the One we've been expecting or should we be looking for another?"
• Jesus anointed by a sinful woman at Simon's house
• Healings, healings, and more healings! (including the woman with the issue of blood and Jairus's daughter_
• A multitude of parables including the parable of the sower and the seed
• Jesus calms in the storm (In the Boat Edition):
• Demons cast out of men and into pigs

As readable and vibrant as the gospels are, don't get it twisted.  They are still every bit as challenging as the rest of the Bible.  There is much that makes one think, wonder, and question.  For this week, I want to highlight two takeaways that have been on my mind, one question, and an observation.  I'll cover the first takeaway in this entry, and the second, along with the question and observation in another post soon to follow.

The Narrow Way

We've all heard that scripture, often quoted by Christian cultural warriors: "You are to be in the world but not of the world."  I thought for sure that passage came from somewhere in Paul's letters--Romans or Ephesians, or someplace like that.  Turns out this isn't even really a scripture. Paul does call on Christians not to be conformed to the world in Romans 12:2 and 1 John 2 admonishes believers not to love the world.  But the closest thing to that "in but not of" line is a riff on the prayer Jesus prays in John 17:11 and vs. 14-15, where Jesus asks His Father to preserve His followers in a world they do not belong to. This was not an admonition or a reminder, but a prayerful acknowledgement of a fact.  The followers of Jesus live in the world, but do not belong to it.

I haven't actually read this passage in John yet, but I did read the part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus talks about the broad and narrow way.  This is the teaching: "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult and only a few ever find it" (Matthew 7:13-14 NLT).

That passage got me thinking about "In but not Of" and this idea of what it means to be somehow different or separate from the "world."  What is this broad "worldly" way?  And what is the narrow way that leads to life? I suspect that it does not mean what we think it means.  We tend to associate the narrow way, being in the world but not of it with cosmetic distinctions (literally, in the case of Adventists)--things like how we dress or the jewelry we wear.  We think that people ought to be able to tell we are on the narrow way just by looking at us.  We also tend to think being on the narrow way means taking "unpopular" stands against the prevailing cultural trends. We take pride in being able to resolutely hold the line against the "LGBTQ agenda" or Hollywood values. But I don't know, I'm not sure any of this it what Jesus meant when he talked about the narrow way.

In fact, if we look at preceding two chapters and the rest of Matthew chapter 7, Jesus paints a pretty clear picture of what the narrow way looks like.  And it's not comfortable--not for those in the world, and not for those who presume they are safely in the world but not of it.  I would suggest that cosmetic distinctions and "values" notwithstanding far too many of us are absolutely of the world and very much on the broad path, along with everyone else. 

 I don't think there was a lot "Preach, preacher, preach!" during the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus didn't preach the type of sermon that reinforced what the crowd already believed.  Jesus was preaching something radically different from what every one was used to.  Jesus preached a kingdom that belonged to the poor, the grieving, the humble, the merciful.  He called on his followers to rejoice in persecution (not whine about it and work to put sympathetic politicians and amenable laws in place).  Jesus teaches a moral standard outlined in the ten commandments rooted in the heart as much as in outward behavior. Jesus says those on the narrow way will "turn the other cheek" and love their enemies.  Jesus called for a quiet spirituality that does not call attention to itself.  Jesus does not just suggest forgiveness as a useful tool in your personal growth, but demands it as condition of receiving forgiveness from God.  Those on the narrow way don't worry about the things the rest of the world worries about--money, clothing, food.

That is what Jesus meant when he talked about the narrow way.  There's something there to challenge every one of us--something to choke back that eager "amen", leaving only crickets.  The "world" belongs to the powerful and the prideful.  The world persecutes and is always on guard to be sure their persecution doesn't blow back on them. The world is quick to mock and sneer.  The world is unrelenting, cruel, and selfish. The world's philosophy is "they did it to me, so I'm doing it back."  The broad way is packed with people filled with worry and anxiety over the basics of life.  "How will I get what I need for me and mine?  Let me not think about what that might cost someone else."   That's the broad way.  You'll never get criticized for being on it--either inside or outside of the church.  Sure we dress it up with some spiritual decorations and Christian jargon, but it's the broad way all the same.  

The narrow way is not so much unpopular as simply unnoticed, a weedy, rock strewn side path inhabited by those who have abandoned religious signifiers and are simply letting Jesus live in their hearts.  And I venture to guess it is path also trod by those who have responded to the gentle promptings of the Spirit without adhering to any specific faith tradition or any religion at all.

Salvation is easy. Living the life Jesus calls us to? That's hard.

"Well I am a good Midwestern boy
I give an honest day's work if I can get it
I don't cheat on my taxes I don't cheat on my girl
I've got values that would make the White House jealous

Well I do get a little much over-impressed
'Til I think of Peter and Paul and the apostles
I don't stack up too well against them I guess
But by the standards 'round here I ain't doing that awful

Lord it's hard to turn the other cheek
Hard to bless when others curse you
Oh Lord it's hard to be a man of peace
Lord it's hard oh it's hard
You know it's hard to be like Jesus
Don't you know it's hard oh it's hard
Oh Lord it's hard to be like Jesus

And it's hard to step out on them waves
Hard to walk beyond your vision
Oh Lord it's hard to be a man of faith
Lord it's hard (hard) Lord it's hard (so hard)
Oh Lord it's hard to be like Jesus
Don't you know it's hard (hard) oh it's hard (yeah hard)
Oh Lord it's hard to be like Jesus

Well His eye's on the sparrow
And the lilies of the field I've heard
And He will watch over you and He will watch over me
So we can dress like flowers and eat like birds

And it's hard when your soul had been stripped bare
Hard to lift your eyes toward Heaven
Oh Lord it's hard to be a man of prayer
Lord it's hard oh it's hard
You know it's hard to be like Jesus

Lord it's hard to be a man of peace
But it's hard (so hard) ain't it hard (hard)
You know it's hard to be like Jesus
Don't you know it's hard (hard) and it's hard (yeah hard)
To be a man of peace (hard so hard)
But it's hard to be like Jesus

And I'm trying, trying, try
Oh Lord I try so hard
Don't you know it's hard
Oh glory oh gracious
But ain't it hard to be like Jesus

Well I am a good Midwestern boy
I give an honest day's work if I can get it
I don't cheat on my taxes I don't cheat on my girl
I've got values that would make the White House jealous"

                                                                     --Rich Mullins "Hard"

The One Year Bible: In with the New

A still from the episode in The Chosen where Jesus turned the water into wine. The representation of Jesus by Jonathan Roumie in The Chosen is hands-down my favorite.

 This past week I began reading in the New Testament. I guess the NT is supposed to be "easier" and more palatable than the wrathful Old Testament.  But I'm not sure that the point of the Bible is to be "easy" and palatable. And while I do believe Jesus is the clearest picture of who God is and what He is like, that doesn't mean that Jesus is any "easier" to understand.  

There is the Jesus we've created that serves our cultural tastes and preferences, that fits with our denominational church traditions.  And then there is the Jesus found in the Gospels.  The two don't always line up the way we might wish.

But before we get too excited about Jesus the countercultural iconoclast, defying "the culture" and "the world", take note that Jesus's harshest criticism wasn't against the culture--it was against the church. In our culture, we love the rebel--the guy who stands up to the evil Empire. But the problem is that as Christians we want it both ways.  We want control of the culture, but also rebel against it (In fact, the so-called rebellion is usually about getting back control of the mainstream that we feel has been unjustly stripped from us by "the world"). In these cases the harm to us in "rebelling" and "refusing to bow to the world" is minimal--mostly derision from people we don't like or respect anyway. Meanwhile the bug--or dare I say, the feature-- of this rebellion is that harm to some undesirable outcasts is great.  I think we will find that this approach is decidedly un-Christlike.

There are highlights of this week's reading--all taken from the early chapters  of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  There were lots of familiar stories from this week's readings including:

• The Birth of Jesus
• The One Story of Jesus' Youth: 12 Year Old Jesus Teaching the Teachers
• Jesus's Baptism and ensuing Temptation in the Wilderness
• The Calling of the First Disciples and the Miracle of the Nets Filled with Fish
• The Wedding at Cana
• Early Healings: The Man Let Down through the Roof and the Healing of a Leper
• Jesus Cleanses the Temple for the First Time
• Jesus and Nicodemus
• Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well

For this blog post, I'd like to focus on two major differences found in the Gospel accounts and two major ways in which Jesus proves to be different than we might expect.

The Differences

"Results Show You Are the Father"

If I hadn't been doing this One Year chronological reading of the Bible, I probably would never have noticed this major difference between Matthew and Luke's recording of the genealogy of Jesus (Mark and John don't bother with genealogy). All those Hebrew names just blend together for me, and if I hadn't read the two accounts back to back I likely would have never noticed that the genealogy of Jesus from David to Joseph is completely different.  This not a case of a few names being different--none of the names match up! Matthew reports Jesus as having come through David's son Solomon, while Luke reports Jesus has having come through David's son Nathan. What gives?

I did some research and found that Bible scholars aren't in total agreement on the explanation for this discrepancy.  Some suggest that of Heli and Jacob (the two different men listed as Joseph's father), one was Joseph's biological father, the other was Joseph's legal father--a second husband who married Joseph's mother after the other man died.  Another theory is that Luke's genealogy which goes all the way back to Adam, is actually Mary's lineage and Heli is Joseph's father-in-law (Mary's dad).  I'm kind of partial to this explanation, because of the differences in purpose each author had in providing the genealogy.  Matthew wanted to prove Jesus royal lineage and used the man recognized as Jesus earthly father.  Luke, also verifies Jesus' royal lineage but puts less importance on Joseph's ancestors since he wants to highlight Jesus supernatural origin.  Luke gives a nod to Joseph as having come from David's line but his genealogy is focused on Mary--to show that for those who fully accept the virgin birth, Jesus still meets the requirement of being of David's line.

"But Where are You Really From?"

The other major discrepancy I came across is in the recording of what happened after Jesus's birth  in Matthew and Luke (again, Mark and John skip over all this) and what it seems to imply about Jesus' hometown of Nazareth.  Matthew says nothing about a journey to Bethlehem because of a census. If all we had was Matthew's gospel account we would likely assume that Bethlehem is simply where Mary and Joseph were living at the time Jesus' was born.  There is no inn, no stable, nothing.   What we do have is the account of Herod's attempt to find and kill Jesus, and His family's escape to Egypt.  Matthew places Jesus in Nazareth when Joseph and Mary came back from Egypt after Herod died.  They were wary of Herod's son who had now taken the throne and opted for the backwater Galilee as safe from his notice.

Luke on the other hand has the more familiar Christmas story (minus the wise men), with the journey to Bethlehem, the stable and the shepherds and so on.  However, Luke records no threat from Herod.  Jesus young parents travel to Jerusalem to present the Baby Jesus to the Lord at the temple.  He is prophesied over by both Anna and Simeon, and then the family simply returns to Nazareth.

Countless Christmas programs have seamlessly blended the two accounts (usually by omitting the visit to the Temple) and I don't think that's wrong.  It's just, if you read the Bible accounts it's not quite as smooth a transition as it seems in the scene changes at the school Nativity play.

What's clear is both gospel authors felt a need to explain how Jesus was from Nazareth, as everyone at that time knew, but also fulfilled the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem. It's interesting that it was government action in Matthew that led Jesus to Nazareth and government action in Luke that led Jesus to be born in Bethlehem.

"Get Used to Different"

Jesus Was Not a People Pleaser

As a life long people-pleaser, I'm continually baffled by Jesus utter disregard for what would make people happy.  It's not that He went out of His way to upset people (well, not all the time any way). It just wasn't a factor in His decisions. As a result, Jesus often went from hero to zero with the fandom. Particularly notable was the way He basically talked Himself over a cliff--literally.  In Luke 4:16-30, Jesus returns to His hometown of Nazareth and He stands up to read the Scriptures on Sabbath morning at church. He reads Isaiah's messianic prophecy and proclaims that it has been fulfilled.  The crowd goes wild. Already "praised by everyone" coming into Nazareth, now the people of his hometown join the chorus. "Everyone spoke well of him and was amazed by the gracious word that came from his lips."  That's the sweet spot right there! Where I always long to be--spoken well of by all and doing  the right things.

And then Jesus goes and ruins it. Instead of accepting their adulation, He basically says "I know You want to see miracles here, like you've heard about in other places but that's not going to happen." Jesus goes on to argue that a prophet is never welcome in his own hometown. He illustrates his thesis by pulling several Old Testament examples of prophets who were sent to foreigners rather than to the people of Israel. Jesus so enrages his Nazareth neighbors with this rebuke that they hustle him to the edge of a nearby cliff to throw Him over the side.  Jesus slips away and heads off to another, perhaps more receptive Galilean town.

One of my favorite texts about Jesus is found in John 2:24 (NLT though the nuances in other translations are just as good):

"But Jesus didn't trust them, because he knew all about people. No one needed to tell Him about human nature, for he knew what was in each person's heart." 

Jesus understand that people's are fickle and he knew that constantly trying to stay on their good side would be futile.  Jesus understood that you can never please everyone, so you might as well please the Father. 

And Jesus wasn't willing to accept flattery.  I'm personally inclined to accept flattery without comment, and privately remind myself of dangers of  believing one's own press.  But Jesus didn't do that.  If people's hearts towards Him weren't sincere, He'd call them on it. Every time.

Jesus Was a Terrible Marketer

Jesus did not take opportunities to "promote his brand." I finally understand Jesus' strange response to his mother at the wedding feast at Cana.  When she approaches him about the wine running out, He responds "How is that my problem? My time has not yet come."  I realize now that Mary was nudging Jesus to "make His move" now by conducting a public miracle. Indeed, I think what Jesus was really saying to His mom was: "This problem is not my opportunity, like you think. Today is not about me."  Mary got the message that Jesus would fix the problem, but not in the way she had hoped.  His miracle goes unnoted by the crowd and the only reason we even know it happened is because John and a handful of other disciples were there to witness it (along with a few servants that nobody ever talks to or listens to anyway). 

Instead of actively marketing His ministry, Jesus encouraged people to be quiet.  He told the leper not to tell anyone that he had been healed, and even the demons Jesus cast out where muzzled. It's worth nothing that the demons were quite eager to spread the word far and wide as they driven out of their victims about who Jesus really was.  Clearly getting the word out was the devil's plan, not God's. 

Unlike many of us today, Jesus did not see the value in "influencers." Jesus did not seek to cultivate relationships with the powerful and influential.  Indeed if there is anyone Jesus went out of His way to annoy it was the very people who had the most power to hurt or help him--the religious establishment. If it had been me when the paralytic was let down through the ceiling to be healed, I would have simply told the man to get up and walk.  Another win for Jesus!  But instead Jesus, chose to publicly forgive the man's sins first.  When the church leadership in attendance were appalled, Jesus called them on it--making an argument that would never fly an Adventist church today.  Which is easier?  To say "Your sins are forgiven, or to say "Get up and a walk." To prove His Godly authority to forgive sins, Jesus did the impossible. He healed the man. And in the process earned the ire of the leading lights of the Establishment.  If I had been Jesus, I would have worked to secure dinner invitations to the homes of these men instead of dining with Matthew the tax collector and his unsavory pals. If I had been Jesus, I would have worked to build bridges with those in power rather than burning them.

But I'm not Jesus, and thank God for that. God's heart has always been for the oppressed, the powerless, those on the margins and there's nothing new about that in the New Testament.  Jesus sought out the same people God has always had His eye on.  The challenge for us Christians is whether we have done the same as the Man we claim to follow.