Day - 1202 "O Mary Don't You Weep For Me!"

John 20:1-18 is the Evangelist’s description of the resurrection. (Many people who have studied this gospel refer to its author as  "The Evangelist.”) This passage has the honor of extremely numerous pages of discussion in commentaries. Raymond Brown’s commentary uses 48 pages. Many of my comments are drawn from his exposition.

If one places the resurrection narratives of the four gospels side by side, the message of resurrection is clear but we see a lot of discrepancies.  This might be expected from eyewitness accounts, or from recording of an oral tradition/history by persons who were not there as witnesses (see Luke, for example).

Those who study early documents of the gospels and Pauline writings quickly come to the realization that the Evangelist and other who composed John drew on very early Christian traditions. See the hymns at 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Phil 2:6-11, Acts 10:36-43. The Philippians passage, a profoundly moving passage,  predates the gospels and shows that there was a well established tradition expressed in hymns very soon after the resurrection. (Paul’s letters predate all the gospels, and obviously the hymn in Philippians predates Paul’s letter to the Philippians.)

       There are a number of points that can be made about this passage but I am only going to comments on a few to emphasize its significance rather than dull your attention.  Given the title of this post, you can imagine one of them.

When did the resurrection occur and who were there to discover it?

The first half of verse 1 says the discovery was made early on the first day of the week while it was still dark. One major point of commentary discussion is that John says the resurrection occurred at the first day of the week, not the third day after the crucifixion (1 Cor. 15:3-4) described in the early Pauline writings. Raymond Brown suggests that the time of finding the tomb empty was fixed in Christian memory before the third-day symbolism evolved. (Bear in mind, however, the third-day language in Jesus’ passion predictions - See Mark 8:31 for example. Also the third day has significance to contemporary Jewish thought, Hosea 6:1-3, for example. The third day imagery is present in Old Testament deliverance Midrash, for example on Gen 42:17 Midrash describes Joseph’s treatment of his brothers who have discovered him, saying, “The Holy One, blessed be he, never leaves the righteous in distress more than three days.” ) 

So the first day of the week or three days is not nearly as significant as the empty tomb (and empty cross).

We should note two other things in this verse. The woman who goes to the tomb is Mary Magdalene not Mary the mother of Jesus and she has gone alone at 3-6AM. The language of v2 reverts to “we” suggesting she had companions, but even this is argued to be a linguistic plural usage indicating a singular meaning (or the work of multiple editors).

The second point of historical significance is her alarm at seeing the stone rolled away. Grave robbers were a common problem at the time.  A decree of the emperor Claudius (AD 41–54), a copy of which was found at Nazareth, ordered capital punishment for those destroying tombs, or removing bodies, or displacing the sealing or other stones. Disturbing a tomb was also considered highly offensive to Jews.  

It is useful to read Luke 24:1-53 and Mark 16:1-8 as you consider verses 3-7.  Mark, most probably the earliest gospel, tells us only the women observed the empty tomb and heard the message of resurrection. They were told to go tell the others.

A major ploy by Jewish leaders at the time was to refute the claim of resurrection by arguing the body was stolen by someone, even the gardener. However the presence of the burial clothes and expensive spices reminds us robbers likely were not the cause because they would have taken everything of value.

The earliest Christian writing noted the apologetic implications. Chrysostom saw their pertinence to the notion of robbery of the tomb: “If anyone had removed the body, he would not have stripped it first, nor would he have taken the trouble to remove and roll up the napkin and put it in a place by itself.”

The apologetic significance of the narrative could have a different perspective. In Jewish tradition, the testimony of women was unacceptable, but if two men report an event it meets the Jewish requirement of valid testimony according to Deut. 19:15.

note: “Apology” used here does not have its meaning usual for us. Here “Apology” means explanation.

We do come to an important point in verses 8-9.

The Beloved Disciple saw a different dimension to the mystery. Unlike Peter and the others, on entering the tomb “he saw, and believed.” For him the wrappings had a significance of resurrection and he “believed”!

Many scholars hesitate to give that statement full value. But the Greek is clear, “believe” used here means genuine faith (John uses the same word in  5:44; 6:47; 19:35; 20:29). Seeing and believing the empty tomb means Jesus is risen is akin to the seeing and believing the “signs” of Jesus.

From much of the previous Gospels we know the disciples had difficulty grasping the true meaning of the words of Jesus. The disciples and others have been on an unimaginable roller-coaster the last week. They had high hopes for the onset of this new Kingdom of God as they approached Jerusalem.

They were crushed by fear at the crucifixion and fled way. It is entirely likely whatever faith they may have had, the finality of the crucifixion truly challenged all they had thought of Jesus. Yet, for this disciple whom Jesus loved something special happened.

We come to the heart of the pasage in verses 13-18 when Mary meets Jesus. These are remarkable verses that repeat a common understanding in all four gospels. The scene carries with it both a mix of sadness and grief and one of intimate joy occurring in the space of barely an instant.  For this reason verse 17 has generated much ink. Upon recognizing Jesus, Mary Magdalene grasps him. His retort to release him because, “I have not yet ascended to the Father” raises the question, “Is the resurrection and ascension to the Father different things, and if so, how?”

Reflection:

Does the extensive commentary remove us from the real significance of the event John describes? The Evangelist himself may have had a simpler interest by using the  the grief and joy of Mary to reveal the significance of the empty tomb.

Jesus has forsaken his burial clothes forever. This is not like the resurrection of Lazarus read a few chapters earlier in John when Jesus bade Lazarus to come forth from his tomb. The wrappings of the dead still bound Lazarus hand and foot, and even the napkin on his head had to be freed for him to take up life again in this world.

 Jesus on the contrary left his wrappings in the grave as a sign of his resurrection into the life of God’s eternal order. This was plain to the Evangelist, and finally to Mary as Jesus told her not to weep for him.

The message Mary’s experience brings us is more than the simple announcement that Jesus has been raised and ascends. Jesus says, “Go to my brothers, and say, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ “

We may understand brothers as all believers of the “lifting up” of Jesus and the impending bestowal of the Spirit as Jesus shares his “sonship” with the Father.

Raymond Brown, perhaps with Lazarus in mind, reminds us of Ruth’s declaration in Ruth 1:16: “Your people shall be my people and your God my God.” Ruth chose to come under Naomi’s God. Now, here in this tomb the Redeemer has chosen to come to us, living, dying, rising and ascending to make us the sons of the Father and the people of God.

“O Mary don’t cry for me!” is at its core the greatest and most joyful proclamation we will ever hear.

Christ is arisen, indeed!

Day 1200 - A Maundy Thursday Parable

There was a man who had a great technical idea. He and a few friends labored very hard and turned it into a great business.  Many years later his company had amassed a great fortune and he became one of the wealthiest persons in his country knowing nothing but luxury. His fortune approaches $100 Billion. He and his spouse acquired a beautiful piece of land on which he built a house at a cost of about $170 Million.

       He feels a need for altruism and has given $28B to charity and funded a program to fight poverty for $776 Million. He has given about 25% of his fortune to charity and joined a group whose goal is to give away at least 50% of their wealth.

Another person had the idea to open a business that catered to wealthy international travelers, building it into an enterprise whose value to him is $1.6Billion. He sold the company and donated the whole proceeds except for $1.5M to a charitable foundation. The foundation grew and was able to grant $6.2 Billion to charitable social, immigration, aging and medical causes from the US to Viet Nam. He intends to give the remaining $1.6Billion away by the end of this year. He too has joined this group who commits to give a majority portion of their wealth to charitable causes. When this is accomplished he will have given about 99.8% of his wealth.

A Muslim, Shiek Suylaiman bin Abdul Azziz Al Rajhi, has built a fortune of about $7.7 Billion through banking ventures base on Islamic rules about loaning money. He has committed to give most of it away. He intends to retain about $590M, giving away about 92.4% of his wealth.

A Protestant religious denomination, in existence since the late 1700’s, by 2009 had amassed a trust fund of about $6.89 Billion. These funds came not from the work of their own hands but from individual contributors who were or are members of the denomination and gave for the glory of God, as well as by growth of principal from investment.

       From 2009 to 2014, wise investment had grown this trust 35% to about $9.33 Billion. It has 20,800 ministers who participate in its medical plan. This plan has overrun contributions for 2016 estimated to be about $10 Million, about 0.1% of the value of the trust and about 4% of the next gain in investments from 2013 to 2014. Rather than contribute to this overrun, it imposes the overrun on pastors, many leaders of small churches facing a life of penury when it could provide free health care for its ministers.

       The gain in value from 2013 to 2014 was $220 Million, which if applied 100% to salary of the 20,800 ministers (a number that decreases annually) would provide an annualized salary supplement, or one time grant of $10,577 to every working minister, easily providing ACA coverage for every minister. If this $9.33 Billion principal continued to gain an average of 2.5% growth on investment it would provide fully paid medical care for every minister in the denomination in perpetuity. If the average investment return is 6% (the approximate average from 2009 to 2014) and the denominational ministerial demand remained steady rather than dropping (it lost 3% of its ministers from 2009 to 2014, and the number of new applicants for ministry dropped 51%), it would probably be able to meet the salary shortfall of every congregation that cannot afford to pay its minister the denomination required minimum. Of course retirement benefits of existing ministers must be accommodated, as well as how much ministers are contributing to their own retirement plan, but history over the last half century shows the number of ministers is dropping.  Perhaps there are even more creative ways to share its grace among God's people. 

       Is it an "extravagant" expense to allow $9 Billion to sit buried and amassing more unused value? Do the financial leaders of this denomination reflect a lack of trust in God's grace and plan for the ministry of the Church?  (How does it compare to the woman who broke the jar of nard to anoint Jesus at a cost of more than a years wages?)

A mother who lives in a poverty-stricken neighborhood gets by on food stamps and a part time (50%) job at minimum wage ($7.25/hr) giving her an income of $7,540/yr. When she can, she works another minimum wage job to help make ends meet. She cannot afford to keep her children in clothes, or regularly pay her utility bills. A neighbor is having her electricity turned off because she has an excessive overdue bill. The utility company says they will keep the power on if she can pay $75. The poverty stricken mother who isher neighbor has just received her paycheck and gives her neighbor $75 to keep the electricity on providing heat and light.

Paul discussing giving for the church in Jerusalem said to the Corinthians that the issue is not to embarrass those who have much but is a matter of need that those who have little have enough and those who have much do not have too much.

Of these men, women and organizations, who is the good neighbor and has given the most to the one in need?

Amen

Day 1190 - “What If Only The Stones Shout?"

Luke 19:28-40 

        This passage in Luke describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in the beginning of his last week on Earth.

There are so many interpretations and sermons on the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem beginning the week of his death and resurrection. For the inquirer and seeker, for the curious, this event that inaugurates what we call the Holy Week deserves detailed presentation.

These celebrants present in his entry are the people who have heard of these miraculous deeds, who have heard his proclamation of compassion for the weak in spirit and peacemakers, those who seek succor from their oppression by the forces of the world, and those who have heard of his confrontation with the reactionaries in the religious establishment who desire nothing more than the status quo.

Even those reactionaries are present at this entry, as the latter words of the passage show. These people, some even through gnashed teeth, understand the Deliverer is at hand. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Reconciliation is at hand. In no uncertain terms, grace is at hand.

But what message lies in these words of Luke for those who profess to be “Easter People” - those persons who claim they are imbued with the Holy Spirit and are dedicated followers? At the time these were his disciples and close adherents such as the women, those he healed, and Lazarus.

What does this entry mean to them? In fact may I inquire, extrapolating what I suspect is Luke’s subliminal question, “What does this entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the heart of formal worship of the Lord, mean for Christians of the present, today?”

The weakness we all face is intimidation. We are averse to risk, to speaking out. In fact, many of us are quite off put by those who speak out. Some of us may even be averse to risking our money as we discussed in the last post. Many of us want a more sedate existence in which we gloat with some comfort in our assured justification of receiving grace. We believe. Thank the Lord, we believe. That doesn't make us "bad" people. We all face that intimidation to some degree. But those who lose sight of the danger of that intimidation tarnish their stature.

What kind of noise do we make? My Christian social advocate friends must think the same as they shout aloud about injustice and governmental insults. Where is Jesus in those shouts?

Jesus entered Jerusalem, perhaps as Pilate entered from the opposite side, one on a foal completely disdainful of the power of the world, the other on a stallion, the epitome of power of the world. One entered accompanied by the trappings of earthly power, the other by the trappings of weakness, humility and ultimate sacrifice amidst the shouting of the powerless.

It was quite a show, weakness against power, even a disruption. Luke says even the Pharisees pleaded for Jesus to quite the crowd lest they aggravate Pilate and spoil the party for everyone.

Yet the powerless were not to be denied, even if some of them envisioned a worldly paradise. They were in the corner of Jesus and not to be quieted.

Today in our staid worship services where we expect some modicum of decorum and respect for order, how many of us would be asking the pastor to quiet those who stood up and professed their faith as Paul suggested in Romans 10. 

Was Paul there on the sidelines at the back of the crowd of Pharisees as Jesus entered. We will never know.

In verse 5 of Romans 10, Paul says, “Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” Yet we miss the point Moses made if our living does not reflect what is written in your heart. We ought to read on in Romans 10 to appreciate Luke's message to us about the celebration of entering Jerusalem.

But what we should know, what message we ought to gain from Luke’s presentation is that our voices, as Paul said in Romans 10:9-11, if your profession of faith is written in your heart the Pharisee’s plea to quiet his followers is futile as the shouts, the physical reality of living a Christian life proclaim the clear message of faith with a volume that will overpower even the shouts of the stones.

If all we hear is the shouts of stones, then the glory of the Lord is clearly proclaimed, but our shortcoming is visible to all. Do we proclaim grace, or just sit back in our comfortable chairs in homes within nice neighborhoods where our children attend the few exceptional schools, where we look away from the impoverished on the street,  thanking God we are not like everyone else? Our voice does not come from our throat, it comes from our hands and feet guided by our heart.

In a thoroughly secular culture, are we the stones that shout the magnificence of the Lord's hesed: loving kindness and mercy for which we have unmerited justification to enjoy?

How loudly are your acts of Christian compassion shouting? Are they deafening the voices of the world that prefers we just sit back and privately enjoy our grace?

Garce and peace.