Day 1032 - Thinking the Impossible

A Bible study for the Men's Group at Second Presbyterian Church, Oct. 8, 2015, Chattanooga, TN.

Mark 10: 17-31

In the other synoptic gospels describe the person who approaches Jesus as a young man (Matthew), or  a ruler (Luke). This identification immediately strikes a divisive note to the story by dividing people up into “those who have” and “those who don’t.”  But Mark on refers to the person simply as a man and lets the story inform us about his economic stature (v 21). Mark seems to be taking aim at what is in the heart.

That the man is rich is also underscored by the verb he uses in his question, inherit (v17). Inherit is a verbal cue to wealth. For the rich, wealth is inherited and comes from fulfilling certain obligations and conditions, such as treating your father well, etc. It suggests a state of privileged existence that is strikingly ironic in the context of the earlier teaching about the dependence of children. (Eternal life is synonymous with kingdom of God.)

His question though, hangs on all our lips, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”

This time Jesus gives him an answer, quoting back to the man an (incomplete) summary of the Law. You may find this a little surprising since throughout Mark’s account of the gospel Jesus has been hard on those who hang on the letter of the law. (See Day-994, for example.)

But perhaps there is a clue to why he does this in the response of the man to the answer Jesus gave him. The man said, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.”

The man emphasizes his life-long observance of the commandments. Jesus reacts compassionately at this display of sincerity. Mark says Jesus loved him (v21).

Yet as we know from the prophets, and from Jesus’ own earlier discourses, blind obedience to the law, or its interpretation as an act of conformity is not necessarily a righteous act.

Jeremiah says, circumcise your heart to the Lord (Jer. 4:4). Before they entered the Promise Land Moses instructed Israel that the commandments should reflect the righteousness of one’s life, not be a set of rules for conduct. You obey and follow the law because it is part of your righteousness.  (Deuteronomy 30:6-10).

Jesus hammers this man seeking to inherit salvation with five blows, using the imperative verb form, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

Now, wait a minute, 1-Go!, 2- Sell;!, 3- Give!, 4- Come!, 5- Follow me! That is five things not one thing.  What one thing is inclusive of these five imperatives? Could it be compassion for your fellow traveler? Is that the kind of righteousness Jeremiah, Moses and Jesus had in mind?

For example, recall Zacchaeus, the tax collector, who gave half his earnings to the poor and said if someone points out where he has wronged one, he will pay them four times as much. Jesus told him “salvation has come to this house.” It does not seem that the issue is about money but motivation.

What was the difference between Zacchaeus and the rich man? Zacchaeus was giving half of his worth to aid the poor. The rich man seems primarily to have a selfish interest in an inheritance of salvation, not in righteous living. Does he follow the Law because he thinks it is a prescription, and he seeks a similar prescription for salvation. Yet to see the Law as a prescription is a stumbling block in itself. Zacchaeus aids the poor because his compassion is written in his heart.

The idea the man does not have righteousness at heart is signified by his reaction. He was shocked and went away because he had many possessions. (By the way, his man recalls and contrasts Job. Job was a wealthy man who was fastidious in his adherence to the Law. It was written on his heart, yet Job was not even a Jew. Even believing in the finality of death, Job remained righteous in his faith in God.)

Then Jesus makes an observation that is often used in stewardship campaigns as a way to guilt congregants into giving, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God.”

In Mark’s way, Jesus has used this public event as a teaching moment for his disciples. He describes it as being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. They are perplexed at his saying.

Saying the disciples are profoundly perplexed is a translator’s attempt to convey the meaning the emotion the disciples felt. Other ways to say it are the disciples were astonished, appalled, shocked, crestfallen, gloomy, dumbfounded. Jesus has just turned their world upside done.

Go back and read Proverbs, and Psalms, even Job, even the story of Abraham in Genesis. Throughout Jewish teaching, righteousness is always associated with wealth and status. It may be that you are a citizen of the favored nation, or have thousands of sheep, or a large family of sons. Your righteousness is reflected in how the Lord values you.

If you doubt the seriousness of these comments by Jesus, look at what he says next in v 25 and the reaction in v26, “’It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ They were greatly astounded and said to one another, ‘Then who can be saved?’”

Notice Jesus calls the disciples “children.” Then he refers to the famous camel and eye of the needle. I’m sure some of you may have heard this refers to a narrow, low gate to the Jerusalem temple where a camel, if careful and on it knees, could squeeze into the temple grounds. There is no such gate. A camel was most likely the largest animal a Palestinian would ever see. They also had needles.  This image is intended to be as preposterous as it is. We shall find the message disturbs the disciples because Jesus says the message applies to everyone.
       Perhaps we should go back to the first question and answer of Jesus to the wealthy man, "Why do you call me good?" "No one is good but God..." You can't get into the kingdom of God under your own steam, whether the wealthy man or Zachaeus, the Lord calls you in. Perhaps it is again about faith. Paul will take this idea further with the Corinthians when he points out the powerful reversal of faith to knowledge - those with knowledge see faith as foolishness. Does it take a child-like mind no frozen by the knowledge of experience to believe?

Jesus invokes the image of children and the Kingdom of God to point backwards to his statement “one must receive the kingdom as a child (v15).  Earlier in Mark 10:13-16 Jesus implies it is easy to get into the kingdom - a child can do it. Jesus reminds us of a paradox he has broached before when he talked about entering the Kingdom several chapters earlier (Mark Chapter 4). Getting into the kingdom requires a reversal of what we ordinarily value.

And Peter, says,” Wait a minute, we’ve done all that.” Jesus acknowledges the commitment of the disciples to him, and says they will receive even more, brothers, sisters, mothers and children. Peter, I’m sure is immediately thinking money and status given his arguments about who is the greatest.

Is Jesus using “brothers, sisters, mothers and children” to talk of fellow believers, future congregants?

He does not let Peter off the hook. He adds two difficult things. He says they will inherit “fields of persecutions.” And he comes back to his great reversal, “Many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

The real story seems more complex.Is Jesus saying, do not worry about your possessions and ties to family, if you follow me you will have a new family and the most valuable thing possible, salvation? But what does verse 29-30 mean? If you follow Jesus you will get a hundred-fold reward but also fields of persecution…?

Jesus pricks us with that last verse, Perhaps “many who are first will be last, and the last will be first” is a clue to the meaning of the text?

The evolution of this teaching has evolved is a unique way. The earliest congregations (see Acts for example) fully expected the return of Jesus at any moment. Thus wealth and belongs were not of significant value in the anticipated trip believers would be taking in the near future.

 As time passed and that expectation of the immediate return dimmed, and the teaching took on a more ascetic, if not monastic reading.  Many voluntarily take on a life of poverty, or relative poverty, as a special vocation using this passage as justification.

More modern Reformed thinkers choose to generalize the teaching fully into a symbolic form that minimizes the implication of wealth in the context of overall spiritual health. It’s true meaning, the logic goes, is that we should be on guard against every impediment to our spiritual health, lust, pride, greed, selfishness, etc.

When we read this passage, it would seem perhaps we haven’t read it well if we are not astonished, appalled, shocked, crestfallen, gloomy, or we have heard it so often we a re inured to it.
Guilting folks into giving their money to the church does do it. It is as prescriptive as the tradition of the elders. We should ask, "What difference do you see between the acts of Zacchaeus and the rich man?"
 How do we put together an ethical prescription for the use of our wealth? What happens when we think the impossible, that the greatest reward cannot be purchased but only given by grace? Do we find a way to share our grace?
Amen.

Day 1026 – A Field of Circumstance

A study of Jesus Teaching on Divorce and Children for the Men's bible Study at Second Presbyterian Church, Oct. 1, 2015

Scripture reading: Mark 10:2-16

The last few weeks we have followed Jesus as he teaches his disciples the nature of discipleship. His final trip to Jerusalem hangs heavy in the air. Critics and opponents confront him, as well as those seeking grace. He usually calls his disciples aside and explains his teaching to them in private.

He does this perhaps because the disciples repeatedly show that have failed to understand the teachings and the predictions of Jesus death in Jerusalem. These are the ones who will carry the message on afterwards. Jesus has a stake in them “getting it.”

The passage today touches all these themes. (The lectionary omitted the verse (Mark 10:1) that clarifies Jesus is headed for Jerusalem: “He left that place [Capernaum, where he began his ministry three years earlier] and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan. And crowds again gathered around him; and, as was his custom, he again taught them.” This verse is a reminds us that Jesus has embarked upon his final journey from the place where it all began.

Pharisees engage Jesus on the controversial issue of divorce and after replying to them, Jesus uses it as a teaching moment. The confrontation runs over 10:2-9, when the Pharisees pose argumentative question, “Are there spousal acts that allow divorce?”

Divorce at that time was a controversial religious matter in Jewish law and in the Roman society that surrounded Palestine. Some Jewish religious leaders said adultery was the only basis for a man to divorce his wife. Others said a wife who displeases a husband for any reason is legitimate ground for divorce. All agreed the woman had no right to divorce.

Yet, the Pharisees also include a question about a woman seeking a divorce, seeking to draw him into conflict with the authorities, both the religious authorities and Rome. This question is particularly relevant for Jesus. The killing of John the Baptist resulted from his decrying the divorce of Herodia (A Jewish woman) from her husband so she could marry Herod Antipas.

You recall the way Jesus dismissed the tradition of the elders as the proper interpretation of adhering to the law. The reply about divorce dramatically turns from his earlier criticism of the religious leaders who rely upon the “tradition of the elders” as the interpretation of the Law.

Here, Jesus cuts off the Pharisees’ argument and supports John's indictment of Herodia. He forces them to justify divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Then Jesus turns upon them defining the formal nature of marriage by Genesis 1:27 and 5:2. Marriage is an express gift of the pleasure and grace of the Lord of two becoming one. Jesus says that the permission to divorce in Deuteronomy is a consequence of their hardened hearts and resistance to honor the Lord.

Jesus interprets the Genesis passages to say that marriage is grounded in the creative act of life established by the Lord. There is no basis for divorce. Not hardened hearts. Not stubbornness. Not being unteachable and obstinate. All these human weaknesses are acknowledged implicitly as excuses to divorce in  Deuteronomy 24:1-4.   Jesus leaves the message that though Moses permits divorce, the Lord isn’t happy about it because it is an affront to his creative act.

As is Mark’s usual case, Jesus moves from public confrontation to private teaching of the disciples at the end of verse 9. He uses this confrontation with the Pharisees as a teaching moment on divorce and children (verses 10-16).

The disciples ask him to explain the teaching and Jesus says simply, when you marry, you become heirs of the grace of life (Williamson, p177). If you divorce and remarry, you have committed adultery – the act of unfaithfulness to spouse and the Lord.

Jesus is not “taking any prisoners” here. He broadens his teaching to challenge not only the understanding of the Pharisees but also Herod and Rome by addressing both a man or a woman divorcing their spouse.

Jesus does not say “If you divorce, do not remarry. He presumes that divorce will occur, but he says, remarriage violates the relationship created by the first marriage. Few of us want to brook this teaching. It is as severe as the command to sell all your belongings and follow him.

What are we to make of this in 2015? Some dilute the teaching, saying this was not a public teaching but a private teaching to the disciples. It suggests a higher standard for his disciples, not a comforting though for all the ministers of the church today (its membership). Keep this question in mind, we will return to it shortly.

It is appropriate that on the heels of this teaching about divorce the issue of children arises. Children are a primary focus for Jesus (See Day 1011 – Masters and Servants, for an example.). In spite of his earlier teachings not to be stumbling blocks for the little ones, to welcome everyone as a child into your midst, the disciples are preventing children from coming into the presence of Jesus.

There is a figurative and literal element to this teaching about children. Truly children are entirely at the mercy of the world around them and in the best of all worlds, depend on parents and the family who brought them into the world to sustain them. Likewise, people who are disaffected, weak, imprisoned, sick, who are the underlings of society, are welcome as the actual children to survive in the world. These are also children of God and a fundamental part of this new Kingdom of God in the world.

Let’s come back to our question about the teaching on divorce in 2015.

If you are part of a group that pushed for a broader definition of marriage, you may chafe at the reference by Jesus to the Genesis passage and creation. If you are part of a group that opposed the broader definition of marriage, you may be clapping your hands and thinking, “I told you so.” If you are divorced and especially if remarried or parents of children of the broken marriage, you may well grieve over the entire passage or chafe, saying it is outmoded, irrelevant to today’s concerns.

Almost every household in the USA in 2015 has been touched by divorce. It may be the spouses and parents who divorce, it may be a sibling, it may be one of your children or another relative.

If you have taken marriage and the responsibility of parenting seriously, you know the pain and damage that comes in divorce. Studies (sorry I don’t have the citation at hand) show that even in the most amicable divorce children are harmed by it. They may feel guilty that they are responsible. They may feel abandoned. It impacts their own view of marriage.

So, what are we to make of this hard teaching by Jesus on divorce? If we take seriously any on these teachings of Jesus on discipleship read in Mark over the last few weeks on discipleship, we must acknowledge that living a Christian life is a hard and difficult road. The world wants us to turn away. Our own inner nature is painfully susceptible to that lure.

An increasing number of folks of the same sex are entering the institution of marriage. Do they understand the gravity of the act? Perhaps the big issue behind this teaching is not so much how to define marriage but how to address the commitment and consequences of marriage embodied in the Genesis texts (in Genesis 1:27 and 5:2).

If we think divorce, or violating our particular sense of who can be married bars someone from grace, we really are indulging in god-like behavior – judging people rather than bringing them grace.

The message on divorce and children is about behavior and accommodating God’s children. When we engage in non Christ-like behavior, such as divorce, we harm not only our self but those around us. Jesus says we become stumbling blocks to his children. When considerations of wealth, dissatisfaction with a spouse, physical attraction and the excitement of a new relationship, neglect of our children, preoccupation with the world’s definition of self fulfillment guide our action, we find they all lead to grief.

When we indulge in objecting to other's violating our sense of marriage, or overlook this teaching on divorce we are actually overlooking the purpose Jesus had coming into the world - to welcome the Kingdom of God.

The Lord has reconciled with humanity through Jesus. The Lord has acknowledged our predilection to err, our stubbornness and obstinacy, and has offered grace to erase, if we are truly penitent over our disregard for living the true way. Then we remain on the right side of grace. We are reckoned righteous by our faith. Abraham was reckoned righteous for his faith before he took Isaac to the mountain top.

Reckoned righteous is a judicial term that means to be declared righteous before there is even a trial. Indictment and judgment are short-circuited.

That we have the grace of forgiveness does not mean we will not suffer the human grief and feeling of guilt that comes knowledge of our sinful act. It does not erase the negative, and often irreversible consequences our acts bring upon those we love, and upon us when we wander into the field of circumstance of divorce.

How do I put this difficult teaching in a positive perspective? Perhaps the circumstances about the execution of Kelly Gissendaner by the State of Georgia Tuesday evening helps us understand.

The idea of a field of circumstance is a good way to think about her situation as an insight into our own actions. The human damages wrapped up in and around her acts and her death are real and painful. Her husband’s family grieves. Many of us shed tears over her execution Many shed tears over her several stays of execution as she certainly did. Many of her friends grieve. Her children grieve. Many who do not know her except by her execution grieve. I think this event accurately portrays a field of circumstance that follow from the consequences of not heeding the teachings of this passage.

The first thing to be said is that her execution is an opprobrious act for any Christian to advocate. There is zero justification in the Gospel teachings for capital punishment, or revenge of any kind. In fact, the essence of the Gospel is the saving grace of forgiveness that defeated state-sanctioned capital punishment. See John 18:1-11, particularly v 11, and Luke 22:49-52. We might ask why Jesus did not seek vengeance against Rome who crucified him and the Jewish Religious leaders who arrested him. Perhaps he knew the field of circumstance his opponents entered…

Capital punishment at its core is an act of judgment and revenge. Both are expressly forbidden to us by many teachings of the scriptures. One cannot escape the dying words attributed to Jesus in Luke, “forgive them for they do not know what they do.” (There is some debate in scholarly circles as to whether this is a late insertion because the passage is missing in several early sources.)

The field of circumstance of execution put guilt on the executioner. It does not allay the anguish of those who have lost a loved one. Do any penitent Christians truly sleep easier knowing the killer was executed on their behalf?

What origin foray into a field of circumstance by Kelly Gisendaner brought all this misery into play?

According to news reports, Kelly Gissendaner was married, but began an affair with another man. Prosecutors said that by late1996 she had decided she did not want to divorce her husband but rather chose to entice her lover to kill her husband (stabbed to death) after the two of them ambushed him at her home. Both Ms. Gissendaner and her lover were convicted of the murder but only she was sentenced to death.

Her husband’s family harbors hate and revenge. The same news report quoted them as saying, “She's been given more rights and opportunity over the last 18 years than she ever afforded to Doug who, again, is the victim here." They continued to say, "She had no mercy, gave him no rights, no choices, nor the opportunity to live his life."

So who among the living won here? Who came out on the sunny side of life as a result of the murder or execution? Even though the state prevailed in its act of state-sanctioned killing, it did not win. Mr. Gissendaner did not return from death. I dare say no one won.

We may ask in the light of Jesus’s teaching on divorce that we have just read (and by inference on adultery), “What if Ms. Gissendaner had honored her marriage vows as Jesus taught? What if she had even taken up the Deuteronomic or State permission to divorce to satisfy her stubborn heart (as she had previously done)?”

Perhaps she would not have ventured into that particular field of circumstance that led to murder. The field of circumstance of ignoring one’s marriage drew many people into grief and more sin. The family of the slain husband harbors hate in their hearts. Her children have lost both father and mother. Family and friends of Ms. Gissendaner, some acquaintances of mine, are sorrowful and probably quite angry. Many people express hatred towards the authorities and those who opposed her execution.

There are no winners in this foray into the field of circumstance, we all lost. Perhaps through this we, disciples all, ought to take a dose of humility as medicine to our hardened hearts, stubbornness, obstinacy, being unteachable and harboring a desire for vengeance that persistently lead us into our own fields of circumstance.

However, Ms. Gissendaner said she found a path to divine forgiveness in prison becoming a strong Christian who acknowledges her guilt and God’s mercy. Her children found a path to forgive her. Many people who advocated for clemency and were moved by her humility, repentance and acceptance of execution and are more strongly empowered to work against the death penalty.

In the end, Kelly Gissendaner, who carried her own personal collection of sins circumstances, found divine forgiveness, defeated death, and lives again.

I hope the lesson on divorce gives everyone pause to think long and hard about marriage as a commitment to life, and to the spouse as two becoming one. You cannot unmake leavened, baked bread into its original grain, salt, water, yeast and oil. You can only ruin the bread trying to do it.

Amen