As I continue to read through Mark and his take on the lessons from Jesus, it occurs to me that there are things that Jesus does that confound me. The gospel Luke continues the thought in Mark with the interaction of Jesus and the "sinners"
Mark 2:17 "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners"
The gospel Luke illustrates that Jesus felt far more at ease with the "sinners" than he did with the righteous. His nickname in the early part of his ministry was "friend of sinners" Not really meant as a compliment. He was targeted by the religious gatekeepers as one who shunned them and partied with the outsiders. I think they were a little jealous that he liked the sinners better than he did them.
I think we sit this far from that time and want to call it evangelism and feel guilty that we really aren't very good at it, and if truth be told, not really interested in it. You see, to take on the mission of Jesus we have to find a way to become friends to people that are a handful under the best of circumstances, and they are rarely in the best of circumstances. Jesus let these folks get close to him. In fact, he invited them close. He had meals with them, he let them touch him enough to heal up their sickness, he went to their kid's weddings, he went to their funerals, I am guessing he went to their birthday parties, he drank their wine, he ate their food, and he offered them redemption.
So what does this mean to us? It means we have to break loose from our church clique and make some friends. I don't think the world particularly wants or needs our version of church. They need a friend, a true friend, a friend without an agenda. I can call my friends whenever I need to and they aren't suspicious that I am trying to sell them anything, not Amway, not insurance, not a worldview. They know I simply like to spend time with them. In some small way I think this is the reason we are here. There is a pretty select small group that I have influence on, God created me to befriend those folks. Pretty mundane this kingdom stuff, but it has eternal consequences.
The second thing this means to us is that once we enter the kingdom, the gospel is really no longer for us. The gist of the gospel is GOOD NEWS, news is only news once. Have you ever been in a conversation with someone where you know all his stories. There is nothing new there, it has all been said and done. Look at the words of Jesus at the beginning, I came for sinners. If you have entered Kingdom residency the gospel is now yours to dispense. It is not my point that we no longer live by the example of Jesus, quite the contrary. Now we LIVE the gospel, not receive it. It is only our ego-centric view that compels us to insist that the gospel is for me/us. This preoccupation with receiving the good news is only true if you are consciously living in rebellion.
This all makes me wonder where Jesus would go if he suddenly showed up in America? Would he show up at your doorstep? (And would I let him in?) Or at church? Or at a bar? Perhaps in a frame shack where the illegals live. Makes me wonder. It also makes me wonder if he would try to guess where I am.....
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
It is like...
Chapter 4 brings us a string of stories that are an attempt to describe the kingdom of God. Simple little everyday stories that point to the bigger story. In our reductionist, logic-driven culture we do not respond well to these types of stories. We want the answer and we want it now. But Jesus prefers to tell stories in a way that a moment later or a day later or a decade later, we have the "aha" moment. So that is what he meant.
So how does a hidden light, a planted seed, and the smallest seed illustrate the kingdom of God? What do these separate and unrelated events have to do with each other. if anything?
One common these seems to be one of perceived insignificance. The lamp is hidden, the seed is buried and forgotten, and the mustard is tiny, barely visible. So how does the kingdom look like these? Is this simply a historical relevance? Does this portion only have to do with the time and place of Jesus? Does this perception of "smallness" have any relevance today?
And what of the idea that the growth takes place, but those around it don't know how it happens, only that it does happen. How is the kingdom explained by the revelation of things that were intended to be hidden? The plant grows of its own accord and no one knows how that happens. We only see the results, the revelation? The mustard seed is so tiny, but grows so large that it is the nesting place in the garden. The kingdom is explained somehow with revelation.
The final scope of this is the expansion of light and plant and flowering tree. From tiny to large, from hidden to revealed, from insignificance to majesty. How does all this explain the kingdom?
God, show us the kingdom as you see it. We know better than to ask for understanding, we are asking for perception, to see.
Don
So how does a hidden light, a planted seed, and the smallest seed illustrate the kingdom of God? What do these separate and unrelated events have to do with each other. if anything?
One common these seems to be one of perceived insignificance. The lamp is hidden, the seed is buried and forgotten, and the mustard is tiny, barely visible. So how does the kingdom look like these? Is this simply a historical relevance? Does this portion only have to do with the time and place of Jesus? Does this perception of "smallness" have any relevance today?
And what of the idea that the growth takes place, but those around it don't know how it happens, only that it does happen. How is the kingdom explained by the revelation of things that were intended to be hidden? The plant grows of its own accord and no one knows how that happens. We only see the results, the revelation? The mustard seed is so tiny, but grows so large that it is the nesting place in the garden. The kingdom is explained somehow with revelation.
The final scope of this is the expansion of light and plant and flowering tree. From tiny to large, from hidden to revealed, from insignificance to majesty. How does all this explain the kingdom?
God, show us the kingdom as you see it. We know better than to ask for understanding, we are asking for perception, to see.
Don
Friday, March 30, 2012
Either Fer Me or Agin Me
Interesting story we find with Jesus this time around. His mission has shifted into high gear, he is followed wherever he goes, the crowds have discovered him, the authorities are watching him. In the midst of all this chaos we see the beginning of the argument against him. The religious leaders will accuse him directly, his family will hint at it. In their eyes, Jesus is clearly not managing his life well. His family claims "He is out of his mind." The teachers of the law say, "He is possessed by Beelzebul!" Jesus is not playing by the same rules as everyone else and he must be stopped.
There are at least two things that strike me here about this moment.
First of all, when someone truly embraces the leading of the Spirit, they act in ways we are not accustomed to. And it frightens us. It is easier to assign evil and mysterious motives than it is to step back and wonder if they have found a different level of understanding. In my opinion this is our primary fear of the "pentecostal" crowd. Our frame of reference is experiential, not faith. We have never had it happen to us so we don't believe it. So when we come across these events, we tend to "demonize" those who are involved. Reading this story makes me realize how dangerous that is. Jesus rightly points out that you can't accuse him of being possessed when the very evidence of his mission is the destruction of the demons in which he is supposed to in league.
Secondly, the teachers of the law react by accusing him of the greatest sin they could think of. The argument Jesus presents is indisputable. They can't have it both ways. If he is destroying demons, then he is not one of them. If he is promoting the good will of God, then he has to be a part of His plan. But isn't this just like all of us? We jump at the most contemptible accusation we can come up with, even in the face of all the evidence? Theirs was not a carefully considered accusation, it was a reaction. Haven't we all seen this?
God, help us to understand the weakness of our nature in the temptation to accuse without discernment.
There are at least two things that strike me here about this moment.
First of all, when someone truly embraces the leading of the Spirit, they act in ways we are not accustomed to. And it frightens us. It is easier to assign evil and mysterious motives than it is to step back and wonder if they have found a different level of understanding. In my opinion this is our primary fear of the "pentecostal" crowd. Our frame of reference is experiential, not faith. We have never had it happen to us so we don't believe it. So when we come across these events, we tend to "demonize" those who are involved. Reading this story makes me realize how dangerous that is. Jesus rightly points out that you can't accuse him of being possessed when the very evidence of his mission is the destruction of the demons in which he is supposed to in league.
Secondly, the teachers of the law react by accusing him of the greatest sin they could think of. The argument Jesus presents is indisputable. They can't have it both ways. If he is destroying demons, then he is not one of them. If he is promoting the good will of God, then he has to be a part of His plan. But isn't this just like all of us? We jump at the most contemptible accusation we can come up with, even in the face of all the evidence? Theirs was not a carefully considered accusation, it was a reaction. Haven't we all seen this?
God, help us to understand the weakness of our nature in the temptation to accuse without discernment.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
What is True Religion?
There are two stories this week that illustrate similar points about the meaning and purpose of "sabbath." Both have enormous cultural tones and both pull back the curtain on what the mission truly is for the rabbi. We catch the troupe in a breach of sabbath etiquette, and we see the rabbi having to choose tradition or mission.
This would all be a little bothersome except for the fact that it has continued to crop for all these intervening centuries.
When I was a young man in high school my dad ran the bus ministry at a church in Abilene. He recruited guys to help him find serviceable school buses, found another guy who would paint them an electric blue and stencil the name of the church on the side, and recruited high school and college kids to ride the buses and chaperon the kids through Sunday morning and Wednesday night church. He was the unstoppable force in this ministry. At one time there were more than half dozen buses, and well over 150 kids picked up every Sunday morning and Wednesday night.
These kids were from the poorest sections of Abilene. They were ragged and smelly and dirty. They cussed like sailors, they would steal whatever was not nailed down, and at some point we had real problems with riots on the buses and on the routes. Remember, this was the early 70's and racial tension was at an all-time high.
But there were victories. Some of the kids were cleaned up and had a shot at a decent life. Time and again my dad to this day will point out someone who is obviously doing fine and remark, "He rode our buses" My dad never says it with pride, just a statement that the ministry worked.
One Sunday morning there was the normal high activity around the worship service. The worship leaders and elders all wanted to stay on schedule, to get to the next thing. In the midst of this whirlwind, one of the "bus kids" wanted to be baptised. A quick decision was made to do it after the second service, so the normal flow of the different assembly times and class times would not be interrupted. My dad pinned one of the elders to the wall and told him plainly that if that had been a "member's child" they would have stopped down the service and had the baptism. They chose poorly. My dad, who is not by nature confrontational, rightly called their hand on it.
Man or Sabbath? Good or evil? Mission or maintenance?
We have a lot to talk about.
Lord, give us the ability to discern the righteous activity over the traditional activity. Give us strength to speak up when organization injures the individual. Keep us in your Word. Amen
Don
This would all be a little bothersome except for the fact that it has continued to crop for all these intervening centuries.
When I was a young man in high school my dad ran the bus ministry at a church in Abilene. He recruited guys to help him find serviceable school buses, found another guy who would paint them an electric blue and stencil the name of the church on the side, and recruited high school and college kids to ride the buses and chaperon the kids through Sunday morning and Wednesday night church. He was the unstoppable force in this ministry. At one time there were more than half dozen buses, and well over 150 kids picked up every Sunday morning and Wednesday night.
These kids were from the poorest sections of Abilene. They were ragged and smelly and dirty. They cussed like sailors, they would steal whatever was not nailed down, and at some point we had real problems with riots on the buses and on the routes. Remember, this was the early 70's and racial tension was at an all-time high.
But there were victories. Some of the kids were cleaned up and had a shot at a decent life. Time and again my dad to this day will point out someone who is obviously doing fine and remark, "He rode our buses" My dad never says it with pride, just a statement that the ministry worked.
One Sunday morning there was the normal high activity around the worship service. The worship leaders and elders all wanted to stay on schedule, to get to the next thing. In the midst of this whirlwind, one of the "bus kids" wanted to be baptised. A quick decision was made to do it after the second service, so the normal flow of the different assembly times and class times would not be interrupted. My dad pinned one of the elders to the wall and told him plainly that if that had been a "member's child" they would have stopped down the service and had the baptism. They chose poorly. My dad, who is not by nature confrontational, rightly called their hand on it.
Man or Sabbath? Good or evil? Mission or maintenance?
We have a lot to talk about.
Lord, give us the ability to discern the righteous activity over the traditional activity. Give us strength to speak up when organization injures the individual. Keep us in your Word. Amen
Don
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Right vs Proper
This story has everything.
Big crowds, small room.
4 friends who will rip off a roof to get their buddy some help.
Doing the right thing vs the proper thing.
Priorities: Release from sin or release from handicap?
Religious organizational approach vs moral and compassionate healing.
For the first time we see a confrontation with the religious leaders. Jesus has to decide which is more important, pleasing the status quo or forging ahead with his mission.
This is the first mention of the religious leaders and the first time casting out demons is omitted. Hmm.
I have prompted this week to also mention that there seems to be connection between the healing and the casting out of demons. Can there be some symbolism that I haven't seen before? Can the removal of an evil spirit, the breaking of a fever, the healing of leprosy, and now the restoration from being paralyzed have a deeper spiritual meaning?
God, open us up to real world of spiritual battle, train us to hear your clarion call, to respond with spiritual weapons you have provided.
Big crowds, small room.
4 friends who will rip off a roof to get their buddy some help.
Doing the right thing vs the proper thing.
Priorities: Release from sin or release from handicap?
Religious organizational approach vs moral and compassionate healing.
For the first time we see a confrontation with the religious leaders. Jesus has to decide which is more important, pleasing the status quo or forging ahead with his mission.
This is the first mention of the religious leaders and the first time casting out demons is omitted. Hmm.
I have prompted this week to also mention that there seems to be connection between the healing and the casting out of demons. Can there be some symbolism that I haven't seen before? Can the removal of an evil spirit, the breaking of a fever, the healing of leprosy, and now the restoration from being paralyzed have a deeper spiritual meaning?
God, open us up to real world of spiritual battle, train us to hear your clarion call, to respond with spiritual weapons you have provided.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Reflect and Re-Engage
As I read through this text and then meditated on the meaning of the story, it occured to me that Jesus knew the value of spending time in God's presence, or as a man once said, "Wasting time with God"
The ministry had already been launched. He had already engaged the enemy, he had already articulated his message, he had already exercised the power that would drive his ministry. Yet in the midst of mission, he reconnected to the power source, the purpose of his mission was reviewed and reflected upon and re-centered. We don't get a lot of stories about this discipline, but we get glimpses. I will tell you from my journey over the last 10 years or so that when I ignore the disciplines of silence and solitude I get distracted and lose my focus. We get an early read from Jesus, that while "totally God" and "totally man" he never forgot to reconnect through the inner disciplines of prayer, silence, solitude, meditation, and study.
Then there is the leper. I think these stories are related. He responds with "indignant" An odd word for the response. I will do some word study before Sunday and see where it leads. But on the surface if you come out of a time of worship with God and see disease that both alienated physically as well as socially, doesn't it make sense that Jesus would be offended? Wouldn't the leprosy be viewed as the work of the evil one? Isn't this just what the evil one wants to do? Create a world where we are alienated and cast out?
Do we have people today, that given their circumstances we should respond with indignance? Can we look around and find the modern equivalence of leprosy?
God, open our eyes to current methods of the evil one. Make us aware of his purposes and manifestations.
Amen
The ministry had already been launched. He had already engaged the enemy, he had already articulated his message, he had already exercised the power that would drive his ministry. Yet in the midst of mission, he reconnected to the power source, the purpose of his mission was reviewed and reflected upon and re-centered. We don't get a lot of stories about this discipline, but we get glimpses. I will tell you from my journey over the last 10 years or so that when I ignore the disciplines of silence and solitude I get distracted and lose my focus. We get an early read from Jesus, that while "totally God" and "totally man" he never forgot to reconnect through the inner disciplines of prayer, silence, solitude, meditation, and study.
Then there is the leper. I think these stories are related. He responds with "indignant" An odd word for the response. I will do some word study before Sunday and see where it leads. But on the surface if you come out of a time of worship with God and see disease that both alienated physically as well as socially, doesn't it make sense that Jesus would be offended? Wouldn't the leprosy be viewed as the work of the evil one? Isn't this just what the evil one wants to do? Create a world where we are alienated and cast out?
Do we have people today, that given their circumstances we should respond with indignance? Can we look around and find the modern equivalence of leprosy?
God, open our eyes to current methods of the evil one. Make us aware of his purposes and manifestations.
Amen
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Winds of War
As I read over the rest of chapter one, it occurred to me that the author was trying to set a tone. He was wanting to make a point, but didn't want to just come out and say it. Perhaps the point was so well ingrained in his own experience that he didn't feel the need to articulate it. We will probably never know.
But two big issues seem to be setting up for a showdown in this story.
First was his teaching. We don't really know what the author meant by "teaching with authority" It could be any number of things. Perhaps he spoke with certainty. We know from our own experiences that a group can get bogged down over the details and miss the big picture. I suspect he spoke to core truths and the application of those truths in a such a way that the people in the synagogue and the river's edge all felt that God was speaking to them. It is very refreshing, and rare when a preacher can stick to the core truth and explain it in a way that it can applied. Jesus must have had a great deal of that simplistic theology that we all crave.
Secondly, he seems to have an axe to grind with the demons. Three times in the first chapter it is either told in a direct way or mentioned that he was casting out demons. Casting to them to where I don't know, but they were being dealt with in a manner that apparently the people had not seen before.
Here is my point. The teaching of Jesus was not a script for sin-management, it was a battle cry to a spiritual war. Jesus fully understood that his mission would come into conflict with the one-who-destroys. Do you wonder why it says that Jesus was "indignant" that the leper came to him? It was because the leper represented the decay of the spiritual forces on the other side.
The early teaching of Jesus is the opening salvo from the side of righteousness that had been silent for a very long time.
God, help us see the conflict for what it is, good vs. evil, spiritual vs. temporal. Open our eyes and lead us into the fray.
Don
But two big issues seem to be setting up for a showdown in this story.
First was his teaching. We don't really know what the author meant by "teaching with authority" It could be any number of things. Perhaps he spoke with certainty. We know from our own experiences that a group can get bogged down over the details and miss the big picture. I suspect he spoke to core truths and the application of those truths in a such a way that the people in the synagogue and the river's edge all felt that God was speaking to them. It is very refreshing, and rare when a preacher can stick to the core truth and explain it in a way that it can applied. Jesus must have had a great deal of that simplistic theology that we all crave.
Secondly, he seems to have an axe to grind with the demons. Three times in the first chapter it is either told in a direct way or mentioned that he was casting out demons. Casting to them to where I don't know, but they were being dealt with in a manner that apparently the people had not seen before.
Here is my point. The teaching of Jesus was not a script for sin-management, it was a battle cry to a spiritual war. Jesus fully understood that his mission would come into conflict with the one-who-destroys. Do you wonder why it says that Jesus was "indignant" that the leper came to him? It was because the leper represented the decay of the spiritual forces on the other side.
The early teaching of Jesus is the opening salvo from the side of righteousness that had been silent for a very long time.
God, help us see the conflict for what it is, good vs. evil, spiritual vs. temporal. Open our eyes and lead us into the fray.
Don
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Two Stories
In my business we have what we call "launches." Someone will come up with a new idea or a new product and will have to decide how to announce this new product or service to the industry. A great deal of time and resources is dedicated to making sure the launch is successful. There are soft launches where the product or service is restricted to a few, then there are hard launches where the entire concept is rolled out with significant fanfare. Sometimes there is a combination or usage of both.
As I read and thought about this small opening in the story a couple of things struck me. "After John was put in prison..." An end to a prophesied ministry and he gets half a sentence? The other gospel versions go into a little more detail, but the author here simply uses the phrase to soft launch the ministry of Jesus. You don't need two voices, one is enough. But one sentence. It tells me again that the mission of God is more important to Him than the missionaries. We should never forget this.
And the message was the same and different. Repent and be ready for the true one, was the message from John. Repent, the time has come was the new message. And it is a message that is "good news" Repent and get ready or repent and be ready. This is a subtle shift in message. Could John have made that shift? I don't know, but I do know that Jesus brings a new urgency to the message.
Then the selection of the following. Why these guys. Since they were already back at work for their fathers it is possible they were as young as 15 or so, and possibly as old as 20. All were Sunday school drop-outs, none were going to make "rabbi" They had long since given up on that prospect. My guess is that they were young enough for most to be single, but old enough to be working in the family business. Mark in his usual style says they just dropped what they were doing and followed. The other gospels tell us this was at least the third interaction with Jesus. They had heard him and heard his message. Now what were they going to do?
I am always a little skeptical when people tell me they can convince an unbeliever in a meeting or a short conversation. It takes a little time to understand the enormity of the decision.
By the way, great hallway discussions on the sequence of baptism. Make disciples, baptize them, commission them. We tend to herd them into the baptistry, then hope they can pick up the disciple part by osmosis, and we have long defined mission as just showing up.
God, give us the ears to hear the true message. I pray that our repentance is sincere and sufficient. Amen
Don
As I read and thought about this small opening in the story a couple of things struck me. "After John was put in prison..." An end to a prophesied ministry and he gets half a sentence? The other gospel versions go into a little more detail, but the author here simply uses the phrase to soft launch the ministry of Jesus. You don't need two voices, one is enough. But one sentence. It tells me again that the mission of God is more important to Him than the missionaries. We should never forget this.
And the message was the same and different. Repent and be ready for the true one, was the message from John. Repent, the time has come was the new message. And it is a message that is "good news" Repent and get ready or repent and be ready. This is a subtle shift in message. Could John have made that shift? I don't know, but I do know that Jesus brings a new urgency to the message.
Then the selection of the following. Why these guys. Since they were already back at work for their fathers it is possible they were as young as 15 or so, and possibly as old as 20. All were Sunday school drop-outs, none were going to make "rabbi" They had long since given up on that prospect. My guess is that they were young enough for most to be single, but old enough to be working in the family business. Mark in his usual style says they just dropped what they were doing and followed. The other gospels tell us this was at least the third interaction with Jesus. They had heard him and heard his message. Now what were they going to do?
I am always a little skeptical when people tell me they can convince an unbeliever in a meeting or a short conversation. It takes a little time to understand the enormity of the decision.
By the way, great hallway discussions on the sequence of baptism. Make disciples, baptize them, commission them. We tend to herd them into the baptistry, then hope they can pick up the disciple part by osmosis, and we have long defined mission as just showing up.
God, give us the ears to hear the true message. I pray that our repentance is sincere and sufficient. Amen
Don
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Highs and Lows
There is terrible temptation to skim over the event of Jesus' baptism. We have heard it from our youngest days. You remember the flannel boards? The cutout of Jesus and John, the Jordan river running across the board, then the dove dropping down from the top edge. By the way, the dove always seemed a little over sized to me. Proportionally it was more the size of a turkey, but I digress. We have heard the story time and again, so we tend to scoot past the elements of the event.
One thing has lingered with me all these years, though. Why? Why would the son of God need to be baptized? We get little hints, Matthew mentions righteousness, we have been told of the prophesies, I get the "example to us" relevance. But somehow my understanding of baptism seems to cloud the reasons for the "sinless One" to have to subject himself to this tradition. Perhaps we can explore that more in class.
But this story is in two parts, and they are not separate. Jesus then went into the wilderness to "be tempted by Satan" This was not an accident. It was intentional. Tempting, testing, these are words of proof. Will this person be able to handle the mantle of Savior-hood? This makes me a little queasy to wonder about the failure of Jesus. Could it have happened? Would the mission of God have been subverted if Jesus had failed in some way? If you say that there was no way he could fail, then the temptation was not real, and we are being manipulated by the writer. Temptation to be true temptation has to have the option of going either way. Oysters on the half-shell hold no temptation for me at all, but show me a little of the cleavage from a danish and I have to stop and make a very real effort to leave the danish alone. The first is not my problem, the second one can be a huge problem. We have to assume that when scripture says Jesus was tempted, then he seriously considered the lower road.
Read the scripture again and see if it doesn't make you a little uneasy..it does me.
Lord, help us understand the heights of your joy for your son, and the fear that you experienced during his wilderness time. Amen.
Don
One thing has lingered with me all these years, though. Why? Why would the son of God need to be baptized? We get little hints, Matthew mentions righteousness, we have been told of the prophesies, I get the "example to us" relevance. But somehow my understanding of baptism seems to cloud the reasons for the "sinless One" to have to subject himself to this tradition. Perhaps we can explore that more in class.
But this story is in two parts, and they are not separate. Jesus then went into the wilderness to "be tempted by Satan" This was not an accident. It was intentional. Tempting, testing, these are words of proof. Will this person be able to handle the mantle of Savior-hood? This makes me a little queasy to wonder about the failure of Jesus. Could it have happened? Would the mission of God have been subverted if Jesus had failed in some way? If you say that there was no way he could fail, then the temptation was not real, and we are being manipulated by the writer. Temptation to be true temptation has to have the option of going either way. Oysters on the half-shell hold no temptation for me at all, but show me a little of the cleavage from a danish and I have to stop and make a very real effort to leave the danish alone. The first is not my problem, the second one can be a huge problem. We have to assume that when scripture says Jesus was tempted, then he seriously considered the lower road.
Read the scripture again and see if it doesn't make you a little uneasy..it does me.
Lord, help us understand the heights of your joy for your son, and the fear that you experienced during his wilderness time. Amen.
Don
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Growing Storm and Sudden Impact Mark 1:1-8
The author creates an interesting tension at the beginning of the story. He says that this is "The Beginning of the good news (Gospel)" Here is where it starts. No star, no virgin, no census, no wise men, no manger. The starting line is here, the finish line is the empty tomb. This strikes me as odd. From Matthew and Luke we see a preamble to the ministry, we get to see the buildup, a little back story. Not here. The author makes the very clear message that what was said in the Old Book is now in full evidence in the New Book. Sudden Impact..we are thrown into the meat of the story much as Peter did in Acts. It starts here.
But he chooses a place to start that is sure to make Jewish readers uncomfortable. All the descriptions of John's ministry bring back haunting reflections of the old prophets. The way he dresses wearing camel's hair and a leather belt were clear reflections back to Isaiah and Elijah. He lived off the land because the culture would not support him and he wanted to obligations to those he was going to preach to.
His message was simple, repent. This was a message that played itself out in the minds and lives of the Jews. The old prophets always called for repentance. They knew and God's people knew that every time they repented God forgave, then blessed. Time and time again the Old Book, they were asked to repent, then be redeemed, and the formula was never changed, first repentance then redemption. The second part of his message was equally chilling..After me comes one more powerful. This ministry will continue on. You may ignore me, but you will not be able to ignore him. Turn a blind spiritual eye at your own risk. The storm clouds gather.
But John the Baptiser added a small twist that would not be lost on the religious minded of the day. Baptism by water. They were familiar with this event. Gentiles for centuries had converted to Judaism by being baptized, it was a precursor to the circumcision that sometimes followed. Surely John the Baptiser was not asking them to submit to a gentile requirement? How could this be? Are you kidding? How humiliating. It would be the first gusts of wind that would change the world and eternity.
Sudden change brought by a reminder of prophets of old. The journey has begun.
God, through your Spirit open our minds and our hearts. Let us be led by the prophets you send us and changed by the words and methods you devise.
Amen
But he chooses a place to start that is sure to make Jewish readers uncomfortable. All the descriptions of John's ministry bring back haunting reflections of the old prophets. The way he dresses wearing camel's hair and a leather belt were clear reflections back to Isaiah and Elijah. He lived off the land because the culture would not support him and he wanted to obligations to those he was going to preach to.
His message was simple, repent. This was a message that played itself out in the minds and lives of the Jews. The old prophets always called for repentance. They knew and God's people knew that every time they repented God forgave, then blessed. Time and time again the Old Book, they were asked to repent, then be redeemed, and the formula was never changed, first repentance then redemption. The second part of his message was equally chilling..After me comes one more powerful. This ministry will continue on. You may ignore me, but you will not be able to ignore him. Turn a blind spiritual eye at your own risk. The storm clouds gather.
But John the Baptiser added a small twist that would not be lost on the religious minded of the day. Baptism by water. They were familiar with this event. Gentiles for centuries had converted to Judaism by being baptized, it was a precursor to the circumcision that sometimes followed. Surely John the Baptiser was not asking them to submit to a gentile requirement? How could this be? Are you kidding? How humiliating. It would be the first gusts of wind that would change the world and eternity.
Sudden change brought by a reminder of prophets of old. The journey has begun.
God, through your Spirit open our minds and our hearts. Let us be led by the prophets you send us and changed by the words and methods you devise.
Amen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)