Good morning/afternoon/evening! I know I saw this a lot but I REALLY am glad you stopped by again. Sometimes I wish I could be there next to you as you read the day's chapters from the Bible--just in case you had a question or wanted to talk about something. But alas, this is the closest I'm going to get, so I'll try to make stopping by here as worth your while as I can!
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Fri, Mar 20: What will happen if the Israelites turn away and worship and bow down to other gods? (Dt 11)
Deuteronomy 11:16-17 6 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the LORD's anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you.
And here's the question of the day:
Sat, Mar 21: Romans 2:6 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." What do you think this means?
And here's the reflection of the day:
As we've been reading through the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Old Testament), we've seen the theme of God's righteousness over and over again. Leviticus tells us, "Be holy, because I the Lord your God am holy." Hence, all the rules and the regulations given to the Israelites in order to help them be just as holy as they can possibly be.
Believers are called to live according to a higher standard--morally, ethically, and in faithful obedience to God's commandments. It is even the duty of believers to share those standards with others and encourage them to live up to said standards. And sometimes, we can get a little carried away with our good intentions. Pretty easily, we can get so wrapped up in the importance of moral standards that we're imposing on others that we lose sight of whether we ourselves are living up to those very same standards.
In Romans 2, Paul has a discussion on moralizing. We might prefer a more relaxed attitude toward moral and ethical behavior and this, as Wright points out, makes us "all too eager to read Romans 2 as a denunciation of moralism and then to feel self-righteous because we are not self-righteous" (Wright, NIB Commentary on Romans).
Paul believed that morals mattered to both corporate society and to the individual. Disregarding these morals is sure to lead to disaster. He does not object to people having high moral standards; only when one failed to practice what one preached did Paul have an objection. Wright points out that Paul's point "was the hypocrisy of denouncing faults while secretly practicing them oneself."
And it all comes down to the final judgment, which Wright calls "excellent news for millions in our world, as it was in Paul's." He says this because judgment is "a promise that wrongs will be put to rights, offering a strong and sure hope that can sustain those who suffer oppression and injustice. But in Jesus the Messiah this hope has come forward into the present."
The final judgment has been warped in many ways over the years of reading and preaching. It has been watered down into "vague hopes for a better life hereafter and vague warnings about possible unpleasant consequences of wrongdoing" (Wright, NIB Commentary on Romans). But it also has been "artificially pumped up into shrill hell-fire denunciations and casual self-satisfied salvation-assurance" (Wright, NIB Commentary on Romans).
The truth of the final judgment lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Wrongs will be righted, and hope will be offered to the hopeless. God's perfection righteousness will be extended to those who sought, all the days of their lives, to be holy, because the Lord God Almighty is holy--doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God (Micah 6:8).
Have a great day!
Allison
Showing posts with label judgment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgment. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Another Puzzling Parable
Hello, again! Glad you dropped by today!
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Thurs, Jan. 29: Jesus tells the disciple a story about a father and two sons. Which son did what the father wanted? (Matt 21)
Matthew 21:31 31 "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."
BONUS QUESTION: Why?
And here's the question of the day:
Fri, Jan. 30: What is the last plague God sends on Egypt? (Ex 11)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Another Puzzling Parable
It would be a no-brainer to pick an easier piece of Scripture to think about, right? But I've never been one to do things the easy way! (Just ask my mom.) But I have promised myself not to avoid the hard stuff during the Year of the Bible. So, today is another foray into a hard piece of Scripture.
In chapter 21, Matthew tells us that Jesus' authority was challenged (21:23-27). As a response, he tells a series of parables. Ah, parables. . . usually Jesus' convoluted answer to a simple question. Or at least that how we usually feel about them.
According to my handy-dandy "Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms," a parable is "a short story based on common experiences that contains a meaning." Now, it also has a separate entry for "parables of Jesus" that says, "the stories told by Jesus throughout the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as a way of teaching. They convey meaning, particularly about the major subject of the reign ("kingdom") of God (see Matt 13)."
This wedding banquet parable is the third parable in a series. (The first one is the parable of the two son [Matt 21:28-31] and the second one is the parable of the wicked tenants [Matt 21:33-44]). All three parables are about judgment, BUT this parable concerns judgment on Christians, unlike the first two which concern judgment of the Jews. Now, you may be scratching your head saying, "How did you figure that out?" Well, thanks again to our friend, Douglas R.A. Hare, I have a little explanation.
The king in the story is God. The wedding feast represents the messianic banquet (cf Rev 19:7-9). Those sent to invite the guests are God's prophets and missionaries. The reference to gather "all the people they could find, both good and bad" is meant to include the Gentile mission of the church. Matthew is concerned about the "mixed" state of the church--namely that with the Gentiles came a lot of false prophets and false disciples. So including the Gentiles means bringing the good ones as well as the bad ones.
Now comes the curious case of the wedding guest who was tossed out. This seems like another withered fig tree moment, doesn't it? Nonsensical. Why is the king (aka God) so harsh with this wedding guest? Didn't the king send servants out to invite EVERYBODY to come to the banquet?! It doesn't seem fair that just because he doesn't have nice clothes to wear he's not allowed in, does it?! We want people to come to church no matter how grubby their clothes are, right?
Well, remember, this is a parable and everything has a special meaning. And according to Mr. Hare, the wedding feast represents the "age to come" (aka heaven) and NOT the church. And the required "clothing" for heaven is a garment of righteousness--behavior in accordance with Jesus' teachings (see 28:19). Hare says, "The man is speechless because he has no defense; he accepted the invitation of the gospel, but refused to conform his life to the gospel."
Jesus adds this (at first) disturbing little interlude as an admonishment to Christians, reminding "Christians that they are by no means exempt from the judgment that fell on those who rejected Jesus and the gospel" (p 252). Hare also notes, "The attached saying, 'for many are called, but few are chosen,' should not be taken as a forecast of the proportion of the saved to the damned. Its function is not to frighten Christians with the thought that the statistical odds are against them but to encourage vigorous effort to live the Christian life" (p. 252).
That's a lot to take in, I know. Does that make sense? Click on the "comments" icon below and tell me what you think!
Happy thinking!
Allison
PS Anyone else have the song "I cannot come to the banquet, don't bother me now, I have married a wife, I have bought me a cow, I have fields and commitments, that cost a pretty sum, please hold me excused, I cannot come" going through his/her head?! Oh, Camp Crestfield, how I miss thee. . . .
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Thurs, Jan. 29: Jesus tells the disciple a story about a father and two sons. Which son did what the father wanted? (Matt 21)
Matthew 21:31 31 "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."
BONUS QUESTION: Why?
And here's the question of the day:
Fri, Jan. 30: What is the last plague God sends on Egypt? (Ex 11)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Another Puzzling Parable
It would be a no-brainer to pick an easier piece of Scripture to think about, right? But I've never been one to do things the easy way! (Just ask my mom.) But I have promised myself not to avoid the hard stuff during the Year of the Bible. So, today is another foray into a hard piece of Scripture.
In chapter 21, Matthew tells us that Jesus' authority was challenged (21:23-27). As a response, he tells a series of parables. Ah, parables. . . usually Jesus' convoluted answer to a simple question. Or at least that how we usually feel about them.
According to my handy-dandy "Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms," a parable is "a short story based on common experiences that contains a meaning." Now, it also has a separate entry for "parables of Jesus" that says, "the stories told by Jesus throughout the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as a way of teaching. They convey meaning, particularly about the major subject of the reign ("kingdom") of God (see Matt 13)."
This wedding banquet parable is the third parable in a series. (The first one is the parable of the two son [Matt 21:28-31] and the second one is the parable of the wicked tenants [Matt 21:33-44]). All three parables are about judgment, BUT this parable concerns judgment on Christians, unlike the first two which concern judgment of the Jews. Now, you may be scratching your head saying, "How did you figure that out?" Well, thanks again to our friend, Douglas R.A. Hare, I have a little explanation.
The king in the story is God. The wedding feast represents the messianic banquet (cf Rev 19:7-9). Those sent to invite the guests are God's prophets and missionaries. The reference to gather "all the people they could find, both good and bad" is meant to include the Gentile mission of the church. Matthew is concerned about the "mixed" state of the church--namely that with the Gentiles came a lot of false prophets and false disciples. So including the Gentiles means bringing the good ones as well as the bad ones.
Now comes the curious case of the wedding guest who was tossed out. This seems like another withered fig tree moment, doesn't it? Nonsensical. Why is the king (aka God) so harsh with this wedding guest? Didn't the king send servants out to invite EVERYBODY to come to the banquet?! It doesn't seem fair that just because he doesn't have nice clothes to wear he's not allowed in, does it?! We want people to come to church no matter how grubby their clothes are, right?
Well, remember, this is a parable and everything has a special meaning. And according to Mr. Hare, the wedding feast represents the "age to come" (aka heaven) and NOT the church. And the required "clothing" for heaven is a garment of righteousness--behavior in accordance with Jesus' teachings (see 28:19). Hare says, "The man is speechless because he has no defense; he accepted the invitation of the gospel, but refused to conform his life to the gospel."
Jesus adds this (at first) disturbing little interlude as an admonishment to Christians, reminding "Christians that they are by no means exempt from the judgment that fell on those who rejected Jesus and the gospel" (p 252). Hare also notes, "The attached saying, 'for many are called, but few are chosen,' should not be taken as a forecast of the proportion of the saved to the damned. Its function is not to frighten Christians with the thought that the statistical odds are against them but to encourage vigorous effort to live the Christian life" (p. 252).
That's a lot to take in, I know. Does that make sense? Click on the "comments" icon below and tell me what you think!
Happy thinking!
Allison
PS Anyone else have the song "I cannot come to the banquet, don't bother me now, I have married a wife, I have bought me a cow, I have fields and commitments, that cost a pretty sum, please hold me excused, I cannot come" going through his/her head?! Oh, Camp Crestfield, how I miss thee. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
