This past Sunday, I sat in on my church's adult Sunday School. The passage we read was the Anointing of David by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). This is a fabulous text and it sparked good conversation. As we were talking, I thought about the perplexing issue of David. God chose the young shepherd as the replacement for Saul, the king who had been chosen by the people. David and Saul are often held up as example of good and bad. The actual text, however, is less black-and-white.
David is not perfect. He is an adulterer and murderer, who uses his God-given position and authority to cause the death of his mistress' husband, Uriah. Saul, likewise, isn't all bad. As God's favor turns away from him, I can't help but feel sorry for him. He is earnest in his desire to rule well. Comparing to David's transgressions to Saul's, it's sometimes hard to tell who's the good king and who's the bad king.
Yet David is special. He is "a man after God's own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). This "heart" talk is repeated in chapter 16, when God tells Samuel that men and women "look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7). The heart is important to God. Something in David's heart appeals to him, while something in Saul's does not. It might be as simple as that. As were were discussing the text, the image of the cardiologist--the heart doctor--came to me. God is the Divine Cardiologist.
As the Cardiologist, he's interested in our heart health. Are we exercising it enough? How do we exercise our hearts? Walking, cycling and running are good for our hearts, but God is looking deeper. We must work out by loving more, caring more, feeling more for those we see (and those who we'll never see). Compassion is the exercise of the heart that the Divine Cardiologist prescribes. Quite simply, we must become more like Christ in the way we think, feel, and act. We must conform our heart to His. It's quite a workout. It gets easier the more we do it (like most exercise), but it never becomes automatic. We must always choose.
The right author (e.g. Maxine Dunham) could probably write a devotional book or short-term Bible study on God-as-Cardiologist. I'm probably not that guy. Who knows?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
This Week's Lectionary
I've got some meaty choices this Sunday, and I want to choose early in the week, rather than later. I'm attending an all-day conference on Youth Ministry at Houghton College on Thursday, and would like to have the reading locked down before that. The big choice is between the Gospel and Epistle readings.
The Gospel reading is Matthew 4:12-23, which tells the story of the calling of the first disciples. The Epistle reading is First Corinthians 1:10-18, an exhortation to unity among the believers in Corinth. Both are great stories.
The Isaiah reading (Isaiah 9:1-4) brings a bit of confusion, especially when paired with the Matthew reading. The versification is unclear here. In most modern Bibles, Isaiah 9:1 doesn't seem to flow into 9:2. The text seems to change gears between the verses. In fact, the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint both number 9:1 as 8:23, tacking it on to the preceding chapter. This makes better sense as I read it, though it's still not crystal clear. How the modern Bibles got the verses changed can probably be traced (as so many things can) to the Latin Vulgate Bible. Saint Jerome labels the Hebrew Isaiah 8:23 as 9:1, and most modern (post-Vulgate) Bibles cleave to the versification of the Vulgate. Why Jerome deviates from the Hebrew and Septuagint numbering is beyond me.
Anyhoo, this is more than just an interesting [to me, at least] detour in textual criticism. The Matthew passage (Matthew 4:12-23) cites the Isaiah text. Matthew's citations (where they can be identified) are universally from the Septuagint. In this case, he connects verses 8:23 (the modern 9:1) and 9:1 (the modern 9:2). Modern readers with modern verse numbers will find these two verses connected (9:1-2) in their Bibles and not blink an eye. The author of the first gospel, however, would have to explicitly make the connection between verses in two hard-to-connect chapters (8:23 and 9:1).
I'm generally underwhelmed by the author of Matthew's use of Scripture, and this citation is a perfect example. While I admire his excellent use of Typological Prophecy in some of his citations, he often seems to be straining to connect the story of Jesus with the stories of the Hebrew Bible. Many of these connections don't seem to make sense at first (or second) glance. The connection cited in Matthew 4 between the lands of Zebulun & Naphtali and the coming of the great light in the darkness is forced, at best. The only connection in the base reading of the text seems to be the fact that the verses are adjacent. Hardly a deep, theological connection.
Because of this textual confusion and the less-then-clear connection between the verses cited, I'm leaning towards the First Corinthians passage. I'm not afraid to tackle tough textual issues, I just wonder if the best place to do it is a ten-minute sermon. I suspect it would leave people uninspired, not to mentioned confused and perhaps annoyed.
The Psalm for this week is great (Psalm 27), but the lectionary does it's standard hatchet job on it. They suggest reading verses 1 and 4-9. I hate it when they do this. What did poor verses 2 and 3 do? They mention evildoers and enemies, strife and calamity. Without those two verses, we get a watered-down Happy Sunshine poem of praise! It's the curse of the Easy Answer all over again (I need to write an essay on the Easy Answer and the huge problems it causes). Ah well... Maybe I need to preach on the Easy Answer this week? Hmmmm...
The Gospel reading is Matthew 4:12-23, which tells the story of the calling of the first disciples. The Epistle reading is First Corinthians 1:10-18, an exhortation to unity among the believers in Corinth. Both are great stories.
The Isaiah reading (Isaiah 9:1-4) brings a bit of confusion, especially when paired with the Matthew reading. The versification is unclear here. In most modern Bibles, Isaiah 9:1 doesn't seem to flow into 9:2. The text seems to change gears between the verses. In fact, the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint both number 9:1 as 8:23, tacking it on to the preceding chapter. This makes better sense as I read it, though it's still not crystal clear. How the modern Bibles got the verses changed can probably be traced (as so many things can) to the Latin Vulgate Bible. Saint Jerome labels the Hebrew Isaiah 8:23 as 9:1, and most modern (post-Vulgate) Bibles cleave to the versification of the Vulgate. Why Jerome deviates from the Hebrew and Septuagint numbering is beyond me.
Anyhoo, this is more than just an interesting [to me, at least] detour in textual criticism. The Matthew passage (Matthew 4:12-23) cites the Isaiah text. Matthew's citations (where they can be identified) are universally from the Septuagint. In this case, he connects verses 8:23 (the modern 9:1) and 9:1 (the modern 9:2). Modern readers with modern verse numbers will find these two verses connected (9:1-2) in their Bibles and not blink an eye. The author of the first gospel, however, would have to explicitly make the connection between verses in two hard-to-connect chapters (8:23 and 9:1).
I'm generally underwhelmed by the author of Matthew's use of Scripture, and this citation is a perfect example. While I admire his excellent use of Typological Prophecy in some of his citations, he often seems to be straining to connect the story of Jesus with the stories of the Hebrew Bible. Many of these connections don't seem to make sense at first (or second) glance. The connection cited in Matthew 4 between the lands of Zebulun & Naphtali and the coming of the great light in the darkness is forced, at best. The only connection in the base reading of the text seems to be the fact that the verses are adjacent. Hardly a deep, theological connection.
Because of this textual confusion and the less-then-clear connection between the verses cited, I'm leaning towards the First Corinthians passage. I'm not afraid to tackle tough textual issues, I just wonder if the best place to do it is a ten-minute sermon. I suspect it would leave people uninspired, not to mentioned confused and perhaps annoyed.
The Psalm for this week is great (Psalm 27), but the lectionary does it's standard hatchet job on it. They suggest reading verses 1 and 4-9. I hate it when they do this. What did poor verses 2 and 3 do? They mention evildoers and enemies, strife and calamity. Without those two verses, we get a watered-down Happy Sunshine poem of praise! It's the curse of the Easy Answer all over again (I need to write an essay on the Easy Answer and the huge problems it causes). Ah well... Maybe I need to preach on the Easy Answer this week? Hmmmm...
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Quiet Sunday Morning
This is my favorite time of the week. I'm in my church office, overlooking the Sanctuary. I've come in quite early to prepare for this morning's worship, but now all my preparations are complete. I've got some time to just sit here and think.
I'm nor preaching this Sunday, which is odd. The retired pastor from our community, Rev. Howard Warriner, is preaching the story of the Good Samaritan. I'll be leading worship, doing everything I normally do except preach. It give me different things to think about this morning. I'm also doing special music today, singing If I Had a Hammer for/with the congregation. It's a great song for Human Relations Day (which is today, in the United Methodist Church).
We got a dusting of snow yesterday, with a bit more coming in the next few days. Nothing dramatic, but it looks nice.
I'm nor preaching this Sunday, which is odd. The retired pastor from our community, Rev. Howard Warriner, is preaching the story of the Good Samaritan. I'll be leading worship, doing everything I normally do except preach. It give me different things to think about this morning. I'm also doing special music today, singing If I Had a Hammer for/with the congregation. It's a great song for Human Relations Day (which is today, in the United Methodist Church).
We got a dusting of snow yesterday, with a bit more coming in the next few days. Nothing dramatic, but it looks nice.
Friday, January 11, 2008
New Day Off
This week I started taking Thursday off. My previous day off was Monday, but I changed to to match Kristen's work schedule. It was pretty great. I didn't go anywhere or do anything. I took a nap on our spare bed, which has a delightful high-density foam mattress. It was delicious. I hope to have a more meaningful post soon.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Two Kings!
I'm preaching this morning about the Magi, or Wise Men, from Matthew 2. Last night I was reading the New Interpreter's Bible and an idea struck me. The author of the NIB Matthew section, M. Eugene Boring, writes about the problems caused when the Magi come to Herod, the "king of Judea" and ask him where the "new" king was to be found. Herod was understandably upset. Who was this new king and why hadn't Herod heard about him before this?
The commentary goes on to nicely contrast the two kings and the two kingdoms that will be played against each other throughout Matthew's gospel. Herod's realm is an earthly one, Jesus' is much more than that. Despite this, the threat to the established order (Herod's) is quite real.
When reading this, my mind was cast back to the fall of 2000, when I took Intro to the Old Testament under Dr. Stephen Cook at VTS. I wrote a paper on First Samuel 16, where the Lord instructs Samuel to go to Bethlehem, to the house of Jesse, and anoint one of his sons. This is a radical act. Anointing is what you do to kings, and there already is a king in Israel: Saul! The two texts both contrast two kings and two kindgoms. In the Samuel story, God has grown disappointed with Saul and has decided to select as a new king someone after His own heart. Davis is this new king, but he is anointed as a child, while Saul still sits on the throne. Fortunately for David, his anointing is kept secret while he grows up and eventually ends up in Saul's court. Still, the tension between Saul and David begins soon after they meet ("Saul has killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands!") and continues throughout their lives, soon erupting into violence.
Anyhoo, I'm NOT preaching on this parallel story, but I wanted to write it down before I forgot it!
The commentary goes on to nicely contrast the two kings and the two kingdoms that will be played against each other throughout Matthew's gospel. Herod's realm is an earthly one, Jesus' is much more than that. Despite this, the threat to the established order (Herod's) is quite real.
When reading this, my mind was cast back to the fall of 2000, when I took Intro to the Old Testament under Dr. Stephen Cook at VTS. I wrote a paper on First Samuel 16, where the Lord instructs Samuel to go to Bethlehem, to the house of Jesse, and anoint one of his sons. This is a radical act. Anointing is what you do to kings, and there already is a king in Israel: Saul! The two texts both contrast two kings and two kindgoms. In the Samuel story, God has grown disappointed with Saul and has decided to select as a new king someone after His own heart. Davis is this new king, but he is anointed as a child, while Saul still sits on the throne. Fortunately for David, his anointing is kept secret while he grows up and eventually ends up in Saul's court. Still, the tension between Saul and David begins soon after they meet ("Saul has killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands!") and continues throughout their lives, soon erupting into violence.
Anyhoo, I'm NOT preaching on this parallel story, but I wanted to write it down before I forgot it!
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Happy New Year!
Well, it's 2008! It's been a whirlwind since Christmas. We had a wonderful Christmas Eve service at the church, then we dashed off to Saint Mary's, Pennsylvania Christmas morning, where we spent a few days doing not much at all. It was just what the doctor ordered!
We had some friends from Virginia visit over New Year's. They brought their three dogs, so it was an exciting adventure keeping them separate from Baby (they did not play nicely). We saw I Am Legend in the theater. I liked it well enough, but thought it was a rip-off of The Omega Man. I went home and looked it up on Wikipedia and they were both adaptations of the same novel. No wonder!
Now I'm getting in the swing of this new year. I got a good bit done at the office. I'm preparing for the church's annual Charge Conference, which will be held on Monday night. Lots of paperwork. Ug. Still, I'm getting my hands around the church's membership records. Fun, fun, fun!
It was 17 degrees this morning, with a bitterly cold wind. I took the dog out at 6:30 in sweatpants, which were not up to the challenge. I almost froze before Baby took care of business. The temperature dropped from there. It was up to 18 degrees on the Steuben Trust clock/thermometer sign this afternoon. Brrrrr... I think I'm OK coat-wise, but I really don't have any special cold weather footgear. I need to work on that.
We had some friends from Virginia visit over New Year's. They brought their three dogs, so it was an exciting adventure keeping them separate from Baby (they did not play nicely). We saw I Am Legend in the theater. I liked it well enough, but thought it was a rip-off of The Omega Man. I went home and looked it up on Wikipedia and they were both adaptations of the same novel. No wonder!
Now I'm getting in the swing of this new year. I got a good bit done at the office. I'm preparing for the church's annual Charge Conference, which will be held on Monday night. Lots of paperwork. Ug. Still, I'm getting my hands around the church's membership records. Fun, fun, fun!
It was 17 degrees this morning, with a bitterly cold wind. I took the dog out at 6:30 in sweatpants, which were not up to the challenge. I almost froze before Baby took care of business. The temperature dropped from there. It was up to 18 degrees on the Steuben Trust clock/thermometer sign this afternoon. Brrrrr... I think I'm OK coat-wise, but I really don't have any special cold weather footgear. I need to work on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)