Monday, March 26, 2012

But that just doesn't make sense to me!

I'm always interested in what does/does not make sense to people.

Recently we had a sermon on John 4, the woman at the well, in which the interaction between Jesus and the Samaritan woman was presented as a paradigm for evangelism.
That doesn't make sense to me.
Jesus draws attention to his own identity to reply to the womans rebuff
"If you knew who I was....." Should I do that?
Jesus bizarrely asks the woman to get her husband, then knows about her marital history.
Am I meant to have prophetic knowledge of peoples circumstances too?
Jesus kind of puts down the woman religious knowledge and practices. Should I do that too?
Jesus identified himself as the Christ. Should I do that too?

So I had to do a Bible study on same passage. I fear my Bible study made little to no sense to those who came along. Here are some points.

John 2-4 sees a similar movement to Acts 1:8. Jesus first goes to Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, and then , in the form of the Samaritans confession and the imperial official, to the ends of the world. The disciples are drawn in for the harvest, but are reaping from what Jesus has worked.

The conflict is obvious from the beginning, Jesus is a Jew and the woman is a samaritan. What was the problem with Samaritans. Well the problem began way back in 1 Kings 12. The northern tribes split off from the south and Jereboam (from Shechem), their leader decides to set up temples other than the one in Jerusalem.

Eventaully the North is smashed for their idolatry by Assyria. In the place of the people, Assyria moves in other nations, with other Gods. Here is 2 Kings 17:29-33 29 Nevertheless, each national group made its own gods in the several towns where they settled, and set them up in the shrines the people of Samaria had made at the high places. 30 The people from Babylon made Sukkoth Benoth, those from Kuthah made Nergal, and those from Hamath made Ashima; 31 the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelek and Anammelek, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 They worshiped the LORD, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places. 33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.

Note there are five groups listed, with their Gods.
In 2 Kings 18:34 there is a list of another 5 groups, with their God's who did not save Samaria.

Ezekiel, in the context of indicting Jerusalem as an adulterer, also mentions Samaria, and her restoration

53 “‘However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55 And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before. 56 You would not even mention your sister Sodom in the day of your pride, 57 before your wickedness was uncovered. Even so, you are now scorned by the daughters of Edom[a] and all her neighbors and the daughters of the Philistines—all those around you who despise you. 58 You will bear the consequences of your lewdness and your detestable practices, declares the LORD.

59 “‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. 60 Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger. I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you. 62 So I will establish my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD. 63 Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”


Note that Samaria is described also as an adulterous woman, and her restoration is to shame Jerusalem and is not on the basis of the covenant with Jerusalem.

All of Israel herself is spoken of as an adulterous wife to YHWH. Famously in the book of Hosea, but also in Isaiah 54:6 The LORD will call you back
as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—
a wife who married young,
only to be rejected,” says your God.
7 “For a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with deep compassion I will bring you back.
8 In a surge of anger
I hid my face from you for a moment,
but with everlasting kindness
I will have compassion on you,”
says the LORD your Redeemer.

And so it shouldn't too difficult to recognise in John 4 the biblical typescene of a betrothment.
All of our movies have fairly stock standard boy-meets-girl tropes, which are instantly recognisable to us.
The bible also has a pattern for how engagements happen.

1. The bridegroom is encouraged to leave his family (or kicked out) and journeys to a foreign land
2. He meets a girl at a well
3. Someone draws water from the well
4. He reveals his identity
5. The girl runs home to tell the family
6. They get married
7. Eventually he returns back to his family and is welcomed

Isaac and Rebekah(done for him) Genesis 24:12-21
Jacob and Rachel (the grandma of Samaria)Gen 29:1-12
Moses and Zipporah Exodus 2:15-22
Saul and Israel 1 Sam 9 (Saul messes with the story, instead of getting a wife (or the donkeys he is looking for), he meets a prophet, who tells him everything that is on his heart, calls him the ‘desire of all Israel’ and annoints him as Messiah.

Contextual factors point to a betrothal scene here too.
Jesus has just been described as 'the bridegroom' by John the baptist (3:29), which is also connected to Jesus' role as the Christ. Prior wedding language has also appeared in chapter 2, where Jesus assumes the duties of the bridegroom, though 'his time has not yet come'.

Jesus then, leaves his family, travels to a strange country, meets a woman at the well, reveals his identity, she runs back to tell the family (city) they come and rejoice, and then Jesus returns to his family and is welcomed there (even though a prophet is not welcome in his home town).

This is a betrothal scene. But the woman is not the bride, or, in a sense she is, in as much as she represents Samaria, and Jesus is YHWH/the Christ her bridegroom.
Jesus comes to Shechem, to Mt Gerazim, to the spiritual heartland of Samaria. To Jacobs field, to the well, to the stones of blessing and cursing from Deuteronomy.

And when he gets there he offers living water.
What is this living water and how is it connected to Jesus identity?
Jeremiah 17:13 speaks of YHWH himself as the living water. Psalms like Psalm 46 speak of a river of gladness that flows from the presence of YHWH in his Temple. Ezekiel 47 picks up similar imagery with a river that flows from beneath the right shoulder of the Temple, bringing life and abundance.
The living water comes from YHWH and his temple. Jesus has already described his body as the Temple. In John 7:37-39, the living water is the Holy Spirit, given after Jesus death. In John John 19:34, Jesus is pierced beneath the shoulder (his breast in one tradion 'his right breast', and blood and water flow from his side. In John 21, Jesus will supply the numerolgically significant 153 fish to the fisherman, as in Ezekiel 47 (See Richard Bauckham on Gematria and unity in John for this one).
The living water is Jesus' identity as YHWH and temple, able to give eschatological life, through the pouring out of the Spirit.
This explains the relativising of the worship sites of Mt Gerazim and Jerusalem. Worship is now centred around Jesus (the truth), empowered by the Spirit.

What of Jesus request for the woman to call her husband? How does this fit into the wider, symbolic reading of the woman?

A hint may be that the Hebrew word for husband and the Hebrew word for Baal (divine Lord/god) share the same root and are essentially the same word.
Samaria at this time has no Lord/Baal.
She has had five Baal's (remember the listing of five groups with their Gods?) and the Baal she has now isn't really hers.
I assume this last reference is to Samaritan worship of YHWH. He is not really Samaria's husband, for salvation comes from the Jews, and the Samaritans worship what they don't know.

The samaritans come to believe in Jesus however, so in one sense, the divine bridegroom does indeed get his bride. This is delayed though, until chapter 12. More are to be included in this bride. It is not until chapter 12, when greeks wish to see Jesus , that Jesus declares 'My time has come'

John's concern is to present Jesus as the bridegroom for Jews, Samaria and the entire world.
He is the source of the Spirit, that life giving water. He is the temple and so the centre of worship. He goes ahead of the disciples, sowing the seed of salvation, completing the work the Father sent him to do. The disciples simply reap the harvest.

Complicated, but make more sense to me.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Every New Testament book is the result of a number of theological traditions

No I'm not arguing for a documentary hypothesis that cuts up books of the Bible into ever smaller portions. Simply ruminating on the process of Canonisation.
Now, alot of Protestants have issues with the Church deciding what is Scripture. The counter argument is that the church simply received Scripture, rather than made it. And this is true to an extent, but nevertheless, the early church had to recognize the apostolic gospel in each of the writings.
I want to argue that this is a strength, that allows us to read each book with confidence. Each book can be read as the witness of 'the apostles (collective)', not just 'this apostle (or not)'.
Let me explain.
The early church arises as apostles go out and preach the gospel. We can pretty safely assume that individual church communities are heavily influenced by those who formed them. Of course there are cross overs and interactions, but there are probably going to be more 'Peter' groups, more 'james', more 'anonymous' groups etc
Now, when it comes time to canonize Scripture, all of these groups are involved. The decision must be accepted by all. We don't have all of Paul's letters in the Scriptures, only those judged by 'James' christians, 'John Christians' 'Peter Christians' and 'Anonymous christians' to be in accord with the teaching of the Apostles.

Paul's letters, then, are not simply an example of 'Pauline theology', but are accepted as congruent with all the Apostles teaching.
This allows the possibility that Apostles, like Peter, could say and write things that were a bit off, but that we don't find them in the Scriptures.
The authority of each book in the NT is not then simply that it was 'written by an Apostle', but that it is in accord with the collective witness of the Apostles.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

After 10 years, on and off, of teaching Special Religious Education in Schools, I was told today that I could no longer teach in Schools.
It isn’t because of secular ethics, nor gross misconduct on my part. Simply that I’m bad at holding on to certificates.
My SRE teaching experience began at Wentworth Falls Public School and sitting in with a very experienced SRE teacher at Katoomba High School, back in 2002. I taught Primary for two years and High School for five. The first classes were terrifying, but you eventually got into a rhythm. Most helpful were the (then optional) Youthworks courses that we did one day down at Emu Plains, on the bible, classroom management, child development etc.
Of course this was combined with the onslaught of Child protection courses, which grabbed you wherever you went.
Now, at the end of each of these courses you get a certificate. But does a 22yr old who has walked away from a career to teach the gospel for free keep a good filing system. Not this one!! (it was an arts career after all) Nine house moves, two floods and one theological degree later, the chances of finding those certs are slim.
So when I’m informed that to continue teach scripture I will have to have completed said courses, I’m not too worried. I’ve done them, yep, trained, tick, yikes the people even ordained me. Nothing to worry about. Keep teaching kids.
But, you do in fact have to have those certificates.
So, they will be in that pile of papers somewhere right? Right???
And I’ll get to them when I get time for it , right?
Documentation
Stability.

Now, it is my own silly fault for not keeping the pieces of paper for optional courses that then become mandatory later. But it still raises a problem for teaching Scripture in schools, and churches recruiting people to do it.
The assumption is that those who teach scripture are nice, stable people who keep a nice filing system. Now this shouldn’t have come as a surprise. I learned fairly early on teaching scripture that the lesson material assumed that you had a car and quite a budget to spend on your lessons.
But here is the problem.
Some of our Scripture teachers are nice , stable people, with (I assume) good filing habits.
However. Most of our nice, stable people in church are off in nice, stable jobs, and so can’t teach the SRE they get so angry about defending. That sometimes leaves the crazy fools who just want to tell people about Jesus.

I’m not sure what the next step is for me. I’m still hunting for those certificates. Perhaps I will have to sit through a few hours of training courses.

But my advice to all those young punks.....
be the crazy fool, leave your career, live in a squalid sharehouse because the church pretends to pay you, be unstable, move alot if you have to. You will find places to speak of Jesus' kingdom without accreditation. But hey, if you can do that and hold onto those certificates, that would probably make sense too.

Monday, March 12, 2012

What was going on in the Hart Family?

I just found out that a the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has a brother who is an Anglican priest and another brother who is a Roman Catholic priest.

Makes me wonde what was going on in that family.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Jacob and Esau as a background to the Prodigal Son

Hi yall,
I'm toying with the idea of Jacobs reunion with Esau in Gen 33 as a background to the story of the lost son in Luke 15.

A younger Son nicks the inheritance, (though in Genesis flourishes), returns fearful and pronouncing himself a servant, Esau (the brother, not the Father), runs, throws arms around and kisses the younger brother.

The interesting thing with this background is that Jesus seems to be saying that the lost son is like Israel.
Haven't checked any commentaries or anything yet, just chucking the idea out there

Monday, March 5, 2012

Been wondering what to do with your mad koine skills?

Been wondering what to do with your mad koine skills?
Been halfheartedly waiting for Hendrickson to get that reprint of Early Church Fathers out, in the vain hope that Koorong will match Christianbooks massively low price?
But don't really want to deal with Schaff's faffing?
Do I have the solution for you.

Did you know that you can get (almost) the entirety of Mignes Patrologicae, for free, as PDFs, indexed to author HERE.
Don't waste that greek people, or pretend that it is some magical holy language only the Bible speaks. Get your teeth into the Fathers!
Bam!