Luke 4:1-14

Luke 4:1-14

We had a pretty awesome discussion. So awesome in fact, that we will continue on this passage for next week. I don' t think we really concluded anything, but we've got some interesting thought processes going which I will describe here.

When we last met our hero, Jesus was being baptized by John and having a geneology recorded. Then, even though it was the devil who would tempt/test him, it was [the] Spirit who led Jesus into the wilderness (I wrote [the] because apparently there's no article in the Greek). We noticed that Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days, possibly correlated to the 40 years of wandering for the Israelites after leaving Egypt before they came to the promised land. Apparently, Moses also fasted for 40 days and nights before getting the commandments (Ex 34:28).

(Side note: when I was in Egypt this summer, we took a trip out to the Sinai Peninsula and while there is dispute over exactly which mountain Moses brought the commandments from, I was definitely walking on ground that had been previously wandered over by Israelites.)

As long as we're making references, each of Jesus' comebacks is a quote from Deuteronomy. 1) The 'man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God' quote comes from Deut 8:3 while Moses is addressing something relating to the Manna. 2) 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve' is in Deut 6:13 and 10:20. 3) 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God' comes from Deut 6:16 which is a reference to Exodus 17. Apparently, 'tempt' here refers to 'trying the Lord by testing his presence.' There was general bemusement over how Jesus tends to use scripture. Here, he's countering scripture with other scripture. Later, he'll quote scripture and interpret it further. How does Jesus use scripture?

We wondered about the implications of the devil starting everything with 'If you are the Son of God' and what it meant for the human/godness of Jesus to be faced with these things. And the devil also uses scripture so we started talking about what it means that the devil hasn't actually lied to Jesus at any point. If Jesus chooses any of his offers, it will be because Jesus is lying to himself that the thing that the devil is offering is more important (though we haven't gotten around to talking about what exactly is important).

It reminded me of the early stoics and their view that people have messed up lives because society convinces them that certain things are good which actually are not good. But society says they're good so people choose them anyway, mistakenly thinking that society is right. People's lives are straightened out when they realize what things in life are the real goods.

We had a lot of topics out on the floor, and I've probably forgotten some.
But the discussion will continue, so tune in next time when we ask:

Satan? WTF?

Luke 3:1-22

Here's my version of a brief recap of Scripture study for the last two weeks.

2 weeks ago - Nov 2nd

Luke 3:1-22

I don't remember the details of this one that well, but we talked about baptism, it's sources in the Old Testament being part of a cleansing ritual for certain uncleannesses and for bringing in foreigners to the Jewish community and what that could mean for how John's contemporaries interpreted his actions and message. We talked John's baptism and 'repentance for the remission of sins', about 'repentance' being a complete change in the way you go about life, and what it means to bring forth 'fruits befitting repentance' (I think that's how TC's bible put it). So, if the fruits are the actions that go in accordance with repentance, then the actions are not themselves the repentence. It's not just that you change your actions, you change the intentions and motivations that those actions come from. And then, because you've changed your intentions, a difference in actions should follow from that.

We talked about the image of the ax at the root of the tree ready to destroy trees that do not produce fruit, and what that might mean if in preparation for Jesus' ministry and this baptism with fire deal.

We talked about how even though the ax at the tree was a very threatening image, and even though John calls people a brood of vipers, his invitation to repentance is for everyone. Everyone can come to change who they are or who they want to be. They ask John what they have to do - the soldiers and the tax collecters come to ask what they must do, and John tells them. It's not an exclusive club. Even the soldiers and the tax collectors can come. These people groups were like, the scum of the Roman empire in the Middle East. They were the manifestations of the Roman presence/oppression in Jerusalem - the military and the taxes of Rome. But John says that they can come, too.
If you're wondering what to do, but you aren't specifically a soldier or a tax collector, maybe John's message to the general public applies:
And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Interestingly, the German House just celebrated St. Martin's Day which is in honor of a saint who shared his cloak with a freezing beggar.


And then Jesus was baptized too. Why? In one of the other gospels, Jesus makes a statement to the effect that it must be this way 'in order to fulfill all righteousness.' Maybe it's a formality, but not an insignificant one.

Tune in to the next email for a continued confusion at what things Jesus as the Son of God (Luke 3:22) finds it appropriate to do.

-Tracy

p.s. I probably left a lot out of this email, but I don't think it's too bad for trying to remember 2 weeks back.

Isaiah 58

Our Bible Study topic for this week

****
Isaiah 58

I really like this chapter.

We started by playing 'word-association' with "Religion/Religious" and considering what those words connoted to us.
like: exploiting, social, righteousness, 'holier than thou', old people, holidays...

we broke the chapter up into bits.

Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.

Wherefore have we fasted, [say they], and thou seest not? [wherefore] have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.


We started by discussion what sort of people God is addressing. The second verse actually looks pretty good, doesn't it? Isn't that what God's people should be doing? But in the third verse we see their questions, wondering why God seems so far off even as they are doing the right things. They have these 'if->then' expectations of what they should do and what God should do because of it. It seems that they're doing everything right, but the last sentence starts in at what God is getting at.

If you already know this verse or this situation, it's easy to say "Oh, well, they thought they were being righteous, but really they had it wrong." But what is that like? What is it like to think you are doing everything right, and being confused that God isn't responding? It sounds like they aren't very different from us. And, obviously it's hard to understand what you're doing wrong when you think you're doing everything right. kind of scary, actually.

The next chunk:

Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as [ye do this] day, to make your voice to be heard on high.

Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? [is it] to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes [under him]? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

[Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

[Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?


The things He's focusing on are a little different than what it seemed the people were doing. Isn't that confusing? What are the significant differences between the peoples' actions and what God wants the peoples' actions to be? We had a diagram with a 'God' bubble interacting with a 'People' bubble. Apparently, the two bubbles aren't communicating effectively and don't understand each other. This is not be best of relationship situations. The people are attempting to reach God with what they think are appropriate religious actions, and being confused. But God doesn't just want the religious actions. In our diagram, his bubble says 'Yo! Do things for your brothers.'
Consider: which of our actions are from our own sense of righteous appropriateness,
and which are genuinely motivated by love?
What is important here? Why does God even have to deliver this message?

What sort of diagram would we make if instead of 'God' interacting with 'The People' we considered 'God' interacting with 'us'?


the ending of Isaiah 58:

God comes back with His own if->then statement for the people.

I want to end this email with this passage, so first:
Consider
Is this real? Seriously. should I believe this?
if not, then what else should I believe?
if so, what does this picture of the world look like? is it worth working for?
what would it mean to work for this? Be concrete, now.

*****

Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.

Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I [am]. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;

And [if] thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness [be] as the noonday:

And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

And [they that shall be] of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
¶
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:

Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].

Luke 10:25-37

We did another scripture study tonight.
I think I'll try to do these consistently.
And hopefully they'll eventually sound more professional.
here's what I sent to our study group:

********

I kind of like writing these. This one won't be as involved though.

Luke 10: 25-37

A man who studied Jewish law asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life.
Jesus asks him how he reads the law.
The man replies with the 2 great commandments (Found in Deut 6 and Lev 18, I believe) of loving the Lord and loving your neighbor.
Jesus says yeah. do that.
so the guy asks who is neighbor is. I guess he didn't feel that the law was clear enough on that.
Jesus tells the story of the Samaritan and asks who was the neighbor in the story.
The man says, "the one who showed mercy"
Jesus says yeah. go do that.

Things to consider:
We found it interesting that in "Love the Lord your God with all your heart/soul(psuche)/strength/ and mind", the word for 'love' is "agapao" - the verb form of 'agape' - which seems to be a very intentional sort of love. Love that is based in the will as opposed to the spleen (where compassion comes from). Much of the Empire was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy which placed a great deal of importance on the mind or will and rationality/order/logos. The word for 'mind' is 'dianoia' which doesn't seem to be anything particularly new: thoughts, understanding, feeling.
So what would intentional love mean?

The first two men to walk past the injured men were a priest and a Levite. It's interesting to consider that both the priest and Levite had important religious duties to uphold, and since touching a dead body makes you unclean, they would have risked defiling themselves and therefore being unable to attend to any of their religious responsibilities that day. In their minds, they would've been totally justified. They can't allow themselves to be unclean, so there's just nothing that they can do about the injured man. The Samaritans were sort of a discriminated-against Jewish sect. They held different beliefs and to touch a Samaritan was also to render oneself unclean. So actually, if the injured man was Jewish, the Samaritan could have been defiling him by helping him.
Michael suggested that the Samaritan is kind of operating from a position of having nothing to lose, and this plus seeing what is most important gives him power to cross social categories. We considered this in light of the call to die to ourselves. What are we in a position to lose?

Also interesting was the idea that when people talk about someone being a 'Good Samaritan', they often mean that the person did something right. But actually, in the story, the priest and the Levite were the ones who did their duty in staying clean and the Samaritan is the one who broke the social rules to help the injured man. We tried to think of ways in which we think we are right and justified, but perhaps we're really just buying into what our social categories tell us about what is the right thing to do when Jesus would have us do something different.

Another thing is, the story is not about the Samaritan helping his neighbor the injured man. The story is about the Samaritan being a neighbor to the injured man. The teacher of the law describes him as 'the one who showed mercy'. Jesus says, 'go and do likewise.' So if we intentionally make ourselves a neighbor to everyone, then everyone is our neighbor by association.

So basically, what we have to think about is - what does it mean to go about living with an intentional love for God and for our neighbors? What does it mean to love them like we love ourselves (and one might ask, do we love ourselves?)? When can we be 'doing the right thing,' but not showing mercy? What does it mean to show mercy? What, exactly, is Jesus asking us to give here?

And man, how awkward would it be if you were an outcast that no one associated with, carrying an injured man who you shouldn't be touching, into the city where no one accepts you, to look for help? How badly would you have to want him to be safe in order to put yourself through that?

Man.

happy Thursday,

-Tracy

Luke 4:13-32

I mostly want to post something today, because I like the numbers in today's date. Maybe I can get good numbers on the time stamp too.

We've started a scripture study group in my dorm.
Some of us kept discussing the topic after other people had to go off to jobs and such, people seemed interested in hearing how the conversation went, so I hastily typed a sort of discussion summary from some notes to send to them.

Please don't judge my writing or coherency by this.
This is what I sent:

I typed this really fast.
I hope it's coherent:

hey guys.
Some of you left on time, but we kept talking. Here's what we talked about.


The passage is Luke 4:13-32

Jesus goes back to Nazareth and pretty much introduces himself and his ministry by reading from Isaiah 61. The people are impressed and then he says some stuff that makes them upset enough to want to throw him off of a cliff. But he escaped with typical Jesus-y mysterious ease and went to go preach somewhere else where he apparently did not make enough inflammatory remarks to make the people want to kill him.

The text from Isaiah 61 is
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa061.html#top
quoted in Luke
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk004.html#13
Jesus chooses to quote the top part (It's possible that Isaiah 61 was the Scripture passage for that week, so I'm not sure how much of it was his choice of where to read. There are other important aspects of synagogue services that may be significant, but I don't really know enough about them)

Our questions:
What does it mean to preach the acceptable year of the Lord?
What does it mean that it's been fulfilled?
why does Jesus start up with the 'Doctor, heal thyself' stuff?
Why does everyone get so angry so fast?
How should we interpret the passage from Isaiah?
Why does Jesus present himself in the synagogue in this way?
Verse 13: he escapes. How?

I only really started taking notes after people had to leave, so I might not cover some of our initial discussions here but:

We wondered if perhaps Jesus was using the whole situation to try to clarify that his message.

"The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

was in complete effect for everyone. Not to you and you and you. the TIME for this has begun. For everyone. And perhaps the people of Nazareth thought of it as theirs. That he had come back to his hometown to bring deliverance and healing and sight to them. And Jesus goes and cites times in their own religious history when God has sent healing and provision not to His people the Jews, but to foreigners. The widow that Elijah was sent to was not a Jew, though many Jews starved in the same famine. The Syrian that Elisha was sent to heal was not Jewish. This may have been especially a big deal back then because the people of the time didn't have this concept of the afterlife in which all things would be made right. If God was going to bring justice to someone, they thought it would be brought in the present lifetime.

I don't think Jesus meant to say that his message was NOT for them, but often, messages like this sound noble and good until you see what they actually mean in real life. Example) before the destruction of the 1st temple, Israel at this time (the audience of Isaiah) was an overall prosperous nation, but many of the high-class (financially and religious) had attained their status through a system which became oppressive to the poor. The poor cried out to God for justice and provision. The rich also asked God for justice. But if God was going to equal out the whole scenario that means raising up the poor.... at the expense of the rich. Going to Cairo, or even going to DownTown Portland sometimes reminds me of how ridiculously rich I am in comparison to so many people. How can I ask God for justice unless I am willing to be brought down so that others may be raised up and we can all be restored to an equal footing again?

Anyway, the Jews have an entire religious history built up of what to expect from the Messiah and what they expect from Jesus - Joseph's son. Jesus proclaiming healing to them and then citing times that healing had been specifically for non-Jews must have sounded like blasphemy. This is no way for a Messiah to talk.

So here are some questions...
What if all you knew about Christ was how he presented himself to the synagogue and specifically, what he quoted from Isaiah 61?
How do you respond to this announcement?
If you were introducing Jesus, would you have done it this way?
Does it make you think any further about who he is and what he's trying to do?
What does this mean for us if we claim to be his followers?
If you were introducing yourself to a church, what would you choose to say about yourself?

What if Jesus walked into your church and said a bunch of stuff that sounded like heresy?
We tried to think of things that we wouldn't expect Jesus to say and hit the wall of, "well, if we don't expect him to say it, we assume he wouldn't."

We couldn't really come to an exact conclusion, given that what we were discussing was unexpected things. But I think a general consensus was that it's worth pondering - in what ways do we try to make Jesus fit our expectations, and in what ways is God perhaps trying to call us into an understanding of something different? In what ways do we ignore it because it's not what we expect it to be?

Man, this was a long email.
Good job if you actually made it this far.
I definitely haven't covered everything we talked about. I guess you had to be there.. ;)
I hope I remembered the main points though.

This is one of my favorite passages, and if anyone wants to tell me what they think about it or talk about it sometime, I'd be more than happy to hear your opinion.

Let me reiterate that this is one of my favorite passages.
It's so beautiful.

-Tracy

I hope that I'll remember to come back to these ideas and flesh them out sometime. If this stuff (what Jesus was talking about) is true and real, it's one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. I'm so glad we have God that wants beautiful things for the world and for us, even when we don't even understand what it would look like for the world to be this way.