If you read my post "Pride" yesterday you saw me come to an interpretation of scripture that I have never heard used before.
The scripture in question can be found in all the synoptic gospels. Mark and Luke are pretty much identical. Jesus calls Levi, a tax collector, goes and eats at Levi's house with other tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees ask "why do you eat with tax collectors and sinners?" to which Jesus replies "It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
This response should seem odd to anybody that reads it. Is Jesus really saying that the Pharisees are righteous? Doesn't he blast them for their actions repeatedly?
I think this is one of those "ears to hear" moments.
Matthew's account of the story is slightly different. Levi is now named Matthew. But there's one other difference. Jesus' response is three sentences instead of two. He still says the same two sentences found in Mark and Luke but in the middle of them there is this "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"
That line comes out of Hosea 6:6. And I have to ask: Did I miss something?
In all the times I've heard this story told I don't think I've ever heard Matthew's account. I don't think I've ever heard Jesus remind them that God wants mercy, not sacrifice.
I argued yesterday that the sickness Jesus is talking about is not their sin. We know that all are sinners. When they bring Jesus a woman to be stoned he tells that if they are without sin they may throw the first stone and they all walk away. So when Jesus says he's come to call the sinners he's actually talking about everybody.
So why does he use the doctor line?
I think it's because tax collectors and those who were labeled as "sinners" knew how low they were in society. They were, after all, labeled. Their sickness comes from society. I related this to how the gay community is treated today. There is a reason suicide among gay teens is so much higher than the norm. They have been labeled. They suffer from society's abuse. Their sickness is having to live in a society that tells them they deserve to be treated as less than human, not from their own feelings or actions.
Today I had a similar experience where I had to ask "Did I miss something?"
Today was even more striking than yesterday. Today I was presented with a scripture I am positive I have never heard preached on. The scripture is Romans 4:13-17. See if you've ever heard it preached:
I've heard being justified by faith alone. But why haven't I heard for this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants.
I've heard faith without works is dead. But why haven't I heard if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void?
I've heard loud preachers say that natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina were caused by the sin of New Orleans. But why haven't I heard the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation?
Why is the topic of civil rights for all people even an issue for Christians when we have Romans? The law certainly brings wrath but we are not adherents of the law. There is no law. There is no violation.
Romans is revolutionary even today! We are not bound by the constraints of the law. God demands mercy not sacrifice; forgiveness not judgement. Grace is guaranteed to all not just to those that follow the law.
So I ask again: Did I miss something?
When did we go from being a church that told people to come as they are, that God loves them as they are, to being a church that required you to follow certain rules? Did I miss Paul's recant?
Reading Romans 4:13-17 today was mind blowing, paradigm shifting, and most of all confusing.
I've never heard anybody preach on it. Maybe it's too radical to be said in church. We are not bound by the law and that is good; for where there is no law, neither is there violation. Grace is free to all. There is no wrath when there is no law. And maybe we're afraid to preach this because we're worried that if we admit that this is true than what's to stop people from just letting their hair down, so to speak.
Can this really be it? Do we have such a low opinion of ourselves that we think that if we tell people this that faithful disciples of Jesus are going to go out and act against the law any more than they already do?
We are redeemed. Our faith has washed us clean and the law never can. The law can only dirty us.
Maybe it's time we stopped throwing the law at each other. Maybe it's time we just went back to our roots of welcoming others as they are. Maybe it's time that our doors, hearts, and minds were open and left unchained by the law.
The scripture in question can be found in all the synoptic gospels. Mark and Luke are pretty much identical. Jesus calls Levi, a tax collector, goes and eats at Levi's house with other tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees ask "why do you eat with tax collectors and sinners?" to which Jesus replies "It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
This response should seem odd to anybody that reads it. Is Jesus really saying that the Pharisees are righteous? Doesn't he blast them for their actions repeatedly?
I think this is one of those "ears to hear" moments.
Matthew's account of the story is slightly different. Levi is now named Matthew. But there's one other difference. Jesus' response is three sentences instead of two. He still says the same two sentences found in Mark and Luke but in the middle of them there is this "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"
That line comes out of Hosea 6:6. And I have to ask: Did I miss something?
In all the times I've heard this story told I don't think I've ever heard Matthew's account. I don't think I've ever heard Jesus remind them that God wants mercy, not sacrifice.
I argued yesterday that the sickness Jesus is talking about is not their sin. We know that all are sinners. When they bring Jesus a woman to be stoned he tells that if they are without sin they may throw the first stone and they all walk away. So when Jesus says he's come to call the sinners he's actually talking about everybody.
So why does he use the doctor line?
I think it's because tax collectors and those who were labeled as "sinners" knew how low they were in society. They were, after all, labeled. Their sickness comes from society. I related this to how the gay community is treated today. There is a reason suicide among gay teens is so much higher than the norm. They have been labeled. They suffer from society's abuse. Their sickness is having to live in a society that tells them they deserve to be treated as less than human, not from their own feelings or actions.
Today I had a similar experience where I had to ask "Did I miss something?"
Today was even more striking than yesterday. Today I was presented with a scripture I am positive I have never heard preached on. The scripture is Romans 4:13-17. See if you've ever heard it preached:
For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.
For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations.")How have I never heard this preached? Did I miss something?
I've heard being justified by faith alone. But why haven't I heard for this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants.
I've heard faith without works is dead. But why haven't I heard if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void?
I've heard loud preachers say that natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina were caused by the sin of New Orleans. But why haven't I heard the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation?
Why is the topic of civil rights for all people even an issue for Christians when we have Romans? The law certainly brings wrath but we are not adherents of the law. There is no law. There is no violation.
Romans is revolutionary even today! We are not bound by the constraints of the law. God demands mercy not sacrifice; forgiveness not judgement. Grace is guaranteed to all not just to those that follow the law.
So I ask again: Did I miss something?
When did we go from being a church that told people to come as they are, that God loves them as they are, to being a church that required you to follow certain rules? Did I miss Paul's recant?
Reading Romans 4:13-17 today was mind blowing, paradigm shifting, and most of all confusing.
I've never heard anybody preach on it. Maybe it's too radical to be said in church. We are not bound by the law and that is good; for where there is no law, neither is there violation. Grace is free to all. There is no wrath when there is no law. And maybe we're afraid to preach this because we're worried that if we admit that this is true than what's to stop people from just letting their hair down, so to speak.
Can this really be it? Do we have such a low opinion of ourselves that we think that if we tell people this that faithful disciples of Jesus are going to go out and act against the law any more than they already do?
We are redeemed. Our faith has washed us clean and the law never can. The law can only dirty us.
Maybe it's time we stopped throwing the law at each other. Maybe it's time we just went back to our roots of welcoming others as they are. Maybe it's time that our doors, hearts, and minds were open and left unchained by the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment