FOLLOW UP TO SESSION 11 - Resurrection as Resistance

As a part of our discussion time on Sunday, April 26, we looked at 1 Corinthians 15. In this passage, we see the words most often quoted by those who claim that you must believe in a literal, flesh and blood resurrection of Jesus in order to a "real" Christian. The particular verses are:

1 Corinthians 15: 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (NRSV)

If we ASSUME that Paul is considering resurrection as a physical, flesh and blood event, then that makes sense. HOWEVER, to understand what Paul is REALLY getting at, we have to read the whole chapter and MORE! Here is what Paul says later in the same chapter:

1 Corinthians 15: 35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. . . . 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. (NRSV, emphasis added)

It seems clear that Paul is saying that the resurrection is a SPIRITUAL thing - not physical. This life is physical; the next life is spiritual.

We also have to keep in mind that in vss. 3-8, the Greek term translated as "appeared" can certainly have the meaning of "a ghost appeared to me." It is also interesting to realize that Paul says in vs. 31 that he "dies everyday," which I think lends to the idea that Paul sees resurrection as a metaphorical happening in addition to spiritual - which can both be the case, in my opinion.

On top of that, in order to fully understand what Paul is saying in chapter 15, we have too look at what he is saying in preceding chapters. Here is a brief summation of each chapter, starting with chapter 11:

• Chapter 11 - This has Paul's version of the Lord's Supper (which he sees as a REAL meal), and he chastises the Corinthians for failing to "discern the body of Christ" by some eating / drinking too much while others go hungry. For too long, many have interpreted "the body" here as meaning simply "the bread" or "Jesus' literal body." See next. . .
  

• Chapter 12 - Paul begins expounding his theology of the body of Christ, meaning the community of faith, and how it is supposed to operate. Thus, Chapter 11's "discerning the body" is talking about the community of faith.

• Chapter 13 - Paul reminds us that we shouldn't take part in the body because we "have to" but because we choose to - i.e. have love.

• Chapter 14 - Paul continues his theology of the Body of Christ (with an unfortunate addition by an anti-woman scribe along the way).

• Chapter 15 - Paul talks about the resurrection of the body. Based on the FACT that the four preceding chapters are talking about the body of Christ not being Jesus' "literal body," I think he also is assuming that the resurrection (which is spiritual and metaphorical) is also symbolic (even incarnated) in that the Body of Christ continues to do what Jesus did even though he was crucified.

What usually happened in 1st century, non-violent, anti-Roman movements is that Rome would take out the leader and everybody else would stop out of fear. Yet, Paul is saying we must have the faith OF Christ and keep on keeping on in the face of potential danger - resurrection as resistance. The Body of Christ, though scattered and lost (figuratively dead) on Good Friday, are back in full force (resurrected) after Easter - resurrection as resistance!

Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

What difference does it make?

FOLLOW UP TO SESSION 10 - The Crowd

If you remember from our last session (before Easter), the readings and video pointed out to us that not only are the crowds "for" Jesus, they also "protect" him:

• Mark 11:8-10 - Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"
• Mark 11:18 - And when the chief priests and the scribes heard [of Jesus' demonstration in the Temple], they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching.
• Mark 11:32 - Shall we say, "Of human origin'?"—they were afraid of the crowd, for all regarded John as truly a prophet.
• Mark 12:12 - When [the chief priests, scribes, and elders] realized that [Jesus] had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.
• Mark 12:37b - And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.
• Mark 14:1-2 - It was two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; for they said, "Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people."

As the story goes, eventually, the chief priests and scribes capture Jesus because Judas betrays Jesus at night without the crowd being there: Jesus said to them, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. . ." (Mark 14:48-49).

We often make the leap that the "crowd" that wants Jesus crucified in Mark 15 is the same crowd that has loved Jesus throughout the week. However, we forget that according to Mark 15:25, "It was 9 o'clock in the morning when they crucified Jesus." Then, in Luke 23:27, we read that "A great number of the people followed him [on the way to Golgotha], and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him." It seems that Jesus is on his way to be crucified before the crowd who loves him know what is happening.

Does it even matter that it is likely that these "crowds" are different? Why or why not?

FOLLOW UP TO SESSION 8: Lamb of God / Cross

I always find it interesting that the Gospel of John calls Jesus the "Lamb of God." Interestingly, unlike Matthew, Mark, & Luke, John has Jesus crucified at the same time the Passover Lambs are being slaughtered. Then, for many years, we have made the "leap" that Jesus was a lamb sacrificed for the atonement of our sins.

Yet, let's consider the Passover. What was it about? It was not about "sin." It was about being released from the bondage of slavery in Egypt; it was about liberation.

If that is the case (and it is), why was the Passover lamb slaughtered? It was food for the journey - food to help the Israelites along the way! Thus, when the Jewish people remember the Passover every year, the lamb continues to be food for the journey of faith - food to help them along the way.

What new insights does this give you into what Jesus was all about?

++++++++++++++++++++

I find it interesting that we often hear, "Jesus died on the cross so I would not have to." Yet, put yourself in the 1st Century, in the time of Jesus. What was the only meaning of the cross? The answer is crucifixion. How, then, can the statement above be aligned with this passage of Scripture (emphasis added):

Mark 8: 34 Jesus called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it." (NRSV)

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like Jesus is not saying he is going to do it for us but is inviting us, as disciples, to join him! How are we to respond to that?

What other thoughts or insights have you gained from the study of Session 8?

FOLLOW UP 2 TO SESSION 7: Son of God

We often talk about Jesus as being God's "only" Son. However, the video and our discussion on Sunday reminded us of something; even our own Bible mentions other "sons" of God:

• 2 Samuel 7:12-15 God is quoted as calling David his "son;"
• Job 38:7 has God say that the "sons of God" (literally, some translations will soften it to heavenly beings) shouted for joy;
• Psalm 2 was a Psalm used at the coronation of Jewish kings. Vs. 7 talks of the king being "begotten" as a son by God at the coronation;
• Hosea 11:1 says that God calls the nation Israel God's "son;"
• Galatians 3:25-28; Galatians 4:4-7; Romans 8:14-21; Romans 9:25-26 (and other New Testament passages) call US (yes, you and me) literally "sons" of God (many translations will change it to children, but literally it is the same Greek word used for Jesus).

Many scholars say that the term in John 3:16 that calls Jesus God's "only" Son is better translated as "unique."

The video also reminded us that in the first century Roman emperors were often called "son of god" on coins and inscriptions. In fact, Caesar Augustus was called "son of god" long before Jesus was.

What new insights does all of this insight give you into what the New Testament might really be meaning by calling Jesus AND us "sons of God?"

FOLLOW UP 1 TO SESSION 7 - Second Coming?

The reading materials for Session 7 had us considering the "Second Coming" of Christ. Let's take a look at the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25:31-46:

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' 40 And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' (NRSV)

We often consider that Jesus will come back sometime in the future and make everything right. However, when I read this parable, I get the impression that Jesus is saying he comes back all the time - in those who are in need. Here are some important questions to consider:

• Do we realize that Jesus is in "the least of these?"
• Do we even want to see Jesus in "the least of these?"

Here is another important question: Could Jesus be saying that he isn't coming back to fix everything for us, but that maybe he is wanting us to fix it along the way?

FOLLOW UP TO SESSION 6 - Parables as Lures

We had really fruitful discussion this past Sunday as we considered Jesus' use of parables. The idea behind the lesson is that Jesus likely did not just tell parables to teach one particular lesson through the parable, but to get the hearers to begin COLLABORATING through discussion about what the parable could mean. As an example, consider this parable taken from the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas:

• The kingdom of God is like a woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking along a distant road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal spilled behind her along the road. She didn't know it; she hadn't noticed the problem. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and discovered that it was empty. (Gospel of Thomas 97)

What might this parable mean? Could there be more than one meaning? Without a particular context, which the canonical gospels always give us, we discovered in discussion that there are many ways to look at it. Compare the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:7-14 and Luke 15:1-10. Notice that each gospel has a slightly different meaning for the same parable. What if we take other parables out of the context of the gospels; what other possible meanings might we find. Could Jesus have intended more than one meaning - or no particular meaning?

In discussion yesterday, we talked about what Scripture is and is not. In response to that discussion, I want to share some quotes from the book, The Dream of God: A Call to Return by Verna J. Dozier, which is helping to guide our Lenten Study:

• In response to Isaiah 55:11, Dozier writes, "The word of God is an image for the action of God, and that verse, very freely paraphrased, says, God will accomplish what God has set out to do. I think the story the Bible tells is about the activity of God to accomplish God's purposes." (pg. 7)
• " The Bible contains history, but it is also much, much more than history." (pg. 12, emphasis mine)
• "The Bible contains literature, bu the Bible is more, much more, than literature." (pg 12)
• "For me the Bible is primarily a theological record. Theology is making meaning, making sense out of our live in terms of what we believe to be the nature of ultimate reality." (pgs. 12-13)
• "We, too [as the biblical writers did], look at the world and ask what God is doing, which is another way of asking the question of meaning, the theological question. That is the only question to apply to the Bible, I believe, because it is in answer to that question that the Bible came into being. Is there a God? Is God for us? How can we know God?" (pgs. 13-14)
• "Biblical faith posits a God it cannot understand completely." (pg 15) - see Isaiah 55:8-9
• "Because the Bible is a theological book, it is a book of wrestlings, not a book of answers. In each age, the people have to struggle to hear the word of the Lord for their time, and sometimes their hearing is keener than at other times." (pg. 18)
• "What we have in the Bible is the record of hundreds of years in which two communities of faith looked at the experiences of their lives and asked what these experiences meant. The communities have left a record of what it meant to them in that collection of books we call the Bible, and that record can only be really understood from within the continuing life of their spiritual heirs. The question we must put to the records they have left behind is not "Which is right?" but questions like "What does it mean?" and "What did it mean for them?" and "What does it mean for us." (pg. 19)

Do these quotes give you different way of looking at Scripture? Do you agree with what Dozier says? Why or why not? What other insights would you add about Scripture?

PREPARING FOR SESSION 5 - Kingdom

As Christians, who have "grown up" with "Christian" terms and phrases, we often lose their original impact in either the New Testament language (being Greek) OR its original context. Here's an example. . .

Kingdom of God / Heaven: Have you ever wondered why Jesus chose to speak about the Kingdom of God / Heaven? Why not the family of God; the people of God; or the community of God? Aren't these three phrases valid understandings of our relation to one another and God? Why did Jesus use the term "Kingdom?" What was the "other" prominent kingdom in the first century? What might the connection be here between these two kingdoms?

Often, I feel like we, as Christians, often equate the Kingdom of God / Heaven as just being the place where God lives, up there, out there, beyond the clouds. This would be the place we hope to go when we die. It has nothing to do with the here and now. Yet, let's consider a few lines of the Lord's Prayer:

Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in Heaven.

Consider the implication here: We are praying that God's Kingdom be HERE on the earth. We are NOT praying to go to God's Kingdom someday, but that God's Kingdom will come HERE!

Consider these passages of Scripture as well:

• Psalm 139: 7 Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, 10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast. (NRSV)

• Acts 17: 28 For "In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "For we too are his offspring.' (NRSV)

• Ephesians 4: 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. (NRSV)

If we really believe these passages as well, God isn't just up there, out there, beyond the clouds. God is HERE. Does that mean we can experience the Kingdom of God HERE? Why or why not?