Tithing after the Cross

 
Tithing and Giving have long been an area of interest for me so when I saw this book and the low Kindle price, I decided to read it.  The book is Tithing After the Cross by David A. Croteau (Energion Publications).  Dr. Croteau is a professor of New Testament and Greek at Columbia International University and Seminary (http://www.ciu.edu) and hosts one of several blogs at salveoftheword.blogspot.com. 
I want to tell you about a small book I recently read.

First, I have two criticisms of the book and I want to get them out of the way because they are minor and I don’t want to end this entry with criticism.  Criticism number one: When Dr. Croteau transitions to his final chapter, “Tithing after the Cross” it was not completely clear to me if he was saying, “Tithing is not part of the New Covenant practice so here are some guidelines for giving.” or “Under the new covenant tithing really means giving so here are some guidelines.”  Second, he develops a lot of his theology for giving from II Corinthians 8 and 9.  I think this is fine but in the historical context Paul was gathering a special relief gift for the poor saints in Jerusalem.  The bridge from that context to modern lifestyle principles of giving was not clear to me.  Maybe I missed it.  Both these criticisms are minor so now let me get back to my recommendation.

This book is the third book Dr. Croteau has written on the subject of giving and tithing and is a summary of the other two more in-depth publications.  In his introduction he states his purpose and goal very clearly.  “…I hope to accomplish a simple objective: that people would seek God Himself in the intimate relationship He desires for wisdom regarding the amount they should offer as opposed to being burdened with a legalistic number.”  Later he adds, “Therefore, I hope to present the arguments for tithing and explicitly respond to them in a brief and easy-to-access layout.  I want this book to be a most useful resource, one a minister or Bible study teacher could use to locate certain arguments and corresponding responses.”  (These are from the Kindle edition so I don’t have page numbers.  They are both in his introduction.)  In my opinion, Dr. Croteau delivers on both fronts. 

The book is easy to read and follows a logical liner progression.  He starts by defining the Tithe in the context of the Old Testament.  This alone is worth reading.  Understanding what “Tithe” meant to Old Testament Israelites makes it very clear that the typical understanding of the tithe today is not based on a Biblical understanding.  For example, (this is not in the book), if you asked an Israelite living during the first temple period, “Have you given your tithe?” you might expect a simple yes or no answer.  However, what you would probably get is another question, “Which tithe do you mean?” or if the person was a builder or fishermen he might respond, “Why should I?”  Further, the typical modern definition of tithe is 10% of income.  If you are really spiritual then it is 10% of your gross income.  Dr. Croteau shows clearly that depending how you calculate it the Old Testament tithe was either 20% or 23.3%.  If you calculate the tithe over a 3 or 6 year period you come up with 23.3%.  If you calculate the tithe over a seven year period you end up back at 20%.  How does it work?  Read your Old Testament and figure it out yourself or read his book or, I recommend, read both.  After this introduction Dr. Croteau walks through and responds to popular arguments for tithing from Old Testament texts.  Next he does the same for New Testament texts, theological arguments, historical arguments and experiential arguments for tithing.  He concludes by outlining a theology of giving mostly from II Corinthians 8-9.

In the end you may not agree with Dr. Croteau, but he will challenge your ideas and cause you to think.  The book is only 94 pages and can be read in an afternoon and the Kindle version cost about $5.  There you have it.  For what it is worth, I recommend this book for a thoughtful Saturday afternoon with a cup of coffee and cookies.

Some thoughts on Ephesians 4:9 (Part I): The Usefulness of Greek Grammar?

 

One of the things I like to teach seminary students is that knowing Greek doesn’t answer all your questions.  In fact, sometimes it brings up more questions than it answers and you find yourself wondering why you didn’t just stick with your favorite translation.  Anyway, a good passage to illustrate the point is Ephesians 4:9.

Paul's language in Ephesians 4:9 has been the object of much debate.  But, no matter where you land in the debate, this verse is an excellent example of how Greek grammar often gives you only options and not clarity.  In other words, Greek is not the ultimate key to understanding a text.  Sometimes it gives you insight that you cannot get from a translation but other times it only brings up more questions.  Ephesians 4:9 is one of the latter cases.  Based on this verse, really based on one genitive noun, many argue that Jesus descended into hell.  Even if one doesn’t know the technical terms, if one attempts to study, translate or teach this passage, the decision one makes about the grammar (specifically the genitive), determines the interpretation of this phrase.

The Genitive of Ephesians 4:9

In Ephesians 4:9 Paul uses the phrase, “κατωτερα μερη της γης (the lower parts of the earth).”  The phrase itself is not hard to translate but the meaning is ambiguous.  Our main concern is the meaning of the genitive, «της γης» (of the earth).  There are two primary grammatical options for this noun.  The noun may be a genitive of material content (also called a partative genitive) or a genitive of simple apposition.  To further complicate matters, each option can be understood in two ways.

• The genitive may be a Partative Genitive.  According to Dana and Mantey, the partative genitive "may be defined by indicating in the genitive the whole of which it is part".  In other words, a partative genitive is connected to a primary noun and indicates the whole that the primary noun is part of.  If this is a partative genitive then “of the earth” is connected to the primary noun "the lower parts" and “of the earth” indicates the whole that “the lower parts” are part of.  Under this understanding, “of the earth” may refer to Hades (the place where departed spirits live)  or the grave where Jesus was buried.  Both were considered part of the earth.

• The genitive may also be a genitive of simple Apposition.  The genitive of apposition is connected to a primary noun but this time it renames the noun or makes it more specific.  It works as an "i.e." construction.  If Ephesians 4:9 is a genitive of simple apposition then the "the lower parts” are still the primary noun but “of the earth” is understood as a renaming of “the lower parts”.  What Paul means is that Jesus descended to “the lower parts” that is “the earth.”  Under this understanding the genitive has two more possible interpretations.  “Of the earth” may be referring to Jesus descent in the incarnation or the descent of the Spirit of Christ at Pentecost.

The Greek grammar of Ephesians 4:9 has given us at least four options of possible meaning.  “he descended to the lower parts of the earth” may mean either:

•  Christ descended into Hades.
• Christ descended from the cross to the tomb (the tomb is the lower part of the earth).  
•  Jesus descended to the earth in the incarnation. 
• Finally, the Spirit of Christ descended to the earth on the day of Pentecost.

Unfortunately, this is as much help as the Greek grammar can give us.  How do we decide which option Paul had in mind?  We must turn to other tools in our exegetical toolbox.

It should also be noted that the understanding Ephesians 4:9 does not fully answer the theological question about Jesus descent into hell.  To fully answer the theological question, one must exegete at least four other passages.

Insomnia, The Synoptic Problem and Textual Criticism

Rethinking Dr. Scott McKnight’s Rethinking
 

I couldn’t sleep one night so I decided to reread Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Baker Academic, David Alan Black and David R. Beck, ed.).  At around 3:00am, as I was reading Scott McKnight’s chapter, A Generation Who Knew Not Streeter: The Case for Markan Priority, I had an epiphany.  Well, maybe not an epiphany – just a clear thought at 3:00am and that is plenty reason to celebrate.  I had read Dr. McKnight’s chapter many times.  His arguments are clear and convincing, but there has always been something about his methodology that didn’t sit right with me.  I openly admit that I am not a scholar and that I am partial to the priority of Matthew.  So the fact that Dr. McKnight’s arguments didn’t sit right with me should be no surprise and could even be a case of personal bias.  However, I think there is something more here and I offer my thoughts and musings for what they are worth.

In his chapter, Dr. McKnight makes a strong argument for the use of text-critical procedures to support the priority of Mark.  He says this, “The most telling argument against the Griesbach hypothesis and for the Oxford hypothesis is the accumulated answers to this question: Which reading most likely gave rise to the other readings?  Put differently, given Matthew’s (or Luke’s) rendering of a saying or event, is it likely that Mark is the later rendition of Matthew or Luke (or both), or is it more likely that Mark is the source for the others?  The answers so consistently move in the direction of Markan priority that one is compelled either to adopt the Oxford hypothesis or jettison text-critical procedures in use by all scholars today.” (page 81).

He gives three compelling examples.  It is true that the watershed question in textual criticism is, “Which reading most likely gave rise to the other readings?”  When applied to the synoptic problem, I must admit that my commitment to the priority of Matthew was shaken.  However, as I was reading that morning, I begin to think about assumptions.  I thought about the assumptions connected with textual criticism and the assumptions connected with the synoptic problem.  As I compared the assumptions they seemed farther and farther removed from each other.  For example, text critical procedures are used on text critical problems and at least the following conditions are assumed:

·         A single author stands behind the original phrase.
·         The original phrase/word was written in a single historical context.
·         The original phrase/word was written in a single literary context.
·         The original phrase/word was written to a single intended audience.
·         The original phrase/word was written in a single document that had at least one primary purpose.
·         We assume that the original phrase/word was written by one person.
·         We assume that the original phrase/word gave rise to the other variants.
·         We assume that the variant comes from an accidental or intentional change of a single document.

This partial list shows that in textual criticism we assume that many factors are static or linear.  We assume one original phrase gave rise to others.  We assume a single author, historical situation, genre, medium of communication, etc.  Therefore the question, “Which variant is most likely to give rise to the others?” is very appropriate.  However, when I thought about the synoptic problem I saw a very different set of assumptions that were far removed (almost the opposite) of those connected with text critical problems.  For example, when thinking about the synoptic problem…

·         We assume at least two authors behind one phrase.
·         We assume at least two historical situations.
·         We assume at least two very different intended audiences.
·         We assume at least two purposes.
·         We assume at least two sources (each gospel).
·         Not even the assumption that there was an original wording that was, either intentionally or accidentally, changed and resulted in a variant reading remains firm.

So, when we move from text critical problems to the synoptic problem, it occurred to me that the simple and static becomes complicated and dynamic.  If this is true then it may be inappropriate to apply the procedures from textual criticism to the synoptic problem.

Let’s take Dr. McKnight’s second example because I was reading this one when my mind wondered to assumptions.    The Example is from Mark 14:3 and Matthew 26:6.  Mark 14:3 has two genitive absolutes in the same sentence.  This is an unusual construction.  Matthew’s parallel has one genitive absolute and a finite verb.  This is a much more common construction.   Dr. McKnight introduces the example and says, “It is more likely that Matthew “corrected”…Mark than Mark took a perfectly normal expression and made it irregular.  Mark’s style is not impossible:  people can have two genitive absolutes together if they want; in a flurry, they might add yet a third.  But when we compare the two, it is more likely that someone would change two genitive absolutes…to one with a finite verb than take one genitive absolute and a finite verb and make two genitive absolutes…” (page 85).

I read this example a couple of times and did some late night/early morning pondering.  Is it more likely that Matthew simplified Marks complicated grammar or Mark complicated Matthew’s already polished grammar?  On the face of the question the answer is “of course, Matthew corrected Mark.”  But then, maybe I was just tired, after thinking about assumptions, I started to imagine how the scene of Matthew writing his gospel may have developed.  What would I have seen if I was there?  Under the Oxford hypothesis, I imagined the year 85 AD.  The aging apostle Matthew is in his study in Caesarea.  Before him is a copy of Mark’s gospel, perhaps Q or a set of other sayings documents that make up Q, possibly an M document and a partially completed scroll that someday will be the gospel according the Matthew.  In his copy of Mark, he reads the phrase και οντος αυτου εν Βηθανια εν τη οικια Σιμωνος του λεπρου κατακειμενου αυτου ελθεν γυνη εχουσα αλαβαστρον μθρου ναρδου πιστικης πολυτελους... He thinks, “I remember when that happened.  We were all at Simon’s house, Jesus was at the table and then she came in with the bottle of perfume.”  He sees Mark’s attempt to introduce the scene and corrects his grammar to make it more readable.  Matthew writes, του δε Ιησου γενομενου εν Βηθανια εν οικια Σιμωνος του λεπρου προσηλθεν αυτω γυνη εχουσα αλαβαστρον μυρου βαρυτιμου....

Could it have happened that way?  I suppose it could have.  Even though all the church fathers who comment on the order the gospels were written in put Matthew or the “the gospels with genealogies” first, they could be wrong and, based on this linguistic/text critical argument, Mark could have been first. 

Then I thought, “What if the church fathers were right?”  What if Matthew was first and Mark was the result of Peter’s sermons in Rome to Roman believers?  I decided to try thinking from the standpoint of the Griesbach hypothesis.  So I begin to imagine how Mark may have been written.  It would be around the year 60 in the city of Rome.  The Gospels of Matthew and Luke would already exist and I can’t imagine that Peter would not know about them.  I am sure that when Matthew wrote his gospel one of the first people he showed must have been Peter.  Anyway, I imagine Peter in Rome teaching the Roman Christians about the life of Jesus.  Maybe he had the gospel of Matthew and/or Luke with him or maybe he taught from memory.  Mark sits close by and is maybe taking some notes.  During one of his sermons Peter comes the scene described in Matthew 26 and he tells the story.  Would he change Matthew’s polished grammar into Mark’s two genitive absolutes?  I don’t know?  It is hard to say.  Matthew was writing a literary document and Peter was giving sermons or maybe just speaking extemporaneously.  It is two different mediums of communication. 

As I was imagining this, one of Dr. McKnight’s statements jumped out at me.  He wrote, “Mark’s style is not impossible:  people can have two genitive absolutes together if they want; in a flurry, they might add yet a third.”  That phrase, “…in a flurry, they might add yet a third” kept my attention.  When Peter orally told the same story that Matthew wrote, could he have complicated the grammar?  Of course he could have.  The two genitive absolutes could easily be the result of Peter trying to express in speech, what Matthew may have taken five minutes to express in writing.  (It is also easy to believe that Mark would want to preserve the actual words of Peter as much as he could.)  That would be Peter’s “flurry” that Dr. McKnight talked about.  In the “flurry” of the moment, Peter used some awkward grammar.  I haven’t researched this but two genitive absolutes does sound to me more like something you may hear spoken then something that may intentionally write.  In the written medium, the author has time to think through and polish what he wants to communicate.  In the spoken medium, the author doesn’t have the luxury of the redactor and it is easy to believe that sentence structure could come out more awkward.

The possibly mistaken assumption here is that Mark, like Matthew, is the result of an attempt to communicate through a written, literary medium.  If that is the case, then we are comparing apples with apples when we ask the question, “Which reading gives rise to the others?”.  However, there is good evidence that Mark was not the result of an attempt to produce a polished, written document.  If that is the case, then we may be using text critical methods to compare apples with oranges and, as far as I can tell, that tells us nothing.

These thought were swirling around in my head as I finally made my way to bed.  My conclusion is that the synoptic problem may be much too complicated to make use of text critical methods.  The static and linear assumption that text critical methods rely upon, become dynamic and multifaceted when we move to the synoptic problem.  For example, If Mark 14:3 and Matthew 26:6 were two variants in one book, then the static assumptions of textual criticism would apply and we could examine the external and intern evidence and ask the question, “Which reading is most likely to give rise to the others?”.  However, the answer to this important text critical question, when applied to the synoptic problem, is so complicated that it doesn’t seem to make sense to even ask the question.  I can agree that there is literary dependence, but to answer the question we have to assume we know what form the dependence took.  If Matthew is in his study then of course he “corrected” Mark.  But, if Peter is giving sermons, then of course he could have complicated Matthew’s polished grammar with an extra genitive absolute.  By assuming the form of literary dependence (the situation in history), we almost have to assume our answer before we can ask the question.  So it is no surprise that people who lean toward Markan priority imagine Matthew in his study and those who lean toward Matthean priority picture Peter, in a flurry, using two genitive absolutes.  If this is the case, then the application of the methodology seems to be flawed and we need to look else ware to solve our synoptic problem.

In closing, I am not saying that we should “ jettison text-critical procedures in use by all scholars today”.  I am suggesting that maybe we should use them for textual criticism and not the synoptic problem.

The Bureaucracy Softens

The bureaucracy has redeemed itself.  We had a possible problem.  We needed two documents from our “passportist” office to get our stamps from the immigration office.  The problem was that the passportists only worked on Thursday but the immigration office didn’t provide services on Thursday and we had tickets to leave on Friday night.  I figured we had a chance to leave Friday night if we got our documents on Thursday, we had a chance to get our stamps on Friday morning and we could leave Friday night.  Just to make sure that there were no surprises on Friday, on Wednesday, I went to the immigration office again to ask if I needed anything else besides two documents from our passportist.  As I talked to the lady at the immigration office, I asked if I needed anything besides the two documents to get our stamp.  She said no.  I said something like, “So, I can get the documents on Thursday, because the passportist only works on Thursday this week and I can come here Friday and get our stamp – right?”  She said, “No, Friday is a holiday and we are closed.”  I didn’t know what to do.  I started to panic a little but had enough composure to ask if someone would be in the immigration office on Thursday.  She said that she would not but someone else may be willing to help.  The office wasn’t closed, it just was a day when services were not offered.  On Thursday, we went to the passportist office early and waited.  We were second in line and our passportist (actually our passportists – there are two of them) were very nice.  She quickly prepared our documents and then went above and beyond the call of duty.  She knew that we were trying to get our stamps because we wanted to leave Odessa on Friday.  She called the lady at the immigration office – they knew each other.  They talked a little, she hung up and said that Sveta (the immigration office woman) would meet us at her office at 3:00pm.  We left, went home and later went to the immigration office at 3:00.  Sveta was there working.  She greeted us, checked our paperwork and stamped our permits.  We thanked her for helping us on a non services day and she said that it was her pleasure.  We parted as friends.  We are thankful for the help from our passportist (Tatyana) andour new friend from immigration (Svetlana).

 

A Taste of Bureaucracy

Here is an example of the kind of bureaucracy we sometimes have to deal with.  Much of it I understand.  There is no reason why the government should not do a background check on us, have translations of our passports or know where we live.  They are just trying to protect their country and economy.  But, as an American, I instinctively value “efficiency” and when I don’t get efficiency – I sometimes complain. 

Friday, June 21, 2013.  We had our actually Temporary Residence Permits in hand.  We got those on Thursday.  The woman at the OVIR was very nice and rushed the process so we could have a chance to leave for L’vov on Saturday.  We just needed to get a stamp from the immigration office.  (Background:  No one has every explained the entire process and I cannot find any kind of law or written document that describes how to apply for and receive temporary residency permits.  Our approach is to start the process and do what we are told by the various offices.)  The immigration office that we needed to go to was not open on Thursday, so we needed to wait until Friday.  We wanted to be first in line so we arrived at the office at 8:00am (they opened at 9:00).  We were third in line – no problem.  Here is our bus route.

We waited an hour.  While waiting we recieved a call from the OVIR.  They needed one more document from the seminary.  I called the seminary and they said the document could be ready in the afternoon.  The door opened, we walked up a flight of stairs into a hallway of eight doors.  We needed office number one.  After waiting a few more minutes, we went in and she was very nice.  We explained where we were in the process.  She looked at our documents and then said that this is not the last step but close.  She made a copy of our permits, wrote our information in her registry book and then had us write a “statement” requesting that the stamps be put in our permits.  We wrote the statements, she put a note, a stamp and a signature on them and sent us to office number 7.  We thanked her and went to office number seven.  There we waited in a line for about a half hour.  The woman in this office, at first didn’t understand why we were sent to her.  We also didn’t fully understand.  She took our document and went back to office number one.  When she returned, we explained again that all we needed were the stamps.  She said she understood, but that wasn’t her job.  However, we did need more documents from her.  She took our statements, made another note on them and said that we need to take these to the boss.  She said that if we waited in line we would be there all day so she would help us.  She said, “Follow me and say nothing.”  We followed her passed a line of people into the bosses office.  He was in a large room, at a desk helping another women.  He also had a TV on across the room with a Mexican soap opera playing.  We waited.  She showed the boss our statements and he said, “Where are the signatures and the dates?”  We quickly signed and dated them.  Then he made another note on them and signed them.  We left the room and the woman said that her part was done.  Now we need to take our statements to another immigration office in the north part of the city.  There we can get our stamp.  We thanked her and left.  We were cautiously optimistic – it was only 10:00am.  We got on a bus and went north.  Here is our route.

It took us a little while, but we found the office.  There were four doors in the hall and none of them were labeled.  We asked around and found the lady we were looking for.  I explained that we needed the stamp in our permits.  She took one look at the documents in our hands and said that copies meant nothing to her.  She needed a card from another office (called the passportist).  I explained that the pasportist doesn’t work on Fridays and she said that we need to go there when they work.  We were getting nowhere, so we decided to see if the passportist was in her office.  This time we walked.

We got there to find out that the office was not only closed – Monday, of course, is a holiday.  The soonest we can see the passportist is maybe Tuesday afternoon.  Well this was a difficult pill to swallow.  We hit a dead end.  The rest of the day was spent getting another document from the seminary, exchanging our Saturday train tickets (except Joseph’s), purchasing new tickets (by faith) for Wednesday and taking our new document to the OVIR.  This required a long trip downtown.  I made it back to our region just in time to take part in our last English Café.

Our initial reaction was sadness and disappointment.  However, after some time we came to our senses and knew that this was no surprise to God and it is really a very small setback in the grand narrative of the Kingdom of God.  We said goodbye to Joseph on Saturday and now we hope that Tuesday we can get our stamps and be off to join him and the team on Wednesday.

My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me?

In Ukraine this year, we celebrated Easter much later than in the West.  It turns out that this year’s Easter celebration landed on Mexico’s Independence Day.  We have been especially busy this April and May, so I only preached one Easter message.  However, it is one that has been forming for years and I want to share part of it here.

In Matthew 27:46 Jesus yells out, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"  As a young believer this statement bothered me.  Over the years, I have been offered various answers.  At first I was told that Jesus expected the Father to save Him.  I rejected this view right away.  A quick read of any one of the Gospels makes it clear that Jesus expected to suffer and die.  Later, I was told that in His agony, He lost perspective for a moment and in called out to God for help.  I accepted this explanation for some time but it never completely satisfied me.  It troubled me that, even in anguish, Jesus lost perspective.  He knew what was coming.  He Himself said that He did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people (Matthew 20:28).  He tells the disciples repeatedly that he is going to suffer, die and rise again on the third day (cf. Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19).  We see Jesus’ struggle in the garden of Gethsemane.  Matthew tells us that Jesus said he was deeply grieved and troubled.  He prayed that if it is possible to let this cup pass from Him.  Then He says to the Father, “Not my will but Your will be done” (Matthew 26:38-39).  It is clear that Jesus knows that he will suffer and die.  The crucifixion was no surprise to Him. 

Sometime later I was told a different explanation.  I was told that at the moment Jesus cried out, God the Father laid all the sins of mankind on Jesus and then turned His back on His only Son.  This was based largely on II Corinthians 5:21.  This experience of separation from the Father was so painful to Jesus that, even though He knew it was going to happen, He expressed His anguish in the phrase, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  If the Father did turn His back on Jesus, then Jesus’ statement did make more sense.  But I was still bothered by the fact that if Jesus knew this was going to happen, why cry out when it does.  He sounds surprised to me.  I was told another variation on this view.  I was told that Jesus did expect to suffer and die, but He didn’t realize that the Father would turn His back.  When this happened it was a surprise to Him and He cried out.  OK, that made some sense, but then I tried to wrestle with the idea of a division in the Trinity.  If the Father turned His back on the Son, then Jesus must have experienced some separation from the Father.  If the three are one, how can this be?  Was the nature of God the Trinity changed for a short time?  In that case God is no longer immutable.  This really bothered me. 

Then (I should have figured this out myself) I heard a sermon that introduced me to a new fact.  Jesus was quoting the Old Testament.  He was quoting Psalm 22.  I read the Psalm and realized that David was describing something very close to what Jesus experienced on the cross.  I thought that Perhaps Jesus was using Scripture to express His pain.  This also satisfied me for a while.  Then I decided to do some more reading and carefully read the passage in Matthew.  From this I realized five things:

1.      By the first century Psalm 22 was considered a Messianic/Prophetic Psalm.

2.      The Pharisees and Priests also quoted from Psalm 22.  They quoted from Psalm 22:8.

3.      If a Rabbi wanted to make a quick reference to an entire Psalm and the theology connected with that Psalm, he often just quoted the first verse.

4.      In my general study, I was realizing more and more that Jesus often spoke to the Jewish a kind of loaded educated language.  In other words, he knew the theology of the day and how to speak in ways that communicate more than the words he was using. 

5.      Finally, after Jesus’ cry, Matthew records that the people reacted (probably more according to their superstition) but the Jewish leaders were silent.  If we assume that the leaders were still there, this is very strange and their silence is very loud.

What did the Pharisees and priests do when they heard this?  What did they think?  Why were they silent?  Not long before this they were mocking Jesus.  This was a perfect chance for them to mock Him some more.  “Where is Elijah?  Help me Elijah?  Elijah only saves the innocent!  He won’t help you!”  But they are silent.  Why?   The leaders are silent because they are probably in shock.  They have been mocking Jesus.  They have been feeling prideful.  They won.  They struggled with Jesus and won…He is being crucified!  They mock Jesus with Psalm 22:8, "Commit yourself to the LORD; perhaps the LORD will deliver him, perhaps he will cause him to escape, since he delights in him."  see Matthew 27:43.  (In the Psalm, the enemies that surround David say this.)  But they don’t mock Jesus.  Jesus yells and they are silent.

The Pharisees are also theologians.  Imagine what could have happened in their minds.  They see Jesus suffering on the cross and think, “Good, let Him suffer.  He called Himself God!  He called Himself Messiah!  He is a blasphemer and they do not deserve mercy!”  They mock him with a quote from a Messianic Psalm.  Then, Jesus cries out the first verse of that same Psalm.  When they hear the words, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” they can’t help but hear the entire Psalm in their head.

·         Psalm about the Messiah

·         The Messiah suffers but trusts in God.
·         The Messiah is mocked.  (We are mocking Jesus).
·         His hands are pierced (they see Jesus’ hands).
·         They cast lots for His clothing.  (They see the soldiers.)
·         He trusts in God (they see Jesus’ face).
·         The Messiah will be delivered and praise God.
·         The Messiah will proclaim God’s righteousness to the generations.

These and many more things probably came to their mind all at once.  Then, I think at least some of them understood.  The Messiah is supposed to conquer and deliver Israel but He is also supposed to suffer.  Could Jesus really be the Messiah?  Could this be the meaning of the Psalm?  Could we be the ones in the Psalm who mock the Messiah?  Are we the enemies who surround Him?  Then feelings of panic appear.  Are we looking at the fulfillment of the Psalm?  What have we done?!  When I remembered that many of the Pharisees and Priests became believers, I wandered if (at least for some of them) this could have been the moment that shocked them into belief.

By shouting out, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”  Jesus has, in a sense, shouted Psalm 22.  At least that is what would have gone through the minds of the Rabbis.  By this one statement Jesus has said, “I am suffering terrible, yet I will trust the Lord my God.”  It was not a cry of confusion but a cry of confidence.  He is proclaiming again that He is the Messiah.  He is doing it in a way that leaders will understand and they are speechless.  He cries out, “I am the Messiah, I am suffering yet I will trust in God.  I will praise Him.  The ends of the earth shall turn to the Lord.  This is what was prophesied through the Psalm.  You are looking at the fulfillment of the Psalm!

It makes much more sense to me intellectually that Jesus would communicate from the cross in a way that uses few words but communicates much – especially to the Jewish leaders.  It also brings megreat comfort that Jesus did not lose perspective in His suffering.  In fact, if this understanding is correct, He remained profoundly clearheaded to the end.  After hearing the leaders quote from Psalm 22, He was able to respond to them.  In His response He communicated his pain, His reliance on the Father, that He is fulfilling his role as the Messiah and that they are looking at the fulfillment of the Psalm.  He did this all in one short statement.  Jesus remained absolutely resolute in His mission to the end.  As Paul says in Hebrews, “…in view of the joy set before him, (He – Jesus) endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Taste of Home

Coming back to California is always a unique experience. Among other things it is something of a shock to see the availability of goods, to hear English all the time and to drive a car. This often requires some period of adjustment.

There are a few things that I regularly notice when we return. One is that I have a heightened awareness of the faults in my home culture. I tend to be judgmental and critical of the things I consider deficiencies in the culture. Another is that I usually overindulge in foods I have not eaten in a while. Another thing I notice is that in some ways I feel very much at home and in other ways I feel very much out of place. Living almost 10 years outside the US has changed my worldview, my habits, my values and even on some levels my language. Also, while we are away, many things connected with California change. We don’t always have regular contact with friends so we are sometimes not up to date with their lives, fears and struggles. This gives rise to feeling like an outsider in your own culture. I accepted this long ago and it has actually served as a reminder of where my true home is. When I feel like a foreigner in Odessa, I am reminded that my true citizenship is in heaven. When I feel out of place in California, I am reminded that I am ultimately an alien and exile on earth. Someday I will see my true home and be welcomed home by my true Master. This gives me great peace and hope.

This time, I am experiencing many of the same feelings. As usual, I feel at home and out of place at the same time. However, there has been something unique. This time, we have returned on medical leave. That means that we have probably received more attention than usual. Because we are missionaries, there is an unwritten requirement to live out things like this in public. Our friends and supporters (those that read our newsletters) know that I have cancer. They know that we have returned to have it treated. They are concerned for us, they pray for us, offer advice and help. This is great and provides us with a lot of prayer and emotional support. We have experienced a profound sense of love, grace and support that can come through the body of Christ. It also means that at times I find myself getting medical advice from or discussing personal medical issues with people I really don’t know very well. That can be awkward. Sometimes we call this the fishbowl effect.

The unique thing I have found this time is that I have experienced short times of a profound sense of home. As I listen to a song or sit in a service listening to a sermon in English, I know what to do; I easily and clearly understand the humor, nuanced cultural references and idioms. I don’t have to intellectually put them in a cultural or historic context.  I just get it. What I am realizing is that there is perhaps a “flavor” to your home culture and this flavor produces a sense of connection.

One special connection was when some of the elders, deacons and deaconesses prayed for us. They took our whole family to a side room in the church. I kneeled down, they anointed me with oil, they laid their hands on me and prayed. Many of these men and women we have known for years. They have been our teachers, friends, encouragers, pastors, leaders and supporters. Some of them we only really know about. But we respect them all. Through their actions, the Spirit brought us great peace and a sense of belonging and acceptance. It was the body of Christ in action. It was a taste of home – our true home.

In these moments, when I get the joke – when the idiom makes perfect sense, when the saints sincerely pray for us, I get a feeling of belonging in a way that feels like home. It feels like acceptance. It only comes in glimpses, but I like it that way. It is the same lesson as before, but from the other side. When I feel out of place, I am reminded that I am not home and someday I will be home. When I get that glimpse of acceptance and belonging that feels like home, I am reminded of a future home where the feeling will not fade. God is granting me a taste – a glimpse of what is yet to come. For that I am thankful.