Okay, we are 5/12 done. How are you doing? Are you reading once a week, twice? Or just every now and then when something I say makes you mad?
Or are you just deleting my emails?
Here is your chance. Jump right back in where we are
OT -- 2nd Samuel 18:1-19:10
NT -- John 20:1-31
Psalm 119:153-176 (heck, skip the psalm until tomorrow. this one has knocked me on my fanny and I am still processing it. Leave it for the next go round)
Proverbs 16:14-15
Don't go back. You start right where we are and commit. If you aren't reading at all, just read the NT. If you are reading once or twice a week, commit to 4 and give yourself a gold star on your calendar when you do it. Let's babystep our way to a greater intimacy with God by upping our time in His Word.
And for those oh, so rare ones who have read them all, keep up the good work but remember, only God is perfect so if you have to miss, it will be okay. I have missed myself.
OT -- 2nd Samuel 18:1-19:10
I am so with Joab in his chastisement of David. Only mine comes from a different perspective. If David loved his son so dang much, why wasn't he in closer relationship with him? I see this all the time in my visitation of the elderly. The son/daughter who is the MOST absent is the one pined for. The faithful daughter/son who comes every single week is almost a 'well, whatever'.
In my mother's family of 15 children, my grandmother loved the worst one the best. She allowed him to take advantage of her to no end. He never visited and when she came to him, he treated her like dirt. Yet, she always longed for him.
I thought it was disgusting. (I was 15 when she lived with us. Everything was disgusting when I was 15.) Now, I just find it sad.
And I find David most sad of all.
NT -- JOhn 20:1-31
There is no ascension in John. I didn't know that. I guess I should have, but I didn't. Instead we have these two viginettes with his disciples.
If we continue with the idea that the book of John was written to illuminate parts of Jesus' character, what do these two say about him?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
May 31
NT -- John 19:23-42
This part of John contains one of the commons -- the casting of lots for Jesus' clothes at the foot of the cross. All 4 gospels mention that there was a seamless undergarment that the soldiers did not want to tear.
Several of the commentaries mention this robe in conjunction with 'the unity of the church'. I am not that esoteric.
I am far more fascinated with the fact that Jesus
a)had such a costly garment on his body
b)the garment was not in disrepair from the beatings, torture, cross-carrying, etc. that he had endured presumably for the last 36 hours
c)it was not bloody and gruesome or sweaty and nasty from the above.
Years ago, when I first stumbled upon this passage, I was in church with a weaver. She mostly spun and wove her own angora rabbits' fur but she took several hours out one day to show me how to weave a linen napkin. I asked Betty about this passage in scripture and she said that it is possible to weave without a seam but it is hard work and involves a special loom. Furthermore, she claimed that it would have had to been linen to have been seamless, not felt (beaten wool) or a wool knit. Betty said that an old weavers myth said this garment was a marriage garment made by the mother of the groom and given to her son at his wedding, new, unrent and unsoiled for the nuptials. I cannot substantiate that myth but Betty was quite confident.
Whatever it was, it apparently was not disgusting and of such value that the soldiers did not want to tear it. A miracle garment that nonetheless, was cut up in to small pieces by the church and resides in numerous cathedrals. HMMMMMM.
In this scripture is also our friend Nicodemus, in his third appearance in John. He has come full circle from his night visit and now openly cares for the crucified body of Jesus. His character development is complete and he is a true, open believer. If he is a metaphor for us, where is Jesus leading US out of the night and into the light?
This part of John contains one of the commons -- the casting of lots for Jesus' clothes at the foot of the cross. All 4 gospels mention that there was a seamless undergarment that the soldiers did not want to tear.
Several of the commentaries mention this robe in conjunction with 'the unity of the church'. I am not that esoteric.
I am far more fascinated with the fact that Jesus
a)had such a costly garment on his body
b)the garment was not in disrepair from the beatings, torture, cross-carrying, etc. that he had endured presumably for the last 36 hours
c)it was not bloody and gruesome or sweaty and nasty from the above.
Years ago, when I first stumbled upon this passage, I was in church with a weaver. She mostly spun and wove her own angora rabbits' fur but she took several hours out one day to show me how to weave a linen napkin. I asked Betty about this passage in scripture and she said that it is possible to weave without a seam but it is hard work and involves a special loom. Furthermore, she claimed that it would have had to been linen to have been seamless, not felt (beaten wool) or a wool knit. Betty said that an old weavers myth said this garment was a marriage garment made by the mother of the groom and given to her son at his wedding, new, unrent and unsoiled for the nuptials. I cannot substantiate that myth but Betty was quite confident.
Whatever it was, it apparently was not disgusting and of such value that the soldiers did not want to tear it. A miracle garment that nonetheless, was cut up in to small pieces by the church and resides in numerous cathedrals. HMMMMMM.
In this scripture is also our friend Nicodemus, in his third appearance in John. He has come full circle from his night visit and now openly cares for the crucified body of Jesus. His character development is complete and he is a true, open believer. If he is a metaphor for us, where is Jesus leading US out of the night and into the light?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
May 30
OT -- 2 Samuel 15:23-16:23
It is hard for me to know who to pull for in these scriptures. David seems so weak and Absalom seems, well, so wicked.
Everyone is betraying David, including David.
I have a hard time believing that he did not want to fight back, to fight on, to crush Absalom. But maybe that is what makes David so David.
He seems ever ready to give into his children even when they are misbehaving. And Absalom, even though he had cause, is clearly behaving badly.
This set of scriptures hurt. It hurts me to read of David and his allowing people to pelt him with rocks and rotten stuff. It hurts me to hear of Saul's grandson's skedaddling for the up and comer. I don't think this will go well with him. Just my prediction.
And isn't this story repeated in our NT scripture today? John 18:25-19:22
That crowd, that just days before was huzzahing into a frenzy is calling for Jesus to be crucified. Is this crowd mentality in both situations? Go with whoever is in power? Or is there something more here?
John speaks of Jesus fulfilling prophesies and I know Jesus did. But human behavior is consistent. Crowd mentality follows the power. Jesus had it and deliberately chose not to use it. To fulfill the prophesy? NO! To save US!
May we attempt to be worthy and may each of us avoid the crowd.
It is hard for me to know who to pull for in these scriptures. David seems so weak and Absalom seems, well, so wicked.
Everyone is betraying David, including David.
I have a hard time believing that he did not want to fight back, to fight on, to crush Absalom. But maybe that is what makes David so David.
He seems ever ready to give into his children even when they are misbehaving. And Absalom, even though he had cause, is clearly behaving badly.
This set of scriptures hurt. It hurts me to read of David and his allowing people to pelt him with rocks and rotten stuff. It hurts me to hear of Saul's grandson's skedaddling for the up and comer. I don't think this will go well with him. Just my prediction.
And isn't this story repeated in our NT scripture today? John 18:25-19:22
That crowd, that just days before was huzzahing into a frenzy is calling for Jesus to be crucified. Is this crowd mentality in both situations? Go with whoever is in power? Or is there something more here?
John speaks of Jesus fulfilling prophesies and I know Jesus did. But human behavior is consistent. Crowd mentality follows the power. Jesus had it and deliberately chose not to use it. To fulfill the prophesy? NO! To save US!
May we attempt to be worthy and may each of us avoid the crowd.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Seven stories that all the same in all 4 Gospels
Just in case you are wondering, here are the seven stories that are all the same in all 4 gospels. Also in case you are wondering, no one (including me!!!!) got them right. I had to go back and pull my notes from a previous Bible Study.
I should mention that there are 3 caveats. Of course.
1. The baptizing of Jesus by John the Baptist and John talking about Jesus. Different gospels have more or less about John with only Luke talking about his birth but all four have John declaring that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is unworthy to baptize Jesus.
2. Jesus finding his disciples.
The 3 synoptic have Jesus finding Andrew and John fishing but even John finds Andrew and Peter in Galilee and has them immediately leaving for following Jesus. All mention A & P by name as first.
3. The feeding of the 5,000.
All have this miracle. All have the baskets and the loaves and fishes. All have massive leftovers. Must have been an incredible witness to the power of God.
4. The moneychangers in the Temple.
While John has it happen at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and the syn optics have it just before the arrest, all of them have Jesus running the Temple guys swapping Roman coins for Temple money.
5. The Anointing of Jesus.
My personal favorite of the 7 commons, I like it best in John with Mary named and accounted for.
6. The Garden of Gethsemane and the Betrayal/Arrest/Trial of Jesus. Sorry to lump all these together but the story is consistent throughout the gospels.
Caveat one: Peter denying Jesus is in the middle of each of these narratives. I personally feel that it should get its own billing. Why? Well, for one thing, why is this story in all 4 gospels?? Who would tell such a thing? Peter. That is who would tell it. And he must have told it a lot since so very many people heard it, reported it and it made its way almost unchanged in 4 very distinct gospels. Especially John. I think Peter told this story over and over on himself to point out that HE had done something this horrible and he KNEW Jesus personally. Was one of the first (see #2). How much more so would people be who had not known Jesus in the flesh.
7. The Crucifixion.
All 4 gospels tell it slightly different but take away the minute details and you have a stripped down, all the same story. A graphic commentary on how much Jesus loves us and what he is willing to do for us.
Caveat two. Most people want to add the resurrection. But the oldest manuscripts of Mark do not contain the resurrection. What all 4 gospels do contain is that the women go to the tomb and find it empty. I personally think that this is a common but my instructor and I fought about it and the class I was in voted him over me. You have to chose on that one.
Caveat three. There are two mini sermons that are possible commons. I also lost on this point too. The first is the whole "prophet in hometown" issues Jesus had in Nazareth. I think John 4:43 qualifies but John puts Jesus in 'Galilee' while the other 3 put him in Nazareth. Part of the problem is that we don't exactly know where Nazareth is.
The other mini sermon has to do with the Temple being thrown down. I won this argument. I thought since all the gospels were at least codified if not written after AD 70, it was not fair to have Jesus going on about the Temple being thrown down. And in John and Luke, he is mystical and cryptic about it while he is flat out on the table in Matthew. Mark is vague.
I did not think sermonizing was fair game since the Matthew Beatitudes and all the wanderings in John can be interpreted six ways to Sunday.
You get to chose on these as well.
So there you have it. My sevens with three caveats. Agree or disagree?
Blessings to you all.
I should mention that there are 3 caveats. Of course.
1. The baptizing of Jesus by John the Baptist and John talking about Jesus. Different gospels have more or less about John with only Luke talking about his birth but all four have John declaring that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is unworthy to baptize Jesus.
2. Jesus finding his disciples.
The 3 synoptic have Jesus finding Andrew and John fishing but even John finds Andrew and Peter in Galilee and has them immediately leaving for following Jesus. All mention A & P by name as first.
3. The feeding of the 5,000.
All have this miracle. All have the baskets and the loaves and fishes. All have massive leftovers. Must have been an incredible witness to the power of God.
4. The moneychangers in the Temple.
While John has it happen at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and the syn optics have it just before the arrest, all of them have Jesus running the Temple guys swapping Roman coins for Temple money.
5. The Anointing of Jesus.
My personal favorite of the 7 commons, I like it best in John with Mary named and accounted for.
6. The Garden of Gethsemane and the Betrayal/Arrest/Trial of Jesus. Sorry to lump all these together but the story is consistent throughout the gospels.
Caveat one: Peter denying Jesus is in the middle of each of these narratives. I personally feel that it should get its own billing. Why? Well, for one thing, why is this story in all 4 gospels?? Who would tell such a thing? Peter. That is who would tell it. And he must have told it a lot since so very many people heard it, reported it and it made its way almost unchanged in 4 very distinct gospels. Especially John. I think Peter told this story over and over on himself to point out that HE had done something this horrible and he KNEW Jesus personally. Was one of the first (see #2). How much more so would people be who had not known Jesus in the flesh.
7. The Crucifixion.
All 4 gospels tell it slightly different but take away the minute details and you have a stripped down, all the same story. A graphic commentary on how much Jesus loves us and what he is willing to do for us.
Caveat two. Most people want to add the resurrection. But the oldest manuscripts of Mark do not contain the resurrection. What all 4 gospels do contain is that the women go to the tomb and find it empty. I personally think that this is a common but my instructor and I fought about it and the class I was in voted him over me. You have to chose on that one.
Caveat three. There are two mini sermons that are possible commons. I also lost on this point too. The first is the whole "prophet in hometown" issues Jesus had in Nazareth. I think John 4:43 qualifies but John puts Jesus in 'Galilee' while the other 3 put him in Nazareth. Part of the problem is that we don't exactly know where Nazareth is.
The other mini sermon has to do with the Temple being thrown down. I won this argument. I thought since all the gospels were at least codified if not written after AD 70, it was not fair to have Jesus going on about the Temple being thrown down. And in John and Luke, he is mystical and cryptic about it while he is flat out on the table in Matthew. Mark is vague.
I did not think sermonizing was fair game since the Matthew Beatitudes and all the wanderings in John can be interpreted six ways to Sunday.
You get to chose on these as well.
So there you have it. My sevens with three caveats. Agree or disagree?
Blessings to you all.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
May 27
OT – 2 Samuel 13:1-39
Ask and you shall receive! I typed why is David’s daughter named Tamar and up popped this wonderful commentary on this scripture.
I was curious as to WHY David would have allowed his daughter to be named after the Tamar of Genesis. (You remember, Judah’s daughter-in-law who did not get the 3rd son and thus snared Judah). She was the great-great whatever grandmother of David and thus the one more great of our Tamar.
Clearly, the Tamar of Genesis was one shrewd woman and went after what SHE wanted. Our Tamar is almost, well, Mother said I shouldn’t call anyone stupid any more. Naïve. That is what our Tamar is.
Go check out this website. See if you agree with Susan.
And if you still want to pursue this topic, Beth Moore has an astounding sermon, well, you can’t call it a sermon since she is Baptist and a woman, a Talk about this very scripture. Skip to minute 2:30 to get straight to her.
Beth Moore's Family Calamity Part 2
Happy Memorial Day.
Ask and you shall receive! I typed why is David’s daughter named Tamar and up popped this wonderful commentary on this scripture.
I was curious as to WHY David would have allowed his daughter to be named after the Tamar of Genesis. (You remember, Judah’s daughter-in-law who did not get the 3rd son and thus snared Judah). She was the great-great whatever grandmother of David and thus the one more great of our Tamar.
Clearly, the Tamar of Genesis was one shrewd woman and went after what SHE wanted. Our Tamar is almost, well, Mother said I shouldn’t call anyone stupid any more. Naïve. That is what our Tamar is.
Go check out this website. See if you agree with Susan.
And if you still want to pursue this topic, Beth Moore has an astounding sermon, well, you can’t call it a sermon since she is Baptist and a woman, a Talk about this very scripture. Skip to minute 2:30 to get straight to her.
Beth Moore's Family Calamity Part 2
Happy Memorial Day.
May 27
OT 2 Samuel 12:1-31
"Is the child dead?", he asked.
"Yes."
Haunting words. Especially this weekend when so many are celebrating graduations, school endings, pool parties and Memorial Day.
And then there is the finalization of the story of the little boy who was taken in NY so very many years ago.
The death of a child is the hardest strain on a marriage according to most marriage counselors. It tops infidelity by a long, long run and handily beat money issues which come in at #3.
My relationship with my dad's mother was complicated. She thought and said to me on more than one occasion that I was a 'heathen'. Okay, I am to some degree. She had issues and I was not understanding and compassionate. I do not EVER remember her calling me. For ANY reason.
But when I had a miscarriage, she called and cried with me on the telephone.
Years later, I have decided that she, too, must have lost a baby. Only someone who has walked that path would have acted that way, especially given the uneasy relationship she and I had.
One of the goals of Scripture is to illuminate our relationship with God. We have good and bad stories, testimonials, cautionary tales.
No matter how we feel about the adultery side of David and Bathsheba's relationship, what we have here is a model for how to handle the death of a child.
"Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and he went to her and lay with her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon."
Several observations about those two sentences.
1. David had pulled himself together but he didn't pull APART from Bathsheba.
2. They continued to be with one another physically. How easy it would have been for mighty David to have ditched Bathsheba for the next pretty young thing with no leftover pregnancy pooch, no crying jags. He did not put her aside.
3. 'they' named him Solomon. The two of them stayed in close relationship. They must have been talking and sharing during her pregnancy. Not alone. Together.
All of this must have been a terrible strain on someone who was also trying to fight his own demons and rule a country. What an incredible, complicated, awesome man David was.
And this, I think, is why we also have the hamstrung horses in close proximity. David was a MAN. Not a god. He did good and bad and really awful things. He was incredibly talented and incredibly selfish, but also a favored one of God. But he was a MAN.
Much peace and serenity to you on this Sunday.
"Is the child dead?", he asked.
"Yes."
Haunting words. Especially this weekend when so many are celebrating graduations, school endings, pool parties and Memorial Day.
And then there is the finalization of the story of the little boy who was taken in NY so very many years ago.
The death of a child is the hardest strain on a marriage according to most marriage counselors. It tops infidelity by a long, long run and handily beat money issues which come in at #3.
My relationship with my dad's mother was complicated. She thought and said to me on more than one occasion that I was a 'heathen'. Okay, I am to some degree. She had issues and I was not understanding and compassionate. I do not EVER remember her calling me. For ANY reason.
But when I had a miscarriage, she called and cried with me on the telephone.
Years later, I have decided that she, too, must have lost a baby. Only someone who has walked that path would have acted that way, especially given the uneasy relationship she and I had.
One of the goals of Scripture is to illuminate our relationship with God. We have good and bad stories, testimonials, cautionary tales.
No matter how we feel about the adultery side of David and Bathsheba's relationship, what we have here is a model for how to handle the death of a child.
"Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and he went to her and lay with her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon."
Several observations about those two sentences.
1. David had pulled himself together but he didn't pull APART from Bathsheba.
2. They continued to be with one another physically. How easy it would have been for mighty David to have ditched Bathsheba for the next pretty young thing with no leftover pregnancy pooch, no crying jags. He did not put her aside.
3. 'they' named him Solomon. The two of them stayed in close relationship. They must have been talking and sharing during her pregnancy. Not alone. Together.
All of this must have been a terrible strain on someone who was also trying to fight his own demons and rule a country. What an incredible, complicated, awesome man David was.
And this, I think, is why we also have the hamstrung horses in close proximity. David was a MAN. Not a god. He did good and bad and really awful things. He was incredibly talented and incredibly selfish, but also a favored one of God. But he was a MAN.
Much peace and serenity to you on this Sunday.
Friday, May 25, 2012
May 26
OT -- 2nd Samuel 9:1-11:27
David and Bathsheba. How many sermons, books, movies and plays are based on this story! It is the original Fatal Attraction. Fatal, I guess to Uriah and the first baby boy.
Here is a great link to commentary on this story.
I do have one observation and it deals with the very beginning of the story. Vs. 2 One 'evening', David got up from his bed... Having walked my own path of depression and been around several others who have experienced that, I know what being 'in bed' in the evening means. This is not the story to debate depression but in some small, silly way, it makes David all the more real to me that he seemed to suffer from depression and his decisions were just as poor as mine were while he was in that state.
NT -- John 15:1-27
The NIV uses the word 'remain' for all these verses. I much prefer the word 'abide' which is from King James Version. Abide has a 'cleaving' sense, maybe even a 'graph' sense of burrowing down in Jesus and growing together. Remain seems almost like you could bolt at any minute and I guess you can but who would want to after experiencing the love of Jesus?
I keep hearing "You and Me Against the World" in my head. And that is what this scripture passage says to me, that I am NOT alone even if the world 'hates' me, Jesus is there with me, sharing the hurt and derision.
Click Here if your email doesn't display YouTube.
Proverbs 16:1-3
All man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord.
Guess the this was pretty apropos to The OT scripture today.
David and Bathsheba. How many sermons, books, movies and plays are based on this story! It is the original Fatal Attraction. Fatal, I guess to Uriah and the first baby boy.
Here is a great link to commentary on this story.
I do have one observation and it deals with the very beginning of the story. Vs. 2 One 'evening', David got up from his bed... Having walked my own path of depression and been around several others who have experienced that, I know what being 'in bed' in the evening means. This is not the story to debate depression but in some small, silly way, it makes David all the more real to me that he seemed to suffer from depression and his decisions were just as poor as mine were while he was in that state.
NT -- John 15:1-27
The NIV uses the word 'remain' for all these verses. I much prefer the word 'abide' which is from King James Version. Abide has a 'cleaving' sense, maybe even a 'graph' sense of burrowing down in Jesus and growing together. Remain seems almost like you could bolt at any minute and I guess you can but who would want to after experiencing the love of Jesus?
I keep hearing "You and Me Against the World" in my head. And that is what this scripture passage says to me, that I am NOT alone even if the world 'hates' me, Jesus is there with me, sharing the hurt and derision.
Click Here if your email doesn't display YouTube.
Proverbs 16:1-3
All man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord.
Guess the this was pretty apropos to The OT scripture today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)