jump to navigation

An understanding consistency March 22, 2009

Posted by Damian in Living Christianity, Sex, Sexuality and Marriage.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

John Shore has written a few posts I’ve found compelling lately. What he said (here) was that ‘wealthy Christian’ should be an oxymoron, based on Luke 12:33 (“Sell your possessions and give to the poor.”), Matthew 19:21 (“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.”) and Matthew 6:24 (“You cannot serve God and Money.”).

In that post, he received a number of objections – most of them arguing that Jesus didn’t really mean what he was saying there. He was being rhetorical. Which is, of course quite possible. For example, I tend to believe that what Paul says about homosexuals isn’t to be interpreted the way many Christian’s interpret them; it isn’t quite so cut and dry I say.

Which leads me to a point (that John kind of made here) on consistency: If my  interpretation of scripture considers homosexuality a grey area, how can I consistently consider money a black and white issue?  Or conversely, if I consider money a grey area – ‘of course Christians can be wealthy‘ – how can I believe consistently that homosexuality is a black and white issue? Surely both reveal a lack of consistency in my position; both Paul and Jesus seem clear on their respective subjects.

What we can do to distinguish the two of them is argue at the level of the text; Doug Chaplin successfully did this regarding homosexuality about six months ago here. But I don’t think arguing a distinction (although there indeed may be one) is the solution: I think the solution must be consistency. In fact, I think the solution is not just consistency, but understanding consistency.

Recently, Westley Hill posted regarding his and other’s struggles as gay Christians seeking to follow God’s instructions as best they could. It’s overwhelming message was that these brothers and sisters in the church need our understanding and recognition. I think, in a way, this means recognising that a Christian struggling with homosexuality within the church should be regarded no differently in the eyes of his brethren as a Christian struggling with selling his possessions and giving all to the poor – that is, he should be regarded as equal to every other one of us. We do not reject men for not giving away all their money; why reject someone for a sexuality that is far more a part of them than any man’s wealth is. I suggest that if we recognise this, regardless of your position, an understanding consistency means that no Christian is unjustly criticised for his position.

And those who argue with this, I echo John Shore: If you are a rich Christian, then how can you criticise a homosexual Christian and call yourself consistent?

So now, I ask: What are your positions on the subjects, and how do you defend yourself as consistent?

The heart is a tomb and there our thoughts and our intellect are buried… March 18, 2009

Posted by Damian in Early Christian Belief and Patristics.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

I have spoken many times regarding my respect for the desert fathers. St. Makarios wrote this (which I found at Is God Anonymous):

“When you hear that Christ descended into hell in order to deliver the souls dwelling there, do not think that what happens now is very different. The heart is a tomb and there our thoughts and our intellect are buried, imprisoned in heavy darkness.

And so Christ comes to the souls in hell that call upon him, descending, that is to say, into the depths of the heart; and there he commands death to release the imprisoned souls that call upon him, for he has power to deliver us.

Then, lifting up the heavy stone that oppresses the soul, and opening the tomb, he resurrects us–for we were truly dead–and releases our imprisoned soul from its lightless prison.”

I like how here he interprets Christ’s descent into hell as a foreshadowing of Christ’s gift of freedom to us. However, I’m not sure about the contrast set up here between the then, Christ coming to the souls in hell, and the now, Christ coming into the depths of the heart. Or rather, I’m not sure if this draws a contrast; is Makarios implying that hell is in our hearts, or is he simply saying that the darkness inside us is like the hell that Christ descended to?

What do you all think of this saying? What do you think Makarios means or implies?

I’ll be slowing down… March 15, 2009

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.
3 comments

My life has gotten a bit busy, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. So, I’ll be posting a little less regularly – I can’t say how often – but less than the three or four a week I’ve been posting lately. If you’ve recently found your way here, browse the categories or popular posts in the sidebar until I get back on my blogging feet. I encourage you all to leave comments regarding your thoughts – perhaps conversation can make up for my own decreased output, and help maintain a lively community. God bless!

Melchizadek outside Genesis March 12, 2009

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

I’ve been reading and journalling through Hebrews the past few weeks, and when I came upon Melchizadek in Hebrews 5, I decided to look into him a bit more deeply. To summarise Melchizadek’s appearance in Genesis 14:

A bunch of kingdoms were at war. Abram’s nephew Lot was living in Sodom (of ‘having drunken randy louts’ fame), and was kidnapped with all his possessions  when the city was conquered. Abram heard, got his mates together and rescued him. Melchizedek then came out (along with the King of Sodom), and blessed Abram. His blessing was fairly generic: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Here, I don’t really feel that Melchizadek was important enough at all to deserve the focus he gets in Hebrews. So, I went to the direct quote, in Psalm 110.

The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of your enemies.”

Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy splendor, your young men will come to you like dew from the morning’s womb.

The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”

The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook along the way, and so he will lift up his head.

Here, again, I was mystfied by Melchizadek’s appearance. Why was he there? What’s worse, I don’t have commentaries on Genesis or Psalms here to refer to, so I’m going to have to figure this out myself. What I think is clear, however, is that neither Psalm 110 nor Hebrews 5 (and probably subsequent sections of Hebrews) are relying only on Genesis 14 for their inspiration. That must come from elsewhere.

So was there some kind of tradition regarding Melchizedek, similar to the extrabiblical tradition regarding an Angel being the intermediary to the law, mentioned earlier in Hebrews 1 and 2? Best way to find out is to explore early Jewish and Christian texts:

  • In ‘Dead Seas Scroll’ 11Q13, Melchizedek is a heavenly figure, said to bring freedom from the debt of sins and atonement to the sons of light. He defeats Satan and his evil spirits, but he will carry out the vengeance of God’s judgements, and will free the sons of light from the hand of Satan and his spirits. Melchizedek even gets referred to with God’s names (el, and elohim).
  • In 2 Enoch, Melchizedek is a heavenly figure who is taken to heaven to be High Priest forever. 2 Enoch is a 2nd Temple period text.
  • Nedarim 32B of the Babylonian Talmud  interprets Genesis’ blessing as being a priesthood given to Abram. The word of Melchizedek made Abram a priest.
  • This Nag Hammadi scroll even goes so far as to say Melchizedek is Jesus Christ.

I don’t have access to any of the many great post-temple Midrash that I am told are devoted to Melchizedek. Josephus and Philo speak of Melchizedek as well, at least in his Torah incarnations: According to them, his name means ‘King of Righteousness’, and he’s the king of Salem, which is traditionally a name for Jerusalem, but also means ‘peace’: The king of peace. Hebrews mentions this later on in c.7:2.

But, just those are very interesting: The amount of surviving literature (albeit not all dating in the same period) suggests that there was a Melchizedek tradition of some sort in Jewish and Christian circles in the early Christian centuries. And these traditions may well have fed into the author of Hebrew’s choice to use Melchizedek as a model for Christ’s role: That is, a heavenly figure who is also a man, one taken into heaven (a la 2 Enoch); one that brings freedom and atonement, and defeats evil spirits, bringing freedom from them (a la 11Q13); a high priest that gave priesthood to the people of God (a la Nedarim 32B). What’s more, a character who is both King of Righteousness and Prince (’king’) of Peace. The gnostic Melchizedek text  even goes so far as to say Melchizedek is Jesus Christ. There is a heck of a lot of extrabiblical tradition that Hebrews seems to draw from.

As for Psalm 110; well, I think Nedarim 32B explains the process in the Jewish psyche that put that phrase into Psalm 110. Especially considering how it seems to portray the relationship between King and God, the blessing of Melchizadek to Abram as an inference of priesthood makes perfect sense.

My conclusion: There is most definitely something going on outside of the biblical text that contributed to the use of Psalm 110 as prophetic regarding to Christ.

Lenten Fasting March 10, 2009

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

I’m not fasting for Lent this year, instead deciding to take something up as a dedication to the Lord. But I think next year, I’ll follow this exhortation, from an Orthodox Metropolitan:

“Let our fasting be accompanied by the refusal to indulge in judgment and criticism of others: gossip, slander, suspicion and innuendo, all that is hateful to God.

Let us fast from meat, as we fast from the carnality of hatred and resentment of others, which is the source of our passions, pain and addictions.

Let us fast from cheese, as we cut out the bitterness that curdles the joy in our lives, the pure milk of love.

Let us fast from eggs, so that the seeds of corruption do not hatch in our souls. Let us fast from oil, so that we do not grease our lips to slander and fry our neighbor.

Let us fast from wine, that we might remain sober and watchful, to maintain the purity of our souls, minds and hearts.”

Thanks Orroglion for linking to this. I love the meaning Orthodoxy puts into its traditions; this is not fasting for its own sake, but fasting to remind us of the people we ought to be. As I said, next year, I think I will try this fast.