How old is the lectionary?

Many Christian groups have put together lectionaries, orderly sequences of reading the Scriptures throughout the year. The practice of reading Scriptures during a worship service dates back to Biblical times, and there are various references in the Talmud to appointed lectionary-style readings. But the reference which points back furthest in history is not a record of the events in the days when the Talmud was written, but a part of the Talmud claimed to be an oral history passed along from ancient times -- even back to the days of Moses.

And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord. (Lev 23:44) It is part of their observance that the section relating to each one of them should be read in its season.

Our Rabbis taught: Moses laid down a rule for the Israelites that they should enquire and give expositions concerning the subject of the day — the laws of Passover on Passover, the laws of Pentecost on Pentecost, and the laws of Tabernacles on Tabernacles. (Megilah 32a)

If this oral history is accurate, then the principle of having a lectionary -- and some of the readings used in that lectionary, still used today -- are over three thousand years old. Those of us who belong to traditional churches may pause and consider the depth of our roots. Whenever I see a reference to Christian history as if it started two thousand years ago, I cringe inside. Christ was a long-expected branch of an ancient tree; we are more than two thousand years old.

Scenes from our front porch

This little beauty had been inside a chrysalis on the front porch. We had been watching it for at least a week now. On Saturday night the chrysalis became see-through; on Sunday the Monarch butterfly finally came out. We got several pictures before its wings dried enough for it to fly away. The chrysalis picture is one that I took; the emerged butterfly photo is courtesy of my daughter, who is quite the budding photographer.

If Wisdom is a Tree of Life ...

She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her. (Proverbs 3:18)

In reading older interpretations of Scripture, I have seen some different methods of interpretation than are currently in use. One method is to take something revealed in one setting and apply it back to another setting to see if it is fitting. The "Tree of Life" makes several appearances in the book of Proverbs, the only place besides Genesis where it appears in the Old Testament. In its first appearance in Proverbs, the Tree of Life is wisdom.

If we understand the Tree of Life as wisdom, it sheds a whole new light on the account of the Fall in Genesis. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of course, brings death; but what about the Tree of Life? What if the choice was not between Knowledge and Ignorance, but between Knowledge and Wisdom? What if our problem was not that we valued Knowledge while God sought to keep us in the dark, but that we valued Knowledge more than Wisdom? We reached for Knowledge when God wanted to give us Wisdom. The history of humanity has been filled with times when our knowledge has been to our downfall because we valued knowledge over wisdom. Many technological and medical breakthroughs have been followed quickly by a wish that we had learned to understand better before we plunged forward. World literature from Oedipus Rex to Frankenstein has been filled with people who, lacking wisdom, were betrayed by their own knowledge.

It has always seemed odd to me that the pair of trees were "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and "Life"; those are hardly a natural pair. And we knew it worked out to "Death" and "Life", which are a more natural pair. It also seemed odd that God would create man and woman in his image but ask them not to go after Knowledge (even if it was Knowledge of Good and Evil), and all the while the culture that passed down this story is renowned for scholarship. And many have questioned why God would create this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil at all.

I've heard the suggestion that, if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that the day would have come when God had given them of that tree as a gift. They may have a point.

The Gospel of Mark and the Identity of Christ

The Gospel of Mark is an early gospel, widely believed by scholars of the textual traditions to be the earliest of the four canonical gospels. It is also the shortest of the four. There is a strain of scholarship that reads the synoptic gospels and does not see how Jesus became revered even as a human Christ -- much less as God. This move -- recognizing Christ as more than just a prophet but as Divine Power in human form -- is seen by some scholars as a strain on the text, an imposition by the faithful on a history which does not warrant it and which, perhaps, the earliest church did not intend.

While I am familiar with these claims simply by living in a culture in which such claims are largely taken for granted by non-Christians, I do not think a fair reading of the synoptic gospels warrants such an assessment. To that end, I will briefly recap the first chapter of the book of Mark. The following is organized by the NIV section headings in Mark chapter 1.

---

John the Baptist Prepares the Way (Mark 1:1-8)
A superficial glance shows that Jesus is important enough to have a herald announcing his arrival. Attention to detail shows some other points of interest:

1. The original prophecy has a messenger preparing the way for the LORD (using the name of God). According to Mark, the fulfillment has John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus.
2. The one coming after will John baptize with the Holy Spirit – will pour out the Holy Spirit on the people, again the work of God.

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus (Mark 1:9-12)
A voice from heaven announces that Jesus is His Son. “Son of God” calls up images of the Wisdom of God, the Anointed King, and the people of God. The question becomes how many of these meanings are intended. Granted that we are all children of God, still the author of Mark has already put the title "Christ" (Messiah) on the table, so at least the meaning of the Anointed King should also be considered as intended.

The Calling of the First Disciples (Mark 1:14-20)
Jesus’ arrival on the public scene coincides with the approaching kingdom of God and the announcement of good news.

Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit (Mark 1:21-28)
Jesus is identified as the Holy One of God. He has power over evil. He is said to teach with authority. It raises the question: by whose authority? While this is the first time the question of Jesus’ authority arises in Mark, it is far from the last.

Jesus Heals Many (Mark 1:29-34)
Jesus is shown to have power also to heal diseases. He does not allow demons to speak because they know who he is. The disciples are left wondering.

Jesus Prays in a Solitary Place (Mark 1:35-39)
News of Jesus spreads.

A Man With Leprosy (Mark 1:40-45)
The only certain point is that Jesus heals leprosy. Leprosy was a disease which was considered to defile a person.

---

After only one chapter of Mark we have already had a prophecy in which someone who is supposed to be preparing the way for the LORD (God) announces the coming of Jesus, followed by several references to Jesus possessing the same power as God, a voice from heaven calling him Son, and demons calling him the Holy One of God. I know there are those who say that in the synoptic gospels there is no sure sign of Jesus being anything other than a human Messiah (and maybe not even a Messiah), but I wonder how carefully they’re reading the text.

Judaism and the foundation of Christianity

From the recent Trinity Blogging Summit, one thing that has drawn comment both here and elsewhere on my submission was the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. It is a highly charged topic, to say the least. So I did want to mention a few things in places more visible than comments sections:

1. Jewish thought in Jesus' day was deeply steeped in the word of God. The Jewish nation had what was then a unique revelation and a unique insight into the mind and character of God.
2. On this basis I see the Judaism of Jesus' day as the seed of the true religion which would ultimately be for all nations, as it is now since Jesus came.
3. When I refer to Jewish thought, I include the early centuries of Christian Jews and especially the New Testament Jewish authors. To consider Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James, Jude, or Paul as "un-Jewish" is an anachronism.
4. I am not interested in "using" Judaism to "validate" Christianity: after someone rises from the dead, I cannot comprehend anyone still looking over their shoulder to check a human opinion.
5. When the Jewish community divided into those for Jesus and those against, I do not see any reason to privilege the views of those Jews who deny Jesus as the Messiah as having a unique claim to Jewish identity. I do not see how it can be legitimate to deny or marginalize Jesus' Jewishness or that of his disciples and apostles. They have full right to have us acknowledge their historic Jewish identity.
6. So when I say that Jesus is to be understood in a Jewish framework, I do not intend to define that Jewish framework as the modern Jewish context of anti-Christian polemics.
7. I am, however, insisting that the New Testament writings be read in the original context. The New Testament makes frequent references to previous Jewish thought, both by quotation and by allusions. The intended meaning can be lost without that context.
8. My call, then, is to recognize that the early Christian writings are written in a Jewish context and so demand a Jewish framework in order to be understood properly.
9. This Jewish framework then includes Christ and his apostles. This inclusion has far-reaching implications in that Judaism is also transformed from within by Jesus' teachings, life, death, and resurrection.
10. In this way Christianity -- including Christianity's Jewish origins -- should not be limited to what had been anticipated by those centuries of faithful Jews before Jesus came; it would deny the Jewish context of his incarnation and revelation.

None of this is intended to deny or belittle the other cultures that made significant contributions to the early development of Christian thought beyond the confines of Judea. It is simply to acknowledge that when Jesus calls himself "Messiah", or says "My yoke is easy", or calls himself "the bridegroom", these things make allusions to Jewish thought and culture. To take a parallel example about the allusions and the cultural context: if someone were to go through life in English-speaking lands with no familiarity with Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens or Tolkien, they would miss a huge number of references. It would be easy to miss the full meaning of what was said by not understanding the reference.

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #11 is Up

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #11 is up at Dr. Pursiful's blog. He has done a great job organizing and presenting the Carnival. Stop by and give him a read for the latest on Christian reconciliation from the Christian blogosphere.

Darwinists set to endorse religious affiliations

In a backlash against the militant neo-atheists, moderate atheists have decided to endorse religious affiliations, citing "survival of the fittest" concerns. This surprise move was anounced today in Atheist/Progressive Report 1 (APR-1), which cited the following reasons for their move:

1. Religious groups encourage people to have children, which some Darwinists consider to be a useful step in the survival of the species.
2. They discourage killing children in utero, again contributing to higher reproduction rates.
3. They advocate stable relationships, proven healthy for any offspring.
4. They encourage heterosexual unions, which generally leads to more offspring than same-sex unions.

Given the Darwinist dedication to survival of the fittest, these moderate Darwinists have determined that, in their own self-interest, it is best to join religious groups, raise their children in such groups, and encourage others to do the same.