The prophet Jeremiah details an appalling catastrophe which brought down damnation upon unbelieving Israel. It was the changing of the Gods. Perhaps it was like the changing of the guard. At one point in time Yahweh was the God of Israel. At another point in time, there was a change. Yahweh was God of Israel no longer. He had been replaced by a whole host of senseless and totally useless idols of stone, and of wood, and of Israel's rabid imagination.
God says through Jeremiah, "I remember your youthful devotion, the love of your betrothals, your following after me through the wilderness, through a land not sown," through a land which was wild, untamed, and uninhabited. "I brought you into that land." I drove out its inhabitants before you. I gave you "its fruit and its good things." I provided for each and every one of your needs. "But you came and defiled my land; and my inheritance you made an abomination. . . . The rulers also transgressed against me . . . and have walked after things that did not profit." They have laid the land waste.
Through the pen of Jeremiah, God asks the appalling question, "Has a nation changed gods, for that which is no god at all? Be appalled, O heavens; Shudder, and become terrified at this. For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fount of living water, to hew out for themselves cisterns which are broken, and which cannot contain any water."
I attended a send-off ceremony for my son who is a member of our National Guard. He is being deployed. He is being sent away on government business. It was a gala event, a grand and spectacular event which attracted the dignitaries from the city, the state, and the country. The speakers which spoke, spoke of the great cause of human freedom and justice. They spoke of the quest for peace, which was spoken of as an enduring human endeavor. They invoked the name of God. God bless America! God bless our soldiers! We will pray for you while you are away, and may God bring you back safely to us.
Earlier that morning, I had attended a worship service devoted and dedicated to that God -- I think I can still refer to this God using a capital "G." Maybe 25 people -- the room was large. Perhaps I underestimated; let's say that there were more like 30-50. Has the nation changed gods? Have we abandoned our fount of living water to hew out for ourselves cisterns that cannot contain any water?
I have read in our history books accounts of the civil war where the war stopped on Sunday so that men of both Union and Confederate stripe would have time to worship on Sunday. I read accounts of how Union and Confederate soldiers would even worship together in the same services, and then commence their fighting again on Monday. I have been at the Lincoln Memorial at the Capital, and I have read the consternation of Lincoln, that both side in the battle called upon the same Lord and God and invoked His care and His keeping over the soldiers of their Army.
And I have to ask, "What has happened to this God now?" Where is His honor? Where is His devotion? Where is His praise?
I can hear it now, and I share the grief, how a nation that swore allegiance to that God could divorce herself, and kill and maim her brothers on a battlefield when both sides claimed allegiance to the One who was supposed to be the "Lord" of the battle. There were battles which were fought in the name of that God, likely battles which that God never called for, and to which He never rendered any assistance or aid. Perhaps that is why this God is disdained now; perhaps that is why at this send-off His true worship garnered little supporters at all.
I don't have many answers. I only know that I left the auditorium wondering if we really cared about the God whose blessing and care we invoked. Has a nation changed gods? Be appalled, O heavens; Shudder, O earth, and return to the desolation from when you have started. It is an appalling catastrophe, a crying, and a dying shame.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Listening to the Obedience of Jesus
There are two themes which are highlighted in the two stories of Jesus to which I have referred in my previous posts. These are themes which I believe are often overlooked in the pulpit. The first is the idea that Jesus went through stages, and that he perfected each one by his consistent and persistent obedience and submission. The second is that to which I now speak in this blog, and that is his sublimation of even his divine mission in order to be submissive to human authority. Or perhaps we should think of it like this: Jesus sublimated one form of obedience to his Father in order to be fully obedient to the ultimate desire of his Father, that of fully fulfilling the law, in order to fulfill our obedience for us.
Let me explain what I mean. In the childhood account of Jesus, Jesus asks Mary and Joseph, "Did you not understand that I must be about my Father's business?" A quite literal rendering of the Greek puts it this way, "Do you not understood that it is absolutely essential (dei) that I am doing the things of my Father?" But the text indicates that Mary and Joseph apparently did not agree with Jesus that now was the time for him to be doing what he was doing, for he leaves the temple, and he goes home with them; and the text says explicitly that he went home with them and that he was subject to them. And Luke seems to emphasize this when he states immediately after this that Jesus " increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people" (Luke 2:52 in the NET Bible).
The next thing we read in Luke concerns the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. There is an implication here -- and I do not think it is unintentional -- and that is that Jesus' submission continued on into his adulthood. The text does not come right out and say it, but it certainly implies it, especially when read without the chapter breaks which were not a part of the original text.
The second passage to which I referred in my previous post, about the wedding at Cana, has this sentiment in it again. If I might paraphrase the saying of Jesus, "Woman, what are you saying to me? Do you not know that my time has not yet come?" I don't want to humanize the divine too greatly; however, it is almost like Jesus is saying, "Mom, you are pushing me out into the world before I am ready." And we know it is not quite that way, for Jesus has a full and divine sense about his heavenly mission. But it is the learning obedience thing once again, Jesus is learning as a human what he is already fully aware of in his divinity, that there would come a time and a place for the public demonstration of his ministry. And we could read into this exchange between Jesus and Mary and come to the conclusion that in some way Mary, as Jesus' parent, is an agent from God to Jesus, helping him to sort out what is the proper time of the Father in order for Jesus to begin his ministry in the public manner which would ultimately lead to his death.
In both of these cases, Jesus has an internal sense of calling and timing that is overruled by human authority, specifically parental authority -- and I think this understanding is crucial. For what is Jesus' primary commandment when it comes specifically to parents? To honor his father and his mother, which is what was written in the commandments of Moses. The command to honor means to give place to, to give weight to, to place oneself under another, or, in modern parlance, it would mean to give into another, or to prefer another as being greater than you are yourself.
Jesus' honoring of his mother is demonstrated even on the day of his death. One of the seven words from the cross are the words of Jesus looking after his mother. John bears this out. Jesus sees his mother, Mary, and the disciple which he loved, which we believe to be a reference to John, and he says to her, "Woman, behold your son." And to John he says, "Behold, here is your mother." Apparently by this time Joseph is deceased, and Jesus, as the oldest child, is fulfilling his familial responsibility to look out after his mother. And so, as he is dying, he turns responsibility for her care and keeping over to John, a disciple whom he trusted and loved.
In this way, Jesus fulfills the commandment to honor his father and mother. As I have stated previously, by this he passes through and sanctifies this stage of life for us by perfectly fulfilling the commandment. This is one area that we as humans rarely are able to get right. I, at the age of 47, had to recently call up my parents and apologize to them for years of inappropriate treatment. I had never publicly dishonored them; but I had not always held them in a place of honor in my heart. I called them to try to make things right; and I am trying now to restore the years that the locusts have eaten. It is a struggle sometimes, but by the grace of God, I trust that I will continue to honor them up to the time they are dead.
I made this comment one time to a pastor friend of mine, who came right back with a shot that hit me "square 'tween the eyes." She said, "What do you mean up to the time they are dead, what about after they are dead; you still have to honor them then." She explained that her parents had been dead now for years, but that she still evaluates her behavior and trusts that what she is doing now is still bringing honor to her parents. Amazing, I thought. I would have never have considered that the commandment did not end with the life of the parents. But then again, this is the familial bond; we are always the children of our parents, and we will never be able to fully rise above them even after they are dead and gone.
Let me explain what I mean. In the childhood account of Jesus, Jesus asks Mary and Joseph, "Did you not understand that I must be about my Father's business?" A quite literal rendering of the Greek puts it this way, "Do you not understood that it is absolutely essential (dei) that I am doing the things of my Father?" But the text indicates that Mary and Joseph apparently did not agree with Jesus that now was the time for him to be doing what he was doing, for he leaves the temple, and he goes home with them; and the text says explicitly that he went home with them and that he was subject to them. And Luke seems to emphasize this when he states immediately after this that Jesus " increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people" (Luke 2:52 in the NET Bible).
The next thing we read in Luke concerns the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. There is an implication here -- and I do not think it is unintentional -- and that is that Jesus' submission continued on into his adulthood. The text does not come right out and say it, but it certainly implies it, especially when read without the chapter breaks which were not a part of the original text.
The second passage to which I referred in my previous post, about the wedding at Cana, has this sentiment in it again. If I might paraphrase the saying of Jesus, "Woman, what are you saying to me? Do you not know that my time has not yet come?" I don't want to humanize the divine too greatly; however, it is almost like Jesus is saying, "Mom, you are pushing me out into the world before I am ready." And we know it is not quite that way, for Jesus has a full and divine sense about his heavenly mission. But it is the learning obedience thing once again, Jesus is learning as a human what he is already fully aware of in his divinity, that there would come a time and a place for the public demonstration of his ministry. And we could read into this exchange between Jesus and Mary and come to the conclusion that in some way Mary, as Jesus' parent, is an agent from God to Jesus, helping him to sort out what is the proper time of the Father in order for Jesus to begin his ministry in the public manner which would ultimately lead to his death.
In both of these cases, Jesus has an internal sense of calling and timing that is overruled by human authority, specifically parental authority -- and I think this understanding is crucial. For what is Jesus' primary commandment when it comes specifically to parents? To honor his father and his mother, which is what was written in the commandments of Moses. The command to honor means to give place to, to give weight to, to place oneself under another, or, in modern parlance, it would mean to give into another, or to prefer another as being greater than you are yourself.
Jesus' honoring of his mother is demonstrated even on the day of his death. One of the seven words from the cross are the words of Jesus looking after his mother. John bears this out. Jesus sees his mother, Mary, and the disciple which he loved, which we believe to be a reference to John, and he says to her, "Woman, behold your son." And to John he says, "Behold, here is your mother." Apparently by this time Joseph is deceased, and Jesus, as the oldest child, is fulfilling his familial responsibility to look out after his mother. And so, as he is dying, he turns responsibility for her care and keeping over to John, a disciple whom he trusted and loved.
In this way, Jesus fulfills the commandment to honor his father and mother. As I have stated previously, by this he passes through and sanctifies this stage of life for us by perfectly fulfilling the commandment. This is one area that we as humans rarely are able to get right. I, at the age of 47, had to recently call up my parents and apologize to them for years of inappropriate treatment. I had never publicly dishonored them; but I had not always held them in a place of honor in my heart. I called them to try to make things right; and I am trying now to restore the years that the locusts have eaten. It is a struggle sometimes, but by the grace of God, I trust that I will continue to honor them up to the time they are dead.
I made this comment one time to a pastor friend of mine, who came right back with a shot that hit me "square 'tween the eyes." She said, "What do you mean up to the time they are dead, what about after they are dead; you still have to honor them then." She explained that her parents had been dead now for years, but that she still evaluates her behavior and trusts that what she is doing now is still bringing honor to her parents. Amazing, I thought. I would have never have considered that the commandment did not end with the life of the parents. But then again, this is the familial bond; we are always the children of our parents, and we will never be able to fully rise above them even after they are dead and gone.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Listening to the Young Adulthood of Jesus
This post has been rewritten, keeping the substance, but deleting some of the extraneous matter.
My previous post addressed Jesus learning obedience in his childhood. This post examines his young adulthood. In our culture, we could just as easily say his adulthood, for the event I will be addressing happens when Jesus is nearing 30.
This incident once again involves his obedience to his mother. I think this incident in the life of Jesus seriously challenges the current societal delusion that something magical takes place on the day one turns 18, that all of a sudden, BOOM, you become an adult, and then nobody can tell you what to do any longer. This ideation can hardly be supported Biblically, though there is no question that one's responsibilities become broader when one reaches adulthood. However, the Western ideal of total autonomy is a delusion, as is the idea that one is ever totally free from any obligation to parents.
The incident in Jesus' life is the wedding feast at Cana as recorded in John 2. The story is familiar: the host of the wedding has miscalculated in the amount of wine which was needed for the party. He has run out of wine, and the family is likely on the edge of a social disgrace and humiliation. Mary finds out about the dilemma, and she calls Jesus in for the rescue.
The interchange between Jesus and his mother is fascinating. "Son, they have no wine." Jesus, "Woman, what to me and to you?" -- a literal rendering of the Greek. Mary, to the servants, "That which he says to you, do it." What is going on here? How do we understand this dialogue and Jesus' enigmatic, cryptic response to his mother?
The various translations differ here. Some follow the KJV to the effect of "Woman, what do I have to do with you?" Others turn this around, following another textual witness, and make this "Woman, what do you have to do with me?" Jesus follows this up with the statement, "My hour is not yet come," implying that he is rebuking his mother for having overstepped her bounds of authority in some manner, perhaps in attempting to command control over those aspects of Jesus' divinity. Others make this more general, "Woman, what has this to do with us?" In other words, ""Woman, this is none of our business," or "Woman, this is no concern of ours, it is the responsibility of others, let them care for it on their own."
A young person from our modern generation may understand Jesus to be rebuking his mother here, saying to her something on the order of, "Woman, what do you have to do with me? I am an adult now, and I need to be able to make my own decisions. You do not have any authority over me any longer, so you really shouldn't be ordering me around!" In fact, I can hear the argument for this interpretation now, and that is that Jesus is simply setting his boundaries; he is engaging in emotionally healthy behavior, and he is gently letting his mother know that she is violating his personal space, and that she is infringing upon his autonomy as a person.
I so not think that this argument can be supported from the text, for it does not fit very well with Jesus' actions. You see, Jesus did what his mother instructed him to do. Mary says to the servants, "Whatever he says to you, do it." Jesus calls for the water pots, and turns the water into the wine. Mission accomplished. Jesus has obeyed his mother's implicit instructions, he has fulfilled them right to the T.
In so doing, Jesus has honored his mother. Whether or not there is an overstepping of personal boundaries is perhaps a valid point of discussion. However, despite any overstepping that there may have been, Jesus has honored his mother. He has not put her to open shame. He has maintained her dignity, demonstrating his obedience to the command in the law of Moses to honor his father and mother.
I am not certain if Jesus' statement to Mary is intended to be a mild chastisement or not. If it is, I suspect it has far more to do with Mary asking Jesus to demonstrate the power of his divinity than that he is trying to set boundaries concerning any violation of his supposed person. When it comes to allowing people to violate his person, Jesus sets the example; he endured all forms of suffering, yet he never tried to protect himself, neither when it was crucial, did he ever offer any defense. Our Roman Catholic friends refuse to see a rebuke here, and maintain that Jesus was simply addressing according the custom of the day. And that does seem to be the case in Jesus' use of the term "Woman," for that is the way that he also addressed other women in the Gospels.
There is more to be said here, but it will require at least one additional post. Stay tuned, and I will get right on it, before I forget what it is that I desire to say.
My previous post addressed Jesus learning obedience in his childhood. This post examines his young adulthood. In our culture, we could just as easily say his adulthood, for the event I will be addressing happens when Jesus is nearing 30.
This incident once again involves his obedience to his mother. I think this incident in the life of Jesus seriously challenges the current societal delusion that something magical takes place on the day one turns 18, that all of a sudden, BOOM, you become an adult, and then nobody can tell you what to do any longer. This ideation can hardly be supported Biblically, though there is no question that one's responsibilities become broader when one reaches adulthood. However, the Western ideal of total autonomy is a delusion, as is the idea that one is ever totally free from any obligation to parents.
The incident in Jesus' life is the wedding feast at Cana as recorded in John 2. The story is familiar: the host of the wedding has miscalculated in the amount of wine which was needed for the party. He has run out of wine, and the family is likely on the edge of a social disgrace and humiliation. Mary finds out about the dilemma, and she calls Jesus in for the rescue.
The interchange between Jesus and his mother is fascinating. "Son, they have no wine." Jesus, "Woman, what to me and to you?" -- a literal rendering of the Greek. Mary, to the servants, "That which he says to you, do it." What is going on here? How do we understand this dialogue and Jesus' enigmatic, cryptic response to his mother?
The various translations differ here. Some follow the KJV to the effect of "Woman, what do I have to do with you?" Others turn this around, following another textual witness, and make this "Woman, what do you have to do with me?" Jesus follows this up with the statement, "My hour is not yet come," implying that he is rebuking his mother for having overstepped her bounds of authority in some manner, perhaps in attempting to command control over those aspects of Jesus' divinity. Others make this more general, "Woman, what has this to do with us?" In other words, ""Woman, this is none of our business," or "Woman, this is no concern of ours, it is the responsibility of others, let them care for it on their own."
A young person from our modern generation may understand Jesus to be rebuking his mother here, saying to her something on the order of, "Woman, what do you have to do with me? I am an adult now, and I need to be able to make my own decisions. You do not have any authority over me any longer, so you really shouldn't be ordering me around!" In fact, I can hear the argument for this interpretation now, and that is that Jesus is simply setting his boundaries; he is engaging in emotionally healthy behavior, and he is gently letting his mother know that she is violating his personal space, and that she is infringing upon his autonomy as a person.
I so not think that this argument can be supported from the text, for it does not fit very well with Jesus' actions. You see, Jesus did what his mother instructed him to do. Mary says to the servants, "Whatever he says to you, do it." Jesus calls for the water pots, and turns the water into the wine. Mission accomplished. Jesus has obeyed his mother's implicit instructions, he has fulfilled them right to the T.
In so doing, Jesus has honored his mother. Whether or not there is an overstepping of personal boundaries is perhaps a valid point of discussion. However, despite any overstepping that there may have been, Jesus has honored his mother. He has not put her to open shame. He has maintained her dignity, demonstrating his obedience to the command in the law of Moses to honor his father and mother.
I am not certain if Jesus' statement to Mary is intended to be a mild chastisement or not. If it is, I suspect it has far more to do with Mary asking Jesus to demonstrate the power of his divinity than that he is trying to set boundaries concerning any violation of his supposed person. When it comes to allowing people to violate his person, Jesus sets the example; he endured all forms of suffering, yet he never tried to protect himself, neither when it was crucial, did he ever offer any defense. Our Roman Catholic friends refuse to see a rebuke here, and maintain that Jesus was simply addressing according the custom of the day. And that does seem to be the case in Jesus' use of the term "Woman," for that is the way that he also addressed other women in the Gospels.
There is more to be said here, but it will require at least one additional post. Stay tuned, and I will get right on it, before I forget what it is that I desire to say.
Listening to the Childhood of Jesus.
In my doctoral studies, I have been reading through Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. I am now in the middle of Volume 3, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). In the pages that I have been reading, Pelikan is assessing the theology of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, specifically his understanding of the passage in Hebrews where it says that Jesus "learned obedience through the things which he suffered." Bernard's understanding of this is that while it was impossible for the Logos of God to learn anything new, he can learn by experience things which he already knew from eternity, but which he had never before experienced personally experience, or which he had never experienced as a man.
Bernard's understanding is very near to my own, though I perhaps have not been able to articulate it as clearly. According to Pelikan, Barnard writes that what Jesus knew as God, he now experiences as man. As God, he is the healer of human infirmity; as man, he now experiences infirmity himself. Quoting Bernard, Pelikan writes, "I would not say that he is made wiser by his experiences, but he does seem to be nearer to the children of Adam." This sentence struck me; and it combined with some other of my tangential thoughts. And I found myself wondering, "What did Jesus learn about life as a kid, as he was learning obedience at the hands of his parents?"
The New Testament tells us precious little about the childhood of Jesus. Gnostic accounts are filled with fabulous stories, but I discount them, as I do not consider them Scripture. From the writers of Scripture we have far more information about his birth and his infancy that what we do about his childhood. Then we have the big leap to his ministry; it is almost as if his childhood did not exist!
Yet, we have the incident when he was 12, when he was taken to the temple by his parents. After the festivities were over, his parents start for home, "supposing him to be in the company," apparently of other people from Nazareth. But when the company stops for the night, they cannot find him; and so back to Jerusalem they go. They find Jesus in the temple, and they get after him a bit. I can hear it now, "Jesus, what on earth are you doing?" "What's up, Mom and Dad, did you not know that I would be about my [true] Father's business?"
My children struggled when their personal convictions violated mine. "Dad," they would argue, "You taught us to live by our convictions, and to do what we believe the Lord would have us to do. Why don't you let us? Why do we have to live by your [outdated] convictions? You need to give us the freedom so that we can live by our own!"
Perhaps Jesus could empathize with my children, for it appears as if Mary and Joseph did not agree with Jesus that this was the proper time for him to be able his [true] Father's business. I agree, the text does not specifically state this; however, it certainly implies it, for it says that he "went with them, and [they] came to Nazareth, and [he] was subject unto them" (Luke 2:51 KJV), I am guessing without complaint. And interestingly, the next thing that Luke tells us about is the beginning of Jesus' ministry, started at about the time he was 30. Once again by implication it appears as if it was quite some time before his parents freed him up in order to begin pursuing his ministry.
You may say, "That is really an example of learning obedience through suffering." Well, I disagree, for I suspect that to a child it is. St. Bernard of Clairveaux arguef that Jesus passed through every stage of life sinless, obedient, learning obedience through suffering. In passing through sinless, Jesus sanctified every stage of life, and he left us a pattern, so that as Peter states, we are to follow his steps. And so, even in his childhood, he sets an example that even children can follow.
Bernard's understanding is very near to my own, though I perhaps have not been able to articulate it as clearly. According to Pelikan, Barnard writes that what Jesus knew as God, he now experiences as man. As God, he is the healer of human infirmity; as man, he now experiences infirmity himself. Quoting Bernard, Pelikan writes, "I would not say that he is made wiser by his experiences, but he does seem to be nearer to the children of Adam." This sentence struck me; and it combined with some other of my tangential thoughts. And I found myself wondering, "What did Jesus learn about life as a kid, as he was learning obedience at the hands of his parents?"
The New Testament tells us precious little about the childhood of Jesus. Gnostic accounts are filled with fabulous stories, but I discount them, as I do not consider them Scripture. From the writers of Scripture we have far more information about his birth and his infancy that what we do about his childhood. Then we have the big leap to his ministry; it is almost as if his childhood did not exist!
Yet, we have the incident when he was 12, when he was taken to the temple by his parents. After the festivities were over, his parents start for home, "supposing him to be in the company," apparently of other people from Nazareth. But when the company stops for the night, they cannot find him; and so back to Jerusalem they go. They find Jesus in the temple, and they get after him a bit. I can hear it now, "Jesus, what on earth are you doing?" "What's up, Mom and Dad, did you not know that I would be about my [true] Father's business?"
My children struggled when their personal convictions violated mine. "Dad," they would argue, "You taught us to live by our convictions, and to do what we believe the Lord would have us to do. Why don't you let us? Why do we have to live by your [outdated] convictions? You need to give us the freedom so that we can live by our own!"
Perhaps Jesus could empathize with my children, for it appears as if Mary and Joseph did not agree with Jesus that this was the proper time for him to be able his [true] Father's business. I agree, the text does not specifically state this; however, it certainly implies it, for it says that he "went with them, and [they] came to Nazareth, and [he] was subject unto them" (Luke 2:51 KJV), I am guessing without complaint. And interestingly, the next thing that Luke tells us about is the beginning of Jesus' ministry, started at about the time he was 30. Once again by implication it appears as if it was quite some time before his parents freed him up in order to begin pursuing his ministry.
You may say, "That is really an example of learning obedience through suffering." Well, I disagree, for I suspect that to a child it is. St. Bernard of Clairveaux arguef that Jesus passed through every stage of life sinless, obedient, learning obedience through suffering. In passing through sinless, Jesus sanctified every stage of life, and he left us a pattern, so that as Peter states, we are to follow his steps. And so, even in his childhood, he sets an example that even children can follow.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Listening and Wisdom
I am finding that the theme of hearing and listening is very prevalent in the Scriptures, far more so that what I would have first imagined. I have started a sermon series in Proverbs, and there it is again. In the introduction to the book, Solomon writes that the whole key to wisdom, to understanding the words of the wise is to listen. The wise man will hear, and he will increase in learning; and the man of understanding will also listen (meaning implied) and he will attain unto wise counsel. Listening is a key to growth in sound judgment, in the skill of living, which is what the word wisdom means in Proverbs; wisdom ultimately comes from God, God possessed it in Himself at the time that He created the world.
Therefore, what does Solomon advise his children to do? He tells them to hear, to listen. "My son, listen to the instruction of your father, and to not forsake the law of your mother, for they are an ornament of grace unto your head, and they are the chains (of luxurious jewelry) about your neck." Solomon was the king of Israel, the son of the mighty David. He was crowned king. He wore the royal chains. But he tells his son that the real crown, the real symbols of royalty, were the teachings of royalty, were the instructions of royalty, were the input of father and mother, as they taught the son (perhaps the king to be!) to be wise, to be prudent, to be discerning, to have discretion, so that he would keep his feet from evil, so that he would be able to exercise sound judgment, and so that he would be able to properly govern the kingdom.
At the very head of his instruction to his son, Solomon states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Fools do not listen. Fools will not hear. Fools will not allow instruction and wisdom to guide them. They are full of their own thoughts, they are full of their own ideas; they are so open-minded that their brains leak out. They are easily deceived; they are susceptible to smooth words, or to the words of the con artist, or those who are greedy for gain and who will take advantage of the innocent in order to gain a profit.
This is the antithesis in Proverbs 1. Wisdom cries aloud in the streets. She cries from above, "How long, O you open-minded simpletons, how long will you love your open-minded simplicity?" The sinners cry out as well, the deceivers, the vultures, "Come with us, let us lie in wait for dishonest gain. Throw in your lot with us; we will all have one purse. We will suck out the life of the innocent." To whom will you listen? To whom will you give ear? Wisdom's assessment is that "I cried, but you would not listen; I stretched out my hand, but nobody paid attention to me."
The assessment of Proverbs is that foolishness is bound up in the heart of the children of humanity. How often we prove ourselves to be fools by our inability and unwillingness to listen. We trot off in foolish paths, listening only to our own mind, and we end up destroying ourselves; or, worse yet, we destroy the innocent with our stupidity. We set at naught the counsels of wisdom, and we do not turn at her reproof. And she laughs at us and mocks when our destruction comes as a whirlwind.
O Lord God, teach us Your fear. Teach us to be wise, help us to hear; unstop our ears and help us to listen. Cure us of our idolatry, and teach us the walk in Your ways. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Therefore, what does Solomon advise his children to do? He tells them to hear, to listen. "My son, listen to the instruction of your father, and to not forsake the law of your mother, for they are an ornament of grace unto your head, and they are the chains (of luxurious jewelry) about your neck." Solomon was the king of Israel, the son of the mighty David. He was crowned king. He wore the royal chains. But he tells his son that the real crown, the real symbols of royalty, were the teachings of royalty, were the instructions of royalty, were the input of father and mother, as they taught the son (perhaps the king to be!) to be wise, to be prudent, to be discerning, to have discretion, so that he would keep his feet from evil, so that he would be able to exercise sound judgment, and so that he would be able to properly govern the kingdom.
At the very head of his instruction to his son, Solomon states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Fools do not listen. Fools will not hear. Fools will not allow instruction and wisdom to guide them. They are full of their own thoughts, they are full of their own ideas; they are so open-minded that their brains leak out. They are easily deceived; they are susceptible to smooth words, or to the words of the con artist, or those who are greedy for gain and who will take advantage of the innocent in order to gain a profit.
This is the antithesis in Proverbs 1. Wisdom cries aloud in the streets. She cries from above, "How long, O you open-minded simpletons, how long will you love your open-minded simplicity?" The sinners cry out as well, the deceivers, the vultures, "Come with us, let us lie in wait for dishonest gain. Throw in your lot with us; we will all have one purse. We will suck out the life of the innocent." To whom will you listen? To whom will you give ear? Wisdom's assessment is that "I cried, but you would not listen; I stretched out my hand, but nobody paid attention to me."
The assessment of Proverbs is that foolishness is bound up in the heart of the children of humanity. How often we prove ourselves to be fools by our inability and unwillingness to listen. We trot off in foolish paths, listening only to our own mind, and we end up destroying ourselves; or, worse yet, we destroy the innocent with our stupidity. We set at naught the counsels of wisdom, and we do not turn at her reproof. And she laughs at us and mocks when our destruction comes as a whirlwind.
O Lord God, teach us Your fear. Teach us to be wise, help us to hear; unstop our ears and help us to listen. Cure us of our idolatry, and teach us the walk in Your ways. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)