Colossians 3:1-11

This reading is pretty straight forward. It’s an explanation of what Christ’s death on the cross means to the world. It doesn’t mean much to me, so I’ll examine some other points of view for contrast.

There are other ways to interpret the meaning of the cross. We'll have plenty of time to examine those during the Easter season. This is Paul's view. Paul never actually met Jesus. We are introduced to Paul in the Book of Acts. He was working against the ministry of the early Christians until, so he says, he had a vision and Jesus spoke to him. So what “literal” words are we reading? Are we reading the words of someone who was trying to make sense of these events, these stories, these oral traditions passed on to him, just like the rest of us? Or are we reading the words of someone who directly heard from God? The answer to that will color how you read this passage and any other commentary.

The CARM ministry is pretty clear about it. The “A” in CARM is for apologetics (see glossary). The sermon helper you are reading now is kind of the opposite of that. In these sermon notes, Matt Slick writes:

I understand the words “use your minds” and “constructive”, but “holy” and “faithful” can mean different things to different people. I want to encourage words like “positive attitude”, but I can’t help wondering what is really important to Mr. Slick.

If you look further into the details of the verse by verse analysis, you’ll see more terms:

Verse 3: Reformed theology fits particularly well here.
1. Federal Headship . . . Jesus represented His people. He died. You died. He rose. You rose.
2. "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died," (2 Cor. 5:14).

Learning these terms could keep you busy for a long time. Sometimes I wonder if that is the point, to keep you busy. When someone tells me I can’t discuss the meaning of the Bible because I haven’t studied theology, I consider it a silencing technique. Martin Luther and Liberation Theology tell us we can look at the Bible with fresh eyes. Even John Calvin said he was against the Catholic tradition of not allowing the Bible to be translated.

Many interpreters of the lectionary will try to walk this fine line between thinking for yourself and learning their terms and accepting them as truth. I don’t think that line exists. If you are arguing for “Reformed Theology”, then you are thinking. It is only a question of how well you are doing it. It means you should be open to the logic of others and you should be able to discuss your thinking in a marketplace of ideas, not in a hallowed hall where only certain truths are allowed.

In the last verse, there is an oft repeated line about “no distinction between Greek and Jew”. But Matt barely mentions it.

*****************************************************************
Richard Carlson, The Working Preacher, whom I've linked before, does point this out, but notes that in just a few verses later in this chapter, we’re going to hear instructions on how to treat slaves. And it's not going to be instructions on emancipating them. So, he says this bit about distinctions doesn’t say those differences don’t exist, but “these contrasts no longer serve as the prime identity of people's separateness”.

We can at least see some shifting of cultural demographics going on here in the 1st century. We have seen much larger shifts in the past 100 years and they came after some brutal struggle against people claiming to be Christians who were very convinced that slavery was condoned by God, and women should be treated as second class, and people should choose their friends and partners based on religion and skin color.

These separations do exist, prime identity or not. Pretending that they don't does not serve to move us toward a more equal world.
*****************************************************************

One other piece of one verse reminded me of John Shelby Spong. The piece is “...consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire...”. Not all translations will use “member”.

Spong talks about Paul's frequent use of the word “member” in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. I can't link to the whole book. Instead I'll provide a contrasting opinion from Don Closson. You may find it difficult to read, frustrating that is. Skip down to the section on sex where it gets interesting if you like.

I find this response by Closson interesting in what he chooses to quote from Spong, essentially showing his arguments, and then attemptting to counter them. For example, here is Closson who is quoting Spong, then adding his own comments.

“Spong writes, 'So enter with me into the realm of speculation as we probe the life of Paul, using his words not as literal objects but as doorways into his psyche, where alone truth that changes life can be processed.' In other words, we are to ignore what Paul actually wrote and accept what the Bishop speculates.”

Closson is misunderstanding the word “speculate”. If you “enter into the realm of speculation” then you are not ignoring the verses you are reading or accepting what the Bishop says without thinking about it. You are accepting that you are reading as the words of a man, and that you are a human being with the ability to reason and speculate and consider the opinions of others.

I admit I have ignored some verses as I've gone through this lectionary, because I couldn't find anything to say about them. I am most certainly not asking you to accept what I say or to ignore anything you think is valuable.

Luke 12:13-21

This is another uniquely Lukan parable. And unique for Luke in that God himself shows up.

The parable begins with brothers dividing up an inheritance. It’s one of those cold things we have to do when someone dies. What you do with your wealth is up to you, but at my funeral, I hope they are talking about the good times we had, not my money. As he did 3 weeks ago, our Lukan author gives us something to think about in this life, rather than simply waiting for the apocalypse to take us up to heaven.

Bart Campolo really showed me the light when he talked about how little we know about the now dead Franklin D. Roosevelt. He led the United States through World War II. It could be said that he saved Western civilization. But what do we know about him? How many people are there that know about his daily life and what it was like to be with him? It's probably a similar number to the number of people who know you. It's not possible to know more than a few hundred people well. If you are busy saving the world, it's probably more of a challenge.

I probably wouldn't want a world where Roosevelt didn't do all the things he did, so Bart, and Jesus and I are not saying you have to choose between being great and having a healthy social life. We're saying don't forsake the one for the other. You'll probably be more interesting if you are trying to accomplish something and you'll probably do better at whatever you're doing if you have a supportive community around you.

The statement that comes before the parable, “life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” is pretty clear. And Jesus begs off being any kind of arbitrator of wealth, it’s not what he’s about. He is not disparaging wealth, but he brings it sharply into focus when the rich fool finds out his life is over. This man hasn’t done anything wrong, in fact he’s done well. He’s used what he gained to gain even more.

The mistake he makes is in the answer to “What should I do?” There are many thing he could have done. He could have done all the things we say we want to do when we retire. He could have spent more time with his family. He could have given more to charity instead of reinvesting and creating a perpetual cycle of investing his resources so he could have more resources. He could have learned to golf. I guess he would have had to invent it first.

Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12-14, 2:18-23

I don't like bothering with translations of individual words, but sometimes it can make all the difference. If you are not familiar with Ecclesiastes, this is a good introduction to it. It is unique in the Bible, almost atheist, at least agnostic. Unfortunately the Vanderbilt translations of the passages uses the word “vanity”, as does the King James Version. Others use “meaningless” or “nothing makes sense”.

Bart Ehrman tells us the word is “HEVEL”, and it refers to something transient or fleeting. The book of Ecclesiastes deals with this question about life, its fleeting nature. In these verses, it is mostly questions. God is mentioned, but almost as some trickster who has given us this “unhappy business” of life on earth.

It is a question that is often asked of the unbeliever. If there is only this life, then what is the point? Answers like “you make your own meaning” or “the meaning of life is to live” don't quite do it for many. Not even for those who have accepted that the end of their life is the end . They will no longer have thoughts or consider what might happen tomorrow or get to feel anything. Their body will return to the ground from where it came. But that doesn't help give any guidance about what to do today.

The reason it is hard to answer, the reason we end up with long lists of questions and laments like this, is the question is not formed well. It assumes that since we are here and thinking about it, there should be a meaning. There is no reason to think that. Instead, the meaning arises from what you are able to do and the thoughts you have about it. You might as well ask, “what is the meaning of meaning?”

This does not mean that you are completely responsible for your own happiness or are to blame if you are not happy and not fulfilled. You play a big part in that, but you are shaped by what you hear, what you experience, by everything that has ever happened while you are alive. So if things are not going the way you want, look to your environment and figure out how you can affect it. If you can't, at least figure out how you can make peace with it.

Music Suggestion: The Byrds, Turn, Turn, Turn

Hosea 11:1-11

These are some classic references. It talks of being freed from the slavery of Egypt, then how the chosen people “schemed” and how they are being punished by being conquered by the Assyrians. About the only thing that is true about that is that Israel was conquered by the Assyrians. This was a problem for prophets, a real problem, because the promises God had made weren’t working out. To maintain the consistent God narrative, they had to come up with some reasons for things taking such a bad turn.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, a new set of Bible writers entered the scene around this time, the “Deuteronomists”. They wrote stories of towns getting plagues, like Admah and Zeboiim, mentioned here Deuteronomy 29:22-23. Some call the language in this passage “grace” but I see it as abusive. The bully is showing anger and threatening retribution, but then pulling back and saying you’ll get one more chance. It’s clearly not saying that Israel exists due to Israelites managing themselves and their kingdom well. It’s saying they have sinned and God gets to decide if they should exist or not.