Deuteronomy 30:15-20

As mentioned in the last few weeks, the authors of Jeremiah were probably the same as the authors of Deuteronomy. These authors lived late in the days of the divided and conquered kingdom of David. This is the theory according to the Documentary Hypothesis. A good introduction to that is “Who Wrote the Bible”, by Daniel Friedman, although it's a bit outdated. Or just search on JEDP writers. It's probably why this passage occurs at this point in the lectionary, despite it's location much earlier in the Old Testament. According to the hypothesis, while in exile, a few, or possibly one person, ordered the ancient stories from the two kingdoms, combined some of them and made a few changes to make it a coherent narrative. That's the theory anyway.

Seen in this light, you can see the intentions of the later Deuteronomist writers in the first part of this passage. You can see how similar this is to last week's Jeremiah passage. They are telling people not to walk away from the rules laid down by their kings and priests. In verse 18, they put this in the historical context of crossing the Jordan. As the words were actually being written, they either had or were about to lose the land they had lived on for generations. The words here are put into the mouth of Moses, as if they explain why that happened. They stopped obeying God and all they need to do now is get back to that. God promised that land to Abraham, but apparently he didn't make clear a few of the conditions. Deuteronomy fixes that.

Jeremiah 18:1-11

Sometimes, there are arguments, discussions if you will, about the mind of God. The concepts of “all-knowing” and “all-powerful” don't go well with capriciousness or with a lack of single minded clarity. Not everyone supports the omniscient version of God, instead saying he is as powerful as is possible, or works within parameters that he chooses, or something of that nature. Some don't accept that a contradiction found between Exodus and Corinthians is a problem at all. It's part of the narrative that God is revealing himself to us in a manner that we can accept and a time scale we can comprehend.

I've heard a lot of those discussions, but I don't think I've heard anyone bring up this passage. A clear statement, “from the LORD”, “but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.” An anti-theist would unlikely be familiar with this passage. A liberal pastor would probably not want to bring it up. A conservative pastor might have different reasons, but probably still wouldn't mention it.

What happened in your church?

Philemon 1:1-1:21

This is from a group of letters from Paul, known as the “church” letters. This one is actually to an individual, Philemon, and some friends and their house church. There were no large Christian churches on the highest hills in the largest cities as there are now. The early Jesus movement began in homes. We also see Paul is in prison. It is assumed he died there, although the details are sketchy. This letter is also one that most historians agree was really written by Paul.

The other person mentioned is Onesimus, an actual slave, not a metaphorical one. The slave had run away and Paul is urging Philemon to take him back, as a slave still, of course. The reference to “child” is metaphorical of “born again” and how Paul would have been the one to bring him to Christ, not that he was his biological father. Paul says, “but more than a slave”, but it's not clear what this whole verse means. There are other similar verses about master and slave being equals before Christ, but there is nothing about freeing slaves and some verses about leaving things as they are (1 Cor 7:17-24). They may have been treating slaves as equals during service in those house church functions, but they were still slaves.

Just what he is asking of Philemon is difficult to determine. The Greek translation allows for a few interpretations. It might be that Paul wants the slave for his own, something he could do, even in prison. Paul has done the service of converting the man, so he is asking for a favor in return. Note verse 8, “though I am bold enough in Christ to command you...”. This phrasing may sound familiar to some, if you still have pastors who speak this way, but this is Paul, he has the ultimate stature of having heard directly from Jesus and been given orders. He is considerate in this letter, and not demanding, but he doesn't fail to mention where his authority comes from.

Paul was in a position at this time that forced him to truly act the way he had been preaching. He needed to speak from love and gentleness when he asked for anything. He is imprisoned, a bit humbling. His words are carefully chosen. He uses the analogy of being completely bound to the control of God, and calls it being a “prisoner of Christ”. If only we could sit all of these characters down and talk to them, each in private interviews like some kind of reality show, and find what is truly in their hearts. What is politics? What is simply wanting a slave? What is honestly speaking from compassion?

The last verse, 21, has the wonderful ring of a Catholic mother, letting her daughter go to the dance with no specific instructions for how to behave but letting her know that her mother knows she'll choose wisely, “...knowing that you will do even more than I say.”

Luke 14:25-33

This is a favorite passage for atheists. A command to hate your father and mother, from the same guy who said to keep the commandments. (It's the 5th one you are trying to remember. They will come around in the lectionary next Fall). I think a direct reading of these words is unfair. I think the interpretation should not be “hate” but “love less”. Put another way, and this is clear throughout the Bible, put your relationship to God first, then your family, then your community. Family and community vary throughout life, so the rules are not as clear cut as we'd like.

This advice works just as well in a naturalistic view. You have come into consciousness in this universe, not a different one, not a better one. Get used to it, get comfortable with it, make peace with it. Someone loved you enough to change your diaper and shove food in your mouth when you couldn't do much of anything useful. In fact you were a pain in the butt for a few years. You might want to appreciate whomever that was, even if they did a relatively poor job of it. But at some time, move on, make your own life and your own babies and keep the whole cycle going. Build that foundation by learning and gaining from your parents and/or early care givers as much as you can, then go on to conquer whatever it is you think you were put here to conquer.

Personally, I find the rhetorical nature of these questions a bit humorous. I know a lot of engineers who build horrible foundations and plenty of kings who charge into the fray, or more likely send out their canon fodder, with no concern for how to win the battle. And cost estimates? Really? Who does that? I wish more would send their peace delegations when they realize just what they are asking young men and women to do.

And, I wish more would at least acknowledge verse 33. There are so many out of place quotes and entire theologies that are out of tune with “So, therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.” I know it is difficult to understand what is meant by that. Some say these gospels were telling us the end was near, so what use would possessions be? But true or not, how does this fit with the nations rising up or chosen people getting milk and honey?