partsofspeaking

--> For 2,000 years the Western World has debated who was responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.   Humanly, there are four main ones:   the religious leaders that planned it, the crowds that called for it, Judas who betrayed for it, Pilate who allowed it, and Jesus who consented to it, by “not opening his mouth in defense” (although it probably would not have mattered, humanly speaking.)   But Isaiah 53:10-11 says basically, stop the debate. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

This is a straightforward narrative; there is little need to look for hidden meanings.   It is quite dramatic, even cinematic, but of course we’ve all seen movies of it, or at least of someone’s version of it. I find it interesting that twice in this chapter we have two instances of the phrase, “You see to it.”   One is from the religious leaders to Judas, dismissing him now that he has been used by them, and the second is by Pilate to the crowd that is getting ready to riot, after he has “washed his hands of the whole thing.”   “You see to it” translates “not my circus, not my monkeys.”   It means “I am not responsible for this mess I’ve created and/or am supposed to be responsible for since I am the political ruler here.”   True leadership, what? Do we mistake having healthy boundaries for eschewing responsibility?   Where does the buck stop?   The human heart is really, really good at self-deception and self-appeasement.   Throwing up our hands (or washing them of responsibilit

Donate and learn more at https://www.walkwithcompassion.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=donordrive.participant&participantID=15306

I just finished reading this book, although it feels like perhaps I read it before, years ago.  The 1993 movie adaptation is so faithful overall (except perhaps the looks of the two main women characters) that I am probably remembering that, since I watched most of it recently. Hearing Joanne Woodward do the narration, as Wharton's voice, is a joy.  It is a masterpiece of style and subtlety and of depicting a world gone in the last century of when it was written. However, overall I have to say good riddance to that world, because these people are so wealthy, self-righteous, self-contained, and unaware of the larger world other than European fashion and art that I am not sure what their purpose is other than to keep merchants in business.  Talk about conspicuous consumption.  Wharton writes of them with a certain nostalgia because they are her people, but she is writing forty years later and knows they were in a bubble that would have to pop and long since had. The world is New

Having watched several versions of Sherlock Holmes stories over the years, and having visited the home of William Gillette, Gillette Castle in East Haddam, Connecticut, I decided it was time to read the real originals by Arthur Conan Doyle.  (Gillette was an actor at the beginning of the 20th century who played Holmes on stage and even in some early silent films, who made a fortune at it and built this extravagant and somewhat creepy mansion on the Connecticut River.  When a friend and I were up there, a friend of hers we were visiting told us to go there, so we took his advice.) It took a while to finish the books, because I am not a fast reader and there are scores of the short stories and novellas, but you can get them for a song on Amazon for your Kindle.  Do.  You won't regret it. First, the basic conceit of the stories works quite well.  A fiction writer uses a fictional character to be the author and narrator of the tales, so they are all (for the most part) in first per

Peter sat down to see the end.   Does that mean the outcome or in Peter’s mind, the real end of it all? The false witnesses possibly did not say what the priests wanted them to say, that Jesus blasphemed.   Did they make up other things, or did their stories disagree? Jesus doesn’t speak until he chooses to.   Since everyone knows those are false witnesses, why both to answer lies?   But he does affirm his deity and place in prophecy, which is probably why they mock him that way.   You   are the subject of prophecy, so why not prophesy to us?   From their perspective of unbelief and cultural blinders and racial superiority, they had a right to do what they were doing.   We can always find reasons to defend what we do.   That is the human gift and curse.  

I drove as far north as I could in the time I had to get to the Path of Totality. I was maybe 15 or 20 miles below it, i.e., Cleveland, TN.  A colleague gave me a pair of glasses, so I could watch it, and that was fun.  Slowly it got darker and darker, but not completely; about late dusk.  It was cool but I hate to say that I was not awe-inspired. Some people report life-changing religious experiences.  I just enjoyed it.  I didn't get stuck in traffic, either, or pay any money. It struck me that fear is largely from lack of understanding.  Our ancestors did not understand the orbits fully and feared the eclipse, making up myths for it.  We know it is a sign of our ordered universe, and as such that lack of randomness should elicit spiritual feelings in us. How much of our fear does come from lack of understanding?  Not lack of knowledge, per se, because I don't know what might or will happen tomorrow but I still get up and face the day.  But our understanding is limited in

“Cup” is a metaphor in the New Testament for suffering.   I am reading The Insanity of God and am about half-way through.   It is about those who drink that cup.   Not the suffering of being ill.   I am not fully convinced that illness was the kind of suffering Jesus and the apostles were talking about.   That is not to belittle suffering of that kind; the gospel has an answer for that kind of suffering, too.   However, I am pretty sure that suffering is referring to persecution, something I know nothing about. Jesus prayed that the cup would pass from him.   This has perplexed the church for years, yet I think we miss the point and also trivialize the cross   It was not that Jesus thought he could get out of it.   As fully human, who would want to go through the cross? And as fully deity, he is going to be separated from God and become a sin offering (not sin; he couldn’t become sin), an unimaginable experience for God.   We see the subordination of the will

Man, I love that phrase.  Do we live the "path of totality"? I live 30 miles or less (as the crow flies) beneath the path of totality.  I have an offer of glasses.  Now, getting up the interstate might be an issue on Monday.  The closer I can get, the better; maybe just park on the side of the interstate for it.  It's going to be crazy here the next couple of days because of our proximity. 

I finished this book yesterday.  I rarely recommend the books I read because they don't have wide appeal (Dickens, academic subjects) but this is the exception.  I really think everyon e should read this book. I read it on Kindle.  Get a copy if you can. Why?  Because it is reality.  The reality of what the vast majority of Christian believers face on this planet in places like South and Central Asia, China, Russia, and the Horn of Africa, to name a few.  The idea that after the fall of communism, persecution ended, is sadly untrue.  Second, it is a compelling and accessible story.  Although an academic by training, the author (who goes by the name of Nik Ripken but that is an alias) chose to write in a straightforward style that I would guess is at the 8th grade reading level.  One need not be a college graduate to read and understand this book (which is not to say college graduates are necessarily smarter than the norm).  Third, it will change your life or at least your w

Again I notice Judas sought out the religious leaders, not the other way around.   The disciples asked Jesus where he wanted to eat the Passover, not the other way around.   Who makes the request makes all the difference. When Jesus announces one will betray him, the others are honest enough to ask “Is it I?”   Perhaps it was fear of this egregious crime, but also awareness they were capable of it.   I have always been uncomfortable about hymns that uphold our own commitment to Christ, rather than his to us.   Ours is too full of gaps to sing about publicly! When Judas asked, was it a whisper to the side?   Did they all hear?   Perhaps not—the others would have prevented him from doing it—unless they thought it was impossible or because Jesus had said the betrayal was prophesied and must go forward.   No doubt they were confused if they heard it.   Jesus answer is indirect but clear, “You have said it.”       A deeper question is why did Judas ask if he i

In the story of the woman anointing Jesus, I have to wonder if there is a secondary lesson.   Don’t criticize others’ service.   The woman’s motivation was in the right place.   She made a sacrifice for the person who had forgiven her.   Either she knew something the others didn’t, or Jesus took it as an opportunity to interpret it that way, that is, that the anointing was in light of his death and burial in a few days.   This is a third lesson:   we have wildly imperfect perspective.   They saw it as a waste; Jesus saw the short- and long-term benefit of it in a totally different fashion than her critics did. I am the worst in the world to analyze others’ service and say “they should have . . . “ I have no right to that.   My biggest target is “evangelotourism,” aka mission trips.    I think a lot of money is wasted on those that could be spent on more useful missions enterprises, and the people in the villages or churches in the foreign countries are being ta

The chapter ends with Peter’s denial, not once, but three times.   They progress in vehemency: denial, denial with an oath, denial with cursing and swearing. Thoughts: In case anyone thought the apostles were goody-two-shoes plastic saints, this should convince them otherwise.   They were blue collar guys who hung out with blue collar guys before Jesus came, and he was a tradesman/workman for many years.  In the first two denials, he denies to a young girl.   Fear has no boundaries or logic. He wept bitterly when he realized what he had done.   We can weep from knowing that we are known by God.   Peter saw that he was known at his deepest core; he thought he would be strong enough, Jesus knew he would not.   Jesus wanted Peter to see himself before he could be fully used.   Peter had misconceptions about his own character and abilities.   This was the last straw for that.   We can weep from joy or from bitterness at knowing we are known.   Knowing we are

This passage brings up a lot of thoughts from me. If we have any temptation to “feel sorry” for Judas, who is often portrayed sympathetically by secular media, this should disabuse us.   He kisses Jesus, a Mediterranean/Middle Eastern custom of deep friendship between members of the same sex.   My female Islamic students kiss each other when they meet, showing that they don’t have phobias about getting too close and they value community. Judas kisses Jesus in order to identify him for the purpose of betrayal.   You can’t get much lower than that.   No wonder he committed suicide.   Who could live with it? Second, the text says that a multitude came with clubs and swords.   Who were these people?   Not soldiers, but civilians who had decided to join the religious elite, maybe for pay, maybe for acceptance and position, maybe because they were being blackmailed, and maybe because they just didn’t like Jesus and his teachers, and thought he was really a blasphe

I read this passage this morning and found myself speechless.   Do I have to write anything “insightful”?   I see what everyone else sees, the full anguish of Jesus’ soul, spirit, and body, something we can never know, only feel some part of it. We depend on the four gospels for the whole picture.   Jesus is in anguish because of the burden of what is about to happen and that humanly, his friends are leaving him. One betrays openly, the others secretively.   The passage ends with “Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.” I am reminded of how perfect, how well designed the Bible is.   It hangs together internally so well.   This passage is all about prophecy fulfilled, the Old Testament and his own.   Everything he told them is coming true.   Everything he is doing is so the Scripture can be fulfilled. Lest I miss it in literary analysis, let me reiterate my theme.   If Jesus is who he said he was and whom we believe, then the cross was worse for him t

Was Jesus prediction of Peter’s denial a self-fulfilling prophecy?   Was his saying that a planting of the act in Peter’s mind.   No, look at the whole context.   Again Jesus predicts the crucifixion and resurrection.   Again he quotes from Zechariah, a clear verse from an unclear chapter.   Jesus personalizes it, because the original is a command and Jesus puts it in first person, presumably God speaking.   When the shepherd is stricken, the sheep scatter.   When the leader is destroyed, the followers lose focus and don’t know what to do.   Peter has a problem with Jesus authority.   Living in close proximity with him   causes Peter to equalize Jesus, and thus to argue with him when Jesus says something that doesn’t fit his shema, although that schema is a little hard to pin down.   One aspect of that schema is that Peter sees himself as loyal, as perhaps numero uno in leadership and faithfulness.   So, if we put it in context, this is rebellion on Peter’s part

Familiarity breeds not  justcontempt but a glazing over, a not seeing what’s there.   This is true of relationships and texts, such as Scripture.   Since we hear this passage so much during Lord’s Supper services, we think we know it. Da Vinci’s painting looms before us (wrong as it is; it is more an exercise in Renaissance mathematics and symmetry than a portrayal of the human messiness of this story).   It is messy because they are eating on the floor in Middle Eastern style, totally non-Western; there was a foot washing before this, according to John; it’s a long meal with many servings and courses and rituals; and it is relationally messy, because Jesus is being brutally honest with them that they will not stand up to the pressure when he is arrested and will be scattered. It is also messy (complicated, I should say) because wars have been fought over what he means by the words in 26-28, which my group takes as metaphorical and others have taken as mysti

Judas agreed to take thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus.   In Zechariah 11 this amount of money is referenced again.   The context is still negative, but it does refer to it as “the price of a prince.”   12:13 says “ So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.”   Judas would later throw the money back at the priests and be buried in the potter’s field.   Interesting. Did Judas not know the brutal end of his betrayal?   What makes us make the choices we do?   We will never, I assume, betray someone for mere money in this way and with this result, but . . . . we have all done things and wondered where did that come from?   Why did I think this was a good idea?   What was I thinking?   The human heart is a mystery, complicated, enigmatic—deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it, says the Bible.   Knowing how good we are at self deception, how we can talk ourselves into things, shou