San Diego, California, United States First Church of the Nazarene Come and Go Sunday School Lesson with Dr. Herb Prince and Dr. Frank Carver for Sunday, 10 August 2014

San Diego, California, United States First Church of the Nazarene Come and Go Sunday School Lesson with Dr. Herb Prince and Dr. Frank Carver for Sunday, 10 August 2014

Long Ago God Spoke (8-10-14)

Part 17: Perception is Every Thing?

Hebrews 5:Re-Crucifying Jesus

11-14 I have a lot more to say about this, but it is hard to get it across to you since you’ve picked up this bad habit of not listening. By this time you ought to be teachers yourselves, yet here I find you need someone to sit down with you and go over the basics on God again, starting from square one—baby’s milk, when you should have been on solid food long ago! Milk is for beginners, inexperienced in God’s ways; solid food is for the mature, who have some practice in telling right from wrong.(Tne Message)

; Luke 5:27-28 After this he went out and saw a man named Levi at his work collecting taxes. Jesus said, “Come along with me.” And he did—walked away from everything and went with him.

29-30 Levi gave a large dinner at his home for Jesus. Everybody was there, tax men and other disreputable characters as guests at the dinner. The Pharisees and their religion scholars came to his disciples greatly offended. “What is he doing eating and drinking with crooks and ‘sinners’?”

31-32 Jesus heard about it and spoke up, “Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? I’m here inviting outsiders, not insiders—an invitation to a changed life, changed inside and out.”

33 They asked him, “John’s disciples are well-known for keeping fasts and saying prayers. Also the Pharisees. But you seem to spend most of your time at parties. Why?”

34-35 Jesus said, “When you’re celebrating a wedding, you don’t skimp on the cake and wine. You feast. Later you may need to pull in your belt, but this isn’t the time. As long as the bride and groom are with you, you have a good time. When the groom is gone, the fasting can begin. No one throws cold water on a friendly bonfire. This is Kingdom Come!

36-39 “No one cuts up a fine silk scarf to patch old work clothes; you want fabrics that match. And you don’t put wine in old, cracked bottles; you get strong, clean bottles for your fresh vintage wine. And no one who has ever tasted fine aged wine prefers unaged wine.”

[S]olid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil (Heb. 5:14). Milk is an image of basic studies in Greek education; solid food relates to more advanced studies.(Kevin Anderson, Hebrews: A Commentary in The Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013),180. )

Those who cling to old ways and so resist what Jesus is doing may think that they are honoring the God of Scripture and Torah, but appearances can deceive.(John Carroll, Luke: A Commentary, The New Testament Library (Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 136.)

[F]or we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7)

Introduction

Every now and then our friend, Harold Nevin, sends an e-mail that he has found informative, amusing or a new slant on things. Here is a paragraph of introduction he sent followed by several observations or questions that he and I find not only amusing but suggestive. “You have to love the strange and wonderful mind of Steve Wright. If you’re not familiar with the work of Steve Wright, he’s the guy who once said: ‘I woke up one morning and all of my stuff had been stolen. . . and replaced by exact duplicates.’  Here are some of his gems.”

1. Borrow money from pessimists, they don’t expect it back.

2. When everything is coming your way, you’re in the wrong lane.

3. Experience is something you don’t get until just after you need it.

4. What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

5. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

6. If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

7. I intend to live forever--so far, so good.

A word, a phrase, a thought, all may carry implications but who takes the time to think them through. People may “see” but they do not necessarily see the same thing. Perhaps perception is not everything when dealing with phenomena. The term phenomenology refers back to a distinction made by a eighteenth-century figure, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant distinguishes between phenomenon and noumenon, with the former standing for what appears in human consciousness and the latter functioning for reality-in- itself. This was his way of distinguishing between what our experience says is present and what is actually there before us, a problem increasingly important as one moves through modern times. Since Kant various individuals have attempted to critique his point of view and the adequacy of the distinction he made.  

When the term phenomenology is used today it usually stands in reference to the thought of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) or at least to someone who has drawn inspiration from him. For Husserl the goal is to get “back to the things themselves.” Kant’s skepticism kept Kant from writing of things as they are (reality in itself) and this bothered Husserl. Surely, Husserl said, there must be a method and a philosophy stemming from that method which would allow exploration of things themselves. Otherwise, he thought, we are caught in relativism. For Husserl, this search for absolute knowledge consumed him in spite of the difficulty of the project. He recognized that we tend to interpret what appears under the influence of previous encounters and similar experiences. Thus it becomes a proper question as to what it is that we describe when we deal with what appears in consciousness. Husserl clearly thought that

assumptions, prejudices and previous experiences color and thereby influence our descriptions when dealing with phenomena. Husserl writes about a “natural attitude” that we uncritically

employ. We tend to accept things as they appear. Is it possible to “bracket” assumptions and past experiences so they do not unduly influence us at any given moment? Husserl thought it possible.

Take an example that we all have experienced at one time or another. I am walking along deeply absorbed in my own thoughts. As I walk I become faintly aware that if I do not change course

I am going to collide with someone or something. I step this way, then that way as the person before me in this case does the same thing. We may both smile, than go on our separate ways. In that brief moment, even before I name who it is or what it is that I am about to encounter, there is an instant before I name the phenomena encountered. Then I recognize that it is Don or

Doris, a stranger or a tree, or whatever else there might be.

When I recognize him or her or it I may also recall previous experiences or opinions about him or her or it. I draw upon past or similar associations or even prejudices about what has appeared in my consciousness. If it was Tom, I may have good feelings about him. But if it is Richard, then I may be swayed by previous difficulties and possess other than positive feelings. In other words, I am influenced in describing who or what appears. The importance, standing or value of what appears is now not (shall we say) neutrally or objectively described but carries numerous overtones. My natural attitude of that appearance has replaced the split second available to me to actually describe what is indeed there. Thus I may be content with categorizing experiences or people or phenomena rather than seeing uniqueness and wonder associated with even the most common experience. Eating and drinking come to mind.

With this background let us now approach the biblical texts for today, the first drawn from Hebrews followed by an episode found in Luke. Food and drink are the common concerns in each scriptural selection. These physical components, these foodstuffs, provide nourishment, strength, energy and are necessary for human survival. The lack of such, as shown by the cuFrank Carver, “Priming the Pump,” Come and Go Class, July 27, 2014.rrent humanitarian crisis in Iraq, is disaster. However in the biblical texts today food and drink are not ends-in-themselves. They serve as a parable for readers to seek deeper spiritual values.

Hellenistic Paideia(Paideia (education, discipline) refers to “the instruction, training and maturation of individuals into cultured, civilized human beings.”  See Anderson’s helpful discussion on “Education in the Hellenistic World,” 178-181.)

The selection from Hebrews begins an extended section that our colleague, Dr. Frank Carver, entitled ‘Priming the Pump” in his most recent lesson.(Frank Carver, “Priming the Pump,” Come and Go Class, July 27, 2014.) The title fits well with what Kevin Anderson has termed “Preparing for Advanced Teaching on Christ’s High Priesthood” (5:11-6:20). In both Carver and Anderson, the perception of what is occurring in chapter 5 is the education of a Christian. The problem is that the recipients of Hebrews have “become dull in understanding.” Our author therefore sets up an extended digression (5:11-6:20) to prepare the reader for the more difficult portion of the sermon that is to come in chapter 7 (on King Melchizedek). He begins by confronting people who are “slow to learn.”

Speaking of Foodstuff

(Hebrews 5:11-14)

11About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding. 12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

The author clearly marks out the boundaries of what he wants to say about the people’s dullness. The first explicit reference to Jesus as “high priest in the order of Melchizedek” occurs in 5:10. “About this” the writer admits that he has much to say on the topic, a matter difficult to understand. It will have to wait until Heb. 6:20 before returning as he deals with what he perceives is the situation.

12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God.

The problem in Anderson’s words is a case of “arrested spiritual development.” This is more than a lack of mental ability. The context shows the danger of a hardened heart (3:7, 15; 4:7). Earlier the readers were `reminded of the wilderness generation. “The message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened” (Heb. 4:2). Thus Anderson notes how the Hebrews writer then turns in 5:7-9 to show in contrast that Jesus was heard because of his submission, learning obedience through suffering (178). The writer has taken these examples of hearing to show his own personal concern for a people slipping into spiritual apathy. By now people who ought to be teachers are in reality simply students who need someone to teach them again! The curriculum is basic: “they are at the beginning of the beginning!”(Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 155.)  “The basic elements of the oracles of God” could not more clearly express their immaturity and need for simple instruction.

Matters must change.

You need milk, not solid food; 13for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

In Hebrews the solid food the people need is instruction concerning the high-priest ministry of Christ. Thus chapter 6 begins with an exhortation to go on to perfection/maturity. Before doing so on a different Sunday, let’s take a quick look at Jesus himself in a situation of food and drink.

Complaints at a Celebratory Banquet

(Luke 5:27-32).

27After this [Jesus] went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28And he got up, left everything, and followed him. 29Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large

crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them. 30The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31Jesus answered, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 32I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Several meal scenes appear in Luke, the first of which appears here. In the context of table fellowship two deeply rooted traditions come together: fellowship as practiced by the Pharisees and the practice and representation of the Greco-Roman Symposium. In the case of Jesus we see expansions of both practices by his more encompassing vision. Membership credentials are transcended by his call for openness and acceptance with respect to table companions. In this first segment (27-32) the question emerges as to why Jesus and his disciples eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners. In Mark 2:15 and Matt. 9:10 the narrator places tax collectors and sinners at the banquet, but here in Luke it is the Pharisees and scribes who label the dinner crowd as “tax collectors and sinners!” It is clear, writes Joel Green, that the question’s intent is “with [the] maintenance of clear boundaries between groups.”(Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1947), 245) Levi and his crowd are clearly a problem for those raising the question. Levi is associated with dishonesty, with the abuse of authority as a tax collector. His office in the broader Greco-Roman world meant for many that he was a person of low status. As Joel Green notes, “though doubtlessly there were exceptions, toll collectors as a group were despised as snoops, corrupt, the social equivalent of pimps  and informants” (246).

John Carroll observes that the scene here is complex.(John Carroll, Luke: A Commentary, The New Testament Library (Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 133.) There is more at work than just “them” and  “us.” “Leaving everything” behind in his turn to Jesus Levi does not rule out continuing connections to his household and to those he knows. Present are Pharisees and their scribes, disciples of Jesus, and Jesus himself. Levi joins with them in a joyous celebration as a fitting response to a life changed because of the unexpected invitation into the company of Jesus.

The fact that the Pharisees introduce the term “sinner” into the discussion suggests that the Pharisees are following clear boundaries in their thinking. Tax collectors and sinners are in

the same group, they are suspect and different. They are “outsiders,” as it were. The fact that Jesus identifies this outsider group as sick and in need of healing shows a different perception than the Pharisees (5:31-32). “Against this backdrop, ‘healing’ is understood as restoration to relationship with Yahweh and his people--that is, as forgiveness” (Green, 248). Jesus crosses boundaries!

The presence of Jesus in such company suggests a further reason since dinner with social outcasts is a suspect situation in that environment. Mary Douglas notes,

If food is treated as a code, the message it encodes will be found in the pattern of social relations being expressed. The message is about different degrees of hierarchy, inclusion, and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across the boundaries. Like sex, the taking of food has a social component as well as a biological one.(Mary Douglas, Implicit Meanings (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 249.)

Arguing Over Dinner Practices

(Luke 5:33-39).

33Then they said to him, “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink. 34wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? 35The days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those

days.” 36He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good.’”

Jesus’ action leads to criticism, again in the form of division and opposition between groups. In the present case it comes in terms of “murmur” and is directed to the disciples. The Jesus way is described by someone at the table as “eating and drinking” while others like John the Baptist and the Pharisees are said to “pray and fast” (5:33). Jesus is not opposed to fasting (4:1-2) but rejects it on this occasion. Not partaking of food here would stand for dissatisfaction with the present; whereas, as Jesus’ language shows, the present is marked by eschatological hope. “You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?” The bridegroom is a symbol of divine visitation (Isa. 54:5-6; 62:4-5; Jer. 2:2). Fasting that is oriented to the future is not acceptable for it conflicts with expectation and the appearance of the new. Sinners are being called to repentance. The message is clear: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Fasting is out and celebration through eating is in. After the bridegroom is taken away is the appropriate time for fasting.

After the give-and-take at the table, Jesus provides a commentary, a parable on the entire conversation. On the surface the old and the new are fundamentally irreconcilable since the

incompatibility of old skins with new skins used as illustrations seem so obvious (5:36-39). On one level, verses 36-38 in Jesus’ parable suggest that Jesus’ new way is being opposed to the old way of the Pharisees, with the implication being that old ways will always be acceptable and the new way less attractive and less inviting.(Green notes that Marcion (2nd century) took verse 39 as being inauthentic and excised it from the biblical text because he saw it as an affirmation of the old over the new (250).  Verse 39: “And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good.’”) On another level, what Jesus is doing is identifying himself with ancient Israel. New wine is the order but as all would testify in that time (and probably today!) the old wine is good. What is needed are new skins for the new wine but one is not to simply dismiss the old as unnecessary. Jesus came to fulfill the law, fulfillment in its true intent. What is needed are new eyes to see!

Table Talk

Having convictions and ideas are part of what makes life interesting, or they can make life difficult if expressed in undesirable ways. Convictions and ideas provide direction, energize actions, and account in part for the differences that mark our personalities, identities, and lifestyles. They can also characterize a people. Yet convictions and ideas are not the same. According to Daniel Patte, in Christianity convictions are closely bound up with faith and with believing, while ideas are associated with knowledge claims and with thinking.(Daniel Patte, Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel (Fortress Press, 1983).)nA Conviction and an idea can have the same subject matter, as in holding the view that God exists. Believers can have a certain conviction about God’s existence but this view can also be a doctrine, an idea that believers and even nonbelievers can discuss. For the believer it may be obvious that God exists, so convincing in fact that no philosophical or theological argument may be necessary to demonstrate its standing. The belief may appear to be self-evident. By contrast, the truth of an idea normally demands a demonstration, some argument or evidence supporting the claim if it is

Like the Pharisees and scribes, we all have convictions and ideas. These serve to influence our daily lives. How important are these convictions and ideas? Do we give thanks to God for

them? Do we faithfully follow them? Can God say a new thing to us because of our convictions and ideas or does God have to deal with us in spite of them?

In today’s Lukan text two different parties are represented. On one side stand the Pharisees and the scribes, on the other side stands Jesus. The former stands for Pharisaic Judaism as they

understood it to be and to its values. Jesus stands forth for the values of God as they actually are. Each sees a face (Levi) or a practice (fasting). Wherein is the difference? For the old

way, the covenantal order has been established once and for all on Mount Sinai. Whatever new circumstances or individuals appear in culture must be interpreted and made to bear up under the old order. In short, the perception of faith is static. By contrast, in Jesus there is a new revelation. There is a new way, a different way of describing the very essence of things. Some

might even say that it is “unnatural.” This new way entails a way of being in relationship with God and carries a different way of perceiving human beings. The “other,” called “common,”

called “alien,” called “Levi,” called “tax collector,” whatever, is now indeed “uncommon.” The common has become the uncommon! Don’t you just “love the strange and wonderful mind” of Jesus!

Edmund Husserl was fascinated with the uncommonness of the common. He believed that no two experiences are exactly the same so to categorize was certainly natural and necessary to a degree in human life but not definitive. For him, the wonder of all wonders was not without but within, in consciousness. At an even more profound level, in the eyes and heart of Jesus the common becomes the uncommon!

O’ Lord, help us today to see our experiences not as simply a re-run of the typical but as fresh opportunities to discover the uniqueness of persons, of things, above all of you! May the richness of your prevenient grace enable us to truly open our eyes and cause us to wonder again at what appears before us, between us and in us. Amen.