Holy Saturday….Lest We Forget

March 29, 2013

Good Friday and then Easter!

But a day is missing in that story. To move from Friday to Sunday we must walk through Saturday.

Saturday, however, is a lonely day. Death has won. Hope is lost. Jesus of Nazareth lies in a tomb. His disciples are afraid, hiding, and deeply depressed. Everything they had invested in for the past three years seems pointless now.  They forsook their Master; they lost faith in that moment. They are leaderless, hopeless, and aimless.

Holy Saturday is the day we sit by the grave. It is the day to feel the gloom of the grave, to face the reality of death itself. It is a day to weep, fast and mourn. The late second century church (e.g., Irenaeus) fasted from all food on this day because it was a day of mourning. They did not break the fast till Easter morning.

Those of us who have spent time at graves–in my case the grave of a parent, wife and child–understand this grief, the despair of the grave. I have spent much of my life running away from graves, and have rarely spent much time thinking about Holy Saturday.

It is much easier to skip from Friday to Easter than to dwell on Holy Saturday. It is like, as happened in my life, skipping grief as much as possible. It is easier to run from grief. We prefer to escape it rather than face it.

Holy Saturday reminds me to grieve, to lament. It reminds me to rail against death, the enemy of both God and humanity. It reminds to protest death and renew my hatred for it. It reminds to feel again and sit with the disciples in their despair.

Indeed, to sit with the disciples in their despair is to sit with humanity in the face of death. When we sit at the grave we recognize our powerlessness. We cannot reverse death; we cannot defeat this enemy. Holy Saturday creates a yearning for Easter. We need Easter for without it we are dead.

Today (Friday) we remember the death, tomorrow we sit at the grave, but on Sunday we are renewed by the hope of the resurrection.

Jesus walked that path and we follow him.  We, too, will have our Friday, one day we will be entombed in a grave, and–by the grace and mercy of God–on that great day we will rise again to walk with Jesus upon the new heaven and new earth.

That is the meaning of Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter.

7 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

The Politics of the “New Heavens, New Earth” (1913 Stone-Campbell Book)

March 22, 2013

Peter Jay Martin, following in the footsteps of his father Joseph Lemuel Martin, authored a book that surveyed Revelation. Published by the McQuiddy Company (the Gospel Advocate publisher) in 1913, it was entitled The Mystery Finished, or The New Heavens and the New Earth. Peter’s book is not as well known as his father’s (The Voice of the Seven Thunders), but it was published in Nashville and advertised in Wallace’s Bible Banner as late as the early 1940s. Both Martins read Revelation, like Alexander Campbell, in the continuous-historical tradition, that is, Revelation is a “historfy of the church of Christ from A. D. 98 to its final trimuph” (Mystery, v).

Both were postmillennialists, like Alexander Campbell. They both envisioned a triumphant church upon the earth before the second coming of Christ.When Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years and the nations gather to assault the Church, then Christ will come to defeat Satan, raise the dead and judge humanity.

But they differed on the nature of the “new heavens and new earth.” P. J. identified the new earth with the postmillennial reign of Christ through the church while J. L. believed the new earth is the new creation of God after the first earth was “gone.” J. L. was uncertain whether the new earth would be created out of the materials of the old or out of nothing, but he was convinced that the new material earth would be the eternal dwelling place of God with humanity.

P. J.’s understanding is more political than J. L.’s. The story of the emerging “new earth” is a “political” one where the “everlasting kingdom cut out of the mountain without hands shall fill the whole earth” (Mystery, 9). According to P.J., the present “political conditions” are demonic (Mystery, 174):

A government of the reich, by the rich, and for the rich, in which women and children, little children, slave in the cruelest form, for the most menial wage; exploited without voice, & forever beyond the hope of redress, because the courts of injustice are moved by the rich, and legislation, desired to control and limit exploitation, is, as was understood before the enactment of these laws, held as unconstitutional, or by injunction without law, leaves the poor wage worker in the position of an outlaw; while, in addition to receiving the lowest remuneration(!) for his labor, he is also made to pay the highest price for the poorest quality of all necessities of life.

The postmillennial kingdom of Christ–which is the new heavens and new earth– will involve a “radical change” such that there will be “no exploitation; no separation of parents and children, no foreclosing of mortgages, no sorrow nor crying” (Mystery, 179). P. J. Martin hopes for a political culture governed by the gospel as the church rather than the nations becomes “the political organization” that is “for the uplifting of the poor and needy and that stands for justice between man and man and between the rich and the poor” (Mystery, 180). In this way Christians will “posses the earth” (Mystery, 183) because in that postmillenial reign “the church has absorbed the world” (Mystery, 196).

P. J. has no confidence that the nations as political entities will serve the poor or place others first. Only people transformed by the gospel are able to serve out the self-emptying spirit that energizes the gospel itself. He writes (Mystery, 199):

…when this old world has been gospelized; ‘when every man seeks not his own, but another’s wealth;’ when men do unto others thus; every man seeking the welfare of the other man, thus fulfiling in acts, in actuality, the Golden Rule in doing unto other as you would have the other do to you, the gospel triumphant from the rivers to the ends of the earth, his will done on earth as in heaven, for which the writer ever prays in an absolute faith, then he has as lief live in Okalahoma as to go to heaven.

When the “whole world,” this world, becomes the “habitation of God” in the postmillennial kingdom, “surely [even] Oklahoma will be good enough for us” (Mystery, 215). This is the “blessed hope of a redeemed earth–’the new heaven and new earth’” (Mystery, 221).

The millennium–which precedes the second coming of Jesus–is a political embodiment of the gospel. There all the hopes of the prophets are fulfilled in the reign of Christ through the triumphant church. The gospel, in this vision, is both “political” and “religious.”

10 Comments | Stone-Campbell, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Mark 14:1-11 — Preparation for Passion

June 27, 2012

On Sunday, Jesus had entered Jerusalem triumphantly only to walk into the temple, see everything, and then go back to Bethany apparently frustrated. On Monday Jesus returned to the temple and  angrily cleansed it. On Tuesday, as Jesus taught in the temple courts, the authorities confronted him about his actions, his relation to Rome and his theology. That day Jesus exited the temple in disgust as he saw how the temple system gave status to the rich but oppressed the poor. On his way to Bethany, Jesus sat opposite the temple on the Mt. of Olives and announced a coming judgment against it.

Apparently, on Wednesday Jesus stayed in Bethany, but on Thursday evening he would again go to Jerusalem in order to eat the Passover with his disciples. But Wednesday was a significant day—a day of preparation just as Thursday was a preparation day for the Passover as Thursday evening Jesus would eat a last Passover with his disciples. Within twenty-four hours Jesus would be buried in a tomb.

Wednesday—the day Jesus does not go to Jerusalem—is ominous. The narrative heightens the tension as it begins the passion (suffering) story of Jesus. On a day when Jesus is inactive, his opponents are not. On a day when Jesus is relaxing with his disciples in Bethany, a woman recognizes the foreboding mood and anoints Jesus for his burial. On a day when the “gospel” is proclaimed by this woman, Judas makes a deal to hand Jesus over to the temple authorities. On a day when a female disciple loves Jesus, another (male) disciple betrays him. Wednesday is preparation day for the passion of Jesus.

The narrative emphasizes the action of the woman by situating it between the intent of the authorities to kill Jesus (14:1-2) and the betrayal by Judas (14:10-11). The two book-ends contextualize the woman’s gift and shape our understanding of it.

The temple authorities want to kill Jesus but they fear a riot if they move against him publicly during the festival season Jerusalem is filled with thousands of pilgrims. Presumably they were going to wait till after the Passover or perhaps they were simply looking for a more covert way of arresting him. They seized the opportunity that Judas offered them.

It is very difficult to read the motives of Judas in this “betrayal” in Mark. Judas is one of the twelve (emphasized 3x in Mark 14:10, 20, 43). It is possible that Judas was motivated by money, but it is also possible that Judas was attempting to create a climatic confrontation between Jesus and the authorities. Perhaps he was certain that Jesus would triumph and he never thought that Jesus would actually die as a result of his actions. This would explain his eventual suicide as he bore the guilt of his misconceived plan. Or, perhaps, he was a disappointed disciple who thought Jesus’ judgment against the temple and his rejection of potential revolt against Roman oppression did not fit his idea of a Davidic Messiah. Or, perhaps he was simply greedy and was disturbed by the use of the expensive oil when the woman anointed Jesus. Whatever may be the case (and at this point the text gives us very little with which to work), Judas gave them access to the private movements of Jesus. Consequently, the authorities will be able to arrest Jesus privately in the dead of night rather than publicly at the height of the festival.

Myers (Binding the Strong Man, 359) notes, quite stunningly, that this occasion is a moment when the “politically ‘least’ (women) assumes the position of the ‘greatest’” by anointing Jesus as if she were a prophet anointing a king of Israel (e.g., Samuel anointing Saul and David). She does not anoint his feet, but his head. This is, perhaps, a Messianic anointing. It is actually quite a stunning moment if we read this way.

At the same time, this acts prepares Jesus’ body for burial. It is difficult for us to imagine the fear, excitement and tension that filled Jerusalem during those days. The anger of the temple authorities was probably well-known and their intent may have been surmised by many. This woman recognizes the danger Jesus faces and perhaps anticipates a criminal death for him as criminals generally did not receive a proper burial but were thrown into common graves. She may have even heard Jesus talking with his disciples about his coming death (though there is no record that Jesus spoke of such things after his arrival in Bethany and Jerusalem). Whatever may be the case, Jesus interprets her actions as burial preparation.

Unlike the disciples, who are seemingly oblivious to the dangers Jesus faces in Jerusalem and out of tune with their master’s earlier predictions, this woman anticipates the coming days and recognizes their danger. She alone demonstrates a loving care for Jesus in the midst of his trials about which the disciples are relatively indifferent. She affirms community with Jesus and demonstrates her solidarity with the suffering servant of Israel. The disciples, on the other hand, will shortly desert their master. While the disciples miss the “gospel” in this moment, this woman does not.

Indeed, they—“some of those present”—totally miss the point as their concern is focused on the poor and the extravagance of the gift. No doubt their concern for the poor and extravagance are shaped by their time with Jesus in his ministry, his evaluation of the widow as a victim in contrast to the wealth of other temple contributors, and the tradition that during the Passover the devout share with the poor. These are legitimate concerns, but they are overshadowed by the impending death and burial of Jesus. The woman’s demonstration of loyalty and solidarity, the messianic anointing, and the preparation for burial outweigh, in this moment, gifts for the poor.

Jesus’ statement, often misunderstood as a kind of ambivalence toward the poor, simply recognizes what the Torah does (Deuteronomy 15:11)—there will always be poor. And, indeed, there are always poor because there are always oppressors of one sort or another (though there are other reasons as well why there are poor). The poor are a legitimate concern and disciples should help them whenever they can, but this woman, according to Jesus, seized the moment, saw its import, and acted to love Jesus. She perceived that Jesus’ death was imminent.

This expensive gift is both a tender moment of love and a proclamation. The woman loved Jesus in this anointing and anointed Jesus as proclamation. The significance of the gift is noted by Jesus—the woman will be remembered wherever the “gospel” is preached.

The preaching of the “gospel”—which to this point in the narrative of Mark has been about the good news of the kingdom of God—now involves the meaning of this woman’s loving act. It is the announcement of the suffering Messiah. The one who is anointed as Messiah is also prepared—in the same act—for burial. The gospel, as Mark’s narrative climaxes, also includes the heralding of the death of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. The gospel bears witness to the suffering servant of Israel. The gospel includes both the announcement of the kingdom of God and the suffering of the Son of God.

4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Lipscomb on the Poor III

April 18, 2012

The situation in the South through 1866 and for several years thereafter was critical. The hungry, naked and homeless were present in overwhelming numbers. The War had devastated the country. I think this is one reason we see a constant stream of small blurbs from Lipscomb in the 1866 Gospel Advocate on the poor and the responsibility of Christians to share with others.

In addition, there is a not-so-subtle protest against wealthy religion and how it fosters something other than the kingdom of God. In the following two blurbs–both appearing on the same page (March 27, 1866, p. 205)–we see the two themes in juxtaposition.  The first is titled “Giving,” but the second is untitled.

The two seem related.  Lipscomb encourages a private, daily sharing of resources instead of a public, occasional large gift. The former arises out of a lifestyle but the latter arises out of a desire for reward. The former is the daily life of a Christian but the latter is more tuned to the formal religion with its love of a holy place that is “worldly.” The former practices the gospel in sharing with the poor but the latter practices the religion of building and forms.  I think this all sounds a bit too familiar.

Perhaps the two blurbs are not connected in Lipscomb’s own mind as they are in mine. See what you think.

It seems to me, as well, that there are hidden agendas in his words.  There is a class consciousness present (maybe even class envy?) as well as a latent sectionalism. The Civil War with its wealth and sectional dimensions still lies in the background. Moreover, one hears the plea for simplicity in life and worship as the key to faithful obedience to the will of God.

First blurb, “Giving”:

He who wants to be able to do a great amount of good before he does any, will die without benefitting his race.  ”Do good as opportunity offers,” is Heaven’s law. He who takes an interest only in doing good on a large scale, generally does it for the sake of display. He who does good for the sake of obeying God and benefitting the oppressed and afflicted, will relieve the wants of the needy in the quiet, humble, unobserved walks of life, wherever he may find them. Will avoid all ostentation and publicity in giving. The reason it is so much easier to raise means for a public charity than a private one, is because the greater portion of the human family wish to be seen of men in their giving, hence will give publicly when they refuse to add more needy and deserving private objects of charity. The true Christian acts not so. “When thou doest alms, let not they left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father, who seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly.” God has never promised to reward alms that are done openly. We should not await to be able to give largely before we give. A pittance, a kind word, an encouraging smile, a cup of cold water, in the Master’s name, to the suffering, distressed, weary, faint-hearted children of misfortune and sorrow, comes in remembrance before God, and verily, has its reward.”

Second blurb:

A letter from Hannibal,Missouri, contains the following: “Brother Wilkes appeared at Palmyra for trial on Monday last, to answer to the charge brought against him, viz: Preaching the Gospel. The man who had sworn to the fact, did not appear, consequently the suit was dismissed. When he first informed against  Bro. Wilkes, he charged him simply with preaching. When asked what he preached, he replied the gospel. He was then asked, “What is the Gospel?” He frankly answered, he did not know.”

So it goes. Why is it that zealous religionists do not know what the Gospel of Christ is? Ask almost any one you meet, of any denomination, and you get no answer. Is it because the preachers are so indefinite in their discussions that is is impossible to learn? They are, then, blind leaders of the blind. The prevailing ignorance is almost lamentable. It is appears to be the popular feeling that anything will answer to save a sinner. A large house of worship, called a church, a grand organ, and music by a choir, rented pews, respectability, a handsome preacher, a soulless sermon, containing no [sic] one word of Scriptural instruction, a ritual unknown to the New Testament–performed by a  clerical dignitary, and an exclusive and selfish spirit, seem to satisfy the longings of such, and they are legion as love to worship? In “a worldly, holy place.” When will a dying world learn that the gospel itself, in its original simplicity and beauty, as found in the New Testament, is, alone, “the power of God under the salvation of every one that believes” and obeys it.

3 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Mark 1:1 — The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

August 16, 2011

The seemingly innocuous opening line of the Gospel of Mark is actually a broadside against the Roman Empire, or any empire. It is a loaded sentence.

Many think that Mark’s Gospel was written in the context of the city of Rome, perhaps to Roman Christians. Whatever the case, it was certainly written within the context of the Roman Empire. This context highlights the opening sentence of the Gospel.

To what “beginning” does Mark refer? Literarily, it is the beginning of the document and the sentence may function as a title; if not to the whole document, at least to the opening fifteen verses. But does it only have a literary function? I think it is theologically pregnant.

“Beginning” may call us to the beginning of the new creation as the first Greek word in the sentence reminds us of Genesis 1:1. The good news is that new creation has begun.  ”Beginning” may point us to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus which inaugurates the new creation; it is the beginning of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. The good news (gospel) both belongs to Jesus and is about Jesus.

More than this, Mark’s language makes a claim that contrasts with the claims of the Empire.We know that the birthday of Augustus Caesar (under whom Jesus was born) was proclaimed as “good news”  (gospel, euangelion) in the Empire. For example, a calendar inscription reads: “The birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of the joyful messages (gospel, JMH) which have gone forth because of him” (TDNT 2:724).

Further, just as Jesus is called “son of God” in Mark’s opening line, coins in the Roman world were sometimes inscribed with the Emperor’s name followed by the designation “son of God” (theou huios). The coins of Tiberius Caesar are a good example of this.

Mark begins his Gospel with an astounding claim. Jesus is the good news, not the Emperor. Jesus is the Son of God, not the Emperor. In effect, Jesus is Lord, not the Emperor.

The new era of peace, good news and justice did not begin with Augustus. Rather, it begins with Jesus. He is the servant of Isaiah who brings good news to Jerusalem and ultimately to the whole world. Mark tells the story of the Lord who rules through self-sacrificial service–the suffering servant of Isaiah–in contrast to the ruling coercive power of the Roman Caesar.

Mark calls us to believe this “gospel” (Mark 1:15)–the good news of the kingdom of God–rather than the proclamations of the empire….whether Roman or otherwise. The story of Jesus is the story of a different kind of kingdom.

Americana might hear this opening title as well as a judgment on the “good news” of the American dream and the American experiment. When Christians buy into a kind of civil religion where American values compete with the good news of Jesus we need to read the Gospel of Mark again.

My Sunday morning Bible class at Woodmont Hills (Nashville, TN) began a study of Mark this past Sunday. Hopefully, I will have some time to occasionally blog my thoughts on our reading of the text.

7 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 938 other followers

%d bloggers like this: