Reflecting on 1 Samuel 1 9-20

This week we’re studying 1 Samuel 1:9-20 + 25, the story of Hannah’s prayer for a child – who turns out to be Samuel, a significant character in the history of Israel and particularly in the lives of the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David.

We’ve studied this text before (see questions from that time here), but this time we’re looking at it in the context of our summer quarter study of “the testimony of faithful witnesses.” [Although I confess, this rubric feels like a stretch to me, brought on by the desperate need to find a unifying theme for somewhat disparate texts …]

Anyway, in light of this quarter’s context, we might want to ask ourself what we mean by “faithful witnesses,” and what we think it means to be “faithful,” or a “witness.” From there we can turn to Hannah’s story, and ask ourselves: how, in what way, in this story, does Hannah demonstrate faithfulness, and to what does she bear witness? Where do we see that in the text? What do we ourselves learn from Hannah’s story and Hannah’s example?

What is our overall impression of Hannah and her story, for that matter? What thoughts and feelings do we have about her actions? What strikes us as commendable, what as perhaps less than commendable, where do we applaud her, where do we question her …? Why is that? What do we find out about ourselves in looking at all that?

Some notes on the text are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or to discuss in class:

In v11, Hannah vows to dedicate the male child she is begging for from God back to God as a nazirite (see Numbers 6:1-21). What is the meaning of such a vow, do we think? What does the vow indicate about Hannah’s state of mind, or about the cultural context in which the vow is made, or about God’s desires and preferences? [That is, do we think Hannah is trying to offer something to God that God would like, as an inducement …? Or is something else going on? What, do we think?]

What thoughts and feelings do we have about this? Why?

[More personal] Have we ever made a vow to God ourselves? What was our experience with that?

What would we say this story is “about”? [That is … we might say “it’s about prayer” or “it’s about Hannah and her relationship with God” or … what?] What do we learn from a story like this? What do we think we are supposed to learn?

Why do we think this story is in the Bible?

Image: “Gespräch vor dem Haus,” Gergely Pörge, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#1Samuel1920 #BibleStudy #commentary #exegesis #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Judges 4 (specifically 4-10, 14, & 21-22)

This week, we are looking at key verses in Judges 4 (specifically, vv4-10, 14, and 21-22), the story of Deborah, Barak, and the defeat of the armies of Sisera, along with the defeat of Sisera himself at the hand of Jael.

Like all Biblical stories, the description of the main characters is spare, leaving a lot to the readers’ imagination. For that reason, it might make sense for us to spend some time looking at our own readerly impressions of Deborah, Barak, Sisera, and Jael. What are those impressions? Where do they come from, as far as we can tell? [That is, where do we see the text itself suggesting or supporting those impressions? Where do we notice ourselves thinking “that’s how it always is …” or “probably she …”? How have we come to our ideas about what’s “always” or “probably” true about characters like these, do we think?]

Ideally, we will be able to compare our impressions to those of others, and see whether there is a range of those impressions, or whether there’s a lot of consensus. What seems to be going on with that, as far as we can tell? [For instance, shared or different ways of reading the text? Shared or different social backgrounds or assumptions? Shared or different experiences? …]

Then, we can look at what seem to be the lesson or lessons for us in the story, based on those impressions of the characters. How do those lessons seem to depend on our thoughts and feelings about these characters?

Some notes on the text are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or discuss:

There is a lot of killing in this story, most or all of it in the service of liberating the Israelites from oppression by the Canaanites. What thoughts, feelings, or challenges does this aspect of the story raise for us? Why?

What difference does it make what form the killing takes – that is, the killing done by Barak’s men, or that done by Jael? Again, why? Would we or would we not say that Jael’s killing is an act of war, part of “the war” between the Canaanites and the Israelites? Why, or why not? What difference would it make if it were? Why?

What difference does who is being killed make for how we think and feel about the killing in the story? Why?

How do we understand God’s involvement in the events of the story? What brings us to this understanding, do we think? What problems arise for us, or are resolved for us, when we understand God’s involvement this way?

Overall, what are our responses to this story? What do we find reassuring in it, challenging, instructive, and so on? Why?

What would we lose if this story were missing from our Bible? What would we gain? Why do we say that?

How would we feel about that? Why?

Image: “Drei Frauen im Gespraech” J.-H. Janßen, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

#BibleStudy #Judges4 #Judges414 #Judges42122 #Judges4410 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Matthew 28 18-20 and Hebrews 10 22-25

This week we are finishing up our quarter on “social teachings of the church” with a look at the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel (Matthew 28:18-20, “the Great Commission” or as Dallas Willard comments on it, “the Great Omission”) and a fragment of Hebrews, Hebrews 10:22-25 (which starts in the middle of a sentence, but then continues).

The final “social teaching” before us is “fellowship through worship.” We might actually want (or need?) to clear some conceptual ground, to do some thinking and discussing of those two big, basic ideas, to make further exploration possible. What does fellowship have to do with worship, do we think, and how do we have fellowship “through” worship, do we think? [Do we have fellowship through – in the course of, during, as an integral component of – our worship, typically? How? Or … what would need to change for that to happen?] What do we mean by “fellowship” in the first place? What do we mean by “worship”? Do we know what we’re talking about, and if we do, what are we talking about? Where have our ideas about all this come from, anyway?

Then, we probably want to look closely at what these two short texts seem to be teaching us about fellowship, and about worship. Where do we see “fellowship” in these texts? Where do we see “worship”? What relationship between fellowship and worship seems to be sketched or described or pointed to in these texts? And how similar to, or different from, the way we ourselves normally think of fellowship and of worship and of their relationship? Implications – anything we are moved to think about, or to do, differently? What? Why?

If that seems rather abstract, we might want to try focusing on the actual verbs in the text – going into the world, making disciples, approaching, etc. – and asking ourselves whether we think of those verbs as “worship” words, or as “fellowship” words, or as either, or as neither … and maybe, how our ideas about worship and fellowship would change if we did start to think of those words as “worship” or “fellowship” words. What does that exercise bring to our attention?

Some notes on the Matthew text are here; some notes on the verses in Hebrews are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or to discuss in class:

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus begins by saying “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” It’s a big statement. What does it mean to us, for us, personally? That is, what does “authority” mean to us, and how does Jesus’ authority factor into our understanding of reality? What impact does Jesus’ authority have on the way we ourselves live our lives?

What does authority have to do with worship?

In v20, who or what are we approaching? Why? Thoughts, feelings about that approach? Why?

Back to Calvin’s questions: what do we learn about God, and what do we learn about ourselves, from these texts?

What about God seems to relate to, or to require, worship? Fellowship? Where do we get that from these texts?

What about us seems to relate to, or to require, worship? Fellowship? Where do we get that from these texts?

[And, if we don’t get our ideas from these texts, where do we get them from, and what seems to be moving us to bring those particular ideas to these particular texts? What do we learn from that?]

Where does this reflection on worship and fellowship and on “fellowship through worship” seem to leave us? Are we ourselves doing what these texts say to do? If not, why not? What would it take to do what these texts say to do? That is, what would need to change – to make it possible – and what would change – once we decided to start doing that, or doing it more routinely? What would we gain, do we think, and what would we lose? How would we feel about all that, do we think? Where do these reflections take us?

Image: “Conversation Tropiques,” Paul Gauguin, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#BibleStudy #Hebrews101925 #Hebrews102225 #Matthew281820 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Mark 2 18-28

This week we’re studying Mark 2:18-28, to inform our consideration of the “social teaching of the Christian church” that is “the Christian view of recreation.”

We may see both some point of contact between Jesus’ teaching on fasting and Sabbath observance and whatever contemporary Christians might mean by “recreation.” We may also see plenty of difference. Because of that, we might want to begin our reflections on the text by asking ourselves what we mean by “recreation,” and what we think that might or might not have to do with “Sabbath” and Sabbath observance.

We will probably want to review what we know about Sabbath in the first place, and when and how we have learned what we’ve learned about it. [Here’s one contemporary rabbinic source.] [Here’s a Christian source, that advocates strict Sabbath observance.] How does our knowledge about the Sabbath seem to influence our understanding of its relationship to “recreation”?

For that matter, what are our thoughts and feelings about the Sabbath? How do those seem to be influenced by the things we know about it? What more would we like to learn about the Sabbath? Why?

Back to “recreation” – what aspects of “recreation” seem to be addressed by these reflections on Sabbath? And what aspects of “recreation” seem not to be addressed? How helpful is it, do we think, to reflect on “recreation” and “the Christian view” of it, within the frame of “Sabbath? What other frames might be available to Christians for thinking about “recreation,” and how might those take our reflections in different directions? What might we gain, and what might we fail to notice, if we did that?

Some notes on the text are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or to discuss in class:

The first part of the text addresses fasting. How do we ourselves think about fasting?

[More personal] When do we ourselves practice fasting, and for what reason or reasons? What have we noticed about it, or learned from it? Would we describe fasting as recreational, and why, or why not?

What do Jesus’ examples of the unshrunk cloth and the new wine mean to us? What does Jesus seem to be saying to the critics in the context of the original conversation? What does the conversation say to us today?

What thoughts do we have about Jesus’ use of the story from 1 Samuel 21, about David taking the Showbread, to answer the critics? What are the implications, do we think, of Jesus’ using this particular story?

[More personal] How do we ourselves keep the Sabbath? Why?

Image: “After lunch on the banks of the Seine” Daniel Ridgway Knight, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#BibleStudy #exegesis #Mark21828 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #textsThatArenTInTheLectionary #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Deuteronomy 24 14-21, Ephesians 6 5-9, and 1 Timothy 6 17-19

This week we’re studying three texts, Deuteronomy 24:14-21, Ephesians 6:5-9, and 1 Timothy 6:17-19. All of them have to do with the regulation of relationships between the rich and the poor, the served and the servants, the haves and the have-nots. The “social teaching of the Christian church” these texts are inviting us to reflect on is, in honor of the lessons of 100 or so years ago, “the Christian spirit in industry.”

How that description might even possibly relate to these texts, that emanate from a historically pre-industrial socio-political and economic situation with a thoroughly different mode of production than the industrial capitalist one, could be a reflection in itself. [So says the former sociology major in me.]

Assuming sociology isn’t our main concern when it comes to these texts, we are probably going to want to think about what ought to be our own attitude towards work and income and wealth, in light of these texts. And what ought to be our own disposition towards using the resources we have, and acquire, and the purposes towards which we use them? And why?

In particular, perhaps, how do those of us who employ others embody Christian commitments and principles in our behavior as employers? Or, perhaps, fail to do that? And, why do we make the choices we make, and practice the practices we practice? And do we sense any call to change what we’re doing, and if so how, and for what reason?

Some notes on Deuteronomy 24:14-21 are here and some notes on Ephesians and 1 Timothy are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about or to discuss in class:

What does the presence of instructions like this in the Bible tell us, about human beings, and about God?

How much can we use these instructions, or texts like these, as a guide to the way “a Christian society” ought to be organized? Why?

What do they seem to be telling us about how a good society ought to be organized? What makes us say that?

[more personal, perhaps] What do we see as our responsibility when it comes to the organization of society? How much influence should Christians be exerting, or trying to exert, on society, and towards what ends? Why do we say this, and how do these texts influence our thoughts on this matter?

[more theoretical, but also practical] How “political” would we say these texts are? Why would we say that?

Image: “Conversation on a village street,” Odoardo Borrani, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#1Timothy61719 #BibleStudy #Deuteronomy241421 #Ephesians659 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Acts 20 33-35, 2 Thessalonians 3 6-12, and more …

This week we’re studying two statements by the Apostle Paul, in Acts 20:33-35 (part of a farewell speech by Paul to the elders of Ephesus) and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 (almost the conclusion to the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians), along with a cluster of individual verses (Genesis 2:15, Exodus 20:9, John 5:17, and John 9:4) that mention “work.”

Our mission seems to be to reflect on “useful work as a Christian duty,” which poses first of all the question: how do these texts address that topic? Especially since a couple of these verses are from the Torah, sacred text which is not exclusive to Christians, although it is part of Christian scripture. Another couple of verses are statements made by Jesus, before there were any Christians. So it might be worth asking ourselves what makes “useful work” a specifically Christian duty, and in what way it is a specifically Christian duty. That is, how do we think Christian commitments influence, or are supposed to influence, Christians’ attitudes towards their work.

From there we might ask ourselves: what aspects of work do Christian commitments seem to influence, or perhaps to influence most, do we think? [For instance, choice of occupation? Diligence in performance of work tasks? Work schedule? Relationships at work? Economic organization more broadly, like pro- or anti-capitalism, or profit-sharing, or support for fair labor practices, or …? Other …?] How is that influence reflected, or encouraged, in the texts we’re reading for this week?

Some notes on those individual verses are here. Some notes on the longer texts are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to reflect on, or discuss in class:

Torah ethics effectively makes all of life a practice of worship – that is, an acknowledgement of God, and of God’s demands on our lives. Christian monastic practice tends in the same direction. Specifically, the Benedictine saying ora et labora, “work and prayer,” makes work and prayer something like two hands of the same purposeful and prayerful gesture. [There is, however, some discussion, or even dispute, about whether the related phrase “work is prayer,” which seems to derive from the Benedictine motto, is more or less authentic, or helpful. See Andrew Penny on that here, and Chris Easley here.]

What do we think – can all of life be worship? And how does work, or some type(s) of work, fit into that? What kind of work might fit that model better, or worse, do we think? Why? Or does saying “work is prayer” have the effect of minimizing the importance of the different kind of prayer that is not work? Or, is that kind prayer a kind of work? …?

What are we even talking about when we say “work,” do we think? How do we think our ideas about work come from, or are supported by, scripture? How are our ideas challenged by scripture? Or perhaps, how do we think our pre-existing ideas about “work” influence the way we’re reading these texts about work?

What makes work “useful”? How do we measure or discern its usefulness? What help are these texts in that regard?

[For instance, 2 Thessalonians 3:8 links working to having money to pay for what the apostle needed. So, how does usefulness relate to a person’s being “self-supporting”? What other considerations might balance the need or desire to be self-supporting?]

More personal: How do we feel our own work “measures up,” or has measured up in the past, to the standard of “useful work” set out in these texts? How would we compare our own work to Adam’s in the garden, for instance, or to Jesus’ work in John, or to the apostle Paul’s work referred to in Acts and 2 Thessalonians? Why do we say that?

Image: “Bauernfamilie der Brotzeit,” Hermann Groeber, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#2Thessalonians3612 #Acts203335 #BibleStudy #Exodus209 #Genesis215 #John517 #John94 #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible #work

Reflecting on Jonah 4 6-11

This week we’re studying three excerpts from Jonah (Jonah 1:1-3, Jonah 3:1-5, and Jonah 4:6-11) that, taken together, sketch for us the conclusion of this big little story. We skip the drama of Jonah’s futile flight from God, the storm at sea, and his prayer from the belly of the great fish; we’re focusing on Jonah’s half-hearted fulfillment of his prophetic mission to Nineveh, and then his grouchy conversation with God after God spares the city.

Because we’re looking at this text under the rubric of “the higher patriotism,” under the larger rubric of “social teachings of the church,” we are presumably being encouraged to give some thought to the meaning of the story of Jonah, and in particular the meaning of Jonah’s mission to Nineveh on behalf of the God of Israel, and of God’s expression of concern for the Ninevites and their flocks and herds, for ourselves as citizens of some nation. What does all that tell us about our own national loyalties, and how they are likely to look to God, and how compatible they are with our allegiance to God? How compatible are our political loyalties and opinions with our citizenship in “the kingdom of God”? What does all that, in turn, mean for our views on politics, and public policy? If we are meant to have those views informed by what we believe about God, how will our belief in the God revealed in the story of Jonah influence our views, do we think? How should it? Why? What kind of change in our current thinking would that necessitate?

We’ve studied the book of Jonah before, and some notes are on the site from that time, here, here, here, and here, along with some additional notes on Jonah 4:6-11 here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or to discuss in class:

Our published curriculum points out that the central theme of the book of Jonah is repentance. That’s particularly hard to argue with, knowing that Jonah is the afternoon reading on Yom Kippur. Still – what other big themes do we see in the book of Jonah? Where do we see those in the text? And what does the book seem to us to be showing us or saying about those themes?

What does the story of Jonah tell us about the extent and limits of God’s power? Where do we see that? [Hint: I’m particularly fascinated by the way nature – in the form of wind, water, vegetation, animals – seems to be entirely at God’s disposal. Except … for the animals in Nineveh? Because … why?]

So, what does the remarkable compliance of nature tell us about the relationship of humans to God? What do we learn from that?

Where do we find ourselves relating to Jonah? For instance, in his efforts to evade God, or his return, or his begrudging God’s mercy to the Ninevites, or …? What might we like to share about any of that?

Overall, as usual, we probably want to think about what insight into the character of God we gain from this story, and how that either confirms, or challenges, what we already think we know about God. And what influence that has on our own developing relationship with God.

Image: Samuel Hirszenberg ‘Szkoła talmudystów,’ public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#BibleStudy #God #Jonah131 #Jonah315 #Jonah4611 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Deuteronomy 6 3-9 and Matthew 19 3-9

This week we’re studying Deuteronomy 6:3-9 and Matthew 19:3-9, under the rubric of “the Christian home in a modern world.”

Given that guiding theme, and given that we are working our way through a series of reflections on “Social teachings of the church” [an overarching topic taken from the lessons of 1929-30, which may themselves have been inspirited by the 1912 publication of Ernst Troeltsch’s now-classic work The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches], and given that one of the texts is arguably even more closely associated with Judaism than with Christianity, perhaps we will want to give some thought to what connects these two texts to each other, and then to what connects both of them to the reality of “the Christian home.”

Some notes on the Deuteronomy text are here (from 2018), and some notes on Matthew 19:3-9 are here. Here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or to discuss in class:

Research shows that the number and frequency of religious practices engaged in by parents has an enormous effect on the later religious practice of their children. (See Ryan Burge and Lyman Stone, “Secrets of the Vanishing Church” in Plough, March 2026.) What connection or connections do we see between that fact and these texts?

What relationship would we say any of this has to what we could describe as the purpose of the Christian home? What would we ourselves say is the purpose of the Christian home? And why would we say that?

[More personal] How well would we ourselves say our own home(s) and families, whether or origin or later, fulfilled that purpose? What would we do again/keep doing? What would we change or do differently? Why is that?

The text of the Bible is indisputably pre-modern, as are its prescriptions for household arrangements (insofar as the Bible makes prescriptions household arrangements). What does this mean for people living in the modern [or even post-modern] world, who also seek to take the Bible seriously as an authoritative text? What do “modern people” mean when they say “the Bible is an authority” or “the authority” in matters of faith and morals? What can they mean? What do we ourselves mean when we say that? Or, if we don’t say that, what do we say instead, and why?

Another way of asking this question, perhaps: what “modern practices” or “modern ideas” inform our own homes, households, and families, would we say? How do those seem to us to fit with Biblical prescriptions and proscriptions? Where, if at all, would we say difficulties arise for us in adjusting “modern” practices and ideas to Biblical ones? How do we deal with those difficulties?

Overall, what we might be being asked to give particular thought to this week is how these texts seem to inform our own lives, especially as lived in our homes and families – and even to how, perhaps, they may not inform them as well as they might. And then, overall, how we think all that affects, or has affected, the way we ourselves live our lives. That is, how do we see ourselves living out the message of these texts, or trying to, or refusing to, and for what reasons? And what are our thoughts and feelings about all that?

Image: “Frukost under stora björken,” Carl Larsson, 1896, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#BibleStudy #ChristianIdeasAndPractices #commentary #Deuteronomy639 #Matthew1939 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Reflecting on Mark 9 36-37, 42, Mark 10 13-16

This week we are studying two brief texts that mention children, Mark 9:36-37 and 42, and Mark 10:13-16.

Famously, coming to some conclusions about what Jesus meant by his object lessons and instructions has led people to ask themselves what children symbolized to people in the ancient world. Are they signs of humility, or trust, or vulnerability, or of completely unimportant people, or … what? Children have never meant just one thing, then or now.

We might want to spend some time thinking about what children mean to us, in our own world, and then see what similarities or differences we perceive as affecting their significance in the ancient world. And then, what clue or clues does this give us to what Jesus was saying to his disciples?

And then, what implications does that picture of the relationship of children to the kingdom of God have for our own attitude to the kingdom of God, and our own activity here in the world?

Some notes on the texts are here; here are a couple of additional questions we might want to think about, or to discuss in class:

Our lesson book has given us a picture of the scene in Mark 10:13-16 of mothers bringing infants and small children – vulnerable to “the evil eye,” and disease – to Jesus for blessing and protection, and the [male] disciples scolding them. What is our understanding of what is going on in that picture? What attitude(s) do we attribute to the disciples, what’s the message their behavior is sending, and why is Jesus indignant about it – do we think? Why? How does this reinforce, or challenge, our own attitudes towards the disciples? Towards Jesus? Towards the church? Towards others? Which others? What are the implications for how Christians, or “Jesus followers,” ought to behave today? In which circumstances? Why do we think that?

Jesus uses a little child as an emblem or object lesson of “greatness.” How do we ourselves understand that lesson? Why is that?

What does this mean, or should this mean, for our understanding of God’s greatness? Why do we think that?

What do we think Jesus means by “welcoming” or “receiving”? What might that look like, concretely, whether in our own personal lives, or our public life? What would change, or need to change, in our lives for that kind of welcoming or receiving to happen more regularly and reliably?

Image: Maler der Grabkammer des Nefferronpet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#BibleStudy #commentary #Mark101316 #Mark93637 #Mark942 #meaning #meaningForUs #readingTheBible #thinkingAboutTheBible

Studying and Reflecting on Mark 12 17, Romans 13 1-8, 1 Peter 2 13-17

This week we’ve been studying three short texts on the topic of compliance with government edicts, or as the curriculum has it, “respect for rightful authority.” The texts are Mark 12:17, Romans 13:1 and 6-8, and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

I’m so behind schedule this week, these (really few, and belated) notes on the texts, along with these “field-tested” questions, don’t have any utility at all for our class; I’m posting them anyway, maybe just to be able to say I did:

Mark 12:17 is the punchline of a longer episode (Mark 12:13-17) that takes place in the temple in Jerusalem on what we’d nowadays call Monday of Holy Week, if it had been Holy Week back then, which it wasn’t, exactly. Jesus is having a teaching session plus q&a with whomever is interested, which in this case includes some “Pharisees and Herodians” who have been specifically sent by “them” (whoever “they” are – but see Mark 11:27-33) “to trap him in what he said.” Our text is Jesus’ answer to the trick question the delegation poses, after buttering Jesus up with some flattery, in essence: “Should we, or shouldn’t we, pay taxes to the Roman Emperor?”

Jesus’ famous response comes after some answering their question with a couple of questions of his own, asking to see a coin, and then asking whose image is stamped on the coin. [Which, we might note, demonstrates that Jesus doesn’t even have a denarius on him.] This makes Jesus’ “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” sound very much like a reference to the image of God that was stamped on the human person long before Caesar started minting coins. It also makes listeners ask themselves “So, what are the things that are God’s, and how do we give them to God?” That could still be a good question for us listeners to ask.

What makes the question a trick one in the first place is arguable. Many commentators agree that saying “No” would have been a dangerous advocacy of an anti-Roman action, but saying “Yes” to paying taxes would have been unpopular with Jesus’ audience. And I guess we know Jesus never just came out and said things that weren’t popular with his audience? [Yeah … this is what makes me hesitate when it comes to this explanation.] The clue may lie in the language of v13; the questioners may have been looking for Jesus to commit himself to a position that would have made some other position down the line seem contradictory. Where Jesus’ opponents thought they were going to go with this, however, still seems a matter for conjecture.

Romans 13:1 and 6-8 conveniently leaves out those potentially troubling verses 2-5, which could be read as positioning any and all resistance or civil disobedience as direct action against God Almighty. Or as just plain naïve, in light of the historic governments we’ve known that have too been, or actively are, a terror to good conduct. That’s assuming we count as “good conduct” things like assembling for worship, or talking about the gospel, or teaching enslaved people to read, or just living while being [insert name of proscribed ethnic group here], just to name a few. If Paul had been writing in the 21st century instead of the 1st, he might have phrased things differently.

[That last observation raises a hermeneutical point, though, about what we think we’re reading when we’re reading the Bible. E.g., do we think we’re reading the words of a human author to an audience of his/her own time, but which we somewhat qualifiedly and variably believe also speaks to us? Or, the words of Jesus, the Eternal Word, straight to every believer in every time and place? Or, something … else? We could go into all that, one of these days, if we ever wanted to.]

Paul’s main point is surely that all earthly authority depends, at least in the final analysis, upon God. The specific implications of that conviction, however, in light of the various abuses of power that sometimes occur, leave us a lot to ponder. From the standpoint of our curriculum, we seem meant to let that pondering go, and to focus on the instruction to pay our taxes. And to love, since that, in the end, is the main thing.

[Btw, the term for authority in verse 1 is the same one that shows up in Ephesians 6:12, which definitely made me think, especially in light of what is being claimed for the authorities in Romans 13:1. Where that goes, however, is beyond me.]

1 Peter 2:13-17 is a small part of a longer pastoral letter of exhortation to – we think – a group of early Christian churches in the region of Asia Minor, perhaps during a time of persecution taking place in the Roman provinces. The letter as a whole urges the Christians to exemplary behavior, as regards conventional social relationships (masters and slaves; husbands and wives). In this context, the instruction to be in subjection to every human institution, specifically like kings [emperors] or governors [hegemons] fits with the overall message: do good, and don’t make trouble. At least, not unnecessarily, or in a bad way. [Because obviously, not making trouble doesn’t extend to worshiping the neighbors’ idols and demons. There’s a limit to how much going along to get along the Christians can do “for the Lord’s sake.”] We think the comment about those good works silencing the ignorance of the foolish may have as its object those first century folks who disparaged and maligned the early Christians. If Christians are seen to be doing good, they’ll see they have nothing to fear from Christians.

Our group’s discussion [last night] mainly revolved around these questions:

How absolute is the instruction about “being subject” or “obeying” governments and their edicts? What about governments and edicts that conflict with clear divine commands [like, “don’t have any Gods before me” or “don’t kill”], or that interfere with or even prohibit the worship and service of God? [We were able to think of a lot of examples that would lead us – some of us, anyway – to want to qualify the instructions in Romans, including a couple of Biblical ones, like Daniel (e.g., Daniel 6:10) and Esther (see Esther 4:16), and various historic Christian responses, that are now part of our shared tradition.]

What does it imply that God institutes governments – or, “the government”? What kind of divine authorization does that imply for specific governmental personnel, or political figures, or are we talking about a kind of general authorization of some kind of orderly political arrangement? What’s the role of human agency in this divine institution? For instance, where do things like elections fit in, or constitutional conventions, or … revolutions? [Which would, admittedly, seem to be discouraged by the basic principle of v1 …] What’s the scope of God’s authorization of these political arrangements, or of individual governing figures’ actions and decisions?

What does all that imply about things we observe in the world, and their relationship to “God’s will”? To what extent can we insist that some of the things we see going on in our world are “contrary to the will of God” and ought to be reformed or opposed or acted against, in some way? What way(s) are OK, and what way(s) are off limits?

What’s the difference between “fearing” and “honoring,” and what exactly does “honoring” consist of? Do we think?

One thing we might have demonstrated to ourselves: there are a lot of ways to answer these questions, all of which seem to have some Biblical support, and some precedent in Christian history. And, that a lot depends on whose perspective on the particular exemplary situation we come up with we are trying to keep in mind …

Image: “The Political Discussion,” Émile Friant, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

#1Peter21317 #BibleStudy #Mark1217 #readingTheBible #religionAndPolitics #Romans1318 #thinkingAboutTheBible