Matthew 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
12 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας εἶπεν· οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες.
The Pharisees didn't like the company that Jesus kept. It made no sense to them that He would associate with prostitutes and the hated tax-collectors. After all, a good teacher would not do such things. They certainly wouldn't. Then Jesus hits them with this saying. He did not come for ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες, which literally means having "strong" or "able," but He did come for οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες, or the ones having badness.
This is a message that I think the American church needs to consider today. I am all for the principles of Fundamentalism. We should stick to the text, though of course we all have traditions that color our hermeneutics. If the Bible says so then that should be enough for us. These are good things about Fundamentalism.
But the bad is the isolationist tendencies. In one sense, Jesus does set up an "us vs them" world. However, He also makes it clear that we are to evangelize. That's hard to do when we refuse to spend time with οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες. It's also hard when we think ourselves to be ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες. Until we identify first as being sick or sinful we will never ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες.
Where are you? Are you resting in your own righteousness? Or are you resting in the care and ability of the Great Physician who came to heal the sick? I urge you to repent of your self-sufficiency and rely solely on the work of Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
In the spirit of what you are saying here, brother, you are right of course, as anyone who reads the text for its plain meaning must agree.
Rather than criticise you, I prefer to try a new angle. I will just rewrite a paragraph, as I should rather like to see it.
"This is a message that I think the church needs to consider today. I am all for reading the Word of God and accepting it in its plain meaning. We should stick to the text, and forget our various hermeneutic and doctrinal biases. If the Bible says so then that should be enough for us. This will always produce good results, because we are obedient to the word of Jesus."
Notice what is missing in the rewritten passage? Do you think that what I am trying to say in rewriting it is different than what you meant when you originally wrote it? I don't think so. I think that you and I are actually very much partaking of a single mind, that is, the Mind of Christ, which is the Mind of the Church in all ages and every place. How can I be so sure? Because I trust the Lord who makes both you and me, His servants, stand.
What I just demonstrated is what I have tried to convey on previous occasions without success. I want to silence that part of our minds that erects divisions, so that we can become fully aware of what being one in Christ means. It is as the Orthodox hymn says, "lay aside all earthly cares, that you may receive the King of all." What are these earthly cares? The building of unnecessary walls of division on foundations of lack of trust. But we know in Whom we have believed. What better object of our trust can there be?
On another note, I find it interesting that in the evangelical Greek language, kakós really has the connotation of concrete evil, such as the plague, or defeat in war, or earthquakes, or mental illness. We have a verse we sing during the week before Pascha, "Prosthés aftís kaká, Kýrie, prosthés aftís kaká tís endhóxis tis ghis" (Add more evils to them, Lord, add more evils to them who are the glorious of the earth).
Hmm, well, yes, these are rather telling words… In fairness I have to say that the verse occurs amongst verses from the prophets (I think) that are sung, and it is sung in the same spirit that we find similar verses in the psalms. Maybe it's even based on something in the Greek psalms, who knows?
Again, I maintain that it is impossible to leave behind all hermeneutical biases. You are shooting for an unattainable ideal. We all have them. That doesn't make it right, but we do.
Let me ask you a few questions:
- Why do you practice your faith in the Greek Orthodox tradition? Why not Roman Catholic? Why not Baptist or Presbyterian?
- Why should I change my mind based on what you write?
- Why should you change your mind based on what I write?
In other words, what is your source of authority? Why do you consider that authoritative?
Why do you practice your faith in the Greek Orthodox tradition? Why not Roman Catholic? Why not Baptist or Presbyterian?
I live in the Greek Orthodox community, because that is where the Lord sent me. I go where He sends me.
Why should I change my mind based on what you write?
If something I write improves your life in Christ, change your mind.
Why should you change your mind based on what I write?
Same answer as previous, just switch the pronouns.
In other words, what is your source of authority? Why do you consider that authoritative?
The Bible in the original languages is my source of authority.
It is authoritative because it reveals Jesus Christ, whose authority is proven by His resurrection from the dead.
Yet you often quote Orthodox theologians and teachers. Why is that? It is the tradition in which you find yourself.
It is impossible for us to separate ourselves from our hermeneutical assumptions and backgrounds. My quest is to find a correct hermeneutic. If a single passage can have multiple meanings then the text becomes essentially meaningless. Therefore, I want to get a correct hermeneutic because I want to get to know the Lord better.
This blog is about my musings as I interact with the text. I am sorry if you think it wrong for me to deal with these various hermeneutical positions. I don't plan to change the way I go about this until I feel like I can firmly plant my feet somewhere.
We all have a framework. My goal is to interact with it.
Brother, I don't think it's wrong for you "to deal with these various hermeneutical positions," it just is postponing your investiture with the divine power that will enable you to be Christ's ambassador. You are meant for better things. Thank God, it is not mine to have to show you the right path, just mine to trip you when you're not doing that.
You can always swat this fly!
If I'm going to be a pastor I need to make some decisions because how I handle God's Word is going to affect how I shepherd the people God entrusts to me. Should I be a radical Zionist like one of my classmates? That's an extreme example, but if his very Dispensational hermeneutic is correct then I should be. I don't think so though.
Your classmate is just exemplifying what C. S. Lewis called "Christianity Plus."
What I hope for you is Christianity neither Minus nor Plus.
When you have found your sea legs, captain, you can let go the railing.
Love you, brother.
I think of doctrines of the faith in terms of concentric circles. The innermost circle contains "Mere Christianity." I would say that those are non-negotiables regarding what it means to call oneself "Christian." Can you be a Christian while denying the Trinity? I don't think so. How about while denying the simultaneous deity and humanity of Christ? I don't think so. What about thinking that we can be saved by works? Again, I don't think so.
Now I suppose we could just camp out there, but Scripture doesn't let us do that. It speaks to more than that. As a practical matter, we have to decide how we're going to set up our churches. For example, will we ordain women to the clergy? How much influence does the congregation get in governing the local body? And so on. I would call this a secondary matter. Mode of baptism would probably go here for me too.
Then you get into tertiary matters like trying to put the pieces of eschatology together from places like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. I put those into the highly-negotiable category.
However, there are those who think that there are more doctrines in the center circle and those who think that there are fewer. My friend puts one's stance toward Israel right on the line between the first and second circles. I think that's crazy, and I suspect you do too.
But there is a huge caveat. If he is reading his Bible with a correct hermeneutic then he is absolutely right. I don't think he is, but that's where the questions of hermeneutics and authority come in. And that's why it's so important to me. I really wish I could be Roman Catholic and have it all spelled out for me by the Magisterium, but I don't think Scripture will let me do that.
“I really wish I could be Roman Catholic and have it all spelled out for me by the Magisterium, but I don't think Scripture will let me do that.”
This probably sounds absurd to you, but the fact that you could write what is quoted of you above exactly demonstrates that you are still, in essential outlook, a Roman Catholic. Only a Roman Catholic can protest against and resist what is untenable in his own ‘faith tradition.’ It is at this point where what can be identified by the label ‘Orthodox’ (upper cased O) stands apart, and stands upon the Word of God in its plain meaning. Hence, my saying that “Orthodoxy is the heritage of all followers of Jesus.” I am not here speaking of institutional Orthodoxy, although what I am speaking of does intersect it, as well as intersecting with the personal faith of many followers of Jesus who do not, or for reasons cannot, confess institutional Orthodoxy.
You aren’t there yet, brother, but you deserve to be, and as long as you don’t pursue your thoughts at the expense of God’s thoughts, you should make it to that destination. Even if you do, that is still only the front porch of the Father’s House. Fortunately for us, we cannot see what’s on the other side of the front door. All that we know is that it is the gateway to the uttermost East, and the country of the King of kings of kings (blessed be He). Arrive on the front porch, and then you have placed yourself in a position to enter by the Door, though even standing before its threshold you can still remain outside.
This brings to mind an incident that I witnessed in my local church years ago. The servant of God, his grace the Metropolitan Anthony (of blessed memory), was visiting our congregation and concelebrating with our presbyters. At a point in the service, he suddenly appeared at the Royal Doors (the central gateway in the wall of ikons at the front of the temple) and cried out, “People of God! Come with us! Come with us up to Mount Tabor!” This was not part of the liturgy. This was the mighty man of God being seized by the Spirit and prophesying to the people in his charge, inviting and challenging us to “leave behind all earthly cares, so that we might receive the King of all,” and follow him and his co-disciples up to the mountain of Christ’s metamorphosis, where not He, but we are transfigured and lifted from earth to heaven, to take on our resurrection bodies in anticipation, and with eyes renewed by the unwaning light of the risen Son of God, to see Him as He always is, glorified with the Father and the Spirit, in the company of the Law and the Prophets, One in love, majesty and might.
Post a Comment