Sometimes I wonder how we get our ideas on how to interpret scripture. And don't say that we don't. We don't just receive the unvarnished word of God directly from God with no human action. Every time we read we interpret. Sometimes we interpret scripture literally. Sometimes not. Sometimes we consider a particular passage to apply universally. Sometimes we consider cultural context. But we always interpret.
I was thinking about two different passages today and how we interpret them and it occurred to me that we will often look at them differently and the pessimist in me can see why. Here's the first:
Now, we can see what's going on here. Mary has poured perfume on Jesus. While the others may not realize this she is preparing him to be buried. Judas claims to take offense as the perfume could be sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus says something in response that I have heard a mentioned a lot lately:
"You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me."
What is Jesus saying there. Is he saying that loving him is more important than caring for the needy? Is he saying that a seemingly wasteful act was in that instance a better use of resources than spending money to feed the hungry? Maybe.
Does this passage apply universally? Does this mean that having beautiful, fragrant buildings, facilities, and sanctuaries is more important than care for the poor? Probably not, and honestly I haven't had anyone tell me that one. But I have heard repeatedly that this is an acknowledgement that, universally, no matter how hard we try we can't solve the issue of poverty.
This seems reasonable if a little pessimistic. But why apply this statement, made to a man in response to a disingenuous argument (remember Judas is advocating for the poor while planning on stealing the money) as some kind of literal, universal truth? Is it because it's easier for us that way? Is it because it gets us off the hook?
Let's look at another passage:
I find this odd especially in light of the number of times Jesus calls his followers to leave everything to follow him. We saw an example of that earlier this morning with Simon Peter, James, and John.
The reason we might interpret these two passages in a very different manner may be because it is easiest for us to do so. To say that Jesus literally meant that the poor will universally always be with all of us is because that doesn't demand that we solve the problem of poverty. To say that Jesus very specifically demanded only one specific person to sell all he had and give the money to the poor is easier for us because we are not that person.
In fact, we describe that person as being rich. Most Americans, no matter how much they make, consider themselves to be "middle class". This is true of people who make $30,000 per year and people who make $500,000. We don't want to think of ourselves as rich. The rich are someone else. There's always someone who has more.
In the meantime by virtue of being born in the place and at the time that we have most of us have more than almost anyone else in the world. We are all rich. But to admit we are is to have Jesus be talking about us when he says "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
And he's not talking about us. He's not even talking to us. And this is not some kind of universal truth anyway.
Right?
I was thinking about two different passages today and how we interpret them and it occurred to me that we will often look at them differently and the pessimist in me can see why. Here's the first:
John 12:3-8 NASB
Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people? " Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, "Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. "For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me."
Now, we can see what's going on here. Mary has poured perfume on Jesus. While the others may not realize this she is preparing him to be buried. Judas claims to take offense as the perfume could be sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus says something in response that I have heard a mentioned a lot lately:
"You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me."
What is Jesus saying there. Is he saying that loving him is more important than caring for the needy? Is he saying that a seemingly wasteful act was in that instance a better use of resources than spending money to feed the hungry? Maybe.
Does this passage apply universally? Does this mean that having beautiful, fragrant buildings, facilities, and sanctuaries is more important than care for the poor? Probably not, and honestly I haven't had anyone tell me that one. But I have heard repeatedly that this is an acknowledgement that, universally, no matter how hard we try we can't solve the issue of poverty.
This seems reasonable if a little pessimistic. But why apply this statement, made to a man in response to a disingenuous argument (remember Judas is advocating for the poor while planning on stealing the money) as some kind of literal, universal truth? Is it because it's easier for us that way? Is it because it gets us off the hook?
Let's look at another passage:
Luke 18:18-25 NASB
A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. "You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’" And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."I have talked to a number of people who are quick to point out that this is a statement Jesus made in a very specific context to a very specific person. Why is that? Why should this statement of Jesus's be interpreted within the context of Jesus speaking specifically to one person at one time while the other one is a universal truth?
I find this odd especially in light of the number of times Jesus calls his followers to leave everything to follow him. We saw an example of that earlier this morning with Simon Peter, James, and John.
The reason we might interpret these two passages in a very different manner may be because it is easiest for us to do so. To say that Jesus literally meant that the poor will universally always be with all of us is because that doesn't demand that we solve the problem of poverty. To say that Jesus very specifically demanded only one specific person to sell all he had and give the money to the poor is easier for us because we are not that person.
In fact, we describe that person as being rich. Most Americans, no matter how much they make, consider themselves to be "middle class". This is true of people who make $30,000 per year and people who make $500,000. We don't want to think of ourselves as rich. The rich are someone else. There's always someone who has more.
In the meantime by virtue of being born in the place and at the time that we have most of us have more than almost anyone else in the world. We are all rich. But to admit we are is to have Jesus be talking about us when he says "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
And he's not talking about us. He's not even talking to us. And this is not some kind of universal truth anyway.
Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment