Even yesterday, when this scripture was read in church, I still had that fear of being one of the unprepared. And I’ve loved the lord for 58 years.
This is a wonderful revelation, a reading in the true way to see Jesus is present always, the light is in Him always and there is always enough with Him. Thank you, my brother. ♥️
More, please Bishop, on this parable. I don’t understand what it means, then, to have a lamp without oil and be locked out of the wedding feast. This is the first time I have heard a non-terrifying version of this parable!
"Look not too long in the face of the fire, O man! Never dream with thy hand on the helm! Turn not thy back to the compass; accept the first hint of the hitching tiller; believe not the artificial fire, when its redness makes all things look ghastly. To-morrow, in the natural sun, the skies will be bright; those who glared like devils in the forking flames, the morn will show in far other, at least gentler, relief; the glorious, golden, glad sun, the only true lamp—all others but liars!"
I had this imagining that if the foolish virgins had not raced off to try to find a shop open but had had simply said to the bridegroom, “we forgot to bring oil”, that he would have said, “don’t stress - such things happen - there’s plenty inside - come on in”. And when they eventually knock at the door (which we are promised, elsewhere, will be opened) that the groom is perhaps waiting for them to ask the right question- that “I never knew you” is addressed to their fear rather than their deepest identity in him. I agree it can feel very unsettling.
Thank you for this. I too have been terrified by this and other stories by Jesus. There is so much hope in what you say about the Lord pursuing us even if we're on the outside.
This is quite good. I wonder if I’m wrong, but I see this post as an example of the “second half” of the interpretive process. As Behr put it elsewhere, spiritual reading starts with the letter and requires it, but it then moves BEYOND the letter to meaning- as does all communication. So here Jesus’ parable retains the obvious and literal sense “be on guard because God could return at any time”, but our fault lies in stopping there. As though all else we know of God’s good heart, the Father’s love of both his prodigal and elder sons, need not intrude!
I was nearly held back in kindergarten when learning to read. I’d “sound it out” then, when asked to “put it together”, would just sound it out faster.
C––A––T became C-A-T! but never, simply Cat 🐱.
It clicked later that year for me. Then I was reading whole books in no time.
It seems many of our most venerable readings have yet to make the leap…
To your question, I wouldn't say that what I'm doing belongs to the second half of interpretation, although I know that several models would require me to put it there—if they give any place at all to such reading.
I'm of the mind that Jesus' words, and therefore the whole of Scripture, cannot have an obvious and literal sense, certainly not to all of us, and certainly not as a thing separable from the spiritual sense. There is a difference between the shallows and the deeps but it's all ocean, and when we're talking about *Jesus* the shallows are deep and the deeps shallow.
If there are such obvious literal meanings, then I'm with you: it's our fault for stopping there. But I would say that "the letter" of Scripture is not an obvious, literal meaning but the appearing of the Word that must be faced and interacted with to be truly understood at all.
Hey Bishop. A belated thank you for this reply, it’s really great! I’m new to substack so forgive me if this is the wrong venue or not how this works but I’d love to ask a bit more on this.
I agree with your second paragraph in the answer. The ocean metaphor is especially helpful. Scripture doesn’t have a one for all time exhaustive “obvious and literal sense” and thus the idea of a two-halved process of interpretation is wrong metaphysically- but would you buy into my earlier “two halves of interpretation” phrasing as a phenomenological expression? So that someone new to this can say of a parable like this, “Okay, what did it mean to Jesus’ original hearers?” as a way of paying attention to the fine details and such, while knowing that those conclusions are only the springboard/background to deeper spiritual reflection? Or is there a better framing?
I ask because I’m trying to think of how to explain this well and simply to college students and this rich vein is often very intellectual and I am a pretty big nerd myself. I want to be sure it isn’t self-I diligently obscure.
Thank you for your work.
I’m having to figure much of this out post seminary so the chance to have online office hours is immensely helpful!
You've asked a hard question! I want to push back against that two-step what it meant, what it means approach. Rather than trying to construct what the words would have been heard to mean by a hearers I create through a historical reconstruction, I want to keep the emphasis on what the words mean literarily. I believe we have to assume that the text—as Scripture, rather than as merely historical artifact—works on its own terms when read in the light of the church's confession. So, our first task is a literary one, not a purely or even primarily historical one.
Even yesterday, when this scripture was read in church, I still had that fear of being one of the unprepared. And I’ve loved the lord for 58 years.
This is a wonderful revelation, a reading in the true way to see Jesus is present always, the light is in Him always and there is always enough with Him. Thank you, my brother. ♥️
So, Chris, let's see the sermon.
well, it was impromptu so I'll have to find a way to write it up
Thanks Bishop! I so relate with your story growing up. And, I so *receive* and resonate with this rethinking and rereading. Pax et bonum.
More, please Bishop, on this parable. I don’t understand what it means, then, to have a lamp without oil and be locked out of the wedding feast. This is the first time I have heard a non-terrifying version of this parable!
sorry for slow response; COVID has laid us low; I'll try to write up something further in the next week or so
"Look not too long in the face of the fire, O man! Never dream with thy hand on the helm! Turn not thy back to the compass; accept the first hint of the hitching tiller; believe not the artificial fire, when its redness makes all things look ghastly. To-morrow, in the natural sun, the skies will be bright; those who glared like devils in the forking flames, the morn will show in far other, at least gentler, relief; the glorious, golden, glad sun, the only true lamp—all others but liars!"
I had this imagining that if the foolish virgins had not raced off to try to find a shop open but had had simply said to the bridegroom, “we forgot to bring oil”, that he would have said, “don’t stress - such things happen - there’s plenty inside - come on in”. And when they eventually knock at the door (which we are promised, elsewhere, will be opened) that the groom is perhaps waiting for them to ask the right question- that “I never knew you” is addressed to their fear rather than their deepest identity in him. I agree it can feel very unsettling.
Thank you for this. I too have been terrified by this and other stories by Jesus. There is so much hope in what you say about the Lord pursuing us even if we're on the outside.
This is quite good. I wonder if I’m wrong, but I see this post as an example of the “second half” of the interpretive process. As Behr put it elsewhere, spiritual reading starts with the letter and requires it, but it then moves BEYOND the letter to meaning- as does all communication. So here Jesus’ parable retains the obvious and literal sense “be on guard because God could return at any time”, but our fault lies in stopping there. As though all else we know of God’s good heart, the Father’s love of both his prodigal and elder sons, need not intrude!
I was nearly held back in kindergarten when learning to read. I’d “sound it out” then, when asked to “put it together”, would just sound it out faster.
C––A––T became C-A-T! but never, simply Cat 🐱.
It clicked later that year for me. Then I was reading whole books in no time.
It seems many of our most venerable readings have yet to make the leap…
Love that story, Fr Taylor!
To your question, I wouldn't say that what I'm doing belongs to the second half of interpretation, although I know that several models would require me to put it there—if they give any place at all to such reading.
I'm of the mind that Jesus' words, and therefore the whole of Scripture, cannot have an obvious and literal sense, certainly not to all of us, and certainly not as a thing separable from the spiritual sense. There is a difference between the shallows and the deeps but it's all ocean, and when we're talking about *Jesus* the shallows are deep and the deeps shallow.
If there are such obvious literal meanings, then I'm with you: it's our fault for stopping there. But I would say that "the letter" of Scripture is not an obvious, literal meaning but the appearing of the Word that must be faced and interacted with to be truly understood at all.
Hey Bishop. A belated thank you for this reply, it’s really great! I’m new to substack so forgive me if this is the wrong venue or not how this works but I’d love to ask a bit more on this.
I agree with your second paragraph in the answer. The ocean metaphor is especially helpful. Scripture doesn’t have a one for all time exhaustive “obvious and literal sense” and thus the idea of a two-halved process of interpretation is wrong metaphysically- but would you buy into my earlier “two halves of interpretation” phrasing as a phenomenological expression? So that someone new to this can say of a parable like this, “Okay, what did it mean to Jesus’ original hearers?” as a way of paying attention to the fine details and such, while knowing that those conclusions are only the springboard/background to deeper spiritual reflection? Or is there a better framing?
I ask because I’m trying to think of how to explain this well and simply to college students and this rich vein is often very intellectual and I am a pretty big nerd myself. I want to be sure it isn’t self-I diligently obscure.
Thank you for your work.
I’m having to figure much of this out post seminary so the chance to have online office hours is immensely helpful!
You've asked a hard question! I want to push back against that two-step what it meant, what it means approach. Rather than trying to construct what the words would have been heard to mean by a hearers I create through a historical reconstruction, I want to keep the emphasis on what the words mean literarily. I believe we have to assume that the text—as Scripture, rather than as merely historical artifact—works on its own terms when read in the light of the church's confession. So, our first task is a literary one, not a purely or even primarily historical one.