I know some of you haven’t had the chance to watch the recording yet, but I’m going to go ahead and open up the discussion thread for those who’re interested.
Richard Hays points out a possible echo between Matt. 21:14-15 (“The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them...‘Hosanna to the Son of David.’”) and 2 Sam. 5:6-8 where David is capturing “the stronghold of Zion” from the Jebusites in Jerusalem. The Jebusites taunt David saying, “You will not come in here; even the blind and the lame will turn you back.” David looks to his men and says, “Whoever wishes to strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ those whom David hates,” and the narrator adds, “Therefore it is said ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the Lord’s house.’”
David is *taking* the city that will eventually house the temple and he *takes* it from the blind and the lame, putting them outside the temple. Jesus, by contrast, turns the tables of those who are still *taking* from the blind and the lame and creates space for them to come to him inside the temple and heals them.
I’m combining a couple of talks I’ve heard you give recently, but it seems like David is *taking* a city which will eventually be used for temple sacrifice (which is an attempt to control God/take from others), while Jesus overturns the tables inside this city/temple in order to give to those outside the temple.
The city/temple was always built on the foundation of a den of robbers (David’s “taking/having”), but God’s temple (Jesus’ body) is built on prayer (receiving/giving). David can’t build the temple because his hands are bloody--even with the blood of the ‘blind and the lame.’ The temple God had always wanted was always aimed at welcoming, healing, and feeding the blind and the lame.
Yes! And that reading is deepened and complicated by the fact that David, after having established his kingdom in Jerusalem, desires to build the Lord a palace, and then shows kindness to Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son. "Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, because he always ate at the king’s table; he was lame in both feet" (2 Sam 9.13). David, because of the way his character is drawn, "cuts both ways." A sign of the kingdoms of this world that must be overthrown and a sign of the kingdom that overthrows them. He takes Jerusalem. And desires to make God a palace, a place of sacrifice. But then he receives the promise of the Lord and gives to Mephibosheth a seat at his table.
Great point! And it’s even further complicated by David taking away all of Mephibosheth’s possessions to give to Ziba in 2 Sam. 16 and then again in ch. 19 when David splits it all between Mephibosheth and Ziba.
What do you make of Matthew’s dogged insistence on connecting Jesus’ healing ministry with the title “Son of David” (Matt. 9:29, 12:24, 15:22, 20:30, etc.)? David is not known as a healer, so why would Matthew add the Davidic ascriptions to many of Mark’s healing narratives?
Good question. I've not considered it before now, but my initial impulse is to connect it to David playing his harp to drive evil spirits out of Saul. I'm sure there's much more, of course, but maybe that's a start.
As I'm listening, I'm wondering how the 'poor in spirit' takes away from the actual poor and oppressed. If, as I think I've heard you say elsewhere, all wealth is dishonest, are the rich, even if poor in spirit, able to truly love their neighbours? Or is that a contradiction?
We do have to be careful, I think, not to talk about "the poor" in abstractions that divert attention away from the people who are actually suffering. We can't use these categories, no matter how biblical or familiar, in ways that deaden us to the lived experiences of our neighbors. Yes, it is possible for people who are rich (and that of course is always a relative term) to live well with dishonest wealth—but only because God makes it possible! Jesus says that quite clearly, I believe.
Chris, apart from the ways of viewing Matt 6:24 as a call to “good citizenship”, a more modern (evangelical) development is to see wealth and means as a sign of righteous dealings in money (shrewd? cunning?). Some have gone as far as suggesting the shrewd dealings with money in capitalism (inevitably) leads to God’s provision and a generous life.
This theology of money and means seems blinded to the very system Jesus is rejecting in the wilderness temptation. Furthermore, it naively imagines the conditions of middle class America are universal and a picture of God’s monetary provisions available to all.
How do we bring contrast to Jesus’ view on money/means vs the American evangelical view of financial freedom?
Not sure it's a modern development, but you're right to suggest that it takes a very particular and especially problematic form in contemporary white American evangelical circles. And that naivety you're talking about is anything but innocent; it's a kind of delusion—or drunkenness, as Jesus says.
I have no idea how to help people see the contrast between what Jesus says and what they have learned. I don't think we can know how to do that kind of life-altering work. All we can do is trust ourselves to Jesus' teaching, trying our best to obey him, asking for others to help us as we do. If we are entrusted to lead, then we have to teach others to obey as we obey. *That* is the "great commission."
I will listen again, as this subject is close to my heart, but I'm trying to reconcile the works 'in secret' with governance and the coming of God's Kingdom. How does that reconcile? I assume that it must, but perhaps it is a process of righteous giving/sharing and then changing hearts and minds that must be secret, apart from Empire--or maybe I misunderstood that, too. This was a fantastic class and discussion, and I'd never guess you had a migraine. I still have half the reading to complete. I loved the writing on Adam Smith, he is so misused.
Jesus says that it is impossible—for us. "But with God all things are possible." Even this!
It helps to look at the stories Scripture gives us. David, Daniel, Esther. Some change happens at the heart of "empire." Some change happens at its edges, beyond the reach even of its shadows. As Jesus told us, God's work is like leaven in the loaf, like the mustard seed that dies in the ground and springs to life again. The difference God's work makes in our lives, our world, shows itself only over the long haul—and most of the work happens without us noticing. In the end, however, the fruit is unmistakable.
1) I was completely undone last year after reading Money and Power by Ellul… my business tanked, was in some depression, wanting understand Jesus’ teachings, unsatisfied by the standard teachings, and feeling the weight of the spiritual reality I had been blind to (grew up Pentecostal/Assemblies with no remembrance on the teaching of Mammon). This course has been SO helpful.
And then I read the forward to Money and Power again and realized he is approaching it all dialectically. Ha!
Really helped me sort out the extremes and ask Jesus what the way of love is. I feel his insights though, especially around our actions in de-sacralizing money by giving are so key.
2) Do you see any importance to exploring 1 Corinthians 8, and food offered to idols within our need to engage with money and markets, respecting the powers that are behind “money”, yet in Christ, having freedom to not be bound by the standard (and church ordained) rituals of obedience to Mammon? We can be free to eat and enjoy, yet bound to loving God and neighbor as ourselves?
I think you're right that 1 Cor 8 is a crucial text. And Ellul's Money and Power blew my hair back too when I first read it—almost all of it in one sitting, in someone else's office, after sneaking up stairs at a stranger's house during a party, trying get away from all the "fun."
I'm starting with the readings and they are great.
I'm uploading more right now!
During the lecture Thursday night Smith crawled
into my lap, looked at my computer screen and said, “Daddy, you talking to Chrithhh??”
I love that
Richard Hays points out a possible echo between Matt. 21:14-15 (“The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them...‘Hosanna to the Son of David.’”) and 2 Sam. 5:6-8 where David is capturing “the stronghold of Zion” from the Jebusites in Jerusalem. The Jebusites taunt David saying, “You will not come in here; even the blind and the lame will turn you back.” David looks to his men and says, “Whoever wishes to strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ those whom David hates,” and the narrator adds, “Therefore it is said ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the Lord’s house.’”
David is *taking* the city that will eventually house the temple and he *takes* it from the blind and the lame, putting them outside the temple. Jesus, by contrast, turns the tables of those who are still *taking* from the blind and the lame and creates space for them to come to him inside the temple and heals them.
I’m combining a couple of talks I’ve heard you give recently, but it seems like David is *taking* a city which will eventually be used for temple sacrifice (which is an attempt to control God/take from others), while Jesus overturns the tables inside this city/temple in order to give to those outside the temple.
The city/temple was always built on the foundation of a den of robbers (David’s “taking/having”), but God’s temple (Jesus’ body) is built on prayer (receiving/giving). David can’t build the temple because his hands are bloody--even with the blood of the ‘blind and the lame.’ The temple God had always wanted was always aimed at welcoming, healing, and feeding the blind and the lame.
Yes! And that reading is deepened and complicated by the fact that David, after having established his kingdom in Jerusalem, desires to build the Lord a palace, and then shows kindness to Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son. "Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, because he always ate at the king’s table; he was lame in both feet" (2 Sam 9.13). David, because of the way his character is drawn, "cuts both ways." A sign of the kingdoms of this world that must be overthrown and a sign of the kingdom that overthrows them. He takes Jerusalem. And desires to make God a palace, a place of sacrifice. But then he receives the promise of the Lord and gives to Mephibosheth a seat at his table.
Great point! And it’s even further complicated by David taking away all of Mephibosheth’s possessions to give to Ziba in 2 Sam. 16 and then again in ch. 19 when David splits it all between Mephibosheth and Ziba.
What do you make of Matthew’s dogged insistence on connecting Jesus’ healing ministry with the title “Son of David” (Matt. 9:29, 12:24, 15:22, 20:30, etc.)? David is not known as a healer, so why would Matthew add the Davidic ascriptions to many of Mark’s healing narratives?
Good question. I've not considered it before now, but my initial impulse is to connect it to David playing his harp to drive evil spirits out of Saul. I'm sure there's much more, of course, but maybe that's a start.
Hi Chris,
As I'm listening, I'm wondering how the 'poor in spirit' takes away from the actual poor and oppressed. If, as I think I've heard you say elsewhere, all wealth is dishonest, are the rich, even if poor in spirit, able to truly love their neighbours? Or is that a contradiction?
We do have to be careful, I think, not to talk about "the poor" in abstractions that divert attention away from the people who are actually suffering. We can't use these categories, no matter how biblical or familiar, in ways that deaden us to the lived experiences of our neighbors. Yes, it is possible for people who are rich (and that of course is always a relative term) to live well with dishonest wealth—but only because God makes it possible! Jesus says that quite clearly, I believe.
Chris, apart from the ways of viewing Matt 6:24 as a call to “good citizenship”, a more modern (evangelical) development is to see wealth and means as a sign of righteous dealings in money (shrewd? cunning?). Some have gone as far as suggesting the shrewd dealings with money in capitalism (inevitably) leads to God’s provision and a generous life.
This theology of money and means seems blinded to the very system Jesus is rejecting in the wilderness temptation. Furthermore, it naively imagines the conditions of middle class America are universal and a picture of God’s monetary provisions available to all.
How do we bring contrast to Jesus’ view on money/means vs the American evangelical view of financial freedom?
Not sure it's a modern development, but you're right to suggest that it takes a very particular and especially problematic form in contemporary white American evangelical circles. And that naivety you're talking about is anything but innocent; it's a kind of delusion—or drunkenness, as Jesus says.
I have no idea how to help people see the contrast between what Jesus says and what they have learned. I don't think we can know how to do that kind of life-altering work. All we can do is trust ourselves to Jesus' teaching, trying our best to obey him, asking for others to help us as we do. If we are entrusted to lead, then we have to teach others to obey as we obey. *That* is the "great commission."
I will listen again, as this subject is close to my heart, but I'm trying to reconcile the works 'in secret' with governance and the coming of God's Kingdom. How does that reconcile? I assume that it must, but perhaps it is a process of righteous giving/sharing and then changing hearts and minds that must be secret, apart from Empire--or maybe I misunderstood that, too. This was a fantastic class and discussion, and I'd never guess you had a migraine. I still have half the reading to complete. I loved the writing on Adam Smith, he is so misused.
Jesus says that it is impossible—for us. "But with God all things are possible." Even this!
It helps to look at the stories Scripture gives us. David, Daniel, Esther. Some change happens at the heart of "empire." Some change happens at its edges, beyond the reach even of its shadows. As Jesus told us, God's work is like leaven in the loaf, like the mustard seed that dies in the ground and springs to life again. The difference God's work makes in our lives, our world, shows itself only over the long haul—and most of the work happens without us noticing. In the end, however, the fruit is unmistakable.
Thanks for this course, Chris!
1) I was completely undone last year after reading Money and Power by Ellul… my business tanked, was in some depression, wanting understand Jesus’ teachings, unsatisfied by the standard teachings, and feeling the weight of the spiritual reality I had been blind to (grew up Pentecostal/Assemblies with no remembrance on the teaching of Mammon). This course has been SO helpful.
And then I read the forward to Money and Power again and realized he is approaching it all dialectically. Ha!
Really helped me sort out the extremes and ask Jesus what the way of love is. I feel his insights though, especially around our actions in de-sacralizing money by giving are so key.
2) Do you see any importance to exploring 1 Corinthians 8, and food offered to idols within our need to engage with money and markets, respecting the powers that are behind “money”, yet in Christ, having freedom to not be bound by the standard (and church ordained) rituals of obedience to Mammon? We can be free to eat and enjoy, yet bound to loving God and neighbor as ourselves?
I think you're right that 1 Cor 8 is a crucial text. And Ellul's Money and Power blew my hair back too when I first read it—almost all of it in one sitting, in someone else's office, after sneaking up stairs at a stranger's house during a party, trying get away from all the "fun."