This: “Why are we thanking him for heartbreaks and trials, for aches and for tears? Because that is how he stirs us from our stupor, how he strips from us the purple robe. That is how he returns to us our own clothes, the clothes he had made for us, so we can finally be ourselves, can finally be seen in the beauty of our own holiness, which is his gift to us.”
Also it sometimes takes courage and flying in the face of real anxiety to shuck off the fake clothes your family thinks fit just right and put on your right clothes. Nevertheless not I but Christ liveth in me. Bishop Barron quoted Isaiah, “You have accomplished all we have done” in a talk with Jordan Peterson.
Chris, I’m a regular reader and I always look forward to your Substack pieces-- the sermons, interviews, and reflections. But this one left me with some questions about how we should read and preach the Scriptures. At one point in this sermon you turn from reflecting on the stupidity of much modern life to Mark 15:20, which then becomes your main focus.
You build on the idea that Jesus is restored to his own clothes as he is led away to be crucified.
“Bored with their game, the Roman guards stripped Jesus of the purple robe and put him in his own clothes, clothes the tradition suggests were made for him by his mother, who had been from a child a seamstress in the Temple. The torturers meant it as a taunt, a further indignity. But it is a sign of healing for us, a promise of a good God means to do. As we draw near to Christ and his sufferings, as we watch and pray with him, the Spirit will strip from us all the accusations that have been thrown on our shoulders, all the lies that have been wrapped around us, all the half-truths we’ve woven for ourselves. He will divest us of the garments of the powers, the garments of heaviness, and return to us our own clothes, the robes he had made for us, the garments of salvation.”
That is a beautiful and moving paragraph, but I immediately wondered, wasn’t Jesus, in fact, crucified naked? “And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.” (Mk 15:24). I suspect that other readers and hearers of the sermon might wondered about the emphasis on Jesus’ restored clothing given what actually happened to them.
Most commentators agree that it was customary to crucify men naked as a further means of humiliation and cruelty, and I assume that you were aware of this as you preached the sermon.
So, my question has to do with the demands of textual, grammatical, and historical exegesis in preaching. I notice that you are often fairly free in riding the poetic and literary images of a text in your sermons and writing to uncover spiritual meaning. This may also reflect your respect for the approach the Church Fathers took in spiritual interpretation of Scripture, similar to Paul in Galatians 4: 21-26 regarding Sarah and Hagar.
Still, this point of Christ’s clothing being restored gave me pause. I preach regularly to a rather intellectually sophisticated congregation with above average Bible knowledge. I think if I had made the same point at least one person would stop me afterward to point out an obvious flaw in this point of the sermon. At the very least, Jesus did not wear his restored clothes (made by Mary?) for long.
I am not a literalist when it comes to reading Scripture. Some would say I wander too far in the other direction. So, I’m wondering why this particular point bothered me. Does my literal and historical way of reading this text rob it of deeper levels of spiritual meaning? Should I learn to more freely recognize and allow for these kinds of hidden spiritual meanings despite the literal thrust of the text?
Thank you it was all so beautiful. The comment about the clothes just went over my head I’m afraid. It’s was all very special for me. I would really appreciate being able to hear you preaching if you were on YouTube ? I listen, read and watch whatever you are on. Thank you for all your work.
This sermon so good! Thank you! Two questions: where is the Bonhoeffer quote from? And also: did you watch the Henry Louis Gates Jr. doc on gospel music? It has clips from this Gardner Taylor sermon. Sooooo good!
Thanks so much for engaging with the question and piling on some other examples. I was afraid you might take it as an attack. There’s a part of me that wishes I could go along with this often beautiful mystical/spiritual approach, but I just can’t. Take the example of Christ’s clothes and Scripture, it just seems more fanciful than mystical to me. Perhaps with my Calvinist upbringing, I’m too drenched in modern categories, but they’re hard to escape. But I’ll keep listening. Any suggestions of books or articles that open up this approach for us poor moderns?
This: “Why are we thanking him for heartbreaks and trials, for aches and for tears? Because that is how he stirs us from our stupor, how he strips from us the purple robe. That is how he returns to us our own clothes, the clothes he had made for us, so we can finally be ourselves, can finally be seen in the beauty of our own holiness, which is his gift to us.”
Also it sometimes takes courage and flying in the face of real anxiety to shuck off the fake clothes your family thinks fit just right and put on your right clothes. Nevertheless not I but Christ liveth in me. Bishop Barron quoted Isaiah, “You have accomplished all we have done” in a talk with Jordan Peterson.
Oh my. Thank you for this.
Thank you! If you would please tell me where you found the Bonhoeffer quote?
Chris, I’m a regular reader and I always look forward to your Substack pieces-- the sermons, interviews, and reflections. But this one left me with some questions about how we should read and preach the Scriptures. At one point in this sermon you turn from reflecting on the stupidity of much modern life to Mark 15:20, which then becomes your main focus.
You build on the idea that Jesus is restored to his own clothes as he is led away to be crucified.
“Bored with their game, the Roman guards stripped Jesus of the purple robe and put him in his own clothes, clothes the tradition suggests were made for him by his mother, who had been from a child a seamstress in the Temple. The torturers meant it as a taunt, a further indignity. But it is a sign of healing for us, a promise of a good God means to do. As we draw near to Christ and his sufferings, as we watch and pray with him, the Spirit will strip from us all the accusations that have been thrown on our shoulders, all the lies that have been wrapped around us, all the half-truths we’ve woven for ourselves. He will divest us of the garments of the powers, the garments of heaviness, and return to us our own clothes, the robes he had made for us, the garments of salvation.”
That is a beautiful and moving paragraph, but I immediately wondered, wasn’t Jesus, in fact, crucified naked? “And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.” (Mk 15:24). I suspect that other readers and hearers of the sermon might wondered about the emphasis on Jesus’ restored clothing given what actually happened to them.
Most commentators agree that it was customary to crucify men naked as a further means of humiliation and cruelty, and I assume that you were aware of this as you preached the sermon.
So, my question has to do with the demands of textual, grammatical, and historical exegesis in preaching. I notice that you are often fairly free in riding the poetic and literary images of a text in your sermons and writing to uncover spiritual meaning. This may also reflect your respect for the approach the Church Fathers took in spiritual interpretation of Scripture, similar to Paul in Galatians 4: 21-26 regarding Sarah and Hagar.
Still, this point of Christ’s clothing being restored gave me pause. I preach regularly to a rather intellectually sophisticated congregation with above average Bible knowledge. I think if I had made the same point at least one person would stop me afterward to point out an obvious flaw in this point of the sermon. At the very least, Jesus did not wear his restored clothes (made by Mary?) for long.
I am not a literalist when it comes to reading Scripture. Some would say I wander too far in the other direction. So, I’m wondering why this particular point bothered me. Does my literal and historical way of reading this text rob it of deeper levels of spiritual meaning? Should I learn to more freely recognize and allow for these kinds of hidden spiritual meanings despite the literal thrust of the text?
Thank you it was all so beautiful. The comment about the clothes just went over my head I’m afraid. It’s was all very special for me. I would really appreciate being able to hear you preaching if you were on YouTube ? I listen, read and watch whatever you are on. Thank you for all your work.
This sermon so good! Thank you! Two questions: where is the Bonhoeffer quote from? And also: did you watch the Henry Louis Gates Jr. doc on gospel music? It has clips from this Gardner Taylor sermon. Sooooo good!
Thanks so much for engaging with the question and piling on some other examples. I was afraid you might take it as an attack. There’s a part of me that wishes I could go along with this often beautiful mystical/spiritual approach, but I just can’t. Take the example of Christ’s clothes and Scripture, it just seems more fanciful than mystical to me. Perhaps with my Calvinist upbringing, I’m too drenched in modern categories, but they’re hard to escape. But I’ll keep listening. Any suggestions of books or articles that open up this approach for us poor moderns?