I had some good news today. At least, to me it is. I did not realize just how expensive plain black metal railing is. To get everything that would be needed and have Firewood Man install it on the roofed airing porch would be ~$300. Since lumber is far less expensive, he said he could install a flat deck for ~$600, mostly likely a bit less. Amos and I could sit outside at night and watch the clouds ... or the fireworks from the baseball games, save from those who (eerily) drive up and down the alley late at night!! For all my economizing, it took about 30 seconds for me to agree to spend twice the money. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
Of course ... it rained today.
So, plans changed.
The railing (deck) has to wait ... again.
I am now the proud homeowner who has a functioning door to her basement utility closet!! Actually, Tim has to shoot those concrete nail thingies into the base support for one section of the wall that was never attached to the floor. But the wall was cut and jiggled and re-worked and framed a bit so that the door opens and closes and is securely attached.
One of the things Tim did was to pop off a piece of plywood that was covering the back of the louvers. It is CRIMINAL to paint such incredible wood. CRIMINAL! Sadly, I am NOT about to spend eons scraping the paint off of this door. I. Am. Not.
So, I spent TWO HOURS scrubbing the grime and coal dust off of the door. Front. Back. TWO HOURS.
And, then, even though I have the Valspar paint with primer, I went ahead and painted a coat of my beloved bonding primer. [Can you see the moving sticker still attached to my filing cabinet??]
The price of this repair, filling the hole in the wall, and buying and cutting the 2x4s for the firewood rack?? $20. Firewood Man underpays himself. Since he is using my credit card to purchase the wood and supplies, I told him to fill up his gas tank on me. After all, he'll be making many trips over here to take care of my old biddy list. The price of my making it pretty? $0 since I am using leftover primer, paint, and brushes.
The sweet moment of today was discovering how smooth the 2x4 pieces were. When I commented on them, Tim said that he sanded them because he knew I was thinking of staining them before sealing them.
So, I did (with stain I actually brought from Alexandria). I cannot wait for Tim to put together the rack and fill it up with firewood. He did scoff at the minuscule screws that came with the metal end pieces (which are the most perfect height for my porch!!!). I am fairly certain that his shopping list includes better screws.
I did have a frank conversation with Sprint last week about a problem I have been having with my phone, pointing out that I have been a customer since 1998. As a result, Sprint gave me a $50 credit to my account. I see that as Firewood Man money.
Tomorrow ... hopefully ... I will have a railing (plus a deck) on the airing porch. Then, I think, another old biddy gets a few days, before we get back to my running list. That is probably good for me, eh? Learning to share???
I spent some time this afternoon working on the medical resume again. It actually was a blessing for me because I went with Pages (due to pricing) when I switched from Windows to MAC. There are so many elements of the program I just do not know. To put it another way, I was an ace at Word and am a dunce at Pages. The resume's formatting was all done with the space bar. So, I went looking for how to do tab stops, change auto-hypenation, and how to do leaders in Pages. Basically, editing the document so that all the formatting was properly set—if font style or size were changed, the formatting would remain—meant that I got a crash course in Pages.
Then, I decided that I would look at the "cover" pages (images with section titles on them) in Michael Card's commentary on Mark for Chapters 12-15. I did so because it dawned on me that I might not be as close to the crucifixion as I thought. I was right. I can read chapter 12, at least, if not also 13, without even getting to the Last Supper.
What I liked about Chapter 12 is the emphasis on the intelligence and purposefulness of the questions that Jesus asks and the answers that He gives. Again, this section of the Gospel is about Jesus, not about man. I mean, it is about how man is trying to trap Jesus, but the heart of the commentary is noting Jesus' awareness of what is happening, His avoidance of all traps, and His ability to teach even when a trap is sprung.
Now, I will admit that, after having read one segment three times, I still have absolutely no idea of the purpose of the text (the question) or its explanation. The whole segment was the proverbial "It's all Greek to me!" However, I did note that the chapter itself had a bookend device that Michael Card did not point out. By that I mean to say, I had a moment of transference in this learning about the Gospel process!
Mark 12 is essentially comprised of five questions. The bookend that I noticed is that the first question and the last question are Jesus'. [Would it be irreverent to quip, here, that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, after all?] The questions between those bookends are the three traps sprung in an attempt to find a reason to arrest Jesus ... the questions that are the first act of the plot on His life.
Jesus' questions have to do with the Messiah (Mark = Jesus the Son of Man/Jesus the Messiah). It is funny ... I have read the parable about the vineyard, but never read it so clearly as a tale of the messengers God sends to save His people. The learning bits from this question "What will the owner of the vineyard do?" are:
- That absentee landlords were common then, so the story is in a setting those around Jesus would easily recognize and connect to as they listened.
- That the landlord sends his son thinking they tenant will recognize his authority and respect him.
- That the ending, the murder of the son, is an outrage to the listeners (Luke 20:16 has someone in the crowd blurting out, "No—never!").
- That Jesus is telling two stories: one the laymen will understand and naturally take umbrage at (and perhaps after the crucifixion understand Jesus is the Landlord's son) and one that has another meaning for the religious leaders, pointing them back to Israel's history given that throughout Scripture the word "servant" is a codeword for prophets.
As for the final note, Michael Card writes:
I imagine Jesus's final words being spoken in the simmering silent of the crowd. The common folk are outraged by the story, the religious leaders infuriated by its deeper implications. Then Jesus uses another code word, one that refers back to Psalm 118:22-23. Earlier the word "servant" had a dual meaning. This work, "stone" (eben), sounds much like the word for "son" (ben). The rejected stone is code for the rejected son. The presence of this statement in Mark is another of Peter's fingerprints on the text. His understanding of Jesus as the stone was fundamental to the way he perceived Jesus, himself and the community of believers.
The second question (the first trap) is asked by the Pharisees and the Herodians: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" This is the segment I simply do not understand. I mean, I get that it is not a Life Application Lesson for believers about paying taxes, but I basically do not understand why. [For examples of civil responsibility, Michael Card references Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:13.] The only part that made sense was the note that this was the best trap of all three, since it was a question about taxes being asked in Rome.
- Who is asking the question are the polar extremes to the possible answers to the question ... but I do not understand that explanation.
- The answer to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is actually truncated in that the actual answer Jesus continues with "and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17). Somehow this answer implies that nothing belongs to Caesar and everything to God ... but I do not understand how.
- Jesus answer is elegant in that the Herodians cannot charge Jesus with inciting a tax rebellion and the Pharisees cannot cite Him for blasphemy ... but I do not understand why either of those conclusions are true.
SIGH.
The second trap (and third question) "Who's wife will she be?" set by the Sadducees was one of the two questions in which I learned the most history.
This is the only reference to the Sadducees in Mark's Gospel. Matthew refers to them seven times, Luke once and John not at all. At this moment in Jewish history they were a powerful sect, exercising control of the priesthood. Their name is derived from one of the high priests, Zadok, whose name is based on the Hebrew word for "just" (saddiq). Their power over the priestly caste in Jerusalem led the people to refer to priests not as sons of Aaron but as sons of Zadok. They considered the five books of Moses to be the only authoritative Scripture, rejecting the Prophets and the Writings. They found no reference to angels or the resurrection in the Torah and therefore rejected both, hence Mark's parenthetical statement in verse 18. Their hypocrisy is clear: their trap question is based on the resurrection, in which they do not believe.
Wow! What a passel of history you have there! So, Sadducees and Pharisees are not the same (except that they both end in "ees"! [Another irreverent thought??] They are rather restrictive (and deluded) about the Word of God. And they basically shoot themselves in the foot with their question.
Jesus' response is a cold slap in the faces of the Sadducees. To say that these men do not know the Scriptures is a serious insult. Neither, says Jesus, do they know the power of God. The two are inseparable. Jesus does not directly answer the question. Instead he dismantles the assumption upon which it is based. Resurrection is not simply reanimation. It represents complete transformation, including the transformation of human relationships. Resurrected men and women will live, like the angles, in a relational framework that supersedes marriage.
My friend Mary has mentioned that last part to me and often encourages me by reminding me that she (of husband and many children) will be my single sister in Christ in glory. Yes, Myrtle, you are alone, now, but we will all be alone then ... only not as you think!
So, I was prepared for this a bit. However, buried in here is a most beautiful of statements: To say that these men do not know the Scriptures is a serious insult. Neither, says Jesus, do they know the power of God. The two are inseparable.
What does that sound like? I will give you a hint: Think Part IV of the Large Catechism. Here's another hint: What is the most quoted bit of the Book of Concord on my blog? Give up?? Answer: The fact that the Word of God has [done] and is able to do all that God is and can do (BOC, LC, IV, 17). Here I see the same thing being said!!
Michael Card continues after a bit:
The logical steps of Jesus' very rabbinic argument are not immediately discernible to many of us. In his first premise, Jesus establishes the fact that God spoke of himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We need to remember that the three patriarchs were already dead. next, Jesus posits that God is not the God of the dead but of the living, quickly concluding, "You are badly deceived" (Mark 12:27). You and I might be a bit confused about how this argument wordlessly concludes with a validation of bodily resurrection. The missing step is simple. If God speaks of the deceased patriarchs in the present tense, and if he is the God of the living, then those patriarchs and indeed everyone who has ever died is alive to him in the present moment and will arise when he returns. After all, God does not tie his name to corpses.
BAM! My, how I savored being so very schooled in this segment of chapter 12!!
Reading about the third trap (and fourth question) "Which commandment is the most important of all?" garnered me another most lovely of lessons in that it is asked by the scribes. And ... and ... Michael Card explains who the scribes are!! [I sort of wish this explanation came earlier in the commentary, but I am not complaining.]
A scribe could be a member of the Pharisees or Sadducees. They were specialists at interpreting the Scriptures, ordained sometime after their fortieth birthday. Scribes were accorded the right to sit with the Sanhedrin. They were also sometimes referred to as lawyers (nomikos).
[If only he went on to explain the Sanhedrin....]
One note in this segment I found fascinating was that the scribe's question was a popular one. In the first century, Judaism acknowledged 613 separate commandments. It was said that the prophet Amos reduced all the commandments to one. In essence, the scribe is asking Jesus to do the same thing.
Jesus answer is twofold: the first part from the central creed of Judaism (the Shema) and the second from Leviticus 19:18. Luke 10 has another scribe asking the same question and getting the same answer. In Jesus' mind the two are one, inseparable, one cannot love the God who is one without, as an expression of that love, loving one's neighbor (see I Jn 4:20).
I will come back to this in a moment.
Jesus finishes the questioning with asking "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the Son of David?" He asks this question after no one dared question Him further (Mark 12:34) and in His question leaves further evidence the lack of scholarship among his learned accusers. He does so by quoting Psalm 110:1 The Lord declared to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand."
Michael Card notes:
The first "Lord is a reference to God himself. The second references to the Messiah, whose enemies will be placed underneath his feet, a reference to his great victory. David, the writer of the psalm, refers to the messianic son of David as his Lord. It is a conundrum. Jesus is exposing the fact that even the experts really don't understand who the Messiah is. The scribes must have been offended by this as well. Mark tells us that the crowd was delighted.
Then, Jesus used the question as a teachable moment.
Having exposed their lack of basic biblical understanding, Jesus proceeds to warn the crowd against those who pose as experts in the law. They are easily recognizable by their flowing white robes. They revel in the perks of their exalted position in Jewish society. But, says Jesus, they sponge off of helpless widows.
My first thought at reading this is another I wonder if irreverent: This warning seems apropos given how many folk in the online world like to pose as experts in the Gospel without having a basic doctrinal understanding.
Mark 12 ends with Jesus people-watching and using the moment to teach his disciples the value of the widow's mite. A bit of history here Michael Card explains that the mite is the smallest and thinest of coin, one that could be blown away like a feather. Here, again, Jesus is turning the world upside down for His disciples. The first are last. The smallest coin is the greatest treasure in the shofar chest.
SIGH.
Aside from that one section that remains veiled to me, this was most wonderful of reading. Clear, historically informative, focused on Jesus, and showing His authority even as it was being questioned. Good stuff. Really, really, really good stuff.
I had a personal thought about one part ... the greatest commandment part.
A thought that cheered me.
A thought that scared me to dare have.
The commandment is to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all your understanding, and with all of your strength (if you set aside, for the moment the second part about loving your neighbor). My thought flickered around the idea of comparing apples to oranges. By this I mean, the pronoun here is personal and individual: "your." In other words, I am to love the Lord my God with all of my heart, my understanding, my strength. I am not admonished to do so with the heart, understanding, and strength of others, of even the neighbors I am helping. So ... well ... comparing how or how much I am loving God with others (or others comparing my loving to theirs) is like comparing apples to oranges. No one's faith is going to be or look the same.
And, yes, I specifically thought of apples and oranges because of all the talk about fruitifcation (my term for measuring sanctification not by the Holy Spirit working through Word and Sacrament but by works or identified fruit) that I have seen taking place online.
I mean, I think that if faith is a gift then the measure and efficacy of that gift remains with the giver. In other words, thinking about measuring faith is moot, because you are measuring the work of the triune God against the work of the triune God. But, since our flesh ever seeks to have personal meaning and person action and personal reflection, the point I am trying to make is that my personal is never going to be the same as that of others.
DEEP BREATH.
Weak faith is okay. It's just my particular apple.
Doubting faith is okay. It's just my particular apple.
Terrified faith is okay. It's just my particular apple.
Non-suffering-saint faith is okay. It's just my particular apple.
I don't need to be bound by your personal testimony about your orange, because mine is an apple.
Do I? Do I have an apple??
No comments:
Post a Comment