Sunday, February 23, 2014

The Wisdom of Sirach for Healing

The Wisdom of Sirach is a book of the Jewish Apocrypha, written in Hebrew by Jesus ben Sirach around 175 BC, and published later in Greek by his grandson.  It is a book of wisdom similar to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and in Roman Catholic Bibles it is commonly known as Ecclesiasticus.  The book is intended to support a life devoted to Scripture, not to be a book of Scripture.  The grandson wrote a prologue in which he says:
Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. Now, those who read the scriptures must not only themselves understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word to help the outsiders. So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law. You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original.... I have applied my skill day and night to complete and publish the book for those living abroad [Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, living outside of Israel] who wished to gain learning and are disposed to live according to the law. 
With that introduction, I want to quote a small section of this book, with extreme Pentecostalism in mind -- whether the kind that handles snakes and drinks poisons, or the kind that forbids medicine as an act of "faith" (which is really self-empowerment and self-authentication).  I do so because around the same time the dead snake-bitten pastor was in the news, so were the parents of a young child who died for a lack of simple medical treatment because the parent's church forbids the use of medicine and even the wearing of seatbelts -- and tragically this was the second young child of theirs to die for the same reasons in recent years.

So what does Sirach have to say?
Sirach 38:9-11  9 My child, when you are ill, do not delay, but pray to the Lord, and he will heal you.  10 Give up your faults and direct your hands rightly, and cleanse your heart from all sin.  11 Offer a sweet-smelling sacrifice, and a memorial portion of choice flour, and pour oil on your offering, as much as you can afford.
Certainly, an extreme Pentecostal will have no problem with that. Pray for healing and repent of sins and offer up a sacrifice of praise!  Yet look at the very next verses as Sirach continues his wisdom on the topic:
Sirach 38:12-15   12 Then give the physician his place, for the Lord created him; do not let him leave you, for you need him.  13 There may come a time when recovery lies in the hands of physicians,  14 for they too pray to the Lord that he grant them success in diagnosis and in healing, for the sake of preserving life.  15 He who sins against his Maker, will be defiant toward the physician.
Martyr cross racing is laying down your own life (actual, financial, reputation) to save another, not laying down another's life to save face.  Make your own application.

(Disclaimer: "Make your own application" is a helpful charge borrowed from the Phoenix Preacher blog)

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Does Mark X the Spot?

Mark 16:18  ...they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them...

News spread several days ago that the "reality TV star" of a show about snake-handlers had died after being bitten by a snake during a religious meeting.  We looked up a few news videos about the fellow; he had been bitten several times in the past, and even lost a portion of a finger due to a snake bite.  He never sought treatment for the finger as it rotted on his hand, nor when it had finally broke off.  His wife insisted on keeping the finger chunk, and it was displayed proudly on camera to the reporter.

It reminded me of a quote from a preacher who was very influential to me early in my adulthood.  He would say, "You can take the Word of God and preach yourself."  Meaning:  using the Bible, a preacher can exalt himself and not God.  Such is epidemic these days, as selfish ambition and pride are at the root of many hearts.  It is not limited to snake handlers.  For my own purposes, I have labelled such things rather broadly by the term "self-empowerment."  Self-empowerment is an antonym of martyr cross racing, and I plan to blog a series of thoughts on it in the not too distant future.

But today, I want to point out that it is a fact, though not overly expressed in churches, that the oldest Greek manuscripts of Mark do not contain 16:9-20.  And further, the ending contained in verses 9-20 is not the only competing ending to Mark;  there are other different and somewhat shorter endings that are known to exist.  None of them have a strong case for being original.  In fact, it may be that 16:8 really is the final verse of Mark as originally written.  The Gospel of Mark has a theme known as "The Messianic Secret," mainly because Jesus is so often shushing people about his identity throughout the Gospel of Mark.  Ending his gospel with an empty tomb may have been Mark's stylistic intent; we just do not know for sure.  Possibly, as later scribes copied the gospel of Mark, and being confused that their source did not feature a post-resurrection appearance, a few scribes may have uniquely and individually scribbled in different conclusions to round out Mark to make it similar to the other three gospels.

Given that situation, why would a scribe include a line about taking up snakes and drinking poison?  I am suggesting two stories that would yield those scribal interpolations.

First, there is the account in Acts of Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake while assembling firewood, but being unharmed.  Notably, Acts does not mention that what had happened to Paul was a fulfillment of Jesus' words; therefore, it is possible that the story about Paul became the source of a later scribal interpolation to conclude Mark, namely, 16:9-20.

Secondly, among the Apostolic Fathers is a fellow named Papias, who lived roughly from 70-150 A.D.  He apparently wrote a five volume work on the sayings of Jesus that has since been lost to us, except for parts quoted by later ancient Christians. One such writer who quoted Papias was Eusebius, the church historian from the era of Constantine. Eusebius wrote:
"That Philip the apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their [the daughters'] contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip's daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas, who drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of God suffered nothing unpleasant."
Notably again, there is no mention from Papias that this occasion fulfilled any words of Christ. Thus it is possible that this story in Papias' books was an inspiration for a later scribal interpolation known today as Mark 16:9-20.

What is further striking is that both the occasion of Paul being bitten, and the occasion of Justus swallowing poison, are accidental occasions.  It was not Justus' intent to drink poison, but miraculously by the grace of God he wasn't harmed.  It was a one time thing, just like Paul being bitten while assembling fire wood. If intentionally handling snakes and drinking poisons was normative and routine worship in the apostolic churches, Papias would not write about an "amazing story" handed down by word of mouth about how surviving poison graciously happened to one guy one time. 

Therefore, since these two stories are closely related to Mark 16:18, and both of these stories are about accidental, one-time occurrences, then the actions of intentionally and routinely handling snakes and drinking poisons in religious meetings -- and refusing medical care upon being bitten or overdosing -- is not even fairly defended by Mark 16:18.  It is much more akin to jumping from the pinnacle of the temple:  putting the Lord your God to the test.  The devil suggests that doing so will help your ministry grow and bring glory to God.  Jesus counters that it is a sin. 

Acts, Papias, and Mark together "X" out that interpretation, whether 16:9-20 is a scribal interpolation or not.  What we have instead, then, with snake-handling, is a drive for self-empowerment: taking the word of God and exalting yourself.

Don't get smug; "biblical" self-empowerment is expressed by you and me too.  Martyr cross racing is about putting it to death.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Aborting an Abortion: A Martyr's Life

There is a certain blog I occasionally visit because it is sometimes good, sometimes troubling, and always very honest.

A few years ago, I was troubled by one post and its subsequent discussions. Seems a seasoned, well-known mega-pastor in the western U.S. took a call on his radio program from a young woman seeking advice on going through with an abortion. She was carrying conjoined twins who shared the same body but had two heads. The doctors had advised abortion because of the high risk of complications and because such children rarely live for more than a day outside the womb. After hearing the situation, the pastor assured the woman that if she were to choose abortion the Lord would not condemn her. Something of an online war ensued about the pastor's counsel.

Some commenters on that particular blog thread claimed "This abortion can be justified using the self-defense argument," while others made strict pro-life arguments that condemned the woman and pastor, while still others had nothing more to say than "The Bible is silent here."

One pastor commenting in the discussion thread wrote something like, "Given the difficulty of her plight, I have no specific Biblical counsel to offer her." But he went far enough to say that if she were in his congregation, he promised "love and compassion" and he wouldn't permit anyone to condemn her for having an abortion. When I read that, I felt that he was probably using the term "condemn" with little if any differentiation from "rebuke" and "reprove." I marvel that the notions of Biblical rebuke and reproof are often presented as the opposites of love and compassion. Yes, we all know that church can be notorious for self-righteous judges and prideful condemnations. But this commenter was a pastor who would have nothing to do with loving her enough to rebuke and reprove her in Christ. Much more needs to be done to correct the "fire-at-will" crowd than to command a congregation to say nothing at all in opposition to her choice. But that issue is not what I am treating here. (But for future reference, that same pastor in the comments section is known to have a particular doctrinal affinity for theologian Ben Witherington, whom I plan to quote in a future post).

Back on topic, I think the comments in that discussion are partly a symptom of our overt short-sightedness as a whole. Part of what helped me to see it that way were some statements I read a short time later in William Gurnall's devotional, "The Christian in Complete Armor." For example:
Temptation is never stronger than when relief seems to dress itself in the very sin that Satan is suggesting.  [As in "abort the twins" or "eat the pork" or "curse the name"?]
And again,
 Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Of all his plots, this is perhaps the most dangerous to the saints, when he appears in the mantle of a prophet and silver-plates his corroded tongue with fair-sounding language. In this manner, he corrupts some in their judgment by interpreting gospel truth in such a way that God appears to condone questionable behavior. These Christians get caught up in the world's morality under the disguise of Christian liberty....  How we need to study the Scriptures, our hearts, and Satan's wiles, that we may not bid this enemy welcome and all the while think it is Christ who is our guest!  [Christ has no rebuke of your abortion. Your circumstances exempt you. Divine justice will excuse you for fearing the doctor when you are under compulsion (4 Maccabees 8:22).]
And again,
Some martyrs have confessed that their hardest work was to overcome the prayers and tears of their friends and relatives. Paul himself expressed those same feelings when he said, "What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? For I am ready, not to be bound only but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus!"  [I am ready, not only to live destitute for this child, but also to die in the hospital for him as a demonstration of the grace of the Lord Jesus!]
What I saw was that the twins' mom wasn't thinking, "Dying (figuratively or literally) for these twins is the most Christlike and God-rewardable thing I can do, as a testimony to the greatness of the name of Him whose love compels me."  The commenters on that blog weren't thinking this way either. And I don't think this way either.  That must change!

Can you, can I, can the twins' mom say,
"O Lord God Almighty, I bless You because You have considered me worthy of this needy child by whom I will likely be exhausted of everything I am and have, so that I might receive a place of 'martyrdom' in the cup of Your Christ"?
Or say,
"God has judged me worthy to be found with this child. It is good to be setting from this world to God, in order that I may rise to Him"?
Or say,
"I know that many have lived destitute lives so that they might ransom others. I will do so for my baby"?
If God works all things together for the good of His people, and if He works all of our weakenings together for our strength, then all things should be viewed as happening for our faith. And suffering with faith is suffering for your faith:  a daily martyrdom grounded in loyal adoration of our sovereign God, even in the bitter providences. Especially in the bitter providences. Call it a martyr's life.