Hard Verses of the Bible
Sometimes Bible study is really interesting.
The summer Adult Bible Study at Zion has been about 'Hard Verses of the Bible'. It's a study taken from a specific book of Pastor R's, the author of which I, sadly, cannot remember offhand. But basically it takes a good look at some of the verses in the Bible that seem to either contradict other parts of the Bible, or else present unmeetable challenges to Christians and see if there's more to the situation than might immediately strike the reader.
As a whole, the study has been really good. I say this as much because the conducting of the study has been good as because the study itself has been interesting. Pastor Rouland has established a routine in which he presents the verse to us, and then turns us over to each other so we can discuss the verse in small groups. We are to discusss A) what it is that makes the verse 'hard' -- is it confusing, does it conflict with other teachings, is it scary, does it demand a lot of us, etc., then B) what prior knowledge do we have about the verse that has contributed to our understanding of its meaning before now, and C) what we think the verse is really saying. I think that little bit of fellowship time is important, because it not only gives us a chance to have some directed conversation, it also keeps the Bible study from getting really boring, as lecture-style studies sadly tend to do.
Then we're all brought together again and we discuss our thoughts in more directed fashion, which is good too. Pastor R. is very good at doing this, because he isn't afraid to let us suggest things he hadn't necessarily anticipated and work with it. This trait of his was reflected quite starkly today, as Pastor was preaching and Mark T. had taken over. Mark isn't quite as good at that as Pastor R. is. ;)
Anyway, just as a 'for example': one week we discussed Matthew 7:6, in which Jesus says, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Set alone, I suppose, it's not too confusing; it sounds almost like just plain old good advice. We would be rather stupid to give sacred things to dogs or throw pearls to pigs anyway, so I guess it's an easy enough mandate to keep.
But in that case, the context was what made the verse 'hard'. Matthew 7:1-6 is the passage that discusses taking the plank from your own eye before pointing out the speck in your brother's eye. The whole passage, then, reads as follows:
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Okay, so.... who, exactly, are the dogs in this scenario? And what are the sacred things and the pearls? Given the context, we're clearly talking in symbols.. but what does it mean?
At first glance, it almost sounds like our brother is the dog/pig. But if the passage is about judging, how are we not judging if we're withholding sacred or valuable things from our brother lest he trample them and turn on us? It's true, we know, that humankind's inherent selfish pride often causes us to react to generosity in exactly the opposite way that we should, so perhaps it's just two different mandates: do not pick at other's difficulties, as you have your own to contend with first, and do not give the needy more than they need, because they will resent you for it. But who are we to decide how much needy people need and when to stop, especially given that this comes under 'Judging Others'. It didn't seem to make much sense.
We discussed all of these things, found no explanation particularly satisfying. Pastor then directed us to Matthew 13:44-46, which actually wasn't much help at all at first. It's the passage about the Kingdom of Heaven being like a valuable pearl. Here's the passage:
The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
44"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
We had Andrew Peterson, who is a Christian artist, come and perform at Zion last fall, and he actually talked about that parable and what he'd been taught that it meant. He said that while it sounds like a mandate to us, as Christians, to give up all we have in order to claim Salvation, he had a pastor once who said that that's not it at all... that the Kingdom of Heaven is US, and that the man and the merchant are actually Christ, who gives EVERYTHING for the sake of the treasure.
Pastor R. says he actually agrees with that view of this parable, and since Matthew, in general, uses the same imagery to mean the same things throughout his writings, it then follows that the 'Pearls' being thrown to Swine in Matthew 7:6 are actually our fellow members of the Kingdom of God. Put that way, the verse makes a lot more sense in context, because we are called to protect and support each other as fellow children of God. Judging is exactly the opposite of this, and so by casting judgment on fellow Christians, we are throwing them at the mercy of the enemies of the Church. Not only does this result in the 'trampling' of those 'pearls', it also opens the door for those same enemies to have grounds to attack US, hence the 'turning and tearing to pieces'.
And when I think about it, that's exactly what happens. When overzealous members of the Christian faith apply, to use sort of an overused phrase, too much Law and not enough Gospel, and use Biblical mandates as grounds to condemn and reject people, the whole church suffers. I can't tell you how many members of the computer geek crowd I run with grew up in Christian homes, but now reject Christianity because they've decided they hate Christians because we are all 'holier than thou' and such.
I'm usually leery of doing too much heavy interpretation of Biblical passages, as I think it's too easy to bend a given passage to mean what you want it to mean if you're willing to go all the way around the bend to get it there.. But in this case, I thought the whole thing made both passages make a lot more sense.
And that's just one example. Here's one more:
Last week's study discussed Mark 3:28-29, which says:
28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
This one didn't present much of a challenge in terms of answering, "Why is this hard?" Universally, we determined it to be hard because A) it seems to contradict itself, and B) the concept of an 'eternal sin' is frightening, especially since all it takes is 'blaspheming against the Holy Spirit', which is not exactly specific. What, exactly, is involved with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit? How can we be sure we haven't already done it? And why, if this is the single be-all, end-all of sin, are we not educated on how to avoid committing it every day of our Christian lives? And why does this act, in particular, represent an exception to the prior statement. How does it wash that ALL THE SINS AND BLASPHEMIES of men will be forgiven... but this act, blasphemy though it be, will not.
Many theories were floated, up to and including the accepted decision that 'blaspheming against the Holy Spirit' is simply rejecting Christ. That made us all easier, because that meshes with what we've been taught all along: that all of our sins are forgiven, and that salvation comes only through faith.
But the thing about this that left me a little cold was the fact that wherever in the Bible rejection of the faith is discussed, it's usually discussed in those terms: as a rejection, not as something nebulous like 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit'. There's also the issue of the apparent contradiction of the two statements.
So this passage is one in which context is important. The whole passage describes one of the first times Christ is preaching with his disciples, and rumors about the things he does get back to his family and the leaders of the law in Jerusalem. His family worries that he has gotten too much sun and goes to collect him, while the leaders decide he's possessed, himself.
Here's Mark 3: 20-30:
Jesus and Beelzebub
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."
So... the passage is part of Christ's response to the charge that he is able to drive out spirits because he is possessed by Satan himself, and the demons obey him because he is speaking with the authority of Satan. As I read it, Christ is saying that Satan cannot work against his own ends, and that the only way to reclaim something Satan has taken possession of is to be capable of subduing Satan.
If Satan is the topic at hand, then it almost sounds like verses 28 and 29 are comparing two separate cases. While the blasphemies of MAN will be forgiven them, the one who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven. It sounds to me like verse 29 is not speaking of Man at all, but of Satan.
Lutherans do not focus their attention on the Holy Spirit as intently as some denominations do, so I have to confess here that I don't have much background in studying the Spirit or its relative role in the Trinity. But I do know that the LCMS holds this to be true:
"...the Holy Spirit is the one responsible for bringing us to trust in Christ, delivering to us all the treasures of His great salvation for us, and for keeping us in the faith.." (quoted from LCMS.org)
So as the Kingdom of God, we are God's treasure, and He wants us with him. The Holy Spirit has been charged with the task of bolstering our faith to that end, and Satan has set himself against that task. Satan does just the opposite: plays off of our sinful nature to drive us away from God and the eternal salvation we've been promised. Viewed that way, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is not the act of rejecting the faith, but the act of convincing Mankind to reject the faith.
Like I said, it's a really interesting study.
Well, today Mark T. led it, and it was like a totally different Bible Study. When it comes to adult studies, you have people who are just surprisingly good at it, and people who... aren't. It's not that Mark isn't a good teacher, because he really can be, when he's in his element (which is music). But he's not, perhaps, so good at delving into the depths with stuff like this.
The passage today was the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, Matthew 18: 21-35
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]
23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
Okay.. so we come down off of last week, in which it's determined that Man will be forgiven all his sins and blasphemies... But now it appears that we won't, really.. Because now we're going to be thrown into the heaven version of prison and subjected to torture if we don't forgive each other before we die.
I mean, the message here is pretty straightforward. None of us has any business carrying grudges against anyone else. It goes back to that 'plank in your own eye' idea. Each of us is so offensive by our very nature that none of us has any business judging anyone else, and the very LEAST we can do, given that, is to forgive each other for the comparatively minor sins we commit against each other given the monumental sins we commit against God every moment of our lives. That's not really difficult to understand, or troubling in any way. Not for me, anyway. I'm down with that.
But this whole 'This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.' business is a little disturbing. I mean, sure, we DESERVE to be treated that way if we don't forgive.. But the whole point of grace is that we deserve a lot of things that aren't meted out against us because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. How does it follow, then, that Grace affords us forgiveness, but we're still to be punished if we die while still angry at someone?
It just doesn't match up with what we're taught about salvation. And Luther, troublingly, seems to have no trouble with the apparent disparity here. Of course, neither did the older members of the class. If you haven't forgiven your brother from your heart, they say (rather absurdly triumphantly, in my opinion), then you have failed to appreciate what has been done for you and you don't REALLY believe, so therefore you will not be saved.
But this suggests that we must forgive in order to be saved. And I don't recall Luther's rose having a 'Sola if we forgive' somewhere on it. Yes, we should forgive. We have no business NOT forgiving. But people always do stuff they shouldn't do, that they have no business doing. And where, exactly, does this torture come in? No depiction of Heaven includes a door next to the Pearly Gates to 'The Unforgiving Torture Chamber', where Christians are paying back in full the debt they owed because they did not forgive their fellow man. I suppose some might say this is the purpose of Purgatory, but that isn't even what Catholics believe.
The Bible Study proper didn't really come up with anything. Mark didn't have a clear explanation in mind beyond the interpretation that if you 'truly' believe, you cannot help but forgive. But I didn't really feel comfortable with that explanation. Maybe that's the point... but it's not that I object to the idea of God demanding recompense the way the Master in the parable does so much as the fact that it just didn't wash with everything else I've been taught.
So I raised my hand, and suggested that perhaps the difficulty here is in assuming that the described toil and torture we're to go through as a punishment for our lack of forgiveness will take place after Judgement Day. Maybe it doesn't. I mean, everyone is different, I realize, but I know that for ME, at least, being angry with someone for any length of time is no fun at all. I don't enjoy feeling angry, so while I don't necessarily have issues with confrontation if I feel I've been wronged, I tend to want to argue it out right now and be done with it. Otherwise, for as long as the conflict lasts, I'm preoccupied and upset. I've even been known to get sort of spacey after big arguments with people. It's just not at all pleasant for me, and my instinct is to move past it as quickly as possible and move on. Grudges just aren't my thing.
Moreover, when I DO actually manage to get a grudge going for any reason, I'm seriously unpleasant to be around. I tend to obsess about my own role in the whole thing: why I'm mad, what so-and-so did to me to make me mad, why I have a right to be mad, what so-and-so should do to appease me, etc. I also tend to be irritable with anyone else around me while I'm mad, which results in indignance and guilt, which piles up on top of the negative feelings I'm having anyway, and on and on. I guess if a conflict is left unattended for long, the feelings just fade... but they resurface again the next time I'm in proximity with that person and I'm usually right back where I was when it first happened.
And let's face it... I'm pretty blessed in this department. My dad and I don't always get along, and my sisters aggravate me now and then, but by and large I have lived a life that has been free of major offenses. I guess there are memories I have of things said that still hurt when they come to the surface, but when I'm asked if there's anyone I'm angry with, whom I feel I can't forgive, I have a hard time thinking of anyone. There are people I don't LIKE, I admit.. but is that the same thing? Does forgiveness mean I have to keep everyone near and dear to me, or can I forgive someone and wish them a good life --- somewhere away from me, if at all possible?
I don't know. But I do know that people I have known who have very real grievances to bear against those people in their lives who have seriously wronged them tend to be unhappy in general. I guess it's like wearing shoes that are too tight. The background noise of discomfort makes everything else into a bigger deal than it would be otherwise. And that sort of behavior -- since it causes us to dwell on ourselves and effectively keeps our attention off of God and the gift he's given us -- IS a threat to our Salvation because of the resentment and hostility that results from it. Perhaps this is the torture God allows us to endure as a direct result of not forgiving?
I don't know that I'm happy with that explanation either. :/ My Mom supposes that Christ is speaking from a time before the sacrifice was made, and that perhaps the torture/toil business was wiped away afterward. I guess that's possible, too, but I wish it were clearer.
I'm curious to see whether Pastor R. comes back next week and addresses it, and what he has to say about it.
The summer Adult Bible Study at Zion has been about 'Hard Verses of the Bible'. It's a study taken from a specific book of Pastor R's, the author of which I, sadly, cannot remember offhand. But basically it takes a good look at some of the verses in the Bible that seem to either contradict other parts of the Bible, or else present unmeetable challenges to Christians and see if there's more to the situation than might immediately strike the reader.
As a whole, the study has been really good. I say this as much because the conducting of the study has been good as because the study itself has been interesting. Pastor Rouland has established a routine in which he presents the verse to us, and then turns us over to each other so we can discuss the verse in small groups. We are to discusss A) what it is that makes the verse 'hard' -- is it confusing, does it conflict with other teachings, is it scary, does it demand a lot of us, etc., then B) what prior knowledge do we have about the verse that has contributed to our understanding of its meaning before now, and C) what we think the verse is really saying. I think that little bit of fellowship time is important, because it not only gives us a chance to have some directed conversation, it also keeps the Bible study from getting really boring, as lecture-style studies sadly tend to do.
Then we're all brought together again and we discuss our thoughts in more directed fashion, which is good too. Pastor R. is very good at doing this, because he isn't afraid to let us suggest things he hadn't necessarily anticipated and work with it. This trait of his was reflected quite starkly today, as Pastor was preaching and Mark T. had taken over. Mark isn't quite as good at that as Pastor R. is. ;)
Anyway, just as a 'for example': one week we discussed Matthew 7:6, in which Jesus says, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Set alone, I suppose, it's not too confusing; it sounds almost like just plain old good advice. We would be rather stupid to give sacred things to dogs or throw pearls to pigs anyway, so I guess it's an easy enough mandate to keep.
But in that case, the context was what made the verse 'hard'. Matthew 7:1-6 is the passage that discusses taking the plank from your own eye before pointing out the speck in your brother's eye. The whole passage, then, reads as follows:
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Okay, so.... who, exactly, are the dogs in this scenario? And what are the sacred things and the pearls? Given the context, we're clearly talking in symbols.. but what does it mean?
At first glance, it almost sounds like our brother is the dog/pig. But if the passage is about judging, how are we not judging if we're withholding sacred or valuable things from our brother lest he trample them and turn on us? It's true, we know, that humankind's inherent selfish pride often causes us to react to generosity in exactly the opposite way that we should, so perhaps it's just two different mandates: do not pick at other's difficulties, as you have your own to contend with first, and do not give the needy more than they need, because they will resent you for it. But who are we to decide how much needy people need and when to stop, especially given that this comes under 'Judging Others'. It didn't seem to make much sense.
We discussed all of these things, found no explanation particularly satisfying. Pastor then directed us to Matthew 13:44-46, which actually wasn't much help at all at first. It's the passage about the Kingdom of Heaven being like a valuable pearl. Here's the passage:
The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
44"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
We had Andrew Peterson, who is a Christian artist, come and perform at Zion last fall, and he actually talked about that parable and what he'd been taught that it meant. He said that while it sounds like a mandate to us, as Christians, to give up all we have in order to claim Salvation, he had a pastor once who said that that's not it at all... that the Kingdom of Heaven is US, and that the man and the merchant are actually Christ, who gives EVERYTHING for the sake of the treasure.
Pastor R. says he actually agrees with that view of this parable, and since Matthew, in general, uses the same imagery to mean the same things throughout his writings, it then follows that the 'Pearls' being thrown to Swine in Matthew 7:6 are actually our fellow members of the Kingdom of God. Put that way, the verse makes a lot more sense in context, because we are called to protect and support each other as fellow children of God. Judging is exactly the opposite of this, and so by casting judgment on fellow Christians, we are throwing them at the mercy of the enemies of the Church. Not only does this result in the 'trampling' of those 'pearls', it also opens the door for those same enemies to have grounds to attack US, hence the 'turning and tearing to pieces'.
And when I think about it, that's exactly what happens. When overzealous members of the Christian faith apply, to use sort of an overused phrase, too much Law and not enough Gospel, and use Biblical mandates as grounds to condemn and reject people, the whole church suffers. I can't tell you how many members of the computer geek crowd I run with grew up in Christian homes, but now reject Christianity because they've decided they hate Christians because we are all 'holier than thou' and such.
I'm usually leery of doing too much heavy interpretation of Biblical passages, as I think it's too easy to bend a given passage to mean what you want it to mean if you're willing to go all the way around the bend to get it there.. But in this case, I thought the whole thing made both passages make a lot more sense.
And that's just one example. Here's one more:
Last week's study discussed Mark 3:28-29, which says:
28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
This one didn't present much of a challenge in terms of answering, "Why is this hard?" Universally, we determined it to be hard because A) it seems to contradict itself, and B) the concept of an 'eternal sin' is frightening, especially since all it takes is 'blaspheming against the Holy Spirit', which is not exactly specific. What, exactly, is involved with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit? How can we be sure we haven't already done it? And why, if this is the single be-all, end-all of sin, are we not educated on how to avoid committing it every day of our Christian lives? And why does this act, in particular, represent an exception to the prior statement. How does it wash that ALL THE SINS AND BLASPHEMIES of men will be forgiven... but this act, blasphemy though it be, will not.
Many theories were floated, up to and including the accepted decision that 'blaspheming against the Holy Spirit' is simply rejecting Christ. That made us all easier, because that meshes with what we've been taught all along: that all of our sins are forgiven, and that salvation comes only through faith.
But the thing about this that left me a little cold was the fact that wherever in the Bible rejection of the faith is discussed, it's usually discussed in those terms: as a rejection, not as something nebulous like 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit'. There's also the issue of the apparent contradiction of the two statements.
So this passage is one in which context is important. The whole passage describes one of the first times Christ is preaching with his disciples, and rumors about the things he does get back to his family and the leaders of the law in Jerusalem. His family worries that he has gotten too much sun and goes to collect him, while the leaders decide he's possessed, himself.
Here's Mark 3: 20-30:
Jesus and Beelzebub
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."
So... the passage is part of Christ's response to the charge that he is able to drive out spirits because he is possessed by Satan himself, and the demons obey him because he is speaking with the authority of Satan. As I read it, Christ is saying that Satan cannot work against his own ends, and that the only way to reclaim something Satan has taken possession of is to be capable of subduing Satan.
If Satan is the topic at hand, then it almost sounds like verses 28 and 29 are comparing two separate cases. While the blasphemies of MAN will be forgiven them, the one who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven. It sounds to me like verse 29 is not speaking of Man at all, but of Satan.
Lutherans do not focus their attention on the Holy Spirit as intently as some denominations do, so I have to confess here that I don't have much background in studying the Spirit or its relative role in the Trinity. But I do know that the LCMS holds this to be true:
"...the Holy Spirit is the one responsible for bringing us to trust in Christ, delivering to us all the treasures of His great salvation for us, and for keeping us in the faith.." (quoted from LCMS.org)
So as the Kingdom of God, we are God's treasure, and He wants us with him. The Holy Spirit has been charged with the task of bolstering our faith to that end, and Satan has set himself against that task. Satan does just the opposite: plays off of our sinful nature to drive us away from God and the eternal salvation we've been promised. Viewed that way, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is not the act of rejecting the faith, but the act of convincing Mankind to reject the faith.
Like I said, it's a really interesting study.
Well, today Mark T. led it, and it was like a totally different Bible Study. When it comes to adult studies, you have people who are just surprisingly good at it, and people who... aren't. It's not that Mark isn't a good teacher, because he really can be, when he's in his element (which is music). But he's not, perhaps, so good at delving into the depths with stuff like this.
The passage today was the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, Matthew 18: 21-35
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]
23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
Okay.. so we come down off of last week, in which it's determined that Man will be forgiven all his sins and blasphemies... But now it appears that we won't, really.. Because now we're going to be thrown into the heaven version of prison and subjected to torture if we don't forgive each other before we die.
I mean, the message here is pretty straightforward. None of us has any business carrying grudges against anyone else. It goes back to that 'plank in your own eye' idea. Each of us is so offensive by our very nature that none of us has any business judging anyone else, and the very LEAST we can do, given that, is to forgive each other for the comparatively minor sins we commit against each other given the monumental sins we commit against God every moment of our lives. That's not really difficult to understand, or troubling in any way. Not for me, anyway. I'm down with that.
But this whole 'This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.' business is a little disturbing. I mean, sure, we DESERVE to be treated that way if we don't forgive.. But the whole point of grace is that we deserve a lot of things that aren't meted out against us because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. How does it follow, then, that Grace affords us forgiveness, but we're still to be punished if we die while still angry at someone?
It just doesn't match up with what we're taught about salvation. And Luther, troublingly, seems to have no trouble with the apparent disparity here. Of course, neither did the older members of the class. If you haven't forgiven your brother from your heart, they say (rather absurdly triumphantly, in my opinion), then you have failed to appreciate what has been done for you and you don't REALLY believe, so therefore you will not be saved.
But this suggests that we must forgive in order to be saved. And I don't recall Luther's rose having a 'Sola if we forgive' somewhere on it. Yes, we should forgive. We have no business NOT forgiving. But people always do stuff they shouldn't do, that they have no business doing. And where, exactly, does this torture come in? No depiction of Heaven includes a door next to the Pearly Gates to 'The Unforgiving Torture Chamber', where Christians are paying back in full the debt they owed because they did not forgive their fellow man. I suppose some might say this is the purpose of Purgatory, but that isn't even what Catholics believe.
The Bible Study proper didn't really come up with anything. Mark didn't have a clear explanation in mind beyond the interpretation that if you 'truly' believe, you cannot help but forgive. But I didn't really feel comfortable with that explanation. Maybe that's the point... but it's not that I object to the idea of God demanding recompense the way the Master in the parable does so much as the fact that it just didn't wash with everything else I've been taught.
So I raised my hand, and suggested that perhaps the difficulty here is in assuming that the described toil and torture we're to go through as a punishment for our lack of forgiveness will take place after Judgement Day. Maybe it doesn't. I mean, everyone is different, I realize, but I know that for ME, at least, being angry with someone for any length of time is no fun at all. I don't enjoy feeling angry, so while I don't necessarily have issues with confrontation if I feel I've been wronged, I tend to want to argue it out right now and be done with it. Otherwise, for as long as the conflict lasts, I'm preoccupied and upset. I've even been known to get sort of spacey after big arguments with people. It's just not at all pleasant for me, and my instinct is to move past it as quickly as possible and move on. Grudges just aren't my thing.
Moreover, when I DO actually manage to get a grudge going for any reason, I'm seriously unpleasant to be around. I tend to obsess about my own role in the whole thing: why I'm mad, what so-and-so did to me to make me mad, why I have a right to be mad, what so-and-so should do to appease me, etc. I also tend to be irritable with anyone else around me while I'm mad, which results in indignance and guilt, which piles up on top of the negative feelings I'm having anyway, and on and on. I guess if a conflict is left unattended for long, the feelings just fade... but they resurface again the next time I'm in proximity with that person and I'm usually right back where I was when it first happened.
And let's face it... I'm pretty blessed in this department. My dad and I don't always get along, and my sisters aggravate me now and then, but by and large I have lived a life that has been free of major offenses. I guess there are memories I have of things said that still hurt when they come to the surface, but when I'm asked if there's anyone I'm angry with, whom I feel I can't forgive, I have a hard time thinking of anyone. There are people I don't LIKE, I admit.. but is that the same thing? Does forgiveness mean I have to keep everyone near and dear to me, or can I forgive someone and wish them a good life --- somewhere away from me, if at all possible?
I don't know. But I do know that people I have known who have very real grievances to bear against those people in their lives who have seriously wronged them tend to be unhappy in general. I guess it's like wearing shoes that are too tight. The background noise of discomfort makes everything else into a bigger deal than it would be otherwise. And that sort of behavior -- since it causes us to dwell on ourselves and effectively keeps our attention off of God and the gift he's given us -- IS a threat to our Salvation because of the resentment and hostility that results from it. Perhaps this is the torture God allows us to endure as a direct result of not forgiving?
I don't know that I'm happy with that explanation either. :/ My Mom supposes that Christ is speaking from a time before the sacrifice was made, and that perhaps the torture/toil business was wiped away afterward. I guess that's possible, too, but I wish it were clearer.
I'm curious to see whether Pastor R. comes back next week and addresses it, and what he has to say about it.