Wisdom seems to make extravagant promises to those who would
heed her. Those promises include the
good life here. What she says is that if
you will follow her and eschew evil then you will have everything you could
possibly want. How do you square that
with an aphorism like, "Nice guys finish last" or Machiavellian
wisdom, or the art of worldly wisdom by Baltasar Gracian? How even
do you square that with Jesus' teaching in the Gospels, Paul's experiences, or
most of the disciples? We don’t receive
promises from Jesus that we will be received in society well if we follow
Him. In fact, He says we will be
rejected and makes no promise of earthly wealth or success to His
followers. Here is the way to square the
circle. What is promised? "Riches and honor are with me, enduring
wealth and righteousness… granting an inheritance to those who love me, and
filling their treasuries." Her
promises are eternal.
That first sentence of the Gospel reason seems to be the reason
none of the other Gospels, all written before John's Gospel, include an account
of the raising of Lazarus. The leaders
were looking to put Lazarus to death as well.
It was probably best not to draw more attention to Lazarus while he was
still alive and it is possible he had died by the time John's Gospel was
written. We don't know that for certain
but it makes sense. John would have been
writing in living memory of some who knew about this sign, so it could have
been easily disputed if it had not happened.
John says that the reason the crowd met them in Jerusalem was because of
this very sign and who could argue with him?
Certainly if a man raised someone from the dead the week before Easter
there would be a crowd at the church he pastured that day. They wanted a king who could do such things,
but the signs were only important as they pointed to who He was, not in
themselves.
Paul says that he has the authority, even as a prisoner, to
command Philemon to do the "right thing" with respect to his runaway
slave, Onesimus, but instead appeals to him to do it of his own volition. Paul certainly knew how to lay on the guilt
didn't he? Onesimus has been a great
help to him and he would loved to have kept him with him but legally the man
belonged to Philemon, who is a Christian leader. Those who argue that the Bible doesn't
condemn slavery don't understand this epistle very well. Paul urges Philemon to receive the man back
not as a bondservant (one who has willingly become a slave) but as a brother. If there is any cost to his actions in running
away, Paul offers to bear those costs himself while also noting that if not for
Paul's preaching the Gospel, Philemon would not have life, so in essence
Philemon owes Paul his very life. How could
the man possibly refuse this request? Are
we willing to give up our claim on other people and set them free? Let us let go of all claims we have on
earthly things that they might have no claim on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment