Judgment Day?

This has been bugging me for quite a while.

Why would Jesus and the New Testament authors warn their 1st century audiences about impending judgment (the day has come, it is the last hour, these last days, etc.) and then... nothing happens?  Am I missing something?

Here we sit almost 2000 year later, and... still nothing.

St. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under law to redeem those under law" when "the fullness of time had come".  God sent his Son at just the right time.  Wouldn't the right time to send Jesus to warn of impending judgment be the time of the people who would actually experience this day of judgment? If Judgment Day is to come in our lifetime (or later), doesn't it make sense that God would send his Son in OUR lifetime (or later)??  Shouldn't God send his Son to the people on whom the final judgment would fall in order to warn them?  How long does "the fullness of time" last?

And here we sit.  Still waiting.

I know, I know-- "no one knows the day or the hour" and "with the Lord a thousand years are as a day" yada yada.  But certainly God wouldn't warn certain people at a certain time in history only to do... nothing! It makes no sense to me.

"Well, we do have the written Word of God to warn us," you might say.  But it employs images and metaphors that are not used today and are, quite frankly, foreign to us and audience specific.

"We have to translate and interpret it," you might further say.  But with an event as big as the destruction of our universe and billions upon billions of people being thrown into hell (if that's what it really is) why is it left to us to translate and interpret?  Why is it left to anyone to translate and interpret? Shouldn't the message be painfully clear without the mental gymnastics??  I'll bet it was to the original audiences!! Show me where it says, "Translate and interpret this book into English so that people in the United States in the 21st century can understand it."

It seems foolish to send a bunch of people on the other side of the planet 2000 years ago to their graves all riled up about the return of the Son of Man only to disappoint them.

As our churches continue to empty out and we are sitting around wondering why, we might want to pause and give people some credit.  Perhaps they already know what theologians (such as myself) are just starting to realize-- that there is a LARGE disconnect between the world of the Bible and the world of today. People are weary of people like me constantly trying to navigate and bridge that disconnect, looking silly in the process.  People are nice and won't say anything.  They just won't show up anymore.

Honestly, I'm also getting weary of people like me.

In Defense of Judas

We are approaching the time of year when Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, gets a bad rap.

"Bad, wicked, naughty Judas for handing Jesus over to be killed."

I think Judas understood the script that Jesus was preaching over and over-- "The Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinners.  They will kill him, but he will arise on the third day."

Judas willingly became the one to hand Jesus over.  His listened to his Rabbi and did what Jesus said.  It's as simple as that.

If anything, we should be looking askance at the Eleven.

"When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.  And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."  And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after the other, "Is it I, Lord?"-- Matthew 26:20-22

Sorrowful?  They should have been climbing over one another to volunteer for the job!  I think they didn't believe Jesus, especially that "rising on the third day" bit.  To them the death of Jesus would be the end of Jesus.

I can understand, perhaps even sympathize a bit.  I don't want anyone to die.  I would also have a hard time believing that a person who was killed by my hand would rise from the dead.

I think it took faith and massive courage for Judas to do what he did.  The story would have turned out much differently if he didn't.  In fact, using the word "betray" shows the anti-Judas bias of our English Bible translations.  We don't like betrayers, so using the word almost guarantees that we will see Judas as the bad guy who did the dastardly deed.

Try reading the Passion Narratives without an anti-Judas bias and see if that's a more satisfying way of understanding the texts.

I'm on Team Judas!

It's Not Easy Being Me

I should tell you a little more about myself so you'll know where I'm coming from.

As I state in the very first post of this blog, I'm primarily a thinker.  My brain never shuts off during waking hours.  It's a blessing and a curse, really.

It's a blessing because I'm able to see and understand different perspectives.  It's a curse for the same reason.

I find it difficult to come down on one side of an issue in a world where that is demanded.  To most people, things are either black or white, this or that, hot or cold.

"TAKE A STAND, MOTHERF***ER!!"

Yeah, I hear that a lot.  But I can't.  I'm not wired to do that.  Most people don't understand.  And this is exactly where the pressure mounts for me.  I'm a misfit in this world and I know it, but I don't want to be a misfit.

This is why I get excited when someone offers a third (or fourth, or fifth) way of looking at something.  I thrive on different perspectives.  Problem is it doesn't happen very often.

Which brings me to my blog post prior to this one, which took a look at Genesis 1.  I know all of the old arguments, and they're usually pitted against each other.  One side insists on Mosaic authorship and a literal reading; the other insists on a non-Mosaic priestly author and a more polemical reading.  Conservative vs. Liberal.

What if it didn't really matter?  What if there's another way of looking at this issue?  Those kinds of questions excite me because they open the issue up to new possibilities and fresh perspectives

Issues don't always have to be either/or, do they?

Biblicism

Don't quote Bible verses to me.  I'm not impressed.  You might look and sound like a scholar to other people.  They'll think you're something else, reciting the Word of God and making a point that might or might not have something to do with the story the verses comes from.  Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers get away with it every week, and they draw crowds!  Isn't that special?

Not to me.  I stop listening.  If I don't I'll go into conniptions. I refuse to be a victim of Biblicism-- that inane and careless yanking of Bible verses from their contexts and from the larger story of the Bible, all wrapped up in a smile and cutesy pious platitudes designed to take the rough edges off of life.

Biblicism is the Bible reduced to life coaching.  This is what the ravages of fundamentalism and evangelicalism has done.  It has created a whole nation of shallow, unenlightened, and Biblically illiterate people.

To be honest, I couldn't care less.  I'm not trying to stop it.  I just don't want to be part of it.