As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins … - Ephesians 2:1

Today's Scripture Reading (April 7, 2021): Ephesians 2

Woody Allen quipped that "I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens." Maybe that applies to a lot of us. Death is a mystery to be solved and one that most of us are willing to put off until the distant future. But it also brings up a question; what exactly is death?

The Bible's first mention of death is found in Genesis 2.

And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die" (Genesis 2:16-17).

It is fair to ask what exactly is meant by the phrase "you will certainly die." For some, it is self-evident; until the moment of the first sin, death was unknown. That means that nothing died. Nothing. Animals, plants, and, of course, Adam and Eve. The problem is that death is part of nature. Maybe Adam and Eve were destined to live forever, but even if they were vegans, the vegetables were on the death parade to supply the newly formed humans' needs. And unless creation was unfinished, carnivores were roaming, maybe just outside the Garden, who could not survive on a plant-based diet. And yet, for some, this is the definition of death resulting from sin.

But if we keep with his definition, then at best, the sin in the garden was death delayed. We don't know how old Adam might have been at the time of his sin; the best guess is that he was less than 100 years old when he ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But, according to Genesis, he lived 930 years, which means that physical cessation of life occurred, at a minimum, 830 years after Adam's sin.

Considering the whole of the biblical record and its mentions of death and life, it would seem illogical to define death only as the cessation of life or life as the avoidance of physical death. There is something else going on. So, when Paul says that we were "dead in your transgressions and sins," he is not indicating the physical cessation of life. We were dead in some other way, the same way that Adam and Eve died that day of sin in the Garden of Eden. Jesus phrased it this way; "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10).

The death that Paul speaks of, and the death that entered the world with the original sin in the Garden, is not just the end of life; it is different and much more dangerous. Paul was preaching that the resurrection of Christ has already defeated physical death. Physical death is, at worst, temporary, but spiritual death, if it is not dealt with, is permanent. And that is the problem.

We were all dead; we all have existed in a state where we didn't know what Jesus called life "to the full." But that state has changed because of our faith in God and trust in Jesus. As Christians, we should be in the experience of life that has a different quality than it did before. Jesus is the only cure to spiritual death.

Physically, we will all die. But as Christians, we know that that death is temporary. We will rise with Christ. But spiritual death is permanent, and that deserves our immediate attention.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ephesians 3

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people … Ephesians 1:18

Today's Scripture Reading (April 6, 2021): Ephesians 1

In 1967, Procul Harum released their first single and a song which is considered one of the best in rock history, "A Whiter Shade of Pale." With its Bach-inspired melody and almost incomprehensible lyrics, the song reached number 1 on the UK singles charts on June 8, 1967, and stayed there for a full six weeks. Outsiders have often charged that the Keith Reid lyrics are drug-induced and, therefore, not meant to be understood. The video to the song would seem to support that idea.  The lyrics are essentially a string of nonsensical words that are strung together. Starting with "We skipped the light Fandango, turned cartwheels cross the floor," musicians and fans have tried to puzzle out the meaning of the song for decades. But Reid argues that the song has nothing to do with drugs.

I was trying to conjure a mood as much as tell a straightforward, girl-leaves-boy story. With the ceiling flying away and room humming harder, I wanted to paint an image of a scene. I wasn't trying to be mysterious with those images, I was trying to be evocative. I suppose it seems like a decadent scene I'm describing. But I was too young to have experienced any decadence, then. I might have been smoking when I conceived it, but not when I wrote. It was influenced by books, not drugs (Keith Reid).

Maybe the most telling lines of the song occur at the end of the second verse. "And although my eyes were open, they might just as well be closed." The phrase would have been something that Jesus would have been very comfortable with, "Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear" (Mark 8:18)? 

The phrase is also something that Paul would echo. He feared that the church was missing the gospel message. They were looking but not seeing; their eyes were open, but they might as well be closed. So, Paul's prayer is that the eyes of their hearts might be opened so that they might know hope.

And we can understand Paul's concern. A glance at this world with just our physical eyes rarely delivers us hope. What we see are racial unrest and political division. We see people retreating into their echo chambers where they never hear an opposing opinion and never get to know people who are unlike them, let alone love them.

But that is not the world Jesus imagines, and it is not the world that Paul wants to see. Paul views the world with the eyes of his heart and sees a world where the offended speak the words of Jesus, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34) rather than planning their retribution. A world where we really ^"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37,39). A world where we become a people of hope, all because we have decided that we will see with the eyes of our hearts.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ephesians 2

For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. – Acts 28:30

Today's Scripture Reading (April 5, 2021): Acts 28

As the angels, who had just visited Abraham, entered the ancient city of Sodom, they were confronted with xenophobic leadership that wanted nothing to do with anyone new. Lot decided to offer at least some hospitality to the strangers, but it was an unwelcomed action for the people who lived in the city of the plain. I am convinced that we should not read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 without first reading the story of Abraham and the strangers in Genesis 18. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has little to do with homosexuality, even though we seem to have made same-sex sexuality its central theme. The main theme of Genesis 18 and 19 is a different "H" word; hospitality. It is about hospitality that is extended in Abraham's case and about hospitality that is withheld in the story of Sodom.

In the church, we are often quick to extend judgment on the LGBTQ+ community, often citing Sodom and Gomorrah as our reason why. But every time we do that, implicating the story of the Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, we are proving that we never understood the story in the first place. And, maybe, our churches would be fuller if we were as quick to condemn those who refuse to extend hospitality in our midst. Along with love, hospitality is one of our faith's key demands; hospitality that is given even to those who are not like us.

Paul understood that. Taken to Rome under armed guard, he arrived to find that the demands on Caesar were many, and he would have to wait patiently for his time to speak to the king. And so, Paul sets up his home in a rented house. He likely returned to his trade as a tentmaker to support himself during this time. And he extended hospitality to anyone who passed by his house.

His hospitality was even extended to a runaway slave named Onesimus, the property of a slave owner named Philemon. He would have several talks with the slave and eventually even wrote a letter to his master, which we have preserved in our biblical text. The letter pleads for mercy, asking that Philemon extend his hospitality to his former slave. Paul writes these words to the slave owner, Philemon;

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me (Philemon 1:8-11).

 The letter was an act of hospitality that Paul had extended, even as he waited under guard to be judged for his crimes; hospitality that is demanded from all of us by the faith that we share with Paul.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ephesians 1

The next day we landed at Sidon; and Julius, in kindness to Paul, allowed him to go to his friends so they might provide for his needs. – Acts 27:3

Today's Scripture Reading (April 4, 2021): Acts 27

Mary Stewart was executed on February 8, 1587; she was forty-four years of age. Her guilt or innocence in the Babington Plot, a plan to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I so that she could ascend to the English throne as the rightful Queen, is still an open question. At the time, the divide was drawn, and maybe it still is, along religious grounds. The protestant Christians were convinced of Mary's guilt, and the Roman Catholics defended her innocence. But the truth of Mary's guilt in the plot, or if her enemies set her up, may never be known.  

I grew up in a culture where the belief was taught that we are all innocent unless proven guilty. But that innocence is really nothing more than a fable that people want to believe. No one is innocent, at least not in the eyes of those who think that we are guilty. And the condemnation of guilt is usually pronounced quickly. The truth is that we search for evidence, whether that be for guilt or innocence, and ignore any findings that belong in the other court. Guilt and innocence are in the eye of the beholder. Innocent people have been judged, by judges and juries, to be guilty and, in the same way, the guilty have been set free. But maybe the worst fate is reserved for those found to be genuinely innocent and set free, yet their innocence is rejected in the court of public opinion.

Paul had been tried, but the judgment had been deferred to Rome. And so, Paul's fourth missionary journey begins, but this one was very unlike any of the ones he had taken before. On this trip, Paul would be under guard. Judgment deferred means that Paul is still innocent, unlike other criminals who were making the journey with them. Their fate was the Coliseum and games in Rome. But Paul, a Roman citizen, stood in a different class.

For those who had been found guilty of their crimes, there was no privilege available. But for Paul, exemptions were made. It is quite possible that Paul was not physically well. He had been imprisoned in Caesarea for an extended period. And now he was being forced into a boat to go to Rome. The phrase "provide for his needs" is often used by medical writers to indicate medical intervention. And Luke, the author of Acts, was a doctor. And since Paul was a Roman Citizen who had not yet been declared guilty of a crime, the officials on the boat decided to allow him to find friends who could care for his needs. The last thing they wanted was a dead Roman citizen on their hands, one who was not guilty of any crimes.

As the boat pauses on the trip, Paul is allowed, likely under guard, to contact friends who can care for his needs, medical and otherwise. It was a privilege that was probably not extended to any other sick prisoners being taken to Rome. But Paul's situation, along with the fact that he was deemed trustworthy, was different. He was given the liberty to find help along the way.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 28

King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do. – Acts 26:27

Today's Scripture Reading (April 3, 2021): Acts 26

Marcus Julius Agrippa or Agrippa II was only seventeen when his father died. Agrippa was in Rome at the time, and Claudius decided to keep the boy with him for a little while longer to further his education. When Herod V, brother of Agrippa I and uncle to Agrippa II, died, Claudius sent the young Agrippa home to rule over the Jewish Kingdom. Agrippa II was the eighth Herodian ruler, and the fifth Herod permitted to use the title King.

Agrippa II walked a thin line between Israel and Rome. During his time in Rome, Agrippa had voiced his support to Roman authorities for the Jews in their conflict with the Samaritans. The Herods had tried throughout the generations to live as the Jews and had a good understanding of Jewish law, even though they didn't have a Jewish heritage. His father, Agrippa I, had governed over Israel in a way that satisfied the Jews and even risked his own life when he interceded on behalf of the Jews when Caligula tried to set up his statue in Jerusalem's Temple. While still educated as a Jew, Agrippa II had also been subjected to a rigorous Roman education and was thoroughly Hellenized. He understood what the Jews believed, but he had become an outsider to the people over which he ruled.

As Paul continues his defense, he asks Agrippa a question, and the question was a double-edged sword for the King of the Jews. "Agrippa, do you believe in the prophets?" The answer from a family point of view had to be yes. The Herodians had struggled hard to be seen as Jewish converts by the people over whom they ruled. And Agrippa II was no different. But the reality was that Agrippa II had received his education in Rome. Yes, he understood the Jewish faith, but that knowledge had been contaminated by Greek culture and religion. He believed in the prophets and defended the Jews, but how deep that belief might be was an open question. Yet, Agrippa could not admit any of that and still rule over the Jews. With his subjects listening, Agrippa could only answer that "yes, I believe."

And Paul understood that. If asked, Agrippa had to say he believed in the prophets, whether he did or not.

Agrippa's story brings to a close the saga of the Herodian dynasty begun by his infamous great-grandfather Herod the Great. He is seen in Jewish history as one of the worst of the Herods, the ruler whose Hellenistic ways and policies of pleasing the Romans were so intolerable as to precipitate the disastrous Jewish Revolt of 66 C.E., which resulted in the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and the temporary end of Jewish hopes for the restoration of national sovereignty. In Christian tradition, Agrippa appears as a somewhat sympathetic hearer of the Christian message who may have acquitted the Apostle Paul if the matter had been left up to him (New World Encyclopedia).

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 27

They requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way. – Acts 25:3

Today's Scripture Reading (April 2, 2021): Acts 25

I grew up watching Batman before I fell in love with Spiderman. My introduction to superheroes was with the campy "Batman" starring Adam West as the titular hero. I loved the idea of Batman. He has no superpowers; he isn't from another planet like Superman, and unlike my beloved Spiderman, he wasn't bit by a radioactive spider. He works out and has some great gadgets, and that is it. He is a very human hero who happens to go about his activities wearing a mask. He is the superhero that maybe isn't all that super, someone who even a child can aspire to be. But that was when I was a child.

I still love to watch superhero movies and television shows, but I also recognize the fatal flaw present in every superhero story. In some way, superheroes can only exist because the law cannot or will not do what it needs to do. In the Batman saga, it is partially the existence of super-criminals that necessitates a Batman. He is the only one who can combat villains like the Joker or the Penguin. These criminals are beyond the abilities of ordinary law enforcement. Only Batman can restore order to Gotham City.

Of course, in the Batman story arc, there is another problem. Not only are the supervillains too strong for the police, but the police themselves, in fact, the society at large, has been corrupted by the criminal enterprise that has gripped the city. And both the power of the criminals and the society's corruption has made Batman's presence essential. When you can't trust authority, you have no option other than to take the law into your own hands. Vigilante justice becomes the only answer. Without a Batman in Gotham City, justice dies.

Paul is being tried in front of the political powers of the society. King Agrippa has a firm hold on the Herodian throne and offers part of that political power. Porcius Festus is the Roman procurator. Agrippa II reigns as King in Judah only because Rome allows him to, and the visible hand of Rome in Judah was the procurator. These are the men who decide significant issues of justice, and it is before them that Paul has been brought.

But Paul's opponents are not convinced that Agrippa and Festus will do what they believe must be done. Scholars argue that they don't have the evidence to get to a guilty verdict, but other elements were also at play here, including the concept that Paul was born a Roman citizen. Taking action against a Roman citizen was problematic, even for those in charge of the nation's system of justice.

So, those who opposed Paul lobbied for a change in venue for the trial of Paul. It wasn't that they hoped that the trial would end differently if the trial were moved to Jerusalem, but rather that in moving Paul, they would have an opportunity to kill him. They didn't trust Agrippa and Festus to get the job done, so now they wanted to take matters into their own hand. It was time to get in touch with their inner Batman, or maybe better their inner super criminal, and make sure that Paul is eliminated.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 26

… and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. – Acts 24:6

Today's Scripture Reading (April 1, 2021): Acts 24

In "The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu," Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi writes, "Moreover, I have heard that those who are fond of praising men to their faces are also fond of damning them behind their backs." The truth is that we enjoy being flattered, especially if the alternative is criticism. But the unfortunate reality is that while flattery in moderation encourages and strengthens us, we grow more from criticism. Zhuangzi speaks the truth; those who flatter, and especially those who liberally apply their flattery wherever they go, are also the ones who are going to condemn the very ones that they flatter once the backs are turned.

The official charge against Paul is that he attempted to desecrate the temple. No, he did not try to paint some questionable graffiti on the Temple gates. The method of this desecration was that he brought an uncircumcised male, Titus, into the Temple complex's inner portions. But while there is a charge, what is notable is that there seems to be no evidence to support the charge. While there is no evidence, that does not indicate that the charge is not problematic for Paul. While we like to believe that our innocence is our shield, we know that even today, innocent people are often found guilty because of the intensity of those on the side of the prosecution. A lack of evidence does not mean that charges are dropped, but rather that a different method must be employed to get to the guilty verdict. If that is true today, it was even more true in the society in which Paul lived.

Those who stood against him were adamant in proving his guilt. And step one in the process was getting those who would judge Paul, in this case, the Roman procurator Marcus Antonius Felix, on their side. And, as often happens, everything starts with the flattery. Specifically, Tertullus begins his prosecution of Paul with this opening statement.

We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly (Acts 24:2-4).

It is unlikely that Tertullus believed what he said. And even though Felix likely knew that his words were empty flattery, the comments completed their task by making Felix feel good about Tertullus and willing to listen to the charge that was being presented without evidence. Still, the flatter's words need to be handled carefully. And in this case, the flattery is all that Tertullus has on his side. He could not use the truth because the truth is not his side.

Pastor David Guzik makes this comment about Tertullus's methods. "Significantly, the same man who found it so easy to flatter also found it easy to accuse with no evidence. The two almost always go together; the person who flatters today will likely tomorrow accuse without evidence."

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 25