2Sam. 7: 1 - 14a

[-16 (17) suggested]

"Here I am dwelling in a house of cedar, while the Ark of the LORD abides in a tent!" (2) What kind of house do you dwell in? More than likely, it is mostly wood and plasterboard, or brick, concrete and steel. With glass windows that open; a toilet, bath and running water; electricity, heat and air-conditioning; and some rugs or carpet. Probably not ornate or plush, but comfortable, livable. And we can give thanks to the LORD who has provided so well for us. Speaking of Whom, tell me: what kind of house does your God dwell in?(1)

For centuries, Christians have striven to out-do their predecessors and peers in constructing grander and more imposing edifices, even calling them "the house of the Lord". As magnificent, awe-inspiring and reverent as most of them are, they all are mistakes insofar as people think that any-- or all of them together-- could house the Almighty, or that the LORD of Hosts would deign even to consider dwelling in one. For YHWH told David, indirectly, that a house of cedar-- or stone or steel or crystal-- was not wanted. Rather, God prefers to dwell in another kind of temple: one made of soft, warm, throbbing flesh.

So, instead of accepting David's thoughtful, worshipful offer, YHWH turned it around. "The LORD declares to you that [I], the LORD, will establish a house for you." (11) But why, since David already had a house of cedar? Obviously, YHWH is applying another sense to the word, 'house'.

Many interpret this as meaning the king's family, his dynasty. Especially his son, Solomon, about whom God promised: "I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own issue, and I will establish his kingship. He shall build a house for My name" (12-13). Which, the text later tells us, Solomon did. So far, so good; but then we run into a major problem.

"I will establish his royal throne forever." (13) "Your house and your kingship shall ever be secure before you; your throne shall be established forever." (16) God's Word proceeds from here to relate the long and miserable downfall of the house of David, to the point of the extinction of Israel and the destruction of the Temple and exile of Judah. The problem, then, is this: either YHWH is a false prophet, or 'secure' and 'established' mean something other than what they say, or 'house', 'kingship' and 'throne' have some different meaning.

Christians are vehement in denying the first, and quick to grasp the last, proclaiming that God was speaking about Jesus as David's son whose throne shall be established forever, and the Church as David's, and God's, 'house'. But when we do, we encounter an embarassing predicament: what do we do with v.14b? We can readily admit that this pertains to Solomon, for the record bears it out. But to do so, then, is to say that the whole pertains to Solomon, and only to him. For we cannot profess that Jesus did anything 'wrong', nor can we explain why YHWH should feel constrained to provide for that possibility. So, instead of being true to God's Word and dealing with it in its entirety, we lop off the section that discomfits (or displeases) us, and offer the pretense of reading and expounding on the Word of the Lord. To God's disgust and our shame.

Scripture is not a hodge-podge from which we may pick and choose to our liking. Either the entire passage speaks of Christ, or of Solomon, or of both. But the Bible itself demonstrates that the reference to Solomon is superficial at best, and not completely true to fact. Now, if we are to hold to YHWH's truthfulness and knowledge, it must be speaking about Jesus. So, when contemplating the future, God must have had good reason to warn: "When he does wrong, I will chastise him with the rod of men and the affliction of mortals." (14b)

From God's point of view, Jesus did 'do wrong'. For the chastisement with the rod of men refers to the scourging and cross, and the affliction of mortals denotes physical death. But what 'wrong' could Jesus be found guilty of?

The Apostle interprets the Prophet: Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with human sinfulness, so that in him we might be made one with the righteousness of God. (2Cor. 5: 21) So we find that not only may you include v.14b, but you should include it. For therein lies the crux of the Good News of God's grace in Christ Jesus.

Psalm 89: 20 - 37 [21 - 38, TNK]

A close echo of the prior reading, the Psalm continues the question: is this about David or Christ? It appears easier than the former reading to be assigned to both, except for one couplet:

There is no dispute over the first two parts, but why should Jesus call YHWH 'the rock of my deliverance'? Lest we forget, Matthew writes that Jesus had been in Egypt and therefore had, symbolically at least, taken part in the Exodus, the great deliverance of Israel out of bondage to slavery (to sin, as Paul would say). Now for righteousness to be imputed to us because of Christ, our sin must first have been imputed to Jesus on the cross, and therefore He stood in need of deliverance. And so God delivered Christ from death by the resurrection, for our sake. The quote, then, does belong on Jesus' lips.

We honor the rainbow as a sign of YHWH's covenant; why not the moon also?

Eph. 2: 11 - 22

As much as today's Hebrew Scripture readings do speak of Christ, the point of their lesson is the Church, as the Apostle here so vividly makes clear. And it is not about the Christian Church, but the union of Jews and Gentiles into one God-fearing, God-worshipping body of believers. To his Gentile audience, Paul writes: You were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the community of Israel, strangers to God's covenants and the promise that goes with them. (12) Reflect on what the Apostle is affirming about the Jews in this statement. What the Gentiles lacked, the Jews obviously enjoyed. They are partakers of God's covenants and the promise that goes with them; they are included in the community of Israel; and, believe it or not, they are also at that time united with Christ. For if parts B. and C. are true, then so is part A.

For [Christ] is himself our peace. Gentiles and Jews, [Jesus] has made the two one, and in his own body of flesh and blood has broken down the barrier of enmity which separated them (14). But the Christian Church, to its disgrace, has spent centuries negating the Apostle's words and violating God's purpose of peace and reconciliation in Christ Jesus (16). By its own words and actions, the Church has reverted to the former condition (11) of the Gentiles at that time: separate, excluded and strangers, and thereby has rendered the passion, cross and resurrection useless, futile, defeated.

So what are you going to do about it?

Mark 6: 30 - 34, 53 - 56
This selection may be more notable for what it omits than for what it includes. But this remnant is quite pertinent with regard to the prior argument. The apostles rejoined Jesus and reported to him all that they had done and taught. (30) Have you reported to your Lord and Savior all that you have done and taught concerning the Jews? Do you want to? Do you dare?

[Jesus] said to them, 'Come with me, by yourselves, to some remote place' (31). Just you and Jesus, where you can get some misconceptions and misguided ideas straightened out, if you will listen. Then you will be able to 'rest a little.' 'Come with me, by yourselves,' without all the burden of church doctrine and tradition-- whether right or wrong-- that binds your mind and enslaves you soul. Just you and Jesus, where you can be in the Spirit and hear the truth of God's Word. Then you will be able to 'Repent, and believe the gospel.' (1: 15)

'Come with me,' "follow me." Christian, is it not time that you started to?

1. * Of course, your answer depends largely on who, or what, your God is.

(comments to Phil at ENAPXH@aol.com )