This post is dedicated to my mum, who sadly passed away recently. One thing she taught us was to celebrate Easter Sunday above all days. She would paint a boiled egg for each of us at breakfast and give us cards to celebrate the fact that Christ is risen. She was ready to die and looking forward to her new life in heaven, and I’m quite sure that she would have insisted that we all continue to celebrate Easter in her absence.

My mother led bible study groups from the time she was at university in the UCCF. One of her favourite themes was to highlight the role of women in the Bible.

Ben Witherington has recently posted an article about Mary Magdalene or Miryam entitled ‘Mary, Mary, Extraordinary’. Here’s the final paragraph of a great article:

“Miryam of Migdal is the only woman disciple, for whom we have something like a complete story.   Her story is a story of courage, and change, and redemption, and witness.   When Jesus arises and commands you to do something— you do it. Whether you are believed or not.   And this is still true today.   What is it that the risen Jesus is saying to you this morning?   Could it be, don’t cling to the Jesus of the past,  don’t cling to the church of the past.   It is not about getting back to the good old days.  It is about going forward into a bright future, which is where Jesus is leading us.  As Adoniram Judson said,  the future is as bright as the promises of God— and what the resurrection of Jesus promises is that neither death nor life nor powers nor principalities nor things present nor things to come can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.   Christ is risen— and all manner of things are possible for this church and for your Christian life.”

As Ben Witherington pointed out, the fact that the gospels recorded the women as the first witnesses to the resurrection is a remarkable testament to their authenticity.

There was some very sad news last week, as the only Christian member of the Pakistan cabinet was assassinated in a hail of bullets. A report on the BBC website gives a bit of the background and also a powerful and poignant video which he recorded a few weeks ago to be released in the event of his murder. His crime? To take a stand against the draconian law of blasphemy in Pakistan, a law that is being used to target and eliminate minority groups like Christians. A Christian women is due to be stoned to death for this very ‘crime’ this week in Pakistan. Thanks Donat for drawing our attention to this amazing video testimony.

It is worth taking a moment or two to think just how we ourselves might have responded in this situation when threatened with death. I think most of us would have found some excuse simply to stay silent, to keep out of the limelight. The fact that he didn’t lambast or denigrate the Taliban stands as an eloquent testimony to his love for Christ and his fellow man.

I think most of us have been guilty of reading the first few chapters in Genesis either from a somewhat anxious perspective of a literalist interpretation or alternatively from a liberal perspective that dismisses the story as pure myth and fiction. The literal creationist spends a great deal of time and effort trying to explain how the earth could have been created in this order in a literal period of 6 days, and how chapter 2 can be harmonised with chapter 1 etc. Christians with an awareness of science may be concerned that the creation story seems to suggest a very young earth and leaves no place for evolution. Can rational people reconcile all the evidence with a young earth under 7000 years old? It is a shame that many people have been put off believing in God because they think that Genesis is not compatible with modern scientific knowledge. In my opinion this conflict arises mainly because we have been reading the passages literally looking to answer the superficial questions of how the world came into being rather than taking the perspective of  ancient cosmologies in asking about the purpose and function of creation. I have written several posts before on the creation/evolution debate, but in this article I am going to try and ‘re-focus’ on the core message of the Genesis creation story.

Numerous experts on Near-Eastern creation accounts in the cultures around Israel (Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian and Canaanite) emphasise that ancient cosmology was much more concerned about how function came about rather than how things were put together. The reference in verse 1 to the world being ‘formless’ reflects the chaos and disorder denoted in many accounts. In the other creation accounts, creation comes about because of conflicts between gods of the sea, sky and land. So the emphasis on one God doing the creation by his creative WORD is quite unique. The whole theme is that God has brought form and function to what was formless and without function. God brought meaning and order to life and then triumphed in rest or repose.

John Walton and others have drawn attention to the fact that existing traditions for the inauguration of temples show a similar structure in defining functions, the functionaries and then the enthronement of God as the climax. We can see echoes of this in Isaiah 66:1 where creation is seen as God’s cosmic temple. We can also see it in Revelation 21:1-3 where God makes a new heaven and a new earth – and sets up his temple ‘among the people’. In Revelation 22:1-2 we see a parallel to the garden of Eden where in the new heaven the mountain of Jerusalem will be the source for the river of the water of life, flowing from God’s throne. On each side of the river will be the tree of life, bringing healing to the nations.

So day one, God creates light/dark – divisions that punctuate TIME. This brings order out of chaos and the cycle of day/night begins. On day two, God creates the weather by separating the waters above from the waters below. The terms used for expanse/firmament were the same as those used in other creation accounts, and would have brought to mind a sort of ‘dome’ holding back the waters above from the sky. This is not important, but what is significant is that God has brought order out of chaos and ‘set the scene’ for what was to come. On day three, God creates the land and waters/seas – followed by the vegetation that grew on it. Day four (links to day one) – sun, moon and stars ‘govern the day/night’. They are the ‘functionaries’ in the created order – not gods in their own right. They are important only as part of God’s created order. On day five (links to day two) God creates birds and fish to fill the sky and seas. On day six (which links to the third day) God creates the animals. God then says ‘let US make man in our image‘. So this places man within the created order but distinct from the animal kingdom. Mankind alone carries the image of God (and not just those of a Jewish persuasion).

The triumphant climax of the story is God reviewing his creation ‘and it was very good…and on the seventh day he rested from all of his work. And God blessed the sabbath day and made it holy’. Once God has created light and order and purpose out of chaos and darkness, God is ‘enthroned’ in the ‘cosmic temple’ of his creation (Is 66:1). From chaos and disorder to purpose, order and peace. The sabbath is a constant reminder of where we are in the created order. We are only significant because God has given us purpose. We have been given responsibility for looking after creation and for continuing God’s creative work. In Gen 2:19 we see God appointing man with the task of naming the animals. For the ancients, naming was a very significant and solemn honour – the name meant something about where that person had come from or what they were going to be/do. So the naming of the animals had to do with giving them a place and a purpose in God’s creation.

Amy Carmichael once said that sunrise and sunset were the ‘punctuation marks of time’. Let us join with the Psalmist (Psalm 104) in giving thanks to God for ‘his faithful love endures forever’. In the order of creation and the cycles of nature we can see God’s hand at work and respond with worship.

Ever wondered what’s in that Bible but never had the time to check it out? It can be a bit daunting to pick one up and know where to start. So now we have the E100 challenge, a simple plan to follow 100 short(ish) readings through the whole of the Bible over whatever time period you choose. There is a book and a website to help you along. The ‘Essential 100′ book has a readable page about each passage. It isn’t a commentary, but it definitely will get you thinking. It follows the format of a daily reading guide.

The great thing about the Bible is that you can never get to the bottom of the treasure chest. Some are content with scratching the surface, some like to go deeper.

My church, St. Augustine’s, is doing the challenge along with many other churches and small groups in the UK. The book has gone like hot cakes, and hopefully all of us are going to learn something new as we read through. The passages have been carefully selected to give a great overview of the main themes in the Bible. Half are from the Old Testament, half from the New. Most people will probably start at the beginning and follow through in sequence, but there is no reason why you couldn’t alternate OT/NT readings.

I’m hoping to post a few musings on the readings as we go along.

We’ve been thinking about Jesus’ teaching about the Good Samaritan and how he challenged the religious ‘theologian’ to reconsider who should be considered his ‘neighbour’. This seems like good advice, but hardly radical. However, it should be seen in the context of Jewish teaching which did limit most of the laws of ‘loving your neighbour’ to fellow Jews. This can be seen in some passages in the Pentateuch, but in Leviticus 19:34 we can see how the law is extended to the foreign visitor. “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God

There are other passages that exhort the Israelites to show hospitality to their neighbours. There are also many texts in the OT that look forward to the extension of God’s grace beyond Israel.

However, when we consider a passage from Ecclesiasticus (the wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach) we can see a much more radical and shocking development:

“If you do a good deed, make sure to whom you are doing it; then you will have credit for your kindness. A good turn done to a godfearing man will be rewarded, if not by him, then by the Most High. No good comes to the persistent wrong-doer or to the man who never gives alms;

refuse him bread; give him nothing at all; he will only use your gifts to get the better of you, and you will suffer a double wrong in return for the favours you will have done him. The Most High himself hates sinners and sends bad men what they deserve. Give to a good man, but never help a sinner; keep your good works for the humble, not the insolent.”

Now please don’t get me wrong. There is a lot of good teaching in the book of Ecclesiaticus (part of ‘the Apocrypha’ included in most Roman Catholic Bibles). But this sort of teaching is not compatible with the teaching of the Bible and I am glad that it was not included in the canon approved by the reformers. It is interesting as an insight into religious teaching of the day, but does not have the authority of scripture.

I would not suggest for a minute that this sort of teaching would be sanctioned by modern Judaism, but it is clear that this sort of thinking was not uncommon in Jesus’ time and his teaching was radically different.

There may not be too many people who would admit to following this creed today, but there are plenty who live as though nobody else exists outside of themselves and their families.

Papyrus 75a Luke's gospel

Do you know who wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else? No, it wasn’t Paul, it was Luke. And how much do we know about Luke? Almost nothing. We know from Col 4:14 that he was a much loved physician and friend of Paul. There are three other verses that briefly mention him as being with Paul on some of his travels. Luke says nothing about himself, he doesn’t even introduce himself as author in either Luke or Acts.

As a physician, I would love to know more about Luke. I am fascinated to read some of the works of Hippocrates, the famous Greek Physician from Kos. His medical writings were quite widely circulated and studied. Although they don’t meet modern scientific criteria they are full of astute and accurate observations based on the study of many cases being treated for a variety of illnesses. Physicians in those days had to undergo lengthy studies and would have to learn the methods and teachings of Hippocrates and other famous physicians. And yet this young physician gave up a lucrative profession to travel with Paul and write Luke and Acts. So what was it he saw in Jesus and his band of followers? Why did he go to such great lengths to prepare for us such a detailed and well put together picture of Jesus and the birth of the early church?

According to all the early tradition, Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Both books were at the maximum length for a scroll, and in the book of Acts he follows on where he has left off in the gospel of Luke. The style in which he wrote Greek was that of someone with a good Greek education, and some of the phrases he used seem to reflect some medical knowledge. He used a scientific type approach to history telling, and the style of his prologue has led scholars to draw parallels with the famous Jewish historian Josephus’ work ‘Against Appion’.

About 120 years ago the Irish Scholar W. Hobart gave over 400 linguistic examples of ‘medical’ terminology in the writings of Luke. Modern scholars would scale this back a good deal (many examples are also found in the LXX or Septuagint with which Luke was clearly familiar), but there are a few details here and there that do suggest a medical interest e.g. ‘blind from birth‘ or ‘crippled for 18 years’.

I think they’re all missing the point. Here is a trained physician with a good education who can turn his hand to theology and who can write as a first rate historian. He wanted to give evidence to persuade people of the truths he came to believe. Surely he would have concentrated on providing critical accounts of the miracles to ‘rationally’ prove who Jesus was? Surely he would have been sidetracked into sharing his medical expertise with his readers?

So why did Luke say so little about himself? Why did Luke not just write a medical textbook? What was it he saw in Jesus, the ‘Great Physician’ that made him give up so much of his life to travel with Paul and then write such detailed accounts?  And why did the early church accept these two books into the New Testament ‘canon’ so quickly, since he wasn’t one of the disciples or one of the friends of the disciples?

Luke’s gospel is rich with themes that flow through the gospel from beginning to end. The theological center of the gospel is Luke 4:18 ‘He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, let the oppressed go free…’ So when Luke has to pick which miracles to report, he doesn’t do so on the basis of how impressive they were:

• Healing of the 10 lepers – they were outcasts, and the only one who was thankful was a Samaritan as well!
• Healing of the soldier’s ear – who would expect compassion when the soldier had come to arrest an innocent man!
• Healing of a man with ‘dropsy’ (a technical term) – significant because on the Sabbath the lawyers/Pharisees had forbidden the act of healing and so he would have been regarded as unable to receive God’s grace on that day.
• Healing of the woman who had been crippled ‘for 18 years’. Someone ‘insignificant’ in the heirarchy of the day.
• Healing of the Centurion’s servant – the servant of a Gentile and officer of the occupation army!
• Raising from the dead – in Nain. The remarkable thing here is that Luke seems more struck at Jesus being moved to weep with compassion for the defenseless widow than being amazed at the miracle itself.

In Luke 10, we read that when he saw the 72 disciples returning from their mission having healed people Jesus was overjoyed (Luke 10:21)  - and he praised God for ‘hiding the truth from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike’. When he told the story of the Good Samaritan he didn’t criticize the first aid effort of the Samaritan or get side tracked. Instead, he faithfully communicated the powerful message that Jesus was teaching. It wasn’t a detailed study of the law that would earn eternal life, or your place in the Jewish hierarchy. The gospel was not just a message for those who were clever and well educated. The one who was seen to be worthy of eternal life was the one who would show compassion to people who they might not want to consider your neighbour. And once again, the outcast (the Samaritan) was not only able to receive God’s grace but be able to administer it to others as well.

So, to conclude – I think Luke was aware of his own limitations as a physician. More than any of the other gospel writers he was sensitive to the compassion of Jesus and how he reached out to those on the fringes of society, those considered outcasts. I recall talking to an Indian neurosurgeon who after many years as a professor in his university retired and started counselling people. He said that he learnt more in those few years just listening to people than he had in his whole successful career before that. He said that God taught him how to show compassion to people in very simple ways. The stories of Mother Teresa’s ministry show that she had the same emphasis. When I read these stories I am profoundly challenged by the love and compassion that shines through. No amount of medical ethics teaching can put true compassion into your heart. So here’s a prayer for the physician afflicted with compassion fatigue. “Heavenly Father and Great Physician, please forgive me for my lack of love. Please forgive me for my pride and heal me. Make me an invisible channel of your love to the most needy people I meet, people nobody else wants to help.”