After a break for Chinese New Year, I am hoping to get back to posting here!

A very Happy Year of the Tiger to all visitors to this blog.

Setting Up Home

Jesus’ trips with his mother and father to Jerusalem for the Passover each year remind us that Jesus did not grow up in a vacuum.  For thirty years, he lived the relatively normal life of a Jew growing up in Galilee.  Indeed, so normal was it that the people in Nazareth, who knew him better than most, could not believe he was anyone special when he began his ministry.  Jesus seems to have realized that this would happen and comments in both the Synoptic Gospels and John on how a prophet is not accepted amongst those who know him best. (Luke 4:24, John 4:44)

Both the Synoptics and John alert us to the fact that Jesus continued to be in touch with his mother and brothers during his ministry.  This reference to Jesus’ mother and brothers raises some fascinating and important questions.

First, what happened to Joseph?  Joseph seems to disappear from the Gospels and it is only Mary who is spoken of.  This has led scholars to speculate that Joseph may have died before Jesus began his ministry.  It is only speculation, but it does seem somewhat reasonable.

Secondly, were Jesus brothers really his brothers?  Some have argued that they were only his half brothers, being Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.  Or, alternatively, that they were in fact only his cousins.  The only reason for this sort of speculation is the desire to argue that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus’ birth.  This does not seem to have been the case.  St Matthew, for example, says:

‘(Joseph) took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.’  (Matthew 1:24-25

The desire to keep Mary a virgin has more to do with Christian attitudes to sex than historical reality.  We are safer to take the text at face value and accept Jesus’ brothers and sisters as his full brothers and sisters.

Everything we hear about Jesus’ family suggests that they were devout and that Jesus and his siblings had a devout upbringing.  The best known of Jesus’ bothers, James, was to become the leader of the Jerusalem Church, aquiring a reputation for being devout in his own right.  He even merits a mention by the Jewish historian, Josephus.  That James became the leader of the Jerusalem Church is interesting given his parents regular visits to Jerusalem.  But more about James another time!

The first mention of Jesus’ brothers occurs in St John’s Gospel.  St John describes the miracle at which, Mary and his first disciples were present.  We are then told:

‘After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days.’  (John 2:12)

I have spoken in previous blogs of the importance that Capernaum was to assume in the ministry of Jesus.  Jesus first disciples seem to lived and worked there.  Jesus cured Peter’s mother-in-law there.  Did Jesus and his family stay with the disciples or did they make their own home there as well?  From the way the Synoptics present it, it sounds as if Jesus’ family literally moved house to Capernaum.  Take this verse from Matthew, for example:

‘He left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali.’ (Matthew 4:13)

St Mark puts it like this:

‘When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.’ (Mark 2:1)

Further support for the idea that Jesus set up home in Capernaum with his family comes from St Mark’s account of Jesus’ visit to Nazareth.  St Mark records the reaction of the people there in the following way:

‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’  And they took offence at him.  (Mark 6:3)

While the people of Nazareth know Jesus, Mary, and his brothers, they refer to his sisters as actually living there in Nazareth with them.  This surely suggests that Mary and Jesus’ brothers did not live there any longer.  The sisters presumably had married and would, therefore, have been expected to live with their husbands.  Also interesting is that Jesus is referred to as the ‘carpenter’, but we are not told what his brothers did.

Capernaum keeps coming up in both the Synoptics and John as the centre for Jesus’ ministry in Galilee.  The fact that Jesus is said to go to Capernaum with his mother, brothers and disciples means that, at the very least, the family of Jesus and his disciples knew one another and may even have shared a home with each other.  It seems likely to me that they did do so.  What it didn’t mean apparently was that the brothers were as comfortable with Jesus’ ministry as his immediate disciples were.

So what was Jesus’ relationship with his family and his brothers in particular?

Jesus and the Temple

It has not been a good week for posting, but I was determined to do so before it finished even if I have left it a bit late!  I am preaching tomorrow.  The readings are on the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, which seems a little bizarre given that we have moved in the past few weeks to the beginning of Jesus’ adult ministry.

Jesus’ relationship with the Temple is ambivalent.  He was presented in it by his parents receiving recognition from Simeon and Anna.  St Luke again records the one incident we have from Jesus’ childhood when he was taken to Jerusalem by his parents and causes them some panic by going missing only to be found by them sitting in the Temple.

The Synoptics only mention one visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: the one leading up to his death.  St John, however, records several and as I have argued previously this seems historically likely.  What St Luke actually tells us about the visit when Jesus was 12 is:

‘Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.  And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.’ (Luke 2:41-42)

‘Every year’ they went to Jerusalem and the visit at 12 was ‘as usual’.  This strongly suggests that Jesus was brought up to go to Jerusalem and surely this would not be something that he would stop when he was older.  St John tells us that after his first miracle in Cana and a visit to Capernaum (more of which in subsequent posts!), Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Passover where he ‘cleansed’ the Temple.

Scholars argue over this.  The Synoptics record this event, but put it at the end of his ministry, not the beginning.  They have to as this is the only time they record Jesus going there as an adult.  Some have argued that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice: once at the beginning and then again at the end of his ministry, but most don’t think this likely.  Most go with the Synoptics and argue that St John has put the event at the beginning for theological reasons.

One reason scholars have for locating this incident at the end of Jesus’ ministry is because of their understanding of what Jesus was doing when he turned over the tables and drove out the money changers.  For them this is a prophetic act pronouncing God’s judgement on the Temple and is a reason for Jesus’ arrest and subsequent crucifixion.  This doesn’t work so well if it happened at the beginning!

However, this doesn’t seem to be how either the Synoptics or John understand the event.  Yes, Jesus did speak of the Temple’s eventual destruction, but here he seems more concerned with its purification:

He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!"  His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."  (John 2:16-17)

If concern for the Temple’s purity is his main concern, and I fail to see why those of us living 2,000 years after the event should have a better understanding of it than those who may even have been present at it, then it could well have occurred at the beginning of his ministry.  Whenever it happened, it shows that Jesus wasn’t anti the Temple as such.  It truly was his Father’s house and should be respected as such.  Jesus’ attitude is best explained by what St John tells us happened next.  After celebrating the Passover, Jesus spent some time in Judea effectively continuing the ministry of John, baptizing people - though as St John tells us, it was Jesus’ disciples who did the baptizing.  St John then makes a somewhat enigmatic statement:

‘Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John’ - although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized - he left Judea and started back to Galilee.’ (John 4:1-3)

Quite why the Pharisees learning that Jesus was becoming popular should send him back to Galilee is not immediately clear.  Is it that he doesn’t want to undermine John?  Is it that he wants to avoid possible hostility from them?  Or is it that he realizes the time has come to begin his own distinctive ministry and emerge from the shadow of John?

Whatever, he sets off for Galilee where the Synoptics will pick up the story, but to get there he travels through Samaria.  From Jerusalem, in the south, to Galilee, in the north, would have been about a three day journey.  During it, he meets the Samaritan woman at the well and breaks all social convention by talking to her.  In the course of the conversation, the woman asks him a question over an issue that divided Jews and Samaritans:

‘The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet.  Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.’  Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.  But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.’

This is very much what Paul argues in Romans.  The Jews were God’s people.  The Temple was God’s house.  Jerusalem was the Holy City.  But all that is going to change.  As a result of Jesus’ ministry, God will no longer be worshipped in special places, but in spirit and in truth.

This verse is uncomfortable reading for many like myself who minister in Churches that place heavy emphasis on special buildings and sacred spaces.  I don’t think there is any escaping that fact that the New Testament not only rejects Jerusalem and the Temple as being any longer special places of worship, but also rejects the idea of special places altogether.  The Temple is now the people.  We are God’s house not the building we meet in. 

It’s an idea we are all familiar with, but one we find hard to act upon.

Happy Saturday

I am having a break before continuing some preparation for Lent!  I know it might seem a little early, but I want to give details out of what we are going to be doing to people tomorrow.

Last year, I did a short series on the parables (for some details, see under the label Lent) and, at the risk of sounding boring, I thought I would do a second series this year.  Last year, I focused on the well-known parables (the Good Samaritan, the Sower, etc).  I thought it might be fun this year to look at some parables that often get a bit neglected - such as the one about the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14/Luke 14:15-24)  Oh, and has anyone any ideas why the poor guy who didn't have a proper wedding robe was thrown into outer darkness?!

Anyway, the series will be begin on Wednesday, February 24.  If you live in Hong Kong and want to join us you will get a warm welcome.  Drop me a line and I will give you more details.

I hope your weekend is good.

From Nazareth to Capernaum

While Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea about 6 miles south-west of Jerusalem, he grew up in Nazareth in Galilee and was known by all as Jesus of Nazareth.  Interesting, then, is the fact that he seems not to have spent very much time there once he began his ministry.  Doubtless this is because of his conviction, recorded both in the Synoptics and John (Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24 and John 4:44) that a prophet is not accepted by those from where he comes or as we might say ‘familiarity breeds contempt’.  This coming Sunday’s Gospel reading (Luke 4:14-21) records a visit Jesus did make to Nazareth.  This is a visit that ends with the people there trying to kill him.

St Luke uses this passage to introduce the ministry of Jesus and its themes.  Probably St Luke felt it appropriate to begin his account of the ministry of Jesus with a story from where Jesus grew up.  St Luke himself, however, records that Jesus’ ministry was well under way before he went back to Nazareth and that the people of Nazareth had already heard about it.  Jesus says that they will doubtless say to him, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ (Luke 4:23)

Nazareth, in lower Galilee, is about 16 miles south-west of the Sea of Galilee, 9miles south of Cana, where he performed his first miracle, and about 25 miles from Capernaum on the north of the Sea of Galilee.  The mention of Capernaum is an important one for Jesus seems to have made both his home and base there once he embarked on his ministry.

Before discussing Capernaum, it is worth mentioning ‘The Mystery of the Two Missing Cities’!  The first is Sepphoris, a very significant city.  Nazareth was just 4 miles south of Sepphoris.  It would have been almost impossible for Jesus not to have gone there at some time in his life, and yet there is not a single mention of it in the New Testament.  The second missing city is Tiberias, effectively the main city of Galilee.  St John tells us that the Sea of Galilee was also known as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and mentions an occasion that some boats came from Tiberias with people looking for Jesus (John 6:23).  But it is only in St John’s Gospel that Tiberias is even mentioned and Jesus is never recorded as having gone there himself.

The reasons for this seemingly deliberate avoidance by Jesus of even talking about these cities, let alone visiting them are complex.  Tiberias was built on graves, which made it unclean for Jews, so that may be part of the explanation when considering Tiberias.  Sepphoris is much harder to explain.  Whatever the reason, Jesus avoided the two biggest population centres in Galilee although, given the relative closeness of places in the region, doubtless people from each went to hear Jesus as we know, from John, they at least did from Tiberias.  What they thought about Jesus’ refusal to go there personally we can only guess.

So why Capernaum?  It was certainly conveniently placed as a base for Jesus’ ministry around the Lake and its villages, and it was just 9 miles from Tiberias.  Perhaps more important was that this was where some of his earliest disciples seem to have worked and lived. 

St John tells us that Andrew and his brother Peter, who were fishermen, together with Philip were from Bethsaida.  The location of Bethsaida is not absolutely certain, but it was probably a place in Galilee about 2.5miles from Capernaum going north-east around the Lake.  By the time of the ministry of Jesus, however, Peter and Andrew were certainly living in Capernaum.  St Mark tells us that after Jesus had preached in the synagogue in Capernaum, he entered the house of ‘Peter and Andrew’ (Mark 1:21) where apparently Peter’s mother-in-law also lived and presumably Peter’s wife!  Again, St Mark tells us that when they entered the house they discovered Peter’s mother-in-law ill in bed with a fever (Mark 1:30)

The fact that James and John, who were also fishermen, are associated so closely with Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:19) and with this visit to Peter’s house (Mark 1:29) may suggest that they too lived in Capernaum.  There is some suggestion that Jesus rather than simply staying at Capernaum in St Peter’s house may have actually moved his own family there as well.  I will talk about family next!  

Visiting Israel

For many years, I resisted the temptation to visit Israel.  I do not know why.  As a young man, I wasn’t particularly interested in travel so that was doubtless part of it, but by no means all.  I was, perhaps, also reacting to the rather romantic view of the ‘Holy Land’ that many I knew who had been there seemed to have of it, talking always about going on pilgrimage rather than on holiday.  Whatever, my first visit was in 1998, coincidentally the 50^th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel.  I went only after some heavy arm twisting by two dear friends in my Church at Banchory.

Knowing Israel well themselves and having family there, they were convinced that any self-respecting Christian minister should visit there.  They were right and I was wrong.  Spectacularly wrong!  I had only been there a few days to realize what a difference being there made to everything.  Subsequently, I was to return many times and I now get withdrawal symptoms if I haven’t been for a while.

It is not that I think Jerusalem is a holy city in the way it was before the coming of Jesus - although I do think it is still a significant city.  Nor is it that Jerusalem and Israel still look as they did in Jesus’ time.  I am afraid that unless you have been there you won’t get it, but part of it is perspective: getting a feel for distance, geography, and landscape.

Galilee provides a very good example of what I mean.  I will never forget my reaction seeing the Sea of Galilee for the first time.  It was one of utter amazement at how small it was.  Rather like a large Scottish loch!  I had been brought up with the word Sea of Galilee in my mind and sub-consciously imagined a much bigger lake than it is and not one that you could drive around in a few hours!  It is in fact about 13 miles long and 7.5 miles wide with a circumference of about 32 miles.

Descriptions in the Bible of places using words such as cities, towns, villages, mountains, etc also took on a new meaning.  Capernaum is so small.  Jerusalem in the time of Jesus you could walk around in an afternoon.  I did so.  Even things like population came in to focus.  A place like Capernaum would have had only a population of 2,000 or so; Nazareth probably less.

Does it matter?  Well yes, I think it does.  We need reminding that the world of Jesus was a real and not a pretend one.  I recently read one scholar who, commenting on a passage in St John’s Gospel, said these sort of things happened in ‘John’s story world’.  Now I know what he means and this is a scholar who I know believes that Jesus was very much a real person.  Nevertheless, we can let the world of Jesus become something like a Narnia or Middle-earth, that is, an imaginary kingdom rather than a historical one.  This, I think, is how some scholars really do see the world of the Bible: something created by the Biblical writers themselves and not a real place. 

The trouble is only imaginary things can happen in imaginary worlds!

It's Monday morning and I am picking up all the bits and pieces from the weekend.  At long last the building work that we have been engaged with here at Christ Church is coming to completion.  The hardest thing is getting the finishing touches completed.  It can take as long to get the builders to come back to fix a window that won't open as it did to arrange the project in the first place, but I am beginning to look forward to life without builders - for a  short while at least!

The First Phase of Jesus' Ministry

All the Gospel writers are agreed that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.  What is not totally clear is what the relationship was between them.  The general understanding is that Jesus turned up at the Jordan, was baptized by John, and then got on with his own ministry.  An impression, it has to be said, that is reinforced by the way the Gospel writers present it.  That it is more complicated than that is suggested by a closer reading of the Gospels.

Firstly, St Luke tells us that there was a family relationship between Mary and Elizabeth (Luke 1:36).  We don't know exactly what the relationship was, but if Mary did stay with Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56), it at least suggests they were on reasonably close terms.  Did Jesus and John meet as they were growing up?

Secondly, the Synoptics give the impression, at first sight, that Jesus originally called his disciples by the Sea of Galilee, meeting them for the first time as they tended to their nets (Mark 1:16-20).  St John, however, tells us that Andrew and another unnamed disciple were originally disciples of John the Baptist.  There is the suggestion that Peter and Philip are also, and perhaps Nathaniel as well. (John 1:35-45)

The Synoptic Gospels begin their account of Jesus' ministry in Galilee, basically after John had been arrested.  St John, however, suggests that there was a period of ministry before this, which certainly included a visit to Cana and Capernaum in Galilee, but also involved time spent in Jerusalem and Judea as well.

This earlier period of ministry saw Jesus continuing John's ministry by baptizing people in the Judean countryside while John was baptizing people at Aenon near Salim, although as St John tells us it was Jesus' disciples who baptized rather than John (John 3:22-24).  This is what you would expect if they had previously been disciples of John assisting him in his baptism of people.  This should not seem strange.  Jesus, by being baptized by John, identified himself both with John's ministry and with John's practice of baptizing people.  It is only when he begins to overtake John in popularity that Jesus moves back to Galilee to begin his own distinctive ministry. (John 4:1-3)

St John tells us: 'When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival; for they too had gone to the festival.  Then he came again to Cana in Galilee where he had changed the water into wine ...' (John 4:45-46)  This then would be where the Synoptics take up the story.

It is impossible to be too neat and precise about the order of events and no doubt the Evangelists were more concerned to communicate the truth about Jesus than to give a precise chronology.  Nevertheless, if we take St John as giving accurate historical information, then we get the following impression of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, which might even be called the Baptizing Phase!

1.  Jesus who knows John the Baptist and agrees with his message and ministry identifies with it by being baptized himself.

2.  Some of John's disciples join Jesus and they go to Cana of Galilee where one of them, Nathaniel, comes from (John 21:2).  At a wedding there with his mother, Jesus performs his first miracle.

3.  After the wedding, Jesus, his mother, brothers and disciples go to Capernaum before Jesus sets off for the Passover in Jerusalem.

4.  After the Passover in Jerusalem, Jesus and his disciples continue John's ministry of baptizing in the Judean countryside while John baptized further north, at Aenon near the Sea of Galilee.

5.  When his ministry gains attention and popularity, Jesus moves back to Galilee.  It is then at this point that the Synoptics take up the story.

The reading for this coming Sunday in St Luke's Gospel gives an account of some of what happened during the following few months in Galilee.

I must confess to being a bit scared by the speed at which this year is already disappearing!  Meetings are coming back into fashion after a temporary lull over Christmas.  This will be the last post for this week as a consequence so have a good weekend when it comes!

I will be presenting prizes at a school sports day on Saturday.  I always think it a bit ironic when I do this sort of thing given how much I detested taking part in sport when I was at school.  My most vivid memory was getting stuck on the last obstacle in the obstacle race and getting a cheer when I eventually did get over it.  My only success was in the three-legged race ...  Not a tale of sporting prowess I am afraid.  I did, however, make it into the School chess team!

Trying to Understand the Ministry of Jesus

St John tells us that Jesus' first miracle took place in Cana of Galilee.  Cana was probably a place about 9 miles north of Nazareth.  Nathaniel who becomes a disciple was from there.  Quite why he thought that nothing good could come out of Nazareth when it was so near is an interesting question!

I have just read an article by Richard Bauckham, a scholar I much respect, arguing that St John's Gospel amongst other things was originally written with those in mind who may had already read St Mark's Gospel.  It is something I have felt myself for some while, but never really followed up on.

As is well-known, the first three Gospels, the so-called synoptic Gospels, focus on Jesus' ministry in Galilee apart, of course, for the events in Jerusalem leading to his death.  St John records Jesus also ministering in Jerusalem and making relatively frequent visits there.  Scholars are rather sceptical about the value of St John's Gospel historically, so much so, that even the more conservative leave it out of consideration when writing about the life and ministry of Jesus.  This results in a very Galilean focused account.

St John's Gospel, however, while ackowledging quite clearly that Jesus had a significant ministry in Galilee, even performing his first miracle there, fills in the gaps by telling us about the Jerusalem and Judean ministry.  If this is historically based then it means that many, if not most accounts of the life of Jesus are somewhat imbalanced.  It is notoriously difficult to piece together the events in the life of our Lord to create anything like a diary of events.  The Gospels are not those sort of documents.  However, it is worth thinking about how the ministry of our Lord took shape.

Given that Jesus' teaching focused on the coming Kingdom of God, that he himself was a good Jew, and believed that he had a message for all Israel, how likely then is it that he would have avoided going to Jerusalem and Judea during his ministry?  Did he really only turn up there at the end of it for just a few days?  It seems improbable to say the least.  St Luke tells us that Jesus' parents went every year to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41)  This would be true of many Galilean Jews.  Was Jesus really so different?  Even in the synoptics there are hints that Jesus was not in fact such a stranger to Jerusalem.  How did he know the owners of the donkey he borrowed to ride in to Jerusalem and of the Upper Room in which he celebrated the Last Supper?

St John tells us of Jesus that, 'When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival; for they too had gone to the festival.'  (John 4:45)  The typical view of Jesus is that people in Jerusalem wanted to hear him, when he eventually came from Galilee to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry, because his reputation had gone before him.  If St John is right, then it is all a little more complicated than that and part of St John's aim in his Gospel is to show this to those who only know the synoptic tradition.

Of course, if St John is right, it raises the interesting question of why the first three Gospels focus so exclusively on Jesus in Galilee.

Mary as a Source for the Gospels

I am only preaching at the 8.00am service this week so I just have a short sermon to prepare.  I am, however, interested in the reference to Jesus' mother in the Gospel reading.

As will be known, many scholars are very sceptical about the historical value of the Gospels and so treat them more as novels or novellas, that is, as fictional stories.  It is true that the stories that may contain historical data, after all, novels do contain historical data whether they were written by Agatha Christie or Salman Rushdie.  They also, however, contain events and characters invented by the author so, too, to a greater or lesser degree, it is argued, do the Gospels.  Some scholars think the Gospels contain only a little invention; some think they contain a lot.  As all scholars have to work in a mixed ideological and intellectual environment so even those who are more conservative have to take on board the scepticism of the more cynical.

This means that the Gospels themselves are seldom taken at face value by many scholars and the sort of questions scholars generally deal with are those questions of interest to other scholars and not those of interest to those outside the scholarly community. Scholars will speculate for hours on such things as supposed sources behind the Gospels and the nature of the communities for whom they were written, but will often rule out of order speculation which may arise from accepting the Gospels as essentially historically accurate.  This, I think, often makes the Gospels seem little more than interesting historical novels, in much the same way as I have been arguing that the typical presentation of the Nativity makes it seem no more than a romantic fairy story.

For example, a hypothetical source called Q is believed by many scholars to have been used by Matthew and Luke in the compiling of their Gospels.  It may well have been, we can't know for sure as Q is only a hypothesis.  Not a single copy of it exists anywhere.  And yet scholars will write books and dissertations on the theology of Q, the community which produced Q, the Christology of Q, the history of Q, the different versions of Q and so on.  Not bad when we don't even know what was in Q even if it did exist.

A speculative question I personally would like to ask is to do with the role, if any, people such as Mary and the Lord's family played as sources for the Gospels.  Now I realize that many would see this sort of question as being more than a little naive, belonging to the Sunday School rather than the Academy.  But given that we know from several sources that James, the brother of our Lord was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem after Jesus' death (from Luke in Acts, from Paul, and from the Jewish historian Josephus), it would seem at least possible that they played some role in the preservation of stories about Jesus.  I mean wouldn't people ask James, 'What was your brother like?'

We also know from Paul that the other 'brothers of the Lord' played a missionary role in the early Church: a role that was even familiar to people as far away from Palestine as Gentile Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians 9:5).  Wouldn't people they spoke to ask them about their 'brother'?  And surely they would have stories ready to repeat?  They would be pretty useless missionaries if they didn't.

And then what about Mary herself?  Luke records her as having been present in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.  (By the way: 'Upper Room' in Greek is the same the word in Luke that is often translated 'inn'!  See the previous post.)  According to John's Gospel, the beloved disciple whose testimony the Gospel claims as the basis for the Gospel, is entrusted with the care of Mary by our Lord as he hung on the Cross: 'Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.' (John 19:27)

Mary then is identified as the mother of both the person the Church worshipped as well as of the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and also as a sort of surrogate mother to the beloved disciple.   Surely if Mary was so closely associated with the beginning of the Church, then wouldn't people in the Church have asked her about her son?

Because the Church became so successful among Gentiles outside of Palestine, we have only a limited knowledge of what went on in Palestine.  However, it is, of course, Palestine where Jesus actually ministered and where the stories about him were first preserved.  It defies belief that the family of Jesus, who went on to have such a prominent role as leaders of the Church, would not have had a role to play as sources for those who wanted to write an account of their brother or son.

Personally, I find the idea that Mary was a source for the Gospel accounts much more convincing than that of the imaginary Q.

The Baptism of Christ

Yesterday, in the Liturgical Calendar, it was the 'Baptism of Christ'.  I commented in my sermon on how strange it seemed to be moving from the birth of Jesus to the Baptism of Jesus after only just over two weeks.  It is, of course, made somewhat inevitable because of the way the Gospels tell us nothing about the life of our Lord after his birth until he begins his ministry at the age of about 30.  Apart, that is, from one brief incident recorded by Luke when Jesus is in the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-52).

This makes the words of the Voice from heaven at Jesus baptism all the more intriguing: 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.' (Luke 3:22)  To put it in a very human way: what was it about Jesus that the Voice was pleased with?  The intrigue deepens when we read on in Luke to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.  Luke records an incident at the synagogue in Nazareth: 'When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom.' (Luke 3:16)  Jesus claims that words from a prophecy of Isaiah about One who will be anointed by God apply to him.

The reaction of those listening to him is interesting.  Luke tells us they are amazed.  They ask, 'Isn't this Joseph's son?'  In other words these people who had known Jesus for most of his life are amazed both by what he says and the way he says it.  Nothing about him and their knowledge of him had prepared them for this.  Mark puts it more starkly.  The people ask: ' "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.'

Presumably, however, Jesus had had some understanding of what his role and mission was to be while he was growing up and before his baptism.  Luke tells us Jesus knew at the age of 12 that he should be about his father's business!  Is it partly, at least, Jesus' willingness to keep silent about his identity and mission and live an ordinary life until his baptism that the Voice is pleased with?

I realize the speculative nature of these questions, but it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus had lived for 30 years already before he began his 3 year ministry.  This coming week the reading is about the wedding at Cana of Galilee, where it is Jesus' mother who encourages him to do something about the shortage of wine.  Jesus' identity may have been hidden to most people in Nazareth as he was growing up.  Apparently, not, however, to his mother!

Happy New Year!

Everything is getting back to normal here now with the start of term for all our schools.  For those of you returning to work today after the festive break, I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock!

The Birth of Jesus

I am preparing for this coming Sunday's sermon and can't believe we are on to the baptism of Christ already.  I think it is a real shame that liturgically we  move on so quickly from what happened after Jesus was born to his ministry.  We know about the shepherds AND their sheep (let the reader understand!)  We also think we know about the Magi and their gifts.  We often, however, miss the fact that Jesus was circumcised 8 days after his birth (Luke 2:21) and that Mary and Joseph went to the temple in Jerusalem (not too far away) 33 days after his birth 'according to the Law of Moses' (Levticus 12, Luke 2:22) taking Jesus with them.  And, of course, the fact that Herod has all children under two years old murdered 'according to the time that he had learned from the wise men' (Matthew 2:16), suggests we do not know the diary of events as well as sometimes we think.

The chances are that Mary and Joseph stayed on in Bethlehem for some considerable time after Jesus' birth.  This means that, contrary to most nativity scenes, the shepherds and Magi are unlikely ever to have met!  It also suggests that Mary and Joseph were able to secure accommodation in Bethlehem.  Surely they did not live in a stable until the time of Mary's purification a month after Jesus' birth?  Matthew tells us that the star led the Magi to the 'place where the child was' (Matthew 2:9).  He continues describing them 'entering the house' (Matthew 2:11).     Romantic though it undoubtedly is to have the Magi in the stable, there is no basis for it in the text.

This raises the question of where Mary and Joseph would have stayed.  Here I confess to a failure of nerve.  I have long felt that the story of Jesus even being born in a stable is just plain wrong.  I don't believe it is what the Gospels ever say.  I remember lecturing on this over twenty years ago, but have refrained from preaching on it for not wanting to spoil people's Christmas and, in any case, I don't think it is an essential issue when it comes to explaining the meaning of Christmas.

The point, however, is that Mary and Joseph went to their 'own town' (Luke 2:3) to be registered.  Wouldn't it be just a little strange if they knew no-one in the city?  And did they get so little warning of their journey that they were unable to plan ahead?  The typical nativity play has Mary and Joseph turning up in Bethlehem on the night of Jesus' birth looking for a place to stay.  It works in the nativity play, but in real life?

Look again at what St Luke actually says: 'He (Joseph) went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child.'  (Luke 2:5-6)  'While they were there', notice!  Not, 'on the night they arrived'.  The Greek word, often translated 'inn', is better translated simply 'guest room'.  Families in Bethlehem would have lived in small houses and the animals would have been kept in the house at night with a manger built in to feed them!

What St Luke is telling us is that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem some time ahead of the due date for the birth of their baby, stayed in a house that was crowded, and that when the time came for the baby to be born - because the house was full - Mary gave birth to her son in the main part of the house and not in a special room.  The shepherds then visit having been told that the fact that the baby is in a manger will be a 'sign to them' (Luke 2:12)  Why should the baby being in manger be a sign?  It is a sign because God chose a humble and ordinary place for his Son to be born, not a palace.  The shepherds could go there with confidence: they could be sure they would be allowed in!

There would, then, be no difficulty for the Holy Family to stay on in Bethlehem for quite some time as they had already found friendly accommodation.  Sadly, some time in the next two years, after the visit of mysterious strangers, they had to flea for their lives as political refugees to Egypt.  Interestingly, after Herod's death and the coast becomes clear for Mary and Joseph together with their child to return to Israel, they evidently first thought to go back to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:22).  However, Joseph is worried about the person now ruling over Judea and so goes to Nazareth in Galilee instead (Matthew 2:23, Luke 2:39).

The Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus are by nature somewhat fragmentary and we are left to piece them together in order to get a fuller picture.  Inevitably, we need some imagination to do this and there is much that we do not know, which, if we were to know, would change the picture.  The least we can do, however, is to make sure we listen carefully to what we are told before making our re-constructions.

The traditional account of the Nativity conveys the message of Christmas and is not to be despised.  Nevertheless, I wonder what reflection on what the Gospels actually say would produce by way of plays and preaching!

Happy Christmas Everyone!

Thank you for continuing to visit my blog even though it can a bit erratic!

I have to confess to feeling a bit drained at the moment.  Just as the Christmas services finished yesterday, we had, today, a large wedding and then I am out tonight.  Of course, tomorrow it's Sunday with services as usual.  Strictly speaking, we do not normally conduct weddings on Boxing Day, but it is not easy to refuse an earnest request, is it?  And then Monday is back to normal.  Batteries are running a bit low, I am afraid.

I truly am very sorry not to have been able to continue posting last week.  I am trying to get all the building work here at Christ Church finished for Christmas.  It's a long story, but we are nearly there.  The trouble is that to bring it to completion involves dealing with 5 different contractors and getting them to co-ordinate their work is no easy business.  And today all the School services for Christmas have started.  Great fun!

On a positive note, the Church was very full last Sunday.  This is not traditionally a busy Sunday so it's quite encouraging with Christmas coming up.  This week, in common with many churches, we will be having our Sunday School Nativity in the morning and our Carols by Candlelight Service in the evening.  I know it is not all about numbers, but you can't get your message out if there's no-one there to hear it.

I have always thought that Christmas was our best time of year for reaching out to people.  I was more than a little surprised then to read of a British Bishop criticizing the words in traditional carols.  Now he may be right (I am not sure he is, but that's another matter), but it is truly appalling timing.  I can't imagine Marks and Spencer announcing that some of its Christmas range is rubbish in the middle of the Christmas shopping season.  Doubtless, M&S will review their range and performance in the New Year.  Maybe that would have been a better time for the Bishop to invite comments on what for many people is an essential part of Christmas.

I always try to use only those carols that I feel convey the Gospel message, but at the same time surely a bit of poetic licence is allowed.  In the bleak mid-winter by Christina Rossetti, for example, is clearly inaccurate when it comes to the meteorological details of the Nativity, but right on when it comes to what Christmas is or should be all about:

What can I give him,
Poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd
I would bring a lamb,
If I were a wise man
I would do my part,
Yet what I can I give Him -
Give my heart.

I hope that neither Bishops nor busyness are spoiling the Christmas season for you!

I really wanted to post this next blog in the series on Using the Bible in Ethics much earlier, but I have so many baptisms, weddings, and sadly, funerals, going on at the moment, not to mention much building work - you get the idea!  Anyway, I was determined to post before the weekend.  I will try to tidy it up a bit over the next few days, but I hope you get the point of what I am trying to say.

On the same day as I posted about real Christmas cards, I got some!  The prize for the first one to be sent (that means, the one that was written first) goes to Bill and Diana, two dear members of the Christ Church community world-wide. Unbelievably, Bill and Diana live in Bedford, where my parents and brother and sister-in-law live.  Bill and Diana, if you read this, thank you!  We hope to see you soon.

It truly is a small world after all!

9. Using the Bible in Ethics: Divorce (Part Four - A Changed World and A Changed Institution)

We have seen in the previous post in this series how difficult it is to understand even seemingly obvious statements about ethics in the Bible.  (For previous posts see: Using the Bible in Ethics)  Jesus’ words on divorce, although apparently clear on the surface, occupy just a few verses.  This should warn against assuming that we know everything that Jesus would have said in answer to the questions we would like to ask today or even was asked then!  We can, I think, be certain that Jesus did not think divorce a ‘good thing’, but would he have ruled it out completely, as some argue?  That I think is a more difficult question to answer as St Matthew and David Instone-Brewer illustrate!

And this is all before we stop to consider the way society has changed today from the way it was at the time of the New Testament.  I am afraid that too many fail to take these changes on board before reaching conclusions on what our Lord may or may not have allowed.  Let us then be clear about some of the changes, pastorally, that have taken place when it comes to marriage since the time of our Lord and Paul:

Firstly, women have far great economic freedom now than they did and are not as dependent upon their husbands as generally they have been in the past.  The past century has witnessed great technological change.  It has witnessed great social change as well.  While not all would want to sign up for the feminist cause, there has been a particularly radical change in the role of women in society.  It is all too easy to forget that women weren’t expected to go to university not so long ago.  Their job was to stay at home and have babies.  Now, despite continuing inequalities, the expectation, in the developed world at least, is for them to pursue a career in their own right.

Secondly, and linked to this, is the way women have greater control over their fertility.  A baby has become for most couples a choice to be made and not an inevitable fact of life.  The woman’s role now is not to produce and manage a constantly increasing brood of children.  There is life apart from motherhood and child-rearing, even if for many women it still doesn’t always feel like it!

Thirdly, people today delay getting married much longer for educational and career reasons amongst others.  It is all too easily forgotten that at the time of the New Testament women would marry as soon as they reached puberty.  In my own ministry, I have seen great change in the age of those I marry.  When I was first ordained, it was not at all uncommon to marry people still in their late teens.  Then people started delaying marriage until after university.  Now, if they decide to marry at all, they delay marriage until after they have become established in their career.  Normally, the couples I marry are at least in their 30s and, let it be said, are also already living together.  Apart from anything else, this challenges us also to think about our attitude to sex and marriage, but I will resist the temptation to be side-tracked!

Fourthly, people live longer and so potentially could have much longer marriages.  Again, it is forgotten how easy it was to die in the world of the New Testament.  Life expectancy for a child born in the Roman Empire would have been under 30 years.  Now we expect to live way beyond that.  It’s just a fact that people change over time and if the time is a long time, how does that effect what we expect of marriage?

Fifthly, expectations of what the marriage relationship is about have changed.  It is not now primarily an economic contract designed for the production and rearing of children.  In fact, each partner may have economic independence and neither may want children.  We may deplore the romanticized and sentimentalized view of love all too common in popular-culture, but it remains a fact that this is what most people see as most important in relationships in a way that is simply off the radar in the New Testament.

How then do we apply Jesus’ teaching?  At one extreme, are those who argue that social changes are not relevant.  God’s purpose for man and woman in creation remains the same.  So divorce and remarriage are not allowed, except perhaps in cases of adultery (for some, not even then), and may be when an unbelieving partner walks out.  But that’s all!

At the other end of the scale, are those who argue that the process of pastoral application of Jesus’ teaching, seen in the Bible itself, should be continued and extended to today.  They would argue that it is illogical to argue that Paul (and perhaps Matthew) could modify Jesus’ teaching, but we can’t.  Those who take the first position would reply that Matthew and Paul were inspired in a way that we are not and never can be.

Personally, I find it very hard to resist the conclusion that when Jesus was talking about marriage, he was talking about something very different to what we think of as marraige today.  Insisting that the Bible’s teaching on marriage as it is now is the same as it was on marriage then seems to ignore the huge changes that have taken place in the nature of marriage itself.

This is not for one moment to argue that the Bible’s teaching can just be set aside or quietly ignored.  It is, however, to argue that applying the Bible’s teaching is not as simple as some like to think.

Campaign for Real Christmas Cards

Advent Sunday is the time when I start thinking about Christmas cards.  Anyone who has been reading this blog for a few years will know that while I love hearing from people by email, when it comes to Christmas cards, I really don't like virtual ones.  I really enjoy displaying Christmas cards around the house over the Christmas period.  I am now eagerly anticipating the arrival of the first Christmas card.  Who will it be from I wonder?  

I am one of those dinosuars who still prefers to write his sermons by hand.  This means that I can't easily post my sermon for Advent here. There is so much going on this weekend and I just don't have the time to type it in.  If you are so motivated, you can download it or listen to it on the Christ Church, Kowloon Tong website.

The theme is 'God in himself and God as he chooses to reveal himself'.

I love Advent and the lead up to Christmas.  I love Christmas Trees, and Christmas Cards, the dinners and parties, and all the celebrations.

Scrooge is not allowed in this household.

But above all, I love the Midnight Eucharist: On this most Holy Night ...

I am trying to persuade a brilliant singer I know and love to sing as part of the Christmas Night Eucharist.  She is proving to be a bit of a shrinking violet at the moment, but I have four Sundays to persuade her ...

I hope you have a great Advent!

The Collect for the First Sunday of Advent


Almighty God,

give us grace to cast away the works of darkness

and to put on the armour of light,
now in the time of this mortal life,
in which your Son Jesus Christ came to us in great humility;
that on the last day,
when he shall come again in his glorious majesty
  to judge the living and the dead,
we may rise to the life immortal;
through him who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.

As we have been celebrating the birthday of Christ Church this past week, a number of people have asked me about the history of the Church. I have written this short introduction that I thought I would also post here. It clearly isn't definitive, but it gives an idea of the Church and its past.

It is Advent Sunday, this coming Sunday and the start of the preparations for Christmas.  Hooray!  We have some repair work going on at the moment and I am hoping it will all be finished by Christmas.  I need a break from building works!  There have been rather a lot of them, but as I say in what follows, this is inevitable given the age of our building and the climate in Hong Kong.

Christ Church – A Short Introduction

The beginnings of Christ Church are quite unusual. Many people even in Christ Church don’t realize that Christ Church is a rebirth of another Church, Saint Peter’s, West Point. Two dates are especially significant: September 2, 1933 and October 29, 1938.

St Peter’s Church had been built in 1872 as a mission Church for seamen. It was supported in its work by large shipping companies. Their support for this work stopped after the first world war. Furthermore, as many of the congregation had moved to Kowloon Tong, the decision was made to open a Church in Kowloon Tong and to close St Peter’s. A Church house was acquired at 3 Duke Street. Worship at St Peter’s stopped in August, 1933 and the Church House was hallowed by Bishop R O Hall on Saturday, September 2, 1933. Worship took place in a large room in the house. The altar and furnishings were those of St Peter’s. At this stage, the Church was known as the Kowloon Tong Anglican Church.

Subsequently, the decision was made to build a Church. The site of the present Church was chosen in January, 1936 and with government assistance a Church was built. The Consecration Service was held on October 29, 1938 and the Kowloon Tong Anglican Church became Christ Church! The Church bell came from St Peter’s. It is rung before every service and at the moment of consecration during the Eucharist.

The date, of course, is significant. Every year Christ Church celebrates the Feast of Christ the King in a special way. Prior to 1970, the feast of Christ the King was observed on the last Sunday in October. However, the reformed calendar approved by the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church that took effect in that year changed the date to the last Sunday before the next liturgical year's Advent begins (Advent marking the start of the liturgical year). Other Churches have followed this change.

Christ Church celebrated its 75th Anniversary as a worshipping community in Kowloon Tong in 2008!

From the beginning, Christ Church has been comitted to the education of children. In fact, a Sunday School was opened before the Church. Many of the original congregation had close links with DBS, a relationship that continues to this day. In October, 1950 a primary school was opened. Built on Church land, the Dioceesan Preparatory School quickly established itself and its reputation. A redevelopment of DPS in Febraury, 1971 saw two more schools coming to the present site, Christ Church Kindergarten and Mary Rose. Mary Rose was opened to provide education for children with special needs and was named after the wife of a former Vicar of the Church. When Bishop Hall Jubilee School was opened, Christ Church was to have an association with this School as well. Although involvement with education has not been without its problems, it remains a major part of the work of Christ Church and one that it takes very seriously.

The building itself has become a major landmark. On December 7, 1941, shortly after it was built, worship ceased in the building as a consequence of the Japanese invasion. The Church was used as a stable for Japanese horses during the occupation. Originally Waterloo Road was a quiet road leading nowhere. Now it is a major route to the New Territories and to China itself. A building over 70 years old requires constant care and attention. The congregation have in recent years completed major renovation works to the exterior of the building and to the area known as the Committee Room. It is our hope that it will not only be a landmark, but the home of Anglican worship in Kowloon Tong for many years to come!

Christ Church is a both local and global in outlook. Although English-speaking Christ Church has always been locally rooted. This is particularly true since 1997 with the majority of the congregation now being ethnically Chinese. Nevertheless, Christ Church has also always had an international feel with many expatriates joining the Church while they live in Hong Kong. Many other members have been educated or have worked abroad.

Our present Vicar, the Reverend Ross Royden, comes originally from the UK and has been with us since September, 2000.

Yesterday went very well, I am pleased to say.  The weather was sunny and warm and people were generous in their contributions to the lunch, which was just as well as we had a lot of people turn up for it.  The service celebrating our Church's founding was also very well attended: our largest congregation this year.  So I start the week with a sense of gratitude as well as relief!

There has been much talk here about the Pope's recent overtures to disaffected Anglicans, especially those in the CofE.  I find the whole thing rather sad, not because I don't respect the Pope, but because I do.  This move seemed ill-timed and ill-conceived.

Anyway, I came across this flow chart and thought that while it too was sad, it, nevertheless, made the point in an amusing way.

It's Saturday before our big event tomorrow for the Feast of Christ the King: our Patronal Festival, or, as I try to explain in our School Assemblies, our birthday celebration!

Christ Church was founded 76 years ago and has always been a Church rooted in the local community, while, at the same time, always open to people living in Hong Kong from abroad.

As you will know, I am very proud to be the Vicar of Christ Church, Kowloon Tong, while accepting the challenges it brings.  (See previous blogs!)

Nowadays, we are ethnically about 80% Chinese and 20% people from overseas (including me!)  In the past, our ex-pats would have been predominantly from the UK, as would befit a British Colony, but now, thankfully, our expats are from all over the world.  On a Sunday, we have people from Australia, Canada, the Philippines, the USA - and, of course, the UK - and many other places besides!  For me, we are living out what it means to be 'one body in Christ'.

The 'Feast of Christ the King' is much like a wedding: masses of preparations beforehand and then it is all over so quickly.  There is no point trying to explain: you either get it or you don't!  Our Bishop is coming and we will be: Confirming new members; Celebrating the Church's foundation; and having a Communal Banquet.

On the day itself, we begin with a Eucharist at 8.00am followed by the Confirmation Eucharist at 10.00am.  The Confirmation is taken by our Bishop.  Afterwards, we invite everyone back to the Vicarage for lunch!

The Banquet is on a 'bring and share basis'.  People are genuinley very generous!  Nevertheless, while most are happy to contribute, some need a little encouragement!

Anyway, we are a bit worried at the moment.

One year we had rain.  We coped.  This year the temperature has fallen.  It's not cold, but it is cooler.  It will be up the Obervatory tell us tomorrow.  But people the world over worry about the weather ...

I said it was like planning for a wedding!

Anyway, we are working hard to make sure everything goes well.

I will tell you next week whether it did or not.

Have a great Sunday wherever you are!

President Obama is in China and has been given a warm welcome by people here. Upon arrival he used the occasion to lecture the Chinese people on the importance of 'universal rights' to free expression, worship, political participation and access to information.

What, of course, he did not say was that freedom of expression in the West has led to the most degrading pornography being freely available to even the youngest of children, that in some countries you are not allowed to display a crucifix in public, that most voters are so disillusioned with politicians that they won't even get out of bed to vote, and that western governments secretly keep their citizens under surveillance in a way that the KGB would have been proud of.

Western politicians need to deal with their own issues of freedom and democracy before lecturing others. I have to tell you that I feel a lot more 'free' walking around Chinese cities at night, for example, than I do in England. In England, I am far more likely to have my freedom taken away from me by muggers or drunken binge drinkers.

Anyway, back to the latest series of blogs!

The thing for me about writing blogs is that while I may have a general idea for a series, the blogs themselves are not planned in advance, but develop as they go. The last few blogs on divorce have turned into a mini-series on its own within the one they were intended to be just a part of - if you see what I mean. Nevertheless, these blogs on divorce are meant primarily as a way of asking the bigger question of how we use the Bible to make ethical decisions today. I hope they are not becoming too rambling or repetitive!

8. Using the Bible in Ethics: Divorce (Part Three – Clarifying the Questions)

Let’s try and sum up what we do and do not know about what the Bible and Jesus, in particular, teach about divorce.

1. It is certain that Jesus taught about divorce. It is certain too that he took a strict approach and did not approve of frivolous divorces or divorce whenever someone happened to feel like it.

2. It is not clear whether he personally allowed any exceptions to this ‘no divorce’ rule. Certainly Matthew did, but scholars are unable to agree what Matthew’s exception is. The majority view seems to be that Matthew allows divorce in cases of ‘sexual immorality’.

3. Paul knows our Lord’s disapproval of divorce and repeats it. He finds himself having to apply it in a very different context, however, and distinguishes his teaching from that of Jesus, allowing divorce when an unbeliever who is married to a believer wants it.

4. It is clear that Jesus bases his criticism of divorce on God’s purpose in creation and on the fact that in marriage a man and woman become ‘one flesh’. It should be noted that this does not logically mean that the union is therefore automatically indissoluble. After all, Paul says that anyone who has sex with a prostitute becomes one flesh with her! He is not presumably arguing that an indissoluble union is formed with her.

So what happens when we try to interpret and apply Jesus’ teaching today? Some Christians think it is all very straightforward. Some such as John Piper, who is very influential amongst evangelicals in the States, argue that divorce is always wrong and remarriage is never permissible for a Christian. Other evangelicals would modify this to allow for divorce and even remarriage when one of the partners has committed adultery.

Other Christians argue that while permanent, lifelong marriage should be the norm and divorce discouraged and avoided as much as possible, marriages do breakdown for any number of reasons, not just sexual, and divorce then becomes a legitimate option with the possibility of remarriage.

In addition to the question then of what Jesus actually taught is a question that people don’t like asking. Is what Jesus taught then binding on us now? Christians don’t like to ask this because understandably they want to be loyal followers of Christ. Interestingly, they do not normally apply the same approach to other parts of the Bible. Simply put: because Paul, for example, forbids women to speak in Church would not mean for many that women shouldn’t speak in them to day.

When questioned about this difference of approach, they would, if pressed, argue that Jesus is different to Paul, and that it is one thing to ignore what Paul said today and another altogether to ignore what Jesus said. Actually, I think this is just plain wrong thinking. Not only was Paul an Apostle of our Lord, Jesus was himself incarnated in the society of his day and shared the same humanity as Paul. If there are good reasons for not following Paul’s teaching today, then there may be equally good reasons for not following our Lord’s, hard though this may be for some to accept. I am not arguing that we should not follow it today only that we need to be consistent in our approach.

We have two questions then:

1. What did Jesus teach?

2. What authority does his teaching have now and how do we apply it?

If all this isn’t hard enough, there is, I think, yet another question: what about what Jesus doesn’t teach? This is where Instone-Brewer would argue that we should assume that Jesus in keeping with others in his day would have allowed divorce in cases of abuse and abandonment. This is difficult because, in the first place, it is an argument from silence and, secondly, we don’t know if abuse and abandonment were specific grounds for divorce in Jesus’ day.

This does, however raise an important point. Jesus was asked a question about divorce in general. Many in his day favoured easy divorce; Jesus does not. That much is clear. But what if Jesus had been asked the more specific questions about abuse and abandonment, and, indeed, about adultery? Would he then have qualified his teaching? If he had qualified his original reply to the Pharisees, it would have dramatically lessened its impact, but does his reply admit to any qualification?

With some reluctance, I think we have to assume from what we have of Jesus teaching in the Gospels, as also reflected by Paul, that when Jesus spoke about divorce, he completely opposed it without qualification. There is the possibility, and it is no more than a possibility, that he made an exception in cases of adultery. We are left to speculate on how he would have answered the questions we would now like to ask.

So what authority does Jesus’ teaching have now and how do we apply it today?