John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Third Sunday of Lent – March 7, 2010

ISAIAH 55:1-9. Gracious, merciful acceptance by God for all who seek such a relationship stands out as the theme of these magnificently poetic lines. But God does not ignore human sin. God seeks human repentance, a meaningful change in one’s behaviour for this relationship to be effective. This is necessary, the prophet emphasizes, because of the distinction between our human ways and God’s ways.

PSALM 63:1-8. The longing of the human heart for a relationship with God gives this psalm an intense feeling personal devotion. It expresses an abiding trust and confidence in God fully dependent on God’s constant love and  protection.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:1-13. Paul draws on the story of the Israelites in the wilderness breaking their covenant with God to challenge the Corinthians to live differently than their morally and  spiritually corrupt society. The great benefit of the Christian life, he states in vs. 13, is not that they will be tested by their circumstances, but that God will not let them be tested beyond their strength to endure.

LUKE 13:1-9. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who later condemned Jesus to death, had murdered a group of worshipers as they offered sacrifices in the temple. Another group had been killed by a falling tower. As Messiah, Jesus used these incidents to call his fellow Jews to repent and believe in him. The parable of the fig tree confronted them with the prospect that there could be a limit to God’s forbearance.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

ISAIAH 55:1-9. If one wishes to know where Paul obtained his basic theological conception of the grace of God brought to its fullest expression in Jesus of Nazareth, one need look no further than this poem. Scholars generally agree that the superb poetry of Deutero-Isaiah’s (chs. 40-55) come to a natural close. All the themes identified in the opening poem in 40:1-11 as well as the major emphases of all subsequent oracles echo through this composition. The remainder the book (chs. 56-66) is believed to have been composed by others who followed his general themes and style.

Here is the consolation of Israel: forgiveness for individuals and community, Israel’s mission of reconciliation through suffering, a vision of universal salvation, a new exodus in the return of the exiles, the redemption of creation – all accomplished because Israel’s God, Yahweh, wills it so and will make it possible. Yahweh’s covenant promise is the vehicle through which this will be done.

Gracious, merciful acceptance by Yahweh for all who seek such a covenant relationship stands out in these magnificent lines. But Yahweh does not ignore human sin.  Yahweh seeks sincere human repentance, a meaningful change in human behavior, for this relationship to be effective. This is necessary, the prophet emphasizes, because of the distinction between our human ways and Yahweh’s ways.

Of special note is the emphasis placed upon listening intently for the word of Yahweh.  Throughout the OT and particularly in the prophets, “the word of the Lord” is the medium of revelation. In vss. 2-3 Yahweh bids Israel listen so that they may live. By this means Yahweh made known Yahweh’s will and purpose, especially for Israel as the chosen people. The content of the revelation Yahweh desires Israel to hear is the everlasting covenant. Beyond the mere hearing of the word, however, is the reason for the revelation and the covenant. Israel is to be a witness to the peoples of all nations. Despite many transgressions and failures to be what they had been called to be, Yahweh had not given up on them. Yahweh’s purpose would be accomplished even as the rain and snow make the soil fertile for a productive harvest (vs. 10-11) and the renewal of all creation (vs. 12-13).

For the authors of the NT and for Christians ever since, Jesus is the word come from God.  (John 1:1-18; Hebrews 1:1-4) As one Roman Catholic commentator on this passage said in traditional theological terms that Jesus did not return to God void but achieved the end for which he was sent:  to give expression to God’s infinite love and compassion, to enter into our humanity,  to show us how to live, to bring hope and salvation to all who walk in darkness.

What God intended for Israel, to be a witness to all peoples, God is now accomplishing through us still. “Each of us is a word of God, spoken only once at our creation, to give continuing expression to God’s love and compassion. What a blessing!   What a challenge!   We must achieve the end for which we were sent.  We will not return to God void. Yet with his word, Jesus, God has given us all that we need to achieve the end for which we were sent — if we but ask.” (From Maxine Shock, OP, Lenten Seeds. Heartland Center For Spirituality. (http://www.shalomplace.com)

For those seeking an emphasis on social justice so prevalent in the prophets of Israel, vss. 10-13 provide an excellent text for our own time. What is our personal, corporate and national environmental footprint in this day of global crisis? How shall we repent enough to make a difference for future generations to live as well as we have? What must we do to be saved? Repentance always means change.

PSALM 63:1-8. The longing of the human heart for a relationship with Yahweh gives this psalm an intense feeling  personal devotion. It expresses an abiding trust and confidence in Yahweh fully dependent on Yahweh’s constant love and protection. Even as it now stands in our English versions, it has been highly valued by countless generations.

Yet there are problems occasioned by a possible confusion in the order of the verses as they now stand. Scholarly examination of the original text suggests that vss. 6-8 should follow vss. 1-2. This transposition creates a typical lament. Distressed by hostile enemies, the devout soul seeks Yahweh’s presence in the sanctuary. There finding the spiritual resources for courage and confidence in Yahweh, the psalmist makes a vow to sing praises to God all his life. Initial despair leads to devotion which enriches faith and ends in praise.

While not included in this reading, vss. 9-11 seem to have little to do with the rest of the psalm and could have been added by another hand. Yet there is some reason to believe that the outburst of vindictiveness expressed in vs. 10 reflects the intensity of the psalmist’s spiritual struggle.

It may be helpful to read a modern paraphrase of the psalm like that by Jim Taylor in his Everyday Psalms. (Wood Lake Books, 1994). Jim entitles his paraphrase with the title “Holy Presence” and a question and answer: “Why do we need downtown churches? Because a few people still come there to seek sanctuary.” He then gives a moving testimony of someone seeking respite from the meaningless scurry of the contemporary rat race. In his Psalms/Now, (Concordia, 1973) Leslie F. Brandt depicts a thirsty child reaching for a drink as a metaphor of this psalmist reaching for and finding God.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:1-13. Paul was probably a much younger contemporary of Jesus, but did not meet him until his unique resurrection appearance to Paul on the Damascus Road. As a well-educated Pharisee of the Hellenistic Diaspora rather than a peasant Galilean, Paul may well have read the Hebrew scriptures in Greek and interpreted them within the context of his own generation and culture. Because Paul died before the destruction of the temple ending the first Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE, it would be interesting to speculate how Paul might have dealt with that event and the subsequent triumph of the Pharisees in Judaism. We may well have one such reaction by a Christian leader in the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews.

One of the characteristics of early Christian preaching and teaching, including that of Paul, was to use OT passages not merely as illustrations, but as the very basis for their instruction in the new faith tradition and the Christian way of life. In this passage Paul drew on the story of the Israelites in the wilderness breaking their covenant with God to challenge the Corinthians to live differently than their morally and spiritually corrupt society. But Paul was both honoring and condemning his ancestral traditions as he wrote to what may have been a predominantly Gentile Christian audience. He also likened the events of the Exodus led by Moses to the Christians’ experience of baptism and the eucharist. In vss. 3-4 he even identified the manna and the rock which Moses struck to obtain water with the spiritual food and drink of the sacraments.

But what was Paul really saying to his Corinthian friends? That receiving the Christian sacraments will not save them as the Exodus and the wilderness experience in themselves did not save the Israelites? The words “a some of them did” sound like a drumbeat through this passage. Because of the Israelites’ idolatry,  he claimed, most of those who fled Egypt died in the wilderness long before the remnant straggled into the Promised Land. Their wandering away from the way mandated by Yahweh, so they met their doom.  Adherence to ritual is no guarantee of being in right relationship with God. Living must correlate with liturgy.

Or was Paul confronting some other issue in Corinth? As a devout and learned Jew, Paul knew full well the traditional link between idolatry and sexual immorality which so frequently enticed his ancestors in the wilderness. Witness the brutal treatment of those who married Moabites and adopted the fertility god Baal of Peor described in Numbers 25:1-9.  Paul sternly warned the Corinthians that their sexual behavior could well have the same result, if for no other reason than that it is a common human failing (vss. 7-8, 11-12). The seaport city of Corinth was notorious for sexual promiscuity and licentious living. The Corinthians had something to learn from the experience of the Israelites.

At the same time, Paul did not leave them without a word of encouragement. The great benefit of the Christian life, he stated in vs. 13, is not that they will be tested by their circumstances, but that God will not let them be tested beyond their strength to endure. Here, as always in Paul’s declaration of the Christian way, the grace of God was operative, not simply human moral effort. One has to wonder if Paul would preach or write in a similar vein to our North American culture.

LUKE 13:1-9. Luke gives us a glimpse of the violent and hostile world in which Jesus lived. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who later condemned Jesus to death, had murdered a group of worshipers as they offered their sacrifices for the temple. Strangely, there is no other ancient record of this atrocity. Another group had been killed by a falling tower, part of Jerusalem’s fortifications  near the important water source, the  pool of Siloam and its reservoir. Such tragedies would naturally produce great fear among common people. In the simplistic conventions of the times, these incidents would have been used by religious leaders to warn the general populace that such events resulted from sin on the part of the victims.

Jesus explicitly refuted this simplistic traditional belief. Calamity can happen to anyone, sinner and righteous alike. As Messiah, Jesus used these incidents to call his fellow Jews to repent and believe in him. He foresaw disaster ahead for his people. Their only hope was to accept him for who he was and fulfill their historic mission of making God known to the world. In saying this, he clearly challenged the traditional view that the Jews held of their election as God’s covenant people. All Jews regarded this divine favor with great pride. They looked for a Messiah who would rout their oppressors and establish Israel’s worldly dominance. As the true Messiah come from God, Jesus had a quite different mission.  The parable of the fig tree confronted them with a last chance to recognize him and to respond to God’s mercy, or find that there is a limit to God’s forbearance.

What seems puzzling is why Luke inserted these teachings at this point in his narrative written for a Gentile audience.  There is every likelihood that Luke was reporting an oral tradition of words Jesus’ actually spoke. The parable of the fig tree has the sense of Jesus’ Galilean origins and his preference for rural vignettes like this. Or could Luke be interpreting for his audience 50 years later certain historical events of which they already knew well?

Pilate was recalled from his post in 36 CE after a similarly murderous act against Samaritans.  The fall of Jerusalem to Titus in 70 CE would still have been fresh in everyone’s mind when Luke wrote about 85 CE. As Paul did in his letter to the Corinthians, could Luke have been calling his audience to repentance and pleading with them to change their ways lest a similar fate befall them? To reject Jesus’ way was to put themselves in the same danger as the many victims of Roman oppression so extremely exemplified in the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. It was unnecessary for Luke to remind his audience that Jesus himself was a victim of Roman injustice.

In a fascinating little book drawn from a series of BBC radio broadcasts in 1946, historian Herbert Butterfield, of Cambridge University, made a case for his conviction that God allows humanity the freedom to commit enormous sins such as the two world wars and holocausts of the early 20th century. (Christianity and History, 1949.) Yet there is a sense, he claimed,  that these great atrocities are also the very acts by means of which Providence resets the course of history.  One can certainly read the OT stories of the Exodus and the Exile in Babylon in this light. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus can also be accounted for in this manner.

Indeed, it was Butterfield’s faith as a liberal Christian which motivated his study of the modern era as “providential.” From this approach, he drew the conclusion that the purpose of history is, from the personal point of view at least, to engage in doing what is right and good following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.  He ended his broadcasts with these words:

“The hardest strokes of heaven fall in history upon those who imagine that they can control things in a sovereign manner, as though they were kings of the earth, playing Providence not only for themselves but for the far future …. And it is a defect in such enthusiasts that they seem unwilling to leave everything to Providence, unwilling even to leave the future flexible, as one must do….

“It is agreeable to all the processes of history, therefore, that each of us should rather do the good that is straight under our noses. Those people work most wisely who seek to achieve good in their own small corner of the world and then leave the leaven to leaven the lump, than those who are forever thinking that life is vain unless one can act through the central government, carry legislation, achieve political power and do big things….

“We can do worse than remember a principle which both gives us a firm Rock and leaves us the maximum elasticity for our minds: the principle: Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted.”

Although Butterfield spoke more than 60 years ago, his words still have potent meaning for us. We live in a similarly violent time when our providential God may once again be intervening to reset the course of world history. Is that the meaning we may take from the end of the Cold War, the break up of the USSR, and the present struggles of the world’s wealthiest nations to overcome the current global recession? Does Haiti’s natural disaster resulting from the earthquake on January 12, 2010 give us the opportunity to respond to God and change our ways? Will we heed the warning or ignore it to our sorrow? Is the basic issue of our time not also a matter of how far we may test God’s forbearance?

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Second Sunday of Lent – February 28, 2010.

GENESIS 15:1-12, 17-18. The story of God making a covenant with Abraham formed an important link in the religious tradition of Israel. When later generations realized that they had an special relationship with God, they read this back into their ancient sagas of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

PSALM 27. This psalm originally existed as two separate psalms. Vss. 1-6 are a superb song of trust. Vss. 7-14 are a typical lament seeking God’s help in trouble. However it came about, the psalm still has great value as an expression of personal trust in God.

PHILIPPIANS 3:17-4:1. The Philippians struggled with a problem we also face every day: how to live as disciples of Jesus Christ in a hostile environment in which the majority of our neighbours do not share our convictions. Paul’s advice was to follow his example as he followed Christ in living in this world, but with totally different values to guide them: “In the world, but not of it.”  In 3:21 Paul refers to the hope of resurrection so that we shall not only be with Christ, but like him when he returns.

LUKE 13:31-35. Jesus rejected the advice of friendly Pharisees that he escape the imminent danger of Herod’s persecution. Knowing full well the risks it entailed, he had determined to end his challenge to Israel’s establishment only in Jerusalem. The pathos of his words about the holy city showed how much he cared about the ancient traditions of his people.

LUKE 9:28-36. (Alternate)   Some traditions celebrate the Transfiguration on this occasion. Please refer to the lessons listed for February 18 for an analysis of this lesson.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

GENESIS 15:1-12, 17-18. This story of how God made a covenant with Abraham may sound strange to our modern ears, but it formed a primary link in the religious tradition of Israel. It is important to remind our modern congregations that these patriarchal stories in Genesis are not history in the sense of being a factual record of actual events. Yet the truth they convey is valid nonetheless. It may help to briefly outline how oral tradition lay behind the biblical record.

The stories of the patriarch’s were tribal sagas passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.  When later generations committed these stories to writing they particular theological points of view about Israel’s special relationship with Yahweh. They also read these attitudes back into their ancient sagas of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The sagas took on new meaning and became an integral part of Israel’s religious heritage, eventually becoming part of their scriptures.

The problems Abram (not yet given his longer name Abraham – see ch. 17) faced and took up with Yahweh were those of an appropriate heir and a territory in which to live permanently. These were tribal issues.  In subsequent centuries when the story became part of a written document, it also became a national issue. In some respects they remain so to this day, religiously and politically.

Scholars debate which of the several documentary sources of the Pentateuch, J, E or D, lie behind this narrative. It is probably a composite redacted into final form after the Babylonian exile. There is little question, however, that the story has two parts: vss.1-6 deal with the promise of an heir; vss. 8-21 deal the promise of land. Vs. 7 links the two with the standard formula still used to justify Israel’s claim to the territory occupied since the 7th century CE by Palestinians of Arab descent and other ethnic backgrounds. It has been suggested that this connective was a post-Babylonian exile addition to offset the claim of foreigners who had migrated to or forcably settled in the land. The argument persists that temporary absence from the land did not abrogate the divine promise.

Vs. 6 contains a remarkable statement which the early Christian church, beginning with Paul adopted as the basis for the doctrine of justification by faith. (Rom. 4:3, 9. 22; Gal. 3:6) For the Deuteronomist redactors, this special relationship with God was obtained through obedience to the law (Deut. 6:25; 24:13). That the two parties would keep the covenant gave Israel the right to the land. On the other hand, it has been argued that the land created the special relationship rather than vice versa. Settlement in Canaan by the invading Israelites required the theological myth of the covenant promise to sustain their claim.

The performing of a sacrifice sealed the covenant (vss. 9-11) as a religious transaction. This shaped all subsequent OT narratives in which the Israelites claim to the land was in dispute. The myth provided the mandate for the conquest of Canaan after the Exodus as well as the return from exile in Babylon. In a sense, like Britain’s Magna Carta and the American Declaration of Independence for their nations, it formed the constitutional foundation on which ancient and modern Israel were established.

The mysterious fire pot and flaming torch moving among the pieces of sacrificed flesh symbolized the sacred character of the promise of eternal possession of the land (vs. 17). The extent of the territory named (vs. 18) far exceeded anything Israel actually controlled at any time. It included the whole of the Fertile Crescent from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers and on both sides of the Jordan River. This description was nothing short of an imaginative claim by an enthusiast for the the Davidic monarchy extinguished by the Babylonian exile.

PSALM 27. Because of the differences in style and focus, it is thought that this psalm originally existed as two separate psalms. Vss. 1-6 are a superb song of trust. Vss. 7-14 are a typical lament seeking Yahweh’s help in trouble. Both are believed to have been composed at a relatively late date after Israel’s return from exile in Babylon. However it came about, the psalm still has great
value as an expression of personal trust in God.

Vss. 4-5 lead to the conclusion that the first part came from the hand of someone whose duties required spending a considerable amount of time in the temple precincts. A Levite who served as a choir singer might well have been the poet. He certainly rejoiced in his art as well as his faith. Music has always played a significant role in public and private worship.

The latter part of the psalm has all the basic elements of a lament pleading for divine help in a desperate situation. Vss. 7-12 describe extremely dark circumstances when the psalmist could not look even to his parents for help (vs. 10). This may be no more than a proverbial way of expressing the depths of despair into which he had fallen. Although everyone had deserted him, he was still sure that Yahweh would come to his aid. He was determined to follow the path of holiness despite the attacks of his adversaries who spread false witness against him (vss. 11-12).

In the end, his faith was his only bulwark against disaster. So in a final exhortation he reassured himself that, come what may, Yahweh would be good to him. The conclusion (vs. 14) may be a liturgical formula similar to a benediction at the end of a worship service. Who knows how many saints of past generations have used it as their own source of comfort in lamentable straits?

PHILIPPIANS 3:17-4:1. As this passage shows, Paul had a very close relationship with the Philippian congregation.  None of his other letters express his love and concern for them in such intimate terms. This could well have been due to the story told in Acts 16 that it was in Philippi that Paul first made contact with a European community and founded the first European congregation there.

The Philippians struggled with a problem we also face every day: how to live as disciples of Jesus Christ in a hostile environment in which the majority of our neighbours do not share our convictions. He faced death on a daily basis, particularly so if, as many scholars have concluded, he wrote this letter from prison either in Rome or in Caesarea Maritima, on the east coast of the Mediterranean, while on his way to Rome (Acts 25-26).

Paul’s advice was that the Philippians follow his example as he had followed Christ in living in this world, but with totally different values to guide them: “In the world, but not of it.” In 3:21 Paul refers to the hope of resurrection so that we shall not only be with Christ, but like him when he returns. But what exactly did Paul mean by “being like Christ?”

Certainly, he did not mean it in a physical sense. Paul was su re that we would ultimately be transformed into something similar to the “body of Christ’s glory” (vs. 21). Nor did he know anything about the modern science of genetics and the recent description of the human genome. But even this latest scientific discovery raises many more questions than it answers. Geneticists are now saying that all humans are 99.9% alike in our genetic makeup and, as far as the number of genes we have, remarkably like the fruit fly which has been of such use to geneticists in their research. We also share a great number of genetic traits with the chimpanzees and other members of the anthropoid apes. Are we to conclude, therefore, that genetically speaking, Jesus’ humanity was almost identical with ours? That’s a theological conundrum, isn’t it?

As always, Paul was speaking in a metaphorical and spiritual sense. It is the essence of the gospel Paul and all NT authors proclaimed that the life we have in Christ is spiritual, created by the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift comes alive in us – and it is already there waiting to be enlivened – through our exercise of faith. It is most   effectively expressed in the love for God and others with which we learn to live day by day.

It saddened Paul greatly that many chose “to live as enemies of the cross of Christ” (vs. 18).  The essence of sin as he saw it was to continue to live in the spiritual   dysfunctional way of selfishness, greed, hate and pride that brought about the death of Jesus on the cross. A so much better way lay in the way Jesus himself had lived. That too was the way Paul himself had tried to live, however imperfectly, since his conversion on the Damascus Road. He had said as much in the paragraph  immediately preceding this passage.

Lent is a time when we may examine our lives, confess our sins and renew our commitment to live differently. While Paul knew nothing about Lent, which did not become common in the church for another millennium, this is the pattern Paul set before the Philippians and ourselves two millennia later.

LUKE 13:31-35. Jesus rejected the advice of friendly Pharisees that he escape the imminent danger of persecution by Herod Antipas. Knowing full well the risks it entailed, Jesus determined to end his challenge to Israel’s religious establishment only in Jerusalem, the city of God for which his heart ached.

In his book, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (Doubleday, 2000), Bruce Chilton gave a striking description of the ambivalence of many Pharisees toward Jesus. Chilton saw Jesus as an illiterate Galilean peasant rabbi who gathered about him a following of relatively humble folk who lived in the villages of Galilee rather than in fishing port of Capernaum or the larger centres of Roman culture like Sepphoris or Tiberias. The former city had been Herod Antipas’ capital, but in 21-25 CE he built and moved his center of government to Tiberias, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus may have been conscripted as indentured labor in Antipas’ enterprise.

Some of the Pharisees were quite sympathetic to Jesus because they felt he was defending the traditions of Moses against the onslaught of the hated Graeco-Roman cultural influences of the larger centers. Furthermore, according to Chilton, Jesus had been a close follower of John the Baptist whom Antipas had executed unjustly. Antipas would have done Jesus in too, if he could have done so without causing a rebellion in his Galilean domain. Jesus spurned him as a sly fox (vs. 32) knowing full well that Antipas feared Jesus’ power to command significant support among his fellow peasantry as well as the more sophisticated party of Pharisees. This tour of Galilean communities (vs. 27) was, in Chilton’s analysis, an effort to raise a large following of disciples to take with him to Jerusalem. Some of those to whom he appealed were Pharisees (vs. 31; 14:1), despite his frequent clash with them because of their sharp differences about dietary and sabbatical observances.

Acknowledging himself as a prophet (vs. 33), Jesus recognized that Jerusalem was the centre of all Jewish culture and religious tradition. He must go there; but he also realized what danger lay in wait for him (vs. 34). The Jewish establishment dominated all the political and economic power structures remaining in Jewish hands. The sacrificial rituals of the temple determined not only the keeping of the ancient covenant of Israel and Yahweh, but every aspect of the city’s life. Jesus’ desire to reform and simplify the whole system mandated that he take whatever risk going there might involve. Yet, like many of the great prophets before him, he knew that his mandate came from a higher authority, from Yahweh, Lord and God of all (vs. 35), who desired not great sacrifices, but profound obedience expressed in love.

If the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi and the Transfiguration confirmed Jesus as Messiah/Christ, this steady procession toward Jerusalem built the dramatic tension leading to the final confrontation between the old traditions and Jesus’ new way of living within the covenant between Israel and Yahweh. However we may read the story of the Passion of Christ, we cannot escape the strong element of Jesus’ conflict with the priestly establishment. To say so is not to be anti-Semitic, but to read the gospels as they were written several decades after the events they describe. The gospels were written to interpret with faith what the authors had learned from the traditions and teaching of those seen and heard what Jesus had done and said.

Christians and church congregations still face the threat of persecution today if faith is found  at odds with dominant authorities – religious or secular. The issue of gay rights divides many congregations and denominations. The woman to be elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA faced strong disapproval by some of her episcopal colleagues in Africa although elected to her post by a strong majority of her denomination.  In Canada, several Anglican congregations have declared their independence from the Anglican Church in Canada over the issue of ordaining homosexuals. A  progressive minister of a congregation of The United Church of Canada In Toronto has been widely condemned for declaring her personal doubts about the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Religious authorities frequently challenge secular officials and governments who seek to change a nation’s laws on abortion. Portugal is the latest country to experience such internal conflict during and after a plebiscite sought popular support to modernize the law.

Such examples show how vulnerable faithful Christians can be when their convictions conflict with those of civil and religious authority. Is this not the way of the cross that Jesus pioneered for us?

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
First Sunday of Lent – February 21, 2010

DEUTERONOMY 26:1-11. The offering of the first fruits of the harvest was one of the great festivals in Israel’s temple ritual. Though the story and the liturgy probably developed much later, in this passage Moses is said to have initiated the ritual as a commandment from God. The story lifts up the fundamental concept of stewardship: offering to God the first returns of our labour as an act of worship and thanksgiving, and as a symbol of the  dedication of ourselves and all our possessions to God.

PSALM 91:1-2, 9-16. This psalm proclaims the traditional faith that total dependence on God brings providential protection from evil. God does this graciously and mercifully because it is God’s nature to do so, not as a reward for good behaviour.

ROMANS 10:8b-13. Paul struggles to explain how both Jews and Gentiles can have a right relationship with God. For Jews it was by keeping of the commandments of God given through Moses. But that can only be done by faith in the lordship of Jesus Christ, Paul says to the Romans. Nothing else will suffice for either Jews or Gentiles.

LUKE 4:1-13. Immediately after his baptism, the Spirit led him into the wilderness for a time of prayer and fasting. The so-called temptations came to Jesus as inner reflections about how to do what he now perceived his divine mission to be. He could have chosen any of the three tempting ways: to satisfy his own needs by feeding himself and the crowds immediately; to gain supreme power by subjecting himself to evil; or to draw attention to himself by some spectacular performance. He rejected all three. His struggles with temptation had not ended. More were yet to come as he chose the way that led to the cross.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

DEUTERONOMY 26:1-11. The offering of the first fruits of the harvest was one of the great festivals in Israel’s temple ritual. As with most ancient festivals, the practice of dedicating the first sheaf of grain to be harvested to Yahweh had much earlier origins in the agricultural practices adopted by the Israelites when they left their pastoral life in the wilderness and settled down among the Canaanites.

An ancient taboo lay behind the offering, rooted in the concept of divine property rights. All created beings of any kind belonged to the deity and were therefore regarded as holy. Ps. 24:1 gives this concept explicit expression. Before being consumed by humans, all produce had to be “redeemed” for profane use. If this was not done, divine justice entailed retribution. The only way to resolve this problem was to give back to the deity the first part of the tabooed object, thus nullifying the deity’s prior property rights. Thus ancient Israelites dedicated the first fruits of the harvest to Yahweh. They similarly dedicated their first-born animals and gave special place of honour to their first-born sons.

Though the liturgical celebration of this festival probably developed much later, in this passage Moses is said to have initiated the ritual as a commandment from Yahweh. This passage is part of a major section of Deuteronomy (chs. 12-26) written as if Moses delivered the law on almost all aspects of the covenanted nation’s life as revealed by Yahweh on Sinai. It is an imaginative reconstruction dating from the late 7th century at the earliest, possibly six or seven hundred years after the assumed time of Moses.

For us, the passage lifts up the fundamental concept of stewardship: offering to God the first returns of our labour, now usually measured in monetary terms, as an act of worship and thanksgiving, and as a symbol of the dedication of ourselves and all our possessions to God. However we may make the dedication – by an offering presented during worship or by a pre-authorized remittance from our bank accounts – the meaning is the same. By this sacramental act, we are committing ourselves to live in God’s way. The temptation we all face is to short-change God by neglecting to make an offering commensurate with our means.

Another aspect of this sacred stewardship is gaining more and more popularity in the developed nations. Environmental stewardship means that we must make use of the gifts of God in the natural world for the benefit of all, but not abuse them only for personal consumption and so destroy the quality of life for all on this planet. Our greatest challenge is to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to satisfy our profligate habits. This is particularly difficult for us who have lived so long as if we are the dominant creatures to whom all nature is to be subjugated for our benefit (Gen. 1:29-30). With global warming causing great changes to the planet’s natural, interdependent systems, this is the time for us to reconsider our role and adopt a stringent stewardship of the planet’s resources as the only means to bring about a more balanced future for all humanity and our planet. Lent is a good time to begin practicing these personal disciplines as our part in environmental stewardshp. It  may mean giving up some of our profligate consumption and accepting higher standards for our lifestyle so that others who have little may have basic their needs met.

PSALM 91:1-2, 9-16. This psalm proclaims Israel’s traditional faith that total dependence on Yahweh brought providential protection from all evil. It may be claimed that the psalmist has little or no awareness of the complexity of the problem of evil. The perils of living in an imperfect world do not seem to worry him or detract from his absolute trust. This recalls Ps. 46 as a similar confession of trust.

The first two verses create some interesting images. Was the psalmist, possibly a Levite whose duty kept him close to the temple precincts, taking shelter from the blazing midsummer sun in the shadow of the temple? The massive structure communicated something of the mysterious omnipotence that so dominated the Israelite concept of the deity.

The word translated Almighty in vs. 2 also conjures up some ancient concepts of the divine being. The Hebrew word is shaddai, a name for Israel’s deity supposedly dating from the patriarchal period more than a thousand years before the 6th century BCE priestly document of the Pentateuch used it almost exclusively. The name referred to a mountain deity whose typical theophany was in a storm. The power of this god was not manifested in nature, but by protecting the family or tribe, upholding its social life and guiding its historical pilgrimage tot he Promised Land. This is the intent of its use in the context of this psalm. The name El Shaddai also appeared extensively in the Book of Job where it expressed the omnipotent majesty of deity, not surprising because that book probably also dates from the 6th century BCE or a little later.

It would appear that the psalm was chosen for the first Sunday of Lent because vss. 11-12 are quoted by Satan in tempting Jesus in Matthew 4:6 and Luke 4:10-11. On the other hand, we should interpret the devoutly expressed trust metaphorically rather than literally as Satan did. Jesus replied in such a way as to deflect such a literal interpretation by quoting another scripture text from Deuteronomy 6:16. Scripture texts so quoted may easily contradict one another.

The concluding vss. 14-16 give a different bent to the psalmist’s trust. The basis for it lies in the covenant love between Yahweh and Israel which extends to each individual Israelite. The RSV and NEB convey this better than the NRSV: “Because his love is set on me, I will deliver him; I will lift him beyond danger, for he knows me by my name.” (NEB) El Shaddai does this graciously and mercifully because it is his nature to do so, and it is in fulfillment of the covenant, not a reward for good behaviour.
This passage belongs to one of the major segments of Paul’s letter – chs. 9-11 – in which he struggled to explain how both Jews and Gentiles can have a right relationship with God through faith alone. His audience would appear to have been a predominantly Jewish community in Rome, so he was at pains to clarify the reasons for his Gentile mission and his attitude to the rejection of the gospel by many of his fellow Jews. In his classic Moffat New Testament Commentary (1932),  C.H. Dodd suggested that this section may even have stood alone, perhaps as a sermon, which Paul incorporated into his letter. If so, what a sermon!

ROMANS 10:8b-13. For Jews, Paul claimed, their relationship with God depended on keeping of the commandments of God given through Moses. He condemned his fellow Jews for their unenlightened ways. They had chosen a good end – relationship with God – but pursued it by the wrong means. He went on to claim that a true relationship with God could only be attained through faith in the lordship of Jesus Christ.  Nothing else would suffice for either Jews or Gentiles.

All through his Letter to the Romans, Paul quoted rather freely and literally (perhaps from memory) from the Greek Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. He was not much concerned, however, with the context of the passages he quotes. Vss. 6-8 refers to Deuteronomy 30:11-14. He simply tried to say that salvation in Christ is available to all and cannot be achieved by human effort. In vs. 11, he quoted from Isaiah 28:16; and in vs. 13 from Joel 2:32. His purpose was establish that Jesus is Lord and to reassure his predominantly Jewish audience that the sovereignty of Christ is not only effective for Jews and Gentiles alike, but was prefigured in the Jewish scriptures.

Thus Paul, a scholarly young rabbi before his conversion, pled his case before fellow Jews by drawing extensively on the sacred literature of his people. A glance at chs. 9-11 in the NSRV shows many of the quotations in poetic style and stand out on the pages. The quotation from Joel in vs. 13 refers to the Jewish conviction that when the end of the world came, those who called on the name of the Lord (i.e. Yahweh) would find safety in the kingdom of the Messiah. Paul merely transposed this verse to convince his now Judaeo-Christian audience as to how safe they were in accepting the fundamental creed that Jesus is Lord.

LUKE 4:1-13. This passage takes us back to the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Yet it was not the report of a single incident. S. MacLean Gilmour said that this is “a commentary on the entire course of Jesus’ ministry.”  Jesus must often have been tempted to prove the authenticity of his mission by displaying  miraculous powers and undertaking the role of a political Messiah.  (The Interpreter’s Bible, viii, 83).

The issue of power and how Jesus was to use it runs through the whole of the gospel story. His healing miracles were social dynamite to the astonished multitudes. They were an immediate threat to the religious authorities in Galilee, but especially in Judea and Jerusalem. Jesus constantly had to face the question of when and how to use the power of God in him. He became conscious of that power through the infusion of the Spirit at his baptism.

Immediately after his baptism, he retreated into the wilderness for a time of prayer and fasting. The so-called “temptations” came as a time of deep inner reflection about his baptismal experience and how to do what he now perceived his divine mission to be. All three gospels assert that it was the Spirit and not Satan which motivated him to withdraw for this time of contemplation.

But what exactly was this experience? Did it result from the intensely emotional spiritual insight of his baptism in which he totally and compassionately identified himself with the common folk despite being aware of his divine nature and mission? Was he hallucinating because of his lack of food and water? Had he discovered in a flash of insight that the root of the world’s suffering lies in the misuse of power?

Who but Jesus could have told the disciples and their successors in the Apostolic Church about his experience and its meaning for his ministry? Could this have been one of the things he told them after the resurrection? Or, could this be the gospel authors’ reflection on who this strange person in their midst really was and what his arrival in their Galilean villages meant for them and for future generations of believers?

Jesus – and by implication, the church which still represents him in the world – could have chosen any of the three tempting ways to tell what the story of his life, death and resurrection is really all about. First, he could satisfy his own needs by feeding  himself, thus immediately negating the very essence of his message to love God and others in every possible way. After all, human institutions exist because in some way or another they meet the needs of those who create them. The church is no exception as its attention to property and worldly possessions so obviously demonstrates.

Secondly, he had a choice of gaining immediate and supreme power by subjecting himself to the forces of evil. All through history, this has been the choice of the politically and economically powerful, as the devastating wars of the last century manifested so clearly. All too frequently the church has aided and abetted this power-seeking urge in dominant en and not a few women.

Jesus’ third option would draw attention to himself by a spectacular theatrical performance. How could anyone fail to recognize who he was if he did this? He rejected all three options. Or did he? It never ceases to amaze me that time and again, Jesus’ miraculous healings and other acts of mercy did exactly what the third temptation indicated he should not do. Perhaps it was just the way the gospels tell the story and the way the later kerygma of the apostolic church focused attention on this strange person. Nonetheless, the biblical narrative places him at its very centre and asks the eternal question, “Who do you say that I am?”

Nor were Jesus’ internal struggles ended with this incident so briefly reported by Luke. Many more were yet to come as he chose the way that led to his death by crucifixion in a relatively short time. His message that the kingdom of God was at hand, indeed had already arrived with him, continually created the problem of distinguishing between personal opportunism and the radically new ways he proposed to bring God’s sovereign love into all human relationships.

Christian history through the centuries demonstrates how much his followers failed to live up to his real intent. Sadly, we have not rejected the various options of continuing Jesus’ ministry in and to the world. This point needs to be made again and again in every community of faith. Meeting our own needs, the desire for and rewards of power have continually prevented us from doing as he did in laying down his life for those whom he loves.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Ash Wednesday, February 17, 2010

JOEL 2:1-2, 12-17. With the warning sound of trumpets, the prophet sounds the alarm that the fearsome Day of the Lord is at hand. There is still time to repent, though there may still be uncertainty that all the fasting a sacrifices will be sufficient to dissuade Yahweh from punishing wayward Israel.

ISAIAH 58:1-12 . (Alternate) Countering the popular displays of repentance by fasting, the prophet pleads that Israel’s returned exiles make justice their true form of repentance. Only then will the Lord restore their prosperity and rebuild their ruined cities.

PSALM 51:1-17. As the sub-title indicates, this classic psalm of repentance has traditionally been connected with David’s adultery with Bathsheba. Many scholars doubt this reference. It could just as well be read as the sincere expression of penitence by any sinner at any time.

2 CORINTHIANS 5:20b – 6:10. Paul quite rightly linked the Christian message of reconciliation with God to the ministry of every Christian. He cited plainly the many difficulties he had experienced in carrying out this ministry and the plethora of spiritual gifts he had been given to do it.

MATTHEW 6:1-6, 16-21. From the collection of sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount comes this insightful observation: The essence of true penitential prayer is to be found in its secretive quality. On the other hand, making a public display for self-centred reasons is the essence of hypocrisy.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

Liturgical and popular practices related to Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday and Lent developed relatively late in the history of the Christian Church. Even in the Roman Catholic tradition, these special days of penitence and spiritual renewal have been widely celebrated only since the year 1000. In recent years, many churches of the Protestant tradition, which rejected them almost totally at the time of the Reformation, have taken them up again. Liturgical practices of penitence, however, have a sound biblical background as the lessons assigned for Ash Wednesday clearly reveal.

JOEL 2:1-2, 12-17. Joel is one of the unknown prophets of the OT. Scholars have noted a close resemblance of his writings with those of the better known 8th century BCE prophet, Amos. Unlike Amos, he was concerned with worship of the temple, most likely the Second Temple of the post-exilic period. Many
scholars believe that his work dates from a relatively peaceful time during the late Persian period, ca. 400 BCE, when the leadership of Israel had, to a considerable extent, fallen to the high priesthood. Joel’s great hope lay in the restoration of the nation to its previously privileged role as the divinely chosen people. He couched this hope in strong apocalyptic terms recalling the declarations of earlier prophets.

With the warning sound of trumpets, the prophet sounds the alarm that the fearsome Day of the Lord is at hand. There is still time to repent, though there May still be uncertainty that all the fasting a sacrifices will be sufficient to dissuade Yahweh from punishing wayward Israel.

The emphasis on liturgical practices in vss. 12, 14 and 15-17 shows how deeply committed Joel was to the traditional ways of showing that penitence was real. On the other hand, vs. 13 contains the classic expression of the Israel’s faith in the divine qualities of grace, mercy, slowness to anger and abounding steadfast love.

ISAIAH 58:1-12. (Alternate) Countering the popular displays of repentance by fasting, the prophet pleads that Israel’s returned exiles make justice for the oppressed their true form of repentance. Only then will the Lord restore their prosperity and rebuild their ruined cities.

In vss. 1-5, after sounding a trumpet (shofar – a ram’s horn) to get the people’s attention, the prophet condemns in the most adamant terms the proffered symbols of repentance. Fasting in particular receives his vituperative censure. Coupled with this, he warns the people that this will not get Yahweh’s attention.

Beginning with vs. 6, he then goes on to delineate the kind of repentance Yahweh seeks: social justice for the oppressed, the homeless and the poor. Only this will receive Yahweh’s blessing and result in Yahweh’s gifts of prosperity thus enabling them to rebuild their ruined cities.

The historical allusions in this passage point to the decades immediately following the return of the exiles from Babylon. Impoverished and dispirited, they failed to recognize that true repentance had to be implemented by a sharing of limited resources. This could be read as a powerful message for our own time when globalization has created a still wider gap between rich and poor. Times like these call for an even greater commitment to social justice, not only within one nation but throughout the global village. Would it not be an appropriate measure of our repentance to increase our gifts to those less fortunate than ourselves – the Haitian disaster relief, for instance – than to “give up” anything else for Lent.

PSALM 51:1-17. As the sub-title indicates, this classic psalm of repentance has traditionally been connected with David’s adultery with Bathsheba. Many scholars doubt this reference, yet it finds persistent expression in many pulpits. The actual historical incident behind the psalm, if any, remains unknown. The final two verses omitted from this reading suggest a post-exilic date when ritual sacrifices would have been offered in the restored temple in Jerusalem. The earlier verses could just as well be read as the sincere expression of penitence by any sinner at any time. Indeed, many a despondent soul has found them helpful in saying what one’s own words cannot say. They open the penitent heart to God.

Many have found the words of vs. 5 very troublesome. The KJV appear to shift blame for one’s evil behaviour on to one’s parents, grandparents and beyond. This may be in keeping with the OT tradition voiced in Exodus 20:5 where “the iniquity of the fathers (is visited) upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate (Yahweh).” (See also Exodus 34:6-8; Number 14:17-19; Deuteronomy 5:8-10) While modern psychology may recognize that behaviour often has roots in family systems of long standing, that is not the import of more recent translations of the text. The NRSV wording, “I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me,” presents a paraphrase of the Hebrew, which definitely implies parental iniquity. Another view holds that the literal translation anticipates a later Jewish concept of evil inclination. We are all sinners alienated from God and never were anything else.

Many sins remain quite unknown to the sinner. It takes a deep examination of the soul to recognize that some things we do can never be sanctioned by God, although sinners are never beyond sanctification. “A clean heart and a right spirit” do come from an examination of one’s actual relationship with God and the acceptance of divine forgiveness. It results from the work of the Holy Spirit within us (vss. 10-11) and brings more than joy to the forgiven sinner. One remains a sinner, but now as a forgiven sinner one gains a mission. Not only do the sinner’s ways change, but one becomes a messenger of God’s grace for others.

Perhaps more than any other institution in the past century, Alcoholics Anonymous has fulfilled this mission in North American society through its twelve step program. Anyone who has shared in this mission even to a minor extent knows how sacrificial it can be. Vs.17 truly expresses the reward of the acceptable sacrifice. Was this not also what voiced in Romans 12:1-2 and again in the next passage assigned for Ash Wednesday?

2 CORINTHIANS 5:20b – 6:10. Paul quite rightly linked the Christian message of reconciliation with God to the ministry of every Christian. He cited plainly the many difficulties he had experienced in carrying out this ministry and the plethora of spiritual gifts he had been given to do it. Paul’s ministry began when he met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. We do not know the exact nature of the psychic experience of the encounter, but we do know what followed: a life totally dedicated to bringing the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike. Wherever he went, he became the perfect example of an ambassador for Christ.

This passage deals with the challenges of such a positive ministry in direct contrast to the negative aspects of Lent that we so often emphasize. The first step is to be reconciled to God oneself. That took a considerable length of time for Paul. It is not possible to discover his exact movements in those early years because the narrative of Acts 9:26-30 do not completely correspond to his own account in Galatians 1:17. In his Corinthians letters, Paul did make a strong case for the severity of his trials as an apostle. In 2 Cor. 6:4-5 he quickly summarizes some of these, but vss. 6-10 balances them with an even longer list of the gifts he had been given to overcome them.

One thinks immediately of 20th century heroes of faith such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela whose lives similarly exemplified what Paul saw as being an ambassador for Christ. It is not the worthiness of character or the depths of one’s penitence, but the spiritual gifts provided by the Holy Spirit that gives such men and women the power to be who they are. Moral authority springs from encountering Christ in what was for Paul and countless others since a life-changing experience that enabled them to change the history of the their own and subsequent times.

MATTHEW 6:1-6, 16-21. From the collection of sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount comes this insightful observation: The essence of true penitential prayer is to be found in its secretive quality. On the other hand, making a public display for self-centred reasons is the essence of hypocrisy.

Few of us have a memorable skill in prayer. Even those who practice silent, contemplative prayer often have difficulty concentrating for any length of time. The human mind is so easily distracted by what is happening around us. For this reason, the counsel Jesus gave in this excerpt could be useful to everyone who sincerely desires to experience the presence of God in prayer. He himself took time apart for personal spiritual renewal in prayer in quiet places apart from the crowds that constantly pressed around him.

Jesus was also saying that ostentatious piety, expressed either in the mellifluous words of prayer or the giving of substantial gifts to the poor, only affect one’s spiritual health in negative ways. Those who seek to do this for personal aggrandizement receive just that kind of reward. In the Hebrew language there was no word for what we call “alms.” In that tradition, however, generosity to the poor was both required and praised (e.g. Deut. 15:11; Job 29:11-16). In the Sermon on the Mount, piety and almsgiving are synonymous. Paul urged his communities to make special efforts to remember the poor. Without question, this must be one aspect of a sincere response to God, not the chief means of obtaining such a relationship.

In the second part of this reading, Jesus similarly discredited ostentatious fasting, although that too had been an ancient tradition in Israel. The great liturgical fast occurred on the Day of Atonement. It could be undertaken on other occasions too: in personal mourning, intercession or petition for Yahweh’s aid, or as a national act in the face of some calamity. Total abstinence from food indicated absolute dependence on and submission to Yahweh. As we saw in the reading from Isaiah 58 above, the prophetic view held that whatever moral value fasting might have should be enhanced by compassion for the poor and continual social justice.

It would appear that in Jesus time, despite there being a strong connection between fasting and prayer, the practice had become something of a fetish for the publicly pious. Is our use of ashes spotting the forehead a similar ostentation? Did Jesus direct the main thrust of this passage at the Pharisees in particular? Their meticulous attention to details of the law would have made them a prime target for his sarcasm. He directed his followers to do their fasting in private and with certain aspects of rejoicing. Unlike John the Baptist and the Pharisees, he did not urge them to be too strict about it. Primarily, he recognized it as a spiritual discipline.

Perhaps it was for this reason that the early church adopted the practice, especially in preparation for baptism. By the late 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem was counseling a forty day pre-baptismal fast prior to Easter, the traditional time for baptizing new catechumens. By the 5th century it had become the subject of discussion as having an apostolic origin. Rightly or wrongly, this was the probable origin of the later Lenten fast. It is not impossible that the general practice of a Lenten fast made a spiritual virtue of a real necessity. During the Early Middle Ages (aka Dark Ages) food production had fallen to such a low level as to force the reduction of food consumption during the late winter and early spring. Our English word Lent itself is no more than a Germanic word for spring when the hours of daylight lengthen.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
The Transfiguration – February 14, 2010
Last Sunday After Epiphany

EXODUS 34:29-35. This is an imaginative description of what might have happened after Moses came face to face with God. Moses had been in the very presence of God to receive the commandments. His brother Aaron and all the Israelites knew this because his face shone. This strange phenomenon symbolized that these commandments had come from God, not from Moses himself. The shining presence in God’s messenger represented the divine authority behind the commandments.

PSALM 99. This is the last of a series of psalms used in the temple ritual, which some scholars believe celebrated the enthronement of God as Israel’s ruler at the new year festival. It focuses on God’s justice and praises God for providential and merciful guidance throughout Israel’s history from the time of Moses onward.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:12-4:2. Because Paul had quite another purpose in mind, he reinterpreted the story of Moses covering his shining face with a veil. He declared that God’s authority comes not from the commandments Moses brought to the Israelites, but from the risen Christ who is now present with the church through the gift of the Spirit. So the church is able to speak truthfully and authoritatively for God as we proclaim the gospel.

LUKE 9:29-43. Luke tells of the transfiguration of Jesus with the same Old Testament lesson in mind to make the same point Paul made: Jesus represents God and God’s authority along with Moses and Elijah. The healing of the epileptic child proves that this is no pious hope, but a spiritual reality breaking in upon the natural scheme of things in a distressed world. Our troubled time needs to hear this hopeful message.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

EXODUS 34:29-35. The tendency of biblical scholarship since the beginning of historical-critical inquiry has been to dissect the whole of the Pentateuch, including the Book of Exodus, into source documents authored by unknown hands at different periods of Israel’s history and finally edited into a composite whole. This fragmentation detracted from what many scholars now see in the Book of Exodus: one of the foundational books of holy scripture, for Jews and Christians alike.

No one denies that the structure of Exodus is composite; but it also may be seen as a deliberately structured whole designed for a particular theological purpose. In chapters 33 and 34 this purpose becomes clear. In the renewal of the covenant and the presentation of a second set of stone tablets bearing Yahweh’s commandments, the presence of Yahweh among Yahweh’s chosen people is revealed in all its glory. This above all else, despite Israel’s persistent apostasy and the continued opposition of Israel’s enemies, formed the central point around which all subsequent Jewish history, ritual and faith revolved. This passage presents an imaginative description of what might have happened after Moses came face to face with God.

A tent where Moses met face to face with Yahweh (33:7-11) represented the divine shekinah, (usually described as “the radiant glory,” but literally, “the dwelling” or “that which dwells”). In the ensuing dialogue, Yahweh renewed the covenant with Israel based on mercy and grace, not on Israel’s obedience (34:6-7). In this lesson we have a description of how the people of Israel recognized that this had happened: the shekinah was reflected in the shining face of Moses. This strange phenomenon of the shining presence in Yahweh’s messenger symbolized that the commandments and the covenant of promise had come from Yahweh, not from Moses himself.

Much the same phenomenon is used today in democracies where laws are promulgated in the name of the nation as a whole. In Canada or the United Kingdom, the monarch is the symbolic representation of the nation. In the USA, the president fills this role. In ancient Israel, this representation embodied by Moses provided the nation with its unique identity as the chosen people. The commandments thus became the divinely mandated response to this special relationship and the ultimate authority in the daily life of Israel.

The issue confronting us in this text has to do with our authority for representing Jesus Christ and the living God in our daily lives. A growing number of people have turned to meditation as a means of reconnecting their lives with the divine authority they seek to practice. We owe much of the revival of this facet of our Christian tradition to our Roman Catholic ecumenical partners. A number of devotional websites have been created to assist those unfamiliar with this practice. These include such sites as the World Center for Christian Meditation http://www.wccm.org; Dr. Phil St. Romain’s Shalom Place: The Heartland Center for Spirituality, http://shalomplace.com; and Sacred Space accessible at http://sacredspace.ie/. Another helpful source for guided meditations is the book and CD, The Healing Oasis by Sharon Moon with Gary Sprague, composer and musician, issued by The United Church Publishing House in 1998. While these practices may not recreate for us the experience of the divine shekinah, they may in and of themselves be useful spiritual practices in our anxious age when we seem to have little or no control over our lives.

PSALM 99. According to some scholars, this is the last of a series of psalms used in the temple ritual, probably sung in two or more parts, to celebrate the enthronement of Yahweh as mythical sovereign of the universe as well as of Israel. Scholars have included Psalms 47; 93; 96-99 in this series. This ritual was thought to have been based on non-Jewish traditions adapted for use in Israel at the new year festival. Such celebrations are known to have been common in Babylonian, Ugarit and Moabite traditions. Other scholars dispute this interpretation and regard these as psalms for the sabbath rather than for the new year. On the other hand, they may reflect some specific but indeterminate historical situation. The data is insufficient to prove any of these points of view.

Most likely the psalm dates from the time of Zerubbabel at the end of the 6th century BC, when the temple was being rebuilt following the return of the exiles from Babylon. As several prophetic references indicate, there was an awakening of messianism during this period. (Haggai 2:2-9, 20-23; Zechariah 3:8; 4:8-11; 6:11-12.) Messianism and monarchy were inextricably linked in the theology of the later books of the OT and intertestamental literature.

As we have it now, the psalm celebrates Yahweh’s holiness and justice, and praises Yahweh for providential and merciful guidance throughout Israel’s history from the time of Moses onward. In vss. 6-7 there is a reference to Moses, Aaron and Samuel as priests representing the people before Yahweh and receiving from Yahweh the terms of the covenantal relationship as we have seen described in Exodus 33-34. This is no easy transaction based on special favour. Vs. 8 stipulates that it is the forgiving nature of God which maintains the relationship, while at the same time avenging Israel’s wrongdoings.

The psalm ends with a summons to worship in the sacred temple on the holy mountain of Jerusalem. In the television clips one sees of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, one can quickly discern the persistent sense of holiness and total identification which modern Israelis exhibit toward the site of the temple. I have been there and shared in the practice of praying at what is believed to be all that is left of the temple created by Herod the Great (37-4BCE). One feels a certain empathy for this attitude. Sadly, this same attitude is not extended to the magnificent Islamic mosques which tower over the site and which are just as sacred and worshipful to Moslems as the Western Wall is to Jews. Yet these holy sites have been the source of much anguish and conflict between Jews and Moslems for more than the past half century.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:12-4:2. One of the significant facets of biblical interpretation comes to the fore in this passage. Whatever its original meaning, a specific passage may be used by a later author/interpreter to make a point quite different from that intended by the original author. This was a common practice of NT authors as may seen from their frequent quotations from the only scriptures they knew, the Hebrew scriptures. Most likely they had before them the Greek translation of the Hebrew text composed in the 3rd century BCE by Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt. They freely reinterpreted their selected quotations to convey a message relevant to their own context without regard to the intent of the original passage. Their purpose was to proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as the long promised Messiah/Christ. Don’t we still do that all the time, often in polemical voice as Paul seems to have used here?

Behind this passage stands the OT lesson from Exodus 34. Paul refers directly to the time Moses covered his shining face with a veil. Because he has quite another purpose in mind, Paul saw in this story another interpretation of how the divine presence and truth are authoritatively expressed. Throughout chs. 2 & 3 Paul has been expounding the validity of his apostleship. His confidence in doing so, he claims, is dependent on the superiority of the new covenant he and other apostles preach. He makes a rather negative reference to the shekinah reflected in Moses’ face (vs.7) which is now fading because the old covenant is being set aside. That old covenant simply condemned the Israelites, it did not save them, he claims. Now, however, the new covenant justifies believers; it establishes a right relationship with God which the old covenant failed to do. He goes so far as to liken the veil over Moses’ shining face to the veil he claims lies over the minds of the people of Israel because they refuse to believe in Christ.

This may sound to us supersessionalist, if not blatantly anti-Semitic; and so it has been interpreted. Let’s not deny it as many Christians still do so to the extent of excluding faithful Jews as “the people of God.” (See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) One of the reasons Paul was so fiercely opposed by his fellow Jews was their belief that he had abandoned the sacred tradition that Israel alone was God’s chosen people. In fact, Paul was trying to say that the old covenant was not wrong, but that it was incomplete. It was but one step along the way to the full revelation of God’s nature and God’s saving love as Jesus Christ had made this known. How do we feel when radical Christian interpreters (e.g. Bishop John Spong) declare that our present understanding of the orthodox Christian tradition is just as incomplete?

The metaphor of the veil covering Moses face and so veiling the minds of believers from the truth in Christ plays an unusually large place in this passage. William Barclay had some interesting insights about this veil and how it still may affect us through prejudice, wishful thinking, fragmentary thinking, disobedience or an unteachable spirit.

Paul goes on to declare that the relationship of Christians in Corinth with God and God’s authority in their lives comes not from the commandments of Moses, but from the risen Christ who is now present with the church through the gift of the Spirit. So the church is able to speak truthfully and authoritatively for God as it proclaims the gospel. What is more, now that they (and by inference, we also) behold the presence of God fully revealed in Jesus Christ and the Spirit, we are being transformed into his likeness. This transformation is not effected by us, but by the Spirit of Jesus Christ himself.

LUKE 9:29-43. Who really knows exactly what Transfiguration means? The word itself translates the well-known Greek term, metamorphoo (English = metamorphose). One is compelled to ask not what it means, but if it really happened. Since the 2nd century CE it has been the subject of much speculative interpretation. Was it, as 2 Peter claims a verification of the Second Coming (2 Pet. 1:16-18)? Was it a misplaced tradition of a post-resurrection appearance to Peter, James and John? Was it, as Matthew 17:9 declared, a vision? Was it a kerygmatic story created by the apostolic church to teach that the messiahship of Jesus was supported by the law and the prophets?

Writing for a Gentile faith community living in a different context, Luke drew on the same Old Testament lesson from Exodus 34 as Paul had in writing to the Corinthians. He wanted to make the same point Paul made, but he said it in a very different way without the polemical attitude Paul voiced. He told this story to point out that Jesus is the one who represents the divine presence in the world and possesses divine authority and power to save. But Luke did not see Jesus as abrogating the old covenant in the same way many believe Paul had done. Along with Matthew (5:17), he saw Jesus as fulfilling the covenant witnessed to by both Moses, as representative of the original covenanted community of Israel, and Elijah, the representative of the whole prophetic witness throughout Israel’s faith history.

What is more, Luke tied this symbolic experience, so vividly recalled by the apostolic community represented by Peter, James and John, to the mission of the apostolic church in the real world where human sickness and distress abounded. The healing of the epileptic child proved that the divine presence and redeeming grace which the church proclaimed is no pious hope, but a spiritual reality breaking in upon the natural, chaotic state of a diseased and distressed world. This interpretation of the Transfiguration, recalling as it does the transfiguration of Moses and the prophetic witness to God as sovereign Lord of Israel’s faith and history, seems far more relevant to our times than Paul’s tortured polemic.

On the other hand, we must also recall that Paul and Luke had quite different purposes in mind. Paul wrote a personal communication to one of the congregations he had founded and which suffered from a serious crisis of disunity. The conflict raging in Corinth, perhaps between Jews and Gentiles as in Galatia, had not only divided the community, but threatened to destroy the very work Paul had so patiently carried out there. Paul would be of all people most surprised to find that his letter was now “holy scripture.” Luke wrote to convince a leader of the Gentile community, or a wider audience of both Jews and Gentiles, that the Christian faith was no threat to peace and welfare of the Graeco-Roman world in which they were living, but indeed its only hope for survival.

If one prefers to regard this as a credible, historical event in the life of Jesus, one must see it for what it meant to him as much as to the apostles. It confirmed Jesus in his mission and prepared him for the difficult trials that lay ahead. To quote D. M. Beck in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (iv.687): “Luke places more emphasis on Jesus, who, facing death, found in prayer the support with him of great spiritual leaders and especially God who chose him for the way of suffering, death and resurrection.” That may well have been all that Luke sought to do.