John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURES
Fourth Sunday of Lent – March 14, 2010

JOSHUA 5:9-12. Throughout their forty year journey through the wilderness from Egypt to the promised land of Canaan, the Israelites had been provided for by God’s gift of manna. Now that they had entered the land, they recalled their escape from Egypt as usual by celebrating the festival of the  Passover. This time they used the produce of Canaan to make their unleavened bread. On that same day, the gift of manna ended.

PSALM 32. The relation of sickness to sin was common to all people in ancient times. This psalm reflects that attitude. While we no longer accept such limited view of sickness, we may still reflect the penitence with which every sinner approaches God and trusts in God’s forgiveness.

2 CORINTHIANS 5:16-21. This most significant of all of Paul’s interpretations of the meaning of Christ’s life, death and resurrection contains three key words: reconciliation, the world, and ambassadors. In this instance, reconciliation meant a renewed relationship with God established through Christ. The world referred to the whole of creation, not just our planet Earth. An ambassador represented and interpreted his/her country in a foreign land.

Paul believed that because we have been given a new relationship with God through Christ, we are now God’s representatives in the world, and perhaps also the universe, which God has destined for re-creation through love.

LUKE 15:11-32. The parable of the lost son welcomed home by his forgiving father tells the whole gospel of God’s reconciling love in Jesus Christ in short story form. But what of the elder brother? Did he ever become reconciled?

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

JOSHUA 5:9-12. Whether a natural product or not, manna was deemed to be a gift from Yahweh to the Israelites in the wilderness of Sin (Exodus 16). It is now believed to have been the carbohydrate excretions of an insect which fed on the sap of the tamarisk bush. Rich in sugars and pectin, even a large amount would have been insufficient to supply the need for food. Thus, it must be assumed that it is symbolic rather than materialistic, in somewhat the same way as we now regard the bread of the Eucharist. (Cf. John 6:31-35) In this story it symbolized that throughout their forty year journey through the wilderness from Egypt to the promised land of Canaan, the Israelites had been provided for by Yahweh.

Now that they had entered the promised land, they recalled their escape from Egypt as usual by celebrating the annual festival of the Passover. This time they used the produce of Canaan to make their unleavened bread. On that same day, the gift of manna ended.

Of course, this may have been due to the changing flora and fauna of the Israelites new homeland. According to Christian monks who lived in the Sinai in early Christian times, manna was available for about three to six weeks in June and July. The quantity depended on the rainfall of the previous winter.  It appeared on the tamarisk in small deposits about the size of pea. A good worker could collect about a half a kilogram a day, not much to survive on. Faith interprets actuality according to its own spiritual insights.

From a religious point of view, the point of the story is that when we reach the end of one set of resources, God makes others available. Devoted Christians have been able to survive under extreme circumstances with such faith. Victor Frankl, the Austrian psychotherapist who survived three years in a Nazi concentration camp, discovered that the one essential to survival was a sense of meaning. Faith that God is with us in life, in death and in life beyond death is an existentialist creed to which countless believers can witness. It gives sustaining meaning to the most disastrous events.

This may be especially true for parents whose children are born with unexpected disabilities or incurable genetic diseases. The same may be true for those in middle age whose parents suffer from various forms of late life dementia. If there is such a thing as surd evil – something so evil as to have no explanation or meaning whatsoever – only faith that God is with us and loves us regardless of all possible circumstances can help us to survive. That is the only way we can make sense of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

PSALM 32. The relation of sickness to sin was common to all people in ancient times. This penitential psalm reflects that attitude. While we no longer accept such limited view of sickness, we may still reflect the penitence with which every sinner may approach God and trust in God’s forgiveness.

In its original form, the psalm had the didactic character of Wisdom literature which points to a late date. Yet there is a refreshingly frank honesty about it that speaks to any age. There is no hiding one’s sin from God and no self-deceit about one’s wrongdoing. In this day and age, a good deal of human illness can still be traced to deliberate sin. Sexually transmitted diseases, illnesses caused by excessive alcohol consumption, compulsions for certain foods, hyperactivity or deliberate inactivity that results in mental or physical breakdown could be included in that category.

The psalmist’s illness is not clearly described, although there does appear to have been both a wasting of the body, weakness and considerable pain (vss. 3-4). Nonetheless, as vss. 1-2 suggest, he still has memories of healthier times which he interpreted as a genuine blessing. How many times have we heard people say that they are grateful to be blessed with good health? Does anyone ever express gratitude for ill health? Or persistent, incurable pain?

Whatever his illness, the psalmist recognizes his affliction as an opportunity to draw nearer to Yahweh through prayers of confession and expressions of trust (vss. 5-7). There is even a touch of ironic humor in vs. 9 where the stubbornness of a sick man is likened to an unruly horse or mule which must be controlled with a bit and bridle. This may have been ancient proverb, but the psalmist may also have been speaking from experience. The letter of James the Apostle makes use of the same metaphor in James 3:2-3.

Like all Wisdom literature, the contrast between the wicked and the righteous is clearly stated in the closing couplet. While we may question the cause and effect relationship between righteousness and health, the psalmist never doubts that his trust in Yahweh’s steadfast love will be rewarded with rejoicing. That is an ageless emphasis we too should not forget. It could be the only way to live through devastating illness that can never be cured. This is the trust that God will be with us come what may.

2 CORINTHIANS 5:16-21. This is perhaps the most significant of all of Paul’s interpretations of the meaning of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. The passage contains three key words: reconciliation, the world (literally in Greek cosmos), and ambassadors.

Reconciliation was undoubtedly one of Paul’s favorite words.  In one form or another, it occurs five times over in this single paragraph. Obviously it expressed so completely his own spiritual experience.  In this instance, it meant a renewed relationship with God established through Christ’s life, death and resurrection. As one who had tried so zealously as a Pharisee and failed to achieve a fully satisfying relationship with God, he was overwhelmed by the realization that he now had “friendship with God” through Christ Jesus. This was like being “a new creature” or, in the terms of John’s Gospel, “born again.” By the gracious gift of God in Christ, he – and we – now possess the right relationship God desires to have with us.

In the New English Bible (1970) vs. 15 immediately preceding this passage, we find the key to how reconciliation can be experienced day by day: “His purpose in dying for all was that men, while still in this life, should cease to live for themselves, and should live for him who for their sake died and was raised to life.”

The Greek word kosmos occurs 46 times in the Pauline corpus. For Paul it may well have meant  no more than the inhabited world around him, but it could also have represented the universe or the whole of creation. Even more likely is the possibility that Paul saw the cosmos as that which was in total enmity with God, the locus of  human  rebellion and alienation from God, and the place where humanity is under the domination of evil. It was to remove this alienation and hostility and to break the power of sin and evil enslaving humanity that Christ had died.

An ambassador represented and interpreted his/her country in a foreign land. It was an ancient a honorable profession even in Paul’s time, as it still is. Every country has its ambassadors in other nations’ capital cities. Paul believed that because we have been given a new relationship with God through Christ, we are now God’s representatives in the world which God has destined for re-creation.

The representative view of the atonement has been given strong theological support in the work of such theologians as Douglas John Hall in the third volume of his trilogy, Confessing The Faith: A Christian Theology In The North American Context. (Fortress Press, 1996).  Hall’s view of social justice and Christian stewardship follows directly from this position. As God’s representatives in the world endowed with the Spirit that was in Christ who overcame the dominance of human selfishness, we are to manage the world’s resources and environment for the benefit of all humanity.

In the divine economy, everyone is a shareholder with the Creator. Never was there a time in recent years when this insight was more valuable. With natural disasters, millions starving and the gap between rich and poor ever widening, sharing in love for one’s neighbour has never been more necessary in obedience to God.

LUKE 15:11-32. The parable of the long lost son welcomed home by his forgiving father tells the whole gospel of God’s reconciling love in Jesus Christ in short story form. We tend to give the story the popular title of “The Prodigal Son.” But the story is really about the father, not one or other of his two sons.

An unusual interpretation to this story has been given in a book by Professor Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. (Doubleday, 2000) Chilton posits the thesis that this is an autobiographical parable. He infers from scant evidence that Jesus was never accepted in Nazareth because of his uncertain parentage. He had a falling out with his family after Joseph’s death and left home to become one of the disciples of John the Baptizer. Only after John had been imprisoned and executed several years later did he return home to Nazareth where he was warmly received by Mary, but not by James. Being Joseph’s eldest son by a previous marriage, as Chilton claims, James was both older than Jesus by several years and head of the family. Chilton recognizes that there is little actual evidence for such a story. Even if highly speculative, it does add an additional dimension of realism to the parable.

It may be tempting to interpret the parable allegorically, as if each element represented a different aspect of our human experience of sin, reconciliation and resistant pride. As such, it could represent the dual mission of the apostolic church to Jews and Gentiles. In that light, the young brother may represent the Gentiles accepted by the early church, but not by traditional Jews. The elder brother could be regarded as representative of Israel’s resistance to Jesus, the Messiah. However, this advances our understanding no further than Chilton’s speculations.

Jesus’ parables were intended to convey only one core message. In this case, the lost son is reconciled and restored by the father’s gracious, forgiving love. It is the story of God’s covenant love that desires to reconcile the world to our relationship with God. But the story is unfinished. The elder brother is left to make up his own mind whether or not to join in the celebrations. A unique Bible study question might be for the participants to consider what they might do if they had been the elder brother.

The late Al Forrest, one time editor of The United Church Observer, visited with a Lebanese Christian scholar who interpreted the story as his people read it. What the father did in dividing the family’s resources, then later celebrating the younger son’s return, was an outrageously wasteful and careless deed. The elder brother who would normally inherit the estate had every right to be angered and to take steps to protect the family’s livelihood by regarding the old man as senile. The real profligate was the father, not the younger son. It would be absolutely unprecedented and unconscionable to forgive and renew the broken relationship in this way.

Yet this is how grace functions in God’s realm. Would that Arabs and Israelis might recognize that this is the way their common deity views the geopolitical dilemma in which history has imprisoned them!

There is an old Scottish tale of a son who fought with his father about church-going and left home in stubborn, self-willed anger. For many months he wandered hither and yon living like the typical prodigal. At last in a city he happened on an outdoor preacher telling the story of this parable. The lad listened intently and when the preacher narrated how the father had received his runaway son, he cried out, “Yon’s a fine auld man. I’d tak’ a lang die’s tramp to see the lum reek in my father’s cotte.” (Translate: That’s a fine old man. I’d take a long day’s walk to see the chimney smoke in my father’s cottage.”) And he set off for home.

But the parable does not have an altogether happy ending, does it? Despite the father’s reiteration of his forgiveness for his younger son, the elder brother is not so generous. Is there not also a deep truth there? Not everyone is pleased to see the sinner repent or accept God’s gracious and forgiving love. Those who claim “to hate the sin, but love the sinner,” or insist that sinners repent before being forgiven, may have more work to do on their understanding of God’s grace. God’s reconciling love is what theologians used to call “prevenient grace.” It precedes our need for it. As Paul discovered and told the Romans in his letter to them, (Romans 32:23) God loves and has forgiven us even while we are still sinners.

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.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Fifth Sunday after Epiphany
Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time
February 7, 2010

ISAIAH 6:1-13. Here we have another classic example of a prophet called to a special ministry. As the smoke of the morning sacrifice wafted through the temple, Isaiah had a vision and heard an angelic voice praising the holiness of God. He then realized his own and his fellow Israelites’ unworthiness before God. One of the angelic beings touched his lips with a live coal, thus cleansing him to speak. Isaiah heard the voice of God calling for a messenger and he responded. But the message God gave him to deliver was one of unmitigated judgment.

PSALM 138. Unlike most of the psalms, this hymn of thanksgiving by an individual is thought to be from a small “Davidic collection.” (Psalms 138-145.) This meant that it was ascribed to King David rather than being composed by him. It expresses gratitude for God’s blessing as well as trust in God’s love and purpose.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11. In this passage beginning his great confession of the resurrection, Paul states as simply as possible what he had learned from the apostles. He had met some of them – notably Peter (Cephas) and James – in Jerusalem when he returned there some time after his conversion. First, he concentrated on the facts he had been told. Could this summary have been what the apostles in the earliest Christian community were teaching in the first years after the resurrection? Then he too makes his claim as “the least of the apostles” and reiterates his dependence on God’s grace for that.

LUKE 5:1-11. Behind the gospels as we now have them, there was a long tradition of stories about Jesus’ teaching and miracles repeated by word of mouth before being put into written form. Toward the end of the 1st century CE Luke gave a much more elaborate story than either Mark or Matthew. He connects this story of a miraculous catch of fish with the calling of the first disciples. John tells it as one of Jesus’ resurrection appearances (John 21). Taken together, the tradition represents a promise of the ultimate success of the apostolic mission.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

ISAIAH 6:1-13. Here we have another classic example of a prophet called to a special ministry. My OT professor, the late Rev. Dr. R.B.Y Scott, made this passage the starting point for his lectures on prophecy. He had written a highly regarded book, The Relevance of the Prophets, and at the time he was lecturing to us at McGill in 1948, he was writing the introduction and exegesis of Isaiah 1-39 for The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 5. His analysis of this passage in this latter volume is a valuable contribution to the understanding of prophetic visions and oracles.

The ancient temple in Jerusalem faced east. The daily sacrifice was offered as the sun rose over the horizon formed by the Mount of Olives. Rays from the rising sun flooded into the temple through its great doors causing its burnished gold and copper accouterments to shine gloriously. As the smoke of the morning sacrifice wafted through the temple, Isaiah, saw a vision and heard angelic voices praising the holiness of God.

Isaiah was possibly a cousin and certainly a courtier of King Uzziah, who had just died. Uzziah’s reign was one of the longest of the kings of Judah, 783-742 BCE. In his last years he suffered from leprosy and was replaced by his son Jotham as regent. This was also the time when Assyrian power was on the rise throughout ancient Mesopotamia and the wider Middle East. Uzziah’s reign included an expansion into both Philistine territory to the west that controlled trade routes to Egypt and Edom, to the south where there were valuable trade routes to Arabia. As the prophecies of Amos and Micah also reveal, this was a very prosperous period in the nation’s history.

In this passage Isaiah was in mourning and went into the temple, as was his wont, to offer a lament. As he worshiped in the familiar surroundings, he sensed the divine presence in a dramatic new way. God, of course, is invisible; yet Isaiah did have such a vision. Or was it just the hem of God’s robe and the attending seraphim, which represented the divine presence to him? Quickly afterward, Isaiah recognized his own unworthiness before God and that of his fellow Judeans. The experience overwhelmed him. That he should become the prophet to proclaim God’s judgment on his nation’s moral and spiritual decay was furthest from his imagination. Great revelations come to faithful men and women in the midst of the mundane experiences of life.

In Isaiah’s vision, one of the angelic beings touched his lips with a live coal from the altar, thus cleansing him to speak for God. He heard the voice of God calling for a messenger and he responded, “Here am I, send me.” But the message God gave him to deliver was one of unmitigated judgment. It must have been a fear-filled experience. To be called to speak God’s judgment against his own people would have frightened the most courageous of men or women in that day of woeful events as is in ours. One only has to hear or see to the attack ads created for contemporary political campaigns to realize how much the prophet exposes him or herself to community ridicule.

Yet there are men and women willing to present the divine alternatives to our petty human machinations of history. The people are the ground-breakers for new advances in faith and witness to the purposes of God in the world. It was so for Isaiah, who with Amos and Micah in the late 8th century BCE set forth a vision of divine justice and righteousness which remains as convincing for us as it was for them. These elements of Israelite prophecy had close affinity to the actual events of that time when the great empires of Assyria and Egypt were in conflict. Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judea itself was constantly threatened with invasion and the imposition of foreign religious practices.

PSALM 138. Unlike most of the psalms, this hymn of thanksgiving by an individual is thought to be from a small “Davidic collection.” (Psalms 138-145.) This meant that it was ascribed to King David rather than being composed by him.

There are some twenty such hymns of thanksgiving by individuals preserved in the religious literature of Israel. Isaiah 38:10-20 and Jonah 2:2-9 are examples found in the OT. The apocryphal books of Ecclessiasticus (Sirach), the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon contain others.

Like most others, this psalm is from a post-exilic date. The absence of any thanksgiving sacrifice points to an unusual level of spiritual development rarely found except in some of the prophetic literature which condemned the temple sacrifices. Or it may date from a time before the reconstruction of the temple when the normal sacrifices could not be celebrated. It also reflects a universalism echoing that of Second Isaiah (vss. 4-6) for earthly kings are said to worship God as do the humble; and God does not despise their praise. The psalm ends with an declaration of trust in God’s love and purpose. Vs. 8 certainly provides a very preachable text.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11. Paul states as simply as possible what he had learned from the apostles whom he met in Jerusalem when he returned there some time after his conversion. This probably occurred less than a decade after the resurrection. Some scholars believe it may have been no more than a year or two. Could this have been an early Christian creed? It summarizes what the apostles were teaching in those first years after that momentous event when the apostolic church was feeling the full flush of its new faith.

One point stands out in Paul’s repetition of this statement of faith. To him, the resurrection was something experienced by those few who had seen and spoken with the risen Christ. It was also Paul’s firm conviction that the same risen Lord had appeared to him on the Damascus Road. The ambiguity between faith and fact remains with the Christian community to this day. Faith does not attempt to be factual. Rather it expresses a spiritual interpretation of deep and often inexplicable psychic experiences. It uses the language of image, symbol and metaphor to describe what persons of faith have experienced amid the ebb and flow of ordinary events which a reporter or historian might well record differently as observed facts or strange myths.

The resurrection experience symbolized for Paul and the other apostles that Jesus Christ, who had been executed as a criminal, was very much alive. Death had not conquered him; he had conquered death and was now with them in spirit. There were still many living in Paul’s time who could testify to this experience. The reference to the risen Christ’s appearance to five hundred people may be an alternate reminiscence of Pentecost as that event had been told to Paul by the apostolic community.

Quite possibly Paul was the first to connect the death of Christ to the ancient Israelite tradition that sin could be forgiven by the shedding of blood. This belief had its roots in the ancient practices of offering sacrifices to the deity common to all ancient religious traditions. In some traditions human sacrifice had also been quite commonly practiced. Even in Israel as late as the 7th century BCE reign of Manasseh (ca. 687-642 BCE) there had been evidence of this. Among the Jews, animal sacrifice in lieu of human sacrifice was related closely to the celebration of the both Passover and Yom Kippur. In this context Paul interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus as a self-offering which had a similar effect of dealing with the human problem of sin and alienation from God.

Note too that Paul adds himself as “the least of the apostles.” One view of the narrative in Acts presents Paul and Peter as rivals for leadership of the Gentile mission. In Galatians and here, Paul gives some basis for this hypothesis. He numbers himself among the apostles, though with self-deprecating diminution. He goes on to reiterate his total dependence on God’s grace for his status and gives his fellow apostles credit where credit is due. They all share the resurrection faith which is the heart of the gospel for us as well.

LUKE 5:1-11. (Author’s note: This passage is also covered in a new blog posted here: http://studiesinluke.blogspot.com. Look on the list to the left for #7 – Calling The First Disciples. The content of this blog introduced a Bible study with a group of seniors at Glen Abbey United Church, Oakville,ON, Canada.)

Luke tells this story of a miraculous catch of fish in connection with the calling of the first disciples. His version is much more elaborate than the brief accounts of Mark and Matthew. John tells it as one of Jesus’ resurrection appearances (John 21). Behind the gospels as we now have them, there was a long tradition of stories about Jesus’ teaching and miracles repeated by word of mouth before being put into written form. Assuming that all versions referred to the same event, which some commentators doubt, they speak to the future mission of the apostolic church. It appears to be a promise of ultimate success though not without long and difficult toil on the part of the disciple community.

At first, the ekklesia (i.e. the apostolic church) meant simply a group of Jews of humble origins, many of them unlettered and poverty stricken, who had responded to the preaching of Jesus and believed in his resurrection. Then as now, fishing was not always a lucrative occupation, but one which required much skill and patience, hard work and long hours. These men were partners in a small business in which they had invested their whole lives. Catching and marketing of fresh fish, a major food in Galilee at the time, was not always a profitable trade. In that climate, the fish would have to be caught during the night and sold in the marketplace within a few hours. Often the results were disappointing. However, this story is told for its metaphorical significance rather than as a factual vignette of the harsh life of the Galilean fisherman.

Luke has a way of weaving the whole tradition into his story as he tells it. His audience was two generations removed from the events he narrates and unfamiliar with the places in which those events occurred. So he did not have to be concerned about chronological order. His intent was primarily evangelical. For instance, he has Peter call Jesus first “Master,” then “Lord.” Those are titles which Luke reserves for disciples. Non-disciples used the term, “Teacher.” The title “Lord” appears in Luke twenty-one times; twelve of them in pericopes peculiar to Luke. It can be argued that here Luke was thinking in post-resurrection terms when the apostles had fully realized that Jesus was the Messiah for whom such a title was appropriate. As has been pointed out many times, the original creed of the apostolic church was the simple statement, “Jesus is Lord.”

So also Peter’s confession of sinfulness in his plea that Jesus depart from him is appropriate to a post-resurrection attitude. It reiterates the gospel call to repentance as the antecedent to Christian discipleship. Luke had emphasized this as the message John the Baptist had preached (3:1-20) and which Peter had also proclaimed in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:38. It may also have some reference to Peter’s denial of Jesus in the court of the house of Caiaphas (22:54-60).

The late Professor G. B. Caird pointed to Jesus’ choice of these “hard-working but intensely loyal men, ever aware of their own shortcomings, as those whom he needed to carry the gospel into the world.” Does not the present evangelistic environment call for a disciple community of similarly dedicated, loyal and hard-working persons? Certainly not those who may lay claim to moral perfection or spiritual greatness would not fit the requirements. Caird’s analysis of this passage is a valuable contribution to the understanding of how prophetic visions and oracles affect us: “On Simon at least the impact he made was a profoundly moral one, resulting in a sense of sin. It was not the miracle that brought him to his knees but the grandeur of sheer goodness.” (Caird, G.B. Saint Luke. The Pelican New Testament Commentary, 1965.)

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Year C
Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time
January 31, 2010

JEREMIAH 1:4-10. This is a classic example of the call to a prophet for his special mission. The young Jeremiah is summoned by the direct intervention of God in his life. The divine message revealed that God had intended this role for Jeremiah from before his birth. God not only called, but also equipped the prophet for his vocation by reassuring him and by “touching his mouth” to give him effective powers of speech. The prophet would need all of these gifts because his task was to pronounce God’s judgment in a difficult religious and political situation in Israel at the end of the 7th century BC.

PSALM 71:1-6. The psalmist makes several urgent appeals to God for deliverance from unnamed enemies. Throughout his prayer, he prefaces his appeals by confessing his trust in God as his only refuge and hope.

1 CORINTHIANS 13: 1-13. Paul’s hymn to love remains one of the great pieces of poetry in any language. It has universal application – from marriage and family life to all forms of human relationships. Yet there is a firmness about it that denies all sentimentality. It goes straight to the heart of the problems of human communication and issues that drive us apart.

For those who doubt that this approach to life can be effective, Paul has a special word of counsel. This is how mature people relate to each other. There is no other way to settle disputes such as those he had encountered among the disciples in Corinth.

LUKE 4:21-30. By telling the audience in his home town that they are witnessing the inauguration of the new age of God’s rule in all of life, Jesus challenged his hearers to believe in him. They ran him out of town. Wouldn’t we still do so? Don’t we, though perhaps in more subtle ways?

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

JEREMIAH 1:4-10. How does God call someone to be God’s spokesperson? Is it always a direct vocal summons such that heard by as Moses, or Samuel, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah – a mystical experience which comes to very few? Or is there sometimes a less dramatic way: a still, small voice within; or a gentle suggestion from a friend; or an inner desire expressed in a wordless prayer of commitment and a deep, reassuring confirmation that this is what God also desires? God has as many ways of calling as there are those whom God has chosen to lead.

This passage tells of a classic example of the direct call to a prophet for his special mission. As the prophet himself reported the experience, Yahweh intervened in the life of the young Jeremiah with a summons. “The word of the Lord came to me saying, ….” (vs.4) The divine message revealed that Yahweh had intended this role for Jeremiah from before his birth. Although Jeremiah felt predestined, he also felt unsuited for the vocation to which Yahweh had called him. That too is a common reaction to what must have been a very intense experience.

For anyone who has had a similar experience, Jeremiah’s protests have a familiar ring to them. We all can think of every conceivable reason not to accept such a call. He didn’t know how to speak. He was too young. These days, we might say, “I am too old.” Or “I am too busy raising my family.” Or “I am too busy saving for my retirement. Actually, he was afraid. And so are we. That was what Yahweh reassured him about most (vs. 8).

Yahweh not only called, but also equipped Jeremiah for his vocation. He received promises that Yahweh would give him the words to utter and to be with him whenever he was commanded to speak (vss.7-8). He would become “the mouthpiece of the Almighty,” as William Sanday described the prophet’s vocation. Then Yahweh acted to ordain him by “touching his mouth,” thus giving him effective powers of speech. Isaiah had a similar experience (Isa. 6:5-6) Be warned, however, vocation and ordination today do not guarantee effectiveness in preaching.

The prophet would need all of these gifts because his task was to pronounce God’s judgment, not only on Israel but on other nations too. His mission had much wider implications, both negative and positive. It reached beyond Israel to the nations (vs.10). This happened in a time of great disruption when the power of the great Assyrian empire had declined to the point where it was in its death throes. The kingdom of Judah had been ruled by Manasseh (697 ? or 687-642), a vassal of Assyria. He had been the longest reigning and the most reviled monarch, according to the Deuteronomists, because of his love for syncretist religious practices. Idols and worship of foreign gods had been introduced into Judea and Jerusalem rivaling and corrupting the worship of Yahweh. Vassal states like Babylon and Media quickly filled the political vacuum left by the decline of the Assyrian empire.

It is thought that Jeremiah’s ministry began the very year in which Assurbanipal, the last of the Assyrian emperors (669-627 BCE) died. That could well have been the incident which occasioned his call. From this brief discussion of historical events, we may conclude that the details of vs.10 were written after the fact, reflecting what had already taken place.

Jeremiah’s active ministry is thought to have extended over the next 40 years to 586 BCE. In that year Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and a great many of the leaders of Israel were marched away to exile. Jeremiah was not among them, but was carried away to Egypt by a group of refugees. However, some scholars doubt that his ministry began before 612 or 609 BCE because there is a gap of some 20 years in biographical information. This is so despite the fact that no other prophetic book includes so much biographical data. Some regard the date of 627 BCE as the time of his birth, which gives poignancy to his protest about his youth in vs.6.

PSALM 71:1-6. In some respects, this psalm does not conform to the traditional style of a lament with its sequence of appeal, complaint, petition and vow of thanksgiving, such as we find in Ps. 56. Here we have a sick, fearful and depressed old man (vss. 9, 18) who appears to have reached the end of his resources. He feels that God has all but deserted him. He makes several urgent appeals to God for deliverance from unnamed enemies. Yet, throughout his prayer, he prefaces his appeals by confessing his trust in God as his only refuge and hope (vs. 3).

We must conclude that the psalm was composed at relatively late date. It draws on material found in other parts of the Psalter: vss. 1-3 = 31:1-3a; vs. 6 = 22:10, etc. Be that as it may, the psalm still expresses the intensive search of the lonely and distressed soul for the assurance and hope of a living relationship with God in the utmost extremities of life.

Could this not also be the prayer of those who even now endure unexpected natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis? And what of those many millions who flee for their lives in terror caused by war only to face starvation and death in refugee camps? Are there not also many single parent families or elderly people, ill, alone and threatened with being forced out of their homes because no one cares about them and governments have withdrawn support for the most vulnerable of this richest society ever in human history? The profound sense of justice implicit is so much of Hebrew prophetic literature comes to the fore in this psalmist’s lament.

1 CORINTHIANS 13: 1-13. Paul’s hymn to love remains one of the great pieces of poetry in any language. It has universal application – from marriage and family life to all forms of human relationships, individual and corporate. Yet there is a firmness about it that denies all sentimentality.

This love is more than words or even noble, sacrificial actions (vss.1-3). It goes straight to the heart of the problems of human communication and the fractious habits that drive us apart: impatience, unkindness, envy, boasting, arrogance, rudeness, selfishness, irritability, resentment, deliberate wrongdoing, deceit and dishonesty (vss. 4-7). Paul declares his unequivocal conviction that love can overcome all of these human failings common to us all. This should surely still form an important element of every marriage ceremony and the heart of every pre-marital interview for couples asking the church to bless their union. Conflict resolution programs never had a better means of achieving success than following these few verses.

For those who doubt that this approach to life can be effective, Paul has a special word of counsel: this is how mature people relate to each other. (vss. 8-12) There is no other way to settle disputes such as those he had encountered among the disciples in Corinth. Why not in our homes, our towns, our country and our world too?

Enthralling as this poem may be, Paul wrote explicitly to the Corinthian disciple community – and to us in our context right now. Some may feel that while this may be the ideal formula for life in the Shalom of God, it is not very practical for life in the real world. If we are disciples of Jesus Christ, if we are indeed “his body,” then this is the way we are to live here and now. This is the way he lived in the real world, costly though it was. This is what the cross means: Love that lays down its life for the world through every-day human relationships.

The Greek word translated “love” throughout this passage is agapé. Many treatises have been written comparing this word to other Greek words all translated into English as “love.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible has a nine page article on this word entitled “Love in the NT.” It was written by a man I knew well and who more than once tested my love for him as a teacher and colleague in ministry, the late Professor George Johnston, one-time professor of NT at Emmanuel College, Toronto, then later at United Theological College and McGill University, Montreal. He concluded his exhaustive study by saying that this love had taken a human face in Jesus of Nazareth and had spoken by a human voice to and for all the scattered children of God. “Love had reached down from God to man, that man might rise up to enjoy life in God forever.” Acerbic though he was in his criticism of less than adequate scholarship, Prof. Johnson has a genuine pastoral care for his students which exemplified the word love.

LUKE 4:21-30. So what does one say after one has told the audience in one’s home town that they are witnessing the inauguration of the new age of God’s rule in all of life through all the world? The message Deutero-Isaiah had delivered was simple, “Your God reigns.” Jesus had come to implement that reign of God in his home town, among his own people.

The initial reaction to Jesus in Nazareth was quite favourable. Patronizing too. “Fine fellow, that boy. Joseph the carpenter’s son, isn’t he? His widowed mother must be proud of him. He’ll go far.”

That wasn’t good enough for Jesus. He knew they hadn’t really heard him at all. He would have none of it. So he made them listen by challenging his hometown audience to believe in him and his mission to the world. He had not come home to do miracles like they had heard of him performing in Capernaum a few kilometres down the road by the Sea of Galilee. And he wasn’t there to make them think well of him; or to make them feel good as the preferred and privileged people, good Israelites all. Like Elijah and Elisha, he had come to minister to outsiders too.

Here Luke, ever mindful of his Gentile audience, lets his universalism stand out clearly. G.B. Caird wrote in his study of Luke’s Gospel: “The stories of Elijah and Elisha should, indeed, have taught them that with God charity begins wherever there is found human need to call it forth and faith to receive it, irrespective of class or race.” (Caird, G.B. Saint Luke. The Pelican New Testament Commentaries, 1963.) As Luke presents him, Jesus had a much wider vision than the Jewish community in the small mountain village in Galilee from which he had come.

George Santayana once said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. After a century of the most destructive conflicts ever based on ideological rivalries between competing empires, we have entered a new century with the prospect of ethnic and religious conflicts within many smaller nations. Our 24-hour television news broadcasts feature violence and death occurring wherever the far-ranging eye of a television camera will reach. The problem is that when we see these tragic events, we fail to recognize that our own attitudes toward those who are “not like us” are being deeply challenged. For example, whenever we ask someone who has a skin colour different from ours, “Where do you come from?” we expose our own racial prejudices. Or when we tell a joke that pigeon-holes people because of their particular accent or country of origin, we express the narrowness of our own minds.

That is exactly what happened when Jesus recalled the stories about the widow of Sidon and Naaman the Syrian. Both of them weren’t even Israelites, but had been ministered to by two of Israel’s great prophets. “Open your eyes!” Jesus was saying to his neighbours in Nazareth. “The world is bigger than you imagine. The God you claim to believe in is far too small. God doesn’t just favour Israelites like you and me. God’s love extends to those who are most vulnerable, the most oppressed, the outsiders, the most in need.”

My friend, Jim Taylor, wrote in his Soft Edges column on the Internet: “Canadians have been more subtle about our prejudices. We’re only now coming to realize the second class status accorded to our aboriginal peoples. And our immigrants. Our women. Our elderly…. Racism’s roots lie in one group’s conviction of God-given superiority over another group, simply by belonging to that group. By extension, any member of the dominant group can feel superior to any member of the victim group.”

Whether it was the way he said it or the unspoken implications of what Jesus said, the good citizens of Nazareth were enraged. They ran him out of town. Wouldn’t we still do so? Don’t we, though perhaps in more subtle ways?

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Third Sunday After Epiphany
Third Sunday in Ordinary Time
January 24, 2010

NEHEMIAH 8:1-10. The passage tells how Ezra the scribe read the law to the assembled populace after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt. This reconstruction had taken place under the leadership of Nehemiah, the Jewish cupbearer of King Artaxerxes I of Persia, who had been appointed governor of Jerusalem and Judea in the mid-5th century BC. The point of the story is that, as in the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:4, great and good work is to be followed by sincere, committed worship.

PSALM 19. This originally existed as two separate psalms, but at some point were combined as one in an exquisite poem. The composite celebrates the wonder of God’s creation and the spiritual value of true devotion to God and obedience to God’s law.

1 CORINTHIANS 12:12-31a. Paul’s image of the disciple community as the body of the risen Christ has stood the test of time. It still speaks with power to our generation. Of less significance for us is the list of offices and functions which he enumerates. His purpose in doing so is to illustrate how the various gifts he had found among the Corinthian disciples could work together harmoniously when each person fulfilled his or her function for the good of the whole community. He moved from this powerful metaphor to show how this could be done through the best gift of all – love.

LUKE 4:14-21. It was the custom in the Jewish synagogues of the 1st century to ask a visiting rabbi to teach from the scriptures. After making an initial tour of Galilee, Jesus went to worship on the sabbath. He was asked to read and interpret a passage of scripture. He chose or was assigned a passage from Isaiah 61 which was to become the model for his ministry. Then he declared to the congregation that this prophecy was being fulfilled in their hearing.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS. (The RCL recommends omitting vss. 4 & 7 with their lists of names from the lesson.) Until the time of Origen in the 3rd century, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were regarded as a unity. They are now again considered as a composite whole edited from earlier sources and memoirs of the two men under whose diligent guidance the walls of Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt and Israelite law re-established as the guiding principles of late post-exilic life. Most scholars accept that the Chronicler was responsible for the final form of the two books in the 4th century BC. This occurred about a century later than the main events of the reconstruction period in the 5th century BC.

NEHEMIAH 8:1-10. In Ezra 7-10 there is a memoir written in the first person. Similarly in Nehemiah 1-7:5 there is another memoir in the first person. These undoubtedly existed at the time when the editor did his work. The present passage (and the following three chapters, may also be part of the memoir by Ezra which some scholars believe to have been displaced from its original location between Ezra 8 and 9.

This passage tells how Ezra the scribe read the law to the assembled populace after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt. This reconstruction had taken place under the leadership of Nehemiah, the Jewish cupbearer of King Artaxerxes I of Persia, who had been appointed governor of Jerusalem and Judea in the mid-5th century BC. One of the scholarly puzzles is why nowhere in the two complete narratives do the two community leaders, Ezra, the scribe, and Nehemiah, the governor, ever meet.

This event recalls a similar event two centuries earlier when King Josiah commanded that the rediscovered book of the covenant law to be read before the assembled elders of Judah and Jerusalem. (See 2 Chronicles 34:29-32) The reading of the Torah had great influence on succeeding generations, and still has to this day in the Jewish tradition, just as the reading of scripture in the Christian tradition. Like Christianity, however, how one hears the law and interprets its relevance for the present is always a matter of strong debate and frequently open conflict. Of special note in this passage is the statement about interpreting what had been read.

The actual reading during worship may omit two verses which name members of the community present for the occasion. The best explanation for this omission is that the names are virtually unpronounceable for the ordinary reader unfamiliar with Hebrew. The names are not significant, but the role these people played is. They were interpreters who helped the audience understand what they had heard. It is possible that the scrolls of the law were written in a language – Hebrew – that was unknown to most of the audience, who spoke only Babylonian Aramaic.

The role of the rabbi in the Jewish tradition and of the preacher in our own Christian tradition is to do likewise. Naturally, diverse interpretations could be given, leading to a heterogeneous understanding and application of the same law. Jesus himself also appears to have played a similar role in his disputes with the scribes and Pharisees. The same is true today in Judaism as it is in Christianity. For instance, do the laws relating to liturgy, property, sexuality or murder have the same authority today as they had in the time of Nehemiah or Josiah? And whose interpretation has primacy? Out of such differences denominationalism arose in every religious tradition.

PSALM 19. This originally existed as two separate psalms, vss. 1-6 and vss. 7-14. Differences in style, poetic grace and points of view indicate dual authorship. At some
point they were combined, perhaps by the author of the second part, in an exquisite poem extolling the virtue of devotion to God and obedience to God’s law as of equal spiritual value as wonder at the majesty of God’s creation. This could be a great text for an sermon on the holiness of the global environmental.

In the earlier part of the psalm, there are references to ancient myths about the sun long popular in Egypt and Babylon. But, though making use of such ideas, the psalmist stops short of describing the sun as divine, preferring instead a metaphorical allusion. The thinking of Pythogoras about the music of the spheres may also lie behind the poem. In his attempt to discern the basic principle of the universe, that 6th century Greek Philosopher proposed that numbers determined the harmonies of music, the proportions of architecture, the movements of the sun, moon and stars, and the harmony of the spheres. It is entirely possible that some such cross-cultural influence gave this deeply religious psalmist concepts which he transposed into theological language.

In the second part of the psalm, the author carefully observes the rules of Hebrew poetry. The law is represented by six different synonyms paired with one another through parallelism: law – testimony; precepts – commandments; fear – ordinances. However, these have more meaning to the psalmist than mere synonyms. They are means of grace instructing and warning the devoted Israelite of what God requires of the pious believer.

The psalm, probably from the same period as Ezra, the scribe (ca. 450 BCE), ends with a prayer that the worshiper may be preserved from sin and live worthily of his calling as a covenanted soul. For him, the law is no burdensome yoke, but a source of moral strength. Many Jewish people today hold a similar point of view. So do many Christians finding strength and inspiration in Jesus’ invitation in Matt. 11:28-30.

1 CORINTHIANS 12:12-31A. Paul’s image of the disciple community as the body of the risen Christ has stood the test of time. It still speaks with power to many in speaking across the centuries to every generation. Of less significance for us is the list of offices and functions which he enumerates in vss. 27-30. It is impossible to discern whether these were actual offices in the Corinthian community or merely the functions performed at different times by the same leading members like himself. Compare this list also with the shorter one in Ephesians 4:11 which may represent a later development in the leadership structure of the Christian community.

Read the passage with a touch of levity and see if Paul isn’t tweaking his Corinthian converts for their childish behaviour as they squabble about who has the more important gift. One could even create a skit around the parts of the body using paper costumes to represent each organ. A youth group might be enlisted to provide an amusing but thought provoking “sermon” for this Sunday. It might be especially useful for a service that included or was followed by an annual vestry or congregational meeting.

The apostle wanted to illustrate how the various gifts he had discerned among the Corinthian disciples could work together harmoniously if each person fulfilled his or her function for the good of the whole community. He moved on from this powerful metaphor to show how this could be done through the best gift of all – love.

The passage can be interpreted in a wider context than a local congregation or even a denomination. It would make sense to use it for a service celebrating the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. In a year when democratic elections will probably take place in several countries, it could help to focus what is meant by the phrase “the public good.” James Madison, the Virginia-born champion of religious freedom and fourth president of the United States, may have been the first to popularize the idea of public good as distinct from private rights. He emphasized the importance of protecting both in his Federalist Paper, no. 10 written in 1787. That concept has not been popular in the corridors of power in recent decades. Instead private initiative and enterprise in every aspect of life have been given most attention. Yet the concept of public good is as old as the oracles of the Old Testament prophet Amos. That prophet was speaking of what God wills for all of humanity in the 8th century BCE.

In this passage about the gifts of each person, the apostle Paul made a similar call for each member of the Christian fellowship to be concerned for every other member. What is more, there can be no other approach to living in the real world of globalization and universal communication. The whole Body of Christ can now be interpreted universally as the whole of humanity as is implied in the later letters of Ephesians and Colossians attributed to Paul. As retired Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote in his recent book, Eternal Life: A New Vision Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell:
“The goal of all religion is not to prepare us to enter the next life; it is a call to live now, to love now, to be now and in that way to taste what it means to be part of a life that is eternal, a love that is barrier-free and the being of a fully self-conscious humanity.”

LUKE 4:14-21. It was the custom in the Jewish synagogues of the 1st century to ask a visiting rabbi to teach from the scriptures. After making an initial tour of Galilee, Jesus went to worship on the sabbath. He was asked or was assigned a passage of scripture to read and interpret. As we shall see in next week’s gospel lesson, his interpretation was not what his audience wanted to hear!

Michael Steinhauser made a significant point in an Internet seminar on The Man In The Scarlet Robe by pointing out that although there were at least two major Roman-Hellenist cities in Galilee, Tiberias and Sepphoris, there is no mention in any of the gospels that Jesus entered either of these, but remained in “the surrounding country” (vs.14). Recent archeological discoveries have revealed that there was a significant Jewish population in Sephhoris, scarcely five miles from Nazareth. One can assume that the same was true for Tiberius when Herod Antipas moved his seat of government to that city which he built on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus was more of a village preacher than a Hellenistic cynic or an eminent rabbi from Jerusalem. Yet he was certainly being heard by the common people if not by the religious authorities.

Or was this just Luke’s way of lifting up Jesus’ appeal to the common people in contrast to the later opposition of the authorities? Did he have in mind the community for whom he was writing rather than the curious and disbelieving Nazarenes?

Jesus chose a passage from Isaiah 61 – or it was the assigned reading for the day – which was to become the model for his ministry. Then he declared to the congregation that this prophecy was being fulfilled in their hearing. From this dominical mission, the present disciple community has discerned God’s “preferential option for the poor” and the cause of social justice for the most vulnerable in our society.

In recent years we have seen this mission exemplified in the enthusiastic response by countless ordinary people and scientists of high repute to environmental crises around the world. Despite the lack of cooperation from some of the largest and wealthiest countries several governments adopted the Kyoto Treaty as national policy. Others, like that of my own country, adopted the Kyoto Treaty but subsequently ignored what it had agreed to do. For lack of political will the environment still deteriorates and the climate changes more rapidly year after year.

Again, at the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen some governments, like the Canadian, for instance, appear to have withdrawn more and more from their role of developing realistic programs for bringing about a more tolerable protection of the environment and a more equitable sharing of the world’s limited resources. It becomes more important to drive the industrial and commercial systems that increase wealth to the wealthiest than to bring equity and justice those who most needed. The chief motivation of the most powerful is to compete for control of these resources so that as little change as possible in the lifestyle of the wealthier parts of the world will be necessary. One has to wonder what Jesus would say to us if he were to be asked to preach in our community.

-30-

INTRODUCTION OF THE SCRIPTURE
SECOND SUNDAY AFTER EPIPHANY
JANUARY 17, 2010

ISAIAH 62:1-5. The return of the exiles and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is the constant theme of Second-Isaiah, as scholars have named the unknown poet-prophet of Israel’s exile in Babylon. He either composed or inspired his disciples to write the poetry now contained in Isaiah 40-66.

This is part of the last of a trilogy of poems in Isaiah 60-62 emphasizing the promised return and reconstruction resulting from Israel’s special relationship with God. Vss. 4-5 of this passage likens this relationship to a renewed marriage covenant. This special, intimate relationship with God motivates much of the tenacity of many Jews have for the modern state of Israel today.

PSALM 36:5-10. The steadfast love of God for Israel and for the whole of creation brings praise to the lips of the faithful and a prayer that this love with continue for “the upright of heart.”

1 CORINTHIANS 12:1-11. Paul had many difficulties teaching the new converts in Corinth just what it meant to believe in Jesus as Lord and follow his way of life. A major disagreement had arisen as to which of the gifts of the Spirit were the more important. Here Paul points out that all gifts come from the same Spirit of God, serve different purposes in the Christian community, and yet contribute to the common good. The issue still has relevance for our modern congregations. Each member may have a different role to play depending on his or her particular talents.

JOHN 2:1-11. John’s Gospel took its shape from a series of signs revealing Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, and Saviour of the world. This miracle story described the first of these signs. Some regard it as the moment of Jesus’ revelation of himself to his own family and to those who knew him.

The marriage feast at Cana symbolized that the messianic age had begun. The changing of water for ritual purification to wine for the marriage feast indicated that Jesus would reinterpret Jewish religious tradition for the new age he inaugurated.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

ISAIAH 62:1-5. The themes of return of the exiles from Babylon and the rebuilding of Jerusalem resound through all the writings of Second-Isaiah, as scholars have named the unknown poet-prophet of Israel’s exile in Babylon. Much of the latter part of the Book of Isaiah (chs. 40-66) are believed to have come either from him or from a coterie of his disciples, sometimes called Third-Isaiah in scholarly circles. This brief passage joyfully reiterates this promise of return and reconstruction.

 The trilogy of poems in Isaiah 60-62, of which this excerpt formed the last part, emphasized the promised return and reconstruction resulting from Israel’s special relationship with God. This stands out in vs. 1 where the prophet, speaking for Yahweh, declares Yahweh’s passion as the initiator of this historic event. This further divine action in Israel’s faith-history occurred so that Israel might fulfill its divinely appointed mission. Vs. 2 clarifies this special role among the nations as ordained by Yahweh. The returning exiles will receive a new name indicative of a renewed relationship with Yahweh in accord with Yahweh’s eternal purpose. Since names in the prophetic tradition had special significance and tended to define the nominee’s character and purpose, the giving of a new name was, in effect, a confirmation of this purpose. (Cf. Gen. 32:28; Is. 7:3; 9:6, etc.)

The mission was to be messianic in the monarchical rather than a salvatory sense, as “the crown of beauty … a royal diadem” in vs. 3 states. The image is that of Israel as the crown in the hand of Yahweh, sovereign of the nation, in much the same way that the image of a protective patron deity of ancient cities crowned the city walls.

Vss. 4-5 introduce a different image, likening the relationship of Yahweh and Israel to a renewed marriage covenant. (cf. Hosea 2 and similar metaphors in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.) Though all the names in Hebrew in this passage ended in ‘AH,’ (or YAH) representing Yahweh, the new relationship was represented by the new names Hephzibah, “My delight is in her,” and Beulah, “Married.” These names revealed Yahweh’s love for Israel above all other nations. There may even have been undertones of the pagan sexual relationship with deity found in other traditions of this period.

The passage has relevance for the current crisis in the Middle East. The special, intimate relationship with God motivates much of the tenacity many Jews have for the modern state of Israel today. Yet it has to be admitted that most people, even in Israel itself where a majority are non-religious Jews, do not share a similar view. History is rarely kind to religious ideologies. Is democratic idealism always the will of God for every nation?

The issue in the Holy Land today has become one of a geopolitical conflict between a strong religious nationalism and the rights of Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs moved aggressively into a vacuum left by the decline of Roman and Byzantine empires. But most Jews had been driven out of the land to become a global diaspora long before that. Twentieth century geopolitics recreated and has sustained Israel as a viable state. Both Arabs and Jews now claim the right to live where their ancestors settled long ago. After more than six decades this conflict still festers as both parties often function as pawns in much larger geopolitical struggles.

Christian churches have not helped by taking one side or the other in this conflict. Most have been motivated by differing theological stances. Even when one believes fervently in God as Lord of history, events in the world are always the result of human interaction, rarely motivated by profound discernment of God’s will and purpose. On the other hand, it is never easy to discern where justice lies or how one position or the other relates to the divine will. The debate regarding the involvement of Christians in political issues between Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr has never been satisfactorily settled. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one who struggled with this issue in a very personal and sacrificial way.

PSALM 36: 5-10. The steadfast love of Yahweh for Israel and for the whole of creation brings praise for the goodness of Yahweh to the lips of the faithful. The psalm concludes with a prayer that this love with continue for “the upright of heart.”

This abbreviated reading provides a fascinating counterpoint to the first four verses of the psalm which have been excluded from the lectionary. Most commentators agree that the two parts probably represent two originally separate compositions which a later editor brought together. Yet they complement each other in such a way that two conflicting ways of life are cast in bold relief. The first (vss. 1-4) is said to belong to the category of Israel’s Wisdom literature, with special affinity with Proverbs. It emphasizes the way in which people of lesser moral character flatter and deceive themselves, and secretly plot mischievous misbehavior. This theme appears to have been picked up in the concluding verses (vss. 11-12). The part included in this reading (vss. 5-10), reflects the sovereignty and universalism of divine providence characteristic of the later prophet-poets like Second Isaiah and Job.

Vss. 10-12 raise a question that still troubles many modern Christians. Does God love only the faithful and morally upright? Is divine love exclusive? The covenant motif of the OT did have a strong ethical component which finds wide expression in the psalms. The opening verses of this psalm exhibit this aspect of the Hebrew tradition. The second part of the psalm reveals a more tolerant view found in the prophecy of Second Isaiah. Vs. 6, for instance, extends Yahweh’s steadfast love to animals as well as humans. Vs. 7 includes all people, not just Israel, within the purview of divine protection and providence.

The New Testament goes much farther. The Gospels in particular show unequivocally that God’s love extends even to those most alienated from God and immoral in their behavior. Is it not possible that the Islamic prayer Sadam Hussein offered on the gallows which seconds later ended his life were sincerely offered? However, God loves sinners like us so that we may respond to that love by changing our ways and seeking to follow Jesus in all we say and do. Jesus came to reconcile us all to God by revealing just how much God does love us and wants us to learn from Jesus how to live in a loving relationship with God, with all other people, and with the planet Earth on which we pass our years.

1 CORINTHIANS 12:1-11. The New Testament has a great many references to the body of Christ and many different meanings to that phrase. In general the phrase connotes the many-faceted relationships between Christ and those who believe in and belong to him, their relations with him as members, and with one another in the wide fellowship that bears his name. It is, perhaps, the most prevalent metaphor in the NT, in the Pauline corpus especially, for what was to become within a few decades of his death and resurrection the institution which has endured for the past two millennia. An examination of the many texts, however, would show how the understanding of the various authors changed from decade to decade. The unique aspect of its usage, however, is that the NT Greek word soma which normally translated the Hebrew basar had no counterpart in classical Hellenistic Greek. Furthermore, contrary to Hellenistic and most modern thinking, in OT and NT usage, there was no distinction between the true self or soul and the flesh or body.

While the word soma does not appear in this passage, that is certainly the metaphor toward which this passage points. It also speaks to our time as forcefully as to the middle of the 1st century AD when it was written. Today, secular paganism challenges us as it did the apostle Paul and his Corinthian converts. Here the apostle almost seems to wring his hands at their obstinacy and obtuseness. He had a great many difficulties teaching them just what it meant to believe in Jesus as Lord and follow his way of life. The chief problem cited in this passage was a disagreement as to which of the gifts of the Spirit were the more important. Paul points out as plainly as possible that all gifts come from the same source, the Spirit of God. They may serve different functions in the Christian fellowship, yet all contribute to the common good.

The issue still has relevance to our modern congregations. Each member may have a different role to play depending on his or her particular talents. It needs to be noted, however, that the use of these gifts in not to be exercised exclusively within the institution. The mission of the church is to the world, not to itself. Perhaps that was the main reason why the Corinthians had so much trouble with the great variety of gifts they brought to the apostolic church. Like so much of our contemporary gifting, it concentrated on themselves and their own fellowship rather than equipping them for the ministry of love for the world. They were in it for themselves and for their own little community, not for what Christ could do for the world through them as part of the wider Christian fellowship.

Another important feature of this lesson is the role the Spirit plays within the community. The word Spirit occurs no less than ten times in these few sentences. This tells us most poignantly that nothing beneficial can happen within the community or in carrying out its mission to the world except by the activation of the Spirit (vs. 11). That was the fundamental issue with which Paul had to deal so forcefully.

What really did control the witness of Christians in Corinth, or, for that matter, in any of our cities, towns and villages today? At the heart of the matter was the lordship of Jesus without whose Spirit none of the gifts of individual believers were of any value. As Paul states so clearly in vs. 3, even confessing that Jesus is Lord is the work of the Spirit. The contemporary leader of the World Community for Christian Meditation, Laurence Freeman OSB, reaffirmed this simple truth in saying that the Holy Spirit runs though every instant of time and every cell of life.

At the same time, it is wise to remember this prayer posted on the Internet on January 1,2010 by Quinn G. Caldwell, Associate Minister of Old South Church, Boston, MA: “Lord, I thank you that you are God and I am not. Help me to trust that you are saving the world even as we speak, and give me the grace and the resolve to play my small part in it. Amen.” (Stillspeaking Daily Devotional.)

JOHN 2:1-11. John’s Gospel takes its shape from a series of signs revealing Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, and Saviour of the world. This miracle story is the first of these signs. Some regard it as the moment of Jesus’ revelation of himself to his own family and to those who knew him.

In the NT, a sign designated an outward manifestation of a hidden and usually divine purpose. Jesus himself was a sign that, as in the past, Yahweh had again taken redemptive initiative in the Israel’s history. In his prologue in chapter 1, John had made this revelatory statement that would infuse the whole of his narrative.

We meet this concept first in the birth narratives of Luke 2:12, 34. So also the miracles of Jesus were themselves signs that the dynamic reign of divine love was in process of being fulfilled in human affairs. Not only the person of Jesus and all his works, but also his death and resurrection were signs that the prophesied Day of the Lord when all history would be consummated was at hand.

The marriage feast at Cana symbolized that the messianic age had begun. Behind it lay the whole panoply of purification rites so prominently described in the Torah. Wine too had liturgical significance included in the daily sacrifices offered as victuals for the deity, although never offered alone. This custom had undoubtedly been adopted from earlier Canaanite and other non-Israelite traditions. In the Hebrew tradition, it may have substituted for blood sacrifice. Wine had a major place in religious feasts celebrated in every home as well as in the temple cult as a libation. However, it was not used in the Passover feast until Hellenistic times.

The changing of water for ritual purification to wine indicated that Jesus would reinterpret Jewish religious tradition for this new age he had inaugurated. For John, the miracle was nothing less than an open declaration that Jesus is the Messiah. Hence his curious reluctance to follow his mother’s anxiously informing him that the ordinary wine for the wedding feast had run out. She believed in him, so she told the servants standing-by to do whatever he told them. Was she also concerned that she about to lose her control of her son?

This seemingly insignificant aside can be seen as the way for Jesus to differentiate himself from his closest human relationships, even his mother. He appeared to reject his mother’s counsel and yet also as indicated that she did believe in him. The steward supervising the serving of the feast and the bridegroom were quite ignorant of what had happened. This served to establish the pattern so obvious throughout of John’s narrative that there would always be some who believed and would follow Jesus and some who would not.

Our post-Enlightenment Age minds have yet to grasp that biblical miracles cannot be explained in terms that exclude the supernatural. As Tom Harpur pointed out in a column in The Sunday Star (Toronto, January 4, 2004) symbols and metaphors have power. It is what they stand for and the power they represent that is important. John and his contemporaries had no difficulty combining such spiritual and material realities as metaphors of divine initiatives in ordinary human affairs.

This was especially true of the Hebrew minds who authored the Old and New Testaments. Spiritual realities were as obvious to them as the water with which they washed and the wine they drank at their festivals or ordinary meals. The transformation Jesus effected appeared as a perfectly natural, though surprising and pleasing event.

Behind the miracle, however, was the messianic message John sought to convey to a later generation of Jews and Gentiles at the end of the 1st century. This was the spiritual truth that lay beyond the materialism of the event. The Messiah/Christ had come to change everything, to reinterpret for them in their particular time and place, the great traditions which God had initially revealed through the chosen people Israel. For Jewish Christians recently thrust out of their synagogues and for Gentiles eager to find a new, fulfilling life of faith, this was indeed Good News.