John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Proper 7  Ordinary 12
Fourth Sunday After Pentecost – June 20, 2010.

1 KINGS 19:1-15a. Elijah the prophet was on the run from Queen Jezebel whose foreign priests he had defeated in a contest of spiritual power.  He was still in God’s care, however, and after being provided with food and drink in the desert, he came at last to the mountain where God had given the covenant law to Moses. But he could never escape responsibility as God’s prophet. After a windstorm, an earthquake and a raging fire, God spoke to him with a still, small voice within to give him a new commission.

ISAIAH 65:1-9. (Alternate)   In this eschatological song God offers both judgment and hope for Israel after the return of the exiles from Babylon, ca. 539 BCE. Judgment came because of a series of unholy religious practices (vss. 3-5) possibly related to a  nature cult. Yet God promised not to destroy the whole people and to restore them to their traditional land.

PSALM 42 AND 43. These two psalms were originally one. The first part laments a deep sense of absence from God. Yet the psalmist hopes that he will eventually have reason to praise God. The second part prays that his faith will be vindicated as he goes to the temple to worship.

PSALM 22:19-28. (Alternate)  Like all laments, this excerpt pleads with God for rescue, acknowledges God’s sovereignty and promises to be faithful. It envisions a hopeful future in which posterity will serve the Lord.

GALATIANS 3:23-29. One of Paul’s most decisive statements declares that faith in Jesus Christ has removed all barriers to a relationship with God for all who believe. He claims that the law given to Moses was like a schoolteacher disciplining us until Jesus came to make us all God’s children and heirs with Christ. Now, we are all children of Abraham and heirs of all God’s promises to Israel.

LUKE 8:26-39. This story appears to set Jesus’ compassion for the man chained among the tombs against compassion for the Gentile people of this community east of the Sea of Galilee. Is it a garbled story of a person with severe mental illness being healed after his frantic outcries had panicked the pigs? Or did Jesus fail to convince the unbelieving Gadarenes who had lost their pigs of God’s compassionate love?  Even for the most sane among us, the struggle to believe can be tormenting.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

1 KINGS 19:1-18. Most Westerners read a story from beginning to end. The various pericopes that present Elijah as one of Israel’s greatest prophets do not follow this orderly pattern. Scholarly opinion views some of the stories in which Elijah appears as coming from two different sets, the Elijah and the Ahab cycles. The editors of the Deuteronomic history of Israel, created after the return from exile in Babylon, wove these two sets of stories obtained from different sources into their overall narrative of the Davidic monarchy.

Only 1 Kings 17-19; 2 Kings 1:1-18; 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9:1-10:31 appear to come from the Elijah cycle. The Ahab cycle includes 1 Kings 20:1-43; 22:1-38; 2 Kings 3:4-27; 6:8-23 and 6:24-7:20. The main theme of the Elijah cycle from which this week’s reading is taken is the preservation of the monotheist tradition against the Baal-worship imported by Ahab’s queen, Jezebel, daughter of the priest-king of Tyre. It has been suggested by some scholars that Psalm 45 bears evidence of being a love song in which Ahab and Jezebel appear as the two participants.

In this part of the narrative Elijah was on the run from Queen Jezebel whose foreign priests he had defeated in a contest of spiritual power on Mount Carmel.  He was still in God’s care, however. After being provided with food and drink in the desert, he came at last to the mountain where God had given the covenant law to Moses.

Elijah’s forty day journey to Horeb, the mount of God (aka Mount Sinai), appears to have been more symbolic than real. It compares with Moses sojourn at Mount Sinai without food or drink as recorded in Exodus 34:28. There may be other reflections of the Sinai narrative in the Elijah story: the cleft of the rock and the mouth of the cave (Ex. 32:22 cf. 1 Kgs. 19:9, 13), the covering of the face (Ex. 32:22 cf.1 Kgs. 19:13; thousands remaining faithful (Ex. 34:7 cf. 1 Kgs. 19:18). The symbolism points to a recalling of the faithful to the ancient tradition established by Yahweh in the covenant at Mount Sinai. The particular aspect of the covenant relationship emphasized here is the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods.”

Whatever Elijah’s actual experience may have been, he could never escape responsibility as God’s prophet. After a windstorm, an earthquake and a raging fire, God spoke to him with a still, small voice within and gave him a new commission. Such theophanies and their accompanying natural phenomena were common in Israel’s tradition, especially in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. They were not peculiar to the Israelites, however, and can be found in traditions of other ancient peoples. In the Psalms and some of the prophets, the warrior image of Yahweh is often accompanied by similar violent natural phenomena (Pss. 18:7-15 & 46:1-7; Nahum 1:2-6; Habakkuk 3:8-15; Jeremiah 10:13.) These are instances where Yahweh is identified as having a special relationship with Israel alone.

Numerous homilies on the still, small voice have concentrated on the inner voice of conscience. That often tends to be guilt-laden. So it may have been for Elijah and called forth some self-justification (vss. 13-14). True as that may be, emphasis needs to be placed more heavily on continuing reflection on the divine mission to which Israel was originally called and is now summoned to return (vss. 15-18).

ISAIAH 65:1-9. (Alternate)    Scholars have had considerable difficulty dating this passage.  It appears to be the work of the school of prophet-poets sometimes referred to as Third Isaiah (Isa. 56-66). Like the poem that follows it in ch. 66, it expresses the eschatological vision of “a new heaven and a new earth” (vs. 17) as well as uttering judgment against Israel’s past aberrant religious practices.  It would appear that God offers both judgment and hope for Israel after the return of some of the exiles from Babylon, ca. 539 BCE. By no means did all those who had been transported return to their homeland.

The poem consists of ten strophes, although only the first four make up this extract, and not all of the fourth is included (vs. 10). The first strophe (vss. 1-2) presents the accessible nature of Yahweh and voices the complaint against Israel for not heeding the divine call. The second strophe (vss. 3-5) describes the corruption of Israel’s covenant tradition. Exactly what the heretical worship practices were cannot be determined. They seem to have had something to do with a nature cult (vss. 3-5). But that had been a continual temptation for Israel since the time of the earliest settlement in Canaan where some of them had adopted the traditional fertility religious practices of Baal worship of the Canaanites.

While in exile, had some Israelites been seduced by the religious rituals of Babylonian tradition too? It would have been surprising if that was not so. The naming of several aspects of such rituals – sacrificing in gardens, burning incense “on the bricks,” (or “on the roof tops,”) sitting in tombs, and eating swine’s flesh, all point to a bizarre cultus. In Babylon, there was a cult of the god Ninurta for which the pig was either sacred to the god or a totem. Swine’s flesh, anathema to all Semitic cultures, could be eaten under special ritualistic occasions.

Whatever the unholy religious practices may have been and however much these were abhorrent to Yahweh (third strophe, vss. 6-7), Yahweh was not yet willing to cast them on to the scrap heap of history. Yahweh promised not only to preserve a remnant of the people but to bless and restore them to their traditional homeland (fourth strophe, vss. 8–10).

The naming of Sharon and the Valley of Achor (vs. 10) intentionally redirected the Israelites’ imagination homeward. The Plain of Sharon is still the rich agricultural plain along the Mediterranean coast north from Jaffa to the foothills of Mount Carmel. The Valley of Achor was a small wadi which once formed the boundary between the tribal lands Judah and Benjamin, south of Jericho along the northwestern edge of the Dead Sea. It is very dry but also very fruitful when well irrigated. That practice had been extensively used in the Judean and Negev deserts by the Idumeans. Not far from the Valley of Achor, the Essenes created their eschatological community of Qumran. The providential image inspired by these names conveyed just such a vision for the faithful remnant.

PSALM 42 AND 43. These two psalms were originally one, but possibly for some unknown liturgical reason became separated. Some Hebrew manuscripts still have them as one, so the separation could have occurred during transmission from one manuscript to another. There is also some indication of dependence of the second on the first in 42:9 and 43:2. Then there is the refrain repeated in 42:5, 11 and 43:5. These elements sustain the argument for unity. The lectionary editors agree.

In the first part of the psalm, the poet laments a deep spiritual depression caused by his sense of absence from Yahweh’s presence (vs. 2). It could have been an actual absence from Jerusalem and the homeland of Israel where participation in temple festivals was once possible. Vs. 6 appears to suggest that the exact location was near the sources of the Jordan on Mount Hermon, possibly in enemy hands at the time. Wherever the psalmist was, he expresses distress at conflict in his community (vss. 42:3, 10). Scoffers took the present circumstances as evidence that Yahweh had deserted Israel or that there really was no god at all.

The psalmist’s memories of joining the throng of worshipers processing to the temple elicited great pain (vs. 4). Yet the psalmist hoped that he will eventually have reason to praise Yahweh once again within the temple. The idea that he could worship anywhere else had occurred to him (42:8; 43:2), but like many modern folk, it just didn’t seem to the same. We all like to worship in familiar sanctuaries. The second part of the psalm picks up this hopeful theme as the poet prays that his faith will be vindicated and that he will once again go to the temple to worship and to offer sacrifices as before (43:3-4).

PSALM 22:19-28. (Alternate)   Like all laments, this excerpt pleads with God for rescue, acknowledges God’s sovereignty, expresses the worshipper’s thanksgiving and vows to be faithful. It envisions a hopeful future in which posterity will serve the Lord.

With the exception of vss. 19-21, the remainder of this passage does not fit well with the preceding segment (vss. 1-18). Indeed, the repetition of vs. 11 in vs. 19 suggests a deliberate transition. This has caused scholars to suspect that the first segment was an individual lament to which the song of hopeful thanksgiving was added so that the whole might serve in the liturgical setting of the temple when anyone might come to offer thanks for deliverance from some affliction.

In vs. 21 two images of grave danger indicate how critical the situation had been for the psalmist. Lions of the Mesopotamian type still roamed the Jordan Valley and into the rich pasture lands and agricultural villages of Palestine well into the Christian era. The wild ox was the bos primigenius, called the aurochs in Europe, had been domesticated to some extent, although many still existed in the wild. Domesticated, the ox served in many capacities from ancient times. Sometimes it was used as a sacrificial beast of great value. The original wild ox still roamed the foothills of the Syrian mountains in biblical times frightening the populace with its long horns and fierce nature.

The psalmist, however, expressed the conviction that Yahweh was to be feared more than any wild beast. Therefore, he urged that Yahweh be praised (vs. 22-23). He had an even more significant reason for praise and thanksgiving: Yahweh had not despised or rejected the afflicted, but had heard his cry (vss. 24-26). This brought forth the prophetic assurance that once their realized Yahweh’s sovereignty, all nations would join Israel in the worship of Yahweh (vss. 27-31).  Even the unborn would know and worship the Lord when they heard of Yahweh’s deliverance of the oppressed.

GALATIANS 3:23-29. Coming from the gentile city of Tarsus, Paul knew well what a struggle it was to survive as a Jew in such a foreign cultural milieu. When Paul lived there, the site of Tarsus had been occupied for some 3000 years. Its founding by noted heroes of Greek mythology was the subject of many legends. A Hellenistic Greek city, in Roman times it became the capital of the province of Cilicia, prosperous as a seaport and for industries such linen weaving and sail and tent-making. It also achieved fame as a centre of learning from which had come several noted Stoic philosophers. It well deserved its Pauline designation as “no mean city.” (Acts 21:39) The exact size of the Jewish element of the population is unknown, but it is unlikely to have been more than a small minority.

Minority groups seek many means to survive. Jews adopted their religious traditions as their way of confirming their identity. We do not know whether Paul became an ardent Pharisee in Tarsus or later in Jerusalem. In either case, however, he would have been considered an outsider, first in Tarsus as an ardent Jew meticulous about keeping the law of Moses and then as a Hellenist in Jerusalem with an accent and an attitude. When he met the Christian community wherever he went after his conversion, he found at a safe haven. This reality shines through this high point in his letter to the Greek-speaking Christians of Galatia.

This passage contains Paul’s most decisive statement that faith in Jesus Christ has removed all barriers to a relationship with God and with one another for all who believe. He claims that the law given to Moses was like a schoolteacher disciplining us until Jesus came to make us all God’s children and heirs with Christ of all God’s gifts.

Paul himself had been a life-long learner. He did not come easily or quickly to the conclusion he so briefly summarizes in these few sentences. According to his own words in 1:18 and 2:1, it had taken him at least 17 years before he was well known to the apostolic community in Jerusalem. Even then, he was considered an outsider rather than a leading apostle (2:6-10). So when he wrote in 3:23-24 about being imprisoned and disciplined until Christ came, he was speaking out of his own learning experience and recognizing it as something everyone could experience. As a Pharisee, the law had been his schoolteacher, then it became a prison and Christ had been his liberator.

Paul gives us several other experiential images in this passage. By their new faith relationship to God, he and the Galatians too had become children of God and joint heirs with Christ. They had been dressed in new Christ-garments through baptism. New converts in the early church were baptized naked and re-clothed in a new, white garment. One can presume that Paul had also been baptized in this manner. He certainly knew what it meant to be delivered from slavery to the law and free to proclaim his faith with the considerable gifts of communication he possessed. His facility with languages – Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, in all probability – gave him additional freedom to roam far and wide among the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora and Gentile cities he had visited throughout Galatia. and other Roman provinces of Asia Minor (modern Turkey).

However Paul may be perceived in our day as being prejudiced toward women in general and their role in society, he also appears to have had remarkably good relationships with a considerable number of individual women. His letters and the records of his travels in Acts identify numerous women with whom he worked and in whose homes he stayed. He considered them as co-workers. He expressed friendship for both men and women equally, seeing them as united with him in the body of Christ.

All this was exceptional for a 1st century Jew from such a strong Pharisaic tradition. Today, Moslems, Jews and Christians rightfully claim their spiritual descent from the patriarch Abraham to a large extent because of Paul’s creative genius in making the gospel known throughout the ancient Middle East. This passage from his letter to the Galatians expresses that unique vision exceptionally well.

LUKE 8:26-39. This unusual story appears to set Jesus’ compassion for the man chained among the tombs against compassion for the Gentile people of this community southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Gerasa (apparently mistaken by Matt. 8:28 as Gadara and by other ancient authorities as Gergesa) was foreign territory in what was then the Roman tetrarchy of Philip, another son of Herod the Great and half-brother of Herod Antipas who executed John the Baptist. Today it is recognized as an archeological site at Um Qeis in northwestern Jordan near its border with Syria, but has never been excavated. We know that it was a Gentile city because the people who lived there herded pigs. Archaeologists distinguish between Jewish and Gentile sites by the presence of pig bones.

Jesus’ exorcism of the demons afflicting this man who lived among the tombs seems at once both puzzling and bizarre. We can only speculate how to identify the man’s specific illness. As was the case with many serious medical conditions in those times, his family and neighbors would have interpreted it as common demon possession. Their solution was to run him out town. That forced him to survive in the local cemetery. There he could do no harm except to himself and be gossiped about in the marketplace of Gerasa as “Crazy Jack.” But as reported in this pericope, the incident reveals obvious marks of grave impurity for any Jew: a demon-possessed maniac living in a cemetery near a place where a herd of pigs wandered freely.

In any case, when Jesus confronted whatever the demons were, the reaction created a panic in the pigs. Jesus’ conversation with the demons about their name, “Legion” and their desire not to be sent back “to the abyss” reads like a fictional embellishment in the oral tradition which lay behind the gospel source. The abyss was the prison where Satan and his demons were believed to dwell for eternity (cf. Rev. 20:3). Popular belief also held that while waiting for their ultimate banishment demons wandered the earth in search of a dwelling place. They especially favored tombs and deserted places as well as those people we would call seriously ill.

It is difficult to understand how Jesus could send the man home to tell his neighbors that their pigs had been drowned. One explanation may that this is a garbled story of the demoniac being healed after his frantic outcries had panicked the pigs. Another view frankly admits that the story suggests that although Jesus healed the man, he failed to convince the unbelieving Gerasenes of God’s compassionate love for all victims of dreaded illness. After all, they had lost their pigs.

How loving could that be? Wasn’t this a failure on Jesus’ part despite having exorcized the demon? After this, Jesus did not extend his ministry further east of the Jordan, but returned to Galilee. There was one happy Gerasene, however. The man who had been healed could not keep this miracle to himself and went about telling everyone he met what Jesus had done for him. Perhaps that – and only that – is the whole point of the story.

SOME ADDITIONAL PREACHING NOTES.

1 KINGS 19:1-15a. Is this another “Elijah time” for the Christian church? Experiencing significantly decline in membership, ordained clergy and social influence, the church today appears to be suffering  much as Elijah did. Following World War II in North America, there was a great growth spurt for about the next quarter of the 20th century. The beginning of decline in my own denomination can be traced to 1967. That was about the end of what population sociologists ad economists call “the Baby Boom.”

The children and grandchildren of that generation no longer flock to the church and build new religious and educational facilities as their parents and grandparents did. Secularism driven by wealth greater than that enjoyed by any previous generation seems to have captured former church people en mass. In the past decade or two in what could be called a turn of the century debacle many studies and consultants’ programs have  offered more and better ideas to restore congregational growth in every denomination, all to no avail.

The decline continues, even among those massive congregations on the verge of metropolitan areas that number in the tens of thousands. They seem to offer little more than a fearful security in traditional fundamentalism in return for allegiance and financial support.

Perhaps this is the time to reflect on what God’s mission really is at this time. That could be the theme of each member’s individual reflection during the summer down-time. What is the true meaning of this regression? What spiritual insights can come out of the truth that may be waiting for us to discover? It is not as if this has not happened before in the history of the church, as Kenneth Scott Latourette’s well-known history of Christian missions since the beginning of the church,  so clearly shown in The Unquenchable Light (1940).

GALATIANS 3:23-29. Paul’s family trade would appear to have been that of leather working (Acts. 18:3). It has also been speculated that his family was fairly wealthy. Due to extensive use of leather products in those times, that  would have quite likely. But tanners were not highly regarded among Jews. It was customary for them to live outside the towns and cities due to the smell and refuse accumulated by their work. In a Gentile centre like Tarsus, pig leather would have been widely used and valuable, but anathema to Jews.

Did Paul’s ardent Pharisaism result from his rejection of his family’ trade? Was that why he made his way to Jerusalem to learn at the feet of the great Gamaliel I, a leader among the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin? Was another aspect of his conversion his willingness to return to his trade to maintain  opportunities for preaching the gospel in Gentile centres like Tarsus, Corinth and elsewhere? (1 Cor. 9:6-7) Not only all types of people, but all types of work do yield such opportunities for any Christian. Is there a sermon there?

LUKE 8:26-39. Is there a possible link between this pericope of Jesus’ extending his ministry into hostile Gentile territory east of the Jordan and Isaiah 65:3-6? The theory has been proposed that prior to the writing of the earliest NT gospels many of the stories about Jesus’ ministry were reinterpretations of lectionary passages read sabbath by sabbath in the synagogues of the 1st century. In Luke’s case, these would have been synagogues of the Jewish Diaspora in Gentile cities in the last decades of the century. This occurred during the period of oral transmission of the apostolic experience of Jesus. (Gulder, Spong et al.) It is quite feasible to read this pericope in that light.

-30-

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Proper 6  Ordinary 11

Third Sunday After Pentecost

June 13, 2010 .

1 KINGS 21:1- 21a. This simply told tale echoes across the centuries as brilliant example of how the Israelites put their message about God’s justice so even a child could understand. The depressed bumbling of Ahab make for great irony and the deceit of Jezebel clearly describes how the powerful victimize the powerless. The dramatic words of Elijah reveal how God feels about such selfish injustice.

2 SAMUEL 11:26-12:10, 13-15. (Alternate)   This conclusion to the story about David’s lustful adultery with Bathsheba forcefully conveys the moral lessons that God’s justice is meted out equally to kings and commoners alike. The prophet Nathan confronted David about his deceitful arranging for Uriah’s death so that he might marry Bathsheba. Despite David’s confession of sin, Nathan declared God’s judgment against the king: Bathsheba’s child will die.

PSALM 5:1- 8. This lyrical lament may well have been recited by temple singers to the music of flutes. It tells worshipers making their way into the temple that God hears their cries for help because God has only steadfast love for all who follow God’s righteous ways.

PSALM 32. (Alternate) This prayer of confession has nothing to do with King David’s confession. It contains a hopeful expression of God’s forgiveness for any penitent relying on the steadfast love of God. This is something in which we too can truly rejoice.

GALATIANS 2:15- 21. Paul cites the basic difference between Jews and Gentiles as resting on the law given to Moses when he led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt. Then Paul strikes down that distinction because Jesus Christ has established an entirely new relationship with God for Jews and Gentiles alike. It depends on faith in Jesus Christ who was crucified and raised from the dead to live in anyone who believes.

LUKE 7:36- 8:3. In this passage Luke told several things about Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. He had friends among the Pharisees and one invited him to dine. He rebuked his host for neglecting a customary welcome. He also had great compassion for this disreputable women always thought of as a prostitute.

The parable Jesus told to drive home his message must have cut the Pharisee to the quick. The point of the whole incident is that forgiveness depends on our faith in God’s compassionate love, not on how righteous we may strive to be.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

1 KINGS 21:1- 21a. This simply told tale echoes across the centuries as brilliant example of how the Israelites put their message about God’s justice so even a child could understand. Yet its fine points speak to our age as crisply as it formed one of what is known as “the Elijah cycle” of stories about one of Israel’s greatest prophets and his conflict with King Ahab and his Tyrian queen, Jezebel. Two other cycles of stories closely related to this one featured the prophet Elisha and the reign of the weak King Ahab. Scholarly debates have not completely settled how the three have been melded into the whole of the Book of Kings. Several incidental narratives are scattered in different places in I and II Kings.

It is thought that these three sets of stories originated in the Northern Kingdom in late 9^th century BCE. They existed separately and circulated centuries before being included in the Book of Kings by an editor of the Deuteronomic school. Written after Israel’s return from the exile in Babylon in the late 6^th or early 5^th century BCE, the main concern of the Deuteronomic editors of the Book of Kings was the struggle to maintain the worship of Israel centralized in the temple Jerusalem against the incursions of alien gods. They believed that it was Israel’s infidelity to the worship of Yahweh and the Torah which brought the great disaster of the Babylonian exile upon them.

In this particularly dramatic incident, the depressed bumbling of Ahab make for great irony and the deceit of Jezebel clearly describes how the powerful can victimize the powerless. The dramatic words of Elijah reveal how God feels about such selfish unfairness.

Just reading the story to its conclusion at vs. 29 would make a great sermon in itself. If one chose to elaborate and draw parallels to present times, one would find ample illustration in the economic and political injustices rampant in the world as we see these described in our news media.

2 SAMUEL 11:26-12:10, 13-15. (Alternate)  This conclusion of the story about David’s lustful adultery with Bathsheba forcefully conveys the moral lesson that God’s justice is meeted out equally to kings and commoners, to rich and poor alike.

Whether or not this was indeed an historical event from the later years of David’s reign can never be proven. However, the narrative bears the marks of a much later time in the 8^th and 7^th centuries BCE when justice had become an important element of the preaching of Israel’s great prophets Amos, Micah and Isaiah.

The prophet Nathan confronted David about his deceitful arranging for Uriah’s death so that he might marry Bathsheba. But the wily prophet doesn’t do it with a blunt charge of misbehaviour. He skillfully tells a parable about a rich man who coveted his poor neighbour’s lamb. The rich man stole the poor man’s lamb to provide a feast for a visitor. When David challenged the prophet to identify the culprit of this injustice, Nathan pointed his finger directly at the king and in Yahweh’s name condemned the king for what he had done to Uriah and Bathsheba.

Despite David’s confession of sin, Nathan declares God’s judgment against the king: Bathsheba’s child will die. More than that, David’s household would experience nothing but strife, a prophecy that subsequent events proved. Indeed, by the time the story was redacted in the post-exilic period, the Davidic dynasty had disappeared.

PSALM 5:1-8. This lyrical lament may well have been recited by the temple singers to the music of flutes. It may have been used as a prayer during the morning sacrifice (vs. 2). While it is written as if sung as a solo, it tells worshipers making their way into the temple that God hears their cries for help because God has only steadfast love for those who follow God’s righteous ways.

We can only imagine the specific circumstances in which the psalmist had composed this prayer. It would appear that he was beset by a menacing group of fellows Israelites. He had suffered from their boastful arrogance and slanderous lies vividly described in vss. 6 & 9. The psalmist found relief from this unbearable annoyance in the assurance of Yahweh’s steadfast love communicated through worship (vs. 7). This results in his commitment to Yahweh’s righteousness, i.e. the Torah.

Vs. 7 contains what may be an oblique reference to the Babylonian exile. The psalmist may not have  been in the temple precincts at all, but far away in Babylon and turning toward the temple as he uttered his morning prayers (cf. Daniel 6:10). It is logical to assume, therefore, that the psalm comes from the post-exilic period.

The varying readings of vs. 3b suggest that this is so. The KJV has added the words “my prayer” to the Hebrew text, “I direct my prayer to thee, and will look up,” to convey a clearer sense of its assumed meaning. The RSV gives an alternate reading: “I prepare a sacrifice for thee, and watch.”  The NEB tends to agree: “I set out my morning sacrifice and watch for thee, O Lord.” The NRSV, however, stays closer to the Hebrew text conveyed by the KJV: “in the morning I plead my case to you, and watch.” The rather obscure Hebrew verb *‘awrak* (= prepare) does have several meanings, but chiefly “to arrange or put in order.” One may choose which one to prefer.

PSALM 32. (Alternate) This prayer of confession has nothing to do with King David’s confession. It is one of series of penitential psalms frequently used in the Lenten season. The others like it are Pss. 6, 38, 51, 102, 130 and 143. It belongs to a class of wisdom psalms designed to instruct the faithful in times of sickness and distress. Like all theology in the ancient Middle East, it closely links sickness ands sin.

Although attributed to David in the superscription, it actually comes from the late Persian or early Greek periods (4^th century BCE) when wisdom literature strove to maintain the true faith of Israelites in the moral law of the ancient covenantal tradition.

Whatever its origins, the psalm contains a hopeful expression of God’s forgiveness for any penitent relying on the steadfast love of God. It describes quite effectively the process of being forgiven: sincere penitence, the acceptance of forgiveness, the resolution to guilt. It also includes a didactic moral with a touch of irony about our human resistance to true penitence. The psalm ends with a shout of praise for God’s compassionate grace in which we can truly rejoice.

GALATIANS 2:15-21. Paul’s primary concern in his Letter to the Galatians was to prevent recently converted Jews and Gentiles from falling away from the simple freedom of their new faith under attack from other Jewish Christians. These “Judaizers” had persuaded them that to be Christians they must also follow the strict Jewish laws. This conflict came a consequence of the division between the Jerusalem and Antioch Christian communities within two decades after the resurrection. In this passage Paul cited the basic difference between Jews and Gentiles. It rested on the law of the covenant given to Moses when he led them out of slavery in Egypt.

In Paul’s estimation, his fellow Jews were wrong in assuming that they put themselves in good standing with God (“justified” – vs. 16) by keeping the laws designed to create ritual purity worthy of admission to God’s covenant. Dietary restrictions and circumcision were the particular aspects of the covenant law against which Paul was arguing. Gentiles could not easily accept such rigorous purification as practical expressions of their relationship with God. Realizing this, and pleading freedom from the ritual restraints of the Jewish tradition, Paul worried that his Galatian friends would desert the Christian community altogether. As anyone who has been in conflict situations, in times of crisis it does not take much to create doubt and disaffection in the minds and hearts of Christian believers.

Then, in a series of rhetorical questions, (vss. 16b-17) Paul strikes down the distinction he had drawn between Jews and Gentiles. Jesus Christ has established an entirely new relationship with God for Jews and Gentiles alike. It rested on faith in Jesus Christ who had been crucified and raised from the dead to live in anyone who believes. The English translation of what Paul was saying is by no means easy to grasp.

He used his own experience as the main illustration of his argument. Does he not claim to have invalidated not just certain parts of the Judaic law, but the legalist tradition as a whole? Trying to understand Paul’s impact on both Judaism and Christianity, many scholars have followed this train of thought in the past century and a half. It was not so much Jesus, but Paul who is regarded as the architect of the Christian tradition distinct from its earlier roots in Judaism. We may firmly counter such a view by showing that, according to this passage, Paul himself believed that his faith depended entirely on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Great though it had been, he did not depend on his personal impact on the communities to which he had proclaimed the Gospel.

But what did he mean in vs. 19 that “through the law I died to the law? There may well be some specific act of transgression the memory of which still bothered Paul’s conscience.  We get much the same impression if we compare this passage to Romans 7:7-12 where he identifies a sin but does not specifically state what that sin might have been. It could have been something he coveted, but had to relinquish because it was unattainable or because his changed relationship with Christ prevented its achievement.

Paul had found a new hope, nonetheless. It was in Christ. Whatever his sacrifice had been, he saw it as being personally crucified, yet he was alive as never before. He knew this not because of anything he had done, but because Christ had forgiven him and had given him a much greater commission. He now could live for Christ assured that the risen Christ was with him always. Indeed the Spirit of Christ was alive in him transforming him day by day into a new creation. That was the faith which sustained him. His entirely new relationship with God rested on faith alone. If this were not so, he claimed in his final point to clinch his argument, then Christ had died for nothing.

LUKE 7:36-8:3. In this passage Luke told us several important things about Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. One can easily assume that Jesus’ most ardent opposition came from those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. On the other hand, he also had many good friends among this ultra-religious party and this one had invited him to dine. Some Jewish rabbis today believe that Jesus himself was a member of the Pharisees.

In his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, Bruce Chilton based much of his analysis of Jesus’ ministry on the frequency of his dining out with just about anyone who would invite him. Certainly, some of those who opposed him accused him of being a glutton and an alcoholic. Luke had reported that charge immediately before this passage. Chilton regarded Jesus’ penchant for being a guest at other people’s homes as being particularly significant in marking out his differences with the priestly authorities as well as the Pharisees.

When a sacrifice was offered in the temple, part of the offering was burned on the altar, but most of it was divided between the priests and the worshiper for their own consumption. Jesus may have regarded the temple sacrifices as dining in the presence of God. It culminated, in Chilton’s view, in the intimate fellowship meals of which the Last Supper was only one instance.

According to this pericope, Luke presented Jesus as not being afraid to rebuke his host for neglecting the customary welcome he ought to have received. The normal customs of the time required that on the arrival of his guests, the host would provide water for them to freshen up after walking through dirty and dusty streets. Ritual washing was also required of everyone who ate at home or as invited guests at a feast. In all probability, this stringent practice was frequently ignored, especially far from Jerusalem in Galilee.

The story set up an interesting contrast between Jesus rebuke of his host and his compassion for this interloping woman. Apparently she just came in off the street uninvited, knowing that Jesus was there. Perhaps she had followed him. She has always been thought of as a prostitute or an adulterer, but she could well have had other well-known sins which characterized her demeanor. Her presence quite naturally upset the host. He remonstrated with Jesus for allowing such a person to touch him thus making him impure according to the strict interpretation of the laws governing such behavior.

The parable Jesus told to drive home his message must have cut the Pharisee to the quick. Comparison with Paul’s words to the Galatians reveals that both are very clearly the good news Jesus came to reveal and make effective in reconciling us with God and with one another. The point of both passages is that forgiveness depends on our faith in God’s compassionate love, not on how righteous we may strive to be.

It is important not to ignore 8:1-3, Luke’s brief statement naming certain women who followed Jesus. In subsequent centuries, the unnamed woman who interrupted the feast at the home of the Pharisee has been conflated with Mary Magdalene and/or Mary of Bethany (vs. 2). More recent scholarship has shown this to be completely wrong. Miriam (Mary) was the most common Jewish name for women in those days. Throughout his gospel Luke showed that women held a special place in Jesus’ life and ministry. With regard to Mary Magdalene legend and fiction have made much of this.

So has feminist scholarship of the late 20^th century. In her study of Luke, however, Sharon H. Ringe has shown that the roles women filled in the ministry of Jesus did not differ from the customary roles for women in those times. In this instance, we have relatively little information about these particular women. Some of them had been healed by Jesus of evil spirits and demons, but that does not imply that they were sinful or of disreputable moral character. We are told that some of them were women of means. Apparently they chose to make use of their wealth in supporting Jesus’ ministry and joining him on the road to Jerusalem. Several of them reappeared in Luke’s Passion narrative. It would only amount to fruitless speculation to reconstruct anything more from what Ringe described as “a mere opening and closing of the curtain to indicate a new scene.”

SOME ADDITIONAL PREACHING POINTS.

PSALM 5:1-8. What happens during our liturgies? In 2009 a Conference on Performing Self and Community: Ritual and Ritual Practice was held at McGill University, in Montreal, Canada. Papers from this conference were published in Volume 37:2009 issue of ARC: The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies. These papers attempt to respond to the question, “What does scholarship on ritual have to say in the 21^st century?”

The papers range through many religious and secular fields. Some titles seem far away from religious studies, but on closer examination contain to be very appropriate hypotheses and incisive if tentative insights for our time. For instance, among the titles of papers are:  “Etiology, Neurology, and Emergence: Reductionism in Biological Perspective on Religious Rituals;” “ An Examination of Virtual Rituals Found in Online Gaming;” and “Rituals and the Everyday: Performing Food and Sex in Contemporary Visual Arts.” The major world religious traditions and specific pastoral concerns are not neglected: “Ritual is Not Religion: Exploring Balagangadhars’ Proposal for Understanding the ‘East;’” and “Journeys in Grief: Theorizing Mourning Rituals.”

Though not always easy reading, the introduction and thirteen papers may prove quite challenging for a summer of study. ARC is indexed in the Religion Index One: Periodicals published by the American Theological Library Association (http://www.atla.com/) and other well known social science indexes. Individual copies of the journal may be obtained for $15 Cdn within Canada and $15 US outside of Canada from ARC, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, 3520 University Street,  Montreal, QC H3A 2A7 Canada. Cheques should be payable to “ARC, FRS, McGill University.” Annual subscriptions are $30 Cdn and $30 US per annum. The Faculty’s webpage is

www.relgstud@mcgill.ca.

GALATIANS 2:15-21. There is an ancient legend that part of the price Paul paid when he met Jesus on the Damascus Road was to give up any hope of marriage to the daughter of Caiaphas, the high priest. Was this an indirect reference to such an experience? It was unusual for a young rabbi not to marry and such a marriage would have been immensely advantageous to any ambitious young rabbi. How he would have coveted that! Dare we speculate that this could have been the reason why the “Judaizers” followed him wherever he went and tried to undo all he had done in the predominately Gentile cities of Galatia? As a servant of the high priest he had deserted his commission and had gone over to the enemy. How could that ever be forgiven by the priestly authorities whom he had betrayed?

Who were the Galatians? Primarily, they were the descendants of a tribe of Celts who had broken away from the main Celtic migration in the 7^th and 6^th centuries BCE. Originally from western Asia, they migrated up the basin of the Danube River in Europe to eventually settle first in Switzerland (known as Helvetians), and France (known as Gauls). Later they had crossed to southern England and Ireland. This break-away migration through Bulgaria and Greece to Asia Minor had taken place in the 3^rd century BCE. A relatively small but rather warlike tribe, they had settled in the central Anatolian plain at the invitation of the king of Bythinia. There they subsequently became known as Galatians.

See these websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians; and

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter113.html#1 .

LUKE 7:36-8:3. Do justice and political reconciliation ever meet? During one of Nelson Mandela’s visits to Canada, a member of the Parliament of Canada publicly condemned the South African leader as a communist who had advocated violent revolution in South Africa before and during his imprisonment. However true or false that accusation may have been, the gift Mandela has given to the world in his long struggle against apartheid cannot be denied. His long life has showed how the worst of enemies can be reconciled through the forgiving love of God working through ordinary people of every race and creed. This too is gospel.

Reconciliation can be seen too in current if tragic events. Quite recently a remarkable reconciliation between Poland and Russia has resulted from the death of many Polish political and military leaders in a plane crash near Smolensk. The Polish delegates were on their way to meet with their Russian counterparts and mark the anniversary of the massacre of more than 20,000 Polish military, political and intellectual leaders at Katyn Forest near Smolensk in April and May 1940 on the orders of Joseph Stalin.

On May 24, 2010 Ontario’s educational television station TVO held an hour long debate on the extent and character of this reconciliation featuring a Canadian, two Polish and two Russian political scientists now teaching at different Canadian and American universities. Among the five was Nina  Khrushcheva, the granddaughter of former Soviet president, Nikita Krushchev. At the end of the debate the question arose whether or not the Russians had apologized to the Poles for Stalin’s criminal behaviour. No, they conceded, it was not an apology, but it was an admission that a terrible crime had been committed.

-30-

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Twenty-Third Sunday After Pentecost
Proper 27 Ordinary 32
November 8, 2009

RUTH 3:1-5; 4:13-17. The climax to the story comes through a clever plan by Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, to provide Ruth with security by marrying her kinsman, Boaz. Behind this plan lay the ancient Israelite custom of the nearest relative having responsibility for a widow’s care. The child of Ruth and Boaz became the crowning glory of the whole story: he was the grandfather of King David.

PSALM 127. This is another of the Songs of Ascent which may have been sung by pilgrims approaching the temple for one of the great festivals. It celebrates the virtues of strong family life as the basis for national security.

I KINGS 17:8-16. (Alternate) The miracle of the widow’s cruse that did not fail is one of the great stories of the OT. It points to a cardinal doctrine of Israel’s faith tradition: the providence of God under the most extreme circumstances. This doctrine finds expression in concern for one’s family and neighbours implicit in the latter six of the Ten Commandments and the Deuteronomic Law of love for neighbours which Jesus quoted.

PSALM 146. (Alternate) This is the first of the five Hallel Psalms which form the final praises of the Psalter. All are obviously for congregational liturgical use, but this one at least finds it inspiration in individual experience. A faithful Israelite has learned how he had benefited from the eternal goodness of God rather than from occasional favors of powerful princes.

HEBREWS 9:24-28. Reiterating the supremacy of Christ as the only true mediator between God and humanity, this passage points out how the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ differs from the Hebrew sacrificial tradition. Instead of repeated offerings, the all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus on the cross has eternal efficacy. The reading also cites the early Christian belief in the return of Christ when the salvation of all creation will be complete.

MARK 12:38-44. Approaching the temple, Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the scribes who were experts in Jewish religious law. He emphasized the point by drawing attention to the sacrificial offering of a poor widow in contrast to the large donations of the wealthy and powerful. The incident declares a whole new principle for charitable giving which can be used as effectively today as ever. Christian stewardship is best measured not by how much we give, but how much we have left for personal use and discretionary spending.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.The central focus of the story is clearly stated in vs. 1. Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, had devised a clever plan to provide Ruth with security by marrying her kinsman, Boaz. The barley harvest had arrived and Boaz was busy winnowing the grain. That ancient agricultural process involved throwing the reaped and threshed grain into the air on a windy day so that the wind would separate the grain from the chaff. In the Jewish tradition, this story is read on Shavu’ot (also called the Festival of Weeks or Pentecost) which celebrates the end of the barley harvest.

RUTH 3:1-5; 4:13-17.

Naomi’s scheme was for Ruth to wait until he had retired after his evening meal; then she was to seduce him in his bed. When he discovered Ruth during the night, Boaz dealt gently with her, advised her of a complication in taking care of her as both of them desired, and provided her with food as her cover for spending the night with him. Behind this plan lay the ancient Israelite custom of levirate marriage. This required the nearest relative of a widow to redeem her by marriage. If the next of kin did not choose to do so, he still had the responsibility for a widow’s care. Boaz was not the closest relative of Ruth’s late husband, so he had to negotiate with her next of kin before he could marry her. That process is described in 4:1-16.

The climax to the story comes through the child of Ruth and Boaz: he was the grandfather of King David. But there is a curious twist in 4:16-17. When Naomi became the child’s nurse, the women of the neighbourhood thought the child was hers. Could this have been a subtle way of making the Moabite ancestry of David more acceptable to an Israelite audience?

PSALM 127. While there is no conclusive evidence that the Songs of Ascent (Pss. 120-134) were sung by pilgrims approaching the temple for one of the great festivals, this remains the most likely hypothesis for their collection as a set of liturgical hymns. Several of them are oriented toward the temple (Pss. 122; 125; 129; 134), while others do not have any particular reference to pilgrims. A late Mishnah tract speculates that they were sung by the Levites on the fifteen steps leading from the court of women to the court of Israel (for men only), but this has been regarded as unlikely by most scholars. More probably, they came from several sources and were redacted as a book of devotions for pilgrims.

Ps. 127 celebrates the virtues of strong family life as the basis for national security. It has several characteristics of other psalms in the Wisdom tradition. (Pss. 1; 49; 73 128). These show a concern for moral principles and practices of a secular nature which provide for the greatest possible happiness. This one expresses a strong interest in ordinary family life expressed in very humane terms, yet rooted in a humble piety. The opening couplet makes this very clear as does the very descriptive reference to marriage, sexuality and a large family in vss. 3-5. The mention of male progeny only reveals the typical male-dominant attitudes of the Jewish tradition where only men could be b’nai b’rith – sons of the covenant.

A very colourful set of images lies behind these same verses. A man’s sons came from the marriage of his youth (vs. 4). The greater the number, the better for him, as indicated by the vivid image of a warrior’s quiver full of arrows (vs. 5). In his old age, he took his place as an elder seated at the town gate debating and giving judgments with his contemporaries. He had his opponents, of course. Jewish men loved to argue minute details of the law. The fact that he had many sons gave greater strength to his arguments. His enemies knew that family loyalties had persuasive force. The threat of vengeance prevented them from shaming him.

1 KINGS 17:8-16. (Alternate) There are subtle aspects to this story which ignite the imagination. Elijah, the prophet of Yahweh, was ordered to leave Israel and go to Zarephath, a coastal town between Tyre and Sidon now identified as Sarafannd. Archeologists have discovered that this was an important centre for manufacturing clay pottery and glass. This was foreign territory where other gods were worshiped, more specifically local manifestations of Baal, a Semetic storm god.

Was this pilgrimage made to escape a famine? It would not have been unusual and a very creative inspiration to come to Elijah. His home at Tishbe was some distance to the southeast in Gilead, on the east side of the Jordan. Because of the mountains of Samaria, rainfall was sparse at best in that part of Israelite territory while on the seacoast there would have been greater likelihood of rainfall and better crops.

Was the prophet at the end of his own resources when he asked for succor from the widow whom he met at the gate? She was certainly at the end of her resources. There was no welfare for a widow in any ancient social system unless she could remarry or was redeemed by a relative of her late husband as in the story of Ruth. Was her young son disabled in some way so that she had been rejected for remarriage? She certainly was extremely depressed, even hopeless about her chances for survival (vs.12).

The miracle of the widow’s cruse that did not fail is one of the great stories of the OT. It points to a cardinal doctrine of Israel’s faith tradition: the providence of God under the most extreme circumstances. This doctrine finds expression in concern for one’s family and neighbors implicit in the latter six of the Ten Commandments and the Deuteronomic Law of love for neighbors which Jesus quoted. This social system was proclaimed most clearly in the many of the Psalms and the Prophets, as well as evident in the Torah and here in the histories.

There is a modern parallel for us who live in the rich First World. Our extremities are moral and spiritual in the midst of grave overindulgence in consumer goods while many in our own society and millions elsewhere perish in poverty. What we desperately need in the present global economy when the distance between the haves and the have-nots widens daily, is a penetrating sense of God’s providence for all. Such a conviction would enable us maintain a much more balanced economic system and freely to share our excessive abundance with those who have nothing. The widow’s last handful of meal and a little oil is a common situation in a number of places in the world today. Despite our present difficult economic circumstances we still have much to share and could do so without fear of depriving ourselves and with faith’s assurance of God’s providence.

PSALM 146. (Alternate) This is the first of the five Hallel Psalms which form the final praises of the Psalter. All are obviously for congregational liturgical use, but this one at least finds its inspiration in individual experience. A faithful Israelite has learned how he had benefited from the eternal goodness of God rather than from the ephemeral favors of powerful princes. Perhaps he has even suffered personal imprisonment and some visual impairment (vss.7b-8a). Or, as is more likely, he stands in the tradition of the great prophets who discovered the social justice inherent in the Mosaic covenant (vv.7-9).

The late Professor W.R. Taylor, the exegete of the Psalms in The Interpreter’s Bible, had this to say: “We need not ask whether his trust in some time of personal need, or whether he is warning some of his fellows against obsequiousness to temporal powers been shattered. Rather, the psalmist is dealing more generally with the fundamental contrast between God and men when it comes to dependence on them for resolving the basic problems of human society. So viewed, the psalm sets forth its own way of truth which needs fresh emphasis in an era characterized by secular trends in culture and taste.” (IV, 745)

There is music in all of these Hallel Pslams, but the music is that of poetry cast in the characteristic Hebraic style of parallelism and in the sound of the very earliest musical instrument, the human voice. This musical element could be greatly enhanced by antiphonal reading or chanting by clergy and choir, or in the more traditional metrical version by Isaac Watts adapted by John Wesley to the tune “Old 113th” included in the hymnal of The United Church of Canada, Voices United, No. 867.

HEBREWS 9:24-28. Like so much else in the Letter to the Hebrews, this passage exhibits an extensive knowledge of Jewish sacrificial practice. The liturgy of the Day of Atonement is the central focus here. This was the one occasion in the whole year that the chief priest could enter the holy of holies, the most sacred shrine of Israel symbolic of the invisible presence of Yahweh. There he would perform three distinct sacrificial acts to atone for sin.

The first rite used incense and smoking coals to purify the shrine so that the high priest himself might be safe from the divine mystery. After prayer in the large main room of the temple, the high priest returned to the holy of holies to sprinkle the blood of a slain bull as atonement for all the priests. Finally, after slaughtering a scapegoat chosen by lot from one of two victims, the high priest entered the inner shrine a third time to offer its blood on behalf of the people. The second scapegoat was then driven out of the temple and city into the wilderness with a red ribbon tied around its neck. There it was pushed over a cliff to its death and a similar ribbon soaked red in the blood of the sacrificial victim was hung on the door of the sanctuary. The ribbon would be bleached white in the sun as a sign that the sins of the people were forgiven.

Reiterating the supremacy of Christ as the only true mediator between God and humanity, this passage points out how Christian faith and practice differs from the Hebrew sacrificial tradition. Instead of repeated offerings, the one, all-sufficient self-sacrifice of Jesus on the cross had eternal effectiveness. The writer enumerates the differences: (1) The sanctuary Christ entered after his resurrection was heaven itself (i.e. the real presence of God), not a temple built with human hands which supposedly was a copy of the heavenly dwelling of God (vs. 24). (2) Jesus did not offer himself again and again, as in the annual ritual as did the high priest (vs. 25). (3) He offered a single sacrifice, once for all (vs. 26). (4) Having died once bearing the sins of all people, as all mortals die who then face judgment, he will return, not to judge sin, but to save those who in faith eagerly await him (vss. 27-28).

By citing the belief in the return of Christ when salvation of all creation will be complete, this passage draws the indelible boundary of discontinuity between the Christian and Jewish messianic traditions. For Christians, Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. He came, lived and died, as do all humans. But his death was different. Not only did he lay down his life voluntarily to atone for the sins of all people, he will come again to bring them to eternal life in the presence of the eternal God. As Messiah/Christ, he is both high priest and victim, and as such his death on the cross is the divinely appointed means of atonement between God and humanity.

There is only one thing more for the author to add. It is by faith in what Jesus has done by his all-sufficient sacrifice that Christians must live and die. This final thought occupies the author for the remainder of the letter.

Some significance may also be given to the possible historical setting for this letter as an alternative to the traditional scholarly view that it was written for Jewish Christians struggling with the destruction of the temple and their expulsion from Jerusalem. A relatively new hypothesis holds that it was written for a Jewish community struggling with their difficult situation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The priesthood was already in serious decline and there was competition within Judaism from many sects, especially the Essene movement which may have been centered at Qumran close to the Dead Sea. That sect looked for an eschatological, end of history era when there would be a royal and a priestly messiah, both subordinate to the archangel Michael. Qumran literature also associated Michael with Melchizedek.

A Jewish scholar, Yigael Yadin, argued that this is the background of the Letter to the Hebrews. Some Jewish Christians may well have been attracted to the Essene movement or were former Essenes tempted to turn back to this sectarian belief. The letter could have been written to counter this compromise to the perfection of their salvation in Jesus Christ.

MARK 12:38-44. Jesus’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem was over. While teaching in the temple precincts, he condemned the hypocrisy of the scribes who were expert interpreters of religious law. This was a very controversial thing for him to do. Undoubtedly rabbis abounded in Jerusalem as did scribes. In Jesus’ time both were important members of the religious and political establishment of Israel. Although highly literate, scribes were much more than mere copyists who transmitted the law on written scrolls. They did not create new law, they merely interpreted both ancient and contemporary understandings of what was written in the Torah. They were also well trained for their task. Frequently, they acted as legal counselors to the priests and to the Pharisees. The gospel narratives usually link the three distinctive groups – high priests, scribes and the lesser priests known as Levites – in uncomplimentary ways. This may have been due more to the bias of the Christian community after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE.

Many establishment people other than the priests would have consulted them so as to remain within the religious and moral boundaries set by the law. Transcribing the Torah, for which they may also have been responsible, allowed the scribes considerable room for fudging literal interpretations of the ancient texts. Apparently this had made some of the scribes very rich. Jesus forthrightly condemned their hypocrisy. Note what he criticized most severely: their fine robes; their proud appearance in public, possibly to encourage business; their way of seeking the best seats on the synagogues because being seen was also good for business; their cunning deceit of the most vulnerable to gain control of widows’ property; and their ostentatiously long prayers to display their piety. One is reminded of the public appearances, photo-opportunities and television interviews modern politicians seek as the time for elections comes around.

Mark tells us that Jesus re-emphasized the point he had made about hypocrisy by drawing attention to the sacrificial offering of a poor widow in contrast to the large donations of the wealthy. Every one who entered the temple had to pay temple tithes and taxes. This passage indicates how people made voluntary gifts to the temple treasury, possibly something like a poor box. The collection of Jewish oral law and interpretations known as the Mishnah compiled in the 2nd century CE described a trumpet-shaped vessel atop a chest in the Court of Women into which these monies were cast. Some gave substantial amounts; the poor widow had little to give, but gave what she had nonetheless. Mark did not explain how Jesus knew about her financial status. Perhaps it was no more than her ragged appearance in contrast to the fine clothes of the rich that gave him the clue.

This incident declares a whole new principle for charitable giving which can be as effective today as ever. Good stewardship is best measured not by how much we give, but how much we have left for personal use and discretionary spending. A recent newspaper report told of a Jewish businessman, presumed by many to be very wealthy, but who died leaving a relatively small estate. It soon became public that for years he had engaged his rabbi in helping him direct his fortune to those most needing help in one way or another. He had given his wealth away. This was the kind of private stewardship Jesus authenticated in this pericope. It could well be the guiding principle for all of us as well as for governments to raise and invest public taxation only for the common good and not just in the pursuit of political power.

-30-