John Shearman's Lectionary

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-

THE REIGN OF CHRIST
Proper 29 Ordinary 34
NOVEMBER 22, 2009

The Christian year ends with the celebration of Christ reigning in glory with dominion over all creation.

2 SAMUEL 23:1-7. The author of this hymn of praise, regarded as King David’s last words, saw them as a fitting conclusion to the long narrative of David’s reign. Jews and Christians alike saw it as a prediction of the coming of God’s anointed Messiah in fulfilment of an everlasting covenant with God’s faithful people. The last two verses of this reading also describe the destruction of those who do not believe.

PSALM 132:1-12, (13-18). Yet another of the songs pilgrims may have sung as they approached the temple. this one recalls the vow of David to build a permanent dwelling place for the ark of the covenant symbolizing the presence of God among God’s people. The psalm also contains a promise that David’s descendants would sit on the throne of Israel forever if they keep the covenant.

DANIEL 7:9-10, 13-14. (Alternate) ) The scene in this vision of Daniel is the classic setting for judgment day in several ancient Middle Eastern religious traditions including those of Egypt, Babylon and Persia. The description also had great influence in the early Christian visions of divine judgment at the end of time. The same scene is still used frequently in both popular and homiletic presentations of what will occur on judgment day.

PSALM 93. (Alternate) As in several other psalms (24; 47; 68; 96-99) this one has the characteristics sung at the New Year celebrating the enthronement of Yahweh as sovereign over the whole earth and its people. Kingship was the common political system of the times, so it was natural that divinity should be described in this image.

REVELATION 1:4b-8. The Book of Revelation fits the description of eschatology, a form of literature containing of predictions about the fulfilment of God’s purpose at the end of history. This introductory passage cites the expectation of the early church that the return of Christ would bring this about.

JOHN 18:33-37. Jesus had been accused by his opponents of claiming to be king of the Jews, a treasonable offense in the Roman empire. This exchange between Jesus and Pilate tells us what the early church believed about the true nature of Jesus’ sovereignty. It was spiritual, not political; but it certainly had and still has political implications.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

2 SAMUEL 23:1-7. The author of this hymn of praise, regarded as King David’s last words, saw them as a fitting conclusion to the long narrative of David’s reign. Vs. 1 clarifies the tradition of David as the man whom God had specially chosen and exalted to be Israel’s greatest king. The tone is more than hero-worship or hagiography. It has a prophetic and messianic flair to it. Jews and Christians alike saw it as a prediction of the coming of God’s anointed Messiah, in fulfilment of an everlasting covenant with God’s faithful people.

The prophetic element finds expression in vs. 2 where the spirit speaks through David in the same way that prophets spoke for Yahweh. The subsequent message reiterates the prophetic theme of justice (vs. 3) and elicits a striking simile of the world seen in the freshness of sunrise in spring (vs. 4).

The reference in vs. 5 to David’s house, i.e. his descendants who ruled Israel after him, suggests that this hymn was written at a later date than the end of his own life (c. 950 BCE). It conveys the conviction that the Davidic dynasty was given the divine mandate to carry forward the covenant relationship with Yahweh. The question in vs. 5c might be interpreted as questioning whether or not David’s heirs were succeeding in their duties. Not to do so would be tantamount to the apostasy and polytheism for which later monarchs were infamous, resulting in the end of Israel as an independent nation in 586 BCE. The last two verses of the reading describe the destruction of those who do not believe. This judgment became the religious explanation for the nation’s disastrous history by the great pre-exilic prophets and the post-exilic chroniclers.

One of the major difficulties in exegeting this passage is the corruption of the Hebrew text. Some scholars believe this is due to the antiquity of the poem. It bears some similarity to a poem in Numbers 24, thought to be from the J-document source in the 10th century BCE. If so, an early date not long after David’s death for this composition is not an improbability. Other scholars contrast it with the so-called “Testament of Jacob” in Gen. 49 and the “Blessing of Moses” in Deut. 33. The former is from the post-exilic P-document, but the latter is thought to have originated in the 10th century BCE.

PSALM 132:1-12, (13-18). Here is yet another of the songs pilgrims may have sung as they approached the temple. This one recalls the vow of David to build a permanent dwelling place for the ark of the covenant symbolizing the presence of God among God’s people. Unlike several of the other psalms of ascent, this one was created intentionally as a processional hymn commemorating David’s bringing the ark to Jerusalem. There are antiphonal parts for a soloist and a chorus. It has been speculated, with good reason, that its origin lay in the anniversary of the reigning king’s accession together with the celebration of Yahweh’s enthronement. This celebration is believed to have been held annually at the New Year in pre-exilic times. The psalm most likely came from the latter part of that period, but not from David’s own reign.

“The hardships” in vs. 1 refer to the loss of the ark and the difficulties David had in recovering it and bringing it to Zion as told in 1 Samuel 4-6. There is, however, no record of his vow (vss. 2-5). That may be an imaginative addition to the tradition for theological purposes, a common practice of both OT and NT authors.

Vss. 6-7 re-enact David’s search for the ark sung by the choir and summon the people to participate with them in bringing the ark to its appropriate place in the temple. A sense of awe in the holy presence symbolized by the ark comes to the fore in vss. 8-9 as the priests advance to carry the ark into the temple and lead the people in worship before it. As the ark entered the temple, the monarch
offered a sacrifice with prayer for Yahweh’s favor (vs. 10). The remaining verses of the shorter reading consist of an oracle which responds to the prayer giving Yahweh’s promise of the continuance of David’s dynasty (vss. 11-12). A second oracle (vss. 13-18) promises Yahweh’s continued presence in the temple and his providential care for both the priesthood and the monarchs who will continue David’s dynasty. The repeated mention of “the anointed one” lent this psalm to a messianic interpretation, although the term originally was a pious euphemism for the monarch.

DANIEL 7:9-10, 13-14. (Alternate) The scene in this vision of Daniel is the classic setting for judgment day in several ancient Middle Eastern religious traditions including those of Egypt, Babylon and Persia. The description also had great influence in the early Christian visions of divine judgment at the end of time. The same scene is still used frequently in both popular and homiletic presentations of what will occur on judgment day.

“The Ancient One” (i.e Yahweh) takes the seat of judgment in the heavenly court with a supporting cast of assessors. The books containing the lists of deeds, good and evil, is opened for the assessors to examine. There are several other OT and many intertestamental references to this scrutiny of human actions. (See Ps. 56:8; Isa. 65:6; Mal. 3:16; Jubilees 30:22; Enoch 81:4; 89:61-64; 98:7-8; 104:7.)

Suddenly the vision of Daniel changes. A new figure appears representing the beginning of a new era inhuman form. He comes from heaven, the place of orderliness, peace and purity replacing the old order of turmoil, chaos and evil.
This new person is given divine authority, power and eternal sovereignty which will never pass away.

It is not difficult to see why Jewish and Christian messanism and apocalypticism adopted this understanding of divine judgment that would completely displace the evil order of human affairs as it was experienced in actual history.

PSALM 93. (Alternate) As in several other psalms ( 24; 47; 68; 96-99) this one has the characteristics sung at the New Year celebrating the enthronement of Yahweh as sovereign over the whole earth and its people. Kingship was the common political system of the times, so it was natural that divinity should be described in this image.

This concept originated long before the development of monotheism in the myths of creation common throughout the ancient Middle East. Subsequently Israel’s god Yahweh was seen to be supreme among the gods of all other of the nations (i.e. henotheism) and the only one to whom the Israelites owed obedience.

This psalm describes how water in the form of floods from heavy rainstorms, recalling the primeval deep as in Gen. 1:1-2, assured that the providence of Yahweh would continue throughout the coming year. This assurance derived from Yahweh’s holiness even as his holiness would remain forever.

REVELATION 1:4b-8. The Book of Revelation can only be classified as eschatology, a form of literature containing predictions about the fulfilment of God’s purpose at the end of history. Some people make the mistake of reading this book literally or allegorically, then trying to guess how it fits into the current affairs they hear about on the daily news. One wonders where and how one could find reference to the current confusion about how democracy works or doesn’t work in different countries. Perhaps this is the time to prepare a sermon on how to interpret apocalyptic and eschatological literature with its strange symbolism and imaginative visions that so fill the pages of Revelation.

One of the best resources I have found for understanding what John was trying so say is Professor George B. Caird’s commentary in the Black’s New Testament Commentaries (The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Adam & Charles Black, 1966). William Barclay’s Daily Bible Study on Revelation is also excellent, as is exegesis and exposition by Martin Rist and Lynn Harold Hough in The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12.

This reading contains a lot more than the greeting and address of the seven letters to follow in chs. 2-3. Seven is the traditional symbol for wholeness or completeness. So, in this instance, it does not only designate the specific churches addressed, but the church as a whole for whom John wrote. In other words, the book has a universal audience, all who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. According to Caird, “the seven spirits who are before the throne” represents the Spirit of God actively engaged with the churches in all its fullness and power. He also sees this as a reference to Zechariah 4 where the prophet has a vision of Israel represented by a candelabra with seven lamps. Rist also felt that the phrase referred to several OT passages which spoke of the seven archangels of Jewish speculation and to Persian astral theology where the sun, moon and five visible planets were thought to have control over human affairs.

There may also have been a hidden challenge to the imperial religion of Rome in this phrase. Coins from the early reign of Domitian showed the emperor’s heir who died in childhood as an infant Zeus playing with the stars to compensate for the dominion he would never inherit. For John, there could be no other sovereign than the crucified, risen and ascended Christ. So immediately he calls forth the scene before the throne of God (vs. 5). The titles he gives to Christ proclaim his sovereignty to encourage those who are even now struggling with the challenge to be faithful witnesses as they faced persecution for not paying obeisance to the emperor.

The first witness to the saving, redeeming love of God was Jesus Christ himself. Faithful unto death, he was raised from the dead and now is seated at the right hand of God as the reigning sovereign of heaven and earth. To him even the emperor owes allegiance for he is “ruler of the kings of the earth.” The term “firstborn of the dead” refers not only to the resurrection, but to the spiritual experience of every believer who enters into Christ’s death and resurrection through the act of baptism. Compare also the words of Jesus to Nicodemus about being born again of the Spirit in John 3: 5-6.

A double reference to the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrament of holy communion leads into the next sentence of John’s address to the churches. This same sentence resonates with the Fourth Gospel in speaking of the both the sacrament and the glorification of Christ by his death and resurrection. John also knew the OT (probably in the LXX version) and voiced the tradition of the apostolic church that the church was the continuation of Israel as “a kingdom (and/of) priests serving God” (vs. 6 cf. Exod. 19:6) What is more, John believed and returned to the thought several times that those whom Christ had released from their sins would reign with him. It remains a question whether they would exercise this dominion in this life or in life beyond death (cf. 2:26; 3:21; 5:10; 7:13-15; 20:6).

In vs. 7, John combined two apocalyptic references from Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10 to create a vivid picture of the Second Coming of Christ when even those who crucified him will submit to him. But is their wailing when they see his wounds a true repentance and acclamation of him as Lord and God as was the case with Thomas (cf. John 20:28)? John, the author of Revelation, has no doubt . He proclaims Jesus “the beginning and the end” i.e the great “I am,” the One in whom we are perpetually confronted by the living, ever-present and all powerful God. In the OT, those terms are caught up in the Hebrew name Yahweh Sebaoth, translated in English versions as “the Lord of hosts.”

One of the Greek translations for that name in the LXX was Pantokrator, “the Almighty.” For John the word meant something else than the Hebrew interpretation that Yahweh’s Messiah would lead a great army into victorious battle over Israel’s enemies. Christ’s omnipotence does not exist in unlimited coercive military power, but in the authority of self-giving love that cannot be defeated. This surely has something to say about all the current manipulations in the pursuit of political power a s well as the seemingly endless wars for dominance in geopolitical spheres of influence.

JOHN 18:33-37. Through the centuries Jesus’ trial before Pilate has engendered incredible flights of imaginative fancy. Despite all the research and preaching based on this event as John narrated it, we have no clear, definitive indication of what actually happened. We have no more than this pericope tells us. Jesus had been accused by his opponents of claiming to be king of the Jews, a treasonable offense in the Roman empire. The automatic penalty was death. Pilate had very little personal reason to examine the prisoner before him. After all the others he had ordered executed, one more dead Jew would mean little or nothing to his career. His governorship lasted for another six years. Why then did John tell of this incident told in this way?

This exchange between Jesus and Pilate helps us understand what the early church believed about the true nature of Jesus’ sovereignty. John designed this part of the passion story to reiterate something he had Jesus say earlier. He wanted to reaffirm Jesus as “the way, the truth and the life.” (Cf. John 14:6) He also wanted to clarify the true nature of the kingdom of God as Jesus had revealed it, although the phrase actually occurs in only one other passage in John. (3:3 & 5)

This interchange revolved around the meaning of the word “kingdom.” (Greek = basileia). The word occurs no less than six times, twice as many as “truth” (Greek = aletheia) on which so much expository and homiletic attention has been focused. As John narrated it, Jesus and Pilate talked right past each other, but that appears to have been quite intentional on John’s part. The meaning of the word “kingdom” was the key to what each of the two men said. Each had a totally different interpretation of it.

For Pilate, “kingdom” had a purely political reference. As Roman governor, he recognized Herod Antipas as one of two puppet kings, also known as tetrarchs, of the Jews. Philip, half brother of Antipas, was the other. Antipas had limited authority in Galilee; Philip in Transjordan. Luke added a complication to the trial of Jesus before Pilate passed sentence on him by having Pilate send Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:6-12). At most, Pilate must have been curious about this Galilean usurper of Herod’s jurisdiction, little though it was under Roman imperial sovereignty. For Jesus, the meaning of “kingdom” was quite another matter.

As Jesus exercised it, true sovereignty was spiritual, not political. Had it been political, he told Pilate, his followers would be fighting in the streets to keep him from being handed over to the Jews. (We may note as an aside that this is yet another hook on which to hang the accusation that John’s Gospel is anti-Semitic. Actually, the nature of Jesus’ sovereignty prevents that from being credible except in its literal sense. The central drama of John’s Gospel includes this conflict between Jesus and the Jews.) Jesus had been brought before Pilate on a purely political charge. Jesus did not deny his kingship; he interpreted it on a level on which people of all nations and races could respond to it.

Pilate was as puzzled as we are about what that meant. The sovereignty of Jesus rests on the love of God he came to reveal. The anticipated response to that revelation of divine sovereignty is to make love dominant in all human relationships in obedience to the commandment to love as God loves us. (Cf. John 15:12; 1 John 4:7-12) This humble truth was as far beyond Pilate’s understanding as it still is for a great many of the six billion and more of us inhabiting this planet today. That may be an entirely spiritual sovereignty; but it certainly had and still has political implications. It is our calling as believers to implement this God’s sovereign love in the myriad affairs of personal, national and international life.

-30-

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
TENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
PROPER 14 ORDINARY 19
AUGUST 9, 2009.

2 SAMUEL 18:5-9, 15, 31-33. Without doubt this is one of the most moving stories from the whole of David’s reign. Essentially, it told about God’s love for Israel in a very personal parable. A palace revolution set Absolam, one of David’s sons, against his father ending in David’s flight and a bloody battle for power. Absolam suffered an accident and was slain by David’s ambitious general, Joab. When told the tragic news, David wept bitterly for his rebellious son, as God weeps for all whom God loves.

PSALM 130. As a prayer of penitence this psalm has few equals. It reflects of an actual situation evoking a desperate cry for God’s forgiveness. The need to be reconciled to God has universal application in the patient hope with which the psalm ends.

I KINGS 19:4-8. (Alternate) This is only a brief incident in a life-changing experience of the prophet Elijah. Threatened by Jezebel, he ran for his life. He headed out into the wilderness, a dry and barren place where he fell asleep under a broom tree, one of the few that will grow in such arid conditions. Strengthened for a longer journey by food miraculously provided, he trekked all the way to Horeb (Sinai), the mountain where Yahweh and Israel, led by Moses, had made covenant.

PSALM 34:1-8. (Alternate) This psalm presents one of the clearest statements of God’s redemptive purpose to be found in the Old Testament.

EPHESIANS 4:25-5:2. Either Paul himself, or one of his disciples who wrote this letter, exhorted his audience to live in a gentle and kindly way rather than angrily venting their frustrations and injustices. Their model was to be God’s loving forgiveness for them so fully expressed in Jesus Christ who died for them.

JOHN 6:35, 41-51. So different from the other gospels, John adds this discourse to the story of Jesus feeding of the five thousand. It is filled with John’s reflections on who Jesus really is and the meaning of his being the bread of life.

Jesus’ claim to be the complete revelation of God puzzled his Jewish contemporaries. They protested that they knew full well who he was because they knew his parents. Jesus went on to explain that he was not only the successor to the prophets, but the one who makes perfectly plain all that can be known about God and gives eternal, spiritual life to all who believed.

John’s Gospel was written possibly as long as sixty years after the resurrection for the third generation of Christians. He gave the early church’s most profound understanding of what Jesus really means to every generation.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

2 SAMUEL 18:5-9, 15, 31-33. The story of Absolam, David’s third son, forms a subplot to the life of David, in particular as a consequence of his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. An earlier part of the narrative gave some justification for Absolam’s rebellion. Believing that his father had lost his ability to provide adequate justice, Absolam took matters into his own hands. He arranged the death of Ammon, David’s oldest son, for raping his sister, Tamar (1 Sam. 13:1-29). A palace revolution set Absolam against his father won a considerable following in Israel. No longer sure of the loyalty of his troops, David fled from Jerusalem, raised three battalions, returned to guerilla warfare and engaged Absolam’s forces in a bloody battle for power.

David’s forces won the battle, causing Absolam to flee. But Absolam suffered a silly accident by being caught by the forked branch of a tree as his mule ran through a forest. David’s ambitious general, Joab, found and slew Absolam as he hung there totally vulnerable. When told the tragic news, David wept bitterly for his rebellious son, as God weeps for all whom God loves.

Without doubt this is one of the most moving stories from the whole cycle of narratives about David’s reign. It expresses profoundly human sentiments and contains genuine theological relevance. In a very personal parable it told of David’s love and grief for his both his sons, Ammon and Absolam, both of whom had repulsed him. The story may also be seen as a metaphor of God’s love for recalcitrant Israel. Because of this double intent, it became sacred scripture. Read in an extremely dramatic way, it can bring a deep sense of its pathos to an attentive audience.

PSALM 130. As a prayer of penitence this psalm has few equals. It reflects of an actual situation evoking a desperate cry for God’s forgiveness. The need to be reconciled to God has universal application in the patient hope with which the psalm ends.
Yet at the same time this deep sense of trust in God’s mercy and forgiveness rested on the assurance of Yahweh’s steadfast love. After all, the whole of Israel faith-history of Yahweh’s redemptive love lay behind this fervent prayer.

The psalm was included in a collection known as the “Songs of Ascent,” believed to have been sung by pilgrims as they approached Jerusalem for one of the great festivals. This one appears to fit the mood of those coming for Yom Kippur, the Feast of Atonement. On that holiest of occasions, all individual and national sins were repented and received merciful forgiveness. All the people and the nation received atonement with Yahweh through the designated sacrifices and the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies. The fact that no mention is made of atoning sacrifices in this psalm has caused some scholars to assign it to a late, post-exilic date when Israel’s religious tradition had become more dependent on a spiritual relationship with Yahweh much more like that of the New Testament.

Vs. 6 contains a vivid image of watchmen on the eastern walls of Jerusalem watching for dawn to break over the Mount of Olives. From this, one can surmise that the poem may well have been composed by an individual engaged in a long night vigil contemplating two spiritual realities. Or, if he was a pilgrim, he may even have been close to the city itself as he spent the night too moved by his deep feelings to get any rest. In his wakefulness, he longed for morning to come when he could enter the city for the great festival. At the same time he was deeply conscious of his personal sin and had great hopes for the peace of repentance and forgiveness. Repentant Christians as well as Jews have turned to this psalm for the reassuring hope that it brings tot the troubled conscience.

I KINGS 19:4-8. (Alternate) This is only a brief episode in a life-changing experience of the prophet Elijah. Having won a decisive victory, Elijah had been threatened by Jezebel. So he ran for his life. He headed out into the wilderness, a dry and barren place where he fell asleep under a broom tree, one of the few that will grow in such arid conditions. Hunger and fatigue by an angel’s intervention in his plight he received food miraculously provided for a longer journey. So strengthened he trekked all the way to Horeb (Sinai), the mountain where Yahweh and Israel, led by Moses, had made covenant.

Angels as intermediaries between God and the prophets did not appear in Hebrew religious thought until after the Babylonian exile (639 BCE). The Septuagint (LXX, in Greek from 4th century BCE) translated this phenomenon as “someone,” likely interpreting the incident as a theophany and the “angel” as a manifestation of God in human form.

The passage depicts the prophet as humanly at the end of his own strength but miraculously receiving divine strength to return to the mount of God where Israel’s religious history began. In the northern tradition known as E (for Elohim) and in later Deuteronomic narrative (D), Horeb was the name given to the sacred mountain, the dwelling place of the God of Israel where the covenant was established. The alternative J tradition from the Southern Kingdom of Judea used the name Sinai for the holy mountain.

In the mid-20th century, British historian Arnold J. Toynbee described twenty-one different civilizations which had risen and fallen during the sweep of human history. One of his significant insights was to posit a time of retreat for renewal as a necessary step in the life cycle of any civilization or culture, then to return as a creative minority to establish a whole new approach to challenges to be faced. Out of the ruins of the old, the new was created. One finds a similar experience in the return of Elijah to Horeb. This becomes clear in the subsequent verses (19:9-18) where the prophet’s epiphany is described in detail.

PSALM 34:1-8. (Alternate) This psalm presents one of the clearest statements of God’s redemptive purpose to be found in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew text it has an acrostic form, each line beginning with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The psalm also is in the wisdom style and so dates from the late Persian or early Greek period. Some scholars believe it may also have been associated with the lament of Ps. 25 as a hymn of thanksgiving.

The main purpose of the psalm is to celebrate with gratitude the saving power of Yahweh. It expresses great confidence and trust in Yahweh’s special care for the righteous.

While the superscription mistakenly attributes the psalm to an incident in David’s flight from his rebellious son Abimilech, no direct reference to that or any other event in David’s reign can be found. Such Davidic references were given to about half of the psalms, probably related to a special collection attributed to David. These titles were added during the compilation process somewhere between the fourth and second centuries BCE.

Viewed from a wider perspective, the psalm points to the constant mercy and love with which Yahweh watched over and delivered Israel from innumerable disasters. At the same time it draws more attention to the individual believer who trusts in Yahweh than to the nation as a whole. This too has been the attitude of devout Christians through many generations.

EPHESIANS 4:25-5:2. As this continuing analysis of Ephesians has been saying, either Paul himself, wrote this letter, or more probably one of his disciples composed it from his knowledge of Paul’s teaching, possibly after using it as a baptismal sermon. In this brief excerpt he exhorted his audience to live in a gentle and kindly way rather than angrily venting their frustrations and complaining about injustices they may have suffered. Their model was to be God’s loving forgiveness for them so fully expressed in Jesus Christ who died for them.

We need to keep at the forefront of our minds that the NT, and especially the letters, were written for congregations scattered far and wide across the eastern Roman empire. However obliquely, they referred to real situations within those faith communities. We have few resources to decipher exactly what those circumstances may have been when these letters were composed. It would appear from the context of this passage that there was a considerable amount of bickering and quarreling going on in this congregation. Either that, or the letter was addressed to faith communities in general who were in great conflict over the issue of whether Jews and Gentile could fellowship together. As someone put it in a comment on last week’s lesson, the issue was peace, not unity, although the unity of Christ’s body, the church, is named as one of the main themes of this letter.

Apparently anger and deceit within the fellowship had become serious concerns for “Paul” (vss. 25-27). People also seem to have been taking advantage of one another. Some may have been only partially reformed thieves (vs. 28). When people are riled up about issues, they often criticize and condemn one another mercilessly. That may be what Paul had in mind about “evil talk” in vs. 29. His antidote to that kind of talk is worth noting. An elderly concert musician and teacher once said, “Like good music, life needs to have plenty of grace notes. That’s what gives it colour and flavour.”

Did the anonymous author also have in mind Paul’s “fruits of the Spirit” in vs. 30? He certainly made direct reference to the Spirit as the seal of our future redemption, a phrase that occurs in the Pauline corpus many times. Then he returned to his earlier concern about serious communication issues that had arisen within the church for which there was only one solution: to speak in kindly, gentle words with gracious forgiveness modeled on God’s forgiving grace in Jesus Christ.

That, of course, would require considerable change of heart and perhaps some personal sacrifice of pride, especially for those who had been hurt by harshly spoken words. Could the Corinthians with whom Paul had such difficulty have been in the author’s mind here? As Frederick B. Craddock said in a sermon to one of Canada’s most prestigious congregations and a large radio audience, “Only those who have been hurt can be forgiving because they have been wounded and violated.” That is exactly what God did – and does – continually and consistently.

JOHN 6:35, 41-51. So different from the other gospels, John added this discourse to the story of Jesus feeding of the five thousand as an interpretation of something much more relevant to his own time and audience. The discourse consists of John’s reflections on who Jesus really is and the meaning of his being “the bread of life.”

If as many scholars have concluded, John was writing for the church in Ephesus in the last decade of the 1st century, what was he saying to them in this metaphor and its elaboration in the discourse? Within the decade before John wrote, the final distinction between the Jewish and the Christian faith traditions had become clear. Having been expelled from all Jewish synagogues, Christians no longer could be considered as a sect of Judaism. This expulsion meant that Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were alienated from Israel and even their own families. At the same time, Christian communities now had a majority of Gentiles in their ranks. The teaching of the apostles defined more and more the limits of this tradition.

This prompted Christian communities to create radically transformed liturgies from their Jewish antecedents to express their peculiar Christian beliefs. Gospels recording Jesus’ sayings and deeds, the story of his passion, death and resurrection, and especially letters attributed to the apostle Paul, circulated more and more widely among churches. Into this milieu John’s Gospel introduced these reflections about the eucharistic celebration which marked every Christian gathering for worship.

In this passage, Jesus’ claim to be the complete revelation of God greatly puzzled his Jewish contemporaries. They protested that they knew full well who he was because they knew his parents. Mistakenly, they had understood him in an entirely literal way. Jesus had spoken in characteristic metaphors.

Bread had been particularly important in the Jewish religious tradition. Not only was it the staff of life, it held the promise of life itself. The Deuteronomists regarded the gift of eating bread without scarcity in the Promised Land as the promise of life in freedom and prosperity (Deut. 8:9). The sacrificial system included an offering of cereal used in the making of bread. Tabernacle and temple both required a permanent display of bread representing the presence of Yahweh (Exod. 25:30; 1 Chron. 28:16). The Passover festival of unleavened bread formed the central religious rite in remembrance of the Exodus.

Like the manna that fed the Israelites in the wilderness, Jesus identified himself with this ancient tradition as the “bread from heaven.” In doing so, he at once acknowledged the significance of this divine gift of bread and reinterpreted its meaning. He explained that he was not only the successor to the prophets, of whom Moses was foremost, but actually represented God in every way. He was the one who makes perfectly plain all that can be known of God and gives God’s eternal, spiritual life to all who believe.

Thus John gave the early church its most profound understanding of what Jesus really meant to his own and still means to every generation. Whenever we participate in the breaking of bread, in the sacred eucharist or in the humblest of meals, we have fellowship with him and with God whom he reveals to us through the working of the Spirit. As the traditional grace at table prays: “Be present at our table, Lord, be here and everywhere adored. These mercies bless and grant that we may feast in Paradise with thee.”

-30-