John Shearman's Lectionary

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
Twenty-Fourth Sunday After Pentecost
Proper 28 Ordinary 33
November 15, 2009

 1 SAMUEL 1:4-20 AND 1 SAMUEL 2:1-10. These readings tell the story of Hannah and the song she sang when she dedicated her son, Samuel, to serve God. The early church saw it as a prefiguring of the birth of the Messiah. Almost certainly Luke used it as the model for his narrative of the announcement of the birth of Jesus to Mary and her song in Luke 1, known best by it liturgical name, The Magnificat. The canticle can be read as the psalm for the day.

DANIEL 12:1-3. (Alternate) This somewhat obscure passage prophesies a future time when by God’s action through the archangel Michael justice will come to the nations. The righteous, both living and dead, will be rewarded with everlasting life and the unrighteous put to shame and everlasting contempt. It was a prophesy for a time of great tribulation in the 2nd century BC when in Israel was greatly oppressed by a powerful Greek emperor, Antiochus Epiphanes.

PSALM 16. (Alternate) This psalm of trust meditates on the spiritual values enjoyed by the psalmist in serving God alone. It yields pleasures and security which those who worship other gods cannot enjoy.

HEBREWS 10:11-14, (15-18), 19-25. The author of this theological essay or series of sermons clinches his argument regarding the supremacy of Christ by appealing to his audience to hold on to their faith. He urges them to encourage one another to love and do good deeds as they wait for Christ’s return because Christ has made the perfect sacrifice for their salvation and has been exalted to the right hand of God.

MARK 13:1-8. In spite of the long quotation attributed to Jesus, this chapter may well consist of the teaching of the early church in which are imbedded actual words of Jesus about his return. The incident reported in this passage became the obvious setting for these instructions about what would happen and how believers should act when the time comes. Mark may actually be referring to the temple’s destruction which had occurred about the time he wrote.

While the return of Christ is still a part of our tradition, scholars debate how much of the detail was actually drawn from the Jewish expectation of the Messiah to bring his reign to Israel, defeat all its enemies and oppressors, and end human history.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

1 SAMUEL 1:4-20 AND 1 SAMUEL 2:1-10. The second part of this reading< Hannah’s song, is actually a psalm and may be read as the psalm for the day.

Very few lectionary readings feature a woman as the main character. Hannah ranks among the OT heroines of faith along with Miriam, Esther and Ruth. These readings tell her brief but simple story and recite the song she sang when she dedicated her son, Samuel, to serve Yahweh under the tutelage of Eli, the priest at the shrine of Shiloh.

In his commentary in The Interpreter’s Bible, the late Professor George Caird cited this as part of the later of two main sources of 1 & 2 Samuel. Its purpose was to introduce the prophet Samuel as a man of significant heritage which the genealogy omitted from this reading (vss. 1-3). Hannah’s barrenness gave her great sorrow and became the cause of additional anguish when she suffered great provocation from her rival, her husband’s other, more fertile wife. Caird held that this was also the reason why Elkanah had taken a second wife. No Israelite man could bear the shame of childlessness. The story also appears to recapitulate the story of Abraham and Sarah.

Eli, the priest of Shiloh, found her in the doorway of the temple and suspected her of being in a drunken stupor. In reality she was praying and making a vow – perhaps a bargain would be a better word for it – that she would dedicate to lifelong service of Yahweh if the son for whom she pleaded be granted her. Eli promised that her petition would be granted, a prophetic oracle that relieved her sorrow.

The story is quite legitimate as the introductory tale about a great hero of the Jewish tradition. More problematic, however, is the second reading. Hannah’s song was reputedly sung when she dedicated the boy as per her bargain before his conception. This is a typical psalm praising the providence of Yahweh similar to many others in the Psalter. In the Hebrew text, it breaks into the narrative in the middle of sentence, which gives strength to the argument that it was imported from some other source.

The early Christian church saw the story and especially Hannah’s song as a prefiguring of the birth of the Messiah. Almost certainly Luke used it as the model for his narrative of the announcement of the birth of Jesus to Mary and her song in Luke 1: 47-55.

The song sounds a strong note of triumphalism. Adversaries and enemies play a large part in the drama it describes, emphasizing these almost to the point of paranoia. This has little to do with Hannah’s circumstances, but a great deal to say about the hostility Israel felt toward its neighbours. It is the song of an oppressed people longing for deliverance. Unable to throw off the yoke of their oppression, they had transferred their hope to divine intervention. In the final verse of the passage (vs. 10) a note of messianic eschatology creeps in.

Professor Caird’s fellow expositor in The Interpreter’s Bible, John C. Schroeder, felt that Hannah’s song of thanksgiving came very close to moral immaturity. That was prevented by Yahweh’s providential intervention on her behalf as an instance of the ethical dilemma always presented to those who ask for divine favors. Yahweh is morally accountable, even if we humans are not. Because Yahweh is righteous and just, history – if not all human experience – is essential providential. The British historian, Herbert Butterworth, adopted a similar theory of history in his Christianity and History (1954). Perhaps this is why there is hope for a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians in that holy corner of the globe where the biblical story unfolded. This ethical attitude toward divine providence also gives impetus to the global struggle for justice from which all persons may someday benefit.

DANIEL 12:1-3. (Alternate) This somewhat obscure passage prophesies a future time when by God’s action through the archangel Michael justice will come to the nations. The righteous, both living and dead, will be rewarded with everlasting life and the unrighteous put to shame and everlasting contempt. It ends an extensive apocalyptic vision beginning at 11:1. It was a prophesy envisioning the end of a time of great tribulation in the 2nd century BC when in Israel had been greatly oppressed by a powerful Greek emperor, Antiochus Epiphanes.

This was by no mean an imaginary event or irresponsible hope. Although the prophecies of Daniel were set as if the Jews were still in exile in Babylon. the dire effects of the reign of Antiochus IV and his ardent Hellenization of Jerusalem and Judea had ended or was about to end with the rebellion of the Jewish people under the Maccabees (168-167 BCE). The subsequent turmoil brought about the century long reign of the Hasmonaean dynasty, the last period of Jewish independence in their homeland until the mid-20th century C.E.

This brief excerpt was thought to be the original ending the apocalypse of Daniel. With the death of Antiochus Epiphanes the final consummation of Israel’s divinely mandated history would begin. This would come about as Michael, the patron archangel of the Jews, undertook to execute Yahweh’s will for the Covenant People. The prophecy described what would happen as if the end of history was about to arrive and a general resurrection take place. Those whose deeds were irreconcilably evil would be condemned while the righteous would reign with justice and peace.

As we shall see in the reading from Mark 13 and similar New Testament references, Christian apocalyptcism as well as the hope for God’s reign on earth even in modern times of great tribulation has drawn extensively from this passage.

PSALM 16. (Alternate) This psalm of trust meditates on the spiritual values enjoyed by the psalmist in serving God alone. Such a life yields pleasures and security which those who worship other gods cannot enjoy. Identified as psalms of trust, this class includes several others such as Pss. 4, 23, 27A, 62 and 131.

While the words of vs. 2 “I have no good apart from you,” seem clear enough, a note in the RSV and NRSV point out that this is a translation from the Vulgate of Jerome. Again in vs. 4, the Hebrew text is confused, but the meaning does not appear to have been lost. In the Jewish tradition, only libations of wine were offered to Yahweh. According to Isa. 66:4 libations of blood, possibly that of pigs, were associated with practices considered detestable. The Law permitted only blood sacrifices with the blood of freshly slaughtered sheep, goats and bulls, but never pigs.

Vss. 5-11 expresses the psalmist deep sense of security because Yahweh provides for his material and spiritual needs. Several striking metaphors reiterate the way divine providence has blessed this person. In vs. 5, the phrase “my chosen portion” expresses the inherited share of land or goods, while “my cup,” drawn from the practice of passing a cup of wine to a guest, may refer to this person’s destiny ( cf. Mark 10: 38; Matt. 26:27, 39). In vs. 6, “the boundary lines … in pleasant places” probably means the way the division of property by lot yielded good land.

Vss. 7-8 deal with spiritual matters. Divine wisdom comes during the night when quiet meditation on the way of the Lord keeps the psalmist steadfast in faith. In the final verses (9-11) the psalmist expresses the joy and security he feels because Yahweh has not abandoned him to Sheol, the place of the dead eternally isolated from Yahweh’s presence. Imagination pictured it as a shadowy pit beneath the earth into which the unfaithful were cast for all eternity. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:25-28 quoted the Septuagint version of vss. 9-11 based on an interpretive story or midrash which gave them an unusual messianic interpretation.

HEBREWS 10:11-14, (15-18), 19-25. The author of this theological essay or series of sermons clinches his argument regarding the supremacy of Christ by appealing to his audience to hold on to their faith. He urges them to encourage one another to love and do good as they wait for Christ’s return because Christ has made the perfect sacrifice for their salvation and has been exalted to the right hand of God.

However much the downgrading of Jewish sacrificial practices may appeal to the Christian mind, Jews did not necessarily feel that the sacrifices of their priests were ineffective. In fact, the Pharisees adopted such meticulous attitude toward ritual because they believed that the worship of the temple did have the intended effect of bringing them closer to God. Jesus enraged them not only because he included notorious sinners in God’s kingdom, but because he, for the most part, disregarded the appropriate sacrifices which would show their true repentance. E. P. Sanders points out that Jesus did not necessarily object to sacrifices, but regarded them as aspects of temporal piety in contrast to the more adequate, eternal relationship with God which he offered. The author of Hebrews regarded them as inadequate too.

Commenting on this passage, William Barclay stated that the writer reiterated how perfect the sacrifice of Christ really is by showing that as an act of total obedience it fully revealed the love of God. All that God requires, even in the Hebrew Torah, is absolute obedience. This Jesus accomplished by his death on the cross. Having done so, God accepted this perfect offering and exalted Jesus in the resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God. Vs. 14 points out the universal effect of his sacrifice: it makes humans holy, i.e sanctify them. Paul would have used the legal term justification, making sinners right with God, for this effect. This writer did not separate justification and sanctification.

Vss. 19-25 carries the argument still further. Appropriation of the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice, i.e bring about a perfect relationship with God, rests on a steadfast response of faith. Recalling the rituals on the Day of Atonement, the author likens the effect of Christ’s sacrifice and the Christians’ response to the renewal of the divine-human relationship the temple liturgy was intended to effect. The results of this atonement will show in the way Christians continue to love and do good deeds which reflect the divine love which has sanctified them. They were also meet together for worship and mutual encouragement, all the more so because they expected Christ’s return very soon.

There may be recollections of Paul’s thinking in these final exhortations to faith, hope and love. Paul might not have added “good works” as this writer did. Modern biblical scholar John Knox has said that this author was “a sacramentalist on a grand scale” in that he was steeped in liturgics of Israel and regarded the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as “the supreme sacrament.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, XI, 712) Yet, as Knox adds, this author had very little to say about either the Christian sacraments or Christian liturgy. Nor was he a strong ethicist despite knowing that the essence of the Christian ethic is love. He used the word agapé‚ here, but this is one of the only two times he did. (See also 6:10.) His sole interest was in the extended analogy he drew between the high priestly role and sacrifice of Christ and rituals of Judaism.

MARK 13:1-8. Known as “the Little Apocalypse,” this whole chapter remains the subject of much scholarly controversy. In spite of the long quotation attributed to Jesus, this chapter may well consist more of the teachings of the early church in which were imbedded actual words of Jesus about his return. That assumes, of course, that Jesus could foretell his resurrection and return as the NT tradition held. The incidents reported in this passage – one viewing the temple close up and one from a distance on the Mount of Olives – became the obvious settings for these instructions about what would happen and how believers should act when the time comes.

Mark may actually be referring to the temple’s destruction which had occurred about the time he wrote his gospel. On the other hand, Herod the Great had spent so much money and taxed the people so heavily to reconstruct the temple, that it must have had a startling effect on these Galileans if they had just seen it for the first time. Even today, the site is magnificent although much altered by the total destruction of the temple in the 1st and 2nd centuries and the extensive construction of the area by the Moslems in 7th and 16th centuries. The only remaining element of the temple is the massive stone wall on the western side of the site, the Western Wall, where Jews and tourists alike gather daily by the thousands to pray.

While the return of Christ, which is the theme of this whole chapter as well as this passage, is still a part of our tradition, scholars debate how much of the detail was actually drawn from the Jewish eschatological expectations of the Messiah found largely in Daniel. Many preachers make the grave error of treating the passage literally. One can hear or see such misinterpretations every weekend on religious radio stations and television channels. Their error consists in attempting to answer the same question that the four disciples asked in vs. 3: “When will this be …?” Of course, no answer can be given. What follows is a composite discourse drawn from several sources including some sayings which may well be part of the authentic tradition of what Jesus said, plus a considerable amount of general apocalyptic material. There is an intriguing possibility that some of the details were drawn from an “oracle” said to have warned the Christians of Jerusalem in 70 CE to flee the city before its fall to the Romans. This tradition was reported by Eusebius, the early church historian (circa 260-340 CE).

The current reading includes no more than the introduction to the discourse. Vss. 5-8 are no more than a warning against deceit – very appropriate in the light of the consistent misinterpretation of the signs here defined: false messiahs, international conflicts, and natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and famines. These have occurred throughout history. We have been witnesses to similar events in our own lifetime on a scale Mark could not have dreamed. All of which has given rise to the contemporary plethora of eschatological predictions.

One of our dilemmas in dealing with this and other eschatological passages in the NT is to discover the spiritual message contained therein without falling into the literalist mode. Perhaps Halford E. Luccock put it best in his exposition of the passage The Interpreter’s Bible (VII, 856): “If all the attention and concern which in Christian history have been given to last things had only been given to first things, the power of Christianity in the world and its service to the world would have been enormously increased.” Luccock concluded by quoting a collect from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which set the matter in a proper perspective:

“Eternal God, who committest to us the swift and solemn trust of life; since we do not know what a day may bring forth, but only that the hour for serving thee is always present, may we awake to the instant claims of thy holy will, not waiting for tomorrow, but yielding today.”