John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Proper 18 Ordinary 23
Fifteenth Sunday After Pentecost

September 5, 2010

JEREMIAH 18:1-11. The metaphor of God as the potter and humanity as clay became the theme of a popular gospel hymn in the evangelical tradition. As a prophetic oracle, however, it referred to God’s judgment against Israel for forsaking their moral covenant with God that assured their safety. This was the prophetic interpretation of events at a time when the Babylonians threatened to destroy them.

PSALM 139:1-6, 13-18. This is not only one of the great treasures of the Psalter but of all devotional literature in every religious tradition. Though it resonates with such theological concepts as the omniscience and omnipresence of God, it is essentially a prayer of intense personal devotion “in a stillness in which the soul and God are alone.”

DEUTERONOMY 30:15-20. (Alternate) We have here the Deuteronomic formula which became the motif for so much of the final rendition of the Old Testament documents in the centuries following the return of the exiles from Babylon. God’s covenant with Israel required absolute obedience to the Torah as supposedly defined by the commandments given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Life, prosperity and the inheritance of the Promised Land depended on this obedience.

 

PSALM 1. (Alternate) Probably composed as an introduction to the Psalter, this psalm clearly presents the implications of the Deuteronomic formula.

 

PHILEMON 1-21. This brief letter has an intensely personal and practical touch. It tells of a slave who came in contact with Paul and how the apostle wrote to Philemon Onesimus’ slave-master, asking for the safe return of his runaway slave. There was a bishop with the same name in Ephesus at the end of the 1^st century. Could this be his story?

LUKE 14:25-33. Think twice before you decide to follow Jesus. Be prepared to sacrifice everything. This passage states that followers of Jesus were required to let go of all they own possessions and attachments to focus their attention on their call from God. Are they really ready for what will certainly be involved? Are we?

In contrast, two brief parables appear to recommend a very practical approach to one’s commitment. Both stories reinforce the message with which Jesus confronted his disciples as they moved inexorably toward Jerusalem and the cross.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

 

 

JEREMIAH 18:1-11. This is one of the best known passages of the Book of Jeremiah because the vivid metaphor of the potter and the clay offers an exceptional homiletical opportunity. Yet it is not without its difficulties. The problem created by the composite nature of the whole book is reflected in this passage.

For the greater part of the 20^th century, scholars have recognized that several sources lie behind the Book of Jeremiah. One of those sources in the school of editors known as the Deuteronomists, some of whom may have lived in Egypt after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BCE. They are said to have produced an edition of the prophecies of Jeremiah circa 550 BCE. This parable (vss.1-4) and its interpretation (vss.5-12) form one passage with distinctive marks of Deuteronomic influence. The extension of the threat of destruction from Israel (vs .6) to all nations (vss. 7-10) has the same characteristics. Scholars debate how much of the present passage originated with Jeremiah.

The fundamental Deuteronomic concept of Yahweh as Lord of history certainly lies at the heart of this passage. As the potter shapes and reshapes the clay so Yahweh determined the history of Israel and all nations. Whether the original oracle was more optimistic than the pending doom it appears to express can only be the subject of speculation. Vs.11 appears to suggest that Jeremiah uttered it as a threat in hope of a positive response. Vs.12 records what actually happened.

The familiar figure of a potter working with clay is not original to Jeremiah. Isaiah had used it before him (Isaiah 29:16). Others followed, viz. Isaiah 45:9; 64:8;  Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 33:13; Romans 9:20-21. Such frequent references would not have been unusual. Every village and town in the ancient world would have had potters to supply necessary household vessels. In archeological research, scientists would be lost without the recovered shards of pottery with which the careful observer can date the various levels of each site.

In Jeremiah 19:1-15 we find another passage with marked Deuternomic influence which identifies the location of a potters’ community near the “Potsherd Gate” to the Valley of Ben-hinnom. It was there because of its proximity to an abundant source of water in the Pool of Shiloam nearby and a stream which ran through the valley in winter. But as the passage describes so vividly, this place had a very dubious notoriety in Israel’s faith traditions. Many numerous sacrificial altars to foreign idols were  located there, including the fearful fiery furnaces of Molech used for child sacrifices. It may have been this last reference which elicited the condemnation of 19:4-6 regarding blood sacrifices of the innocent and burnt offerings of Judean infant sons.

PSALM 139:1-6, 13-18. This is not only one of the great treasures of the Psalter but of all devotional literature in every religious tradition. Though it resonates with such theological concepts as the omniscience and omnipresence of God, it is essentially a prayer of intense personal devotion “in a stillness in which the soul and God are alone.” (From Schmidt, “Die Psalmen” quoted in The Interpreter’s Bible iv, 712.)

This excerpt has a very special reference to the experience of a deeply spiritual person seeking the presence of God. All facade of human sophistication melts away as wax before a flame. The whole person lies open before God. The slightest thought or utterance is already known (vs. 4). There is no escape (vs.5). The very thought of being in such close proximity to the Most High God is awesome, in the most terrifying sense of that word.

The Hebrew word generally translated as “wonderful” (pâlîy) in vs. 6 conveys the sense of remarkable, secret or miraculous. In the second occurrence of the word in vs.14, (pâlâh) referring to humanity as part of God’s work of creation, there is a sense of uniqueness, distinction, even mystery. As such, the searching eye of God knows the devotee thoroughly (vss.13-16). There is no other way to respond than to praise God for the marvels of God’s creation and of our humanity. And yet, as geneticists have so recently discovered, there is relatively little difference between the genome of our human selves and the ordinary fruit fly buzzing around the over-ripe tomatoes in the kitchen.

For those who have experienced it, intimate contact with God is almost beyond words. In fact, those who attempt to express their experience are often regarded as slightly, if not significantly, abnormal. The mystical tradition in Protestantism has never been strong; but Roman Catholicism has a rich heritage of this form of prayer. Only recently with the opening of wider ecumenical doors has this form of spirituality begun to penetrate mainline Protestant churches. One witness to this movement is the design of labyrinths for meditative prayer while walking in church halls or gardens. Another is the increasing number of participants in contemplative prayer through such agencies as the World Community for Christian Meditation (www.wccm.org).

 

DEUTERONOMY 30:15-20. (Alternate) We have here the Deuteronomic formula which became the motif for so much of the final rendition of the Old Testament documents in the centuries following the return of the exiles from Babylon. God’s covenant with Israel required absolute obedience to the Torah as supposedly defined by the commandments given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Life, prosperity and the inheritance of the Promised Land depended on this obedience.

 

The challenge of this passage remains with us today whether we are faithful Jews or Christians. Being human, we shall always face the temptation to water down our commitment to “doing our best.” All religious traditions have their absolutes.  For Jews to live according to these high standards means to live Torah, regarded not so much as Law as the way of life. In his collection of essays, *The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians,* Robert Eisenman cites examples in the Qumran *Community Rule* of Torah being “the Way” for both Jews and early Christians. If this usage was common in Judaism at the time, Jesus would also have been familiar with the term.

This passage states for everyone the path in which God desires all committed believers to walk. The alternative, as vs. 19 makes clear, is the way of death. When we fail, as we all do, we can only throw ourselves on the mercy of God, accept forgiveness and renew our relationship with God and God’s Way. That is how we may live with a clear conscience in this life. Worth noting in particular, the words of vs. 20 assure us that obedience does not supersede love in our relationship with God.

PSALM 1. (Alternate) Probably composed as an introduction to the Psalter, this psalm clearly presents the implications of the Deuteronomic formula.

Internal evidence suggests a late date belonging to the era of Ezra or later when Israel was regarded as a religious community and the study of Torah was the mark of a religious person. It also recalls the age when Wisdom equated Torah, especially in the circle of those teachers of Wisdom of the late OT and inter-testamental period. A reference from Sirach (Eccleasiaticus) 24:23-27 dating from ca. 190 BCE expressed similar views.

One can visualize the scene depicted in the psalm. The teacher of wisdom gathered his students in a small circle under the shade of a tree. The students spend hours concentrating on Torah, as many extreme orthodox Israeli men, exempt from military service, still do in their yeshivas today. Less devoted young men scoff at such a time wasting pursuit. The attitudes of both groups clash, often noisily.

The image in vs. 4 of trees growing fruitfully when well irrigated also recalls productive plantations of fig palms I saw growing in the rich soil within a few hundred metres of the Dead Sea. They were irrigated from streams plunging down deep wadis from the wilderness of Judea. Archeologists conclude that the Qumran community, the epitome of the righteous life spent studying Torah even during the time of Jesus, obtained its water supply in a like manner. The reference in Sirach 24:23-27 also draws on the same image of plentiful water as the benefit yielded by the pursuit of wisdom, i.e. Torah.

True to the character of Deuteronomic and Wisdom literature, the psalm ends with the moral that God reckons our human ways and grants the rewards or punishments we deserve.

 

PHILEMON 1-21. With this reading the lectionary switches from the intensely devotional to the intensely practical.  There was a bishop in Ephesus at the end of the 1^st Christian century whose name was Onesimus. William Barclay makes the winsome argument that this letter was written by Paul to Philemon to persuade the master of the escaped slave, Onesimus, to return this “useless” fellow to him because, having been converted, he now was of great value to the apostle. Barclay also asks whether “this little slip of a letter, this single sheet of papyrus … half-personal, half-official … with no great doctrine” survived because the good bishop “insisted that this letter must be included in the collection (of Pauline epistles) in order that all might know what the grace of God had done for him.” (Barclay, William. Daily Bible Readings: Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. Edinburgh: The Church of Scotland, 1957.) Others have suggested that it was sent to Colossae and the neighboring communities with other letters of more doctrinal significance conveyed by Tychicus (Ephesians,  Colossians and ‘the lost letter’ to Laodicea as described in Col. 4:7, 16).

If this analysis is acceptable, it not only tells a touching story, but illustrates how a great theological concept Paul had expounded so well had an obviously personal and practical application. Here is the doctrine reconciliation making a remarkable difference to a very ordinary situation in NT times. It makes the doctrine live; it puts flesh and blood on what Paul had written in Galatians 3:27-29 about the inclusivity of the apostolic church.

In those days as now, slaves had only one goal: freedom. They often escaped their bondage by stealing whatever would assist them in their flight. By some happenstance, Onesimus had come into contact with Paul imprisoned in Rome or possibly Ephesus. Paul and his ministry for Christ had made all the difference in this slave’s life. If the play on the man’s name, Onesimus, is to be believed, (onesimus = useful) the slave who had been useless in Philemon’s household had now proved of great service to Paul. He seems to have been converted to the Christian faith by Paul (vs. 10).

Not only the Roman law, but Paul’s own convictions about the relationship between masters and slaves (see Ephesians 6:5-9 and Colossians 3:33-4:1) required that Onesimus be sent back to his master. Onesimus was going, however, not as a slave in chains and at great personal risk, but as a free man in Christ and Paul’s personal messenger. This letter he carried to Philemon contained the plea that the slave be freed in law and returned to Paul as the apostle’s personal aid and companion.

Whatever the true story behind the letter may have been, the letter does give us a glimpse into the life of the apostolic church. It also identified some of Paul’s fellow workers who were in Rome (or Ephesus) at this same time (vs. 23), probably in the early 60s CE. Tradition did not record very much about most of these other than what is in the NT. Mark and Luke are well-known, but not the others.

The presence of these fellow workers in the Gentile mission has caused scholarly questioning as to the exact location from which the Letter to Philemon was written. It is entirely possible that Paul wrote it during an imprisonment in Ephesus to which 2 Cor. 1:8-9 alludes. Nor can we be sure exactly who the slave-master was. The letter was addressed to Philemon, Apphia and Archippus as well as “the church in your house.” Were those named all of the same family? It would appear that Paul was laying the issue he addressed before the whole community. Such uncertainties do not in any way detract from the essential message of the letter: Paul pleads that Onesimus be set free to engage in ministry with him.

 

LUKE 14:25-33. Asked by a newly designated candidate for ministry what she might expect as she pursued this goal, a long-experienced pastor replied, “Don’t go into it, if you can stay out.” Puzzled by that apparently negative warning, the candidate requested a further explanation.  “Think twice before you decide to follow Jesus,” she was told. “Be prepared to sacrifice everything you may wish to gain or achieve in answering your call.”

This passage agrees with those sentiments. It states unequivocally that followers of Jesus will be required to let go of all they own and focus their attention on their call. Are they really ready for what will certainly be involved? That forthright challenge still stands. Faithful ministry in this day and age is no sinecure. It may have been so in the heyday of Christendom; but no longer. Nor was it so in the Apostolic Age as this reading makes clear. Two brief parables reinforce the message.

The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas includes two separate sayings very similar to vs. 26-27. A parallel reading also appears in Matthew 10:37-39. This most likely indicates that these are actually words spoken by Jesus and retained in the collective memory of the Apostolic Church. The parables too have an authentic ring to them as the kind of homely examples Jesus would have given to help his audience remember what he had said.

Was Jesus just being cautious and giving fair warning to those wishing to follow him as he approached the crucial event of his ministry?  Vs. 25 notes that “large crowds were traveling with him.” The moment was at hand for everyone to decide whether to go with him to Jerusalem or remain relatively secure in Galilee. John 7:66-71 records another element of this same tradition. Even without omniscience that John attributes to him, Jesus certainly would have known of the dangers that lay ahead. The parables reveal that he was making mental and spiritual preparations for any eventuality. He wanted his disciples – not necessarily the twelve alone – to be similarly prepared.

In telling this part of the story, Luke had the perspective of both the crucifixion and resurrection as well as half a century of reflection by the Christian community.  But would Jesus have included crucifixion in his calculations? He would have known that this was the preferred form of capital punishment to the Romans. It was designed to maintain public order by creating a paralyzing fear in the general populace. Apparently Pilate used it liberally. We may thus conclude that Jesus would have been fully aware of the possibility should he fall into the hands of the Roman authorities. It was the measure of his concern for those who had rallied to his cause that they too be made fully aware of the dangers they would face if their enthusiasm and loyalty carried them further in his company. Hence the ominous note of unfinished business in both the parables.

SOME ADDITIONAL PREACHING POINTS.

 

JEREMIAH 18:1-11. The Hebrew name of the notorious Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Gehenna, gave rise to the mediaeval concept of Hell as a place of never ending fires. In later biblical times it became the garbage dump for Jerusalem where fires burned constantly to keep the vermin under control. During the past 60 years events wrought by the history of the Middle East transformed this hated site into a place of beauty. As one walks or drives through this beautifully landscaped section in southwest Jerusalem one would never imagine that this was the site of such atrocities. And yet, one can easily imagine the fear that gripped Jerusalem every hour of every day during the Intefada. As recently as this decade armed soldiers patrol the streets nearby as crowds of tourists visit the holy sites. Is there not a strange link with Jeremiah’s prophetic words? What idol motivates the murders that have bloodied the streets of the Holy City in our time? Are not the sons and daughters of Israel and Palestine being sacrificed to strange gods once again? Does Israel’s Yahweh not ask today’s prophets to cry out, “Turn back, every one of you, from his evil course; mend your ways and your doings” (18:11).

 

DEUTERONOMY 30:15-20 and PSALM 1. (Alternate)  Karen Armstrong has a helpful insight in her book The Case for God (A. A. Knopf, 2009; 91-93). The rabbis who interpreted the Torah orally in their synagogues and schools, later recorded in the Misnah and the Talmud in the 2^nd to 6^th centuries CE,  did not regard the Sinai revelation as “God’s last word to humanity but just the beginning…. Revelation was an ongoing process that continued from one generation to another.” They even made emendations to the text, “by submitting a single letter that changed the original meaning. This was especially true in the “House of Studies” created late in the 1^st century by the Pharisees at Yavney. Midrash was the common method of scripture interpretation.

“The study of the Talmud is democractic and open-ended, “Armstrong writes. “Because students are taught to follow the rabbinic method of study, they engage in the same discussions and must make their own contributions to this never ending conversation. In some versions of the Talmud, there was space on each page for the student to add his own commentary. He learned that nobody had the last word, that truth was constantly changing, and while tradition was of immense importance, it must not compromise his own judgment. If he did not add his own remarks to the sacred page, the line of tradition would come to an end. Religious discourse should not be cast in stone; the ancient teachings required constant revision. “What is Torah?” asked the Bavli. “It is the interpretation of Torah.”

PHILEMON 1-21. Slavery was outlawed and ultimately banished from most of the world due to the engagement and action of devout Christians. In 1793, a convinced abolitionist, John Graves Simcoe, governor of the province of Upper Canada (now known as Ontario) persuaded the legislature to abolish slavery. This was the first jurisdiction in the world to do so. In subsequent decades until the American Civil War (aka War Between the States) and the Emancipation Proclamation, Ontario became the end destination of American blacks fleeing their enslavement via the underground railway. A significant number of the black people of the province still trace their ancestry back to those fugitives.

Fifteen years ago, two bothers, Craig and Marc Keilburger, from the suburbs of Toronto, Ontario, themselves only children, became concerned about the near slavery conditions that children in India were forced to work in weaving carpets for the European and North American consumer market. Starting by alerting their schoolmates to this issue, they went on to found a charity, Free The Children. That charity has since grown into a movement of more than one million young people in 45 countries. The concern of these youth has extended from the working conditions of child labourers in many countries to the suffering of earthquake victims in Haiti. Now university graduates, they engage schoolchildren of the world through positive peer pressure that generates empathy and action oriented programs. They have also won the support of such celebrities as the Jonas Brothers, Zac Efron and Hayden Panettiere.  

LUKE 14:25-33. The dangers of being Christian in a violent world have not passed. In recent weeks a group serving as medical aid workers in Afghanistan were executed by the Taliban supposedly for having proselytizing materials in their possession. The Scottish newspaper Sunday Herald printed this account of the massacre:

“All of the dead were associated with the International Assistance Mission (IAM), a Christian organization which has provided humanitarian relief and medical aid in Afghanistan for decades. The Taliban claimed they were killed as western spies who were preaching Christianity. However, security forces in Afghanistan say robbery was the probable motive.

“The victims included British medic Dr Karen Woo, 36, from London, who worked with aid organization Bridge Afghanistan. IAM director Dirk Frans said Woo – along with one German, six Americans and two Afghans – was coming back from a two-week humanitarian trip to Nuristan province.

“The team had driven to the province, left their vehicles and hiked for hours over mountainous terrain to reach the Parun valley in the province’s northwest. Their bodies were found next to three bullet-riddled four-wheel drive vehicles in the Kuran Wa Munjan district in the north-eastern province of Badakhshan.

“Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid in Pakistan said that his fighters killed the foreigners because they were “spying for the Americans” and “preaching Christianity”.

“Frans said that the IAM is registered as a non-profit Christian organization but does not proselytize.”

-30-

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Proper 10  Ordinary 15
7th Sunday After Pentecost
July 11, 2010

AMOS 7:7-17. Amos, one of the twelve “Minor Prophets,” was no small man, spiritually. His sense of divine justice speaks across the millennia as loudly as ever. With fear or favour for no prince or priest, this farmer from the sticks, spoke for God in symbolic actions as clearly as in dynamic words. In this passage he predicts that God’s displeasure with Israel will result in a national disaster, an event which occurred in 721 BCE with conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria.

PSALM 82. Many of the psalms show the influence of the outspoken utterances of the prophets. One hears echoes of Amos in this psalm which may have served as a liturgical hymn in the temple in Jerusalem at the New Year to celebrate the absolute sovereignty of God.

DEUTERONOMY 30:9-14. (Alternate) This excerpt comes from what the editors of Deuteronomy presented the final message of Moses to the Israelites (chs. 29-30). It promised complete prosperity for those who obeyed the covenant law. This assumption has been much abused by those who used it as if it was the last word received directly from God. Such an attitude fails to take into account that the ethic of righteous behaviour by individuals inherent in the Mosaic code is also balanced by a profound sense of social justice.

PSALM 25:1-1. (Alternate) In the original language each stanza of this psalm begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The author may have done this to create a form of prayer not only for himself, but for the use of anyone else at a time of great distress. It appealed to God for guidance at a time of moral uncertainty and found it in the covenant law of love and righteous behaviour. This theology reflects the Wisdom literature of the late Persian and Greek period of Jewish history, about four centuries before the birth of Jesus.

COLOSSIANS 1:1-14. In these opening words of greeting and thanksgiving, Paul applauds the Colossians’ faithfulness to the gospel as his colleague, Epaphras, had instructed them. The dominant feature of their faithfulness is love. Paul’s prayer that they continue their spiritual growth in the face of a severe challenge from “the power of darkness” from which they have been rescued. These words point to a time of conflict scholars believe to have been caused by a serious heresy.

LUKE 10:25-37. One of the most familiar parables answers two universal questions:  who is our neighbour and how we are to relate to others with whom we have little in common, or even a deep sense of mistrust and hostility.
Jews and Samaritans were as hostile to one another in Jesus’ time as are Israelis and Palestinians today. Yet, like their modern counterparts, they shared the same territory. In those days, however, they also spoke the same language and held many common beliefs in the same God. But the Samaritans had intermarried with foreign tribes imported by the Assyrians after the conquest of which Amos had spoken.

A  MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

AMOS 7:7-17. It is a pity that the RCL only uses two passages from Amos and these only from the narrative segment of the book (ch.7-9). Amos deserves more than the sharing of his vision of doom with the chief priest of the royal sanctuary at Bethel.

This passage, one of series of five visions (7:1-9:8), tells us something about this earliest of the great prophets (despite his canonical characterization as one of the twelve “Minor Prophets”). Amos is believed to have lived in the period of Assyrian ascendency prior the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in721 BCE. In his own words, he was not a professional prophet or priest, but a farmer (vs.14). What is more, he was a Judean from Tekoa, a village about 5 mi. south of Bethlehem, in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Bethel was not very much farther north of Jerusalem, but in the hill country of Ephraim, and thus in the Northern Kingdom known as Israel.

By raising his voice against the moral and social corruption of Israel (i.e. the Northern Kingdom), he encountered the opposition of the royal priesthood of that nation. At this time there were still many authorized royal sanctuaries. The centralizing of worship at the temple in Jerusalem occurred during the reign of Josiah, king of Judah (ca. 640-605 BCE) at least a century or more later.

Like most rural people, he was something of a jack-of-all-trades, for in addition to having flocks and a fig orchard, he also knew something about building and the tools of that trade. His metaphor of the plumb-line vividly expressed his total condemnation of the moral and spiritual leadership of the nation (vss.7-9). In ancient times, the plumb-line was essential to constructing a small house, a temple or a city wall. Builders depended on this simple tool, a weight suspended from a string, to make walls or columns perfectly vertical. It presented an obvious symbol of righteous behavior.

The sanctuary of Bethel had been an ancient Canaanite holy place set on a high hill. In Israelite religious traditions it had been associated with the patriarch Jacob. It had been fought over many times during the period of the Judges (12th to 11th centuries BCE) and during the reigns of both David and Solomon (10th century). When the kingdoms were divided by Solomon’s heirs, Jeroboam I (ca. 922-901 BCE) made Bethel the chief sanctuary of the Northern Kingdom (Israel). It became the centre of the cult based on the traditions of the ten northern tribes. After the exile of the northern tribes by the Assyrians in 721 BCE, it became an accursed site of restored Canaanite worship by the addition of a cult object of Asherah to the cultus of Yahweh. A century later, Josiah, king of Judah, razed the sanctuary as part of his centralizing of worship in the temple in Jerusalem, but spared the city of Bethel itself.

Amos delivered his prophetic oracles in the decades immediately preceding the fall of Samaria, Israel’s capital, to the Assyrians. Due to his impressive sense of Yahweh’s justice and righteousness, Amos foresaw the moral decline of the nation and the destruction that awaited Israel (vss.8-9, 17). The king during this period was Jereboam II (788-747 BCE). Assyria had reduced Damascus to poverty and powerlessness, but under a series of weak rulers did not threaten the Palestinian states. This allowed the Northern Kingdom of Israel to prosper and a rich merchant class to develop, but not to the benefit of the common people like Amos. This explains the vehement outrage of the prophet’s message. It also makes him a very contemporary voice for our own time of global capitalism and corruption in government and commerce alike have amok in immoral, money-mad enterprises.

PSALM 82. This particular psalm contains a whole set of interesting puzzles for the interpreter. The crucial question to be determined is: Who are the gods vss. 1 and 6? Several proposals have been offered. These are (1) heavenly beings or angels meeting in heavenly council over which Yahweh presides as in Job 1:6-12 and 2:1-6 and Daniel 7:9-10; (2) the national gods of the non-Israelites; (3) kings and others vested with political power who have been deified as was common in ancient times; (4) the judges of Israel.  The idea that monarchs or judges were intended is reinforced by the reference to vs.6 in John 10:34 and in the Targums. The latter were rabbinical interpretations of Hebrew scriptures in the Aramaic dialect given in the synagogues from the 1st century BCE until the 6th century CE.

The issue emphasized in vss.2-4 is a justiciable occasion: the overwhelming of the poor by being turned over to unscrupulous judges or slave masters. An assembly of gods had many parallels in ancient Near Eastern mythology. The indictment of this judicial council is clear nonetheless. Yahweh requires that justice be done for all without regard to political, economic or social status.

With the evolution of moral monotheism in Hebrew theology, the concept of lesser gods was eventually abandoned, yet not completely. It remained the stock in trade of apocalyptic writings through the late OT and inter-testamental times which greatly influenced Christian apocalyptic and eschatological writings such some of the parables attributed to Jesus and the Book of Revelation.

According to the orally transmitted laws, the Mishnah, collected by Rabbi Judah in the 2nd century CE, the psalm became a hymn sung in the temple by the Levites on the third day of the week. It may also have been sung at the New Year’s festival to celebrate Yahweh’s moral supremacy. Vs. 8 may be a liturgical addition pointing to either God’s periodic judgments of history or the eschatological judgment at the end of the age when divine sovereignty will be universally acknowledged.

DEUTERONOMY 30:9-14. (Alternate) This excerpt comes from what the editors of Deuteronomy presented as the final message of Moses to the Israelites (chs. 29-30). It has had a remarkably wide influence in subsequent religious and secular history.

The Deuteronomists promised absolute prosperity for those who obeyed the covenant law. This assumption has been much abused by those who used it as if it was the last word received directly from God. Such an attitude fails to take into account that the ethic of righteous behaviour by individuals inherent in the Mosaic code was also balanced by a profound sense of social justice.

Writing no earlier than the 6th century BCE, it should not surprise us the authors of Deuteronomy show the influence of the great prophets of justice from the 8th and 7th century BCE. The whole passage, and especially vs. 14, sound very much like Jeremiah’s oracle of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). It also recalls the Shema and summative commandment in Deut. 6:4-9. For Jews, the essence of obedience to the law was a single-minded love for God and God alone.

As we know, this also became the heart of Jesus’ message. Our Gospel lesson reveals how much he understood wherein right living and communal justice had their roots. The influence of this passage spread even farther through the apostolic mission of Paul evidenced by his quoting from Deut. 30:13-14 in his letter to the Romans as he appealed to his fellow Jews to trust in the righteousness derived by faith in Jesus Christ rather than that of the law (Rom. 10:5-8).

PSALM 25:1-10. (Alternate) In its Hebrew original, this psalm has an unusual acrostic structure. Each of its 22 verse begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In this excerpt, we have only half of its full text.

Because of this form and the inclusion of several characteristics of wisdom literature, scholars attribute it to a late post-exilic period and not to David as the superscript indicates. One commentator suspected that the author was creating a form of prayer not only for himself, but for the use of anyone else at a time of great distress.

The psalm begins with a statement of trust and petition for divine help as enemies attempt to shame him without justification (vss. 1-3). He then pleads to know the ways of the Lord and to be taught to walk in Yahweh’s way (vss. 4-5). This exhibits a common theme of wisdom poetry. His next plea is for mercy dependent on Yahweh’s steadfast love (vss. 6-8). The excerpt ends in a praiseworthy acknowledgment of Yahweh’s goodness, righteousness, love and faithfulness (vss. 9-10). Many humble but faithful people have found the words of this poem not only comforting but encouraging when life serves up its inevitable trials.

COLOSSIANS 1:1-14. The debate about the authorship of this letter as one of Paul’s remains inconclusive after 150 years. William Barclay expresses the view which most cogently supports Pauline authorship. But he wonders why this letter containing the highest reach of his thought should have been addressed to so unimportant a town as Colossae then was. In doing so Paul checked a tendency which could have wrecked Asian Christianity, and which might have done irreparable damage to the faith of the whole Church.  (Daily Bible Study: Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Edinburgh: Church of Scotland, 1954.)

Paul did not evangelize the Colossian community or those other towns, Laodicea and Hierapolis, in the Lycus valley east of Ephesus. That had been the work of Epaphras, who had probably become a Christian as a result of meeting Paul in Ephesus. These new Christians may have been mainly Gentiles, but also appear to have been exposed to, if not actual followers of, some Jewish cult with a background similar to the asceticism and mystical piety of the Qumran community or later Gnostics. Writing in the 1950s, Barclay believed these esoteric elements were characteristic of the heresy later given the general title of Gnosticism. This is reinforced by Paul’s reference to the Colossians’ need to “be filled with the knowledge of God’s will and spiritual wisdom and understanding” (vs.9). This might not be Barlcay’s view today in the light of much greater acquaintance with the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1990s.

In these opening words of greeting and thanksgiving Paul applauds the Colossians’ faithfulness to the gospel as Epaphras had instructed them. The dominant feature of their faithfulness is love (vss. 4, 8). Paul’s prayer that they continue “bearing fruit” (vss.6, 10) and “be made strong” in the face of a severe challenge from “the power of darkness” (vs.13) from which they have been rescued points to a time of stress, if not persecution. In the words “love, joy, patience,” we may find allusion to the “fruits of the Spirit” Paul had elucidated in Galatians 5:22-23. Such words also lend emphasis to the Christian ethic of loving one’s enemies which Paul so eloquently expressed in Romans 12. This would further undergird the conviction that this letter is one of several Paul dictated from Rome during his imprisonment in 60-61 CE perhaps a decade or more after the conversion of the Colossians.

Eduard Schweizer’s study of Colossians (The Letter to the Colossians. Augsburg Press, 1982) showed how closely the structure of Colossians resembles Romans. There is a dogmatic section and a section dealing with practical ethical issues in the local community. This introductory segment (1:1-8) and the personal notes at the end (4:7-18) form opening and closing brackets around the main message of the letter.  Schweizer believed that the remaining vss. 9-14 of this passage may come from a baptismal liturgy and are followed by a hymn (vss. 15-20). The emphasis of these verses is spiritual knowledge, but a knowledge entirely different from that of Gnostic thought. Paul was writing of a knowledge of the will of God which had ethical implications rather than mystical secrets. The strength to live this way and “to share the inheritance of the saints in light” (vs. 12) comes from God who has given the believer a new beginning and new meaning to life through the forgiveness of sins. Such a message has deep significance for Christians in any age.

LUKE 10:25-37. The parable of neighbourliness, the Good Samaritan, came at a teaching moment when Jesus summarized the Torah in two linked quotations from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.  We have no way of knowing what motivated the man to ask Jesus the crucial question “wanting to justify himself,” as Luke tells us (vs. 29). One might well suspect, however, that Luke had had some hurtful experience with a crafty lawyer at some time in the past. He used the term “lawyer” six times in his gospel, almost always in a derogatory sense. It occurs twice in Titus, only once in Matthew and nowhere else in the NT. Furthermore, Luke did not use it in passages drawn from Mark or Q, the source some believe he shared with Matthew. Nor did Luke use it where the other gospels speak of scribes. For one steeped in the Jewish law as this man apparently was, no story could have struck a more devastating blow to his pride as a rigidly orthodox Jew.

The ancient road from Jerusalem to Jericho winds along a deep wadi flanked one either side by soaring cliffs. A modern walking trail follows its route, no more than a track on the cliffside. It is vastly easier to go down than to go up. The road descends over 3000 feet in less than ten miles. A modern autobus climbing the new highway on the heights opposite and above the ancient route must go in low gear most of the way. The trek for pedestrians must have been dangerous at any time, but particularly so in inclement weather when flash floods could have threatened to wash away the narrow track or a landslide cast a boulder on the unsuspecting traveler at any moment. In fine weather, the great danger was from robbers for whom there were ample hideouts in secluded natural caves.

The parable itself may have been fictitious, told to illustrate the point it so manifestly makes. Much loved and as important as it is in understanding Jesus’ inclusive attitude and his ethical mandate for all human relationships, it also exhibits some lively rhetoric and considerable unreality.  No knowledgeable priest or Levite, fully aware the dangers, would likely have traveled the road alone. Jesus himself appears to have walked this route in the company of his disciples on his way up from Jericho to Bethany and Jerusalem.

There would have been room on the trail, but scarcely more, for a man to lead a donkey. If the Samaritan was on his way home, he was taking a very indirect route. His journey would more likely have taken him straight north from Jerusalem via Bethel, Shiloh and Sycar. He would have gone this way only if he had business in Jericho or east across the Jordan. Again one wonders if the rescuer, his route and his ministry to the wounded victim were so identified to emphasize Jesus’ point about neighborliness. No Jew would have allowed a Samaritan to assist or comfort him in this way unless he was in extremely helpless circumstances.

According to Jewish tradition, the enmity of Jews and Samaritans dated from the 8th century BCE. The Assyrian Shalmaneser and his invading army had taken the leading citizens of Israel into exile in 721 BCE never to return. Subsequently the remaining people of the Northern Kingdom had intermarried with immigrants forced to replace the exiles. The Samaritans rejected this view as a vile Jewish canard. They identified Eli, the priest of the sanctuary of Shiloh who mentored Samuel, as the culprit who had establishing a sanctuary at Shiloh to rival the one established by Moses on Mount Gerazim.

W.M. Thomson, a missionary in Palestine, traveled the ancient road to Jericho in 1857 and described the traditional site of the inn where the Samaritan took the victim he had rescued as a caravansary. Today a small Orthodox Christian monastery stands there. It still welcomes pilgrims who dare to follow the ancient route along the footpath this parable fixed forever in human memory. Its unforgetable lesson of the inclusive love of God in Christ remains for every generation to carry to a world desperate for a way out of suicidal conflicts between tribes, nations and cultures.

SOME ADDITIONAL PREACHING POINTS .

AMOS 7:7-17. The prophesy condemning Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, the royal sanctuary and King Jeroboam should give pause to our contemporary church and national leaders. No human institution is free of the seeds of its own destruction. The powerlessness of church leaders and the decline of all religious institutions is surely ample evidence of this as the second decade 21st century begins. Presidents and political administrations are similarly powerless in the face of daunting natural and industrial disasters, and rampant economic recession. Is God our refuge? The prophets and psalmists seem to suggest that God is. But as Micah, a younger contemporary of Amos, said, “What does the Lord require of us?” (Micah 6:8)

PSALM 82. The message of justice conveyed in the psalm may be a little heavy for a summertime sermon, but it does lend substantial credibility to such a prophetic attitude in our contemporary environment. Those who take such a stance cannot expect to be heard with approbation in many congregations. The usual complaint is that preaching and politics should not be mixed. On the other hand, the biblical mandate of social justice for all is clear as this psalm attests, despite the often brutal attempts which have been made to suppress prophetic voices by the rich and powerful.

As this comment is being written, the leaders of the G-8 and G20 and hordes of their supporters are gathering in Huntsville, in Ontario’s holiday hinterland and in downtown Toronto to deal with the economic and geopolitical ailments of the world. Journalists from all over the world are here too to report and comment on whatever they can glean from these solemn deliberations. Also present under the watchful eyes of innumerable police and military detachments are thousands of protesters with countervailing viewpoints and not a few anarchists seeking only to disrupt what all the others are doing. One despairs that anything helpful, let alone social justice, for the world’s suffering millions will come from such expenditures of vast national and international resources. The cost of security alone is said to be $1.1 billion US. Could not that much money have been spent more beneficially in merciful justice?

(This paragraph was composed on Monday, 28.6.2010) In the aftermath of the meetings of the G20, there is a sharply divided edge to the media and public commentary on what was actually accomplished. The well designed spin of political spokespersons claim the unparalleled success of the consensus reached by those attending from around the globe. The final communique had been written long before the delegates arrived to discuss its verbalized issues and approve its final draft. The media focus was on the largely peaceful demonstrations by concerned citizens. This was countered by reports of  violence by a small minority of professional anarchists who used the shelter of these demonstrations to cause considerable violent confrontation with the massive police forces and destruction of private property. The combined police forces have also been strongly criticized for overreaction to what was perceived by many as excessive. Approximately 900 individuals were arrested, only some 400 of which will be formally charged. Those attending the actual G20 meetings were probably unaware of what was happening outside their well protected cocoon.

DEUTERONOMY 30:9-14. (Alternative) A narrow approach to prosperity based on the absolutist interpretation of vss. 9-10 of this passage found wide acceptance in the early stages of capitalism some authorities believe was driven by a harsh interpretation of Calvinism. This fostered the rise of great commercial and political empires which advanced science, technology and the global economy to a remarkable extent through the 17th to 19th centuries CE. It also resulted in brutally destructive imperial conflicts that lasted throughout the 20th century. How to adapt economic, political and technological development at a time when globalization is bringing about confrontation between vastly different religious, social and political cultures has become the challenge of the first decades of the 21st century.

A new published economic history presents a different view of how the inequalities of wealth were created in Great Britain during the Enlightenment Age. (The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700-1850. by Joel Mokyr. Yale University Press, 2010.) The author believes that there was no single cause among the many that other historians have identified. He does allow that effective property rights that encouraged investment did have a major influence. So did the growth of “human capital—the skills and talents—of eighteenth-century Britain, which were created, as much by practical experience and commercial culture as through formal education.”  (From a review in Harper’s Magazine by Edward Glaeser, Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard University.)  Yet many of those practical men who learned from their experiences and made themselves rich did have some contact with the intellectual men of letters of their time.

COLOSSIANS 1:1-14. A genuine concern for the Colossians suffering hardship and injustice stands out in Paul’s address to their spiritual needs (vs.10-11). Giving joyful thanks is not the normal human response to such trials. Does that have a special message for any of us at a time when many are indeed buffered if not exactly suffering from the trials of economic recession or natural disaster? Paul did offer hope of “sharing in the heritage of God’s people in the realm of light.” (Vs.12) He was probably speaking of life beyond death and the travails of this life. He also spoke forcefully of standing firm in one’s convictions in this life “with fortitude, patience and joy.” (NEB) A faith that meets today’s problems is something we all both need and may find whatever our tradition.

LUKE 10:25-37. Biblical Hebrew used two words – chesed and racham which we translate into English variously as mercy, compassion or kindness. The prophets used the latter word more commonly, especially Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea. All of whom revealed divine mercy most vividly. The Hebrew noun meaning womb also had the sense of compassion. He writes in his new work, The Way of Jesus: To Repair and Renew The World.  (Abingdon, 2010), that the term reflects “that deep, visceral connection between mother and child, which a father, at least a good father, can also feel.” He adds that the Aramaic form of the word surviving from Jesus’ time “expressed a powerful principle in its translation of Leviticus 22:28 (in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan), ‘My people, children of Israel, since I am merciful in heaven, so should you be merciful upon earth.’  The expansion in the Targum is unquestionably innovative because the Hebrew text speaks simply of not killing an animal and her young on the same day.”

Corresponding to the Hebrew racham is the Greek word eleos. In Luke 10:37 the KJV translators used “mercy” to convey the same meaning where most modern translators have used “compassion.” The Beatitude in Matthew 5:7 used the verbal form of eleos. It is also noteworthy that in Buddhism the word anukampa is often rendered as “mercy.”

There is a classic Buddhist poem answering the question, “What should the person skilled in profitable practice do when he becomes aware of the peaceful state?” The poem begins, “ One should cultivate an unlimited mind toward all beings, the way a mother protects her only son with her life.” The words are evocative of Michelangelo’s famous statue, La Pieta, of Mary cradling the body of Jesus taken down from the cross.

-30-

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

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

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

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

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

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

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Proper 17 Ordinary 22
Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost
August 30, 2009

SONG OF SOLOMON 2:8-13. Biblical scholars still debate what kind of literature this beautiful collection of poems with vividly erotic metaphors really is. Is it dramatic dialogue? Is it a manual for love within the marriage relationship? Is it an allegory of God’s love for Israel or Christ’s love for the church? Or is it a celebration of God’s gift to us of human sexuality? Attributed to Solomon, the text actually comes from Hebrew Wisdom literature of a much later date, but may have had origins in much earlier times.

PSALM 45:1-2, 6-9. This unusual psalm takes the form of an ode by a court poet for a royal marriage. More secular than religious, it appears to refer to a princess of a foreign country wedding the king of Israel.

DEUTERONOMY 4:1-2, 6-9 (Alternate) All of Israel’s former history was measured against the doctrinaire standard set forth here. Attributed to Moses, it was actually composed in the late 7th century BCE. See 2 Kings 22 for the apparent “rediscovery” of the law while the temple was being refurbished during King Josiah’s reign circa 621 BCE. As the whole Old Testament narrative reveals, this standard was an ideal which no former or subsequent generation could meet.

PSALM 15. (Alternate) This psalm teaches the supreme values intended to guide the moral and spiritual life of the truly religious Jew. In many respects it summarizes the highest teachings of the great prophets as well as the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

JAMES 1:17-27. Because it makes few references to Jesus Christ, the Letter of James was one of the very last to be included in the Christian scriptures. It has more of the flavour of a moral essay attributed to James, the brother of Jesus. It may well be a collection of his sayings compiled after his martyrdom or a formal letter encouraging its recipients to live in a strictly ethical and deliberately spiritual way at a time of threatened persecution.

MARK 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23. In this biting rebuke of the Pharisees for their excessive attention to purification rituals, Jesus defined what true piety is: commitment from the heart totally dedicated to loving service of God and for others Quoting from Isaiah 29:13, he condemns their hypocrisy. We can tell from the explicit details of Jewish purification rites in vss. 3-5 that Mark had a Gentile audience in mind.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

SONG OF SOLOMON 2:8-13. Biblical scholars still debate what kind of literature this beautiful collection of poems with vividly erotic metaphors really is. Is it dramatic dialogue? Is it a manual for love within the marriage relationship? Is it an allegory of God’s love for Israel or Christ’s love for the church? Or is it a celebration of God’s gift to us of human sexuality?

The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1993) identifies five different ways it which it has been interpreted through the centuries: A popular Jewish view regarded it as an allegory of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. Christians reinterpreted this as the relationship between Christ and the Church. The mediaeval monk, Bernard of Clairvaux, wrote eighty-six sermons most of which were based on the allegorical interpretation of only the first two chapters.

Some early Greek versions copied it as a drama with various sections assigned to specific speakers. This theory was popular in the 19th century. Others saw it merely as a collection of lyrical love poetry for which there was ample precedent in other cultures, especially similar collections in Egyptian and Palestinian literature. Still others believed it had liturgical origins, while a few felt that due to the absence of any mention of God, it could be understood as a parable about theological themes such as Israel’s covenant with Yahweh.

Attributed to Solomon, it actually comes from Hebrew Wisdom literature of a much later date, perhaps from the 5th or 4th centuries BCE. It contains words derived from both Persian and Aramaic, leading to a similar conclusion. Its subject matter and vivid imagery made it a popular teaching tool.

Toward the end of the 1st century CE when the Hebrew canon was being finalized, some rabbis objected to its inclusion. One of the great rabbinical leaders of the time is said to have made a persuasive and memorable speech likening it to the Holy of Holies. Another rabbi was quoted as saying that anyone sang it as a secular piece fit only for banquet halls or taverns, that person had no place in the world to come. It has been used in the celebration of Passover in some Jewish traditions.

The passage selected here contains some of the most imaginative lyrics of the whole book. It depicts youthful, passionate romance in full flower. Two voices lend credibility to the dramatic interpretation. Vss. 8-9 are in the voice of the young woman hearing the approach of her lover. Vss. 10-13 are composed as if she was hearing him plead with her to escape with him to the countryside vibrant with the sounds and smells of spring. Because the poet had such sensitivity to how the young woman in love might feel and respond, one has to wonder if the author was a woman.

PSALM 45:1-2, 6-9. It is a pity that this psalm selection is so truncated. It is unusual in that it takes the form of an ode by a court poet for a royal marriage. Vs. 1 makes it evident that this was the poet’s intent. The superscription indicates that it was created by or for the Korahites, one of the families of Levitical priests from the Hebron area. In post-exilic times, they became one of the two great guilds of temple singers. Pss. 42, 44-49, 84-85 and 87-88 may have come from their hymn book.

Despite frequent references to Yahweh, the content of the psalm are more secular than religious. They refer specifically to a princess of a foreign country wedding the king of Israel. It may even have been the queen or a princess from Ophir, possibly in Arabia or East Africa (vs. 9). The first few verses sing the praises of the king. Then the poet turns attention to the beautiful princess who is leaving her father’s house (vs. 10) for a new lord (vs. 1l). The wedding procession has already begun to make it s way to the king’s palace (vs. 12b-15). For its final paean, the poet returns to the king whose marriage to this princess is for one purpose alone: to beget more heirs so that his dynasty will continue. As we have seen from the Davidic narratives in 2 Samuel, the times required the birthing of many sons.

While we may react rather negatively to the traditional patriarchal attitudes of this psalm, we should not completely disregard its significance to the Hebrew tradition. Its inclusion in the Psalter may well have resulted from an allegorized interpretation. The Targum of this psalm, an Aramaic interpretative paraphrase from late pre-Christian times, treated it as an allegory of the marriage of the Messiah to his bride Israel. Early Christian interpreters also followed this approach as Revelation 22:17 appears to suggest, except that the bride in this latter instance is the Church.

DEUTERONOMY 4:1-2, 6-9 (Alternate) All of Israel’s history was measured against the doctrinaire standard set forth here. Attributed to Moses, various parts of the Book of Deuteronomy were actually composed in the late 7th and 6th century BCE. See 2 Kings 22 for the apparent “rediscovery” of the law while the temple was being refurbished during King Josiah’s reign circa 621 BCE. That reformation followed an extended period of gross idolatry and moral decline during the long reign of Manasseh (697-642 BCE). The Deuteronomists regarded Manasseh as the worst of the Davidic monarchs. But as the whole Old Testament narrative reveals, the standard they set was an ideal which no former or subsequent generation could match.

As Deut.1:5 indicates, these are the supposedly the words of Moses as he prepared the Israelites for entry into the Promised Land. In chs. 1-3 he had recited many of the experiences of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness. This gave the historical background against which the rest of the book is set. In 3:23-29 he acknowledged that Joshua, not he, will lead them across the Jordan. The intent of this reading was to introduce the Torah, the moral constitution which is to guide the national life in the Israelites new homeland. The details of that constitution begin at 4:44.

Repeated references to observing the statutes and ordinances in this passage add a certain gravity to Moses’ address. Instructions to make these forthcoming laws known “to your children and your children’s children” add dramatic intensity to the moment. The scribes who created this composite work had great literary skill as well as resolute purpose in performing their task.

Reading this brief excerpt leaves no doubt about the rigorous moral life expected of all Israelites. The passage also contains the two of the three central unities of the whole book: Israel is one people and Yahweh is God alone who can be worshiped beside no other god. The third unity does not appear until later in 12:5-14, i.e. there is only one place of worship where an altar is to be set up and sacrifices offered. This latter element was the purpose of Josiah’s reformation, but lasted only a few decades before the Babylonians razed the temple in Jerusalem and led the priesthood and leading citizens of the nation into captivity (598-586 BCE). Yet it was during that captivity that the Book of Deuteronomy took its final shape.

PSALM 15. (Alternate) Where does a person go when seeking guidance in making a decision or light on some persistent affliction? The ancient custom was to repair to some place of worship and seek instruction from an oracle communicated by a priest. This psalm embodies such a practice within the Jewish tradition. It teaches the supreme values intended to guide the moral and spiritual life of the truly religious Jew. In many respects it summarizes the highest teaching of the great prophets as well as the laws found in the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Here is Torah, literally teaching, in the best sense of that word. The psalm probably dates from the post-exilic period when Torah had achieved its final stages of development.

Instruction often proceeded by a traditional question and answer method such as found here. This parallels the prophetic method we have seen in passages as Micah 6:6-8. The psalm also exhibits liturgical characteristics. But it may have been used more at home in preparing for worship than in the temple itself. It sets forth clearly how the believer is to present himself so as to appear righteous before God and receive God’s blessing. As in the Decalogue on which it may depend, there are ten qualifications (vss.2-5). Most of the sins enumerated emphasize primarily antisocial acts rather than religious transgressions.

The whole psalm consists of three parts similar to a catechism: question, answer and reward. It places significant value on moral integrity and truth. The psalmist must have lived in times when such virtues were lacking. Yet he wrote a tract equally applicable to our times.

JAMES 1:17-27. The Letter of James is one of the anomalies of the New Testament. Because it makes few references to Jesus Christ, it was one of the very last to be included in the Christian scriptures. It has more of the flavour of a moral essay attributed to James, the brother of Jesus. Of course, this claim has been disputed almost from the time the church set about the task of defining the NT canon. It may well be a collection of the sayings of James compiled after his martyrdom or a formal letter encouraging its recipients to live in a strictly ethical and deliberately spiritual way at a time of threatened persecution.

Despite certain inconsistencies, its language is fairly good Greek with a few Semitic phrases here and there. It also has the form of a literary letter typical of the 1st century introducing and developing specific themes. In 5:12 it appears to repeat one saying which Matthew 5:34-37 attributes to Jesus himself. However, the letter lacks any knowledge of the teaching of Paul, but does include some references to Palestinian culture. Scholarly estimates of its origin and date place it in Judea in the 60s CE immediately preceding the Jewish revolt against Rome that ended in the fall of Jerusalem.

This passage contains several good but isolated preaching texts or themes: vss. 17-18; 19-21; 22-25; 26-27. As a whole, it presents the view that those who belong to the believing community must avoid adopting the ethics of its oppressors. It reflects a dependence on God and strict adherence to Judaeo-Christian morality. Like so much other counsel of the NT in the gospels and in the Pauline corpus, it encourages the practice of ethical standards which separate Christians from their easy-going cultural milieu. No permissive “everybody does it” attitude can be found throughout the letter. This high moral standard is most clearly defined in the very last clause in vs. 27.

Nor is this strict emphasis on moral behaviour isolated from the ultimate divine purpose. The idea of the Christian community as “the first fruits” of a new creation comes out in vs. 18 and reverberates throughout the passage. Yet this does not inhibit good living. Rather, those who live in obedience to this strict moral standard find that it liberates and blesses (vs. 25). One might well compare this passage with the opening declarations of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 known as the Beatitudes. Was that the “word” and “law” to which James referred in vss. 22-25?

While Luther, immersed as he was in Pauline theology, condemned the Letter of James as “that wretched book,” a thousand years earlier Augustine had given a more balanced view: “That which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist. From the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity.” The letter has been regarded as a collection of isolated sayings and brief homilies which were not originally unified. But it also has the form of a literary letter, which a disciple of James may have preserved from remembered homilies after his death in 61 CE. These few excerpts from the religious environment of Judean Christianity in the 50s and 60s CE reflect its close identity with Judaism. Jesus and his brother had been raised in a similar religious environment. At the time this letter was composed Christianity might well have been regarded as a Jewish sect. The high Christology found in Paul and the later Christian scriptures had not yet filtered down to the birthplace of the new tradition.

MARK 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23. If James represents a Judaic Christian perspective, this confrontation with the Pharisees represents a tradition emanating from a very different milieu. In this biting rebuke of the Pharisees for their excessive attention to purification rituals, Jesus defined what true piety is. Apparently this tradition was sufficiently well known that Matthew also used it in his gospel (Matt. 15:1-20).

We can tell from the explicit details of Jewish purification rites in vss. 3-5 that Mark had a Gentile audience in mind. Most probably, the gospel was written for a Christian community made up primarily of Gentile believers who knew little about the strict Levitical Code which the Pharisees strove so hard to impose on 1st century Judaism. A note in The Complete Gospels (Polebridge Press, 1992) suggests that in this passage the Pharisees are stock characters acting as Jesus’ main antagonists while the disciples act as surrogates for Mark’s audience. In vss. 3-5, he addressed his audience directly on the assumption that they will not comprehend the Jewish rules of food preparation.

The incident took place in Galilee where Jews wrestled with strong Roman and Hellenist cultural influences. Not far from Nazareth in the Galilean hills, Herod Antipas had his capital at Sepphoris until about 20 CE when he constructed a new capital city at Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. The ancient trade and invasion route from Damascus to the Mediterranean passed through the heart of this same region. The Pharisees had reason to fear these foreign threats to Jewish religious traditions. Raised in a more cosmopolitan milieu, Jesus was bound to have more open attitudes than the stricter Judaism that the Pharisees and their Judean followers represented.

Not only that, the Pharisees expertly interpreted the law to suit their own comforts. Quoting from Isaiah 29:13, Jesus condemned their hypocrisy (vss. 6-7). Mark probably knew the Greek version, for that is what he quoted, although not exactly. Isaiah’s prophetic outburst must have been well known in the Christian community because Paul quoted Isa. 13:14 in 1 Cor. 1:19.

Phony piety that is self-serving and corrupting still exists in every religious tradition, Christians not excepted. In the 1950s, every corporate executive on the rise made his religious affiliations as well known as his service and country club associations. One widely used church fund raising method sought out the wealthiest or most prominent person in a community, regardless of his participation in the life of the church, and used him to influence others to give more generously than they might have done without his leadership. In both Canada and the United States in recent years, there has been particularly prominent evidence of pious persons bent on achieving political power.

True piety, Jesus said, means commitment from the heart totally dedicated to loving service of God and for others (vss. 20-23). All of the evil intentions named here as defiling a person result in behaviour that is exactly opposite to the compassionate virtues he identified as the essence of the law. An attitude of loving God and neighbour more accurately represented the sense of communal justice and mutual well-being so characteristic of the great prophets of Israel. Neither they nor Jesus had any desire to abrogate the covenant law. Unlike the Pharisees, however, they did not regard legalistic minutiae as the be all and end all of faithfulness. Theirs was more generous, more compassionate morality which found its strength in a committed relationship to God expressed in thankful worship and service. This should be our moral standard too.

-30-