John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Christmas Eve & Day
December 24 & 25, 2009
Propers 1, 2 & 3

PLEASE NOTE: The Revised Common Lectionary follows the tradition of listing Propers 1-3 in the liturgy for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. This Introduction combines the Lessons for this festive occasion into one format as the simplest way of analyzing them for preaching purposes.

ISAIAH 9:2-7. (Proper 1) The early Christians saw this passage as a prediction of the coming of Christ. Matthew quoted the opening and preceding verses as a prophecy of Jesus’ ministry (Matthew 4:15-16). For Jews it was not so intended, but regarded it as a promise of a future Messiah who would reign on David’s throne amid great rejoicing. The coming of this new king with lofty titles would bring in an age of justice and peace.

The term Messiah actually meant “the anointed.” The custom of so designating a future ideal king arose from the liturgical act of anointing each Israelite king on his coronation (2 Sam. 2:4; 2 Kings 11:12). He was thus regarded as “the Lord’s Messiah” having a unique relationship with Israel’s God, Yahweh. It would appear that vss. 1-6 originally existed as a dynastic oracle uttered on the occasion of a new king’s anointing or on the anniversary of that event.

The passage contains motifs found extensively in Psalms with reference to the Davidic dynasty, viz: the dawn of great light (Pss. 110:3, 118:24, 27); exaltant rejoicing (Pss. 118:15, 24; 132:9,16); the overthrow of Israel’s enemies (Pss.2:2, 8, 9); burning fire (Pss. 21:9; 118:12); gift of a divine son (Pss.2:7; 89:26-27); proclamation of divine qualities (Pss.2:6,7; 21:5; 72:17; 89:27; 110:4); establishing a permanent throne of peace and justice (Pss. 2:8-9: 21:4; 61:6-7; 72:1-8; 89:3-4;, 28-29, 36-37; 132:11-12).

This lends credence to the possibility that the oracle had been associated with the crowning of an unnamed Judean king and may well have come from the time of Isaiah himself in the late 8th century BCE. A Jewish tradition linked it with the coronation of Hezekiah (715-686 BCE) who worked closely with the temple priesthood. It may also have been associated with his predecssor Ahaz (735-715 BCE). The prophet Isaiah is known to have been closely associated with both the royal court and the temple during that period.

ISAIAH 62:6-12. (Proper 2) This passage consists of the final strophes of the last of three poems from the disciples of the unknown prophet of Israel’s exile in Babylon, sometimes referred to as Third Isaiah. The whole chapter (62:1-12) defines Israel as a messianic people and recalls many of the themes found in the work of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40-55). This poem promises that Jerusalem will express a new relationship with Yahweh in which the nation’s fortunes will be reversed will never again be left helpless before its enemies and will be restored by divine providence.

The image in vss. 6-7 is of the prophet as a watchman on the walls of the city whose function is to pray unceasingly for the fulfillment of divine promises. Vss. 8-9 recalls Yahweh’s promise that never again will invaders reap the crops sown by Israelites. Vs. 9 may contain a reference to the Feast of Tabernacles when the first fruits of the harvest were offered to Yahweh as the festival was celebrated in the temple with much feasting (Deut. 12:17ff; 14:23ff; 16:13ff).

The final strophe in vss. 10-12 identifies Israel as the messianic community, the eschatological theme of Isa. 40:1-1 and 52:1-12. These lines contain many of the same images of those earlier passages from Deutero-Isaiah. They speak of the joyful enthusiasm of pilgrims (or possibly the exiles from Babylon) thronging the gates of Jerusalem as the redeemed people of Yahweh return to their holy city.

Would it be too much for Christians too, gathered in their multitudes for Christmas worship, to see themselves in a new light and rejoice as the inheritors of their status as the redeemed people of God prospering as result of God’s forgiving grace? Would not the conversation at many festive table be enriched by discussions of the true mission of the faithful community to share the redemptive tradition with the world, beginning within the gathered family circle?

ISAIAH 52:7-10. (Proper 3) In words that have inspired countless generations to hope for deliverance from disastrous experiences, these verses bring us too the simple message, “Your God reigns.” Would the survivors of the Holocaust have thought of these lines when they saw their deliverers drive into their prison camps with food and medicine to preserve what little life was left in their broken bodies? If only the people of Iraq and Afghanistan could have seen the military forces that invaded their countries in such a redemptive light.

The prophet’s vision is of a messenger running through the hills that surround Jerusalem bearing the totally unexpected news. From the sentinels keeping watch on the walls the cry goes out that the exiles are indeed on their way home. From the streets of the city songs of rejoicing break forth. The ruins in which they have lived in such desperation for two generations echo their joy. At long last, the comforting words of Yahweh’s redemptive love for Israel have not only been confirmed, but Israel’s mission to the world renewed. “Before the eyes of all the nations, all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.” (vs. 10)

Is Christmas in this war weary world not the time to reiterate again and again the message from God sung in Jerusalem and heard again over Bethlehem, “Glory to God in the highest and peace to all people of good will?”

In a moving article in The Living Pulpit, a quarterly magazine “dedicated to the art of the sermon,” Rabbi Michael Lerner pleads with his own people, the Jews of America and Israel, the Arab people of Palestine and the Middle East, and people of all nations, to find new ways to reconcile their differences. He offers a strategy, which if accepted by all parties, would begin the process of bringing security and peace by planting the seeds of Shalom not only with adults but with children. “In the final analysis,” he wrote, “no political settlement will work without a huge amount of compassion, open-heartedness, generosity of spirit, and ability to recognize the Other as equally precious in God’s eyes.”

PSALM 96. (Proper 1) This psalm, along with the two following it, Pss. 97 & 98, were meant to be sung as part of the enthronement liturgy at the beginning of each New Year. In many respects, the vocabulary of all these psalms is similar. This celebration acknowledged Yahweh’s awesome power, justice and absolute supremacy over all creation. The Incarnation, God’s coming into the world in the infant Jesus, is the Christian celebration of this sovereignty.

Ps. 96 may actually have consisted as three separate hymns sung during a long processional into the temple (vss. 1-6; 7-9; and 10-13). While much of the psalm is borrowed from other psalms, the first part rejoices in Yahweh, the one God and Creator who exercises dominion over the natural world. The second part proclaims the power and glory of Yahweh and summons the worshipers to present their offerings before the altar. At the high point of the enthronement ceremony, the cry goes up, “The Lord reigns!” as Yahweh has assumed his kingship. The heavens, the earth, the fields, tress of the wood and the sea are called to echo the praise of the people.

The performance of this ritual at the beginning of each new year reminded Israel that Yahweh’s sovereignty was neither a relic of the past or some future hope, but a present reality renewed once again for the coming year and for all time.

PSALM 97. (Proper 2) Jewish theology did not depend on abstractions. Anthropomorphism – defining the nature of God in terms of human characteristics – featured much of the Jewish concept of divinity. Perhaps it could not have been otherwise. The human mind abstracts from what it observes in the immediate environment such symbols and metaphors it can use to describe in words what is essentially indescribable. Does God really reign from a throne enveloped in “clouds and thick darkness?” Of course not, but these images enable this poet to convey the ideas of divine sovereignty, righteousness and justice. In fact, vss. 2-5 actually describes a violent thunderstorm raging over the mountains. In vs. 6, the storm has passed and glorious sunlight reflects the divine glory for all to see.

In vss. 7-9, the poet’s vision shifts from nature to religious objects of worship. Unlike the Greeks and Romans who espoused many religions and absorbed them in a syncretist fashion, Israel’s prophets fought a continuing battle against idolatry and false religion. The psalmist shared this prophetic faith. He did not deny the existence of idols, but unequivocally declared their worthlessness (vs.7) and Yahweh’s sovereignty over all (vs.9). Hence there could be both hope for deliverance and security for the faithful, righteous believer. (vss.10-12)

PSALM 98. (Proper 3) This psalm uses different sounds in nature as well as the human voice and musical instruments as the means of praise. The reason for such an outburst of rejoicing lay in the mighty saving acts of Yahweh extending in mercy to Israel. Their purpose was to draw the attention of the whole world and thus inform all peoples of what Yahweh was doing through this specially favoured people.

Vs. 4 identifies the songs of praise as worshipers process into the temple. In vss. 5-6, musical instruments add to joyous cacophony. Finally, all nature and all creatures are summoned to support the noisy disharmony.

The idea of Yahweh as a monarch to be enthroned each new year conveyed the spiritual truth of a supreme being to whose will the people owed obedience. This concept went as far back as the times of Gideon (Judges 8:23) and presumably also reflected the double roles of an ancient Middle Eastern monarch as ruler and chief religious figurehead or priest. The Israelites had adopted this concept after their settlement in Canaan. Yahweh was their King-God similar to the monarchs of other cultures. In the post-exilic period when there were no reigning monarchs, the annual ritual of the enthronement of Yahweh took the place of royal coronations. Ps. 72 refers to a coronation when the monarch ascended Israel’s throne as the representative and “son” of Yahweh. From these customs and practices came the concept of the saving messiah so familiar to Christians in the gospel depictions of Jesus as the Messiah and King of the Jews.

TITUS 2:11-14. (Proper 1) This brief letter attributed to Paul, but probably form the hand of a disciple of a generation or two later, reiterates the apostolic message that God’s gracious salvation for all came through Jesus Christ. But what was salvation for? Grounded in the faith that God through Christ has redeemed us, the author calls us to live a holy life while we await Christ’s return in glory.

In vs. 13, the epithet, “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” refers to Jesus alone, not to God and Jesus. Scholars believe that this was a way of countering the emperor cult and mystery traditions of the Romans. There may have been a liturgical origin behind the unusual phrase.

Vs. 14 gives reiterates the purpose of redemption. Jesus gave himself for us in obedience to God’s will, so we also ought to be zealously obedient in going good. In other words, redemption means being freed from the binding powers of sin so that we may be purified and as new people no longer live under sin’s evil domination. We use the term ”sanctification” to describe the process. This reflects the experience of the Israelites who were led through the wilderness to be recreated as God’s people zealous for obedience to the covenant law. The same theme echoes through the whole of the New Testament because the early church saw themselves as God’s new people.

TITUS 3:4-7. (Proper 2) When read aloud this passage has an almost liturgical tone to it. In fact, as some scholars have noted, it could have been part of a baptismal liturgy used in maturing church of late 1st or early 2nd centuries. It also reiterates some well known Pauline concepts such as justification granted through grace alone entirely at God’s initiative, symbolized by baptism and effecting a moral and spiritual rebirth.

The emphasis of the passage is on a new beginning. That was how the apostolic age regarded what had happened in the Jesus story. God had created something entirely new. Whereas Jewish and Greek thought regarded change as decay and history as degeneration from a golden age, such words as regeneration and rebirth came to Christian thought full of new meaning, hope and faith. In Jesus God had begun a whole new creation despite the appearance to the very opposite.

This theme is found throughout the New Testament, not least of all in the Pauline epistles, John 3:6 and 1 Peter 1:3-4. This experience of regeneration was not ephemeral, like an ecstatic and momentary enthusiasm. It involved a moral redemption available to and characteristic of all Christians, making them a holy people, a colony of heaven even while still living in the real world. It should not surprise us in our time that this liturgical expression of the true meaning of the Good News has been made the epistle reading for Christmas Day.

HEBREWS 1:1-4, (5-12). (Proper 3) This sonorous sentence in the Greek text runs through to the end of vs. 4. It states the theme of the whole book that in contrast to all previous incomplete and imperfect revelations, the coming of Jesus is the final and perfect revelation because he is God’s Son.

Several quotations from the Hebrew scriptures follows this single sentence to establish the supremacy of Jesus Christ. The quotations are taken mostly from a number of Psalms, although Deuteronomy 32:43 also appears to lie behind vs. 6. All were taken out of context, but that made no difference to the author because they served his purpose.

Noteworthy is the significance placed upon angels. Both Jews and Christians regarded angels as mediators and agents of the divine will. Scholars have suggested that the worship of angels may have threatened the unknown Christian fellowship to which the letter had been sent. The Colossians community faced a similar threat (Col. 2:8, 18). Angels, however, have no function not initiated by the divine will; they simply serve in assigned roles. The task of human redemption, however, is the act of the person who shares divine power in and of himself. Therein lies the authority and power of the Son. One because he is one with God could he undertake such a ministry.

With this precise argument, the author lets us peer behind the manger, the cross and the empty tomb to recognize who Jesus really is and why we still celebrate his birth.

LUKE 2:1-20 (Propers 1 & 2) Luke tells the story of the birth of Jesus as if it was history, but it is actually a folk idyll more akin to poetry than history. The details differ significantly from those in Matthew’s narrative and the two cannot be correlated in any way, as modern Christmas pageants tend to do. Here it is not wise men from afar, but angels in the heavenly host and humble shepherds from their pastures who come to marvel at this once in eternity event. Christian hymnody has made much of the story. We still sing those hymns and carols with sincere joy and faith. Exacting scholarship may question the factual truth of many romantic aspects of Luke narrative, but cannot detract from the reality of the Incarnation of God in human flesh.

Nonetheless, attempts have been made to find non-Christian sources for the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. Roman, Persian and Hellenistic Jewish mythologies have been suggested, but none have been proven. One recent speculative proposal by Bruce Chilton in his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, supposedly based on archeological as well as biblical research, insisted that there was a second town of Bethlehem in Galilee. Such a town is named in Joshua 19:15 within the territory allotted to Zebulun and located just seven miles from Nazareth. Chilton argued that it was the hometown of Mary where Joseph met and married her at the tender age of thirteen. He also quoted the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 67a) of the 5th century CE as referring to Mary having slept with a Roman soldier. A more exacting study by Raymond E. Brown is non-committal as to the historicity of the birth narratives and the virginal conception. (The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Doubleday, 1993) Chilton clarifies the issue cogently as follows: “What about Jesus’ birth generated the divergent understanding of it in Christian and Jewish literature?” A more recent study by Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend. (Penguin Books, 2006) presents a very cogent discussion of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Vermes drew on his vast knowledge of the Jewish textual and commentary background to the Christian scriptures to make a reasonable case for both traditionalists and progressives.

Traditional Christian art, liturgy and hymnody as well as modern commercial depictions of the first Christmas follow the scripture narrative ‘religiously.’ Perhaps this more than anything else is responsible for 65% of Americans believing in the Virgin Birth despite the vocal denial of most biblical scholars, The Jesus Seminar and Bishop John Spong. Not all presentations of Christmas are so literal.

The United Church of Canada recently carried a provocative advertising campaign intended to attract the attention of the generation of young adults 30-45 years old no longer significantly represented in its congregations. A full-page colour advertisement appeared in December issues of several popular consumer magazines. It pictured a bearded, traditionally robed Jesus sitting on Santa’s throne with a child on his knee and others standing by waiting their turn. They were set in a gaudy shopping mall surrounded by with all the customary consumer objects. The caption directed the reader to an Internet website. The media made the most of the opportunity to draw critical attention to the page. Yet in the first week after it appeared, 32,000 viewers logged on to the website and 306 topics were posted in a reasonably civilized discussion.

To avoid controversy, especially at Christmas Eve and Christmas Day services, the preacher would be advised to maintain a position that the Incarnation, the embodying of God in human form, remains as much a mystery as the nature of God. Christmas is an emotional and/or a devotional occasion for most congregations. This may be true even for the occasional worshipers or non-believers who may not attend at most other times. Woe to the preacher who denies any congregation the opportunity to experience the true mystery of faith.

JOHN 1:1-14 (Proper 3). The Fourth Gospel establishes the mystery of the Incarnation in a totally different manner. This prologue to the narrative refers to the ancient Hebrew metaphors of the creative word of God in Genesis 1, the glory of God seen as light eternally shining in darkness and the expectation of the Messiah to whom prophetic witness is made by John the Baptizer. This prologue to the gospel also introduces the new concept of the pre-existent Christ as spiritual co-creator with God who bursts into the world of flesh and blood in a new creation.

Gail O’Day and Susan Hylen liken the prologue to John’s Gospel to “the overture to an opera, ballet or musical. They present in miniature the key themes that will come later.” (John. Westminster Bible Companion, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) The passage is not “straightforward introduction or recounting of events.” Rather, with these sonorous words John celebrates “the gifts and new life … given to the Christian community because of the presence of God in Jesus.” John’s purpose is to elicit a sense of “joy and anticipation for what is to come.”

This approach captures the essence of Christmas: joyful expectation. One of the best photographs I have ever taken was with a small, inexpensive camera on a black and white film. It shows a small boy of about three dressed in pyjamas and a bathrobe on Christmas morning peering around the banister of a stairway to see what wonders await in the living room beyond. The expectation on his face is beyond description.

So it is with John’s Gospel. When the passage is well-read in any version, one is left almost breathless at the words, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Fourth Sunday of Advent – December 20, 2009

MICAH 5:2-5a. This prophecy presents an overview of Israel’s long and tragic history from the time of King David onward. Following the return of a remnant of the nation from exile in Babylon, a new ruler was intended to bring peace and prosperity because he would be strengthened by God. The early church saw the promise of the Messiah in this passage.

LUKE 1:47-55. The psalm and the gospel lessons form a single reading from Luke 1. Mary’s Song, known for centuries by its Latin name The Magnificat, was almost certainly modeled on Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1-10. It promises the social justice of the messianic age for which the world is still waiting in hope.

HEBREWS 10:5-10. The message of this obscure passage indicates that Christ was born to die as the sacrifice for the sin of the world. It quotes Christ, but in reality it is a quotation from Psalm 40:6-8. That psalm is a song of praise and petition seeking God’s help. This interpretation emphasizes the sacrifice of Christ on the cross which God willed as vastly superior to the repeated sacrifices in Israel’s temple ritual.

LUKE 1:39-45. The story of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, John the Baptist’s mother, has an air of immediacy and intimacy about it. Some have speculated that the story came from Mary herself. On the other hand, the birth narratives of Luke are in the form of oral legend and poetry which may have circulated as a separate collection long before the gospel was written about 80 AD. However they may have come into being, the stories were meant to convey the faith of the church, then and still, that in Jesus, the God who loves the world came to bring all who believe into a living relationship with God now and for all eternity. This is still as good news to our age as it was to the first Christians two thousand years ago.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

MICAH 5:2-5a. Micah (or Micaiah, meaning “Who is like Yahweh?) Came from a small village in the Judean foothills, Moresheth-Gath, about halfway between Jerusalem and Gaza. He was a contemporary of the better-known Isaiah. Yet the two prophets had a markedly different outlook, perhaps because of their different status in Judean society. Micah had the viewpoint of the common people of the countryside; Isaiah, that of an aristocrat and courtier. Micah could speak from harsh experience of the suffering of ordinary folk in a time of intolerable injustice and political turmoil, roughly 742-697 BCE. His village lay near the Judean stronghold of Lachish and close to the cities of the Philistines, in the pathway of every invading force. No “minor” prophet, he and Amos became the voices of the rural people who suffered under almost constant oppression.

The late Bruce Vawter, of DePaul University, IL, described Micah’s time in these words: “His prophetic career may have begun about 725 BCE when it had become evident that the northern kingdom of Israel – where prophecy had begun and which had always been the ‘elder sister’ of the kingdom of Judah – was now doomed to disappear into the voracious Assyrian empire. Judah, by a combination of statecraft, collaborationism and religiously unacceptable compromise, would still be able to hold off the inevitable for a time; indeed, it outlasted the Assyrians only to become the prey to their Neo-Babylonian successors. But this was done by the sacrifice of national and religious integrity, and in the end the result was the same.” (Oxford Companion to the Bible, 517)

In the book as it now stands, Micah’s own prophecies have been considerably adapted to changed conditions, added to and amplified by later editors. Vawter thought that this excerpt came from the prophet himself. Rolland E. Wolfe, formerly professor of Biblical Literature at Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, thought that it was part of an appendix added in postexilic times dealing with “the restoration of Israel by resorting to militaristic means …. (which) breathes vengeance upon other nations.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, 922)

This prophecy presents an overview of Israel’s long and tragic history from the time of King David onward. It marvels that a Davidic lineage that lasted nearly half a millennium could come from such a small place as Bethlehem. Following the return of a remnant of the nation from exile, a new monarch of David’s line would bring peace and prosperity because he would be strengthened by God. This is distinctively different from the post-exilic vision of Deutero-Isaiah in that here the deity will delegate authority to the Davidic monarch in what will amount to a theocracy. Deutero-Isaiah envisioned Yahweh being the shepherd of reconstructed Israel. (Isa. 40:10-11)

As Matthew 2:6 states, the early church saw in this passage the promise of the Messiah and applied it to Jesus. The Matthean text is not taken from either the Hebrew or the Greek LXX of this passage and may be an original translation. Some scholars believe that the quotation is the sole source of the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

HEBREWS 10:5-10. The message of this obscure passage indicates that Christ was born to die as the sacrifice for the sin of the world. In our modern celebration of Christmas, we tend to neglect this important aspect of our faith: the Easter story begins at Christmas.

The passage quotes Christ, but in reality it is a quotation from Psalm 40:6-8. That psalm is a song of praise for God’s help and has no messianic connotations at all. However, this excerpt does echo the prophetic messages of Micah 6:6-8 and Jeremiah 31: 31-34. This interpretation lifts up the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which God willed, as vastly superior to the repeated sacrifices of Israel’s temple ritual. The Christian doctrine of sanctifying grace which enables us to be obedient to God’s law of love finds its simplest definition here. It also opens us to the dangers of supersessionism and dispensationalism, theological positions that are no longer tenable in contemporary global religious and multicultural dialogue.

The interweaving of the Old Testament and the Gospel also stands out in this passage. Both testaments are essential elements of a mature Christian faith. From time of Marcion in the middle of the second century CE attempts have been made to exclude the Old Testament from Christian scriptures. This cannot be done because both parts tell the same story of God’s redemptive activity for the restoration of God’s creation – and all of humanity as part of creation – to its proper relationship to God.

This is what the author of Hebrews means by his use of the word “sanctified.” The Greek word is hagiazo (trans. “to make holy”). The only way for us to be made holy is in relationship to God who alone is holy. The claim of the author of Hebrews is that, according to divine will, only through faith in the sacrifice of Christ is this possible.

There has been a widespread misunderstanding that evangelical Christians emphasize only personal holiness. Such a limited view ignores the significant leadership of many 19th and 20th century evangelicals as William Wilberforce, Anthony Shaftesbury, Walter Rauschenbusch, Reinhard Niebuhr and numerous others that to be fully expressed holiness must include the whole social order and all cultural systems. Even John Wesley himself in the 18th century regarded sanctification as incomplete as long as society remained unchanged by converted Christian men and women. Accordingly, the celebration of Advent and Christmas must include not only a genuine concern for the poor and disadvantaged, as in the original legend of St. Nicholas, but also a witness to God’s will that the reign of God be established in all human relationships and social institutions.

LUKE 1:39-45 AND LUKE 1:47-55. Because the psalm and the gospel lessons form a single reading from Luke 1, we comment on them together. These two passages are part of a series of Marian narratives from which the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and other aspects of traditional Christology developed. Together they form a creative and poetic flowering of what the church believed from its beginning: that God had come into human life for our salvation through faith in and following Jesus Christ in everyday living. Like so much else in the gospel story, the influence of the prophets of Israel, and especially their sense of divine justice and messianic hopes, can be clearly seen. The birth narratives read like an unfolding drama gradually introducing the central character of the gospel, Jesus, the Jewish Messiah/Christ.

The story of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, John the Baptist’s mother, has an air of immediacy and intimacy about it. Some have speculated that the story came from Mary herself. On the other hand, the birth narratives of Luke 1 and 2 are more likely oral legend and poetry which may have circulated as a separate collection long before the gospel was written about 80-90 CE. Later extreme examples of this kind of story show that the church needed to distinguish between what was valid revelation and what was merely imaginative speculation. This task fell to the Church Fathers of the late 2nd and 3rd centuries when the New Testament canon was given its final form.

On the other hand, the story as it stands gives some very natural insight into these two women’s experience. They rejoiced in each other’s pregnancy. They needed each other’s support. They realized how blessed they were to be bearing God’s miraculous gifts to humanity. What modern mother who willingly and intentionally bears a child does not sense the same joyful hope that they felt?

Mary’s Song, known for centuries by its Latin name The Magnificatt, was almost certainly modeled on Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1-10. But that the circumstances of that source are more closely parallel to Elizabeth’s, who like Hannah, conceived late in life. Most likely Luke or his Jewish source composed a typical hymn of praise based on Hannah’s prayer and other Old Testament references. (vss. 49-50 cf. Ps. 103:17; 111:9) These were adapted to fit this situation, a common practice of New Testament authors. As it stands, the psalm promised the social justice of the messianic age for which the world is still waiting in hope.

However they may have come into being, these passages conveyed the faith of the church, then and still, that in Jesus, God who loves the world came to bring all creation into a living relationship with God now and for all eternity. This relationship extends to every human activity and institution as well as to each individual. There can be no social justice where people are not free or deprived of a fair share of the world’s resources. Some may see this as a basis for pre-emptive assaults against powerful opponents of political democracy and a free market economy. This would be a mistaken interpretation. The evidence of Old Testament prophecy and New Testament Christology is that God makes use of events manipulated by human agents to redeem creation. The Incarnation and the Resurrection had but that one purpose: the redemption of the world through the spiritual resources made available through faith in Jesus Christ, born of Mary.

WHO IS HE?

A poem for Christmas.
Rev. John Shearman

It was a stone manger, that place where he lay;
not a fine oaken cradle, but a box filled with hay.
His mother sang to him suckling her breast,
while shepherds came kneeling at angels’ behest.

Is this the Messiah? Not a king, but a child,
Just like our children in a world just as wild.
Does God really want us to follow this boy?
Can he be the Saviour who has not one toy?

The hopes of the world, invested in pain,
will not bring another; there’s nothing to gain
in pining and searching, in warring and strife;
for God’s saving love came in that helpless life.

An Epilogue:

For those who seek some resolution to the endless controversy about the Virgin Birth, a relatively new book by Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend, (Penguin Books, 2006) offers a reasonable position. Vermes concludes that since the custom of the times regarded child marriage as normal and virginity was thought to continue until puberty, it is entirely possible that Mary did conceive after her first ovulation but before her menstrual cycles began. That would mean that she was technically “a virgin” at the time of her conception. He supports this view with quotations from the Mishnah and the Talmud that distinguishes between two different understandings of virginity: one that terminates with sexual intercourse and one that ends only with the onset of menstruation, i.e “a girl who has seen blood even though she is married.” (See Vermes, “The virginal conception in Luke.” 78-81.)

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Twenty-Fourth Sunday After Pentecost
Proper 28 Ordinary 33
November 15, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-