John Shearman's Lectionary

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
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-

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
First Sunday After Pentecost – June 7, 2009
[Also known as Trinity Sunday]

ISAIAH 6:1-8. These few verses describe the call of Isaiah to his ministry of speaking for God to Israel during a critical period of its history in the late 8th century BC. Amid the smoke from the sacrifice on the altar in the temple, Isaiah had a vision of God attended by heavenly creatures. One of the heavenly beings touched his lips with a live coal symbolizing his freedom from sin and worthiness to proclaim God’s message to Israel. Then Isaiah heard the voice of God calling for someone to speak for God to God’s sinful people; and he responds.

PSALM 29. Although beginning with praise to God, the emphasis in this psalm is on the voice of God as if heard in the violence of a thunderstorm.

ROMANS 8:12-17. Paul claims that having the Spirit of the risen Christ is the key to Christian discipleship. The Spirit dwelling within us enables us to live as the people of God rather than as slaves to the value system of the world around us.

JOHN 3:1-17. Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews, learns from Jesus how the Spirit makes us new spiritual persons through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. This comes about because God loves the world so much that God sent Jesus into the world to save us with this faith.

This majestic passage is one of many in the New Testament witnessing to what subsequently became the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It describes the ministry Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit as God at work in the world.

Some people look at verse 16 as the secret for obtaining eternal life beyond death. In this passage, however, John makes the point that God is as much concerned about how we live in this life now as with what happens to us afterward. As the subsequent verses 18 to 21 explain, God’s judgment occurs and eternal life begins when we believe who Jesus is and what his coming into the world really means.

************
A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

ISAIAH 6:1-8. These few verses describe the call of Isaiah to his ministry of speaking for God to Israel during a critical period of its history in the late 8th century BC. The late Dr. R.B.Y. Scott, my professor of Old Testament at McGill University, Montreal, later of Princeton University, wrote an exceptional exegesis of this passage in The Interpreter’s Bible (6: 204ff) which is well worth reading in full. Scott described this as an ecstatic vision, “one of the outstanding passages of the Bible which justify a doctrine of revelation in and through recorded spiritual experience…. We can participate imaginatively in Isaiah’s vision and feel the same pang of conscience in the presence of the unutterable and sovereign glory of the goodness of God.”

Amid the smoke from the sacrifice on the altar in the temple, Isaiah had a vision of God attended by heavenly creatures. One of the heavenly beings touched his lips with a live coal symbolizing his freedom from sin and worthiness to proclaim God’s message to Israel. Then Isaiah heard the voice of God calling for someone to speak for God to God’s sinful people; and he responds.

The event has a specific historical context: “the year that King Uzziah died.” The year 742 BCE was the approximate date, although biblical historians cannot be altogether sure. II Kings 15:1ff gave the king another name, Azariah (cf.14:21; 15:13). Isaiah may have been one of the courtiers or a member of the priesthood. He had contact with several kings of Judah, the southern kingdom, through perilous times until at least 701 BCE. His oracles often met with royal displeasure because they counseled actions which, however spiritually motivated, were politically unpalatable (chs. 36-39).

The passage emphasizes the holiness of Yahweh in that in the intensity of his vision when Isaiah “sees” Yahweh and hears the divine summons, Yahweh’s face and feet are hidden from him. It is the six winged seraphim, the heavenly attendants of Yahweh, of which Isaiah catches sight. In other words, spiritual being can only be spiritually encountered. The experience can only be expressed in humanly relevant terms. As Scott said, “Holiness is the essential quality of deity, glory is the manifestation of deity in the natural world.”

Isaiah’s familiarity with the cult of Yahweh underlies the ritual act of mouth-purification (vss. 6-7) symbolizing divine forgiveness enabling the prophet to speak in Yahweh’s name, “Thus saith the Lord ….” Contact with the holiness of Yahweh sanctified Isaiah for his prophetic mission. His humble response, “Here am I! Send me,” represents total commitment that countless others have made in similar circumstances. Vocation remains our best human response to a divine summons.

Not all prophets or pastors, from ancient times to the present day, have been called in such dramatic fashion. This brief narrative gives scriptural credibility to the ecstatic nature of some calls to ministry. It may be easy for modern secular minds the cast doubt on the validity of such calls. For those to whom it has happened, it has been a life-changing experience, not the hallucinations of religious fanatics. For me, the compelling power of the experience has lasted for sixty-five years.

PSALM 29. Praise for the glory of God in a thunderstorm? That is an imaginative interpretation of a very natural occurrence in almost any part of the world. Yet that is the chief emphasis in this psalm.

The power of a storm attracted the poet’s attention. In ancient times, nature’s mighty elements had the status of demi-gods. It was they who are addressed in vss. 1-2 as “heavenly beings” and summoned to ascribe glory to Yahweh, their “holy array” in the heavens worshiping as if in the temple.

Storms of great violence still occur in Palestine. Sweeping down from the heights of Mount Lebanon, strong cold fronts collide with warm air from the deserts of the Arabian and Sinai peninsulas. This results in furious storms which can do great damage to the unwary, especially those poor enough or foolish enough to build their fragile shelters in the wadis of the wilderness or the valleys of spring-fed mountain streams. Such disasters still happen in even the most modern urban communities of California and in the barrios of Central and South America. Those who live in “Tornado Alley” on the plains of the American midwest can also attest to the violence of such storms. Insurance policies still include a clause defining some destructive events as “acts of God.”

The psalmist heard the majestic voice of God in the sound of thunder as the storm rolls closer (vs. 3-4). The cedars of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon (Sirion) bent before the wind, skipping like a calf or a young wild ox. The psalmist may have referred to wild aurochs, from which cattle were domesticated, that may not have been entirely extinct in the more remote foothills of the Bekah Valley in Lebanon (vss. 5-6). Lightning appeared as flames from the same mouth from which the voice of Yahweh thunders (vs. 7). The references to Lebanon in the north and the wilderness of Kadesh in the southern desert on the borders of Sinai (vs. 8) represent the expanse of the whole nation over which the storm spreads its fury.

Due to the absence of vowels in Hebrew, some versions translate vs. 9 differently. The KJV has it, “The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve.” The Hebrew word chuwl or chiyl has many meanings, but essentially means “to twist or whirl.” Another meaning is “to writhe in pain as in giving birth.” The KJV sense might be possible in a heavy storm if the deer were as terrified as some humans were at such times. The more exact translation in the NRSV and several other modern versions better serve the intended poetic parallelism. A tornado whistling through a forest has the power to strip leaves from trees or uproot great oaks and whirl them to the ground. That would appear to be the image the poet has in mind.

As the storm passed, reflection on its meaning calmed the poet. The One who is sovereign over all the most powerful forces of nature was also able to give strength and peace to Israel, Yahweh’s chosen people.

ROMANS 8:12-17. Here Paul claims that having the Spirit of the risen Christ is the key to Christian discipleship. The Spirit enables us to live as the people of God rather than as slaves to the value system of the world around us.

A good deal of scholarly effort has concentrated on what Paul meant by “the flesh.” Most probably, his concept of the term arose from his early life in Tarsus famous for its Stoic philosophers as well as his long, intense association and training with the Pharisees. In contrast to the Hebrew concept of a unified human nature, the Greeks believed that the spiritual and the physical aspects of human beings were totally separate and impossible to unite in the same person.

In a word, “the flesh” (Gk. = sarx) meant sin, anything that separates us from God and spiritual life. To quote William Barclay in his The Mind of Paul (Harper, 1958. 190): “Sin is not simply an influence or a force; it is a kind of personal demonic power which invades a man and takes up residence in him. It is in fact there that Paul’s whole conception of the body and the flesh comes in. Any invading enemy requires a bridgehead; it is the flesh which gives sin a bridgehead. The flesh is not simply the body; and the sins of the flesh are not simply fleshly sins. Idolatry, hatred, strife, wrath, heresy are all sins of the flesh (Gal. 5:20). The flesh is the human nature apart from God. And it is just there that sin obtains the bridgehead for the invasion whose end is the occupation of the human personality.”

Putting that in terms of contemporary thought, “the flesh” represents the value system of the dominate culture to which everyone is attracted and subjected, consciously or unconsciously. The moral and spiritual power that enables us to live free of the dominating influence of the culture in which we live is the Holy Spirit (vss. 12-13). But as the whole body of his correspondence with the apostolic churches makes abundantly clear, Paul had no illusions about the challenge of living by the Spirit and not the flesh in that era and in this.

E.P Sanders carried Paul’s understanding of “the flesh” even farther: “His penetrating observations have to do with how it is that the man who does not have faith in Christ is not only lost in a formal and external sense – handed over to destruction – but even lost to himself, being unable to achieve the goal which he so ardently desires. For that which is desired – life – can only be received as a gift, so that the effort to attain it is self-defeating.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism. SCM Press, 1977. 509)

The antidote to this universal human predicament is found in vs. 14 of this passage. Those who through faith in Christ receive the gift of the Holy Spirit “are the children of God.” In vs. 15, Paul uses the metaphor of adoption into the family of God in contrast to slavery as the means by which the gift is given to us. Anyone, parent or child, who has experienced adoption senses immediately the difference. The adopted child in regarded as a member of the family as much as if born into the family naturally. However intimately a slave or servant may be regarded, or how long he or she may serve in a household, that person never becomes a member of the family with all the incumbent rights and privileges of an adopted child. The adopted child can never be removed from the family circle. As Paul described this intimately spiritual experience in vs. 17: “if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.”

Paul ends this segment of his message with the startling affirmation of the implications of being a member of the family of God with Christ: “If, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.” We receive everything that accrues to the family, whether great riches and honour, or as the Romans may well have been about to experience when Paul wrote to them, persecution, privation and unjust punishment for crimes they did not commit. Tradition holds that not long after Paul wrote this letter, he arrived in Rome and suffered martyrdom there during Nero’s persecution of the Christian community for the great fire instigated by the mad emperor himself.

There is one more brief reference in vs. 15b-16 which bears investigation. At one time or another, every Christian feels frustrated by his or her feeble efforts to pray. When crises come upon on us, many feel especially bereft of the spiritual connections that make prayer meaningful and helpful. Like terrified children we can only cry out, “Daddy, help me!” It is then, in our moments of terror, we most need the Spirit to interpret our cries for help and to reassure us that we are indeed the children of the living, loving God who knows our plight and will not desert us in our need.

Had Paul heard what was happening to the Christian community in Rome under the mad emperor Nero? Had he determined to appeal to the emperor himself so that he might join them in their time of danger? Nero was fiercely anti-Semitic as had been his adoptive father, Claudius, whom he succeeded as emperor. Paul met two of his closest co-workers in Corinth, Priscilla and Aquila, after Claudius had banished them from Rome with other Jews in 49/50 CE. The postscript to the Letter to the Romans (16:3) includes a warm greeting to Priscilla and Aquila which indicates that there were once again back in the capital of the empire. We can only speculate how Paul may have intended his reference to Spirit-assisted prayer to be understood by his audience. Our own interpretation of it, however, may yield a fruitful homily for the early summer.

JOHN 3:1-17. Reading this fourth and last gospel in New Testament nearly two millennia after it was composed, we need to remember that those who wrote the gospels knew about, believed in and assumed they were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God as they created these texts from the oral traditions to which they had access. And who is to say that they were not? This majestic passage is one of many in the New Testament witnessing to what subsequently became the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It describes the ministry Jesus and the activity of the Holy Spirit as God engaged in God’s redeeming work in and for the world.

The story is a simple one: Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews, learns from Jesus how the Spirit makes us new spiritual persons through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. This comes about because God loves the world so much that God sent Jesus into the world to save us humans and this planet through this faith.

Some people look at John 3:16 as the secret for obtaining eternal life beyond death. In this passage, however, John makes the point that God is as much concerned about how we live in this life now as with what happens to us afterward. As the subsequent verses 18 to 21 explain, God’s judgment occurs and eternal life begins when we believe who Jesus is and what his coming into the world really means.

In the theological struggles of the 20th and 21st centuries, “born again” has become the rallying cry of conservatively minded Christians, the magical open sesame to salvation. In many respects it has the same force as the synoptic gospel proclamation, “repent and believe the gospel.” The phrase is not a magic ticket to enter “that better life in the great beyond.” It is a metaphor for a new moral and spiritual beginning which comes about for those who have faith that Jesus is the one to whom the early Christian community witnessed: the Messiah/Christ, Son of God. As Messiah, Jesus came to show us the way of life God requires of us all. Was it not out of such a context that Jesus chided the doubting Nicodemus, “Are you a teacher of Israel and you do not understand these things? (vs. 10)

In all of the discourses of Jesus which John includes in his gospel, it is difficult to distinguish how much are remembrances of what Jesus may have actually said or the commentary of John himself. Obviously is vss. 11-17, Jesus, or more probably John, was thinking about the whole story of incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of God’s sovereign love made manifest in Jesus. Another metaphor of universal salvation comes in the comparison of the crucifixion to Moses’ elevation of the serpent which prevented the Israelites from dying of a plague of poisonous snakes (vss. 14-15 cf. Numbers 21:4-9). John reiterates that this is God’s intention in the classic statement about salvation in vs. 16.

If that were not enough to convince the unbelieving, and especially the Jewish element of his audience, John drives his point home in vs. 17-21 by introducing the constant Old Testament theme of divine judgment on sin. Yet here John differentiates Christian from Jewish theology. God’s judgment does not come for the purpose of condemning the wicked who transgress a moral law or ritual code, as so often stated in the Old Testament. The purpose of divine judgment is to bring the whole world to faith and spiritual fellowship with God. This reaffirms in a remarkable way that Jesus is the full expression of divine love in human form as stated so exquisitely in vs. 16.

What, then, is the Holy Trinity but God who is love coming to us in whatever way we humans can receive the gift of God’s own spiritual life and thereby be recreated as new persons who express love in all our relationships?

-30-