John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION OF THE SCRIPTURE
SECOND SUNDAY AFTER EPIPHANY
JANUARY 17, 2010

ISAIAH 62:1-5. The return of the exiles and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is the constant theme of Second-Isaiah, as scholars have named the unknown poet-prophet of Israel’s exile in Babylon. He either composed or inspired his disciples to write the poetry now contained in Isaiah 40-66.

This is part of the last of a trilogy of poems in Isaiah 60-62 emphasizing the promised return and reconstruction resulting from Israel’s special relationship with God. Vss. 4-5 of this passage likens this relationship to a renewed marriage covenant. This special, intimate relationship with God motivates much of the tenacity of many Jews have for the modern state of Israel today.

PSALM 36:5-10. The steadfast love of God for Israel and for the whole of creation brings praise to the lips of the faithful and a prayer that this love with continue for “the upright of heart.”

1 CORINTHIANS 12:1-11. Paul had many difficulties teaching the new converts in Corinth just what it meant to believe in Jesus as Lord and follow his way of life. A major disagreement had arisen as to which of the gifts of the Spirit were the more important. Here Paul points out that all gifts come from the same Spirit of God, serve different purposes in the Christian community, and yet contribute to the common good. The issue still has relevance for our modern congregations. Each member may have a different role to play depending on his or her particular talents.

JOHN 2:1-11. John’s Gospel took its shape from a series of signs revealing Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, and Saviour of the world. This miracle story described the first of these signs. Some regard it as the moment of Jesus’ revelation of himself to his own family and to those who knew him.

The marriage feast at Cana symbolized that the messianic age had begun. The changing of water for ritual purification to wine for the marriage feast indicated that Jesus would reinterpret Jewish religious tradition for the new age he inaugurated.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

ISAIAH 62:1-5. The themes of return of the exiles from Babylon and the rebuilding of Jerusalem resound through all the writings of Second-Isaiah, as scholars have named the unknown poet-prophet of Israel’s exile in Babylon. Much of the latter part of the Book of Isaiah (chs. 40-66) are believed to have come either from him or from a coterie of his disciples, sometimes called Third-Isaiah in scholarly circles. This brief passage joyfully reiterates this promise of return and reconstruction.

 The trilogy of poems in Isaiah 60-62, of which this excerpt formed the last part, emphasized the promised return and reconstruction resulting from Israel’s special relationship with God. This stands out in vs. 1 where the prophet, speaking for Yahweh, declares Yahweh’s passion as the initiator of this historic event. This further divine action in Israel’s faith-history occurred so that Israel might fulfill its divinely appointed mission. Vs. 2 clarifies this special role among the nations as ordained by Yahweh. The returning exiles will receive a new name indicative of a renewed relationship with Yahweh in accord with Yahweh’s eternal purpose. Since names in the prophetic tradition had special significance and tended to define the nominee’s character and purpose, the giving of a new name was, in effect, a confirmation of this purpose. (Cf. Gen. 32:28; Is. 7:3; 9:6, etc.)

The mission was to be messianic in the monarchical rather than a salvatory sense, as “the crown of beauty … a royal diadem” in vs. 3 states. The image is that of Israel as the crown in the hand of Yahweh, sovereign of the nation, in much the same way that the image of a protective patron deity of ancient cities crowned the city walls.

Vss. 4-5 introduce a different image, likening the relationship of Yahweh and Israel to a renewed marriage covenant. (cf. Hosea 2 and similar metaphors in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.) Though all the names in Hebrew in this passage ended in ‘AH,’ (or YAH) representing Yahweh, the new relationship was represented by the new names Hephzibah, “My delight is in her,” and Beulah, “Married.” These names revealed Yahweh’s love for Israel above all other nations. There may even have been undertones of the pagan sexual relationship with deity found in other traditions of this period.

The passage has relevance for the current crisis in the Middle East. The special, intimate relationship with God motivates much of the tenacity many Jews have for the modern state of Israel today. Yet it has to be admitted that most people, even in Israel itself where a majority are non-religious Jews, do not share a similar view. History is rarely kind to religious ideologies. Is democratic idealism always the will of God for every nation?

The issue in the Holy Land today has become one of a geopolitical conflict between a strong religious nationalism and the rights of Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs moved aggressively into a vacuum left by the decline of Roman and Byzantine empires. But most Jews had been driven out of the land to become a global diaspora long before that. Twentieth century geopolitics recreated and has sustained Israel as a viable state. Both Arabs and Jews now claim the right to live where their ancestors settled long ago. After more than six decades this conflict still festers as both parties often function as pawns in much larger geopolitical struggles.

Christian churches have not helped by taking one side or the other in this conflict. Most have been motivated by differing theological stances. Even when one believes fervently in God as Lord of history, events in the world are always the result of human interaction, rarely motivated by profound discernment of God’s will and purpose. On the other hand, it is never easy to discern where justice lies or how one position or the other relates to the divine will. The debate regarding the involvement of Christians in political issues between Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr has never been satisfactorily settled. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one who struggled with this issue in a very personal and sacrificial way.

PSALM 36: 5-10. The steadfast love of Yahweh for Israel and for the whole of creation brings praise for the goodness of Yahweh to the lips of the faithful. The psalm concludes with a prayer that this love with continue for “the upright of heart.”

This abbreviated reading provides a fascinating counterpoint to the first four verses of the psalm which have been excluded from the lectionary. Most commentators agree that the two parts probably represent two originally separate compositions which a later editor brought together. Yet they complement each other in such a way that two conflicting ways of life are cast in bold relief. The first (vss. 1-4) is said to belong to the category of Israel’s Wisdom literature, with special affinity with Proverbs. It emphasizes the way in which people of lesser moral character flatter and deceive themselves, and secretly plot mischievous misbehavior. This theme appears to have been picked up in the concluding verses (vss. 11-12). The part included in this reading (vss. 5-10), reflects the sovereignty and universalism of divine providence characteristic of the later prophet-poets like Second Isaiah and Job.

Vss. 10-12 raise a question that still troubles many modern Christians. Does God love only the faithful and morally upright? Is divine love exclusive? The covenant motif of the OT did have a strong ethical component which finds wide expression in the psalms. The opening verses of this psalm exhibit this aspect of the Hebrew tradition. The second part of the psalm reveals a more tolerant view found in the prophecy of Second Isaiah. Vs. 6, for instance, extends Yahweh’s steadfast love to animals as well as humans. Vs. 7 includes all people, not just Israel, within the purview of divine protection and providence.

The New Testament goes much farther. The Gospels in particular show unequivocally that God’s love extends even to those most alienated from God and immoral in their behavior. Is it not possible that the Islamic prayer Sadam Hussein offered on the gallows which seconds later ended his life were sincerely offered? However, God loves sinners like us so that we may respond to that love by changing our ways and seeking to follow Jesus in all we say and do. Jesus came to reconcile us all to God by revealing just how much God does love us and wants us to learn from Jesus how to live in a loving relationship with God, with all other people, and with the planet Earth on which we pass our years.

1 CORINTHIANS 12:1-11. The New Testament has a great many references to the body of Christ and many different meanings to that phrase. In general the phrase connotes the many-faceted relationships between Christ and those who believe in and belong to him, their relations with him as members, and with one another in the wide fellowship that bears his name. It is, perhaps, the most prevalent metaphor in the NT, in the Pauline corpus especially, for what was to become within a few decades of his death and resurrection the institution which has endured for the past two millennia. An examination of the many texts, however, would show how the understanding of the various authors changed from decade to decade. The unique aspect of its usage, however, is that the NT Greek word soma which normally translated the Hebrew basar had no counterpart in classical Hellenistic Greek. Furthermore, contrary to Hellenistic and most modern thinking, in OT and NT usage, there was no distinction between the true self or soul and the flesh or body.

While the word soma does not appear in this passage, that is certainly the metaphor toward which this passage points. It also speaks to our time as forcefully as to the middle of the 1st century AD when it was written. Today, secular paganism challenges us as it did the apostle Paul and his Corinthian converts. Here the apostle almost seems to wring his hands at their obstinacy and obtuseness. He had a great many difficulties teaching them just what it meant to believe in Jesus as Lord and follow his way of life. The chief problem cited in this passage was a disagreement as to which of the gifts of the Spirit were the more important. Paul points out as plainly as possible that all gifts come from the same source, the Spirit of God. They may serve different functions in the Christian fellowship, yet all contribute to the common good.

The issue still has relevance to our modern congregations. Each member may have a different role to play depending on his or her particular talents. It needs to be noted, however, that the use of these gifts in not to be exercised exclusively within the institution. The mission of the church is to the world, not to itself. Perhaps that was the main reason why the Corinthians had so much trouble with the great variety of gifts they brought to the apostolic church. Like so much of our contemporary gifting, it concentrated on themselves and their own fellowship rather than equipping them for the ministry of love for the world. They were in it for themselves and for their own little community, not for what Christ could do for the world through them as part of the wider Christian fellowship.

Another important feature of this lesson is the role the Spirit plays within the community. The word Spirit occurs no less than ten times in these few sentences. This tells us most poignantly that nothing beneficial can happen within the community or in carrying out its mission to the world except by the activation of the Spirit (vs. 11). That was the fundamental issue with which Paul had to deal so forcefully.

What really did control the witness of Christians in Corinth, or, for that matter, in any of our cities, towns and villages today? At the heart of the matter was the lordship of Jesus without whose Spirit none of the gifts of individual believers were of any value. As Paul states so clearly in vs. 3, even confessing that Jesus is Lord is the work of the Spirit. The contemporary leader of the World Community for Christian Meditation, Laurence Freeman OSB, reaffirmed this simple truth in saying that the Holy Spirit runs though every instant of time and every cell of life.

At the same time, it is wise to remember this prayer posted on the Internet on January 1,2010 by Quinn G. Caldwell, Associate Minister of Old South Church, Boston, MA: “Lord, I thank you that you are God and I am not. Help me to trust that you are saving the world even as we speak, and give me the grace and the resolve to play my small part in it. Amen.” (Stillspeaking Daily Devotional.)

JOHN 2:1-11. John’s Gospel takes its shape from a series of signs revealing Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, and Saviour of the world. This miracle story is the first of these signs. Some regard it as the moment of Jesus’ revelation of himself to his own family and to those who knew him.

In the NT, a sign designated an outward manifestation of a hidden and usually divine purpose. Jesus himself was a sign that, as in the past, Yahweh had again taken redemptive initiative in the Israel’s history. In his prologue in chapter 1, John had made this revelatory statement that would infuse the whole of his narrative.

We meet this concept first in the birth narratives of Luke 2:12, 34. So also the miracles of Jesus were themselves signs that the dynamic reign of divine love was in process of being fulfilled in human affairs. Not only the person of Jesus and all his works, but also his death and resurrection were signs that the prophesied Day of the Lord when all history would be consummated was at hand.

The marriage feast at Cana symbolized that the messianic age had begun. Behind it lay the whole panoply of purification rites so prominently described in the Torah. Wine too had liturgical significance included in the daily sacrifices offered as victuals for the deity, although never offered alone. This custom had undoubtedly been adopted from earlier Canaanite and other non-Israelite traditions. In the Hebrew tradition, it may have substituted for blood sacrifice. Wine had a major place in religious feasts celebrated in every home as well as in the temple cult as a libation. However, it was not used in the Passover feast until Hellenistic times.

The changing of water for ritual purification to wine indicated that Jesus would reinterpret Jewish religious tradition for this new age he had inaugurated. For John, the miracle was nothing less than an open declaration that Jesus is the Messiah. Hence his curious reluctance to follow his mother’s anxiously informing him that the ordinary wine for the wedding feast had run out. She believed in him, so she told the servants standing-by to do whatever he told them. Was she also concerned that she about to lose her control of her son?

This seemingly insignificant aside can be seen as the way for Jesus to differentiate himself from his closest human relationships, even his mother. He appeared to reject his mother’s counsel and yet also as indicated that she did believe in him. The steward supervising the serving of the feast and the bridegroom were quite ignorant of what had happened. This served to establish the pattern so obvious throughout of John’s narrative that there would always be some who believed and would follow Jesus and some who would not.

Our post-Enlightenment Age minds have yet to grasp that biblical miracles cannot be explained in terms that exclude the supernatural. As Tom Harpur pointed out in a column in The Sunday Star (Toronto, January 4, 2004) symbols and metaphors have power. It is what they stand for and the power they represent that is important. John and his contemporaries had no difficulty combining such spiritual and material realities as metaphors of divine initiatives in ordinary human affairs.

This was especially true of the Hebrew minds who authored the Old and New Testaments. Spiritual realities were as obvious to them as the water with which they washed and the wine they drank at their festivals or ordinary meals. The transformation Jesus effected appeared as a perfectly natural, though surprising and pleasing event.

Behind the miracle, however, was the messianic message John sought to convey to a later generation of Jews and Gentiles at the end of the 1st century. This was the spiritual truth that lay beyond the materialism of the event. The Messiah/Christ had come to change everything, to reinterpret for them in their particular time and place, the great traditions which God had initially revealed through the chosen people Israel. For Jewish Christians recently thrust out of their synagogues and for Gentiles eager to find a new, fulfilling life of faith, this was indeed Good News.

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-