John Shearman's Lectionary

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Proper 9 Ordinary 14

6th Sunday After Pentecost

July 4, 2010

2 KINGS 5:1- 14. The story of Naaman, commander of the Aramean army, being cured of leprosy through Elisha, the prophet, is one of those graphic Bible stories often told to children with the added moral about the virtues of obedience. There is surely more to it than that despite of considerable ambiguity in the details. Naaman’s cure is an example of God’s gracious concern for non-Israelites.

PSALM 30. This psalm of thanksgiving for recovery from a nearly fatal illness apparently became a hymn of congregational praise in the temple liturgy. It appears to have been used on anniversaries of the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in 164 BC when it was interpreted as expressing the national experience of survival from grave oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes. It may still be used in this way at the Feast of Hanukkah.

ISAIAH 66:10-14. (Alternate) This winsome poetry bids the exiles  in Babylon to rejoice with Jerusalem. It also casts Yahweh as the mother of Israel who nurses her beloved child back to flourishing health.

PSALM 66:1-9. (Alternate) The psalmist speaks both as an individual and as a representative of the nation. He rejoices in recalling Yahweh’s mighty deeds and calls all people to join the celebration.

GALATIANS 6: (1- 6), 7- 16. Freedom does not give license for immoral behaviour. Each one has to be personally responsible for one’s own conduct, but also “bear one another’s burdens.” Those who choose to live according to the shifting values of the secular world will find themselves isolated from the effective moral and spiritual life. This life exemplifies love incarnate and is fulfilled in the life beyond death. It is the quality of life expected of individual Christians in the world and especially in the Christian fellowship.

LUKE 10:1-11, 16- 20. The theme of this passage is “the harvest,” but it is not clear whether this implies an imminent end of the age or a longer period of missionary work. The latter seems probable in the light of Luke’s general attitude of a delayed Second Coming of Christ in contrast to Matthew’s more imminent expectation. Yet the passage also has an element of warning that calls for a clear decision about discipleship which cannot be overlooked.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

2 KINGS 5:1-14. The story of Naaman, commander of the Aramean army, being cured of leprosy through Elisha, the prophet, is one of those graphic Old Testament stories told to children, perhaps with the added moral of the virtues of obedience. There is surely more to it than that in spite of considerable ambiguity in the details as they now appear in the text.

The Arameans lived in southern Syria in the area around Damascus and anti-Lebanon mountains along the northern borders of Israel. David had defeated the Arameans, but their city-state of Damascus won its freedom from Solomon. They then became persistent opponents of Israel until the late 8^th century BCE when they were overrun by the invading Assyrians.

While the king of Israel whose ire was raised to such extremes by the letter from the king of Aram is not identified (vs.7), the mutual fear of one for the other had never been overcome.  He is believed to have been Jehoram (ca. 849-842 BCE) who during his short reign was engaged in frequent wars with neighboring countries of Aram to the north, Moab to the east, and Edom to the south. He may well have had reason to be suspicious of this stranger, general of an enemy army moreover, who came bearing gifts and making such a strange request (vs.7). The present hostility of modern Syria and Israel, based on mutual threat to each other’s existence, has a long, biblically-sanctioned history, especially for the fundamentalists of both Judaism and Islam.

Some serious moral issues about disease and punishment complicate this story, especially as it develops in that part not covered by this passage. As it stands in the present limited segment, no moral interpretation is given to Naaman’s affliction with leprosy. It was the compassion of an Israelite slave-girl for her captor which ultimately brought him face to face with Elisha. A note in the NRSV points out that “leprosy” was “a term used for several skin diseases: the precise meaning (of the Hebrew word is) uncertain.” Even household mold or mildew could be described by this word.

For his part, Elisha seemed only concerned to show his power as a prophet of Yahweh (vs. 8). He appears to have been somewhat dismissive of the king’s helplessness. However, this may have been a reflection of the editor who included the story in the Elisha cycle. Naaman only sought to acknowledge the power of Yahweh as a last resort, even if he had to take some soil from Israel back to Aram with him to do so. (vss.15-17) This, of course, is typical henotheism, the concept of a god having power only within the territory of a specific tribe or nation state.

The reply of the Israelite king to Naaman’s request (vs. 7) oversimplifies the current belief that the king had divine powers. This was not unknown in those cultures where monarchs had priestly as well as political roles to fulfill. On the other hand, the subsequent action of Elisha exemplifies an editorial correction that the power to heal was not the possession of either king or prophet, though the latter were often attributed with greater powers than the former, as in this case. For us who turn to the New Testament to understand the Old, we find that in Luke 4:27 Jesus referred to Naaman’s cure as an example of God’s gracious concern for non-Israelites. Is this not the true moral emphasis behind the story as we have it in 2 Kings 5?

PSALM 30. This individual psalm of thanksgiving for recovery from a nearly fatal illness apparently became a hymn of congregational praise in the temple liturgy. If the superscription is to be believed, it appears to have been used on anniversaries of the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in 164 BCE. Later Judaism interpreted it as expressing the national experience of survival from imminent disaster. It may still be used in this way at the Feast of Hanukkah. Another possible way to look at it is in terms of the individual Jew as representative of the whole nation in much the same way that the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah represents the whole community of exiles in Babylon.

Despite the psalmist’s rejoicing for divine help in time of dire need, he is also conscious of Yahweh’s anger at his false overconfidence before he fell sick (vss.6-7).  Such an attitude comes naturally to anyone who enjoys great success. We see it exemplified in persons of wealth and power. It has been said that one must have a very large ego to become the political leader or the chief executive officer of a large corporation. A former Canadian prime minister who governed well after winning three minority elections, once said that a majority made a prime minister a virtual dictator. As we have seen in Canada, Great Britain and the USA, democratic elections often reveal great folly in those elected with a very large majority.

A sense of bargaining with Yahweh enters into the supplication in vss.8-9. The questions are not merely rhetorical. Such a challenge to Yahweh depended on the ancient belief that a god with no one to praise him/her was an extinct deity. That did not occur because the worshiper was saved from death when his repentance brought forth Yahweh’s forgiveness and his lament became a song of joyous thanksgiving (vss.10-11).

ISAIAH 66:10-14. (Alternate) The winsome poetry of this oracle bids the exiles  in Babylon rejoice with Jerusalem. The prophet pictured that holy city, to which the exiles would soon return, as an infant seeking comfort by nursing at its mother’s breast (vs. 11). The prophet also casts Yahweh as the mother who nurses her beloved child back to flourishing health (vss. 12-13). Not only that, but Israel’s prosperity would return so that other people would see that Yahweh was with his servants, Israel.

The great insight of Deutero-Isaiah and his school of prophets was to see his people as the servants of Yahweh. At this time of year usually marked by national celebrations in both Canada and the US, the people of our nations may be in the early stages of mourning and needing reassurance about the failures of our governments. It might be well to recall that much of our power, prosperity and international reputation depend on the ways in which our countries can be servants to one another and to other peoples rather than lording it over other people in arrogant superiority. In her 1984 work, The March of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam, historian Barbara Tuchman pointed out that blindly overestimating a nation’s privilege, power and influence had been the cause of numerous military defeats and the fall of great empires. This failure of purpose came about through what Tuchman called “destructive stupidity.” She also included the Crusades of the 12^th and 13^th centuries and six successive Papacies of the 15^th and 16^th centuries as examples of the Christian Church suffering from this same destructive folly.

PSALM 66:1-9. (Alternate) One interpretation of this psalm describes it as a liturgy of thanksgiving by a person of wealth and national prominence. As a liturgical psalm, that person may be speaking both as an individual and also as a representative of the nation. He rejoices in recalling Yahweh’s mighty deeds and calls on all people to join the celebration. It is also possible that the latter part of the psalm not included in this reading (vss. 13-20) may be from a separate work.

After an initial outburst calling on others to join his praise (vss.1-4), the psalmist recalls some of the mighty acts of Yahweh. Most significant of all in Israel’s religious memory is the Exodus and trek through hostile territory to the Promised Land (vss. 6-7). The selection ends with a summons to all people to praise Yahweh for keeping Israel alive during such turbulent times. This could well be prayer of every nation as they celebrate their national festivals.

GALATIANS 6:(1-6), 7-16. Freedom does not give license for immoral behavior, Paul wrote at the end of his Letter to the Galatians. Each one has to be personally responsible for one’s own conduct, but also each one is charged to “bear one another’s burdens” (vss.1-5). Paul also issued a strong warning about moral overconfidence.

There are serious implications, he goes on to say, in all we do. Those who choose to live according to the shifting values of the secular world will certainly find themselves isolated from the effective moral and spiritual life exemplifying love incarnate fulfilled in the life beyond death (vss. 7-9) This is the quality of life expected of individual Christians in the world and especially within the Christian fellowship (vs.10). In other words, as said elsewhere in the gospels and epistles of the NT, we have to live in the world, but also remember that we are not exclusively citizens of this world.

If this appears to be a somewhat ambiguous stance to take, one only needs to look at the ministries of both Jesus and Paul. This issue lies behind the narratives of the gospels. Paul incited great opposition from the religious authorities of the day. The Letter to the Galatians was written to counter this official stance among the Jewish Diaspora of the time.

The Apostle Paul may have suffered from poor eyesight and needed someone to help him put his letters into manuscript form. In vs.11 he takes up the pen himself to reiterate his concern that the “circumcised” do not compel the Galatians to return to the covenant of Judaism requiring total obedience to the Law of Moses. By concentrating on the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross, Jews and Gentiles alike will be part of the new creation God intends for all (vss.11-15).

Yet Paul still had a soft spot in his heart for his fellow Jews. He prayed for them to have peace, and for mercy on all “Israel of God” (vs.16). It is a touching personal note from someone who had suffered such hostility from his fellow Jews.

LUKE 10:1-11, 16-20. Note that this is a second “missionary journey” on which Jesus sends some of his followers. In Like 9:1-6, he sent out “the twelve;” here it is “seventy others,” implying that “the twelve” stayed with him this time at some central base. If this occurred during the final journey (cf. 9:51), it was an interruption in what B. H. Streeter once called “a slow progress towards Jerusalem.” On the other hand, Hans Conzelmann has argued that it “introduces into the scheme material which itself does not belong there, as shown by 10:17.” (The Theology of Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961, p.67) Conzelmann also notes that there is a clear distinction between the apostolic character of “the twelve” and the role of “the seventy” as agents or messengers. The difference lies in the “power and authority” given to “the twelve” (9:1) and the message given to “the seventy.”

The theme of the passage is “the harvest” but it is not clear whether this implies an imminent end of the age in eschatological terms or a longer period of missionary work. The latter seems probable in the light of Luke’s general attitude of a delayed Parousia in contrast to Matthew’s more imminent eschatology. Yet there is an element of warning that calls for a clear decision about discipleship which cannot be overlooked. (vss.11-12).

John Dominic Crossan has presented an interesting approach to this passage as exemplifying the contrasting methods of the post-apostolic church in proclaiming the gospel by word of mouth and communal behavior. His hypothesis is that there were two distinctive approaches, one by resident householders who developed a type of “domesticated gospel of the kingdom” and one by a more radical itinerant and necessarily smaller group who developed an apocalyptic gospel. This established a dialectic which enabled the gospel to spread more effectively, especially in the late 1^st and early 2^nd centuries CE and could do so for our time as well. Crossan believes that this is both a clarifying and a helpful view at this stage in our understanding of the NT. His excellent article “Jesus And The Kingdom” in Jesus At 2000, edited by Marcus J. Borg discusses this view with considerable force.

It appears too that Luke had in mind two OT passages as he composed this pericope: Exodus 24:1, 9-16; and Numbers 11:16-25. The former passage was the precedent Luke followed for the appointment of the seventy other disciples for their mission. The latter passage identified Yahweh’s response to the Israelites complaints about the scarcity of traveling in the wilderness compared with their plentiful supply of food and drink during their captivity in Egypt. It also served as the precedent for the part of Luke’s narrative when Jesus assured the seventy that their needs would all be met while they carried out their mission.

The woeful rebuke of Choraizin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (vss.13-15) have a parallel in Matthew 11:20-23. Many scholars believe that most these commonalities likely come from Q (Quelle), the unknown source on which both Luke and Matthew drew some of their material. Others discount the existence of Q. There is a significant difference in Luke’s version, where the “deeds of power” are not repeated three times as in Matthew. In Luke 24:49 the apostolic community is not to be “clothed with power” until Pentecost. This appears to counter the observation above, however, that for their first mission, the apostles were given “power and authority.” (Cf. Num. 11:25) The intent of the curse on the three towns, nonetheless, was to urge their repentance (vs.13).

When the seventy returned to excitedly report their success, Luke had Jesus assure them that despite their meaningful rejoicing they had not yet seen all that lay ahead as his mission moved forward. This was meant to encourage Luke’s own community in difficult times that the all the powers of evil would be subject to the reign of God’s love.

SOME ADDITIONAL PREACHING NOTES:

2 KINGS 5:1- 14. A modern version of henotheism occurs in the belief that a specific nation such a Great Britain, Canada or the United States, or a specific political system such as socialism or capitalism, exhibits the highest Christian values. It also motivated the South African theory of apartheid, or racial separation which for nearly fifty years denied political rights to all but the five per cent Caucasian members of the population. Many white South African Christians truly believed that they were doing God’s will by maintaining their strict regime by totally oppressing their black and ‘coloured’ mixed race neighbours.

The current FIFA World Cup of Football is evidence of how far South Africa has come since 1993 when Nelson Mandela was released after 27 years from Robbin Island prison. A year later he was elected as that nation’s first black African president.

A brief comment on nationalism, patriotism and religious establishment.

This week marks the national holiday of both Canada (July 1) and the United States (July 4). Can we detect a note of nationalism running through all the OT passage in this week’s readings? Is it ever right to preach nationalism or patriotism from the pulpit? A well-known American religious television program broadcast around the world has such a feeling to many non-Americans. Should national flags be flown in church sanctuaries? Try to install or remove such a flag and see what happens!

Is belief in God essential to any nation’s existence? It is worth noting that while the proclamation, “In God we trust,” became popular during the American Civil War, it did not become the official national motto until 1956. It is also the national motto of Nicaragua. The phrase “under God” was not added to the American Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. Did the  rapid church growth after World War II, the threat of the Cold War and a concurrent rise of patriotism have anything to do with this?

The Canadian Constitution was not adopted until 1982. Part I of that Constitution is called “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom” and begins with these words, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: …”

Is a constitutional document essential in the modern world? Unlike many other countries, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (its formal name) does not have a written constitution. On the other hand, in Great Britain, only England has an established church, The Church of England. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the church has been disestablished for many years. In the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution forbids the federal government from making any laws respecting religious establishment.

GALATIANS 6:(1-6), 7-16. Contemporary events illustrate how the best intended actions can be seen in different lights from different viewpoints.

On June 22, 2001 Pope John Paul II visited Ukraine and held masses there which were attended by smaller crowds that expected. This papal visit attempted to heal the one thousand year old rift between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. The visit was well received by two branches of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church, but it was boycotted and severely criticized by the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest church in Ukraine.

This could be understood when one realizes that the papal visit began on the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Mary, a Roman Catholic feast inaugurated by Pope Pius XII in 1945 and dedicated to the conversion of Russia. On the other hand, the Orthodox Churches were just beginning to recover from 75 years of suppression by Communist dictatorship.

In the Middle East and even within different branches of Islam, there are differing public attitudes and official policies toward the existence of Israel. There is also great suspicion toward those nations regarded as western, democratic and Christian. The opposite attitudes toward Islam is also true within those nations.

In religious and theological circles in our time, even a radical progressive like John Shelby Spong states unequivocally his belief in life beyond death, although he does not articulate this conviction in any way. ( Eternal Life: A New Vision. HarperOne, 2009. 212.)

LUKE 10:1-11, 16-20. The three towns of Choraizin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were situated on the northern end of the Sea of Galilee. Choraiszin and Bethsaida  were on opposite sides of the Jordan River where it flowed into the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum, where Jesus made his Galilean headquarters, was a fishing town a few miles further south along the western shore toward Tiberias. They lay on the main trade and military route, the Via Maritima, from Damascus, Syria, to the Meditarranean. It is likely that all three towns had a very mixed population of both Jews and Gentiles.

Tiberias had been built by Herod Antipas  ca. 25 CE to serve as the capital of his tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea.  Though it had been chiefly a Gentile city, it became a place of refuge for Jews from Jerusalem after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and was named as one of the four sacred cities in Palestine. About 150 CE, the Sanhedrin was moved to Tiberias from Sepphoris, another Graeco-Roman city about 15 miles up in the western hills of Galilee north of Nazareth. Subsequently influential schools of rabbinic studies were established in Tiberias.

In Luke’s time, however, (ca. 85-90 CE) the rivalry between Jews and Gentiles, and between Jews and Christians, in this area may have been very intense. It would appear that Luke’s intent in this passage was to urge the Christian mission everywhere in the Gentile world to continue unabated in the face of mounting opposition because it had been instituted by Jesus himself during the latter stages of his Galilean ministry. This remains the dominical mandate for evangelism motivated by the Spirit.

-30-

INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURE

First Sunday After Pentecost – Trinity Sunday

May 30,  2010

PROVERBS  8:1-4, 22-31. The Book of Proverbs comes from a type of creative writing known as Wisdom literature. It gets this name from the way in which it presents religious teachings as ancient, inherited wisdom to guide the morally and spiritually inexperienced. The Books of Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and some Psalms also belong to this class. In this passage, Widsom is personified as God’s first creation who also shared in all other acts of creation. Wisdom is often equated with the Holy Spirit.

PSALM  8. The psalmist first contemplates the glory of God manifested in the wonders of the heavens. This brings to mind a reflection on the place of humanity in creation. Sadly, by taking the text literally, we have excessively exploited our role as God’s vice-regents with “dominion” over nature.

ROMANS  5:1-5. Two of the most important doctrines of our faith had their roots in this passage: justification and sanctification. Justification means putting our trust in the power and goodness of God whose grace gives us peace instead of the sinful conflict between God’s will and our will. This transforms our moral character. We are not only changed, but we also find hopeful assurance that God’s love reigns in this hostile world. Through God’s gift of the Holy Spirit, love becomes the sole motivation for all our behaviour, i.e. we are sanctified, made holy and worthy representatives of God in the world.

JOHN 16:12-15. In Jesus’ final discourse to his disciples, John defines for his own community the purpose of the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. This is the closest any New Testament author comes to a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. The role of the Spirit is to guide the church into all truth. The fundamental criterion of truth for the church is that it must always witness to Christ and seek to reveal God’s purpose. This requires much careful reflection before being expressed in life.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

PROVERBS 8:1-4, 22-31. The Book of Proverbs comes from a type of creative writing called Jewish Wisdom literature. It gets this name from the way in which it presents religious teachings as ancient, inherited wisdom to guide the morally and spiritually inexperienced. The Books of Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and some Psalms also belong to this class. Outside of the standard canon of scripture, however, many other books of Wisdom literature were written to interpret the ancient tradition in different styles. Some are contained in the Old Testament Apocrypha. Two of these, Ecclesiasticus (also called The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, or just Sirach) and The Book of Wisdom, are also found in the accepted canon of the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the features of Wisdom literature is the personification of Wisdom. The recasting of this human characteristic as a person with a clearly defined role within the divinely mandated order of the universe is at once a theological and a literary tour de force. Wisdom is often equated with the Holy Spirit.

The late Professor R.B.Y. Scott, formerly of McGill and Princeton Universities, wrote a trenchant paragraph in his book, The Way of Wisdom, (New York: Macmillan, 1971, p. 212). This comment brings together references to Proverbs 8:1-21 and the apocryphal book Sirach 4:11-19 and 24:19-22.

“Wisdom came to every people and nation. Yet it was in Israel alone that she took root and became embodied in the Law of Moses. Thus the idea of Wisdom, on one level is a quality of human life to be attained through training and the gift of God, and on a second level is personified almost as a goddess offering herself to mankind … as an emanation from God himself. She is God’s Word, spoken in the divine assembly in the presence of the heavenly host. Here the streams of gnomic wisdom, prophetic word, covenant faith, and personal religious devotion converge and coalesce in wisdom piety.”

In the latter segment of this reading, vss. 22-31, Wisdom makes the claim of being God’s first creation who subsequently shared in all other acts of creation. This characterization may well owe something to Greek philosophy in which the material and the spiritual were so distinct as to isolate God from God’s creation. On the other hand, it may be no more than a later development of the Hebrew concept of holiness which came to the fore in post-exilic Judaism and also resulted in the separation of God from the created world.

During the last several centuries, we have tended to displace divine wisdom with expanded human knowledge based on scientific experiment and rational analysis by inductive reasoning. Advances made in such fields as neurology, psychology, psychiatry and pharmacology have given us the sense that the spiritual realm or soul really do not exist beyond the neural synapses of the human brain.

Recent experiments in brain scanning with highly sensitive technology have revealed that certain areas of the brain are less active and others more active during religiously motivated meditation. The research appears to show that this occurs particularly when a transcendent state is reached. Some refer to such a state as reaching a higher or deeper level of consciousness. In biblical terms, this might well be related to the angelic visitations,  dreams and visions that occur in many biblical narratives. Joseph in Egypt, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, Mary, mother of Jesus, and John, the author of Revelation come immediately to mind.

PSALM 8. The psalmist first contemplates the glory of God manifested in the wonders of the heavens. One can imagine a devout courtier like Isaiah standing on the flat rooftop of his Jerusalem home or a herdsman like Amos watching over his resting flock on a Judean hillside. As either of them gazed into the heavens they saw the panoply of stars spread out above them and a full moon rising over Jordan. We who have spent summer nights at Canadian camps and cottages or watched the northern lights illuminate a winter sky know well how such a scene gives one first an overwhelming sense of awe and then a deep humility in realizing how infinitely small and insignificant we are.

The psalmist reflects not only on the minute place of humanity in such a vast universe. Even as he brings his faith to bear on his sense of smallness, he knows that we have a special relationship with the Creator of this universe and hence a special relationship with the created world in which we presently live. (vss.5-8).

The environmental issues for us are vastly different than they were when this psalm was composed. Sadly, by taking the text literally, we have excessively exploited our role as God’s vice-regents with “dominion” over nature. That calls for repentance and radical change in our attitudes and our actions, individually, communally, globally. We must think of ourselves as stewards rather than dominators of creation. We can only continue to praise our Sovereign Lord’s majestic name if we accept total responsibility for restoring our right relationship with God’s creation.

That does not mean that we must espouse all the extreme aspects of the environmental cause. Growing a small garden or planting a few trees may contribute more than joining a protest which turns to mob violence in a vain attempt to persuade the politically and economically powerful to cease destroying the planet. Changing our driving habits, using electricity more cautiously or heating our homes more temperately may achieve the same end. Equally foolish, however, are the declarations of politicians and political parties supported by powerful lobbyists and spokespersons for special interests that concern for the environment is only a personal moral issue, not a matter for public debate and democratic decisions.

ROMANS 5:1-5. While two of the most important doctrines of our faith, justification and sanctification, receive full exposure from 3:21-8:39, this passage serves as link between the two. Justification means putting our trust in the power and goodness of God whose grace gives us peace instead of the sinful conflict between God’s will and our will. In 3:21-4:23 Paul had dealt extensively with the means by which we have been given a new status in our relationship with God. In this subsequent section of the letter he tells us why God has done this: it has made our salvation possible. Paul also elaborates the implications for everyone who believes: it transforms our life in the world, i.e. we are sanctified, made holy.

One of the best analyses on the passage is in C.H. Dodd’s commentary in the Moffat’s New Testament Commentary Series. He regarded this passage as a transition from justification to sanctification. The key to the whole segment is vs.9: “Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.” Those words – justification, sanctification and salvation – have tended to become code words for Christian theology and preaching. Our task is to communicate what they mean to people who no longer know the code as did our spiritual ancestors.

In his analysis of the passage, Dodd so clearly points out that “salvation” is not just a new status, like being elected the vice-president of a labor union or graduated with an advanced degree from a particular university. It is a new life. It is a new  in being delivered from death, with the assurance of life beyond death; and it is a new in being forgiven and able to overcome what had previously been wrong in our lives; it is new in given the freedom to do what is right. Salvation not only happens after death when we come into the eternal presence of God. It is ethical and behavioral, effecting what we do and say, and how we live here and now .

Faith as Paul understands it is nothing less than trust in the power and goodness of God to bring this transformation about for each one of us. This trust results in a profound change in our relationship with the spiritual and the material world, a relationship we access not by our own efforts, but through Christ. It also transforms our moral character and our relationships with everyone and everything we meet in everyday life. We not only change our behavior, we also find hopeful assurance that God’s love reigns in what constantly appears to us as a world that is hostile to love and right living. Through God’s gift of the Holy Spirit, i.e. we are made holy – sanctified.

No, we don’t immediately become saintly in the sense of performing a superabundance of good works and causing miracles to happen. “Supererogation,” in the Roman Catholic doctrine of saintly living means doing more than duty required by specially devoted individuals. This no longer applies when God grants the gift of the Spirit with unconditional love for each and for all. We simply find our lives motivated in every way by love. More and more, we become people like Jesus, the one person in whom the Spirit of God dwelt fully.

JOHN 16:12-15. On this particular Sunday we usually concentrate on what traditional creeds have called “the Holy Trinity” – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The authors of the New Testament, rooted primarily in the Hebrew thought and written in Greek, did not give us a clear definition of what the later doctrines and creeds stated in orderly propositions. Those were the product of long reflection by Greek and Latin scholars on what the New Testament had said about the earliest Christian experience.

Not surprisingly, it was the Western Latin Church centred in Rome which espoused most fervently the Trinitarian doctrine thrashed out amid much controversy at the church councils of the 4^th and 5^th centuries. At the time of the Reformation in the 16^th century, the Protestant churches adopted this as the orthodox doctrine. Every time we repeat one of the traditional creeds we give expression to this doctrine. However, the terms and definitions of the Trinity may no longer have much meaning to modern church members no matter how many times we may learn them by rote and to endlessly recite them.

In Jesus’ final discourse to his disciples, John defined for his own community the purpose of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is the closest any New Testament author came to a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, except perhaps for the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19. Here John gave a much more functional definition of how the Trinity actually touched the life of the apostolic community.

The role of the Spirit was to guide the community into all truth. Obviously, John did not believe that “truth” consists of what he has written or that it could be found  only in the scriptures. He was speaking of spiritual truth rather than the philosophical, historical or scientific truth which has so enthralled the modern world since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment three centuries ago. His understanding of truth was much more dynamic. One might go so far as to say that it was inspirational in that it was – and is – always available.

John also gave us a means of determining what is spiritually true and what is not.  The fundamental criterion of truth for the church is that it must always witness to Christ and reveal God’s purpose that love shall reign in all relationships throughout the whole of creation.

This does not provide us with an easy formula for discerning what is required of us as we seek to perform the discipleship of love in the contemporary world. It requires much careful reflection before being expressed in the ordinary affairs of daily life. Those who dream of travel to distant galaxies in search of other inhabitants of the universe will quickly realize that dramatic presentations such as we revel in through television and movies still do not remove us from the moral discipline of love.

Spiritual reflection and meditation, waiting for the Spirit to lead us into truth, are not habitual forms of religious discipline for most of us in the Reformed tradition. As we are pushed more and more to the margins of current events and realize that we are a dwindling minority in an almost entirely secular society, there are signs that the contemplative life may indeed be a special gift of the Spirit for our time. Significant movements toward renewed interest in basing our daily lives on meditation are to be found in most religious traditions. In our own tradition, Roman Catholics seem to have done more of this in an organized way than Protestants. Some of these,  such as the World Community for Christian Meditation (http://www.wccm.org/) have been influenced not only by the Benedictine monastic tradition, but by the Tibetan Buddhist tradition led by the Dalai Lama. The Irish Jesuits have also contributed to this movement through their daily practice of prayer and journaling based on lectionary readings from scripture (http://www.jesuit.ie/prayer). A similar contribution has been made in the Carmelite tradition found on a website sponsored Dr. Phil St. Romain from Great Bend, Kansas. (http://shalomplace.com/index.html)

We should not neglect, however, the long tradition of daily Bible readings, and prayer practiced for many years by countless devoted Christians in several different Protestant traditions. More important than the source of our contemplative practices, however, are the commitment and the daily dedication to pursue whatever method we adopt. Only so can we sense the gradual change in our spiritual life and growth in grace as the Spirit leads us into a greater of the truth that is in Christ Jesus.

SOME ADDITIONAL PREACHING POINTS.

PROVERBS  8:1-4, 22-31. The other side of the debate about divine wisdom argues that heightened and even hyper-religious experiences can occur in people whose brains have been damaged in specific areas. People who are regarded as  mentally ill due to a chemical malfunction of the neural system may also exhibit distinctive, if also somewhat bizarre religious feelings and attitudes. We simply do not yet know why certain brain changes are associated with religious feelings. Nor do we know whether or not the human brain simply invents the religious insights which have filled the scriptures of many different religious traditions. Long before humans learned to write, they communicated such experiences for countless generations in the languages we now read from a page.

God is not contained in any book or in any brain. God is God, transcendent yet immanent in creation. God can only use the consciousness of the divinely created human brain incorporated in a complex system of body and mind to communicate with us. This is Wisdom as the Jewish tradition experienced it. In several NT authors of the Christian canon, of which John’s Gospel and the Letter to the Colossians are noteworthy, Jewish Wisdom and the Logos of Greek philosophy, combined with the OT tradition of the redemptive Messiah to create a new synthesis that subsequently gave rise to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

JOHN 16:12-15. Nowhere in our Christian scriptures is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity stated as a proposition of belief or statement of faith. Everywhere in our scriptures is the Holy Trinity perceived as present and active as the effective spiritual, creative power in all of life. Through faith in Jesus Christ and participation in his life and faith, as well as inspired, directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit, we have access to the triune God, the ultimate transcendent Being and Life.

Scripture is not something absolute in and of itself. It points to something transcendent (or Someone) beyond itself. Seen in this light, scripture thus becomes a means of grace by which the Holy Spirit helps us to transcend what is a mundane existence in a brutal, violent and unfriendly world.

Is it also possible that this can said of the writings of other religious traditions that do not come to the same conclusion about Jesus Christ that we do? This is the conclusion toward which Wilfrid Cantwell Smith’s led us in his final work, What Is Scripture? (Fortress Press, 1993)

It took the church four centuries or more of often divisive debate and confrontation with what many called heresy to come to a meaningful and cohesive statement of the synthesis expressed in our traditional Trinitarian creeds. Yet, as we have seen above, there is evidence of the work of what the Church later defined as the Holy Trinity in many parts of the NT. It was a dawning of a new consciousness of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

The words of Professor Alan Richardson, (1905-1975) sometime Professor of Christian Theology in Nottingham University, are appropriate in this instance: “The one true God of the old Jewish faith, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had now acted in a new way: what was involved was not (so to speak) an enlargement of God, but an enlargement of man’s revealed knowledge of God – not the taking of two other ‘persons’ into the divine society, but the revelation of God’s different ways of being God, now understood (but only within the mystery of faith) for the first time.”  (An Introduction to t he Theology of the New Testament. SCM Press, 1958.)

PENTECOST SUNDAY – MAY 23, 2010

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

ACTS 2:1-21. The Jews celebrated Pentecost long before the Christian Church adopted it as the anniversary of the gift the Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel refers to it by its Jewish name, “the Festival of Weeks.” Originally a harvest festival, it also had a connection with the covenant God made with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17). Later it became linked with the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. For Christians, this passage tells how the Spirit came unexpectedly upon the apostles giving them a new mandate: to proclaim the sovereignty of God’s love through the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah/Christ.

 GENESIS 11:1-9. (Alternate) This OT lesson tells the ancient myth of how there came to be so many languages spoken by the human race. It would seem obvious that the writer of the Pentecost story in Acts 2 had this myth in mind in describing the glossolalia of that event.

 PSALM 104:24-35. Someone has said that nature is the language of the Bible. This psalm brings this characteristic to the fore by declaring the dependence of all nature, including humanity, on God.

 ROMANS 8:14-17. Paul points out that the Spirit of God is the power by which Christians live their faith as the children of God. This dependent relationship in no way diminishes our status, but actually gives us a new standing as heirs, in fact, “joint heirs with Christ.” The term “children of God” is the equivalent of Jesus Christ being called “Son of God.” The gift of the Spirit is unconditional, but we must be prepared for its challenges to join Jesus in our holy status.

 JOHN 14:8-17. We do not know how much of this excerpt from Jesus’ farewell discourse to his disciples at the Last Supper contains actual words Jesus uttered. John, or possibly a group of disciples of the apostle John, may have created it from some remembered sayings of Jesus to summarize what he (or they) believed Jesus would have said about his special relationship to God. Here John addresses those who have a problem seeing Jesus as the full revelation of God. This issue which still generates fervent debate in our own denomination.

 A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

 ACTS 2:1-21. The Jews celebrated Pentecost long before the Christian Church adopted it as the anniversary of the gift the Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel refers to it by its Jewish name, “the Festival of Weeks.” Originally a harvest festival, it also had a connection with the covenant God made with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17). About  200 CE the Jewish rabbinical tradition linked with the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.

What then was the purpose behind the choice of this day to celebrate the gift of the Spirit to the apostolic church?  Surely this was not the first time the disciples had felt the presence of the Spirit. There are at least two different traditions about the time and circumstances of the gift. John 20:22 reports that this occurred on the evening of the day of Jesus’ resurrection when Jesus breathed on the assembled disciples. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul also describes a resurrection appearance of Jesus to “five hundred brethren at one time.” Could this have been his understanding of the Pentecost experience?

This passage tells how the Spirit came unexpectedly upon the apostles fifty days after the resurrection to give them the mandate for a new mission: to proclaim the sovereignty of God’s love through the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah/Christ. The difference between the traditions is related to the results of the experience. Luke , the presumed author of Acts, makes it clear that on this occasion the disciples received the spiritual power to carry out their newly assigned mission.

Note also that in the ending of the Luke’s Gospel he does speak of the Spirit as a future gift (24:49). He also wrote of the mission of proclaiming the resurrection  and the forgiveness of sins, and promises to empower them. Then, after blessing them, “he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven” as described in a more complete version of the ascension in Acts 1:1-11.

The results of the infusion of the Spirit can be enumerated as follows: (1) Glossolalia: As described here this may have been more a symbol of the universality of the Christian proclamation than the charismaton of 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Luke’s identification of the Diaspora communities represented in Jerusalem at that time (vss. 6-11) supports this view. (2) The courage to speak publicly of what they had seen and heard despite the dangers of imminent persecution by the same religious leaders who had arranged Jesus’ crucifixion. (3) The earliest Christian apologia contained in Peter’s sermon. C.H. Dodd called this the basic apostolic kerygma or preaching. (4) The immediate expansion of the disciple community as people responded to the preaching of the gospel (vss. 37-42).

The quotation from Joel places the event within the long-standing eschatological tradition of Israel. In the original Hebrew text of Joel, the prophecy carried a message of doom in which “the day of the Lord” meant “the terrible day” filled with threat and fear. The Greek version in the LXX had translated the Hebrew in such a way as to transform the day of judgment into something “notable” (KJV) or “splendid.” Hence “the Lord’s great and glorious day” (vs. 20 NRSV). In short, the Christian eschaton (end time) of Pentecost had completely transformed the “day of the Lord” into something to be celebrated with great rejoicing rather than feared for its dire threat.

There is another possible interpretation of the Pentecost event held by a minority of scholars. It is the Parousia – the second coming of Christ. In the early decades following the resurrection and ascension, the apostolic church held firmly to the belief that Jesus would return in glory at some later and totally unexpected date. This reflected their adoption of the influential Jewish eschatological texts in prophetic literature. Certain eschatological passages of the NT maintained this view and attributed parables and declarations of this kind to Jesus himself. It is quite probable that Jesus did hold such views of the Messiah. But did he continue to hold this view after he recognized his own messianic character? Careful examination of the teachings of Jesus indicate that these eschatological passages can be fairly interpreted as assurances of God’s purpose being accomplished rather than a descriptions of specific future events.

Toward the end of the lst century CE, however, the apostolic church began to realize that the anticipated second coming had been delayed and might never come as originally expected. It then became more important to describe the purpose of Christ’s coming as the proclamation of the sovereignty of divine love for all of creation. Furthermore, creation is being redeemed within the normal context of history. The promise of a second coming is the hope of the fulfillment of God’s continuing redemptive work. In this light, Pentecost becomes the empowerment of all who believe so that they may participate in the redemptive mission initiated by Christ. In this we too are involved right now as each day passes.

GENESIS 11:1-9. (Alternate) This OT lesson tells the ancient myth of how there came to be so many languages spoken by the human race. It would seem obvious that the writer of the Pentecost story in Acts 2 had this myth in mind in describing the glossolalia of that event.

In and of itself, the story bases the multiplicity of languages on human pride. By attempting to build a tower that reached to the heavens, the people sought to take control of their own destiny. The response of Yahweh blocked their efforts by causing them to speak in a confusion of languages and to spread “over the face of the earth.”

People living in the so-called Fertile Crescent stretching from the valley of the Nile in Egypt to the Tigris-Euphrates delta into the Persian Gulf were familiar with two elements of this story:  a confusing number of languages and the ziggurat,  towering temples that reached toward the heavens in cities like Babylon. As the tides of history moved back and forth along this crescent, many different languages and cultures came into almost constant conflict. Problems in communication had significant effects on the clash of cultures, as they still have in our time too. But this interaction also had permanent influence on the development of the Hebrew language. Like the English language today, ancient Hebrew included many words borrowed from several different cultural sources.

About fifty miles from Baghdad in the Tigris-Euphrates valley of modern Iraq, one can still see the ruins of the city of Babylon, named for this myth. The name of the city and the word Babel formed a play on the Hebrew word balel, which meant “confusion or mixing.” In the 5^th century BCE, the Greek historian Herodotus described a ziggurat or six staged tower crowned with a small chapel which served as the temple of the Babylonian deity, Marduk. Jews would have seen this architectural wonder of the ancient world during their exile in Babylon. Built of sun-dried brick and standing near the Euphrates River, the ziggurat would have been subject to erosion by wind, rain and floods. It would also have been a strategic target for invading armies. It has been suggested that the myth may have been inspired by a time when the tower was being reconstructed after suffering some such catastrophe. Does this story convey some biting sarcasm about the impermanence of the foreign deity whose followers had caused the Israelites such pain?

PSALM 104:24-35. “The universe is rationally transparent and God has written two books, the book of nature and the book of Scripture. We are creatures made in the image of the creation, made up, literally, of bits of carbon from far away stars.” So said Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, a past president of Queen’s College, Cambridge, former professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge, a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (he’d be Sir John if he weren’t an ordained Anglican priest.) He was speaking at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle, WA where he kicked off a conference called “Cosmos and Creator: God of Physics, God of Astronomy.” Polkinghorn was an avowed enthusiast for the concept of creation by intelligent design.

Someone else has said that nature is the language of the Bible. This psalm brings these two thoughts together by declaring the dependence of all nature on God. The poem shows remarkable similarity of this poem with others in the wider cultural setting of the ancient Middle East. In a recent book, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light, Canadian scholar and journalist Tom Harpur, claimed that all Middle Eastern mythology and religious texts, including Israel’s,  should be seen as revisions of the basic religious myths and texts of ancient Egypt.

In The Interpreter’s Bible, (iv. 550) W. Stewart McCullough commented that the psalmist appeared to have been familiar with other creation stories known to Israel. He shares the viewpoint of the P document. However, the theme of creation and control of nature by a supernatural power inspired writers in various cultures, especially the Egyptian “Hymn to the Aton” which dates from the time of Akhenaton (1380-1362 BC), a ruler with distinct monotheistic interests. McCullough believed that the resemblances could be accounted for by a common monotheistic approach to the world of nature. The differences between the poems were notable in that the Egyptian hymn the sun is the creator, whereas in the Hebrew psalm the sun is but a part of the handiwork of the Yahweh.

A parallel to vss. 24-26 may be found in Gen.1:20-23 where Yahweh’s is said to worked on the fifth day of creation. Vss. 27-30 correspond to Gen. 1:29-30. The doxology in vss. 31-35 contains two elements of note. The psalmist called on Yahweh to rejoice in his handiwork while raising his own voice in similar rejoicing. The final verse offers a solution to the problem of evil frequently found in other psalms. This may not satisfy modern minds, but did express the traditional Hebrew faith that good would ultimately triumph. Indeed, it seems so out of character with the rest of the passage that it may have been added by someone with a more intense moralistic intent than that of the original poet.

 ROMANS 8:14-17. One could certainly claim that this is a Spirit-filled passage, perhaps the most Spirit-filled in all of the Pauline corpus. In vss. 1-13 preceding this reading the Spirit is named twelve times and in these four verses, three  more. Paul is saying forcefully as he can that the Spirit of God is the power by which Christians live their faith as the children of God.

The very assertion that we are the children of God is something far beyond anything that Israel’s religious leaders had ever claimed. In the OT the term “sons of God” was limited to supernatural beings. Nonetheless, association of Spirit with the messianic king (Isa. 11:2; 42:1), true prophecy and the expectation of manifestations of the Spirit in the messianic age (Joel 2:28-29) contributed to the intertestamental conviction that the Spirit would be silent until the new age dawned. This was what  Peter said in his sermon at Pentecost, and was evidenced again in the coming of the Spirit to the congregation in the home of the Gentile Cornelius at Caesarea  (Acts 10:44-48).

On the other hand, every male Jew was regarded as a “b’nai b’rith,” a son of the covenant. Israel was “the chosen people” solely by Yahweh’s election. This designated a special relationship, but led to the exclusionary belief in the spiritual superiority of the Jews whether by birth or by choice. In the singular form “the son of God” referred to the royal representative of chosen people.

Paul made no less claim for himself. In this passage, however, he introduced a startling new metaphor – adoption. Christians are the adopted off-spring of God. William Barclay brings forward an even more surprising interpretation of this metaphor. Paul was not only a Jew, but a Roman citizen. He undoubtedly had in the forefront of his mind the Roman practice of legal adoption. In his Daily Bible Study – The Letter to the Romans, Barclay outlines the way in which this took place. (See p.110-111) In summary, a child to be adopted had to pass from the patria potestas (absolute power of the father) of his natural father into that of his adoptive father. The adopted son lost all rights to his former family and gained all the rights of a fully legitimate child of his new family. He could then inherit his adoptive father’s estate, even if other sons were afterwards born as real blood relations. In the eyes of the law, the former life of the adopted person completely disappeared. The adopted person literally and absolutely had a new father.

Barclay adds the ironic twist in citing a very famous adoption: In order that Nero might succeed him on the throne, Emperor Claudius adopted Nero. They had no known blood relationship. Claudius already had a daughter, Octavia. When Nero wished to cement the alliance he chose to marry Octavia. The Roman senate had to pass special legislation to enable Nero to marry her, his sister by adoption.

Nero became emperor in 54 when Paul’s missionary work was at its height. It was during the middle years of Nero’s reign that he wrote The Letter to the Romans. Tradition has it that Paul was executed in Rome 62 when Nero was far advanced in his murderous paranoia. Having already executed his step-brother, Britannicus, whom he displaced as heir of Claudius, and his own mother, Nero divorced and then arranged the execution of Octavia in that same year in which Paul also died.

Is it too far-fetched to imagine that Paul’s execution had some connection with these words in Romans 8? If Paul wrote this in a letter to the Roman Christians before he arrived in Rome, is it not likely that he also preached this same message when he was there, a Roman prisoner? Would this not be evidence used against him when he appeared before Nero? After all, the theme of the passage is the true nature of spiritual inheritance. And Nero believed that he was God, but unlike the implication of moral responsibility that came with the gift of the Spirit of God in Paul’s teaching, Nero’s amoral lifestyle denied everything godlike in his character.

As in legal Roman adoption, the new relationship into which our spiritual adoption brings us in no way diminishes our status. Actually it gives us a new standing as heirs, in fact “joint heirs with Christ.” The term “children of God” is the equivalent of Jesus Christ being called “Son of God.” But in his last sentence of this reading, however, does Paul introduce a conditional qualification?  Not likely, since Paul firmly believed in the unconditional grace of God mediated by Jesus Christ. More probably Paul was saying with these concluding words that as a result of inheriting this holy status, we must also certainly accept its challenges, possibly at times to the point of suffering for it as Christ did.

 JOHN 14:8-17. As much as we love John 13-17 and especially this chapter 14, this excerpt from Jesus’ farewell discourse to his disciples at the Last Supper may contain only a few actual words that Jesus uttered. John, or quite possibly one or more of a group of disciples of the apostle John, created the whole discourse from some of Jesus’ remembered sayings. They gave it this longer form to summarize what he (or they) believed Jesus would have said about on the occasion of his departure.

However we may interpret its origin, this passage has a very theological tone. The issue under discussion is the special relationship of Jesus to God. It addresses those who were having a problem regarding Jesus as the full revelation of God. This issue still generates fervent debate in our own time. So what is John saying in these words attributed to Jesus?

In response to Philip’s longing, “Show us the Father and we will be satisfied,” Jesus gave an indirect, somewhat rhetorical answer designed to elicit Philip’s (and our) faith. Then he unequivocally declared his total identity with God: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” He follows this with a further declaration as to the validity of the words he has spoken and the deeds he has done. Then he makes an absolutely astonishing claim: “Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father.”

This assertion can only be understood in the light of Pentecost. We must remember too that this passage was written some sixty or more years after that unique event. On that day, that powerless troop of Galileans could no more imagine than we can how God could redeem the world through their witness of words and deeds. It was so at the end of the 1st century when John wrote the Fourth Gospel. It is still so at the beginning  of the 21st century as we sit in our now uncomfortable pews in trembling fear as the cataclysmic upheavals of our own time swirl like  flowing lava around us.

Yet, to change the metaphor, there is a key which will unlock and swing wide the gates of history in every age: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever….He abides with you and will be in you.” (vss. 15-17) With faith in Jesus, the Messiah/Christ, Son of God, comes the gift of the Spirit and the moral responsibility. The Spirit blesses us with the spiritual grace to live in love for God and neighbour as did Jesus himself.

In this passage Pentecost is a promise. In John’s time and in ours, it was and is a reality. As we read our daily newspapers or watch the news reports on our television screens, it may be incredibly difficult to see the hand of God in the turbulent affairs of our time. But as the creed of The United Church of Canada reminds us: “We are not alone. We live in God’s world, who has created and is creating, who has come in Jesus, the Word made flesh, to reconcile and make new, who works in us and others by the Spirit…. In life, in death, in life beyond death, God is with us” – Father, Son and Spirit.

 Additional Preaching Points.

(This essay is intended to supplement the comments on the lessons for The Day of Pentecost  above.)

Pentecost raises the question of the nature of spirit in some minds. This is usually discussed in two  ways: the metaphysical and the metaphorical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit) In recent years, psychologists, neurologists, philosophers, even economic historians as well as religious leaders have been turning their attention to mutli-disciplinary inquiry  into the nature of the much maligned phenomena and human experience of spiritual realities. The Metanexus Institute is an example of the discussions which have taken place with the intention of bringing about a dialogue if not a rapproachement of religious, social, political, economic and scientific thought.

First, a look at the definition of the English word spirit .

The word comes from the Latin spiritus, which means “breath,” a sense that derived from the Latin of Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the Bible. The OED gives the basic definition as “The animating or vital principle in man (and animals); that which gives life too the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements.” The almost identical definition of soul in the OED leads to the conclusion that the two words are synonymous: “The principle of life in man or animals; animate existence.” Thus spirit also can mean “soul, courage, vigor.”  The original root of spirit is thought to be Proto-Indo-European, as opposed to Latin anima and Greek psyché, generally translated as soul in languages derived from Germanic origins.

What then are we to make of the Holy Spirit ? Is it just a biblical name best considered as a metaphor for what the writers of scripture perceived as God at work in creation and human history? In asking these questions we are bound to deal with the human experience of reality and truth that is at one and the same time both transcendent and immanent. Usually a discussion of this subject would be limited to theologians and philosophers of religion. Since we cannot yet reduce such reality to mathematical formulae or accurately measure the nature or extent of such experiences, scientists might tend to limit the boundaries of research in this field.

A former head of the department of psychology at McGill University, Montreal, used to begin each year’s lectures to the freshmen class with the statement, “For the purposes of this course, there is no soul.” In making this assertion he avoided any discussion of spiritual and religious issues which he believed should be limited to the stately confines of the department of religious studies at Divinity Hall across the campus.

Kurt Gödel, (1906-1978) a brilliant mathematician and friend of Albert Einstein, showed that there can exist propositions that by insight must be true but that cannot be proven mathematically. This led him to a theist and personal concept of God and belief in the afterlife while appealing to human reason as his witness. He found that even the most exacting scientist places faith in the cognitive processes of the intellect even though arguing  that science and mathematics are outside the realm of faith. Hector Rosario stated in an article on Gödel’s work that “a closer look at the foundations of physics and mathematics, as well as to the history of these subjects, seems to yield a different conclusion. This closer look reveals a delicate membrane that conjoins these experiences: Faith. This is the greatest common denominator of science, mathematics, and theology.” (“Kurt Gödel’s Mathematical and Scientific Perspective of the Divine: A Rational Theology.” The Metanexus Institute. The Global Spiral. February, 2007.)

This also recalls Anselm’s famous dictum that God is “that thing  which nothing greater can be thought.” At the same time psycho-neurological research as well as intuitive insights – in biblical language regarded as revelations – may well “help in the search for common ground—a search that is crucial given the trajectory of present scientific research, particularly into the nature of sentience,” as Kathleen L. Housley put it in her article in The Global Spiral (January 2010), “Seeing the Thunder: Insight and Intuition in Science, Mathematics and Religion.”

Gödel also thought mathematical intuition to be a kind of “knowing” that defied mathematical formulation. It was similar to a physical sense such as hearing or sight. He went so far as to regard it as a sixth sense. In biblical and theological terms, this is metaphorical thinking. The experience of being inspired by the God, as the prophets of Israel believed they were, or of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the apostles did on the Day of Pentecost, can thus be considered valid forms of knowledge. Housley further reminded us of Gödel’s assertion that something can be known objectively even though its discernment is beyond sensory perception is the equivalent to the insight of Hebrews 11:1,  “Faith is to be certain of what cannot be seen.”

About the same time that Gödel was in his prime, an Anglican professor,  R. H. L. Slater was lecturing in the philosophy of religion at the University of Rangoon, Burma. I had the privilege of studying under him at McGill University, Montreal, from 1948-50. In 1957 he went to Harvard University to found the Center for the Study of World Religions. Slater’s study of human destiny, God of the Living, (Charles Scribner’s, 1939) presented a cogent analysis  of the fundamental Christian belief that God is Love as “the last word of Christian devotion, the climax of Christian faith…. Remove that conviction, and the whole scheme of redemption is lost, the ground of confidence, aye, even the ground of worship, is shaken. Destroy it, and the Christian faith itself is destroyed…. It is the meaning behind the Cross. It is the reason for the Church.” (Slater, 294)

A profoundly Trinitarian, Slater held that humans are neither barbarians or saints. “His (sic) history and his constitution call him to live with his fellows in the bonds of creative charity, not to prey upon them or forsake them…. Man is not a fighting animal. He is spirit in the making. And spirit is love.”

That love is personal and is being experienced every day by ordinary people who seek the reign of God’s love in their own lives and in the unfolding of history. The recent review of economic history by Jeremy Rifkin posits the thesis that the future hope for global peace and security rests in what he called the development of  “empathic civilization.” Reading this study made one immediately think of the  Gospel phrase, “the kingdom of God.” Rifkin’s analysis could be seen as an appeal for the application of the Golden Rule to geopolitics and economics. Are we not  seeing this worked out in the day to day events in Europe in the spring of 2010 as frantic efforts are made to rescue national economies in the face a traumatic and foolhardy fiscal decisions by too compliant governments? Can this not be seen as the Holy Spirit of God at work in much the same way that the inspiration of Moses led to the freeing of the Israelites from the privation of slavery in Egypt?

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Third Sunday of Lent – March 7, 2010

ISAIAH 55:1-9. Gracious, merciful acceptance by God for all who seek such a relationship stands out as the theme of these magnificently poetic lines. But God does not ignore human sin. God seeks human repentance, a meaningful change in one’s behaviour for this relationship to be effective. This is necessary, the prophet emphasizes, because of the distinction between our human ways and God’s ways.

PSALM 63:1-8. The longing of the human heart for a relationship with God gives this psalm an intense feeling personal devotion. It expresses an abiding trust and confidence in God fully dependent on God’s constant love and  protection.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:1-13. Paul draws on the story of the Israelites in the wilderness breaking their covenant with God to challenge the Corinthians to live differently than their morally and  spiritually corrupt society. The great benefit of the Christian life, he states in vs. 13, is not that they will be tested by their circumstances, but that God will not let them be tested beyond their strength to endure.

LUKE 13:1-9. The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who later condemned Jesus to death, had murdered a group of worshipers as they offered sacrifices in the temple. Another group had been killed by a falling tower. As Messiah, Jesus used these incidents to call his fellow Jews to repent and believe in him. The parable of the fig tree confronted them with the prospect that there could be a limit to God’s forbearance.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

ISAIAH 55:1-9. If one wishes to know where Paul obtained his basic theological conception of the grace of God brought to its fullest expression in Jesus of Nazareth, one need look no further than this poem. Scholars generally agree that the superb poetry of Deutero-Isaiah’s (chs. 40-55) come to a natural close. All the themes identified in the opening poem in 40:1-11 as well as the major emphases of all subsequent oracles echo through this composition. The remainder the book (chs. 56-66) is believed to have been composed by others who followed his general themes and style.

Here is the consolation of Israel: forgiveness for individuals and community, Israel’s mission of reconciliation through suffering, a vision of universal salvation, a new exodus in the return of the exiles, the redemption of creation – all accomplished because Israel’s God, Yahweh, wills it so and will make it possible. Yahweh’s covenant promise is the vehicle through which this will be done.

Gracious, merciful acceptance by Yahweh for all who seek such a covenant relationship stands out in these magnificent lines. But Yahweh does not ignore human sin.  Yahweh seeks sincere human repentance, a meaningful change in human behavior, for this relationship to be effective. This is necessary, the prophet emphasizes, because of the distinction between our human ways and Yahweh’s ways.

Of special note is the emphasis placed upon listening intently for the word of Yahweh.  Throughout the OT and particularly in the prophets, “the word of the Lord” is the medium of revelation. In vss. 2-3 Yahweh bids Israel listen so that they may live. By this means Yahweh made known Yahweh’s will and purpose, especially for Israel as the chosen people. The content of the revelation Yahweh desires Israel to hear is the everlasting covenant. Beyond the mere hearing of the word, however, is the reason for the revelation and the covenant. Israel is to be a witness to the peoples of all nations. Despite many transgressions and failures to be what they had been called to be, Yahweh had not given up on them. Yahweh’s purpose would be accomplished even as the rain and snow make the soil fertile for a productive harvest (vs. 10-11) and the renewal of all creation (vs. 12-13).

For the authors of the NT and for Christians ever since, Jesus is the word come from God.  (John 1:1-18; Hebrews 1:1-4) As one Roman Catholic commentator on this passage said in traditional theological terms that Jesus did not return to God void but achieved the end for which he was sent:  to give expression to God’s infinite love and compassion, to enter into our humanity,  to show us how to live, to bring hope and salvation to all who walk in darkness.

What God intended for Israel, to be a witness to all peoples, God is now accomplishing through us still. “Each of us is a word of God, spoken only once at our creation, to give continuing expression to God’s love and compassion. What a blessing!   What a challenge!   We must achieve the end for which we were sent.  We will not return to God void. Yet with his word, Jesus, God has given us all that we need to achieve the end for which we were sent — if we but ask.” (From Maxine Shock, OP, Lenten Seeds. Heartland Center For Spirituality. (http://www.shalomplace.com)

For those seeking an emphasis on social justice so prevalent in the prophets of Israel, vss. 10-13 provide an excellent text for our own time. What is our personal, corporate and national environmental footprint in this day of global crisis? How shall we repent enough to make a difference for future generations to live as well as we have? What must we do to be saved? Repentance always means change.

PSALM 63:1-8. The longing of the human heart for a relationship with Yahweh gives this psalm an intense feeling  personal devotion. It expresses an abiding trust and confidence in Yahweh fully dependent on Yahweh’s constant love and protection. Even as it now stands in our English versions, it has been highly valued by countless generations.

Yet there are problems occasioned by a possible confusion in the order of the verses as they now stand. Scholarly examination of the original text suggests that vss. 6-8 should follow vss. 1-2. This transposition creates a typical lament. Distressed by hostile enemies, the devout soul seeks Yahweh’s presence in the sanctuary. There finding the spiritual resources for courage and confidence in Yahweh, the psalmist makes a vow to sing praises to God all his life. Initial despair leads to devotion which enriches faith and ends in praise.

While not included in this reading, vss. 9-11 seem to have little to do with the rest of the psalm and could have been added by another hand. Yet there is some reason to believe that the outburst of vindictiveness expressed in vs. 10 reflects the intensity of the psalmist’s spiritual struggle.

It may be helpful to read a modern paraphrase of the psalm like that by Jim Taylor in his Everyday Psalms. (Wood Lake Books, 1994). Jim entitles his paraphrase with the title “Holy Presence” and a question and answer: “Why do we need downtown churches? Because a few people still come there to seek sanctuary.” He then gives a moving testimony of someone seeking respite from the meaningless scurry of the contemporary rat race. In his Psalms/Now, (Concordia, 1973) Leslie F. Brandt depicts a thirsty child reaching for a drink as a metaphor of this psalmist reaching for and finding God.

1 CORINTHIANS 10:1-13. Paul was probably a much younger contemporary of Jesus, but did not meet him until his unique resurrection appearance to Paul on the Damascus Road. As a well-educated Pharisee of the Hellenistic Diaspora rather than a peasant Galilean, Paul may well have read the Hebrew scriptures in Greek and interpreted them within the context of his own generation and culture. Because Paul died before the destruction of the temple ending the first Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE, it would be interesting to speculate how Paul might have dealt with that event and the subsequent triumph of the Pharisees in Judaism. We may well have one such reaction by a Christian leader in the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews.

One of the characteristics of early Christian preaching and teaching, including that of Paul, was to use OT passages not merely as illustrations, but as the very basis for their instruction in the new faith tradition and the Christian way of life. In this passage Paul drew on the story of the Israelites in the wilderness breaking their covenant with God to challenge the Corinthians to live differently than their morally and spiritually corrupt society. But Paul was both honoring and condemning his ancestral traditions as he wrote to what may have been a predominantly Gentile Christian audience. He also likened the events of the Exodus led by Moses to the Christians’ experience of baptism and the eucharist. In vss. 3-4 he even identified the manna and the rock which Moses struck to obtain water with the spiritual food and drink of the sacraments.

But what was Paul really saying to his Corinthian friends? That receiving the Christian sacraments will not save them as the Exodus and the wilderness experience in themselves did not save the Israelites? The words “a some of them did” sound like a drumbeat through this passage. Because of the Israelites’ idolatry,  he claimed, most of those who fled Egypt died in the wilderness long before the remnant straggled into the Promised Land. Their wandering away from the way mandated by Yahweh, so they met their doom.  Adherence to ritual is no guarantee of being in right relationship with God. Living must correlate with liturgy.

Or was Paul confronting some other issue in Corinth? As a devout and learned Jew, Paul knew full well the traditional link between idolatry and sexual immorality which so frequently enticed his ancestors in the wilderness. Witness the brutal treatment of those who married Moabites and adopted the fertility god Baal of Peor described in Numbers 25:1-9.  Paul sternly warned the Corinthians that their sexual behavior could well have the same result, if for no other reason than that it is a common human failing (vss. 7-8, 11-12). The seaport city of Corinth was notorious for sexual promiscuity and licentious living. The Corinthians had something to learn from the experience of the Israelites.

At the same time, Paul did not leave them without a word of encouragement. The great benefit of the Christian life, he stated in vs. 13, is not that they will be tested by their circumstances, but that God will not let them be tested beyond their strength to endure. Here, as always in Paul’s declaration of the Christian way, the grace of God was operative, not simply human moral effort. One has to wonder if Paul would preach or write in a similar vein to our North American culture.

LUKE 13:1-9. Luke gives us a glimpse of the violent and hostile world in which Jesus lived. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who later condemned Jesus to death, had murdered a group of worshipers as they offered their sacrifices for the temple. Strangely, there is no other ancient record of this atrocity. Another group had been killed by a falling tower, part of Jerusalem’s fortifications  near the important water source, the  pool of Siloam and its reservoir. Such tragedies would naturally produce great fear among common people. In the simplistic conventions of the times, these incidents would have been used by religious leaders to warn the general populace that such events resulted from sin on the part of the victims.

Jesus explicitly refuted this simplistic traditional belief. Calamity can happen to anyone, sinner and righteous alike. As Messiah, Jesus used these incidents to call his fellow Jews to repent and believe in him. He foresaw disaster ahead for his people. Their only hope was to accept him for who he was and fulfill their historic mission of making God known to the world. In saying this, he clearly challenged the traditional view that the Jews held of their election as God’s covenant people. All Jews regarded this divine favor with great pride. They looked for a Messiah who would rout their oppressors and establish Israel’s worldly dominance. As the true Messiah come from God, Jesus had a quite different mission.  The parable of the fig tree confronted them with a last chance to recognize him and to respond to God’s mercy, or find that there is a limit to God’s forbearance.

What seems puzzling is why Luke inserted these teachings at this point in his narrative written for a Gentile audience.  There is every likelihood that Luke was reporting an oral tradition of words Jesus’ actually spoke. The parable of the fig tree has the sense of Jesus’ Galilean origins and his preference for rural vignettes like this. Or could Luke be interpreting for his audience 50 years later certain historical events of which they already knew well?

Pilate was recalled from his post in 36 CE after a similarly murderous act against Samaritans.  The fall of Jerusalem to Titus in 70 CE would still have been fresh in everyone’s mind when Luke wrote about 85 CE. As Paul did in his letter to the Corinthians, could Luke have been calling his audience to repentance and pleading with them to change their ways lest a similar fate befall them? To reject Jesus’ way was to put themselves in the same danger as the many victims of Roman oppression so extremely exemplified in the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. It was unnecessary for Luke to remind his audience that Jesus himself was a victim of Roman injustice.

In a fascinating little book drawn from a series of BBC radio broadcasts in 1946, historian Herbert Butterfield, of Cambridge University, made a case for his conviction that God allows humanity the freedom to commit enormous sins such as the two world wars and holocausts of the early 20th century. (Christianity and History, 1949.) Yet there is a sense, he claimed,  that these great atrocities are also the very acts by means of which Providence resets the course of history.  One can certainly read the OT stories of the Exodus and the Exile in Babylon in this light. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus can also be accounted for in this manner.

Indeed, it was Butterfield’s faith as a liberal Christian which motivated his study of the modern era as “providential.” From this approach, he drew the conclusion that the purpose of history is, from the personal point of view at least, to engage in doing what is right and good following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.  He ended his broadcasts with these words:

“The hardest strokes of heaven fall in history upon those who imagine that they can control things in a sovereign manner, as though they were kings of the earth, playing Providence not only for themselves but for the far future …. And it is a defect in such enthusiasts that they seem unwilling to leave everything to Providence, unwilling even to leave the future flexible, as one must do….

“It is agreeable to all the processes of history, therefore, that each of us should rather do the good that is straight under our noses. Those people work most wisely who seek to achieve good in their own small corner of the world and then leave the leaven to leaven the lump, than those who are forever thinking that life is vain unless one can act through the central government, carry legislation, achieve political power and do big things….

“We can do worse than remember a principle which both gives us a firm Rock and leaves us the maximum elasticity for our minds: the principle: Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted.”

Although Butterfield spoke more than 60 years ago, his words still have potent meaning for us. We live in a similarly violent time when our providential God may once again be intervening to reset the course of world history. Is that the meaning we may take from the end of the Cold War, the break up of the USSR, and the present struggles of the world’s wealthiest nations to overcome the current global recession? Does Haiti’s natural disaster resulting from the earthquake on January 12, 2010 give us the opportunity to respond to God and change our ways? Will we heed the warning or ignore it to our sorrow? Is the basic issue of our time not also a matter of how far we may test God’s forbearance?

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
Ash Wednesday, February 17, 2010

JOEL 2:1-2, 12-17. With the warning sound of trumpets, the prophet sounds the alarm that the fearsome Day of the Lord is at hand. There is still time to repent, though there may still be uncertainty that all the fasting a sacrifices will be sufficient to dissuade Yahweh from punishing wayward Israel.

ISAIAH 58:1-12 . (Alternate) Countering the popular displays of repentance by fasting, the prophet pleads that Israel’s returned exiles make justice their true form of repentance. Only then will the Lord restore their prosperity and rebuild their ruined cities.

PSALM 51:1-17. As the sub-title indicates, this classic psalm of repentance has traditionally been connected with David’s adultery with Bathsheba. Many scholars doubt this reference. It could just as well be read as the sincere expression of penitence by any sinner at any time.

2 CORINTHIANS 5:20b – 6:10. Paul quite rightly linked the Christian message of reconciliation with God to the ministry of every Christian. He cited plainly the many difficulties he had experienced in carrying out this ministry and the plethora of spiritual gifts he had been given to do it.

MATTHEW 6:1-6, 16-21. From the collection of sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount comes this insightful observation: The essence of true penitential prayer is to be found in its secretive quality. On the other hand, making a public display for self-centred reasons is the essence of hypocrisy.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

Liturgical and popular practices related to Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday and Lent developed relatively late in the history of the Christian Church. Even in the Roman Catholic tradition, these special days of penitence and spiritual renewal have been widely celebrated only since the year 1000. In recent years, many churches of the Protestant tradition, which rejected them almost totally at the time of the Reformation, have taken them up again. Liturgical practices of penitence, however, have a sound biblical background as the lessons assigned for Ash Wednesday clearly reveal.

JOEL 2:1-2, 12-17. Joel is one of the unknown prophets of the OT. Scholars have noted a close resemblance of his writings with those of the better known 8th century BCE prophet, Amos. Unlike Amos, he was concerned with worship of the temple, most likely the Second Temple of the post-exilic period. Many
scholars believe that his work dates from a relatively peaceful time during the late Persian period, ca. 400 BCE, when the leadership of Israel had, to a considerable extent, fallen to the high priesthood. Joel’s great hope lay in the restoration of the nation to its previously privileged role as the divinely chosen people. He couched this hope in strong apocalyptic terms recalling the declarations of earlier prophets.

With the warning sound of trumpets, the prophet sounds the alarm that the fearsome Day of the Lord is at hand. There is still time to repent, though there May still be uncertainty that all the fasting a sacrifices will be sufficient to dissuade Yahweh from punishing wayward Israel.

The emphasis on liturgical practices in vss. 12, 14 and 15-17 shows how deeply committed Joel was to the traditional ways of showing that penitence was real. On the other hand, vs. 13 contains the classic expression of the Israel’s faith in the divine qualities of grace, mercy, slowness to anger and abounding steadfast love.

ISAIAH 58:1-12. (Alternate) Countering the popular displays of repentance by fasting, the prophet pleads that Israel’s returned exiles make justice for the oppressed their true form of repentance. Only then will the Lord restore their prosperity and rebuild their ruined cities.

In vss. 1-5, after sounding a trumpet (shofar – a ram’s horn) to get the people’s attention, the prophet condemns in the most adamant terms the proffered symbols of repentance. Fasting in particular receives his vituperative censure. Coupled with this, he warns the people that this will not get Yahweh’s attention.

Beginning with vs. 6, he then goes on to delineate the kind of repentance Yahweh seeks: social justice for the oppressed, the homeless and the poor. Only this will receive Yahweh’s blessing and result in Yahweh’s gifts of prosperity thus enabling them to rebuild their ruined cities.

The historical allusions in this passage point to the decades immediately following the return of the exiles from Babylon. Impoverished and dispirited, they failed to recognize that true repentance had to be implemented by a sharing of limited resources. This could be read as a powerful message for our own time when globalization has created a still wider gap between rich and poor. Times like these call for an even greater commitment to social justice, not only within one nation but throughout the global village. Would it not be an appropriate measure of our repentance to increase our gifts to those less fortunate than ourselves – the Haitian disaster relief, for instance – than to “give up” anything else for Lent.

PSALM 51:1-17. As the sub-title indicates, this classic psalm of repentance has traditionally been connected with David’s adultery with Bathsheba. Many scholars doubt this reference, yet it finds persistent expression in many pulpits. The actual historical incident behind the psalm, if any, remains unknown. The final two verses omitted from this reading suggest a post-exilic date when ritual sacrifices would have been offered in the restored temple in Jerusalem. The earlier verses could just as well be read as the sincere expression of penitence by any sinner at any time. Indeed, many a despondent soul has found them helpful in saying what one’s own words cannot say. They open the penitent heart to God.

Many have found the words of vs. 5 very troublesome. The KJV appear to shift blame for one’s evil behaviour on to one’s parents, grandparents and beyond. This may be in keeping with the OT tradition voiced in Exodus 20:5 where “the iniquity of the fathers (is visited) upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate (Yahweh).” (See also Exodus 34:6-8; Number 14:17-19; Deuteronomy 5:8-10) While modern psychology may recognize that behaviour often has roots in family systems of long standing, that is not the import of more recent translations of the text. The NRSV wording, “I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me,” presents a paraphrase of the Hebrew, which definitely implies parental iniquity. Another view holds that the literal translation anticipates a later Jewish concept of evil inclination. We are all sinners alienated from God and never were anything else.

Many sins remain quite unknown to the sinner. It takes a deep examination of the soul to recognize that some things we do can never be sanctioned by God, although sinners are never beyond sanctification. “A clean heart and a right spirit” do come from an examination of one’s actual relationship with God and the acceptance of divine forgiveness. It results from the work of the Holy Spirit within us (vss. 10-11) and brings more than joy to the forgiven sinner. One remains a sinner, but now as a forgiven sinner one gains a mission. Not only do the sinner’s ways change, but one becomes a messenger of God’s grace for others.

Perhaps more than any other institution in the past century, Alcoholics Anonymous has fulfilled this mission in North American society through its twelve step program. Anyone who has shared in this mission even to a minor extent knows how sacrificial it can be. Vs.17 truly expresses the reward of the acceptable sacrifice. Was this not also what voiced in Romans 12:1-2 and again in the next passage assigned for Ash Wednesday?

2 CORINTHIANS 5:20b – 6:10. Paul quite rightly linked the Christian message of reconciliation with God to the ministry of every Christian. He cited plainly the many difficulties he had experienced in carrying out this ministry and the plethora of spiritual gifts he had been given to do it. Paul’s ministry began when he met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. We do not know the exact nature of the psychic experience of the encounter, but we do know what followed: a life totally dedicated to bringing the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike. Wherever he went, he became the perfect example of an ambassador for Christ.

This passage deals with the challenges of such a positive ministry in direct contrast to the negative aspects of Lent that we so often emphasize. The first step is to be reconciled to God oneself. That took a considerable length of time for Paul. It is not possible to discover his exact movements in those early years because the narrative of Acts 9:26-30 do not completely correspond to his own account in Galatians 1:17. In his Corinthians letters, Paul did make a strong case for the severity of his trials as an apostle. In 2 Cor. 6:4-5 he quickly summarizes some of these, but vss. 6-10 balances them with an even longer list of the gifts he had been given to overcome them.

One thinks immediately of 20th century heroes of faith such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela whose lives similarly exemplified what Paul saw as being an ambassador for Christ. It is not the worthiness of character or the depths of one’s penitence, but the spiritual gifts provided by the Holy Spirit that gives such men and women the power to be who they are. Moral authority springs from encountering Christ in what was for Paul and countless others since a life-changing experience that enabled them to change the history of the their own and subsequent times.

MATTHEW 6:1-6, 16-21. From the collection of sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount comes this insightful observation: The essence of true penitential prayer is to be found in its secretive quality. On the other hand, making a public display for self-centred reasons is the essence of hypocrisy.

Few of us have a memorable skill in prayer. Even those who practice silent, contemplative prayer often have difficulty concentrating for any length of time. The human mind is so easily distracted by what is happening around us. For this reason, the counsel Jesus gave in this excerpt could be useful to everyone who sincerely desires to experience the presence of God in prayer. He himself took time apart for personal spiritual renewal in prayer in quiet places apart from the crowds that constantly pressed around him.

Jesus was also saying that ostentatious piety, expressed either in the mellifluous words of prayer or the giving of substantial gifts to the poor, only affect one’s spiritual health in negative ways. Those who seek to do this for personal aggrandizement receive just that kind of reward. In the Hebrew language there was no word for what we call “alms.” In that tradition, however, generosity to the poor was both required and praised (e.g. Deut. 15:11; Job 29:11-16). In the Sermon on the Mount, piety and almsgiving are synonymous. Paul urged his communities to make special efforts to remember the poor. Without question, this must be one aspect of a sincere response to God, not the chief means of obtaining such a relationship.

In the second part of this reading, Jesus similarly discredited ostentatious fasting, although that too had been an ancient tradition in Israel. The great liturgical fast occurred on the Day of Atonement. It could be undertaken on other occasions too: in personal mourning, intercession or petition for Yahweh’s aid, or as a national act in the face of some calamity. Total abstinence from food indicated absolute dependence on and submission to Yahweh. As we saw in the reading from Isaiah 58 above, the prophetic view held that whatever moral value fasting might have should be enhanced by compassion for the poor and continual social justice.

It would appear that in Jesus time, despite there being a strong connection between fasting and prayer, the practice had become something of a fetish for the publicly pious. Is our use of ashes spotting the forehead a similar ostentation? Did Jesus direct the main thrust of this passage at the Pharisees in particular? Their meticulous attention to details of the law would have made them a prime target for his sarcasm. He directed his followers to do their fasting in private and with certain aspects of rejoicing. Unlike John the Baptist and the Pharisees, he did not urge them to be too strict about it. Primarily, he recognized it as a spiritual discipline.

Perhaps it was for this reason that the early church adopted the practice, especially in preparation for baptism. By the late 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem was counseling a forty day pre-baptismal fast prior to Easter, the traditional time for baptizing new catechumens. By the 5th century it had become the subject of discussion as having an apostolic origin. Rightly or wrongly, this was the probable origin of the later Lenten fast. It is not impossible that the general practice of a Lenten fast made a spiritual virtue of a real necessity. During the Early Middle Ages (aka Dark Ages) food production had fallen to such a low level as to force the reduction of food consumption during the late winter and early spring. Our English word Lent itself is no more than a Germanic word for spring when the hours of daylight lengthen.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
The Transfiguration – February 14, 2010
Last Sunday After Epiphany

EXODUS 34:29-35. This is an imaginative description of what might have happened after Moses came face to face with God. Moses had been in the very presence of God to receive the commandments. His brother Aaron and all the Israelites knew this because his face shone. This strange phenomenon symbolized that these commandments had come from God, not from Moses himself. The shining presence in God’s messenger represented the divine authority behind the commandments.

PSALM 99. This is the last of a series of psalms used in the temple ritual, which some scholars believe celebrated the enthronement of God as Israel’s ruler at the new year festival. It focuses on God’s justice and praises God for providential and merciful guidance throughout Israel’s history from the time of Moses onward.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:12-4:2. Because Paul had quite another purpose in mind, he reinterpreted the story of Moses covering his shining face with a veil. He declared that God’s authority comes not from the commandments Moses brought to the Israelites, but from the risen Christ who is now present with the church through the gift of the Spirit. So the church is able to speak truthfully and authoritatively for God as we proclaim the gospel.

LUKE 9:29-43. Luke tells of the transfiguration of Jesus with the same Old Testament lesson in mind to make the same point Paul made: Jesus represents God and God’s authority along with Moses and Elijah. The healing of the epileptic child proves that this is no pious hope, but a spiritual reality breaking in upon the natural scheme of things in a distressed world. Our troubled time needs to hear this hopeful message.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

EXODUS 34:29-35. The tendency of biblical scholarship since the beginning of historical-critical inquiry has been to dissect the whole of the Pentateuch, including the Book of Exodus, into source documents authored by unknown hands at different periods of Israel’s history and finally edited into a composite whole. This fragmentation detracted from what many scholars now see in the Book of Exodus: one of the foundational books of holy scripture, for Jews and Christians alike.

No one denies that the structure of Exodus is composite; but it also may be seen as a deliberately structured whole designed for a particular theological purpose. In chapters 33 and 34 this purpose becomes clear. In the renewal of the covenant and the presentation of a second set of stone tablets bearing Yahweh’s commandments, the presence of Yahweh among Yahweh’s chosen people is revealed in all its glory. This above all else, despite Israel’s persistent apostasy and the continued opposition of Israel’s enemies, formed the central point around which all subsequent Jewish history, ritual and faith revolved. This passage presents an imaginative description of what might have happened after Moses came face to face with God.

A tent where Moses met face to face with Yahweh (33:7-11) represented the divine shekinah, (usually described as “the radiant glory,” but literally, “the dwelling” or “that which dwells”). In the ensuing dialogue, Yahweh renewed the covenant with Israel based on mercy and grace, not on Israel’s obedience (34:6-7). In this lesson we have a description of how the people of Israel recognized that this had happened: the shekinah was reflected in the shining face of Moses. This strange phenomenon of the shining presence in Yahweh’s messenger symbolized that the commandments and the covenant of promise had come from Yahweh, not from Moses himself.

Much the same phenomenon is used today in democracies where laws are promulgated in the name of the nation as a whole. In Canada or the United Kingdom, the monarch is the symbolic representation of the nation. In the USA, the president fills this role. In ancient Israel, this representation embodied by Moses provided the nation with its unique identity as the chosen people. The commandments thus became the divinely mandated response to this special relationship and the ultimate authority in the daily life of Israel.

The issue confronting us in this text has to do with our authority for representing Jesus Christ and the living God in our daily lives. A growing number of people have turned to meditation as a means of reconnecting their lives with the divine authority they seek to practice. We owe much of the revival of this facet of our Christian tradition to our Roman Catholic ecumenical partners. A number of devotional websites have been created to assist those unfamiliar with this practice. These include such sites as the World Center for Christian Meditation http://www.wccm.org; Dr. Phil St. Romain’s Shalom Place: The Heartland Center for Spirituality, http://shalomplace.com; and Sacred Space accessible at http://sacredspace.ie/. Another helpful source for guided meditations is the book and CD, The Healing Oasis by Sharon Moon with Gary Sprague, composer and musician, issued by The United Church Publishing House in 1998. While these practices may not recreate for us the experience of the divine shekinah, they may in and of themselves be useful spiritual practices in our anxious age when we seem to have little or no control over our lives.

PSALM 99. According to some scholars, this is the last of a series of psalms used in the temple ritual, probably sung in two or more parts, to celebrate the enthronement of Yahweh as mythical sovereign of the universe as well as of Israel. Scholars have included Psalms 47; 93; 96-99 in this series. This ritual was thought to have been based on non-Jewish traditions adapted for use in Israel at the new year festival. Such celebrations are known to have been common in Babylonian, Ugarit and Moabite traditions. Other scholars dispute this interpretation and regard these as psalms for the sabbath rather than for the new year. On the other hand, they may reflect some specific but indeterminate historical situation. The data is insufficient to prove any of these points of view.

Most likely the psalm dates from the time of Zerubbabel at the end of the 6th century BC, when the temple was being rebuilt following the return of the exiles from Babylon. As several prophetic references indicate, there was an awakening of messianism during this period. (Haggai 2:2-9, 20-23; Zechariah 3:8; 4:8-11; 6:11-12.) Messianism and monarchy were inextricably linked in the theology of the later books of the OT and intertestamental literature.

As we have it now, the psalm celebrates Yahweh’s holiness and justice, and praises Yahweh for providential and merciful guidance throughout Israel’s history from the time of Moses onward. In vss. 6-7 there is a reference to Moses, Aaron and Samuel as priests representing the people before Yahweh and receiving from Yahweh the terms of the covenantal relationship as we have seen described in Exodus 33-34. This is no easy transaction based on special favour. Vs. 8 stipulates that it is the forgiving nature of God which maintains the relationship, while at the same time avenging Israel’s wrongdoings.

The psalm ends with a summons to worship in the sacred temple on the holy mountain of Jerusalem. In the television clips one sees of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, one can quickly discern the persistent sense of holiness and total identification which modern Israelis exhibit toward the site of the temple. I have been there and shared in the practice of praying at what is believed to be all that is left of the temple created by Herod the Great (37-4BCE). One feels a certain empathy for this attitude. Sadly, this same attitude is not extended to the magnificent Islamic mosques which tower over the site and which are just as sacred and worshipful to Moslems as the Western Wall is to Jews. Yet these holy sites have been the source of much anguish and conflict between Jews and Moslems for more than the past half century.

2 CORINTHIANS 3:12-4:2. One of the significant facets of biblical interpretation comes to the fore in this passage. Whatever its original meaning, a specific passage may be used by a later author/interpreter to make a point quite different from that intended by the original author. This was a common practice of NT authors as may seen from their frequent quotations from the only scriptures they knew, the Hebrew scriptures. Most likely they had before them the Greek translation of the Hebrew text composed in the 3rd century BCE by Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt. They freely reinterpreted their selected quotations to convey a message relevant to their own context without regard to the intent of the original passage. Their purpose was to proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as the long promised Messiah/Christ. Don’t we still do that all the time, often in polemical voice as Paul seems to have used here?

Behind this passage stands the OT lesson from Exodus 34. Paul refers directly to the time Moses covered his shining face with a veil. Because he has quite another purpose in mind, Paul saw in this story another interpretation of how the divine presence and truth are authoritatively expressed. Throughout chs. 2 & 3 Paul has been expounding the validity of his apostleship. His confidence in doing so, he claims, is dependent on the superiority of the new covenant he and other apostles preach. He makes a rather negative reference to the shekinah reflected in Moses’ face (vs.7) which is now fading because the old covenant is being set aside. That old covenant simply condemned the Israelites, it did not save them, he claims. Now, however, the new covenant justifies believers; it establishes a right relationship with God which the old covenant failed to do. He goes so far as to liken the veil over Moses’ shining face to the veil he claims lies over the minds of the people of Israel because they refuse to believe in Christ.

This may sound to us supersessionalist, if not blatantly anti-Semitic; and so it has been interpreted. Let’s not deny it as many Christians still do so to the extent of excluding faithful Jews as “the people of God.” (See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) One of the reasons Paul was so fiercely opposed by his fellow Jews was their belief that he had abandoned the sacred tradition that Israel alone was God’s chosen people. In fact, Paul was trying to say that the old covenant was not wrong, but that it was incomplete. It was but one step along the way to the full revelation of God’s nature and God’s saving love as Jesus Christ had made this known. How do we feel when radical Christian interpreters (e.g. Bishop John Spong) declare that our present understanding of the orthodox Christian tradition is just as incomplete?

The metaphor of the veil covering Moses face and so veiling the minds of believers from the truth in Christ plays an unusually large place in this passage. William Barclay had some interesting insights about this veil and how it still may affect us through prejudice, wishful thinking, fragmentary thinking, disobedience or an unteachable spirit.

Paul goes on to declare that the relationship of Christians in Corinth with God and God’s authority in their lives comes not from the commandments of Moses, but from the risen Christ who is now present with the church through the gift of the Spirit. So the church is able to speak truthfully and authoritatively for God as it proclaims the gospel. What is more, now that they (and by inference, we also) behold the presence of God fully revealed in Jesus Christ and the Spirit, we are being transformed into his likeness. This transformation is not effected by us, but by the Spirit of Jesus Christ himself.

LUKE 9:29-43. Who really knows exactly what Transfiguration means? The word itself translates the well-known Greek term, metamorphoo (English = metamorphose). One is compelled to ask not what it means, but if it really happened. Since the 2nd century CE it has been the subject of much speculative interpretation. Was it, as 2 Peter claims a verification of the Second Coming (2 Pet. 1:16-18)? Was it a misplaced tradition of a post-resurrection appearance to Peter, James and John? Was it, as Matthew 17:9 declared, a vision? Was it a kerygmatic story created by the apostolic church to teach that the messiahship of Jesus was supported by the law and the prophets?

Writing for a Gentile faith community living in a different context, Luke drew on the same Old Testament lesson from Exodus 34 as Paul had in writing to the Corinthians. He wanted to make the same point Paul made, but he said it in a very different way without the polemical attitude Paul voiced. He told this story to point out that Jesus is the one who represents the divine presence in the world and possesses divine authority and power to save. But Luke did not see Jesus as abrogating the old covenant in the same way many believe Paul had done. Along with Matthew (5:17), he saw Jesus as fulfilling the covenant witnessed to by both Moses, as representative of the original covenanted community of Israel, and Elijah, the representative of the whole prophetic witness throughout Israel’s faith history.

What is more, Luke tied this symbolic experience, so vividly recalled by the apostolic community represented by Peter, James and John, to the mission of the apostolic church in the real world where human sickness and distress abounded. The healing of the epileptic child proved that the divine presence and redeeming grace which the church proclaimed is no pious hope, but a spiritual reality breaking in upon the natural, chaotic state of a diseased and distressed world. This interpretation of the Transfiguration, recalling as it does the transfiguration of Moses and the prophetic witness to God as sovereign Lord of Israel’s faith and history, seems far more relevant to our times than Paul’s tortured polemic.

On the other hand, we must also recall that Paul and Luke had quite different purposes in mind. Paul wrote a personal communication to one of the congregations he had founded and which suffered from a serious crisis of disunity. The conflict raging in Corinth, perhaps between Jews and Gentiles as in Galatia, had not only divided the community, but threatened to destroy the very work Paul had so patiently carried out there. Paul would be of all people most surprised to find that his letter was now “holy scripture.” Luke wrote to convince a leader of the Gentile community, or a wider audience of both Jews and Gentiles, that the Christian faith was no threat to peace and welfare of the Graeco-Roman world in which they were living, but indeed its only hope for survival.

If one prefers to regard this as a credible, historical event in the life of Jesus, one must see it for what it meant to him as much as to the apostles. It confirmed Jesus in his mission and prepared him for the difficult trials that lay ahead. To quote D. M. Beck in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (iv.687): “Luke places more emphasis on Jesus, who, facing death, found in prayer the support with him of great spiritual leaders and especially God who chose him for the way of suffering, death and resurrection.” That may well have been all that Luke sought to do.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Fifth Sunday after Epiphany
Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time
February 7, 2010

ISAIAH 6:1-13. Here we have another classic example of a prophet called to a special ministry. As the smoke of the morning sacrifice wafted through the temple, Isaiah had a vision and heard an angelic voice praising the holiness of God. He then realized his own and his fellow Israelites’ unworthiness before God. One of the angelic beings touched his lips with a live coal, thus cleansing him to speak. Isaiah heard the voice of God calling for a messenger and he responded. But the message God gave him to deliver was one of unmitigated judgment.

PSALM 138. Unlike most of the psalms, this hymn of thanksgiving by an individual is thought to be from a small “Davidic collection.” (Psalms 138-145.) This meant that it was ascribed to King David rather than being composed by him. It expresses gratitude for God’s blessing as well as trust in God’s love and purpose.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11. In this passage beginning his great confession of the resurrection, Paul states as simply as possible what he had learned from the apostles. He had met some of them – notably Peter (Cephas) and James – in Jerusalem when he returned there some time after his conversion. First, he concentrated on the facts he had been told. Could this summary have been what the apostles in the earliest Christian community were teaching in the first years after the resurrection? Then he too makes his claim as “the least of the apostles” and reiterates his dependence on God’s grace for that.

LUKE 5:1-11. Behind the gospels as we now have them, there was a long tradition of stories about Jesus’ teaching and miracles repeated by word of mouth before being put into written form. Toward the end of the 1st century CE Luke gave a much more elaborate story than either Mark or Matthew. He connects this story of a miraculous catch of fish with the calling of the first disciples. John tells it as one of Jesus’ resurrection appearances (John 21). Taken together, the tradition represents a promise of the ultimate success of the apostolic mission.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

ISAIAH 6:1-13. Here we have another classic example of a prophet called to a special ministry. My OT professor, the late Rev. Dr. R.B.Y Scott, made this passage the starting point for his lectures on prophecy. He had written a highly regarded book, The Relevance of the Prophets, and at the time he was lecturing to us at McGill in 1948, he was writing the introduction and exegesis of Isaiah 1-39 for The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 5. His analysis of this passage in this latter volume is a valuable contribution to the understanding of prophetic visions and oracles.

The ancient temple in Jerusalem faced east. The daily sacrifice was offered as the sun rose over the horizon formed by the Mount of Olives. Rays from the rising sun flooded into the temple through its great doors causing its burnished gold and copper accouterments to shine gloriously. As the smoke of the morning sacrifice wafted through the temple, Isaiah, saw a vision and heard angelic voices praising the holiness of God.

Isaiah was possibly a cousin and certainly a courtier of King Uzziah, who had just died. Uzziah’s reign was one of the longest of the kings of Judah, 783-742 BCE. In his last years he suffered from leprosy and was replaced by his son Jotham as regent. This was also the time when Assyrian power was on the rise throughout ancient Mesopotamia and the wider Middle East. Uzziah’s reign included an expansion into both Philistine territory to the west that controlled trade routes to Egypt and Edom, to the south where there were valuable trade routes to Arabia. As the prophecies of Amos and Micah also reveal, this was a very prosperous period in the nation’s history.

In this passage Isaiah was in mourning and went into the temple, as was his wont, to offer a lament. As he worshiped in the familiar surroundings, he sensed the divine presence in a dramatic new way. God, of course, is invisible; yet Isaiah did have such a vision. Or was it just the hem of God’s robe and the attending seraphim, which represented the divine presence to him? Quickly afterward, Isaiah recognized his own unworthiness before God and that of his fellow Judeans. The experience overwhelmed him. That he should become the prophet to proclaim God’s judgment on his nation’s moral and spiritual decay was furthest from his imagination. Great revelations come to faithful men and women in the midst of the mundane experiences of life.

In Isaiah’s vision, one of the angelic beings touched his lips with a live coal from the altar, thus cleansing him to speak for God. He heard the voice of God calling for a messenger and he responded, “Here am I, send me.” But the message God gave him to deliver was one of unmitigated judgment. It must have been a fear-filled experience. To be called to speak God’s judgment against his own people would have frightened the most courageous of men or women in that day of woeful events as is in ours. One only has to hear or see to the attack ads created for contemporary political campaigns to realize how much the prophet exposes him or herself to community ridicule.

Yet there are men and women willing to present the divine alternatives to our petty human machinations of history. The people are the ground-breakers for new advances in faith and witness to the purposes of God in the world. It was so for Isaiah, who with Amos and Micah in the late 8th century BCE set forth a vision of divine justice and righteousness which remains as convincing for us as it was for them. These elements of Israelite prophecy had close affinity to the actual events of that time when the great empires of Assyria and Egypt were in conflict. Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judea itself was constantly threatened with invasion and the imposition of foreign religious practices.

PSALM 138. Unlike most of the psalms, this hymn of thanksgiving by an individual is thought to be from a small “Davidic collection.” (Psalms 138-145.) This meant that it was ascribed to King David rather than being composed by him.

There are some twenty such hymns of thanksgiving by individuals preserved in the religious literature of Israel. Isaiah 38:10-20 and Jonah 2:2-9 are examples found in the OT. The apocryphal books of Ecclessiasticus (Sirach), the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon contain others.

Like most others, this psalm is from a post-exilic date. The absence of any thanksgiving sacrifice points to an unusual level of spiritual development rarely found except in some of the prophetic literature which condemned the temple sacrifices. Or it may date from a time before the reconstruction of the temple when the normal sacrifices could not be celebrated. It also reflects a universalism echoing that of Second Isaiah (vss. 4-6) for earthly kings are said to worship God as do the humble; and God does not despise their praise. The psalm ends with an declaration of trust in God’s love and purpose. Vs. 8 certainly provides a very preachable text.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11. Paul states as simply as possible what he had learned from the apostles whom he met in Jerusalem when he returned there some time after his conversion. This probably occurred less than a decade after the resurrection. Some scholars believe it may have been no more than a year or two. Could this have been an early Christian creed? It summarizes what the apostles were teaching in those first years after that momentous event when the apostolic church was feeling the full flush of its new faith.

One point stands out in Paul’s repetition of this statement of faith. To him, the resurrection was something experienced by those few who had seen and spoken with the risen Christ. It was also Paul’s firm conviction that the same risen Lord had appeared to him on the Damascus Road. The ambiguity between faith and fact remains with the Christian community to this day. Faith does not attempt to be factual. Rather it expresses a spiritual interpretation of deep and often inexplicable psychic experiences. It uses the language of image, symbol and metaphor to describe what persons of faith have experienced amid the ebb and flow of ordinary events which a reporter or historian might well record differently as observed facts or strange myths.

The resurrection experience symbolized for Paul and the other apostles that Jesus Christ, who had been executed as a criminal, was very much alive. Death had not conquered him; he had conquered death and was now with them in spirit. There were still many living in Paul’s time who could testify to this experience. The reference to the risen Christ’s appearance to five hundred people may be an alternate reminiscence of Pentecost as that event had been told to Paul by the apostolic community.

Quite possibly Paul was the first to connect the death of Christ to the ancient Israelite tradition that sin could be forgiven by the shedding of blood. This belief had its roots in the ancient practices of offering sacrifices to the deity common to all ancient religious traditions. In some traditions human sacrifice had also been quite commonly practiced. Even in Israel as late as the 7th century BCE reign of Manasseh (ca. 687-642 BCE) there had been evidence of this. Among the Jews, animal sacrifice in lieu of human sacrifice was related closely to the celebration of the both Passover and Yom Kippur. In this context Paul interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus as a self-offering which had a similar effect of dealing with the human problem of sin and alienation from God.

Note too that Paul adds himself as “the least of the apostles.” One view of the narrative in Acts presents Paul and Peter as rivals for leadership of the Gentile mission. In Galatians and here, Paul gives some basis for this hypothesis. He numbers himself among the apostles, though with self-deprecating diminution. He goes on to reiterate his total dependence on God’s grace for his status and gives his fellow apostles credit where credit is due. They all share the resurrection faith which is the heart of the gospel for us as well.

LUKE 5:1-11. (Author’s note: This passage is also covered in a new blog posted here: http://studiesinluke.blogspot.com. Look on the list to the left for #7 – Calling The First Disciples. The content of this blog introduced a Bible study with a group of seniors at Glen Abbey United Church, Oakville,ON, Canada.)

Luke tells this story of a miraculous catch of fish in connection with the calling of the first disciples. His version is much more elaborate than the brief accounts of Mark and Matthew. John tells it as one of Jesus’ resurrection appearances (John 21). Behind the gospels as we now have them, there was a long tradition of stories about Jesus’ teaching and miracles repeated by word of mouth before being put into written form. Assuming that all versions referred to the same event, which some commentators doubt, they speak to the future mission of the apostolic church. It appears to be a promise of ultimate success though not without long and difficult toil on the part of the disciple community.

At first, the ekklesia (i.e. the apostolic church) meant simply a group of Jews of humble origins, many of them unlettered and poverty stricken, who had responded to the preaching of Jesus and believed in his resurrection. Then as now, fishing was not always a lucrative occupation, but one which required much skill and patience, hard work and long hours. These men were partners in a small business in which they had invested their whole lives. Catching and marketing of fresh fish, a major food in Galilee at the time, was not always a profitable trade. In that climate, the fish would have to be caught during the night and sold in the marketplace within a few hours. Often the results were disappointing. However, this story is told for its metaphorical significance rather than as a factual vignette of the harsh life of the Galilean fisherman.

Luke has a way of weaving the whole tradition into his story as he tells it. His audience was two generations removed from the events he narrates and unfamiliar with the places in which those events occurred. So he did not have to be concerned about chronological order. His intent was primarily evangelical. For instance, he has Peter call Jesus first “Master,” then “Lord.” Those are titles which Luke reserves for disciples. Non-disciples used the term, “Teacher.” The title “Lord” appears in Luke twenty-one times; twelve of them in pericopes peculiar to Luke. It can be argued that here Luke was thinking in post-resurrection terms when the apostles had fully realized that Jesus was the Messiah for whom such a title was appropriate. As has been pointed out many times, the original creed of the apostolic church was the simple statement, “Jesus is Lord.”

So also Peter’s confession of sinfulness in his plea that Jesus depart from him is appropriate to a post-resurrection attitude. It reiterates the gospel call to repentance as the antecedent to Christian discipleship. Luke had emphasized this as the message John the Baptist had preached (3:1-20) and which Peter had also proclaimed in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:38. It may also have some reference to Peter’s denial of Jesus in the court of the house of Caiaphas (22:54-60).

The late Professor G. B. Caird pointed to Jesus’ choice of these “hard-working but intensely loyal men, ever aware of their own shortcomings, as those whom he needed to carry the gospel into the world.” Does not the present evangelistic environment call for a disciple community of similarly dedicated, loyal and hard-working persons? Certainly not those who may lay claim to moral perfection or spiritual greatness would not fit the requirements. Caird’s analysis of this passage is a valuable contribution to the understanding of how prophetic visions and oracles affect us: “On Simon at least the impact he made was a profoundly moral one, resulting in a sense of sin. It was not the miracle that brought him to his knees but the grandeur of sheer goodness.” (Caird, G.B. Saint Luke. The Pelican New Testament Commentary, 1965.)

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Year C
Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time
January 31, 2010

JEREMIAH 1:4-10. This is a classic example of the call to a prophet for his special mission. The young Jeremiah is summoned by the direct intervention of God in his life. The divine message revealed that God had intended this role for Jeremiah from before his birth. God not only called, but also equipped the prophet for his vocation by reassuring him and by “touching his mouth” to give him effective powers of speech. The prophet would need all of these gifts because his task was to pronounce God’s judgment in a difficult religious and political situation in Israel at the end of the 7th century BC.

PSALM 71:1-6. The psalmist makes several urgent appeals to God for deliverance from unnamed enemies. Throughout his prayer, he prefaces his appeals by confessing his trust in God as his only refuge and hope.

1 CORINTHIANS 13: 1-13. Paul’s hymn to love remains one of the great pieces of poetry in any language. It has universal application – from marriage and family life to all forms of human relationships. Yet there is a firmness about it that denies all sentimentality. It goes straight to the heart of the problems of human communication and issues that drive us apart.

For those who doubt that this approach to life can be effective, Paul has a special word of counsel. This is how mature people relate to each other. There is no other way to settle disputes such as those he had encountered among the disciples in Corinth.

LUKE 4:21-30. By telling the audience in his home town that they are witnessing the inauguration of the new age of God’s rule in all of life, Jesus challenged his hearers to believe in him. They ran him out of town. Wouldn’t we still do so? Don’t we, though perhaps in more subtle ways?

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

JEREMIAH 1:4-10. How does God call someone to be God’s spokesperson? Is it always a direct vocal summons such that heard by as Moses, or Samuel, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah – a mystical experience which comes to very few? Or is there sometimes a less dramatic way: a still, small voice within; or a gentle suggestion from a friend; or an inner desire expressed in a wordless prayer of commitment and a deep, reassuring confirmation that this is what God also desires? God has as many ways of calling as there are those whom God has chosen to lead.

This passage tells of a classic example of the direct call to a prophet for his special mission. As the prophet himself reported the experience, Yahweh intervened in the life of the young Jeremiah with a summons. “The word of the Lord came to me saying, ….” (vs.4) The divine message revealed that Yahweh had intended this role for Jeremiah from before his birth. Although Jeremiah felt predestined, he also felt unsuited for the vocation to which Yahweh had called him. That too is a common reaction to what must have been a very intense experience.

For anyone who has had a similar experience, Jeremiah’s protests have a familiar ring to them. We all can think of every conceivable reason not to accept such a call. He didn’t know how to speak. He was too young. These days, we might say, “I am too old.” Or “I am too busy raising my family.” Or “I am too busy saving for my retirement. Actually, he was afraid. And so are we. That was what Yahweh reassured him about most (vs. 8).

Yahweh not only called, but also equipped Jeremiah for his vocation. He received promises that Yahweh would give him the words to utter and to be with him whenever he was commanded to speak (vss.7-8). He would become “the mouthpiece of the Almighty,” as William Sanday described the prophet’s vocation. Then Yahweh acted to ordain him by “touching his mouth,” thus giving him effective powers of speech. Isaiah had a similar experience (Isa. 6:5-6) Be warned, however, vocation and ordination today do not guarantee effectiveness in preaching.

The prophet would need all of these gifts because his task was to pronounce God’s judgment, not only on Israel but on other nations too. His mission had much wider implications, both negative and positive. It reached beyond Israel to the nations (vs.10). This happened in a time of great disruption when the power of the great Assyrian empire had declined to the point where it was in its death throes. The kingdom of Judah had been ruled by Manasseh (697 ? or 687-642), a vassal of Assyria. He had been the longest reigning and the most reviled monarch, according to the Deuteronomists, because of his love for syncretist religious practices. Idols and worship of foreign gods had been introduced into Judea and Jerusalem rivaling and corrupting the worship of Yahweh. Vassal states like Babylon and Media quickly filled the political vacuum left by the decline of the Assyrian empire.

It is thought that Jeremiah’s ministry began the very year in which Assurbanipal, the last of the Assyrian emperors (669-627 BCE) died. That could well have been the incident which occasioned his call. From this brief discussion of historical events, we may conclude that the details of vs.10 were written after the fact, reflecting what had already taken place.

Jeremiah’s active ministry is thought to have extended over the next 40 years to 586 BCE. In that year Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and a great many of the leaders of Israel were marched away to exile. Jeremiah was not among them, but was carried away to Egypt by a group of refugees. However, some scholars doubt that his ministry began before 612 or 609 BCE because there is a gap of some 20 years in biographical information. This is so despite the fact that no other prophetic book includes so much biographical data. Some regard the date of 627 BCE as the time of his birth, which gives poignancy to his protest about his youth in vs.6.

PSALM 71:1-6. In some respects, this psalm does not conform to the traditional style of a lament with its sequence of appeal, complaint, petition and vow of thanksgiving, such as we find in Ps. 56. Here we have a sick, fearful and depressed old man (vss. 9, 18) who appears to have reached the end of his resources. He feels that God has all but deserted him. He makes several urgent appeals to God for deliverance from unnamed enemies. Yet, throughout his prayer, he prefaces his appeals by confessing his trust in God as his only refuge and hope (vs. 3).

We must conclude that the psalm was composed at relatively late date. It draws on material found in other parts of the Psalter: vss. 1-3 = 31:1-3a; vs. 6 = 22:10, etc. Be that as it may, the psalm still expresses the intensive search of the lonely and distressed soul for the assurance and hope of a living relationship with God in the utmost extremities of life.

Could this not also be the prayer of those who even now endure unexpected natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis? And what of those many millions who flee for their lives in terror caused by war only to face starvation and death in refugee camps? Are there not also many single parent families or elderly people, ill, alone and threatened with being forced out of their homes because no one cares about them and governments have withdrawn support for the most vulnerable of this richest society ever in human history? The profound sense of justice implicit is so much of Hebrew prophetic literature comes to the fore in this psalmist’s lament.

1 CORINTHIANS 13: 1-13. Paul’s hymn to love remains one of the great pieces of poetry in any language. It has universal application – from marriage and family life to all forms of human relationships, individual and corporate. Yet there is a firmness about it that denies all sentimentality.

This love is more than words or even noble, sacrificial actions (vss.1-3). It goes straight to the heart of the problems of human communication and the fractious habits that drive us apart: impatience, unkindness, envy, boasting, arrogance, rudeness, selfishness, irritability, resentment, deliberate wrongdoing, deceit and dishonesty (vss. 4-7). Paul declares his unequivocal conviction that love can overcome all of these human failings common to us all. This should surely still form an important element of every marriage ceremony and the heart of every pre-marital interview for couples asking the church to bless their union. Conflict resolution programs never had a better means of achieving success than following these few verses.

For those who doubt that this approach to life can be effective, Paul has a special word of counsel: this is how mature people relate to each other. (vss. 8-12) There is no other way to settle disputes such as those he had encountered among the disciples in Corinth. Why not in our homes, our towns, our country and our world too?

Enthralling as this poem may be, Paul wrote explicitly to the Corinthian disciple community – and to us in our context right now. Some may feel that while this may be the ideal formula for life in the Shalom of God, it is not very practical for life in the real world. If we are disciples of Jesus Christ, if we are indeed “his body,” then this is the way we are to live here and now. This is the way he lived in the real world, costly though it was. This is what the cross means: Love that lays down its life for the world through every-day human relationships.

The Greek word translated “love” throughout this passage is agapé. Many treatises have been written comparing this word to other Greek words all translated into English as “love.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible has a nine page article on this word entitled “Love in the NT.” It was written by a man I knew well and who more than once tested my love for him as a teacher and colleague in ministry, the late Professor George Johnston, one-time professor of NT at Emmanuel College, Toronto, then later at United Theological College and McGill University, Montreal. He concluded his exhaustive study by saying that this love had taken a human face in Jesus of Nazareth and had spoken by a human voice to and for all the scattered children of God. “Love had reached down from God to man, that man might rise up to enjoy life in God forever.” Acerbic though he was in his criticism of less than adequate scholarship, Prof. Johnson has a genuine pastoral care for his students which exemplified the word love.

LUKE 4:21-30. So what does one say after one has told the audience in one’s home town that they are witnessing the inauguration of the new age of God’s rule in all of life through all the world? The message Deutero-Isaiah had delivered was simple, “Your God reigns.” Jesus had come to implement that reign of God in his home town, among his own people.

The initial reaction to Jesus in Nazareth was quite favourable. Patronizing too. “Fine fellow, that boy. Joseph the carpenter’s son, isn’t he? His widowed mother must be proud of him. He’ll go far.”

That wasn’t good enough for Jesus. He knew they hadn’t really heard him at all. He would have none of it. So he made them listen by challenging his hometown audience to believe in him and his mission to the world. He had not come home to do miracles like they had heard of him performing in Capernaum a few kilometres down the road by the Sea of Galilee. And he wasn’t there to make them think well of him; or to make them feel good as the preferred and privileged people, good Israelites all. Like Elijah and Elisha, he had come to minister to outsiders too.

Here Luke, ever mindful of his Gentile audience, lets his universalism stand out clearly. G.B. Caird wrote in his study of Luke’s Gospel: “The stories of Elijah and Elisha should, indeed, have taught them that with God charity begins wherever there is found human need to call it forth and faith to receive it, irrespective of class or race.” (Caird, G.B. Saint Luke. The Pelican New Testament Commentaries, 1963.) As Luke presents him, Jesus had a much wider vision than the Jewish community in the small mountain village in Galilee from which he had come.

George Santayana once said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. After a century of the most destructive conflicts ever based on ideological rivalries between competing empires, we have entered a new century with the prospect of ethnic and religious conflicts within many smaller nations. Our 24-hour television news broadcasts feature violence and death occurring wherever the far-ranging eye of a television camera will reach. The problem is that when we see these tragic events, we fail to recognize that our own attitudes toward those who are “not like us” are being deeply challenged. For example, whenever we ask someone who has a skin colour different from ours, “Where do you come from?” we expose our own racial prejudices. Or when we tell a joke that pigeon-holes people because of their particular accent or country of origin, we express the narrowness of our own minds.

That is exactly what happened when Jesus recalled the stories about the widow of Sidon and Naaman the Syrian. Both of them weren’t even Israelites, but had been ministered to by two of Israel’s great prophets. “Open your eyes!” Jesus was saying to his neighbours in Nazareth. “The world is bigger than you imagine. The God you claim to believe in is far too small. God doesn’t just favour Israelites like you and me. God’s love extends to those who are most vulnerable, the most oppressed, the outsiders, the most in need.”

My friend, Jim Taylor, wrote in his Soft Edges column on the Internet: “Canadians have been more subtle about our prejudices. We’re only now coming to realize the second class status accorded to our aboriginal peoples. And our immigrants. Our women. Our elderly…. Racism’s roots lie in one group’s conviction of God-given superiority over another group, simply by belonging to that group. By extension, any member of the dominant group can feel superior to any member of the victim group.”

Whether it was the way he said it or the unspoken implications of what Jesus said, the good citizens of Nazareth were enraged. They ran him out of town. Wouldn’t we still do so? Don’t we, though perhaps in more subtle ways?